Lavrov Interviewed on The Great Game TV Program December 28, 2022

It's the end of the year and as usual Lavrov's getting interviewed by many news outlets. This one, The Great Game, is a very popular TV program airing on Russia's Channel One. As usual, the Russian transcript is machine translated to English. A video in Russian only is available at the same link as the transcript.

Question: I spoke with former US Secretary of State Kissinger a few years ago. Then I had just returned from Moscow and told him that if the policy of the United States and NATO – ignoring Russian concerns, and with a satisfied "smack" – continues, then Russia will have to use force. Kissinger replied, saying that if we do this, we will suffer great damage, and the whole of NATO will unite against us.

He was right: the "collective West" united in response to a special military operation and demonstrated even greater monolithicity than many of us expected. Russia stands proudly and confidently. Moscow definitely does not give the impression of a "city" that has faltered and doubts its rightness and strength.

How do you see the prospects for an escalation of hostilities, on the one hand, and serious negotiations on the other hand, next year?

Sergey Lavrov: You are right about the way in which the collective West has rallied its ranks. But this did not happen at the "call of the heart" of each member of the alliance. They were rallied, first of all, by the United States. The dominance mentality hasn't gone away.

A couple of weeks ago, I noticed a statement by a Stanford professor that the U.S. should be the global policeman to save the world. Not only NATO, but also the European Union, as an association that not so long ago claimed strategic autonomy in its speeches, completely submitted to a single western line. NATO and EU coordination centres are being set up, and neutral states (Finland and Sweden) are being drawn in. Long before that, the "mobility" program began to be introduced, which made it possible to use the transport and other infrastructure of non-NATO countries for the purpose of moving the alliance's equipment to the east, closer to our borders.

The other day, the Great Game discussed the profound changes taking place in the European Union and in Europe as a whole, regarding the shift in the center of gravity in favor of the benefit of Europeans, primarily Poland, the Baltic countries, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. Eurogrands in this situation are lost. Four years ago, French President Emmanuel Macron spoke about the need for Europe to rely on its own forces and have its own army. The "Strategic Compass" was invented as a step towards strategic autonomy. Emmanuel Macron spoke about the brain death of NATO, showing his disappointment in the processes imposed from overseas. That is out of the question now. The French president said that someday it will be necessary to build a security architecture in Europe, taking into account the interests of all countries, including Russia. But he was immediately pulled over by the "junior" members of the Western alliance. This is perceived by everyone as a natural course of things.

Regarding how Russia has been perceived all these years, including the period when you and Kissinger touched upon this issue. Western colleagues said that "Russia should know its place." They did it with pleasure. Apt observation. "Pleasure" manifested itself in almost all the years after the disappearance of the Soviet Union. At first, we were patted on the shoulder literally and figuratively. They believed that we were in the pocket of the "golden billion", becoming part of the Western system of globalization. Now it is called a system of "rules" on which the world order should be based. We were seen as an ordinary "junior" partner, owning the resources necessary for the West and to whom the West would give technology, preserving and consolidating the positions of the partner in its coordinate system. There, "music is ordered" by Western leaders, primarily the United States and its closest allies in Europe, who have shrugged their shoulders and consider themselves entitled to dictate further development paths for this continent.

G. Kissinger's article recently caused a lot of comments. We paid attention to estimates, forecasts, including options, how he sees a final settlement. Surprisingly, no one paid attention to the phrase that this article mentions as something for granted. It reads: "Two nuclear powers are vying for a country (Ukraine) with only conventional weapons at its disposal." Probably according to Freud. Although Kissinger is a wise man, he doesn't say anything in vain.

But this is a frank admission of who is at war with whom. The "collective West" led by the nuclear power, the United States, is fighting with us. This war was declared on us a long time ago: after the end of the coup d'état in Ukraine, orchestrated by the United States and supported by the European Union, after no one was going to fulfill the Minsk agreements (as it turns out). Angela Merkel once again confirmed this.

A few years before the end of her chancellorship, in a conversation with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, when he once again drew her attention to what was written in black and white – about the need to resolve issues of special status in a direct dialogue between Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk – she said that this was a "constructive ambiguity". They say that Russia decides everything in the Donbass, and it should negotiate with Kiev. This is not an epiphany at all, not a desire at the last moment to keep up with the "train", which is gaining Russophobic pace. It was deeply rooted.

At the Normandy Four summit in Paris in December 2019, experts from the Presidential Executive Office and the Foreign Ministry prepared an agreed text of the agreements confirming the fundamental provisions of the Minsk agreements. The "number one" was a ceasefire and the disengagement of forces along the entire length of the contact line. This was agreed upon by all.

When the four leaders sat down at a round table in the Elysee Palace, and the escorts were located along the perimeter, President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky said that he would not comply and sign up for the disengagement of forces along the entire line of contact. The maximum is to choose three experimental sites and try to carry out breeding there. Suspicions arose immediately, but we clarified the reason why there was such a metamorphosis between the consensus of experts and its destruction at the level of heads of state. The Americans sent a "signal" that if Vladimir Zelensky withdraws forces along the entire line of contact, the Russians will never give up Donbass.

Question: Do you know this as a fact that he received this kind of advice, an instruction from the United States?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't know from whom exactly. But they told him what I mentioned: if they withdraw their forces, they will drastically reduce their chances of taking these territories by force. They wanted to take by force for one reason – they did not want to fulfill the Minsk agreements in the part containing the conditions for restoring the territorial integrity of Ukraine. They are simple: the Russian language, its own local police (as in the United States in different states), the duty of the central government to consult when appointing judges and prosecutors, special economic ties with neighboring regions of Russia.

This is the case with the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and is also provided for by the agreement between Pristina and Belgrade (reached "under fanfare" with the mediation of the European Union in 2013) on the creation of the Community of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo. Approximately the same rights were granted to Serbs in the north of this province, as in the Minsk agreements to Russians living in the territories then in question.

V.A. Zelensky refused to restore the territorial integrity of Ukraine by granting part of his population the rights enshrined in numerous international conventions and the country's constitution, where the state's duty to ensure the rights of national minorities is still prescribed, and Russians are mentioned separately. Plan B existed for a long time, back in Paris in 2019, sometimes Ukrainian leaders said that the Minsk agreements were not in their interests, they offered to take it away by force.

The process of the Ukrainian tragedy has a rich history. Now they are trying to cancel its part explaining what is happening, as well as many other things. Russian culture in Ukraine has been abolished for many years. Laws began to be adopted under P.A. Poroshenko and continue to be rubber-stamped under V.A. Zelensky. A couple of years ago, they approved a law on the status of the Ukrainian language as the state language. This caused alarm even in the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, in the European Union, in the OSCE. But the most that these respected institutions were able to do then was to tell Ukrainians that the law can be kept, but then the existing legislation on national minorities can be updated.

A few weeks ago, the Verkhovna Rada adopted the law on national minorities in the second reading. This is an example of Ukrainian lawmaking. It states that the State guarantees the rights of all minorities to the extent derived from existing legislation. Everything that has already been destroyed (education, media, culture) is recognized in the new law on national minorities as the basis of rights that the Kiev regime is ready to endow national minorities with. The Romanian leadership has already become agitated. They began to speak loudly about the need for consultations, that no one asked them. It is well known about the attitude towards the Hungarians and how the Kiev regime treats the Hungarian minority. There is nothing to say about the Russians.

I'm sorry to make this preamble to your question. We are talking about the affirmation or non-approval of the neocolonial world order, which President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about. The West hides it under the slogan of respect for the "rules-based world order." When this term appeared, I asked my Western colleagues (we were still communicating at that time) to provide a list, a list of "rules", where it is fixed. It's pointless to be surprised. No one ever passed on any reference to specific "rules" where one could read how to behave. The answer is simple: these "rules" mean that everyone must obey the United States.

Question: These rules were put forward by the West, but were never approved at the UN.

Sergey Lavrov: Nowhere and never. No one saw them. When they first began to throw this into international discourse, we immediately became puzzled and tried to draw them into some sane discussion. But they didn't want to do any of that.

These "rules" best reflect the professor's statement from Stanford that the U.S. must be the world's policeman to save the world. Many U.S. doctrinal documents declare Russia an immediate threat. Not because we are somehow going to attack someone, but because we have challenged this world order. Next in line is China. A systemic, most formidable long-term challenge. The only power that can overtake the United States in almost all areas. Beijing in terms of nuclear weapons stockpiles and the development of its nuclear potential will soon reach the level of Moscow and Washington.

The answer to the question of whether to expect escalation can be found in various statements, assessments of political scientists. The Russian leadership does not talk about its intention to promote an approach that involves escalation. We are determined to ensure the fulfillment of the objectives of a special military operation. As President Vladimir Putin emphasized, our absolute priority is four new regions of the Russian Federation. They must be freed from the threats of Nazification to which they have been subjected for many years. It is necessary to ensure the safety of all people living there, respect for their rights.

Another important goal is to prevent the creation and preservation of any threats to our security on Ukrainian territory. Now they say that the West did not try to somehow push Ukraine to fight against Russia, but I consider the strangulation of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine to be real aggression.

Question: I want to clarify. When you talk about the four regions, do you talk about their administrative borders or the part of the territory that is now under the real control of the "Russia" state?

