Annotations on Tucker - Lavrov interview

20241206

My introduction. This seems like a pointless interview. Lavrov does not say anything that has not been said before. It is boilerplate Russian propaganda - the same points they have been making all through the conflict.

Most significantly, Tucker did not ask any hard questions. He let slippery answers slip by one after another. He needed to disabuse the American readership of the notion that he is not a Russian stooge. He did not do so.

This interview adds little to the process. Trump would do well to ignore it.

Tucker’s questions are in bold (heading 3). Lavrov’s responses in normal text. My comments are indented - purple stripe to the left.

This piece is too long for email. Click on the title to bring it up in my Substack.

Your comments are most welcome!

Graham

Tucker [00:00:00] Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this.

Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?

Sergey Lavrov [00:00:07] I wouldn't say so.

And, in any case, this is not what we want.

We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries on earth.

Especially was the great country like the United States.

President Putin repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for the American history, for the American achievements in the world.

And we don't see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe.

Tucker [00:00:44] But the United States is funding a conflict that you're involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself.

So that doesn't constitute war?

Sergey Lavrov [00:00:59] Well, we officially are not at war.

But what is going on in Ukraine, some people call it a hybrid war.

I would call it hybrid war as well.

But it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they are doing with the long range modern weapons without direct participation of the American servicemen.

The suggestion that American servicemen are involved appears wrong. The United States has been quite careful not to have American service people involved in any combat activity.

And this is, this is dangerous, no doubt about this.

Americans have no doubt been involved in instructing Ukrainians how to use the equipment. So far as I know, this is mostly contractors, far from the front lines.

We don't want to aggravate the situation.

But since ATACMS and other long range weapons are being used against the mainland Russia as it were.

ATACAMs maximum range is 190 miles. Not terribly long-range. It cannot reach Moscow. It us used to attack Russians grouped in Russia preparing for combat in Ukraine. And now, Kursk as well.

We are sending signals and we hope that the last one a couple of weeks ago, the signal was the new weapon system called the Resnik was taken seriously.

The Oreshnik ballistic missile, 3100 mile range.

However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, they started saying in the last few days something like, well, NATO's a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense.

Some others in the StratCom may think, Buchanan is his name, representative of StratCom.

He said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes.

Worded to suggest that NATO might make first use of nuclear weapons, which has never been its position.

And these kind of threats are really a worry because if they are following the logic, which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that, well, don't believe that Russia has red lines, they announce the red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again and again.

The red lines have been, of course, moved again and again.

This is a very serious mistake.

Putin has been bluffing his entire career. So far calling the bluffs has worked better than believing them.

That's what I'm, I would like to say in response to this question.

It is not us who started the war, which is repeatedly said that we started the operation in order to end the war, which Du regime was conducting against its own people in the parts of Donbas.

This is absolutely false. Will Tucker challenge him?

And just in his latest statement, the President clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality, but we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting legitimate security interests of Russia and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine, being Russians and their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament, and they started long before this special military operation.

There are no Russians living in Ukraine. There are Russian speakers.

Their rights are recognized. I, writing this, speak Russian and not Ukrainian.

Since 2017 legislation was passed prohibiting education in Russian, prohibiting the Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in the Russian language.

Ukrainian is the national language. But there are still Russian language newspapers, web sites, etc. They are not prohibited, though Ukrainian is encouraged.

And the latest, of course, there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian.

Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated.

And the latest was the law prohibiting canonic Orthodox Church, Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The Moscow Patriarchy was a hotbed of spies. Yes, the Orthodox church in Ukraine is now fully Ukrainian. Just as the Orthodox church in Russia is fully Russian.

And you know, it's very interesting when the people in the West say we want this conflict to be resolved on the basis of the U.N. charter and the respect for territorial integrity of Ukraine, Russia must withdraw.

The Secretary General of the United Nations says similar things.

Recently, his representative repeated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of international law.

U.N. Charter. General Assembly resolutions while respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine.

It's a misnomer because if you want to respect the United Nations charter, you have to respect it in its entirety.

And the United Nations charter, among other things, says that all countries must respect equality of states and the right of people for self-determination.

And they also mentioned the United Nations General Assembly resolutions.

And this is, this is clear that what they mean is the series of resolutions which they passed after the beginning of the special military operation and which demand condemnation of Russia.

Russia get out of Ukraine territory in 1991 borders.

But there are other United Nations General Assembly resolutions which were not voted but which were consensual, and among them was a declaration on principles of relations between states on the basis of the charter, and it clearly says by consensus.

Everybody must respect territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of people for self determination.

And because of that, they represent the entire population living on given territory.

To argue that the people who came to power through military coup d'etat in February 2014 represented Crimeans or the citizens of eastern and southern Ukraine is absolutely useless.

It is obvious that Crimeans rejected the coup.

They said, Leave us alone.

The Crimeans have never had a voice. The Tatars certainly did not want Russia. They experienced decades of repression under Russia.

We don't want to have anything with you.

So the Donbas, Crimeans held the referendum and they rejoined Russia.

The referendum was phony. Can’t Tucker appreciate that?

Just like the phony referenda that had the Eastern European satellites accept communism after the war. The Russians are masters at this phony game.

Donbas was declared by the Putschists who came to power, a terrorist group.

They were shelled, attacked by artillery.

The war started, which was stopped in February 2015, and the Minsk agreements were signed.

Lavrov is repeating long-standing lines of Russian propaganda. Tucker won’t challenge it.

And we were very sincerely interested in closing this this drama by seeing the Minsk agreements implemented fully.

It was sabotaged by the government, which was established after the coup d'etat in Ukraine.

There was a demand that they enter into direct dialog with the people who did not accept the coup.

There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine and so on and so forth.

None of this was done.

The people in Kyiv were saying we would never talk to them directly.

And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the Security Council.

And they said they are terrorists would be, you know, fighting them and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger.

Had the coup in February 2014 had that not happened.

And had the deal which was reached the day before between the then President and the opposition implemented, Ukraine would have stayed one peace by now with Crimea in it.

It's absolutely clear.

They did not deliver on the deal.

Instead, they staged the coup.

The deal, by the way, provided for creation of a government of national unity in February 2014 and holding early, early elections, which the then President would have lost.

Everybody knew that, but they were impatient and they took the government buildings.

Next morning, they went to this Maidan Square and announced that they created the government of the winners.

Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners.

How can the people whom they, in their view, defeated.

How can they pretend that they respect the authorities in Kyiv? You know, the right for self-determination is the international legal basis for decolonization process which took place in Africa.

On the basis of this charter principle.

The right for self-determination.

The people in the colonies, they never treated the colonial power as colonial masters, as somebody who represented them, as somebody whom they want to see in the in the structures which govern those lands.

By the same token, the people in east and south of Ukraine, people in Donbas and Novorossiya, they don't consider the Zelensky regime as somebody as something which represents their interests.

Many do. They voted with their feet, and are now in Kyiv, Lviv and other cities far from the Russians.

How can they when their culture, their language, their traditions, their religion, all of this was was prohibited.

And the last point is that if we speak about the UN charter resolutions, international law, the very first article of the U.N. Charter, which the West never, never recalls in the Ukrainian context, says respect human rights of everybody.

Irrespective of race, gender, language or religion.

Take any conflict.

The United States, UK, Brussels they would interfere saying oh human rights have been grossly violated.

We must restore the human rights in such and such territory.

On Ukraine.

Never ever, they mumbled the words human rights.

Seeing these human rights for the Russian and the Russian speaking population being totally exterminated by law.

So when people say, let's resolve the conflict on the basis of the charter yes, but don't forget that the charter is not only about territorial integrity and territorial integrity must be respected only if the governments are legitimate and if they respect the right of their own people.

Tucker [00:12:57] I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West.

This is the Oreshnik.

What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened.

What message were you sending by showing it to the world?

Sergey Lavrov [00:13:14] Well, the message is that you I mean, you, the United States and the allies of the United States also provide this long range, high weapons to the Kyiv regime.

They must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call strategic defeat of Russia.

They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world.

On any country any region any continent.

We fight for our legitimate security interests.

They say, for example, 1991 borders.

Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Zelensky for another another talk.

He bluntly in presence of Zelensky, I think said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and we cannot leave this, this rich, this richness to the Russians.

The natural resources trope. Was used in Vietnam – in that case oil.

The Russians already have more natural resources than any other nation.

We must take it.

This is provocative and wrong. The US does not take things by force. We do support those who will allow us access to their resources, but do not take things.

Taking things has been Russia’s practice throughout its history. Look at its eastern expansion.

We fight so they fight for the regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources.

We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories.

For centuries and centuries.

We care about people, not about natural resources, which somebody in the United States would like, would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as as servants on sitting on these natural resources.

So the message which we wanted to sell by testing in real action, this hypersonic system is that we will we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests.

We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take, you know nuclear character.

Our military doctrine says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war.

And it was us, by the way, who initiated it in January 2022.

The message, the joint statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other's security interests and concerns.

This was our initiative, and the security interests of Russia were totally ignored when they rejected about the same time when they rejected the proposal to conclude the Treaty on security guarantees for Russia, for Ukraine, in the context of coexistence and in the context where Ukraine would not be ever a member of NATO or any other military bloc.

These security interests of Russia were presented to the West to NATO and the United States in December 2021.

We discussed them several times, including during my meeting with Tony Blinken in Geneva in January, late January 2022.

And this was rejected.

So we would certainly like to avoid any misunderstanding.

And since the people, some people in Washington and some people in London, in Brussels seem to be not very capable to understand, we will send additional messages.

If they don't if they don't draw necessary conclusions.

Tucker [00:17:48] The fact that we're having a conversation about a potential nuclear exchange and it's real is remarkable.

Tucker keeps coming back to nuclear.

Not something I thought I'd ever see.

And it raises the question, how much backchannel dialogue is there between Russia and the United States.

Has there been for the last two and a half years.

Is there any conversation?

Sergey Lavrov [00:18:10] There are several channels, but mostly on the exchange of people who serve terms in Russia and the United States.

Tucker claimed in the trailer for this interview that there were no backchannels. Lavrov is saying there are.

There were several swaps.

There are also channels which are not advertised as publicized.

But basically the Americans send through these channels the same message which they send publicly.

You have to stop.

You have to accept the the way which will be based on the Ukrainian needs and the Ukrainian position.

They support this absolutely pointless peace formula by Zelensky, which was addition to recently by the Victory Plan.

They held several series of meetings.

Copenhagen format, Burgenstock, what have you.

And they brag that next year, first half of next year, they will convene another conference and they will graciously invite Russia that time.

And then Russia would be presented an ultimatum.

All this is well, seriously, I repeat it through various confidential channels.

Now we hear something different, including Zelensky's statements that we can stop now and the line of engagement line of contact the Ukrainian government will be will be admitted to NATO, but NATO guarantees at this stage would cover only the territory controlled by the government and the rest would be would be subject to negotiations.

But the end result of this negotiations must be a total withdrawal of Russia from Russian soil, basically leaving Russian people to the nations through which exterminated all the rights of the Russian and Russian speaking citizens of their own country.

“Russian soil” that is historically, legally still part of Ukraine. What hypocrisy.

Those “Russian citizens” have been coerced into citizenship. It is hard to live in the occupied territories without having accepted it.

