Russia
Source: moderndiplomacy.eu

An in-depth analysis of the historical dynamics indicated BRICS, an informal association consisting Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa plus its newly-incorporated four members, are gearing to launch its own payment system, definitely dealing a hypersonic blow to over-dependence on the American currency, the dollar. The BRICS payment system has been in the works since the New Development Bank (NDB) was established in 2015. Noticeably BRICS, with most of its development and financial initiatives, its operations and collective activities are characterized by policy rhetoric of geopolitical confrontation. As the geopolitical tension heightens, BRICS is increasingly becoming serious with its decades-old original initiatives.

With Russia in the helm of BRICS one-year-rotating affairs this 2024, and Russia under sanctions due to its invasion in Ukraine since February 2022, Moscow and Kremlin have been pushing hard to de-dollarize the global system and further design a make-up of economic architecture away from the United States and Europe. Russia’s approach to multipolar means ‘confrontation’ while its members, China and India, encourage and emphasize ‘cooperation’ within the framework of expected reforms. In particular, China’s vision for a multipolar world, can simply be likened to cooperating with regions such as Africa, Latin America, and Asia together to have equally influence. China has consistently been arguing for a collaborative global economy where no single region dominates, while Russia the only member who always postures for confrontation, and as a result, rapidly creating a fragmented world.

For sure many experts have acknowledged in reports, and provided valuable insights into an economic diplomacy coinciding with China’s position on global development. That is why China strongly believes that cooperation is essential for addressing challenges like climate change, poverty, and inequality. China, indiscriminately, believes that developing regions such as Africa, with its vast potential, should be an integral part to this cooperative efforts under BRICS and through other international organizations. China advocates for mutually beneficial cooperation with external countries.

Payment system

Nevertheless, looking ahead to the forthcoming BRICS Summit planned for October 2024 in Kazan, capital of the Republic of Tatarstan, BRICS members under Russia’s directorship will continue, steadily and strategically, navigating the complex dynamics of globalization, the unfolding geopolitical processes with the endearing initiative to launch the BRICS payment system and raise the numerical strength of the association. In fact, many developing countries are looking forward, with keen interest, to joining the informal association. For now these interested potential members will be grouped only as ‘partner members’ in the association, making a new distinctive shift in the structure. China, being a pragmatic member, has long insisted at eliminating the root cause of conflicts, partly caused by under-development. It therefore has one of its four major initiatives embodied the global development initiative, and that is largely complemented by enhancing global security governance through collective security measures.

At moment as part of BRICS task, economic measures relating to world-wide ‘de-dollarizing’ are also of great significance to broadening trade partnership across the world. That makes creating a new system of payment, encouraging payment in local currencies. But this could be facilitated if ‘rules and regulations’ are made flexible and transparent to encourage trade between members. That depends largely on the effectiveness of trade without promoting bilateral and multilateral trade, and multi-sectoral services. In that case, the payment system becomes potent and ineffective.
Nature of expansion

At the sixth BRICS International Municipal Forum held from August 27 to 29, which brought together about 5,000 participants from 500 cities, concrete information emerged that each current BRICS member must provide a list of 10 countries requesting to join the BRICS. That is the condition of aligning with BRICS. The principle is that the 10 common countries can become ‘BRICS partner’ group. As clearly explained, the ‘BRICS partner status’ allows these states to take part in all bodies and discussions within the association, but without a voting power. The expansion of the BRICS will be limited, and the association has to decide on the size – number of partners and their status. This reinforcement would significantly, by the BRICS principle, actively advocate for the reform of the United Nations Security Council and the abandonment of the imperial currency: the dollar.

Joining the BRICS therefore means accepting currencies other than the dollar and connecting to new international payment systems. It is about “addressing what we consider an unjust and costly payment system,” South Africa’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Grace Naledi Mandisa Pandor, indicated earlier this year. She was very contradictory during her time. Pandor and the Department of International Relations and Cooperation were initially critical of the invasion and released a statement, in which they called on Russia to withdraw its forces in Ukraine immediately. President Cyril Ramaphosa was reportedly unhappy with Pandor and the department’s statement, because it contradicted South Africa’s position that negotiation was needed to end the war. She, along the line, indicated South Africa would exit BRICS.

A decade of BRICS bank

As monitored in late August 2024, the BRICS New Development Bank, hosted its ninth annual meeting in Cape Town, South Africa under the theme “Investing in a Sustainable Future” and exhaustively review multiple questions, the most important task its rivalry position to multinational financial organizations including the International Monetary Fund, IMF, and/or the World Bank. By an agreement for establishment signed during the sixth BRICS Summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, on July 7, 2015, it had as an authorized capital of US$100 billion, of which US$50 billion has been subscribed equally by the five founding members. The Bank’s initial subscribed capital comprised of paid-in capital of US$10 billion and callable capital of US$40 billion.

The objective indelible fact is that the financial base of the NDB is just too small to seriously rival the IMF or the World Bank. And in practical terms, the IMF or the World Bank operate in Asia, Africa, Latin America, Central Asia including former Soviet republics. That compared, the NDB has its Shanghai Headquarters in China. So far it has representative offices with skeleton staff in South Africa and Russia. Aside the founding members, the NDB now has Algeria (latest member in late August 2024), Bangladesh, Egypt, Uruguay and the United Arab Emirates as NDB financial contributing members. Potential countries expressing desire to join BRICS, and ready to work in the BRICS supporting ‘partner group’ obviously have complicated precarious position as debtors of the IMF. Egypt and Ethiopia and South Africa (BRICS members) are heavily connected to IMF and the World Bank.
The NDB may play a very positive role in financing infrastructural development in many BRICS countries, and in financing other sustainable development projects within the BRICS countries; the relatively very small NDB financial base poses absolutely no serious threat to the dominance of the IMF and the World Bank on global finance.

Discussions by academic researchers, analysts and experts back-and-forth on the alternative payment systems and the new currency these several months clear showed high expectations for developing both BRICS currency and the financial payment system. This decision, though fraught with technical challenges, is unchangeable, it enjoys massive support from potential strategic group referred to as ‘partners’ awaiting ascension. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov offered the guarantee that “the modalities of ascension have to be collectively discussed” at further summits, possibly at the forthcoming October 2024 summit in Kazan, Russia.

Chairman of an expert council tasked with running Russia’s presidency; Viktoria Panova claimed that the upcoming summit—the final one under Russia’s BRICS leadership—would mostly concentrate on establishing a unified payment system. There are present projects to create a financial payment system to help the BRICS countries cooperate while maintaining their freedom in trade and economic ties.

President Vladimir Putin said at the plenary session of the Eastern Economic Forum (EEF), held on September 5 in Vladivostok, that Russia was not pursuing a de-dollarization policy: “We did not refuse to settle accounts in dollars. We were denied settlements, and we just have to look for other opportunities. Priorities in the use of certain currencies are naturally changing as well. That’s all.” Putin further noted that BRICS member-countries of the Global South account for more than half of global GDP, while BRICS countries account for a third.

A bit of concrete information emerged at the session of the NBD Board of Governors in Cape Town, South Africa late August 2024, to review activities and challenges of the bank during the last decade and its successes. One of key tasks was the revision of the entire international monetary and financial system and the entire financial architecture. Russian Deputy Finance Minister Ivan Chebeskov strongly noted that the bank faces the unprecedented geopolitical fragmentation, and that most of entire financial infrastructure is owned and controlled by Western countries.

NDB’s primary tasks

The bank’s President Dilma Rousseff, in her contribution, noted pointed out that (i) the bank is exploring the possibility of creating digital platforms for mutual payments between various countries, (ii) strengthen and contribute to the overall stabilization of the global financial market, (iii) work consistently toward reforms in the global financial system, (iv) advocate for reducing the debt levels of several developing countries and redirecting new resources toward establishing a new industrial base, scientific research and innovation.

While noting the increasing role of the bank over the past decade (2014 to 2024), Deputy Head of the Russian Presidential Administration, Maxim Oreshkin, underlined the fact that in the process of transforming and modifying the existing financial system, the bank maintains its apolitical status, and BRICS as a collective association would not, at this time, advocate for its single currency. The discussions on BRICS currency reached it accumulative point during “Russia – Islamic World: Kazan Forum” where participating BRICS representatives issued statements that work was at the final stage to create a single currency for the association.

Reiterating at the end of the discussion here that the New Development Bank (NDB), which its members established in 2015 to rival the current international financial institutions, has a long way to travel and multiple tasks to implement to catch up to its destination. Unlike the obvious multilateral financial institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, little is known about NDB and its skeletal organizational structure and limited investment profile. Over time, however with optimism and enthusiasm, the NDB’s operations would increase, its worldwide visibility and presence become noticeable as it consistently seeks out new approaches to advance a broader agenda—in terms of membership growth, regional offices, outreach, and partnerships, especially in Asian-Pacific and Africa in the Global South

With an enormous task to BRICS realize its primary goals of raising the level of concrete development and a new model of economic architecture, with its vast untapped resources both natural and human (demography), BRICS has achieved globally recognized for its symbolism and for building a world-wide force to counteract western hegemony and unipolar. For now, BRICS has a virtually operated secretariat. BRICS is “an informal association” created by geographically diverse countries, with very little ideological commonalities. The five original countries of BRICS are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

Russia
Source: en.interaffairs.ru

Turkey will be the first NATO member to request membership of the BRICS economic bloc spearheaded by the leaders of Russia and China, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, it has been reported.

Bloomberg said Monday that Ankara had formally asked to join the group of emerging market nations as it looks beyond its traditional Western allies. Newsweek has contacted the Turkish Foreign Ministry for comment.
One former Turkish diplomat has told Newsweek that the move has been driven by “accumulated frustrations” in Ankara with the West and the European Union. “This is not the strategy, by Ankara, to replace the West, but it’s a strategy to strengthen relations with non-Western powers at a time when the U.S. hegemony is waning,” said Sinan Ülgen, head of the Istanbul-based think tank EDAM.

Named after Brazil, Russia, India and China and South Africa, the BRICS group includes countries not listed in the acronym, such as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Ethiopia and Egypt, which all joined earlier this year. The bloc is considered to be an alternative on the global stage to the U.S.-led G7 group.

Citing unnamed sources, Bloomberg said that Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s administration believed that “the geopolitical center of gravity” is moving away from the most developed economies.

The move also shows Ankara’s aims “to cultivate ties with all sides in a multipolar world” while still fulfilling its obligations as a key NATO member, the report added.

Bloomberg said Ankara had submitted an application months ago amid frustration at its stalled bid to join the European Union, whose membership it has sought for decades.

“One driver of this is an aspiration for enhanced strategic autonomy,” Ülgen told Newsweek. “The second driver is these accumulated frustrations with the West and the European Union,” one of which included stalled negotiations for modernizing an EU customs union deal.

“The bilateral relationship with the U.S. has also been problematic,” Ülgen said. “These type of frustrations have motivated the Turkish government to move in this direction,” he added. There is a belief in Ankara that it can do this “without a political cost that would be attached to this realignment.”

As a non-western forum in which Russian and China play a key role, Turkey’s move toward BRICS membership will be seen as a move away from the West, even though Ankara will take pains not to portray it as being detrimental to its Western ties. “The question remains whether you can actually do both at the same time,” Ülgen said.

The diplomatic push by Turkey to join BRICS comes amid rifts with other NATO members caused in part by Ankara’s close ties with Russia, despite Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Ülgen said as there is no security component to BRICS, joining the block would not affect Turkey’s role in the alliance. “It’s mostly an economic organization so it’s likely to affect its relationship with the EU more than with NATO,” Ülgen added.

In June, Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan became the highest-level Turkish official to visit China since 2012, and he held talks with his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi, as well as other officials.

Turkish officials have attended previous BRICS summits. In June, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow welcomed the prospect of Ankara formally joining and that its membership would be discussed at the bloc’s next summit in the Russian city of Kazan between October 22 and 24.

Russia
Source: russiancouncil.ru

The Western-centered post-Cold War world order resulted in the development of hierarchical state perceptions of their role and influence in the international system. With the US as hegemon, unipolarity has revealed these contrasting state perceptions regarding the nature of international relations and transitions of power. The unipolar international structure has failed to provide equal opportunities and progress for state actors thus far. Following the 1648 Westphalian world order, the concept of equal sovereign states became a staple custom of modern international relations. Today’s increasingly complex international structure requires new influencial actors, organizations and platforms in the international system to usher in global development, and compete with Western-oriented political and military structures, such as the European Union and NATO. In this respect, BRICS provides a solid option for states to activley engange in new non-Western international structures.

For Türkiye, the changing dynamics in international relations have become thought-provoking in recent years, both in terms of its NATO membership and the problems NATO and its member states face in terms of international development. Likewise, Türkiye’s attempt to become an EU member state appears to reflect an outdated expectation of the US hegemonic world order that has now immensly changed since the 1990s. In this respect, the possibility of Türkiye becoming a BRICS member is now more monumental than ever. Given Türkiye’s changing role in the evolving multipolar world order, how should it seek to balance its alliances with the EU and NATO, while also consider the potential of becoming a BRICS member?

While the issue of Türkiye’s efforts to join the BRICS community is on the international agenda, it is crucial to understand that this is an ongoing process and will take time. However, if Türkiye were to take such a step, it would not only be a move that challenges a US-led world order and its reminents, but also an opportunity for Türkiye to diversify and expand its approach to foreign policy that considers new alternatives. The potential consequences of Türkiye joining BRICS are significant and bountiful, as it could potentially further shift the balance of power in the global system, impacting existing alliances and economic structures.

Another BRICS in the World System

Although BRICS did not bring immediate implications for the international system when it was first established, with time it proved critical in terms of its future power potential. In 2006, BRIC was founded by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, later expanding to include South Africa in 2010, establishing what now is known as BRICS. The alliance protects the common interests of its member states and fosters economic and political cooperation among its members. This is because BRICS, being home to 41.3% of the world's population and 37.3% of the world's GDP, provides a platform for economically and politically disadvantaged countries to develop, offering hope for a more balanced and just global system. Aiding in this development was the establishment of the New Development Bank (NDB) in 2014, whose purpose was to aid the financing of BRICS infrastructure and sustainable development projects for the Global South. This strategic initiative underscores the commitment of these nations to fostering economic growth and sustainability on a global scale.

BRICS provides a voice to non-Western nations, promoting mutual respect for both the common interests and the individual sovereignty its member states. To this end, the 2023 BRICS Summit proved critical for the delovmental trajectory of the organization, as it underscored the importance of two items on the BRICS adgena. The first item addressed the admission of new members—the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Argentina, and Ethiopia—resulting in the greatest expansion of BRICS membership list since 2010. The second item on the BRICS adgenda focused on economic cooperation and the potential for BRICS to challenge the current global economic power structure by using an alternative currency to the US dollar. This signaled the growing intention of the international community to establish a new economic bloc that can successfully compete with or balance out the West.

After the admission of its new members, the economic power of BRICS enabled countries with large energy resources to come together on a united platform, expanding BRICS potential to play a more decisive role in the global economy. BRICS members produce approximately 44% of global crude oil, particularly exapnding its spheres of influence in the energy sector. Factors that strengthen BRICS influence include the ability of the organization to position itself against the G7 and US, and solidify the rhetoric of the international community against the unipolar global power structure. As proof, the BRICS alliance has surpassed the G7 in purchasing power parity, accounting for 35.6% of global GDP, while the G7 accounts for 30.3%.

Türkiye and the Multipolar World Order

Since end of the Cold War, Türkiye has activley played a leading role in supporting Western-centered international military and politico-economic organizations, the most famous of which being NATO. Türkiye’s long-standing quest for acceptance in the European Union represents a critically significant political and economic trajectory of the nation that embraced the spirit of the post-Cold War world order. However, this approach is now increasingly subject to scrutiny within the context of the evolving world order. Considering Türkiye’s contrasting geopolitical positions and Muslim population, the country follows an international approach grounded in practicality and pragmatism, ressembling less like the EU and more like other great powers such as Russia and China. In this context, Türkiye’s international strategies are shaped by flexibility and applicability, even in the face of its long-term objectives such as gaining EU membership. For this reason, the direction of Türkiye’s evolving yet balanced foreign policy has become even more important in recent years. However, Türkiye’s role in balancing out the global system is far from a new phenomenon. This shift, characterized by Türkiye’s search for alternative economic opportunities, carries significant implications for the previous Western-dominated world order and Türkiye’s role within it.

After February 2022, unlike its Western collegues, Türkiye maintained economic and political relations with Russia. In turn, this led to some clashing opinions within NATO, eventually culmanating in Türkiye’s expedited efforts to diversify its foreign policy. In this respect, joining BRICS provides an excellent option to do so. Although Türkiye’s interest in BRICS is not new, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan expressed interest in becoming a member at the 10^th BRICS Summit in 2018. As a BRICS member state, Türkiye will aim to increase its economic cooperation with other states, especially with Russia and China, and seek to become a bridge between EU and Asian markets. However, this move could also potentially put a strain on Türkiye’s relations with the EU, given their historical tensions and the EU's strong alignment with NATO. Here, the consequences of Türkiye adopting a multi-centered approach should be considered carefully.

In the context of BRICS, Türkiye’s pragmatic approach to enhancing collaboration with international stakeholders in both Western and Eurasian spheres positions it as a valuable international actor. Particularly, amidst Eurasia's recent ascension, Türkiye’s role as a regional actor has gained immense prominence. A comprehensive understanding of the economic and political dimensions of BRICS underscores its potential to forge new economic and political opportunities .

As a BRICS member state, Türkiye could offer both economic and political opportunities within the context of its multi-vector foreign policy. However, this move also carries possible political consequences, particularly in relation to Türkiye’s ongoing EU membership process. While collaboration with BRICS could strengthen Türkiye’s role on the international stage, it may prompt the EU to reassess its stance on Türkiye, which has been largely influenced by cultural and religious considerations, contributing to the prolonged membership process. Although Türkiye’s recent participation in the EU Informal Foreign Ministers' Meeting—following its five-year hiatus—is seen as a step towards a new phase in Türkiye-EU relations, it is crucial to recognize that underlying issues in this relationship still persist. Understanding these complexities is key to navigating the future of Türkiye-EU relations.

Today, BRICS is a pivitol platform for the future dierction of the international system, especially in the organization’s ability to act as a platform that combats US hegemony and Western dominance by investing in the Global South and embracing new regional great powers. Opting for the use of individual state currencies or the creation of a common currency would be a striking blow to the dollar's influence on the global financial system. This development is not only economic in nature, but also a political symptom of the evolution of multipolarity in the international structure. In this context, the day in which Türkiye becomes a BRICS member state, is the day it would turn away from appeasing Western international dominance, opting instead for multipolarity and its new role in the evolving world order.

Russia
Source: infobrics.org

Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst

Joining BRICS is all the rage nowadays. Dozens of countries have shown interest to join what's almost certainly the world's only true international organization. The UN has long been an instrument of "legitimizing" the US-led political West's perpetual aggression against the world, resulting in the so-called "international law" becoming nothing more than a rather sad platitude that's only used when it suits Washington DC or its numerous vassals and satellite states. When it's not in the interest of NATO, "international law" is reviewed on the so-called "case by case" basis, where the excuse of "special and unique" cases is used, particularly in former Yugoslavia. The endless hypocrisy and double standards of the US are most glaringly obvious with regard to Serbia, the sole real successor state of Yugoslavia.

After dismantling the country along the lines of Yugoslav republics, Washington DC was unhappy with the result and decided to further carve up Serbia (a process that's still ongoing), supporting Albanian narco-terrorist invaders. The genocide of native Christian Serbs, started by Nazi Germany and its Albanian collaborators during WWII, was continued by NATO, a process that is also ongoing. In order to avoid a similar fate, numerous countries want to join organizations such as BRICS, because it provides a framework for a much fairer global system. The very concept of BRICS, where the entire mankind can work together for a common cause (as a united and truly diverse world, just not the so-called "woke" kind), makes it the most welcoming of new members from all over the world.
This is certainly expected and even commendable, but it may also bring issues. Namely, the BRICS+ format allows anyone to apply for membership, which could include NATO-aligned "Trojan horses". This is perhaps best illustrated by the example of Turkey, not only a long-time NATO member, but one of the most important partners in the political West's aggression against the world. There's virtually not a single US-orchestrated war that hasn't been supported by Turkey, in one way or another. Whether it was in Korea, Yugoslavia or anywhere in the Middle East, Ankara has been working in concert with Washington DC since the 1950s. Nowadays, this is most evident in countries like Syria and Libya, where they directly support the same terrorist groups.

With the obvious exception of the Kurdish question, Washington DC and Ankara see eye to eye on most other issues, even when it may seem otherwise on the outside. For instance, while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan keeps fuming at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, behind the scenes, Turkey and Israel still maintain close ties. This is entirely in the interest of the US and shows the true level of hypocrisy of the Turkish political elite. Not to mention the fact that, while Ankara continues shedding crocodile tears for Palestinians and faking "moral high ground" in former Yugoslavia (including by whitewashing Bosnian Muslim war criminals), it's still trying to finish the Armenian Genocide, one of the worst (and largely unpunished) crimes against humanity ever committed.

However, the real danger of letting Turkey join the multipolar world doesn't lie only in its double standards, hypocrisy, unapologetic war crimes and support for terrorism, but the unchecked ultranationalist agenda that's purely expansionist and goes entirely against the principles on which BRICS was founded.

At best, Ankara's intolerance toward other civilizations, religions, ethnicities and even the very idea of peaceful coexistence makes it an uncharted territory for the multipolar world. At worst, it could easily play the aforementioned role of a US/NATO's "Trojan horse" that could undermine BRICS at every step of the way, as Turkey's policies, both domestic and foreign, effectively boil down to an extremely volatile mix of Neo-Ottomanism, political Islam and pan-Turkism.

None of these are in line with the basic interests of the multipolar world. Quite the contrary, they threaten the core national interests of several key BRICS+ members. This is particularly evident in Central Asia, where Ankara has been one of the main backers of Islamic radicalism for decades. It has also been trying to spread pan-Turkist ideas, including in Xinjiang, where Turkey has been actively contributing to the dissemination of propaganda about the mythical "Uyghur genocide", an entirely fabricated narrative that aims to denigrate China, one of the cornerstones of BRICS. Ankara is also actively promoting the idea of pan-Turkism not only in the four post-Soviet republics in Central Asia (namely Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan), but also within Russia.
It's doing the same with regard to Iran (albeit more quietly). Turkish ultranationalists regularly show maps that include large parts of Iran, China and Russia as "occupied territories" of the mythical pan-Turkic entity that exists only in their minds. However, these ideas aren't limited to obscure political figures with several percent of votes, but are part of Turkey's state policies. Namely, in cooperation with Azerbaijan, Ankara is looking to establish the so-called Zangezur corridor which would go through the south of Armenia's Syunik region and directly connect Baku with its Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic. A tiny, 17 km long border with Turkey in this area would give Ankara unimpeded access to Azerbaijan precisely through the corridor, and by extension, to former Soviet Central Asia.

The Turkish ruling elite believes this could jumpstart its geopolitical wet dream of establishing a direct link with this region and even expanding its influence all the way to China's Xinjiang. NATO surely supports such initiatives in the long term, as this would also open the gates of Central Asia for its own geostrategic schemes. By helping Turkey establish a foothold in the area (or at least not impeding it), the political West can also establish its own in the foreseeable future. This would be a major geopolitical maneuver, the goal of which would be to strategically outflank Russia, China and Iran, simultaneously. There's not a single reason why Ankara would be against such a long-term plan, as none of the three aforementioned BRICS members are willing to offer anything remotely similar.
By accepting it, Moscow, Beijing and Tehran would only empower Turkey's ultranationalist agenda and expansionism. Not to mention that India would also be against it, as well as other prominent BRICS members. This is without even considering the fact that Ankara is a major arms supplier to the Neo-Nazi junta, as well as the US itself. This is freeing up a lot of NATO resources for weapons deliveries to numerous US vassals and satellite states around the world, which is directly undermining the growth of the multipolar world. Thus, while BRICS should certainly be open to as many new members as possible, it needs to remain vigilant of their true intentions. On the other hand, if Turkey really wants membership, it should demonstrate willingness to change its ultranationalist policies.

Russia
Source: en.interaffairs.ru

Two weeks after President Vladimir Putin visited Baku on August 19, the media space continues to discuss the outcomes. In the course of the summit the Russian and Azerbaijani leaders focused on a variety of issues and signed a number of documents[1]: three treaties and three memorandums. Undoubtedly, the negotiating platform was far broader so the final estimate of the agreements will be provided only in the future. The most confidential issues (such as protection of bilateral trade, particularly in the gas sector, against US and EU sanctions) were discussed behind closed doors and, for clear reasons, were not talked about in public. Nevertheless, political analysts did draw some conclusions.

Issues on the agenda and their background

Most experts have come to the conclusions that the main point of the discussion was the gas issue. Azerbaijan’s and Turkey’s gas transportation infrastructure may partially alleviate Gazprom’s growing difficulties over the nearly complete loss of European market.

«An agreement could be signed on the supplies of Russian gas to Azerbaijan in exchange for an increase in exports of Azerbaijani gas to Europe. This means the Russian gas can be used for the internal market (of Azerbaijan – author’s notes)», — Azerbaijani political scientist Fuad Shakhbazov says[2]. In other words, Baku will transport its gas (to which Europe has no sanctions) to the EU via Russia and in return will get Russian gas, which it may possibly dispatch to Europe via the TANAP pipeline, (to which Europe has no claims either) through Turkey. Azerbaijan, under this so-called “swap” scheme, will get a chance to increase, as promised, the export of gas to Europe, despite limited opportunities to boost its production.

European media have long accused Baku of re-exporting Russian gas to Europe. However, given that the EU is economically interested in gas supplies from Azerbaijan, including via Ukraine, Brussels is turning a blind eye to the accusations and is de facto legitimizing[3] the re-export. At the end of the year, when the contract with Gazprom expires, Ukraine will have to conduct difficult but important-for-Europe talks about the transit of Azerbaijani natural gas. According to western experts, this means a lot to the Ukrainian economy, as the transit will be paid for, thereby covering the deficit of the Ukrainian gas system.

