Russia
Source:
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2045680/ Mr Torkunov,
Colleagues,
Friends,
First year students.
I was honoured to learn that Mr Torkunov scheduled this meeting as part of the Day of Knowledge, emphasising the importance of preserving, honouring, and developing traditions. I believe this was the right decision.
I hope it has not caused you significant inconvenience that we are meeting on September 8 rather than September 1. The challenge of scheduling our meetings arises from the fact that foreign policy work continues uninterrupted, without any breaks.
As you know, on August 15 of this year, the historic summit between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place in Alaska. Just over a week later, at the end of August and the beginning of September, President Putin undertook an unprecedented tour, which included a four-day visit to China to attend the SCO summit, conduct a separate Russia-China bilateral summit, and participate in events commemorating the 80th anniversaries of both the Victory over Japanese militarism and the end of World War II. The near future is unlikely to be any less challenging.
This week, we are holding another meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia and the Gulf Cooperation Council states. Next month will see the first-ever summit between Russia and the League of Arab States. The second ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum is scheduled for November. Before the end of the year, there will also be meetings of the EAEU – both ministerial and at the highest level – as well as sessions of the CIS and the CSTO. At all levels, including the highest, the bodies of the Union State of Russia and Belarus are actively engaged.
I will not attempt to analyse the results of all the events of the past three weeks involving President Vladimir Putin. This task is carried out very well by political scientists and analysts, including faculty members from MGIMO, who regularly share their assessments on television.
I have no doubt that if you chose MGIMO for your higher education, you actively follow developments and absorb knowledge and information. But it is not enough simply to absorb, it is essential to use what you learn to form your own independent conclusions. Do not be afraid to do this. Approach your studies creatively and do not hesitate to question authority. This may not always be welcomed, but I am convinced that without such critical engagement, personal development will be hindered.
After the start of the special military operation, many predicted economic collapse, complete isolation, and that our country and its leadership would become international pariahs. Yet the statistics – provided not by us, but by Western institutions, including the World Bank – show that Russia is now the fourth-largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity, following the USA, China, and India, and the largest economy in Europe by the same measure.
As for claims of our “isolation,” events like the SCO meetings and last year’s BRICS Summit in Kazan clearly demonstrate that these assertions are baseless. They were invented merely to allow some Western countries to publicly “wave their banners,” proclaiming themselves the leading global powers and insisting that everyone abide by the “rules” they define for the international order. These so-called rules have become uninteresting to discuss, no one has seen them, and in reality, they amount to only one thing: everyone must accept what serves the West in a particular moment. This approach will not succeed.
A good example of how the Global South and the countries of the Global Majority tend to follow requests, positions and, more recently, demands of the West can be seen in the reaction of Brazil, India, and China to the US’s threat to impose prohibitive tariffs as punishment for continuing trade with the Russian Federation, primarily through the purchase of our energy resources. Not one of these states – and they are great nations, leaders of the Global Majority – has made concessions or sacrificed their legitimate national interests.
The actions of our Western colleagues – with Europe playing an especially harmful and negative role for the future of the global economy – serve only to undermine the objective interests of those peoples who are compelled to forgo advantageous agreements and cheap raw materials, merely in order, as they imagine, to punish the exporter for alleged misbehaviour.
Let me make another statistical example. The BRICS countries (even before their number doubled in 2024, when there were only five of them) had already surpassed the G7 in terms of combined GDP measured at purchasing power parity. Since then, this gap has only widened. We harbour no desire for revenge, nor do we seek to vent anger on anyone. We firmly believe that anger and the pursuit of vengeance are poor advisers.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin reiterated this in Vladivostok, where he arrived right after the “autumn marathon” in China. He made it clear that Russia has not severed ties with anyone and does not intend to ignore anyone. When our former Western partners – now no more than neighbours – regain their senses and wish to return to Russia to work here again, we shall not turn them away. But we shall consider under what conditions such cooperation may resume, taking into account that by abruptly departing at the command of their political leaders they have demonstrated their unreliability. From now on, any such questions will be settled on terms that do not expose our key industries, or the foundations of our economy and national life, to risks – for these are directly linked to the security of the Russian Federation and to the economic and social wellbeing of our people. Without them, no state can be sovereign.
Please, recall the collapse of the USSR – brought about, to a large extent, by our own mistaken, utopian illusions that, once all ideological contradictions were removed, the West would grant us an equal place in international relations. It never intended to do so. This became clear soon enough, but illusions lingered. What happened, happened. The West regarded this not as a tragedy for millions of people suddenly torn apart, their families and communities scattered across different countries, but as an opportunity. And it pursued its course of weakening what was now the Russian Federation.
Recently, facts were presented that some marginal characters are still planning to dismember our country into separate regions. Our fugitive opposition, registered as foreign agents, is actively promoting this agenda. With little success, it must be said – yet the structures of Western states do not abandon them, keeping the idea alive. From time to time, statements are made which expose the desire of today’s Western leaders, especially in Europe, to weaken Russia and remove competitors.
After the Russian Federation regained its identity, returned to the foundations of our consciousness and values, and, since the 2000s, began to pursue a policy reflecting our national interests, we have never sought to weaken anyone or cause harm. On the contrary, we have always been ready for honest and equitable cooperation. While the West endeavoured to fragment both the former socialist bloc and the USSR, and later the Russian Federation itself, we consistently strove to unite.
This particular principle lay behind the creation of the CIS: to pool efforts and draw the maximum benefit from the legacy left to us by our Motherland, the USSR, rather than remaining isolated in a weakened state. This approach proved largely successful. From it grew the EAEU, the CSTO, and the Union State of Russia and Belarus. In each case, our efforts have been aimed at unification. The work of all these organisations is based on consensus; we have no system of one-man rule such as in NATO, where discipline is enforced by coercion, a fact well known to all. Nor do we have the type of top-down control that the European Commission seeks to impose on the European Union.
Attempts to keep everyone under strict command are not universally welcomed. The processes that are now taking place within NATO, driven largely by the position of the Trump administration, which insists that Europeans should assume greater responsibility for their own problems, are highly illustrative. They show clearly that it is impossible to impose one’s will and dictate terms indefinitely.
I would also like to highlight President Vladimir Putin’s response to a question he was asked in Vladivostok as to whether the future belongs to the Western or the Eastern world. He replied that the world will be multipolar. This is an important answer to those who have recently suggested, even within our own academic community, that a multipolar world might be built without the West. We all inhabit one small planet. It is the Western style to construct “Berlin walls” – figurative barriers – within our vast Eurasian space, which was once the Soviet Union and is now the post-Soviet space. We have no desire to build any walls. We seek fair cooperation. And if our partners are prepared to engage on an equal and mutually respectful basis, we are ready for dialogue with all.
This was clearly demonstrated during the talks between President Putin and President Trump in Alaska. The difference between that administration and its predecessors under President Joe Biden, as well as many European leaders, is that they are not only willing to listen, but also able to hear. The discussions in Anchorage revealed that President Trump and his team understood the necessity of resolving all issues, including the Ukrainian crisis, on the basis of respect for all parties’ legitimate national interests. In Ukraine’s case, this means addressing the root causes of the crisis. For many years, the West has poured billions of dollars into Ukraine to create a regime wholly obedient to it: one that would not decline NATO membership and that would remain subordinate to Western structures, including the European Union. The latter, originally conceived as an economic union, has in practice degenerated into a militant appendage of the North Atlantic Alliance, betraying its founding purposes: to improve the lives of Europeans.
Our US colleagues grasped it and publicly stated that the alliance debates were over. They were among the core underlying causes of the Ukraine crisis. They are starting to hear us when we are talking about other underlying causes, including legalised extermination of the Russian language, media, culture, education, and the ban on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. When our US dialogue partners heard in Alaska that the church had been outlawed, US President Trump was amazed to learn that this was even possible in today's civilised world, and in a country that is bragging about it allegedly defending the European values. Europe is playing along with the Ukrainians in this regard. Head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas are claiming that Ukraine is defending the “European values” in the war against Russia. It turns out that these “values” include the annihilation of human rights, including religious rights, even though this is all enshrined in the UN Charter. There is no other country around the world that would ban a language. In Israel, you can speak Arabic, and in the Palestinian territories, in the Arab countries, Hebrew has never been banned. There is no other country like Ukraine in this regard.
Forming a multipolar world is a long process that can take a historical era to complete. You will definitely have enough work to do. Not only those who choose diplomacy and international relations as their future profession, but also those who opt for the economy or the media will not be bored, because everything is interconnected in the modern world. This is clearly shown by the orientation of the departments at MGIMO, and the number of global issues. When we were students, no one even could even imagine that collective efforts in health care or artificial intelligence would be high on the list of international priorities. No one even saw the artificial intelligence coming. There are multilateral entities dealing with all areas of human activities. Most of them have been formalised in the agenda of the UN system (specialised agencies, committees, commissions, and so on).
The knowledge you will receive at MGIMO will be in high demand and make it possible for you to work on international matters combining these efforts with the domestic needs of our country, just as we are trying to do now.
The Foreign Policy Concept clearly states that creating the most favourable external conditions for ensuring our country’s security, its socioeconomic development, and improving the well-being of our citizens is the main objective of our work. The fact that this relationship exists was proven by the events associated with the introduction of illegitimate, unilateral, and unprecedented sanctions on us, when they wanted to thwart this main objective of our diplomacy (creating favourable external conditions) and to create unbearable environment in hopes that we would throw our hands up and scramble to apologise. They are messing with the wrong people. I’m amazed that the West did not learn anything from centuries of history in the context of its repeated attempts to “rein in,” “subordinate,” or “punish” Russia.
