РУССКИЙ
23:34 24.05.2025 •
Photo: MFA
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at the diplomatic conference ‘Historically South Russian Lands: National Identity and Self-Determination of Peoples’.
Moscow, May 23, 2025
Question: Today, all the major global players are discussing peace in Ukraine. Initiatives have been put forward by friendly nations – China, India, and Brazil – and, of course, our adversaries. In your opinion, what fundamentally distinguishes the Russian approaches from the wide array of proposals? Why is a truce and ceasefire insufficient today?
Sergey Lavrov: Allow me to say a few words. I understand that I may repeat what has already been mentioned before me. I am aware that many of our experts and political scientists participated in the preparation of this event and have already spoken today.
The falsification of history did not emerge today. For many years, our detractors have engaged in this with the aim of sowing discord among Russian peoples, pursuing their self-serving interests, and hindering collaboration in the post-Soviet space. These attempts to “drive wedges” intensified particularly after the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
It is precisely this period that is associated with a new surge of nationalist sentiments in Ukraine, which had long existed there, albeit dormant. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, in a relatively short period, the then-President Leonid Kuchma wrote a book titled “Ukraine Is Not Russia.” It was published in 2003. The work is blatantly pseudo-scientific. The author himself stated that the goal of this work was to “create Ukrainians.”
In essence, it is this concept laid out in the work “Ukraine Is Not Russia” that became a sort of intellectual foundation for the modern nationalist Ukrainian elites.
In 2014, when an unconstitutional coup d’état occurred with open support from the United States and the acquiescence of the European Union, Ukraine definitively transformed into a military-political stronghold of the West at our borders. They had long cherished this dream and started to refer to themselves as “anti-Russia.”
In Odessa, monuments were dismantled. This phenomenon of dismantling monuments is, of course, quite telling, not only for the modern Ukrainian leaders but also for the Poles and the Baltic states. However, when the monument to the founder of Odessa, Empress Catherine the Great, was dismantled, and a week later UNESCO decided that the historic centre of Odessa is a world cultural heritage site, it was impossible to disgrace this once-respected organisation, now led by the openly biased Director-General Audrey Azoulay, any further, even if one tried. I have already spoken about other monuments – to Alexander Suvorov, Alexander Pushkin, Isaac Babel, and figures of literature, culture, and art whose names are associated with the Russian language. All these monuments are being removed, just as the monuments to those who liberated Ukraine from Nazi occupiers are dismantled, while, conversely, monuments to collaborators are being erected.
It is difficult to replace historical truth; therefore, the ideologists of this very “Ukraine Is Not Russia” delve into such inquiries, publishing supposedly scientific works that make one’s hair stand on end. I am not joking here. “In fact,” the Black Sea was dug by Ukrainians. Buddha originated from Zaporozhye. The Mona Lisa has Ukrainian origins; her great-grandparents were from Odessa and Kiev. Can you imagine what nonsense this is? It is spread not just through the grapevine but is found in history textbooks of Ukraine.
Russophobia has deeply rooted in Ukraine and is actively supported by Western powers, in the historical context as well. This sentiment has been systematically cultivated since the mid-19th century, when the Austro-Hungarian Empire began fostering anti-Russia attitudes in Galicia (western Ukraine), initiating harsh persecution against the local population, the Rusyns. Despite these efforts, a significant part of the Galician-Russian intelligentsia and the vast majority of the people remained spiritually and culturally connected to Russia, resisting attempts to sever these ties.
During World War I, the Austro-Hungarian authorities unleashed mass repression and terror against the Rusyn population: tens of thousands perished in the death camps of Thalerhof and Terezin, considered among the first in Europe. Yes, they were invented by Austro-Hungary. Today, the airport of Graz, Austria, is located where Thalerhof used to be. These atrocities have not been forgotten. Ongoing efforts are being made to recognise the extermination of the Russian population in Galician Rus and other Russian regions of Austria-Hungary as the first genocide in modern European history. The work is sure to continue.
In 1929, the infamous Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was founded in Vienna. It would later serve as guidance for most Ukrainian nationalist parties and organisations in the 1990s and 2000s. Alongside the slogan “Ukraine is Not Russia,” a radical nationalist agenda, influenced by and Nazi racial doctrines and embodied in the OUN, was developing.
This organisation and those who considered it an ideal union of Ukrainians promoted the concept of ethnic purity, following in step with the Western colonisers and the Nazis. Ethnic groups were categorised as either friendly (neutral), to be expelled from Ukraine) or hostile (to be eliminated). The latter category included Russians, Poles, Jews, and Hungarians. This is what Ukrainian nationalists were doing during World War II: exterminating them.
Today, figures who once championed and enacted these inhumane policies are glorified by new or revived nationalist movements in Ukraine. Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich are portrayed as national heroes and founders of modern Ukrainian statehood. The Kiev authorities consider themselves the heirs of these criminals. It is no surprise that even before the start of the special military operation, 10 or 11 years ago, the Kiev regime had launched a campaign to systematically eradicate all things Russian.
This included education (first, Russian-language primary classes were banned, followed by secondary and eventually higher education in Russian), culture, and media. Russian-owned media outlets were shut down and driven out of the country. Ukrainian media broadcasting in Russian faced the same fate.
Ukraine has now tacitly introduced a filtering authority for any information to be approved for publication or broadcasting in any media.
President Putin has long pointed out these trends. In December 2019 he spoke at a meeting of the Victory organising committee for preparations to the next anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. He touched on those matters and said, “Truth is our response to lie.” Truth has to be protected. The truth is that South Russian lands and the entire territory of contemporary Ukraine were always among the most developed and prosperous regions of the Russian Empire and the USSR. Natives of those lands always held senior public offices both before and during the Soviet government, including such Soviet leader as Leonid Brezhnev, who was born in the present Dnepropetrovsk Region. He worked in leading positions in Ukraine and then in Moscow for a long time.
At the time of the Soviet Union collapse the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic had a most powerful industrial potential and developed agriculture. You can judge by yourselves what it was driven to by the “elites” that came to power and unleashed the fratricide war in Donbass in 2014. The statistics is known well enough as well as what the modern Ukrainian economy and social sphere are all about. What methods they use there, including catching young men in the streets to first forcibly stuff them into a car and then send them to the front. Russia has nothing to do with this.
When the coup d’état took place, the resulting new authorities that emerged in Kiev squabbled over cabinet appointments and announced their programme. The US Department of State welcomed those events, and its former notorious official Victoria Nuland even proudly confessed that the United States had not wasted the $5 billion invested in establishing, developing and reinforcing Ukrainian democracy over the preceding several years.
Now much is being said about national identity and self-determination. The right of peoples to self-determination has been enshrined in the UN Charter. Antonio Guterres spoke at the Security Council and the UN General Assembly on many occasions. In my contacts with Antonio Guterres, I call on him not to forget that the UN Charter contains more lines than that on the territorial integrity. His representative Stephane Dujarric evaded many times the question about the UN stance on Ukraine settlement. He only keeps saying by rote the cliché that the UN is for settling the crisis on the basis of international law, Ukrainian territorial integrity and UN General Assembly resolutions.
He doesn’t seem to realise that there are multiple General Assembly resolutions out there. One of those that matters most in these circumstances is the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It’s a substantial document and, unlike the resolutions that the current Kiev regime is pushing through with the Western support, and which Antonio Guterres cites in an attempt to justify his position in support of Ukraine, this one was adopted by consensus and clearly states that all countries must respect the territorial integrity of those countries whose governments respect the principle of self-determination and therefore represent the entire population residing within the borders of the territory in question.
However, neither Zelensky, nor those who came to power in 2014 represent the people of Crimea, Donbass, or Novorossiya. One of the first major messages sent by the coup leaders after they seized power in 2014 was declaration of intent to revoke the official status of the Russian language in Ukraine. That is when everything became crystal clear.
Those who blindly and stubbornly repeat the territorial integrity mantra ignore a simple thing: the principle of self-determination was the foundation of the decolonisation process. According to the 1970 Declaration, the peoples of Africa chose not to remain under the colonial rule. The colonial governments in Lisbon, Paris, London, and capitals of other mother countries did not represent the African peoples. If that was the case, the decolonisation was entirely in line with the UN Charter and the principles established by the General Assembly concerning the interrelationship between the Charter’s principles.
Likewise, as I mentioned earlier, today’s Ukrainian authorities do not represent the people of Crimea, Novorossiya, or Donbass. We have circulated documents quoting Ukrainian officials about Russians and Russian-speaking citizens of their country dating back well before the start of the special military operation. Zelensky himself said that if you feel part of the Russian culture, but live in Ukraine, then, for the sake of your children and grandchildren, you should make it off to Russia.
Other members of his cabinet didn’t mince words expressing their views, either, including calls to “kill Rusnya.” Infamous Ukrainian Ambassador to Kazakhstan, Petr Vrublevsky (who has since been recalled), gave an interview in 2022 where he publicly stated that the Ukrainian authorities’ objective was to kill as many Russians as possible, so that there would be none left, and their children would have less work to do. This statement came from an ambassador. Notably, no Western country supporting this regime had anything to say about that.
There are numerous incidents from recent Ukrainian history that have been swept under the carpet. No one is going to investigate them. For instance, the tragic events in Odessa on May 2, 2014, where around fifty people were burned alive in the Trade Unions House for protesting against the actions of the coup leaders who had grabbed power in Ukraine. Today, the Council of Europe is actively preparing claims against Russia over events it labels as aggression, occupation, and annexation. Back then, it made a half-hearted offer to help investigate this heinous crime where around fifty people were burned alive, and even adopted a resolution saying it was ready to assist in the investigation. No one is even taking about it now, because the Kiev authorities ignored the Council of Europe and made clear their thoughts about its role. Since then, the Council has focused on whitewashing the crimes committed by the Kiev regime and smearing everything the Russian Federation did. Truth be told, there’s nothing to investigate: faces of those who set the building on fire and then shot the people who were jumping out of windows are clearly discernible in video footage. No extra work is required. All they need to do is publish the evidence, that’s all.
The Bucha incident in April 2022 is another case of lying and covering-up. At the West’s request, Russian Armed Forces withdrew from Kiev as a gesture of goodwill, awaiting a peace agreement based on Ukraine’s own principles. They pulled out of Bucha as well. However, just two days after the mayor returned to town, BBC correspondents who conveniently happened to be on the premises reported finding dozens of bodies that were neatly arranged on the town’s main street, not some abandoned basement. This story sparked outrage. The West was led by the BBC story to levy even more sanctions on Russia, yet questions remain unanswered as to whether a thorough investigation into the incident has ever been conducted.
We’ve sent a letter to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk. He has remained silent for many months now, maybe even years.
According to our information, they are well aware of everything that happened, but are afraid to tell the truth, a portion of which they know. The most compelling example of hypocrisy and covering up for criminals is the refusal to provide the names of the people whose bodies were televised and caused public outcry.
There is no information available whatsoever. Well, even if after that someone will say that Ukrainians are suffering and Russia must be forced to do something about it, all I have to say is we can’t leave people living under the current regime without protection. If the “government” which is essentially a junta is counting on a ceasefire and that what is left of Ukraine will continue to live under their laws, I’m here to tell them that it’s an illusion. We cannot allow this to happen under no circumstances.
Ukraine, which lies beyond the constitutional borders of the Russian Federation, is home to millions of people who speak Russian. It is their native language. Leaving them to the junta, which has banned them from speaking it (the only thing left is for them to outlaw thinking in Russian), would be a crime.
I hope and I’m confident that we will not let this happen, and the international community will not allow such a mockery of the UN Charter, the first article of which is “encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” The Russian language and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church have been banned in Ukraine.
So, at this point of the settlement effort, the easiest and the absolutely correct thing for our Western colleagues - who are busy scurrying about - to do is to demand to repeal the laws that outright violate the UN Charter, not to mention the numerous conventions covering the rights of ethnic minorities. That would be a test to see where the Europeans truly stand, not all of them, but the majority of Europeans under the leadership of London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and Warsaw, who have never once uttered the word “human rights” in relation to what is happening in Ukraine.
However, whenever they discuss China, Russia, Iran, or Venezuela, or almost any other country, and try to build relations with it, they absolutely always point to the importance of respecting human rights. There is no other country like Ukraine. Ms Ambassador of Israel and I discussed this matter the other day, and she said that the Arabic language is not banned in Israel, and Hebrew is not banned in the Arab countries. There is no such thing as banning a language in any country around the globe other than Ukraine.
