Lavrov's Post-BRICS Summit Presser

A 45-minute performance

Well, the 2025 version of the BRICS Summit is over. Pepe Escobar filed a first day report during his chat with Nima yesterday and said it was better than anticipated. Now we get to read Lavrov’s take and see if the Q&As are about the Summit or not. Yesterday, Lavrov did give an interview to a Hungarian media outlet that was an educational experience for the person asking the questions as much of it reiterated Russia’s position on Ukraine, NATO, and the EU in general. The BRICS Rio Declaration can be read here. And now, here’s Lavrov:

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have completed our work at the 17th BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to President of Brazil Lula da Silva, our Brazilian friends who worked in his team at this event, for the excellent organization of the summit and the traditional Brazilian hospitality at the meeting, which brought together a significant number of countries from the Global South and East.

The Brazilian hosts managed to ensure excellent cooperation within the BRICS. In 2024, the Russian Federation held the chairmanship. The summit in Kazan was regarded by everyone as very successful. I am sure that similar assessments will be made of our Brazilian friends following the summit that ends in Rio de Janeiro.

For the first time, the summit was attended not only by full-fledged BRICS members, but also by partner countries. Let me remind you that this category was established following the Kazan Summit on October 22-24, 2024 and includes Belarus, Bolivia, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan. In addition to the partner countries, which were now represented at the summit in this capacity, the Brazilian Presidency invited a number of heads of state and government from the Global South and East to separate sessions. Everyone could familiarize themselves with the list of those who participated as guests in the BRICS+ and BRICS Outreach meetings.

In addition, the heads of the secretariats of the UN, the WHO and the WTO, as well as the heads of multilateral banks, including the New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Latin American Development Bank, were traditionally invited and spoke at the relevant sessions.

If we talk about the results and the documents that were adopted, the BRICS members and their like-minded countries are unanimous in the fact that it is impossible to effectively solve the numerous problems of our time without taking into account the positions of the countries of the Global South, the East, in other words, the World Majority.

In this context, everyone noted the role of BRICS as a platform for coordinating the interests of the leading countries, the very world majority, as one of the key pillars of multipolarity, objectively replacing the globalization system that is becoming a thing of the past.

Speaking via videoconference at the BRICS summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the previous system was designed exclusively to serve the interests of the "golden billion." This era is becoming a thing of the past. Everyone is guided by the principles that promote BRICS as the basis for truly multilateral, equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between all countries.

Russia has coinciding positions on key international issues. The first plenary session was devoted to this. They reaffirmed their common commitment to promoting the formation of a more just, sustainable and polycentric world order based on the principles of the UN Charter, which are not selectively used and applied. Whereas our Western colleagues, as part of their specific adventure in the international arena, "pull out" what suits them at the moment, and then justify their actions. The principles of the UN Charter must be applied as it was written by the Founding Fathers and then adopted and ratified-–in the totality and interconnectedness of its fundamental requirements.

The BRICS leaders were presented with a report on the final meetings of the BRICS High Representatives in charge of security issues.

Speaking about specific aspects of the international agenda, there was a common opinion that Israeli and American strikes on Iranian territory, which were carried out in violation of international law, the UN Charter and IAEA agreements, were unacceptable.

In the final Declaration adopted at the end of the first day of meetings, all BRICS members spoke in favor of stopping any aggressive actions not only against Iran, but also in the Gaza Strip, where a catastrophic humanitarian situation has developed.

Everyone has a clear feeling that Israeli representatives and the army are going to act in a similar way not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, which seriously undermines the prospect of creating a Palestinian state. All BRICS members called for the implementation of UN decisions on a two-state "solution" to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We will try to ensure that no one tries to consign these decisions to oblivion.

The Declaration and speeches expressed the position of many participants regarding the situation in Ukraine. Everyone spoke from a balanced, objective position and showed a growing understanding of the root causes of this crisis, which lie in the threats to Russia's security that have been created by the West for many years, including NATO's eastward expansion with the obvious goal of absorbing Ukraine and "building" the NATO military machine right on our borders. But it is no less important to seek the abolition of all decisions taken by the Kiev regime after the 2014 coup d'état and which are aimed at legislatively exterminating everything Russian, including language, education, the media and culture. Recently, the basis for banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church was created.

Much attention was paid to a comprehensive approach to the reform of global governance, primarily with regard to the long-overdue reforms of the Bretton Woods institutions so that they reflect the real weight of the world-majority countries in the world economy and economy. In this regard, demands were again voiced, it was the consolidated position of the BRICS that it is necessary to accelerate the reform of the distribution of quotas and votes in the IMF.

We drew attention to the need to ensure that the practice used by the IMF and the World Bank Group is terminated in the course of reforms. It is to provide funding to those who are puppets of the West. First of all, this was demonstrated in relation to Ukraine. Funding from the Bretton Woods institutions over the past couple of years has far exceeded the resources allocated to all African countries. This is a shameful statistic for the IMF, for the World Bank.

Great importance is attached to the reform of the World Health Organization. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom spoke about the progress of the reform, which will make the Secretariat more efficient and less bureaucratic. We drew attention to the need to avoid attempts to politicise this structure, which should deal primarily with epidemiological security and the prevention of infectious and non-communicable diseases.

The documents of the session and the discussions reflect the tasks of environmental protection, including in the context of preparations for the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will be held in Belém (Brazil) on November 10–21, 2025. Crucially, everyone agreed on the need to avoid diktat on climate change and the adaptation of relevant national strategies. The West is actively trying to persuade developing countries to spend more and more on the "green transition" by slowing down their interests in accelerating socio-economic development.

Interstate discussions are facilitated by such structures as the New Development Bank, the BRICS Business Council, the BRICS Women's Business Alliance, and the BRICS Civil Council. All their leaders made presentations during this summit on how things are progressing in their respective areas. These mechanisms are very useful. Everyone notes that their work is an important help in deepening cooperation between our countries in the financial, economic, humanitarian and cultural areas.

We commend the achievements of BRICS this year. This is not only a summit, it is many dozens of different sectoral events in the areas of economy, culture, technological development, artificial intelligence.

A statement has been adopted on artificial intelligence, emphasizing the need to develop mechanisms for its regulation exclusively in universal formats under the auspices of the UN, and not during closed "private" meetings, where only those who will "obey their senior comrades" are invited.

At the summit, the launch of the BRICS partnership to eliminate socially caused diseases was announced. This is one of the concrete initiatives of the Brazilian Presidency. It enriches the agenda of our association. I am sure that this will be another positive experience.

We will promote all the developments that are being implemented within BRICS in the field of artificial intelligence and healthcare in the relevant international formats, including the WHO and the UN.

The work of the Brazilian presidency is not yet over. By the end of 2025, a number of events at the expert and ministerial level are planned. I am referring, for example, to the meetings of the presidents of the supreme courts, the heads of the tax and customs departments of the countries that are members of the association.

On January 1, 2026, India will assume the chairmanship of BRICS. During the meeting with our Indian counterpart, we discussed the plans that are now being developed in New Delhi. We believe that they are very promising and ensure continuity in our work last year, this year and with an eye to the year ahead.

Question: How would you assess the new format of the BRICS summit when partner countries take an active part in it?

Sergey Lavrov: This format is relatively new in the sense that a number of the invited countries have the status of "partner countries." Their main difference from the guests is that these countries will constantly participate in all BRICS events, not only in summits and ministerial meetings, but also in most sectoral formats dedicated to various aspects of economic cooperation and in solving humanitarian problems. Otherwise, such a number of participants is not news for the BRICS. It's just that they used to participate in the BRICS Plus and BRICS Outreach formats, or as invited by the chairmanship.

I remember that in 2023, the heads of state and government of all African Union countries attended the BRICS summit in Johannesburg as invited participants. Not everyone came, but more than 50 countries were present. So, from the point of view of managing such a large forum, there have already been precedents, but, of course, the fundamentally new qualities of participation of the ten countries that were identified as "partner countries" at the summit in Kazan are, of course, a new step in the development of our association. There is still more work to be done to involve them as closely as possible in "everyday" affairs.

