Ladies and gentlemen,

This is the ninth roundtable discussion held in this format. We appreciate the interest of the Global Majority, which you represent, in the efforts that are being taken in connection with the Ukraine crisis. We try to inform our friends about our stance, actions and plans as openly and explicitly as possible.

Today, I would like to speak about the situation, its history and current developments from the perspective of the UN Charter, which all countries represented here have ratified and which formalised the universal principles of regulating interstate communication.

These principles include the sovereign equality of states, the non-use of force or threat of force, and respect for human rights regardless of race, sex, language or religion. All UN member states have subscribed to them.

However, our Western “colleagues” – we will describe them as “the Western minority” for a better understanding of the geopolitical situation – disregard the principles of the UN Charter. In particular, the West never had any regard for the sovereign equality of states. Cast your mind back to the international crises that took place in the period after the creation of the UN. The West did not show respect for the principle of sovereign equality of state in any of these crises, regarding itself superior to others.

This takes us to the phrase “golden billion” and the notorious statement by the former High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Josep Borrell, who described Europe as a garden and the rest of the world as a jungle. This mentality also underlies a statement by former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, “if you’re not at the table, you’ll probably be on the menu.” This is what they really think about the sovereign equality of states.

Even when the Werst cites some principles to justify its actions, it does so selectively, choosing principles that suit it in the given instance, and depending on its actions. In the case of Kosovo, they said that they were acting in accordance with the principle of self-determination of nations, on the basis of which they proclaimed its independence without holding a referendum.

In other cases, for example, Crimea, where over 95 percent of the people openly and transparently voted for reuniting with Russia, the West stated that the principle of self-determination was not applicable and demanded respect for the principle of territorial integrity. We are fully aware of these double standards.

The nationalists who came to power in Kiev in February 2014 following an armed anti-constitutional coup achieved that as a result of the violation of another UN Charter principle, which is non-intervention in domestic affairs of other sovereign states. Members of the former US administration like former US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland made no secret of the fact that the state coup was organised by the United States. During US Senate hearings, she proudly announced that spending $5 billion on changing the power in Ukraine was worth it for the United States. It did not even bother anybody that the coup took place essentially the day after the opposition and the then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych signed an agreement. The European Union simply backed out of its own guarantees provided by that agreement. After toppling the legitimate power, the nationalists unleashed bloodbath against anybody in Crimea or southeastern Ukraine who did not agree with their political course. They used force against civilian targets and individuals, including artillery and military aviation. The hostilities that continued for almost a year were finally stopped by the Minsk package of measures unanimously approved by a UN Security Council resolution. But, as we all know now – something that the leaders of Germany and France at the time admitted – nobody in the West or Kiev as going to fulfill the Minsk agreements. They immediately proceeded to sabotage the document and admitted that they only sought to win time to build up the Kiev regime’s military potential.

The principle enshrined in Article 25 of the UN Charter, which obligates all UN member states to accept and carry out UN Security Council decisions, was also trampled over. Once again, the West ignored this principle as it did with respect to many other UN Security Council resolutions, including resolutions on creating a Palestinian state.

The residents of Crimea (in March 2014) and the residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions (in September 2022) exercised their right to self-determination, enshrined in Article 1 of the UN Charter, through referenda.

We, the Russian Federation, recognised them and, in the face of the continuing aggression from the Nazi Kiev regime, supported by the West, offered them protection in full compliance with Article 51 of the UN Charter that grants countries the right to individual or collective self-defence. However, the West preferred to ignore these articles of the Charter and claimed that Russia breached Ukraine’s territorial integrity and, therefore, it must be restored. This is happening concurrently with ignoring the interpretation of the UN Charter, a product of years-long talks. The process was completed in 1970 when the General Assembly unanimously adopted  the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Speaking of territorial integrity, it is important to note the consolidated opinion of the international community that no one has ever doubted in the course of discussions. This document (the Declaration of 1970) reaffirms the inviolability of territorial integrity and political unity for only those states which honour the equality of nations and their right to self-determination, and which have governments representing the entire nation living on the relevant territory without any racial and religious distinctions and regardless of skin colour.

Obviously, the Kiev regime that sent “friendship trains” with armed militants to Crimea, later bombed Donbass, burned people alive in Odessa and conducted ethnic cleansing campaigns cannot represent the interests of the population of the above-mentioned territories; nor could it represent their interests at that time.

Ukrainian “activists” of that period openly called Crimea residents “inhuman monsters” and noted that their children would rot in basements, while Ukrainian children would prosper. The then President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko said this. In early September 2021, Vladimir Zelensky himself replied to a correspondent’s question (long before the special military operation) about what he thought of people who had refused to accept the coup d’etat, and who were entitled to an autonomous status under the Minsk Agreements. He replied that there were two categories: people and “creatures.”

In another interview, he added that those living on Ukrainian territory who identify themselves as part of Russian culture and language should relocate to Russian territory for the sake of their children and grandchildren. How can a regime whose leader is making such statements about the population represent it and claim that this is the territory of Ukraine? This is a blatant violation of the Declaration of 1970 and should be seen as such, not to mention the fact that Ukrainian legislation bans the Russian language in spheres education, media, culture and everyday communication. If a shopper in Ukraine starts speaking Russian, salespersons might refuse to serve them or might even turn them in.

The national parliament recently passed a law banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the UN Charter notes the need to honour human rights, regardless of race, gender, language and religion. The Russian language is the only such language in the world, and Ukraine is the only country to ban a foreign language. No other language has been legally banned in any country. Hebrew is not banned on Palestinian territories and in other Arab countries. One should therefore draw conclusions how this correlates with demands for honouring the UN Charter.

Yet another principle of the UN Charter is contained in its Article 100 which states that the Secretariat staff shall abide by the principles of impartiality, equidistance, and objectivity, and act in the interests of all states and members. Regrettably, in recent years we have observed gross violations of the principle of impartiality.

The Secretariat’s leadership and many of its employees representing Western countries are associated with the anti-Russian line and refer to the UN General Assembly resolutions adopted by the Emergency Special Session on Ukraine. There are already eight such resolutions. One-third to one-fourth of the member countries did not vote for them, however, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres believes that these resolutions do exist and that he will implement them. When I asked him whether the resolutions to be implemented by the Secretary-General included the declarations I had mentioned, ones that urged respect for the principle of self-determination of nations, he sidestepped the question and, like his official representative, continues to demand in his statements that the Ukraine crisis be settled on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, and the principle of territorial integrity of Ukraine. This means that the chief employee of the UN Secretariat is failing to implement the requirements of the UN Charter.

Their general tone is anti-Russian. In late August of this year, Antonio Guterres denounced Russia’s attack on Ukrainian cities. Each time that Ukraine and its European masters get hysterical over Russia’s alleged destruction of civilian targets and civilians, we see the Secretariat support these outbursts and demand, along with the West and Ukraine, that Russia be “punished.” The Russian army never attacks civilian facilities or civilian population. In response to each charge, we asked: Where are the proofs?  Give us the facts, including with regard to the fakes accusing the Russian army of crimes that later turned out to have been committed by the Ukrainian regime. There are numerous facts of that. We have a special video which we will certainly show to you, should an opportunity arise.

The Kiev regime’s violations of international humanitarian law are so obvious that they simply cannot be denied. There are more than enough facts. But the Secretariat is taking an opposite stance and attempting to whitewash the acts committed by the Kiev regime, although these breach the key requirements of international humanitarian law, such as the ban on deploying military equipment and firing positions in residential neighbourhoods, as well as on using torture or humiliating treatment with regard to prisoners of war and civilian population.

When certain gross violations of international humanitarian law can no longer be denied, the UN Secretariat, clearly embarrassed, issues impersonal calls for restraint, addressing them to both sides. We saw a similar reaction when it became obvious to everyone how brutally the Kiev regime’s Nazi units acted during their incursion into the Kursk Region, where there were no military facilities at all. They deliberately attacked shops, schools, and other civilian targets, killed and abducted civilians.

