Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at a meeting with students and faculty of MGIMO University, Moscow, September 2, 2024
Colleagues,
Rector Anatoly Torkunov just mentioned that many exceptional young individuals were admitted this year. However, I believe this does not imply that there were fewer exceptional young men and women in previous years. They have always been outstanding. There are statistics to support this claim. I would like to congratulate all of you on Knowledge Day.
I would also like to highlight that, according to the same statistics, MGIMO graduates hold important positions at the Central Office of the Government of Russia, particularly the Presidential Executive Office. Additionally, two-thirds of them join the Foreign Ministry staff every year. This speaks volumes about the “seal of excellence” associated with the diplomas from this great – without any exaggeration, for me at least – institution of higher learning. We welcome the fact that MGIMO supplies the Foreign Ministry with most of its staff. We are always eager to welcome those whose qualifications meet the high standards of Russian diplomacy. I would like to address the final-year students: together, we will implement the Foreign Policy Concept approved by President Vladimir Putin in March 2023.
I am certain that you keep up with international news and developments on the global stage. The primary trend is the strengthening of new growth and development centres located outside the historical West. Many states in the Global South and East, who are also called the Global Majority, (this is a new term that accurately reflects their current situation) have achieved impressive economic results, pursue increasingly independent foreign policies, and prioritise their own national interests, values, traditions, and development models. These states are no longer willing to accept Western ideals being imposed upon them. They are forging their own values, traditions and development models. It is impolite for the West to act in this manner towards other countries, especially considering that some of these countries possess great civilisations that have evolved over thousands of years and have developed their own unique development models.
Regional integration associations, such as the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN, the CIS, the LAS, the African Union, and CELAC, play a significant role at the current stage of development of the multipolar world order. BRICS, as it strengthens its influence and authority, increasingly acts as an informal global coordinator for these regional integration processes.
The globalisation, which the West pro-actively promoted for years, has been accepted as a method of interstate relations in the economy, technology and the financial sector. However, this globalisation model is now falling apart. The principles it was based on, according to our Western colleagues, such as fair competition, inviolability of private property, presumption of innocence and market forces, have been momentarily discarded by the West in order to punish, in this case, the Russian Federation.
The West has used sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea for decades. But I am not talking about these specific instances. The US had assured the rest of the world that globalisation was a common benefit and that the dollar was a successful mechanism for the global economy, not just America’s private property. (I remember well US officials saying these things.) Today, we see how the dollar is being manipulated and weaponised. As a result, globalisation is becoming regionalised but the trend towards restoring the interconnection, that the West has tried to distort, back to normal is still there and will primarily manifest in relations between regional unions.
BRICS, which has grown to include ten countries, with another 30-plus countries waiting to join, objectively plays the role of an informal coordinator and will be a factor in the emergence of a new multipolar system. The G20, created during the honeymoon in relations between East and West, West and South, in a period, when the international community needed to recover from yet another economic crisis, also played a very useful role in this regard.
Right now, I see the West’s attempts to Ukrainise the agenda at G20 summits, attempts that were particularly glaring during the first couple of years after the start of the special military operation. The West is seeking to make their denounce-Russia goal the cornerstone of G20 operations, although this group should focus on global finances and the economy, not geopolitics.
Similarly, we did not allow them to politicise this venue at the latest G20 summit in Delhi. The summit approved a statement that clearly acknowledged certain processes in the world that affected the global economy, occasionally, leading to crises. These processes occur in various regions of the world for different reasons. But the G20 serves as an umbrella for the G7, the BRICS countries, and their like-minded allies.
By the way, the total GDP based on purchasing power parity of the BRICS countries even before the expansion exceeded that of G7 that essentially competed for the role of an exclusive club and a world economy regulator. But eventually, the G7 turned into a military headquarters of the United States focused on plans to deter the development of Russia, China, Iran and other competitors. G7 countries realised they could not do it alone, so they had to agree to establishing the Group of Seven.
However, they are trying to retain their preferential and undeservedly privileged positions at the IMF and the WTO. They stall the reforms of these institutions in order to maintain their domineering influence. But this process cannot be stopped, and it will continue. Speaking at the Foreign Ministry on June 14, President of Russia Vladimir Putin stressed that “global politics, the economy, and technological competition will never be the same as before.” Right now, with our allies, strategic partners and like-minded leaders, we are working on the answer to what it will be like. We are actively working on the objectives outlined in the Foreign Policy Concept.
It is absolutely clear that the attempts of the Western minority to turn the course of history around and continue living at others’ expense as they did during the colonial era and the globalisation period I mentioned earlier, are doomed to failure. However, Western politicians religiously continue to declare their exclusivity. It has become a mandatory phrase for American presidents during inauguration.
You know about the notorious statement made by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, who described Europe as a blooming garden surrounded by jungles that should be taken care of. Apparently, it means unrooting. My colleague, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking about the upcoming events in the Western world and the Summit for Democracy, said that, “if you are not at the table in the international system, you're gonna be on the menu.” I believe this is a very indicative statement that gives a person away completely.
Speaking about secretaries of state, former secretary Condoleezza Rice, one of the ideologists of the American neo-liberalism, recently wrote the following in an article for Foreign Affairs: “The future will be determined by the alliance of democratic, free-market states or it will be determined by the revisionist powers.” The revisionist powers include Russia, China, Iran and everybody who respects international law rather than the rules that the West is highlighting in all of its demands for everybody else.
As for these rules, we get a clear impression of how the West treats the principles of the UN Charter. The Charter does include a principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty but fore-mentioned thereinbefore, this principle is preceded by the right of nations to self-determination. It states that everybody must respect human rights regardless of race, gender, language or religion. As for the right of nations to self-determination, when the West wanted to unilaterally rip Kosovo off Serbia, they declared Kosovo independent in 2008 because of the right of nations to self-determination.
Six years later, when undisguised Nazis who seized power in Kiev in an unconstitutional state coup stated that their goal was to cancel the status of the Russian language and to banish Russians from Crimea, the people of Crimea held a transparent referendum with a large number of observers. The West immediately accused us and Crimeans of violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The right of nations to self-determination was swept under the carpet.
I have already mentioned that the Charter stipulates respect for human rights, including language and religious rights. The West did nothing to stop its puppets from exterminating the Russian language, culture and media outlets over the years after the state coup in Ukraine, when Kiev acted persistently to get rid of everything Russian. Likewise, the West has not stopped Kiev from banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and has not shown it to its place or protected their beloved democratic values. Moreover, the West claims that every move of the Kiev regime is taken in defence of European values. It appears that they have demonstrated the true worth of these values.
In February 2024, President Putin said in his Address to the Federal Assembly that the cutting point has been turned against Russia, and that the West “envisions a Russia that is a dependent, declining, and dying space where they can do as they please.” This is why they have called to arms a coalition of about 50 countries in the hope of dismembering Russia. It is what Napoleon and Hitler tried to do. The latter called nearly all of Europe to arms. But it was not only Germans who committed atrocities and took part in genocide in the territory of the Soviet Union.
The essence of Western policy towards Russia has always been based on the assumption that our country is too strong and independent and that something must be done to change this, preferably by pulling it down. History repeats itself. Today, these 50 countries have again been rallied under Nazi banners against Russia, considering the essence of Zelensky’s regime or even the chevrons and flags of the so-called Ukrainian army.
We are not the only target. Washington is working hard to curtail China’s development by restricting its access to technology and imposing prohibitive levies on electric vehicles and batteries. At the same time they claim that they have been forced to impose levies because these products are too cheap. Is this a free market and fair competition?
Such examples abound. In Asia-Pacific, Washington is building up bloc confrontation. Military and political alliances like NATO are being established, and military installations are creeping into this part of the world. The West is trying its best to preserve the vestiges of its neocolonial influence in Africa and what once was a colonial power, Europe.
Today, all those who show independence and a will to defend their national interests within international law while refusing to play by Western rules, are under threat. It is clear, however, that these attempts are largely an agony of the West.
All these efforts run counter to the objective trajectory of history and are doomed to fail. Russia, as a global power, has a counter-balancing role in international politics. We have such a reliable partner as China. President Putin and President Xi Jinping have repeatedly reaffirmed in the signed documents that their countries’ duo plays a stabilizing role and has an important function internationally.
We do not seek to embed ourselves into various “schemes” that are being established by Western “rules” without our participation and without consideration of our interests. We will continue to champion widely held principles of international law and the UN Charter in their entirety instead of cherry-picking them as the West does.
President Putin has repeatedly stressed that “we are open to contacts with the countries of the ‘collective West’ on the understanding that they pivot away from their openly hostile course towards our country”. Any unfriendly moves will still be met with a tough response. The ball is not in our court, it is up to those who set out to deliberately destroy their relations with Russia and demonise our land and our nation. This is a new development in Western policy. Up until recently, they would say that Russia had “the wrong government”. Today, they are saying that the Russian people are “wrong”. We are prepared for any turn of events. We will judge the West’s intentions by its actions, not by its demagogy. For the time being, we will devote our efforts to strengthening the foundations of a multipolar world that are clearly coming together. One of our priorities is establishing the Eurasian security architecture and building the Greater Eurasian Partnership.
The concepts of ensuring security, in which we were somehow involved, were purely Euro-Atlantic until recent time. They, of course, included NATO and the existing back then Russia-NATO Council, the OSCE, and the Euro-Atlantic system, as well as the European Union and all the cooperation mechanisms that existed between us and the EU. Even though it is still called the European Union, the Euro-Atlantic dimension has always been large enough in its policy, economy and international relations. Now they have simply merged by signing an agreement with NATO in January 2023, in which Brussels voluntarily assumed a subordinate role in that partnership.
We will advance integration processes within the EAEU, CIS, SCO, ASEAN, and, of course, strengthen strategic partnership with China, India, Brazil, and all our other like-minded countries, working in the context of forming the Eurasian architecture. There are many, it is impossible to list them all. That is why we have a clear and comprehensible image of the future – multipolarity, based on another key principle of the UN Charter – sovereign equality of the state.
Looking at the history of any conflict after the establishment of the United Nations, you will see that neither the United States nor its allies applied the principle of sovereign equality. They didn't consider anyone their equal, and unfortunately, they don't. I am recalling something about “straightening a hunchback.” This situation has to be remedied by seeking reduction and elimination of any dependence on the financial, technological and other mechanisms that the West boasted, first offering its services to everybody and now using them against anyone who wants to be independent. And it is not that we want to be, we are. We are doing everything that we need for this. No doubt that we will complete it for the benefit of our people.
Question: We can see that Russia is actively interacting with Asian countries. But the United States has its own political goals in the region. What could be the key factor driving Asia’s closer cooperation with Russia and more active involvement in the creation of a new system of Eurasian security?
Sergey Lavrov: As you know, we are polite people who do not try to impose their rules on others.
When active integration processes gained momentum in Southeast Asia, our partners from other parts of the continent and other regions joined in. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) played a central role in these processes. They created a network of cooperative structures, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum on security, meetings of ASEAN defence ministers and their counterparts from partner countries, and East Asia Summits. Everyone taking part in these platforms accepted the principles set out in the Bali Treaty on the establishment of ASEAN. According to this treaty, ASEAN will work with its partners on the principles of consensus, openness and inclusivity, as we say now, and will seek to balance the interests of all parties when addressing any issues. It is on these principles that we have joined the work of ASEAN structures, just as the United States, Japan, South Korea, India, China, Australia and several other countries did.
These structures have been functioning effectively, gradually expanding to new areas of activity in accordance with the innovations that appear in our lives virtually every day, from artificial intelligence and high technology to information security, trade and maritime security – that is, everything necessary for the smooth functioning of states and neighbourly relations.
You said correctly that the United States has become more active in Asia, primarily Southeast, East and North Asia. But its activities differ from ours. They do not respect the rules created by the ASEAN nations, which were considered the core element and the driving force of all processes in that part of the world. The United States does not respect these rules. It wants to split ASEAN so as to contain China. It makes no secret of its intentions. A new term has been invented, Indo-Pacific strategy, in accordance with which the United States is creating exclusive interest clubs. It has created AUKUS (Australia, the UK, and the United States). It has also created QUAD, and is actively inviting our Indian friends to take part in its activities. Our Indian colleagues try to avoid participation in the events of that quadrilateral group (its other members are Japan, the United States and Australia), which are notoriously provocative.
Nevertheless, the process is ongoing. They have created the Indo-Pacific Four (Australia, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand) and are trying to establish a QUAD-like organisation with the Philippines in place of India. Once banned intermediate- and shorter-range missiles are being deployed there, just as they were previously deployed in Denmark in Europe. They are brought to the Philippines now. This is being done within the formats where Russia, China and many other countries are not invited. We use different approaches. They want to dictate their will. They think that the South China Sea is an area where the Americans must assert control and take care of problems, just like in the Taiwan Strait.
US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan recently visited Beijing. He held talks with Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi, during which he claimed that the United States adheres to the One China policy, saying that there is only one China. But he did not mention the other aspect of the Western policy. Among themselves, the Americans always say that they have the One China policy but the status quo must be maintained. And the status quo is two independent states.
This calls for hard work. We will promote the concept of Greater Eurasian Partnership. There are the building blocks that can be laid in its foundation in the trade, economic, logistic and transport spheres. This foundation can become a reliable pillar for a Eurasian security system. The process is not quick, but it is ongoing. The first conference on Eurasian security was held in Minsk in 2023. It was attended by several ministers (including yours truly), delegates from several Asian countries, the CIS nations, and Foreign Minister of Hungary Peter Szijjarto. Our concept of Eurasian security is open to everyone. All countries and organisations on our continent will be able to take part in it but only based on the principles of the UN Charter, such as equality, non-interference and the like. This will require hard and long-term work.
Question: Today it is difficult to overstate the importance of information in world politics. Recently, we have witnessed the destructive impact of fake news and deep fakes on its development. Do you think it is possible to tackle this problem through international law? Are there any talks in progress with other countries on this matter, despite the complexity of the current geopolitical situation? What is Russia‘s perspective on this issue?
Sergey Lavrov: Ideally, we need to find solutions that will suit everybody and help regulate the newly emerging formats of communication. First of all, this is important because we must prevent the use of these formats for malicious purposes, be it military and political purposes, criminal intent or simply damaging certain politicians or any person, in fact.
I have talked about the West’s approach to globalisation. Advertised as a common achievement of humanity, the West simply uses its positions in this old system of globalisation as a weapon to remove economic competitors. This is a clear objective of the West.
As for the area you mentioned, Pavel Durov turned out to be too free. He listened to Western advice on “moderating” his brainchild too slowly or did not listen at all. What is happening now did not happened only to him. Mark Zuckerberg was previously summoned to the US Senate and agreed to cooperate, as he admitted himself. The West has not been particularly lenient with other major platforms either.
Twenty years ago, even before this form of communication received global recognition, Russia began working on the legal foundations of international information security. Security in cyberspace means refraining from using it for military purposes or to undermine security of any country. This has been a long process.
Several years ago, we established an open working group in New York that includes all countries. We and other participants in this process contributed our ideas. It will not be easy to agree on solutions for obvious reasons, considering that there are many concepts of using cyberspace to somebody’s sole benefit. We have also introduced a draft convention on combating cybercrime. It is also a subject of talks through the mechanism created by the consensus of all countries.
What the West has been trying to do to Telegram and other platforms that everybody is talking about in the wake of the incident in France, is similar to its abuse of globalisation.
In addition to the work in the UN I mentioned, a specialised institution called International Telecommunications Union has been discussing the democratisation of internet governance for many years, to no effect by far. We have been trying to develop common voluntary principles. But the West is reluctant to relinquish another monopolised domain.
Talks on artificial intelligence have begun, with moans and groans, in the Commission on Lethal Autonomous System, specifically, on using AI for military purposes. There is a general understanding that this area must be regulated somehow but the process is still in its early stages.
As for the other areas, including deep fakes intended to smear somebody, I have seen some manipulated images of myself. Some are even funny.
I am certain that protocols will be developed to ensure that nobody can be threatened.
Question: How can Russia contribute to settling the Palestinian situation in light of the recent aggravation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? What practical steps are being taken to maintain and strengthen peace in that region?
Sergey Lavrov: Russa has been closely involved in these processes since the time when regional countries attained independence, trying to promote positive developments.
As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Russia was a member of the quartet of international intermediaries alongside the United States, the UN and the EU. In 2003, we presented a roadmap with monthly actions to be taken towards creating a Palestinian state and ending that protracted conflict. The process should have been completed within a year. Twenty years later, nothing has changed.
Every time when positive or hope-inspiring decisions are taken, the West looks at what Israel would do. And Israel often relies on its own understanding of the situation and interests. It has a right for this and for ensuring its security. We pointed out on numerous occasions that reliable security for Israel is a pillar of our stance in the Middle East.
But Palestinians have their own interests too. It was decided in 1948 that there should be two states, a Jewish and an Arab one. The Jewish state was created very quickly. Our country was the first to recognise Israel. But the Palestinian state has not been created to this day. Moreover, the territory that was assigned for the Palestinian state back then decreased in 1967. Nobody is talking about the 1948 decisions any longer. They are only speaking about 1967. But a look at the map of that year and at the current map of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza shows that there is hardly anything left of those borders. The expansion of settlements on the Palestinian territories is ongoing. All countries, including the United States, oppose this.
Israel’s response to the October 7, 2023, terrorist attack, which we condemned, just as we condemn all terrorist attacks, amounted to the collective punishment of Palestinians. When we told them that they were killing civilians in Gaza, their top officials at various government agencies and the army of Israel replied that there are no innocent civilians in Gaza, that all of them become terrorists at the age of three. These statements have not produced any reaction in the West. A high-ranking Israeli official said they did not care about the statehood of Palestine and that they only cared about the security of Israel.
In a way, this is similar to the actions of another person, Vladimir Zelensky. He also thinks that he can do anything he wants, committing any crimes, including terrorist attacks, with impunity, and eradicate the Russian language and everything else that is Russian, contrary to international law.
Nevertheless, I would like to set a distance between Israel and that Nazi regime. Israel did not prohibit Arabic. It never stopped Arabs from practicing their religion and living according to their traditions. Zelensky has gone much further in this regard, and the West is all but applauding his actions.
We have recently focused our attention in the Middle East on restoring Palestinian unity. If anything, the restoration of unity depends exclusively on the Palestinians rather than on the conduct of Israel or the actions of its patrons (primarily Washington). The Palestinian ranks have been split since 2006. I remember very well that the then US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, insisted on holding elections in the Palestinian territories – the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Victory in them would have gone to Hamas, which was extremely popular after decades of occupation and blockade, and also because of its policy of using force. Many questioned the expediency of such elections, saying that this could split Palestinian society. But Ms Rice insisted, saying that democracy must win. Democracy – as represented by Hamas – won in Gaza, but the Americans refused to recognise it. Double standards again.
We invited all Palestinian factions to Moscow several times. During their meeting in February 2024, they signed a document sealing their agreement to unite on the basis of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. This is important because the PLO recognises Israel. However, that decision has remained on paper so far. We will keep working.
Question: My question deals with the topic of China-Russia trade, in one way or another. According to Reuters, Russia and China could start using barter mechanisms to execute contracts in agriculture, considering the shared commitment by Moscow and Beijing to reducing their reliance on the banking and settlement systems controlled by the United States.
But China has its own unique culture and legal framework. With that in mind, is there a way to use these barter transactions as a bilateral trade tool in its own right?
Sergey Lavrov: Roubles and the yuan account for almost 95 percent of our trade transactions. I do not see any need for barter trade, even if there is nothing wrong or reprehensible about using this mechanism. Why not use it, as long as it offers a convenient solution and enables us not to rely on bank transfers targeted by the United States and its allies in their unrelenting efforts to crack down on these transactions and stop them.
Of course, everyone understands that we represent two different cultures and civilisations. But why does it have to affect trade and investment cooperation? We have reached a historic high in our relations with China. Both Russia and China can clearly see through the threats arising from sticking with the elements of globalisation as conceived by the West and adopted by everyone else. The Western countries have now weaponised them.
We will create alternative payment and settlement platforms as part of our bilateral relations with other countries, as well as within BRICS and the SCO. President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has already put forward a proposal along these lines and gone beyond BRICS, which has already taken this idea on board. The central banks and finance ministries are scheduled to present a special report on this topic at the Kazan Summit. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva suggested a similar solution for CELAC, so this trend is already gaining traction and cannot be stopped.
Question: My question is about the fact that the United States is building customs clearance infrastructure for Central Asian countries. The Americans have delivered cutting-edge computer servers to Kazakhstan’s State Revenue Committee. Why does Astana allow the United States to act this way, considering that Kazakhstan is a CSTO member and as such is expected to counter NATO rather than work with it?
