During the first working day of the G20 summit three topics were discussed: energy and food security, and the global health situation.
We outlined our known and principled approaches to the underlying causes of the ongoing crisis in energy and food security. We have shown the unseemly role of Western countries in creating this situation. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about this more than once, describing what happened when the coronavirus pandemic broke out. Then Western countries printed trillions in unsecured money to buy food and medicines, which only added to the severity of the crisis. This was done at the expense of developing countries.
A week ago, Bloomberg published an in-depth study that concluded that the measures taken by European countries to strengthen their own energy security had severely exacerbated energy poverty in the developing world. We argued for a shift away from the politicization of these issues. It is necessary to stop using energy to settle political scores, as the European Union has been doing with the Nord Stream pipeline for years. We advocated that the G20 deal with specific tasks of removing any discriminatory and artificial obstacles from the world energy markets. We proposed opening a free and fair dialogue between energy suppliers and consumers. Let’s see what kind of response there will be to this.
On food, as President Vladimir Putin has said many times, we have once again demonstrated Russia’s ability to ensure the stability of global markets for grain (especially wheat) and fertilizers. They pointed to the obstacles that still remain on this path despite the agreement reached within the framework of the “package” initiative of the UN Secretary General, Alexander Guterres, that the UN will eliminate “barriers” to the export of Russian fertilizers and grain. Despite all these difficulties and sanctions restrictions we have already exported 10.5 million tons of grain, of which only wheat – about 8 million tons: about 60% – to Asia and about 40% – to African countries.
We spoke in favor of stepping up international cooperation to improve preparedness for infectious diseases, including those such as the pandemic coronavirus infection. Supported the efforts of the World Health Organization (WHO) as the principal international structure for coordinating the global community’s response to health challenges and other threats to the world’s population. We agreed with the idea of creating a WHO and World Bank fund to address the needs of developing countries in this area.
There was also talk about the need to implement the decisions that have already been made. Vaccination must be in the public domain. Examples were given of gaps between the stated goals and reality. In particular, due to a gap in approaches to vaccination, its rate in developed countries has reached 60%, and in the poorest countries – only about 5%.
Another of our proposals was to abandon monopolization of pharmaceutical markets. We were reminded that the Russian drug Sputnik V was the first vaccine developed in the world. Regardless of the fact that its registration by WHO and the European Commission was artificially hindered, the vaccine proved to be effective (over 95%) and has been successfully delivered to 70 countries.
Discussed the problem of biological safety in the context of military-biological activity, which the USA deployed according to Pentagon programs in dozens of countries in all regions of the world, especially in Eurasia, on the perimeter of borders of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. We have noted that our attempts to understand what these military biologists are doing have encountered resistance within the framework of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction and within the UN Security Council, where we have also recently raised this issue. We will seek to create an effective, transparent oversight mechanism for this kind of program.
“On the margins of the summit, we had quite a few brief conversations with participants from a variety of countries. I can tell you more about this later, if you are interested.
Q: Is Russia ready to sign the final G20 declaration and agree on all of its points? How will Ukraine be mentioned in it? Is the wording of this document acceptable?
Sergey Lavrov: Work on the declaration has almost been completed. The document is expected to be approved following tomorrow’s meeting on digitalization, which will include the participation of Russian Minister of Finance Alexei Siluanov.
The declaration covers all the areas under discussion: food, energy, healthcare and digitalization. Western colleagues tried their best to politicize the document and “sneak in” language that implies condemning the actions of the Russian Federation on behalf of the G20, i.e. including us.
We insisted that if we wanted to touch on this topic, which is not in any way part of the G20 agenda or competence, then let’s be honest and record the differences on this issue. Yes, there is a war going on in Ukraine, a hybrid war that the West has been unleashing and preparing for years, ever since it supported the rise to power as a result of a coup d’état of openly racist, neo-Nazi forces. Since then, NATO has been actively “mastering” Ukrainian territory, conducting exercises and supplying weapons. You know what happened next: the sabotage of the Minsk agreements, the beginning of preparations for a military operation against Donbass. Therefore, the draft declaration refers to the fact that there was an exchange of views on these issues. The parties reaffirmed their positions, which have been stated many times in the United Nations, in the UN Security Council and in the General Assembly, in particular when adopting the last resolution of the UNGA, which was put to a vote and was not unanimous. It was clearly confirmed that all sides had their assessments laid out there. The West added the phrase that many delegations condemned Russia. We recorded that alternative points of view were reflected. We think this is quite enough. It is not for the G20 to get involved in such matters. Here we must deal with the specific issues of bringing the Kiev regime back to normal, so that it stops promoting its Russophobic and racist policies.