Supposedly, Azerbaijani gas supplies will match the volume (15 billion cubic meters) which Gazprom is still delivering via the last remaining leg of the pipeline across Ukraine into countries of Central Europe. To substantiate such agreements experts mention a statement by Gazprom President Alexei Miller to the effect that the Russian corporation and the Azerbaijani SOCAR have resolved to expand strategic partnership as part of the “North-South” Project. In addition, this summer they discussed at length the possibility of continuing to supply gas into Europe via Russia and Ukraine by replacing Russian gas with Azerbaijani. This was confirmed by both Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky[4].

However, «this option is possible only if Turkey gets Russian gas instead of Azerbaijani…. Ankara hopes that the gas hub will enable it to become a gas price center…It will thus continue to negotiate with Gazprom and BOTAS on the creation of the hub. Putin’s successful visit to Baku may facilitate Russian-Turkish talks»[5], - political scientist Georgy Bovt believes.

A key point on the agenda of Baku-Moscow talks is the development of International Transport Corridor (ITC) «North-South».

The participants in the Baku talks repeatedly underscored the importance of developing the transport corridor «North-South», which can connect saint-Petersburg with Indian sea ports. Already under way is the modernization of the railway section of the corridor for boosting the carrying capacity and transportation of cargoes of 15 – 30 million tons. Segments of the corridor – the railway and the motorway - «are fully implemented and are successfully functioning» in Azerbaijan, I.Aliyev assured[6].

There is also the possibility of a direct trans-modal haulage of cargoes via Russian and Iranian ports into the Caspian. However, this route has many drawbacks: it substantially loses to the land one in the speed of cargo delivery due to the under-developed port infrastructure on the Caspian. It will thus require a lot of effort to streamline the transit of cargoes in ports; to deepen river beds in order to make them more suitable for large-capacity vessels sailing through the Russian waters to the Caspian and then to the Iranian coast; to build a tanker fleet (the Russian and Azerbaijani leaders agreed[7] on a joint project to build modern river-sea tankers in the course of the official meeting in Baku).

Given that the former communication networks are blocked because of western sanctions, Russia has to look for new reliable ways to enter external markets. Azerbaijan, along with Armenia, provides a convenient land way across the territory of Transcaucasia to the Indian coast and the world markets bypassing European ports.

Under the Trilateral Statement of November 9, 2020[8] on the ceasefire in Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia pledged to unblock transport communication between the western regions of the Azerbaijani Republic and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, which became to be known as the Zangezur or Syunik corridor. This section was to be shared by the ITC “North-South”, the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route (TITR, or the Middle corridor)[9]. However, according to the Russian Foreign Minister S.Lavrov, under pressure from western curators and following the anti-Russian turnaround, the Armenian leadership «is sabotaging the agreement on unblocking communications across the Syunik Province»[10].

The West is opposed to the fact that control over transport communication, under the Trilateral Statement, should be carried out by the Border Service of the Russian Federal Security Service. The USA has its own plans for the Armenian section of communications for controlling and possibly blocking the trade routes, both the Middle corridor and the “North-South”, since the main goal of the western vector in the South Caucasus is to oust Russians and Iranians from the region and to prevent the strengthening of the Chinese.

Addressing the July hearings in the US Senate a State Department representative said that a peace treaty between Yerevan and Baku should envisage a route between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan only across Armenia and under the control of Armenia (read the USA), and not the Russian Border Service[11]. Moreover, the USA openly threatens Azerbaijan in case of disobedience: «A transport corridor which will be created in a different way [that is, NOT via the territory of Armenia - author], with use of force or with the participation of Iran, will face a decisive response»[12].
Azerbaijan, however, is currently against the American project of the Armenian section, as, in the opinion of Azerbaijani leaders, its logistics are designed to make Azerbaijan dependent on Armenia[13].

Baku passed a pragmatic decision in August excluding from the text of the draft treaty the mention of the disputable Zangezur corridor, which is a stumbling block in negotiations with Yerevan. As a result, Armenia has lost a trump card in the negotiating process and risks finding itself in complete transport isolation, which results from political narrow-mindedness and refusal to cooperate with key players in the region. Now, the ITC “North-South” and the Middle corridor will pass via Azerbaijan directly to Iran, bypassing Armenia. In the future, the “North-South” transport corridor may incorporate a strategic export pipeline route to Iran and via the territory of the Islamic republic further to India, and to the key countries of Asia and Pacific Region as well.

Under the new agreement with Gazprom, Iran plans to get up to 300 million cubic meters of pipeline gas from Russia per day or nearly 110 billion cubic meters per year (the volumes comparable to those which could be provided by both blown-up Nord Streams taken together). A statement to this effect was made on July 17 by Iranian Shana and IRNA[14] quoting Oil Minister Javad Owji. It seems that Iran is planning to create a similar hub of Russian gas as Turkey, only not in the west but in the south and south-east.

In this respect, if it wants to promote its economic interests, Azerbaijan should participate in Eurasian economic projects, within SCO and BRICS. If Azerbaijan enters BRICS, the western (in relation to the Caspian Sea) part of the routes will pass solely across the territories of member countries. In this case, Azerbaijan may benefit from opening a land route with Nakhchivan and Turkey not via Armenia but via Iran, which will become a good economic partner within BRICS. Russia is actively involved in promoting understanding between Baku and Tehran. As a result, Iranians and Azerbaijanis are establishing inter-government infrastructure by building bridges and a motorway which will guarantee access to Turkish and European markets.

Azerbaijan’s bid for membership in BRICS shortly after Putin’s visit is a serious move in Baku’s foreign policy, which traditionally stays away from any geopolitical blocs. Meanwhile, membership in BRICS does not entail any military or political commitments. This seems to be the reason why Azerbaijani authorities chose to do so.

The participants in the Baku talks also focused on a peace settlement between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia called for restoring the role of an effective mediator in this peacemaking process. There has been some progress to this end.

Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, having been informed by the Russian president on the discussions in Baku, has agreed to meet with Vladimir Putin for «negotiating bilateral issues».
In the course of a telephone conversation between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev on August 28, the two leaders pointed out that they «continued to discuss various aspects of the current situation in Transcaucasia, including preparations of an Azerbaijani-Armenian peace treaty, delimitation and demarcation of the border, and unblocking transport communications between the two countries. They also agreed to continue personal contacts»[15].

Foreign media on results of V.V.Putin’s visit to Baku

The news agency «Bloomberg» reports that the EU is in search of alternatives for the transit of Russian gas across Ukraine, considering the Azerbaijani variant as the first option. «This could become shocking news for everyone who is not related to the energy sector: Europe continues to buy Russian natural gas, including via a pipeline that passes across Ukraine. Austria, Slovakia, Hungary and Italy are still strongly dependent on gas from Moscow»[16]. According to «Bloomberg» experts, if Ukraine blocks this pipeline too, the current European reserves will not be enough, gas prices will soar again, even though they have already doubled as compared to the rates before the Special Military Operation. High prices will put yet more restrictions on the energy-intensive industrial activity in Europe.

The Ukrainian media[17] immediately put Azerbaijan on the list of «foes of Ukrainian independence» and called for sanctions against the Azerbaijani company SOCAR, after the Russian company Gazprom announced a strategic partnership with SOCAR.

«In two years of a full-scale war European consumers have added to the budget of the Russian war against Ukraine by purchasing Russian gas to a total sum of 88.8 billion euros. After the termination of this contract there appears a new threat – supplies of gas via Ukraine as Azerbaijani gas which in reality could turn out to be Russian gas»[18], - Victoria Voytsitska, a member of the Energy Committee in the Ukrainian Parliament, writes in horror. She attempts to debate with «Bloomberg»: «arguments that Europe is experiencing tremendous gas shortages do not match the reality, ……they are part of propaganda». But it looks like Europe sticks to a different view on the issue.

Columnist for Al Jazeera Jeirar Dib believes[19] that Putin’s visit to Baku has challenged the United States, which has big plans for the Caucasus. According to the observer, the USA is willing to cement its presence in the Caspian because its location is of strategic importance and it is rich in energy sources, particularly natural gas. Moreover, Washington is planning to strike at the Chinese «One Belt One Road» Initiative and set Azerbaijan against Iran. In the estimates of the author of the article, Moscow key agenda in the region includes the following: to resolve the gas issue, alleviate tension between Baku and Tehran and counteract Washington’s interests. He underscores that Putin has good chances to «thwart US attempts to take a foothold in South Caucasus».

