Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement and answers to media questions following the G20 Summit, New Delhi, September 10, 2023
10 September 2023 19:14
1740-10-09-2023
Colleagues,
You have all had a chance to read the Declaration, so I will keep my opening remarks short.
The G20 Summit was an unqualified success. First and foremost, it was a success of the Indian Chairmanship, but also of all of us. The G20 is undergoing an internal reform. One aspect of this reform is that the member countries representing the Global South have become more proactive, with India leading the way. They have been clear and persistent in ensuring that their interests are included in the agreements negotiated by the G20. As a result, they were included in the Declaration.
They are eager to change the way the G20 is conducted so that the role of the Global South in global governance mechanisms is strengthened to adequately reflect its real weight in world affairs, including in the economic sphere, where BRICS has already surpassed the G7 countries in terms of gross national product.
The Declaration formulates the tasks of reforming the IMF, where, if quotas and votes are divided fairly, the Americans will not have an artificially preserved entitlement to block all others. The summit will give a serious and positive impetus to the efforts to reform the IMF and the WTO (it is also explicitly stated), which are artificially restrained by the Americans and their allies.
In the same vein, there is an emphasis on the need for the West to fulfil its commitments and long-standing promises, which are not being kept, including the transfer of technology. It is firmly stated that developing countries will no longer put up with being presented with a false choice: either to fight poverty or to invest in fighting climate change. This is a false dichotomy. The challenges of economic and social development take centre stage. In that regard, the Declaration also records the need to fulfil long-standing promises to transfer technology to the Global South, not just take their raw materials and then add value and make a profit. It is also stated that the West has long signed up to allocate $100 billion annually to prepare economies to deal with the adverse effects of climate change. None of this has been done.
The Declaration reminds us of everything that needs to be done, in line with long-standing pledges, to ensure a balance of interests in the global economy. The road is not a short one. Nevertheless, this summit was in some ways a watershed in terms of a clear focus on these challenges.
I would also like to note the important role played by the Indian presidency, which, for the first time in the history of the G20, has consolidated its participants that represent the Global South. Our BRICS partners, particularly India, Brazil, and South Africa, were highly active in this regard. This consolidated position adopted by the Global South in defence of its legitimate interests helped thwart the West's attempt to Ukrainianise the agenda at the expense of discussing pressing issues facing developing countries.
Notably, the Ukraine paragraph is part of the agenda and is a subject of consensus, but it is not about Ukraine. Indeed, it mentions the Ukraine crisis, but only in the context of the importance of resolving all existing global conflicts in accordance with UN Charter goals and principles in their entirety and interrelation. This is important because as soon as Ukraine is mentioned, the West tends to avoid intellectual discussions and demands the cessation of Russian aggression and the restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity.
Territorial integrity is enshrined in the UN Charter alongside the principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, but it was, in fact, included in the charter at a later date. We explained to our colleagues (we had many discussions about that behind closed doors) that when a state coup took place in Kiev in February 2014, and the coup leaders immediately declared their objective of abolishing the status of the Russian language in Ukraine, it served as a trigger. The residents of Crimea and Donbass were outraged and stated that they did not want to live in such a country. By treating its own citizens in this way, the Kiev regime undermined its own territorial integrity. The UN General Assembly's declaration on Principles of International Law states that territorial integrity of states must be respected if their governments adhere to the principle of self-determination of peoples and represent the entire population residing within the borders of the territories in question. I believe that it is self-evident that the masterminds and perpetrators of the February 2014 coup in Kiev cannot claim to represent the interests of the residents of Crimea and eastern Ukraine. So, the Kiev regime destroyed its own territorial integrity and, in full compliance with the UN Charter and international law, the principle of self-determination of peoples came into force. We made this point clear one more time. Clearly, the G20 members have a correct understanding of what is happening. I'm confident that some of our Western colleagues are perfectly clear about this as well, but they are banking on the strategic defeat of the Russian Federation.
Overall, the paragraph deals with geopolitical realities. In addition to the importance of resolving all conflicts around the world based on the UN Charter principles in their entirety and interrelation, it contains important agreements on how to proceed in the sphere of food security. Our position has been made known in full. President Putin has repeatedly conveyed it. It is important (if everyone is interested) to reinstate the Black Sea initiative in full, including both components of the package proposed by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, namely, Russian fertiliser and grain, and Ukrainian grain.
In this regard, I would also like to highlight another paragraph in the geopolitical section where the West had to agree to a significant shift in its position, calling for an end to attacks and the destruction of critical energy infrastructure related to agriculture. It does not explicitly mention it, but everyone understands that this covers the terrorist attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines, the Togliatti-Odessa ammonia pipeline, the strikes on the Kakhovka HPP, and the ongoing launches of drones against the Zaporozhye NPP. I believe this is a balanced and, most importantly, realistic paragraph that we supported.
The declaration contains over 80 paragraphs. I'm confident that you have already reviewed it or will do so soon.
The summit's success has created extra opportunities for continuing work to ensure fairness in the global economy and financial sectors. Following this summit, the Western countries should think again about whether they are capable of and whether it is in their own interests to continue their pursuit of dominance. The West will not be able to maintain its position of hegemon given that new global development, economic growth and financial power centres have objectively emerged and are quickly gaining strength and political influence. I believe the declaration offers a healthy solution in terms of the need to achieve a fair and just balance of interests. The goal is distant, but things have started moving in this direction.
In turn, we will continue to strengthen these positive trends, including during Brazil's G20 presidency in 2024 and South Africa's presidency in 2025.
In his closing remarks during today's final session, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi said he would convene another G20 summit online, via video conferencing, before the end of 2023 (most likely in late November). This will offer another opportunity to see once again how the agreements approved today are being put into practice and to pass the baton more effectively to our Brazilian colleagues.
Question: With regard to the West's reaction, there was a slight dissonance. Some leaders, such as UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his German counterpart Olaf Scholz, said there was some strong language regarding Russia in the declaration which can be seen as success. Meanwhile, the Western media are calling it a failure in terms of the Ukrainian track. What can you say about this?
Sergey Lavrov: There is not much to say about it. You have read the text. I think that if the Western leaders you mentioned consider everyone to be naive and they explain to everyone that the text condemns Russia, but our country is not mentioned once in the declaration. The declaration mentions things that I have just mentioned that reflect the persistent efforts by India and our other like-minded partners who prevented the entity created to address global economic and financial issues from being turned into a politicised circle.
As for what the media are saying, I have seen a variety of assessments. The Financial Times said it was a failure for the West. On the other hand, according to Reuters, the West coordinated this section of the joint declaration and turned it over to the Russian Federation as an ultimatum. It is laughable. Grown-up people are spreading rumours that cannot be taken seriously.
We once again thanked our Indian friends. They stood their watch with honour and made a substantial contribution to laying the foundation for further work on democratising international economic and financial relations.
Question: I would like to correct you. It did not say ultimatum. It was stated that it was given to the Russian party.
Was there any progress on the grain deal at the G20 summit? Were there meetings with President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other world leaders to deal with the supply issues?
Sergey Lavrov: I just spoke about this. The declaration article speaks for itself. Nobody could object. Both President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President of Russia Vladimir Putin have repeatedly expressed their readiness to resume the Black Sea initiative, but exclusively in both parts: not only the shipment of the Ukrainian grain, but also eliminating all the obstacles regarding the export of Russian fertiliser, wheat and other grains.
There is much talk that UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres wrote a letter in my name. Despite the diplomatic ethics, this information and the text of the letter was leaked to the media. But after reading this, it seems to me that yet again, unfortunately, they are trying to use the Secretary-General to promote unilateral approaches. The point of his words is that we should promptly resume the Ukrainian grain deal, and in return they will do something to reconnect some entities to SWIFT within a month and try to get an agreement with Lloyd's in the next two or three months. As for SWIFT and Rosselkhozbank, this is simply not true. Nobody promised, including Mr Antonio Guterres, that Rosselkhozbank would be reconnected to SWIFT. They are trying to make us agree on a completely unrealistic plan, that the Luxembourg branch of Rosselkhozbank can perform this function. This office does not have a license for banking operations. It has exhausted its resources and will be closed.
