Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks & answers following BRICS Summit in Johannesburg

by The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation [8-24-2023 published].

Ladies and gentlemen.

The BRICS Summit is over. President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin took part in the summit via videocall. I was instructed to represent our country here on site.

A news conference by our leaders took place on the results of the summit. All five leaders presented their opinions, starting with President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa, as the BRICS Chair in 2023. He announced the adoption of the final political declaration focusing on the decision to increase the number of full BRICS members by six states.

BRICS Plus is already underway. We have invited over 60 countries that are interested in developing relations with our association in the BRICS Plus/Outreach format and partner countries. This is a new format that was endorsed at the summit. Translating this agreement into a list of nominees for partner country status will be completed by the next summit to be held in Kazan in the autumn of 2024. The foreign ministers have been charged with continuing this work.

Question: The term “common account unit” is being mentioned increasingly often. President of Brazil Lula da Silva used it at a plenary session. Did you discuss at the summit any practical details for introducing this (possible time frame) and how it would function? Could this really become a quick alternative for a BRICS “common currency”?

Sergey Lavrov: Nobody is talking now about a “common currency.” At this point, all attention is focused on mutual trade, economic projects and investment. These things should be independent from the system controlled by the US and its Western allies. They should not depend on the dollar, euro or yen.

These countries have proven their ability to abuse their status of the issuer of reserve currencies in order to reach their goals in violation of all rules of a free market, international trade and the WTO.

The Five created another project called “the pool of reserve currencies” a long time ago after the establishment of the New Development Bank. This is a prelude to the steps that we are planning to take now to facilitate the use of national currencies, and, most importantly, to form an alternative payment system. The finance ministers and central bank governors of our countries have been charged with working out the details of this plan. They will set up a working group and prepare recommendations for the heads of state by the next summit in Kazan.

Question: How tough were the talks on expanding BRICS? Have you been able to agree on the criteria for accepting new countries into the group? Will BRICS change its name? How would you explain the fact that dozens of countries have been increasingly showing an interest in joining this association?

Sergey Lavrov: We had quite a lively discussion on this matter. I cannot say that there were no issues at all, but all the countries involved were committed to arriving at a decision on accepting new countries into our group.

Of course, we relied on the criteria and procedures as approved for our partner countries. The weight, prominence and importance of the candidates and their international standing were the primary factors for us. It is our shared view that we must recruit like-minded countries into our ranks that believe in a multipolar world order and the need for more democracy and justice in international relations. We need those who champion a bigger role for the Global South in global governance. Six countries whose accession was announced today fully meet these criteria. They will be able to fully contribute to our efforts within BRICS effective January 1, 2024. Let me remind you that these countries are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Argentina, Ethiopia, Iran, and Egypt. They all expressed their desire to join our group. Of the 23 applications we received, we reviewed six, and I have just listed them.

What caused this explosive expansion of BRICS? I believe that it stems from the fact that countries willing to forge closer ties with the five BRICS nations have a keen understanding of the deep-running international processes. They exposed the West in its relentless efforts to preserve its hegemony at any cost. And they understand all too well the causes which compel the West to pursue its objectives. In this case, it has been exploiting Ukraine to target the Russian Federation. All this was part of our discussions and conversations with the countries represented today at the meetings in Johannesburg. This hegemonism has a global span – that much is clear. Everyone understands that the United States is not out to punish Russia by relying on the Nazi regime, but to do away with any discordant voices or dissent on the international stage. This has been in plain view lately.

We are now in Africa. Just look at the way the Americans have been pressuring African countries by literally imposing their will on them. Last year, the United States adopted the Countering Malign Russian Activities in Africa Act. When the US House of Representative passed this act, but before it got to the Senate, Africans voiced their misgivings and spoke out against this kind of a boorish attitude towards them. The House is now thinking about changing the title. But the gist will remain unchanged. The United States adopted a Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa. This 17-page document mentions Russia and China seven times as the main obstacle to Africa’s prosperity. It may well be that it targets people who have no experience in this area, who do not understand or have enough knowledge of history. However, this is yet another insult for African countries. This amounts to denying them their sovereign right to choose their partners. The IMF and the World Bank held their meetings in autumn of 2022, offering US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen a rostrum for lecturing African countries. She had no qualms telling them that they must be mindful where they are getting their money from. This is what she said in plain English foregoing any attempts at diplomacy. At a recent intra-African event, President of Kenya William Ruto went on record saying that the Americans and their closest allies demand that African countries accept invitations to events which cater to the Western interests while refraining from attending those in which the Russian Federation takes part. This is all happening in plain view.

