🎙 Russia's Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov’s interview with "Krasnaya Zvezda" (Red Star) Media Holding Company for the film "Diplomacy as a Way of Life: I Prefer Fair Play"
(March 21, 2025)Read in full
💬 Sergey Lavrov: The leadership focused [in 1994]on creating proper conditions for deepening partnership with the West. As it turned out later - in fact, it became clear fairly quickly, but almost all our politicians and citizens found it out later - our role in that “partnership” was that of the “little brother.” We were assigned this role. This, of course, was a huge mistake.
Many Western analysts are saying in their memoirs that there was no point in expanding NATO and keeping Russia out of the picture. However, our goal was to join the G7. Even in the 2000s, we did not give up on the idea of expanding cooperation with the West.
❓ Question: Back in the day when you worked at the UN - I’m talking about 1994-1996 - did the position of our leadership sat well with you in terms of how Russia should be represented in the international arena?💬 Sergey Lavrov: Our leadership was primarily focused on the West, notably G7-Russia relations. The leadership focused on creating proper conditions for deepening partnership with the West. As it turned out later - in fact, it became clear fairly quickly, but almost all our politicians and citizens found it out later - our role in that “partnership” was that of the “little brother.” We were assigned this role. This, of course, was
a huge mistake.Starting with
Yevgeny Primakov, our foreign policy began to change towards
multipolarity. It was not designated in these terms back then, but Yevgeny Primakov introduced it in the legitimate diplomatic lexicon and formally advocated for promoting the interests of a multipolar world.
The UN Charter requires no revision. It remains contemporaneous. It must simply be respected and implemented. When Kosovo declared independence without a referendum, this was hailed as self-determination. Yet when Crimea conducted a transparent referendum with hundreds of European observers, parliament members, and public figures in attendance, it was decried as a violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Duplicity, cynicism, hypocrisy – these are the forces we confront.
Key points:•
Multipolarity means you should be interested in addressing your economic and other needs, such as security, but you never clam up or refuse to talk to any country in the world. Listening to what someone else has to say doesn’t put anyone under any obligation. Often enough, a simple contact, a conversation can help identify new areas of mutually beneficial interaction. This is fully consistent with the UN Charter.
• Our ideas on every matter in global politics will never align [with the US]. We acknowledged this in Riyadh.
The Americans acknowledged this, too. In fact, they were the ones who said this. Common sense suggests that it is foolish not to use the points where our interests align in order to translate then into some practical actions and obtain
mutually beneficial results. • Where our interests do not align (US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said this), it is the duty of
responsible powers to prevent this divergence from deteriorating into confrontation. This is absolutely our position.
• Zelensky made a 180-degree turn from someone who came to power with peaceful slogans or slogans like “leave Russian alone; it is our common language and our common culture” (this can be found on the internet) and,
six months later, transformed into a full Nazi and, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin rightly said, a traitor to the Jewish people.
•
No other language has been subjected to such aggression [as Russian]. But imagine if Switzerland were to ban French or German, or Ireland were to ban English. The Irish there now want “some” self-determination. If the Irish tried to ban English now, they would have shaken all the UN “pillars” demanding Ireland’s condemnation.
❗️ Diplomacy mirrors life: complex, yet we must endure and labour on.
