Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview and answers to questions for the programme “Moscow. Kremlin. Putin” on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, December 2, 2018
Question: It was a highly unusual G20 summit, with very many factors. I don’t remember Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel having to overcome so many obstacles just to get to a meeting. The death of President George H.W. Bush cast a pall over the event. And then there is this strange situation with presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump and the US president’s reaction to the incident in the Black Sea.
What are your feelings over this? Have these events spoiled the G20 meeting or prevented the participants from implementing the agenda?
Sergey Lavrov: I believe that all these circumstances have had their effect on the events that are taking place in Buenos Aires. However, they have hardly had any serious effect on the agenda.
Just as it happened in 2008, when the G20 convened at the top level to discuss the root causes of a crisis that had spread to nearly all the countries, we are now amid a period of transformation in the global economy. There is, first of all, the digital transformation, an unprecedented rise in protectionist policies, up to trade wars, the sovereign debts of many countries and a shadow over the future of free multilateral trade, as well as many other factors. There is also the problem with the reliability of reserve currencies and the obligations of the countries that have them. It is these factors that influenced the preparations for the summit and discussions at it.
I have not mentioned the sanctions, the restrictive, prohibitive or punishing duties and tariffs, all of which created a serious and contradictory background for and influenced the essence of the discussions. It is good that a final declaration has been adopted. This is better than nothing. However, all the sharp angles which I mentioned have been smoothed over. But I don’t think this is connected to the circumstances we were talking about.
Anyway, the G20 has made rather useful decisions. We have outlined our position on the digital economy and the need to start adjusting the labour and education markets to it. We have also put forth our views on the situation when it comes to food security. Russia as a major grain producer is playing an increasing role in these matters.
There was also a thorough discussion on migration, refugees and approaches to this new problem. I would like to say in this connection that we have rejected the attempts to force the “concept of equal responsibility” on the G20 and the international community as a whole for the refugees who fled their homes, for various reasons, in the hope of finding a better future in foreign countries. We clearly pointed out to our colleagues that the root cause of this unprecedented wave of migration in Europe and other countries is the irresponsible policy of flagrant military interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, primarily in the Middle East and North Africa. The most serious factor is, of course, the aggression against Libya, which has destroyed the country and has turned it into a black hole for the transfer of illegal weapons, drugs and organised crime to southern Africa. The northbound transit, above all via Libya, has brought migrants to Europe where they have become a major problem, including for the EU.
Another subject on which Russian delegates spoke actively here is the fight against terrorism. We drew the international attention to a new phenomenon of the so-called foreign terrorist fighters who return back to their home or other countries after completing criminal jobs in Libya, Syria, Iraq or some other places. It is vitally important to trace the movement of these dangerous people. Several years ago, Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) created a database of foreign terrorist fighters. This database involves 42 security services from 35 countries, including G20 members, such as the BRICS countries, Turkey and South Korea. The UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC), Interpol, the CIS Anti-Terrorism Centre, the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure (RATS) and other international organisations have joined this database. We actively promoted this experience at the G20 summit where it aroused keen interest.
Question: Have you managed to bring across to our European partners the truth on what really happened in the Black Sea (and not in the Sea of Azov, as they usually write)? Have they finally heard our position?
Sergey Lavrov: I think they could not but hear it because President Vladimir Putin, while meeting with President of France Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, personally explained “in lay terms” how all this happened, how the provocation had been planned and how its execution was attempted, as well as how responsibly the Russian border guards performed their functions trying to prevent any undesirable incidents. Regrettably, the [Ukrainian] agents provocateurs (and the provocation, carried out by two craft and a tug, was controlled by two Ukrainian Security Service officers) did their best to fulfill the order, which was found after the Russian border guards stepped on board these fire-support craft. It said in no uncertain terms that they should secretly penetrate the neutral waters, perform a breakthrough under the Crimean Bridge without giving any previous notice or hiring a pilot, and sail through the Kerch Strait to the Sea of Azov. President Putin personally told his interlocutors about this. I did not hear from them a response that would be based on different facts.