It appears that Ukraine can get away with anything, though. Moreover, Europe does not just turn a blind eye to what the Kiev regime is doing in Ukraine, but takes pride in it. Ursula von der Leyen, and Mr Michel before he left his post, and every single functionary in Brussels, upholding their position on Ukraine, tried to talk their voters into the importance of tightening their belts now and waiting for better times, because now is the time to help Ukraine, not the time to focus on healthcare or heating issues. They say they should wait, because Ukraine is defending European values. Go ahead and make up your mind with regard to what Europe sees as its values.
Genuine Nazism is rearing up its ugly head. Examples abound, including speeches by new Chancellor Friedrich Merz in which he claims that time has come for Germany to lead Europe again. One would have to be cynical to the bone to utter such words. The militarisation of Europe is proclaimed as a main objective for the second half of the decade. This is a dangerous dynamic.
I can go on and on about this matter that concerns me much, but I will leave it at that and take questions now.
Question: Daily, we read of numerous proposals being submitted. These proposals come from both our opponents and friends, including India, China, and Brazil, concerning how to resolve the Ukrainian crisis.
I would like to inquire about your position: what fundamentally distinguishes these proposals from our own? You have partially addressed this question, characterising the Kiev regime and its current state. It is difficult to negotiate with them, if negotiation is even possible. Nevertheless, talks have commenced.
Sergey Lavrov: Difficult? We engaged in negotiations at the end of February 2022, when the Ukrainians requested talks, to which we immediately agreed. Several rounds were held in Belarus before relocating to Istanbul. This occurred in late March and early April 2022. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly addressed this, presenting documentation. It was the Ukrainians who proposed resolving the situation based on the principles they themselves drafted: renouncing NATO membership and other military blocs, and refusing to host foreign military bases. Meanwhile, the British harboured plans to establish bases in Ochakov and the Sea of Azov. All this is documented. Their designs on Crimea predate 2014.
No military bases, no military exercises on Ukrainian territory, and security guarantees – which they themselves requested – were to be provided by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, alongside Germany and Turkiye. The list of parties wishing to join remained open. These guarantees were framed almost identically to Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, with explicit exclusion of Crimea and Donbass. These principles were their own wording, with dialogue to continue on other aspects of settlement. We agreed. This was critical to achieving the primary objective at the time: preventing NATO’s encroachment into Ukraine.
Additional guarantees for national minorities were also included. All this collapsed. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly revisited this issue. Yet, throughout subsequent years and to this day, we have consistently emphasised at the highest and other levels our readiness for peaceful negotiations aimed at understanding and eliminating the root causes of this crisis.
We did not shun contact. They declared – Vladimir Zelensky stated – that he would never sit at the table. He signed an executive order banning negotiations with Vladimir Putin and his government. Now they attempt to reinterpret this, claiming it merely prohibits personal meetings with Vladimir Putin. If meetings with the Russian President are forbidden, why did Zelensky previously lament that he headed to Istanbul and Putin refused to attend?
Comparing all arguments emanating from Ukraine, it is evident we are dealing with an erratic leader. His actions defy prediction – whether flying to South Africa or embracing European counterparts. President Putin has clearly articulated our assessment of Vladimir Zelensky’s legitimacy and that of his regime.
He stressed that we remain open to contacts with Zelensky and his administration to agree on mutually acceptable settlement principles. However, when formalising agreements, the question of legitimacy becomes decisive. Should signatories lack recognised authority, their successors could repudiate any accord.
Observe how the stance of the Ukrainians themselves, the Ukrainian leadership, and the Western nations has evolved. Until recently, they insisted there would be no negotiations, no ceasefire – asserting that only Russia’s “strategic defeat” could resolve the battlefield situation. They claimed that Russia must withdraw to the 1991 borders. Once they began to comprehend that developments along the line of contact were decidedly unfavourable to the Kiev regime, new tones emerged: opposition to halting hostilities and to initiating talks, all the while maintaining that Ukraine must first secure a position of strength to negotiate with Russia from a dominant stance.
We speak of history. What lessons has it imparted to these individuals? Let them recall how their ancestors and forebears attempted to engage Russia from a position of strength. Futile.
