|
The MoA Week In Review – (NOT Ukraine) OT 2022-70
Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:
> Above all, this is an operation of necessity for Russia, not of choice. Paradoxically, the choice was entirely up to the US and NATO to appreciate that there is nothing like absolute security. Wasn’t it the former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who once said, “Absolute security for one state means absolute insecurity for all others.” <
—
Other issues:
China:
Crypto scam:
Covid-19:
Use as open (NOT Ukraine) thread …
@Henry Moon Pie #94
You must have done graduate work in obfuscation. This point alone is so full of misdirection that it’s worthy of some attention.
You must have the brain of a peanut to not even attempt to critique the scientific, social and economic basis behind demands of literal complete societal change. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; massive societal upheaval requires even more than that.
a) Are humans really the majority factor?
What is the importance of that? “Are humans a contributing factor” is the relevant question. If humans contribute 49% of climate change, then we’re fine?
As you apparently can’t understand that I was specifically referencing the “consensus science” behind doom-mongering climate change, this has now been spelled out for you.
b) And if so, is it really CO2 (as opposed to land use, ecological displacement etc) that is how humans are changing the climate?
The answer is all of the above. Greenhouse gases absorb photons from the sun before they can escape the atmosphere and return to space. This retains energy in the atmosphere. You can read all about it here. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it would be too cold for us delicate humans. If there is too much greenhouse gases, the atmosphere retains too much energy and climate changes from the relatively benign state of the Holocene and becomes less stable and more violent.
It’s a reinforcing loop.
At literally almost any given spot on Earth, temperature changes by 10x or more vs. the supposed impacts of doom-mongering climate change.
Nor is your assertion of “too many” greenhouse gases the least bit credible. The Earth has had CO2 levels in the multiple thousands of ppm – that’s why doom-mongering climate change activists always carefully focus on 800K or more recent time periods. In fact, the majority of Earth’s history, CO2 levels were way over 2000 ppm. Thus the notion of “excess” greenhouse gases is garbage. If there was a “tipping point” or “reinforcement” as you say, it would have triggered long ago.
Your lame attempts to invoke science are sad, at best, because you are really, really late to this party.
Meanwhile, we are busily destroying the balancing loops that keep greenhouse gases and the climate in check. Trees and other plants take CO2 (but not NH4) out of the atmosphere–a balancing loop. But human development has been busily paving over paradise for decades. When human development destroys forests, much of the carbon they have stored is released into the atmosphere. We have managed to change the Amazon forest from one of the largest carbon sequestering forests on the planet into a net carbon emitter–in large part to raise cattle for life-shortening hamburgers.
The boreal forest, another balancing loop that had been removing CO2 from the atmosphere, is losing its positive impact in a less direct way. While logging is an issue and works the same way as clearing Amazon jungle, global impacts on climate are changing patterns in the boreal that will release vast amounts of carbon into the atmosphere if they’re not reversed. The boreal climate is already warmer and drier than in the pre-industrial era. That’s leading to more frequent fires, and more frequent fires are leading to big carbon releases.
And some of the Earth’s balancing loops continue to operate but have severe and damaging side effects. Carbon dioxide dissolves in the oceans. The problem is that dissolving CO2 in water produces an excess of hydrogen ions PH -) and a surfeit of carbonate ions (PH +), both of which are detrimental to ocean life.
There is nothing you have written above that has any basis in objective reality. The Earth has been greening, not declining in vegetation due to “disruption of balancing loops” or whatever other garbage notions you are trying to convey. The annual CO2 cycle is increasing in amplitude, consistently and in response to the increasing CO2 levels. Even discounting the historical record, there is zero indication of any balances being broken.
There are elements of truth in your posts on this topic. It’s true that there is no way to retain current energy consumption levels with so-called renewables, much less continue to meet exponentially increasing demand. There is no solution without very large decreases in consumption among the world’s wealthiest 10% who are responsible for 50% of carbon emissions.
Are you talking countries or demographics in specific country’s populations? If the former, false as China is the biggest emitter in the world today and they are NOT the wealthiest 10% of countries.
If demographics in a specific country: I actually doubt that is true also. While Bill Gates pumps out a lot of CO2 in his private jet, I still don’t see that matching the 300 million other Americans even with 29.999 million of his cohorts. You are no doubt making the same fallacious equating of consumer use of energy vs. overall societal use. Hint: consumers only use about half of overall energy. The rest goes into roads, buildings, bridges, power plants and other societal goods.
And I’ve seen you say something along the lines that the only way that consumption will be reduced is revolution (please correct me if I’ve misstated your view). It will require a revolutionary change in worldview, though that need not lead to widespread violence. There are two primary obstacles standing in the way of such a radical change in worldview:
1) obfuscation of the realities of what we’re doing to the planet along the lines of what you engage in here; and
2) relentless pressure to consume exerted by capitalist economies.
What I’ve said previously is that the notion that existing and near-future alt-e technologies cannot and will not replace existing fossil fuel energy sources.
The consequences are multiple and all bad: less food, less transport, less energy, and the result is less people via starvation and war.
Most people think starvation and war is bad – so they’re not going to go for it. Hence notions that we can “change” if we want to – we’re not going to want to.
And while I am a technologist (or actually, because I am), the notion that technology will solve the problem is false. I call this world view technotopianism: that peculiar breed of person who thinks that advances in information technology will replicate into real world activities. No.
You offer no solutions to our situation, preferring to blame it on some god, the Earth, the sun, innate and unchangeable human propensities or some other cause beyond our control. So at least quit blocking the hall with your pointless obfuscation.
Why do I need to offer a solution when I don’t see one that is acceptable to societies and people? There is a solution: nuclear power. China is building 164 new nuclear power plants by 2030 – that’s their solution. But the green movements in the US and Europe are adamantly against nuclear.
All other non-nuclear solutions:
All I say is: if you want less people, say so and do something about it. Because ultimately that is the real problem that must be solved. Organic farming, alt-e, blaberty blah are all just dancing around the core issue.
But when implementing these non-nuclear solutions: don’t expect people to meekly acquiesce or not shoot back.
Posted by: c1ue | May 23 2022 15:14 utc | 105
As promised, here’s the complete machine translated transcript of Lavrov’s Speech and answers to questions as part of the Primakov Gymnasium’s 100 Questions for a Leader project:
Nice to see you. I do not visit here often, but regularly. Every time it is pleasant to be charged with energy from you. Eleventh graders literally tomorrow will have to choose a life path. The rest (who study in the eighth, ninth, tenth grade) also did not have long before they get to the same milestone.
It is important to understand how you live, how our society will live within the framework of professional trends that will accompany employment and becoming in life. I hold such meetings not only with schoolchildren. I regularly communicate with MGIMO students. They do not allow those who are engaged in practical politics, which should be built in such a way that those who come next, see the prospect, understand that the course laid out by their predecessors reflects their interest.
Question: As far as I know, you write poetry. How did you come to this?
Sergey Lavrov: I did. Since I work as a Minister, I limit myself only to “couplets” for the birthdays of comrades, comic songs. Although there are detailed works. He began to write poems as poetry at the age of 15. There were some thoughts going on at school. Then at the institute we went to the construction team. Songs dedicated to certain corners of our vast Motherland were born there.
A.A. Voznesensky said: “Poems are not written – they happen like feelings or sunset. The soul is a blind accomplice. I didn’t write it, it happened.”
Question: Your predecessor, Foreign Minister of the Russian Empire Alexander Gorchakov, said that “the great powers do not need recognition.” Is this phrase relevant these days?
Sergey Lavrov: I think it is relevant. Human nature does not change, despite technological progress, the emergence of innovations in information and other spheres. A person always wants to defend his interests. If he is strong, purposeful, to a certain extent stubborn, then it will be easier for him to achieve that he is perceived as such.
It’s a similar story with states. Only here it is more noticeable when the country is large, rich, there is a people who know, love and continue the history of their ancestors. Perhaps this was what A.M. Gorchakov meant. The Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation is the largest state in the world in terms of territorial coverage. A country that has traditions. It is unlikely that they can be found in other states. I am referring to our multi-ethnic, multi-confessional people. The Russian Empire, unlike others, did not subordinate other peoples to its aesthetic and moral requirements when it spread its influence. Everyone preserved their language, faith, traditions. Different parts of the empire had different status to reflect the specifics of a particular people who joined. In the U.S., it’s a different “melting pot.” They melted everyone down, they all immediately became Americans. As my friend said, “We are all Americans. On the forehead is written “human rights”. The palette of our national composition is richer. This is the heritage of the country, as well as the territory, natural resources.
As for how A.M. Gorchakov’s prediction was refracted after the creation of the USSR, no one recognized it for several years either. Then they admitted. It was a reality that had been created and would not disappear. Everybody understood that. The same thing is happening now, when they are trying to force the Russian Federation to live by the “rules”, and not by international law. The West has not uttered the term for several years. They call on everyone to observe a “rules-based world order.” No one saw the “rules”, no one participated in their writing. There is no answer to our reasonable question as to why they are not satisfied with the rules called the UN Charter. But we know him. This answer does not suit them, because they twist all the “rules” as they need today. They wanted to destroy Yugoslavia, they took and recognized Kosovo. They said that this is the right of peoples to self-determination. Moreover, Kosovo did not hold any referendums. Even the International Court of Justice had ruled that it was not necessary to have the consent of the central authorities to declare the independence of a Territory.
There was an unconstitutional coup d’état, and people came to power in Ukraine who said that it was necessary to abolish the status of the Russian language, enshrined in the laws until 2014, to “throw out” Russians from the Crimea. In response to this, the Crimeans held a referendum. Openly, transparently, overwhelmingly voted in favor of independence from Ukraine and accession to Russia. The West does not recognize this. It seems that the rule is the same – the self-determination of the people, but the position of the West is different.
Now the West is reacting furiously to the fact that Russia is protecting its absolutely legitimate, fundamental interests. Russia has said that its security interests are being undermined every time THAT NATO, contrary to all promises, has expanded eastward five times, coming close to our borders. They warned that the inclusion of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics in the alliance was a “red line.” We warned that we see what plans the United States and other NATO countries had for deploying weapons in Ukraine, pumping it with modern types of weapons, creating military and naval bases on Ukrainian territory. The new Kiev authorities after the coup d’état tried to suppress by force the will of those in the Donbass who refused to accept the results of the coup, they were declared terrorists. And they simply did not accept the results of the coup d’état, asked to leave them and let them sort it out for themselves. They didn’t attack anyone, but they were attacked.
It took a year to understand the futility of the “massacre” of the new Kiev regime. The Minsk agreements were reached. Everything is simply written there: special status should be granted to the territories not controlled by Kiev, the right to use their native (Russian) language, to have their own law enforcement agencies and special economic relations with neighboring territories of the Russian Federation. For eight long years, in parallel with the fact that we warned OUR NATO colleagues to abandon the advance of the alliance to the east, from attempts to “swallow” Ukraine by including it in the composition, we urged them to send a tough signal to Kiev about the need to implement the Minsk agreements. Uselessly. As we say – “against the wall of peas”. The West only “nodded” and pretended that it was trying to help the settlement. In fact, he encouraged the arrogant position of the Kiev regime, which, through the president and his ministers, publicly stated that they would not implement the Minsk agreements.
The expansion of NATO, the refusal to comply with the Minsk agreements, in parallel year after year, the legislation of Ukraine banned the Russian language in the field of education and media, TV channels (both Russian and Ukrainian in Russian language) were closed. The last version of the next law forbade the use of the Russian language in everyday life. If you contact the seller in the store in Russian, and not in the state Ukrainian language, you can incur administrative responsibility.
Another block of legislation encouraged neo-Nazi theory and practice, including not only the glorification of those who collaborated with A. Hitler and were recognized as criminals during the Nuremberg Tribunal, but also the encouragement of torchlight processions, the use of Nazi symbols (swastika, emblems of battalions, regiments and divisions of the SS “Dead Head”, etc.), the creation of national battalions that, with the help of Western instructors, trained and educated their fighters in the spirit of neo-Nazi ideology. We have seen the full range of threats posed on our borders. For many years, we have been explaining this to our Western partners. They didn’t give a damn.
Since 2009, we have repeatedly proposed to conclude a special agreement that will guarantee the security of all countries, including Ukraine, without the expansion of NATO and other military-political alliances. In 2009, it was rejected. In 2021, President of Russia Vladimir Putin once again put forward this initiative, and we sent treaties to the United States and NATO members. Again, they refused to guarantee security beyond the enlargement of the North Atlantic Alliance. It was unacceptable to us. They knew that very well.
There is a list of specific threats to the security of the Russian Federation, not only in the physical sense, but also in terms of culture. A huge part of the Ukrainian population is legally deprived of the opportunity to continue to live using their native language, to raise children in a Russian cultural way and in Russian language, etc. Because of this, after many years of warnings, having no other way out, we began to protect the interests of the security of the Russian population in the Donbass. You can see the reaction of our Western colleagues. They signed that they cannot and do not know how to live as written in the UN Charter, namely, that the Organization is based on the sovereign equality of states. For them, it is only the sovereignty of themselves.
I described how long we tried to “reach out” to our Western colleagues with these threats that they posed to us. The United States, not on their borders, but across the ocean, 10,000 km away, suddenly saw a threat in Yugoslavia. They bombed the country, created Kosovo, imposing their vision of this part of Europe. Then they saw a similar threat in Iraq. They said there were weapons of mass destruction there. Bombed. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have been killed. Basically, the Americans and the British “led” in this campaign in 2003, a few years later it turned out that there were no WMD there. Then-British Prime Minister Thomas Blair said, like, they made a mistake, with whom it does not happen. They destroyed the country, and it still cannot restore statehood. Then, “on the other side of the Earth,” it seemed to them that not everything was “okay” with human rights in Libya. Bombed a prosperous country. There were no poor people there. The territory prospered economically. Yes, there was an authoritarian regime. But to depose him, they “put” hundreds of thousands of times more people than those who suffered under this authoritarian regime. Libya is now not a state, but a territory on which several political and military forces are located. Every man for himself.
When they have a feeling that someone is threatening them, they do not explain to anyone, do not ask them to take action. They just decide, send the military and compare them to the ground just like the cities in Iraq, Syria. These are their “rules”.
Once again, we are now living through such a period in our history. They say that Russia must “be defeated”, they must “defeat Russia”, ensure that Russia “loses on the battlefield”. I am sure that you know history better than Western politicians who cast such “spells”. I guess they didn’t do well in school. They draw the wrong conclusions from their understanding of the past and what Russia is.
I am convinced that all this will end. The West once again recognizes the reality that is being created “on the ground.” It will be forced to admit that it is impossible to constantly attack Russian vital interests, Russians, wherever they live, with impunity. There is a lot of talk about Ireland now, because in Northern Ireland (part of the UK) the party that wants to reunite with the rest of the Irish island won. If they suddenly banned the English language? The Ukrainians banned Russian, and there – English. Would French be banned in Belgium? Is it Swedish in Finland? It’s impossible to imagine. The West “swallowed” all this, as if it were necessary.
We “knocked” on the doors of the OSCE, the Council of Europe, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. They “lamented”, but could not stomp their feet and demand from the arrogant ultranationalists who came to power as a result of the coup d’état, so that they did not dare to violate the rights of the Russian-speaking national minority (although the overwhelming majority of Ukrainian citizens speak Russian), as required by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
These are Western “rules.” They can’t even think about infringing on some European language. Here, since Ukrainians have “sworn an oath” of allegiance to the West and unquestioningly fulfill what it advises them, it means that they can do anything.
They recognize reality. Otherwise, it cannot and will not be. We will strive to protect the rights of Russians (wherever they live), the Russian-speaking population in accordance with the conventions to which all Western states are signed. We will ensure that Russia’s security interests are not ignored, as happened long after the Soviet Union ceased to exist. We were lied to in the face that NATO would not move an inch.
Question: French politician Charles de Gaulle said that a person can have friends, but a politician cannot. What is your opinion?
Sergey Lavrov: I am almost sure that the great Frenchman Charles de Gaulle, when he said this phrase, meant the same person.
Any normal person, no matter what profession he chooses, no matter what he does in life, should have friends. Otherwise, it’s an anomaly. When a person who is a politician meets with his friends, he ceases to be a politician. With them, he’s like a buddy, a classmate, a classmate. At least, this is what I feel when I meet with the guys with whom I graduated from school, went to construction teams, rafted on Siberian rivers. I’m not a minister there at all. They won’t even see me point-blank if I try to make a minister out of myself. We are friends. That’s the only way we communicate.
Question: Do you have a dream? If not, was it? Have you achieved it?
Sergey Lavrov: You can either answer briefly or talk endlessly. At each stage of his development, a person wants to achieve some results. It is good to finish school, go to college, get an interesting job. These can be called dreams. And we can proceed from the fact that this is a normal state of a person who sets goals for himself and strives to achieve them.
If the dream is in a more “romantic” way, then someone can dream of impossible things. As the folk wisdom says, dreaming is not harmful. You just need to see your interest, who you want to make yourself and move towards this goal. Those who graduate from the Primakov Gymnasium have much more chances than graduates of other educational institutions. I don’t want to offend anyone, but you have a high school.
Q: Is there a question you’ve never been asked but would like to answer?
Sergey Lavrov: There are no such questions. But that doesn’t mean you haven’t hit the nail on the head. When I have the desire to answer a question, I make it so that I am asked it. Believe me, it’s not difficult. You have to be friends with journalists.
Question: Since March-April of this year, there has been talk of limiting Russia’s veto power in the UN Security Council. We have already been expelled from the UN Human Rights Council. Will the system of international relations change in the near future? Or will it remain unchanged due to current events? Do we need to reform it?
Sergey Lavrov: They left the Human Rights Council on their own. We were going to be expelled from there, to suspend our membership. We decided to do it ourselves. The Council discredited itself long before the current situation around Ukraine began.
Let me remind you that there used to be a UN Commission on Human Rights attached to the Organisation’s Economic and Social Council. The Americans criticized it in every possible way. In their opinion, she was not aggressive enough towards the “violators”. Largely (if not decisively) on their initiative, the current Human Rights Council was created, which is elected by the UN General Assembly. It is the highest representative body of the Organization.
The reformed regulation on this Council has incorporated the principle, based on the sovereign equality of States, according to which each country is subjected to a periodic review of its human rights practices after a certain period of time. A commission is created, questions are asked, the country is responsible. On an equal basis, after a certain time, everyone must report to the others. This seemed to solve the problem of fairness in considering the “track record” of a particular state.
This did not seem enough to the West. Each time, in violation of an equal process, at sessions of the UN Human Rights Council, they threw a resolution that directly condemned a particular country. From the point of view of achieving a result, this does not give anything. The language with which these resolutions were written was rude and offensive. If you want your advice to be heeded, you need to talk to people in a different way. Such are the manners of the modern West. They can’t be fixed.
We independently withdrew from the Council of Europe, which has degraded from the structure dealing with ensuring the unity of the pan-European legal space, to the structure that has become an instrument of the United States (although they are not even members of the Council of Europe, but observers). Recently, the Americans (this began five years ago) have seen a course towards “privatization” of the secretariats of international organizations. They put their people in leadership positions. Unfortunately, they have influence on countries that vote for certain personnel decisions. Americans are “rushing” around the world. What is the sovereign equality of states there? Russia has said why it is doing what it is doing. The Americans and the West have expressed their attitude. Why can’t others be given the opportunity to determine their position on their own? Which they did. No one, except the West, practically joined the sanctions. But the Americans, EU members, and the British are “rushing” around the world most quickly, demanding that countries “connect” to anti-Russian sanctions. What kind of equality and respect is there? No.
The Council of Europe has followed the same path. The culture of consensus, which has always been the essence of the work of a pan-European organization, has been destroyed. It has always made it possible to “steer” to mutually acceptable decisions that reflect the balance of interests of the participants. For a long time, they began to subject issues of interest to the West to voting. Pushed the overwhelming majority in the Council of Europe. Moreover, the EU behaves interestingly in the Council of Europe. When there was a problem with human rights in any EU country, Brussels said that yes, there is a problem, but there is no need to worry about it, because within the European Union, outside the Council of Europe, there is its own procedure for monitoring how EU member states fulfill their human rights obligations. They fenced themselves off from the Council of Europe, saying that what they have inside is themselves, and what happens to the former Soviet republics, which are now independent states and participate in the Council of Europe, they will meticulously consider it. It’s an arrogant display of a sense of self-superiority. I think that they are destroying the Council of Europe, as well as many other organizations where they are trying to act not on the basis of equality, but on the basis of dictate, ultimatums and direct blackmail. When they need to get the result of voting in the same UN, my colleagues told how they are forced to vote the way the West needs. They hint to a specific person (a country’s U.N. ambassador) that there will be a vote tomorrow, that they will vote like this, and encourage others to do the same, reminding them that they have an account in an American bank, and the children are in college or university. I’m not exaggerating. I know people who told me this. I believe them.
As for the UN Security Council. No one can change anything unless a decision is made that must be ratified by all permanent members of the UN Security Council, including the Russian Federation. In other words, it is impossible to change the status of any of the five permanent members.
We are now talking about reforming the UN Security Council. There are several directions here. The main direction is the numerical composition. Negotiations in the General Assembly have been going on for twenty years, if not more. Initially, a resolution was adopted that proclaimed the need to expand the number of members of the UN Security Council and to do this so that the reform is based on broad agreement. That’s not consensus. One hundred percent consensus is hardly possible in this kind of thing. There will always be one or two states that distance themselves from consensus. Therefore, the resolution that launched the reform process read “on the basis of broad agreement” (general agreement).
Now there are two groups of countries. One group of countries is in line with the “four” (India, Brazil, Japan and Germany), which declared their claims to permanent membership in the UN Security Council and rallied on this basis. On the same basis, the countries of other regions are “processed”, mobilizing them for their support, believing that there must be new permanent seats. The second group of countries is quite the opposite. They believe that permanent membership (as our Mexican colleagues once put it) is “an injustice embedded in the foundation of the UN.” This foundation cannot be changed, but this injustice should not be multiplied. Let’s add a certain number of non-permanent members of the UN Security Council, but we will not create permanent seats. These are two irreconcilable approaches. At a certain stage, people realized that it was impossible to “marry” diametrically opposed points of view and came up with the idea of looking for a compromise, which would consist in the fact that we would create not additional permanent places, but new “semi-permanent” places. Now the country, which is elected to the UN Security Council for a non-permanent seat, does it for two years. Moreover, after these two years, she cannot immediately be elected again. There was a proposal to make a third category (there are permanent and non-permanent, and there are semi-permanent), which will be selected from a limited circle of states (30 states were designated) for ten years with the right of immediate re-election. It’s not developed. I show how irreconcilable points of view sounded that they even gave rise to such a compromise idea.
So far, this process is underway. The Quartet wants to put the matter to a vote and resolve it by a two-thirds vote. In fact, the UN Security Council Charter says that two-thirds of the votes are on important issues. But the very decision to launch this process requires not two-thirds, but broad consent. That’s more than two-thirds. While the conversations are going on.
Something else is fundamentally important to us. We explain this to our colleagues from the developing world. It has been said publicly on many occasions that both India and Brazil are more than worthy contenders for permanent membership in the UN Security Council, if it is decided that it is necessary to create new permanent seats. But at the same time, we cannot, for obvious reasons, say the same about Germany and Japan. First, out of fifteen members of the UN Security Council, the West now accounts for six. It’s not fair. Look at the politics of Germany and Japan. Japan is also a Western country in terms of the positions they occupy. Now neither Germany nor Japan is doing anything that would go against the line of the United States, Great Britain and France. This means that the UN Security Council will not receive any added value from the membership of these two countries. The state where developing countries are underrepresented is serious. It’s only going to get bigger. Therefore, we clearly say that in order to reform the UN Security Council, it is necessary to expand it at the expense of developing countries. We can easily agree to new permanent seats, we can also agree to non-permanent ones, as long as this decision is made on the basis of broad agreement. If a vote is to be cast, a two-thirds vote is required from the point of view of legal procedure. But one-third is not rogue states. In the “group” that is against the creation of new permanent places, Scandinavians, Mexicans, Argentines, Spaniards, Italians. These countries, firstly, have a reputation in the UN, and secondly, they are donors. And many programs are funded. To antagonize these countries just for the sake of voting… Moreover, they will vote, split the UN, and “this” must then be ratified. It is imperative that all five permanent members ratify such an amendment to the UN Security Council Charter.
The topic of the West’s attempt to further strengthen its position in the UN Security Council to the detriment of developing countries is quite serious. No one will deprive the permanent members of the right of veto. This is written in the UN Security Council Charter. An amendment aimed at changing this will not pass. Everybody understands that. It’s a reality. The very reality arising from the wisdom of A.M. Gorchakov.
There were other attempts. The French have long proposed a decision according to which the permanent members of the UN Security Council will assume voluntary restrictions and will not use the veto in situations where we are talking about gross massive violations of human rights, international and humanitarian law, crimes against humanity. Sounds nice.
We asked when the French first put forward this initiative, what it would look like in practice. What is a “gross massive violation of human rights or international humanitarian law”? This is determined by the court. And the UN Security Council acts according to its own rules of procedure. The very posing of questions by the French and their supporters forces them to ask direct and sloppy questions. Ok. You say that we will not use the veto when there are “gross mass violations”. And at what level does the “massiveness” of these gross violations begin? One hundred? One hundred and twenty? And ninety-nine is possible? And one hundred and nineteen is possible? That is, it is an almost unrealizable thing. It is used exclusively for such propaganda, PR purposes.
There’s a lot of talk going on around that. The intergovernmental mechanism considering the reform of the UN Security Council, in addition to the membership, is concerned about the topic of the veto. We need to look for realistic agreements. Now it is fundamental for everyone to agree that the main defect of the current UN Security Council is the lack of proper representation of developing countries in it. That’s our position.
Question: Are there any people in your life from whom you still take an example, despite the fact that you yourself have achieved a lot in life and are an authority for a large number of people?
Sergey Lavrov: When I was at your age, even younger, I had people I wanted to look up to. Starting at school.
I entered MGIMO relatively by accident. There were exams a month earlier than in other universities. I had a dream – to enter the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute (MEPhI), because we had a teacher of physics and mathematics S.I. Kuznetsov (the kingdom of heaven), whom I idolized. He was a great teacher and friend. S.I. Kuznetsov was not much older than us (about eight or nine years). He went hiking with us, went to different places, really made friends. I looked up to him. Sergei Kuznetsov told me that he understands that physics is interesting, but at the same time he believed that my mindset was more humanitarian. I was even offended. He explained that he thought I was okay with him as a teacher, so he decided to follow his path. But it turned out that MEPhI and all other universities had exams from the first of August, and MGIMO from the first of July. My mom told me to give it a try. I wouldn’t be sitting here with you right now.
The institute also had teachers whom we loved and appreciated. The Sinhala language, which I was safely “given” for five years, was taught by A.A. Belkovich (he is also no longer alive, unfortunately). This man had never been to the island of Ceylon, which is now called Sri Lanka, but taught the language that this island spoke. It’s not spoken anywhere else. We played football with him. After the institute, we had a couple of tongues, then we went to the next yard near MGIMO, where there was a hockey box. They were “running around” there. He brought his friends.
In the Foreign Ministry, my first head was R.N. Nishanov. He’s still alive. I was an ambassador to Sri Lanka, where I ended up going with my Sinhala language. I still know how to draw letters. The list goes on and on.
It is necessary to mention E.M. Primakov. A man who, during his short stay in the Ministry, did a lot to ensure that the Foreign Ministry returned to the rails of national dignity and began to pursue a line that is worthy of the Russian Federation. Personally, he was a fantastic man. They played “cabbages” when Russia and other countries cooperated with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). For ten years now, they stopped doing this. And when meetings were held, each delegation staged a “cabbage”, songs or sketches. He participated with great pleasure. He was really a “lump.” No wonder a monument was erected to him at the Novodevichy Cemetery in the form of a block. It’s apt and clear. On the question of a politician or a friend, it’s also about him. I was never a politician when going to birthday parties or meetings of friends. There are many people in our country to look up to.
Question: The Foreign Ministry’s press releases and statements constantly say that Western countries are our colleagues, that is, such a positive subtext. In a personal conversation, without starting from diplomatic etiquette and protocol, would you call, for example, the United Kingdom our colleague? Do you believe in a secret world government?
Sergey Lavrov: We need to get an explanatory dictionary. If I remember a colleague correctly, he is a person who is engaged in the same profession as you. In this sense, it is not a comrade, not a partner, although sometimes we say “our Western partners”, mentally meaning in quotation marks. Sometimes we say “our so-called Western partners”. Of course, this is not a partnership. It’s arrogance that strikes over the edge. This is an irreparable confidence in one’s own rightness always and everywhere, a sense of one’s own superiority, a complex of fullness. You can characterize it in different ways.
I was amazed at the speed with which, after the start of a special military operation, the West took a Russophobic position, encouraging Russophobia at the household level. This means that what they thought about Russia, starting from the 16th-17th-18th centuries, did not disappear anywhere. Now, under the influence of this Russophobia, political scientists have begun to draw attention to Western descriptions of Russia of that period. At the beginning of the twentieth century, American political scientists wrote about Russia as barbarians. And this is all that happened after the end of the Cold War, all this pompous talk about universal values, that now everything will be built from the Atlantic to the Urals, and then to Vladivostok, evaporated overnight. I don’t want to think badly of people, but one way is to explain: it was deeply seated, the mask was “glued” on top. Now, however, there are sound voices when people are indignant at the decisions to ban the teaching of Fyodor Dostoevsky and Leo Tolstoy in Western schools, and to change street names. We note the attempts of Western governments, at least in the world, many of them to “play along” with Russophobic manifestations at the everyday level, and even to “play” on negative and shameful feelings. It’s disturbing. Look at how Latvia speaks. They say that they will take away from the Russians the money that they have frozen, confiscate and use for the needs of Ukraine. But they also need to take themselves (Latvians). They say that they were occupied by the Soviet Union. As it were, compensation for the occupation. Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki tells Norway that they have earned a lot, oil prices are good, let’s share with them. Similarly, the leaders of Ukraine say that they are owed, that why germany is turning so slowly, that some kind of “liverwurst” “leads” Germany. Until recently, it was impossible to imagine this.
People believe that they are the masters of life. They were told that they could do anything if they spoke out against Russia and everything Russian. Here is the Ambassador of Ukraine to Germany Oleksandr Melnyk. The entire Internet is full of boorish demands on the government of the host country. He personally insults German politicians. Now it is becoming fashionable that those who are “for the Americans” are allowed everything. The Americans openly declare that they cannot allow any bipolar world, that they must defend a unipolar world. US Treasury Secretary J. Yellen (former head of the Federal Reserve System) directly stated that it is necessary to reform the Bretton Woods institutions (IMF, World Bank), the WTO, because China has moved too far, the United States is beginning to “squeeze”. Allegedly, it is necessary to carry out a reform. That is, it recognizes that China has reached its current economic power and continues to develop at an accelerated pace based on the rules that the West laid in the foundation of the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO. He beat the West on his field. The West immediately began to say that it was necessary to change the rules. That’s all the philosophical reflection on what Western rules are. Moreover, they declare that the rules for the IMF and the World Bank, the WTO should be written by the United States and Europe. The rest will then be explained how to play in a new way now.
We must be aware that this situation reflects the deep opinion in the world. For more than five hundred years, the West “ordered music”, conquered colonies, “civilized” them, organized “orders” there, and divided countries by ruler. Look at the borders in Africa – a ruler in the middle of one ethnic group was drawn with a pencil, and this part of the ethnic group was in one country, and the other in another (often in a warring one). The West wants to keep it, but it won’t work. Objectively, we can see how China and India are developing. It is no coincidence that now they are trying to drag India into anti-Chinese formats. A meeting of the QUAD quartet is taking place in Japan. It was created a couple of years ago – the USA, Japan, Australia and India. Our Indian friends are well aware that these are rather incorrect games. They advocate that within the framework of this Quartet they are ready to engage in economic projects, but will in no way support giving a military dimension to this quartet.
Then they began to create a military alliance: Australia, the United States, Great Britain (which cares about everything, as you understand). Named AUKUS. Now they are trying to “drag” Japan and South Korea there. They are trying to split ASEAN and other countries to pull up to the military bloc. Thus, destroying those universal structures that existed in the Asia-Pacific region for forty years and in one format ensured the participation of both THE ASEAN countries and their partners, including all major powers (China, India, the USA, Russia, Japan, Korea, Australia). Everyone was together.
And now it is necessary to “split” these formats in order to create accountable only to oneself, where there is no need to look for any consensus, to come up with compromises where they will promote forceful approaches, including to containing China, at the same time russia. Russia is also a Pacific power.
We need to be patient, but at the same time build our own mechanisms of international communication. There are the SCO, BRICS, EAEU, CSTO, CIS.
Now the center of world development has shifted to Eurasia. At this time, we have the most extensive network of partnerships in the Eurasian region. We must rely on them in the further development of our country, its transport, transit and logistics capabilities.
I am convinced that this is the right way to go. To hope that McDonald’s will return (I describe it so crudely) means to sit again and do nothing, to wait for spare parts, some components, semiconductors to come and us. No, our Western partners have proved, and not for the first time, that they are non-negotiable.
We were always told that we were trying to turn away from Europe and go to the East. We didn’t turn away from anyone. Europe was humiliated by those who committed the coup in Ukraine in February 2014, which took place a day after Germany, France and Poland guaranteed the achievement of agreements between the then president of Ukraine and the opposition. She did not give a damn about these signatures and committed a coup d’état. The West (in Russian speaking) is “lost”. Then he began to present this opposition as not putschists, but as “part of the democratic process.”
Only “swear allegiance and you will be forgiven” – that’s their logic. The European Union cut off all relations with us. At the time of 2014, we held two annual summits with the European Union, almost the entire Russian Government and the entire European Commission met, we built four common spaces, twenty sectoral dialogues from energy and transport to human rights. There was a partnership project for modernization, where Hightech projects were implemented. A huge number of branched structures provided the “fabric” of our relations with the European Union. Overnight, everything was abandoned.
Even then, sanctions began to affect trade. Naturally, if our neighbors in the West do not want to continue to actively look for opportunities to deepen the partnership, and there is one in the East, then this is purely physically how it works. It so happened that Eurasia is becoming the most promising region of the world. We need to deal with its arrangement, not using someone else’s tools like the dollar, the SWIFT financial messaging system, but creating our own. It’s not that hard to do. We are already significantly increasing the share of trade that is served in the national currencies of partner countries: Russia-China, Russia-India, Russia-Iran, and within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union. We need to look ahead. Yeah, it’s a challenge. It is necessary to be much more actively engaged in the development of one’s country. But this is a huge plus, and opportunities.
Q: What are the goals of your foreign policy towards China?
Sergey Lavrov: To develop friendly relations with our closest neighbour. We have doctrinal documents that characterize our contacts as a strategic partnership and multifaceted interaction. We have a long border with the People’s Republic of China and common interests in upholding the principles of justice and multipolarity in international affairs. Economically, the mutual benefit is obvious. Now that the West is a dictator, our economic ties with China will grow even faster. This, in addition to direct revenue to the state budget, gives us the opportunity to implement plans to raise the Far East and Eastern Siberia. The main number of projects with China are developing, being implemented there. This is an opportunity for us to realize our potential in the field of high technologies, including nuclear energy, but also in a number of other areas. China has developed information and communication technologies. No worse than in the West. Much here provides mutual benefit.
In the international arena, both China and I are interested in the West ceasing to hinder the natural processes of democratization of international relations, the establishment of genuine multipolarity, reflecting the real weight of states in a changed world. When we say that we are in favor of more democratic international relations, we are not trying to write any new rules, as the West is doing, but we emphasize that it is possible to ensure democracy at the international level by returning to the origins of the United Nations. Everything is written in the UN Charter. This is the sovereign equality of states. Once we ensure this in practice, there will be full democracy not within countries, as the West is doing, but in the international arena.
When we were negotiating with the West, they said: let’s write that we are for democracy in every country. We answer that it is good, only each country should determine its own democracy. Let’s also write down that there must be democracy in the international arena, as stated in the UN Charter. They no longer need sovereign equality, but “a world order based on their rules,” as they say publicly.
Question: How and where did you spend your childhood? What fond memories do you have?
Sergey Lavrov: “Hot” memories. I spent my childhood near Moscow, in the city of Noginsk, where I had grandparents. Mom went on a business trip. I lived with my grandparents. This city used to be called Bogorodsk (beautiful name). Now I am actively lobbying the leadership of the Moscow Region to call this city Bogorodsk again. We lived in completely ordinary wooden houses. I lived there in second grade. Then I moved to Moscow, but every weekend I “rushed” there to my friends, played football, in the winter – in hockey. The Spartak stadium was very close, which predetermined my “unfortunate” fate as a fan. Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to communicate with these guys for a long time. One of them went to Belarus, the other to the Far East. Everyone was “swept away”.
Memories are such little children’s pranks, on the verge of hooliganism, like everyone else in the yard. It was a good time. But I assure you, any time in a person’s life is good. You’ll understand that. I’m convinced of that.
Question: How often in the life of a politician are there moments when you have to make difficult decisions, often contrary to personal beliefs? At the same time, these decisions must be made. How hard are they to accept?
Sergey Lavrov: If personal convictions conflict with the decisions that need to be made, it is better not to make such decisions. If their acceptance is inevitable, but it conflicts with personal beliefs, then a choice must be made: either remain in office or step aside. It can’t be otherwise. At least for me.
Question: Which book has had the greatest impact on you and helped you in your life?
Sergey Lavrov: “The Master and Margarita”.
Question: You said that you graduated from MGIMO. And I’m just going to go there. I wanted to know your subjective opinion as a person, not as a politician. What do you think, what are the prospects for a girl to build a successful career in diplomacy or is it the prerogative of men?
Sergey Lavrov: In Soviet times, it so happened that a woman in diplomacy is a rarity. When I became a minister, the situation changed significantly. Now we hire about 120 recruits in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs every year, almost half of them are girls. This has been going on for years. The proportion of women in the Ministry is growing constantly and proportionally. There are now many girls in the positions of deputy directors of departments. This means that soon the ranks of ambassadors will be replenished at the expense of women. In New York, Russia’s deputy permanent representative to the UN is a woman, as in a number of other places. Not enough, of course, yet. But soon quantity will turn into quality.
Each person has his own individuality. To give a “recipe” that women do not need to go to work in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but only men is wrong. It’s up to you. There is no single piece of advice.
Question: In 2015, at an interview with Radio Rossii, you said a good phrase: “Now there is such a situation in the world in the era of globalization, in the era of interdependence, that if they lower the Iron Curtain, they can inadvertently pinch something for themselves.” I believe that in this situation, Western countries have not only “pinched” something for themselves, but have already amputated it. Do you think Western countries will establish diplomatic relations with us and when can this happen?
Sergey Lavrov: It depends entirely on Western countries. When they survive their “frenzy” and decide that there is Russia, it has not gone anywhere and, I am convinced, is strengthening every year. If they want to offer something in terms of resuming relations, they will seriously think about whether we need it or not. We are now creating not just a certain process of import substitution. We must stop in any way depending on the supply of anything from the West to ensure, develop critical industries for the security, economy and social sphere of our Motherland.
We will rely only on ourselves and on those countries that have proven their reliability, and which do not “dance to someone else’s tune”. If Western countries come to their senses and offer some forms of cooperation, we will decide.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 24 2022 17:38 utc | 138
Today, Putin held a meeting discussing the development of certain areas of the transport complex that I mentioned in a comment on the current thread. I’m sure several barflies would like to read the complete machine translated transcript and thus learn more about the nature of Russia and its future plans aimed at enhancing the lives of its people and the entire Eurasian region:
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues, good afternoon.
Today we will consider topical issues of the development of Russia’s transport complex, determine the priority tasks and our further actions in this area, the most important area.
In particular, I propose to discuss separately the implementation of transport projects in the south of the country. We should have colleagues from Dagestan and the Astrakhan Region in touch where major logistics hubs are developing – the seaports of Makhachkala, Astrakhan and Olya. These are the most important points on the route of the North-South transport corridor, which uses the potential of the Volga and the Caspian Sea.
At the end of last year, an instruction was given to deepen the bottom of the Volga-Caspian Canal so that the intensity of traffic on this section increases, and the canal could serve more capacious vessels that are in demand by business. I hope to hear today how this work is progressing and when concrete results will be achieved.
But before we move on to the agenda, I would like to note the following.
Infrastructure development is one of the main drivers of our economy, indeed, of any economy. Over the years, we have been consistently and systematically building up Russia’s logistics capabilities, and we are doing this with a view to the future, to a long-term effect for Russian business and our citizens.
In the coming years, we need to accelerate this area of work. We have already increased direct budget expenditures on the development of transport infrastructure and formed a programme of infrastructure budget loans.
Year after year, the volume of construction, renewal of the network of roads and railways, river and sea infrastructure, transport arteries, which not only connect the regions of Russia, serve as the basis for the development of industry and agriculture, but also help our companies and enterprises to increase foreign trade, to develop foreign markets, should also grow.
I have already said and I would like to emphasise again today that the Russian economy will certainly be open in the new conditions. Moreover, we will expand cooperation with those countries that are interested in mutually beneficial cooperation.
A whole range of issues is important here. This is the organization of convenient payment infrastructure in national currencies, the establishment of scientific and technological ties and, of course, an increase in the capacity of logistics chains, increasing their efficiency and creating new routes for cargo transportation.
In recent months, the strategic importance of this work has increased markedly. The actions of some countries, their desire to close themselves off from Russia – not to close Russia, but to close themselves off from Russia, even to their own detriment – have shown how important it is in the modern world to diversify traffic flows and expand corridors towards predictable, responsible partners.
In this regard, I would like to focus on two fundamental considerations. They concern not only projects in the south of Russia, in the Azov-Black Sea and Caspian basins, which we will discuss in detail today, but also in other important areas.
First. As I have already noted, the situation in the global economy, in the system of world economic relations, is changing rapidly – we see all this. Russian business is adapting to these changes, restructuring production and logistics chains, and actively establishing new ties with foreign partners.
Our plans to develop transport infrastructure and to debottle the so-called bottlenecks should move forward at the same high and dynamic pace.
I want to be heard at the federal level and by colleagues in the regions and on the ground: it is necessary to get rid of any red tape that slows down the pace and delays the implementation of transport projects. It is absolutely unacceptable to disrupt the deadlines for the creation of infrastructure.
On the contrary, it is important, as I have already said, to accelerate the launched construction projects, as well as to speed up the development and launch of new initiatives in the transport sector as much as possible. In particular, it is necessary to actively use the mechanism of parallel design and construction, of course, while complying with the requirements for the safety and reliability of the facilities being commissioned – this goes without saying.
Here, additional adjustments to the regulatory framework, the procedure for preparing project documentation and construction regulations may be required. We are talking about this not only not the first month – not the first year. I look forward to hearing proposals in this regard today.
Second. The development of sea and river ports, railways and roads, of course, should take into account the real demand for transportation and objective load forecasts.
But what would I like to note in this regard, even just remember? At one time, not so long ago, we had sharp and lively discussions on the development of the Eastern Railway Range and the specific parameters of its capacity.
Yes, there were conditions then, and then there were some even skeptical assessments on this matter, about the fact that it is possible to expand, to invest huge funds – hundreds of billions of rubles were planned for this – to lay new roads, and there will be nothing to carry along them, since there may not be a cargo base.
Time has shown that these estimates were inaccurate, to put it mildly. Today, the eastern direction is most in demand. Its loading is guaranteed for years to come. And we see the same trends now on the southern routes, where the volume of cargo transportation is growing sharply, and, as experts say, bottlenecks are beginning to appear – “bottlenecks”.
I think it is right to abandon the inertial scenario in the development of transport infrastructure, when, based on current needs – only from current ones, the cargo base is assessed, and then, based on these assessments, routes are designed and built, their capacity is laid: then it is not enough. If we act in such a static logic, we will always be catching up, the bandwidth will always be lacking.
Infrastructure should be guided by the requirements of tomorrow, open up a space of opportunities for business initiative. And practice shows that as soon as new corridors appear, the goods that will go through them will necessarily appear. It’s like, you know, always: the road appears – life begins around it, there is no road – and there is nothing. In other words, it is infrastructure projects that form new cargo flows.
And I would like to stress once again that this is especially important now, when the situation on world markets is changing dynamically, trade flows and all global economic activity are switching from the West to more interesting, growing regions. Actually, this has been happening for several years, we all understand this well.
But it is important to see and understand this prospect, to lay new routes and prepare transport projects, as they say, with a margin of capacity. That is, already at the design stage, it is necessary to lay the opportunities for expanding and modernising the infrastructure, so that in a short time with minimal costs it will be possible to increase its capacity, to open new supply channels for Russian producers, exporters and buyers of foreign products in our country.
Let me repeat that this applies to transport projects in all regions of our country. I am referring to the development of the Eastern Railway Range, the Northern Latitudinal Railway, the seaports of the Arctic, the Far East, the south and the North-West, including the modernisation of the Murmansk transport hub and so on.
I would like to ask you to fix such a proactive and proactive approach to the design and development of the transport infrastructure of ports, roads and railways in the list of instructions following our meeting today.
Third. Separately, I want to say about border checkpoints. Colleagues from the business community – you know this for yourself – constantly talk about how much time is spent on cargo clearance and border crossing, especially at those points where there is a lack of modern equipment, infrastructure or specialized specialists, where more efficient cargo handling regulations are needed.
It is important to accelerate the construction of new and modernization of existing checkpoints on the border in order to ensure faster, more convenient for business passage of customs, phytosanitary and other types of control.
I would like to draw the attention of the relevant services to the fact that this applies not only to land checkpoints, but also to seaports, as we discussed at a recent meeting on the development of the oil industry. I instruct the Prime Minister to take these issues under his control.
And in conclusion, another very important topic. In a week, the calendar summer will come, the traditional time of holidays. Many of our citizens plan to spend this time at sea, to go to the resorts of the Krasnodar Territory or the Crimea, someone by car, someone by train or plane.
To date, a number of southern airports are temporarily closed. As a result, the demand for railway tickets has increased. I know that Russian Railways has already launched additional flights from the central part of the country to the Black Sea. And it is very important that in the summer period passenger traffic in this direction works clearly, stably, without failures and in the required volume.
Judging by what I see now, there is already not enough capacity there, so I would like to ask Vitaly Gennadyevich to say this and the head of RAO Russian Railways.
Let’s get to work.
Posted by: karlof1 | May 24 2022 19:01 utc | 139
|
