Russia
Source: mid.ru

10th St Petersburg International United Cultures Forum

On September 11–14, St Petersburg hosts the 10th St Petersburg International United Cultures Forum. This is the largest Russian cultural event of the last decade with international participation. The main theme of the forum is “Culture of the 21st century: Sovereignty or globalism?” The participants will try to find an answer to this question.

The St Petersburg International United Cultures Forum is a reputable platform where the most acute issues can be discussed. Artists, cultural figures, officials responsible for the sphere of culture, businesspeople and journalists from across the world discuss issues of the global cultural agenda on an equal, mutually respectful basis.

The forum’s business programme includes seven sections on the following tracks: Theatre, Cinema, Museums, Circus, Business Culture, Media Culture, and Musical Culture. In addition, there will be three sessions covering more general, conceptual issues related to development of not just the cultural sphere, but also society as a whole: The Right to Heritage in a Multipolar World, Artificial Intelligence in Culture and National Sovereignty, and Cultural Heritage: Traditions and Modernity.
The forum has been held since 2015 under the patronage of President of Russia Vladimir Putin. A lecture by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, a meeting of the BRICS Ministers of Culture, and a meeting of the CIS Ministers of Culture will be the key events there.

Over 250 events are planned in total, including a united cultures concert featuring CIS performers, BRICS Culture Festival, a concert of CIS groups in the Peterhof State Museum Reserve, and the premiere of the ballet Crime and Punishment directed by Boris Eifman.


Question: Azerbaijan has officially applied to join BRICS. How long may it take for the country to join? Is there a possibility that a BRICS member nation might veto its application?

Maria Zakharova: I already provided a detailed comment on this issue when I talked about other nations’ applications.

We respect the sovereign commitment of Azerbaijan to building closer ties with BRICS. This group of nations is attracting more countries that share its goal to establish a more just, equitable and comprehensive architecture of international cooperation. At the moment, over 30 nations have expressed interest in developing systemic relationships with BRICS. As an ally, Moscow is committed to aiding Baku in any way on this issue.

The doors of BRICS are open. At this stage, there is an understanding that the grouping needs to focus on consolidating cooperation with and integration of its new members, which joined on January 1, 2024, into all the existing BRICS mechanisms.

Pursuant to the decisions of the BRICS Summit Meeting in Johannesburg on August 22-24, 2023, the modalities for the creation of a new category of "partner countries" and a list of potential candidates for this category are being coordinated. The results will be reported to Heads of State and Government at the Summit in Kazan on October 22-24 of this year. All decisions on this issue will be taken by the BRICS participants based on broad consultations and the principle of consensus.
Let me remind you that an expanded BRICS Outreach meeting is scheduled as part of the summit with invitations having been sent to leaders of a large number of developing countries. We expect that this will be a great venue to discuss current issues of international agenda, including tighter cooperation of BRICS with the nations of the Global South and Global East and raising their international status.

Question: How would you comment on reports that Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi plans to discuss settlements in yuan during his current visit to Russia? How are Russia and China approaching these matters today?

Maria Zakharova: I would like to emphasise that Wang Yi, Member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Director of the Office of the Foreign Affairs Commission of the Communist Party of China and Foreign Minister of China, has come to St Petersburg to attend a meeting of high-level representatives from BRICS and BRICS+ states who oversee security issues. This is an important aspect of our partnership with BRICS member countries, particularly with Beijing. This collaboration is becoming especially valuable in light of the threats and destabilising activities by Washington and its satellites on the Eurasian continent.

Regarding settlements, this issue is not on the agenda for the upcoming events. There are other intergovernmental formats for discussing such matters.

Question: It was announced earlier this week that National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister of the Republic of India Ajit Kumar Doval is planning a trip to Russia to discuss peace efforts for Ukraine. Has India put forward any specific peace proposals that can be made public? How do India’s proposals differ from the peace initiatives of our Chinese partners?
Maria Zakharova: As far as we know, National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister of India Ajit Kumar Doval is visiting Russia to take part in a meeting of high-level representatives of BRICS and BRICS+ states overseeing security issues. The meeting is taking place on September 10-12 in St Petersburg.

It has been stated multiple times, including at my previous briefing, that we are familiar with the Indian side’s position on the Ukraine crisis.

I reiterate, we appreciate the sincere desire of India’s leadership to contribute to a peaceful and political-diplomatic resolution of the conflict.


Question: Kazan will host the BRICS Financial and Economic Forum. One of the goals of the meeting is to promote the abandonment of the dollar in international settlements. What is your assessment of this initiative?

Maria Zakharova: The US currency is gradually losing its dominance, and the current situation in global finance, with the West weaponising the dollar for its trade wars, is spurring the process.
I would like to quote President of Russia Vladimir Putin, who said that it is not about us de-dollarising proactively on a whim, just because we want it. This decision was prompted by the reality created by the West itself. If they block our transactions in their currency, what are we to do? We need to pay each other. This is what put this process of de-dollarisation underway.

More and more countries are considering the possibility of using more alternative ways of payment in mutual dealings. BRICS is no exception. The group’s members place great emphasis on strengthening mutual financial and economic cooperation. We are committed to gradually rectifying the current situation in the global economy and finance, increasing the share of national currencies in trade and investment, and developing financial instruments and mechanisms for mutual payments that are beyond the control of Western dictates.

Question: You have repeatedly commented on the future of the world involving a multipolar system. However, I would like to ask, what role will the BRICS group and the growing multipolarity play for the citizens of Russia? What will an ordinary Russian get from this?

Maria Zakharova: This is really a broad question, and I particularly like the way you phrased it, highlighting potential benefits for the average person, not geopolitical theories.

Allow me to take some time to do this “homework.” I will think of an answer to your question and at the next briefing, I will talk about it proactively. This is something people are most interested in.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

The 7th Russia-GCC Ministerial Meeting for Strategic Dialogue has just ended.

Just like during the previous meeting, we had a candid, useful and result-oriented discussion. We reviewed the status of implementation of the 2023-2028 Joint Action Plan which was approved at the last meeting of the Strategic Dialogue in Moscow in July 2023.

We discussed prospects for Russia’s cooperation with the countries of the region in the economy, investment, cultural ties and information exchanges. We focused specifically on the international situation, primarily, the situation in the Middle East, with a focus on the tragedy unfolding in the Palestinian territories, namely, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank of the Jordan River. We share a common stance on the importance of urgently putting an end to violence, settling humanitarian issues and starting serious practical work to implement UN resolutions on creating a Palestinian state that will coexist with Israel in peace and security.

We covered other regional issues, including the Syria settlement, the situation in Yemen, the Red Sea, Libya, and a number of other issues.

