Question: The main event of the outgoing year was the beginning of a special military operation in Ukraine, as well as the subsequent development of the situation, including an unprecedented deterioration of relations with the West. In your opinion, can the conflict in Ukraine drag on for, say, five years? What should we prepare for? Is a direct military confrontation with the countries supporting Kiev possible?
S.V. Lavrov: The actions of the countries of the “collective West” and V. Zelensky, controlled by them, confirm the global nature of the Ukrainian crisis. It is no secret that the strategic goal of the United States and its NATO allies is “victory over Russia on the battlefield” as a mechanism for significantly weakening or even destroying our country. In order to achieve this goal, our opponents are ready to do a lot.
The main beneficiary of the “hot conflict” is the United States, which seeks to extract maximum benefits from it both economically and militarily-strategically. At the same time, Washington is also solving an important geopolitical task – to disrupt the traditional ties between Russia and Europe and further subjugate European satellites.
The United States is doing everything to prolong the conflict and make it more violent. The Pentagon is openly planning orders for the American defense industry for years to come, constantly raising the bar for military spending on the needs of the Armed Forces and demanding the same from other members of the anti-Russian alliance. The Kiev regime is deliberately pumped up with the most modern weapons, including samples that have not yet been adopted by the Western armies themselves – apparently in order to see how they work in combat conditions. Since February of this year. The volume of military aid to the regime exceeded $ 40 billion, which is comparable to the military budgets of many European countries. We also know that in American political circles they are thinking more and more about drawing Ukraine into NATO “not by washing, but by rolling”.
At the same time, Westerners declare their desire to remain “above the fray” and the unacceptability of a direct clash between NATO and Russia. This is pure hypocrisy. Already, the alliance member states have become a de facto party to the conflict: Western PMCs and military instructors are fighting on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. The Americans transmit satellite and other intelligence to the Ukrainian command practically in real time, participate in the planning and implementation of combat operations.
In turn, the regime is trying to drag the Americans and other NATO members even deeper into the vortex of the conflict in order to make their head-on collision with the Russian Army inevitable. It is enough to recall the provocation on November 15 with the fall of a Ukrainian air defense missile on the territory of Poland, which V. Zelensky falsely tried to pass off as Russian. It’s good that Washington and Brussels were smart enough not to fall for this trick then. But the incident showed that the regime will stop at nothing.
We do not cease to warn our enemies in the West about the danger of the course they have taken to escalate the Ukrainian crisis. With the contingent that they have raised in Kiev, the risk of uncontrolled development of the situation remains very high. It is important to prevent a catastrophe.
As for the duration of the conflict, the ball is on the side of the regime and Washington standing behind it. They can stop their senseless resistance at any moment. Our proposals on demilitarization and denazification of the territories controlled by the regime, elimination of threats to Russia’s security emanating from there, including our new lands – the DPR, the LPR, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions – are well known to the enemy. It’s a small matter: to fulfill them in a good way. Otherwise, the issue will be solved by the Russian Army.
Question: The question of the possibility of using nuclear weapons this year sounded particularly acute, even those who are not at all interested in news from the world of politics began to talk about it. Should we expect an increase in this “nuclear” rhetoric in 2023?
S.V. Lavrov: This question should be addressed, first of all, to Westerners. We note with deep concern the propaganda orgy in the United States and in the West as a whole around the topic of nuclear weapons.
On the one hand, irresponsible speculations are constantly being promoted there that Russia is supposedly about to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. There are references to certain statements of the political leadership of Russia. But in reality there were no such statements.
We are talking about something completely different: the course of the West towards total containment of our country is extremely dangerous. It carries the risks of sliding into a direct armed clash of nuclear powers. We warn about this and repeat again and again that there can be no winners in a nuclear war, and it should never be unleashed.
On the other hand, the nuclear signals coming from the West are very confrontational. They seem to have completely discarded any decency. In particular, the well-known L. Truss, who stated without a shadow of a doubt during the election debates that she was quite ready to order a nuclear strike, was clearly noted. However, Washington went the furthest – there some “unnamed officials” from the Pentagon actually threatened to deliver a “decapitating blow” to the Kremlin, and in fact we are talking about the threat of the physical elimination of the Head of the Russian state. If such ideas are actually hatched by someone, this someone should think very carefully about the possible consequences of such plans.
Not to mention the off-scale provocations of the Kiev regime. V. Zelensky agreed to the requirement of preventive nuclear strikes by NATO countries against Russia. This also goes beyond the bounds of what is acceptable. However, we have not heard such things from the regime figures.
We cannot help but correlate such escapades with the destabilizing elements of US doctrinal attitudes. After all, the Americans “allowed themselves” including “disarming” strikes. We also take into account the dimensionality of the criteria that Washington defines for itself the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons. They talk about certain “vital interests” that are not specified in the American doctrine in any way and, apparently, can be extrapolated to almost any locality and circumstances if necessary.
