Lavrov's Munich Q&A With NATO Bootlickers Was Brilliant
Lavrov was firing on all cylinders at the Munich Security Conference
The speeches given at yesterday's Munich Security Conference were frankly too depressing and cynical to write about. John Kerry, for example, accused Russia of "repeated aggression" and bombing "legitimate opposition groups" in Syria.
Instead we'll focus on Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's Q&A session with a room full of (mostly) hostile NATO bootlickers. Results were predictable. One of our favorite exchanges:
Question: I understand all the above-mentioned problems in relation to the United States and missile defense. Besides the fact that according to the INF, Russia equates drones to cruise missiles, I would like to note that the US President Obama had significantly reduced European missile defense. If there are problems in relation to the United States, why should Ukraine pay for it? Referring to the annexation of Crimea and attempts to divide Ukraine. What did the poor Ukrainians do that you punish them for the sins of the Americans?
Lavrov: I understand that you have, of course, a twisted perception...It was not us who pulled out of the Missile Defense Treaty. It was not us who refused to ratify the adapted CFE Treaty. Now we need to collect bit by bit what we still have left and somehow based on the reconfirmation of the Helsinki principles to negotiate a new security system, which would be comfortable for everyone, including Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova - all, whom our American colleagues had put before a choice: to move towards the West and to reduce cooperation with Russia. It is a fact.
I am aware that American ambassadors around the world receive such instructions. I see here A. Vershbow, who recently gave an interview, calling NATO "the most peaceful bloc in the world" and "the hope of the European stability and security." And who bombed Yugoslavia, Libya, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions? The achievements brought by unilateral actions we are seeing now in the Middle East. We want NATO to not be just an exemplary organization, which it is presented as, but a participant in equal dialogue for stability. What's wrong with that? Everyone wants us to recognize a subordinate role of all others in relation to the United States and NATO. I don't think it is in the interests of world peace and stability.
Click here for our commenting guidelines