Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions at a meeting with lecturers and students of the Academy of Public Administration under the aegis of the President of the Republic of Belarus, Minsk, June 25, 2024

I am delighted to greet lecturers and students of the Academy of Public Administration under the aegis of the President of the Republic of Belarus, which is known for producing competent managers and leaders. Your educational institution has an impressive reputation, and its alumni typically hold high-ranking positions in the country’s leadership. Today, I had the honour of interacting with two of them, including the Speaker of the Council of the Republic of the Belarusian National Assembly Natalya Kochanova and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Belarusian National Assembly Igor Sergeyenko. It is always a pleasure to engage in such interactions, as they allow us to maintain friendly relations, deepen them and draw conclusions that have practical implications for our foreign policy and for the development of our cooperation.

The Union State continues to develop steadily. To date, we have approved 28 Union programmes in accordance with the presidents’ instructions. This has been legally formalised through a resolution passed by parliaments of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. Today, we have also approved 31 high priority guidelines, which encompass approximately 300 events and projects. These guidelines represent a specific plan for deepening our integration processes, aiming to achieve maximum economic effectiveness and improve the social sphere.

I am sure you are aware of the statistics that highlight a rapid increase in our mutual trade and investment volumes.

Our military-technical cooperation continues to deepen, which is absolutely essential given the current conditions in the international arena. These conditions have been shaped by the West’s policy of creating a Ukrainian regime that would constantly pose a threat to the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. We are finalising the security concept of the Union State and a bilateral interstate treaty on mutual security guarantees.

We maintain close diplomatic collaboration. We support each other at the UN and the OSCE, although I would add as an aside that the latter organisation is digging its own grave as it has completely discredited its initial lofty ideals, which were the basis of its establishment during the signing the Helsinki Final Act.   

We are also assisting our allies in gaining access to the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The official decision on this matter will be made in July at the beginning of the SCO summit in Astana. President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko will take part in this event as a full-fledged member of the SCO Heads of State Council.

Furthermore, we will undoubtedly contribute to the development of ties between the Republic of Belarus and BRICS. Two weeks ago, Belarusian Foreign Minister Sergey Aleinik took part in the BRICS Foreign Ministers Meeting in Nizhny Novgorod. Yesterday, we held talks at the Foreign Ministry and discussed other ways to expand bilateral contacts. We also mentioned these discussions during today’s meeting with President of the Republic of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko.

Yesterday, we signed a joint statement on the foreign policy objectives of the Union integration process, thereby establishing a regulatory framework that enables effective collaboration. Other components of this framework include the 2024−2026 programme of joint foreign policy activities and plans for annual consultations at the level of deputy foreign ministers and departmental directors.

One of our essential foreign policy tasks is certainly to uphold the truth about the Great Patriotic War and to prevent any attempts to rewrite history and glorify Nazi criminals. We see the rebirth of Nazism when monuments to those who liberated Europe from the Nazi plague are torn down, avenues, streets and squares are named after criminals condemned at the Nuremberg Trials and the names of those who liberated these cities and towns are consigned to oblivion with the connivance of European elites.

The developments around Ukraine are evidence of yet another attempt by the West, following 1812 and 1941, to rally half of Europe, or nearly the whole Europe this time, and use Zelensky’s puppet regime to “inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.” Our efforts to prevent the revival of Nazism are far from academic or educational. In the current political situation, they have acquired an absolutely practical dimension.

A distinctive feature of the current situation is the weakening of the West. While it continues to encourage Zelensky’s regime and demand that it continues to fight to the last Ukrainian, the Global Majority and the countries of the Global South and East are coming to the logical conclusion that they would like every country to independently choose their development paths based on their own history, national identity, traditions, experience and national interests. They would like to see a community of sovereign states developing equal interaction on the international stage in strict compliance with the UN Charter, which says that the United Nations Organisation is based on the sovereign equality of states.

There has not been a single conference or conflict situation since the establishment of the UN where the West, if it was involved, respected the principle of sovereign equality of states. Instead, Western countries resorted to any means possible to preserve the hegemony they enjoyed since the colonial period. They have lived ff other nations for 500 years, and they would like to do the same now, though not by applying barbarous methods such as the physical extermination of indigenous populations, but by using neo-colonial exploitation. Everyone is aware of that.

In February 2024, the first constituent assembly of the inter-party “For the Freedom of Nations” Forum of Supporters of the Struggle Against Modern Practices of Neocolonialism was held at the initiative of the United Russia party with support from Belarusian political parties. The Global Majority is actively creating its own organisations to counteract NATO and its attempts to create NATO-like institutions in the Asia-Pacific region and on the political stage.

The Global Majority is creating its organisations on the basis of equality and without coercion or attempts to force anyone to join their sphere of influence, which the United States is doing all the time. The list of countries that want to act independently and to maintain partnership ties based on mutual respect incudes, of course, the People’s Republic of China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, and many other countries.

Many African countries are becoming more active in upholding their national interests and displaying awareness of their continued exploitation, although in a different and mostly economic form.

The integration associations in Eurasia include the Union State of Russia and Belarus, which is the highest form of integration, the EAEU, the CSTO, the CIS, ASEAN, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, and the Arab League.

If we go beyond the Eurasian zone, Africa has numerous sub-regional organisations in addition to the African Union. Latin America has the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

This movement of countries that want to live by their own wits and choose their own allies has achieved some very important results. If we take BRICS even before its expansion, when it had just five members, their combined GDP calculated on the basis of Purchasing Power Parity exceeded that of the G7. Now that it has five new members, this gap has only widened further.  

At the same time, we are not refusing to talk to the West. But we are ready to converse solely on the equitable basis. There are venues for that like the United Nations, but there are highly negative trends in evidence even there: the West has largely privatised its Secretariat by using procedural tricks or enticing its employees to acquire US citizenship and give up the citizenship of their own countries, which has an impact on their work. We see all this and constantly present our objections with regard to their biased interpretation of developments in Ukraine and the Middle East to the Secretariat leaders, including Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Their biased attitudes are consistently in favour of the United States and its allies. Nevertheless, we endeavour to educate the people in charge of the Secretariat and its bodies.

We see that this work and our consistent position based on justice and equality are yielding results. Nearly 30 countries have expressed an interest in joining BRICS. This will be one of the main topics for discussion at the BRICS Summit to be held in Kazan in October of this year. It is certainly the best example of how we should counteract the attempts to impose the “rules” that the Americans and their allies are constantly talking about, rules which they would like to put at the base of the world order. These differ from one occasion to the other, depending on what the hegemon wants at any particular moment.

When Crimea voted freely to reunite with Russia, the West claimed that the principle of territorial integrity had been violated. When Kosovo “seceded” from Serbia in line with the West’s will and without any referendum, the West claimed that territorial integrity was one thing, but it was not as important as the right of peoples to self-determination that was used in that particular case.   “My will is the law” principle is what the notorious “rules” are all about, rules that the West wants to use as the foundation of the international order, disregarding international law. International law is enshrined in the UN Charter and upholds the principle of sovereign equality of states as the main tenet. 

Now let’s discuss territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination. This dispute has been ongoing at the UN for quite some time. However, in 1970, its members unanimously approved the Declaration of the United Nations General Assembly. This declaration provided an interpretation of all principles enshrined in the UN Charter, but in this specific case it stated that all countries, without exception, should respect the territorial integrity of each state, as long as its government upholds the principle of self-determination and represents the entire population living in that territory.