 Baku has become Moscow’s major partner in South Caucasus, Al Mayadeen[20] writes. The Russian leader is trying to prevent the West’s interference in the region and is pursuing his projects — to create transport corridor «North-South», to conclude agreements on energy and trade. Putin’s visit to Azerbaijan is a signal to the West that Ukraine is not distracting Russia from following its interests in Transcaucasia. Moscow will not waive its role in this region. It can move along the corridor «North – South» at the closed «western gates» and can easily break through the geopolitical blockade which is being imposed by the West.

Turkish analyst Mehmet Ali Guller, commenting on the importance of the Russian president’s visit to Baku, expressed[21] confidence that the results off Azerbaijani-Russian top-level talks will influence not only the situation in the region but the entire Eurasian space. In response to the US policy, a number of powers, including Russia and China, are developing their own concepts of trade routes in Eurasia. Moscow is set on destroying the West’s plans to create transport corridors bypassing Russia. This is what «North-South» corridor is for.

Passions are running high in the Armenian pro-government media space following Vladimir Putin’s visit to Baku. Many Armenian commentators, keeping mum on the fact that the Armenian authorities have de facto distanced themselves from a dialogue with Russia, accuse[22] Moscow of betraying Armenian interests. Such a reaction serves as yet another proof of a complete loss of orientation and cause-result logic in the Armenian society.

However, there remain sober-minded analysts in Armenia. Armenian political scientist Suren Surenyants disagrees with experts who describe Putin’s visit to Baku as «anti-Armenian conspiracy». He believes that dialogue between Moscow and Baku facilitates stability in South Caucasus.

Conclusion

On the whole, according to experts, the visit to Azerbaijan demonstrates that Russia is not going to leave the region. On the contrary, Putin proved that Moscow is strengthening its positions in South Caucasus, the West’s attempts to isolate Russia from the rest of the world have failed. Aliyev demonstrated to neighboring republics that good ties with Russia guarantee economic prosperity, stability and geopolitical independence. Azerbaijan, which pursues the policy of healthy pragmatism and mutual benefit, has become a natural ally and partner for Russia amid the policies of the Pashinyan government.

In foreign policy, Azerbaijan has got down to establishing contacts with regional allies besides the Ankara – Baku axis. For Azerbaijan, closer ties with Russia mean a wider geopolitical space. Aliyev needs strong allies, such as Russia and China, to contain pressure from the West. Due to efforts by President Ilham Aliyev, sovereign Azerbaijan has a sense of responsibility and is oriented at mutually beneficial cooperation, and, unlike a number of post-Soviet republics, has not turned into an area of confrontation between the West and Russia. Moreover, Aliyev has proved that he responds to Western pressure accordingly[23] thereby suggesting that he has joined the club of sovereign national leaders.

Russian leadership has thoroughly observed parity with regard to the interests of Armenia and Azerbaijan, including on the issue of the unrecognized Karabakh republic. However, Pashinyan nullified the 2020 Trilateral Statement with the “Prague betrayal” of Karabakh in October 2022.
Armenia’s drift towards the West caused Moscow to perceive Baku as a more trustworthy partner in the region.

At present, political and economic interests of the two countries coincide. Azerbaijan is interested in implementing all strategic and economic projects, necessary for Russia’s breakthrough into the South and South-East.

The views of the author are his own and may differ from the position of the Editorial Board.

[1] http://kremlin.ru/supplement/6178
[2] centralasia.media/news:2150134?f=cp
[3] https://turan.az/ru/politika/eksperty-vydvigaiut-raznye-versii-otnositelno-vizita-putina-v-baku-783688?ysclid=m04afk8qy9480406451
[4] https://haqqin.az/news/321094
[5] https://invoicemedia.ru/glavnym-v-hode-vizita-vladimira-putina-v-azerbajdzhan-byl-gazovyj-vopros/?ysclid=m04bcpns6r959249866
[6] https://ria.ru/20240819/proekt-1967089897.html
[7] https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/6905438
[8] http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64384
[9] TITR – transit route between China and Europe via Kazakhstan (alternative routes include Central Asian countries: Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan), Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey, and the Black and Caspian Seas. TITR is based on the TRACECA initiative, popular in the 1990s.
[10] https://ria.ru/20240819/lavrov-1967128742.html
[11] https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/47226
[12] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuEhHnwTlAg&t=2s The Future of Nagorno-Karabakh - YouTube
[13] https://vesti.az/politika/obraien-i-armeniya-novye-soyuzy-i-starye-protivoreciya-analitika-518870
[14] https://ru.irna.ir/news/85541550/%D0%9D%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8-%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%88%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F-%D0%BE-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B5-%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B9%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE-%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%B2-%D0%98%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD
[15] https://www.interfax.ru/russia/978477
[16] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-08-27/european-energy-in-the-gas-market-enough-may-not-be-enough
[17] Ukraine in a circle of foes. Kyiv’s reaction to Vladimir Putin’s visit to Baku - 22.08.2024 Ukraina.ru
[18] https://www.yahoo.com/news/azerbaijani-gas-ukraine-hidden-russian-131009512.html
[19] https://www.aljazeera.net/opinions/2024/8/19/%D9%87%D9%84-%D8%A8%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%8A%D9%86-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A3%D8%B0%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%86-%D9%84%D9%85%D9%86%D8%B9-%D8%AD%D8%AF%D9%88%D8%AB-%D8%AB%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A9
[20] Аl Mayadeen (Arabic: الميادين, transl. "Squares") – Lebanese pan-Arabist satellite news TV channel, based in Beirut. In the pan-Arabic television news market it competes with Qatar’s Al Jazeera and Saudi Al Arabiya, and also with Sky News Arabia and BBC News Arabic
[21] https://azertag.az/ru/xeber/tureckii_ekspert_itogi_vizita_putina_v_baku_skazhutsya_na_situacii_vo_vsei_evrazii-3149138
[22] https://radar.am/ru/news/interview-2648114272/
[23] https://interaffairs.ru/news/show/47226

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Question: My first question has to do with the forum’s main theme, Combining Strengths to Create New Potential. What new global potential is referred to here? Which countries is Russia ready to join forces with to create it?

Sergey Lavrov: The idea is to create potential that will help countries become independent of the unipolar world, which Washington and the allies it has subjected to its will are trying to impose on the world to preserve their hegemony. The West, which has lived at the expense of former colonies for centuries, is trying to sponge off others now in a seemingly more acceptable manner. We have the potential to overcome the obstacles created by the West with the use of the globalisation instruments it has created and is imposing on others.

More and more countries, almost all normal and independent states, are coming to see that nobody can be safe from the actions the West is taking to preserve its domination over Russia (it is the most striking example) and such countries as Iran, Venezuela, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and increasingly China. It wants to hinder its technological advancement and prevent it from gaining competitive advantages by imposing artificially inflated tariffs on the import of Chinese electric vehicles. President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen has said that they are doing this because China’s exports to Europe are too cheap. Is this fair competition?

The Americans have been essentially blocking the operation of the WTO, one of the main dispute settlement agencies, for years. They did it when Washington saw that China was beating them by playing by the rules created by the Word Trade Organisation. They prevent a quorum from being assembled to block additional appointments to vacancies in that agency.

In their documents, BRICS and other associations of the emerging economies such as the African Union, CELAC and ASEAN, are increasingly calling for a fair reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank group, so that the number of votes the developing countries have in them reflects their real weight in the global economy and finance.

Question: I want to ask about the multipolar world. Here is a good example: Bloomberg reported that Türkiye has applied for admission to BRICS. The Turkish media write that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will attend the BRICS summit in Kazan. Do you think that Türkiye genuinely wants to join BRICS? Could this decision be taken in Kazan? How does this correspond to the fact that Türkiye has been a NATO member since the 1950s? If memory serves, it has been waiting at the EU’s doorstep for years, and now this seems like such a U-turn.

Sergey Lavrov: I am operating on the assumption that the national leadership has serious intentions when it makes such statements.

As for NATO membership and the EU candidate status, which Türkiye was awarded nearly 70 years ago, a Turkish official has recently said that there are no rules in BRICS to preclude members of some organisations from associating with the group. The main requirement for full members of the group and countries that are developing various forms of cooperation with it is to share common values. It is not the values the EU is defending in Ukraine, claiming that Ukraine is protecting “European values” and so they must protect these “values” too.

We do not want Nazi values, theories and practices, a ban on the freedom of speech, national languages, cultures and traditions, a ban on canonical churches and the like. The essence of our values is set out in the UN Charter, namely the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their affairs, a peaceful resolution of disputes, respect, sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states. However, the General Assembly subsequently explained that this only applies to countries where the government represents the entire population.

After the bloody coup in Ukraine in 2014, power was seized by radical forces that did not represent the people of Crimea, Donbass and other parts of Ukraine. These people did not accept the coup and asked to be left alone. The people of Crimea held a referendum. You know the rest.

That is why when we are told that we must ensure the territorial integrity of Ukraine, we insist on looking at other provisions of the UN Charter, that is, the right of people to self-determination if the central government does not represent their interests, which makes it illegitimate.

