Lavrov: limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster
Carlson interviewed Lavrov. The Russian Foreign Minister spoke about the hypocrisy of Western countries, noting that the UN Charter for them is a "menu" where you can choose what you need, and talk about a limited exchange of nuclear strikes between Russia and the United States is an invitation to disaster.
— Thank you for agreeing to the interview. Do you believe that the United States and Russia are currently at war?
— I wouldn't say that. Anyway, that's not what we want. Of course, we would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors. In general, with all countries, especially with such a great country as the United States.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, the history of the United States, and American achievements in the world. We see no reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe.
— But the United States is financing a conflict in which Russia is involved. Now they allow strikes on the territory of Russia. Isn't this a war?
— Officially, we are not at war. Some people call what is happening in Ukraine a hybrid war. That's what I'd call it too. Obviously, the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they are doing with modern long-range weapons without the direct participation of American military personnel. It's dangerous. There is no doubt about it.
We don't want to make the situation worse. But since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are used in Russia, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one (a couple of weeks ago) from the new "Hazel" system was taken seriously.
We also know that some officials at the Pentagon and in other organizations, including NATO, in recent days have begun to say that the bloc is a defensive alliance, but sometimes, they say, you can strike first, because the best defense is an attack. A representative of the Strategic Command of the US Department of Defense, Rear Admiral Buchanan, said that he admits the possibility of exchanging limited nuclear strikes.
Such threats are of concern. If they follow the logic that some Westerners have been voicing lately, that, they say, do not believe that Russia has "red lines", yes they announced them, but these "red lines" are shifting again, then this is a very serious mistake. That's what I would like to say in response to this question.
We didn't start the war. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that we have launched a special military operation to put an end to the war that the Kiev regime waged against its people in Donbas. In his latest statement, President Putin made it clear that we are ready for any development. We prefer a peaceful negotiated settlement based on respect for Russia's legitimate security interests, respect for the Russian people living in Ukraine, their basic rights, linguistic and religious rights, destroyed by a number of laws passed by the Ukrainian parliament. It started long before the special military operation.
Russian Russian-language education, the work of the Russian media in Ukraine, and then the Ukrainian media in Russian have been passed since 2017. Steps have also been taken to cancel any cultural events in Russian. Russian books are thrown out of libraries and destroyed. The last step was the adoption of a law banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
It is curious that in the West they say that they want this conflict to be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Russia, they say, should "leave." UN Secretary-General A.Guterres says similar things. Recently, his spokesman reiterated that the conflict should be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, while respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine. This is the wrong approach. If you want to respect the UN Charter, you must respect it in its entirety. Let me remind you that this document, among other things, states that all countries must respect the equality of States and the right of nations to self-determination. Westerners also mention UN General Assembly resolutions. Obviously, they are referring to the decisions they made after the start of a special military operation, which condemns Russia and calls for Russia to "withdraw" from the territory of Ukraine to the borders of 1991.
But there are other resolutions of the UN General Assembly that were not voted on – they were adopted by consensus. Among them is the Declaration on the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It clearly states by consensus that everyone should respect the territorial integrity of States whose Governments respect the right of nations to self-determination and therefore represent the entire population living in a given territory.
It is absolutely useless to claim that the people who came to power as a result of the military coup in February 2014 represented Crimeans or residents of eastern and southern Ukraine. Crimeans rejected the coup d'etat. They demanded to be left alone. They said they didn't want to have anything to do with these people. Donbass did the same. Crimeans held a referendum and joined Russia. Donbass was declared terrorists by the putschists who came to power. They were shelled and attacked with artillery. The war began, which was stopped in February 2015.
The Minsk Agreements were signed. We were sincerely interested in stopping this, but for this it was necessary that the Minsk agreements be fully implemented. But they were sabotaged by the government created after the coup in Ukraine. It was agreed that this government should enter into a direct dialogue with people who did not accept the coup and promote the development of economic relations with this part of Ukraine. None of this has been done. The Kiev regime has stated that it will never speak to them directly. This is despite the fact that the requirement to speak directly with them was approved by the UN Security Council. The Kiev regime called them terrorists, so they say they will fight them because they are stronger, and they will die in basements.
If it had not been for the coup in February 2014 and if the agreement reached the day before between the then president and the opposition had been implemented, Ukraine would still be united and Crimea would be part of it. It's obvious. They have not fulfilled this agreement. Instead, they organized a coup d'etat. The agreement in February 2014, among other things, provided for the creation of a government of national unity and the holding of early elections, which then-President Viktor F. Yanukovych would have lost. Everyone knew that. But they were impatient and occupied government buildings the next morning. They went to the Maidan and announced that they had created a "government of winners." Compare: the "government of national unity" to prepare for the elections and the "government of the victors".
