A Year Later, Lavrov's European Security Presser

Almost one year ago, Russia made it most recent security proposals to NATO and the Outlaw US Empire very publicly which I documented in a series of articles that can be found by scrolling down my VK Wall. Lavrov's presser can thus be seen as another invitation for minds to change their outlook and correct the mistakes made.

A great many people have died trying to deny Russia its right to security and development and more will do so if NATO, meaning the Outlaw US Empire, doesn't drastically change its policy. But this isn't about me editorializing; this is the space for Lavrov to speak, be heard, and answer questions. The machine translated transcript will contain errors, but the context ought to be discernable.

Dear media representatives,

Good afternoon.

Thank you for responding to our invitation. We considered it important today to talk about the problems of European, and therefore global security. In Europe, NATO claims to dominance on a planetary scale are increasingly observed. The Indo-Pacific region has already been declared the alliance's zone of responsibility. What is happening on our continent is of interest not only to Europeans, residents of North America, but also to representatives of all other countries of the world, primarily developing countries, who want to understand what initiatives regarding their regions can be prepared by NATO states that have declared their global ambitions.

Why did we decide to hold this press conference today? On this day, an event that was usually called the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) begins in Łódź. In this regard, today is a good reason to see what role this structure has played since its inception.

The Helsinki Final Act was signed in 1975 and was regarded as the greatest achievement of diplomacy of that time, as a harbinger of a new era in relations between East and West. Nevertheless, the problems have become more and more since then. To date, a huge number of problematic issues in what is now called the OSCE have accumulated. They have a deep historical projection and are rooted in the late Soviet period, in the late 1980-1990s, when the number of missed opportunities exceeded all imaginable expectations of the most pessimistic analysts.

Let's remember 1990, the anticipation of the end of the Cold War. Many even proclaimed its end at that time. There was an expectation of universal immersion in universal human values and the receipt of a "peace dividend" by all. In the same 1990, a summit of the structure then called the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) was held. During the high-level event, all participating countries, including NATO and Warsaw Pact countries, adopted in Paris the Charter for a New Europe, which marked the end of the "era of confrontation and division of the continent", proclaimed the elimination of barriers to building a truly pan-European home without dividing lines.

It was 1990, it would seem that if everyone came to such correct declarations, what prevented them from being implemented? The fact is that the West was not going to take any steps to turn these beautiful words and obligations into real deeds. It is safe to say that the West at that time subscribed to such slogans in the hope that our country would never regain its position either in Europe or even more so in the world. Westerners proceeded from the fact that there was, as they said then, "the end of history." Now everything will go according to the rules of liberal democracy, you can relax and promise anything. These beautiful slogans are "hanging in the air."

An interesting fact of that period. At the final stage of the CSCE summit in Paris in 1990, US Secretary of State John Baker warned the American president that "the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe could pose a real threat to NATO." I understand it — it really is. After all, when the Cold War ended, many sensible far-sighted politicians and political scientists said that it would be better now to abandon not only the Warsaw Pact, which had already disappeared by that time, but also the North Atlantic Alliance, and make every effort to ensure that the OSCE became a genuine bridge between East and West, a single platform for implementing joint goals based on a balance of interests of each of the participating countries.

That didn't happen. In fact, the West sought to maintain its dominance. In the prospect of implementing slogans about equality and the absence of dividing lines and barriers, about a genuine common European home, Westerners saw a threat to their positions aimed at the dominance of Washington and Brussels in all world affairs and, above all, in Europe. This "basic instinct", which has never disappeared either among the Americans or among other NATO members, explains the course towards the reckless expansion of NATO, which deprives the main meaning of the OSCE as a collective instrument for ensuring equal and indivisible security, and devalues all those "beautiful" documents adopted in the organization since the 1990s. is the host. In fact, this is where the notorious concept of a "rules-based world order" originates. The West already considered these "rules" an integral part of its position on the world stage. It was this feeling that Western "rules" could solve any problems without consulting anyone that caused the West to consider it permissible to bomb Yugoslavia barbarically for almost 80 days, destroying its entire civilian infrastructure. Then the Westerners, under a far-fetched pretext, invaded Iraq and bombed there everything necessary for the life of the civilian population and the life support of the country. Then the Libyan state was destroyed. Many other adventures followed, of which you are well aware.

We remember the aggression against Yugoslavia because its results are still "coming to an end". This step was a gross violation of the Helsinki Principles. It was then, in March 1999, that NATO, wishing to demonstrate their permissiveness, opened the "Pandora's box", trampling the foundations of European security proclaimed in the OSCE.

Russia has not lost hope that we will be able to return to the origins of the Helsinki Principles. We continued to fight for the OSCE. We proposed to prepare a legally binding document, namely the OSCE Charter, on the basis of the Helsinki Final Act. The West did not agree to this.

The result of the efforts of those who were honestly interested in pan-European approaches to solving all problems was the adoption in 1999 in Istanbul of important documents, in particular, the Charter for European Security. It was possible to adapt the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) to the fact of the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact. The original CFE Treaty was written when there were two military-political blocs – NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization (ATS). The latter ceased to exist. Naturally, the number of weapons agreed in the context of the confrontation between the East and the West of Europe lost its meaning when many European countries began to be "drawn" into the North Atlantic Alliance. After a series of difficult negotiations, it was possible to adapt the CFE Treaty and sign it in 1999 in Istanbul. At the time, it was hailed as an endorsement of a document recognized as a "cornerstone of European security."

The fate of the renewed treaty is known. The US has banned its allies from ratifying the adapted CFE Treaty in an effort to preserve the old document, which, after the disappearance of the ATS, unequivocally ensured NATO's dominance on a legal basis. In the subsequent period, the Americans withdrew from the Treaties on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, and also destroyed the Treaty on Open Skies. The OSCE did not look at all this indifferently, but not being able to utter any correct collective words – neither the Chairmen of the Organization nor its Secretaries General did this.

The second document, adopted in Istanbul also in 1999, the Charter for European Security, stressed that no one has the right to ensure his own security at the expense of the security of others. Nevertheless, NATO's eastward expansion continued despite all the declarations endorsed at the highest level by all OSCE members.

In 2010, like-minded people and I, who also did not lose hope for the salvation of the Organization, managed at the summit in Astana to adopt another declaration at the highest level, which stated that security should be equal and indivisible, that states have the right to choose alliances, but at the same time have no right to do anything to strengthen their security at the expense of weakening the security of others. An important statement was that no country and no group of countries has the right to claim an exclusive role in the field of security in the Euro-Atlantic region.

As you can understand, if you follow the developments in Europe in recent years, NATO has violated all obligations. The expansion of the alliance created direct threats to the Russian Federation. The military infrastructure of the bloc came close to our borders. This was forbidden by the commitments of the Istanbul Declaration of 1999, NATO unequivocally stated that only the alliance will decide to whom to provide legal security guarantees. It was also a direct violation of Istanbul's and Astana's obligations.

We realized that NATO simply ignores these political declarations and considers itself in the right not to pay attention to them at all, despite the signatures of their presidents under these documents. Back in 2008, the Russian side proposed to codify these political declarations in order to make them legally binding. We were refused, saying that such legal guarantees in Europe can only be provided within the framework of NATO. The thoughtless course of artificial expansion of this bloc in the absence of any real threats to NATO countries was carried out absolutely consciously and consciously.

We remember how NATO was created. The First Secretary General of the Alliance, G. Ismay, once derived the formula: "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down" ("keep Russians out of Europe, Americans in Europe, and Germans under control"). What is happening now means nothing more than a return of the alliance to the conceptual priorities developed 73 years ago. Nothing has changed: they want to keep the "Russians" out of Europe, the Americans want, and have already enslaved the whole of Europe and keep under control not only the Germans, but the entire European Union. The philosophy of domination and unilateral advantages has not disappeared since the end of the Cold War.

During its existence, NATO has hardly been able to record "to the credit" at least one real "success story". The alliance brings devastation and suffering. I have already mentioned the aggressions against Serbia and Libya with the destruction of Libyan statehood, to which Iraq was added. Let's recall the last example – Afghanistan, to which for 20 years the alliance unsuccessfully tried to "instill" democracy in its understanding. It is also telling that security problems continue to be resolved in the Serbian province of Kosovo, where NATO has also been stationed for more than two decades.

If we talk about the peacekeeping capabilities of the United States, look at how many decades the Americans have been trying to restore order in such a small and controlled country as Haiti. It's not Europe. Examples of this kind outside the European continent are numerous.

