Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the 11th Primakov Readings International Forum, Moscow, June 24, 2025

Ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues,

I would like to begin by thanking the organisers for inviting me to the latest Primakov Readings, which traditionally bring together a distinguished group of prominent politicians, researchers, experts, and public figures from around the world.

It is good to know that the interest in this forum remains strong and continues to grow. The Readings are inextricably linked to the name and legacy of Yevgeny Primakov who, many years ago, developed the concept of a multipolar world and correctly predicted that the strengthening of multipolar principles would become the main international development trend in the first half of the 21st century. Based on ongoing developments, this trend will last much longer. Most likely, the movement towards a new world order will take a historical era. We are at the beginning of this journey.

In the mid-1990s, Primakov’s doctrine provided a theoretical and philosophical response to concepts such as “the end of history,” “the clash of civilisations,” and “the end of autocracies.” We now know who was right: those who predicted groupthink and total domination of the Western liberal world order, or Yevgeny Primakov, our teacher, who inspired us to take the right side of history and embark on the right path forward towards the development of humanity based on equality and mutual benefit. President Vladimir Putin accurately stated this at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, saying that together with the People’s Republic of China and other like-minded countries, we are not artificially forming some kind of a new world order, but rather giving it a proper form and helping objective processes develop as effectively and quickly as possible.

In 1996, Yevgeny Primakov published his policy piece titled “International Relations on the Eve of the 21st Century: Issues and Prospects.” In it, he emphasised that the UN was the main mechanism capable of ensuring a smooth and the least painful transition to a multipolar democratic world, and that we should not “reinvent the wheel,” but strictly adhere to what is enshrined in the UN Charter, primarily, the principle of sovereign equality of states, which underlies multipolarity.

Many are saying that the Yalta-Potsdam system needs to be replaced. It depends on what we are talking about. If it is about the international legal framework, then there’s no need to revise the UN Charter. Go ahead and read it. It is the most equitable international document that has ever been adopted by almost all countries of our planet. True, not every country abides by the principles laid down in it. These principles get violated or ripped out of the context, or applied selectively. We insist that the principles of the UN Charter must be implemented consistently in their entirety and interconnection. Our Western colleagues go by a logic that fits into their philosophy of a “rules-based order.” No one has ever seen these rules, but they live by them.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia necessitated the severing of Kosovo from Serbia. It was decided that no referendum was required, as the former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, who was at the time the UN Special Envoy for Kosovo and oversaw the dialogue between the Kosovars and Serbia, authored a report asserting that the long-standing discussions had yielded no meaningful results, and that it was, in all likelihood, time to declare independence. Without a referendum, without any formalities. They simply announced that Kosovo was, from that moment on, an independent entity. The West immediately lent its full support to this decision. President of Russia Vladimir Putin frequently refers to this episode. I bring it up once again, as it remains an undeniable and glaring example. The West claimed this was a matter of a nation’s right to self-determination and there were no acts of violence in Kosovo – no burnings, no executions – only a peaceful process. They merely concluded that the issue had been dragged on for too long, in an unproductive and tiresome fashion, and thus decided to “wrap up the whole affair.”

Six years later, however, when the people of Crimea and Donbass, in response to a bloody, illegal coup, chose to reject the putschists who had seized power unlawfully, conducted a referendum in Crimea, and proclaimed the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, the West promptly became agitated, condemning this as a gross violation of the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The West’s stance on human rights is equally contradictory. Article 1 of the UN Charter demands respect for human rights for every individual, regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. You are all aware of the treatment of the Russian language in Ukraine by these neo-Nazi “authorities,” and the fate they have decreed for the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The West, which consistently places human rights at the forefront of any global discussion – whether regarding Venezuela, Iran, the People’s Republic of China, Russia, or now even Hungary, among many others – has anyone ever heard the term “human rights” in its assessments of the actions of the Kiev regime over the past 11 years since the coup? I have not. On the contrary, figures such as Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, Josep Borrell before her, and Charles Michel have continually insisted that Ukraine must be pumped full of weapons and funds to sustain its offensive against Russia, in pursuit of the illusory goal of “inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.” The central justification? That Ukraine is defending “European values.” The treatment of human rights regarding Russians exposes the persistent neo-Nazi tendencies and Nazi instincts within Europe. Recently, EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Ukraine’s Reconstruction Marta Kos stated that Ukraine had fulfilled all the conditions required to begin EU accession talks. That was it. That was all one needed to know about democracy and its current state in the European Union.

It is precisely to prevent such distorted and double-standard interpretations of the UN Charter that we supported Venezuela’s initiative three years ago to establish the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter in New York. This group now consists of over twenty members, with others eager to join. The group is highly active, issuing regular statements – including one to be released today – on the developments in the Middle East, although primarily focused on the aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This coalition of like-minded states holds considerable promise. It was at their urging that the UN General Assembly, in December 2024, adopted by a substantial majority its first-ever resolution condemning modern practices of neo-colonialism. We could also discuss how, despite achieving political freedom, former colonies – particularly in Africa – have yet to attain the economic equality demanded by that very same UN Charter.

Now, the second wave of Africa’s liberation is rising. Our African friends are paying more and more attention to the fact that their entire economies are still largely based on siphoning off natural resources from these countries. In fact, all value added is produced and pocketed by the former Western metropoles and other European Union and NATO members.

I will say another thing, which is important in the year of the 80th anniversary of our Great Victory. This is an obvious trend to revive Nazism despite the binding and universally respected judgments of the Nuremberg Tribunal. This is a direct way to revising the entire post-war international legal architecture. I do not doubt that they know it in the West and in Europe, and probably are trying for the same purpose to encourage neo-Nazi and Nazi trends in the Ukrainian regime, in the Baltics and in some other countries. They expect that following their concept of “rules-based order” they will use these processes and trends to cause maximum damage to Russia or, as they say, to “contain Russia.” Now, however, they say not to “contain,” but to “defeat,” otherwise our country would allegedly destroy Europe in three to four years.

The position of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, a citizen of Portugal, a member of the European Union and NATO, is evoking a great regret. He not only regularly and overtly abuses his powers and refuses (notwithstanding our repeated claims) to call things by their names and even assist in obtaining basic information. For example, this is the case with our repeated requests to invoke his authority so that we could be presented with a list of names of those whose corpses were shown by BBC journalists in Bucha in April 2022. Despite the fact that an investigation was announced, no one but us is now talking about any of its results any more. Still, we have yet to find out the names of the people, for whose lives and in memory of their sacrifices all that was conceived and another wave of sanctions was planned. I am not even talking about 2014. There is not any investigation to find who burnt 50 people alive in the Trade Unions House in Odessa. However, no investigation is necessary. All those people are recorded on video and the tapes should only be spelled out, and there is nothing else to talk about.

Now, the second wave of Africa’s liberation is rising. Our African friends are paying more and more attention to the fact that their entire economies are still largely based on siphoning off natural resources from these countries. In fact, all value added is produced and pocketed by the former Western metropoles and other European Union and NATO members.

I will say another thing, which is important in the year of the 80th anniversary of our Great Victory. This is an obvious trend to revive Nazism despite the binding and universally respected judgments of the Nuremberg Tribunal. This is a direct way to revising the entire post-war international legal architecture. I do not doubt that they know it in the West and in Europe, and probably are trying for the same purpose to encourage neo-Nazi and Nazi trends in the Ukrainian regime, in the Baltics and in some other countries. They expect that following their concept of “rules-based order” they will use these processes and trends to cause maximum damage to Russia or, as they say, to “contain Russia.” Now, however, they say not to “contain,” but to “defeat,” otherwise our country would allegedly destroy Europe in three to four years.

The position of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, a citizen of Portugal, a member of the European Union and NATO, is evoking a great regret. He not only regularly and overtly abuses his powers and refuses (notwithstanding our repeated claims) to call things by their names and even assist in obtaining basic information. For example, this is the case with our repeated requests to invoke his authority so that we could be presented with a list of names of those whose corpses were shown by BBC journalists in Bucha in April 2022. Despite the fact that an investigation was announced, no one but us is now talking about any of its results any more. Still, we have yet to find out the names of the people, for whose lives and in memory of their sacrifices all that was conceived and another wave of sanctions was planned. I am not even talking about 2014. There is not any investigation to find who burnt 50 people alive in the Trade Unions House in Odessa. However, no investigation is necessary. All those people are recorded on video and the tapes should only be spelled out, and there is nothing else to talk about.

