Sergey Lavrov: “Everyone thinks the arrival of the Trump Administration will change things. There is much speculation about this going on. As I earlier mentioned, we have no illusions”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with 60 Minutes television programme, Moscow, December 25, 2024.

Question: The year 2024 has been far from easy and, arguably, quite challenging. The year ahead may prove equally difficult. It’s been hard to have faith in bright prospects lately. Nevertheless, let’s try to draw up preliminary results.

Everyone and his brother is talking about almost unavoidable (if we believe the rhetoric and public statements) talks between Russia and NATO, the United States, and Ukraine about the Ukrainian settlement.

They are talking about an unavoidable “deal” that will suit one side and put an end to the bloodshed. Judging by the statements made by President Putin at the Foreign Ministry on June 14, the conditions we have put forward are clear and articulate. And no one is going to fulfill them. What can you say about this? Isn’t this rhetoric about talks a case of wishful thinking?

Sergey Lavrov: We have not had any illusions about the prospects. Resolving the Ukraine crisis doesn’t have any prospects, either. It has long been clear to everyone holding unbiased positions that it can be settled only in the context of agreements on lasting security and stability in Europe, which would take into account the interests of the Russian Federation and the legitimate interests of all other countries.

Everyone thinks the arrival of the Trump Administration will change things. There is much speculation about this going on.

As I earlier mentioned, we have no illusions. There is a fairly robust bipartisan consensus in Washington on supporting the Kiev regime. US doctrinal documents describe our country as an adversary that needs to be “strategically defeated.” In free speeches, the Biden administration officials have even called us an enemy.

We have never claimed that with the Trump Administration in the White House the negotiating process on global security and Ukraine will begin no matter what. This will not be, as many are now hoping, an inevitable outcome.

We hear about Donald Trump’s interest, who appointed Keith Kellogg as his special envoy for Ukraine, in stopping this war as soon as possible. We have always been in favour of it never beginning which fact is corroborated by our support for the document signed by Yanukovich and the opposition in February 2014. It was guaranteed by European countries, but the opposition tore it up the next morning.

We also supported the Minsk agreements, which stopped the Kiev regime’s terrorist attack against its citizens in Donbass.

President Vladimir Putin keeps referring to the fact that we supported the Istanbul Accords in April 2022, which were also largely torn up at the behest of the West.

President Putin has repeatedly stressed that we never walk away from talks. We need to see serious, concrete proposals. When we have them, we will decide on how to respond to them based on our national interests, the goals of the special military operation, and President Vladimir Putin’s June 14 speech at the Foreign Ministry.

You said this speech “contains conditions.” By and large, there are no conditions there. It contains a demand to fulfill what has been repeatedly agreed upon over many years: militarisation of Ukraine (which is a direct violation of the agreements that NATO will not “gobble up” an increasing number of countries to the east and approach directly the border of the Russian Federation), and respect for the obligations under the UN Charter, including with regard to human rights, language and religious rights among them. Can these truly be called conditions? This is the bare minimum of what any normal member of the international community must do.

Is the expression of the will by the regions in the DPR, LPR, and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions a pre-condition? No. The UN Charter explicitly says that all countries must respect the territorial value of those states that respect the right of nations to self-determination, as happened during the above-mentioned referendums. Most importantly, the Charter calls for respecting the territorial integrity of the countries whose governments represent the entire population living on the territory in question. Can the people of Crimea, Donbass, and Novorossiya say that their interests are represented by a Nazi regime that has announced the extermination of everything Russian, in fact, its main goal, as they continue to “play” in the interests of the West, which needs to remove a strong competitor such as the Russian Federation from the international arena? The West wants to remove any competitor. With regard to us, Ukraine has been chosen as a tool to this end.

The principles formulated by President Vladimir Putin are not preconditions. They actually derive from international law.

On the other hand, the prevailing discourse we are hearing both in the West and in Ukraine today is about a truce and only truce. It is about buying time to allow the Kiev regime to regain strength, with the help of the West, and resume its attempts to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, acting on their Western bosses’ instructions.

President Vladimir Putin has mentioned this repeatedly – during the Direct Line, at the Valdai Discussion Club meeting, and at the Russia Calling! investment forum. We will not be satisfied with a truce. We need reliable and legally binding agreements aimed at eliminating the root causes of the conflict, addressing problems such as common security in Europe, NATO expansion, the European Union’s recent decision to become an appendage of the North Atlantic bloc, in fact, erasing all differences between these organisations, and above all, upholding the rights of the people living in these territories who have supported reunification with the Russian Federation. This does not mean that the demand for respect for the linguistic and religious freedoms, which have been legislatively abolished by Vladimir Zelensky, does not apply to the rest of Ukraine. Most of the people who live there speak Russian as their native language. The linguistic aggression started by the Kiev regime will certainly not be tolerated.