I think that there is no need to prove that the neo-Nazis who came to power in Ukraine after the February 2014 coup do not represent the people of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya.  The West does not accept this argument, but not because they have some counter-arguments. They have none. The West orchestrated the coup and installed the neo-Nazis in power. They then branded all those who refused to accept the coup as terrorists. Immediately after February 20, 2014, they called for the cancellation of the regional status of the Russian language and adopted a law to this effect. Next there followed the Minsk Agreements, when we were asked to stop the war. But each time agreements were reached, be it the agreement between President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition, or the Minsk Agreements, they were crossed out and the West publicly announced that it did not want to comply with anything.   What it wanted was to buy time and arm the Kiev coup-makers to fight the war against the Russian Federation.

No matter how the situation develops, it is of the essence to provide reliable security for all citizens of the Union State – for you and me, for all Belarusians and Russians. We will seek justice in international affairs. We have a very clear stance on every crisis that in one way or another concerns Belarus or the Russian Federation.

Regarding the Ukraine situation, President Vladimir Putin has once again spelled out a constructive and substantiated approach guided by reality and designed to ensure that no one is ever tempted again to shatter security on the European continent or strengthen their security to the detriment of the security of others.

We insist on building a security system within the Eurasian framework. I hope that all countries and continents without exception will eventually come to realise this need. This will not happen soon, given the American and NATO leadership’s frenzied determination to justify the infiltration of the Asia-Pacific region, where they are creating mini-blocs of various configurations, and dragging the Global Majority countries into them, trying to split the existing interaction formats. But at some stage, they will certainly realise that every man is the architect of his own fortune. When your fortune is forged in Washington, the hammer may accidentally hit your head instead of the anvil.

I would like to wish you success in your studies. You will soon have to take responsibility for the future of this state, the Union State, in various positions, in civil service or other domains. I hope we will continue to be friends. Always at your service.

Question: We are witnessing new forms of aggression in the international arena. The West is not too fussy about dealing with the undesirable and the weak, cynically resorting to economic pressure, political blackmail, lies and slander, and fostering fifth columns in various regions. In fact, the world is on the brink of a new war. Do you believe it is still possible to restore mutual trust between global players?

Sergey Lavrov: Hope dies last. Presidents of Russia and Belarus, Vladimir Putin and Alexander Lukashenko, have repeatedly spoken about this on various occasions, during meetings with representatives of blue-collar professions, primarily on international politics. The West is impossible to negotiate with in key strategic areas that ensure the state’s viability. We have not taken this conclusion out of thin air; it was drawn after the decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. The West can renege on its commitments at any point (there are multiple examples of this), and even declare war in various senses. What we see now, the sanctions policy pursued by the West, is nothing short of economic terrorism. I have no other term for it.

If they do not want to trade with a country they suddenly have a problem with, or never liked anyway, that’s totally fine. They can tell their companies they are not allowed to do business with that country, and that’s it. But they are telling companies from third countries they are not allowed to do business with Russia, Belarus and other sanctioned countries. In our view, we need to be guided by reality. And the truth is that Eurasia has tremendous competitive advantages compared to other regions. Eurasia is the fastest growing region, primarily its eastern part. Western European economics have been sagging lately, largely because the United States wanted it that way. Along with instigating anti-Russia bias in Ukraine, turning Ukraine against Russia, they have also eliminated competition by weakening Europe. Long before the start of the special military operation, they told Europe they could not open the Nord Stream pipelines, forcing Germany to buy expensive American liquefied natural gas and build expensive infrastructure. They used this strategy in nearly every sector of the economy. But energy, which provided the basis for the prosperity of Germany and to a large extent the rest of Europe, was Washington’s main target. The Americans could not care less about ordinary Europeans’ interests.

There are Eurasian organisations that are focused on the economy, like the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC). They are increasing investment into our region and the post-Soviet states. There are also South Asan association and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. There are contacts between them, including based on intergovernmental agreements between China and the EAEU. Integration processes are ongoing. The countries involved coordinate formats that are based on reality and allow them to implement economic projects they need as profitably as possible. This has to do with logistics and the new transport corridors, including the North-South transport corridor and the development of the Northern Sea Route. Much is being done to help Eurasia to fully use its natural and relative advantages for the development of regional nations.

Practice has shown that when the security dimension, including economic security, acquires a Euro-Atlantic form, this leads to the overseas partner’s attempts to exploit all the other parties. The share of mutual settlements in national currencies is the largest between Russia and Belarus, over 92 percent. The figure for such settlements with China is 90 percent and with India, over 50 percent. The same is true for our settlements with the majority of our other trade partners.

The process is underway; the dollar has discredited itself, just like all the other principles underlying the Western globalisation model despite lip service to fair competition, the presumption of innocence, equal market conditions for all, and many other principles. All of them were cancelled when they decided to “punish” Russia and several other countries. They are grossly overusing this method. Therefore, the de-dollarisation trend in global economic relations is a fitting response.

Russia is not alone by far in upholding this policy. Brazil is actively advocating the idea of transitioning to alternative payment platforms, to the extent of creating a common currency for CELAC countries. Ahead of the BRICS summit in Kazan, the BRICS central banks and finance ministries are preparing recommendations on alternative payments platforms that will not depend on the dollar. Those who print dollars are using them to keep up their hegemonistic aspirations.

We are working, and the West is monitoring our actions. Some Western countries, or at least part of their politicians, are becoming aware of the recklessness of their actions. President of France Emmanuel Macron said in May 2024: “Our business model has to change. We had a business model based on cheap energy coming from Russia, a great market for our exports called China, an organisation of production with the centre of Europe with high value quality, and the rest of Europe with low-cost entities, and a geopolitical umbrella with the US.”

It is a frank admission of what their complete subservience to the United States and its globalist programme and disregard for their national interests has led to.

Speaking at the Foreign Ministry on June 14, 2024, President Putin put forth the idea of Eurasian security. He clearly said that we want to establish dialogue on the principles of Eurasian security that will be open to all Eurasian countries.

As for Western Europe, they must decide if they want to continue to pull Uncle Sam’s chestnuts out of the fire or will opt for upholding their own interests. The recent election to the European Parliament has demonstrated a tendency for respecting the voters’ will. This trend has not stabilised, but it has manifested itself.

If our Western neighbours revise their misguided and self-destructive policy at some stage (we do not see any evidence of this so far), we will gladly listen to what they have to say and look at what they have to offer us. But while considering a response to their hypothetical proposals to resume cooperation, we will not forget how quickly they dumped all their obligations to us without a moment’s hesitation. This time, we will know better.

Question: On June 15−16, 2024, Switzerland hosted the so-called Ukraine Peace Summit. Many influential experts have already dubbed it a “Western get-together.” What goals did the organisers of this event pursue and what have they eventually achieved? Has this summit provided any faint hopes for resolving the Ukraine crisis by peaceful means?

Sergey Lavrov:  The goal was simple: to snap a “family photo” with the maximum number of participants. The result of this summit implies that they have managed it. They have approved a pointless statement, while trying to avoid making the impression that the summit is dedicated to the Zelensky formula. After deleting two-thirds of its demands, they left “innocent” issues such as nuclear and food security, humanitarian issues (prisoner exchanges and the provision of assistance), etc.

They believed that this would be a “sterile” document, and that everyone would sign it. However, people in countries of the Global Majority, primarily leading countries, are not naïve. Everyone realised where they were being dragged. Some BRICS members did not go. Most other attendees used their participation to emphasise the futility of continuing such “get-togethers” (when Russia is not taking part in this dialogue). We are grateful to everyone upholding this line. However, this does not mean that we will run joyfully after they invite us for the second “session” of the conference that has already been announced.  

We are ready to talk on an equal basis, rather than on the basis of documents given to us as an ultimatum. Vladimir Zelensky and his staff are saying at every corner that they have held the first conference, and that they would consolidate everyone using a “common” position ahead of the second conference. After finalising a common position, they will invite Russia and present it with this “peaceful position.” According to Zelensky, Moscow will either accept this position or will be forced to do this. He does not understand how to deal with foreign states, especially a country like Russia, and this showcases his intellectual abilities once again.    