Question: It is important to note a totally different level of cooperation between Russia, India and China. One gets the impression that this time a unique mutual understanding took shape within the G20 between the three countries that together account for one-third of the world population. They have a totally different point of view than, for example, America and its partners, whom it is easier to call “satellites.”
Sergey Lavrov: It was the first Russia-India-China summit (RIC Group, as we call it) since 2006. The leaders of our three countries have agreed that this format should be maintained, including by holding regular summits in addition to ministerial and expert contacts that, basically, have not been discontinued during these years. What unites our countries was emphasised at the RIC meeting. This is primarily the striving not to allow the disintegration of multilateral universal organisations that are based on the UN Charter and the principles enshrined in it, such as equality, respect for sovereignty, and non-interference in internal affairs. Generally, an intention was voiced to defend the foundations of the multilateral, open economic and trade system. Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi clearly spoke out against the sanctions that were increasingly often used in this sphere by the United States in the hope of enhancing its competitiveness and getting unfair competitive advantages.
As I said, the [three] leaders have agreed to continue holding summits, while instructing their foreign ministers to prepare for the RIC leaders proposals on how to make this cooperation more effective and promote it in new spheres.
Question: Is there any hope that these three countries – Russia, India and China – will have a common understanding and will vote unanimously in the UN Security Council?
Sergey Lavrov: India is not yet a full member of the UN Security Council, but it was elected several times as a non-permanent member for two years. We have identical views on the overwhelming majority of subjects. It is notable that our countries’ positions often overlap not only in the UN Security Council but also during voting on matters of fundamental importance at the UN.
Another example has to do with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and concerns a scandalous process which the West has launched in gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). When the Western countries proposed giving the OPCW’s Technical Secretariat the prerogatives that actually belong to the UN Security Council, India, Russia and other like-minded countries unanimously voted against this. The BRICS countries co-authored a statement in which they sharply criticised such inappropriate actions and demanded that all states respect the CWC and their obligations under it. I have mentioned BRICS for a reason, because President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of China Xi Jinping and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi have said that these three countries are the driving force behind such organisations as BRICS and the SCO, which India has recently joined. We are connected geographically and politically, share common views on the key aspects of the world order, want all disputes to be settled peacefully and would like to have a free, open and fair trade and economic system, which, taken together, makes us allies in these matters.
Question: Presidents Putin and Trump have held a short meeting after all. As for US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was he evading you, or did he have to meet with you?
Sergey Lavrov: Of course, I did not pursue him, and he did not try to meet with me. To be quite frank, I do not even know if he is here, because I have not seen the full US delegation. US National Security Adviser John Bolton said in a conversation with Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, who deals with political matters, that they [the US administration] would like to resume and normalise our dialogue. We are ready to do this as soon as our colleagues are.
Question: As far as I know, there have been very interesting discussions on Syria. Has Russia managed to move the Western countries towards the realistic Russian view on the Syrian problem?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t know how close we have managed to move them towards our position, but it is becoming increasingly clear that they don’t have any alternative strategy or tactic on this matter. Likewise, it is becoming clear that unacceptable things are taking place on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. The United States is trying to create quasi-public structures there, investing hundreds of millions of dollars so that the people could resume a normal peaceful way of life in these regions. At the same time, they refuse to rebuild the infrastructure in the regions that are controlled by the Syrian government. It is becoming obvious to everyone that the developments on the eastern bank of the Euphrates run contrary to the general commitment to Syria’s territorial integrity as sealed in a relevant UN Security Council resolution, although the United States has been trying to present its activities there as a temporary solution.
The US activities on the eastern bank of the Euphrates and in other Syrian regions where it has special forces and advisers include playing the Kurdish card. It is a very dangerous game, considering that the Kurdish question is very acute in several countries apart from Syria, such as Iraq, Iran and, obviously, Turkey. President Putin discussed this matter at a meeting with President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan on the last day of the G20 session. They have confirmed their commitments regarding the Idlib de-escalation zone. We pointed out that not all extremists have heeded the demand to leave the 20-mile demilitarised zone, despite the active and consistent operations of our Turkish colleagues. We have coordinated further moves to ensure compliance with the agreement on the demilitarised zone and also to prevent the extremists from sabotaging this crucial agreement, which all sides welcomed.
The third aspect of the Syrian subject is the political process. The overwhelming majority of countries agree that the Constitution Committee, which is being created at the initiative of the three guarantor countries of the Astana process as per the decisions of the Syrian National Dialogue Congress held in Sochi, is the only viable method to start implementing UN Security Council Resolution 2254, under which all Syrian sides must hold negotiations to coordinate common and mutually acceptable views on life in their country and on its future development. This is exactly what is stipulated in the above-mentioned UN Security Council resolution. After they reach this understanding, they should adopt a new constitution and hold elections based on its provisions. However, as I have said before, no reasonable alternatives have been proposed over the past years to the initiatives advanced by the three Astana countries on combating terrorism, creating conditions for the return of the refugees and internally displaced persons back home, providing humanitarian aid and launching a political process.
Question: When the death of President George H.W. Bush was announced, President Putin expressed his condolences in a very emotional message. George Bush Sr. believed that one of the worst mistakes of his presidency was failure to prevent the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Did you meet with him? What are your impressions of him?
Sergey Lavrov: I did not meet with him often, but we did meet. I believe that George Bush Sr greatly contributed to the development of the United States and ensured that his country responsibly played its role in the world, considering its weight in international affairs.
I remember very well how President George H.W. Bush visited Moscow, I believe it was in 1991, and then he went to Ukraine where he encouraged the Soviet republics’ political forces to act responsibly and do their duty by preserving the country rather than create huge, tragic problems for millions of people who became citizens of different states the next morning after the Soviet Union collapsed.
Mr Bush was a great politician. I believe that every word that will be said about his achievements reflect the people’s true attitude to this man. However, one comment among the great number of condolence messages can be connected to your question about the link between President Bush and the demise of the Soviet Union. I watched CNN and Fox News on the day he died, and I heard a commentator say that George Bush Sr made history by helping Mikhail Gorbachev soft-land the Soviet Union. In fact, George Bush Sr never did that; he simply wanted to protect the millions of people who had lived in one country for decades or even centuries from political games. This is what we can say confidently about him.
Question: Do you think there is a connection between the provocation in the Kerch Strait and the US cancellation of the planned meeting between our presidents?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories. However, there have been too many coincidences, when a provocation that takes place ahead of a major event is used for fanning hysteria over sanctions. British Prime Minister Theresa May has demanded that Brussels further worsen its Russia policy, even though Britain has almost exited the EU.
We know our partners very well, and we have masses of questions about the adequacy of their approach to serious problems. There are very serious and very real threats. The fight against these challenges cannot be improved by making sacrifices to immediate geopolitical considerations.
Question: When will President Putin and President Trump hold a full-scale meeting after all?
Sergey Lavrov: I won’t even try to guess.
A very sane exposition. Minister Lavrov displays his customary wry, dry humour in his parting shot…..more in sorrow than expectation I perceive….ever the consumate diplomat…
The declaration of the New Year in Israel is the only time unknown to mankind throughout any year. The declaration of the New Year is depended upon the sighting of the new moon by two witnesses… one at either end of Israel. Weather may occlude the sighting and so it is true ‘no man knows the day nor the hour of His return’. This Hanukkah (new year) falls approximately on the 10th of December. War may well ignite this New Year. The mission pieces are largely moved into position. Beware.
All the west seems to have as representatives on the international scene are frothing war mongers making demands without any concessions. We have nobody on the level of Mr. Lavrov, who is so refreshing to listen to.
May FM Lavrov live and serve for decades more. The only adult in the room.
A brilliant man who represents the Russian people with intelligence, humor and deft language in either Russian or English.
A man of history.
I don’t know about him being the only adult in the room, mainly because I know very little about people such as the foreign minister of China.
However, if the meeting is between Lavrov, Pompei and Bolton, then Lavrov is the only one who doesn’t arrive in the short yellow school bus.
I can remember when America used to have diplomats. That is because I’ve got gray hairs and a good memory, and like most old people I like to talk about how things were 20, 30, or 40 years ago. But even back when America had competent diplomats, I don’t recall any with the wit and humor and ability to turn a phrase that Minister Lavrov seems able to do at will.
May God bless the people who are trying to keep humanity from going extinct!