If in 1991 NATO consisted of 16 countries, now there are already 30 of them. Sweden and Finland are on the verge of accession. The Alliance is deploying its forces and military infrastructure closer to our borders. Constantly building up potentials and funds, moving them to Russia. Maneuvers are being carried out in which, in fact, in the open, our country is declared an enemy. NATO is actively expanding its activities in the post-Soviet space. It has made claims to the Indo-Pacific region, and now also to Central Asia. All these sights on global domination are a direct and flagrant violation of the Lisbon Declaration of 2010, which is signed by all presidents and prime ministers of the North Atlantic bloc.

Until recently, we tried to keep the situation in the Euro-Atlantic region from further degradation. In December 2021, President Vladimir Putin put forward new proposals on security guarantees – the draft treaty between Russia and the United States and the draft agreement between Russia and NATO. In this situation, fixing with what perseverance the West "pulled" Ukraine into NATO – this was an obvious "red line" for the Russian Federation, which for many years the West was aware of – we proposed to abandon the expansion of the alliance and agree on specific legally binding security guarantees for Ukraine, for the Russian Federation, for all European states and for all OSCE participating States. No discussion ensued. When we called for a comprehensive and creative approach to this situation, we were told only one thing: every country, and, above all, Ukraine has the right to join NATO, and no one can do anything about it. All components of the compromise single formula – about the indivisibility of security, that it cannot be done at the expense of the security of others, so that one organization claims dominance in Europe – were simply ignored.

In December 2021, Washington chose not to take a real chance of de-escalation. And it was not only the United States, but also the OSCE, which could well contribute to the détente if it could achieve a settlement of the crisis in Ukraine on the basis of the Minsk Package of Measures, agreed in February 2015 and unanimously approved by the UN Security Council resolution in the same month. The executive structures of the Organization were in fact completely subordinate to the United States and Brussels, which set a course for the comprehensive support of the Kiev regime in its policy of eradicating everything Russian – education, the media, the use of language in culture, art and everyday life. Westerners supported the Kiev regime in its policy of legislative imposition of the theory and practice of Nazism: the relevant laws were adopted without any reaction from the "enlightened" capitals of Western democracies, as well as in its efforts to turn Ukraine into a springboard for deterring Russia, into a territory of direct military threats to our country. These facts are now well known. I would like to note that the Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine also contributed to the discrediting of the OSCE, which, in flagrant violation of its mandate, did not respond to daily violations of the Minsk agreements by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and national battalions. In fact, the Organization's mission sided with the Kiev regime. Already after the cessation of its activities, unpleasant facts of the SMM's interaction with Western special services, as well as the participation of allegedly neutral OSCE observers in adjusting the fire on the positions of the LDNR, in collecting intelligence in the interests of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and nationalist battalions, were revealed: they were given information from the Mission's surveillance cameras installed near the contact line.

All these obvious problems, which many of you have exposed and made public, although not all of you were allowed to do so by your editors, were hushed up by the SMM. The mission deliberately turned a blind eye to all violations, including the preparation of a military solution to the Donbass problem, which the Kiev regime planned, publicly refusing through the mouth of Petr Poroshenko and then V.A. Zelensky to implement the Minsk agreements. The West has silently indulged in such unacceptable actions. In mid-February of this year, the number of continuous shelling of the territory of the LPR and the DPR for all these long years increased tenfold – there are statistics, it cannot be hidden. A huge flow of refugees poured into Russia. We had no choice but to recognize the LPR and the DPR and, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, to launch a special military operation at their request to protect them from the Nazis.

I would like to note that this unsightly line of the OSCE has its own explanation. Taking advantage of the arithmetic superiority in this Organization, the West has been trying for many years to carry out privatization, and more correctly to say the raider seizure of the OSCE, to subordinate this last platform for a regional dialogue. There was also the Council of Europe, but the West has already crippled it, with no chance of recovery. Now under the "crosshairs" of the OSCE. Its powers and competencies are being eroded and stripped away in every possible way in narrow, non-inclusive formats.

Through the efforts of the EU, parallel structures, meetings like the European Political Community, are being created. On October 6 of this year, an inaugural meeting of this format was held in Prague. Preparing for this event and announcing the initiative to create a European Political Community, President Emmanuel Macron proudly announced that everyone except Russia and Belarus had been invited. He immediately began to "sing along" with such prominent figures of European diplomacy as J. Borrell and A. Baerbok, who said that security should be built not with the Russian Federation, as Angela Merkel and other European leaders called for, but against it. Other structures are also being invented to impose confrontational approaches on other countries in the spirit of colonial thinking, to break the OSCE agenda into narrow formats, various platforms, appeals and partnerships.

A few years ago, Germany and France, having proclaimed the initiative to create an Alliance of Multilateralists, where they themselves will invite those they want, "stabbed in the back" of the OSCE. Similarly, the U.S. only invites "its" people to what it calls the "Summit for Democracy." When we asked the Germans and the French, why create an Alliance, when Europe already has an inclusive OSCE structure, and in the global format there is the UN - much more than more multilateral formats? We were told that all countries are indeed present in these structures, but for effective multilateralism it is necessary to work not in the OSCE and the UN, but it is necessary to create a group of leaders. They say that there are "retrogrades" in the OSCE and the UN, which will interfere with the advancement of effective multilateralism. It is they, the progressives, who will do this, and let the rest adjust - such a philosophy, which also undermines all those high principles on which the OSCE was built.

As a result of all this, the security space in Europe is finally fragmented, and the Organization itself becomes, to put it mildly, a marginal entity. In recent years, the OSCE Chairpersons-in-Office have not been eager to break this negative trend. Vice versa.

The Swedes chaired in 2021, and even then they began to openly act not as "honest brokers", but as active participants in the Western policy of subordination of the OSCE to the interests of the United States and Brussels. In fact, it was the Swedes who began preparations for the "funeral" of the Organization.

All this year, our Polish neighbors have been diligently digging up a "grave" for the OSCE, destroying the remnants of the culture of consensus. Warsaw's actions flagrantly violate the Rules of Procedure and the decisions of the legislative organs of the Organization. Back in 2002, at a ministerial meeting in Porto, a special document was adopted on how the current chairman should behave, that he is obliged not to allow his actions to contradict the positions that are agreed upon by all participating states, i.e., by consensus and is obliged to ensure that the full range of opinions of the member countries of the Organization is taken into account in his steps and statements. On November 23 of this year, within the framework of the CSTO and at the level of foreign ministers of the six countries, we approved a special statement in which we expressed our fundamental assessments of these obscene actions of the Polish chairmanship. We know that a number of other OSCE countries share this position. I can responsibly say that the "anti-presidency" of Poland will occupy the most unsightly place in the history of the Organization. No one has ever done such damage to the OSCE at its helm.

For many years, the efforts of Western countries have been aimed at preventing the construction of a system of equal and indivisible European security despite all the "incantations" that were adopted within the framework of political declarations. We are now reaping the benefits of this short-sighted misguided policy. The spirit and letter of the OSCE basic documents have been trampled upon. The organization was created at one time for a pan-European dialogue. I have already cited the goals put forward by the West and the OSCE Chairmanships this year and last year. All of this raises difficult questions about what our common relationship with the Organization will be. More important is what will happen to the OSCE itself. What is clear is that if and when at some point in time our western neighbours, and there is no escape from the neighbourhood, and our former partners suddenly become interested in somehow returning to joint work on European security, then such a restoration will not work. That would mean a return to something that came before, but there would be no "business" as usual.

When and if the West realizes that it is better to coexist, relying on some mutually agreed foundations, we will listen to what is offered to us. These should be fundamentally new beginnings of interaction. Will there be an opportunity for such interaction in the foreseeable future? I don't know. It is up to the West, which has been systematically destroying everything founded as a principle for the functioning of a unique pan-European organization called the OSCE, all these long decades.

Q: Russia is cut off from European diplomacy after its representatives are banned from attending OSCE or Munich Security Conference meetings. What should Moscow do in this case? How to adapt to new realities? How relevant is the "grain deal" for Russia in this context?

Sergey Lavrov: To the above examples, we can add the fact that during this year our parliamentarians were twice prevented from attending meetings of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly by not issuing visas (one was in the UK, the other was recently in Poland). This is a characteristic of how "honest brokers" manage a pan-European organization.

