Sergey Lavrov: “If the Americans respect our interests, our dialogue will be gradually renewed. If not, everything will remain as it is”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with TASS news agency, December 30, 2024.

Question: Are there any signals indicating that talks on a diplomatic settlement of the conflict in Ukraine might be relaunched early next year after the inauguration of Donald Trump? Is there any intention or necessity for Russia to restore relations with the United States under the new administration?

Sergey Lavrov: We have not received any official signals regarding a settlement in Ukraine. Donald Trump will remain president-elect until his inauguration on January 20, with America’s policy in all spheres determined by the incumbent president, Joe Biden, and his administration. So far, only the Biden administration has the authority to establish contacts with Russia on behalf of the United States. This sometimes happens, about which we inform the public, but these contacts have nothing to do with talks on Ukraine.

Judging from numerous leaks and Donald Trump’s interview with Time magazine on December 12, their idea is to suspend hostilities along the line of contact and transfer responsibility for confrontation with Russia to the Europeans. We are not happy, of course, with the proposals made by members of the Trump team to postpone Ukraine’s admission to NATO for 20 years and to station British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine.

Russia’s position of principle regarding the Ukrainian settlement is well known. It has been put forth by President Vladimir Putin on many occasions, including at the December 19 annual news conference. We have always been ready for talks, and we still are.

However, it is important to understand who we can talk with and what we will discuss. These are not rhetorical questions. President Putin has spoken about this in detail at the meeting with journalists I have mentioned. Personally, I would like to point out that what we need is reliable and legally binding agreements that would eliminate the root causes of the conflict and seal a mechanism precluding the possibility of their violation.

As for the future of Russian-US relations, we are ready to renew the political dialogue which Washington terminated after the start of the special military operation, if the United States is ready for this. Since it was the Americans who cut it off, it is for them to make the first move.

Some may still entertain illusions, but I have long abandoned them. Judge for yourself. Even if Trump tries to relaunch bilateral ties, he will have to swim against the stream, considering the current bipartisan consensus on the policy of deterring Russia, including by supporting the neo-Nazi Kiev regime. This will not be that simple, also because the US doctrinal documents define Russia as an adversary. We’ll see what happens next. If the Americans respect our interests, our dialogue will be gradually renewed. If not, everything will remain as it is.

Question: Vladimir Zelensky recognised that the Ukrainian army cannot recover lost ground. What does this mean for the Russian Federation? In your opinion, has NATO heeded Russia’s warnings that any kind of a membership status for Ukraine would be unacceptable?

Sergey Lavrov: We trust facts, not statements, especially when it comes to the Kiev regime.

So far, Kiev has not renounced its objective of restoring what it calls Ukraine’s territorial integrity within the 1991 borders and ensuring that Russian troops leave this territory. This objective is part of the so-called Zelensky formula. In October, there were meetings to prepare the second peace summit. They want to invite Russia there. As far as we can see, the goal here is to present an ultimatum to Russia. I have explained many times that Russia does not intend to take part in this would-be peace summit, even if we do get an invitation.

It is anyone’s guess what Vladimir Zelensky’s public recognition that it would be impossible to recover lost territories by force means. He makes all kinds of statements. To be honest, we stopped paying attention at a certain point.

As for our warnings that we would refuse to accept Ukraine’s NATO membership regardless of the territorial factor, as far as we can judge, there is a lack of unity among NATO members on this matter. In fact, NATO has been expanding its reach for many years, which became one of the primary causes of the Ukraine crisis. With this in mind, there is still an imperative to ensure a non-aligned status for Ukraine as part of the goals of the special military operation. Its objectives must be achieved.

Question: When will the West stop staging the so-called colour revolutions along Russia’s borders? Do you think that Georgia will be able to get through what is going on there right now?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a question for Western politicians. They have been long relying on efforts to interfere in the domestic affairs of other countries, including our closest neighbours, as their foreign policy tool. For many years, Washington and its satellites have been acting this way in an effort to deter and contain their geopolitical rivals and do away with any unwanted actors, as confirmed by what happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine.

The developments in Georgia stem from the double standards when caring for democracy and human rights serves as a pretext for overturning election results after even the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights with its tainted reputation recognised the election as being free and fair. Why do they want to change the results? Just because the puppet masters in Washington and Brussels did not find the way people voted there to their liking.

The United States and the European Union are trying to impose a distorted vision on Tbilisi which consists of dividing everyone into those who are with us and those who are against us. Meanwhile, it seems that Georgian authorities have opted for a sovereign policy which meets the country’s national interests. They refuse to act as pawns manipulated by the West in its effort to destabilise Georgia, undermine its economy and incite escalation in its relations with Russia.

I am certain that the people of Georgia can see through all this and will move forward. As for Russia, we have no intention to interfere in Georgia’s domestic affairs. We are committed to bringing the Russia-Georgia relations back to normal as long as Tbilisi is ready to meet us halfway.

