Question: Mr Lavrov, 25 years ago today, NATO started the bombing of Yugoslavia. What have they changed in us, considering what we have become? What line did we cross 25 years ago?

Sergey Lavrov: I remember that period very well. I worked in New York at that time. That issue was widely discussed at the UN Security Council. The West did its best to justify the actions it had approved. Western countries created “logical” information pretexts for that aggression.

It is worth noting that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia no longer existed in 1999. Its collapse was galvanised by the EU and the Americans. After the Soviet Union’s fall, they set their eyes on breaking up another large European country so that it would not hinder their plans of domination and perpetuation of American and Western hegemony.

In 1991, the EU discussed the recognition of Croatia and Slovenia, the first countries to decare their independence and request its recognition. It is strange and also sad that Germany unilaterally recognised their independence even before the EU and the European Council discussed the request. Since then, Germany has closely supervised the Balkans narrative, including the countries that seceded from Yugoslavia in such a dramatic manner.

The events we are discussing or at least their active phase began in 1998. I believe that the West started planning the disintegration of Yugoslavia and Kosovo’s spit from Serbia in 1991. NATO’s aggression is rooted in 1998, when Belgrade controlled Kosovo. There were terrorist attacks and the establishment of the Kosovo Liberation Army. There is evidence that it was financed and armed by the Americans and the Germans, who encouraged the KLA’s activities to unbalance the situation and create a pretext for interference.

Back in 1998, they were still flirting with Russia. The West established the Contact Group, which made statements at the UN Security Council and included Russia. The group was created to quell concerns and find a political solution that would satisfy the requirements of Kosovo Albanians. The group failed, and the West continued to support the separatists.

The Kosovo Liberation Army was actively supported by Albanian criminal groups, which were flourishing in the drug business, organ trafficking and other forms of organised crime in Europe. They channelled considerable funds to strengthening the KLA.

In July 1998, the Contact Group established the Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission, which was only used as aa screen. Russia proposed taking the matter from private agreements to the OSCE, because the Balkans were its direct responsibility, and it had the mandate to address Balkan problems. In the autumn of 1998, the OSCE established the Kosovo Verification Mission. It was chaired by US diplomat William Walker, which was indicative, even though it did not play the decisive role. That mission has not changed anything on the ground. Special Representative for the Balkans Richard Holbrooke, went to New York. He energetically worked in the region, supporting support Albanians and helping the OSCE mission to collect compromising information about Serbs. His main, if not the only, objective was to make that information public.

Question: For example, the alleged Racak massacre.

Sergey Lavrov: It was the trigger. On January 15, 1999, the world learned about the massacre of Albanian civilians in Racak by Serb forces. The Kosovo Diplomatic Observer Mission led by Walker was dispatched to the area. Walker had no mandate to make any statements on behalf of the OSCE. His only mission as to check facts, but 15 minutes after reaching Racak he made a statement on behalf of the OSCE, speaking about genocide and the flagrant violation of international law by the Serbian armed forces and security services.

We later demanded that an independent commission of forensic experts be sent to the village. The commission sent there included Finnish experts, who were really neutral and worked without bias at the time. They established the truth, which was that the dead had been [Kosovo] militants who died fighting. It was established that these militants used firearms as well. After their death, their Albanian “colleagues” dressed them in civilian clothes after they had been killed. It was established for a fact.

Question: There were no bullet holes in their civilian clothes.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, there were only bullet holes in the bodies and no holes in the clothes.

It became the trigger. The West attempted to get the UN Security Council’s approval [for its proposal]. We did not allow that, and China was against it as well. The next thing that happened was the aggression.

This kind of devious US diplomacy showed itself in the fact that this operation coincided in time with Prime Minister Primakov’s visit to Washington, D.C. for talks with Vice President Albert Gore. When Primakov's plane had covered a third of the distance, Gore called him to say they couldn’t wait any longer, it was time to stop the suffering of Kosovo Albanian civilians, they launched the operation, and the warplanes were in the sky.