Sergey Lavrov: No. I am talking about their borders as part of the Russian Federation in accordance with the Constitution of our country. It's an obvious thing.

Question: In other words, these territories will still have to be liberated by Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course. This is a demand for the expression of will, which took place in all four regions. In the DPR and LPR for a long time, and in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions in the autumn of 2022.

Question: What do you expect to achieve at the end of the negotiation process or is ukraine's recognition of this fact a condition for the start of negotiations?

Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that we never reject a proposal to reach diplomatic agreements. The conditions under which we are ready to discuss them are well known. An integral part of these conditions is the ownership of four territories and regions of the Russian Federation. That's not all that needs to be discussed.

The second big block of problems, in addition to the fate of citizens who do not want to live under the rule of the current regime with an open Nazi and racist orientation and philosophy, is the security of the entire Russian Federation, which was exposed to numerous threats posed on Ukrainian territory. When someone now says that this is not the case at all, that all these exercises held in Ukraine, including in the Black Sea, were "military cooperation for peaceful purposes." The territory of Ukraine was quite actively "developed", including planning (we also know this) and the creation of a naval base on the Sea of Azov. You understand that then this sea was a sea of two states. The appearance of a naval base of Anglo-Saxon origin there radically changed the security situation. Just as plans were hatched before the coup d'état and before the referendum to create a military base in the then Ukrainian Crimea with an eye to neutralizing our capabilities in the Black Sea.

We do not conduct any spontaneous, offensive and bright operations, as practiced by the Ukrainian side, as a rule, regardless of losses. If only the media effect was achieved here and today, the West would continue to "glorify" the current leadership as representatives of true democracy, V.A. Zelensky is a hero for all time, so he cannot be denied anything. Something is denied to him. There are smart people in the West who understand that these people and this regime should not be given any kind of weapons.

"Anonymous experts" from the Pentagon have repeatedly said that they have no right to prohibit Vladimir Zelensky from striking at territories that are internationally recognized as Ukraine, including directly naming Crimea. There was several anonymous but reliable evidence that the modernization of the corresponding multiple launch rocket systems so that they acquire a range of up to 1,000 km was done directly by American specialists. No one hides the fact that data from satellites, both military and civilian, belonging to American owners, are actively used in real time to correct the fire. Goal-setting is directly carried out with the involvement of American specialists. We asked the Americans through the channels that our embassy still has: whether the decision to transfer the Patriot battery, given the complexity in its use, means that American specialists will be there. It was explained to us at length that this was not planned, because the United States does not want and will not fight directly against Russia. The Patriot will be operational for several months until Ukrainian servicemen master the technology. But dozens, maybe even hundreds, of U.S. troops are there. They were in Ukraine before the coup d'état. CIA officers occupied at least one floor in the Security Service of Ukraine. Now there is a significant apparatus of the military attaché. Military specialists are clearly engaged not only in paying visits to the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine. One way or another, direct advisory (maybe more than advisory) services are provided. There is also a group of specialists who (as the Pentagon explained in the US Congress) all these months monitored how American weapons are used. Therefore, when Congress tried to demand the creation of a special mechanism, the Pentagon replied that "they" were already watching all this there. It's a pretty interesting situation. Facts about how Western weapons appear on the "black markets" of Europe (so far, perhaps, already in other regions) abound. I asked my staff to make a selection from open sources in order to show our interlocutors what is still "swept under the carpet".

We are not in a hurry. This was stated by President of Russia Vladimir Putin. We want to end this war as soon as possible, which the West was preparing and eventually unleashed against us through Ukraine. The priority for us is the lives of soldiers and civilians who remain in the combat zone. We are a patient people. We will protect our compatriots, citizens and lands that have been Russian for centuries, based on these priorities.

Question: You quite rightly said that the West is waging a war against us through Ukraine and beyond. But the West and the U.S. hypocritically claim (because they do not officially send their troops to openly fight against Russia in Ukraine) that they are not a party to this conflict. Consequently, without fear of a third world war, including a nuclear war, they can send Ukraine any weapons, provide them with intelligence, and advise on the battlefield. We see that both the quantity and quality of weapons that the West provides to Ukraine are growing. The West is overcoming its own taboos, established a few months ago. What is Russia doing and what will it do in 2023 to persuade the West to abandon this dangerous logic and halt this trend?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe that we must continue our policy outlined by President Vladimir Putin on the ground, and strengthen our capabilities, both technologically and in terms of servicemen who have undergone serious training after partial mobilization. A significant part of them is already there, but most are not on the front line (where professionals and contractors are fighting). A significant part is in reserve. We will continue to strengthen our grouping. This decision was made in September 2022 and the commander of the joint forces group was appointed. We are engaged in actions that will allow us to work much more effectively in these territories in the very near future. I have no doubt about that.