Now, it is they who plead for a respite – solely to rearm. They have stated as much publicly. My former colleague, now President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, declares that Vladimir Putin is obliged to agree to an immediate ceasefire – yet insists such a ceasefire must impose no restrictions on the West’s dealings with the Ukrainian regime.
What does this signify? That they intend to continue militarising this state.
Present here are members of our delegation who recently attended the first round of talks in Istanbul. The Ukrainians sat with them, conversed, and discussed agreements that began to take shape – concerning POW exchanges and a memorandum outlining key issues for a settlement to be drafted by both parties, to which priority attention must be given. An understanding was reached. Yet nothing substantive followed. They agreed because they presumed Western support, including from the United States, would be eternal – that they would forever be permitted every indulgence.
However, US President Donald Trump has demonstrated a different interpretation of the situation. He has repeatedly underscored that this is not his war but Joe Biden’s. Precisely so. His stance – that the US acts in its national interest – extends to the Ukrainian context. What national interest does the USA have in Ukraine, beyond the objective pursued by Democratic administrations: to “contain,” “encircle,” and “keep Russia in perpetual tension?” None. Economic interests, by all means – no one forbids that.
We support negotiations. A second round will take place. They have confirmed this. That, at least, is a positive development.
Question: Is the work on the memorandum underway?
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, it is. I am not sure about the other party, but our work is at an advanced stage. In any case, we are going to give the memorandum to the Ukrainians, as agreed. We expect them to do the same.
Question: Is there clarity regarding subsequent meetings? There is a lot of talk about it now.
Sergey Lavrov: No dates have been set yet. Many people fantacise about when and where the next meeting will take place. We have no ideas at the moment.
Is the papal nuncio present here? I’d like to ask them to spare their efforts on working out options that are not quite realistic. Imagine Vatican being the venue for the talks. I would say this is somewhat inelegant when two Orthodox countries would use a Catholic venue to discuss the root causes of the crisis. One of them is the destruction of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. To replace it, Petr Poroshenko, the then president of Ukraine, asked for a tomos of autocephaly from the Patriarch of Constantinople in Istanbul to create an alternative church, the one notorious mainly by its adepts raiding the canonical Orthodox churches and killing or beating its priests. There is also the Greek Catholic Church in Ukraine which has been very supportive of the post-coup regime in the country.
I think it would not be very comfortable for the Vatican itself to receive delegations from two Orthodox Christian countries under these circumstances.
Question: If we are to consider the future, this year marks the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Accords. It is evident that Helsinki produced pivotal decisions which ensured peace and stability in Europe for a considerable period. However, subsequent developments – such as the events in the Balkans, Transnistria, and the South Caucasus – significantly undermined these agreements.
On multiple occasions and at various stages, President Vladimir Putin has emphasised the necessity of establishing new European security architecture, one that reflects contemporary realities and guarantees peace and stability in Europe for an extended period – ideally spanning not merely one generation, but several. In your view, is there any meaningful effort being made in this direction today? Is Europe prepared to engage with these issues, or does the current situation relegate such prospects to the distant future?
Sergey Lavrov: Europe is experiencing a profound security crisis. Its focus, as I have noted, is on militarisation. I reiterate: it is deeply concerning that Germany – specifically, Chancellor Friedrich Merz – is leading these discussions. He recently addressed the Bundestag, declaring, “Strengthening the Bundeswehr is our top priority. In the future, the German government will allocate all necessary financial resources to ensure the Bundeswehr becomes the most powerful conventional army in Europe.” Does this not evoke certain parallels? The most formidable conventional army in Europe was once commanded by Adolf Hitler.
Another revealing statement by Friedrich Merz emerged when he sought to justify his militarisation agenda – the creation of Europe’s strongest army. He asserted that Russia would not stop in Ukraine and would proceed to seize Europe. In Freudian terms, he projected his own inclinations: rather than protecting his compatriots, he envisions conquest and exploitation. These Nazi instincts have proven remarkably persistent.
Regarding our position, it is grounded in the evident failure of Euro-Atlantic security models. The OSCE is a primary example. NATO, the West’s principal North Atlantic structure, is also in deep crisis. The European Union, having formalised an agreement with the alliance two years ago, has effectively become its military-political appendage. This accord grants NATO access to member states’ territories for the eastward deployment of weapons and forces.