We were not the ones to break off relations with the West. We are promoting the initiatives put forward by President Putin in his Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, when he proposed thinking about combining the efforts of the existing Eurasian integration entities, such as the EAEU, the SCO, the CIS, ASEAN, and others. He proposed uniting them into a “cooperative network” in the context of forming what he called the Greater Eurasian Partnership, so that integration processes in different parts of Eurasia do not duplicate, but complement each other, so that transport corridor projects also get worked through with the best routes in mind. In other words, he proposed cooperating in the development of what God, our ancestors and history gave us.
Eurasia is a single, largest and richest continent, where the greatest human civilisations lived, evolved, and are preserved. They preserve and develop their traditions and identity. We are not guided by the desire to “wall ourselves off” from any portion of this continent. We have always proceeded from the fact that the processes of forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership will be open to the western part of our continent as well, when and if (hopefully, when) they stop thinking of themselves as the “golden billion,” or the “garden surrounded by the jungle”. You are aware of the level of “modesty” of these people, and how they talk about history and their current place in it. Life will teach them a lesson. I do not advise those who engage in journalism to spend a lot of time reacting every time they “sneeze.” Their lack of desire to get to know what is happening is so transparent that I would not even waste time on them.
Healthy forces in Europe are gradually raising their heads. They must prevail through what Europeans call the democratic process, even though obstacles are put in their way as was the case in Romania and France. Now, in Germany they are trying to outlaw an opposition party. That’s the kind of “freedoms” they live by.
Just like everyone will benefit economically from an open system for forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership, ensuring security in Eurasia at the expense of any given Eurasian country is impossible.
In addressing the stuff of the Foreign Ministry of Russia in June 2024, President of Russia Vladimir Putin formulated our approach to Ukraine crisis settlement and outlined the task of creating the foundations of Eurasian security architecture that should be based on the principle of indivisible security, which postulates that no one should strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others and that no one should lay claim to military-political domination. This is not something new. All these indivisible security principles were solemnly proclaimed by the OSCE summits in Istanbul in 1999 and in Astana in 2010, with heads of state putting their signatures thereunder. Let me remind you that the OSCE has taken shape in the context of the Euro-Atlantic security concept: Europe + the USA and Canada. It was the Europeans who insisted that the US and Canada be invited. It seemed to them at the time that they would feel miserable without overseas supervision. So, they got what they had asked for.
This time, it is necessary to create a continental security system. Africa has a continental organisation: the African Union. Latin America has CELAC. Both continents have numerous sub-regional integration associations but there are also continental umbrella organisations. Eurasia abounds in sub-regional associations but it has no organisation that would be open to all countries in the continent. In putting forward his initiative, President of Russia Vladimir Putin thought it important to show that we were ready to cooperate with everyone, but let us do that honestly. The indivisible security principles that the West has trampled underfoot in the context of Euro-Atlantic processes, specifically at the OSCE, should not only be formulated and reaffirmed, but also respected as any commitment undertaken by a self-respecting sovereign country. These are few and far between in the West. Sovereignty is an asset available to the United States alone. History shows that Western colleagues easily renounce what they have underwritten, be it a commitment not to expand NATO or respect for human rights, which the Europeans, along with the Ukrainian regime, are simply destroying and annihilating in the context of their support for the Kiev regime.
In conclusion, I would like to wish freshmen interesting studies. Be daring, imbibe what is said and written by authorities [in different disciplines], but always seek to find something originally yours and make your own contribution. It’s never late to study, nor is it ever early to be daring. So, I am in every way encouraging you to adopt this attitude.
I would like to say some special words of gratitude to the academic teaching staff led by Mr Anatoly Torkunov. He – and his comrades-in-arms – has not only kept abreast of the times for decades and has not only espied new burgeoning trends in the area of education but has also incorporated them in the educational process.
An important step is President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s decision to merge the Diplomatic Academy with the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO). This process is under way. Before the end of this year, we will hold a special Board meeting. This will considerably strengthen the link between education, science and practice. The Diplomatic Academy is where a large number of our diplomats take special courses before leaving on individual foreign missions. There are also courses for representatives of other federal executive authorities. Refresher courses for foreign diplomats are popular as well. This is a good and useful process but it requires much personal exertion and energy inputs.
I hope that all of you people have followed how the public marked your rector’s birth anniversary. I want once again to wish him many happy returns of the day and congratulate him on the high governmental award.
Question: In connection with the recent Russia-US summit in Alaska. Although that top-level meeting has answered some questions, what official objectives and priorities does Russian diplomacy stipulate today? What priorities and prospects does this aspect have nowadays?
