Good afternoon,<\/p>\n
I am glad to meet you again.<\/p>\n
My presence in New York is explained by the fact that two central events took place yesterday and today in the framework of our presidency – open debates (1 and 2). Not only members could take part in them\u00a0The Security Council, but also all interested delegations. You have seen a large number of participants.<\/p>\n
The first question that we brought to the open debate yesterday was devoted to discussing the conceptual foundations of international relations, multilateralism, and multipolarity. They drew attention to the fact that the system created after the Second World War and based on the central role of the United Nations is gradually being eroded.<\/p>\n
I hope that you were able to get acquainted with my performance, as well as other participants. We hardly expected that we would be able to agree on most issues, given the current tension in the international arena, and how relations between the “collective West” and the World majority are developing.<\/p>\n
Although we had no great illusions, I think it was a useful conversation. At least, the vast majority of participants agreed that there are problems. Many expressed assessments that coincide with our vision of an objectively emerging multipolar world order, which is outlined in my speech.<\/p>\n
The second conclusion. Surely this discussion will continue. The interest in her is obvious, and it is growing. We will actively support him and organize additional discussions on this topic not only at the UN, but also at other multilateral platforms. Including on such a platform as the Group of Twenty, in such associations as BRICS, SCO, in our contacts with regional organizations in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.<\/p>\n
The main thing is to restore trust. The representative of Guyana made this clear yesterday. So far, no dialogue has even been noted. But the second important point he made is that trust cannot be restored without everyone, without exception, fulfilling the agreements reached. We are not observing this yet. Examples were given yesterday in my speech and in the speeches of many other participants.<\/p>\n
Many such testimonies were heard during today’s meeting on Middle East affairs with an emphasis on the Palestinian problem. The vast majority of UN resolutions on Palestine are not being implemented. The second meeting (which I have just mentioned)\u00a0 It’s still going on. Many participants advocated decisive steps. \u00a0This assessment coincides with our position. First of all, to stop military operations, declare an indefinite cease-fire, resolve “screaming” humanitarian issues and, of course, stop Israel’s activities in creating illegal settlements. If this is done (when it is done), we hope it will create conditions for the resumption of negotiations on the implementation of UN decisions on the formation of a Palestinian state that would coexist in peace and security with Israel.<\/p>\n
Our presidency continues. Another round of general debate is scheduled for July 19. It will be conducted by my deputy S.V.Vershinin. This meeting will focus on the relationship between\u00a0The United Nations, the Collective Security Treaty Organization,\u00a0The Commonwealth of Independent States and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.<\/p>\n
He held a series of bilateral meetings with Arab ministers, with the Minister of Foreign Economic Relations and Foreign Affairs of Hungary\u00a0P.Siyarto, with the Head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Confederation\u00a0And.Cassis.<\/p>\n
Question (translated from English):\u00a0On Monday, President V.A. Zelensky said that Russia should be represented at the second summit on peace in Ukraine in November this year. Are you considering the possibility of participating? What do you expect from this?<\/p>\n
Sergey V. Lavrov:\u00a0We have expressed our assessments on this matter many times.<\/p>\n
The second summit is an organic continuation of the process that began almost a year ago.<\/p>\n
Then a small group of states gathered in Copenhagen (then there were several more meetings), called the “Copenhagen format”. Each time, our Western colleagues and the Ukrainian regime tried by hook or by crook, with various tricks and promises to attract as many states as possible to participate in these events.<\/p>\n
The last time the Copenhagen format met in Davos was in January this year on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum. Immediately after that, there was the first ministerial meeting of the Security Council in New York on the Palestinian issue, which was attended by many ministers. It was conducted by France. I also came to participate in this meeting. The head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Confederation, I. Kassis, was also there.<\/p>\n
We had a meeting with him. He asked for it himself, where he drew my attention to the fact that a regular meeting of the “Copenhagen format” was held “on the sidelines” of the World Economic Forum in Davos, following which, speaking to reporters, he stressed that it was impossible to reach an agreement without Russia’s participation. I immediately asked him: if he is convinced of this, then why did they hold this meeting? There was no response. But in fact, it lies in the fact that a course has been taken to push through the “V.A. Zelensky plan” at any cost, which has a pronounced form of an ultimatum. My Swiss colleague warned me in January this year that they would hold a “peace summit” following the meetings of the Copenhagen format. But, as you know, the summit did not work out.<\/p>\n
It turned out to be a “peace conference”. It was indeed attended by several heads of State, but the vast majority of those who eventually arrived were represented at a lower level.\u00a0A month ago, a “meeting” took place in the Swiss Burgenstock, after which the vast majority of participants expressed restrained (if not negative) assessments in terms of its results. We can talk about it later.<\/p>\n
But now I will return to the second conference, which you mentioned. Following Burgenstock, V.A. Zelensky and some Western representatives began to talk about this second conference. Not only Switzerland was mentioned, but also other countries that could become a venue for the second round. But when talking about what they would do there, everyone somehow formulated an absolutely one-sided approach, unacceptable to us and many others who are sincerely interested in the world.<\/p>\n
Following the results of the meeting in Burgenstock, V.A. Zelensky said that they had taken the first step – the leap to the “peace summit”. Now they must prepare a document that will be put on the table in front of Russia so that various “powerful” countries will try to end this war fairly. It is difficult to understand what this means. Only one thing is clear, that the “formula of V.A. Zelensky”, which has long been known to everyone, still lies at the heart of these efforts.<\/p>\n
If we talk about peaceful efforts, for some reason everyone is talking about Burgenstock. No one talks about the initiatives of the PRC, of which there were several. In February 2023 and later, China put forward its proposals.<\/p>\n
Recently, China, together with Brazil, have drawn up several elements of the initiative. I will not list them. The main difference from the “V.A. Zelensky formula” and from what is being done at these “gatherings” within the framework of the “Copenhagen format” is that, firstly, China, Brazil and many other countries that have joined them advocate convening a conference on the foundations and principles, which will be acceptable to all parties.<\/p>\n
The second thing (this already concerns the content of the dialogue) is that China, even in its first initiative, clearly outlined the need to start by considering the root causes of the current crisis in Europe and work out agreements to eliminate these causes. No one in the framework of the Copenhagen meetings, within the framework of the Burgenstock, mentioned the root causes. There are many of them. We talked about this in detail, including yesterday. The coup d’etat, the ban on the Russian language, military and physical actions using the army against the regions of Ukraine that refused to recognize the legitimate persons who came to power as a result of this coup, the Minsk agreements, which no one was going to fulfill.<\/p>\n
If you look at the evolution of the whole process. They tell us that Russia is obliged to withdraw to the borders of 1991. The whole problem is that we were constantly lied to.<\/p>\n
If in February 2014 the agreement signed by President Viktor Yanukovych with the opposition had been fulfilled (it consisted in the creation of a government of national unity and the preparation of early presidential elections), Ukraine would still be within the borders of 1991. But this agreement was thwarted by the very people who signed it from the opposition. Russian Russians occupied administrative buildings after the coup d’etat and declared that they were canceling the status of the Russian language in Ukraine and demanding the liberation of Crimea from the Russian population, that is, from Ukrainian citizens living in Crimea. To keep Ukraine within the borders of 1991 It didn’t work out. Crimea held a referendum. None of the objective observers had any doubts about this expression of will. He returned to Russia.<\/p>\n
In eastern Ukraine, those who refused to accept the coup were declared terrorists. The armed forces, combat aircraft, and artillery were sent to them. They began to resist. This part of Ukraine had already, in fact, ceased to be such.<\/p>\n
The Minsk agreements stipulated that these republics, which first declared independence, remain part of Ukraine, but they should be given a special status that is not too “complicated”. This is the right to use the Russian language, to have their own police (as here, at the state level there is their own police), to be involved in consultations when appointing prosecutors and judges. Not so much. This is about the same thing that French President E. Macron promised Corsica. I don’t know if he’ll be able to do it or not. If the Minsk agreements had been fulfilled, Ukraine would have been within the borders of 1991 minus Crimea. Because no one even mentioned Crimea at that time. It didn’t work out either.<\/p>\n
We talked in great detail about the reasons for the start of a special military operation, about the inevitability, which President Vladimir Putin repeatedly reported after many years of our warnings demanding to stop NATO’s expansion to the east, curb the Nazi regime in Ukraine, which legally physically exterminated all Russians, and ensure the safety of people who lived on lands equipped with their ancestors. If the agreement that was reached between the delegations of Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul in April 2022 had been signed, Ukraine would have been within the borders of 1991. minus Crimea and minus that part of the territory that was controlled by Russian troops at that time. It turned out that we were also lied to when they said that this agreement was the way to peace. Probably, the Ukrainian negotiators were sincere when they signed and initialed this document. But, as the chief negotiator D.G. Arahamiya admitted in his interview on television, the then British Prime Minister B. Johnson arrived and forbade them to fulfill this agreement. Therefore, it was never issued.<\/p>\n
When we sincerely try in good faith to extinguish this crisis that began more than ten years ago, when we manage to fix some understandings with mutual consent, each time these understandings are destroyed not by us, but by Ukrainians and their masters. President Vladimir Putin has said more than once, including quite recently, that we are ready to discuss security issues in Europe. Of course, given the need to eliminate the root causes and the need to ensure Russia’s legitimate security interests. Not to the detriment of anyone’s security interests, but in the context of general agreements.<\/p>\n
The OSCE has “failed.” Because all the principles that were laid down in the foundation of the Organization \u2013 equal indivisible security, that none of the OSCE participants will strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others, are “trampled”. The OSCE is also the embodiment of the Euro\u2013Atlantic concept of security, as is NATO. These are Europe and the countries located on the other side of the Atlantic – Canada and the United States. It turned out that both within the framework of NATO and within the framework of the OSCE, the only goal pursued by Washington is to subjugate all the countries belonging to these structures, and the executive offices of the OSCE and NATO.<\/p>\n
Now the European Union has already signed an agreement with NATO, according to which it recognizes the North Atlantic Alliance as a senior partner and is ready to help the Organization in every possible way by providing its territory, coordinating defense policy, etc.<\/p>\n
We are ready to negotiate. But given the sad experience of conversations and consultations with the West and with Ukrainians regarding the European security treaty, which, I hope, will be reached at some stage (and the Ukrainian crisis will be resolved in this context), we will, of course, carefully look at the wording and put “fuses” in this document from repeated, unscrupulous, non-negotiable interpretations, which are full of the story that I tried to briefly tell.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
To be continued…<\/p>\n
A source<\/p>\n