As for Lloyd's, Mr Guterres told me in Jakarta that he coordinated some UN consultations on that platform. We do not know what functions these consultations will have. We appreciate the efforts that the UN Secretary-General is making. President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about it many times. I also expressed by appreciation to Mr Guterres for his efforts. But they are futile in a situation where the West only makes promises. This has forced Farhan Haq, Deputy Spokesman for the UN Secretary-General, to say at a recent news conference that in all these efforts, the Secretariat is not violating the sanctions that were illegally imposed against the Russian Federation. That is, even the UN Secretariat is abiding by the American, European and other sanctions. This is telling. I hope that this was a slipup because everything that Mr Guterres was striving for was to remove the sanctions on our exports of fertiliser and food-related commodities.
Europe and the US have only promised to take some steps. For instance, they said (this was also part of the proposals we received) that Russian fertiliser producers will regain their frozen assets. But they still will be banned from bank operations. All proposals are ambiguous like that. Let's not forget that the official representative of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said openly that Kiev is radically against easing the sanctions pressure on Russia in any form, including in the interests of our fertiliser and food exports. You be the judge, who takes what position, who says the truth and who does not. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has said clearly and repeatedly that when every effort is made to eliminate all obstacles for our fertiliser and grain exports, we will return to the collective implementation of the Ukrainian part of the Black Sea initiative on that same day.
Question: In his article for Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi said that the goal of Delhi's chairmanship of the G20 was to overcome differences, eliminate barriers, and plant the seeds of cooperation that feeds the world. Do you believe that these noble goals were reached under the Indian chairmanship? Can we hope that the next G20 summit under Brazil's presidency will be simpler and more constructive in terms of the preparations for agreeing on a final documents than this one was?
Sergey Lavrov: I think that everything Prime Minister Narendra Modi said does correspond to the real situation. It marks the beginning of an important trend of a transition from agreeing on some "papers" (that are never really implemented) to the realisation that one must fulfil their obligations.
The developing countries at that summit were much more consolidated and persistent in promoting their just demands. At the same time, nobody says that these demands should be implemented to the detriment of the West. We want the G20 to go on. It is truly a representative structure that comprises countries that account for 80 percent of the global economy. Everyone is interested in working together. But working honestly, looking for a balance of interests and not promoting them at the expense of the interests of others. The motto of the Indian presidency, One Earth, One Family, One Future, emphasises this uniting sentiment. But the most important thing following this summit, given the radical changes in the approaches of the developing world, is that the West should reach the correct conclusions from what we have adopted here and from what it saw in the actions of the developing countries.
Question: President of Russia Vladimir Putin did not attend the G20 summit. Should we expect his visit to India this year?
During the two days of the summit, you had the opportunity to communicate with your Western colleagues. Did you use this opportunity to talk to the American or other Western delegation?
Sergey Lavrov: I did not look for this opportunity and was simply doing my job. Those who wanted to talk to me, did so. Those who put themselves above diplomatic courtesies, made the wrong choice.
As for highest-level contacts between Russia and India, naturally, they will continue. I assure you, when President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi agree on their next meeting, it will be announced not as a response to a journalist's question, with all due respect to your publication.
Question: We know that the declaration was negotiated for hours. According to Deputy Chief of the Presidential Experts' Directorate and G20 Sherpa Svetlana Lukash, the process lasted for more than 20 hours. We did not see what it was like. You did. Please tell us how it all went behind the scenes. How difficult was it? Were there maybe any threats or pressure?
Sergey Lavrov: I did not see this. Ninety-nine percent of the proceedings were ahead of the summit. When we got here, there were some details left, which I helped to coordinate, if indirectly. The team that did all that included G20 Sherpa Svetlana Lukash and her co-worker, Sous-Sherpa and Ambassador at Large Marat Berdyev of the Foreign Ministry. As I understand it, they were taken to a location 100 kilometres from New Delhi and locked in a room like the cardinals trying to elect the Pope. There was no smoke, though. The outcome was positive.
