Sergey Lavrov Gave an Exclusive Interview to Magyar Nemzet

Russia's foreign minister spoke not only about the war in Ukraine, but also assessed Hungarian–Russian bilateral relations. We interviewed Sergey Lavrov, the leading diplomat of one of the most heavily sanctioned major powers.

Sergey Lavrov, Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation. The photo was provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.

– What is your perspective on peace talks?

– At our initiative and with the assistance of our Turkish partners, direct talks with the Ukrainian side without preliminary conditions took place in Istanbul. Two negotiating rounds were held on 16 May and 2 June. The timeframe for the third round is being determined. The negotiating process has led to signing agreements on a number of humanitarian issues, such as swapping detained civilians and POWs, among them severely wounded and ill people, as well as younger soldiers under the age of 25, and repatriating over 6,000 dead bodies of Ukrainian servicemen to Ukraine and laying them to rest.

We have been provided with a list of 339 children who lost contact with their parents or legal representatives. This refutes Kiev’s untruthful propaganda claims about 19,000 children allegedly kidnapped by Russia. Proper checks are being conducted with regard to each child on the Ukrainian list. Everything will be done to have them reunite with their families.

The Office of the Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights is putting together a counter-list for Kiev. So far, it includes 10 children currently in Ukraine and 8 minors in European countries. We expect the Ukrainian side to handle our list responsibly, and the children will reunite with their families in Russia.

– Following up on the underlying causes of the conflict, Russia claimed that ethnic Russians were persecuted by Ukrainian authorities. Additionally, Russia cited Ukraine’s prospective NATO membership as a cause for concern. Why does Moscow take this as a threat considering that NATO is a defensive alliance?

– Russians in Ukraine were persecuted and killed. This policy was adopted immediately after the February 2014 coup in Kiev. Nationalists seized power and promised to “drown Crimea in blood,” because it refused to accept the coup outcomes. They sent “friendship trains” with neo-Nazi thugs onboard to the peninsula for them to crack down on the residents of Crimea. In Odessa, activists who refused to embrace the new authorities in Kiev were burned alive in the House of Trade Unions on 2 May, 2014. Not a single perpetrator of that crime has been brought to justice to this day, even though they have been identified from publicly available surveillance videos, among other evidence. The Ukrainian punishers have killed more than 10,000 Russian and Russian-speaking residents - innocent civilians - of Donbass since 2014.

The Kiev regime has declared war on the Russian language and Russian culture. In violation of the Constitution of Ukraine and Kiev’s international obligations in the field of protecting human and ethnic minority rights, laws have been adopted that ban the use of the Russian language in education, scientific research, culture, media, advertising, services, and even everyday life. Ethnic Russians who refused to abandon their ancestry and traditions have faced sweeping discrimination.

Other ethnic groups, including Hungarians, Romanians, Poles, Bulgarians, Armenians, Belarusians, and Greeks, have experienced forced Ukrainisation as well. Budapest is well aware of this. Russia and Hungary are openly raising their voices in defence of their compatriots. We can join forces in this regard.

In addition to the Kiev regime’s racism and discrimination against everything Russian in Ukraine, NATO’s eastward expansion that goes hand in hand with transforming Ukraine into a military foothold to contain Russia is another cause of this conflict.

The North Atlantic Alliance has long ceased to be a defensive alliance, even though NATO leaders continue to claim so. The military adventures in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya cannot be explained by the need to protect member states’ territories. From whom were NATO countries defending themselves in those countries? Who was attacking them? NATO bases in Ukraine and dragging Ukraine into this bellicose alliance pose a direct threat to our national security.

We find this state of affairs unacceptable. That is why, in late 2021, we asked the United States and NATO to provide Russia with security guarantees without altering Ukraine’s non-aligned status. Our initiative was turned down. The West continued pumping weapons into Ukraine betting on a forceful solution to the Donbass and Crimea issues. As a result, we were left with no choice but to launch the special military operation. I am convinced that any country with any sense of dignity would have done the same given the circumstances.

– On what grounds does Russia claim sovereignty over Crimea and the four recently annexed regions?

– Using the term “annexation” in this context is unwarranted and unacceptable. In accordance with international law, referendums were held in Crimea, Sevastopol, and the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics, as well as the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. The turnout was very high, and the overwhelming majority of the voters cast their votes for reunifying with their historical homeland, Russia. In doing so, the people exercised their right to self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter. This constitutes the grounds on which Russia exercises sovereignty over the above territories.

For some reason, whenever the West makes a reference to the UN Charter, it does so selectively, yanking, for example, just the territorial integrity aspect (Article 2.4 of the Charter), and ignoring the right of peoples to self-determination (Article 1.2), as well as the obligation to respect “human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” (Article 1.3). This is a case of unadulterated manipulation and double standards.

As you may be aware, in 1970, following many years of debate, the UN General Assembly adopted by consensus the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It stipulates that the principle of territorial integrity applies to states whose governments observe the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and, as a result, “represent the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as to race, creed or colour.”

Any unbiased observer can clearly see that the Kiev regime, which has elevated Russophobia to the level of state policy, does not represent the people of the Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine, including Crimea, Sevastopol, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson. As I earlier noted, people who identify as Russians and strive to preserve their identity, language, culture, and religion have been told in no uncertain terms that they are second-class citizens - outliers - in Ukraine. 

For example, in 2021, Zelensky publicly referred to residents of southeastern Ukraine as “species” and urged them to “make off to Russia for the sake of their children and grandchildren.” One could say they followed this advice by voting for “homecoming” to the Russian Federation. Since the Kiev regime does not represent the people of these regions, it cannot, under international law, claim that the principle of territorial integrity should apply to the Ukrainian state in its current form.

For example, in 2021, Zelensky publicly referred to residents of southeastern Ukraine as 'species' and urged them to 'make off to Russia for the sake of their children and grandchildren.'

One could say they followed this advice by voting for “homecoming” to the Russian Federation. Since the Kiev regime does not represent the people of these regions, it cannot, under international law, claim that the principle of territorial integrity should apply to the Ukrainian state in its current form.

– We also have a question about Russian-Hungarian relations. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly called them “pragmatic.” How should this be construed in the context of bilateral cooperation?

– We value the balanced approach of the Hungarian leadership, which, despite unrelenting pressure coming from NATO and Brussels, maintains a pragmatic course in its relations with our country.

Despite sanctions on Russia, bilateral trade and economic ties continue to expand.

The flagship project of our cooperation - the expansion and modernisation of the Paks Nuclear Power Plant - is progressing successfully. The facilities of the plant’s construction base are under construction and will have been completed by late 2025. Russian hydrocarbons are being delivered as planned. Russia values its reputation as a reliable supplier and is willing to work with its Hungarian partners on all issues that may arise.

Overall, prospects are good for continued dialogue with Budapest based on mutual benefit and respect for each other’s interests.

– Several Western intelligence agencies reported there was evidence that President Putin intends to “occupy” the Old World or to expand Russia’s influence in Europe. European political leaders often repeat such claims. How does the Russian Federation react to these accusations? When does Russia plan to “occupy” Europe?

– Indeed, there are such accusations. We hear them.

Perhaps, those making them know more about Russia’s plans than we do. At the very least, we are unaware of any of our plans 'to invade Europe,' much less 'to occupy' it.

On a serious note, though, experts and analysts who believe that the ruling circles of European and North American countries are wasting no time building an image of Russia as an enemy have a point there, and these circles are doing so to consolidate the people that are weary of socioeconomic issues. They keep demonising our country through media manipulations. They are forcing on the public consciousness an idea that the Russian leadership allegedly entertains imperial ambitions.

It is entirely possible that, by inflating the myth of a Russian threat, they are trying to divert attention from their own failures in addressing real issues, such as inflation, rising unemployment, declining real incomes, illegal migration, and the ensuing surge in crime.

What really saddens and concerns us is the fact that precisely “united Europe” is fanning Russophobia, relaunching the military-industrial complex, and antagonising Russia. Once an integration project, the European Union has in no time morphed into a military-political bloc, essentially an offshoot of NATO. This is a dangerous dynamic that can have far-reaching consequences for all Europeans.