Question: Many did not fully believe that Russia would launch a special military operation in Ukraine. The Russian side has repeatedly voiced the reasons, including the threat of a military-strategic nature from Kiev. What threats did Ukraine have or may have that forced Russia to launch a military operation?
S.V. Lavrov: This story dates back much earlier. And not even in 2014, when a bloody coup was carried out in Ukraine with the support of the West, but back in the early 1990s, while the USSR ceased to exist. Western colleagues promised Soviet (then Russian) leaders Boris Yeltsin and E.A.Shevardnadze that there would be no geopolitical turning point, NATO would not take advantage of the new situation and would not move its infrastructure to the east. Moreover, it will not accept new members. The Archives of Great Britain have published relevant recordings of the negotiations. Once again, it became crystal clear.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken on this topic in his public speeches. Instead of fulfilling the promise and ensuring stability in Europe, NATO has undertaken five waves of expansion to the east. Moreover, all of them were accompanied by the deployment of the armed forces of the alliance members in these territories. They said it was “on a temporary basis,” but it quickly turned into a permanent one – they were creating military infrastructure all the time. Now neutral member states of the European Union or states such as Switzerland are also trying to involve NATO in meeting the needs. The Military Mobility project forces Austria, Sweden, and Finland to provide transport capabilities so that NATO can transfer its armed forces. “Natocentricity” becomes all-encompassing. The European Union, for all its slogans about the need for “strategic autonomy of Europe”, is by no means inspired by this topic and perfectly agrees to be an obedient “appendage” of the North Atlantic Alliance.
This period was accompanied by outright provocation of post-Soviet states (primarily Ukraine): like, you have to decide who you are with – Russia or the West. They sounded right “in the forehead”, starting with the first “Maidan” in 2003. This was also the case at the subsequent stage, when Ukraine, under V.F. Yanukovych, decided to wait a bit with the signing of the Association agreement with the European Union, because it contradicted the long-existing agreement on a free trade zone with the CIS. V.F. Yanukovych realized that it was necessary to harmonize the trade regime with Russia and other CIS countries and with Europe. This is the only reason why Brussels organized the “Maidan” and the protests that resulted in bloody confrontations in February 2014.
At that time, “peace” had already been achieved. An agreement on settlement was signed with V.F. Yanukovych. He resigned all his powers and held elections ahead of schedule (which he would not have won). Poland, France and Germany, which guaranteed this agreement, after the opposition committed a coup d’etat and trampled on their guarantees, remained silent, as we say, “in a rag.” They even began to welcome the forces that came to power, by and large, the putschists. Russian Russian putschists first of all declared that they were canceling the special status of the Russian language in Ukraine, did not want to see Russians in Crimea, and sent armed gangs there. Crimeans refused to obey those who committed a coup.
That’s when it all happened. It all started at that time. People came to power who openly encouraged neo-Nazi sentiments in society, the creation of appropriate organizations marching in torchlight processions with portraits of Nazi criminals with openly neo-Nazi and Russophobic slogans. The West accepted all this without a murmur. Many even supported and encouraged in every possible way. Then the topic of Ukraine’s accession to NATO began. V.A. Zelensky came to power under the slogans of peace and the need to save human lives, not to allow the death of either Ukrainians or Russians. In the end, he became the same Russophobe as the government of P.A. Poroshenko. V.A. Zelensky called people in the Donbass “individuals”. Under the previous president, Prime Minister A.P. Yatsenyuk called them “inhumans”.
This is confirmed by the reaction of the leading NATO countries, first of all the United States, to the initiatives that President Vladimir Putin put forward in December 2021 about the need to honestly fulfill what we agreed on. No one should, even when choosing their possible military alliances, do anything that would infringe on the security of any other country. This commitment at the highest level was approved and signed by the Presidents and heads of Government of the OSCE countries within the framework of the Russia-NATO Council. The West categorically refuses to fulfill it. V.A. Zelensky said that if Russia does not stop demanding that Ukraine fulfill its obligations, then he will think about Ukraine regaining its nuclear weapons. It was a little too much.
Question: Was that the most important thing?
