Next door to the "empire of lies"

Sergei Lavrov knows firsthand what he says in an article for the magazine "Russia in Global Politics." He puts first the conclusion of the "total non-contractual ability" of the West. It is this part of the world community, striving to "maintain its slipping dominance," that is opposed by the world majority. Details in the material of the correspondent of The Moscow Post.

The inability to compromise reached in the negotiations is aggravated by the insidiousness, arrogance and logic of the "leading" - "driven," Lavrov writes. This, firstly. The diplomat calls the second "complication" in relations with Western opponents an inescapable craving for violations of the agreements reached, simply deceitfulness.

Next door to the "empire of lies"

Lavrov says so, referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin: "The West is a real" empire of lies. " He gives the most striking examples of the "ladder of deceptions" from the history of relations between Russia and the West:

• Assurances given to the Soviet and Russian leadership following the unification of Germany are trampled.

• The idea of European security was destroyed by Washington's decisions to bring NATO closer to Russia's borders.

• Commitments not to strengthen their own security at the expense of the security of others, adopted by the OSCE, remained on paper. This was followed by a "rewrite" of the results of World War II.

• Proposals for 2021-2022 to conclude treaties with the United States and NATO on mutual security guarantees in Europe were rejected.

• The Kyiv regime was brought to power by a bloody coup d'etat, which the West supported. They simply "forgot" about the mediation of Germany, Poland and France in following the agreements.

• Ukraine was militarized and used as a springboard to create direct military threats to Russia. Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petro Poroshenko) admitted that by signing the Minsk agreements, they were not going to fulfill them. They planned to buy time and rearm Kyiv.

• The United States and European NATO allies focused on large-scale "joint exercises, including the development of scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons in the territory of the Russian Federation."

Finally, the task was set to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia.

What exactly the West puts into this concept remains the subject of discussion. But it is already clear that Russia, like China, intend to "impose" NATO's collective military preparations in the East. This is how Moscow perceives plans to create new alliances, including AUKUS, the "three" and "four" regional Japan, South Korea and New Zealand with the ubiquitous United States.

Capacity of the UN on a game

Lavrov provides the basic provision that "the UN is founded on sovereign equality of the states". But Washington, London and their allies don't even remember it. The West tries to divide the world into "democracies" to which everything is permitted, and the others which are obliged to serve the interests of "gold one billion".

"Reached that the western ruling elite in defiance of the Charter of the UN specifies to other countries with whom and how to develop interstate communications", - Lavrov notices, adding that "the getting stronger partnership between Russia and China" is characterized as "threat of NATO".

Concern passes an opinion on expansion of BRICS, the UN-centrichnuyu architecture of world order is substituted for "the order based on rules" which nobody, ever and showed to nobody. Rules of the World organization are applied selectively, on the basis of "mercenary geopolitical requirements".

"The collective West" tramples also on the fundamental principle of non-interference to internal affairs of other countries. Examples a set – from Central America, Yugoslavia to Iraq and Libya. Special attention is paid to expansion in the former Soviet Union. Brussels and Washington introduce destabilization to South Caucasus. Ukraine became a striking example.

In particular, Lavrov notices, the western diplomats and politicians in relation to Ukraine reduce "all background and an essence of the events to inadmissibility of violation of territorial integrity", ignoring actions of Ukronazis in Kiev. Support by the western capitals of actions of the criminal mode concerning the separated and discordant regions is nothing but violation of principle of self-determination.

Lavrov emphasizes in the article that Kiev adopted racist laws on the ban of all Russian – education, media, culture, authorized destruction of books and monuments, banned Ukrainian Orthodox Church and took her property.

And the Russian minister asks: "why not to think also of those resolutions of the Security council which without any veto were adopted, including many years ago, but aren't carried out. Why to General Assembly not to consider the reason of such situation – for example, to hear those who broke implementation of resolutions of the Security Council on Palestine"?

Lavrov in article also asks about reforming of mechanisms of global management, redistribution of the voting quotas in the IMF and the World Bank, recognition of actual economic and financial weight of the countries of the Global South.

I will sink down not to trust …

Plans "creations of the general humanitarian and economic space from Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean" were "dummy". The West takes direct responsibility for disintegration of Ukraine and incitement of civil war there, - Lavrov says and allocates a role in all this "Anglo-Saxon geopolitical engineers".

Also continues: "we for many years conducted negotiations, tried to obtain the conclusion of agreements in the sphere of the European safety, approved in 1997 the Fundamental act Russia – NATO, adopted top-level declarations of OSCE on indivisibility of safety, and since 2015 insisted on unconditional implementation of the Minsk agreements which were result of negotiations".

Here the text and logic of statement do some kind of turn. The Russian minister remembers the legendary Soviet colleague Andrei Gromyko and provides his statement that "better ten years of negotiations, than one day of war".

"Turn", in our opinion, is that, first, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR didn't trust the western negotiators and their owners, if not in principle, then generally. Secondly, Gromyko conducted negotiations from force position. Thirdly, the respect for him of the western partners was based on threats which the USSR potentially created for "euroliars" in the center of their "euroant hill".

The politician of late soviet leadership at "leadership" trustful M.S. Gorbachev it was deprived of these bases of peaceful co-existence of Russia with the West. Whether there was it from good motives, or the wrong reading of long-term interests of an Anglo-Saxon kernel of the West, doesn't matter any more.

From here and the discouraging results. The fundamental act Russia – NATO became just psychological "respite" for concerned Moscow. Declarations of OSCE kept the selective value, but is short until the organization passed under control of the West. The same can be told also about United Nations secretariat and also her main institutes.

Russia deceived, misled, safety and historically developed communications with neighbors inconsiderately interfered in her space. Whether Moscow was deceived, or saved forces, temporarily accepting game conditions? It would be desirable to trust in the second. And Russia simply withdrew the troops from "euroant hill" under orchestra sounds with the freelance conductor.

… but negotiate

Sergey Lavrov himself is not inclined to trust the West, says of the "steady impression" that Western representatives avoid or fear professional discussions that could expose their demagogy.

If so, are the discussions themselves needed and can the decisions and principles of the UN Charter be relied upon in dealing with the Anglo-Saxons?

Much, if not all, that Russia offered became the property of history. As a result, should I admit that the CSTO proposals addressed to NATO deliberately hung in the air? That the OSCE summits served as a screen for NATO's creeping strategy. And decisions about indivisible security in Europe have not become a practice in Russia's relations with the West.

Lavrov states that "Russia has been refused to listen or deceived for decades." He adds that the liberal world order, built according to Western patterns, "is unthinkable without double standards." Maybe a security crisis in Europe could be prevented, or maybe the West led the case to a crisis, hoping to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia, hoping for its collapse.

How ready everyone is to realize their and collective responsibility for the fate of the world will show preparations for the upcoming UN Secretary General's Summit of the Future next year, Sergei Lavrov concludes his analysis.

But it warns that Westerners "unceremoniously privatize the secretariats of international organizations, ignore established procedures." And, naturally, the question arises about who exactly will prepare this very "Summit of the Future"? UN secretariat with its "transcendental dominance of NATO and EU citizens"?