Article Image

Lavrov on Russian Foreign Policy

Written by Subject: Philosophy: Liberalism

Lavrov on Russian Foreign Policy

by Stephen Lendman

It bears repeating what other articles stressed. He's a world-class diplomat. Polar opposite his Western counterparts. On the right side of history.

John Kerry's demagogic bullying, bluster and Big Lies makes him look like a buffoon by comparison. A provocateur.

Shaming the office he holds. Caught red-handed numerous times in  bald-faced lies. Disdaining rule of law principles.

Supporting war. Deploring peace. Indifferent to human suffering. A monument to wrong over right. Disgracing his country, position and humanity.

Lavrov discussed issues "direct(ly) affecting the Russian people…" National development plans. Geopolitical issues. The "future world order…"

Current international conditions reflect transition worldwide, he said. "We are dealing not just with the beginning of another historical stage, but, it would seem, with a change of eras."

"Such pivotal moments are usually characterised by a substantial increase in instability and unpredictability in international affairs, which is what we see today in individual regions and globally."

Global "balance of forces" are "realingn(ing)." "Deconcentrati(ing)." It's "the hallmark of our time," said Lavrov.

"Most clearly, this can be seen in the greater economic power and increasing political clout of the Asia-Pacific Region."

"These countries have largely assumed the role of a driver of global economic growth, a role which was traditionally performed by the United States,Western Europe and Japan."

"That's a totally new picture of the world that does not fit into the centuries-old notion of Western dominance in the global economy, finance and politics."

"The global financial and economic crisis acted as a catalyst for change, and drew a line under the reasoning about the global victory of the liberal capitalist model and the imperative need for everyone to fit that mold."

"The 'end of history' proclaimed in the early 1990s failed to materialise. (E)fforts to build a new world are accompanied by numerous other factors that add complexity and new dimensions to international relations."

"The importance of common cross-border challenges, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, international terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime, scarcity of resources and food, mass epidemics, illegal migration and much more, has increased dramatically."

"Globalisation has made national borders much more transparent and has contributed to the demise of closed societies, which previously accounted for most of humankind."

Especially "in the Middle East and North Africa, which may become an explosive pole of attraction for crises that originated at different times in different countries."

Regional destabilization "adversely affects the situation around the globe. (E)xacerbat(ing) chaos and anarchy in world affairs…"

(E)rod(ing) the effectiveness of the global governance system, which is already compromised."

Challenges require joint efforts, Lavrov stressed. Mutual cooperation. Steps to strengthen international security and stability.

Multipolarity more than ever is needed. At a time Washington force-feeds unipolarity. For its own interests at the expense of others.

"(F)rom the standpoint of supremacy, exceptionality and domination. (A)t variance with (today's) compelling and objective need," Lavrov said.

America's agenda runs counter to "core principles of the UN Charter, which forms the cornerstone of international law -  sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-interference in the internal affairs of other nations, and the peaceful resolution of conflicts."

"The United States and its allies have claimed the right to interfere, sometimes brazenly, in the events of other countries under the mantle of protecting human rights and promoting democratic values, up to an including sanctions and the use of force."

Its "military interventions in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya (as well as Afghanistan and Syria) were either not backed by UN Security Council resolutions or exceeded (its) original mandate."

Washington unilaterally claims the right to use force. In "any part of the world when (its) interests are at stake."

Its 2010 National Security Strategy "states outright that (it) will not necessarily follow UN Security Council resolutions when its interests demand otherwise…"

Including unilaterally using force lawlessly. Recklessly. Ruthlessly.
"(D)estabilising countries whose governments do not satisfy it for various reasons…"

Initiating " 'colour revolutions,' " Longstanding US policy. "(N)ot only does interference fail to help end conflict(s), it actually exacerbates armed confrontation, making the plight of civilians even worse."

"Notorious double standards are employed to attain geopolitical goals. Of particular concern is the tendency to deviate from the universal principle of combatting terrorism in all its forms and manifestations."

Washington's war on terrorism reflects state terrorism against its adversaries. Independent governments. Posing no threat. Manufactured ones to justify regime change wars.

Russia "advocate(s) the consolidation of international efforts to counter the common threat of terrorism," said Lavrov.

"At the same time, our country is not part of the US-led international coalition. We are confident that antiterrorist efforts have to rest on a solid foundation of international law under the auspices of the UN Security Council -the body that shoulders the responsibility for maintaining international peace and security."

Bombing Syria without its permission "does not fit with these principles. (They're) accompanied by the armed support rendered to the opposition forces fighting the Bashar Assad regime alongside the Islamic State."

"Yet, the US considers this support 'moderate' and therefore acceptable." No so-called "moderate" elements exists.

At issue is helping "Syrian opposition…overthrow" Assad's sovereign government. "The controversial and paradoxical nature of these actions is obvious, in my view," said Lavrov.

"We have been discussing this with our US counterparts, trying to understand their logic, but have not received any clear explanations so far."

"In our opinion, the rapid degradation of the Middle East situation requires a comprehensive analysis. The region's most critical issues need to be considered within a context of their interrelations, including the Arab-Israeli conflict."

It's "pushed to the margin for various reasons, but we believe that this unsettled dispute, which has been ongoing for over 70 years, is one of the main reasons that promote extremists to recruit new adepts, including Jihadists who are prepared to perform attacks and even suicide attacks."

"We want all of these factors to be considered under UN Security Council leadership. This initiative has met with growing interest, at least from countries which have a responsible attitude to the situation in the region."

Washington's presence in Afghanistan is "(un)satisfactory," said Lavrov. Conditions are hugely unstable.

It "re-affirms the fact that modern problems, including regional conflicts, can only be resolved based on comprehensive approaches providing for the active involvement of all stakeholders."

"We have always called our partners' attention to this." Most often in vain. Washington wants things its way. Interests of other countries don't matter. Hegemons operate this way.

"Despite drastic worldwide changes, Western states have not stopped trying to 'swim against the tide,' and continue holding dominant positions in the world, contrary to the objective processes leading to a multipolar world," said Lavrov.

"This policy has had a major negative impact on the situation in Europe." Including successive waves of NATO's eastward expansion, with NATO infrastructure being moved closer to the Russian border."

Its presence is hugely destabilizing. US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel ludicrously claims Russia's army is "at NATO's doorstep."

"…Russian leadership has undertaken and continues to undertake all necessary measures to secure protection of our country's security," said Lavrov.

"Regarding the statements of our US colleagues, I believe they reveal who is actually undermining trust in Europe, and is doing so using not only statements, but most importantly, concrete actions."

"The EU Eastern Partnership programme was also designed to expand the West-controlled geopolitical space to the east."

"This was its true aim, and it is perhaps for this reason that the promises to offer us trilateral projects involving the EU, the so-called 'focus states' and Russia have never materialised."

"There is a policy to confront the CIS countries with a hard, absolutely contrived and artificial choice - either you are with the EU or with Russia."

Doing so created Ukrainian crisis conditions, Lavrov explained. "The US and EU support for the unconstitutional coup in Ukraine and the subsequent acts committed by the Kiev-based 'party of war' that used armed force in an attempt to make the population in southeastern Ukraine renounce the right to their native language, culture, traditions and habitual lifestyle is at odds with the generally accepted democratic values and principles of peaceful conflict settlement, including those contained in the OSCE's fundamental documents."

"The actions of the ultranationalist neo-Nazi forces that seized power in Kiev have become the cause of bloodshed on 'Maidan.' "

"The radicals attempted to terrorise the population in the Crimea and impose (hardline) order in Odessa and Mariupol."

"The Agreement of 21 February 2014 was broken off. It is quite natural under these circumstances that the overwhelming majority of people in the Crimea opposed these plans and freely expressed their will for reunification with Russia in keeping with peoples' right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter."

"After the tragedies in Odessa and Mariupol and the discovery of mass graves near Donetsk, we know for certain what fate was in store for Russians in the Crimea."

"All these crimes, including the Malaysian plane incident, should be thoroughly investigated under international control."

"We have been insisting on this, because there are attempts to water down, sweep under the rug, postpone or delay all these cases without exception."

Key questions are unanswered, Lavrov explained. Key issues remain unaddressed.

Policies pursued are polar opposite alleged Western concern for "human rights and (so-called) European values."

Russia's responsible geopolitical agenda shames what Western nations represent. It's the world's moral leader.

On the right side of history. A long way from its dark past. At a time full-blown American tyranny is a hair's breadth away.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at

His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."

Visit his blog site at

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network:

Agorist Marketplace