• `Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Channel One’s Bolshaya Igra (Great Game) political talk show

Dimitri Simes: The year is drawing to a close, and we can start to consider preliminary results.

I would like to ask you about something that I think is among the most important developments, namely changes in the collective West and Kiev’s narrative regarding the situation in Ukraine. A year ago, there was talk about a victorious Ukrainian army and predictions about its successful offensive. Now, almost everyone has acknowledged that this plan has failed. There’s even talk of a potential Ukrainian defeat. One thing remains unclear: what conclusions are being drawn from this? Would it be correct to assume that the failure of the Ukrainian offensive led to a diplomatic shift and an interest in talks with Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: The past weeks have been very intense in terms of foreign policy developments and developments in the West. Vladimir Putin’s nomination for the office of the President for another term and all ensuing events are the most important events in the Russian Federation.

President Putin provided a detailed and clear overview of the current phase of confrontation with the West. We are well aware of the fact (as we made it clear many years ago) that all of this is not about Ukraine but about containing Russia. Kiev was used as a tool to pose permanent military threats to the Russian Federation and to eradicate our influence to the extent of destroying Russian traditions, language, culture, and even ethnic Russians physically. The Zelensky regime officials proudly confessed this.

Why the changes in Western narratives? First, they are running out of money. Everyone is talking openly about it; it is not a secret. The difference between what the West promises, for example, to African countries and the entire developing world in terms of financing the cost of responding to climate change and what they actually get can run into orders of magnitude. In 2015, they promised to set aside 100 billion euros annually for 10 years. If you compare their promises to what was physically provided to Ukraine (a small fraction, in fact), you’ll see that all the West’s mantras about being a part of the international community so that the Global South and the Global East can make economic strides and to fit into their schemes that will help save humanity are nothing but talk and pure lies.

Around $200 billion or 200 billion euros (depending on how you run the numbers) have been injected in Ukraine. This is tens of times more than what was promised (but not paid) to African countries. At this point, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are absolutely focused on Ukraine to the detriment of other recipients. Kiev is eligible for preferences and quotas in the form of loans that other members of the Bretton Woods institutions can only dream of.

However, money never lasts. Even the United States has run into trouble printing extra tens of billions of dollars, as envisioned by the Biden administration, to help Israel and use it to buy off the critics regarding the hole (or, rather holes) on the southern border where 10,000 to 12,000 undocumented migrants enter the United States daily. Republicans are pressing their advantage to the maximum.

The main reason is that the American people and people in Europe are beginning to realise that they are not benefitting from this in any way. Moreover, they are now feeling the pinch of the Ukrainisation of the agenda promoted by the West on the international stage: deindustrialisation in Germany, the reshoring of the production facilities in the United States, and the loss of Russian markets.

Yesterday, an estimate by British analysts was released stating that Western companies that have left Russia have lost a minimum of $103 billion in revenue over the past 18 months.

This has led to job losses, higher food prices, and unresolved environmental issues. I was horrified to see a report about what large metro areas like Los Angeles and San Francisco (which I visited) have turned into in terms of environment and basic sanitation. It’s unimaginable.

Most people in Europe and the United States know what’s what. People, constituents are questioning how the money was spent and are demanding that the elites that they voted in think about them as well.

Regarding the shift in sentiment in favour of holding talks, I travelled to New York in the spring to attend a meeting of the UN Security Council, which Russia presided. I met with a group of political scientists, including Richard Hass and Charles Kupchan.

Afterwards, everyone assumed for some reason that it was a secret meeting and that this contact was used as a channel of some kind. Nothing of the sort. I regularly met with political scientists when I travelled in New York. This time, too, a meeting was held at my request.

They agreed to meet but asked me not to make public comments on it, which I agreed to. The information leaked several months later from the American side. I don’t know what caused it.

Suspicions arose that this meeting was set up at the behest of the Biden administration. Supposedly, “serious matters” were discussed. Providing our comment on this leak, we assumed that they wanted to tweak public opinion and the situation around Ukraine.

And, most importantly, change the aggressive mood of the Ukrainian leadership which turned down our every proposal: no talks until Crimea is taken back. They claimed that Zelensky’s formula was the only viable basis for talks, our defeat “on the battlefield,” and much more.

Since this has become public knowledge, Richard Haass, Charles Kupchan, and their colleagues (about six people) said that since no country can win, the countries need to settle down for some time, leave things as they are, and then resume the hostilities. They did not hesitate to say that Ukraine needs time to replenish its reserves, materiel, missiles, and other warfare attributes. But this was in April 2023.

Now, Western leaders are open about it. They propose proceeding exactly like that, explicitly stating that it will not be the end of the conflict but a pause. Similar to how the West needed the Minsk agreements (as former Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and former presidents of France and Ukraine Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko, respectively, later confessed) to flood Ukraine with the latest weapons to wage war against Russia.

This same tactic can now be heard in our Western colleagues’ rhetoric as they discuss it publicly, not in one-on-one talks with us. There have been several serious statements, such as the meeting between the Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin and Director of the CIA William Burns in Türkiye. However, we heard nothing new.

Dimitri Simes: The change of narrative on what is taking place on the battlefield in Ukraine has not yet led to renewed constructive diplomacy with Russia. Is this right?

Sergey Lavrov: Absolutely. A change in narrative does not change the essence of Western policy. They continue to consider Russia an adversary, a threat, and, to cite US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin, even an enemy. Their statements reveal what they actually think about us.

President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin described in detail how they wanted to destroy Russia after the Soviet Union. He referred to the naivete and credulity of our political class when the West extended its hand and spoke about intransient common human values, and a common space from the Atlantic to the Pacific, where all people would be happy, equal and safe. The West still has this goal.

Occasionally, European and American politicians make Freudian slips about their firm intention never to lay down arms, never to give up, and to finish off Russia. They cite a million arguments in favour of this intention, including the relative uncompetitive nature of our economy and the Western advantage in the ability to build up the military.

All this is the work of the devil. The events in Moscow – the 21st congress of the United Russia political party and President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with the heads of State Duma parliamentary groups – have dotted all the “I’s.”

For many years, we believed, trusted and were gullible. Many words were rooted in “trust.” We saw more than once that the West was dishonest, but each time, following the tradition of our people, we hoped for the best, forgave and forgot, and decided not to turn this into a scandal. But now, all “I’s” have been dotted and all “T’s” have been crossed.

President Putin commented on the nonsense uttered by US Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin. Even President Joseph Biden was prompted to talk about the need to fight for Ukraine to the last Ukrainian. They claim that otherwise, immediately after a victory in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin will deal with the Baltic states, Finland and other NATO countries.

The fact that serious people – the Pentagon head and the US President – are saying this out loud shows that they are simply desperate. They resort to mantras that any more or less educated person would consider patently false. Hence, they have run out of arguments that can keep their allies on a short leash.

Dimitri Simes: You mentioned a policy of deterrence. Maybe, now it is a bit more serious than deterrence? After all, deterrence is still a defensive policy. Now, as you noted, General Lloyd Austin (neither more nor less than the US Defence Secretary) is calling Russia an enemy.

In the meantime, the US (the Joseph Biden administration) insists it is not a party to the conflict in Ukraine. You have an excellent command of English. There are many terms in this language, including “adversary.” They know the difference between an “adversary” and an “enemy.”

Sergey Lavrov: “Adversary” is a rather strong term.

Dimitri Simes: But “enemy” is stronger. Usually, they use it in terms of open war. Diplomatic relations do not exist at all in this situation. Now President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that Russia’s priority is to uphold its sovereignty. Can you explain what he meant? Who is threatening Russian sovereignty? How are they doing this?

Sergey Lavrov: First, about assertions. Every day we hear assertions (repeated by several Western countries) that the Americans are not taking part in the hostilities but are only “supporting” Ukraine, which is waging a “just” war for its sovereignty, territorial integrity and European values.

There are many facts, including on video, about mercenaries from Poland and other European states. Some are even from the Middle East where the Americans still have the Al-Tanf military base in Syria, where ISIS commandos feel at ease. Some of them have been seen in Ukraine.

Apart from mercenaries – I can assert this 100 percent and under oath – there is every reason to believe that military personnel from the NATO countries are fighting in Ukraine. Experts in special Anglo-Saxon units and other countries have been and still are actively involved in acts of terrorism.

Recently, there was a report in a Western media title to the effect that the Nordstream pipelines were blown up by a task force led or directed by a Western secret service. It used a submersible vehicle (that was mentioned) that can dive some 250 metres.

Now, I don’t know whether this would be the final conclusion if a trial is ever held, but it sounds much more plausible than the story of six people with five bottles of wine sailing on some Andromeda pleasure yacht, jumping into water and committing this act of terrorism.

Head of the Main Directorate of the Ukrainian Intelligence Service Kirill Budanov openly admitted that he is working with the heads of the American special operation forces.

There has been information that special units numbers 5 and 6 were set up with Ukraine’s Armed Forces for close coordination with the CIA and MI-6 (British Foreign Intelligence). There are plenty of facts like this. It is common knowledge that during the early stages of Maidan, American secret services occupied a whole floor in Ukraine’s Security Service building.

All these facts show that Ukraine is not a sovereign country, that it is being manipulated and used. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has spoken about this on many occasions.

As for our sovereignty, Vladimir Putin once said that we do not trade our sovereignty for “sausage.” The image is clear. In the late 1980s, many (and myself, too, as I recall) had the sensation that not so much “we will build our new world” as that now all people would at last be guided by the interests of development and prosperity, find the forms of trade and investment relations that would be mutually beneficial, and much more.

At that time, all of this was on the Russian public’s agenda as they advanced towards the “end of history” announced by Francis Fukuyama. The “end of history” gave people the hope that we would no longer go to war, that we would have a welfare state, be friends with everyone, travel all over the world, and face no prohibitions. All of that proved to be an illusion.

The West never gave up the idea that Russia must be contained or even made “somewhat smaller.” This goal was achieved following the disintegration of the USSR. The West played a role of its own in this.

Nevertheless, there are those who say that the Russian politicians themselves made perhaps an even greater contribution to bringing about the conditions that made the collapse inevitable, if not to the disintegration per se. I think they are absolutely right.

We have lived for 20-odd years in a country that has opted for self-reliance. Simultaneously this country retained the hope that Western pragmatism – particularly German and generally European – would play a role, although it was no longer believed that we would have a cordial and friendly relationship.

This worked regarding our cooperation on gas supplies to Europe and equipment and high-technology sales by Germany and other European countries to the Russian Federation. All of that increased interconnectivity, which was regarded as a positive factor that strengthened the economic foundation of efforts to build security in the decade from the early 2000s to 2010s.

Many people believed that the stronger, wider, higher and more diversified this foundation was, the fewer chances there were that Russia’s relations with the West, with the countries targeted by the interconnectivity policy, would ever sink to the level of an armed conflict.

But the West went as far as that for the sake of its main goal (which is absolutely obvious today). This goal is to destroy Russia as an independent international entity. It is clear that they are now aware of the illusory nature of this goal.

But they cannot say so and make a U-turn before their voters ahead of the election cycles without running the risk of losing face and ruining their reputation. Deep down, however, they are still committed to this idea.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has named the areas where we need sovereignty. They are crucial to the independent development of Russia and its people, and improving its well-being, in a manner precluding anyone from ever dictating the terms for our further existence in this world.

This means that there must be full sovereignty and self-reliance in security, armaments, ammunition, missile defence systems, etc., that is, in whatever is necessary for us to uphold our independence, honour and dignity on the battlefield.

This also concerns many civilian industries crucial to everyday life, comfort and convenience – modern household appliances, vehicles, trains, aircraft, etc. – everything that helps people lead a normal life and travel in their country.

Food security is no less important, being the first achievement on our way towards sovereignty after the introduction of the “Crimean sanctions.” There has been radical reform in the agricultural sector. Additional benefits were provided to support farmers and major agricultural companies.

Today, we see the result. But there are always exceptions. The President had to join in a big discussion concerning eggs. The Government has also commented on this topic. This year, we will again have a huge grain harvest and feed many foreign countries.

I mean not only commercial supplies but also the decision to provide hundreds of thousands of tonnes of Russian wheat and other grain crops free of charge to the poorest countries in Africa and Asia.

Problems involving illegally impounded Russian fertiliser in EU ports are being addressed. In fact, agricultural production in Russia is making strides, albeit with well-known reservations. I am confident that the appropriate measures will be adopted soon.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin also mentioned cultural sovereignty. We welcomed and applauded foreign cinematic masterpieces. People in the Soviet Union were fond of French, Italian and Swedish cinema. After the start of perestroika and the Soviet Union’s further opening to the world, Russian audiences watched Hollywood movies. Indian films were always on at cinemas.

There was nothing wrong with that, if we disregard the fact that our infatuation with imported products nearly led to the loss of our own cinema industry. It is necessary to restore sovereignty in this area as well, and not because cinema is a sign of sovereignty but because it is part of our culture and history.

Our common heritage includes contemporary works of art, plays, films, the new poetry of the special military operation, and other things that began strengthening patriotic sentiments in this connection. I was glad to learn that there are plans to make several hundred Russian films within a year. I watch them with pleasure. There are interesting films and series. This is also part of our culture.

In Europe, they wanted to drop Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Leo Tolstoy and all the other Russian writers from the school and university curricula. Why is this being done? They are eager to undermine our sovereignty in the eyes of young people whom they want to educate in isolation from the great Russian culture.

The new version of Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept uses a novel term describing Russia as a state and a civilisation at one and the same time. This involves much responsibility. The concept states the objective fact that Russia is a civilisation in its own right, a civilisation based on all these components, including security, technological sovereignty, food security, cultural security, as well as traditions of a multi-faith and multi-ethnic power, which the state, among others, preserves and cherishes. This is absolutely obvious to everyone who visits the Russia International Exhibition and Forum at VDNKh.

Dimitri Simes: Opponents of Russia not only talk about Russia’s unprovoked aggression in Ukraine, but are also working hard to create the impression that Russia is a “villain unlike any other” in the international arena. They are doing this not only with regard to President Putin, they are also referring more broadly to the Russian army and state. It started with Bucha. What do you think about these accusations since they are still being used in the West to portray Russia as a country of brutal aggression?

Sergey Lavrov: I have had the opportunity to speak about Bucha more than once, such as in September 2022. By then, six months had passed since the day they showed the central street of Bucha with strewn bodies. It was shown two days after the Russian military had left the town. British television showed it with much emotion which they are good at. After that, another package of sanctions was imposed. Russia was declared a “rogue nation,” a “violator of every law of war.” We awaited an investigation. Such a crime could not go without it. Accordingly, we requested it from those who helped the Ukrainians discover these bodies. No one told us anything.

In September 2022, at a meeting of the UN Security Council in the presence of UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and other representatives of UN Security Council members, when we were discussing Ukraine, I cited several examples revealing the West’s habit of accusing us of a crime, “whipping up the propaganda foam,” and then forgetting about it a few days later.

The same happened in 2007 when Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned in a British hospital. The process was made public, which in Britain means closed, and with classified materials. The same happened with the Skripal family. No one responded to our notes and inquiries regarding the fate of these Russian citizens. The same was true with the “poisoning” of Alexey Navalny, when the Germans simply refused to provide an analysis confirming the accusation that someone had poisoned him with Novichok.

The same happened with the Malaysian Boeing. There was an explosion of accusations, and sanctions were imposed. And then no one wants to present the facts. The same thing happened in Odessa on May 2, 2014, when almost 50 people were burned alive.

At the UN Security Council meeting in September 2022, I drew attention to these numerous pieces of evidence showing that the West is a dishonest and two-tongued actor when it comes to accusing us of things without presenting any evidence to back up its accusations. I urged Secretary-General Guterres to use his office to at least get the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. No response.

I met with Antonio Guterres later at the G20 summit in India in May. We had a meeting, and I reminded him of my request. He said it was not part of his duties. I reminded him of the fact that this episode had become a central point of attack in a war unleashed against us and a series of unprecedented sanctions, [more sanctions than had] ever been imposed by anyone on anyone.

I asked him if he thought Ukraine was a backwater in global discussions, and whether, as the Secretary-General, he wanted to contribute to clarifying at least one episode, especially since there were a lot of suspicions, since they were reluctant to disclose the names. He replied that he wanted to help and would “think about it.”

At a news conference in Macedonia on December 1, 2023, after the conclusion of the OSCE Ministerial Council, I called on the journalists (both ours and Western), to ask the relevant question, if they had any journalistic spark left (were they not interested themselves?).

Our journalists accredited there recently addressed the OSCE. Since I said this at an OSCE event, the OSCE secretariat avoided giving an answer, saying they knew nothing, and as soon as they found out, they would definitely tell us. It is funny.

I am certain that none of the Western journalists will dare to turn to the relevant bodies of Western governments with a request to provide the list. Maybe Tucker Carlson could do that, but he is already a freelancer.

Dimitri Simes: Increasingly more Western journalists are beginning to ask questions – not about Bucha but about developments in Ukraine and what Ukraine is all about today. 

I noticed that some of my former colleagues in Washington, whom I regarded as foreign policy realists (they were on top for several years, if mostly in their narrow circle), now appear in TV shows and are published by serious and influential newspapers. Something is happening.  

But I wanted to ask you about something different. You paid several successful visits to what I call “new world countries,” that is, countries supporting the new world order. President Vladimir Putin also paid interesting and successful visits. Representatives and leaders of those countries returned the visit and came to Moscow.

The UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly took several interesting votes that actually left the United States isolated on Gaza. Don’t you feel that this “new world” (occasionally it is called the World Majority, or the South; I think the “new world” supporters is the most correct definition) is something amorphous?

Until recently, these nations preferred not to quarrel with the United States, if not to follow in the wake of US policies. But Gaza is something that makes them more active and if they are still unprepared to challenge the United States, they are at least ready to vote with Russia.   

Sergey Lavrov: In principle, many people are comparing the developments in Gaza and primarily the US position, on the one hand, and the developments in Ukraine, on the other.

In your previous question, you mentioned the fact that everything began as it were with Bucha. To some extent, this is really so. These were the first weeks of the special military operation. Already then the West was pretending that nothing at all had happened before February 24, 2022.

Like after the 2014 coup [in Kiev], it also made out that nothing had been happening before Crimea declared its independence and reunited with Russia.  All they talked about was that we “annexed” Crimea and that this was the starting point. No one mentioned that this had been preceded by a coup d’etat carried out in violation of the opposition’s commitments to France, Germany and Poland and by the triumphant coup leaders’ announcement that they were cancelling the status of the Russian language. It is they who sent “trains of friendship” full of armed militants to storm the Supreme Soviet of Crimea. It’s all canceled. It is “cancel culture” in action.

The same goes for all events that preceded the special military operation. There were long months of talks aimed at making [Kiev] implement the Minsk Agreements. There was Russia’s proposal on security guarantees without the expansion of military blocs. In late January and early February, 2022, artillery attacks on Donbass intensified by an order of magnitude. But all of that seemed “unimportant” to them.

Today, we hear a similar debate on what is to be done with Gaza and how it could have happened. Is the horrendous terrorist attack launched on October 7 enough to give Israel a free hand, as Benjamin Netanyahu claimed on several occasions? His commanders, defence minister, and national security adviser made statements to the effect that Gaza had no civilian population at all.

Allegedly, all people over there are extremists from age three. When hearing all this, I thought back to former Prime Minister Yair Lapid’s statement that there was no justification for Russia’s violation of Ukrainian sovereignty and harm done to local civilians. Allegedly, everyone is aware that there will be civilian casualties of artillery attacks on Ukraine. Compared with how Israel explains its actions today, this should produce a strong impression.

We have reiterated – and Vladimir Putin noted this once again in a conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu – that all acts of terrorism, especially an act as cruel as the one committed on October 7 of this year, were absolutely unacceptable. We know firsthand what it means to have civilians at risk.   

I mentioned this in my remarks during the “government hour” at the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. After hostages were taken at a school in Beslan, and later at the Dubrovka theatre during the Nord Ost show, the Russian security services and the special operations forces were preparing an operation to free the hostages.  

I remember how all Western media were urging us every day in a peremptory tone to “refrain” from launching the operation because it could harm the hostages. In so doing, they referred to certain human rights activists in this country. I remember this well. Later, when unfortunately a number of hostages died as a result of the operation, there were loud lamentations and words of censure.   

But I see nothing of the kind in the West’s position today. Interestingly, John Kirby and Jake Sullivan responded to the criticisms that they are doing nothing in the face of civilian deaths except saying that they were following closely how US weapons were used.  Generally, all they do is to look into how foreign countries employ US-supplied weaponry.

Even the US Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, went on record saying the other day that they wanted to be given assurances that Israel would use US-supplied weapons in pin-point strikes and respect international humanitarian law. This is how they described the principles underlying the US arms trade. But let us look at other claims made several months ago.

Asked how they controlled the use of US weapons in Ukraine, both Kirby and Sullivan replied that Ukraine selected its targets itself.

Even the strikes on the Crimean Bridge were met with precisely the same response: Ukraine has the right to select targets on its sovereign territory. There is a small difference, though. The Americans say they want to make sure that Israel uses US weapons in a targeted manner and in keeping with the law, whereas Ukraine decides on its own. This is a case of double standards.

But let us go back to your broader question. I hope that the sentiments that are on the rise in the world will be heeded by both Israel and Washington. I have many Israeli friends with whom I am in contact to this day. We exchange information and assessments. Yes, Israel was created from the blood of the Holocaust and our common vow of never again.

I mean the horrors of World War II and attempts by another “superman” to create a super-nation by subduing all others. We absolutely recognise Israel’s right to security.  President of Russia Vladimir Putin repeatedly said so in public and during his contacts with Benjamin Netanyahu (as well as with Ariel Sharon before him), and numerous other Israeli interlocutors.

Our country suffered immense losses, including as part of the Holocaust (Soviet Jews also perished).  We proceed from the premise that we have the right to security as well. I don’t see how anyone can object to this.

Dimitri Simes: This is what I would like to ask you about. As I see it, the issue of security is central to Russia’s foreign policy. We are witnessing an interesting state of affairs. Russia has achieved significant military success in Ukraine. This is widely recognised from Moscow to Kiev and from Washington to Brussels and London. However, Washington, London, and Brussels have a sense that Russia is punishing Ukraine as it conducts successful operations there.

Washington is not losing sleep over Ukrainians’ suffering. What truly concerns the American voter in an election year is not how things are going for President Zelensky and his circle, but things that can be done against the United States and the collective West. According to them, since they are not participating in the war, and since Russia has so far fully limited its military actions to the Ukrainian theatre, they feel they can tolerate and even support Ukrainian terrorism, destroy the Nord Stream pipelines, and engage in anti-Russia action on the world stage, seizing Russian assets in the economic realm, and trying to isolate Russia in the realm of diplomacy. Some Baltic countries even advocate closing the Baltic Sea to Russia. Do you think Russia could try to convince the collective West that such tactics against Russia could be costly not only for Kiev but for its backers as well?

Sergey Lavrov: President Putin mentioned this, including in a recent interview with the Moscow. Kremlin. Putin programme, when he commented on President Biden’s claim that Putin would now conquer Ukraine and then move onwards to the Baltic States, Finland, and further, and they must keep their guard up. President Putin called it nonsense. Everyone, including President Biden, knows well that Russia has no such plans.

We have no territorial disputes with NATO countries. In general, we no longer have any territorial disputes with anyone. Territorial disputes even with Japan have been settled. They understand this perfectly well.

Returning to the Ukraine operation, he said that we have no such plans. The Westerners severed relations with us, and turned us into an opponent or even an enemy. We never sought to break off relations. This is how President Putin’s views evolved over time, as he put it, from trust to what we have now. Everything was destroyed, and not on our initiative.

If they want, like the British, to sit it out on the other side the ocean, they must understand that there are boundaries that cannot be crossed.

The fact that the quality of lethal weapons that are being made available to Ukraine is going up does not go unnoticed. ATACMS and German TAURUS are now being discussed. Mr Scholz has been holding out so far, likely because he was named one of the EU’s responsible leaders, not just a “liver sausage.” This is already a step forward in how the Ukrainian regime appraises the qualities of the German leader.

Serious discussions about F-16 jets are underway. During these discussions, it turned out that Ukraine does not have airfields that can service these aircraft, both in terms of the quality of runways and in terms of the maintenance equipment. Dozens, if not hundreds, of specialists are also needed.

There is talk that perhaps this can be done on the territory of neighbouring NATO countries. I can state sincerely that this is a dangerous train of thought. Again, to put this in perspective: Europe, and the United States are leaving no stone unturned in the Middle East as they urge the Lebanese, Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians to do their best to prevent the war in Gaza from spreading to contiguous territories. Perhaps, they should act with the same amount of zeal to prevent this from happening in Ukraine.

Dimitri Simes: Thank you for the interview. I understand how complex and demanding your job is. There is an excellent book (not in terms of its ideas but in terms of its significance), the memoirs of former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson, Present at the Creation, about his involvement in the creation of the old international order. You (I think) are not only witnessing, but are also actively and widely involved in creating a new order. This is your role in history, for which we are very grateful.

Sergey Lavrov: I would like to thank all our colleagues from the media, including you personally. Sitting down and talking like that helps us to compare our thinking about how our policies are being perceived in the journalist community and also helps us make, hopefully, better decisions.