Here is the full text of the Q&A session for Sergei Lavrov at the Forum of the Future 2050:
Dimitri Simes opened with a reference – almost a quote – from former US Vice President Kamala Harris who once remarked that what happens today will not be repeated tomorrow. This is about what she was famously trying to say. That’s what life is all about.
Thank you for your kind words. The issue of someone going through changes when they occupy a position of trust when the times are at an inflection point is undeniably important. In some ways, it’s a personal matter. I haven’t thought about it in a while. We just mentioned that era. Memory and even senses bring back feelings of deep disappointment and bitterness that we all had at that time. Later on, there were moments that gave us hope.
The multipolar world as a theme brought to life the glimmers of hope that we saw in the mid-1990s. In 1994, I began working in New York. In January 1996, Yevgeny Primakov was appointed Foreign Minister. He remains our great teacher. He had a very compelling and multifaceted personality. He had the gift of political and geopolitical foresight, something few people on Earth or in politics have or ever had. Primakov’s concept of multipolarity was truly groundbreaking at the time. It came as a response to the mantras by prominent political scientists that the “end of history” had arrived, and from now on the Western liberal order would dominate the world, thoughts, souls, and hearts, and all daily activities without any opposition.
Yevgeny Primakov did more than just put forward this concept. He spared no effort to promote it. The Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Formation of a New International Order signed by the heads of Russia and China in Moscow in 1997 came as the first concrete step down this road.
Yevgeny Primakov still held the office of Foreign Minister under Boris Yeltsin. The legal foundation for multipolarity to become a permanent fixture in international dialogue was laid in 1997.
In 2002, when Vladimir Putin became president, the first trilateral Russia-India-China summit took place. Since then, this troika – the RIC – has established itself as a format that was beneficial for all its participants. It was not covered as widely as the SCO, BRICS, or other entities. The RIC has been promoting cooperation in this format without much noise, but without hiding or lurking, feeling quite confident in the process. There were about 20 meetings of foreign ministers and several dozen meetings at other ministerial levels, including ministers of economy, transport, energy, and humanitarian sphere.
Multipolarity has been gaining momentum ever since. We can safely say that now. Primakov’s analysis, which laid the groundwork for this concept, fully confirms its lasting relevance.
New centres of power (economic growth and financial clout giving rise to political influence) have emerged in Eurasia, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, you name it. This dynamic reflects the desire of the countries from each region to be in charge of their own development and the development of their quarters of the world. I believe this trend is healthy. It has increasingly gained momentum and accelerated in the context of changes brought to international economic and other relations after Donald Trump had been elected President of the United States. The globalisation model, which had been nurtured by all his predecessors, turned out to be not quite suitable and overly ideological for the Trumpists’ philosophy. So, they began to wipe their actions in the international arena clean of influences of different ideologies. To put it in general terms, the ideologies were different, but they all came down to one thing – neoliberal approaches, the extension of the collective West’s influence to the rest of the world, and, in fact, an attempt to give the end of history another go, to continue living off the back of others, but this time not by crude methods of colonial exploitation, but by methods of modern-day neocolonialism, when the countries of the Global South and the Global East play the role of suppliers of raw materials, with just a few exceptions. The bulk of added value is produced in the West. The examples abound.
This second awakening of Africa, in particular, where colonialism was particularly brutal, is linked to the struggle to abandon neo-colonial methods of doing business, which are still widely used by the West and get rejected by the growing number of countries around the world.
In December 2024, at the initiative of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter (this entity was created in 2022 at the suggestion of Venezuela and now includes nearly 20 countries, and the number of countries willing to join is growing), a resolution was adopted on the need to counteract the current neocolonial practices. At the upcoming 80th session of the UN General Assembly this autumn, this issue will take the centre stage.
It is not just about a movement, conferences, or papers that get discussed and adopted. Statistics show progress demonstrated by the multipolarity process. For example, China is now the world’s number one economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Russia is the fourth. I hope we will not move lower, being mindful of the discussions we are having about the macroeconomic tasks we are addressing and the methods we are using in the process.