The fact that the UN consistently shields the Kiev regime has been confirmed repeatedly, including in connection with the events in Bucha in April 2022. Three years have passed since the Kiev regime and its Western handlers fabricated the narrative of the alleged “mass killing of civilians by Russian military personnel” there, immediately using it as a pretext to introduce new sanctions against our country. I have repeatedly appealed to Antonio Guterres. We sent an official letter and addressed our requests to UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, seeking information on the progress of the investigation into the incident that the West exploited in April 2022. The last request was in September 2024. Only in July 2025 we got a response (it took him almost a year), and it contained some remarkable information. According to that response, the Office of the High Commissioner analysed our request and concluded that the relevant information could not be disclosed, allegedly because it would violate confidentiality obligations to third parties and could endanger the security of the UN. If you managed to make sense of that explanation, I envy you. What is clear is that the Secretariat has no intention of exposing those responsible for staging these bloody provocations.

As for Antonio Guterres, I have asked him the same question for three years in a row now. Even if the investigation files remain closed, could you, Mr Secretary-General, at least use your authority to obtain a list of the people whose bodies were displayed on the main street of Bucha? After all, their display was “unexpectedly” documented by a group of BBC correspondents. I have raised this question with Antonio Guterres both in person and publicly at UN Security Council meetings. Each time, he avoids eye contact. I consider this behaviour a disgrace for the Secretary-General and for the Secretariat as a whole.

Just yesterday, Mr Guterres made another statement. He said he was not optimistic about progress in the Ukraine peace process in the near future. He again called for immediate ceasefire, but the one that should lead to a solution based on the UN Charter, international law, and UN General Assembly resolutions.

I have previously mentioned the UN General Assembly resolutions and the principles of the UN Charter which Mr. Antonio Guterres elects to overlook, asserting that among these principles, only one warrants preservation – “respect for Ukraine’s territorial integrity” – which translates, and here he finds support from the Europeans, to the withdrawal of Russian forces from those regions whose inhabitants voted against remaining under the control of the Nazi regime.

We are not discussing “territories.” We are addressing the destinies of those individuals whose forebears, across centuries, cultivated these lands, erected cities, ports, factories, and railways – all of which the regime that seized power through a coup now deems “subhuman.”

António Guterres has contended that subsequent to the “invasion” of Ukraine, Russia dismisses the very notion of a ceasefire, insisting instead on a comprehensive agreement – that is, a definitive settlement. Thus, for him, it appears that everything commenced with the “Russian invasion” of Ukraine. As for antecedent events – in 2014, there was a state coup, and a war was instigated by the regime against its own populace. There were the Minsk Agreements, intended to bring this conflict to an end – a commitment which the Kiev regime, in turn, did not fulfil – and which also necessitated the granting of a special status to certain parts of the regions in the southeast of Ukraine. All of this received the endorsement of the UN Security Council.

For seven years thereafter, none of these provisions were implemented. When, in February 2022, after numerous attempts to negotiate an end to the subversion of the Minsk Agreements, to cease the Kiev regime’s war against its own people, and to establish mutual security commitments satisfactory to Ukraine, Russia, and NATO – when all these endeavours of ours were rebuffed – we were compelled to respond to the request of the new republics that had proclaimed independence via a referendum. Only then did Mr. António Guterres recognise that “something” was transpiring in Ukraine, reducing everything I have detailed to a singular term: “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.”

Incidentally, he maintained that Russia rejects a ceasefire and insists on a comprehensive accord. Naturally, we have previously had a ceasefire, and we had a settlement agreement – specifically, one in 2014 which called for the establishment of a government of national unity and the conducting of elections. There you have your settlement. All parties signed it. Germany and France guaranteed this agreement. Their signatures were disregarded, and they willingly swallowed this slight.