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has set forth our proposals (that are by no means the first ones). We need to start from scratch. I am talking about the absence of any draft documents that will be submitted from the “right” or from the “left.” Or they should provide a realistic picture, as the West sees it.

President Vladimir Putin expressed our opinion on June 14, 2024 at the Russian Foreign Ministry: under the Constitution, territories recognised as part of the Russian Federation must be liberated completely, and the threat to the security of the Russian Federation must be eliminated. Ukraine must assume a non-aligned, peaceful and demilitarised status, and the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population must be reinstated. So far, many of these people are still on Ukrainian territories that are not part of the Russian Federation. Their rights have been violated in the rudest possible manner.

When certain Western partners contact us, we say that their “undertaking” as well as calls to withdraw from Crimea and Novorossiya and to leave these people at the “tender mercies” of the Nazis, aim to support the Nazi regime. We inquire, do they remind the Ukrainians, while coordinating these “audacious undertakings” with them, that it is necessary to respect the rights of national minorities (that were completely annulled with regard to the Russian nation). Their answer is negative. They claim they do not interfere in the domestic affairs of Ukraine, but demand that issues be settled in line with the UN Charter. They always mention the principle of this country’s territorial integrity.

I have just said what it is and why it is not absolute in the UN Charter. But apart from the correlation between territorial integrity and the principle of self-determination of peoples, the first article of the UN Charter says that all UN members must respect human rights and basic freedoms for all, regardless of race, gender, language or religion. There is no need to prove that the Nazi regime in Kiev has trampled on the rights of an enormous part of the population regarding the Russian language and any aspects of its use, along with the rights of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

On July 1, Hungary is taking up the rotating presidency in the European Union for the next six months. Budapest was strongly against finalising the decision on starting talks with Ukraine and Moldova on their accession to the EU before July 1. I believe their main argument is that the rights of the Hungarian minority have been violated. They demanded that these rights be restored. As a result, the adopted document on launching talks with Ukraine requires that Ukraine must respect the rights of all ethnic minorities (we are fact-checking this but I am referring to media reports). Perhaps they seemed to be ambarrassed to demand that only the rights of the Hungarian minority be respected. If it is true, the European Union must raise its voice and give a slap on the wrist to those who promoted Russophobia in Kiev and introduced blatantly racists rules.

Back to how we can proceed further with the talks. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about this: the talks must proceed on equal terms taking into account the realities. He presented our vision on June 14. But we have learned through bitter experience: each time the West has forced its puppets in the Ukrainian leadership to reject our peace proposals thus confirming that its goal is not to achieve peace but rather turn this country into a permanent threat to the Russian Federation.

In November 2013, Maidan started. In January 2014, Viktor Yanukovych held talks with the opposition, mediated by Germany, France and Poland. President of Russia Vladimir Putin recently recalled those events. US President Barack Obama called President Putin to encourage him to support the agreements between Yanukovych and the opposition, and to persuade him against using the army. President Putin responded that the opposition must not use force either and then we would accept any decision by the legitimate president. An agreement was signed.

The next morning began with an armed riot and a bloody coup d’etat, provocations, killings of Berkut personnel and accusations that they had been shooting at civilians. Now former US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was directing the process on the ground. Later from Washington, she spoke on the phone with US Ambassador in Kiev to approve a candidate to the putschists’ government. Responding to Nuland’s candidate proposal, the ambassador said that it was necessary to consult with the European Union, to which Nuland said where the EU should immediately go – another indication of how much ‘respect’ Americans have for the European Union.

If there had been no coup and if the agreement of February 20, 2014, had been honoured, that would only have meant early elections. The opposition would have predictably won those elections. President Yanukovych promised not to send security forces to the streets while the opposition promised to ‘behave,’ follow through with the agreement on preparing elections, and form a government of national unity. They signed and welcomed those agreements. However, the next morning, there was no unity any longer. One of the putschists’ ringleaders, Arseny Yatsenyuk, who subsequently became prime minister, went out on the square and said, “Congratulate us. We have created a government of victors.” That was it. Not a government of national unity but rather of victors. They immediately declared abolishing the status of the Russian language, and the Russian population was to be thrown out of Crimea.

I am talking about missed opportunities. If that agreement had not been toppled by the coup, Ukraine would have its 1991 borders today. Vladimir Zelensky is demanding this right now although the ship has long sailed and sunk in the deep sea.

When these people refused to recognise the results of the coup, the West denounced them as terrorists. Aircraft bombed the central parts of Lugansk and other cities. Dozens of people were burned alive in Odessa, and that crime has not been investigated to this day. They used artillery and heavy weaponry against their own people. When the people rebelled, we supported their just demands to the putschists to let live as their forefathers, who had tilled and developed that land for centuries, and who shed blood defending it.

And then the Minsk agreements were signed. They appealed to us to help stop the hostilities. The talks went on in the Independence Palace in Minsk for 17 hours. The presidents of Russia, Ukraine and France and the German chancellor signed the Minsk agreements. They stipulated a special regime for a small part of Donbass that had proclaimed its independence, including the right to speak Russian, to establish a law enforcement body (local police); to take part in consultations on the appointment of judges and prosecutors to that region; and to simplified economic relations with Russia. That was all. But efforts to ensure the agreements’ implementation went on for seven years. The other side categorically refused to hold a direct dialogue, as stipulated in the agreements that were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council.

Ultimately, we have learned that Angela Merkel, Petr Poroshenko and Francois Hollande has no intention to implement the Minsk agreements. They signed them to gain time for arming Ukraine. If the Minsk Package was fulfilled, Ukraine would have preserved its territorial integrity, excluding Crimea. At that time, nobody questioned the peninsula’s territorial allegiance.

In December 2021, President Putin submitted proposals warning everyone that “Plan B,” which Kiev prepared with US support to use military force to seize Donbass, was unacceptable, and that we would not tolerate the violation of the agreements. It turned out soon afterwards that we had only one option.

But if they accepted President Putin’s proposals, Ukraine would have existed now in almost the same boundaries as have been set out in the Minsk agreements. But they don’t want this.

In April 2022, we coordinated the Istanbul agreements, which also allowed Ukraine to preserve a substantial part of its territorial integrity. You know the reaction of the Anglo-Saxons, who prohibited their implementation.

This brings us to the latest option. However, the situation on the ground keeps changing, but not in favour of the Kiev regime and its patrons. Reasonable people should have analysed the chain of events to see that every offer that was rejected only worsened the situation for the Kiev regime.

We will always be ready for peace talks, but we will not suspend the special military operation during them. We did that in April 2022. We were deceived.

Question: I would not be presumptuous to say that you have been Russia’s foreign policy brand for years. You are not only a talented strategic negotiator; you also have a signature style. Tell us, do you work on it yourself or do you consult an imagemaker? Or maybe your family is helping you?

Sergey Lavrov: I never thought about it. The development of every individual probably depends on his or her character, the influence of his or her parents, the world outside and pals, including those you would want to be like and those you would not want to be like. I cannot even think about any recommendations regarding this. Just live the way you think is right.

You know, the Chinese have a saying, “Follow the calling of your heart but don’t violate the approved decisions.” 

It is good to have many friends. But the main thing is what our parents have given us.

Question: President Alexander Lukashenko noted during today’s conversation that the way the Russian Federation treats the Republic of Belarus is an example of equal and mutually beneficial relations. Many countries are following this example. This trend indicates the transition from a unipolar world to a multipolar one. I would like to ask you – not as a diplomat, but as an analyst – can you say that this turn towards a multipolar world is now irreversible?

