Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following the High-Level Week of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a news conference following the High-Level Week of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly.

New York, September

I am delighted to see everybody here, including many good old acquaintances.

As is traditional, we are concluding the High-level Week with this meeting with the media, where we try to answer your questions as transparently and openly as possible. I will not make any lengthy, substantive opening remarks, as I trust that you, as journalists, are closely following the latest developments.

The official remarks that I have just delivered in the General Assembly Hall outlined the main guidelines of Russia’s foreign policy.

My main conclusion at this stage of the General Assembly is that the world is clearly undergoing a profound transformation, marked by the collision of two tectonic processes. The first is the objective, historically conditioned shaping of a multipolar world – a process firmly rooted in the principle of the sovereign equality of states, as enshrined in the UN Charter. The second is promoted by a group of countries that still wish to preserve a unipolar world, to uphold what we call the “golden billion,” and to maintain methods that are, if not colonial, then neocolonial. The essence of these methods remains the same: to live at the expense of others.

There are plenty of examples. I have no doubt that you, as journalists, are keenly interested in these developments and in how the explanations that countries offer for their stances diverge from – or coincide with – their actions.

With that, I suggest we move on to your questions.

Question: The EU says that they are already in a hybrid war with Russia and according to NATO, Russia’s repeated air violations constitute a military escalation that endangers human lives, and Moscow bears full responsibility. What is your response to these accusations?

Sergey Lavrov: Let me give you an example. On the day the drones crashed on Polish territory, as soon as Poland raised the alarm, we proposed a business-like meeting with the Russian Defence Ministry, as befits professionals and without any hysteria. The proposal was to inspect the wreckage and discuss what kind of drones they were and what their flight range was. The crucial point is this: the drones found on Polish territory – if they are the ones we suspect – have a shorter flight range than the distance from the Russian Federation’s border to the Polish border.

I will reiterate – when the other party dodges an earnest discussion, accuses us of all manner of evil, and turns down proposals to sit down and sort things out because they ‘don’t want to’ – well, you know the answer.

It is good that you began with this question. A year ago, in this very room, at the same panel, I described our efforts to establish the truth regarding the provocation staged in the town of Bucha in April 2022. Our troops had withdrawn from the suburbs of Kiev, Bucha included, respecting the Western countries’ call to “create an atmosphere of trust” for the signing of a peace agreement – a settlement on the terms that were being discussed at the time, which was later disrupted by former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Just two days after our withdrawal, BBC reporters “accidentally” had the “luck” to film bodies, neatly positioned along the main street of Bucha, and broadcast that footage to the world. It appeared that no one had noticed them for two days, and then, suddenly, their vision cleared. This is simply impossible.

I also explained to you how I have made repeated appeals to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres for almost three years. Moreover, we even sent an official request to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Initially, no one wanted to launch the investigation we called for. As a minimum first step, we asked for the publication of the names of the victims whose bodies were shown on BBC.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres (I spoke with him on this matter yesterday) merely shrugged, saying that he could not deal with this. He then added that he had asked for that to be done but his request had been declined.

As I have already said, we also appealed to the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. This was an official, written appeal, sent a year ago. We received an answer only this summer. The response is startling: it stated that the possibility of disclosing the Bucha victims’ identities was being considered jointly with the Office of Legal Affairs of the UN Secretariat. Later, we were informed (albeit orally) that the UN Secretariat’s lawyers had ruled it inadvisable to disclose information about the Bucha victims, ostensibly to ensure their families’ safety.

A year ago, when the situation was in the same dead end as it is today, I appealed to your journalistic inquisitiveness. Aren’t you interested in finally finding out who those people were? Whose bodies were shown on BBC? What are their names? Yet, as far as I know, none of you launched a journalistic investigation, even though such inquiries are standard practice for far less high-profile incidents.

Returning to the first question, we have nothing to hide. We never attack civilian targets. Incidents may happen, but we never target them deliberately. We do not, and would not, send our drones or missiles into the territory of member states of the European Union or European members of the North Atlantic Alliance.

Let me be clear once again. If the Poles genuinely wanted to look into this incident, we would immediately offer a meeting. But no one ever wants to discuss the facts.

There have been numerous examples where we were accused, only for it to later emerge that Ukraine was responsible for hitting a market, a maternity hospital, or other civilian targets. Once the noise of the initial accusations subsides, journalists – including those who raised the fuss in the first place – lose all interest in exploring the facts and establishing the truth. Perhaps they are simply not permitted to. But we remain ready for an honest conversation.

Question: Yesterday, following a vote, the UN Security Council rejected a draft resolution proposed by Russia and China on extending Resolution 2231 on Iran’s nuclear programme for another six months.

What consequences do you foresee from the reinstatement of UN sanctions against Iran? Do you still think that a diplomatic resolution of the Iranian nuclear programme issue is possible? If so, what further steps does Russia plan to take?

Sergey Lavrov: The snapback mechanism was incorporated into UN Security Council Resolution 2231 that approved the Iranian nuclear deal in 2015. The incorporation followed direct talks between Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and US Secretary of State John Kerry.

This snapback mechanism is not typical for other sanctions regimes. In fact, it authorised any country to submit a resolution for a vote on extending the sanctions. A country with veto power could block such a resolution single-handedly, resulting in the non-extension of the sanctions.

I have two observations here. First, the mechanism lacks elegant formulation and was implemented solely for the purpose of maintaining a hold on our Iranian counterparts’ throats, preventing them from any sort of deviation.

Second, Iran agreed to this “exotic” mechanism solely because it was confident it would never violate the deal. The rationale was, essentially, that they let this mechanism remain in place as a contingency measure. Iran had no intention of violating it then and has no intention of doing so now. Therefore, they agreed to it with a light heart as they saw it at the time.

They could not have imagined that the deal would be torn apart not by them but by the United States in 2018. And yet, it happened. The United States withdrew from the deal and declared that it no longer recognised the resolution. Instead of demanding that the United States reassume its obligations, Europe also began to retreat from its commitment to these agreements. This continuous series of violations is well-documented.

So, from the resolution that the United States does not recognise, the Europeans take only what they need. And what they need is this exotic snapback mechanism. What did they do? It is difficult to explain this in a human language. It is a trap. This paradox was created as a trap for Iran. This is yet another indication that Iran never intended and does not intend to violate the requirements of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or this nuclear deal. However, Iran’s next government has fallen into this trap inherited from 2015.

Russia and the People’s Republic of China have done everything possible to give diplomacy a chance. Even after the resolution to restore the sanctions regime was adopted, there was still a chance to agree on extending the full implementation of the Iranian nuclear deal for a certain period (we proposed three months) without adding or removing any conditions so that it would remain in effect with all its aspects during a period when, as we hoped, talks would proceed.

Since the West sabotaged this effort and blackmailed the majority of UN Security Council members into supporting its destructive stance, now I don’t know how the Islamic Republic of Iran will respond. This demonstrates a complete inability to negotiate across the board. They did not even give Iran two or three months to negotiate and secure acceptable terms to continue cooperation with both the IAEA and the United States.

Iran was and remains open to dialogue, even if not direct but mediated. Iran has also maintained regular contact with the European Three, yet the outcome of these interactions confirms only one thing: from the very beginning, the European Three needed a pretext to reinstate the sanctions. Consequently, all proposals of a compromise made in good faith by our Iranian counterparts were rejected. Whenever an announcement was made giving hope for an agreement, new demands would emerge by the next morning.

This is a deliberate campaign to initiate another phase of strangling Iran economically, financially and so forth. You consistently say in your reports and political analysts mention that the threats of new strikes against Iran persist and, as some informed sources even indicate, are discussed as options at a practical level, which is also highly indicative. All these actions are synchronised, both the military threat and the measures of economic suffocation. This is regrettable and indicates only one thing: western countries hold UN Security Council resolutions very cheap, as we say in Russia. This is true regarding Iran, Kosovo and the Minsk Agreements on Ukraine. I could give you plenty of examples.

Question: A couple of days ago, after meeting with President Zelensky, US President Trump said that he believed Ukraine could take back all the territories and even go further. And you met with Marco Rubio and had, let’s say, a constructive talk. With this kind of ever-changing policies from your US colleagues, how is Russia planning to engage with the US, especially with the Trump administration, on this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: You could call it an ever-changing and flexible policy.

You see, every state and certainly every leader has their own style of conducting affairs on both the international stage and at home.

We genuinely appreciate that the United States understands the most critical point: it is fundamentally wrong when states refuse to even speak with each other, as the Europeans and President Joe Biden did during his term. At a time like this, when numerous events of global and monumental significance are unfolding, refusing to talk to one another is simply criminal.

We appreciate that from the very beginning, the administration of President Donald Trump proposed to resume our dialogue. We have resumed it. We immediately affirmed in February 2025, during a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and in a telephone conversation between President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump, that we recognise that Russia, the United States and all other countries have national interests. Every state has the right to advance them. In cases where interests align (and we reaffirmed this philosophy with Secretary of State Marco Rubio during our meeting on September 25), and there are, of course, few such instances in Russia-US relations, it would be foolish not to use this circumstance to implement joint and mutually beneficial projects, whether in energy, space or any other area. And in cases (which prevail) where the interests of Russia and the United States do not align, the main objective is to prevent them escalating into a clash, a confrontation, let alone a “hot” conflict. Here, we fully agree.

As you know, in diplomacy and particularly in public diplomacy, many things can be said based on the specifics of the moment. There are many such moments, and the specifics of them are constantly changing.

We do not see any deviation on behalf of the United States from its course of conducting an open and honest dialogue with either Russia or China, as well as in communication with the other countries with which the United States has disagreements, contradictions or differing views on how to continue trading and dealing with economic matters.

This is precisely what diplomacy does: it reconciles and manages conflicting interests in a manner that avoids confrontation. When some of our European colleagues turn diplomacy either into courting their counterparts from Washington to keep them engaged in “Joe Biden’s war,” or substitute diplomacy with sanctions, it is a path with no prospects that will not bring any success. On the contrary, we are ready for an honest dialogue on any issue, which, as we see, the United States is also ready for. Meanwhile, diplomatic comments can vary.

Question: President Trump publicly asked Turkish President Erdogan to stop buying Russian oil and gas at the White House. Do you expect Türkiye to stop or are you confident that Ankara will remain in it?

Some time ago, Türkiye purchased from Russia the S-400 missile defence systems? When I asked you a similar question last year, you told me that Türkiye was the final user and cannot sell it to a third country. What do you have to say to that?

Sergey Lavrov: With regards to both questions, I don’t want to make guesses. I want to affirm what I always say about Türkiye and any other partner. We respect the stance of the Republic of Türkiye. We have no doubt that Türkiye respects itself and its people.

Question: Next month, Russia is taking over the UN Security Council presidency. On what matters will your work focus?

Sergey Lavrov: Each month, items automatically appear on the Security Council agenda as a result of previously adopted resolutions. Typically, there are periodic reviews of resolution implementation. The UN Secretariat circulates in advance a list of topics scheduled for hearings, discussions and potentially further guidance on the implementation of respective decisions in any given month.

Specifically, during our presidency, there will be a review of the fulfillment of the Dayton Agreement on Bosnia and Herzegovina. This appears to be a rather timely review as the situation there is critical. A course has been taken for dismantling the agreements and infringing upon the rights of the Serbian people. There are clear and gross violations of the Dayton Agreement that established the equality of the three constituent peoples – Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks. This promises to be a significant event.

Perhaps the most importan matter is that Russia’s presidency coincides with United Nations Day on October 24, marking the anniversary of the founding of the Organisation. We plan to convene a special meeting on that day, not only to reiterate our support for the principles enshrined in the UN Charter by its founding fathers but also to examine how they should be implemented today. Especially since the overwhelming majority of these principles are directly related to the processes of multipolarity. The sovereign equality of states, non-interference in each other’s domestic affairs, the right of nations to self-determination, the right of peoples to shape their own destiny – all these principles have been enshrined in the UN Charter for the past 80 years but not always consistently implemented. This anniversary meeting will be focused on analysis and, hopefully, on reaching a practical conclusion on how we can further develop the United Nations.

Question: Your ambassador here gives very strong speeches at the Security Council about the “genocidal” war in Gaza. He is very factual, he’s very straightforward; he gives a strong position of the Russian Federation. However, can’t Russia do more than just giving strong statements, and factual and right to the point?

And the second related question. ICC Prosecutor issued, on May 20, 2024, arrest warrants for two Israeli war criminals. And from that day until today, the crimes are continuing, the genocide is continuing – and yet not one single indictment of any other Israeli general, or minister, or war criminal.

Sergey Lavrov: Over the past few days, I have met with many of my Arab friends. Our discussions focused not only on Palestine, but also on the West Bank, southern Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and more. The situation is extremely explosive. It’s not merely lined with time bombs – it is a minefield with the fuses already activated, where a single misstep could trigger a detonation.

You asked what Russia could do, beyond stating its principled stance on Palestine at the UN Security Council. Do you represent an Arab media outlet?

Most recently, a joint summit of the League of Arab States and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation was held, where the atrocities in Gaza were a central topic. The collective punishment of the Palestinian people continues – an action that is no better than the terrorist attacks we all condemn and is, moreover, prohibited by international humanitarian law. If our Arab and Muslim friends undertake any initiatives following that summit, and if those efforts show practical potential for stopping the violence, we will definitely join them.

You, in the Arab world, share direct borders with Palestine and Israel. You are the ones most immediately affected by these developments. Almost all Arab and Muslim countries are our close friends, and we want to help. However, it is primarily for the countries of the region to decide on their course of action.

I know that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE are engaged in confidential, trust-based talks, a process which the United States is assisting. Now, rumours are circulating about some emerging agreements. US President Donald Trump said a deal was ‘close,’ but we are not yet sure exactly what was meant by that.

We have all seen the media speculation about the so-called “21-point plan,” which proposes something akin to a “collective administration,” with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair touted for “Governor-General.” According to certain rumours circulating in the media space, this is an attempt to make a structure akin to “reservations” (or “Bantustans,” as they were known in apartheid South Africa) appear more attractive.

Let me be clear: I am commenting on these rumours without endorsing them. But since you asked what Russia could do, I am telling you that a process is underway. If the countries participating in that process, primarily the Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves, saw a role we could play or a contribution Russia could make, we are confident we would have been told about it.

Question: Given the statements made by various parties, including here at the UN General Assembly, can Vladimir Zelensky expect a return to the 2022 borders? What is the current situation on the ground in the DPR, specifically in the strategic triangle?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the 2022 borders, no one seriously expects a return to them anymore. To insist on this would be a sign of “political blindness” and a complete failure to understand the realities on the ground.

Russia is acting to defend its legitimate interests and the rights of the people who, after the usurpers seized power through a coup, were branded as terrorists, “sub-humans,” and “creatures” by the Nazis in Kiev. Their children were threatened by the then-President, Petr Poroshenko, when he said they would “rot in basements” while the children of the Ukrainian elite drove beautiful cars, went to school, and ate sweets.

That option is best forgotten; it is off the table. The discussion about returning to the borders of a certain period has been prolonged by the Ukrainian leaders who came to power illegally after February 2014. They constantly lied and disrupted every agreement reached over the years. If the agreement actually signed in February 2014 between the then-president and the opposition, and guaranteed by Germany, France, and Poland, had been implemented, Ukraine would today be within its 1991 borders. Crimea would not have rebelled, refusing to recognise the illegal government, as there would have never been an illegal government.

Instead, war began. The Kiev regime chose to bomb and shell those who refused to recognise the illegal government, and to burn them alive – as was the case in Odessa, where some 50 people perished in a fire. Lugansk was bombed by aviation, and other territories were shelled with artillery. It is strictly forbidden to use military force in internal conflicts – you know it is a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

A year later, the Minsk Agreements were signed. If those accords, guaranteed by Germany and France and approved by the UN Security Council, had been implemented by the Kiev regime, Ukraine would have remained within its 1991 borders, minus Crimea. Crimea held a referendum; this is an undisputed fact. Frankly, in 2014, the then-US Secretary of State, John Kerry, told me, let’s forget Crimea and talk about Donbass instead. That initiative was also derailed, and Ukraine shrank further.

Subsequently, when Ukraine proposed a deal in April 2022, which we agreed to, its implementation would have meant Ukraine within its 1991 borders, minus Crimea and the larger part of Donbass. But Kiev thwarted that, too, by refusing to follow through on its own initiative.

Therefore, the “2022 borders” are off the table today. What we are now discussing are the borders as enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Question: How would you comment on the situation in the DPR, specifically in the “strategic triangle”?

Sergey Lavrov: I will refrain from commenting on the battlefield situation. Firstly, I have been away for several days. Secondly, the Defence Ministry does so regularly. Our frontline reporters also provide excellent coverage, so I will leave that analysis to them.

Question: I wonder if I could persuade you to answer this question in English perhaps?

President Donald Trump called Russia a “paper tiger” and said that European countries should shoot down Russian planes if they violate European airspace. Do you see that as a provocation? And what would happen if Russian planes are shot down?

Sergey Lavrov: We are in the United Nations. Russian is one of its official languages, as is English. I am therefore grateful for your understanding as I exercise my right to use it on this official platform.

It is frankly impossible to follow every statement made. However, I recall that a day after President Donald Trump’s “paper tiger” remark, he was asked if he still held that view and he answered in the negative. If we had to provide explanations for every rhetorical nuance...

I have already stated my position on certain statements by President Trump. Public diplomacy employs a wide variety of tools, methods, and techniques. The same logic applies to the allegations that Donald Trump “allowed” deep strikes into Russia or the shooting down of our aircraft or drones.

A drone that has left our airspace is one matter. If it crosses a border, anyone can do whatever they deem necessary to ensure their security. But any attempt to shoot down or target an object over our territory, within our sovereign airspace, will have the gravest of consequences. Those who commit such a gross violation of territorial integrity and sovereignty will come to seriously regret it.

Question: The German authorities do not hide the fact that they are actively militarising their country. Why do you think they are doing that? What are they trying to achieve?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the re-militarisation of Germany, we have repeatedly expressed our profound concern. What we are witnessing is not merely re-militarisation; there are also clear signs of re-nazification.

Why are they doing it? The goals appear to be the same as those of Adolf Hitler: to subdue Europe and to inflict a “strategic defeat” upon the Soviet Union. For modern Germany, this target is the Russian Federation, with the European Union and NATO acting as its accompanying chorus. And this is what they keep saying.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated again yesterday that while we are not yet in a state of war, we are no longer in a state of peace. This militaristic rhetoric intensifies daily. According to his own expression, which he has already used more than once, Germany can now vastly increase defence and infrastructure spending, now that he has successfully pushed for loosening the constitutional fiscal restraints known as the debt brake.

He has proudly stated his goal is to build the strongest conventional army in Europe – again. For a country bearing the historical responsibility for the crimes of Nazism, fascism, the Holocaust, and genocide, to speak of re-emerging as a great military power “again” signifies a serious atrophy of historical memory. This is just profoundly unsafe.

Question: You have repeatedly talked about the West “privatising” the UN leadership. What can Russia do to change this situation?

Sergey Lavrov: I have been honest about this. We do not hide it. Many positions at the Under-Secretary-General level are distributed across different countries and continents. However, several key departments that directly affect the core functioning of the UN Secretariat and the decisions it submits for Member States’ approval are all led by citizens of NATO member countries.

When the UN Secretariat makes a recommendation, Member States are often strongly inclined to support it.

Consider the leadership: the UN Secretary-General, the head of the Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs, and the head of the Department of Peace Operations, are all citizens of NATO member states. Furthermore, the highly influential Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs is, once again, led by a citizen of a NATO country (specifically Britain). The head of the Department of Safety and Security, which is also essential for the functioning of the entire UN system, is also a citizen of a NATO member state.

I just mentioned the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – that particular office is filled by another Briton “by inheritance.”

Against this backdrop, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has put forward the UN80 initiative, which contains many radical proposals. These require in-depth, transparent, and inclusive analysis with the participation of all Member States.

We have sponsored a corresponding resolution to ensure this process does not boil down to another “gentlemen’s agreement.” In response, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has appointed another Under-Secretary-General to lead the process and, by a most unusual coincidence, has selected yet another British citizen. Shouldn’t these key offices be distributed more evenly across member countries? I would have thought this was obvious.

At the last session of the UN General Assembly, I spoke about the need to reform the principles underpinning the formation of the UN Secretariat. Currently, the main criteria seem to be the size of a country’s population and its per capita GDP. The larger the country, the more posts it gets – a logic which may have some merit.

But this must be balanced against the principle of the sovereign equality of states, a point raised repeatedly in these halls. Individuals should be appointed to the UN Secretariat based solely on merit, free from national bias, while always observing the principle of equitable geographical representation. At present, this principle is completely disregarded in the upper echelons of the Secretariat.

Question: India continues to purchase Russian oil despite the fact that the United States insists on it cutting the imports down. What’s your take on Russia’s relations with India in this context? How will this affect India-Russia relations?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot approach India-US relations, or relations between India and any other country as a measure to assess India-Russia relations.

Our ties have long become a strategic partnership. At some point, our Indian friends proposed expanding this term, and our relations came to be called a privileged strategic partnership. A little later, our Indian friends have come up with another refinement, and these relations are now referred to as a particularly privileged strategic partnership.

We have full respect for India’s national interests and foreign policy pursued by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in order to advance them. We maintain regular contacts at the top level. Recently, Prime Minister Modi and President of Russia Putin met at the SCO summit in Tianjin, China.

In December, President Putin will pay a state visit to New Delhi. We have an extensive list of bilateral issues to discuss, which includes trade, the economy, finance, military-technical cooperation, humanitarian contacts, healthcare, high technology, and artificial intelligence. We maintain close coordination in the international arena within the SCO, BRICS, and through bilateral channels.

This year, my colleague, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar - I spoke with him yesterday - visited Russia. I will pay a visit India as well. Regular exchanges are underway.

I’m not even asking our Indian colleagues what will happen to our trade and oil. They have no problem addressing this issue.

Answering a similar question, my friend Subrahmanyam Jaishankar publicly stated that if the United States wants to sell its oil to India, India is prepared to discuss the terms. However, commodities that India buys from other countries, not from the United States, but from Russia are within India’s purview and are not part of the India-US agenda. I believe this is a dignified answer showing that India, just like Türkiye, has respect for itself.