Question: Even before the summit, the Western press began to claim that BRICS was running out of steam and that its expansion had "eroded" the association's ability to act as a united front. So, they say, this is why Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping did not come. What is your assessment?

Sergey Lavrov: I think they are reflecting, because everyone is seeing an example of NATO expansion, which did not benefit anyone, including the members of the North Atlantic Alliance themselves. Disagreements deepen there. Such a slight mutiny is brewing on the ship. More and more countries want to be guided not by some ideological guidelines imposed by the "master", but by their national interests.

There has never been such a risk in BRICS and there is no threat of dilution of our activities. The association has always been based on the principles of equality, mutual respect and consensus in all its steps. And one that reflects the real balance of interests, and is not dictated by the "Big Brother". So I cannot agree with such attempts to artificially describe the BRICS as an organization that has exhausted its purpose. On the contrary, its potential is only beginning to be revealed.

Much attention was paid to the reform of global governance mechanisms. [A very large section of the Declaration at its outset is devoted to this topic.] I have already said how the reforms of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO sounded at this summit.

An unusually large amount of attention, in comparison with previous years, was paid to the reform of the UN. Clearly, the reform of the Security Council has attracted the most attention. The text that has been agreed reaffirms the need to expand the Security Council by overcoming the underrepresentation of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. We are not talking about the West. For a long time and undeservedly, he received more seats than he is entitled to in terms of the balance of power, the balance of power in the international arena. But, perhaps, for the first time, the topic of the reform of the UN Secretariat was considered in detail. It contains direct criticism of the problem associated with the dominance of citizens of Western countries in senior positions in the Secretariat. It gave an example of the UN leadership. There are several dozen positions of deputy secretary general. But the key issues on which the real functioning of the Secretariat depends, and, accordingly, the preparation of proposals for states, which significantly affects the agenda, are all occupied by NATO member countries. The Secretary-General with whom I spoke here, Antonio Guterres, is from Portugal. There is a deputy for political affairs who is a US citizen, the deputy for peacekeeping operations is a French citizen, and the deputy for humanitarian affairs is a British citizen. There is also the Deputy Secretary-General, who is a citizen of Nigeria, but at the same time a citizen of the United States.

Now Antonio Guterres is promoting his idea as a follow-up to the General Assembly resolution on the development agenda adopted at the last session. The UN-80 concept is being promoted, which already outlines practical steps to reform the Secretariat that require very serious attention. And the task of "overseeing" this process has been entrusted to a person for whom the additional post of Under-Secretary-General has been specially created to oversee the issues of transformation within the Secretariat. What do you think? A British subject. So this imbalance is already obvious to everyone, and there are attempts, in particular, within the framework of the UN80 process, to carry out a reform so that intergovernmental bodies, primarily the UN General Assembly, are simply informed about how decisions are made behind the scenes in the interests of certain groups of countries. Russia, together with its like-minded people in New York, has submitted a resolution calling for attempts to circumvent intergovernmental bodies in resolving such important issues for the fate of the UN.

Question: You held a bilateral meeting with your Iranian counterpart. Does Tehran intend to resume contacts with the IAEA and in what format? Is Russia ready to help in mediation?

Sergey Lavrov: You are asking in what format the talks between Iran and the IAEA can resume? This is the Iran-IAEA format.

I have the impression that here, first of all, the IAEA leadership should show responsibility for the assessments that it publishes, published in the past and that were presented to the Board of Governors of the Organization just a few days before the start of the aggression. These assessments are characterized by many as, let's say, ambiguous. Unlike previous reports by the Secretariat, they lend themselves to interpretations that imply that Iran is not in good faith in fulfilling its obligations. As you know, the "Western troika" (France, Britain and Germany) seized on this, throwing in a resolution at a meeting of the UN Security Council with serious criticism of Iran.