As announced in 2024, Russia surpassed Japan and Germany in terms of purchasing power parity, while BRICS as a collective entity overtook the Western Group of Seven in the same metric several years ago. The gap between them continues to expand. Moreover, what we are witnessing is not merely mechanical economic growth figures. These achievements are the result of profound structural transformations. The majority of nations in the Global South, in various ways – even whilst maintaining (let us be clear) pragmatic and normal relations with the West (we, too, were prepared to uphold such ties; it was not our choice to sever and trample them) – are nevertheless diminishing their reliance on Western countries and, notably, on Western currencies. They are establishing mechanisms for foreign trade settlements beyond Western control, forging new transport and logistics chains, and constructing a new architecture of collaboration in culture, education, and sport. This last point is particularly noteworthy. It unfolds in parallel with the United States’ own efforts to devise new formats for organising multilateral global sporting competitions. We will witness further developments, including in the cultural sphere. Even Eurovision, with all its exotic “ornaments” and “vignettes,” stirs a longing to return to songs about genuine human interests. The process is underway.
The West itself acknowledges that multipolarity is a geopolitical reality. Let me recall that even representatives of the Joe Biden administration spoke of this. My counterpart, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in January 2025, described the unipolar world order as an anomalous product of the Cold War’s end – when it seemed that “the end of history” had arrived and everything would henceforth unfold as the West decreed.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres, for all his contentious and often ill-considered statements on other matters, has unequivocally affirmed that multipolarity is a profound and irreversible trend, here to stay.
Representatives of numerous European nations have repeatedly conceded that the global balance of power is shifting – not in the West’s favour.
The difference, however, is that when Western officials acknowledge these facts, they do not perceive multipolarity as a boon, nor as the realisation of principles such as equality, fraternity, or freedom. Instead, they see a threat – a challenge to their interests and their centuries-old dominion, which underpinned their prosperity.
We no longer attend the Munich Security Conference, held every February. It has devolved entirely into an apologist for Western philosophy and Western thought. The latest session this February was precisely dedicated to multipolarity (or “multipolarization,” as they termed it). The published report reveals their fear of multipolarity, their desire to halt it – or better yet, to dismantle it entirely – and to prevent these trends from re-emerging. Hence their aggressive posturing, their rigidity, even to the point of issuing ultimatums to sovereign states: under no circumstances must they contravene the unilateral dictates that the West imposes or seeks to impose – including unlawful, criminal measures that undermine the very principles the West championed three or four decades ago – illegitimate unilateral sanctions.
The Munich Conference report framed multipolarity as a challenge, tantamount to chaos – a confrontation between great powers doomed to perpetual rivalry, thereby generating threats to international security. The logic of its authors is clear: only under a “unipolar command” can humanity’s tranquillity and steady progress be assured. The meaning of “unipolar command” is obvious – under whom. Any diversity, any multipolarity is perceived as a threat – primarily, of course, to those who sought to enforce “the end of history” and preserve a unipolar world. It will not succeed. Their conclusion is dubious.
The ongoing efforts on the international stage demonstrate that when nations, including major powers, approach each other’s interests with respect, they successfully reach agreements. We have numerous contentious matters requiring further deliberation and mutual concessions with our significant neighbours – China, India, and indeed with the countries of the CIS and the EAEU. The closer and more intensive the collaboration, the more issues arise where each party seeks to assert its interests with increased vigour. Nonetheless, ultimately, when engaging respectfully – eschewing threats or ultimatums, let alone their execution – an equitable balance of interests is invariably attainable. This is precisely what transpires, as I have observed, in our relations with China, India, our neighbours, BRICS and SCO member states, as well as with partners across the Arab world, the broader Islamic world, Africa, and Latin America.