Sergey Lavrov: Are you referring to delivering equipment for controlling trade flows in and out of Central Asian countries through their border checkpoints?
First, you were spot on when you said that Kazakhstan is our ally and a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. Importantly, a growing number of extra-regional actors have been increasingly turning to Central Asia.
The Russian Federation enjoys very close relations with the five Central Asian countries. We used to be part of a single state, the Soviet Union. And when it ceased to exit, we maintained warm and allied relations. This is a fact.
We have achieved substantial results in trade and investment. These volumes have been rising all the time. Meanwhile, we cannot prevent anyone from forging deeper ties with other partners who are ready to go down this road, as long as the country in question views this as an advantage. Opposing these practices runs counter to our rules and guiding principles.
There is intense competition for the Central Asian region, which requires quite a lengthy explanation. There are cooperation frameworks Central Asia - the United States, Central Asia - the European Union, Central Asia - Germany, Central Asia - France, Central Asia - Japan, Central Asia - India, Central Asia - Korea, Central Asia - Iran and Central Asia - Türkiye. There is also the Central Asia + Russia format. Created several years ago, it has already held its first summit and several ministerial meetings. We are now working on the second summit meeting, which will take place in the foreseeable future.
When our partners and allies in Central Asia expand their relations with the West, I do not have the slightest doubt that they understand perfectly well that apart from pursuing its noble and transparent objectives, the West also seeks to undermine the Russian Federation’s influence there.
This is obvious, and applies not only to Central Asia, but to any other part of the world where the United States believes there is a Russian presence.
Why has the United States suddenly expressed concern about Russia’s relations with Nicaragua? This seemed to come out of nowhere. They use every pretext to voice their far-fetched concerns as long as there is a Russian presence.
It is obvious that the five Central Asian countries are aware of all this attention. And they are expected to take centre stage in the processes related to shaping the Greater Eurasian Partnership and a Eurasian security architecture. Located in the centre of Eurasia, they will be part of all the main transport arteries we are currently discussing and developing.
We have complete understanding on this matter, and this is something that we share on both sides. We believe that undertakings offered by third countries do not overlap or interfere with the commitments by our allies within the CSTO, CIS or the EAEU.
The five Central Asian countries can feel that they need to devise specific principles for dealing with the outside world considering the growing attention they have been receiving. They have their own mechanism for holding five-sided consultations at the highest level among themselves. So far, these consultations have been taking place in an informal format. Nevertheless, it helps them better understand each other, and we support this process.
Question: In view of the developments in Syria, Ukraine and around Nagorno-Karabakh, how does Russia plan to balance its relationship with Türkiye in order to avoid confrontation and maintain the strategic partnership?
Sergey Lavrov: Russia and Türkiye enjoy a strong and mutually respectful relationship with due account for the fact that our positions are quite out of synch on a range of issues pertaining to world politics and regional crises.
You mentioned Syria first. It was the pragmatic approach that allowed us to create the Astana format some time ago that includes Russia, Türkiye and Iran. We have made serious progress in this format and it has been the most effective mechanism on Syrian issues. At the very least, we have achieved principled agreements.
First, the Turkish armed forces are based on Syrian territory solely for the purpose of assisting with counter-terrorist effort. Once this goal has been achieved, the Turkish troops will return home. All the documents under the Astana format unequivocally confirm Syria’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
Second, in 2019, Russia and Türkiye signed an agreement on an Idlib de-escalation zone, where there remains a significant presence of terrorists from the Al-Nusra Front (currently called Hay'at Tahrir al-Sham). By that time, Türkiye had sent its corps there, and it continues to eliminate and force out these terrorist groups from Syria.
There is an obligation to organise joint patrol of the strategic M-4 motorway between Damascus and Aleppo. Many of the discussed measures have not been performed yet. There is an objective reason preventing it. The situation is ambiguous. Many other actors are trying to influence it – mainly the United States. But again, despite all the disagreements, we continue to find common ground regarding further steps on Syria.
Now, to Ukraine. It was in Istanbul that we reached and initialed an agreement in April 2022. But later, as admitted by the person who initialed it (head of the Ukrainian delegation David Arakhamiya), the then Prime Minister of the UK, Boris Johnson, visited Ukraine and told them to keep fighting. It was a simple piece of information planted but nobody has disputed it since then.