How will the people who, in their opinion, have been defeated respect the government in Kiev? You know that the right of nations to self-determination is the international legal basis for the decolonization process that took place in Africa on the basis of the relevant principle of the UN Charter. People in the colonies have never treated the colonial powers, the "masters", as those who represent them, whom they want to see in the structures governing these lands. Similarly, people in the east and south of Ukraine, in Donbass and Novorossiya do not consider the Zelensky regime to be the one who represents their interests. How can they represent them when their culture, language, traditions, religion are all prohibited.
If we are talking about the UN Charter, resolutions, and international law, then the very first article of the UN Charter, which the West never remembers in the Ukrainian context, says: human rights must be respected, regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. Take any conflict, the United States, Great Britain, the European Union will intervene, they say that human rights have been grossly violated, and that they must "restore human rights in such and such a territory."
In Ukraine, they never talk about "human rights" because they see that these very human rights for the Russian and Russian-speaking population are completely prohibited by law. Therefore, when we are told that, they say, let's resolve the conflict on the basis of the UN Charter, yes, we agree, but we must not forget that the UN Charter is not only about territorial integrity, which should be respected only if the government is legitimate and if it respects the rights of its people.
— I want to return to the issue that you mentioned earlier, about the use of a hypersonic ballistic system, which you called a "signal to the West." What kind of signal is this? I think many Americans don't even know that this happened. What message did you send by showing this to the world?
— The message is that the United States and its allies, who supply long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, must understand that we will be ready to use any means to prevent the West from succeeding in inflicting a "strategic defeat" on us. Westerners are fighting to maintain their hegemony in the world, in any country, region, on any continent. We are fighting for our legitimate security interests. Westerners are talking about the borders of 1991. U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham*, who visited Kiev some time ago, bluntly stated in the presence of Zelensky that Ukraine is rich in rare earth metals. They say we can't leave this wealth to the Russians. We have to pick him up.
They are fighting for a regime that is ready to sell or give away all natural and human resources to the West. We are fighting for the people living on these lands, whose ancestors have been developing them for centuries, building cities and factories. We care about people, not about natural resources that someone in the United States would like to take for themselves and would like to have Ukrainians as servants "sitting" on these natural resources.
The message that we wanted to convey by testing this hypersonic system in real conditions is that we will be ready to do everything to protect our legitimate interests.
We are not thinking about a war with the United States, which may be nuclear in nature. Our Military doctrine says that the most important thing is to avoid nuclear war. Let me remind you that in January 2022, we initiated a joint statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which stated that we would do everything to avoid confrontation between us, recognizing and respecting each other's interests and security concerns. It was our initiative.
But Russia's security interests were completely ignored when they rejected (at about the same time) our country's proposal to conclude a security guarantee agreement.
They rejected our proposal to conclude an agreement on security guarantees for both Russia and Ukraine, for their coexistence, that Ukraine will never be a member of NATO or any other military bloc. The drafts of these documents were presented to the West -NATO and the United States in December 2021. We have discussed them several times. There was even a meeting with US Secretary of State E. Blinken in January 2022. These proposals were rejected.
Of course, we would like to avoid misunderstandings. But since some people in London, in Brussels, do not seem to assess the situation quite correctly, we are ready to send additional "messages" if they do not draw the necessary conclusions.
— The fact that we are even talking about a possible exchange of nuclear strikes is amazing. I never thought it would come to this. In this regard, the question arises, how intensively is the dialogue between Russia and the United States conducted through "closed channels"? Has anything been discussed in the last two and a half years? Are there any negotiations on this?
— There are several "channels", but they are mainly involved in the exchange of people serving sentences in Russia and the United States. There have been several such exchanges. There are also "channels" that are not made public, but mostly the Americans transmit through them the same channels that they say publicly: "we must stop," "we must accept the needs of Ukraine and its positions." They support this absolutely meaningless "formula of peace by V.A. Zelensky", which was recently supplemented by the "victory plan".
The Westerners held several series of meetings, a conference in Copenhagen, and a summit in Burgenstock. They boast that in the first half of next year they will convene another conference and this time Russia will be "kindly invited" to it. And, they say, then Russia will be presented with an ultimatum. All this is being seriously repeated through various confidential channels.
Now we hear something else, including in statements by V.A. Zelensky himself that, they say, we can stop at the line of contact; they say Ukraine will be accepted into NATO, but at this stage the alliance's guarantees will apply only to the territory controlled by the government, and the rest will be subject to negotiations. Russian Russians should be completely "withdrawn" from Russian territory, as a result of which the Russians will be left to the mercy of the Nazi regime, which destroyed all the rights of Russians and Russian-speaking citizens.
— I would like to return to the issue of the exchange of nuclear strikes. As I understand it, there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States could talk to each other to avoid misunderstandings that could lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people?
— We have a "channel" that automatically turns on when a ballistic missile is launched. As for the Oreshnik medium-range hypersonic ballistic missile, the system sent a message to the United States 30 minutes before launch. They knew this was going to happen and didn't take it for something bigger and really dangerous.
— I think this system is very dangerous.
— It was a test run.
— Yes, I understand that you are talking about a test launch. But how worried are you that (given that there don't seem to be many negotiations between the two countries), amid talk of mutual extermination of the population, things could get out of control in a short period of time? And no one can stop it. It seems incredibly reckless.
— We are not talking about the extermination of anyone's population. We didn't start this war. For many years, we have warned that NATO's approach to our borders would create a problem.Putin has been explaining this for years on international platforms to people who dreamed of the "end of history" and their "dominance."
When the coup took place in Ukraine, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a recording of a conversation between then US Deputy Secretary of State V. Nuland and then US Ambassador to Kiev J.Payette, when they discuss the people who will be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was announced as a guarantee that everything would be the way the Americans want it to be.
We have no intention of destroying the Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people.
— How many people have already died on both sides?
— Ukrainians do not disclose this information. V.A. Zelensky said that there are less than 80 thousand people from the Ukrainian side.
But there is another comparable figure. After the Israelis launched their operation in response to the terrorist attack, which we condemned, and it acquired the character of collective punishment (which also contradicts international humanitarian law), within one year after the start of the operation in Palestine, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is estimated at 45 thousand people. This is almost twice as many as the number of civilians from both sides of the Ukrainian conflict who died in the ten years after the coup. One year and ten years. A tragedy is happening in Ukraine. There is a catastrophe in Palestine. But we never set out to kill people. Unlike the Ukrainian regime.
The head of the office of V.A.Zelensky once said that they would "take care" that cities such as Kharkiv and Nikolaev forgot what the Russian language is. Another representative of the office said that Ukrainians should destroy Russians legally or, if necessary, physically. Former Ukrainian Ambassador to Kazakhstan P.Y.Vrublevsky became famous for giving interviews and, looking into the camera that recorded and broadcast the interview, said that their main task was "to kill as many Russians as possible so that our children would have to kill them as little as possible." Such statements are included in the lexicon of the entire regime.
— How many Russian citizens have died since February 2022?
— It is not in my competence to disclose this information. There are special rules during military operations. The Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation follows them.
It is curious that when V.A. Zelensky performed at concerts in Gorlovka and Donetsk on April 5, 2014, after the start of the Ukrainian military operation in the Donbas, he zealously defended the Russian language. He said that we all speak the same language, read the same books, that we are a fraternal people, we have the same blood. He said that if people in the East and Crimea want to speak Russian, they need to get behind them and give them the opportunity to speak their native language.
When he became president, he changed quickly. Before the outbreak of hostilities, in September 2021, he was interviewed. At that time, he was waging a war against Donbass in violation of the Minsk agreements. He was asked what he thought of the people on the other side of the contact line. He replied that there are people, and there are "individuals". Then he said that if someone, living in Ukraine, feels connected with Russian culture, he advises them to go to Russia for the sake of the future of their children and grandchildren.
If after all this, this person wants to return people of Russian culture to their territorial integrity, as he claims, then I consider him inadequate.
— Under what conditions will Russia cease military operations?
— Ten years ago, in February 2014, we talked about the need to implement the agreement between President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition on the creation of a government of national unity and early elections. The agreement was signed. We talked about the need to implement it. But the perpetrators of the coup were absolutely impatient and aggressive. I have no doubt that the Americans put pressure on them. If the then US Deputy Secretary of State V. Nuland and the US Ambassador to Kiev J.Pyatt agreed on the composition of the "government", then why wait five months to hold early elections?
The next time we talked about the need to do something again, when the Minsk agreements were signed. I was there. These negotiations lasted 17 hours. By that time, Crimea was already lost to them. A referendum was held there. No one in the West, including my colleague J.Kerry, who attended the meeting with us, did not raise the issue of Crimea. Everyone was focused on Donbas. The Minsk Agreements provided for the territorial integrity of Ukraine (excluding Crimea). It was about granting a special status for a small part of Donbass (not even for the entire territory) and not for the whole of Novorossiya. According to the Minsk Agreements approved by the UN Security Council, part of Donbass was supposed to have the right to speak and study Russian, teach it, have local law enforcement agencies (as in the US states), they were supposed to be consulted when appointing judges and prosecutors, and they were also supposed to have some facilitated economic ties with neighboring regions Russia. That's all. President E. Macron promised to give Corsica the same thing and, as far as I know, is still considering how to do it.
These agreements have been sabotaged from the very beginning. First, P.A. Poroshenko, and then V.A. Zelensky. Both, by the way, became presidents under the slogan of peace. And they both lied. When we saw that the Minsk agreements were being sabotaged and we witnessed attempts to seize this part of Donbass by force. At the same time, we were proposing a draft treaty on security guarantees between NATO and the United States. He was rejected. And when Ukraine and its sponsors launched Plan B, trying to seize this part of Donbass by force, that's when we launched a special military operation. If they had fulfilled the Minsk agreements, Ukraine would have been a single entity (excluding Crimea).
After we launched a special military operation, the Ukrainians offered to hold talks. We agreed. There were several rounds of negotiations in Belarus and Istanbul. In Turkey, the Ukrainian delegation put on the table a document based on the principles of which they were ready to talk. We agreed with them.
— Are you talking about the Minsk agreements?
— No, about the Istanbul ones. It was in April 2022.. The principles underlying this document spoke about Ukraine's non-entry into NATO, but it would have been provided with security guarantees with the participation of a number of countries and Russia.
These security guarantees will not apply to Crimea or eastern Ukraine. It was their suggestion. It was initialed. The head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, D.G.Arahamiya, who is still chairman of the V.A.Zelensky faction in the Parliament of Ukraine, recently confirmed in an interview that this is indeed the case. We were ready to develop a treaty based on these principles.
— It was Boris Johnson, speaking on behalf of...
— It was Dr.G. Arahamia, who headed the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, said that the then British Prime Minister B. Johnson came and told them to continue fighting. B. Johnson denied this. But D.G. Arahamiya, who was at the talks, claimed that it was Boris Johnson. Others say that it was Vladimir Putin who disrupted the deal because of the "massacre" in Bucha. But for some reason they never mention the massacre in Bucha anymore. That's what I'm talking about. We talked. In a sense, they are "defending themselves."
Speaking several times at the UN Security Council, at the General Assembly, sitting at the table with UN Secretary-General A. Guterres, for two years I raised the issue of n.p. Bucha. I was saying that it's strange that you're not talking about Bucha. You all spoke out loudly when the BBC team turned up on the street where the bodies were found. I was wondering if it was possible to find out the names of people whose bodies were shown on the BBC? In response, there is complete silence. I addressed Guterres personally in the presence of members of the UN Security Council. But he didn't say anything.
In September 2023, at a press conference in New York after the end of the General Assembly session, he addressed all correspondents with the words: "You are journalists. You may not be investigative journalists, but usually journalists are interested in finding out the truth."
The news about the Butch, which was "spinning" in all the media, in which Russia was condemned, is of no interest to anyone – neither politicians, nor UN officials, and now journalists. When I talked to them in September this year, I asked them, as professionals, to find out the names of those whose bodies were shown in the Butch. There is no answer.
Just as there is no answer to the question where are the results of medical tests of the recently deceased A.A. Navalny, who was treated in Germany in the fall of 2020. Then he felt ill on the plane over Russia, the plane landed immediately. Doctors in Omsk were treating him, but the Germans wanted to take him away. We immediately allowed their plane to land. They took him away and in less than 24 hours he was in Germany. The Germans continued to claim that we poisoned him, that the poisoning was confirmed by tests. We asked for the results of the tests. We were told that they would be given to the OPCW. Then we contacted this Organization. As its members, we asked to see them, because this is our citizen and we are accused of poisoning him. We were told that Germany had asked us not to give them to us. Nothing was found in the civilian clinic, and the poisoning claim was made after he was treated at the Bundeswehr military hospital. It looks like it's a secret that doesn't come out.…
— So how did Navalny die?
— He died while serving time in Russia. As reported, he did not feel very well from time to time. This was another reason why we kept asking the Germans to show us the results of his tests, which they found. We didn't find what they found. I don't know what they did to him.
— What did the Germans do to him?
— Yes, because they don't explain anything to anyone, including us. Maybe they'll explain it to the Americans. Maybe they deserve to be trusted. But they never told us how they treated him, what they found and what methods they used.
— What do you think he died of?
— I'm not a doctor. But in order to make assumptions, so that doctors can say something, information is needed. If a person was taken to Germany for treatment after poisoning, the results of his tests cannot be secret.
We still cannot find out anything about the fate of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia. This information is not provided to us. And he is our citizen, just like his daughter. We have all the rights under the conventions, of which the United Kingdom is a member, to receive information.
