Good afternoon,

Knowledge is always a great thing. If by speaking to you, we are helping you receive additional knowledge, it’s already important. This is all the more important since you will soon lead the country no matter where you go – government service, business, journalism or a creative occupation. Knowledge is never excessive. It always helps to be erudite and well versed in any situation, any career or employment related problem.

I would like to say a few words before we go to interactive communication. The main goal of diplomacy, as written in the Concept of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, is to do everything we can to ensure favourable external conditions for promoting national development, raising living standards and supporting our economic operators in the world arena. In his recent Address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin emphasised that we primarily orient our interests towards ensuring peace and security for the wellbeing of our citizens. We will reach these goals exclusively along the lines of international law. We will always be ready for an open, free and, most importantly, equitable dialogue with any country that is willing to cooperate with us under the same honest conditions. The overwhelming majority of foreign countries in Eurasia, Latin America and Africa hold the same position, realising the need for justice and equality in international affairs, and the search for a balance of interests. It is in this vein that we build our relations in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO), the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), and BRICS, to name a few.

Mathematically speaking, the countries with which we are building relations on the same principle (those that reciprocate and are guided by international law) account for about 80 percent of the world's population. But we are not dismissing the remaining 20 percent either. We are ready to speak with them as well, but only on the same conditions as I mentioned – mutual respect, equality in rights and consideration for each other's concerns and interests. That is, not a one-way street, as we say in Russia.

I think you are active on social media, where you read how our Western partners see their relations with Russia. Many in the West and in our country too are beginning to promote the idea that Russian leaders prioritise so-called great-power ambitions on the international stage, not their citizens’ interests. This is the reason that Russia allegedly finds itself ‘in isolation,’ ‘is losing friends, allies,’ and all of that is ‘damaging’ our economy, ‘hurting people’s welfare’ and ‘narrowing the opportunities’ for various exchanges, contacts, etc., including for young people, they emphasise. The subtext here is that the most important thing is to be full, and any other great-power ambitions interfere with this. They suggest things would be right for us if we were friends with the West. Well, we are willing to be friends with the West, but, I will stress this again, only if we keep our own dignity, something we inherited from our ancestors over the centuries and millennia of our country's history. The welfare of our citizens is the main goal of Russia’s foreign policy. But we cannot move towards that goal while completely dismissing our history, the traditions laid down by our predecessors, our history, which is valuable and precious for every Russian.

We have always relied on our national pride (this is a very important attribute; not all nations have it), on our patriotism, including the defence of justice and a willingness to help the weak. These are the greatest human qualities. If we admire them in our everyday life, then, undoubtedly, they should be manifested in our position on the international stage, where it is not about human relationships, but about interstate contacts.

Those that say, “if we were friends with the West, everything would be alright,” miss several important points. First, the world has already stopped being West-oriented. The 500-year era of Western domination has ended. The centre of world policy and economic development has moved from the Euro-Atlantic region to Eurasia, our enormous continent. New geopolitical players are protecting their right to be part of addressing key issues of international life; they are growing and have become strong based on their unique civilisational and cultural identity and their historical experience. This means the multilateralism we protect is a fait accompli. The world is multilateral. There is no single pole or two poles that decide everything like during the Soviet era, when the USSR and the US decided almost everything between themselves. Today, there are many poles, and all of them should find agreement with each other. This is more complicated then dealing with everything alone or in a narrow circle of those who never argue with you.

The West likes to address all the issues in its own circle and call it real multilateralism saying that these are true democratic unions. They invite everyone else to join in the definitions made in the circle of these “democratic” countries. Frankly, this shows disrespect to everyone else and a superiority complex, like “we know what to do and how to do it.”

The European Union declared an “effective multilateralism.” We asked them why multilateralism should be limited to the European Union. After all, we have the UN with its Charter, many conventions, and resolutions, which are all the result of discussions, compromises, and consensus. They answer simply: “Well, you know, we are still much more developed democratically and in terms of promoting values.” Indelicate, to put it mildly. However, decisions developed by all states, primarily within the UN, are more difficult to achieve, and it is more difficult to agree on them. More participants means more opinions and more difficulty in reaching compromise. But when you agree universally about something that suits everyone, these decisions are much more sustainable and reliable and last longer.

Those who urge us to do things according to Western standards (besides the fact that the West is far from omnipotent) forget one more thing. You probably don’t remember, but you must have read about it. In the 1990s, Russia tended to be unprecedentedly open to dialogue with the West: “Let's be friends. Now our recent history is over and everything in the world will be sunny, without any difficulties and crises.” There was no answer. The West regarded this as a weakness: the former Soviet Union (now Russia) and all other former Soviet republics lost the Cold War and now can be consolidated into the concepts the West needs, which it does not discuss with anyone else. The awareness that this is a destructive path has come. Since 2000, when we set ourselves up to cooperate with everyone, we have never lost our self-esteem.

Today, we occupy positions that are recognised by everyone in the world. All countries respect them, but some fear the emergence of an important sustainable international player (as was the case with the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union). They feel it is necessary to “pester” it, to irritate it, to prevent it from feeling calm, and to let the West go on creating processes aimed at artificially keeping its lead in the world, primarily in the economy, rather than doing it naturally like it has been for over the past 500 years. Illegal sanctions are used for this purpose. They have already become common for the West (the culture of diplomacy has been largely lost). Ultimatums are given in virtually any area of human endeavour, whether it’s the economy or military-technical cooperation. The Americans are openly compelling countries that have agreements on purchasing combat hardware with us to give them up and buy their weapons. Look what is happening in sports. The Americans are no longer content with WADA. They have adopted their own Rodchenkov Act, according to which anyone who defeats an American athlete at international competitions must be checked for doping. Anyone found guilty will be arrested by US law-enforcement bodies. The feeling of reality is obviously lost. I am hoping this will pass.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and I discussed many things in Iceland yesterday. I was very open and he was, too. He listened to me attentively and set forth his positions that continuously included grievances against Russia over “interference in “the election” or hackers’ attacks on some important systems. I reminded him that for all the years that we have been hearing these accusations, we have been asking the Americans to provide just one piece of evidence, any proof of “our misdeeds.” Unfortunately, his answers were strange. He told me that we already know everything and that they cannot tell us anything because it’s classified. So what are we talking about then?

To sum up, we live in a difficult world, my dear friends. You must be tempered before you start to function fully in this life. I would be very happy if we can help you with this.

I am happy to answer any questions.

Question: Before asking my question, I would like to sincerely thank you for years of selfless service upholding our country’s national interests.

My question concerns the prevailing world order system. You did cover this in great detail in your speech. Will the Yalta-Potsdam system continue into the future? You and our President are saying that the UN, as the main institution ensuring the current world order, must remain in place. What prospects do you see in your post over the next 30 years? How might the balance of power in the international arena change, and what role will Russia play in it?

Sergey Lavrov: I’m not a clairvoyant. I don’t think any serious politician would agree to proffer a detailed outline of the international relations system 20 to 30 years from now. But you have pointed out the goals that we will strive to uphold. The outcomes of WWII are incontrovertible. One outcome was the rejection of any whitewashing of the Nazis and their henchmen, which is what some states are now trying to do. Another important outcome was the creation of the UN in its current form, including the Security Council, where the five great powers have the right of veto. The Americans insisted on the right to veto when the UN was created, because the League of Nations, which existed before the UN and before WWII, fell apart precisely because the Americans were not interested in it. They were unable to stop the processes they found to be “harmful” for them.

Efforts are underway to repeal or to limit the right of veto. The veto is not a privilege, but an enormous responsibility. This provision was introduced into the UN Charter precisely because everyone realised that if any great power considers a particular proposal unacceptable, it is better not to push it forward. Our French colleagues are now saying: “Let’s voluntarily limit the use of the right of veto when it comes to widespread violation of human rights, genocide, or war crimes.” This is a very slippery slope. We asked them: “What is the cut-off line for this voluntary restriction? If 100 people die, we give up the right of veto, but if 99, then we don’t?” This is a dogmatic approach, and it's wrong. And politics is much more complicated than such a straightforward approach.

Second, in fact, the Security Council no longer reflects the global balance of power. Talks to expand it have been underway for a couple of decades. Our position is very simple: the developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America should receive additional seats in this body. The West and those who share positions with it - allies of the United States - cannot claim additional seats in the UN Security Council. Already, out of 15 members, six are from the Western world. Probably, that’s enough. We need to straighten these imbalances, not exacerbate injustice.

Finally, the third achievement is international law, which builds on the principles that underlie the UN Charter, primarily the sovereignty of the state, non-interference in domestic affairs, and peaceful settlement of disputes. The sovereign equality of states as per the Charter is a standard of life that cannot be sacrificed. But our Western colleagues don’t like this. So, they haven’t even used the term “international law” over the past several years. They say everyone must respect a rules-based world order. When we ask them how this is different from international law, they tend to provide varying explanations. Their point is that these “democratic” countries will establish the rules themselves. They will be the ones to determine the circle of “democracy” of their own accord. US President Joseph Biden announced that he wants to convene a Summit for Democracy this summer, or early autumn. They themselves will decide who will be invited. So, here’s our answer to this: indeed, there must be rules, but the entire UN is based on the rules enshrined in the Charter, and these are universal rules. Rules formed by a small group of allies will only lead to a breakup and more dividing lines.

So, yes, this system must be respected, maintained and strengthened. Just like any other organization, the UN is a living organism, not some kind of abstract notion. These are 193 member nations. It must be adapted to changes, but in a way where changes are based on consensus. In this way, it would convey the opinion of the entire international community. The permanent members’ responsibilities will not go anywhere. Russia and the United States are the largest nuclear powers. The other three nuclear powers - China, France and Great Britain - also enjoy great presence on the international stage. Because these five nations have a special responsibility, President Vladimir Putin proposed convening a summit of the leaders of the UN Security Council’s five permanent members. Unfortunately, the pandemic has postponed any such plan. We are now holding consultations on this matter. We will try to convene it, the epidemiological situation permitting.

To be continued...