..”personally explained in lay terms [Kerch strait confrontation]”
The very last line could read “why would we want to?”, but Minister Lavrov is far too polite to say that out loud.
The far more important meetings are the one in what is now apparently called a “2+2 format”, which is the foreign and defense ministers of the two countries. On the American side, Mad Dog speaks for the military which does whatever it wants to do, and Pompei would be there as well. Under Obama, the Sec of State position was relatively powerless, but since Pompei might well be speaking for the CIA or with at least knowledge of the CIA position, then having him in the meeting might be useful as well. If you somehow got a “3+3 format” meeting with the head of JP Morgan included as well, then you’d have the powerful people in the US system who might actually be able to make something happen, as the the military, the CIA and Wall Street would all have representatives in the room.
Kremlin vetoed any possible Trump-Putin meeting in Washington, and suggested mid-year at Osaka might be the best venue–a G-20 meet-up.
The real fear about going to places the US and Vassalage control is Putin could be captured and taken to US legal system, like Noriega. They have a million crimes ready to charge him with. And the event would be the death knell of Russia.
If anyone thinks it wouldn’t happen, they don’t read closely enough mountains of words railed against President Putin.
The two countries are at war. It is as close to a legally declared war as any in history. The US intends to break Russia. Maybe, they will wait five more years until 2024. But meanwhile, they want to damage it geopolitically, economically and damage its military with as little counter-risk.
The nuclear and missile race is on. Trump does not have the power to set a meeting with Putin. Think about that. The Military and Geopolitical Power resides in the MIC and Deep State representatives–none elected, few even appointed. Most are Russophobic, intensely so. All fear and hate Putin.
They appear to hate Trump equally.
Think about that.
I spoke of Power to control and limit a President.
You post about something irrelevant. They may hate Trump, but they control his Presidency and use him, force him to enact policies and budgets to wage hegemonic war.
Poor Donald. Boo hoo. Whaaa.
Think about that, LBD.
You may be interested in the following article describing the death of Vice Admiral Stearney.
I can’t vouch for it but it fits the new narrative everyone is trying to ignore.
Troll Fodder, LBD.
We will see.
The Trump Tide has approximately 60 days to come in……….OR most probably never will arrive, noticeably to any benefit for the world.
It is very late, but not yet TOO late.
Mueller should be facing treason charges on multiple counts from 9/11 coverup to Uranium 1 to fake Russiagate.
The tables could still be turned, decisively, within the next two months. But might not be, if the collective national will influencing DJT’s will for the better, is lacking.
Let’s get back to this thread Feb 5, 2019.
Or earlier, hopefully. Because if there is no major progress earlier than 60 days from now some thing or someone other than DJT will need to act, as his time to act with any potency for good has that short of a remaining shelf life, IMHO.
It seems to me to be happening.
The logic is to do it through the legal system (as they are the white hats).
This had been corrupted over the years like most other state agencies and great progress appears to have been made undoing this, Justice Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court being the prime example.
Winning the senate was no doubt vital too.
Demonising (ie exposing) the media and other deep state assets has been progressing.
Building a following (Q) has been progressing (building high expectations included).
I agree, the next few months (if not weeks) will tell the tale.
I just had the thought, and I had to share;
Q could be Dick Chaney and Donald Rumsfeld.
Lavrov is being diplomatic when it comes to George Bush. He knows perfectly well who he was and all the things he did, including his father Prescott Bush, who financed Hitler. And yes, when it comes to Lavrov, he is certainly the only adult in the room when it comes to diplomacy.
I’m not quite sure what Lavrov meant to say with the second part of the sentence:
“In fact, George Bush Sr never did that; he simply wanted to protect the millions of people who had lived in one country for decades or even centuries from political games.”
Is the main statement here what comes before the semicolon (“G.B.Sr. never did that”), and the rest is just diplomatic politeness?
This is what Bush said when he went to Ukraine in 1991.
“I come here to tell you: we support the struggle in this great country for democracy and economic reform. In Moscow, I outlined our approach. We will support those in the center and the republics who pursue freedom, democracy and economic liberty. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.”
I think Lavrov was referring to what Bush said in Kiev before the dissolution of Soviet Union. He advised against independence and warned of ethnic hatred.
