Press Conference: H.E. Mr. Sergey V. Lavrov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Good afternoon, dear colleagues. We start press conference by Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Sergei Lavrov. The main language is Russian. The interpretation is provided.

Please, Mr. Minister.

I apologize for the slight delay. We were wrapping up the last of nearly 50 meetings. It was a very busy week. And we have been actively emerging from isolation, as you can understand. The priorities of Russia's foreign policy were just set out in my statement at the general debate, and I imagine you've already had a chance to familiarize yourselves with them, so I won't repeat those same talking points in detail. But we have made a particular focus on the need to comply with the principles of the UN Charter, not just selectively, but in full, in their totality and interlinkages as a path towards strengthening the multipolar foundations of today's world, as well as countering neo-colonial practices today, which the countries of the Global South and the Global East are increasingly drawing attention to, fully aware that when they received political independence in the 1960, the economic dependence from the West has remained and it has not gone anywhere. In certain situations, it has even increased. We also stress the importance of an uncompromising fight against manifestations of neo-Nazism, above all in Ukraine, but not just there, because this this misanthropic ideology is now spreading in other countries on our continent, in EU members, in NATO member states, in the Baltics, but also in Germany. And this is particularly worrying. This is something I made a special mention of at the General Assembly. And of course, our delegation held not just bilateral but multilateral meetings. We met in the format of the Collective Security Treaty Organization format and within the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter. And together with our Belarusian allies and colleagues, we launched work on a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity. Nearly a dozen delegations expressed the desire to join the group of experts that will commence its work before the end of the year. The goal is to promote the establishment on the Eurasian continent, the largest and wealthiest continent, a continent that is home to some of the largest and most ancient civilizations, to create an architecture of equal indivisible security and cooperation there. In our bilateral talks, we discussed various crises and conflicts, particularly what is taking place in the Persian Gulf, the Bab el-Mandeb Strait area, the catastrophe in Gaza, the ongoing settlement policy in the West Bank, the various situations on the African continent, the situation in Latin America, where We are once again seeing the situation around Cuba worsen. And of course, we discussed Ukraine. I recall that on September 23rd, a Security Council meeting was convened by France on Ukraine. And at that meeting, I expressed in detail our position as well as the genesis and the root causes of that situation. And my statement contains all the details on that. And of course, There is also the need to adapt our organization to new realities, including by reforming the Security Council and expanding it to include additional representatives from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We cannot allow for any additional chairs for the West because the West is already overrepresented in the United Nations Security Council. And of course, we wish to see the UN become a genuine center for harmonizing the interests of all states as its charter requires. And here, of course, a constructive contribution could be made by the Secretariat of the United Nations as well. However, unfortunately, the current team led by Antonio Guterres is unable to implement the main requirements of the document that underpins the organization's very existence. Instead, they are promoting biased approaches and double standards, essentially serving the interests of the group of Western states. If you look at who is occupying the top ranks of the secretariat, you will see that the seven or eight most significant positions when it comes to the functioning of the UN are occupied by citizens or nationals of NATO member states. And when the Secretary General and his representatives, in response to a question about Greenland, and the US's interest to have Greenland become part of the US, they respond that this must be addressed on the basis of the UN Charter, General Assembly resolutions, the territorial integrity of Denmark, and the right of the people of Greenland to self-determination. And I asked Mr. Guterres, with whom we met the day before yesterday, why this principle, this option of the right to self-determination isn't mentioned in the context of Ukraine at all, even as an option. And he said, well, we've put a lot of thought into it, and these are two completely different things. It's unclear what the difference is. Greenland is so away when Ukraine is a direct part of our cultural, political, social reality. And now, when agreements have been reached regarding military presence and control on the island. That agreement directly provides for the presence of the US without an end date, even if the citizens of Greenland hold a referendum and exercise their right to self-determination. So you see the difference here. And of course, we're seeing how glaring violations by the Kyiv regime of fundamental human rights and norms of international humanitarian rights are being completely ignored. The situation in Bucha is something that we keep talking time and time again. The situation in April 2022, when an incident was staged and out of nowhere, after two or three days without any hostilities, A BBC team suddenly appeared on the scene and somehow luckily found itself in the right place at the right time and began broadcasting to the entire world images of a dozen dead bodies carefully laid out along the main street of Bucha, which is just outside Kyiv. Incidentally, I always raise this topic when I speak to you here, and I recall very well that last year I also mentioned that incident and inquired why no journalists who in in less tragic situations carry out journalistic investigations why not a single journalistic team has managed to uncover any official information on the names of those whose bodies were shown on BBC so once again I appeal to your professional pride and I hope I will be heard this time meanwhile Mr. Gutierrez just shrugs his shoulders and claims to do nothing, even though a monument has already been erected in Bucha with the names. Names, when verified, those names turned out to be names of war criminals and not innocent citizens. We have circulated a report. We hope it will be useful or perhaps it will pique your journalistic curiosity or appeal to your journalistic intuition and prompt you to get to the bottom of this and why the truth is being concealed so thoroughly we hope that the upcoming the new Secretary General will represent the interests of all of humanity rather than just the golden billion and will meet all the criteria for his election including impartiality and the ability to fulfill the role of the the main administrative official of the organization.

Thank you so much, Maria, and thank you, Foreign Minister, for this press conference. On behalf of the UN Correspondent Association, it's Valeria Robecco from ANSA Newswire. My question is on Ukraine. You have said that Russia remains ready for a political and diplomatic settlement, but also that your country will not agree to oppose in the military operations during negotiations. So what concrete confidence-building measure Russia is prepared to take now to move from diplomatic positions to actual negotiation?

Thank you.

Well, strengthening trust. is possible only one way, and that is to implement what has been agreed on. In February 2014, when protest activity was raging, which was being encouraged by Victoria Nuland and other Western visitors, negotiations began under the auspices of France, Germany, and Poland. The current president of Germany was there. He was, at the time, the minister of foreign affairs. His colleague, Laurent Fabius, on behalf of France, or Radek Sikorski, was also a minister for Poland at the time. And President Obama even called President Putin and said, "Vladimir, please do not prevent then-President Yanukovych from signing this peace agreement that the Europeans were promoting." And Putin said that if President Yanukovych who is undoubtedly legitimate and universally recognized president, if he takes a decision, how can I possibly oppose a sovereign decision by the president of a neighboring country? An agreement was signed at the time pursuant to which Yanukovych renounced nearly all of his powers. He agreed to call early presidential elections within a few months. and a government of national unity was to be convened for that period. Germany, France, Poland signed this agreement, yet the opposition completely disregarded its obligations, Poland, France, Germany, everything under the agreement, and took over government buildings, proclaiming that Yanukovych was no longer the president. And that very same day, The following day, the Germans, the French, the UK, of course, declared that this was democracy in action. Democracy had resolved all the problems that existed there, and we therefore recognize this new government that came to power through a bloody coup. That's not something that is likely to strengthen trust when you sign something one day and it's completely disregarded the next. And then a year on, after Crimea rose up against this unlawful government and the Donbass region did as well because the new government from its very first days declared that they were repealing the status of the Russian language in Ukraine in 2014. So this wasn't just a last-minute idea. This was something that they had carefully been preparing for. They declared Crimea and those parts of Donbas who refused to recognize the coup terrorists. They declared them subhuman. This was stated by the prime minister of these unlawful authorities that came to power in 2014. Zelensky subsequently referred to them as creatures. And Poroshenko, who was president before him, proudly proclaimed all four, that our children, the children of Ukrainians, will attend light-filled schools, beautiful kindergartens, whereas your children, he said, pointing to Donbass, will rot in basements. So how can one work with people like this other than to refuse to have anything to do with them and instead hold a referendum on self-determination, which is exactly what was done? After a year of such events, the Minsk agreements were signed and endorsed by the Security Council. The UN Charter specifically stipulates that the decisions of the Security Council are binding. For many years, Poroshenko and Zelensky sabotaged those Minsk agreements, disregarding not only France, the UK, but the very Security Council itself. In 2019, Macron, taking up the post of president, convened France, Germany, represented by Angela Merkel at the time, together with Zelensky and Putin. And this was December in 2019. Another document was adopted where Merkel and Macron and Zelensky all signed under a document stating that the Minsk agreements needed to be implemented. And that included, given that part of Donbas special status and enshrining that status in the constitution of Ukraine. There were also agreements on the withdrawal of troops that were also not abided by the Zelensky regime. So that was a third opportunity to prove one's trustworthiness. And the fourth time when we had completely lost hope, And when we no longer saw any other ways to protect our national security and the peoples of Donbass and Novorossiya, began a special military operation in March. Several weeks later, Ukraine asked for negotiations. We began negotiations. We held several rounds in Belarus. And then in Istanbul, the Ukrainian delegation proposed principles for a settlement that we accepted. I stress, we did not change those principles at all. They were all initialed. And so perhaps this signing agreement, perhaps that's how one builds trust. So we trusted our Ukrainian colleagues here as well. But once again, they were sabotaging trust instead of strengthening it. And they were aided in this by Boris Johnson and other European leaders who agreed with Boris Johnson's demands that Ukraine fight Russia rather than signing that document. And then in Alaska, we also showed trust to our American colleagues. We consented to the principles that they set forth. We accepted those as a foundation for subsequent work. But representatives from the EU immediately showed up at the White House and began talking President Trump out of implementing his own initiative, just as Boris Johnson in 2022 talked Zelensky out of implementing and carrying out his very own position. So judge for yourselves. I have talked about how these things took place time and time again. There was no lack of trust on the part of our country. We continued negotiations, bilateral negotiations in Istanbul, as well as trilateral talks with the U.S. involvement in Abu Dhabi, and all those rounds of talks were not ultimately ended by us. They were ended by those who are now claiming that Russia is avoiding contacts and has nothing to say. But I think you are seriously studying the matter. And I think you know the true value of these claims by Zelensky and other figures that are under full control of the West, with whom it is completely impossible to agree if we look at Europe's input to solving the Ukrainian crisis.

Interfax, please.

Good afternoon, Interfax. Can you hear me? The Russian side previously had already announced that among the candidates for the post of the new Secretary-General of the United Nations, there is no candidature that would be completely acceptable to them. Does this mean that at the UN Security Council, we do not support any of the candidatures and that we will veto the vote?

Well, there is a need not to cling to the -- you quoted the all of the fully one of our staff members. There is only full consent and full agreement in the graveyard, as you well know. There's other host of candidatures on the negotiating table, and these are very worthy candidates and they possess qualities which are necessary for work at this very important position.

Thank you, Dr. Maria. Hello, sir. Now that President Trump has rejected the seven-day plan by Iran presented to solve the situation in the Gulf, the Gulf-- the Hormuz Gulf is still facing difficulties. Bab al-Mandeb is controlled by the Houthis. The attacks in Saudi Arabia is continuing. How does Russia envisage the solution for this very difficult situation? And also in Palestine, 10 months has passed now since the adoption by the Security Council 2803, which was the Trump plan, so-called Trump plan. Nothing has, much has happened. The ISF, the International Stabilization Force, has not been deployed.

You to relate the entire resolution.

No, no, but it hasn't been implemented, and that is what we need. That's my question is, what's the holdup? Thank you.

Well, first and foremost, this is not news. When the Security Council resolution is not being implemented, that is not news. Unfortunately, that is the case. And each time noncompliance is related to the fact that the West has their own concealed agenda being advanced. And the resolution on settlement on the former Yugoslavia, the Resolution 1944, this resolution which stipulated that Kosovo shall remain a part of Serbia, which stipulated that on the territory of Kosovo there will be symbolic, but albeit police forces deployed in the Serb Republic, and there were many other matters set out, and this resolution is no longer being under consideration, we continuously recall the fact that there were opportunities for a normal resolution without any unilateral declarations of independence, so without the conduct of referenda. There was a resolution, I don't recall the exact name, this was also in the mid-1990s or thereabouts, about resolution of the Middle East crisis and the establishment of a Palestinian state. and the quartet of international mediators, Russia, the US, UN, and European Union. There was such a body, a very useful body, incidentally. And this body supported, provide support in the implementation of a roadmap, which provided for the proclamation, establishment of Palestinian state within one year. So this is not the first time. There are other resolutions that I could mention, but I won't, since we are talking about Palestine, I mentioned those examples. But, frankly speaking, we abstained on resolution 2803 for a very simple reason. We harbored doubts, and we spoke with the U.S. drafters, and we stated that the resolution on Palestine, which has a single mention of the United Nations at all, looked somewhat odd if the U.N. Security Council were to adopt a text that has no mention whatsoever of the role of that organization over the course of many decades and dealing with the Palestinian issue, we were then requested, the majority of Arab states and Palestinians themselves requested that we not cast a veto against this resolution. And the Chinese side also abstained. And so now we have the situation before us. the unfortunate situation, Washington's rejection of the seven-day plan that was proposed by Iran, that's also not the first instance of such conduct. We had the Islamabad memorandum, if you would recall, which contained-- and this was signed at the highest level. So this is nothing new, truly, in international politics at its current stage of development. What to do? Well, we think that the Islamabad Memorandum was a fair deal, an honest deal. And since it was signed at the highest level, and this was done in an informed way, why not revert back to it?

Thank you, Maria. Thank you, Mr. Foreign Minister, and thank you for meeting with us every year so we can exchange some ideas also with you, especially about Palestine. You said in your speech just a few minutes ago that Russia is willing to take some initiatives to move things forward in case Russia can do something about that. implementation of the two-state solution could become a reality. But you know what's happening in the West Bank now. It's almost nothing left for a Palestinian state. And Gaza, you know, they are just now cornered in 30% of Gaza. So assuming that you can take some initiative as Russia to move things forward, as you just said, what can Russia do to get us a little bit closer to implementing the two-state solution. Thank you.

Yes.