Everyone remembers Primakov's famous mid-air U-turn, but not everyone is aware of the fact that Washington had made the decision to bomb Belgrade before his plane took off. Now we know for sure (according to the memoirs written by some sources) that they did it on purpose. They let his plane take off to minimise the chances of disrupting the visit. They hoped that Primakov would come to Washington and thus legitimise what the United States and NATO did. But little did they know.

The March 1999 U-turn predated many events that changed our country’s foreign policy in terms of its essence and symbols.

President Vladimir Putin made it clear in his March 13 interview that he did not believe anyone. It took him some time to come to that conclusion. For quite some time, we were willing to believe and to hope, and we signed agreements, including in July 1999 following the NATO aggression, when they realised there were no more or less significant civilian sites left, not to mention the military ones. They bombed out bridges, the television centre, and government buildings. After that, the Americans came to the UN Security Council and engaged Viktor Chernomyrdin. Finnish mediator Martti Ahtisaari was there. Resolution 1244 was adopted and sabotaged by the West the very first day it was unanimously adopted with regard to almost all key issues that were important for the Serbs to obtain a Security Council resolution. In particular, it included the presence of a certain number of Serbian border guards and customs officers.

The track record of our engagement with our Western colleagues shows that we tend to believe what we are being told until the last minute and postpone final decisions. A known folk hero Ilya Muromets had spent 33 years of his life lying on a stove couch. Following that woefully conniving and blatant violation of every conceivable provision of international law, we remained patient fully in line with the dictum which goes as follows, “it takes three years to get what you’ve been promised.” But it turned out later that all the promises, some of which were on paper and included in the Security Council resolutions, were either prevarications or outright lies.

The same goes for the Minsk agreements. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel and former French President Francois Hollande confessed they were not going to act on them.

Question: Do you sense an analogy? President Biden admitted that no one delayed the decision to bomb. There is an audio recording in which he admits that. Don't you think that all the talks with the West before March 1999 were replayed with the Minsk agreements later? No one was going to do anything about them.

Sergey Lavrov: In the case of Yugoslavia, the West was not going to be satisfied with anything other than ripping Kosovo away from Serbia. This is absolutely clear. At the same time, their overarching goal was to drag all Balkan countries into NATO and then into the European Union, because it takes more effort and paperwork to get a country to the EU. NATO, though, can be joined at any time, as we saw from the decision to admit the Baltic States which did not meet any criteria, but were still allowed to join for reasons of political expediency.

Meetings were held in Rambouillet, France, in February-March 1999 where Serbs and Albanians, with the participation of the United States, France, Germany and Russia, discussed ways to achieve a political settlement. The talks lasted several weeks and in two rounds, but all Serbian efforts, with our support, to obtain fair compromises were turned down. The final declaration that was signed by the West and the Kosovo Albanians said that all of the Serbian police and administrative structures wee to leave Kosovo, and NATO troops were to be brought in. Finally, it said that the troops stationed in Kosovo could move freely within the borders of Serbia.

It was a deliberate humiliation and a provocation nudging the Serbs to forgo everything. It’s all part of the same chain. The Minsk agreements follow the same logic from the perspective of Western geopolitical interests.

Question: Your former colleague Karin Kneissl, Austria’s former foreign minister, says the situation is much worse today. Back then, 25 years ago, there were serious politicians involved; now, according to her, we are dealing with “teenagers,” audacious and poorly educated, incapable of taking responsibility for their words. Do you agree with that?

Sergey Lavrov: I would not like to meddle in the sphere of personal assessments or views. Western journalists are always trying to distort my statements.

