Sergey Lavrov: “On a serious note, our profession is not to fear things, but to push for proper consideration of Russia’s interests, and to work openly and honestly based on international law and the agreed-upon principles. A strong and independent country with a sense of dignity cannot behave otherwise”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following the SCO Foreign Ministers Council Meeting.

Tianjin, July 15, 2025

Colleagues, good afternoon.

We have travelled extensively together and have now reached the final destination of our tour – the city of Tianjin, where the meeting of the SCO Council of Foreign Ministers has just concluded.

This marked the culminating stage of preparations for the upcoming SCO Summit, which will likewise be held here in Tianjin in late August – early September of this year.

All participants unanimously acknowledged the business-like, focused nature of our work. In this context, we attach particular significance to this morning’s meeting with President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, who shared his assessments of joint efforts under China’s chairmanship and his vision of the key tasks for the progressive development of our Organisation.

The discussion confirmed a shared understanding of the growing importance of the SCO’s collective potential in both regional and global affairs. Nuances in national approaches persist – this is inevitable – yet the prevailing trend towards further consolidation of the SCO and the enhancement of its role on the international stage is encouraging.

We affirmed that our common approach of strengthening the SCO as one of the central pillars of a more equitable, multipolar world order remains unchanged. This fully accounts for the representative composition of the Organisation’s participants we see today, as well as the considerable number of nations seeking to join the SCO’s work.

The geographical scope of our structure spans a significant portion of the Eurasian continent. We noted that cooperation within our Organisation objectively contributes to the creation of an architecture of equal and indivisible security across Eurasia. We regard the Greater Eurasian Partnership, based on cooperation among existing multilateral associations in the region – first and foremost the SCO, the EAEU, the CIS, and ASEAN – as its socio-economic foundation. We also take into account China’s Belt and Road Initiative, including existing agreements between this project and the EAEU. Within the framework of this approach, readiness was reiterated to maintain close coordination of actions within the United Nations.

We reviewed progress in implementing the proposals to enhance the SCO’s activities approved at the Organisation’s 2024 summit. Preparations are nearing completion for draft agreements on establishing a Universal Centre for Countering Challenges and Threats to Security in Tashkent and an Anti-Drug Centre in Dushanbe. A structure to combat organised crime is planned for deployment in Bishkek.

We exp/ressed support for further expanding the SCO’s engagement with external actors. A new step in this direction will be the upcoming high-level meetings in the SCO+ format at the Tianjin Summit – the first of their kind. This event will immediately precede the meeting of the Council of Heads of State on September 1, 2025.

We anticipate the participation of representatives from approximately 30 states and multilateral organisations in this event. This underscores the SCO’s growing constructive agenda and its appeal to nations of the Global South and the World Majority.

Today, we held in-depth discussions on pressing international and regional issues. We provided our colleagues with detailed assessments of the latest developments in Ukraine and reaffirmed our well-known approaches to resolving the crisis, repeatedly articulated by President of Russia Vladimir Putin.

In turn, our partners demonstrated an understanding of these positions. Once again, we emphasised the necessity of addressing the root causes of the conflict, recognising the existing territorial realities, and guaranteeing the legitimate rights of Russians and Russian speakers, including in the areas still controlled by the Kiev regime.

We also unanimously condemned Israel’s attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iran. Let me remind you that on June 14, immediately after these aggressive attacks, the SCO promptly released a statement. Similarly, the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities were qualified as blatant violations of the UN Charter and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. We also reaffirmed our commitment to safeguarding Tehran’s legitimate right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

Regarding the developments in the Middle East, it was noted that sustainable stabilisation in the region is impossible without a just and comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict, strictly in line with the UN decisions. As an urgent measure, all participants called for the immediate cessation of actions that further exacerbate the humanitarian catastrophe facing the Palestinian people.

We also discussed ways to strengthen regional security, with particular focus on Afghanistan. Nearly all SCO member states are actively deepening their bilateral relations with Kabul. We share a common understanding of the importance of supporting Afghanistan’s reconstruction and ensuring its sustainable development as an independent, neutral, and peaceful state, free from terrorism and drug trafficking. It was underscored that fostering a process of national consensus and ensuring ethnic and political inclusivity in government structures remain key priorities.

In addition, we reviewed the progress in preparing key documents to be presented at the upcoming leaders’ summit. As per tradition, our approaches to cooperation within the SCO and coordinated stances on current global and regional issues will be reflected in the Tianjin Declaration.

The long-term vision for the Organisation’s evolution was also discussed. These strategic guidelines, building on the accumulated experience of the ongoing upgrading, will be enshrined in the SCO Development Strategy through 2035. The current ten-year strategy, adopted at the 2015 Ufa summit, will conclude in 2025.

We regard the draft Leaders’ Statement commemorating the 80th anniversary of the conclusion of the Second World War and the establishment of the United Nations as a pivotal political document currently in development. In the economic sphere, we are progressing with a series of initiatives in artificial intelligence, green industry, investment collaboration, and the digital economy.

The resolutions adopted by leaders on the aforementioned matters will establish a foundation for effective preparations in advance of the Meeting of the SCO Council of Heads of Government, scheduled for November 17–18, 2025, in Moscow under Russia’s chairmanship.

Question: What is your perspective on the “new plan” proposed by US President Donald Trump concerning Ukraine? Is Russia willing to continue dialogue with the United States on the Ukrainian settlement and bilateral normalisation following Washington’s recent declarations? How do we evaluate the threat of 100 percent tariffs being imposed on our trading partners in terms of Russia’s foreign economic interests?

Sergey Lavrov: We never pursue policies that harm our national interests or compromise the security of our nation. The special military operation is precisely aimed at decisively removing the threats that the North Atlantic Alliance has been systematically constructing directly on our borders – not for a day, nor a year, but for decades. Russia has issued repeated warnings. President Vladimir Putin has devoted numerous speeches and statements to this issue. Regrettably, he was not heeded. This only corroborates what President Putin recently recounted in his interview with Pavel Zarubin regarding how his – and our collective – perception of relations with the West has evolved. Initially, it appeared that removing ideological differences would be sufficient for improvement. Later, it became evident that ideology was not the issue – the West (irrespective of whether the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, or post-Soviet Russia was concerned) has been driven by one objective alone: the geopolitical containment, suppression, or even outright military destruction of Russia, as history has witnessed more than once.

As Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov noted, we genuinely seek to comprehend what underlies this “50-day” declaration – previously, there was discourse of “24 hours,” then “100 days.” We do wish to understand US President Trump’s motivations. Clearly, he faces immense – I would even say, improper – pressure from the European Union and NATO’s current leadership, who brazenly endorse Vladimir Zelensky’s demands to continue arming his regime with modern, including offensive, weaponry, all at growing expense to Western taxpayers. There is a Russian proverb: “Do not dig a pit for others…” The sanctions recently imposed by the EU – and those being prepared anew in Brussels – are now attempting to drag the United States into this “sanctions vortex.” Yet President Trump explicitly stated that Europe would bear the cost of prolonging the conflict. All this has already inflicted severe damage on the European economy. Objective European analysts, economists, and political scientists concede that the primary casualty of this sanctions war is its very architect. An unprecedented volume of sanctions has been levied against us. We are managing. I have no doubt we will prevail – a conclusion supported by independent assessments and analyses, including those from many Western economists and policymakers.

As for our trade counterparties, they can hear what has been said. But they can hardly predict their actions now. They have their international obligations. Knowledgeable of our partners, I cannot see how they can give up their independent policy, the policy of observing agreements achieved both through two-way channels and under multilateral formats.

Question: Could you share the details of your meeting with Xi Jinping, what kind of message you conveyed to him from President Vladimir Putin? What other states are interested at the moment to join the Organisation? Which of its initiatives could turn useful for reducing the risks of geopolitical crises sprawl?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the conversation between the SCO ministers of foreign affairs with President of China Xi Jinping and the following conversation with Russian delegation, we discussed the principled matters of developing the SCO and the initiatives of the Chinese chairmanship, which are known well enough. All of them have already been announced. At the bilateral meeting we discussed our coordination in the foreign policy area in conformity with the principled strategic reference points agreed earlier by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of CPC Xi Jinping. As you should understand, we will not go into details now.

As for those wishing to join the SCO, it was decided today to grant the SCO partner status to the Lao People's Democratic Republic. Most of the countries that want to join the Organisation will participate in a new format, which will appear on September 1, right after the SCO summit. This format is called SCO+. It will comprise about 30 countries and multilateral organisations.

As for challenges and risks, I do not want to speak again in detail on what is well known to everybody. Everybody knows so well how we plan our actions in the areas threatening our security and other interests.

Question: I have a question about the regional security system which was among the purposes behind creating the SCO. Have today’s talks led to the sides showing their full readiness to conduct counter-terrorism or peacekeeping operations?

Sergey Lavrov: I touched on this issue in my opening remarks.

What we have now is the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure, which has been fairly busy over the years. Recently, a decision was made to expand its mandate to address new challenges and threats, since terrorism and organised crime, especially drug trafficking, are closely linked.

A decision was made to create the SCO All-Purpose Centre on the premises of the regional anti-terrorism centre in Tashkent to combat new challenges and threats. Concurrently, a SCO Anti-Drug Centre is being created in Dushanbe, which will sign a special agreement with the All-Purpose Centre to combat new challenges and threats. In Bishkek, an entity aimed at combatting organised crime will be created. Following the reform, these three mechanisms will offer extra opportunities for the effective suppression of threats arising in connection with terrorism and illegal migration, which often devolve into extremist and terrorist activities. I hope our presidents will approve this reform.

Question: On July 15, on the sidelines of the SCO Summit, you held a meeting with Foreign Minister of Iran Abbas Araghchi. Did you discuss Russia’s proposal to take excess enriched uranium out from Iran and practical steps to implement this proposal?

Sergey Lavrov: We discussed realistic approaches to ensuring a solution which would be achieved through peaceful, political, and diplomatic efforts with due respect of the decisions that the Islamic Republic of Iran had made a long time ago, namely the official renunciation by Tehran of possessing nuclear weapons. No evidence to the contrary has ever been presented by anyone, including IAEA inspectors.

The second important principle is not to infringe on Iran’s lawful rights, like those of all other non-nuclear members of the IAEA and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, regarding uranium enrichment for energy purposes.

We will continue to discuss with our friends the specific possible steps in this regard, and available technical and negotiating opportunities.

Question: Was there any discussion at the SCO or during bilateral meetings about providing practical assistance to Iran in restoring infrastructure destroyed by Israeli-American air strikes?

Sergey Lavrov: The Iranian side did not make such requests.

Question: After your meeting in Beijing, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said that China and Russia will take the SCO to a whole new level. What level are we talking about?

Sergey Lavrov: A level that goes up indefinitely.

Question: You mentioned that Moscow was trying to understand where US President Trump’s statements were coming from. Just before Trump, US Senator Lindsey Graham stated in about the same language that Brazil, China, and India were playing into Putin’s hands. You’ve made it clear that Moscow has no particular concerns regarding its partners, but I’d like to ask you if there is any potential for joint action by the SCO or BRICS regarding this threat.

Sergey Lavrov: Washington kept uttering specific threats targeting BRICS to the effect that BRICS needs to be opposed and that it undermines US interests.

Truth be told, US President D. Trump expressed a somewhat different view on earlier occasions. He stated loud and clear that the actions taken by the Biden administration, which weaponised the US dollar, have irreparably damaged the standing of this global reserve currency. I’m sure he understands that this is a fair assessment and that in response to the mayhem caused by the previous administration, BRICS, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, and many other associations are considering alternative payment methods that do not include the US dollar and are thus immune to Washington’s lawless behaviour.

This process can no longer be stopped. There are statistics that show the share of the US dollar in global trade and international financial transactions. This is not because we wanted to flee from the US dollar. President Putin has underscored this point many times. The US dollar was used to punish those whose behaviour - as seen by the Americans - was inconsistent with the infamous “rules” which they want to use as a foundation for the world order.

On a serious note, our profession is not to fear things, but to push for proper consideration of Russia’s interests, and to work openly and honestly based on international law and the agreed-upon principles. A strong and independent country with a sense of dignity cannot behave otherwise. We have every reason to believe that the BRICS countries are also sovereign entities and appreciate their standing within the global system.

Question: American media outlets claim that the United States is currently pressuring its allies in Japan and Australia to determine how they will assist Taiwan in the event of a conflict. Simultaneously, the US and its allies – 18 nations – are launching the largest-ever military exercises in Australia, involving tens of thousands of troops. What, in your view, is driving this latest escalation of tensions in the region?

Sergey Lavrov: This is not a new escalation. It may represent a new phase of the very same escalation that began quite some years ago, when the United States of America introduced the concept of developing and implementing Indo-Pacific strategies. By this, they mean the Asia-Pacific region – a term that has always been used without any inherent disadvantage.

The Indo-Pacific strategies symbolise NATO countries’ ambitions to extend their infrastructure into the Far East, Southeast Asia, and Northeast Asia, forging alliances with a nuclear core, such as AUKUS (the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia) and the trilateral partnership between the United States, South Korea, and Japan. These alliances are conducting increasingly large-scale exercises, including nuclear components, among many others. The US-backed Indo-Pacific Quad incorporates New Zealand, Australia, Japan, and South Korea. All this is accompanied by the eastward expansion of NATO infrastructure – even in dangerous forms, such as supplying the Philippines with ground-based intermediate and shorter-range missiles, previously prohibited under the US-Russia treaty.

This highly advanced weaponry will appear in Southeast Asia for the first time. Similar deployments are advancing into Europe, including Germany. Thus, the entire process reflects NATO’s aggressive eastward push. They sought to absorb Ukraine, stumbled, but persist in pretending they will inevitably achieve their goal. Concurrently, as they exploit Ukraine as a spearhead of their increasingly ineffective strikes against Russia, they are likewise advancing eastward. Their objective is to impose NATO-centric control over the security landscape across the entire Eurasian continent – eschewing constructive alternatives for an open, equitable security architecture that includes all continental nations of Eurasia without exception. Such a framework is championed by Russia, the People’s Republic of China, and our allies and like-minded partners.

Regarding Taiwan: You are aware that speculation and provocations on the Taiwan issue are proliferating. For instance, a journalist recently drew French President Emmanuel Macron into the logic I have outlined. He declared that NATO would not interfere in Asian affairs if China ensured the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea did not meddle in Europe. How does that sound? The same Macron suggested that if Russia were permitted to seize control of part of Ukraine, what might happen to Taiwan? This is an overtly provocative statement. The West continues to assure the People’s Republic of China that it adheres to the One China principle, yet immediately qualifies this by asserting the status quo must remain untouched. The status quo in practice means the West engages with Taiwan as an independent state, arms it, and emphatically underscores the trappings of its sovereignty.

Question: Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the UN Sergey Kislitsya said the Istanbul format of talks has almost run its course. Was that a move to bargain for more of something? Perhaps, it’s a ploy to bring President Putin’s meeting with President Zelensky closer or to put the Istanbul format on pause again?

Sergey Lavrov: Mr Kislitsya is no longer Ukraine’s Permanent Representative to the UN, but First Deputy Foreign Minister of Ukraine, though, of course, he made a name for himself as an envoy to the UN.

Vladimir Zelensky is also known to have said that the Istanbul format is not a serious format. Someone else from his team made remarks to that effect as well. Their message was simple: they discuss nothing but humanitarian issues, such as prisoner exchange, return of dead bodies, and wounded soldiers. But if they believe this format had run its course, this goes to show once again that they don’t give a hoot about their own citizens, just like they don’t want to give the bodies that we had transferred to them a long time ago to the families in order to save some money. Just like how they shot down some time ago our plane that was carrying prisoners for exchange. This is what the Ukrainian regime really looks like.

We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that they are prevaricating. In addition to humanitarian issues, which are certainly important, because they are about people, their relatives, and loved ones, our delegation, at the second round of Istanbul talks handed over a draft agreement in the form of a memorandum to them. The Ukrainians gave us their draft memorandum. Indeed, they contain opposing views. At the request of the Americans, we discussed at the expert level our vision of a settlement.

The answer is clear. Despite the diametrically opposed positions, in April 2022 in Istanbul, an agreement was reached on a settlement, not just a ceasefire, but on principles of a settlement proposed by Ukraine which the Russian Federation found acceptable. The document has been initialled. The sides agreed to start working on a legal document, a treaty, but then the British, unquestionably with the consent of the United States, told Ukrainians to walk away from signing this document.

I’m saying this just for the sake of argument to show that despite the conflicting and outwardly contradictory positions, there is always room for dialogue. However, if they say that the format has run its course, it means that besides their indifference towards their citizens, they are not willing to come to terms, either. Perhaps, Macron, Starmer, Ursula von der Leyen, Merz, and their lot are telling them to walk away this time again. All the above figures are in one voice saying Ukraine must be flooded with more offensive weapons now. Head of the Situation Centre Ukraine in the German Defence Ministry Christian Freuding minced no words saying that Ukraine needs to be given long-range missiles and weapons that can strike deep inside Russia’s territory.

They say, “no talks needed” (we clearly see it now), “immediate ceasefire,” and then talks. But this ceasefire must come without conditions, as French President Macron clearly said several months ago when this point was first made, adding that ceasefire does not mean weapon supplies to Ukraine would be halted. So, they want us to stop the offensive and give Ukraine and its sponsors a chance to catch their breath and to re-build Ukraine’s military.

This is the same logic and the same approach they used after signing the Minsk agreements to fully militarise Ukraine during the ensuing seven years.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz recently said NATO must ensure Ukraine has a strong battlefield position before starting the talks. In other words, no one is hiding anything. Stop the fire, we’ll flood Ukraine with weapons, and things will be just fine.

Our American colleagues are fully aware of where we stand. We let them know about the allegation that “the format has run its course.” It has not. The United States tried to make it look as if the level of our delegation was not high enough. The level of Ukraine’s delegation will be different now.

Former Ukrainian Defence Minister Rustem Umerov is going to join his family in the United States as an ambassador. The third round of talks which we proposed to start in the week of June 22 has so far not been mentioned in any Ukrainian declarations or recommendations given to them by their Western curators. Now, even one of the negotiators has left the country.

Since our clarifications which we have repeatedly conveyed to our US colleagues, including during meetings on the sidelines of ASEAN events, are simply ignored or not reported to President Trump, it’s hard to tell what stands behind this.

Saying there’s no progress and coming up with a 50-day proposal... Had the Ukrainian side agreed to give the date of the third round during the week of June 22 of this year, we may have done everything in a matter of 30 days. Of course, this does not make us happy, but we are acting according to the plan approved by President Putin.

This plan includes guaranteed protection of Russia’s lawful interests in the security sphere and guaranteed protection of the rights of Russians and Russian speakers residing in Ukraine, a country that violates all norms of international law which prohibit discrimination on national, ethnic, language, or religious grounds.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs