Orban reveals Trump’s stance on Ukraine negotiations
RT | December 11, 2024
US President-elect Donald Trump is not yet able to conduct official negotiations to seek a resolution to the Ukraine conflict but will start doing so after assuming office on January 20, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has said.
Orban made the remarks in a Facebook post on Wednesday in which he recounted his meeting with Trump and members of his inner circle earlier this week. The Hungarian prime minister expressed confidence that a “positive effect” on the conflict will be seen immediately after Trump’s inauguration.
“If two people, whether in Europe or in America, sit down to talk to each other today, they will hardly be able to avoid talking about peace and war,” Orban wrote, noting that US law strictly bars Trump from negotiating in any official capacity before he assumes office.
Orban, one of a handful of dissenters to the Western approach to the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, has reportedly been actively seeking a mediatory role in settling the hostilities.
Early on Wednesday, Orban held an hour-long phone conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin that revolved around the Ukraine conflict, the situation in Syria, and bilateral ties between Moscow and Budapest.
“These are the most dangerous weeks” in the entire conflict, and Hungary is “taking every possible diplomatic step to argue in favor of a ceasefire and peace talks,” Orban said in a post on X after the talks.
Putin explained Moscow’s position to Orban, detailing “his principled assessment of the current development of the situation regarding Ukraine and the destructive line of the Kiev regime, which continues to exclude any opportunity for peaceful resolution,” according to the Kremlin press service.
The talks between Orban and Putin evoked an angry reaction from Ukraine’s Vladimir Zelensky, who mockingly expressed hopes that the Hungarian leader “at least won’t call [former Syrian President Bashar] Assad in Moscow to listen to his hour-long lectures as well.”
“No one should boost personal image at the expense of unity; everyone should focus on shared success. Unity in Europe has always been key to achieving it. There can be no discussions about the war that Russia wages against Ukraine without Ukraine,” Zelensky stated.
Orban promptly reacted to Zelensky’s rebuke, stating that the Ukrainian leader had rejected his peace efforts, namely “a Christmas ceasefire and a large-scale prisoner exchange” he had proposed.
“It’s sad that [Zelensky] clearly rejected and ruled this out today. We did what we could!” Orban said on X.
Seizure of Frozen Russian Assets: Is EU Setting a Legal Trap for Euroclear?
By Ekaterina Blinova – Sputnik – 11.12.2024
Valerie Urbain, CEO of Euroclear which holds $200 billion in frozen Russian Central Bank assets, told Bloomberg that if the European Union (EU) decides to confiscate the money, the financial services company should be exempt from any liabilities.
What are Euroclear’s concerns?
Urbain suggests Russia’s frozen money may be seized if incoming US President Donald Trump cuts off aid to Ukraine.
Confiscating the Russian assets poses severe risks to the euro currency and the broader stability of Europe’s finances, she warns.
Euroclear could also face legal challenges from Moscow to any moves to confiscate its foreign-held funds, a senior EU official told Reuters in March. Moscow could seize the €33 billion ($34.6 billion) of Euroclear money held in Russia and take legal action to sequester Euroclear assets in Hong Kong and Dubai, the official cautioned.
Sputnik pundit and French economist Jacques Sapir warned in October 2023 that the confiscation of Russia’s frozen assets would be theft – leading to legal action.
Urbain’s predecessor Lieve Mostrey warned the EU in February against seizing the frozen Russian money, adding that “the risk is a bit lower” if the EU appropriates the interest owed on the frozen sovereign assets.
But in October the European Commission moved to consider allowing Euroclear to take the frozen Russian assets, despite the risks. Euroclear complains that it faces “a significant number of legal proceedings ongoing, almost exclusively in Russian courts”.
Peace Plans, Schmese Plans: Key Path to Ukraine Peace Long Ignored by All
By William Dunkerley | Ron Paul Institute | December 10, 2024
Politico ran the headline, “Ukraine Peace Plans Galore.”
Ukraine, Russia, and China each have a peace plan. Trump is developing one. The Alliance of Democracies has one. It looks a lot like Ukraine’s plan at first glance.
There’s talk of a Demilitarized Zone between Ukraine and Russia. There’s also the suggestion of imposing a frozen conflict. They seem like an open invitation for continued stress between the countries, not real peace.
So, what’s the ignored key path to peace I’m talking about?
The first step along that path involves adopting a strategy of honesty. That requires sharp awareness of a troubling situation. It is that the mainstream Ukraine narrative expressed by most of our politicians is fabricated. Likewise are the stories reported by our media.
Instead of debunking all the falsehoods one by one I’ll describe the truths that the false narratives ignore. They became apparent to me by closely following what actually happened during and after the revolution. Here’s what I saw:
When in 2014 the Maidan revolutionaries took over by force, they cancelled Ukraine’s democracy.
–They illegally chased the democratically elected president out of the country, falsely claiming he was impeached. But on close examination he wasn’t. The United States has admitted that. A Ukrainian official also confirmed it to me personally. No impeachment. No resignation, either.
–The revolutionaries threw out the democratically promulgated constitution and replaced it with an old one that the legitimate Supreme Court had previously declared unconstitutional.
–They began to rule as militant, self-appointed, unelected leaders of a new, non-democratic state.
–They showed early intentions of drastically altering what had been successfully a Ukrainian-Russian multilingual state. That actually played out in later overt initiatives to linguistically and culturally cleanse things Russian from the new Ukrainian state. That brought about the oppression of Ukraine’s significant Russian minority population.
Most areas of Ukraine accepted all that as a fait accompli. Two did not: Crimea and Donbas. (Donbas consists of the areas known as Donetsk and Luhansk.)
Both Crimea and Donbas rejected the loss of democracy and also the unelected revolutionary leaders that caused it. Crimea and Donbas each declared their respective independence.
In response, the revolutionaries launched a hostile attack. They waged war on what was by then the independent area of Donbas. The intent was apparently to capture it by force.
They didn’t attack Crimea, however.
You see, a treaty that Russia had with Ukraine gave Russia control over its historical naval base at Sevastopol, Crimea. It also allowed for up to 25,000 Russian troops to be stationed there. According to the March 18, 2014 Washington Post, Russia was believed to have had about 15,000 on-base at the time of the revolution. That may have deterred an attack by the revolutionaries.
The net effect of the revolution was to create in a very real sense a different country, a different Ukraine.
Look at the chain of events I described above. Pre revolution — democracy. Post revolution — unelected rule by force. There was a complete break from the earlier government. There was no continuity. Pre revolution — control over Donbas and Crimea. Post revolution — no such control. They both had achieved independence.
In a de facto sense, pre-revolution Ukraine and post-revolution Ukraine aren’t the same country when it comes to statehood.
The post-revolution Ukrainian state was given some semblance of democracy in June 2014. That’s when it installed its first democratically elected president, Petro Poroshenko. This was about two months after the revolutionaries had already attacked Donbas. Upon taking office Poroshenko continued to attack Donbas as did Volodymyr Zelensky who followed as president.
To appreciate the concept of post-revolution Ukraine as a “different country” think of China in the 1900s. It had a revolution, too. Pre revolution it was the Republic of China. Post revolution it was the communist People’s Republic of China. Again, a complete break. Who would argue that they were the same country?
This perspective is consistent with a multinational treaty. It is the Montevideo Convention of 1933. It was signed on behalf of the United States by Cordell Hull, President Franklin Roosevelt’s secretary of state.
In international law this treaty is widely regarded as definitional regarding statehood and country status. Two essential qualifications are government and territory. Pre- and post-revolution Ukraine were discontinuous on both qualifications.
Why have the politicians and media gone for the false narrative? The full answer is beyond the scope of this article. But suffice to say, the extended war has been very lucrative and beneficial for many investors/financiers, defense industry companies, and politicians.
The impact of this on a potentially successful peace plan is a misalignment of interests. The interests of the war beneficiaries are served by prolonged war and tensions, not by sustainable peace.
That’s exactly why a sustainable peace agreement must be based on an honest perspective. The so-called peace plans that I’ve seen in the news all are accommodations of the false narrative. An honest accounting of the etiology of war in Ukraine will serve as a sounder basis.
I’m not suggesting that this be used to place blame. That would not be a wise approach. Rick Staggenborg, MD has followed this situation and explains: “To move toward peace in Ukraine we don’t have to agree on who is at fault. Unfortunately too many make that a big issue — but that’s gotten us nowhere. As a psychotherapist with training in family therapy, I know from experience that focusing on who is responsible for a problem almost never leads to a satisfactory solution; indeed it can be counterproductive.”
The key principals in negotiating a genuine peace plan must be the presidents of Ukraine, Russia, and the United States. I fail to see how they can bring about sustainable peace if the pretense of the false narrative is not broken, regardless of how entrenched it has become.
An approach based on honesty will have a better chance.
Here’s an example of an honest approach on a related matter: In mapping Ukraine, the National Geographic Society in 2014 chose not to include Crimea as part of it.
U.S. News quoted the Society’s geographer and director of editorial and research, “We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be.” That’s honesty on display.
In contrast, a spokesperson for Rand McNally said, “We take our direction from the State Department.” At that time the State Department was headed by politician John Kerry.
But fighting the false mainstream narrative will be difficult. There is a lot of dishonest narrative to discard.
Many countries have recognized the bogus territorial claims of the revolutionaries as factual. They’ve accepted the false narrative as being true. They side with the war beneficiaries. Those countries do so in disregard of the actual facts that are at hand.
However, in traditional diplomacy the concept of “recognition” is very powerful. Many judgments are based on that concept. Negotiators will need strength to oppose that.
“Recognition” is a political contrivance, though. It does not necessarily comport with the honest truth. Frankly, recognition sounds to me like a genteel euphemism for mob rule.
The negotiators will have a lot of controversial issues to deal with: Russia’s sudden 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the disposition of post-Ukraine territories now claimed by Russia, the main water supply for Crimea that the revolutionaries cut off, just to start with.
Then there are Russia’s security concerns over Nato advancement. History tells that President John F. Kennedy brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1962 over a Soviet missile threat far smaller than the Nato threat now perceived by Russia. In due fairness, Russia deserves having Nato threats considered with a comparable level of seriousness.
The peace negotiators will need the courage and integrity to resist pressure from the war beneficiaries and their allies, and reject the entrenched false narrative about Ukraine.
I hope that an honest view of the real circumstances will prevail if and when the three presidents meet to negotiate peace. That in effect is the “key path to Ukraine peace that has been long ignored by all.”
Ukraine strikes Russia with US-made ATACMS missiles
RT | December 11, 2024
Ukrainian forces fired a barrage of six US-made ATACMS missiles at a military airfield near the southern Russian city of Taganrog, the Defense Ministry in Moscow has said, vowing retaliation for the attack.
Two of the missiles were shot down, while the other four were affected by electronic warfare measures and veered off course, the ministry said in a statement. The attack inflicted minor damage on the airfield, with two administrative buildings and a number of cars hit with shrapnel.
An unspecified number of Russian servicemen were injured in the attack by “falling fragments of the missiles,” the ministry added, vowing to retaliate for the strike.
“This attack by Western long-range weapons will not go unanswered, and appropriate measures will be taken,” it said without providing further details.
Earlier in the day, acting Rostov Region Governor Yury Slyusar said an unspecified “industrial site” was targeted by the barrage, with around 15 cars being burned out in a parking lot.
Syria, a pawn on the grand chessboard of global geopolitics
By Eduardo Vasco | Strategic Culture Foundation | December 10, 2024
Very few people really know what happened – and is still happening – in Syria. We may never know what really happened. All most of us can do is speculate and analyze based on public information and logic. Sometimes logic is more accurate than information.
What we need to keep in mind is that Donald Trump’s election has changed everything. The American Deep State does not accept that he can put into practice what he has been talking about for a long time: withdrawing (or at least reducing the participation of) the United States from the great global geopolitical game. This would be a near-fatal blow not only to the imperialist domination of the United States, which has lasted almost 80 years, but to the entire international imperialist system that has been in force since the beginning of the last century.
That is why the Deep State made a very dangerous move – although it could turn out to be a masterstroke: it launched a series of offensives to leave the United States in a situation that Trump will not be able to reverse. This could even lead to a new world war, including a nuclear one.
Interconnected episodes of great magnitude then occurred at critical points in the Cold War (which is becoming less and less cold) with the Russians and the Chinese:
- The authorization for Ukraine to use ATACMS against Russian territory;
- The first use of ATACMS by Ukrainians inside Russia;
- The attempted military coup in South Korea;
- The devastating offensive by the “rebels” in Syria.
The advance on the Donbass front and the revelation of the Oreshnik are certainly important cards for the Russians to deter [US offensives]. However, there is a feeling in the government that the war needs to end as soon as possible and the risk of two new all-out wars in the vicinity of its territory (Syria and Korea) have raised the alarm in the Kremlin. At the same time, the frantic announcements of $725 million and $988 million, respectively, in military aid to Ukraine in the coming weeks, as well as $841 billion in defense spending for 2025, have shown the Russians that the Deep State is indeed capable of taking action and starting World War III.
Knowing that Vladimir Putin has already demonstrated that he is willing to fight for Ukraine, whatever the cost, and realizing the advantage the Russians have on the ground, the escalation at the end of Joe Biden’s administration would have served as a strong bargaining chip for imperialism to secure dominance on other fronts. For the first time, Vladimir Zelensky spoke of accepting dialogue with Russia and even seeking an agreed peace. In Paris, Trump met with the Ukrainian leader and reaffirmed Kiev’s surprising willingness to seek a possible peaceful solution in the short term.
It is possible that the Deep State exerted all this pressure to force Putin to give up Syria if it wants peace in Ukraine. The imperialists showed Moscow that they were willing to set the world on fire to protect their interests, and the Russians had to give up positions in the Middle East in exchange for guarantees in Eastern Europe.
After all, it would be extremely costly to maintain Bashar al-Assad’s regime. After 13 years of resisting imperialist aggression, Syria was already tired. Assad was not very popular among the population or among the state bureaucracy and the national bourgeoisie. The economic crisis was distressing and the armed forces were devastated. The Russians would only have to lose by intervening if the Americans really wanted to overthrow Assad once and for all. Russia would not be able to fight two wars at the same time.
Everything indicates that the Assad regime was indeed crumbling. All it took was a blow. And it came in an overwhelming way, with an alliance between the US, Turkey, Israel and Qatar. The Russians and Iranians had to accept it. But at least the Russians were able to take part in the agreement. They repelled the “rebel” forces near Latakia and Tartus, to protect their naval and air bases, but intelligence certainly knew that Assad would fall without Russian intervention and helped him escape. While the Iranian embassy was stormed and destroyed by the terrorists, the Russian embassy was unharmed.
The new regime has already announced that it will treat Russia as a partner like any other. Reports indicate that the military bases will be maintained. The Russian media no longer calls the terrorists terrorists, as it had done until the end of the week. It now calls them the “armed opposition”. The flag of the new regime has already been raised over the Syrian embassy in Moscow, without any inconvenience. Contrary to the trend in several countries whose regimes imperialism wants to overthrow, the Syrian opposition has not shown itself to be anti-Russian at any time during this fatal offensive. Compare what we see in Georgia, where a government much less influenced by Moscow is labeled a puppet of the Kremlin and protesters try to beat up anyone who speaks Russian.
Most of the state bureaucracy of the old regime (including diplomats in Russia) will be preserved. Prime Minister Mohammed Ghazi al-Jalali will remain in office. He was appointed by Assad on September 24, and I do not rule out the possibility that there was already a move to change the regime “peacefully.” His continued presence in office may have been a condition for the Russians to allow Assad to leave.
The situation for the Russians is not the same as it was in 2015. The necessary intervention in Ukraine took a lot of its military and economy. It was not possible to save Assad once again. Between Syria and Ukraine, the Russians would obviously choose Ukraine. The Russians have always had dialogue with many parties wherever they are, and in Syria it is no different. Assad was the first option, but not the only one. Now they will try to preserve their interests to a minimum, especially on the Mediterranean coast, and neutralize the United States as much as possible. We will see what happens in Georgia, which is nearby.
The Soviet legacy, since Stalin, is also highly valued by the current Russian bureaucracy. When it was necessary to sell off an allied country in order to preserve a more important one, Moscow never hesitated. The most famous example was the handover of Italy, mainly, and some other Western European countries, to the United States and the European imperialist bourgeoisie, saving them from the proletarian revolution, in order to obtain from them the guarantee that they would not interfere in Eastern Europe. In fact, the division of the world after the Second World War into zones of influence was a hallmark of Soviet diplomacy to preserve the interests of Moscow’s bureaucratic caste.
That was a betrayal by Stalin of the peoples of the world. But it would guarantee the survival of the Soviet bureaucracy for another 45 years. Putin’s current government is not founded on the foundations of a proletarian state, the fruit of a socialist revolution. Therefore, it has no obligation to save anyone. It fights for the interests of the new Russian state, which is weaker than Stalin’s Soviet one. It is understandable – even if one does not agree – that he gave up Syria to defend his positions in Ukraine against NATO aggression.
This does not mean that it was not a mistake. Much less that it was not a very important defeat. Nor does it mean that it contained the warlike and chaotic impulses of American imperialism.
Kiev reveals terms of $20 billion US loan
RT | December 9, 2024
The Ukrainian government has approved the terms of a conditional agreement with the US Federal Financing Bank (FFB) for a 40-year loan of $20 billion which will be backed by profits from frozen Russian state assets.
It’s part of a broader $50 billion G7 loan deal, which includes a separate $20 billion EU commitment, and $10 billion to be split by G7 members Britain, Japan and Canada.
The money will be transferred to the Facilitation of Resources to Invest in Strengthening Ukraine Financial Intermediary Fund, established by the World Bank on October 10, “for the sake of the state,” a resolution issued by Ukraine’s Cabinet of Ministers on Friday stated.
The transfer will be based on a Certificate Purchase Agreement between Ukraine, the FFB, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID), along with a loan guarantee and repayment agreement between Ukraine and USAID.
Under the deal, Ukraine’s Finance Ministry will issue a certificate of indebtedness to the FFB, guaranteed by USAID, the government resolution said.
The loan, which has an annual interest rate of 1.3% plus the current average rate for one-year US Treasury bills, will be repaid using interest earned from immobilized Russian sovereign assets.
The US and its allies froze an estimated $300 billion in assets belonging to the Russian central bank following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in February 2022. In June, G7 members pledged a $50 billion loan for Kiev, with the frozen Russian assets to be used as collateral, to help Kiev buy weapons and rebuild damaged infrastructure. The agreement was finalized in October.
Moscow has repeatedly denounced the asset freeze as “theft” and argued that tapping into these funds would be illegal and set a dangerous precedent. The Russian Finance Ministry has warned that it will initiate retaliatory measures mirroring the West’s actions against resources of Western investors held in the country.
The latest move is part of the current US administration’s last-minute strategy to bolster Kiev’s war effort, which includes a new $725 million military aid package to Kiev and another round of sanctions against Russia. It comes as uncertainty grows over Washington’s commitments under the upcoming presidency of Donald Trump, particularly after US House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed President Joe Biden’s request to include $24 billion in additional aid to Ukraine in a government funding bill last week.
Iran’s gas is the answer to world’s energy woes
Press TV – December 8, 2024
With the role of natural gas in future power generation being under debate by world countries amid a race to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, Iran is hosting a ministerial meeting of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).