Today, in my statement before the General Assembly, I stated that the situation in the West Bank is deteriorating rapidly, very rapidly, and with the most recent settlement-related decisions in West Jerusalem, if those settlements were to be established there, then the link between Gaza and the West Bank will be severed, and essentially, the Palestinian state, there would be no way to establish a Palestinian state. You said it yourself, and I agree with you. And Resolution 2803, which endorsed Donald Trump's peace plan, the Board of Peace, this resolution stipulates precisely that the majority of the Gaza Strip-- there's no mention of the West Bank-- majority of the West Bank needs to be brought under the control of the Palestinian structures. under the oversight, so to speak, of this Board of Peace. But you rightly stated that the Palestinians there, if they have control, probably it's only 20%, not more than that. As for what is to be done, for many long years, as far as I remember, during my experience as foreign minister, we advocated for Palestinian unity. And this is because division within the Palestinian ranks did not bring about anything good. And we cautioned about that then, even now, there is no hope for building bridges between that same Fatah and Hamas as a political movements. we fully support the need for only political goals to be placed before the structure. And we conducted a number of meetings in Moscow. We invited everybody, 11 or 12 Palestinian factions. We adopted a document that they agreed to unite, to set aside their differences, and to, as a whole, in a united way, to advance the Palestinian cause, the establishment of a Palestinian state. The same was done by our Chinese colleagues as well. And unfortunately, all of these agreements on trust building, I want to talk about trust building. These were words on paper, remain words on paper, which was not fault of our own. Our Palestinian brethren were unable to surmount their internal divisions, despite statements about their providing for unity within their ranks. And I do remember during the negotiations when the quartet was still alive and while the at the U.S., Russia, the EU, and UN, we discussed the need to do something, discussed the need to carry out certain measures and initiatives. The U.S. frequently said, we are happy, but with which of the Palestinians do we need to talk? There is a division there, a divide. Some agree, others do not. So even in terms of the need not to give grounds for dragging out the Palestinian issue and for for it's becoming even more bogged down. I don't know how realistic this is now, but that was our initiative at the time. And at this present juncture, what we can do is the following. Our Palestinian friends and all of those in the Arab world who have an interest, an interest in resolving the situation, a lasting long-term resolution, they are well aware of the fact that we always stand ready to provide assistance, and we have demonstrated this in the past and in the present. And there's a need for an interest in our services, a request for our services. Unlike our Western colleagues, including some permanent members of the Security Council, we do not impose any initiatives whatsoever which ultimately result in the conduct of loud events, for example, on the sidelines of LSA, and then nothing subsequently comes of it.

Can you press the button, please?

Yes, can hear now. From Turkey, how will the S-400 issue with Turkey be resolved? Has Russia allowed or agreed to Turkey to sell the S-400 to sell another country?

No, our Turkish friends are perfectly aware of the fact that the S-400 systems were provided as a package. with a contract which stipulates a respect for full respect and use certificates, they are perfectly aware of the fact that if they at some point decide to transfer those systems beyond their border, they cannot do so without our official consent.

Consent.

Any consent?

There was no such request. We did not receive that request. It did not happen.

Sergey Viktorovich, in your statement, you mentioned in the introduction the fact that yesterday preparations began for the Eurasian Charter on Multipolarity and Diversity. Nevertheless, I would like to ask what is being planned to be done in the future? What is planned to be done moving forward?

The plans are to draft a charter. At the practical level, a decision has been taken, and there's a statement that was published I thought that everybody interested in this have already read this. A group of experts is being established with the participation of a nucleus of, so to speak, of countries, a core group of countries who have already voiced their willingness to participate in the drafting of this document. The first meeting of it's an open-ended working group. Anybody wishing to do so in subsequent stages will be able to join in the first meeting of these expert Expert level negotiations will be held in Minsk by the end of this year. The second meeting is planned to be held in Moscow at some point in the first half of 2027. A number of countries voiced an interest to invite parties for such consultations on their territory. We are not creating any artificial timelines, but we would not like to drag out these efforts in light of the fact that the Eurasian continent, our Eurasian continent, very much needs a continental structure that would be open for all countries in the continent without exception, for all organizations on the continent, barring none, without any external intervention whatsoever. There are pancontinental structures both in Africa and in Latin America. In both of those continents, there is a multitude of subregional organizations, but at the same time, both have continental-wide organizations. But Eurasia, there are a multitude of subregional organizations, but when it comes to some kind of an umbrella, if you will, it doesn't even have to be called an organization, but some kind of a platform where all countries in the continent and organizations without exception have an opportunity to to regularly engage in exchange of views is something which does not exist, and I think that is an omission that needs to be addressed. Yeah? No, just a second.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. Anupama from the German Press Agency. You've just met the German Foreign Minister, and he reportedly asked you to de-escalate, especially on hybrid attacks. What did you answer, and could you let me know from your perspective what stage are German-Russian relations at?

First of all, I advised him to read my statement at the Security Council, which took place three days ago. I just described it briefly in response to the first question. I hope that you also took note of that. The history that preceded all of the present-day developments which are taking place, and our conscience is absolutely clear, unlike the conscience of those who signed and guaranteed the February 2014 agreement, those who signed the Minsk agreement in February 2015, and those who signed the Paris agreements in December of 2019, including, above all, of course, Germany and France. And not a single one of those agreements were fulfilled by Germany or France, despite the fact that the Minsk documents were endorsed unanimously by the UN Security Council. And Germany is so insistent, obsessive about joining the Security Council, despite the fact that they have no chance of that happening. As for the foreign minister, I think yesterday, at the very last minute, a meeting was requested with us. And this morning, before the general statement of the General Assembly, we never objected to hearing the views of anybody and those who are accusing Russia of all deadly sins. For example, this has been demonstrated by President Putin on a number of occasions. We are always willing to listen to the views of those. stakeholders, and I proposed that he share views. He sent a note and read out a text, which was a complete replica, utter replica of what Germany, through its leaders, officially and publicly, has been stating on a day-to-day basis. As for there, nothing new came from that initiative of the foreign minister. There was a subtext, you know. that I deign to engage in contact with you, and now that I made this a goodwill gesture, then you need to make certain concessions on the on the Ukrainian front and providing it for an agreement on the Black Sea region, for the tankers, dry goods to flow smoothly. And colleagues from India, from Egypt, from Turkey turn to you. Naturally, we discuss with them on the matter and we respond very simply. Name at least one instance of when vessels, commercial vessels operating for the advancement of your interests, when they became the object of, when they were targeted by strikes from the Russian side, and the discussion stops there. There are no such cases. All strikes, all of the damage being wrought to commercial navigation, this damage is occurring as a consequence of Ukrainian terrorist attacks, not just in the Black Sea, but in the Caspian. There is a Caspian Pipeline Consortium, and this includes Kazakhstan, the main stakeholder, but there's also ExxonMobil and Chevron who are involved. On a number of occasions, Ukraine targeted the infrastructure of this consortium, and approximately a month and a half ago, they entered a -- they struck a tanker belonging to Chevron. I spoke with Marco Rubio, and I stated that we needed to hear what the Americans think about this. that they sent signals, and this was also mentioned by the German foreign minister. And I explained it to him and our colleagues who turned to us saying, let's reach a bilateral deal, Russia-Egypt, Russia-Turkey, Russia-India, that we guarantee Since we did not target, we did not target your vessels and we'll continue never target the vessels. There's a need for separate discussions with the Ukrainians and not in the language of requests, but rather demands. Mr. Voda full criticized me for something being found, a downed unclaimed drone being found. Immediately it was said that this was Russian because there's a highly likely that phrase that they love, and our consul from Bonn was shuttered, despite the fact that the consulate inter alia provided for participation in the work of international organizations. Those present in Bonn when the capital was transferred to Berlin, a large number of premises were left in Bonn, which were not needed any longer. And then with our support, agreements were reached, and this is in the 1990s, agreements were reached about transferring the headquarters, their convention on climate change, the convention on combating desertification, and a host of other organizations. And the Germans are perfectly aware of the fact that our Consulate General in Bonn There were a number of staff members there who were dealing not with consular matters, but they were dealing with ensuring Russia's participation in these international structures. And for each of these international structures, Germany signed a host country agreement where they assumed an obligation to do everything possible to provide for the normal operations of these secretariats and the normal operations of member states, so representatives of member states to those structures. And they probably forgot. They forget about a lot, including that on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic, there needs to be no NATO structure there, and this just has been forgotten. And Mr. Waterfall incidentally mentioned that it is very important to implement the Black Sea Initiative, but when one considers Berlin's daily public statements. I did not hear anything different from that. I told him that, frankly, if I'm ready to listen to something interesting, something different, you could just have called me and said, read my statement. So I listened yet again to the statement about that.

Today and at the Security Council, you talked about manifestations of Ukrainian nationalism and journalists in the room as well as your bilateral partners received a report with the very shocking title the heirs of Gables why is the West hushing up this topic do they really not see this as a problem or is this intentional in order to continue supporting K and exerting pressure on Russia

well I don't think this is limited to just pressure on Russia. I also, in my statement just now at the general debate, touched upon the issue of Nazism. It is indeed on the rise once again, and not only in the fact that Europe is supporting and promoting Zelensky when he gets down on his knees before the ashes of and the remains of Nazi criminals that Europeans have helpfully transferred to the Kyiv regime, knowing full well that they would make a big public show out of these remains. They are trying to turn these satanic remains into a pantheon of memory of heroes, of of heroes of the war. And this isn't just in support of outright Nazism, but this isn't the only form that this is taking. But also, as I said, that when Chancellor Merz repeatedly says that our goal is to make Germany once again a leading military power in Europe, does he understand the meaning once again when he says that, and again, he did not misspeak. This was not said by accident. This was said repeatedly on several different occasions. And this is not to mention the fact that the memory of those who defeated Nazism is being erased from textbooks. It is being erased by dismantling monuments to them in a number of places in Europe. So this is a very dangerous trend indeed that leads many experts to states that we are currently seeing a process of attempts to create a Fourth Reich.

Lady. Thank you, Minister Lavrov. CNBC from Turkey. Has the Russian position changed on the third parties over the S-400 system? Because there were reports that the system could be transferred to the United Arab Emirates. Is that an option Russia would consider? And is Russia involved in any of the current talks between the Americans and Ankara? Thank you.

We will consider any proposal. I will not comment now, but yes, There are possibilities of this, but only with our explicit consent, only if the country where these systems are sent to acts responsibly and has friendly relations with the Russian Federation, so that we can be assured and firmly convinced that those systems would not leave that country. This is crucial because there have been a glaring number of cases when Europeans around the world are purchasing from African, Asian, Latin American, and Arab countries, and are purchasing weapons that they And they sign assurances that those weapons will not then be diverted, but then they transfer all those weapons to the Ukrainian regime. So we are ready to give S-400 systems to a country if we receive a request and if we have guarantees that such violations will not occur.

Is the Emirates an option, Minister?

Yes, please. As follows.

We are not considering options. When there is a request, then we can see what our Turkish colleagues intend to do specifically. They might not even get a plane.

Sergei Viktorovich. Sergei Viktorovich. Denis Davydov, Russia Television Channel 8. Follow-up question on Vadorful, if I may. Last year, when here on the margins of the General Assembly, you had your first meeting with Marco Rubio. German journalists asked Waterfall if he would agree to talk with you. And I quote, he said then that only when there is a credible new approach, will it make sense to enter in dialogue? So what happened? Did the Germans see this credible new approach? Why did he approach you?

To be perfectly honest with you, I haven't wondered about this, and I don't wonder about it at all. Our position is simple. If you want to have talks with someone from our country, we never refuse if we get such a request, although, once again, we saw today that Such requests from Western states don't usually bring anything new. We have several channels of communication with a number of EU member states, NATO member states. These are bilateral channels. There are certain confidential opportunities, if you will, to exchange views. And so certain positions are also conveyed to us this way from various Western bodies. We don't publicize this, but all I want to say is that we're always ready to listen. Why did Mr. Waterfall change his position, change his view? I don't want to guess. Everyone who has been following the developments, events, claims that Europe is desperately seeking opportunities to intervene in the process that the US is promoting, although also with certain breaks, because first, occasionally you have Iran or Palestine or something else getting in the way. But nonetheless, the United States is actively pursuing its efforts. I've already commented on what took place in Anchorage. I believe that an agreement was reached. there and we continue to remain ready to return to it. Meanwhile, Europe is feeling as though it's being left on the sidelines. And I think it was the US finance minister that said that, well, Marco Rubio said that they are on the side of Ukraine. So how can they be a mediator now? The U.S. is saying that they are looking for new approaches, new proposals. And Europe, well, they're prepared to be actively involved, so they're trying to keep that role. Can these negotiations be seen as a resumption of dialogue with Germany? Well, as I said, he simply reiterated his official public position condemning Russia. You can judge for yourself whether that counts as dialogue or not.

Thank you, Minister Lavrov, for continuing the tradition of engaging media from all over the world. This is Namu Abdullah with Rudaw Media Network. Last month, the Kurdish-led autonomous administration in Syria came to an end after it had been functioning for more than a decade. And now the Kurds in Syria are struggling to keep their linguistic and cultural rights as well as political rights within the country. Russia has long presented itself as a supporter of Kurdish rights in the whole Middle East. I just wonder whether in your meetings with your Syrian counterparts, you press for Kurdish rights in the new Syrian constitution as we go forward.

Thank you.

Look, dear colleague, we have excellent relations with nearly all Kurdish movements, including the Democratic Forces of Syria. We know who these people are. Every time that they've experienced some sort of crisis, for instance, when they lost the support of the US, there was point during Donald Trump's first term where he said that they're withdrawing from northeast Syria and the Syrian Democratic Forces immediately turned to us asking us for help to join those processes. And then the US came back and the SDF lost interest in us. So we're always ready to provide our assistance. But the fact that the northeast of Syria has now willingly agreed to sign the relevant document, the central authorities in Damascus, that's a fact. That's their sovereign decision. I haven't heard anything about the Kurdish language being banned. That's not the case at all. This isn't like the Ukrainian regime, which is genuinely implementing its nationalist, Nazi ideologies. So if there ever is any interest on the part of those groups in Russia playing a role, we are ready to listen about what specifically they might need.

Thank you very much. Mr. Minister, it's always nice to see you back here.

You say this every year.

I do say that every year, and I think we all mean it. We know you know this place probably better than any other minister who speaks here. You made clear in your speech to the General Assembly that you see dramatic changes in global politics with new powers emerging and the superpower of the United States and those in the West diminishing. And I wonder, in your discussion with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, did you see any prospects for better cooperation with the Trump administration?

We hold a regular dialogue with the Trump administration in a number of formats. And that alone is normal, because if relations are reduced to just making propaganda statements every morning with demands to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, that's not diplomacy. Whereas what the US is doing is democracy. Yes, it is firm because in parallel with democracy and in the context of these very very friendly, I would even say, talks. They are pursuing a firm line to sideline Russia from the global economy. When we first met with Mark Rubio in February 2025, soon after Donald Trump was back in the White House, he said that-- this was in Riyadh. In Riyadh, he said that, in his introductory remarks, that the United States wants their Russian colleagues to understand that under Donald Trump, we are pursuing a policy that is based on our national interests without any ideology whatsoever. And at the same time, we recognize that other states, particularly other superpowers, also have their own national interests, which we are ready to respect. And in cases when those interests, those of the US and its partners, and Russia in this case, when they coincide and those are going to be very limited in number, but nonetheless, if they coincide, it would be an error not to turn this into mutually beneficial, practical, tangible projects. But in those cases where the interests of the U.S. and Russia do not coincide, it would be an even more grave error to allow for this divergence to deteriorate into confrontation, especially a harsh confrontation. And we fully agree with that statement. But of course, despite the many meetings, I think I've met with Marco Rubio perhaps five or six times during this new administration. We also see Steven Witkoff and Jared Kushner representing Donald Trump, who talked to our representatives and President Putin. And they always say that Ukraine is Biden's war. It's not our war. And unfortunately, when we came back to the White House, thanks to Biden's efforts, Ukraine and it was at the top of the international agenda. So whether we like it or not, we need to get this issue out of the way because it is standing in the way of a mutually beneficial new era between Russia and the US. And we thought that in Anchorage, a step had been made towards getting this Ukrainian issue out of the way. we accepted what Trump proposed, where Zelensky rejected it. And Macron now, at a summit in June, he publicly proclaimed that Anchorage was done with and that the U.S. was now with them on their side. Well, I think that's up to the U.S. to decide and not Macron. So we will always continue engaging in dialogue, especially with such countries as the United States. We will always listen and we will always be frank about what we disagree with. And what we disagree with is, among other things, that as this Ukrainian conflict is being dragged out and in the absence of an opportunity to get Zelensky to accept these agreements, it will now It is now Trump, not Biden, that is adopting sanctions against Russia, in addition to automatically extending all the sanctions against Russia that were introduced under Biden. But a month after the meeting in Anchorage, new sanctions were announced against a private oil company, Lukoil, as well as a state oil company, Rosneft. Now they're simply being pushed out of international markets. And so we see this as a manifestation of US national interests. That is the doctrine in the US, which is aimed at ensuring the domination of America or North America, not really Canada right now, in global markets. If you take a look in Venezuela, Well, they said that Maduro was a drug trafficker, and that's why there was a need for a regime change. And now they've simply taken over their oil industry. They accused Iran of supporting terrorism for decades, yet there were periods when the US offered to Iran to jointly exercise control over the Strait of Hormuz. So we understand that this means that that the national interests of the US are fairly self-serving. Let's just be honest and put it that way. And in our talks, we attempt to explain what you began with, namely that in today's world, it will be impossible even for a superpower like the United States to single-handedly resolve all global problems and do so at the expense of other countries in their favor. I'm sure that life will teach our US partners to start thinking in terms of multipolarity and accept the fact that they're not the only economic, military, and generally the only power in the world. the only independent player on the international arena.

Thank you very much, Mr. Lavrov. I'm here in the back. I don't know if you can see me. Okay, thank you. Gabriel Elizondo from Al Jazeera English. We heard your remarks in the General Assembly about the qualities that Russia would like to see in the next Secretary General. As you know better than anyone, the race is entering its final stage now in the next few months. My question is, is Russia satisfied with the current candidates? that are in the race? And second part of the question is specifically about the two candidates that have gotten the most encourage votes in the three straw polls by the Security Council, Rebecca Greenspan and Caroline Rodriguez-Birkett. Is there -- does Russia have any problems with either of those two candidates?

Thank you.

Your first question, what was the first question?

Russia satisfied with the current seven candidates.

There was a question before that. You have several.

I just said I heard your remarks in the General Assembly about Russia's.

Yes. As for the qualities that we would like to see in the next Secretary General, I have already touched upon this. before during our discussion, but the qualities are set out and enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, which states that the Secretary-General is the chief administrative officer. And this already, in and of itself, creates a certain framework beyond which it is not possible to step when the Secretary-General attempts unilaterally to take unilateral decisions when there are situations of division. divisions amongst the membership of the United Nations on any given matter when the Secretary-General assumes a side that is not admissible. And another criteria, which is in the Charter, is impartiality and balance in his actions and the actions of any secretariat official. Unlike current secretariat leadership, among those individuals who are currently standing for a position of Secretary-General, I believe there are representatives. There are representatives of Latin American states and other continents. Right now, Latin America has the priority in light of the informal rotation arrangement. There are individuals who meet those criteria, and they include the two representatives who you mentioned, Latin American representatives. female representatives Latin America.

Good afternoon. Representing the TASS agency. Please tell us, Mr. Lavrov, what could you tell those leaders of Europe, those who regularly and seriously are calling for preparations to be underway for war with Russia?

Frankly speaking, it is no longer interesting to discuss this matter that is quite boring, to be frank. We repeatedly set out our position, and I am not in a position to add anything in addition to that. President Putin personally stated that with Europe, and this was just recently, I believe it was in St. Petersburg that Mr. Putin reaffirmed this position, we have no intention to fight with Europe, to engage in warfare with Europe. That is utter nonsense. But Europe is preparing for war with us, and each day they reaffirm the fact. the maximum by 2030 at the latest, we, they say, the Europeans, will have to be ready for war. And this is like a self-fulfilling, this could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, such a position, because they are investing vast amounts of money into weapons production. And at a certain juncture, a certain individual engaged in misadventures, there are many of those right now, say, we have amassed so much, what should we do with it? Ah, yes, we promised to attack Russia. And under that scenario, they would attack us. We have no intention of attacking them. As the President stated, we will not do so. And he also said that it would be a completely different war and it would be short.

This conference lasts more than one hour. Probably two last questions. Yes, please.

Thank you. Thank you, Minister. My name is Anna Maria from Romania. Mr. Minister, in 2016, President Vladimir Putin warned that Romania was now in Russia's crosshairs because of the U.S. missile defense base at Deveselu. Today, is Deveselu still on the list of targets of the Russian military in Romania?

Is that a secret?

Yes, please.

Thank you, Maria, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for all these years of coming to speak with us. My question is a follow-up to the questions about U.S. relations. As you know, President Trump, through Secretary Rubio, has invited your President Putin to Miami in December for the G20, says that there would be a chance to interact in this setting. I don't expect you to give an answer of whether President Putin will attend. Does this represent something else, more of a movement toward bilateral relations, as the President just met with Xi Jinping, I mean, President Trump? And do you see it as a warming of relations with Russia?

Well, I just described in detail how our assessment I just described in detail our assessment of the present-day state of relations with the United States. There's a great deal that is contradictory, but I did mention that. And when it comes to the invitation, an invitation for the G20 summit, there is no understanding you are being invited to speak with us. There are 20 states who comprise the G20, and they are full-fledged, equitable members of that body. Therefore, when dates are set to the host state, the chairman sets date, they don't say, "We are inviting you." No, invitation means, "Distinguished Mr. President, you are a member of the G20, and this year we are convening a meeting on this and that date." And that is all, that is our view of it. So in my contacts with Marco Rubio, I was we would have a G20 summit, but for the South, South Africa would not be invited. That constitutes a violation of the chairmanship function. And instead of South Africa, Poland was invited from. How is that possible? Expansion of the G20 is only possible through consensus. When it comes to discussions about excluding the Republic of South Africa instead of to invite Poland, that did not take place. So here our U.S. friends went beyond their talked.

About the restrictions put on Russia coming into the United States, coming to the UN, only going to the mission. This would give Russia a chance to go to Miami. And by the way, I'm sorry, it's Pamela Falk from U.S. News and World Report.

You think we are dying to get to Miami?

I have no idea. I'd like to hear that from you.

Pushed it.

Well, the announcement. announcement about, uh, where Mr. Putin travels is, uh, done by his administration staff. The last question, please.

Very much. Thank you, uh, Mr. Minister. My name is Sinan from the. Was there a concrete agreement to allow a Turkish military operation of Afrin city in northeast Syria in 2018? And how does Russia assess the current SDF Damascus integration process? Beyond Syria, Russia is working to build ties with the Kurds in Iran so as not to lose them to Americans again. Thank you very much.

No, it's nice.

Well, I think that if you are following our position on the above-mentioned-- and the countries that you mentioned in the region, you should be well familiar with that we are engaged with our Turkish colleagues. And in the second-half of the 2010s, we reached a number of agreements, agreed upon a number of issues on the border between Syria and Turkey, Turkey in the northern part, as well as on the question of Idlib, the Idlib zone. And not all of this was implemented in the way in which we agreed, but nevertheless, we continue to believe that, on the whole, we do have trustworthy partners in Turkey who are working. And everything doesn't always work out, necessarily, but we don't have real doubts about our discussions and what we to reach agreement agree upon with our Turkish counterparts. And when it comes to the Kurds, we never severed relations with the Kurds, neither with the Syrian, nor with the Iraqi or Iranian Kurds. And when it comes to the Iranian Kurds, they have their own problem there because they are present on the territory of Iraq. And when they try to use them against Islamic Republic, naturally, this is a provocation for Iran. I do hope that the region will, as I mentioned, trustworthiness and trust building and mentioned that in response to the first question, the document that was trampled upon by Western colleagues. I would not like to see those agreements, which are currently being agreed upon at great effort on Palestine and the Gulf of Hormuz, we would the Strait of Hormuz, we would not like them to meet the same fate that was set out as a result of the Western decisions that were taken over the past 12 years on the Ukrainian crisis.

The press conference is over.

Thank you.