The meeting of the G-20 Foreign Ministers, proposed by the Indonesian Presidency, is
devoted to two major themes.
The first topic is the crisis of multilateralism and the need to do everything to overcome
it and return to the principles that are laid down in the UN Charter.
First of all, it is the sovereign equality of states and the solution of all problems
on the basis of agreements.
During the second meeting, the situation in the field of food and energy security was
discussed.
Our position on these two issues is well known.
We presented it.
There is nothing to say about multilateralism.
There is the UN Charter, and there are Western concepts that are aimed at undermining the
UN Charter, which are called the rules-based world order.
Nobody saw these rules, nobody showed them.
We drew attention to this and called for a return to the origins of international law.
We have given examples of the harmful effects of Western rules, which are, in fact, adventures
for a world order that should be based on the Charter of the United Nations.
With regard to food and energy security.
In great detail and in accordance with the explanations that President Putin repeatedly
gave in his speeches, we showed the origins of these crises, which did not begin today,
not in February, and not even last year.
They were the result of an adventurous, ill-conceived and erroneous policy of the West.
Including the accelerated introduction of the so-called green transformation.
Including artificial interference in the mechanisms of regulation of demand and consumption.
It is the intervention of the very market forces that the West has lauded for years.
And, we have shown our readiness to fulfill all the obligations of the Russian Federation
for the supply of cheap, affordable energy, hydrocarbons, oil and gas.
Although, this is precisely what the United States is actively opposing, forcing Europe
and the rest of the world to abandon these available energy sources and switch to resources
of a much higher cost.
And, secondly, with regard to food, there are no obstacles on our part for this problem
to be solved with the help of good stocks of our grains.
But the West, with its unilateral restrictions, has created problems for insuring our ships,
for their calls to ports, for making financial payments for food supplies.
We have drawn attention to all this, including the situation that is now developing in the
Black Sea.
If the West so wants to take Ukrainian grain out of there, then all that is needed is to
force Kyiv to clear the Black Sea ports of mines and allow ships to pass through the
territorial waters of Ukraine.
And on the high seas, Russia, with the help of Turkey, is ready to ensure the safety of
such convoys to the Bosporus and then to the Mediterranean Sea to the buyers' markets.
But, the trouble is that Western colleagues really want to create some kind of international
monitoring mechanism for this process, clearly striving to make this mechanism with the participation
of their NATO naval forces.
London spoke about this not so long ago.
And we perfectly understand their intentions.
And, in general, as we have repeatedly explained, the crisis that the West makes the number
one news in every way in discussions in the international arena, and which is associated
with Ukrainian grain, this grain is supposedly absolutely necessary in order to solve the
food problem.
The statistics show very accurately that the volume of grain that is now locked up in Ukrainian
ports is less than 1 percent of the world's production.
Therefore, this does not have a real impact on food security.
And all that is required is for the West to stop artificially blocking our grain deliveries
to those countries that have concluded contracts with us.
Well, that's about it.
And of course, during the discussions, Western partners moved away from following the G-20
agenda in order to deal with issues of the global economy.
To reach agreements so that within the framework of the UN it would be possible to reach decisions
related to sustainable development.
As soon as they took the floor, almost immediately they switched to frantic criticism of the
Russian Federation in connection with the situation in Ukraine.
Russia is the aggressor.
Russia is the invaders.
Russia is an occupier.
We heard a lot today.
Well, we were all called upon to stop this military operation and reach a peaceful settlement.
I took the liberty of reminding our Western colleagues what they have been saying in all
the previous months.
And, I asked them to decide what they still want.
If we are talking about the beginning of peace negotiations, then these negotiations were
stopped by Ukraine.
By the way, the well-known economist and political scientist Jeffrey Sachs, speaking at the beginning
of the meeting via video link, in his opening address clearly said that it is a pity that
Ukraine, having proposed negotiations at the beginning, subsequently refused them.
This is an objective statement.
And if the West wants to negotiate, then it should keep this in mind.
If the West wants not negotiations, but the victory of Ukraine over Russia on the battlefield,
because both statements are heard, some are for negotiations, and some are for a military
victory, then, probably, we should talk with the West about nothing.
Because with such approaches, the West does not allow Ukraine to move on to the peace
process.
They are forcing Ukraine to accept Western weapons and use these weapons to bomb cities,
to destroy the civilian population.
We see this, in fact, every day.
Of course, we cannot accept this.
