Speaker A
Subscribe to our Telegram channel; the link is in the description below the video. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by expressing my gratitude to my Western colleagues, primarily the Europeans. Let me explain why. If not
Lavrov criticizes European actions on Ukraine, detailing broken agreements and Western interference leading to conflict and Russia's military response.
Key Takeaways
- European powers played a key role in destabilizing Ukraine and violating agreements.
- Western support for Kyiv's government fueled conflict and undermined peace processes.
- Russia's military intervention is justified as a defense of Russian-speaking populations and security interests.
- Repeated diplomatic efforts were sabotaged by Western leaders to prolong confrontation.
- International law and UN Charter principles are central to Russia's position on the conflict.
What the video covers
- Lavrov accuses European countries of manipulating Ukraine's political situation since 2004, undermining its sovereignty.
- He highlights the 2014 crisis settlement agreement and its violation by the opposition, supported by Western powers.
- The referendum in Crimea and subsequent reunification with Russia is framed as a response to Kyiv's violent crackdown on protests.
- Lavrov claims Minsk agreements were deliberately ignored by Ukraine and its Western backers to prolong conflict and arm Ukraine.
- He describes Western obstruction of peace efforts, including blocking agreements proposed during negotiations in 2022.
- Lavrov asserts that Europe and NATO rejected Russian security proposals in 2021, pushing Ukraine towards military escalation.
- He criticizes Western leaders for sabotaging the 2025 Anchorage agreements between Russia and the US.
- The special military operation launched by Russia in 2022 is presented as necessary to protect Russian-speaking populations and national security.
- Lavrov emphasizes Russia's insistence on respecting international law principles, including self-determination and human rights.
- He condemns European hypocrisy, accusing the EU of supporting nationalist and anti-Russian policies contrary to its stated values.
Chapters
- 00:00Introduction and Background on Ukraine Crisis
- 01:282014 Crisis Settlement Agreement and Opposition Actions
- 02:54Crimea Referendum and Armed Conflict in Donbas
- 04:17Normandy Four Summit and Zelensky's Role
- 05:32Failure to Implement Minsk Agreements and Western Arms Support
- 07:01Sabotage of 2022 Peace Negotiations by UK and Europe
- 08:28Obstruction of Anchorage Agreements and Western Diplomacy
- 09:52Russia's Military Operation and Protection of Russian Speakers
- 11:11Russia's Position on International Law and Criticism of EU
- 13:33Conclusion: Principles of Territorial Integrity and Self-Determination
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
for them, the situation in Ukraine would have remained in limbo, and the residents of Crimea, Donbas, and Novorossiya would have been deprived of the right to choose. Back in 2004, by imposing an illegal third round of presidential elections on Ukraine,
Speaker A
Brussels decided to provide absolute clarity, demanding that Ukrainians choose who they were with: Russia or Europe. In 2013, by organizing riots in Kyiv with demands for the immediate signing of an association agreement between Ukraine and the EU, Brussels,
Speaker A
while openly ignoring its obligations within the CIS free trade zone, insisted on its own approach. By heading the negotiation process between the legitimate president and the opposition in February 2014, the Europeans achieved the conclusion of a crisis settlement agreement, in which
Speaker A
President Yanukovych accepted all the conditions put forward, including the creation of a national unity government to prepare for early presidential elections, with an immediate renunciation of any violence by both the authorities and the opposition. The document was signed on February 21,
Speaker A
2014, under the official guarantees of Germany’s Frank-Walter Steinmeier, Poland’s Radosław Sikorski, and France’s Laurent Fabius. However, as early as the night of February 22, the opposition, spitting on these guarantees and their own signatures, seized government buildings and announced the creation not of a
Speaker A
national unity government, but a government of victors, as the saying goes. Feel the difference. As for the guarantors of the agreement trampled by the putschists, in Paris as early as February 23, they brazenly stated that the unfolding democratic transition met
Speaker A