I reiterate: the majority of our engagements and collaborative efforts are concentrated primarily within our immediate sphere and within frameworks such as BRICS, the SCO, the CIS, and the EAEU. For the world to develop in this manner, universally accepted principles must be respected. I have heard many colleagues, during various discussions, predict the necessity of dismantling the Yalta-Potsdam system and forging something new. I would caution against such radical approaches. Undoubtedly, as the saying goes, the West’s application of legal norms is untenable in its current form.
Regarding the foundations of international law – what fault can be found with the UN Charter? It states, first and foremost, that all United Nations activities are based on the principle of the sovereign equality of states. It declares that interference in each other’s affairs is impermissible, that wars and threats of war must be eradicated – and that this is the UN’s primary objective. The issue, however, is that these Charter principles must not be applied selectively, as if from a menu. “Take the cutlet for yourself, but leave the fish” – this is how the West operates. They have latched onto the principle of self-determination of peoples, enshrined on the very first page of the UN Charter. And through it, in a situation where there was no war, no risk of military confrontation, they proceeded to “tear away” Kosovo from Serbia. They declared this an obvious necessity – the self-determination of peoples. Yet no referendum was held; no self-determination occurred, save for a “puppet” parliament led, much like the “government” of this Serbian province, by criminals from the Kosovo Liberation Army. This was in 2008.
Then, suddenly, in 2014, having politically rebelled against the putschists who seized power in Kiev through a bloody coup – trampling upon the agreement signed the day before under EU guarantees with the then-president, which stipulated early elections – and declared themselves the “government of victors,” the people of Crimea and Donbass asked to be left in peace. It was they whom the putschists labelled terrorists, deploying regular forces against them, including combat aircraft that bombed Lugansk. And much more occurred – some of which continues to this day. To the shame of the entire West, these crimes remain uninvestigated, including such emblematic atrocities as the burning alive of some fifty people in the Odessa Trade Unions House on May 2, 2014. At the time, the Council of Europe timidly offered its services to assist in the investigation. It was permitted – only to later receive, evidently, a private explanation of its proper place in the pecking order. A disgrace.
Let me also mention Bucha here. Over three years ago, “by coincidence,” two days after Russian troops withdrew from the outskirts of Kiev in a goodwill gesture ahead of the signing of an agreement (during which only local authorities were present), BBC correspondents suddenly arrived and miraculously displayed neatly arranged bodies – not in basements, but on the central street of that town. Outrage erupted: “Russia – barbarians, butchers.” A new sanctions package followed.
Since then, we have submitted multiple official requests to UN bodies, urging investigations into human rights violations. Without our involvement, the Human Rights Council established an independent commission on Ukrainian affairs. We have formally approached them three times. Silence. My direct, public questions to UN Secretary-General António Guterres during Security Council meetings – whether, through his “good offices,” we might obtain a list of those individuals whose corpses were so conveniently displayed by the BBC correspondents – were met with evasion, downcast eyes. Twice in the past two years, during my visits to New York for UN General Assembly sessions, I held news conferences attended by global media. I appealed to their professional instincts, their pride: “Does it truly not matter to you what happened there? Or have you been forbidden even to broach the topic?” No reply, of course.
The UN Charter contains not only the principles of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, but many other key principles as well. In 1970, the General Assembly adopted a comprehensive Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. That document clarified many issues, particularly the relationship between self-determination and territorial integrity. It explicitly states that territorial integrity must be respected only for those states whose governments respect the principle of self-determination and, as a result, represent the entire population living within their borders. In other words, a government must represent all people residing in its territory for its borders to be protected under this principle.
After the 2014 coup, could anyone seriously claim that the nationalist and extremist forces that came to power represented the interests of Russian speakers, ethnic Russians, or other ethnic groups who opposed that regime?
Even earlier in the UN Charter, before the right to self-determination is mentioned, the Charter stipulates (it will shock you to know) that human rights must be respected regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. Have you once heard any Western country, in its support of Zelensky’s government, ever emphasise the need to uphold human rights? Not once.