We would also like to draw your attention to what you said – the pumping of Ukraine with more and more Western modern weapons. I follow the discussion in our society and in your program, and in other political science circles and formats.

Retired professional military officials talk about the need to block the supply channels of Western weapons. I am referring to railways, bridges and tunnels. I proceed from the fact that professionals cannot ignore this. They've been doing this for a long time. They make professional decisions about how to make it difficult, and ideally to interrupt, these deliveries. One of the methods used and is being applied is to damage the infrastructure, including energy, that serves the supply of these weapons. I am convinced that there are other plans that will be used in this regard.

We now have few opportunities to talk to the West. There is no particular desire when you read the statements of foreign ministers, prime ministers, presidents that it is necessary to deal with the security of Europe against Russia. They used to say "without Russia", and now they are "against" it. French President Emmanuel Macron's idea of creating a European Political Community, to put it bluntly, is the OSCE minus Russia and Belarus. This was said by a man who a little later said that it is important not to lose the opportunity to build some security structures with Russia. But the European Political Community will be strengthened. They are planning another summit in the spring and are trying to draw in all our neighbors except Belarus.

Against this background, we have no particular desire to talk with the West. When a specific situation arises and the West openly does illegal things, we ask questions. Recently, there was information that Greece is going to transfer its S-300 to Ukraine. We instructed our ambassador, he appealed to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Defense of Greece and reminded that these systems were transferred to Greece. Remember, when there was a story when they were supposed to be delivered to Cyprus, but then the West began to do everything to prevent this, given the island position of Cyprus and the fact that it was not a member of NATO. As a result, a compromise was reached, which suited everyone. This system was bought by Greece. Under the contract that secured this deal, the country has no right to transfer them to anyone without our consent. The Greeks were reminded of this. They said they remembered their commitment. We keep a close eye on this kind of thing. Moreover, the same problem of the provision prohibiting the transfer of our weapons to anyone applies to most of the weapons located in Eastern Europe, where they were produced under licenses (in the countries of the former Warsaw Pact). You have to be on the alert. A lot of illegal things are committed under the slogan "let's save Ukraine", because "Ukraine is Europe", and "Europe is Ukraine".

Question: Is the United States mistaken when it assumes that it is in a security situation, it should not be afraid of any escalation, a direct military clash with Russia, and therefore it can do whatever it wants in terms of providing military assistance to Ukraine before entering directly into the war with Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this not so long ago when he spoke at the Defence Ministry's expanded Board. He, as commander-in-chief, formulated our position (I will not add anything) regarding the new systems for our Navy, which have now been put into operation.

Question: Dimitri Simes began our conversation by saying that "the West has consolidated." It seems to me that the past year has shown an even more important trend. This is the formation of the world majority. Countries of the East and South that disagree with Western hegemony and refused to join the West against Russia. I perceive this year as a moment of truth in terms of relations with the West, and with the "non-West". Is our turn towards the world majority not an opportunistic, but a strategic direction of Russian foreign policy, which will continue and strengthen in the coming 2023.

Sergey Lavrov: I agree with those analysts who mention, analyzing the outgoing year, that the discord between the West, which claims hegemony and control over the implementation of "its rules" everywhere, on the one hand, and the world majority, on the other hand, is objective. It was maturing and sooner or later it would still have acquired material outlines. Our decision that we can no longer tolerate the humiliation of Russians and the creation of threats to the security of our country in Ukraine, so we launched a special military operation, served as a catalyst and dramatically accelerated this process.

It seems to me that most of the "non-Western" countries had already seen by that time after the sanctions that were imposed after the provoked coup against Russia, after the Crimean referendum, the unreliability of the system in which they are, like everyone else. It's a system of international currency, finance, globalization, supply chains, international shipping insurance, freight rates, and technological things that a handful of countries produce. The same guides that the Americans are now trying to veto. They imposed sanctions against Chinese companies producing conductors, clearly seeking to slow down the development of the PRC. Everything happened much faster.

Many countries are faced with the need to choose here and now. It is probably difficult to do this, given how much everyone was tied to the system of globalization created by the Americans and discredited by them, because Washington has proved its unreliability as the curator and operator of this system.

Yes, we have heard statements by the Chinese leadership that they are against hegemony and it is necessary to build a just world order; statements of the Indian leadership that they will be guided by the interests of India and it is pointless to persuade them for the sake of American geopolitical interests to forget about their own. Turkey, Algeria, not to mention Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua. Mexico, Argentina and Brazil are also not joining the sanctions. The process of forming a new world order, of course, will accelerate and is already accelerating. Objectively, it will be a whole historical epoch.