Sergey Lavrov: The distinguishing feature of our diplomacy is that its priorities and goals are never secret. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and other Russian representatives also discuss them. Specific methods for achieving them remain confidential. This is understandable because diplomacy requires a quiet atmosphere when you really want to reach an agreement. If you want to score propaganda points and to bask in the diplomatic and foreign policy spotlight, this is something different. This genre is not called diplomacy.
Diplomacy is the art of coming to terms. I have repeatedly noted that diplomacy is the most ancient profession. It is necessary to reach agreement in all other spheres. This calls for a quiet atmosphere. Our goals are simple. We want to maintain equitable cooperation with all countries, including the United States which is displaying a similar interest.
In February 2025, Russian Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov and I met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the then National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, Mike Waltz (he is now landing another job) in Saudi Arabia. That meeting took place in the 2 + 2 format.
The US side initiated that meeting. First, Marco Rubio said that he wanted to confirm that the foreign policy of US President Donald Trump was based on pragmatism and US national interests, rather than some ideology. The administration of Donald Trump admits that all other countries, especially such great countries as the Russian Federation. have their own national interests. The United States wants to obtain maximum benefits when national interests of our powers coincide, while that such interests will not coincide in all cases. On the contrary, they will not coincide in most cases because the interests of large countries always clash in some spheres. In those situations, when these national interests do not coincide and run counter to one another, our main task is to prevent this disagreement from escalating into confrontation. I replied that this completely coincided with our position. Our interests coincide in this context. President of Russia Vladimir Putin discussed this at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.
This highlights some interesting economic prospects, including production of liquefied natural gas in Alaska and lots more. The Arctic offers major opportunities for cooperation; the same is true of joint space exploration and many other spheres.
Our main principle implies an honest and open discussion of each other’s positions and efforts to find coincidences that should be translated into practical deeds; moreover, it is necessary to prevent disagreements from escalating into confrontation, let alone a high-intensity conflict.
Question: Given that the confrontation between the United States and China is escalating into a trade and technological rivalry with global repercussions for markets, what strategic steps is Russia taking to strengthen its foreign economic ties and diversify export markets – particularly under sanctions pressure and amid the restructuring of the global financial architecture?
Sergey Lavrov: As I have already mentioned, the imposition of sanctions entirely contravenes the principles upon which, at the initiative of the West, the international monetary and financial system, as well as the global trading system, were constructed over decades. It is a complete violation. What was established after the Second World War was founded on the necessity of fair competition – sanctions and tariffs no longer constitute fair competition – and on respect for property rights.
As you are aware, our Central Bank reserves were seized outright through robbery and remain frozen to this day. The administration of Barack Obama confiscated diplomatic property – this is beyond the pale. The principle of presumption of innocence, which the West vigorously promoted within its ideals for the international monetary, financial, and trade spheres – along with all other aforementioned principles – has been followed by everyone. What is transpiring now is lawlessness.
American leaders have long asserted – I do not recall under which administration, though no senior US official has ever refuted this –addressing all members of the international community, that the US dollar is not American property but a global public good. This good was provided to ensure the smooth, uninterrupted, efficient, and economical operation of the world’s economic and financial system, benefiting all countries without exception.
What the Joe Biden administration began doing with the dollar, weaponising it, alarmed many at the time – prompting them, mostly silently but seriously, to consider how to protect themselves from such capriciousness in the future. Back then, they decided to punish Russia, cutting off its access to dollar-denominated settlements. Who knows whom the next US administration will take offence at and deem to be behaving “incorrectly?”
The trend towards establishing alternative payment platforms and other logistical mechanisms essential for normal trade is underway. It is no coincidence that Donald Trump, during his presidential campaign, sharply criticised Joe Biden precisely for jeopardising the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency – a role that had suited everyone and kept the gears of the world economy turning. This is true. Actions that abuse the role of one’s currency undermine trust in it.
Now, members of Donald Trump’s administration are also attempting to resort to such measures. This seems somewhat illogical, since Trump himself stated that Biden’s handling of the dollar inflicts colossal harm on Americans and their leading position in the global financial system. Unfortunately, those responsible for finance in Trump’s administration have yet to heed their leader’s assessment. Thus, the process of forming reliable payment systems and logistical routes – independent of whims, diktats, or blackmail – continues to advance.
At the 2023 BRICS summit, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva proposed an initiative to create alternative payment platforms. BRICS finance ministers and central bank governors were instructed by their leaders to address this issue. They are preparing relevant reports. An interim report was presented at the BRICS summit in Kazan. This year’s BRICS summit also saw concrete proposals tabled, which are now under consideration. Some are already being implemented. Perhaps it is unnecessary to delve into specifics here – this is neither the appropriate audience nor the right discussion for detailing how a normal, free, mutually beneficial settlement system operates.
Later today, a virtual BRICS summit will convene via videoconference, to be attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The summit, initiated by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, will focus on developing additional measures to counter the West’s unlawful actions in global trade and finance, including responses to its tariff war.
Every action provokes a reaction. There is no prohibition that cannot be circumvented – especially since, in this case, most sanctions are illegitimate, violating international law and WTO norms. Meanwhile, efforts to bypass them rely on agreements between parties, without any attempt to inflict harm through unlawful means.
Question: I would like to learn more about the beginning of your career. It is known that you started your service at the Embassy in Sri Lanka. What difficulties did you encounter at the outset? What were the greatest challenges in your work in those early days, and how did you overcome them?
Sergey Lavrov: It was a long time ago, right after I graduated from the institute. Sri Lanka is a country with a marvelous climate, a fascinating history, and even then, an active political life. At the time, the country was emerging from an internal conflict, when the Tamils living in the north of Sri Lanka had taken up arms in an attempt to defend their rights.
I will be honest, the most difficult aspect was not directly related to my official duties at the Embassy, but rather to the habits and outlook that any young person develops at that age. We lived well there. As the saying goes, there is a time for work and a time for leisure. The atmosphere at the embassy was good. The ambassador, Rafik Nishanov – may he rest in peace – was very supportive of the younger staff and we, in turn, did our best to work conscientiously. What is difficult, of course, is that immediately after university one often feels insufficiently prepared. But when higher education equips you properly, the transition into “adult” professional responsibilities is smooth. In those circumstances, as the song says: we worked hard, and we will rest well.
Question: Since the new administration came into power in the US, the trade between our countries has done up by 20 percent. Considering the intensification of Russian–American dialogue, what advantages and opportunities exist for trade and investment?
Sergey Lavrov: I have already touched upon this issue. A 20 percent increase alone does not mean very much yet, because our trade used to be around $30 billion, whereas last year it was only $3 billion. A 20 percent rise may simply reflect fluctuations in global prices for uranium, which the Americans continue to purchase, and for certain other metals. So, while not a statistical error, it is largely a result of price volatility on world markets.
As for opportunities, I have already listed them. Among them, there is the Arctic, including joint projects on liquefied natural gas production, both here and in Alaska. Besides, there are projects of interest to Western businesses in Sakhalin, as well as the vast expanses of Siberia, which is among the richest regions in the world in terms of natural resources. There is also space exploration.
I have no doubt that cooperation could also be established in high technology, including artificial intelligence, although, given its potential military applications, this may first require a higher degree of mutual trust. Nevertheless, there are no limits to what we could achieve together, provided our interests coincide.
If both the United States and Russia are interested in increasing LNG production... if both we and they want the Arctic to be our common home, particularly given the Trump administration’s interest in Greenland... if we recognise our mutual interest in space – which is obvious, and an area where our partnership has never been interrupted – then the opportunities are vast.
Let me also mention sports: ice hockey and football. The United States will host the 2026 FIFA World Cup, together with Mexico and Canada. I know that in certain circles, including among the FIFA leadership, the idea of holding a football match between the hosts of the 2018 and 2026 World Cups is already being discussed. In the past, we had a tradition of ice hockey “tours” in each other’s countries, and there is considerable interest in reviving this, including among retired players, both in Russia and in the US.
On the initiative of President Vladimir Putin, the first Intervision international song contest will be held on 20 September. More than 20 countries will take part, including nearly all BRICS states, CIS partners, and a number of countries from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. A participant from the US is also expected.
I firmly believe that the more contacts and the more exchanges at various levels we have, the better. We have never had insurmountable problems in our relations with the United States. The obstacles have always been ideological. Let me recall that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told me that their foreign policy is no longer based on ideology but on national interests. If that is indeed the case, then there is a great deal where we can find common ground.
Question (retranslated from English): My question is about President Putin’s upcoming visit to India. India is a key partner to Russia. What issues will be under discussion? What role do Russian-Indian relations play in creating a mutual respect-based international order?
Sergey Lavrov: This topic was covered well-nigh several times per day in all news reports and analytical programmes over the past week. The photograph with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and PRC Chairman Xi Jinping went round the world, causing totally incomprehensible wrath and consternation in certain Western leaders, who called it a challenge to the “rules-based international order.” None of our countries has approved this “order,” while the Troika – Russia, India, and China – has existed for a long time in addition to our bilateral relations with India and the People’s Republic of China.
The quality of Russia’s bilateral relations with India has been constantly growing. This found an expression in the terms used during numerous summits held between Moscow and New Delhi. At first, they were “relations of strategic partnership,” next they were promoted to “relations of privileged strategic partnership.” Under the former Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, they became a “specially privileged strategic partnership,” and this appellation is valid until today. There is nothing to add.
With the People’s Republic of China, we have relations of strategic interaction and multilateral partnership. With either country, these relations go back many decades. Our partnership with India is directly related to its independence. With China, we were jointly waging warfare to defend a new international order. With the Indian side, we have a ramified system of cooperation mechanisms at the top level. There is an intergovernmental commission on trade and the economy. Foreign ministers and defence ministers maintain regular contacts. Formerly, we held a 2+2 meeting between both countries’ foreign and defence ministers. Somewhat later, the pandemic set in, and all of that was put off until better times.
We are making thorough preparations for President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s visit to India, which is due to take place before the end of this year. Let me assure you that we have much experience and grand plans in politics, the economy, the social area, culture, military affairs, and military-technical cooperation. These plans were reaffirmed during the meeting between Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and President of Russia Vladimir Putin in China.
I said that the Troika had existed for a long time. Yevgeny Primakov, while in capacity of Russia’s foreign minister, insisted that it had much promise. In 1998, he came up with the idea to establish a standing mechanism composed of Russia, India and China, RIC. Nearly 20 meetings in this format at the level of foreign ministers have taken place since then. There were also meetings of the ministers of economy, trade, finance, and culture. But then the pandemic intervened again. Later there was a surge in tensions on the China-India border. So, we kept postponing Russia-India-China meetings.
Today, to everyone’s satisfaction, China and India have found it possible to overcome their differences and problems that prevented them from holding a normal dialogue at that stage. They are exchanging visits. We have the impression from contacts with our Indian and Chinese friends that we will soon be able to resume this business. This will benefit all sides. It is not by chance that everyone got agitated as soon as the joint photograph of the three leaders appeared in the media. In the US, certain “analysts” asked how it would be possible to pit the Troika against each other, if they were on friendly terms? That’s the kind of philosophy they have.
The “Indo-Pacific strategies” have been invented for this purpose, strategies aimed at undermining the ASEAN-centric security system in Southeast Asia, based on the principles of equality, inclusiveness, as they say, consensus, and much else. The West, while formally refraining from efforts to dismantle this system, began an infiltration of its narrowly bloc structures in this region. This push started way back under Joe Biden and is, in fact, an attempt to strip ASEAN of its “first fiddle” capacity for discussing security issues. They are creating “threesomes” and “foursomes…” NATO is attempting to expand its infrastructure to the region.
They have created the QUAD made up of the US, Japan, Australia, and India. When they were first told about this initiative, our Indian friends declared publicly that they saw an economic interest in it but would support no actions related to military-political affairs. This was a far-sighted remark because increasingly more attempts are being made to use this organisation as an irritant in relations with China, which no one would fancy.
When the great powers of Eurasia, the three great civilisations, work together, this is a source of concern for certain Western circles, if only because they are unwilling to lose the opportunity of playing each of these countries against another. But this is wrong. These are not our methods. These methods go back to the past epochs of colonialism. [The West] is seeking to revive them by bringing back the neo-colonial methods whose essence is in living at the expense of others. But we – India, Russia, and China – want to live at the expense of our people’s talents and by pooling these talents and our capabilities.
Question: What are your priorities for Russian diplomacy in the South Caucasus, given the relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia?
Sergey Lavrov: Our priorities have never changed: it is peace and cooperation. They remain unchanged today. The Russian Federation, through the decisive efforts of President Vladimir Putin, played a key role following the outbreak of the second Nagorno-Karabakh war. Numerous late-night telephone conversations were held. This conflict could have been stopped much earlier, but not every party was ready for such a decision. Nevertheless, President Putin succeeded in reaching an agreement that was signed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and President Ilham Aliyev on the night of November 9-10, 2020. This was followed by a series of other trilateral summits, where important agreements were reached to unblock economic and transport links; create a mechanism, led by the three deputy prime ministers of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, to oversee this process; as well as an agreement on principles for border delimitation and later demarcation; and an initiative to bring together public figures from the three countries to complement interstate dialogue with civil-society dialogue. We have never refused to implement these agreements.
We can see that it was decided to conclude a peace treaty – which stems from the understandings reached between 2020 and 2022 by the leaders of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan (
1,
2,
3,
4) – on the territory of the United States. This is, of course, our neighbours’ sovereign choice. But it still remains to be seen how this will work in practice. All the enthusiastic commentary that followed the Washington meeting was later tempered by more sceptical assessments once the text of the document was published, revealing that not everything had actually been agreed.
There is a certain genre in foreign policy where something must be done in a dramatic fashion and presented attractively in the media. This approach can have its benefits in particular circumstances. But if no substance follows, it remains merely a flash. Russia is interested in concluding a genuine peace treaty.
In this regard, we welcome the normalisation process between Armenia and Türkiye. Another contact has recently taken place, and, according to at least some analyses, Türkiye may no longer condition the restoration of relations with Armenia on the full normalisation of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Another step forward is the recent resumption of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Pakistan. We hope that work within the framework of the 3+3 initiative, suggested by Türkiye and Azerbaijan, will be resumed. It involves the three South Caucasus states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) together with their three major neighbours (Iran, Türkiye, and Russia). We held a number of meetings at ministerial level in 2023, as well as meetings at deputy-minister level. We believe the time has come to revive this format. Our Iranian neighbours fully support the process, while Türkiye and Azerbaijan were its initiators. I hope we will be able to meet again soon in this format.
Question: What do you think of the current situation in the Gaza Strip? How can Russian diplomacy end violence and reduce casualties?
Sergey Lavrov: The Gaza Strip is a graphic example of how our Western colleagues interpret international law. The United Nations Organisation, the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly have adopted decisions with regard to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; these documents call for establishing a Palestinian state. A decision to establish this state was made in 1948 on a par with a decision to create the state of Israel. These inter-linked decisions served as a foundation for reaching consensus among all members of the United Nations. The state of Israel was quickly established, but the state of Palestine was not. I will not discuss the causes of this. The Palestinian Arabs themselves failed to accomplish many objectives for achieving this goal, set by the UN, but external factors played a decisive role, refusing to fulfil these agreements.
Several wars took place; in their wake, the territory, initially reserved for the Palestinian state, dwindled steadily. Consequently, everyone saw Palestinian territory (that was left following yet another Arab-Israeli war) as the main criterion. But we understand that Israel is concerned about its security, and we always emphasise this. A decision on establishing two states (Israel and Palestine) was followed by a statement that they should be established in such a way as to coexist in safety and neighbourliness.
But we have fallen into this “trap.” Regional stability is hardly possible, unless the Palestinian state is established. They do not want to establish it because Israel says that this will threaten its security. Arab street protests tended to increase while the implementation of this decision was delayed time and again. The thing is that decades-long injustice with regard to the Palestinians influences public opinion in Palestine and in Arab countries that rightfully consider the Palestinians to be their brothers.
We talked with our Israeli colleagues – long before the current bloody events – insisting on the idea that without the creation of a Palestinian state, extremism fuelled by the deep sense of injustice suffered by the Palestinians will only continue to grow. This thesis, however, was never truly accepted. Recently, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated outright that there would be no Palestinian state, as his priority is not to consider such a prospect but to guarantee the security of Israel. This is understandable. Yet, in our view, it is difficult to ensure Israel’s security by undermining the security of the Palestinians. Security, after all, is indivisible. One cannot guarantee Israel’s security while simultaneously denying the Palestinians the right to their own state.
When the terrorist attack occurred in Israel on October 7, 2023, we unequivocally condemned it. However, we could not accept the response, which was neither carefully thought-out nor directed at identifying and neutralising the perpetrators and organisers, but instead sounded more like collective punishment of the Palestinian people. I recall that Israeli leaders at the time justified their actions by claiming they were destroying Hamas. When some pointed out that civilians were also being targeted through such sweeping military measures, a minister in Mr Netanyahu’s government (I do not want to speak against anyone here) responded that there were no civilians there: everyone was a terrorist, starting from the age of three. This statement provoked no particular reaction from the West.
But it is a fact that the refusal to establish a Palestinian state, the blockade, restrictions on movement, and constant raids over the years have all inevitably fuelled discontent from which extremist sentiments can easily be fostered.
Regarding the Golan Heights. During the Biden administration, Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke at an event where he described Russia as having “annexed” and “occupied” Ukraine, declaring this to be unacceptable. He was asked about the Golan Heights, which, under all UN resolutions, are recognised as part of the Syrian Arab Republic, yet which Israel annexed: an act recognised by the previous US administration and effectively upheld by the Biden administration. How could this contradiction be explained? Mr Blinken replied simply: “This is different.” Because, he argued, Israel’s security depends directly on the Golan Heights. That was the entire explanation.
So, he denied Russia the right to be equally concerned about its own security. Not in the sense of “annexation,” because it was not Jews or the Jewish people’s brothers and sisters who lived there, but in the context of NATO’s expansion, which sought to extend its influence into Ukraine – territories that for centuries had been Russian, where Russian people had lived for generations, building cities, ports, roads, and developing those lands. When NATO sought to draw Ukraine into its orbit, was that not a direct threat to our security? Of course, it was.
We recognized the Palestinian State in 1988. The West does not want to do it, they are constantly looking at other interests, not those of the Palestinian people. And I want to say it again that we firmly stand for Israeli security but not at the expense of Israeli’s intrusion. In addition to Golan Heights, they have also penetrated the buffer zone, which should be under the UN control, and entered into the south of Syria. They also have a number of other territorial plans.