Returning to the question of whether we are being cut off from European diplomacy, it is necessary to understand whether European diplomacy has been preserved, if so, what is it? So far, we hear statements from the main European diplomats in the spirit of Jean Borrell, which he repeats as a mantra since the beginning of a special military operation, "this conflict should end with the victory of Ukraine on the battlefield." This is what a European diplomat says.

When French President Emmanuel Macron announced a meeting within the framework of his proposed European Political Community, he said that Russia and Belarus would not be invited. EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Jean-Claude Borrell, followed by German Foreign Minister A. Baerbok, declared another new task: "to build European security not with Russia, but against Russia." If European diplomacy is understood as such statements, I don't think we need to go there. It is necessary to understand when sane people will appear there. President of the European Council Charles Michel, demanding to ensure the victory of Ukraine, says that this should be done because "Ukraine strives for European values," and NATO Secretary General J. Stoltenberg – "it already defends and promotes the values of Europe, freedom and democracy." Similar statements were made by the head of the European Commission, U. von der Leyen.

The "quintessence of European diplomacy" says that it is now necessary to help Ukraine, which defends "European values", which means only one thing: these European diplomats are not informed of numerous facts about what is really happening in Ukraine. About how long before the start of the special military operation, the Russian Orthodox Church was destroyed for many years, contrary to all the norms of civilized life; the opportunity for national minorities to use their own language in all spheres without exception (although later European national minorities withdrew from this ban, there was only one thing left - Russian); Russian-language media, not only owned by Russians and Russian organizations, but also broadcasting in Russian language, owned by Ukrainians; political opposition; political parties were banned; leaders of political structures were arrested, as well as openly imposed Nazi practices enshrined in the legislation of Ukraine.

If European diplomacy, pathetically calling for the protection of Ukraine, which defends European values, understands that this country is now really "promoting", we need nothing to do with such diplomacy.

We will fight to ensure that this "diplomacy" stops as soon as possible, and people who pursue a hateful policy in violation of the UN Charter, numerous conventions, and international humanitarian law have gone "out of business".

Numerous interviews with Zelensky testify to the values that the current Kiev regime stands for. He constantly declares that "Russia cannot be allowed to win." Everyone applauds like fascinated. In one of the interviews, he said that if Russia is allowed to win (NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg later repeated this idea), then other large countries will be able to attack small countries. Several large countries on different continents will remake the geography of the world. V.A. Zelensky claims that he himself is for a different scenario: "every person on earth will know that no matter what country he lives in and what weapons he has, he has the same rights and he is as protected as any other person in the world."

None of the interviewees asked this person whether Vladimir Zelensky had forgotten what he advised Ukrainians who feel involved in Russian culture. A year ago, in August 2021, he told them to "go to Russia." A man who wanted to protect the rights of any person in the world wanted to kick Russians out of his country just because they wanted to preserve their language and culture. Probably, when he spoke about the right of every person "regardless of where he lives" to be protected, he forgot that the Ambassador of Ukraine to Kazakhstan, P.Y. Vrublevsky, recently said publicly in an interview (while in Kazakhstan): "We are going to kill them as much as possible. The more we kill Russians now, the less our children will have to kill." Not a single European diplomat commented on this, although we focused their attention on the unacceptability of this kind of behavior. This was a direct insult on the part of the Zelensky regime to our Kazakh neighbours, who said that it was unacceptable for the ambassador to make such statements. But this man was still "hanging out" there for about a month and only then he was expelled. I regret this European diplomacy, which "swallows" such manifestations of the Ukrainian approach to European values.

We made a lot of information messages regarding the "grain deal". Since March 2022, our military has daily announced 12-hour periods for the operation of humanitarian corridors for the export of Ukrainian grain from Ukrainian ports. The only obstacle is that the ports were mined. Ukrainian colleagues were invited to withdraw ships through minefields, and the Russian military would guarantee their safe delivery to the straits. V.A. Zelensky said that this was a "trap" and that "Russians cannot be trusted." Then we proposed to guarantee the freedom of passage through neutral waters together with our Turkish colleagues. They agreed. And again, V.A. Zelensky was "capricious". The intervention of the UN Secretary-General made it possible to sign two documents on July 22 this year in Istanbul. The first one explains in detail what steps and guarantees will be in force when exporting Ukrainian food from three Ukrainian ports. The second is that the UN Secretary-General will try to remove artificial obstacles to the export of Russian fertilizers and grain. A week ago, I heard statements from a European structure that the sanctions do not contain any restrictions on the export of Russian fertilizers and grain. But that's an outright lie. The heading "fertilizers and food from Russia" is not on the sanctions lists. But banking transactions are prohibited (primarily for our leading JSC Rosselkhozbank, "excommunicated" from SWIFT, it is he who serves more than 90% of all our food supplies); access of Russian ships to European ports; foreign ships to Russian ports, as well as their freight and insurance. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stressed this in plain text at the G20 summit in Indonesia. He's in the business of removing those barriers. But five months after the signing of the "deal", the reaction of the US and the EU is extremely slow. We have to "knock out" some exceptions. We support what the Secretary General is doing. However, there is not much respect on the part of the West for its efforts – the manner of showing "who is the boss in the house", who should be "run" and who should be "begged".

Question: What will European security look like without the participation of the Union State of Russia and Belarus? What are your predictions?

Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult for me to make predictions. With all responsibility, I can say what the security of the Union State of Russia and Belarus will be, regardless of what further mockery the foundation laid down in the foundation of the OSCE will be subjected to.

We have learned the value of those who aspire to the CHAIRMANSHIP of the OSCE, promising the functions of an "honest broker", the figures who now head the OSCE Secretariat and are not allowed to do anything that would go beyond the concept. In 1975, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe was not created to "dance to someone's tune", to obey the vision of peace and the tasks of ensuring security and cooperation that our Western partners proposed. The OSCE was created so that everyone was heard, and no country felt excluded from the overall process. But now everything is turned upside down. The West is doing exactly what the OSCE was created against. "Digs" dividing lines. But where they "dig", you can "bury" someone. I am afraid that this is being done specifically for the OSCE. All these "initiatives": the European Political Community (all except Russia and Belarus), an open invitation to scrap the OSCE, the creation of a Western "interlocutor" from where they will promote their projects, including unilateral illegal sanctions, the creation of tribunals for the confiscation of funds – colonial thinking has not disappeared. The desire and desire to live at the expense of others.

The U.S. now lives off Europe. They will profit from the economic and energy crisis in which it has fallen, sell it gas (four times more expensive than Europe bought from Russia), promote its laws to combat inflation, allocate hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies for its industry to lure investors from Europe. As a result, it will come to deindustrialization.

Westerners are trying to build security without Russia and Belarus. But first you need to agree among ourselves. French President Emmanuel Macron hastily flew to Washington to complain and demand. I don't know how all this will end, but we don't need such security. Europe's entire security now boils down to the fact that it has completely submitted to the United States. A few years ago, there were disputes in Germany and France, when it advocated the "strategic autonomy" of the European Union and the creation of the EU armed forces. Recently, one of the staff of the US National Security Council said that Europe should categorically forget about any "dreams" of creating its own army. A few years ago in Germany, such discussions ended with the conclusion that Germany should rely on NATO to ensure the security of Germany. Poland, the Baltic states and a number of central European states, which previously demonstrated reasonable approaches, now have ultra-radical Russophobic and anti-European governments.

As for the independence of Europe. There were discussions about increasing the number of American troops to conduct exercises on the European continent near Russia and Belarus. When the head of the Pentagon, Leonid Austin, was asked on what basis the US troops were being transferred – temporarily or "differently" – he did not hesitate to answer that Washington had not yet decided what the military presence in Europe would be. It was not in his mind to say that it was necessary to consult with European allies. "We haven't decided yet." This is the answer to the question of what security will be like in Europe.

The Union State has plans for military construction. There is a joint grouping with a land and air component. The presidents of Russia and Belarus pay increased attention to the problem, given the ongoing provocations by Ukraine. All necessary measures have been taken to maintain readiness for any options. We will rely on the good capabilities of the Union State.

When Western Europe, NATO and the EU understand the "deadlock" of the line that is being pursued and its huge risks, we will see what they will be ready to "come" to us with a request to discuss some other possibilities.

Q: A joint NATO exercise in the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean sea took place this month. Aircraft carriers from different countries took part in them, including the advanced American aircraft carrier Gerald R. Ford, which participated for the first time. What role does the U.S. play in NATO exercises? What intentions does the United States have in strengthening military integration with European countries? How do NATO joint exercises affect regional security in Europe?