Another major element of the UN Charter which BRICS fully accepts is a genuine concern for human rights. It is set out in the UN Charter even before the principle of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination. Human rights must be respected regardless of race, sex, language or religion.

The West has claimed to be the best advocate of human rights. But it did not lift a finger or made the slightest reproach to the Kiev regime for banning Russian in all spheres of life and adopting a law banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This is what truly matters.

All BRICS member states are ready to comply with the provisions of the UN Charter in their entirety and as a whole, rather than selectively or every once in a while. This is the principle of multipolarity. In conclusion, I would like to mention the principle I began with – the sovereign equality of states.

Question: Do you believe Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has serious intentions for his visit to Kazan? Is there potential for any agreements to be signed?

Sergey Lavrov: BRICS has a long-established tradition of inviting neighbouring countries to its summit, known as outreach. This practice has become firmly rooted and is followed each year by the presiding nation.

This June, as the Foreign Minister of the country holding the chairmanship, I held a meeting of the heads of foreign policy departments in Nizhny Novgorod. Among the guests participating in the BRICS Outreach format was Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Türkiye Hakan Fidan. Now, President of Türkiye Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been invited in this capacity. Membership decisions are made based on consensus among the countries that are already full members of BRICS.

At last year’s summit in Johannesburg, it was decided to instruct the ministers of foreign affairs and experts to prepare recommendations on the criteria to be applied to a new category of colleagues invited to BRICS events – partner countries.

Active work is currently underway on this matter. In October, these recommendations are expected to be presented at the BRICS summit in Kazan. We recognise the need to formalise relationships between BRICS members and the growing number of countries expressing interest in cooperating with the association, which now exceeds 30. This truly reflects the multipolar nature of the global landscape.

Regarding Türkiye, NATO members have remained silent. The United States, if I recall correctly, has suggested that BRICS membership is incompatible with NATO affiliation. A representative from the European Commission was more direct, stating that Türkiye must understand that moving towards the European Union is incompatible with joining BRICS, and vice versa. EU candidates are required to align with a unified foreign and security policy, which openly implies that Türkiye would need to join anti-Russia sanctions if it wishes to pursue EU membership.

The same applies to Serbia. They were told that active negotiations would resume and that Serbia is seen as part of the “European family,” but it must recognise Kosovo’s independence and fully support anti-Russia sanctions. This comes from a union originally created to promote the socio-economic development of Europe and the well-being of its people, which has now turned into a clear appendage of the US, and more recently, NATO. The European Union has signed an agreement with the alliance, effectively conceding leadership in military matters to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Question: I would like to ask about Georgia, another country that is undergoing transformation. It has adopted a law on foreign agents and is considering a law on Christianity as its official religion. With elections due to take place in Georgia in October, the ruling party has come under unprecedented pressure. Why has Georgia made such a radical turn? What is our attitude to these developments?

Sergey Lavrov: Georgia has not adopted a law on foreign agents but on the transparency of foreign influence. The individuals or organisations that violate this law will not be branded in any way. However, they will be legally bound to report the funds they receive from abroad. There are similar and even more stringent requirements in the legislation of France, Poland and many other countries, including in the US Foreign Agents Registration Act adopted in 1938, which set the tone for protecting their territory from foreign influence.

As for the Georgian government, it has become aware of Georgia’s national identity and values of Orthodox Christianity and national culture, which can be diluted, eliminated and overwhelmed by the so-called rules which the West is imposing on everyone, above all in the context of values of liberal democracy or democratic liberalism. Georgians are not comfortable with that, just as the unbridled enforcement of the LGBT agenda.

The EU keeps saying that Georgia should become a member, that they will clear away all the obstacles on its way into the union. The other day I saw a news story about a school teacher in Ireland who was arrested for telling children that there are only two sexes. He was instructed to tell children that the choice is much broader than between man and woman. This is going over the limits.

Question: So, they have accused him of believing the Scriptures?

Sergey Lavrov: Exactly. The Georgian people, whom I know very well and whose love of life I appreciate (Georgia was a major cultural centre in the Soviet Union, our shared homeland), are protecting their history. I think this is why they have been reproached by the West.

There is a major problem with the Georgian president. II have known Salome Zourabichvili for years. When Saakashvili became president in 2004, he invited Salome, then on the staff of the French Foreign Ministry, to become the Foreign Minister of Georgia. In 2005, she signed agreements on the withdrawal of the remaining two Russian bases. Moreover, we agreed to establish a Georgian-Russian counterterrorism centre at the base in Batumi with several hundred personnel, where 80 percent would be Georgian military and security personnel, and the rest would be Russian representatives. It was a wonderful opportunity to settle the issue in a friendly manner and to maintain friendly cooperation in combatting terrorism, which was becoming more active then.

We fulfilled our share of the obligations, as we always do, but the Saakashvili government did not fulfil its part of the deal. The counterterrorism centre was not established. I recently recalled that story during a discussion about the ability/inability of the West and governments in other regions that blindly follow Western instructions to honour agreements.

The Saakashvili government was clearly unable to honour agreements, just like those who signed the Minsk agreements with President Putin and the Istanbul agreements, which were thrown out after being initialled in April 2022. You may remember that the Minsk agreements were not only signed but also unanimously approved by the UN Security Council. But that did not stop Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, President of France Francois Hollande or President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko from proudly stating many years later that they had never intended to honour the agreements but only needed time to pump weapons into Ukraine.

The Georgian example is telling. More and more countries are coming to see that the whirlpool of liberal democracy, which the West is encouraging them to enter, goes against their roots and the traditions of their ancestors. The West is intent on eroding these traditions, making people forget them and replacing them with its non-traditional values so as to preserve its hegemony.

Question: I have a question about another republic - Abkhazia - which was once part of Georgia and with which Russia maintains good relations.

Russia recognised Abkhazia as an independent state. However, I read in the news the other day that Russia had put a cap on social payments to Abkhazian teachers and medical doctors starting September. Next, it said that Russia will be selling electricity to it at market prices. What is happening? Can we call it an aggravation of the situation, and if so, why?

Sergey Lavrov: I wouldn’t call it an aggravation. Following up on what we just discussed, this is about fulfilling the existing agreements. There’s a package of agreements that the presidents had signed off on, and the governments of the two countries had approved, and each country has its own obligations under these agreements that were ratified by the parliaments. It is about balancing these obligations. Our Abkhazian friends are well aware of that. In particular, recently re-appointed Foreign Minister Sergey Shamba touched upon this issue publicly. Congratulating him on re-assuming the post of the foreign minister, I invited him to visit Russia at any convenient time. I am sure we will set up such a meeting in the weeks to come.

Our other agencies are also working with their colleagues in Sukhumi, but, most importantly, we must fulfil all existing agreements that were approved by the presidents.

Question: Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba’s resignation was announced yesterday. You met with him, in March 2022, too. Why do you think he stepped down? Can you describe him as a person? How was it working with him?

Sergey Lavrov: I saw him only once in Antalya at a diplomatic forum which is an annual event organised by Türkiye. Mevlut Cavusoglu was Foreign Minister at that time. He called me and insisted that I come over, because the Ukrainian side and, in particular, Dmitry Kuleba, shared with the Turks the idea of having a meeting with me. They wanted to hold this meeting in the presence of the Turkish minister, not one-on-one. Considering that we never had any dialogues, I tried to find out how serious it was. I was assured that it was very serious, because Dmitry Kuleba said he had something to share with us.

Question: Was that March 2022?

Sergey Lavrov: Correct, it was March 2022, shortly after the beginning of the special military operation. We arrived in Antalya (I went there specifically to attend that event). I had no plans to participate in that diplomatic conference, I had other meetings on my schedule.

However, the Turks were very insistent. I reported to the President that my Ukrainian counterpart was going to share something with us. The three of us met in Antalya in a separate room. Mevlut Cavusoglu opened the meeting, and then invited Dmitry .Kuleba to speak as someone who initiated the contact. He proceeded to read out in good English from a piece of paper things that we have been hearing every day since the beginning of the special military operation and even before it. There was nothing new or constructive in it.

The actual work was done by the delegations. On our side, the delegation was headed by Presidential Aide Vladimir Medinsky, on the Ukrainian side by Head of the Servant of the People parliamentary group David Arakhamiya. You know the rest.

They met several times in Belarus and finally came to terms in Istanbul based on the principles proposed by Ukrainians. These principles are still valid. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that if they want talks, Zelensky should first revoke the executive order that bans them.

The Istanbul Principles guaranteed Ukraine non-joining NATO, its continuing non-aligned status and described security guarantees for Ukraine to feel at ease. Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO is part of the Russian Federation’s guarantees. These principles remain valid. At least, we are ready to return to them, but, of course, taking into account the new reality, because more than 30 months have passed since then. President Putin outlined these realities on June 14 in a speech at the Foreign Ministry. He articulated the path towards settling the situation between Ukraine and Russia and the West.

Mr Kuleba stayed on message, period. I later asked Foreign Minister Cavusoglu about the message Kuleba wanted to pass on to us. He was equally unable to answer that question. In turn, I said nothing about the possibility of talks. There is a negotiating process. Back then, it was going in Belarus. I said let’s operate on the premise that we can discuss the details there.

Question: What is the reason for this resignation and what can we expect from the new minister?

Sergey Lavrov: I do not see how anyone can have any expectations with regard to what is going on in the Ukrainian higher echelons. Seven to eight people, including deputy prime ministers and heads of various funds have resigned, not just Kuleba. There is some kind of a squabble going on in the Verkhovnaya Rada. Someone was not allowed to go, while other resignations were accepted. I’m not really interested in all of that. There are rumours that many are spreading in the information space, in particular, that Vladimir Zelensky wants to replace the leaders of the team in order to accuse them of failures and then tell the West once again that now he is about to earn some money, so let him have their weapons. Some think it’s about rats fleeing the ship. Frankly, I don’t know and I am not particularly interested in that.

Vladimir Zelensky is not ready for honest talks. The West will not let him near them. They have set the goal, if not to dismember the Russian Federation (even though this was stated as a goal), then to at least radically weaken it and to inflict a strategic defeat on us. The West will not allow him to make steps towards us. Zelensky is no longer able to understand what meets the interests of the Ukrainian people, since he has repeatedly betrayed them.

Question: Ukraine said President Putin’s visit to Mongolia dealt a heavy blow to it, since the International Criminal Court failed to make an arrest. Did the ICC lose credibility as a result, and should we consider creating an international court of our own at BRICS?

Sergey Lavrov: The statements that Ukrainian officials are making about third countries’ relations with the Russian Federation can hardly be described as anything but boorish behaviour. Let us not forget that following Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the Russian Federation, Zelensky said Mr Modi had dealt a fatal blow to the “settlement efforts.” Nevertheless, shortly after the Indian Prime Minister arrived in Kiev, and I’m sure he let Zelensky know that people who respect themselves do not say such things. I hope so, at least.

Speaking of the ICC, it was not even discussed during preparations for the Russian President’s visit to the Mongolian capital. I think extra efforts are being made to stir this issue up. This is what the West wants, and it never shies away from using double standards. The United States is not party to the Rome Statute. The ICC (or rather, its prosecutor) tried to make a case for the war crimes committed in Afghanistan by the Americans, the British, and the Australians. They even bombed wedding ceremonies wiping out everyone in attendance. They did so just in case. They would bomb anything that moves. They won’t even look at who’s there, and obliterate everyone causing dozens and hundreds of deaths. When the International Criminal Court tried to take these cases up, the Americans said they would impose sanctions on all of them.

History has repeated itself recently, when the ICC suggested that Israel’s leadership should be put on the wanted list. It got barked at the very next moment and went quiet. Against this background, when the United States demands that all countries fulfil their “sacred duty” to arrest Vladimir Putin, I think that even the people who are off politics understand how much this does not merely smack of double standards, but is actually made of them.

To reiterate, we at BRICS are guided by international law which has been providing and guaranteeing the immunity of heads of state for many years now. It is much older and wiser than the statute of the International Criminal Court which has been in existence for only a couple of decades and is not a universal instrument. The norms I am talking about are universal.

Question: Recently, when addressing China’s claim to the island, Taiwanese “president” Lai Ching-te “advised” Beijing to focus on returning the Russian Far East and look at the part of Russia with the city of Vladivostok rather than look at Taiwan.

Sergey Lavrov: Our position on Taiwan has long been known: China is a single and united state, and the government of China is the only government of the People’s Republic of China.

As for his “tirade” about the lands of eastern Russia, this question has never once arisen over the past 20 years. Back in 2001, the corresponding principles were laid down in the Treaty on Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, and the final protocols to the border agreement were ratified in 2005. According to these protocols, the Russia-China border issue was closed completely and definitively.

I’m not sure what these people in Taiwan are doing, and what the Americans are suggesting that they do or say in order to spot frictions in relations between Moscow and Beijing. However, this remark does not say much about outstanding intelligence of this politician or his great political talent.

Question: You recently said you don’t see the point in trading with China on a barter basis. However, Russian businesses keep saying that China is increasingly “tightening the screws” in terms of payments, and it is increasingly difficult to make payments. They are increasingly afraid of seeing secondary sanctions imposed on them. How should we go about this?

Sergey Lavrov: I have never been against barter trade. I have answered this question on an earlier occasion and made it clear that this was an avenue for creating opportunities, which we discussed earlier today speaking about the Eastern Economic Forum’s goals.

The planet faced a situation that was nothing short of revolutionary, just the way it was in Tsarist Russia. The revolutionary aspect of it included the fact that the globalisation system created by the Americans who are guided by their own interests, lured in everyone. They led everyone to believe that it was based on progressive principles, such as freedom of market forces, fair competition, inviolability of property, presumption of innocence, and much more. They claimed that this system belonged to the whole world and serves all, without exception, participants in the process (i.e. all countries around the world). I remember a US politician promote back then a thesis that the US dollar is not a national currency, but a global, worldwide asset that transcends civilisations, and is the lifeblood of the global economy and finance.

When overnight all these principles were sacrificed to US encroachments on the interests of the Russian Federation and used to punish our country, many people started thinking about the future of these relations.

The United States is unwilling to reform the voting and fee paying arrangements at the IMF because it holds a blocking vote. If the BRICS countries votes were aligned with their economic weight based on the criteria for determining the voting power at the IMF, the United States would have long lost its monopoly on making and blocking decisions.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Colleagues,
Rector Anatoly Torkunov just mentioned that many exceptional young individuals were admitted this year. However, I believe this does not imply that there were fewer exceptional young men and women in previous years. They have always been outstanding. There are statistics to support this claim. I would like to congratulate all of you on Knowledge Day.

I would also like to highlight that, according to the same statistics, MGIMO graduates hold important positions at the Central Office of the Government of Russia, particularly the Presidential Executive Office. Additionally, two-thirds of them join the Foreign Ministry staff every year. This speaks volumes about the “seal of excellence” associated with the diplomas from this great – without any exaggeration, for me at least – institution of higher learning. We welcome the fact that MGIMO supplies the Foreign Ministry with most of its staff. We are always eager to welcome those whose qualifications meet the high standards of Russian diplomacy. I would like to address the final-year students: together, we will implement the Foreign Policy Concept approved by President Vladimir Putin in March 2023.

I am certain that you keep up with international news and developments on the global stage. The primary trend is the strengthening of new growth and development centres located outside the historical West. Many states in the Global South and East, who are also called the Global Majority, (this is a new term that accurately reflects their current situation) have achieved impressive economic results, pursue increasingly independent foreign policies, and prioritise their own national interests, values, traditions, and development models. These states are no longer willing to accept Western ideals being imposed upon them. They are forging their own values, traditions and development models. It is impolite for the West to act in this manner towards other countries, especially considering that some of these countries possess great civilisations that have evolved over thousands of years and have developed their own unique development models.

Regional integration associations, such as the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN, the CIS, the LAS, the African Union, and CELAC, play a significant role at the current stage of development of the multipolar world order. BRICS, as it strengthens its influence and authority, increasingly acts as an informal global coordinator for these regional integration processes.

The globalisation, which the West pro-actively promoted for years, has been accepted as a method of interstate relations in the economy, technology and the financial sector. However, this globalisation model is now falling apart. The principles it was based on, according to our Western colleagues, such as fair competition, inviolability of private property, presumption of innocence and market forces, have been momentarily discarded by the West in order to punish, in this case, the Russian Federation.

The West has used sanctions against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea for decades. But I am not talking about these specific instances. The US had assured the rest of the world that globalisation was a common benefit and that the dollar was a successful mechanism for the global economy, not just America’s private property. (I remember well US officials saying these things.) Today, we see how the dollar is being manipulated and weaponised. As a result, globalisation is becoming regionalised but the trend towards restoring the interconnection, that the West has tried to distort, back to normal is still there and will primarily manifest in relations between regional unions.

BRICS, which has grown to include ten countries, with another 30-plus countries waiting to join, objectively plays the role of an informal coordinator and will be a factor in the emergence of a new multipolar system. The G20, created during the honeymoon in relations between East and West, West and South, in a period, when the international community needed to recover from yet another economic crisis, also played a very useful role in this regard.

Right now, I see the West’s attempts to Ukrainise the agenda at G20 summits, attempts that were particularly glaring during the first couple of years after the start of the special military operation. The West is seeking to make their denounce-Russia goal the cornerstone of G20 operations, although this group should focus on global finances and the economy, not geopolitics.

