Sergey Lavrov: “The key issue (apart from combatting famine, poverty, and inequality) is the reform of Global Institutions… The world is changing rapidly. Over the past several decades, it has taken on a new “face”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement and answers to media questions following the G20 Summit, Rio de Janeiro, November 19, 2024.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Today marks the conclusion of the G20 summit, culminating Brazil's presidency of the G20. Throughout the year, Brazil has steered the group, hosting an extensive array of events, as is customary. I am confident that significant results and robust agreements have been secured, which is of paramount importance.

The establishment of a new coordinating entity – the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty – received support. This initiative, personally championed by President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, aims to expedite progress towards the complete eradication of hunger, in line with the Sustainable Development Goals, which, despite being long endorsed, have not been effectively implemented, although this ought to be accomplished by 2030. I am hopeful (and can assert with a reasonable degree of certainty) that the formation of such an alliance will enhance outcomes in this domain, in accordance with the Sustainable Development Goals.

Russia has become a participant in this mechanism. We have already declared our intention to contribute our best practices to the project portfolio under the alliance's auspices. These encompass programmes for assisting developing nations, including school meal initiatives and agricultural development schemes. These programmes are devised to transfer appropriate technology, expertise, and methodologies to developing countries, enabling them to increasingly depend on their own resources.

We have reiterated our fundamental stance that the G20 is, first and foremost, an economic forum, which was the very purpose of its inception. Its objective was to facilitate substantive economic dialogue between "developed" and "developing" economies, with the aim of identifying optimal pathways for global economic advancement that benefit all – addressing poverty and inequality, and ensuring the most effective operation of all multilateral institutions.

The G20 should be anchored in the principles of the UN Charter, foremost among them the principle of the sovereign equality of states. This has historically been absent from Western policy, which has never honoured sovereign equality. However, current circumstances are compelling a shift, as the BRICS nations and other countries collaborating with the group are advancing at a considerably faster rate. In any event, the UN Charter serves as the bedrock of all international cooperation across various fields. It is imperative to apply its principles in their entirety and within context, rather than selectively as if from a "menu," as the West tends to do.

A Declaration – a comprehensive document – was adopted. Most importantly, it recognises modern realities and is centered on the core task of shaping international relations based on multilateralism, pluralism, and the elimination of inequalities both between and within countries. Many (including us) noted that inequality, and eradicating hunger and poverty have become quite relevant for the developed nations, where the number of people living below the poverty line is on the rise. These inequalities in the international arena stem from the colonial and neo-colonial practices of our Western “colleagues” and centuries of Western dominance.

Despite the efforts to limit the Declaration to economic issues, it includes a section addressing the geopolitical situation in terms of conflicts in various regions of the world. We agreed to that just like we did last year with regard to the Declaration adopted at the previous G20 Summit in New Delhi. As expected, the West pushed to impose the Ukraine-centric agenda but failed, since not a single Global Majority country was supportive of it. Together with our partners from the developing world, we emphasised the importance of focusing on resolving each and every ongoing conflict globally, particularly the Middle Eastern crisis. The tragic plight of the Palestinians largely stems from social engineering and direct interventions in the Middle Eastern region by Washington and its allies.

The Declaration includes a paragraph on Ukraine, which we accepted because its central message calls for a candid and realistic dialogue about peace.

There’s an important aspect of the Declaration which I mentioned earlier. It has a paragraph (which starts the section) advocating for the resolution of disputes based on justice and international law, namely, the full scope of the UN Charter. This is crucial, particularly when applied to Ukraine. The West emphasises only the principle of territorial integrity. It dreams of Ukraine taking back the territories it had as of 1991. These lands were home to the Russian people for centuries on end, but the Zelensky regime disenfranchised them.  They choose to look the other way when it comes to this matter, even though the other section of the Charter (Article 1) clearly states the importance of respecting human rights regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. The rights of Russian-speaking people in Ukraine regarding language and religion have been eradicated under Ukrainian legislation. Western nations, however, dismiss these violations, because Zelensky is allegedly upholding the “European values.”

Let them take these territories with these people and let him sort it out with them on his own. What a disgrace.

To follow up on the economic agenda, the key issue (apart from combatting famine, poverty, and inequality) is the reform of global institutions. Most delegations from the Global South emphasised the dominance of Western players in these entities, which can no longer claim exclusivity, first, on moral grounds, and, second, in light of modern-day realities.

The world is changing rapidly. Over the past several decades, it has taken on a new “face.” We have cited figures on many occasions: BRICS now accounts for 37 percent of the global economy, while the G7 has dropped below 30 percent. This gap continues to widen because BRICS countries currently have an average growth rate of 4 percent, twice that of the G7 economies.

The October 22-24 BRICS Summit in Kazan is still fresh in our mind. It was frequently mentioned in the remarks delivered by representatives of the Global South. The assessments we heard here show that the association is ready to develop an independent toolset – payment, settlement, clearing, investment, trading, and other mechanisms - that could be used independently of the West. This work is underway, and someone mentioned it today.

No one is looking to dismantle the existing “tools” of the post-war world order, such as the Bretton Woods institutions, or the World Trade Organisation. However, given the significant issues arising from the West abusing its control over these systems, the parallel creation of alternative tools, which I just mentioned, clearly makes sense.

BRICS countries are increasing their role and influence within the G20 which was evident at the 2023 Delhi Summit, the 2022 Indonesia Summit, and especially during the latest discussions. BRICS’ stronger position has been aided by last year’s decision to admit the African Union as a full member of the G20. This time, Brazil’s chairmanship invited to the summit the President of the New Development Bank which was created by BRICS, and top officials from the League of Arab States.

The Declaration confirms the importance of amplifying and strengthening the voice of the Global Majority in all key political and economic bodies from the UN Security Council to the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and to fully restore the WTO’s functioning. The WTO dispute resolution body, a core WTO mechanism, remains blocked and is unable to operate due to procedural manipulations by the United States which is effectively holding the former hostage.

The Global South nations, with the backing of the Russian Federation, have long endeavoured to enhance their share in the allocation of quotas and votes in the IMF and the World Bank, to reflect their genuine influence in the global economy. Once again, we have encapsulated this principle within the G20 Declaration. All our previous efforts to endorse pertinent appeals have been fruitless, as the West, despite approving of this equitable notion, persistently ensures it remains on paper.

I have addressed the reform of global institutions and food security on two occasions. I acquainted my colleagues with our nation's initiatives in implementing President Vladimir Putin's proposition to establish a Greater Eurasian Partnership, encompassing the EAEU, the SCO, ASEAN, and other regional alliances. We perceive this as a substantive foundation for constructing a novel Eurasian security framework, accessible to all countries on the continent.

I highlighted our contributions towards resolving food and energy security challenges, where we stand, as corroborated by statistics, as dependable and leading suppliers. This is merely one facet of what Russia can extend to the countries of the Global South. In practice, we are forging strong collaborations with them across numerous other domains, including advanced, efficient information and communication technology products of Russian origin, which are garnering increasing interest from our partners in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

I must acknowledge that the success of this year's Brazilian "shift" builds upon the G20's positive outcomes from prior summits in Indonesia in 2022 and India in 2023. South Africa is poised to assume the next chairmanship.

This BRICS "shift" will extend for another year. Our South African counterparts have already delineated their priorities – they intend to advance the agenda of reforming global institutions, as previously mentioned, while bolstering capacities for sustainable development with an emphasis on combating poverty, hunger, and inequality. For evident reasons, South Africa will focus particularly on the challenges facing the African continent and our dialogue with Africa through the Partnership Forum, established by the Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg in 2023, which we initiated a fortnight ago in Sochi at the inaugural Russia-Africa Ministerial Conference. We will duly consider the initiatives of our South African colleagues in this regard. This will constitute a working, informal yet beneficial coordination.

Question: You began by speaking about support for Brazil’s initiative on establishing a Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty. Could you share the details? How do Russia and Brazil, including as BRICS nations, intend to increase their contribution to global food security, and, most importantly, how is the West trying to exploit this issue?

Sergey Lavrov: The West is always trying to distort things. They have a habit of presenting things in a way to put the blame on others instead of Western countries.

As for food security, President Putin has more than once provided the example of frantic and ill-considered emission during the pandemic, when the United States and the EU printed about 10 trillion dollars and euros and used them to buy up everything that was available on the market. They did that to prepare for the periods of isolation so that they have enough food and other goods. That is when prices hiked.

For our part, we have always satisfied the developing countries’ requirements. We are doing this now as well, despite the obstacles hindering the use of Western ports for exporting our fertilisers, grain, wheat and other crops. Insurance companies have raised prices sky-high. Lloyd’s has added the territory and ports of the Russian Federation to its “listed areas” of war. They have sent official letters regarding this to all our partners, which has automatically doubled, tripled, or even quadrupled the insurance rate.

They have also been erecting other obstacles for us, for example, arresting our fertilisers. In other words, they blocked the usual, effective and optimal routes for the export of our products which the Global South needs. They put the blame for this on us, saying that it was the Russians who began the war. It is obvious to everyone that this is irresponsible behaviour, especially when people look like adults but continue to promote their [erroneous] arguments unashamedly. This makes me wonder.

The idea of the Alliance – over 80 countries have signed that document, and Russia was among the first to support it – is that all parties help as much as they can to promote the achievement of this task based on the Sustainable Development Goals, in this instance to end poverty and hunger by 2030.

As I said, we have many years of experience, including at the bilateral level. We are promoting the system of school meals, primarily in the neighbouring Central Asian countries and also in other parts of the world, namely Africa and Latin America.

We have programmes for supporting farms and supplying modern technologies to them. Farming is developing rapidly and effectively in Russia, which can be seen from the harvesting data. We are pleased with our harvests that allow us to export quite a lot. Every country has its strong points and experience in other areas. We can collaborate.

Our Algerian friends told us that they needed fertilisers. In June 2023, President of Algeria Abdelmadjid Tebboune visited Moscow. He said they would buy our fertilisers but would prefer Russia to establish their production in Algeria.

Every country that has signed the document on the establishment of the Alliance can make a contribution to this, including through the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and other structures. Their leaders attended the meeting on the establishment of the Alliance. It is a positive initiative. I am confident that Brazil as its author will not let things take their course but will see to its practical implementation. We will support their efforts.

Question: How was the declaration on the Middle East coordinated?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, the West was reluctant to discuss its text, but it also knew that without that there would have not been any document on conflicts. They attempted to put a long and judgemental paragraph focused on the tragic and catastrophic situation in Gaza after the passage on the situation in Ukraine. We did not even have to indicate our rejection of that manipulative approach. The Global South countries categorically refused to play down the importance of the priority attention the G20 should give to the Gaza tragedy.

There is a section of the document before the Palestinian and after the Ukrainian passages that is dedicated to actions that should be taken with regard to all conflicts and the settlement goals. It condemns all attacks against civilians and infrastructure. This is interesting. The number of Palestinian civilian casualties (children, the elderly and women) over the past 12 months of the Israeli operation in Palestine has exceeded 40,000. This is nearly twice as many as the number of civilian casualties on both sides of the conflict in Ukraine over 10 years since the state coup. Nearly twice as many civilians have died in Palestine in a year than in 10 years in Ukraine. This fact alone is indicative of the situation in Palestine and how it should be addressed.

That paragraph also condemns attacks on civilian infrastructure. Dozens of hospitals and apartment houses are destroyed in Gaza every day. This information is posted in the social media. But Western countries at the UN Security Council continue to hinder the adoption of a firm demand to put an end to violence.

An interesting aspect of “civilian infrastructure” is that this term includes the Nord Stream gas pipelines. This should help us in our continuing efforts to demand a transparent investigation, which only Germany is conducting now, and to ensure that the international community has access to that information.

Question: You have already partially mentioned reforming the global governance institutions. Where do you think the G20 countries’ interests overlap? To what extent are the changes declared at the end of the first day relevant and comprehensive?

Sergey Lavrov: The outcomes of the discussions at the leaders’ meeting have been reflected in the Declaration. They are relevant and comprehensive.

As for the global governance institutions, the political part of the Declaration mentions reforming the UN Security Council. This is a widely discussed issue, where any action requires, if not full consensus, at least broad general agreement in the United Nations.

The UN Charter provides for voting. If two-thirds of the members support a reform, this reform is considered legitimate. The trouble is that the remaining one-third, the countries that are not yet ready to embrace certain models of reform, will be questioning the legitimacy of a reformed UN Security Council that the other part has voted for. That is the problem. There are countries that are strongly opposed to adding new states to the list of permanent members. And there are others, who insist on prioritising the inclusion of new permanent members.

As you know, we support India and Brazil. These countries have explicitly stated their intention to run for permanent membership. For the new system to be fair, it is imperative to take into consideration African interests in the same capacity as well.

The West, on the other hand, is trying to drag out this process, while making empty declarations on the need to expand. The Americans have already announced that they support India, Germany and Japan. Why do Germany and Japan have to be there, when they will not bring any added value to the UN Security Council? They simply repeat in unison everything that Washington says. The West is overrepresented already: six of the 15 members are Western countries. If Japan is elected, it will make seven out of 15. Too unfair.

The International Monetary Fund, which represents economic and financial governance, requires a reform of quotas and votes, which has been delayed for more than a year. This just proves that the United States is reluctant to deal with economic realities and would rather block the emergence of a multipolar world, one that would not depend on one hegemon that has full control of the IMF, the World Bank, the dollar and the WTO – or at least slow down this process.

The BRICS countries are in the process of creating their own infrastructure, which would not be aimed against the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO, but would operate in parallel with them. In the meantime, we will continue to push for fair reforms.

The WTO dispute settlement body has remained blocked by the United States for more than a year. They simply prevent the required number of experts from being elected to the Appellate Body. As it is, the dispute settlement body lacks a quorum necessary to hear appeals according to the existing WTO rules.

They began to block the operation of this mechanism when they saw that China was overtaking them economically. Moreover, this foul play is taking place in the very globalised playing field that the Americans have created. The Chinese economy proved more efficient while playing by the rules that the Americans have set. When that happened, they began using tricks to incapacitate the dispute settlement body because China filed relevant complaints in line with the rules.

Their policy of trade protectionism is becoming increasingly aggressive. Now Europe is imposing exorbitant duties on Chinese products (electric cars). The Americans are doing the same. In fact, Ursula von der Leyen who is a top-ranking official has publicly stated that they are doing this because Chinese electric cars are too cheap, which is hurting Western manufacturers. Is this what you would call fair competition? Competition is about supplying cheaper goods that meet market demand. This is exactly what China is doing. The bosses in the European Union do not think so though. In fact, they hardly think about their consumers at all. This is also clear from the way they are handling global food issues. While accusing us of all manner of evil, of “starving” developing countries, they are buying Ukrainian grain for themselves, and a third of that grain is now being grown on land bought up by American corporations. Not so long ago, farmers protested against falling prices. However, buying cheap Ukrainian grain, sometimes of substandard quality, has been normalised – unlike cheap Chinese electric cars.

The European Union is going through a deep crisis, including a conceptual one. More and more capitals in Europe refuse to listen to Brussels, which is controlled by bureaucrats whom no one ever elected, and whose only concern is to pursue the policies that benefit the United States. One result of their actions was the rise in electricity prices. They are three or four times higher in Europe than in the United States now. This leads to deindustrialisation. Businesses are relocating their facilities, mainly to America. There are plenty of cases. So, lecturing Russia about energy and food security with such moral outrage is a bit rich coming from the European Union.

Question: Did you discuss the infamous move by the United States to authorise the use of long-range missiles to target our territory during the summit with representatives from Western countries or friendly nations? If so, what did they have to say? Why neither the US President, nor the US State Secretary has officially announced this decision, even though the authorisation had been effectively issued and is being discussed?

Six ATACMS missiles of unidentified modification hit the Bryansk Region. What do you think that was all about? Is it in any way related to the discussion focusing on this authorisation?

Sergey Lavrov: I have no way of knowing if the information carried by The New York Times is a true fact, or just an attempt to feel out the situation? I just don’t know. The fact that ATACMS were repeatedly used to attack the Bryansk Region last night signals that they are looking for an escalation. There’s no way the Ukrainians can use these high-tech missiles without the Americans. President Putin conveyed that on numerous occasions and let everyone know that our stance would change if the long-range capability (up to 300 kilometres), which they are now discussing, gets approved.

Essentially, this isn’t an “approval” for Ukraine to use long-range missiles, but their way to announce that they will from now on hit targets at a distance of up to 300 kilometres. I’m not in a position to confirm this, because everyone is talking about it as a done deal.

EU High Representative Josep Borrell said it is “now an official matter.” The Europeans discussed it and decided that each country would determine on its own whether to allow Ukraine to use their respective long-range weapons, or not.

I won’t even try to second-guess it. Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence were published today which confirm and enshrine everything in the form of a legislative act. President Putin made this public on September 12. I hope they will read through this doctrine, but not the way they read the UN Charter, where they see only things that they want to see, but read it in its entirety and interconnectedness.

Someone pulled me aside in a hallway asking if it was true. I said I didn’t know if it was true or not.

Our security is our key focus. We stated officially everything that those who are contemplating this course of action need to know. President Putin has made everything clear, and everything was codified in an official document.

Question: The media is abuzz with the news that during the group photo French President Emmanuel Macron ran up to you to shake your hand. What kind of a Western posing-for-camera stunt was that?

Sergey Lavrov: When people know each other, even in a situation where there are deep-running differences between their respective countries, it is absolutely normal to exchange greetings when running into each other in a public place. What I find abnormal is that many European leaders recoil when they see Russian representatives in the hallways, backrooms, or at photo sessions.

In 2023 (I’ve shared this example before) at the summit in India, we were waiting for the event to begin. I entered the room, and some of the participants were already sitting there. Two African leaders were sitting next to European Council President Charles Michel at a table. I met both of these African presidents on an earlier occasion. They saw me, and we exchanged greetings. As decorum dictates, I extended my hand to greet Charles Michel, but he jumped aside as if stung and looked the other way. So much for his manners. That’s all I can tell you to answer your question.

Question: At the G20, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz reiterated that Germany was not planning to supply Taurus missiles to Ukraine or allow strikes deep into the Russian territory. Considering that Scholz refuses to follow in the footsteps of Joe Biden, Keir Starmer, and Emmanuel Macron, and the fact that he initiated a call with President Putin, can we talk about a split in the Western camp?

Sergey Lavrov: We all observe the same facts and analyse them as diplomats or journalists. But as you accurately pointed out, if German Chancellor Olaf Scholz sticks to this principled position (which he stated repeatedly) despite the Green Party and others, such as Friedrich Merz from the CDU, who shoot arrows of criticism at him and demand that he grant such permission, I consider that Scholz’s has adopted a responsible stance that differs from the positions of the British and French. That’s a fact, too.

Question: In your view, do you not consider that France’s assertive policy, particularly in the current context concerning Russia, diverts the republic from addressing its own significant and urgent challenges? Resources and attention are being channelled towards crucial matters, such as combating hunger and ensuring food security, thereby undermining France's potential to resolve these issues promptly and not impede peace.

Sergey Lavrov: It seems more convenient for the French Government and its analysts to deliberate on such topics. I can only echo the words of the French Minister of Economy and Finance, Bruno Le Maire. In August 2023, he “sounded the alarm” regarding energy prices in Europe being fourfold higher than those in the United States. This reflects the cost of sustaining the Kiev regime.

President Macron of France is, both in rhetoric and action, among the staunchest proponents of the war – pursuing “victory” over Russia and its “strategic defeat.” Ukrainian soldiers are currently undergoing training in France, preparing assault and shock brigades, thereby engaging directly in military activities. Similar discourse surrounds the utilisation of French SCALP missiles, akin to the British Storm Shadow.

Numerous reports from Paris indicate that conditions are far from ideal, as evidenced by the state of the streets and the public demonstrations. Nevertheless, it is not for us to determine their path. They possess a constitution, laws, a history of popular protests, and various other mechanisms.

An intriguing remark was made by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, concerning energy prices. She asserted that American liquefied natural gas is cheaper than Russian gas. Experts ridiculed this statement and questioned her spokesperson, who offered a (rather ingenious) response that she did not mean “cheaper” in an economic sense, but a political one. Essentially, she implies that purchasing Russian gas is politically costly as it damages one’s reputation. Is this logic to be considered sound? Somehow, they persist.

Question: I'd like to ask, what is Russia's view on the Brazilian-Chinese initiative of trying to foster a group of countries to discuss a peace process in Ukraine? The group last met in New York in September, but ever since we've had an election in the United States, we are seeing an escalation in Ukraine with the decision of the US to allow the use of long-range missiles to hit Russian territory. So, under these circumstances, I'd like to ask, what is Russia's view of this Brazilian-Chinese initiative? Does it still make sense for both countries to pursue an initiative in this sense?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, on the decision of the United States to allow the Ukrainian regime to use missiles up to 300 kilometres long, we read what the New York Times published about this. There is still no confirmation either from the White House or from the Pentagon.

We basically take our position on the basis of what is going on physically. And physically, ATACMS, apparently not as long as 300 kilometres, are being used, including this early morning in Russia, against the Bryansk Region of Russia, which is bordering Ukraine. And we proceed from the understanding that this is happening, and that any modification of ATACMS cannot be used without American experts and instructors, including satellite data, programming, and targeting. The President mentioned this several times: if long-range missiles are going to be applied from Ukraine into Russian territory, it will also mean that they are operated by American experts, military experts. And we will be taking this as a qualitatively new phase of the Western war against Russia, and we'll react accordingly.

As regards Trump's position on Ukraine, I cannot guess. He said that he is a president of peace, not of war. I think that in general, people, politicians in particular, who declare that they prefer peace to war deserve support. It's like Brazil and China − they want peace. And this intention we can only welcome.

As regards the practical activities of this group of friends, it met only once in September, and the meeting was about announcing the creation of this group, and now they are planning to convene the first meeting in November in New York.

I talked to the Chinese minister yesterday. We would follow these activities. We would expect this group to take into account the initiative of Chairman Xi Jinping of February 2023. It was a global security initiative, not about Ukraine, not about Palestine, a generic approach to any conflict. And one of the key rules which was formulated in that global security initiative was, in any conflict, look first to the root causes and concentrate on eliminating those root causes.

So, I assume that since China is co-sponsor with Brazil of this group of friends, and since the Chinese leader initiated this global security document, which insists on the need to remove the root causes of any conflict, this would be applied to the Ukrainian initiative by China and Brazil.

The root causes, of course, are the attempts to undermine the security interests of Russia by pulling Ukraine into NATO and building NATO infrastructure just on our borders. The second root cause was the coup d'état in February 2014, which took place the morning after a deal was signed between the then president and the opposition. They staged the coup, and when we told  Germany, France, and Poland, who guaranteed the deal, “You must stop this, gentlemen,” they said, “Well, sometimes democracy takes unexpected twists.” So, they did support the coup. And since then, the regime, which came to power in this illegitimate way, passed a series of laws starting from 2017, long before the special military operation became inevitable. Legislation exterminating legally any Russian education, any Russian media outlets, any Russian cultural presence in Ukraine, and recently they prohibited the canonic Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is all against the demand of the UN Charter in Article 1 to respect human rights of all, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion. So, Article 1 of the Charter is grossly, rudely violated by the Kiev regime. And the West, which is concerned about human rights, even when you discuss some biological diversity, they shut up about this particular situation when the regime of their nourishment, if you wish, is doing things that violate the key interests of each and every person. People, citizens of Ukraine, are deprived of these rights, though most of them are much more comfortable in Russian than in any other language.

When we draw the attention of the West to these unacceptable violations, they don't respond at all. And Ursula von der Leyen, whom I mention too often today, said that they must support Zelensky because he defends European values. If European values are racism, which is what is going on regarding Russian culture and Russian people, then I'm not very optimistic about the future of such a Europe.

We hope that the Chinese-Brazilian initiative would be taken into account, because it mentions the need to implement and to be guided by the UN Charter. I discussed this with our friends, and I hope that when they start developing a roadmap, if they are planning this, they will take into account the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and interrelation, because otherwise it will be the Western position.

When we discuss Ukraine, the West takes from the Charter only one principle, territorial integrity. They forget about right of people for self-determination, and it is exactly this principle, respect for right for self-determination, which was the legal basis for decolonization. In fact, colonial rulers did not represent the people they ruled. They exploited them, and they exploited the natural resources of the lands on which these people lived. So, the people decided that these rulers were not their bosses anymore, that they wanted to be independent and have rulers who would be acceptable to them. Something like this is happening in Ukraine, because the regime cannot represent the people whose language, culture, access to information, religious rights they exterminated by law.

I think there is some similarity between decolonization and what the people of East and South of Ukraine, Donbass and Novorossiya feel about Kiev regime. They do not accept legality of this regime, and the regime is anti-Russian (meaning also citizens of Ukraine).  Before the special operation, in 2021, when the Minsk Agreements were still alive and Ukraine was fighting along the line of contact, Zelensky was asked in an interview by some Western correspondent what he thought about the people of Donbass on the other side of the contact line. Zelensky said, “You call them people. There are people, and there are species.” Arseny Yatsenyuk, former prime minister of this putschist government, was calling the people who rejected the coup subhumans, and so on and so forth. They publicly were bragging that they will eliminate Russians legally and physically. This is the quotation from representative of the office of Zelensky.

So, like in colonial rule, the Kiev regime does not represent large portion of the people which it used to consider as citizens of Ukraine and who decided at referenda to come back to the Russian Federation.

Speaking of Chinese-Brazilian initiative, we were slightly surprised when we learned that France and Switzerland were invited to be present as observers. France, as we just mentioned, is in the lead of the war through Ukraine against the Russian Federation, and Switzerland has stopped being neutral long time ago. It does not look very logical and promising. We were told by our Chinese and Brazilian friends that they would be just observing without the right to speak, but they would be part of the process anyway. So, we raise our concerns, and we don't think it is necessary to promote peace in Ukraine for the purpose of uniting the Global South.

Question: The G7 countries pressed Brazil to make a tougher statement in the G20 about the war between Russia and Ukraine. At the last minute, the word “infrastructure” was included and they were pleased about that. What does Russia think about this statement and this word “infrastructure?”

And if I may, about this decree which, as we learned today, is about the nuclear doctrine in Russia. Should the world be prepared for a nuclear response from Russia after the US decision adopted this weekend, and the first attack on the Russian territory today?

Sergey Lavrov: Well, on the second question, we are strongly in favour of doing everything possible to prevent a nuclear war. We were the first to suggest it to the United States during the Soviet Union times. Mikhail Gorbachev and President Reagan made a joint statement, which said that nuclear war can never be won and must never be started. The same statement we confirmed in January 2022 in the format of P5.

When the Ukrainian war against Russia by the West started, quite a number of politicians in the West were assuming that there might be a nuclear element in this war. Liz Truss, who was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, when she was asked whether she would be ready to press the red button, said, “Yes, this is Prime Minister's obligation and duty.” The Chief of Staff of the German Army was quoted as saying that Russia must understand that NATO is a nuclear alliance. In France, Macron and French officials repeatedly mentioned this as well as many other European politicians.

We never started this conversation. The update of the military doctrine does not add anything that the West does not know and that is different from the American doctrinal documents on conditions of using nuclear weapons. We are convinced that the nuclear weapon is first and foremost a weapon to deter and to prevent any nuclear war. This is how we handle this situation.

The West is less honest. It's really shocking to see that every now and then Japan introduces a resolution to the General Assembly which says that we have to commemorate the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Never ever this resolution mentions who did it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In Japanese textbooks for schools and universities, the chapter about the summer of 1945 starts with the phrase “Nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Soviet Union enters the war.” The Americans never apologized. This is also sending a wrong message to the current debates about nuclear weapons. We are in the front line in the General Assembly, in the Security Council, and in the International Atomic Energy Agency defending the world which would not be threatened by nuclear weapons. The declaration that we adopted at G20 summit clearly says that we want to move towards the world free of nuclear weapons. This is our position.

The word “infrastructure” was indeed added to the generic paragraph that calls to be in line with international law, international humanitarian law and human rights law during any conflict and especially mentions that it is unacceptable to hurt civilians or civilian infrastructure. And then the text of this section of the declaration speaks about Palestine, followed by a small paragraph on Ukraine which welcomes any peaceful initiatives. Infrastructure in this context means that we condemn destruction, elimination of social infrastructure including schools, hospitals, etc. Social infrastructure in Gaza is practically non-existent.

Apart from social infrastructure, there are other forms of civilian infrastructure including energy infrastructure. And we will insist, and use this declaration in particular for establishing the fact of a terrorist attack against Nord Stream gas pipelines coming from Russia to Germany, which were blown up in September two years ago, so that to ensure that the investigation is transparent. So far, the Germans and other Western countries, who started the investigation, have not shared any results. Many American representatives including Polish Foreign Minister Sikorsky, were publicly saying that this is something which the West should applaud because the United States did this to undermine Russia's influence. So, this infrastructure is also important.

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