Sergey Lavrov: Over the past 10 years, NATO exercises have become increasingly intense, frequent and openly aimed at deterring Russia. They come up with legends and names, trying to retouch the obvious anti-Russian orientation. They are being carried out closer to the Russian borders: the Baltic, the Black Sea, land exercises in Poland, a number of other measures that contradict the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of 1997. Then it was possible to agree on the "principles of partnership", they are spelled out in the Act. A key element of this document was NATO's commitment to abandon the deployment of "substantial combat forces" on the territory of new members of the alliance on a permanent basis. A good but political commitment, as in the case of the OSCE declarations of 1999 and 2010, not to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of the neighbor. The NATO-Russia Act does not record the deployment of "substantial combat forces" on the territory of the new members of the alliance. A "compromise" in response to the fact that the Organization expanded contrary to the promises made by the USSR, and then to the Russian leadership not to do so. We were lied to. In a naïve attempt to maintain a partnership with this bloc, we agreed to sign the Founding Act, which means that Russia has taken the expansion of the alliance for granted. To "compensate", NATO solemnly promises not to deploy "substantial combat forces" on the territory of new members on a permanent basis. After some time, we proposed to strengthen mutual trust even more, deciphering the concept of "essential combat forces", prepared a specific legal agreement. The organization categorically refused. They said that they themselves would define this concept of "essential combat forces", which "undertake" not to deploy on a permanent basis, specifying that rotation is possible. Now, in violation of the obligation, serious units are being deployed, almost in non-stop mode. Formally, it is a rotation. Until recently, NATO "beat its chest" and said that there could be no threat to the security of Russia and anyone else, since NATO is a "defensive alliance" that defends the territory of its members. But when the USSR, the Warsaw Pact, existed, it was clear from whom it was defending itself. The Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union disappeared. Since then, NATO has moved its line of defense five times. If this is a "defensive alliance", then, moving its line of responsibility, it continues to defend itself, but no one understood from whom.

In June of this year in Madrid, at the NATO summit, the Westerners ceased to be shy, and now they do not say that they are a "defensive alliance" and only "protect the territories of their members." They stated that they should be responsible for global security, first of all, for the Indo-Pacific region. There was even a thesis about the "indivisibility of the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region." Thus, NATO moves the defense line even further to the East. Probably, it will be held in the South China Sea. Given the rhetoric coming from the EU, the United States, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, the South China Sea is turning into one of the regions where NATO is not averse to escalating tensions, as it once did in Ukraine.

We know how seriously China takes such provocations, not to mention Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait. We understand that such NATO "games with fire" in those parts pose threats and risks for the Russian Federation. It is as close to our seas and shores as it is to Chinese territory.

We are developing military cooperation with Beijing, we are conducting joint exercises, including anti-terrorist exercises. Recently, an air policing event was held. For the first time, Russian long-range bombers landed at the airfields of the PRC, and the corresponding Chinese aircraft - on ours. These are precautionary measures that show our readiness for any eventuality.

Everyone understands perfectly well that, following Europe, NATO under the leadership of the United States is trying to create explosive situations in the Indo-Pacific region. They wanted to draw India into anti-Chinese and anti-Russian alliances, but it refused to join the structures that will have the character of a military-political bloc. New Delhi participates only in economic projects promoted in the context of Indo-Pacific strategies. Then Washington decided to form military-political blocs along another line – the Anglo-Saxon one. The United States, Great Britain and Australia have created an alliance of AUKUS, in which New Zealand, Japan, and South Korea are actively being "invited".

In Ukraine, the United States and the European Union are destroying all the principles of OSCE cooperation and promoting their unilateral approaches. More broadly, the Organisation itself is being destroyed and the region is being stuffed into the region by its member states with narrow, non-inclusive platforms like the European Political Community.

In the same way, Westerners are eroding the universal platform for cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region – ASEAN, around which the formats of the Asian Forum on Regional Security, East Asian Summits, meetings of defense ministers of the Association with partners – recognized by all systemically important mechanisms of cooperation in the field of security, economy and other areas – have been formed. Now all this is being actively undermined. Security issues have been "taken out" of the ASEAN agenda. Half of the members of the Association of the United States are trying to join their plans. The second part of the ASEAN countries sees risks and does not want to do it.

The destructive nature of Washington's actions against the universal structures created in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region and designed to resolve security issues on the basis of equality and a balance of interests is obvious. A course is being taken to constantly create irritants, "hot spots" in the hope that the United States itself is far away. The more crises Americans provoke, the more their competitors will weaken themselves and each other.

Now Europe is weakening itself, recklessly "running" after the United States and supporting its Russophobic policy and the use of Ukraine as a means of waging war against Russia.

Question: In your opinion, is it still possible in the foreseeable future to agree on the security guarantees that Russia has offered to the United States and NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: If our Western interlocutors realize their mistakes and express their readiness to return to the discussion of the documents we proposed in December 2021, this will be a positive factor. I doubt that they will find the strength and reason to do this, but if it happens, we will be ready to return to the conversation.

After our proposals were rejected, the West managed to take a number of steps that are in complete contradiction with the prospects for resuming dialogue. For example, at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Romania, they swore that Ukraine would be in the alliance - there are no changes in this. At the same time, as Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said, Ukraine must first win the war, and then it will be accepted into the alliance. The irresponsibility of such statements is obvious to any person who is more or less knowledgeable in politics.

We were ready to discuss security issues in the context of Ukraine and more broadly. The Westerners rejected our proposals of December 2021, and the military meetings and my talks with US Secretary of State E. Blinken in January of this year in Geneva ended in nothing. After the start of the special military operation, we warned that the assertion that no one but Ukraine itself would be able to resolve the issue of its membership in NATO leads to a dangerous scenario.

In March of this year, the Ukrainians asked for negotiations. After several rounds on March 29 of this year in Istanbul, they gave us something "on paper" for the first time. We supported the principles of the settlement contained in that document. Among them was ensuring Ukraine's security through respect for its non-aligned status, that is, its non-accession to NATO, a nuclear-free status - V.A. Zelensky will no longer declare that the renunciation of nuclear weapons in 1994 was a mistake - and the provision of guarantees on a collective basis not from NATO, but from the "five" permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany and Turkey. We agreed to that. A day or two later, the American "masters" said to the Ukrainians: "Why are you doing this?" It is clear that the United States should deplete the Russian army through Ukraine, as well as spend the maximum amount of weapons of European countries, so that then Europe, buying a new one from Washington, would provide income to the American military-industrial complex and corporations. Early, they say, the Ukrainians expressed their readiness to receive security guarantees from the Russians and to ensure a settlement on this basis.

We are accused of constantly asking for some kind of negotiations in order to "buy time to gather additional forces for a special military operation." It's funny and frustrating. People are blatantly lying. We have never asked for any negotiations, but we have always said that if someone has an interest in a negotiated solution, we are ready to listen to him. This is confirmed by the following fact - when in March of this year the Ukrainians made such a request, we not only met them halfway, but were also ready to agree on the principles that they themselves put forward. The Ukrainian side was not allowed to do this then, because the war had not yet brought enough enrichment to those who supervise and conduct it - and this is done, first of all, by the United States and the British.

Question: In your opinion, why is the OSCE Minsk Group on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict now inactive? Is it possible to resume its work?

Sergey Lavrov: The OSCE Minsk Group was created to unite countries with influence in the region that can send signals to Yerevan and Baku. We agreed to work under the chairmanship of Russia and the United States. At some stage, France, as is often the case, expressed a desire to join. We decided that Paris would also become one of the three co-chairs.

Since then, for more than a dozen years, the co-chairs have carried out useful work, met with the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan together and separately. One of the landmark joint events took place in Madrid in the late 1990s, and thus the Madrid Principles appeared, which were discussed, modernized and adjusted by the parties. At the turn of the 2010s, Russia became a leading co-chair. We held about ten trilateral meetings with the leaders of Yerevan and Baku. At the same time, representatives of the United States and France attended each time.

After a 44-day war, a ceasefire was reached in September-October 2020 with our mediation role. Russia continues to assist the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides in unblocking transport and economic communications in the region. This will give impetus to the development of other neighboring states (Turkey, Iran, Georgia). We agreed that our country will assist in the delimitation of the border and assist in agreeing on a peace treaty between Armenia and Azerbaijan. All this was the result of summits between the Presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia.

At the same time, we observed convulsive attempts by other players to "wedge" into these processes. We didn't have any problems with that.