No decent country would tolerate this attitude. Many believe that they can hardly counter this kind of pressure on their own. They view the organisation as a group of allies forming the core of the multipolar world order which we must forge together in keeping with the objective global development trends.

Of course, BRICS is one of the leading and fundamental pillars in the foundation of a world order with better justice for all and rooted in the principles set forth in the UN Charter, especially now that this group has become even stronger and larger. I am referring to all the principles of the United Nations in their entirety and the way they interact as a single whole, rather than about their distorted interpretation by the West, including as it applies to the developments in Ukraine.

As for the name, everyone wants it to remain unchanged. It has become a brand of sorts. No one among the new countries joining the BRICS suggested anything else. I believe that everyone understands that leaving everything as it is right now would be the best option to emphasise continuity in our work.

Question: Representatives of the Global Majority have assembled in Johannesburg today. We can see how the interests of this majority, to put it mildly, do not tally with the agenda pursued by the collective West. What should happen to make the latter change their foreign policy and start manoeuvring towards common sense?

Did you discuss issues related to democratising the UN and, specifically, to reviving its central role in coordinating the interests of the member states during your meetings on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit?

Sergey Lavrov: It’s an extensive question that invites a lecture. I will try to give you a concise summary.

I can’t judge when the West will be prepared to see sense. The functionaries who are at the head of governments in the overwhelming majority of Western countries, are united in their determination to promote the US agenda under Washington’s guidance, including (as we see it in Europe) to the detriment of their own economies and citizens. It is an ideology-driven group of countries, which, as President Putin once put it, see themselves as inhabitants of the Heaven and are trying to replace our Lord God.

Occasionally we come in contact with people of this sort and talk to them behind the scenes, but we do not see even a glimmer of common sense there. “You should,” “you must…” Who do we owe or are obliged to? This is not the case where you can hope to bring your point of view across to an interlocutor via a dialogue and expect them at least to hear it.

We are always open to discussions, but we are not going to respond with calls for a discussion to arrogant ultimatums, blackmail and threats. If common sense fails to prevail… The Westerners say themselves that they must defeat Russia on the battlefield and inflict a strategic defeat on it. This is what they have in mind instead of common sense for now. This means we will work on that field – the battlefield, not the field of diplomacy or international law.

They are well aware of this but cannot say so in public. They are forbidden to do this. They know what we are fighting for there. As President Vladimir Putin said in his remarks at the BRICS Summit, [we are fighting for] our security, for the interests of people who want to speak Russian, teach their children in Russian, and use the benefits of Russian culture on the land where their ancestors lived for centuries. This is a thing that should be clear to everyone.

As for democratising the UN, we have long insisted on the need to reform the United Nations. Many novelties have been introduced over the past 15 years, including various commissions on peacebuilding (a new item on the agenda), on climate, on artificial intelligence and information technologies… A lot has been done. This helps the UN to adapt to the developments in the world, in science and technology.

The principal issue is how to reform the Security Council. It is this body that symbolises the UN in the eyes of most people. It possesses powers that no one else has, including the power to make decisions on war and peace, or on coercive measures like sanctions. While speaking about justice and democratisation, we must not put up with the fact that six out of 15 members of the UN Security Council represent the United States camp and obediently do the US bidding.

We discussed this matter yesterday and earlier today. The documents we have approved contain a paragraph confirming that the BRICS countries are committed to a Security Council reform to be carried out in the interests of expanding the representation of developing countries. They also mention India, Brazil and South Africa as the states whose active role in the UN we value and want to be strengthened at the UN Security Council.

This is the first time that BRICS documents state our support for the UN Security Council reform through expanding developing countries’ representation in all membership categories, including permanent membership.

We have again explained our position regarding the two other candidates for permanent seats. India and Brazil officially submitted their bids long ago. The same has been done by Germany and Japan. Together they form the so-called G4 nations. In the situational sense, their interests are identical. But conceptually there can be no question of Germany and Japan joining the Security Council on a permanent basis, thereby aggravating the bias. The Golden Billion is represented by over one-third of the current Security Council composition, while the remaining 7 billion are under-represented. Neither Germany, nor Japan will introduce anything new to discussions at the Security Council. They are obedient actors implementing Washington’s will, like the rest of Western countries. The infrequent invocations of the EU’s “strategic autonomy” are drowned by barked commands to keep the discipline and toe the line.

Today’s decision that was announced at the morning news conference would promote our coordination. As it is, BRICS regularly holds events at the UN. For example, the UN General Assembly will take place in September. Every year, we hold BRICS ministerial meetings there.

As the incoming BRICS Chair, we will not wait until January 1, 2024, and will start establishing contacts with the new members ahead of that date. We will show them the ropes so that the Eleven (a football team indeed!) are fully updated on the issues announced by the Russian Chairmanship.

Today, President of Russia Vladimir Putin described what we are going to do in 2024 to promote the decisions and results achieved under South Africa’s Chairmanship.

Question: Russia is taking over the BRICS chairmanship next year. You have already mentioned that the BRICS Summit will take place in Kazan. This year’s final declaration contains wishes of success to Russia. Are we ready for the summit? What can we expect from the Russian chairmanship? What does Russia want to achieve?

Sergey Lavrov: If you have been watching our lives for the past 20 years, you know that we are ready for anything.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin announced the priorities that we are going to promote. First, there are inherited responsibilities such as fulfilling the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership. There is a BRICS Action Plan for Innovation Cooperation for 2021-2024. The chairmanship will be responsible for ensuring that all projects under the chairmanship be implemented. As for the Action Plan for Innovation Cooperation, during the Covid pandemic, BRICS created bodies in charge of countering contagious diseases and established a joint virus research centre, and took other measures. Considering our leading role in this area, we will make public healthcare one of our priorities.

Second, the BRICS Business Council, the Women’s Business Alliance (established at Russia’s initiative) and the BRICS Youth Forum will continue, along with intensified contacts between scientists, cultural workers and teachers (the BRICS Network University). Several events for higher education institutions in the five countries (or 11 starting next year) are planned under the Russian chairmanship.

As concerns energy, there is a platform for energy research created at Russia’s initiative a long time ago. The platform is in operation, providing useful data. Now that major energy suppliers like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have decided to join BRICS, our cooperation in the energy sector will reach a completely new level and will become highly relevant. Good luck is something everybody needs. I can guarantee that we will have it.

Question: Some analysts and media outlets stated in the run-up to the summit that the expansion of BRICS would be Moscow and Beijing’s moral victory. The organisation’s total weight in the global economy and geopolitics is indeed going up. What can you say about Russia’s relative weight in BRICS in view of the fact that this summer, the BRICS New Development Bank has opted out of new investment projects in Russia due to sanctions?

Sergey Lavrov: Russia’s weight has nothing to do with the New Development Bank’s decisions although the decision to suspend the projects in Russia that were already approved was illegitimate. The bank’s former management overstepped their authority and distorted the statutory objectives set during the establishment of the New Development Bank.

The bank’s new president, Dilma Rousseff, fully understands the objectives according to the above-stated incorporation documents. These objectives are to develop banking relations and finance industrial and other projects in the interests of the bank’s member states, regardless of the artificial obstacles put up by international monetary bodies at the behest of the United States.

There is an agreement to begin constructive work on developing alternative payment systems, another contribution to ensuring the effective operation of the New Development Bank.

I would refrain from discussing anybody’s relative weight. After all, the relative weight of each country can be measured based on its UN membership: how much influence it has and how many representatives work in the Secretariat according to respective quotas.

The difference between BRICS and the G7 or other West-centric associations is that in those associations, everybody looks up to the United States. There may be small differences and some parties may try to push other decisions in addition to the strategic course determined by Washington – but the United States dictates the general course.

