USA
Source: thediplomat.com

On January 1, Brazil assumed the rotating presidency of the BRICS, a bloc initially formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, which unites some of the world’s fastest-growing economies. Today, BRICS has expanded to include 22 countries, comprising full members and partner nations. Amid the uncertainties about the bloc’s future role in the global order – exacerbated by the policies of Donald Trump’s incoming administration in the United States – the Brazilian presidency arrives at a pivotal moment. This presidency offers significant opportunities but also presents challenges that will be far from easy to navigate.

Operating under the slogan “Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance,” the Brazilian presidency has outlined two main priorities: fostering Global South cooperation and pursuing reforms in global governance. The deliberate choice of language reflects the BRICS’s ambition to position itself as a legitimate representative of the Global South while advocating for the reform of world governance without discarding multilateral institutions. However, the extent to which these goals might conflict with the Republican Party’s platform and President Trump’s vision for the international order remains to be seen. Moreover, the bloc faces internal pressures that are no less formidable.

As 2025 progresses, three key challenges are coming into focus. First, the bloc must determine whether the principles outlined in the 2024 Kazan Declaration will effectively shape its new agenda. Second, it must address the ambitious priorities set forth by the Brazilian presidency. Lastly, it will be faced with the challenge of sustaining member engagement in an increasingly complex and unpredictable global landscape.

The Future of the Kazan Declaration: A Coherent Agenda or a List of Aspirations?

Although not legally binding, Summit Declarations hold significant political and symbolic value, representing the shared language negotiated and agreed upon by member states. Diplomats from diverse nations dedicate weeks to securing concessions, refining language, and ensuring BRICS’ alignment with both international objectives and domestic audiences. This meticulous effort is evident in the Kazan Declaration, the document issued at the conclusion of the BRICS leaders’ summit under Russia’s presidency on October 23, 2024.

The declaration addresses well-known geopolitical issues, such as the need for reform of global institutions. It also contains shared positions on the Middle East conflict, while remaining conspicuously silent on the war in Ukraine. However, the Kazan Declaration extended far beyond these points. It is the most comprehensive and structured document the bloc has ever produced, encompassing a wide array of topics. Building on the joint statement by foreign ministers in Nizhny Novgorod in June 2024, it lays out a detailed and multidimensional agenda for cross-sector cooperation.

While the declaration outlines a clear program for the bloc, it also reflects internal contradictions and challenges. At times, it verges on verbosity in an attempt to unify nations with vastly different political systems and visions for the global order. Despite this, the Kazan Declaration serves as a critical charter of shared positions – or, at the very least, shared intentions. It also provides a roadmap for collaboration across a diverse range of sectors, including climate issues, critical mineral supply chains, and even sports initiatives. A closer reading of the declaration and an analysis of BRICS activities suggest that the idea of so-called de-globalization does not reflect the current global realities.

The document emphasizes coordinated positions on evolving frameworks related to sustainability, sanctions, and environmental and human rights policies. Notably, it underscores the human right to development – a contentious issue today due to its intersections with other rights. The proposal for a BRICS-regulated carbon market is particularly innovative, offering a fresh perspective amid the persistent stalemates in global climate negotiations.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Kazan Declaration also introduced a new membership category – the “partner country” – which effectively limits the influence of new entrants. In theory, Kazan created two distinct tiers within the BRICS: the original members and the first expansion members, and the potential new entrants with fewer rights. However, a partner country can apparently be “upgraded” to full membership with the approval by consensus of the full members; Indonesia, for instance, moved from partner country to full member earlier this month. This seems to suggest that the Guiding Principles for BRICS Expansion adopted in 2023 need some update. In any event, BRICS expansion highlights a longstanding challenge for the bloc: achieving consensus among its diverse members. With the addition of new participants, this challenge has only grown more pronounced, especially when there is disagreement about who is becoming part of the club, as happened with Venezuela.

Brazil’s Priorities for the BRICS Presidency: Moving Beyond Kazan?

In light of recent developments, Brazil’s presidency of the BRICS bloc faces the challenge of providing coherence and strategic direction to this increasingly complex grouping post-Kazan. The five priorities set by Brazil’s presidency are ambitious, reflecting both opportunities and challenges: (1) facilitating trade and investment within the bloc through the development of alternative payment systems; (2) promoting inclusive and responsible governance of artificial intelligence (AI) for sustainable development; (3) strengthening financial structures to address climate change, aligned with United Nations efforts; (4) fostering cooperation among Global South countries, particularly in public health; and (5) reinforcing the BRICS institutional framework.

When comparing the agenda outlined in the Kazan Declaration with Brazil’s proposed priorities, it seems that much of the former has been set aside in favor of areas that align more closely with the genuine interests of BRICS members. In other words, while Kazan may symbolize the bloc’s peak of expansion, Brazil’s presidency must now prioritize core objectives to inject focus and substance into the bloc amid global resistance.

Trade and investment remain top priorities, yet economic integration among BRICS members continues to be uneven. Some countries benefit from strong economic ties, while others encounter significant barriers to market access. The proposal to develop alternative payment systems inevitably invites discussions about “de-dollarization,” a concept likely to provoke strong opposition from Washington, as hinted by recent diplomatic statements and pointed social media posts.

Among the proposed areas of cooperation, AI governance stands out. However, the term “governance” raises concerns for international lawyers, who recognize the difficulties of harmonizing varying levels of technological advancement and interests to establish common rules. An intra-BRICS AI governance framework also risks sidelining other key players in the field. Even so, defining shared values for an “inclusive and responsible” governance model could strengthen the Global South’s position in advancing global regulatory frameworks.

On climate change and sustainability, BRICS must confront the glaring inadequacies of global regulation, particularly the persistent lack of consensus on climate financing. BRICS nations typically emphasize the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” underscoring the historical role of developed countries in greenhouse gas emissions. While the bloc can promote unified agendas for developing nations, it must also prepare for the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. With Brazil hosting the COP30 climate change conference in Belém do Pará later this year, debates over financing are likely to re-emerge, and balancing the BRICS agenda with COP priorities will be crucial.

Perhaps the most promising objective is strengthening cooperation among BRICS members, a process that has grown organically due to the Global South’s deepening ties with China and Russia’s push to secure new partners following Europe’s diplomatic and economic disengagement after the Ukraine conflict. In this regard, the Kazan Declaration remains highly relevant, offering a clear framework for multi-level cooperation. The ability of BRICS nations to formulate joint policies could shape international legal norms and standards, particularly on issues like unilateral sanctions and shared positions on investment protection.

The larger question, however, is the institutional direction BRICS will take. The current two-tier structure of full members and partner countries reveals a democratic deficit that seems at odds with the bloc’s rhetoric of emancipation and inclusivity. While formalizing BRICS as an international organization would introduce more bureaucracy, it could also consolidate the bloc and streamline its extensive network of partnerships. Maintaining a looser framework, akin to the G-20, has its advantages, but transforming BRICS into a structured organization with headquarters, a secretariat, and professional staff could accelerate progress toward its goals. This institutionalization might well become Brazil’s most significant contribution during its presidency.

Brazil’s five priorities are far from simple to achieve. They encapsulate the bloc’s major aspirations while highlighting the profound challenges posed by the diversity of its member states. As Tolstoy famously observed: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” The same holds true for BRICS: Global South nations face challenges with unique complexities, requiring solutions tailored to each specific context.

Different Levels of Engagement: Navigating Stormy Waters

The 22 BRICS countries have distinct economic, political, and social structures, which naturally lead to divergent foreign policy agendas. As a result, the bloc accommodates various projects and differing levels of engagement among its members. For example, Brazil appears far less inclined toward taking an anti-American stance than some of its counterparts, due in large part to its historically close relationship with Washington. In this context, the position BRICS adopts in an increasingly turbulent international order characterized by escalating geopolitical conflicts will be crucial in shaping both the bloc’s future and its global perception.

For BRICS to continue expanding and attracting new members to bolster its influence and reinforce the broader narrative of the “Global South,” adopting a moderate and pragmatic stance appears far more sustainable than leaning toward extremes. However, the introduction of two membership tiers within the bloc already hints at internal divisions regarding its expansion strategy. It is reasonable to assume that as the group grows, the decision-making influence of the original members – particularly India, Brazil, and South Africa – could become increasingly diluted. This raises a key question for prospective BRICS members: what tangible benefits does joining the bloc offer? Simultaneously, longstanding members may also question whether remaining in the grouping continues to serve their national interests.

Brazil’s presidency, therefore, comes at a pivotal moment when diplomatic pragmatism must take precedence over some of the bloc’s more polarizing initiatives. It would be unrealistic to expect these initiatives to vanish entirely or for certain countries to cease advocating for BRICS to adopt positions that are, to varying degrees, antagonistic toward dominant global powers. Nonetheless, despite their differences, the BRICS nations are proving to be a viable platform for advancing shared agendas that address the key challenges faced by developing countries. Rather than glossing over the bloc’s contradictions, Brazil’s presidency should focus on strengthening the bloc’s capacity to respond to these challenges – which, in many respects, also represent significant opportunities.

Brazil
Source: www.gov.br

In exercising its pro tempore presidency of BRICS, the Brazilian government announces today, January 17, 2025, the formal admission of Nigeria as a partner country of the grouping. The Brazilian government welcomes the Nigerian government’s decision.

Nigeria becomes the ninth partner country of BRICS, joining Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, and Uzbekistan. This partner-country category was created at the 16th BRICS Summit, held in Kazan in October 2024.

With the world’s sixth-largest population—and Africa’s largest—as well as being one of the continent’s major economies, Nigeria shares convergent interests with other members of BRICS. It plays an active role in strengthening South-South cooperation and in reforming global governance—issues that are top priorities during Brazil’s current presidency.

Category
Communications and Public Transparency

Russia
Source: en.kremlin.ru

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr President, friends,

I am genuinely delighted to extend a warm welcome to President of the Islamic Republic of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian, who is on an official visit to Russia. We have just concluded extensive discussions.

Our country gives priority to further strengthening of the friendly and neighbourly relations between Russia and Iran. These ties rely on the principles of equality, mutual respect, and consideration for each other’s interests, as well as reciprocity and support, which are consistently reflected in practical deeds. Our multifaceted bilateral partnership has been steadily advancing year by year.

We engage in an intensive political dialogue. Last year, Mr Pezeshkian and I held two meetings, including during the BRICS Summit in Kazan. Our foreign ministries and security councils maintain close contact. Cooperation between Russia and Iran in the economic, social, and cultural areas is becoming increasingly active; coordination has been established between industry-specific ministries, business communities, and public representatives, who interact fruitfully; youth, parliamentary, and interregional contacts occur regularly. In essence, the ties between our two countries are extensive and mutually beneficial, and we are committed to not resting on our laurels but elevating the relationship to a qualitatively new level.

This is precisely the objective of the signed interstate Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. It outlines ambitious goals and benchmarks for deepening bilateral cooperation in the long term across political and security domains, as well as in trade, investment, and humanitarian affairs. This truly ground-breaking document aims to establish the necessary conditions for the stable and sustainable development of Russia, Iran, and our entire shared Eurasian region.

As I have already mentioned, today’s discussions with the President of Iran were exceedingly beneficial and substantial. They were conducted in a constructive and friendly manner. We deliberated on the full spectrum of issues on our bilateral agenda and exchanged views on pressing international and regional matters.

Naturally, economic cooperation was covered in depth during the talks. Russia and Iran are significant partners in trade, finance, and investment, and their collaboration in these areas is steadily growing. Over the first ten months of 2024, bilateral trade grew by 15.5 percent.

Notably, our countries have almost completely transitioned to using national currencies in mutual settlements. Efforts are being made to establish sustainable lending and banking interaction channels and to align national payment systems. In 2024, transactions conducted in Russian rubles and Iranian rials accounted for over 95 percent of bilateral trade.

The anticipated entering into force of a full-fledged free trade agreement between Iran and the Eurasian Economic Union is expected to further strengthen Russian-Iranian commercial ties. It is also worth noting that on December 26, 2024, the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council granted the Islamic Republic of Iran observer status at the EAEU. We see this as another step forward in promoting Iran’s relations with Russia and other EAEU members.

Energy remains a crucial area of Russian-Iranian cooperation. The flagship joint project for the construction of two new units of the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant by Rosatom is making strides. Once implemented, this project will undoubtedly make a weighty contribution to enhancing Iran’s energy security, spur national economic growth, and provide affordable and environmentally friendly electricity for Iranian households and industrial enterprises.

We place great emphasis on cooperation in the transport sector, particularly expanding mutual railway freight operations. Promising opportunities are opening up in connection with the international North-South transport corridor. Discussions are ongoing regarding the construction of its Rasht-Astara railway section. Implementing this project would help establish seamless supply chain from Russia and Belarus to Iranian ports in the Gulf.

Humanitarian cooperation is deepening as well. Plans include opening a Russian cultural centre in Tehran. In June, Iran will host Days of Russian Culture, featuring numerous exhibitions, concerts, and theatre performances, as well as other vibrant cultural events. We are confident that Iranian audience will enjoy these activities.

Mutual tourist flows are expanding facilitated by direct flights between many Russian and Iranian cities, as well as decisions made in 2023 to allow visa-free group tours and electronic visas for individual tourists.

Russia is also helping Iran train highly skilled professionals. Currently, more than 9,000 Iranian students are studying at Russian universities, about 600 of whom – at the expense of Russia’s federal budget.

All issues related to bilateral cooperation are overseen by the Permanent Russian-Iranian Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation. It was agreed that its regular meeting will be held in Moscow in the first half of this year.

Naturally, Mr President and I also discussed a range of foreign policy priorities. On most of them, the positions of Russia and Iran overlap. Our countries firmly uphold the principles of the rule of international law, state sovereignty, and non-interference in internal affairs of other countries. Both countries pursue independent foreign policy, and jointly resist external pressure, diktat, and the use of illegitimate and politically-driven sanctions. We also coordinate our efforts on key issues and on key international venues, including the UN, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

When discussing recent developments in Syria, we emphasised that Russia remains committed to comprehensive settlement in that country based on respect for its sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity. We stand ready to continue providing the Syrian people with the necessary support for stabilising the situation, to offer urgent humanitarian aid, and to start full-scale post-conflict reconstruction.

We believe that the future of Syria should be determined by the Syrians themselves through an inclusive dialogue. We wholeheartedly hope that the Syrian people will successfully overcome the challenges arising from the transitional period.

We also touched on the Middle East peace process in light of the recently reached agreement to cease hostilities in the Gaza Strip. This agreement provides for the reunification of freed Israeli hostages with their families and the release of Palestinian detainees. Significantly, it also opens the door to a substantial increase in the supply of food, fuel, and medicine to Gaza. We hope these measures will alleviate the humanitarian situation and contribute to long-term stabilisation in the sector.

However, it is essential not to ease up on efforts towards achieving a comprehensive resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on the internationally recognised legal basis. This includes the establishment of an independent Palestinian state coexisting in peace and security with Israel.

Mr President and I also addressed Russian-Iranian cooperation in the South Caucasus. Ensuring peace and stability in this region serves the interests of both our nations.

Overall, the alignment of agendas on these and other regional matters was, in our view, highly beneficial and quite timely. I would like to close by stressing that we are satisfied with the results of these talks.

I am confident that the agreements we reached during these talks will further strengthen the entire spectrum of Russian-Iranian relations and ties. Without a doubt, the newly signed interstate agreement will serve this purpose as well.

Thank you for your attention.

President of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian (retranslated): In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful!

Colleagues, members of the press,

Mr President Vladimir Putin, I wish to extend my gratitude to you and express my appreciation to the Russian people and the Russian Government for the hospitality extended to both me and my delegation. I am optimistic that our bilateral engagements will persist within the framework of our mutual interests. Indeed, from today, we will witness expanded opportunities for the advancement of our bilateral relations.

Within the framework of the neighbourhood policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Russian Federation holds significant importance for us. I must say that in recent years, there has been a substantial exchange of delegations between our nations, and this process continues, for which we are deeply grateful to our colleagues in Russia.

I believe we will continue to operate within the framework of trade and economic relations, with certain mechanisms already in place. We have resolved to eliminate obstacles impeding our relations. We have conducted a comprehensive review of all pertinent issues, discussed the full spectrum of our relations, and concluded that we must continue working in this positive spirit and manner, both bilaterally, regionally, and on the international stage. The significant Treaty signed today will inaugurate a new chapter in our relations, particularly in trade and economic interactions between Iran and Russia.

I am confident that this document has been crafted with the interests of our countries in mind and will lay the necessary groundwork for our continued cooperation. Iran and Russia are committed to removing minor, insignificant barriers hindering our trade and economic relations.

Regarding customs, banking, and monetary issues, as well as our investment projects and the visa-free regime between our countries, we have engaged in discussions on these matters. Within the framework of this Treaty, we will have further opportunities to address these topics in the future.

I would like to underscore the significance of Iran’s observer status within the Eurasian Economic Union. This status is highly important to us. I believe that within the framework of this Union, we can significantly enhance the level of cooperation between our countries.

The shared approaches and perspectives of Iran and Russia in combating terrorism and extremism form another basis for our continued collaboration. We have deliberated on cooperative efforts in the South Caucasus, Syria, the Middle East, and Afghanistan.

I believe that some of the transformations occurring in our region, facilitated by new organisations and entities such as BRICS and the SCO, indeed represent new opportunities and potential for both countries to collaborate in the future. The active involvement of Iran and Russia in these emerging regional structures is of great importance to us all.

I wish to reiterate that combat and conflict do not resolve issues. We welcome a political settlement between Ukraine and Russia. It is imperative that mutual respect is maintained. Furthermore, Western nations should refrain from imposing their will on others.

Regarding the Israeli regime’s airstrikes against Lebanon and Syria, I believe we concur on the importance of discouraging such actions. We hope that a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip will indeed be implemented.

In conclusion, I wish to once again thank my esteemed colleague, the Russian President, for his hospitality and for the cordial relations we have cultivated with the fraternal people of the Russian Federation.

Thank you very much, Mr President.

Question (retranslated): Good afternoon, President Putin, President Pezeshkian.

Considering that we are also about to raise the issue of the big treaty, I would like the presidents of both countries to answer my question.

Everyone is aware of the fact that Iran and Russia share profound cultural and social approaches. We are two large and strong nations in this region. We possess great possibilities and oppose the unipolar world. Iran and Russia stand for a new world order based on multipolarity. We participate in important new entities such as the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union, and BRICS.

Considering all these common approaches, we still see that our bilateral relations, particularly in the economy and trade, are lagging behind our political relations. I have a concrete question for you: What is the outlook for our relations considering the treaty that was signed today? What can we count on and hope for in the future? What will happen in the future with today’s treaty in mind? Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Without a doubt, strengthening the legal framework creates better conditions for addressing bilateral cooperation issues across all areas, with trade and economy being the most important areas for us.

Mr President and I have discussed this in restricted and expanded formats and took a look at Russia’s relations with other neighbouring countries. With countries with much smaller – by orders of magnitude, I would say – economic and human potential compared to Iran, our trade is many times greater, many times. The level of our trade and economic relations, trade and economic cooperation with such a big country as Iran, with a population of 85 million people, is clearly way below what we can actually do.

The thrust of the treaty that we signed today is precisely to create extra conditions, basic additional conditions, to promote trade and economic ties. To put it in plain terms, we need less red tape and more concrete action. We got together today to discuss financial settlements and ways to speed up supply chain decisions, customs issues, and so on and so forth, in the sphere of energy.

Mr President mentioned – and I noted it as well – that Iran is expanding its interaction with the Eurasian Economic Union. All of that taken together, in my opinion, creates very favourable conditions for us to take major and decisive steps forward. We have promising projects across all areas that I just mentioned.

I look forward to us making big strides through joint efforts, including the intergovernmental commission. I have no doubt about this whatsoever. Whatever obstacles or difficulties may be imposed on us from outside, we are capable of overcoming them and moving forward. I am confident this is what it will be like.

Thank you very much for your question.

Masoud Pezeshkian: With regard to our cooperation prospects in light of the big treaty, we are convinced – and I have emphasised this since day one of the presidential election – that the first major step of my government will include strengthening our cooperation with neighbouring countries and expanding opportunities for continued cooperation. I am, of course, talking about the Russian Federation. It is a vast country with which we have excellent political relations, and it holds major importance for us both in the region and internationally.

In order for us to be able to strengthen bilateral relations across all areas without exception, our first step was to review our relationship and to reinforce, so to say, a new treaty framework.