Poroshenko not only mourned the wrong President Bush, he also mislead about the historic record. Bush the first indeed “witnessed the restoration of Ukraine’s independence”. But it happened against his strong advice.
Bush had feared that the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was too weak, and that a dissolution of the Soviet Union would end in utter chaos. He traveled to Moscow and Kiev in an attempt to keep the union together.
On August 1, 1991, months before a December referendum in which the Ukraine voted to withdraw from the Soviet Union, he visited Kiev and held a speech in the Ukrainian parliament.
The core sentences:
I come here to tell you: we support the struggle in this great country for democracy and economic reform. In Moscow, I outlined our approach. We will support those in the center and the republics who pursue freedom, democracy and economic liberty. Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hatred.
Bush told the members of the Verkhovna Rada not to seek independence, but to stay in a union with Russia and other soviet republics. Bush was advised by the realist Brent Scowcroft and it showed. The speech was drafted by Condoleeza Rice but Bush personally edited it to empathize his main point: Ukrainian independence was dangerous as it would lead to fascism.
Lavrov is one of my great heros.
He does not manipulate his words into hidden or bold agends.
Careful he is, to say what is true and also to not speculate on the vile, twisted, criminally insane of our species.
Should we recognize we are after a fashion, Alchemists, then we understand Putin practices martial arts.
Martial ARTS ~ a very very important practice.
The war machine in Europe requires diesel and J-8 fuel. The automakers and EU governments promoted the big lie…clean diesel cars…to boost diesel refining capacity throughout Europe for the express purpose of having large scale diesel refining capabilities on hand for the days of war approaching us all now. Macron and Co are moving to tax diesel beyond the price range of their recently clean diesel suckered populace’s wallets now to modify user behavior and free up diesel for war.
There will be a massive thinning out of the population in rural areas and big Agra will move in to feed the cities swelling with recently arrived rural folk.
They used the lie of clean diesel to coat the northern hemisphere’s polar regions and ice-holds, glaciers, with black soot to change the albedo of the ice to rapidly melt it and thereby massively jump start localised global warming so they could grab political power in the name of carbon dioxide abatement.
I don’t believe the ‘yellow vests’ movement is entirely organic. I believe (so far with no corroborating proofs) is a type of false flag operation centered around understandable grievances having the aim of lifting Macron to King-like status via the vehicles of national tragedy and marshal law.
Time will tell.
Moon of Alabama has some interesting points regarding Macron and his orchestrated chaos as suspected above
Disobedient Media via Zerohedge makes case UK has a hand in the French uprising against globalist green throned Macron
“We know our partners very well, and we have masses of questions about the adequacy of their approach to serious problems.”
For me, this sums up the Russian position very well.
WASHINGTON, December 4. /TASS/. The U.S. intends to develop a common stance of NATO on the incident between the warships of Ukraine and Russia in the Kerch Strait at the meeting at the level of foreign ministers of 29 NATO countries in Brussels on Tuesday.
This was announced on Monday by a high-ranking official of the US State Department at a briefing for journalists ahead of the visit of US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo to Brussels.
The U.S. State Department also urged European allies to “show leadership” in this matter.
“We’ll have several sessions on Ukraine and Georgia. In that session, we plan to build on recent U.S. statements pressing Russian leadership to release the detained crew members and ships that were taken into custody in the recent Kerch incident. We are calling on European allies to show leadership in tackling a problem that’s in Europe’s own backyard,” he said.
“We’ve coordinated very closely over the last several days with European allies both in the NATO format and in the EU format, and right now we’re focused on sizing an allied alliance-wide response, having the right size response to what happened at the Kerch,” the diplomat stressed.
“There’s a lot of things that the United States has done and will continue to do for the Ukrainians, but we want to make sure that we come out of this week with a unified position where we’re working with allies to have a holistic response,” the representative of the US Department of State said.
This year’s last meeting at the level of foreign ministers of 29 NATO countries will be held in Brussels on Tuesday. The alliance’s cooperation with Ukraine and Georgia in the context of the incident between the warships of Ukraine and Russia in the Kerch Strait is one of the main topics on the agenda.
