Lavrov's Post-G-20 Presser

Behind the microphones staring out at the gathered media yet again, Lavrov provides his recap remarks on the conference and fields questions during the 27-minute session:

We have concluded the G20 ministerial meeting held in Johannesburg.

I would like to thank our South African friends through the media for the excellent organisation of the discussion, both in terms of its content and in resolving numerous protocol and organisational issues.

The main topic of the exchange of views between the foreign ministers was the importance of "strengthening the voice" of developing countries in global decision-making. A major conversation took place. There is some progress in this area.

Since last year, the African Union has become a full member of the G20. We are interested in obtaining the same status for the Arab League and CELAC. We welcome this attitude. We believe that at some stage the EAEU may well claim a similar status. Because all these associations are showing positive dynamics in terms of their contribution to the development of international economic ties.

We presented our vision of international problems and ways to solve them at a time when multipolar realities are already beginning to be recognized by many. The fact that multipolarity is coming is obvious to us and to the BRICS countries. Statistics show exactly this.

The BRICS countries have surpassed the G7 countries in terms of total gross domestic product. The BRICS account for 37% of global GDP and the G7 countries for 29%. This raises the question of the need to reform global economic institutions even more acutely so that they reflect the real weight of the countries of the Global South, the world majority in the world economy, and to build non-discriminatory economic ties. We have actively discussed this. Russia is ready to contribute in every possible way to further progress in this area. There are still many problems.

Most of the participants in the Johannesburg meeting stated that it is extremely unlikely that the Sustainable Development Goals approved by the UN until 2030 will be achieved. Only 17% of these Goals have a chance that they will be implemented.

At the same time, inequality is growing in the world, and other problems of developing countries are growing. We welcome the steps that can be taken through additional technology transfer, additional concessional financing for developing countries, and increased food aid. These steps are overdue, but they will not be enough to radically change the situation.

The global economy is characterised by a disproportionate increase in defence and military spending. According to Western experts, it amounted to $2.4 trillion a year. An outrageous example is the Zelensky regime, which absorbs (at least) hundreds of billions of dollars in military aid, which could be spent on vital development assistance programmes around the world, primarily in Africa.

The IMF and the World Bank are setting records for replenishing the Zelensky regime through their policies, allocating loans and credits that are many times higher than the funds allocated to African and other developing countries. We noted that global stability is being undermined. This has an extremely negative impact on the global economy.

We called for respect for the universally recognised norms of international law on the part of our Western colleagues. We emphasised the importance of restoring the role of the UN as a place for coordinating the actions of states and developing a fair balance of interests. We also noted the stabilising role for international economic relations of multilateral structures working on the basis of consensus among the participants. Among them are the SCO, the EAEU, the African Union, the Arab League and CELAC, which I have mentioned. All this creates additional opportunities for resolving emerging problems at the regional level.

At the global level, the role played by BRICS is certainly attracting everyone's attention. We informed our colleagues in detail about the results of last year's BRICS summit in Kazan, where a number of promising ideas were formulated in terms of the mandate of the G20: an agreement on the launch of BRICS payment and settlement mechanisms, an investment platform and a grain exchange.

If we are talking about structures that play a certain role in international economic relations, then the G20 as a whole retains the role of a platform for dialogue between old and new centres of power. We spoke in favour of maintaining the economic profile of this association, as it was supposed and agreed at the very beginning of its creation in 2008, without politicising the G20 agenda, as our Western colleagues have been trying to do in recent years, seeking to "Ukrainise" the agenda. Attempts have always been unsuccessful. They take a lot of energy and nerves from the participants, especially the Sherpas.

We drew the attention of our colleagues to a significant date, especially since it is celebrated in the year of Africa's presidency of the G20 – the 65th anniversary of the UN Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.