Then came the Minsk Agreements. There, too, existed both a ceasefire and a comprehensive settlement. Yet, they too – with their ceasefire and principle of a comprehensive settlement – were trampled upon.

António Guterres has succumbed to the Western habit of cancelling history. The West delights in invoking history to justify its actions, albeit only from the moment it serves its interests. There was no state coup in Ukraine. Russia “simply recognised Crimea as its territory” in response to the population’s request. Countless examples of this nature exist.

It is therefore regrettable to witness how the leadership of the UN Secretariat increasingly aligns itself with the Western anti-Russian front, thereby undermining the Organisation’s own authority. The root cause lies in the West’s prolonged, and largely successful, efforts to effectively privatise key positions within the UN Secretariat over recent years.

Presently, five or six senior official posts, including those of the Secretary-General and his deputies, who are directly responsible for political affairs concerning conflict resolution, peacekeeping operations, humanitarian issues, security matters, and proposals for UN reform ahead of its 80th anniversary, all these pivotal roles are occupied by NATO member states.

The First Deputy Secretary-General of the UN is a distinguished woman. She represents Nigeria yet simultaneously holds US citizenship. Draw your own conclusions.

We will relentlessly pursue an end to this practice, whereby the West has subjugated all levers of control within the UN Secretariat. We will insist on restoring the world Organisation’s role as a platform for forging reasonable compromises and balancing the interests of all members of the international community.

Recently, efforts to advance a settlement of the Ukrainian crisis have intensified. We welcome the commitment of our partners, including nations of the Global South and East, the People’s Republic of China, Brazil, and participants of the Group of Friends for Peace in Ukraine initiated by Beijing and Brasília.

We likewise commend initiatives previously undertaken by African nations, spearheaded by South Africa, among other appeals, too numerous to list comprehensively. Notably, the League of Arab States demonstrated interest early in the conflict.

We also observe that the new administration in Washington recognises the imperative of resolving the crisis by acknowledging its root causes and taking measures to eliminate them.

On August 15 this year, a meeting between the Presidents of Russia and the United States took place in Alaska. There, the American administration’s clear understanding of the need to address these root causes was evident. President Donald Trump, the sole Western or other leader to do so, has publicly stated: Ukraine’s entanglement with NATO was a mistake, one that contributed to this conflict.

The Americans also recognise that those who, protesting against the oppressive neo-Nazi regime, voted in referendums to reunify with the Russian Federation will never again live under the yoke of Kiev’s current authorities. This understanding is reflected in the initiatives advanced by the Trump administration, whose representatives have repeatedly issued public statements to this effect.

Let me reiterate: this is not about territories. The West loves to claim: here are territorial concessions Russia seeks for itself – this shall not come to pass. These are not territories, not land. These are people’s fates – people whom the Kiev regime and its Western puppet-masters refuse to recognise as human beings. They seek to annihilate them by all means, including legislatively. As previously noted, their rights have been legislatively eradicated.

The US administration similarly acknowledges that human rights violations – linguistic, religious, or otherwise – are utterly unacceptable. We specifically discussed the Kiev regime’s egregious measures to outlaw the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Concurrently, we see Kiev’s attempts to systematically sabotage the American administration’s approach.

Zelensky was musing the other say about what would constitute a victory for Ukraine. He said that if they manage to retain their statehood – not even within the 1991 borders – it would already mean a victory, because Russia wants to annihilate Ukraine altogether. His confession means that he understands that returning to the old life as if nothing had happened is impossible. Speaking at an international conference the other day, he said that giving any portion of Ukrainian land to Putin was not an option. Some might think that an exchange of territories or an attempt to soften President Putin by resuming trade with America has the potential to stop the war. This is not true. The key objective now is to isolate Russia: the Russian assets must be seized and transmitted to Ukraine. Kiev must keep receiving arms, since they don’t have enough weapons or Western support.

In fact, Zelensky wants to prevent right-minded forces in the West from pursuing right-minded policies. He also mentioned the People’s Republic of China, saying that China needs to be encouraged to take a war-free path. This largely depends on the United States and the EU. He is pitting the United States and Europe against China. As the saying goes, divide and conquer, or aggravate the situation. Many con artists and swindlers work that way.

We are constantly being accused of refusing to talk. We wanted talks in 2014 and 2015. Those talks have led to a “result.” I mentioned this earlier when I said that we were grossly and deliberately deceived without any qualms of conscience. We are being told the same thing now. On September 10, taking a question about the prerequisites for talks, Ukrainian Defence Minister and former Prime Minister Dmitry Shmygal had the following to say, ”There are no prerequisites. We must work together and ratchet up the sanctions pressure. We need all the weapons we can get.” This is how these people view their own slogans and appeals.

We see that Kiev is guided by the war party’s narrative. In Europe and the United States, there are politicians-especially in Congress-who belong to this party. US President Donald Trump’s Special Envoy Stephen Witkoff who participated in the Alaska summit and regularly visits Moscow, and who also promotes a common understanding of how to achieve a sustainable, reliable settlement that suits everyone, as we know, conveyed to the Ukrainian side his assessments of the Alaska meeting outcomes.

As far as we understand, these assessments, considerations, and proposals have been rejected by the Kiev regime. The quotes I just cited corroborate this. Clearly, the Europeans and the Ukrainian regime are trying to talk Donald Trump out of deploying peacekeeping efforts and returning to confrontation with Russia, essentially turning Joe Biden’s war into Donald Trump’s war.

Clearly, many European leaders, including Paris, Berlin, London, and Brussels, are concerned with this. This is precisely the approach taken by the EU and NATO. They want to derail the peace process. There was a negative reaction to the Alaska meeting. European leaders scrambled to Washington and, demonstrating their fealty, used sophisticated methods to prevent the Trump administration from moving towards promoting an actual settlement, rather than increasing sanctions pressure, which is pointless and has no tangible impact on the Russian economy, and to pump weapons into the Zelensky regime. Recently, they have been trying to do so by creating some kind of peacekeeping, in fact, occupation forces and by talking about creating a no-fly zone over Ukraine.

They are now debating whether they can shoot down aerial vehicles over Ukraine from the territory of neighbouring countries or whether they should wait for these vehicles to come closer to the border. We had great satirical writers Ilya Ilf and Yevgeny Petrov. In one of their novels, they described early Soviet times, when older people got together in public places and discussed the policies of France, Britain, and the newly established Soviet Union. The writers called them piqué waistcoats, i.e. people who have no responsibilities, but who enjoy posing as important figures and discuss issues that they are unable to resolve.

Europe is clearly – and rather unceremoniously – trying to get a place of its own at the negotiating table. Truth be told, its position of revanchism and inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia makes it unfit to have a seat at the negotiating table. Europe is talking about sending its contingents to Ukraine. We have already made it clear that they would be considered a legitimate military target. Europe is trying to promote security guarantees for Ukraine, which are being drafted without our participation and openly seek to create military threats to the Russian Federation.

Imagine a portion of Ukraine becoming a territory for stationing peacekeepers covered by Western security guarantees aimed against the Russian Federation. That would mean one thing: the West had occupied Ukraine. If the Ukrainian legislation does not get amended, it would mean that in this Western-occupied territory, Western military units are defending the Nazi regime, and laws are in effect banning the Russian language in all spheres of life, and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is what the West is defending and what it is trying to achieve.

We will insist on security guarantees. We sought this in February 2014 and a year later, when we agreed upon and approved the Minsk agreements at the UN.

The security guarantees must fully comply with the West’s obligations, enshrined in the UN Charter and in the OSCE consensus documents adopted in Istanbul in 1999 and Astana in 2010. These security guarantees, as was agreed then, must rely on the principle of indivisible security and the principle under which no country has the right to strengthen its own security at the expense of others. This is precisely what the West is currently trying to accomplish in Ukraine in its attempts to save it from total collapse.