I would like to sincerely thank everyone – the sherpas, sous-sherpas, and the G20 experts – for their dedicated work. Incidentally, they communicated quite well (I am answering a question from our Indian colleague). You have no other choice in a pinch.
Question (retranslated into English): I would like to go back to the bilateral agenda. There was much concern about the mechanism for payment transactions between Russia and India. Was there any progress in the discussion on how this will function? Is it true that the next delivery of S-400 systems will not take place until the issue is settled? Will India look for other suppliers of advanced defence technologies in this context? The United States, for one, has them.
Sergey Lavrov: I don't know where you got this information from. There was no time for bilateral meetings on the sidelines of this summit. But in Jakarta, where we attended ASEAN's East Asia Summit, we met with Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar and discussed bilateral issues. Yes, this problem exists. In the current situation, there is a backlog of many billions of rupees that are yet to be used. Our Indian friends have assured us that they will identify some promising areas for investment. The rest of our agreements, including those related to military-technical cooperation, remain fully valid.
Question: There is no doubt that the signing of the declaration is Russia's diplomatic success. Will it open a new quality negotiating tracks to help resolve other problems like the "grain deal," and particularly a new START treaty?
Sergey Lavrov: Isn't that a sharp transition?
I feel that this summit was a turning-point. The developing countries will work to achieve justice in a much more insistent and closely-knit manner. But I cannot speak about any specific opportunities for implementing specific items with a call for action. The West has repeatedly failed to respect its own promises and commitments. As for the "grain deal," it is absolutely clear that everything needs to be done simultaneously. If a certain party has the desire and this certain party honestly agrees to our needs, then we could get started.
As for the START treaty, I see no connection. This is a Russian-American agreement that was signed under totally different international conditions in relations between Moscow and Washington than those we are working under now because of the war the West has declared on Russia through Ukraine in order to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia. Under these circumstances, there is no possibility for talks on implementing the current treaty or for talks on a new strategic stability treaty. But, as we have announced, we will abide by the parameters of the START-3 treaty until its expiry, that is, the numerical limits on the specified arms.
Now let me go back to the issue of who is ready to implement what. The section saying that all international conflicts should be settled by peaceful means in keeping with the principles of the UN Charter, and that no conflict should sink into oblivion is by and large a strong signal. It reflects the revulsion towards the West's protracted attempts to Ukraine-ise every discussion and format to the detriment of efforts to address the developing world's problems, which have remained unattended for decades.
The African countries have raised this issue. The UNGA decolonisation resolutions have yet to be implemented. France is unwilling to withdraw from all the territories on the Comoro Islands; the UK has still failed to leave the Chagos Archipelago, even though the UN General Assembly has adopted several resolutions on all these issues. The principle that there is no conflict that everyone will focus on because the West peddles these ideas, while other differences should not receive much attention, this approach is changing. Now the West will have no argument (although they could invent something) for sweeping under the rug all the proposals on the Palestinian issue, the Syrian problem, and many other areas, where they play a negative role by delaying the attainment of any positive progress.
Question: The Western media speculated about the absence of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping at the summit this year, which gives the Western states and, above all the European Union, a unique chance to get closer to the African countries and demonstrate their decisive intentions to "reboot" their relations with the African continent despite their colonial past. You said they failed to do this, but did they try to use this opportunity? Were there attempts made by the European countries to reach African leaders?
Sergey Lavrov: If they want to improve their relations with the African countries, they have to end their colonialist tendencies. Neither Vladimir Putin nor Xi Jinping prohibit the West from communicating with the African countries at various events. What is the connection with the fact that the delegations are not led by the Presidents of Russia and China but other representatives of Moscow and Beijing?