What can we do in the future? We must develop a new mechanism, update our treaty, as my esteemed colleague, Mr President, said in the sphere of investment projects, industry, scientific research, and educational programmes. We already have excellent projects, commissions, sub-commissions, and working groups. These entities have all agreed to create a new treaty framework that will allow us to expand the scope of our activities in our country based on this treaty.

This, of course, aligns with our shared policy of ensuring regional security and opposing the unipolar world. We are confident that, in our region, we can cooperate without external influences or involvement from outlying players. Our major neighbours possess significant potential, and we can safely say that we do not need to heed advice from overseas countries.

I am very pleased to be here today, and I foresee a bright future ahead.

Question: Interfax Agency. I have a question for both presidents.

You mentioned various projects, and I am particularly interested in two of them. A year ago, the two countries announced their plans for a gas pipeline project to transport Russian gas to Iran. Was this matter discussed today? What progress has been made in implementing these plans, and what are the expected volumes?

The second project concerns the well-known international North-South transport corridor. How well is it going, and what challenges, if any, are hindering further expansion of this project?

Vladimir Putin: There are always difficulties with both projects, and all others for that matter. There is always something that needs to be agreed upon, or specific circumstances in a particular sector of the economy, be it logistics, transport, or energy, that need to be accounted for.

There are many issues to address, including price negotiation. Approaches to such negotiations vary and depend on numerous factors. For instance, Mr Miller, who is sitting next to you, can explain technical aspects like the calorific value of oil and gas, among other things. These are technical issues, they need to be agreed upon. Both projects are active, and both are highly important and very engaging.

Speaking of potential gas supply volumes, we believe we should start small with up to two billion cubic metres, but with an option to eventually increase annual shipments to Iran to up to 55 billion cubic metres of gas.

The oil sector also offers opportunities for cooperation. We operate a major nuclear project. One unit is operational and things are going well, and we are now discussing the possibility of building additional units. Indeed, we have to push certain deadlines back, mainly due to payment and settlement issues. This is no secret.

Nevertheless, work is being done and progress is being made. Thousands of people are working on these sites, with approximately 80 percent of the construction being carried out by local contractors. It is a massive and major effort, and we are moving forward despite some issues that need our attention. This is precisely why we get together to address such issues.

We are interested in the North-South project. It presents additional opportunities for promoting Iranian- and Russian-made goods on global markets. It is not just us who have a stake in it; other countries that are energetically developing trade and economic ties with us also have a stake in this project.

Technical, administrative, financial, and organisational issues are being addressed as well. We have established a special office dedicated to this project, with Deputy Prime Minister Savelyev closely involved in its work. He frequently visits Iran and meets with our Iranian partners. These projects are active, and we are confident they will be implemented.

Masoud Pezeshkian: With regard to gas cooperation, I would like to follow up on it by saying that just as the human body relies on vessels to deliver energy to different parts of the body, we too need such “vessels” in the form of ways to deliver energy where it is needed.

We have discussed the routes for delivering materials, energy, or any goods. We need robust supply chains.
To achieve our shared vision and goals, we need to upgrade the routes for delivering fuel and energy. This is an issue our colleagues have been working on for a long time now, and we are prepared to renew and restore the necessary supply infrastructure.

Regarding gas, electricity, other energy, as well as renewable energy, we have held discussions to this end. I believe that the expert teams on both sides are working hard on these matters. We are convinced that we can do it. We must remove any obstacles to ensure these supply routes function at full capacity.

Of course, there are technical issues. However, significant progress has been made. I can safely say that we have the opportunity to re-open a new chapter in energy cooperation between Iran and Russia. Day by day, we must enhance our ability to manage these processes effectively.

Question (retranslated): Given the good relations between Iran and Russia, alongside the Treaty signed today, what will be the policy of the two nations concerning the international agenda and regional cooperation, particularly within our region? How can this be effectively implemented?

Vladimir Putin: We have long been coordinating our efforts on the international stage. This pertains to the most urgent issues on the global agenda, including the Middle East and the South Caucasus, which I have just referenced. All of these matters directly impact our interests.

Mr President mentioned the conflict in Ukraine. Our colleagues are well-informed about the ongoing developments there. We consistently keep our Iranian counterparts apprised.

Broadly speaking, we operate on the premise of prioritising international law, grounded in the United Nations Charter. Relations in the international arena should be forged based on the principles of the UN Charter, respecting the interests of all parties engaged in the international dialogue and refraining from interference in internal affairs. These are the fundamental principles to which we adhere.

The Treaty signed today establishes an additional, as I have previously stated, significant and robust foundation for fostering relations of trust, based on the principles I have just mentioned. This Treaty articulates our priorities and our commitment to honouring them. It enables us to fortify our bilateral relations in the interests of the Iranian people and the citizens of the Russian Federation.

Masoud Pezeshkian: I believe that with the Treaty we signed today, regarding our cooperation in the regional dimension, we will contribute to establishing stability and peace, particularly in our region. Through dialogue, consultations, respect for the territorial integrity of countries, and by eschewing interference from extraregional forces, we, as regional countries, can and will find solution to our regional issues.

I am of the opinion that the dialogue between us, if replicated with other countries, could significantly diminish the scope of issues and eliminate border obstacles. When certain nations impose artificial difficulties at borders, it indeed becomes a substantial hindrance.

Our policy is to foster friendly relations with regional actors predicated on mutual interests, and we are confident in resolving all issues and eliminating all obstacles, especially pertinent in the Middle East.

Question: I have a question for both leaders.

It is evident to everybody that the old world order has come to its end, and the world is transitioning to a multipolar model, a transition that is not without challenges. With the persistent turbulence in the Middle East, how can the balance of power be maintained?

Vladimir Putin: As I have previously stated, by relying on the Charter of the United Nations. This is what we should strive for, and this is what we ought to pursue, rather than attempting to manipulate the rules of international law to serve vested interests, instantly redirecting them in a way favourable for one nation or a group of states. We must not substitute the UN Charter with certain rules that, as I have repeatedly mentioned, remain unseen. A return to the original understanding of the United Nations’ purpose and adherence to the principles enshrined in its Charter is of utmost importance.

Naturally, this is a complex instrument. I would like to remind you that during the Soviet Union era, our Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko earned the moniker “Mister No.” You may ask, why? Because, even then, it was exceedingly challenging to reach consensus on all issues, especially amidst the Cold War. However, this is precisely why the UN was established, to seek acceptable solutions and to avoid the unilateral implementation of unacceptable ones.
However, at some juncture, there emerged a belief that everything could be resolved unilaterally, and the United Nations Organisation itself could be subordinated to serve someone’s selfish interests. If it did not comply, it could be declared unnecessary. And then, when the necessity arose, it could be recalled, along with the principles embedded in the United Nations Charter.

We must revert to the foundational intent behind the Organisation’s creation and operate from the premise that all nations, whether small or large, are equal. They have equal rights, which should be acknowledged and respected.
Masoud Pezeshkian: As my esteemed colleague Vladimir Putin articulated, the era of double standards has come to an end. The notion that one party has the right to kill ordinary citizens, to kill children and women, to obliterate hospitals and schools, and subsequently assert their stance on human rights, is untenable. They then presume to instruct us on the path to follow.

In another nation, particularly ours, we are advised to uphold human rights according to their dictates. We reject these double standards; such insincere human rights are unacceptable to us.

What is happening in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza – where bloodshed is incessant – is evident. You have witnessed it first-hand. Even within the framework of international organisations, the protection of women and children has not been assured. How can we continue this discourse? No entity has ever been permitted to destroy hospitals, schools, infrastructure, and communications, yet it all occurred before our eyes in the Middle East. These double standards are intolerable to us. It is deeply regrettable that the situation persists.

I believe today’s agreements, especially those with other nations committed to international frameworks, ensure that the unipolar world will no longer dictate our course. No double standards can govern the world.

There is no difference between small and large nations; all are equal, as my colleague asserts. If we are to uphold human rights, they must be universal, not confined to a certain group in a particular country. Human rights are a global concern.

Today’s meeting and the agreements reached between our countries, I believe, serve as a further impetus and motivation towards the construction of a multipolar world. Of course, this primarily concerns the development of Iran and Russia.

Thank you very much.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you.

Greece
Source: moderndiplomacy.eu
\

The fact that Thailand, Vietnam and Malaysia were also designated “partner countries” at the Kazan Summit last October suggests Russia’s ‘Near Abroad’ may be expanding to Southeast Asia.

During Russia’s 2024 chairmanship of BRICS – a semi-formal intergovernmental bloc comprising key emerging markets and widely considered the Global South’s answer to the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies – four ASEAN states had been offered ‘partnership status’ in lieu of direct entry. Whereas Vietnam remains in “wait-and-see” mode, Thailand and Malaysia rushed headlong into affiliating themselves with the non-Western alliance soon after invitations were extended their way. Meanwhile and somewhat unexpectedly, Indonesia became a full-fledged BRICS member earlier this week despite Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov announcing an “enlargement moratorium” six months ago in order to assimilate the previous batch of entrants.

With Saudi Arabia still dragging its feet on accession talks, tensions simmering between Türkiye and Russia over recently toppled Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and Kazakhstan ruling out BRICS membership, Indonesia was admittedly among the few ‘middle powers’ left to join the group in short order. That said, the country’s newly-elected strongman, Prabowo Subianto in whom the Kremlin doubtless sees a like-minded, no-nonsense ally, almost certainly had a bearing on its fast-track admission to BRICS. Although the revolving door of retired army generals being thrust into frontline politics is par for the course across Southeast Asia, Subianto’s ascent to power was especially auspicious for Russia since his October inauguration coincided with the 16th Annual BRICS Forum in Kazan that was billed as an earth-shattering Bandung 2.0 symposium.

Notwithstanding his domestic and international reputation as a ‘walking crime wave’ whose egregious behavior and flagrant human rights abuses earned him a 20-year U.S. travel ban, the current incumbent attempted to reassure ordinary Indonesians that he has changed his spots by pulling numerous publicity stunts like launching a $4 billion ‘free meals’ scheme for schoolchildren and masquerading as a ‘cat-lover’ on social media. Interestingly, however, his predecessor and two-time presidential rival, Joko Widodo campaigned on a similar, albeit less ostentatious, “man of the people” ticket when he first ran for office, only to do away with virtually all checks and balances during his decade-long tenure in charge and become fantastically corrupt.

Having referred to democracy as “tiring” and “messy,” one cannot picture Subianto as anything other than an autocrat-in-waiting bent on applying the finishing touches to what he deems a ‘failed social experiment’ and ushering in an era of retrograde, junta-inspired governance. Over and above his chequered past as an acolyte of the bloodthirsty Suharto regime, who was discharged from the military for kidnapping and roughing up civil society activists, the 72-year-old made no bones about his pro-Russia stance while serving as defense minister under Widodo’s prior administration. For starters, Indonesia refused to endorse the final communiqué at the 2024 Peace Conference in Switzerland, citing the need for more “inclusive dialogue” with the Kremlin.

Shortly thereafter, on July 31st, Subianto was received by and went out of his way to ingratiate himself with Vladimir Putin in Moscow – describing Russia as a “great friend.” It was at this meeting that he also proposed launching non-stop Aeroflot flights to Bali, earmarking a scholarship fund for 160,000 Indonesian medical students to pursue higher education in Russia, and intensifying cooperation with Rosatom. Moreover, hisfirst overseas trip as head of state was to China, where bilateral trade deals worth $10 billion were reached. Irrespective, Russia will likely be the main beneficiary of Indonesia’s shift to tyrannical rule under its new commander-in-chief.

The Indonesian masses are not only highly sceptical of Subianto’s authoritarian streak but also of the very legitimacy of his election victory. Should he revert back to his old ways and immiserate those who oppose him, Indonesia risks plunging into the kind of chaos Russia has thrived on in the likes of Syria and Myanmar. Putin, in particular, is more than happy to expend political capital and financial resources on keeping rogue governments in the developing world afloat and package organic uprisings as U.S.-instigated color revolutions. Indonesia, in this regard, is ripe for the picking. Any instability emanating from the grassroots’ disillusionment with Subianto will inevitably be framed by state-backed Russian propagandists as a “BRICS versus Collective West” proxy war. Jakarta, in turn, is bound to throw its full weight behind Moscow at the United Nations.

Opaque as BRICS’ intake procedure might appear, the bloc’s founding members have sought to create the impression that aspirants must go through the motions and cannot be admitted on a ‘luck of the draw’ basis or at the whim of any single participant. Yet in Indonesia’s case, Russia was clearly the driving force behind seeing them through and gift-wrapping their scandal-ridden leader a major diplomatic win early into his presidency. Granted, Indonesia is a regional powerhouse in its own right and a worthy contender to make the cut on merit alone, given its strategic location, abundant mineral reserves, OECD candidacy, and independent “bebas dan aktif” foreign policy doctrine as one of the originators of the 1961 Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

Nonetheless, the debt of gratitude Jakarta now owes Moscow for getting it past the finish line begs the question as to what an agenda-driven Putin is expecting in return. Boasting a 280-million-strong population with a median age of just 30, the world’s largest archipelagic state could become a hotbed for Kremlin-led mercenary recruitment as the war in Ukraine grinds on. For the ex-KGB agent, the best-case scenario would be establishing a North Korea-esque “cannon fodder for food security” arrangement with his opposite number whereby able-bodied Indonesians are brought in on the sly and passed off as ethnic Buryats to afford both parties plausible deniability.

Needless to say, Moscow’s acute manpower deficit is not solely confined to the battlefront. Besides the unprecedented exodus of its best and brightest youth engendered by the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Central Asian guest workers are increasingly beginning to second-guess their future in wartime Russia following the March 22nd Crocus City Hall Terrorist Attack perpetrated by four Tajik assailants and more recently, the Uzbek suspect accused of killing Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov. The climate of fear and xenophobia is such that even remittance-dependent ex-USSR republics like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have warned their citizens against taking up work in Russia.

To fill the ensuing void in labor-intensive industries – namely agriculture, mining, and construction – the Kremlin could end up sourcing blue-collar workers at scale from the ASEAN region. On the people-to-people front, it is no secret that the countries of Southeast Asia welcome Russian visitors and long-term residents alike with open arms and without any preconceptions. Lax entry requirements, year-round warm weather, sinfully low living costs, and politically unaware locals who routinely mistake them for Europeans have fueled the influx of draft dodgers as well as ‘digital nomads’ from Russia to places such as Bali, Phuket and Pattaya.

This differs starkly from the mood in the post-Soviet space where immigration authorities are taking a much harder line vis-à-vis Russian ‘relokants’. Azerbaijan recently capped the maximum length of time citizens of Russia can spend on its territory visa-free at 90 days per calendar year while keeping its land borders closed to ostensibly prevent the post-mobilization demographic transformation that has taken root in neighboring Georgia and Armenia. Kazakhstan introduced similar legislation back in 2023 aimed at ending the prolonged stay of non-resident Russians. It also plans to ramp up crude exports via the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline thirteen-fold as a means of reducing transit reliance on Russia, through which more than 80% of its oil flows pass.

Armenia, on the other hand, has repeatedly hinted at leaving the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and, in a further affront to its former colonizer, just approved a draft bill to kickstart EU membership negotiations. Amid waning influence in its own ‘backyard,’ Russia is collaborating more closely with ASEAN in the hope that the 10-member association continues to remain neutral and avoid enforcing Western sanctions. As far as Putin is concerned, bringing Indonesia into the BRICS fold will not only help ensure the current status quo is maintained but also offer neighboring applicants such as Thailand, Malaysia, and Vietnam cause for optimism.

Greece
Source: moderndiplomacy.eu

With heightening of geopolitical interest in building a new Global South architecture, the newly created administration at Ghana’s Jubilee House, has to consider joining the ‘partner states category’ of BRICS+, an association of five major emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Under the rotating presidency of the Republic of Brazil, the National Democratic Party (NDC) and the elected President John Dramani Mahama, while crafting future pathways and renewing commitments over democracy and governance, designing a new economic recovery programme cum macroeconomic stability as top priorities, could initiate serious discussions relating to putting Ghana on another stage by ascending unto BRICS+ platform.

Certainly this step of ascending unto BRICS+ platform would, in the first place, become a historical landmark for the Republic of Ghana. As already well-known, Ghana has attained prestigious status in a number of multilateral institutions and organizations such as the Economic Community of West Africa States (ECOWAS), the African Union (AU), the United Nations and also from Jan. 2025 has become the head of the Commonwealth Secretariat.

Unlike South Africa, which has acquired a full-fledged membership status in 2011, and Ethiopia, Nigeria and Uganda were taken into the ‘partner states’ category, Ghana similarly has all the fundamental requirements to become one of them in BRICS+ alliance. In order to grasp the multifaceted advantages of joining this alliance and its implications, it is necessary to understand the basic definition and meaning of BRICS+ in the context of the geopolitical changing world. There have been multiple misinterpretations in the media what the alliance stands for and its line of operations on the basis of non-interference. Simply, BRICS is not outright an anti-Western association, it stays open to mutual cooperation from countries with ‘like-minded’ political philosophy.

In a further definition, BRICS is simply a non-western association, and members have the freedom to engage their bilateral relations any external country of their choice. However, despite these challenges, the BRICS+ role as a sustainable and sought-after format for multilateral interaction, primarily seeks a fairer world order based on the sovereign equality for its members-states. In addition to that, BRICS+ strategic partnership has explicitly showed that it is not a confrontation association, but rather that of cooperation designed to address global challenges, and is based on respect for the right of each country to determine its own future.

South Africa and other African countries associated with BRICS+

South Africa is strongly committed to its engagement in the BRICS+. It has, so far, hosted two of its summits. In future, Egypt and Ethiopia would have the chance to host BRICS+ summit, thus uplifting their role further on BRICS+ stage. Many experts still question the role of BRICS members in Africa. Egypt and Ethiopia have excellent relations with members, and simultaneously transact business and trade with other non-BRICS+, external countries. The New Development Bank (BRICS) was established in 2015, has financed more than 100 projects, with total loans reaching approximately $35 billion, and it is great that the branch of this bank operates from Johannesburg in South Africa. Understandably with this, South Africa can be an investment gateway to the rest of Africa.

In 2021, Bangladesh, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Uruguay joined the NDB. The bank claims to be working independently without any political strings, and has further pledged to support development initiatives in developing countries in the Global South. It has made its key tasks including investing in the economy through concessional loans, to achieve alleviating poverty and hardships to sustainable economic growth. The bank’s documents show interest in engaging in traditional sectors such as alternative energy, information, telecommunications and new medical technologies, processing of mineral resources and working towards agricultural production growth. According to President of the BRICS New Development Bank, Dilma Rousseff, “The bank should play a major role in the development of a multipolar, polycentric world.”

Ethiopia and Egypt are the latest addition to BRICS+ association from January 2024. South Africa and Egypt being the economic power houses, while Ethiopia ranks 8th position in the continent. In terms of demography, Nigeria is the populous, with an estimated 220 million people while Uganda has a population of 46 million. What is esential here is that South Africa, Ethiopia and Egypt are full members, Algeria, Nigeria and Uganda were offered ‘partner states’ category. Whether a full member or belongs to the partner state category, all these countries pursue comprehensive and multi-dimensional cooperation with external countries both in the northern and southern hemisphere. BRICS+ has absolutely no restrictions with whom to strike bilateral relationship.

From the above premise, Mahama’s administration could work out a strategic plan to establish full coordination with and request support from the heterogeneity of African members, South Africa, Egypt and Ethiopia, in order to initiate a working framework within to join the association’s partner states category. There is also the possibility to attain full-fledged membership depending on approach and legitimate exhibition of valued-potentiality. Worthy to note here that its membership benefits can not be under-estimated, especially during this era of shifting economic architecture and geopolitical situation.

Queuing for BRICS+ Membership

Records have shown that Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger which historically sharing the cross-border region of West Africa, are in the queue to ascend into the BRICS+ association. These three West African states have formed their own regional economic and defense pact, the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) on September 16, 2023, and currently aspiring for leveraging unto BRICS+, as this could help, most likely, in addressing key questions relating to ensuring their security and development in the region. Of course, Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger are not standing alone with this aspiration. Brazil has taken the chairmanship of the association this year and its priority is numerical expansion of BRICS+, the wave that started in 2024 by Russia. More than 30 countries are the line, thereby hoping to facilitate their equitable participation in bloc’s unique activities, and have shown keen interest, which coincided with the entire Global South.

Perhaps, it is also the most crucial moment for Ghana, located on the coastal region and shares border with Burkina Faso whose military leader, Capt. Ibrahim Traoré was heartily applauded for attending the inauguration of the new President John Dramani Mahama on January 7th. Burkina Faso, without International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, is transforming its agricultural sector to ensure food security. Traore is currently building educational and health facilities, and sports complex for his people. Burkina Faso, in practical terms, turned a new chapter in its political history.
In early January 2025, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) took over political power from the New Patriotic Party (NPP). The political transition is quite smooth and admirable. Ghana was ranked seventh in Africa out of 53 countries in the Ibrahim Index of African Governance. The Ibrahim Index is a comprehensive measure of African government, based on variables which reflect the success with which governments deliver essential political goods to its citizens, and transfer power within the principles, rules and regulations stipulated in the constitution.

Ghana produces high-quality cocoa. It has huge mineral deposits including gold, diamonds and bauxites. Ghana is believed to have up to 5 billion barrels to 7 billion barrels of petroleum in reserves, which is the fifth-largest in Africa. Freshly-elected President John Dramani Mahama, has reiterated to unlock the untapped potential, creating a resilient and inclusive economic model that empowers citizens and ultimately attracts global investments. A day after the inauguration, Ghana cuts size of government, to seek funds from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and other multilateral institutions or organizations for its proposed development projects, and for resuscitating the over-looted and shabby economy. Within the context of growing complexities of West Africa’s geopolitical changes, Ghana’s active involvement in BRICS+ will steadily enhance the dynamics of its traditional governance and extend that in region and across Africa. It would help to consolidate the principles in the multipolar world.

Outlining Ghana’s potential benefits

Preference should be given to the indelible fact that as Ghana currently took over from National Patriotic Party (NPP) and Nana Akufo-Addo’s administration, the government has an economic tasks to implement, aims at recovering from the previous gross mismanagement, therefore BRICS+ has doors to new multitude of evolving geopolitical dynamics and diverse economic partnership opportunities. Closing related to this, Ghana is already the headquarter of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), it could forge appropriate collaboration in boosting further intra-BRICS trade and that of intra-Africa trade. Egypt in the North, Ethiopia and Uganda in the East, and South Africa in southern African region, Nigeria and Ghana both located in West Africa, these put together paints an admirable African geographical representation in BRICS+, and an influential collective African voice on the international stage.

After studying the article report titled “Ghana Should Consider Joining the BRICS Organization” (Source: http://infobrics.org), the author Natogmah Issahaku, explained, in the first place, that Ghana’s relations with other external nations, particularly, those in the West, will not, and should not be affected by its BRICS membership. According to the expert, Ghana needs infrastructural development and sustainable economic growth in order to raise the living standard of Ghanaians to middle-income status, which could be achieved through participation in BRICS. Similarly, Ghana has a lot to offer BRICS+ members such as export of finished and semi-finished industrial and agricultural products as well as minerals in a win-win partnership framework.

As an Applied Economist at the University of Lincoln, United Kingdom, Natogmah Issahaku emphasized the importance of the BRICS New Development Bank (NDB), that considering its objectives, it could play supporting role, in terms of finance, for Ghana’s development agenda. As BRICS development cooperation model is based on equality and fairness, Ghana needs to leverage good relations to optimize potential benefits, above all, to adapt to the fast-changing reality in the current global multi-polarity. Given the colossal scale of economic problems at hand, indeed a visionary President should take steps to lead Ghana into the BRICS fold, soonest, without hesitation.
Notwithstanding world-wide criticisms and some inherent organizational obstacles, BRICS+ countries are endowed with abundant natural resources, have advanced manufacturing and vast markets as well as technological advantages. It is often argued that BRICS has nourished Africa’s economic emergence and elevated the continent’s contemporary global positioning. It is important to look for more new investors. Furthermore, BRICS+ is in the process of establishing new models of leadership and democracy to counter-balance western hegemony which have impoverished many countries in the southern hemisphere. BRICS+ is another avenue to leverage and explore for long-term investment possibilities, work with stakeholders but also go for unlimited distance in the entire world.
The Jubilee House administration could seriously consider uplifting the status into another platform. Ghana could continue integrating it into regional and international bodies, and solicit necessary support for transforming its multifaceted economy and other sectors. Amid a changing world, at least this step reflects one strategic approach to establishing unshakeable leverage with external partners.
These above-mentioned arguable factors sound generally attractive for advancing shared economic priorities in the developing countries including Ghana and for the matter Africa as whole in the Global South. Based on this, it is time to grab the emerging opportunity to drive increasingly high-quality cooperation, focus on hope rather than despair and step up broadly for a more constructive parameters in building beneficial relations into the future! Over to the new government of Hon. President John Mahama, the estimated 35 million people and the Republic of Ghana.

USA
Source: www.cnbc.com

• China could step in to ease the pain of any potential U.S. trade measures against BRICS members, according to David Lubin, senior research fellow at Chatham House.
• Trump’s tariff threat is conditional on BRICS dethroning the U.S. dollar as the world’s most widely used trade currency — which could prove to be a tall order for the alliance.
• The lack of a concrete allied strategy and action from BRICS members raises doubts over whether it will be considered a threat to the U.S., with Pantheon Macroeconomics’ Duncan Wrigley.

President-elect Donald Trump has pledged a 100% tariff against BRICS nations if they continue to undermine the U.S. dollar — but the threat won’t rein in the group’s expansion, analysts tell CNBC.
Most recently, Brazil announced Indonesia’s admittance into the bloc as a member last Monday.

Under outgoing President Joe Biden’s administration, Washington has been relatively dismissive of the 10-member coalition, with White House National Security Communications Advisor John Kirby saying during a press briefing last October that the U.S. does not view BRICS — an economic coalition of emerging markets — as a “threat.” Sentiment could change once Trump enters the White House later this month, following early indications that he may impose tariffs on alliance members if they subvert the U.S. dollar.

“A key policy shift with the incoming Trump administration is its explicit treatment of BRICS as an entity,” Mihaela Papa, director of research at the MIT Center for International Studies, told CNBC by email.

China will ease the tariff pain

Originally established by Brazil, Russia, India, and China in 2009, then joined by South Africa in 2010, the Beijing-led BRICS was set up as a force to rival Western dominance on the international stage.
The alliance’s 16th annual summit in Kazan saw Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates officially admitted into the group. According to Russian officials and official paper of the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee, more than 30 countries have expressed interest in joining the coalition in 2024. CNBC could not independently verify this estimate.

The size of the bloc makes it increasingly unlikely that the U.S. will apply punitive 100% tariffs on BRICS countries, according to Duncan Wrigley, chief China+ economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. Doing so would risk steering nations neutral in the U.S.-China rivalry toward Beijing and interfere with U.S. interests, Wrigley told CNBC by email.

The world’s second-largest economy could even step in to ease the pain of any potential U.S. trade measures against BRICS members, according to David Lubin, senior research fellow at Chatham House.

“From Beijing’s point of view, establishing China as an alternative pillar of global order is a critically important objective and it can’t be met without the support of the developing world,” Lubin said in emailed comments. “And since some 120 countries count China as their main trading partner, this shouldn’t be too difficult.”

China is already starting to do this, putting forward a zero-tariff policy for least developed countries with diplomatic ties with Beijing, which came into effect from December last year and builds on similar measures extended to the least developed African countries.

Dollar is king

Trump’s tariff threat is conditional on BRICS dethroning the U.S. dollar as the world’s most widely used trade currency — which could prove to be a tall order for the alliance.

Russia has been pushing for de-dollarization in a bid to sidestep the SWIFT network, a globally recognized standard for bank transactions, and to curtail the impact of U.S sanctions against Moscow. In the Kazan talks, Vladimir Putin reiterated the use of the dollar as a “weapon” and a “big mistake,” The Guardian reports.

One of the group’s options to topple the dollar was to create a unified BRICS currency — a proposal spearheaded by Brazil, which has yet to gain traction.

Another possibility was setting up multi-currency trade, which is already taking place among several members: some Chinese and Russian trade is being done through the yuan and ruble. Nations have also agreed to continue to strengthen trading through local currencies and expressed support for the idea of an independent cross-border settlement infrastructure for payments.

Chatham House’s Lubin notes that the Chinese currency is “much less useable internationally than dollars,” given that financial markets are largely denominated in the greenback.

Just a ‘talking shop’

The lack of a concrete allied strategy and action from BRICS members raises doubts over whether it will be considered a threat to the U.S., with Pantheon Macroeconomics’ Wrigley saying the emerging markets alliance is currently not much more than a “talking shop.”

The bloc is still too loose and unorganized to create any substantive change, with the 2024 Kazan summit resulting in “nothing really concrete”, according to Cecilia Malmström, nonresident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

This might just insulate BRICS members and partner countries from a trade war with the U.S. — which has China as one of its main targets.

While Beijing holds a significant position in the group, there is still much internal caution amongst other member nations over Beijing’s dominance and potential trade imbalances, according to MIT’s Papas.

“Even if China seeks to leverage its position, internal caution among members is likely to remain a limiting factor,” she adds.

Many BRICS members also still maintain their friendly relations with the U.S. as a “crucial trade partner,” Gustavo Medeiros, head of research at Ashmore Group told CNBC by email.
“There is no reason to believe members of the bloc would be automatically at economic or geopolitical risk in the case of a trade war between the U.S. and China,” Medeiros says.
Correction: This article has been updated to accurately reflect the name of Mihaela Papa, director of research at the MIT Center for International Studies.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to wish everyone present a happy New Year and a Merry Christmas to all those who celebrate this holiday. I would also like to wish everyone who have a sense of humour a happy New Year Old Style, which we celebrated yesterday and which certainly added a few positive notes to everyday routine, which is a fact of life and which we will be mostly talking about today.

The fundamental assessments of the international situation in the past few years, our actions, policy and goals on the international stage have been presented in detail during President Vladimir Putin’s annual news conference on December 19, 2024. Before it, he regularly spoke about international issues in his other statements, including at a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club and at other events. I will not focus on the international events that constituted the essence of our operation and initiatives.

