Rusofilija i vođenje politike su dvije različite stvari koje ne moraju da budu povezane, nisam ja lud.

Problem je
a) što nekad nemaš izbora, napadi na RS su prestali... kad?

b) jednostavno, lijeganje na američku rudu te vodi ka uništenju. Mi u savez s njima ne ulazimo kao nezavisna država zbog svojih interesa već kao kolonija leminga koja želi da ih sluša do samouništenja.

Jednostavno, američka politika prema Srbima je - genocidna. Ko s tim uspije da napravi savez, alal mu vera. Nešto kao Nedić valjda...

Ko poredi i izjednačava štetu!? I zašto kada ja kažem da nas Rusi zajebavaju i iskorišćavaju, tvoj odgovor bude "e, ali Amerika nas je bombardovala". Zašto naši odnosi sa Rusijom moraju da budu određeni našim odnosima sa Amerikom?

.. traze i trazice od nas svasta, negde i moramo da se poklonimo, ali da uvek imamo ideju sta hocemo, i koju cenu placamo i sta dobijamo...

Menjace se vremena, docice povoljnije okolnosti za neke nove generacije...nemoj da sad opet vucemo nerazumne poteze koji ce onemoguciti da i imamo nove generacije...

Sta mislim o americkoj i EU politici, dovoljno puta sam pisao... nemam iluziju koliko je to jedna mracna politika...ne samo za nas, nego za citav svet...

Ne mozemo mi to da menjamo... i globalni tokovi koji menjaju odnose snaga su jako spori... mi moramo tome da se prilagodimo... to sto se mi odavde ljutimo na njih, ama bas nista nece promeniti... budale su oni koji veruju u dobronamernost "zapadne demokratije"...

Ako hocemo da prezivimo, moramo da naucimo da plivamo u tom olujnom moru... ako hocemo da nestanemo, dicicemo patku na najjace, i slavno izginuti... niko suzu nece pustiti za nama...

Ajde da budemo mudri, da ne guramo prst u oko nikome, da pokusamo i sa jednima i drugima koliko mozemo, tiho, nenametljivo, u senci... traze i trazice od nas svasta, negde i moramo da se poklonimo, ali da uvek imamo ideju sta hocemo, i koju cenu placamo i sta dobijamo...

To je filigranska vestina, nema mesta kurcenju i pisanju uz vetar... moramo i sa tim jebivetrima sa zapada da razgovaramo, kenjamo, smeskamo se... sta mislimo privatno o njima, nije vazno...vazno je da se postavis tako da te uvazavaju, da uklopis svoju lego kockicu tako da ne bude visak i da u tome ne skines skroz gace...

Menjace se vremena, docice povoljnije okolnosti za neke nove generacije...nemoj da sad opet vucemo nerazumne poteze koji ce onemoguciti da i imamo nove generacije...

To što hoćete (hoćemo) je totalno nebitno.Žaba se lagano kuha...Nažalost,neće doći povoljnije okolnosti,ako sve ostane kao i dosad.

Moraju, jer, recimo u BiH i na Kosovu, jedni te štite od sranja koja ti drugi prave. Kako tako.

Drugo, govorimo o rusofiliji ili rusofobiji koja je obično povezana sa amerofilijom i amerofobijom. Prva se forsira i namjenski gradi pod smiješnim izgovorima, za koje je pencilin da se uporede sa odnosima nas i Rusa i nas i Amera.

Kao što rekoh, ne govorim o guranju prsta u oko. Ja sam prvi da im se da šta god hoće ako ćemo za to nešto dobiti.

Naravno, ne da sebi pucaš u koljeno da bi ti oni dali pet hamera.

Ali da bi se vodila bilo kakva politika a da to nije politika američkog zombija, potrebna je svijest, potreban je otpor ispiranju mozga. Ne, nije gori Jeljcin što nas nije branio od vas koji ste nam ubijali djecu i rušili cijela gradska područja, bombardovali civilne ciljeve.

Politiku korisnu za Srbe ne može da vodi američki čovek sa srpskim prezimenom već srpski čovek koji shvata da je Amerika sila.

Slazem se Met sa tobom...

Ovde i pisem cesto na tu temu... ajde da postujemo sebe, da se kao individue nikome ne klanjamo... pogotovo ne onima koji su nam toliko zla uradili...

Ali mi nemamo snage da to zlo pobedimo... tu je kljuc, da shvatimo da iako smo ponosni, mali smo...nije to bitka za nas... sto ne znaci da treba sve da prihvatimo sto traze...

Ti ne, samo bagra sa Peščanika, B92, "NVO" i slični...

Pa jel ti pričaš sa mnom ili sa njima?

Pričam o tome kako radi rusofilija ili rusofobija u Srbiji, pri čemu se, ne budi uvrijeđen, ne ograničavam samo na tebe :)

Meni je donekle razumljivo rusofilstvo kod Srba, ali mislin da ce proci katarzu, kao svabofilstvo kod nas. Jako se to ublazilo, i postoji u nekoj zdravoj dozi, ali mnogo toga se razbistralo, i silo na svoje misto. Kod vas su jace emtovine veze, pa ce to ici malo teze.

Znači slažeš se sa mnom da su i rusofili i amerofili budaletine?

To što su amerofili veće budaletine ne znači da rusofili nisu budaletine.

Kod nas to ide obratno, mi smo bili veliki ljubitelji Amera, zbog komunizma i četništva, zbog demokratizacije, ali politika zapada prema nama jača rusofiliju, kao i vraćanje pravoslavlju i osjećaj pripadnosti pravoslavnoj civilizaciji.

Nije to samo Rusofilija kao ljubav prema nekom drugom već svijest o pripadnosti zajdno sa Rusima.

Šešelj je nudio dobrovoljce Amerima za Zalivski rat 91 :)

To što je bilo rusofilije je bilo zanemarljivo. A i pravilniji termin je sovjetofilija jer su ti koji su tako razmišljali, to radili zato što su smatrali Ruse za braću komuniste, a ne za braću pravoslavne Slovene.