We continue to call on the West to exercise maximum restraint in this extremely sensitive area. To minimize nuclear risks, it is important to actually remain committed to the postulate of the inadmissibility of nuclear war, confirmed by the countries of the nuclear “five” in the joint statement of January 3, 2022. According to the logic outlined in the document, it is necessary to prevent any military confrontation between the nuclear Powers, as it is fraught with disaster.
We additionally drew attention to these basic axioms in our statement on the prevention of nuclear war of November 2, 2022. In particular, it emphasizes that Russia stands for the formation of a renewed, more stable international security architecture based on ensuring predictability and global strategic stability, as well as compliance with the principles of equality, indivisible security and mutual consideration of the interests of the parties.
Question: Our country’s relations with the European Union are now at an extremely low level. Is there a chance that we will completely close off from each other, severing all ties – both humanitarian and economic? Are we going to appoint a Permanent Representative of Russia to the EU?
S.V. Lavrov: Of course, our relations with the European Union are now at the lowest historical level. The reasons are well known. After the start of a special military operation in EU Brussels, following the US and NATO, in fact, declared a hybrid war on us. Head of EU Diplomacy Zh.Borrel was one of the first to say that Russia should be defeated on the battlefield.
We see how the ruling circles of the EU countries act to the detriment of the vital interests and well-being of their citizens. In fact, they unquestioningly follow in the wake of the anti-Russian course of the overseas hegemon on almost all issues, and sometimes they break out ahead. There are a lot of examples here. It is enough to mention the US ban on European states to maintain a dialogue with our country in the energy sector, which has provided unprecedented prosperity to Europeans for decades.
Of course, there will be no more “business as usual” with such counterparties. They do not intend to knock on a closed door or initiate joint projects. Thank God, the world does not converge like a wedge on the European Union for us, we have many friends and like-minded people in other parts of the world. If and when a bitter hangover from the current Russophobic rage comes on the European side, and then sobering up, if there are clear nationally oriented politicians who understand the advantages of an equal and mutually beneficial partnership with Russia – I assure you, there will be no problems on our side. In the meantime, there is what there is. We are realists. We will continue to work with those few Europeans who value friendship with Russia. We will not cooperate with Russophobes.
As for the appointment of a new Permanent Representative of Russia to the EU, this is not a quick process. The Head of the EU Delegation visited and works in Russia in September this year. In the current conditions, it is necessary to proceed from the real volume of contacts against the background of openly hostile spells of EU leaders about the need to isolate Russia and defeat it.
Question: The dialogue with the United States has now also turned into a series of mutual accusations, and it seems that the two countries literally have nothing to talk about. Is it so? Are the Americans trying behind the scenes, without advertising it, to negotiate with us, for example, on Ukraine, on disarmament and other issues?
S.V. Lavrov: Russian-American relations are indeed in an extremely deplorable state. Practically frozen due to Washington’s fault. The confrontational anti-Russian course pursued by him is becoming increasingly acute and comprehensive. Maintain normal communication with the administration of J.Biden, declaring as a goal the infliction of strategic defeat on our country, objectively does not work.
We consistently explain to the Americans that the deliberate deterioration of interstate relations is not our style. However, when building a dialogue in any circumstances, we proceed from the principle of reciprocity. That is, we act, as a rule, on the principle of “an eye for an eye”, but not necessarily symmetrically.
At this stage, we are not going to come out with any initiatives. This, for example, refers to the discussion of a possible new agreement or arrangements in the field of strategic offensive weapons, as well as on mutual security guarantees. The United States refused to negotiate on the latter issue itself – under the pretext of the Ukrainian crisis. We have taken note of this. At the same time, we remain committed to the START Treaty, the basic principles of which are being eroded by Washington.
In our planning, we take into account the principle that worked during the Cold War – the principle of peaceful coexistence of States with different political and socio-economic systems. He may well come to court in the new geopolitical conditions.
Given the special responsibility of Russia and the United States as two nuclear superpowers for the fate of mankind, I proceed from the fact that normal relations between our countries would benefit everyone. However, taking into account the openly hostile actions of Washington, it is not possible to conduct business as usual.
Now it is difficult to say anything about the implementation of full-fledged bilateral contacts through foreign ministries. We have repeatedly stressed at various levels, including the highest, that we do not shy away from constructive dialogue, but it is necessary to create conditions for its establishment, and possible meetings should not be held for the sake of a tick, as we say, they should be filled with specifics. There were no significant ideas on this from the Americans.
For our part, we are ready to discuss security issues both in the context of Ukraine and in a broader strategic plan. Let’s wait until Washington “ripens” to the realization of the inferiority of its current course and the lack of alternative to building relations with us on a mutually respectful, equal basis with mandatory consideration of legitimate Russian interests.
