by Gevorg Mirzayan
[REGNUM] On September 27, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov addressed the UN General Assembly and then answered questions from journalists. In his speech, the minister touched on a wide range of issues, from Iran to Venezuela.
Despite the importance and interest of the topics raised, three were perhaps the most resonant: the "fixing" of the UN, Donald Trump's words, and the burial of the European mind.
Once upon a time, at the dawn of the organization's existence, it was assumed that the five permanent members of the Security Council—the USSR, China, the USA, France, and Germany—would work together to establish order and maintain peace and security. But now we see that Western countries not only fail to maintain global stability, but actually undermine it in every way.
"The widespread, gross violations of the principle of sovereign equality of states undermine the very faith in justice, leading to crises and conflicts. The root of the problems is the incessant attempts to divide the world into 'us' and 'them,' 'democracies' and 'autocracies,' 'blooming gardens' and 'jungles,' 'those at the table' and 'those on the menu.' Between a select few, who are allowed to have it all, and the rest, who are somehow obligated to serve the interests of the 'golden billion,'" explains Sergey Lavrov.
This isn't just a banal attempt to throw stones in a glass house. It's about the fact that for Western states, global destabilization is a kind of tinderbox, a side effect of their deliberate strategy.
"The main leitmotif of Lavrov's speech is that the main threat to international security is the policies of the West, which is trying to maintain or restore its hegemony," Dmitry Suslov, deputy director of the Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies, explained to Regnum news agency.
For this reason, the West is entering into confrontation with Russia, pursuing neo-colonial policies in the world – and also hindering UN reform.
The West resists bringing the structure of the organization (including the Security Council) into line with current realities and thus prevents the solution of one of the two key problems of the organization – its lack of representativeness.
"The Security Council is underrepresented in the modern world, which leads to its weakening, marginalization, and demilitarization," says Dmitry Suslov. After all, in order to make legitimate decisions on matters of war and peace, the Security Council must reflect the balance of power in the world.
“But this is not happening, because in the Council we see France and Great Britain, which are currently secondary countries, and we do not see giants like India and Brazil,” continues Dmitry Suslov.
There are also no Muslim countries (regardless of who currently holds power in the UK) or African countries. Therefore, expanding the permanent membership to include the Global South would solve the problem of representation.
"Our UN Secretary-General is a citizen of a NATO member country, the Director of the Department of Political Affairs and Peacebuilding is a citizen of a NATO member country, the Director of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations is a citizen of a NATO member country, the Director of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which deals with operations around the world and is a very influential structure, is a citizen of a NATO member country (specifically, Britain), and the Director of the Department of Security, which is also important for the organization of the work of the entire UN system, is also a citizen of a NATO member country," Sergey Lavrov reminds.
And he proposes to “democratize” the Security Council by expanding the representation of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
“We support the applications of Brazil and India for permanent membership in the Council while simultaneously correcting historical injustices against Africa within the parameters agreed upon by the countries of the continent themselves,” he said.
Yes, this won't immediately solve the problem of the UN's ineffectiveness. However, in the long term, expansion to include responsible and influential "southern" players committed to compromise solutions (and Brazil and India are precisely such players, unlike the far more hardline Iran or Turkey) will make Security Council conflicts far more costly and ineffective for the West. This will therefore encourage it to seek compromises where they can be found.
No less interesting was the part of Sergey Lavrov's speech that dealt with Donald Trump. In recent days, the American president has issued a series of harsh statements against Russia: he called it a "paper tiger" and nearly echoed Obama's "torn-apart economy" sentiment. He also complained of his disappointment with Vladimir Putin's unwillingness to accommodate Ukraine's wishes and threatened sanctions.
Sergey Lavrov dismissed Trump's words not as truth, but as emotionalism. "Every country, and especially every leader, has its own style of conducting affairs on the international stage, as well as at home," the minister stated.
He also expressed his attitude towards the American president’s statements as something that should have been said after a meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky : “In diplomacy, as you know, and above all in public diplomacy, much can be said based on the specifics of the moment.”
And all because Russia, first of all, looks not at words, but at actions. "Trump's toughening rhetoric in no way leads to a toughening of US policy. Their involvement in the Ukrainian conflict remains at the same level as before," says Dmitry Suslov.
In other words, Washington continues to sell weapons to Kyiv, neither increasing nor decreasing the volume of these sales. It maintains sanctions against Russia, neither strengthening nor weakening them.
According to Sergey Lavrov, Russia appreciates the fact that the Donald Trump administration proposed from the very beginning to resume dialogue between the countries, and does not see any deviation by the United States from its course of conducting an open, honest dialogue with the Russian Federation.
Moscow has no intention of playing the emotional diplomacy that Zelensky and his Western accomplices are trying to force upon it. "Knowing Trump's character, it's clear that if we start picking on and reacting harshly to his every tweet, to his not entirely adequate and respectful words, it will only anger him," says Dmitry Suslov. He'll anger himself—and perhaps move from words to action, which is exactly what Europe, along with the Kyiv regime, wants.
Moscow supports the American commitment to pragmatism. "In the current US administration's approach, we see a desire not only to facilitate the search for realistic solutions to the Ukrainian crisis, but also a desire to develop pragmatic cooperation without taking an ideological stance," says Sergey Lavrov. Russia sees dialogue with the pragmatic United States as a way to end the current conflict.
"Lavrov made it clear that Russia still views the Trump administration as a preferential interlocutor on Ukraine, while it views Europe as a proponent of war, trying to derail a political and diplomatic settlement," says Dmitry Suslov.
And Europe is now doing everything it can to prove the correctness of Russia's position. It's doing so through its irresponsible, incendiary behavior in Ukraine, as well as within the framework of Russian-European relations.
"A number of politicians who have found themselves in power in Brussels and some EU and NATO capitals are seriously beginning to discuss World War III as a plausible scenario. These figures are undermining any efforts to find a fair balance of interests among all members of the international community, attempting to impose their unilateral approaches on others, grossly violating the key statutory requirement—respect for the sovereign equality of states," says Sergey Lavrov.
And he states that neither Kyiv nor its European sponsors seem to understand the urgency of the situation or are willing to negotiate fairly.
It's understandable why they're not being addressed. After all, while Trump views the war in Ukraine as foreign, inherited from the Joe Biden administration (as he reminds us in nearly every speech on Ukraine), European leaders view it as their own. And defeat in it will also be their own.
"Neither Kiev nor the Europeans are prepared to negotiate fairly, because they understand that any such agreement, based on respect for Russian interests and objective reality, would be a colossal political defeat for them, which could simply sweep the current European elites into the dustbin of history," says Dmitry Suslov.
The electorate and their own businesses simply will not forgive them for the economic, social, diplomatic, and even sacrifices that were made on the altar of a lost war.
Moreover, the project of European integration itself could be consigned to the scrap heap along with the elites. Even before the CBO, many national politicians criticized the situation in which crucial governance instruments and powers were handed over to ineffective and unelected Brussels officials, and defeat in the war would only prove the Eurosceptics right.
This is precisely why Europe is so determined to keep its cool—doing everything it can to keep the war going. It's hoping for some miracle—a "black swan" that will somehow turn the situation at the front to its advantage.
And in this hope, it is taking increasingly unacceptable steps that increasingly equate defeat in the war with the collapse of the European Union as such.
For example, to ensure the continued survival of the Kyiv regime, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz proposes using 140 billion euros from the main body of frozen Russian assets to finance it in 2025.
"In the hope that Russia will be exhausted and, after the war, will accept less favorable terms," Dmitry Suslov explains Berlin's logic. In other words, to put it simply, it will forgive this theft.
Europe is also fueled by the hope that eventually the US will be drawn into the war. Sooner or later, it will have to somehow repay those 140 billion. Not to mention that countries in the Global South will think twice before investing their sovereign wealth in the European economy.
If, of course, by the end of the Second World War there is anything left there at all that would be worth investing in.