The primary result of the Yalta Conference was the reinforcement of the principle of sovereign equality among all nations. On Tuesday, Russia in Global Affairs Magazine published an article featuring Russian Foreign Minister Sergeï Lavrov, who urged the United States and European countries to revert to the international framework established by the Yalta Conference eight decades prior.
IMAGE: Big 3 Meet at Yalta (TCDB)
On February 4, 2025, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov authored an article titled “The UN Charter as the Legal Foundation of a Multipolar World,” published in Russia in Global Affairs Magazine. The op-ed coincided with the 80th anniversary of the start of the Yalta Conference, where leaders Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt, and Joseph Stalin agreed on military plans and principles for the future organization of Europe.
In his article, Lavrov compares Trump’s “America First” as an alarmingly similar slogan to the German anthem “Deutschland Über Alles.” (Germany above all in the World).
Following the dissolution of the USSR, the existing global order was effectively dismantled, ushering in the era known as the “Washington World Order”. During this period, the United States systematically and deliberately dismantled the remnants of the Yalta-Potsdam framework, aiming to establish a new international system characterized by a “rules-based order” or what is referred to in modern days as the “Late Washington world order.”
Also, do read Sergei V. Lavrov article for Russia in Global Affairs magazine.
IMAGE: Russia Foreign Minister, Sergeï Lavrov
Mikhail Tereshchenko writes for The Great Continent…
(Translated from French to English)
To understand how Russia is preparing for the Trump presidential term [sic], one must look closely at the words of Putin’s foreign minister, Sergei V. Lavrov who delivered a lengthy speech during a press conference on January 14, 2025, and this is what he had to say [sic]…
The Great Continent — Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov held a lengthy press conference on Tuesday, January 14, devoted to the results of 2024. During this exchange, he spoke about the implications of Donald Trump’s return for Russian interests, the transformations underway in the Middle East, as well as Moscow’s position regarding a possible ceasefire agreement in Ukraine.
While he says Russia is waiting for Trump’s team to clarify its positions on international affairs, Lavrov welcomes the fact that Donald Trump is the first Western leader to acknowledge that NATO lied about its promise not to expand eastward, provoking the war in Ukraine.
In taking a stand on the Mar-a-Lago imperial doctrine , the foreign minister advised the United States and Denmark to listen to the residents of Greenland, “in the same way that Russia did with those in Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya.”
Lavrov clarified that no proposal for a meeting between Trump and Vladimir Putin had been received from the former US president’s team so far. On Ukraine, he said Russia was ready to discuss security guarantees for “the country currently called Ukraine” or for parts of it whose status has yet to be determined, unlike Crimea and Donbass.
This speech should be read in parallel with that of Vladimir Putin’s advisor, Nikolai Patrushev .
Sergei Lavrov:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I wish everyone present here a Happy New Year and a Merry Christmas to those who celebrate it. I also congratulate all those who, these days as always, keep their sense of humor about life, I wish you a Happy Old New Year, which reached us yesterday and which certainly also brought many joyful events with the “prose of life”, from which one cannot escape and which we will mainly talk about today.
The basic assessments of the international situation in recent years, our actions, direction and goals of our work in the international arena were presented in detail by Russian President Vladimir Putin at his major press conference on December 19, 2024. Before that, he regularly touched upon international issues in his other speeches, including at the meeting of the Valdai discussion club and on other occasions. I will not dwell in detail on the events that filled international life and formed the basis of our work and initiatives.
I recall, and we have been talking about this for a long time, that the current historical stage represents a period (perhaps even an era) of confrontation between those who defend the fundamental principles of international law (and the order established after the Victory over Nazism and Japanese militarism in World War II), principles established, anchored and enshrined in the most important international legal document (I am referring to the UN Charter), and those who are no longer satisfied by this Charter, who after the end of the Cold War decided that “the case is closed”, that the main competitor, namely the Soviet Union and the socialist camp that accompanied it, was eliminated forever. They decided that from now on and in the future they could refer not to the UN Charter, but to the will that is maturing within the political West, which includes the allies of the United States in Asia (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea). We call them the political West, the collective West. Having felt that they had “won” the Cold War, they decided that in the future no agreements with a strong competitor, such as the USSR, were necessary, and that they would resolve all issues independently, while others would receive “orders from above”, as the party system worked in the Soviet Union (Politburo, Central Committee, regional committee, district committee, etc.).
At that time, China had not yet achieved the colossal successes in economic development and its political influence that we observe today, so the West did not meet with serious resistance. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken in detail and convincingly, including explaining the real root causes of the start of the special military operation in Ukraine, that we were forced to repel an attack, a war, started against us by this same collective West with the main goal of suppressing another competitor, which Russia has turned out to be again on the international stage. I will not list these reasons in detail. Their main goal is to weaken our country geopolitically, creating not somewhere across the oceans, but right on our borders, on historically Russian territories, established and developed, arranged by the Russian tsars and their companions, direct military threats in an attempt to undermine our strategic potential and devalue it to the maximum. The second reason is also connected with the history of these lands. Only we are not talking about the lands, but about the people who lived for centuries on these lands, developed them “from scratch”, and built cities, factories, and ports. The Ukrainian regime, which came to power after an unconstitutional coup, simply declared these people “terrorists”. And when they refused to accept it, it conducted a total “offensive” against everything Russian, which for many centuries was the essence of the territories where people refused to obey the new Nazis.
We are now observing the culmination of this “battle.” I am sure that there will be questions about this, so I will not go into details. I would like to emphasize once again (as we used to say in Soviet times in educational institutions) the main contradictions of the current historical period — between those who are for multipolarity, for the UN Charter, for the principle of sovereign equality of states, which requires all those who have ratified it not to impose their will but to prove their rightness and seek a balance of interests, to negotiate, and for all the other principles contained in it. They provide the international legal basis for the fairness of the so-called Yalta-Potsdam system. Many now speak of it, including our political scientists, as a bygone era. I do not quite agree with this assessment. The international legal meaning of the Yalta-Potsdam system does not require any “reparation,” it is the UN Charter. Everyone must implement it. And implement it not selectively, like a menu (I will choose fish today, and tomorrow something stronger), but in its entirety. Especially since all the interconnections between the principles of the UN Charter have already been unanimously defined in the Special Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. And no one objected to it.
