Dear colleagues,<\/p>\n
I am sure that those present here are well aware of how the conditions were for the current situation in Ukraine, who led the process, and what methods were used.<\/p>\n
On February 9, this year, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with T. Carlson, once again outlined the story in great detail. If we talk about the geopolitical aspects and consequences of the coup in Kiev, first of all, I would like to say that what is happening is another result of the “divide and rule” policy, pitting various countries and peoples against each other, provoking interstate conflicts. This policy has long been pursued in different regions of the world by the “collective West” led by the United States, or rather, with the Anglo-Saxons. The role that Britain plays in the current events is more aggressive and sophisticated in its provocative assertiveness than any other participant, including the United States.<\/p>\n
When the Americans and their satellites declared themselves the winners in the Cold War, they set a course for NATO expansion, ignoring all their obligations not to expand the North Atlantic Alliance and not to deploy significant combat forces on the territory of new members, given (orally and in writing) to the Soviet and then the Russian leadership. This was the next stage. The block began to expand. But even then we agreed to sign an agreement on the creation of the Russia\u2013NATO Council. Once again, we made a concession. They recognized the fact of expansion. In response, the alliance pledged not to deploy significant combat forces on the territory of the new members.<\/p>\n
This\u00a0No one has canceled the act. Look at what’s happening now. On the territory of the new members, larger and larger groups equipped with modern weapons began to prepare right on our borders.<\/p>\n
If we talk about the West’s position towards Russia, Ukraine has always, since gaining independence, been considered by it as an anti-Russian springboard. In 2004, in fact, the first coup took place. It was bloodless, but unconstitutional. When Viktor Yanukovych won in the second round, the West forced the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to issue a verdict on the need for a third round, which was not provided for by the Constitution. That’s how they “wrung their hands.” How did it all end? They were playing democracy. But playing democracy, even according to their rules, did not help in 2010, when the people (primarily the voices of the south and south-east of Ukraine) elected Viktor Yanukovych.<\/p>\n
Then the West began to prepare a coup in such a way that there would be no more “misfires”. To destroy the opposition once and for all, which has been happening for many years since the February 2014 coup.<\/p>\n
In the same year, a coup took place in a country called Yemen, which is now also often seen on the pages of newspapers and TV screens. President A.M. Al-Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia. For many years after that, the West demanded in unison that the legitimate president of Yemen be returned to his country and only then begin negotiations on a settlement with the opposition.<\/p>\n
In the case of Viktor Yanukovych, we drew the attention of the French, Germans, and Poles (who guaranteed a peace agreement that was broken in the morning) to the need to “reason with the opposition.” What did they sign up for? That there will be early elections, and a government of national unity will be created for the period before the elections. And the morning after the coup, A.P. Yatsenyuk (they had such a figure) went to the “Maidan” and said that he congratulated everyone that they had won and created a “government of winners.” Does no one see the difference between national unity and the winners? So there are losers. You all know how the situation developed afterwards. Those who did not accept the result of this coup were declared terrorists and an “operation” was launched against them. There were such brutal episodes in this tragedy as the burning of 48 civilians in the House of Trade Unions in Odessa, the bombing of Lugansk and other cities of Donbass by combat aircraft. The DPR and the LPR declared independence. But even then there was still an opportunity for an agreement.<\/p>\n
Some time later, in the second half of 2014 (after Kiev announced the “anti-terrorist operation”, a meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia (represented by yours truly), the United States, Ukraine and the European Union took place in Geneva.<\/p>\n
At that time, A.B.Deshchytsa was Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine and had powers from the authorities who illegally reigned in Kiev. We have agreed on a statement. Unfortunately, it was not published by agreement, because it was agreed that A.B.Deshchitsa would “check” in his capital. The statement, in addition to a clear call for de-escalation and an end to violence, called for the beginning of a broad national dialogue in Ukraine with the participation of all regions of the country, with an eye to its federalization. Despite our reminders, the participants of this meeting then “walked away” from publishing this statement. Instead, Kiev began to solve the “Donbass problem” (as they called it) by force. In fact, setting the same goal as A. Hitler when he announced the need for a “final solution to the Jewish question.”<\/p>\n
Once again, we began to look for ways of cooperation to overcome the crisis. They convinced Donbass not to abandon negotiations. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail.<\/p>\n
