Lavrov's Day at G-20 FM Meeting in India: Speeches and Presser

The G-20's meeting of Foreign Ministers began today in India, which has the organization's 2023 Presidency. Lavrov engaged in several events that were posted to Russia's MFA website that I've translated to provide to the many that don't know of them or can't access the content. What comes first are Lavrov's opening remarks at the Plenary Session on Multilateralism, the Global Economy and Development. I've refrained from any emphasis but urge readers to note some of the rather crucial remarks Lavrov makes, particularly the first sentence of the second paragraph where China's call for a shared future for humanity is now echoed almost verbatim by India along with Russia and China. That's then followed by Lavrov's expert dressing down of those Western participants which also bears special attention. Following those remarks are Lavrov's remarks made prior to the presser which follows them. There are some new revelations but for those who follow Lavrov much is a rehash in response to what have become the usual questions related to Ukraine and Russia's supposed isolation by the West. Yet, I suggest it all be read. I'll also try to find President Modi's speech Lavrov mentions as being seminal and post that for readers. Now, Mr. Lavrov:

Dear colleagues,

We are grateful to our Indian friends for their warm welcome and effective leadership of the G20 and for strengthening its ties with the countries of the global South. We join in our condolences to the Governments and peoples of Turkey and Syria in connection with the devastating earthquakes.

We agree with New Delhi's call to build a common future for humanity, which is especially important in the context of the growing geopolitical confrontation. We share the practical tasks set by the Indian Presidency – strengthening multilateralism and overcoming crises in the global economy.

I would like to apologize to the Indian Presidency and colleagues from the countries of the global South for the obscene behaviour of a number of Western delegations that have turned the work on the agenda of the G20 into a charade in an attempt to shift their responsibility for failures in economic policy to others, primarily to Russia. It is funny that representatives of those countries whose leaders admitted that since they had sabotaged the UN Security Council resolution and pumped Ukraine with weapons for the war against Russia tried especially hard.

Aggressive Russophobia looks especially wild when you remember that never have the Western members of the G20 lamented at its meetings about the many hundreds of thousands of victims of Washington's adventures in the Middle East under the pretext of threats to national security ten thousand miles from the US borders.

We see no alternative to the only legitimate world order embodied in the basic principles of the UN Charter. We would like to emphasise its core principles – the sovereign equality of states, strict adherence to international treaties, including universal conventions on the rights of national minorities, which were trampled by the Kiev regime to the applause of its Western masters. Russia has consistently opposed attempts to destroy the supporting structure of international law and its replacement by voluntaristic "rules" and "double standards."

The emergence of a polycentric world requires the recognition of civilizational diversity and mutual respect for interests. It is necessary to abandon the flawed logic of domination, dictate and sanctions. We welcome the rise of new centres of influence in Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America.

Integration processes continue in the regions of the Eurasian Economic Union. Prospects are opening up for combining its potential with other multilateral associations and initiatives on our common continent – the SCO, the BRI, AND ASEAN. To this end, we intend to actively use the possibilities of President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin's initiative to create a broad integration contour , the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

We will strive to democratize economic governance. We support the membership of the African Union in the Group of Twenty. We are in favour of increasing the role of developing countries in the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, and for the elimination of the Western monopoly in environmental and human rights organisations.

We observe the degradation of international economic relations provoked by the West, their transformation into weapons, including in the energy sector. Shocked by the unpunished sabotage against the Main Gas Pipelines of Nord Stream in the zone of responsibility of NATO and the EU. We insist on an honest and prompt investigation of this act of terrorism with the participation of Russia and other interested parties. We stand for ensuring energy security and access of all needy countries to energy resources at affordable prices, eliminating unfair competition. The promotion of the Green Agenda and the successful energy transition should be carried out without imposing costly models on countries with expensive technologies that carry an additional burden at the expense of national socio-economic development plans. Illegitimate sanctions, any form of violation of the freedom of international trade, market manipulation, arbitrary imposition of price ceilings and other attempts to appropriate other people's natural resources must be thwarted.

