Brazil
Source: brics.br

Education ministers commit to promoting the ethical use of AI, strengthening technical and vocational training, and reforming academic assessments and qualifications

The ethical application of artificial intelligence (AI) in basic education and the strengthening of technical and vocational training were two of the main commitments undertaken on Wednesday (June 5) by education ministers from BRICS countries during a joint declaration ceremony at the Itamaraty Palace in Brasilia.

Opening the ministerial meeting, Brasil’s Camilo Santana emphasized that BRICS nations share similar challenges, particularly in addressing inequality and advancing equity.

“What unites us in BRICS is our educational policies — we face important challenges ahead. We don’t hide from the world that we haven’t yet reached the goals we aspire to. Another commonality is our countries’ internal diversity. Speaking for Brasil, we are still a nation marked by deep inequalities. Our pursuit of equity is our guiding horizon.”

Artificial intelligence

AI was highlighted as one of the core pillars of Brasil’s BRICS presidency in 2025. Ambassador Mauricio Lyrio, appointed as sherpa by the Brazilian government, explained that the bloc is promoting a discussion on global AI governance, with the aim of building a fair framework that guarantees all countries access to and benefits from the technology. He noted that a special declaration on AI governance is under negotiation and is expected to be adopted by BRICS leaders at the upcoming summit on July 6–7.

According to Lyrio, Brasil has proposed placing development at the center of this debate—broadening the discussion beyond the usual concerns of security and privacy to include sectors like education and health.

“Artificial intelligence is transforming our lives at an extraordinary pace, which is why it was naturally chosen as one of the top priorities of our presidency. Brasil is proposing that development be central to the AI discussion, going beyond issues of security and privacy,” the ambassador said.

Through the declaration, BRICS nations recognized AI’s transformative potential in reshaping education — emphasizing its capacity to improve learning outcomes, personalize instruction, reduce inequalities, and ease administrative burdens. The group also emphasized that AI should be viewed as a tool that complements teachers’ work, helping improve efficiency but never replacing the essential role of educators.

Read the full Joint Declaration of the 12th Meeting of BRICS Education Ministers

The declaration commits member countries to promoting equitable governance frameworks that ensure the responsible, ethical, and inclusive use of AI in basic education. Measures include building data infrastructure and standards to enhance quality education, and developing collaborative mechanisms to strengthen AI literacy among teachers.

South Africa’s Minister of Basic Education, Siviwe Gwarube, stressed the importance of ensuring that AI serves as a tool for inclusion — not another factor that widens existing disparities.

“I believe artificial intelligence brings great opportunities — and, obviously, risks. But this is one of the topics we want to explore. We can truly use AI to close the gap between those who have more opportunities and those who have fewer. With smart, ethical, and measured use, we can really harness AI to reduce inequality across many countries.”

Academic assessments and qualifications

Another central element of the Joint Declaration concerns higher education assessments and the cross-border recognition of academic qualifications. While each BRICS country already has its own national quality assurance and evaluation mechanisms, ministers pointed to the untapped potential for joint efforts to develop shared principles and updated benchmarks.

In calling for the end of narrow, prestige-based metrics, BRICS countries are advocating for indicators that better reflect each country’s social, cultural, and economic realities. The goal is to promote a culture of assessment that values the real contributions of research, teaching, and civic engagement. The ministers emphasized that evaluations must account for institutional diversity and context, and that new indicators should be capable of adequately measuring the social, economic, and environmental impacts of innovation in higher education for local populations.

Technical and Vocational Cooperation Alliance

Another milestone of the ministerial meeting was the formal establishment of the BRICS Technical and Vocational Education and Training Cooperation Alliance (BRICS-TCA), an initiative launched by China in 2022 and finalized this year.

The alliance seeks to better align educational systems with the specific skills demanded by the labor market. It aims to address structural mismatches by creating a more responsive and effective learning environment that better prepares individuals for professional life.

By bridging these skill gaps — where candidates’ qualifications fall short of market needs — the alliance hopes to expand individual opportunity and enhance economic performance among BRICS nations. Addressing these discrepancies is seen as essential to reducing unemployment and stimulating economic growth.

The alliance also aims to strengthen the exchange of information and best practices across member states, fostering mutual benefit and long-term cooperation in the technical and vocational education sector. The agreement further commits to ensuring equitable participation in TVET initiatives, including women, rural communities, people with disabilities, migrants, underrepresented groups, and local populations.

Russian Deputy Minister of Education Konstantin Mogilevskiy spoke to the importance of BRICS
cooperation in promoting fairer and more inclusive education.

“The first step — which we’re already taking — is to share learning experiences and understand best practices among countries. That’s fundamental. The second point is to examine the conceptual frameworks of each nation’s education systems to identify what can be improved. And the third — and perhaps most important — is to ensure that all citizens have the right to accurate, high-quality information about education, including the possibility of accessing higher education. Overall, BRICS countries are developed and engaged in this process. There is no single model for guaranteeing educational quality, but we use tools and methods developed and supported by these nations,” Mogilevskiy explained.

Expansion of the BRICS Network University

Also noteworthy was the signing of Indonesia’s accession protocol to the Memorandum of Understanding on the Establishment of the BRICS Network University (BRICS-NU). With this, Indonesia officially joins the academic cooperation network, which seeks to boost student, researcher, and institutional exchange among member countries and expand opportunities for scientific and educational collaboration within the bloc.

Inspiring Practices

Armstrong Pame, Joint Secretary at India’s Ministry of Education, presented several successful initiatives from his country. Among them: a project for elementary school children who, for 10 days, attend school without backpacks or supplies. During that time, they engage in hands-on learning and visit places in their local communities.

“We ask the children to do what they love — and that builds teamwork and helps us discover their individual talents,” he explained. For students ages 9 to 12, the Indian government offers specialized and vocational training courses focused on fields such as artificial intelligence and computing.

At the higher education level, India has introduced a number of innovative initiatives. One standout is the integration of academic credit boards, allowing professional experience to be converted into credits recognized by universities. In addition, the country successfully launched the SWAYAM platform, which offers free online courses and now has over 50 million enrollments. In January 2025 alone, more than 5 million people registered. The platform allows students to take courses not offered at their home institution, with guaranteed credit recognition. For technical and vocational education, India has also implemented SWAYAM+, which is helping expand training opportunities across the country.

Minister Camilo Santana also shared a recent initiative from the Brazilian government. He pointed to a law signed in January that allows Brazilian states to trade part of their debt interest with the federal government in exchange for committing to enroll more students in full-time secondary schools focused on vocational education. According to the minister, the initiative mirrors the kinds of youth education programs being developed across BRICS countries — and presents an opportunity for Brasil to both learn from and contribute to the bloc’s collective efforts.

“We fully recognize the transformative power of vocational education in advancing socioeconomic development, supporting local production chains, fostering inclusion, and generating decent work,” the minister concluded.

English version by Judas Tadeu de Azevedo Neto (POET/UFC)
Proofreading by Kelvis Santiago do Nascimento (POET/UFC)

Brazil
Source: brics.br

The country shares with the BRICS members and partners a commitment to a more inclusive and representative international order. Vietnam becomes the tenth BRICS partner country

In its capacity as pro tempore BRICS Chair, the Government of Brazil announces the formal admission of Vietnam as a partner country of the group. The Government of Brazil welcomes the decision of the Vietnamese Government.

Vietnam becomes the tenth BRICS partner country, alongside Belarus, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Cuba, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan. The partner-country category was established at the XVI BRICS Summit, in Kazan, in October 2024.

With a population of almost 100 million and a dynamic economy deeply integrated into global value chains, Vietnam stands out as a relevant actor in Asia. The country shares with the BRICS members and partners a commitment to a more inclusive and representative international order. Its efforts in favour of South-South cooperation and sustainable development reinforce its convergence with the interests of the group.

Greece
Source: moderndiplomacy.eu

The geopolitical shifts and drive for the reformation of global monetary and financial systems are igniting the debate about de-dollarization, which calls for an alternative ‘common currency’ against the currently dominant US dollar in international financial markets. This notion is significant considering different poles of power that are emerging and seeking to have an autonomous monetary policy, shifting away from over-reliance on the US dollar. This debate is central to the agenda of BRICS member states (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), now with additional members (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the UAE). While the concerns over growing ‘unilateral sanctions’ are frequently voiced by Russia and China, Brazil has also joined the club by calling ‘Dollar hegemony ‘ destructive for the interests of the Global South. While debate on de-dollarization dominates the agenda of BRICS member states, India shares a different position in this regard. Can the dream of an alternative financial order less dependent on the dollar be materialized, considering India’s pragmatic approach towards de-dollarization?

The answer to this question lies in the recent statement of Indian foreign minister S. Jaishankar, who clearly stated, ‘ India has never been for de-dollarization, right now, there is no proposal to have a BRICS currency.’ This statement came soon after Trump warned BRICS countries that “they will neither create a new BRICS Currency, nor back any other Currency to replace the mighty U.S. Dollar, or they will face 100% Tariffs”. Although the US factor is essential in Indian policies with regard to de-dollarization, there are other reasons why India is unlikely to pursue de-dollarization.

The first and foremost reason is the stability of the Indian currency against major currencies, mainly the dollar. India has already experimented with the ‘rupee settlement’ mechanism, where the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) allowed trade settlement between India and other countries in rupees. This step was taken mainly to conduct trade with countries facing Western sanctions, mainly Russia. Although such measures may ease pressure on foreign exchange reserves, growing uncertainty persists over the continued depreciation of the national currency against the dollar. If one looks into the trends of the Indian Rupee against the dollar, the past 5 years’ data shows the rupee has weakened, standing at 73 in June 2020, and now at 85. This will increase the exchange rate risks for countries accepting rupee settlement, resulting in major losses if the value of the rupee falls. Any currency, be it the national or ‘BRICS currency’, should be stable to gain acceptance in the global trade systems.

Secondly, India’s long-term developmental goals—digital, infrastructure, clean energy transition projects, poverty alleviation, and advanced manufacturing are tied mainly to the Western sphere. For all these objectives to materialize, India needs technology, investment, and multilateral financial institutions with a Western orientation, with the prime influence of the US. India is amongst the most dollarized countries, and escaping dollarized systems would have an irrecoverable impact on its growing economy. India views the US as vital for its economic modernization and global political clout. This is one of the prime reasons why India essentially pursues a pragmatic approach within BRICS, especially when it comes to initiatives like de-dollarization. This dual-track foreign policy ensures India does not risk its access to global capital and technology needed for socio-economic transformation.

 The third factor is strengthening China’s grip over smaller BRICS countries if an alternative currency prevails. China currently holds the biggest share in the New Development Bank (NDB) within BRICS. India already fears growing Chinese dominance within BRICS, considering the broader geopolitical competition and striving to emerge as a counterbalance to China in the region. Considering the already asymmetric trade relationship between India and China, India would not let China have increased influence in the Global South by influencing the monetary policies of smaller BRICS countries. Considering the recent surge of settlements in the Yuan, India would not want China to dominate the alternative financial systems, if they were to emerge.    

The rhetoric of de-dollarization is constantly being pushed under the framework of BRICS, but the problem remains that it’s just rhetoric. The materialization of a currency that would counter the influence of the US dollar dominating the current financial order by establishing an alternative financial order is far from reality. The dollar remains the dominant currency for trade, accounting for around 54% of. The fact that alternative currencies lack the amount of availability, acceptability, and stability, given the psychological bias, makes de-dollarization even difficult. Any alternative currency pushed by any new pole of power would be nothing different from a regime change that would just amend the game’s rules according to their interests.

Amidst all this, India will continue to face this dilemma if it continues to be a part of such arrangements, which are challenging the prevalent US-led norms of the international system. India continues to depend heavily on the West for its developmental objectives. India’s balancing act—between its identity as a leading voice of the Global South and its strategic alignment with Western powers—creates a constant tension in its foreign policy choices. Continued participation in groupings that seek to reorient the global order, without undermining its development trajectory and strategic autonomy, will require India to navigate these dualities with extreme caution and pragmatism.

Russia
Source: en.interaffairs.ru

Among the participants: Elon Musk’s father – Errol; former CIA analyst Larry Johnson; US political commentator Jackson Hinkle; the British politician George Galloway; the American economist Jeffrey Sachs and the Briton Matthew Groves, a former East Surrey councilor; Dimitri Simes, international political expert, editor-in-chief of “The National Interest” magazine.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions.

Friends,

Colleagues,

Dimitri Simes opened with a reference – almost a quote – from former US Vice President Kamala Harris who once remarked that what happens today will not be repeated tomorrow. This is about what she was famously trying to say. That’s what life is all about.

Thank you for your kind words. The issue of someone going through changes when they occupy a position of trust when the times are at an inflection point is undeniably important. In some ways, it’s a personal matter. I haven’t thought about it in a while. We just mentioned that era. Memory and even senses bring back feelings of deep disappointment and bitterness that we all had at that time. Later on, there were moments that gave us hope.

The multipolar world as a theme brought to life the glimmers of hope that we saw in the mid-1990s. In 1994, I began working in New York. In January 1996, Yevgeny Primakov was appointed Foreign Minister. He remains our great teacher. He had a very compelling and multifaceted personality. He had the gift of political and geopolitical foresight, something few people on Earth or in politics have or ever had. Primakov’s concept of multipolarity was truly groundbreaking at the time. It came as a response to the mantras by prominent political scientists that the “end of history” had arrived, and from now on the Western liberal order would dominate the world, thoughts, souls, and hearts, and all daily activities without any opposition.

Yevgeny Primakov did more than just put forward this concept. He spared no effort to promote it. The Declaration on a Multipolar World and the Formation of a New International Order signed by the heads of Russia and China in Moscow in 1997 came as the first concrete step down this road.
Yevgeny Primakov still held the office of Foreign Minister under Boris Yeltsin. The legal foundation for multipolarity to become a permanent fixture in international dialogue was laid in 1997.

In 2002, when Vladimir Putin became president, the first trilateral Russia-India-China summit took place. Since then, this troika - the RIC - has established itself as a format that was beneficial for all its participants. It was not covered as widely as the SCO, BRICS, or other entities. The RIC has been promoting cooperation in this format without much noise, but without hiding or lurking, feeling quite confident in the process. There were about 20 meetings of foreign ministers and several dozen meetings at other ministerial levels, including ministers of economy, transport, energy, and humanitarian sphere.

Multipolarity has been gaining momentum ever since. We can safely say that now. Primakov’s analysis, which laid the groundwork for this concept, fully confirms its lasting relevance.

New centres of power (economic growth and financial clout giving rise to political influence) have emerged in Eurasia, the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, you name it. This dynamic reflects the desire of the countries from each region to be in charge of their own development and the development of their quarters of the world. I believe this trend is healthy. It has increasingly gained momentum and accelerated in the context of changes brought to international economic and other relations after Donald Trump had been elected President of the United States. The globalisation model, which had been nurtured by all his predecessors, turned out to be not quite suitable and overly ideological for the Trumpists’ philosophy. So, they began to wipe their actions in the international arena clean of influences of different ideologies. To put it in general terms, the ideologies were different, but they all came down to one thing - neoliberal approaches, the extension of the collective West’s influence to the rest of the world, and, in fact, an attempt to give the end of history another go, to continue living off the back of others, but this time not by crude methods of colonial exploitation, but by methods of modern-day neocolonialism, when the countries of the Global South and the Global East play the role of suppliers of raw materials, with just a few exceptions. The bulk of added value is produced in the West. The examples abound.

This second awakening of Africa, in particular, where colonialism was particularly brutal, is linked to the struggle to abandon neo-colonial methods of doing business, which are still widely used by the West and get rejected by the growing number of countries around the world.

In December 2024, at the initiative of the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter (this entity was created in 2022 at the suggestion of Venezuela and now includes nearly 20 countries, and the number of countries willing to join is growing), a resolution was adopted on the need to counteract the current neocolonial practices. At the upcoming 80th session of the UN General Assembly this autumn, this issue will take the centre stage.

It is not just about a movement, conferences, or papers that get discussed and adopted. Statistics show progress demonstrated by the multipolarity process. For example, China is now the world's number one economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Russia is the fourth. I hope we will not move lower, being mindful of the discussions we are having about the macroeconomic tasks we are addressing and the methods we are using in the process.

As announced in 2024, Russia surpassed Japan and Germany in terms of purchasing power parity, while BRICS as a collective entity overtook the Western Group of Seven in the same metric several years ago. The gap between them continues to expand. Moreover, what we are witnessing is not merely mechanical economic growth figures. These achievements are the result of profound structural transformations. The majority of nations in the Global South, in various ways – even whilst maintaining (let us be clear) pragmatic and normal relations with the West (we, too, were prepared to uphold such ties; it was not our choice to sever and trample them) – are nevertheless diminishing their reliance on Western countries and, notably, on Western currencies. They are establishing mechanisms for foreign trade settlements beyond Western control, forging new transport and logistics chains, and constructing a new architecture of collaboration in culture, education, and sport. This last point is particularly noteworthy. It unfolds in parallel with the United States’ own efforts to devise new formats for organising multilateral global sporting competitions. We will witness further developments, including in the cultural sphere. Even Eurovision, with all its exotic “ornaments” and “vignettes,” stirs a longing to return to songs about genuine human interests. The process is underway.

The West itself acknowledges that multipolarity is a geopolitical reality. Let me recall that even representatives of the Joe Biden administration spoke of this. My counterpart, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in January 2025, described the unipolar world order as an anomalous product of the Cold War’s end – when it seemed that “the end of history” had arrived and everything would henceforth unfold as the West decreed.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres, for all his contentious and often ill-considered statements on other matters, has unequivocally affirmed that multipolarity is a profound and irreversible trend, here to stay.

Representatives of numerous European nations have repeatedly conceded that the global balance of power is shifting – not in the West’s favour.

The difference, however, is that when Western officials acknowledge these facts, they do not perceive multipolarity as a boon, nor as the realisation of principles such as equality, fraternity, or freedom. Instead, they see a threat – a challenge to their interests and their centuries-old dominion, which underpinned their prosperity.

We no longer attend the Munich Security Conference, held every February. It has devolved entirely into an apologist for Western philosophy and Western thought. The latest session this February was precisely dedicated to multipolarity (or “multipolarization,” as they termed it). The published report reveals their fear of multipolarity, their desire to halt it – or better yet, to dismantle it entirely – and to prevent these trends from re-emerging. Hence their aggressive posturing, their rigidity, even to the point of issuing ultimatums to sovereign states: under no circumstances must they contravene the unilateral dictates that the West imposes or seeks to impose – including unlawful, criminal measures that undermine the very principles the West championed three or four decades ago – illegitimate unilateral sanctions.

The Munich Conference report framed multipolarity as a challenge, tantamount to chaos – a confrontation between great powers doomed to perpetual rivalry, thereby generating threats to international security. The logic of its authors is clear: only under a “unipolar command” can humanity’s tranquillity and steady progress be assured. The meaning of “unipolar command” is obvious – under whom. Any diversity, any multipolarity is perceived as a threat – primarily, of course, to those who sought to enforce “the end of history” and preserve a unipolar world. It will not succeed. Their conclusion is dubious.

The ongoing efforts on the international stage demonstrate that when nations, including major powers, approach each other's interests with respect, they successfully reach agreements. We have numerous contentious matters requiring further deliberation and mutual concessions with our significant neighbours – China, India, and indeed with the countries of the CIS and the EAEU. The closer and more intensive the collaboration, the more issues arise where each party seeks to assert its interests with increased vigour. Nonetheless, ultimately, when engaging respectfully – eschewing threats or ultimatums, let alone their execution – an equitable balance of interests is invariably attainable. This is precisely what transpires, as I have observed, in our relations with China, India, our neighbours, BRICS and SCO member states, as well as with partners across the Arab world, the broader Islamic world, Africa, and Latin America.

I reiterate: the majority of our engagements and collaborative efforts are concentrated primarily within our immediate sphere and within frameworks such as BRICS, the SCO, the CIS, and the EAEU. For the world to develop in this manner, universally accepted principles must be respected. I have heard many colleagues, during various discussions, predict the necessity of dismantling the Yalta-Potsdam system and forging something new. I would caution against such radical approaches. Undoubtedly, as the saying goes, the West’s application of legal norms is untenable in its current form.

Regarding the foundations of international law – what fault can be found with the UN Charter? It states, first and foremost, that all United Nations activities are based on the principle of the sovereign equality of states. It declares that interference in each other’s affairs is impermissible, that wars and threats of war must be eradicated – and that this is the UN’s primary objective. The issue, however, is that these Charter principles must not be applied selectively, as if from a menu. “Take the cutlet for yourself, but leave the fish” – this is how the West operates. They have latched onto the principle of self-determination of peoples, enshrined on the very first page of the UN Charter. And through it, in a situation where there was no war, no risk of military confrontation, they proceeded to “tear away” Kosovo from Serbia. They declared this an obvious necessity – the self-determination of peoples. Yet no referendum was held; no self-determination occurred, save for a “puppet” parliament led, much like the “government” of this Serbian province, by criminals from the Kosovo Liberation Army. This was in 2008.

Then, suddenly, in 2014, having politically rebelled against the putschists who seized power in Kiev through a bloody coup – trampling upon the agreement signed the day before under EU guarantees with the then-president, which stipulated early elections – and declared themselves the “government of victors,” the people of Crimea and Donbass asked to be left in peace. It was they whom the putschists labelled terrorists, deploying regular forces against them, including combat aircraft that bombed Lugansk. And much more occurred – some of which continues to this day. To the shame of the entire West, these crimes remain uninvestigated, including such emblematic atrocities as the burning alive of some fifty people in the Odessa Trade Unions House on May 2, 2014. At the time, the Council of Europe timidly offered its services to assist in the investigation. It was permitted – only to later receive, evidently, a private explanation of its proper place in the pecking order. A disgrace.
Let me also mention Bucha here. Over three years ago, “by coincidence,” two days after Russian troops withdrew from the outskirts of Kiev in a goodwill gesture ahead of the signing of an agreement (during which only local authorities were present), BBC correspondents suddenly arrived and miraculously displayed neatly arranged bodies – not in basements, but on the central street of that town. Outrage erupted: “Russia – barbarians, butchers.” A new sanctions package followed.
Since then, we have submitted multiple official requests to UN bodies, urging investigations into human rights violations. Without our involvement, the Human Rights Council established an independent commission on Ukrainian affairs. We have formally approached them three times. Silence. My direct, public questions to UN Secretary-General António Guterres during Security Council meetings – whether, through his “good offices,” we might obtain a list of those individuals whose corpses were so conveniently displayed by the BBC correspondents – were met with evasion, downcast eyes. Twice in the past two years, during my visits to New York for UN General Assembly sessions, I held news conferences attended by global media. I appealed to their professional instincts, their pride: “Does it truly not matter to you what happened there? Or have you been forbidden even to broach the topic?” No reply, of course.

The UN Charter contains not only the principles of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, but many other key principles as well. In 1970, the General Assembly adopted a comprehensive Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. That document clarified many issues, particularly the relationship between self-determination and territorial integrity. It explicitly states that territorial integrity must be respected only for those states whose governments respect the principle of self-determination and, as a result, represent the entire population living within their borders. In other words, a government must represent all people residing in its territory for its borders to be protected under this principle.

After the 2014 coup, could anyone seriously claim that the nationalist and extremist forces that came to power represented the interests of Russian speakers, ethnic Russians, or other ethnic groups who opposed that regime?

Even earlier in the UN Charter, before the right to self-determination is mentioned, the Charter stipulates (it will shock you to know) that human rights must be respected regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. Have you once heard any Western country, in its support of Zelensky’s government, ever emphasise the need to uphold human rights? Not once.

Whenever the West discusses countries like Russia, China, Venezuela, Iran, and now even Hungary or Slovakia, human rights violations top the list of their accusations. When it comes to Ukraine, though, the silence is deafening. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, former European Council President Charles Michel, and other European leaders continue to insist that Ukraine must be supported in order for it to defeat Russia. Later, “defeat” as replaced by “Ukraine not losing to Russia,” and now the narrative is about a “ceasefire to replenish ammo dumps.” They continue to claim that Ukraine deserves their support because it is defending European values. Laws banning the Russian language from nearly all areas of public life, and most recently, a law that effectively targets the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church clearly in violation of the UN Charter article I just mentioned are clearly seen in the West as a legitimate part of Ukrainian Nazis’ fight for European values. The EU Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos recently even said that “Ukraine has already completed the screening of three negotiation clusters for EU accession talks.”

The push to suppress multipolarity and eliminate dissent - just as was done in Romania and is now attempted in Hungary, Slovakia, and other countries that prioritise their national interests - is not in line with the EU agenda. Multipolarity is something entirely different. It is evolving and will continue to evolve regardless of what European political leaders are doing.

Some time ago, we began to reflect on multiple integration alliances around the world, in Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. Africa has a continental organisation, the African Union. Latin America and the Caribbean have CELAC. Eurasia, though, the largest and most resource-rich continent with the greatest long-term potential, still lacks such a union.

Until recently, when speaking about Eurasian security, people would mention institutions like the OSCE, NATO, and the European Union. These organisations have tried to present themselves as honest brokers and to draw neighbouring countries from the Asian part of the continent into their frameworks. However, both NATO and the OSCE are grounded in a Euro-Atlantic vision. Even during preparations for the 1975 Helsinki Summit, the idea was that Europe would include land from the Urals Mountains all the way westward to Lisbon. Yet, it was European countries that insisted on inviting the United States and Canada.

The Euro-Atlantic model has discredited itself. I am referring not only to the OSCE but also to NATO, which can be also described as a product of the Euro-Atlantic concepts. Today, we can go as far as claim that this applies to the European Union too. It used to focus on promoting economic, social, and infrastructure development in its member states and enhancing connectivity among them. However, in the midst of the special military operation a couple of years ago it switched gears and adopted a Russia-hating agenda by reviving the expansionist Nazi ideas dealing with what it called an effort to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia. It went on to mobilise Europe for a war effort, just like Napoleon did in his day and age, which was also reminiscent of the attempts we saw during the Crimean War, as well as the first and second world wars, even if all reasonable people who believed this narrative at first have come to realise what this means. This time, the European Union inked a deal with NATO offering the Alliance to use its territory for shipping any weapons to the east closer to the border with the Russian Federation. This is how the European Union went Euro-Atlantic.

Importantly, there is no way these structures can claim to fill in the void, even if partially, resulting from the lack of a pan-continental forum. The OSCE has been basically laid to waste. They trampled upon the consensus principle. Now, Finland as a country chairing the OSCE is preparing the Ministerial Council’s 50th anniversary session. However, they simply decided not to invite all the members in order not to spoil the celebrations for others. NATO is going through its deepest crisis. How will the latest reforms requiring its members to increase their defence spending to 5 percent of their GDP affect NATO? This has become a hot topic lately, and we will have to see how it all pans out. Only time will tell how Washington’s commitment under the Donald Trump administration to place a greater emphasis on the Far East and the Asia-Pacific region, which they call the Indo-Pacific region, affect NATO, since this would entail that Europe, as the French say, would be left to its devices.

Against this backdrop, having a pan-continental framework can be viewed as an imperative. We used to have dozens of mechanisms with the European Union. There used to be the Russia-NATO Council with multiple programmes. There were initiatives to combat terrorism and we worked together on Afghanistan. There were all kinds of initiatives. So far, we have yet to create a pan-continental framework.

During the first Russia-ASEAN Summit, President Vladimir Putin suggested that we must focus on what is happening around us instead of seeking to come up with something new. We already have the EAEU, and it works with the SCO. Both organisations have established ties with ASEAN. The EAEU is also involved in projects which are carried out as part of the Belt and Road Initiative.
If we bring together all the stakeholders who want to focus on all these initiatives moving forward and think about harmonising their agendas, this would amount to what President Vladimir Putin has dubbed the Greater Eurasian Partnership. This goes beyond the structures that I have just mentioned. There is also the GCC – we have been working closely with this entity, as well as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and the Central Asian five, and a host of other structures.

Our vision for the Greater Eurasian Partnership consists of developing it as an inclusive framework for all countries across the continent. This would offer immense competitive advantages to these states. So far, the West has not been willing to accept this offer.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz probably decided to play it safe. He probably wanted to make sure that the United States does not restore the Nord Stream pipelines – this is why he said that the Nord Streams are covered by the sanctions and cannot be restored. At the same time, he has been lamenting about Germans suffering from tariff wars. Way to go.

But if the Greater Eurasian Partnership emerges as an organic entity, it will have all it takes to create a solid foundation for Eurasian security architecture. This is what we are working on right now, primarily with our friends in Belarus. This year, they will be hosting the third Eurasian security conference.

Today and tomorrow, my Belarusian counterpart Maxim Ryzhenkov will be on a visit to Moscow. He and I have distributed the draft Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity  as an initiative inviting a discussion. The process is afoot and stirs interest. The Minsk conferences were attended by representatives of NATO countries and EU countries (Hungary, Slovakia and Serbia). The process is open to all countries located on the continent.

A week ago, our ruling party, the United Russia, along with other parties represented in the State Duma, held public and political hearings on the same issue in Perm. The event was attended by party leaders from a number of Asian nations, including Japan, South Korea, Thailand, and China. Their parties are members of the International Conference of Asian Political Parties.

Question: The new US administration will have been in power for five months soon. There were many statements and appointments during this period. Some of these appointments have been revised or cancelled. What is your vision of Russia’s relations with the Trump administration? Where do we stand? Where is all this leading us?

Sergey Lavrov: I think we are in a more proper and normal position than we were in relations with the Biden administration, relations that turned around by 180 degrees (regrettably, not by 360 degrees, as Annalena Baerbock advised) after the hope-inspiring talks between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Joe Biden in Geneva on June 16, 2021. All channels for contact were cut. The Geneva meeting was fine. At the start – during the limited-format meeting – Joe Biden said at his own initiative, without looking into his crib notes, that the US and Russia were two great powers, each with a history of its own. We should respect the history of each other and that of any other nation. The United States has come into its own as a melting pot, where all migrants were dipped and emerged with “human rights” inscribed on their foreheads: “we are all Americans.” The Russian Empire developed differently. It incorporated territories, where sedentary peoples had lived for centuries.
They were not dipped into any melting pots. They were left alone, with the central authorities respecting all of their traditions and cherishing their history, culture and religion. Even the Russian Empire practiced granting a different status to some of its constituent entities so as to respect and take into consideration their diversity. Therefore, it is a totally different state entity, a civilisational entity in most different meanings of this word. The United States does not want anyone to undermine this monolith and this unity. Vladimir Putin had to work hard upon assuming the presidency in 2000. The country has become stronger. This is very useful. We feel secure, when Russia, a nuclear power, controls its territory.

President of Brazil Luiz Lula da Silva went on record as saying the other day that Joe Biden, while still incumbent, had told him that Russia should be destroyed. It is like two different people. Back then, his chief concern was that Russia should not lose the ability to control its military might. Later, destroying Russia came to the fore.

Next, there was a full disconnect. CIA Director William Burns came to Moscow to talk us out of the “irrevocable” decision to attack Ukraine (as the Americans related this story). We told them that our concern was to defend our legitimate security interests rather than attack anyone. We presented a draft Russia-NATO agreement and a draft Russia-US agreement, which highlighted Russia’s security interests conceived as something that did not interfere with the security of our neighbours. We discussed both documents at meetings with the then US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Geneva in January 2022. They actually ignored us, describing the agendas then advanced and now tackled in the course of the special military operation as unacceptable. No guarantees of Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO. Don’t even think about that.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken told me, at the most we are developing ground-based short- and medium-range missiles. This is a class prohibited by the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty from which the United States withdrew. They did not respond and will not respond to our appeal to draft, in the absence of the treaty, two parallel but unrelated moratoriums. Antony Blinken proposed making an agreement that the United States would deploy a certain number of ground-based short- and medium-range missiles in Ukraine — while Russia will allegedly undertake to do the same close to the border with Ukraine. We would set a ceiling. But a week later, at the Munich Security Conference, Vladimir Zelensky was hysterically screaming that nobody could prohibit Ukraine from joining NATO. He was applauded. Another week later, in a grave violation of the Minsk agreements, the shelling of Donbass intensified 10-15-fold. When Plan B was ready for implementation - specifically, to end the war not through the Minsk agreements but by forcibly seizing small territories in the Donetsk and Lugansk republics that were not under Kiev’s control, we were left with no choice.