We underscored our appreciation for the balanced position adopted by all GCC countries on the Ukraine crisis. Many of them, including Saudi Arabia, are providing assistance in resolving humanitarian issues not only in the context of what is happening in Ukraine, but in a broader context as well. I’m referring to our relations with the United States and Europe and the recent exchange of prisoners which took place with the direct involvement of the Saudi leaders.
Today, we had a series of bilateral meetings with foreign ministers in Saudi Arabia, including our counterparts from India and Brazil, Secretary General of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf Jasem Mohamed AlBudaiwi, and Secretary-General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation Hissein Taha.

At the end of the working day, our delegation was received by Crown Prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, with whom we had an extended discussion covering all key areas of our joint work in pursuance of the agreements reached between the leaders of Saudi Arabia and the Russian Federation, including during the one-on-one meeting between President Vladimir Putin and King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud on December 6, 2023, when our leader was here on a state visit.
In addition to the bilateral agenda, we discussed current international issues and reaffirmed our commitment to the objective process of forming a new multipolar world order without hegemons or dictators, where the key principle of the UN Charter - the sovereign equality of all states - will be respected.

Question: I would like to read out a note of acknowledgement from our chief, Margarita Simonyan: “On behalf of the entire RT staff, allow me to express appreciation to the Foreign Ministry of Russia and the General Consulates in New York and Dubai for their help in bringing back home our colleague, who was persecuted by the FBI.”
Moscow has repeatedly said that there could be no question of talks [with Ukraine] after their joy ride in the Kursk Region. Has anything changed in recent days, given comments in this regard by Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Vladimir Zelensky?

Sergey Lavrov: With regard to the terrorist invasion to the Kursk Region by the Armed Forces of Ukraine and the continuing terrorist attacks on facilities in other border regions, including Belgorod, I would like to draw your attention to what President of Russia Vladimir Putin said at the Eastern Economic Forum on September 5, 2024, when he described the liberation of the Kursk Region and the entire territory of the Russian Federation, where Ukrainian neo-Nazis have gone on the rampage, as a sacred duty of the Russian Armed Forces.

As for various [peace] “initiatives,” one of these that has been put forward by Vladimir Zelensky is well known and sets one’s teeth on edge. It is an ultimatum pure and simple. The fact that the West sticks to it means just one thing: they do not want to make honest agreements and seek to have Russia come closer to a situation, where they will be able to declare that we have suffered a “strategic defeat” on the battlefield. They want to weaken their rivals. So, we have never taken the “Zelensky formula” seriously and only marvelled that there are still people ready to buy it. Of course, this happens under the West’s pressure.

The German Chancellor, Olaf Scholz, said it was high time to start talking. The German press and other media are hinting that the territorial issue will have to be solved based on the realities existing on the ground. But territories are neither here nor there. We just wanted the people, who are an inalienable part of the Russian world and the Russian culture, language, history, and religion, to be treated as human beings as required under international law, numerous conventions on human rights and minority rights, and primarily the UN Charter.

The numerous ideas floating around the “Zelensky formula” usually start with the words that it is necessary to stop military operations and obey international law, meaning steps to ensure Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

International law is not only about this. Territorial integrity is guaranteed to states whose governments represent the entire population living in this or that territory. This is a resolution passed unanimously by the UN General Assembly. There is no need even to argue that the neo-Nazis in Kiev represented no one in eastern Ukraine, Novorossiya, and Crimea after the [2014] coup.

The main thing is that the UN Charter urges everyone to respect the rights of any person regardless of their race, sex, language, or religion. This is the root of the conflict in Ukraine. The rights of people adhering to Russian culture have been wiped out after the coup. Currently, the Russian language is outlawed in all spheres, including education, media, art, culture, and even everyday life. In addition, the Rada has approved a bill (and Zelensky signed it into law) that actually bans the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

Let me stress that none of the initiatives, including those put forward out of best intentions by our good colleagues and partners, address the rights of Russian speakers in areas that Zelensky regards as his own.
Today, I discussed this topic with my counterparts from Brazil and India, because they display a certain concerned approach, one that we understand, to facilitating crisis resolution. I drew their attention to the fact that this was the key problem. People were branded as terrorists solely because they refused to accept the coup and obey the coup-makers, who declared right away that their goal was to wipe out all things Russian and banish Russians from Crimea, among other areas.

We are urging our colleagues to focus on this. We discuss this with our Chinese friends, too. No success will be achieved unless we get to the root of this problem. In this context, we appreciate the global security initiative announced by PRC President Xi Jinping, which says that it is necessary to start analysing any conflict from its prime causes. This refers fully to the Ukraine crisis. The prime causes will go for good if they are laid bare and condemned.

Question: Media reports emerged a few months ago saying that Saudi Arabia could become a venue for a peace conference on Ukraine (an actual peace conference, whenever it takes place). Is Moscow considering this option? Has it been discussed today? You have mentioned statements by the Russian President. Do they imply that a ceasefire is currently “not on the agenda,” or any similar conferences are “not on the agenda” either?

Sergey Lavrov: You should understand that it is not about the meeting location and participants, but about issues to be discussed. Meeting to talk about calls for a ceasefire and then territorial exchanges simply doesn’t cut it. Once again, the problem is not about territories but people’s rights, which have been flouted – and all of the political initiatives floating around fail to mention them.

As soon as we see the determination to protect human rights, a policy that the West always boasts about when addressing any issue (except this particular one), I am confident we will easily agree on the location and time of the meeting. But first we need to understand what exactly we are going to discuss.

We are protecting people. Everyone who expresses interest, one way or another, in facilitating a settlement should be aware of it and to make it their core activity.

Question: As to the developments around the Palestinian-Israeli and Ukrainian conflicts, we hear more and more opinions regarding the failure of the existing system of international security. Do you see any options to create a new system? What should it be like? Could such structure as BRICS play a major role in it?

Sergey Lavrov: All the principles required for ensuring strong international security are documented in the UN Charter. But the problem is that it is not being implemented – and most particularly, by our Western colleagues, who have chosen to have a whip hand over all multilateral structures, making them their tools.

This is achieved mostly through the ‘privatisation’ of international secretariats. Just as they privatised the OSCE, they are now making attempts to do so with the UN Secretariat, and with certain success: NATO representatives have now taken all senior positions in the UN that are directly related to the organisation’s activities in peace, security, peacekeeping, information policy, and security of international structures around the globe.

They present information to UN bodies, Security Council, General Assembly and other structures in a biased manner beneficial to the West. On several occasions, we have officially stated that efforts should be taken to fundamentally revise the principles and criteria for the Secretariat formation, with major role played by fair geographical representation. So far, Western countries have been strongly opposed to this – which is unsurprising as they are doing it solely in pursue of their own selfish interests.