The resurgence of Nazism – and the manner in which it is perceived in the West (either turning a blind eye or actively encouraging it) – is deemed acceptable as long as it inflicts harm upon Russia (as they see it), whether physically “on the battlefield” or morally and politically, by undermining and attempting to erase from history the Great Victory over fascism, achieved primarily through the efforts and sacrifices of our people.

Consider the conduct of officials such as United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, who flagrantly violate Article 100 of the UN Charter – a provision mandating impartiality and restricting their functions to administrative matters. The leadership of UNESCO has followed suit, offering a brilliant example by declaring the centre of Odessa a World Heritage Site mere weeks after barbarians demolished the monument to Catherine the Great, the city’s founder under whose reign the entire region flourished, with cities, ports, and factories constructed. Another case is the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, whose Director-General Fernando Arias has capitulated to Western demands in blatant, egregious violations of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. This document explicitly requires consensus for any changes to the framework of cooperation – a principle now utterly disregarded.

Consensus, as an indispensable foundation for institutional functioning, is also a core principle of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Yet the OSCE Secretariat’s leadership – alongside chairpersons hailing from EU and NATO countries – routinely trample upon it. Finland, the current OSCE chair, is no exception, covertly preparing an event this August to mark the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. According to our information, closed-door meetings and exclusive gatherings are being orchestrated – with no intention of addressing how Western policies have led OSCE members astray. The Finns will later draft some concluding document and loudly proclaim their jubilee to the world. Yet the overwhelming disapproval of these Western revisionist tendencies was starkly evident in the participation of dozens of Global South leaders at this year’s May 9 Victory Day celebrations on Red Square.

I will not delve exhaustively into our specific approaches to resolving the Ukrainian crisis. President Vladimir Putin has once again articulated them in meticulous detail (they have never changed) during discussions at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

Unlike our position, the approaches of Western so-called leaders mutate incessantly, reflecting the failure of their initial designs. Recall how it began? “Russia must suffer a strategic defeat on the battlefield.” The rhetoric was shrill, hysterical. Then the slogan shifted: “Russia must not win in Ukraine.” Now they plead for an “immediate ceasefire without preconditions” – precisely what Vladimir Zelensky categorically rejected a couple of years ago, when he still operated under the mantra of “strategic battlefield defeat.” The fiasco of Western strategy and tactics is undeniable, yet Europe persists.

Two circumstances are particularly disquieting. Regarding NATO, we harboured no illusions. As for the EU – even before the coup in Ukraine – we consistently emphasised that Ukraine must adhere to the principles underpinning its independence, principles upon which we recognised its sovereignty. The President reiterated them: a non-aligned, neutral status and, consequently, a nuclear-free status, as enshrined in the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine. We have long maintained that NATO is an aggressive bloc whose sole raison d’être is to seek enemies. Having found Russia – after our country restored its rightful global standing in the early 2000s and 2010s – they now designate the Russian Federation as their common adversary, having fled Afghanistan.

We insist on Ukraine’s commitment to remain a non-aligned country being fully respected. Speaking of the European Union, it is, indeed, an economic association the purpose of which is to improve socioeconomic situation in European countries. We have nothing against that. A radical transformation of the European Union has taken place since and it is going on, whereby the EU continues to morph into an aggressive military-political bloc, essentially a branch, or rather an offshoot, of NATO. They signed an agreement with NATO a couple of years ago, under which NATO will have the right of way for their troops and equipment if they need to move eastward (such plans have been made public) through the territories of the countries that are not NATO members, but are EU members. That means they are directly involved in getting ready for a war against our country.

The position of Germany is of great concern. For some time now, it has been voting at the UN General Assembly alongside Italy and Japan against our annual resolution on combatting the glorification of Nazism. In addition, it has assumed the role of a leader in supporting the Nazi Kiev regime and flowing money and weapons into it. They have come up with an arrangement to produce weapons inside of Ukraine. Multiple unbiased columnists have cited facts showing that nothing of the kind will ever happen. Germany is using this as a front to supply weapons from Germany and other European countries directly to the Ukrainian armed forces claiming this is not support, not flooding Ukraine with weapons, but helping it develop its own production process. They come up and implement many such tricks.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made it clear immediately after taking office that making the German army the strongest European army was his priority. He uttered these words amid Germany becoming deeply involved in the Taurus missile-related controversy where he threatens to supply these missiles to Ukraine, even though they cannot be handled without the Bundeswehr military. Such rhetoric suggests that the ruling circles of modern-day Germany are oblivious of the dark chapters of their history, and time is ripe for them to come to their senses before it’s too late.