As for a possible peace procedure envisioned by the Ukrainians and their handlers, former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba has recently emerged in a new capacity. He announced that Ukraine needs to achieve NATO accession because, even if the current generation reaches some agreements and spends the next period rebuilding Ukraine, the generation after them will definitely seek revenge for the defeat that they believe Ukraine will suffer if it respects the will of its citizens. According to Dmitry Kuleba, the only way to stop Ukraine from inevitably attacking Russia in the future is to admit the country to NATO now, making it bound by legal obligations to the alliance not to attack Russia.

Olga Skabeyeva, concluding her greeting, said that she had little faith in anything good. Faith and hope are our traditional underlying values. There are many proverbs involving these concepts and their meanings, including about hope – hope springs eternal. But this idea is disputed by another aphorism – hope is the nourishment of youth. What I am driving at is, to avoid being mislead by empty hopes, which may be “the nourishment of youth and the delight of old age,” we need a final, fully-fledged, legally binding and lasting settlement of problems in Europe, including the Ukrainian crisis.

Question: Let's discuss the current outlook. In your interview with Tucker Carlson, you mentioned that the world is closer to nuclear conflict than ever before. Quite frankly, it was rather unsettling. How do you feel about this situation? What actions should we take? People in the West are already investing in bunkers. Should we be preparing similarly?

Sergey Lavrov: We are prepared to take all necessary measures to ensure that American citizens and those of other Western nations do not squander money (which is not in abundance for them at present) on constructing bunkers. We would be pleased to assist Western taxpayers in saving funds on these bunkers.

We have never initiated a discussion regarding what should be done with nuclear weapons and whether they can be used. On the contrary, it was at Russia's initiative that in 2021, first at the level of Vladimir Putin and Joe Biden, and subsequently among the leaders of the entire G5 nuclear-armed states – the permanent members of the Security Council – the 1987 Gorbachev-Reagan principle was reaffirmed: there can be no victors in a nuclear war, thus it should never be instigated. This was a Russian initiative.

Any other proposals or similar remarks, suggesting the possibility of nuclear conflict, have emanated solely from Western capitals. The Chief of the German Army's General Staff remarked a year ago that Russia should not intimidate them excessively, reminding them that NATO is a nuclear alliance. Everyone recalls Liz Truss's statement, in her capacity as Prime Minister of Great Britain, where she expressed no hesitation in pressing the nuclear button. French officials have also reiterated their status as a nuclear power.

Recently, Pentagon generals have openly deliberated on the potential for "limited nuclear strikes" with the Russian Federation, with the intention to ensure they emerge victorious from such an "exchange." We directly inquired (since it was indeed a general who made the statement) about the meaning behind this. Their response was far from satisfactory, as they attempted to downplay the significance of such declarations, claiming they were purely theoretical. In practice, nothing of the sort was intended. But can such rhetoric be regarded as a serious expression of opinion from an official military department representative?

In any event, we are not interested in escalating the issue of nuclear weapons usage risks. We firmly adhere to the principle I mentioned earlier: there can be no victors in a nuclear war. President Vladimir Putin has reiterated this on numerous occasions. Nonetheless, I would caution against testing our patience and resolve to defend our legitimate national interests by all available means. Vladimir Putin elaborated on this during the Direct Line and in previous addresses. We trust that those with ears will listen, and those with minds will comprehend.

Question: There are daily provocations originating from the Ukrainian side, evidently with the assistance of NATO countries. One of the most recent incidents involves drone strikes targeting a residential building in Kazan. Even Western newspapers liken this to the events in New York on September 11, 2001, drawing parallels to that terrorist attack. We distinctly remember how the United States reacted at that time. Is there anything deterring us from responding similarly?

Sergey Lavrov: Firstly, I would refrain from making direct comparisons with the September 11 terrorist attack. There are numerous theories (not all of them are conspiracy theories) that necessitate further clarification regarding what transpired then, who ultimately orchestrated the attack, and for what purpose.

Regarding the incessant terrorist acts perpetrated by the Kiev regime, which deliberately targets purely civilian structures such as residential buildings, hospitals, clinics, shops, and places where people congregate and relax – this is outrageous. It is a blatant violation of all anti-terrorism conventions and relevant UN Security Council resolutions. We express our condemnation, although regrettably, almost no one in the West and none of the leaders of international organisations, including the UN, the OSCE, UNESCO, and others, join us in this denunciation. Naturally, we do not stop there.