However, I would like to remind you, as we pointed out on many occasions, that we are living in a historical period, or possibly a historical era or confrontation between those who uphold the fundamental principles of international law (and the world order that developed after Victory over Nazism and Japanese militarism in the Second World War), which have been formulated, set out and put forth in the most important international document – the UN Charter – and those who are not satisfied with that document and who decided after the end of the Cold War that the deed is done and that their main opponent – the Soviet Union – and the accompanying socialist camp have been finally suppressed. They decided that from that time on they could not live in accordance with the UN Charter but with the wishes of the “political West,” which includes the US’s Asian allies (Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea). We regard them as “political” or “collective West.” Regarding themselves as victors in the Cold War, they decided that they no longer needed to coordinate their actions with a strong opponent such as the Soviet Union, and that they would decide all issues independently, issuing instructions from the top down, just as it was done in the Soviet Union’s party system (the Politburo, the Central Committee, regional party committees, district party committees, etc.).

At that time, the PRC had not yet achieved the kind of tremendous economic success and political influence that we see today, so the West did not encounter any serious resistance. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken about this, convincingly and at length, explaining the true root causes of the conflict that left us no other choice. We had to begin the special military operation in Ukraine to repel an attack, a war waged against us by the collective West with the main goal of suppressing competition when Russia re-emerged as its strong rival on the international arena. I will not list these reasons in detail. Their main goal was to weaken our country geopolitically, creating direct military threats to us – not somewhere across the ocean, but right on our borders, on Russia’s native territories toiled by Russians and developed by Russian tsars and their associates, in an attempt to slash our strategic potential and devalue it as much as possible. The second reason also has to do with the history of the region, only it was more about the people who have lived on that land for centuries, developed it from scratch, built cities, factories and ports, than about the land itself. These people were labelled ‘terrorists’ by the current Ukrainian regime, which came to power through an illegal anti-constitutional coup. And when they refused to accept it, that regime launched an all-out offensive against all things Russian, which provided a centuries-old framework for the region where people refused to obey the new Nazis.

Now we are witnessing the height of this battle. I am sure that there will be questions about it, so I will not go into detail right now. However, I would like to reiterate the main conflict of the current historical period – something that professors always pointed out in Soviet history courses. The main conflict is between those who support a multipolar world, the UN Charter and the sovereign equality of states, which requires all those who ratified it not to impose their will on others, but to rationalise their point of view and seek a balance of interests, to negotiate, and who support all the other principles of the UN Charter, on the one hand [– and those who don’t, on the other]. These principles constitute the international legal framework for the equitable international system that is commonly referred to as the Yalta-Potsdam system. Many people, including our political scientists, speak of it now as a bygone era. I do not quite agree with this assessment. From the international law perspective, the Yalta-Potsdam system does not require any ‘repair’ - it is in the UN Charter. Everyone should simply comply with it, and not selectively, like ordering a la carte – I’d like fish today and something stronger tomorrow – but in its entirety. Moreover, all the interrelations between the principles of the UN Charter have long been defined in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. It was adopted unanimously, with no one objecting.

Let me reiterate that those who oppose multipolarity and efforts to achieve it today believe that with the Cold War over, they are above the law and that they can follow their own rules. They call this Western-style set of rules a rules-based order - although no one has ever seen these rules – and are pushing them across the board on all nations.

After the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union’s dissolution, they have been persisting, as if driven by inertia, with their desire to cast themselves as masters of destinies. This is something that surprises me, while also making me anxious. In fact, every reasonable politician must understand that the situation has radically changed compared to what it was 30 or 35 years ago. There has been a revival in efforts to oppose the Western diktat, with emerging economies and new centres of financial power in China, India, ASEAN, the Arab world, and CELAC replacing the USSR in this role. This group also includes a resurgent Russia together with its allies from the EAEU, the CIS, and CSTO. This also includes the SCO and BRICS, and many other emerging and rapidly developing associations across the world, in the countries of the Global South, or to use a better designation – within the Global Majority. A new reality has already emerged along with strong competitors who want to engage in fair economic, financial and sports competition. However, the West, or at least its present-day elites, proved to be unable to stop following the path of seeking to ensure their total dominance and perorating about what they refer to as the end of history. They are heading down a slippery slope in their attempts to stop their competitors in their tracks, including in terms of economic competition. Today, the United States announced a new sanctions package dealing with AI microchips, which includes banning their imports to NATO and EU countries. I have a strong feeling that the United States does not want to have any competitors anywhere, starting with the energy sector. In this sector, the US has given the green light to terrorist attacks designed to undermine EU’s wellbeing in terms of energy supplies. Now, they are encouraging their Ukrainian clients to put the TurkStream out of operation, just as they did with the Nord Stream pipelines. The United States and its allies have placed sanctions policies at the core of what they do on the international stage, including regarding Russia, but also in other respects. This demonstrates their refusal to engage in fair economic competition and their commitment to using unfair, aggressive practices for suppressing their opponents. They imposed a plethora of sanctions on China, too. As I have already said, they do not hesitate sanctioning their allies whenever there is even a slight threat that these allies can make something cheaper or be more effective on international markets compared to US manufacturers.
In sports, we witnessed fair competitions evolve into efforts to serve the vested national interests of a country which aspires to dominate everything.

If Mr Donald Trump seeks to make America greater once he assumes office, we will have to keep a close eye on the methods President Donald Trump uses to achieve this goal.

This was my take on the main contradictions we face today. I am at your disposal to hear and answer your questions.

Question: President of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić has recently made certain statements that some experts interpret as a de facto alignment with the United States. How do such statements tally with the special nature of relations between Russia and Serbia?

Sergey Lavrov: Our primary concern is that our relations with Serbia are grounded solely in the interests of the Serbian and Russian peoples, as well as our respective states. Our interests align on the vast majority of issues. These relations are rich with specific agreements and projects, including those in the energy sector, approved by our heads of state, governments, and companies. There are joint ventures, such as Naftna Industrija Srbije. According to its articles, nationalisation is not an option under any circumstances. The American political scene, particularly among the Democrats, often exhibits a tendency to leave a “mess” for the incoming administration. This was evident when Barack Obama, three weeks prior to Donald Trump’s first inauguration, expelled 120 Russian diplomats and their families and seized, under arrest, two pieces of diplomatically inviolable real estate, which we are still barred from accessing. This forced us to respond and certainly did not facilitate the US-Russia relationship during the new Trump administration.

Similarly, there seems to be an attempt to “throw a spanner in the works,” as we say it, for both the Serbs and the Trump administration. A deputy assistant for energy arrived there, attended a joint news conference with President Aleksandar Vučić, and moralised, insisting that Russian capital should be excluded from Naftna Industrija Srbije and the Serbian energy sector in general. Otherwise, he threatened to block all market access for Serbian goods. It was quite a brazen performance, yet this is the “trademark” of the outgoing American administration.

When you have not been re-elected, and your team perceives America in a way that was not supported by the majority of Americans, ethically speaking – beyond politics, out of basic human decency – you should simply await the conclusion of the three months between the election and inauguration, understanding that the people desire a different policy. But no, they insist on “slamming the door,” ensuring they leave a significant impact.

I reiterate that we share a rich history with Serbia in our joint struggle against Nazism and for the respect of peoples’ right to self-determination. We support each other politically and within international organisations. Of course, we observe that Serbia is being “twisted.” When President Vučić has long stated that Serbia remains on course for EU membership, and year after year he hears that they are welcome, but only if they first recognise Kosovo’s independence – essentially inviting the Serbian people and their president to self-abasement – and secondly, of course, the Serbs must join all EU sanctions against the Russian Federation. In parallel with this invitation to self-abasement, there is a demand to betray their ally. President Vučić has repeatedly stated that this is an unacceptable policy pushed by the Europeans, clearly encouraged by the United States.
The situation, even from a legal standpoint, demands courageous decisions. They say you have an agreement with someone that does not concern us, but it does concern our desire to punish your partner. They add, “sorry, but you’ll also be hit tangentially, and quite painfully.”

The decision rests with the Serbian leadership. Deputy Prime Minister Aleksandar Vulin, who represented Serbia at the BRICS summit in Kazan, made a clear statement on this matter. So, we will see.

We remain in contact with our Serbian friends. We have requested urgent consultations and hope to receive a response at the earliest opportunity.

Question: Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi stated not long ago that, under the strategic guidance provided by the two heads of state, China-Russia relations were becoming increasingly mature, stable, independent, and strong every day, and served as a model of friendly interactions between major powers and neighbouring countries. What do you have to say about this? What do you think is the secret to the steady expansion of bilateral relations? What are your expectations regarding bilateral cooperation this year?

Sergey Lavrov: I fully share the assessments of Russia-China relations provided by my good and long-time friend Wang Yi. We meet several times a year, and these meetings are quite useful, helping us reach concrete agreements to implement foreign policy goals agreed upon by President Vladimir Putin and President Xi Jinping, and coordinate our steps on the international stage.

Without a doubt, Russia-China partnership is among the key factors stabilising modern international life and the ongoing processes that are used, among other things, to escalate confrontation and hostility in international affairs, which is what our neighbours from NATO engage in under US guidance. The United States is seeking to drive wedges and sow discord, be it in Europe, the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, or as they say, the Indo-Pacific region, be it the Middle East or Africa.
With its hundreds of military bases worldwide, the United States has no problem wreaking havoc here and there. However, these see-through schemes do not mislead anyone. They seek to create destabilising confrontations anywhere they need to, causing nations that push for regional influence to waste their resources, focus, and time on resolving crises rather than to use them for development purposes. Meanwhile, Washington is reaping increasing benefits from it. They did this during World War I and World War II. This time, they have shifted the main burden of the war they are waging against Russia through Ukraine onto the European Union. Most of the EU, including leaders of France, Germany, and Italy, remain largely silent. Some are voicing discontent, but these voices are coming mostly from the opposition, such as the Alternative for Germany, Sahra Wagenknecht’s Union, and the National Front in France.

The opposition wonders why so much money is being spent elsewhere while poverty is rising, deindustrialisation is underway, and the manufacturing industry is fleeing to the United States, where energy costs are four times lower, and taxes are lower as well.

They have “burned” almost all of California, causing damage estimated at $250 billion, which is more than what they have spent on Ukraine, even though the figures are comparable. At various international events, such as APEC in San Francisco, we have seen that the United States is facing numerous problems. Poverty is rife. All you need to do to see it is go off the main roads.

So, when China and Russia advocate for equal and honest dialogue with Washington, it primarily means upholding the principles of international communication that are enshrined in the UN Charter.
After World War II ended with the defeat of German Nazism in Europe and Japanese militarism in the Far East, our leaders agreed to jointly celebrate these two outstanding events which are the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II in Europe and the 80th anniversary of Victory in World War II in the Far East.