Question: Of late, we’ve been hearing a growing number of accounts about difficulties faced by delegations attending the UN General Assembly. The Russian delegation has repeatedly encountered visa issues. This year, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was unable to attend the UN General Assembly session.

What is your assessment of the legitimacy of such actions on the part of the United States, given that the UN headquarters is located in New York? What do you think about the increasingly frequent calls to move the UN headquarters to another country?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a serious matter that inconveniences the countries whose delegations run into such issues. It’s a major violation of the Agreement between the UN Headquarters and the host country. The host country has an obligation to issue visas in a timely manner and without discrimination to all UN events upon request of a country in question ahead of the session, be it the General Assembly or another UN body.

We regularly come up short of our delegation members, including State Duma deputies. Our President includes parliamentarians in the delegation. Not everyone gets their visas. I mentioned this to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on September 24. A Foreign Ministry department director was denied his US visa as well.

This is not the only violation of the Agreement between the UN Headquarters and the host country. The seizure of our diplomatic property during the Obama administration was among the most glaring violations. He had done it a couple of weeks before Trump was inaugurated into his first presidency. Leaving a pile of garbage like that for someone who, under law, the Constitution, and the will of the people, is going to replace you at the White House was an undignified thing to do. Still, he left such a legacy. To this day, we have been unable to clean it up. The Americans lack the will to return to honest compliance with the agreements.

However, the dialogue about visas, the embassies, and this property, as well as about other aspects of the daily functioning of our diplomatic mission is on. Two rounds have been held. As agreed with Marco Rubio, we will hold the third round this autumn in order to finalise the arrangements.

With regard to moving the headquarters, many would be supportive of the idea. Recently, Colombian President Gustavo Petro had his visa revoked while he was in the United States. He’s a straight shooter. Many suggested starting to think about it. I think these proposals were purely polemical and were meant to raise this issue with the UN Committee on Relations with the Host Country more forcefully.

Legend has it that the first time Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill discussed the idea of creating a world organisation, Stalin insisted on headquartering the UN in Sochi. The city of Sochi has a proven ability to host major events. If such a decision is ever made, the Olympic infrastructure in Sochi is ready to accommodate the UN. It would offer the UN Secretariat staff a comfortable environment to maintain an active lifestyle.

Question: President Donald Trump has threatened to impose sanctions on countries buying Russian oil. Does Russia have any concrete steps to offer to India in order to preserve the economic partnership with that country?

Did you discuss India with Secretary Rubio?

Sergey Lavrov: The answer to your second question is no. We do not discuss anyone, especially our friends, in our contacts with third countries.

I clarified the issue about oil in my earlier answer to the question posed by your colleague from an Indian media outlet. The way you phrased your question was “Are there ways to preserve Russia-India economic partnership?” I have no doubt about that, because it is not under threat. No one is encroaching on it. Should anyone ever take such steps, India’s Prime Minister and Foreign Minister have made everything clear. India chooses its own partners itself. If the United States has an offer to increase bilateral trade with India, India will be willing to discuss the terms offered by the Americans. However, New Delhi will discuss India’s trade, investment, economic, and military-technical relations with third countries only with the countries in question.

Question: Word is out that Kiev is plotting another provocation, this time in the EU. The plan is to attack NATO members Romania and Poland under a false flag and blame the attack on Russia. What, do you think, this can lead to? Are we going to be pro-active on the information front? Will that work?

Sergey Lavrov: This is by far not the first time it is happening. I have no doubt that these reports have reliable grounds. The Kiev regime has special entities in the media and the military-technical sphere that deal with provocations, as you said, under a false flag.

Reportedly, they use our drones and make it look like we are the ones that launch them. However, in addition to hysterical outbursts coming from Poland, Estonia, and the Baltic states, as well as a number of other countries, there are serious people in serious capitals who have a clear understanding of what is going on.

Truth be told, even in those serious capitals the elites are committed to the goal of suppressing Russia. They are no longer talking about inflicting a strategic defeat, but are phrasing their goals somewhat differently. Yet, the idea of inflicting a strategic defeat never leaves their minds. They will continue to provide modified versions of what a defeat may look like, but this is exactly what they are focused on.

I know for certain that the British are helping the Ukrainians pull these dirty tricks, just as they have done for centuries within our geopolitical space. We are fully aware of that. Our military intelligence and the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service regularly unveil true faces of those who attempt to cook up such provocations. There is little sense in speculating about the response, but if they take physical steps, they will regret it in a big way.

President Putin has repeatedly made it clear that we will not allow anyone in Europe who are openly plotting a war against us violate our territory, or our airspace.