What is most important, if you look at the map, and all of us repeat it like a spell, is that: “long-term crisis resolution consists in the establishment of a Palestinian State within the boundaries of 1967.” Look at the map. The facts on the ground preclude establishing a state. It is no coincidence that French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and some other European leaders condemned the violence a couple of months ago when there was another bloody outbreak of violence and said that they would definitely recognise the Palestinian state when they come to the UN General Assembly session. I have a question: why don’t you recognise it at once, if you have decided so? I can only say that they expect that there will be nothing to recognise by that time. That’s that.
The hypocrisy is evident. I will say it again: we are in close contact with Palestinians, other Arabs as well as with Israel. President Putin discussed this situation by phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on many occasions. They have long-standing relations. It is a most complex conflict. However, the West benefits from sweeping all these complexities, which require it to take a position of principle, under the carpet. One of its tools is to emphasise its senseless and deadlock position on the Ukraine crisis.
Question: I came from Slovenia. Being a Slovenian citizen, I am proud of my country’s historical and cultural ties with Russia.
Sergey Lavrov: Where did you come from?
Question: From Slovenia.
Sergey Lavrov: A nice place.
Question: In 2001, Slovenia hosted a meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and George Bush, which underscored its role as a bridge between East and West. Today, Slovenia, as a member of the EU and NATO, is more West-oriented. Do you think that small countries like Slovenia can maintain dialogue and cooperate with Russia today?
Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult for me to answer this question, because there are other NATO countries which, unlike the current Slovenian government, have not broken off dialogue with us. Hungary has never interrupted contacts with Russia. In Slovakia, after Robert Fico returned to office as Prime Minister, relations were also resumed. He even attended an SCO event at the invitation of the Chinese leadership. We have the warmest feelings towards the Slovenians. To be honest, we have never had any prejudices against any country.
Recently, President Vladimir Putin has once again recalled that there is now a category of “unfriendly countries” in Russian legislation. This may be necessary as a legal mechanism, when some issues must be addressed. But in reality, we have no unfriendly countries, only governments that pursue unfriendly policies towards us. That is how we view the matter.
Let me repeat: we have not severed ties. If our Western colleagues, including those in Slovenia, wish to restore dialogue, we will be ready.
Of course, it will no longer be “business as usual” as before. We will build relations while keeping in mind the risks inherent in certain areas of cooperation, particularly those where we previously became overly dependent on Western technologies.
Slovenia, like other EU and NATO members, will live through the current situation when the West is attempting to defeat Russia on the battlefield. After that, we shall see. But I repeat: we retain warm feelings towards the Slovenian people. I have visited many times and always left with the warmest impressions.
Question: I would like to digress a little from political and economic issues and ask a more personal question. You are often asked about what you read, and whether we should expect a new collection of poetry. But I was wondering what music you listen to, and whether it helps you get into a working frame of mind?
Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, I mostly read documents. Although sometimes I find time to read fiction, but too often my book just sits there, silently reproaching me for not opening it. There is little time left for literature.
I still try to keep up with poetry, especially my own. I wrote verses for Anatoly Torkunov’s 75th birthday. My friends published a collection of my poems for my anniversary, but that stopped in 2004 when I was appointed minister. Since then, I have only written verses for friends’ anniversaries, usually on everyday topics. The creative energy that once went into poetry is now channelled into prose on the diplomatic stage.
I love music. I am very fond of bards. Vladimir Vysotsky is not just a bard but more than a bard. I like Bulat Okudzhava and Yury Vizbor. I am sorry that contemporary bard singers in Russia are not promoted enough. Popular music dominates instead. It is also a kind of zeitgeist. But for us, a bonfire and a guitar are a symbol of home, of patriotism itself.
There are certainly young people today who write their own songs. During the special military operation, many talented poets have emerged, whose works have been set to music. TV channels like Solovyov Live are making efforts to promote them, but I think more could be done to ensure their music is heard. Perhaps, in time, we may even see a dedicated competition for soldier poets. During the Great Patriotic War, many poets wrote verses at the front and sent them back. I think reviving that tradition would be a right thing to do.
Of course, if MGIMO University continues to maintain its cultural traditions, such as its choir, poetry club, book club, all of this should be promoted. We should have presented its rich cultural life at Rector Torkunov’s birthday.
Friends, I wish you every success in your studies. All the conditions for that are in place. You have excellent teachers and mentors. As Anatoly Torkunov said, both the retired workers of the Foreign Ministry and current diplomats are always ready to talk with you, to help, and to answer the questions that inevitably arise.
Let me remind you once again: absorb knowledge, but also dare think independently. Based on what you learn, look for something new and useful, both for your country and for yourselves.