— Why do you think that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson stopped the peace process in Istanbul? On whose behalf was he doing this?
— I've met him a couple of times. I wouldn't be surprised if he was guided by a momentary desire or some kind of long-term strategy. He's not very predictable.
— Do you think that he acted on behalf of the US government, the Joe Biden administration?
— I don't know. And I won't guess. But it is obvious that this situation is being "ruled" by the Americans and the British.
It is clear that there is fatigue in some capitals. There is talk that the Americans would like to leave this "business" to the Europeans and focus on more important things. I won't guess.
We will judge by the specific steps. Obviously, the Biden administration would like to leave such a "legacy" to the Trump administration. This is similar to what President Obama did to Trump. (This happened during Trump's first rise to power at the end of December 2016). Obama expelled Russian diplomats, just at the very end of December. 120 people together with family members. He did this intentionally and demanded that they leave on a day when there was no direct flight to Moscow from Washington. They would have to travel to New York on buses with all their luggage and children.
At the same time, Obama announced the arrest of Russian diplomatic property. We are still unable to verify the condition of the Russian property.
— What kind of property is this?
— These were diplomatic buildings.
They never let us come and see our property, despite all the Conventions. The Americans say that diplomatic immunity no longer applies to these buildings. This is their unilateral decision, which is not supported by any international law.
— Do you think that the Biden administration will do this again with the incoming Trump administration?
— This episode with the expulsion and confiscation of property did not create a promising "ground" for the beginning of relations with the Administration of D. Trump. I suppose they're doing the same thing.
— This time, Resident Trump was elected thanks to an unequivocal promise to end the conflict in Ukraine. He repeated this in all his speeches. If that's the case, then there seems to be hope for his solution. What conditions would you agree to?
— Russian President Putin spoke about these conditions, speaking at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14 this year. He confirmed that we are ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles that were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by former British Prime Minister Johnson at the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation Arahamiya.
The key principle is the non–block status of Ukraine. We were ready to join the group of countries that would provide guarantees for Ukraine's collective security.
— No NATO?
— No NATO. No military bases, no military exercises on Ukrainian soil with the participation of foreign troops. That's what he repeated.
Putin said that it was as of April 2022, time has passed since then. We will have to take into account the realities "on earth". And they are not only the line of contact, but also changes in the Constitution of the Russian Federation after the referendum in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions. Now they are already part of Russia according to our Constitution. This is reality.
Russian Russians cannot put up with a situation where Ukrainian legislation remains in place, prohibiting the Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is a violation of Ukraine's obligations under the UN Charter. Something needs to be done about it.
Since this Russophobic "legislative offensive" began in 2017, the West has been silent and continues to do so. We had to draw attention to this in a "special way".
— Can the lifting of sanctions against Russia be a condition of the agreement?
— Many in Russia would like to make this a condition. But I believe that the more we live under these sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on ourselves and develop mechanisms and platforms for cooperation with "normal" countries that are friendly to us and that do not mix economic interests and relations. Especially politics.
We have learned a lot since the sanctions were imposed on us. They began under Obama and continued in large volume during Trump's first term. And under the Biden administration, they have become absolutely unprecedented. But you know, "everything that doesn't kill us makes us stronger." They will never kill us. And it makes us stronger.
— Let's talk about Russia's "turn" to the East. Sensible politicians in Washington had the same idea 20 years ago. They thought why not "bring" the Western bloc to Russia. It was like a balance against the rising East. But apparently it didn't work out. Do you think it was possible?
— I don't think so. Recently, President Putin spoke at a meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club and said that we will never return to the situation of the beginning of 2022. It was then that he realized for himself (the President publicly said this) that all attempts to be on an equal footing with the West had failed.
It started after the collapse of the USSR. At first there was euphoria. We are part of a liberal, democratic world. "The end of the story." But it soon became clear to most Russians that in the 1990s we were treated at best as a junior partner (not even a "partner"), but as a place where the West could arrange everything as it wanted. Transactions with oligarchs, purchase of resources and assets.
Then, perhaps, the Americans decided that Russia was "in their pocket." Yeltsin and Clinton laughed and joked. But at the end of his presidential term, Yeltsin began to think that this was not what he wanted for Russia. I think Putin's appointment as prime minister was obvious. Yeltsin then resigned and "blessed" Putin as his successor in the upcoming presidential elections, which he won. But when Putin became president of Russia, he was open to cooperation with the West. He regularly mentions this when giving interviews or speaking at various international events. I attended his meetings with Bush Jr., Obama.
At the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 (followed by a meeting of the NATO-Russia Council), it was announced that Georgia and Ukraine would join the alliance. Westerners tried to "sell" it to us. We asked why. During the lunch, Russian President Putin asked what was the reason for this decision. We were told that these statements are not binding and to begin the process of joining NATO, we need, they say, an official invitation. It was the slogan: "Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO." But he became an obsession for some people in Georgia when M. Saakashvili lost his mind and started a war against his own people with Russian peacekeepers on the ground under the protection of the OSCE mission. The fact that he started it first was confirmed by an investigation by the European Union, which concluded that he gave the order to launch the attack.
It took longer for Ukrainians. They "cultivated" these pro-Western sentiments in themselves. "Pro–Western", as well as "provost", is in principle not bad. It's bad when you tell people: either you're with me or you're my enemy.
Do you know what happened before the coup in Ukraine? In 2013 President of Ukraine Viktor F. Yanukovych negotiated with the European Union on an association agreement that would eliminate duties on most Ukrainian goods for the European Union and vice versa. Then, when he met with his Russian colleagues, we told him that Ukraine is part of the CIS free trade zone, and there are no duties there.
Russia has been negotiating an agreement with the WTO for 17 years. Mostly because we discussed the terms. We have achieved some protection for many of our sectors, including agriculture. We explained to Ukrainians that if they want to trade duty-free with the European Union, then Russia will have to put customs on the border with Ukraine. Otherwise, duty-free European goods will flood into our markets and damage the sectors of our economy that we have tried to protect. We have made an offer to the European Union. Ukraine is our common neighbor.
We have made an offer to the European Union. Ukraine is our common neighbor. You want to trade more effectively with Ukraine. We want the same thing. Ukraine wants to have markets in both Europe and Russia. Let's sit down and discuss this like adults. The head of the European Commission J.Barroso said it's none of our business what the EU does with Ukraine. They say that the European Union does not ask us to discuss Russian trade with Canada. It was an absolutely arrogant response.
Then President of Ukraine Viktor F. Yanukovych called his experts, who said that it would not be very good if they opened the border with the EU, but the customs border with Russia was closed, and the Russian side would check all goods so that the Russian market would not suffer.
In November 2013, V.F.Yanukovych announced that he could not immediately sign the agreement and asked the European Union to postpone it until next year. This was the trigger for the "Maidan", which was immediately organized and ended with a coup d'etat. They had it either-or.
The first coup d'etat took place in Ukraine in 2004, when V.F. Yanukovych won after the second round of the presidential elections. The West made a scandal and put pressure on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to rule that there should be a third round. The Constitution of Ukraine says that only two rounds are possible. And the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, under pressure from the West, violated the country's Constitution for the first time. A pro-Western candidate was chosen. When all this was still happening and "bubbling", European leaders publicly said that the people of Ukraine should decide with whom they are with the EU or with Russia?
— Yes, that's how big countries behave. There are certain "orbits". For example, now BRICS is against NATO, the United States is against China. It sounds like you're saying that the Russian-Chinese alliance is permanent.
— We are neighbors. Geography is very important.
— But Russia is also a neighbor of Western Europe. You are, in fact, a part of it.
— Western Europe wants to approach our borders through Ukraine. They had plans (they were discussed almost openly) to place British naval bases on the Sea of Azov, "looked closely" in Crimea and dreamed of creating a NATO base there.
We had friendly relations with Finland. And overnight, the Finns returned to the early years of preparation for World War II, when they were Hitler's best allies. All the friendship, going to the sauna together, playing hockey – everything instantly disappeared. Maybe it "sat" deep in their hearts, and neutrality and friendliness weighed on them. I don't know.
— Maybe they're going crazy because of the Winter War.
Can you negotiate with V.A. Zelensky? You said that he has exceeded his term of office and is no longer the democratically elected president of Ukraine. Do you consider him a suitable negotiating partner?
— Russian President Putin has repeatedly spoken on this topic. In September 2022 (in the first year of the special military operation), V.A. Zelensky, convinced that he would dictate terms to the West, signed a decree banning any negotiations with the government of V.V. Putin. When Russian President Vladimir Putin was asked at public events after this episode why Russia was not ready for negotiations, he replied that there was no need to turn everything upside down. He said that Russia is ready for negotiations, provided that the balance of interests is taken into account, but V.A. Zelensky signed a decree banning negotiations, and first he should have suggested that he publicly cancel it. This would be a signal that V.A. Zelensky wants negotiations. Instead, he came up with his own "formula for peace." Then the "victory plan" was added to it.
We know what they say when they meet with EU ambassadors and in other formats. They keep saying, "No deal if the deal is not on our terms." Now they are planning a second summit based on this "formula of peace". And they are not shy about saying that they will invite Russia to put it in front of the fact that they have already agreed with the West.