The only thing that was noted in contacts with Yerevan and Baku was that after the start of the special military operation, the West, through Washington and Paris, officially stated that it would not cooperate with Russia anywhere and in any formats. Thus, they announced the completion of the activities of the OSCE Minsk Group. Our Armenian colleagues sometimes remember her. We answer that this is a question for the United States, France, which has stated that they will no longer assemble the Group, and Azerbaijan, since without its participation any mediation efforts are meaningless.

Now the French, Americans and the European Union are trying to compensate for the buried Minsk Group by "wedged" into mediation efforts. At the same time, they seek to "pick up" and privatize the agreements reached by the parties with Russian participation. For example, a meeting of the border delimitation commission is held in Brussels. Armenians and Azerbaijanis are polite people, they come, but how can you discuss delimitation without having maps of the former Soviet republics that exist only in the Russian General Staff? It's hard for me to imagine.

The same is true of the peace treaty. They went to Prague for the forum of the European Political Community and signed a document there that the peace treaty should be based on borders in accordance with the UN Charter and the Alma-Ata Declaration of December 21, 1991. The latter states that all union republics form the Commonwealth of Independent States and confirm the inviolability of borders within the limits that existed between the republics of the Soviet Union. At that time, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was part of the Azerbaijan SSR. Armenia, Azerbaijan, France and the European Council represented by Charles Michel approved this within the framework of the above-mentioned document and recognized the Declaration of Alma-Ata without reservations. This facilitates further work and resolves the issue of how to approach the status of Karabakh.

It is not for nothing that the Armenian leadership has recently been talking not so much about the status as about the need to ensure the rights of the Armenian population in Karabakh. Baku agrees with this, which is ready to discuss the provision of guarantees of the rights possessed by other citizens of Azerbaijan. No one remembers the OSCE Minsk Group anymore. Sometimes in Armenia, some politician says something about it, but the Minsk Group was buried by the French and Americans. We have nothing to do with it.

Question: How would you comment on the contradictory statements of Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on the armenian-Azerbaijani peace treaty and Nagorno-Karabakh? He used to say that Artsakh is Armenia, period. He urged to put the Karabakh people at the negotiating table between the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides. After the summit in Prague in October this year, he said that Yerevan and Baku could conclude an agreement without mentioning Nagorno-Karabakh. On October 31 of this year, on the eve of the summit in Sochi, the Armenian authorities said that they support the Russian proposals for a peace treaty, which, in their understanding, provide for postponing the issue of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh "for later." After the meeting in Sochi, demands were made to Moscow to confirm Russian proposals for the normalization of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan. It's as if Russia was giving up something.

Sergey Lavrov: You have clearly described the chronology of events. Back in 2012, we had proposals that, if adopted, could close this problem once and for all. At least from that period, the concept of postponing the status of Karabakh "for later" appeared. It was simple: Armenians withdrew from the five Azerbaijani districts around Karabakh, leaving behind two districts that connect Armenia with Karabakh. Their fate (no one disputes that they are Azerbaijani) will be determined in conjunction with the determination of the status of Karabakh. Then for the first time there was a concept to postpone the status "for later" - for the next generations.

In the fall of 2020, there was a war. She focused on the preliminary contact stage. Trilateral statements were prepared, three trilateral summits were held: two in Moscow, one in Sochi. Then they also talked about the need to launch a political process. There was an understanding that the status of Karabakh could be postponed "for later". Proceeding from this, Russia formulated its own version of the peace treaty, which was transferred to the parties in the spring. It contained that phrase. The Azerbaijani side said that it is ready to support almost everything, but the status issue should be worked out further.

At the end of October this year we met in Sochi. We wanted to return to this issue and understand how our partners are ready to act on the basis of a gentleman's understanding – to resolve all issues, and leave the status of Karabakh "for later". President Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan brought to Sochi the same document from Prague, which stated that they wanted to sign a peace treaty, guided by the UN Charter and the Alma-Ata Declaration of 1991 on the creation of the CIS. It clearly states that the borders between the new states will be based on the administrative boundaries between the union republics of the former Soviet Union, where the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast is clearly part of the Azerbaijan SSR. Having signed this agreement, our Armenian colleagues are now asking us to confirm The Russian proposals on the status of Karabakh. This is not from the "opera" of negotiation, but from some other.

Question: Pope Francis has repeatedly proposed mediation and expressed his readiness to organise peace talks between Moscow and Kiev. At the same time, the Holy See stresses the need for durable solutions and responsible concessions on both sides. When it comes to concessions, what does that mean to you? What role could Italy, France and Germany play? Or does nothing else depend on these European countries?

Sergey Lavrov: Pope Francis has been expressing his readiness to provide his services in public statements for quite some time. French President Emmanuel Macron periodically speaks from the same position. Even German Chancellor Friedrich Scholz said that he would continue to talk with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. Over the past two weeks, Emmanuel Macron has regularly stated that he plans to talk with Vladimir Putin. That was very peculiar, because by the time he began to announce this, we had not received any signals through diplomatic channels. The French have a way of making their diplomacy extremely public. We waited for him to call if he really intended to. But the other day he was once again asked about it by journalists. Emmanuel Macron replied that he would not try to contact Vladimir Putin until he went to Washington. From this we conclude that in the US capital, the President of France will discuss not only the weakening of Europe's competitive advantages, but also consult on Ukrainian affairs.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has repeatedly said that he communicates with both Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky. Apart from the Holy See, I have not heard any initiatives from Italy as a country. My colleague A. Tajani, in his current capacity as Foreign Minister we have not yet met, says some ideas aimed at finding solutions. However, no one is proposing anything concrete.

We discussed Ukraine's proposals in detail on March 29 this year, but We accepted them, but Kiev was forbidden to implement them. It is necessary, they say, to exhaust Russia, and europe to sell weapons so that it gives everything to Ukraine.

Pope Francis is calling for talks, but recently made an incomprehensible statement, not at all Christian. The head of the Vatican singled out the two nationalities of the Russian Federation in a "category" from which atrocities can be expected during hostilities. The Russian Foreign Ministry, the Republic of Buryatia and the Chechen Republic reacted to this. The Vatican noted that this will not happen again. Like, there was a misunderstanding. It doesn't help the authority of the Holy See either.

On the question of possible concessions. When we formulated our proposals in December 2021 (the draft treaty with the United States and the agreement with NATO), we wrote these documents honestly. It wasn't a request position. Otherwise, the first point would require NATO to disband itself, and the United States to withdraw its troops from Europe, starting with tactical nuclear weapons located in Italy, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey. That's when it would be a request position.

We approached honestly. We tried to find a solution that would suit both the Americans and NATO. We tried to look at the current situation through the eyes of our Western colleagues. Here's how these documents came to be. They seemed to contain fair proposals and relied on repeated assurances. In particular, we proposed a return to the military configuration of 1997, when NATO undertook under the NATO-Russia Founding Act not to deploy substantial combat forces on the territory of the new members.

In Istanbul, the Ukrainians proposed a settlement. We accepted it, to a certain extent, making concessions. It was about the situation "on the ground" at that particular moment. You can fantasize for a long time who is able to offer what. I would like to emphasize that our proposals are from December 2021. were not a request move to have it rejected. In our view, they offered a balance of interests.

Question: As you just stated in your opening remarks, one of the reasons for the SVO in Ukraine is the desire to protect the Russian-speaking population. How can you justify missile attacks on civilians and infrastructure that deprive people of access to water and electricity, including in the Area of Kherson, which Russia considers its territory?

Sergey Lavrov: The city of Stalingrad was our territory. We beat the Germans there so that they escaped from there. The Russian Ministry of Defense, military experts (Russian, American, other NATO countries) draw attention to the fact that Russia's special military operation from the very beginning was implemented in the mode of minimizing any negative consequences for the civilian population and infrastructure currently under attack. It is no secret that it provides the combat potential of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and nationalist battalions. Strikes are carried out with high-precision weapons, energy facilities are disabled, on which the functioning of the Armed Forces of Ukraine depends and the delivery of a huge number of weapons to which the West is pumping Ukraine in order to kill Russians.

Recently, one of the European politicians said that it is necessary to supply weapons capable of "reaching" objects deep on the territory of Russia. We can see it all. Talk that the West is interested in a peaceful settlement does not impress us. Westerners have publicly announced that they want Russia not just to be defeated "on the battlefield," but to be destroyed as a player. Some even hold special conferences, thinking about how many parts to divide our country into and who will lead what part of it.