the aspirations of the Ukrainian people. Naturally, the British could not stay on the sidelines either. Their Foreign Secretary William Hague stated as early as February 22: the latest events have shown the will of Ukrainians to move toward a different future. He also
Speaker A
added that Yanukovych was no longer a generally recognized president. A little later, on March 1, Chancellor Angela Merkel joined in. I quote: "We must provide Ukrainians with every possible support in their will and desire for freedom and democracy." The
Speaker A
new authorities in Kyiv, emboldened by the carte blanche received from the West, immediately proclaimed the goal of abolishing the status of the Russian language, and in response to the protests in Crimea and Donbas against the bloody coup, declared them
Speaker A
terrorists and threw armed militant units and the regular army against them, including artillery and aviation. The result: a referendum in Crimea on independence from the frankly Nazi regime that had taken hold in Kyiv and reunification with Russia. If the
Speaker A
Europeans hadn't engaged in trickery and had forced the opposition to fulfill the agreement signed in February 2014 under the guarantees of Berlin, Paris, and Warsaw, this would have preserved the territorial integrity of Ukraine within the very 1991 borders that Zelensky and his
Speaker A
Western masters dream of. But the Europeans were unable to suppress their age-old instinct to lie and try to achieve their goals through criminal methods. A year later, the Minsk agreements were concluded, which the very same Berlin and Paris had strongly
Speaker A
requested be reached. The agreements were signed on February 12, 2015, and on February 17, they were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council at Russia's initiative. Incidentally, Article 25 of the Charter requires all members of the organization to comply
Speaker A
with and carry out the decisions of the Security Council. However, Ukrainian President Poroshenko categorically refused to do so, and his handlers in Berlin and Paris did not even try to reason with their protégé. With the arrival of Mr. Macron to power in
Speaker A
France, there was a surge of traditional French activity. On December 9, 2019, a summit of the Normandy Four—Germany, France, Russia, and Ukraine—was convened, where the Kiev regime was represented by Zelensky, who had come to power under loud
Speaker A
slogans of establishing peace and good-neighborliness with Russia and ending attacks on the Russian language.
Speaker A
In Paris, a declaration was adopted confirming the need for full implementation of the provisions of the Minsk agreements, including enshrining in the Ukrainian constitution a special status for certain districts of Donbass. This status did not entail anything
Speaker A
supernatural. Only the right to use the Russian language and exercise local self-government. If the Minsk agreements of 2015, confirmed in Paris in 2019 under Zelensky, had been fulfilled as the Security Council required, Ukraine would now remain within those very borders of 1991,
Speaker A
except, of course, for Crimea. The issue of which has long been closed, and everyone understands this perfectly well. However, even here Europe did not allow it, as Merkel, Hollande, and Poroshenko publicly admitted after they left office, they had no intention of
Speaker A
fulfilling the Minsk agreements they had signed. They needed to buy time to pump Ukraine full of weapons. Very frankly, all meetings like the one in Paris were needed solely to imitate vigorous diplomatic activity and, under its cover, to ramp up an anti-Russian
Speaker A
campaign. Russian proposals to reach an agreement based on mutual respect for the security interests of Russia, the countries of Europe, and North America in December 2021 were arrogantly rejected by NATO and the Joe Biden administration. In practical terms,
Speaker A
preparations were underway for a forceful seizure by Kiev of the territories in Donbass not under its control. To prevent the implementation of the Western scenario, in February 2022 we were forced to begin a special military operation. A week later, the
Speaker A
Ukrainians asked for negotiations. We agreed. After several rounds in Belarus and Istanbul, the Ukrainian side proposed key principles for a settlement, which were accepted by our negotiators. Most importantly, it established the neutral status of Ukraine, recognized realities on the
Speaker A
ground, and contained collective security guarantees that would reliably prevent recurrences of military provocations and attempts at aggression. The document was initialed by the delegations of Ukraine and Russia, but everyone knows its fate well.
Speaker A
Then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson forbade the Ukrainians from concluding legally binding agreements based on the text proposed by Kiev and already initialed, I remind you once again, and ordered them to keep fighting. Europe agreed with this position of London. If that initialed
Speaker A
agreement had been enshrined in a corresponding treaty and implemented, then Ukraine would have again been preserved within the 1991 borders, though without Crimea and part of Donbass. Europe's next contribution to peace efforts took place after the summit between Putin and Trump in
Speaker A
Alaska in August 2025. There, the President of Russia, as he has commented more than once, accepted Washington's proposal, which contained certain compromises. The achievement of an agreement in principle was clearly announced at the joint press conference of the Russian and US leaders in
Speaker A
Anchorage, as well as in statements made by President Trump in the following days. An alarmed Europe rushed to dissuade the US President from his own initiative, just as Boris Johnson forced the Ukrainians to withdraw their own proposal in Istanbul. A European
Speaker A
landing party immediately headed to Washington. Everything possible was done to ensure that further work on the practical implementation of the Anchorage agreements stalled. As a result, in June 2026, at the G7 summit in Évian and the NATO summit in Ankara,
Speaker A
Emmanuel Macron and other Western leaders proudly declared that they had buried Anchorage. And now, they claimed, the United States stands fi
Speaker A
Kushner confirmed that Washington remains interested in facilitating a Ukrainian settlement. As Donald Trump said in August 2025 after the meeting in Anchorage, everyone agrees that we must strive not for some ceasefire agreement, but for a long-term peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine that
Speaker A
will reliably end the war. Russia, and President Putin has repeatedly supported this, is ready for negotiations to achieve precisely such a sustainable and just peace. The tasks that must be solved to achieve this goal were clearly summarized in
Speaker A
Vladimir Putin's policy speech in June 2024. However, having learned from bitter experience, we will not pause the special military operation for the duration of negotiations in any format.
Speaker A
Although Europe wants exactly that. With the same simple goal of getting a breather and replenishing the depleted military arsenals of the Kyiv regime, which out of desperation has long since switched to openly terrorist methods.
Speaker A
One of the tasks of the special military operation, in addition to unconditionally ensuring Russia's security interests, is full consideration of the rights of Russians and Russian-speaking people not only in Crimea, Donbas, and Novorossiya, but also in the territory of Ukraine, where
Speaker A
, with the approval of the West, laws remain in effect that totally ban the Russian language in all spheres: in education, media, culture, and daily life, as well as banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. These laws began to be adopted long before the
Speaker A
special military operation, starting in 2017. Europe and NATO remained silent. In parallel, the promotion of Nazi ideology and practice was being legally enshrined. And the apotheosis of the Nazification of Ukraine was the recent kneeling of Zelensky and other figures
Speaker A
of his regime before the ashes of Hitler's accomplices, who were brought from Europe with royal honors for reburial in Kyiv. Moreover, they intend to create a Pantheon of Heroes of Ukraine from such satanic graves on the territory of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra,
Speaker A
sacred to all Orthodox Christians. It is sad that our former allies in the fight against Hitler's Nazism turn a blind eye to such antics. The West, and primarily the European Union, loves to talk about human rights at every
Speaker A
opportunity. However, in relation to the Kyiv regime, we do not hear this phrase. Russia insists on strict compliance with Article 1 of the UN Charter, which requires everyone to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race
Speaker A
, sex, language, or religion. Well, I understand that regarding sex and gender, the Kyiv regime is oriented more toward Europe. But as far as language and religion are concerned, no tricks will help here. When we draw attention to the unacceptability of
Speaker A
banning the Russian language and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, at best we are told: "Well, when there is a comprehensive settlement, we will include this aspect in the package." But the requirements of the UN Charter cannot be a subject of bargaining. They
Speaker A
must be fulfilled unconditionally, without any strings attached. And those who nurture the Kyiv regime are obligated to ensure this. In reality, however, Ursula von der Leyen and other figures in Brussels and other European capitals pompously declare that Ukraine
Speaker A
is moving toward the European Union and must continue to be supported with money and weapons because, mind you, I quote, "Ukraine is defending European values." This means that racism, the persecution of the church and priests, and the glorification of Nazism in the
Speaker A
form of repulsive, bestial Ukrainian nationalism are the very values upon which the European Union stands today.
Speaker A
Finnish President Alexander Stubb recently made a nostalgic admission: " We are now learning more from Ukraine than Ukraine is learning from us." Nowhere in the world, except Ukraine, is an entire language banned, not to mention that it is one of the official
Speaker A
languages of the UN. You can speak Arabic and Farsi in Israel, you can speak Hebrew in any Arab country and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where there is a Jewish community with its own synagogues. Even in Ireland, you
Speaker A
can speak English. But in Ukraine, Russian is banned, and as we understand , this completely suits the members of the European Union and NATO. They even take Zelensky as an example, as the Baltic countries are doing. And, of
Speaker A
course, I cannot fail to mention the position of the guardian of the UN Charter, the Secretary-General of our organization. For a long time since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, he and his official representatives have said the same thing. The conflict must
Speaker A
be settled on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, relevant General Assembly resolutions, and the territorial integrity of Ukraine. End of quote. To our regular remarks, including those addressed personally to Mr. Guterres, that the Charter contains a number of other
Speaker A
principles, including the right of nations to self-determination and respect for the rights to one's native language and religion. We were answered that the wording regarding Ukraine is verified and not subject to change.
Speaker A
When President Trump announced that Greenland could well become part of U.S. territory, an official UN representative was asked at a press conference what he thought about it.
Speaker A
Someone replied, I quote, the issue must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, the principle of Denmark's territorial integrity, and the right of the people of Greenland to self-determination. End of quote. In this regard, at a press
Speaker A
conference held on January 29 of this year, António Guterres was asked a question: is the right to self-determination also applicable to Crimea and Donbas? The Secretary-General replied, and I am forced to quote him in full. We have had very interesting discussions on
Speaker A
this topic. There are two principles. One: the territorial integrity of states. The second: self-determination of peoples. But the self-determination of peoples involves a whole range of requisites, considering how this principle was formulated. And after a thorough study by our Office of Legal
Speaker A
Affairs, our position is that the principle of self-determination does not apply to the situations in Crimea and Donbas. Thus, in this situation, the principle of territorial integrity prevails. End of quote. If anyone understood anything from this, then I
Speaker A
envy you. As we can see, Greenland is not Crimea or Donbas, and never the twain shall meet. We look forward to the continuation of this series. It will be interesting to hear the Secretariat's reaction to possible questions from journalists about the
Speaker A
plans of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. We hope that the new Secretary-General will return the language used by official representatives of the Secretariat to an international legal framework. This might perhaps also help our Western colleagues, primarily European ones, to
Speaker A
return to reality and realize what consequences their reckless course of blindly supporting Ukrainian Nazism is leading to and has already led to. Once again, in conclusion, we refer to the 1970 UN consensus declaration on principles of international law
Speaker A
concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Speaker A
The declaration clearly states that the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity apply to those states that observe the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and have a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory without distinction as
Speaker A
to race, creed, or color. The entire population living in the given territory. It is obvious, in my opinion , to everyone that the Kyiv regime cannot be considered a government representing the interests of the residents of Crimea, Donbas, and
Speaker A
Novorossiya, whom it has labeled as terrorists, subhumans, and creatures. Thank you for your attention. S
Topics:LavrovUkraine conflictEuropean UnionMinsk agreementsCrimea referendumRussia-Ukraine warWestern interferenceUN Security CouncilNormandy Fourinternational law