What about Turks? The Turks helped. We also closely cooperated with Türkiye when UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres proposed his initiative on transporting food products from Ukrainian ports. Türkiye was largely involved in finalising the initiative, coupled with the UN’s obligation to remove the obstacles to Russian food and fertiliser exports. The Secretariat failed on its commitment. The Russian part has not even been launched. Everything we export, we export ourselves and we know how to do it without causing damage to our exports and the imports of our partners who import our grain and fertilisers. But when we were promised on paper that obstacles to our exports would be removed and it turned out to be a lie, we refused to extend this part of the deal.
In the spring of 2024, Türkiye attempted to resume the agreement on food supply protection in a slightly different format. We were ready. But in the last minute, the Ukrainians said they wanted to add a nuclear power plant security obligation to the clause on protecting commercial vessels. It seemed out of place but we agreed. President of Türkiye Erdogan persuaded us that it would be a step forward. He acted completely sincerely and tried to be helpful. So, we agreed. Then the Ukrainians, who initiated the process in the first place, said it did not suit them. Apparently, they already had plans to bomb nuclear power plants.
Now, Nagorno-Karabakh. The problem was solved by the Armenian leadership in late 2022. With the EU’s participation, they signed an agreement with Azerbaijan on recognising the 1991 borders when the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was part of the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic.
Now there is a discussion of how to formalise it legally because it was a political agreement. We are also cooperating with Türkiye here. Türkiye has a serious influence on Azerbaijan. Some time ago, the Turks started to normalise Armenia-Türkiye relations, with our help. This process has slowed down now. But Türkiye remains interested. We are ready for this. It is clear that normalisation must continue in conjunction with all the other issues that need to be finalised in the South Caucasus in the context of Nagorno-Karabakh.
One of the tasks is to resume transport communications between the main part of Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. The document of November 9, 2020, signed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, President of Azerbaijan Heydar Aliyev, and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, says that the service would be resumed. Both rail service and motor traffic, with safety ensured by the Border Troops of the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation. It is written in black and white.
I was surprised to read a recent interview by Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan, where he said that the allegations that Armenia was dragging its feet on the process were a lie and an attempt to turn the world upside down. It’s odd, because at first Armenia refused to have a motor road and insisted on there being just a railroad. Azerbaijan did not see any reasons and agreed, with our mediation. Then Armenia said that the Russian border guards would not be involved, although this is written in black and white. We did not understand it. They declared that they would do it on their own.
The Azerbaijanis say that the level of distrust and hostility (to a certain degree) is too high for them to be sure of their safety as they travel to Nakhichevan via Armenian territory. Negotiability or its lack often plays the decisive role.
I cited the example of the “Black Sea grain initiative.” Russia-related part of the deal was put aside, despite external signs of activity on the part of the UN. It was a total failure. In the same way, we are concerned that the trilateral agreements signed at several Russia-Armenia-Azerbaijan summits in 2020-2022 have also “sagged.”
I have mentioned the resumption of transport communications and the trilateral commission that handled this. It practically does not meet. Yerevan believes that this should be arranged directly with Azerbaijan. We have no objections, if they can make it. I have also mentioned border delimitation. The documents say that Russia shall consult this process. But they don’t want this either, while always seeking to compel the West, the United States, the EU, and France to provide their “aegis” for any processes. It’s their choice. Yet they should negotiate primarily with their Azerbaijani neighbours. There is no other way.
But in all cases, regardless of all the differences and discrepancies, we and our Turkish colleagues share an understanding as to “who stands where.” There is a desire and already there is a result in converging our approaches towards the elaboration of coordinated, parallel processes which in the final analysis have a positive nature.
Question: President Vladimir Putin has worked closely with late President of Iran Ebrahim Raisi and the country’s Foreign Minister, Hossein Amir-Abdollahian. Considering this fact, as well as in view of the recent developments in Iran and in other regions, do you believe that this has not affected Russia’s relations with Iran which remain just as solid and sound?
Sergey Lavrov: We have no reason to question whether the statements by Iran’s new President, Masoud Pezeshkian, and Foreign Minister of Iran Abbas Araghchi who talked about continuity in their relations with the Russian Federation are sincere and reflect the dominating mood within the new Iranian leadership.