I’m confident these will be outstanding events. They are crucial to reminding everyone, especially the younger generation, of the price paid for peace and to continue firmly countering the attempts to rewrite history, equating Nazis with those who liberated Europe from them and the Far East from Japanese militarism.

This is an essential component that cements the comprehensive Russia-China partnership and strategic cooperation. I believe the secret of success lies in our shared history. We do not reject this history. Unlike the West, neither Russia nor China has ever dialed back on their commitments, including those codified in the UN Charter. The West, while not formally renouncing them as commitments, does everything in practice to avoid following them, instead pursuing its selfish designs.

The entities relying on Russia-China partnership and joint initiatives belong to a new type of association, without leaders or followers, or masters or subordinates.

These entities include the SCO, which is expanding its ties with the EAEU. The Eurasian Economic Union is harmonising its integration plans closely with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. BRICS has gained even more strength after the Kazan Summit. Indonesia, which we strongly supported during Russia’s chairmanship, became a full member. Eight more countries have become partner states, and the SCO and ASEAN, as well as many other associations, maintain close cooperation. All of that is based on consensus. The Russia-China tandem can move these processes forward with the support of other participants. The international importance of our cooperation, partnership, and future plans is immense. I’m confident these plans will be realised. We do not seek to oppose anyone. The only thing we want is to see all countries on our planet, including the US-led collective West, interact based on respect for the interests of all their partners. This position is shared by Moscow and Beijing.

Question: We all see that Armenia is being led down a fallacious and destructive path. I would go as far as to suggest that this is posing an existential threat to the country. This serves exclusively to benefit the West, to the detriment of the centuries-old Russian-Armenian ties.

We all know that Armenia has suspended its participation in the CSTO. We know that the Armenian government is boycotting a number of events hosted by Russia. At the same time, recently, the authorities in Yerevan began dragging the country into the European Union. They are reportedly planning to hold a referendum on EU accession. Today we also found out that Armenia is going to sign a strategic partnership document with the United States. All this is happening against the backdrop of very real threats from our neighbours, which are increasing the chances of a new war. What is Moscow’s approach to the situation in Armenia? How do you see further developments?
My second question is about the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory, which you have mentioned. It is our common victory. We know how much the Soviet people, including the Armenian people, contributed to that victory. They made a truly great and valuable contribution. Do you agree that the memory of this victory should remain one of the pillars of the further strategic alliance between Armenia and Russia?

I am a member of the Council of Eurasia. This autonomous non-profit organisation has been active across the Eurasian continent for the last seven months. We have been advocating the preservation of historical memory and defending traditional values. I can say for sure that this advocacy effort is getting a wide response from our young people. In October 2024, we held a large mass event in Yerevan, which was attended by over 1,000 Armenian students. We not only celebrated Yerevan Day, but also paid tribute to the Victory in the Great Patriotic War by laying flowers at the Eternal Flame.

Sergey Lavrov: In response to your second question – this issue is sacred for all nations, above all for the Soviet Union. It is sacred for everyone who survived attempted genocide by Hitler’s armies and who fought for justice and truth, as part of their countries’ regular armies or partisan groups and resistance movements, repelling the Nazis and the large number of European countries that the German Nazis made join the battle on their side. Spanish and French soldiers took part in the siege of Leningrad and in many other criminal acts committed by the Nazi regime.

We have not forgotten this. What we see today keeps bringing those events back, and one cannot help noticing similarities. Napoleon invaded Europe and made everyone join his army to defeat the Russian Empire. It wasn’t just the French we had to repel. Hitler’s Germany later did the same. Dozens of countries occupied by the Germans sent their soldiers to destroy and annihilate the USSR.
President Joe Biden, who delivered his final speech on the US foreign policy yesterday, said that they had made NATO stronger and more capable, with 50 nations ready “to help Ukraine” – in fact, to fight against Russia using Ukraine as proxy.

History repeats itself, and each iteration includes someone having a sense of superiority and promoting a version of what is now called ‘Bonapartism’. With Hitler, that devolved to Nazism. Today, new Nazis are providing their banners to anyone wishing to march under them in a new attempt to destroy our country. Therefore, these anniversaries are sacred.

I believe everything that is being done by civil society, including your organisation, on top of what is being done by states and governments, deserves the highest praise.

I’m aware of your accomplishments in Armenia, not just in Yerevan, but in other cities and villages as well. Our embassy maintains strong collaboration with you on matters where we can join our efforts, such as organising the Immortal Regiment march, or initiatives like Memory Garden and Victory Dictation. These efforts are crucial if we want to introduce young people to these truly eternal values.
Our diplomats meet with Armenian veterans, take care of burial sites, and maintain memorials in good condition. There is no doubt that Russians and Armenians are friendly and fraternal peoples, and mutual relations will ultimately be grounded in friendship.

Regarding current official relations, they are not without difficulties. You mentioned certain facts that we have commented on earlier.

For example, when it was announced that the Armenian government had decided to begin the process of joining the European Union, Russia’s Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk, a seasoned professional in charge of the EAEU affairs, openly stated that this initiative ran counter to the existing state of affairs. These are two different free trade areas with different systems for cutting (or eliminating) tariffs and duties. They are incompatible, plain and simple.

As you may be aware, back in 2013, after several reminders that we issued, then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich noted that the negotiations with the EU regarding Ukraine’s association agreement, which had been underway for many years by that time, were about to reach terms that would be directly at odds with Ukraine’s obligations under the CIS free trade area. Ukraine was part of it and benefitted from it, as it was almost free from internal tariffs. Ukraine strived to obtain the same zero tariffs arrangement with the EU, with which, for obvious reasons, Russia and other CIS members had fairly high protective barriers.

When Russia was in the process of joining the World Trade Organisation, it took us 17 years of negotiations to secure strong protection for many sectors of our economy and services. If Ukraine, with its zero tariffs for Russia, were to obtain similar arrangements with the EU, European goods, which were subjected to substantial tariffs under our agreement with Brussels, would have flooded our market tariff-free. We made that clear to the Ukrainians.

Yanukovich’s government agreed with that. They realised that if they did nothing, we would simply block Ukrainian imports into Russia which would affect Ukraine, since the bulk of Ukraine’s trade was with the CIS, not Europe. Ukraine asked the EU to postpone the signing of the association agreement for several months in order to reassess the situation.

We proposed that Russia, Ukraine, and the European Commission sit down and find a way for Ukraine to gain extra benefits from the EU association agreement without losing the advantages provided by the CIS free trade area.

Then-European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, a rather presumptuous individual, dismissed this suggestion in a similarly presumptuous manner, saying it was none of our business, comparing it to the EU not interfering in Russia’s relations with Canada. Thus, the decision of Armenia’s legitimate government to start a process to access an international entity that welcomes it is a sovereign decision. However, weighing all pros and cons is also part of the responsibility of Armenia’s government and Armenian economic policymakers.

You mentioned that Armenia has blocked its participation in the CSTO. While they do not participate in its events, they have officially stated that this does not mean they block decision-making requiring consensus.

The organisation continues to function as usual. In the autumn of 2022, we agreed to send a CSTO observer mission that was properly equipped to play a deterrent role along the border. However, our Armenian friends, despite everything being agreed upon and ready to go, ultimately declined, citing difficulties stemming from the September 2022 three-day skirmishes on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and claiming the CSTO “failed to defend the territory of its ally.”

President Vladimir Putin has revisited this issue on multiple occasions. There was no delineated border, and certainly no demarcation. None and never. It was a couple of kilometres one way, and a couple of kilometres the other way. Indeed, there was an exchange of fire. However, turning down a CSTO mission, which would have been quite effective, was also a sovereign decision. At the same time, they invited a two-month EU mission, and later unilaterally extended it indefinitely without consulting Azerbaijan. Subsequently, Canada joined the mission, introducing an element of NATO presence. According to our information, these personnel are addressing issues that are of interest not only to Armenia, but to various Western alliances as well.

Yesterday, I heard the news that Armenian Foreign Minister Ararat Mirzoyan signed a strategic partnership agreement with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken which is a sovereign decision between two states. The main point is not what was signed or the name of the document that was signed, but the implications.

We, too, have used the term “strategic partnership” in numerous agreements with Western countries. However, those agreements, albeit strategic, never required the participants to act against third countries.

We have never, in times of peace, (World War II and the Great Patriotic War are a separate matter) put in writing in any document that we are strategic partners with someone and must, therefore, join some sanctions, as is the case with Serbia. They will ask Armenia to do the same.

Our dialogue continues, though. Foreign Minister of Armenia Ararat Mirzoyan has been invited to visit the Russian Federation and has accepted the invitation. We look forward to having him here soon.

Question: You have already talked about a possible meeting between President Putin and President Trump. What part can you see for the European Union and countries like Germany in possible negotiations about the Ukraine conflict?

Sergey Lavrov: German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande told us that they are the guarantors of the Minsk Agreements between Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France. The agreements were developed in the Belarusian capital, where I also had the honour of being present, taking almost 20 hours. The Germans and the French said that it was a peace agreement between Moscow and Kiev, and that they were the guarantors. We had a different interpretation of the participants’ statuses, but that was the stance that Germany and France adhered to. Their view was that they had seated us at the table, we reached an agreement, and they played the role of guarantors.

We, the Russian side, took this document to the UN Security Council, which unanimously approved it and requested that the agreements be fulfilled. I will not list the hundreds and thousands of violations by the Kiev regime, including bombings of civilian facilities and the total blockade of the territory that refused to recognise the state coup. Those violations have been regularly reported to the UN and the OSCE. We have told the guarantors: let’s stop this outrage. They would claim that Russia was allegedly firing too, helping the militia.

In December 2022, already in retirement, Angela Merkel said that nobody had intended to fulfil the agreements, neither Germany, nor France, nor then-President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko who had signed the documents. Apparently, they only needed to win a few years to prepare Ukraine for war.
This matter pertains to the nature of the Yalta-Potsdam system enshrined in the UN Charter. Article 25 states that resolutions of the UN Security Council are mandatory for all members of the organisation. Former Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel said that Article 25 was not an obligatory rule to follow – although she herself was a party to this document, which was also supplemented by a declaration of four countries (Russia, Ukraine, Germany and France) that once again included a statement about a shared space from Lisbon to Vladivostok that we would be building, a statement that France and Germany would help Donbass to set up mobile banking and that they would help remove the blockade and organise talks to resolve gas transportation issues, essentially helping Russia and Ukraine in this respect. None of this was fulfilled.

With all respect for the history of the German people, I believe that it has already made its “contribution” through the administration of the former Chancellor of Germany. President Vladimir Putin has never rejected proposals to establish contacts. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has called him a couple of times. They spoke recently. Olaf Scholz was proud of his own act of courage. But there have also been conversations with other representatives of the European Union. I hope that the President will not be upset with me for revealing secrets but during that conversation, Olaf Scholz said nothing that he does not say publicly every other day: Russia must leave Ukraine. Nothing was said about the origin of the crisis, not a word about the Russian language and the rights of Russians which Zelensky wants to appropriate.

In fact, back in 2021, long before the special military operation, Vladimir Zelensky said that if one feels Russian in Ukraine, one should hit the road and go to Russia for the sake of their children. Just recently, he used Russian obscenities to talk about his attitude towards the peacekeepers who do not want to push Russians to the borders of 1991. This man’s sanity is a different matter.

Many have offered their services. Türkiye was a place where an agreement was reached and initialled. Former Prime Minister of Great Britain Boris Johnson (who is now writing some books) prohibited the signing of the agreement that was based on the principles approved in Istanbul. There was a series of meetings in Belarus. President Alexander Lukashenko once again confirmed that, as a neighbour of Russia and Ukraine, he believes that Belarus’ interests must be taken into account. We value this approach.

Overall, understanding is growing. This is why there is significant interest in the discussion about a telephone conversation and a meeting between the Presidents of Russia and the United States. Everybody realised (they have known it for a long time but refused to admit it) that it is not about Ukraine but about the fact that Ukraine is being used to weaken Russia in the context of our place in the system of Eurasian security.

There are two aspects of security. The threats at our Western borders, which are one of the biggest original causes of the conflict, must be eliminated. This can only be achieved in the context of broader agreements. We are ready to discuss security guarantees for a country that is now called Ukraine, or for the part of this country that remains undecided in terms of self-determination – unlike Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya. As important as this aspect is, the Eurasian context will dominate because the Western part of the continent cannot shut itself off from giants like China, India, Russia, the Persian Gulf and the entire South Asia, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Hundreds of millions of people populate this region. We must develop the continent to ensure that the issues of its central part, the Central Asia, the Caucasus, the Far East, the Taiwan Strait, and the South China Sea are handled by the countries of the region rather than by former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who said that NATO would operate there because the alliance’s security depends on the Indo-Pacific Region.
How exactly does it depend on this region? He was asked if NATO was still a defence alliance. He said yes. They defend the territory of their members, but in modern conditions, the security of their territory depends on the security in the Indo-Pacific Region. And that is why they will be building NATO infrastructure there, among other things. Alliances will be created there. The United States and South Korea have already created a military alliance with a nuclear component. They confirmed it recently.

This is an interesting aspect for political analysts to consider. How can these things be integrated? I assure you, the Euro-Atlantic approach to Eurasia is an illusion.

Question: Could you please provide more information about the Iran-Russia comprehensive strategic partnership treaty? What messages does the treaty convey and are there any concerns from third parties about it?

Sergey Lavrov: On January 17, President of Iran Masoud Pezeshkian will visit Russia. This visit has been announced, and our presidents will sign this treaty.

As for whether someone likes it or not, this question is usually posed by our Western colleagues, who consistently seek to find some topic that will suggest that Russia – along with Iran, China and the DPRK – is plotting something against someone round the clock. This treaty, like the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, is not directed against any third country. It is constructive and aims to enable both Russia and Iran, as well as our friends in various parts of the world, to better develop their economies, address social issues, and ensure reliable defence capabilities.

Question: The Russian Maritime Doctrine regards the Indian Ocean as an area of its strategic interests. How could Pakistan use its relations with SCO and BRICS countries within that doctrine to promote safe and mutually beneficial cooperation? What can you say about current Russia-Pakistan relations?

Sergey Lavrov: Our relations are developing progressively. The current period is the most positive one in many decades. There are also projects aimed at restoring the facilities that were created in the Pakistani economy during the Soviet period.

There is a mutual interest in practical interaction in fighting terrorism. Pakistan is suffering from it as well. The fight against terrorism also calls for joining efforts with your Afghan neighbours, India and all SCO countries, because evil people are using Central Asia, Afghanistan and Pakistan for planning and implementing their criminal projects.

The SCO has an anti-terrorist structure. It is working well. We are exchanging information. Since terrorism financing is closely connected with drug trafficking as a form of organised crime, we have been promoting in the past years the idea of creating a common centre for combating new threats such as terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime, and human trafficking. We will start implementing this idea this year.

I would like to emphasise that all organisational measures are important, but it is even more important to strengthen trust within the SCO in the format that is currently working on Afghanistan (Russia, China, Pakistan and Iran). We believe that it would be beneficial to involve India in it. The SCO and the formats focused on Afghanistan, such as the Moscow Format of Consultations on Afghanistan, are an additional platform where Pakistan, India and China would be able to interact more closely, trying to promote mutual understanding, asking questions of concern to them, and receiving and analysing the answers. We are ready to help promote this process. It will be in the interests of your countries, our region and the SCO.

Question: Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin is currently in Hanoi on an official visit. It is focused on Russia’s participation in the construction of the Ninh Thuan 1 nuclear power plant. How would a positive settlement of this issue change Russia-Vietnam relations?

Sergey Lavrov: The main change in our bilateral relations would be a positive decision on the nuclear power plant project. One more joint project would be added to our bilateral relations. We have many joint projects with Vietnam, for example, the Tropical Centre, which is being modernised and will work more effectively. There are also joint projects in the hydrocarbons market (Rusvietpetro and Vietsovpetro are working in each other’s territories) and in the sphere of nuclear power generation. These projects involve high technologies. President Putin pointed out on many occasions that we do not just build power plants and subsequently use them but also create a new industry in the countries where we do this, including train personnel for them.

Such agreements can include various commercial aspects. For example, Russia will own the power plant we are building in Türkiye. We will supply electricity and pay taxes there. Other projects stipulate parity ownership with the home country. There can be different formats, but it is a fact that our relations will be enriched with one more high-tech project.

We have talked about Ukraine today. Vietnam has announced its readiness to host negotiations. We are grateful for this. We appreciate this position of our Vietnamese friends. I cannot comment on this now because no practical proposals have been made, and the tasks we are tackling must be carried through.

Question: In your opinion, is there a possibility of further deterioration in Russian-Japanese relations after Donald Trump’s inauguration, considering his intention to strengthen the US-Japanese alliance? Is this cause for concern for Russia? Which areas of Russian-Japanese relations are likely to deteriorate during Trump’s presidency?

Sergey Lavrov: The question is whether it is possible to sink even lower and deeper.
I cannot respond to it because all the downward movement was initiated by our Japanese neighbours: the destruction of almost everything, including regular, respectful political dialogue at the highest and high levels. Russia has made no moves in this direction.

We have long lost hope that Western countries will fulfil their promises and obligations, including NATO’s non-expansion to the east, refraining from luring Ukraine into NATO, and preventing Nazism, which began to eradicate all things Russian in Ukraine. Everyone is keeping silent on this issue despite our persistent reminders. Despite the Minsk agreements, they bombed these people, who should have been granted a special status in accordance with the UN Security Council’s resolutions. After years of explaining this and encountering not just a lack of understanding but deafness, simply an unwillingness to listen, we ultimately launched the special military operation to protect our security interests and the interests of the Russian people in Ukraine. In response, Japan was immediately ordered to join the sanctions. It complied. That’s the reality.

Occasionally, we receive signals that they are willing to resume dialogue on a peace treaty, along with requests to allow their citizens to visit the islands for cultural reasons. But it’s all handled in such an unserious manner, like someone just showing up and saying, “Oh, by the way, we were asked to pass this along.” There’s no “Dear so-and-so.” It’s not there. It’s just, “Here you go; now work on it.”
Japan has always stood out for its delicate approach to life, from its cuisine to various rituals. This subtlety in its relationship with us seems to have vanished. However, there are some exceptions. At least we have never made culture, sport or joint educational projects a victim of politics. Never. We appreciate that, despite everything, Japan hosts tours involving Russian performers called the Days of Russian Culture in Japan every autumn. Not every country shows such courage.

If this particular quality – and I mean this in regard to your employers and their government, not you personally – could be applied to demonstrate a sense of dignity, I believe it would be in the best interests of the Japanese people.

Question: You and your colleagues from the Government have compiled a list of unfriendly countries and territories, which includes the island of Taiwan. I understand that this decision reflects the de facto situation, but on paper it appears that a piece of friendly China has been designated as unfriendly. Has the Chinese side commented on this? What can you say about this?

Sergey Lavrov: The Moscow-Taipei Coordination Commission for Economic and Cultural Cooperation in Taipei functions similarly to our embassies in countries that have imposed sanctions on us. Taiwan has imposed sanctions on us as well. That is the criterion we were guided by.
It may sound a bit cumbersome, but we consider the governments of the countries that have joined the sanctions unfriendly. There is no such thing as unfriendly countries or peoples for us.
Our Chinese friends are fully aware of this state of affairs.

Question: What are Russia’s main projects and priorities in Latin America for the coming year?

Sergey Lavrov: We regard Latin America as one of the significant poles of the emerging multipolar world order. Our relationships with nearly all countries in the region are diverse.
This includes our Brazilian friends, who collaborate with us not only bilaterally but also within the BRICS framework. Brazil has now assumed the chairmanship of this group from us, marking a promising avenue. We have a bilateral agenda with Brazil encompassing economic, military, and technical spheres, among others.

Our embassy in Argentina is actively engaged, and we are currently establishing relations with President Javier Milei and his new administration to explore new opportunities.

Our principal partners, friends, and allies include Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua.

We are closely monitoring developments in Bolivia concerning the election campaign, noting that the United States is once again attempting to interfere and create divisions among progressive forces in the country. This is of little surprise.

We actively support CELAC, particularly after President Lula da Silva’s leadership invigorated the organisation, with Brazil not only participating but also seeking to take the initiative. This includes President Lula da Silva’s proposal to develop alternative payment platforms to reduce dependence on the dollar's dominant position. These are pragmatic considerations. We maintain relationships with MERCOSUR, UNASUR, the Central American Integration System, ALBA, and many others.
Russia was represented at the inauguration of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, where productive discussions took place between our State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin and the President.

I anticipate a fruitful year in our bilateral relations.