Russia
Source:
mid.ru Colleagues,
First, I would like to once again thank our Brazilian friends for their traditional hospitality and the perfect arrangements for the BRICS ministerial meeting, as well as for holding the additional meeting between BRICS participants and their partner countries.
These countries were able to take part in today’s meeting following the Kazan Summit. Held as part of Russia’s chairmanship, it made a historical decision to create this partner category, which includes Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.
We agreed to remain proactive in attracting partner countries and engaging them in our joint undertakings in various formats, from ministerial meetings to expert-level events and initiatives by specific ministries.
We spoke out in favour of further enhancing the contribution by BRICS and the countries of the Global Majority in general to addressing the key challenges the world is facing today. We noted that collective actions by our group can play an important role in achieving sustainable development goals, ensuring security and fostering economic growth.
At the meeting, we paid special attention to the need to continue our efforts to promote reform within international financial institutions, primarily by revising IMF quotas, which must reflect the role of the Global South and East in the global financial system and economy. In this context, most of the delegations talked about the destructive nature of the policy coming from the collective West. By the way, the West may have become less united lately, even if all Western representatives have the same goal, which consists of continuing to live at the expense of others by relying on neo-colonial practices. This includes unilateral illegitimate sanctions, abusing their currencies within the international financial system and using unjustified protectionist measures in trade, as well as tariff wars, which have been the talk of the town these days. We noted that the Western Minority is rocking the international financial and economic architecture and could cause major disruptions as it attempts to hold on to its waning dominance and continue to benefit from competitive advantages at the expense of others.
There was quite a lengthy discussion on the latest regional and international developments, including the multiple crisis situations around the world. The deteriorating situation in the Palestinian territories and across the Middle East in general, as well as in many regions of the African continent is a matter of special concern.
Russia emphasised that relying on the principles set forth in the UN Charter could help find effective solutions to all these challenges, as long as these provisions are used in an integral, holistic and complementary manner instead of on a case-by-case approach which consists of cherry picking principles depending on the specific goals they must fulfil.
We reaffirmed our support for reforming the UN Security Council, including our support for India and Brazil becoming permanent members of the UN Security Council, while also addressing the issue of Africa’s representation.
Of course, much has been said about the Ukraine situation. Once again, we offered a detailed insight into our principled approaches to settling this conflict by addressing its root causes. These causes consist of NATO’s long-standing eastward expansion efforts all the way to the Russian border and its attempts to drag Ukraine into the alliance. This creates immediate security threats along the Russian border. Another important factor I would like to highlight is the Kiev regime’s policy of eliminating and cancelling anything related to Russia and the Russian world, including the Russian language, culture, Russian-language media outlets, and the canonical Orthodox Church. Most of the participants are becoming increasingly receptive to our approaches, judging by their remarks on the Ukraine situation. We will continue these efforts.
The Brazilian chairmanship will circulate the meeting’s outcome document.
We would like to wish our Brazilian friends every success in preparing and holding the 17th BRICS Summit. It is scheduled to take place on July 6 and 7, 2025, in Rio de Janeiro. I am certain that the summit will be a success and yields tangible results, enabling us to further reinforce our strategic partnership. Russia will do everything to facilitate this process.
Question: Do the BRICS countries share a unified position on the trade war waged by Donald Trump?
Sergey Lavrov: We do not mention any names in the final document. The document will be circulated. It outlines our overarching policy approaches to current developments in the global economy.
The final document affirms the overall conclusion on the adverse effects of global economy fragmentation, expresses concerns regarding the erosion of multilateralism, the violation of the principles of fairness and inclusivity that must underpin the trade system. The World Trade Organisation, properly adapted to contemporary realities, must remain at the core of this system. We have explicitly articulated our concerns about unilateral protectionist measures and sanctions, including secondary sanctions, that contravene WTO principles.
The document explicitly states that it is unacceptable to obstruct decisions on WTO reform – especially regarding the blocking and revival of the Dispute Settlement Body. Broadly, our partners and allied nations share this position. It will form the basis for relevant drafts developed in preparation for the July 6−7 summit in Rio-de-Janeiro.
Question: Are BRICS participants watching the developments in Russia-US talks? What opinions, including about the impact on BRICS, have been voiced?
