Sergey Lavrov: “The problem is that one large country, a major power, does not wish to engage in dialogue but rather to dictate. This, in brief, captures the essence of the current situation”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’ answers to media questions following the high-level plenary meeting of the 2nd International Conference on Eurasian Security, Minsk, October 31, 2024.

Question: This is already the second Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security. What is your assessment of its level, composition of participants, and relevance? Can it be considered an analogue of the Munich Conference?

Sergey Lavrov: We are not endeavouring to copy anyone. Naturally, attendance is a crucial element in determining the event’s significance. The number of participants has increased compared to last year, as has the number of countries represented here, primarily through academic and expert circles. Among the participants are several ministers I have already mentioned: Special Representative of the Government of the People’s Republic of China for Eurasian Affairs Li Hui; Minister of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates of the Syrian Arab Republic Bassam Sabbagh; Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary Péter Szijjártó; and Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia Aleksandar Vulin.

I believe that this conference is “grounded in reality.” The security models previously applied in the European region have discredited themselves, having failed to enhance security. Of course, there is the experience of the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the actions of NATO and the European Union in extending their dominance across the Eurasian continent and its surrounding seas and oceans. A pan-continental process was indeed brewing.

It has now materialised in the form of the Minsk Conference on Eurasian Security, which will be held annually. Today, the President of the Republic of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, clearly articulated this. We will draft a document to be circulated among participants and other states on the continent. This document will focus on diversity and multipolarity, primarily based on the principle of the sovereign equality of states. It is futile and pointless to seek any frameworks on a different basis. I have already referred to the experience of Euro-Atlantic configurations, which demonstrate that affairs must be conducted differently, without “bosses,” without “leaders” and “followers.”

Today, in his address, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade of Hungary, Péter Szijjártó, remarked that the main problem in the world is that large countries, major powers, do not engage in dialogue with each other. I would like to clarify, and we elaborated this point later. It is not that all large countries have decided not to communicate with each other. The problem is that one large country, a major power, does not wish to engage in dialogue but rather to dictate. This, in brief, captures the essence of the current situation.

Regarding comparisons with the Munich Security Conference, we do not organise these events to compete with anyone. This is similar to when President Vladimir Putin responded in Kazan to a question about whether we view BRICS as a counterbalance to NATO or other Western structures. He stated that we are not opposed to anyone but are focusing on the objectives we perceive in terms of constructive interaction with partners who share our approaches. Therefore, I would not speak of competition. These are different matters. The Munich Conference has, for some time, been a closed structure, inviting only the “chosen few,” those who “echo” Western leaders. In contrast, the Minsk Conference is open to participation from any country.

Question: Concerning participation, did Minsk discuss with Moscow the possibility of Ukraine’s participation in the next conference? What was Moscow’s position?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the list of invitees, our Belarusian friends are the hosts of the event. Therefore, there is no need to consult with anyone or seek anyone’s permission to extend invitations.

As far as I am aware, no invitation was extended to Ukraine. To be candid, I did not inquire, but it would have been apparent. Probably no invitation was sent because it is evident to all that the Ukrainian regime is currently operating on an entirely different trajectory and cannot and will not engage in discussions on any security concepts other than joining NATO or acquiring nuclear weapons.

Question: In today’s speech, the President of Belarus, Alexander Lukashenko, stated that as of today, the Russian-Ukrainian conflict might end in a “draw.” Would such an outcome be acceptable to Russia? And what is the current score?

Sergey Lavrov: It is futile to speculate on how to “broker” an agreement. The term “draw” can be applied to various situations, including the Istanbul agreements. However, it does not convey the necessity of securely safeguarding the interests of each party, including on a pan-continental scale. The reasons for this are well known to us.