We should never indulge in illusions. During the meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Riyadh at the end of February, Americans, as initiators of the meeting, opened the conversation and said that the foreign policy of US President Donald Trump and his administration is firmly based on US national interests. They acknowledge that other countries also have their own national interests, especially when it comes to the great powers like the United States or the Russian Federation. Therefore, to avoid surprises or misunderstanding, they proceed from the premise that in most cases, the interests of major countries will not match. However, when the national interests of countries like Russia and the US do match, it is a colossal mistake not to use this match to implement projects of mutual material benefit (in the economy, energy, transport, space, the Arctic, or anything else). And in most cases, when these interests do not match, it is the responsibility of the great powers to prevent this mismatch from degrading into confrontation, even more so a hostile one. I support this kind of approach with both thumbs up. Russian President Vladimir Putin has always relied on this premise when formulating his foreign policy. We are ready to speak honestly with everybody without forsaking our own national, deep-rooted and legitimate interests and without demanding this from our partners. There is always a possibility to reach agreement. “A balance of interests,” “compromise” - President Vladimir Putin has said these words multiple times when answering the question about with whom we could reach agreement.

I would not get my hopes up. We do not know how the situation inside Donald Trump’s administration will unfold. I believe that the relationship established between the presidents of our countries during Donald Trump’s first term is a working relationship. They do not need any preludes or prologues and, during their regular telephone conversations, they get straight to the point. It is how you are supposed to work. It is always better to express your views directly. That will prevent any illusion or false hopes. I think US President Donald Trump, his Secretary of State and Vice President are the politicians who prefer this working style precisely.

Question: What problems or obstacles or challenges do you envision as Russia now shifts from a special military operation to a counter-terrorism operation?

Sergey Lavrov: This concerns us not only because of what happened earlier this month but also because the Kiev regime has used these methods in one form or another (perhaps not so bluntly as it was done in the Bryansk and Kursk regions) since the very beginning. I can name any territory where hostilities occurred, and the outcome will be the same. I believe the Kursk Region is the most telling example. The Russian armed forces clarify which sites on Ukrainian territory they targeted. These are the sites associated with the military, such as military units, locations where equipment is concentrated, or former civilian sites used by the armed forces or the Security Service of Ukraine.
As concerns the Kursk Region, we have all seen what the Ukrainian Nazis did there. There is not a single site that could be presented to the “audience” as a site associated with combat activity. Therefore, it is not surprising for us. During his last meeting with the Government, President of Russia Vladimir Putin clearly said what conclusion we have reached. We will proceed from that.

This is a rather serious threat. Obviously, Ukraine is responsible for all that but it would be helpless without the support of the Anglo-Saxons. We can omit the Saxons now and just say, without the support of the English. It is possible that, by inertia, US intelligence services are still involved, but the British are involved 100 percent. Measures should be taken not only by Russia’s Federal Security Service (it has a load of work) but also the Interior Ministry, the National Guard, and other security services. It is important to enhance what we used to call public vigilance. This is being taken care of. You are right when you say that there are higher risks of terrorist acts. We can see it. We will do anything to suppress these threats and prevent harm to the Russian public.

Question: Russia is designated as a civilisation state in its 2023 Foreign Policy Concept paper, which underscores its identity as anchored in the Eurasian civilisational traditions, distinct from Western liberalism. What will be the implications of this identification emphasising cultural and civilisation sovereignty? How will it impact Russia’s long-term relationship with Europe, the United States. Furthermore, civilisational stales like Russia and China are increasingly [becoming] major architects of multipolarity with their civilisational legitimacy, especially their belief in moving beyond the Western logic of divide and rule, zero-sum game, to embrace win-win cooperation. What do you think about the prospect of the kind of synergy between the Chinese proposal like the BRI – the Belt and Road Initiative, and Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union? And what would be the impact for the region and beyond, especially since you mentioned right now the kind of overarching institution for the whole region? Maybe China and Russia as huge civilisational states can lay the foundation for this cooperation?

Sergey Lavrov: What makes the Eurasian continent so unique is that it has been home not only to these two civilisations which emerged thousands of years ago and have been developing here. In fact, there were multiple civilisations here. There is the Indian civilisation, the Ottoman world, and there were civilisations that used to designate themselves as the Roman Empire. And we see that the traditions of the past continue to resonate today. Other continents, including Africa and Latin America, have their civilisational roots too, primarily represented by their indigenous people and first nations, but their civilisational identity tends to be less apparent in terms of culture, traditions or customs. Even Greenland lacks traditions of this kind.

In my opening remarks, I made a point that all people are different. The same goes for civilisations. Every religion is also unique. In Eurasia, we can find common ground with all our neighbours and all the major powers. I fully agree with what you said about promoting dialogue among civilisations as a pathway to promoting a pan-continental narrative. I also agree that Russia and the PRC can and must play a leading and proactive role in this pan-continental process. I hope that the first step in this direction will consist of reviving the RIC (Russia, India, China) troika. We have not met at the foreign ministers’ level for the last couple of years. I have been raising this topic with both my Chinese counterpart and the Foreign Minister of India. Tension on the India-China border has eased substantially and the situation is getting back to normal. There is dialogue between New Delhi and Beijing, so I hope that we can revive the three-party RIC format. This would be a major step for advancing the pan-continental agenda.

Question: How can we change the perception of the West about Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: Many Russians and people belonging to other nations across the USSR experienced a moment of happiness akin to the encounter on the Elbe – this is when we defeated a formidable foe, and it happened despite all the diplomatic manoeuvring by the West during the first days, months and years of the war, when they provided aid and operated lend-lease schemes, which were not free by the way. Importantly, the UK adopted a wait-and-see approach in order to decide on whose side it would enter the war. There were mounting challenges, and a persisting lack of trust. However, the USSR, the United States and the UK succeeded in holding several meetings at the highest level to agree on geopolitical compromises. They acted in cold blood and sought to balance their interests too. I have never seen a better expression of happiness than the encounter on the Elbe. But it failed to produce a lasting effect. Even before World War II came to an end, our allies were already plotting Operation Unthinkable. The fact that they understood that attacking the USSR would be unthinkable was a good thing. But this is what they were thinking about. Then there was Winston Churchill’s Fulton Speech, the Cold War, and the Iron Curtain.

What matters the most is to have a happy community of people representing various countries and cultures who feel the same way after defeating the forces of evil. Today, the good versus bad confrontation has resurfaced on our agenda. You were right to say that the West, primarily Europe and its aggressive core led by all these Starmers, Merzs and Macrons, fights against us by delivering high-precision weapons to Ukraine. In fact, Ukrainians cannot operate these weapons – this is the task for people from the supplying countries. But there is more. The West simply wants to show that our country is isolated by preventing everyone from travelling here.

There was an MEP who came to mark 80 years of Victory. For that, they expelled him from his parliamentary group and banned him from entering the plenary room. What a shame. This amounts to fascism, a dictatorship. I have already mentioned what they did in Romania.

All these countries have their ambassadors in Moscow. Some have consulates general in Moscow and St Petersburg. Ambassadors have a mission to report to their governments the truth. Their governments said that their goal consisted of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. So the ambassadors are on a mission to report on the way they have been working to achieve this aim on the ground, in the Russian Federation in an effort to defeat it. I do not know what these ambassadors have been reporting to their governments, but there are a few things I can tell you in this regard.
I have an example. A year ago, in May 2024, we did some thinking, and the Foreign Ministry decided not to crudely reciprocate the procedures that the host countries have introduced in relation to our ambassadors in Europe. For example, [European officials] refused to meet with them, unless they had to convey an angry protest.

We used to confer with each of the European Union ambassadors every six months. This practice was in place before the special military operation. We met with them consecutively, at the Ministry or at their respective embassy, and discussed issues of interest to them at a working lunch.
In May 2024, we decided to invite them to meet, without announcements (although this no longer matters), to offer clarifications with regard to any of the current developments they were finding unclear. We could see that the respective capitals obviously did not have sufficient awareness of the situation, of the consequences and effects of their aggressive policy against Russia on the Russian leadership and the Russian people. We invited everyone, including the head of the EU Delegation, and set a date and time. Suddenly, a few days before the scheduled event, they notified us that they had received instructions from their capitals to refuse this invitation. That demonstrated that Europe was not interested in learning about the results (at that stage) of its bellicose and aggressive policy. They ordered their ambassadors to stay where they are.

I mentioned this publicly. After that, we learned that they met with the European Commission representative and decided to respond to my public criticism by writing a paper that they were going to make public. According to the draft they circulated, what I said was not true and the real reason was that they could not accept an invitation from the foreign minister of the country that attacked Ukraine and was suddenly responsible for poisoning Alexey Navalny.

In this regard, I would like to remind you that we have never been presented with a list of names consistent with the bodies that were shown in Bucha – by Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, or journalists who seem to know every detail about Jeffrey Epstein, but not about Bucha.

Speaking about Alexey Navalny, I think it is also highly unethical to speculate on a person’s life, no matter what you think of that person. Alexey Navalny was flown from Omsk to Germany within 24 hours, forgoing whatever formalities such cases usually require, on a plane that was sent for him, escorted by people who arrived on that plane without visas or passports and then accordingly left Russia. He was delivered to a civilian hospital, Charité, but no traces of poison were found. He was then rushed to a Bundeswehr clinic, where they found “something.” We issued a note requesting if we could see what they found, because he was a Russian citizen and it was important for us to know. They said no, explaining that any information on the results of Navalny’s tests would disclose the current phase of their biological programme. They said they would send his tests to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. We sent a request to the OPCW. The organisation, which the West had also privatised a long time ago, said that the Germans had indeed sent them the tests, but warned not to show them to us. I am not joking. We do not know what treatment he received, or what they gave him at the Bundeswehr clinic. I cannot know what effects those drugs could have had in a year, a year and a half, two, three. This discussion is rooted in the refusal to provide facts.
The same holds true for the Malaysian Boeing. No one cited any facts. Of the 13 witnesses, only one spoke in person; the rest were anonymous. Recently there was a court hearing in the Netherlands. The United States provided some satellite imaging data; all we have is a statement that it was shown to the court. Or maybe it wasn’t, but the court trusted the United States that their data was correct, and they didn’t really have to see it.

All of the above is further manifestation of their impunity and an overwhelming sense of entitlement, which serves as the main driver for those who want to undermine the development of multipolarity, including by military means. I am tempted to say that the truth is on our side, and that multipolarity will be ours.

Question: I am half-Scottish and half-Irish, so I’d like to take this opportunity to disavow any responsibility for the historic crimes of the Anglo-Saxons.President Trump is in office, but is he in power? In the last dizzying days in Washington, we’ve seen the ability of President Trump to do Baerbock, Annalena Baerbock’s 360 degrees and 180 degrees… He turns hourly, daily. Might this be merely a feature of his personality? Or might it be this, Excellency, that a state of dual power exists in the United States? That the President’s bona fides are one thing – and personally I believe that he knew nothing of the terrorist attacks on the air force bases in Russia over the last week – but his operatives clearly did. They were clearly operating to the orders of the last administration. I wonder if you think there are some grounds for believing that the deep state in the United States is determined to frustrate any good that President Trump might have in mind?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe that in any society – particularly one which has developed over decades within its own political system, as if along well-worn tracks – the arrival of a vivid, unconventional figure at the helm of state inevitably provokes subterranean processes aimed at preserving the accustomed way of life: living in debt and propagating one’s ideology. This, I think, is by no means unique to the United States.

The matter has been raised repeatedly in recent years. Even in our own society, there were those who hoped everything would return to the status quo – that those who fled (I refer to Western business) would come back, be welcomed with open arms, and jaunts to the Côte d’Azur or Sardinia would resume. All would be well again, when consumption was largely sustained by imports.
President Vladimir Putin spoke plainly about our own people – not termed the “deep state,” but the essence is much the same. Our experience in unifying such individuals is far less entrenched than in the USA, yet President Putin was unequivocal regarding the return of business: We are not opposed, but it must be fair. If you fled, abandoned your workers, the niche is occupied – sorry, propose
something acceptable to us.

But crucially, shortly after the commencement of the special military operation, speaking on the future of the world, he made this clear: never again, for us, for Russia, for the Russian people, will things be as they were before February 2022. In other words, he held out hope until the last that the draft treaties Russia submitted to NATO and the USA in 2021 would be taken seriously, that common sense would prevail. It did not. We were not believed.

President Vladimir Putin recently gave an interview where he was directly questioned about whether he had been naive. He replied affirmatively – indeed, he had been naive. However, this signifies that we were ensnared by numerous friendly frameworks and slogans – “from the Atlantic to the Pacific,” and “common spaces with the European Union,” encompassing four key areas: security, economy, infrastructure, and cultural issues. These common spaces were constructed from the Atlantic to the Pacific. There were dozens of cooperative initiatives, joint projects, biannual summits, ministerial meetings, permanent representatives –Russia and the EU, the Russia-NATO Council, and much more. Solemn declarations were signed at the highest level within the OSCE, affirming that security is indivisible and that no one would strengthen their security at the expense of others. All of this accumulated through inertia, and each time the West demonstrated its complete unreliability as a negotiating partner – proving these fine words served but one purpose: to prepare once more for a war of annihilation against Russia, as they had done in centuries past.

Yet we wished to believe otherwise, persisting until the last moment in our engagements with Germany, France, and London to advance the notion that we had reached agreements. Piece by piece, they chipped away at these accords. As former US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland later admitted, they invested over $5 billion in Ukraine specifically to transform it into an anti-Russia.
I apologise for diverging from the American agenda to our own, but the deep state is by no means unique to the United States. I referenced earlier the European Commission – an unelected body whose composition results from opaque backroom dealings (“you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”). The actors within this Commission pursue their own agendas much like the deep state does. Their objective is to subdue this deep state. Whenever elections in any country produce a first-round winner who is not part of the political establishment – but rather, in the positive sense, a nationalist (they may dislike us or others, but they think of their own people – as any politician should) – the mechanisms akin to the deep state immediately activate to restore the status quo.

I sincerely hope constitutional norms will prevail in America – that President Donald Trump will not be constrained in exercising his constitutional authority, that he will not face obstruction, and that he will receive full access to information.

I am not aware of how thoroughly the US President is briefed regarding operations the Ukrainian regime conducts against our country. That numerous American advisors remain embedded within Ukraine’s security services is an established fact – they have not been withdrawn. That military instructors from other nations supplying weapons to the Ukrainian regime operate there is equally factual. That they advise Ukrainian armed forces on strategic operations, facility placement, and camouflage – this too we know. As I have mentioned, many modern weapons systems cannot be operated without the direct involvement of military personnel from the supplying nations.

To my understanding, President Trump was asked aboard his plane about recent attacks – not simply recent, but terrorist attacks. He stated that upon hearing of them, he immediately knew Ukraine would get theirs and be bombed to hell, as he phrased it. I can only interpret and comment on what I hear. Regarding how US intelligence briefings reach the President – frankly, I do not know. Through the Foreign Ministry, we do not intrude upon other nations’ classified matters.

Question: What, in the circumstances of a multicultural, multipolar, and interconnected world, is the future of diplomacy?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe diplomacy will not go anywhere in any world order system or format there may be.

I mentioned earlier that diplomacy is the oldest profession, because you need to come to terms on
things before you can proceed any further. There’s no way to accomplish anything without diplomacy.
Speaking of the naive perception of the rosy post-Soviet period when everyone was there to woo us: hundreds of specialists worked at our state institutions, especially financial organisations. It did look like the end of history with us becoming part of the civilised world. Disappointment caught up with us very quickly, though. Back then, there was a popular expression in our foreign policy language which made it to numerous analytical documents which said that the reduction of the military force factor in international affairs was the hallmark of the new post-Soviet and post-Cold War era. This can only make one smile today. As soon as someone got convinced in that approach and reduced the force factor, the one who talked that someone into doing so went ahead and utilised the force factor to the hilt.

Naive perception of these promises or mantras is a thing of the past, but diplomacy still has a part to play. Among other things, it can be used to prevent unchecked escalation of the arms race - especially nuclear arms - to a level where irreparable damage can occur. We are now confronted with the added serious risk of artificial intelligence. Who knows what conclusions it may draw when it gets the hang of how a particular country is run. Many are engaged in this.

The Trump administration is looking to resume the strategic dialogue. We operate on the premise that as soon as the basic components of our relations are brought into line with the principles of equal talks on strategic stability, we will be willing to resume them. Additional efforts are needed before we can get to that point.

The Ukraine situation can use diplomacy as well. At this point, our troops on the front line are unquestionably our best diplomats. They defend the truth, honour, and dignity.

Not long ago, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz got carried away in one of his speeches and said that Russia needed to be “stopped,” or they would make Germany the number one military power in Europe again. I’m not sure he realised what the word “again” meant in this context, but he later added that Russia would not stop in Ukraine and would move to conquer the rest of Europe. He is using his own standards to judge us. He is steeped in Nazi Germany mentality, which needed territories and access to natural resources. They planned to exterminate most people of certain ethnicities and did exterminate them. He is thinking about us relying on his genetic instinctive assessments and plans.
The goal of the special military operation is not to gain territories, but to defend the people whose ancestors have lived on these lands for centuries, built cities, ports, factories, roads, sowed wheat, and manufactured other products. The first government who came to power after the 2014 coup in Ukraine declared these people “subhumans.” Answering a question about what he thinks about people on the other side in Donbass, Vladimir Zelensky said, in September 2021, that there were humans and there were “species.” If you live in Ukraine and think you are part of Russian culture, take his advice and, for the safety and happiness of your children and grandchildren, make off to Russia. The people of Donbass, actually, heeded his advice. They held a referendum and, as he suggested, made off to Russia. That is what it’s all about.

At some point, the Nazi Kiev regime, ignoring the protests of the people in the Russian city of Odessa, demolished the monument to the founder of the city, Empress Catherine the Great. A week later, UNESCO declared the historic downtown of Odessa which this monument used to grace, a world cultural heritage. What are we supposed to think of this organisation led by French citizen Audrey Azoulay? How can you disgrace yourself like that and make sure no one in the West even mentions this absolutely obvious fact?

We had talks in Istanbul recently. Our operation will continue. President Putin made it unequivocally clear. However, we are ready to contribute to the achievement of the goals of the special military operation through classical diplomacy, primarily, by addressing humanitarian issues, which includes the exchange of prisoners of war and the return of the young men recruited by Ukrainian territorial recruiting centres, the wounded, the sick, and the dead bodies.

Much has been said about Zelensky’s refusal to retrieve the bodies of his own soldiers, so I’ll leave this blasphemy at that. To reiterate, the outcomes on the ground will be formalised legally. This will be done primarily by diplomats in conjunction with the military. We know what we stand for and what we are fighting for on the front lines, in diplomacy and the economy, and in upbringing our children.
Question: I know that your heart beats for the United Nations and international organisations, where you started your diplomatic life. My question is: what is the geographic status of international organisations that currently, if I may say, are still located in “neutral countries,” such as Switzerland and Austria, but which have abandoned the neutrality over the last three years. Do you think that this multipolar world requires relocation? I’m thinking in terms of OPEC, organisation of oil producing countries, to move let’s say to Istanbul - it’s just an idea - or certain UN organisations located in Geneva to go to India or the African continent.

Sergey Lavrov: The best option is to move the UN to Sochi.
Stalin seriously proposed this. Later, he accommodated Roosevelt. Long Island was the first choice followed by Manhattan, New York.

Now all of these entities have deep roots not only physically like buildings and property, but also in terms of UN staff, especially so after permanent contracts had been introduced and UN staff members bought their own houses and apartments. If you try to move them to a different location now, it would be a relocation effort of mind-boggling proportions.

I think the same principle should be applied here as to the UN Charter. There isn’t a single principle in the Charter that is irrelevant or unjust today. The only shortcoming is that fact that these principles have not been fully implemented. As a popular saying from the Russian Empire goes, the severity of Russian laws is alleviated by optional compliance.

The same goes for the UN Charter and the countries you mentioned that are hosting UN headquarters such as the United States, Austria, and Switzerland. If the UN Charter were actually acted upon, then most global problems would likely be resolved far more effectively. Just consider the principle of sovereign equality of states. All you need to do is implement it. It’s a hard thing to do, maybe unrealistic, but nevertheless.

The same goes for relocation. Each city that currently hosts UN agencies has obligations enshrined in agreements between the UN and the host country. These obligations unequivocally require that visas must be delayed for a year or two, and that movement of diplomats who work in missions to the international organisation must not be restricted.

That is why the UN Committee on Relations with the Host Country was set up in New York. Even during the Biden administration, we entered a provision in its regulations to the effect that, as the host state of the headquarters, the United States must fulfill its functions. This is important not only because it is cheaper than relocating, but also because it’s a matter of principle where you should not tolerate flagrant violations of existing commitments.

The moral high ground is always with the one who insists on fulfilling the agreements. Russia has always honoured the agreements it signed. We reaffirmed this again during talks in the context of the special military operation.

Russia
Source: russiancouncil.ru

On June 16, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. (Moscow time), the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC) and the Institute of African Studies (IAS) of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) will hold a conference, “BRICS and Africa: Political, Economic and Humanitarian Cooperation”.

2025 marks the anniversary of the Bandung Conference, which launched the start of Afro-Asian solidarity and the Non-Aligned Movement. In 1955, leaders of the newly liberated Global South colonies gathered in Bandung, Indonesia, to discuss further decolonization efforts, non-alignment to superpower blocs, as well as outline directions for future political, economic and cultural cooperation. The historic conference established key principles that helped maintain post-colonial peace, including respect for sovereignty, non-interference, peaceful coexistence, equality of all peoples and respect for civilizational diversity.