I repeat that the other side, which today opposes multipolarity and the movement towards multipolarity, assumes that after the end of the Cold War, the Charter is no longer “applicable” to it, and that it has its own charter. And with their “Western charter”, which they call ” rules-based world order ” – although no one has seen them – they interfere in every monastery, mosque, Buddhist temple, and synagogue. This is where we see the main contradictions.
The desire to proclaim themselves arbiters of destinies after the end of the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union now retains a colossal inertia. This surprises and worries me a little. Because any sensible politician must understand that in the last 30-35 years, times have changed radically. The opposition to the Western dictatorship has re-established itself, no longer in the form of the USSR, but in the form of new emerging economies, financial centres in China, India, ASEAN, the Arab world, in the CELA. It is also the new Russia with its allies in the Eurasian Economic Union, the CIS, and the CSTO. It is also the SCO, the BRICS, and many other rapidly developing and economically prosperous associations in all regions, the countries of the Global South or, more precisely, the world majority. There is already a new reality, strong competitors, eager to compete honestly in the economy, finance, and sports. But the West (at least its current elites) can no longer overcome this inertia of its “total superiority”, of the “end of history”. They are “sliding” on a downward slope, trying to “block the road” to competitors everywhere, including in the economy. Literally today, the United States announced a new package of sanctions in the field of artificial intelligence microprocessors, including banning their import into NATO and European Union member countries. I firmly believe that the United States does not want any competitors in any area, starting with energy, where it unhesitatingly gives the green light to commit terrorist acts aimed at destroying the basis of the Union’s energy well-being, where it encourages its Ukrainian customers to now decommission Turkish Stream after Nord Stream. The rejection of fair competition in the economic sphere and the use of unfair and aggressive methods of suppressing competitors is manifested in the sanctions policy that the United States and its allies have made the basis of their actions on the international stage, including against Russia, but not only. Numerous sanctions have also been imposed against China. As I have already said, they impose sanctions even on their allies without batting an eyelid, as soon as there is the slightest fear that they are producing something somewhere cheaper and promoting it more effectively on international markets than American producers.
The field of sport is a true epic of the transformation of honest competitions into a service to the interests of the country that has proclaimed itself the winner in everything.
If Donald Trump, upon taking office as president, makes America even greater, we will have to look very carefully at the methods by which this goal, proclaimed by President Trump, will be achieved.
I have identified what we call the main contradiction of the present moment. I am ready to listen to you and respond.
Q: My question concerns what you said in your speech about the Yalta-Potsdam system, that it exists and that it is necessary to respect its fundamental provisions. But what to do with the fact that the global players who proclaimed a “rules-based world order” admitted that they no longer consider this system relevant to them? How does Russia plan to keep them in this system?
Lavrov: As for the Yalta-Potsdam system, I repeat once again that it has not disappeared. Now it is said to be exhausted. Political scientists advise to look for something else. To sit down again with three, four or five people and put something on paper, taking into account the new balance of power.
The Yalta-Potsdam system was initially discussed, designed and created by the drafting of the UN Charter by the powers that fought against Nazism — the USSR, the USA, the UK. When the basic principles of the post-war world order were agreed, the French joined. Then, after the revolution in China, the People’s Republic of China also became, after a while, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I am deeply convinced that the Charter of the Organization does not need any improvement in terms of principles. The principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, sovereign equality of states, guarantee of the territorial integrity of states whose governments behave decently, respect the rights of all nations inhabiting the country in question and, therefore, represent the entire population living on their territory. The same cannot be said about the Nazi regime in Kyiv, which came to power as a result of a coup d’état 11 years ago. It did not represent the Crimeans, the residents of Donbass, or the people of Novorossia from the first second.
All these principles are correct. We are also for the reform of the UN. But there are those who say that the greatest injustice is the status of permanent members of some countries in the Security Council with a veto right. We have repeatedly explained that this is a special mechanism. It did not exist before in the previous structures that the world community was trying to create. Nowhere were there such structures where someone had special rights. The formation of the mechanism of permanent members of the Security Council became the result of a lesson learned from the experience of the League of Nations, where the principle of “one country – one vote” was applied. This not only did not allow giving additional privileges to the great powers but also did not allow larger, more influential countries for objective reasons to realize their special responsibility. They did not feel their responsibility for the fate of the systems that were being created, including the League of Nations.
Everything else in the Charter is absolutely correct principles which require not selective but global application.
Regarding the reform of the UN Security Council. Yes, it is necessary. Countries that bear special responsibility in the world economy, finance, politics, and military configurations, of course, are not all represented in the UN Security Council. We have repeatedly said that powers such as India and Brazil, by all parameters, have long deserved a permanent “residence” in the UN Security Council along with a corresponding decision on the permanent African representation in the Security Council.
On the other hand, the West is once again trying to spoil this process, to secure by all means, fair or not, dominant positions for itself. Already now, it has 6 seats among the 15 permanent members. The Americans cite among their main candidates for permanent membership in the Security Council Germany and Japan, which have no independent voice in world politics. They blindly, obediently follow in the wake of the United States. And when Washington directly harms them, they do not dare to say a word. Just as Chancellor Olaf Scholz did not dare to say a word after the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines. He simply timidly and silently looked the other way.
The same applies to Japan, which is entirely dependent on the United States. This is not honest. The West already has 6 seats out of 15. That is enough. We need to increase the representation of developing countries.
When we all (after the reform, during, in the context, in parallel with the reform of the Security Council) have made it clear to the West that it is no longer able, as in the colonial era, to impose its orders on the whole world for centuries, to extract wealth from the countries of Africa, Asia and Latin America, to live at the expense of others, and that it is now necessary to seek a balance of interests, we have an excellent basis for this, the international legal foundation of the Yalta-Potsdam world order, the UN Charter. It is just necessary to implement it. And for this, it is necessary to understand that it is no longer possible to govern the world.
IMAGE: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during his press conference on the results of Russian diplomacy in 2024, at Russian Foreign Ministry © Anatoliy Zhdanov/Kommersant
Q: Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has recently made statements that some experts interpret as solidarity with the United States. How do such statements fit in with the special nature of relations between Russia and Serbia?