Similarly, we did not allow them to politicise this venue at the latest G20 summit in Delhi. The summit approved a statement that clearly acknowledged certain processes in the world that affected the global economy, occasionally, leading to crises. These processes occur in various regions of the world for different reasons. But the G20 serves as an umbrella for the G7, the BRICS countries, and their like-minded allies.

By the way, the total GDP based on purchasing power parity of the BRICS countries even before the expansion exceeded that of G7 that essentially competed for the role of an exclusive club and a world economy regulator. But eventually, the G7 turned into a military headquarters of the United States focused on plans to deter the development of Russia, China, Iran and other competitors. G7 countries realised they could not do it alone, so they had to agree to establishing the Group of Seven.

However, they are trying to retain their preferential and undeservedly privileged positions at the IMF and the WTO. They stall the reforms of these institutions in order to maintain their domineering influence. But this process cannot be stopped, and it will continue. Speaking at the Foreign Ministry on June 14, President of Russia Vladimir Putin stressed that “global politics, the economy, and technological competition will never be the same as before.” Right now, with our allies, strategic partners and like-minded leaders, we are working on the answer to what it will be like. We are actively working on the objectives outlined in the Foreign Policy Concept.

It is absolutely clear that the attempts of the Western minority to turn the course of history around and continue living at others’ expense as they did during the colonial era and the globalisation period I mentioned earlier, are doomed to failure. However, Western politicians religiously continue to declare their exclusivity. It has become a mandatory phrase for American presidents during inauguration.

You know about the notorious statement made by High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Josep Borrell, who described Europe as a blooming garden surrounded by jungles that should be taken care of. Apparently, it means unrooting. My colleague, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking about the upcoming events in the Western world and the Summit for Democracy, said that, “if you are not at the table in the international system, you're gonna be on the menu.” I believe this is a very indicative statement that gives a person away completely.
Speaking about secretaries of state, former secretary Condoleezza Rice, one of the ideologists of the American neo-liberalism, recently wrote the following in an article for Foreign Affairs: “The future will be determined by the alliance of democratic, free-market states or it will be determined by the revisionist powers.” The revisionist powers include Russia, China, Iran and everybody who respects international law rather than the rules that the West is highlighting in all of its demands for everybody else.

As for these rules, we get a clear impression of how the West treats the principles of the UN Charter. The Charter does include a principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty but fore-mentioned thereinbefore, this principle is preceded by the right of nations to self-determination. It states that everybody must respect human rights regardless of race, gender, language or religion. As for the right of nations to self-determination, when the West wanted to unilaterally rip Kosovo off Serbia, they declared Kosovo independent in 2008 because of the right of nations to self-determination.
Six years later, when undisguised Nazis who seized power in Kiev in an unconstitutional state coup stated that their goal was to cancel the status of the Russian language and to banish Russians from Crimea, the people of Crimea held a transparent referendum with a large number of observers. The West immediately accused us and Crimeans of violating the territorial integrity of Ukraine. The right of nations to self-determination was swept under the carpet.

I have already mentioned that the Charter stipulates respect for human rights, including language and religious rights. The West did nothing to stop its puppets from exterminating the Russian language, culture and media outlets over the years after the state coup in Ukraine, when Kiev acted persistently to get rid of everything Russian. Likewise, the West has not stopped Kiev from banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and has not shown it to its place or protected their beloved democratic values. Moreover, the West claims that every move of the Kiev regime is taken in defence of European values. It appears that they have demonstrated the true worth of these values.

In February 2024, President Putin said in his Address to the Federal Assembly that the cutting point has been turned against Russia, and that the West “envisions a Russia that is a dependent, declining, and dying space where they can do as they please.” This is why they have called to arms a coalition of about 50 countries in the hope of dismembering Russia. It is what Napoleon and Hitler tried to do. The latter called nearly all of Europe to arms. But it was not only Germans who committed atrocities and took part in genocide in the territory of the Soviet Union.

The essence of Western policy towards Russia has always been based on the assumption that our country is too strong and independent and that something must be done to change this, preferably by pulling it down. History repeats itself. Today, these 50 countries have again been rallied under Nazi banners against Russia, considering the essence of Zelensky’s regime or even the chevrons and flags of the so-called Ukrainian army.

We are not the only target. Washington is working hard to curtail China’s development by restricting its access to technology and imposing prohibitive levies on electric vehicles and batteries. At the same time they claim that they have been forced to impose levies because these products are too cheap. Is this a free market and fair competition?

Such examples abound. In Asia-Pacific, Washington is building up bloc confrontation. Military and political alliances like NATO are being established, and military installations are creeping into this part of the world. The West is trying its best to preserve the vestiges of its neocolonial influence in Africa and what once was a colonial power, Europe.

Today, all those who show independence and a will to defend their national interests within international law while refusing to play by Western rules, are under threat. It is clear, however, that these attempts are largely an agony of the West.

All these efforts run counter to the objective trajectory of history and are doomed to fail. Russia, as a global power, has a counter-balancing role in international politics. We have such a reliable partner as China. President Putin and President Xi Jinping have repeatedly reaffirmed in the signed documents that their countries’ duo plays a stabilizing role and has an important function internationally.

We do not seek to embed ourselves into various “schemes” that are being established by Western “rules” without our participation and without consideration of our interests. We will continue to champion widely held principles of international law and the UN Charter in their entirety instead of cherry-picking them as the West does.

President Putin has repeatedly stressed that “we are open to contacts with the countries of the ‘collective West’ on the understanding that they pivot away from their openly hostile course towards our country”. Any unfriendly moves will still be met with a tough response. The ball is not in our court, it is up to those who set out to deliberately destroy their relations with Russia and demonise our land and our nation. This is a new development in Western policy. Up until recently, they would say that Russia had “the wrong government”. Today, they are saying that the Russian people are “wrong”. We are prepared for any turn of events. We will judge the West’s intentions by its actions, not by its demagogy. For the time being, we will devote our efforts to strengthening the foundations of a multipolar world that are clearly coming together. One of our priorities is establishing the Eurasian security architecture and building the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

The concepts of ensuring security, in which we were somehow involved, were purely Euro-Atlantic until recent time. They, of course, included NATO and the existing back then Russia-NATO Council, the OSCE, and the Euro-Atlantic system, as well as the European Union and all the cooperation mechanisms that existed between us and the EU. Even though it is still called the European Union, the Euro-Atlantic dimension has always been large enough in its policy, economy and international relations. Now they have simply merged by signing an agreement with NATO in January 2023, in which Brussels voluntarily assumed a subordinate role in that partnership.

We will advance integration processes within the EAEU, CIS, SCO, ASEAN, and, of course, strengthen strategic partnership with China, India, Brazil, and all our other like-minded countries, working in the context of forming the Eurasian architecture. There are many, it is impossible to list them all. That is why we have a clear and comprehensible image of the future – multipolarity, based on another key principle of the UN Charter – sovereign equality of the state.

Looking at the history of any conflict after the establishment of the United Nations, you will see that neither the United States nor its allies applied the principle of sovereign equality. They didn't consider anyone their equal, and unfortunately, they don't. I am recalling something about “straightening a hunchback.” This situation has to be remedied by seeking reduction and elimination of any dependence on the financial, technological and other mechanisms that the West boasted, first offering its services to everybody and now using them against anyone who wants to be independent. And it is not that we want to be, we are. We are doing everything that we need for this. No doubt that we will complete it for the benefit of our people.

Question: My question deals with the topic of China-Russia trade, in one way or another. According to Reuters, Russia and China could start using barter mechanisms to execute contracts in agriculture, considering the shared commitment by Moscow and Beijing to reducing their reliance on the banking and settlement systems controlled by the United States.

But China has its own unique culture and legal framework. With that in mind, is there a way to use these barter transactions as a bilateral trade tool in its own right?

Sergey Lavrov: Roubles and the yuan account for almost 95 percent of our trade transactions. I do not see any need for barter trade, even if there is nothing wrong or reprehensible about using this mechanism. Why not use it, as long as it offers a convenient solution and enables us not to rely on bank transfers targeted by the United States and its allies in their unrelenting efforts to crack down on these transactions and stop them.

Of course, everyone understands that we represent two different cultures and civilisations. But why does it have to affect trade and investment cooperation? We have reached a historic high in our relations with China. Both Russia and China can clearly see through the threats arising from sticking with the elements of globalisation as conceived by the West and adopted by everyone else. The Western countries have now weaponised them.

We will create alternative payment and settlement platforms as part of our bilateral relations with other countries, as well as within BRICS and the SCO. President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has already put forward a proposal along these lines and gone beyond BRICS, which has already taken this idea on board. The central banks and finance ministries are scheduled to present a special report on this topic at the Kazan Summit. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva suggested a similar solution for CELAC, so this trend is already gaining traction and cannot be stopped.