Sergey Lavrov. The 79th session of the UN General Assembly. Press conference

Photo: Russian MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following the High-Level Week of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly, New York, September 28, 2024:

- We are completing our work during the High-Level Week of the 79th session of the UN General Assembly. You had the opportunity to familiarise yourself with my remarks and with the results of several multilateral events held by the G20, BRICS and other formats.

In total, my colleagues and I attended seven multilateral events and had 28 rounds of bilateral meetings. During these meetings, we covered all the key aspects of Russia’s relationships with the respective states, and reviewed the progress on implementing the agreements between our leaders regarding bilateral and regional affairs.

We specifically focused on the Middle East agenda, including the most recent bouts of the conflict on Palestinian territories, in Lebanon, and Syria, as well as the problems in Iraq, and the attempts to draw Iran into the conflict to provoke a major war in the Middle East. We talked about the conflicts in the Sahara-Sahel region, Sudan, other parts of Africa, and Afghanistan.

We used this opportunity to present our current assessments of the developments related to the Ukraine crisis.

Our initiatives on building an independent Eurasian security architecture and developing a payment system that will not depend on the whims and moods of the West, and ideas to reform global institutions so that they reflect the real weight of the Global Majority, the Global South and the East have elicited a positive response.

I would like to wish you all the very best on the International Day for Universal Access to Information, which is marked today. It was proclaimed by UNESCO in 2015 to promote everyone’s right to freely seek, receive and impart information.

In this regard, I would like to tell you how this day is celebrated in Germany. According to reports, German authorities have arrested a married couple suspected of enabling the online broadcast of several Russian television channels. According to the German customs office, the suspects are a 37-year-old German citizen and his 42-year-old wife, a Ukrainian national. They are facing a year in prison or more. This is the German customs service’s idea of a Universal Access to Information Day gift to these two people who wanted to give others access to information.

Question: Yesterday, former president Trump met with President Zelensky and promised that, if he is elected in November, he will get the war resolved quickly. What is your comment on this? What do you think about this meeting?

Sergey Lavrov: Several months ago, Donald Trump claimed he would need 24 hours. His promise has slightly changed.

We will welcome any initiatives that can bring a desired outcome – and there is only one: settling the problem by removing the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis. The primary root cause of the problem is that, despite assurances, NATO has continued to expand, and the West has not complied with its obligations that were approved at the highest level by the OSCE. Specifically, the countries committed to not strengthening their security at the expense of any other country’s security. Secondly, the agreement was that no organisation within the OSCE domain can claim prevalence. 

It is exactly what NATO has been doing. It has continued its expansion, swallowing more states, developing military infrastructure and deploying weapons on their territories. Ukraine was next in line. That posed direct security threats to the Russian Federation. NATO planned to build military bases in Crimea, on the Sea of Azov, and to deploy its weapons there, which would be a threat to our state. We could not allow that.

The security of a state is always important. It is not an abstract notion but something essential to ordinary people. Right now, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his representative are saying that the UN’s stance is unwavering, and it advocates for settling this crisis as soon as possible with respect for international law, the UN Charter and Ukraine’s territorial integrity. The head of the UN Secretariat should have a deeper knowledge of the Charter. I have just said that during the plenary meeting.

The most important part of the document to me – and, apparently, to the UN founders – is Article 1 that encourages respect for human rights without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.

Whenever it is relevant and even when it is not, our Western colleagues put the issue of human rights in the forefront. They have made every effort to ensure that human rights be blown out of proportions and given the utmost priority in the Pact for the Future. The pact even states that the UN Human Rights Council shall be granted powers that are outside of the member states’ control. However, when it comes to the Ukrainian crisis, the West has completely ignored human rights.

I quoted the provision on respecting human rights without distinction as to language or religion. I reminded the General Assembly today that the Russian language has been eradicated in Ukraine by law, from early learning and through higher education. All Russian-language media have been expelled from Ukraine or shut down. Speaking about culture, books in Russian are being thrown out of libraries like they did it in Nazi Germany. The canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been banned although the Ukrainian Constitution still claims that the state protects the rights of Russians and other national minorities, including their education and so on.

We have not been able to get an answer from the West or UN Secretary-General Guterres: why is everybody silent when so many initiatives on approaches to settlement are out there?

The key matters are security in the context of Ukraine’s non-accession to the North Atlantic Alliance or any other military bloc, and the matter of human rights.