Sergey Lavrov: No. It was all accumulating. There are drops that overflow the cup of patience. I would suggest considering all that I have listed as everyday argumentation, phenomena that convinced us day after day that the West had taken a course to use Ukraine to contain Russia, to create an “anti-Russia”, a “hostile belt”. For a couple of years, Ukraine has been pumping up weapons, recently especially actively. The Americans and the British built military and naval bases there, for example, on the Sea of Azov. Through the Pentagon, military biological laboratories were created in order to continue experiments on bacteria. This program of Americans is classified. It exists in other countries of the former Soviet Union right along the perimeter of the Russian Federation. Pumping Ukraine with a hostile military component for us was very active. Let me remind you that Russian President Vladimir Putin has said this more than once. In 2014, probably nothing would have happened, there would have been no unrest in the east of Ukraine, there would have been no referendum in Crimea, if the agreement guaranteed by the Germans, French and Poles had been fulfilled. But they have shown their inability to force Kiev to respect the signatures of the so-called Eurogrands. Now there is a conversation about how the European Union can play an independent role in efforts to ensure European security. I think that the European Union played its main “role” in 2014, when it could not force respect for its guarantees. A putsch took place, the putschists moved gangs of armed militants to Crimea, when Crimea held a referendum, rejected the putschists and reunited with the Russian Federation. This is the biggest contribution of the European Union to European security. If this had not happened in Crimea, if it had remained Ukrainian, there would now be NATO military bases there, which is categorically unacceptable for Russia.
Question: Does Ukraine have the potential to create nuclear weapons, a threat to Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: There is a technical and technological potential. President Vladimir Putin spoke about this, and our experts also commented on this situation. I can responsibly state that we will not allow this to be done. The purpose of the operation, which was announced by Russian President Vladimir Putin and which continues, is to protect people, primarily in the Donbas, who have been bombed and killed for eight years with a complete lack of attention and compassion from Western societies and the media. In general, they tried to avoid presenting to their viewers and listeners what was happening “on the ground” and sought to replace objective reports with unfounded accusations of Russia that, they say, it does not comply with the Minsk agreements.
Within the framework of this special military operation, a clear task has been set, taking into account the experience of the last decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, to ensure the demilitarization of Ukraine. Specific types of strike weapons should be identified, which will never be deployed in Ukraine and will not be created. Simultaneously denazification. We cannot watch how participants of torchlight processions march under fascist, neo–Nazi banners in modern Europe, how they shout (just as during the Maidan in 2013-2014): “Muscovite to gilyaku”, “kill Russians, kill Muscovites” – we cannot.
I am amazed to hear the comments of European, especially German, politicians. My colleague A. Berbock said that, given the historical responsibility that Germany is aware of, her country is simply obliged to supply weapons to Ukraine. What’s that supposed to mean? That historical guilt and awareness of historical guilt requires Germany to support neo-Nazis? It creates a little strange associations. The head of the European Commission, U. von der Leyen, said that today the EU and Ukraine are closer than ever before. What is this hint at? Probably, this is a signal that as long as you are a Russophobe, as long as you are a fascist, as long as you are a neo-Nazi, everything is allowed to you.
Can you recall at least a closely similar reaction to what Russia is doing in Ukraine right now, restoring justice? When hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians died in other countries, where the United States, their “enlightened” allies from the democratic camp directed their eyes, thousands of kilometers from their own borders. In order to justify its invasion of Iraq, a small “test tube” and a statement that it threatens the security interests of the United States were enough. Where is Iraq and where is the United States? Where are Libya and the United States? No, they consider themselves entitled to do so. No international structures have raised their voice regarding the fact that this is a violation of international law, an absolutely gratuitous outbreak of hostilities.
Look at the hysteria that has now risen, as if on command, regarding threats to Russian security right on our border. The fact that the United States has now “built”, as we say, the entire Western world, all international organizations where the West has decisive positions, and are trying to make international sports and culture hostages of their efforts, not to allow justice to be done in international affairs, to start a serious conversation about the security architecture in Europe, which will ensure the equality of all states located here.
Question: Did you predict such solidarity of Western countries before Russia announced the start of the operation?
S.V. Lavrov: We were ready for anything. I had no doubt that the EU and, of course, NATO would obediently follow the United States. Especially when the fate of the Nord Stream–2 became clear. Even if it is re-launched (this is probably not for us to decide), but regardless of anything, it is already clear that Nord Stream 2 has played a role in history, because it clearly showed the place that Europe, including Germany, really occupies on the world stage – an absolutely subordinate and independent place.
I did not think that these sanctions, caused by impotent anger, would cover the sports movement, cultural exchange, and would concern contacts between people. You remember that in previous years, when announcing sanctions against Arab and Latin American countries, the West constantly repeated, at least in the Security Council, that sanctions are not aimed at ordinary people, sanctions are aimed at making the leadership of the relevant state feel the pressure of the world community and change its behavior. Now no one is talking about it at all. Contacts between people were directly banned at the initiative of Western countries, which have always advocated that there should be no obstacles to communication between civil societies. They didn’t care about all their principles, which they imposed on the international arena, including when they began to seize the assets of both the Central Bank of Russia and our private companies. It’s just stealing. They have abandoned all the rules that they have been implementing in international life for the last 70-odd years. They have now simply crossed out these rules and returned to the bandit, wild capitalism of the “gold rush” times.