In one of your programs, I drew attention to someone's statement that globalization is ending, regionalization is beginning, that there will be several large blocs forming around regional leaders. Within the framework of these blocks, a replacement will be created for all tools and mechanisms that are now global in nature, but abused by those who created these tools. The debate was about whether the U.S. understood that. Someone mentioned that yes. Moreover, the Americans would like to accelerate the process of regionalization of the world economy and international relations in general. And China, also understanding the need for such regionalization and having nothing against it, creating its own tools and structures, would like this process to take more time.

When I heard that, I thought it was an interesting observation. We need to understand it better. But if the Americans really wanted to accelerate the process of regionalization of the world system, it would mean that they want to reach an agreement as soon as possible. The sooner you negotiate and agree, the better chance you are of retaining the leverage they had and that had global reach.

There is no doubt that the process has begun. Here it is not even a matter of choosing between the world majority and the West, we choose those who are reliable and negotiable, who are promising from the point of view of long-term projects, who will not look opportunistically, where it is possible to benefit and where it is impossible.

I discussed this at one time with my American colleagues (when we had channels for regular dialogue). Many in the U.S. Administration have recognized since the pandemic began that western democracy has limitations and benefits from what Americans call "autocracy." "Autocracy" is, by and large, a centralized state with a strong vertical that can quickly and efficiently make decisions that are executed throughout the territory. Of course, if you compare how different countries have handled COVID-19, there are many examples in one direction and the other. Our Chinese comrades eventually admitted that it was not entirely correct to close completely at once, because it prevented the development of herd immunity. Now they are correcting this flaw. But in terms of the number of victims, the United States is far ahead of everyone.

I had a conversation about this with former US Secretary of State Catherine Rice. I asked whether it prevents the leadership of a huge great country, diverse (despite the fact that the melting pot turns everyone into Americans) distraction every two years for a presidential or "parliamentary" election campaign? She said she was distracting. Their system is cumbersome, but that's their problem. They know how to solve them. On the one hand, these are their problems, but also the problems of the rest of the world. Because every time there are election campaigns, Americans need to invent some external topic – either a threat or a task. Then, given their weight on the world stage, global processes become "hostages" under the strong influence of their internal "conversations" and internal political struggles. Autocratic states (as they are characterized by the United States), with a centralized system of power, at least have the advantage that the "horizon" is much more predictable. For example, in China. One can argue to what extent this is consistent with the principles of democracy, but who says that democracy in the American version is the best form of government?

Perhaps Winston Churchill was partly right when he said that "democracy is the worst form of government." He went on to add that "not counting all the others invented so far." The world does not stand still, maybe something will be invented.

Question: I think Winston Churchill is also credited with another interesting saying, that "the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." I'd like to say that if you want to understand the wrongness of American democracy, talk to the average congressman and a lot of things will become clear.

A few days ago, you mentioned that there were reports in the American press (The New York Times, among others) that there are people in the Joe Biden administration who are seriously thinking about delivering a preventive blow to the top leadership of Russia. I called Washington and spoke to two people in the Administration who chose to remain anonymous.

Sergey Lavrov: I also quoted an anonymous source.

Question: They said that they could not vouch for everyone in the Executive Office (it is a big one), but, of course, there are no such plans to strike at the top Russian leadership and there cannot be. Do you believe, based on the fact that you know that indeed in Washington, someone with real power is developing plans for a strike against the Russian leadership?

Second question. In Washington, Secretary of State E. Blinken and National Security Adviser John Sullivan have repeatedly talked about how Washington warns Russia that it should not follow any path, otherwise there will be the most serious consequences. Would you like to take this opportunity to tell the Administration what would have happened if someone had tried to strike such a blow?

Sergey Lavrov: I used an anonymous source, but unlike you (you know your anonymous people), I don't know it. I know he was "advertised" as a high-ranking one.

Q: Did the New York Times advertise?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes.

Q: So the New York Times took him seriously?

Sergey Lavrov: We are used to serious journalism. While there is more and more indication that this is not always the case, but nevertheless. I wanted to deliberately exaggerate this anonymous leak, because this source said (maybe it was her, now we need to say politically correct he or she or it) that such a threat was voiced, and in principle the Kremlin should not feel safe. Somehow. There was nothing personally about Vladimir Putin. But it was clear. I decided to emphasize this deliberately, because it sounded against the background of not falling silent "talking heads". A "talking head" is, apparently, one that can only speak. Not really thinking. From Kiev the same A.M.Danilov...

Question: Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, a great specialist in international affairs. M.M.Podolyak...

Question: Advisor to the Head of the Presidential Executive Office of Ukraine.

Sergey Lavrov: "We will reconquer Crimea" and "Let the Kremlin know that we will reach them and drop our bombs there." They say it all every day.

