РУССКИЙ
19:34 26.10.2025 •
Question: Thank you, Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you for giving us your time.
Sergey Lavrov: My pleasure.
Question: So we are here in Moscow. And I came from Hungary, from Budapest, just a few days ago. And Moscow is beautiful. This is the first time for me in Moscow. And when we planned this interview, there was a plan for you to come to Budapest with Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State. You were going to help to set up a negotiation between President Putin and President Trump. But finally, you didn't come. We heard many different stories about why. What really happened? Is everything ok between you and Mr. Rubio and between Russia and the United States?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, it's up to you because you're a journalist. And your job, your profession, is to analyze what is going on.
It is not very difficult because these days, for example, the American foreign policy is as open as it could be. The President of the United States explains every day how he feels about one thing, about another thing. And this is, I think, very interesting for the journalists to be in a position to get this information straight from the leaders.
President Putin yesterday commented upon the Russian-American relations at this particular stage. I wouldn't repeat what he said. But as regards the relations between Marco Rubio and myself, after the presidents had their conversation on the 16th of October. This was Thursday. And three days later, on Monday, Rubio called me. We had a conversation, very specific, where I reconfirmed our full adherence to what was discussed in Alaska and to what clear understandings the presidents reached at that time. As you know, President Trump praised the Alaska meeting repeatedly, that this was a very good meeting, that it set the stage, laid the foundation. He said, there are a few issues to be fine-tuned. But this could be done easily. One issue is important, he said in his comments about the outcome of Alaska. But this important issue is absolutely subject to finding a solution, which is absolutely our assessment. After we talked with Marco Rubio regarding following up on the results of Alaska, he did not mention any new meetings or conversations. And I did not raise the issue, because the entire initiative was coming from the United States. And we would be ready to move as the Americans feel comfortable for themselves.
Then the State Department issued the communique about our phone conversation, if I remember right, which said that we had a productive discussion with Marco Rubio. And at this stage, there is no need in a personal meeting between the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of Russia. So I concluded that the meeting was really good if they made such a comment. And I understand what is behind it. Behind it is the clarity with which we discussed the necessary steps together with Marco Rubio, steps which the Russian Federation and the United States can take to implement very clear, very blunt understandings reached in Alaska.
Question: Obvious, if you are talking, we feel the chance the conflict can be ended. But after, when we read the press, there is a different picture. But why will you not call back Marco Rubio in this situation? And you can call back Marco Rubio and say, hello, I read in Reuters the articles and Mr. Trump told this and this. Why don't you want to talk more often with each other?
Sergey Lavrov: I called him before Alaska, soon after Alaska. And we met in New York just three weeks ago. And as I said, look, President Putin came to Alaska with the agenda, which had been brought to Moscow by Steven Witkoff a few days before the Alaska summit. And we looked into the proposals which Steven Witkoff brought. And we said that we need to think about it.
And then in Alaska, President Putin said that he is ready to cooperate on the basis of the concept and the framework which the envoy of President Trump brought to Moscow and which they continue to discuss in Alaska. President Putin repeated each and every element of the concept which was brought by Steven Witkoff and was asking Steven Witkoff, who was present at the discussions in Anchorage, is that right? Is that right? Everything was confirmed. And then President Putin said that we are ready to accept your concept. And that's how we believe we can move in specific terms on the basis of what you proposed. Then there was no direct response. They agreed that they should take some time to think about it.
President Trump said he needs to talk to his allies, who, as you remember, came to Washington next day. Zelensky was brought with them. And President Putin, of course, briefed our allies, our neighbors, and strategic partners. So the ball was there on the side of the Americans who proposed something which we eventually were ready to accept. And in New York, I reminded Marco Rubio about this sequence of events. He said, yes, we are still considering. We are trying. We are interested.
So from the diplomatic point of view, we don't want to interfere in their internal considerations. We don't want to create some discomfort for the United States, which is under huge, unbelievable pressure from the European “hawks”, from Zelensky, and others who don't want to have any American-Russian cooperation on anything.