Question: To what extent is Russia able to resist this political and economic pressure in the near future?
S.V. Lavrov: We are able to resist any pressure. If anyone has doubts about this, I recommend that you familiarize yourself with Russian history, the history of the Russian Empire, the history of the Soviet Union and the history of those episodes in our lives when we were invaded by enemy armies.
Question: Have you prepared in advance for this scenario?
Sergey Lavrov: We have seen how embittered the West is, how aggressive it is in promoting theses about the inadmissibility of strengthening Russia’s influence, how consistent it was in defending the fascist, neo-Nazi government in Ukraine, seeking to use it against Russia. Of course, we were preparing for the fact that we would have to rely primarily on our own strength. But we have friends, allies. We have many partners in the international arena who, unlike Europe and some other countries, have not lost their independence and ability to be guided by their national interests. They are also under tremendous pressure. I know one hundred percent that the Americans are “running” through their ambassadors around the world, forcing any countries in Africa, Latin America, Asia to do at least something against the Russian Federation. This is low for the great power that America is. Low and unworthy. But we are used to it. This has happened more than once in our history, when partners acted from unscrupulous positions, unscrupulous methods. We’ll do it. I am 100% sure of this.
Question: What are the chances of a political settlement of the conflict? What concessions can Russia make? Russia has repeatedly voiced that it wants Ukraine to recognize Crimea as part of Russia. What other ones?
Sergey Lavrov: We just have to be realistic. Crimea is a topic that is not discussed. Russian President Vladimir Putin has clearly stated our position, which was brought by our delegation to the talks with Ukrainians in Belarus. Crimea is a part of Russia. Recognition of the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics within the borders of Donetsk and Luhansk regions. Demilitarization, which should have parameters. They have yet to be agreed. There should be no weapons at all that could threaten the security of the Russian Federation. Denazification. Just like Nazi Germany was subjected to such a procedure. Once again, I urge you to watch the videos that are freely available about the freedom that neo-Nazis enjoy in Ukraine when they organize processions under portraits of war criminals. President V.A. Zelensky allocates his guard to them in order to provide an honor guard. There is a lot of work to be done.
We are doing everything to prevent any serious civilian casualties. Our armed forces, together with the militia of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, use high-precision weapons and destroy exclusively the military infrastructure of the Ukrainian authorities in the context of the demilitarization task.
These threats have become too tangible. Of course, we are now witnessing an information war, I would say, information terrorism. Millions of fakes are thrown in. We expose them all the time. There is a special section on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs where the truth is shown solely on the basis of facts.
You represent a respected, powerful media outlet. You have to understand me. If we take the conflict in Donbass, for all these 8 years, Russian journalists from various media outlets have been working 24/7 in Donbass on the side of the militia, showing the truth. They showed how bombs arrive, how residential neighborhoods are fired from multiple rocket launchers, how schools and kindergartens are destroyed, and civilians are killed. All this could be seen live. We kept telling our Western colleagues at that even quieter stage of this terrible crisis: why don’t you encourage your media to work on the Ukrainian side so that it can be seen what damage is being done to citizens and civilian infrastructure there. The BBC and someone else went there a couple of times. We have made quite objective material. It was clear that what was happening on the government-controlled side of the contact line could not be compared with the horror that the Ukrainian side was sowing in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. Let’s not forget that in addition to the armed forces of Ukraine, which, as I understand it, have more or less preserved at least some discipline, there are also purely Nazi, “volunteer” battalions, which, when they were created, even in the West, in the USA, Great Britain, were non-violent. They were forbidden to provide any assistance. Now they are at the “top” of this whole wave. They are trying to continue their outrages, staging dramatizations, including in cities.
Question: Our correspondents have been in Donetsk for a month.
Sergey Lavrov: Recently, everyone has gone there, I know that.
Question: The Press Secretary of the President of Russia, Dmitry Peskov, has twice confirmed that Moscow considers V.A. Zelensky the legitimate president of Ukraine. If this is so, then why are the troops sent to Kiev? What is the goal?
Sergey Lavrov: Demilitarization.
Question: Not a change of power?
Sergey Lavrov: Demilitarization. Ukrainians themselves must decide, after this conflict unleashed by them, which we are now trying to end, how they will continue to live. This is now being discussed in political science circles. I don’t participate in these discussions. We unequivocally proceed from the fact that this should be the opinion of all the peoples who live in Ukraine.