It is not about territories. Vladimir Zelensky is asking to restore the borders as of 1991. We are rather focused on people who have lived on these lands for centuries, developed them, built plants, roads, ships and much more. These are the true reasons.

If Donald Trump manages to have these laws abolished, it will be a step forward. It would be the simplest thing, just to cast a vote.

There is one more aspect that nobody is mentioning either. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has stressed this repeatedly. Vladimir Zelensky signed an executive order prohibiting any talks with Russia. Therefore, I cannot suggest any ideas on how they are going to improve this process.

Our stance is crystal clear. The root causes must be removed. Everybody knows what they are.

Question: Russia has been advocating a multipolar system, cooperation between major powers to make this world a little better. Do you see that a war in the Middle East, if Israel and its allies prevail, will weaken Russia and the Russian doctrine of a multipolar system? How can Russia make sure that this world continues to be built on cooperation among major powers rather than leave one hegemonic power, especially in the Middle East?

Sergey Lavrov: We are not assessing the events in the Middle East, these genuine tragedies, without exaggeration, in terms of whether they will impact or not impact our standing in the international arena. We just want to save lives.

Since the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack, which we strongly condemned, the campaign for collective punishment of the Palestinians waged by Israel has already led to the loss of 41,000 Palestinian lives, and about 100,000 civilians have been wounded on Palestinian territories, according to recent statistics. These figures continue to grow.

For the sake of comparison, since the 2014 coup in Ukraine, when the putschists who seized power labelled the people living in the east of Ukraine as terrorists and essentially began a civil war against those people, over the past ten years, 60 percent fewer civilians have died on both sides of the Ukrainian conflict than the number of Palestinians who died in one year. These statistics speak volumes. And they continue to change. So, what we are interested in is an immediate end to this slaughter.

The Americans have shut down all the previous mechanisms to facilitate the Middle East processes. I refer, first and foremost, to the Quartet of international mediators, which included Russia, the United States, the UN and the EU. Now the United States is seeking to monopolise the mediation efforts and organising various formats with our Jordanian, Egyptian and Qatari colleagues. But still, they are trying to single-handedly govern these efforts. They are the ones who draft the papers that they later show to everyone, which they believe would help end the conflict. But each time, Israel raises its demands. What happened yesterday in Beirut is yet another political assassination. And I heard that US President Joe Biden said that it was the right decision. This means that they have a slightly different view on what the right conduct is during conflicts, and what the parties should be guided by. Do you remember then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton laughing when she watched a live broadcast of Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi’s bloodied body? She was quite jubilant. Her colleague Madeleine Albright, commenting on the processes triggered by the US aggression against Iraq, said that democracy was worth the 400,000 deaths there. Everyone knows that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, as the Americans claimed to justify their invasion.

The United States is seeking to monopolise the processes not only in the Middle East. They are looking to steer the “Indo-Pacific region” as well. They are bringing together various bloc-like alliances there such as the Quad, AUKUS, or the “quartet” of New Zealand, Australia, Japan and South Korea. Now they are trying to drag the Philippines into some “new Quad” group. They have a smoothly running system for that in place. When they deal with regional problems, there is only one thing they have in mind – they are merely seeking to preserve their own hegemony and to manage everything.

Russia has no such ambitions. It is simply inhumane to turn a blind eye to hundreds of thousands of victims and just go on towards your desired objective of keeping the post of the hegemon.

Question: Much has been said at this General Assembly about the reform of the UN. President of Finland Alexander Stubb tried to give this some thought and suggested excluding Russia from the UN Security Council. Is this actually possible? What should our reaction be?

Sergey Lavrov: These “hot-tempered Finnish guys” are a special kind of people.

I knew Alexander Stubb well when he was the Foreign Affairs Minister. Shortly after the end of the five-day war, which Mikhail Saakashvili unleashed in South Ossetia against Russian peacekeepers, Stubb visited Tbilisi and went to Moscow on his way back. We sat down together, just the two of us face-to-face, to prepare for the talks with our experts, and he shared some of the impressions of his meeting with Saakashvili. He actually used profanities. Well, he called him a “lunatic,” and I think you can guess what adjective went with it. I urged him to tell everyone what the man was like, but he said no.