Amidst all of this, the United Nations remains the most comprehensive platform for countries to put forward initiatives, give assessment of certain events, and achieve a balance of interests, an organisation for them to achieve a balance of interests, according to its founders’ initial idea. But the West is not willing to seek a balance of interests and resorts to various tricks in order to impose its unilateral approaches on the Secretariat, with abuse of influence.
In this situation, we are observing similar developments in the Bretton Woods Institutions, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation.

The US-led West is doing everything possible to prevent the real influence of the Global South and East on the global economy, trade, and logistics from being reflected in the voting patterns.

A reform to address this imbalance is long overdue, but it is yet to take place. The West is dismantling the system of globalisation it used to promote after the early 1990s, a system based on the principles of free market, fair competition, presumption of innocence, and much else. All these principles were quickly abandoned and weaponised. The dollar has also been weaponised to punish recalcitrants. Russia is one of the countries the US wants to contain by using these illegal methods. What we are witnessing right now is the process of de-globalisation.

Everyone is aware that any country can become the next target, if some official in Washington dislikes this or that aspect of its behaviour. There are already numerous examples of this. China, for instance, is being punished because technologically it is already ahead of the West and can produce more competitive goods than Western manufacturers. In response, 100-percent prohibitive tariffs and other measures are introduced.

In this context, regional integration processes are becoming increasingly important. For Russia, this implies Eurasian integration through the EAEU and SCO that maintain close cooperation with ASEAN.

At today’s meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council, we discussed this Eurasia-based organisation’s promising potential for promoting the continent-wide processes and contributing to what President Vladimir Putin referred to as the Greater Eurasian Partnership. This will provide the material basis for creating a security architecture open to all countries across the Eurasian continent but not forming part of the Euro-Atlantic equation imposed by the US within the framework of NATO and the OSCE. Now the European Union became part of the North Atlantic security model by signing an agreement with NATO in 2023 whereby it sealed its complete submission to the alliance.

We want the nations of the Eurasian continent – the largest, fastest-growing, and most resource-rich part of the world – to decide their fate on their own. President Vladimir Putin repeatedly said as much, emphasising that the door was not shut on the western part of Eurasia either. However, they must realise that their prospective engagement with other participants in the process in Eurasia should be equal and honest and devoid of forbidden tricks.
Similar processes take place in other regions around the world. The African Union is also seeking to promote its identity, planning for a future where Africa’s vast resources are not exported for processing in the West and create value added in Africa itself.

In Latin America, particularly with the election of Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, there is also a growing focus on integration and a renewed drive to reinforce regional identity, especially within the framework of CELAC.
All of that inevitably influences the global landscape/, as reflected primarily in the growing interest in BRICS, which has doubled its membership from five to ten countries. The organisation has received more than 30 applications for membership or special relations. This process is the main motive force shaping a multipolar international order.
I want to emphasise once again that we are not shutting the door on contacts with the West. This is what the UN is all about. But they ought to behave decently and refrain from using its rostrum for making accusations without end or false assertions. They should better look for a balance of interests.

A good example in this sense is the G20 that includes both the G7 and BRICS countries, along with their opinion allies. The Group is almost evenly split, with about ten members promoting a West-oriented “line” and the other ten sharing the BRICS philosophy.

I am citing this as an example because, despite the developments in Ukraine, the latest three G20 summits managed to reach consensus in their final documents, primarily on issues falling within the G20’s purview, namely the economy, finance, trade, and global politics.

This was particularly evident at last year’s G20 summit in New Delhi, where the all-embracing text on the situation in the world and global politics referred clearly to all conflicts without exception. Attempts to Ukrainise the G20 agenda have fallen through.

The G20 has elaborated an approach demonstrating that even seemingly irreconcilable positions can, after all, be approximated. I think that other organisations, primarily UN agencies and the UN Security Council would do well to make use of this example.

Question: US media reported earlier that Egypt, Qatar and the United States plan to offer Israel and HAMAS a take-it-or-leave-it ceasefire agreement. It has been stated that, should the parties reject it, the US-led negotiations format may be shut down. What is your opinion of this approach by Washington? Would Russia be willing to offer its good offices as an intermediary between the warring parties? Or maybe Russia has already tried to play this role?

Sergey Lavrov: Washington wants to preserve its monopoly over any processes in the Middle East. We know many cases when this position has resulted in failure. Today’s discussion with our colleagues from the Persian Gulf’s Arab countries has fully confirmed us in this belief.

Take-it-or-leave-it ultimatums invite more bloodshed. The United States has blocked multiple initiatives that different countries have submitted to the UN Security Council, including the Russian Federation. Recently, the United States put forward Joe Biden’s three-stage plan and pushed a corresponding resolution through the Security Council although Israel has fully ignored it.

Every time international mediators (I want to particularly note Qatar and Egypt) attempt to propose something reasonable, a compromise, the parties seem to achieve a preliminary agreement but then the Israeli leadership sets more conditions. This is deplorable. It is a tragedy. An immediate ceasefire is necessary. Meanwhile, it is important to remember that the problem stems from the fact that the Palestinian state issue has not been resolved for almost 80 years.

As for Russia, after October 7, 2023, we have been actively pushing for taking a decision on this matter within the UN Security Council. The Unites States has blocked all these attempts and imposed its own approach that has already failed. Not to mention the fact that the United States and the European Union have destroyed the quadrilateral group of international mediators, the Middle East Quartet, which included Russia, the United States, the EU and the UN. The United States has been trying to submit its own initiatives but to no avail.

At this stage, Russia is one of the few countries that is working with all the parties to this conflict without exception. We are working with all the Palestinian groups, with Israel, Iran, other countries in the region, and with all the Yemeni parties. The crisis on Palestinian territories has already backfired at the Lebanon-Israel border, in the Yemeni situation and in the Red Sea. Certainly, there are parties (and one can feel it) who wish to trigger a larger-scale war across the entire region. We must be unrelentless in our efforts to counter these attempts.

Among the initiatives, I want to note the steps we made long before the current developments, to assist Palestinians with restoring their unity and to help HAMAS and Fatah (represented by the current President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas) to overcome their disagreements. We have invited all the Palestinian groups to Moscow several times, to explain that Palestinian unity does not depend on Israel or the United States but only on the Palestinians. There was yet another meeting in Moscow at the end of February 2024 where a joint statement was issued. For the first time, all the Palestinian groups – Fatah, HAMAS and Islamic Jihad – agree to sign a document stating the need to unite based on the principles of the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It is an important step, but it remains on paper.