Eurasia is the largest, wealthiest, and most populous continent – the cradle of many great civilisations. While it hosts numerous integration structures, it has never had an overarching, “umbrella” framework. Africa and Latin America, despite their own numerous integration bodies, possess the African Union and CELAC, respectively. Eurasia, however, lacks a comparable all-encompassing organisation—or even a cohesive movement. This is unnatural. Proceeding from practical realities, we see significant potential – including in terms of enhancing the competitiveness of Eurasian nations – in fostering operational linkages between existing integration associations.
The EAEU maintains relations with both the SCO and ASEAN. Similarly, ASEAN engages with the SCO, among others. We support Kazakhstan’s initiative – the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia – where discussions are currently underway regarding its transformation into an organisation. The GCC likewise represents a promising framework. The ongoing normalisation of relations between Arab monarchies and Iran significantly enhances the economic, transit, and logistical potential of the region. Additionally, the Central Asian Five has attracted growing engagement from numerous continental states and beyond.
Each of these groups has developed its own plans for the development of transport corridors and energy supply routes. Rather than pursuing redundant, isolated efforts, it would be far more advantageous and efficient to harmonise these initiatives.
President Vladimir Putin articulated his vision for strengthening ties – rooted in practical realities – among existing regional structures quite some time ago, at the first Russia-ASEAN summit in 2005. He suggested that the outcome of this process would be the formation of a Greater Eurasian Partnership. And this process is underway. Take, for instance, the International North-South Transport Corridor, which facilitates direct connectivity between, say, the Baltic Sea and the Indian Ocean. There are other ideas as well.
I recently visited Armenia. The Armenian side is developing the Crossroads of Peace initiative, seeking to integrate its territory and logistical capabilities into broader continental processes. On this matter, we support the development of all infrastructure projects – so that, as our Chinese friends say, “a thousand, a million flowers may bloom.” However, to realise the Crossroads of Peace in practice, a peace treaty must be signed between Armenia and Azerbaijan. We sincerely wish for success in this endeavour. Just yesterday, we discussed this with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and Armenian President Vahagn Khachaturyan. It is clear that the treaty became possible thanks to the trilateral summits between Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia. We stand ready to continue offering assistance, provided both sides are interested.
Obviously, normalisation between the Republic of Armenia and the Republic of Türkiye is essential. Resolving conflicts and lifting the transport and economic restrictions imposed amidst these conflicts would significantly enhance the competitiveness of this region and our entire continent.
The Greater Eurasian Partnership, as we envision it – guided by real-world dynamics – would serve as a substantial material foundation for efforts to shape a Eurasian security architecture.
I proceed from the principle that this should be the work of continental nations and that the structure must align with the logic of Eurasian security – not Euro-Atlantic security. Not because we seek to isolate ourselves. NATO exists. Countries wishing to institutionally intertwine themselves with North America have every right to do so – by all means. But they must not obstruct the creation of a structure where all Eurasian nations, including those in the western part of our continent, can and should have the right to participate.
I see no grounds for interpreting this as some sort of conspiracy. Yet there are attempts to pursue unilateral initiatives from the other side, precisely from NATO. Take former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. Many have already forgotten him. He led NATO International Staff for a long time. In his final year in office, when the Alliance was actively promoting its Indo-Pacific strategies, journalists asked Stoltenberg: “You are expanding into the Indo-Pacific region, yet NATO has always claimed to be a defensive alliance tasked with protecting its members’ territories from external threats.” Without so much as blinking or blushing, he replied: “Yes, that remains the case, but now threats to NATO member territories emanate from Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia, the Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea.” He stated it outright.
NATO is presently advancing its infrastructure into the eastern part of the Eurasian continent, actively seeking to undermine – if I may be so blunt – the unity of ASEAN. It attempts to entice individual ASEAN members into closed bloc structures (“trios” and “quartets”), whilst proclaiming this region as vitally important for NATO.
Why does this Euro-Atlantic structure harbour ambitions to dominate and extend its influence across virtually the entire Eurasian continent, stretching all the way to the Far East? If the Eurasian nations themselves do not undertake the responsibility of crafting their security architecture, then we can only observe as this is dictated from across the ocean.
