Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement and answers to questions following the G20 Foreign Ministers' meeting, New Delhi, March 2, 2023
2 March 2023 19:20
398-02-03-2023
Ladies and gentlemen,
The G20 Foreign Ministers' Meeting under the Indian Presidency is about to end. This is one of India's events during its time at the helm of the G20.
I would like to give credit to our Indian friends for their intention to focus on issues that require collective solutions and the pooling of efforts.
The agenda offered by the Indian hosts fully reflects the aspirations of all states to overcome the persisting crisis, ensure sustainable growth, remove artificial barriers, guarantee fair competition in trade, enhance the multilateral character of the global system, support the UN's central role and help developing nations have more of a say in international decision-making. All these issues are reflected in the document that our representatives and experts discussed for several days. Agreement was reached on all issues of the G20 agenda, including the need to ensure genuine multilaterism and bolster the positions of developing nations.
It was agreed that from now on the African Union will be a full-fledged member of the G20, just as the EU that has been working in this capacity for several years now. The document concerns the need to ensure food and energy security and reform the WTO. These are useful and correct agreements.
Unfortunately, the G20 declaration was not approved on behalf of all G20 foreign ministers. As a year ago (under Indonesia's Presidency), our Western partners were going all-out to highlight the situation around Ukraine, which they were presenting as "Russian aggression" in numerous rhetorical statements. No good came of it. The remarks by Western delegations, primarily the G7 countries, became too emotional, disrupting the normal discussion of the issues on the G20 agenda. As a result, the final document on behalf of all ministers was not adopted. The West insisted on reproducing the text on the situation around Ukraine, which was coordinated at the G20 Summit in Bali in 2022, fully ignoring our arguments that much had happened since then, such as the sincere admissions by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former President of France Francois Hollande, former President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko and President Vladimir Zelensky himself to the effect that none of them were going to fulfil the Minsk agreements. In terms of Western interests, they were signed to gain time to pump Ukraine full of weapons and prepare for war against Russia. Our Western partners categorically refused to mention this well-known fact that no normal person would dispute. Likewise, they also refused to accept another fact - the act of terror against the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Our Western partners categorically rejected our appeal to reflect the need for an unbiased and honest investigation in the final declaration. Their position blocked adoption of the final declaration. Results of the discussion will be set forth in a summary to be made by the Indian Presidency. I hope they will objectively reflect the exchange of views we had.
We pointed out that UN Security Council reform is long overdue in the context of the developing countries playing a greater role in global governance. We reaffirmed Russia's position on the importance of this by expanding the representation of the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America and have re-emphasised our position where there's no need to provide additional seats to the West or its allies because the West is "overrepresented" in this main UN body as it is. No one claiming a seat as a permanent UNSC member will add any value to this body. Our position on this is well known. Today, we reiterated it.
The Indian Presidency continues. I hope the discussion of the items on the G20 agenda will result in corresponding draft recommendations for the G20 Summit to be held in Goa in September.
Question: You said some time ago that the number of countries willing to join BRICS and the SCO grew significantly in 2022. Does this mean that these associations will become a counterbalance to the West and put an end to US hegemony?
Sergey Lavrov: We never approach membership in multilateral associations as a way to create a group that opposes someone else. I would say we need a balance of interests which can only be ensured by a mutually respectful dialogue where each country strives to not only uphold its positions, but also to make sure the partners' positions are reflected as well.
The SCO and BRICS are built on these principles of equality, mutual respect, trust and consensus.
The G20 was created to address economic and financial issues that have been plaguing the international community for a long time. The first G20 meetings at the level of finance ministers and central bank governors took place in 1999. In 2008, during yet another phase of the global economic crisis, it was decided to take the discussions on global finance and the economy to the heads of state and government levels. Back then, everyone agreed that the G20 would not deal with geopolitical issues that are on the UN agenda, primarily its Security Council and General Assembly.
Now, the G20 has become a platform where the G7 countries, the leading countries of the West, the BRICS countries (all five of them), and a number of other countries which gravitate towards BRICS in terms of their positions, approaches and interests have come together under one roof. However, this is a venue for candid dialogues, for harmonising approaches as was the case until last year when the West "sacrificed" all areas of G20 core activities to its ambitions in Ukrainian "affairs."