A day or two later, Israel attacked civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. That is, a fairly simple and understandable "chain", in which the IAEA Secretariat willingly or unwittingly played a role. Therefore, we are now confident that the Secretariat should provide guarantees that it will henceforth be guided in the strictest possible way by the powers vested in it, and not try to throw in some stories that are subsequently used to politicise and promote the unilateral interests of individual members.

As for Russia, we are not talking about mediation. President of Russia Vladimir Putin recalled that when the Joint Comprehensive Programme of Action on Iran's nuclear programme was agreed, it took into account Russia's ability to provide services related to the depletion of uranium (which had accumulated in the Islamic Republic of Iran before the adoption of this document) to the level necessary for energy purposes for use at nuclear power plants. Because in the years after the United States unilaterally withdrew from this Joint Comprehensive Program, Iran did not have any obligations to limit enrichment, and now this is being discussed. You just reminded us that we have such technological capabilities. We are ready to provide them by taking the surplus of excessively enriched uranium for processing in Russia and returning the energy-enriched uranium to the Islamic Republic to its nuclear power facilities.

Of course, if the parties are comfortable with Russia helping to bring their positions closer. Now, first of all, the United States wants to resume dialogue with Iran, Oman and a number of other Arab states of the Persian Gulf helped in this...

Let's not forget that the Joint Comprehensive Programme of Action, which was approved, for which the international community thanked all participants, and which was later canceled, was developed with the participation of Europeans, Americans, Russia and China, among others. So if there is a desire for the main actor, which is Tehran, it will not be up to us.

Question: Even before his inauguration, Donald Trump threatened the BRICS countries with 100% tariffs in the event of the introduction of the BRICS currency. Just the day before, he had already threatened 10% tariffs on all countries that, as he put it, are pursuing an anti-American policy of the BRICS. Will a union currency be created? What about Donald Trump and what is the reaction to these words of the US president?

Sergey Lavrov: This is a strange question. US President Donald Trump does not hide his goals. He defends the interests of the United States, primarily economic, in the field of investment and trade.

This means that the conclusion that the model of globalization, which the United States has been promoting in the neoliberal context for many years and which for a certain period was "accepted" by everyone, is once again confirming the conclusion that the model of globalization has ceased to function.

But with regard to payments as such, the creation of a "currency" has never been discussed in the BRICS. The first impetus for work on alternative payment platforms was given at the Johannesburg Summit. President of Brazil Lula da Silva promoted this issue on his own initiative. The Brazilian proposals went quite far. In the declaration, they proposed to describe specific forms of functioning of a possible mechanism of alternative payment platforms. But in the end, central banks and finance ministries were instructed to prepare a proposal for platforms that would allow for settlements, the use of a system of mutual payments that does not depend on the dollar, whose position in the world economy and the global financial system of the United States under the Democrats began to be grossly abused. And it is not for nothing that during the preparations for the inauguration, US President Donald Trump directly accused Joe Biden and his administration of undermining the role of the dollar for many years. Now we will have to take into account that confidence in him has fallen.

In fact, this is true. We have been told for a long time (over the past 30 years, or maybe more) that the dollar is not American property, it is the "heritage of all mankind" that ensures the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the world economy, and US guarantees must be understandable and acceptable to everyone. No one knows when, who and for what they will decide to punish. I can cite many examples, but I will not. Even those who are seen as almost an ally of the United States cannot feel at ease.

In the BRICS, "currency" was not discussed. What was discussed, as I have already said, was, first, an increase in the role of national currencies. This is a process that is already "underway" in real life. Secondly, it is a new investment platform, a cross-border payment initiative. All this together creates such a "menu of opportunities" to avoid dependence on the dollar, and on the euro too. Speaking at the first meeting of the summit in Rio de Janeiro, President of Russia Vladimir Putin cited the figure of 90% – this is how many settlements in our trade and financial relations with our BRICS partners and with state partners are carried out in the currencies of the countries that participate in this. So that, in my opinion, is a good guarantee. Such a process is developing with other states as well. These are all the consequences of actions taken to punish the Russian Federation, in this case, in order to destroy all the principles on which international trade and international investment were based, including the inviolability of property, the presumption of innocence and fair competition. All this was discarded in an instant, and now there is a process of fragmentation of structures that were created in the era of globalization according to American patterns and did not cause rejection from anyone until they began to be abused.