I could quote more stories from Scandinavian folklore. On a more serious note, I am more surprised by something else. Alexander Stubb wants to be “more Ukrainian” than the Ukrainians themselves. I know that Kiev representatives never stop questioning the Russian Federation’s legitimacy, pointing out that the UN Charter says the USSR. I would like to note that the Charter also says the Republic of China and not the People’s Republic of China. Because that is what it was when the UN was created, when Taiwan represented China. When the People’s Republic of China restored its rights, and when Russia, as the successor of the Soviet Union, joined the Security Council, they decided they were not going to change it because it was clear anyway.

As I said, I was more surprised when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres spoke about the reform of the UN Security Council, and said that Europe was overrepresented, because France, the UK and the Russian Federation are among the permanent members. When I met with him yesterday, I asked him if he really believed that we were in the same package with London and Paris. He said, well, what else are you? This interpretation of the geopolitical picture of the world makes one think, because that was the UN Secretary-General speaking.

Question: The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday, right after leaving the UN building – the place built to maintain international peace and security – ordered the attack on Beirut, and, as you have also mentioned, Nasrallah, chief of Hezbollah, was killed with these attacks. Do you think killing Nasrallah will lead Israel to stop or are you worried that Israel may proceed, for example, to occupy the south of Lebanon?

Sergey Lavrov: That was not the first political murder. You remember the assassination of Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh in the capital Iran at the funeral of former president of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ebrahim Raisi. That was not just a political murder, but a murder committed with particular cynicism. There was also a strike on the Iranian consulate in Syria that killed Iranian nationals. Now, Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah has been assassinated.

Many, including myself, think that Israel wants to create a reason to directly involve the United States into this war, hence all these provocations against Iran and Hezbollah. I believe that Iranian leaders have been extremely responsible, and this effort should be adequately considered.

There are certain parallels with Ukraine here, too. Vladimir Zelensky has been doing everything to provoke direct involvement of NATO countries in the hostilities. Once they are involved, he will step aside and watch what he believes will save him.

I do not think this is the right course of action. I am convinced that bloodshed must be stopped and all terrorist methods of political revenge must be dropped.

Question: There is a feeling among the Hezbollah followers that Iran abandoned Hezbollah. It was just slogans, “We are going to support Hezbollah. We are going to fight alongside Hezbollah.” But when the real moment came, as usual, Iran was just watching, used its proxies and will never be involved. After the killing of Hassan Nasrallah, do you expect retaliation from Iran?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not think I should be commenting on anything related to the problems and interests of Iran. I cannot tell you what Iran is going to do. That would be inappropriate and improper.

Question: President Zelensky said several times that Russia is planning to attack Ukrainian nuclear power plants. What is your response?

And second, we know that Brazil, China and other like-minded countries launched the platform called Friends of Peace to mediate the Russia-Ukraine crisis. Will Russia consider any [peacemaking] plans from the Global South?

Sergey Lavrov: As concerns Mr Zelensky’s statements, everybody has long become used to his improvisation. When he acted out scripts on stage, he did a better job. His improvisation has been subpar lately.

He claims that every paragraph of the peace formula is based on the principles and norms of the UN Charter. Zelensky gave a brass characteristic to the China-Brazil initiative, saying that he did not know why they proposed it. “Do they want to win the Nobel Peace Prize?” He added that there are no different versions of the UN Charter for different parts of the world. There is no UN Charter specifically for BRICS countries, the G7, or for Russia, Iran, China and Brazil. Zelensky was very ‘appreciative’ of the well-intentioned efforts made by our Chinese and Brazilian colleagues.

We discussed their plans during the previous stage in contacts with our colleagues. I asked about the practical steps that initiative would entail. Those provisions proposed by China and Brazil contain all the right words, such as calls for peace, justice and compliance with international law. Nobody argues that. How exactly they plan to move towards peace, I have not been informed yet. This matter is still under consideration. The Friends of Peace group was established and joined by only part of the countries present at the meeting. The group was created in New York at the level of permanent representatives. I do not know whether it is possible to seriously address this matter from here; however, I am certain that the permanent representatives are people of talent, and we will see what they can deliver.

Most importantly, the global security initiative, proposed by President of China Xi Jinping in February 2023 for settling any conflicts, notes the importance of reaching agreement to remove the main causes of a conflict.

The root causes of the conflict in Ukraine lie in the fact that NATO has been pulling the Kiev regime into the alliance. This goal remains on the agenda. Jens Stoltenberg and other NATO representatives continue to repeat this intention with unfailing stubbornness. The second rood cause is human rights. The eradication of the Russian language, culture, education and the canonical Orthodox Church. Nobody has officially prohibited the Arabic language in Israel. Vladimir Zelensky prohibited Russian although both ethnic Russians and the majority of the Ukrainian population speak this language.

The individuals at the level of permanent representatives who will be in charge of fleshing up this concept, must not forego these arguments or the root causes. They must follow the principles of the UN Charter indiscriminately and with due respect for their entirety and interconnectedness.

Human rights are the principle of the UN Charter that has been gravely violated. Even the Ukrainian Constitution stipulates that the rights of national minorities must be fully respected. Interpreting the principle of territorial integrity must not ignore its relation to the principle of people’s self-determination. Consensus was reached on this matter in 1970, when the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted a declaration stating the importance of respecting the territorial integrity of the states whose governments represent the entire nation residing on this territory.

Why did everybody accept it when Kosovo unilaterally declared itself an independent state in 2008? The United States applauded that move, calling it the nation’s right to self-determination being exercised. By the way, there was no military action in Kosovo.

Several years later, in 2014, after a blood-shedding coup in Ukraine, the fascists who seized power, launched a war against Crimea, and Crimea conducted a referendum. The Americans said it was not how things are done because it goes against the principle of territorial integrity.

It is important that those who sincerely wish to find a solution to this crisis understand the true reasons. It is necessary to rely on the UN Charter as one entity with interconnected principles. This is my request and message to those who will work in the Friends of Peace Group.

Question: Representatives of the separatists operating in Mali said on France 24 that they maintain contacts with Ukraine. How could Russia, as an ally of Mali, comment on the contacts between those who fight against the Malian state – and Ukraine? What needs to be done for the international community to hold Ukraine accountable for this?

Sergey Lavrov: We have already commented on this situation. It has been proven with facts that Ukrainians are working with terrorist organisations that are fighting the legitimate government of Mali. Also quite recently, there was an attack on a group of Malian military, and a lot of people were killed. The terrorists responsible for the attack have links with Ukraine.

This is not the only hotspot on the planet. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is still in charge in Syria, in the Idlib de-escalation zone. They also have ties to Ukraine. They recruit militants to send them to the battlefields, or help them to prepare provocation acts.

It is telling that after this murder of Malian soldiers by terrorists, Mali, Niger and Burkina Faso turned to the UN Security Council urging it to condemn this kind of act carried out by Ukrainians. I believe at least two of these countries broke off diplomatic relations with Ukraine.

This is banditry. We will do everything we can to ensure that African countries that want to live their own life and choose their own development paths, have support in ensuring their security and defence capability. And that is what we are doing.

Question: My question is again on the China-Brazil initiative. In the statement yesterday, it says that there is a consideration on the legitimate interests of the parties. This was read by some as obviously following what you just said. Do you think that at least this plan can break the impasse? That is, that happens at this moment, and as you said, the root causes should be dealt with. In the declaration yesterday, are the root causes stated clearly?

Sergey Lavrov: If you look at what you just quoted, and compare it with what I just said – I have not seen an action plan in that document; only a declaration of intent. It is the kind of formula – we need to fight for everything good against everything evil.

Many years ago, when the UN Security Council was again considering the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Quartet of mediators (Russia, the United States, the UN Secretariat and the European Union) developed a roadmap for a Palestinian-Israeli conflict resolution through the creation of an independent Palestinian state. It was a roadmap for one year, a sequence of steps that were to be taken every month. That was the plan. But it never actually materialised. Otherwise, we would not have seen the war that is now raging in the Middle East.

So, my advice to the people who will be working on the Friends of Peace group in New York is to reread the UN Charter. I spoke in as much detail as possible both at the plenary session and at the UN Security Council. You all know everything there is to know.

It started with the coup in Ukraine. And all these years, we have been warning against Ukraine being pulled into NATO. We have been warning that ethnic Russians should not be mistreated. Six months before the special military operation, Vladimir Zelensky said in an interview, when asked what he thought about those people on the other side of the contact line in Donbass, who did not agree with the coup, and because of that, the Kiev regime began to fight them, he said “there are people, and there are species.” Later he also said that, if you feel affinity to Russian culture and live in Ukraine, just pack up and go to Russia. There was no reaction.

