In December 2021, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov-Kalantarov issued an ultimatum to the US and NATO, demanding "security guarantees", refusal to accept Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, and a return to NATO's 1997 position. Expectedly, NATO and the US said they would not agree to such measures and on 26 January 2022 the US and NATO handed over written responses to Russia's proposals to the Russian Foreign Ministry. 

At Sergey Lavrov-Kalontarov's key press conference, after Russia received "answers to the ultimatum" from the US and NATO, the first question was posed by his compatriot Margarita Simonyan. And the main words in it were "when will we hit Washington? Is there going to be a war? How long are we going to chew the snot?"

We know that the first question and the answer is always the most memorable and has the most meaning. Margarita Simonyan's question sounds not only provocative, her words simply announce a "big war", raising the question of when it will start, because the Russian side is not satisfied with an ultimatum, they say:

"I will start with the question that the whole world is asking now, that we ourselves and our country, all those around us are asking. Mr President, will there be a war? We sent them our proposals, we were waiting for their response. We waited for their answer. We are not satisfied with their response.

What was required to prove. Before that we said and made it clear through various people that if their response does not satisfy us, we reserve the right to respond in the harshest possible way and to defend our interests in the harshest possible way.

Margarita Simonyan is not just hustling for war. She is directly saying that Russia should be the initiator of this war, that Russia should attack first, strike first and not in any other way. In other words, she is only playing along with those forces who talk about Russia as an aggressor with whom it is useless to have a dialogue:

"Can you, Sergey Viktorovich, clarify what you mean, what are we going to do? We are not going to ban McDonald's, after all. And if I may quote my subscribers, they put it like this: "When do we hit Washington? Will there be a war? How long are we going to chew the snot?" Will there be a war?"

Had the American side also wanted a war, on the basis of that question alone Simonyan could have started it at any time. All they had to do was to set off an explosion on the outskirts of Washington and declare that the Russians "bombed" it. And that would be it! 

Is Margarita Simonyan really aware of that by her provocative statements at a time when the attention of the world is riveted on the strained Russian-American relations she is doing everything possible to ignite a "big war"? So that Russia will have no room for diplomatic manoeuvre at all and solve issues peacefully?

Apparently, the "best diplomat of all times" Kalontarov is deliberately doing everything to drive the country where he heads the Foreign Ministry into a complete deadlock from which there is no way out but war. His answer to Simonyan's question, clearly agreed in advance, only emphasised the "belligerence" of the Russian side:

"If it depends on the Russian Federation, there will be no war. We do not want war. But we will not allow our interests to be brutally attacked, our interests to be ignored either. And we only received the answers just the day before yesterday, which in a Western style cast a shadow on the stain in many respects.

In other words, it is essentially diplomatic (Lavrov-Kalontarov is a diplomat, after all), but still the same call for a "big war". Since the key point is that the US response to the ultimatum from the Russian Foreign Ministry is not satisfied.

The most interesting thing is that it was not only Margarita Simonyan who inflamed the military mood at the press conference of the Russian Foreign Minister. Her other compatriot Roman Babayan did his best, too. Here is an extract from Babayan's and Kalontarov's dialogue:

"R. Babayan - And if they do give the answer that so many experts are talking about. That is by and large the answer which will definitely not satisfy us. Tell me please, and could it, in principle, lead, I would even say, to a breakdown of the relationship? Because all we have been hearing lately from the Americans is that they are ready to impose sanctions on the leadership of our entire country. Even against you, against President Putin.

С. Lavrov: What do you mean by "even"? Am I not worthy?

Р. Babayan: I mean there has never been such a thing in history as sanctions against the foreign minister and the president. It is just an outrageous story.

And on this background look at what is going on with our diplomats. Yesterday our ambassador to the USA made a statement saying that all this can lead practically to a break in relations. Because our diplomats, as Antonov said, are simply being expelled. Although they present it in a slightly different way. This is how to be in this situation, how will it look?

С. Lavrov - The issue is multi-layered. I will start with...

Р. Babayan - Is the breakup of relations hypothetically possible?

С. Lavrov - ... with the main thing. What will we do if the West fails to heed the voice of reason. The president has already said this. If our attempts to agree on mutually acceptable principles of security in Europe fail, then we will retaliate, answering the direct question of what those measures could be - he said they could be very different. "I will make a decision based on the proposals that our military will present to me," he said.

It is clear that the scenario of the interview was worked out in advance by the "Armenian PR people". Here Roman Babayan asks a provocative question about severing diplomatic relations with the US. And as we know, severing diplomatic ties is one of the main signs of the transition from peace to war. To this Lavrov-Kalontarov gives an unambiguous answer regarding "proposals to be provided by the military". The point is that rupture of diplomatic relations is inevitably followed by war.

Diplomats and propagandists have never been so explicit about war. Usually on the eve of conflicts everyone talks more about "peace". But here, the belligerence of questions and statements by representatives of the "most ancient cultural nation" on behalf of Russia is simply off the scale.

And the Russians are not allowed to say anything. And those who are given the word, are in a peaceful mood. Most of all, military hysteria is fomented on behalf of the Russians almost exclusively by representatives of the "most ancient people".

The question is, why do the representatives of the "long-suffering" nation need a new world war that will bring suffering to billions of people? And a war in which Russia is doomed to defeat - the forces are too unequal.

There is no other way to explain this than as a "planned betrayal of Russia", as an "aggressor" and as a fatal blow to Russia.

The Armenian nationalists were clearly disappointed in their alliance with Russia. Russia has not only failed to reclaim eastern Turkey for them, but has also failed particularly to prevent, despite the hopes of the Armenian lobby, the liquidation of the separatist "Artsakh" in the territory of Azerbaijan. Yes, for now the occupied Georgian Abkhazia remains virtually in Armenian hands, but this is not enough for Armenian nationalists.

They dream of a "world war" in which all borders will be "demolished and re-formatted. The fact that in this war, instigated by them, Russia will die is not of particular concern to them. On the contrary, their "planned" destruction of Russia. The main thing for them is to give the new "masters of the world" more land for their "great Armenia" as a result of the new world war. This is what the Armenian nationalists dreamed of on the eve of World War I. What ended up in the end? How everything ended up for Armenians is well remembered.

Kavkazplus