Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview for Zvezda Channel documentary marking Sergey Shoigu’s 70th birthday, Moscow, May 21, 2025

Question: We tend to divide military profession and the art of diplomacy. But some people are military diplomats. What does it involve and how is it practiced?

Sergey Lavrov: There is a profession of military diplomats. Most of our embassies have defence attaché offices led by a military attaché. There are also air force and naval attachés in large allied countries (the latter only if it is a naval power). These offices have their own staff, deputy attachés and officers, whose task is to promote military ties. In accordance with the Foreign Ministry rules, these offices are part of embassies.

Therefore, ties between military and civilian diplomats are nothing new, especially since the maxim that the army and the navy are Russia’s best allies (we also have aerospace and many other forces now) has proved to be undeniably true. At some stage in the 1990s, many of our politicians, who had specific views, thought that the time of affluence had arrived, and that the factor of hard power had moved to a back seat in international affairs or disappeared altogether. This is not so, as we can see now.

Therefore, a combination of efforts by our military personnel, who ensure the country’s security on the battlefield, our military diplomats, who conduct difficult negotiations with their colleagues (often behind closed doors), and civilian diplomats is an earnest of success for the states that want to be respected on the international stage, to achieve their goals and ensure their legitimate interests.

Question: Can you tell us about Sergey Shoigu’s role in developing our military diplomacy?

Sergey Lavrov: Sergey Shoigu actively interacted with his partners when he was defence minister. Of course, his focus was on our allies within the CSTO and other CIS countries. He held regular events at the level of the Defence Ministry, which had a wide response and won popularity, like the international conferences that were attended by dozens of defence ministers and their deputies in the 1980−1990s. I addressed each of these major international events. We also convened the Army forum and held annual military sports contests. Our tank biathlon was extremely popular with many foreign partners, including in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Our annual exhibitions attracted considerable attention. All that is part of military diplomacy, which aims to show what your army can do and how its experience can be shared to mutual advantage on the basis of allied relations.

The current active phase of the special military operation is an opportunity to demonstrate, due to force of circumstances, what we can do and what we have at our disposal. As President Vladimir Putin said, we were provoked for a long time, but we tried hard to the last possible moment to promote a solution that would suit the security interests of all European countries, also using military diplomacy methods, because back in December 2021 negotiations were held by the combined teams of foreign and defence ministry representatives. But they refused to listen. And we saw, as President Putin said, that the mood that existed within our leadership until February 2022, when we hoped that the West would be honest with us, would not be revived. In February 2022, we finally realised that we must fend for ourselves.

Of course, the combat ability of the army at that time was crucial for the decision the President Putin was compelled to make. As he has recently said in an interview, our army was hardly ready for such actions in 2014.

So, our actions on the battlefield are a demonstration of what we are able and ready to do, what we have at our disposal, and what we have achieved over the past years and decades. The interest our partners have shown is proof of our achievements and shows that they are considerable.

Question: Could you say a few words about the role of Sergey Shoigu’s personality in establishing contacts with his colleagues from other states?

Sergey Lavrov: Sergey Shoigu is quite sociable and knows how to get along with other people. For obvious reasons, I did not attend his in-person talks with foreign defence ministers. But we maintained the 2 + 2 format involving foreign and defence ministers for a long time. This format was widely used between 2013 and 2021. Sergey Shoigu and I held about a dozen meetings involving our counterparts from the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, Italy, India, Brazil and Egypt. At least these are the ones that come to mind.

This is a rather interesting type of military-diplomatic activity. First of all, it is diplomatic work because it involves negotiations. But with a strong military component, which foreign and defence ministers review during an open discussion. Sergey Shoigu always displayed an in-depth knowledge of issues linked with the development of Russia’s armed forces, as well as goals set by President of Russia Vladimir Putin in various policy documents.

Question: Could you recall the most interesting talks in in this 2+2 format when Sergey Shoigu revealed his personality?

Sergey Lavrov: This happened long ago, when we were negotiating with Western countries. Somewhere in the United States, the UK, probably in 2013 (Japan a bit later). That was quite outstanding… You know, our aides wrote everything down; various reports and accounts are available.

Question: Let us go back to the period, when he was in charge of the Emergencies Ministry. Yugoslavia was exposed to bombing attacks and we were trying to deliver humanitarian aid. The Russian Emergencies Ministry acquitted itself well at the time. Could you please recall how you were working with him on this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: Our acquaintance with him began due to this. In 1999, for the first time in postwar Europe, the West used brute force, including bombing raids on civilian facilities, against a European nation and OSCE member, thereby violating all norms of international law.  This was a watershed crime committed by our Western colleagues.

Today, they are alleging that Ukraine was the first to come under attack in the OSCE region. But they are lying. And they know this. There were no threats to the West coming from Serbia. No one built military infrastructure on the borders of Western countries. On the contrary, it was the West, in tandem with Ukraine, that did so right on our border. Therefore, this is on their conscience.

The attacks immediately produced a huge flow of refugees, with “clouds gathering” over them. It was clear to all that NATO would start its aggression. The Emergencies Ministry of Russia was active in evacuating Russian compatriots and Russian citizens from Serbia, where there was quite a few of them. Later, it helped to organise deliveries of humanitarian basics.

In that period, Mr Shoigu’s talent as a negotiator was revealed to the full. As is only natural, the evacuation was carried out by air as was the delivery of humanitarian aid. The Yugoslavian airspace was controlled by the West and so we had to maintain direct contacts with them. 

I was Russia’s Permanent Representative to the UN in New York at the time and he headed the Emergencies Ministry of Russia. So, we established a contact as officials without being acquainted with each other. We worked through the UN Security Council to coordinate the essential decision-making on opening the airspace to humanitarian deliveries.   

The 70-day war was ended by the UN Security Council passing Resolution 1244 that outlined the principles for a settlement.  The West managed to “save face” by ending the war with at least one document. But they are not complying with the resolution, which says that Kosovo is a constituent entity of Serbia and that Serbia has the right to have a police force and customs officers in its territory.  All of this is categorically rejected by the West in violation of the UN Security Council’s decisions.  

In 2004, the Kosovo Albanians, who were being egged on by the West, attacked local Serbs and Orthodox Christian shrines, wreaking havoc in their path. There was again a huge number of refugees.  The Emergencies Ministry of Russia was helping them as well. This time, however, it was delivering tents, power generators, water purification appliances, etc. – all that was necessary for well-appointed human life – rather than some elementary everyday necessities.  In 2008−2011 (as I recall, I already had a job in Moscow), we coordinated those operations from here. There were also two large companies specialising in humanitarian deliveries.

After the Western aggression came to an end and a state of equilibrium, a status quo, was established, the Shoigu-led Emergencies Ministry participated in a years-long demining programme. (I can’t even remember now how long it took.)  But they processed over 5 million square kilometers, lifting about 15,000 explosive devices. So, this is also a specific contribution to our cooperation with Serbia in fighting natural calamities and emergencies.  

In 2012, he came up with an initiative to establish a Russian-Serbian Humanitarian Centre in the city of Nish. The centre operates to this day as a base for Russian and Serbian rescuers.  Its services are highly relevant in the face of natural calamities, particularly fires, which occur in Europe every summer.  

Question: This hospital was swiftly deployed and subsequently transferred.

However, while the Serbian people are close and fraternal to us, they have not lived on a shared territory with us. There were also conflicts in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, where Sergey Shoigu likewise undertook the role of negotiator. In your view, how challenging was this for him, and how complex a task does this represent?

Sergey Lavrov: The task was of the utmost complexity. To what extent it proved arduous for him, I cannot say, as he fulfilled these duties with efficacy.

Regarding South Ossetia and Abkhazia (during 1992–1993), specialised negotiating mechanisms were established. For South Ossetia, this took the form of a Joint Control Commission, co-chaired by Sergey Shoigu. In the case of Abkhazia, a joint commission was created, where he also served as co-chairman.

In South Ossetia, peacekeeping forces were deployed. These contingents, broadly speaking, operated both formally and substantively within the framework of his mandate. The peacekeeping battalions – one from each of Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia – performed their duties with fluctuating success but nonetheless ensured relative stability. This equilibrium was shattered by the aggression against South Ossetia unleashed by Mikheil Saakashvili in 2008, when his NATO patrons assured him of eventual membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. This, as they say, “addled his wits.”

Sergey Shoigu combined the roles of rescuer, humanitarian aid coordinator, and negotiator in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He cultivated personal rapport with the leaders who, during those years, advanced aspirations for independence. These initiatives, however, lacked broad-based support among the populations of what are now sovereign republics.

Question: This was the parade of sovereignties.

Turning to the present day and the Russian Federation Security Council: which avenues within its foreign policy activities would you classify as priorities? What role do Mr Shoigu’s personal qualities play in these endeavours?

Sergey Lavrov: The Security Council’s operational priorities are determined by the President of the Russian Federation. No primary or secondary directions exist there; rather, a comprehensive approach is applied to all aspects safeguarding security, principally in the context of protecting the interests of the individual, society, and state from external and internal threats alike.

For evident reasons, internal threats received particular emphasis during the initial years of Vladimir Putin’s presidency, given the condition in which Russia then found itself and the illusory hopes pinned on the “benefits” of the civilised world, into which we were ostensibly welcomed. Yet at this juncture, with Russia having resolved its internal challenges of unity and the people (excluding those now residing far abroad) fully endorsing the course of returning to our roots, traditions, and strengthening the cohesion of all peoples within our multinational state, we have come to embody risks to Western dominance. Considering developments of recent decades, objectively, external threats now pose greater peril, as the West has resolved to eliminate a competitor that has become stronger.

Yet the West, true to form, lacks foresight. It failed to anticipate (though history and the character of our people should have forewarned it) that reducing Russia to an object of hybrid warfare in the hope of dismantling our state would instead fortify both state and society – as indeed transpired. As the adage goes, they refuse to learn from their mistakes. All the more so as they now deploy overtly Nazi threats against us, beneath Nazi banners, once again marshalling nearly all Europe to “vanquish” us.

Thus, the Security Council addresses all such matters. The individual serving as Secretary of the Security Council, overseeing its apparatus, executes the direct instructions of the President, who in turn evaluates the performance of those discharging these duties.

Question: What personal qualities of Sergei Shoigu are most vividly manifested there?

Sergey Lavrov: Sergei Shoigu is one of the longest-serving public figures without any exaggeration. He has held public office since 1990. Therefore, he has a lot of qualities. He has huge experience in peacekeeping (as we talked about it, it was in the South Caucasus), in military affairs and military construction, as well as in construction in general. Because he is also a builder by vocation, in the broadest sense of the word. This experience, combined with the large number of issues that he has addressed on the world arena as part of international military cooperation, is important for a clear, flawless fulfilment of the functions arising from this position.  This is one of the main positions in our country for the implementation of the President's decisions in both domestic and international affairs.

Question: Do established personal relations with foreign partners, contacts, sympathies and understanding make a difference?

Sergey Lavrov: Maybe it makes some difference to them. The most important thing for us is that we state our position in a way understandable to them, so that it really ensures that they understand our interests as we see them.

The ability to clearly state what we want, and to do it politely and clearly, is a feature of any politician. We don't even have to talk separately about diplomats, military or civilians. It is a feature, lacking which a politician will not be successful.

Question: Together with Mr Shoigu, you have been and continue to be responsible for the most important components of our state's activities. Is it at all possible to cover the scale of the topics within Sergei Shoigu's area of competence and responsibility?

Sergey Lavrov: I have just said that the area of competence of the Security Council, headed by the President, and therefore the direction and guidance for the Secretary and his staff, is to secure the interests and defence of the individual, society and the state against all internal and external threats. This is defined by the President, not me. It is contained in the documents describing the Security Council's functions and tasks. 

Question: How would you personally describe or expand on the following list: Sergey Shoigu is an official, a politician, a builder, or someone else entirely?

Sergey Lavrov: We’ve just talked about that. He’s a military leader, a statesman, a builder, without question, and a rescuer. He built the Emergencies Ministry from scratch. He’s a military diplomat as well. I’ve shared previously how we worked together on military and civilian diplomacy. He is a multifaceted figure - broadly educated and driven by sound ambitions.

Question: There are T-shirts and toys that can be ordered online that read “If you don’t want to talk to Lavrov, you’ll have to deal with Shoigu.” How do you explain the public’s tendency to see the two of you as a duo?

Sergey Lavrov: I honestly don’t know. We don’t earn anything from those T-shirts, and we don’t want to, either.

No point denying it, it’s flattering when people recognise and support you. I think the explanation lies in something we’ve already discussed. After we reestablished national unity, the country began developing rapidly. The West increasingly viewed strong Russia as a threat. A capable military and a firm - yet coherent - foreign policy came to the forefront. That’s just how history unfolded.

Question: You said earlier that your first joint work with Sergey Shoigu was during the Yugoslav conflict. When and under what circumstances did you first meet in person? What was your impression of him?

Sergey Lavrov: Mr Shoigu once visited New York while I was stationed there. They arrived in the evening. Our delegation, including my deputies, had dinner with them. We had a conversation, got to know each other, and outlined some future plans. That’s how we met. From then on, we kept in touch either by phone or via encrypted correspondence. Later, when I returned to Moscow, we worked closely together across many areas.

Towards the end of my time in New York, Iraq became another pressing issue that involved our Emergencies Ministry. Before the US and the UK launched their intervention, Iraq was under sanctions and couldn’t legally export oil. So, from the late 1990s until early 2003 there was an “oil-for-food programme” which operated under international oversight. Iraq was selling a certain amount of oil in exchange for food. Our Emergencies Ministry was involved in delivering this aid. So, our paths often intersected. Once I resumed work in Russia, by President Putin’s decision, we’ve been in contact practically every day.

Question: In your view, which of Sergey Shoigu’s personal qualities (please elaborate in detail) have enabled him to carry out key state responsibilities for so many years?

Sergey Lavrov: I’ve covered this before. He has vast experience, a broad worldview, strong willpower, and the ability to build and lead a team decisively to achieve results.

At the same time, we continue to have many opportunities to spend free time together with our friends, playing sports. I play football, he plays hockey.

Sergey Shoigu is involved in public life, especially through the Russian Geographical Society, to which he devotes significant time and energy. That includes launching a television channel and other initiatives to promote knowledge about our country. This work hit the mark, especially when the pandemic broke out. That was followed by the sanctions and the suspension of air travel to the West. Look at the surge in domestic tourism. That interest hasn’t waned. Much of that is due to the educational efforts carried out by the Russian Geographical Society, both past and ongoing.

It’s this blend of professional and personal qualities that enables Mr Shoigu to succeed wherever he’s called to serve, as we see clearly today.