I mentioned this in my remarks during the meeting. All multilateral institutions are being tested for compliance with the new geopolitical realities. Given the new circumstances, the associations (this includes the UN and the G20 alike) which act as platforms to find a balance of interests rather than to present their approaches or to make claims to justify their alleged entitlement to hegemony, will remain in high demand.
Question: What was the policy of non-Western states at the G20 meeting? What are they going to do in a situation where the West is telling them "you are either with us, or against us"? What will happen with Russia and the sustainability of the global system?
Sergey Lavrov: Making predictions is a fairly thankless task. As foreign policy representatives, we are focused on practical efforts to ensure our interests, fully realising (I will stress it again) that we must also consider the lawful interests of other participants in the process. We are ready for this.
To what extent does the West realise that its line is leading to a blind alley? They are declaring the need to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia, that this is an "existential problem for the West." I am referring to their bid to preserve their hegemony in the world arena (which they don't conceal). The developing nations understand this perfectly well. It's another matter that some of them, feeling unprecedented pressure from below-the-belt tactics, are compelled to mention this issue in their remarks, emphasising in different forms their commitment to the principles of the UN Charter, especially to territorial integrity and respect for sovereignty. We are all for that. I would like to merely recall that like any document adopted by the entire international community, the UN Charter cannot be fulfilled selectively. It is not a menu to choose from. In addition to what I've said, the UN Charter lays more emphasis on the principle of the right of nations to self-determination. Since the very start of the UN, its member countries have noted the need to have a common understanding of the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity on the one hand and the right of nations to self-determination, on the other. A process launched with the participation of all UN members culminated in the adoption of the Declaration on Principles of International Law in 1970. Nobody has rejected or disputed this document since then. It interprets the link between these two principles in the following way: every state must observe the sovereignty and territorial integrity of any other state whose government respects the principle of self-determination and represents the whole nation living in said country. There is no need to prove that since 2014, after the bloody coup in Ukraine organised and supported by the West, the radicals that came power do not reflect the interests of either Crimeans or the people of eastern Ukraine. Everyone is well aware of this.
Question (retranslated from English): Will there be a joint communique? Did you have talks on this issue? Is Russia and China planning to depart from the Bali Declaration? Do you think the G20 has become too politicised?
Sergey Lavrov: I have just described in detail why the declaration was not adopted. Instead, the Indian Presidency will describe its vision of discussions in the form of a Chair's Summary.
I have also explained why it is impossible to reproduce a formula used in the declaration of the Bali Summit - this was a part of your question.
The Bali Summit took place more than a year ago. Many events have occurred since then that have exposed what was really driving events in Ukraine, including the admission by the three signatories of the Minsk agreements (with the exception of President of Russia Vladimir Putin). Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former President of France Francois Hollande, and former President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko bluntly stated that they were never going to fulfil these agreements. The issues at stake were the exercise of inalienable human rights, including the right of the Russian-speakers in Ukraine to speak their native tongue and educate their children in it. These rights were not just trampled underfoot but banned by laws adopted by Parliament and signed by the President of Ukraine on education in Russian, Russian language media, Russian literature and culture in general, and many other things.
I drew the attention of my Western colleagues to this fact during conversations on the sidelines. They looked at me but could say nothing in response. They have only one explanation of why Russia opted for "invasion." Everyone stresses that it was unprovoked. The "invasion" is a reaction to the war that the West was preparing for many years and for which it was arming the Ukrainian regime that came to power as a result of the coup. The Bali formula was valid last year. Many things have become clearer not only to us but also to those who want to examine this problem in an unbiased and professional way. We have always known this.
Question: Just the other day, the Europeans published some interesting poll results. It turned out that the countries of the Global South consider Russia an exceptional partner and ally. This came as a surprise to the West. When, in your opinion, did the rigid division into the "golden billion" countries and all the rest come about? Isn't it the reason why Western leaders and diplomats are busy going somewhere: Anthony Blinken went to Central Asia, Olaf Scholz to India, Emmanuel Macron flew to Africa. Aren't they going there, to convince our allies to join the sanctions? Or is the "game" much more global than that?
Sergey Lavrov: If we talk about history, the prototype of the "golden billion" is the colonial powers that conquered territories on different continents and established systems there in such a way as to exploit their natural and human resources and essentially enjoy life at their expense. More than half a century has passed since the decolonisation process ended. Although it is not completely over. There is a UN General Assembly decision on the remaining colonies of France and Great Britain in violation of the relevant UN resolutions. We also continue to work on these issues. We will seek implementation of the United Nations decisions.
Unfortunately, the West has not lost its neo-colonial habits and aspirations. Everything that is being done to subjugate the world economy to the interests of the West is nothing but neo-colonial instincts and practices. This includes sanctions, which many G20 members from developing countries spoke of today as being detrimental to the world economy, especially to food and energy security. It also includes attempts to manipulate prices on the world market. The declaration by Western countries of a price cap on oil is nothing short of theft of other countries' natural resources. That is if we look at the root of the problem. Manipulation of global trade rules, including WTO standards, and more.
The West continues to advance its interests by other means and methods in the new environment without taking into account the opinion of the vast majority of the world community. Developing countries see it all perfectly well. I have already touched on this issue. Under tremendous, unseemly and immoral pressure, some of them speak or vote in such a way as to ease the pressure from the United States and its allies. But not a single developing country (maybe except for a couple of states that have made some decisions) has joined the sanctions against the Russian Federation. They understand very well what it is all about, what game the West has unleashed, and that it is not about Ukraine at all, but that our Western colleagues want to prove to everyone that they will still "solve" any issues.
The threats made against the People's Republic of China raise doubts as to the adequacy of those who utter them. In principle, no one should be threatened. But when threats are made against China in the current circumstances, it is beyond comprehension. Our Western colleagues have badly deteriorated manners. They cast diplomacy aside long ago and only engage in blackmail and threats.
Question: This war has gone on for one year. If you are looking at a settlement, if you want peace, would you want India to be involved in the settlement? Do you want Prime Minister Narendra Modi to be involved in the process?
Sergey Lavrov: Our relations with India are described in the foundational bilateral documents as a particularly privileged strategic partnership. These are not just words. This formula reflects the truly special nature of our relationship from the day India became independent to this day. We highly appreciate the responsible stance, worthy of a great power, adopted by India in the international arena on all key items of the global agenda.
In his address to the participants of the G20 Foreign Ministers' meeting today, Prime Minister Modi outlined the balanced and extremely responsible position of that country in its capacity as the G20 President. Unlike Western practice of splitting the geopolitical picture into isolated segments, in his remarks Prime Minister Modi offered an assessment of the overall state of affairs around the world rather than separate situations. I fully share this position. The address has been published. You can read it now.
With regard to assistance in overcoming the crisis, we have repeatedly stated publicly that we never turn down serious proposals that sincerely seek to find a political solution. While calls are being made for Russia to sit down for talks, I can't remember anyone from among our colleagues in the Western and several other states call on Ukraine to do the same. There must be something to it, because Ukraine is being encouraged to continue the war. In late March 2022, it was ready to talk and proposed a number of settlement principles. We supported them and were ready to sign an agreement based on these principles. But then it got a slap on the wrist. Everyone knows this for a fact. The United States, Great Britain and a number of figures from the EU countries told Kiev that if the Russians were willing to conclude a settlement agreement, Kiev should bide its time, wear them down some more and achieve (as was openly stated later) victory over Russia "on the battlefield" and inflict a "strategic defeat" on it.
See what German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock or head of European diplomacy Josep Borrell had to say the other day: no talks until Ukraine secures an advantage on the battlefield. Reaching out to Russia with serious proposals to hold talks, which we never refused, would be an incorrect approach. No serious offers have been made since March 2022. Military rhetoric and bellicose NATO decisions is all we hear.
Everyone keeps forgetting it. Journalists in the West and a number of developing countries never talk about the fact that head of the Kiev regime Zelensky signed an order banning all talks with the Russian Government in September 2022. We make this clear several times a day as we take questions of that kind. But our foreign media colleagues seem not to hear that and keep asking why Russia doesn't agree to hold talks.
Question: Some Western countries believe they are doing a good job isolating Russia. Looking at the G20 forum from the sidelines, it seems like a fantasy of theirs. What do you think about this? What do our Latin American partners think? You had the chance to talk with your Brazilian counterpart Mauro Vieira. Did you meet with your Argentinean or Mexican colleagues?
Sergey Lavrov: I talked with my Mexican counterpart yesterday when we were sitting at the same table during the gala reception. I talked with Argentine Foreign Minister Santiago Cafiero on the sidelines as well. We have a good relationship. We go back a fairly long time. The agenda for promoting bilateral ties across all areas, including the economy, the high-tech sector, and the humanitarian and educational fields is quite promising.
I believe the Latin Americans have broken new ground in developing regional cooperation. The crisis that engulfed CELAC several years ago has been overcome. CELAC is a group of countries united by common goals and interests as it strives to develop the region through interaction and cooperation which makes it possible to increase the political influence of Latin America and the Caribbean. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's initiative to form an association relying on Latin American and Caribbean unity in order to promote more energetically the interests of the region in the international arena is quite notable.
I'm not sure how anyone can talk about Russia's isolation at a time where our Western partners are the only ones talking about it. All of our colleagues from developing countries continue to not only communicate with us, but show interest in coming to us and having us come to them. We are planning a trip to a number of Latin American countries soon. We are just back from a tour of African countries. More visits are planned to be held this year.
Question: On the eve of his trip to India, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. It was reported that the goal of his visit was to split them off from Russia, and this is what he was trying to do there. What do you think about his visits? What is reported about the results?
Sergey Lavrov: We have never objected to any country developing foreign ties with other states. But we have always rejected "friendship against somebody."
Now we have seen that not only the Americans but also the Europeans (the British, of course) have been markedly more active in the developing world, especially in the CIS. This is exactly what their line is about (you mentioned this). They do not hide the fact that they are working there to prevent these countries from having good relations with the Russian Federation. We know their arguments, which are few. The essence is, "side with the winner," "Russia will fail," and "make up your mind in advance." I am not exaggerating any of this.
And this doesn't apply just to our neighbours. Foreign Minister of Norway Anniken Huitfeldt said recently they need to work with Africa to oppose Russia. It's a good definition of Africa's place in a policy from a state by the name of Norway.
Let me repeat, we always support the right of any country to choose its own priorities. We don't just proceed from understanding, but we know that our neighbours, partners and allies in the CSTO, the EAEU and the CIS confirm, in all of their contacts, their commitment to the obligations assumed in these integration structures.
Question: During this G20 meeting, you held talks with your colleagues from India, China, Brazil and Türkiye. Did you meet with the representatives of other countries? Do you feel that more and more countries share Russia's reasoning and approach?
Sergey Lavrov: I do not think that their number is increasing. There have always been many such countries, but we will hardly be able to change the views of our Western colleagues anytime soon. We are not even trying to knock on their doors. They have decided not to interact with us. This is their choice. However, not all of them turn away or run past when we meet in the corridors and on the sidelines of events such as this one.
As I have said, the developing countries have not demonstrated any misunderstanding of our position since the beginning of the acute phase of the Russia-West confrontation over Ukraine and in the context of the United States and its satellites' global geopolitical aspirations for domination.
By and large, I can explain this by the fact that we did not announce our decision, which we were forced to take, a day before it all began. We have been explaining our position for years, ever since the 2014 state coup in Ukraine, and after the Minsk agreements were signed in February 2015. We told our Western colleagues that it is impossible to keep lying. And they were not just ordinary lies but pledges not to infringe on our interests. This is how it was with the non-expansion of NATO, which moved ever close to our borders five times, and the promise not to station "substantial combat forces" in the territory of new bloc members. They have openly admitted that they did the same with regard to the Minsk agreements. For years since the Kiev regime came to power as a result of a coup, they have been consistently destroying everything Russian, from education to the media and culture. I have already spoken about this. Nobody responded to our calls to the West to bring those people to their senses, to force them to honour at least their own Constitution, which guarantees, in black and white, the rights of the Russian and other national minorities, and to make them implement the numerous conventions that set out these rights on the global level.
It is even possible that many of our Western colleagues incited the Kiev regime to destroy everything Russian. President Vladimir Putin said that Ukraine was being turned into an anti-Russia, which is a concise explanation. There is no doubt that this plan was put into effect long ago.
It has already been said that the foreign ministers have not coordinated a final declaration. In my statement, I reminded our colleagues that the first G20 meetings were held in 1999 at the level of finance ministers and central bank governors. It was decided to take them to the level of heads of state and government in 2008. Since 1999, the West has implemented a number of illegal and illegitimate operations in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
Libya and Iraq are still trying to regain their statehood. Hundreds of thousands of people, including civilians, women and children, have been killed there. Entire cities have been razed to the ground, like Mosul in Iraq or Raqqa in Syria. The threat of terrorism has increased many times over, in particular after they ruined Libya. The threats created by terrorists in Africa, above all in the Sahel-Sahara region, is to a huge degree the result of the Libyan gamble.