It's time to stop playing the food card. The causes of the crisis are in the actions of the West, which at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic printed trillions of dollars and euros, feverishly buying up food reserves around the world. Today, the lion's share of grain supplies from Ukraine goes at dumping prices for fodder to the European Union, and not to the poorest states. The export of Russian agricultural products is being openly hindered around the world, no matter how much EU representatives convince everyone of the opposite, who are no strangers to telling lies. Consignments of gratuitous cargoes of Russian fertilizers, in particular for Africa, are still blocked in European ports. The West shamelessly buries the well-known humanitarian initiative of the UN Secretary-General.

Against this background, Russia is diversifying economic ties and expanding trade with negotiable partners. We participate in the creation of a gas distribution hub in Turkey. In July, we are holding another Russia-Africa summit. Within the framework of BRICS, the SCO and the EAEU, we are committed to the formation of reliable transport corridors, independent payment systems, and the expansion of settlements in national currencies.

We will continue to make a significant contribution to ensuring economic stability. We are open to an equal dialogue in the G20. We hope that the Delhi summit in September this year will at least partially offset the risks created by the Selfish Policy of the West.

////////////

Now we have Lavrov's opening remarks followed by the presser's Q&As:

Ladies and gentlemen,

The meeting of the foreign ministers of the G20 under the Indian presidency is coming to an end. This is one of the events of India in the framework of the leadership of the "twenty". I would like to pay tribute to the intention of our Indian friends to focus on issues that require collective decisions and joint efforts.

The agenda proposed by the Indian masters fully reflects the aspirations of all states to overcome the ongoing crisis and ensure sustainable growth, remove artificial barriers, ensure fair competition in trade and strengthen the multilateral nature of the world system, support the central role of the UN and ensure that developing countries have more voice in decision-making on international platforms. All these issues are reflected in the document, which was discussed for several days at the level of our representatives and experts. On all the issues on the agenda of the G20, results and agreements were reached. This also applies to the tasks of ensuring genuine multilateralism and strengthening the position of developing countries.

We agreed that the African Union will henceforth be a full member of the G20, as will the EU, which has been participating in this work in this capacity for several years. The document deals with issues related to ensuring food, energy security and WTO reform. All these are useful and correct agreements.

Regrettably, it was not possible to endorse the Declaration on behalf of all G2022 ministers. Our Western colleagues, as they did a year ago (under the Indonesian presidency), sought to bring to the fore the problem of the situation around Ukraine, which they serve under the guise of "Russian aggression", with all the truths and untruths (primarily the second one) and various rhetorical statements. It didn't do any good. The discussion regarding the speeches of Western delegations, primarily the countries of the Group of Seven, was confused by emotional statements. All this was done at the expense of a normal discussion of the problems on the agenda of the G<>. As a result, it was not possible to adopt the final document on behalf of all ministers. The West insisted on reproducing the text on the situation around Ukraine, agreed at the G20 summit in Bali in 2022, completely ignoring our arguments that many events have taken place since then, including the sincere confession of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former President of France François Hollande, former President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko and Zelensky himself, that none of them intended to implement the Minsk Agreements. The purpose of their signing, from the point of view of Western interests, was to buy time to pump Ukraine with weapons and prepare it for war against the Russian Federation. They categorically refused to mention this well-known fact, with which it is impossible for a normal person to argue. In this context, they also refused to accept another fact that reflects the events that have taken place since then – this is a terrorist act against the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Our call to reflect in the document the need for an impartial and honest investigation was categorically rejected by our Western partners. As a result of their position, the Declaration was blocked. The results of the discussion will be set out in a summary to be delivered by the Indian Presidency. I hope that they will objectively reflect the exchange of views that took place.

It was said that in the context of strengthening the role of developing countries in global governance, a reform of the UN Security Council is overdue. We reaffirmed Russia's position on the need to do this by increasing the representation of developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America, stressing once again our position that there is no need to provide additional seats to the West and its allies, because the West is already "overrepresented" in this main UN body. All those who aspire to become permanent members will not add any value to this body. Our position is well known. Today it was confirmed.

