The conflict in Ukraine and the West from a Russian perspective
Lavrov: US and UK want 'real war' between Russia and EU -- Sott.net which has:
The above relates also to:
Today I listened to the short clip,, and Kadyrov does not say what is claimed in the text, but I found Kadyrov's Telegram Channel, and one post. If translated to English, he writes:[In a short clip on Telegram with Ramzan Kadyrov there is
Ramzan Kadyrov says that he and Apti Alaudinov have grandiose plans. "We are already developing a plan for the demilitarization of NATO countries, and Poland is the first in line after the capture of Kiev"
On SOTT there was:Who cut through the air in an SUV with "Akhmat" license plates in search of Bandera and Shaitans in the occupied settlements of the Luhansk Republic? Who, along with the rest of the units of the Allied forces, participated in the long-awaited liberation of the LPR?
That's right, dear BROTHER, assistant to the Head of the Czech Republic Apty Alaudinov. Let me remind you that Apty Aronovich opposed the Ukrainian invaders together with subordinate volunteers and the second corps of the People's Militia of the LPR, without having any professionally trained military specialists or units of heavy equipment in the location. The Major General's track record is considerable: he participated in the liberation of 36 settlements, including 4 cities.
Recently, Apty Alaudinov returned from a Moscow business trip and finally we managed to have a fruitful conversation over a cup of evening tea and talk in detail about the tactics of our units, weigh the pros and cons, and think about future tasks.
The plans are grandiose. We are already developing a plan for the demilitarization of NATO countries, and Poland is the first in line after the capture of Kiev.
Lavrov: US and UK want 'real war' between Russia and EU -- Sott.net which has:
Lavrov mentions Poland, as did Kadyurov. Lavrov also mentions the Baltics which V. Zhirinovsky considered too antagonistic with backing from the West, that he would do something about it, if he was president. Then there is Germany, but we know it is occupied by the US, so...The US and UK want to escalate the Russia-Ukraine conflict into a larger confrontation between Moscow and members of the European Union, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said on Wednesday in an interview with RT and Sputnik.
"Our American counterparts, British counterparts... with active support from Germans, the Polish and the Baltic states, they really want to turn this war into a real war and start a confrontation between Russia and European states," Lavrov told RT's editor-in-chief, Margarita Simonyan.
The Western governments are "keeping Ukraine from any constructive steps" towards a peace settlement, Lavrov argued. "[Ukraine is] not just [being] pumped with weapons. They are forced to use these weapons in an increasingly riskier way."
The above relates also to:
The quotes from Lavrov are up on the page of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs along with the whole interview, and so far only in Russian, but with the help of a machine, and editing to remove a few striking errors, we have:Biggest country in the world is going to get bigger.
About the West, there was, though in more general terms, posted on FB by the Russian Mission to UN in Geneva.20.07.2022 15:12
Interview of the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov to RT TV channel, Sputnik news agency and Rossiya Segodnya News Agency, Moscow, July 20, 2022
1504-20-07-2022
Question: You just got back from a trip, and now you're leaving again. We have such "international isolation" that you hardly ever come home.
A question from subscribers. We, in various guises – from deputies to officials-either conduct negotiations with Ukraine, then do not conduct them, then say that it is impossible to conduct them, then it would be good to start them. Does this even make sense, or is it a diplomatic decorum?
Sergey Lavrov: It doesn't make any sense in the current situation. Yesterday in Tehran, the Russian President touched upon this topic during a press conference following talks with the leaders of Iran and Turkey. Vladimir Putin once again reminded that at the beginning of the special military operation, the Ukrainian leadership asked for negotiations. We didn't refuse. We approached this process honestly, but the first rounds that took place in Belarus revealed that the Ukrainian side did not want to discuss anything seriously. Then we gave them our assessment of the situation, noting that if Kiev wants to work seriously, then let them give something "on paper" for our understanding of what agreements they intend to talk about. The Ukrainian side gave us a document that we supported (yesterday the Russian head of state once again cited this fact) and were ready to conclude an agreement based on its principles. Based on their logic, we prepared and wrote a corresponding document, which appeared on the Ukrainian side on April 15 this year. Since then, nothing has been heard from them, but something else has been heard — what German Chancellor O. Scholz, B. Johnson say (now, apparently, they no longer do this), and European Commission President W. Bush. von der Leyen, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy," chief diplomat "J. Borrel: Ukraine must "win on the battlefield" and should not go to negotiations, because it has "weak positions on the front"; first it needs to correct this situation, start "dominating" the Russian ones the armed forces, Donetsk and Luhansk militias, and only then "from a position of strength" start talking. I believe that this is "in favor of the poor".
Question :" In favor of the poor" - because Ukraine will not succeed?
