Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions following the BRICS summit, Rio de Janeiro, July 7, 2025

Ladies and gentlemen,

We have completed our work at the 17th BIRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro.

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, our Brazilian friends who worked with his team at this event for the wonderful organisation of the summit and the traditional hospitality at the meeting that brought together multiple countries from the Global South and East.

Brazilian hosts managed to ensure magnificent intra-BRICS collaboration. In 2024, the Russian Federation chaired BRICS, and everyone thought the summit in Kazan was quite successful. I am confident that similar assessments will be voiced with regard to our Brazilian friends following the summit, now ending in Rio de Janeiro.

Apart from BRICS full members, the summit involved partner states for the first time. I would like to remind you that this category was instituted following the Kazan summit on October 22-24, 2024. These countries include Belarus, Bolivia, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan. Apart from partner countries, represented in this capacity at the summit, the Brazilian chairmanship invited a number of heads of state and government from the Global South and East countries to take part in some sessions. Everyone was able to see a list of participants in meetings in the BRICS+ and BRICS Outreach format.

Additionally, the heads of UN, WHO and WTO secretariats, as well as the management of multilateral banks (the New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Development Bank of Latin American and the Caribbean) were invited and addressed the relevant sessions.

Speaking of summit results and documents that were adopted, BRICS countries and their like-mined partners agreed that it is impossible to address numerous contemporary issues without heeding the positions of the Global South and East countries, or the Global Majority.

In this context, everyone noted the role of BRICS as a platform for coordinating the interests of leading countries, the above-mentioned Global Majority, as a key pillar of multipolarity that is objectively replacing the globalisation system which is becoming a thing of the past.

Addressing the BRICS summit via videoconference, President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that the old-time system primarily catered to the interests of the Golden Billion. This era is receding into the past. Everyone prioritises principles being promoted by BRICS as a foundation of a truly multilateral, equitable and mutually beneficial cooperation between all countries. 

Russia voices coinciding positions on key international issues. The first plenary session was devoted to this aspect. The participants reaffirmed their common commitment to facilitating the creation of a more equitable, stable and polycentric world order relying on the principles of the UN Charter that should not be used selectively. When undertaking another venture on the international stage, our Western colleagues randomly choose provisions that suit them best at the moment, and use them to justify their actions. It is necessary to apply the principles of the UN Charter just like it was written by the founding fathers and how it was approved and ratified – in all entirety of the main provisions and their interdependence.

A report on the concluding meetings of the BRICS high representatives for security issues has been presented to the BRICS leaders.

Regarding specific aspects of the international agenda, the participants unanimously affirmed that the Israeli and US strikes at Iranian territory were unacceptable and constituted violations of international law, the UN Charter, and IAEA agreements.

In the final Declaration adopted at the conclusion of the first day of meetings, all BRICS states spoke in favour of ceasing all aggression not only against Iran but also in the Gaza Strip, where the humanitarian situation has reached catastrophic levels.

There is a shared impression that Israel’s representatives and military intend to pursue similar actions not only in Gaza but also in the West Bank, which seriously jeopardises the prospects of establishing a Palestinian state. All BRICS states supported the implementation of UN resolutions on a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. We will take all necessary action to ensure these resolutions are not disregarded.

Many participants articulated their positions on the situation in Ukraine both in the Declaration and in their remarks. All speakers maintained balanced and objective stances, demonstrating deeper understanding of the root causes of this crisis — in particular, the security threats to Russia that the West had cultivated for many years, including NATO’s eastward expansion with an explicit objective of absorbing Ukraine and establishing a NATO military machine directly along our borders. However, it is equally critical to ensure that all decisions adopted by the Kiev regime after the 2014 state coup be nullified, as these policies were designed to eradicate everything Russian through legislative means, including the Russian language, education, the media, and culture. Groundwork has been laid recently for banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The comprehensive approach to global governance reform received particular emphasis, especially regarding the long-delayed reforms of the Bretton Woods institutions, to better reflect the actual weight of Global Majority nations in the world economy. In a unified position, the BRICS countries reiterated their call for accelerated reforms to the IMF’s quota and voting power allocation system.

We emphasised the importance of ensuring that during the reforms, the IMF discontinues certain practices employed within the World Bank group — specifically, the financing of Western-aligned proxy regimes. This practice has been especially evident in the case of Ukraine. The funding allocated through the Bretton Woods institutions in recent years has significantly surpassed the total financial assistance provided to all African countries combined. This is a disgraceful tactic for both the IMF and the World Bank.

Significant attention has been devoted to the reform of the World Health Organisation. WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom provided insights into the ongoing reform that aims to enhance the efficiency of the Secretariat and reduce bureaucratic procedures. We have noted the necessity of protecting the WHO from politisation, as its fundamental responsibility is ensuring epidemiological security and combating communicable and non-communicable diseases.

The session documents and discussions reflect environmental objectives, including in the context of preparations for the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), scheduled for November 10–21, 2025, in Belem, Brazil. It will be the 30th conference. It is of paramount importance that all parties achieved consensus on preventing unilateral dictates in climate change policy and national strategies. Western nations continue vigorous attempts to convince developing countries to allocate increasingly more resources toward green transition programmes while disregarding their own interests in socioeconomic development.

Interstate dialogue is facilitated through such bodies as the New Development Bank, the BRICS Business Council, the BRICS Women’s Business Alliance, and the BRICS Civil Council. All high-level officials delivered statements during this summit highlighting sectoral progress. These mechanisms serve as valuable instruments. Participants recognised their role in strengthening collaboration among our countries in finance, the economy, humanitarian and cultural affairs.

We highly praise the accomplishments by BRICS throughout this year. These achievements extend beyond the summit itself and also include dozens of sectoral events spanning economic cooperation, cultural exchanges, technological development, and artificial intelligence.

Regarding artificial intelligence, a statement has been adopted underscoring the imperative to develop mechanisms for AI governance exclusively within the universal formats under United Nations auspices. This approach stands in contrast to restricted consultations among non-transparent compositions of participants selected based on their willingness to obey their seniors.

During the summit, a new BRICS partnership was announced, aimed at combating socially significant diseases. This represents one of the specific contributions by the Brazilian Chairmanship that enriches this group’s agenda. I am confident this initiative will bring further positive outcomes.

The progress achieved by BRICS in relation to AI and public health cooperation will be promoted through relevant international platforms, including the WHO and the UN.

The Brazilian Chairmanship’s programme will continue through 2025 with a schedule of expert and ministerial-level events. For example, there will be meetings for Supreme Court justices, tax administration and customs authority leaders of the BRICS nations.

On January 1, 2026, India will assume the BRICS Chairmanship. During the meeting with my Indian counterpart, we reviewed the programme currently in development in New Delhi. We consider these plans particularly promising, as they will ensure continuity between the work undertaken in 2024, 2025 and the upcoming year.

Question: How would you assess the new BRICS summit format, which now actively involves partner countries?

Sergey Lavrov: This format is relatively new in that several invited nations have been granted the status of partner countries. Their key distinction from traditional guests lies in their permanent participation in all BRICS activities – not only summits and ministerial meetings, but also in most sectoral formats concerning various aspects of economic cooperation and humanitarian issues. That said, the inclusion of a large number of participants is not without precedent in BRICS. Previously, these countries participated in the BRICS Plus and BRICS Outreach formats, or as invitees under the presiding country’s chairmanship.

I recall that at the 2023 BRICS summit in Johannesburg, heads of state and government from all African Union member states were invited to participate. While not all attended, over 50 countries were present. In terms of managing such a large forum, there are precedents. However, the fundamentally new aspect of the participation of the ten nations designated as partner countries at the Kazan summit represents a significant step forward in strengthening our group. Further efforts will be required to integrate them fully into the day-to-day affairs of BRICS.

Question: Western media began asserting, even before the summit, that BRICS was losing momentum, claiming that its expansion had “diluted” the group’s ability to act as a united front. They also suggested that President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping refrained from attending for this reason. What is your assessment?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe they are projecting their own concerns because, before their eyes, we have seen the expansion of NATO – a process that has benefitted no one, including the members of the alliance themselves. Divisions within NATO are deepening, with murmurs of dissent growing louder. An increasing number of countries now seek to act according to their national interests, rather than under ideological imperatives imposed by a master.

BRICS has never faced such risks, and there is no threat to the cohesion of our group. Our organisation has always been founded on principles of equality, mutual respect, and consensus – a consensus that reflects a true balance of interests, rather than one dictated by an “big brother.” Therefore, I cannot agree with efforts to artificially present BRICS as an organisation whose purpose is being exhausted. On the contrary, its potential is only just beginning to be realised.

Significant attention was devoted to the reform of global governance mechanisms. I have already mentioned the discussions on reforming the IMF, the World Bank, and the WTO during this summit.

In comparison to previous years, an unusually strong emphasis was placed on reforming the United Nations. Predictably, the reform of the Security Council attracted the most attention. The text that was agreed upon reaffirms the need for expansion by addressing the underrepresentation of Asia, Africa, and Latin America – not the West, which already holds more seats than it is entitled to, given the global balance of power. For the first time, the reform of the UN Secretariat has been given detailed consideration. The text explicitly criticises the overrepresentation of Western nationals in leadership positions within the Secretariat. I cited the example of the UN’s senior management: among the many Under-Secretary-General posts, the key positions – those that shape the Secretariat’s operations and thus influence the agenda – are all held by NATO members. Secretary-General António Guterres (Portugal) is supported by a US national overseeing political affairs, a French citizen leading peacekeeping, and a British subject in charge of humanitarian issues. There is also a First Deputy Secretary-General – a Nigerian national who simultaneously holds US citizenship.

Mr Guterres is now advancing his UN-80 concept, which builds upon last session’s General Assembly resolution on development. This outlines concrete steps for Secretariat reform, which demand rigorous scrutiny. Yet, oversight of this process has been entrusted to a newly created Deputy Secretary-General position – unsurprisingly, filled by a British national.

This imbalance is glaring, and efforts such as the UN-80 initiative risk sidelining intergovernmental bodies like the General Assembly in favour of backroom decision-making that serves the narrow interests of specific groups of countries. Russia, together with like-minded nations in New York, has tabled a resolution urging the safeguarding of intergovernmental bodies from attempts to bypass them when addressing matters critical to the future of the UN.

Question: You have held a bilateral meeting with your Iranian counterpart. Does Tehran intend to resume contacts with the IAEA, and in what format? Is Russia ready to assist in mediation?

Sergey Lavrov: Are you asking in what format talks between Iran and the IAEA could potentially resume? That would be within the established Iran-IAEA framework.

From my perspective, the first step should come from the IAEA leadership, which must demonstrate accountability for the assessments it issued and presented to the IAEA Board of Governors just days before the recent escalation. These assessments have been widely regarded as ambiguous, especially when compared to previous Secretariat reports. They appear open to interpretation, suggesting that Iran is not acting in good faith regarding its obligations. As you know, three Western countries (France, the UK, and Germany) were quick to seize upon these assessments and introduce a resolution at the UN Security Council that was sharply critical of Iran.

A day or two later, Israel launched strikes on civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. This created a clear and troubling sequence of events in which the IAEA Secretariat, willingly or not, played a notable role. This is why we believe the Secretariat must now offer assurances that it will strictly adhere to its mandate in the future, avoiding any statements or reports that could be politicised or used to advance unilateral agendas.

As for Russia, we are not talking about mediation. President Vladimir Putin recalled that, when the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on Iran’s nuclear programme was agreed, Russia’s possible role was considered, particularly in depleting the enriched uranium stockpiles accumulated by Iran prior to the agreement, rendering them suitable for peaceful energy use in nuclear power plants. In the years since the US unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA, Iran has not been bound by its earlier enrichment limitations, but now that is the subject of renewed discussions. You have just reminded us that we have the necessary technological solutions. We are ready to provide them, including processing Iran’s surplus highly enriched uranium in Russia and returning it to Iran in a form suitable for energy purposes.

Of course, this would happen if both parties are comfortable with Russia helping to bridge the gap. At present, the US is showing an interest in resuming dialogue with Iran, with support from Oman and several other Gulf states.

It is worth noting that the JCPOA was the result of multilateral diplomacy involving not only the US, but also European partners, Russia, and China, and it was widely welcomed by the international community before its collapse. Should Tehran – its central party – express a desire to move forward, Russia would have no objections to contributing to the mediation effort.

Question: Before his inauguration, Donald Trump threatened to impose a 100 percent tariffs on BRICS countries if they moved ahead with their own currency. And now he threatens to impose an additional 10 percent tariff  on any country that aligns itself with “the anti-American policies of BRICS.” Will BRICS have its own currency? What about Trump? How would you respond to his statements?

Sergey Lavrov: It is a strange question. US President Trump makes no secret of his goals. He is protecting US interests, primarily economic ones, in the spheres of investment and trade.

This is yet another proof of the end of the globalisation model which the United States has been promoting for years in the neo-liberal context, and which we accepted for some time.

However, the creation of our own currency within BRICS has never been considered with regard to payments. The first impetus towards creating alternative payments platforms was given at the Johannesburg summit. President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva advanced that initiative there. Brazil’s proposals were quite extensive. It proposed complementing the declaration with a description of concrete forms of  operation of alternative payments. But it was ultimately decided to instruct the central banks and finance ministries to draft proposals on platforms for making settlements through a system of mutual payments that won’t depend on the dollar, because the Democratic US administration was taking unacceptable advantage of the dollar’s place in the global economy and finance. It is for a reason that before his inauguration President Donald Trump openly accused Joe Biden and his administration of undermining the role of the dollar for years to come. They will now have to take into account the fact that trust in the dollar has plummeted.

This is a fact. We have been told for a long time, probably for the past 30 years or longer, that the dollar is not American property but a global asset that ensures the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the global economy, and that US guarantees should be clear and acceptable to everyone. Nobody knows who will be punished, when or for what. I could provide many examples, but I won’t do it now.  Even those who were almost regarded as US allies can’t feel safe.

We didn’t discuss our own currency at BRICS. As I have said, we discussed  increasing the role of national currencies. This process is already underway in practice. Second, we talked about a new investment platform and a cross-border payments initiative. Taken together, they offer a set of opportunities to avoid dependence on the dollar and also the euro. During his address to the first session in Rio de Janeiro, President Vladimir Putin mentioned the figure 90 percent, which is the share of national currencies used in mutual transactions with BRICS countries and partner states. I regard this as a good guarantee. This process is also developing in relations with other countries. This is the result of actions taken to punish countries, in this case the Russian Federation, and to destroy the fundamental principles of international trade and international investments, including the inviolability of property, the presumption of innocence and honest competition. All these principles have been thrown away, and we are now witnessing the fragmentation of the organisations that were created according to US patterns during the age of globalisation and pleased everyone until the United States started misusing them.

Question: It is the first time that the final declaration of the BRICS summit has firmly condemned attacks on Russian civilian infrastructure and mentioned civilian casualties, including children. This is unprecedented for such a multifaceted association. Can this be interpreted as the BRICS countries’ unanimity on this issue and the development of new international consensus regarding the inadmissibility of attacks on civilian facilities? Will Russia use this declaration as the basis for initiating investigation into these attacks at the UN or other international organisations?

Sergey Lavrov: Of course, if this concerns a declaration that has been approved by the heads of state. It translates as the BRICS countries’ unanimity but not with regard to creating new consensus regarding the inadmissibility of attacks on civilian facilities. Such strikes have long been prohibited in many international conventions, primarily the 1949 Geneva Conventions and subsequent documents. This not only concerns civilian facilities but also civilians, especially children. Therefore, such statements should not be regarded as something extraordinary. This is just another evidence of our commitment to the principles which the international community has approved by consensus and which the West openly disregards. Those who enjoy Western patronage get off scot-free, in particular the Kiev regime.

It is absolutely outrageous that attacks deliberately targeted a perfectly civilian railway infrastructure and perfectly civilian trains using it. These attacks must be condemned, and turning a blind eye on that is unacceptable. However, this is exactly what the representatives of various UN bodies tried to do when we drew their attention to that issue, and officials from the UN Human Rights Council and the OSCE acted likewise.