Lavrov: We want our relations with Serbia to be based exclusively on the interests of the Serbian and Russian peoples, and on the interests of our states. These interests coincide on the vast majority of issues. These relations are rich in concrete agreements, and projects, especially in the energy sector, approved by heads of state, at the level of governments and businesses. There is joint production, including the Petroleum Industry of Serbia company. The agreement on the creation of this company stipulates that it cannot be nationalized under any circumstances. In American politics, Democrats have these ways of sabotaging the next administration at the last minute, as Barack Obama did three weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration during his first term, when he expelled 120 Russian employees (with their families) and stole by seizing (they still do not let us in) two diplomatic properties with immunity. This forced us to respond and, of course, did not make the Russian-American file any easier for the new Trump administration.
Likewise, now, they want to simultaneously “play a dirty trick”, as they say, on the Serbs and the Trump administration. Here came some kind of deputy energy adviser, he was at a joint press conference with Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, lecturing, demanding that there be no Russian capital left in the Serbian oil industry and in Serbian energy in general. Otherwise, he said, they would block all market access opportunities for Serbian products. It was a rather crude intervention. But this is the hallmark of the outgoing US administration.
When you have not been re-elected and your team, which sees America in a way that has not been supported by the majority of Americans, even from a purely ethical point of view, not only political but out of human decency, does nothing during these three months that appeared from who knows where between the elections and the inauguration and understands that the people want a different policy. No, they will absolutely slam the door, and make sure that no one forgets it.
I repeat that with Serbia we have a very rich history of common struggle against Nazism, for the respect of the right of peoples to self-determination. We support each other on political issues, in international organizations. Of course, we see that Serbia’s arms are being twisted. When President Aleksandar Vucic has been saying for many years that they will not deviate from their course towards membership in the European Union, and all these years in response he hears that they are expected to do so, but that first they must recognize the independence of Kosovo (that is, they are inviting the Serbian people and their president to humiliate themselves), and, secondly, that the Serbs must of course join all EU sanctions against the Russian Federation. At the same time as the invitation to self-humiliation, they are demanding to betray their ally. President Aleksandar Vucic has said many times that this is an unacceptable policy that the Europeans are trying to impose and that the United States is clearly encouraging.
The situation, even from a legal point of view, requires courageous decisions. You are told that you have an agreement with someone that does not concern us but concerns our desire to punish your partner. They add that, sorry, you will also be affected by ricochet, and very painfully.
It is up to the Serbian leader to make the decision. Serbian Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin, who represented Serbia at the BRICS summit in Kazan, spoke clearly on this issue. So we will see.
We are in contact with our Serbian friends. We have requested urgent consultations. We hope to get a reaction very soon.
A few days ago, in Venezuela, the inauguration of Nicolas Maduro, the legitimately elected president, took place. However, his rival in the elections, Edmundo Gonzalez, still claims to be the winner. He is considered as such by Washington and a number of Latin American countries where he was accepted as president-elect, particularly Argentina and Uruguay. How do you assess the situation? Doesn’t this remind you of Juan Guaido’s situation after the previous elections? What does Washington want?
The West is intoxicated with its “greatness” (as it believes), its impunity and its self-proclaimed right to decide the fate of all the peoples of the world. This is manifested not only in Latin America, not only in Venezuela, not only in relation to Juan Guaido and Edmundo Gonzalez. Svetlana Tikhanovskaya has also been proclaimed by some countries as the “legal representative” of Belarus. At least, this is the title under which she is received in the Council of Europe and other Western organizations.
This is about pride and contempt for the rest of the world. This is again a shameless statement that, supposedly, when we say “democracy,” it means only one thing: “I can do whatever I want.” US Secretary of State Antony Blinken (I have already quoted him) said that those who do not listen to them will not sit at the democratic table, but will be on the “menu.” This is a direct manifestation of such a policy. And this is what they do: they think they have the right to make decisions on the results of elections. Yes, the country has the right, not an obligation. OSCE member countries have the right to invite international observers. This is not about ODIHR at all. These can be parliamentary associations of any country or organizations.
I will not even describe how they reacted to the elections in Moldova, how everything was organized there to prevent half a million Moldovans in Russia from voting, how everything was done so that a few Moldovans working in the West had the opportunity to vote calmly without queuing for the one they were told, for the “president” Maia Sandu .
Look how they mistreat the Georgian people. They accused us of “staging something” there. The OSCE monitors did not find any major violations. This formula means that everything was done correctly, and legitimately. But they do not like it.
It is a shame. Maybe “President” Edmundo Gonzalez, like “President” Juan Guaido, will follow the example of former Georgian President Salome Zurabishvili. She firmly stated two days before the inauguration of the new president that she was not going anywhere and that she, as the only legitimate source of power in Georgia, would stay in this palace and “give” orders. But the next morning she left and got a job at a political science think tank.
It is difficult to comment on this topic. This is pure hypocrisy, dictatorship, disrespect for people and a colossal overestimation of one’s own intellectual and other abilities. This will pass with time. But these people need to be educated.
Q: Recently, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that following the strategic guidance of the two heads of state, China-Russia relations are becoming more mature, stable, independent and strong day by day, and are a model of friendly exchanges between the two major powers and neighboring countries. What do you think of this? What do you think is the secret to the stable development of our bilateral relations? What do you expect from bilateral cooperation in 2025?
Lavrov: I fully share these assessments of Russia-China relations, expressed by my long-time good friend Wang Yi. We meet several times a year. These meetings are very useful and help to reach concrete agreements in achieving the goals agreed by Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on foreign policy issues and our coordination in the international arena.
There is no doubt that the Russian-Chinese connection is one of the main stabilizing factors in modern international life and ongoing processes, including with the aim of intensifying confrontation and hostility in international affairs, which our northern neighbors are seeking to do. The Atlantic Alliance under the leadership of the United States is always seeking to sow discord, whether in Europe, in the Taiwan Strait, in the South China Sea, or (as they say) in the Indo-Pacific region, whether in the Middle East or in Africa.
For the United States (they have hundreds of military bases everywhere), it is not difficult to organize a quarrel. But these methods are obvious: create conflicting and destabilizing factors everywhere, and then watch how countries that claimed influence in one region or another, because of these crises and conflicts, spend money, attention and time not on development, but on resolving these crises, while Washington gets more and more benefits from it. They did it during the First World War, and the Second World War. Now they have managed to transfer the main and heavy burden of the war against Russia to the hands of Ukraine on the European Union. And the European Union in its majority, including the leaders of France, Germany and Italy, is silent. Some complain, but mostly in the opposition: AfD, Alliance Sahra Wagenknecht, and in France there is the National Front.
The opposition asks why they are spending so much money when poverty is increasing, deindustrialization is occurring and industry is fleeing to the United States — because America has made energy four times cheaper and taxes lower.