So, the African countries are always ready to communicate. It is a different thing that if this communication consists of a pat on the shoulder and a dismissive attitude towards their immediate needs, then probably nothing will come of it. They will communicate politely, but will demand more than verbal promises; they will need actual results. Especially regarding what I said about technology transfer.
We heard this message clearly at the Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg in late July and at the BRICS summit in Johannesburg. The African countries do not want to continue to supply raw materials to the Western countries, where they are processed, value is added, and then all this is resold for a much larger profit, none of which ends up in the countries where these raw materials come from. That is why the Africans tell us that we should not constantly offer to sell them something. They want technology. They are able to provide for themselves, and they can also export finished products.
Africa is a rich continent. We do not prohibit anyone from communicating in any way. The West is running all over the world demanding that no one meet with us. They fail, but they continue running around, making demands. When communicating with our partners, we state our position and leave it to their discretion how they will relate to our actions. The West does the same, but they also demand that everyone does what they want. Who would like that? So, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have nothing to do with it. The West needs to look at itself, as our fabulist Ivan Krylov wrote.
Question: Yerevan has announced joint military exercises with the United States, which will take place in the Republic of Armenia. Let me ask you: How does Russia feel about this move by Armenia given media reports that the country may withdraw from the CSTO? Do the upcoming exercises cause serious concern for Russia, given that they will take place near Russia's borders?
Sergey Lavrov: The Kremlin commented on this situation earlier. Of course, we see nothing good in the fact that an aggressive NATO country is trying to make its way into the South Caucasus. I don't think this is good for anyone, including Armenia.
Wherever the Americans appear (they have hundreds of military bases around the world), it does not do anyone any good. At best, they sit there quietly. However, quite often they try to assume control over everything, including political processes.
We deplore Armenia's actions. We have said this. You mentioned the CSTO. Of course, the announced agreement about joint Armenian-American exercises looks all the more unusual since Armenia has been refusing to participate in CSTO exercises for two years now. They explain this by saying that if the CSTO, as a union with Armenia as part of it, denounced Azerbaijan, then Armenia would "work" with it. When asked why they are talking to the Americans and the Europeans, who do not condemn Azerbaijan, and they answer that they are not their allies, and we are the ones who are supposed to condemn Azerbaijan. This appears to be a rather strange and simplistic logic. But I hope very much that the allied obligations that exist between us and which we value will prevail in Armenia's foreign policy.
With regard to Armenia threatening to withdraw from the CSTO, there are quite a few politicians in Armenia who come up with quite arrogant statements towards Russia. We see that. This did not start yesterday. But we also remember that when Mr Pashinyan had yet to gain political power and was rallying the Armenian people around him, one of his slogans was on withdrawal from the CSTO and the EAEU. Many people thought it was just a part of the election campaign to win votes. Mr Pashinyan did not express any such thoughts afterwards, including during the CSTO summit in Yerevan in 2022 where, at the ministerial level, we agreed on the mandate of the CSTO mission on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Everything was signed. However, come morning, our Armenian colleagues decided to put this issue off.
Before accusing us, they should assess their own actions. A political figure in Armenia, I think, the speaker of the parliament, said something along the lines that Russia "gave" Karabakh to Azerbaijan. It is hard to imagine a more incorrect and disingenuous statement. He referred to the fact that Russia gave Karabakh to Azerbaijan when President Putin, President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan signed the first trilateral agreement on November 10, 2020. This is not what happened in reality. It says nothing at all about the status of Karabakh. At that time, all three leaders were operating on the premise that there would be additional talks on this matter. But later in Prague, where both the President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia were invited, they both signed a statement saying that they recognise the 1991 Alma-Ata Declaration. Case closed. The President of Azerbaijan and the Prime Minister of Armenia signed a document according to which the then Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region was part of Azerbaijan. Accusing us that we allegedly "gave" Karabakh to Azerbaijan on November 10, 2020 makes no sense. There is no need to accuse us of "giving away" Karabakh back in November 10, 2020. He should answer for that to his own people.
