By Tom O’Connor, Newsweek, 10/7/24

The United States will face “dangerous consequences” if it presses on with growing military aid to Ukraine rather than backing a proposed Russian settlement that would see Moscow take over swathes of territory, the man serving as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s top diplomat for 20 years said in exclusive responses to Newsweek questions.

Well over two and a half years after Putin ordered a “special military operation” against Ukraine in what has become the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the Kremlin offers a viable blueprint to end the bloodshed and revamp the security architecture of the continent. He accused the U.S.-led NATO military alliance of first sowing the seeds of war a decade ago and continuing to fan the flames.

“Russia is open to a politico-diplomatic settlement that should remove the root causes of the crisis,” he said. “It should aim to end the conflict rather than achieve a ceasefire.”

Russia’s plan would mean Ukraine ceding the substantially Russian held provinces of Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia, which were formally annexed by Moscow following an internationally disputed referendum in September 2022, as well as Crimea, seized by Russia and annexed through a similar vote in 2014. Kyiv must also agree to abandon its quest to become a NATO member, and take other steps rejected by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and his international supporters, including the U.S.

Kyiv and its foreign backers instead demand an unconditional Russian withdrawal, while Moscow has said an escalating conflict brings NATO closer to a direct clash with Russia, which possesses the world’s largest stockpile of nuclear weapons.

“At present, as far as we can see, restoring peace is not part of our adversary’s plan. Zelensky has not revoked his decree banning negotiations with Moscow,” Lavrov said. “Washington and its NATO allies provide political, military and financial support to Kiev so that the war would go on. They are discussing authorizing the AFU [Armed Forces of Ukraine] to use Western long-range missiles to strike deep into Russian territory. ‘Playing with fire’ in this way may lead to dangerous consequences.”

The measures sought by Moscow, Lavrov said, align with the trajectory of a fast-changing world in which Russia has forged a deep partnership with China and has fortified ties with developing nations seeking a greater say on the global stage. Even as Moscow incurs costs, he said that Kyiv and its supporters stand to lose the most in a long war.

“What we have in mind is that the world order needs be adjusted to the current realities,” he said. “Today the world is living through the ‘multipolar moment’. Shifting towards the multi-polar world order is a natural part of power rebalancing, which reflects objective changes in the world economy, finance and geopolitics. The West waited longer than the others, yet it has also started to realize that this process is irreversible.”

Lavrov’s remarks come as the Russian military advances on several key Ukrainian fronts despite simultaneously battling a Ukrainian counterstrike within Russia itself.

Crucial to the course of the war could be the result of the U.S. presidential election on November 5 between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Support for Ukraine has been the subject of political infighting in Western capitals and not least in Washington, which has provided the greatest direct assistance.

“Generally speaking, the outcome of this election makes no difference to us, as the two parties have reached a consensus as to countering our country,” Lavrov said. “On the whole, it would be natural for the White House resident, no matter who they are, to mind their domestic business, rather than looking for adventures tens of thousands miles away from American coasts. I am confident that U.S. electors think the same.”

The following text of the responses has been lightly edited for clarity.

Newsweek: As the Ukraine conflict continues, how different is Russia’s position than in 2022 and how are the costs of conflict being weighed against the progress made toward strategic objectives?

Lavrov: Our position is widely known and remains unchanged. Russia is open to a politico-diplomatic settlement that should remove the root causes of the crisis. It should aim to end the conflict rather than achieve a ceasefire. The West should stop supplying weapons, and Kiev should end the hostilities. Ukraine should return to its neutral, non-bloc and non-nuclear status, protect the Russian language, and respect the rights and freedoms of its citizens.

The Istanbul Agreements initialed on 29 March 2022 by the Russian and Ukrainian delegations could serve as a basis for the settlement. They provide for Kiev’s refusal to join NATO and contain security guarantees for Ukraine while recognizing the realities on the ground at that moment. Needless to say, in over two years, these realities have considerably changed, including in legal terms.

On 14 June, President Vladimir Putin listed prerequisites for the settlement as follows: complete AFU withdrawal from the DPR [Donetsk People’s Republic], LPR [Luhansk People’s Republic], Zaporozhye and Kherson Oblasts; recognition of territorial realities as enshrined in the Russian Constitution; neutral, non-bloc, non-nuclear status for Ukraine; its demilitarization and denazification; securing the rights, freedoms and interests of Russian-speaking citizens; and removal of all sanctions against Russia.

Kiev responded to this statement by an armed incursion into the Kursk Oblast on 6 August. Its patrons – the U.S. and other NATO countries – seek to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. Under the circumstances, we have no choice but to continue our special military operation until the threats posed by Ukraine are removed.

The costs of the conflict are greatest for Ukrainians, who are ruthlessly pushed by their own authorities to the war to be slaughtered there. For Russia, it is about defending its people and vital security interests. Unlike Russia, the U.S. keeps ranting about some sort of “rules,” “way of life” and the like, apparently poorly understanding where Ukraine is and what the stakes in this war are.

Newsweek: How likely do you think it is that a military or diplomatic solution can be achieved, or do you see a greater risk of the conflict spiraling into something even larger with Ukrainian forces receiving more advanced NATO weaponry and entering Russian territory?

Making guesses is not my job. What I want to say is that we have been trying to extinguish this crisis for more than a decade, yet each time we put to paper agreements that suit everyone, Kiev and its masters would backpedal. This exactly happened to the agreement reached in February 2014: it was trampled on by the opposition that committed a coup with the U.S. support. A year later, the Minsk Agreements endorsed by the U.N. Security Council were concluded; these were also sabotaged during seven years, and the leaders of Ukraine, Germany and France, who had signed the document, bragged afterwards that they had never intended to fulfil it. The document initialed in Istanbul in late March 2022 was never signed by Zelensky at the insistence of his Western supervisors, in particular, the then British prime minister.

At present, as far as we can see, restoring peace is not part of our adversary’s plan. Zelensky has not revoked his decree banning negotiations with Moscow. Washington and its NATO allies provide political, military and financial support to Kiev so that the war would go on. They are discussing authorizing the AFU to use Western long-range missiles to strike deep into Russian territory. “Playing with fire” in this way may lead to dangerous consequences. As stated by President Putin, we will take adequate decisions based on our understanding of the threats posed by the West. It is up to you to make conclusions.

Newsweek: What concrete plans does Russia have in line with its strategic partnerships with China and other powers to achieve changes in the current world order and how do you expect these ambitions to play out in areas of intense competition and conflict, including the Middle East?

What we have in mind is that the world order needs be adjusted to the current realities. Today the world is living through the “multipolar moment”. Shifting towards the multi-polar world order is a natural part of power rebalancing, which reflects objective changes in the world economy, finance and geopolitics. The West waited longer than the others, yet it has also started to realize that this process is irreversible.

We are talking about strengthening new centers of power and decision-making in the Global South and East. Instead of seeking hegemony, these centers acknowledge the importance of sovereign equality and civilizational diversity and support mutually beneficial cooperation and respect for each other’s interests.

Multi-polarity manifests itself in the increasing role of regional associations, such as the EAEU [Eurasian Economic Union], SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization], ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations], African Union, CELAC [Community of Latin American and Caribbean States] and others. BRICS [led by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa] has become a model of multilateral diplomacy. The U.N. should remain a forum for aligning the interests of all the countries.

We believe that all states, including the United States, should comply with their obligations on an equal basis with others rather than disguise their legal nihilism with mantras of their exceptionality. Here we are supported by the majority of countries, which see how international law is violated with complete impunity in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, just the way it had earlier been violated in Kosovo, Iraq, Libya and many other places.

Our Chinese partners can answer for themselves, but I think and I know that they share our main point, the understanding that security and development are inseparable and indivisible, and that as long as the West continues seeking dominance, the ideals of peace set forth in the Charter of the United Nations will remain a dead letter.

Newsweek: What impact do you expect the U.S. presidential election to have on Russia-U.S. relations if Donald Trump wins or if Kamala Harris wins and how is Russia preparing for either scenario?

Generally speaking, the outcome of this election makes no difference to us, as the two parties have reached a consensus as to countering our country. In case there are political changes in the United States and new proposals to us, we will be ready to consider them and decide whether they meet our interests. At all events, we will promote Russia’s interests decisively, especially as far as its national security is concerned.

On the whole, it would be natural for the White House resident, no matter who they are, to mind their domestic business, rather than looking for adventures tens of thousands miles away from American coasts. I am confident that U.S. electors think the same.