So there are enough people who are not very polite and who impose themselves upon Washington politicians and use every means to undermine the process which could have achieved its goals some time ago.
And one very telling thing is they are trying to push President Trump from the logic which he repeatedly presented in the past. And I will quote a couple of his statements regarding how this crisis should be resolved. He bluntly said, actually, he was the first, if not the only, leader in the West, and maybe not only in the West, but on Earth, who from the very beginning, even before he was inaugurated, early September, he was still president-elect. He said that you could never have NATO involved with Ukraine. If Russia has NATO right on its borders, it cannot tolerate it, and I could understand their feelings about that.
Zelensky and Ukraine must understand (this was already in August, a couple of months ago), must understand no getting back Obama-given Crimea, and no going into NATO by Ukraine, also in August Russia said, we don't want them on our borders, and they were right. And everybody knew, you can't. You just can't do that.
And actually, in Anchorage, I almost quoted, he said, we had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there. That was his statement at the press conference in Anchorage. So he went public with this assessment, which fully coincides with our assessment.
And the very significant statement was made on the 16th of August, when he came back to Washington from Alaska. And he said, a great and very successful day in Alaska. It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement. This is key. He answered to all those who were, since probably the beginning of spring this year, they radically changed their rhetoric. And before, they were saying, no cessation of hostilities. Russia must be defeated, “strategic defeat”, and so on and so forth. Then, as of spring, about that time, they started saying immediate ceasefire without any precondition. And they continue to sing this song until now. Rutte, Macron… By the way, Macron, when they shifted to this logic, ceasefire, stop the killings without preconditions, and then we'll see how it goes. And Macron was asked whether this cessation of hostilities, ceasefire, includes the pause in providing weapons to Ukraine. He said, no, it does not. No preconditions at all.
So when President Trump, after Anchorage, bluntly, publicly stated that in his conviction, it is not a ceasefire, but a sustainable, durable peace, which, as he said, must be a long-term peace, a very long term. And another quotation, we are not talking about a two-year peace, and then we end up in this mess again. This is exactly what happened with the Minsk agreements, which were agreed in 2015, endorsed by the UN Security Council. And then the Ukrainian government and armed forces were violating the ceasefire announced by the Minsk agreements. And later, five or six years later, when these Minsk agreements were sabotaged in a very big way, the signatories, like Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, and the former Ukrainian President Poroshenko, they said, we never intended to implement them. We needed to buy time to rearm Ukraine, so that Ukraine is able to continue to fight Russia.
So when President Trump, after Alaska, said, we are not talking about a two-year peace, and then we end up in this mess again. It's one of the best characteristics of what happened with the Minsk agreements.
And when people now say, nothing but a ceasefire, immediate ceasefire, and then history will judge, it's a very radical change. But this also means that the Europeans, they don't sleep, they don't eat, they try to twist the hands of this administration.
Question: Some people say Russia is unflexible. And are there any Russian conditions in the negotiations that are flexible, for example, about territory? What about the parts of Donbass that Russia has not taken yet? And what about Kherson and Zaporozhye and others?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, this is all reflected in many discussions. President Putin addressed this issue regularly when he was asked by journalists, or when he meets with President Trump, or with Prime Minister Orban, Prime Minister Fico, all those who are interested in talking to Russia, better understanding Russia's position, they always have a chance and opportunity to come and discuss whatever is of interest for them.
The new territories which you mentioned, they are not actually new territories. They are historic Russian territories. Yes, after the Soviet Union disappeared, this was left inside the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. And there was no thought that this Slavic Republic could have leadership which would go the way the Nazis went before World War II. And step by step, Ukrainian government being independent from the Soviet Union, having proclaimed sovereignty, and so on, they have been more and more under the pressure and influence of the Brits, Americans, and Europeans, who were having a chance to implement the very old dream which Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed a couple of times, and some other American politicians, when they said, Russia with Ukraine is an empire. Russia without Ukraine is a mid-level player, an original player in international affairs. We never thought about this in those terms. But the philosophy of the US politicians, who were obsessed with not allowing Ukraine and Russia to be together, is very telling. It's the same divide and rule logic, colonial desire to undermine alliances which would not be ruled by you.