Question: President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Council Michel, and representatives of the EU member states are all speaking on behalf of the EU. It's like some kind of a hundred-headed serpent. No one represented BRICS. The African Union was adopted only recently. Why is that?
Sergey Lavrov: Not really a "hundred-headed" one. If we assess this summit, it is a two-headed serpent.
We have been thinking about this for quite a long time. When the issue about the African Union's full membership arose at the last summit, we strongly supported the idea. It was approved by consensus. Since this summit, the Chairman of the African Union and President of the Union of the Comoros, Mr Assoumani, has been fully participating in the G20 activities.
Your question is indicative of an ongoing trend. An idea has been floated that not only the African Union, but regional structures such as LAS and CELAC should be included in the G20 as well. I think that at some point the EAEU will also be considered a regional and structural participant. The EU should be transferred to this group. Frankly, it all looks out of proportion: the leading EU countries, the leadership of the European Council and the European Commission. There are questions. Time will tell.
Question: You have already said that your employees actively worked during the talks. We'd like to understand if there was a political level reach out from the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of India, as well as from other countries – China, South Africa, Brazil, who worked together on this joint committee. Thank you.
Sergey Lavrov: My Indian colleague Subrahmanyam Jaishankar always keeps in touch. We also talked in Jakarta.
The majority of the work was done by the sherpas and experts. When there were certain issues that required attention at the political level, we spoke by telephone or met if it was the same event. This is how it was when the preparations for the summit were underway. This is normal practice for two friendly countries.
Question: How were the G20 countries able to reach consensus on the final declaration?
Sergey Lavrov: The decisive role was played by the Indian chairmanship. Other countries of the Global South decided to make sure that the G20 worked on an equal basis and promoted agreements that would be based on an honest balance of interests, both within the Bretton Woods system and the World Trade Organisation, and at all platforms where issues of the global economy are discussed. It was the main thing that ensured the success of the summit.
I would like to note that the Western countries (and I hope this is a trend) agreed on the formulas that outline the future efforts of the G20. This is an advance payment on their side. By agreeing on them, they will have to fulfil them. There have been too many agreements that the West has ignored.
Question: The Delhi declaration speaks a lot about the impact of the Ukrainian conflict on the logistics chains, food security, but it does not mention sanctions. Did you discuss the responsibility of countries that impose sanctions and the fact that it affects mostly poor countries? Were the ways to minimise this impact discussed?
Sergey Lavrov: Like creating a court martial?
The Declaration says that the Ukrainian crisis has added negative factors, first of all, the sanctions. The wording of the Declaration explicitly does not allow those imposing them to evade responsibility.
In other sections of the Declaration, it is spelled out what lies at the foundation of the current hardships in the global economy. It clearly explains it. Due to the fact that this is a diplomatic document, and a compromise in many ways, its wording might be vague. But still it says that the West has created a multitude of problems in the global economy, and tried awkwardly over many years to push its climate policy, which has turned out to be a failure, to the foreground.
The West fails to fulfil its promises, including on allocating $100 billion per year for the developing countries as part of the green transition. All of this is included in the declaration. It is not the case of "if you know, you will understand." Naturally, consensus documents contain a compromise. In this case, it is important that the West has officially agreed on a compromise on the terms that are more favourable for the developing countries than in the previous years.
Question: You have mentioned that this is a pivotal time and that we have reached a high point. Do you think a ceasefire would be a step towards peace between Russia and Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: This summit is a pivotal point in the sense that it has shown the Global South's unprecedented unity and cohesion in defending its rights in the global economy, as well as its reluctance to constantly reduce every discussion to the crisis in Ukraine. Everyone has become tired of this; people have become aware that the war, unleashed by the West with the hands and lives of Ukraine against the Russian Federation, must be stopped.
But this is a far cry from the goals that the developing countries are consolidating on and demanding reforms. Obviously, everyone wants peace. If you are concerned about this issue, you should know that 18 months ago we agreed to sign and even initialed an agreement on the settlement of the conflict with Ukraine. But the Anglo-Saxons ordered Vladimir Zelensky to abandon it as they thought they could press us for more, hoping the Ukrainian offensive would wear us down. If this is a matter of concern to you, read about it – and you will learn many facts.
