Читать на русском
Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article
Sergey Lavrov

Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Chairman of Board of Trustees of RIAC

The fundamental assessments of the international situation in the past few years, our actions, policy and goals on the international stage have been presented in detail during President Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference on December 19, 2024. Before it, he regularly spoke about international issues in his other statements, including at a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club and at other events. I will not focus on the international events that constituted the essence of our operation and initiatives.

However, I would like to remind you, as we pointed out on many occasions, that we are living in a historical period, or possibly a historical era or confrontation between those who uphold the fundamental principles of international law (and the world order that developed after Victory over Nazism and Japanese militarism in the Second World War), which have been formulated, set out and put forth in the most important international document – the UN Charter – and those who are not satisfied with that document and who decided after the end of the Cold War that the deed is done and that their main opponent – the Soviet Union – and the accompanying socialist camp have been finally suppressed. They decided that from that time on they could not live in accordance with the UN Charter but with the wishes of the “political West,” which includes the US’s Asian allies (Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea). We regard them as “political” or “collective West.” Regarding themselves as victors in the Cold War, they decided that they no longer needed to coordinate their actions with a strong opponent such as the Soviet Union, and that they would decide all issues independently, issuing instructions from the top down, just as it was done in the Soviet Union’s party system (the Politburo, the Central Committee, regional party committees, district party committees, etc.).

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during a news conference on the performance of Russian diplomacy in 2024.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to wish everyone present a happy New Year and a Merry Christmas to all those who celebrate this holiday. I would also like to wish everyone who have a sense of humour a happy New Year Old Style, which we celebrated yesterday and which certainly added a few positive notes to everyday routine, which is a fact of life and which we will be mostly talking about today.

The fundamental assessments of the international situation in the past few years, our actions, policy and goals on the international stage have been presented in detail during President Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference on December 19, 2024. Before it, he regularly spoke about international issues in his other statements, including at a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club and at other events. I will not focus on the international events that constituted the essence of our operation and initiatives.

However, I would like to remind you, as we pointed out on many occasions, that we are living in a historical period, or possibly a historical era or confrontation between those who uphold the fundamental principles of international law (and the world order that developed after Victory over Nazism and Japanese militarism in the Second World War), which have been formulated, set out and put forth in the most important international document – the UN Charter – and those who are not satisfied with that document and who decided after the end of the Cold War that the deed is done and that their main opponent – the Soviet Union – and the accompanying socialist camp have been finally suppressed. They decided that from that time on they could not live in accordance with the UN Charter but with the wishes of the “political West,” which includes the US’s Asian allies (Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea). We regard them as “political” or “collective West.” Regarding themselves as victors in the Cold War, they decided that they no longer needed to coordinate their actions with a strong opponent such as the Soviet Union, and that they would decide all issues independently, issuing instructions from the top down, just as it was done in the Soviet Union’s party system (the Politburo, the Central Committee, regional party committees, district party committees, etc.).

At that time, the PRC had not yet achieved the kind of tremendous economic success and political influence that we see today, so the West did not encounter any serious resistance. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about this, convincingly and at length, explaining the true root causes of the conflict that left us no other choice. We had to begin the special military operation in Ukraine to repel an attack, a war waged against us by the collective West with the main goal of suppressing competition when Russia re-emerged as its strong rival on the international arena. I will not list these reasons in detail. Their main goal was to weaken our country geopolitically, creating direct military threats to us – not somewhere across the ocean, but right on our borders, on Russia’s native territories toiled by Russians and developed by Russian tsars and their associates, in an attempt to slash our strategic potential and devalue it as much as possible. The second reason also has to do with the history of the region, only it was more about the people who have lived on that land for centuries, developed it from scratch, built cities, factories and ports, than about the land itself. These people were labelled ‘terrorists’ by the current Ukrainian regime, which came to power through an illegal anti-constitutional coup. And when they refused to accept it, that regime launched an all-out offensive against all things Russian, which provided a centuries-old framework for the region where people refused to obey the new Nazis.

Now we are witnessing the height of this battle. I am sure that there will be questions about it, so I will not go into detail right now. However, I would like to reiterate the main conflict of the current historical period – something that professors always pointed out in Soviet history courses. The main conflict is between those who support a multipolar world, the UN Charter and the sovereign equality of states, which requires all those who ratified it not to impose their will on others, but to rationalise their point of view and seek a balance of interests, to negotiate, and who support all the other principles of the UN Charter, on the one hand [– and those who don’t, on the other]. These principles constitute the international legal framework for the equitable international system that is commonly referred to as the Yalta-Potsdam system. Many people, including our political scientists, speak of it now as a bygone era. I do not quite agree with this assessment. From the international law perspective, the Yalta-Potsdam system does not require any ‘repair’ it is in the UN Charter. Everyone should simply comply with it, and not selectively, like ordering a la carte – I’d like fish today and something stronger tomorrow – but in its entirety. Moreover, all the interrelations between the principles of the UN Charter have long been defined in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It was adopted unanimously, with no one objecting.

Let me reiterate that those who oppose multipolarity and efforts to achieve it today believe that with the Cold War over, they are above the law and that they can follow their own rules. They call this Western-style set of rules a rules-based order although no one has ever seen these rules – and are pushing them across the board on all nations.

After the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union’s dissolution, they have been persisting, as if driven by inertia, with their desire to cast themselves as masters of destinies. This is something that surprises me, while also making me anxious. In fact, every reasonable politician must understand that the situation has radically changed compared to what it was 30 or 35 years ago. There has been a revival in efforts to oppose the Western diktat, with emerging economies and new centres of financial power in China, India, ASEAN, the Arab world, and CELAC replacing the USSR in this role. This group also includes a resurgent Russia together with its allies from the EAEU, the CIS, and CSTO. This also includes the SCO and BRICS, and many other emerging and rapidly developing associations across the world, in the countries of the Global South, or to use a better designation – within the Global Majority. A new reality has already emerged along with strong competitors who want to engage in fair economic, financial and sports competition. However, the West, or at least its present-day elites, proved to be unable to stop following the path of seeking to ensure their total dominance and perorating about what they refer to as the end of history. They are heading down a slippery slope in their attempts to stop their competitors in their tracks, including in terms of economic competition. Today, the United States announced a new sanctions package dealing with AI microchips, which includes banning their imports to NATO and EU countries. I have a strong feeling that the United States does not want to have any competitors anywhere, starting with the energy sector. In this sector, the US has given the green light to terrorist attacks designed to undermine EU’s wellbeing in terms of energy supplies. Now, they are encouraging their Ukrainian clients to put the TurkStream out of operation, just as they did with the Nord Stream pipelines. The United States and its allies have placed sanctions policies at the core of what they do on the international stage, including regarding Russia, but also in other respects. This demonstrates their refusal to engage in fair economic competition and their commitment to using unfair, aggressive practices for suppressing their opponents. They imposed a plethora of sanctions on China, too. As I have already said, they do not hesitate sanctioning their allies whenever there is even a slight threat that these allies can make something cheaper or be more effective on international markets compared to US manufacturers.

In sports, we witnessed fair competitions evolve into efforts to serve the vested national interests of a country which aspires to dominate everything.

If Mr Donald Trump seeks to make America greater once he assumes office, we will have to keep a close eye on the methods President Donald Trump uses to achieve this goal.

This was my take on the main contradictions we face today. I am at your disposal to hear and answer your questions.

Question: My question follows up on what you said earlier regarding the Yalta-Potsdam system, specifically the fact that it still exists and that its main tenets must be respected. What about the fact that the global players who announced a rules-based order have effectively openly admitted that they no longer consider this system relevant? What does Russia plan to do to keep them within that system? 

Sergey Lavrov: The Yalta-Potsdam system, I will say it again, did not go anywhere. Some say it has run its course. Political scientists suggest looking elsewhere, sitting down again with three, four, or five parties and drafting new agreements, with the existing balance of power in mind.

The Yalta-Potsdam system was originally discussed, conceived, and created through the drafting of the UN Charter by the Allies that fought against Nazism, namely, the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom. After the fundamental principles of the post-war order had been agreed upon, the French joined them. Later, after the revolution in China, the People’s Republic of China also became a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I am deeply convinced that the UN Charter does not need to be improved in terms of its principles. The principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, sovereign equality of countries, and territorial integrity of countries whose governments behave decently, respect the rights of all ethnicities residing in that particular country, and, therefore, represent the entire population living within the borders of that country are timeless. No one can say this about the Nazi regime in Kiev, which came to power as a result of a coup 11 years ago and did not represent the residents of Crimea, Donbass, or Novorossiya from its earliest days. 



Source: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Rate this article
(no votes)
 (0 votes)
Share this article
Tags
Russia, USA, EU, UN
For business
For researchers
For students