V.A. Zelensky – yes, the president. Unfortunately, the president lied to his people, who elected him for promising to end the war. He continued until recently and now continues to do the same: to promote sharply anti-Russian, Russophobic approaches, making extremely contradictory statements. Then “let’s urgently accept me into NATO”, if “you do not accept – so give me guarantees”, “I am ready to accept security guarantees”. I should have talked about this earlier. Security guarantees are exactly what we seek and what we offer. Russian President Vladimir Putin repeatedly said in January of this year and in early February of this year that we do not accept European security, which will rely on the dominance of NATO, especially at our side. Let’s find another way, he said, and we repeated it many times. A way that would reliably ensure the security of Ukraine, European countries and the Russian Federation. We must move in this direction. The fact that President V.A. Zelensky declared his readiness, or rather, his desire to receive security guarantees – I think this is a positive step. Our negotiators are ready for the second round of discussion of these guarantees with Ukrainian representatives. But only Ukrainian representatives again, as at the first meeting, have not yet confirmed the holding of the second round. They will delay. I think they are also not allowed by the Americans. No one believes in Kiev’s independence at all now.
Question: After the first round, are there any positive points from which to start?
Sergey Lavrov: The participants of these negotiations have already commented on our side, Dmitry Peskov has also commented. We are not going into details now, because this is only the initial phase, but the fact that the parties agreed to meet for the second time indicates that they are ready to look for solutions. I spoke about what our position is. This is well known to the Ukrainian side.
Question: What you have just announced, these demands of yours, are not an act of surrender of Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t think it can be qualified that way. The main thing here is not the term that will be used. We offer an arrangement. It will ensure the legitimate rights of all peoples who live in Ukraine, which includes all national minorities without exception, their equality. This should be reflected in the legislation of Ukraine, where there is now a law on three indigenous peoples, as if there had never been Russians on Ukrainian soil at all. These are the kind of things that are already creating legislative foundations for further Russophobic policy and not only Russophobic – against all other national minorities: Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, Bulgarians. We proceed from the fact that it is the Ukrainian people who will decide this. If the authorities agree to the conditions that are currently being discussed, it will be an agreement.
Question: The UK says that it is necessary to deprive Russia of a permanent seat in the UN Security Council. Tell me, is there any mechanism for carrying out such an undertaking?
Sergey Lavrov: There is no mechanism. Don’t try to explain anything to the British representatives. Their absolute inadequacy has long been well known to everyone.
Question: The sanctions that have now been imposed against Russia: the airspace towards Europe is closed. Don’t you think that this has driven Russia behind the “Iron Curtain”?
Sergey Lavrov: The “Iron Curtain” was once “lowered” by W. Churchill. The UK is clearly uncomfortable with the fact that they are beginning to forget about it as soon as it implemented Brexit (all this was thundering in the news). Now she is looking for some kind of opportunity to “get active” in the international arena again, play along with the United States and serve the task of keeping Europe under US control. I don’t think there is any need to promote ideas that will oppose the “Iron Curtain”. It is clear to everyone that building the “iron curtain” is the lot of those who think in the same categories: the categories of colonialism, neocolonialism. Of course, especially for the British, such categories cause nostalgic feelings. But if the West has decided so, then I assure you, we will find an opportunity to continue to live, develop and will not even worry too much about what our Western partners have done, once again proving their absolute unreliability and complete incompetence.
Question: Was Russia lured into this war in Ukraine? Has the West provoked Russia to move into this “swamp”?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t rule out that someone wanted Russia to get mired in this man-made conflict created by the West. Now Western political scientists write that this will allow the Americans to untie their hands and work to contain China. A cynical, absolutely neocolonial philosophical course of thought is characteristic of our Western partners. I do not exclude that it was so. Our determination not to allow further bloodshed in Ukraine, not to allow Ukraine to be used as a springboard for an attack on the Russian Federation, is determined not by what the West planned or did not plan – we proceeded in making our decisions from the facts “on the ground”. They were extremely disturbing. The West did everything to make these material facts more and more threatening for Russia.
Question: Have we reached the line? Are we on the verge of World War III?
S.V. Lavrov: It is necessary to ask President J.Biden. He said that if we had not followed the path of such sanctions, the only alternative would have been the Third World War. To think in such categories… J.Biden is still an experienced politician, no matter how to relate to what the United States is doing on the world stage. In June 2021, in Geneva, he and President Vladimir Putin clearly confirmed the statement made by the leaders of the Soviet Union and the United States in the 1980s that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed. In January 2022 All five leaders of the permanent members of the UN Security Council have signed up to the same now collective multilateral statement.
If a person, when asked if there could be something other than this wave of sanctions, says that only the Third World War could be an alternative, then he cannot but understand that the Third World War can only be nuclear. Perhaps the old instincts are still alive in the minds of our Western partners if they allow such a possibility, despite the publicly confirmed position of all five permanent members of the Security Council.
Источник: https://www.mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/1802485/