They burned almost all of California. The damage is $250 billion, which is more than they provided to Ukraine, but the figures are comparable. We see and have seen at various international events (APEC was held in San Francisco) that the United States has many problems — poverty is everywhere if you leave the central highways. So when China and Russia advocate equal and honest dialogue with Washington, this means, first of all, that we defend the principles of international communication enshrined in the UN Charter.
After the defeat of German fascism in Europe and Japanese militarism in the Far East during World War II, our leaders agreed to jointly celebrate these two great events: the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II in Europe and the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II in the Far East.
I am sure that these will be exciting events. They are of colossal importance to remind everyone, children and especially the younger generation, at what price peace was established, and to continue to categorically confront attempts to rewrite history, to place equal responsibility on the Nazis and on those who liberated Europe and the Far East from Japanese militarism.
This is an important element that strengthens the comprehensive partnership and Russian-Chinese strategic interaction. I believe that the secret of success is that we have a common history. We do not renounce this history. We (neither Russia nor China), unlike the West, have never renounced the obligations we have assumed, including those enshrined in the UN Charter. He will not declare that he no longer considers them as obligations, but in practice, he does everything not to fulfil them, but to follow his own selfish plans.
That is why the structures created on the basis of the Russian-Chinese joint partnership and initiatives are part of the associations of a new type, where there is no master-slave mentality.
This is the SCO, which is developing ties with the Eurasian Economic Union. The latter closely aligns its integration plans with the Chinese New Silk Road project. This is the BRICS, which has become even stronger after the Kazan summit. Indonesia, which we actively supported during the Russian presidency, has become a full member. Eight new countries have become partner states, and close cooperation is developing between the SCO and ASEAN, as well as with many other associations.
All this is happening on the basis of consensus. However, the Russian-Chinese tandem is able to move all these processes forward quite effectively with the support of all other participants. The international significance of our cooperation, partnership and future plans is enormous. I am confident that these plans will be implemented. We do not want to be against anyone. We want only one thing: that all countries of our planet, including the collective West led by the United States, conduct their affairs in accordance with the interests of all their partners. This is the common position of Moscow and Beijing.
Q: We see that Armenia is being forced to follow the wrong destructive path, which, I am not afraid to say, is becoming an obstacle to its very existence. All this is happening to the detriment of centuries-old Russian-Armenian relations and to the benefit of the West. We know that Armenia has blocked its participation in the CSTO. We know that the Armenian government is ignoring a number of events taking place on the Russian platform. Moreover, quite recently, Yerevan (the government) has begun to drag Armenia into the European Union. We learned that a referendum on membership in the Union will be held. Today we learned that Armenia is going to sign a document on strategic partnership with the United States. All this is happening against the backdrop of very real threats from our neighbors and growing risks of a new war. How are the Russian authorities dealing with the situation in Armenia? How do you see the development of events?
My second question concerns the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory, which you have already mentioned. This is a common victory. We know the contribution of the Soviet people, including the Armenian people, to this victory. It was significant and far-reaching. Do you agree that the memory of this victory is one of the foundations on which the strategic alliance between Armenia and Russia should be built?
Lavrov: The non-governmental association Eurasia, of which I am a member of the board, has been actively working in the Eurasian space for seven months. We actively advocate the preservation of historical memory and defend traditional values. I can say with absolute certainty that our work has a wide response among young people. So, in October 2024, we held a large-scale event in Yerevan, attended by more than a thousand Armenian students, where we not only congratulated Yerevan on the holiday but also paid tribute to the memory of the victory in the Great Patriotic War, laying flowers at the Eternal Flame.
In answer to the second question I would like to emphasize that this is a sacred topic for all peoples, first of all the Soviet Union, who were subjected to the genocidal attempts of the Nazi invaders, and for all those who, either as part of the army units of their country or in partisan detachments, the resistance movement, fought for justice and truth against the Nazis and a large number of European countries that the German Nazis put under arms. Spaniards and French people participated in the siege of Leningrad and in many other criminal actions of the Nazi regime.
We have not forgotten it. It is a parallel. They are constantly imposing themselves. Napoleon conquered Europe and armed everyone to defeat the Russian Empire. There were not only French people there. It is the same with Hitler’s Germany. Dozens of countries occupied by the Germans sent their troops to destroy the USSR.
US President Joe Biden, speaking yesterday with a report on foreign policy, said that they had managed to strengthen NATO and its supporters, supposedly 50 countries were put under arms to “help” Ukraine, but in reality, to fight against Russia in the hands of Ukraine.
History repeats itself. Everywhere there are elements of a sense of personal superiority and a desire to implement what is today called Bonapartism. For Adolf Hitler, it was already Nazism directly. And the same Nazism today provides banners to those who, under these banners, want to once again try to destroy our country. That is why these anniversaries are sacred.
What the public, including your organization, is doing, in addition to the actions of states and governments, deserves, in my opinion, the highest praise.
I am aware of your work in Armenia, not only in Yerevan but also in cities and villages. Our embassy actively cooperates in areas where we can unite our efforts, I am talking about organizing the Immortal Regiment march and such events as the Garden of Memory and the Victory Dictation. This is important for young people to get acquainted with these eternal values without exaggeration.
Our diplomats meet with Armenian veterans, take care of burial sites and maintain memorials. There is no doubt that the peoples of Russia and Armenia are friendly and brotherly peoples, and mutual relations will ultimately be based on the feeling of friendship.
As for current relations at the official level, they are not simple. You mentioned some facts that we have already commented on.
For example, when it was announced that the government had decided to start the process of joining the Union. Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overshuk, an experienced person in charge of the Eurasian Economic Union, its expansion and development, frankly said that these are incompatible things. These are two different free trade zones, two different systems of reducing (or exemption) taxes and rates. They do not coincide.
I would like to remind you that in 2013, after our repeated reminders, the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych drew attention to the fact that the negotiations with the European Union on Ukraine’s association with the Union, which had been underway for many years by that time, had reached parameters that, if approved, would be in direct contradiction with the obligations within the framework of the CIS free trade zone. Ukraine participated in them and actively enjoyed its advantages — in the CIS free trade zone there were practically no internal rates. Ukraine wanted to have the same zero rates with the European Union, with which Russia and other CIS members, for obvious reasons, had quite serious protective barriers.