Question: This is the first time that the final BRICS Declaration specifically condemns attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure, including the mention of child victims. This is an unprecedented formulation for such a diverse association. Does this mean the unanimity of the BRICS countries on this issue and the formation of a new international consensus on the inadmissibility of strikes on civilian targets? And does Russia plan to use this Declaration as a basis for initiating an investigation into these attacks at the UN or other international organisations?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, if it depends on the Declaration approved by the heads of state. This means unanimity among the BRICS countries, and not in the matter of forming a new consensus on the inadmissibility of strikes on civilian targets. Such strikes have long been prohibited by numerous conventions. First of all, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and subsequent documents. This applies not only to civilian objects, but also to the civilian population, especially children. Therefore, this should not be perceived as something out of the ordinary. This is simply a reaffirmation of commitment to principles that the international community approved by consensus a long time ago and which the West blatantly disregards. Those who enjoy the patronage of the West, primarily the Kyiv regime, get away with everything.

These were such egregious cases when the peaceful railway infrastructure and absolutely civilian trains passing through it were deliberately attacked. It is impossible not to condemn this, and it is impossible to turn a blind eye to it as representatives of various UN bodies tried to do when we asked them on this topic, as well as officials at the UN Human Rights Council and the OSCE.

As for the investigation and bringing the perpetrators to justice, we are not trying to throw this topic into the international discussion. We are working on this ourselves through the Russian Prosecutor General's Office and public organisations. We periodically publish such materials and distribute them at the UN and European international organisations. This work will continue. No one will be able to escape responsibility.

Question (retranslated from English): My question concerns the fact that US President Donald Trump has proposed introducing multi-percentage duties on the BRICS member countries. How can this affect Russia's proposal to develop an alternative financial system? What does Russia think about the decision of the Brazilian presidency to slow down the discussion of platforms and means of payment, a single currency for international trade?

Also, the final Declaration of the BRICS summit condemned strikes on Russian territory. How can BRICS facilitate the mediation offers of Brazil and China?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the first question, there is no "Russian initiative."

As I mentioned in response to a previous question, the focus on the development of alternative payment platforms and mechanisms was first placed in the Johannesburg Summit Declaration at the suggestion of President Lula da Silva. He proposed to work more actively on these issues. Ultimately, it was decided to authorize central banks and finance ministries to submit recommendations on alternative payment platforms for future summits. This is what we are considering. This means that not only Russia is interested in this.

Brazilian President Lula da Silva is promoting similar initiatives in the context of CELAC. We know that. In CELAC, the discussions are much closer to the concept of currency than in the BRICS context. This is understandable, because the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States is a more geographically connected, coherent structure. So we do not see that there is any "slowdown". There is none. The statistics available to the leaders show that the volume of transactions serviced without the use of the dollar is growing, as is the percentage of such transactions in the context of total trade.

As for Brazil and China...

Question (retranslated from English): The BRICS member countries condemned the bombing of peaceful infrastructure in Russia.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, they criticized. I have just said this.

Question (retranslated from English): This could "spoil" the Brazilian-Chinese mediation in the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis...

Sergey Lavrov: Do you mean the condemnation of the bombing of civilian infrastructure?

Question (retranslated from English): I mean that they came up with a six-point proposal for negotiations. And the final declaration could destroy these proposals.

Sergey Lavrov: I do not understand how a principled position in favour of international conventions prohibiting attacks on civilian infrastructure and civilians can spoil an initiative with good intentions.

We discussed with our Brazilian and Chinese colleagues the evolution of their initiatives. We noted, for example, that France and Switzerland were suddenly present at one of the meetings of the Friends of Peace group (created by China and Brazil), which held a regular meeting in New York in March of this year. France is one, if not the very country, that is at the forefront of its attacks on the Russian Federation, continuing to pump weapons into Ukraine.

The initiative of China and Brazil was important because they said from the very beginning that they wanted a neutral and objective consideration. This was a counterbalance to the unilateral initiatives that the Ukrainians promoted together with their Western masters, including the Bürgenstock process and the Vladimir Zelensky peace formula. I think it is good that the group of Friends of Peace in Ukraine has remained committed to its principles in the document that has been circulated.

Since we have touched on Ukraine, I would like to remind you that it is the only country where language, especially if it is an official language of the UN, is banned in all spheres of life–-in education, the media, cultural events, etc. In no other part of the world where there are any conflicts, there are no such examples. I am referring, among other things, to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There is no other conflict where this would happen.

This grossly violates the UN Charter. Today I met with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. He reiterated yesterday that everyone must respect international law. Then he spoke about the territorial integrity of Ukraine. But the principle of territorial integrity means that no one cares about the inalienable rights of the people living in these territories. The UN Charter states respect for human rights regardless of race, gender, language or religion. The Russian language and the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine are prohibited by law.

I replied to him: look, the West, which always teaches everyone about human rights, including you, us, China and Venezuela, never uses these words ("human rights") in relation to the situation in Ukraine. On the contrary, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kallas Kallas and others said that by fighting Russia, Ukraine is defending "European values." If these "European values" consist in the abolition of culture, this is a return to Nazism. We do not expect the West to recognise the reality of human rights violations in Ukraine.

Our friends in the Global South, who are interested in advancing their initiatives, can be at the forefront of the fight for human rights, not as the West wants, but as required by the UN Charter. [My Emphasis]

I don’t recall Lavrov framing the human rights issue in Ukraine in that manner, although the first sentence has been spoken by him before. “We [Russia] do not expect the West to recognise the reality of human rights violations in Ukraine.” IMO, Lavrov also told Guterres he’s worthless as the UNGS and is nothing but a stooge for the West. Lavrov also outlined why the UN has failed as an institution—it’s not neutral or unbiased in far too many critical areas. Western presstitutes are so steeped in their false narrative they leave themselves wide open for attacks using truth spears, which Lavrov did at the end.

On Iran, the top-secret docs that Iran pilfered at the beginning of June have yet to be made public, especially those incriminating the IAEA of espionage and collusion with the Zionists and their US Masters. I recall that days before the 13 June attack Iran was already hopping mad at IAEA and was ready to kick them out which has now been done. The question now is will Iran stay in the NPT. Many including myself argue that Iran should demand the Zionists submit to the NPT and IAEA or they will quit. IMO, 190 nations will back Iran’s position.

Article 34 deals with Terrorism and is affiliated with Article 36, which states:

We reiterate our commitment to preventing and combating illicit financial flows, including money laundering and the financing of terrorism, extremism and proliferation, as well as other forms of transnational organized crime, such as drug trafficking, cybercrimes, crimes that affect the environment, illicit trafficking of firearms, trafficking in persons, corruption and the use of new technologies, including cryptocurrencies, for illegal, in particular terrorist, purposes.

So far, I’ve yet to see any direct accusations of the West for developing and using terrorism as a proxy which isn’t a modern issue. That this has yet to be done reflects a certain degree of meekness within the Global Majority. Although the terrorism within Syria is noted, its sponsors are not named.

By far the largest section of the Declaration is Deepening International Economic, Trade and Financial Cooperation, which has 38 Articles and introduces a number of hitherto unknown agencies and organizations all aimed at facilitating development. For example, there’s the BRICS Think Tank Network for Finance, which is only one of many. AS Lavrov said, BRICS is only beginning to reach its potential and is far from being a “dead” organization. As Escobar continually intones, “Trump doesn’t even know what BRICS is.”

I’ve only touched on a few major aspects of the Declaration’s 126 Articles covering 31 PDF pages. One thing not asked was who the next full member candidates might be. And as usual, Lavrov and his team met with many on the sidelines. Lavrov might go West from Brazil to the next round of Summits in Asia that will begin later this week.

*
*
*
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!