Sergey Lavrov: Certainly, it is imperative that all parties have a clear understanding of the evolving dynamics between Moscow and Washington. This point has been emphasised in multiple remarks and during numerous bilateral engagements I conducted on the sidelines of the BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting. We keep our partners informed regularly, after nearly every interaction between Russia and US representatives. We communicate assessments through both our own ambassadors and the ambassadors of our partners in Moscow. This is not a case where we have to keep it strictly confidential.
We advocate for an honest and equal dialogue aimed at building a balance of interests. The United States has reciprocated with similar signals. Russia and the US are working together across multiple domains. In fact, they continue to cooperate literally as we speak.
The positive side of these developments is widely recognised. There is hope that the promising trajectory of Russia-US dialogue will become reality. I anticipate a solid confirmation of the reciprocal interest between Moscow and Washington in the near term. I want you to know whether we can translate this mutual interest into tangible outcomes is to be seen imminently.
Russia remains committed to fostering transparent relations with the United States, which is in no way detrimental to the traditionally close ties with our strategic partners and like-minded nations.
Question: The establishment of a BRICS Pay system for settlements in national currencies between the group’s members was announced at last year’s BRICS Summit in Kazan during Russia’s chairmanship.
Despite US President Trump’s threats of “draconian” tariffs if BRICS replaced the US dollar as a reserve currency, Brazil, which has taken over from Russia this year, has declared its support for that Russian initiative. What is the progress of this dialogue? What else can the group do in response to the Western attempts to use global reserve currencies as a weapon?
Sergey Lavrov: This dialogue is progressing.
The BRICS finance ministers and central bank governors have recently held a meeting during which they discussed, as per the instructions of the Kazan Summit, the task of creating independent payment systems. It has been decided to more actively use national currencies in mutual trade. The final document we have adopted today emphasises the importance of continued efforts in this sphere.
National currencies account for over 65 percent in trade between BRICS countries, while the share of the US dollar has diminished to one third. Other tasks stipulate the creation of payment instruments and platforms, including discussing the possibility of creating a cross-border payment system and an electronic depository and clearance system (BRICS Clear), and a unified mechanism for exchanging trade and economic information.
We continue discussing insurance and reinsurance variants for new grain trading platforms and the possibility of spreading this experience to other raw material products. All this has been included in the final document.
It is a long-term policy based on principle, considering the current trends in the global economy created by our Western colleagues’ unilateral actions. This is one of our priorities.
Question: Is it possible to create an international court within BRICS as an alternative to the International Criminal Court, which has obviously discredited itself?
Sergey Lavrov: That issue was on the table, but it has not been included in the final document because BRICS should not create any independent judicial authorities. We believe that international trials should be based on a solid consensus of all participating states.
As you have correctly pointed out, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has fully discredited itself. It is being steered by Western countries. It protects some countries from criticism even though they openly violate international law, and adopts measures aimed at punishing other countries, up to and including arrest warrants, in the absence of factual proof.
Acting independently of BRICS on the international stage, including at the UN, Russia is promoting an initiative to encourage as many countries as possible to speak up for the depoliticization of international criminal justice. We must preclude situations when openly biased structures, such as the ICC, handle essential issues related to the immunities of states set out and sealed in international law.
It is a long process. The African Union countries previously called for withdrawing from the ICC, and they have not changed their stance.
Question: According to international experts, there was a 10 percent surge in military spending in 2024 around the world. They said that this was the worst result since the Cold War. Can BRICS help countries divert from this dangerous path that could pave the way for the third world war?
Sergey Lavrov: I am certain that this sits perfectly well with the position of BRICS, which consists of doing everything to prevent this from happening.
That said, efforts by this group alone would not be enough to make this a reality. Many other countries outside of BRICS have demonstrated their understanding that a third world war must not happen. This includes the leaders of the United States. In particular, Vice-President JD Vance has recently raised this point by sending a warning signal to those who encourage the Ukrainian regime to continue the war and those who are trying to draw Europeans into this conflict by deploying various forces in Ukraine, be it peacekeepers, stabilisation forces, or any other units.
It is essential that the five nuclear powers stick to the positions set forth in the statement of the P5 leaders. The heads of state from the countries with permanent seats in the UN Security Council adopted this statement at Russia’s initiative in January 2022. It is based on the long-standing agreement between the USSR and the United States and their joint statement saying that a nuclear war cannot be won and for that matter everything must be done to ensure that it is never fought.
This objective has become relevant these days, especially considering the reckless, aggressive actions and calls coming from senior officials in the European Union and London.
Question: President Vladimir Putin has recently met with US President Donald Trump’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff at the Kremlin. What do you think about where Russia’s relations with its partners are headed, considering that meetings of this kind always serve as a signal for many other countries? Have these diplomatic contacts created new opportunities for Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: As I have already said, dialogue is always better, any other circumstances notwithstanding. I am a bit puzzled by the way in which certain countries have responded to the recent developments in Russia-US relations. Everyone tends to view these Russia-US contacts as being nothing short of sensational. But our two countries were locked in quite a fierce ideology-driven confrontation during the Cold War. Nevertheless, the dialogue between us never stopped.
Today, the doctrines set forth by the Joe Biden administration remain in force in the United States. Nobody cancelled them. They cast Russia as the main and immediate threat in the context of the Ukraine conflict, while designating the PRC as the main long-term adversary.
If you follow the statements by our Chinese friends and their comments regarding relations with Washington, as well as what the United States has been saying about China, you will see that there is also a lot of harsh rhetoric regarding Taiwan, the South China Sea, and many other matters. That said, there was not a single moment when Washington and Beijing stopped talking to each other. They keep up their conversation, their leaders remain in touch, foreign ministers hold meetings, and so do security specialists and defence ministers.
Therefore, I do not think that Russia-US dialogue in its current state can be described as something incredible. We simply put it back on track, while those who thought that it was a sensational turnaround are influenced by the logic cultivated by the Joe Biden administration in its effort to cast Russia as a rogue nation, a country facing total isolation with a shattered economy, and so on. This is to say that we simply restored the sense of normalcy in our relations. I have a feeling that most countries of the Global South and East, our strategic partners and allies, have a positive attitude regarding these developments.
Question: President Vladimir Putin has announced another ceasefire during commemoration of the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. In response, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Andrey Sibiga urged Russia to establish a ceasefire right away for 30 days rather than three. What can you say about this? Is a ceasefire, even a short-term one, even possible considering where the Kiev authorities stand on this matter at this point?
Sergey Lavrov: Never read what representatives of the Ukrainian regime have to say, either at night, or in the morning. We know perfectly well what their words are worth. You may recall that two months or so ago Kiev was issuing threats and warnings saying they would not accept any kind of ceasefire. European radicals incited the Kiev regime to stay the course saying that ceasefire talks could begin only with Ukraine having an advantage on the battlefield. So, they went on to say, we will flood Ukraine with even more weapons and then, when “Russia gets weaker,” we will talk with it from a position of strength.
Now, they have suddenly - not suddenly, of course, but bearing in mind what is happening on the ground, on the line of contact, where the Ukrainian regime is increasingly yielding ground - reversed their position and came up with demand an immediate ceasefire without preconditions.
We’ve been there before when in February 2014, a truce, in fact, was declared between the opposition and then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich, and a peace instrument was signed to hold early elections and to create a government of people’s unity for the time before the election day. Come morning, they trampled upon the “truce” and seized administrative buildings.
The next “truce” was concluded as part of the Minsk agreements after the Kiev regime, which had launched an aggression against its own people, choked on its own calculations and asked for a truce. We concluded the Minsk agreements and had them approved by the UN Security Council. The Ukrainians didn’t give a hoot about these agreements.
Back then, Petr Poroshenko was still in office. When Vladimir Zelensky became president under the banner of complying with the Minsk agreements and establishing peace, and calling to stop discrimination against the Russian language and letting Russian-speaking citizens of Ukraine speak the language they grew up with and which at that time was the official language in Ukraine. Zelensky was president when the French and Germans, as “guarantors” - they referred to themselves that way - of the Minsk agreements convened a summit in Paris in December 2019, which I had the honour to attend. Then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, Vladimir Zelensky, and President Putin took part in it. A document was drafted urging the sides to act upon the key point of the Minsk agreements, the key first step which was to declare a ceasefire and to enforce it along the entire line of contact.
By the time the document finalised by the ministers was on the table of the leaders, Zelensky said emphatically he wouldn’t sign it, because, he said, it was an impossible thing to do and he was against putting an end to hostilities, because Russia would then come out on top. He said he was ready to declare a truce on three segments of the line of contact and see what happens next. The French, the Germans, and we were surprised to hear that, but President Putin said it was at least something and we should go ahead with it. It was approved. A document was released calling for a ceasefire in three areas which also confirmed the importance of ensuring the autonomous status of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. However, with the agreement in place, Ukraine didn’t act on it. The Ukrainian armed forces did not make it possible for us to secure truce in any of these three areas.
Then, of course, there was a ceasefire declared in connection with the Istanbul agreement in April 2022. The Ukrainians and Westerners specifically asked us to settle the situation, first and foremost, to stop hostilities. It’s as if they were asking us to make a gesture of goodwill and join them in stopping hostilities. Russia pulling back its forces from Kiev would send an important and positive message, they said. As you are aware, we did just that.
Everyone knows how it turned out. They immediately broke news that the Russians had withdrawn their forces. Then came Bucha provocation which to this day remains on the conscience of the West. Our continuous requests to publish a list of the names of those whose corpses were shown lying there remain unanswered.
Speaking about the most recent examples of the ceasefire, the ceasefire announced by President Vladimir Putin on the occasion of Easter was not observed by the Kiev regime. A huge number of violations were documented.
The ceasefire proposed by President Trump in the form of a moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure was fully respected by the Russian side for 30 days, but had no effect on the Kiev regime’s aggressive behaviour. A couple of hundred violations were documented by our representatives. We have sent this list to the UN and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. We know full well what these calls for a ceasefire are worth.
The EU leaders, High Representative [of the European Commission] for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas and other “representatives” only demand that Russia “agree to an unconditional ceasefire” because they are suffering a defeat on the battlefield and their plans of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia will never materialise. That is clear to everyone.
Our proposal, which President Vladimir Putin has made public, is to launch direct talks without any preconditions. In the current situation, a ceasefire is a preliminary condition that will be used to provide assistance to the Kiev regime and reinforce its combat capabilities.
You may remember that President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko has recently visited Moscow. During a joint news conference, President Putin was asked about the idea of a 30-day ceasefire proposed by our American colleagues. President Putin supported the idea but added that it should be formulated so that it would not fail like all the previous attempts. He explained that for a ceasefire to be effective and to reach its goal, a smooth-running, objective and transparent daily system should be established to monitor the sides’ activities along the entire contact line. We are all aware of the Kiev regime’s “talent” for organising provocations. There is no doubt that such provocations would continue regardless of the way the ceasefire is organised. We don’t see any possibility for honest monitoring that would guarantee honest compliance with ceasefire conditions.
A recent shocking example is the terrorist attack against a Russian general. It was a mean and cowardly act. The West remains silent on this, while Ukrainian representatives, including heads of parliamentary committees, say that it was the right thing to do, that the enemy must be destroyed, and that they would continue to destroy it even if a ceasefire were approved.
We won’t be fooled by promises any longer, as President Putin has unambiguously stated.
Question: You have recently said that Russia regards the WTO as an organisation that is using discrimination. You also said that Moscow might revise its obligations to that organisation. According to a statement you have made today, you agree with your Brazilian colleagues, by and large, that the WTO could play a role in the current economic situation if it were reformed. What made you change your stance? Was it the stance of your Brazilian colleagues? Do you really believe that the WTO can be given a second lease on life?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t see any contradiction here. My stance has not changed. The situation [with the WTO] is the same as with the UN Charter. The Charter is a good document that fully meets all the requirements for strengthening multipolarity in international relations. But Western countries only use it randomly and as they see fit, or completely disregard it while promoting their “rules-based order.”
The same is true about the World Trade Organisation. If the principles that underlie it were respected in full, this would have been in the interests of all member states.
But the trouble is that these principles are disregarded. The operations of that crucial dispute settlement body have been blocked for many long years, primarily by the United States, which does not want that body to accept substantiated complaints against protectionist and other illegal US measures.
In other words, we must go back to the basics. It is in this spirit that we should discuss reforming the WTO. A reform must not eliminate the principles of equality and mutual benefit but strengthen them and ensure their implementation, precluding new attempts to pledge commitment in word while acting to the contrary in deed. This has been clearly spelled out in the final document of our meeting.
Question (in English): The Brazilian Presidency has not supported a new round of BRICS expansion this year, instead focusing on the institutional consolidation of the group. I would like to know, from Russia’s perspective, when might BRICS be ready to resume a new round of expansion, if it should happen as soon as possible, or if the difficulties seen in this meeting, for example on finding common language on the UN Security Council reform, suggest that these disagreements should be addressed before a new round of expansion happens? And on this topic, I would like to know from the Russian perspective, how should the process of associate members, like Cuba, could pass from associate members to full members. How should this process be in the Russian vision?
Sergey Lavrov (answers in English): It is not true that Brazil is not supporting a new round of BRICS expansion. The truth is that last year, when we met in Kazan and welcomed the new full members, when BRICS doubled its membership, it was decided to take a little pause in further expansion, so that we can accommodate the work and the new composition of BRICS − so that the group can smoothly get into the new situation with increased membership. And this was the common opinion. The aspirations of many countries were taken into account when the category of partner countries was established and it is understood that the partner countries would be priority candidates for full membership. I have no doubt that the expansion process would resume very soon.
We have decided, as I said, to spend this year to see how this accommodation will be going on. It is obvious that the more members there are, the more time is necessary to get accommodated to this situation and the more efforts would be necessary to build consensus. This is a natural phenomenon.
As regards the Security Council reform, we have been asserting our commitment to the progress on this issue for many years, practically at every BRICS summit, at every ministerial meeting, we have been including this language. And we discussed this situation this year as well.
Russia, as I said, consistently supports Brazil and India as strong candidates for the permanent membership in the Security Council in the context of its expansion, provided that at the same time African aspirations are also satisfied. As I said, the Security Council requires more members from the Global South and Global East.
We cannot support any expansion of the number of the Western states in the Security Council. They are already six out of 15. Besides, none of the aspirants like Germany or Japan can bring any added value to the discussions on the Security Council. They stick to the common position of the collective West.
As to the issue of reflecting the position by the BRICS membership on the issue of the Security Council, you know, we are flexible. We believe that the main thing is to confirm the need to meet aspirations of the developing countries. And this could be done in various ways and the formulation of the declarations by the ministerial meetings and by the summits, all these formulas are available. We confirmed yesterday and today that we are ready to use any formula and any new language which might be proposed. Of course, we need consensus on this issue, but the main thing is that the reform of the Security Council would be resolved not by language contained in any declaration of any organisation, except the United Nations, where an eventual vote would take place. It is there that this issue would be resolved.
Question (in English): I would like to ask you, how do you see the BRICS as an alternative or opposition platform towards the United States? Would you support this view? I would like to know as well if anything related to this topic will be in the declaration for today’s meeting? How important are BRICS tariffs in this context of the new US tariffs?
Sergey Lavrov (answers in English): Well, I have already commented on the negative effect of the US tariffs on the world trade and the world economy. You know, it works in the direction of fragmenting the global economic system, and there is language in the final declaration, the final document describing the negative effects of the tariff war, of protectionist measures of other kind, of unilateral sanctions, including secondary sanctions, undermining the activities of the universal institutions, be it the IMF, the WTO, be it the World Bank. It is not, it should not be presented as an opposition, political opposition to anybody, be it the United States or the European Union. It is the negotiating position which BRICS would promote in relevant international fora, first of all, in the United Nations, in the Bretton Woods institutions and, of course, in the G20, where BRICS plus partners are working together with the G7 and the partners of G7. It is a very important forum, which represents, I think, more than 90 percent of the world economy.
This is a negotiating position. The countries of the West know about this, and they cannot avoid specific, concrete dialogue aimed at reaching mutually acceptable conclusions. We are fighting for a balance of interest, not for defeating anybody in the Western camp.