Lavrov's BRICS FM Meeting Presser

At Rio the BRICS Foreign Minister’s Meeting was held over the 28-29 where Lavrov held many sideline meetings as well as the formal encounters. Lavrov said a few things that were quickly published by Russian media, but there’s usually more than the sought after “gotcha” quotes which you’ll discover as you read the transcript:

Dear Colleagues,

First of all, I would like to once again express my gratitude to our Brazilian friends for their traditional hospitality, the excellent organisation of the work of the BRICS ministerial meeting and the additional meeting that was held with the participation of BRICS members and partner countries.

These countries were represented today in accordance with the decision of the Kazan Summit, where a historic decision was made within the framework of the Russian presidency to establish this category of partner countries. These are Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.

We agreed to continue to actively involve partner countries in our joint work in various formats, starting with ministerial meetings, as well as meetings of experts and relevant ministers.

We spoke in favour of further stepping up the role of BRICS and the world's majority countries as a whole in addressing the key problems of our time. We noted the need for collective action by our association in achieving the goals of sustainable development, ensuring security and economic growth.

We paid special attention to the need to continue working to promote the reform of international monetary and financial institutions, primarily the revision of IMF quotas so that this quota system reflects the real weight of the countries of the Global South and East in the global economy and finance. In this context, most delegations emphasised the destructive nature of the policy of the countries of the "collective West", which may no longer be quite "collective", but all representatives of the West have the same goals, namely, to continue to live at the expense of others and to use neocolonial practices for this purpose. This includes unilateral illegitimate sanctions, abuse of the role of their currencies in the international financial system and unjustified trade protectionism, "tariff wars", which are much talked about today. We noted that in an attempt to maintain its elusive dominance and continue to obtain competitive benefits at the expense of others, the Western minority is "shaking" the international financial and economic architecture with its own hands.

We discussed in detail current issues of regional and international politics, including numerous crises in various regions of the world. Of particular concern is the deteriorating situation in the Palestinian territories and in the Middle East and in many parts of the African continent in general.

For our part, we emphasised that an effective solution to all these problems would be facilitated by relying on the principles of the UN Charter, which should be applied not from time to time, pulling out one or the other depending on what goals these principles should correspond to, and they should be applied in their entirety and interconnection.

We reaffirmed our position in support of the reform of the UN Security Council, including support for the candidatures of India and Brazil for permanent members of the Security Council, while at the same time resolving the issue of the representation of the African continent.

Of course, we talked a lot about the Ukrainian situation. Once again, we have set out in detail our principled approaches to resolving this conflict by eliminating the root causes of its outbreak. They consist of many years of attempts to expand NATO to the east up to the Russian borders and "absorb" Ukraine into the North Atlantic Alliance, thereby creating direct threats to our security directly on the Russian borders. I would also like to emphasise the importance of putting an end to the Kiev regime's practice of exterminating everything that is in one way or another related to Russia and the Russian world, including language, culture, Russian-language media and the canonical Orthodox Church. Most of the participants in the meeting, commenting on this Ukrainian situation, showed a growing understanding of our approaches. We will continue this work.

The outcome of the meeting will be circulated by the Brazilian Presidency.

We would like to wish our Brazilian friends success in preparing for and holding the 17th BRICS Summit. It will be held on July 6-7 in Rio de Janeiro. There is no doubt that the summit will be a productive event and will further strengthen our strategic partnership. Russia will contribute to this in every possible way.

Question: Do the BRICS countries have a common position on the trade war unleashed by Donald Trump?

Sergey Lavrov: We do not name any names in the final document. It will be circulated. It contains our general approaches to what is happening in the global economy now.

The final document enshrines a general conclusion about the negative consequences of the fragmentation of the global economy, concern about the weakening of multilateralism, violation of the rules of justice and inclusiveness, which should underpin the trading system. The World Trade Organisation should remain at the centre of this system, which must be adapted to modern realities. Concern about unilateral protectionist measures, unilateral sanctions, including secondary sanctions in violation of WTO principles, was formulated separately.

The inadmissibility of blocking decisions on WTO reform, primarily blocking and resuming the work of the dispute settlement body, is also emphasized. On the whole, the position of our colleagues and partner countries coincides. It will form the basis for the preparation of relevant documents for the summit to be held on July 6-7 in Rio de Janeiro.