This duality of the West shows that the main thing for them is ideology, and not concern
for Ukraine and its citizens, or for European security in general.
But, despite everything that I just talked about, despite the behavior of our Western
colleagues, who, by the way, were practically not supported in such a fervor by the G-20
participants from developing countries, despite everything, it was a useful discussion.
It allowed us to ask extremely hard-hitting questions to our Western colleagues.
They don't have answers to these questions.
There is only rabid Russophobia, which they substitute for the need to agree on the main
issues of the world economy and finance, for the solution of which, in fact, the G-20 was
created.
We have heard many calls for a boycott of the G-20, and it is clear that they did not
take place.
These calls were constant, and even Anthony Blinkin said that he did not want to be photographed
with you.
In your opinion, how acceptable is a boycott in diplomacy in modern conditions?
And one more question about Shinzo Abe, terrible news is coming from Japan.
You know him well.
What is behind this assassination?
I don't know what's behind this assassination.
I learned about this during the G-20 meeting.
I was the first to begin my speech by expressing condolences to my Japanese colleague in connection
with what happened.
But there will probably be an investigation.
I have nothing more to add.
As for meetings with me and statements that they would not be photographed with me, I
did not invite anyone to be photographed.
I didn't invite anyone at all.
Indonesia invited me.
Also, Indonesia invited President Putin to the summit in November.
That's all.
But, as for their presence or absence in the hall, everyone was in the hall when the meeting
began.
I did not consider it necessary to make any gestures, to organize shaming.
We didn't boycott anyone.
I listened.
It was interesting for me to understand what the West breathes today.
Although, it was possible to get this impression from the previous statements of Western colleagues.
But the fact that they did not use the G-20 for the purposes for which it was created
is obvious.
Yesterday, the Indonesian side organized a welcome reception with a concert.
Western colleagues did not come there.
This is their desire.
It is their understanding of protocol, courtesy and ethics.
I believe that everything is going as we expected.
But I'm sure they heard us.
How would you comment on the news that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is resigning?
He has repeatedly stated that he will decide on this only if he realizes that the government
of his country is not doing its job.
Also, one of the possible reasons for his departure, he called the unwillingness of
the Cabinet of Ministers to help the Ukrainian people.
I don't even feel like commenting on it.
Because Boris Johnson, with all his activities as prime minister and as minister of foreign
affairs, proved that he is the person who is chasing, first of all, external effects.
He held on to power in order to raise his political career in every possible way.
And in many ways over the past couple of years, the UK has been deploying such an aggressive
policy towards the Russian Federation, using the events in Ukraine as a pretext.
They did their best to cover up the regime that had taken shape in Kyiv under Western
curators.
This is an openly misanthropic regime.
The regime is largely neo-Nazi.
And this activity of Great Britain increased sharply after Boris Johnson withdrew the country
from the European Union, and it found itself, as it were, on the margins of European politics.
Now, in recent months, London has been actively trying to create a new alliance Great Britain
- Poland - the Baltic States - Ukraine in order to have such a British foothold on the
continent and promote its policy, which, for sure, will not always take into account the
interests of the European Union as a whole.
He left, okay.
See, everyone was saying to isolate Russia, but for now, his own party has isolated Boris
Johnson.
The question of the negotiations in Istanbul on grain.
Do you know when they will take place?
At what level will they be held, at the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or at the
level of the Ministry of Defense?
We are ready for negotiations with our Ukrainian and Turkish colleagues.
We have all the solutions that I just mentioned.
If we are talking about Ukrainian grain, then Kyiv must unblock and clear its ports or ensure
safe passage through minefields.
And already outside the territorial sea of Ukraine, Russia and Turkey are ready to ensure
the safety of the respective ships and bring them to the straits.
And, further already in the Mediterranean Sea, they will go on their own.
The military plays a major role in this.
Because everything I said involves the use of naval forces.
When negotiations will continue, I cannot say.
I haven't been to Moscow for several days.
But, I can confirm that we are always ready.
We have been declaring safe corridors from the territorial sea of Ukraine to the Bosphorus
for two months already.
The UN Secretary General is also trying to play his role in this matter.
He came to Moscow, he sent his representatives to us.
A special working group was created under the leadership of First Deputy Prime Minister
Andrey Belousov.
The UN representatives received a memorandum from us clearly describing how this scheme
can be organized.
When they are ready to answer, of course, we will listen to what they have
to say.