Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s particular take on politics has created many memes on the Russian Internet. His personal frustrations having to negotiate and deal with the West are very relatable to the Russian masses who also want to normalize relations. His crestfallen yet visibly angered words “F’n Morons” have become the stuff of meme legend throughout Russia, although few realize that it was actually said during discussions with the Saudis and not America or Britain as most would assume. But this statement so resonated with the pure frustration that Russians have been feeling, that the populace just sort of shifted the target of his words to the ultimate source of their dismay that started the Maidan Color Revolution in 2014, which has been spiraling downwards ever since. Foreign Minister Lavrov has proved not to be a one hit wonder and his recent trolling of his British counterpart Liz Truss exploded over the Russian internet. This interesting strange moment in the endless and pointless battle of The West vs. Russia is a real microcosm of the nature of how both sides see themselves and the other and demands a full breakdown.

So the situation looks like this, again an annoyed and worn down Lavrov tried to prove a point about how little the West actually understands about the Ukrainian Crisis with some verbal fencing…

MOSCOW, February 10. /TASS/. British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss refused to recognize Russia’s sovereignty over the Voronezh and Rostov Regions at talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Thursday, a source close to the negotiations told TASS.

After Truss’ statements urging Moscow to move its forces, located on Russia’s soil, away from the border with Ukraine, Lavrov asked his British counterpart if she recognized Russia’s sovereignty over the Voronezh and Rostov Regions.

According to the source, Truss insisted that the UK would never recognize Russia’s sovereignty over these regions.

Although the Russian internet was smugly proud of this quippy achievement there is a level of pure honesty in the reaction from the British that most Russians simply are incapable of seeing. The Russians are all laughing at her answer taking it as a literal reaction, but metaphorically she told the God’s honest truth from an Anglo-Saxon perspective.

Truss clearly refused to recognize two regions of Russia as being part of Russia out of willful ignorance. There are fine lines between idiocy, ignorance and willful ignorance, but behind the latter of the three there can often be a very crafty and hateful intelligence. No truth pith-helmeted British colonizer would dare to learn anything about her barbaric adversaries, and in this display of pure willful ignorance she perfectly articulated the view of the West towards Russia – they don’t recognize any of Russia’s concerns, demands, leadership or even statehood as legitimate, nor do they need to justify their positions with facts and knowledge when dealing with Untermenschen.

The reaction of the British Foreign Secretary was an unintended act of pure and total dominance. Can you imagine, just how low she and her colleagues must view the Russians as to be charged with dealing with them and yet know absolutely nothing about their country, their geography and the nature of the Ukrainian Crisis? Discussing a situation that has killed thousands of people yet choosing to learn zero basic information is “alpha-chad” to say the least.

Truss answered like a Roman general forced to lower himself to speaking to unwashed Barbarians, who has zero concern for any details about these subhuman animals and their pathetic pseudoculture. All the Roman needs to know is that the allied Barbarians in Ukraine are right and the enemy ones in Russia are wrong. What town or river is where doesn’t make any difference. This Roman attitude of seeing the world as one of civility vs. barbarity hasn’t gone anywhere, and a true sign of a “civilized person” is having zero knowledge or tolerance for the ways of the backwards.

Although Russians may find tricking Anglo-Saxon counterparts into revealing how ignorant they are as a coping mechanism for losing the Cold War, they forget that the supposedly 80 IQ gender-queer limp-wristed twits on the other side of the line have beaten them time and again. My Russian children, living in Russia, have already asked me numerous LGBT-related questions yet have not once asked anything about Multipolarity, Traditional Values or Orthodox Christianity. Russians may find narcissistic joy in mocking the English-speaking world for being ignorant, but apparently being able to quote Pushkin doesn’t win 21^st century info wars now, does it? When you’ve got Hollywood, the entire Mainstream Media, Big Tech and so on, you don’t need to know where anything is on a map. The Anglo-Saxons have plenty of knowledge, they just feel they don’t need to know a damn thing about you Russians. That is the nuance the Russians cannot perceive on their mental radar.

This trolling by Lavrov really shows that the joke is actually on Russia. The Russians continue, after years of failing, to try to reason with those who see them as subhuman animals. Perhaps we are moving towards a Multipolar World due to economics, geography and the West shooting itself in the foot, but as far as cultural/info wars are going if you look at the youth around Moscow you can clearly see who is winning.

Perhaps it is actually Lavrov’s side who is ignorant as to how to deal with the Romans from a Barbarian standpoint, and simply cannot wrap their brains around the fact that no progress can be made until the West either sees the Russians as equals or at least fears them enough to create respect like they did in the Cold War. It would also help if the Russians would wake up to the fact that they are considered Barbarians, the fact that Hitler killed millions of them due to his belief that they are racially inferior, just won’t sink in for some reason.

Russia continues to step on the same rake over and over again by seeing itself as equal to the West and believing that the stress between both sides is caused by some sort of cultural misunderstanding. The real intellectual question the Russians should be asking themselves is by what means could a Germanic Barbarian chief convince a Roman general that they are equals? How could they make him see the villages and culture of the Rhine as just as human and glorious as Rome? This first step to this particular negotiation is really the necessity for the Russians to hack through layer-upon-layer of Anglo-Saxon cultural superiority that creates the type of willful ignorance displayed unabashedly by Liz Truss. Although it is hard to formulate a winning strategy for this problem, it surely lies in the fact that deep down the Civilized man will always secretly envy the freedom and uncastrated status of the Barbarian, but that is a topic for another day.

By Pepe ESCOBAR

Facing high expectations, a five-man band Taliban finally played in Moscow. Yet the star of the show, predictably, was the Mick Jagger of geopolitics: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

Right from the start, Lavrov set the tone for the Moscow format consultations, which boast the merit of “uniting Afghanistan with all neighboring countries.” Without skipping a beat, he addressed the US elephant in the room – or lack thereof: “Our American colleagues chose not to participate,” actually “for the second time, evading an extended troika-format meeting.”

Washington invoked hazy “logistical reasons” for its absence.

The troika, which used to meet in Doha, consists of Russia, the US, China and Pakistan. The extended troika in Moscow this week featured Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and all five Central Asian ‘stans.’ That, in essence, made it a Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) meeting, at the highest level.

Lavrov’s presentation essentially expanded on the themes highlighted by the recent SCO Dushanbe Declaration: Afghanistan should be an “independent, neutral, united, democratic and peaceful state, free of terrorism, war and drugs,” and bearing an inclusive government “with representatives from all ethnic, religious and political groups.”