In my speech I asked what our Western colleagues would do if Belgium banned French, just as Ukraine banned Russian in all spheres without exception, or Great Britain, if Ireland banned English. There was no response.
If the West was so obsessed with its “idea” and tried to use this “approach” to disrupt the G20 summit and its final declaration, and then blame us for it, it failed.
Q.: Was the United States able to turn the G20 summit into a global agenda switch and turn it into an exclusively anti-Russian forum, or were the voices of the countries that came to Indonesia to discuss really important issues and problems heard behind closed doors?
Sergey Lavrov: All of the substantive work on important issues on the G20 agenda in recent days has taken place at the expert and ministerial level. The results of this activity are reflected in the substantive parts of the declaration.
As for the Ukrainian topic, both the U.S. and all of its allies have been quite aggressive in today’s discussions, accusing Russia of “unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. The more often they say “unprovoked aggression,” the more everyone is convinced that it was provoked by them. And it is not “aggression” at all, but an operation to protect the legitimate security interests of our country, on the borders of which military threats were created against Russia. It is an operation to protect the Russian population of Donbass.
In this context, a parallel begs to be drawn. In the Soviet Union, they used to gather at Party meetings, not even at our Foreign Ministry, but at some industrial enterprise to discuss the tasks of implementing the “five-year plan. It seemed to be a purely industrial topic. Nevertheless, it was considered good form to “brand” U.S. imperialism before starting a discussion. Our Western colleagues now approach the G20 agenda in much the same way.
Question: We always say that we are supported by the countries whose population is three-quarters of the world, including the positions on building a multipolar world that Vladimir Putin talked about at the Valdai forum. It is difficult to fight transnational companies in the economic sphere. There are joint exercises in the military sphere. How is diplomacy? What did you manage to accomplish here at the G20 forum? With whom did you talk? Whose support should we get in the field of information and diplomacy? How could this look in the future?
Sergey Lavrov: The answer is simple: no one except the West and its closest satellites has joined in with the anti-Russian sanctions. All Third World countries, when touching this topic (it is impossible to avoid it, since the West makes it a priority to insert the Ukrainian story into any discussion), call for a peaceful settlement and the earliest possible agreement. They know very well that this process is hindered by Ukraine itself, which has, among other things, banned negotiations with the Russian Federation by a legislative decree of V.A. Zelensky. Therefore the question, as I said today during my brief conversations with President Macron of France and Chancellor Scholz of Germany, should not be addressed to us.
Question: Did you discuss the future of the grain deal with UN Secretary-General Guterres? The deadline for this deal expires in a few days. On what conditions is Russia ready to renew the grain export agreement?
Sergey Lavrov: The conditions are simple. They are all written in the original agreement, which consisted of two parts approved in the “package.
The first is the export of Ukrainian grain. It is being carried out. After the Ukrainian armed forces used the humanitarian corridor to remove grain for military purposes, we suspended this operation. Then the Ukrainians confirmed that they would no longer do so. Our Turkish and Western colleagues have an understanding that they must deter Ukraine from such unacceptable actions.
The second part of the “deal” is the removal of obstacles to the export of Russian grain. Here we must give credit to the UN Secretariat and the Secretary General of the United Nations personally – they are trying their best. Five months have passed, but so far no practical results have been achieved. At their meeting today, Mr. Guterres told of promises that were passed to him, including in writing, by the US and the EU. They set out “good intentions.” If this is implemented, “obstacles” to export of our fertilizers and grain will be removed. However, the matter is not about the papers, but how these promises will be fulfilled in practice.