Organizers say the meeting is an opportunity to exchange views among the member and observer countries as well as experts and specialists in the gas industry about the mechanism of consensus-building and strengthening communication and coordination on supply policies and related affairs.
While the future role of gas in the energy mix is the source of much contention among countries, the global gas consumption grew unprecedentedly in 2023, GECF Secretary General Mohamed Hamel told the forum’s opening in Tehran on Sunday.
He touched on the resilience of gas to regional conflicts and geopolitical strains which have exposed significant fragilties in the post-pandemic global energy system. Since the formation of the GECF in Tehran in 2001, global demand for natural gas has grown 70 percent, Hamel said.
The race to rapidly decarbonize and digitize the global economy under the net zero energy initiative has been subsumed by geopolitics that remains anchored in realist power struggles. The Ukraine war has undermined interdependence and prompted unprecedented levels of economic statecraft.
The need to rapidly move away from fossil fuels and fossil raw materials has exposed countries to a myriad of compliance risks with dire financial repercussions, leading to deepening instability, injustice and energy poverty.
Even the most optimistic clean energy projections indicate that by 2050, at least half of the world’s energy needs will still come from oil and gas resources. Hence, the rush to eliminate fossil fuels from the global energy system is unrealistic, threatening the world’s energy security.
According to the Energy Studies Institute of the International Energy Agency, gas will continue to play a significant role as a clean and cost-effective fuel in the global energy mix, accounting for 28 percent of the total by 2050. Forecasts indicate that by 2050, natural gas production and consumption will increase to more than 5.9 trillion cubic meters per year.
Asia-Pacific has emerged as the world’s largest net importer of natural gas. In 2023, China was the largest consumer of natural gas in the region, with around 405 billion cubic meters. Japan was the second-largest, with a consumption of around 92.4 billion cubic meters. The region’s gas consumption is forecast to hit 1.6 trillion cubic meters by 2050.
Also, predictions show that the largest share of the increase in natural gas production in the world will be from Russia, Iran, Qatar, and Turkmenistan.
Hence, the role of the Gas Exporting Countries Forum as a leading platform for dialogue and cooperation in order to provide a level of stability beneficial to both exporters and consumers and supporting the gas industry which requires significant effort and financing is of particular importance.
Iran, as the second largest holder of gas reserves in the world, has an important role to play in the gas diplomacy and guarantee its national interests and the interests of the other members.
The GECF countries hold 70% of the world’s proven gas reserves and produce some 40% of the world’s gas.
Despite years of sanctions, Iran has made significant progress in expanding its gas sector. The country now produces 275 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, and gas accounts for more than 70 percent of its energy consumption.
Iran’s overall proven natural gas reserves excluding shale gas deposits and huge hydrocarbon reserves in the Sea of Oman and possibly the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea are put at 34 trillion cubic meters, or about 17.8% of world’s total.
Assuming that the current unbridled consumption of about 250 billion cubic meters per year continues and with the pessimistic assumption that no new gas fields are discovered in the coming years, the existing supplies are enough to meet Iran’s needs for the next 130 years.
With investment and production from unconventional shale reserves which the country has already discovered, Iran’s gas supply capacity can rise more than twofold in the coming decade.
Exploratory research in the Sea of Oman has indicated the existence of gas hydrate reserves in Iranian waters in larger quantities than the huge South Pars field.
Further development of more than 20 fields currently producing gas can add another 500 million cubic meters a day to the country’s gas production capacity.
This huge capacity can be tapped to supply gas to the world markets through building new pipeline networks to neighboring countries and sending LNG to the rest of the world.
US beefing up missile deployment in Europe
RT | December 8, 2024
The US is stepping up efforts to increase deployment of intermediate and short-range missiles, including stationing hypersonic weapons in Europe and Asia, according to information obtained by RT. Production and deployment of such systems in the US has reportedly been picking up pace in recent years.
Among the major weapons being developed is the multiple-launch rocket system Dark Typhon, which will be capable of firing Standard-6 missiles with a 500-km range and Tomahawk cruise missiles (2,400-km), as well as a hypersonic missile that is also still being developed. The system is expected to become operational by 2025.
During the NATO summit this past July, Washington and Berlin announced that Dark Typhoon would be stationed in Wiesbaden, Germany starting in 2026, a prospect that Russia slammed as an “escalatory action” given that it would place the missiles within range of Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other major Russian cities. The Pentagon also reportedly plans to deploy the system on the Japanese island of Io by October of next year, which would put the missiles within 2.5 hours flight time of Russia’s Vladivostok.
Among Washington’s most ambitious projects is the Dark Eagle hypersonic missile, which is designed to hit critical land-based targets within a range of 5,500km with strike precision of 3-10 meters. While still being developed, the prototype has passed at least seven tests, four of them successfully.
According to the information obtained by RT, the US plans to start deploying the missiles in Japan by October 2025, which would put them within 8-10 minutes’ flight time from Vladivostok. By 2026, one rocket launcher equipped with 16 missiles is expected to be stationed in Wiesbaden, with a flight time to central Russia also estimated at 8-10 minutes.
Russia has long warned that the US military buildup and the deployment of nuclear-capable missiles will draw a proportionate response. Earlier this week, Russia and Belarus signed a security treaty, which, among other things cemented the deployment of Russia’s brand-new hypersonic ballistic Oreshnik missile systems in the neighboring country next year. The Russian military combat tested the Oreshnik last month, using it to strike a Ukrainian military industrial facility in Dnepropetrovsk with multiple warheads.
Washington unilaterally pulled out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia back in 2019. Moscow also subsequently abandoned the treaty. Under the INF, both countries were prohibited from new deployments of ground-based ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500km.
US admits much-hyped tanks failed in Ukraine
RT | December 8, 2024
American-made M1 Abrams tanks were “not useful” to the Ukrainian military, despite being billed as a potential “game changer” in the conflict with Russia, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan has admitted.
After months of requests from Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky and his officials, the White House approved the transfer of 31 M1 Abrams main battle tanks – enough to equip an entire tank battalion – to Ukraine in January 2023. President Joe Biden said the tanks would help “counter Russia’s evolving tactics and strategy on the battlefield in the very near term,” while multiple US media outlets described them as a “game changer” ahead of Kiev’s planned counteroffensive against Russian forces that summer.
This was not the case, Sullivan said at the Reagan National Defense Forum in California on Saturday. Asked whether the Biden administration could have better prepared Ukraine for the counteroffensive had it supplied Kiev with more heavy weapons, he cited the Abrams tanks as an example of how not everything in America’s arsenal worked in Ukraine.
”When it comes to Abrams tanks, we sent Abrams tanks to Ukraine,” he replied. “These Abrams tank units are actually undermanned because it’s not the most useful piece of equipment for them in this fight.”
Shortly after their deployment, the Russian Defense Ministry began releasing videos of Abrams tanks burning on the battlefield. According to some estimates, as many as 20 of the 31 tanks sent to Ukraine in 2023 have since been destroyed, and Ukrainian commanders began withdrawing the rest from service earlier this year, American officials told AP.
The M1A1 variants sent to Ukraine were first stripped of their depleted uranium armor, leaving them vulnerable to Russian drones and anti-tank missiles.
One of the heaviest main battle tanks in service worldwide, the M1 Abrams weighs in at 60 tons, with the latest M1A2 variant increasing this heft to more than 73 tons. An M1 Abrams tank costs more than $450 per mile in fuel and repairs, according to a 1991 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report adjusted for inflation.
The GAO report stated that the average M1 Abrams needs its track replaced after as little as 710 miles, with engines typically suffering catastrophic “blowouts” after 350 hours of operation.
Even before Biden authorized their delivery to Ukraine, US military officials warned that the Abrams tanks would prove unsuitable for Kiev’s needs.
“The challenge with the Abrams is, it’s expensive. It’s difficult to train on. It is very difficult to sustain. It has a huge, complicated turbine engine that requires jet fuel,” US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Colin Kahl warned in early January 2023. “Frankly, our assessment is just that the Abrams is not the right capability at this time.”
Belarus to Host Russia’s Oreshnik in Response to US Missiles in Germany
Sputnik – December 7, 2024
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko asked Russian President Vladimir Putin to deploy the latest Russian weapons, including the Oreshnik system, on Belarusian soil on Friday following a meeting of the Supreme State Council of the Union State.
“The decision to deploy the Oreshnik system on the territory of the Republic of Belarus was made in response to the actions taken by the United States and Germany regarding the deployment of intermediate-range missiles in Europe. The Americans and Germans have repeatedly stated this before,” the Belarusian Ministry of Defense’s Telegram channel quoted
Here are some official statements of the sides at the time.
- Washington and Berlin: “The US will begin episodic deployments of the long-range firing capabilities of its multi-domain task force in Germany in 2026. These will include SM-6, Tomahawk, and developmental hypersonic weapons, which have significantly longer range than current land-based fires in Europe.”
- US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan: “What we are deploying to Germany is a defensive capability, like many other defensive capabilities we’ve deployed across the alliance, across the decades.”
- German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: This is a “very good decision” which is “exactly in line” with the German government’s security strategy. “The decision has been in the works for a long time and is not a real surprise for anyone involved in security and peace policy.”
- German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius: Germany needs a longer-term plan for investment in “appropriate long-range defense systems” to protect itself and Europe.
- Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov: The move is “a very serious threat” to Russia, which would “take thoughtful, coordinated and effective measures to contain NATO.”
- Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov: “Without nerves and emotions, we will develop, first of all, a military response” to the move, which is “just another link in the chain of a course of escalation”.
In response, the Russian leader agreed, stating that the deployment of Oreshnik in Belarus was possible in the second half of 2025.
Latest ‘Zircon’ test reaffirms Russian hypersonic dominance
By Drago Bosnic | December 6, 2024
On December 3, the Russian military demonstrated the true design of its 3M22 “Zircon” hypersonic missile for the first time. The footage shows the weapon being launched from the 3S14 UKSK vertical launch system (VLS). The launch platform was the Russian Navy’s “Admiral Gorshkov”, a frigate that regularly causes panic in NATO headquarters due to its long-range anti-ship and land-attack capabilities.
The first confirmed combat deployment of the “Zircon” occurred in January last year, although it’s very likely it was already used in 2022. In combination with high maneuverability, the missile’s maximum speed of Mach 9 (approximately 11,000 km/h) makes it effectively impossible to intercept, especially at very low altitudes, giving enemy forces mere seconds to react.
Information on the maximum range varies significantly, but informed military sources speculate it depends on the “Zircon’s” flight profile. According to Army Recognition, when flying low, it can reach up to 500 km, which is in line with basic physics, as the atmosphere is much denser at such altitudes. However, Russian tests have confirmed ranges of up to 1,500-2,000 km, as flying higher greatly extends the missile’s reach.
The “Zircon” is a two-stage weapon, with the first being a solid-fuel booster, while a scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) engine takes over after the missile has accelerated enough to enable its functioning (ramjets and scramjets can usually operate only after a certain velocity has been attained). It’s the world’s first and only operational weapon of this type.
The political West is particularly terrified of the “Zircon’s” multipurpose capabilities, as it can be launched by various platforms, be it submarines, surface combatants and/or land-based platforms. The missile is also nuclear-capable, meaning that it can be used on a strategic level, although its conventional capabilities are no less concerning to NATO, as its sheer speed and kinetic energy are unmatched by anything the world’s most vile racketeering cartel can deploy. As per usual, in order to somehow mask its inferiority (measured in decades at this point) in hypersonic technologies, the political West usually resorts to propaganda to denigrate the “Zircon”, primarily by pushing the laughable narrative that the Neo-Nazi junta shot down a third of all “Zircons” fired by the Russian military.
However, not a single remotely informed military source takes such claims seriously. On the contrary, even Western ones admit that “no known technology has been proven to consistently counter hypersonic threats, meaning adversaries could not intercept the Zircon in real-time, mainly when launched from long distances”, as the aforementioned Army Recognition report posits. The publication also admits that “for the United States and NATO, the Zircon represents a new generation of missile technology that could shift the balance of power, particularly in naval operations”, as its “extreme speed and the variety of launch platforms it can be deployed from increase its threat to naval assets such as aircraft carriers and destroyers” and that this “could severely limit Western operational reach”.
This is certainly true and confirms that NATO militaries are extremely worried about the possibility of such missiles proliferating to sovereigntist nations, a development that could severely limit the political West’s ability to conduct unprovoked aggression against the world. It should be noted that the United States, NATO and its other vassals and satellite states are mostly thalassocracies that focus on naval power projection, particularly on massive capital ships (such as aircraft carriers). These large and slow-moving targets are effectively sitting ducks for the Russian Navy which is focusing on deploying much smaller surface combatants such as frigates and corvettes that could carry the “Zircon”. Such vessels are far more affordable, while the missile itself gives them a strategic reach.
This asymmetric advantage is very difficult to match, particularly as the political West is decades behind in hypersonic propulsion technologies. Worse yet, any large-scale deployment of a land-based variant of the “Zircon” would also greatly diminish NATO’s land warfare capabilities, as the missile could easily target both high-value assets and large troop concentrations.
Its sophisticated guidance systems ensure pinpoint precision even at hypersonic speeds, making such strikes particularly deadly for high-tech opponents. The “Zircon” uses a combination of INS (inertial navigation system) and radar homing to achieve this. As the missile flies at 11,000 km/h, the air pressure in front of it forms a plasma cloud, absorbing radio waves and making it effectively invisible to radar.
This phenomenon, colloquially known as plasma stealth, and its sea-skimming capability, make intercepting an incoming “Zircon” effectively impossible. One downside of plasma stealth is that it greatly diminishes the ability to communicate with the missile, which is one of the many reasons why nobody in the political West has been able to develop a working hypersonic weapon. However, Russian scientists found a way to circumvent this, giving Moscow an unprecedented technological edge, as the “Zircon” is capable of information exchange during flight, allowing it to receive constant updates and adjustments in real-time. This doesn’t only ensure pinpoint precision, but it also enables timely retargeting, confirming the claim that the missile can engage moving targets.
The KRN, a Belgrade-based military think tank that gave several fascinating interviews to InfoBRICS, posited that the “Zircon” can be used by existing land-based platforms of the Russian military, specifically the K300P “Bastion-P” coastal defense system. I’m also a long-time member of this organization and we’ve suggested this was the case years ago. The genius of Russian military specialists becomes all the more apparent when one realizes that the “Zircon” was made to fit not just into the previously mentioned 3S14 VLS, but also the K300P. Back in 2023, along with my KRN colleagues, I had the chance to analyze the size of the P-800 “Oniks” supersonic cruise missile and determined that these missiles fit into identical launchers, both on naval vessels and land-based platforms.
This greatly enhances the “Zircon’s” already impressive versatility, making it a highly flexible weapon with a simultaneous tactical, operational and strategic impact. In addition to the aforementioned naval role, it can also be used in strikes on land-based critical military infrastructure such as command centers, airbases, SAM (surface-to-air missile) and ABM (anti-ballistic missile) systems, army bases and numerous other strategic targets.
It greatly complements Russia’s existing hypersonic weapons arsenal, including the “Iskander-M”, “Kinzhal” and the latest “Oreshnik” missile systems. It fits perfectly into Moscow’s non-nuclear (and nuclear) deterrence policies and has already been used in response to NATO-backed terrorist attacks, giving the perpetrators mere minutes (or seconds in some cases).
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Nuclear conflict risk, Ukraine and Syria escalation: Lavrov’s interview with Tucker Carlson
TNC | December 5, 2024
View at Bitchute
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has given an exclusive interview to conservative American journalist Tucker Carlson this week. The two talked about a wide range of topics of international concern, primarily the conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, as well as the state of US-Russia relations. Here’s the full text of the conversation.
Carlson:
Minister Lavrov, thank you for doing this. Do you believe the United States and Russia are at war with each other right now?
Lavrov:
I wouldn’t say so. And in any case, this is not what we want. We would like to have normal relations with all our neighbors, of course, but generally with all countries, especially with a great country like the United States. And President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly expressed his respect for the American people, for American history, for American achievements in the world, and we don’t see any reason why Russia and the United States cannot cooperate for the sake of the universe.
Carlson:
But the United States is funding a conflict that you’re involved in, of course, and now is allowing attacks on Russia itself. So that doesn’t constitute war?
Lavrov:
Well, we officially are not at war. But what is going on in Ukraine is what some people call a hybrid war. I would call it a hybrid war as well, but it is obvious that the Ukrainians would not be able to do what they’re doing with long-range modern weapons without the direct participation of American servicemen. And this is dangerous, no doubt about this.
We don’t want to aggravate the situation, but since ATACMS and other long-range weapons are being used against mainland Russia as it were, we are sending signals. We hope that the last one, a couple of weeks ago, the signal with the new weapon system called Oreshnik, was taken seriously.
However, we also know that some officials in the Pentagon and in other places, including NATO, started saying in the last few days something like that NATO is a defensive alliance, but sometimes you can strike first because the attack is the best defense. Some others in STRATCOM, Thomas Buchanan is his name, representative of STRATCOM, said something which allows for an eventuality of exchange of limited nuclear strikes.
And these kinds of threats are really worrying. Because if they are following the logic which some Westerners have been pronouncing lately, that don’t believe that Russia has red lines, they announced their red lines, these red lines are being moved again and again. This is a very serious mistake. That’s what I would like to say in response to this question.
It is not us who started the war. Putin repeatedly said that we started the special military operation in order to end the war which the Kiev regime was conducting against its own people in parts of Donbass. And just in his latest statement, President Putin clearly indicated that we are ready for any eventuality. But we strongly prefer a peaceful solution through negotiations on the basis of respecting the legitimate security interest of Russia, and on the basis of respecting the people who live in Ukraine, who still live in Ukraine, being Russians. Their basic human rights, language rights, religious rights, have been exterminated by a series of legislation passed by the Ukrainian parliament. They started long before the special military operation. Since 2017, legislation was passed prohibiting Russian education in Russian, prohibiting Russian media operating in Ukraine, then prohibiting Ukrainian media working in the Russian language, and the latest, of course there were also steps to cancel any cultural events in Russian. Russian books were thrown out of libraries and exterminated. The latest was the law prohibiting the canonic Orthodox Church, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
You know, it’s very interesting when people in the West say we want this conflict to be resolved on the basis of the UN Charter and respect for the territorial integrity of Ukraine, and Russia must withdraw. The Secretary General of the United Nations says similar things. Recently his representative repeated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter and General Assembly resolutions, while respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It’s a misnomer, because if you want to respect the United Nations Charter, you have to respect it in its entirety. The United Nations Charter, among other things, says that all countries must respect the equality of states and the right of people to self-determination. And they also mentioned the United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and this is clear that what they mean is the series of resolutions which they passed after the beginning of this special military operation which demand the condemnation of Russia, that Russia get out of Ukraine; territory in its 1991 borders. But there are other United Nations General Assembly resolutions which were not voted on, but which were consensual, and among them is a declaration on principles of relations between states on the basis of the Charter. And it clearly says, by consensus, everybody must respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the right of people for self-determination, and because of that represent the entire population living on a given territory.
To argue that the people who came to power through military coup d’état in February 2014 represented Crimeans or the citizens of eastern and southern Ukraine is absolutely useless. It is obvious that Crimeans rejected the coup. They said, leave us alone, we don’t want to have anything with you. So we did: Donbass and Crimeans held referendums, and they rejoined Russia. Donbass was declared by the putschists who came to power a ‘terrorist group’. They were shelled, attacked by artillery. The war started, which was stopped in February 2015.
The Minsk agreements were signed. We were very sincerely interested in closing this drama by seeing the Minsk agreements implemented fully. It was sabotaged by the government which was established after the coup d’état in Ukraine. There was a demand that they enter into a direct dialogue with the people who did not accept the coup. There was a demand that they promote economic relations with that part of Ukraine. And so on and so forth. None of this was done.
The people in Kiev were saying we would never talk to them directly. And this is in spite of the fact that the demand to talk to them directly was endorsed by the [UN] Security Council. The putschists said they are terrorists, we would be fighting them, and they would be dying in cellars because we are stronger.
Had the coup in February 2014 not happened and the deal which was reached the day before between the then president and the opposition [been] implemented, Ukraine would have stayed in one piece by now, with Crimea in it. It’s absolutely clear. They did not deliver on the deal. Instead they staged the coup. The deal, by the way, provided for the creation of a government of national unity in February 2014, and holding early elections, which the then president would have lost. Everybody knew that. But they were impatient and took the government buildings the next morning. They went to this Maidan Square and announced that they had created the government of the winners. Compare the government of national unity to prepare for elections and the government of the winners.
How can the people whom they, in their view, defeated, how can they pretend that they respect the authorities in Kiev? You know, the right to self-determination is the international legal basis for the decolonization process which took place in Africa on the basis of this charter principle, the right to self-determination. The people in the colonies, they never treated their colonial powers, colonial masters, as somebody who represents them, as somebody whom they want to see in the structures which govern those lands. By the same token, the people in the east and south of Ukraine, people in Donbass and Novorossiya, they don’t consider the Zelensky regime as something which represents their interests. How can they do that when their culture, their language, their traditions, their religion, all this was prohibited?
The last point is that if we speak about the UN Charter, resolutions, international law, the very first article of the UN Charter, which the West never, never recalls in the Ukrainian context, says, “Respect human rights of everybody, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion.”
Take any conflict. The United States, UK, Brussels, they would interfere, saying, “Oh, human rights have been grossly violated. We must restore the human rights in such and such territory.” On Ukraine, never, ever have they mumbled the words “human rights,” seeing these human rights for the Russian and Russian-speaking population being totally exterminated by law. So when people say, “Let’s resolve the conflict on the basis of the Charter,” – yes. But don’t forget that the Charter is not only about territorial integrity. And territorial integrity must be respected only if the governments are legitimate and if they respect the rights of their own people.
Carlson:
I want to go back to what you said a moment ago about the introduction or the unveiling of the hypersonic weapons system that you said was a signal to the West. What signal exactly? I think many Americans are not even aware that this happened. What message were you sending by showing it to the world?
Lavrov:
Well, the message is that you, I mean the United States, and the allies of the United States who also provide these long-range weapons to the Kiev regime, they must understand that we would be ready to use any means not to allow them to succeed in what they call the strategic defeat of Russia.
They fight for keeping the hegemony over the world on any country, any region, any continent. We fight for our legitimate security interests. They say, for example, 1991 borders. Lindsey Graham, who visited some time ago Vladimir Zelensky for another talk; he bluntly, in his presence, said that Ukraine is very rich with rare earth metals and they cannot leave this richness to the Russians. We must take it. We fight.
So they fight for a regime which is ready to sell or to give to the West all the natural and human resources. We fight for the people who have been living on these lands, whose ancestors were actually developing those lands, building cities, building factories for centuries and centuries. We care about people, not about natural resources which somebody in the United States would like to keep and to have Ukrainians just as servants sitting on these natural resources.
So, the message which we wanted to send by testing in real action this hypersonic system is that we will be ready to do anything to defend our legitimate interests.
We hate even to think about war with the United States, which will take nuclear character. Our military doctrine says that the most important thing is to avoid a nuclear war. And it was us, by the way, who initiated in January 2022 the message, the joint statement by the leaders of the five permanent members of the Security Council saying that we will do anything to avoid confrontation between us, acknowledging and respecting each other’s security interests and concerns. This was our initiative.
And the security interests of Russia were totally ignored when they rejected at about the same time the proposal to conclude a treaty on security guarantees for Russia, for Ukraine in the context of coexistence and in a context where Ukraine would not ever be a member of NATO or any other military bloc. These security interests of Russia were presented to the West, to NATO and to the United States in December 2021. We discussed them several times, including during my meeting with Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022. And this was rejected.
So we would certainly like to avoid any misunderstanding. And since the people, some people in Washington and some people in London, in Brussels, seemed to be not very capable of understanding, we will send additional messages if they don’t draw the necessary conclusions.
Carlson:
The fact that we’re having a conversation about a potential nuclear exchange and it’s real… thought I’d never see.
And it raises the question, how much back-channel dialogue is there between Russia and the United States? Has there been for the last two and a half years? Is there any conversation ongoing?
Lavrov:
There are several channels, but mostly on the exchange of people who serve [prison] terms in Russia and in the United States. There were several swaps.
There are also channels which are not advertised or publicized, but basically the Americans send through these channels the same message which they send publicly. You have to stop, you have to accept the way which will be based on the Ukrainian needs and position. They support this absolutely pointless ‘peace formula’ by Vladimir Zelensky, which was additioned recently by [his] ‘victory plan’. They held several series of meetings, Copenhagen format, Burgenstock. And they brag that [in the] first half of next year they will convene another conference and they will graciously invite Russia that time. And then Russia would be presented an ultimatum.
All this is seriously repeated through various confidential channels. Now we hear something different, including Vladimir Zelensky’s statements that we can stop now at the line of engagement, line of contact. The Ukrainian government will be admitted to NATO, but NATO guarantees at this stage would cover only the territory controlled by the government, and the rest would be subject to negotiations. But the end result of these negotiations must be the total withdrawal of Russia from Ukrainian soil. Leaving Russian people to the Nazi regime, which exterminated all the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking citizens of their own country.
Carlson:
If I could just go back to the question of nuclear exchange. So there is no mechanism by which the leaders of Russia and the United States can speak to each other to avoid the kind of misunderstanding that could kill hundreds of millions of people.
Lavrov:
No. We have this channel which is automatically engaged when a ballistic missile launch is taking place.
As regards this Oreshnik hypersonic mid-range ballistic missile. 30 minutes in advance, the system sent the message to the United States. They knew that this was the case and that they don’t mistake it for anything bigger and really dangerous.
Carlson:
I think the system sounds very dangerous.
Lavrov:
Well, it was a test launch, you know.
Carlson:
Yes. Oh, you’re speaking of the test, okay. But I just wonder how worried you are that, considering there doesn’t seem to be a lot of conversation between the two countries. Both sides are speaking about exterminating the other’s populations. That this could somehow get out of control in a very short period and no one could stop it. It seems incredibly reckless.
Lavrov:
No, we are not talking about exterminating anybody’s population. We did not start this war. We have been, for years and years and years, sending warnings that pushing NATO closer and closer to our borders is going to create a problem.
In 2007, Putin started to explain [this] to the people who seemed to be overtaken by the ‘end of history’ and being dominant, no challenge, and so on and so forth.
And of course, when the coup took place, the Americans did not hide that they were behind it. There is a conversation between Victoria Nuland and the then-American ambassador in Kiev when they discuss personalities to be included in the new government after the coup. The figure of $5 billion spent on Ukraine after independence was mentioned as the guarantee that everything would be like the Americans want.
So we don’t have any intention to exterminate Ukrainian people. They are brothers and sisters to the Russian people.
Carlson:
How many have died so far, do you think, on both sides?
Lavrov:
It is not disclosed by the Ukrainians. Vladimir Zelensky was saying that it is much less than 80,000 persons on the Ukrainian side.
But there is one very reliable figure. In Palestine during one year after the Israelis started their operation in response to this terrorist attack, which we condemned. And this operation, of course, acquired the proportion of collective punishment, which is against international humanitarian law as well. So during one year after the operation started in Palestine, the number of Palestinian civilians killed is estimated at 45,000. This is almost twice as many as the number of civilians on both sides of Ukrainian conflict who died during ten years after the coup. One year and ten years. So it is a tragedy in Ukraine. It’s a disaster in Palestine, but we never, ever had as our goal killing people.
And the Ukrainian regime did. The head of the office of Vladimir Zelensky once said that we will make sure that cities like Kharkov, Nikolaev will forget what Russian means at all. Another guy in his office stated that Ukrainians must exterminate Russians through law or, if necessary, physically. Ukrainian former ambassador to Kazakhstan Pyotr Vrublevsky became famous when giving an interview and looking into the camera (being recorded and broadcast) he said: “Our main task is to kill as many Russians as we can so that our children have less things to do”. And statements like this are all over the vocabulary of the regime.
Carlson:
How many Russians in Russia have been killed since February of 2022?
Lavrov:
It’s not for me to disclose this information. In the time of military operations special rules exist. Our ministry of defense follows these rules.
But there is a very interesting fact that when Vladimir Zelensky was playing not in international arena, but at his comedy club or whatever it is called, he was (there are videos from that period) bluntly defending the Russian language. He was saying: “What is wrong with Russian language? I speak Russian. Russians are our neighbors. Russian is one of our languages”. And get lost, he said, to those who wanted to attack the Russian language and Russian culture. When Vladimir Zelensky became president, he changed very fast.
Before the military operation, in September 2021, he was interviewed, and at that time he was conducting war against Donbass in violation of the Minsk agreements. And the interviewer asked him what he thought about the people on the other side of the line of contact. He answered very thoughtfully there are people and there are species. And if you, living in Ukraine, feel associated with the Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your grandkids, get out to Russia.
And if this guy wants to bring Russians and people of Russian culture back under his territorial integrity, I mean, it shows that he’s not adequate.
Carlson:
So, what are the terms under which Russia would cease hostilities? What are you asking for?
Lavrov:
Ten years ago, in February 2014, we were asking only for the deal between the president and the opposition to have government of national unity, to hold early elections, to be implemented. The deal was signed. And we were asking for the implementation of this deal. They were absolutely impatient and aggressive. And they were, of course, pushed, I have no slightest doubt, by the Americans, because if Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador agreed the composition of the government, why wait for five months to hold early elections?
The next time we were in favor of something was when the Minsk Agreements were signed. I was there. The negotiations lasted for 17 hours (well, Crimea was lost by that time because of referendum). And nobody, including my colleague John Kerry, meeting with us, nobody in the West was worried about the issue of Crimea. Everybody was concentrated on Donbass. And the Minsk Agreements provided for territorial integrity of Ukraine, minus Crimea (this was not even raised) and a special status for a very tiny part of Donbass, not for the entire Donbass, not for Novorossiya at all. Part of Donbass, under these Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the Security Council, should have the right to speak Russian language, to teach Russian language, to study in Russian, to have local law enforcement (like in the states of U.S.), to be consulted when judges and prosecutors are appointed by the central authority, and to have some facilitated economic connections with neighboring regions of Russia. That’s it. Something which President Macron promised to give to Corsica and still is considering how to do this.
And when these agreements were sabotaged all along by Pyotr Poroshenko and then by Vladimir Zelensky. Both of them, by the way, came to presidency, running on the promise of peace. And both of them lied. So when these Minsk Agreements were sabotaged to the extent that we saw the attempts to take this tiny part of Donbass by force, and we, as President Putin explained, at that time, we suggested these security arrangements to NATO and the United States, which was rejected. And when the Plan B was launched by Ukraine and its sponsors, trying to take this part of Donbass by force, it was then that we launched the special military operation.
Had they implemented the Minsk Agreements Ukraine would be one piece, minus Crimea. But even then, when Ukrainians, after we started the operation, suggested to negotiate, we agreed, there were several rounds in Belarus, and one later they moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, Ukrainian delegation put a paper on the table saying: “Those are the principles on which we are ready to agree.” And we accepted those principles.
Carlson:
The Minsk Principles?
Lavrov:
No. The Istanbul Principles. It was April 2022.
Carlson:
Right.
Lavrov:
Which was: no NATO, but security guarantees to Ukraine, collectively provided with the participation of Russia. And these security guarantees would not cover Crimea or the east of Ukraine. It was their proposal. And it was initialed. And the head of the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul, who is now the chair of the Vladimir Zelensky faction in the parliament, he recently (a few months ago) in an interview, confirmed that this was the case. And on the basis of these principles, we were ready to draft a treaty.
But then this gentleman who headed the Ukrainian delegation in Istanbul said that Boris Johnson visited and told them to continue to fight. Then there was…
Carlson:
But Boris Johnson, on behalf of…
Lavrov:
He said no. But the guy who initialed the paper, he said it was Boris Johnson. Other people say it was President Putin who ruined the deal because of the massacre in Bucha. But they never mentioned any more massacre in Bucha. I do. And we do.
In a sense, they are on the defensive. Several times in the United Nations Security Council, sitting at the table with Antonio Guterres, I (last year and this year) at the General Assembly, I raised the issue of Bucha and said, guys, it is strange that you are silent about Bucha because you were very vocal when BBC team found itself on the street where the bodies were located. I inquired, can we get the names of the persons whose bodies were broadcast by BBC? Total silence. I addressed Antonio Guterres personally in the presence of the Security Council members. He did not respond. Then at my press conference in New York after the end of the General Assembly last September, I asked all the correspondents: guys, you are journalists. Maybe you’re not an investigative journalists but journalists normally are interested to get the truth. And Bucha thing, which was played all over the media outlets condemning Russia, is not of any interest to anyone – politicians, UN officials. And now even journalists. I asked when I talked to them in September, please, as professional people, try to get the names of those whose bodies were shown in Bucha. No answer.
Just like we don’t have any answer to the question, where is the results of medical analysis of Alexey Navalny, who died recently, but who was treated in Germany in the fall of 2020. When he felt bad on a plane over Russia, the plane landed. He was treated by the Russian doctors in Siberia. Then the Germans wanted to take him. We immediately allowed the plane to come. They took him. In less than 24 hours, he was in Germany. And then the Germans continued to say that we poisoned him. And now the analysis confirmed that he was poisoned. We asked for the test results to be given to us. They said, no, we give it to the organization on chemical weapons. We went to this organization, we are members, and we said, can you show to us, because this is our citizen, we are accused of having poisoned him. They said that the Germans told us not to give it to you. They found nothing in the civilian hospital, and the announcement that he was poisoned was made after he was treated in the military Bundeswehr hospital. So it seems that this secret is not going…
Carlson:
So how did Navalny die?
Lavrov:
Well, he died serving the term in Russia. As far as it was reported, every now and then he felt not well. Which was another reason why we continued to ask the Germans: can you show us the results which you found? Because we did not find what they found. And what they did to him, I don’t know.
Carlson:
What the Germans did to him?
Lavrov:
Yeah, because they don’t explain to anybody, including us. Or maybe they explain to the Americans. Maybe this is credible.
But they never told us how they treated him, what they found, and what methods they were using.
Carlson:
How do you think he died?
Lavrov:
I am not a doctor. But for anybody to guess, even for the doctors to try to guess, they need to have information. And if the person was taken to Germany to be treated after he had been poisoned, the results of the tests cannot be secret.
We still cannot get anything credible on the fate of Skripals – Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The information is not provided to us. He is our citizen, she is our citizen. We have all the rights and the conventions which the UK is party to, to get information.
Carlson:
Why do you think that Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister of the UK, would have stopped the peace process in Istanbul? On whose behalf was he doing that?
Lavrov:
Well, I met with him a couple of times, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he was motivated by some immediate desire or by some long-term strategy. He is not very predictable.
Carlson:
But do you think he was acting on behalf of the US government, on behalf of the Biden administration, or he was doing this independently.
Lavrov:
I don’t know. And I wouldn’t guess. The fact that the Americans and the Brits are leading in this “situation” is obvious.
Now it is becoming also clear that there is a fatigue in some capitals, and there are talks every now and then that the Americans would like to leave it with the Europeans and to concentrate on something more important. I wouldn’t guess.
We would be judging by specific steps. It’s obvious, though, that the Biden administration would like to leave a legacy to the Trump administration as bad as they can.
And similar to what Barack Obama did to Donald Trump during his first term. Then late December 2016, President Obama expelled Russian diplomats. Just very late December. 120 persons with family members. Did it on purpose. Demanded them leave on the day when there was no direct flight from Washington to Moscow. So they had to move to New York by buses with all their luggage, with children, and so on and so forth.
And at the same time, President Obama announced the arrest of pieces of diplomatic property of Russia. And we still never were able to come and see what is the state of this Russian property.
Carlson:
What was the property?
Lavrov:
Diplomatic. They never allowed us to come and see it though under all conventions. They just say that these pieces we don’t consider as being covered by diplomatic immunity, which is a unilateral decision, never substantiated by any international court.
Carlson:
So you believe the Biden administration is doing something similar again to the incoming Trump administration.
Lavrov:
Because that episode with the expulsion and the seizure of property certainly did not create the promising ground for beginning of our relations with the Trump administration. So I think they’re doing the same.
Carlson:
But this time President Trump was elected on the explicit promise to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. So I mean, he said that in appearance after appearance. So given that, there is hope for a resolution, it sounds like. What are the terms to which you’d agree?
Lavrov:
Well, the terms, I basically alluded to them. When President Putin spoke in this Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the 14th of June he once again reiterated that we were ready to negotiate on the basis of the principles which were agreed in Istanbul and rejected by Boris Johnson, according to the statement of the head of the Ukrainian delegation.
The key principle is non-bloc status of Ukraine. And we would be ready to be part of the group of countries who would provide collective security guarantees to Ukraine.
Carlson:
But no NATO?
Lavrov:
No NATO. Absolutely. No military bases, no military exercises on the Ukrainian soil with participation of foreign troops. And this is something which he reiterated. But of course, he said, it was April 2022, now some time has passed, and the realities on the ground would have to be taken into account and accepted.
The realities on the ground are not only the line of contact, but also the changes in the Russian Constitution after referendum was held in Donetsk, Lugansk republics and Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. And they are now part of the Russian Federation, according to the Constitution. And this is a reality.
And of course, we cannot tolerate a deal which would keep the legislation which are prohibiting Russian language, Russian media, Russian culture, Ukrainian Orthodox Church, because it is a violation of the obligations of Ukraine under the UN Charter, and something must be done about it. And the fact that the West (since this russophobic legislative offensive started in 2017) was totally silent and it is silent until now, of course we would have to pay attention to this in a very special way.
Carlson:
Would sanctions against Russia be a condition?
Lavrov:
You know, I would say probably many people in Russia would like to make it a condition. But the more we live under sanctions, the more we understand that it is better to rely on yourself, and to develop mechanisms, platforms for cooperation with ‘normal’ countries who are not unfriendly to you, and don’t mix economic interests and policies and especially politics. And we learned a lot after the sanctions started.
The sanctions started under President Obama. They continued in a very big way under the first term of Donald Trump. And these sanctions under the Biden administration are absolutely unprecedented.
But what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, you know. They would never kill us, so they are making us stronger.
Carlson:
And driving Russia east. And so the vision that I think same policymakers in Washington had 20 years ago is why not to bring Russia into a Western bloc, sort of as a balance against the rising east. But it doesn’t seem like that. Do you think that’s still possible?
Lavrov:
I don’t think so. When recently President Putin was speaking at Valdai Club to politologists and experts, he said we would never be back at the situation of early 2022. That’s when he realized (for himself, apparently, not only he, but he spoke publicly about this) that all attempts to be on equal terms with the West have failed.
It started after the demise of the Soviet Union. There was euphoria, we are now part of the ‘liberal world’, democratic world, ‘end of history’. But very soon it became clear to most of the Russians that in the 1990s we were treated as – at best as junior partner, maybe not even as a partner, – but as a place where the West can organize things like it wants, striking deals with oligarchs, buying resources and assets. And then probably the Americans decided that Russia is in their pocket. Boris Yeltsin, Bill Clinton, buddies, laughing, joking.
But even at the end of Boris Yeltsin’s term, he started to contemplate that this was not something he wanted for Russia. And I think this was very obvious when he appointed Vladimir Putin prime minister, and then left earlier, and blessed Vladimir Putin as his successor for the elections which were coming and which Putin won.
But when Vladimir Putin became president, he was very much open to cooperation with the West. And he mentions about this quite regularly when he speaks with interviewers or at some international events.
I was present when he met with George Bush Jr., with Barack Obama. Well, after the meeting of NATO in Bucharest, which was followed by NATO-Russia summit meeting in 2008, when they announced that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO. And then they tried to sell it to us. We asked: why? There was lunch and President Putin asked what was the reason for this? Good question. And they said this is something which is not obligatory. How come?
Well, to start the process of joining NATO, you need a formal invitation. And this is a slogan – Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO. But this slogan became obsession for some people in Tbilisi first, when Mikhail Saakashvili lost his senses and started the war against his own people under the protection of OSCE mission with the Russian peacekeepers on the ground. And the fact that he launched this was confirmed by the European Union investigation, which they launched and which concluded that he gave the order to start.
And for Ukrainians, it took a bit longer. They were cultivating this pro-Western mood. Well, pro-Western is not bad, basically. Pro-Eastern is also not bad. What is bad is that you tell people, either/or, either you go with me or you’re my enemy.
What happened before the coup in Ukraine? In 2013, the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych negotiated with the European Union some association agreement which would nullify tariffs on most of the Ukrainian goods to the European Union and the other way around. And at some point, when he was meeting with Russian counterparts, we told him, Ukraine was part of the free trade area of the Commonwealth of Independent States. No tariffs for everybody. And we, Russia, negotiated agreement with World Trade Organization for some 17 years, mostly because we bargained with European Union. And we achieved some protection for many of our sectors, agriculture and some others. We explained to the Ukrainians that if you go zero in your trade with European Union, we would have to protect our customs border with Ukraine. Otherwise the zero tariff European goods would flood and would be hurting our industries, which we tried to protect and agreed for some protection. And we suggested to the European Union: guys, Ukraine is our common neighbor. You want to have better trade with Ukraine. We want the same. Ukraine want to have markets both in Europe and in Russia. Why don’t we sit three of us and discuss it like grownups? The head of the European Commission was the Portuguese José Manuel Barroso. He responded it’s none of your business what we do with Ukraine.
And then the president of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych convened his experts. And they said, yes, it would be not very good if we have opened the border with European Union, but the customs border with Russia would be closed. And they would be checking, you know, what is coming. So that the Russian market is not affected.
So he announced in November 2013 that he cannot sign the deal immediately, and he asked the European Union to postpone it for until next year. That was the trigger for Maidan, which was immediately thrown up and ended by the coup.
So my point is that this either/or. Actually, the first coup took place in 2004, when after second round of elections, the same Viktor Yanukovych won presidency. The West raised hell and put pressure on the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to rule that there must be a third round. The Constitution of Ukraine says there may be only two rounds. But the Constitutional Court, under the pressure of the West, violated the Constitution for the first time then. And pro-Western candidate was chosen. At that time, when all this was taking place and boiling, the European leaders were publicly saying Ukrainian people must decide: are they with us or with Russia?
Carlson:
But it is the way that big countries behave. I mean, there are certain orbits, and now it’s BRICS versus NATO, US versus China. And it sounds like you’re saying the Russian-Chinese alliance is permanent.
Lavrov:
Well, we are neighbors. And of course geography is very important.
Carlson:
But you’re also neighbors with Western Europe. And you’re part of it, in effect.
Lavrov:
Through Ukraine the Western Europe wants to come to our borders.
And there were plans that were discussed almost openly to put British naval bases on the Sea of Azov. Crimea was eyed. Dreaming about creating NATO base in Crimea and so on and so forth.
Look, we have been very friendly with Finland, for example. Overnight, the Finns came back to the early years of preparation for World War II when they were best allies of Hitler. And all this neutrality, all this friendship, going to sauna together, playing hockey together, all this disappeared overnight. So maybe this was deep in their hearts, and the neutrality was burdening them, and niceties were burdening for them. I don’t know.
Carlson:
They’re mad about the ‘winter war’. That’s totally possible.
Can you negotiate with Zelensky? You’ve pointed out that he has exceeded his term. He’s not democratically elected president of Ukraine anymore. So do you consider him a suitable partner for negotiations?
Lavrov:
President Putin addressed many times this issue as well. In September 2022, during the first year of the special military operation, Vladimir Zelensky, in his conviction that he would be dictating the terms of the situation also to the West, he signed a decree prohibiting any negotiations with Putin’s government.
During public events after that episode, President Vladimir Putin is asked why Russia is not ready for negotiations. He said, don’t turn it upside down. We are ready for negotiations, provided it will be based on the balance of interest, tomorrow. But Vladimir Zelensky signed this decree prohibiting negotiations. For starters, why don’t you tell him to cancel it publicly? This will be a signal that he wants negotiations. Instead, Vladimir Zelensky invented his ‘peace formula’. Lately, it was complemented by a ‘victory plan’. They keep saying, we know what they say when they meet with European Union ambassadors and in other formats, they say no deal unless the deal is on our terms.
I mentioned to you that they are planning now the second summit on the basis of this peace formula, and they don’t shy away from saying, we will invite Russia to put in front of it the deal which we agreed already with the West.
When our Western colleagues sometimes say nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine in effect, this implies that anything about Russia without Russia. Because they discuss what kind of conditions we must accept.
By the way, recently they already violated, tacitly, the concept nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine. There are passes, there are messages. They know our position. We are not playing double game. What President Putin announced is the goal of our operation. It’s fair. It’s fully in line with the United Nations Charter. First of all, the rights: language rights, minority rights, national minority rights, religious rights, and it’s fully in line with OSCE principles.
There is an Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe which is still alive. And well, several summits of this organization clearly stated that security must be indivisible, that nobody should expand his security at the expense of security of others, and that, most important, no organization in Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. This was last time it was confirmed by OSCE in 2010.
NATO was doing exactly the opposite. So we have legitimacy in our position. No NATO on our doorsteps because OSCE agreed that this should not be the case if it hurts us. And please restore the rights of Russians.
Carlson:
Who do you think has been making foreign policy decisions in the United States? This is a question in the United States. Who is making these decisions?
Lavrov:
I wouldn’t guess. I haven’t seen Antony Blinken for years. When it was the last time? Two years ago, I think, at the G20 summit. Was it in Rome or somewhere? In the margins. I was representing President Putin there. His assistant came up to me during a meeting and said that Antony wants to talk just for ten minutes. I left the room. We shook hands, and he said something about the need to de-escalate and so on and so forth. I hope he’s not going to be angry with me since I am disclosing this. But we were meeting in front of many people present in the room, and I said, “We don’t want to escalate. You want to inflict strategic defeat upon Russia.” He said, “No. It is not strategic defeat globally. It is only in Ukraine.”
Carlson:
You’ve not spoken to him since?
Lavrov:
No.
Carlson:
Have you spoken to any officials in the Biden administration since then?
Lavrov:
I don’t want to ruin their career.
Carlson:
But have you had meaningful conversations?
Lavrov:
No. Not at all.
When I met in international events one or another person whom I know, an American, some of them say hello, some of them exchange a few words, but I never impose myself.
It’s becoming contagious when somebody sees an American talking to me or a European talking to me. Europeans are running away when they see me. During the last G20 meeting, it was ridiculous. Grown-up people, mature people. They behave like kids. So childish. Unbelievable.
Carlson:
So, you said that when in 2016, in December, the final moments of the Biden administration, Biden made the relationship between the United States and Russia more difficult.
Lavrov:
Obama. Biden was vice-president.
Carlson:
Exactly. I’m so sorry.
The Obama administration left a bunch of bombs, basically, for the incoming Trump administration.
In the last month since the election, you have all sorts of things going on politically in bordering states in this region. In Georgia, in Belarus, in Romania, and then, of course, most dramatically in Syria, you have turmoil.
Does this seem like part of an effort by the United States to make the resolution more difficult?
Lavrov:
There is nothing new, frankly. Because the US, historically, in foreign policy, was motivated by making some trouble and then to see if they can fish in the muddy water.
Iraqi aggression, Libyan adventure – ruining the state, basically. Fleeing from Afghanistan. Now trying to get back through the back door, using the United Nations to organize some ‘event’ where the US can be present, in spite of the fact that they left Afghanistan in very bad shape and arrested money and don’t want to give it back.
I think this is, if you analyze the American foreign policy steps, adventures, most of them are the right word – the pattern. They create some trouble, and then they see how to use it.
When the OSCE monitors elections, when it used to monitor elections in Russia, they would always be very negative, and in other countries as well, Belarus, Kazakhstan. This time, in Georgia, the monitoring mission of OSCE presented a positive report. And it is being ignored.
So when you need endorsement of the procedures, you do it when you like the results of the election. If you don’t like the results of elections, you ignore it.
It’s like when the United States and other Western countries recognized unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo, they said this is the self-determination being implemented. There was no referendum in Kosovo – unilateral declaration of independence. By the way, after that the Serbs approached International Court of Justice, which ruled that (well, normally they are not very specific in their judgment, but they ruled) that when part of a territory declares independence, it is not necessarily to be agreed with the central authorities.
And when a few years later, Crimeans were holding referendum with invitation of many international observers, not from international organizations, but from parliamentarians in Europe, in Asia, in post-Soviet space, they said, no, we cannot accept this because this is violation of territorial integrity.
You know, you pick and choose. The UN Charter is not a menu. You have to respect it in all its entirety.
Carlson:
So who’s paying the rebels who’ve taken parts of Aleppo? Is the Assad government in danger of falling? What is happening exactly, in your view, in Syria?
Lavrov:
Well, we had a deal when this crisis started. We organized the Astana process (Russia, Türkiye and Iran). We meet regularly. Another meeting is being planned before the end of the year or early next year, to discuss the situation on the ground.
The rules of the game are to help Syrians to come to terms with each other and to prevent separatist threats from getting strong. That’s what the Americans are doing in the east of Syria when they groom some Kurdish separatists using the profits from oil and grain sold, the resources which they occupy.
This Astana format is a useful combination of players, if you wish. We are very much concerned. And when this happened, with Aleppo and surroundings, I had a conversation with the Turkish minister of foreign affairs and with Iranian colleague. We agreed to try to meet this week. Hopefully in Doha at the margins of this international conference. We would like to discuss the need to come back to strict implementation of the deals on Idlib area, because Idlib de-escalation zone was the place from where the terrorists moved to take Aleppo. The arrangements reached in 2019 and 2020 provided for our Turkish friends to control the situation in the Idlib de-escalation zone and to separate the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (former Nusra) from the opposition, which is non-terrorist and which cooperates with Türkiye.
And another deal was the opening of M5 route from Damascus to Aleppo, which is also now taken completely by the terrorists. So we, as ministers of foreign affairs, would discuss the situation, hopefully, this coming Friday. And the military of all three countries and the security people are in contact with each other.
Carlson:
But the Islamist groups, the terrorists you just described, who is backing them?
Lavrov:
Well, we have some information. We would like to discuss with all our partners in this process the way to cut the channels of financing and arming them.
The information which is being floated and it’s in the public domain mentions among others the Americans, the Brits. Some people say that Israel is interested in making this situation aggravated. So that Gaza is not under very close scrutiny. It’s a complicated game. Many actors are involved. I hope that the context which we are planning for this week will help stabilize the situation.
Carlson:
What do you think of Donald Trump?
Lavrov:
I met him several times when he was having meetings with President Putin and when he received me twice in the Oval Office when I was visiting for bilateral talks.
Well, I think he’s a very strong person. A person who wants results. Who doesn’t like procrastination on anything. This is my impression. He’s very friendly in discussions. But this does not mean that he’s pro-Russian as some people try to present him. The amount of sanctions we received under the Trump administration was very big.
We respect any choice which is made by the people when they vote. We respect the choice of American people. As President Putin said, we are and we have been open all along to the contacts with the current administration. We hope that when Donald Trump is inaugurated, we will understand. The ball, as President Putin said, is on their side. We never severed our contacts, our ties in the economy, trade, security, anything.
Carlson:
My final question is: how sincerely worried are you about an escalation in conflict between Russia and the United States, knowing what you do?
Lavrov:
Well, we started with this question, more or less.
Carlson:
It seems the central question.
Lavrov:
Yes. The Europeans whisper to each other that it is not for Vladimir Zelensky to dictate the terms of the deal – it’s for the US and Russia.
I don’t think we should be presenting our relations as two guys decide for everybody. Not at all. It is not our style.
We prefer the manners which dominate in BRICS, in Shanghai Cooperation Organization, where the UN Charter principle of sovereign equality of states is really embodied.
The US is not used to respect sovereign equality of states. When the US says we cannot allow Russia to win on Ukraine because this would undermine our rules-based world order. And rules-based world order is American domination.
Now, by the way, NATO, at least under Biden administration, is eyeing the entire Eurasian continent, Indo-Pacific strategies, South China Sea, East China Sea, is already on NATO agenda. NATO is moving infrastructure there. AUKUS, building ‘quartet’ Indo-Pacific Four as they call it (Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea). US, South Korea, and Japan are building military alliance with some nuclear components. And Jens Stoltenberg, the former Secretary General of NATO, last year after the summit he said that the Atlantic security is indivisible from Indo-Pacific security. When he was asked does it mean that you go beyond territorial defense, he answered – no, it doesn’t go beyond territorial defense, but to defend our territory, we need to be present there. This element of preemption is more and more present.
We don’t want war with anybody. And as I said, five nuclear states declared at the top level in January 2022 that we don’t want confrontation with each other and that we shall respect each other’s security interests and concerns. And it also stated nuclear war can never be won, and therefore nuclear war is not possible.
And the same was reiterated bilaterally between Russia and the United States, Putin-Biden, when they met in 2021 in Geneva in June. Basically, they reproduced the statement by Reagan-Gorbachev of 1987 ‘no nuclear war’. And this is absolutely in our vital interest, and we hope that this is also in vital interest of the United States.
I say so because some time ago John Kirby, who is the White House communications coordinator, was answering questions about escalation and about possibility of nuclear weapons being employed. And he said, “Oh, no, we don’t want escalation because then if there is some nuclear element, then our European allies would suffer.” So even mentally, he excludes that the United States can suffer. And this is something which makes the situation a bit risky. It might – if this mentality prevails, then some reckless steps would be taken, and this is bad.
Carlson:
What you’re saying is American policy makers imagine there could be a nuclear exchange that doesn’t directly affect the United States, and you’re saying that’s not true.
Lavrov:
That’s what I said, yes. But professionals in deterrence, nuclear deterrence policy, they know very well that it’s a very dangerous game. And to speak about limited exchange of nuclear strikes is an invitation to disaster, which we don’t want to have.
Featured Video
Ian Proud: Economic Reset with Russia to Save Europe
or go to
Aletho News Archives – Video-Images
From the Archives
Jack Ruby: Israel’s Smoking Gun
BY LAURENT GUYÉNOT • UNZ REVIEW • NOVEMBER 13, 2021
By a strange paradox, most Kennedy researchers who believe that Oswald was “just a patsy” spend an awful lot of time exploring his biography. This is about as useful as investigating Osama bin Laden for solving 9/11. Any serious quest for the real assassins of JFK should start by investigating the man who shot Oswald at pointblank in the stomach at 11:21 a.m. on September 24, 1963 in the Dallas Police station, thereby sealing the possibility that a judicial inquiry would draw attention to the inconsistencies of the charge against him, and perhaps expose the real perpetrators. One would normally expect the Dallas strip-club owner Jack Ruby to be the most investigated character by Kennedy truthers. But that is not the case. … continue
Blog Roll
Recent Comments
Aletho News- Ian Proud: Economic Reset with Russia to Save Europe
- Senator Rand Paul Introduces Federal Bill to END Vaccine Makers’ Liability Shield
- The Hidden Map: US and Israel May Use Unexpected Neighbors to Attack Iran
- Trump, Netanyahu Agree to Target Iranian Oil Exports to China
- Russia open to discussing Ukraine’s ‘external governance’ – senior diplomat
- US Caribbean Buildup Near $3B — Report
- Munich Security Conference and the U.S. elephant in the room
- Epstein Pitched JPMorgan Chase on Plan to Get Bill Gates ‘More Money for Vaccines’
- Germany’s CDU Pushes Real-Name Social Media Mandate and ID Checks
- Patrik Baab: Europe’s New Iron Curtain – Freedom of Speech Dies
- If Americans Knew
- Israel-backed border guards, GHF-linked aid – Not a ceasefire Day 128
- Israel battles Palestinian right of return, one Palestinian at a time – Not a ceasefire Day 127
- Noor’s short life of unimaginable suffering
- Israel Destroyed Gaza’s Hospitals. Now It’s Banning Doctors Without Borders.
- Is Spite of What Zionists Say, It’s a Good Thing to Criticize Governments
- Palestinian mother, daughter recount strip searches, harsh conditions in Israeli detention
- Israel used weapons in Gaza that made thousands of Palestinians evaporate
- ADL’s Stats Twist Israel’s Critics Into Antisemites
- Why Is the World Silent When the Gaza Genocide Is Not Over?
- In Gaza: 8,000 bodies under rubble, 3,000 missing – Not a ceasefire Day 126
- No Tricks Zone
- Unfudging The Data: Dutch Meteorological Institute Reinstates Early 20th Centruy Heat Waves It Had Erased Earlier
- German Gas Crisis…Chancellor Merz Allegedly Bans Gas Debate Ahead of Elections!
- Pollen Reconstructions Show The Last Glacial’s Warming Events Were Global, 10x Greater Than Modern
- Germany’s Natural Gas Storage Level Dwindles To Just 28%… Increasingly Critical
- New Study Rebuts The Assumption That Anthropogenic CO2 Molecules Have ‘Special’ Properties
- Climate Scientist Who Predicted End Of “Heavy Frost And Snow” Now Refuses Media Inquiries
- Polar Bear Numbers Rising And Health Improving In Areas With The Most Rapid Sea Ice Decline
- One Reason Only For Germany’s Heating Gas Crisis: Its Hardcore-Dumbass Energy Policy
- 130 Years Later: The CO2 Greenhouse Effect Is Still Only An Imaginary-World Thought Experiment
- New Study Affirms Rising CO2’s Greening Impact Across India – A Region With No Net Warming In 75 Years
Aletho News 