Question: My first question has to do with the forum’s main theme, Combining Strengths to Create New Potential. What new global potential is referred to here? Which countries is Russia ready to join forces with to create it?

Sergey Lavrov: The idea is to create potential that will help countries become independent of the unipolar world, which Washington and the allies it has subjected to its will are trying to impose on the world to preserve their hegemony. The West, which has lived at the expense of former colonies for centuries, is trying to sponge off others now in a seemingly more acceptable manner. We have the potential to overcome the obstacles created by the West with the use of the globalisation instruments it has created and is imposing on others.

More and more countries, almost all normal and independent states, are coming to see that nobody can be safe from the actions the West is taking to preserve its domination over Russia (it is the most striking example) and such countries as Iran, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and increasingly China. It wants to hinder its technological advancement and prevent it from gaining competitive advantages by imposing artificially inflated tariffs on the import of Chinese electric vehicles. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen has said that they are doing this because China’s exports to Europe are too cheap. Is this fair competition?

The Americans have been essentially blocking the operation of the WTO, one of the main dispute settlement agencies, for years. They did it when Washington saw that China was beating them by playing by the rules created by the Word Trade Organisation. They prevent a quorum from being assembled to block additional appointments to vacancies in that agency.

In their documents, BRICS and other associations of the emerging economies such as the African Union, CELAC and ASEAN, are increasingly calling for a fair reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank group, so that the number of votes the developing countries have in them reflects their real weight in the global economy and finance.

Question: I want to ask about the multipolar world. Here is a good example: Bloomberg reported that Türkiye has applied for admission to BRICS. The Turkish media write that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will attend the BRICS summit in Kazan. Do you think that Türkiye genuinely wants to join BRICS? Could this decision be taken in Kazan? How does this correspond to the fact that Türkiye has been a NATO member since the 1950s? If memory serves, it has been waiting at the EU’s doorstep for years, and now this seems like such a U-turn.

Sergey Lavrov: I am operating on the assumption that the national leadership has serious intentions when it makes such statements.

As for NATO membership and the EU candidate status, which Türkiye was awarded nearly 70 years ago, a Turkish official has recently said that there are no rules in BRICS to preclude members of some organisations from associating with the group. The main requirement for full members of the group and countries that are developing various forms of cooperation with it is to share common values. It is not the values the EU is defending in Ukraine, claiming that Ukraine is protecting “European values” and so they must protect these “values” too.

We do not want Nazi values, theories and practices, a ban on the freedom of speech, national languages, cultures and traditions, a ban on canonical churches and the like. The essence of our values is set out in the UN Charter, namely the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their affairs, a peaceful resolution of disputes, respect, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. However, the General Assembly subsequently explained that this only applies to countries where the government represents the entire population.

After the bloody coup in Ukraine in 2014, power was seized by radical forces that did not represent the people of Crimea, Donbass and other parts of Ukraine. These people did not accept the coup and asked to be left alone. The people of Crimea held a referendum. You know the rest.

That is why when we are told that we must ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine, we insist on looking at other provisions of the UN Charter, that is, the right of people to self-determination if the central government does not represent their interests, which makes it illegitimate.

Another major element of the UN Charter which BRICS fully accepts is a genuine concern for human rights. It is set out in the UN Charter even before the principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination. Human rights must be respected regardless of race, sex, language or religion.

The West has claimed to be the best advocate of human rights. But it did not lift a finger or made the slightest reproach to the Kiev regime for banning Russian in all spheres of life and adopting a law banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is what truly matters.

All BRICS member states are ready to comply with the provisions of the UN Charter in their entirety and as a whole, rather than selectively or every once in a while. This is the principle of multipolarity. In conclusion, I would like to mention the principle I began with – the sovereign equality of states.

Question: Do you believe Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has serious intentions for his visit to Kazan? Is there potential for any agreements to be signed?

Sergey Lavrov: BRICS has a long-established tradition of inviting neighbouring countries to its summit, known as outreach. This practice has become firmly rooted and is followed each year by the presiding nation.

This June, as the Foreign Minister of the country holding the chairmanship, I held a meeting of the heads of foreign policy departments in Nizhny Novgorod. Among the guests participating in the BRICS Outreach format was Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye Hakan Fidan. Now, President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been invited in this capacity. Membership decisions are made based on consensus among the countries that are already full members of BRICS.

At last year’s summit in Johannesburg, it was decided to instruct the ministers of foreign affairs and experts to prepare recommendations on the criteria to be applied to a new category of colleagues invited to BRICS events – partner countries.

