Question: You said that, in Russia, a diplomat is like a poet. To take this logic step further, is it safe to say that a Russian diplomat is more than a diplomat?

Sergey Lavrov: I said that sometimes a diplomat has to look for the proper word, just like a poet needs to find an appropriate word to fit the rhyme and the metre. A broader approach is practiced in diplomacy. One doesn’t have to rhyme words. It’s about finding the key to your dialogue partner. To do so, you need to either win them over or get their attention (depending on the situation). Once said, words can’t be unsaid.

Many things as the result of words that accidentally slipped out, or provocative “demarches” that were deliberately worded. Currently, Europe, represented by French President Emmanuel Macron, is “practicing” this. “Anything is possible if it is used to reach our goal, including sending NATO ground forces to Ukraine, but there is no consensus regarding the official sending of ground forces.” It has long been known that British, French, and American instructors are operating in Ukraine, helping them service, load, and operate long-range and other types of systems that are provided to Ukraine in large quantities. The aid provided to Kiev over two years amounts to $250 billion. During the same period, all African countries received $60 billion from the West and Western institutions.

The priorities of the West are clear. What is interesting are the words said by Western figures, including the response of German politicians when the truth about the recording of conversations between German generals was revealed. Some of them are concerned there was a leak from a secure line. The fact that German weapons and the personnel servicing them are going to be used to attack the Russian Federation, including the Crimean Bridge and ammo depots, is not surprising. They wonder why the secure line turned out to be not so secure. This says a lot. They have also found the right word to legitimise in the public sphere the very idea of ​​sending ground forces from “individual NATO countries.”

US Secretary of Defence Lloyd Austin, who was recently discharged from hospital after treatment, clarified what it was all about. He stated that if Ukraine suffers defeat, the alliance will have to oppose Russia. Thus, he clarified the “vague allusions” in European discourse that if Russia were allowed to win in Ukraine then, after victory, it would attack Finland, Poland, and the Baltic countries. President Putin has repeatedly responded to this delusional rhetoric. It’s a completely fabricated “horror story” the sole purpose of which is to get the US Congress to allocate the funds demanded by President Biden’s administration. This is the value of words. No one is surprised anymore to see such plans being discussed. It’s the value of a word which was either accidentally blurted out or deliberately said to express dangerous ideas.

Question: It is clear from current discussions of the multipolar world that international organisations must play an increasing role in global affairs. This applies to the United Nations. You worked in New York for many years, visit it regularly and recently took part in a Security Council meeting.  On the one hand, the UN is increasingly criticised for its failure to perform its mission of maintaining the international order and ensuring the observance of international law. On the other hand, much is said about the need to reform the UN. Does the universal organisation have a future as a unique instrument? What do you think about the reform and the role of the UN in shaping a multipolar world?

Sergey Lavrov: The UN was born in the flames of World War II. There were experiments with a multipolar world before.  The 1648 Peace of Westphalia was based on European equilibrium and sovereignty of states. The Concert of Europe shaped the 19th century in the European continent by balancing different forces. Then two attempts were made to establish a unipolar world and a world of hegemony. In the early 19th century, Napoleon Bonaparte brought virtually the whole of Europe under his banners. In the 20th century, Adolf Hitler seized the majority of European countries, recruiting soldiers from them and, like Napoleon, sending them to Russia. Napoleon wanted to establish European hegemony while Hitler was after global hegemony but both ended badly.

Our people are rightly proud of the role played by the RSFSR and peoples of the Soviet Union in the rout of Nazi Germany. The UN was established following Hitler’s failure to establish a hegemony of one race during World War II.

The concept of multipolarity was at the core of the UN from the very start, notably, in its Security Council and its five permanent members. The victorious powers agreed that if one of them had a difficulty on some issue, this issue would not be submitted for resolution by the international community, the UN.

I believe this concept is still viable if the countries honestly fulfil what they agreed on. But the truth about Western honesty was exposed when Prime Minister Winston Churchill made his Fulton speech in the latter half of 1946. He spoke about the Iron Curtain, enemies and the division of the world into two poles. But even before this speech, when the war was still going on, the British and the Americans discussed horrible plans for bombing Soviet territory. They planned to attack dozens and hundreds of cities. And so the sincerity that seemed to characterise all wartime meetings of the great powers on the future world arrangement proved to be false. At any rate, it quickly vanished, revealing the hostile intentions of the Western world. Then NATO was established. 

I think the UN Charter and all its principles are absolutely relevant in the current world. I will emphasise one of them – the UN is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of states. If you look at the postwar history, you won’t find one situation or conflict in which the West respected the principle of the sovereign equality of states. In every situation, it has pursued its own narrow interests in violation of the Charter of the global organisation.

The UN has sealed the principle of non-interference in internal affairs, which has been violated numerous times by the US and many of its allies, starting with their interventions in Latin America. In Panama and Grenada, an American journalist was threatened with rape, which was used as an excuse to deploy troops to these countries under the slogan “We do not abandon US citizens.” But what happened when Russia began protecting Russians who were banned from speaking their language, honoring their heroes and history but were forced to only glorify Hitler’s accomplices – Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich? Let me remind you that education, the media and culture in the Russian language were banned in Ukraine. Officials of the Kiev regime, which came to power after the coup d’etat in February 2014, openly stated that people in Kharkov and Nikolayev must forget the Russian language completely. All those who remained in Crimea after its reunification with the Russian Federation were supposed to be arrested and tested for loyalty. Why did they stay in Crimea when Russia came there? Nobody mentioned the referendum. The putschists said that the Russians must be done away with. The coup leaders declared that the Russians in Crimea needed to be eliminated both legally, through the adoption of laws, and physically.

The UN Charter contains numerous principles. The problem lies in their observance – whether it is fair or unjust. The Crimeans held a referendum, which was attended by many international observers, and voted overwhelmingly to return to Russia. The referendum was widely televised and shared on social media. The joy that the Crimeans felt on that occasion cannot be faked. Everyone understood this. During discussions on how to proceed with Donbass, even US Secretary of State John Kerry said that everything regarding Crimea was clear. This was in April 2014, when we tried to reach settlement on the self-proclaimed republics in Donetsk and Lugansk.

At that time, the West declared the referendum illegal because it violated the principle of territorial integrity, which is enshrined in the UN Charter. However, in 2008, Western countries unilaterally proclaimed the independence of Kosovo without a referendum. This occurred nine years after they bombed former Yugoslavia without a mandate from the UN Security Council and annexed Serbian territory without any referendum. When asked why they did all this, violating the country’s territorial integrity, the collective West claimed that this was different, and the right of nations to self-determination prevailed in this case.

Observing the principles outlined in the UN Charter is not like reading a menu at a restaurant. It is crucial to fully and comprehensively implement these principles. The extensive discussions that take place within the UN serve as evidence that this is possible and would be fair. These discussions primarily revolve around determining which principle takes precedence: the principle of self-determination of nations, which is mentioned on the first page of the Charter, or the principle of territorial integrity, which appears on the subsequent pages. The Charter itself does not establish a connection between these two principles. A special process for interpreting these and other principles of the Charter commenced shortly after the establishment of the UN. This process was completed after the active decolonisation efforts of the 1960s, which liberated the majority of former colonies and peoples. However, there are still approximately 15 countries that remain under the control of colonial powers, such as France and Britain, among others. The UN General Assembly consistently demands the implementation of its resolutions on these issues. In 1970, during this process, UN members unanimously adopted the text of the Declaration on the Principles of International Law, which clarifies the relationship between territorial integrity and the self-determination of nations.

According to this declaration, every country must respect the territorial integrity of any state whose government upholds the principle of self-determination of nations. Consequently, it represents the entire population residing within a certain territory.  It is undeniable that after the bloody coup in February 2014, the ultra-reactionaries and neo-Nazis who came to power did not represent the Crimeans or the people of southeastern Ukraine. If each country adheres to international law, the principles outlined in the UN Charter can serve as a solid foundation for multipolarity.

Violations of international law have not just arisen recently; the Americans have long been imposing their “rules-based order” on others. These rules boil down to the following: if they need to denounce some country, they accuse it of violating sovereignty. If they want to support another country, they will cite the implementation of the right to self-determination.

It is crucial to return to the roots, to the Charter, and follow the example set by new advocates of the multipolar world, namely regional organisations. In Eurasia, these organisations include the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, ASEAN, China’s Belt and Road project, and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf. Many countries are members of the Arab League. Therefore, there is a vested interest in aligning the development plans and programmes of these regional integration associations. Many of them have already established working relationships and coordinate their agendas. Their mutually complementary nature ensures the avoidance of unnecessary actions and duplication.

This is exactly the process of interaction that President of Russia Vladimir Putin had in mind when he formulated his vision of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. It encompasses the whole of Eurasia. The partnership is emerging due to objective reasons and is rooted in the practical needs of life. We have said more than once that it is open to all Eurasian countries without any exception.

In his Address to the Federal Assembly, President Putin reiterated our interest in promoting this trade and economic cooperation and proposed drafting a new concept of Eurasian security as well. The concept of Euro-Atlantic security emerged following the establishment of the Organisation for Security Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Initially, the organisation held some promise with its toolkit for transparency in military spending, confidence-building measures, and arms limitation. There was a shared belief that the Euro-Atlantic security architecture would foster collaboration and ensure stability. Regrettably, this undertaking ultimately failed.

The West's inclination to flagrantly disregard the consensus principle of the OSCE first manifested itself several years before the launch of the special military operation. Countries that held the chairmanship ignored the principle of neutrality, as did secretaries general and heads of structural units in charge of human rights, the media, ethnic minorities and other issues.

The OSCE has completely discredited itself, much like the concept of joint development of the two parts of Europe (Western and Eastern) once did in the economic sphere. Back then, there was talk of establishing a shared economic and humanitarian space, extending first from the Atlantic to the Urals, and later to the Pacific. The valuable experience gained during this process was squandered by the West.

They once again declared that they will intend to abide solely by their own rules. With new economic, technological and military centres of power and influence emerging around the world, Western dominance is a thing of the past. We must explore new frameworks that will fairly reflect the weight of each country in international affairs. While the West recognises this shift, it either seeks to impede the formation of a multipolar world, or to make it as difficult as possible. Hence the agony which betrays the realisation of the fact that its dominance and hegemony are fading. Hence the abrupt and aggressive moves by the modern West. Even during its prime, the West resorted to dictates and blackmail, and blatant violations of international law that included launching wars, as was the case with Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, or at the end of their 20-year presence in Afghanistan.

These “exercises” gave rise to terrorist organisations, such as al-Qaeda following the conflict in Afghanistan. After the invasion of Iraq (which they later admitted was a mistake and there was no reason to invade it, but “it can happen to anyone”), when they dismantled Saddam Hussein’s army manned predominantly by Sunnis, most of the officers, now out of work, formed the core of what later became the Islamic State. The Jabhat al-Nusra terrorist organisation, now known as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, was formed in Syria. They are the “fruits of enlightenment” that the civilised West brought to other nations. None of the above countries has become a better place to live. Libya as a state is non-existent, and Iraq is on the verge of collapse. In Syria, the Americans are creating a quasi-state of Kurds, and stealing oil and food produced in the occupied territories.

Multipolarity should be anchored in integration structures. I mentioned Eurasia. We have contacts with regional organisations from other regions, primarily, the African Union, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. These large associations, predominantly representing distinct geographical regions, are now increasingly addressing the challenges in their territories independently, signalling a positive and self-sufficient trend in development.

In addition to the regional integration processes, there is a global one in the form of BRICS. For many years now, it has been taking shape relying solely on consensus which comes from a balance of interests. This is what the association is running on. BRICS GDP exceeded that of the G7 in terms of purchasing power parity back when it included only five countries. With new countries joining it, the gap is widening. Nearly 30 other countries have shown interest in joining this global association in one form or another. We are in a position to suggest that various regional organisations establish interaction at the intercontinental level. It may be a philosophical approach at this point, but it is quite realistic nonetheless.

None of the Global Majority countries has ever tried to oppose anyone, including the Global Minority represented by the West. Never. We are not against the peoples of those countries. We know that Europe and North America have perfectly legitimate interests of their own, and they love their history. But the elites must learn to advance their agendas based on mutual respect, rather than the notion of their nation being superior to others, and not to make ultimatums based on this arrogance.

What do we have? The West is talking about democracy. But as soon as you start a discussion about democracy in the international arena, rather than at home, they tend to wind up the conversation as if this is something not debatable. There are “rules” in the international arena that ensure “peace and order.” But if you’re a “big democrat”, you need to recognise a wide range of opinions in international affairs as well.

Take Ukraine, for example. We spent ten years explaining what would happen if the West continued to expand NATO and to “develop” that country as a springboard against Russia. They created security threats on our borders, and rooted out everything Russian (including history and historical memory) from the country, which the West has assumed “external control” over by organising a coup and installing officials to run almost all spheres of life in that country. We provided a detailed explanation of what we were fighting for, what caused the special military operation, and what its goals were. The West condemned it verbosely using the language of utmost disapproval. Let the developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America decide for themselves what they think about the arguments provided by one side and the denunciating peremptory barking coming from the other side. It is important to respect other countries and treat them as equal “adults.”

After that, our ambassadors around the world spent much time explaining the reasons that led to it. We asked our colleagues to take our assessments into account when considering the Ukraine issue at the UN. The West did not clarify its position. It used all of its representatives to issue ultimatums. They travelled around the globe telling every country that it “must” condemn Russia and join the sanctions. I asked an official acquaintance of mine, from a country in which the West made such demarches, what the Westerners promised in return. It turned out, nothing. They said that if they disobeyed them, they would impose sanctions on them and rescind some IMF loans that these countries were counting on. However, if they did as they were told, they would not be punished. Talk about an equivalent exchange. This is nothing short of blackmail.

I can talk about democracy on and on. I firmly believe that forming a new international order does not involve amending fundamental provisions of the UN Charter. It is imperative, though, to bring the Security Council membership into line with the historical reality that took shape after the decolonisation process ended. The countries that have emerged as centres of growth in Asia, in Africa, in Latin America deserve a greater Security Council representation in order to remove the historical injustice. There is no reason to give more Security Council seats to Western countries with six of its 15 members already representing the West. It is wrong in terms of the size of population, territory, and fair representation.

The upshot is that I would leave the UN Charter as it is, and rather think about how to make everyone benefit from complying with it.

Question: When will our respected adversaries work up the courage to interact with us directly, rather than via intermediaries?

Sergey Lavrov: Adversaries are respected, when they go to battle with their visor raised. We are constantly assured that the West is not at war with Russia. It “only” supplies weapons. Next it transpires that citizens of their countries are there. Reportedly, they are mercenaries, who voluntarily quit the military service. But this is questionable in the overwhelming majority of cases. Next, they said that instructors should be deployed there, because it was necessary to master sophisticated technologies in a short time, etc. And then there was the leak, where German generals discussed how they should help [Ukrainians] fire [German] missiles without anyone knowing that they had a finger in the pie.  It makes no difference what they say, because there are French, Brits, and Americans deployed on the ground.   

This is no “visor raised,” but roguery. They constantly say that they are defending Ukraine. Next, they claim (I have quoted them already) that if Ukraine loses, Russia will allegedly make war against the whole of Europe. It’s their mentality: you must conquer Europe like Napoleon, or Hitler.

US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin said that if Ukraine was allowed to lose, NATO will have to make a stand against Russia. For them, this is an existential defeat (as they see it), but in fact, this will reflect the finale of their attempts to establish a US-dominated unipolar world order based on complete obedience of the West. The latter goal has largely been achieved by Washington.

As for when they will start to talk to us directly, we are philosophical about this matter. We feel pity for these people, for diplomats who are, in fact, cowards. They expel our diplomats from Europe and a number of other countries, such as Japan. They are severing all contacts. As Anatoly Torkunov said, even academic ties are being curtailed.  They are embittered and want to punish us, but at the same time it’s a manifestation of cowardice in the sense that they are not ready for an honest competition. The West has no arguments. They were lying to us about the Minsk Agreements, which they had no intention to implement. They were preparing a coup d’etat and were conscious about that. They forbade the opposition from implementing the document on settlement and carried out the coup after all. We know all that.

I am going to say something that we have not yet revealed to the public. We have accumulated a lot of evidence on how the EU embassies in Moscow are preparing for our presidential elections. I am referring to interference mechanisms, certain “supporting projects” for the non-systemic opposition – in short, things that embassies have no right to address. With this information in hand, a week and a half ago, we invited all EU ambassadors [to the foreign ministry]. As a foreign minister, I wanted to tell the heads of missions that we, out of the best intentions, advised them against doing that. So, what do you think happened? Two days before the appointment, they handed us a diplomatic note saying that they had decided against coming. Can you imagine relations with states, whose ambassadors are afraid to attend a meeting with the foreign minister of their country of accreditation? Whoever heard of such a thing? Here are the manners of those arch-partners for you.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that we never reject serious proposals. For example, the Americans say that we are launching nuclear weapons into space and suggest that we meet and elucidate on strategic stability. This is cheap talk, not anything for grown-up people. Exhaustive answers were given to proposals of this sort.

The same goes for other affairs. Previously, they suggested resuming inspections of our strategic facilities under the Treaty on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Arms. We have explained to them that the treaty was based on trust, mutual indivisible security, and transparency. The Americans have trampled these principles underfoot by declaring us an enemy that should suffer a “strategic defeat” on the battlefield. After doing this, without blinking an eye, they ask us if we could let them see our strategic facilities. Is that honest?

So far, none of the Western countries has made any honest proposals. African countries, Brazil, the Arab League, and China have put forward various ideas on security in Europe, ideas dictated by the best intentions.  All of them are calling for a peaceful solution. The main aspect of their position (this is clearly outlined in the Chinese initiatives) is that it is necessary, first, to identify the causes of the situation existing in Europe, and, second, to look for a solution based on removing these causes and on respect for the legitimate security interests of all participants.  We are ready to cooperate on this basis. But the West is promoting a ten-point formula, a “peace formula.”

Now they have duped Switzerland and it is trying to convene meetings and a “peace conference.” A “summit” has even been announced. But they don’t want to invite Russia. Our country will be summoned after they come to terms among themselves. They will hand us a paper that will be an ultimatum pure and simple. Is that serious? Everyone knows that this will never work.

They constantly say: “Victory on the battlefield!” OK, let them try. 

Question: I’m president of the Gelendzhik Archery Federation, and popularising this sport is something that I focus on. I believe that sports have the power to unite nations and people of all ages. What values do people around the world share?

Sergey Lavrov: Are you trying to say that sports unite nations and people of both genders? That is correct.

I have never used a traditional bow. I shot a crossbow once at a resort in Altai, which I believe is a similar experience.

Of course, sports should foster unity. It is the greatest legacy of humankind.

In the late 19th century, Pierre de Coubertin revived traditions that were thousands of years old. Ancient Greece had the Olympic Games, including the ceremony of lighting the Olympic flame, and the principles of fair play and equal conditions for everyone. These principles were reaffirmed when humankind reached maturity. The Olympic Charter was a beautiful endeavour that lasted for many decades.

There were boycotts, indeed. The West boycotted the 1980 Olympic Games in Moscow. We boycotted the Los Angeles Games in 1984. After that, everything seemed to have returned back to normal.

I consider what is happening with the sports movement now, and what the leaders of the International Olympic Committee and personally Thomas Bach are doing to be a betrayal of the ideals of the Olympic movement. In response to numerous initiatives to let transgender people participate in all kinds of competitions, he said that sports should not be politicised. Equal rights should be created for them. There have been quite a few absurd instances where men participated in women’s swimming events and won, leaving women outraged. These “rules” are being imposed.

When asked whether he would allow Russian and Belarusian athletes to participate since he was against politicisation, Bach said it was something “different,” not politicisation, since they had violated the UN Charter. For many years, when Iraq, Libya, and Syria were bombed in an unlawful and uncalled-for manner, all the countries involved in this aggression sent their athletes under their own flags and anthems as if nothing had happened.

Horrific developments are unfolding in Gaza. Indeed, an outrageous act of terrorism took place on October 7, 2023, which we immediately condemned. In response, collective punishment, namely, carpet bombing was used against Hamas and the people of Palestine. Israeli generals said they were all terrorists and “brutes,” not civilians. Considering this, a number of Islamic countries proposed that Israel’s participation in this year’s Olympic Games in Paris be suspended. The International Olympic Committee flatly refused to do so.

So, assuming different positions is acceptable. Statistically, fewer civilians were killed and wounded on both sides during the ten years of the Ukraine conflict, which broke out in 2014 after the coup, than during less than five months of Israel’s operation in Gaza. It is important to note that the Ukraine conflict began when the Minsk Agreements were still considered valid, but served only as a cover to send weapons to Kiev. The Kiev regime tried to bomb Donbass into submission, but the people refused to accept the coup and created a militia.

Compare the tone, almost a hysterical pitch used by the West to depict things that it ascribes to Russia. However, with regard to Gaza, it is just calling to stop the war. The suffering of tens of thousands of civilians (30,000 killed and 70,000 wounded) leaves them pretty much unfazed.

Sport and politics should be kept separate, but in recent times, sports have become politicised. This also rings true for the World Anti-Doping Agency, where 70-75 percent of senior officials represent NATO countries and their allies.

The Games of the Future in Kazan have been a great success and serve as our response to discrimination and the distortion of Olympic principles. Other competitions, including the BRICS Games to be held in Kazan this summer, rely on the same principle in order to preclude any manifestations that distort Olympism, as is currently seen in the IOC decisions.

Question: How can we use such historical factors as the Soviet legacy to maintain and improve relations between the West and Russia? I am watching the development of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. I have observed during my studies that during the pandemic, the Russian economy was in decline, but now, despite the sanctions, the economy feels better than during the pandemic. What is the role of India, how is it supporting Russia during this time? Thank you for organising such big events. My suggestion is to have sign language interpreters at such conferences because there are people who would need it.

Sergey Lavrov: Certainly, the traditions, legacy, and history of the USSR impact contemporary relations. Primarily, this is evident in the fact that the independent states that emerged from the former Soviet Union were linked by a shared economy, as well as transport and logistics networks. Numerous enterprises relied on one another for the provision of components and raw materials. These economic interconnections transcended all administrative borders within the USSR. Consequently, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States, efforts were made to preserve these natural connections and advantages that had been developed over decades to the greatest extent possible.

This course led to the establishment of other structures, such as the Russia-Belarus Union State, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. Connections were developed with neigbouring countries on the continent, first of all, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. These moves were driven by our fundamental interests.

As for the West, their fundamental interest aligned with the principle of “divide and conquer.” Since the early post-Soviet era, the West has actively intervened in the relations between Russia and its neighbours, and this policy continues to be pursued. It can be seen in Central Asia, the South Caucasus (particularly in the case of our Armenian friends), and the European part of the former USSR, including Ukraine and Moldova, which they are openly preparing for the role of “successor” to Ukraine in terms of getting their hands on its leadership. Belarus is also a target, facing provocations. The West, particularly the US, sees the legacy of the USSR as a territory of new states possessing substantial economic potential as unnecessary.

It became unacceptable for them when they saw the emergence of a new Russia, which, together with its neighbours, was forging a relationship of privileged economic partnership with Germany. Our American colleagues began taking measures to thwart European-Russian cooperation, particularly through German leadership. Everyone knows that it was them who blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines, which supplied affordable gas crucial for the profitability, efficiency, and rapid growth of the German economy.

Now, with the shift to costly liquefied natural gas from the US (requiring specialised regasification plants), as emphasised by the French Minister of Economy, they are paying four times more for energy than in the US. The enactment of the US law combatting inflation has led to a significant number of German and other European businesses relocating to the United States, contributing to the deindustrialisation of Europe.

Europe is one of the primary victims of the West’s conflict against Russia. In the course of this war, Europe found itself compelled to divert its arsenal to Ukraine, then purchase American weaponry to replenish. This amounts to an essentially commercial project, and substantial one at that. As has been customary, the Americans sought to profit off the aggression they initiated in various parts of the world.

India has consistently been our friend. The description of our ties with India has evolved in the agreements we have signed over the years. It began as a strategic partnership and following a subsequent summit, progressed to a privileged strategic partnership as proposed by the Indian Prime Minister. Some time later, it evolved into a specially privileged strategic partnership, and remains so to this day.

My friend, Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, once spoke at the UN. When questioned about India’s increased oil purchases from Russia, he advised them to mind their own business, pointing out how the West, too, had consistently bought oil from Russia.

This reflects national dignity: a country sticking to profitable projects with reliable partners. Back when the West did not even think of providing modern weaponry to India, the Soviet Union (and later Russia) not only supplied them but also collaborated on joint production, such as the advanced BrahMos missiles.

We cherish this friendship and never forget our own. We see that the Indian people think the same way.  

Question: As young people, we want to be friends, we want to work together, and we want to build a new world where we are not the hegemon, but we are equals and we respect each other. I would like to ask, your Excellency, what you think about the upcoming election, what your hopes and aspirations are for, hopefully, a renewed dialogue and, hopefully, a new relationship with the United States. We will work hard but what are your thoughts on it?

Sergey Lavrov: First of all, the United States is a great power with great people and an important history of fighting for its own independence. This history is a controversial one. There is a lot of discussion today as to how it developed. But in any equality-based world order (in other words, multipolar or polycentric), where there are several centres of power and influence (and they are already emerging), the United States will be one of the leading states, of course. Certainly among the Western countries, but possibly others. And in some regions of the world, if the United States follows the principles you described, it will still play an important role.

As concerns the prospects for the US elections, President Vladimir Putin said that, naturally, we will work with any president that the American nation chooses. But it will depend on the new administration’s scope of ideas regarding its policy on Russia.

We remember, when Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump, in late December 2016, ex-president Barack Obama (obviously, out of frustration) expelled Russian diplomats and their families, a total of 120 people. It happened in late December, three weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration. The diplomats were required to leave Washington, D.C., on a date when there was no direct flight to Moscow. There was only a flight from New York. So, they had to drive 500 km with their children and luggage. It was not a very humane decision.

The future members of the Republican administration called us to say that it was more of a blow at Donald Trump than at us. Apparently, President Obama made the move on purpose, to plant a mine under Russian-US relationship from day one. Donald Trump had yet to arrive in the White House, but the relationship with Russia was already damaged.

We realised that Barack Obama intended to achieve that effect. We engaged in a dialogue with the Trump administration to normalise our diplomatic presence (ours in the United States and theirs in Russia) but with no success. Moreover, five diplomatic properties were taken from us, which were never returned.

Then it was a downward spiral. We continue to head downhill. Contacts are maintained at the expert level, primarily to make sure that diplomats can do their work and receive funding. US banks have denied service to our diplomats. By now, at least, we have been able to arrange proper support services.

The Americans approach us every now and then. They have asked us not to deploy weapons in space. They have asked for a meeting. As if nothing happened. They say they must defeat us on the battlefield in Ukraine but other than that, let’s discuss strategic issues. President Vladimir Putin said that they are not serious and it goes against the natural course of things. 

We have no negative feelings towards the American people. I have plenty of good friends in the United States.

It is for the people to decide. Many things on the current agenda for the US Congress and the presidential administration concern the key problems that the new leaders will have to think about and deal with after the election, including immigration, poverty and other issues in the country’s development.

We saw the state of San Francisco when we attended the 30th APEC Leaders’ Meeting. It is one of the most beautiful cities. Reporters documented life on the street. So, the officials either care about improving the situation for the sake of American voters or they inject wild amounts of money into the Ukrainian regime. Until recently, there were only suspicions, but now, Pentagon inspectors went to see how the money is spent. And nobody could provide any report on this.

Something similar is happening in Europe. When German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock was asked at a conference if she was concerned about the Germans’ decreasing living standards, she confirmed that electricity and groceries are getting more expensive but, she said, they must sacrifice everything for Ukraine’s victory. If American politicians have the same attitude when it comes to their own people, it will be difficult to reach an agreement.

In any case, we are always open to dialogue if a dialogue is proposed in earnest and on equal terms.