And we recognize independence of Ukraine, no doubt about this. But we could never think that the people who live on these territories which you listed, which are now in our constitution, that these people would be considered second sort, especially after the coup 11 years ago in February 2014, when the putschists took power by illegal bloody coup, masterminded by the United States. Some time ago after this event, Victoria Nuland admitted at the hearings in Congress that the United States spent, by that time, about $5 billion to support Ukraine. And she said it was not in vain, because eventually democracy prevailed. This democratic government, which came to power illegally, their first statement showing their political instincts was that they will cancel the status of the Russian language next morning after the coup.
And the coup, of course, happened the day after Germany, France, and Poland guaranteed the deal between the then president, recognized by everybody as legitimate president, and the opposition. And when we called the French, the Germans, and said, guys, you guaranteed the deal, next morning the opposition took all government buildings and so on and so forth. And they said, you know, sometimes democracy takes an unexpected twist.
Interesting. And then, of course, they sent armed groups to storm Crimean parliament. That's when the people of Crimea rejected this power, these authorities, and held referenda. Then Donetsk and Lugansk, the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk did the same.
It is not about territories for us. It is about the people who have been living on those lands for centuries. They were building cities, including the city of Odessa, a very famous place which was founded by Catherine the Great, whose monument recently was removed by Zelensky government, who would like to forget all parts of history which, one way or another, link Ukrainians and the Russians. But this is going to fail. He cannot undermine this.
So my point is that and when President Trump said about NATO in Alaska, when also in Alaska he mentioned about territories, for us, it is not territories. It is about the people who live on these territories. But then, next day, when this crowd, European crowd, brought Zelensky to the White House, and after that Zelensky was talking to the media, and some Europeans were talking to the media, and they say, nobody can prohibit Ukraine to join NATO. No territorial changes, no nothing.
Actually, I will quote some of the statements by Zelensky and his team. They, from April 2022, when Boris Johnson came and prohibited Zelensky to accept the deal negotiated in Istanbul, which was actually proposed by Ukrainian side, and which was initialed. But after this was undermined by Boris Johnson, now we know that he got about one million pounds from his friend to continue the war, because his friend was selling guns to Ukraine. So after that, they said, no negotiations with Putin. No negotiations, only he must be brought to International Criminal Court. We want European soldiers. We don't want - no ceasefires, he was saying only one year ago. And then, in September this year, he said, to give to Putin one or another piece of land, this would never happen. It is not a solution, this is just a pause. And isolation of Russia is what must remain forever.
So when people now say, ceasefire, we know that they want just to buy some time again. And that this logic, which is deeply rooted in Zelensky, whatever moves his head, brain, is obvious for any objective observer.
Question: Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea, I understand. But what about Kherson and Zaporozhye? Could Russia ever talk about giving them back to Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: They are also part of our Constitution. And the fact that this was not just imposed from above, like in Kosovo the population was not asked. The representative of the United Nations, who was a Finnish, former Finnish president, he just said, Kosovo is independent, – full stop.
Unlike this trick, we based the decision to include them, to admit them back to Russia, because all these lands were founded by the Russian Empire and developed by the Soviet Union. Only after all of them, each of these four regions after Crimea, held referenda and bluntly expressed their desire to rejoin with Russia.
And when we now liberate remaining parts of Zaporozhye, this is the Russian way to pronounce it. And Kherson, the people, in spite of the attempts of Ukrainian army to pull them into mainland Ukraine, most of them are not leaving. They're staying, and they're welcoming the Russian soldiers who liberate them. So this is not our will, our “imperialist desire”, some people say. This is our concern for the future of the people who feel being part of the Russian culture.
By the way, when Zelensky and his entourage, like Macron, Starmer, Merz, and others, they still say Russia must get out of Ukraine, out of 1991 borders. And yesterday, I think, they gathered in London for this Coalition of the Willing. And Starmer, addressing the media before the event, he said that Russia, Putin is the only one who doesn't want peace.
And this deserves some explanation. Putin supported the deal between the government and opposition in 2014, immediately after the coup. Obama called him. Obama asked him not to block the deal. He said, if the legitimate president is signing something with the opposition, how can I block him? And then you know what happened. The coup, and explanation by the Europeans that sometimes democracy is very tricky. They did not lift a finger to stop these putschists, though they knew very well that they came to power under the neo-Nazis' banners. Then in 2015, the Minsk agreements. We negotiated the Minsk agreements. We were prepared to implement them. They, as I mentioned, said that we never intended to do this. We just needed to buy some time.
In April 2022, a couple of weeks after the special military operation started, Ukrainians asked for negotiations. We agreed. We held several rounds in Belarus and then moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, as I said, the Ukrainian delegation put a paper with the principles to be developed into a treaty. We accepted this paper. It was initialed. And then Boris Johnson said, don't do this. Continue to fight Russia until we defeat them.
So when Starmer said that Putin is the only one who is against negotiations, he should remember about his former prime minister, Boris Johnson. He should remember about those in Germany and in France who signed the deal and then, a few years later, admitted that they never intended to do this in spite of the fact that it had been endorsed by the UN Security Council. And then Starmer continued to say that Putin must stop atrocities, must stop killing children, and he must withdraw to the borders of 1991.
On children, it's a shame. I mean, the amount of lies, the amount of propaganda is astonishing. We have been hearing that tens of thousands of children have been stolen by Russia from their parents. And after the Istanbul process started this year, there were three rounds. At the very first meeting, our delegation asked Ukrainians, guys, you are concerned about the kids. Can we get the list of those kids who are missing? It took some time. Eventually, we received a list of 339 names. No 10,000, not even 1,000. And we checked that list. A huge part of it are not kids, grown-ups. Many have been verified as being in Europe. So when you listen to this.. But Starmer keeps saying that we must stop hijacking children.
And that's for “1991 borders”, and “Russia must withdraw”. Ok hypothetically, in their dreams and delusions, if we leave the territories inside the 1991 Ukrainian borders, what happens to those people whom they publicly called the respective governments of Ukraine after the coup, called them “inhumans”, called them “species”. “Species”, by the way, is the term used by Zelensky long before the special military operation started. He was asked in November 2021 what he thought about the people in Donbass on the other side of the line of contact, according to the Minsk agreements. And he was asked what he thought about those people. He said, you know, there are people, and there are “species”. And then in other interview he said if you live in Ukraine and feel like being part of Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake and safety of your kids, for the sake and safety of your grandchildren, get out to Russia.
So in fact, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson, the population of these four territories, they follow his advice. They go back to Russia.
Question: And what about Odessa? Because President Putin told the Hungarian journalist, Gábor Stier, at the Valdai discussion that Odessa is an ancient Russian city. What did you mean by that?
Sergey Lavrov: I just mentioned it's just the fact which any educated person know very well, that Odessa is a city. There was a very small village on that spot. And Catherine the Great founded Odessa. She built Odessa. She built the ports. She built roads, factories. And that's what is meant. Odessa was always international city, famous for its good humor. And Odessa, of course, is the heritage. And it is part of the UNESCO list of world cultural heritage.
But when the monument to the founder of the city, Catherine the Great, was removed by the nazist regime, UNESCO just stayed shut up. And the French director general, Madame Azoulay, did not comment upon it at all.