In many ways, BRICS countries continue to follow the principles and values set at the Bandung Conference. Striving to achieve equal representation and diversity in global governance, BRICS members have consistently urged to redistribute power in key international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB). Additionally, BRICS members have called to reform the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to better reflect the interests of the global majority. The recent waves of BRICS enlargement are heavily the result of the support and interest shown by African countries. In 2023, Ethiopia and Egypt became members, while the following year, three African states were invited as partner countries. Growing African influence on BRICS development is a testament to the growth of African subjectivity and the intention of BRICS to further develop in the spirit of multipolarity, inclusiveness and solidarity.

As the upcoming conference coincides with the anniversary of the Bandung Conference, discussions will focus on the principles that now outline Afro-Asian solidarity amid global geopolitical changes, the world's aspiration to multipolarity and the strengthening of African subjectivity. The event will also focus on the key aspects outlining political and economic cooperation between African and BRICS countries, African interests in developing alternative financial systems within the BRICS framework, infrastructure projects in Africa, areas of humanitarian cooperation between African countries and BRICS, in addition to various other topics.

Representatives of relevant ministries and departments, leading Russian and foreign international relation scholars are invited to participate in the conference.

• Conference Program

The conference will take place on June 16, 2025 10:00 to 15:00 (Moscow time) at the RIAC conference hall and online.

Brazil
Source: brics.br

A study released in March 2025 by Brasil’s Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade and Services, titled Women in Foreign Trade – An Analysis for Brasil, offers revealing insights into the state of female participation in the country’s foreign trade sector. While the report acknowledges notable progress, it also highlights significant challenges that must still be addressed.

According to the study, there was an increase in women’s participation in exporting firms, rising from 29.2% to 31.8%, and in importing firms, from 32.5% to 34.7%. However, only 14.5% of exporters have a female-majority ownership structure, and just 2% of all exports from Brasil come from women-led enterprises.

These figures, while indicative of progress, make it clear that there is still substantial ground to cover in advancing gender equity in foreign trade. In the domestic market, women’s participation grew more modestly, from 40% to 40.6%. Notably, approximately 3 million women were employed by exporting or importing businesses in 2022, underscoring the untapped potential of women in this sector.
It is also evident that companies engaged in foreign trade offer women higher average salaries than the domestic market. However, gender wage disparities persist, with women earning between 23% and 27% less than men. At the executive level, the gender pay gap is narrower in foreign trade (26%) than in the domestic market (53%). Moreover, only 22.5% of leadership positions in exporting firms and 22.6% in importing firms are held by women, compared to 38.6% in companies focused solely on the domestic market.

‘Elas Exportam’ program (Women Export program)

In response to such disparities, the Ministry of Development, Industry, Trade and Services, in partnership with the Brazilian Trade and Investment Promotion Agency (ApexBrasil), launched the 'Elas Exportam' (Women Export) program, aimed at promoting female entrepreneurship in exports. This initiative joins efforts from the National Confederation of Industry, which organizes business matchmaking rounds, and the Women's Business and Cultural Council, which offers training and disseminates information via the Brazilian Council of Importing and Exporting Commercial Companies.

The relationship between public and private actors should not be viewed as adversarial but rather as an integrated partnership aimed at fostering Brasil’s holistic development. As the National Confederation of Industry emphasizes, the state is inevitably a stakeholder in every private initiative—regulating, incentivizing, monitoring, and often investing. The state plays a role before, during, and after each business transaction, whether by shaping the operating environment or ensuring returns.
To frame government and business as opposing forces is an outdated view. These entities complement and shape each other, and progress depends on their cooperation. When one resists, the country stalls; when both listen to and align with each other, Brasil accelerates—moving further and faster. While progress has been made, a great deal of work remains to ensure gender equity in Brasil’s foreign trade.

Women’s inclusion in business is a core concern of the BRICS Women’s Business Alliance (WBA), which I am honored to chair globally in 2025. In July, our Business Forum will take place in Rio de Janeiro, in partnership with the BRICS Business Council. Both initiatives are coordinated by the National Confederation of Industry. This forum will serve as a focal point for new ideas and collective action to foster synergy, fairness, equity, and sustainable development. Registration is open to companies and individuals, both Brazilian and foreign—an opportunity to mobilize all relevant stakeholders in support of a more inclusive future.

Opinion articles published in this space are the sole responsibility of their respective authors and do not reflect the official position of the Brazilian BRICS presidency or the Brazilian government. The views expressed are independent and intended to foster pluralistic debate on issues relevant to the Global South agenda.

Brazil
Source: brics.br

BRICS Brasil Bulletin #12 - Ahead of COP30, BRICS approves first recommendation on climate finance

The document addresses issues such as reforming multilateral banks and leveraging private capital to fund climate initiatives in Global South countries. It will be presented to heads of state at the Leaders’ Summit. Listen to the report to learn more.

Reporter: Vice ministers from BRICS countries approved the foundational document on climate finance during the BRICS High-Level Meeting on Climate Change and Sustainable Development in Brasília. The document outlines strategies for attracting investments to support climate action initiatives. It is expected to contribute to broader efforts leading up to COP30, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, to be held in Brasil this November. Ambassador Tatiana Rosito, Secretary for International Affairs at the Ministry of Finance (Ministério da Fazenda), highlighted the declaration's unprecedented nature.

Tatiana Rosito: She said that, for the first time, they will have a document that guides a common and collective BRICS action in the field of climate finance. This includes reforming multilateral development banks, increasing concessional financing, mobilizing private capital, and implementing other regulatory measures to ensure financial flows reach developing countries.

Reporter: The BRICS Framework Declaration for Leaders on Climate Finance will be submitted to heads of state at the upcoming BRICS summit. The document is expected to contribute to the development of the Baku-Belém Roadmap, which is an action plan aiming to mobilize up to USD 1.3 trillion by 2035 to finance climate action in developing countries.

Another key decision made by the group was to advance discussions on carbon accounting.

According to Liliam Chagas, Brasil’s Ambassador for Climate and Director at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ministério das Relações Exteriores/MRE) — also known as Itamaraty — the term refers to measuring the carbon footprint of a specific product or sector. The goal is to evaluate the economic impact of these practices on BRICS countries, especially with regard to foreign trade. Chagas also celebrated progress in scientific and intellectual cooperation among BRICS nations to address climate change.

Liliam Chagas: She said that this is only the second year that BRICS countries have formally discussed climate change. For the second consecutive year and with a new group and a new space for dialogue under Brasil’s leadership, they have achieved five climate-related outcomes, establishing this as one of the most dynamic groups under the Brazilian presidency.

Reporter: The group also agreed to establish a BRICS Climate Laboratory to examine the effects of climate measures on international trade. According to Ambassador Chagas, the lab will provide a space for member countries to assess the impact of trade-related climate measures on their exports and project future scenarios in case adjustments are needed to align with global standards.

English Version: Trad. Bárbara Menezes
Proofreading by Enrique Villamil

Brazil
Source: brics.br

After three days of meetings in Brasilia, the BRICS Counterterrorism Working Group concluded that advancing education and combating poverty are critical to addressing terrorism, which often exploits marginalized communities and vulnerable regions to sustain its operations. The Working Group is currently coordinated by the Brazilian Intelligence Agency (ABIN), under Brasil’s presidency of BRICS in 2025.

The group considers the financing of terrorist organizations to be a global threat to peace and public safety, with direct implications for social and economic stability—underscoring the need for preventive measures. There is particular concern for children and other family members exposed to adverse social conditions. According to BRICS representatives, these individuals must be reintegrated into society without stigma, and with access to medical, psychological, and educational support.

Ana Ribeiro, Director of the Department of External Intelligence at ABIN and head of the Brazilian delegation in the Counterterrorism Working Group, highlighted the prevention and reintegration programs presented during the meetings. “In exploring how different countries have successfully implemented reintegration programs for former terrorist fighters and early intervention strategies to address ongoing radicalization, participants emphasized the need for a multidimensional approach—one that actively involves both the state and civil society, with a focus on families, communities, and especially local leadership.” she said.

The director also emphasized that government responses must be “in constant adaptation and continuously updated, given the rapidly evolving strategies, methods, and tactics of terrorist groups and violent extremist movements.”

Over the past three days, delegations gathered in Brasil’s capital shared diverse perspectives, knowledge, and experiences on terrorism and violent extremism. Discussions explored the impact of new technologies on the recruitment, financing, and dissemination of disinformation by terrorist organizations, as well as the role of such tools in new forms of violence and self-radicalization.

Examples included the use of cryptocurrencies for fundraising and the spread of terrorist propaganda in multiple languages. Participants also underscored the importance of international cooperation to build state-level capacities in the face of emerging terrorism trends. Harmonizing national legislation with international standards was also identified as a priority.

Brasil Advances Institutionalization of the Counterterrorism Working Group

Ana Ribeiro detailed Brasil’s proposals to strengthen the group’s institutional structure, including the formal regulation of subgroups and updates to threat assessment protocols. “Brasil’s proposal was to establish clear rules for the rotating presidency of each subgroup, ensuring greater objectivity and the renewal of ideas,” she explained. The document, expected to be approved by the time of the BRICS Leaders’ Summit in July, is designed to provide a more solid foundation for the group’s work.

One of Brasil’s key contributions was in the Capacity Building subgroup, which the country has led since its inception in 2019. “This is a cross-cutting priority, because all counterterrorism measures depend on the development of adaptive capacities,” Ribeiro said. Among the initiatives presented was the creation of a matrix mapping training needs and offerings among member states, to be updated annually. Brasil also shared recent advancements in its methodology for analyzing violent extremism, including the distribution of the revised 2025 edition of the Threat Prevention Protocol for Violent Extremism.

The document—developed with input from multiple government agencies and academia—lays down indicators to distinguish violent extremism from ordinary crime. “The idea is that it should be a tool not only for ABIN, but for the entire Brazilian State, and that it may also contribute to international discussions,” Ribeiro noted. The new version of the protocol will undergo internal consultation before its official adoption.


Terrorism in the Digital Age and New Forms of Violence
The meeting also examined global terrorism trends, with particular attention to how extremist groups are using emerging technologies. “Artificial intelligence, for example, is increasingly being used for recruitment and terrorist propaganda,” Ribeiro warned. At the same time, countries discussed how these same tools could be used by states to counter radicalization.

Ribeiro emphasized that terrorism today extends well beyond conventional attacks, encompassing cyber threats and assaults on critical infrastructure. “These are actions that can destabilize entire societies—even without causing immediate casualties,” she explained. In that context, the subgroup on the misuse of the internet considered expanding its scope to include other emerging technologies, such as deepfakes and disinformation tools.

The director stressed that combating terrorism requires a multifaceted approach, including not only security policies but also educational and social measures. “Many countries presented national strategies that combine enforcement with reintegration and prevention programs,” she said. Some nations, she noted, have revised their school curricula to promote values like diversity and social cohesion, while also training community leaders to recognize early signs of radicalization.

Walid Elfiky, head of the Egyptian delegation to the Counterterrorism Working Group, praised the depth of discussions during the meeting and emphasized the need for joint action against terrorism and extremism. “Terrorism has no religion, and it cannot be associated with any one culture or region,” he said. In this sense, he argued that BRICS—made up of diverse nations—is uniquely positioned to develop effective strategies that can be brought to global forums such as the United Nations. “The Counterterrorism Working Group is of great importance. Everything must be synchronized among member states—not only at the financial and economic level but also in the fight against terrorism. We can create solutions that elevate global counterterrorism efforts to a new level,” Elfiky concluded, reaffirming the group’s role in promoting international security.

ABIN will continue working to finalize the proposals approved during the meeting in Brasilia. In the coming months, a draft annex formalizing the structure of the subgroups will be finalized, with Brasil continuing to lead efforts to implement the capacity-building matrix. The goal is to have these mechanisms fully operational by next year, further strengthening BRICS cooperation in the fight against terrorism.

English version by: Judas Tadeu de Azevedo Neto (POET/UFC)
Proofreading by: Michel Emmanuel Félix François (POET/UFC)

Brazil
Source: brics.br

At the Summit, with participation from member and partner countries, young delegates signed a Memorandum, proposed a geopolitical approach that considers generational inclusion, and reaffirmed a shared agenda centered on sovereignty, diversity, and innovation

The renewal of multilateralism will require more than structural reforms—such as a strengthened BRICS agenda. It will also demand a profound generational shift. Youth must be granted more than a symbolic seat at the table; they must have a real vote in international decision-making processes, on issues that go beyond the traditional youth portfolio of sports, diversity, or culture. That conviction brought together voices from across the Global South in multiple languages, as BRICS youth convened in Brasília on June 9 and 10 for the 11th BRICS Youth Summit— the first since the bloc's expansion and one of the largest BRICS gatherings of the year.

“We in the Global South have the highest percentage of young people, in absolute terms, anywhere in the world. This means that the future of the planet—being built in the present—must be shaped by the hands of young people, especially those from the Global South,” said Ronald Sorriso, National Youth Secretary at the Office of the Presidency. “BRICS represents these nations and can, through its youth’s inventiveness, creativity, and spirit of nonconformity, promote a new way of seeing things—and of seeing the world.”

Over the course of two days, discussions took place at both the BRICS Brasil headquarters and the Itamaraty Palace. Following the logic of progressive consensus, delegates worked toward institutional integration of Global South youth—culminating in the signing of the “Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in Youth Affairs.” The document focuses on key areas such as climate action, support for humanitarian cooperation, the formation of a BRICS-wide youth policy network, and the development of a broader approach within other multilateral frameworks related to youth. It also calls for the creation of a working group to establish measurable indicators for assessing the impact of the Memorandum’s goals.

Since bringing together authorities from different countries in a single space is a unique opportunity to address high-level issues, the Summit also served as a venue for bilateral meetings among national youth representatives.

Member and partner countries in sync

By recognizing and encouraging the participation of its youth, BRICS fosters a collective identity rooted in shared challenges and collective strength. This was a common understanding among the countries taking part in the Summit.

Debora John, from Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Youth Development, highlighted this point. “Our uniqueness and diversity as the Global South are deeply rich and hold immense potential. We need to talk about cognitive sovereignty. Our role is to look inward—at what we have and what we can improve—to strengthen fields like education and innovation. Because our uniqueness is valuable,” she said, adding that young people must embrace challenges and take an active interest in governance, even though many still see that space as reserved for older generations.
Nitesh Mishra, from India’s Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports, echoed this view: “Young people are the ones who will shape the future. When we talk about the Global South, youth realize they face the same problems—and it is they who will craft the solutions.”

"Free, free, Palestine"

The ongoing crisis in Palestine was another defining theme of the Summit’s discussions. Delegates voiced strong support for the Brazilian presidency’s position on the issue. The meeting came as Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs continued to monitor Israel’s actions following the Israeli navy’s interception of the Madleen, a vessel carrying basic humanitarian aid to Gaza.

At the most recent BRICS Foreign Ministers’ Meeting in May, Brazilian Foreign Minister Mauro Vieira had already condemned Israel’s actions. “The devastating situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories remains a source of deep concern. The resumption of Israeli bombing in Gaza and the continued obstruction of humanitarian aid are unacceptable. [...] It is essential to ensure the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the release of all hostages and detainees, and the unrestricted entry of humanitarian assistance,” said the minister, reiterating Brasil’s support for the creation of a viable, independent Palestinian state.

“We can see that the situation in Palestine is supported by hegemonies that have been in power for decades. BRICS is increasingly seen as a counterweight to that hegemony. And that role isn’t just about challenging economic dominance—it’s also about confronting political hegemony, which continues to ignore or outright deny existing treaties and agreements. What we’re saying here, as young delegates, is very clear: we will not tolerate that,” said Maynara Nafe, a BRICS Youth Summit delegate and Institutional Relations Secretary at the Palestinian Arab Federation of Brasil (FEPAL).
The topic is also expected to feature in the agenda of the upcoming BRICS Leaders’ Summit, to be held next month in Rio de Janeiro.

Beyond the Summit

Grounded in the understanding that the active participation of young people in BRICS dynamics is a driving force of innovation—renewing political debate and enhancing the bloc’s legitimacy by making it more representative, dynamic, and better equipped to address emerging global challenges—Brasil’s National Youth Secretariat and the National Youth Council promoted additional activities beyond the Summit itself.

On Monday, June 9, the same day as the Summit’s opening, the 7th BRICS Youth Energy Summit took place, bringing together young policy leaders and energy professionals from across the bloc. Discussions focused on topics such as sustainable fuels for climate adaptation, financing for just energy transitions, energy poverty, and the development of low-carbon energy systems. The outcomes will feed into the 2025 BRICS Youth Energy Outlook, to be formally presented at COP30 in November.

Earlier in May, the Thematic Regional Seminars drew more than 2,000 participants to five virtual sessions — one for each region of Brasil — focused on sustainability, healthcare, sports, technology, and education. The initiative pursued three goals: electing regional delegates for the Summit, strengthening the Brazilian presidency’s priority of social participation under the People-to-People (P2P) pillar, and enriching the drafting of the Memorandum signed on Tuesday, June 10.

English version by: Judas Tadeu de Azevedo Neto (POET/UFC)
Proofreading by: Luana Ferreira de Freitas (POET/UFC)

Brazil
Source: brics.br

BRICS youth convened on Monday, June 9, to discuss the just energy transition and deepen cooperation among countries of the Global South. Held at the Ministry of Justice, the 7th BRICS Youth Energy Summit brought together delegates to help shape the BRICS 2025 Youth Energy Outlook, which is set to be officially launched at COP30 in November.

"Each thematic session of the summit reflects a specific direction of Brasil’s BRICS presidency, and this is how we’re shaping expectations while anticipating energy outlooks. Another key outcome of the summit is the BRICS Youth Energy Cooperation Action Plan. We will be discussing it later today, after the session on how the bloc’s newest member states will integrate into our community, and how together we can build capacity so youth-led energy cooperation within BRICS can truly take off," explained Alexander Kormishin, President of the BRICS Youth Energy Agency (BRICS YEA).
The document is being structured around four central thematic pillars, aligned with the energy priorities of Brasil’s BRICS presidency:

• Sustainable Fuels for Climate Adaptation;
• Financing Energy Transitions and Ensuring Access to Critical Minerals for Clean Energy;
• Expanding Energy Access and Addressing Energy Poverty through Affordable Solutions; and
• Advancing Low-Carbon Energy Technologies.

The BRICS Youth Energy Agency (BRICS YEA) is a youth-led organization recognized internationally as a platform for cooperation among young people in the bloc, focusing on energy research and project development. BRICS YEA was established in 2015 through the Action Plan of the 1st BRICS Youth Summit. Marking its tenth anniversary this year, the group held its first meeting with participation from all new member states, each represented by young professionals from the energy sector.

"Young people are exchanging knowledge. One speaker brings up hydrogen or energy transition or even gender empowerment in the energy sector, and another builds on that—it’s a real exchange. We also want youth to bring a spirit of partnership to today’s discussions. New member states like Indonesia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates need to find allies among other BRICS countries. That’s what makes integration easier," Kormishin added.

Also attending the event, Márcio Macêdo, Minister at the Office of the Presidency, congratulated the youth on their work and underscored the importance of energy sustainability.

"BRICS countries represent about 40% of the global population and more than 25% of global GDP. We are major energy producers and consumers, directly influencing global markets—oil, gas, coal, and renewables alike. At the same time, we face shared challenges: energy transition, access to energy, and environmental sustainability. The energy diversity across BRICS nations creates opportunities for strategic complementarities. It strengthens our cooperation on innovation, sustainability, and energy security, and it reinforces our autonomy in relation to other geopolitical blocs. BRICS has the potential to lead the global energy transition—especially in the Global South—and our youth must play a central role in that process," he said.

Integration with COP30

The BRICS Youth Energy Outlook has been developed annually since 2018 by BRICS YEA, incorporating contributions from young professionals and researchers across the Global South. The document is traditionally submitted each year to BRICS energy ministers and presented at United Nations Climate Change Conferences (COPs).

This year, with Brasil holding the presidency of both BRICS and COP30, the discussion takes on even greater relevance. "Brasil’s dual presidency at BRICS and COP30 are interconnected, and we’ve aligned the research closely with Brasil’s priorities. Youth will face the consequences of today’s decisions in the future. The energy sector is the single largest source of carbon emissions. This is a critical area for sustainable development—and young people want a sustainable future, with lower emissions, less global warming, and better living conditions for themselves and their children, for generations to come. That’s what sustainable development is about," said Arsenii Kirgizov-Barskii, Vice President of BRICS YEA and Youth Programs Coordinator for COP29.

Also attending the summit was Marcele Oliveira, Youth Climate Champion for COP30. She emphasized the importance of youth engagement within BRICS and the need for coordinated positions to influence the upcoming climate summit, which will be held November 10–21 in Belém, in the Brazilian state of Pará.

"BRICS is a critical milestone on the road to COP30. We need our youth voices to arrive there fully aligned—our shared positions should help shape the conversations we want to advance, especially around adaptation, climate finance, and a just transition," said the climate activist.

"A just transition means more than just switching energy sources—it’s a shift in mindset. It’s about letting go of the idea that nature exists to serve us, because it doesn’t. We need it. And this is a conversation that can move forward meaningfully within BRICS—among countries in the Global South that understand that the change we want to see in the world must also come from our own solutions, from recognizing Indigenous knowledge, and from valuing climate innovations born on the peripheries of the world," she added.

English version by: Judas Tadeu de Azevedo Neto (POET/UFC)
Proofreading by: Kelvis Santiago do Nascimento (POET/UFC)

Brazil
Source: brics.br

At the close of the previous year, Alexandre Pupo was elected by consensus as Secretary-General of the International Youth Organization for Ibero-America (OIJ). This marks the first time a Brazilian has been appointed to lead the only international public organization dedicated specifically to youth, representing 21 countries. In addition to Brasil, a founding member of BRICS, Bolivia and Cuba — partner nations of the bloc — are also members of the OIJ.

Under the Brazilian presidency of the Organization, an unprecedented milestone was reached with its participation in a BRICS Youth Summit, where the Secretary-General gave an exclusive interview to BRICS Brasil.

In this interview, Pupo delves into the New Youth Agenda, emphasizing that young people should not only claim their space but also lead discussions, create their own forums, and take an active role in driving change. He also highlights South-South cooperation as a strategic path toward building more inclusive global solutions.

This was the first time OIJ formally participated in a BRICS Youth Summit. How does the organization’s agenda align with BRICS youth priorities?

Alexandre Pupo — We have been working to align the BRICS Youth Agenda with the New Youth Agenda, the Organization’s political framework for Ibero-American countries. These agendas share strong synergies, as the Ibero-American community is largely made up of developing nations. So there is much that binds the youth of the Global South, whether in Latin America, Ibero-America, or other regions of the world within the BRICS framework.

The OIJ is the only international public mechanism dedicated to youth. In the context of this meeting, which brings together representatives from Asia, Africa, and Oceania, how can the Organization’s efforts help inspire the creation of similar institutions in other regions?

The OIJ was created specifically to strengthen youth institutional frameworks across Ibero-America. That means promoting youth ministries, youth secretariats, youth-focused laws and policies, and social participation councils. We see similar structures in many other countries, albeit in different forms. At the Summit, for instance, we heard from the United Arab Emirates about how they organize youth councils within every ministry. That kind of exchange helps us reflect on alternative models for youth institutionalization.

At the same time, I think OIJ can help foster the formation of similar organizations in other parts of the world — international youth bodies that, like ours, promote regional youth policies. OIJ is also an open organization; we welcome new members beyond Ibero-America.

Last year, during Brazil’s G20 presidency, then-Secretary-General of the OIJ, Max Trejo, attended the Youth 20 meeting — the youth engagement group for the world’s major economies — where he discussed key priorities under his leadership. What will be the main focus areas for the next five years?

Alexandre Pupo — At the start of this administration, we set priorities based on insights gathered throughout the campaign, engaging with countries to understand their perspectives. The first priority is Youth and Democracy — a crucial issue for this generation. While studies suggest a decline in adherence to democratic ideals, young people’s actions and aspirations still align closely with democratic values. The second priority is Mental Health and Social Media, a widespread challenge affecting all nations. Within the BRICS framework, we’ve seen other countries address this issue from a youth perspective.

Third, “Work and Emancipation” — the challenge of ensuring youth access to decent, meaningful employment. Fourth, “Sustainability and Socio-Environmental Justice.” This is especially pressing in a year when the UN Climate Conference (COP) will be held in our region, and we plan to engage deeply on that front. Finally, “Intersectionality.” Youth today know that inequality has a color, a race, a class. That is why we are committed to embedding an intersectional lens across everything we do. These five areas are our core priorities as we begin this administration.

"I think OIJ can help foster the formation of similar organizations in other parts of the world — international youth bodies that, like ours, promote regional youth policies. OIJ is also an open organization; we welcome new members beyond Ibero-America"

Considering youth from a plural perspective — as multiple "youths" — and especially in the context of the Global South’s diversity, is there a common demand that unifies the young people from the countries represented at this Summit?

Alexandre Pupo — I think it is best summed up in a single idea: young people want a future. On one hand, there is the socioeconomic crisis and the lack of access to work. On the other, there is a deep uncertainty about the future in the face of the climate crisis, digital transformation, and artificial intelligence. So despite the many differences among these young people, there’s a shared belief in defending the right to dream — and the right to a future.

Many policies today seem disconnected from the realities of young people. How essential is global governance reform to advancing youth agendas?

Alexandre Pupo — Youth are among those most affected by the crises we are living through. And I see two main reasons for that. First, young people are not in the rooms where decisions are made. They are excluded from debates that directly affect them. Second, the frameworks used to make those decisions are outdated — they no longer reflect the world we live in. So when youth talk about reforming the UN Security Council or global financial institutions, those issues might seem abstract. But they are not. They are about how urgent decisions are made today — and why those structures need to change to serve youth interests.

Let me give two examples. First: mental health. Most public health systems worldwide lack a dedicated protocol for addressing mental health in youth. So it is up to youth to push for those conversations. Second: social media. There is a growing call to regulate and protect digital spaces — but those conversations are not happening with users. They are happening with platform owners. Reforming how decisions are made means positioning youth not just as subjects of today’s problems — but as protagonists of tomorrow’s solutions.

"When youth talk about reforming the UN Security Council or global financial institutions, those issues might seem abstract. But they are not. They are about how urgent decisions are made today — and why those structures need to change to serve youth interests"

As you mentioned earlier, forums where youth play a leading role are crucial. But how can we go beyond token participation — beyond being consulted on sports, education, and diversity — to full involvement in shaping economic and structural policy agendas?

Alexandre Pupo — In the early days, our fight was for quotas — for youth representation in unions, in political parties. That got us to the table. And that is important. Being at the table means knowing what is being discussed. It is a matter of ensuring that decisions are sustainable and that younger generations are informed.

Having youth at the table ensures they are part of the conversation, but that alone is not enough. Youth participation must go beyond symbolic representation and protocol to actively shape decision-making processes. Our challenge is to promote meaningful participation, a concept emphasized by Felipe Paullier, Assistant Secretary-General for Youth at the United Nations. When addressing issues like mental health and social media, young people should not just be consulted — they should lead the discussions. They need to create their own forums where these political priorities and agendas can be debated and championed.

Is there anything we have not asked that you would like to highlight?

Alexandre Pupo — It was a tremendous honor for OIJ to participate in the BRICS Youth Summit for the first time. Especially under this Brazilian leadership, we believe OIJ must serve the interests of youth in the Global South. Part of our political mission today is to engage beyond our immediate region — to build partnerships with Africa and Asia in particular, and to develop youth-led solutions from the South. This South-South cooperation model is one we plan to invest in heavily, especially as we look to next year’s BRICS Youth Summit under India’s rotating presidency.

English version by: Judas Tadeu de Azevedo Neto (POET/UFC)
Proofreading by: Michel Emmanuel Félix François (UFC)

Brazil
Source: brics.br

BRICS Ministers signed a historic agreement approaching sports as a tool for social transformation. The document highlights sports’ potential to reduce inequalities, promote inclusion, and drive economic development in member countries. Listen to the report to learn more.

Reporter: BRICS Sports Ministers signed a Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation in the Field of Physical Exercise and Sports this week in Brasilia. Under the guidance of Brasil’s Ministry of Sports, the memorandum highlights sports’ potential to help with various social issues, such as contributing to physical and mental health, well-being, inclusion, and economic development

Brasil’s Sports Minister André Fufuca stated that rather than an end point, the Sports Ministers' meeting was a new starting point for BRICS’ sports cooperation.

Fufuca: Sport is a means of development, inclusion, social transformation, and unity among people. It is essential to invest in sports governance, protection of our athletes, transparency, and the exchange of good practices.

Reporter: The minister cited as an example the Bolsa Atleta programme—a Brazilian financial aid programme aimed at reducing drop-out rates in sport, democratising access to training resources and enhancing the country’s competitiveness in international events.

Fufuca: He said that the programme benefits over 10,000 recipients, with grants ranging from 1,000 to 15,000 reais. In the 2025 budget alone, 176 million reais were invested in Brazilian athletes.

Reporter: The Ethiopian ambassador to Brasil, Leulgesed Tadese Abebe, added that sports play a key role in BRICS’ three pillars.

Abebe: Sports promote peace and harmony among countries and societies. It is an excellent tool for generating job opportunities while contributing to economic prosperity. Last but not least, sports can also contribute to mutual understanding, cultural ties, and, of course, to friendship. BRICS is all about promoting friendship, partnerships and mutual understanding.

Reporter: In South Africa, sports were used to rebuild national identity after the end of apartheid, promoting a common language transcending socio-racial differences, in line with former President Nelson Mandela’s vision. South Africa’s Minister of Sport and Culture, Gayton Mackenzie, explained that sport is a tool for social transformation: more than mere entertainment, it can play a role in politics and identity.

Mackenzie: It is important for sports to be used not just for entertainment, but also to unify and raise awareness in society on the fact that we are one nation.
English version by Enora Lessinger (POET/UFC)
Proofreading by Judas Tadeu de Azevedo Neto (POET/UFC)

Brazil
Source: brics.br

The growing use of new internet technologies for terrorist purposes has prompted BRICS member states to push for updated response mechanisms. Meeting in Brasilia on Thursday, June 5, the bloc’s Counterterrorism Group — coordinated by Brasil’s Intelligence Agency (ABIN) — advanced discussions aimed at ensuring that member countries are better equipped to confront terrorism proactively and preventively.

Terrorist organizations around the world are exploiting artificial intelligence, the deep web, social media platforms, and online gaming to spread disinformation and propaganda that promotes terrorism. Confronting these evolving threats requires adapting response mechanisms and investing in collective capacity-building, in line with the recommendations of the BRICS Working Group.
Brasil and Ethiopia are leading the subgroup on capacity-building for counterterrorism education. During the meeting, Anna Cruz, Director of ABIN’s Intelligence School, outlined a range of training and course opportunities. “We hope this BRICS cycle will introduce new tools for capacity-building that strengthen cooperation and deepen our understanding of this threat. In the coming years, we aim to build greater resilience against terrorism and violent extremism,” the director said.

Threat Prevention Protocol

During a session on best practices, ABIN presented its newly launched Threat Prevention Protocol for Violent Extremism to BRICS member states, positioning it as a tool for international cooperation. The document offers a strategic assessment of the threat landscape and sets out preventive and responsive measures to counter violent extremism.

Bárbara Requião, Acting Director of ABIN’s External Intelligence Department, emphasized that the initiative’s core objective is to prevent potential acts of violence. She pointed to the rise in school attacks in Brasil in recent years — fueled by violent and transactional subcultures online — as a case in point. “The protocol allows Brazilian institutions to raise alert levels and standardize procedures to improve response efforts. It also distinguishes extremist threats from other forms of violence,” she said. On the international front, she noted that various forms of extremism share common characteristics across multiple dimensions.

Counterterrorism Working Group

The 10th Meeting of the BRICS Counterterrorism Working Group will take place until 6 June in Brasilia, under the auspices of Brasil’s Presidency of BRICS in 2025. BRICS is a bloc comprising eleven member states: Brasil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran. It serves as a forum for political and diplomatic coordination among Global South nations and fosters cooperation across multiple sectors.

English version by Michel Emmanuel Félix François (POET/UFC)
Proofreading by Judas Tadeu de Azevedo Neto (POET/UFC)