Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya, Moscow, November 5, 2024

Question: What’s your take on the outcomes of the BRICS summit and Russia’s BRICS chairmanship which is about to conclude? Which countries are active BRICS partners, and what does this status mean in real life?

Sergey Lavrov: Without exaggeration, the 16th BRICS summit in Kazan came as a landmark international event not only of the year, but in recent history as well. Its success highlighted the futility of attempts to isolate Russia internationally, which some of our foreign policy opponents have recurred to in an attempt to put our country under pressure. At the invitation of President Vladimir Putin, delegations from 35 Asian, African, Middle Eastern, European, and Latin American countries, as well as heads of executive bodies from the UN, the Union State, the EAEU, the CIS, and the SCO, and the president of the New Development Bank, came to Kazan. According to the participants, the summit took place in an atmosphere of friendship, openness, and mutual respect which was in large part facilitated by the coordinated efforts of the federal centre and the Tatarstan authorities, whose hospitality made the summit’s work effective and the stay of its guests comfortable.

The BRICS countries leaders’ talks, including an expanded BRICS Plus/Outreach format, provided a venue for an exchange of views on all key international issues. Considering the most recent escalation in the Middle East, the participants focused on resolving conflicts in this strategically important region. The prospects for cooperation between BRICS countries and the Global South countries were also explored in the interest of common development and indivisible security.

Russia will chair BRICS through 2024. The Kazan summit has undoubtedly marked the culmination of our watch at the helm of the Association, as it provided the leaders with an opportunity to look back on the year and outline future plans. The outcomes and the plans are clearly outlined in the Kazan Declaration which is the summit’s joint document. Among other points, it clearly laid out the participating countries’ commitment to promote positive changes in the global economy and politics with an eye towards building a fairer and more balanced international order, reforming global governance institutions, and effectively addressing global challenges.

The declaration also laid out specific and practical results of cooperation, including the BRICS Grain Exchange, the Contact Group on Climate and Sustainable Development, the Working Group on Nuclear Medicine, the Geological Platform, and the Investment Platform, to name a few. Initiating a dialogue in the transport sector is particularly important.

I would like to turn a spotlight on the parts of the declaration that discuss adapting the global monetary system to existing realities, enhancing the role of developing nations, stepping up interbank cooperation, raising the share of national currencies in payments, and establishing independent payment platforms and insurance mechanisms within BRICS. Ultimately, all of the above will help create a payment network that is resistant to external risks, which, as we sensed during the summit, is what non-Western countries are increasingly interested in. To back this up, during the BRICS Plus/Outreach meeting, the heads of multiple delegations from the Global South countries were outraged with the recent US policy seeking to weaponise the US dollar in its sanctions wars against the countries whose policies, for a variety of reasons, do not align with the US interests.

With regard to partner countries, the qualifying variables for this category were approved at the summit. As chairs, we continue coordinating the activities in this area, and look forward to announcing the results during our chairmanship before the end of the year.

Question: What steps do the BRICS countries plan to take to de-escalate the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone and in the broader Middle East region?

Sergey Lavrov: Since the onset of this unprecedented crisis in October 2023, the BRICS countries have come together to support the rights of the civilian population in the Gaza Strip. On November 21, 2023, during an emergency summit of the group, a consensus was reached to call for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian aid for those affected. This collective stance was reiterated in the declaration of the Kazan summit, which included participation from President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas in the expanded format session.

Shortly after the beginning of the Israeli operation in Gaza, we coordinated with our BRICS partners and other like-minded nations to submit a draft resolution to the UN Security Council, calling for an end to military actions and for unhindered humanitarian access to Gaza. However, this resolution was blocked by the United States and its allies. As a result of Washington’s politicised stance, the Council has yet to reach a decision that would facilitate long-term normalisation in the region.