Another aspect of this issue is that, as previously mentioned, US President Donald Trump asserts that his foreign policy is anchored in national interests. He believes that Europeans should assume greater responsibility for their own challenges rather than depending on the United States. This also indicates a trend where, in future security discussions, the Eurasian dimension must somehow be recognised. This is in stark contrast to the overtly aggressive, revanchist rhetoric emanating from Brussels and Berlin concerning the militarisation of Europe and the indoctrination of their populations for war with Russia. To counter this, peaceful efforts must be mobilised.
From the outset, we have ardently supported Belarus’ initiative, which several years ago hosted the first International Conference on Eurasian Security in Minsk. Last year marked the second conference, and a third is scheduled for this autumn. Following the second conference – in which I participated, and I will undoubtedly attend the forthcoming one – my colleague, Belarusian Foreign Minister Maxim Ryzhenkov, and I disseminated our vision for the project, including documents we provisionally term the Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. Several ministers from EU countries and other European states, notably Serbia, participated. We emphasise that Eurasian discussions on Eurasian security must be inclusive of all nations on the continent. For now, this remains a work in progress. We are not attempting to artificially or schematically draft anything – unlike the architects and advocates of “Indo-Pacific strategies,” conceived precisely within NATO’s corridors.
Instead, we aim to discern practical trends in real life. These illustrate that numerous structures established across Eurasia are eager to construct bridges; many such bridges already exist and have been utilised to implement mutually beneficial, tangible projects.
Question: It is abundantly clear that the Eurasian framework remains a priority, particularly in matters pertaining to security. I must note that experts have begun actively engaging with these issues. At the upcoming Primakov Readings in June, a dedicated session will focus on this Eurasian framework – on Eurasian security.
You mentioned the United States and Donald Trump. If we consider the Russian-American track of relations, setting aside for a moment the Ukrainian issue (since it is not the sole item on the bilateral agenda), how would you assess the state of affairs beyond matters linked to the Ukrainian crisis?
Sergey Lavrov: A return to normalcy. When, at the Americans’ suggestion, I met in Riyadh with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and then-National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, alongside Aide to the President the Russian Federation Yury Ushakov, we noted a clear mutual understanding on both sides: that the foreign policy of any normal country must be rooted in national interests. This is the position of US President Donald Trump, and the position of Russian President Vladimir Putin. We are not talking about some ideological ambition to spread one’s influence as far as possible. If we take national interests as our foundation – and I hope US Secretary of State Marco Rubio will not take offence – he stated that the United States respects the fact that every country has its own national interests, especially when it comes to great powers.
From this, two conclusions follow. First, the national interests of any two states – let alone two major great powers – will never fully align. More than that, in most cases, they will not align. But when they do, it would be a colossal mistake not to leverage this circumstance – this convergence of national interests – to steer the situation towards joint, mutually beneficial tangible projects in economics, technology, and so forth.
Second, when these interests do not align but instead collide, the duty and responsibility of the respective powers is to prevent this collision from escalating into confrontation – let alone into open conflict. This was the conceptual foundation of our discussions in Riyadh.
Observing developments in real time, I sense that, at this stage, the Trump administration is acting precisely in this manner. We have always conducted ourselves this way: never lecturing others, never presuming to teach anyone how to live. This marks a substantial shift in Washington’s policy compared to previous Democratic administrations.
Nonetheless, we do see that this White House approach has stirred significant unease among the elites, including within Republican circles. Many are unaccustomed to living in a world where they do not dictate everything or do not seek to control all things. Naturally, we are politically sober-minded. It is crucial not to indulge in illusions and remain realists, understanding that there have been numerous occasions when the United States has abruptly shifted its stance. That is life. There is no escaping it. But we must undoubtedly account for it. And we do, as we plan our steps.
All else being equal, we are prepared to pursue mutually beneficial projects. Mutually beneficial is key here. This includes space, advanced technologies, energy. American companies have operated in our market before. All of this is possible if our American partners are willing – and I believe they are – to agree on principles that ensure equality and mutual advantage.