Question: How will the situation in Syria develop after the change of government? Why has it happened so rapidly? Is it true that a redistribution of the spheres of influence is underway in the Middle East?

Sergey Lavrov: We are closely monitoring the developments in Syria. It would be premature to make far-reaching conclusions regarding them now.

However, it can be said that one of the reasons for the aggravation of the situation there was the former government’s inability to meet the fundamental demands of the people amid a drawn-out civil conflict. The Syrians’ hopes for improvements after a convincing defeat of international terrorism, including with the help of Russia’s Aerospace Forces, have not materialised.

Washington, which has effectively occupied the resource-rich north-eastern part of Syria and is putting serious sanctions pressure on Damascus together with a coalition of its satellites, bears a great deal of blame for this. This line for strangling the Syrian economy stirred up social discontent.

In that situation, the Syrian authorities had to take unpopular measures, such as cutting or cancelling subsidies for socially significant products and services. Protest sentiments were growing in society, and public support for the government was decreasing.

We provided various forms of assistance to the friendly Syrian people, including humanitarian aid, the restoration of social infrastructure destroyed during the conflict, and the creation of facilities for the return of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons. We also worked energetically to help bring about a political settlement, including within the Astana format.

However, it can be said that despite our strong recommendations and active assistance, the former authorities have not managed to develop a constructive dialogue with their opponents and the influential regional neighbours with a view to launching a full-scale political process, or to settle serious socioeconomic problems.

As for the second part of your question, I have a different description of the current developments in the Middle East and North Africa. The dramatic and tragic events we are witnessing there have largely been precipitated by the United States’ irresponsible and destructive actions. Trying to maintain its influence in that part of the world, Washington actively interfered in the internal affairs of Arab countries and aggressively drew new dividing lines there. Iraq and Libya are still trying to clear up the consequences of the Americans and their satellites’ reckless behaviour. Another source of chronic tensions is the recurring Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in which Washington tried to act as the sole intermediary.

A combination of the above factors led to the destabilisation of the military-political situation in the Middle East in October 2023. Since then, the arc of violence has spread from the zone of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict to Lebanon and the Red Sea. Confrontation between Iran and Israel has reached a dangerous level. I have already mentioned the situation in Syria.

Russia has always tried to find solutions to the regional conflicts that would primarily suit the conflicting sides. The Middle Eastern states themselves must play the leading part in normalising the situation. We are ready to provide assistance to them.

Question: The West relentlessly claims that the DPRK military are allegedly involved in hostilities as part of Russia’s special military operation, calling this a new escalation on Russia’s part. Moreover, they make these statements in no uncertain terms and in an accusatory manner against Moscow. How would you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: We have repeatedly commented on the endless hype surrounding this issue, which the West continues to fuel. Recently, this propagation of falsehoods has become even more aggressive. A response to this is quick and easy: they really do protest too much, as a popular phrase goes.

Those who accuse Russia of various doings should be advised to look in the mirror instead. NATO military and mercenaries openly participate in the planning of combat operations and fighting on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. NATO is complicit in the invasion of the Kursk Region and long-range missile strikes inside Russia. President Vladimir Putin made this very clear in his recent public statements. What kind of escalation on our part are they even talking about?

One definitely cannot expect Western representatives to be objective amidst an information war. We will continue to calmly and reasonably refute their biased anti-Russia insinuations.

Russia will continue to cooperate with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in accordance with the bilateral Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, which was enacted recently. Among other things, the agreement provides for a joint response to threats arising against any of the parties.

Question: Taiwan is another source of tension in the world. China is working to resolve this problem. At the same time, the United States has repeatedly engaged in provocations on this track. Do you think this policy will change with the second Trump administration? How real is the threat of a major war in the region?

Sergey Lavrov: We would rather refrain from guessing the next US administration’s plans and leave this to political scientists. According to our assessment of the overall situation in the region, it continues to deteriorate. The United States and its satellites declare their commitment to the One China policy while insisting on maintaining the status quo, which implies the preservation of the current situation indefinitely. At the same time, the Americans are taking inciting actions in the Taiwan Strait and supplying weapons to Taipei while forging a quasi-political dialogue with the local authorities. These actions predictably contribute to the growth of separatist sentiments, and their methods are very similar to those that they earlier used to create an anti-Russia bridgehead in Ukraine.

It is clear to us that this policy pursued by Washington in violation of its obligations to Beijing on Taiwan is part of their strategy to step up military and political pressure on the PRC and eventually undermine regional security at the eastern end of the Eurasian continent.

Our principled stance on the Taiwan issue has not changed. Once again, it was set out in a joint statement by the leaders of Russia and China following President Vladimir Putin’s visit to China in May. Since every word is important in this case, I will quote an excerpt from this statement: “Russia reaffirms its adherence to the One China principle, recognises that Taiwan is an inalienable part of the People’s Republic of China, opposes any form of “Taiwan independence,” and firmly supports China’s measures to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity and achieve national reunification.” We will continue to be guided by these provisions.

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