We are about to complete the drafting of a new interstate treaty for a comprehensive partnership between Russia and Iran. This would be a symbolic step in our relations with Iran’s new leaders. In fact, this relationship got off to a quick start.
There are many projects, including those dealing with one of the most promising logistics routes – the North-South corridor that would link St Petersburg directly to the Persian Gulf and on to the Indian Ocean. This route saves a lot of time and offers lower transport costs.
Both Russia and Iran are Caspian nations. This is an important aspect of our cooperation. And there is a plethora of bilateral projects. There is the nuclear power plant and other joint investment initiatives. The figures on trade and investment growth speak for themselves. They have been improving all the time, so the future looks bright for us.
Question: There are many first-year students here who want to build diplomatic careers. What are the main personal qualities for a diplomat in today’s world? And which ones of them can we acquire by studying here? Could you offer us a glimpse of your standard working day? How do you spend your free time, if you have any?
Sergey Lavrov: You want to know what qualities you need to be a diplomat, right? There are so many of them that there is no way I can list them all. It used to be that all you had to know consisted of being able to reach common ground with someone against someone else in order to start a war. Or, once the war has already started, to reach an agreement in order to bring about peace. There was also the art of marrying monarchs to one another. This was an essential element of diplomacy, including throughout the history of the Russian Empire.
Since then, if you look at the UN General Assembly resolutions, as well as the documents coming from other specialised UN agencies, you will understand that you need all the knowledge you can get.
There is the WHO, and the demand for diplomacy on that front is very high. MGIMO University has been in step with the time and opened a corresponding degree programme. This is serious business. In fact, deadly viruses circulate during pandemics. As we can see, efforts to fight these diseases go hand in hand with all kinds of manipulation. In particular, there is an investigation by the European Commission to understand whether registering vaccines made by AstraZeneca and other Western vaccines so quickly was advisable (and how much the company paid for it), while their developers have not complied with all the procedures but the vaccines were registered regardless. This goes to say that diplomacy on medical matters and healthcare is very much relevant. The Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare (Rospotrebnadzor) and the Federal Medical-Biological Agency have been creating biological laboratories in African countries to help them improve their healthcare systems. From a political perspective, this amounts to Russia investing in these countries. Moreover, this investment goes far beyond focusing on a sector where all you do is unearth some minerals and send them to the former colonial power for processing. What we do is promote infrastructure development in these countries.
We also support Russian companies willing to launch fertiliser production in Africa.
There is also the International Telecommunication Union. It works on overcoming monopolies online. We must wage a diplomatic battle on this front, too, by making sure that our diplomats and representatives of the corresponding Russian agencies are taking part in these efforts.
Space is another frontline for our diplomacy, especially today, when the United States has suddenly decided to have the UN Security Council adopt a resolution prohibiting the deployment of nuclear weapons in space. They have been silent on this matter for 25 years and refrained from working with us whenever Russia and China suggested a ban on deploying any weapons, not just nuclear arms, in outer space. The fact that the United States is pushing for a resolution to ban space nuclear weapons means that this would enable this country to deploy other kinds of weapons there. And there are millions of topics like these. There are about 20 specialised agencies within the UN system. And there is the IAEA, which is not a specialised agency, even if nuclear diplomacy is an extremely topical issue.
Diplomats must operate on all these fronts. As for the personal qualities you need to acquire to be well-equipped for the job once you graduate from this university, I think that your teachers will tell you all about it. I have no doubt about it. MGIMO University has one of the best faculties, blending experience and tradition with young talent. Do not be afraid to listen to what they tell you, and be creative about the advice you get. I am certain that they are ready to engage in heated debates with you if you disagree on certain matters.
As for my typical day at work, it is great when I get everything done in ten hours. Sometimes I must work for 12 hours or more. I spend half a day at work on Saturdays and Sundays, but before that I exercise. And I spend my vacations travelling across our vast Motherland. I love Siberia and the Altai Mountains, where my friends and I have been canoeing down River Katun for more than 25 years now.
Colleagues, I apologise, but it is time for me to go. I must leave for Mongolia in order to take part in President Vladimir Putin’s visit there. I will convey your best wishes to him.