We are disabling energy facilities that allow Ukraine to be pumped with lethal weapons to kill Russians. Needless to say, the U.S. and NATO are not involved in this war. They are directly involved, not only in the supply of weapons, but in the training of personnel. Military personnel are trained on the territory of Great Britain, Germany, Italy and other countries. In addition, Western instructors by the hundreds (their number is increasing) work directly "on the ground", show the Ukrainian military how to shoot the "things" supplied there. It is worth noting the large number of mercenaries.

Intelligence, including the entire Starlink civilian satellite system, has been put to the service of targeting the Ukrainian military. They are transmitted through other channels as well. The overwhelming majority of the targets that the Nazis are hitting in the Ukrainian battalions and the Armed Forces of Ukraine are determined by the Western masters of this regime. We need to write about it honestly. Facts abound.

We eliminate with high-precision weapons infrastructure facilities used to support the military operations of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.

In social networks (Telegram and others), you can find the opinions of experts who show not in words, but on the facts of the difference between this military operation and what the United States did in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the French in Libya.

A participant in the campaign against Yugoslavia in 1999, who was one of the employees of the headquarters where the targets were determined, tells how at one meeting a week after the beginning of the aggression it was reported that all military targets had ended, there were two bridges used by the Yugoslav military. Destroyed them. We began to wonder what else could be done. It turned out that there were several dozen other civilian bridges that were not used by the military. And they were bombed. One bridge was destroyed when a passenger train was running along it. No collateral damage. It was just an attack on a civilian object. When the building of the television center and the tower were bombed in Belgrade, it was explained that television broadcasts propaganda and supports the morale of the Yugoslav army.

The logic is the same as that used now in France, when, by order of President Emmanuel Macron, accreditation to the Elysee Palace is denied at the press conference of Russia Today and Sputnik. The President of France personally said that they would not let them in, since they are not the media, but the means of propaganda. I hope that the headquarters and offices of Russia Today and Sputnik in Europe will not be attacked by the West, as it bombed a television center in Yugoslavia.

Look at Afghanistan. A blow to a crowd of people. Then it turned out that 200 people went to celebrate the wedding. Russia is not a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The Americans are not either, but in every possible way "encourage" this structure to open cases against those whom the United States considers bad.

A few years ago, the ICC suddenly decided to figure out what the Americans were doing in Afghanistan and how they behaved there. There have been numerous reports of Australians, British, Americans committing war crimes there. The government in Australia still requires participants to provide evidence that they are innocent of war crimes.

When the ICC began to consider the possibility of opening a case to investigate US war crimes in Afghanistan, Washington did not hesitate to say that it would sanction the prosecutor and all judges. The ICC was silent on the subject.

We are ready to discuss the issue of how to conduct hostilities in modern conditions. Let's leave that to the professionals. For the sake of conjuncture, we will not seek to make unfounded statements, blaming one person for everything and forgetting that there are much more serious situations that everyone ignored, including the media working in the Russian Federation or covering what is happening in our country.

In 2013, there was unrest on the Maidan, and in 2014 there was a coup d'état contrary to the settlement agreement reached with the mediation of the European Union. We warned that the people who came to power and proclaimed their goal to expel Russians from the Crimea and ban the Russian language pose a real threat, they need to be "appeased". No one "lifted a finger." Then there was the war, the Minsk agreements, guaranteed by the European Union, again no one did anything. Neither P.A.Poroshenko nor V.A.Zelensky did not comply with them. They said that they had abandoned nuclear weapons in vain, that they would return Crimea, and by signing the Minsk agreements, they bought time, and now they will be given weapons and they will solve everything by military force.

Several times a year, they appealed to Berlin, Paris, and Washington as controlling the Kiev regime to reason with it, to calm down outright racists. There was no reaction. For years, we've caught their attention. Now the media is making noise, as if they did not follow what was happening in Ukraine after the Minsk agreements, as if they had not heard our calls for prudence.

Compare the hysteria now unfolding in Western political circles, which the media is trying to impose, with what happened when the US bombed Iraq. Not because they warned for years that The English language or Hollywood movies were banned in Iraq, but because they took a test tube and said it was a biological weapon. And they bombed not a country that posed a threat right on the US border, but ten thousand miles away. Because they can. This is the rule by which their world order should be arranged. Our case is an attempt to protect our legitimate interests under international law, not Under American rules.

What annoyed Libya? Only because Gaddafi did not like one of the European leaders or one of his neighbors. The country lived "chorus", like Iraq. With all the severity of the autocratic regimes, the economic and social situation there was incomparably better. There were no millions of refugees from Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya in Europe. Were you puzzled by that then? When Kirkuk in Iraq and Raqqa in Syria were razed to the ground, dozens of corpses lay for weeks. Everyone fled from there.

It seems that Western propaganda begins to worry only when people who have sworn allegiance to the West suffer. From them, Westerners want to make a tool for achieving their geopolitical and military goals. In this case, it's the Ukrainians.

In immeasurably large numbers, the West has killed Arabs in Iraq, Libya, Syria, or Afghans in Afghanistan. I don't remember such care for the civilian population. It turns out that these are people of the second,third,fourth class. And Ukrainians, who consider themselves descendants of the ancient Romans, apparently deserve special protection through Western institutions and structures.

I lament and worry about any human life, especially if it is lost as a result of hostilities and damage to civilian infrastructure. Let us consider these issues honestly, without double standards.

A lot of materials, statistics, arguments from Western political scientists, specialists in the conduct of war, who know how it is conducted, where it is conducted recklessly, ignoring all deterrents, and where the armed forces themselves are trying to limit themselves as much as possible so as not to damage the civilian population and civilian infrastructure.

Question: Russia and the United States fulfilled the main goals of arms reduction within the framework of START-3 in 2018. Five years later, isn't it time for more ambitious steps to reduce strategic offensive arms? What steps does the United States expect in this direction for Russia, if any steps at all?

Sergey Lavrov: This is not a question for me. We did not take a pause in the negotiations on new possible agreements in the field of limiting strategic offensive arms – post-START. Such negotiations took place. The first round was held in July, and the second in September 2021. The Americans wanted to put at the forefront our new types of weapons announced in 2018 – first of all, five hypersonic weapons systems. We didn't give it up. It was understood that two of these five systems (Sarmat and Avangard) could well be built into the existing START-3 Treaty of 2010. We expressed our readiness to discuss further possible steps on arms control, taking into account our new systems, with the understanding that the Russian side is also interested in the Americans taking some steps towards rapprochement of positions.

At the September meeting in 2021, the negotiators managed to agree that further work would be carried out within the framework of two expert groups: one was to determine which types of weapons are of a strategic nature and can be used to achieve strategic goals. This is crucial for us. We proposed to approach the definition of the subject of the future treaty systematically, and not from the point of view of including something new in it. First, we need to analyze what we and them have is really strategic, independent, nuclear or non-nuclear. The American system of lightning global strike "Prompt Global Strike" is non-nuclear, but even more effective in achieving military goals. You need to keep a balance if something new appears. We agreed that the experts will sit down and honestly consider how to work out what Vladimir Putin called the "security equation".

In 2021, COVID-19 did not prevent us from having two fairly useful meetings. But after September, the Americans showed no desire to continue. This was long before the start of the special military operation. It's hard to judge what was the cause. Probably, the responsibility of Russia and the United States as the two largest (at this stage) nuclear powers does not disappear anywhere. There is a joint statement by the presidents of June 2021 that a nuclear war cannot be won by anyone, so it cannot be unleashed. There is a corresponding similar statement by the leaders of the five nuclear-weapon States. I have already said more than once that we were ready to go further and say that not only is it impossible to unleash a nuclear war, but any war between nuclear powers is unacceptable. Even if someone decides to start it by conventional means, there will be a huge risk of escalating into a nuclear war. Therefore, we are watching with alarm the rhetoric spewed by the West when accusing Russia of preparing some provocations using weapons of mass destruction. At the same time, the West itself, including the three nuclear powers – the United States, Great Britain and France – is doing everything to increase its almost direct participation in the war waged by ukrainians against Russia. This is a dangerous trend.

Question: European security also means energy security. Now in Europe there is a discussion about the price ceiling for Russian oil. Russia's position is well known. If we assume that the price will be quite high (there are different figures - 30, 60 dollars per barrel). If the price is at the market level, what will happen in this case? Will Russia's refusal to supply energy resources to countries that recognize such a mechanism follow? How much does price play a role?