Moreover, the Americans planned all these actions on the assumption that they have a right to address any problem anywhere in the world. None of the situations I have mentioned created a threat to the United States. On the contrary, they developed tens of thousands of miles from the American coast. Nevertheless, they made the decision at night, Colin Powell showed a vial with a white substance at the UN Security Council next morning, and the day after they were bombing Iraq. Several years later, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted that they were wrong and there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were no such weapons, yet the country was bombed out of existence. Our Iraqi friends are still trying hard to rebuild their national unity.
In our case, we have been warning for years: do not turn Ukraine into a threat to the Russian Federation. It is not located somewhere across the ocean but right here, on our border, in the territory where Russians have lived and nurtured their culture for centuries. Their culture has been cancelled by the neo-Nazi government that seized power in Ukraine.
We will continue fighting for justice for the Ukrainian people, protect the interests of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, and ensure the interests of the Ukrainian republics and regions that spoke out at the referendum in favour of reuniting with the Russian Federation.
Question: You said the Western countries tried to overlook Russia's position on the situation with the Nord Stream pipelines. Were there any states that supported Russia's point of view on this issue?
Did you have the opportunity to discuss the mechanisms for switching to mutual payments in national currencies with your colleagues and ways to align the insurance and logistical processes? What are the shifts in these areas and which countries took a more positive approach to the Russian initiatives than others?
Sergey Lavrov: As for the last part of your question, I spoke with my Chinese counterpart and with the ministers of Türkiye and Brazil about ways we can transit to new logistical chains that would be protected from the West's lawlessness, sanctions and other illegal actions, to mutual payments in national currencies in connection with the gross abuses perpetrated by the Americans as the emitters of the US dollar and the European Union as the emitter of the euro. The Japanese are also abusing the yen with a vengeance. This is a crucial component of our bilateral interaction. It must be protected from the havoc the West is wreaking in the world economy.
Today, everyone is aware of how unreliable the dollar is. Every Third World country, even if it does not say so publicly (although many of them do), is beginning to think how to insure itself against a replay of these arbitrary actions in the long term.
As for the Nord Stream pipelines, the People's Republic of China was mostly insisting, along with us, on the inclusion of a relevant clause in the Declaration (which failed to take off the ground, as you know). Yes, for the most part, we were pressing for it jointly with China. The majority of the developing G20 members expressed an understanding and their readiness to agree to this clause being incorporated in the Declaration.
But the West was like a bull. Do you remember how the West responded to Seymour Hersh's exposures? It was a nervous reaction. Right after these revelations were published, they responded with something like "it's so much nonsense" and "we won't even discuss it." The picture is clear.
We will insist on an investigation. We will not allow the West to cover things up as it did repeatedly in the past. A case in point is their Navalny poisoning accusations. Germany refused and is still refusing to give us the results of the tests they have taken, and this is outrageous.
The British are taking the same stance with regard to the Salisbury incident, refusing to provide the tests and other information, which we repeatedly requested through the official channels under the relevant international conventions. The West is reluctant to respond to questions that expose the fact that their actions are a provocation.
A fresh example is the Bucha "incident" that happened in early April 2022, two days after we came to terms with the Ukrainians on drafting a settlement document based on their proposals. Our Western colleagues do not like to speak about it either. They immediately avert their eyes.
Let me remind you that in response to those unfounded accusations I focused on this topic in my remarks at the UN Security Council meeting in September 2022. I said that our repeated requests for information on this incident had evoked no response. At the UN Security Council meeting, in the presence of all ministers, I urged UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to help at least in obtaining a list with the names of the individuals whose bodies had been displayed in that suburb of Kiev. No one is going even to respond.
Question: What do you think about Silvio Berlusconi's position about the war? And could this change the attitude of Giorgia Meloni's government?
Sergey Lavrov: We have heard the assessments and statements by many world leaders and experienced politicians, and Silvio Berlusconi is one of them. He is a reasonable man, without a tendency to paint everything black and white, to incite international confrontation, pretending that democracy is fighting against autocracy. He knows that we need to solve the problems on which our coexistence on this planet depends.
Regarding the Ukraine crisis, I will not repeat myself. I have already mentioned that the West is demanding that Vladimir Zelensky continue to throw Ukrainian fighters into the furnace of the war unleashed against us, and that the President of Ukraine himself refuses to negotiate with the Russian Federation. Unfortunately, everything else, including the calls of those who sincerely wish to help resolve this conflict, is pointless in these circumstances.
Question (retranslated from English): Over the past 24 hours, you have had many bilateral meetings. How many of these countries have shown interest in mutual payments in their national currencies? What would Russia like to achieve by shifting to settlements in national currencies?
Sergey Lavrov: All our partners - not only those with whom we met here, but also others we exchange visits with - all of them without exception are interested in expanding the use of national currencies in our mutual trade. We transitioned to this system, to payments in national currencies, with all BRICS countries - India, Brazil, South Africa, and China - some time ago. The share of transactions in national currencies is growing steadily. This will continue.
I would like to point out that President of Brazil Lula da Silva made a similar proposal when he met with President of Argentina Alberto Fernández shortly after his inauguration. He proposed not just transitioning to national currencies for trade among CELAC members, but also laying the foundation for creating a common Latin American currency of their own. BRICS is also getting ready to think about this and start discussions on this matter.
Question: At the Bangalore meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors of the G20, the outcome document asked Russia to withdraw from Ukraine unconditionally and it cited the Bali statement. What is your response to those who call on Russia to withdraw from Ukraine unconditionally?
Sergey Lavrov: Were you here from the beginning of the news conference? Or did you join us later?
Unfortunately, I cannot give you a detailed answer out of respect for those who were here on time. The meeting of finance ministers and central bank governors failed to adopt an outcome document.
Question: Most G20 countries seem to be opposed to Russian intervention in Ukraine. Many of them, aside from China and India, supported the UN resolution condemning the Russian intervention. Do you feel isolated?
Sergey Lavrov: Did you come late too?
No, we do not feel isolated, especially at the G20 meetings. We hold summits and ministerial meetings in the BRICS and SCO formats, we have meetings with the Arab League member states, with members of the African Union, and with our friends in Latin America, so no, we do not feel isolated.
It seems to me that it is the West that is isolating itself, and will soon realise this. The developing countries can easily see through all these incantations about the need for democracy to fight autocracy. If the commitment to democracy is so great in the West, as it tries to convince everyone, why not seek guidance from these democratic principles on the international arena?
For many years, we warned them that what has happened would be inevitable. We talked about the need to address the issue of security guarantees, including for the Russian Federation and the entire European continent. They refused to listen. We were told outright that the way they expand NATO is none of our business.
President Vladimir Putin has provided a detailed explanation of this situation and announced that Russia has been forced and had no other choice but to launch the special military operation. The West came together to condemn us.
As for other countries, the developing countries did not express their position when it all happened. However, if the West is committed to democracy the way it pretends to be, let others decide on their own and independently who has a better case: Russia or the West? This is the approach that we use. We explained our position and let others decide.
The United States, senior officials from NATO and the EU keep travelling around the world demanding that everyone condemn Russia. What kind of a democracy is that? Is this what respecting the right of every country to make independent choices mean? The UN Charter stipulates that the Organisation is based on the sovereign equality of states. The West has never respected this principle and keeps up its illegitimate pressure, if I may say so, on everyone. It is also worth examining how it makes its case. I heard from many of my friends in developing countries what the Americans have been promising them when asking to condemn Russia. They say that they will not be punished then. And nothing more. An even trade, isn't it? You comply with my ultimatum, otherwise you will be punished. This is not the way we operate. But this is the way our Western colleagues work, regretful as it is.
As for the references to the G20 meeting in Bali and the fact that this or that country condemned us, I have already said that the G20 has been working since 1999. Since then, the West embarked on all these reckless ventures in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, and they all continued for many years. Their consequences are felt to this day, including rampant terrorism, drug trafficking, including in Afghanistan where NATO failed abysmally after 20 years in the country, as well as in terms of disrupting supply chains, global markets, etc. However, this was not mentioned at any of the G20 meetings since its founding in 1999. Not a single country mentioned any of these crises or conflicts, as if nobody cared. The G20 focused on its immediate mandate as long as hundreds of thousands of Africans, Arabs or Afghans were dying. But now that the Western countries failed to deliver on their ventures the way they planned, the West wants to force everyone to talk about it. This is dirty politics, of course.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