Whenever the West discusses countries like Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, and now even Hungary or Slovakia, human rights violations top the list of their accusations. When it comes to Ukraine, though, the silence is deafening. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, former European Council President Charles Michel, and other European leaders continue to insist that Ukraine must be supported in order for it to defeat Russia. Later, “defeat” as replaced by “Ukraine not losing to Russia,” and now the narrative is about a “ceasefire to replenish ammo dumps.” They continue to claim that Ukraine deserves their support because it is defending European values. Laws banning the Russian language from nearly all areas of public life, and most recently, a law that effectively targets the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church clearly in violation of the UN Charter article I just mentioned are clearly seen in the West as a legitimate part of Ukrainian Nazis’ fight for European values. The EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos recently even said that “Ukraine has already completed the screening of three negotiation clusters for EU accession talks.”
The push to suppress multipolarity and eliminate dissent – just as was done in Romania and is now attempted in Hungary, Slovakia, and other countries that prioritise their national interests – is not in line with the EU agenda. Multipolarity is something entirely different. It is evolving and will continue to evolve regardless of what European political leaders are doing.
Some time ago, we began to reflect on multiple integration alliances around the world, in Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. Africa has a continental organisation, the African Union. Latin America and the Caribbean have CELAC. Eurasia, though, the largest and most resource-rich continent with the greatest long-term potential, still lacks such a union.
Until recently, when speaking about Eurasian security, people would mention institutions like the OSCE, NATO, and the European Union. These organisations have tried to present themselves as honest brokers and to draw neighbouring countries from the Asian part of the continent into their frameworks. However, both NATO and the OSCE are grounded in a Euro-Atlantic vision. Even during preparations for the 1975 Helsinki Summit, the idea was that Europe would include land from the Urals Mountains all the way westward to Lisbon. Yet, it was European countries that insisted on inviting the United States and Canada.
The Euro-Atlantic model has discredited itself. I am referring not only to the OSCE but also to NATO, which can be also described as a product of the Euro-Atlantic concepts. Today, we can go as far as claim that this applies to the European Union too. It used to focus on promoting economic, social, and infrastructure development in its member states and enhancing connectivity among them. However, in the midst of the special military operation a couple of years ago it switched gears and adopted a Russia-hating agenda by reviving the expansionist Nazi ideas dealing with what it called an effort to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. It went on to mobilise Europe for a war effort, just like Napoleon did in his day and age, which was also reminiscent of the attempts we saw during the Crimean War, as well as the first and second world wars, even if all reasonable people who believed this narrative at first have come to realise what this means. This time, the European Union inked a deal with NATO offering the Alliance to use its territory for shipping any weapons to the east closer to the border with the Russian Federation. This is how the European Union went Euro-Atlantic.
Importantly, there is no way these structures can claim to fill in the void, even if partially, resulting from the lack of a pan-continental forum. The OSCE has been basically laid to waste. They trampled upon the consensus principle. Now, Finland as a country chairing the OSCE is preparing the Ministerial Council’s 50th anniversary session. However, they simply decided not to invite all the members in order not to spoil the celebrations for others. NATO is going through its deepest crisis. How will the latest reforms requiring its members to increase their defence spending to 5 percent of their GDP affect NATO? This has become a hot topic lately, and we will have to see how it all pans out. Only time will tell how Washington’s commitment under the Donald Trump administration to place a greater emphasis on the Far East and the Asia-Pacific region, which they call the Indo-Pacific region, affect NATO, since this would entail that Europe, as the French say, would be left to its devices.
Against this backdrop, having a pan-continental framework can be viewed as an imperative. We used to have dozens of mechanisms with the European Union. There used to be the Russia-NATO Council with multiple programmes. There were initiatives to combat terrorism and we worked together on Afghanistan. There were all kinds of initiatives. So far, we have yet to create a pan-continental framework.
During the first Russia-ASEAN Summit, President Vladimir Putin suggested that we must focus on what is happening around us instead of seeking to come up with something new. We already have the EAEU, and it works with the SCO. Both organisations have established ties with ASEAN. The EAEU is also involved in projects which are carried out as part of the Belt and Road Initiative.
If we bring together all the stakeholders who want to focus on all these initiatives moving forward and think about harmonising their agendas, this would amount to what President Vladimir Putin has dubbed the Greater Eurasian Partnership. This goes beyond the structures that I have just mentioned. There is also the GCC – we have been working closely with this entity, as well as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and the Central Asian five, and a host of other structures.
Our vision for the Greater Eurasian Partnership consists of developing it as an inclusive framework for all countries across the continent. This would offer immense competitive advantages to these states. So far, the West has not been willing to accept this offer.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz probably decided to play it safe. He probably wanted to make sure that the United States does not restore the Nord Stream pipelines – this is why he said that the Nord Streams are covered by the sanctions and cannot be restored. At the same time, he has been lamenting about Germans suffering from tariff wars. Way to go.
But if the Greater Eurasian Partnership emerges as an organic entity, it will have all it takes to create a solid foundation for Eurasian security architecture. This is what we are working on right now, primarily with our friends in Belarus. This year, they will be hosting the third Eurasian security conference.
Today and tomorrow, my Belarusian counterpart Maxim Ryzhenkov will be on a visit to Moscow. He and I have distributed the draft Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity as an initiative inviting a discussion. The process is afoot and stirs interest. The Minsk conferences were attended by representatives of NATO countries and EU countries (Hungary, Slovakia and Serbia). The process is open to all countries located on the continent.
A week ago, our ruling party, the United Russia, along with other parties represented in the State Duma, held public and political hearings on the same issue in Perm. The event was attended by party leaders from a number of Asian nations, including Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and China. Their parties are members of the International Conference of Asian Political Parties.
Question: The new US administration will have been in power for five months soon. There were many statements and appointments during this period. Some of these appointments have been revised or cancelled. What is your vision of Russia’s relations with the Trump administration? Where do we stand? Where is all this leading us?
Sergey Lavrov: I think we are in a more proper and normal position than we were in relations with the Biden administration, relations that turned around by 180 degrees (regrettably, not by 360 degrees, as Annalena Baerbock advised) after the hope-inspiring talks between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden in Geneva on June 16, 2021. All channels for contact were cut. The Geneva meeting was fine. At the start – during the limited-format meeting – Joe Biden said at his own initiative, without looking into his crib notes, that the US and Russia were two great powers, each with a history of its own. We should respect the history of each other and that of any other nation. The United States has come into its own as a melting pot, where all migrants were dipped and emerged with “human rights” inscribed on their foreheads: “we are all Americans.” The Russian Empire developed differently. It incorporated territories, where sedentary peoples had lived for centuries. They were not dipped into any melting pots. They were left alone, with the central authorities respecting all of their traditions and cherishing their history, culture and religion. Even the Russian Empire practiced granting a different status to some of its constituent entities so as to respect and take into consideration their diversity. Therefore, it is a totally different state entity, a civilisational entity in most different meanings of this word. The United States does not want anyone to undermine this monolith and this unity. Vladimir Putin had to work hard upon assuming the presidency in 2000. The country has become stronger. This is very useful. We feel secure, when Russia, a nuclear power, controls its territory.
President of Brazil Luiz Lula da Silva went on record as saying the other day that Joe Biden, while still incumbent, had told him that Russia should be destroyed. It is like two different people. Back then, his chief concern was that Russia should not lose the ability to control its military might. Later, destroying Russia came to the fore.
Next, there was a full disconnect. CIA Director William Burns came to Moscow to talk us out of the “irrevocable” decision to attack Ukraine (as the Americans related this story). We told them that our concern was to defend our legitimate security interests rather than attack anyone. We presented a draft Russia-NATO agreement and a draft Russia-US agreement, which highlighted Russia’s security interests conceived as something that did not interfere with the security of our neighbours. We discussed both documents at meetings with the then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022. They actually ignored us, describing the agendas then advanced and now tackled in the course of the special military operation as unacceptable. No guarantees of Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO. Don’t even think about that.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told me, at the most we are developing ground-based short- and medium-range missiles. This is a class prohibited by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty from which the United States withdrew. They did not respond and will not respond to our appeal to draft, in the absence of the treaty, two parallel but unrelated moratoriums. Antony Blinken proposed making an agreement that the United States would deploy a certain number of ground-based short- and medium-range missiles in Ukraine — while Russia will allegedly undertake to do the same close to the border with Ukraine. We would set a ceiling. But a week later, at the Munich Security Conference, Vladimir Zelensky was hysterically screaming that nobody could prohibit Ukraine from joining NATO. He was applauded. Another week later, in a grave violation of the Minsk agreements, the shelling of Donbass intensified 10-15-fold. When Plan B was ready for implementation – specifically, to end the war not through the Minsk agreements but by forcibly seizing small territories in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics that were not under Kiev’s control, we were left with no choice.
We should never indulge in illusions. During the meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Riyadh at the end of February, Americans, as initiators of the meeting, opened the conversation and said that the foreign policy of US President Donald Trump and his administration is firmly based on US national interests. They acknowledge that other countries also have their own national interests, especially when it comes to the great powers like the United States or the Russian Federation. Therefore, to avoid surprises or misunderstanding, they proceed from the premise that in most cases, the interests of major countries will not match. However, when the national interests of countries like Russia and the US do match, it is a colossal mistake not to use this match to implement projects of mutual material benefit (in the economy, energy, transport, space, the Arctic, or anything else). And in most cases, when these interests do not match, it is the responsibility of the great powers to prevent this mismatch from degrading into confrontation, even more so a hostile one. I support this kind of approach with both thumbs up. Russian President Vladimir Putin has always relied on this premise when formulating his foreign policy. We are ready to speak honestly with everybody without forsaking our own national, deep-rooted and legitimate interests and without demanding this from our partners. There is always a possibility to reach agreement. “A balance of interests,” “compromise” – President Vladimir Putin has said these words multiple times when answering the question about with whom we could reach agreement.
I would not get my hopes up. We do not know how the situation inside Donald Trump’s administration will unfold. I believe that the relationship established between the presidents of our countries during Donald Trump’s first term is a working relationship. They do not need any preludes or prologues and, during their regular telephone conversations, they get straight to the point. It is how you are supposed to work. It is always better to express your views directly. That will prevent any illusion or false hopes. I think US President Donald Trump, his Secretary of State and Vice President are the politicians who prefer this working style precisely.
Question: What problems or obstacles or challenges do you envision as Russia now shifts from a special military operation to a counter-terrorism operation?
Sergey Lavrov: This concerns us not only because of what happened earlier this month but also because the Kiev regime has used these methods in one form or another (perhaps not so bluntly as it was done in the Bryansk and Kursk regions) since the very beginning. I can name any territory where hostilities occurred, and the outcome will be the same. I believe the Kursk Region is the most telling example. The Russian armed forces clarify which sites on Ukrainian territory they targeted. These are the sites associated with the military, such as military units, locations where equipment is concentrated, or former civilian sites used by the armed forces or the Security Service of Ukraine.
As concerns the Kursk Region, we have all seen what the Ukrainian Nazis did there. There is not a single site that could be presented to the “audience” as a site associated with combat activity. Therefore, it is not surprising for us. During his last meeting with the Government, President of Russia Vladimir Putin clearly said what conclusion we have reached. We will proceed from that.
This is a rather serious threat. Obviously, Ukraine is responsible for all that but it would be helpless without the support of the Anglo-Saxons. We can omit the Saxons now and just say, without the support of the English. It is possible that, by inertia, US intelligence services are still involved, but the British are involved 100 percent. Measures should be taken not only by Russia’s Federal Security Service (it has a load of work) but also the Interior Ministry, the National Guard, and other security services. It is important to enhance what we used to call public vigilance. This is being taken care of. You are right when you say that there are higher risks of terrorist acts. We can see it. We will do anything to suppress these threats and prevent harm to the Russian public.
Question: Russia is designated as a civilisation state in its 2023 Foreign Policy Concept paper, which underscores its identity as anchored in the Eurasian civilisational traditions, distinct from Western liberalism. What will be the implications of this identification emphasising cultural and civilisation sovereignty? How will it impact Russia’s long-term relationship with Europe, the United States. Furthermore, civilisational stales like Russia and China are increasingly [becoming] major architects of multipolarity with their civilisational legitimacy, especially their belief in moving beyond the Western logic of divide and rule, zero-sum game, to embrace win-win cooperation. What do you think about the prospect of the kind of synergy between the Chinese proposal like the BRI – the Belt and Road Initiative, and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union? And what would be the impact for the region and beyond, especially since you mentioned right now the kind of overarching institution for the whole region? Maybe China and Russia as huge civilisational states can lay the foundation for this cooperation?
Sergey Lavrov: What makes the Eurasian continent so unique is that it has been home not only to these two civilisations which emerged thousands of years ago and have been developing here. In fact, there were multiple civilisations here. There is the Indian civilisation, the Ottoman world, and there were civilisations that used to designate themselves as the Roman Empire. And we see that the traditions of the past continue to resonate today. Other continents, including Africa and Latin America, have their civilisational roots too, primarily represented by their indigenous people and first nations, but their civilisational identity tends to be less apparent in terms of culture, traditions or customs. Even Greenland lacks traditions of this kind.
In my opening remarks, I made a point that all people are different. The same goes for civilisations. Every religion is also unique. In Eurasia, we can find common ground with all our neighbours and all the major powers. I fully agree with what you said about promoting dialogue among civilisations as a pathway to promoting a pan-continental narrative. I also agree that Russia and the PRC can and must play a leading and proactive role in this pan-continental process. I hope that the first step in this direction will consist of reviving the RIC (Russia, India, China) troika. We have not met at the foreign ministers’ level for the last couple of years. I have been raising this topic with both my Chinese counterpart and the Foreign Minister of India. Tension on the India-China border has eased substantially and the situation is getting back to normal. There is dialogue between New Delhi and Beijing, so I hope that we can revive the three-party RIC format. This would be a major step for advancing the pan-continental agenda.
Question: How can we change the perception of the West about Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: Many Russians and people belonging to other nations across the USSR experienced a moment of happiness akin to the encounter on the Elbe – this is when we defeated a formidable foe, and it happened despite all the diplomatic manoeuvring by the West during the first days, months and years of the war, when they provided aid and operated lend-lease schemes, which were not free by the way. Importantly, the UK adopted a wait-and-see approach in order to decide on whose side it would enter the war. There were mounting challenges, and a persisting lack of trust. However, the USSR, the United States and the UK succeeded in holding several meetings at the highest level to agree on geopolitical compromises. They acted in cold blood and sought to balance their interests too. I have never seen a better expression of happiness than the encounter on the Elbe. But it failed to produce a lasting effect. Even before World War II came to an end, our allies were already plotting Operation Unthinkable. The fact that they understood that attacking the USSR would be unthinkable was a good thing. But this is what they were thinking about. Then there was Winston Churchill’s Fulton Speech, the Cold War, and the Iron Curtain.
What matters the most is to have a happy community of people representing various countries and cultures who feel the same way after defeating the forces of evil. Today, the good versus bad confrontation has resurfaced on our agenda. You were right to say that the West, primarily Europe and its aggressive core led by all these Starmers, Merzs and Macrons, fights against us by delivering high-precision weapons to Ukraine. In fact, Ukrainians cannot operate these weapons – this is the task for people from the supplying countries. But there is more. The West simply wants to show that our country is isolated by preventing everyone from travelling here.