Sergey Lavrov: Our position was stated by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak, who oversees energy. Let me repeat that we will not supply oil to those countries that will "follow the lead" of the "dictators". To dictate prices to the market on the part of those who for many decades defended the freedom of the market, the integrity of competition, the unacceptability of infringement of private property, the presumption of innocence is an interesting development of events. Among other things, it sends a powerful long-term signal to all states that they need to think about how to move away from the use of tools imposed by the West as part of its globalization system.

Russia was no longer "liked." China is becoming the target of sanctions. He is forbidden to sell and buy goods that Americans want to use to strengthen their competitive advantages. Anyone could be next. There is no doubt that the seeds of a long-term process of reformatting global mechanisms have now been sown. Taking into account the tricks to which the European Union resorts, there is no confidence in the dollar, the euro can be used in fraud. The head of the European Commission, W. von der Leyen, tried to justify the laws that need to be adopted in order to steal money from the Russian state and citizens. In the EU, there is a tendency to return to colonial methods to live at the expense of others. America is at the expense of Europe. Europe must also live at the expense of someone. Invent. They want it at our expense.

I am sure that we will not abandon this principle. It's not about getting more revenue for your oil today, but about moving on to building a system independent of these neocolonial methods. We are doing this with our BRICS colleagues (and with a dozen countries wishing to closely coordinate with BRICS), the SCO, the EAEU, and bilateral relations with China, Iran, India and other countries.

We are not interested in what the "price ceiling" will be. We will negotiate with our partners directly. They will not "look" at the "ceilings" and give guarantees to those who illegally introduce these "ceilings". When we negotiate with China, India, Turkey and other major buyers, there is always an element of a balance of interests in terms of timing, volume and price. This should be resolved on a reciprocal basis between the producer and the consumer, and not by some "uncle" who decided to punish someone.

Question: In your opening remarks and answers to your questions, you spoke in detail about Russia's position on European security. We heard about it a year ago. As Foreign Minister of Russia, how do you assess the likelihood of a meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden next year or your meeting with US Secretary of State Ellen Blinken? Are any high-level meetings even possible in the near future?

Sergey Lavrov: Today's assessments of the state of European security practically coincide with what we said in 2020 and 2021, which only underlines the consistency of our position, the long-term nature of the crises in the European security system, and the Reluctance of the West to hear what we are saying.

There is a principle when collective security "does not work", then everyone independently worries about their own security. The threat to Russia posed by the U.S. and its Ukrainian allies is real, existential. Remember our compatriot Zbigniew Brzezinski, who said back in 1994 that everything must be done to tear Ukraine away from Russia, because Russia with Ukraine is an empire, and Russia without Ukraine is a regional player. In 1994, we had excellent relations with the Americans. But even then, no one wanted Russia to become at least somewhat independent. That's where it all grew and accumulated from.

He gave the example of Iraq. I wanted to tell them that there are also WMDs in Iraq. The next morning we flew and began to bomb. It turned out that nothing was found there either. Then T. Blair said that "they were mistaken, with whom it does not happen." Hundreds of thousands of people were buried. The country lived normally. There were no particular socio-economic problems. Just destroyed. It is still being assembled piece by piece, as is Libya. And it's all 10,000 miles away, across the ocean. And they can do anything. At the same time, they say that these are all different things. They say they are fighting for democracy. Therefore, they can kill up to a million plus people, which, in fact, they did. Where is the democracy in Afghanistan? In Iraq? In Libya? Terrorism has flourished everywhere. There are millions of refugees in Europe who could have been avoided.

With Ukraine, we did not just "stand up". It's not that we didn't like V.A. Zelensky, because he stopped playing in KVN or stopped maintaining his Studio Kvartal-95, and we "went to war" in Ukraine. It's not that. We warned them for many years. And nothing happened.

We want to first understand who has what to offer. You asked about the contacts between Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden. We have said many times (including the Russian president) that we never leave contacts. When German Chancellor Friedrich Scholz wanted to come, please. French President Emmanuel Macron wanted to come, please. Want to make a phone call? Everyone who asks for a telephone conversation receives such an opportunity without time limits. Our president communicates with everyone. We don't hear any meaningful ideas yet.

Our American colleagues proposed holding a meeting between William Burns and Sergei Naryshkin. We agreed. Moreover, the Americans themselves told us ten times that this should be an absolutely confidential channel. We should not announce it so that no one knows anything. It was supposed to be serious and should not be subject to external propaganda information intrigues. We agreed. But as soon as they arrived in Ankara, it immediately "leaked". I don't know where it's coming from , from the White House, from the State Department. And now the US chargé d'affaires in Moscow, Eleanor Rood, says that they will continue to support this confidential channel. Sergei Naryshkin was also forced to speak and said what topics were discussed: nuclear security, strategic stability, the Kiev regime, and the situation in Ukraine in general.

Americans and other countries say they will not discuss Ukraine without Ukraine. Firstly, NATO discusses Ukraine without Ukraine, when Ukrainian delegates are not invited there, and secondly, it is crystal clear to everyone that it is impossible to discuss strategic stability today, ignoring everything that is happening in Ukraine. The goal there is not to save Ukrainian democracy, but to defeat Russia on the battlefield, and even to destroy it. How can such a goal not matter for strategic stability? When they want to destroy one of the key players in the field of strategic stability. At the same time, we are told that Ukraine should be discussed with Ukrainians, and when Ukrainians want. And let's discuss nuclear weapons and strategic stability. This is naïve, to say the least.

If there are proposals from the President of the United States and other members of the Administration, we will never avoid contacts. E. Blinken called once a long time ago. And then he kept worrying about American citizens who are convicted and in prison. Although he is well aware that in order to consider this particular topic, the presidents agreed in June 2021 in Geneva to create a completely different channel, a channel between the special services. It works. I hope that some results will be achieved. Mr Blinken and I had no contacts on general political issues. As I understand it, there is a "division of labor" in Washington. J. Sullivan's staff wants to do something. The State Department wants to do something else. We do not delve into the vicissitudes that may exist in the American bureaucratic machine. It's up to the president and other leaders to decide.

Question: You have already mentioned the meeting of the North Atlantic Council that ended the day before yesterday in Romania. Many remembered how it was in Bucharest at that time that US President George W. Bush first offered Georgia and Ukraine to become members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

I would like to ask you to comment not so much on this as on the statement made by Secretary of State Ellen Blinken, who spoke about the need to expand NATO's infrastructure in the black sea to the Baltic Sea. What does this mean for Russia? How will Moscow respond to this?

Sergey Lavrov: As for this statement, it followed parallel to the statement of Jens Stoltenberg, who said that in order to achieve peace in Ukraine, it is necessary to continue pumping the Kiev regime with weapons. Schizophrenic approach. If you want peace, prepare for war. Only here do not prepare for war, but if you want peace, fight to the end. That's the logic.

The words of E. Blinken are indicative from the point of view of who is now "ordering music" in NATO. The idea of the Three Seas – to build a cordon against the Russian Federation (from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea) – was originally Polish, actively supported by the Balts, and promoted for several years as a concept of "revival" of Polish greatness. They began to move it before a special military operation, and then became more active. The fact that E. Blinken has now picked up this logic is very revealing. This means that the Americans rely in the further development of the North Atlantic Alliance on countries such as Poland and the Baltic States, which occupy the most Russophobic, racist positions. And countries such as Germany and France are receding into the background. I have already commented that the "concept of strategic autonomy" promoted by the President of France clearly does not fall "in tune" with American thoughts. The Americans believe that no "strategic autonomy" is needed in the European Union. They will decide for themselves how the EU will ensure its security according to American patterns. Former Chancellor Angela Merkel lamented in a recent interview that after the summit of Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin in Geneva in June 2021, she proposed to hold the EU-Russia summit together with Emmanuel Macron. She was banned. Who can, in normal times, forbid Germany and France to meet with anyone? This was done by the same Poles and Balts who are building this cordon, the concept of the Three Seas. This is a very significant indicator.

By the way, about the influence of the European Union. The EU guaranteed in February 2014 that there would be a settlement between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. Signed the relevant paper. It begins with the words "to create a government of national accord", "to hold early elections". President of Russia Vladimir Putin has spoken about this many times. They would have held early elections, as agreed. V.F. Yanukovych would not have won them in life. The same oppositionists who carried out the coup d'état the next morning would have come to power. It's not clear where they were in a hurry. They would fulfill the document guaranteed by Germany, France and Poland. There would be no Crimean referendum or further developments. No one would rebel against these people. Because there would be an agreement to hold elections.