Question: You mentioned Iran and the sanctions mechanism earlier. How hard or how easy is it to re-impose sanctions on Iran? Is it easy to create a sanctions committee or to elect its chairman?

Regarding the multilateral UN system which is going through a rough patch now, you worked in New York for quite a while and know this system inside out.

Sergey Lavrov: I have sent a letter to the UN Secretary-General in which I clearly set out our position. The Foreign Ministry will issue a statement to that effect today. The letter states that the decision that was orchestrated and staged yesterday is legally null and void, unlawful, and is not legally binding.

If the Secretary-General, despite being bound by the UN Charter, including provisions on his duties and powers, recognises this unlawful action in the UN Security Council on September 26 and services this procedure by creating special Secretariat entities, it will be a grave mistake and will do even greater damage to the Secretary-General and his office.

Indeed, “attacking the multilateral system” is a figure of speech. There is hardly anything to comment on. A resolution adopted by consensus has been grossly violated by the United States, France, and the United Kingdom. Now, they have dragged this resolution into the broad daylight and are claiming that Iran has violated this resolution, not them.

This is not only an attack on the multilateral system as a whole, but also on the UN system and the prerogatives of its Security Council, as well as the rules of decent behaviour which include implementing Security Council resolutions, rather than altering them to suit one’s own selfish schemes, including interference in internal affairs and the unlawful use of force.

Question: We see that a wave of recognition of Palestine’s right to self-determination is growing. Without a doubt, the Palestinians deserve to have their own state.

The Iraqi Kurds have held a referendum, as you may remember. Practically no country recognised its outcomes. The international community almost unanimously opposed the will of the people. Why was the will of the people ignored? Are we looking at a double standard here? My second question concerns the oil deal.

Sergey Lavrov: These two questions are closely intertwined. The fact that a new oil deal has been signed by Baghdad and Erbil unequivocally means that the Kurds and the Iraqi Arabs are capable of reaching agreements. We welcome this. I met with the Foreign Minister of Iraq. We maintain regular contact with the leadership of the Kurdish autonomous region as well.

It is satisfying to know that the Kurds and the central government are getting along well. We wouldn’t like to see the Kurdish issue blow up, because not all Kurdish entities are entertaining peaceful plans and intentions. Large numbers of Kurds live in different countries of the region, and some are willing to “detonate” the Kurdish issue. The Middle East may not live to see another day after another large-scale blast. Therefore, we are supportive of the efforts to appease everyone. However, without establishing a dialogue and achieving national consensus in the countries of the region, including the ones with the Kurdish populations, such as Iraq, Syria, or Iran, these states will simply collapse.

Some may say that this is the right of nations to self-determination. You are not at war, so the circumstances are good enough to hold talks. Both Erbil and Baghdad proved that. We strongly support these developments.

Question: On the eve of the high-level week, President Putin conveyed that Russia would continue to abide by the provisions of the START Treaty next year. Was this issue raised during your talks with Marco Rubio? Did you see any reaction to this initiative on the sidelines of the General Assembly?

Sergey Lavrov: This initiative was put forward literally one day before the General Assembly opened. I reiterated it today in my remarks at a plenary session. The full text of President Putin’s statement of September 22 is being circulated as an official document of the UN Security Council and the General Assembly. I’m confident that once the hustle and bustle of the high-level week subsides (when everyone is preoccupied with their respective delegations from the capitals) we will see assessments coming in. We have already seen some reactions. The official White House representative, Karoline Leavitt, said it was an engaging statement and that President Trump would certainly provide a comment. We operate on this premise.

Question: The Wall Street Journal reported that Donald Trump informed Vladimir Zelensky that he was prepared to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of long-range US-made weapons to strike Russia. Did Secretary of State Marco Rubio mention this possibility to you? Do you believe this may really be the case? What steps will Russia take?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t like to take guesses. You quoted The Wall Street Journal, while The New York Times wrote that Zelensky begged for long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, but Trump said no. So, reacting to every line in a newspaper is not a very productive approach.

We operate on the premise that everything we have heard from our US colleagues at the top and other levels tells us that they want to help us end this conflict by addressing and eliminating its root causes. There are no other countries in the Western camp that abide by such a position.

I have no doubt that the US President is genuinely interested in this outcome. Some people are trying to have influence on him, but that’s another matter. The Europeans are literally hanging on his arms. Zelensky is bragging that President Trump now understands him better than he does President Putin. Lots of people are willing to use this opportunity to shine on the international stage. I think you know better than to react to every line or phrase.

Question: You said Ukraine was reluctant to talk with Russia. How can this conflict be ended otherwise?

How does Russia read US military threats to Venezuela in the Caribbean? What are the risks for regional security and stability?

