Ladies and gentlemen,
The G20 summit is coming to an end today. This is the culmination of Brazil’s presidency of the G20. She led it throughout the year, held (as it usually happens) a large number of events. I believe that important positive results and significant agreements have been reached.
The creation of a new coordination structure, the Global Alliance to Fight Hunger and Poverty, was supported. This is a personal initiative of President of Brazil Lula da Silva. Its goal is to accelerate progress towards the complete eradication of hunger, as required by the Sustainable Development Goals–-which have long been approved, but are practically not being implemented, although this must be done by 2030.
Russia has joined this mechanism. We have already reported that we are introducing our best practices embodied in programs of assistance to developing countries into the package of projects that will be implemented under the auspices of the alliance. We are talking about school feeding programs and the development of farms. Alliance members are called upon to transfer to developing countries the appropriate technologies, experience, and methods that allow them to be more self-reliant.
We reaffirmed our principled position that the G20 is, first and foremost, an economic forum. This is what it was created for. Its goal was a substantive economic dialogue between the “developed” and “developing” economies in order to find the best ways to develop the world economy in the interests of all, to overcome poverty and inequality, and to ensure the most effective functioning of all multilateral institutions.
The G20 should be based on the principles of the UN Charter. And first of all, on the principle of sovereign equality of the state. This has never happened in Western policy. They have never respected sovereign equality. Now this makes life happen, given that the BRICS countries and other states cooperating with the association are growing at a much faster pace. In any case, the UN Charter is the basis of all international cooperation in all areas. It is necessary to apply its principles, not choosing from a “menu”, as the West likes to do, but in their entirety and interconnection.
The Declaration was adopted. This is a comprehensive document. The main thing is that it recognises modern realities and is subordinated to the main, central task of building international relations based on multilateralism, pluralism, and the elimination of all forms of inequality both between and within states. Many have noted (including us) that inequalities and the challenges of ending hunger and poverty are increasingly relevant to developed countries, where the number of people living below the poverty line is increasing. These forms of inequality in the international arena are the result of the colonial and neocolonial practices of our Western “colleagues” and, in general, the dominance of the West, which lasted for several centuries.
The text of the Declaration, despite the fact that the majority insisted on its preservation exclusively within the framework of the economic agenda, includes a small section dealing with the geopolitical situation in terms of conflicts in various parts of the world. We agreed to this in the same way as we agreed to the same “denouement” in the Declaration of last year’s G20 summit in New Delhi. The West, of course, tried to Ukrainize the entire agenda. He did not succeed. None of the countries of the World Majority supported them. Both we and our colleagues from the developing world insisted that the text be devoted to the need to resolve each and every conflict that currently persists on the globe, first of all, the conflict in the Middle East. The tragic fate of the Palestinians is largely the result of social engineering and direct interference in the Middle East, which Washington practices with the support of its allies. There is also a paragraph on Ukraine, which we agreed with, because the main idea in it is a call for an honest and reasonable conversation about peace on realistic grounds.
I would like to note an important circumstance regarding the UN Charter (I spoke about this a little earlier). There is a paragraph in the Declaration (this section begins with it) that generically demands that conflicts be dealt with on a fair basis and that a peaceful solution be sought on the basis of international law – the UN Charter in its entirety. This is fundamentally important. If this is projected onto the Ukrainian situation, then the West sees in the Charter only the principle of territorial integrity. He wants and dreams of returning to Ukraine all the territories up to the borders of 1991 – the lands where Russian people have lived for centuries and whose rights were legally exterminated by the Nazi regime of Vladimir Zelensky. They do not want to pay attention to this, although in another part of the Charter (in the first article) it is clearly stated about the need to respect human rights regardless of race, sex, language and religion. The rights of Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine as far as language and religion are concerned have been exterminated by law. The West is still saying no, let it remain, because Vladimir Zelensky is defending “European values.” Give them these territories with these people, let him deal with them further. Disgrace.
If we return to the economic agenda, the main issue (apart from the fight against hunger, poverty and inequality) is the reform of global institutions. Most delegations of the Global South noted the dominance of Western players in these structures, which cannot claim their exceptionalism, firstly, for moral reasons, and, secondly, for reasons of modern realities.
The world is changing dramatically. Over the past few decades, it has acquired a new “face”. We have repeatedly cited figures. The BRICS account for 37% of the world economy, the G7 has fallen below 30%. This gap continues to grow. Because the growth rate of the BRICS countries at the moment averages 4%, and the average growth rate of the G7 countries is half that.
We remember how the BRICS summit was held in Kazan on October 22-24 of this year. According to the assessments voiced here, it has demonstrated that the association has matured to form an independent toolkit that would not depend on the West. This refers to payment, settlement, clearing, investment, exchange and other mechanisms. This work has begun. It was mentioned today.
No one wants to close the “instruments” that operate in the post-war world order – the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organisation. But given the big problems associated with the fact that the West, which controls them, is abusing its positions, the parallel creation of the toolkit that I have mentioned makes sense.
The BRICS countries in the G20 are increasing their role and influence. This was evident at the New Delhi summit in 2023 and in Indonesia in 2022. The strengthening of the position of BRICS was facilitated by the fact that, following the decision of last year’s summit, the African Union joined the G20 as a full member. This time, the Brazilian presidency invited the President of the New Development Bank, created at the initiative of BRICS, and the leadership of the League of Arab States, among other participants in the summit.
The Declaration reaffirms that it is necessary to raise and strengthen the voice of the countries of the world majority in all leading political and economic bodies, from the UN Security Council to the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and to revive the full-fledged activities of the World Trade Organisation, where the dispute settlement body (the main body of the WTO) is blocked and cannot perform its functions because the Americans have taken it hostage through procedural tricks.
At the IMF and the World Bank, countries in the Global South, with the support of the Russian Federation, have been working for years to increase their share of quotas and votes in a way that reflects their real weight in the world economy. We have once again recorded this slogan in the G20 declaration. All our previous attempts to adopt such calls ended in vain, because the West, having subscribed to this fair thesis, is doing everything in practical terms to ensure that it remains only on paper.
I spoke twice on the reform of global institutions and on food security issues. I briefed my colleagues on our country’s work to implement President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership with the participation of the EAEU, the SCO, ASEAN and other associations on our continent. We consider this as a material basis for the formation of a new Eurasian security architecture open to all countries of the continent.
It has shown our contribution to solving the problems of food and energy security, where we (this is confirmed by statistics) are reliable and leading suppliers. This is not all that Russia has to offer to the countries of the Global South. In practice, we are establishing close cooperation with them in many other areas, including sophisticated, effective information and communication technology products that are of Russian origin and are increasingly of interest to our partners in Africa, Asia and Latin America.
I would like to note that the success of Brazil’s watch over this year builds on the positive results of the G20’s work at previous summits in Indonesia in 2022 and in India in 2023.
This BRICS “watch” will last another year. Our South African colleagues have already stated their priorities – they intend to promote the agenda of reforming global institutions (as I have just mentioned) and building capacity in the field of sustainable development with an emphasis on the fight against poverty, hunger and inequality. For obvious reasons, South Africa will pay special attention to the problems of the African continent, and in our dialogue with Africa within the framework of the Partnership Forum, which was established by the decision of the Russian-African summit in St Petersburg in 2023 and which we launched two weeks ago in Sochi at the first ministerial conference between Russia and African states, we will take into account the work of our South African friends in this area. This will be working, informal, but useful coordination.
Q: You started by saying that you supported Brazil’s initiative to create a global Alliance against Poverty and Hunger. Can you tell us more about it? How do Russia and Brazil, including as BRICS partners, intend to strengthen this contribution to global food security, and how, most importantly, does the West speculate on this topic?
Sergey Lavrov: The West is constantly speculating on this. They have such a way of “twisting” everything in such a way that it turns out that someone else is to blame, and not Western countries.
As for food security, President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly cited the example of feverish, ill-conceived emission during the pandemic, when the United States and the European Union together printed about $10 trillion and euros and began to buy everything that is on the market with this money. This is how they prepared for periods of isolation, so that there was food, etc.
For our part, we have always met the needs of developing countries. Even now, when we are being prevented from using Western ports for the export of our fertilizers, grain, wheat and other grains. Insurance companies have “raised” the rates “to the sky”. Lloyds has declared the entire territory and all ports of the Russian Federation a war zone. They just took and officially wrote to everyone who cooperates with them. And this automatically doubles, triples, quadruples insurance rates.
Of course, many other obstacles have been and are being put in our way. They arrested our fertilizers. In other words, they closed us normal, efficient, optimal ways to export our products that the Global South needs. They accused us of this because “the Russians started the war.” This is clear to everyone. Not serious, especially for people who seem to look adult, but continue to promote their theses, and without blushing. This also surprises me very much.
The very idea of the Alliance (more than 80 countries have signed this document, Russia was one of the first to support this initiative) is that, bearing in mind the Sustainable Development Goals (in this particular case, the goal is to eradicate hunger and poverty by 2030), all participants should help to contribute in whatever way they can to accelerate and advance this goal.
To reiterate, we have many years of experience, including in bilateral cooperation. A programme to provide school meals is being developed, first of all, to our neighbours in Central Asia, as well as in other parts of the world – in Africa and Latin America.
We have projects to support farms, transfer modern technologies to them. Farming in Russia is developing quickly and efficiently. Evidence of this is the harvest data. Every year it pleases all of us and allows us to export a lot. And so is every country. Someone has experience in other areas. We can contribute.
Our Algerian friends said that they needed fertilizers. In June 2023, President of Algeria Abdelf Tebboune visited Moscow. He said that they would buy them from us, but they would prefer Russia to establish production in their country.
Each country that signed the Declaration on the Creation of the Alliance has the opportunity to contribute in some way, including through the World Food Program, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and other structures. Their leaders attended the meeting dedicated to the creation of the Alliance. This is a useful undertaking. I am sure that the Brazilians, as the authors of this idea, will not let it take its course and will constantly engage in its practical implementation. We will support them in this.
Question: How did you coordinate the wording of the Declaration on the situation in the Middle East?
Sergey Lavrov: Of course, the West was reluctant to discuss this text, but it was well aware that without it there can be no section on conflicts. They tried to put a detailed paragraph full of assessments, emphasizing the tragic, catastrophic situation of the population of Gaza, after the Ukrainian population. Here even we did not have to emphasize the rejection of manipulation and “juggling”. The countries of the Global South categorically refused to downplay the importance of the G20 having to pay attention to the tragedy of the Gaza Strip in the first place.
In the document before the Palestinian paragraph and the Ukrainian one that follows it, there is a general section on how to act in all conflicts, and what tasks should be set to resolve them. It clearly states the categorical rejection of civilian casualties and strikes on civilian infrastructure. This is a very interesting circumstance. The number of Palestinian civilian casualties (children, the elderly, women) in one year of Israel’s operation in Palestine is more than 40,000 people, which is almost twice as much as the number of civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine in the 10 years after the coup d’état. A year and 10 years are almost twice as long. This alone shows what is happening in Palestine and how to counter it.
The general paragraph notes that it is unacceptable to cause damage to civilian infrastructure. In the Gaza Strip, dozens of hospitals and dozens of residential buildings are destroyed every day. All this is posted on social networks. The West in the UN Security Council is still “slowing down” the tough demand to stop the violence.
Civilian infrastructure is also interesting in the sense that it includes Nord Streams. This will help us in the practical work that we are continuing, first of all, for a transparent investigation, which is still being carried out by Germany alone, and secondly, so that the international community can also look at it.
Question: You have already partially mentioned reforming the institutions of global governance. In your opinion, what are the interests of the countries? To what extent are the changes declared at the end of the first day of the summit relevant and comprehensive?
Sergey Lavrov: These results have already been reflected in the Declaration. They are relevant and comprehensive.
As for the reforms of global governance institutions. In the political part, the UN Security Council is mentioned. This is a well-known topic that requires, if not full consensus, then broad general agreement in the world Organization.
The UN Charter allows for voting. If two-thirds of the votes are cast, then such a reform will be considered legitimate. The trouble is that for the one-third that is not yet ready for certain models of reform, the UN Security Council that is voted on will be less legitimate. That’s the problem. There are countries that categorically do not want new states to be added to the list of permanent members. And there are those that demand that it is the new permanent members that are considered as a priority.
As you know, we support India and Brazil. They have explicitly stated their desire to run for permanent membership. In order to be fair, it is imperative to take into account African interests in the same capacity.
The West wants to slowly “drag out” this process, although in words it declares that it is necessary to expand. The Americans have already stated that they support India, Germany and Japan. Why are Germany and Japan there when they will not bring any added value to the UN Security Council? They simply repeat in unison everything that Washington says. The West is already overrepresented: six of the fifteen members are Western countries. If Japan is elected, it turns out to be seven out of fifteen. Too unfair.
In the economic and financial sphere, it is the IMF. There, the reform of quotas and votes has been delayed for more than a year. This shows the unwillingness of the United States to put up with economic realities and its desire to at least “slow down” or even block the process of forming a multipolar world in such a way that this world does not depend on one hegemon, which has the IMF, the World Bank, the dollar and the WTO in its hands.
The BRICS are in the process of creating their infrastructure not against the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO, but in parallel with them. In the meantime, we will continue to push for just reforms.
In the WTO, the dispute settlement body has been blocked by the Americans for more than one year. They simply do not allow the necessary number of experts to be elected to this body so that there is a quorum. It cannot work according to the existing rules in the WTO.
They began to block the operation of this mechanism when they saw that China was simply “overtaking” them. Moreover, it is doing this in the very “field of globalization” that the Americans themselves created. By playing by the rules created by the Americans, the Chinese economy has proven that it is more efficient. At that time, tricks were used to block the work of the dispute settlement body, because China sent relevant lawsuits there in accordance with the rules.
More and more aggressive protectionism began to be applied. Now Europe is imposing exorbitant duties on Chinese products (electric cars). The Americans are doing the same. At the same time, a person like Ursula von der Leyen has publicly stated that they are doing this because the Chinese have electric cars that are too cheap, and Western manufacturers will suffer from this. Is this fair competition? Competition is precisely about producing cheaper goods for which there is a demand. This is exactly what China is doing. But the “gentlemen bosses” in the European Union do not think so. In principle, they think little about their consumers. This was also manifested in the way Westerners solve food problems. They accuse us of all mortal sins, that we “starve” developing countries. At the same time, they are buying Ukrainian grain, which is already a third produced on land bought up by American corporations. Not so long ago, there were protests by farmers because prices fell. Cheap and not always high-quality Ukrainian grain at low prices, they say, it is normal to buy, it’s okay, and cheap Chinese electric cars are not allowed.
The European Union is going through a deep crisis, including a conceptual one. More and more capitals do not want to listen to Brussels, where bureaucrats are “settled” who are not elected by anyone and are concerned only with implementing the policies that the United States needs in Europe. One result has been more expensive electricity. Prices for it in Europe are 3-4 times higher than in the United States. This leads to deindustrialization. The business is moving mainly to America. A lot of facts. Who would talk about energy and food security with an angry gaze turned to Russia, but not the European Union.
Question: At the summit, did you discuss with representatives of other states (Western or friendly) the notorious permission of the Americans to fire long-range missiles at our territory? If so, what opinions did you listen to? In your opinion, why, despite the permission and the discussion that it exists, neither the American leader nor the US Secretary of State have officially announced this decision?
The strikes were carried out on the Bryansk region by six ATACMS missiles. Their exact modification is still unknown. In your opinion, what was it? Is this related to discussions of this resolution?
Sergey Lavrov: How can I know that what the New York Times has published is true or an attempt to test the waters? I don’t know. The fact that ATACMS was repeatedly used in the Bryansk region tonight is a signal that they want an escalation. Without the Americans, it is impossible to use these high-tech missiles. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has spoken about this many times and warned about how our position will change if this range (up to 300 kilometres), which they are now talking about, is approved.
In fact, this is not an “approval” for Ukraine to use long-range missiles, but an announcement that they will now hit up to 300 kilometers. I can’t confirm this, because everyone writes about it as if it were a done deal.
The head of EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell, said that this was “already official.” The Europeans discussed and decided that everyone would decide for themselves whether to allow the Ukrainians to use their long-range weapons.
I won’t guess about it. Today, we have officially published the Fundamentals of the Nuclear Doctrine of the Russian Federation. Everything is confirmed there and has already been enshrined in law. President Vladimir Putin announced this publicly on September 12 of this year. I hope that this doctrine will be read, but not in the way they read the UN Charter, seeing only what they need, but in its entirety and interconnectedness.
Someone on the go, on the sidelines, asked me: is this true? I said that I did not know whether it was true or not.
We are engaged in ensuring our safety. Everything that those who are thinking about this need to know, we have officially said that President of Russia Vladimir Putin has replied that he has already enshrined it in an official document.
Question: The media are already discussing the fact that French President Emmanuel Macron ran up to you and shook your hand in the family photo. In your opinion, what are these Western “games” on camera?
Sergey Lavrov: If people know each other, and there are deep contradictions between them, the countries they represent, but somewhere these people collide in a public place, then I think it is absolutely normal to greet each other. I think it is not normal when many European leaders “shy away” from Russian representatives when they see them in the corridors, on the sidelines, in photographs.
In 2023 (I have already given this example) at the summit in India, we were waiting for the start of the event. I went into the hall where the participants were already gathering. Two African leaders were sitting at the same table with President of the European Council Charles Michel. I knew these presidents personally. They saw me, we greeted each other. As a polite person, I turned around and stretched out my hand to Charles Michel. And he jumped up as if stung and turned away. So, this is such an upbringing. This is the whole answer to this question.
Question: At the G20, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reiterated that Germany does not intend to supply Taurus missiles to Ukraine and allow them to strike deep into Russian territory. Given that Olaf Scholz refuses to follow in the footsteps of Joe Biden, Christopher Starmer and Emmanuel Macron, and the fact that he spoke with President of Russia Vladimir Putin (at the initiative of the German Chancellor), can we talk about a “split in the Western camp”?
Sergey Lavrov: We all see the same facts and analyse them both as diplomats and journalists. But as you rightly pointed out, if Federal Chancellor of Germany Olaf Scholz has this principled position (he has said it more than once), despite the fact that the Greens and someone else (Franz Merz, CDU) are pointing “critical arrows” at him and demanding such permission, I believe that this position of Olaf Scholz is a responsible position. It differs from the position of the British and French. This is also a fact.
Question: In your opinion, don’t you think that France’s aggressive policy, especially now, in particular in the context of the current events related to Russia, distracts the republic itself from important and pressing issues? Its resources and attention are diverted to important issues such as the fight against hunger and food security, and the potential of France, which could simply solve these issues now and not interfere with peace, is undermined.
Sergey Lavrov: It is more convenient for the French government and experts to discuss this topic. I can only quote French Minister of Economy and Finance Benjamin Le Maire. In August 2023, he “sounded the alarm” that energy prices in Europe are four times higher than in the United States. This is a characteristic of the price of supporting the Kyiv regime.
French President Emmanuel Macron is one of the most ardent supporters of the war, verbally and in practice, “until victory” over Russia, “until its strategic defeat.” Now in France, Ukrainian servicemen are completing their training, preparing an assault, shock brigade. In fact, they are directly involved in hostilities. The same applies to talk about the use of French SCALP missiles, which are identical to the British Storm Shadow.
We have seen a lot of reports from Paris, where not everything is so blissful, judging by how the streets look and how people come out with protests. I repeat, it is not for us to decide. We cannot make decisions for them. They have a constitution, laws, accumulated experience of popular protests and much more.
As for energy prices, the head of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, expressed herself in an interesting way. She said that American liquefied natural gas is cheaper than Russian gas. The experts laughed at her and began to ask questions to her press secretary. He replied (this is a brilliant answer) that she meant “cheaper” not economically, but politically. That is, she believes that buying Russian gas is politically expensive, because you earn yourself the “wrong” reputation. How can this be considered normal logic? They live somehow.
Question (retranslated from English): What is Russia’s attitude to the Brazilian-Chinese initiative to try to create a group of countries to discuss the peace process in Ukraine? The last meeting of the group took place in New York in September of this year, and since the elections were held in the United States, we have seen an escalation in Ukraine due to the decision of the United States to allow the use of longer-range missiles to destroy Russian territory. In these circumstances, what is Russia’s attitude to this initiative? Does it make sense for both countries to continue it?
Sergey Lavrov: We read about the US decision to allow the Ukrainian regime to use long-range missiles up to 300 kilometres in The New York Times. There is still no confirmation from either the White House or the Pentagon.
We take our position on the basis of what is happening on the ground. Obviously, ATACMS (less than 300 kilometers) was also used today in the Bryansk region, bordering Ukraine. We believe that this is happening. No modification of ATACMS can be used without American specialists and instructors, including satellite data, programming and guidance. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about this. If longer-range missiles are used from Ukraine on Russian territory, this will also mean that they are operated by American military specialists. We will perceive this as a qualitatively new phase of the West’s war against Russia. We will respond accordingly.
As for Donald Trump’s position on Ukraine. I can’t guess. He said he was a “president of peace” and not a “president of war.” People, politicians in particular, who say they prefer peace to war generally deserve support. It’s like Brazil and China, which want peace. We can only welcome this intention.
As for the practical activities of this “group of friends”. It met only once in September of this year. Now they plan to convene the first meeting in November this year in New York.
Yesterday I spoke with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. We will follow these events. We expect this group to take into account Chinese President Xi Jinping’s February 2023 initiative on global security, not on Ukraine or Palestine. This is a general approach to any conflict. One of the key rules formulated in this global security initiative is that in any conflict, it is first necessary to look for the root causes and concentrate on eliminating them.
Since China, together with Brazil, are co-authors of this “group of friends”, since it was the Chinese leader who initiated this global security document that insists on the need to address the root causes of any conflict, then China and Brazil will apply this to the Ukrainian initiative as well.
The root causes of the Ukrainian crisis are attempts to undermine Russia’s security interests by drawing Ukraine into NATO and building the alliance’s infrastructure on our borders. Second, in February 2014, the morning after the signing of the agreement between the then President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko [Oops, Lavrov misspoke] and the opposition, a coup d’état was staged. Germany, France, and Poland, who guaranteed the agreement when we told them they had to stop it, replied that sometimes “democracy takes unexpected turns.” Westerners supported the coup d’état. Since then, the regime, which came to power in an illegitimate way, has adopted a number of laws since 2017. This happened long before the special military operation became inevitable. Moreover, any Russian education, media, and Russia’s cultural presence in Ukraine were legally exterminated there. Recently, the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church was banned. All this contradicts the requirement of Article 1 of the UN Charter to respect human rights regardless of race, sex, language or religion. It is grossly and brazenly violated by the Kiev regime. The West, which cares about human rights, even when some biological diversity is discussed, does not stutter about this particular situation. When the regime they have nurtured does things that violate the fundamental interests of each person. Citizens of Ukraine are deprived of these rights. Most of them feel much more comfortable speaking Russian than any other.
When we draw the attention of the West to these unacceptable violations, they do not react at all. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen (whom I mention too often today) said that they should support Vladimir Zelensky because he defends “European values.” If European values are racism, which is what is happening with regard to Russian culture and people, then I am not too optimistic about the future of such a Europe.
We hope that the China-Brazil initiative will be taken into account. Because it mentions the need to comply with and be guided by the UN Charter. I discussed it with our friends. I hope that when they develop a roadmap (if this is planned), they will take into account the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interconnection. Otherwise, it will be a Western position.
When we discuss Ukraine, the West takes only one principle from the UN Charter – territorial integrity. They forget about the right of people to self-determination. It was this principle – respect for the right of a people to self-determination – that was the legal basis for decolonization. In fact, the colonial rulers did not represent the people they ruled. They exploited it, as well as the natural resources of the lands on which these people live. They decided that the Westerners were not their bosses. They want to be independent, to have rulers who would be acceptable to them. Something similar is happening in Ukraine. Because the current regime cannot represent the people whose language, culture, access to information, and religious rights they have legally exterminated.
I think that there is some similarity between decolonization and what the people of the East and South of Ukraine, Donbass and Novorossiya feel in relation to the Kiev regime. They do not accept its legality. He is anti-Russian (by this I mean the citizens of Ukraine). Long before the special military operation in 2021, when the Minsk Agreements were still alive and Ukraine was fighting on the Line of Contact, a Western correspondent asked him in an interview what he thought of the people of Donbass on the other side of the Line of Contact and replied that you call them people, but there are people and there are individuals. The former prime minister of this putschist government, A.P. Yatsenyuk, immediately after the coup d’état, called the people who rejected it “subhumans,” etc. They publicly boasted that they would destroy the Russians legally and physically. This is a quote from a representative of Vladimir Zelensky’s office.
As in colonial rule, the Kiev regime does not represent most of the people whom it used to consider citizens of Ukraine and who decided to return to the Russian Federation in referendums.
Speaking of the Sino-Brazilian initiative, we were surprised to learn that France and Switzerland had been invited to attend as observers. France (as we have just mentioned) is one of the countries leading the war through Ukraine against the Russian Federation. Switzerland has not been neutral for a long time. This is not very logical and not promising. Our Chinese and Brazilian friends have said that these countries will simply watch without the right to vote. But they will be part of the process anyway. Therefore, we express our concerns. We do not believe that it is necessary to promote peace in Ukraine for the purpose of uniting the Global South.
Question (retranslated from English): The G7 countries put strong pressure on Brazil to make a tougher statement at the G20 summit on the war between Russia and Ukraine. At the last minute, the word “infrastructure” was included. They were happy about it. What does Russia think about this statement and the word “infrastructure”?
As for President Vladimir Putin’s Executive Order, which, as we learned today, concerns Russia’s nuclear doctrine, should the world be ready for a nuclear response from your country after the US decision this weekend and the first missile strike on Russian territory today?
Sergey Lavrov: As for your second question. We strongly support doing everything possible to prevent nuclear war. It was we who were the first in the days of the Soviet Union to propose this to the United States. Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan issued a joint statement that a nuclear war could never be won and therefore should never begin. The same statement was confirmed by all the countries of the “nuclear five” in January 2022.
When the West’s war against Russia in Ukraine began, many Western politicians assumed that there could be a nuclear component to this war. When former British Prime Minister Elizabeth Truss was asked if she was ready to press the “red button”, she replied that yes, it was the Prime Minister’s responsibility. The Chief of Staff of the German Army said that Russia should understand that NATO is a nuclear alliance. French President Emmanuel Macron and officials of this country have repeatedly mentioned this, as well as many other European politicians.
We never started this conversation. Updating the doctrine of nuclear deterrence does not add anything that the West does not know and that would differ from American doctrinal documents regarding the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons. We are convinced that this is, first of all, a weapon of deterrence and prevention of any nuclear war. This is how we treat this situation.
The West is less honest. It is truly shocking that from time to time Japan submits a resolution to the UN General Assembly stating that we should honor the memory of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The resolution never mentions who did it. In Japanese textbooks in schools and universities, the chapter on the summer of 1945 begins with the phrase “The nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Soviet Union enters the war.” The Americans never apologized. It also sends the wrong signal to the current debate about nuclear weapons. We are at the forefront of the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council and the IAEA to defend a world that will not be threatened by nuclear weapons. The declaration that we adopted at the G20 summit clearly shows that we want to move towards a world free of nuclear weapons. This is our position.
As for the word “infrastructure” added to the general paragraph calling for respect for international law, international humanitarian law, human rights during any conflict. It is specifically mentioned that it is unacceptable to cause harm to the civilian population or infrastructure. This has indeed been added. The text of this section of the Declaration then refers to Palestine. After that, there is a small paragraph on Ukraine, which welcomes any peace initiatives. “Infrastructure” in this context means that we condemn the destruction of social infrastructure, including schools, hospitals. Gaza lacks virtually all social infrastructure.
In addition to social infrastructure, there are other forms of civilian infrastructure, including energy. We will insist and use this Declaration, in particular, to record that a terrorist attack was carried out on the Nord Stream gas pipelines running from Russia to Germany (they were blown up in September 2022) as one of the arguments to ensure the transparency of the investigation. So far, the Germans and other Western countries that have launched the investigation have not shared any results. Many US representatives (including Polish Foreign Minister R. Sikorski) have publicly stated that this is something that the West should applaud. Because the United States did it to undermine Russia’s influence. Therefore, this infrastructure is also important. [My Emphasis]
Clearly, the West is too smart for its own good. It appears we need to create a new category to describe a nation’s economic condition—Once Developed Now Declining Nation. That description defines most of the Neoliberal West that are infected with the Neoliberal pathogen. In the Declaration, point #5 opens with the following: “We note good prospects for a soft landing of the global economy, although numerous problems remain, and a number of downside risks have increased amid increasing uncertainty.” That outcome is based on the fact that the Global Majority is growing at about 4% while the remainder is at 2%—a number that IMO is much lower. It can generally be stated that economic rents are a very tiny portion of the Global Majority’s economies, while it constitutes from 10-25% elsewhere which represent costs to those economies, not productive income: The Neoliberal Disease.