The West is not limited to containing Russia and behaves aggressively towards any manifestation of independent behaviour even within its own ranks. There are right-minded people in the EU and NATO. They are not pro-Russian, but they are saying they prefer to follow their national interests rather than what Ursula von der Leyen and other European Commission members come up with in Brussels. They are not elected officials and the commission’s membership is decided upon behind closed doors by heads of the EU countries’ national governments.

The fact that NATO is going beyond its traditional scope of responsibility and is trying to entrench itself in the Middle East, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Arctic is clearly fraught with risks. In the Asia-Pacific region, the West is vigorously advancing its Indo-Pacific strategies that openly seek to destroy the universal open security architecture that has been in the making for decades based on ASEAN-centric philosophy.

Forming a united anti-China front was openly stated by US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth at a recently held Shangri-La International Forum in Singapore.

Tensions are up in the Middle East following the military move by Israel and the United States against Iran, including its peaceful nuclear programme facilities. This constitutes gross violation of the UN Charter, the IAEA Charter, the UN and the IAEA resolutions which say that peaceful nuclear facilities are off-limits targets. The generally accepted norms of international law have similar stipulations.

Citing the right to self-defence cannot mislead anyone, because not a single fact, not even a single suspicion has been provided to back up the theory that Iran either attacked or was plotting an attack on Israel. International law does not condone the preemptive use of force against a country that has not attacked the country that wishes to use military force.

Continued destabilisation of the Middle East and the use of political assassinations to eliminate military leaders and researchers are fraught with major threats to global security and the global economy, and especially to the non-proliferation regime.

The overall situation is worrisome, but we strive, as Yevgeny Primakov instructed us and as our Chinese friends advise us, to use crises as an opportunity to move forward. In light of the fact that NATO is targeting the whole of Eurasia and the Far East, and its ambitions cover every bit of space all the way to the Pacific, we believe it is important to start looking for new ways forward and new forms of Eurasian security architecture which will replace the hopelessly bankrupt Euro-Atlantic paradigms.

The architecture we are discussing must include all, without exception, Eurasian countries and associations. Africa has the African Union along with numerous sub-regional integration entities, Latin America has CELAC along with sub-regional integration organisations, whereas Eurasia, which is the largest, wealthiest and most promising continent which gave rise to many great civilisations that have remained intact to this day, has only isolated integration processes, but no unifying pan-continental forum as do Africa or Latin America. Concepts that rely on Euro-Atlantic principles such as NATO have lost every bit of credibility. The European Union is also there, considering that it is now essentially at the heel of NATO and the OSCE, which is also a Euro-Atlantic entity. When the Helsinki Conference was being planned, the Soviet Union argued that the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe should bring together countries from the Atlantic to the Urals, speaking in general terms. European participants insisted on bringing our North American colleagues aboard, too. They became members, and have since then imposed their terms on their allies, NATO, above all.

Security on the Eurasian continent benefits from Russia-China relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction. They are a model for cooperation between great powers and constitute an important stabilisation factor on the international stage. The personal diplomacy of our respective leaders, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, is of paramount importance.

The Russian-Belarusian strategic partnership and alliance positively impacts the international situation. The Treaty on Security Guarantees within the Union State was recently concluded between our two countries. We are supportive of the Belarus’ initiative to hold an annual conference on Eurasian security in Minsk. In conjunction with our Belarusian colleagues, we are promoting the project of the Eurasian Charter for Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. The Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is also part of these efforts and lends stability to Northeast Asia, as well as Eurasia and the Pacific.

The importance and the potential of a particularly privileged strategic partnership with India are quite notable. Yevgeny Primakov’s legacy features prominently in this regard. Many years ago, he initiated the formation of a bureaucracy-free troika named RIC (Russia, India, and China). It has met several times over the past years. Our meetings have been on pause for a while, first, because of the pandemic, and later because of the escalation on the India-China border. Reportedly, the situation is getting better, and we expect RIC to resume its work soon.

Yevgeny Primakov believed that making international economic ties more democratic and refraining from their politicisation was a prerequisite for the development of a multipolar world. However, the West is using illegal unilateral sanctions, which increasingly become the harbinger of a military attack, as this has happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya and is now happening in Iran, as well as the instruments of unfair competition, initiating tariff wars, seizing other countries’ sovereign assets and taking advantage of the role of their currencies and payment systems. The West itself has actually buried the globalisation model, which it developed after the Cold War to promote its interests.

Russia and other like-minded states are actively working to establish foreign trade mechanisms the West will be unable to control, such as transport corridors. alternative payment systems and supply chains. This process was discussed at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, and that is what BRICS, the SCO and CELAC countries are doing. President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has put forth his views on this matter. The African Union is considering it as well. Overall, while proclaiming a desire for Eurasia to take a firmer stand in the global economy and to make use of the numerous advantages given to it by God and history, including transit routes and natural resources, we also encourage the development of ties between the organisations that have been created and are working on this continent, including in the economy. These organisations are the EAEU, ASEAN, SCO and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). There is also the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and the five Central Asian states are also an integral part of this space.

All these integration projects can easily be aligned with China’s major Belt and Road Initiative. We are encouraging contacts between these organisations and the harmonisation of their programmes as a way towards what President Vladimir Putin has described as Greater Eurasian Partnership.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Yevgeny Primakov always believed that differences between global players, especially the leading countries that bear special responsibility for international security, must not be allowed to hinder dialogue and joint work.

We wholeheartedly support this recommendation of our great predecessor. Despite the deep differences between Moscow and Washington, we have supported the proposal, which the Trump administration issued after assuming office, to resume our dialogue without any preconditions and to launch a professional and concrete discussion of ways to normalise our bilateral relations without propaganda and politicisation.

It is not an easy process, especially against the backdrop of the situation on the global stage. It may take long, but if both sides persist and demonstrate responsibility for the future of the world, it will benefit humanity as a whole, including in terms of holding discussions to prevent the crises the likes of which we are now witnessing.

Europe, which is fomenting yet another big war, has little to offer due to its marginalisation in international affairs. We can see this happening too. The EU can hardly be regarded as a major pole in the objectively rising multipolar world. However, we are ready – under any circumstances, as President Putin said – to honestly search for a balance of interests with those who are ready to act honestly and on equal terms. We will do this wherever possible.

As for those who have cut relations with us to the detriment of their nations, suffering huge financial and reputation losses as a result, we will wait for them to come and make their offer to us when they stop acting impudently and realise their mistakes. We will make decisions depending on our interests.

Question: An armistice should have come into effect in the Middle East four and a half hours ago. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and you met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. What scenarios do you envisage? Do you believe that this armistice will set in?  What are your estimates in this regard?

Sergey Lavrov: The estimates came from, among others, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and your humble servant.

Our position is simple. What is most important, as Vladimir Putin emphasised during his meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi yesterday, is that our proposals on how to settle this crisis were submitted rather long ago. This was done during confidential contacts with the US, Israeli and Iranian sides, including in the course of conversations at the supreme level. Both Washington, and West Jerusalem, and Tehran reacted positively. But nothing was forthcoming in practical terms to implement the ideas that have been put forward.

Right now, we do not want to recapitulate them point by point, but I can say that they were aimed at overcoming the main obstacle – the desire of the US and Israel to reach an agreement by violating the fundamental right of Iran, as for that matter any other country, to uranium enrichment in the context of efforts to implement peaceful nuclear programmes. We proposed a solution that seemed realistic to us.

Yesterday, President of Russia Vladimir Putin reiterated that we were still ready [to join the process], if the parties involved were directly interested and asked us to participate.   He stressed in particular that we were in no way intruding our mediating services.

As for the avalanche of statements issuing from Washington, West Jerusalem, and Tehran since  one am today, it is hard to draw any final conclusion at this point or get a clear picture.  US President Donald Trump, for one, declared that there was an agreement on a “forever” peace. The Americans reportedly convinced Israel to accept a ceasefire and an indefinite truce. The same was done by our Qatari friends in respect of Tehran.

We would only welcome this agreement, if it really exists. But there were reports about an exchange of strikes between Israel and Iran in the wake of the announcement. Let us not jump to hasty conclusions based on piecemeal information. But we are definitely for peace.

To be continued...