Our association takes a completely different approach. We had a very extensive discussion about this during our private meetings today and yesterday. There is the reason why, in response to the previous question, I spoke about the explosive interest in cooperating with BRICS and joining the group. These tendencies are the outcome of this approach. We operate in a different, more honest way: every participant is equal to the others. If somebody is not satisfied with a decision, there will be no consensus. If somebody feels uncomfortable, the other parties will do their best to come up with a wording or decision to ensure our unity. This is how we reach consensus instead of obeying the big boss. Consensus takes more time but agreements achieved through this process are significantly more stable, lasting and fruitful.

From what I read and saw on television before the summit, Western media, when they announced the opening of the summit, they referred to BRICS as an “economic club.” To a certain extent, economics plays an important role in the organisation, considering that the five member states are ahead of the G7 in terms of purchasing power parity, and with the addition of six new members, this gap will widen even more. We do a lot on the economy track. I have already laid out the plans for our central banks, and the ministries of finance, energy and transport.

One of the important initiatives put forward by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, prompted by the situation with supply chains and logistics infrastructure in general, is a promising project that is now gaining priority – the International North-South Transport Corridor. Together with the Northern Sea Route, it will be a game changer for the global economy and the states located in Eurasia in terms of growth rates. With the addition of the Middle East and the Gulf countries, the opportunities for the effective implementation of these logistics projects will only increase.

President Vladimir Putin has proposed creating a BRICS commission on transports. I think we will do this during our chairmanship. Similarly, everyone supported Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s proposal to create a space exploration commission. A very good initiative. We all congratulated our Indian friends on the successful docking of their lander in a place on the Moon where nothing made by humanity had ever touched its surface. Space is a promising area, as well as energy.

BRICS has a huge economic potential. But calling BRICS an economic club is trying to belittle its real significance. Its political declaration clearly states our demand for the democratisation of international relations, the enhancement of the role of the Global South in the global governance mechanisms. It asserts that we will abide by international law and the UN Charter in its entirety and the interrelated norms and principles contained therein.

We called for reforming the UN Security Council exclusively in favour of the developing countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Along with our determination to intensify the reform of the UN Security Council, the BRICS countries will also continue their coordinated activities to ensure a fairer order in the Bretton Woods institutions: the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organisation.

The expansion of BRICS is a rapid and extensive process. The decision to define an additional category of partners at the next stage is a result of the organisation’s approaches to international political problems and the vision of the future of international relations based on the promotion of objective multipolarity trends, where new centres of growth, financial and political influence would not simply blindly fulfil the Western “instructions,” would not follow the lead of countries that are unable to abandon their colonial habits and still seek to prosper at the expense of others.

Africans have been telling us, both at this meeting and at the Russia-Africa Summit in St Petersburg, that they did not want us to supply them with food; they asked for technologies – how to grow grain efficiently, and how to process it. The same applies to many other things.

President of Uganda Yoweri Museveni cited this example. The global coffee market is estimated at a little more than $450 billion, of which the countries producing coffee beans and raw materials account for only $25 billion. When it comes to Africa, all African countries together make less than $3 billion selling their coffee beans to the West. At the same time, Germany alone makes $7.5 billion selling processed raw materials as finished products – this is 150 percent more than the whole of Africa. That's what we talked about.

This summit raised to a qualitatively new level the discussion about justice, maintaining that one cannot go on forever draining resources from developing countries. Africans remember only too well the colonial times and what they fought for. Having gained independence, they realised the West was again trying to use them only as suppliers of low-cost resources, while appropriating all the added value and its advantages. They are not happy about this.

We are approaching a serious turning point. We have reason to say that an era of transition to multipolarity has begun. It is unstoppable. This process has been historically predetermined.

Question: Several oil producing countries have joined BRICS. In this context, has Russia proposed establishing a BRICS Energy Alliance or maybe a BRICS Energy Bank as part of it? If so, have instructions to this effect been issued to the corresponding working groups?

Sergey Lavrov: BRICS already has structures dealing with energy. With the new countries joining our ranks, we will look at the initiatives they have. If there will be support for them, we will carry them out.

Question: In his remarks during the BRICS Summit, President Vladimir Putin said that Russia was ready to resume the grain deal if all the conditions as agreed in Türkiye last year are met. Are there any signs that the West is ready to fulfil its obligations for reviving the grain deal?