The Indian presidency is continuing. I hope that the discussion on the issues on the agenda of the G2023 will help prepare relevant recommendations for the G20 summit to be held in Goa in September 2023.

Question: As you recently said, the number of countries that want to join the BRICS and SCO associations has grown significantly in 2022.

Sergey Lavrov: We have never approached participation in multilateral structures from the point of view of creating a team against someone. I would say that a balance of interests is necessary, and this is ensured only when there is a mutually respectful dialogue and each country seeks not only to defend its positions, but to do it in such a way that the partner's positions are reflected.

The SCO and BRICS are built on such principles of equality, mutual respect and trust, and consensus.

The G20 was formed in order to solve the economic and financial problems that had long ago befallen the international community. The first meetings of the "twenty" at the level of finance ministers and heads of Central Banks were held in 2008, and in 2009, when the next phase of the global economic crisis broke out, it was decided to bring these discussions on world finance and the world economy to the level of heads of state and their governments. It was then that everyone agreed that the G7 does not deal with geopolitical issues that are on the agenda of the UN, primarily its Security Council and General Assembly.

Now the G20 is a platform where the countries of the Group of Seven, the leading Western states, the BRICS countries (the entire "five") and a number of states that, in their positions, approaches and interests, gravitate to the position of BRICS, are united under one roof. Nevertheless, this is a place for frank dialogue, coordination of approaches, as it was until last year, when the West sacrificed to its ambitions on Ukrainian "affairs" all areas of work that should form the core of the activities of the G20.

I said this in my speech at the meeting now. All multilateral institutions are "tested" for compliance with the new geopolitical realities. In the new conditions, only structures (this applies to both the UN and the G20) will prove their relevance, which will use their capabilities as platforms for finding a balance of interests, and not for presenting approaches and putting forward claims designed to justify a certain right to someone's hegemony.

Question: What has the G20 shown in terms of the policies of the countries of the non-Western world? How do they intend to behave in a situation where the West poses the question as follows: who is not with us, is against us? What is your forecast for Russia and for the stability of the global system?

Sergey Lavrov: Giving forecasts is not a very grateful task. As representatives of the Foreign Ministry, we are concentrating on practical work to ensure our interests, fully aware (I stress again) that this must be done taking into account the legitimate interests of other participants in the process. We are ready for this.

To what extent is the West aware of the deadlock of its current line? They say Russia needs to [be]inflict[ed with] a "strategic defeat." That this is an "existential problem for the West." I am referring (they do not hide it) attempts to maintain their hegemony in the international arena. In developing countries, all this is clearly seen and understood. Another thing is that some of them, feeling unprecedented pressure using "below the belt" techniques, are forced to touch upon this topic in their speeches, in various terms emphasizing their commitment to the principles of the UN Charter, emphasizing territorial integrity and respect for sovereignty. We're all for it. I just want to remind you that the UN Charter, like any document adopted by the entire world community, cannot be implemented selectively. It's not a menu to choose from. In addition to what he said, the UN Charter more emphasized the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination. From the very beginning of the UN, member states have drawn attention to the fact that the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity and the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination need a common understanding. A process was launched with the participation of all UN member states, which in 1970 culminated in the adoption of the Declaration on Principles of International Law on the basis of the UN Charter. Since then, no one has rejected or challenged the document. It interprets the relationship between the two principles as follows: each State is obliged to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any other State whose Government respects the principle of self-determination and represents all the people living in the territory of the country concerned. There is no need to prove that since 2014, after the bloody coup d'état organized by the West in Ukraine, the radicals who came to power do not reflect the interests of either Crimeans or residents of eastern Ukraine. Everyone understands this very well.

Question (translated from English): Will there be a joint communiqué, and have there been negotiations on this issue? Do Russia and China plan to "move away" from the Bali Declaration? Do you think that the G20 has become too politicized?

Sergey Lavrov: I have just spoken in detail about the reasons why the declaration was not adopted. Instead, the Indian presidency will present its vision of the discussions in the form of a chairman's summary.

As for your question, why it is impossible to reproduce the formula that was laid down in the declaration of the Bali summit, I have already touched upon it.

The Summit in Bali was more than six months ago. Since then, there have been many events that reveal the background of what is happening in Ukraine, including the "guilty plea" of the three signatories of the Minsk Agreements (in addition to President of Russia Vladimir Putin), who, through the words of former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former President of France François Hollande and former President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko, directly said that they did not intend to comply with them. These issues concerned, inter alia, ensuring inalienable human rights, in particular the rights of the Russian-speaking population to speak their own language and to educate their children in it. All this was not just trampled upon, but legally prohibited in the decisions adopted by the parliament and signed by the President of Ukraine regarding education in the Russian language, Russian-language media, Russian literature, culture in general and much more.

Today, in behind-the-scenes conversations with Western colleagues, I drew their attention to this. They look at you and can't say anything back. They have one position on why Russia allowed the "invasion". Everyone emphasizes that it was unprovoked. This "invasion" reflects a reaction to the war that the West has been preparing for many years and for which it has been arming the Ukrainian regime that came to power as a result of a coup d'état. The Balinese "formula" was last year. Much has become clearer not only to us, but also to those who want to study this problem impartially and professionally. We've always known that.

Question: Just the other day, the Europeans published interesting survey results. It turned out that the countries of the global South consider Russia an exceptional partner and ally. For the West, this was a surprise. When, in your opinion, was there a rigid division into the countries of the "golden billion" and all the rest? Is it not because Western leaders and diplomats are now actively going somewhere: E. Blinken went to Central Asia, O. Scholz to India, E. Macron flew to Africa. Isn't that why they are going there to convince our allies to join the sanctions? Or is the "game" much more global?

Sergey Lavrov: If we talk about history, the prototype of the "golden billion" is the colonial powers that seized territories on different continents and established their own orders there in such a way as to exploit their natural and human resources and, in fact, live at their expense. More than half a century has passed since the completion of the decolonization process. Although it was not completed to the end. There is a decision of the UN General Assembly regarding the remaining colonies of France and Great Britain in violation of the relevant resolutions of the Organization. We are also continuing to work on these issues. We will work to implement the decisions of the United Nations.

Unfortunately, the West has not lost its neocolonial habits and aspirations. Everything that is being done now to subordinate the world economy to the interests of the West is nothing more than neocolonial instincts and practices. These are the sanctions that many members of the G20 from developing countries spoke of today as harm to the global economy, primarily food and energy security. These are attempts to manipulate prices on the world market. Western countries' declaration of a "ceiling on oil prices" is nothing more than the theft of other people's natural resources. That's if you look at the root of the problem. Manipulation of the rules of world trade, including WTO rules, and much more.

The West continues to promote its interests in other ways and methods in the new conditions without taking into account the opinion of the overwhelming majority of members of the world community. Developing countries see everything perfectly. I have already touched on this issue. Under colossal, indecent, and immoral pressure, some of them utter words or vote in ways that dampen pressure from the U.S. and its allies. But not a single developing country (maybe, with the exception of a couple of states that have made some decisions) has joined the sanctions against the Russian Federation. They are well aware of what we are talking about, what kind of game the West has unleashed, and that the matter is not at all in Ukraine, but in the fact that our Western colleagues want to prove to everyone that they will continue to "solve" any issues.

The threats made against the PRC raise doubts about the adequacy of those who pronounce them. In principle, no one should be threatened. But, when China is threatened in modern conditions, it does not fit in the head. Our Western colleagues have badly deteriorated mannerisms. They have long put aside diplomacy and are engaged only in blackmail and threats.

Question (translated from English): The war has been going on for a year. If we talk about the settlement of the conflict, would you like India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to take part in this process?

Sergey Lavrov: Our relations with India are described in our fundamental bilateral documents as a special privileged strategic partnership. It's not just words. This formula reflects the truly special nature of our relationship, from India's independence to the present day. We highly appreciate the responsible and worthy position taken by India in the international arena on all key issues on the global agenda.

Today, in his address to the participants of the G20 Council of Foreign Ministers, Prime Minister Narendra Modi outlined the balanced and extremely responsible position of this country as chairman of the G20. Unlike the Western practice of splitting the geopolitical picture into separate episodes, N. Modi's speech did not identify individual specific situations, but assessed the general state of affairs in the world. I fully share this position. The appeal has already been published. It's available.

As for assistance in resolving the crisis. We have repeatedly said publicly that we never refuse serious proposals made out of a sincere desire to find a political solution. While Russia is being called for negotiations, I do not remember that any of our Western colleagues and a number of other states called on Ukraine to do this. This, probably, has its own gray truth, because Ukraine is set up to continue the war. At the end of March 2022, it was ready for negotiations and proposed the principles of a settlement. We supported them and on the basis of which we were ready to sign the relevant agreement. But then she was "punched in the hands." Everyone knows this for sure. The United States, Britain and a number of other figures from the EU countries told the Kiev regime that if the Russians are ready to conclude an agreement on the settlement of the situation, then it is necessary to drag out time, further deplete them, achieve (as it was later directly stated) victory over Russia on the "battlefield" and inflict a "strategic defeat" on it.

Read what German Foreign Minister A. Baerbock or the head of European diplomacy Jean-Born Borrell said the other day: no negotiations before Ukraine secures an advantage on the battlefield. It is incorrect to give Russia serious calls for negotiations, which we have never abandoned. Serious proposals have not been seen since March 2022. There is only military rhetoric, bellicose decisions taken in NATO.

Everyone forgets about it. None of the journalists in the West and in a number of developing countries recalls that in September 2022, the head of the Kiev regime, V.A. Zelensky, signed a decree prohibiting any negotiations with the Russian government. We explain this several times a day, answering such questions. But this passes by our colleagues from the media abroad, who constantly ask why Russia should not agree to negotiations.

Question: Some Western countries believe that they are quite good at isolating Russia. Looking at the G20 forum from the outside, it seems that this is just their fantasy. What do you think about that? What do Latin American partners think? You managed to talk to your Brazilian colleague Maria Vieira. Did you have any meetings with your Argentine and Mexican counterparts?

Sergey Lavrov: We had a conversation with our Mexican colleague yesterday when we were sitting at the same table at a reception. We managed to talk on the sidelines with Argentine Foreign Minister S. Cafiero. We have good relations. We have known each other personally for a long time. A promising agenda for the development of bilateral ties in all spheres: in the economy, high-tech, humanitarian and educational fields.

I believe that Latin Americans have moved to a new quality in the development of their regional cooperation. The crisis that engulfed the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States a few years ago has been overcome. CELAC acts as a group of states united by common goals and interests - the development of the region through interaction, cooperation. This makes it possible to increase the political weight of Latin America and the Caribbean. I would like to draw your attention to the initiative of President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro to form an association based on Latin American and Caribbean unity in favour of more active advocacy of the region's interests in the international arena.

I do not really understand how it is possible to talk about the isolation of Russia when only our Western partners talk about it. All colleagues from developing countries continue not only to communicate with us, but show interest in coming to us, inviting us to visit us. In the near future, we expect to travel to a number of Latin American countries. Recently we were on another tour of African states. This year, more than once there will be visits.

Question: On the eve of his trip to India, US Secretary of State Emmanuel Blinken paid visits to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. It was reported that the purpose of his meeting with our traditional Central Asian partners was disengagement from Russia, which is what he tried to do there. How do you assess these visits by E. Blinken? What is known about their results?

Sergey Lavrov: We have never opposed any country developing external relations with other states. We have always stressed that it is not in our principles to "be friends against someone."

Now we have seen an increased activity not only of Americans, but also of Europeans (the British, of course) in the developing world and especially in the CIS. That's their "line" (you mentioned that). They do not hide the fact that they are working there against the fact that these countries maintain good relations with the Russian Federation. We know what arguments are used. There aren't many of them. If you try to determine the quintessence - "take the side of the winner", "Russia will fail", "decide in advance". I'm not exaggerating.

Not just with regard to our neighbors. Recently, Norwegian Foreign Minister A. Huitfeldt said that they should work with Africa to confront Russia. A good definition of the place of the African continent in the politics of the state called Norway.

Let me repeat: we are always in favour of each country setting its own priorities. We proceed not just from understanding, but we know that our neighbours, partners and allies in the CSTO, the EAEU and the CIS in all their contacts confirm their commitment to the obligations concluded within the framework of these integration structures.

Question: At the G20 meeting, you held talks with your colleagues from India, China, Brazil and Turkey. Have you had any meetings with representatives of other countries? Do you feel that more and more states agree with Russia's claims and its position?

Sergey Lavrov: I don't think there are more and more of them. There have always been a lot of them. It is unlikely that it will be possible to convince western colleagues in the foreseeable future. And we're not trying to "knock on that door." They made the decision not to communicate with us. It's their choice. Although not everyone manages to turn away and run past when we encounter in the corridors and corridors of events like today.

Let me repeat that developing countries have never – from the very beginning of the phase of the sharpest confrontation between the West and Russia over Ukraine, in fact, in the context of global geopolitical aspirations for domination by the United States and its satellites – not showed a misunderstanding of our position.

This is largely due to the fact that we did not announce the decision that we had to make in one day. For many years after the coup d'état in Ukraine in February 2014, then after the signing of the Minsk agreements in February 2015, we explained our position. They explained to their Western colleagues that it was impossible to lie endlessly. It would be nice to just lie, but lie about the fact that they will not infringe on our interests. Such was the case with the non-expansion of NATO, which moved closer and closer to our borders five times, with the promise not to deploy significant combat forces on the territory of the new members of the North Atlantic Alliance. It is now openly acknowledged that this was also the case with the Minsk agreements. Throughout the years of the rule in Kiev of the regime that came to power as a result of the coup d'état, they consistently destroyed everything Russian: education, the media, culture, etc. I have already spoken about this. To all our calls to the West to educate these people, to force them to fulfill at least its own Constitution, where the promise of guaranteeing the rights of Russian and other national minorities is written in black and white, to fulfill numerous conventions where these rights were confirmed at the universal level, he simply did not react.

I do not even rule out that many of our Western colleagues encouraged the Kiev regime to destroy everything Russian. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin once said that they are trying to create an "anti-Russia" out of Ukraine – this is a capacious characteristic. There is no doubt that this idea has been hatched for a long time.

We have already said that at this meeting of the foreign ministers it was not possible to adopt the final Declaration. In his speech, I reminded our colleagues, in particular, of this fact. As I have already mentioned, Dvadzadka began to work in 1999 at the level of finance ministers and heads of central banks, and since 2008 – at the level of leaders. Since 1999, the West has undertaken a series of illegal, illegal adventures: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

Libya and Iraq are still unable to restore their statehood. Many hundreds of thousands of people have died, including civilians, women and children. Entire cities were wiped off the face of the earth. Think mosul in Iraq, Raqqa in Syria. The terrorist threat increased dramatically, especially when Libya was destroyed. The fact that terrorists are now creating serious problems in Africa, primarily in the Sahara-Sahel region, is to a great extent the result of the Libyan adventure.

Moreover, the Americans planned all these actions on the assumption that they have the right to solve any problem in any part of the world. None of the situations I have mentioned now have posed any threats to the United States. On the contrary, these situations developed more than ten thousand miles from American shores. Nevertheless, at night they decided, in the morning Karl Powell showed some kind of test tube at the UN Security Council, and the next day they began to bomb Iraq. Then former British Prime Minister Thomas Blair said a few years later, they said, yes, they were mistaken, there were no weapons of mass destruction there. There were no weapons, and there was practically no country. Our Iraqi friends are still trying with all their might to restore national unity.

In our case, we have been warning for many years: there is no need to create a threat to the Russian Federation from Ukraine. Not somewhere across the ocean, but right on our borders, in the territories where Russians have lived and cherished their culture for centuries. This culture was crossed out by the neo-Nazi leadership that came to power in Ukraine.

We will continue to seek justice for the Ukrainian people, defend the interests of Russians living in Ukraine, and fully ensure the interests of residents of Ukrainian republics and regions who expressed their will to join the Russian Federation in a referendum.

Question: You mentioned that Western countries tried to ignore Russia's position on the situation on Nord Streams. Were there any states that supported the Russian point of view on this issue?

Did you manage to discuss with your colleagues the mechanisms for switching to mutual settlements in national currencies, synchronizing insurance and logistics processes? What has been the progress in these areas, and which countries have best embraced our initiatives?

Sergey Lavrov: As for the last part of your question, the transition to new logistics chains that will be protected from the arbitrariness of the West, sanctions and other illegal actions, to settlements in national currencies in connection with gross abuses committed by the Americans as issuers of the dollar, and the European Union as an issuer of the euro (the Japanese also actively abuse their yen) – all this was discussed in my contacts with my Chinese colleague. with the ministers of Brazil, Turkey. This is an important component of our bilateral cooperation. It needs to be insulated from what the West is doing in the global economy.

The unreliability of the dollar is now clear to everyone. Every third world country, even if it does not say so publicly (although many do), is beginning to think about how to protect itself from the repetition of such arbitrary actions in the long term.

As for Nord Streams. Yes, the People's Republic of China was together with us in favor of including the relevant paragraph in the Declaration (which, as you know, did not take place) (basically, together with China, this was sought). Most of the developing participants in the Dvadtsadka have expressed to us their understanding and willingness to accept that such a provision should be included in the Declaration.

But the West is like a bull. Remember how the West reacted to the revelation published by S. Hersh. Nervous reaction. Immediately after the publication of these revelations, they began to react with expressions such as "this is nonsense", "we will not even discuss it". Everything is clear here.

We will seek this investigation. We will not allow us to "hide the ends in the water", as the West has already done repeatedly, when it accused us of poisoning A.A. Navalny. Moreover, Germany refused and still refuses to provide us with test results, which is outrageous.

The same position was taken by the British in connection with the incident in Salisbury, refusing to provide us not only with the results of analyzes, but also with other information that we have repeatedly officially requested in accordance with the requirements contained in the relevant international conventions. The West does not want to respond to questions that reveal the provocative nature of its actions.

A recent example is the "incident" in Bucha. At the very beginning of April 2022, immediately after we agreed with the Ukrainians on the basis of their proposals to prepare a settlement document, two days later there was an "incident" in Bucha, which our Western colleagues also do not like to talk about. Immediately avert their eyes to the side.

Let me remind you that back in September last year, at a meeting of the UN Security Council, reacting to unfounded accusations, I touched upon this topic in my speech. He said that our numerous requests for information about this incident did not find any response. At a meeting of the Security Council in the presence of all the ministers, I appealed to Secretary-General Antonio Guterres with a request to help at least obtain a list of persons whose bodies were demonstrated in this suburb of Kyiv. So far, no one is even going to answer anything.

Question (translated from English): What do you think about Berlusconi's position on the war? Can it change the attitude of giuseppe Meloni's government?

Sergey Lavrov: We hear the assessments and statements of many world leaders and experienced politicians. S. Berlusconi is one of them. This is a reasonable person who is not subject to attempts to paint everything in black and white, to impose confrontation in the world under the slogan of the struggle of democracy against autocracy. He understands the need to solve the problems on which our life together on this planet depends.

As for the Ukrainian crisis specifically, I will not repeat myself. I have already spoken about how the West categorically demands that Vladimir Zelensky continue to throw Ukrainian fighters into the "furnace" of the war unleashed against us and how the President of Ukraine himself prohibits negotiations with the Russian Federation. Everything else, including the appeals of those who sincerely wish to help resolve this conflict, unfortunately makes no sense in these circumstances.

Question (translated from English): Over the past 24 hours, you have held many bilateral meetings. How many of these countries have shown interest in settlements in national currencies? What would Russia like to achieve by switching to settlements in national currencies?

Sergey Lavrov: All our partners, not only with whom we met here, but also communicate at other times during our visits to them and during their trips to Russia, are all without exception interested in expanding the use of national currencies in our mutual trade. With all the BRICS countries – India, Brazil, South Africa, China – we have been introducing this scheme for the use of national currencies in our calculations for a long time. The share of settlements in national currencies is constantly growing steadily. That will continue to be the case.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President of Brazil Lula da Silva shortly after his inauguration, during the summit with President of Argentina Alexander Fernandez, spoke in favour of not just switching to settlements in national currencies within the framework of CELAC, but developing the basis for creating its own collective Latin American currency. Discussions about "thinking" in this direction are also being prepared within the framework of BRICS.

Question (translated from English): At the meeting of finance ministers and heads of central banks of the Group of Twenty in Bangalore, Russia was asked to withdraw troops from Ukraine without preconditions in accordance with the policy of the Declaration. How do you respond to those who call on Russia to withdraw its troops from Ukraine without preconditions?

Sergey Lavrov: I would like to know: Have you been here since the beginning of the news conference? You're late?

Unfortunately, out of respect for those who came on time, I will not be able to answer you in detail. The document following the meeting of finance ministers and heads of central banks was not adopted.

Question (translated from English): Most of the G20 countries opposed Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Many of them (except China and Russia) supported the UN Resolution condemning Russia's invasion. Do you feel isolated?

Sergey Lavrov: Are you also late?

No, we do not feel isolated, especially during the events of the G20. We hold summits and ministerial meetings within the framework of BRICS and the SCO, meet with the member countries of the League of Arab States, with members of the African Union, with Latin American friends and do not feel isolated.

It seems to me that the West is isolating itself. That realization will soon come. Developing countries are well aware of what all these "incantations" about the need for democracy to fight against autocracy are worth. If the West is as committed to democracy as it tries to convince everyone, why can't democratic principles be applied in the international arena?

An event occurred, the inevitability of which we warned for many years. We talked about the need for a solution with security guarantees, including the Russian Federation and throughout the European continent. They didn't hear us. We were frankly told that it was none of our business as they were expanding NATO.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin substantiated the situation in detail and announced that we are forced and have no other choice but to launch a special military operation. We were condemned by the whole West.

Other countries, developing countries, did not express their position at that time. But if the West is such a big democrat, then let everyone else decide for themselves who has more arguments – Russia or the West. That's what we do. They explained our position and that was it.

The United States, the leaders of NATO and the European Union travel around the world and demand to condemn Russia. Is this democracy, respect for the right of every country to make its own choice? The UN Charter states that the Organization is based on the sovereign equality of states. The West has never respected this principle and continues its unlawful "raid" (pardon the word) on everyone and everything. That being said, I wonder what the arguments are. Many friends from developing countries have told me what Americans promise them when they ask them to condemn Russia. They say they won't be punished. That's it. "Equivalent" exchange. Fulfill my ultimatum, or you will be punished. These are not our methods. Unfortunately, these are the methods of our Western colleagues.

Constant references to the "twenty" in Bali and that we were condemned there by "these" and "others". I have already mentioned that the Group of Twenty has been working since 1999, and all the Western adventures undertaken since then – Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan, by and large, have lasted for many years. The consequences are still felt: from the point of view of rampant terrorism, drug trafficking (if we take into account Afghanistan, where NATO for twenty years of stay completely failed and "failed"), from the point of view of breaking supply chains, world markets, etc. But not a single meeting of the Group of Twenty since its establishment has 1999 been mentioned at all. No country has spoken of any of these crises and conflicts. As if no one cared. While hundreds of thousands of Africans, Arabs and Afghans are dying, the G-20 is focused on its immediate mandate. And here, when the adventure prepared by Western countries did not materialize, as they intended, the West forces everyone to talk about it. Unclean, of course.