Transcript
Lavrov's Video Address to the II CIS International Legal Forum
English column uses house glosses from the digest (theme summaries and quote translations), not a full parallel stenogram. Navigate by topic below.
| Русский | English |
|---|---|
| Уважаемые коллеги, Рад приветствовать вас на II Международно-правовом форуме СНГ, приуроченном к 35-летию создания Содружества. Ваше мероприятие, объединяющее представителей государственных структур, научного и юридического сообществ, международных судебных институтов СНГ и ЕАЭС , утверждается в качестве полезного начинания. Работа в данном формате позволяет проводить плодотворные дискуссии по актуальным международно-правовым проблемам, «сверять часы» по ключевым аспектам сотрудничества государств СНГ в этой сфере. | English translation not available for this passage |
| 1 CIS at 35 — Legal Productivity as Institutional Legitimacy | |
| Рассматриваем Форум и в качестве важного элемента нашей внешнеполитической координации. Прежде всего с точки зрения выработки единых подходов к вопросам международного права. За 35 лет существования СНГ сформировалась солидная правовая база по всем направлениям взаимодействия – более 650 международных договоров. При этом порядка 550 из них – действующие. Особого уважения в этой связи заслуживают усилия Консультативного комитета руководителей правовых служб наших дипломатических ведомств. |
Theme summary — not a full translation of this passage Lavrov opens by framing the II CIS International Legal Forum not as a commemorative occasion but as a functioning instrument of foreign policy coordination. The forum is presented as uniting state officials, academics, legal scholars, and representatives of international judicial institutions of both the CIS and EAEU — a deliberately broad constituency that signals multi-institutional ambition. The central rhetorical move in this section is quantitative: over 35 years, more than 650 international treaties have been concluded within CIS frameworks, with approximately 550 currently in force. This numerical grounding is deployed to present the CIS as a prolific, treaty-generating institution with genuine legal weight rather than a post-Soviet ceremonial body. The phrase "synchronizing watches" on international law reveals the forum's real function — aligning member states' positions before engagement with global institutions where Russia faces contestation. Lavrov signals from the outset that CIS legal solidarity is a geopolitical project, not merely a bureaucratic exercise. “Over 35 years of the CIS's existence, a solid legal base has been formed across all areas of cooperation — more than 650 international treaties, of which approximately 550 are currently in force.” “We regard the Forum as an important element of our foreign policy coordination — above all from the standpoint of developing unified approaches to questions of international law.” |
| 2 The Consultative Committee and the 2021 Declaration on International Law | |
| В частности, в марте 2021 г. на основе наработок Консультативного комитета принято заявление министров иностранных дел государств СНГ об укреплении роли международного права. В документе подтверждается значимость его принципов во всей их совокупности и взаимосвязи. Отмечается важность формирования пространства равной и неделимой безопасности и недопустимость мер экономического принуждения и вмешательства в дела суверенных государств. Зафиксирован ряд совместных правовых позиций в контртеррористической области. |
Theme summary — not a full translation of this passage Lavrov singles out the Consultative Committee of Heads of Legal Services of CIS diplomatic missions as the institutional engine behind CIS norm-setting, giving it "special recognition." Its key product is the March 2021 statement by CIS foreign ministers on strengthening the role of international law — a document Lavrov treats as the doctrinal baseline for CIS legal solidarity. The declaration's content is cited explicitly: the inseparability and interconnectedness of international law's principles; the importance of building a space of equal and indivisible security; the rejection of economic coercion; the inadmissibility of interference in sovereign states' internal affairs; and joint counterterrorism legal positions. Each element maps precisely onto a Russian foreign policy grievance — sanctions as "economic coercion," NATO enlargement as violating "indivisible security," Western political pressure as "interference in sovereignty." The declaration thus encodes Russia's core foreign policy objections in multilateral CIS legal language, presenting them as collective rather than unilaterally Russian positions. “In March 2021, based on the Consultative Committee's work, a statement of CIS foreign ministers on strengthening the role of international law was adopted.” “The document affirms the importance of international law's principles in their entirety and interrelation.” “It notes the importance of forming a space of equal and indivisible security and the inadmissibility of economic coercion measures and interference in the affairs of sovereign states.” “A number of joint legal positions in the counterterrorism sphere have been recorded.” |
| 3 October 2024 CIS Declarations — Eurasian Security and Anti-Sanctions Solidarity | |
| Многие из этих оценок впоследствии подтверждены в политических заявлениях глав государств, получили развитие в других актах по линии Содружества. Особо выделю принятые в октябре 2024 г. в Москве заявления министров иностранных дел о принципах сотрудничества в обеспечении безопасности в Евразии и о недопустимости использования в международных отношениях односторонних ограничительных мер. |
Theme summary — not a full translation of this passage Two Moscow declarations from October 2024 are highlighted as the most recent consolidation of CIS legal-political consensus. The first concerns principles of cooperation in ensuring security in Eurasia — implicitly defining a regional security architecture from which Western institutions are absent. The second directly opposes unilateral restrictive measures in international relations, a frontal challenge to Western sanctions regimes. Lavrov notes that these positions were "confirmed in political statements by heads of state," signaling the highest possible CIS-level endorsement. Both documents are presented as natural evolutionary products of the 2021 statement — evidence of a deepening, coherent legal doctrine rather than reactive grievances. The anti-sanctions framing is particularly significant: Lavrov works to normalize opposition to economic warfare as a matter of established international legal principle, embedding it in multilateral CIS language rather than presenting it as a purely Russian bilateral complaint. Moscow as the venue for these declarations underscores Russian centrality in shaping the CIS legal agenda. “Many of these assessments were subsequently confirmed in political statements by heads of state and received further development in other CIS acts.” “I would particularly highlight the statements adopted in Moscow in October 2024 by foreign ministers on principles of cooperation in ensuring security in Eurasia and on the inadmissibility of the use of unilateral restrictive measures in international relations.” |
| 4 The Convention on the Legal Status of CIS Delegations as Norm-Setting Achievement | |
| Важным вкладом СНГ в развитие международного дипломатического права стала Конвенция о правовом статусе делегаций, направляемых в государства – участники Содружества , принятая 8 октября 2024 г. Коллеги, Продвижение наших общих принципиальных подходов к международному праву особенно актуально на фоне многочисленных случаев его открытого попрания со стороны «коллективного Запада». Достаточно вспомнить бомбёжки Югославии, агрессию против Ирака и Ливии. |
Theme summary — not a full translation of this passage Lavrov gives explicit prominence to the Convention on the Legal Status of Delegations Sent to CIS Member States, adopted October 8, 2024, calling it "an important contribution to the development of international diplomatic law." Though technically specialized, the instrument is cited to demonstrate the CIS's capacity to generate original treaty law — not merely declarations — in the tradition of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. This matters for Russian diplomatic messaging: in a context where Russia faces isolation from Western-led institutions, the ability to point to the CIS as a legitimate source of international legal norms is diplomatically valuable. Filling the gap in diplomatic protocol for inter-CIS delegations also has practical significance, regularizing the legal status of diplomats operating within the post-Soviet space in ways that affirm CIS institutional sovereignty. The specificity of the date and formal name of the convention signals Lavrov's intent to build a granular, credible record of CIS legal productivity that can withstand external scrutiny. “An important contribution of the CIS to the development of international diplomatic law was the Convention on the Legal Status of Delegations Sent to CIS Member States, adopted on October 8, 2024.” |
| 6 2026 — US Invasion of Venezuela and US-Israeli Aggression Against Iran | |
| Нынешний год начался с вооруженного вторжения США в Венесуэлу и вооружённой агрессии Израиля и США против Ирана. Продолжается грубое надругательство над международным правом на Украине, где киевский режим при поддержке своих западных «спонсоров» проводит откровенно нацистскую политику, законодательно запретив русский язык и каноническую Украинскую православную церковь в прямое нарушение Устава ООН и многочисленных конвенций, требующих от всех государств уважать языковые, религиозные и прочие права человека. |
Theme summary — not a full translation of this passage Lavrov introduces the most contemporary and incendiary claims in his address: that 2026 has already produced two new Western military aggressions — a US "armed invasion" of Venezuela and "armed aggression by Israel and the United States against Iran." Both are asserted as established facts, placed without qualification in the same sentence as Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya, establishing them as the most recent entries in an unbroken Western pattern. Characterizing US action in Venezuela as an "invasion" is rhetorically precise: it mirrors the term Western governments apply to Russia's military action in Ukraine, creating a direct rhetorical inversion that positions the US as the world's primary aggressor. The grouping of Israel and the US as joint perpetrators against Iran extends the charge to include American-backed military allies. For a CIS audience that includes states subject to US sanctions and political pressure, this framing offers solidarity: the threat of Western aggression is presented as systemic and universal, not targeted only at Russia. “The current year began with the armed invasion of Venezuela by the United States and the armed aggression of Israel and the United States against Iran.” |