As for investigating these attacks and calling the culprits to account, we have not added this issue to the international agenda. We are investigating them at the level of the Prosecutor General’s Office and public organisations. We regularly publish the results of such actions and circulate them at the UN and in European international organisations. We will continue with this work. Nobody will escape punishment.

Question: President Trump suggested imposing high tariffs on BRICS countries. How might this impact Russia’s proposal for BRICS to develop an alternative financial system? And what is Russia’s view on the Brazilian decision to decelerate the discussions on these payment platforms and means, and a common currency for international trade?

In the Final Declaration, the BRICS nations issued a strong condemnation of the explosions on Russian territory. How could BRICS’s stance spoil the mediation proposal from Brazil and China?

Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the first question, there is no such thing as a Russian initiative.

As I mentioned, answering one of the previous questions, the emphasis on developing alternative payment platforms and mechanisms was first made in the declaration of the summit in Johannesburg at the proposal of President Lula.  He wanted a much more active work on these issues. Eventually, it was decided just to authorise the Central Banks and the ministries of finance to present recommendations on alternative payment platforms for the future summits, and that is what we have been considering. It is not something that only Russia is interested in.

President Lula, by the way, is promoting similar initiatives in the context of CELAC, and we know this. In CELAC, the discussions are much closer to the concept of a currency than in the context of BRICS. And this is understandable because CELAC is a geographically coherent structure. So, frankly, we do not see that there is some kind of deceleration. Not at all. And the statistics reported to the leaders show that the amount of deals which are serviced without using the dollar is growing. The percentage of these deals in the context of overall trade is growing. As regards Brazil and China…

Question: BRICS nations issued a strong condemnation of the explosions on Russian territory.

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, they were condemned. I was just referring to this.

Question: How might this spoil the Brazilian-Chinese proposal for mediation with Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: You mean the condemnation of the bombing of the civilian infrastructure?

Question: I mean that they have put a six-point proposal on the table for ceasefire mediation. The Final Declaration might spoil these proposals.

Sergey Lavrov: I do not understand how a position of principle in defence of international conventions prohibiting attacks against civilian infrastructure and peaceful citizens can spoil any initiative with good intentions.

We discussed with our Brazilian and Chinese colleagues the evolution of the Brazil-China initiative. We noticed, for example, that at one of the meetings of the Group of Friends, created by China and Brazil, which met in New York in March, France and Switzerland participated unexpectedly. France, of course, is one of, if not the most fervent country in the front row attacking the Russian Federation, insisting on continuing to pump weapons into Ukraine.

So, the Chinese-Brazilian initiative was valuable from the very beginning because they said: “We want a neutral objective consideration.” And this would be a counter-balance to the unilateral initiatives which Ukrainians are promoting together with their Western masters, including the so-called Burgenstock Process and Zelensky’s peace formula. I think it would be to the benefit of the Group of Friends of Peace in Ukraine to keep its principles as you referred to in this paper which was circulated.

Since we touched on this situation, Ukraine is the only country where a language, especially an official UN language, is prohibited in all areas of life. Education, media, cultural events, and so on and so forth. After the coup took place in Ukraine in 2014, the Russian language has been persistently exterminated by law. No such example exists in any other part of the world where there are some conflicts, including Israel and Palestine. There is no other conflict in which this matter exists.

It is a gross violation of the UN Charter. I talked to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres today. He said yesterday that everybody must respect international law. And then he talked about the territorial integrity of Ukraine. But this territorial integrity principle means that nobody cares about the inherent rights of the people living on those territories. The Charter says: respect for human rights irrespective of race, gender, language or religion. The Russian language and the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine are prohibited by law.

I said, “Look, the West always teaches everybody about human rights, including you, us, China, Venezuela, everybody. They never use the words ‘human rights’ in relation to the situation in Ukraine.” On the contrary, President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen, High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas and others have been saying that Ukraine, fighting against Russia, defends European values. If European values are about cancelling a culture, it is back to Nazism. And, therefore, we do not expect the West to recognise the reality as regards the human rights violations in Ukraine.

Our friends in the Global South, who are interested in promoting their own initiatives, can be in the front of the fight for human rights not as the West wants but as the UN Charter requires.