Sergey Lavrov: So far, nothing suggest that this could be the case. All the West does is call on us to support the UN proposals.

Today, I will have a meeting with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Of course, I will raise this issue with him, among other things.

Here is the gist of the proposals the United Nations made, including in May 2023 and in early July 2023: no need for Russia to withdraw from the Ukrainian part of the package, and let everything continue the same way with the possible addition of a couple more ports and more inspections in order to keep increasing shipments. If we agree, they would start discussing ways for reconnecting the Russian Agricultural Bank to SWIFT in, say, three months, and will try to persuade insurance companies not to jack up their rates, while also reaching agreements to enable Russian ships to enter some ports.

All these provisions are unacceptable for us. They have been feeding us promises on this particular topic for an entire year. We have been hearing similar proposals, which never materialised, on other matters related to our relations with the West beyond the grain deal.

Let me give you one example. Could there be anything easier than settling the situation with the 260,000 tonnes of Russian fertilisers detained in EU ports more than a year ago? The company which owns this fertiliser has already said that we will give it for free to the developing countries. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has publicly called on the European Union to unblock the fertiliser Africans need so much so that we can deliver it for free and at our expense to their destination. We came forward with this proposal more than a year ago and had to go to great pains before the first shipment of just 20,000 tonnes out of these 260,000 tonnes was sent to Malawi. In fact, it took us five months to get the green light. It took another three months to send 34,000 tonnes to Kenya. This leaves us with more than 200,000 tonnes, which are still there. The quality of fertiliser deteriorates as it sits idle in ports as deadweight. For some reason that we don’t understand there is an effort to stall a similar deal for Nigeria. This is what the Western promises are worth even if you are willing to give away something for free to the neediest countries.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has recently reaffirmed that we are ready to revive the Ukrainian part of the package the instance all the promises are met. The deal is in fact a package. We signed it as a solution consisting of two interdependent elements.

Question: We have been in Africa for three days now. I have a question on the regional affairs. Have you discussed the situation in Niger with any of your African colleagues? What will be the response from Russia and the BRICS countries in case of a possible ECOWAS intervention in this country?

Sergey Lavrov: We did not have any special discussion on the developments in Niger. It was not part of our agenda. It is up to ECOWAS to deal with these matters here, but not all its members are here, and not everyone within this community supports the intervention.

The West has a knack for taking things out of context and treating any event the way it deems fit as part of cancel culture, taking events out of context while ignoring all other factors and causes.

The Sahara-Sahel region in Africa has been suffering from terrorism since 2011, when NATO broke Libya apart shattered the Libyan state and supported terrorists by pitching them against Muammar Gaddafi. When Libya ceased to exist, it became a black hole and a backyard used by millions of illegal migrants heading north, while the very criminals the West used to topple the Muammar Gaddafi regime headed south. These men have now created and strengthened groups affiliated with ISIS and al-Qaeda here. Having lent their active support to the opposition against Muammar Gaddafi and supplied it with weapons, France is now about to leave Mali, and the same goes for the EU mission.

We must see the true causes of these government coups. What did Africa get from working with the West? As I have explained just now in detail, the African continent does not get any added value. All the West wants are its resources.

We have had a different approach ever since the Soviet era. We sought to lay the foundation for industrial development, promote education and healthcare.

The government coups, as they call them, already happened in Mali, Guinea, and Burkina Faso. I may not be aware of all the details, but when a social group, in this case, the military, sees that the way their national leaders built their relations with the West to their satisfaction does not help address the issues people in these countries face, they cannot look the other way.

I do not think that an intervention would benefit anyone. There are those within ECOWAS who are already creating a force to counter it. I hope that the Africans can avoid going down this road, which would be a destructive and calamitous path to take for many countries and thousands of people.

Question: Yesterday, President of France Emmanuel Macron said he was ready to talk to President of Russia Vladimir Putin when “it’s useful.” However, he failed to come to the BRICS Summit. Does he want to come to Moscow? When might this dialogue become useful for Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I don’t follow the comments on who intends to do what with regard to Russia and says so in public. If you are interested in something, the rules of diplomacy and basic decency require that you signal your interest (whether it is concerning a meeting or a telephone conversation) through diplomatic channels. A year ago, President of France Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholtz declared that they were continuing the dialogue and would yet have their say. More than that, they explained in public how and when they would bring Russia back to “civilised society.” I stopped reading this stuff and no longer pay attention to it. If you say this publicly, you are mostly saying it for your audience (your voters, your EU partners). But it is unclear what signals are actually being sent by these statements.