Sergey Lavrov: It won't work. They will never be able to formulate any "things" that deserve serious attention from people. We understood that. It is no secret that Kiev is being held back from any constructive steps, not just pumped up with weapons, but forced to use the received weapons more and more risky. Foreign instructors and specialists sit there, service these systems ("HIMARS" and others).
American, British (Anglo-Saxon) "colleagues", with the active support of the Germans, Poles, and Balts, want to make this war real, to push Russia against European countries. Washington and London, which sit far beyond the oceans and straits, benefit from this. First of all, the European economy suffers. There are statistics that show that 40% of the damage caused by sanctions is borne by the European Union, and the United States-less than 1%, if we take the total negative impact of restrictions.
There is no doubt that the Ukrainians will not be allowed to negotiate until the Americans decide that they have "squabbled" enough and sowed chaos. Then it will be possible to leave Ukraine to its own devices and see how it will get out of it.
Question: Do you think this plan is possible? A " big " war, a clash between Russia and European countries? In fact, this means nuclear war.
Sergey Lavrov: Americans don't think about it. Ambitious guys who want to reach new "heights" in their career have come to the Administration. I don't know how they will try to achieve such goals in this Administration. They act irresponsibly, build plans and schemes that are fraught with serious risks. We are talking about this publicly. We could have told them, but the Americans don't want to talk to us, and we won't run after them.
The previous dialogue was not useless, if only because we looked each other in the eye and outlined our approaches. After the start of a special US military operation, it was torn up. I think Washington has not yet realized that they are playing dangerous games, but many people in Europe are beginning to understand this.
Question: From our point of view, this is possible: a clash between Russia and the United States, a nuclear war?
Sergey Lavrov: We have been the initiators of several statements (the Russian-American one, the leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) that there can be no winners in a nuclear war and it can never be unleashed. This is our position. We will stand firmly on it.
At the same time, we have an approved doctrine that clearly explains in which cases Russia will be forced to use nuclear weapons. To our partners, colleagues, rivals, "enemies" (I don't know what they call themselves in relation to us anymore) this is well known.
Question: We consider Vladimir Zelensky a legitimate representative of Ukraine. Why? It is fair to say that everything that is happening in this country is the result of a coup, a violent change of power. This did not happen under V. A. Zelensky, but he also became president as a result of those events. Why did we initially admit this?
Sergey Lavrov: Recently, the President of France, E.Macron, guided by his own ethical considerations, put on public display a recording of a February telephone conversation with the Russian President, in which there is a clear phrase of Vladimir Putin. The French leader urged him not to engage too much in the implementation of the Minsk agreements. He said that Donetsk and Luhansk are illegitimate, and we need to work in the context of the proposed interpretations so that Russia and Ukraine agree that V. A. Zelensky wants this. Vladimir Putin replied that Vladimir Zelensky was the product of a coup d'etat, and the regime established at that time did not disappear.
Do you remember how things unfolded after the coup? The putschists "spat in the face" of Germany, France and Poland, which guaranteed an agreement with Viktor Yanukovych. The next morning, she was "trampled". These European countries did not even" peep " – they accepted it. A couple of years ago, I asked the Germans and the French how they viewed the coup. What was it if they did not demand that the putschists return to the implementation of the agreements? They answered: "the costs of the democratic process." I'm not kidding. It's amazing-these are adults who hold the posts of Foreign Ministers.
Crimeans and the east of Ukraine refused to recognize the results of the coup. In Crimea, this resulted in a referendum on reunification with Russia, and in the Donbas, in a refusal to communicate with the new, illegitimate central authorities who started the war. Then P. A. Poroshenko began to run for president. The election was held at the end of May 2014. President of France F.Hollande, Chancellor Angela Merkel and other European leaders urged the Russian President not to say in advance about the non-recognition of the results of the Ukrainian elections. Vladimir Putin replied: since Petro Poroshenko goes to the polls with slogans of peace, promises to stop the war and restore the rights of all Ukrainians, including residents of Donbass, we will not object to the legitimacy of that process.
It soon became clear that P. A. Poroshenko instantly forgot his election commitments, deceived voters, lied to them and Western sponsors, and unleashed another round of war, which was stopped with great difficulty in February 2015. Then the Minsk agreements were signed. Not so long ago, he admitted that he did not intend to fulfill them, but signed them simply because it was necessary to "gain strength" economically and militarily in order to then "win back their lands", including Crimea. That's why he made those agreements.
Question: We didn't understand that?
Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, I still hoped that some conscience remained there. P. A. Poroshenko confessed his true attitude to the Minsk agreements. He was not going to implement the document approved by the UN Security Council. Thus, once again, P. A. Poroshenko has already publicly confirmed that he was an illegitimate president who does not rely on international legal foundations.
V. A. Zelensky also came to power on the slogans of peace. He assured that he would bring peace back to Ukraine, that all citizens of the country who want to speak Russian will be able to do so and no one should molest or discriminate against them. Look at what he's saying right now.
In" Servant of the People "V. A. Zelensky played a kind of democrat, a "shirt-guy". The teacher left the people and defeated the entire oligarchy, paid off the IMF. Citizens became free. He broke up the corrupt parliament and government. There are videos that cannot hide how V. A. Zelensky defended the rights of the Russian language and Russian culture...
Question: He's an artist, Sergey Viktorovich!
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, an artist according to K. S. Stanislavsky's system: he quickly "changes his shoes". Now, he was recently asked how he feels about people who live in the Donbas. Mr. Zelensky replied that there are people, but there are "individuals". He also said that if someone feels Russian, then" for the sake of the future of their children and grandchildren " let them go to Russia. This is exactly what Dmitry Yarosh said on the first day after the coup in February 2014: "a Russian will never think in Ukrainian, will not speak in Ukrainian, will not honor Ukrainian heroes, the Russians must get out of Crimea."
The elite that came to power as a result of the coup has already developed a national genetic code. A. P. Yatsenyuk, in the "gap" between D. A. Yarosh, P. A. Poroshenko and V. A. Zelensky, called the inhabitants of Donbass "inhumans".
Question: Remember how P. A. Poroshenko said that Ukrainian children would go to school, and Russian children would "sit in basements"? He declared this to the people who "considered" him.
Sergey Lavrov: Now they say they will liberate their land…
Question: Already without people?
Sergey Lavrov: I do not know how Kiev is going to communicate with these people. They will raise a rebellion.
Question: What kind of people? They are also going to be killed by HIMARS. You said there is hope in conscience, but " people are not judged by themselves." If you have a conscience, it is not necessary that our "partners"have one.
Before you came here, Ms Zakharova and I discussed those whom you have now described as "serious people, like, people". Of course, they made fun of them, because how not to do it? For example, the last comment of the White House Press Secretary, C. Jean-Pierre, who replaced our "favorite long-term" J.Psaki. She was asked what President had been doing for two days.Biden. She said he was "thinking about the American people."
What am I talking about? Western leaders are now all "showered down". Many of them show signs of, as it were, "limited adequacy", and sometimes even "limited sanity". Now they will change. Do we have any reason to believe that those who succeed them will be able to show signs of slightly less "limited adequacy"?
Sergey Lavrov: You can put it another way. The current political establishment, which has "grown up" in the West, belongs to the class of "adequate limitations": from their own point of view, they are adequate, but in terms of political experience, they represent a limited elite.
Question: Why is this so?
Sergey Lavrov: I do not know, but many people pay attention to this. Recently, H. Kissinger, recalling H. Schroeder, J. Chirac, spoke about this. Not so rude, but in general made it clear that the contrast is striking.
There is such an "average" attitude to political processes. We need to choose people who are clear and will hit some simple banal point. They came up with this "green transition": everyone will soon suffocate, die, dolphins, fish will disappear, people will be left alone in the desert. This is the "green transition" they got. Russian President Vladimir Putin described in detail how this was built in Western politics, and how it turned out to be a huge failure, since nothing was calculated.
I don't know what the inadequacy is related to. Perhaps the lack of bright leaders is convenient for someone.
Question: For whom?
Sergey Lavrov: For the bureaucrats who make up the European Commission, there are 60 thousand of them. That's quite a lot. They became a "thing - in-itself". It is no coincidence that Poland, Hungary, or anyone else asks the question: why listen to these people, including in areas where competence was not transferred to them. This is actually the case.
Question: That is, this is such an American "deep state" (deep state) already in Europe, right?
Sergey Lavrov: It turns out that so. Not quite, however, a "deep state", but the elite, the European Commission.
Question: "Shallow state"?
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, and here the pendulum is now swinging: from the side that was associated with rapid integration, to the other. The demands imposed by Brussels, which are not always based on any legislative agreements, are beginning to irritate and hinder countries from building their internal and national life in accordance with their traditions and religion. Today, they" stick " to Budapest with propaganda of non-traditional values. Hungarians, like us and many others, do not want this. The European Commission begins to make suggestions to them, to demand that they change their position, otherwise the already agreed funding will not be allocated. I think this is sad for the European Union.
Question: But happy for us?
Sergey Lavrov: I don't think that's a happy thing for us. I think we should take a nonchalant stance. We can't be happy that people in Europe will get cold and live poorly.
Question: I don't want to be cold. Or maybe the Europeans will get tired of the "imposition" that you are talking about? And the countries will come to power with national-oriented politicians who think about their citizens, and therefore do not want to quarrel with Russia? It is not good for any people to quarrel with our country.
Sergey Lavrov: That's right. This process of recovery is the right one. People get rid of the illusions that Brussels will decide everything for them, that everything will be the same every day: cheap energy, food, everything is fine. It is probably in the interests of Europe itself and its peoples to do this, but I do not know how such processes will take place.
We won't be happy, but we won't worry too much either. I think we should stick to a detached line. They have created such a history for themselves, they want to live in such conditions, get rid of the natural, profitable connections that have been created over many decades in the field of energy, logistics, and transport communications. It's their choice. "You won't be nice by force." This process, when they complete it (if they can do it at all, since it is not possible to benefit from it), will be costly for the subsequent development of the European economy. Don't let them ask us to go back to some agreements again. They proved unreliable. We cannot plan long-term strategic investments in the development of our country and its external relations, taking into account such "partners". We will have other clear partners. They have always been there: in the East, in the South, on other continents. Now that the West's share in our foreign economic relations has declined sharply, the share of our other partners will increase accordingly.
About trends in Europe. There is also complete irresponsibility in explaining the causes of the current crisis to the peoples of their countries. German Chancellor Oleh Scholz says there is no doubt that Russia intends to limit gas supplies via Nord Stream for political, not technical reasons. He has no doubts! As if the facts that we have repeatedly reported, and Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about this, do not show how Europe systematically and consistently reduced the opportunities for Nord Stream 1, how it" suspended "Nord Stream 2, and how restrictions on the use of Nord Stream were imposed retroactively"when investments have already been made and you can't change the rules of investment at this stage. However, the European Commission insisted and it was done. Instead of completely filling the pipe, they limited its volume to half.
We are now being accused of using hunger as a weapon. This is what W. von der Leyen has already said.
Question: Hunger and cold. Remember, we had "General Frost"? Now - "General Wheat" and "General heating".
Sergey Lavrov: US Treasury Secretary J. Yellen recently made a pretentious statement that the US will not allow Russia, China, or anyone else to change international economic rules that are supposedly approved by the whole world. She said that Russia will not be allowed to use the processes of economic integration as a weapon. In my opinion, this already "interrupts other pearls", which we hear in more numbers today, and resembles agony - people no longer know how to explain their failures.
Question: You mentioned the "green" transition and how some Eastern European countries, which, like us, do not have an LGBT agenda, are trying to "push through" it. As an experienced person who has observed many processes for decades, this may be clearer and clearer to you than to us, ordinary people. This is the whole agenda - the "green" transition, LGBT, MeToo, BLM, the abolition of ballet in the main English dance school, the ban on taking math, because minorities will not master this subject in some other schools, the ban on calling breast milk breast milk, mothers-mothers. People sit and think, but they can't find answers to the questions: what is it for, what is the idea, who manages it, who benefits from it. What do you think is behind this?
Sergey Lavrov: With the analysis available to us, we can't get "in their shoes" and understand why all this is necessary. It is impossible to understand this. If a person has some inclinations, why not leave him with this? Let him get carried away. Why make all this a "banner of the movement"?
Question: Why does the newly appointed presidential press secretary come to the podium and say that she is a lesbian and "black"?
Sergey Lavrov: I also wonder how and where Western political thought is evolving. Some progressive philosophers who reject imperialism and colonialism believe that the "golden billion" or those who lead it and decide political issues want to reduce the world's population, because "there is not enough for everyone". Just a little, and all-a lot. As M. M. Zhvanetsky joked in his mise en scene, "there should be fewer of us." It was in the Soviet Union. At that time, we did not have enough food and goods. Now, one of the explanations that I read in some Western sources is exactly this. It's creepy.
Question: Not very logical, because the "golden billion" thus reduces the "golden billion", and Africa, on the contrary, multiplies. In Nigeria, which now wants to be friends with us, there are seven people per woman.
Sergey Lavrov: No. All these habits are constantly broadcast there.
Question: Until they get there…Look at the entire Hollywood elite. Every second child is already transgender or something like that, non-binary, that is, they will no longer have grandchildren. We started with ourselves. That's for sure.
Sergey Lavrov: Perhaps this is also part of the plan - to share less. I immediately said that I couldn't explain it clearly and intelligently. I've probably given you one of the conspiracy theories.
Question: Both before the special operation and now it is generally assumed that the West will not be able to cope without us. In many ways, this is true. We can see this from the partial lifting of sanctions. It is not clear: the package adopted this week was a set of new restrictions or the cancellation of old ones. But what if they do manage? What is your perspective? Can the West completely abandon our energy sources in the future: not by this winter, but by the next one, or in one; not launch Nord Stream – 2, stop using the resources of Nord Stream – 1? Is there even such a possibility? How do you rate it?
Sergey Lavrov: What is the next announced package of restrictions: sanctions or exemptions from them - both, since the West has already exhausted all possible areas in which it was ready to inflict damage on us. Right now, they are already forced to think about what they have done and how it affects them. Now, as I understand it, the Westerners have made clarifications that will allow serving the export of Russian food. For months we were told: Russia is "guilty" of the food crisis, since food and fertilizers are not subject to sanctions, so our country, they say, should not "dodge", but must trade - because no one interferes with this. We, in turn, have explained for a long time that although food and fertilizers themselves are not subject to sanctions, freight, insurance, visits to foreign ports by our ships carrying these goods, and foreign ships entering our harbors to pick up cargo immediately fell under the first or second package of Western restrictions. They just lie to our faces, saying that all this is not true and depends only on us. It's dirty.
Unfortunately, they (Westerners) have tried and are still trying to draw UN Secretary-General into their games. A. Guterres, who, concerned about the food crisis, came to Russia. At a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, he came up with a package deal. There is Russian grain that needs to be freed from artificial, illegitimate restrictions, and there is Ukrainian grain that needs to be "cleared". A. Guterres suggested that he would get Europe and the United States to remove all obstacles to the export of Russian grain, and Russia would cooperate with them, the Turks, and the Ukrainians in clearing the Black Sea ports in order to export grain from there. We replied that, in principle, the Black Sea ports can be cleared without us, but if there is such a desire, we can also agree. The General Secretary advertised and promoted this package.
Last week, our colleagues went to Istanbul to agree on this scheme. We agreed on the basic principles according to which Ukrainian grain will be exported, but when the Russian delegation reminded us about the second part of the package deal, the Ukrainians categorically refused, and the UN delegation simply shamefacedly remained silent.
Yesterday we sent a signal to the Secretary-General that this was his initiative. In response, Guterres suggested that the issue of Ukrainian grain should be resolved first, and then with Russian grain. It's dirty. It is not appropriate for people who are engaged in big politics to behave like this. This fact means only one thing - I am convinced that the Secretary-General is under enormous pressure, primarily from the Americans and the British, who have settled in the UN Secretariat around A. Guterres as deputies and are actively using this "privatized" structure to their advantage. It is sad.
Question: How can this pressure be applied technically? To explain to ordinary people: if you don't do this, we'll ... put you away? What will we do?
Sergey Lavrov: I don't think any personal methods of blackmail are used. When the UN General Assembly is voting, they come up to the ambassadors and say that a resolution against Russia has been put to the vote, while reminding them, for example, about the bill through Manhattan and the daughter at Stanford. Something like this.
Question: About the same thing.
Sergey Lavrov: Things happen. Here, of course, they do not act to such an extent of impudence. The staff of the UN Secretariat (the vast majority of them are from Western countries, since the number of delegated secretariat employees depends on the contribution of each State) in most cases do not act completely neutral, as required by the UN Charter and the Regulations on the Organization's Secretariat. This is life. I state this. It's always been like this.
Regarding the second part of your question, I think that Westerners are now trying not to show their fallacy in any way. The ruling parties will do this by hook or crook – they have no other choice, but there is still the opposition. In Austria, votes have already begun to cut through (the "Austrian Freedom Party", which is not very popular in Brussels, exists, and this is a legitimate entity). In other countries, the opposition is rising, asking why they are doing this, why it is impossible to see and agree. Many people have questions.
In developing countries, there is no perception that Russia has crossed a certain "red line". They remember what the Americans did in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yugoslavia in 1999.. There are no warnings, warnings that American interests are being violated, or calls to do something...
Question: No eight years of trying to negotiate...
Sergey Lavrov: The United States bombed these countries and leveled cities 10,000 kilometers from its coast. No Europe even dared to "peep" that this is bad.
Question: Without the protection of the American population living en masse in these territories...
Sergey Lavrov: Yes. In our case, the situation is fundamentally different. This is a real threat, not made up in order to spread its imperialist tentacles across the ocean, a threat on our borders. For many years, we have warned against making Ukraine anti-Russian, introducing NATO into this country, and creating direct military threats to our security. Everyone understands this perfectly well.
Coming back to Europe, I don't think it's in the European interest to completely break all ties with us and switch to LNG, which the Americans are trying to sell…
Question: Sell it on.
Sergey Lavrov: I wanted to say a less decent word, but "sell" will do.
Sergey Lavrov: It will be their choice. Serious scientists write that the entire economic life, all the prosperity of the last decades of Germany was primarily associated with Russian energy carriers at affordable, acceptable and predictable prices. Yes, LNG is a more flexible commodity. In the" end " of the pipe, you need to buy gas, and LNG can be redirected. But this is also a minus. When demand rose in Asia, the Americans sent their LNG there, because it is more expensive there. All this can be associated not only with higher prices, but also with a shortage of supplies at a certain stage. But if they do, we won't have any particular problems.
Russian President Vladimir Putin said that due to what they are doing about Nord Stream 2 (we are always ready to launch it, it is under pressure), already in the current situation, 50% of the volumes intended for this gas pipeline are reserved for our domestic consumption: both for heating purposes, as well as for the chemical industry and for other industrial tasks.
We are reorienting without any major losses. I don't doubt it. We have customers, demand, and finally domestic needs: gasification and the development of the chemical industry.
Question: And thousands of villages without gas…
С.В.Лавров: That's what I'm saying – gasification.
So it will be their choice. I want to say once again: we should not (and, thank God, no one is trying to) build any schemes that will be based on the possibility, probability, or even desirability of returning to the situation six months ago, when it was possible to restore all these "chains". I believe that they need to be "completed" and build new ones that will be more reliable. That's what we're doing now. This includes the North – South corridor from St. Petersburg to the Indian Ocean, and from India to Vladivostok. There are a number of projects in a high degree of implementation. If and when at some stage Europe suddenly says that they are overreacting and are interested in restoring our relations in the economic and trade spheres, then we should not push them away. We need to see how much it benefits us, and only then react.
Question: They threw it once, and they'll throw it a second time – that's what they say in Russian. You mentioned the diversification of our areas of cooperation. We talked long and hard about the East (China, India). Now you are flying to Africa, that is, to the south. What will you do there? What do you expect from this? And what can we expect from this?
Sergey Lavrov: We have long-standing good relations with Africa since the Soviet Union. The USSR was a "pioneer", a leader of the movement that eventually ended in decolonization. We assisted the national liberation struggle, then the restoration of independent States and the recovery of their economies. Many hundreds of enterprises were built, forming the basis of the economy of many African countries. At the UN, we were at the forefront of the movement for this decolonization to be formalized as an integral part of international law and life.
Then there was a period when the Soviet Union disappeared and the Russian Federation appeared. The problems were acute. Not in Africa, but much closer. First of all, within our country.
We have been restoring our positions for many years. Africans reciprocate. They are interested in us coming to them. We have never taught them anything, we have always helped them solve problems that allow them to live in their country the way they want.
Question: They just think that we taught them, but in a good way.
Sergey Lavrov: No. We helped them solve the tasks they set for themselves. Here's the thing. They were never told: don't be friends with America or anyone else. We still do not read any lectures, unlike the Americans, who travel around Africa and constantly say: "Do not communicate with either the Chinese or the Russians. They are always motivated by some kind of self-interest, even when trading with you."
We have mutual visits every year. Every one to two years, the Minister of Foreign Affairs visits African countries. We try to do this so that we can cover as many countries as possible over a period of two to three years. This year it will be Egypt, Ethiopia, Uganda and the Republic of Congo. In all these countries, we have good traditions and economic foundations.
Egypt is our first trade and economic partner in Africa. The volume is under $ 5 billion. The first nuclear power plant is being built. The formation of the Russian industrial zone on the bank of the Suez Canal is being completed. The story becomes even more promising in the context of the decisions taken by the African Union last year to establish an African Continental Free Trade Area. They are currently being approved (it will take some time) specific criteria and tariffs that make up the content of this zone. For Russia, as a growing partner of Africa, this will be beneficial and useful in terms of increasing our trade and investment volumes. But they are very modest in comparison with the United States, China and the European Union. We must now work well with our colleagues to prepare for the second Russia-Africa summit. The first one was in Sochi in 2019. The second one is planned for next year.
Question: In Odessa, for example?
Sergey Lavrov: No. Probably not in Odessa. We'll announce it later. But in parallel with the summit, there will be an economic forum, round tables on trade, energy, cyber affairs, agriculture, space, and nuclear energy.
We need to increase our volumes. Africa is 1.4 billion people. This is comparable to China and India. This is the most powerful part of the modern world. Probably the most promising market. Therefore, far-sighted campaigns and states are building a long-term strategy in relation to Africa. This is the continent of the future. We have an excellent political foundation for our relations and a good understanding, based on the fact that thousands of Africans who hold positions in their governments have studied with us and continue to study with us. We need to convert this capital (human, political) into an economic form.
Question: What kind of relationship do we have with our "exes" (I understand that "exes" are rarely friends, but it still happens sometimes)? Do we have any real friends among our "exes", including Belarus? What is really happening with Kazakhstan (we see different signals from there)? Isn't there a feeling that we are a little bit to blame for some things? That we ourselves "missed" them, "gave" them to Europe, America, even Turkey. What do you think?
Sergey Lavrov: There was such a period. The Soviet Union ceased to exist. We signed the Bialowieza Agreements. Of course, the countries that were not invited to Bialowieza Forest were hurt. There is no doubt about it. I understand them. Then we tried to correct this situation (to smooth out the awkwardness, so to speak). Until the end of 1991, we organized a special meeting in Alma-Ata. But the sediment remained. Most importantly, it was an event; and the event was followed by processes.
In the first years after everyone became independent and sovereign, our leadership, by and large, did not pay much attention to preventing any cooling in relations with our neighbors, closest allies, and colleagues. We have lived together for thousands, many hundreds of years. I remember that. From 1992 to 1994, he was Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs until he left to work in New York. I was engaged in international organizations, but at some stage A.V. Kozyrev asked me to "take up" the CIS. I didn't do it for long. The situation was not very optimistic (it is clear that it was not the Foreign Ministry that decided how to build policy in this space – it was decided in the Presidential Administration). Everyone then thought: where will they go? We lived together all the time: we shared the same language, went to the same universities, and had the same tastes as they did. Therefore, they say, " we live and live." The economy, of course, has been intertwined over all these long decades and centuries in such a way that it is impossible to break it.
But the West did not sit idly by. That's right. And not only the West. If you look at Central Asia now, how many "Central Asia plus Partner" formats are there. This is "plus the United States", and "plus the European Union", and "plus Japan", and "plus China", "plus Turkey", and "plus India". And "plus Russia" as well. Because, despite the fact that we have the CIS, the EAEU, the SCO, the CSTO, there was no such structure where all five Central Asian countries and Russia are together. Now it's there.
This is done not only by the foreign ministries, but also by our economic structures. This is an important process. Water management, energy-everything was one. Now it is precisely in these areas that our Western "partners" are trying to "infiltrate". The European Union and the United States offer their own programs that will already adapt to "them", to "external" players, to adjust the processes that are maturing in the field of water use and energy, based on the Soviet legacy. Here, it would seem, God himself ordered. As we, in fact, offer to our partners. They agree with this, but the West is trying in every possible way to "disrupt" and "infiltrate" from the outside into our affairs with our "former" people, as you say. : "Don't go back to your old lovers." This is where the poem begins. But it ends with the words:"You still have nowhere to go."
Question: V. N. Polozkova, a fashionable contemporary poet, has these lines: "She is friends with all her exes as if they have never betrayed her."
You and the Foreign Ministry said that you didn't know about it before the start of the SVO. At least, they didn't know long before the beginning. Maybe it wasn't, but that was the impression. May I ask how you found out about this? What were your feelings? I remember very well the feelings that T. E. Keosayan and I experienced at home at night when we found out about this. I wonder how you felt. What do you think about the people who are now called "frightened patriots", who left in fear, who are "ashamed", etc.?
Sergey Lavrov: As for when I found out about it, it's not my secret.
Question: So this is not a state secret?
Sergey Lavrov: It's not a state secret, but it's not my secret. I will not, with your permission, touch on this topic.
As for the sensations and feelings that I experienced when all this was already announced-the inevitability. Not joy. It is difficult to be happy when there are military operations ahead, when citizens of your country go to defend justice and risk their lives. But the inevitability and even a sense of relief. For many years, we could not answer the question of these people, not only from Donbass, but also many of our citizens: "how long?". As long as common sense, the people, the UN Security Council resolution, and everything that was associated with it and that was "blatantly sabotaged"can be allowed to be mocked.
Question: What do you think of those who are ashamed to be Russian?
Sergey Lavrov: We are currently having a big discussion about foreign agents, how right it was to develop a new law, which some people consider to be broad and ask the question: right/wrong.
I watch talk shows, including those in which you participate, where there is an argument that is clear to anyone: "They left, what to do with them next?", "If they return, how to treat them?", " Should they be allowed in?". I don't have my own point of view. Each person is the master of his own destiny. This is absolutely true. But everyone should have a conscience. And this particular person should live with it. I proceed from this. But what I can't accept is the publications (it is my duty to read some of the resources declared foreign agents in our country) and how they delight in describing the insurmountable (from their point of view) problems that the Russian Federation is facing. With which one …
Question: Schadenfreude.
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, they predict collapse. Someone there wrote that Russia is now facing death from the point of view of high technologies, because it has neither brains nor organizational structures. So write about your country!
Some others are also exercising. When Roscosmos, in response to the sanctions, told the Americans that since they themselves do not want to, we do not transfer the engines to them and the British, so they brought our corporation under sanctions. So, they can't contact Roscosmos. Another foreign agency website broke out with the maxim that our corporation has violated all imaginable obligations, is now a dishonest partner and no one will communicate with it now. We say "double standards". Here they are. You don't even need to look for any complex structures here.
I believe that these people themselves should be left alone and understand. How to treat them is another matter. Their former acquaintances, whether they will communicate with them, how much the state is going to resume relations with them-this is another question. The main thing is to leave them alone with their own conscience.
Question: Your belief that everyone has a conscience has already failed you with Petro Poroshenko and the Minsk agreements. Maybe you should just stop believing it. Unfortunately, not everyone has a conscience.
We are all interested, and every person in the country is thinking about when "it" will end. We all want the special military operation to end as soon as possible. So that people stop dying: our fighters, civilians who are "shaken" every day by their former Ukraine, which still considers them de jure its own, which does not interfere with it, as we know. When will it end? We don't know. I won't ask you that. Obviously, you won't be able to answer me.
In your view, where should it end? We are not talking about what Vladimir Putin initially announced to us, but rather the future results of this operation: demilitarization and denazification. This is understandable. And where geographically? Where would it be reasonable, right and good for us?
Sergey Lavrov: As for predictions and timing, I remembered a fun fact. Here the other day, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine D. I. Kuleba said that V. A. Zelensky has set a deadline for joining the European Union, but this deadline, they say, will not be called, because many in the European Union may get scared and start slowing down their accession to the EU.
We don't have any deadlines. As for the special military operation and geographical coordinates, President Vladimir Putin said clearly (as you quoted him): denazification, demilitarization, in the sense that there are no threats to our security, military threats from the territory of Ukraine. This task remains. When the meeting of negotiators was held in Istanbul, there was only one geography. Our readiness to accept the Ukrainian proposal was based on the geography of the end of March 2022.
Question: That is, the DPR and LPR?
Sergey Lavrov: So, if more or less. Now the geography is different. This is not only the DPR, LPR, but also the Kherson, Zaporizhia regions and a number of other territories. This process continues, and it continues consistently and persistently. As the West, in such impotent anger, in the desire to aggravate the situation as much as possible, "pumps" Ukraine with more and more long-range weapons. These are the "HIMARS". Defense Minister A. Y. Reznikov boasts that they have already received three-hundred-kilometer ammunition. This means that geographical tasks will move even further away from the current line. We cannot allow the part of Ukraine that will be controlled by V. A. Zelensky or who will replace him to have weapons that will pose a direct threat to our territory and to the republics that have declared their independence and want to determine their own future.
Question: How is this technically possible? This is our territory. Here is the territory of the republics that will join us. Yes, obviously, they have already entered our house. Kherson, Zaporizhia region. You're diplomats, you can't say that. I'm a journalist. I call a spade a spade. Then there is the territory controlled by V. A. Zelensky. They also touch. That is, either there should be some kind of buffer zone between them in these 300 kilometers, or you should go all the way to Lviv inclusive.
Sergey Lavrov: There is a solution to this problem. The military knows this decision.
Question: But it's a secret? What do you think: is there a chance that we will leave without finishing? Our subscribers and viewers are very afraid of this.
Sergey Lavrov: I see no reason to question what President Vladimir Putin announced on February 24 this year and what he reiterated a few days ago: all the goals remain the same. And they will be executed.
The conflict in Ukraine is becoming a civilizational conflict, and the areas that are asking to be denazified seems to be growing. Furthermore, if the UK and the US, don't mind setting countries in Europe against Russia, and if the countries themselves are as willing as Zelensky and the Ukrainian nationalists, what will prevent them?July 20, 2022 President of Russia V. V. Putin spoke at the plenary meeting of the Second Forum "Strong Ideas for the New Era".
******************
The model of total domination of the so-called gold billion is unfair. Well, why does this "golden billion" from the entire population of the planet have to dominate everyone, impose their own rules of behavior based on the illusion of exclusivity? It divides nations into the first and second classes, and is therefore racist and neocolonial in its essence, and its underlying globalist, supposedly liberal ideology is increasingly acquiring the features of totalitarianism, restraining creative search, free history in the making.
It seems that the West simply cannot offer the world its model of the future. Yes, of course, this "golden billion" didn't become "golden" by accident, it achieved a lot, but it took its positions not only through some ideas implemented - to a large extent it took its positions by robbing other peoples both in Asia and Af rike. And how - it was: India, outside, how much they robbed. Therefore, even today, the elites of this "golden billion" are panicking that other global development centers may present their development options.
It's even worse for the west of Europe... So, naturally:
️ Coffee & Covid ☙ Tuesday, July 19, 2022 ☙ CHICKEN 