| 5 The "Collective West's" Historical Pattern of Violating International Law | |
| В отношении государств, защищающих свой суверенитет, проводящих национально ориентированный внутри- и внешнеполитический курс, развернута полномасштабная «юридическая война». Направлена она и на откровенную фальсификацию истории. Поэтому сегодня весьма востребована солидарная позиция наших стран о недопустимости героизации нацизма и о признании преступлений немецко-фашистских захватчиков геноцидом советского народа, всех народов Советского Союза. |
Theme summary — not a full translation of this passage The pivot from celebrating CIS legal achievements to cataloguing Western violations is abrupt and structurally deliberate — a contrast between "we build law, they destroy it." Lavrov deploys the term "collective West" (коллективный Запад) to frame the US, EU, and NATO as a unified bloc whose disregard for international law spans decades. His historical catalogue — the bombing of Yugoslavia, aggression against Iraq, aggression against Libya — is carefully curated for a CIS audience. Yugoslavia in particular resonates: it signals that NATO is willing to use lethal military force against a European sovereign state, which functions as an implicit warning to CIS members. The phrase "open trampling" (открытое попрание) of international law is rhetorically aggressive, suggesting not inadvertent breach but contemptuous, deliberate violation. This framing systematically delegitimizes any Western critique of Russian conduct by establishing Western actors as chronic and unpunished violators of the very rules they invoke against others. The indictment is structured as accumulating historical precedent. “Against states defending their sovereignty and pursuing a nationally-oriented domestic and foreign policy course, a full-scale 'legal war' has been launched.” |
| 7 Ukraine — "Nazi Policy" and Direct Violations of the UN Charter | |
| Важно и далее пресекать попытки предать забвению правду о Великой Отечественной войне. Тем более, что за Великую Победу наши отцы и деды заплатили огромную цену. В этой связи с удовлетворением констатирую, что квалификация ужасающих по своему масштабу и жестокости преступлений немецко-фашистских захватчиков и их пособников именно в качестве геноцида народов Советского Союза нашла отражение в ряде документов СНГ. |
Theme summary — not a full translation of this passage Ukraine occupies a distinct and charged position in Lavrov's indictment. The Kyiv government is referred to throughout as a "regime" conducting "openly Nazi policy" — a characterization grounded not in military conduct but in specific legislative acts: the banning of the Russian language and the suppression of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. These are framed as direct violations of the UN Charter and international human rights conventions requiring states to respect linguistic and religious rights. The phrase "Western 'sponsors'" (in scare quotes) implicates Western backers as co-responsible for the alleged violations. This framing is central to Russian diplomatic strategy: it repositions the conflict as Russia defending international law against a Western-sponsored violator, rather than Russia committing aggression. The legal argument — that banning a language constitutes a UN Charter violation — is designed to shift the framing from military to juridical terrain, weaponizing human rights law language against the Ukrainian state and its supporters. |
| 9 Solidarity Against Nazi Glorification and the Genocide Recognition Agenda | |
| В частности, в заявлении лидеров государств в связи с 30-летием Содружества и Обращении глав государств к народам стран Содружества и мировой общественности по случаю 80-летия Победы в Великой Отечественной войне. Такую совместную работу, направленную на сохранение исторической памяти и правды, нам необходимо продолжать. Благодарю за внимание. Желаю вам плодотворных дискуссий и всего наилучшего. |
Theme summary — not a full translation of this passage Lavrov introduces the concept of a "legal war" (юридическая война) as a systematic Western instrument deployed against states that defend their sovereignty or pursue independent domestic and foreign policy courses. The phrase implies the deliberate weaponization of legal mechanisms — international courts, sanctions regimes, human rights bodies, accountability frameworks — as instruments of geopolitical coercion rather than neutral justice. This narrative serves to pre-emptively delegitimize international legal proceedings against Russia and its allies, casting them as politically motivated attacks rather than legitimate enforcement. The addition of "falsification of history" as a second dimension of this legal war is significant: it broadens the concept beyond courtrooms and sanctions lists to encompass narrative and memory, positioning any historical account that contradicts Russian framing of WWII, the Soviet Union, or the conflict in Ukraine as an instrument of legal-political aggression. This conflation of legal accountability with historical revisionism is a recurring structure in Lavrov's diplomacy. |