Russia
Source: brics-plus-analytics.org

Expectations of a speedy accession of new emerging economies into the BRICS core will have to be postponed, at least until next year. This appears to be the sum total of the discussions and declarations made by officials from the BRICS+ economies over the past week. According to the recent statement of Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the majority of the members of the expanded BRICS have opted to put further expansion in the BRICS core on hold in order to focus on the full integration of the newly acceded members. The decision is perhaps as expected as it is sound in view of the need to clarify further the core accession criteria and the modalities of the soon to be created BRICS “friendship circle”. Even more importantly, pausing the core expansion will allow BRICS to focus on the key items in the bloc’s economic agenda such as boosting of trade and investment within the BRICS+ circle.

The decision to put BRICS core expansion on hold was expected and as we argued in our recent publication dedicated to Thailand’s bid to join the bloc, “while Thailand’s application to join the grouping is certainly a boost to BRICS, the further pace of its expansion and the timing of Thailand’s eventual accession are at this stage uncertain. With increasing membership, BRICS may need to spend time to duly integrate the new members that acceded in the beginning of 2024. There may also be discussions on the future modalities of further expansion, with decision-making and consensus on these issues arguably harder to secure in view of increased membership. The near-term prospects for Thailand may be further participation in BRICS+ meetings and the inclusion into the “circle of friends” of the BRICS that may be announced as the bloc’s new initiative at the summit in Kazan in October 2024”[1].

Postponing further waves of BRICS expansion should allow the bloc to focus more on delineating the workings of trade and investment cooperation within the BRICS+ format and on how this pragmatic economic cooperation is to be developed in the context of further expansion as well as the creation of a BRICS “partnership circle”. There may indeed be a need to attend to some of the problematic areas in BRICS economic cooperation, such as the lack of a clear roadmap of mutual trade liberalization and the rising number of trade restrictions among the BRICS+ economies. Similar issues need to be addressed in the investment sphere as well as with respect to mutual flows of migrant labour. These and other spheres of cooperation (including in the financial sector) will require consensus decisions from the members of the expanded grouping – something that will be progressively difficult to secure with further waves of enlargement.

The pause in the BRICS core expansion points to the limitations of the approach associated with the one-by-one addition of candidate economies and underscores the need to explore other complementary modalities of scaling up the bloc’s cooperation with Global South peers. As we have pointed out on many occasions in the past, such modes of BRICS+ economic cooperation could include platforms for regional integration arrangements and their development institutions or platforms for the member countries’ sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). Pragmatic BRICS+ expansion in the economic domain may also include a widening membership of the New Development Bank (NDB). There may also be scope to allow for extended BRICS++ formats that allow for closer economic cooperation with some of the advanced economies, their regional economic blocs and the Bretton Woods institutions. In other words, while BRICS core expansion may be temporarily on hold, the widening outreach of the bloc to the global community may continue to advance unabated.

Russia
Source: en.interaffairs.ru

Turkey has reached out to the BRICS club of major emerging nations that includes Russia and China, in a sign of growing frustration over a lack of progress in talks to join the European Union, writes Bloomberg.

“We have relations and are holding talks, negotiations with the BRICS countries and they’re also going through an evolution,” Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan told Haberturk television in an interview. “If the EU had the will to take a step forward, our perspective on certain issues could be different.”
Ankara had sought to revive its stalled bid to join the EU, one of its biggest trade partners, while simultaneously pursuing new alliances that could help expand its $1 trillion economy.

BRICS, named after members Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, doubled in size at the start of 2024 with the inclusion of Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Egypt. Others are planning to enter the group or considering invitations to join.

Turkey has long been a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and part of Europe’s defense system. But it’s failed to make progress on negotiations with the EU since the start of its accession talks in 2005, facing a series of obstacles that include what the bloc calls the country’s democratic shortcomings.

“There is a military alliance within NATO, but an economic alliance has not materialized,” Fidan said of the EU. “Therefore, our search has been underway.”

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has previously expressed interest in joining the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, set up by Russia and China as a rival to NATO, and plans to attend the security bloc’s meeting in Kazakhstan next week.

Fidan said Turkey may also apply for an upgraded dialogue partnership with the Association of South East Asian Nations. The BRICS countries are developing a lending system and conduct trade among themselves in local currencies, he said, something Ankara also favors.

Russia
Source: brics-plus-analytics.org

As the world economy gets reconfigured on the back of this year’s electoral outcomes and geopolitical rifts, the trend of greater South-South economic cooperation looks set to become more prevalent. In the investment and trade spheres, China’s exports and investments are encountering mounting barriers in the developed world on the back of geopolitical pressures, leading China to redirect exports to developing markets. In the sphere of migration, the stronger showing of right-wing nationalistic parties in Western Europe may limit the scope for greater migration flows into developed economies in the future, resulting in more of these flows being re-directed to other parts of the Global South. In case these trends pick up further momentum, there will need to be greater coordination among the Global South economies in creating greater capacity to absorb these rising flows of goods, financial flows and labour.

In the trade sphere the mounting protectionism against China’s exports in the advanced economies is leading to a re-direction of China’s trade to BRICS and other parts of the developing world. Some of these increases in China’s exports to Global South regions such as Latin America have been met with higher trade restrictions as part of what is starting to be branded as “protectionist contagion”[1]. In particular, developing economies such as Brazil, Mexico and Chile have introduced higher tariffs on imports of China’s steel, which according to the estimates of the Latin American Steel Association surged into the region by 44% in 2023[2]. China’s trade with BRICS economies increased by more than 11% YoY in Q1 2024 compared with declines with respect to the US and Japan[3].

In the investment sphere, China is faced with greater restrictions with respect to both inward FDI flows into its technological sector as well as limitations on its FDI into strategic sectors in the advanced economies. Some of the examples included recent US measures to limit investments into China’s AI and high-tech sectors[4], while the EU has explored the possibilities of investment controls in sectors such as AI, advanced semiconductors, biotechnologies and quantum technologies[5].

China’s response is to increasingly redirect its investment flows to developing economies via sizeable outward FDI as well as allowing for inflows of foreign investment into strategic sectors and assets[6]. The latter pertains to high-tech sectors such as AI development, with the Saudi Aramco fund opting to finance China’s Open AI rival Zhipu[7]. For its part China has become the top greenfield investor into Saudi Arabia, with greenfield investments in 2023 reaching USD 16.3 bn[8].

In the migration sphere, the South-South dimension accounts for more than a third of the global total of migrant flows [9]. Sizeable migration from developing economies into the US has played a crucial role in keeping a lid on inflation as well as boosting productivity and growth, but the regulatory trends appear to be pointing towards greater restrictions[10]. In June 2024 President Biden imposed limits on immigrants seeking asylum in the US[11] – against the backdrop of these trends, flows of Chinese migrants to locations such as Ecuador have been increasing markedly as this Latin American economy has a relatively more liberal entry visa regime with the US compared to other regional economies. The result was a temporary suspension of the visa-free regime for Chinese nationals on
the part of Ecuador due to the “worrisome increase in migratory flows” [12].

The “great reconfiguration” in global trade, investment and migration flows is likely to pick up further pace in the coming years and may have important implications for the world economy. One possibility is the rise in the prominence of South-South trade and investment flows as advanced economies become increasingly averse to surging cheap imports from large developing economies such as China. The rising role of the South-South dimension also underscores the need for the economies of the Global South to create common platforms of economic cooperation that would raise the absorptive capacity of the developing world to intermediate the rising intensity of South-South trade, investment and labour flows. This in turn may necessitate the creation of South-South platforms for trade and investment liberalization as well as financial platforms and payments systems that would service the rising South-South financial flows, including remittances. Without such cooperative arrangements, the world economy may become entangled in yet another layer of tensions and protectionism instead of experiencing a new phase in globalization and market openness that is increasingly driven by the developing world.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/d964c886-cf14-4259-aead-a32c61d166be
[2] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20240416-cheap-chinese-steel-threatens-jobs-in-latin-america
[3] https://www.ciie.org/zbh/en/news/exhibition/news/20240415/43720.html
https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/statistics/202405/01/content_WS6631dc56c6d0868f4e8e69e7.html
[4] https://www.reuters.com/technology/us-proposes-targeted-restrictions-ai-tech-investment-china-2024-06-21/
[5] https://asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Trade-war/EU-struggles-to-limit-China-s-involvement-in-sensitive-tech-areas
[6] https://www.reuters.com/markets/asia/china-securities-regulator-says-it-welcomes-middle-east-investment-2024-06-12/
[7] https://www.ft.com/content/87a40ffe-c791-4c90-8123-3f75aa0ed26b
[8] https://www.arabnews.com/node/2488096/business-economy
[9] https://unu.edu/cpr/blog-post/how-global-south-perspectives-challenge-thinking-migration
[10] https://www.stimson.org/2024/broken-immigration-policy-undercuts-potential-us-advantage/
[11] https://apnews.com/article/biden-immigration-established-versus-recent-arrivals-978fb26e23a198e478c351c28a5c607d
[12] https://www.ft.com/content/73d74037-a06e-4f8b-8065-d48ee76aa12a

Russia
Source: mid.ru

I am delighted to greet lecturers and students of the Academy of Public Administration under the aegis of the President of the Republic of Belarus, which is known for producing competent managers and leaders. Your educational institution has an impressive reputation, and its alumni typically hold high-ranking positions in the country’s leadership. Today, I had the honour of interacting with two of them, including the Speaker of the Council of the Republic of the Belarusian National Assembly Natalya Kochanova and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Belarusian National Assembly Igor Sergeyenko. It is always a pleasure to engage in such interactions, as they allow us to maintain friendly relations, deepen them and draw conclusions that have practical implications for our foreign policy and for the development of our cooperation.

The Union State continues to develop steadily. To date, we have approved 28 Union programmes in accordance with the presidents’ instructions. This has been legally formalised through a resolution passed by parliaments of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. Today, we have also approved 31 high priority guidelines, which encompass approximately 300 events and projects. These guidelines represent a specific plan for deepening our integration processes, aiming to achieve maximum economic effectiveness and improve the social sphere.

I am sure you are aware of the statistics that highlight a rapid increase in our mutual trade and investment volumes.

Our military-technical cooperation continues to deepen, which is absolutely essential given the current conditions in the international arena. These conditions have been shaped by the West’s policy of creating a Ukrainian regime that would constantly pose a threat to the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. We are finalising the security concept of the Union State and a bilateral interstate treaty on mutual security guarantees.