We are assured by the UN Secretary General, and he refers to his Western counterparts, that all economic operators involved in the supply chain of Russian fertilizers and grain will receive “reassuring signals. In the sense that they will not be subjected to sanctions if they cooperate in the implementation of trade deals with our grain, including the entry of Russian ships to European ports and foreign ships to Russian ports, as well as ensuring the full operation of Rosselkhozbank and normal insurance rates.
All these promises have been set out. I hope that they will be fulfilled. The UN Secretary General today swore that this is a priority issue for him.
Question: Western partners have recently been changing their rhetoric regarding relations with Russia. We hear the words “peace” and “negotiations” more and more often. In the EU, there are difficulties with the adoption of a new package of sanctions. What is it connected with and what can we expect?
Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult for me to judge. “Someone else’s soul is dark.” Especially the “soul” of the EU – there are thick “darknesses. If they disperse, then not for long.
Today I had a brief meeting with French President Macron, who confirmed his desire to continue contacts with Russian President Vladimir Putin to seek agreements to “resolve the entire situation. I reminded him that all the problems are on the Ukrainian side, which categorically refuses to negotiate, putting forward unrealistic and inadequate conditions in this situation.
Question: Yesterday the European Union officially launched a training mission for the Ukrainian military on its territory. This program envisages the training of 15,000 servicemen.
How can this decision affect the further development of the Ukrainian crisis? Does this decision make the EU a direct participant in the conflict in Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: I believe that the EU and NATO have long been hybrid participants in the hybrid conflict of the hybrid war in Ukraine. This includes arms supplies, training, military training, assistance in providing a huge amount of intelligence, participation in targeting (the Americans are doing this), and the work of instructors on the ground, not to mention thousands of mercenaries.
When it comes to the EU’s specific decision to launch a military training mission, there is a split mindset going on. At the same time, French President Macron, German Chancellor O. Scholz and other European leaders talk about the need to move to a peaceful solution. This is such a political “split personality” or, as Russian President Vladimir Putin said, specific “non-traditional forms of international relations. We are getting used to it. All sorts of things happen.
Q: Personally, do you see signals from the West to Kiev to resume peace talks with Ukraine? In your view, what needs to happen for these to finally take place?
Sergey Lavrov: I can’t go around in circles. Russia has repeatedly confirmed through the lips of President Putin that it is not giving up on negotiations. If anyone is refusing, it is Ukraine. The longer it refuses, the harder it will be to negotiate.
We read various reports about signals to Zelensky from the West referring to some anonymous sources. There are rumors wandering around that the US Administration seems to be telling him to be “more accommodating”. Then it is immediately clarified: this is not so that he would really behave constructively, but in order to remove the objections of that part of the Western world that is beginning to doubt the need to supply him with additional weapons.
Zelensky’s speech at the summit today was quite “interesting. The chairman in the G20 decided to let him speak. The speech was recorded and lasted twenty minutes, although each participant was given about three minutes so that everyone had time to speak. Zelenski spoke for twenty minutes. It was impossible to interrupt him, because it was a recording and they probably did not want to turn it off. I drew only one conclusion from his speech: the Ukrainian president has not listened to any western advice for the time being. I will not enumerate everything he said. It was bellicose, Russophobic and aggressive rhetoric. The best way to characterize the content of this speech and the state of this man is his own phrase, inappropriately “inserted”, but said – he said that the landing of the Allies in Normandy in 1944 was a turning point in World War II. Draw your own conclusions.
Q: Politico reported today that the State Department is preparing the ground for possible talks between Russia and Ukraine as the winter cold sets in. Are there any practical contacts being worked out with Washington?
Yesterday you had a telephone conversation with the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Turkey M.Çavusoglu. However, no details were provided by either side. Could you please tell us what they were discussing? Is a face-to-face meeting being prepared?
Sergey Lavrov: About the reports that the Americans are preparing talks. These rumors keep popping up, but they just as well vanish. We no longer react to it. We want to see concrete evidence that the West is seriously interested in “disciplining” Zelensky and explaining to him that this cannot go on like this because it is not in the interests of the Ukrainian people and him.
Regarding the conversation with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Turkey M. Çavuşoğlu. We were just discussing the preparation of the final declaration of the G20 summit, including the section about the grain deal. We are not planning a face-to-face meeting with him because it took place only today.