Today, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko highlighted the actions taken by the Kiev regime following the coup to eradicate the Russian language from all areas of life. As you are aware, the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been banned. None of the states proposing various initiatives to address the Ukrainian crisis mention this at all. I have previously referred to this, but I wish to reiterate. At the beginning of 2023, President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping proposed his global security initiative. It clearly articulates a specific point stating that in any conflict, it is essential to focus on eliminating its root causes. The eradication of all things Russian, Russian culture in the broadest sense and the canonical Orthodox religion, in gross violation of the UN Charter, alongside Ukraine’s entanglement with NATO, are the root causes of what we are currently witnessing in this country, leaving Russia with no choice but to defend its compatriots, ultimately its brothers and sisters. I believe this represents the primary issue with the numerous ideas currently circulating in the context of seeking ways to resolve the Ukrainian crisis.

In Georgia, a mere law was passed requiring any non-governmental organisations to declare any funding they receive from abroad. Look at the reaction from Brussels: hysteria ensued. I am not even referring to the law regarding the protection of the moral code of the Georgian people, the so-called LGBT propaganda law.

As concerns the funding of NGOs, such laws are in effect in the United States, as well as in France, Poland, and Britain. They are permitted to do so because they are the “masters of the universe.” Georgia merely hinted at wanting to know who funds the activities of opposition, and it was subjected to severe ostracism. In Ukraine, it is not just an innocent law requiring transparency that has been enacted, but a series of legislative acts prohibiting the Russian language and the canonical Orthodox Church. Has anyone in Brussels uttered a word about this issue? No one.

When we say “victory will be ours,” we mean that victory must be for justice. When the conditions for ensuring justice are clear, particularly for the people whose ancestors lived and cultivated the relevant lands for centuries, then we can seek an appropriate term to describe the resolution of this crisis.

Question: Britain has announced that it will increase its military budget and allocate £3 billion annually to support Ukraine for as long as necessary. Will this now suffice for Vladimir Zelensky?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot say. I am not in the habit of peering into others’ finances. They consistently assert that they will back Ukraine for as long as it takes. It took them 20 years in Afghanistan. We shall see how they will manage in the Ukrainian context.

Question: At a meeting with Mark Rutte, Vladimir Zelensky called for the redeployment of troops to Ukraine. It is no secret that weapons and officers from NATO countries are already present there. On one hand, the West appears to be “greedy” and reluctant to finance Ukraine as it once did. On the other hand, we constantly hear about attempts to further escalate the situation. To what extent do you believe Washington is prepared to go?

Sergey Lavrov: Just as I cannot peer into others’ finances, I cannot peer into others’ minds. Each statement made by Vladimir Zelensky only serves to highlight his inadequacies, both as a politician, which he attempts to portray himself as, and simply as an individual. It is lamentable.

As for his sponsors, we are observing the discussions taking place, where sensible politicians are calling for a focus on their own domestic issues, which are numerous in the US and particularly in Europe. Instead, EU leaders are attempting to align everyone under the slogan: “We will defend Ukraine to the last.” By this, they mean, of course, the last Ukrainian.

I do not believe that the involvement of foreign armed forces in the Ukrainian conflict holds significant importance at this juncture. It is widely understood that they are already engaged there. Without instructors who effectively direct missile systems against targets within the Russian Federation, the Ukrainian army would be unable to continue fighting. How the West, including London, will persist in exerting its influence over this regime is of no particular interest to me. We are clear about our objectives. We will achieve them, one way or another.

Question: It has been reported in the US media that a confidential aspect of “Zelensky’s plan” involves a request for the supply of Tomahawk missiles. What is your stance on the ongoing escalation by the Kiev regime? And how would Moscow respond if Washington agreed to supply these missiles to Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: We cannot engage in crystal-ball gazing, and certainly not in the kind of substances that Mr Zelensky might indulge in from time to time. It is clear that his demand for Tomahawks has knocked Washington for a loop. I reckon they understand perfectly well who they are dealing with. I am confident that for the sake of ensuring the security of the United States and the American people, they will “slap Zelensky on the hands” if he persists in his attempts to embroil the United States in a conflict with Russia.

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