We regularly disseminate information and present relevant videos illustrating our efforts to dismantle facilities directly associated with the preparation and execution of activities by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. We caution that any continuation of this path will be met with increasingly decisive responses on our part. As far as I can ascertain, despite not being a military expert, the impact on Kiev's military apparatus, not only in retaliation for these terrorist actions but also throughout the recent months of the special military operation, is quite substantial.

It is not imperative to act immediately following a bandit strike on Kazan, or the Kursk, Bryansk, and Belgorod Regions. We can afford to bide our time. We are a patient people. Yet, sometimes one must "measure seven times, cut once." It is essential to measure carefully to ensure that when we do act, it is with complete efficacy.

Question: If possible, let’s talk about Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico. I’m fully aware that the talks were held behind closed doors, and no details are available. No news conference or statements for the media, either. Is there anything at all that you can share with our viewers? At least something? Everyone is hoping to see at least some progress during talks. Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico is here. Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban seems to be a sensible person. Where do things stand?

Sergey Lavrov: I wouldn’t say no information was provided. The Kremlin shared some, and Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov also provided a comment. There is nothing particularly secretive about it.

The Prime Minister of Slovakia explicitly stated that the anticipated cessation of Russian gas transit through Ukraine, which Vladimir Zelensky had repeatedly and proudly announced publicly, was the immediate reason for his visit.

We discussed options that would allow gas supplies to continue to countries like Slovakia, Hungary, and Austria, which, as I understand, are interested in this. This is their economic interest and has nothing to do with their EU obligations. They are being pushed into following a single foreign and security policy, but gas supplies are beyond politics. This is about ensuring normal conditions in the country during winter so that households, the manufacturing enterprises, and the social sector may function properly.

Vladimir Zelensky’s actions create problems specifically for European countries. Many there are proudly saying dependence on Russia must be eliminated. Remember head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen saying that American liquefied natural gas costs Germany less than Russian gas? When a journalist asked to clarify which numbers she was referring to, as the reality is quite the opposite, and it represents an extra burden on the economy, she replied that American gas is better and cheaper in a political sense.

This demonstrates the readiness and ability to follow orders coming from the “elephant” which has so far been standing still, and the Democratic “donkey” is still running Washington D.C. and New York. However, the Republican elephants will soon move in, and we’ll see how the “lapdogs” will position themselves.

Speaking of gas, Vladimir Zelensky recently insulted Slovakia, Hungary, and other sensible political figures in an interview. When asked why he wouldn’t approve the transit, since Slovakia can buy gas directly at the Russian-Ukrainian border (which would then become Slovakian or Hungarian gas), he said because even if they do so, they would end up paying Russia for gas and thus finance the war. He suggested that if they ensured the gas became Slovakian, not Russian, and refrain from paying Russia until the end of the war, then it could be considered.

The way this person’s mind works cannot be fathomed by normal people. I believe we don’t need to comment on everything Zelensky has to cough up, especially since he coughs things up regularly, and things vary depending on his condition.

Let me share one of his more recent gems with you. A couple of weeks ago, taking a question about what Russia should do in order to settle the crisis, he publicly stated it should go four-letter-word itself. A few questions later during the same interview, he suggested inviting Russia to a forum following the Bürgenstock forum when their ultimatum if finalised and hand it to Russia. If you weigh these two statements (what Russia must do to achieve settlement, and that Russia must be present at the second summit), he effectively named and defined the purpose of this summit in his initial phrase.

Question: A brilliant and exhaustive commentary on the situation. A brief follow-up question, though. Russia has been without an ambassador to the United States for quite some time now. Is this a technical pause or a kind of diplomatic demarche?

Sergey Lavrov: No, it’s not a demarche. The Americans welcomed the new candidate as a professional with extensive background in Soviet-American and Russian-American relations. The departure date is planned in alignment with the best timing for the new ambassador’s arrival in Washington, D.C. considering the upcoming inauguration of President-elect Donald Trump in just three weeks. There’s no politics involved here.

Question: On a lighter note, have you had the chance to decorate your New Year tree? Do you sense that holiday cheer?

Sergey Lavrov: The cheer is combative, because easing up during the New Year holidays is not an option. Some serious politicians and analysts do not rule out the possibility of provocations from Kiev’s nationalists and their Western backers during the New Year holidays and Orthodox Christmas. We will observe this holiday as we conduct an alert and active analysis of ongoing developments.

Right after this interview, I’m heading to the tree in the Ministry’s lobby. It’s the Tree of Wishes, and my deputies and I actively participate in this noble drive.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs