Lavrov's G-20 Presser

Sporting a fresh haircut, Lavrov met the press, first providing his remarks, which were much shorter than usual, then answering their questions, so the overall length is about the same:

Dear Colleagues,

I am glad to welcome you,

We are concluding our work at the G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting.

I would like to note the active and useful work of the Brazilian presidency, the excellent conditions and cordiality with which we are all surrounded. This helps to achieve a business dialogue without trying to use it for someone's selfish interests. After all, the G20 was created to seek common collective approaches to solving the real, burning problems of the global economy.

It is clear that the current situation in the world economy is grossly distorted by the methods used by the West to punish those who do not follow its "rules", which are clearly neo-colonial in nature. They use them to eliminate competitors. These are illegal sanctions, seizures aimed at confiscation of other people's property, blackmail, trade blockades and much more. This distorts the basic foundations of the world economy and complicates the realization of the prospects in which all countries of the world are interested, as well as the real opportunities that the West is now preventing from materializing due to its selfish policy.

Recently, there has been a debate about whether the G20 should deal with geopolitical issues. The Brazilian presidency, in my opinion, has found the right angle of view on the relationship between geopolitics and economics, exactly in the context I have mentioned. See how geopolitical trends and actions (first of all, this applies to the "Western group") affect the prospects for normal growth of the world economy in the interests of all countries and hinder the development of mutually beneficial economic projects.

It was in that spirit that the draft agenda was formulated at our meeting yesterday. It has been examined in detail. Developing countries have actively emphasized the need to move away from artificially narrowing opportunities by trying to achieve geopolitical goals. For the most part, they have nothing to do with international law and are designed to defend the interests of only one narrow group of countries. The attempts of some of our Western colleagues at the G20 ministerial meetings to divert the discussion away from this key issue of support for the Kiev regime, to unfounded accusations against the Russian Federation and to Ukrainise the agenda in every possible way are not supported by developing countries and the majority of countries in the Global South. This has been proved by the discussion that has taken place here.

The second question is closely related to this. We dealt with it on the second day of the ministerial meeting – the reform of global institutions. This is an old question. It has been discussed in the G20 for about 20 years.

I recalled today that in 2010 the G20 Communiqué was adopted, which solemnly proclaimed the task of increasing the role and importance of developing countries in the institutions of global governance. This includes the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and the World Trade Organization. It's been 14 years.

Today, I also recalled last year's decision, when a similar text was again adopted at the G20 summit in New Delhi in September 2023, in which the entire G20 unanimously declared the need to reform global institutions in order to increase the role of developing countries in them in accordance with the real weight of their economies.

It is well known that the United States has been blocking the reform of the system of contributions and quotas in the International Monetary Fund for several years, trying to artificially preserve its blocking minority, contrary to objective indicators of economic growth (where it is already significantly behind China). They do not want to share the illegally held percentages of votes in order to run this international structure alone. Today, everyone was in favour of putting the solemn promises enshrined in the G20 decision into practice. We will actively support the countries of the Global South in this matter.

In our speech, we also drew attention to the fact that in addition to the Bretton Woods institutions, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation, there are also new centres and associations of the world majority that are developing in various regions of the world. In our Eurasian space, these are the SCO, ASEAN and the EAEU. They are establishing contacts with each other in the context of the initiative put forward by President of Russia Vladimir Putin to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership open to all countries of the continent without exception. In Africa, it is the African Union and many sub-regional structures. In the Middle East and North Africa, it is the League of Arab States (I have already mentioned ASEAN). In Latin America, there is the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

All these formations should make their contribution and be heard in the context of the reform of the management of global institutions. The African Union has joined the G20. We believe that it would be fair for the relevant regional organizations in Asia and Latin America to follow suit by representing their continents, their regions of the Global South and the Global East.

In connection with the reform of global governance structures, many participants raised the issue of the reform of the UN Security Council. We have expressed our position that the Security Council needs to be reformed by eliminating the main injustice – the underrepresentation of developing countries. Now, of the fifteen members of the UN Security Council, six represent allies of the United States. Almost all of them speak from positions dictated to them by Washington. Therefore, when we decide on the expansion of the UN Security Council in practical terms, we will support only representatives of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The same position is taken by many other countries that understand the unacceptability not only of maintaining but also expanding the representation of Western states, which is disproportionate to their real contribution to world politics. To reiterate, the West's entire policy is determined by Washington, and everyone else obediently follows it. We are seeing this in a variety of areas.

The summit in Rio de Janeiro will be held on November 18-19, and we hope that it will be held in compliance with the basic norms of international law, including respect for the national sovereignty of all G20 member states.

Question: President of Brazil Lula said during his presidency of the G20 that the group was intended to discuss economic issues, not geopolitical ones. Did you manage to comply with this?

Sergey Lavrov: Everyone realises more and more every day that the West's geopolitical games and adventures have a negative impact on the global economy, distorting the objective processes that are maturing in various regions and require joint efforts and the removal of barriers.

In opposition to these objective demands, the United States and its satellites, represented by the "collective" West, are building barriers, creating difficulties for natural logistics and financial chains, and increasing the cost of production, services and goods that developing countries receive and that they need for development.

I believe that our Brazilian friends have found the right angle of attack on this issue, considering geopolitical issues from the point of view of their direct impact on the economy, finance and international trade relations, which is the terms of reference and mandate of the G20. It is becoming more difficult to implement it due to the fact that economic indicators and trends are artificially distorted by the West. It was a useful, well-worded agenda item. I think the discussion on this topic will continue at the summit.

Question: The Brazilian media outlet Valor has published an article claiming that your trip to the talks with President of Brazil Lula da Silva may be disrupted due to the lack of guarantees for the refueling of your plane due to the distributor's sanctions concerns. Can you comment on the situation? Will you meet with the President? How do you get to Brasilia?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not want to comment in detail on the problem of refueling the planes of foreign guests, which our Brazilian hosts are experiencing. That's how it happened. This is a good example for understanding how geopolitics affects not just the economy, but normal interstate relations.

In Brazil, there are practically no companies that refuel planes that are not owned by Western corporations. I would like to note the actions of our Brazilian partners, who have done everything to resolve this issue. This meeting will take place today.

Question: The previous G20 summit in New Delhi was a landmark due to the fact that its final document, despite pressure from the West, did not include a condemnation of Russia. You mentioned this in your opening remarks. I don't want to ask a fact, but a trend. As the months go by, do you see a growing trend towards the independence of third countries, or is the United States taking revenge and increasing pressure?

Sergey Lavrov: There is no doubt that they are increasing pressure. Does it help to take revenge? I don't know. In principle, I would not like to think in categories: "someone lost", "someone won", then "the loser takes revenge", and so on endlessly. It's a vicious cycle. The United States, unfortunately, does not draw the right conclusions. They still believe that there are "rules" catering to their whims that no one has seen.

Today, the United States wants to rely on the principle of territorial integrity, as it happened when it did not accept the decision of the Ukrainian people, the Russians living in Crimea and Donbass. Prior to that, they emphasized the principle of self-determination of peoples when they recognized the independence of Kosovo, which was illegally proclaimed unilaterally without any referendum. That is what these "rules" are.

Before our meeting in Rio de Janeiro, there was the Munich Security Conference. We have long ceased to participate in it, because in recent years it has degenerated into a "squabble" where the West convinces itself that it is always right everywhere and that it will be like this forever.

I followed some of the media covering the event. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that they should never divide the world into separate blocs. Seems like the right idea. But he went on immediately, without any pause, that they, of course, would first of all cooperate with the democracies. So, as he puts it, there are other "blocks" as well. Most beautifully, he declares that all countries "have a choice: to be at the table of the international system or to be on the menu." This is the approach of the head of US foreign policy to those who disagree with them. I would only wish that our American colleagues would not choke on their "democratic" table with such appetites.

We must all understand that it is necessary to realise the pointlessness of constant actions to escalate confrontation and punish those responsible, whom the Americans themselves identify. They act as a prosecutor-prosecutor, as a judge, and as an executor of punishment – all this is "in one bottle". The hysteria over the death of Alexei Navalny has convincingly shown this. I don't even want to comment on it in detail.

These people have no right to interfere in our internal affairs. Moreover, they themselves have such a "beam" in the eye with Julian Assange, as well as with Gonzalo Lira, who died of torture in a Ukrainian prison. Neither the Americans nor any other Western figure even commented on this. Once again, I am convinced that the Nazis can do anything. This is a serious thing.

As for the demands, "we demand open, independent investigations." Ashamed. We did not demand them in connection with what happened to a citizen of this or that country. Although they would also do well to take care of this. When our property (Nord Stream) was blown up, what did they tell us? That there will be no international investigation. They'll figure it out on their own. The difference in approaches is neocolonialism, which we are fighting and will fight even more actively.

And about Alexei Navalny. No one knows what was done to him in Germany. Let me remind you that he felt bad on the plane. The plane was immediately landed. An ambulance was already waiting there. Omsk doctors began to provide him with all the necessary assistance. The Germans, at the request of his wife, asked to take him away urgently. All this was done within a couple of days. He ended up in Germany. In the civilian hospital, they did not find anything of what we were accused of. He was transferred to a clinic in the Bundeswehr and there it was determined that some kind of "Novichok" was "detected" in his body. We asked to see the test results. We were told that it was none of our business. Like, they accuse us of poisoning it, but they won't show us the analysis, but they will give it to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We "went" there. They told us that they had been given this test, but that it should not be shown to anyone. The circle is complete.

Are these people still trying to make any accusations that we are doing something in a non-transparent manner? I think it's just dishonest and unscrupulous. And all this "saga" at a time when the Germans refused to show us a simple blood test of the person we were accused of poisoning. They behaved so arrogantly that it was a reminder of something. And this trait quickly returns to them. [And what other major nation behaves the same way?]

Question: On the sidelines of the G20, you were able to meet with ministers from several Latin American countries. Could you tell us what you managed to talk about? What are our relations with the region in general and in particular, and has communication with Argentina changed under Julian Miley, especially after their decision not to join BRICS?

Sergey Lavrov: After each meeting not only with Latin American ministers, but also with ministers of other countries, including the Republic of South Africa, Turkey and Egypt, we issue press releases. It outlines the main topics to be discussed.

By definition, when you meet on the sidelines of major international forums, these meetings are short and do not allow you to touch upon the entire range of issues. But each country has certain priorities that can be addressed "briefly". We discussed with Latin American countries their further participation in the work of the G20 and BRICS (in particular, we discussed this in detail with our Brazilian counterpart) and our general cooperation at UN multilateral venues.

As for Latin America. We have established relations with CELAC, the ALBA group, the Central American Integration System, a number of associations of Caribbean States and other structures. During the coronavirus epidemic, regular meetings held at the ministerial level between Russia and CELAC were suspended. Now there is readiness on the part of Brazil, our colleagues from Paraguay (I also met with him yesterday, my good old friend), and in Venezuela and Cuba we have heard active support for the resumption of such meetings.

We discussed certain issues of trade and economic ties. As I have already said, such meetings are usually devoted to some general issues. But it was all very useful.

Question: During a recent interview with Tucker Carlson, President Vladimir Putin emphasised several times that Russia has never refused to negotiate on Ukraine. You have repeatedly emphasised this. Tell me, now that Avdiivka was captured, have you noticed any signals from the delegations of the United States, Great Britain or EU countries indicating that they are finally ready to start a constructive dialogue? Did you have any contacts with the Anglo-Saxons on the sidelines?

Sergey Lavrov: No. I wasn't looking for those contacts. They apparently followed their agreement to avoid communicating with our delegation in every possible way. Let them stew "in their own juice". They've been doing this for a long time. This has not and will not lead to anything good from the point of view of their interests.

There were fiercely anti-Russian statements, especially by the foreign ministers of Great Britain and Germany. They poured out a heap of accusations, listing some horrors against the children whom we allegedly kidnap in Ukraine, depriving them of their names and surnames, calling them their names in our own way so that no one can find them, issuing new birth certificates and distributing them to families where they are subjected to violence and other bad things.

I watched CNN this morning. They dedicated the program to the anniversary (as they believe) of the start of the special military operation, which they naturally call "aggression", "invasion" (whatever you like). A lady who had returned from Ukraine spoke and told how they, foreign experts and journalists, constantly "hear" that children and women are being stolen, raped, and men are being castrated in Ukraine. It was all heard. Like, they "heard". Probably, many of you "hear" the fact that Ukrainian propaganda is "grinding" on a daily basis and the lies that are spread and immediately accepted on faith by our Western colleagues.

But "hearing" is one thing. For example, Russian prisoners of war blindfolded and with their hands and feet tied were shot in the head by the "Georgian National Legion" of the Ukrainian armed forces. And it was filmed not by journalists, but by themselves. And then they posted it on the Internet. Has anyone ever lamented what they saw? No one. Unfortunately, this "charge" for Russophobia and arrogance is incurable. This arrogance is especially evident now among the Germans (the British have always had it). It doesn't go away.

How can we talk about negotiations in this situation? We don't just talk, we are ready for them. President of Russia Vladimir Putin recalled the agreements reached two years ago. This was confirmed by Ukraine's chief negotiator Dmitry Arakhamia, who is chairman of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada. He is not the last person in Ukraine, an associate of President Vladimir Zelensky. However, Western politicians, including former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, forbade him to sign a peace treaty and told him to fight.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Brasilia before his arrival in Rio de Janeiro, where he was received by Brazilian President Lula. At the end of the talks with the President of Brazil, Antony Blinken, answering journalists' questions, said that he did not see any conditions for the start of negotiations. That's the answer to the question. You've heard what we're saying. And two years ago in Istanbul, Russia already confirmed its words with deeds. And let our Western "colleagues" explain for themselves why they categorically do not want any serious dialogue on the real problems that they themselves have created in Ukraine. First of all, we are talking about the Nazi regime, which proclaimed as its goal the extermination of everything Russian. We constantly pass on a "selection" of quotes from Ukrainian officials to our colleagues when we meet with them.

Instead of serious negotiations, the West is gathering a "private group" around Vladimir Zelensky's peace formula. They have the same task. According to our information, the European Union, the British and other "advisers" and "advisers" are advising representatives of the Kiev regime on how to further promote this "formula". The main message is that Kiev should not adopt any final documents at these meetings, but should try to involve as many states as possible in these "gatherings" (the last of which took place in Davos). Developing countries "out of simplicity of heart" in anticipation of a constructive dialogue are joining these "meetings".

The West will never support the adoption of a document that would be acceptable to all eighty member states that oppose the implementation of anti-Russian policies. The Europeans' "instructions" to Ukrainians are not to promote projects "on paper", instead to invite as many countries as possible, saying that it will be "just a conversation" and be sure to take a "family" photo. The main thing is that the number of faces in these photos increases, and this will be the main result of Ukraine's efforts. At what cost they lured the representatives of developing countries there is irrelevant. That's all "diplomacy" is all about. Russia has already voiced its position on the negotiation process, we are people of our word. We do not see such an attitude on the part of the West.

Question: The other day, President Vladimir Putin said that Russia is ready for contacts with the United States on strategic stability. Are the Foreign Ministry preparing such contacts? If so, can they take place in the foreseeable future and at what level?

Sergey Lavrov: There have been no serious proposals from the Americans. There was an "approach" that said that the Americans considered our decision to suspend the New START Treaty to be wrong, so they proposed to resume inspections. They have expressed a desire to come and see the state of our strategic facilities. It doesn't work that way. It is clear that they are interested in looking at these objects. But the United States leaves aside the fact that this treaty, which includes mutual inspections, was based on trust, mutual respect and transparent, comradely interaction. They leave this "aside". It is impossible to restore trust now that Russia has been openly declared a hostile state, a threat that must be destroyed and "strategically defeated."

President Vladimir Putin noted that we are open to dialogue on strategic stability, but taking into account all aspects that affect it without exception. In addition to the previously existing aspects, the aggressive and hostile policy of the United States towards the Russian Federation has now been added. Not only politicians, but also practitioners: Ukrainians would not be able to fight without American weapons and instructors, gunners, US data from satellites and other sources. It is also a fact that the Americans are fighting against us, in fact, not only in a hybrid way, but also directly in a number of cases.

We are always ready to negotiate. We have never given up on anything. But we must understand that the conversation must be honest, and not in the way the United States is used to.

Many colleagues from the World Majority confidingly share how the Americans are demanding that they join the anti-Russian sanctions, and how they are threatening. An interesting conclusion is drawn about American diplomacy and what it now boils down to. The Americans need to get something specific from one country on Russia or China or any other issue. They meet and say that they need this kind of behavior from this country. The State approached replies that they do not like it and asks what will happen if they do not do so. The Americans tell them that if they do not do this, they will be punished, sanctions will be adopted, and they will be included in some lists. When they are asked what they will do for fulfilling the conditions of the Americans, they answer that they will not punish them. That's all the "equal" exchange.

Question: Joe Biden promised that Washington would impose a large package of sanctions against Russia on February 23. Restrictions have already been approved. Another list was published today. How do you plan to respond?

Sergey Lavrov: We will respond with a matter related to the development of our own economy, the development and strengthening of ties with our partners, who, unlike the Western minority, which continues to think in colonial and neo-colonial categories, are capable of negotiating and are building their economic ties in the interests of their own people in order to improve living standards, ensure prosperity and develop natural resources in their country as efficiently as possible. At the same time, they create logistics and financial chains that, like all other actions taken in the field of economic development, would not depend on those who are accustomed to commanding the world economy, robbing and killing the peoples of other countries, taking away their natural resources and wealth, and living at their expense.

The continuation of this tradition is the basis of the actions that the Americans and their satellites are now taking. This can also be seen in world markets, where they eliminate competitors, in particular in the face of Russia. They have already imposed on Germany and many European countries the rejection of Russian gas. First of all, they were forced to invest a lot of money to build plants to receive their liquefied natural gas, and secondly, they were forced to buy it. Which is significantly more expensive than the gas that they received "through the pipeline".

The "pipes" were blown up. No one said anything. I have already mentioned that they even categorically refuse to conduct a transparent investigation. And some of the countries that participated (including Sweden) have already said that they have stopped their national investigation efforts because they have found nothing there. I think this is ridiculous and shameful for any country. This is an obvious fact.

We will make sure that our economy and ties with partners who see strategic benefits from the development of these ties do not depend on the arbitrariness, diktat and whims of those countries that have fully admitted their inability to negotiate. They view any situation in the world exclusively through the prism of the fact that they hold elections every two years, and it is necessary to come up with something to "excite" public opinion and show "how cool we are."

Sadly, this is a fact to be reckoned with. If and when (President of Russia Vladimir Putin also said this) they come to their senses and return to the opportunity to normally analyse what is happening, their abilities and trends in the world, and "remark" that they need to talk to Russia, then go ahead. But first we will listen to what they will come to us with. If they come up with proposals that again imply at least some dependence on their whims and the changes in policy that often take place there, then we do not need such contacts.

There are areas where it is possible to cooperate painlessly for possible changes on the other side.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that several years ago, at the Russia-ASEAN summit, President of Russia Vladimir Putin put forward an initiative to develop our common Eurasian continent as efficiently and mutually beneficial as possible for all the countries located here. He proposed to call this work the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, the Eurasian Economic Union and ASEAN were mentioned. The process is underway. Ties have been established between all these organizations, and there are prospects for joint projects. Whenever we talk about the need to use the comparative and competitive advantages of our vast common single continent, where the countries and structures that ensure the main growth of the world economy are now located, we emphasise that the Greater Eurasian Partnership is open to all integration structures located on this continent and to all states of the continent without exception. The door is open. You just need to enter it by knocking on the door and explaining whether you have come with good things or again with some ultimatums.

Question: Julian Assange is trying to win the right to challenge his extradition to the United States. For obvious reasons, we do not see any fiery protest or frenzied attention from either the media or Western politicians, although they declare freedom of speech and opposition to the abuse of power not only as values, but as their professional duties. Could you comment on this? Not only about the actions of your colleagues, but also do you consider Julian Assange himself to be a modern voice of conscience?

Sergey Lavrov: As for Julian Assange, I have already said that this is a disgrace to Western democracy. The Americans openly declare him when journalists insist on them at briefings that he is not a journalist, but a criminal who violated a large number of local laws and recruited members of the American army. As you know, he brought the truth to world public opinion about the actions of the US intelligence services and the military, which were classified (this is true), but which grossly violated their laws, including the US Constitution. If it is a criminal activity, then the criminals who engaged in that activity want their crimes to remain unsolved.

As for the fact that Julian Assange is not a journalist. I remember very well how, in the "best of times", a few years ago, we appealed to the French, reminding them that it was not right for a country that promotes democracy in all its forms, which in 1990 in the CSCE initiated the approval of the Document of the Copenhagen meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension, where, at the insistence of the West, it was written (at that time the USSR was in a kind of "secondary role") that all CSCE members provide their citizens with unhindered access to information. the sources of which are both within and outside the State concerned. We asked our dear French colleagues why these principles do not apply to RT and Sputnik, whose correspondents were banned and were not allowed to attend briefings at the Elysee Palace. We were also told that these were not journalists, but propaganda. This was when everyone hoped that Ukraine and its "masters" would implement the Minsk agreements. And what can we say now?

Question: At present, the G20 consists of 19 countries, including the EU, which is represented at the national level, and since last year, the African Union, which, unlike the European Union, has not received a "one" seat. We are still talking about the G20, not the G21. Has the issue of arithmetic in the G20 been discussed among the G20 members? Do you think this attitude is fair when one union gets a "one" and the other doesn't?

Sergey Lavrov: As far as arithmetic is concerned, you are mistaken. The European Union is not considered in the G20. Twenty States. I hope that the integration structures of other continents will be represented, at least it would be fair, given that the European and African Unions are included. An example already exists, and a precedent has been set.

Question: You are very much loved in Latin America, and we have received many reports, including from Argentina, that they were worried that you did not come to see them. How serious is the direction of Latin America for Russia at a time when we are forced to reorient our foreign relations? How strong and stable is this direction for Russia in the future?

Sergey Lavrov: We have always been ready to develop relations with all those who show reciprocity. When it is beneficial for both sides, the relationship will develop without regard to any obstacles and problems.

Latin America is one of our major partners. The trade turnover with it is growing significantly. Investment activity is gaining momentum. Supplies of our fertilizers and grain are in high demand. Livestock products and fruits from Latin America are also popular in our country.

But we want joint investment projects to be added to these direct exchanges of goods and food. They're lining up, too. There are many of them in the field of Soviet- and Russian-made aviation equipment, in their maintenance, in the training of personnel for rescue services. Such a regional centre operates in Cuba. There are many plans that are being implemented.

As for the regret that I didn't come to Argentina, we are polite people.

Somewhat of a cryptic answer there about Argentina. Otherwise, most Q&As were rather old hat, IMO. What’s new is the rhetorical line about the West being Neocolonial in its actions in order to keep or regain its previous dominance that has now mostly eroded. A good question would have asked about Biden’s new moniker, Genocide Joe, and the Outlaw US Empire’s vetoing of yet another UNSC Ceasefire Resolution. Another somewhat new approach is relating current arrogant behavior to similar past behavior, in this case Nazi behavior. IMO, the vote by an almost 3-1 (480-182) margin to not allow Taurus missiles to be supplied to Ukraine was indicative of the Scholz government’s distance from what the public wants, although a weapons package was passed by a much closer vote. IMO, Russia is acting very restrained versus NATO and its Master the Outlaw US Empire as it has every right to attack both, and IMO most Global Majority nations see and understand that, which is one of many reasons why they stand by Russia.

Russia's Greater Eurasian Partnership Initiative was mentioned twice in the text but isn’t available in English. I’ll need to provide its translation for readers to study and save but the link is above for those able to translate it themselves. What we’re seeing is the vast majority of the world progressing while most Western nations are regressing, and not just economically but spiritually and morally too. And many within those nations don’t like what they’re seeing and experiencing. How much longer will they wait until they act?

*
*
*
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!