When we joined the World Trade Organization, after 17 years of negotiations, we got serious protection for a whole range of our economic sectors and services. If Ukraine, which has no customs tariffs with Russia, were granted the same regime with the European Union, then European goods, which, according to our agreements with Brussels, were subject to high customs duties, would enter our territory free of charge, without any tariffs. We explained this to the Ukrainians.
The government of Viktor Yanukovych understood this. They understood that if they did nothing, we would simply create a barrier to Ukrainian imports to Russia. And they would suffer from this, given that the bulk of trade was with the CIS, not with Europe. Ukraine asked to postpone the signing of the Association Agreement for several months in order to make a decision.
We have proposed, in addition to this, that Russia, Ukraine and the European Commission sit down together and consider how to ensure that Ukraine receives additional benefits from the Association Agreement with the Union, but does not lose the advantages of the CIS free trade zone.
The then President of the European Commission, José Manuel Barroso, a man as arrogant as he seems, said that it was none of our business. That they were not interfering in Russia’s relations with Canada. So, the decision of the legitimate Armenian leadership to begin the process of joining any international structure where they are welcome is a sovereign decision. But weighing the pros and cons is also the responsibility of the Armenian government, of those who are in charge of the economic sector.
You mentioned that Armenia has blocked its participation in the CSTO. They simply do not participate in the events. But to be fair, they have officially stated that this does not mean that they are blocking decisions where consensus is needed.
The organization is functioning and working. In the fall of 2022, we agreed on the deployment of a CSTO observer mission equipped to play a deterrent role on the border. But then our Armenian friends said (everything had already been agreed, and the decision was ready, but they refused at the last moment) that it was difficult for them to agree, given that in September 2022 there were three days of clashes on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, the CSTO did not intervene and “did not defend the territory of an ally.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly raised this issue. There was no demarcated border, let alone demarcation. Never. Two or three kilometres in one direction and the other. Yes, there were such shootings at that time. But to abandon a CSTO mission, which would have been very effective, was also a sovereign decision. At the same time, a European Union mission was invited there for two months. The Armenians then unilaterally, without consulting the Azerbaijanis, made the initial agreement permanent. Canada then joined the mission. This is already an element of NATO’s presence. According to our information, these people are largely interested in issues that are of less interest to Armenia than to various Western trade unions.
Yesterday I learned that Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan signed a strategic partnership agreement with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken. This is a sovereign decision of two states. The main thing is not what you signed and what it is called, but what follows from it.
We have also used the terminology of “strategic partnership” in a number of agreements with Western countries. But these agreements, while proclaiming a strategic partnership, have never required any of the participants to act against a third country.
We have never declared anywhere in peacetime (World War II, and the Great Patriotic War are another matter) against anyone in modern times that we are strategic partners who should, supposedly, join in some sanctions, as they demand from Serbia. And they will demand the same from Armenia.
But our dialogue continues. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia, Ararat Mirzoyan, was invited to the Russian Federation. He accepted the invitation. We are waiting for him. I hope that this visit will take place soon.
IMAGE: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during his press conference on the results of Russian diplomacy in 2024, at the press centre of the Russian Foreign Ministry. © Anatoliy Zhdanov/Kommersant Photo
Q: Donald Trump’s return has revived talk of a deal on Ukraine. Will he actually be able to make this deal , make peace? What concessions is Russia prepared to make to reach an agreement? What is your reaction to Donald Trump’s recent refusal to rule out the use of military force to obtain Greenland? How will you act if Donald Trump does so?
Lavrov: As I understand it, there are already concrete initiatives that will be implemented immediately after Donald Trump’s inauguration. At least, what I have seen are initiatives to start negotiations with Denmark on the purchase of Greenland.
At the same time, we hear statements by Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede that Greenlanders have a special relationship with Copenhagen, that they do not want to be Danes or Americans, but want to be Greenlanders. I think that first of all, we need to listen to the Greenlanders.
Just as we, being neighbors on other islands, peninsulas and lands, listened to the residents of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossia, to find out their attitude towards the regime that came to power after an illegal coup, which was not accepted by the residents of Crimea, Novorossia and Donbass.
This is in full compliance with what I was talking about at the beginning, namely the right of nations to self-determination. In cases where a nation, as part of a larger state, considers that it is not comfortable in that state and wants to self-determine in accordance with the UN Charter, the larger state is obliged not to oppose it, not to obstruct it. Not as the Spanish did with Catalonia, not as the British did with Scotland. If a nation as part of another state manifests such an aspiration, it can exercise its right.
International law is enshrined in the UN Charter and the Declaration of the General Assembly. It says that everyone must respect the territorial integrity of a state whose government represents the entire population living in the corresponding territory. If Greenland considers that Copenhagen does not represent its interests and the interests of its population, then probably the right to self-determination comes into force.
In the same way that the right to self-determination was the international legal basis of the decolonization process in the 1960s and 1970s. At that time, the indigenous African peoples understood that the colonizers who ruled them did not represent their interests, the interests of the population. Then the right of nations to self-determination was realized for the first time on a large scale in full compliance with the UN Charter, but not completely. Today, there are 17 non-self-governing territories in the world. There is the UN Special Committee on Decolonization that meets every year and confirms the need to complete the decolonization process. Many resolutions have been adopted regarding the island of Mayotte, which the French do not want to return to the State of the Comoros contrary to the decisions of the UN. There is the decolonization of Mauritius and many others.
Nevertheless, the right of nations to self-determination exists. It was realized within the framework of decolonization and constitutes the international legal basis for the completion of this process (I am talking about the 17 non-self-governing territories).
The right of nations to self-determination is the basis of the decisions taken by the people of Crimea in 2014 and by the people of Novorossia and Donbass in 2022. Just as the African peoples did not see in the colonizers those who represented their interests, in the same way, the Crimeans, the people of Donbass and Novorossia could not see in the Nazis who came to power in 2014 after a coup d’état people representing their interests. Because these Nazis, after taking power, immediately announced that they would abolish the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. And they did it. Moreover, they adopted a law banning the Russian language long before the start of the special military operation. In the West, where everyone is obsessed with human rights at every turn, no one even lifted a finger or said a word.
By the way, human rights are also the UN Charter. Article 1 states: that everyone must respect human rights regardless of race, sex, language and religion. The Russian language is completely banned, and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church is banned. Nobody pays attention to these flagrant violations of the UN Charter. Although the West makes a big deal about human rights for any reason that has nothing to do with the well-being of the population. And here, when they have disfigured the daily life of people and are trying to exterminate their entire history and traditions, everyone keeps quiet.