Think we should be watching this event….” a holistic response”…….
Another reason to justify Kerch timing..”On Monday, December 3, Poroshenko submitted the bill on terminating the Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Ukraine and Russia to Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada. The treaty is to be terminated on April 1, 2019. The document specifies that its termination “releases Ukraine from any obligations on abiding by it and affects no rights, responsibilities or legal status of the country, which emerged as a result of abiding by the treaty before its termination.”
Kiev is on a path of self-destruction. This makes their suicide solely their own responsibility.
They think (loose definition) that they will be rescued.
NATO would not rescue Turkey, a member state. NATO will not do a thing. Those ships they send into the Russian lake (Black Sea) are one minute from float to sink. What are they going to do but steam around, show their flag, and hope the Russians don’t shut their communications and electronics with EW?
NATO’s best bet is what they are doing on land in Ukraine. Putting thousands of special forces into the Kiev Order of Battle, loading the bases in the west Ukraine with logistical support and training the Ukies on use of anti-tank, drones and precision artillery weapons. This will give the Ukies a chance to crack through into Donbass.
If enough follow-on troops from Poland, Lithuania and other vassals arrive to backup the Ukies, it might cost significant losses to Donbass to get a ceasefire that is more advantageous to Kiev.
However, Russia seems to have indicated that such an assault, regardless of NATO integration with Ukraine’s forces will be answered with catastrophic counter-attack causing the end to Ukraine’s statehood.
Thus, a Russia-NATO war of short duration (weeks, likely), will pile up hundreds of dead NATO troops in their futile effort to fight and win against Russia. Because it will be a NATO-Russia war and not Ukraine-Russia war, Russia will have a free hand to destroy all of Ukraine it chooses to. Thus, ending the Nazi power structure and the Hegemon’s hold on Kiev.
So, welcome the NATO interjection against Russia. Strategically, it is the perfect resolution for Russia.
They will break apart NATO, deNazify Ukraine, and establish Novorossiya by law of conquest in a righteous war.
The only downside is they will have to produce hundreds of thousands of rockets, missiles and mortars to replenish their stocks when it is all over.
Historically, the military disaster NATO is itching for will be geopolitically the largest in world history. It won’t be the largest or longest war by any means. But for NATO and the EU and Hegemon, it will be a mortal disaster.
If they want war, they will be coming to the right place. Russia is a Bear’s Lair.
With tens of thousands of Syrian War tested troops and pilots, the North Wind that flows into Donbass and Ukraine if NATO starts something will be enormous.
One piece of NATO equipment that they better pack plenty of is White Flags.
It’s debatable what Kiev can achieve. Yes, NATO has given it high tech. On the other hand, the Russians in the Donbass are dug in. This means that in case of an attack, the Ukrainian Army will be in the open, pretty easy targets. A few days ago I read an article on the Ukrainian Army. Desertions are rife, with entire platoons deserting. The bulk of the troops (conscripts) do not wish to fight. Poroshenko and NATO better have this in mind.
A member of a party of a coalition of opposition groups im Montinegro illegally arrested…groups are pro Russian…warnings of massive civil disruption against Government pushi gahead with joining NATO…meanwhile BELGRADE, December 4. /TASS/. Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic said during a meeting with Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Chepurin on Tuesday that someone is intentionally pushing Serbia and the whole Balkan region toward a conflict.
“The president was seriously concerned over the development of the army of so-called Kosovo despite UNSC Resolution 1244. The president asked him to inform President Putin and the leadership of friendly Russia that someone seems to be intentionally pushing Serbia and the region toward a conflict,” the press service quoted the president as saying.
MOSCOW, December 4. /TASS/. Russian Federation Council (the upper house of parliament) Speaker, Valentina Matviyenko, believes it is unjust to accuse Moscow of the situation in the Kerch Strait without sorting things out. She believes that it only encourages the Ukrainian government’s provocative actions, which sets a dangerous precedent.
