Question: We are in a world where the balance of power is changing, the world order is changing. We are seeing the decline of perhaps globalisation, a move towards a multipolar world, maybe an increased importance of smaller groups that have previously been neglected. Could you give a broad assessment of the current geopolitical situation?

Sergey Lavrov: Ladies and gentlemen, first of all, I would like to thank the Turkish authorities for the invitation to the Antalya Diplomacy Forum. I attended it two years ago. Unfortunately, we were unable to gather here last year due to the disaster that had befallen Türkiye. There was a terrible earthquake. Russia promptly sent its rescuers, the necessary medical equipment and humanitarian aid. President of Türkiye Erdogan recalled that period today. 

Indeed, multipolarity is today’s reality. Not by design to challenge the West, but as a natural progression driven primarily by economic advancement. This evolution has propelled emerging powers such as India and China in to the global spotlight. Their remarkable economic growth and use of cutting-edge technologies are topics on everyone’s lips.  

By and large, the US now identifies China as its foremost long-term challenge to dominance. However, it is important not to overlook the fact that China achieved its current standing while adhering to the rules set by the Americans with the support of other Western countries in the context of their concept of globalisation. These rules encompassed principles of the free market, fair competition, respect for property and the presumption of innocence.

When it became evident that China was outpacing them in economic growth despite operating within the rules and institutions they had established – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ­– the Americans swiftly moved to impede, for example, the activities of the WTO, which had garnered a huge number of legitimate complaints from China about unfair competition. They are blocking the redistribution of votes and quotas within the IMF, although the BRICS countries, especially in view of the expansion of this structure, should have had more votes and quotas long ago, if the original rules were applied, and the Americans should have lost their blocking quota. And there are many more examples like that.

It is remarkable how swiftly these principles and canons of the free market were descarded when the United States decided to punish Russia for the fact that for many years we had warned our Western colleagues about the disastrous repercussions of NATO’s expansion to the east, the takeover of Ukraine, the unacceptable actions committed by the Kiev regime which came to power in 2014 as a result of a coup d’etat, and the destruction of anything Russian in Ukraine. 

The Russian language, education, media and culture – all of these are suppressed, even in daily life. If you address a salesperson in a store in Russian, he or she may refuse to serve you. Imagine for a moment if English were banned in Ireland, or if French or German were banned in Switzerland. No one can even imagine it. Yet in Ukraine, these restrictions were imposed with overt support from the West. 

Our numerous appeals to restore order in the country, which is completely under the control of the West, and to repeal these absolutely discriminatory criminal laws that go against the Constitution of Ukraine (which states that the rights of Russians – this is the term used there, “Russians” – and other ethnic minorities, including language rights, must be respected), have had no effect. 

Today, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan have said that the world order is in crisis, failing, and the management of processes is broken. They cited Ukraine and Palestine most often as examples. Indeed, the disorder observed now is taking place. Is the UN to blame? I doubt it. 

The UN has done its job in the case of Ukraine. In February 2015, after the coup d’etat and the bloody war, the parties involved in the conflict in Donbass signed an agreement that was guaranteed by Germany and France. The Security Council unanimously approved it, adopting a resolution that made it binding. It is not the fault of the UN Security Council (thus is how it functions) that no one intended to fulfil those agreements. Later, everyone who signed them admitted it, except for Russian President Vladimir Putin. They said they had no reason to do it. They just needed to buy time to pump Ukraine full of weapons against Russia. That is the reality of the situation.

Everything you are witnessing now confirms the original plan not to compromise, to go all the way in turning Ukraine into an “anti-Russia,” even a springboard for attacking Russia, creating security threats on the borders (NATO had such plans ready), and, as I have already mentioned, destroying everything Russian, Russian culture in the territories that Russians developed, where they built cities, roads, ships and ports.  