Sergey Lavrov: I have no doubt about it. First of all, because this is happening in a very real sense. This is the way history actually unfolds, the way it takes charge.

Today I compared the GDP of the BRICS countries with the G7 economies, which have long been the trendsetters. The BRICS share of the world’s GDP continues to grow. When I pointed out that we have not closed our doors to the West, one of the formats I was referring was to the G20, and BRICS has gained a foothold there, too. If we count all the countries that are not yet members of BRICS but align with our policies, the G20 is divided into two equal parts. On the one side, there are the G7 and their allies (the EU, Japan, South Korea) and on the other, there are the BRICS nations and countries that share their philosophy.

Over the past two years (with the special military operation already underway), the G20 meetings have been quite revealing, as we could observe the West trying, by hook or by crook, to bring in political agenda and politicised assessments in violation of the originally approved G20 mandate. Their ultimate goal was to Ukrainise the group’s agenda.

They failed to do that last year, though. The relevant part of last year’s outcome document lists multiple conflicts across the globe that need to be addressed. But this year, the Gaza Strip situation was included. If more attempts are made to pump the G20 documents full of geopolitical issues, the Global Majority will have to stand up against attempts to include any unilateral clauses or bias in describing the global situation.

In fact, there has been very real progress. The Western economies’ share in the world’s GDP is steadily decreasing while the share of the Global Majority is increasing. The West is barely holding back the reform of the International Monetary Fund, trying to prevent a revision of quotas and votes that would reflect their real economic performance.

I mean, if things were done honestly, the BRICS countries would have long had enough votes [at the IMF] to strip the Americans of the veto power. They are only artificially maintaining [their quota share at] about 15 percent, which gives them a charter-determined right to veto decisions.

The World Trade Organisation is in the same situation. The Americans keep saying, guys, the dollar is not our American tool, it is for the universal good, promise. It serves the entire international economy, investment and trade in the most effective way. But when they realised that China was beating them on their own turf while playing by their own rules – while actually using the models, forms and methods of globalisation that the United States had been persistently inculcating humanity with – they blocked the work of the WTO and its Dispute Settlement Body. It has been inactive since 2011 when they refused to appoint new members to replace those who left for natural reasons. There is no quorum. So much for the market economy and democracy.

Recently, when Chinese President Xi Jinping was in Paris, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen asked him to cut automotive production because Chinese cars posed strong competition to Europe. What do they think they’re doing? Last time I checked, non-market methods of competition, unfair competition had no place in Western economies. Has that changed?

The same is true of the green agenda being imposed on the Global Majority. The arguments sound unconvincing. Ten years ago, Greta Thunberg and others like her led a highly emotional campaign challenging everyone to urgently invest insane amounts to protect the environment. At the same time, Africa, which was lagging behind them in its industrial development, was supposed to stay behind. Now everyone understands this much better and defends their fundamental interests more firmly.

This was another attempt by the West to prosper at the expense of others, to have clearer air at the expense of others, and even to gain authority to fine others – they are trying to introduce a carbon border tax.

The Nord Stream pipelines were sabotaged, and Germany just had to accept it. I am confident that no one will ever show us any investigation result. Sweden and Denmark have already closed their investigations, saying they had no results to show. The Germans continue to evade our official requests. Given that the pipelines are our property, keeping us in the dark about what they are discussing among themselves, while their alleged investigation progress is both beyond the bounds of decency and beyond the legal framework. Moreover, they have also shut down their nuclear power generation, so they began to use coal when prices went up. And they think it’s OK.

This process is actually irreversible, but it will be a long process. The world is too dependent on the American system. It will have a hard time untying itself from it knot by knot.

But BRICS and other members of the Global Majority are aware of their responsibility as well as of the objective course of history, and will adjust their mutual communication toolkit to avoid dependence on the former hegemon’s attempts to perpetuate its hegemony whatever it takes. These attempts are doomed to failure, however, the process will take time.