Question: If the negotiations don't work, when will Russia say we have reached our goals and end the war?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, the goals have never changed. I gave you some examples. When they started ‘strategic defeat’ to Russia – no negotiations. And now they are pleading and threatening. Ceasefire immediately, without any preconditions, because Ukraine is running out of weapons. And we need to replenish the weapons for Ukraine. Or there must be sustainable long-term peace, as President Trump said after Alaska. Now the Europeans are trying to dominate the agenda with the rhetoric about cease fire. They are zigzagging, depending on what is going on on the front line.
We are convinced that to save the people from the nazist regime, the people who have always been part of the Russian culture. They spoke Russian language. They were teaching their children in Russian. They watched Russian movies. They got news from the Russian media outlets, culture, theaters, what have you. And when all this has been prohibited by legislation, the Constitution of Ukraine still states that the state of Ukraine guarantees the rights of national minorities. Russian minority is highlighted separately. Russian and other national minorities, as regards education, what have you. And when all this was canceled by law and they started this canceling in 2017, long before the special military operation started. And since then and this was another root cause. The root cause, number one, NATO, because it was intended to pull Ukraine into NATO and to build military bases in Crimea on the Sea of Azov, just on our doorsteps. And I quoted President Trump, who bluntly explained why it's absolutely unacceptable to Russia. And everybody must understand this.
But another root cause is extermination of everything Russian - history, language, media, culture, education - toppling and destroying the monuments to the Russian representatives who founded Ukraine in the eastern and southern part, toppling the monuments to those who saved Ukraine and Europe from Hitler and his nazist troops. And we ask from time to time, publicly and individually, we ask our colleagues who show any interest in helping to settle this conflict, we ask, why are you… Ok, NATO, it is something which not too many people would like to get into publicly. But human rights, it's in the United Nations Charter. It says everybody must ensure human rights, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion. Language, as I said, is totally banned by law. In practice, people still use Russian language because it is their native language. Ukrainian Canonic Orthodox Church had also been banned by law.
But people only ask, when are you going to end the war? When are you going to have a ceasefire? It's not honest, if you wish. An honest discussion would be to tell Ukrainians, before anything else, restore language rights, restore all national minority rights, because your constitution says so. And in violation of the constitution, you pass so many pieces of legislation. Including, by the way, the legislation which discriminates Hungarian national minority in the Western Ukraine, though Ukrainians try to be very specific in discriminating Russian language and trying to make some concessions for the language of the European Union. There is no single international convention which says that there are some languages which are more important than others. It's like Orwell, you know? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I repeatedly discussed this with Peter Szijjarto, and he assured me that when Hungary fights politically, diplomatically, for the right of national minorities, Hungary means all national minorities, as international conventions, as the United Nations Charter, require. And we appreciated the role Hungary played when this framework for negotiations with Ukraine on accession to the European Union was discussed. And Hungary, I think, single-handedly insisted that these chapters on negotiating accession included quite considerable language on national minorities, on their rights. And it is formulated not just about European Union languages. It's about all languages and all national minorities. And we appreciate that Hungary happened to be basically the country which single-handedly achieved this.
It's another matter that nobody in Brussels wants to remember about this deal, this consensus. And when various representatives, including the Commission for Enlargement, Mrs. Kos, as far as I understand, is saying, no, no, no, Ukraine is fully ready to begin accession negotiations. For Ukraine to be ready, they first have to undo what they have done in violation of their constitution and many, many conventions.
So it's not, I think, appropriate when people say, when are you going to end the war? Where are you going to stop? Zaporozhye, are you going to give it back? Actually, we now have taken some other territories which do not belong to the regions reflected now in our Constitution. The reason is very simple. We need a buffer zone. Because Ukrainians continue shelling, bombing, droning Russian territory, including the territories which never were challenged by anybody. I mean, Bryansk, Belgorod, Kursk. So root causes, that's what must be key to understanding how to help end this situation efficiently, thinking not about grabbing back territories, not about saving political losers who are ruling in Kiev, but thinking about the people who should be the utmost concern of those who say that they are champions of democracy. And when we are accused that we violate so many things, we invaded independent state in violation of one thing, like in violation of its independence, then in violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
First, we recognized Ukraine on the basis of its own Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. In 1990, Declaration of Independence was adopted, which says non-nuclear, neutral, non-bloc country with the rights of all national minorities, and so on and so forth. And this was then endorsed by the Constitution.