The joint statement issued after the meeting may not have been exactly a thriller. But then, right at the end, paragraph 9 offers the real bombshell:

“The sides have proposed to launch a collective initiative to convene a broad-based international donor conference under the auspices of the United Nations as soon as possible, certainly with the understanding that the core burden of post-conflict economic and financial reconstruction and development of Afghanistan must be shouldered by troop-based actors which were in the country for the past 20 years.”

The West will argue that a donor conference of sorts already happened: that was the G-20 special summit via videoconference earlier in October, which included UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Then, last week, much was made of a European promise of 1 billion euros in humanitarian aid, which, as it stands, remains extremely vague, with no concrete details.

At the G-20, European diplomats admitted, behind closed doors, that the main rift was between the West “wanting to tell the Taliban how to run their country and how to treat women” as necessary conditions in exchange for some help, compared to Russia and China following their non-interference foreign policy mandates.

Afghanistan’s neighbors, Iran and Pakistan, were not invited to the G-20, and that’s nonsensical. It’s an open question whether the official G-20 in Rome, on 30-31 October, will also address Afghanistan along with the main themes: climate change, Covid-19, and a still elusive global economic recovery.

No US in Central Asia

So the Moscow format, as Lavrov duly stressed, remains the go-to forum when it comes to addressing Afghanistan’s serious challenges.

Now we come to the crunch. The notion that the economic and financial reconstruction of Afghanistan should be conducted mainly by the former imperial occupier and its NATO minions – quaintly referred to as “troop-based actors” – is a non-starter.

The US does not do nation-building – as the entire Global South knows by experience. Even to unblock the nearly $10 billion of the Afghan Central Bank confiscated by Washington will be a hard slog. The IMF predicted that without foreign help the Afghan economy may shrink by 30 percent.

The Taliban, led by second Prime Minister Abdul Salam Hanafi, tried to put on a brave face. Hanafi argued that the current interim government is already inclusive: after all, over 500,000 employees of the former administration have kept their jobs.

But once again, much precious detail was lost in translation, and the Taliban lacked a frontline figure capable of capturing the Eurasian imagination. The mystery persists: where is Mullah Baradar?

Baradar, who led the political office in Doha, was widely tipped to be the face of the Taliban to the outside world after the group’s takeover of Kabul on 15 August. He has been effectively sidelined.

The background to the Moscow format, though, offers a few nuggets. There were no leaks – but diplomats hinted it was tense. Russia had to play careful mediator, especially when it came to addressing grievances by India and concerns by Tajikistan.

Everyone knew that Russia – and all the other players – would not recognize the Taliban as the new Afghan government, at least not yet. That’s not the point. The priority once again had to be impressed on the Taliban leadership: no safe haven for any jihadi outfits that may attack “third countries, especially the neighbors,” as Lavrov stressed.

When President Putin casually drops the information, on the record, that there are at least 2,000 ISIS-K jihadis in northern Afghanistan, this means Russian intel knows exactly where they are, and has the capabilities to snuff them, should the Taliban signal help is needed.

Now compare it with NATO – fresh from its massive Afghan humiliation – holding a summit of defense ministers in Brussels this Thursday and Friday to basically lecture the Taliban. NATO’s secretary-general, the spectacularly mediocre Jens Stoltenberg, insists that “the Taliban are accountable to NATO” over addressing terrorism and human rights.

As if this was not inconsequential enough, what really matters – as background to the Moscow format – is how the Russians flatly refused a US request to deploy their intel apparatus somewhere in Central Asia, in theory, to monitor Afghanistan.

First they wanted a “temporary” military base in Uzbekistan or Tajikistan: Putin–Biden actually discussed it at the Geneva summit. Putin counter-offered, half in jest, to host the Americans in a Russian base, probably in Tajikistan. Moscow gleefully played along for a few weeks just to reach an immovable conclusion: there’s no place for any US “counter-terrorism” shenanigans in Central Asia.

To sum it all up, Lavrov in Moscow was extremely conciliatory. He stressed how the Moscow format participants plan to use all opportunities for “including” the Taliban via several multilateral bodies, such as the UN, the SCO – where Afghanistan is an observer nation – and crucially, the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which is a military alliance.

So many layers of ‘inclusiveness’ beckon. Humanitarian help from SCO nations like Pakistan, Russia and China is on its way. The last thing the Taliban need is to be ‘accountable’ to brain-dead NATO.

thecradle.co

Britain is fomenting a diplomatic crisis between the European Union and Russia, according to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Evidence and precedent indicate Lavrov has his sight well-trained.

The British establishment’s notorious ability for machination and intrigue – hence the ancient moniker Perfidious Albion – can be seen as stirring the escalating row between the European Union and Russia in which diplomats are being expelled pell-mell.

This week, Russia ordered the withdrawal of representatives from Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Slovakia. That came in response to the expulsion of Russian diplomats from those countries. Russia has also ordered home more diplomats from the Czech Republic. Poland and Italy have also been caught up in diplomatic antagonism with Moscow.

The row blew up last week when the Czech Republic accused Russian state agents of being responsible for twin explosions on its territory back in 2104. The blasts caused the deaths of two workers at an ammunition depot near the village of Vrbetice close to the border with Slovakia. Until recently, the Czech authorities had concluded that the explosions were an industrial accident.

What prompted the Czechs to revise their ideas and to now blame Russia for sabotage is the interpolation of Britain in providing “new information”. Specifically, it was the MI6-sponsored media group Bellingcat (a so-called private investigatory agency) which appears to have furnished the disinformation which purports to show the involvement of Russian military intelligence (GRU). Incredibly, the British claim their “evidence” shows that two of the GRU agents were also the same individuals who were alleged to have been involved in poisoning the Russian traitor-spy Sergei Skripal in England in 2018. The British claim to have passport information to support their claims, but such methodology is rife with forgery – a black art that the British are all-too skilled at.

On leveling the accusation against Russia, the Czech Republic then ordered the expulsion of 18 Russian diplomats. Moscow responded angrily, saying that the claims of sabotage were a “dirty fabrication” and pointing out that Prague did not provide any information for verification. Russia took swift reciprocal action by banishing 20 Czech diplomats from its territory.

However, the row continues to flare with the Baltic states entering the fray by banning Russian officials in “solidarity” with the Czech Republic. The move by the Baltic states is predictable as they are supercharged by anti-Russian political sentiment. It’s a case of any excuse for them to inflame relations.

The dispute comes at a fraught time when the European Union is discussing imposing more sanctions on Russia over wider concerns about the conflict in Ukraine, the imprisonment of blogger Alexei Navalny and a Russian security crackdown on Navalny’s shadowy Western-backed “opposition” network.

The skirmishing over diplomats is a convenient way to further damage relations between the EU and Russia, especially as the strategically important Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline project nears completion – a project that Washington wants to eviscerate for its own selfish commercial reasons. Uncle Sam’s junior partner Britain may be obliging in that regard and thus trying to curry favor for garnering an American trade deal in the post-Brexit world.

Certainly, Russia’s top diplomat Sergei Lavrov is clear about the stealthy British hand in recent events. In a media interview this week, Lavrov mentioned the United Kingdom in wary terms, saying: “As far as the relations between Russia and Europe are concerned, I still believe that the UK is playing an active and a very serious subversive role. It withdrew from the European Union, but we see no decrease in its activities on this track. On the contrary, they are trying to influence EU member states’ approaches to Russia to the maximum possible extent.”

It should be recalled that Britain has played a starring duplicitous role in demonizing Russia and poisoning international relations.

It was Bellingcat (MI6) that pushed the narrative that Russia was complicit in the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner in 2014 over Eastern Ukraine with the loss of nearly 300 lives. Based on British “evidence” (which has been debunked as fabrication), a Dutch investigation into the disaster has accused Russia. That affair has hardened European prejudices against Russia which has fomented the imposition of sanctions.

It was a former British MI6 operative Christopher Steele who was instrumental in promoting the Russiagate dossier around 2016 which destroyed bilateral relations between the United States and Russia, and which continues to fuel fabrications about Moscow’s interference in American and European politics (even those Steele’s “dirty dossier” is a risible load of rubbish and has been debunked).

And it was the Skripal saga in Salisbury in March 2018 which Britain hatched to further poison international relations with Russia. That saga – with no proof against Russia – has become a concocted “standard proof” for the subsequent saga of “poisoning” the blogger conman Alexei Navalny. Western governments and media refer to the “Kremlin plot” to kill Skripal as “evidence” for another “Kremlin plot” to assassinate Navalny. This is tantamount to one fiction being used to prove another fiction. The same saga is now feeding into the Czech explosion row. And it all comes back to the devious ingenuity of Perfidious Albion.

Foreign Minister Lavrov added a further incisive comment on the role of Britain. He said: “At the same time, you know, they send us signals, they propose establishing contacts. This means, they do not shy away from communication [with Russia], but try to discourage others. Again, probably [this can be explained by] their desire to have a monopoly of these contacts and again prove that they are superior to others.”

The British establishment likes to boast that they “punch above their weight” in terms of influence beyond their territorial size. It’s not hard to see how they manage such a feat. It’s called duplicity, intrigue, lies, and dividing and ruling. Perfidious Albion par excellence.

China and Russia have made it absolutely clear that they recognize the sad fact that the oligarchy in firm control of the western alliance is adamantly intent on burning all possible diplomatic avenues of cooperation and dialogue as the Hindenburg of the western financial system continues to careen towards a fiery oblivion.

It didn’t take long for the behaviorist zombies and NATO-philes managing the recent U.S. color revolution to undo any remnant of hope that some form of sane foreign policy might emerge from the U.S. establishment.

Nothing could be worse than the neocons running much of Trump’s foreign policy thought many of the leading members of both Chinese and Russian intelligentsias in recent months. However, with the recent barrage of sanctions launched upon both Russia and China this week in coordinated fashion by Canada, the USA and EU, preceded by accusations by America’s leading geriatric hologram that Putin is a soulless killer, it has become clear that unless a great systemic change occurs in the west, there is no hope for dialogue or cooperation. This was made absolutely clear in the malicious ambush set up by the U.S. State Department which attempted to publicly attack and shame the Chinese in Alaska on March 18.

The fact that the results of the March 23 meeting between Foreign Ministers Sergei Lavrov and Wang Yi in the South China Guanxi Zhuang Autonomous Region resulted in a renewed joint statement on Global Governance should come as no surprise. Calling for a tightened bond of brotherhood between the two nations, Yi stated that Russia and China must “act as guarantors of justice in international affairs” and stated that “China is ready to promote the international system established by the United Nations, protect the world order based on international law and abide by universal values such as peace, development, justice, democracy, equality and freedom.”

While the Five Eyes and other NATO-phile lap dogs of war sing the praises of the “rules-based order”, China and Russia have made the point repeatedly this week that the only international order they will adhere to is the one that involves all nations and not merely the handful of imperial hypocrites among the Trans Atlantic pushing for a unilateral world government. While these same self-righteous unipolarists self-adulate each other in their echo chambers, the victims of IMF-World Bank debt slavery, humanitarian bombings, drone assassinations, CIA-MI6 run regime changes, and color revolutionary conspiracies directed ultimately at Russia and China look hopefully towards the multipolar alliance as the only pathway to a future worth living in.

While praise for the UN Charter has confused some who naively believe the world body itself to have been the product of the unipolar world government agenda 76 years ago, there is a more nuanced reality to be discovered. When one actually takes the time to read the charter and study the battles waged during the time of the UN’s creation, it becomes clear that the leaders of Russia and China know exactly what they are doing. The UN charter which they defend firmly establishes respect for the sovereign of each nation state as a primary objective of the world organization and grants members of the Security Council on whose body both Russia and China sit, power to veto any military decision. Additionally, the charter mandates economic justice for all and mutual interest as primary goals of the organization. All of these things stand in direct opposition to the sort of thinking coming out of the dystopic minds of Davos luminaries and “rules-based orderists” trying to manage the new world order today like gods of Olympus.

The March 23 treaty re-affirms those commitments made in the 2001 Russia-China Treaty of Good Neighborliness and Friendly Cooperation whose 20^th anniversary occurs this Summer. It also invokes the 2016 Joint Declaration on the Promotion and Principles of International Law which firmly embedded the Belt and Road Initiative and Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union into one unified package.

This during the meeting, Lavrov and Yi added the important component of economic liberation from the U.S. dollar hegemony to the discussion and made scientific and technological cooperation the driving force of the new economic/security system that needs to be brought online in short order. On these points Lavrov stated:

“In addition to strengthening cooperation under the UN framework on the immediate end to unilateral coercive measures, China and Russia should also take the opportunity to enhance their scientific and technological innovation and improve their national strength in response to the sanction.”

Lavrov alluded to the necessary new financial architecture that needs to arise out of the multipolar alliance by “promoting settlement by local and other international currencies that can replace the U.S. dollar so as to gradually move away from the western controlled payment system”.

This last point reflects a process that has already been well underway for some years implicitly as both Russia and China have begun managing their payment systems increasingly outside of the U.S.-controlled SWIFT system and instead have relied increasingly on the Russian-made System for Transfer of Financial Messages created in 2014 and the China International Payments System (CIPS). In his speech, Lavrov made the point that today China has become Russia’s largest trading partner, and after the Power of Siberia is completed, Russia will become the #1 supplier of energy to China. As of 2020, $107 billion of trade occurred between the two nations with 25% of that total occurring in local currencies. This is a huge step up from the mere 2% in 2014-16.

While the western governments are locked under the control of a Malthusian-minded priesthood ideologically committed to the deconstruction of civilization under a green financial dictatorship, the China-Russian alliance is founded upon sturdier stuff.

Premising their self-interest not upon the projection of power, and intimidation of the weak, but rather upon the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence outlined in the 1955 Bandung Conference, China and Russia have recognized that the only pathway to a viable future is located in the power of creation (aka: breaking free of zero-sum thinking). The leaders of these nations know that if resource scarcity press upon the potential to sustain the lives of people, it is better to inspire creative ideas, and unleash new discoveries under a dynamic of scientific progress rather than cut down the population to adapt to those limits which computer models attest is our carrying capacity.

Already both Russia and China have established a firm foundation for an alternative system which is open for anyone to join and which respects the developmental pathways, political systems and cultures of all diverse participating nations.

This harmony of the parts with the greater good of the whole is possible because the practice is founded upon a discoverable principle of Natural Law which has found the human species in a living universe where both freedom, law and duty all co-exist. This coherence of the whole and the parts once animated the minds of statesmen of the west who authored such foundational documents as the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), Declaration of Independence (1776), the U.S. Constitution (1787) and UN Charter (1945). This principle of statecraft was invoked by such great men as Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Charles DeGaulle and John Kennedy (to name a few) who each in their own way defended the General Welfare while simultaneously upholding the unalienable rights of the individual to the chagrin of the financier oligarchy. These men did this via the use of strong federal power to build great projects, regulate private finance all while amplifying the power of private enterprise and individual rights of each citizen. Before the bipolar days of the Cold War brainwashed the majority of citizens into believing they had to plug themselves into either a “communist” or “free market capitalist” cage, this system was known around the world as “The American System of Political Economy”.

Sadly, this pre-condition for human survival has long been forgotten in the west.

It is now Russia and China who are leading the “guarantors of justice in world affairs” as both nations have united in co-constructing the first lunar base together, advance asteroid defense systems (which deal with an actual threat to our planet unlike those fake crises advocated by fear mongers at Davos and London), and are working on overtime to extend the New Silk Road across Africa, Asia, Latin America as well as the Arctic in the form of the Polar Silk Road. Whether or not the west is capable of rediscoveries its lost better traditions at this late date remains to be seen.

The author can be reached at matt.ehret@tutamail.com

As it turned out, the visit did not disappoint, with the highlight being a staged diplomatic incident made to order for the Russia! Russia! Russia! crowd and their media support puppies, perhaps even more alarmed by the air of easy, unapologetic confidence with which Lavrov handled it while breezing through Sarajevo, Belgrade and Zagreb.

Lavrov’s main message, repeated at each stop, was to reiterate Russia’s continuing support for the two major peace agreements that served to at least freeze the conflicts arising from the ugly breakup of Yugoslavia during the 1990s – the Dayton Peace Agreement for Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995) and UN Security Council Resolution 1244 regarding Serbia’s breakaway Kosovo and Metohija province (1999). Ironically, although these two agreements were brokered by the U.S. and its main EU vassals as a way to at least partly secure the fruits of their interventionism, for the past couple of decades it has been Russia that has been their main champion and defender.

That is not as paradoxical as it appears at first glance. It fits into Russia’s approach to international relations, as an arena in which peace agreements and UN resolutions are to be respected if one wants to avoid Darwinian global disorder and free-for-all. (Respect for what is signed… What will those dastardly Russkies think of next?) Pragmatically speaking, this approach is also the best currently available vehicle for at least partially restraining Western unilateralism and “exceptionalist” arrogance, by which agreements and treaties are to be honored only so long as it serves one’s purposes, after which they’re to be expeditiously changed or discarded, with no dissent tolerated, and new rules imposed. That, in a nutshell, is what the collective West means when it speaks of the much-touted “rules-based order”.

In any case, as it seems to be its fate, and the fate of the Balkans in general, B-H was once again turned into a proving ground and the place where opposing worldviews clashed. Fortunately, this time only on the diplomatic front. In short, Mr. Lavrov’s scheduled meeting with the over-bureaucratized country’s three-man presidency was boycotted by two of its members – the Muslim representative Sefik Dzaferovic and the (faux) Croat representative Zeljko Komsic, leaving the Serb representative, Milorad Dodik, as the sole host of the meeting.

The main reason given for these theatrics was the Russian foreign minister’s alleged “disrespect” for B-H, since the B-H flag was not on display during his previous day’s visit to the Serb Republic (Republika Srpska – one of the two federal “entities” that currently make up B-H, the other being the Muslim and Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina), where he was also hosted by Milorad Dodik. The second reason was Lavrov’s endorsement of the Serb Republic parliament’s resolution on military neutrality, as this is something that supposedly only the joint institutions at the central level can decide upon.

Lavrov’s pithy response to the incident, given a day later at a press conference during his Belgrade stop, was nothing if not direct:

“I think the politicians who made that decision are not independent, and clearly acted on someone’s instructions. They most likely express the interests not of their voters, but of external forces that have no interest not only in the development of Russian relations with Bosnia and Serbia, but in general of the Western Balkans countries exercising their right to develop mutually beneficial cooperation with all external partners.”

Furthermore, recalling the words of former EU foreign policy commissioner Federica Mogherini who called B-H an exclusive interest zone of the EU in which Russia had no business, the Russian foreign minister added:

“This is a philosophy deeply rooted in the ancient colonial and half-colonial legacy of many European countries. We can’t do anything about it, obviously, except counter this absolutely unacceptable line and mentality.”

Of course, it can hardly be concluded that Lavrov deliberately picked B-H as one of the first places to showcase Russia’s disillusionment with the West and a more assertive foreign policy. For it was the said boycott that provided the perfect occasion to talk about local politicians serving foreign agendas or reminisce about Europe’s colonial ways. So, in a way, it was precisely this gesture done in the name of “independence” and “lack of respect” that provided the necessary foil for the Russian foreign minister to drive home his point.

And that point is actually just a logical extension of Russia’s consistent foreign policy approach over the years. While Russia – together with the Serbs both in B-H and Serbia itself – insists on strict respect for the Dayton Peace Agreement, it is also a champion of doing away with its frankly (neo)colonial aspects, which were expected to wither away in time in any case – the so-called High Representative, practically a Western viceroy claiming the right to interfere in B-H politics at any time, and the presence of foreign judges in the country’s supreme court. (While we are on the subject of neocolonialism, the B-H flag over which much of the tiff was raised, is actually a bland, unpopular, non-descript piece of cloth with absolutely zero connection to its people’s history, imposed by the High Representative more than two decades ago.)