The statement of our Western "colleagues" "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine", in fact, implies "everything about Russia without Russia." They are discussing what conditions we should accept. They have recently violated this concept. Such information is being received. They know our position. We are not playing a double game.
The purpose of the special military operation is what Russian President Putin said. This is fair and fully consistent with the UN Charter. First of all, linguistic and religious rights, the rights of national minorities. This is fully consistent with the principles of the OSCE. This organization is still alive. Following the results of its several summits, it was clearly stated that security should be indivisible, no one should strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other states, and most importantly, no organization in the Euro–Atlantic space will claim dominance. The last time this was confirmed by the OSCE in 2010, NATO did exactly the opposite.
Our position is legitimate – there is no NATO on our "doorstep". The OSCE agreed that this should not happen if it harms us. And don't forget about restoring the rights of Russians.
— Who makes foreign policy decisions in the United States?
— This is a question for the USA. I don't want to guess. I haven't seen U.S. Secretary of State Blinken for a long time. The last time it happened, it seems, was on the "sidelines" of the G20 summit in Rome in 2021. I represented Russian President Vladimir Putin at the event. Blinken's assistant came up to me during the meeting and said he wanted to talk for ten minutes. I left the room. We shook hands. He said something about the need for de-escalation. I hope he won't get mad at me for revealing this information. There were a lot of people in the hall. I said that we do not want escalation, and the United States wants to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia. He replied that this was not a "strategic defeat" on a global scale, but only in Ukraine…
— Have you talked to him since then?
- no.
— Have you talked to any of the officials of the US President Biden's administration since then?
— I don't want to ruin their career.
— But did you have meaningful conversations?
- no. When I meet an American I know at international events, some people say hello and exchange a few words. But I never impose my society.
— But there's nothing significant behind it?
— It becomes toxic when someone sees that an American or a European is talking to me. Europeans generally run away when they see me. This was the case during the last summit of the Group of Twenty. They were adults, but they behaved like children. Unbelievable.
— You said that in December 2016, in the last days of the Biden administration, he further complicated relations between the United States and Russia.
— Barack Obama was the president of the United States, and Joe Biden was the vice president.
- yes. I apologize. The Obama administration has left many problems for the new Trump Administration. Various political events have taken place in the region over the past month since the elections. There are riots in Georgia, Belarus, Romania, and then, most notably, in Syria. Don't you think this is part of the U.S. effort to make the situation more difficult?
— To be honest, this is nothing new. Historically, the United States has sought to create some problems in foreign policy, and then see if they can "catch a fish in muddy waters": Iraqi aggression, Libyan "adventure" or, in fact, the destruction of the state, flight from Afghanistan. Now they are trying to return through the "back door", using the UN to organize any events that they can "attend", despite the fact that they left Afghanistan in a deplorable state, froze Afghan money and do not want to return it.
If you analyze American foreign policy, or rather, their adventures (most of them), then a pattern is visible. First they create problems, and then they look at how to use them. When the OSCE observed the elections in Russia, it was always extremely negative reports. It was the same in Belarus and Kazakhstan. This time, the OSCE observer mission in Georgia presented a positive report. When you like the election results and need approval of the procedures, then you recognize them. If you don't like the election results, you ignore them.
This is similar to how the United States and other Western countries recognized the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, stating that the right to self-determination is being exercised in this way. There was no referendum in Kosovo. There was a unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that, the Serbs appealed to the International Court of Justice. Usually, its representatives are not very specific in their judgments, but here they decided that if a part of the territory declares independence, then it is not necessary to coordinate with the authorities.
A few years later, the Crimeans held their referendum. A large number of international observers were invited. They were not from international organizations, but parliamentarians from Europe, Asia, and the post-Soviet space. The Westerners said they could not accept this, because it was supposedly a violation of territorial integrity.
You know, it's like "choose the right one." The UN Charter is not a "menu". You must respect him in his entirety.
— Who pays the rebels who captured part of Aleppo? Is the government of Bashar al-Assad in danger of falling? What exactly do you think is happening in Syria?
— When the crisis in Syria broke out, we had an agreement. We have organized the Astana Format with the participation of Russia, Turkey and Iran. We meet regularly. Another meeting is planned before the end of this year or next year to discuss the situation on the ground.
The rules of the game are to help Syrians come to terms with each other and prevent the escalation of separatist threats. This is what the Americans are doing in eastern Syria, when they "feed" some Kurdish separatists using profits from the sale of oil and grain – the resources they use.