This also did not happen without the American "contribution", everything we are talking about happened in February 2014, the Maidan ended, the settlement agreement was signed, and the EU countries acted as guarantors. Three weeks earlier, W. Nuland, who was then in charge of the post-Soviet space, was coordinating by phone with the US ambassador to Ukraine the composition of the new government of Ukraine, apparently expecting that this coup would soon take place. She gave several names, and the US ambassador to Ukraine told her that the European Union does not like this particular character. You remember that she said what needs to be done with the European Union. A four-letter word. Since then, much the same thing has been happening with the EU. At first, they did not give a damn about his guarantees and agreements between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. Then they didn't give a damn about the fact that the European Union, represented by Germany and France, guaranteed the Minsk agreements, which provide for a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk on granting a special status to these territories and preserving the Russian language. In 2019, the French and Germans once again invited the new President Zelensky to Paris. It was a meeting in the Normandy format. Once again, Vladimir Zelensky signed that he will negotiate a special status with Donetsk and Lugansk and consolidate it on a permanent basis. And he didn't do anything either. Time after time, the European Union has received a slap on the wrist for its mediation efforts. In 2018, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini said that when the EU is in the region (meaning the Balkans), there is no room for others. They say that the Russians have nothing to do in the Balkans, it is necessary to completely block the contacts of the Russians with Serbia and other Balkan countries.

In 2013, the European Union acted as a mediator between Belgrade and Pristina. The leaders of Serbia and Pristina were invited to Brussels. There they signed a document on the establishment of the Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo. The fact is that there are many Serbian enclaves in Kosovo. In addition to the northern part of this province, where Serbs predominantly live, there are a number of enclaves in the rest of the territory. They experienced serious discrimination and harassment by the Albanian majority, both in relation to their language, education in the Serbian language, the media, and in relation to the performance of religious rites in the churches of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which were also attacked by Albanians. We agreed to create a Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo. So far, no one wants to do that. Or rather, as the European Union has already understood, the Albanians in Pristina (they have publicly stated this) will not comply with this. The EU has signed off on its utter impotence. Now France and Germany are "wiped out" (sorry for the informal expression) and are promoting a new "initiative". It does not imply any rights for the Serbs in Kosovo and simply demands from Belgrade, if they do not want to recognize the independence of Kosovo, then let them not recognize it, but they must accept the fact that Kosovo in an unrecognized status will join international organizations including the UN, the Council of Europe and so on.

In this document about the Community of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo, it was exactly the same as in the Minsk agreements. Only in the Kosovo case it was about the rights of Serbs, and in the Minsk agreements about the rights of Russians in the Donbass. And the rights, both of them, were equally spelled out - this is the native language, education, the right to create their own law enforcement structures (local police), and in the Serbian regions of Kosovo and in the Donetsk and Lugansk people's republics, the right to vote in the appointment of judges and prosecutors. And the right to facilitate economic ties with neighboring regions, for Kosovo Serbs – with Serbia, and for Donbass – with the Russian Federation. All. Same thing, one-on-one, here and there.

The European Union has signed in its complete insolvency and non-negotiability. These tendencies to weaken the EU, on the one hand, are being actively increased by the Americans in financial and economic terms, and in political, geopolitical, and diplomatic influence, the European Union is independently doing everything to minimize its role.

Q: The situation in the world is getting worse. It turns out that the more we talk about security, the further it moves away from us. Which gives you optimism. What is it based on in this situation? Do you believe that it is possible to defend peace and avoid the worst-case scenario?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, I and all my closest colleagues in our Ministry, as well as colleagues from other departments and agencies (the Presidential Executive Office, the Government Executive Office), are accustomed not to philosophizing about "succeed or fail". Those who do not work, do not achieve the result. Whenever we see a problem, we strive to solve it, throwing all our strength at it. It turns out – it does not work – we will think about it later, when we understand what we have achieved. There is not always a satisfactory result. But, as a rule, if you try, creatively approach the matter, always strive not only to formulate your own approaches, but also to hear your partner and understand how sincere this partner is, how much he wants to get unilateral concessions from you, or he is really ready to honestly, as written in the UN Charter, on the basis of the sovereign equality of states, or, as written in the OSCE documents, on the basis of consensus is ready to look for compromises. When you understand a partner (there is no substitute for live communication, because it is difficult to understand online) that he is aimed at a compromise - then the result is obtained.

Let me give you an example. When John Kerry was Secretary of State in the United States, we communicated with him more, more often and longer than with any of our partners, including our closest neighbors. More than 50 times a year we met or talked on the phone. I saw in John Kerry a man who was genuinely interested in the result. He is ready to ensure that this result is not one-sided, pro-American, but common and would help us solve problems together.

He felt this mood when we met in April 2014 in Vienna, immediately after the referendum on the independence of Crimea and its accession to Russia. There was also the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, The British Catherine Ashton, and there was the acting head of the foreign policy service from the Kiev "coupsmen" A.B. Deshchyts. The four of us sat down and agreed on a paper that took note of the assurances of the Ukrainian authorities in April 2014 that they would solve the problem of Ukraine on the basis of federalization and decentralization. Further, it was written that this process will be started with the participation of all regions and regions of Ukraine. It seemed to me that John Kerry was in favor of this approach. He understood perfectly well that without such a broad dialogue, an attempt to impose the concepts and values of only the western part of the Ukrainian people (it was obvious that this coup was carried out by Westerners) would be disastrous. Unfortunately, then this concept went into oblivion. Apparently, some other "curators" were in the Ukrainian direction in the US State Department.

But we had positive results with him. In 2013, on the instructions of Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, we were able to agree on an agreement on Syria's accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention in record time. This made it possible to prevent the impending American attack on Syria.

Following this, in 2015, John Kerry and I had a negotiation process on Syria, which reached an agreement that was completely unthinkable at that time, and even more so today. Then our military deployed there and then the Americans entered the east of Syria. Russian and U.S. military personnel pledge to fight terrorism together. When we or they (the Russians and americans) determine the target to be destroyed, they will destroy it only in agreement with the other side. That is, we must coordinate our strikes with the Americans, and the Americans must coordinate their strikes with us. With this understanding, the armed forces of the Syrian Arab Republic were ready to stop using their combat aircraft. It was all agreed upon. The only thing is that John Kerry said that he needed to consult with someone there for a week. Then, unfortunately, it didn't happen.

It is necessary to tune in to negotiations not with the task of suppressing the enemy, but in order to achieve a result through a respectful dialogue.

In connection with the fact that you represent compatriots, I would like to express our solidarity with all those who continue to associate themselves with the Russian Federation, with their Motherland while living abroad, who cherish the language, raise children and grandchildren in their language, and try to promote the interpenetration of cultures. The diaspora is always the bearer of culture. And just as Germans and Italians have lived and continue to live in Russia for centuries, so Russians now in modern Europe carry our culture, enrich the countries in which they found themselves by the will of fate.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin recently commented on this situation. Culture cannot be abolished. It is not subject to any Borrels and other bureaucrats who are trying to stimulate Russophobic sentiments, who are trying to "tease" the ordinary population, to the extent that announcements are posted in restaurants that Russians are not served, and a conversation in Russian on the street in some Eastern European city can also become the subject of an incident.

We understand the pressure under which the organizations of our compatriots abroad are. In the United States, they are visited by representatives of the FBI and asked to explain what they are doing, and what these "organizations of Russian compatriots" are, and much more, even up to attempts at prosecution. It is all the more gratifying that our compatriots remain true to their choice.

We continue to work through the Government Commission for the Affairs of Compatriots Abroad. In 2021, we hosted the VII World Congress of Compatriots, with the participation of the President of Russia. This year there will be a thematic conference on how economic cooperation can stimulate our compatriots, and how they can develop cooperation in the countries where they live, with the Russian Federation. Businessmen of Russian origin from more than 80 countries participated in this conference.

Regional events are being held. This year they were held for the countries of Europe, Africa, the Middle East, America, the Pacific Ocean and Asia. Representatives of compatriots from these countries come together and hold their regional events.

Also this year, an important event was held - the international conference "Consolidation of women's associations and their role in modern social processes". They decided to create a World Federation of Russian-Speaking Women. I hope that Russian-speaking men will help them in this in every possible way.

I have no doubt that all citizens of Western countries, on the territory of which the Russian diaspora has settled, know perfectly well how positive and ready this group of people is both in business projects and in universal terms.