The Americans attempted to justify their unconstructive stance by claiming that adopting such a resolution could impede their efforts to broker a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, as well as to exchange detained persons. However, this negotiation process has stalled, and the situation in Gaza continues to deteriorate. Furthermore, regional tensions are escalating, with the conflict already spreading to Lebanon and sporadic flare-ups reaching Syria, Iraq, and even Iran. It is also important to note the significant destabilisation around the shipping routes of the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden, where the Americans and the British have formed a multinational naval coalition that has engaged in aggressive actions against Houthi forces, who are retaliating against Israel’s military operations against Palestinians in the occupied territories.

The crisis in the Gaza Strip has been the catalyst for all these developments. The quicker this issue is resolved, the sooner the situation in the Middle East will begin to improve. Therefore, we will continue to collaborate with our partners to seek a fair resolution to the Palestinian problem based on widely accepted international legal principles. We will also leverage the full potential of BRICS in this effort.

Question: Recently, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres was added to the database of the Ukrainian website Mirotvorets. This marks the first time in history that the leader of the largest international organisation has been placed on such a “hit list.” What is your assessment of this action taken by Kiev?

Sergey Lavrov: As far as we know, the UN Secretary-General was later removed from the database of the Ukrainian website Mirotvorets. However, the underlying issue remains: Kiev continues to exert pressure on Antonio Guterres, demonstrating a blatant disregard for the UN Charter in an attempt to compel him and the entire UN Secretariat to align completely with Ukraine and its Western sponsors. This approach directly contravenes the constituent instrument of the Organisation, specifically paragraph 2 of Article 100 of the UN Charter, which prohibits any member state from attempting to influence the Secretary-General or other UN representatives.

The actions of the Zelensky regime are even more perplexing, especially considering that in the context of the Ukrainian crisis, Antonio Guterres and his staff are increasingly expressing solidarity with Western nations and their Kiev proxies, which violates paragraph 1 of the previously mentioned Article 100. This article mandates that the UN must be impartial and equidistant in all situations. We consistently remind Antonio Guterres and his team at the UN Secretariat of this obligation.

Question: In your opinion, how will the outcome of the recent elections in Moldova affect the situation in Transnistria? Could the current Moldovan authorities make rash decisions that might lead to escalation in the region? What role can Moscow play, as an intermediary in the 5+2 negotiation process for a Transnistrian settlement, to prevent a negative scenario from developing? Are there any plans to increase the size of the Russian peacekeeping contingent in Transnistria?

Sergey Lavrov: The situation surrounding Transnistria is indeed complex, influenced in part by internal political dynamics in Moldova. I trust that the Moldovan authorities will exercise sufficient common sense to avoid ill-considered actions that could exacerbate tensions.

Prudence is especially crucial now, as the Permanent Conference on Political Issues in the Framework of the Transnistria Settlement Process, known as the 5+2 format since its establishment in 2002, is experiencing a challenging period. Its operations have been "frozen" for the time being, not solely due to Ukraine's obstruction. The pause in the negotiating mechanism has persisted since October 2019, primarily due to the starkly divergent positions of Chisinau and Tiraspol on nearly all key aspects of the settlement.

Amidst this backdrop, there are suggestions that the regional context necessitates new dialogue platforms on the Transnistrian issue, questioning the value of the 5+2 format. We disagree with this view and believe that external assistance to facilitate direct dialogue between Chisinau and Tiraspol is essential. At this stage, we see the primary task as maintaining peace and stability on the Dniester, which is the main prerequisite for resolving the Transnistrian issue through political and diplomatic means. This mission is being undertaken by the Joint Peacekeeping Forces, including the Russian contingent. The 1992 agreements on the principles of a peaceful settlement do allow for the possibility of increasing the number of Russian servicemen on the left bank of the Dniester, but this is not currently necessary.

Question: Previously, some American analysts claimed that Russia had directly and indirectly interfered in the parliamentary elections in Georgia. According to them, the ruling Georgian Dream party has connections with the Kremlin. How does Moscow respond to such assertions?

Sergey Lavrov: As a flagrant falsehood. The Americans are attempting to attribute to us actions they themselves are engaged in. As the saying goes, God marks the crook. Washington continues to actively perpetuate its own myth of Russian interference in any election, whether "at home" or in any third country. If an election results in a victory for forces undesirable to the United States, Russia is immediately blamed for the "wrong" electoral choice of the voters.

We have already expressed our views regarding the unprecedented interference of the West in Georgia's internal affairs and their brazen pressure on the authorities and voters of this country. I can only add that the United States and the EU are artificially trying to frame the current electoral process in Georgia as a strategic choice between Russia and the West, thereby attempting to present Georgia and other post-Soviet states with a false dilemma.

In reality, it is a choice between sovereign development based on national interests and external governance, between traditional values and neo-liberal principles imposed from outside.

The people of Georgia have made their decision. We respect that choice and are prepared to continue the process of normalising bilateral relations.

Question: Yerevan and Baku have frequently announced progress towards drafting a peace treaty, yet its final wording remains unresolved. Why have Armenia and Azerbaijan not reached a consensus on this matter?

Sergey Lavrov: We commend the significant progress made within the Azerbaijani-Armenian peace process. Given the years of animosity, hostilities, and loss of life on both sides, we understand the challenges Baku and Yerevan face in advancing towards normalisation.

Such progress demands not only considerable effort from the parties to identify mutually agreeable solutions but also time. Therefore, unlike Western pseudo-mediators, we refrain from pressuring our partners into hastily concluding a peace treaty. We are convinced that a rushed peace, lacking comprehensive consideration of Baku and Yerevan's positions and the realities on the ground, would be counterproductive, creating additional risks of tension and potential conflict escalation. Russia is keen on fostering sustainable peace and stability in the South Caucasus.

We consider it crucial to anchor the peace process within a regional framework, among friends – the countries of the South Caucasus and neighbouring partner nations – while excluding any destructive external interference. Washington and Brussels' attempts to exclude Russia from the Armenian-Azerbaijani normalisation process only heighten security threats in the region.

For the successful conclusion of negotiations between Baku and Yerevan, we remain ready, as always, to provide partnership assistance based on the 2020-2022 trilateral agreements by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan, and Armenia, in whatever form and scope both negotiating parties require.

Question: The Kazakhstani Foreign Ministry recently stated that the Republic has not imposed economic restrictions against Russia and does not wish for Kazakhstan's territory to be used to bypass sanctions. How does Moscow view such statements, considering the current level of relations between our countries?

Sergey Lavrov: We are pleased to see Kazakhstan adopting a balanced stance under significant external pressure. We welcome Kazakhstani Deputy Prime Minister Serik Zhumangarin's recent statement in an interview with an American media outlet, where he expressed Kazakhstan's refusal to blindly follow the unilateral sanctions imposed on our country.

We observe the active efforts by Western emissaries to engage with Astana regarding compliance with restrictions imposed on Russia. We are aware of the threats of secondary sanctions against Kazakhstani companies and banks and the potential blacklisting of economic operators by American and European entities. Thus, we understand our Kazakhstani friends' concerns about the possibility of facing sanctions for trading with Russia. In light of the blackmail and intimidation from Washington and Brussels, Kazakhstan must tread carefully to safeguard its companies. I believe that the Kazakhstani partners' statements are driven by a concern for national economic operators.

Despite the West's attempts to distance Kazakhstan from Russia, cooperation with Astana is progressing successfully. Our countries are collaborating to identify the most effective forms of partnership that will enable us to continue increasing bilateral trade, even under Western restrictions.

Question: Would it be considered open aggression against Russia if certain NATO member countries decide to lift restrictions on Kiev's use of long-range missiles to strike the Russian territory?

Sergey Lavrov: It is not entirely accurate to suggest that Western countries may grant permission for Kiev to use long-range weapons supplied to them for strikes on Russian territory. If such weapons are employed, it would signify that not only Ukraine but also NATO countries are openly fighting Russia, no longer bothering to conceal the presence of so-called mercenaries, volunteers, instructors, and other individuals "under false colours." In other words, the true nature of the conflict, which Western leaders have attempted to obscure (albeit not very effectively), will be exposed. Russian President Vladimir Putin has addressed this issue.

It should be clear to all that Ukrainians cannot operate Western high-tech long-range weapons independently. They will have to rely on Western experts and intelligence, including information obtained from the NATO space group.

We must not overlook the fact that NATO has long ceased to hide its aggressive policies towards Russia. NATO strategies describe our country as "the most significant and direct threat to security." The alliance's leadership frequently speaks of Russia allegedly planning to attack a NATO member state within the coming years. Europe is being militarised at an alarming pace. During their drills, NATO forces practice offensive operations against Russia.

Our opponents should not be under any illusions. In the event of aggressive actions by NATO or its individual member states against our country, an appropriate response will ensue, in full compliance with Russia's sovereign right to self-defence and the use of any means necessary to ensure its security, as stipulated in the UN Charter. And no one will be able to lie low, whether across the Atlantic Ocean or the English Channel.

Question: What does Moscow think about Ankara’s proposals to sit down for peace talks with Kiev and a new grain deal that Turkish President Erdogan brought up during a meeting with President Putin? UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has also put forward an initiative concerning maritime traffic in the Black Sea. What conditions would make Russia amenable to the idea of revivifying the Black Sea Initiative? Are talks on this matter with Türkiye and the UN still on?

Sergey Lavrov: The Turkish leadership and President Erdogan in particular, have Ukrainian settlement high on their list of priorities and have on many occasions provided a venue for talks with Kiev. During one such contact in the spring of 2022, a draft peace agreement was agreed upon and initialed. In July 2022, two agreements were signed in Istanbul: the Black Sea Initiative covering Ukrainian food exports and the Russia-UN Memorandum on the normalisation of domestic agricultural exports.

All of these agreements were subsequently either rejected or ignored by Kiev. The Ukrainians simply walked away from the initialed draft peace agreement. They used the Black Sea Initiative humanitarian corridor as a cover to launch attacks and provocations against Russian ships and coastal infrastructure. To this day, the Russian part of the deal on normalising Russian agricultural product and fertiliser access to international markets remains unfulfilled.

As confirmed by President Putin during his meeting with President Erdogan on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in Kazan, we received proposals for continuing contacts related to the Black Sea maritime traffic. UN Secretary-General Guterres has come up with similar ideas. These proposals are under review by relevant agencies. However, so far, we have seen nothing new that would suggest that they are willing to consider Russia’s interests.

Question: What kind of Russia-US relations does Russia anticipate to see following the presidential election in the United States? Has Moscow spotted anything in the statements and platforms of the presidential candidates that may signal de-escalation? Should we expect a new Russian Ambassador to the United States to be appointed after the elections?

Sergey Lavrov: The anti-Russia and Russophobic slant of the US policy is rooted in the domestic political consensus and is bipartisan in nature. Ukraine is viewed as a key element of the hybrid war launched against Russia. I don’t think we should take seriously whatever either candidate may say in the heat of the election campaign.

Our position was formulated by President Putin and is well known: we are open to an equal dialogue if and when the American side demonstrates a serious commitment to hold honest talks based on recognition of Russia’s national interests and the principle of reciprocity.

We are mindful of the fact that our two countries, as major nuclear powers, bear a special responsibility for the future of the world which fact makes indispensable diplomatic contacts and the proper functioning of our respective embassies in Moscow and Washington. Despite the deep crisis tainting our relations, Washington is not severing them altogether. If this approach persists into the future, a new Russian ambassador to the United States will be appointed in due course. The internal procedures are underway.