Ukrainian Ambassador to Kazakhstan Pyotr Vrublevsky said in an interview that their goal was to kill as many Russians as possible, so that their children had less work to do. Did any journalist try to build awareness of this among their readers? I am not sure.

This is a serious question. It is not enough just to take into account the interests of the parties. There is something I do not understand: why did the French and the Swiss come to yesterday’s meeting at all? They strongly advocate for Ukraine, craving Russia’s defeat, and supply Ukrainians with long-range weapons and missiles. I asked my Chinese colleague [why they were there]. He said they asked and were rather insistent, so it was collectively decided to invite them as observers.

This group has much work to do. We are ready to provide support and counsel to them, as long as their proposals are guided by the reality rather than by some abstract talk.

Question: My question is an update from last year. Can you tell us about any negotiations or status of the children of Ukraine who were taken to Russia? We talked about the Commissioner and her work on it; that there are a few hundred. But, according to the ICRC, there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 19,000 children. I have also understood that the country of Qatar is serving as an intermediary.

Sergey Lavrov: We do publish this sort of updates. Do you have a representative in Moscow?

Remark: No, I have changed news organisations.

Sergey Lavrov: Since our last meeting, information has been updated many times. I do not know the figures off the top of my head. But we invited many foreign journalists to special briefings.

It was reported very recently that many (hundreds) of the children that had been listed as allegedly kidnapped by Russia, were discovered in Germany. There are many kids there suffering from non-conventional hobbies. It is not an easy matter.

Maria Zakharova: We want to reiterate our invitation to you, in your new capacity, to come to Moscow and interview officials. You are welcome.

Question: Türkiye’s purchase of the S-400 missile defence systems from Russia has created tensions with the US. Recently, a former Turkish minister proposed that Türkiye could sell its S-400s to a third country like India or Pakistan. How would Russia react to such a move at potential sale of the S-400s to these countries? What implications could this have for Russia-Türkiye relations?

Sergey Lavrov: S-400 is a missile defence system. It was supplied to Türkiye. I have nothing to comment.

President of Türkiye Erdogan is a statesperson with a wealth of experience. His decisions on any matter are made in the interests of his nation and the state.

I could perhaps add that each of our weapon sales agreements includes a clause on the end user certificate. Handling a product supplied with a certificate that states the initial recipient as an end user would require the consent of the initial seller.

Question: Former President Donald Trump suggested that the war in Ukraine would have never started if he were in office and that he could stop the war if re-elected, on day one. Would Russia be open to a peace deal proposed by Trump if re-elected? And what conditions would need to be met for Russia to agree to such a deal?

Sergey Lavrov: As for Mr Trump saying that the war would have never started if…

I can give you a retrospect.  Let’s go back to February 2014. The then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the entire opposition that brought hundreds of people out on the main square with Western money (protests continued forever), signed an agreement to hold early elections. A government of national unity was to be formed before the elections. Germany, France and Poland acted as guarantors. The next morning, the opposition seized the government buildings. We asked them why they did it. Our German and French colleagues answered that sometimes democracy takes unpredicted twists. The Americans said the same thing.

If that agreement had been observed, Ukraine would now have the 1991 borders that Zelensky cannot stop talking about. Who asked them to undermine their own legitimacy? For as long as this regime remains in power, this legitimacy will remain undermined. Crimea would have been part of Ukraine. I want everybody to understand that. Since we are talking about “what ifs.”

If the Minsk agreements, signed a year after and secured by a UN Security Council resolution, had been fulfilled, Ukraine would have remained intact although without Crimea. They lost Crimea when they brought bandits into power.

In April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators reached agreement in Istanbul. If that agreement had been observed, Ukraine would have preserved part of Donbass. But every time another agreement, always accepted by Russia, is broken, Ukraine shrinks in size.

As concerns the Istanbul agreements, head of the Ukrainian delegation David Arakhamiya admitted in a recent interview that the-then Prime Minister of the UK Boris Johnson visited them and told them that no agreements were necessary. Just fight on and they will pitch in weapons and money.

I have given you the facts. If Ukraine continues its course and uses more tricks to win time, it will fail.

I hope that our Chinese and Brazilian friends and the members of the Friends of Peace will fully consider the manners and habits of the current Ukrainian leadership and its incessant attempts to lure everybody into quicksand.

Question: President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan will attend the upcoming BRICS and CIS summits to be held in Russia next month, in October. Are there any plans for a meeting between the two countries’ leaders for more peace talks or negotiations with Russian participation?

Sergey Lavrov: As they say, it is up to them – if they wish to meet, as the ministers met here (in the United States) with the participation of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.

The Americans are desperate to maintain dominance here, just as they are in the Middle East. It is vital for them to show that they are in charge. If our Azerbaijani and Armenian friends are okay with this, then it is up to their respective leaders.

We are always ready to stick to the agreements reached with our participation, starting from November 2020. Over the past two years, the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia have met three more times (1, 2 and 3). A trilateral working group was established to unblock transport routes in the region. There are mechanisms in place for delimitation of the border, etc. We are willing to comply with all our obligations included in those documents.

Question: I have a quick question about Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s death. What can Russia do to prevent a spillover to Syria and Iraq?

Sergey Lavrov: I would like to repeat this once again. We want the UN Security Council to show its will and fulfil its functions. It has the tools to influence any side that does not comply with its decisions.

The UN Security Council is being blocked from taking such actions by the United States. For the same reason – because the Americans want to remain in charge and manage everything single-handedly. But the existing problems can no longer be handled by a single hand, not even by two hands. This is our response.

They have blocked all proposals. The resolution that they themselves tabled for adoption was a ruse. The Americans said that Israel was willing to comply with it, but it was a lie. However, having foreseen this, we abstained and did not veto it, only because our Arab friends asked us to give it a chance.

As for ways to prevent the conflict from spilling over to other countries – I have already answered that question. This is what we can and will be doing.

Russia has sent its military contingent to Syria at the request of the legitimate government, and our military will do whatever they need to do to help maintain security.

To reiterate, I have the feeling that some parties are trying to provoke Iran and subsequently provoke the United States, and unleash a full-blown war in the region.

Question: We know Russia has been urging Türkiye and Syria to normalise their relationship. And if that happens, how is it going to affect the Syrian Kurds?

Sergey Lavrov: We did have meetings on Syrian-Turkish normalisation. Last year, the defence and foreign ministers met in the Russia-Iran-Türkiye-Syria format, the Astana Troika on the Syrian conflict resolution, plus the Syrian Arab Republic itself.

The meetings were positive. Recently, I also spoke about this with my Turkish colleague here, and with Syria’s new Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates, Bassam Sabbagh. There are ideas circulating on both sides, which, I believe, should be able to revive this process.

And yes, you are right, the Kurdish issue will be given priority during these negotiations, alongside the issues related to curbing terrorism risks and ensuring border security.

There were precedents, in fact. A deal known as the Adana Agreement was signed in 1998. Of course, it might not be directly applicable today, but the underlying concept is still quite feasible (it might have to be adjusted, of course), regarding cooperation between Syria and Türkiye in ensuring border security and quelling terrorist groups.

The activities of the United States are a major issue though, as the country again wants everything its way in that region, too. They maintain an illegal presence in the Syrian Arab Republic – on the left bank of the Euphrates, where they have created a quasi-state – while ignoring the interests of both Türkiye and Syria. They are extracting Syrian oil, harvesting Syrian grain, selling it and using the money to support their proteges.

I am confident that Kurdish organisations must categorically distance themselves from terrorism and finally realise that they have no other choice but to continue as part of the Syrian state. We met with their leaders at a certain point, when we were ready to offer them mediation services. They know our approach. They turned to us for assistance when President Donald Trump announced that they were withdrawing from Syria. Representatives of the Kurds reached out to us. A few days later, the Americans said that they had changed their minds and were not leaving after all. And the Kurds lost interest. This is an opportunistic approach that does not reflect a long-term vision of the future of the Kurdish people. They need to negotiate with Damascus. As far as I understand, our Turkish neighbours are ready to help with this.

Question: The Middle East. After the refusal of the latest proposal on ceasefire for 21 days by Prime Minister Netanyahu, is there a possibility of implementing Resolution 2735 in this climate of escalation in the region?

Sergey Lavrov: As concerns Resolution 2735, the question of whether it can be implemented should not be addressed to me. It is a question for Israel and the United States who have asserted that the resolution would significantly reduce the tension and open doors to de-escalation. These serious people said that, lying to all of us. I do not see any willingness on behalf of Israel to comply with any peace plans.