When Donald Trump, having become president, has finally formulated his position on the Ukrainian issue, we will study it. Everything that is said now is done in the context of preparation for the inauguration and serious business. As Donald Trump himself said, in the context of preparation for entering the Oval Office.
Everything that has been discussed for a year has several aspects. The very fact that people have started to mention the realities on the ground more is probably to be welcomed. Mike Waltz, who, as I understand it, will be the national security adviser, and President Donald Trump himself in his big interview mentioned the root causes of the conflict in the part about the integration of the Kiev regime into NATO contrary to the agreements reached in the framework of Soviet- and then Russian-American relations and agreements, and in the framework of the OSCE. It was written there by consensus at the highest level, including by presidents, including President Barack Obama in 2010, that no country or organization in the OSCE area claims dominance, and that no country will strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others. NATO was doing precisely what it had promised not to do. Donald Trump said so.
For the first time from the lips of not only an American leader but also any Western leader, honest confessions were heard that NATO members were lying when they signed many documents with our country and within the framework of the OSCE. This was used only as a cover, a “paper”, but in reality NATO was approaching our borders as close as possible, violating the agreements on the conditions under which East Germany became part of the Federal Republic, moving military infrastructure as close as possible to our borders, planning the creation of military bases, including naval bases in Crimea and on the Sea of Azov. All this is well known.
The fact that this root cause, finally, after our reminders for several months, even two years, is anchored in the American discourse, is a good thing. But for now, neither in the narrative nor in any discourse do the rights of Russians, whose language, culture, education, media and canonical religion in Ukraine have been banned by law, resonate. There will be no serious discussions if the West pretends that this is normal.
When the outgoing administration, in the person of Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, says that they are confident that the “new White House” will continue the policy of supporting Ukraine, what is that? A testament to continue to exterminate everything Russian? It is not such a simple thing. It is a very dangerous thing. It has to do with Nazism as a form of implementing foreign policy. Or the education of Nazis as a form of implementing foreign policy against a country that the United States wants to contain and prevent from gaining competitive advantages.
We will wait for concrete initiatives. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that he is ready to hold meetings. But there have been no proposals so far. Then President Donald Trump said that Vladimir Putin wanted to hold meetings. I think we need to meet, but first we need to “settle into the Oval Office.”
Q: We are witnessing a paradoxical situation in Europe. I am sure that the vast majority of the population in some countries like mine (i.e. Greece), in Cyprus, and elsewhere, do not agree with the policy pursued by our governments. That is, the population is categorically against any military escalation that is prepared by some. Unfortunately, this is a paradoxical situation and a paradoxical democracy, where our governments do not consider it their obligation to coordinate foreign policy with their own people. Some governments even tell us that foreign policy is determined by other obligations. Russia is still part of this common European continent. What is your forecast: will we ever return to the normalization of relations on our common continent? You are probably the most experienced diplomat in the world. You have solved or tried to solve, you have been involved in the Cyprus issue. These days, a new round of this complex process of negotiations in Cyprus is being discussed. Do you have any expectations, any possible advice for those who will take care of it?
I will start with the second question. I did indeed work on the Cyprus settlement when I was working in New York. Every year, the President of Cyprus came to the UN General Assembly. On that occasion, he invited the ambassadors of the five permanent members of the Security Council, we talked about the implementation of the principles enshrined in the decisions of the Security Council. Of course, we also talked about the failures on the way to resolving the Cyprus problem.
The last concrete attempt was the Kofi Annan plan in 2004. At that time, my good friend (may he rest in peace) Kofi Annan, the great Secretary-General, took the risk, on the advice of his assistants, to propose a plan that would have modified at least a little the decision of the Security Council in favour of a weakening of the future central power of the possible unified state. That is, the Greek Cypriots would have had less power.
There was a referendum. He rejected this plan. Since then, there has been nothing more concrete. I know that our Turkish neighbors are saying directly that these are two equal states, that it is no longer possible otherwise, and that we must negotiate. We do not have and cannot have a “magic” recipe that we would propose, much less impose. The interests of both peoples must be taken into account. Previously, the member countries of the Security Council were considered the guarantors of this process. Lately, as I understand it, including with the Nicosia agreement, this quintet no longer meets. I suspect that the Cypriot leadership is “working” with the United States.
We only want one thing: for Cypriots to live as they want, in the north and in the south. Many Russian citizens live there. Further south of course, but more than 10,000 live in the north. We provide their consular service. We do not have a permanent consular establishment there, like some countries such as the United Kingdom, but we have organized a service there. We want Cypriots to decide how they want to live in the future.
I understand that the current leadership of Cyprus has partners who do not just want the Cypriots to decide quickly, but tell them how they should decide, including, for example, joining NATO, changing their internal legislation to harm the Russians who transferred money to the banks of this country. In other words, just as Serbia is told what “price” to pay for membership in the European Union, Cyprus is told to join NATO, that there will be no problems because everyone will be allies, and that with the north “everything will be fine.” But, they say, we must make sure that there are fewer Russians, that you remember less of the common history. We do not interfere in internal affairs.
I understand that for Cyprus this is an important issue that we are discussing now, but geopolitically, the first part of your question about the possibility of normalization of relations on our common continent is much more important. This is an important key phrase — common continent. It is called Eurasia. It is the largest, most populous, and probably the richest continent. Perhaps it rivals Africa and Greenland in terms of natural resources.
But this is a continent where there is no single continental structure. In Latin America, there is CELAC, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States. In Africa, there is the African Union. Alongside many sub-regional unions in both Africa and Latin America, there are continental structures. In Eurasia, there are only sub-regional structures, and there is no single “roof” that would bring everyone together. It would probably not be bad to try to do that.
You asked: is it possible to return to normal relations? It is clear that there are several organizations in the Western part of our common continent, namely the OSCE, NATO, the Council of Europe, the European Union. The first two (the OSCE and the North Atlantic Alliance) are based on the concept of Euro-Atlantic security with the participation of North America. The European Union was created for Europeans. But recently it signed an agreement with NATO, according to which the European Union, militarily, if a war breaks out (God forbid), will do what the Alliance tells it. Not only the European Union. They have already told Switzerland, to come on, and join the “military Schengen”. In case NATO needs to cross its territory towards the Russian Federation, then remove all authorization procedures. There is the Council of Europe. The Americans are not members of it for obvious reasons (they are not European, they are observers). But what the Council of Europe is doing now, including the creation of illegal courts, registers, and a certain compensation mechanism to punish Russia — all this is done at the decision of the United States.