On the other hand, the Bosnian Muslims adamantly oppose Bosnia’s decolonization. After all, it was the Western states, led by the United States, that supported their radical Muslim leader, Alija Izetbegovic, in his quest to not only separate B-H from the former Yugoslavia but also to, as clearly stated in his Islamic Declaration, gradually transform it into a majority Muslim state, in which Christians would necessarily become second-class citizens.

Now why would the proud Western democracies support such a project? The short answer is – Russia! Russia! Russia! The West’s three-decade long feelgood Bosnian project is and has been just a geopolitical extension of Brzezinski’s Afghanistan strategy, whereby Islamists of various degree of militancy are used to box out Russian influence and weaken local Russian allies. Underneath all the “pro-democracy” and “Euroatlantic (read NATO) integration” talk, that is the crux of the matter. In the 1990s, the U.S. facilitated the arrival of jihadists to B-H, while the EU for the most part politely held its nose and averted its eyes. Today, the collective West just as firmly supports Izetbegovic’s successors, led by his son, Bakir. The goals haven’t really changed – keep the Russians out at any cost – only the rhetoric. And tried and true Western colonial methods and structures are still needed to achieve them.

Naturally, the Russians are wise to what’s happening, as are the Serbs. The new wrinkle is that the Croats (who are Roman Catholic, while the Serbs are Orthodox Christians), both in B-H and Croatia, are also showing increasing willingness to come at least partially aboard, as their wartime shotgun marriage to the Muslims, brokered by both sides’ U.S. patrons in order to strengthen the regional anti-Serb coalition, is turning increasingly sour. Not only are the much more numerous Muslims less and less willing to take into consideration Croat vital interests, they now take it for granted that they can use their superior numbers to elect the Croat member of the B-H presidency on a regular basis, as is the case with the current “Croat” member of the presidency, Zeljko Komsic, whom Zagreb considers to be “legal but not legitimate,” as his election runs afoul of the Dayton architecture by which the three constituent peoples are supposed to be represented by their own elected representatives.

That is why, in addition to the traditionally warm welcome he received in Belgrade, Lavrov was also able to visit Zagreb for the first time in more than 16 years and have quite cordial meetings with Croatia’s otherwise traditionally Russo-skeptic leadership. For, lacking any significant sympathetic ear among their EU and NATO allies, the Croats are obviously seeing benefit in at least a partial turn towards Russia or, more precisely, its principled B-H policy. It is now music for Croat ears when Lavrov speaks not only of respect for the Dayton Agreement, but for the main principles upon which B-H has been constructed under it: one country, two entities and three equally constitutive peoples.

To sum it up, 25 years after the signing of the Dayton Agreement, Bosnia and Herzegovina is still a Western protectorate. The Western powers want to keep it as such, until it becomes a Muslim-dominated state that, together with a Greater Albania whose formation the Western powers are also encouraging (hence their insistence on recognizing the secession of Kosovo from Serbia), would form a stout bulwark against the dreaded Russian “malign influence.”

Just as the West’s faux prosperity, based on endless money-creation and markets permanently addicted to various “stimuli,” is now being fully exposed as a rigged game in which the rich only get richer while the rest descend into various degrees of debt slavery, so is the West’s feel-good “democratization” mantra of the past three decades being exposed for what it truly is – a cynical, zero-sum geopolitical game, in which, as always, the ends justify the means and lofty-sounding goals are used as the cover.

This is especially the case with the humanitarian-interventionist West’s poster child, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

In contrast, as everywhere else, Russia’s goals in B-H are comparatively much more modest and reality-based. The goal is to maintain the stability of a country based on internal, interethnic consent and consensus, without foreign “high representatives” and such. And, of course, without NATO membership.

If this is “malign influence” – then bring it on!

In response to these unsettling revelations, the Russian Foreign Ministry very decorously announced that it was returning the icon so that Interpol might conduct an investigation into its origin.

The multi-layered scandal has the potential to muddy not just diplomatic relations, but also generate distrust between churches within the Orthodox world and, no less importantly, to undercut relations between the Serbian and Russian nations. A quick cui bono? question yields perfectly obvious answers, and they all point westward. Posing the more fundamental question of who might be the organizers of this unsavoury prank also points in only one direction. Suspiciously synchronized with Gen. Sir Nick Carter’s (Chief of Britain’s Defence Staff) noteworthy statement just days ago that “The way to win is to beat them [the Russians] at their own game, and that means beating them below the threshold of war,” the icon incident has the unmistakable fingerprints of Perfidious Albion. With all due respect for the trans-Atlantic acolytes, it was just too sophisticated for them to pull off.

What happened, essentially, is that as part of his Balkan tour Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov paid a visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina several days ago. His host there was Milorad Dodik, the long-time Premier and President of the Republic of Srpska, the Serbian half of the country, and currently the Serbian member of its three-man rotating Presidency. The circumstances underlying the Russian foreign minister’s visit to Bosnia are serious enough. The entire political and propaganda apparatus of the West, where Bosnia is concerned, is monomaniacally focused on a single issue: the restructuring of the Dayton Agreement by which the war was ended in 1995. The Agreement, at the time acceptable to all three sides and which continues to be acceptable to the Serbs, provides for a loosely confederated country of three constituent peoples and two political entities. While at the time this formula was reached in 1995 it suited the collective West’s momentary purposes as well, it no longer does. The Drang nach Osten, which no one is any longer even bothering to conceal, requires the same strategic preparations that impelled Hitler in 1941 to secure his Balkan rear. That means that Balkan statelets must be brought safely with the aggressor’s camp, or at least be reliably neutralized.

The joint military exercises scheduled to soon take place with the participation of units of Serbian and Bosnian armed forces are a case in point. In the Bosnian Defense Ministry announcement, the exercises are represented as designed to “promote bilateral relations and regional cooperation,” along with a plethora of all the other usual platitudes. But the key point is that their purpose was revealed to be to “implement the concept of ‘Operational Capability Concept Evaluation and Feedback,’“ the phrase in quotation marks being as cited, in English, in the original local language document. And, significantly, we learn that, strangely, these military exercises of two technically neutral and non-NATO countries will be conducted to test their “operational capabilities according to NATO standards.” What for, one may ask.

That is the broader context within which the diplomatic scandal involving the icon (by all appearances of St Nicholas, who is conveniently celebrated according to the Orthodox calendar on December 19, another nice and thoughtful British touch) was ignited.

But the even broader context is the relentless drive for the annulment of the irksome Serb entity Republic of Srpska, whose firm insistence on friendship with Russia and scrupulous observance of the Dayton accords, including the power to veto federal policies it disapproves (such as joining NATO) because they are contrary to its national interest, are an insurmountable roadblock which can only be removed by achieving its destruction.

Granted, President Dodik was not an art major nor is he a known art connoisseur, but perhaps he should have taken a closer look at the gift with which he intended to honor Mr. Lavrov:

Had he done so, perhaps he would have noticed the seal on its back, in the Cyrillic alphabet that he is perfectly capable of reading, suggesting that the gift item may have some links to the Ukraine, and that should have put him on alert. But it is all water under the bridge now.

As in the MH 17 case over the Donbas and the sordid Skripal and Navalny affairs, the pre-packaged spins were activated with lightning speed to speedily impose the perpetrators’ false narrative. The opposition PDP party, a local Bosnian asset of the formidable agency perched at Vauxhall Cross in London, demanded on cue Dodik’s resignation for “shaming” the Republic of Srpska with the negligence he so wantonly displayed. Another bought and paid for asset, the formerly patriotic BN radio and television network which had since switched sides, chimed in with the conspiracy theory that Russia was pushing Dodik under the bus and that it was Russian operatives who suggested this particular item as the most suitable gift for Lavrov precisely to grease the skids for his downfall. One of the more imbecilic conspiracy theories making rounds these days, indeed.

Last but not least, it was hardly conceivable that Ukraine should be involved in this affair without committing a tell-tale gaffe reflecting once more (think back to the initial stages of MH17) the comical professional incompetence of its special services and suggesting a high level of probability of guilty foreknowledge. The Ukrainian Embassy in Sarajevo was too impatient to sleep on it, as we say in America, so it officially demanded from the Bosnian Foreign Ministry the icon’s repatriation the same night that the scandal broke. That was, of course, as we also say in America, jumping the gun before any firm evidence was at hand or any forensic investigations could have been conducted, and at a time when no reasonable conclusions could be drawn.

As if that were insufficient evidence of a set-up, it should also be recalled that Dodik’s colleagues in the Bosnian Presidency, Šefik Džaferović and Željko Komšić refused to abide by their protocolary obligation to co-host minister Lavrov upon his arrival in Sarajevo, citing the most specious of reasons. Assuredly that was because they were part of the plot and their assignment was to make sure that all the blame fell on the Serbian member of the collective body and on the Republic of Srpska that he represents.

The striking implementation of Sir Nick’s “under the threshold” doctrine via the icon affair will not be a mortal blow either to the Republic of Srpska or the political fortunes of Milorad Dodik. But for the moment, at least, it casts a shadow on both as most likely was its entire original purpose, to undermine their capability to resist the ferocious pressure that is being constantly ramped up to replace the Dayton Agreement autonomy with a unitary NATO appendage state.

Russia’s top diplomat says the only way forward is for multilateralism to prevail and for all states to abide by the principles of the United Nations’ Charter, to which they are signatories.

A prime example of the destructive US-led Western policy is seen in the Persian Gulf where tensions have reached an explosive pitch which could trigger an all-out war across the Middle East, possibly embroiling the entire world.

There can be little doubt that the precarious situation in the Gulf is extant because of Washington’s irresponsible provocations towards Iran. The unilateral abrogation of the landmark 2015 nuclear accord by the Trump administration and the militarization of an already dominant US presence in the Gulf over recent months is a brazen case of Washington going it alone in contravention of international law and norms. (Alas, has the US ever been different?, one might demur.)

In its unilateral initiative, the US has cobbled together a clique of nations to support its presumed military right to act as a policeman in the Persian Gulf: Britain, Australia and Saudi Arabia have indicated they are willing to join a US “coalition” to purportedly safeguard “freedom of navigation” through the  vital chokepoint in global oil trade.

Declared intentions aside, the problem is Washington’s attempt to demarcate a “sphere of influence” in the strategically important Middle East. No matter, it seems, that this action is seriously aggravating tensions and instability in the region. Iran has every right to protest what it sees as a US-led campaign of aggression, piled on top of Washington’s bad faith regarding the UN-endorsed nuclear accord.

However, by contrast, a viable way out of the dead-end that Washington’s policy of unilateralism has created is the formation of a multilateral naval security system, which involves all nations in the Persian Gulf, including Iran, Saudi Arabia and others. Extra-regional nations can also be involved, including China, India, Japan, the European Union, as well as Russia and the US.

Such a proposal has been submitted to the UN by Russia earlier this year. This week during a meeting with Sergei Lavrov, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Javad Zarif gave his full support for such a multilateral security mechanism. The initiative is consistent with UN principles of respecting national sovereignties and non-aggression. It obviates the notion of nations presuming to have “spheres of influence”. The latter concept is a relic of colonialism and imperialism, and should be obsolete in today’s world.

Another contemporary example of destructive unilateralism is the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The country has been trapped in a nearly five-year war in which civilians in the eastern Donbass region have suffered greatly. Western governments and media accuse Russia of meddling in Ukraine. But the reality is that it was Washington and European states that interfered by illegally overthrowing an elected government in Kiev with a violent CIA-backed coup in February 2014.

Ukraine has been turned into a failed state because Washington and its Western allies wanted to impose a “sphere of influence” on Russia’s border.

It is patently obvious that such unilateral policy is a violation of international law and democratic principles. It is a criminal assertion of geopolitical “interests” and “objectives”. Moreover, such misconduct inevitably leads to a morass of conflict, destruction and immense human suffering.

The disgraceful irony is that while Russia is constantly accused, without evidence, of interfering in other countries, the abundant, irrefutable proof is the opposite: Washington and its Western allies have an incessant habit of violating and destabilizing nations and regions in presumed zero-sum geopolitical games.

For the sake of world peace and progressive development, all nations must adhere to the concept of multilateralism, mutual respect and genuine cooperation, free of stereotyping and demonizing others for propaganda gains.

The question is though: can US corporate capitalism and its militarist machine abide by that reasonable, minimal demand for international cooperation?

If not, then the American political system and its coterie of Western minions are driving the world into an abysmal dead-end.

Pompeo spoke of repairing the frayed bilateral relations and of finding “common ground” between the US and Russia on a range of pressing international issues. President Putin also said he aspired for much better relations between the two countries, and pointed out that the world’s biggest nuclear powers have an onerous obligation to cooperate.

Indeed, the issue of arms control was reportedly a top agenda item in lengthy discussions between Putin and Pompeo, and separately with Lavrov. Both sides expressed willingness to work on negotiating new controls and on extending the New Start treaty concerning strategic nuclear weapons which is due to expire in 2021. After the US unilaterally suspended its participation in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty earlier this year, amid dubious accusations against Russia for breaching the treaty, the stated willingness by Pompeo to return to negotiations is welcome.

On several other issues, the US and Russian sides clashed over differences. Russia defended the sovereign right of Venezuela to be free from Washington’s interference. Lavrov called for dialogue in the South American country as the way forward to resolve political conflict, not for Washington to “impose” its will on the Venezuelan people.

The Russian side also warned against further escalation of military tensions by the US towards Iran, reiterating the importance of respecting the 2015 international nuclear accord, which Washington unilaterally abrogated last year.

In principle, having sharp differences and opposing views is not a problem. Diplomacy is all about robust exchange of views and criticisms. At least, Pompeo’s engagement with Moscow shows that the Trump administration is willing to build on diplomatic relations based on mutual respect.

Earlier this month, Presidents Trump and Putin held a constructive phone call which no doubt helped set the agenda for discussions this week. There are further meetings planned between Lavrov and Pompeo at next month’s G20 summit in Japan. The White House has also said that during the summit, Trump is open to meeting with Putin. The Kremlin responded positively to that offer. It would be the first meeting between the two leaders since their summit in Helsinki last July.

This cordial outreach is encouraging, especially given the past two years of relentless political and media antagonism from the American side towards Russia and Putin in particular, with the latter vilified for allegedly orchestrating Kremlin interference in the 2016 US presidential elections. Trump has always scoffed at those claims as a demeaning slur fabricated by his domestic political enemies. Moscow, of course, has consistently slammed the accusations as baseless slander. Given that a two-year investigation into the matter by special counsel and former FBI chief Robert Mueller concluded that there was “no Russian conspiracy”, that would seem to be a vindication of both Trump and Russia, and the end of the whole tawdry matter. Time to move on.

However, that’s why the additional comments on alleged Russian interference by Pompeo this week were jarring and disconcerting. He reportedly warned President Putin about not interfering in US elections “again” and for Russia to demonstrate “that it was a thing of the past”. Such an attitude from Trump’s top diplomat is reprehensible. The irony is that the Trump administration has been assailed with false claims of Russian collusion, and yet here was Pompeo spouting the same nonsense to his Russian hosts, instead of seizing the opportunity to get on with real, pressing issues of utmost importance.

Perhaps Pompeo was anticipating the furious anti-Russia media reaction back in the US where a plethora of commentators decried his otherwise convivial meeting with Putin. The fact that large sections of the mainstream US media did ham up ridiculous insults about “collusion” shows that there is a deep-seated pernicious Russophobia among the American establishment. Pompeo appears to be susceptible to owning similar pejorative views on Russia, if he can still articulate the scurrilous notion of electoral interference.

That is a troubling sign of dim prospects for a restored relationship. Pompeo’s remarks about “not interfering again” illustrates how ingrained the notion is in Washington that Russia meddled in American affairs. If Washington persists in this fundamentally Russophobic delusion, then the prospects for normal bilateral relations are indeed limited.

If one side has such a paranoid and delusional view of the other side, then the scope for a productive dialogue on other matters is badly hampered.

A genuine reset in US-Russia relations will require a sea-change in the political mindset in Washington. Cold War thinking should be “the thing of the past” not the tedious repetition of slander against Russia.

President Trump seems willing to make a fresh start with Russia. Maybe he ought to think about shaking up his diplomatic corps with some reasonable people who don’t just regurgitate Russophobic nonsense.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Mr President,

Regarding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, as you know, it has been in force since 1988. It had an indefinite term. According to the information at our disposal, the United States has been violating the Treaty since 1999, when it started testing combat unmanned aerial vehicles that have the same characteristics as land-based cruise missiles banned by the Treaty.

The United States went on to use ballistic target missiles for testing their missile defence system, and in 2014 they began the deployment in their missile defence system positioning areas in Europe of Mk 41 vertical launching systems. These launchers are fully suitable as they are for Tomahawk intermediate-range attack missiles.

Vladimir Putin: And this is an outright violation of the Treaty.

Sergei Lavrov: This is an outright violation of the Treaty. Launchers of this kind have already been deployed in Romania, and preparations are underway to deploy them in Poland, as well as Japan.

Another matter of concern for us is that only recently, just a year ago, the United States in its 2018 Nuclear Posture Review set the task of developing low-yield nuclear weapons, and it is probable that intermediate-range missiles will serve as a means of delivery for these weapons. It was also announced only recently that this provision of the US nuclear doctrine is beginning to materialise with missiles of this kind entering production.

In October 2018, the United States officially declared its intention to withdraw from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles. We did everything we could to save the Treaty considering its importance in terms of sustaining strategic stability in Europe, as well as globally. The last attempt of this kind was undertaken on January 15, when the US finally agreed to our request for holding consultations in Geneva.

In coordination with the Defence Ministry, we proposed unprecedented transparency measures that went far beyond our obligations under the INF Treaty in order to persuade the US that Russia was not in violation of this essential instrument. However, the US torpedoed these proposals. Instead, the US presented yet another ultimatum. It is obvious that we cannot accept it since it contradicts the INF Treaty in both letter and spirit.

The US announced that it was suspending its participation in the INF Treaty, launched the official withdrawal from it, and said that it will no longer consider itself restricted by the INF Treaty. As far as we can see, this means that the US will make missiles in addition to engaging in research and development activities that have already been factored into the current budget.

There is no doubt that these developments make things worse overall in the sphere of nuclear disarmament and strategic stability. It all started with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, when the US decided to withdraw from it in 2002, as you know all too well. This was done despite numerous initiatives by the Russian Federation at the UN General Assembly to save the ABM Treaty. The UN General Assembly passed a number of resolutions supporting the ABM Treaty. However, this did not stop the United States from withdrawing from it.

As a partial replacement for the ABM Treaty, the US and Russia signed a joint declaration that same year, 2002, on new strategic relations with a promise to settle all issues related to the so-called third positioning area of the missile-defence system being deployed in Europe at the time. The declaration provided for holding consultations as a way to reach common ground. This did not happen due to the unwillingness of the United States to take up Russia’s concerns in earnest.

In 2007, we made another gesture of good will at your instructions by coming forward with an initiative that consisted of working together to resolve the problems related to US missile defence system’s third positioning area in Europe. Once again, the US backed out of this proposal.

However, at the Russia-NATO Summit in Lisbon in 2010, we once again called for Russia, the US and Europe to work together on a continental missile-defence system. This call was not heeded. Nevertheless, two years later, in 2012, at the NATO Summit in Chicago it was NATO that called for dialogue with Russia on missile defence. However, all this good will boiled down to the US insisting that we simply come to terms with their missile defence approach, despite all the obvious risks and threats to our security posed by this approach.

Let me remind you that in 2013 Russia once again called on the US Department of State to open consultations, and came forward with concrete proposals. There was no reply. And in 2014, the United States brought the dialogue on missile defence to a halt and declared the intention to deploy its positioning areas in Europe and Asia, while also strengthening other systems, including in Alaska and on the east coast.

Talking about other essential international security and strategic stability instruments, the approach adopted by the United States to performing its commitments under the universal Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons has been a matter of concern for Russia. In fact, despite numerous reminders on our part, the United States commits serious violations of the Treaty in its actions within NATO. The Treaty commits nuclear powers to refrain from transferring the corresponding nuclear technologies.

Despite these provisions, NATO engages in so-called joint nuclear missions whereby the United States together with five NATO countries where US nuclear weapons are deployed conduct nuclear weapons drills with countries that are not part of the five nuclear-weapons states. This is a direct violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Another treaty that had a special role in removing the threat of nuclear war, or, to be more precise, whose preparation was a source of hope for addressing these threats, was the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty [CTBT]. The United States did not ratify it even though doing so was among Barack Obama’s campaign promises when he ran for president.

Right now, this instrument is completely off the radar, since the United States has lost all interest in any consultations on joining this Treaty. Being a party to the CTBT and acting in good faith, Russia holds special events at the UN General Assembly every year in order to promote the Treaty and mobilise public opinion in favour of its entry into force, which requires the United States to join it, among other things.

Apart from the INF Treaty, there is the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty [START] that remains in force. It is also essential for preserving at least some measure of strategic stability and global parity. It is also under threat, since its effective functioning has come into question after the recent move by the United States to remove from accountability under the treaty 56 submarine based Trident launchers and 41 heavy bombers by declaring them converted into nun-nuclear.

This is possible under the treaty, but the other party has the right to make sure that once converted these weapons cannot be reconverted back into nuclear arsenals.

Vladimir Putin: An inspection has to be carried out.

Sergei Lavrov: Yes, an inspection. And there have to be technical means to persuade us that these systems cannot be reconverted and returned into the nuclear arsenal.

We have been holding talks since 2015 to make sure that the United States complies with its obligations on this matter. So far, there have been no results. The technical solutions we have been offered so far cannot persuade us that more than 1,200 warheads, which is an enormous amount, cannot be returned to the nuclear arsenal. Unfortunately, repeated proposals by Russia to launch talks on extending the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty beyond 2021, when its first term is set to expire, have fallen on deaf ears in the United States. All we hear is that the decision on the New START has yet to be taken.

All in all, the situation is quite alarming. Let me reiterate that the decision taken by the United States on the INF Treaty is of course a matter of serious concern for the entire world, especially for Europe. Nevertheless, the Europeans followed in the footsteps of the United States with all NATO members speaking out in explicit support of the position adopted by the United States to refrain from any discussions on mutual concerns. All we hear are groundless ultimatums requiring us to take unilateral measures without any evidence to support unfounded accusations.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Mr Shoigu, what is the Defence Ministry’s view on the current situation? And what do you propose in this regard?

Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu: Mr President, it is obvious to us, despite the murky language that we hear, that apart from openly conducting research and development on the production of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, there have been actual violations of the INF Treaty, and this has been going on for several years. To put it simply, the United States has started producing missiles of this kind.

In this connection, we have the following proposals regarding retaliatory measures.

First, we propose launching in the coming months research and development, as well as development and engineering with a view to creating land-based modifications of the sea-based Kalibr launching systems.

Second, we propose launching research and development, followed by development and engineering to create land-based launchers for hypersonic intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles.

We ask you to support these proposals.

Vladimir Putin: I agree. This is what we will do. Our response will be symmetrical. Our US partners announced that they are suspending their participation in the INF Treaty, and we are suspending it too. They said that they are engaged in research, development and design work, and we will do the same.

I agree with the Defence Ministry’s proposals to create a land-based version of the Kalibr launchers and work on a new project to develop a land-based hypersonic intermediate-range missile.

At the same time, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that we must not and will not let ourselves be drawn into an expensive arms race. I wanted to ask you, would it be possible to finance these initiatives using the existing budget allocations to the Defence Ministry for 2019 and the following years?

Sergei Shoigu: Mr President, we closely studied this matter, and will propose adjustments to the 2019 budget in order to be able to carry out these initiatives within the limits set by the state armaments programme and the defence procurement orders for 2019 without going over budget.

Vladimir Putin: This should not entail any increases in the Defence Ministry’s budget.

Sergei Shoigu: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: Good.

In this connection, there is one more thing I wanted to ask you. Every six months we hold meetings in Sochi to discuss the implementation of the state defence order with the commanders of the Armed Forces and the defence sector representatives.

Starting this year, I propose modifying this format. I want to see how efforts to deploy our systems are progressing. This refers to the Kinzhal hypersonic air-launched ballistic missile, the Peresvet combat laser weapon, which has already been delivered to the army, and the Avangard system, which is now in serial production, having completed the test phase. I want to see how the production of the Sarmat missile is advancing alongside preparations for placing it on combat duty.

Several days ago, you reported to me on the completion of a key stage in testing the Poseidonmultipurpose strategic unmanned underwater vehicle. We have to look at how these efforts are advancing.

We are aware of the plans by some countries to deploy weapons in outer space. I want to hear a report on how this threat can be neutralised.

There is another important topic I wanted to raise with both the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry.

For many years, we have been calling on numerous occasions for holding meaningful disarmament talks on almost all aspects of this matter. In recent years, we have seen that our partners have not been supportive of our initiatives. On the contrary, they always find pretexts to further dismantle the existing international security architecture.

In this connection, I would like to highlight the following considerations, and I expect the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry to use them as guidance. All our proposals in this area remain on the table just as before. We are open to negotiations. At the same time, I ask both ministries not to initiate talks on these matters in the future. I suggest that we wait until our partners are ready to engage in equal and meaningful dialogue on this subject that is essential for us, as well as for our partners and the entire world.

Another important consideration I would like to share with the senior officials of both ministries. We proceed from the premise that Russia will not deploy intermediate-range or shorter-range weapons, if we develop weapons of this kind, neither in Europe nor anywhere else until US weapons of this kind are deployed to the corresponding regions of the world.

I ask the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry to closely monitor developments and promptly submit proposals on ways to respond.