President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said in public that we are not refusing to negotiate, but the talks must have a strong foundation, with recognition for the realities on the ground as well as the factors that have accumulated for decades due to NATO's aggressive policy. They think they are the dominant organisation in the world; they imposed a direct threat on Russia's security, on our borders and proceeded to support the Kiev regime, which declared a goal of exterminating everything Russian: the language, education, media and history – that is, the people who developed that land and built those cities, and ports and roads. Now, Ukrainian officials are openly threatening to physically exterminate them. During their interviews, Ukrainian ambassadors blatantly call for killing Russians, saying that the current Ukrainian regime's main aim is to kill as many Russians as possible, allegedly so that their children will have less to do in this regard.
But everyone seems to have forgotten about this – as well as about the fact that last year Vladimir Zelensky signed an order that prohibited negotiations with Russia. Does anyone remember this?
During confidential conversations, my colleagues from different countries ask what Russia can do about this, and I tell them about all these things. I tell them that Ukraine is adamantly opposed to a resumption of the grain deal in the form it had been agreed upon, claiming that only their part needs be exported while totally ignoring our demands and conditions. We didn't even come up with these conditions – they were documented as part of a single package by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. The Delhi summit has significantly undermined the attempts to once again blame us for everything that's happening in Ukraine and in the global economy – and this is another reason why it is of major importance.
Question: Dedollarisation has become one of the main trends in the multipolar world. What role can India play in this global process? Is Russia considering the Indian RuPay system as an alternative to SWIFT?
Have you had any bilateral contacts on the sidelines of the summit, for example, with the Americans?
Sergey Lavrov: The dedollarisation process is already underway, including in Russian-Indian relations. The problem with India is that our exporters have a large amount of rupees in their accounts in local banks. Corresponding agencies are working on how to find ways to invest and use them for mutual benefit.
As for payments, I don't think the Indian rupee will replace SWIFT.
We work within BRICS. At the last summit in Johannesburg, it was decided to instruct central banks and finance ministries to consider expanding the use of national currencies in mutual settlements and develop recommendations on the creation of alternative payment platforms. This is not about a single currency, but a step towards not depending on settlement structures that are entirely controlled by the dollar, euro and other unfriendly currencies.
More than 70 percent of payments with China are made in yuan and roubles. With India, this practice is also gaining momentum. There is no doubt that this is a healthy trend. Almost all normal countries, seeing what the Americans are doing with SWIFT and dollar transactions, are actively thinking about practical steps to rely on more stable, negotiable structures. These will be created. Work has begun with BRICS. Brazilian President Lulu da Silva suggested launching similar processes within CELAC. The process has begun.
I have not talked with the Americans. It is clear what they want from Russia: to eliminate a competitor, to inflict a strategic defeat. If they had new thoughts, they would find a way to convey them. If they do not, then there are no thoughts.
Question: Why do you think all countries agreed to change the wording of the paragraph of the Delhi Declaration on Ukraine? It is different from what it was like in Indonesia in 2022. Were you surprised?
Sergey Lavrov: They agreed. Perhaps their conscience has awakened. To be honest, we did not expect it.
We were ready to defend the honest text (and that is exactly what it turned out to be). This paragraph cannot be isolated from the rest of the work on the Declaration, the main content of which was the awakening of the Global South and its consolidation this year. These countries want the G20 to do what it was created for, including addressing the challenge of development in line with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. The Global South no longer wants to listen to lectures about how everything allegedly happens because of Russia and it must be forced to abide by Vladimir Zelensky's formula (which is completely unrealistic and utopian), and then everything will work out well in the world economy. This is not just simplistic, but even disrespectful not only to the developing countries where they are trying to introduce this into the consciousness, but to those who are involved in such things. Adult, responsible people could never say such things, because it is so clearly just another manifestation of colonial methods of oppressing everything and everyone.
This time it didn't work out. I think this trend can no longer be stopped.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
