Barat Ingin Menaklukkan Dunia, Tidak Pernah Berhasil Selama Ada Rusia *

Kebiasa kita adalah bertemu di awal tahun baru untuk membahas hasil dan kejadian tahun lalu. Tahun 2022 sulit dan bahkan unik sampai batas tertentu. Ini mencerminkan tren geopolitik yang mengakar dan aspirasi internasional dari negara-negara terkemuka, yang telah berkembang selama lebih dari satu dekade.

Rekan-rekan Barat kami mencoba mengubah Ukraina dan perkembangan di sekitarnya menjadi media utama, acara politik dan ekonomi, menuduh Federasi Rusia atas masalah ekonomi global karena “agresi” terhadap Ukraina. Saya tidak ingin terus menyangkal pernyataan ini. Statistik Bank Dunia, Dana Moneter Internasional, Organisasi Pangan dan Pertanian PBB (FAO) dan badan internasional lainnya secara meyakinkan menunjukkan bahwa krisis telah berkembang jauh sebelum dimulainya operasi militer khusus. Presiden Rusia Vladimir Putin berulang kali mengutip data yang menunjukkan munculnya fenomena negatif dalam ekonomi global, terutama karena posisi egois Amerika Serikat dan sekutunya.

Apa yang terjadi di Ukraina sekarang adalah hasil dari persiapan AS dan satelitnya untuk memulai perang hibrida global melawan Federasi Rusia. Tidak ada yang menyembunyikan fakta ini. Ini jelas dari pernyataan para ahli politik, ilmuwan, dan politisi Barat yang tidak memihak. Dalam artikelnya baru-baru ini, Ian Bremmer, profesor ilmu politik di Universitas Columbia, menulis: “Kami tidak sedang dalam perang dingin dengan Rusia. Kami berada dalam perang panas dengan Rusia. Sekarang perang proxy. Dan NATO tidak melawannya secara langsung. Kami melawannya melalui Ukraina.” Pengakuan ini terus terang dan kesimpulan ini ada di permukaan. Aneh bahwa beberapa orang mencoba untuk membantahnya. Baru-baru ini, Presiden Kroasia Zoran Milanovic mengatakan bahwa ini adalah perang NATO. Pernyataan terbuka dan jujur. Beberapa minggu yang lalu, Henry Kissinger (sebelum dia mendesak NATO untuk menerima Ukraina dalam artikelnya baru-baru ini) menulis dengan jelas bahwa peristiwa di Ukraina adalah bentrokan, persaingan dua kekuatan nuklir untuk menguasai wilayah itu. Cukup jelas apa yang dia maksud.

Mitra Barat kami licik sambil berusaha keras untuk membuktikan bahwa mereka tidak melawan Rusia tetapi hanya membantu Ukraina menanggapi “agresi” dan memulihkan integritas teritorialnya. Skala dukungan mereka memperjelas bahwa Barat telah mempertaruhkan banyak hal dalam perangnya melawan Rusia; ini jelas.

Peristiwa seputar Ukraina telah mengungkap dorongan implisit oleh Amerika Serikat untuk menghentikan upaya memperkuat posisi globalnya dengan cara yang sah dan mengadopsi metode tidak sah untuk memastikan dominasinya. Apapun itu. Mekanisme dan institusi yang pernah dihormati yang diciptakan oleh Barat pimpinan AS telah dibuang (dan bukan karena apa yang kita lihat di Ukraina). Pasar bebas, persaingan yang adil, usaha bebas, properti yang tidak dapat diganggu gugat, dan praduga tidak bersalah, singkatnya, semua yang diandalkan oleh model globalisasi Barat runtuh dalam semalam. Sanksi telah dikenakan pada Rusia dan negara-negara lain yang tidak menyenangkan yang tidak mematuhi prinsip dan mekanisme ini. Jelas, sanksi dapat dikenakan kapan saja di negara mana pun, yang, dengan satu atau lain cara, menolak untuk mengikuti perintah Amerika tanpa berpikir.

Uni Eropa telah sepenuhnya dikuasai oleh kediktatoran AS ini (tidak ada gunanya membahas ini panjang lebar). Penandatanganan Deklarasi Bersama tentang Kerjasama UE-NATO pada 10 Januari adalah titik tertinggi dari proses ini, sesuatu yang telah dibuat selama beberapa tahun. Dinyatakan secara eksplisit bahwa tujuan aliansi dan UE adalah menggunakan semua cara politik, ekonomi dan militer untuk kepentingan miliaran emas. Inilah yang dikatakannya: demi kepentingan satu miliar penduduk NATO dan negara-negara UE. Seluruh dunia, mengutip Perwakilan Tinggi Uni Eropa untuk Urusan Luar Negeri dan Kebijakan Keamanan Josep Borrell, adalah “hutan” yang menghambat kemajuan di “taman” dan karenanya harus diformat ulang, disesuaikan dengan kebutuhan mereka dan berubah menjadi koloni gaya baru untuk menggunakan metode baru untuk memompa sumber daya dari mereka dengan kejam. Metode-metode ini terlalu familiar dan mencakup demonisasi, pemerasan, sanksi, ancaman kekerasan, dan banyak lagi. Jalan Barat untuk menghancurkan ikatan tradisional antara mitra sejarah di berbagai wilayah dan memecah belah serta mendestabilisasi mereka menjadi lebih menonjol. Kita dapat melihat ini di Balkan dan di ruang pasca-Soviet, terutama jika kita melihat lebih dekat apa yang dilakukan Amerika Serikat, “klien” dan “pemecah masalah” mereka di Asia Tengah dan Kaukasus Selatan. Jalan untuk menghancurkan ikatan tradisional antara mitra sejarah di berbagai wilayah dan memecah serta mendestabilisasi mereka menjadi lebih menonjol. Kita dapat melihat ini di Balkan dan di ruang pasca-Soviet, terutama jika kita melihat lebih dekat apa yang dilakukan Amerika Serikat, “klien” dan “pemecah masalah” mereka di Asia Tengah dan Kaukasus Selatan. Jalan untuk menghancurkan ikatan tradisional antara mitra sejarah di berbagai wilayah dan memecah serta mendestabilisasi mereka menjadi lebih menonjol. Kita dapat melihat ini di Balkan dan di ruang pasca-Soviet, terutama jika kita melihat lebih dekat apa yang dilakukan Amerika Serikat, “klien” dan “pemecah masalah” mereka di Asia Tengah dan Kaukasus Selatan.

Segala sesuatu yang terjadi di sekitar Ukraina telah dibuat sejak lama. Protes Maidan pertama terjadi pada tahun 2004 ketika pejabat Eropa menyatakan untuk pertama kalinya bahwa Ukraina harus memilih pihak dan memutuskan dengan siapa, Barat atau Rusia. Sejak saat itu, pendekatan salah satu/atau ini secara konsisten dipromosikan oleh Barat dalam kebijakannya di wilayah ini. Mereka yang memilih pihak yang salah atau percaya bahwa ikatan sejarah dan keluarga mereka, dan tradisi serta kepercayaan agama mereka mengikat mereka dengan Federasi Rusia (meskipun mereka tinggal di Ukraina), pada awalnya kurang lebih dengan hati-hati, dan kemudian dengan kejam, dihancurkan. , dikeluarkan dari kehidupan politik dan dituntut secara pidana. Mereka membunuh jurnalis dan politisi yang keras kepala dan menutup outlet media yang tidak mempromosikan sudut pandang resmi. Pembentukan negara Nazi yang dikelola polisi sedang berjalan lancar. Nyatanya, sekarang telah dibuat dengan restu dari Barat. Mereka menggunakan pilihan “baik dengan Barat atau Rusia” untuk mengidentifikasi mereka yang menentang Barat dan melanjutkan untuk menghukum mereka dengan keras.

Kembali ke Deklarasi NATO-UE – ini adalah dokumen yang menarik. Kedua organisasi ini ditampilkan sebagai aliansi demokrasi melawan otokrasi di tengah persaingan global. Sebuah agenda yang terang-terangan konfrontatif telah diumumkan untuk didengar dunia. Eropa telah melepaskan kemerdekaannya. Deklarasi Bersama secara langsung menundukkan Eropa ke NATO. Ini mencakup komitmen untuk melayani kepentingan AS dalam hal penahanan geopolitik Rusia dan China. Tujuan yang mereka nyatakan – yang sebelumnya diketahui oleh semua orang tetapi sekarang ditata dalam warna hitam dan putih – adalah untuk memungkinkan aliansi yang dipimpin AS mencapai keunggulan global.

NATO tidak terbatas pada pengorganisasian kehidupan di benua Eropa. Pada Juni 2022, KTT Madrid NATO menyatakan bahwa blok militer tersebut memiliki komitmen global, khususnya terkait kawasan Asia-Pasifik, yang mereka sebut kawasan Indo-Pasifik. Jelas bahwa mereka berusaha untuk membuat tawaran ke India untuk menciptakan masalah tambahan dalam hubungannya dengan China. Teriakan perang mereka adalah kesatuan keamanan di kawasan Euro-Atlantik dan Indo-Pasifik. Hanya permainan kata. Sejak 1990-an, komitmen yang sama terhadap prinsip keamanan yang tidak terpisahkan dideklarasikan oleh OSCE dan Dewan Rusia-NATO. Istilah ini digunakan untuk mengartikan keamanan yang setara bagi setiap negara dan kewajiban untuk tidak memperkuat keamanan sendiri dengan mengorbankan negara lain. Sekarang telah diambil di luar konteks dan diberi arti baru – kepentingan NATO dan kawasan Indo-Pasifik yang tidak terpisahkan. Perbedaannya jelas.

Di wilayah yang disebut “kawasan Indo-Pasifik”, Barat berusaha menciptakan arsitektur blok melawan Rusia dan China. Dengan tujuan ini, mereka secara konsisten telah menghancurkan (walaupun mereka lebih suka diam tentang hal ini) mekanisme dan format kerja sama yang telah berusia puluhan tahun yang dibuat di sekitar ASEAN berdasarkan kesetaraan, konsensus, dan keseimbangan kepentingan. Sebaliknya, mereka menyusun blok militer. Contoh kasus yang menonjol adalah AUKUS, sebuah blok Anglo-Saxon di Asia, yang meliputi AS, Inggris, dan Australia). Jepang berada di bawah tekanan untuk bergabung juga. Kunjungan Perdana Menteri Fumio Kishida baru-baru ini ke Washington akhirnya memastikan arah ini. Jepang melakukan militerisasi lagi. Seperti yang saya pahami, Jepang bersiap untuk mengubah pasal-pasal dalam konstitusinya yang mencegahnya melakukan hal ini. Proses sedang berlangsung.

Saya tidak akan berbicara sekarang tentang tindakan Barat di wilayah geopolitik lainnya. Hari ini kami menganggap kebijakan AS dan Barat secara keseluruhan sebagai masalah utama yang menciptakan kesulitan di semua bidang. Singkatnya, inilah artinya. Kebijakan mendikte Washington dalam urusan internasional justru berarti bahwa orang Amerika dapat melakukan apa saja di mana pun mereka mau, bahkan di ujung dunia yang lain. Mereka melakukan apa yang menurut mereka perlu. Semua negara lain tidak dapat melakukan apa pun tanpa persetujuan AS, bahkan dalam menanggapi ancaman keamanan langsung yang dibuat AS di perbatasan mereka.

Seperti Napoleon, yang memobilisasi hampir seluruh Eropa melawan Kekaisaran Rusia, dan Hitler, yang menduduki sebagian besar negara Eropa dan melemparkannya ke Uni Soviet, Amerika Serikat telah menciptakan koalisi hampir semua negara anggota NATO dan Uni Eropa. dan menggunakan Ukraina untuk mengobarkan perang proksi melawan Rusia dengan tujuan lama untuk akhirnya menyelesaikan “pertanyaan Rusia”, seperti Hitler, yang mencari solusi akhir untuk “pertanyaan Yahudi”.

Politisi Barat – tidak hanya dari Baltik dan Polandia tetapi juga dari negara-negara yang lebih masuk akal – mengatakan bahwa Rusia harus menghadapi kekalahan strategis. Beberapa analis politik menulis tentang dekolonisasi Rusia, bahwa negara kita terlalu besar dan “menghalangi”. Suatu hari saya membaca sebuah artikel di The Telegraph yang menyerukan pembebasan Abkhazia, Ossetia Selatan, dan Transnistria, sambil meninggalkan Karelia, Koenigsberg, dan Kepulauan Kuril untuk bernegosiasi. Memang tabloid, tapi kita harus baca lembaran kuning karena kadang jadi headline berita.

Cukup banyak pernyataan seperti itu yang telah dibuat, termasuk dalam oposisi non-sistem kami. Tidak ada politisi Barat yang membantahnya. Presiden Prancis Emmanuel Macron, yang mengusulkan pembentukan Komunitas Politik Eropa sebagai format yang akan mengundang semua negara Eropa selain Rusia dan Belarusia, juga menyarankan untuk mengadakan konferensi negara-negara Eropa. Dia menyarankan agar itu terbuka untuk negara-negara anggota UE, negara-negara Kemitraan Timur (Georgia, Armenia dan Azerbaijan), serta Moldova dan Ukraina. Saya ragu Belarusia akan diundang. Calon peserta sebagai negara-negara Uni Eropa dan negara-negara Kemitraan Timur, plus – perhatikan ini – para emigran yang aktif secara politik dari Rusia. Dikatakan (bukan dalam presentasi Macron tetapi dalam komentar selanjutnya) bahwa beberapa wilayah Rusia, yang berusaha mempertahankan hubungan dengan Eropa, bisa diajak juga. Saya percaya bahwa semuanya jelas. Ini bukan situasi hitam-putih, bertentangan dengan klaim rekan-rekan Barat kami; itu mencerminkan strategi dominasi global mereka dan penindasan tanpa syarat terhadap semua negara dengan ancaman hukuman.

The Western politicians are talking only about sanctions. Ursula von der Leyen has recently said in Davos that new sanctions will be imposed on Russia and Belarus, that they know which sanctions to adopt to strangle the Russian economy and cause it decades of regression. This is what they want. They have shown their true colours. For many years, UN Security Council members discussed sanctions against countries that violated international law or their obligations. And every time the Western countries that initiated such measures promised that the sanctions would not harm the people but would be targeted at the “regime.” What became of their promises?

They openly say that sanctions against Russia are designed to incite the people to rise in a revolution to overthrow the current leaders. Nobody is observing or intends to observe proprieties any longer. But their reaction and frenzied attempts to ensure, by hook or by crook, by any foul means possible, the domination of the US and the West, which Washington has already brought to heel, is proof that, historically, they are acting contrary to the objective course of events by trying to stop the rise of a multipolar world. Such change does not happen on orders from the high offices on the Potomac or in any other capital, but for natural reasons.

Negara berkembang secara ekonomi. Lihatlah Cina dan India (mitra strategis kami), Türkiye, Brasil, Argentina, Mesir, dan banyak negara Afrika. Mengingat sumber daya alam mereka yang sangat besar, potensi pengembangan mereka sangat besar. Pusat-pusat pertumbuhan ekonomi baru bermunculan. Barat berusaha mencegah hal ini, sebagian, dengan mengeksploitasi mekanisme yang diciptakan untuk melayani kepentingannya dalam kerangka globalisasi yang diciptakannya. Peran dolar sebagai mata uang cadangan sangat penting dalam hal ini. Inilah mengapa dalam kontak kami melalui SCO, BRICS, CIS, dan EAEU, dan dalam kerja sama kami dengan asosiasi Asia, Afrika, dan Amerika Latin, kami melakukan semua yang kami bisa untuk menciptakan bentuk interaksi baru untuk menghindari ketergantungan pada Barat dan metode neokolonialisnya (yang sekarang sudah jelas). Presiden Rusia Vladimir Putin membicarakan hal ini dengan terus terang dan jelas. Metode ini digunakan dengan tujuan untuk merampok seluruh dunia dalam kondisi baru ini. Dalam berhubungan dengan mitra terpercaya dan negara sahabat, kami mengembangkan bentuk kerjasama yang akan menguntungkan kita semua. Mereka yang ingin menaklukkan seluruh dunia tidak memiliki suara di dalamnya.

Ini adalah pemikiran saya tentang tahun lalu. Intinya, proses yang terjadi tidak dimulai kemarin, melainkan bertahun-tahun yang lalu. Mereka akan tetap melanjutkan. Butuh waktu untuk menciptakan dunia multi-kutub dan menyelesaikan hubungan yang diperlukan untuk kemenangan demokrasi dan keadilan dan untuk mematuhi prinsip Piagam PBB yang menghormati persamaan kedaulatan semua negara. Piagam PBB adalah landasan yang baik. Pada saat diadopsi, itu adalah dokumen revolusioner. Sayangnya, Barat mendistorsi semua prinsip yang benar. Itu tidak menghormati prinsip-prinsip persamaan kedaulatan negara, non-campur tangan dalam urusan internal dan penyelesaian perselisihan secara damai. Amerika Serikat menggunakan angkatan bersenjatanya di luar negeri ratusan kali sejak berdirinya PBB. Dalam sebagian besar kasus, itu secara kasar melanggar Piagam PBB.

Butuh waktu lama untuk menciptakan tatanan dunia multipolar. Ini akan memakan waktu seluruh era sejarah. Kami sekarang berada di tengah-tengah proses ini. Terkadang, peserta langsung dari acara besar semacam itu tidak langsung melihat semuanya. Inilah mengapa kami sangat menghargai bahwa kami selalu berhubungan dan berbagi pendapat dan kesan kami satu sama lain. Saya tidak hanya mengacu pada mitra asing kami, tetapi juga rekan media. Pengamatan Anda dan pertanyaan yang ingin Anda tanyakan berguna bagi kami.

Pertanyaan: Apa pendapat Anda tentang kemungkinan mengadakan pembicaraan tentang Ukraina antara Rusia dan negara-negara Barat pimpinan AS tahun ini? Masalah keamanan apa dalam konteks penyelesaian Ukraina yang ingin diajukan Rusia? Menurut Anda, mungkinkah fase aktif permusuhan akan dihentikan tahun ini?

Sergey Lavrov: Sehubungan dengan fase aktif permusuhan, militer kami telah berulang kali mengomentari masalah ini. Presiden Putin sekali lagi secara pribadi menegaskan bahwa tujuan operasi militer khusus itu nyata dan tidak ditarik tiba-tiba, melainkan ditentukan oleh kepentingan mendasar dan sah dari keamanan Federasi Rusia, posisi internasionalnya, terutama di sekitar kita. .

Seperti halnya wilayah lain yang berbatasan dengan Federasi Rusia, tidak boleh ada infrastruktur militer yang menimbulkan ancaman langsung terhadap negara kita, diskriminasi, atau penganiayaan terhadap rekan senegaranya di Ukraina. Atas kehendak takdir, mereka akhirnya menjadi warga negara Ukraina, tetapi mereka ingin melestarikan bahasa, budaya, dan tradisi mereka, membesarkan anak-anak mereka dalam tradisi ini sesuai sepenuhnya dengan Konstitusi Ukraina, yang menyatakan bahwa itu menjamin penggunaan gratis dan perlindungan bahasa Rusia dan bahasa etnis minoritas lainnya. Bahasa Rusia disorot di sana. Konstitusi ini tetap berlaku.

Kami mengirim materi ke outlet media yang mencantumkan pasal-pasal Konstitusi dan kewajiban khusus Ukraina di bawah konvensi internasional, serta daftar tambahan undang-undang yang diadopsi dengan melanggar Konstitusi dan kewajiban internasional negara Ukraina. Saya terkejut dengan wawancara Presiden Zelensky dengan ZDF pada Oktober 2022. Dia berargumen bahwa jika Rusia dibiarkan menang, negara besar lainnya akan memutuskan bahwa mereka juga “bisa”. Dan ada cukup banyak negara seperti itu di berbagai benua. Oleh karena itu, mereka diduga akan “mencekik” anak-anak kecil dan membagi yang lainnya di antara mereka sendiri. Vladimir Zelensky menekankan bahwa dia untuk skenario yang berbeda di mana setiap orang di planet ini akan tahu bahwa di mana pun mereka tinggal, mereka memiliki hak yang sama dan dilindungi seperti orang lain di dunia. Hal ini dikemukakan oleh seorang pria yang pada November 2021 (setahun sebelumnya) mengatakan bahwa “spesies”, bukan manusia, tinggal di Ukraina timur. Bahkan sebelumnya, pada Agustus 2021, Zelensky mencatat bahwa jika ada warga Ukraina yang merasa Rusia dan berpikir dalam bahasa Rusia, dan ingin tetap menjadi Rusia, demi masa depan anak dan cucunya, mereka harus pergi ke Rusia. Orang yang sama yang sekarang menyatakan bahwa dia memimpikan hari ketika semua orang sama dan dapat hidup sesuai keinginan mereka. Jelas bahwa kata-kata “indah” ini diucapkan untuk kepentingan Barat, tetapi semua ini dengan jelas menggambarkan rezim saat ini. Jelas mengapa kita tidak bisa mengabaikan tujuan inti dari operasi militer khusus. Zelensky mencatat bahwa jika ada warga Ukraina yang merasa Rusia dan berpikir dalam bahasa Rusia, dan ingin tetap menjadi orang Rusia, maka demi masa depan anak dan cucunya, mereka harus pergi ke Rusia. Orang yang sama yang sekarang menyatakan bahwa dia memimpikan hari ketika semua orang sama dan dapat hidup sesuai keinginan mereka. Jelas bahwa kata-kata “indah” ini diucapkan untuk kepentingan Barat, tetapi semua ini dengan jelas menggambarkan rezim saat ini. Jelas mengapa kita tidak bisa mengabaikan tujuan inti dari operasi militer khusus. Zelensky mencatat bahwa jika ada warga Ukraina yang merasa Rusia dan berpikir dalam bahasa Rusia, dan ingin tetap menjadi orang Rusia, maka demi masa depan anak dan cucunya, mereka harus pergi ke Rusia. Orang yang sama yang sekarang menyatakan bahwa dia memimpikan hari ketika semua orang sama dan dapat hidup sesuai keinginan mereka. Jelas bahwa kata-kata “indah” ini diucapkan untuk kepentingan Barat, tetapi semua ini dengan jelas menggambarkan rezim saat ini. Jelas mengapa kita tidak bisa mengabaikan tujuan inti dari operasi militer khusus. Jelas bahwa kata-kata “indah” ini diucapkan untuk kepentingan Barat, tetapi semua ini dengan jelas menggambarkan rezim saat ini. Jelas mengapa kita tidak bisa mengabaikan tujuan inti dari operasi militer khusus. Jelas bahwa kata-kata “indah” ini diucapkan untuk kepentingan Barat, tetapi semua ini dengan jelas menggambarkan rezim saat ini. Jelas mengapa kita tidak bisa mengabaikan tujuan inti dari operasi militer khusus.

Adapun prospek pembicaraan, sudah puluhan kali dibahas dan dipertimbangkan. Saya tidak ingin mengulangi fakta yang jelas. Mulai Maret 2021, kami mendukung permintaan Ukraina untuk melakukan pembicaraan. Selain itu, kami menyelesaikan draf kesepakatan penyelesaian yang diajukan oleh negara tersebut. Tapi Ukraina mendapat tamparan di pergelangan tangannya dan mengatakan itu terlalu dini. Sejak itu, setelah musim semi 2022, sepanjang musim panas dan hingga awal musim gugur, pejabat Barat berulang kali mengatakan dengan kata yang berbeda bahwa terlalu dini untuk memulai negosiasi. Negara perlu diberi lebih banyak senjata agar bisa memulai negosiasi dari sikap yang lebih kuat. Sekretaris Jenderal NATO Jens Stoltenberg mengatakan secara blak-blakan beberapa hari yang lalu bahwa mempersenjatai Ukraina adalah jalan menuju perdamaian. Zelensky sendiri mengajukan rencana 10 poin yang benar-benar tidak masuk akal yang menjejalkan semuanya: makanan,

Negotiations with Zelensky are out of the question, because he adopted a law that banned talks with the Russian Government. The Western claptrap to the effect that they are ready to talk, but we are not, is nothing but prevarications.

You asked about the prospects for talks between Russia and the West on Ukraine. We are ready to consider serious proposals and to decide on what we do next. So far, there have not been such proposals. We hear mantras coming from Western capitals about “not a word about Ukraine without Ukraine.” It’s nonsense. In fact, the West is making the decisions for Ukraine. They also told Zelensky not to agree on anything with Russia in late March 2022, when an agreement was fully formalised. So, the West is making the calls. It decided without Ukraine and for Ukraine that it was not the right time. Now, they are saying the same thing: they need to get more weapons and to humiliate the Russian Federation.

I’m not sure who among them is doing military planning. CIA Director William Burns met with Head of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin. The idea of holding this meeting was put forward by President Biden, and President Putin agreed. The meeting took place without any breakthroughs.

In sporadic and rare contacts that are taking place at one level or another, the West is not saying anything more than it says in its public statements. Our position on this score is well known. Talking with the West only about Ukraine is pointless. It is using Ukraine to destroy the security system that had existed in the Euro-Atlantic region for many years now and relied on the principles of indivisible security and addressing issues through dialogue and cooperation. The OSCE embodied the ideals that the West is now busily burying, just like it practically buried the Council of Europe. Organisations that were created for dialogue and the search for consensus and compromise are now being used to promote the same policy of total domination of the United States (and the rest of the West, which is at its heel) in everything and everywhere. Telling us that we will “think of something” with Ukraine, and everything else will be theirs? No. We will need to sit down and have a candid discussion.

I don’t think we need at this stage to take the initiative in the areas that the West itself closed down, including what it did in the Council of Europe, which everyone was so proud of. Moreover, there are several dozen conventions in the Council of Europe, which do not require a country to be a member of the Council of Europe to be able to participate in them. The West has decided to cancel Russia here as well and to build discriminatory obstacles to the participation of our representatives in the work of the relevant bodies of these conventions, which are open to non-members of the Council of Europe. In this situation, they are putting forward unacceptable terms for the participation of our representatives in review events. Given these circumstances, we will not put up with it. Recently, we withdrew from the Convention against Corruption for this particular reason. This does not mean that we will no longer fight corruption. This means that we are not willing to sit on a side chair during the meetings of a relevant body and listen to Western lectures at a time where even our procedural rights are limited. The list of examples of that kind goes on and on.

Question: Many Europeans believe that Russia did not show its best side when it launched the hostilities, and that it is doing just what the other imperialist countries, like the United States, do. They bombed nearly half of the planet, violating international law to seize territories. These critical remarks have been made in Greece, Cyprus and the Balkans, which also fell victim to this policy. You probably know this issue better than many. It is rumoured that Türkiye is threatening Greece in the Aegean Sea. What are your arguments against this view?

Sergey Lavrov: I will not argue; I will simply put forth my view. You said that Russia did not show its best side when it started the special military operation. This is interesting phrasing.

Kami menunjukkan “sisi terbaik” kami setelah Uni Soviet bubar, seperti yang berkali-kali ditunjukkan oleh Presiden Vladimir Putin. Pada tahun 2001, salah satu perjalanan luar negeri pertama yang dia lakukan setelah dia terpilih sebagai presiden adalah ke Jerman, di mana dia sed thaddrese Bundestag dalam bahasa Jerman. Dengan melakukan itu, Presiden Putin secara pribadi terlibat dalam rekonsiliasi historis antara Jerman dan Rusia. Rekonsiliasi itu terjadi pada akhir 1980-an dan awal 1990-an dan dimulai dengan runtuhnya Tembok Berlin dan reunifikasi Jerman. Itu terjadi di tingkat negara bagian dan resmi. Vladimir Putin secara pribadi berkontribusi pada rekonsiliasi historis antara Rusia dan Jerman. Ingatlah bahwa reunifikasi Jerman menjadi mungkin pertama-tama berkat Uni Soviet, karena negara-negara pemenang lainnya tidak antusias dengan hal itu, secara halus.

Kami bersedia menunjukkan sisi terbaik kami dan kami melakukannya berulang kali untuk menghormati hukum internasional dan mencari solusi yang dapat menguntungkan Eropa dan umat manusia secara keseluruhan. Saya mengutip contoh protes Maidan pertama di Ukraina (2004), ketika otoritas Eropa mengatakan bahwa Ukraina harus memilih antara Eropa dan Rusia. Itu terjadi tiga tahun sebelum pidato Munich Vladimir Putin. Kami kemudian berharap alasan itu akan menang, dan Eropa akan melihat bahwa mereka tidak boleh berbohong sepanjang waktu dan terus menggerakkan NATO lebih jauh ke timur bertentangan dengan janji mereka. Hal ini tidak dapat diterima bukan hanya karena janji lisan mereka tetapi juga karena kewajiban OSCE tertulis mereka bahwa tidak seorang pun boleh meningkatkan keamanan mereka dengan mengorbankan negara lain dan bahwa tidak ada organisasi di ruang OSCE yang boleh mengklaim dominasi. Janji itu dibuat di atas kertas dan ditandatangani, sebagian, oleh para pemimpin Yunani, Amerika Serikat, dan Rusia. Ketentuan bahwa tidak seorang pun boleh mengklaim dominasi di Eropa juga telah dimasukkan dalam dokumen Dewan Rusia-NATO yang ditandatangani di tingkat tertinggi.

Jika Anda berpikir bahwa kemajuan sembrono aliansi, bertentangan dengan protes resmi kami, dapat diartikan sebagai kepatuhan terhadap kewajiban itu, tidak akan ada pemahaman di antara kami. Saya yakin Anda tidak berpikir demikian dan Anda memahami dengan jelas masalah yang sedang dihadapi. Anda mengatakan bahwa kami bertindak seperti negara-negara kekaisaran lainnya. Ya, kami sekali lagi digambarkan sebagai sebuah kerajaan. Saya lebih suka menyerahkan ini kepada para ahli dan profesional.

Russia is a country with a huge number of ethnic groups, nearly 300 languages and nearly all the global religions, where the national traditions of all these ethnic groups are respected. Russia has been developing as a multiethnic and multifaith country for hundreds of years. Unlike the colonial practices of the West, we never suppressed nations that joined the Russian Empire, never destroyed them and never threw them into a melting pot where they would have lost their identity and integrity, becoming all the same, like the Americans. They have failed, like you can see now. All the nations that joined the Russian Empire preserved their values, traditions, identities, customs and languages.

As for seizing territories and that we have the same “instincts” as the Western empires, the United States has invaded other countries’ territories about 300 times. In most instances, they did this because somebody had offended the Americans, as it is happening all the time in Central America and the Caribbean, or to eliminate threats to peace and security. For example, Saddam Hussein allegedly had weapons of mass destruction, which later turned out to be a lie. In Libya, they wanted to eliminate Muammar Qaddafi because they thought he was not a democrat but a dictator. They have ruined both Iraq and Libya, prosperous countries where people lived quite well in social and economic terms. In Yugoslavia, they wanted to ruin the Balkans, in part for the benefit of Germany, which did not wait for the EU to coordinate a common line and recognised [the independence of] Croatia and Slovenia. This made the process irreversible and prevented any chance for the restoration of a confederative or any other form of unification of the Balkan countries. Serbia stood up against the Balkans’ subordination to the West. What have they done to it? Senator Joe Biden said in 1998, a year before NATO’s aggression against Serbia, that he was for bombing Belgrade and proposed sending US pilots to bomb all the bridges across the Drina River and confiscating Serbia’s oil reserves. As you remember, Senator Biden’s demands were implemented a year later, in 1999.  The Time magazine said on its cover then: “Bringing the Serbs to heel. A massive bombing attack opens the door to peace.” Nobody reacted to that. No tribunals were proposed. Nobody even considered it.

Demikian juga, tidak ada yang mengusulkan pengadilan apa pun ketika Amerika Serikat menginvasi Suriah tanpa alasan yang sah dan mulai meratakan kota-kota Suriah hingga rata dengan tanah. Misalnya, Raqqa berubah menjadi puing-puing. Puluhan dan ratusan mayat terbaring di sana selama berbulan-bulan tanpa pengawasan. Ya, komunitas internasional, Doctors Without Borders dan Reporters Without Borders angkat suara, tapi tidak ada yang menyebut pengadilan. Ketika Pengadilan Kriminal Internasional memutuskan untuk menyelidiki kejahatan perang yang dilakukan oleh Amerika di Afghanistan, Amerika Serikat mengancam akan menjatuhkan sanksi kepada ICC dan menyita dana pengadilan yang disimpan di bank-bank AS. Dan badan peradilan internasional yang tinggi itu berhenti berbicara. Tentu saja, perbandingan bisa dibuat.

Tapi kami mempertahankan keamanan kami. Ukraina diubah menjadi jembatan untuk menyerang Rusia dan merongrong kepentingan kami. Pangkalan angkatan laut, pertama-tama Anglo-Saxon, akan dibangun di Laut Azov. Ini masalah serius.

Kedua, penghinaan terhadap orang Rusia, yang haknya dijamin dalam Konstitusi Ukraina, tidak dapat diterima karena mereka adalah rekan kita. Mereka meminta kami untuk melindungi kepentingan sah mereka, yang dijamin dalam Konstitusi Ukraina. Kudeta 2014, yang diilhami oleh Barat, tidak diikuti oleh upaya apa pun untuk meluncurkan dialog nasional di Ukraina. Barat dengan tegas memihak rezim, yang segera menyatakan tujuan anti-Rusia dan komitmennya terhadap teori dan praktik Nazi dengan membom Donetsk dan Lugansk. Tidak ada yang menyelidiki kejahatan ini. Tidak ada pengadilan yang didirikan, dan bahkan tidak ada yang mempertimbangkan hal ini. Ketika perang diluncurkan melawan mereka yang menolak untuk mengakui kudeta dihentikan, perjanjian Minsk ditandatangani. Seperti yang Anda ketahui, Jerman, Prancis, dan Poroshenko, yang menandatangani perjanjian ini (dengan pengecualian Presiden Putin), baru-baru ini mengatakan bahwa mereka melakukannya untuk mengulur waktu agar lebih banyak senjata dikirim ke Ukraina dan agar lebih siap untuk tahap selanjutnya dalam perang. Bagaimana itu?

Apakah menurut Anda kami juga belum menunjukkan sisi terbaik kami dalam kasus ini? Rusia adalah satu-satunya pihak yang mendesak penerapan perjanjian Minsk. Semua pihak lain adalah penjahat yang bertindak atas saran orang Amerika.

Adapun penderitaan Yunani dan Siprus, saya tidak tahu apa yang lebih mereka derita. Kami selalu berteman baik dengan orang Yunani dan Siprus. Kami telah mencatat perubahan yang terjadi dalam kepemimpinan kedua negara.

Everybody knows how forces were built up for launching a hybrid war against us. I cannot imagine that the prime ministers and presidents of European countries, let alone the countries that have centuries-long historical ties with Russia, are unaware of the facts or are unable to analyse them. The conclusion I make from the positions taken by European countries, including Greece and Cyprus, is that they have either been forced or have voluntarily agreed to submit to the US dictate. The United States has brought Europe to heel. Europe will no longer be allowed to think about “strategic autonomy.” When sending more US troops to Europe was discussed a year ago, US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin was asked if these troops would be deployed there on a rotational basis or permanently. He replied that this matter would be decided in Washington. Nobody will ask Europe’s opinion.

We have drawn conclusions from this, and we will draw them with regard to those who have quickly and subserviently supported the aggression against Russia.

This war will eventually end. We will uphold our truth, one way or another. But I don’t know how we will live after that. Everything will depend on the conclusions reached in Europe.

Question: After the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, all of us have observed that, in fact, this is the collective West’s confrontation with both Russia and some countries other than Russia. The region’s smaller nations, including Georgia, have found themselves in a difficult situation. There are constant radical attacks by US-controlled political and media groups, whose owners, the Americans, are seeking to impose immoral and perverse values as well as norms of Western behaviour. This is out of character with our culture and identity. Therefore, the West is attempting to subvert smaller countries’ cultural sovereignty and gain control over them. The ultimate goal of this cynical policy pursued by the globalists is to sacrifice these smaller countries to their political interests. Ukraine, regrettably, is a sad case in point. Georgia and other smaller countries in the region are facing the same threat. Under these circumstances, we are keen to know whether Russia has a clear-cut strategy against the West’s destructive cultural expansion and whether this implies its cooperation with countries that could be its natural allies in the matter of defending the conservative values.

Sergey Lavrov: This is a vast matter. We have just talked about Ukraine. Yesterday, the UN Security Council held a special meeting convened at Russia’s initiative and dedicated to threats to international peace and security as posed by the Kiev regime’s policies on human rights, including religious rights, and ethnic minorities.

Cultural presence and opposition to negative trends through preserving the traditional values are directly related to religion and the activities by the Russian and Georgian Orthodox churches. In Ukraine, [the Russian Orthodox Church] is not a tool of Russian influence. Rather, it is an institution that serves to preserve traditions and history and to pass on these traditions from generation to generation.  But it is being destroyed and banned, while priests are subject to arrest or stripped of their citizenship. These are the methods used by the West to wage a war for asserting its values.

We have to retaliate in kind in cases where popular Russian journalists, politicians and political scientists who can bring the truth to foreign audiences are faced with sanctions. We have to reciprocate. But this is not our choice. Soviet and US researchers regularly met and discussed current issues of modern times even during the Cold War.  Today, there are practically no opportunities for this. Occasionally, certain representatives of Western political thought would sound out timidly via absolutely unofficial channels, whether or not we could jointly organise a workshop on neutral ground, to which “your” and “our” people might come? Earlier, no one asked that. An institute would come to agreement with another institute. Today, our Western partners, who participated in these exchanges, are scared stiff. They have been exposed to rather strong harassment.

I have much respect for the stand taken by the Georgian Orthodox Church, which is defending these values. Generally, we have never had any problems with the Georgian people.

There was the story in 2008, when NATO played a role at its April summit in Bucharest, where a declaration was approved saying that Georgia and Ukraine would join NATO. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, too, came to Georgia a month before Mikheil Saakashvili ordered to shell Tskhinval and the positions of the peacekeepers. In all evidence, Saakashvili was excessively excited and came to the conclusion that all of that was an indulgence for him.

It took the Bucharest impulse somewhat longer to reach the minds of people in Ukraine. But eventually they started chasing all things Russian from their land. We are in favour of Abkhazia and South Ossetia establishing relations with Georgia. There are dialogue mechanisms there, in which we participate. It is rather long since Georgia suggested implementing a joint economic project to build trust.  These are all useful things. But now the Western participants in the Geneva Discussions between Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia (the EU, the UN, the OSCE, and the US) are attempting to make even this format hostage to what is going on around Ukraine.  This is indecent and unprofessional, and it means that they make their aims in this specific region dependent on their own political grievances and whims.

I am glad that our people-to-people contacts with Georgia are making strides. In 2022, Georgia’s GDP grew by 10 percent. This happened largely due to tourism and trade relations with the Russian Federation. I hope that we will soon be able to resume direct air service.

We see Georgia and all other countries face pressure from the West, which is publicly urging them to join the sanctions against the Russian Federation. The fact that a small country and its government have the courage to say that they will be guided by their national interests and the interests of their economy, this fact commands respect.

Question: You just said that the West has thrown off their masks. How would you comment on the rather frank statements President of Finland Sauli Niinistö made in his New Year’s speech about the Russian Federation being as brutal as the Nazi regime?

In Soviet times, the words “imperialism” and “colonisers” were part of the political rhetoric, and we are hearing them increasingly often today again. There are some new terms as well – neoliberalism and globalism. Gennady Zyuganov and the Communist Party of Russia have been using them for the past 30 years, and now you and the President of Russia are using them too. How would you describe those opposing Russia today? Are these concepts relevant today or are they history?

Sergey Lavrov: As to President Niinistö’s New Year’s statement and another recent interview, similarly to Greece and Cyprus, we have been viewing Finland as a model of friendly relations between states for years, ever since the time we used the term “coexistence of countries with different sociopolitical systems.” I was amazed by how fast Finland (and Sweden too) reversed their rhetoric. Apparently, there was a change of approach behind this, or it had been this anti-Russia all along, just well camouflaged with beautiful phrases about the need for a common European home and respect for the Helsinki Final Act principles. They even mentioned the possibility of holding an OSCE 75th anniversary summit in Helsinki in 2025. I don’t know. I was definitely taken aback by those statements.

Sauli Niinistö directly compared Joseph Stalin’s attack of Finland with Vladimir Putin’s actions in Ukraine, and stated that Putin would lose just like Stalin in Finland. To be honest, that was a rather primitive monologue. But his allusions to Nazi Germany make one wonder if they reflect what really is on his mind. I would expect the Finns to be better aware of their history, including the fact that they (actually) weren’t the innocent victims of the processes that took place before and during the WWII. It is regrettable that Europe is now dismantling (largely through Finland’s efforts) what it had earlier created – again, in many respects, with Finland’s leading role). But we are still neighbours. This can’t be changed. Finland is so happy – and desperate – to join NATO, trusting that membership would guarantee its security. But, as we said, we will have to draw our own conclusions from Finland and Sweden’s accession to the alliance (if it happens) and we will take appropriate military-technical measures on our side of the border.

I didn’t mention “neo-imperialism.” The person next to you said we were behaving just like other imperial powers. It’s a matter of taste. As for colonial habits, President Vladimir Putin mentioned this. It was a truthful assessment of what the West is trying to do. Colonialism refers to seizing a nation and living at their expense. But that can be done in a variety of ways. In the 17th century, slaves were carted off on ships; another way is to subjugate a country or an organisation, with all its plans and programmes to the coloniser’s will, which is what the Americans are now doing with the European Union. Iceland is not an EU member. You are lucky. The EU has completely lost its independence now and has essentially become a NATO appendage. Occasional public statements emerge in the European Union about being discriminated. French Minister for the Economy Bruno Le Maire mentioned the need to persuade their American allies to be more considerate of Europe’s interests rather than to sell gas to European industries at four times the price at which it sells to domestic enterprises.

In general, the long-term transition to liquefied natural gas, despite the price fluctuations that we are now seeing, means a serious rise in the cost of production in Europe. It’s funny that many years ago the Europeans insisted that Russia shift to spot pricing from long-term contracts. Now, against the backdrop of the Ukraine events, the Europeans began to negotiate with Qatar, trying to find new sources of energy. The emirate said, it’s our pleasure, and offered a 15-year contract as a minimum. The Europeans went back to negotiating with the United States. Yesterday I read a report that the Americans agreed to give them a better price, but only under long-term contracts. Reliability and sustainable prospects are more important than following zigzags on one or another stock exchange every day. But European industry is already beginning to move to the United States. Certain political scientists, including Western ones, say that one of the goals of the processes happening around Ukraine is making Europe less competitive. This is a step towards making China and other rivals less competitive in world markets as well.

Colonialism is markedly manifested in [Western] relations with developing countries. Look where American investment is going. And each investment deal always includes either some political demands or the deployment of US troops. I don’t see a big difference. I know that many scholars are already studying this phenomenon, colonialism in the new conditions, which is not even neo-colonialism. It is colonialism in its purest form, considering its goals and objectives – subdue and use their resources to your advantage.

Question: Diplomacy has many tools, primarily words. What do you consider the most tragic word in the diplomatic world in 2022? What word gave hope in the past year and what word does the whole world need to hear today?

Sergey Lavrov: Quite a lyrical question. We think about concrete matters for the most part and would ask you to characterise what we do.

I am not afraid to say that in the first case this word is “war.” What is happening is our response that, as the President said, should have come a bit earlier. This is the response (it is not late) to the hybrid war that was unleashed against us. The West is pushing its agenda today in most diverse guises. The word that gives hope is “victory.” And I think the third word is “victory.” Unfortunately, those who want to hear the word “negotiations” do not want them themselves. They are manipulating this term in many ways to drag out the war against Russia as long as possible.

Question: What place do the Arab states occupy in Russia’s foreign policy? Were the priorities in this area revised in 2022?

Sergey Lavrov: The Arabs are our long-time loyal friends. We maintain regular contacts with them through bilateral channels, via the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council. Yesterday, I held a regular meeting with all ambassadors of the Arab League member countries. In May 2022, I visited the Arab League headquarters in Cairo. I made remarks before all of its members.

I see understanding of our position. This is not at all about Ukraine but about the fight to create a new world order between those who think it should be completely subordinated to their “rules” that mean the domination of the US and its satellites, and those who want the world order to be democratic.

I have said this more than once. The Western countries are always demanding democracy from everyone but they are referring only to the internal system of this or that state. And yet nobody even has the right to ask questions about democracy in the United States. There are studies on the latest elections: some dead people were elected; one congresswoman received double the number of votes as there were registered voters in her district; there was voting by mail and many other things. This is not allowed. As soon as you start talking to them about democracy in international relations, they walk away. They don’t want this. They need “rules” in the world – not international law that guarantees democracy and sovereign equality to every country but the “rules” allowing them to dictate everything. The NATO-EU Declaration reads – “in the interests of our one billion citizens.” The jungle must be protected and used in the colonial way.

None of the Arab states joined the sanctions despite unprecedented, extremely tough, unceremonious and self-debasing pressure from the West. When I visited the Arab League, its Secretary-General told me before I took the floor that three days prior to my arrival a delegation of Western ambassadors visited them and demanded that my speech be canceled.

When they received a polite reply that this would be impossible considering that the Arab League is friends with Russia, they demanded that every Arab League member takes the floor after my remarks to condemn the Russian aggression. Here too, they met a polite reply saying that every country had its own position and was free to define it as it saw fit. There was also the third request, the most humiliating for the West, I believe: they asked not to pose for photos with me. This is not a joke.

After that, the Secretariat staff put all this on paper and sent it to all the embassies to inform them about this demarche. I do not mean to say that I was flattered by the fact that after my presentation, which lasted over an hour, I was asked to pose with each of these ambassadors for photos, but it is important to note that for the record. It may seem like a small detail, but for many other countries, in particular in Europe, this would have required a lot of political courage.

Ada momentum positif dalam hubungan kita dengan dunia Arab. Tentu saja, sanksi ilegal dan penderitaan yang saat ini kita saksikan dari mereka yang mengelola sistem moneter dan keuangan internasional harus diperhitungkan dalam hubungan perdagangan dan ekonomi kita. Kami sedang membangun rantai pasokan baru yang terlindung dari penjajah. Kami juga semakin beralih ke penyelesaian dalam mata uang nasional. Kami memiliki banyak proyek global. Di Mesir, Rusia sedang membangun pembangkit listrik tenaga nuklir dan berpartisipasi dalam menciptakan zona industri. Ada banyak proyek di Aljazair. Ada juga rencana yang menjanjikan untuk Maroko. Faktanya, kami memilikinya untuk hampir semua negara Afrika. Komisi antar pemerintah untuk kerjasama perdagangan dan ekonomi dengan negara-negara Arab sedang bekerja keras. Ada juga Forum Kerjasama Rusia-Arab, yang beroperasi pada tingkat kementerian luar negeri. Pandemi menghalangi kami untuk bertemu langsung selama beberapa tahun. Kami sekarang sedang berdiskusi dengan markas besar Liga Arab tentang gagasan mengadakan pertemuan menteri secara teratur di salah satu negara di kawasan itu, yang akan dipilih berdasarkan kebijaksanaan mitra kami. Alternatifnya, Federasi Rusia selalu siap menjadi tuan rumah pertemuan tersebut.

Berbicara tentang dunia Arab, saya tidak bisa tidak menyebutkan ketidakpuasan yang jelas di antara rekan-rekan kami dengan fakta bahwa Barat menuntut sesuatu di Ukraina setiap hari tanpa melakukan apa pun dalam masalah Palestina. Kami sangat kecewa dengan fakta bahwa hanya ada sedikit, jika ada, kemajuan yang dicapai di Palestina atau di pemukiman Libya setelah Barat menghancurkan negara itu. Masih ada masalah tentang Irak. Semua ini dan tantangan regional lainnya adalah masalah kelas dua dan terkadang bahkan kelas tiga bagi Barat dibandingkan dengan melelahkan Rusia dan mengalahkannya secara strategis.

Rekan-rekan kami memang melihat bahwa kami memiliki posisi yang berbeda, dan kami menghargainya. Kami tidak henti-hentinya dalam upaya kami dalam masalah Palestina, Suriah, dan penyelesaian Libya. Mengenai Irak, kami berniat untuk terlibat dalam kontak tingkat tinggi dengan rekan-rekan kami di Irak. Penting bagi kita untuk tidak melupakan konflik-konflik ini. Secara khusus, masalah Palestina adalah konflik tertua yang belum terselesaikan di dunia. Sekretaris Jenderal PBB bisa saja lebih proaktif dalam upayanya mempromosikan agenda ini sebagai salah satu anggota kuartet mediator internasional.

Pertanyaan: Anda menyebut Raqqa dan kebijakan predator dan agresif Amerika Serikat, yang mengubah kota ini menjadi reruntuhan. Sanksi ilegal, tidak adil dan sepihak terhadap rakyat Suriah, serta fakta bahwa sebagian tanah Suriah diduduki, semua ini hanya membuat krisis di Suriah berlangsung lebih lama dan memperburuk kondisi kehidupan rakyat Suriah. Apa komentar Anda tentang pelanggaran oleh Amerika Serikat dan satelitnya terhadap hukum internasional dan kemanusiaan terhadap Republik Arab Suriah dan upaya untuk melarang pengungsi kembali ke tanah bersejarah mereka?

Sergey Lavrov: Much can be said on this matter. Sanctions are unacceptable. This is yet another example demonstrating that the perorations by the West that their sanctions do not affect ordinary people are a lie. The very purpose of sanctions is to make life worse for the people, so that they rise up against their governments. This is obvious and rather straightforward.

There are exceptions in the humanitarian sphere. Look at the volumes of humanitarian aid arriving in Syria. What Syria is receiving is about half of the volumes the United Nations believes are necessary. This is one of the worst indicators for all humanitarian programmes.

The West really does not want refugees to return to Syria. Even the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees distributed a special questionnaire in Syrian refugee camps in Lebanon demonstrating in a quite straightforward manner that Syria is not good for refugees and they had better stayed in Lebanon. We raised a row over this issue. They apologised to us, and withdrew this questionnaire. All this demonstrates the way the so-called international communities treat refugees.

This is all driven by political reasons. In fact, UN Security Council Resolution 2254 provides for holding elections with the participation of the entire Syrian population, etc. When the time finally comes for this election, even though the Syrian Arab Republic has already held an election on its own without any Western interference, the West really wants to impose some kind of a grand election so that refugees can also vote in it. They know how to make people in refugee camps cast their votes for the opposition nurtured by the West. This is obvious, and rather shameful.

The Americans realised that grooming Juan Guaido for Venezuela was pointless, and that it was necessary to work with the people who had been empowered by the people. Similar trends are currently manifesting themselves with regard to Bashar al-Assad. The Americans and the Syrians maintain behind-the-scenes contacts on prisoners of war. Other countries, including Türkiye, suggest normalising relations with Damascus. President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he was ready to meet with President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. They have asked us for assistance. Turkish and Syrian defence ministers have met with Russia’s help, and a meeting between foreign ministers is in the making. Some Arab countries did not leave Syria and have retained their embassies there. Other Arab counties have reopened them. For example, the United Arab Emirates, a country with rich experience of mediation, is using it for positive purposes more often. We appreciate this. Life will force the sides to review all these issues in line with realities, rather than some perfect picture of geopolitical concepts that someone has painted.

However, Idlib ranks among the main problems. It is necessary to fulfil the agreements which state that deploying terrorists there is unacceptable. It is also necessary to establish contacts between the government and the Kurds in north-eastern Syria. We realise that our Turkish colleagues are concerned about this problem, as well as their irritation that the United States wants to use the Kurds to create a quasi-state in eastern Syria and to compel the Kurds to act on Washington’s instructions and create certain regional irritants all the time.

My colleague, Foreign Minister of Türkiye Mevlut Cavusoglu, recalled that, in 2019, Russia and Türkiye signed a memorandum. In that document, we pledged to make sure that the Kurds cooperate, that they withdraw a certain distance from the Turkish border. This option would be similar to the 1998 Adana Agreement on security between Türkiye and Syria. My good friend, Mevlut Cavusoglu, said Russia had so far failed to completely fulfil its obligations. He is right, and this is a complicated issue. However, Russia and Türkiye had reached other agreements, in addition to the north-east. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan signed a protocol on Idlib. Under this document, Türkiye pledged to disengage the opposition cooperating with the Republic of Türkiye from Jabhat al-Nusra and its other incarnations, so that the terrorists would not feel free. In 2020, we agreed that Russian and Turkish units would jointly patrol the M4 road to Aleppo. So far, we have been unable to accomplish this task. Consequently, it is necessary to work persistently to accomplish these tasks. They remain highly relevant.

Issues regarding the economic rehabilitation of Syria play an important role. The West is trying, by hook or by crook, to retain channels for supplying humanitarian aid to Idlib via the Turkish border and outside Damascus’ control. We have now retained only one such point and only on condition that specific legal methods for delivering humanitarian aid, under international law, (that is, via the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic) expand and that opportunities open up for financing early recovery projects. Apart from food and medications, it is necessary to renovate hospitals and schools, to supply water and electricity. They did not merely promise this to us; members of the UN Security Council passed the relevant resolution. The US also actively supported this document. We have seen very little progress for over a year now. The UN should also address this task more actively.

Question: The Russia-US relationship is currently not in the best state. What steps does Russia believe Washington needs to take in order to achieve recovery? How detrimental is this tense relationship between Russia and the United States when it comes to dealing with other crises such as in Yemen, Syria, Libya and Iran?

Sergey Lavrov: When two powerful countries do not cooperate and for the most part will not even speak to each other, this state of affairs always affects their ability to help with solving international problems that require joint efforts. It is an objective factor. What is required for normalising this relationship? Norm is a notion. It will never be what it was before. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg recently said that Russia will never have the same relationship with NATO and the West that it had in the past.

We said it long ago that we will no longer allow a situation when the other party lies, signs documents but refuses to comply with them – as it was the case with the Russia-NATO Council’s declaration, the OSCE’s Istanbul declaration, the OSCE’s declaration adopted at the Astana summit in 2010, the Ukrainian crisis settlement agreement of February 2014 (secured by Germany, France and Poland), the Minsk Agreements that were not only signed by Germany and France but also unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. The West did not even intend to fulfil those agreements. We were simply lied to when those obligations were signed solemnly at the level of presidents and prime ministers. So, we stopped taking words at face value even earlier.

Why do we take words for granted? It was customary in Russia that, when merchants made an agreement, they never signed any papers but simply shook hands. That was it. If you did not deliver, nobody would respect you. We were weaned away from this habit after they promised not to expand NATO. Then we started signing political and even legally binding documents. The Security Council’s resolution on the Minsk Agreements is a legally binding document. Now we are being told to leave Ukraine and fully comply with the UN Charter, which, by the way, states that all UN members must comply with Security Council resolutions. The UN Security Council’s resolution on Ukraine was sabotaged and efforts to resolve a conflict failed, which would have prevented more suffering in current conditions. It is obvious to me.

Some time ago, our Western “friends” lobbied for a decision of the UN General Assembly according to which every time a veto is imposed in the UN Security Council, the General Assembly must convene within ten days to hear out the motives for this veto. We agreed. We have nothing to hide. We already explain all votes and decisions.

But I would raise a different question: why does the UN General Assembly refuse to consider the resolutions that were adopted without vetoes but see no further compliance? The resolution on the Palestinian settlement is one example. They were indeed adopted by the UN Security Council, some even unanimously. They were forgotten. When Palestine is discussed, the General Assembly deplores the fact that the resolution has not been fulfilled. But it has not occurred to anybody to convene specifically to discuss why the resolution adopting the Minsk Agreements on Ukraine was not fulfilled. I mean it occurs to some people but nobody is interested. Instead, they discuss some phantasmagoric ideas about a tribunal and the Russian Federation paying reparations. Well, whatever works for them. The Ukrainians and their curators need these tribunals as much as they need the tribunes from which they pump their fists. It is as simple as that.

We did not destroy the relationship with the United States. After the meeting between US President Joe Biden and President of Russia Vladimir Putin in Geneva in June 2021, where they reaffirmed the Gorbachev-Reagan formula stating that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” we promoted it actively. The Americans agreed. It would be fair to say that, unlike the Trump administration, the Biden administration immediately supported that idea, which allowed the leaders of all five nuclear powers to make a similar statement, initiated by Russia, in January 2022: a nuclear war is unacceptable. The second agreement reached with them was beginning a strategic dialogue on what can replace the New START Treaty on strategic offensive arms, expiring in early 2026. We launched the dialogue through diplomats, military officials and security services. Two rounds of talks took place in July and September 2021. We had a more or less clear idea of how to move forward and discussed formats of further talks, which is also important. All of a sudden, after September 2021, the Americans broke off the strategic dialogue. Now they say it should be resumed. We did not break it off. We did not initiate a termination in a single area of our contacts or cooperation. The United States did. We are not going to chase after it and offer to be friends again. They know that we are serious people and we will always respond to serious treatment in kind. US President Joe Biden asked President of Russia Vladimir Putin to make sure that Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin meet with CIA Director William J. Burns. The meeting took place. It was a serious and useful meeting, even if with no breakthroughs. It is always helpful to have a serious and mutually respectful dialogue instead of accusations of all sorts of offences. So, the ball is not in our court.

Question: As a follow-up to the question about relations with the US, I would like to ask if we know when the new US Ambassador is coming to Russia. Are there prospects for resuming the work of the diplomatic mission as regards issuing visas to Russians? Is the Foreign Ministry ready to promote dialogue with the US on this matter?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not know when the new ambassador is coming; she has already undergone hearings and completed the formalities. It is for the American party to decide. She has received agrément. Nothing is hindering her arrival from our side.

As for the conditions the embassies work in, just like with the previous question, we have never taken any actions to obstruct the work of the diplomats. What we are seeing now was started by Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama in December 2016, three weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration. When leaving the White House, Barack Obama wanted to do a disservice to his successor and took our property and expelled our diplomats. It was a petty thing, unseemly for someone who was called the President of the United States.

Perwakilan Donald Trump kemudian menelepon kami dan mengatakan bahwa dia belum menjadi presiden, tetapi mereka yakin itu salah. Orang Amerika yakin bahwa kami akan membalas, meminta kami menunggu Donald Trump datang ke Gedung Putih, dan mengatakan bahwa mereka akan mencoba memperbaikinya. Kami mengambil jeda. Enam bulan telah berlalu, dan dia tidak diizinkan untuk memperbaiki apa pun, meskipun dia menginginkannya. Kami terpaksa menanggapi dengan memecat para diplomat dan memberlakukan rezim khusus atas beberapa properti orang Amerika di Moskow. Mereka tersinggung karena kami memecat mereka tanpa alasan sama sekali. Ada alasannya, dimulai dengan Barack Obama. Itu hanyalah reaksi berantai.

Tidak ada paritas saat ini. Porsi diplomat AS lebih besar. Jumlah total diplomat, yang sama untuk kedua negara kita, termasuk pegawai Misi Tetap Rusia untuk PBB, yang tidak ada hubungannya dengan hubungan bilateral Rusia dan AS. Jika tidak, mereka tidak akan dihitung dalam nomor paritas ini. Tapi mereka melakukannya. Ini adalah 140 orang. Jadi orang Amerika jauh di depan kita. Ketika mereka mengeluh bahwa tidak ada cukup personel untuk mengeluarkan visa, jangan percayai mereka. Kami kekurangan 140 orang, tetapi kami tidak pernah berhenti mengeluarkan visa dan tidak pernah mengirim warga AS untuk mengajukan visa Rusia di Venezuela, Kuba atau Nikaragua. Tapi kita bisa melakukannya. Tapi kami tidak berpikiran sempit. Kami berusaha untuk menjadi orang yang serius.

Pertanyaan: China akhir-akhir ini berbicara banyak tentang perdamaian, dan bahwa dunia kita membutuhkan perdamaian, serta kebijakan non-konfrontasi dan non-blok. Tetap saja, Barat terus berbicara tentang aliansi Rusia-Tiongkok dan kadang-kadang bahkan mencoba menakut-nakuti dunia dengannya. Betapa tipikal Barat – menghancurkan apa pun yang tidak disukainya. Apakah Rusia melihat upaya apa pun oleh Barat untuk menyebabkan masalah antara Rusia dan China hari ini, misalnya melalui serangan dunia maya, merilis informasi yang membahayakan, dan hal-hal lain yang diketahui orang Amerika?

Sergey Lavrov: Hubungan kami dengan Republik Rakyat Tiongkok berada pada titik tertinggi sepanjang masa. Inilah yang dikatakan oleh pemimpin kita masing-masing, Presiden Vladimir Putin dan Presiden Republik Rakyat China Xi Jinping. Hal ini juga tertuang dalam dokumen bersama, yang terakhir diadopsi pada 4 Februari 2022, ketika Presiden Rusia mengunjungi Cina. Itu berjudul Pernyataan Bersama Federasi Rusia dan Republik Rakyat Tiongkok tentang Hubungan Internasional Memasuki Era Baru dan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan Global. Dokumen yang sangat kuat. Ini mencakup semua hal penting di dunia saat ini dari perspektif solidaritas antara kedua negara kita. Ada suatu masa ketika teman-teman Tionghoa kami mengatakan bahwa hubungan kami lebih dari sekadar aliansi tetapi sesuatu yang lebih kuat. Kami berbagi hubungan pragmatis, berbasis kepercayaan, saling menghormati yang berakar pada keseimbangan kepentingan. Ini adalah pengaturan yang ideal untuk mempromosikan hubungan dengan negara mana pun, yang berakar pada prinsip-prinsip yang ditetapkan dalam Piagam PBB.

Russia and China have seen record trade statistics. In 2022, we almost reached $200 billion. Oh, I keep counting in US dollars, but it is high time that I switch to roubles and yuan. We will probably make this transition soon.

Moscow works closely with Beijing on the international stage, including within the United Nations, and our countries work together on fighting emerging challenges and threats within the SCO and BRICS. The EAEU cooperates with China to harmonise Eurasian integration with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. There is military, military-technical cooperation, and joint exercises. All this strengthens our strategic partnership, and the West sees this.

You asked me whether we have any information on Western attempts to sow discord in our relations. This information is in plain view and is right there in the public domain. The United States drafts its strategy, including the national security doctrine, and the Declaration on NATO-EU Cooperation, listing Russia and China in them. There is a small nuance though: they view Russia as an immediate threat that they need to deal with right now, while designating China as the main, long-term, serious and system-wide challenge. The West believes that dealing with the Chinese threat will take more time.

Many independent observers wrote that the Americans and Europeans are making a mistake by trying to contain both Russia and China at the same time. They probably think that they are capable of doing this. The United States would have never done this on its own. There must be no doubt about it.

It was not a coincidence that they enslaved Europe and devoted it to serving its strategy of domination, and nothing else. They are doing the same thing to Japan right now. They will probably try and draw New Zealand and Canada into AUKUS-like alliances in order to have all five Anglo-Saxon countries locked in. There is also an effort to reach out to South Korea.

The Americans cannot carry out their policy of dominance, which primarily consists of constraining Russia and China, on their own. It is for this reason that they need the Western camp to be fully mobilised. A partial mobilisation would no longer suffice. And this is what they are doing right now. This demonstrates yet again that they have almost run out of steam in their effort to counter the objective historical trend marked by the emergence of multipolar world order.

Both Russia and China can see that the West, while sticking to its dual containment strategy against Moscow and Beijing, is trying to sow discord in our relations. They want to defeat us and then to persuade Russia to be a partner to the West so that it can show mercy and lift sanctions. This way, Russia would become a partner to the West and at least would not stand in the way of the Western efforts to contain China, or ideally would even contribute to these efforts. I don’t know what kind of analysts devise theories of this kind over there, since they are clearly out of touch with reality.

China and Russia are clear-eyed about these games. We do understand that China is integrated in the ongoing globalisation processes to a much greater extent. Its economy and foreign exchange reserves denominated in Western currencies are much bigger. Ending its dependence on the West would be much more complicated for China, compared to the Russian Federation. To an extent, the avalanche of sanctions imposed on Russia helped us in this regard, to a certain extent, enabling us to conclude that we cannot trust the people who are trying to lure us into their economic system, let alone rely on them.

During his meeting with Government members yesterday, President Vladimir Putin once again reaffirmed our policy priorities. I have no doubt that our Chinese colleagues also see this threat. The West has already started imposing sanctions on China. Everything related to China’s ability to make microprocessors and semiconductors has been sanctioned. It was also said for everyone to hear that there must be no dependence on China in anything. They need to produce everything on their own, and the United States is about to bring its manufacturing capabilities back home. There will be more sanctions of this kind against Beijing in the future.

While refraining from any steps that could undermine our practical relations or hurt economic operators, we are gradually moving, together with China, towards reducing our dependence on Western tools and unreliable partners. Yuan and roubles account for almost one half of our trade. This share has been growing and will increase even more.

China understands all too well that the Western doctrine of starting with Russia and leaving China for later is no joke, and that the West will stick to delivering on this vision “as long as it can walk,” as the song goes. The West has already stated its position on Taiwan, which is totally unacceptable for China, as well as in terms of international law. They are looking for new opportunities to irritate China on Tibet, Xinjiang, and Hong Kong.

Beijing understands very well the danger or remaining in the Western system and fully dependent on the West. This carries serious risks in terms of China’s vital national development interests.

Question: In December last year, you said that an important foreign policy result of the year was that it finally became clear who can be negotiated with and who cannot be trusted. While it is clear what the “collective West” is all about, what can we expect from Asia as a whole?  What are the Foreign Ministry’s priorities on the Asian track?

Sergey Lavrov: I have addressed this topic. The West is attempting to impose a bloc approach on the rest of the world, and Asia is a priority. Its “Indo-Pacific strategies,” which are specially designed to drive as many wedges as possible in relations between India and China and involve India in the West’s schemes, are an obvious approach.

They have created AUKUS in a move that simultaneously humiliated France insofar as its planned supplies of submarines to Australia were concerned. It was announced that they would do that on their own. Their current policy is to expand this “bloc” format. A US-Japanese summit was held a few days ago. It has become clear that Japan will become more militarised and will boost its military spending. New Zealand and South Korea are America’s spare components in this process.

No one knows what this will come to. It is up to these countries’ governments to decide. The plan is to disrupt organisations that spent decades building a security architecture in Asia. This refers primarily to ASEAN, which was generally recognised as the nucleus of coordination in the economy, security, political dialogue, and humanitarian cooperation. It has created a number of ramified mechanisms: dialogue formats between ASEAN and some of its partners, the East Asia Summits (involving ten ASEAN member states, along with the nine dialogue partners – Russia, China, Australia, India, Canada, New Zealand, South Korea, the United States, and Japan), the ASEAN Regional Forum to discuss security (with ASEAN’s partners and many other invitees), the ASEAN defence ministers’ meetings, including the defence ministers of the dialogue partners, as well as a number of other mechanisms enabling the consideration of economic issues, disaster management, and humanitarian cooperation. Academics also held meetings. Formally, everything is still on paper. But a policy has been initiated to authorise a narrow bloc organisation like AUKUS, and not universal consensus-based formats, to determine the region’s main development directions. Later, this organisation will be beefed up in every way, including with new members.

The Americans are not ashamed of hinting that five of the ten ASEAN member countries are quite fit to follow in “their” wake, while the rest are not yet “mature” enough. This is nothing more than a direct effort to split ASEAN up. And this is what is happening with a measure of success. Internal friction and annoyances are growing within the association. Myanmar: for the first time in ASEAN’s history a member state has been suspended and banned from attending summits.

We are working with our friends. Indonesia is the current Chairman of ASEAN. I attended the East Asia Summit in Cambodia (November 13, 2022) and the G20 Summit in Bali (November 15-16, 2022). Our colleagues from the region are concerned about the current developments. Their relations with China were not without problems, but they have been long involved in a dialogue to find mutually acceptable solutions. What the West is doing now is aimed at subverting this dialogue, among other things. Once, the OSCE was also based on consensus, and it sought agreement and a balance of interests. Our Western colleagues have crushed this principle almost to the ground. The Polish Chairmanship was particularly proactive in this respect in 2022.

In the Asia Pacific Region, attempts are under way to undermine a fundamental architectural “ensemble” that is based on consensus, accord and a search for compromises, and push to the forefront organisations created on clearly bloc-based principles.

Question: A question about Central Asia. I went on a month-long business trip to Uzbekistan. I walked around Tashkent, and I saw that Russian businesses’ interest in Uzbekistan was growing. Many tourists travel there independently rather than on package tours. How are Russia’s relations with the former Soviet republics in Central Asia, from which European industry has fled, for better or for worse, developing in the context of sanctions? What is Europe’s attitude to Russia’s cooperation with the EAEU countries?

Sergey Lavrov: Our relations with Central Asian states are developing actively. There are several collective formats in addition to bilateral relations, which are based on a legal framework and many instruments, such as intergovernmental commissions on economic, military technology, humanitarian and other forms of cooperation. We use these formats to closely work with our Central Asian neighbours. The most important of them are the CIS, the SCO and, speaking about Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, the EAEU and the CSTO, where three Central Asian states – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan – are full members.

Over the past few years, we have been developing an additional 5 plus 1 cooperation format (the five Central Asian states plus Russia). Several meetings have been held between our foreign ministers over the past two years. All our friends have supported this format. In autumn 2022, the first Russia-Central Asia summit was held at the presidential level on the sidelines of the Astana events. They adopted a document to promote cooperation in that format in the main development areas of the region. We will continue to develop this cooperation.

As for other partners in Central Asia, their number is growing. Long before the current developments, interest in the region was displayed by all the main players, including the EU, the United States, Japan, India, China, Turkiye, Iran and the Republic of Korea. Central Asia maintains cooperation with nearly all of them in the 5 plus 1 format. According to available information, which we receive from media reports and contacts with our Central Asian partners, it can be said that not all of our colleagues’ work in Central Asia is free from discrimination. For example, we never say at the CIS, the EAEU, the CSTO or the SCO, or at meetings with our Central Asian colleagues, that they should not cooperate with certain countries because we “must act together against them.” We never do that, while the United States, the EU and Japan do. They openly say during meetings with their Central Asian partners that they should not rely on Russia, which will lose the war with the West (they make no secret of the fact that we are not fighting Ukraine but the West), and that they should put their stakes on the winning side. This is exactly how they put it. It is a fresh demonstration of the manners and mentality of our Western partners, in the broad sense of the word.

They not only use verbal arguments but apply serious pressure, threatening our partners with the loss of their markets and potential investments in their economies. They insist that they do not help Russia to evade the sanctions. Some of our Central Asian and other partners have to bear in mind that some companies with business projects around the world might refuse to fully comply with the sanctions. Some companies are ready for that.

We do not insist that all economic operators in every friendly country begin the morning by speaking out against anti-Russia sanctions. It is enough for us that none of them have joined the sanctions and that we are working closely with them, just as with our partners in other regions, and looking for new mechanisms and cooperation instruments, which will not depend on the whims and fancies of our Western colleagues.

Question: President Zelensky said that Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is going to visit Kiev soon and he appreciates Italy’s position, its support for Ukraine. At the same time, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said that Italy is strongly in favour of a diplomatic solution and the mediation of the UN and China. How do you evaluate Italy’s position in general and, of course, as a consequence, the relations between Russia and Italy?

Sergey Lavrov: To us, it is similar to the position of Greece and Cyprus, which I already talked about.

In the past years, these countries were among the friendliest countries to us. We held a huge number of joint cultural and educational events. The economy also served our common interests. We were somewhat surprised at the speed with which Italy became one of those who signed on to sanctions and even a leader of anti-Russian actions and rhetoric (at least, under the previous government).

I like Italian people a lot. Their traditions and outlook on life are very similar to that of many peoples in the Russian Federation, in the Caucasus, for instance. In Moscow and St Petersburg, you can find people who sincerely love the way Italians look at life.

I dare say that the way Italy is reacting to the current developments reflects the course of aggressive confrontation dictated to Europe rather than the interests of the Italian people. I do not see how the Italian people would be interested in creating new barriers, cutting off connections and transport links and in general fencing themselves off and building a new wall.

You have a coalition there. I heard that recently Silvio Berlusconi spoke several times and gave an assessment of his contribution to building Russia-NATO relations. It was he who initiated the 2002 summit in Pratica di Mare that convened on the basis on the Russia-NATO Founding Act of 1997. There were hopes related to Russia’s and NATO’s commitment (I want to emphasise again that the documents said so) not to strengthen their own security at the expense of others’ security and not to let any organisation dominate in the area of security in Europe. I do not think that I need to explain who violated this commitment.

As for calls to hold talks. Pretty much everyone is doing that these days. And then US National Security Advisor to the President, Jake Sullivan, would say at a news conference (as he does from time to time) that this is not the time for talks, they need to help Ukraine improve its position on the battlefield. The West and Europe do not have a common approach to finding a peace settlement. They say it all just for television and the newspapers, to show that they are for a peace settlement, while President Vladimir Putin allegedly does not want it. We understand why they are doing this.

Question: What’s your take on current relations between Russia and the Latin American countries?

Sergey Lavrov: As with almost all developing regions around the world, I believe our relations with Latin America are on the rise. We have created a ministerial mechanism to harmonise approaches between the Russian Federation and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). It was convened a couple of times in the format that included Russia and four CELAC countries. It had to be put on hold due to COVID-19-related restrictions, but we will resume cooperation soon.

Of course, there are countries, primarily, Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, with which we have longer-standing, deeper and more intensive cooperation than with other countries in the region. We appreciate the history of our relations and solidarity on most international political issues. We always support each other during voting at the UN General Assembly.

As you may be aware, Cuba has been under illegal and unilateral US sanctions since the Cuban Revolution. The United States is the only country that votes for keeping these sanctions in place. Sometimes, other island nations side with them. However, the overwhelming majority of all UN members vote for lifting this illegal blockade immediately.

As we move forward in our relations with our long-standing partners, whom I just mentioned, we want other Latin American countries to be part of our priorities as well. We are not pursuing any Monroe Doctrine. When we come to a region, we are not carrying along any risks or threats to subsume a particular country into our orbit or to advance certain political forces to the helm of power.

Over the past 20 years, we have had good relations with all countries of the region, regardless of whether the country has moved towards the left or swayed to the right following the most recent elections. We will continue to expand our relations.

The new President of Brazil, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, was sworn in just the other day. President Vladimir Putin had a telephone conversation with him and also spoke with former President Jair Bolsonaro and thanked him for his cooperation. I contacted my colleagues from Brazil. Yesterday, I went to the Embassy of Brazil in Moscow and made an entry in the Book of Condolences for the great football player and Brazilian citizen Pele. I spoke with the Brazilian Ambassador to Russia, Rodrigo Baena Soares, about current plans.

Argentina, Mexico, Bolivia. Peru. I want to make sure I don’t miss anyone. We are interested in mutually beneficial cooperation with all these countries. We also want Latin America to strengthen its Latin American-Caribbean unity.

As I understand, Brazil said that it is about to rejoin CELAC, which will allow this pan-regional association to resume its activities soon. We hope that CELAC will make its voice heard in the process of addressing key issues that are arising as this very multipolar world that we are all talking about is in the process of taking shape.

Brazil is a BRICS member. Argentina has also announced its interest in joining this association. As far as I understand, several other Latin American countries are also planning to join.

At this point, we are ready to cooperate through the BRICS+ format. The five association members see eye to eye with us on this score. We have teamed up with our Chinese friends to approve the criteria for other countries wanting to join BRICS. Probably, speaking about the Latin American region’s interests, it would make sense for CELAC to consider items on the BRICS agenda. Also, other CELAC countries would benefit from the Latin American countries that participate in the BRICS activities representing their interests in BRICS. Russia has observer status with the Central American Integration System (CAIS). We maintain contacts with the Central American Parliament as well. We enjoy observer status with the Association of Caribbean States. We maintain regular contacts with the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR), the Andean Community, and the ALBA Association, which, as I understand, is on its way to finding a second wind, which is a very welcome development.

We appreciate the fact that not a single Latin American or Caribbean country, with the exception of the Bahamas, joined the anti-Russian sanctions.

As a result, Russian exports to Latin America increased by almost 10 percent last year. Our cultural and humanitarian ties are getting stronger. Not long ago, Moscow, St Petersburg and several other Russian cities marked the 100th anniversary of the birth of outstanding scientist Yury Knorozov who is known to have deciphered the Mayan script, for which he is held in high esteem in Mexico and other countries of the region. Thousands of Latin American students (mostly Cubans) study at our universities. Tours to Cuba, Venezuela and other countries of the region with great resort destinations have become increasingly popular. We have visa-free travel arrangements with 27 out of 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries, which fact spurs people exchanges and contacts at various levels.

Question: You talked about respect for the UN Charter. What respect for international law where you showing when you sent troops into Ukraine on February 24?

Sergey Lavrov: The question of respecting the UN Charter is much broader than your simple question suggests. It may be an easy sell for an average person in the United States, but in front of a serious audience, the approach must be somewhat different.

At the beginning of this news conference, I referred to the sovereign equality of states as a key principle in the UN Charter. It lies at the core of the United Nations Organisation. If you take a closer look, you will not need much time to find proof, either in books or online, of how the United States tramples on the very principle of sovereign equality every day, every hour.

Russia explained the reasons behind its actions in Ukraine when this whole situation started. The United States and its allies condemned Russia. If you respect the sovereign equality of states, and respecting this equality is your obligation, you follow the principles of democracy by letting others determine on their own whether they understand Russia or not, whether they support Russia or the United States. But no one lets them proceed this way. The United States with its army of ambassadors and special envoys humiliate themselves every day around the world by running around and demanding that everyone condemn Russia. Is this the sovereign equality of states? They use blackmail. The Americans say that if these countries do not condemn Russia, they should keep in mind that they have money in their accounts with Chase Manhattan Bank, while their children are enrolled in Stanford. This is what they say. How unworthy and humiliating for a great power.

The UN Charter is not that big a document. You can read it, if you are interested. It sets forth sovereign equality of states and self-determination of nations, which comes first in the text, as the main principles, along with the territorial integrity of states. The Charter mentions these two principles – self-determination and the territorial integrity of states – as being at the same level. There have been questions as to which of the two comes first and has priority over the other ever since the early days of the United Nations, as soon as the Charter was approved, ratified and came into force. A special procedure was instituted, and all UN members spent several years discussing this issue, along with other matters related to interpreting the Charter.

Finally, this paved the way for the adoption, in 1970, of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, which remains in full force and effect to this day. In it, there is an entire section on self-determination saying that this is a universal principle, which means that respecting territorial integrity is a principle that everyone must respect when dealing with countries whose governments comply with the principle of self-determination and represent the interests of all peoples living on the territory in question. Under the Charter, we must respect the territorial integrity of states representing the entire population of their countries.

A coup against the government happened in Ukraine in 2014 after Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland handed out cookies to terrorists, and the Americans instantly recognised the coup organisers. But what about Europe? The US could not care less about it, ignoring that it was Europe which acted as a guarantor in the agreement with the Ukrainian president. Do you remember what Victoria Nuland suggested to US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt regarding the way he had to treat the EU? She used a four-letter word in English to describe what they think of the EU.

The putschists who came to power said they would expel Russians from Crimea. When Crimea and eastern Ukraine refused to obey the people who came to power illegally after staging a bloody coup, the coup organisers declared war on them. They went to war against their own people. They burned 48 people alive in Odessa’s Trade Union House. There is video evidence out there for everyone to see. You don’t even have to institute a tribunal. Just look at the footage and hand down a guilty verdict. There are the last names of people firing their guns at civilians trying to save themselves from the fire by jumping through windows. It is all there. Instead, the Ukrainian authorities opened criminal cases against those who perished in the fire. And all the progressives in the international community follow America’s rules by turning a blind eye to this entire situation. Many of the events there constitute war crimes.

How can those who came to power be considered a government representing the interests of the entire Ukrainian population within its borders? How can the Poroshenko administration be considered such a government if he became president thanks to his promise to make peace in Donbass within a week but soon started claiming that they would finish the Donbass people off, that their own children would go to schools and kindergartens while children in Donbass would shelter in basements. This was said by the president of the country Donbass belonged to. Did he represent the interests of the people he insulted?

Beberapa berharap dengan Vladimir Zelensky, semuanya akan berubah. Dia juga berkuasa sebagai “presiden perdamaian”, yang menyiratkan dengan segala cara yang dia bisa bahwa serial TV-nya, Hamba Rakyat, di mana dia menggulingkan oligarki untuk bertindak atas nama orang biasa, mencerminkan cita-citanya sendiri yang akan dia praktikkan ketika menyerahkan gada presiden. Namun dalam wawancara November 2021 (saya sudah mengutipnya), ketika ditanya tentang orang yang tinggal di Donbass, dia mengatakan bahwa ada manusia dan ada makhluk. Sebelumnya, pada Agustus 2021, dia menyarankan agar semua orang yang tinggal di Ukraina dan diidentifikasi sebagai orang Rusia harus keluar dan pergi ke Rusia demi anak dan cucu mereka.

Jika Anda memberi tahu saya sekarang bahwa, dengan pandangan ini dan dengan tindakannya secara umum, Vladimir Zelensky mewakili kepentingan seluruh penduduk Ukraina yang ingin dia lihat dalam batas yang ditetapkan pada tahun 1991, mungkin tidak ada gunanya melanjutkan percakapan ini. . Tapi itu adalah satu-satunya interpretasi yang diakui oleh pengadilan internasional untuk hubungan antara hak penentuan nasib sendiri dan penghormatan terhadap integritas teritorial.

Saya ingin mendengar pendapat jurnalis Amerika tentang agresi terhadap Yugoslavia. Saat itu, majalah Time keluar dengan sampul yang mengatakan, “Membawa Serbia ke tumit. Serangan bom besar-besaran membuka pintu menuju perdamaian.” Anda mungkin dapat menemukan arsip liputan media AS tentang perang melawan Irak, perang melawan Libya, invasi AS ke Suriah dan Afghanistan. Di sana, jika ada yang bergerak, mereka ditembaki dengan bom cluster. Berapa banyak pernikahan yang mereka hapus? Akan menarik untuk dibandingkan.

Saya memberi Anda pembenaran atas tindakan kami dari perspektif hukum internasional. Republik rakyat Donetsk dan Lugansk tidak dapat eksis di bawah pemerintahan yang secara terbuka menyatakan mereka teroris, biadab, submanusia dan membom taman kanak-kanak dan sekolah mereka setiap hari.

Ada insiden di Dnepropetrovsk baru-baru ini. Seorang “ahli” Ukraina menggambarkan bagaimana hal itu terjadi. Semua orang menyadari bahwa pertahanan anti-pesawat Ukraina, terlepas dari semua aturan perang dan hukum humaniter internasional, berbasis di lingkungan perumahan. Pengoperasian salah satu sistem tersebut mengakibatkan rudal jatuh di gedung tempat tinggal. Selama delapan tahun agresi Kiev terhadap rakyatnya sendiri di Donbass, terjadi banyak insiden serupa. Wartawan dan koresponden militer kami yang bekerja di sana secara real time melaporkan kebenaran, melakukan hal yang sama bahkan sebelum perjanjian Minsk. Dan terutama setelah perjanjian Minsk, mereka bekerja di jalur kontak setiap hari di sisi republik Donetsk dan Lugansk, menunjukkan bagaimana bom neo-Nazi Ukraina menghancurkan daerah pemukiman, membunuh orang, menghancurkan taman kanak-kanak, kafetaria, dan sekolah. Namun, tidak ada liputan reguler dari sisi lain. BBC kadang-kadang datang untuk memfilmkan laporan yang cukup jujur. Tetapi mereka segera menyadari apa yang dikonfirmasi oleh laporan mereka: kerusakan infrastruktur sipil di pihak Ukraina jauh lebih sedikit. DPR dan LPR hanya menanggapi penembakan. OSCE mencatat ini sebagai fakta – meski butuh waktu. Selama lebih dari satu tahun, kami meminta agar laporan OSCE tidak hanya menyebutkan jumlah fasilitas infrastruktur sipil yang hancur dan warga sipil yang terbunuh, tetapi juga menentukan sisi mana dari saluran kontak yang mencatat jumlah kerusakan dan jumlah korban yang mana. kerusakan infrastruktur sipil jauh lebih sedikit di pihak Ukraina. DPR dan LPR hanya menanggapi penembakan. OSCE mencatat ini sebagai fakta – meski butuh waktu. Selama lebih dari satu tahun, kami meminta agar laporan OSCE tidak hanya menyebutkan jumlah fasilitas infrastruktur sipil yang hancur dan warga sipil yang terbunuh, tetapi juga menentukan sisi mana dari saluran kontak yang mencatat jumlah kerusakan dan jumlah korban yang mana. kerusakan infrastruktur sipil jauh lebih sedikit di pihak Ukraina. DPR dan LPR hanya menanggapi penembakan. OSCE mencatat ini sebagai fakta – meski butuh waktu. Selama lebih dari satu tahun, kami meminta agar laporan OSCE tidak hanya menyebutkan jumlah fasilitas infrastruktur sipil yang hancur dan warga sipil yang terbunuh, tetapi juga menentukan sisi mana dari saluran kontak yang mencatat jumlah kerusakan dan jumlah korban yang mana.

Segera setelah kami berhasil merilis laporan, menjadi jelas bahwa kerusakan di sisi Donetsk dan Lugansk lima kali lebih besar daripada di pihak rezim Kiev yang hanya menerima tembakan sebagai tanggapan atas serangan.

Mereka menjadi marah melihat gambar kerusakan apa pun yang terjadi pada rezim Ukraina. Tetapi warga yang sama tetap diam tentang foto-foto memilukan tentang apa yang dilakukan neo-Nazi Ukraina terhadap warga sipil, anak-anak, manula, dan wanita.

Tentu saja, sejarah akan melihat bahwa keadilan ditegakkan, tetapi hukum internasional tidak boleh diabaikan.

Maria Zakharova: Adapun kata-kata besar, saya yakin jurnalis dari Krimea dan Donbass akan sama emosionalnya jika selama delapan tahun, mereka dapat mengajukan pertanyaan yang sama yang sekarang ditanyakan oleh media Anglo-Saxon. Tetapi mereka tidak diizinkan: visa dan akreditasi mereka ditolak untuk konferensi pers serupa di Barat. Ngomong-ngomong, jurnalis kami yang terakreditasi juga tidak diberi kesempatan tidak hanya untuk bertanya tetapi bahkan menghadiri acara semacam itu.

Pertanyaan: Sejauh yang kami tahu, Anda berencana mengunjungi Minsk besok. Apa yang Anda harapkan dari kunjungan ini? Bagaimana Anda mengevaluasi tingkat kerja sama Rusia-Belarus di platform internasional? Mengapa mitra CIS, EAEU, dan CSTO Anda jauh dari selalu mendukung Belarusia dan Rusia selama pemungutan suara di organisasi internasional?

Sergey Lavrov: Mengenai harapan saya, saya selalu menantikan untuk mengunjungi Minsk. Kunjungan seperti itu selalu bermanfaat secara profesional dan selalu menyenangkan. Saya suka Minsk dan keramahan tradisional yang Anda nikmati di mana-mana di sana.

Kami mengadakan dua pertemuan bersama kolegium kementerian luar negeri Rusia dan Belarusia setiap tahun, selain pertukaran kunjungan antar menteri.

Pertemuan kolegium berikutnya yang dijadwalkan pada Desember 2022 akan diadakan besok. Itu telah ditunda karena kematian Menteri Luar Negeri Belarusia Vladimir Makei sebelum waktunya.

Agendanya mencakup isu-isu yang sedang kita diskusikan saat ini: tatanan dunia baru dan hubungan dengan NATO, Uni Eropa, Dewan Eropa dan OSCE. Organisasi-organisasi ini dengan cepat bergabung menjadi satu badan yang bertindak atas perintah dari tuannya, Amerika Serikat. Kita juga bisa melihat tanda-tanda ini di OSCE.

Kami akan mengadakan diskusi berbasis kepercayaan tentang bidang-bidang tertentu dari upaya diplomatik kami, termasuk resolusi yang diajukan untuk pemungutan suara di berbagai badan PBB, dan koordinasi kebijakan luar negeri kami. Ada rencana untuk kegiatan kebijakan luar negeri bersama di CIS dan CSTO, seperti pernyataan bersama yang disusun di CSTO dan, pada tingkat yang lebih rendah, di CIS. Terkadang sulit untuk mencapai kesepakatan. Mitra CSTO kami memiliki masalah yang muncul dalam hubungannya dengan Barat atau karena tekanannya. Mereka juga memiliki masalah ekonomi. Kami bekerja sama dengan teman-teman Belarusia kami untuk mempromosikan lini yang sangat sederhana; kita semua menginginkan keragaman. Tidak ada yang ingin hubungannya dengan mitranya dibatasi secara artifisial. Mereka tidak ingin memiliki ikatan tuan-pelayan tetapi hubungan antara dua negara yang setara berdasarkan keseimbangan kepentingan mereka. Pembahasan proyek harus menghasilkan manfaat bagi kedua atau beberapa mitra, jika lebih dari dua pihak terlibat. Adapun volume perdagangan, investasi, dan ikatan budaya dan pendidikan di antara anggota CSTO, jauh lebih besar daripada yang dilakukan Barat di ruang pasca-Soviet.

Dalam beberapa kasus, Rusia, Belarusia, dan beberapa negara lain memberikan suara serempak, sementara negara bagian lain abstain. Tidak seperti di NATO, kami tidak menggunakan tongkat disiplin. Di NATO, setiap penyimpangan dari garis yang disetujui dianggap tabu. Beberapa negara telah menyatakan ketidaksetujuan dengan garis agresif NATO dalam krisis Ukraina, dengan betapa tidak fleksibel dan tidak kreatifnya hal itu. Tidak banyak kritik, tetapi itu ada. Namun, mereka memilih seperti yang diperintahkan. Saya percaya bahwa disiplin berat semacam ini berbahaya.

Kami ingin melihat solidaritas mutlak dalam kerangka struktur serikat kami. Kami sedang mengerjakannya. Ini membutuhkan penjelasan dan pendekatan khusus untuk setiap kasus tertentu.

Bukan rahasia lagi bahwa kami memiliki masalah yang terkait dengan situasi di Armenia. Teman-teman Armenia kami mempromosikan gagasan pengiriman misi CSTO untuk memastikan stabilitas di perbatasan dengan Azerbaijan. Kami telah mengoordinasikan dokumen tentang parameter misi semacam itu selama pertemuan puncak di Yerevan. Tapi kami gagal mengadopsinya, karena rekan-rekan Armenia kami bersikeras menambahkan klausul yang mengutuk Azerbaijan. Kami menjelaskan bahwa siapa pun dapat mengutuk, membuat pernyataan retoris, dan mengemukakan posisinya. Tetapi jika kami ingin mengirim misi CSTO, keputusan ini tidak akan didasarkan pada “indikator eksternal” atau pernyataan yang tajam.

Kami masih siap mengirimkan misi CSTO ke perbatasan Armenia-Azerbaijan. Namun, meskipun kami adalah sekutu dan misi telah dibuat, pihak Armenia memilih untuk bernegosiasi dengan UE tentang penempatan misi pengamat sipil di sana dalam jangka panjang.

Armenia memiliki hak untuk melakukan ini. Namun perlu diingat bahwa persoalannya menyangkut perbatasan dengan Azerbaijan. Jika sebuah misi dikerahkan di sana tanpa persetujuannya, itu akan menjadi kontraproduktif. Alih-alih memperkuat kepercayaan di perbatasan, hal itu mungkin menciptakan gangguan tambahan. Ini adalah situasi objektif.

Kita harus mengambil pendekatan kreatif ke setiap wilayah CSTO, yaitu Asia Tengah dan Kaukasus Selatan, dan kita harus memahami secara menyeluruh kompleksitas masalah yang muncul dalam kerangka pembangunan masing-masing negara anggota. Mereka sedang ditekan. Kami menunjukkan bahwa banyak mitra eksternal ingin mengembangkan hubungan khusus dengan Asia Tengah. Beberapa dari mereka tertarik untuk menambahkan masalah keamanan ke dalam rencana kerja sama mereka. Semua mitra kami tahu betul bahwa tidak boleh ada kontradiksi dengan kewajiban mereka di dalam CSTO. Teman-teman Armenia kami telah meyakinkan kami bahwa mereka mengetahui hal ini.

Kami membutuhkan percakapan yang terbuka dan jujur ​​\u200b\u200bdi antara para presiden, seperti di KTT CSTO di Yerevan. Itu didahului dengan percakapan antara menteri luar negeri kita dan para ahli mereka. Kita harus secara terbuka berbicara tentang keprihatinan dan masalah semua pihak. Ketika kita berbicara secara terbuka, kita selalu dapat menemukan solusi bersama.

Pertanyaan: Anda menyebut Jepang beberapa kali sehubungan dengan militerisasi yang sedang berlangsung. Bagaimana peningkatan kapasitas militer memengaruhi interaksi Rusia-Jepang? Masih bisakah kita berbicara tentang interaksi dan saluran kerja sama antara kedua negara?

Mikhail Galuzin mengundurkan diri sebagai duta besar Rusia untuk Jepang pada November 2022. Akankah ada penggantinya?

Sebagai orang Armenia, saya tidak bisa melewatkan masalah Koridor Lachin. Di mana kita berdiri di pemukiman?

Sergey Lavrov: Sehubungan dengan Jepang, pertanyaan ketiga paling penting.

Hubungan kami sedang berlangsung. Kami memiliki kedutaan di sana. Jepang juga memiliki kedutaan besar di Rusia. Pengganti Mikhail Galuzin akan segera berangkat ke Tokyo. Kami tidak akan menunda proses ini. Kami percaya penting untuk selalu memiliki kesempatan untuk mendengarkan apa yang dikatakan mitra kami dan untuk menyampaikan keprihatinan kami. Saya tidak dapat memikirkan kontak apa pun selain kontak antara kedutaan kami masing-masing di Tokyo dan Moskow. Sama seperti negara lain yang secara proaktif bergabung dengan sanksi, rekan Jepang kami membekukan semua kontak dan kembali ke retorika yang cukup arogan dan agresif. Kami mendengarkan apa yang mereka katakan kepada kami. Demikian pula dengan tanggapan kami terhadap penguatan NATO di Eropa utara, kami akan berusaha untuk memastikan kepentingan keamanan kami di dekat pulau-pulau Jepang.

Pertanyaan: Saya juga bertanya tentang pembangunan militer Jepang. Apa yang bisa Anda katakan tentang itu?

Sergey Lavrov: Saya katakan sebelumnya bahwa Jepang membangun kapasitas militernya hampir tidak dapat ditafsirkan sebagai perkembangan yang positif. Orang Jepang mengatakan mereka melakukannya karena Korea Utara. Namun, semua orang tahu bahwa mereka juga memikirkan Rusia dan Republik Rakyat Tiongkok. Amerika secara terbuka mendorong Jepang untuk membangun infrastruktur dan kapasitas militernya. Gagasan untuk merevisi konstitusi telah diletakkan di atas meja di mana angkatan bersenjata Jepang akan kehilangan apa yang tersisa dari lapisan pasifis mereka dan dapat terlibat dalam operasi militer di luar negeri.

Ini hampir tidak sejalan dengan minat Jepang untuk menormalisasi hubungan dengan Federasi Rusia.

Beberapa tahun yang lalu, ketika perjanjian perdamaian antara Rusia dan Jepang sedang berlangsung, Presiden kami dan Perdana Menteri Jepang meninjau bahasa dan draf dokumen selama pertemuan rutin mereka, sementara para menteri, wakil menteri, dan para ahli bekerja di sela-sela pertemuan ini. Pada titik tertentu, Jepang mengatakan mereka tidak membutuhkan perjanjian damai “besar” yang kami tawarkan kepada mereka. Posisi Rusia adalah menandatangani perjanjian damai seperti yang biasa dilakukan setelah perang. Mungkin, ini menyiratkan kapitulasi. Inilah perbatasannya. Kami akan hidup damai mulai sekarang. Namun, beberapa dekade telah berlalu sejak itu. Menandatangani selembar kertas seperti itu akan menunjukkan rasa tidak hormat terhadap tingkat hubungan Rusia-Jepang saat ini. Jadi, kami mengusulkan penandatanganan perjanjian damai yang diperluas yang akan menguraikan prinsip-prinsip kerja sama berdasarkan saling menghormati, kepentingan bersama, dan bertetangga. Perjanjian damai seharusnya menguraikan bidang ekonomi, investasi, dan kerja sama kemanusiaan juga. Dengan begitu, hal di atas seharusnya digunakan untuk menggambarkan perbatasan. Orang Jepang menolak proposal kami dengan mengatakan mereka membutuhkan dokumen konkret, bukan perjanjian yang disusun dengan bahasa muluk dan muluk-muluk.

Di dalam Jepang, diskusi sangat sederhana dan lugas. Pertama, mereka ingin mendapatkan dua pulau dan kemudian menandatangani perjanjian damai, meskipun Presiden kita dan Perdana Menteri Jepang telah setuju untuk melanjutkan dengan urutan terbalik dan menandatangani perjanjian damai terlebih dahulu sebagaimana diatur oleh Perjanjian Moskow 1956.

Namun, poin saya berbeda. Semua yang baru saja saya katakan adalah sejarah. Jepang dengan tegas bersikeras untuk pertama-tama memiliki kembali dua pulau dan mengambilnya dari sana. Untuk ngelantur, saya sudah cukup lama berurusan dengan Jepang sebagai menteri, tapi saya bukan ahli Jepang yang terlatih. Saya meminta seorang ahli berpengalaman di negara itu untuk membagikan pemikirannya tentang situasi yang dihadapi. Dia mengatakan kepada saya bahwa perdana menteri tertarik untuk mempromosikan hubungan dengan Rusia, ada kontak reguler, dan acara budaya sedang berlangsung, tetapi jika suatu hari Jepang tiba-tiba memutuskan bahwa mereka tidak akan mendapatkan kembali keempat pulau ini, mereka akan bergabung dengan barisan pencela paling fanatik dari Federasi Rusia. Saya hanya mengutip dia. Saya bahkan tidak akan mengomentari itu.

Pada tahun 2022, seperti biasa, Majelis Umum PBB memberikan suara pada resolusi Rusia “Memerangi pemuliaan Nazisme, neo-Nazisme, dan praktik lain yang berkontribusi untuk memicu bentuk rasisme kontemporer, diskriminasi rasial, xenofobia, dan intoleransi terkait.” Jepang, Jerman, dan Italia memberikan suara menentang untuk pertama kalinya. Sebelum itu, mereka abstain. Sekarang kita melihat Ukraina memuliakan Nazisme yang masuk ke semua bidang kehidupan bukan dalam teori, tetapi dalam kehidupan nyata, pemungutan suara oleh tiga mantan kekuatan Poros ini memiliki cincin simbolis.

Berbicara tentang Koridor Lachin, saya berbicara dengan Menteri Luar Negeri Azerbaijan kemarin. Berdasarkan kesepakatan yang dicapai oleh para pemimpin ketiga negara pada 9 November 2020, Koridor Lachin harus tersedia secara bebas untuk lalu lintas barang, warga negara, dan kendaraan di kedua arah. Tentu saja, disebutkan secara terpisah bahwa rute ini tidak boleh digunakan untuk mengangkut kargo militer. Orang Azerbaijan memberikan data (ahli militer kami sedang mempelajarinya) yang menunjukkan bahwa pihak Armenia mengirimkan ranjau melalui koridor ini yang digunakan untuk menambang daerah dekat posisi Azerbaijan, yang melanggar perjanjian tripartit. Tuduhan timbal balik berlimpah.

Kami telah datang dengan proposal langsung. Di bawah perjanjian tripartit, kontingen penjaga perdamaian Rusia diberi wewenang untuk mengontrol lalu lintas dan memeriksa kendaraan untuk kargo non-kemanusiaan dan non-sipil yang dilarang.

Pertemuan antara perwakilan Azerbaijan dan perwakilan Nagorno-Karabakh dengan partisipasi komandan kontingen Rusia diadakan tempo hari.

Saya pikir masalah ini akan segera diselesaikan.

Pertanyaan: Kami belum mengatakan sepatah kata pun tentang Afrika. Dalam sebuah wawancara dengan RIA Novosti hari ini, Menteri Luar Negeri Afrika Selatan meminta Kongres AS untuk membatalkan RUU anti-Rusia yang akan mereka pertimbangkan. RUU tersebut mengatur agar AS menghukum negara-negara Afrika yang terus bekerja sama dengan Rusia. Nyonya menteri berbicara panjang lebar tentang kebijakan kolonial Barat yang tidak dapat diterima dan ketidakmungkinan sanksi sepihak terhadap negara kita. Apa pandangan Moskow tentang RUU AS ini untuk menentang aktivitas Rusia di Afrika? Bagaimana pengaruhnya terhadap kerja sama Rusia dengan negara-negara di kawasan itu?

Sergey Lavrov: Perspektif saya tentang RUU ini sama dengan pandangan Menteri Luar Negeri Afrika Selatan Naledi Pandor. Mengenai bagaimana hal itu akan memengaruhi hubungan kita dengan Afrika, saya pikir komentarnya sudah memiliki jawabannya.

Tidak setiap negara Afrika dapat mengungkapkan posisinya melalui perwakilan resminya sejelas yang dilakukan Afrika Selatan. Dalam beberapa kasus, faktor subjektif yang bersifat pribadi akan berpengaruh. Beberapa rekan Afrika kami mungkin muncul dengan posisi yang kurang berprinsip.

Tapi saya tidak ragu sama sekali bahwa di dalam hati mereka bahkan mereka yang tidak mengomentari provokasi AS seperti ini percaya bahwa RUU ini berbahaya, terutama bagi orang Afrika.

Pertama, mereka tidak dianggap setara. Ini jelas mentalitas kolonial dalam dimensi baru. Kedua, ketika Mike Pompeo menjadi Menteri Luar Negeri dalam pemerintahan Trump, dia melakukan perjalanan ke Afrika, di mana dia berpidato di acara publik dan konferensi pers, mendesak semua orang untuk menghentikan perdagangan dengan Rusia dan China karena diduga Rusia dan China keluar untuk keuntungan yang merugikan. Kepentingan Afrika, sementara Amerika melakukan perdagangan dengan negara-negara Afrika semata-mata agar mereka dapat mengembangkan dan membangun demokrasi. Sesederhana itu! Klaim-klaim ini diterima di mana pun di dunia, termasuk di Afrika, apa adanya.

Rusia dan Afrika berencana mengadakan KTT Rusia-Afrika kedua pada 23-26 Juli 2023 di St Petersburg. Kami sedang mempersiapkan serangkaian acara untuk KTT, termasuk forum bisnis. Kami sedang menyusun dokumen untuk mengatur ulang mekanisme kerja sama di lingkungan sanksi dan ancaman yang Anda sebutkan dalam konteks RUU AS ini. Akan ada alat kerja sama perdagangan dan investasi baru, rantai logistik, dan pengaturan pembayaran. Perubahan transaksi dalam mata uang nasional sedang berlangsung. Proses ini tidak cepat, tetapi sedang berlangsung dan mendapatkan momentum.