Lavrov 60 minutes


Question: The main question worrying the whole world - will there be a nuclear war?

Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said repeatedly that in our nuclear doctrine we envisage only response measures designed to prevent the destruction of the Russian Federation by direct nuclear strikes or strikes by other weapons that threaten the very existence of the Russian state. This is an exhaustive answer.

I hope those who constantly speculate on the topic of a nuclear war and Russia's "provocations" with WMD are aware of their responsibility.

Question: There is a lot of speculation, indeed. The Americans keep making their calculations - who will die first, who will die second, how many people will perish in the first and second days and in a month. Do we make similar calculations? Will anyone survive? Do we proceed from the assumption that it can be stopped? It feels like everything has already happened and there remains only one thing to do - press the button. We have seen everything else.

Sergey Lavrov: I would advise the Americans and their satellites, as well as our analysts and political scientists involved in such "exercises" to display maximum responsibility in their public statements.


Just yesterday, I saw on a respectable website some calculations like the ones you referred to. They make an "interesting" conclusion: the real figures predicted in the event - God forbid - of a nuclear conflict, will be much smaller than the kinds used to scare us before. I consider this completely irresponsible journalism. I hope journalists and political scientists will not play such games and help those in the West who would like to take the rhetoric to the limit and then see what happens, so to speak.

Through you, I am appealing to all those who are interested in this situation and topic and are trying to cover it in the public space. There is no need to artificially escalate things.

Question: One of the latest, important events is the talk between Vladimir Zelensky and Joe Biden. This is the first time that the US President has promised to supply advanced air defence systems to Ukraine. Your colleagues - diplomats - commented on this news saying that it makes the United States party to the conflict. What difference does party to the conflict status make for the United States?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not see the difference in supplying weapons to Ukraine − something the United States has been doing for many months now and even years - and the shipment of air defence systems. What exactly sets air defence systems apart from other weapons and turns the Americans into a party to the conflict? It seems to me that the United States de facto has long been involved in this war not only through arms shipments to Vladimir Zelensky and his regime but also by providing Kiev with intelligence, not only from several dozen military satellites but also from about two hundred commercial satellites, which are now serving the military's purposes to support this neo-Nazi regime.

In this context, our initiative of many years ago to prevent an arms race in space is becoming ever more important, but this is a different topic. There is increasingly more convincing evidence of Americans not only helping recruit mercenaries to fight in Ukraine but also sending career military personnel from the US army and the armies of some European countries to Ukraine to work regularly on the ground, including assistance for gun system crews and units that use multiple rocket launcher complexes similar to HIMARS to use these weapons in battle. We do not have conclusive proof of that, but there is more and more evidence of this, and I believe people in the West are already being awakened to the fact that they have gone a bit too far compared to what they initially planned.

Question: If they go a bit further than they intended, is there a chance to stop? Does Moscow understand what red line the Americans won't cross? Ordinary citizens feel that the Americans are ready for anything. They are gleeful about our strikes on Ukraine yesterday. They are sitting far away, rubbing their hands and enjoying the thought that they got under our skin. When will we sit at the negotiating table? When will this critical point be reached? By "we" I don't mean Russians and Ukrainians but Russians and Americans. Are there any secret communication channels via which we talk and discuss everything - that we have reached the limit and there is only disaster ahead?

Sergey Lavrov: We sat at the negotiating table with the Ukrainian delegation until the end of March, when an approach to a settlement on the principles suggested by the Ukrainians at the time had been harmonised in Istanbul. These principles suited us for that moment but the talks were stopped by direct order from Washington and London.

This conflict is overrun with Anglo-Saxons that fully control the Vladimir Zelensky regime. The Poles and people from the Baltics are trying to fit in on their team. Since then the Ukrainian President has said many times that he is not going to hold talks with the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin. Recently, he codified this ban in law. We have never sought negotiations. The Istanbul round completed the process started at Ukraine's request. Russia positively reacted to the proposal to enter a dialogue, but its initiators cut it off with a shout from overseas or London.

We are hearing statements by White House representative John Kirby, my colleague Antony Blinken and other members of the US administration. They are saying that they are completely open to talks with the Russian Federation, that they favour a political settlement of the current situation in Ukraine but Russia (the "troublemaker") is rejecting proposals to establish contact.

