From Head of MFA russia s. lavrov’s article “about staging as a method of the West’s politics”.

The chief kremlin diplomat thinks of the war in Ukraine as an ‘unfair play of the West’. In his opinion, russian army kills tens of thousands of Ukrainians and destroys the infrastructure of our country ‘to stop the discrimination and genocide of “russians” and to eliminate the threat to the russian federation’s safety which has been stirred up by the U.S. in Ukraine for years’. And he reckons that the terror brought by russia to Bucha, Mariupol, Kramatorsk and Kremenchuk is purely provocative staging orchestrated by the West:

l  ‘due to loss on the battlefield the Ukrainian regime and its Western patrons fake a bloodbath to demonise russia in the worldwide public discourse’;

l  ‘after showing the whole world ‘the tragedy of Bucha’ at the beginning of 2022, the West and Kyiv still haven’t answered whether the names of the victims are identified and what the autopsy results are’;

l  ‘the Anglo-Saxons helped with the mise-en-scène and the decorations’;

l  ‘such stagings are used to punish the accused countries and commit barbaric aggression against them, resulting in hundreds of thousands of victims’;

l  ‘the whole point of the Western political algorithm is to prepare an informational fake, inflate it into a cosmic catastrophe in a few days by blocking the population the access to alternative data and assessments, and ignore the facts if they manage to break through’.

As an example, s. lavrov questioned the 1999 Kosovo genocide, which resulted in NATO’s military intervention in Yugoslavia: ‘dozens of corpses dressed as civilians turned out to be militants of the “Kosovo Liberation Army” and not actual civilians’.

As it is known, NATO’s aerial campaign in former Yugoslavia was the final, not initial stage of hell that was going on in the country since 1991. The main objective of the campaign was the defence of the civilian population in Kosovo, where the majority was ethnically Albanian. The prolonged violence against ethnic Albanians disturbed the international community. When the diplomatic effort had no effect, NATO used Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to give Belgrad an ultimatum.

S. lavrov also stated that the attack on Iran in 2003 was groundless since no mass destruction weapons were found. In 2011 he made a statement regarding Libya that ‘NATO distorted the resolution of United Nations Security Council regulating the no-fly zone over Libya to bomb Libyan army units that were fighting the terrorists’. And that ‘illegal armed formations, most of which are cooperating with the West, now rule Libya’.

The head of russian diplomacy considers the use of chemical weaponry in Khan Shaykhun and Douma, Syria in 2017 and 2018 to be orchestrated by the West for the U.S., the UK and France to have a reason for missile and bomb attacks on Syria.

And he thinks that ‘the Technical Secretariat of Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ failed to conduct a transparent investigation since it’s long privatised by Western states.

According to Human Right Watch, nearly two thousand of Syrians died during 85 chemical strikes. A sarin gas attack was documented in Khan Shaykhun, a city controlled by jihad militia and situated in the Idlib governorate. It quickly became clear that Assad’s regime was behind the attack. Assad and his russian partners stated that it was carried out by anti-governmental militants.

S. lavrov switched from chemical ‘stagings’ to ‘biological threats’ named as one of the reasons for invading Ukraine:

l  ‘military-biological activity of the Pentagon in the whole world and especially the post-Soviet space needs scrupulous attention’;

l  ‘what was found in military biological laboratories in the liberated territories of Donbas shows direct violations of the Biological Weapons Convention’;

l  ‘the American administration ignores the facts and states that any biological research in Ukraine was exclusively peaceful and civilian in nature’.

The russian propaganda machine temporarily paused the exploitation of so-called ‘military-biological activity’ as a topic, but judging from s. lavrov’s commentary, it will be used again and again.

The head of MFA russia is sure that since February 2014 Ukraine is no longer an independent international actor:

l  ‘the West without a doubt stands behind the russophobic regime brought to power through a coup d’état in 2014’;

l  ‘the West forced yanukovych to sign an agreement and stop the confrontation with the opposition, but it turned out to be staged since the opposition instantly carried out a coup d’état under russophobic mottos’;

l  the death of the Heavenly Hundred ‘is a staging performed by radicals in the opposition tightly cooperating with Western intelligence services’;

l  ‘when the war in Donbas was stopped in February 2015, the Minsk agreements were signed with the help of the russian federation, Germany and France’;

l  ‘Germany and France failed to become the guarantors of the Minsk agreements and instead stated that a direct dialogue between Kyiv and “LPR” and “DPR” is impossible, putting the responsibility on russia although it is never mentioned in the agreements’ documents’;

l  ‘Minsk’ was ‘yet another staging performed by the West which forced the Ukrainian nation to come to terms with living in oppression under a russophobic neo-nazi regime’;

l  ‘russia will not go for an agreement regarding Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty because there was such a thing in the form of the Minsk agreements’;

l  ‘Zelens’kyi’s participation in any kind of popular international forum is a part of the staging’;

l  ‘Ukraine and Moldova are destined to be extras in whatever the West is playing. The U.S. as the main producer of those plays orders the music and the storyline, while Europe uses that as a base for its anti-russian screenplay’;

l  ‘Washington, London, Brussels demand that Kyiv does not start any negotiations with russia up until Ukraine gets a full military advantage’;

l  ‘the statement made by Josep Borrell that “the conflict must be finished with Ukraine’s victory on the battlefield” makes one think that such an instrument as diplomacy has lost its meaning in the EU’.

The head of the state-aggressor which invaded Ukraine reminded the world about the principle of sovereign equality of states:

l  ‘the sooner everyone understands the non-alternativity of objective historical processes of forming a multipolar world based on respect to the fundamental Charter of the UN and the whole principle of sovereign equality of states, the better’;

l  ‘talks of a good relationship, of the West’s readiness to pay attention to “russians’” rights and interests, which ended up in Ukraine and other post-Soviet countries after the U.S.S.R. has dissolved, turned out to be a staging, as since the beginning of the 2000s Washington and the EU started to openly require that Kyiv decides who it wants to be with: the West or russia’;

l  ‘the collective West needs to abandon its world of illusions and get back to Earth. The stagins, no matter how long they will go on, will not work. It’s time to play fair, not according to the muckers’ rules, but based on international law’.

S. lavrov did not forget to remind of ‘current narratives’ about how anti-russian sanctions are harmful to their very own initiators and about lack of control when it comes to supplying arms to Ukraine:

l  ‘Europe, built up by Washington on an anti-russian foundation, is harmed more than the rest by the reckless sanctions, it empties its own arsenal by supplying its weaponry to Kyiv and not demanding any accounting on who is in control and where that weaponry goes from then on’;

l  ‘the European Union frees up its market to buy American military produce and expensive diluted American gas instead of affordable russian gas’.

In such a way, the manipulative thoughts of the head of russian diplomacy can be interpreted as:

l  attempts to convince one that the accusations against russia regarding its war crimes and missile terror are artificial;

l  interpretation of any further violent crimes of russia as ‘provocative staging executed by the West’;

l  justification of russian aggression based on previous military conflicts in which NATO took part, saying, ‘if the West can do it, russia can do it, too’;

l  announcement of potential chemical and biological directions of russian aggression, with the West being accused in advance;

l  non-recognition of the national sovereignty of Ukraine and the impossibility of an agreement on any guarantees by russia of the territorial integrity of our state;

l  kremlin’s desire for the whole world to come to terms with its territorial ambitions and proposal to negotiate the redistribution of global influence while russia still has a margin of safety.