So we recognized the Ukraine, which was very different from the country run by the openly nazist regime. And when people pull it into NATO and say it has the right to choose alliances, it is not our reading of the situation. When we recognize somebody, it is on the basis of what this country is, according to its own proclamation.
Question: The other question, before the Hungarian-Russian relationship, I've been thinking a lot about if Ukraine joining NATO is a red line. Why was Finland's NATO membership not a red line? What is the difference between Ukraine and Finland from Russia's point of view?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, the regime in Finland, I think they made a mistake. I know Alexander Stubb very well. Since the time when he was the foreign minister, remember in 2008, when then-president of Georgia, Saakashvili, launched an attack against the city of Tskhinvali and the peacekeeping group, which was there on the basis of the mandate of OSCE. And Alexander Stubb was in Tbilisi, and then he was passing through Moscow. And he made a very, I think, sober and accurate assessment of what kind of person Mr. Saakashvili was. And he was a reasonable gentleman. We had nice human relations and nice professional relations.
And then, after the special military operation against the nazist regime in Kiev started, somehow the Finnish leadership started to experience, I think, nostalgic feelings about the times when they were helping another nazist regime to defeat Russia during World War II.
Question: If there will be another leader in Ukraine, not Zelensky, then will the regime be a Nazi? If there would be another leader.
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I am not in the guessing business. We have a bluntly nazist regime, which, as I said, shows openly the despise to anything Russian, which prohibited anything Russian. It's the only country on Earth which prohibited a language, not to mention that this is official language of the United Nations. In Palestine, in any Arab country, Hebrew is not prohibited. In Israel, Arabic is not prohibited. But Zelensky prohibited the Russian language. Now they included Pushkin, Lermontov, Dostoevsky, some other writers of world fame in a list of materials which promote “imperialist propaganda”. No comment, as it were.
Question: So the Hungarian-Russian relationship. A few days ago, it was October 23, the anniversary of the 1956 revolution in Hungary. And that was one of the saddest days in our history, and when the Soviets occupied our country. Some Hungarians still fear the Russians. We love freedom, and we love independence. Honestly, we don't want to be attacked again. What can you say to them? Should they worry about a Russian attack in Hungary?
Sergey Lavrov: They don't need to be told. They know this. And we, long ago, reached agreement with our Hungarian colleagues that there would be no emotions, that there would be honest reading and rethinking of history. When President Putin was in Budapest long ago, 2006, he laid flowers to the monument to the victims of 1956 events.
And just recently, he was in Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, I think two years ago, in 2023. And he said that this, addressing the issue of 1956, that this part of the Soviet policy was a mistake. And they don't have any difference on assessing those events with Prime Minister Orban. But they as I said, don't need to ignite emotions around this issue, though maybe some people in Hungary and in Russia, especially those who emigrated, maybe they would like to drive a wedge in our relations and to try to steer this history.
But the leaders of Russia and Hungary, they know better. This is part of history. We gave our assessment. Hungary gave its assessment. And we now live a new life, remembering about all periods of our history. There were good periods. There were not very good periods. There were bad ones. But they remain in our memory. They remain in history. And they do not prevent us from developing mutually beneficial cooperation, politically, economically, technologically, and other ways.
Question: I am asking because you went to Alaska wearing a Soviet Union hoodie. And some people in Hungary weren't too happy about it. Some people said it was a secret message. Was it, or are you just a big troll?
Sergey Lavrov: There was some concern that I went to Alaska?
Question: You wore a Soviet Union hoodie in Alaska, a sweater.