Question: The other day, the French President made yet another statement to the effect that France could not allow Ukraine to be defeated and that Kiev should prepare for a protracted confrontation. The French Republic, for its part, would send long-range missiles. At the same time, President Macron is presenting himself as a potential mediator in the Ukraine conflict who is ready for talks with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. He also signalled his desire to attend the BRICS Summit. Could France, in your opinion, mediate a crisis settlement? What is your attitude towards these contradictory remarks by the French President?

Sergey Lavrov: I have talked about this before. I proceed from the premise that if someone wants to contribute to conflict settlement, they should do it through the relevant channels rather than through a microphone. This is common knowledge. What is the point of making loud, public statements on one subject or another; I don’t know. Today they say they will be mediators, tomorrow – that they will send long-range missiles to strike at Russia’s territory. It is a tall order for me to deduce any conclusions from these statements. I know what is happening in Europe. Perhaps this is about the desire to remind people about yourself, show how active you are and how much support you need. It’s anyone’s guess.

France was a mediator. Mr Francois Hollande was a “guarantor” in the Minsk agreements. But in 2022, he said proudly that they had no intention of implementing anything, despite the fact that these agreements had been approved by the UN Security Council. They had to gain time to send weapons to Ukraine to use against Russia. Therefore, when Macron claims that he will send long-range missiles, this is the same as Hollande saying he will be a mediator. Judge for yourself.

Question: Certain Western media outlets noted before the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg that this summit brought South Africa's relations with Moscow into focus. How would you describe the current level of interaction between Moscow and Pretoria?

Sergey Lavrov: Our relations are excellent. President Ramaphosa has visited the Russian Federation twice this year. The first time was in June, when he asked President Vladimir Putin to see a delegation of seven African leaders to discuss the Ukraine situation, without any publicity, and in a businesslike manner, as it should be.

The second time was in St Petersburg when he attended the Russia-Africa Summit at the end of July. In both cases, we had frank and useful bilateral talks in an atmosphere of trust. The two presidents charted guidelines for the further development of our ties in all areas – economic, investment, high technology, science, education, sports, military and military technical cooperation; they will continue in the same vein.

I believe that our relations are on the rise. All the leading politicians in the Republic of South Africa remember the role that the Soviet Union played in their fight against apartheid as well as in the decolonisation of Africa; we appreciate that. Our ties have a solid historical and political foundation. We are increasingly focusing on the areas of material cooperation that I mentioned. There is no doubt that we have good prospects.

Question: Niger and other African countries such as Mali and Burkina Faso have been swept by protests. People are marching in the streets calling on Russia and its partners to play an active role in protecting the region’s countries from foreign interference, and from neocolonialism in general. What is Russia's view on the threats of external interference in Niger? What role can Russia and its allies play in this crisis?

Sergey Lavrov: Immediately after what happened in Niger, we have seen timid but rather loud attempts to accuse Russia of organising the change of power through a coup. But even officials in leading Western countries were quick to declare that they had no evidence to support such claims.

I think these demonstrations with Russian flags are primarily a reflection of how people (in this case in Niger) feel about their lives. Niger used to be one of the most reliable allies of the West, of France. The country has a US military base. People must have looked back on this decades-long priority partnership with the West and realised that it was not giving them very much; that they remain in a subordinate position with their own progress going way too slow. This reflects their dissatisfaction with Western practices, which are based on colonial methods, and on the other hand, their memories of how we fought colonialism together. I do not think this can be waved off. These are not just lofty words. For African leaders and peoples, this is indeed a deep-rooted belief.

It is time everyone starts building equal relations, respecting each other, seeking a balance of interests. It is time nations stop dictating things to others, and all governments follow the requirements that are fully consistent with the UN Charter, which stipulates the sovereign equality of all states, large and small. If at least once the West tries to pursue a policy that is in line with this requirement, which it signed and ratified when the UN was established, perhaps common sense would have a chance.