We maintain close diplomatic collaboration. We support each other at the UN and the OSCE, although I would add as an aside that the latter organisation is digging its own grave as it has completely discredited its initial lofty ideals, which were the basis of its establishment during the
signing the Helsinki Final Act.

We are also assisting our allies in gaining access to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The official decision on this matter will be made in July at the beginning of the SCO summit in Astana. President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko will take part in this event as a full-fledged member of the SCO Heads of State Council.

Furthermore, we will undoubtedly contribute to the development of ties between the Republic of Belarus and BRICS. Two weeks ago, Belarusian Foreign Minister Sergey Aleinik took part in the BRICS Foreign Ministers Meeting in Nizhny Novgorod. Yesterday, we held talks at the Foreign Ministry and discussed other ways to expand bilateral contacts. We also mentioned these discussions during today’s meeting with President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko.

Yesterday, we signed a joint statement on the foreign policy objectives of the Union integration process, thereby establishing a regulatory framework that enables effective collaboration. Other components of this framework include the 2024−2026 programme of joint foreign policy activities and plans for annual consultations at the level of deputy foreign ministers and departmental directors.

One of our essential foreign policy tasks is certainly to uphold the truth about the Great Patriotic War and to prevent any attempts to rewrite history and glorify Nazi criminals. We see the rebirth of Nazism when monuments to those who liberated Europe from the Nazi plague are torn down, avenues, streets and squares are named after criminals condemned at the Nuremberg Trials and the names of those who liberated these cities and towns are consigned to oblivion with the connivance of European elites.

The developments around Ukraine are evidence of yet another attempt by the West, following 1812 and 1941, to rally half of Europe, or nearly the whole Europe this time, and use Zelensky’s puppet regime to “inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.” Our efforts to prevent the revival of Nazism are far from academic or educational. In the current political situation, they have acquired an absolutely practical dimension.

A distinctive feature of the current situation is the weakening of the West. While it continues to encourage Zelensky’s regime and demand that it continues to fight to the last Ukrainian, the Global Majority and the countries of the Global South and East are coming to the logical conclusion that they would like every country to independently choose their development paths based on their own history, national identity, traditions, experience and national interests. They would like to see a community of sovereign states developing equal interaction on the international stage in strict compliance with the UN Charter, which says that the United Nations Organisation is based on the sovereign equality of states.

There has not been a single conference or conflict situation since the establishment of the UN where the West, if it was involved, respected the principle of sovereign equality of states. Instead, Western countries resorted to any means possible to preserve the hegemony they enjoyed since the colonial period. They have lived ff other nations for 500 years, and they would like to do the same now, though not by applying barbarous methods such as the physical extermination of indigenous populations, but by using neo-colonial exploitation. Everyone is aware of that.

In February 2024, the first constituent assembly of the inter-party “For the Freedom of Nations” Forum of Supporters of the Struggle Against Modern Practices of Neocolonialism was held at the initiative of the United Russia party with support from Belarusian political parties. The Global Majority is actively creating its own organisations to counteract NATO and its attempts to create NATO-like institutions in the Asia-Pacific region and on the political stage.

The Global Majority is creating its organisations on the basis of equality and without coercion or attempts to force anyone to join their sphere of influence, which the United States is doing all the time. The list of countries that want to act independently and to maintain partnership ties based on mutual respect incudes, of course, the People’s Republic of China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and many other countries.

Many African countries are becoming more active in upholding their national interests and displaying awareness of their continued exploitation, although in a different and mostly economic form.
The integration associations in Eurasia include the Union State of Russia and Belarus, which is the highest form of integration, the EAEU, the CSTO, the CIS, ASEAN, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, and the Arab League.

If we go beyond the Eurasian zone, Africa has numerous sub-regional organisations in addition to the African Union. Latin America has the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

This movement of countries that want to live by their own wits and choose their own allies has achieved some very important results. If we take BRICS even before its expansion, when it had just five members, their combined GDP calculated on the basis of Purchasing Power Parity exceeded that of the G7. Now that it has five new members, this gap has only widened further.

At the same time, we are not refusing to talk to the West. But we are ready to converse solely on the equitable basis. There are venues for that like the United Nations, but there are highly negative trends in evidence even there: the West has largely privatised its Secretariat by using procedural tricks or enticing its employees to acquire US citizenship and give up the citizenship of their own countries, which has an impact on their work. We see all this and constantly present our objections with regard to their biased interpretation of developments in Ukraine and the Middle East to the Secretariat leaders, including Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Their biased attitudes are consistently in favour of the United States and its allies. Nevertheless, we endeavour to educate the people in charge of the Secretariat and its bodies.

We see that this work and our consistent position based on justice and equality are yielding results. Nearly 30 countries have expressed an interest in joining BRICS. This will be one of the main topics for discussion at the BRICS Summit to be held in Kazan in October of this year. It is certainly the best example of how we should counteract the attempts to impose the “rules” that the Americans and their allies are constantly talking about, rules which they would like to put at the base of the world order. These differ from one occasion to the other, depending on what the hegemon wants at any particular moment.

When Crimea voted freely to reunite with Russia, the West claimed that the principle of territorial integrity had been violated. When Kosovo “seceded” from Serbia in line with the West’s will and without any referendum, the West claimed that territorial integrity was one thing, but it was not as important as the right of peoples to self-determination that was used in that particular case. “My will is the law” principle is what the notorious “rules” are all about, rules that the West wants to use as the foundation of the international order, disregarding international law. International law is enshrined in the UN Charter and upholds the principle of sovereign equality of states as the main tenet.

Now let’s discuss territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination. This dispute has been ongoing at the UN for quite some time. However, in 1970, its members unanimously approved the Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly. This declaration provided an interpretation of all principles enshrined in the UN Charter, but in this specific case it stated that all countries, without exception, should respect the territorial integrity of each state, as long as its government upholds the principle of self-determination and represents the entire population living in that territory.

I think that there is no need to prove that the neo-Nazis who came to power in Ukraine after the February 2014 coup do not represent the people of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya. The West does not accept this argument, but not because they have some counter-arguments. They have none. The West orchestrated the coup and installed the neo-Nazis in power. They then branded all those who refused to accept the coup as terrorists. Immediately after February 20, 2014, they called for the cancellation of the regional status of the Russian language and adopted a law to this effect. Next there followed the Minsk Agreements, when we were asked to stop the war. But each time agreements were reached, be it the agreement between President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, or the Minsk Agreements, they were crossed out and the West publicly announced that it did not want to comply with anything. What it wanted was to buy time and arm the Kiev coup-makers to fight the war against the Russian Federation.

No matter how the situation develops, it is of the essence to provide reliable security for all citizens of the Union State – for you and me, for all Belarusians and Russians. We will seek justice in international affairs. We have a very clear stance on every crisis that in one way or another concerns Belarus or the Russian Federation.

Regarding the Ukraine situation, President Vladimir Putin has once again spelled out a constructive and substantiated approach guided by reality and designed to ensure that no one is ever tempted again to shatter security on the European continent or strengthen their security to the detriment of the security of others.

We insist on building a security system within the Eurasian framework. I hope that all countries and continents without exception will eventually come to realise this need. This will not happen soon, given the American and NATO leadership’s frenzied determination to justify the infiltration of the Asia-Pacific region, where they are creating mini-blocs of various configurations, and dragging the Global Majority countries into them, trying to split the existing interaction formats. But at some stage, they will certainly realise that every man is the architect of his own fortune. When your fortune is forged in Washington, the hammer may accidentally hit your head instead of the anvil.

I would like to wish you success in your studies. You will soon have to take responsibility for the future of this state, the Union State, in various positions, in civil service or other domains. I hope we will continue to be friends. Always at your service.

Question: We are witnessing new forms of aggression in the international arena. The West is not too fussy about dealing with the undesirable and the weak, cynically resorting to economic pressure, political blackmail, lies and slander, and fostering fifth columns in various regions. In fact, the world is on the brink of a new war. Do you believe it is still possible to restore mutual trust between global players?

Sergey Lavrov: Hope dies last. Presidents of Russia and Belarus, Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko, have repeatedly spoken about this on various occasions, during meetings with representatives of blue-collar professions, primarily on international politics. The West is impossible to negotiate with in key strategic areas that ensure the state’s viability. We have not taken this conclusion out of thin air; it was drawn after the decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. The West can renege on its commitments at any point (there are multiple examples of this), and even declare war in various senses. What we see now, the sanctions policy pursued by the West, is nothing short of economic terrorism. I have no other term for it.

If they do not want to trade with a country they suddenly have a problem with, or never liked anyway, that’s totally fine. They can tell their companies they are not allowed to do business with that country, and that’s it. But they are telling companies from third countries they are not allowed to do business with Russia, Belarus and other sanctioned countries. In our view, we need to be guided by reality. And the truth is that Eurasia has tremendous competitive advantages compared to other regions. Eurasia is the fastest growing region, primarily its eastern part. Western European economics have been sagging lately, largely because the United States wanted it that way. Along with instigating anti-Russia bias in Ukraine, turning Ukraine against Russia, they have also eliminated competition by weakening Europe. Long before the start of the special military operation, they told Europe they could not open the Nord Stream pipelines, forcing Germany to buy expensive American liquefied natural gas and build expensive infrastructure. They used this strategy in nearly every sector of the economy. But energy, which provided the basis for the prosperity of Germany and to a large extent the rest of Europe, was Washington’s main target. The Americans could not care less about ordinary Europeans’ interests.

There are Eurasian organisations that are focused on the economy, like the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC). They are increasing investment into our region and the post-Soviet states. There are also South Asan association and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. There are contacts between them, including based on intergovernmental agreements between China and the EAEU. Integration processes are ongoing. The countries involved coordinate formats that are based on reality and allow them to implement economic projects they need as profitably as possible. This has to do with logistics and the new transport corridors, including the North-South transport corridor and the development of the Northern Sea Route. Much is being done to help Eurasia to fully use its natural and relative advantages for the development of regional nations.

Practice has shown that when the security dimension, including economic security, acquires a Euro-Atlantic form, this leads to the overseas partner’s attempts to exploit all the other parties. The share of mutual settlements in national currencies is the largest between Russia and Belarus, over 92 percent. The figure for such settlements with China is 90 percent and with India, over 50 percent. The same is true for our settlements with the majority of our other trade partners.

The process is underway; the dollar has discredited itself, just like all the other principles underlying the Western globalisation model despite lip service to fair competition, the presumption of innocence, equal market conditions for all, and many other principles. All of them were cancelled when they decided to “punish” Russia and several other countries. They are grossly overusing this method. Therefore, the de-dollarisation trend in global economic relations is a fitting response.

Russia is not alone by far in upholding this policy. Brazil is actively advocating the idea of transitioning to alternative payment platforms, to the extent of creating a common currency for CELAC countries. Ahead of the BRICS summit in Kazan, the BRICS central banks and finance ministries are preparing recommendations on alternative payments platforms that will not depend on the dollar. Those who print dollars are using them to keep up their hegemonistic aspirations.

We are working, and the West is monitoring our actions. Some Western countries, or at least part of their politicians, are becoming aware of the recklessness of their actions. President of France Emmanuel Macron said in May 2024: “Our business model has to change. We had a business model based on cheap energy coming from Russia, a great market for our exports called China, an organisation of production with the centre of Europe with high value quality, and the rest of Europe with low-cost entities, and a geopolitical umbrella with the US.”

It is a frank admission of what their complete subservience to the United States and its globalist programme and disregard for their national interests has led to.

Speaking at the Foreign Ministry on June 14, 2024, President Putin put forth the idea of Eurasian security. He clearly said that we want to establish dialogue on the principles of Eurasian security that will be open to all Eurasian countries.

As for Western Europe, they must decide if they want to continue to pull Uncle Sam’s chestnuts out of the fire or will opt for upholding their own interests. The recent election to the European Parliament has demonstrated a tendency for respecting the voters’ will. This trend has not stabilised, but it has manifested itself.

If our Western neighbours revise their misguided and self-destructive policy at some stage (we do not see any evidence of this so far), we will gladly listen to what they have to say and look at what they have to offer us. But while considering a response to their hypothetical proposals to resume cooperation, we will not forget how quickly they dumped all their obligations to us without a moment’s hesitation. This time, we will know better.

Question: On June 15−16, 2024, Switzerland hosted the so-called Ukraine Peace Summit. Many influential experts have already dubbed it a “Western get-together.” What goals did the organisers of this event pursue and what have they eventually achieved? Has this summit provided any faint hopes for resolving the Ukraine crisis by peaceful means?

Sergey Lavrov: The goal was simple: to snap a “family photo” with the maximum number of participants. The result of this summit implies that they have managed it. They have approved a pointless statement, while trying to avoid making the impression that the summit is dedicated to the Zelensky formula. After deleting two-thirds of its demands, they left “innocent” issues such as nuclear and food security, humanitarian issues (prisoner exchanges and the provision of assistance), etc.

They believed that this would be a “sterile” document, and that everyone would sign it. However, people in countries of the Global Majority, primarily leading countries, are not naïve. Everyone realised where they were being dragged. Some BRICS members did not go. Most other attendees used their participation to emphasise the futility of continuing such “get-togethers” (when Russia is not taking part in this dialogue). We are grateful to everyone upholding this line. However, this does not mean that we will run joyfully after they invite us for the second “session” of the conference that has already been announced.

We are ready to talk on an equal basis, rather than on the basis of documents given to us as an ultimatum. Vladimir Zelensky and his staff are saying at every corner that they have held the first conference, and that they would consolidate everyone using a “common” position ahead of the second conference. After finalising a common position, they will invite Russia and present it with this “peaceful position.” According to Zelensky, Moscow will either accept this position or will be forced to do this. He does not understand how to deal with foreign states, especially a country like Russia, and this showcases his intellectual abilities once again.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has set forth our proposals (that are by no means the first ones). We need to start from scratch. I am talking about the absence of any draft documents that will be submitted from the “right” or from the “left.” Or they should provide a realistic picture, as the West sees it.

President Vladimir Putin expressed our opinion on June 14, 2024 at the Russian Foreign Ministry: under the Constitution, territories recognised as part of the Russian Federation must be liberated completely, and the threat to the security of the Russian Federation must be eliminated. Ukraine must assume a non-aligned, peaceful and demilitarised status, and the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population must be reinstated. So far, many of these people are still on Ukrainian territories that are not part of the Russian Federation. Their rights have been violated in the rudest possible manner.

When certain Western partners contact us, we say that their “undertaking” as well as calls to withdraw from Crimea and Novorossiya and to leave these people at the “tender mercies” of the Nazis, aim to support the Nazi regime. We inquire, do they remind the Ukrainians, while coordinating these “audacious undertakings” with them, that it is necessary to respect the rights of national minorities (that were completely annulled with regard to the Russian nation). Their answer is negative. They claim they do not interfere in the domestic affairs of Ukraine, but demand that issues be settled in line with the UN Charter. They always mention the principle of this country’s territorial integrity.

I have just said what it is and why it is not absolute in the UN Charter. But apart from the correlation between territorial integrity and the principle of self-determination of peoples, the first article of the UN Charter says that all UN members must respect human rights and basic freedoms for all, regardless of race, gender, language or religion. There is no need to prove that the Nazi regime in Kiev has trampled on the rights of an enormous part of the population regarding the Russian language and any aspects of its use, along with the rights of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

On July 1, Hungary is taking up the rotating presidency in the European Union for the next six months. Budapest was strongly against finalising the decision on starting talks with Ukraine and Moldova on their accession to the EU before July 1. I believe their main argument is that the rights of the Hungarian minority have been violated. They demanded that these rights be restored. As a result, the adopted document on launching talks with Ukraine requires that Ukraine must respect the rights of all ethnic minorities (we are fact-checking this but I am referring to media reports). Perhaps they seemed to be ambarrassed to demand that only the rights of the Hungarian minority be respected. If it is true, the European Union must raise its voice and give a slap on the wrist to those who promoted Russophobia in Kiev and introduced blatantly racists rules.

Back to how we can proceed further with the talks. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about this: the talks must proceed on equal terms taking into account the realities. He presented our vision on June 14. But we have learned through bitter experience: each time the West has forced its puppets in the Ukrainian leadership to reject our peace proposals thus confirming that its goal is not to achieve peace but rather turn this country into a permanent threat to the Russian Federation.

In November 2013, Maidan started. In January 2014, Viktor Yanukovych held talks with the opposition, mediated by Germany, France and Poland. President of Russia Vladimir Putin recently recalled those events. US President Barack Obama called President Putin to encourage him to support the agreements between Yanukovych and the opposition, and to persuade him against using the army. President Putin responded that the opposition must not use force either and then we would accept any decision by the legitimate president. An agreement was signed.

The next morning began with an armed riot and a bloody coup d’etat, provocations, killings of Berkut personnel and accusations that they had been shooting at civilians. Now former US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was directing the process on the ground. Later from Washington, she spoke on the phone with US Ambassador in Kiev to approve a candidate to the putschists’ government. Responding to Nuland’s candidate proposal, the ambassador said that it was necessary to consult with the European Union, to which Nuland said where the EU should immediately go – another indication of how much ‘respect’ Americans have for the European Union.

If there had been no coup and if the agreement of February 20, 2014, had been honoured, that would only have meant early elections. The opposition would have predictably won those elections. President Yanukovych promised not to send security forces to the streets while the opposition promised to ‘behave,’ follow through with the agreement on preparing elections, and form a government of national unity. They signed and welcomed those agreements. However, the next morning, there was no unity any longer. One of the putschists’ ringleaders, Arseny Yatsenyuk, who subsequently became prime minister, went out on the square and said, “Congratulate us. We have created a government of victors.” That was it. Not a government of national unity but rather of victors. They immediately declared abolishing the status of the Russian language, and the Russian population was to be thrown out of Crimea.

I am talking about missed opportunities. If that agreement had not been toppled by the coup, Ukraine would have its 1991 borders today. Vladimir Zelensky is demanding this right now although the ship has long sailed and sunk in the deep sea.

When these people refused to recognise the results of the coup, the West denounced them as terrorists. Aircraft bombed the central parts of Lugansk and other cities. Dozens of people were burned alive in Odessa, and that crime has not been investigated to this day. They used artillery and heavy weaponry against their own people. When the people rebelled, we supported their just demands to the putschists to let live as their forefathers, who had tilled and developed that land for centuries, and who shed blood defending it.

And then the Minsk agreements were signed. They appealed to us to help stop the hostilities. The talks went on in the Independence Palace in Minsk for 17 hours. The presidents of Russia, Ukraine and France and the German chancellor signed the Minsk agreements. They stipulated a special regime for a small part of Donbass that had proclaimed its independence, including the right to speak Russian, to establish a law enforcement body (local police); to take part in consultations on the appointment of judges and prosecutors to that region; and to simplified economic relations with Russia. That was all. But efforts to ensure the agreements’ implementation went on for seven years. The other side categorically refused to hold a direct dialogue, as stipulated in the agreements that were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council.

Ultimately, we have learned that Angela Merkel, Petr Poroshenko and Francois Hollande has no intention to implement the Minsk agreements. They signed them to gain time for arming Ukraine. If the Minsk Package was fulfilled, Ukraine would have preserved its territorial integrity, excluding Crimea. At that time, nobody questioned the peninsula’s territorial allegiance.

In December 2021, President Putin submitted proposals warning everyone that “Plan B,” which Kiev prepared with US support to use military force to seize Donbass, was unacceptable, and that we would not tolerate the violation of the agreements. It turned out soon afterwards that we had only one option.

But if they accepted President Putin’s proposals, Ukraine would have existed now in almost the same boundaries as have been set out in the Minsk agreements. But they don’t want this.

In April 2022, we coordinated the Istanbul agreements, which also allowed Ukraine to preserve a substantial part of its territorial integrity. You know the reaction of the Anglo-Saxons, who prohibited their implementation.

This brings us to the latest option. However, the situation on the ground keeps changing, but not in favour of the Kiev regime and its patrons. Reasonable people should have analysed the chain of events to see that every offer that was rejected only worsened the situation for the Kiev regime.
We will always be ready for peace talks, but we will not suspend the special military operation during them. We did that in April 2022. We were deceived.

Question: I would not be presumptuous to say that you have been Russia’s foreign policy brand for years. You are not only a talented strategic negotiator; you also have a signature style. Tell us, do you work on it yourself or do you consult an imagemaker? Or maybe your family is helping you?

Sergey Lavrov: I never thought about it. The development of every individual probably depends on his or her character, the influence of his or her parents, the world outside and pals, including those you would want to be like and those you would not want to be like. I cannot even think about any recommendations regarding this. Just live the way you think is right.

You know, the Chinese have a saying, “Follow the calling of your heart but don’t violate the approved decisions.”

It is good to have many friends. But the main thing is what our parents have given us.

Question: President Alexander Lukashenko noted during today’s conversation that the way the Russian Federation treats the Republic of Belarus is an example of equal and mutually beneficial relations. Many countries are following this example. This trend indicates the transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. I would like to ask you – not as a diplomat, but as an analyst – can you say that this turn towards a multipolar world is now irreversible?

Sergey Lavrov: I have no doubt about it. First of all, because this is happening in a very real sense. This is the way history actually unfolds, the way it takes charge.

Today I compared the GDP of the BRICS countries with the G7 economies, which have long been the trendsetters. The BRICS share of the world’s GDP continues to grow. When I pointed out that we have not closed our doors to the West, one of the formats I was referring was to the G20, and BRICS has gained a foothold there, too. If we count all the countries that are not yet members of BRICS but align with our policies, the G20 is divided into two equal parts. On the one side, there are the G7 and their allies (the EU, Japan, South Korea) and on the other, there are the BRICS nations and countries that share their philosophy.

Over the past two years (with the special military operation already underway), the G20 meetings have been quite revealing, as we could observe the West trying, by hook or by crook, to bring in political agenda and politicised assessments in violation of the originally approved G20 mandate. Their ultimate goal was to Ukrainise the group’s agenda.

They failed to do that last year, though. The relevant part of last year’s outcome document lists multiple conflicts across the globe that need to be addressed. But this year, the Gaza Strip situation was included. If more attempts are made to pump the G20 documents full of geopolitical issues, the Global Majority will have to stand up against attempts to include any unilateral clauses or bias in describing the global situation.

In fact, there has been very real progress. The Western economies’ share in the world’s GDP is steadily decreasing while the share of the Global Majority is increasing. The West is barely holding back the reform of the International Monetary Fund, trying to prevent a revision of quotas and votes that would reflect their real economic performance.

I mean, if things were done honestly, the BRICS countries would have long had enough votes [at the IMF] to strip the Americans of the veto power. They are only artificially maintaining [their quota share at] about 15 percent, which gives them a charter-determined right to veto decisions.

The World Trade Organisation is in the same situation. The Americans keep saying, guys, the dollar is not our American tool, it is for the universal good, promise. It serves the entire international economy, investment and trade in the most effective way. But when they realised that China was beating them on their own turf while playing by their own rules – while actually using the models, forms and methods of globalisation that the United States had been persistently inculcating humanity with – they blocked the work of the WTO and its Dispute Settlement Body. It has been inactive since 2011 when they refused to appoint new members to replace those who left for natural reasons. There is no quorum. So much for the market economy and democracy.

Recently, when Chinese President Xi Jinping was in Paris, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen asked him to cut automotive production because Chinese cars posed strong competition to Europe. What do they think they’re doing? Last time I checked, non-market methods of competition, unfair competition had no place in Western economies. Has that changed?

The same is true of the green agenda being imposed on the Global Majority. The arguments sound unconvincing. Ten years ago, Greta Thunberg and others like her led a highly emotional campaign challenging everyone to urgently invest insane amounts to protect the environment. At the same time, Africa, which was lagging behind them in its industrial development, was supposed to stay behind. Now everyone understands this much better and defends their fundamental interests more firmly.

This was another attempt by the West to prosper at the expense of others, to have clearer air at the expense of others, and even to gain authority to fine others – they are trying to introduce a carbon border tax.

The Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged, and Germany just had to accept it. I am confident that no one will ever show us any investigation result. Sweden and Denmark have already closed their investigations, saying they had no results to show. The Germans continue to evade our official requests. Given that the pipelines are our property, keeping us in the dark about what they are discussing among themselves, while their alleged investigation progress is both beyond the bounds of decency and beyond the legal framework. Moreover, they have also shut down their nuclear power generation, so they began to use coal when prices went up. And they think it’s OK.

This process is actually irreversible, but it will be a long process. The world is too dependent on the American system. It will have a hard time untying itself from it knot by knot.

But BRICS and other members of the Global Majority are aware of their responsibility as well as of the objective course of history, and will adjust their mutual communication toolkit to avoid dependence on the former hegemon’s attempts to perpetuate its hegemony whatever it takes. These attempts are doomed to failure, however, the process will take time.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Question: In the spring, you said that BRICS countries are exploring the use of stablecoins – cryptocurrency tokens pegged to assets like the dollar, euro, or gold ounce – for settlements. Additionally, they are considering creating a platform to link central banks’ digital currency systems and discussing the integration of national systems for financial messaging. Currently, which of these options is being more extensively investigated by all BRICS countries?

Sergey Ryabkov: I believe we are actively and evenly pursuing initiatives in all three of these areas. None of them have reached a dead end. Ultimately, BRICS countries form an association of like-minded nations who share a common understanding of why these efforts are necessary and are guided by a unified assessment of how to improve the reliability and efficiency of international financial systems. Experts in the field say that reaching an agreement solely on one of these three segments will not suffice. A comprehensive approach to the problem is necessary. Currently, there is a broad range of interconnected ideas being developed by experts and professionals from finance ministries and central banks across all countries involved.

Naturally, the political momentum is also crucial here: as the country currently presiding over BRICS, we are advancing in alignment with the agreements reached by leaders last year in Johannesburg. As we reach the midpoint of Russia’s chairmanship within BRICS, I am confident that we will approach the October summit in Kazan – marking the 16th BRICS summit – with substantial achievements already in hand. Perhaps there won’t be any decisions that completely revolutionise everything, and that may not be necessary in such a sensitive area where gradual progress is often best. However, there will be tangible outcomes and I’m pleased that all member states, including those who recently joined on January 1, share our common understanding and vision of the steps needed to move forward.

Question: Based on your evaluation, which of these three options do you believe can genuinely succeed, and how will Russia benefit from it?

Sergey Ryabkov: Let’s wait for the agreements. I believe that without implementing the frameworks embedded in stablecoins, digitalisation of payments, and the ability to conduct transactions that move away from using Western currencies (such as dollars and euros), all three of these areas could lack strength. However, I’d like to highlight that within BRICS, particularly evident in Russian trade statistics and financial indicators, there is a consistent increase in the use of national currencies for settlements and in implementing schemes that are protected from Western regulatory pressure. In certain areas, this share already exceeds 80-90 percent, which is very important. One doesn’t interfere with the other. We aim to establish mechanisms that can be applied across all BRICS nations and will continue bilateral efforts with all partners, both within BRICS and beyond, to further expand these practices.

Question: Should we expect BRICS expansion in the near future?

Sergey Ryabkov: Actually, BRICS doubled in size less than half a year ago. I’d go as far as saying that this is a record for all international associations, to say nothing about the international organisations that have charters, certain regulations and so on. Even more informal associations of states (and BRICS is just one of them) had no such precedents before. This is why I would be cautious to speak about a permanent, non-stop expansion of BRICS. Should we follow this road, we may lose a considerable share of the practical efficiency now attained. And we have the goal to build on and move toward more new practical projects, solving the problems that stand in the way of implementing the existing ones. We do not conceal it either. There are, for example, certain aspects in the activity of the New Bank of Development that require clarification and adjustment. We are engaged in this work and will continue doing it.
However, we recognise that so far over 30 countries have already expressed their interest in further rapprochement with BRICS and eventually many of them raise the question of formally joining the association. We cannot but respond to it. It is not by chance that that the leaders at the Johannesburg summit last year set the task of developing a category of partner states and compile an approximate list of them before the Kazan summit. To compile means to reach an agreement among all BRICS members. It is not that the chairman writes something and then it becomes the list we are talking about. No, it requires a certain amount of negotiation, consultation and diplomatic efforts, in which we are also engaged. By the way, at the recent successful meeting of foreign ministers, held in the wonderful city of Nizhny Novgorod on June 10–11, this issue received much attention.

We believe that partner states as a category should not be limited in exercising their rights to interact with other BRICS members or, despite the importance of summits, be invited only to top-level events. They should work at all tiers of the BRICS architecture and its model of interaction. Here, too, we must continue our discussions within the association. The chairmanship is very busy with this. Regardless of the approaching summer vacation period in many countries, we are not slackening our efforts and we are aware that there is not much time left before the summit in Kazan. And here we need to do our utmost to offer an attractive model to the states interested in BRICS.

As for the expansion, the leaders will make their decision at the right time as to how and to what extent shall BRICS be expanded and whom shall they invite. All of this refers to the level of presidents or chairmen of governments in the countries where it is applicable. We will also prepare the ground for such decisions, but they are not in the forefront. The focus is on the category of partner states. This is what we are doing in connection with the growing interest of the international community to the BRICS activities.

Question: Apart from BRICS permanent member nations, what states will attend the BRICS Summit in Russia this year?
Sergey Ryabkov: Historically, there is a tradition to invite quite a wide range of like-minded and allied states to our summits, or just influential countries coordinating or presiding over regional and international organisations. By the way, you can look at the attendees of the foreign ministers’ meeting in Nizhny Novgorod – this will tell you a lot about what to expect. It is quite telling that we had such a wide geography and achieved this far-reaching scale in terms of the substance of our discussions and their political tonality. The summit will bring this scale to the next level. We are now sending out invitations, which means that discussing specific arrangements would be premature. We are working on this matter in all its details and aspects, and will make sure that you learn these details soon.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Mr Dynkin,
Colleagues,
Your Excellencies,
Friends,

I am happy to be able to address you at the 10th Primakov Readings forum. Your respected platform traditionally brings together politicians, experts, diplomats, academics and public figures from many countries. This reflects the general demand for a free discussion of current issues and is evidence of deep respect for the late Yevgeny Primakov.

This year, we will mark the 95th birthday anniversary of Yevgeny Primakov. He has left us an invaluable political, academic and diplomatic heritage. His striking sagacity and diverse professional experience helped him forecast the main global development trends for decades ahead. Many people saw the early 1990s as “the end of history” and an irreversible turn to unipolarity. But it was in that period that Yevgeny Primakov formulated and actively promoted the concept of multipolarity, which was absolutely revolutionary.

He also did it when he assumed the post of foreign minister at the beginning of 1996. He not only developed that concept but also started implementing it. Few of our foreign partners were ready to consider, let alone accept that concept. In this connection, I would like to express special gratitude to our Chinese colleagues and friends who shared Primakov’s ideas back then and were thinking in the same vein.

In 1997, the similarity of Russian and Chinese views was formalised in the Russian-Chinese Joint Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Establishment of a New International Order. These words sound familiar today, but back in 1997 they caused divided reactions. It was the first foreign policy document on multipolarity in history.

The current global situation shows that Yevgeny Primakov was absolutely right. We are witnessing the development of a fairer multipolar and polycentric architecture. This objective process has been accelerated by the beginning of the special military operation in Ukraine in 2022.

The rise of multipolarity is based on the nations’ striving to ensure their rights and the cultural and civilisational diversity of the modern world. It is related to the objective strengthening of economic and geopolitical positions of the Global South and East countries and the Global Majority as a whole.

Those whose business is to analyse international developments cannot disregard the fact that more and more countries in Eurasia, Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America are trying to pursue a more independent foreign policy. They are working hard, step by step, to get rid of the persisting influence of the Western minority, which continues to uphold its egoistic interests and is trying to live at the expense of other countries, just as it did in the colonial past. The principles of “reginal solutions to reginal problems” is becoming increasingly more topical. More and more countries, regions and organisations have accepted it and have joined their voices in calling for more democratic international relations.

The past few decades in the history of the world proved Yevgeny Primakov’s wisdom. In fact, this history followed its own cycles. Looking back, we can argue that it was natural for international affairs to periodically switch into a multipolar mode. In 1648, the Peace of Westphalia gave rise to a multipolar order of sorts based on the principles of a European equilibrium and state sovereignty. The so-called European Concert of the 19th and early 20th centuries followed the same logic. We must also mention the Yalta-Potsdam system, which resulted from World War II. It also had a multipolar vision at its core. Five winning powers became permanent members of the UN Security Council by undertaking to bear special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. This was what they signed up to when approving the UN Charter.

If we look at the world history from a different perspective, it teaches us that whenever any country seeks to assert its global hegemony and secure unrivalled military and political dominance, this invariably leads to tragic consequences for the state in question, as well as for its rulers, not to mention the scourges and disasters resulting from the policies to achieve hegemony. We must recall the human costs resulting from the criminal and reckless undertakings by Napoleon’s France and the Nazi regime in Germany. They nurtured the vain hope of ruling Europe and the whole world by subjugating Europe in its entirety and directing it as a single force to fight our country as its primary objective.

Every multipolar era was special and unique in its own way. And the current period is not an exception. The fact that the international system now covers the entire world is what makes all the difference with the preceding periods. There are now centres of power and development outside of Europe and outside of the Western world. This can be viewed as the positive results of the decolonisation process, which started in mid-20th century. The Soviet Union took part in it.
Today, Russia and like-minded countries call for injecting maximum momentum into efforts to complete this process, while also advocating a new strategic initiative to free the developing world from neo-colonialism in its present-day forms.

This was the topic of a forum, which took place in February 2023. Held by the United Russia party together with its partners from the ruling and non-ruling parties representing the countries of the Global Majority, this event resulted in a resolution to establish a movement called For the Freedom of Nations. European capitals and the United States have recognised that the ongoing shifts in the balance of global power have not benefited the West. However, while political observers have been clear-eyed about the ongoing developments, their vision has yet to materialise. In fact, the countries of the collective West are not yet ready to proceed in their relations with other international actors from the principles of equality, mutual benefit and to comply with the international law in general.

There is a feeling that the ruling elite in the United States has not learned the lesson from the multiple foreign policy and military failures it experienced over the past years. It maintains its misguided faith in American exceptionalism and does not spend a day without trying to auto-persuade itself that this is way things are. But this is just an illusion, and we have seen this before many times. There is no doubt that the policy to preserve this hegemony, no matter the cost, will fail. Even if the United States retains the status as one of the global centres of power in the foreseeable future, which is quite possible, this does not mean preserving the US-led world order.

Yevgeny Primakov noted in his book Russia in the Modern World: Past, Present, Future: “The people drafting American foreign policy are not taking into account the distinction between the United States’ special role in a multipolar system and a unipolar world with the United States as the only centre.” This is the distinction between leadership and dictatorship. The trends and aspirations revealed in the Biden administration’s practical policy are nothing new, including their patently unsuccessful idea to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia or their naïve desire to concurrently contain Moscow and Beijing, and now also the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The only novelty, perhaps, is the non-independent, servile position of the leaders of big, respected European states with rich traditions of autonomy in international affairs and awareness of their own national dignity. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said in his address at the Foreign Ministry on June 14: “Sometimes, I get the impression that European politicians and representatives of the European bureaucracy are more afraid of falling out of favour with Washington than losing the trust of their own people.”

The United States is already openly shifting the costs of fighting Russia to its European vassals, enabling its defence companies to make money. They are getting European economies “hooked” on expensive liquefied natural gas from overseas, in fact, forcing European businesses to relocate facilities over there to cut costs. This is already happening on a fairly large scale.

Berlin deliberately rejected its mutually beneficial energy cooperation with Russia, which significantly accelerated the process of Germany losing its status as an industrial superpower. This is not my assessment, in fact; it is a quote from Bloomberg’s February 2024 review. This is one of the many signs of Germany’s plunge down the list of the world’s leading economies.

Chancellor Angela Merkel was also being forced to refrain from opening the Nord Stream gas pipelines. The project was nearing completion and some of the lines could already be used to pump gas. But the Americans banned her from doing it. I know from reliable sources that she put up a resistance, telling them that shifting to LNG would be too costly because regasification terminals would have to be built. She was told that she had to make sacrifices for the noble cause of fighting “Russian authoritarianism” – and that was even before the special military operation. They proposed raising taxes, assuring her that German taxpayers were all-enduring.

Under the new conditions, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz went to Washington just a few days after the Nord Stream explosions. After speaking with US President Joe Biden in the Oval Office, he shamefully ran away from journalists without saying a word, realising he would inevitably be asked for an assessment of that act of (we say “terror,” but they prefer the term “sabotage”). After the start of the special military operation, [journalists] pointed out to German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (a representative of the German elite) that raising taxes to help Ukraine wage war would not be taken well in society. She said she knew that her voters were having a hard time but that they had to be patient so that the West could save Ukraine from Russia – and she meant that absolutely seriously. Recently, Olaf Scholz said something in the same vein when he was informed about the declining popularity of Germany’s stance on Ukraine in German society.

We are interested in just one thing: threats to Russian security should stop emanating from the West. Our interest was much broader and more comprehensive, but the West is not ready for mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation. Everyone already comprehends its intractability. When the West has to do something on orders from someone – in this particular case, from Washington – it annuls any agreements and violates international law. After comprehending the extent to which the West is unprepared for honest collaboration and realising that this is currently impossible, we are now interested in just one thing: threats to Russian security should stop emanating from the West. Our neighbours on the western tip of Eurasia could have become a centre of an emerging multipolar world order. Someday, they will change their mind and realise that their line, implemented on orders from Washington, is leading them into a blind alley.

In his remarks at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14, 2024, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said: “If Europe wants to continue being an independent centre of global development and a cultural and civilisational pole on our planet, it should definitely maintain good and friendly relations with Russia. Most importantly, we are ready for this.”

I hope that they have heard us. But I repeat, efforts to thwart threats to our security from Europe, dominated by non-Europeans, is our absolute priority at the current stage.

Attempts by the historical West to perpetuate unilateral advantages and to address its problems at the expense of the Global Majority’s states also explain its line aiming to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia in Ukraine and to eliminate a rival. Western countries want to punish Russia, and they want to use our example to intimidate everyone who conducts, or intends to conduct, an independent foreign policy and who prioritises national interests, rather than the whims of former colonial empires.

All these vain attempts have no future and are already yielding a diametrically opposite effect. The West’s inadequate and embittered reaction to Russian efforts aiming to defend its legitimate interests has convinced the international community that no one is immune from the confiscation of assets in Western jurisdictions and from other “cowboy-style” actions if anyone displays even the slightest semblance of independence.

For many decades, the United States and its allies promoted concepts that globalisation benefits everyone, that it allegedly reduces outlays, improves people’s well-being, and that all one has to do is entrust oneself to market forces, fair and scrupulous competition, respect sacred property rights and the presumption of innocence. They tried to convince everyone of this. I recall statements from the White House that the dollar was not US property but rather a common asset, the energy of the global economy, and that everyone was entitled to evenly distributed and equitable profits.

We have seen how these incantations, solemn and pathetic words were sacrificed overnight to the policy of punishing Russia in this case. Anyone, however, may be next. The Global Majority is taking increasingly frequent and active efforts to reduce its dependence on Western currencies. To this end they take practical steps, making new transport corridors and developing mechanisms of foreign trade operations as well as alternative supply chains uncontrolled by the West. They build new infrastructure, including for cooperation in education, culture and sports, because the West has attempted and continues to take these areas under its exclusive control and use them in its neocolonial interests.

If the leading circles of the West continue to destabilise the situation in the world under these circumstances (and that’s what they are doing), then it raises the question: how should all the rest get on? How can dangerous rivalry be avoided to establish a respectful interstate dialogue, above all between the key globally meaningful decision-making centres? We can clearly see this question. I will try to formulate our approaches.

The United Nations and its Security Council have been an indispensable platform for joint work even in the dreariest years of the cold war, based on the principles of international communication enshrined in the UN Charter, including sovereign equality of states, non-interference in the internal affairs, the right of peoples to self-determination, and respect for sovereignty. All these principles are still as relevant today as ever. But they should not be fulfilled selectively choosing what one likes at the moment from the Charter, like from a menu; they should be fulfilled in their entirety and interconnection.

We cannot accept the fact that an absolutely open and transparent expression of Crimean residents’ will was rejected by the Westerners under the pretext that it allegedly violated territorial integrity. In Kosovo, the West decided to declare establishment of an independent state without any expression of the will, thereby destroying the territorial integrity of Serbia. Without blinking they stated that the principle of people’s self-determination can well be applied there. Such examples abound.

Life does not stand still. We need to continue our efforts to reform the United Nations and adapt it to today’s multipolar realities. This is not easy, given that over the years the West has managed to subjugate virtually the entire UN Secretariat. And this is a fact. If we talk about major UN bodies, the balance of power and interests is different today than it was 80 years ago, when the Second World War was coming to an end. The reform of the Security Council has become overdue. It is important to realise that the only step in this reform should be to eliminate historical injustice and expand the presence of Asian, African and Latin American countries in this organisation. The West is already heavily overrepresented there.

We advocate making maximum use of the G20's unifying potential, which includes the G7 countries (which have long since become a less influential club) and dynamically developing world centres, primarily the BRICS countries and their like-minded partners. It is important that this platform (which is not universal, unlike the UN) includes the world’s leading economies and leading countries in terms of political influence. This is also a test for the West to see to what extent it will be able to respectfully and equitably seek a balance of interests in this format, rather than push through its approaches, which are confined in the G20 to blatant attempts to Ukrainianise everything and everyone.
In 2023, the G20 summit adopted New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration, which stopped Western attempts and emphasised that there are many conflicts in the world in terms of geopolitics, the vast majority of them unleashed in the interests or with the direct involvement of Western countries. On this basis, let’s talk honestly.

I would like to draw attention to the fact that the BRICS is expanding, enjoying more and more authority and appeal on the part of the World Majority countries. With the accession of five members, our aggregate potential has substantially increased. When discussing world economy problems in the G20, we are ready to solve them on the basis of the specific real weight that the G7 has, on the one hand, and the BRICS countries, on the other.

If this is how we should approach the activities of international monetary and financial trade institutions, then a reform of the voting system in the International Monetary Fund should have taken place long ago. It is artificially restrained by the United States, which seeks to keep its voting package at a level that allows it to veto any decisions. For the same reasons the United States blocked the operation of the World Trade Organisation’s dispute settlement body since 2011, when it realised that China was beating its competitor on the American home field according to their rules in economic terms, and naturally appealed to the WTO with relevant complaints. The Americans blocked the appointment of new members to this body. There is no quorum there. Since 2011, the WTO has been helpless with respect to the aggressive protectionism and discriminatory policies of the United States and its allies.

In addition to BRICS as a global association which attracts the leading countries of the Global Majority, the role of regional entities is on the rise as well. We are particularly interested in Eurasia and the Union State of Russia and Belarus, the SCO, the EAEU, the CSTO and the CIS. We have been focusing for a long time now on having these entities interact with one another. Contacts have been established, and joint events are being held in order to harmonise their programmes and projects towards achieving what President Vladimir Putin called the Greater Eurasian Partnership, without imposing anything on anyone. This is a promising economic, macroeconomic and geoeconomic project. Considering the circumstances, with the military and political security high on this list of our priorities, it is important to promote in Eurasia the regional security system that meets the interests of all and relies on the principles of equality where each country’s position is treated with respect.

The European security system which dominated our multilateral approach to international affairs during the past decades, including in the late 1990s after the breakup of the Soviet Union, was built on the Euro-Atlantic logic. For example, the OSCE includes the countries of Europe, the United States and Canada. Everyone is clear that Washington did everything to make the Western European portion of the OSCE obey it and follow in its steps. There was the Russia-NATO Council. Many, including Yevgeny Primakov, who was directly involved in creating it and working out the language of the Russia-NATO Founding Act bet heavily on it. It was built according to the Euro-Atlantic paradigm as well. The Council had mechanisms for combatting terrorism and cooperating on settlement in Afghanistan, and much more.

We had a particularly ramified interaction with the European Union with four common spaces, about 30 sector-specific dialogues, regular meetings, and biannual summits, to name a few. All of this was chopped up overnight. I categorise Russia's erstwhile ties with the EU as part of the Euro-Atlantic security system, because the EU has long since ceased to be independent in the full sense of the word, especially so after the coup in Ukraine, the Crimea residents taking the vote and Donbass making it clear it would not recognise the putschist government. Since then, everything has been torn down, and the EU has largely become a conduit for the US interests.

That is why we are talking about the Eurasian system. Back in February, in his Address to the Federal Assembly, and on June 14 speaking in our Ministry, President Vladimir Putin confirmed the importance of creating a Eurasian collective security, which should be owned by this rich and vast continent - the centre of global growth – but, on the other hand, not fencing off other regions. Not in the sense of letting external players in this system. They will waste no time putting their feet on the table and trying to assume leadership. We are talking about other continents with the African Union, CELAC, ASEAN (part of Eurasia) and other entities. Fully cognisant of the importance of taking their future into their own hands and relying on their own growth models and the interests of their own people, they will work to establish contacts among themselves.

In this sense, BRICS can play the role of an umbrella, which, at the global level, is willing to help harmonise integration processes across different regions. They should be cleansed from the intrigues and reckless schemes concocted by external players. Through its Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, NATO claims they still are a defence alliance and serve to protect the territory of its member countries. However, Euro-Atlantic security and, as they say, “Indo-Pacific” security are inseparable and indivisible. Considering this, in order for them to protect the territory of the North Atlantic Alliance, they allegedly need to deploy infrastructure in the Asia-Pacific region, and embroil some of the ASEAN countries, such as Japan and South Korea, into their blocs (such as AUKUS). In other words, they plan to rule eastern Eurasia again just like they are ruling western Eurasia now.

Our policies are non-confrontational and do not aim to undermine anyone’s interests. We strive to uphold the legitimate interests of all Eurasian countries. This approach is consistent with the global security initiative put forward by Chinese President Xi Jinping, which also relies on the principle of equal and indivisible security.

As the CSTO Chair last year, the Republic of Belarus advanced the initiative of a conference on Eurasian security, during which it was proposed to draft a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. It should comprise the framework principles of Eurasian architecture based on the fundamental norms of international law and the UN Charter, and set out the strategic contours of multipolarity and multilateralism that would reflect the new geopolitical realities.

We discussed this in Minsk with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko, Foreign Minister Sergey Aleinik and the speakers of the National Assembly of Belarus. As President Putin said at his inauguration ceremony on May 7, 2024, our goal is to continue working together with our partners in Eurasian integration and other sovereign development centres to build a multipolar world and an equal and indivisible security system.

The majority of countries worldwide share this objective. It is based on respect for the right of nations to independently choose their future and on a desire to build international relations on broad and equal international cooperation. The concepts of rivalry between great powers and the artificial division of countries into “democracies” and “autocracies,” which the West is trying to add to the agenda, do not reflect the aspirations of the Global Majority and must be condemned to oblivion.

Question: The agenda of the Primakov Readings forum did not include a panel on European affairs for the first time this year. But you devoted a lot of attention to it. Many years ago, journalists raised the issue of the “Finlandisation” of Europe. Opinions on it may differ, but its meaning is clear. I believe that today we are witnessing the “Estonianisation” of Europe, including in light of the latest appointments in the EU bodies. Would you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: I was not speaking so much on European issues as on Eurasian affairs. I tried to explain our previous slant towards the European part of Eurasia, which was, incidentally, quite sincere during the last period of the Soviet Union and the first 15 years in the history of modern Russia.

Why are we no longer satisfied with it? The partners we made in the OSCE bodies, the Russia-NATO Council and the EU turned out to be untrustworthy, unscrupulous and unable to honour agreements. Acting at the snap of their overseas master’s fingers, they did their utmost to undermine our legitimate interests and neglect their commitments.

It was s short explanation of why we are now focused on implementing our development concept together with our neighbours and like-minded countries in the Eurasian context. It does not rule out the involvement of our neighbours in the Western part of the continent when they come to their senses and outgrow their greatness disease.

As for the “Finlandisation” of Europe, I remember that period very well. It was an element of euphoria that developed after the end of the Cold War, when everyone was considered a friend, and ideology was abandoned everywhere. We remember that foreign specialists worked in the majority of our government bodies, including the Central Bank, and how decisions were taken, in particular on privatisation. Not that it was outright humiliation, but we did put the lid on our own desires and suppressed our pride. At that time, the Russian authorities believed that the West would help us out.

Yevgeny Primakov’s appointment to the post of foreign minister and his subsequent work in the Government created a watershed in the public mind. He worked hard to reawaken our society’s understanding of our own identity, history and mission in Eurasia. He promoted the idea of multipolarity and created the Russia-India-China (RIC) troika. It does not meet often, but we are planning to hold a RIC conference. RIC is the progenitor of BRICS, which means that Primakov’s cause lives on.

The “Finlandisation” of Europe did not catch on. Americans prevented Europe from becoming an independent player operating on the principles of neutrality, even though many European countries were NATO members. But at that time the term “Finlandisation” meant that NATO countries should honestly cooperate with Russia, and that the sides should not pose threat to each other. Today, we see the “Estonianisation” of Europe. The most ardent Russophobes have been chosen for leading posts in the EU. This is regrettable. President of France Emmanuel Macron was known for talking about “strategic autonomy,” meaning that they would decide everything themselves and become independent players. This brings a rueful smile to our faces.

Question: My question to you, Sir, is about the future of globalisation. We have seen how globalisation has hit numerous roadblocks. All the vectors of globalisation are under stress. And we have seen particularly how economic globalisation has come to a standstill as a result of the weaponisation of trade and technology in particular. We have seen how political globalisation is snagged in the differences in UN-led multilateral structures, and there is no consensus on anything. We have also seen how cultural civilisation is hitting new roadblocks and there are headwinds because no one is willing to accept the ideas of others. In other words, how would you see globalisation going forward from here? Is there a chance that peace can be restored, that stability can return and that we can return to the path of normal globalisation?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already mentioned this topic in my introductory remarks. The United States engineered the globalisation process and all the others, including our country at the initial stage, believed in this vision, but it has broken down. All its mechanisms, the assumptions it was based on and the holy cows underpinning it – they all fell prey to the efforts to defeat Russia on the battlefield.

You were right to note that other countries also face sanctions as a way to prevent them from getting ahead of America on the technological front. Just look at the way they have been seeking to prevent China from accessing the latest technology. But all they do is kick the can down the road instead of solving anything. What must happen will happen. China will inevitably accomplish all its designs, and so will Russia. I am certain that India can do everything it needs to develop itself if it faces this kind of disgrace. This is quite possible.

Globalisation has entered a period of fragmentation. The focus has shifted to regional cooperation. I mentioned the trends we are witnessing in Eurasia and the core elements forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership, including post-Soviet structures, as well as organisations like the SCO and ASEAN. There is also the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is also part of Eurasia, and its members have been proactive in working with many partners across their Eurasian neighbourhood on economic matters, including in Central Asia and the Russian Federation.

We are witnessing a revival of national identities in Africa and its commitment to move away from its neo-colonial dependence from the West. Speaking at the second Russia-Africa Summit, which took place in 2023 in St Petersburg, President of Uganda Yoweri Museveni offered a vivid description of the present-day neo-colonial practices by using the global coffee market as an example. This market is worth about 450 billion euros, and a large share of coffee beans comes from Africa. However, the continent keeps just 25 billion out of these 450 billion, while Europe and other countries get the rest, even if all they do is buy, roast and grind the beans. This means that Africans have to fight in order to keep this added value to themselves, and have been proactive in their efforts. I expect this momentum to gather even more pace.

The same goes for Latin America and the Caribbean. After winning his election in Brazil, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said that CELAC had to create its own currency. Many viewed this idea as too radical, and also challenging from a technical perspective at this stage. However, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva also voiced this proposal within the BRICS format, and other participants supported him. Following the last year’s summit, finance ministers and central banks received instructions to draft proposals on alternative payment platforms and to have them ready by the next summit to be held this year. As far as I remember, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi took part in drafting this instruction during the Johannesburg summit.

So much has been said about moving away from the dollar – the dedolarisation process – that I do not feel any need to repeat it. The dollar’s reputation fell to an abysmal low. By the way, Donald Trump noted this during one of his recent appearances when he accused the Joe Biden administration of undermining trust in something which lies at the core of America’s global dominance. That was a telling and sincere way of framing this issue.

Today, India is also focusing on the regional dimension in its various forms and iterations. Our Indian friends have been emphasising that New Delhi is interested in the QUAD, a format formed by the United States, Japan, Australia and India, primarily in terms of its economic, financial and investment aspects. We see attempts to draw the QUAD into various military and political projects, such as military exercises and ensuring safety at sea. And we can see the real purpose behind these security exercises. The United States offers a telling example with its attempts to interfere in the affairs of the region we share by creating all these trilateral and quadrilateral cooperation frameworks. It is now trying to expand AUKUS by having New Zealand and Japan join it. There is also the effort to create a US – South Korea – Japan troika to pursue an openly aggressive agenda regarding the DPRK. President Vladimir Putin talked about all this when he summed up the outcomes of his visit to Pyongyang.

Overall, this amounts to an attempt by the United States and the United Kingdom to play a proactive role in Eurasia by preventing it from developing its home-grown grassroots economic structures. They want to make sure that these natural processes do not spin out of their control. I have already quoted NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and what he said about ensuring the alliance’s security which hinges upon what it does in other regions of the world.

NATO has been shifting its infrastructure to Asia-Pacific. The US and South Korea are holding military exercises which now include conquering territories with nuclear confrontation included in the legends for these drills. They do not want to leave Eurasian countries to their own devices, as the British say, and want to look after them. This is all politics, of course, and geopolitical rivalries are here to stay, just as always. This could well be a never-ending process. However, it is a fact that Eurasian countries are now seeking to offer an alternative to the policy of controlling all these developments from overseas.

During the recent meeting of the BRICS foreign ministers in Nizhny Novgorod, we talked at length about this subject. Deputy Foreign Minister represented India at this meeting. Everyone feels the trends I am trying to describe, and many share and understand the need to carry this momentum forward, reinforce it and help these trends materialise.

Question: Could you tell us about the direction and priorities of further development and integration of China’s Silk Way Economic Belt and the EAEU across the Greater Eurasia?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already listed the structures operating in Eurasia. China’s Belt and Road project is one of the centres of proactive development. China and the EAEU have intergovernmental agreements signed on the integration of the Belt and Road development on the one side and development under the umbrella of the Eurasian Economic Union on the other side.

In our contacts with the People’s Republic of China on Eurasian development, we are not limited to these aspects. China is a member of the SCO and has its own relations with other integration associations, including ASEAN. As concerns Eurasian infrastructure, we cooperate with China and India on boosting the effectiveness of the Northern Sea Route. There are plenty of projects in Eurasia thanks to which the countries in the region can use their own natural, God-given and geographically granted, competitive advantages. Attempts are made to lead us off this track and to compete with us from afar. This is life.

Question: The Middle East is a region in which Russia has many interests over the years. But also Russia, I think, in many ways has a unique position in the sense that it has good relations with the Arabs, with the Israelis, with the Turks and with the Iranians. With the situation in Gaza and what appears to be an escalation in southern Lebanon, how do you see this developing and how do you see Russia’s role in that respect? And going beyond that, Russia has always had a vision for regional security. Given what has happened in Gaza, has that influenced your future thinking about what could be a regional security system in the Middle East?

Sergey Lavrov: What is happening in Gaza and on the territory of the Palestinian National Authority in general is a tragedy. We immediately condemned the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023. I believe everybody did. We also spoke out strongly against the methods that the Israeli leadership has been using to combat the terrorists – that is, by violating all existing rules of international humanitarian law.

You are right. We do have good relations with Israel. We have always supported Israel’s security needs in any situations that occurred and developed in the region in the context of implementing the UN’s decisions regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state. But it surely grated on me to hear the Israeli officials, the Defence Minister, the Security Council Secretary and other government members say that these methods are fully justified. Responding to the global community calling for mercy on civilians in Gaza, one Israeli military commander said that there were no civilians in Gaza and that everybody from the age of three and up were terrorists. These are horrible words and we reacted to them.

Condemning the October 7 terrorist attack, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres allowed himself a remark: we must not forget that the terrorist attack did not happen in vacuum. He was referring to the long decades during which the Palestinians’ right to their own state, declared multiple times by the UN General Assembly, has been blocked and ignored while the territory allocated for a Palestinian state has been shrinking like shagreen skin. Now, if you look at what Palestine actually controls, it is hard to imagine how one can build a state on these shreds of land.

They tried to persuade us that Israel cannot commit criminal acts. The mere fact that they are Israelis and Israel is a Jewish state proves that, as victims of the Holocaust, they are fighting for the right cause. We have heard such statements.

I had a telephone conversation with Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz. It was an extensive and frank conversation. I hope they will listen to the voice of the Global Majority and what it thinks about the Israeli leaders’ demand that nobody even dare to object to Israel’s actions. They want to crush Hamas, which means destroying Gaza and creating a buffer zone. It means asking Egypt and several other Arab states to deploy over there a multinational crew.

The double standards we see right now are quite indicative. Long before the special military operation, when we continued, with our allies, strategic partners in the UN and at other multilateral platforms, to defend the principles underlying our initiatives (the resolution prohibiting glorification of Nazism), somebody asked Israeli Ambassador in Kiev Michael Brodsky at a news conference what he thought of Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevich and other leaders of the UPA and OUN. He said that Israel condemns them but understands the reasons behind Ukrainians’ attitude to them. We requested comments from Tel Aviv. The answer was, Michael Brodsky “almost spoke for himself.” But what he said was not a lie.

I quote statistics, including during our contacts with the Israelis. The operation in Gaza has continued for eight months. For comparison, approximately 35,000 Palestinian civilians have been killed over the six months of the operation in Gaza – and even more by now. More than twice as many have been wounded over the six months. The number of civilian casualties in Donbass over ten years on both sides, i.e. the Donbass militia and the Ukrainian armed forces, is one-third lower than the number of the Palestinians killed over six months.

Our Western colleagues aim to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. They want to stop Russia and have us retreat to the 1991 borders claiming this would mean the end of the war. This is what serious adults are saying. It’s ridiculous. Try saying something about creating the Palestinian state. If this issue is still on the agenda of the international community (it should be, because there are decisions to be acted upon), look at the situation on the ground. What territories are currently under the Palestinian National Authority’s control in the West Bank?

Even a shy attempt supported by Egypt and Russia to pass a UN Security Council resolution declaring Palestine’s full UN membership was thwarted by the United States. President Biden said Palestine should eventually become a UN member, but this decision cannot be adopted unilaterally. What is this about? Does it mean that someone else out there should authorise it at a time when the vast majority of UN countries have voted for it? Is there someone out there thinking there should be some kind of a parallel move? That’s the double standards right there.

Russia has been advocating Palestinian unity long before the ongoing tragedy broke out. Over the past 10 years, we have more than once brought together Palestinian groups in Moscow and tried to talk them into uniting their efforts and harmonising positions and speaking with one voice in their talks with Israel. The negotiations must be direct. They must be resumed. They were unable to overcome the differences between Fatah, on one side, and Hamas, on the other side. The remaining smaller groups were undecided.

Last year, to follow up on our policy to restore the Palestinian unity which must be restored if only to rebut the argument that we often hear that peace talks are out of question, because the Palestinians do not speak with one voice), we invited Arab countries, as well as Iran and Türkiye, to join in the collaborative effort. Countries that have an influence with various Palestinian groups do so in different ways. We suggested that these outside sponsors of Palestinian organisations develop a single and unequivocal position without any nuance and tell the Palestinians that everyone supports them and no one wants them to play the game of nuanced approaches, meaning that nuance-free approaches are now available so the Palestinians should unite.

Within the context of this idea, the Palestinian groups were convened again in February and, for the first time ever, they adopted a joint statement to the effect that they were willing to unite on the basis of the Charter of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Shortly after this happened, the Western countries, which are also trying to play a role in this process (not always an honourable one), immediately started thinking for the Palestinians about how they should arrange their life in the Gaza Strip once the hostilities are over. Again, they want to decide everything for the Palestinians.

You’re absolutely correct. There is a risk of violence spreading to Lebanon. The Israeli leadership stated this and a number of demands have been put forward. I hope that the international community, including Israel’s key allies, will come to understand the extremely destructive nature of this approach. Initially, the Israeli operation focused on the Gaza Strip. However, the crackdown on the Palestinians in the West Bank was no less violent, including acts of violence by the Israelis who had moved to the settlements. The situation is bad. It is time to sit down and talk about the future of the Palestinian State, see who has violated what resolutions over the past decades, and how the situation on the ground has changed. This is a complex process which calls for all parties, primarily, the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as the UN Security Council (its permanent members) showing good will. We will continue to push for justice, primarily, the cessation of hostilities.

Remember, a resolution was adopted for the first time in the spring that called for a ceasefire during the holy month of Ramadan. It was the first time the Americans did not use their veto. US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield said they had abstained and let that resolution pass, adding that the resolution was non-binding. Few comments are available on this remark, but Article 25 of the Charter says the Security Council resolutions must be honoured by everyone. That applies to any resolution, not just Chapter 7 resolutions. The fact that Ms Thomas-Greenfield floated this idea will, I think, backfire many times when the United States will demand compliance with UN resolutions.

The United States lost that right altogether when Donald Trump said he would not implement Resolution 2231, which approved the JCPOA. He just wouldn’t, end of story, even though it took them years to put this resolution and this plan together. Whenever you hear the United States claim that Russia is violating resolutions, think about how they treat the resolution on Iran and resolutions on the Palestinian issue which I mentioned earlier. Those who are still willing to continue to paint themselves as a model of democracy and a member of the international community that is capable of reaching and honouring agreements should proceed with caution when it comes to matters of this kind.

Question: India’s Prime Minister [Narendra] Modi is coming to Moscow in a few days’ time, on July 8. And I was wondering if you could talk to us a little bit about that visit. How important is it for Russia?
I also hear around, here at the Primakov Readings as well as elsewhere in Moscow, that you believe, that Russia believes that India is leaning much more towards the United States. So, I want to hear what you have to say on that front. And also, while I also hear, and you yourself, a few minutes ago, spoke about Russia and China and your very close partnership with China, I have a thought that comes to my head, which is that in the last few years, the US-China economic relationship has actually gone up. Trade between the US and China, trade between China and the European Union has only increased, especially as you come off the pandemic. Now, what does this mean for the relationship between Russia and China? Are you aware that – well, of course you are, but – how do you look at this increasing partnership between China and their partners in the West?

Sergey Lavrov: You’re asking me to share our view of the situation in the Russia-India-China triangle.

Indian President Narendra Modi’s visit perfectly fits into our strategic foreign policy line. India is one of our priority partners, and our relationship is qualified accordingly in official bilateral documents. Initially documented as a strategic partnership, it was later redefined as a privileged strategic partnership in response to our Indian friends’ proposal. Later still, also at New Delhi’s initiative, bilateral relations have been elevated to the level of a special and privileged strategic partnership. We would like this term, this formula to continue to describe the essence of our joint work and interaction.
India is one of our oldest strategic partners. Established when the country gained independence, our interaction continued as Russia helped develop the Indian state, economy, and armed forces, and made every effort to help alleviate tensions between India and Pakistan.

I have mentioned today that, if we take a more recent period, it was actually Yevgeny Primakov’s idea that the Russia, India and China (RIC) triangle should become the symbol of the multipolar world, and its core. However, there was little mention of RIC after BRICS was inaugurated, because BRICS is certainly a much more impressive entity. But, strange as it might seem, the RIC architecture of exchanges continued to work, including the foreign ministers’ meetings. In fact, we have met about 20 times, but our joint work has slowed down a bit in recent time – first due to the coronavirus situation, and later, the well-known problems on the India-China border.

We still find it much more useful to talk to each other in such tense moments. About a year ago, we proposed creating a RIC trilateral format. Recently, we revisited the idea again. But so far, our Indian friends believe that the border situation has to be fully resolved first. We understand. Anyway, both Beijing and New Delhi are showing a clear interest in preserving the trilateral cooperation format. I am sure that each of the three will benefit from working out shared approaches and taking aligned stances on key issues on the Eurasian and global agenda.

I bluntly point out that the West wants exactly the opposite to happen. The West seeks to prevent RIC from strengthening its solidarity and negotiating from a shared position. The West wants us at variance because it can take advantage of this.

You mentioned that China is increasing trade with the West, with the United States. In fact, China is now gradually reducing its dollar-denominated foreign exchange reserves. These are technicalities though. We can discuss them separately later. It is also obvious that the United States is trying to drag India into its anti-China project. Everyone knows what I am referring to.

I have spoken a lot with my Indian colleague and friend, Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. He has been repeatedly asked by journalists why India is now buying several times more oil and other goods from Russia than it did before the war in Ukraine. He always publicly replied that, dear friends, you had better count the money in your own pockets, and watch how much Russian oil you are buying. Allow me to answer for my country. It is important to do what is best for our economy. If everyone on this planet took this approach, I think that Washington’s pressure would never achieve the results that it sometimes does.

With regard to China’s trade, both China and India (let’s face it) want to see the global economic situation settle down, but are not willing to question the globalisation foundations and mechanisms that were laid down by the Americans, or the role of the dollar, which many out there are still willing to rely on. Payments covering 90 percent of our trade with China are made in roubles or yuans. About 60 percent of trade with India is settled in national currencies. This is a serious choice. Both the People’s Republic of China and India are much more deeply involved in the Western system of globalisation in terms of the volume of financial, investment, and trade agreements and many other things. But the fact is that just like us, the People’s Republic of China and India are fully aware of the discriminatory nature of what the West is doing.

I cited examples of how you, the Chinese, or other BRICS members are not allowed to assume positions at the IMF that would reflect the actual economic and financial weight of your respective countries, and how the WTO has been blocking for 13 years the operation of a body that was created specifically to adjudicate disputes and hand down fair rulings.

I have no doubt that, just like most other countries, China and India are fully aware of this. We are not asking India to revise its foreign policy priorities. That country wants to achieve mutually beneficial results in its contacts with all countries. We want that, too. We were once brought into this system. Then, in response to our long-standing warnings about the fallacious and tragic policy seeking to expand NATO and embroil Ukraine in it. We were left with no other choice but to start a special military operation to ensure our security, our core interests and the security of the people whose ancestors had lived in Donbass and Novorossiya for centuries, as they developed these lands and built cities, factories, ports, and ships. Someone out there wanted to erase all of that.

I’d be remiss not to wrap up the discussion of the Ukraine issue with what the West is now saying about everything it has come up with recently, including the Swiss conference, and then another conference. Several Arab countries are trying to make arrangements for hosting a new “khural.” Go ahead and read what they have to say about everyone respecting international rights, the UN Charter and Ukraine’s territorial integrity. Why only territorial integrity? I discussed the right of nations to self-determination earlier. There was a discussion a long time ago about harmonising the principles of territorial integrity and the right of a nation to self-determination. In 1970, after years of talks, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the Declaration on Friendly Relations, a multi-page document. The part in question says that all countries have the duty to respect the territorial integrity of the countries whose governments respect the principle of self-determination of peoples and represent the whole people belonging to the territory.

I’m sick and tired of bringing this matter up at numerous public events. Those who came to power following the coup said the Russian language would be abolished and declared the residents of Crimea and Donbass terrorists. Considering this, did the Ukrainian “government” formed by the putschists represent the interests of the people of eastern Ukraine? Of course, it didn’t. Let’s keep in mind the fact that since then Ukraine has passed laws that banned everything that is Russian, including education and media in the Russian language. Cultural events were outlawed. Even in an everyday situation of you doing shopping, a sales assistant, if they choose to, can turn you in if you speak Russian to them. I’m saying this to drive home the point that all those schemers swarming around Ukraine are calling on everyone to respect the UN Charter, but focus exclusively on territorial integrity, leaving out matters that I just mentioned. They also fail to include Article 1of the Charter about human rights, which is so cherished by those who are spearheading these get-togethers on Ukraine.

This is being said in a context which they find absolutely unacceptable. It says that all countries have the duty to respect human rights, regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. This is also part of the UN Charter. Few people think about it. Matters of language and religion are like a knife in the throat for the West. Occasionally, we have informal contacts with political scientists. They tried to sell us the idea of stopping the war and exploring the Korean scenario. Our political scientists asked them what would happen if a compromise on ending hostilities were to be reached in theory. What would you do about the laws in Ukraine mandating the destruction of everything that is Russian and glorifying the Nazis? Their answer was quite telling. They said they were not going to interfere in the internal affairs of the Ukrainian state meaning the Nazis would be licensed to continue to destroy everything about Russia.

That means that the countries that are invited, or rather lured, to attend such gatherings should be asking such questions. Many of our friends are there. Some are attending just in order to get the organisers off their backs and not be asked to impose sanctions on Russia, which they are not willing to do and will never do. Others go there out of a sincere desire to get the process back on track. They say they won’t adopt anything without Russia and refuse to sign anything. All of that shows the weighty nature of the ongoing developments and the fact that the Global Majority understands that this is a matter of principle.

I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to go there next time they invite you, but ask them these questions about the principles of the UN Charter, which the West and, for obvious reasons, the Kiev Nazi junta are blatantly ignoring.

<...>

Question: What should be the role of people’s diplomacy at such associations as BRCS, the SCO and the EU?

Sergey Lavrov: The EU has stopped working together with us, opting instead for ultimatums, blackmail, sanctions and threats. Diplomacy as such has disappeared from the Western arsenal of foreign policy instruments.
In this context, it is important to use people’s diplomacy to maintain contacts with reasonable and decent members of the Western public, including political parties, movements and municipal authorities. As I have said, it would be wrong to say that we view some countries as unfriendly. The term refers to countries with unfriendly governments. We have not designated whole nations unfriendly or said that we do not want to associate with members of their political parties, parliaments or other organisations. This is not so.
Therefore, we should not only promote people's diplomacy within BRICS and the SCO but also use their joint projects in the field of people’s diplomacy. We must keep in mind the external direction and these organisations’ interaction with colleagues in the countries that are not members of BRICS, the SCO or the EAEU. We will always welcome such relations. We regularly meet with NGOs. The Foreign Ministry will be happy to take part in your next forum.

<...>

Russia
Source: brics-russia2024.ru

The BRICS Seminar on Population Matters was held online at the World Trade Centre in Moscow on 25 June 2024 as part of Russia’s BRICS Chairship.

Seminar participants were welcomed by Deputy Minister of Labour and Social Protection of the Russian Federation Alexey Vovchenko, Head of International Cooperation at the Russian Ministry of Labour and Social Protection Denis Gulayev, Director of the International Labour Organization (ILO) Decent Work Technical Support Team and Country Office for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Mikhail Pushkin, Coordinator of the International Social Security Association (ISSA) for Eurasia and BRICS Project Manager Dmitry Karasev, and United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) Regional Director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia Florence Bauer.

The speakers touched on the special role of the Seminar as a place for sharing experience and best practices and finding the best possible solutions for overcoming the demographic challenges facing BRICS.

The main topics of the 2024 Seminar were ‘Demographic Challenges and Possible Solutions’ and ‘The Prosperity of Households with Children’.

The ILO, ISSA, and UNFPA representatives provided the event with expert support, providing their BRICS counterparts with information on international practice for these issues and the measures required to overcome the demographic challenges facing BRICS and ensure the prosperity of households with children.

The participants from BRICS also reported on the measures that were taken in these areas.
The Russian side is to prepare a Chair’s Summary of the discussion.

The Roscongress Foundation manages the events of Russia’s BRICS Chairship.