There was an MEP who came to mark 80 years of Victory. For that, they expelled him from his parliamentary group and banned him from entering the plenary room. What a shame. This amounts to fascism, a dictatorship. I have already mentioned what they did in Romania.
All these countries have their ambassadors in Moscow. Some have consulates general in Moscow and St Petersburg. Ambassadors have a mission to report to their governments the truth. Their governments said that their goal consisted of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. So the ambassadors are on a mission to report on the way they have been working to achieve this aim on the ground, in the Russian Federation in an effort to defeat it. I do not know what these ambassadors have been reporting to their governments, but there are a few things I can tell you in this regard.
Sergey Lavrov: I have an example. A year ago, in May 2024, we did some thinking, and the Foreign Ministry decided not to crudely reciprocate the procedures that the host countries have introduced in relation to our ambassadors in Europe. For example, [European officials] refused to meet with them, unless they had to convey an angry protest.
We used to confer with each of the European Union ambassadors every six months. This practice was in place before the special military operation. We met with them consecutively, at the Ministry or at their respective embassy, and discussed issues of interest to them at a working lunch.
In May 2024, we decided to invite them to meet, without announcements (although this no longer matters), to offer clarifications with regard to any of the current developments they were finding unclear. We could see that the respective capitals obviously did not have sufficient awareness of the situation, of the consequences and effects of their aggressive policy against Russia on the Russian leadership and the Russian people. We invited everyone, including the head of the EU Delegation, and set a date and time. Suddenly, a few days before the scheduled event, they notified us that they had received instructions from their capitals to refuse this invitation. That demonstrated that Europe was not interested in learning about the results (at that stage) of its bellicose and aggressive policy. They ordered their ambassadors to stay where they are.
I mentioned this publicly. After that, we learned that they met with the European Commission representative and decided to respond to my public criticism by writing a paper that they were going to make public. According to the draft they circulated, what I said was not true and the real reason was that they could not accept an invitation from the foreign minister of the country that attacked Ukraine and was suddenly responsible for poisoning Alexey Navalny.
In this regard, I would like to remind you that we have never been presented with a list of names consistent with the bodies that were shown in Bucha – by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, or journalists who seem to know every detail about Jeffrey Epstein, but not about Bucha.
Speaking about Alexey Navalny, I think it is also highly unethical to speculate on a person’s life, no matter what you think of that person. Alexey Navalny was flown from Omsk to Germany within 24 hours, forgoing whatever formalities such cases usually require, on a plane that was sent for him, escorted by people who arrived on that plane without visas or passports and then accordingly left Russia. He was delivered to a civilian hospital, Charité, but no traces of poison were found. He was then rushed to a Bundeswehr clinic, where they found “something.” We issued a note requesting if we could see what they found, because he was a Russian citizen and it was important for us to know. They said no, explaining that any information on the results of Navalny’s tests would disclose the current phase of their biological programme. They said they would send his tests to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We sent a request to the OPCW. The organisation, which the West had also privatised a long time ago, said that the Germans had indeed sent them the tests, but warned not to show them to us. I am not joking. We do not know what treatment he received, or what they gave him at the Bundeswehr clinic. I cannot know what effects those drugs could have had in a year, a year and a half, two, three. This discussion is rooted in the refusal to provide facts.
The same holds true for the Malaysian Boeing. No one cited any facts. Of the 13 witnesses, only one spoke in person; the rest were anonymous. Recently there was a court hearing in the Netherlands. The United States provided some satellite imaging data; all we have is a statement that it was shown to the court. Or maybe it wasn’t, but the court trusted the United States that their data was correct, and they didn’t really have to see it.
All of the above is further manifestation of their impunity and an overwhelming sense of entitlement, which serves as the main driver for those who want to undermine the development of multipolarity, including by military means. I am tempted to say that the truth is on our side, and that multipolarity will be ours.