I can say straight away that this is a lie. We have not received any serious proposals to establish any such contact. There were some attempts that were not very serious, but we didn't reject them, either. Instead, we suggested that they formulate specific proposals. Some people made them to us by proxy but in this case, we didn't receive any clear explanations from anyone, either. No need to lie. We were taught in a kindergarten that lying is bad. Apparently, American kindergartens are not so advanced as they were in the Soviet Union and are now in Russia.

Question: If Vladimir Zelensky has decided for himself that cannot hold talks with us, does this mean that we will proceed to the end in the Ukrainian operation? Where will that end be? Poland? What will we do if he does not want to talk with us?

Sergey Lavrov: It cannot be ruled out that he may forget he has decided he cannot do this, depending on the mood he wakes up in and what he does in the morning. Or what Washington or London tell him to do. He will comply and invent an explanation that will help him save face. Vladimir Zelensky is an actor. There are many actors on that side, and those who are controlling and handling him are playing the white knights who are outraged by the actions of Russia and its military in the course of the special military operation. They prefer not to remember that all these years after the coup on Maidan they kept silent when nearly 50 people were burned alive in Odessa. They cannot bluff their way out after Zelensky has killed thousands of people using Western weapons in Donbass and there is irrefutable evidence of gross violations of international humanitarian law and military crimes when it comes to prisoners of war, who were shot in the head, with their hands tied behind their backs, and pushed into common graves. When Zelensky is doing this, the West is playing the "see nothing, hear nothing" game.

When Russia, as President Putin said yesterday, was no longer able to tolerate the Kiev regime's crimes and terrorist attacks and responded harshly, everyone started playing a game of condemnation, including, regrettably, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. He kept silent and never expressed any concern or alarm in the other situations I mentioned. But Russia's actions yesterday roused his concern. This is yet another proof that something is wrong with the UN. The West is trying to privatise the organisation. The Secretary-General as "chief administrative officer" of the UN, as the post is described in the UN Charter, should know his stuff and not play up to various political forces. He must not take sides. We will raise this issue yet.

As for the limits of our goals in the special military operation, our President has outlined them, they have not changed and will be attained. Ukraine must not be a terrorist state threatening its own citizens, a racist country whose President proclaims that those who feel they are Russian and want to speak Russia should pack up and go to Russia. Ukraine must not be a state that is permitted to do anything. Its all-permissiveness has crossed every line and has led to the murder of journalists, politicians, Verkhovna Rada deputies and many other crimes. We cannot permit the citizens of Ukraine who consider themselves to be Russian or Russian speakers to be deprived of this right.

This not only concerns the people of Donbass, as you can see, but also the way Ukrainian nationalists are maltreating civilians. Just take a look at what is happening in the Kharkov and, partially, Zaporozhye regions, which they entered after our forced rearranged their positions.

We cannot permit Ukraine to create a permanent threat to the security of Russia. I am referring to its potential accession to NATO and the deployment of weapons on its territory that would create such a threat.

The neo-Nazi elements of the current regime, which have taken root in the post-Maidan ground, are an extremely serious problem. It must be dealt with as well. I have no doubt whatsoever that our coexistence on the great European continent will depend on the eradication of Nazism in Ukraine.

I have my doubts about Europe's position. Speaking about Nazism, during the Nazi period in Germany Hitler rallied the majority of European countries under his banners for attacking and destroying the Soviet Union. Almost the same group of countries is supporting Zelensky now, who is certainly no Hitler. He does not determine his actions against Russia. He is acting on others' orders. Nevertheless, the banners under which the new "Nazi international" has been rallied are the same. They are the banners of SS divisions, and swastika is not only on their banners but is brandished during torchlight marches in Ukrainian cities. There is a swastika on the armband worn by General Valery Zaluzhny, commander of the Ukrainian armed forces. The bodies of these people, as we can see on those who have been taken prisoner, are covered with tattoos from the era they regard as ideal and whose heroes they are glorifying.

It turned out that Nazism remained latent for decades after the Cold War, when Europeans were chanting about a "common space from the Atlantic to the Urals" and common human values, adding that we are friends who will never be parted. All this has disappeared overnight like a thin film. It turned out that it was not a latent racism at all, that it was openly practiced in everyday life, which becomes clear when we look at how our compatriots are treated in Europe and what the Baltic states, Poland and others are saying about Russians. Russophobic statements have been made by seemingly respected politicians in France, Germany and other countries. It is a problem that cannot be resolved quickly. It is creating very serious, large and painful challenges to the future of Europe.

Question: This problem seems insoluble to us. We see even the United States recognise that Ukraine was behind the terrorist attack against journalist Darya Dugina and the Ukrainian security services carried out the terrorist attack on the Crimean Bridge. Washington and The New York Times write about this and much else. We see an Azov Nazi, Maxim Zhorin, blatantly post online a video with executions of peaceful civilians in Kupyansk. How can this be? It appears that despite everything Russia is a terrorist state in the eyes of the West. Are we unable to make them see the essence of the Ukrainian regime?

Sergey Lavrov: I think they are well aware of everything. It is just another game of theirs designed to remove Russia as an independent geopolitical factor. They have, without any exaggeration, pulled out all the stops. They are heaping one lie upon another in order to fool, dupe, and debilitate their public opinion, direct it against Russia, and then explain their Russophobic policy and the need to promote and step it up further, based on the public opinion they have shaped. They are sending direct and indirect signals to such countries as China and India, implying that they are making a mistake being on friendly terms with Russia, whose days, allegedly, are numbered. It is a sad characteristic of the "abilities" of these politicians, their knowledge of history, and their understanding of what Russia and the Russian people are.

You have mentioned Washington's forced admission that Darya Dugina was killed in a terrorist attack organised by the Ukrainian security services. It was wrong for the Ukrainians not to consult the United States, they say. They wouldn't have advised them to do it. As if to make amends, the EU immediately came up with another sanction package imposing sanctions against her father, Alexander Dugin, for wishing to murder him but inadvertently hitting at his daughter. These people have no scruples about what they do. They don't care one bit about the considerations of decency and honesty to oneself with regard to what they perpetrate.

You say the United States has admitted that the Crimean Bridge blast is also the doing of the Ukrainian security services. I read statements by certain politicians in Germany, among others, who said that they doubted the version suggested by the Russian Federation. We could speak at length about the recent-year emergencies and the versions that the West regarded as plausible. Now, for example, they said about the Crimean Bridge that they had seen the terrorist attack staged on it, but did not fully trust the Russian Federation.

As for Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2, the Westerners seem to distrust us as well, because they don't want to let us join the investigation. Let me remind you that we own 51% of Nord Stream 1 and that Gazprom has a 100% title to Nord Stream 2. Yesterday, the Swedish Government's spokesperson said they were conducting an investigation jointly with the Danes and the Germans, but would not allow the Russians to come near the site. They are investigating the damage caused to our property but keep us on the sidelines and are unwilling to show us anything lest, God forbid, we find out the truth. It was reported that US experts would participate in processing the data collected over there. Here are double standards for you.

The same happened in July 2014, when a Malaysian Boeing, MH17, was downed over Ukraine. The Netherlands, Australia, Belgium and Ukraine (which had failed to close its airspace) established a Joint Investigation Team but did not invite Malaysia, the aircraft's owner. It was only invited five months later, when they and the Ukrainians reached a solemn pact within their "circle" that the Four (Australia, The Netherlands, Belgium, and Ukraine) would not let out any data until there was full consensus on what this information could be like. This is how our Western partners approach honest investigations.

I don't even mention another investigation which is still a closely guarded secret. I am referring to what happened in Salisbury in 2019, when we were accused of poisoning the Skripals. What happened to Alexei Navalny is also a murky story. In neither case - I mean the incidents involving the Skripals and Navalny - were we allowed to have the investigation results. They keep silent about the formula of substances found in their bodies. Both the Germans and Swedes, who assigned a laboratory to analyse Navalny's tests, are withholding the formula. The Germans have admitted that poisonous agents were detected by a Bundeswehr laboratory rather than a civilian clinic. Where did the Bundeswehr obtain this kind of knowledge? Germany declared long ago that it had met the requirements enshrined in the Chemical Weapons Convention. Germany no longer has any substances of this kind. We have a lot of questions to ask.

But let us get back to our topic. I am proceeding from the premise that we must promote our truth in a consistent and self-possessed manner. We must also demand that those who are covering up for the neo-Nazi, terrorist Kiev regime tell the truth as well.

Question: About Türkiye partners, who sometimes act as our partners and sometimes deliver Bayraktar drones to Ukraine. Türkiye recently launched a warship. Today, there are many media leaks, including those from the Turkish media, that some comprehensive, grandiose talks are being prepared, which will not involve Ukraine, but will involve Moscow, Washington, Paris, the United Kingdom and Berlin. This looks like a major deal. Can you confirm or deny these reports? Are such discussions underway? What kind of a major deal would suit Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I have read the very same online and offline media stories. Our partners have been repeatedly announcing their public initiatives and attracting attention to them. After that, they start analysing who will respond to them and how. For me, it is obvious that, if our Turkish colleagues have started thinking about this, then they will have a wonderful opportunity to raise these issues this week at a meeting between President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President of Russia Vladimir Putin who will attend events in Astana. We have heard nothing, apart from the public announcements.

I agree that traditional diplomacy presupposes a reverse sequence of actions. When you have generated a serious idea, and when you believe that this could yield a result, you covertly consult those who could potentially take part in your initiative. In the event of a positive reply, you decide how to promote its media coverage. If we read the stories that the Turkish press has to offer, and if we believe them, then according to the Milliyet newspaper, the United States analysed this idea of Erdogan and gave a semi-positive "nod."

I can say nothing else on this issue. We will listen to any proposals. I said this at the beginning of our interview. We are ready to hear out everybody, but we cannot say in advance that any specific process will produce results. First, we need to understand what is being offered and the content of initiatives that are being circulated so quickly and loudly in the public space.

Question: Will President of Russia Vladimir Putin meet with President of the United States Joe Biden at the G20 summit?

Sergey Lavrov: We have repeatedly said that we never reject any meetings. We will examine a proposal, if there is one. Everybody thinks that an indication of readiness from Joe Biden has already been given. This confidence rests on his "We'll see" phrase while replying to a question about whether he would have a future meeting with Vladimir Putin. This has more to do with analytical journalistic conjectures than real politics.

Question: It is clear that there is no technical possibility of depriving Russia of the right of veto at the UN Security Council. But they have started acting off limits. Are they doing anything that could deprive us of this right? How can we respond? How important is this for us now?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe that the UN is important for everyone. No matter how critical we may be about the serious negative processes underway in the organisation, including the efforts to "privatise" its Secretariat and make it subordinate to the Western agenda, it is humanity's best invention structurally, conceptually and in terms of international law and the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.

More and more attempts are being made to aggravate the situation at the UN, to use it in the Russophobic spirit at the current stage and subsequently to use the same mechanisms and methods against other "undesirable" powers. This is going beyond the limits of all propriety that used to exist in diplomacy, including during the Cold War.

As for the attempts to deprive Russia of the right of veto, a bigger issue is at stake: can we remain on the UN Security Council? They have moved Ukraine to the forefront, as usual, and it claims that no decision was taken in 1991 to recognise Russia as the successor state of the Soviet Union. They say that when a Soviet representative entered the room, the name plate on his table saying USSR was simply replaced with a another that read Russian Federation. One of their arguments is that the list of permanent members in the UN Charter still includes "the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics." This is true, but this reflects the unanimous decisions taken in December 1991 in the presence and with the agreement of all permanent and non-permanent members of the UN Security Council and all UN member states without exception. That decision cannot be overturned at the whim of the Kiev regime. I would like to remind you that in the 1970s the People's Republic of China regained its lawful place at the UN, where Taiwan's representative ceded their place to China's representatives. The list of permanent UNSC members was not changed in the UN Charter either. It still incudes "the Republic of China," that is, Taiwan.

Such speculations can lead to unpopular facts, for example, that Ukraine became a member state and a founding state of the UN exclusively thanks to the Soviet Union and at the insistence of Josef Stalin. During the talks on the establishment of the UN, he insisted that the Soviet republics, including Ukraine and Belarus, be declared member states. In terms of historical fact, Ukraine is not a member state of the UN. It joined the organisation as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. I would recommend that those who are playing these games without any serious arguments calm down and do business rather than keep making things up.

We are keeping aloof from the anti-Russia schemes, even though they will continue. As for the reform of the UNSC, I have a good argument. Some time ago, we used the right of veto to foil an anti-Russia resolution on Ukraine. In response, the West adopted a special decision according to which every time UNSC members use the right of veto at the Security Council, they must explain their reasons for doing so at a special meeting of the General Assembly. This is a desire to yet again create a scandal and to rally supporters to make statements condemning the Russian Federation. We accepted it. We have nothing to hide. Wе explained why we used our right of veto. Today and tomorrow, we will explain at the UNGA session why we are against the resolution condemning the referendums. It completely disregards the right of the oppressed residents of eastern Ukraine to self-determination. We will explain this at the UNGA session.

Here is another interesting story. We proposed that before adopting a resolution condemning the referendums at the session, the UNGA, acting in full compliance with its procedures, should hold a secret vote. I will explain our reasons. The Americans, the Anglo-Saxons and the EU, which is singing along with them, have terrorised the majority of developing countries. They have threatened to deprive them of assistance, adopt sanctions against them, freeze the bank accounts of ambassadors who take part in the voting in New York, and doing certain things regarding their children studying at US universities. I am not exaggerating; I know this for a fact. I have talked about this with my acquaintances with whom I have worked for many years in New York.

The Americans need to demonstrate "broad" support for Ukraine. They are using these threats and blackmail methods to ensure that all delegates raise their hands in support of the resolution in an open vote. Washington wants to see their reaction. A secret vote is a democratic procedure, but this doesn't suit their intentions. Despite the unacceptable methods of "convincing" delegates, most of them have a sense of conscience and an understanding of what is really taking place in Ukraine and around it, and what the West, whose time is running out, is trying to do in an attempt to preserve its domination and hegemony.

They are afraid to give countries an opportunity to freely express their opinion. This has nothing to do with democracy. They are forcing it on everyone's domestic life, telling them how their parties should operate. In 2021, US President Joe Biden convened the first Summit for Democracy. The second summit, which could not be held in 2022, has been scheduled for January or February 2023. If we look at the list of the invited countries, we will see that the main criterion is their loyalty to American democracy, or even the Democratic Party at this stage. They want to do the same at the UN. They will write crib notes to "explain" how countries should vote and for whom, and what they should say. The EU issues guidelines to its member states which they must adhere to in public statements, to the letter.

As for a more serious subject, a reform of the UN Security Council is long overdue. Six of the 15 UNSC members represented Western countries this year, and the figure will increase to seven with due account for the new non-permanent members. This will be nearly half of the membership. This is unacceptable. It will not be a representative body. The chronic underrepresentation of developing countries must be remedied by increasing the number of Asian, African and Latin American countries. There is no need for new Western "additions." As I said, seven of the 15 members will represent the "collective West." It is out of all proportion.

Let us get back to the veto issue. Several years ago, France proposed that the permanent members should voluntarily limit the use of their right of veto and not use it when the issue concerned gross violations of human rights, international humanitarian law or war crimes. For the purpose of a reasonable dialogue, we asked them to clarify what situations they had in mind and who would determine if the violations were flagrant. This is something for a court, tribunal or the UNSC to decide. The issue came full circle. I do not want to provide cynical examples, but suppose they say that 100 victims are a flagrant violation of human rights. Does this mean that the right of veto can be used if 99 people were killed? This is not serious.

The right of veto was established in the UN Charter not to encourage a permanent member to use it, but to promote agreement between everyone. The West is now doing the opposite. Knowing that we will use our right of veto, they introduce a resolution composed of unacceptably rude phrases condemning Russia, so that they can accuse Russia of abusing the right of veto. It is a simple two-mover, simplicity that is worth than robbery, as the saying goes.

France has revitalised its idea, trying to deceive developing countries that could support the "noble" call against using the right of veto when people die. It is casuistry aimed at achieving an unacceptable end goal.

Question: When will peace come about? Is the spectre of de-escalation haunting Europe?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't know. How long did the spectre of Communism haunt Europe, according to Karl Marx, before it prevailed? It is a historical fact that can be easily checked. I hope we will be faster and more successful.