Active work is currently underway on this matter. In October, these recommendations are expected to be presented at the BRICS summit in Kazan. We recognise the need to formalise relationships between BRICS members and the growing number of countries expressing interest in cooperating with the association, which now exceeds 30. This truly reflects the multipolar nature of the global landscape.

Regarding Türkiye, NATO members have remained silent. The United States, if I recall correctly, has suggested that BRICS membership is incompatible with NATO affiliation. A representative from the European Commission was more direct, stating that Türkiye must understand that moving towards the European Union is incompatible with joining BRICS, and vice versa. EU candidates are required to align with a unified foreign and security policy, which openly implies that Türkiye would need to join anti-Russia sanctions if it wishes to pursue EU membership.

The same applies to Serbia. They were told that active negotiations would resume and that Serbia is seen as part of the “European family,” but it must recognise Kosovo’s independence and fully support anti-Russia sanctions. This comes from a union originally created to promote the socio-economic development of Europe and the well-being of its people, which has now turned into a clear appendage of the US, and more recently, NATO. The European Union has signed an agreement with the alliance, effectively conceding leadership in military matters to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Question: I would like to ask about Georgia, another country that is undergoing transformation. It has adopted a law on foreign agents and is considering a law on Christianity as its official religion. With elections due to take place in Georgia in October, the ruling party has come under unprecedented pressure. Why has Georgia made such a radical turn? What is our attitude to these developments?

Sergey Lavrov: Georgia has not adopted a law on foreign agents but on the transparency of foreign influence. The individuals or organisations that violate this law will not be branded in any way. However, they will be legally bound to report the funds they receive from abroad. There are similar and even more stringent requirements in the legislation of France, Poland and many other countries, including in the US Foreign Agents Registration Act adopted in 1938, which set the tone for protecting their territory from foreign influence.

As for the Georgian government, it has become aware of Georgia’s national identity and values of Orthodox Christianity and national culture, which can be diluted, eliminated and overwhelmed by the so-called rules which the West is imposing on everyone, above all in the context of values of liberal democracy or democratic liberalism. Georgians are not comfortable with that, just as the unbridled enforcement of the LGBT agenda.

The EU keeps saying that Georgia should become a member, that they will clear away all the obstacles on its way into the union. The other day I saw a news story about a school teacher in Ireland who was arrested for telling children that there are only two sexes. He was instructed to tell children that the choice is much broader than between man and woman. This is going over the limits.

Question: So, they have accused him of believing the Scriptures?

Sergey Lavrov: Exactly. The Georgian people, whom I know very well and whose love of life I appreciate (Georgia was a major cultural centre in the Soviet Union, our shared homeland), are protecting their history. I think this is why they have been reproached by the West.

There is a major problem with the Georgian president. II have known Salome Zourabichvili for years. When Saakashvili became president in 2004, he invited Salome, then on the staff of the French Foreign Ministry, to become the Foreign Minister of Georgia. In 2005, she signed agreements on the withdrawal of the remaining two Russian bases. Moreover, we agreed to establish a Georgian-Russian counterterrorism centre at the base in Batumi with several hundred personnel, where 80 percent would be Georgian military and security personnel, and the rest would be Russian representatives. It was a wonderful opportunity to settle the issue in a friendly manner and to maintain friendly cooperation in combatting terrorism, which was becoming more active then.

We fulfilled our share of the obligations, as we always do, but the Saakashvili government did not fulfil its part of the deal. The counterterrorism centre was not established. I recently recalled that story during a discussion about the ability/inability of the West and governments in other regions that blindly follow Western instructions to honour agreements.

The Saakashvili government was clearly unable to honour agreements, just like those who signed the Minsk agreements with President Putin and the Istanbul agreements, which were thrown out after being initialled in April 2022. You may remember that the Minsk agreements were not only signed but also unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. But that did not stop Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, President of France Francois Hollande or President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko from proudly stating many years later that they had never intended to honour the agreements but only needed time to pump weapons into Ukraine.

The Georgian example is telling. More and more countries are coming to see that the whirlpool of liberal democracy, which the West is encouraging them to enter, goes against their roots and the traditions of their ancestors. The West is intent on eroding these traditions, making people forget them and replacing them with its non-traditional values so as to preserve its hegemony.

Question: I have a question about another republic – Abkhazia – which was once part of Georgia and with which Russia maintains good relations.

Russia recognised Abkhazia as an independent state. However, I read in the news the other day that Russia had put a cap on social payments to Abkhazian teachers and medical doctors starting September. Next, it said that Russia will be selling electricity to it at market prices. What is happening? Can we call it an aggravation of the situation, and if so, why?