Russia slams ECHR for taking Kiev’s Kerch Strait suit without any official documentation
Ukrainian warships still docked at Kerch port after Kerch Strait provocation, says source
Federation Council to prepare address to foreign MPs in light of Kiev’s provocations
“Whatever happened, happened. But before making any statements (like the US Congress and EU officials), please, analyze it. A unilateral approach is impossible, otherwise, these are dangerous precedents. [The incident in the Kerch Strait] is a dangerous provocation, which should be punished, and not encouraged,” Matviyenko said on Tuesday at a meeting with Lithuania’s MP in the European Parliament, Vice Chair of the Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group, Rolandas Paksas.
The speaker stressed that “if no one puts these countries that behave this way in their place,” then we can throw international law out the window. “One can do anything, while others will be guilty. Let’s stop and think about the situation today,” Matviyenko urged.
Is Europe interested in listening…MOSCOW, December 4. /TASS/. Russia is interested in the unity and stability of the European Union, which is an important trade and political partner to it, Federation Council Speaker Valentina Matviyenko said on Tuesday at a meeting with member of the European Parliament from Lithuania and Vice-Chair of the group Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) Rolandas Paksas.
“We faced the accusations of Russia wishing to destabilize the situation in the European Union. We are interested in the unity of the European Union; it is an important trade and political partner to us,” Matviyenko said.
She highlighted that if “chaos starts – God forbid that – then it will move on to negatively affect Russia.” “Russia is not interested in it,” the Federation Council speaker noted…
Make up your mind Europe….you are not listening to Austria and Italy who at least seem concerned about Russo EU relations…Grek PM seems to be sorting out some kind of relationship with Russia as he is to meet Pres Putin..EU is not believing in sorting out PACE preferring to let opportunities slip…..seems mostly just about happy with Nordstream 2 but not much else……
Europe needs to change Mogherini when she says this…
“BRUSSELS (Sputnik) – EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini expressed fear that the “rule of the jungle” may prevail over the rule of law in global relations as important international treaties are being challenged.
‘Today, I am afraid we have to admit that such a new world order has never truly materialised and worse, there is a real risk today that the rule of the jungle replaces the rule of law. The same international treaties — so many in which we are together — that ended the Cold War are today put into question’, Mogherini said at the Harvard Kennedy School for Science and International Affairs.
According to Mogherini, instead of constructing a new world order, it is better to invest ‘in preventing the current rules from being dismantled’.
The diplomat has also repeatedly stressed the importance of close cooperation between the European Union and the United States for building a fair world order.”
Especially when Pompeo says this?
US to Lead ‘Restoration of Liberal Order Among
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has stated that when treaties are broken, the violators must be “confronted, and the treaties must be fixed or discarded”.
The United States will lead the “restoration of the liberal order among nations” with the help of other democracies, according to the Secretary of State.
“We are acting to preserve, protect, and advance an open, just, transparent and free world of sovereign states. This project will require actual, not pretend, restoration of the liberal order among nations. It will require an assertive America and leadership from not only my country but of democracies around the world,” Mike Pompeo said in a foreign policy speech.
Pompeo also noted that nothing can replace the nation-state as the guarantor of democratic freedoms and national interests.
“In the finest traditions of our great democracy, we are rallying the noble nations to build a new liberal order that prevents war and achieves greater prosperity”, he stated.”
So let Russia keep its own nation state……would you buy such a “used car “from this guy so to speak …etc etc time for him to look at his own reflection in the mirror of delusion….
Latest from Pompeo
“The United States today declares it has found Russia in material breach of the treaty and will suspend our obligations as a remedy effective in 60 days unless Russia returns to full and verifiable compliance,” Pompeo said.
He also noted that the US would not produce, deploy, or test any missile that violates the treaty during this period, stressing that Washington would welcome the termination of the Russian missile programme.”
What is next?
Pompeo pounds sand.
The death of H.W. Bush cast a pall over the event… Who wrote this terrible line? Is the world supposed to mourn the loss of US leaders? Just the first question out of the interviewer turns my stomach.
I don;t know how they manage that tricky problem of over population in Hell Well of course there is always a free space for a president. Enjoy you stay there Mr Bush close to the fire . you worked hard for it,
ps. there are rumours some even say that it is highly likely that the hell;s CEO- Mr. Mefisto is his name= if I remember correctly- is following a course in American English since there are so many candidates from there on his reservation list. I don’t know Maybe some others here have more info about it.