Question: On Ukraine. President Putin said that any lifting of restrictions on the use of long-range missile supply from the West to Ukraine would be a declaration of war. We understand now they are getting close to announcing the lifting of these restrictions. Maybe they will limit them to a certain distance of 20-40 km, I do not know. But they are getting very close to doing that. What does that mean then?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already answered a similar question.

Question: You just said that you wanted the Security Council to actually take responsibility in terms of averting a full-blown regional war. What are the tools that you would suggest that the Security Council could use in light of the continuous use of the veto especially when it comes to Gaza? And do you think that Chapter VII should be on the table?

Sergey Lavrov: I did say that the Security Council has capabilities. They include Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Although all Security Council resolutions must be fulfilled, according to Article 25 of the UN Charter, Chapter VII is an enforcement chapter, or a chapter that provides for enforcing the demands under a respective resolution of the Security Council.

For example, a demand to lay a resolution on the table, to stop arms supplies in any conflict when the situation goes too far – naturally, everybody understands that the Americans will veto it as they did before.

Sanctions can be proposed against those who do not comply with the UN Security Council’s demands. This proposal will be vetoed, too. There are tools. But do not throw in a towel if a resolution gets blocked. One cannot always block a resolution without painful consequences for their own reputation. Perhaps something will come out of it. As we like to say in Russia, dripping water wears away a stone. The situation is complicated.

Question: Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu said yesterday that the long arm of Israel can reach anywhere in the Middle East. Today we saw the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah. Do you expect any future for the peace process in the Middle East or not? 

Sergey Lavrov: I have answered several times what we think about these developments. They must be stopped immediately.

Question: Does Russia accept expanding and reforming the UN Security Council, and increasing the number of permanent members from five to ten? What could be your comment?

Sergey Lavrov: As concerns the reform of the UN Security Council, I have not heard about increasing the number of permanent members to ten. There are many ideas out there.

Our view is well known. The only beneficial way to reinforce the Council is by considering candidates from Africa, Asia and Latin America. Increasing the number of Western countries and their allies like Japan is out of the question.

Question: Can you comment on the changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine that President Putin announced recently? Are these intended as a signal to the West and if so, what is it that Moscow wants to signal?

Sergey Lavrov: President Putin said it all. It was clear without any exemptions.

When we say something publicly, especially President Putin, we expect that those who are interested in our approaches will listen. How they understand our words is not up to me.

When it finally becomes clear whether they allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons or not, we will see how they understood what they heard.

Question: In three weeks, there will be the summit of the BRICS countries. Could we expect admission of any countries from Latin America? Also, how does Russia see the political situation in Latin America?

Sergey Lavrov: Certainly not like the Monroe Doctrine.

We respect all our partners. Latin America is a powerful pole of the forming polycentric world order. Right now, CELAC has found a new lease of life since Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva became the President of Brazil. There are many initiatives, including those aimed at creating frameworks for trade, cooperation and investment without dependence on the mechanisms controlled by the United States through the IMF and the WTO.

As for the prospects of expanding BRICS, all members currently consider it reasonable to refrain from making new decisions, and instead to adapt our association of like-minded countries to the new circumstances. There were five members and now there are ten. Of course, we need some time to adjust and let the new members onboard smoothly embrace the BRICS customs established over the years.

During the summit in Kazan, we will consider the recommendations requested by leaders at the summit in Johannesburg in 2023. The members will propose their concepts of the modalities of a new BRICS partner country category. These countries will participate on a permanent basis rather than as guests, and will be involved in most of the activities.

We do have a list of potential members. There are about 20 candidates for partners. Another dozen or so want to maintain continuous contacts without obtaining a partner status. The decision is up to presidents. It would be inappropriate for me to predict any agreements. Everything will be announced.

Question: Today, you have mentioned Georgia in your remarks. What is your comment on the latest Georgian official statements that after all the [08.08.2008] war was started by Mikheil Saakashvili? Do you think it possible and realistic that Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia would reach some new understandings?

Sergey Lavrov: It is clear that the current Georgian leaders are honest in their assessments of the past.  They said in so many words that they wanted a historical reconciliation. It is up to the countries in question – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – to decide in what aspect and form it could take place. Some contacts are inevitable anyway. We (provided the sides are interested) will be ready to help, if all the parties concerned display an interest in normalising relations and securing non-aggression agreements so that no one conceives the desire [to breach them]. That the war was launched by Mr Saakashvili was a fact known to everyone with the exception, perhaps, of our Western colleagues and Ms Salome Zourabichvili, the current Georgian President.  