Question: Russia is holding the rotating BRICS Chairmanship this year. You have said that over 30 countries are ready to join that association. What is the progress of preparations for its October summit in Kazan? Will the group be expanded again, as it has already happened this year? How have the new BRICS countries, like Saudi Arabia, strengthened its potential? According to Western allegations, Riyadh is in no hurry to start working in it. Is this true? Will Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince and Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia with whom you have just now held substantive talks, be invited to Kazan?

Sergey Lavrov: BRICS is following an upward trajectory in its development, and this trend will only grow stronger. The Russian BRICS Chairmanship is greatly contributing to this. Our chairmanship programme includes hundreds of events in various spheres of BRICS activities in foreign policy, the economy, culture, education, interaction between our law enforcement agencies, and much more. A large package of documents will be prepared for the upcoming summit.
One of the items on the agenda of the Kazan summit has to do with the further expansion of BRICS, which is being done in keeping with the instructions our heads of state issued at the summit meeting last year for developing criteria governing the way we engage with our partner countries. This group of countries will be assigned the status ensuring their maximum involvement in all BRICS events.

As for new participants, there have been quite a few applications, but decisions are only taken by consensus in the group. We believe that many of these applications deserve to be given careful consideration. As I have said, this issue will be discussed by the heads of state. A ministerial BRICS meeting will take place during the UN General Assembly in New York to discuss the preliminary proposals prepared by our Sherpas.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, it has been invited to join BRICS alongside other four countries – Argentina, Iran, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. I do not know what the West is writing or speaking on this score. In June 2024, we held a meeting of BRICS foreign ministers where our Saudi colleague Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud actively contributed to the discussion of the relevant documents. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been invited to the summit. We discussed this and also preparations for the summit at our meeting with him today. I am sure that the summit will be successful.

Question: It has been reported that the United States attempted to interfere in the latest elections held in Russia. Can you say who tried to influence the expression of our citizens’ will, and how and for what purpose they did that? How has our foreign ministry responded to that?

Sergey Lavrov: I have not heard about such allegations. As far as I can see, they only were made yesterday. Our State Duma MPs have already expressed their views on that score.

I believe that attempts at interfering in everything is a hallmark of the United States and Great Britain as its main ally. All these attempts invariably fail in Russia, but they might be effective in other countries. Quite a few government coups have been organised in this manner.

But this method has an opposite effect when applied against Russia. Our society and our people close their ranks in the face of direct threats, including the war which the United States and its vassals have launched against us through the Nazi regime in Kiev. The same goes for attempts to interfere in our internal affairs by means of modern technologies and other mechanisms, which have made much headway in the United States. We know how to deal with that. They still cannot puzzle out that their years-long attempts to stir Russian society always fail, just as this has happened this time too.

Question: The Qatari newspaper The New Arab wrote the other day about the superiority of the Chinese model of a diplomatic settlement in the Middle East because the other great powers have allegedly failed. Do you accept this assessment of the intermediaries’ diplomatic efforts?

Sergey Lavrov: I have not seen that article, but I am aware of China’s initiative. In particular, I knew that it invited Hamas and Fatah representatives to Beijing. Two or three such meetings were held last spring. That initiative had the same goal as our efforts to restore the unity of the Palestinian people, which I have mentioned. They have the same goal. The document adopted there [in Beijing] has reaffirmed everything that was signed in Moscow regarding he Palestinian groups’ readiness to restore unity based on the principles of the Palestine Liberation Organisation.
We regularly exchange views with our Chinese colleagues on the Middle East and on virtually all other important foreign policy issues.

Russia
Source: en.interaffairs.ru

Approximately 150 countries have shown interest in joining the BRICS, thus giving the blockchain solution legitimacy. The world view of the U.S. dollar may be changing more quickly than American leaders realize, writes ‘The American Thinker’.

Russia and China have been looking for ways to continue to trade between the two countries without having to rely on the dollar or the Western banking system. The two countries have been able to use gold to circumvent sanctions and continue to trade with each other.

“The Russian government has been encouraging Russian citizens to buy gold because the dollar is considered volatile,” the Financial Times reports.

“There is a lot of effort by Russia and China to make the dollar [less influential] — to stop it from being the petrodollar,” Berhard Dahdah, commodities analyst at Natixis told the Financial Times.

There are several countries that have already made trade deals in their own local currencies. Initially, this business was minor but seems to be increasing. This is also a trend to watch in terms of global currency and de-dollarization.

Use of local currencies, the development of blockchain technology, and the dramatic increase in gold purchases are all trends that signal a potential change in the financing of global trade.

“Suddenly in the past two years the central banks all around the world are suddenly buying tons and tons of gold,” says a Think School commentator.

India, China, Poland, Singapore, and the Czech Republic all have bought gold. Buying gold has become a worldwide trend.

The use of gold allows Russia and China to trade without the dollar, but the system is complicated. It requires Russia to hire couriers to bring documents to Chinese bankers. The use of blockchain technology would greatly simplify this process.

If the BRICS can create a currency or payment program backed by gold or other commodities, they will have a system that is more stable and reliable that the current U.S. system, where the dollar is backed by little more than faith in the American economic system.

The BRICS plan on using some digital currency using block chain technology which is backed by gold or other commodities. If Russia is able to come up with a digital currency that allows transactions with local currencies and backed by gold, it will be a whole new ball game for the entire world.

Dollar dominance is largely rooted in confidence of the strength of the U.S. economy. Without the backing of gold, other nations have remained committed to the dollar as long as they perceive the American economy as stable.

Without a gold standard, confidence in the dollar is dependent upon the U.S. dollar maintaining a consistent valuation. With the U.S.’s excessive debt and printing of money, the world’s perception has changed.

The U.S. has been on a “spending spree” since the initial response to the COVID-19 pandemic, The Heritage Foundation reported at the end of 2023. The country seems to be spending wantonly and hoping that money-printing will keep the economy afloat.

“This reckless and politically opportunistic spending spree has left the U.S. with a weakened economy, an inflation crisis, and a looming debt crisis,” David Ditch and Richard Stern write for The Heritage Foundation.

“Further, these reckless actions — such as adding more to the federal debt in a 27-month span than was added in the first two centuries of the country’s history — exacerbated already mountainous long-term federal obligations and propelled the country close to a debt crisis.”

The value of foreign money invested in dollars also goes down as the printing of money continues. Inflation affects foreign investment, reducing foreign nations’ interest in relying on the American system. A country can feel safe using gold as a method of exchange because the value is certain.

The BRICS summit in October is expected to reveal a future plan for BRICS currency. If a new system is developed, it will quickly reduce dependence on the U.S. dollar.

There is an existing settlement system that is an alternative to SWIFT. This piece of the puzzle may expedite a change to an alternative currency. This system was created in Russia over ten years ago, so this is not new. Russia has been planning on reducing dollar dependence for quite some time.

Some countries have already launched basic blockchain solutions, and at the upcoming BRICS meeting, the discussion of a standalone mutual payment system is a top priority. Approximately 150 countries have shown interest in joining the BRICS, thus giving the blockchain solution legitimacy.

The world view of the U.S. dollar may be changing more quickly than American leaders realize. As America continues to spend and increase debt, confidence will erode around the world.

“People usually turned to dollars and euros during times of trouble,” write Anastasia Stognei and Leslie Hook for the Financial Times. “But that has all changed.”

Russia
Source: russiancouncil.ru

The concept of a multipolar (or polycentric) world order [1] was first coined by Academician Yevgeny Primakov in 1996 [Primakov 1996]. Like everything new, it was not immediately accepted, but ultimately became a significant contribution to both domestic and world theory of international relations, offering a compelling alternative to Western approaches, particularly the one proposed in Samuel Huntington’s The Clash of Civilizations [Huntington 1993]. It informed the idea of trilateral cooperation between Russia, China and India, implemented by Primakov and later embodied in the BRICS group. By now, the idea of multipolarity has been recognized in global political science, has entered the conceptual framework and the language of international diplomacy and is used in Russia’s doctrinal documents. In 2015, we proposed the scenario of a new bipolarity [2] as one of the possible trajectories for global development. Today, many scholars, both Chinese and American, [3] suggest that China-centric and U.S.-centric poles are emerging.

This article discusses the “multipolarity — new bipolarity” dichotomy.

Long Global Macro-Transformations

World history shows that a new world order typically emerges after the end of a major war (see Table 1).

Europe was usually the “kitchen” where the world order was cooked. Take the last 200 years. After the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the Concert of Europe emerged and lasted for 100 years. The century-long stability of that system could be explained by the homogeneity of the political organization of its guarantor states. All members of the Concert of Europe were monarchies. World War I produced the Versailles system, which lasted only 20 years. One of the reasons for its short life was the exclusion of the Soviet Union, Germany and China. The Yalta-Potsdam system was formed by the victors in World War II. Its guarantors were the “Big Three” powers—the Soviet Union, the U.S. and the UK—along with France and China. The three defeated powers—Germany, Japan and Italy—were discriminated and disenfranchised. This system existed for 45 years and was initially thought to be polycentric, but quickly degenerated into a bipolar order, and the Cold War commenced. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the system became unipolar, dominated by the West, primarily the U.S. It disregarded Russia’s interests and, from 2018 onward, began discriminating against China as well. February 2022 can be considered the formal date of the unipolar world’s demise. However, today’s predictions suggest it will take at least 10 years before the new post-unipolar system becomes stable.

The economic center of gravity is a spatial indicator of the economic strength of states, borrowed from physics. To put it simply, this is a geographical point of equilibrium for GDP, trade and investment flows of different countries. Figure 1 shows a map of how the world’s economic center of gravity shifted for over a thousand years. It appeared in Central Asia, on the territory of the Ghaznavid Empire (modern-day Afghanistan). The center then migrated northwest, while the devastation in post-war Europe forcefully pushed it (within just 10 years) to the West, toward Greenland. Then it turned east again. The sharpest shift, to the southeast, occurred in 2000–2010 and is associated with the rise of China. The economic center of gravity has almost returned to the same meridian but remained more than 2,000 km north of the starting point, which indicates a return to the millennial balance of economic power between the West and the East.

Statistic calculations by IMEMO RAS for 60 years of peace (1960–2021) indicate the stability of the center’s latitudinal (horizontal) position. This suggests a relatively consistent proportion of GDP production by the countries in the Global South and Global North, under the economic leadership of the Northern Hemisphere. The shift to the East has also been clearly confirmed.

According to our projections up to 2050, the future position of the globe’s center of economic activity will lie on the border of India and China. This method of analysis reveals a high level of inertia in time and geographic monotonicity of changes in the balance of economic power of states. It also shows that wars can drastically disrupt the natural course of events.

The center of gravity method can also be applied to the arsenals of strategic and tactical weapons (see Figure 2). For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the U.S. had a huge advantage, but then there was a clear pivot to the northeast—the creation of superior nuclear capabilities in the Soviet Union. With the onset of arms control in 1993, a reversing loop emerged, heading southwest. This was followed by a curve to the east with an implied southward inclination, which reflects the growing nuclear stockpiles of India, Pakistan, North Korea, and the rapid buildup of strategic and tactical nuclear forces in China. The military center of gravity follows its economic peer with a lag of 20 years, reflecting the geopolitical ambitions of Asian powers. These interpretations also clearly demonstrate the end of unipolarity and point to the rise of multipolarity.

Technology. Politicians tend to be techno-optimists. Barack Obama predicted that 3D printing would transform the entire world. [4] George W. Bush promised that decoding the human genome would revolutionize medicine. [5] All false starts.

Economists traditionally measure the rate of technological progress (TP) using the total factor productivity (TFP) index. To put it simply, this is the part of economic growth driven not by an increase in inputs—labor and capital—but rather by improvements in the efficiency of their use. Technological progress means not only the generation of new scientific and technological ideas but also their mass replication. Without economic validation of the impact of wide dissemination of innovations, scientific or technological achievements remain in history as brilliant breakthroughs with only local economic effects, giving rise to journalistic generalizations at best, such as the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” or “the sixth techno-economic paradigm.”

Statistical metrics rely on data of technologically advanced nations, while catching-up countries have room for growth by approaching the TP frontier, i.e. adopting and improving existing ideas and technologies. Technological leaders spend more resources pushing the TP frontier, while those catching up can accelerate at lower costs, effectively staying in the “wind shadow” of the leaders. The TFP index growth rate has been steadily declining in developed countries for many years, but this has been especially conspicuous since the mid-2000s. Today, the growth is below 1.5% and even 1% per year (see Figure 3).

A similar pattern of dramatic TFP deceleration was observed in China. The consensus interpretation of these figures is that the main effects of the Third Industrial (i.e., computer) Revolution have largely been exhausted, and no new general-purpose breakthrough technologies (such as electricity, internal combustion engines, or computers and mobile communications) have emerged.

However, it seems that the intellectualization of technologies and approaches to project management, as well as informatization, simply do not fit into the traditional factor-based view of progress that was established many years ago. The scale of knowledge is growing, new professions are springing up, the role of emotional intelligence and cognitive functions is increasing. All this dramatically changes the structure of capital assets (see Figure 4). From the beginning of the 21^st century and until the 2008 crisis (2000–2007), equipment accounted for over 50% of the increase in capital’s contribution (investment) to output growth, whereas in 2019–2021, almost 63% of this increase was attributable to intellectual property assets. This result of our research suggests a refocusing of technological progress from final products to intellectual technologies, enabling the production of a range of innovative goods and services tailored to highly segmented demand.

There are now hopes that the pace of technological progress may accelerate due to the development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, which will spark a new industrial revolution. An indirect sign of its imminence is the sharp rise in the rate of business births and deaths in the U.S. economy in 2020–2022. [6] The spillover of labor from companies that are losing efficiency to corporations with increasing market shares has also accelerated. These are some sort of leading indicators that suggest the structural results of TP are approaching. Similar developments occurred 30 years ago, on the cusp of the computer revolution. The above-mentioned intellectualization of fi ed capital, where trusted AI will be applied, adds credibility to these hopes. In addition, AI is one of the critical areas of technological sovereignty. It is no coincidence that Vladimir Putin described AI as “crosscutting, universal and essentially revolutionary technology.” [7] The Russian President announced the preparation of a new edition of the National AI Development Strategy and a respective decree. I believe that this prioritization is justified. China’s experience in the semiconductor race is a good model to be emulated (see Figure 5). Its distinguishing feature is the focus on companies as drivers of development, with massive, cumulatively growing state support.

The U.S. strategy of curbing technological development of Russia (in all areas) and China (in semiconductors, artificial intelligence and quantum computing and electric cars) leads to stiff competition in high technology, which is fraught with fragmentation, diversification of technical standards, legal norms and rules. And this is another argument in favor of a new bipolarity.

Demographic processes. According to UN projections, by the middle of the 21^st century, Russia will drop from its current 9th place to 14th in terms of population, while remaining the most populous country in Europe. [8] A more significant problem for Russia is population aging. The proportion of elderly people, who are typically not part of the labor force, is increasing. Japan, Spain and Italy are leading this process today, but neither China nor India will be spared. Nigeria appears to be the only major country where population and the share of young people will continue to grow until the end of the 21^st century. As of December 2023, one in 10 people worldwide was aged 65 or over, with health spending taking up 10% of global GDP. [9]

In this context, the importance of medical technologies cannot be overstated, as they can extend not only people’s life expectancy but also the duration of their healthy and socially active life, thereby easing labor market pressures. Needs always steer technological progress toward overcoming economic growth constraints tied to the scarcest resource in any given historical period.

A serious risk associated with the problem of aging is a slowdown in innovation, since it is people under 40—the age group that will shrink throughout the 21^st century—who are the primary drivers and consumers of innovation. So far, this risk has been mitigated by the large youth cohorts in China and India. This is why these two nations are experiencing almost exponential growth in patenting, massive reengineering and, consequently, in middle-class numbers. Demographics give India an edge until around 2060, which is already evident in the growth rates of Indian economy. Combined with the influx of hi-tech investments and the contribution of the Indian diaspora, India has good prospects, making its position crucial to the future architecture of the world order, regardless of how it evolves. The U.S. understands this and has been figuratively “clinging” to this nation for the past 20 years.

I believe that the Russian Academy of Sciences should significantly bolster scientific and educational ties with India and its dynamically developing neighbors in Southeast Asia—Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. The anticipated tension in the global market of new generations of innovators aggravates inter-country competition for this scarcest resource. I think that the international reputation of the Russian Academy of Sciences is a powerful tool to attract and retain young people and foster their creative motivation. We should reassert this as we celebrate the 300th anniversary of the Academy of Sciences.

Ideology. Dirigisme [10], or statism, is the main trend in both economic theory and economic policy of the West. A pivot to a more state-controlled economy began with the disappointing outcomes of the Washington Consensus, which aimed to guide post-socialist countries from planned to market economies.

The 2008–2009 financial crisis cemented the trend toward statism, and the COVID-19 pandemic elevated it to unprecedented proportions. In the U.S., Democrats are among the most vocal proponents of greater government intervention in all spheres of life, but they are not alone. Republicans are also actively advocating industrial policy, repudiation of free trade, as well as strict control over Big Tech, among other measures.

The popularity of the so-called cultural Marxism is on the rise. [11] Its origins go back to the critical theory of the Frankfurt School (H. Marcuse, E. Fromm and others). These ideas are moving from the realm of ideological and theoretical confrontations into political activism. For example, the leaders of the BLM movement publicly self-identify as “trained Marxist organizers.” The essence of the strategy inspired by “cultural Marxism” is the rejection of direct political struggle on the barricades, since the proletariat has been “bought off by the bourgeoisie and is no longer capable of anything,” and the ranks of the classic proletariat are rapidly thinning. The direction of social change is set, on the one hand, by intellectuals with personal power and, on the other hand, by marginalized groups seeking to assert their “right to identity.” The strategy of activists who form this paradoxical combination of intellectuals and marginalized individuals is the creeping takeover of the main institutions of power and society by planting “correct” ideas in the mass consciousness. In the U.S., the fighters for political correctness have already hijaked the school system, university campuses, major media outlets and the entertainment industry (Hollywood). Civil servants are forced to take courses in critical race theory, which postulates not only the socially constructed nature of race and the recognition of systemic racism [Delgado, Stefancic 2017: 45] but also a sense of guilt in one part of society toward another. This, in turn, allegedly requires addressing moral and material injustices by organizing public life in line with such an ideology.
Similar concepts are being pushed into public discourse as well. It is already dominated by the ideas of radical feminism, cancel culture, anti-systemic racism and postcolonialism, the fight against global warming and the green agenda, which claims to be universal and non-negotiable. As a result, the energy transition is motivated more by ideology than by the comparative market efficiency of energy supplies. Different environmental-political discourses—eco-nationalism, eco-imperialism and green growth—are competing in shaping the green agenda, eroding the attractiveness of the dominant sustainable development model.

Another universal weapon in fighting any dissent is political correctness. Large corporations, government agencies and universities are developing and implementing strategies to promote DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) principles, which are nothing but tools of ideological control over employees. Universities are required to fi reports on their compliance with such principles and efforts to promote them, which causes mounting criticism as they violate academic freedom and cultivate ideological conformity. [12] However, ideological censorship has already taken deep root in various spheres of public life, and questioning its compatibility with democracy is deemed politically incorrect.
Revising cultural norms has become a cultural norm in and of itself, deepening divisions in modern polarized societies, primarily in the U.S., but also in Old Europe [Semenenko 2023: 27-35].

Another curious phenomenon is associated with the new agenda. In the 20^th century, the left championed progress, advocating faster economic growth, rapid technological advancement and better social welfare. Now the ideas of zero or even negative growth and post-growth are popular among them. [Buchs, Koch 2017: 218]. Such ideological narratives exacerbate the question of how to treat the poor countries of the South, but also their own poor: the welfare state for all no longer fit into this agenda. On the contrary, it becomes a selective tool of backing the “right” minorities. This creates a breeding ground for stronger positions of populist forces.

Such contradictory internal political processes distort public consciousness as well as domestic and foreign policy decision-making. The new elites are extremely ideologized. The U.S. political system is becoming less effective at regulating the economy. Two rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s and Fitch Ratings, have downgraded the U.S. credit rating to AA+ from the top mark of AAA. In November 2023, Moody’s lowered its outlook on the U.S. credit rating to “negative” from “stable.” All three agencies agree on the main reason for the downgrade: the growing dysfunctionality of the political system. In foreign policy, the U.S. has withdrawn from 16 major international treaties and agreements on arms control, global trade, climate and the Arctic since the beginning of the century [Dynkin 2020].
In other words, the unipolar world order with its unbridled appetite for expansion has brought the world into a zone of extra-high risks. And the paradigms that are dominant in the West have proven incompatible with either Russian or Chinese value-oriented political projects. Therefore, the ideological sphere will inevitably see increased confrontation, marking another step toward bipolarity.

IMEMO RAS researchers have repeatedly warned about the West’s miscalculated strategic hopes: 1) that Russia would face an economic catastrophe because of an unprecedented sanctions war in modern history; 2) that the unipolar world order would remain unchallenged; 3) that a global blockade of Russia’s export-oriented economy would be feasible. And we were not the only ones who made these warnings. In response, we only heard propagandistic clichés like “a gas station masquerading as a country,” “a regional power” and “Russia is isolated with its economy in tatters”. This kind of “expertise” led the Washington establishment to believe that Russia is a “declining power” whose strategic interests could be safely neglected. This “strategic lunacy” is a consequence of a universalist mindset—a product of the West’s political experience and culture, which tends to elevate Anglo-Saxon and European historical tradition to absolutes—and of a failure to understand the shifts in the balance of power in the 21^st century.

Today, Russia is the world’s fourth-largest economy by purchasing power parity (PPP), while the top fi e global economic powers include three BRICS nations and none from the blooming “garden” of Josep Borrell, the EU foreign policy chief who has recently been fired. Now a new narrative has been launched into the propaganda orbit: “Russia is about to attack Eastern Europe.” The logical gap between the image of a declining power and that of an “aggressive bear” is conveniently ignored. This primitive, one-dimensional perception of complex non-linear processes can only lead to disappointment—just as it did when the West lulled itself into believing that Chinese reforms would eventually lead to political pluralism. As a result, the West has an inexhaustible stream of surprises. It appears that their experts are increasingly out of touch with Russian (and any other non-Western) realities. Figuratively speaking, they are staring into a distorting rearview mirror constructed by their own rhetoric and propaganda.

But the main real surprise was the fantastic resilience of the Russian economy. I dare say that no other economy in the world, not even China’s, could withstand such aggressive pressure.

The high resistance of the Russian economy to external shocks can be explained by three fundamental reasons.
First, it is the result of difficult, sometimes agonizing institutional and structural reforms. These efforts have ultimately produced a self-sufficient, adaptive and highly diversified market economy.

Second, the crisis of 2022 was the fifth (!) in the history of post-Soviet Russia. The government, federal regulators and the Bank of Russia have accumulated hard-earned professional experience in crisis management and counter-cyclical strategies. The same can be said about business. Our economic entities have demonstrated time and again that there are always more effective solutions than there are problems.

Finally, the West miscalculated its ability to isolate our economy. The dual containment of Russia and China, in fact, only strengthens ties between the BRICS member states.

Transformations of the 2020s. The first half of the 2020s has fi y buried what was once known as “European security.” It is impossible to glue this “broken cup” back together without Russia. The unwillingness of the Ukrainian side and the West to stop the armed conflict at its very beginning, the dangerous escalation, NATO’s constant violation of its own “red lines” and the accession of Sweden and Finland to the North Atlantic Alliance are all symptoms of the European security system transforming into a transatlantic one. Meanwhile, the Eurasian security system is taking shape. The outcomes of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to China hint that the “political East” is starting to form, if not as an alternative to the long-standing “political West,” then at least as an equal partner. Without considering its interests, any debate about “rules-based” global security will be mere fantasy. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s first visit to Moscow after his recent reelection is in the same vein. Of course, geography cannot be changed, and Russia has been and will remain a European power. However, it is also the geographic center of Eurasia, providing the infrastructure backbone for the Eurasian partnership—from the Northern Sea Route and up to the Trans-Siberian Railway, Baikal–Amur Mainline, Trans-Asian Highway and cross-continental pipelines. The “post-Ukrainian” world seems to be moving toward a new, indivisible Eurasian security architecture, relying on existing institutions: the Union State, CSTO, EAEU, CIS, BRICS, SCO and ASEAN. Minsk has put forward an initiative to develop a Eurasian Charter for Diversity and Multipolarity—a strategic vision for a new system of international relations to replace the “rules-based” world order.

An important event of 2024 in this context is the expansion of the BRICS club (see Figure 6). Its combined economic power could potentially reach $67 trillion, surpassing the total GDP of the G7 countries.

And there are still 28 more countries on the “waiting list”. In several important markets such as metals, automotive industry, oil and mineral fertilizers, BRICS already matches or exceeds the potential of the G7 nations. Russia, which took over the BRICS rotating presidency in 2024, faces the task of energizing the harmonized economic and technological policies of the members. This approach is the institutional cornerstone of the future polycentric world.
What will the coming world order look like? It is difficult to say which of the two trends—bipolarity or polycentrism—will prevail in the end. It is more likely that they will coexist: for example, rigid bipolarity in the Global North and polycentrism in the Global South. Signs of military, economic and technological bipolarity are already visible in the North. Interestingly, New Delhi tends to categorize China as a country of the North [Jaishankar 2020: 240].
This viewpoint has substance, as China is far ahead of other countries of the Global South in terms of GDP per capita ($12,541). For comparison, India’s GDP per capita is $2,612. [13] The decoupling of the U.S. and Chinese economies has not affected trade flows yet, but only technology and investment. In 2023, China saw a reversal of foreign direct investment inflows, with funds previously invested being withdrawn. Negative trends took hold, and the outflow approached negative $1.5 trillion (see Figure 7). Meanwhile, the Asia-Pacific macro-region is gaining greater internal dynamics, unlike Europe or North America.

Meanwhile, the trend toward political polycentricity persists. For example, New Delhi and Ankara were initially poles apart on the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. This is also the dawning of post-unipolarity, where the new centers of power are increasingly guided by their own interests in decision-making rather than by any “rules” or advice from Washington, Beijing or Moscow. It would be unrealistic to expect that the future world order will be free of conflict. The world will retain its diversity, with different potentials of countries and their competition. It is crucial that, despite their differences, the interests of larger and smaller nations are respected, and problems are solved through constructive dialogue.

Russia was the first to challenge the notorious unipolar world order. Today we can state that most countries in the Global South have responded to this challenge and refused to subscribe to the Western interpretation of the conflict in Ukraine. The future world order is taking shape right before our eyes. I am sure that a multipolar world is preferable for Russia as a developed, self-sufficient and sovereign nation. But this world also requires a new system of global governance, development and strengthening of its institutions, such as BRICS, G20, SCO and EAEU. For instance, the EAEU member states (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan) are faring much better than the five other post-Soviet countries. In 2022, GDP per capita in the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union was 3.5 times higher than the average for the fi e other CIS states that are not part of the EAEU (Azerbaijan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) (see Figure 8). Our strategy in these organizations requires a solid approach and “stereoscopic” vision from socio-economic, scientific, technological and political perspectives. Here, the Russian Academy of Sciences should play a major role as a leader of scientific and expert community.

Conclusion

In conclusion, there are compelling arguments both for multipolarity and for a new bipolarity. Leading U.S. experts are asking similar questions: “What order will replace the crumbling US-led system is far from certain. Will China push aside the United States as the global hegemon to lead a world according to rules written in Chinese characters? Will the world become bipolar, divided between two more or less rigidly defined blocs led by the United States and China? Will a genuinely multipolar world emerge based on several states or coalitions of more or less equal strength?” [Graham 2023: 272]. These questions are yet to be answered, and definitive conclusions in this case are premature. Given this high uncertainty, one should be prepared for any scenario. The essential prerequisite for such readiness is Russia’s strategic autonomy based on military-strategic parity with the U.S.
The fundamental question to which the author has no answer today is: how likely is the emergence of a new world order without a major war? In 2024, presidential or parliamentary elections will take place (or have already taken place) in 50 countries, which account for more than 45% of the world’s GDP and population. Perhaps their results will clarify our vision of the near future.

Dynkin A.A. (2024). World order transformation: economy, ideology, technology. Polis. Political Studies, 5, 8-23. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.05.02

This article was prepared with the support of a grant from the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation for major scientific projects in priority areas of scientific and technological development No. 075-15-2024-551 “Global and regional centers of power in the emerging world order”. The author expresses gratitude to his colleagues at IMEMO RAS R.I. Kapelyushnikov, V.D. Milovidov, I.S. Semenenko, I.V. Danilin, S.V. Zhukov, K.V. Bogdanov, A.P. Guchanova for consultations and assistance in preparing this article.

References

Büchs, M., & Koch, M. (2017). Critiques of growth. In M. Büchs, & M. Koch. Postgrowth and Wellbeing: Challenges to Sustainable Welfare (pp. 39-56). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3319-59903-8_4
Delgado, R.,& Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical race theory. Anintroduction. New York: New York University Press. Graham, T. (2023). Getting Russia right. UK: Polity Books.
Huntington, S.P. (1993). The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 72(3), 22-49. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1993-06-01/clash-civilizations
Jaishankar, S. (2020). The India way: strategies for an uncertain world. New Delhi; New York: Harper Collins Publishers India.
Kupchan, C. (2021). Bipolarity is back: why it matters. The Washington Quarterly, 44(4), 123-139. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2021.2020457
Yan Xuetong. (2016). Political leadership and power redistribution. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 9(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjip/pow002
Dynkin, A.A. (2020). International turbulence and Russia. Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 90(2), 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1134/S101933162002001X.
Primakov, E.M. (1996). Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya nakanune XXI veka: problemy, perspektivy [International Relations on the eve of 21^st century: problems, prospects]. Mezhdunarodnaya zhizn’, 10, 3-13. (In Russ.)
Semenenko, I.S. (2023). Razdelyonnye obshchestva [Divided societies]. In I.S. Semenenko (Ed.), Identichnost’: lichnost’, obshchestvo, politika. Novye kontury issledovatel’skogo polya [Identity: The Individual, Society, and Politics. New Outlines of the Research Field] (pp. 27-35). Moscow: Ves’ Mir. (In Russ.) https://www.imemo.ru/files/File/ru/publ/2023/Identichnost-Semenenko-2023.pdf
Литература на русском языке
Дынкин А.А. 2020. Международная турбулентность и Россия. Вестник РАН. Т. 90. № 3. С. 208-219. https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869587320030032. EDN: WINCQO.
Примаков Е.М. 1996. Международные отношения накануне XXI в.: проблемы, перспективы.
Международная жизнь. № 10. С. 3-13.
Семененко И.С. 2023. Разделенные общества. Идентичность: личность, общество, политика. Новые контуры исследовательского поля. Отв. ред. И.С. Семененко. М.: Весь Мир. С. 27-35. https://www.imemo.ru/files/File/ru/publ/2023/Identichnost-Semenenko-2023.pdf. EDN: NTQYRB.
1. The world order or international system is a stable set of institutions and norms of military-political and economic relations, which is institutionalized and legitimate in the international legal sense. The world order remains stable during the active life of at least one generation—a universal measure of social time. However, in the wake of geopolitical macro-crises, illegitimate systems emerge, forcibly imposed by the winner. This was the case with the unipolar world order.
2. Dynkin A., Burrows M. Here’s the Playbook for Getting U.S.–Russian Cooperation Back on Track. The National Interest. 07.12.2015. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/heres-the-playbook-getting-us-russian-cooperation-back-track-14527.
3. For example, see: [Yan Xuetong 2016; Kupchan 2021].
4. Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address. The White House. President Barack Obama. 12.02.2013. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/02/12/remarks-president-state-union-address.
5. President Bush Calls on Senate to Back Human Cloning Ban. Remarks by the President on Human Cloning Legislation. The East Room. The White House. President George W. Bush. 10.04.2002. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/04/20020410-4.html.
6. Private sector establishments birth and death, seasonally adjusted. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 25.10.2023. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cewbd.t08.htm.
7. Artificial Intelligence Journey 2023 conference. President of Russia. Official website. 24.11.2023. http://www.en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/72811.
8. World Population Prospects 2024, Online Edition. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2024). https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/MostUsed/.
9. Global Health Expenditure database. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/nha/database.
10. Dirigisme is a policy of active state intervention in the national economy, pursued by France and the UK in mid-1940s.
11. Mendenhall A. Cultural Marxism is Real. The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal. 04.01.2019. https://www.jamesgmartin.center/2019/01/cultural-marxism-is-real/.
12. AFA Calls for an End to Required Diversity Statements. Press Release. AFA. Princeton, NJ. 22.08.2022. https://academicfreedom.org/afa-calls-for-an-end-to-required-diversity-statements/.
13. World Economic Outlook Database (October 2023 Edition). International Monetary Fund. 10.10.2023. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/October.