As a result, a year after the coup in February 2015, agreements of the same name were signed in Minsk. Subsequently, you all know how the then President of Ukraine P.A. Poroshenko, Chancellor of Germany A. Merkel, President of France F.Hollande, who signed these agreements with Vladimir Putin, cynically and even proudly stated that they were not going to fulfill them. It took time to pump Ukraine with weapons against Russia. This is an “amazing” confession \u2013 a “confession,” in fact. As a consequence of the fact that the West uses Ukraine in every sense to deter Russia and, as they now say, inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, not to allow it to play the role on the world stage that it rightfully deserves.<\/p>\n
As a result, Ukraine, which received the richest industrial potential from the USSR and the Russian Empire, turned into the poorest state in Europe, into a territory, without exaggeration, dying out. The Kiev authorities are already a recognized international beggar. There is no independence of Ukraine left. Even before the February 2014 coup, starting with the Maidan, or even earlier, American and British advisers were sitting in most departments (including the Security Service of Ukraine). Now this is a standard, unsurprising practice. They sit and watch so that money is not stolen, although no one will ever stop stealing. How will the West demand that Ukraine not steal the money it provides to it if it steals our money itself? They are already openly discussing how to do it better, so as not to violate their “moral” principles and not create a precedent.<\/p>\n
This is a vivid example of what “flirting” with the West and the thoughtless desire to integrate into its system of political and economic coordinates in any way leads to. There is no doubt that the West has declared war against us. They don’t hide it. Although they say that they are only arming Ukraine, but it is she who is fighting. Everyone understands that this is a lie. Western instructors monitor how planning is carried out by the General Staff of Ukraine, help to target targets (we are 100% sure of this) and do much more. According to our data, the European Foreign Policy Service has made recommendations for Ukraine, which proceed from the fact that Ukraine will not be able to win by the methods that Ukraine is currently fighting, and it will lose. Therefore, it is necessary to rely on the transfer of even more long-range weapons to this country so that they reach the “heart” of Russia (as the European Union describes it). Thus, again, to sow confusion, panic, and undermine the trust of the people. Isn’t this a direct participation in the war? Sure. The main thing in war is strategy, and it is not in Kiev, but far away.<\/p>\n
Europe, seeking to do something as soon as possible to end this drama with Russia’s defeat, in fact, serves the interests of the United States, does not care about its interests at all. Look at the economic indicators, negative growth, and recession in the leading European economies. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail. Everything will probably become clear. All this is humiliatingly, meekly accepted. There are no objections. Remember how, after the pre-announced by the President of the United States, J.After the explosions of the “Northern Streams”, German Chancellor O. Scholz went to bow to Washington, where, apparently, they explained to him not to “make noise”, and he returned without any press conference.<\/p>\n
I want to say that now they are trying to “fool” (there is no other word) all the countries of the World majority, including those represented here (we are very glad to see you here), and “drag” V.A.Zelensky to support the completely dead-end “formula of peace”. Its essence is that Russia should capitulate, go beyond the borders of 1991, and the Russian leadership should go to the tribunal and pay reparations. It is clear to everyone that this is a “dummy” and at least an unwise initiative.<\/p>\n
But in order to lure normal countries that understand what is happening, in addition to the points that I mentioned, supposedly neutral provisions were thrown there: food security, energy security, nuclear security, prisoner exchange, humanitarian issues. There are 10 points in the formula in total, half of them are supposedly neutral.<\/p>\n
It is clear that this is considered as a whole. When they lure the countries of the Global South and the Global East to “gatherings” that are organized to promote this “formula of peace”, they tell them that they understand that they do not like it, they understand their position that it is pointless to discuss anything without Russia. But they say they must support food security, subscribe to the “one” clause. As we say, these are “thimbles”, as we say. I don’t know how it translates into English, but it’s an absolute “scam” (there’s no other way to say it).<\/p>\n
There was another “meeting” in Davos according to this “formula” of V.A. Zelensky. The main thing they were interested in was the “collective photo”. This is actually the case. This is a recommendation of the European Union to Ukraine: they say, do not overdo it, do not force neutral participants, whom we drag into this process, to condemn Russia, the main thing is that “there should be a photo.” I’m not kidding.<\/p>\n
When I was in New York on January 23 at the UN Security Council meetings on Palestine, Swiss Foreign Minister I. Kassis, asking for a meeting, suggested that Switzerland become the venue for a peace conference. In his communication with me, he emphasized in every possible way that after the meeting on the “formula of peace” in Davos, he said at a press conference that it was necessary to solve problems with Russia’s participation. I replied that if he said so, then he was sure of it, and then why were they going without Russia?<\/p>\n
This is not serious from the point of view of diplomacy of any country, and for the West to say that this is the only way forward, I think it’s a shame. Russian President Vladimir Putin, when commenting on the results of his contacts with T. Carlson and during a conversation with him, said that the West should admit that it had taken a wrong course that had failed. Let the West look for a way out of the situation without losing face. Vladimir Putin stressed that the West should return to the art of diplomacy, and the art of diplomacy, like the art of politics, is the art of compromise.<\/p>\n
It is clear that all this unequivocally implies recognition of the legality of our demands, non-aligned status, refusal to promote any NATO, refusal to militarize Ukraine as a threat to the Russian Federation and an end to the Nazi policy of extermination of Russian and Russian-speaking citizens on the territory of Ukraine legally and physically.<\/p>\n
Remember, back in November 2021, before the decision to launch a special military operation, before the West rejected our initiative on European security, during a conversation, a journalist asked V.A. Zelensky how he felt about people living in Donbass, on the other side of the contact line. V.A. Zelensky thoughtfully, artistically He said that there are people, and there are “individuals”. Russian russians, he also previously stated that if someone lives in Ukraine, but feels a sense of belonging to Russian culture, Russian civilization, then for the sake of their children and grandchildren, let them “fail” to Russia.<\/p>\n
This was said by the president, who was elected under the slogans, firstly, of a peaceful settlement, and secondly, of protecting the Russian language in Ukraine. He called for “falling behind” the Russians, allowing them to speak their native language in Ukraine as they have done for centuries. That’s how he changed his views back in 2021.<\/p>\n
And the final touch. He stated that he would never comply with the Minsk agreements. It was clear that they were stalling. From February 2015 to 2019, there were no positive developments, only the bombing of Donbass in violation of all the requirements of this document. In December 2019 Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President E. Macron, German Chancellor A. Merkel and Ukrainian President V.A. Zelensky met in Paris on the initiative of the French and Germans, where they, for our support, spoke in favor of “reconfirming” the Minsk agreements, primarily regarding the need for direct dialogue between Minsk and Donetsk and Lugansk, and Secondly (no less important), in terms of securing their special status on a permanent basis in the Constitution of Ukraine. V.A.Zelensky signed up to this. Some time later, when the events of February 2022 began, A.B.Ermak, the head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, said that V.A.Zelensky signed up “just like that” to get behind. He wasn’t going to do anything. They say they deceived us and “extorted” more time. That’s the whole description of the “characters” who now rule Ukraine and the West is betting on them in order to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. If you want to go to the battlefield, it’s your will.<\/p>\n
Question: You know that there are many mercenaries from Latin America on Kiev’s side now. Do you think they pose a threat to democracy in these regions? Is there a security dialogue with the Latin American countries where they come from?<\/p>\n
Sergey V. Lavrov: This topic is relevant not only for the situation in Ukraine.<\/p>\n
It is known that mercenaries, including those from the Middle East, are actively used in the African region. They are also fighting in Ukraine, including members of terrorist organizations like the Islamic State.<\/p>\n
The Islamic State and its representatives are being taken care of by the United States at the illegally occupied Al-Tanf base in eastern Syria. Everyone knows this well. The “Islamic State” itself appeared as a result of the attack on Iraq under the false pretext of the United States. Then the United States took over the administration of Iraq. They had a “gauleiter” there, the governor-general (whatever you call him), P. Bremer, who dissolved all structures of the Baath party. I just let it go. They were based on the Sunni branch of Islam. The backbone of the “Islamic State” was made up of officers of the army of S. Hussein, who had nothing to live on. And the United States had a direct hand in this. It is interesting to see what the Americans have achieved in Iraq. The set goals are a complete failure. Now, once again, the Iraqi government is asking them to withdraw their troops, but the United States does not want to. These are the big Democrats.<\/p>\n
Al-Qaeda emerged after the Afghan epic, which also ended lamentably and shamefully. Well, after the invasion of Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra appeared, which later became known as “Hayat\u00a0Tahrir Al-Sham.”<\/p>\n
Whatever you call them, they are “mercenaries”. The same members of the “Islamic State” are sent to various hot spots for money. They are paid some thousands of dollars to do their job.<\/p>\n
It is clear that this is a dangerous practice. Eventually, when their mission in some country ends, they will have to go somewhere (they can’t do anything else except arrange terrorist attacks, shoot, kill people).<\/p>\n
If people go there from Colombia or other Latin American countries, they will have an epiphany sometime. Many American and British mercenaries have already publicly said on camera that they are completely disappointed in what is happening there, in these lofty “democratic” goals proclaimed by the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors. Some are returning to their countries.<\/p>\n
But if the people who remain in this war waged against us by the West go through a military phase in their lives, it is likely that they will return to it, especially in Colombia there is someone to argue with and there has always been someone to compete with.<\/p>\n
We hope that the Colombian leadership understands this perfectly well, as do the leaders of other countries. After all, what is the problem? In many ways, this process is connected with the grossest violation by the Ukrainian embassies\u00a0The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. It is outrageous that there are offers on their websites to be recruited for the war. We have attracted the attention of the Western masters of this regime several times so that they “reason with them.” Nothing happens. It went quiet somewhere, and then the recruitment activity continues again.<\/p>\n
Everyone needs to realize that a neutral position and a call for a settlement is good. We appreciate it. This is the position of the World majority (with the rarest exceptions). No one joined the anti-Russian sanctions. But when the countries of the World majority try to “fool” by convening meetings under the slogan of V.A. Zelensky’s “formula for peace” as an alternative approach to settlement, here (at least) it is necessary to show that everyone understands everything and does not want to play this game.<\/p>\n
Part of this problem is mercenary activity. This needs to be dealt with. There were thousands of mercenaries in Ukraine. According to our military, now there are less than half of them. The rest either left or found their inglorious end.<\/p>\n
Question: Against the background of the interview of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin to T. Carlson, the rating of Republicans in the United States is generally increasing. The opinion of Russia among the people in the West is radically changing. Previously, they did not know about what was happening in our country, because they did not cover it. How do you see the prospects for restoring relations with the West in the event of a change of government, especially in the United States (if D. Trump becomes president)? Do they recognize the new territories? Will there be a resumption of cooperation?<\/p>\n
Sergey V. Lavrov: As for the position of the Republicans and the “epiphany” that suddenly occurred in American society after the interview\u00a0Russian President Vladimir Putin to T. Carlson. For me, the main thing is that, as it turned out, US citizens live in a complete information blockade. They are “nurtured” by the internal narrative, primarily of the Democratic Party. Fox News is the only representative of Republican sentiments, but after T. Carlson’s departure, the tone there also changed.<\/p>\n
It turns out that there is no question of any freedom of speech. Although the American constitution requires that there be access to any information. But apart from this, there are also commitments made within the framework of the OSCE in 1991 in Moscow. At the initiative of the West, it is written there “in black and white” (and the Soviet Union signed up to the demands): to ensure free, unrestricted access to information in each member country of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. It is especially stipulated about information, the source of which is located both inside and outside the country concerned. This is a direct requirement.<\/p>\n
Our friends from the diplomatic corps and all Russian citizens see in the news that the “good half” there is a story about what position the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, and the European Union take regarding Ukraine or any other international event. Our public is familiar with the point of view of the West. Yes, in most cases it is criticized, but everyone is free to draw their own conclusions. We do not censor what is said in the West. They all show it, and then political scientists discuss it.<\/p>\n
As for the restoration of relations, Russian President Vladimir Putin also said this in an interview. He explained that the West should admit its mistake and find a convenient way out. But with full understanding that the problem of Ukraine, as we have designated it, must be solved. He added that someday the relationship will be restored. When this happens does not depend on us. That’s their problem. President Vladimir Putin recalled that we had made so many concessions, gestures of “goodwill”. The limit has already been reached. On their part, in response to our good deeds, we saw other gestures on one hand.<\/p>\n
Question: What are the main consequences of Euromaidan for the ordinary population of Ukraine? How to restore the relationship in the future?<\/p>\n
Sergey Lavrov: There are living witnesses of those events here. I think they can describe it in brighter colors. But it is written in Ukrainian laws that a course has been taken to destroy all Russian.<\/p>\n
Euromaidan affected daily life, access to information, and education in Russian, which was used by more than half of the citizens. According to some estimates, 80% of the Ukrainian population feels the Russian language is more comfortable in communication. This is all prohibited by law. Up to everyday situations: the saleswoman may refuse to serve if you contact her in Russian. A few months ago, the mayor of Kiev, V.V. Klitschko, issued a city regulation prohibiting all cultural events in the capital: exhibitions, performances, film screenings, etc. By and large, this is a “kind of” genocide.<\/p>\n