Right after the 2008 events, the EU ordered an investigation, which was conducted by Hon. Heidi Tagliavini of Switzerland. It was written in black and white in her report that all of that had been the initiative of Mr Saakashvili. There is even no need to be surprised.

Question: Why did you mention Bucha? If I were a Russian official, I would have tried to bypass that bloody massacre. But you included it in your remarks at the UN General Assembly.

Sergey Lavrov: What is it that surprised you? I mention this [topic] every time.

I met with Antonio Guterres in 2023 at the UN Security Council meeting, which he attended, and in 2022 a year before.

Today is the International Day for Universal Access to Information. But you seem to have no access to information that “floats” freely in the internet and social media.

In Istanbul, in April 2022, we reached an understanding with the Ukrainians that we were ceasing the hostilities and signing an agreement. Even before everything fell through, we were asked, as a goodwill gesture, to pull out our forces from the outskirts of Kiev, including the township of Bucha. We did that, thinking that we were dealing with decent people, not liars. But, of course, they deceived us.

There is a video in the internet, where the Mayor of Bucha is saying proudly to camera after the Russian withdrawal that they have regained control over their “small motherland,” there are no Russians and they are the masters again. 

Two days passed. All of a sudden a team from the “glorious” BBC media agency shows TV footage of human bodies arranged in Bucha’s broad central street, not in some basement. The voiceover said that this crime had been committed by the Russians, when they had occupied the town.  To reiterate: this was two days after we left.

New sanctions were announced in connection with this “story.” Since then, it makes no sense to hope for any investigation. We took the simplest path. We asked, if we could see the list with the names of people whose bodies were shown by the BBC. In response, silence set in. I asked Antonio Guterres. Yesterday, I told him about it again. He replied that they would inquire once again.  But they have already applied to the Ukrainian regime. No one tells them anything. But if this is so, it means they have things to hide. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has also applied to them at our request. No one says anything. Matter closed. President Joe Biden describes this as a “massacre;” “Putin is a butcher.” There is no mystery for us in this regard. It is a provocation pure and simple.

It was the same with Alexey Navalny.  When he fell ill and the Germans asked us to give him to them for treatment, we immediately let in their aircraft and it took him away.  Even the necessary airport formalities were not observed. In Germany, he was taken to a civilian hospital, where the doctors found that nothing was the matter with him. Later, he was removed to a military hospital, where they found the agent, Novichok.  After that, he recovered as it were, came back home, and died.

While he was there, we asked the Germans to show us the tests proving that he had been poisoned with that agent. The Germans said that it was a secret and that they would hand the test over to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We went there. At the OPCW, we were told that the Germans had forbidden them to show us the tests. Don’t you find this odd? After hue and cry was raised in connection With Alexey Navalny’s death, we reminded the Germans about our request and asked if we could see the tests and clarify how he had been treated before returning to Russia? Dead silence in response.

The same was with the poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury. There is no information available despite the official requests from our Investigative Committee and the Prosecutor General's Office to their UK colleagues.

They skimmed the media “cream” by accusing Russia of all sins. After that the news disappears from front pages and TV screens. You know that as well. But we will speak about Bucha, Navalny and other things, and demand the truth.

If you are interested, please organise a journalistic investigation. Ask the Ukrainians, why no one can obtain those names?  My dear friends, you are professionals. I hope you must be interested. Try to learn it.

Question: UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the other day that Russia and the United States should cut their nuclear arsenals. Did he tell you this personally during your meeting? What are the conditions under which Russia will be ready to do this?

Sergey Lavrov: He told me nothing of the kind. I did not hear him say this. Occasionally he does indeed make statements that clearly do not fit in with the existing international realities.

We are not increasing our arsenal, as Russia’s official representatives repeatedly reaffirm.  The Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms is effective until 2026. It records the relevant levels. We are guided by these, at least as long as this treaty is in force. We have suspended our participation but said that we would maintain the levels and exchange certain types of information with the Americans.

But it is not up to the UN Secretary-General, of course, to address these issues. Fewer weapons is an all-time dream. But there are the realities.

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