РУССКИЙ
19:56 03.03.2025 •
Photo: MFA
Excerpts from Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with ‘Krasnaya Zvezda’ (‘Red Star’) media holding, March 2, 2025.
Sergey Lavrov: We were not blind. As far back as 2007, at the Munich Security Conference, President of Russia Vladimir Putin warned that while we were working with NATO, the European Union, and the G7 (as a member of the G8 at the time), we should not be mistaken for naïve or unaware. If we are to be treated as equals, then let us work as equals.
We continued our efforts. In numerous meetings, Vladimir Putin patiently explained to each country and Western partner what he meant in Munich, in case there had been any misunderstandings.
Until the very last moment, we gave them a chance to avoid an open conflict. In December 2021, we told them plainly: You are stalling on the Minsk Agreements and creating security threats for us. Let’s sign a European security treaty that ensures stability without dragging anyone into NATO. They ignored us.
Even in January 2022, I met with then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He told me that NATO was none of our business and that the only assurance they could offer was some limitations on the number of intermediate-range missiles they would deploy in Ukraine. That was it. More hypocrisy, impunity, exceptionalism and a sense of superiority. And where did it lead?
It is hardly surprising that at a major event last year, President Putin said that things will never return to how they were before February 2022. He had hoped otherwise, even as he understood those hopes were in vain. But he gave them every possible chance – urging them to come to the table and negotiate security guarantees, including for Ukraine, in a way that would not undermine our security. It was possible to resolve all these issues.
Now, many politicians, former government officials, and public figures – speaking with hindsight – claim things should have been handled differently. But what’s done is done.
Our goals are clear, and our objectives are set − just as they used to say in the Soviet Union.
Question: Reflecting on 2022, everyone recalls your extended negotiations with Antony Blinken. At what point did you realise that reaching an agreement was not feasible? How was the decision made to initiate the special military operation? There was a gap of another month between your talks with Antony Blinken.
Sergey Lavrov: I hoped that reason and common sense would prevail. But pride prevailed.
It was not only the plans to materially draw Ukraine into NATO, to create bases in Crimea, on the Sea of Azov – all these plans existed. But in addition to this geopolitical plan, pride also played a big role. How is that possible? They say – no need, but we will agree? I am not exaggerating. This is in its naked form what they were guided by. This is sad. This is not common sense.
It is not for nothing that Donald Trump now constantly says in relation to any conflict, considering the position of America, that there must be common sense. And Washington’s common sense dictates step aside.
Question: We remember that President Vladimir Putin stated the ball was in their court. The negotiations in Riyadh came as a surprise to many. What preliminary work was undertaken, and when did you begin preparing to make these talks possible?
Sergey Lavrov: There was no preliminary work. The presidents spoke by phone at Donald Trump’s initiative. In 2018, during a news conference in Helsinki after the World Cup, President Vladimir Putin handed him the ball – an official FIFA ball. Donald Trump caught it, spun it, and then tossed it to the members of his delegation seated in front of him.
We all understood that it was not Donald Trump who severed relations, but Joe Biden, yet it remains one country. Donald Trump was fully aware of this and took the initiative to call himself. Just a day prior, he had sent a close adviser to Russia for a detailed discussion. During the phone conversation, at his suggestion, they agreed to meet in Riyadh. Three days later, we flew there. So, there was no bilateral preparation. Of course, each side prepared independently – ours through the Foreign Ministry, and theirs through the State Department.
It was a completely normal discussion between two delegations. What stands out is that this normal exchange was seen as a sensation. This suggests that during Joe Biden’s tenure, our Western partners have shaped global public opinion to the point where a routine conversation is perceived as something extraordinary.
We will never think alike regarding every issue of global politics, and this was acknowledged by both sides in Riyadh, including the Americans. They said it themselves. Where our interests align, common sense dictates that it would be unwise not to translate that into practical actions for mutual benefit. Where our interests diverge – as US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also noted – it is the responsibility of responsible nations to ensure these differences do not escalate into confrontation. This is absolutely our position.
By the way, this is the same model on which US-China relations are built. They have numerous disagreements. The US imposes many sanctions on China to suppress the rival, though not as extensively as against us. The Americans and Europeans even impose 100 percent tariffs on electric vehicles, which is nothing more than unfair competition. But returning to the relationship model – despite these disagreements, and despite top US and Chinese leaders, as well as ministers, periodically accusing each other of various violations, primarily in the economic sphere, political and security issues are also discussed.
Look at how Chinese ministers speak about the West’s actions in the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea – the opposition is sharp. I understand our Chinese friends when they point out that on one hand, Western countries claim to uphold the one China policy, acknowledging that China is one and that Taiwan is part of it. Yet, in the same breath, they say that the status quo must not be altered. And what is the so-called status quo? An independent Taiwan. There is a great deal of hypocrisy in this approach.
It’s no coincidence that a Chinese Ministry of Defence representative recently stated that while they firmly support a peaceful resolution, they do not rule out military action if they are misled – or something like that. Despite this, dialogue between Beijing and Washington has never been interrupted. I believe this should be the model for relations between any two countries, especially between Russia and the United States. On the one hand, they can identify common interests and achieve mutually beneficial outcomes; on the other, they have a responsibility to prevent war when our interests diverge.
Many politicians in Russia were euphoric, when Donald Trump was elected for his first term. They are euphoric again.
The United States still has the same goal – to be number one country in the world. It sought to achieve that under Joe Biden and under Barack Obama, under the Democrats generally, by bringing all and sundry under its control, by paying for this support, as it paid NATO, as it paid Japan and South Korea, by creating outposts with NATO’s participation and with nuclear components.
Donald Trump is a pragmatist. Common sense is his motto. It means (as everyone can see) a transition to a different mode of doing business. But his goal is MAGA – Make America Great Again – all the same. He has a new hat now: Trump Was Right About Everything. This renders a lively human touch to politics. So, it is interesting to be with him.
His team – Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz – are absolutely reasonable people in every sense of the word. They talk based on the assumption that they do not boss us and we do not boss them. It is just that two serious countries have sat down to discuss what is wrong between them and what their predecessor has fouled up over the past four years by destroying all without exception channels for contact and introducing a number of sanctions, which led to the banishment of US companies that ended up sustaining hundreds of billions of dollars in losses.
Question: Judging by all appearances, this has continued for rather long, if not for the whole of postwar history. While holding your UN job, you maintained a constructive dialogue and signed joint documents with the Americans. But they breached those agreements, what had been declared, virtually within months. This was the case with Kosovo and Iraq. A month before former Secretary of State Colin Powell came up with his remarks, there was your joint document with a US representative on the need to streamline the dialogue, etc. What was your response to these things?
Sergey Lavrov: This has become a custom. You are absolutely right. We see a continued attempt to pull a fast one on everybody and palm off their position as the only correct one.
This was so even under State Secretary Colin Powell. We worked closely together with him, too. I am sure that he did not know what was inside that test-tube (what kind of white powder it was), I mean the tube he was shaking at the UN Security Council, saying that the then Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein, was as good as dead. He was tricked by the CIA.
I do not want to be anti-European. But the current situation corroborates the idea expressed by many historians. Over the past 500 years – when the West more or less took shape as we know it today, with certain modifications, naturally – all tragedies in the world originated in Europe or occurred owing to European policies. The colonisation, wars, the Crusaders, the Crimean War, Napoleon, World War I, Hitler. If you look at history in retrospect, the Americans played no seditious, let alone “inflammatory,” role.
Today, after Joe Biden’s term of office, the new team want to be guided by common sense. They say openly that they want to put an end to all wars, that they want peace. But who is saying that the show – the war – must go on? It’s Europe.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen stated that “peace in Ukraine could be more dangerous than the war that is going on now.” British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, following French President Emmanuel Macron’s lead, attempted to persuade US President Donald Trump that this story should not be brought to a quick end. Starmer proudly declared that this year, Britain would make its largest contribution to Ukraine in the form of weapons, directly contradicting Donald Trump and affirming that they would continue to fuel the Kiev regime. Meanwhile, President Emmanuel Macron is futzing around with various ideas, much like Keir Starmer. They claim to be training thousands of peacekeepers and providing them with air support, which is an audacious stance.
First and foremost, no one consults us. President Donald Trump understands the situation fully. He stated that it’s too early to determine when a settlement might occur, adding that this issue can be discussed, but the consent of the parties will be necessary. He is handling it appropriately.
The plan to introduce peacekeepers to Ukraine is simply a continuation of provoking the Kiev regime into war with us. These individuals trampled on the Minsk agreements, something they openly admitted not long ago. The co-authors of these agreements (our Western neighbours) never intended to uphold them. By supplying weapons, they helped bring Petr Poroshenko to power first, and then Vladimir Zelensky, effectively placing him in power on their bayonets. It was they who provoked Zelensky into making a complete U-turn, though perhaps German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock would describe it as a 360-degree turn.
Vladimir Zelensky has undergone a dramatic transformation – from a man who came to power with peace-oriented slogans, advocating for the protection of the Russian language and culture as our common heritage (all of this can be found online) – to someone who, within six months, became a staunch Nazi. As Russian President Vladimir Putin aptly described him, he has turned into a traitor to the Jewish people.
Just as they elevated him to power on bayonets and pushed him forward, now they seek to support him with their “bayonets” in the form of peacekeeping forces. However, this will only mean that the root causes remain.
When we ask these “thinkers” what will hypothetically happen to the territory they control, they respond that nothing will change, and Ukraine will remain as it is. I asked one of them whether the Russian language will be banned there. He remained silent. They cannot bring themselves to condemn what has happened. No other language has faced such aggression. Just imagine if French or German were banned in Switzerland, or if English was banned in Ireland. Now, the Irish are seeking a little self-determination. If they tried to ban English there, the entire UN would be shaken, with all its bodies demanding Ireland’s condemnation.
But here, it is allowed. You confront them directly, and they don’t respond. It’s exactly like when I (soon it will be three years) publicly asked at UN meetings and in press interactions for any information about Bucha – the tragedy that was used to impose sanctions on us. BBC aired those scenes two days later, when none of our soldiers was there. Now, we’re asking for just one thing (I’ve already given up hope of expecting anything more): could we see the list of people whose bodies were shown on the BBC? I even publicly asked UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres about this during a Security Council meeting, and not just once.
The last time was in September 2024, during the General Assembly session in New York. I held a final news conference with the world press in attendance, about seventy journalists. I told them, “You are journalists, right? Aren’t you professionally interested in finding out what happened there?”
We officially requested information from the UN Human Rights Office (which has a “mission to Ukraine” within it, though it was not created by consensus – they didn’t consult anyone) about the names of those individuals whose bodies were shown. Yet, there has been no response at all.
I also called out the journalists. It had already been 2.5 years after the tragedy when BBC aired the Bucha footage, which spread across screens and social media. It was a news explosion. “Three days, and that's it?” I asked. “Did they tell you to keep quiet?”
I know half of the journalists there well. They’ve been working there for a long time. Can’t they send a journalistic inquiry to the Ukrainians? No one is doing anything. The command was given, and that’s it.
***
In 1970, they came to a conclusion and passed the detailed Declaration on Principles of International Law. The document highlighted the interdependence of all principles of the UN Charter. In the declaration’s section dealing with territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, the concerned parties unanimously stated by consensus at the highest level that everyone must respect the territorial integrity of states honouring the right of nations to self-determination. For this purpose, they have a government representing the entire population residing in the territory in question.
In 1960, colonisers did not represent the population of their colonies (this is why the principle prevailed). Following the coup d’etat, Ukrainian authorities said that they would abolish the status of the Russian language, and they branded all those rejecting the results of the putsch as terrorists. Since 2019, they started passing a series of laws that abolished the Russian language in all spheres. How can one say that this group of putschists represents the interests of the population of Donbass, Novorossiya and all of Ukraine?
Therefore, the UN Charter should be left alone. It remains up-to-date and should only be respected and fulfilled. They should not say that, when Kosovo declared its independence without any referendum, this amounts to the right to self-determination, and when Crimea conducted a transparent referendum involving hundreds of European observers, MPs and public activists, this violated the principle of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This is duplicity, cynicism and hypocrisy.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
