Question: If we look at the Cuban Missile Crisis, why do you think the United States attempted to deploy its missiles in the direct vicinity of our borders? In what way was the Soviet Union threatened by the deployment of US middle-range missiles in Türkiye in the 1960s?

Sergey Lavrov: The United States was not just attempting it; it had actually deployed its Jupiter middle-range missiles in Türkiye and Italy. I am mentioning Italy because the missiles, if launched from that country, had sufficient range to cover much of European Russia. Their flight time from Türkiye to Moscow is ten-odd minutes, as it was believed at that time. It is this factor that triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis, rather than what the Western historiography seeks to present as its cause, seeing the root of the problem in Russia deploying its missiles on Cuba. We were just responding to what the United States had already done in the USSR’s backyard.

If we distance ourselves from the threat of a US aggression against Cuba – and it was quite real, with very real attempts made – the main military-strategic problem was the “deployment” [of US nuclear weapons] in direct vicinity of the USSR’s borders. At that time, the US possessed, apart from the Jupiter missiles, 4,500 nuclear warheads, or several times more than the overall number of nuclear munitions available to the USSR. A factor of no small importance was that Jupiter was viewed both by the USSR and the West as a first-strike system. Given this, the decisions taken at that juncture were prompted by the existence of real threats to this country’s security.

The United States took the situation quite seriously, as is testified by the memoirs of eyewitnesses who were present in the Oval Office during a conversation between President John F. Kennedy and his aides. Kennedy was saying that he did not understand why Khrushchev had to deploy missiles in Cuba. The Soviet leader should realise, he said, that this was the same for the United States as if the Americans deployed their missiles in Türkiye.  A surprised aide told him that this was what the United States had actually done. I hope that in the present-day situation, President Joe Biden will have a better understanding of who and how issues orders. 

Question: How similar are the situations in the 1960s and now in the event of an escalation in Ukraine? In both cases, we can clearly see that the United States is seeking to be the hegemon. To what extent can the Cuban Missile Crisis experience help us here and now?

Sergey Lavrov: Some similarity is certainly in evidence. Like in 1962, the case in point is creating direct threats to Russia’s security right on its borders. Today, this threat is even closer than the Jupiter missiles deployed in Türkiye. A military campaign is in progress, designed to supply Ukraine with all types of weapons. There is serious talk about the need to strengthen NATO’ nuclear capability in addition to the five countries that already have US tactical nuclear weapons on their territory. Poland is urging the Americans to deploy their nuclear bombs on its territory. This situation is highly alarming. 

The difference is that in the far-away 1962, Khrushchev and Kennedy rose to the challenge and displayed responsibility and wisdom, whereas now we see no such readiness on the part of either Washington or its satellites.   There are numerous examples. To begin with, the chance for talks that materialised at the meeting in Istanbul in late March, was destroyed – we can now assert this – on direct orders from Washington.   

The United States, NATO, and the EU continue ranting about the need to defeat Russia “on the battlefield.” As you have justly said, this is motivated by Washington’s absolute inability to renounce the desire to rule all and sundry. If earlier they sang, “Britannia, rule the waves,” today, America wants to sing, “America, rule the planet.” President of Russia Vladimir Putin said this explicitly, clearly, and unequivocally in his remarks at the Kremlin, when agreements were signed between Russia and the four new constituent entities of the Russian Federation.  And this is the main difference.

Will Europe have enough sense of responsibility? After all, the Europeans are suffering from the economic sanctions on a much greater scale than the United States.  A growing number of economists both in Russia and in the West come to the conclusion that the United States intends to bleed dry and de-industrialise the European economy. The Germans are relocating a lot of their businesses to the US with all the ensuing consequences for the EU’s long-term competitiveness.  Weakening Europe militarily is also in line with Washington’s interests. It wants to keep Europe constantly under strain and make it rush weapons to Ukraine, while filling EU countries’ arms depots with US supplies. We understand all this. What we have here are the combined economic, purely selfish calculations and ideological superiority complexes.

Question: There is a point of view that in the 1960s, decisions were taken by men who had participated in World War II and knew what it was all about. Decision-making in America today is the job of politicians who basically have never been in combat, and this is more dangerous because it is sobering to understand the consequences of war. What is your attitude to this?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a universal topic for both the Americans and the Europeans. But in Russia there are no politicians who have been directly involved in a war either. 

The difference is that a considerable number of our citizens come from families who, in one way or another, were part of the Great Patriotic War, who suffered, and lost family members. This memory is sacred because of the huge number of war casualties and the self-sacrifice demonstrated by the multi-ethnic Soviet people. It is this that makes us distinct from those who are so light-minded on the subject of nuclear weapons.

Mr Biden himself was born during World War II and he knows that this subject has evoked serious debate in the post-war period. At that time, it did have an influence on the US political establishment. But the rest of the administration are people without memories like this. At least, this is what one can take from their effort to step up the confrontation with Russia, and their claims that “Ukraine not winning is unacceptable,” and many other things. 

Europe also has new-mentality “politicians” that try to “juggle,” in a rather irresponsible manner, the topic of nuclear weapons. In February of this year, then French foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, gave a “reminder” that Russia should not forget about NATO having nuclear weapons as well. The Commander-in-Chief of the German Air Force, Ingo Gerhartz, “suddenly” went on record as saying that NATO should prepare for a nuclear war and the use of nuclear weapons. Addressing President Vladimir Putin, he said: Don’t you dare vie with us. A highly indicative statement coming from a German!

We came to feel long ago, long before the start of the special military operation, that in contacts with us, our German colleagues, using different methods and expressions, sent us this clear message: “Dear colleagues, we Germans have settled our accounts with everyone for everything and no longer owe anyone anything. So, stop reproaching us for what happened in World War II.” This is a rather dangerous approach. Many people in Germany, including its foreign minister, try to claim that the Germans will never forget the crimes committed by their predecessors under Hitler during the Third Reich. But in the same breath, they continue to insist that they have settled the score with everyone.

I am not taking into consideration the subject of war reparations that the Greeks put on the agenda after Poland. I am talking about the responsibility for the continent’s peaceful development and for the non-resurgence of Nazism, which, regrettably, is being rapidly revived, primarily in German-supported Ukraine. President Vladimir Zelensky’s statement that it was a mistake to give up nuclear weapons (he said this in February this year) has evoked no condemnatory response from his Western patrons. 

Question: What shall we do? Khrushchev and Kennedy, as you said, came to terms during the Cuban Missile Crisis. What is the way, as you see it, to de-escalate the conflict so that Russia can keep its legal standing, maintain its national security and remain “detached?” What can be done if our Western partners refuse to negotiate? 

Sergey Lavrov: President Vladimir Putin repeatedly said that we have never refused, nor were refusing to negotiate. He warned that those who declined talks, like Ukraine did pursuant to direct orders from its Western sponsors, must understand that the longer they drag their feet on negotiations, the harder it will be for them to come to an agreement with us. In his remarks at the Kremlin on September 30 of this year, Vladimir Putin once again called on the Kiev regime to stop hostilities and sit down at the negotiating table. But the West turned a deaf ear to this call once again. Vladimir Zelensky, for his part, declared that he would not talk with the current Russian President. He even signed an executive order forbidding him from doing this. He was a comedian, but comedies are irrelevant in times like this. The events in Ukraine are increasingly tragic because of what is going on with this regime, which enjoys total impunity under the West.

Russia’s willingness to talk remains unchanged. The same goes for President Vladimir Putin. The Americans and certain other Western colleagues, who have requested telephone conversations with the Russian leader, have approached with several initiatives over the past six months. Some foreign ministers have contacted me with the same demand. We always agree to and will always be ready to hear Western colleagues’ proposals on reducing tensions.

Starting in February 2014, we saw no activity in this regard. The first instinct of the new regime following the bloody coup was to eliminate the status of the Russian language as held in the law, to expel the Russians from Crimea, etc.  For a long seven years after the signing of the Minsk agreements, all our reminders and appeals to the Kiev regime to implement them ran into a wall of silence.  Obviously, it was hoped that Zelensky would be able to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity by force. And he did not conceal the fact that Kiev intended to do this. In fact, the Ukrainian president started to implement this Plan B in February of this year, when artillery attacks on Donbass were stepped up with unprecedented intensity. This was the last straw. We could not take any decision other than to defend the people of Donbass.

We are always ready to listen to our Western colleagues if they come to us with yet another request for a dialogue. I hope they will be able to suggest some serious approach that will help ease tensions and take into account all the Russian Federation’s security interests instead of repeating the propaganda they publicly convey in contacts or via diplomatic and other channels. We have tried for decades to formalise this through international legal means. The last attempt was in December 2021 when we suggested that the Americans and NATO sign a European security treaty with us aimed at guaranteeing the legitimate security interests of all European countries, including Ukraine, without NATO membership, as well as the interests of the Russian Federation.   

If they come to us with realistic proposals based on the principles of equality and respect for the interests of all parties, proposals aimed at a search for compromise and a balance of interests of all countries in the region, we, as has always been the case, will always be available.