This is not the fault of the international community represented by the UN. The UN Charter is a perfect document for today. It contains a fundamental principle that the West has never respected. It states: The Organisation is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members. Can you name one conflict since the creation of the UN where the West treated the parties involved as equals? It never has. 

As it turns out, in the case of the resolution on Ukraine (the Minsk agreements), the West did not see Russia as a country to be respected either. These agreements simply stated that a small part of eastern Ukraine would have the right to speak Russian, educate their children in Russian, have their own local police force, and be consulted when judges and prosecutors were appointed. That’s it. It’s similar to what French President Emmanuel Macron now wants to grant Corsica. It is much less autonomy than what exists for national minorities in many Western countries. 

On Palestine, too, the UN Security Council and General Assembly unanimously adopted decisions on the creation of a Palestinian state, but these decisions were sabotaged. And this sabotage continues, primarily by the United States, which has terminated the activities of the Quartet of international mediators. In addition to the US, its participants included Russia, the UN and the EU. The US has taken over the functions of behind-the-scenes negotiations, but no one knows anything about it, and it will probably end up as another non-starter. As a result, the Palestinians will not achieve statehood. There may be some fancy declaration that, for example, Palestine will be accepted to the UN as a member state, but everything will remain exactly the same on the ground. In other words, there will be a beautiful picture, but the status quo will not change.

Another example in this context is the policy of the US and its allies on Taiwan. They publicly claim to recognise one China but, they say, do not violate the status quo. And what is the status quo? It's treating Taiwan as a de facto independent state. There you go, double standards again. And such examples abound. The problem lies not in the foundation of the UN, but in the fact that Western countries, first and foremost, fail to implement the numerous decisions of the Organisation. 

Question: Minister Lavrov, you talked about a lot: US policy, NATO expansion eastward, the situation in the United Nations, Macron’s comments, the situation in Gaza. We are going to get to all of that.  

But I specifically want to ask you, because the tone that I seem to have gotten from your opening remarks is that it is action-reaction. I wanted to find out a little bit more where you see the Russian foreign policy taking the country. If you can paint me a picture in ten years, where is Russia as a result of this foreign policy? 

Sergey Lavrov: In the centre of the world, of course.

Yesterday, Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his Address to the Federal Assembly. There he succinctly and clearly described our current philosophy.

For many years after the Soviet Union broke up, as the new Russia was undergoing its formation in a new capacity, we believed the promises of the West. We were told that it was a time of universal prosperity, with no ideological opponents, and that we were all in the same boat, living and working together honestly for our common benefit.

It turned out that all those promises were a sham. We did not see any equality in economic relations with the West. It took us a very long time to join the World Trade Organisation. The European Union was wearing us out, as they say, by bargaining for concessions. There were many other issues in our relations with the EU, our nearest neighbour. Although we were very close trading partners, any economic actions, steps and agreements were achieved with great difficulty.

Ultimately, we were deceived on the most important issue for us: equal and indivisible security. This principle is stated in a series of decisions of the so-called Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Starting from the Istanbul Summit in 1999, this principle was proclaimed and has been reaffirmed many times since, including at the highest level.

This solemn commitment states that no country or group of countries in the Euro-Atlantic region will seek dominance. However, while NATO was signing this commitment with one hand, it was signing agreements on enlargement with the other, relentlessly violating all the principles that were seemingly honestly agreed upon within the framework of the OSCE.

I will not go into detail about what happened with Ukraine. You are aware of it. A coup d’état, a regime completely subservient to the Americans, who already had hundreds of people sitting in ministries there. Just as now they claim that they have their mercenaries, but in fact, there are army officers there, including British and French. We are well aware of this. And it all ended with what we have now. When we were implementing the Minsk agreements, we believed that this was a way out of the crisis that Ukraine, especially its eastern regions, found itself in. We thought that we would be able to avoid any negative consequences.

During the period when NATO began to expand, we proposed on two occasions to conclude a Treaty on European Security, in 2009 and then again in December 2021. The West arrogantly rejected our proposal to “codify” what had already been adopted in the form of a political declaration at the highest level. The West simply rejected it. They said that their relations with Ukraine were none of our business. NATO will do whatever it wants. At best, let’s talk about some limitations on medium- and short-range missiles that were prohibited by the treaty from which the United States withdrew, and which they will now build together with us, but, they said, let’s limit their deployment near each other’s borders.

The OSCE could do nothing, even though this very organisation was the platform where all these solemn, pathos-laden decisions were taken. Therefore, this structure no longer represents any substance for us to rely on. The principle of consensus has been violated. The Secretary General and the OSCE Chairperson, who changes every year, have blatantly taken one side. This organisation remained silent for years while laws were passed in Ukraine to destroy Russian education, media and culture.  Just as it was silent for decades before that about the fact that Latvia and Estonia still have the status of non-citizens, when ethnic Russians living in those countries, and, incidentally, who voted in the referendums on the independence of Latvia and Estonia, are not granted citizenship. Now these countries are starting to throw these people out. And the OSCE is silent. 

In his Address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin outlined our initiative, or awareness, if you like, of the reality that is now emerging, namely the importance of developing cooperation on the Eurasian continent with the participation of all countries and organisations located here. The basis for this process has already been created by the relations that have been established between, for example, the Eurasian Economic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, between the EAEU and ASEAN, and between the SCO and ASEAN. We see the prospect of the Gulf Cooperation Council joining these efforts. The Arab League and a number of its members are also located on the Eurasian continent. This initiative leaves the door open for the Europeans, too. If they realise the complete futility of their current policy of maintaining their colonial dominance, arrogance and lack of any responsibility towards their voters, whose well-being they are sacrificing to the Ukrainian regime, and not just sacrificing it, but proudly and publicly saying so to the whole world, then we shall see.

Eurasian security is a natural process. All the more so since the centre of global development has shifted to the Asia-Pacific region, primarily to South and East Asia. In general, Eurasia is now the engine of the world's development. The Euro-Atlantic has already lost this role. This is roughly how we perceive the future.

Question: At the beginning of your answer, you said that Russia is in the centre of the world. I’d like to point out that if you look at GoogleMaps, it’s Türkiye that’s in the centre.

Sergey Lavrov: There are some maps in Türkiye that paint big parts of Russia the wrong colour. I hope you aren’t referring to those maps. 

Question: You’ve recently mentioned the French. I want to ask you about a particular comment made by French President Emmanuel Macron. At the beginning of the week, he said that when it comes to the issue of Western troops on the ground in Ukraine, he said, quote, “Nothing should be off the table. Nothing should be ruled out.” The United States quickly denied this, saying it is not on the table, as did the UK and Germany as well.

You were asked by a Turkish reporter a couple of hours ago what your thoughts on this comment were. I believe that your remark was short and succinct. I was wondering if you could actually comment on how these words played out from the Russian perspective.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, of course. French President Macron did not misspeak when he said this. After he made this statement, his subordinates immediately rushed to correct the impression it made on the world community and even on the European Union itself. Many people categorically denied it, including Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Olaf Scholz.

Macron's subordinate, the new Foreign Minister Stephane Sejourne began to say that he did not really mean that. On the other hand, as he said, it is possible to introduce troops there. However, they will not engage in combat, only train others. And, he said, it wouldn’t necessarily lead to a war with Russia. Although it remains a possibility. The desire to officially introduce troops there has been put on record. Unofficially, they are already there. Without these instructors, Ukraine's long-range weapons could not be used against Russian cities. We understand this perfectly well. There is plenty of evidence of this, and more and more new evidence is emerging.

After all those remarks following his statement, President Macron said that he stands by his original statement. 

You mentioned that Washington has started distancing itself from this position. This is not entirely accurate. Indeed, US President Joe Biden said something to the effect that they do not intend to fight. But US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, after leaving hospital, declared that if Ukraine is defeated by Russia, NATO will have to engage with Russia. There’s a quote from him. The point is precisely this. It is a serious matter.

At the same time, we are being accused of placing nuclear weapons in space. Russian President Vladimir Putin has provided exhaustive explanations on this matter. The best evidence is that a draft treaty that we prepared jointly with China, which prohibits the introduction of any weapons in outer space and aims to prevent an arms race in outer space, has been on the table at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva for 15 years or even longer. The Americans are blocking it. Now they have decided to blame us for it. This is an old trick.

When they wanted to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, President George W. Bush claimed that they had to fight DPRK and Iran, who possessed all sorts of dangerous weapons that threatened the Americans. That was a mistake.

Then they decided to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missile Treaty. They simply made the decision to withdraw and build (as they are doing now) land-based missiles that were prohibited by this treaty. But before they withdrew, they blamed us. They said that we had already deployed this type of weapons and that, according to them, they were deployed in the Kaliningrad Region. President Putin sent a message to all NATO members, officially inviting their experts to the Kaliningrad Region to inspect the installations there. In response, he asked that our experts be allowed to visit Poland and Romania, where American missile defence systems were being deployed which could be used as strike weapons, and in that case they would fall under the treaty in question. They didn't even try to discuss the message. They simply refused. They said we were in violation and they did not need to check anything.

They did the same thing with the Open Skies Treaty. Before withdrawing from it (and the treaty was effective in enhancing trust), they said that Russia was violating the treaty. And that was it. Although in fact, the violations were primarily on the Western side.

Of course, now the Americans are accumulating additional reasons for them to refuse any agreement on the non-placement of weapons in outer space. Yesterday, President Vladimir Putin in his Address clearly responded to all such fabrications. It is simply nonsense, as he put it. He emphasised the responsibility of those who promote such militaristic agendas. We very much hope that the people of these countries understand what their elected representatives are playing with.

Question: Regarding the statement that if Ukraine losses this war, then NATO will have to fight Russia. Earlier in the week we have marked the second anniversary of what Russia has been calling a special military operation in Ukraine. If you look at it from the West’s perspective, which is at the opposite end of the spectrum, Russia has illegally invaded and is blatantly disregarding the national sovereignty of the neighbouring country. You know, at the beginning of this conflict Russia had certain grievances and certain objectives, NATO’s expansion towards the east obviously being one of them, and also the denazification of certain elements within Ukraine. If you look at some of the results of Russia’s actions, NATO’s borders with Russia have increased by 1,300 kilometres. I am wondering what the endgame for Russia is in Ukraine.

Sergey Lavrov: Let’s go back to the statement made by US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin with which you began your question. I want to draw your attention to the meaning of this statement: if Ukraine loses, NATO will have to fight against Russia. According to Sigmund Freud, he voiced what was on their minds. Before that, everyone said that they could not let Ukraine lose because, in their opinion, Vladimir Putin would not stop there and would take over the Baltic states, Poland and Finland. However, Lloyd Austin's statement, which is clear and unambiguous, shows the opposite.

We do not have such plans and cannot have them. However, the Americans do. They feel Europe is drifting away from them. To be more precise, Europe is still the main victim of their policy to drag Ukraine into NATO. All the major expenses have been shifted to Europe and the lives of people there are getting worse. Fuel prices have increased several-fold compared to what it could have been if the Americans had not blown up the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines. 

This entire scheme with Ukraine was not only undertaken against Russia, but also with the aim of weakening Europe as a competitor. This goal has been achieved. The EU is no longer a competitor to the United States. All the major businesses and industries are moving to the US, where conditions are completely different and energy is much cheaper. This must not be overlooked.

Regarding the reasons for what is happening, those who insert the idea throughout the discussions that Russia allegedly attacked and annexed Ukraine are following what the West calls a cancel culture. They cancel everything they don't like. In this case, they are cancelling everything that happened during the years before the event. In the case of Crimea, the West has always claimed that Russia annexed Crimea, and that history changed on March 16, 2014.

They are reluctant to acknowledge that there was a coup d'état. It took place the day after the opposition and then Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed a document on a settlement that envisaged early elections and the establishment of a national unity government during the preparation for the elections. The document was signed by Poland, France and Germany as guarantor countries.

The next morning a coup d'état took place. The opposition occupied government buildings. One of its leaders, Arseny Yatsenyuk, who later became prime minister, went to the square (“Maidan”) and said into a microphone to the whole of Kiev: “Congratulate us, and we congratulate you − we have created a government of winners.” Is there a difference? A government of national unity, preparations for elections, and then a “government of winners.” The first thing they did (it was their very first initiative thrown into the public space) was to announce the cancellation of the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. In Crimea, in the south-east of Ukraine, no one has ever spoken any other language. 

The second move by this “government” was to send armed militants to Crimea to storm the building of the Supreme Council. At that time, residents of the peninsula and eastern Ukraine declared that they were not going along with this. And they decided to live without Ukraine. They did not attack anyone. However, the putschists who came to power declared them terrorists and launched an “anti-terrorist operation” against them. This included such cases as the burning alive of 48 people in the Trade Union House in Odessa, the bombing of the centre of Lugansk and other cities by the air force. All of this was shown on television and is available on social networks. 

The West prefers not to touch on the part of history that eventually led to the referendum in Crimea. Likewise, it avoids addressing the fate of the Minsk Agreements, which I have already mentioned.

A year after the putschists launched their “anti-terrorist operation,” they sought assistance to achieve peace. The Minsk Agreements were meant to fulfil that purpose. However, their signatories later admitted that it was merely a ploy, a lie used to arm Ukraine. Nobody in the West wants to talk about these “preludes” and “overtures,” which are crucial for understanding the entire situation.

By the way, after the coup in February 2014, we reached out to the Germans and the French, reminding them that their ministers had guaranteed settlement agreements that were crossed out by the [Ukrainian] opposition. We asked them to influence the opposition and ensure that they do what we agreed on. Moreover, early elections were said to be held in five to six months, which the then acting president would undoubtedly have lost. In response to our pleas, Germany and France replied that the agreement was “not bad,” but sometimes democracy takes unexpected turns. Such a “democratic turn” eventually resulted in the extermination of people. And then it was shoved aside as having no impact on subsequent events.

I would like to add another point. Prime Minister of Italy Giorgia Meloni said during a discussion of the situation in the Gaza Strip that “if Russia had not invaded Ukraine, Hamas would not have attacked Israel on October 7, 2023.” While I have heard many interesting statements from female diplomats, this is the first time I have heard something like this.

Question: It will be interesting to see the correlation between those two events. Since we are putting the United States under the spotlight.  I am not going to ask you, Mr Lavrov, who the Russian leadership would prefer to see in the White House after… I’m not going to ask you that. But I will ask you this. In light of one of the comments we heard from Donald Trump – he said that if I were president, the war in Ukraine would end in 24 hours. And we are seeing also a growing reluctance within the Republican Party to continue funding, the massive funding of Ukraine, I think it’s in the neighbourhood of $75 billion dollars just by the United States. I’m wondering do you feel that your frequencies with the Republicans are more in tune?  

Sergey Lavrov: Russian President Vladimir Putin has already answered the question of who we would prefer to see in the White House, and he has done so more than once. But most importantly, he said in his answer that we are ready to work with any president elected by the American people as long as that president is prepared to act on the basis of equality and fairness, without attempts to win any concessions from our side without any changes in their policy in return.

On February 29 of this year, Vladimir Putin commented on the American proposal to resume dialogue on strategic stability based on the START Treaty. However, the preamble of the treaty states that it is based on the principles of equality, mutual respect, transparency, trust and many other good things. And then there is everything else. The Americans propose to resume dialogue on strategic stability in order to resume visits to our strategic facilities, as the treaty allows for inspections.

Firstly, inspections were agreed upon in the context of the relationship outlined in the preamble of the treaty. The United States believes that the preamble is irrelevant, but without it, there would be nothing else.

Secondly, how can the Americans seriously request visits to our strategic facilities when several attacks carried out by the Ukrainians with long-range weapons against our strategic airfields would have been impossible without the involvement of US specialists? Including in the form of modernising the missiles themselves to add to their range. This approach was described by President Putin in his Address to the Federal Assembly on February 29, when he said that the United States would try to achieve what it wanted in various ways: through the Russian Foreign Ministry and other structures. All of this is done just to gain unilateral benefit.

We are not anticipating any changes that the US elections will bring. If we are talking about Donald Trump, he has already been president. During his administration, some of the most severe sanctions, as it seemed at the time, were imposed. But the Biden administration has outdone everyone.

Meanwhile, it all started with President Obama. At the height of his term, three weeks before Donald Trump's inauguration, the President of the United States expelled our diplomats along with their families and children. There were 120 of them in total. He did it on New Year's Eve. He ordered them to return to their homeland on a day when there were no direct flights between Washington and Moscow. Our staff, along with their children and belongings, had to travel by coach to New York in bad weather. This was done with great finesse by the Obama administration. And their successors continued this practice.

Question: Mr Lavrov, there is a lot to talk about, so I would like us to switch gears. Making a reference to that Russian official saying that if Russia had not invaded Ukraine, then HAMAS would not have attacked Israel. I want to talk about Israel’s war on Hamas. Moscow has openly stated that the reason why the region is in this predicament is because of, I believe in the words of President Putin, Washington’s monopolisation of the settlement process. I think these were the exact words that he used. I am wondering what position the Russian Federation is going to take in terms of bringing a sustainable and viable solution besides the open condemnation of what HAMAS did or what the Israeli army is doing now.  What concrete actions is the Russian Federation ready to take?

Sergey Lavrov: This problem has been discussed for many decades. When I was working as Russia's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, in informal dialogue with my Israeli colleagues we tried to encourage them to take constructive action towards the creation of a Palestinian State.  

Back then, more than 20 years ago, it was still possible to imagine this state on a map. Now there is practically no space left. Even the West Bank is peppered with illegal Israeli settlements that no one in the world recognises, including the United States. But at that time, the contours were still being drawn that would include both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

At the time, I criticised my Israeli friends for their intransigence and told them that the failure to resolve the Palestinian problem was the main factor fuelling extremism in Palestine itself and on the Arab Street in general. The Israelis took offence, claiming that the Palestinians were terrorists and should be spoken to and dealt with only using the language of force.

I am convinced that the overwhelming majority of experts share this assessment of the impact of the unresolved Palestinian problem on everything that is happening. This is confirmed by our meetings. When HAMAS carried out a terrible terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, Russia immediately condemned this terrorist act. However, when this was followed by a military operation in the form of collective punishment of Palestinians, we could not accept it. 

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres condemned the attack on October 7, 2023, saying that it did not happen “in a vacuum,” meaning exactly what we are talking about. Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Gilad Erdan reacted to this statement by demanding the resignation of Antonio Guterres and the disbandment of the UN. The belief in one's own infallibility has never led to anything good.

Members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government recently referred to Palestinians as “human animals.” The Kiev regime, including Vladimir Zelensky and Ukrainian officials treat Russians in a similar manner, calling them “subhumans” and “creatures.” Even before the start of the special military operation, long before the Minsk Agreements, which were still in force and still had a chance of being implemented, with shootings already taking place in violation of those agreements, Zelensky was asked in an interview how he viewed the people on the other side of the line of contact. He said thoughtfully, as an actor should, that “there are people and there are creatures.” On another occasion he advised all those who do not like living in Ukraine and who feel that they belong to the Russian culture to go to Russia for the sake of the future of their children and grandchildren. This is how he described Russians living in Ukraine.

There was also a statement referring to the Palestinians as “animals.” Many world leaders called on the Israelis to adjust their operation considering the large number of civilians there. An Israeli general said that there are no civilians there and they have all been extremists since the age of three. You can’t knock the words out of the song. On October 7, 2023, the Israeli operation began. Witnessing the horrific events unfolding in the Gaza Strip, how civilians are being decimated, on October 15, 2023, we proposed a resolution calling for a humanitarian ceasefire. The Americans did not allow it to pass. Last year, the Brazilians tried to do the same, and in February this year, the Algerians tried to promote the same resolution with our support. The Americans used their veto power, the British abstained, and the remaining 13 members of the UN Security Council voted in favour. I strongly believe that the most important task is to stop what is happening there now because people are losing their lives.

During the period from the Ukrainian coup in 2014 to the present, various estimates, including those by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, suggest that between 13,500 and 16,500 civilians have died. However, in less than five months, 30,000 people have been killed in the Gaza Strip. In 10 years, 17,000 to 27,000 people have been injured in Ukraine, while in the Gaza Strip, there are 70,000 wounded in less than 5 months. This number is increasing every day.

We worked together in the Quartet (comprised of the United States, Russia, the UN and the European Union). We have always advocated for equal representation of Arab countries, including the Arab League, as full members of this group. The West (the US and the EU) did not agree to grant them equal status. Meetings were held, after which Arab colleagues were, at best, invited and informed of what had been agreed.

When discussing the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the UN, it's noteworthy that in 2003, the Quartet reached an agreement on a roadmap aimed at establishing a Palestinian state. This roadmap outlined specific, verifiable stages, with the entire process slated to unfold over the course of a year. Although the UN Security Council approved the roadmap, it remained relegated to the archives. Five years ago, the Americans, citing “busyness,” began to impede the Quartet's efforts. Subsequently, with the commencement of the special military operation, they abruptly halted the quartet's meetings under the same pretext and monopolised their mediation services.

I have already mentioned what they are doing now. They are trying to reach an agreement, but in a non-transparent way, meeting quietly in Paris, or asking their Arab friends in Doha to accept their proposals. Our Qatari friends are mediating between Israel and Hamas. This information is available in the media. The focus is primarily on exchanging hostages for Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli prisons, particularly, women and children. Women and children have been held in Israeli prisons for many years. The Arabs are also talking about this, quite rightly telling the Americans that it is important to achieve a ceasefire, exchange hostages for prisoners, and not stop there.

Saudi Arabia has explicitly stated that it will not invest in rebuilding Gaza, of which there is nothing left, unless a sustainable and viable Palestinian state is established. Looking at the map, this would require a major resettlement of many people living in the territories.

One of current theories being discussed is that the Americans are trying to convince the Arabs and Palestinians to accept the situation on the ground, and that the Palestinians will have no more land. To achieve this, the UN, the Security Council and the General Assembly would pass a resolution declaring Palestine a full member of the global organisation. It may seem an appealing picture, but the actual content is unsatisfactory.

On February 29 of this year, a meeting of representatives of all Palestinian factions, including Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc., was held in Moscow. This is not the first time we have held such an event. The representative of the US State Department, Mr Miller, was asked how he felt about this. He said that Russian efforts in the Middle East have never been effective. Everyone has their own understanding of civility.

Russia is actively engaged in restoring Palestinian unity. The division between the Palestinians (Fatah and Hamas, the West Bank and Gaza) weakens their position and hampers their ability to have meaningful conversations with the international community. How many times have our Israeli colleagues responded to our calls, along with the Americans, to resume direct negotiations with the Palestinians by asking, “Who is there to talk to?” Abu Mazen only has authority in the West Bank; his administration does not extend to Gaza. They claim they have no one to speak with.

For years we have tried to bring the Palestinians together and said: the only thing in this crisis that depends on them alone is the restoration of Palestinian unity. But it has not been possible to solidify this idea even in a communiqué. The document adopted at the meeting of Palestinian factions in Moscow signifies, for the first time, a willingness to respect the platform of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. If this commitment is not merely a slogan, it will be a significant step forward for them to become truly united and present a unified message to the international community.

Question: Multiple and successive resolutions have been vetoed at the Security Council, whether it is the United States when it comes to a ceasefire in Gaza, also Russia’s veto when it comes to Ukraine resolutions. It seems to me, as a person from the outside, that we are becoming increasingly dysfunctional. We’ve talked about that we have be united but we are not united at the United Nations. As a seasoned diplomat, what do you see changed in this world?

Sergey Lavrov: Our Western colleagues must abandon colonial thinking, stop living at the expense of others, and refrain from adopting arrogant, essentially racist, approaches to international relations.

You mentioned our veto of anti-Russian resolutions on Ukraine. None of those who drafted those resolutions ever mentioned how the Russian language, education and culture were being suppressed in Ukraine through the adoption of laws, rather than just through organising rallies with slogans. This is a double standard. I provided an example: if the Swedish language, spoken by 5 percent of the population, was abolished in Finland, there would be a riot. In Ukraine, more than half of the population is either ethnically Russian or Russian-speaking. They face discrimination, insults, and even physical extermination. And yet the West passes resolutions condemning Russia.

This must come to an end. A veto should be used precisely for such a noble cause – not when the entire world is pleading to stop killing Palestinians but the US says let them try it for a while, and then we’ll make a sort of a deal. 

Question: The media published a conversation among German officers discussing their plans to blow up the Crimean Bridge. What can you say about this?

Sergey Lavrov: I read today what was posted on social media and announced by Ms Simonyan with reference to the relevant sources. On the one hand, this is stunning. On the other, less so.

I have said that we know for sure about NATO military participation in the guise of mercenaries or people that are not part of the armed forces of the alliance.

There are some interesting details in this conversation. These German generals discussed ways to supply Ukraine with long-range weapons (they mentioned the TAURUS) for attacking the Crimean Bridge and ammunition depots in a more subtle way. How to make sure they are not noticed because German Chancellor Olaf Scholz supposedly does not like it, while the Americans and Brits are already there. They also discussed whether it is possible to target missiles remotely without being in Ukraine. One of the generals said this would still be qualified as direct participation. They know what they are talking about. In one exchange, one general mentions that “men from the US in civilian clothes” are there.

I don’t know how to say it but all of our NATO colleagues are guilty as hell. We’ll have to see how they explain this to their own public.

Question: The Transnistria Congress of Deputies has asked for assistance from Russia. What can we expect from Russian leadership to make sure it doesn’t inflate into a request for annexation and further conflict? 

Sergey Lavrov: The question should be directed towards those responsible for eliciting such a statement from the Transnistrian parliament. First of all, to the Chisinau regime, which is following in the footsteps of the Kiev regime: cancelling everything Russian, discriminating against the Russian language in all spheres and, together with the Ukrainians, putting serious economic pressure on Transnistria. People lived in a blockade for many years after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. They had no opportunity for movement. More than 200,000 people there have Russian passports. This is well known.

What conclusion did we draw? We have already taken action. We called on the regime in Chisinau (led by Romanian citizens who make no secret of the fact that they want Moldova to join Romania) to cease obstructing the negotiation process. The Transnistrian Moldovan republic's leadership has been talking about this for a long time. The 5+2 format allowed for the consideration of Transnistrians’ interests in the context of preserving the territorial integrity of Moldova. It is precisely the resumption of this mechanism that Tiraspol is calling for. The Romanian leadership in Chisinau is trying to permanently dismantle this format.