Will Tucker question this assertion?

Tucker [00:20:30] If I just go back to the question of nuclear exchange.

So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people.

A leading question. Assumes the answer. And not the answer Lavrov gives!

Sergey Lavrov [00:20:44] No.

We have this channel which is automatically engaged when ballistic missile launch is taking place.

As regards to this hypersonic ballistic missile, midrange ballistic missile.

30 minutes in advance, this system sends a message to the United States and they knew that this was this was the case and that they don't mistake it for anything bigger and real dangerous.

Good answer.

Tucker [00:21:25] What, I think the system sounds very dangerous.

Sergey Lavrov [00:21:28] Well, it was.

It was a test launch, you know.

With a real target, but no explosive warhead. Could have been deadly. Not the definition of a test.

Tucker [00:21:31] Yes.

Oh you're speaking of the test.

Okay.

But I just wonder how worried you are that considering there doesn't seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries.

Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other populations that this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it.

It seems incredibly low.

Sergey Lavrov [00:21:52] We are not talking about exterminating anybody's population.

We did not start this war.

Propaganda. Of course Russia started it.

We have been for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing nature closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem.

Close to your borders, but not over your borders. Big difference.

Russia, on the other hand, violated the borders of Georgia, Ukraine and Moldova.

Tucker, you don’t know? You don’t ask?

2007 Putin started to explain, you know, to the people who seem to be overtaken by the end of history and the being dominant, no challenge and so on and so forth.

And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it.

Calling it a coup is wrong. It was the Ukrainian people fed up with an unresponsive president elected by a minority of the people.

America was certainly pleased with the result, but the claim that it was fomented from the outside appears hollow.

It is endlessly repeated Russian propaganda.

There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and then the American ambassador in Kyiv when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup.

The discussions were real. The events apparently caught both the US and Europeans off guard. Hence the “f*ck the EU” quote. That was frustration.

The figure of 5 billion bucks spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want.

The US uses money to influence foreign governments. So does Russia.

So we don't have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people.

They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people.

Russia’s brutal treatment of civilians and kidnapping of children in this conflict immediately gives the lie to this claim.

Tucker [00:23:19] How many have died so far, do you think, on both sides?

Sergey Lavrov [00:23:22] It is not disclosed by Ukrainians.

Zelensky was saying that it is much less than 80,000 persons on Ukrainian side.

But there is one very, very reliable figure in Palestine.

During one year after the Israelis started the operation in response to this terrorist attack, which we condemned.

And this operation, of course, acquired the the proportion of collective punishment, which is against international humanitarian law as well.

So during one year after the operation started in Palestine, the number of civilians, Palestinian civilians killed is estimated 45,000.

This is almost twice as many as the number of civilians on both sides of Ukrainian conflict who died during ten years after the coup.

One year and ten years.

So it is a tragedy in Ukraine.

It's a disaster in Palestine.

But we never, ever had as our goal killing people and the Ukrainian regime did.

Where does this come from? Ukraine never had the intention of killing anybody except the Russian invaders of their country.

The head of the office of Zelensky once said that we will make sure that cities like Kharkiv Mykolaiv will forget what Russian means at all.

Another guy in his office.

He stated that Ukrainians must exterminate Russians through law or if necessary, physically.

Ukrainian former ambassador to Kazakhstan forgot his name became famous when giving an interview and looking into the camera being recorded and broadcast.

He said our main task is to kill as many Russians as we can so that our kids have less things to do.

Let’s have some context. It is probably killing Russian invaders of Ukraine. Ukraine has not started an external war in centuries.

And the statements like this are all over the vocabulary of the regime.

Tucker [00:26:04] How many Russians in Russia have been killed since February of 2022?

Interesting way to put the question. It begs the question of “What is Russia?” The lands that used to be Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov [00:26:08] It's not for me to disclose this information.

In the time of military operations, special rules exist and our minister of defense follows these rules.

But the very interesting fact that when Zelensky was playing not in the international arena, but at his comedy club or whatever it was called, he was there are videos of from that period when he was blankly defending the Russian language.

He was saying, what what is wrong with the Russian language? I speak Russian.

Russians are our neighbors.

The Russian is one of our languages.

Get lost he said to those who wanted to take the Russian language and the Russian culture.

When he became president, he changed the very first and before the military operations in September 2021, he was interviewed.

And at that time, he was conducting war against Donbas in violation of the Minsk agreements.

This propaganda is endlessly repeated. There was fighting. The UN OSCE observers were prevented from seeing much of it – apparently by the Russians.

And the interviewer asked him what he thought about the people on the other side of the line of contact.

And he answered very thoughtfully, you know, there are people and there are species.

And if you, living in Ukraine feel associated with the Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your grandkids, get out to Russia.

And if if this guy wants to bring Russians and people of Russian culture back on under his territorial integrity.

I mean, it shows that he's not adequate.

Tucker [00:28:23] So what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? Like what are you asking for?

Good question

Sergey Lavrov [00:28:30] Ten years ago, in February 2014, we were asking only for the deal between the president and the opposition.

This is Yanukovych.

Tucker [00:28:38] Yes.

Sergey Lavrov [00:28:39] To have a government of national unity, to hold early elections, to be implemented.

The deal was signed and we were asking for the implementation of this deal.

They were absolutely impatient and aggressive and they were, of course, pushed.

I have no slightest doubt, by the Americans, because if Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador agreed the composition of the government, why wait for five weeks for five months to hold early elections? The next time we were in favor of something was when the Minsk agreements were signed.

The Ukrainian people wanted an agreement that would bring them closer to the EU. Yaunukovych delayed and eventually failed to implement it.

I was there.

The negotiations lasted for 17 hours and the deal was, well, Crimea was lost by then, by that time, because of the referendum and nobody, including my colleague John Kerry meeting with us, nobody in the West was raising the issue of Crimea.

Tucker does not ask about the “little green men.” Crimea was snatched by the Russians, who by treaty had a large military presence there.

Everybody was concentrated on Donbas.

And the Minsk agreements provide that for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, minus Crimea.

This was not even raised and a special status for a very tiny part of Donbas.

Not for the entire Donbas, not for Novorossiya, for Novorossiya at all.

Part of Donbas.

Under this Minsk, agreements endorsed by the Security Council should have the right to speak Russian language, to teach Russian language, to study in Russian, to have local law enforcement like in the in the states of us, to be consulted when judges and prosecutors are appointed by the central authority and to have some facilitated economic connections with neighboring regions of Russia.

This is something which President Macron promised to give to Corsica and still is considering how to do this and when these agreements will sabotaged all along by first by Poroshenko and then by Zelensky.

Both of them, by the way, came to presidency running on the on the promise of peace and both of them a little light.

So when this Minsk agreements was sabotaged, to the extent that we saw the attempts to take this tiny part of Donbas by force.

And we, as Putin explained, we have a debt and we suggest that this security arrangements do need to in the United States, which was which was rejected.

And when the Plan B was launched by Ukraine and the sponsors, the trying to take this part of Donbas by force, it was then that we that we launched this special military operation and they implemented the Minsk agreements.

Ukraine would be one piece minus Crimea.

But even then, when Ukrainians, after we started the operation, suggested to negotiate, we agreed there were several rounds of Belarus, and one later they moved to Istanbul.

And in Istanbul, Ukrainian delegation put a paper on the table saying those are the principles on which we are ready to agree.

And we accepted those.

Tucker [00:32:39] The Minsk principles?

Sergey Lavrov [00:32:41] No, no, no.

The Istanbul Principles.

It was April 22, which was no NATO.

But security guarantees to Ukraine collectively provided that with the participation of Russia.

And this security guarantees would not cover Crimea or the east of Ukraine.

It was their proposal and it was initialed.

And the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, who is now the chair of the Zelensky faction in the parliament here recently, few months ago, in an interview, he confirmed that this was the case.

And on the basis of these principles, we were ready to draft a treaty.

But then this gentleman who headed the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, he said that Boris Johnson visited them, told them to continue to fight.

Then there was-

Tucker [00:33:54] Boris Johnson on behalf of?

Sergey Lavrov [00:33:57] He said no, but you know, the guy who initialed the paper.

This history is murky. The nature of the accords and Johnson’s supposed role.

He said it was Boris Johnson.

Other people say it was Putin who ruined the deal because of the massacre in Bucha.

But massacre in Bucha is something which they never mentioned any more massacre in Bucha.

Lavrov brings up the massacre in Bucha. Tucker ignores it. The massacre was real. There have been a great number of western witnesses. Can it be so easily swept aside? Without a challenge?

I do.

And we do in the sense they are on the on the defensive several times and the United Nations Security Council sitting at the table with António Guterres.

Two years ago and last year, last year and this year the General Assembly, I raised the issue of Bucha, it is strange that you are silent about the Bucha because you are very vocal when the BBC team found itself on the street where the bodies were located.

And can we I inquired can we get the names of the persons whose bodies were broadcast by the BBC? Total silence.

I addressed António Guterres personally in the presence of the Security Council members.

He did not respond.

Then at my press conference in New York after the end of the General Assembly last September, I asked all the correspondents guys, you are journalists.

Maybe you are not an investigative journalist, but journalists normally are interested to get the truth and butcher thing, which was played all over the media outlets condemning Russia.

Is not of any interest to any of our politicians, UN officials, and now even journalists.

I asked them when I talked to them in September.

Please.

As a professional.

As professional people.

Try to get the names of those who whose bodies were show in Bucha.

No answer.

Just like we don't have any answer to the question, where is the results of medical analysis of Alexei Navalny? Who died recently, but who was treated in Germany in the fall of 2020, one of the few failed beds on the plane over Russia.

The plane landed.

He was treated by the Russian doctors in Siberia.

Then the Germans wanted to take him.

We immediately allowed the plane to come.

They took him in less than 24 hours.

He was he was in Germany.

And then the Germans continued to say that we poisoned you.

And we ask them, can you? And they announced that the analysis confirmed that he was poisoned.

We asked for the for the test, the results to be given to us.

They said no, we give it to organization on chemical weapons.

We went to this organization, we are members, and we said can you show to us because this is our citizen.

We are accused of having poisoned him.

They said the Germans told us not to give it to you.

Because they found nothing in the civilian hospital.

And the announcement that he was poisoned was made after he was treated in the military hospital.

So it seems that this this secret is not going.

Tucker [00:38:04] So how did Navalny die?

More propaganda. Again no skepticm.

Sergey Lavrov [00:38:07] Well, he died in the serving the term in Russia.

But he during as far as it was reported, every now and then, he felt not well, which was another reason why we continue to ask the Germans, can you show us the results which you found? Because we did not find what they found and what they did to him.

I don't know.

Tucker [00:38:34] What the Germans did to him?

Sergey Lavrov [00:38:35] Yeah, because they don't they don't explain to anybody, including us.

Well, maybe they explain to the Americans.

Maybe this is.

This is credible.

But they never told us how they treated him, what they found and what methods they were using.

Tucker [00:38:53] How do you think he died?

Sergey Lavrov [00:38:55] I am not a doctor, but for anybody to guess, even for the doctors to try to guess, they need to have information.

And the person was taken to Germany to be treated after he had been poisoned.

The results of then or the tests cannot be secret.

We still cannot we still cannot get anything credible on the fate of Skripal, Sergei Skripal and his and his daughter.

The information is not provided to us.

He is our citizen.

She's our citizen.

And we have all have all the rights under the conventions which the UK is party to to get information.

Tucker [00:39:47] Why do you think so many threads but why do you think that Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, would have stopped the peace process in Istanbul? On whose behalf was he doing that?

Good question. And, what were the proposals on the table? We have no details.

Sergey Lavrov [00:39:59] Well, I met with him couple of times, and I wouldn't be surprised if if he was motivated by some immediate desire or by some long term strategy.

He's not very predictable.

Tucker [00:40:15] Okay.

Do you think he was acting on behalf of the US government, on behalf of the Biden administration was doing this independently? I mean.

Lavrov [00:40:22] I, I don't know.

I don't know.

And I wouldn't guess the fact that the Americans and the Brits are leading in this in this quote unquote situation is is obvious.

Now, it is becoming also clear that there is a fatigue in some capitals and there are talks every now and then that the Americans would like to leave.

It was the Europeans and to concentrate on something more important.

I wouldn't guess we would we would be judging by specific steps.

It's obvious, though, that the Biden administration would like to leave a legacy to the Trump administration as bad as as they can.

Yes.

And similar to the what Obama did to Trump during his first term, when late December 2016, Obama expelled Russian diplomats just barely.

December, 120 persons and family members did it on purpose, demanded them on leave on the day when there was no direct flights from Washington.

So they had to move to New York by bus with all their luggage, with children and so on and so forth.

And at the same time, Obama announced the arrest of pieces of diplomatic property of Russia.

First mention in this interview of diplomatic property. Obama expulsion of diplomats.

And we still never were able to come and see what is the state of this or this Russian property.

They never allowed us to come and see, though.

And the old convention, they just say that this these pieces we don't see this being covered by diplomatic immunity, which is a unilateral decision never substantiated by any international court.

Tucker [00:42:28] So you believe the Biden administration is doing something similar again to the incoming Trump administration?

Lavrov [00:42:32] Because that episode with the expulsion and the seizure of property certainly did not create the promising ground for beginning of our relations with the Trump administration.

So I think they're doing the same.

Tucker [00:42:50] But this time, President Trump was elected on the explicit promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

So, I mean, he said that in appearance after appearance.

So given that there is hope for a resolution, it sounds like, what are the terms to which you agree? So you believe the Biden administration is doing something similar again to the incoming Trump administration?

Sergey Lavrov [00:43:09] Because that episode with the expulsion and the seizure of property certainly did not create the promising ground for beginning of our relations with the Trump administration.

So I think they're doing the same.

Tucker [00:43:26] But this time, President Trump was elected on the explicit promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine.

So, I mean, he said that in appearance after appearance.

So given that there is hope for a resolution, it sounds like, what are the terms to which you'd agree?

Sergey Lavrov [00:43:47] Well, the terms I basically alluded to them when President Putin spoke in this ministry on the fortunes of June, he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul.

And rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation.

The key principle is the no non block status of Ukraine and we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees.

Terms: Ukraine not part of NATO, Russia is a guarantor of collective security.

And what remains of Ukraine???

Tucker [00:44:35] No, NATO.

Sergey Lavrov [00:44:36] No, NATO.

Absolutely no military bases, No military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign foreign troops.

And this is something which he reiterated.

But, of course, he said it was April 2022, and now some time has passed and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accept the realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian constitution.

After a referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kiev's southern Zapatero's regions.

Yes, and they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution.

Totally illegal by international law. Tucker, you have no questions?

And this is a reality.

And of course, we cannot we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep.

The legislation which a quota prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the U.N. charter.

And somebody must be done about it.

And the fact that the West, since this Russia phobic legislature legislative offensive started in 2017 and the West was totally silent and that this silent until now, of course, we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way.

Tucker [00:46:22] Would dropping sanctions against Russia would be a condition?

Sergey Lavrov [00:46:26] I would say, probably many people in Russia would like to make it a condition.

But the more we leave on the sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on yourself and to develop mechanisms, to develop platforms for cooperation with normal countries who are not unfriendly to you and not and don't mix the economic interests and the policies of especially politics.

And we learned a lot after the sanctions started.

Sanctions started under the Obama.

They continue in a very big way.

And the first term of Trump and this sanctions under the Biden administration are absolutely unprecedented.

But what doesn't kill you makes you stronger, you know, and well.

Nice bluff. But good if sanctions do remain. There is no talk at all about the Russian economy in this interview. It seems relevant.

Sergey Lavrov [00:47:28] They would never kill us.

So they are making us stronger.

Tucker [00:47:32] And driving Russia East.

And so the vision that I think sane policymakers in Washington had 20 years ago is why not bring Russia into a Western bloc? Sort of as a balance against the rising east.

And.

But it doesn't seem like that.

Do you think that's still possible?

Sergey Lavrov [00:47:52] I don't think so.

Recently, Putin was speaking at Valdai Club of political figures and experts.

He said we would never.

Be back at the situation of early 2022.

That's when.

He realized for himself, apparently.

Not only he, but he spoke publicly about this, that all attempts to be.

On equal terms with the West have failed.

It started in after the demise of the Soviet Union.

There was euphoria are now part of the liberal world, the democratic world, the end of history.

But very soon it was it became clear to most of the Russians and that in the 90s we were treated as.

At the best as a junior partner, but maybe not even as a partner, but as a place where the West can organize things.

Like it's like it was striking deals with oligarchs, buying resources and assets.

And then.

Probably the Americans decide that Russia is in their pocket.

Boris Yeltsin.

Bill Clinton.

Buddies, laughing, joking.

But even at the end of Yeltsin's term, he started to contemplate that this was not something he wanted for Russia.

And I think this was a very obvious one.

He.

Appointed Putin prime minister and then left earlier.

And blessed Putin as his successor for the elections which were coming and which Putin won.

But when Putin became president.

He was very much open to cooperation with the West.

And he mentions about this quite, quite regularly when he speaks with interviewers so that some international events.

I was present when he met with George Bush Jr.

With Obama.

Well.

After the meeting of Natal in Bucharest, which was accompanied, which was followed by NATO-Russia meeting summit meeting in 2008, when they announced that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO and then they tried to sell it.

We asked why.

There was lunch and Putin asked what was the reason for this?

Tucker [00:51:21] Good question.

Sergey Lavrov [00:51:22] And they said, you know, this is something which is not obligatory.

How come? Well, you know, to start the process of joining NATO, you need.

A formal invitation.

And this is a slogan.

Ukraine and Georgia will be invited.

But this slogan, you know, became obsession for some people in that release.

First, when Saakashvili lost his senses and started the war against his own people under the protection of OSCE mission with the Russian peacekeepers on the ground.

He was stupid, but he was provoked. This is propaganda with some basis in fact.

And the fact that he launched this was confirmed by the European Union investigation, which they launched and which concluded that he gave the order to stop.

And for Ukrainians, it took a bit longer.

And they were cultivating this pro-Western mood.

Well, pro-Western is not bad.

Basically, pro-Eastern also not bad.

What is bad is that you tell people either or.

Either you go with me or you're my enemy.

And what happened before the coup in Ukraine in 2013? The president of Ukraine.

There was Mr.

Yanukovych, negotiated with the European Union some association agreement which would nullify tariffs on most of the Ukrainian goods to the European Union and the other way around.

And at some point, when he was meeting with his Russian counterparts, we told him, you have already Ukraine had.

Was part of the free trade area of the Commonwealth of Independent states.

No tariffs for everybody.

And we, Russia, negotiated agreement with a World Trade Organization.

For some 15, 17 years, mostly because we bargained with the European Union and we achieved some protection for many of our sectors.

Agriculture.

Some others.

And we explained to the Ukrainians that if you go zero.

In your trade with the European Union, we would have to protect our customs border with you as Ukraine.

Otherwise, the zero tariff European goods would flood and would be hurting our industries, which we try to protect and agreed.

For some protection there we suggested to the European Union guys, Ukraine is our common neighbor.

You want to have better trade with Ukraine.

We want to see Ukraine, want to have markets both in Europe and in Russia.

Why don't we see three of us and discuss it like grown ups? The head of the European Council Commission Commission was the Portuguese.

Barroso was his name.

And he responded.

You know, it's not none of your business what we do with the Ukraine.

We, for example, with the European Union, we don't ask you to discuss with us your trade with China.

Absolutely arrogant answer.

And then the president of Ukraine, Yanukovich, he convinces experts and the experts said, yes, it would be not very good if we have opened the border with with the European Union, but the customs border with Russia would be would be closed and they would be checking, you know, what what is coming so that the Russian market is not is not affected.

And he.

Announced in November 2013 that he cannot sign the deal immediately, and he asked the European Union to postpone it for next year until next year.

That was the the trigger for Maidan, which was immediately thrown up and ended by by by the coup.

My point is that this either or actually the first the first coup took place in 2004, when after the second round of elections, the same Mr.

Yanukovich won presidency.

The West raised hell and the.

Put pressure on the constitutional court of Ukraine to rule that there must be a third round.

And the constitution of Ukraine says.

Two rounds in the Constitutional Court under the pressure of the West, violated the Constitution for the first time then and promised and no candidate was was chosen at that time.

When all of this was taking place and boiling, the European leaders were publicly saying Ukrainian people must decide, are they with us or with Russia? This either or is is still very much, very much.

Tucker [00:57:09] But it is the way that big countries behave.

I mean, there are certain orbits and now it's BRICs versus U.S. versus China.

And it sounds like you're saying the Russian and Chinese alliance is permanent.

Sergey Lavrov [00:57:21] Well, we are neighbors.

We are neighbors.

And the geography is very important.

Tucker [00:57:26] But you're also neighbors with Western Europe.

We learned that in effect.

Sergey Lavrov [00:57:30] Well through Ukraine and the Western Europe wants to come to our borders.

And there were plans that, you know, were discussed almost openly to put British naval bases on the Azov.

Crimea was I, you know, dreaming about creating NATO base in Crimea and so on and so forth.

If we want look, we have been very friendly with Finland, for example.

Overnight, the Finns came back to early years of preparation for World War Two when they were best allies of Hitler.

And all this, all this neutrality, all this friendship going to sound all together, playing hooky together, all this disappeared overnight.

So maybe this was deep in their hearts and the neutrality was burdening them and niceties were burdening for them.

I don't know.

Tucker [00:58:38] That's totally possible.

Can you negotiate with Zelensky? You've pointed out that he has exceeded his term.

He's not, you know, democratically elected president of Ukraine anymore.

This is a canard. The Ukrainian people support him, in general, despite having had no election.

So do you consider him a suitable partner for negotiations?

There is no alternative.

Sergey Lavrov [00:58:54] Putin addressed this issue as well many times.

In September 2022, during the first year of the special operation Zelensky in his.

Conviction that she would be dictating the terms of the situation.

Also to the west, he signed the decree prohibiting any negotiations with.

Putin's government.

And when during public events after that episode, Putin is asked why Russia is not ready for negotiations, he said, don't turn it upside down.

We are ready for negotiations provided that will be based on the balance of interest tomorrow.

But.

Zelensky signed this decree prohibiting negotiations.

And for starters, why don't you tell him to cancel it publicly? This will be a signal that he wants negotiations.

Instead, Zelinsky invented his peace formula later.

It was a decision by the victory plan.

And they keep saying, We know what they what they say when they meet with the European Union ambassadors and in other formats they see.

No deal unless the deal is on our terms.

And the I mentioned to you that they are planning now with this second summit on the basis of these peace formula.

And they don't shy away from saying we will invite Russia to do to put in front of it the deal which we agreed already with the West.

And when our Western colleagues sometimes say nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.

In effect, this implies that anything about Russia without Russia because they they discuss what kind of conditions we must accept.

By the way, recently.

They already violate, basically the concept nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.

There are passes, there are messages.

They know our position.

We are not playing the double game.

What Putin announced is the goal of our operation.

Its sphere is fully in line with the United Nations Charter.

First of all, the rights, language rights, minority rights, national minority rights, religious rights and is fully in line with oil.

See Principle.

There is an organization for security and cooperation in Europe which is still alive.

And the summit of this organization will several summits of this organization clearly stated that security must be indivisible.

That nobody should expense his security at the expense of security of others.

And that most important, no organization in the Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance.

This was last time it was confirmed by, let's see, 2010.

And nature was doing exactly the opposite.

Yes.

So we have.

We have.

Legitimacy, you know, in our position, no NATO on our doorsteps because all you see, you know, agreed that this should not be the case if if it hurts us.

And please restore the rights of Russians.

Tucker [01:02:57] Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the United States? This is a question in the United States.

Sergey Lavrov [01:03:03] Who I wouldn't guess.

I haven't seen Tony Blinken for four years.

Two years ago, I think at the G-20 summit.

Was it in the room or somewhere in the margins? In the margins? He's his assistant.

I was representing Putin, and his assistant came up to me during a meeting and said that Tony wants to talk just for ten minutes.

I left the room.

We shook hands and he said something about the need to de-escalate and so on and so forth.

I hope he's not going to be angry with me since I am disclosing this.

But we were meeting in front of many people present in the room and I said, We don't want to escalate.

You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia? He said, No, no, no, no, it is not it is not strategic defeat globally.

It is only in Ukraine.

The initial war aim was only to get Russia to go back to its own borders.

Russia’s obstinate refusal to do so, to negotiate, has led the west to the conclusion that Russia will remain a threat until it is defeated.

Russia’s neighbors to the west, the new NATO members Finland and Sweden, along with the Baltics and Poland, are now convinced that Russia may be defeated.

The question Tucker does not ask is, how long can Russia keep this up? It appears to be short on every kind of resource. Does Tucker accept Russia’s might at face value? Without question?

Tucker [01:04:02] You've not spoken to him since? No.

Spoken or exchanged communications. They have communicated.

Have you spoken to any officials in the Biden administration since then?

Sergey Lavrov [01:04:11] I don't want to ruin their career.

Tucker [01:04:14] But have you had meaningful conversations?

Sergey Lavrov [01:04:17] No.

No.

Not at all.

No, I when you know, when I met in international events, one with another person whom I know.

An American.

Tucker [01:04:33] Yeah.

Sergey Lavrov [01:04:35] Some of them say hello.

Some of them exchange few words.

But I never impose myself before.

Tucker [01:04:42] But nothing meaningful is becoming contagious.

Sergey Lavrov [01:04:44] You know, when they see when somebody sees an American talking to me or a European talking to me.

Europeans running away when they see me during the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous.

Grown up people, mature people, they behave like like kids.

So childish and unbelievable.

Tucker [01:05:13] So you said that when in 2016, in December, the Obama administration left a bunch of bombs basically for the incoming Trump administration in the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region that, you know, in Georgia and ruse in Romania.

And then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil.

Does this seem like.

Part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult.

Sergey Lavrov [01:05:52] There is nothing new, frankly, because the US historically in foreign policy was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water of Iraqi aggression.

The Libyan adventure ruining the state, basically fleeing from Afghanistan, now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations, you know, to organize some event where the US can be present in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money or don't want to to to to give it back.

I think this is if you if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, ventures most of them is the right word, and that's that's the pattern.

They create some trouble and then they see how to use it.

In Georgia, the OSC monitors elections when it used to monitor elections and the Russia, they would always be very negative.

And other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan.

This time in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSC presented the positive report.

And that is being ignored.

So when When you need.

Endorsement of the procedures.

You do it when you like the results of the election.

If you don't like the results of elections, you ignore it.

It's like when the United States and other Western countries recognized a unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo.

They said this is the self determination being implemented when a few years later and there was no referendum in Kosovo, a unilateral declaration of independence, by the way, after that, the Serbs approached the International Court of Justice, which ruled that, well, normally they are not very specific, you know, in their in their judgment, but they ruled that unilateral or other when part of a territory declares independence.

It is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities.

And when few years later Crimeans were holding a referendum with the invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in the post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity.

This is a misrepresentation. The Crimean referendum was tightly controlled, and contradicted earlier referenda conducted when The Autonomous Republic of Crimea was a special jurisdiction within Ukraine.

Tucker [01:09:21] Right.

Sergey Lavrov [01:09:22] You have you know, you pick and choose.

The U.N. charter is not a menu.

You have to respect it in all its entirety.

Tucker [01:09:31] So what who's paying? The rebels who've taken parts of Aleppo? Is the Assad government in danger of falling? What is happening exactly, in your view, in Syria?

Sergey Lavrov [01:09:42] Well, we had the deal when this crisis started, and we are organized the Astana process of Russia, Turkey and Iran.

We meet regularly and another meeting is being planned before the end of the year or early next year to discuss the situation on the ground.

And the rules of the game is to help Syrians to come to terms with each other and to prevent.

Doesn’t answer the question.

We separate stress from from, you know, getting strong.

That's what the Americans are doing in the east of Syria when they grew, some Kurdish separatists using the profits from oil and the grain, the salt, which they the resources which they occupy.

This Astana format is a useful combination of players, if you wish, and we're very much concerned after this happened with Aleppo and surroundings.

Had the conversation with the Turkish Minister of Foreign Affairs and with the Iranian colleague we agreed to try to meet this week.

Tucker [01:11:15] Did you see it coming?

Sergey Lavrov [01:11:16] Hopefully in Doha in the margins of this international conference? We would like to discuss the need to come back to strict implementation of the deals on Idlib area because Idlib de-escalation zone was the place from where the terrorists moved to take Aleppo.

And the arrangements reached in 2019 and 2020 provided for our Turkish friends to control the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone and to separate the here, the Russian former Nusra from the opposition, which is non terrorist and which cooperates with Turkey.

Apparently it is not yet.

It is not yet.

And another deal was the opening of M5, a route from Damascus to Aleppo, which is also now taken completely by the terrorists.

So we as ministers of foreign affairs will discuss the situation, hopefully this coming Friday.

And the military of all three countries and the security people are in contact.

Tucker [01:12:39] The Islamist groups, the terrorists you just described.

Who is backing them?

Sergey Lavrov [01:12:44] Well, we have some information and we would like to discuss with all our partners in this and this process the way to cut the channels of of financing and arming them.

The Information which is being floated and it's in the public in the public domain, mentions the Americans, the Brits, among others.

The western press says that the rebels, though anti-Russian, are not friends of the west and are not being supported by the West. It appears to be Erdogan supporting his own agenda, which is definitely not that of the West.

Some people say that Israel is interested in in, you know, making this situation aggravate so that Gaza is not under very close scrutiny.

It's a complicated game.

Many, many actors are involved.

And I hope that the context which we are planning for this week will help stabilize the situation.

Tucker [01:13:47] What do you think of Donald Trump?

Sergey Lavrov [01:13:51] I met him several times when he was having meetings with Putin and when he received me twice, I think, in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks.

Well, I think he's a very strong person.

The person who wants results.

Who doesn't like procrastination on on anything.

And.

This is this is my impression.

He's very friendly in, you know.

Discussions.

But this does not mean that he's that he's pro-Russian, as some people try to present him.

The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very, very, very big.

And we respect any any choice which is made by the people.

When they vote and respect the choice of American people.

And we are open as Putin said we are open to contacts with.

We have been open all along with the current administration, and we hope that when Joe Biden or when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand what the ball is, which and said this on this side we never see here though.

Contact so those in the economy trade on security on anything.

Tucker [01:15:40] And my final question is how sincerely worried are you about an escalation in conflict between Russia and the United States? Knowing what you do?

Sergey Lavrov [01:15:50] Well, we started with this question.

The more or less.

Tucker [01:15:53] It seems the central question.

Sergey Lavrov [01:15:56] Yes.

And the Europeans say they whisper to each other, that it is not for Zelensky to dictate the terms of the deal.

It's for the US and Russia.

I don't think we should be presenting our relations.

As you know, two guys decide for everybody.

Not at all.

It is not.

It is not our style.

We prefer the manners which dominate and BRICs and Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where the UN Charter principle of sovereign equality of states is really important.

The US is not used to respect the sovereign equality of states.

The United States, you know, when they say we cannot allow Russia to build on Ukraine because this would undermine our rules based world order and the rules based will go that is American domination.

Now, by the way, NATO, at least under the Biden administration, is eyeing the entire Eurasian continent.

Indian Pacific Strategies.

South China Sea.

East China Sea is already on.

NATO's urgent nature is moving infrastructure.

There are, of course, building cavorted in the Pacific Four they call it Japan, Australia and New Zealand, South Korea.

US, South Korea and Japan are building military alliance with some nuclear components.

So.

And Stoltenberg, the former secretary general of NATO, said, last year after the summit, which he said Euro-Atlantic security is indivisible from Indo-Pacific security.

When he was asked the does it mean that you go beyond territorial defense? No, no, no.

It doesn't go beyond territorial defense.

But to defend our territory, we need to be present there.

This element of preemption is more and more present.

But with the United States, we don't want war with anybody.

And as I said, nuclear.

Five nuclear states.

Declared the top level in January 2022, that we don't want confrontation with each other and that we shall respect each other's security interests and concerns.

And it also stated that nuclear war is a nuclear war can never be won, and therefore a nuclear war is not possible.

And the same was reiterated by literally between Russia and the United States, Putin, Biden when they met in 21 in Geneva.

In June.

Basically, they reproduced the statement by Reagan and Gorbachev of 1987.

They think no nuclear war.

And this is of absolutely, you know, a vital interest.

And they hope that this is also in vital interests of the United States.

I say so because some time ago, Mr.

Kirby, who is White House communications coordinator or whatever, he was asking questions, answering questions and about escalation and about the possibility of nuclear weapons being employed.

And he said, no, no, we don't want escalation because if there is some nuclear element, then European allies would suffer.

So even mentally.

He excludes that the United States is going to suffer.

I think this is a stretch.

And this is something which makes the situation a bit risky.

It might.

If this mentality prevails, then some reckless steps would be taken.

And this is bad.

Tucker [01:20:34] So what I think you're saying is American policymakers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn't directly affect the United States.

Tucker buys the above stretch.

And you're saying that's not true?

Sergey Lavrov [01:20:45] That's what I said.

Yes.

No, but you know, professionals in deterrence, nuclear deterrence policy.

They know very well that it's a very dangerous game.

And to speak about a limit that the exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster, which we don't want to have.

Tucker [01:21:13] Mr.

Lavrov, thank you very much.