When a similar but slightly less vulgar thesis came from an "anonymous source in Washington," it was all perceived without any reaction from the Administration itself. Journalists did not ask Ms Jean-Pierre at the briefing what they thought about this. When asked about Crimea, an anonymous Pentagon spokesperson responded that they could not ban Ukrainians from operating their armed forces on what they consider to be Ukraine. This is a major change of position.

In April 2014, after the coup d'état and the referendum in Crimea (I have already mentioned this, it should not be a secret), we met in Geneva. US Secretary of State John Kerry, your humble servant, head of EU diplomacy Catherine Ashton, and Alexander Deshchytsia, who served as curator of the foreign policy department for the putschists. We sat and discussed a paper consisting of one page, in which the main thesis was support for the federalization of Ukraine and the beginning of the process with the participation of all regions of Ukraine. This was perceived in an absolutely natural way by the EU delegate and John Kerry. Then this "piece of paper" did not go anywhere. But it didn't gain any status. At the same time, John Kerry and I had long bilateral conversations. In one of them, he said that they are well aware that the choice of the Crimeans is sincere and there is no doubt here. But, they say, it is necessary to somehow formalize, to hold a referendum once again, inviting the OSCE, the UN, and someone else in advance. And then everything was done "in a hurry". I explained to him that this was done because it took place immediately after the putschists threw into Crimea "friendship trains" with armed thugs, the Right Sector and other neo-Nazi ultra-radical groups that stormed the building of the Supreme Council of Crimea. The population did not want to wait for a repetition of such aggressive provocations.

President Joe Biden constantly says that in order to avoid World War III, Ukraine must "win." He just recently said that. I don't really understand the logic because then he says that "we will not fight directly with Russia, otherwise it will be a third world war." And after a while, he added, in order to avoid this, "it is necessary that Ukraine wins." We don't have a channel of dialogue. From time to time, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mikhail Milley calls Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Vladimir Gerasimov, and US Secretary of Defense Leonid Austin has spoken with our Minister Sergei Shoigu a couple of times during this time. It's good and useful. But everything is limited by the fact that you need to be careful.

Question: At one time, When She was US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton formulated the principle of American diplomacy, which is still in force today. It's "going and chewing gum at the same time." In this case, if we talk about Russian-American relations, it implies that the United States is restraining Russia, helping Ukraine in everything, trying to help Ukraine "defeat Russia on the battlefield." But at the same time, they want to talk to Russia on issues that interest them. Now they are interested in talking with Russia about the resumption of inspections of nuclear facilities as part of the implementation of the START-3 treaty. The United States appeals to the fact that we are nuclear superpowers and for the sake of strategic stability, we need inspections. In my opinion, this is very hypocritical. I see the main threat to strategic stability precisely in the hybrid war that the United States is waging against us, and not in whether or not there are inspections. Anyway, do we need it? Yes, this is one of the opportunities for dialogue with the United States, but in the context of how it is presented by the United States, is it necessary?

Sergey Lavrov: In my youth, I walked easily, chewing gum and did not experience any inconvenience. It's the American image. We speak in different idioms, including how fish lovers behave.

You're absolutely right. They are interested in the resumption of inspections. Naturally, we analyze the situation. According to our assessment, they need this in order to understand "and if suddenly", then what to expect. This is despite all the "incantations" about the inadmissibility of nuclear war, to which we remain one hundred percent committed. Recently, this was reaffirmed in our special statement, referring to the Russian-initiated statements of the nuclear "five" that there can be no winner in a nuclear war, and it can never be unleashed. In June 2021, at the summit, Presidents Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin, on our initiative, updated and reconfirmed the relevant statements of the late 1980s by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.

They want to do these inspections. They send us signals, representatives of the National Security Council call and they really want to resume everything. We (absolutely in line with your analysis that stability is not ensured by inspections) quote this treaty. The preamble of this treaty says that the Russian Federation and the United States, "working in this regard to strengthen new strategic relations based on mutual trust, openness, predictability and cooperation," etc. Now all this has been crossed out by the United States. We are practically called the enemy. There is no trust. They tell us this directly. The same preamble states that the parties recognize the inextricable link between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons. Yes, this was the maximum that the Americans were willing to do in order to indicate an understanding of our concerns about their plans for missile defense, for the creation of a global missile defense, but, nevertheless, this connection is enshrined in the treaty. Even at the previous stage, before the current events, as part of consultations on the implementation of the contract, we drew their attention to the fact that there is a connection. It adds that the link not only exists, but is crucial for future conversations about strategic arms reduction. They say "it's the preamble." We draw their attention to the fact that our State Duma, upon ratification of the treaty, made a statement that without mentioning the close inextricable link between offensive and defensive strategic weapons, ratification would not have been possible. It's not some "prelude" to something that doesn't matter much, it's a legal fact. Of course, they are violating that commitment. Global missile defense is being built along the perimeter of our and China's borders. All the talk that "don't worry, it's all against Iran and the DPRK" is a thing of the past. No one remembers that anymore. It is openly declared that anti-missile systems should help "deter" Russia and China.

Under these conditions, if they see in this contract only one important thing for themselves: "let us come and see," this is not very fair. From a technical point of view, the sanctions have seriously complicated our ability to carry out counter-inspections. Even if there is permission for the aircraft to fly through all the territories of the countries on the way (hypothetically) to Geneva, the members of the delegation and crews, as we have analyzed, will experience serious difficulties with payments for hotel, meals, refueling of the aircraft. None of that they can guarantee. "Let's resume, and then we'll see." The technical topic is absolutely secondary, and even third-rate.

Strategically, they have undermined all the foundations on which this treaty is based. Nevertheless, we, having stated all this to our American colleagues, said that we are fully committed to our obligations under the treaty insofar as they can be implemented on an equal basis: we will provide them with the information provided for in the treaty in a timely and full manner and send appropriate notifications.

Question: Continuing the topic about the real threat to strategic stability, Joe Biden said that in order to prevent a third world war, "Ukraine must win on the battlefield." What do you think the U.S. will do when Ukraine loses on the battlefield? That seems inevitable to me. They convinced themselves that this war is not only and not so much for Ukraine, but for American leadership, the notorious "rules-based world order", that is, American hegemony, etc. What will they do when Ukraine loses?

Sergey Lavrov: You are baffling me. I usually try to think before I say something. And that, I admit, does not always work. When a person says such things, they probably have something "in reserve" for such a case, if it was a conscious statement.

Now everyone is talking about the need for negotiations again. But then they accuse us of abandoning them. Although President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that there are no serious proposals.

The example of the Istanbul story clearly shows that even then they were "slapped on the hands" and told: "It's early. You have not yet exhausted Russia to the stage when it seems to us Americans that this is enough." When they say that Kiev is "ready" and Russia "does not want to", this is done on the "blue eye", against the background of the fact that Kiev declares that it will never sit down at the negotiating table until they liberate their "native Ukrainian-Crimean" lands and others. Until Russia "capitulates" or pays "reparations," we will not be accepted into some new "party." And after the tribunal again. And in February 2023, new rows will be "knocked down". It will be interesting to see.

Now and for a long time everything is taken out of the framework of the UN. The French and the Germans created some platforms on international humanitarian law. Then they created the Alliance of Multilateralists led by the EU. When asked why this should not be done at the UN, where multilateralism is present as much as possible in the format itself, they answered that there are retrogrades, and they are multilateralists-progressives.

Then Joe Biden convened a "summit of democracies", deciding who is a Democrat and who is not. Now a "Democrat" in the American sense is someone who is loyal not even to the United States, but to the US Democratic Party. Linguistically understandable. Then the European Political Community was convened. Recently, the U.S. hosted the U.S.-Africa summit. Unlike us, who invited everyone to the first summit and everyone to the second in mid-2023, the Americans themselves decided what Africa was as a geographical concept. Six or seven countries were not invited, because there the governments came to power "illegally", i.e. not through elections. And in Ukraine, the government came to power simply through a bloody coup.

Question: As someone who has just arrived from Washington, I can argue with you. If the Joe Biden administration has decided that "something" is not Africa, then "something" is not Africa. You're already challenging the basics. If someone has decided that "this" is not Africa, why does Moscow disagree?

Sergey Lavrov: To finish listing these "freaks" and the prospect of creating a security forum without Russia again. V.A. Zelensky put forward a plan of ten points, and D.I. Kuleba is already painting curators from the western camp for each of the ten points. They will now give instructions.

Question: Going back to Henry Kissinger. He wrote years ago that leaders rarely lie to each other because unlike public diplomacy, when you're dealing with a rival, telling the truth and the full truth is somehow not entirely supposed. But when leaders talk to each other, they usually don't deceive each other because they will have to deal with each other again and a minimum of trust is a fundamental principle of diplomacy.

Now, it seems to me, we have come to a situation where there is no trust, when even Washington and Brussels boast that there is no trust and there can be no trust with Russia. When it is open after talks with you, the President of Russia announces what was said. When they say that there were warnings during the Georgian crisis of 2008, that it was necessary to "remove" Mikhail Saakashvili. When now both you and Vladimir Putin are credited with statements that (as it turns out later) have never been made.

