Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with the Bosnian Serbian TV and radio company Radio Televizija Republike Srpske, Moscow, June 4, 2022

Question (retranslated from Serbian): The Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the sanctions, and Russia’s retaliatory measures are the topics we are discussing with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Thank you for finding the time for an interview with our Republic’s public TV and radio company, given that this is a difficult historical period and your working schedule is very full.

Sergey Lavrov: I think periods like this are the right time for a more detailed discussion and coverage of what is going on in reality, given the lies pouring from the media in the West.

Question (retranslated from Serbian): This is a sad pretext but it makes it possible for our viewers, including in Europe, to hear an alternative point of view as presented by Russia. Let us start with the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Since February 24, it has been at the top of world news. But little is known about the events that preceded it. Why did Russia decide to go ahead with the special military operation precisely at that moment?

Sergey Lavrov: You said at the start of your question that it was important for Europe and the West to know an alternative point of view.  Serbia (where I will pay a visit soon) has been doing its best to ensure freedom of expression and the implementation of its commitments to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, including ensuring access to information to all citizens of OSCE countries without exception.  The West is not fulfilling its commitments. What I am going to tell you is unlikely to be accepted by the media in Western countries, NATO and EU member countries, which have introduced and continue to introduce prohibitive sanctions against Russian media broadcasting. Russian TV channels and news agencies have been blacklisted.

You said few people were aware of what was happening before February 24.  This problem is from the same category as we have just mentioned. Over all these long years, the West hushed up the fact that the situation was highly alarming, while the tension continued to escalate.

It all began long ago, in 2014 at the very least, when, despite the guarantees undertaken by France, Germany and Poland, which had supported the agreement reached between President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, the neo-Nazis and radicals seized power in Kiev the morning after the signing of the document. Germany, France, and the entire EU demonstrated impotence and later justified their inability to force the opposition to honour the EU-guaranteed agreements by claiming that this was “part of the democratic process.”  It became instantly clear how “democratic” this process was. The day after the coup, these people, including representatives of far-right nationalist parties blacklisted by Western countries as extremist organisations, declared that they would cancel all the rights of the Russian language and expel Russians from Crimea.  They sent militants to Crimea to storm the Supreme Council [the local parliament]. That is when everything began.

The West kept silent about this. The general reader, viewer or listener was unaware of how the background to the current situation was taking shape. It all continued on May 2, 2014, when the neo-Nazis who seized power burned 50 people alive in Odessa. On June 2, 2014 (yesterday, there was another anniversary of this event), the Ukrainian armed forces, their combat aircraft bombed the centre of Lugansk and other populated localities in eastern Ukraine, the only reason for this being that these areas had refused to accept the anti-constitutional coup and obey totally Russophobic, extremist, neo-Nazi rules that reproduced all the traditions of the Third Reich and that revered those who had collaborated with the Nazis.

Everyone is well aware of this, at least in Ukraine, Russia, and neighbouring countries. The fact is that the West has preferred to overlook this for years. In 2015, when the Minsk agreements were signed, with the participation of Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine, there was a chance of preserving Ukraine’s territorial integrity.  Had they been implemented, there would have been no need to defend Donbass.

The Minsk agreements stipulated that it was necessary to grant a special status to Donbass, which included quite simple things: first, the right to speak the native language, Russian; second, to have a local police force to maintain law and order; third, to be heard when prosecutors and judges were appointed and to have special economic relations with the Russian Federation.

Just recall the developments around Kosovo. In 2013, even before the Minsk agreements on Ukraine were signed, the EU declared that it had achieved yet another success by inducing Belgrade and Pristina to reach an agreement on creating the Community of Serb Municipalities of Kosovo. This implied the right to use the native language, local self-government autonomy, and special economic, social and cultural ties with Serbia. In fact, it was one and the same thing. The EU was a mediator in both cases and it proved its complete inadequacy, intractability, and the lack of any desire to convince Pristina (in the case of Serbia) and Kiev (in the case of Donbass) to implement their commitments.   

It is even more “interesting” where the Minsk agreements are concerned. They were approved by the UN Security Council, but the EU did not care a dime about them all the same. Nor did the United States.  They were doing their best to connive with the Kiev regime in its Russophobic activities. They were stonewalling on the Minsk agreements for years, and instead of granting the right to use Russian, at least to Donbass (as it was stipulated in the agreements), the Kiev regime banned education in Russian, Russian media, culture, and literature, while legislatively it encouraged the neo-Nazi theory and practices, including the formation of Nazi battalions and reverence for symbols glorifying Hitler’s Germany.  Europe turned a blind eye to it.

This made many of our historians, scholars and political scientists recall Europe’s initial attitude to Hitler and how many European countries sent their military personnel to the army of the Third Reich, including to attack the Soviet Union.

All of this has been maturing for a long time. Along with urging [the Kiev regime] to implement the Minsk agreements, for years, we reminded the West that its policy of NATO expansion would end badly. First, it turned out that they were lying to us, when they promised the Soviet Union that NATO would not expand. Since then, there have been five waves of NATO expansion. A sixth expansion is being planned right now. Second, we warned them long ago, when they began dragging Ukraine into NATO that this would be regarded as a direct threat to the Russian Federation. They turned down the draft Agreement on Security Guarantees in Europe, which we proposed back in 2009. In 2021, they disregarded yet another draft agreement, which we presented for consideration by both the United States and (separately) by NATO. We were told in no uncertain terms and in a rather rude manner that NATO expansion and Ukraine’s possible involvement in this process was none of our business and that we should not meddle in these matters.

In parallel (there were no doubts left about this), they were pouring weapons into Ukraine, there were hundreds of CIA and British secret service officers at work there. I think they have been present in Ukraine for some ten years and occupy huge premises at the buildings of official Ukrainian services and agencies.  In the larger scheme of things, it is these agents who control everything in Ukraine. The Western countries kept rejecting all our reasonable proposals and compromises, thereby justifying our worst fears that in practice they were turning Ukraine into a bridgehead in order to threaten and contain the Russian Federation. This is why we had no choice other than to recognise these republics. The LPR and DPR were due to be granted a special status and remain part of Ukraine. The Ukrainian armed forces and “national battalions” continued their aggression against them, shelling both republics on the daily basis. During the years that they were sabotaging the Minsk agreements,  14,000 civilians were killed as a result of artillery attacks on cities, and civilian infrastructure, including schools, hospitals, and kindergartens.

It is a pity that Europe has the impression that no one understood what was happening before February 24. This is pointing to just one thing: Western politicians were unwilling to comment on these points to the media in order to prevent their populations and voters from getting an insight into what was going on.

Not so long ago, President of Russia Vladimir Putin described the United States and the “collective West” it heads as the “empire of lies.” This empire emerged long ago and it has engaged in filtering media content, breaching its commitments to the OSCE to ensure free and unhindered access to any type of information and to sources both in its own country and elsewhere.  The West buried all this ages ago.

Question (retranslated from Serbian): Our viewers are well aware of the situation in Donbass, since we have a special correspondent working there who informs our viewers from the scene literally on a daily basis, in particular, during the fierce battle for Mariupol and at the Azovstal Steel Plant. Russia is being accused of conducting the special military operation, but the West hasn’t stopped shipping weapons to Ukraine. So, is it Russia and Ukraine who are involved in the conflict, or is it Russia and someone else?

Sergey Lavrov: Ukraine is a bargaining chip and a tool that is manipulated primarily by the United States and Great Britain - an Anglo-Saxon team now heading the West. NATO and the EU have lost their independence quite a while ago and are fully compliant. They are using the Ukrainians as a tool for our country’s containment (or, as they are now saying, “attrition”) in an effort to defeat Russia “on the battlefield.” These are the words coming from head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell, as well as Boris Johnson and some politicians in the United States: Russia, Putin must be defeated on the battlefield.

This is to answer the question of whether the talks have any prospects. The West prohibits Ukraine to negotiate. Two months ago, Ukraine sort of came up with a proposal on ways to resolve this matter. We treated this proposal as a basis, but a day later, the West told the Ukrainians to discontinue this process. They toughened up their position and staged a provocation in Bucha three days after the Russian military left the area. Life went on as usual there, and the mayor was cruising around in a car in the streets of Bucha. Dead bodies were found there only three days later. Until now, no names of the people who died in Bucha and were shown by Western television channels and on social media have been provided, and no one has produced information about the injuries that led to these people’s deaths. Once again, this goes to show that the West is unwilling to present any facts to anyone. Staging a provocation and then creating an uproar around it is what matters. Later, when someone tries to delve into the fact, they take it off the table and come up with another fake.

You can see Ukraine being flooded with weapons and heavy equipment. Now, the Americans are giving them multiple launch rocket systems. The British followed as if on cue. Clearly, they were waiting for a go-ahead from Washington and made their MLRS available to the Ukrainians. This is a risky path to take. At the same time, they are saying that “they are waging war against the Russians; the Ukrainians are dying – so let them die, we are only giving them weapons.” In the end, this will cause even more deaths among Ukrainians.

Operational tasks like Mariupol and Azovstal were fulfilled with minimal losses. You are aware that President Vladimir Putin issued an order not to storm Azovstal. In the wake of a siege, the hardened thugs from the Azov battalion surrendered. They are now giving statements. I think they will share a lot of interesting information about the ways this neo-Nazi theory and practice was put into action in the daily life of the Ukrainian state, including under President Zelensky.

Question (retranslated from Serbian): The West, with the exception of Hungary, which chose to continue to receive Russian energy, imposed the sixth package of sanctions to weaken Russia. Everyone in Europe felt the economic consequences. How much is Russia affected by these sanctions?

Sergey Lavrov: We lost faith in our Western colleagues’ negotiation skills and dependability after 2014, when Crimea-related sanctions were imposed on us in retaliation for the freedom of expression in Crimea. As a reminder, there was no referendum in Kosovo, but there was one in Crimea, which was attended by multiple foreign observers, albeit representing not nation states, but reputable civil bodies, honest people who wanted to see everything with their own eyes. The sanctions were imposed to punish free expression of the Crimean people’s will and refusal to submit to the neo-Nazi regime that came to power as a result of a coup despite the Western guarantees that this would not happen.

Since then, we have been relying on ourselves and our contacts and connections with dependable partners. As a result of the measures we had taken, we became an agricultural powerhouse. For many years before that, we had been importing large amounts of food.

The standard of living in Europe is declining, inflation is on the rise and economic growth is waning. The new poor have become a fact of life. People are impacted by multiple problems, including higher prices. Many are in danger of becoming destitute. Despite this, tens of billions of dollars and euros are being used to arm Ukraine. Germany said that what mattered most to it was not supporting the German people during a challenging period of rising prices, but allocating $100 billion to militarise their country. Germany’s announcement that it needs to become Europe's leading military power doesn’t seem to be entirely harmless to many people in Europe.

With regard to the sixth package of restrictions concerning seaborne oil and petroleum products, by and large, oil is not governed by politics, and there is a demand for it. Oil markets do not follow political orders or whims. We have alternative markets, which we are using to increase our sales. Considering the current oil prices resulting from the Western policies, our budget revenue is not affected in any way. On the contrary, the oil and gas export revenue will increase significantly this year.

We drew a lesson from all this, which is to never again rely on these people. This does not mean that we will stop talking to them. We’ll see what they have to tell us when they get over the current insanity. Under no circumstances, from here to eternity, will we ever let any critical sphere of our country or our people’s lives depend on Western investment or technology.

Question (retranslated from Serbian): The West insists on its exceptionality. It does not let anyone remain neutral in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. Due to the complex configuration of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska is in a more difficult situation than Serbia. It defends its positions to prevent BiH from imposing sanctions on Russia. A number of ambassadors to the UN Security Council or the Council of Europe are under Sarajevo’s direct influence and are promoting their political parties’ positions rather than state institutions’ decisions. What does Russia think about Bosnia and Herzegovina’s position?

Sergey Lavrov: BiH's position matters only if it’s based on the Dayton principles, which state that all decisions must be based on an agreement of the two entities and three constituent peoples. The fact that the West is now trying to illegally encourage Sarajevo’s actions and to make foreign policy decisions without any regard for the position of Republika Srpska is a flagrant violation of the Dayton Agreement.

I cited an example of the West lying when claiming that NATO would not expand, that the Minsk Agreements on Donbass would be implemented and that a Community of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo would be created. Similarly, it is lying that it is committed to the Dayton Agreement. In fact, the West is doing its utmost to talk, in particular the Croats, into agreeing to continue to be represented in the general bodies by Bosniaks or the people who fully share their political beliefs. I’m not saying that the Bosniaks are doing anything wrong, but the fact is that the Dayton principles require the consent of the three constituent peoples.

With regard to Bosnia’s independence, the Americans have a special envoy for electoral reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which speaks volumes about the Sarajevo authorities’ “independence.”

Question (retranslated from Serbian): Not only the Americans have such an ambassador, the British and the Germans have their special envoys as well. They believe they can interfere in other countries’ domestic affairs. At the same time, they brand anything that the Russian ambassador to Bosnia and Herzegovina has to say, for example, about NATO, Russia’s interference in that country’s internal affairs.

Sergey Lavrov: This is the Western style and their delusion of grandeur and the habit of always lying in order to justify their lawlessness.

You mentioned special envoys. There is a High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina and his functions were indeed included in the Dayton Agreement which clearly stated that he should be appointed for a short period. Back in 2006, the Steering Board of the BiH Peace Implementation Council decided that it was time to close the shop and cancel the post of High Representative. However, this process was delayed under various artificial and far-fetched pretexts. When the term of the previous High Representative expired, we said that it was time to adopt a more respectful policy towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. The country has been independent for several decades now, but it is still run by an appointed representative who has priority over all state bodies in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The West responded by telling us that this practice must be continued. The sole objective is to keep the whole of Bosnia and Herzegovina on its toes and not to let it go. At the same time, the intractable nations, such as Republika Srpska, should also be conquered and subordinated to this dictate.

They appointed Christian Schmidt from Germany in gross violation of the procedure that should have been followed. First, this procedure provides for the nomination of a candidate with the consent of all Steering Board Council members, but no one asked Russia. Second, there has to be the consent of all three constituent peoples. Third, there has to be a UN Security Council resolution. The West said no to all of that. Russia and China came up with a middle-ground proposal in the UN Security Council to approve, in due order, the High Representative, but for a period of one year and use this time to prepare proposals on ways to transfer the governance powers to the Bosnian state itself. The West was vehemently against it, which means only one thing: it still wants to manipulate Bosnia in its own interests and make it another stepping stone for NATO’s expansion and the Alliance’s expansion in the Balkans.

Question (translated from Serbian): Because the authorities of the Republika Srpska refused to recognise Christian Schmidt as High Representative, they are coming under pressure and criticism from the West on an almost daily basis. Sarajevo is looking forward to further steps by Schmidt, whom the Republika Srpska does not recognise as High Representative, for him to impose his next decision and prohibit Milorad Dodik’s nomination during the nationwide elections in BiH in October. Can this official, who was not approved by the UN Security Council, make or impose any decisions?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, not. I have already said that this is illegal. This person is not legitimate in any way. I have no doubt that the West will try to come up with more mayhem. What is being done with regard to Milorad Dodik is outrageous. He is one of the few politicians who really stand up for Dayton principle. Mr Dodik did nothing in the Republika Srpska or within the Presidium that is contrary to the Dayton Agreement. This is exactly what the Westerners and, unfortunately, the Bosniaks, are doing. The West wants to use them to de-identify the Bosnian peoples and to turn the Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks into a “civil society” (according to them). This constitutes a demand to forget about one's culture and traditions solely for the West to achieve its geopolitical goals in the Balkans. This is a criminal policy.

Question (retranslated from Serbian): When Milorad Dodik says that it is necessary to return to the original Dayton Agreement in order to preserve BiH and that the powers taken from the Republika Srpska should be reinstated, the West interprets this as a threat of separatism. Following in the footsteps of the United States, Great Britain has also imposed sanctions on Mr Dodik. In addition, London imposed sanctions on President of the Republika Srpska Zeljka Cviyanovic and among the reasons given for this, cites alleged Russian influence on the Bosnian Serbs’ leadership and Mr Dodik being “Putin's man,” acting on his instructions. What do you think about this?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already said that Milorad Dodik is not doing anything that would be at odds with the Dayton Agreement. On the contrary, he is almost the only person to defend the Dayton Agreement in the face of the West’s aggressive attack against this document. Mr Dodik is a friend of the Russian Federation, and we are his friends. That is all there is to it.

We have a saying that whatever people say, they always talk about themselves. It’s inconceivable for the West that a country or a politician in the Balkans can be independent. The West is used to having all sorts of Schmidts boss around and blackmail everyone, or give ultimatums. Do not judge other people by your own measure. Our manners and culture are somewhat unlike the manners and culture of the West.

Sergey Lavrov: There are many agent provocateurs everywhere.  As I understand, you are referring to President Putin’s comments on the verdict passed by the International Court of Justice on the legitimacy of the unilateral proclamation of independence by Kosovo.  I heard President Aleksandar Vucic mention this.

I think this is a case of profound misunderstanding. First, Kosovo proclaimed independence in 2008. There were no combat operations at the time and there was Resolution 1244, which the Kosovo leaders resolutely refused to obey.  Former President of Finland Martti Ahtisaari was engaged in talks between Belgrade and Pristina on behalf of the UN in order to implement the resolution. To reiterate: there was no threat either to the population of Kosovo, or to the neighbouring regions in Serbia. The talks could continue, but instead Mr Ahtisaari unexpectedly announced that they should reach an agreement within a definite period of time. As soon as he said that, the Kosovo Albanians withdrew from the talks and independence was proclaimed. In August 2008, the Government of Serbia asked the International Court of Justice to issue a verdict concerning the legitimacy of this process. They were urging us to support this appeal. The initiative for the ICJ verdict came from Belgrade, the then Government of Serbia. The West was actively publicising and welcoming it. We expressed no emotion.   

In 2014, the population of Crimea held a referendum as they were influenced by the events sparked off by the bloody anti-state coup in Ukraine and the Nazi attempt to seize Crimea.  This caused the West’s indignation. At that time, President Vladimir Putin said that we knew well their double standards. We remember their glee after the International Court of Justice declared that a unilateral proclamation of independence did not necessarily require the consent of the central authorities.  He said this solely with the aim of showing the West’s hypocrisy, duplicity and double standards.

As for Russia’s attitude to the negotiations on Kosovo’s future, which are continuing and should be based on UN Security Council Resolution 1244, President Putin repeatedly emphasised both during meetings with President Vucic and in his public remarks that Russia was fully in support of the Serbian position.   We will support the decision that will be acceptable for the Serbian people.

Question (retranslated from Serbian): Serbia is under increasingly heavy pressure, with the West insisting on its exceptionality and pressurising Belgrade to recognise Kosovo’s unilaterally proclaimed independence.   You will be on a visit to Belgrade early next week. Will you discuss Kosovo settlement and Russian gas supplies with President Vucic?

Sergey Lavrov: We will discuss any topics that are of interest to our Serbian friends.  President Vucic discussed gas issues with President Putin. They have reached basic agreements, which will be formalised by relevant companies. I have outlined our position on Kosovo.

We are interested in hearing how President Vucic and other Serbian politicians assess the existing situation and the EU’s mediating role, given that it managed to achieve the signing of the agreement on the creation of the Community of Serbian Municipalities of Kosovo in 2013, and much else.  It is important for us to understand the Serbian leadership’s assessments and its action plans for the subsequent period, based on the realities that have taken shape by now.