When this word was mentioned in the context of a special military operation and the policy pursued by the Kiev Nazi regime towards Donbass and Russians in general, Ukraine filed a lawsuit against Russia in the International Court of Justice. Demanding that the court recognize the groundlessness of the accusations of the Zelensky regime in pursuing a policy of genocide.<\/p>\n
The International Court of Justice of the United Nations has ended many years of debate. The verdict was that we had not violated any conventions. Moreover, he rejected the Ukrainian claim that they were fighting terrorist regimes in Donetsk and Luhansk. The entire ideological basis of the “anti-terrorist operation”, which Kiev began after the coup, and then continued despite, has been debunked\u00a0The Minsk agreements. Now there are “local assaults of people” \u2013 from anywhere (from a cinema or a bathhouse) they can pull out and send them to “slaughter”. Bad consequences.<\/p>\n
Millions of Ukrainians have found their shelter and refuge in our country. Here they are perceived as absolutely equal to us. Brothers, sisters, people with whom we shared joy and sorrow. We have families on both sides. Rosbratya. Both in Ukraine and in the Russian Federation. They are at home here. And the main thing is that those who have come to us feel at home themselves. We will do everything to make them feel that way.<\/p>\n
Question: The other day, the American leadership asked Congress for $100 billion: 65 for Ukraine, 15 for Israel and 20 for Taiwan. They will be sooner or later. Several European countries have started saying that Ukraine should be a part of NATO. Where are we going? Are there any possibilities of holding a peace conference?<\/p>\n
Sergey Lavrov: The question is not for us. We have answered it many times. Russian President Vladimir Putin touched on this topic. In April 2022, an agreement was reached, which has already become a “byword.” The Anglo-Saxons forbade V.A. Zelensky to sign an agreed agreement, which was acceptable to both the Ukrainian and Russian delegations. That’s what happened.<\/p>\n
I repeat once again that there is a decree by V.A. Zelensky prohibiting negotiations with the Government of V.V. Putin. When the West raised such questions, our President repeatedly said that it was necessary to force him to repeal this decree and publicly say so. The “ball” is not on our side. Everyone understands this perfectly well.<\/p>\n
At the same time, they say that the Swiss are announcing a peace conference. But at the same time, the West unanimously declares that only on the basis of the “formula” of V.A.Zelensky. Therefore, friends from Asia, Africa, and Latin America should choose the most “harmless” of these ten points (food or energy security), and Westerners will write them down to participate in a “collective photo” in support of this “formula”. What kind of diplomacy is this? They have not been engaged in diplomacy for a long time. Instead, blackmail and sanctions. Any problem that seems important to the West never becomes a subject of honest discussion.<\/p>\n
The UN Charter states that the United Nations is based on the sovereign equality of States. The most important point. Imagine in retrospect the various conflicts that took place after the creation of the World Organization in 1945. Just sort through in my head what comes to mind. In history, there is not a single conflict in which the West participated, either before or after the creation of the Organization, in which the United States and its allies would observe the principle of sovereign equality, and this obligation is enshrined in the Charter \u2013 to respect the sovereign equality of states. Therefore, the conference probably means “collective photography”, the participants of which will then say that there is a “formula” of V.A.Zelensky, and that on this basis they invite Russia. I think it will be humiliating for them. Most people understand perfectly well that this is not diplomacy and not politics at all. So we don’t have the ball.<\/p>\n
Question: Due to the fact that after the end of the special military operation (even if not now), there is a transformation of the world order and international relations in general. Are there plans to reform the UN, in particular the Security Council, under the auspices and within the framework of the initiatives and efforts of the Russian Federation, which is its permanent member? Due to the fact that we have repeatedly sent requests and requested various sessions to review the terrorist attacks that took place on the territory of our country, in particular in Belgorod. Just yesterday. Will we somehow promote these efforts so that the UN Security Council acquires a new character and international law is respected?<\/p>\n
Sergey Lavrov: The reform of the World Organization has been discussed for a long time. It’s overdue. For me, there are two main aspects of this reform. One is conceptual, the other is practical.<\/p>\n
We are convinced that\u00a0The UN Charter contains all the necessary principles, respect for which will ensure peace and security. He gave an example when Americans need something, they look at what principle of the Charter to take in justifying their actions. When it was necessary to declare Kosovo’s independence unilaterally, they said that it was based on the principle of self-determination of peoples, laid down in the UN Charter. When an open, transparent referendum in Crimea, with the participation of many international observers, decided to reunite with Russia, they did not accept it, condemned it and said that it violated the principle of territorial integrity.<\/p>\n