The leading role in the adoption of this historic document was played by our country (then the Soviet Union). Despite the successes achieved by the countries of the Global South, freed from the burden of exploitation, the problem has not been completely resolved. There are 17 Non-Self-Governing Territories in the world. Colonial dependence has largely given way to neocolonial dependence. Former metropolises and Western transnational corporations have monopolized markets and supply chains, using their advantages to pump out natural resources and raw materials from the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. Then they add value at their enterprises, extracting maximum profit from the entire process.

This is not normal in the 21st century. We support our partners from the countries of the world majority, who are advocating for liberation from neo-colonial practices more and more persistently.

South Africa, which chaired the G20 this year, completes the series of BRICS presidencies that began in 2022, when Indonesia was at the helm of the G20. In 2023, India; in 2024, Brazil. This consistent option for BRICS to chair the G20 has yielded a positive result, which has made it possible to strengthen the position of the Global South in our forum. All this contributes to the establishment of a more just multipolar world order based on the sovereign equality of states, as required by the UN Charter, and on all other principles of the Charter in their entirety and interconnection.

On the whole, we are satisfied with the results of the meeting. Disagreements have not disappeared, but the conversation continues. This is always useful. I believe that in Johannesburg we managed to set a positive vector for further cooperation in the G20 and to increase attention to acute problems, primarily of the African continent, as well as other countries of the Global South.

This is a good and useful contribution to the preparations for the G20 summit in Johannesburg in November 2025.

Question: You said that the G20 is primarily an economic association. Still, the representatives of South Africa, opening the year of their presidency, among other economic challenges, set themselves the goal of reaching a consensus on the Ukrainian crisis in the G20. How do you see this success? Is such a consensus possible, given the composition of the participants?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not aware that the South Africans set themselves such a goal. I closely followed how they came into their own rights, how our Sherpas worked. They did not have such a task.

Yesterday I was received by President of South Africa S. Ramaphosa. Today we had a long conversation with South African Foreign Minister R. Lamola. They reaffirmed that they fully support the need not to deviate from the originally agreed mandate of the G20–-trade, financial, economic, logistical and transport issues.

I did not. And my colleagues who worked on the preparation of the ministerial meeting did not see such a trend.

Question: As you know, the United States ignored the ministerial meeting in Johannesburg at a high level. At the same time, previous summits and meetings were openly "torpedoed" by the West in an attempt to impose the Ukrainian agenda. How can such a destructive influence of the EU be neutralised? Does the G20 have a future?

Sergey Lavrov: You said that previous meetings were "torpedoed" by the West with attempts to Ukrainise them. I would say that this is not entirely correct. Previous attempts by the West to Ukrainise the G20 agenda were "torpedoed" by the other members of this association.

If you look at the final documents, after all the G20 members agreed to include a short text on geopolitical problems as a compromise, you will not find anything in them that could be rejected by the Russian side. They talk about the existence of a large number of problems, including the 2024 summit that highlighted the Palestinian problem and what is happening in the Gaza Strip and in the Middle East as a whole.

But in order to coordinate these small texts, our experts spent a lot of time. And this does not have any impact on the problems of Palestine, Ukraine, Africa, where conflicts flare up again. Because there is an appropriate format for all political crises.

On the other hand, on the positive side, I would like to note that these "inserts" in the declarations of the G20 leaders did not in any way affect the essence of economic discussions that meet the interests of forming a multipolar world of agreements formulated in these documents.

Question: The aggressive global minority is becoming even smaller every day, but no less aggressive. The statements by Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron and Kallas are becoming more rhetorical. What do you think they are counting on? What are they likely to expect?

Sergey Lavrov: I am surprised by this. High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas spoke at the G20 with the same set of accusations and proclaimed certain "plans" that will not allow Russia to take its rightful place in the world. There is a tragicomic element in this.

She said that the "television picture" of the Russian Foreign Minister and the US Secretary of State, as well as the national security advisers of Moscow and Washington, have created the impression for the whole world that Russia is the "winner." This mentality has not disappeared. From ancient times, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, when it was necessary to build new relations in the European part of Eurasia – "either/or" – either you are with us or against us.

When the first coup d'état took place in Ukraine in 2004, which, we believed, was not a manifestation of the West's systemic policy, these problems persisted and worsened. Under pressure from the United States, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine did not recognise Viktor Yanukovych's victory in the second round and appointed a third round of voting that was not provided for in the Constitution, which was infinitely manipulated. In the end, Viktor Yushchenko won.

Before the third round, Belgian Foreign Minister Claude de Gucht publicly stated that he called on Ukrainian voters to make the "right" choice: either they are with Russia or with Europe. This confrontational mood has not gone away. Behind it lies the desire not to allow anyone to escape the "eye" and influence of Western countries. They are still trying to do this in all parts of the world, including in the post-Soviet space.

Speaking about the people who are now trying to assess Western countries and prevent their split, I cannot fail to mention NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte. He speaks as if he is the president of a major and powerful power, and not an official who is obliged to reflect the consensus of all its members. He is rushing around the world, around the capitals of the North Atlantic Alliance member states, demanding that a peaceful settlement be prevented that would allow Russia to derive at least some benefits from the special military operation.

According to our information, he is "instructing" Vladimir Zelensky, pointing out to him the need to stand his ground, not to show weakness before the start of talks, and emphasises that it is unacceptable for Kiev to hint at the possibility of softening its positions and making "territorial concessions." This is a bacchanalia. This person (in this case, Mark Rutte) is abusing and grossly violating his functional duties.

Not all NATO members take such a "frenzied" position. Not everyone wants to continue spending money on arming Ukraine, to subordinate all the work of both NATO and the European Union to Vladimir Zelensky's wishes. So the truth will prevail.

Now there are more sensible voices not only from a number of European countries, but also from Washington. We spoke in detail about the results of our talks. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has touched on this topic several times. The main thing is not that we are inferior to someone or someone is inferior to us. This "either-or" should not exist. There should be an understanding that politics and diplomacy are primarily dialogue, the desire to listen to the interlocutor and find in his statements what coincides with your interests. Then there is a consensus on certain issues, which does not mean that disagreements will be completely removed. This will never happen. The main thing is to achieve results where interests coincide and translate them into practical actions, including in the economy. And where they diverge, we must not allow this divergence to degenerate into confrontation, let alone a heated one.

Question: How did your G20 colleagues from friendly countries react to the resumption of the Russian-US dialogue? How can this affect the formation of multipolarity, which the world-majority countries are striving for?

Sergey Lavrov: Everyone welcomed our meeting. They understand that this is not the end of the era of confrontation between Russia and the West. But the fact that the beginning of the conversation in itself is a return to normalcy is recognised and welcomed by absolutely everyone.

The way the "tragicomic characters" who head the Brussels bureaucracy and NATO reacted to the meeting in Riyadh is very indicative. The very fact that representatives of the two great powers sat down and talked, each stating their position, is perceived as a betrayal of the interests of the West. These are unhealthy people.

By and large, all our interlocutors from the countries of the world majority feel this way. Perhaps not everyone tells us about this directly. But it feels like so.

Question: The draft resolution of the UN General Assembly, which was prepared by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Canada, the Baltic countries and a number of other European states by February 24, demands that Moscow "immediately" and "unconditionally" withdraw its troops from Ukraine. At the same time, for the first time since the beginning of the special military operation, the United States did not co-sponsor such a draft resolution on Ukraine. Do you think this indicates a shift in relations between Russia and the United States and the beginning of a thaw?

Sergey Lavrov: This testifies to pragmatism as the essence of the Trump administration's policy. At meetings with the leaders of a number of countries (most certainly at meetings with Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi, and probably in contacts with other representatives of the world majority), he emphasises that his main slogan is common sense.

This is the only change in the list of co-sponsors of this aimless dead-end resolution that you mentioned.

Question: What issues is the Russian Foreign Ministry working on in preparation for a possible meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump? When can it take place?

Sergey Lavrov: You will find out when it will take place.

What issues are we working on? Confidentiality is an integral part of the preparation of any diplomatic process. So I am sure that we will inform you in a timely manner. But first of all, the Kremlin press service will inform you.

Question: US Treasury Secretary Stephen Bessent said that it is possible to discuss the issue of easing sanctions against Russia as part of the talks on the Ukrainian crisis. What is Moscow's position on Western sanctions? Is it possible to achieve a settlement of the Ukrainian crisis without a comprehensive solution to the issue of sanctions that would take into account Russia's interests?

Sergey Lavrov: We are not touching on this topic. We proceed from the premise that this is a gross violation of all the principles that the West itself has laid down in the global economy: fair competition, the inviolability of property, the presumption of innocence and free market mechanisms. All this has collapsed. We must also add the direct theft of Russian assets. This is shameful. Not only did they steal it, but they also use interest to finance the war against our country with the hands of Ukrainians.

Recently, there have been reports that a number of Western companies are ready to return and resume their business in Russia. I believe that our economic bloc reacted correctly. The approximate meaning of this reaction is that over the years of this hybrid war, including illegal sanctions, we have done a lot to give a powerful impetus to the development of our own industries, in which until recently we were seriously dependent on the United States, the European Union, Japan, etc.

Approximately the same logic should be followed when we talk about the return of Western companies to Russia (they should not be discouraged from this). But it is necessary to let them only into those industries that will not create risks for our economy in case suddenly someone gets up there "on the wrong foot" again.

The same is true of the sanctions. In many ways, they forced us, but through this they taught and inspired us to undertake serious reforms, to deeply restructure our economy in the interests of full-fledged, sovereign and independent development that does not depend on the whims of those who still consider themselves to be in charge on the world stage, including the world economy.

I will finish where I started. Multipolarity is gaining the upper hand. The growth rates of new powerful centres of power–-economic, political and financial–-show that this multipolarity is unstoppable. In this sense, the importance of the G20 is preserved so that its Western participants understand the irreversibility of this process and begin to integrate into it.

We are not saying that multipolarity excludes the West. They are also part of our planet, the world economy and international life. And the G20 is a good place for explanatory work, for "education" of our Western colleagues. [My Emphasis]

Clearly, the Outlaw US Empire isn’t yet ready to conduct normal business. IMO, Trump is addicted to too many Queen songs and is nowhere near ready to be seen as a mere peer, and that will present difficulties for his foreign policy. And as we’ve seen, Marco Rubio is very similar, which is why Trump chose him. The big question: Will Trump’s “common sense” overcome his clear exceptionalism? The question of how Russia will approach the sanctions issue during the negotiations was finally answered very firmly. Their removal will be a sign that Western behavior is changing. Meanwhile, all the alternatives will continue to be constructed and put into use. Unfortunately as you read, the Q&A was dominated by the aggressive war being waged on Russia by the Outlaw US Empire and most of its NATO vassals and very little concerned G-20 business. IMO, the G-20 becomes stronger with the African Union’s inclusion, which I hope will be followed by adding the ASEAN.

I feel it necessary to single out this one paragraph where Lavrov provided a lesson in the basic substance and aims of diplomacy:

The main thing is not that we are inferior to someone or someone is inferior to us. This "either-or" should not exist. There should be an understanding that politics and diplomacy are primarily dialogue, the desire to listen to the interlocutor and find in his statements what coincides with your interests. Then there is a consensus on certain issues, which does not mean that disagreements will be completely removed. This will never happen. The main thing is to achieve results where interests coincide and translate them into practical actions, including in the economy. And where they diverge, we must not allow this divergence to degenerate into confrontation, let alone a heated one.

The West and others need to mature and learn this very important foundational premise to the conduct of human relations. And not just governments but individuals also need to adopt that lesson. The twin conflict inducing behaviors—Megalomania and Pleonexia—need to be more openly discussed and denounced while the above is proclaimed to be the proper path to follow.

*
*
*
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!