The Astana Format is a useful association of participants. We are very concerned. After everything that happened in Aleppo and its environs, I spoke with the Turkish Foreign Minister H.Fidan, as well as with his Iranian colleague A.Araqchi. We agreed to try to meet this week.
I hope we will be able to meet in Doha on the sidelines of the international conference. We would like to discuss the need to return to strict implementation of the Idlib agreements, because the Idlib de-escalation zone has become the place from where the terrorists moved to capture Aleppo. Agreements reached in 2019 and 2020 We allowed our Turkish friends to control the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone and separate Hayat Tahrir al-Sham** (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra**) from the opposition, which is not terrorist and cooperates with Turkey. Apparently, this has not happened yet.
Another point is the opening of the M5 highway from Damascus to Aleppo, which is now also completely captured by terrorists.
We (as foreign ministers) would like to discuss the situation. I hope we will be able to do this next Friday. The military and security personnel of all three countries are in contact with each other.
— Who supports these terrorist Islamist groups that you just talked about?
— We have information on this matter. We would like to discuss this with all our partners in this process, how to block the channels of their financing and armament. The information in the public domain mentions, in particular, the Americans, the British and some others. Some say that Israel is interested in aggravating the situation so that the Gaza Strip is not under such close attention. It's a difficult game. There are many actors involved in it. I hope that the meetings scheduled for this week will help to stabilize the situation.
— What do you think about US President-elect Donald Trump?
— I saw him several times when he met with Russian President Putin. He also received me twice in the Oval Office when I came for bilateral talks.
I think he is a strong person who wants to achieve results, who does not like to postpone things for later. This is my impression. He is very friendly in conversation. However, this does not mean that D. Trump is pro-Russian. Some people try to imagine him like that. The number of anti-Russian sanctions imposed under the Trump administration was very large.
We respect any choice made by people during the voting process. We respect the choice of the American people. As President Putin said, we are (and always have been) open to contacts with the current administration.
We'll see everything when Trump takes office. As Putin said, "the ball is on their side." We have never interrupted our contacts, economic, trade, security and so on.
— How sincerely are you concerned about the escalation of the conflict between Russia and the United States?
— We started with this question.
— I think this is the main question.
— The Europeans are "whispering" with each other, saying that it is not for V.A. Zelensky to dictate the terms of negotiations, this is the lot of the United States and Russia.
I don't think we should present our contacts in such a way that supposedly two people decide for everyone. By no means. This is not our style. We prefer to act in the same way as in BRICS and SCO. It really embodies the principle of the sovereign equality of States, enshrined in the UN Charter. The United States is not used to respecting this principle.
The Americans say they cannot allow Russia to win in Ukraine because it would undermine the "rules-based world order," which is American domination.
The North Atlantic Alliance, at least under the Administration of J.Biden, looks at the entire Eurasian continent. These "Indo-Pacific strategies", the South China and East China Seas are already on the NATO "agenda". The block moves the infrastructure there. They created AUCUS and form the "Indo-Pacific Quartet" (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea). The United States, South Korea and Japan are forming a military alliance with separate nuclear components.
In 2023, after the summit, the then NATO Secretary General J.Stoltenberg said that Atlantic security is inseparable from security in the "Indo-Pacific region." When asked if this meant that the alliance went beyond territorial defense, he replied in the negative, while adding that Westerners should be present there to "protect their territory." This element of "preventive action" is increasingly present.
As for the United States, we don't want war with anyone. As I said, in January 2022, the five nuclear-weapon States declared at the highest level that we do not want confrontation with each other and will respect each other's interests and concerns in the field of security. It also said that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it should never be unleashed.
The same was confirmed during the bilateral talks between Russian President Vladimir Putin and U.S. President John F. Kennedy.Biden in June 2021 in Geneva. In fact, they reproduced the statement of U.S. President R. Reagan and General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Mikhail Gorbachev from 1987 – "no nuclear war."
It meets our vital interests. Absolutely. I hope this applies to the United States as well. I say this because some time ago, the coordinator for strategic communications of the US National Security Council, J.Kirby, answering questions about escalation and the possibility of using nuclear weapons, said that the Americans do not want escalation, and if there is any nuclear element, their European allies will suffer. Thus, even mentally, he rules out that the United States may suffer. This makes the situation a little more risky. Perhaps, if this prevails, some reckless steps will be taken. It's bad.
— Are you saying that American politicians assume that there may be an exchange of nuclear strikes that will not directly affect the United States, and you claim that this is not true?
— Yes, that's exactly what I said. Professionals in the field of nuclear deterrence policy are well aware that this is a very dangerous game. And talking about a limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to a catastrophe that we do not want.
* Included in the list of terrorists and extremists
** A terrorist organization banned in the Russian Federation