Rather than cast a pall over the event, if the leaders were honest, they would have felt relief that such a person, responsible for much of the suffering in the world since his participation in the murder of JFK, is finally not around anymore.
To get the full measure of who George Bush was, read The Unauthorized Biography of George Bush, by Webster Tarpley. It’s available for free online. This book psychologically prepared me, back in 1999, for the Dubya presidency and its horrors. As well as all the ensuing wars and disasters since then.
You can watch interview subtitled on Vesti news. The very last part of the interview after three asterisks in the text is not included. Probably it happened later in the show.
Is this Partial Official Disclosure regarding the Crimea Bridge bomb, now placed on the official record?
Have you managed to bring across to our European partners the truth on what really happened in the Black Sea, and not in the Sea of Azov, as they usually write? Have they finally heard our position?
I think they could not but hear it because President Vladimir Putin, while meeting with President of France Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, personally explained “in lay terms” how all this happened, how the provocation had been planned and how its execution was attempted, as well as how responsibly the Russian border guards performed their functions trying to prevent any undesirable incidents. Regrettably, the [Ukrainian] agents and provocateurs, and the provocation carried out by two craft and a tug, was controlled by two Ukrainian Security Service officers who did their best to fulfil the order………
………..President Putin personally told his interlocutors about this. I did not hear from them a response that would be based on different facts.
Presidents Putin and Trump have held a short meeting after all. As for US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, was he evading you, or did he have to meet with you?
Of course, I did not pursue him, and he did not try to meet with me. To be quite frank, I do not even know if he is here, because I have not seen the full US delegation. US National Security Adviser John Bolton said in a conversation with Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, who deals with political matters, that they [the US administration] would like to resume and normalise our dialogue. We are ready to do this as soon as our colleagues are.
Do you think there is a connection between the provocation in the Kerch Strait and the US cancellation of the planned meeting between our presidents?
I don’t believe in the conspiracy theories. However, there have been too many coincidences, when a provocation that takes place ahead of a major event is used for fanning hysteria over sanctions. British Prime Minister Theresa May has demanded that Brussels further worsen its Russia policy, even though Britain has almost exited the EU.
We know our partners very well, and we have masses of questions about the adequacy of their approach to serious problems. There are very serious and very real threats. The fight against these challenges cannot be improved by making sacrifices to immediate geopolitical considerations.
When will President Putin and President Trump hold a full-scale meeting after all?
I won’t even try to guess.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Thanks for the poem of Mikhail Lomonosov and especially the lines, ” innumerable suns burn bright:
and people live and die as we”
But on to the grim slog that we find ourselves in the bog of the Kali Yuga–below find Prof. Stephen Cohen who was a truthteller from the get-go and Tucker Carlson who knows the price he may have to pay only too well.
Cohen’s clip begins at 11:00 on the link above.
I’m a big fan of Mr Lavrov however I believe he was lying through his teeth when he expressed his admiration for the war criminal G H W Bush.
You obviously didn’t read properly, so here it is again:
“I remember very well how President George H.W. Bush visited Moscow, I believe it was in 1991, and then he went to Ukraine where he encouraged the Soviet republics’ political forces to act responsibly and do their duty by preserving the country rather than create huge, tragic problems for millions of people who became citizens of different states the next morning after the Soviet Union collapsed.”
Bush Sr. was never in favour of the dissolution of the USSR. In that sense it’s possible to see how the peoples of the USSR might feel more favourably about Bush than Gorbachev or Yeltsin.
Which is not to express my admiration for Bush Sr. either. The 1st Iraq Invasion and the subsequent sanctions on Iraq which killed hundreds of thousands of children for want of medicines makes him in my view a war criminal.
I would give an honorable mention to a western politician who is able to conduct himself with wit and humor to John Bercow, who is serving as the Speaker of the House of Commons during the Brexit debate. In that role, he is often called upon to get members to stop shouting at each other, or from crossing the line and impugning the integrity of the other side, and he has a fine way of always making his point strongly, but doing so with a goodly touch of wit and humor.
I don’t want to get into a “who’s is bigger” debate between say Bercow and Lavrov, but I do feel he deserves at least an honorable mention for the way he conducts his business.