© UnknownRussian FM Sergey Lavrov at the G20 conference
Lavrov's remarks on the G20's role in overcoming current international tensions is rather short for Lavrov and contains an excellent idea. Perhaps the presser will come later.
Dear Colleagues:
We are grateful to our Brazilian friends for the opportunity to discuss geopolitical issues. We see this as the desire of the chairmanship to stimulate the search for a common denominator and diplomatic solutions that will create favourable peaceful conditions for mutually beneficial economic development.

When we join forces, the world is able to change for the better, to move forward. The twentieth century was an important milestone in freeing humanity from the shackles of colonialism. It would seem that we have defeated economic banditry, the exploitation of other people's labor and other people's wealth. The transition to détente during the Cold War allowed the USSR and the United States to lay the foundation for containing military risks and building a reliable strategic security architecture, primarily in Europe. We regret that those achievements have been almost completely destroyed today.
The objective process of forming a multipolar world order based on self-sufficient countries and regions is facing serious resistance. At the behest of the West, the basic foundations of international communication are being undermined. Universal norms of law and the principles of the UN Charter, including the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in the internal affairs and self-determination of peoples, are being trampled upon. Diplomacy as the settlement of disputes by peaceful means is sacrificed to military confrontation, "hybrid wars", total confrontation, and the desire to inflict a strategic defeat on the opponent. Double standards, hypocrisy and outright lies have been used. Remember the fury with which President Vladimir Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson was greeted in the West, where the truth was set out that the Western elites are hiding from their voters.

Instead of a UN-centric architecture, narrow-bloc alliances, closed clubs, behind-the-scenes "best practices," "reliable scientific data," and pseudo-democratic "values" are being promoted. An artificial division of the world into friends and foes, a "blooming garden" and a "jungle" is being carried out. According to incomprehensible criteria, countries are suddenly declared either "democracies" or "dictatorships." This is what the notorious "rules" that the West is pushing to replace international law look like in practice. No one has ever seen them, but former US President Barack Obama once said that they would be created "without Russia and China," that is, only between their own adherence to the so-called "values." This policy is based on neocolonialism, the desire to dominate the political, economic, and humanitarian spheres under the guise of "beautiful" slogans.

The "collective West" uses any means to advance its own goals. Forgotten are the promises not to bring NATO closer to Russia. A course has been set for its global expansion. We know how NATO's adventures end. Let us recall the wars in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, and the provocation of crises in other regions. The alliance has suffered tens of thousands of victims, destroyed states and economies. This list includes pseudo-judicial reprisals, coups d'état, and color revolutions. Journalists, artists, athletes, not to mention politicians and entrepreneurs, have fallen under the roller of repression. Criminal methods of taking away sovereign assets and private property are being hatched. A stake was placed on extraterritorial sanctions, economic discrimination, unfair competition, "green" barriers, clamping down on effective forms of technology and investment flow.

Donor pledges are an ephemeral lure. Their promised target of 0.7% of GDP for developed countries remains only "on paper", as well as the West's announced injections for sustainable development and climate, which have been sacrificed to multibillion-dollar sponsorship flows for the militarization of Ukraine and the inflation of the military budgets of NATO members. Energy and food supply chains are being disrupted, causing hunger, poverty and inequality, as the Brazilian presidency rightly points out. They are trying to implant "chips" of external control into national governments. The result is obvious: agricultural land in Ukraine has been appropriated by American business, and Ukrainians have been turned into "expendable material" that the Zelensky regime sends to their death in exchange for Western loans. Against this background, the scale of the tragedy in Gaza, where more civilians, including children and women, were killed in less than five months, is deliberately understated than on both sides in Donbass in the 10 years that have passed since the unconstitutional coup d'état in Kiev.

I do not think that the G20 will find solutions to the accumulated challenges and threats to global security. At the same time, our forum of the world's leading economies could clearly declare the G20's rejection of the use of the "economy as a weapon" and "war as investment." To demonstrate our desire for open and equal trade and economic cooperation, it is important to reaffirm that global banks and funds should not finance militaristic goals and aggressive regimes, but countries in need in the interests of sustainable development. This would be the contribution of the G20 - in the area of its responsibility - to creating material conditions for finding ways to resolve conflicts through inclusive diplomacy with respect for the central role of the UN Security Council, rather than through closed formats and formulas based on ultimatums.

Last year, at the Leaders' Summit in New Delhi, we agreed that the strengthening of global institutions must come at the expense of strengthening the voice of the developing countries of the Global Majority. The African Union has joined our ranks. I believe that we should not rest on our laurels and involve the leading integration structures of other regions of the Global South in our work on an equal footing.

The G20 could add its voice to the demands for a fair reform of the UN Security Council. We reaffirm our support for the candidacies of Brazil and India, while at the same time safeguarding the interests of African countries.

Thank you for your attention.
There are two main ideas highlighted above:
One, the G-20 must declare its utter and total rejection of using any "economy as a weapon" and the Imperialist notion that "war as investment."

And two, the G-20 must insist/demand "that global banks and funds should not finance militaristic goals and aggressive regimes, but countries in need in the interests of sustainable development."
However, there's a problem with the following points made by Lavrov:
"It would seem that we have defeated economic banditry, the exploitation of other people's labor and other people's wealth... We regret that those achievements have been almost completely destroyed today."
The "banditry" and "exploitation" weren't defeated and have actually escalated when we look at the history of Super Imperialism since 1973. Today, it's succeeded in making the EU a colony of the Outlaw US Empire, still subverts many Caribbean, Central and South American nations and has now turned on its own people to "financialize" into debt peons. Of course, it denies that it's done any of that, but we merely need to look at policies and reality for the easy to see Truth as kit makes new rules to fit the moment on the fly.

Here's the prescription that myself, Dr. Hudson, and many others want to see implemented as written by Pepe Escobar:
Russia and its partners within BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) need to work on a unification of payment systems and a mechanism to regulate trade in national currencies to boost mutual trade and be more independent.
The G-20 isn't the proper format for that work as it contains its opposition, thus BRICS+ and SCO are the two named.

One last observation, and that's Lavrov's use of a recent event as a descriptive term, the event being the implantation of a brain chip made/owned by Elon Musk he calls Neuralink:
They are trying to implant "chips" of external control into national governments.
Well, looking at EU and European politico's behavior, I'd say that's already been done. I wonder if Elon Musk would agree to have such a chip implanted into his brain?