The OSCE, NATO, and now the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Nordic Council of Ministers, which are now all members of NATO, are all Euro-Atlantic structures, not Eurasian ones. Probably those who want to keep Europe “in check” want this Euro-Atlantic structure to remain and continue to dominate.
Recently, they have realized that the central and eastern part of Eurasia is a much more promising region from the point of view of economy and infrastructure. Global-scale logistics infrastructure projects are being implemented there. What do NATO and Washington want now? First of all, for the entire Eurasian continent to become part of the Euro-Atlantic construction. Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, shortly before his well-deserved retirement, said that the security of the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region is indivisible. That is, the indivisibility of security, which was proclaimed as early as 1999 as a principle of the OSCE, assuming that one cannot strengthen oneself by weakening others, to the detriment of others, has been turned around differently. Now they want the whole of Eurasia to develop from the military-political point of view according to Euro-Atlantic parameters.
In the Indo-Pacific region, there is already AUKUS, AP4 (Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand) and the Quad (with the participation of India). The Americans want to give it a military-political dimension. Our Indian friends understand this perfectly. There is already an intensification of Taiwan’s armament. These are not even attempts, but actions to involve the Philippines not in the work of ASEAN, but in the work of these close American alliances.
Speaking of the Taiwan Strait. The Americans, the Europeans, and the British, all say that they respect the position that there is only one China, the People’s Republic of China. But they immediately add that they adhere to the position of one China, but that no one should change the status quo. And what is the status quo? An independent Taiwan. That’s obvious. China has repeatedly told all “visitors” from the United States, who regularly go to Taiwan, that this is unacceptable, as is receiving Taiwanese delegations when they travel around the world (they are received as state figures).
President Vladimir Putin, speaking in this hall on June 14, 2024, spoke about our position on the Ukrainian settlement, consisting in the need to finally close the NATO issue and restore the linguistic, religious and other rights of Russians, which were legally exterminated by the Nazi regime of Vladimir Zelensky. In this same hall, he also spoke about the need to form a Eurasian architecture. Precisely Eurasian, which will be, like the African Union, like CELAC, open to all countries of the continent. These ideas have been discussed for about ten years, when at the first Russia-ASEAN summit, Vladimir Putin launched the initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership. There are already corresponding agreements between the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union, and ASEAN. We are now also working with the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.
When we say that this economic, transport and logistics partnership should be open to all countries of the continent (because in this case, we use the comparative advantages given by God and geography to the maximum), of course, we also mean the Western part of the continent. Such interest is manifested in some countries of the Western part of Europe. To promote the idea of the Greater Eurasian Partnership, we use the establishment of ties, and the harmonization of the programs of the existing integration unions. This process is underway.
In this same context, relations are developing within the framework of the implementation of the Chinese project of the New Silk Road, the international North-South transport corridor, the Northern Sea Route, the Persian Gulf, the port of Chittagong in Bangladesh, Mumbai… this is a very promising project. This is what we call the Great Eurasian Partnership.
When such a partnership gains sufficient momentum (everything speaks in its favor), it will simultaneously create competitive, more efficient channels for economic exchange and a material basis for the Eurasian security architecture. Dialogue on this topic has already begun.
In October 2024, the Second International Conference on Eurasian Security was held in Minsk, where representatives of the governments of Serbia and Hungary (the Minister of Foreign Economic Relations and Foreign Affairs of Hungary, Péter Szijjarto, took part in it for the second time in a row) were present, showing interest in this concept. Belarusians, as the hosts and initiators of this conference, are now working to make it regular. This decision has already been made. We supported their initiative to develop a draft Eurasian Charter on Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century for the next session of this conference on Eurasian security.
I believe that it is sensible to think about the fact that the Eurasian continent is developing based on the interests of its countries, not from an Atlantic or Pacific perspective or in any other, but based on what history and nature have given. We will deal with this. I emphasize once again that the process is open to all countries without exception located on our Eurasian continent. Cyprus is an island, but you are also invited.
Q: You mentioned a possible meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump. What role can the European Union and Germany play in possible negotiations to resolve the Ukrainian conflict?
Lavrov: The then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande told us that they were the guarantors of the implementation of the Minsk agreements concluded between Russia and Ukraine, Germany and France. They were worked out in the Belarusian capital (where I had the honour of being present) for almost 20 hours. The Germans and the French said that this was a peace treaty between Moscow and Kyiv, and that they were its guarantors. We interpreted the status of the participants differently, but this was the position of Germany and France. That they “made us sit down”, that we reached an agreement and that they were its guarantors.
We (the Russian side) presented this document to the UN Security Council, which unanimously approved it and demanded that these agreements be implemented. I will not list the hundreds, and thousands of violations committed by the Kiev regime, including the shelling of civilian sites, the total blockade of territories that refused to recognize the coup. All this was regularly sent to the UN and the OSCE. We told the “guarantors”: come on, stop this shame. They said that Russia was also shooting there, helping these insurgents.
In December 2022, already retired, Angela Merkel said that no one was going to honor these agreements — neither Germany, France, nor the then Ukrainian president, Poroshenko, who had signed these documents. They would simply have needed to gain a few years to better prepare Ukraine for war.
The question is what the Yalta-Potsdam system enshrined in the UN Charter is. Article 25 states that the decisions of the UN Security Council are binding on all members of the Organization. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she did not need to comply with this article. This is despite the fact that she was one of the parties to this document, which was also attached to a statement by four countries (Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France), which spoke of “the common space from Lisbon to Vladivostok”, that “we will build all this”, that “France and Germany will help Donbas to establish mobile banking services”, that they will “help lift the blockade” and “hold negotiations to resolve gas transportation issues, help Russia and Ukraine in this area”. They did nothing.
With all due respect to the history of the German people, I believe that they have already made their “contribution” through the administration of the former German Chancellor. Russian President Vladimir Putin never refuses to get in touch. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called him several times. They also spoke recently. Olaf Scholz was proud of having accomplished such a “feat”. But there were also conversations with other representatives of the European Union. I hope the President will not scold me too much, I am not giving away secrets. But during this conversation, Olaf Scholz said nothing that he did not say publicly every other day: that Russia must leave Ukraine, not a word about the root causes of the crisis, not a word about the Russian language and the rights of Russians, which Vladimir Zelensky wants to “grab”.