To što je bilo rusofilije je bilo zanemarljivo. A i pravilniji termin je sovjetofilija jer su ti koji su tako razmišljali, to radili zato što su smatrali Ruse za braću komuniste, a ne za braću pravoslavne Slovene.

Preterujete. To je važilo za zagrižene likove tipa Ilije Čvorovića, za običan puk ne. Možda nije bilo rusofilije u današnjem smislu zbog stroge kontrole nad isticanjem nacionalnog i vjerskog ali da se masa ložila na čisto komunističke veze sa sovjetskim Rusima, daleko od istine. Čim su te stege popustile, rusofilija je poprimila prirodne okvire.

Question: Has the Ukraine crisis and subsequent actions taken by Western partners still not convinced Russia that the USA is not to be trusted? Are you yourself disappointed with Barack Obama?

Sergey Lavrov: To begin with, we have been burned before by various illusions. Reagan once said, “trust but verify”. I think now it should be verify and, after verifying, decide whether or not to trust. Verify and trust, that’s how I would put it.

Second, regarding President Obama, I don’t want to get personal. There were high hopes, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But many wars followed, and they were absolutely illogical wars that did not serve the interests of stability in various regions – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.

Today everybody is fighting the ISIS. Incidentally, we proposed putting ISIS on the UNSC list of terrorist organisations. But the Americans refused, and made a very interesting argument. They said, this is not an independent organisation, this is the same old Al-Qaeda. The reason behind this is very simple. They are loath to admit that ISIS appeared as a result of their actions in Iraq and especially in Libya and Syria. That is why they are trying to pretend that nothing happened, putting all the blame on Al-Qaeda, even though this group has its roots in the 1980s, in the financing of the (Afghan) mujahedeen against the USSR. Now they are trying to pretend that ISIS is not of America’s making.

I don’t want to get into more personal characteristics. I was present several times at talks between Russian presidents and Barack Obama, and he received me at the White House. He struck me as a person who understands the importance of Russian-American relations. He set up an unprecedented presidential commission comprising 21 working groups for every conceivable (and inconceivable) area of cooperation. But the commission was also put to rest under him.

Question: The Russians are used to the fact that almost every war is their war. Can we watch wars from the sideline without intervening? Can we observe the war the US is waging in an arc stretching from Tel-Aviv to Mumbai, flaring up here and there, as if it were not our war? Let them do the dirty work for us, let ISIS and the US weaken each other (that’s a Chinese stratagem), and then finish off the winner.

Sergei Lavrov: First of all, I assure you that we have no desire to finish anyone off. We want stability so that we can work with people normally, trade to mutual benefit and invest. The war against terror is not somebody else’s war. But it must be consistent and should be backed by a coordinated strategy of the whole so-called international community. Barack Obama, receiving Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in Washington not long ago, rightly said that all those who want to help Iraq fight terrorism must do so only with the consent of the Iraqi government. Why don’t the Americans apply the same principle to Syria where the US has declared war on the ISIS which they are fighting in Iraq? In Syria’s case they have no intention of seeking the consent of the Syrian government.

Question: No power’s strength is infinite. If Americans have their hands full on the Tel-Aviv – Mumbai arc, they may ease up on Ukraine. This is good for us. The more engaged they are there, the weaker they will be in Ukraine.

Sergey Lavrov: That’s one way of looking at the situation. But I repeat, we are interested in the Americans being part of the anti-terrorist coalition. Russia is taking part in this coalition informally – we have not joined any groups. This is a structure the Americans announced to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But we are helping Iraq and Syria probably more effectively than anyone else by arming their military and security forces.

I repeat, terrorism must be combatted without double standards. I have already cited the example of ISIS in Iraq. In Yemen the US has backed the “Arab coalition” which has started bombing that country without going through the UN Security Council. The US provides it with logistical and information support and shares intelligence data. Incidentally, it was announced today that the operation has been completed and the focus will now be on advancing the political process, thank God. But the biggest beneficiaries of the bombing in Yemen are ISIS and Al-Qaeda which occupied the positions previously held by the Houthis, who have been pushed out by air strikes. The same thing happened in Libya. To get rid of one person with whom “everyone was fed up” they staged a war and backed the thugs whom they are now hunting down all over North Africa and far beyond.

Question: Speaking about all the external threats to the Russian Federation, there are three directions: east (China is a burgeoning economic power on our borders), south (terrorism) and west (the USA and NATO). Could you prioritise these threats in terms of how quickly we should confront them? Perhaps there are some other threats?

Sergey Lavrov: I see no threat from China. In general I see no threats from the east except one, US global missile defence, which is being created on US territory, the European continent and in Northeast Asia and just happens to hug the perimeter of Russia’s borders. I repeat, I see no threat from China. On the contrary, the Russian-Chinese partnership has a strategic character and, without exaggerating, is making an important contribution to maintaining some kind of stability in international relations, counteracting further destabilisation.

The southern front is terrorism, as I have said. We proposed conducting at the UN Security Council a serious expert review of terrorist and extremist threats in the whole Middle East and North Africa region – that same arc I mentioned. We are convinced that we need to develop a common strategy, follow it firmly and carefully in practice so that we fight common enemies, Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and not choose our position depending on whose side these thugs are fighting, on the side of “favoured” regimes or those we would like to get rid of. This is the crux of the problem.

Finally, the western direction, i.e. the US and NATO. There is little cause for rejoicing. We had very good mechanisms for interaction with the North Atlantic Alliance. I am not suggesting that the relationship was ideal, but interaction mechanisms existed between the militaries, on political problems, on counterterrorism, drug trafficking, on training law enforcement personnel for the security services of many countries, including Afghanistan incidentally. All this has been cut off with one stroke. All the formats for interaction (summits, ministerial meetings, foreign policy and defence agencies contacts, numerous meetings of experts) were simply cut off. Only the Russia-NATO Council at the ambassadorial level still remains, though it met only once during the past years (in June 2014). That’s the situation.

One can look at the statistics of the number of NATO exercises and activities they are conducting on our borders, the movement of heavy American weaponry to Baltic and some East European countries, and the speedy development of global missile defence facilities. And this despite the fact that President Obama, when announcing the “phased adaptive approach” several years ago, said that if there was progress on the Iran nuclear programme, adapting these plans would mean scaling back. The progress has been spectacular, President Obama extolled the political agreements which in the next couple of months should translate themselves into a legal agreement, and said that this was progress, that he had done everything to remove the missile and nuclear threats posed by Iran. Nevertheless, if the plans are being adapted they are being adapted in the direction of greater missile defence activity.

Question: What threat is more dangerous: from the south, including China or from the United States and NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: I’m confident we are dealing correctly with China. I feel that they are indeed partners.

Question: What will it be like in a decade or two?

Sergey Lavrov: If we neglect the opportunities to deepen our strategic partnership we may create risks in 10, 20 or 30 years.

Question: Allow me to make a drawing on this piece of paper. Here are a hundred or even a thousand people, and here is just one. When will the empty space be filled in? It will happen sooner or later. This is the Chinese stratagem.

Sergey Lavrov: Let me express my opinion on this score. We are consistently developing strategic partnership with China in all areas of cooperation: economic, cultural, military-political and military-technical. I’m confident that this is the main guarantee that Russian-Chinese relations will be solid and friendly.

We must “fill in the empty space” ourselves. I’m very glad that more and more attention is being paid recently to the need to develop eastern Siberia and the Far East. These regions are very rich but their population is very scarce. It is necessary to do everything we can to encourage people to go there, start families, have children and so on.

Question: Are we lagging behind China technologically? First, we are using Chinese-made things. Second, now we’ll have to buy technology from China rather than Europe. US-Chinese trade amounted to $650 billion in 2014, and the relevant figure for Russian-Chinese trade stood at $90 billion.

Sergey Lavrov: You’re right, but the economies are not comparable. The answer to your question depends on what areas you have in mind. Take computers, for instance.

Question: All made in China.

Sergey Lavrov: Absolutely, but Russia has brains, which produce ideas. These ideas should be embodied in metal, ceramics, plastic and so on. This is what we need. I cannot say that we are lagging behind anyone in fundamental sciences.

Speaking about technology, let’s take space exploration, the nuclear industry or the production of modern arms. We are not lagging behind in these areas. It’s rather the other way around.

Question: Let me make my previous question more specific: what is more dangerous, the ISIS or the United States?

Sergey Lavrov: Today ISIS is our main enemy. This is so if only because hundreds of Russian and other CIS citizens, Europeans and Americans are fighting on the side of ISIS.

In the past it was said, let them fight, let them spend their whole lives fighting over there, as long as they don't return home. But they are already returning. They would fight there, then take a break and play some nasty tricks for “fun” at home. Two or three cases are enough here.

As regards the United States, all government issues and issues of the international order should be resolved at the negotiating table. It is no accident that Americans are sending us official and unofficial signals via the most diverse channels with a proposal to establish mechanisms for interaction and notification (for instance, aircraft flying around one another or dangerous military activities being conducted). It wasn’t us who ruined these mechanisms. If the Americans are interested in them, let them make an official proposal and we will likely accept it.

Question: You mentioned a topic that concerns many people who are interested in international politics. You said that the United States has been waging wars recently, which are not only illegal under international law, but hurt the United States itself. Why is this happening? Some people in Russia see far-reaching plans in such developments, including oil prices, etc. The supporters of these theories come up with a lot of examples, such as the bombing of Libya or toppling the Iraqi government, etc. The Americans that I spoke with, ranging from political pundits to current employees of the State Department, told me off the record that it’s the result of ignorance.

I have two stories to tell you that shocked me. I was talking once with a teacher I had back when I studied in the United States. She asked me when Russians’ feelings about the United States changed. I said that things changed dramatically in 1999 after the US started bombing Yugoslavia. It was an eye-opening experience for Russia and we started looking at the United States differently – at least my generation did. She said that the United States never bombed Yugoslavia. I told her about the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, and she said that it was the first time she heard about it, but that seemed impossible.

Sergey Lavrov: How old was she? And what could she have ever taught you?

Question: At that time, she was 50-something. This is not an isolated case. I told her to go ahead and Google it. When she came back after doing that, she looked like she had seen a ghost. She couldn’t believe she didn’t know anything about it. That’s a typical situation you encounter in the United States.

Sergey Lavrov: Which part of the country was it?

Question: New Hampshire, New England, not the boondocks. There’s an even worse story. I had an off-the-record meeting with a State Department official. I won’t give any names, but this person had lived in Russia for a while and went to other former Soviet republics with missions. We discussed various issues, including the war in Georgia. His wife couldn’t understand what we were talking about. I told her that the issue was about the 2008 war in Georgia. She said she didn’t know anything about it.

Sergey Lavrov: God bless her.

Question: The person was unaware of any conflict. We all remember the US Congress’ recent resolution on Ukraine which said that US President Barack Obama had extended a hand of friendship to Vladimir Putin, who attacked Georgia shortly after that. Barack Obama was not president at that time. Is this a cunning plan or plain ignorance?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the events in the Caucasus in August 2008, Vladimir Putin was the prime minister at that time, and when all of that began, he was in Beijing. He described how he had approached US President George W. Bush, who was there for the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, and said he had received the news that Mikhail Saakashvili had attacked Tskhinval and [Russian] peacekeepers. According to Mr Putin, Mr Bush was slightly embarrassed, said it was a pity, and left. So of course it was not Barack Obama but George Bush.

Several months prior to that, in April 2008, President Bush, together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and other leaders of NATO member countries, had met in Bucharest, at a NATO summit, and adopted a document stating that Georgia and Ukraine would become NATO members. In my opinion, this played a significant role in Mr Saakashvili “flipping his lid” and deciding that he could do anything he liked. Especially considering that a couple of weeks prior to that, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had visited Tbilisi. Later, I asked her about the subject of their conversation. She said that she had urged Mr Saakashvili to move toward a political settlement.

As for what lies behind these events – the lack of professionalism or the desire to create controlled chaos, when it’s easier “to fish in murky waters” – I’ll say that I believe the Americans are not fools. Whatever they do, they do it consciously, although they have lost quite a few professionals. They used to have very competent and highly qualified Middle East experts. Now they have just a handful. Strategically, the US does not want a situation where “important” parts of the world live and prosper on their own, without the United States. It is important for Washington that somebody always depends on it: Israel in its confrontation with the Arabs and so on.

Question: Managed chaos?

Sergey Lavrov: In the final analysis, this is one way of putting it.

Regarding the Ukraine crisis, the US goal is to prevent Russia and the EU from deepening their partnership. Better still, roll back the prospect of such partnership, especially between Russia and Germany. I have no doubts whatsoever that this is its strategic goal. This is not simply my guess. I have sources that I trust. Plus, the crisis in Ukraine is the raison d’etre for NATO’s continued existence. At one point, Afghanistan was a unifying factor for the alliance. At that time [the US] urged [NATO] not to let its guard down, that it was necessary to forge a coalition with the participation of all NATO member countries and so on. Then the time came to withdraw troops. Everyone was tired of Afghanistan, understanding very well that a political settlement there was a long way off, especially in the presence of occupation forces. A new pretext was needed to preserve NATO’s cohesion.

Regarding the talk about the Americans training the Ukrainian army, I will say that, first, the US said it has been doing this for 20 years now. If this is so, they’re worthless as military instructors. The Ukrainian army is a shambles. Second, the US trained the army in Afghanistan and Iraq, but have these armies had any success combating terror? I don’t think so.

Question: When you mentioned the Russian-German union, I recalled that this concept has existed for more than a century. It belonged, in part, to Empress Alexandra. What are the prospects of this union? Are we going to divide Poland again? Russia and Germany are together; limitrophe states keep a low profile; we divide and suppress them quickly and spread from Cologne to Vladivostok…

Sergey Lavrov: You borrowed this concept from Empress Alexandra. I think that this union, in the form of an open partnership between Russia and Germany, is necessary not for dividing lands but to shake up the European Union. The line for upholding the interests of its member-countries should prevail in the EU. EU policy should not be placed at the disposal of some marginal entities that are following instructions from overseas.

Question: Do you think the United States is prohibiting Germany from creating this union, which looks so natural to you?

Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult to prohibit Germany from doing something. For the Germans this would be a national disgrace. I don’t think they will accept any interdictions, but Washington can do and is doing much to prevent Russian-German rapprochement.

Question: Are there any facts? Or do we simply know about it and that’s it?

Sergey Lavrov: There are facts but I cannot reveal them. We know what work the Americans are conducting in capitals, what messages they are bringing to Germany and many others. In one Eastern European country liberated by the Red Army American emissaries even demand that its government should speed up the dismantling of monuments to the heroes of World War II.

Question: Will you name it?

Sergey Lavrov: No.

Question: Will Sergey Lavrov ever run for president? You are ridiculously popular, no less than Sergey Shoigu.

Sergey Lavrov: I love my job and I will be working my hardest at this post.

Question: Many of the things you do at this post would be useful to a president.

Sergey Lavrov: I find it very easy to work with the president. I hope he is as comfortable working with me.

Question: We in Asia know better than to take such answers literally. Our listeners are probably thinking, he said ‘no’, so he means ‘yes’. The only question is whether he will run in 2018 or 2024.

Question: To set the record straight, we would like to say that, together with Alexey Venediktov, we attended a closed event with a high-ranking US diplomat. As soon as the subject of Russian-US relations came up the first thing he said was: “What about Edward Snowden?”

Sergey Lavrov: The United States grabs, kidnaps and abducts Russian citizens all over the world, despite a Russian-US document whereby it should at the very least inform us about the fact that a certain citizen has committed a crime and he needs to be investigated. It keeps seizing and abducting Russians. Such incidents continue. One happened just recently. We're dealing with it.

Question: Has the Ukraine crisis and subsequent actions taken by Western partners still not convinced Russia that the USA is not to be trusted? Are you yourself disappointed with Barack Obama?

Sergey Lavrov: To begin with, we have been burned before by various illusions. Reagan once said, “trust but verify”. I think now it should be verify and, after verifying, decide whether or not to trust. Verify and trust, that’s how I would put it.

Second, regarding President Obama, I don’t want to get personal. There were high hopes, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. But many wars followed, and they were absolutely illogical wars that did not serve the interests of stability in various regions – Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya.

Today everybody is fighting the ISIS. Incidentally, we proposed putting ISIS on the UNSC list of terrorist organisations. But the Americans refused, and made a very interesting argument. They said, this is not an independent organisation, this is the same old Al-Qaeda. The reason behind this is very simple. They are loath to admit that ISIS appeared as a result of their actions in Iraq and especially in Libya and Syria. That is why they are trying to pretend that nothing happened, putting all the blame on Al-Qaeda, even though this group has its roots in the 1980s, in the financing of the (Afghan) mujahedeen against the USSR. Now they are trying to pretend that ISIS is not of America’s making.

I don’t want to get into more personal characteristics. I was present several times at talks between Russian presidents and Barack Obama, and he received me at the White House. He struck me as a person who understands the importance of Russian-American relations. He set up an unprecedented presidential commission comprising 21 working groups for every conceivable (and inconceivable) area of cooperation. But the commission was also put to rest under him.

Question: The Russians are used to the fact that almost every war is their war. Can we watch wars from the sideline without intervening? Can we observe the war the US is waging in an arc stretching from Tel-Aviv to Mumbai, flaring up here and there, as if it were not our war? Let them do the dirty work for us, let ISIS and the US weaken each other (that’s a Chinese stratagem), and then finish off the winner.

Sergei Lavrov: First of all, I assure you that we have no desire to finish anyone off. We want stability so that we can work with people normally, trade to mutual benefit and invest. The war against terror is not somebody else’s war. But it must be consistent and should be backed by a coordinated strategy of the whole so-called international community. Barack Obama, receiving Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi in Washington not long ago, rightly said that all those who want to help Iraq fight terrorism must do so only with the consent of the Iraqi government. Why don’t the Americans apply the same principle to Syria where the US has declared war on the ISIS which they are fighting in Iraq? In Syria’s case they have no intention of seeking the consent of the Syrian government.

Question: No power’s strength is infinite. If Americans have their hands full on the Tel-Aviv – Mumbai arc, they may ease up on Ukraine. This is good for us. The more engaged they are there, the weaker they will be in Ukraine.

Sergey Lavrov: That’s one way of looking at the situation. But I repeat, we are interested in the Americans being part of the anti-terrorist coalition. Russia is taking part in this coalition informally – we have not joined any groups. This is a structure the Americans announced to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria. But we are helping Iraq and Syria probably more effectively than anyone else by arming their military and security forces.

I repeat, terrorism must be combatted without double standards. I have already cited the example of ISIS in Iraq. In Yemen the US has backed the “Arab coalition” which has started bombing that country without going through the UN Security Council. The US provides it with logistical and information support and shares intelligence data. Incidentally, it was announced today that the operation has been completed and the focus will now be on advancing the political process, thank God. But the biggest beneficiaries of the bombing in Yemen are ISIS and Al-Qaeda which occupied the positions previously held by the Houthis, who have been pushed out by air strikes. The same thing happened in Libya. To get rid of one person with whom “everyone was fed up” they staged a war and backed the thugs whom they are now hunting down all over North Africa and far beyond.

Question: Speaking about all the external threats to the Russian Federation, there are three directions: east (China is a burgeoning economic power on our borders), south (terrorism) and west (the USA and NATO). Could you prioritise these threats in terms of how quickly we should confront them? Perhaps there are some other threats?

Sergey Lavrov: I see no threat from China. In general I see no threats from the east except one, US global missile defence, which is being created on US territory, the European continent and in Northeast Asia and just happens to hug the perimeter of Russia’s borders. I repeat, I see no threat from China. On the contrary, the Russian-Chinese partnership has a strategic character and, without exaggerating, is making an important contribution to maintaining some kind of stability in international relations, counteracting further destabilisation.

The southern front is terrorism, as I have said. We proposed conducting at the UN Security Council a serious expert review of terrorist and extremist threats in the whole Middle East and North Africa region – that same arc I mentioned. We are convinced that we need to develop a common strategy, follow it firmly and carefully in practice so that we fight common enemies, Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and not choose our position depending on whose side these thugs are fighting, on the side of “favoured” regimes or those we would like to get rid of. This is the crux of the problem.

Finally, the western direction, i.e. the US and NATO. There is little cause for rejoicing. We had very good mechanisms for interaction with the North Atlantic Alliance. I am not suggesting that the relationship was ideal, but interaction mechanisms existed between the militaries, on political problems, on counterterrorism, drug trafficking, on training law enforcement personnel for the security services of many countries, including Afghanistan incidentally. All this has been cut off with one stroke. All the formats for interaction (summits, ministerial meetings, foreign policy and defence agencies contacts, numerous meetings of experts) were simply cut off. Only the Russia-NATO Council at the ambassadorial level still remains, though it met only once during the past years (in June 2014). That’s the situation.

One can look at the statistics of the number of NATO exercises and activities they are conducting on our borders, the movement of heavy American weaponry to Baltic and some East European countries, and the speedy development of global missile defence facilities. And this despite the fact that President Obama, when announcing the “phased adaptive approach” several years ago, said that if there was progress on the Iran nuclear programme, adapting these plans would mean scaling back. The progress has been spectacular, President Obama extolled the political agreements which in the next couple of months should translate themselves into a legal agreement, and said that this was progress, that he had done everything to remove the missile and nuclear threats posed by Iran. Nevertheless, if the plans are being adapted they are being adapted in the direction of greater missile defence activity.

Question: What threat is more dangerous: from the south, including China or from the United States and NATO?

Sergey Lavrov: I’m confident we are dealing correctly with China. I feel that they are indeed partners.

Question: What will it be like in a decade or two?

Sergey Lavrov: If we neglect the opportunities to deepen our strategic partnership we may create risks in 10, 20 or 30 years.

Question: Allow me to make a drawing on this piece of paper. Here are a hundred or even a thousand people, and here is just one. When will the empty space be filled in? It will happen sooner or later. This is the Chinese stratagem.

Sergey Lavrov: Let me express my opinion on this score. We are consistently developing strategic partnership with China in all areas of cooperation: economic, cultural, military-political and military-technical. I’m confident that this is the main guarantee that Russian-Chinese relations will be solid and friendly.

We must “fill in the empty space” ourselves. I’m very glad that more and more attention is being paid recently to the need to develop eastern Siberia and the Far East. These regions are very rich but their population is very scarce. It is necessary to do everything we can to encourage people to go there, start families, have children and so on.

Question: Are we lagging behind China technologically? First, we are using Chinese-made things. Second, now we’ll have to buy technology from China rather than Europe. US-Chinese trade amounted to $650 billion in 2014, and the relevant figure for Russian-Chinese trade stood at $90 billion.

Sergey Lavrov: You’re right, but the economies are not comparable. The answer to your question depends on what areas you have in mind. Take computers, for instance.

Question: All made in China.

Sergey Lavrov: Absolutely, but Russia has brains, which produce ideas. These ideas should be embodied in metal, ceramics, plastic and so on. This is what we need. I cannot say that we are lagging behind anyone in fundamental sciences.

Speaking about technology, let’s take space exploration, the nuclear industry or the production of modern arms. We are not lagging behind in these areas. It’s rather the other way around.

Question: Let me make my previous question more specific: what is more dangerous, the ISIS or the United States?

Sergey Lavrov: Today ISIS is our main enemy. This is so if only because hundreds of Russian and other CIS citizens, Europeans and Americans are fighting on the side of ISIS.

In the past it was said, let them fight, let them spend their whole lives fighting over there, as long as they don't return home. But they are already returning. They would fight there, then take a break and play some nasty tricks for “fun” at home. Two or three cases are enough here.

As regards the United States, all government issues and issues of the international order should be resolved at the negotiating table. It is no accident that Americans are sending us official and unofficial signals via the most diverse channels with a proposal to establish mechanisms for interaction and notification (for instance, aircraft flying around one another or dangerous military activities being conducted). It wasn’t us who ruined these mechanisms. If the Americans are interested in them, let them make an official proposal and we will likely accept it.

Question: You mentioned a topic that concerns many people who are interested in international politics. You said that the United States has been waging wars recently, which are not only illegal under international law, but hurt the United States itself. Why is this happening? Some people in Russia see far-reaching plans in such developments, including oil prices, etc. The supporters of these theories come up with a lot of examples, such as the bombing of Libya or toppling the Iraqi government, etc. The Americans that I spoke with, ranging from political pundits to current employees of the State Department, told me off the record that it’s the result of ignorance.

I have two stories to tell you that shocked me. I was talking once with a teacher I had back when I studied in the United States. She asked me when Russians’ feelings about the United States changed. I said that things changed dramatically in 1999 after the US started bombing Yugoslavia. It was an eye-opening experience for Russia and we started looking at the United States differently – at least my generation did. She said that the United States never bombed Yugoslavia. I told her about the bombing of Belgrade in 1999, and she said that it was the first time she heard about it, but that seemed impossible.

Sergey Lavrov: How old was she? And what could she have ever taught you?

Question: At that time, she was 50-something. This is not an isolated case. I told her to go ahead and Google it. When she came back after doing that, she looked like she had seen a ghost. She couldn’t believe she didn’t know anything about it. That’s a typical situation you encounter in the United States.

Sergey Lavrov: Which part of the country was it?

Question: New Hampshire, New England, not the boondocks. There’s an even worse story. I had an off-the-record meeting with a State Department official. I won’t give any names, but this person had lived in Russia for a while and went to other former Soviet republics with missions. We discussed various issues, including the war in Georgia. His wife couldn’t understand what we were talking about. I told her that the issue was about the 2008 war in Georgia. She said she didn’t know anything about it.

Sergey Lavrov: God bless her.

Question: The person was unaware of any conflict. We all remember the US Congress’ recent resolution on Ukraine which said that US President Barack Obama had extended a hand of friendship to Vladimir Putin, who attacked Georgia shortly after that. Barack Obama was not president at that time. Is this a cunning plan or plain ignorance?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the events in the Caucasus in August 2008, Vladimir Putin was the prime minister at that time, and when all of that began, he was in Beijing. He described how he had approached US President George W. Bush, who was there for the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, and said he had received the news that Mikhail Saakashvili had attacked Tskhinval and [Russian] peacekeepers. According to Mr Putin, Mr Bush was slightly embarrassed, said it was a pity, and left. So of course it was not Barack Obama but George Bush.

Several months prior to that, in April 2008, President Bush, together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and other leaders of NATO member countries, had met in Bucharest, at a NATO summit, and adopted a document stating that Georgia and Ukraine would become NATO members. In my opinion, this played a significant role in Mr Saakashvili “flipping his lid” and deciding that he could do anything he liked. Especially considering that a couple of weeks prior to that, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had visited Tbilisi. Later, I asked her about the subject of their conversation. She said that she had urged Mr Saakashvili to move toward a political settlement.

As for what lies behind these events – the lack of professionalism or the desire to create controlled chaos, when it’s easier “to fish in murky waters” – I’ll say that I believe the Americans are not fools. Whatever they do, they do it consciously, although they have lost quite a few professionals. They used to have very competent and highly qualified Middle East experts. Now they have just a handful. Strategically, the US does not want a situation where “important” parts of the world live and prosper on their own, without the United States. It is important for Washington that somebody always depends on it: Israel in its confrontation with the Arabs and so on.

Question: Managed chaos?

Sergey Lavrov: In the final analysis, this is one way of putting it.

Regarding the Ukraine crisis, the US goal is to prevent Russia and the EU from deepening their partnership. Better still, roll back the prospect of such partnership, especially between Russia and Germany. I have no doubts whatsoever that this is its strategic goal. This is not simply my guess. I have sources that I trust. Plus, the crisis in Ukraine is the raison d’etre for NATO’s continued existence. At one point, Afghanistan was a unifying factor for the alliance. At that time [the US] urged [NATO] not to let its guard down, that it was necessary to forge a coalition with the participation of all NATO member countries and so on. Then the time came to withdraw troops. Everyone was tired of Afghanistan, understanding very well that a political settlement there was a long way off, especially in the presence of occupation forces. A new pretext was needed to preserve NATO’s cohesion.

Regarding the talk about the Americans training the Ukrainian army, I will say that, first, the US said it has been doing this for 20 years now. If this is so, they’re worthless as military instructors. The Ukrainian army is a shambles. Second, the US trained the army in Afghanistan and Iraq, but have these armies had any success combating terror? I don’t think so.

Question: When you mentioned the Russian-German union, I recalled that this concept has existed for more than a century. It belonged, in part, to Empress Alexandra. What are the prospects of this union? Are we going to divide Poland again? Russia and Germany are together; limitrophe states keep a low profile; we divide and suppress them quickly and spread from Cologne to Vladivostok…

Sergey Lavrov: You borrowed this concept from Empress Alexandra. I think that this union, in the form of an open partnership between Russia and Germany, is necessary not for dividing lands but to shake up the European Union. The line for upholding the interests of its member-countries should prevail in the EU. EU policy should not be placed at the disposal of some marginal entities that are following instructions from overseas.

Question: Do you think the United States is prohibiting Germany from creating this union, which looks so natural to you?

Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult to prohibit Germany from doing something. For the Germans this would be a national disgrace. I don’t think they will accept any interdictions, but Washington can do and is doing much to prevent Russian-German rapprochement.

Question: Are there any facts? Or do we simply know about it and that’s it?

Sergey Lavrov: There are facts but I cannot reveal them. We know what work the Americans are conducting in capitals, what messages they are bringing to Germany and many others. In one Eastern European country liberated by the Red Army American emissaries even demand that its government should speed up the dismantling of monuments to the heroes of World War II.

Question: Will you name it?

Sergey Lavrov: No.

Question: Will Sergey Lavrov ever run for president? You are ridiculously popular, no less than Sergey Shoigu.

Sergey Lavrov: I love my job and I will be working my hardest at this post.

Question: Many of the things you do at this post would be useful to a president.

Sergey Lavrov: I find it very easy to work with the president. I hope he is as comfortable working with me.

Question: We in Asia know better than to take such answers literally. Our listeners are probably thinking, he said ‘no’, so he means ‘yes’. The only question is whether he will run in 2018 or 2024.

Question: To set the record straight, we would like to say that, together with Alexey Venediktov, we attended a closed event with a high-ranking US diplomat. As soon as the subject of Russian-US relations came up the first thing he said was: “What about Edward Snowden?”

Sergey Lavrov: The United States grabs, kidnaps and abducts Russian citizens all over the world, despite a Russian-US document whereby it should at the very least inform us about the fact that a certain citizen has committed a crime and he needs to be investigated. It keeps seizing and abducting Russians. Such incidents continue. One happened just recently. We're dealing with it.

Question: I constantly hear complaints in remarks by all of our official representatives. We have turned into a country of complaints. There are complaints about Ukraine. No offence meant, but I’d like to list the complaints you have just made: Libya and Yemen [among others]. You said Yemen has double standards and Ukraine does not honour the Minsk agreements. Even during the last hour, speaking with us, you complained about Syria, Libya, Yemen and Ukraine. Are we a country of complaints? Are we constantly in retreat? Are we being hurt all the time?

Sergey Lavrov: Why do you call this a complaint? You asked about our take on this situation. I tell you that our partners are taking the wrong line in combatting terrorism and I give examples.

Question: A major aspect is initiative in the world. We don’t have the initiative, either in Yemen or Syria. We used to have it, but now we don’t. We didn’t have it in Libya and we don’t have it in Ukraine. We keep saying that “they” violated agreements or did or didn’t do this or that. We keep talking like a nagging shrew, we keep complaining.

Question: Will the potential deliveries of the S-300 – as far as I know, the delivery schedule has not been coordinated yet – exacerbate the situation and change the balance of forces in the region?

Sergey Lavrov: What do you mean by “exacerbate”? That those who want to deliver a strike at Iran will have to think at least twice before doing it?

Question: And will also supply drones to Ukraine? I’m referring to Israel.

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t know anything about Israel’s plans to supply drones to Ukraine.

Question: Is this speculation?
Sergey Lavrov: There have long been speculations on this issue, but no evidence.

As for the S-300, President Obama’s initial reaction was quite unusual. He said he was surprised the ban held this long, since 2009, that we could have delivered these weapons earlier. He then said that we suspended the delivery at the US’ request, but he still didn’t think that the ban would hold for five years. But yesterday he said a completely different thing. He said they object to the talks on the deal. So much for whom to trust and how to deal with our American partners, who keep zigzagging and changing their minds.

We are in the right, and we haven’t violated anything. In the past, we did it (suspended the delivery) to encourage Iran to take a more constructive stand at the talks, and it worked – we have reached an important stage at the talks, we have coordinated the political framework for a settlement, which is now being translated into practical agreements. The developments in Yemen and the rest of the region point to huge risks. We don’t want Iran to become another target for the illegitimate use of force.

Question: Can you share your perspective on the possibility of Russia and Iran forming a full military alliance. We have common enemies, it seems.

Sergey Lavrov: We have a military-political alliance in the form of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. Iran has observer status in the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which is not a military structure, but is involved in addressing common threats, including terrorism. There is the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure within the SCO, in which both SCO members and observers are involved. This is the mechanism we created to counter our common enemy, which is terrorism. We are cooperating with Iran within this framework quite successfully.

Question: Imagine a Russia-Iran military alliance. Why not? By the way, this is the most recurrent question from our listeners in Iran. Many people are asking about it. They are saying that Russia’s stance on Iran used to seem cold, but now you can ask anyone on Iranian cities’ streets and they will tell you that Russia stands up for Iranian interests and helps the country.

Sergey Lavrov: I strongly believe that neither Russia, nor Iran need a military alliance. We haven’t received any proposals to this effect from Iran. I think this is totally unrealistic and unnecessary.

...

Sergey Lavrov: As for our role regarding Iran, it has been recognised universally. The agreement that has been formulated politically and sealed in Lausanne is based on the concept of mutuality and phasing, which we advanced several years ago. On the practical plane, it includes proposals on the scale of Iran’s nuclear programme, which have to be put on paper still but which have been approved in principle ad referendum. Many of these solutions have been prepared by Russian experts. By and large, this agreement takes into account our cooperation with Iran in nuclear energy, which has never been restricted even despite the sanctions. This agreement will soon be confirmed as an absolutely legitimate aspect of our cooperation with Iran.

Of course, we’ll develop our military technical cooperation with Iran. This includes the S-300 systems. The UN Security Council restrictions on arms deliveries to Iran will be lifted. The outlook is very good, and so we’ll be able to do a great deal in the military technical area.

Question: It is common knowledge that President Barack Obama and the Americans have repeatedly suggested making further cuts in Russian and US nuclear arsenals. What is the current Russian position?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, the nuclear zero concept is largely a myth. We didn’t just set the goal of scrapping all nuclear weapons in the world. We set the goal of making the world safe. This means that we should take into account new technologies that have been created and are being created in the military and military-technological spheres since the invention of nuclear weapons, technologies that influence strategic stability and are possibly more effective from the military point of view. The US, for example, is developing hypersonic weapons that will be non-nuclear but they will be strategic. This programme is known as Prompt Global Strike and its aim is to deliver this sort of strike at any location in the world within one hour of being so decided. These weapons will be more “humane,” of course, if you wish, by comparison with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki radiation disasters. But they will be more powerful than nuclear weapons and more effective militarily.

Apart from that, there is a big issue that is related to US plans to launch weapons to outer space and to tackle the same objectives from there. We hope that neither nuclear nor non-nuclear weapons will be deployed in space. A few years ago, the Russian Federation and the PRC proposed a draft treaty on non-deployment of weapons in space, which was supported by everyone, including Europe. But the draft was turned down by the US which doesn’t want to sign the treaty and this of course leads to certain conclusions.

Also, we should, of course, take into account the BMD factor. If we imagine for an instant that no one has nuclear weapons, while the Americans have supersonic and hyper-powerful strategic non-nuclear weapons and a BMD system protected from everyone, the combination we get is quite dangerous. When someone has both the “shield” and the “sword,” the temptation is certain to increase.

There is the Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) that can come into force only if ratified by a certain number of countries that it mentions, including the United States. While running for his first term of office, President Obama promised to ratify the CTBT. Yet another promise of his was to close the Guantanamo Bay Base, which he didn’t carry out, nor ever will. Today the Americans are saying that the stumbling block is Congress that cannot authorise either the closure or the ratification, for which reason we should forget about any other aspects of strategic stability except nuclear weapons.

Let’s not forget that there is a huge conventional arms imbalance in favour of NATO and if we look at the size of military budgets, there is no point in further argument. Therefore, we should apply a comprehensive approach to any further cuts in strategic offensive weapons, taking into account all factors, including non-nuclear strategic weapons, BMD, non-deployment of weapons in space, and a number of other aspects.

Question: There are a lot of questions about the sanctions. It may be interesting for you to know that for the most part Russia is criticised for retaliating too weakly. Western, not Russian, people write: “When will Russia ban Coca Cola and McDonalds?” and “When will US companies be barred from the Russian market?”

Do you expect the sanctions to be lifted in September?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, honestly, I can’t say that I’m terribly concerned about this issue. I’m concerned about the general character of relations, primarily with the European Union and of course the US. We are certainly not interested in being in a constant state of crisis. Why am I not concerned by the sanctions as such? The main reason is that in any event, we need to develop the production of the overwhelming majority of goods, especially high-tech goods, that are related to our goals of ensuring national defence capability and of course food security. I believe we can feed ourselves. However, this does not mean that we should reject the diversity that is offered by the imports from our partner countries, especially when trade is balanced, mutually beneficial and based on understandable rules.

Not long ago I was at a restaurant. The cheese menu read: “Cheeses according to French and Dutch recipes.” I asked where they were made. They said: “In France and the Netherlands. We write this so we don’t get caught in the act.”
Question: Forty minutes ago, the European Commission accused Gazprom of violating antitrust and competition rules. A massive raid has begun. Is the Foreign Ministry involved in defending Gazprom’s interests in (other) countries?

Question: There is the view that after the events in Ukraine, Crimea and the southeast [of Ukraine], our long-standing and close allies became jittery. I’m referring to the post-Soviet space.

We are not talking about the Baltics now, because writing and talking about Russia’s alleged plans to attack them is pure schizophrenia. But people start to wonder and become nervous, for example in Kazakhstan, which has a large Russian minority. Is this happening or not? Or do they understand our position, our actions? What can you say based on your communication with them?

Sergey Lavrov: They understand us. Even when you say that Crimea is a reason for someone to become concerned, President Putin has clearly explained what happened there in Andrei Kondrashov’s documentary “Crimea: The Way Home.” He made the decision only when he saw what kind of people had come to power in Ukraine and how they got there, after the Western countries’ promises and guarantees sealed in an agreement on February 21, 2014 were spurned and calls were made to cleanse Crimea of Russians.

I’d like to remind you about President Obama’s interview with CNN late last year, in which he praised his far-sightedness and got personal, comparing himself and Putin. It was clear that he was piqued. He said that Putin had been presented as the chess master who has outmanoeuvred the West, but the West has struck back, and look at where the Russian economy is now! He takes pride in “ruining” the Russian economy and leaving it “in tatters,” as he put it. While praising his policy and denying Russia any ability to plan ahead, he acknowledged that the United States had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine. He alleged that Putin was caught off balance and had to improvise in Crimea. It was a Freudian slip. In fact, Obama admitted that the Russian President was right and that he told the truth when explaining what convinced him to take the decision on Crimea.

Question: Never mind Obama. We’ve heard all these arguments before. What about Kazakhstan and Belarus? Does President Nazarbayev understand this? Does he share President Putin’s vision?

Sergey Lavrov: I can assure you that our neighbours understand this very well. (Addressing Margarita Simonyan) You can tell this to the lady who taught you in New Hampshire.

Remark: Thank God she didn’t teach me history or political science.

Question: As I see it, there is also the economic aspect, aside from the army and the navy. There are economically attractive countries. Paul Kennedy wrote in his book The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers that some countries are attractive to other countries, and there are also countries which all other countries avoid. Is it difficult to be the foreign minister of a weak and weakening Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I’ve never noticed anyone avoiding me or Russia. I fully agree with you that the economy is the keystone, above all because everything a state does must improve people’s lives, which is impossible to do without a strong economy.

Speaking about the need to fill in the empty space, this concerns the resources we have in Siberia and the Far East, which we need to develop. The main thing, as President Putin said more than once, we need to diversify. We won’t get far on oil and gas dependence.