Since the creation of the United Nations, there have been discussions about what is more important: the self-determination of peoples or territorial integrity. The self-determination of peoples is mentioned earlier in the UN Charter. But a long-term negotiation process was launched, which ended with the adoption of\u00a0Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.\u00a0This is a multi-page Declaration adopted in 1970. The section we are interested in now states that “nothing should be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any actions that would lead to the dismemberment or partial or complete violation of the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States observing in their actions the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, as this principle is set out above, and As a result, they have Governments representing, without distinction of race, religion or skin color, all the people living in a given territory.” Did the Kiev regime represent the population, a huge part of Ukraine, after the coup? Of course not. Therefore, it is conceptual.<\/p>\n
The fundamental part of our position is that the UN Charter should remain at the heart of all the activities of the legal community, but with the understanding that its principles should be applied in their entirety and in all their interrelationships.<\/p>\n
The practical judgment is (there are many aspects of reform now) that everyone is primarily interested in the reform of the UN Security Council. This topic is in plain sight all the time. This is directly related to the consideration of the prestige of countries that want to get into this body on a permanent basis. The reform should definitely eliminate historical injustice and ensure fair representation of the countries of the World majority \u2013 Africa, Asia, Latin America.<\/p>\n
The current composition of the UN Security Council was formed when the consequences of decolonization were not yet realized, when newly liberated free, independent countries were just arranging their own internal life, getting used to a new quality. It is clear that the current situation on the world stage is radically different. The economic giants are rising \u2013 China, India, Brazil. In Africa, there is a movement towards awareness of one’s own identity and in favor of abandoning the rudiments of colonial policy, when resources are drained from Africa, and all added value is produced in former metropolises and the main profits are generated there. It is necessary to ensure the admission of representatives of the developing world to the UN Security Council. We have publicly said that we support India and Brazil as candidates for permanent membership in the UN Security Council, on the understanding that at the same time a similar additional presence of Africa will be provided.<\/p>\n
We have warned our Indian and Brazilian friends (and we explain this at every step) that the replenishment of the UN Security Council by any new representative of the West is unacceptable to us. Currently, six of the fifteen members of the UN Security Council represent Western countries. Sometimes Japan is added, pursuing a purely Western policy. Providing additional seats for the Western group will only mean deepening the injustice. Germany and Japan pretend to “infiltrate” the Security Council together with India and Brazil \u2013 they will not succeed. Purely arithmetically, the West is already disproportionately represented.<\/p>\n
Now to the point. Name at least one issue of international politics in recent years on which Germany or Japan would have a position. Not a single one. All of them are “built” by the West. There’s nothing you can do about it. There were sound thoughts about leaving one place in the UN Security Council for the “collective West”, for NATO.<\/p>\n
You mentioned the consideration in the UN Security Council of various crisis situations, including terrorist acts, carried out on a regular basis by the Ukrainian regime and which the West is pushing it to continue. I quoted the EU’s instruction to Kiev in which direction it needs to “work”.<\/p>\n
The other day, British Foreign Minister David Cameron burst into a neo-colonial “spell” calling on him not to abandon Ukraine in any case. Conversely. It is necessary, they say, to “pump up” it with the most modern weapons as much as possible. Condemnation of such terrorist acts is possible only if all members of the UN Security Council agree. In most cases, the Americans “shield” the Kiev regime and do not “skip” these resolutions.<\/p>\n
There is a lot of talk about proposals to abolish the right of veto. Many developing countries have made this point in discussions on Security Council reform. The right of veto is not a privilege, but a tool for ensuring well\u2013thought-out decisions, preventing unilateral resolutions that can bring an imbalance to world politics.<\/p>\n
The West has practically lost the culture of work in the UN Security Council, which has always relied on the ability of the five permanent members, each of whom has the right of veto, to negotiate, seek compromises on any difficult issue and never provoke a veto by putting resolutions unacceptable to someone from the “five” to a vote.<\/p>\n
We have always been ready for this kind of work. The Americans, along with the British and French, have chosen a different style that harms the UN. It is unrealistic to abandon the veto. Then the United Nations, like the League of Nations, will turn into a useless structure that will only further escalate confrontation.<\/p>\n
Reform is a long process. It should reflect some common understanding at this stage of tectonic changes taking place in the world in the context of multipolarity processes.<\/p>\n