Question: Are the BRICS members following the talks between Russia and the United States? And what assessments and influence on BRICS are being voiced?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, it is important for everyone to understand how relations between Moscow and Washington are developing. This was heard in many speeches and in numerous bilateral contacts that I had on the sidelines of the ministerial meeting. We inform our partners on a regular basis, after almost every contact between representatives of Russia and the United States. We convey the relevant assessments through our ambassadors, as well as the ambassadors of our partners in Moscow. We do not need to formulate and keep any secrets here.

We stand for an honest and equal dialogue aimed at creating a balance of interests. The United States is sending us similar signals. Work is underway in a variety of directions. It continues literally at the very moment when we are communicating.

It seems to me that almost everyone sees the positive side of what is happening. They hope that the "advances" made regarding the prospects for the Russian-American dialogue will be justified. I think that in the near future we will see concrete confirmation that the interests of Moscow and Washington are mutual. To what extent it will be possible to find a concrete interpretation of this common interest in practical deeds will be shown in the near future.

We will continue to build our relations with the United States in a transparent manner and in no way to the detriment of our traditionally strong ties with our strategic partners and like-minded partners.

Question: At last year's BRICS summit in Kazan under Russia's chairmanship, the creation of the BRICS Pay payment system for settlements in national currencies in trade between BRICS members was announced.

Brazil, which took over the baton of the BRICS from Russia this year, despite US President Donald Trump's threats to introduce "draconian" tariffs in the event of the BRICS abandoning the dollar, nevertheless declared its full support for this Russian initiative. How is this dialogue progressing? How else can the association respond to the West's attempts to use world reserve currencies as a weapon?

Sergey Lavrov: The dialogue is progressing steadily.

Not so long ago, a meeting of finance ministers and heads of central banks of the BRICS countries was held, who, in accordance with the instructions of the Kazan summit, considered the tasks of forming independent payment systems. It was decided to use national currencies more actively in mutual trade. Our today's final document notes the need to continue this work.

Within the framework of trade between BRICS members, national currencies account for more than 65%. Against this background, the share of the dollar fell to one-third. There are tasks to create payment instruments and payment platforms, including the study of such issues as the creation of a cross-border payment system, the BRICS Electronic System of Inter-Depository Interaction (BRICS Clear) and the development of a single mechanism for the exchange of trade and economic information in general.

Consideration of options for the establishment of an insurance and reinsurance system, new platforms for grain trading and the possibility of extending this experience to other commodities is ongoing. All this is recorded in the final document.

This policy is long-term and principled, given the continuing trends in the global economy due to the unilateral actions of our Western colleagues. This is one of the key areas.

Question: Is it possible to create a new international judicial body within BRICS that could become an alternative to the ICC, which has obviously already discredited itself?

Sergey Lavrov: This topic has been raised. It is not reflected in the final document, because in fact BRICS should not be engaged in the creation of any judicial instances of its own. We are in favour of international judicial processes being based on a strong consensus of all States parties.

The International Criminal Court, as you rightly said, has completely discredited itself. This structure is manipulated by Western countries. Some states that openly violate international humanitarian law are excluded from attack. And with regard to some other countries, "punitive measures", including "arrest warrants", are introduced in a biased manner, without relying on specific facts.

The Russian Federation, independently of BRICS, is promoting an initiative in the international arena, including through the UN, aimed at ensuring that as many states as possible subscribe to the need to depoliticise international criminal justice. And so that there are no more such precedents when the resolution of the most important issues affecting the immunities of states prescribed and enshrined in international law is at the mercy of such openly biased structures as the International Criminal Court.

This is a long-term work. At one time, the countries of the African Union collectively spoke in favour of withdrawing from this mechanism. They still have these sentiments.

Question: International experts have calculated that military spending around the world has increased sharply by 10% in 2024. They call this the worst result since the Cold War. Is the BRICS able to lead the countries of the world away from the dangerous line beyond which a third world war could begin?

Sergey Lavrov: I am sure that this is absolutely in line with the position of BRICS – to do everything to prevent such a development of events.

But for this to become a reality, the forces of unification alone are not enough. The understanding that World War III is unacceptable is manifested in many other countries that are not members of the BRICS, including in statements by the US leadership. In particular, Vice President J.D. Vance recently spoke about this, warning all those who are "instigating" the Ukrainian regime to continue the war, who are trying to draw the Europeans into this conflict by deploying some contingents in Ukraine: peacekeeping, stabilisation and others.

It is important to consolidate the positions reflected in the statements of the leaders of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. This statement was adopted on our initiative in January 2022 and is based on a long-standing agreement between the USSR and the United States, when a joint statement was issued stating that a nuclear war cannot be won, so it is necessary to do everything to ensure that it is never unleashed.

Today, this task is very relevant, especially in the face of thoughtless, aggressive actions and calls from the leadership of the EU countries and from London.

Question: In light of President Vladimir Putin's recent meeting with US President Donald Trump's Special Envoy Stephen Whitkoff in the Kremlin, what do you think about the general trends in international relations between Russia and its partners, given that such meetings often send a signal to many countries? Are there any new prospects for Russia in the light of such diplomatic contact?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already said that dialogue is always preferable under all other circumstances. I am a little surprised at how some countries react to the processes taking place in Russian-American relations. Everyone perceives these contacts between us and the Americans as some kind of sensation. Although in fact during the Cold War the ideological confrontation was very tough, the dialogue never stopped.

Today, in the US doctrinal documents formulated during the Biden administration, but which have not been canceled, Russia is shown as the main, immediate threat in the context of the Ukrainian conflict, and China is designated as the main rival in the long term.

If you follow the statements made by our Chinese friends commenting on their relations with Washington, the statements made against China by the United States, this is a tough exchange of statements on the Taiwan problem, the South China Sea problem and many other issues. But the dialogue between Washington and Beijing has not been interrupted for any period. Top officials are talking, as well as foreign ministers, security experts and defence ministers.

Therefore, I would warn against the current state of the Russian-US dialogue being viewed as something out of the ordinary. This is a return to normality. And those who perceive this as a sensation are captive to the logic that the Biden administration has cultivated throughout its years in power, trying to present Russia as a pariah, as a country in complete isolation, with a "torn to shreds" economy, and so on. Therefore, now we are simply returning to normality. I have a feeling that most countries in the Global South and East, our strategic partners and allies, see this as a "plus."

Question: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has announced a new truce. This time during the celebration of the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrei Sybiha immediately called on Russia to establish a truce right now, not for three, but for 30 days. How would you comment on such statements? Is a truce, even if it is short-lived, possible at all with the current approach of the Kiev authorities?

Sergey Lavrov: Do not read statements by representatives of the Ukrainian regime either at night or in the morning. We know their value very well. Remember, a month and a half or two months ago, Kiev issued menacing warnings that they would not accept any truce. European radicals "instigated" the Kiev regime to continue this policy, saying that a truce and the start of negotiations could only take place at the moment when Ukraine had an advantage on the battlefield. Therefore, they say, we will pump it up with more weapons and then, when "Russia weakens", then we will talk from a position of strength.

Now they have suddenly (not suddenly, of course, but against the backdrop of what is happening "on the ground", on the line of contact, where the Ukrainian regime is "backing away" more and more actively) "changed their position by one hundred and eighty degrees" and began to demand an immediate truce without preconditions.

We went through all these situations when in February 2014, in fact, a truce was declared between the opposition and the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych, and a peace document was signed that provided for early elections and the creation of a government of national unity for this period (before the vote). In the morning, they trampled on all this "truce" and seized administrative buildings.

The next "truce" was concluded within the framework of the Minsk agreements after the Kiev regime, which launched aggression against its own people, "choked" in its calculations and began to ask for a truce. They signed the Minsk agreements and approved them in the UN Security Council. The Ukrainians spat on these agreements.

At that time, there was still Petr Poroshenko. And when Vladimir Zelensky came to the presidency under the slogans of implementing the Minsk Agreements and establishing peace, he called at that time to stop discriminating against the Russian language, to allow Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine to speak the language in which they were brought up, which was the official language in Ukraine at that time. Already under Vladimir Zelensky, the French and Germans, as "guarantors" (as they described themselves) of the Minsk Agreements, convened a summit in Paris in December 2019, which I had the honour to attend. It was attended by then-German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President of France Emmanuel Macron, Vladimir Zelensky and President of Russia Vladimir Putin. A document was prepared calling for the implementation of a key point of the Minsk agreements, a key first step – to declare a truce and ensure its implementation along the entire line of contact.

When the document prepared by the ministers had already landed on the table of the leaders, Vladimir Zelensky said that he categorically did not want to sign it. Because, he said, it was impossible, he did not want to stop hostilities, because then Russia would win. He said that he was ready to declare a truce on three sections of the contact line as an experiment. The French, the Germans, and we were surprised, but President of Russia Vladimir Putin said, "Let's do it, this is at least something." And this was approved. A document was issued calling for a truce in three areas. It also confirmed the need to ensure the autonomous status of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. But despite this agreement, nothing was done by Ukraine. The Armed Forces of Ukraine were not allowed to ensure any truce in any of these three areas.

And, of course, the truce announced in connection with the agreement in Istanbul in April 2022. They say, make a goodwill gesture and let's stop hostilities. If we withdraw our forces from Kiev, this will be an important and positive signal. As you know, this was done.

Everyone is also well aware of how it ended. It was immediately said that the Russians had retreated. Then there was the provocation in Bucha, which still remains on the conscience of the West. Our constant calls to publish a list of persons whose corpses were shown there remain unanswered.

Speaking about the latest examples of a truce, the truce announced by President of Russia Vladimir Putin on the occasion of Easter was in no way observed by the Kiev regime. A huge number of violations were recorded.

The truce proposed by US President Donald Trump in the form of a moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure facilities was fully observed by the Russian side within 30 days, but did not affect the aggressive actions of the Kiev regime in any way. A couple of hundred violations were recorded by our representatives. We sent a list of them to the UN and US Secretary of State Michel Rubio. Therefore, we know the "price" of these calls for a truce.

EU leaders, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas and other "representatives" are now saying that Russia "must unconditionally agree to a ceasefire" only because they are losing on the battlefield and their plans to inflict a "strategic defeat" on the Russian Federation will never come true. Everyone is already well aware of this.

Our proposal, which was voiced by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, is the start of direct talks without preconditions. In this situation, the truce is seen as a precondition that will be used to further support the Kiev regime and strengthen its military capabilities.

As you may recall, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko visited Moscow not so long ago. At a joint news conference, President Vladimir Putin was asked about his attitude to the idea of a 30-day truce, which was only voiced by his American colleagues. President Vladimir Putin supported this idea, but said that it should be formulated in such a way that it would not "fail," like all previous attempts of this kind. He explained that in order for this truce to work and achieve its goal, it is necessary to ensure clear, daily, objective and transparent monitoring of who behaves and how along the entire line of contact. Because the "ability" of the Ukrainian regime to organise provocations is well known. There is no doubt that these provocations would have continued, regardless of how this truce was organised. We do not see the possibility of honest monitoring for honest compliance with this truce.

It is an outrageous case that a terrorist attack was once again organised against a Russian general. This is a despicable and cowardly act. The West is silent on this topic. And Ukrainian representatives, including the heads of parliamentary committees, say that this is the right course of action. They say that the enemy must be destroyed. And they will continue to destroy him, regardless of whether there is a truce or not.

We will no longer fall for this "trick." President Vladimir Putin has clearly stated this.

Question: You recently said that Russia views the WTO as an organisation that uses discriminatory approaches. You even said that Moscow could reconsider its obligations to it. From your statement today, it followed that, on the whole, you agree with your Brazilian colleagues that the WTO can play a role in the current economic circumstances if reforms take place. What influenced the change in this position? Did the position of your Brazilian colleagues themselves have an impact? Do you believe that the WTO can really come to life?

Sergey Lavrov: There is no contradiction here. The position has not changed. The situation here is the same as with the UN Charter. The Charter is good. It fully meets all the requirements for strengthening multipolarity in global relations. It's just that Western countries either apply it from time to time (as God wills) or ignore it altogether and promote their "rules-based order."

The same is true of the World Trade Organisation. If the principles on which it is based were fully respected, they would certainly meet the interests of all states that are members of this organisation.

But the fact is that these principles are not respected. The work of a key dispute settlement body has been blocked for many years, primarily by the United States, which does not want this body to consider the just claims made by the United States in connection with protectionist and other illegal measures.

Therefore, we just need to go back to the basics. It is in this vein that we are talking about reforming the WTO. Not in order to negate the principles of equality and mutual benefit, fair competition, but in order to strengthen them and agree on their implementation, so that there are no more attempts to declare commitment to them in words and in practice to do the opposite. This is clearly stated in the final document of our meeting.

Question (retranslated from English): The Brazilian Presidency did not support a new round of BRICS enlargement this year, focusing instead on the institutional consolidation of the group. From the Russian point of view, when will the association be ready to resume enlargement? Should this happen as soon as possible, or have there been difficulties at the BRICS Ministerial Council in finding common approaches to reforming the UN Security Council, which suggest that differences should be resolved before a new round of enlargement takes place? How, from Russia's point of view, should the process of transition from associate members such as Cuba to full members take place?

Sergey Lavrov: It is not true that Brazil does not support a new round of BRICS enlargement. The fact is that when we met at the BRICS Summit in Kazan in October 2024, we welcomed new full members (BRICS has doubled its membership). It was decided to take a short pause in the issue of further expansion so that we could adapt to working in the new composition, so that BRICS could smoothly adapt to the new situation with an increase in the number of participants. This was a common opinion. When creating the category of partner countries, the aspirations of many countries were taken into account. Obviously, partner countries will be priority candidates for full membership. I have no doubt that the process of expanding the association will resume soon.

Again, we decided to take a break and see how this adaptation goes. Naturally, the more members there are, the longer it will take to adapt to this situation and the more effort it will take to reach a consensus. This is a natural phenomenon.

As for the reform of the UN Security Council. We have been declaring our commitment to progress on this issue for many years. At almost every BRICS summit, at every ministerial meeting, we included this wording in the final statements. This year we also discussed this situation.

Russia has consistently supported Brazil and India as promising candidates for the role of permanent members of the UN Security Council in the context of its expansion, provided that Africa's aspirations are met at the same time. As I said, the Security Council needs more members from the countries of the Global South and East.

We cannot support an increase in the number of Western states in its composition. There are already six countries out of fifteen. In addition, none of the "Western" candidates (Germany or Japan) can contribute anything to the Security Council's deliberations. They adhere to the common position of the "collective West".

We are flexible in reflecting the position of the BRICS members on the reform of the UN Security Council. We believe that the main thing is to reaffirm the need to meet the aspirations of developing countries. This can be done in a variety of ways. You can read the wording of the statements at ministerial meetings and summits. Yesterday and today, we confirmed that we are ready to use any of them or any new of the proposed language. Of course, we need consensus on this issue. The main thing is that the reform of the UN Security Council should not be decided on the basis of the wording contained in the statements of any organization other than the United Nations, where a vote will ultimately be held. It is there that this issue will be resolved.

Question (retranslated from English): How do you see BRICS as an alternative opposition platform to the United States? Would you support this view? Is it reflected in the final declaration of this ministerial meeting? How important are BRICS tariffs in the context of the new US tariffs?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already spoken about the negative impact of US tariffs on global trade and the economy. This contributes to the fragmentation of the global economic system. The final declaration describes the negative consequences of the tariff war, other protectionist measures, unilateral sanctions, including secondary ones, which undermine the activities of universal institutions (be it the IMF, the WTO or the World Bank). It should not be presented as political opposition to anyone (be it the United States or the EU). This is a negotiating position that BRICS will promote at the relevant international forums, primarily at the UN, the Bretton Woods institutions and, of course, in the G20, where BRICS partners interact with the G7 and its partners. This is an important forum representing more than 90% of the world economy.

To reiterate, this is a negotiating position. Western countries are aware of this. They cannot avoid a substantive dialogue aimed at achieving mutually acceptable solutions. We are fighting to achieve a balance of interests, not to defeat anyone in the Western camp. [My Emphasis]

RT and others are trying to spin Lavrov’s words, specifically in the following manner:

Russia considers President Vladimir Putin’s declared 72-hour Victory Day ceasefire in the Ukraine conflict as “the start of direct negotiations with Kiev without preconditions,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

Although Lavrov’s words are correct, the interpretation is false. Here’s the full paragraph:

Our proposal, which was voiced by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, is the start of direct talks without preconditions. In this situation, the truce is seen as a precondition that will be used to further support the Kiev regime and strengthen its military capabilities.

The “proposal” was that put forth by Putin last year when the grounds for negotiations were outlined within Putin’s address to the Foreign Ministry. The truce Lavrov refers to is that demanded by EU/Ukraine, not the one announced by Putin. With this attempted misleading spin, RT further degrades its credibility.

Otherwise, BRICS appears to be moving along fine. I’ve yet to find a link to the meeting’s final declaration, but it doesn’t seem to be meeker than any previous statements—there’s consensus on most everything, meaning China’s strong advice to not give-in to the bully is being followed. Here’s Wang Yi’s headline:

Compromise, backing down will only embolden bully: Chinese Foreign Minister

I suggest reading the short article as Wang’s not as diplomatic as Lavrov on the Trade War.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!