If we compare the new generation of politicians with those from 25 years ago, with some legendary figures, we have indeed seen some “teenagers” in recent years, even in top roles. We saw that not so long ago. But even modern politicians of mature biological age are not anywhere near the level of such major figures as Charles de Gaulle, Jacques Chirac, Francois Mitterrand, Helmut Kohl or Gerhard Schroeder. Those individuals never lost sight of their countries’ interests, much less were willing to subordinate them to a single collective West, something we are now seeing everywhere. Europe is at the beck and call of the United States now, having no autonomy whatsoever. Whatever French President Emmanuel Macron has said over the past few years (occasionally reiterating it to the media) about creating some sort of strategic autonomy has turned out to be zilch – sorry for the mundane language. No one is even contemplating it now. Even though Macron is insisting on the possibility of sending ground troops to Ukraine, this is no longer about Europe’s strategic autonomy – it is about pleasing the United States again, while also provoking France’s NATO allies.

Politicians of the younger generation are also airing such ideas, for example, in the Baltic countries. In Poland, politicians are more mature, yet also ready to play this game of provocations. In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Scholz keeps showing at least some caution. But the possibility of deploying NATO troops to Ukraine is a provocation aimed, among other things, at undermining Scholz’s standing in the European Union, in the context of the Franco-German rivalry. There is a lot going on there – it’s such a quarrelsome organisation. Instead of putting national interests first, these people prioritise their personal self-serving plans, political aspirations and intrigues. It’s sad.

Question: What is your personal attitude to the Serbs, who have loved Russia to the point of worship all this time? Are they really being pressured so hard now because they don’t want to join the sanctions against Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I have a positive attitude towards everyone. I am friends with many Serbs. They truly love Russia and appreciate our shared history. They appreciate our role in protecting Serbs from external aggressors at various times in history.

Perhaps their government’s political moves do not always reflect this love. We understand that. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken with President of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić. They always talk candidly and discuss any issues. We perfectly understand the approach voiced by the President of Serbia who declares that the people have made a pro-European, pro-European integration choice. Serbia’s EU accession talks started many years ago; at this stage, the EU has become different from what it was when Serbia made this choice.

The modern European Union is a rather aggressive group, which has lost its geopolitical autonomy – especially after it signed the declaration on coordination with NATO last year – and has become the North Atlantic Alliance’s military and economic appendage. This was evident even before Finland and Sweden joined the bloc.

It was all fine and clear when the European Union emerged as an integration association designed to maximise the member states’s comparative advantages, to address economic and social issues in this community more efficiently and rationally, and to create logistical conveniences. At that time, we stated loudly and openly that we had no problem with countries joining the EU – in contrast to NATO’s expansion.

Over the past few years, the European Union has changed, and that happened long before the special military operation. Otherwise, why would the EU be pressuring Serbia and its President Aleksandar Vučić so aggressively? He is required to recognise Kosovo’s independence and join the EU’s policy and the West’s policy against the Russian Federation, including all the sanctions. In fact, Serbia has been served with an ultimatum – if the country fails to do as it was told, the EU will discontinue the talks. There are several “chapters of the acquis” underlying the accession negotiations for a candidate country. Part of them have been closed. The most important ones remain. The EU refuses to go down this path until Serbia recognises Kosovo’s independence and joins the anti-Russia sanctions.

The Serbian people are well aware of this. We see how they react. Their reaction became especially evident during a football match between two Belgrade teams. Almost the entire stadium (there were no Russians in the audience, or maybe 10-15 people at most) – tens of thousands of spectators – brought Serbian and Russian flags and chanted slogans in support of Russia. It is impossible to stage such a show of solidarity. It is also impossible to break them down, something these individuals in Brussels are trying to do with the Serbs.

I’ll give you another example, from the second phase of Kosovo’s drama and tragedy, that revealed the EU’s incapacity and inability to negotiate. At some point, more than a decade ago, Belgrade, in good faith, agreed to accept EU mediation in negotiations with Pristina to work out a compromise formula for coexistence without Kosovo declaring independence, but with a high degree of autonomy given to the Kosovo Albanians. That formula focused on the autonomy of the province as a whole, but most importantly, on the protection of the rights of Serbs living there. The formula was approved in 2014 with the EU’s mediation – a document on the Association/Community of Serb-Majority Municipalities. It was welcomed by the UN General Assembly and approved by both Belgrade and Pristina. The European Union hailed the diplomatic victory and celebrated. It’s been eleven years. But nothing happened, because the new government in Pristina played ignorant. They never did anything that was agreed on. No municipalities, no rights. The EU, instead of banging their fists on the table and insisting – if only to keep some of its self-respect – began to look for workarounds. They eventually rewrote a whole approved document – not a draft or proposal – in favour of the Albanians and began to impose it on the Serbs.

Many parallels can be drawn today. In much the same way, in February 2014, President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich signed an agreement with the opposition, guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland, and the next morning, the opposition trampled on every agreement reached, seized government buildings and announced the creation of a “government of winners.” We appealed to Paris, Berlin and Warsaw. Although neither Russia nor America was part of those negotiations, US President Barack Obama called Russian President Vladimir Putin (our President recently recalled this once again) and said that he was aware of Moscow’s dissatisfaction with Yanukovich’s consent to early elections, but asked him to support that compromise. Vladimir Putin replied that if a legitimate president signs an agreement, how could he oppose it?

The Ukrainian opposition, encouraged by Brussels, Washington and London, tore up the agreement that Obama and other Western leaders were so fervently promoting. We called those leaders and reminded them that they had guaranteed it – early elections, and a government of national accord for five months – and suggested they brought the opposition to their senses. They back-pedaled, saying that democratic processes could take a bizarre form sometimes.

It was the same story with the Minsk agreements, again, guaranteed by Germany and France. The UN Security Council approved them, as it did Resolution 1244 on Kosovo.

Question: Belgrade often says that the war now underway in Ukraine did not begin in 2014, not after the coup. It began in 1999, when the West stopped hiding its true aspirations for aggression.

Sergey Lavrov: This is fully consistent with our conclusions, which President Vladimir Putin has aired more than once in recent weeks, including in his interview with the Rossiya 1 television channel and the RIA Novosti news agency on March 13.

The hegemons tried to perpetuate their dominance by living off others’ resources. The President uses figurative language. He mentioned vampires and how they tried to rule the world and feed on others. And they are still trying to preserve this neo-colonial domination in a somewhat ennobled form.

It all started when, after the collapse of the Soviet Union (let’s not discuss the reasons or lament again), the Americans realised the arena was free, with no sparring partners left on the other side. All they had to do was make everyone line up and paint them with the same brush. That was the “end of history,” the triumph of liberal democracy and liberalism as a way of organising society.

They might not have been considering taking over Serbia or Ukraine at the time, I am sure, but it is a fact that they were not going to allow us to become a great power again. We were to remain a regional Russian Federation with a cohort of American advisers in our economic, financial and banking institutions.

The United States was the only one left of the two largest and most powerful countries. They were quick to convert their ambitions and their stroke of luck into practical actions. Yugoslavia and Ukraine were part of a series of subsequent reckless ventures and gross aggressions in Iraq, Libya and Syria, without any international legal grounds.

After the September 11, 2001 attacks on the Twin Towers, they marched to Afghanistan with a “sympathetic” UN Security Council. No one objected or called the deployment of US-led troops to Afghanistan an aggression or invasion. Everyone understood that the perpetrators of a terrorist attack like this had to be held accountable.

Twenty years in Afghanistan have shown that the Americans were not fighting terrorism. They created agencies and organisations there, which later became al-Qaeda. Then they began to use it to punish and provoke undesirable regimes in the Middle East and other regions.

The conclusion that President Vladimir Putin made in his March 13 interview about no longer trusting anyone is a painful one. But there is something else that is just as important. Notwithstanding all that, we are still willing to talk – but honestly, without cheating, with guarantees, with due account of the current realities, and with full consideration of our legitimate interests that we have formulated.