Sergey Lavrov: I wouldn’t call it an aggravation. Following up on what we just discussed, this is about fulfilling the existing agreements. There’s a package of agreements that the presidents had signed off on, and the governments of the two countries had approved, and each country has its own obligations under these agreements that were ratified by the parliaments. It is about balancing these obligations. Our Abkhazian friends are well aware of that. In particular, recently re-appointed Foreign Minister Sergey Shamba touched upon this issue publicly. Congratulating him on re-assuming the post of the foreign minister, I invited him to visit Russia at any convenient time. I am sure we will set up such a meeting in the weeks to come.

Our other agencies are also working with their colleagues in Sukhumi, but, most importantly, we must fulfil all existing agreements that were approved by the presidents.

Question: Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba’s resignation was announced yesterday. You met with him, in March 2022, too. Why do you think he stepped down? Can you describe him as a person? How was it working with him?

Sergey Lavrov: I saw him only once in Antalya at a diplomatic forum which is an annual event organised by Türkiye. Mevlut Cavusoglu was Foreign Minister at that time. He called me and insisted that I come over, because the Ukrainian side and, in particular, Dmitry Kuleba, shared with the Turks the idea of having a meeting with me. They wanted to hold this meeting in the presence of the Turkish minister, not one-on-one. Considering that we never had any dialogues, I tried to find out how serious it was. I was assured that it was very serious, because Dmitry Kuleba said he had something to share with us.

Question: Was that March 2022?

Sergey Lavrov: Correct, it was March 2022, shortly after the beginning of the special military operation. We arrived in Antalya (I went there specifically to attend that event). I had no plans to participate in that diplomatic conference, I had other meetings on my schedule.

However, the Turks were very insistent. I reported to the President that my Ukrainian counterpart was going to share something with us. The three of us met in Antalya in a separate room. Mevlut Cavusoglu opened the meeting, and then invited Dmitry .Kuleba to speak as someone who initiated the contact. He proceeded to read out in good English from a piece of paper things that we have been hearing every day since the beginning of the special military operation and even before it. There was nothing new or constructive in it.

The actual work was done by the delegations. On our side, the delegation was headed by Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, on the Ukrainian side by Head of the Servant of the People parliamentary group David Arakhamiya. You know the rest.

They met several times in Belarus and finally came to terms in Istanbul based on the principles proposed by Ukrainians. These principles are still valid. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that if they want talks, Zelensky should first revoke the executive order that bans them.

The Istanbul Principles guaranteed Ukraine non-joining NATO, its continuing non-aligned status and described security guarantees for Ukraine to feel at ease. Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO is part of the Russian Federation’s guarantees. These principles remain valid. At least, we are ready to return to them, but, of course, taking into account the new reality, because more than 30 months have passed since then. President Putin outlined these realities on June 14 in a speech at the Foreign Ministry. He articulated the path towards settling the situation between Ukraine and Russia and the West.

Mr Kuleba stayed on message, period. I later asked Foreign Minister Cavusoglu about the message Kuleba wanted to pass on to us. He was equally unable to answer that question. In turn, I said nothing about the possibility of talks. There is a negotiating process. Back then, it was going in Belarus. I said let’s operate on the premise that we can discuss the details there.

Question: What is the reason for this resignation and what can we expect from the new minister?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not see how anyone can have any expectations with regard to what is going on in the Ukrainian higher echelons. Seven to eight people, including deputy prime ministers and heads of various funds have resigned, not just Kuleba. There is some kind of a squabble going on in the Verkhovnaya Rada. Someone was not allowed to go, while other resignations were accepted. I’m not really interested in all of that. There are rumours that many are spreading in the information space, in particular, that Vladimir Zelensky wants to replace the leaders of the team in order to accuse them of failures and then tell the West once again that now he is about to earn some money, so let him have their weapons. Some think it’s about rats fleeing the ship. Frankly, I don’t know and I am not particularly interested in that.

Vladimir Zelensky is not ready for honest talks. The West will not let him near them. They have set the goal, if not to dismember the Russian Federation (even though this was stated as a goal), then to at least radically weaken it and to inflict a strategic defeat on us. The West will not allow him to make steps towards us. Zelensky is no longer able to understand what meets the interests of the Ukrainian people, since he has repeatedly betrayed them.

Question: Ukraine said President Putin’s visit to Mongolia dealt a heavy blow to it, since the International Criminal Court failed to make an arrest. Did the ICC lose credibility as a result, and should we consider creating an international court of our own at BRICS?

Sergey Lavrov: The statements that Ukrainian officials are making about third countries’ relations with the Russian Federation can hardly be described as anything but boorish behaviour. Let us not forget that following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the Russian Federation, Zelensky said Mr Modi had dealt a fatal blow to the “settlement efforts.” Nevertheless, shortly after the Indian Prime Minister arrived in Kiev, and I’m sure he let Zelensky know that people who respect themselves do not say such things. I hope so, at least.

Speaking of the ICC, it was not even discussed during preparations for the Russian President’s visit to the Mongolian capital. I think extra efforts are being made to stir this issue up. This is what the West wants, and it never shies away from using double standards. The United States is not party to the Rome Statute. The ICC (or rather, its prosecutor) tried to make a case for the war crimes committed in Afghanistan by the Americans, the British, and the Australians. They even bombed wedding ceremonies wiping out everyone in attendance. They did so just in case. They would bomb anything that moves. They won’t even look at who’s there, and obliterate everyone causing dozens and hundreds of deaths. When the International Criminal Court tried to take these cases up, the Americans said they would impose sanctions on all of them.

History has repeated itself recently, when the ICC suggested that Israel’s leadership should be put on the wanted list. It got barked at the very next moment and went quiet. Against this background, when the United States demands that all countries fulfil their “sacred duty” to arrest Vladimir Putin, I think that even the people who are off politics understand how much this does not merely smack of  double standards, but is actually made of them.

To reiterate, we at BRICS are guided by international law which has been providing and guaranteeing the immunity of heads of state for many years now. It is much older and wiser than the statute of the International Criminal Court which has been in existence for only a couple of decades and is not a universal instrument. The norms I am talking about are universal.

Question: Recently, when addressing China’s claim to the island, Taiwanese “president” Lai Ching-te “advised” Beijing to focus on returning the Russian Far East and look at the part of Russia with the city of Vladivostok rather than look at Taiwan.

Sergey Lavrov: Our position on Taiwan has long been known: China is a single and united state, and the government of China is the only government of the People’s Republic of China.

As for his “tirade” about the lands of eastern Russia, this question has never once arisen over the past 20 years. Back in 2001, the corresponding principles were laid down in the Treaty on Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, and the final protocols to the border agreement were ratified in 2005. According to these protocols, the Russia-China border issue was closed completely and definitively.

I’m not sure what these people in Taiwan are doing, and what the Americans are suggesting that they do or say in order to spot frictions in relations between Moscow and Beijing. However, this remark does not say much about outstanding intelligence of this politician or his great political talent.

Question: You recently said you don’t see the point in trading with China on a barter basis. However, Russian businesses keep saying that China is increasingly “tightening the screws” in terms of payments, and it is increasingly difficult to make payments. They are increasingly afraid of seeing secondary sanctions imposed on them. How should we go about this?

Sergey Lavrov: I have never been against barter trade. I have answered this question on an earlier occasion and made it clear that this was an avenue for creating opportunities, which we discussed earlier today speaking about the Eastern Economic Forum’s goals.

The planet faced a situation that was nothing short of revolutionary, just the way it was in Tsarist Russia. The revolutionary aspect of it included the fact that the globalisation system created by the Americans who are guided by their own interests, lured in everyone. They led everyone to believe that it was based on progressive principles, such as freedom of market forces, fair competition, inviolability of property, presumption of innocence, and much more. They claimed that this system belonged to the whole world and serves all, without exception, participants in the process (i.e. all countries around the world). I remember a US politician promote back then a thesis that the US dollar is not a national currency, but a global, worldwide asset that transcends civilisations, and is the lifeblood of the global economy and finance.

When overnight all these principles were sacrificed to US encroachments on the interests of the Russian Federation and used to punish our country, many people started thinking about the future of these relations.

The United States is unwilling to reform the voting and fee paying arrangements at the IMF because it holds a blocking vote. If the BRICS countries votes were aligned with their economic weight based on the criteria for determining the voting power at the IMF, the United States would have long lost its monopoly on making and blocking decisions.

Question: What about China and problems with making payments?

Sergey Lavrov: It is impossible to discuss this without a clear view of the global picture. All countries are looking for new opportunities, but the People’s Republic of China, with its huge economy and extensive trade relations with the United States and the West as a whole, depends more on them than we did.

There is no doubt that China will be working to reduce that dependence and will gradually try to remove elements of dictate from relations with its partners.  They are doing this at their own pace. This is their style and their mentality. They are not rushing things. We are discussing this issue with our Chinese colleagues. They have a developed banking system that is closely tied with global financial markets.

Question: Some experts say that this is China’s way to compel Russia to make peace. Do you agree?

Sergey Lavrov: Absolutely not. This interpretation is being promoted by those who want Russia to accept Zelensky’s “peace formula.” This is ridiculous.

Question: The Foreign Ministry has a Department of Economic Cooperation, which was established 80 years ago. How is it doing amid the sanctions? Is it helping create a new global architecture?

Sergey Lavrov: After graduating from MGIMO University, I was sent on a four-year-long mission to our embassy in Sri Lanka. After that, I worked at the ministry’s Central Office. It had no departments or directorates back then. We only had a section of international economic organisations – not relations but organisations. It was stablished in 1944, when we started thinking about economic diplomacy and when consultations on creating the UN were launched.

At the same time, discussions were held on the possible structure of the international monetary system. We took part in those discussions. But eventually, somewhere at the end of the 1940s, we did not sign the documents on the establishment of the IMF and the World Bank, because we became acutely aware of our former allies’ hostile attitude towards us. It manifested itself in the speech of former UK Prime Minister Churchill in Fulton, plans to deliver strikes on the Soviet Union, which Britain and the United States nurtured before Victory Day, and a number of other facts.

We have published information stored at Russian archives, which shows that Paris and London planned to attack us from Finland in 1940. That is why we decided to work only at the UN’s economic bodies. There were many of them, including the Economic and Social Council, regional economic commissions, and regional agencies that later developed into regional development banks.

When Mikhail Gorbachev came to the leadership of the Soviet Union, we were instructed to join all the available institutions. I remember that in 1988 Gorbachev planned to travel to New York to address the UN General Assembly. I was added to the group of speechwriters, and we were taken out of town for a week. A high-ranking official who instructed us said that we must sift through all multilateral international treaties to which the Soviet Union was not a party. Gorbachev’s address was to centre on a series of announcements about our country joining all of them. It is indicative of our expectations from the era of common human values, which virtually all Soviet leaders espoused. Values always features prominently at all the critical stages of our history.

It became clear soon that nobody wanted to invite us as equal members, even though we joined the IMF. I remember the visit Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin made to Washington in 1993. I was on his delegation. He put a huge map of the Russian Federation on the table and tried to explain the importance of delivering supplies to our northern regions to IMF Managing Director Michel Camdessus. He said that we had no money for that and asked him to “show understanding” and to approve a loan.

Such relations between international subjects could not be described as equal. Our secondary role was confirmed by the stance of the IMF, according to which we could only hope to receive what the “masters” would agree to give us. The situation is the same now. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) has stopped lending funds for projects in Russia. The IMF and the World Bank have suspended all their projects in our country. They are not democratic structures. They are serving globalisation and the values which the United States has betrayed when it decided to punish Russia and other countries.

Question: Speaking about Pavel Durov’s arrest in France, do we maintain contact with him? What are we going to do about this situation?

Sergey Lavrov: We have immediately requested that the Foreign Ministry of France provide us with information and provide consular access to him. We have sent an official note and contacted his lawyers, who promised to take our proposals of assistance into account. After that, these lawyers and Pavel Durov himself have not responded in any way to our proposals of assistance for getting consular access to him.

We continue working with our French colleagues to receive as much information as possible. However, they proceed from the assumption that he is a French citizen who has been detained in France and hence falls under French jurisdiction. They believe that French citizenship has priority in his case.

They, including President of France Emmanuel Macron, are trying to convince everyone that it is not a political matter. We cannot believe that. The West has long been working to assume control of popular information resources.

In 1990, the OSCE held a regular summit in Paris, where the Charter of Paris for a New Europe and many other documents on human rights were adopted. One of them had to do with the “freedom of information and access to information.” A separate section sealed the OSCE countries’ pledge to ensure their citizens’ access to information regardless of frontiers, including information generated beyond national borders in other OSCE countries. All these commitments have been relinquished long before the Ukraine conflict.

I remember that during our regular meetings with our French colleagues I invariably asked why the Elysée Palace refused to grant accreditation to RT and Sputnik, and the invariable reply was that they were not media outlets but propaganda instruments. They have now been banned in the most freedom-loving country, the United States. Have they banned you yet?

Question: We were terminated on YouTube in early March 2022, without a prior notification.

Sergey Lavrov: So, you have not been banned yet?

Question: Not yet, but we are not a state-sponsored media outlet.