Sergey Lavrov: Look, we also have t-shirts with the emblem of the Russian Empire. Many people wear it. It's part of history. And apart from the fact that the sweater was very stylish, and it was very popular.
Question: Was it a random choice or a secret message in Alaska?
Sergey Lavrov: No.
Question: And you have Columbia sweaters or Novorossiya sweaters too?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, in any country, there are parts of clothing devoted to history, to some bright moments of history, or to some moments when, for me, the Soviet Union is my motherland.
I was born there. I enjoyed my youth. I enjoyed my employment by the Foreign ministry. And I don't think that we should be ashamed of it. To the contrary, the Soviet Union was the key winner in World War II. Yes, we were fighting with Hungary at that time. We were fighting with Finland at that time. But that was a war which allowed everybody to create the foundation for the new world. The United Nations, everybody is equal.
And apart from Nuremberg and Khabarovsk tribunals, basically, we thought that everybody now decided to be forthcoming. Like the French and the Germans overcame the old grievances, so did we with many countries who thought that the Soviet Union was exploiting them in the COMECON (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance), in the Warsaw Treaty. But it's very interesting.
For example, Germany. Everybody thought that the German Democratic Republic was the servant of the Soviet Union. And as soon as the freedom explodes, Germany would be reunited. And it happened. It was reunited, but not the way which people discussed. It was not an equal reunification. It was a swallowing of GDR by West Germany. And I know for sure, for example, that no one who used to work in the GDR foreign ministry was left in the united Germany foreign ministry. Many people were left unemployed, and so on and so forth.
Some other countries, including I think Poland, did the same. I don't remember that Hungary was doing something like this, and I believe it is right. I believe that after many wars which were originated in Europe or by Europe, it has to be a different epoch. And we all must unite to build a different world, like we all agreed in 1975 in Helsinki and developed principles which are now absolutely ignored and grossly violated by those who run OSCE, those who become chairpersons, and those who work as secretary general. The current secretary general, our Turkish colleague, is trying to overcome this deficiency, and we wish him very well.
But oh, yes, I forgot to mention about Budapest memorandum. Many people said that invitation to Budapest, the meeting there, would basically mean that it is a humiliation, because Budapest already was once the place where guarantees to Ukraine was signed, and it will be a very bad memory association.
People who say so, they never read the Budapest memorandum. The Budapest memorandum says that Ukraine, as other former Soviet republics who refused to have nuclear weapons, would receive guarantees, guarantees as the nuclear powers give to non-nuclear states. That's it. That's all. And these guarantees say that nuclear weapons would not be used against non-nuclear powers who are members of Non-Proliferation Treaty. But parallel with the Budapest memorandum, a declaration was signed by the same signatories, which contained their commitments, solemn commitments, to observe all principles of OSCE, including national minorities, democracy, freedom of speech, and so on and so forth. All these commitments which have been reflected in OSCE documents and which were reiterated on the occasion of the adoption of Budapest memorandum have been grossly violated by the Ukrainian regime. So we don't think we are in any way violating that document, which played a very important role in that period.
Question: So the last quick question. Can we expect you to visit Budapest soon, you, President Putin, or maybe President Trump? If there are talks, could they happen in Budapest? Because we have many great t-shirts and sweaters, some even show our old borders. But that's a complicated topic. And we have very little time left. So can we expect you to visit Budapest?
Sergey Lavrov: I was not invited. President Trump suggested to President Putin to meet in Budapest. President Putin said, yes, let's go into the preparatory work. We had a good conversation with Marco Rubio. The initiative was on the part of the United States.
As I said, I heard that the State Department issued a communique saying that it was a good and productive phone conversation between Rubio and Lavrov. And it was so good that for the time being, we don't need any meetings.
So the initiative is there, and we are polite people. And when we are invited, we say, yes, let's agree how and where and when. And when this invitation is canceled, as President Trump said yesterday in the White House. Later they said that “cancel” means “postpone”. It's up to those who initiated the process.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