Sergey Lavrov: Your second question has far more urgency to it. We are, of course, concerned by what the Americans are doing in the international waters next to Venezuela’s territorial waters. Yesterday, I spoke with Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil and many other officials from Latin America and the Caribbean. The Brazilians are deeply worried, as are island nations such as Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Today, I also met with the Foreign Minister of Nicaragua.

The situation is indeed serious. A formidable naval force, including a nuclear submarine, is already there. Direct threats of military intervention to destroy drug cartels and, more broadly, to wage war on drug trafficking, are being made.

At the very same time, at the UN Security Council, our US colleagues, in conjunction with Panama, are pushing through a resolution to transform the MSS mission in Haiti into an international gang suppression force. They are requesting a very peculiar mandate. They want the Security Council to authorise such a force, but leave manning it to anyone having a stake in it. The mandate would allow the use of unlimited force against these “gangs.” There’s no timeline for the operation, and no reporting to the UN Security Council is envisaged. If you compare the process at the Security Council with what is being plotted with Venezuela in mind, I cannot rule out that some “creative actors” might decide to obtain a Security Council mandate and then claim that “Haitian gangs” have holed up in Venezuela.

We stand in solidarity with the people and government of Venezuela. They are within their right to determine how to go about their political, economic, and social life. We believe interfering in internal affairs of Venezuela or any other country is unacceptable. This, once again, is stipulated in the UN Charter.

With regard to talks with Ukraine, I asked my staff to prepare material on the evolution of Kiev’s position on talks.

On April 17, 2022, immediately after the Ukrainians derailed the agreements they themselves had come up with (when the British told them to walk away), President Zelensky said, “We can fight Russia for ten years on end, if needed. Our society does not want us to keep up the talks.”

On October 1, 2022, Zelensky suddenly said Ukraine was ready for talks with Russia, but only if Vladimir Putin was not president.

On March 22, 2023, then foreign minister Dmitry Kuleba had the following to say after the illegal International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for President Putin, “We knew long before that talking with Vladimir Putin was meaningless.” Our National Security Council of Ukraine adopted a decision stating that talks with Putin were not an option.” These are the same people who, a year later, started claiming that Putin was “running away” from them.

On May 4, 2023, Zelensky said, “For us, the result means utterly concrete verdicts for all Russian war criminals, including the top leadership of the aggressor state.”

In May 2023, his adviser Mikhail Podolyak said, “Ukraine hates you. We will go after you forever and everywhere. There is nothing to discuss with you. You don’t understand human language. Ukraine will get to each of you, no matter how, legally or physically.” And these lads are now claiming that we refuse to talk to them.

In 2024, Zelensky said “Russia can start talks with us only if they withdraw from our legitimate territories.” That again brings us back to the “1991 borders” rhetoric.

After that, we were haunted for a long time by a ceasefire without any preconditions. A year ago, Zelensky said during talks with French President Emmanuel Macron, “There were lots of media reports today that I came to discuss a ceasefire. No, that’s not true. Ukraine does not consider the possibility of a ceasefire in exchange for Western guarantees. It simply doesn’t consider that. This is not a subject for discussion. A ceasefire is out of question.” Now, they are saying they need an “immediate ceasefire” and Western guarantees. Back then, he wouldn’t even talk about guarantees. So, you can see for yourself what kind of people are the figures led by Zelensky.

Question: You held a meeting with representatives of the member states of the Sahel Confederation on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. How effective and timely do you find this format?

My second question is France has suspended cooperation with Mali in counterterrorism efforts amid a diplomatic crisis. Meanwhile, French media have published materials that are sympathising with terrorists and separatists. What explains this policy by Paris? Is that the revenge for Bamako’s sovereign choice, or a response to its rapprochement with Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: You answered your second question yourself. That is exactly the case. Ukrainian “specialists” are involved as well, as they supply drones to various armed groups and train them. This information has been corroborated.

The meeting with the foreign ministers of the Sahel Confederation (Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger) was held for the second time. We met in Moscow in April. We will continue this practice in the region as well. We discussed the plans we have drafted following high-level meetings and recent visit to these countries by our delegation led by Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak with officials from the ministries of the economy, energy, and other economic agencies. They have excellent plans for joint projects in natural resources, energy (including nuclear), humanitarian cooperation, and military and military-technical cooperation as well. These countries need assistance.

We also spoke about the importance of building bridges between them and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). They are neighbours and they need to find ways to coexist.

In our contacts with ECOWAS and the African Union, we stress the importance of ensuring full-fledged participation of this troika in the work of the African Union and the relevant regional integration associations.

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