In fact, Vladimir Zelensky said in 2021, long before the special military operation, that if you feel like a Russian in Ukraine, then go to Russia for the sake of your children. And recently, he simply used Russian obscenities to express his attitude towards a number of peacekeepers who did not want to expel Russians to the 1991 borders. The adequacy of this man is a separate question.
IMAGE: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov during his press conference on the results of Russian diplomacy in 2024, at the press centre of the Russian Foreign Ministry. © Anatoliy Zhdanov/Kommersant Photo
Q: Several are offering their services. Turkey was the place where the agreement was concluded and initialed. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (who has now started writing books) forbade signing an agreement based on the principles agreed in Istanbul. A series of meetings took place in Belarus. President Alexander Lukashenko confirmed once again that as a neighbor of Russia and Ukraine, he proceeded from the principle that Belarus’ interests should be taken into account. We appreciate it.
Lavrov: Overall, understanding is growing. That is why there was a general interest in discussions about a phone call and then a meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States. Everyone understood (in fact, they understood it for a long time, they only began to admit it now) that the problem is not about Ukraine, but that it is being used to weaken Russia in the context of our place in the Eurasian security system.
There are two aspects of security. Threats to our Western borders are one of the main root causes of the conflict and must be eliminated. This can only be done within the framework of broader agreements. We are ready to discuss security guarantees for the country called Ukraine, or the part of this country that has not yet self-determined, unlike Crimea, Donbass and Novorossia. But despite the importance of this aspect, the Eurasian context will be dominant, because the Western part of the continent cannot isolate itself from such giants as China, India, Russia, the Persian Gulf and all of South Asia, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Hundreds of millions of people live there. The continent should be arranged in such a way that the affairs of its central part, Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Far East, the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea are managed by the countries of the region, and not by the former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who said that NATO would work there because the security of the Alliance depends on the Indo-Pacific region.
He was asked whether NATO is still a defensive alliance. He answered yes. They protect the territory of their members, but the security of their territory in modern conditions depends on the security in the Indo-Pacific region. That is why NATO infrastructure will also be deployed there. Alliances will be created there. The United States and South Korea have already formed a military alliance with a nuclear component. They recently confirmed this.
It is an interesting moment for political scientists to think about how to put all this together. I assure you that the Euro-Atlantic approach to all of Eurasia is an illusion.
Q: How is the comprehensive strategic partnership between Iran and Russia developing? What messages will the agreement contain and what are the concerns of other countries in relation to this agreement?
Lavrov: On January 17, 2025, Iranian President Massoud Pezeshkian will visit Russia. The visit has already been announced. Our presidents will sign this agreement.
As to whether this pleases or not, this question is usually asked by our Western colleagues, because they always want to find a topic that will show that Russia and Iran, Russia and China, and North Korea are always up to something. This treaty, as well as the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, are not directed against any country, but are constructive in nature and are aimed at strengthening the capabilities of Russia and Iran and our friends in various parts of the world to better develop the economy, solve social problems and reliably ensure defense capability.
Q: It is known that Russia constantly calls for a multipolar world. After Russia’s withdrawal from the Middle East, a unipolar world led by the United States is emerging there. What steps can we expect from Russia in this region? The population there respects Russia and expects it to play a certain role.
Lavrov: You journalists… At the beginning, you made two statements: “Russia has left the Middle East” (as if it were a fact) and “After that, the United States is in charge there.” And then you ask, what to do?
I do not agree with either the first or the second statement. We have not withdrawn from the Middle East. Events have taken place in Syria, which has been commented on by Russian President Vladimir Putin and our other officials. In many respects, they have happened because over the past ten years, since the moment when, at the request of the President of the Syrian Arab Republic Bashar al-Assad, Russia sent its contingent there and when we, Turkey and Iran created the Astana format, in which a number of Arab countries participate, there has nevertheless been a slowdown in the political process. There was a temptation not to change anything.
We thought it was wrong. We appealed to the Syrian leadership in every possible way so that the Syrian Constitutional Committee, created in 2018 at the initiative of Russia at the Syrian National Dialogue Congress in Sochi and which fell silent after the first two or three meetings, resumed its work. But the leadership in Damascus did not want to see it work and reach an agreement. And it could only be about sharing power with opposition groups (naturally, not terrorist groups). This was a delay. It was accompanied by an aggravation of social problems. American sanctions were strangling the Syrian economy. The eastern part of the country, the richest in oil and the most fertile was and remains occupied by the Americans. The extracted resources are used to finance separatist tendencies in northeastern Syria.
We then offered our colleagues from the Kurdish organizations to help them build a bridge with the central government. They did not really want to do this, believing that the Americans would still be there and that they would create their own quasi-state there. We explained to them that neither Turkey nor Iraq would ever allow the creation of a Kurdish state. It turns out that the Kurdish problem could blow up the entire region. We advocated that the rights of the Kurds in Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey be specifically discussed and reliably guaranteed.
On the one hand, Damascus was not very enthusiastic about negotiating, on the other hand, the Kurds. There was also little contact between the various platforms mentioned by the UN Security Council as direct participants in the settlement process (Moscow, Cairo, Istanbul). All this led to the formation of a vacuum and an explosion occurred there. We must accept reality.
The Russian embassy has not left Damascus. It has daily contacts. We want to be useful in efforts to normalize the situation, and this requires an inclusive national dialogue in Syria with the participation of all political, ethnic, religious forces and all external actors.
I spoke with our colleagues from Turkey and the Persian Gulf countries. They have now held their second meeting (after Jordan) in Saudi Arabia. It was attended by Arab countries, Turkey and some Western states. They assume that Russia, China and Iran must be involved in this process if they really want to launch a reliable process aimed at a sustainable result, and not engage once again in a settling of scores with their competitors on Syrian territory. We are open to this conversation. The Astana format could well play its role. In addition, Turkey, Russia and Iran are interacting with the troika (Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq). Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar are also showing interest.
During my meeting with the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy for Syria, Geir Pedersen, in Doha on December 7, 2024, he said that there was an urgent need to create an international conference with the participation of all Syrians and all external actors. We are waiting.
END
See more archives and discourse from “Le Grand Continent“
READ MORE RUSSIA NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire RUSSIA Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV
VISIT OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL
