Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Al-Jazeera TV channel, Moscow, March 2, 2022

Question: Very few believed that Russia was actually going to launch a military operation in Ukraine. Moscow has repeatedly talked about its goals in the region and about the strategic military risks that Ukraine poses to Russia. What threats has Ukraine posed for Russia to launch a military operation? 

Sergey Lavrov: This all started much earlier, even before 2014, when the West orchestrated a bloody coup in Ukraine. Back in the late 1990s, and even in the first half on the 1990s, when the Soviet Union collapsed and our Western colleagues assured the Soviet and later Russian leaders – Boris Yeltsin and Eduard Shevardnadze – that NATO won’t take this opportunity to shift the geopolitical balance and expand its infrastructure to the East. They even promised they wouldn’t accept any new members into the alliance. And now the British National Archives have published the recordings of those talks, making it crystal clear once again.

But NATO went back on its promises to ensure stability in Europe and drove five waves of eastward expansion instead; President Putin often mentions this in his speeches. Each wave was followed by the deployment of troops to the newly-added territories. That was supposed to be a temporary measure, but the forces never left and the military infrastructure was being built in no time there.

NATO is even dragging neutral nations like EU-member states and Switzerland into its schemes. The Action Plan on Military Mobility forces Austria, Sweden and Finland to provide their transport capabilities to NATO to move its armed forces. This ‘NATO-centric’ approach is becoming omnipresent and the EU meekly agrees to be an obedient appendix of the alliance despite loathing its role and declaring that Europe needs strategic autonomy.

And amid all of this, they openly provoked the post-Soviet states, Ukraine in particular, saying: “You have to pick a side – Russia or the West.” They have been putting it like this since way back in 2003, when Ukraine saw its first Maidan. They made such statements then. This continued later as well. Then Ukraine, under President Yanukovych, simply decided to take a short pause before signing the Association Agreement with the EU, because it contradicted the already existing CIS Free Trade Area agreement. Yanukovych realised that it was necessary to harmonise trade with Russia, the CIS and Europe. That was the only reason the Maidan protests were orchestrated from Brussels. The protests turned into a violent conflict in February 2014.

By that time “peace” had already been achieved. Yanukovych signed the Agreement on the settlement of the political crisis in Ukraine, promising that he would step down and organise an early election, which he would not have won. Poland, France and Germany were the guarantors of that agreement. After the opposition staged a coup and trampled over these agreements, the guarantors just stayed conveniently silent, didn’t say anything. Or even welcomed these putschists taking power. People in Crimea refused to accept those who organised the coup. The first thing the putschists did was revoke the special status of the Russian language in Ukraine. They declared that they didn’t want to see Russians in Crimea, and would send militants there. People in Crimea refused to accept those who organised the coup.

That’s when it all happened. It started back then. The people in power openly promoted neo-Nazism and facilitated the establishment of Nazi organisations – their members marched with torches paying tribute to Hitler’s criminals, chanting Nazi- and anti-Russian mantras. And the West just sat back and watched, and many even supported and encouraged this.

Then came the issue of Ukraine joining NATO. President Zelensky came to power under the banner of peace, promising to save the lives of both Ukrainians and Russians. At the end of the day, however, he succumbed to the same anti-Russian sentiment as the Poroshenko government before him. He referred to the people of the Donbass as 'species' – just like Prime Minister Yatsenyuk under Poroshenko, who called them 'non-humans'.

We saw Zelensky stand idly by as a bloody war continued against his own people. He essentially lied to everyone when he promised to bring back order, when he signed countless deals with Donbass representatives and then violated those agreements without batting an eye. For eight years, we've been appealing to the collective conscience of the West while desperately trying to reason with Zelensky's government, which has developed all the hallmarks of an ultraradical, neo-Nazi regime. And the West failed to stop it. Honestly, I don't even think the West was trying to stop it, because to the West, Ukraine has always been a tool to contain Russia – even before 2014. This entire situation has come about because the West refused to recognise that Russia has equal rights in constructing the European security architecture.

This is also supported by the reaction of leading NATO countries – the United States in particular – to the initiatives put forward by President Putin last December. Back then, he talked about the need to act in good faith and honour one's agreements: more specifically, he was referring to the idea that any country, even when it chooses to join a military alliance, must never pursue any policy that would infringe on the security of any other country. That was a commitment approved and signed by the presidents and heads of government of all OSCE countries, and it is also enshrined in NATO-Russia Council documents.

The West has flat out refused to comply with this principle.

Then we heard President Zelensky say that if Russia continues pushing Ukraine to fulfill some of its obligations, he would consider the option of Ukraine restarting its nuclear weapons program – that was a step too far. 

Question: Was that the tipping point? 

Sergey Lavrov: No, it has been building up over time. Our patience has its limits, you know. But all the things I've outlined are everyday events, small developments that have convinced us, step by step, that the West has adopted a strategy of using Ukraine to contain Russia. The plan is to create an 'anti-Russia', a belt of hostile states around us. 

As you probably know, for the past couple of years, they have been pumping Ukraine with weapons. Recently, they’ve stepped up this effort. The US and the UK were setting up military and naval bases there: for example, a naval base on the Azov Sea. The Pentagon created biological weapons labs in Ukraine to do research on various bacteria. This a classified program run by the US in Ukraine and in other countries of the former Soviet Union – basically, all around Russia. There have been active efforts to inject Ukraine with a military component hostile to us. In fact, let me remind you that President Putin has said about that more than once. Had Germany, France and Poland kept their word back in 2014, there wouldn't have been any turmoil in Eastern Ukraine, and there wouldn't have been a referendum in Crimea. But they showed their inability to pressure Kiev into respecting the signatures of the so-called 'Eurogrands'. 

There is now a conversation about the extent to which the European Union can play an independent role in the effort to maintain European security. To my mind, the EU already played its role back in 2014, when it failed to make Ukraine respect its guarantees. This led to the coup in Kiev. Gangs of armed militants were sent to Crimea. Then the people of Crimea held a referendum, rejected the putschists, and reunited with Russia. This is the EU's single largest contribution to European security. Had this not happened, had Crimea remained part of Ukraine, there would probably be NATO bases there right now. That would be absolutely unacceptable to Russia. 

Question: Minister Lavrov, is Ukraine capable of creating its own nuclear weapon at this point? Could it pose such a threat to Russia? 

Sergey Lavrov: They have the capabilities in terms of technology and equipment. President Putin spoke about this, and so did our experts. But I can assure you we won’t let them. The military operation launched by the President is meant to protect people, mainly the Donbass people, who have been shelled and killed over the last eight years while the West showed no interest or sympathy. The same goes for the Western media, who tried to avoid showing the situation on the ground to their audience. Instead of impartial reporting, they opted for baseless accusations, saying Russia was the one who wasn’t sticking to the Minsk Agreements. 

So the goal of this special military operation – considering the events of the last few decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union – is to ensure the demilitarisation of Ukraine. We need to list the specific offensive weapons that will never be deployed or created in Ukraine. 

At the same time, we need denazification to happen. In modern-day Europe, we’re seeing people march with torches, carrying fascist and neo-Nazi banners, shouting the same thing we heard at Euromaidan in 2013-2014 – “Kill the Russians!” We can’t let this happen again. 

It’s astonishing to hear what European and especially German politicians are saying now about their duty. Take Germany. My counterpart Ms. Baerbock said – as quoted by various media outlets – that Germany simply had to supply Ukraine with weapons, considering its ‘historical responsibility.’ What does that mean? Does Germany recognise it as its duty and historical responsibility to support neo-Nazis? That’s a strange connection there. And Ursula von der Leyen said that today the EU and Ukraine are closer than ever. Meaning what? I guess it means that if you’re a Russophobe, a fascist or a neo-Nazi, you’re free to do anything you want. 

This is the reaction to Russia restoring justice in Ukraine, but has there been anything remotely like this when hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Libyans and Syrians were dying at the hands of the US and their enlightened democratic allies who sent their troops to fight wars thousands of miles away from their own borders? 

So for the US, a small vial and a claim that it’s a national security threat was enough to justify the Iraq invasion. The US and Iraq, the US and Libya or Syria – they’re so far away, and yet the US feels it has the right to do these things. 

No international bodies condemned these instances of groundless military aggression as a violation of international law. But look at the hysteria that started now as if on cue when it came to security threats to Russia that exist right at our borders. Now the US made the West and all international organisations dominated by the West dance to their tune. They want to take international sports and culture hostage, to prevent justice from triumphing in the international arena and to prevent a serious discussion on the new security architecture in Europe that would serve every European country’s interests equally. 

Question: Mr. Lavrov, did you expect this solidarity from the West and other countries before Russia announced the special operation?

Sergey Lavrov: We were ready for anything. I had no doubts that the EU and NATO would obediently follow the USA, especially when the future of Nord Stream 2 became clear. Even if this pipeline becomes operational, and that is not something that we will decide, it is obvious that this project played the key part, and it will go down in history as something that showed us the place of Europe, Germany in the international arena - completely dependent and subdued.

And, of course, I didn’t think that these sanctions motivated by impotent rage would be extended to sports, cultural exchanges and contacts between regular people.

If you remember, when in previous years the West imposed sanctions on Arab or Latin American countries, they kept saying, at least at the Security Council level, that these sanctions would not target regular people, that their goal was to hurt the government, so it would change its behavior under pressure from the international community. 

This time, nobody is saying anything of this sort. Contacts between people have been banned by Western countries, despite their previous rhetoric when they said that there should be no obstacles to building relationships between civil societies. 

Turns out they don’t care about the principles they dictated in the international arena. By the way, they also demonstrated this when they began to freeze the assets of the Central Bank and private businesses. This is robbery, they abandoned all the rules that they had been implementing in international life in the last 70 years. And now they just crossed out these rules and went back to the Gold Rush era of gangster capitalism. 

Question: How well will Russia manage against this unprecedented political and economic pressure? 

Sergey Lavrov: I can tell you that we are capable of standing against any pressure, and if you have doubts about that, study history – of Russia, of the Russian Empire, of the Soviet Union. And pay close attention to those episodes in our history when we were invaded by enemy armies.  

Question: Did you prepare for this in advance? 

Sergey Lavrov: Well, we saw how angrily and aggressively the West was promoting its ideas of stopping Russia’s influence. These countries consistently supported the Nazi government of Ukraine, trying to leverage it against Russia. So, of course, we saw all that and were preparing for a situation when we had to completely rely on ourselves. 

But we have friends and allies, we have numerous partners in the international arena that, unlike Europe and some other countries, didn’t lose their independence and ability to put their national interests first. They are also under colossal pressure. I know that the Americans are now running all over the world through their ambassadors, forcing countries in Africa, Latin America and Asia to do something against Russia. This should be beneath a great power like the USA. There is no dignity in such behavior. But we are used to it. You know we’ve seen this before – when partners used shady tactics and methods. We will manage. I am 100 percent sure. 

Question: What are the chances that this conflict will be settled through political means? What concessions could Russia make? Moscow has said numerous times that it wants Crimea to be recognised as part of Russia. What else? 

Sergey Lavrov: Let’s be realistic. Crimea is something that we are not even going to discuss. The president clearly explained our position, and that was what our delegation brought to the talks with Ukraine in Belarus.

Crimea is part of Russia. Recognizing the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics in the administrative borders of the regions, and demilitarisation. The specific parameters have to be discussed separately. But there should be no weapons in Ukraine that would be a threat to Russia’s security. And denazification – this is something that was done in Nazi Germany.

You can easily find videos that show neo-Nazis in Ukraine and the freedom they enjoy. They hold their marches with portraits of war criminals, and President Zelensky sends his soldiers as guard of honor. There is still much to be done.

We’re doing everything in our power to prevent heavy casualties among civilians. In the course of this operation, Russian troops and the DPR and LPR forces are using high-precision weapons, targeting and destroying only the military infrastructure of Ukraine in order to ensure demilitarisation and eliminate these all-too-tangible threats. 

These threats have become much too massive. We see an information war going on as well. I would even call it information terrorism, with millions of fakes appearing constantly. We expose them all the time. On the Foreign Ministry website, we have a special section where we publish only accurate information based on facts. 

You work at a prominent and respected news outlet, so you should know what I’m talking about. Over the last eight years, Russian reporters from various media have been working in the Donbass 24/7, on the ground on DPR territory of course, and showing the truth. They reported about the shelling, about the multiple rocket launchers targeting residential areas, about the schools and nurseries razed to the ground and the civilians killed. You could see it all, live. 

Back at the earlier, calmer stages of this awful crisis, we kept suggesting that our Western counterparts encourage their media to report from the Ukrainian side and show what kind of damage the civilian infrastructure and the people there suffered. 

BBC journalists and some others traveled there a couple times – and they made a pretty balanced report, by the way. It was clear that the areas close to the line of contact that were controlled by the Kiev regime experienced none of the horrors inflicted on the DPR and LNR. 

And let’s not forget that in addition to the Ukrainian armed forces, who I believe are disciplined enough, they have Nazi battalions there, so-called volunteer battalions. Back when they appeared, they were frowned upon in the West, including the US and the UK. They were not to be aided in any way. And now they’re at the forefront, continuing with their atrocities and staged attacks, including in the cities. 

Question: Our reporters have been in Donetsk for a month now. 

Sergey Lavrov: I know, everyone’s there these days. 

Question: Mr. Peskov said twice that Moscow recognises Zelensky as the legitimate president of Ukraine. If so, why are there Russian forces headed for Kiev? What’s the goal? 

Sergey Lavrov: Demilitarisation. 

Question: Not regime change? 

Sergey Lavrov: Demilitarisation. Ukrainians should decide their future for themselves – after this conflict that they started and we’re trying to end is over. Political analysts are currently discussing this, but I’m not taking part in it. We believe that the decision should be made by the entire population, meaning all peoples living in Ukraine. 

Zelensky is the President, yes. Unfortunately, he’s a president who lied to his people, since they elected him for his promises to put an end to the war. Yet even now he keeps doing the same thing, which is promoting radical anti-Russian Russophobic views. He makes contradictory statements, first saying that Ukraine should be allowed to immediately join NATO, but if not, then Ukraine needs guarantees and he would be willing to accept these security guarantees. 

He should’ve started talking about that earlier, since security guarantees is exactly what we propose and what we’re trying to achieve.

President Putin has said many times, both in January and early February, that Russia will not tolerate a model of European security that relies on NATO as the dominant force. Especially when it's right on our doorstep. We've repeatedly said that we want to find an alternative solution - a solution that would reliably address security concerns of Ukraine, the nations of Europe, and, naturally, Russia. And that's the direction we should take.

President Zelensky said that he was interested in security guarantees for Ukraine. I see this as a positive development. Our negotiators are ready to discuss these guarantees at the second round of talks with Ukraine. But, just like the first round, the Ukrainian representatives still haven't confirmed their participation and are stalling for time. In fact, they could be waiting for a green light from Washington. I don't suppose anyone believes that Kiev enjoys any independence right now.

Question: Has the first round of talks established any positive starting points for the second round?

Sergey Lavrov: We've all heard the comments from the Russian negotiators. And we've heard comments by Dmitry Peskov. We cannot go into specifics right now because this is just the initial phase. But the fact that the two parties have both agreed to meet a second time indicates that they're willing to look for a solution. I've already described Russia's position on the matter. The Ukrainian side knows it well.

Question:  You've outlined Russia's demands for Ukraine - wouldn't that essentially mean that Ukraine has to surrender?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't believe it should be interpreted that way. It's not about terminology here. What we propose is an arrangement that will ensure the legitimate rights of all peoples living in Ukraine. Naturally, that includes all ethnic minorities without exception. This ensures they will have equal rights.

This new arrangement should of course be reflected in the legislation of Ukraine, which now has a law on the three 'indigenous peoples' - as if the Russians never existed in Ukraine.

Things like these create a legislative framework for further anti-Russian policies. And it isn't only anti-Russian: this also concerns other ethnic and national minorities like Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, and Bulgarians. Our position is that the Ukrainian people are the ones to decide such matters.

If the current government in Kiev agrees to the terms that are now being negotiated, this will be formalised as an agreement.

Question: The UK says that Russia should be stripped of its position as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Is there any mechanism in place to accomplish that?

Sergey Lavrov: There is no such mechanism, but you shouldn't waste time trying to explain anything to the UK officials – everyone is all too familiar with their incompetence.

Question: Almost all of the European airspace is closed to Russia as part of the sanctions imposed on it. Is this a new ‘iron curtain’?

Sergey Lavrov: It was Churchill who put the Iron Curtain in place back in the day. The UK right now is clearly disappointed with how it’s being forgotten, especially after Brexit – when it used to be in the spotlight all the time. The UK now welcomes any opportunity to be at the forefront of global politics. It continues to serve as America’s lackey and keep Europe under US control. I don’t believe we should concentrate on fighting the notion of an ‘iron curtain’. It’s obvious that building that curtain is something that only the people stuck in the old colonial or neocolonial worldview engage in. For the British, it brings back nostalgic memories. But even if the West follows this route, we will find a way forward, to keep on living and developing, I assure you. We will be all right and won’t regret it. If a new iron curtain is drawn, our Western partners would once again prove they are absolutely unreliable and completely incapable of negotiating.

Question: Was Russia lured into the conflict? Is it possible the West provoked Russia so it would get stuck in a quagmire?

Sergey Lavrov: I can’t rule out that somebody wanted to bog Russia down with this artificial conflict designed by the West. American political experts say it would allow the US to fully focus on countering China. This cynical and totally neocolonial approach is very characteristic of our Western partners. This may be true, after all, but we were adamant in our attempts to avoid more bloodshed in Ukraine and prevent the country from becoming a foothold for future attacks against the Russian Federation. Our decisions were based on the situation on the ground regardless of the plans of the West. And the situation was concerning, mainly because the West was doing everything in its power to make the situation more dangerous to Russia.

Question: And the final question: is this it? Are we on the verge of World War III?

Sergey Lavrov: Better ask President Biden that. He was the one who said that the only alternative to a new sanctions package is a ‘third world war’. That’s a strange way of thinking. He is a very experienced politician, regardless of what the US is now doing on the international stage. Last June in Geneva, he and President Putin once again reaffirmed what the US and the USSR leaders stated back in 1980s: in a nuclear war, everybody loses, so it must never happen. In January 2022, all five leaders of the permanent member-states of the UN Security Council signed a collective statement expressing the same idea. So, if you ask a person if there was an alternative to sanctions, and his only alternative is war, he must realise that World War III could only be fought with nuclear weapons. But our Western partners couldn’t let go of their old habits if they believe this could happen in spite of all five permanent UNSC members declaring they are against it.

Question: Thank you, Mr. Lavrov.

Sergey Lavrov: Thank you.