I have a question for you: how do you work in such circumstances with your former American colleagues, who, nevertheless, remain a great power, with whom you have to deal with the minimal and public, and confidential dialogue that exists today. What kind of wish would you give? Not rhetorical, but serious to those who determine American policy in Washington, so that a serious dialogue can begin to take place in the new year.

Sergey Lavrov: As for dialogue, we would not like to make any wishes. They know perfectly well that we did not interrupt the dialogue. We are not going to ask for a resumption of dialogue. It's not in our tradition. It is our tradition to always respond to sound offers if there is an offer to meet.

There were several informal proposals during this period. Each time we agreed. One of them materialized. Meeting of CIA Director William Burns and Head of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergei Naryshkin in Ankara. It was supposed to be confidential, but everything "leaked". Little is kept secret these days. Although we always try to comply with this agreement. There were other parallel "runs". Also with reference to the "instructions" from Washington. We never refused. But then these "runs" somehow "came to naught".

I would like to wish to be a little more "democrats" not in their own sense, but in the international arena. When you start talking about the democratization of international relations, and not about something supernatural and new, but about the fact that these relations are based on the UN Charter, where it is written that the UN is based on the sovereign equality of states. You don't need anything else. Only to follow this obligation, which the American authors (together with ours) wrote in this fundamental document with their own hands. Because otherwise they feel entitled (I gave these examples, they are on everyone's lips) to suddenly decide that the security of the United States has deteriorated sharply or depends crucially on what is happening in Yugoslavia; from the fact that someone thought that S. Hussein was doing some research in the field of weapons of mass destruction; or Gaddafi is not "pretty" enough or may know too much about how the French president's election campaign was financed in a given year. That's it. An expeditionary force is sent ten thousand miles away. They destroyed Libya to the ground. Now they are trying to collect it themselves. Just as the Americans once insisted that Sudan should be divided into two parts. Then they began to complain that neither of them listened to them. Now they demand to impose sanctions against Sudan and South Sudan. And they are already introducing them.

In Iraq, (Hundreds of thousands of people, cities were razed to the ground, no weapons were found), T. Blair in his memoirs said that he "gave a maha", they were mistaken, "well, with whom it does not happen." And it's all across the ocean. I am not even saying what reasons the Americans "announced" in order to intervene in the Dominican Republic, in Grenada. There, President Ronald Reagan said that the lives of American citizens were threatened. Just a threat. And there were thousands of Americans there. They invade, change power, etc.

In our case with Russian and Russian-speaking people in Ukraine, their rights, language, education, media, culture were legally trampled upon. Then the coup d'état. Then immediately instinctively sounded from the putschists that it was necessary to ban the Russian language, stop "working with" it, and "expel" Russians from the Crimea in general. We agreed to the Minsk agreements. They concerned a small part of the territories in question. In Ukraine, nothing was adopted either under Poroshenko or under V.A. Zelensky without the urgent American advice. And if the West, the United States, first of all, had fulfilled these simple agreements, nothing would have happened. There would have been no coup and coup d'état, if then the Germans, the French, the Poles, who guaranteed the deal between Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, insisted that the putschists stop this "disgrace" and return to the agreement, then in 5-6 months there would have been elections that this opposition would have won. Everything was clear. Why was this necessary? I have only one answer – because in this case the theory put forward by S. Brzezinski would be subjected to revision and risk. And then Ukraine, provided that the agreements reached were fulfilled, and everything would remain as it was within the borders of 1991, this would create conditions when Russia and Ukraine would maintain normal relations (I fantasize now, I believe, not far from the truth).

And so it was necessary to "put" Russophobes, break the agreement with Viktor Yanukovych and start what they continue to do: to introduce the justification of Nazi theory into the legislation, and to promote Nazi practice through battalions into everyday life.

In the US Congress, when the US military budget was approved, once again, as congressmen do every year, they included a ban on any assistance (military, material) to Azov. Each time, the Pentagon objects to this and seeks to remove this ban from the US budget. That says a lot.

Q: What's your prediction for next year? I am not asking you to fantasize, this is not an occupation for the minister. Something you would be willing to share in terms of your own expectations.

Sergey Lavrov: We must always be realistic. I am not a pessimist, although it is said that a pessimist is a well-informed optimist. It's about a glass: half full or half empty. It is also important what kind of liquid is in the glass.

My expectations are realistic. I am convinced that through our perseverance, patience and dedication, we will defend the noble goals that are of vital importance for our people and our country, consistently, remaining always ready for an equal dialogue and for agreements that will ensure truly equal, indivisible security in Europe.

This implies taking into account the interests of Russia. It's not something we've come up with and demand. This is what all Western leaders signed up to in Istanbul in 1999, astana in 2010, and within the framework of the documents of the NATO-Russia Council. We were told lies, to put it diplomatically.