Question: Returning to the Ukrainian crisis, do you think is has influenced – and does it continue to influence – the shaping of a new world order? What irreversible changes have occurred? To what extent are these changes favourable or unfavourable for our Fatherland, for Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: I believe the trend towards a multipolar world is indeed healthy. Many consider this an unattainable dream, as even major powers – primarily among the countries of the World Majority – are reluctant to quarrel with the United States.
We, for our part, do not seek to quarrel with anyone. However, we do insist on working earnestly. Let me reiterate what I have stated in this very forum when we gathered to discuss Ukraine. We see no need to dismantle the international legal foundation of the world order as enshrined in the UN Charter. However, it must be respected in its entirety – the full corpus and interconnectedness of the principles contained therein.
There is a textbook example: when it became necessary to dismantle the remnants of Yugoslavia, the West unilaterally declared Kosovo’s independence, invoking the right of nations to self-determination – even though by that point, no force had been used for quite some time. UN Security Council Resolution 1244 was in effect, affirming Kosovo’s status as part of Serbia. This was back in 2008, when the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia still existed. Six years later – not in a peaceful setting, but following a bloody coup in Ukraine – the junta that seized power launched military operations against its own people after Crimea and Donbass refused to recognise the coup’s legitimacy. Combat aircraft were deployed, bombing the city centre of Lugansk. No one remembers this now – how people were burned alive. When Crimeans, faced with armed thugs sent by “friendship trains” to seize the Crimean Supreme Council building, rose up against this and held a referendum, the West declared it illegitimate, citing a violation of territorial integrity. But what about Serbia back then? “Oh, that’s different,” they said. Subsequently, Serbia appealed to the UN International Court of Justice, which ruled that a declaration of independence by part of a state does not require the consent of central authorities. One would think the matter was settled. Period. Yet to this day, no one wishes to acknowledge it – despite everything that has long been known, despite even the fact that the US, under the Trump Administration, took a realistic view of the Ukrainian situation.
Donald Trump was the first – if not the only – leader to publicly state that pushing Ukraine into NATO was a grave mistake. It would never happen. The blame lies with the Biden Administration. Now, even representatives of the current US administration openly admit that the territorial issue will inevitably have to be resolved based on realities, and so forth.
Europe, stubbornly and rather foolishly, keeps repeating that “the Russians must withdraw to the 1991 borders.” I have said before: when this conflict ends – and I hope it will – what will remain beyond the constitutional borders of the Russian Federation? What kind of order will prevail there? Will it be Vladimir Zelensky’s regime, which will continue to suppress all things Russian in violation of international law? When Europe demands that we return to the 1991 borders, does it truly intend to hand over Crimea, Novorossiya, and Donbass residents to this regime? They are not demanding changes to Ukrainian laws. They claim these laws uphold “European values.” I hardly think this is straightforward work.
The memorandum we agreed to prepare and deliver to the Ukrainians is being drafted with utmost regard for fundamental principles – for the root causes underlying this conflict and how they must be excised like a malignant tumour.
Question: First, I would like to express gratitude for your steadfast position that we will not retreat from addressing the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis. I have compiled a volume examining this matter in detail. I wish to present to the Russian Foreign Ministry a document of considerable significance – the Epistle of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, which affirms that “the Russian Church cannot recognise a peace under which Kiev, the mother of Russian cities, and other Russian lands are severed from Russia forever.” I would like to hand this to you for potential use in the Ministry’s work.
I have no further questions – only words of full support for your stance.
Sergey Lavrov: Thank you.
Question: I would like to pose a somewhat personal question. As Minister, and the Ministry as a whole, what lessons have you drawn from the Ukrainian crisis – its progression and its current state? I understand the Russian Foreign Ministry has engaged in profound reflection on these matters. I believe this would be of interest to the audience.
Sergey Lavrov: What conclusions?
Question: I mean – for yourself and for the Ministry.
Sergey Lavrov: With each passing day of our work – particularly on the Ukrainian issue in recent years – I am ever more convinced, time and again, that ours is a just cause.
Question: A fine answer, and succinct.
Sergey Lavrov: Colleagues, I thank you most sincerely for your attention. I would also like to express gratitude to Anatoly Torkunov and the leadership of the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Foreign Ministry for their efforts in organising events for the diplomatic corps in Moscow. We will continue to uphold and actively support this tradition. I trust you find it both engaging and beneficial.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
