Brazil
Source: brics.br

Speaking to BRICS Leaders, Lula Calls for Unity against Unilateralism
In a virtual summit, he urged the bloc’s leaders to defend cooperation and a 'revitalized multilateralism,' advocating for the reform of global governance and a new model of sustainable development

On Monday, September 8, President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva advocated for the unity of BRICS countries as a counterbalance to "growing international instability" and what he described as a "divide-and-conquer strategy" of unilateralism. In his speech during the Virtual Meeting of BRICS Leaders, convened at Brasil’s initiative, Lula stated that the group—representing 40% of global GDP—has the "necessary legitimacy to lead the reform of the multilateral system."

"Tariff blackmail is being normalized as a tool for market conquest and interference in domestic affairs. It is up to BRICS to demonstrate that cooperation prevails over any form of rivalry," criticized the Brazilian president. Lula also invited BRICS member countries to ‘stand united' at the 14th WTO Ministerial Conference next year, scheduled to be held in Cameroon, in equatorial Africa.
The virtual meeting took place two months after the Rio de Janeiro Summit, held in early July, against the backdrop of escalating global geopolitical and trade tensions.

In their final declaration, the leaders reaffirmed the group’s commitment to preserving and strengthening multilateralism, as well as to reforming international governance institutions.

COP30: Global South Leadership is Crucial

The president devoted a significant portion of his speech to the environmental agenda, framing COP30—set to be held in Belém next year—as "a moment of truth and science." Lula argued that developing countries, which are the most affected by the climate crisis, should lead the proposal of a new development paradigm.

Lula extended a formal invitation to BRICS partners to consider the creation of a United Nations Climate Change Council, aimed at centralizing and strengthening global climate governance, which is currently fragmented across various forums and mechanisms. "We need stronger climate governance, capable of exercising effective oversight," he stated.

As a concrete proposal, the Brazilian president highlighted the Tropical Forests Forever Fund, designed to compensate countries and communities for preserving biomes essential to the planet’s balance. Lula argued that revenues from fossil fuels can be used to finance the ecological transition, emphasizing that the path to avoiding a new Cold War lies in Global South cooperation in favor of a distinct growth model—one that harmonizes development with environmental preservation.

Revitalized Multilateralism

The president concluded his speech by emphasizing the importance of the 80th United Nations General Assembly, taking place in two weeks, as an opportunity for BRICS to "speak with one voice in defense of revitalized multilateralism." He advocated for the expansion of the Security Council to include new permanent and non-permanent members from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. "Unilateralism will never lead to the fulfillment of the goals of peace, justice, and prosperity that our predecessors envisioned in 1945," he stated. "BRICS is already the new name for the defense of multilateralism."

Access the full speech.

Russia
Source: link

Historical anniversaries often provide the backdrop for diplomacy to become spectacle. This week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Tianjin was deliberately staged ahead of China’s grand parade marking 80 years since the end of World War II. Beijing, the host, made sure the symbolism landed. The timing also underscored the contrast with Washington: Donald Trump, who has long admired military parades, is already planning a lavish one next July for America’s 250th anniversary, after his low-key attempt last summer fell flat.

For the SCO itself, the Tianjin meeting carried weight comparable to last year’s BRICS summit in Kazan. Documents were signed, but as always the road from declarations to implementation will be long. What mattered most was setting a benchmark. In international politics, the very act of gathering matters as much as the outcomes.

Beyond the West’s stage

By inertia, many still measure importance by whether Western powers are in the room. For decades, world affairs were shaped by East-West confrontation in the Cold War, and then by the unilateral primacy of the US and its allies. Membership of the G7 (at one time G8) was once the crown jewel of global respectability. Even the G20, designed to reflect a more perse world, remained dominated by Western influence over its agenda. Meetings without the West were seen as parochial or symbolic.
That perception is now outdated. The real turning point came last year – first at BRICS, now at the SCO. Both groupings, very different in composition, are drawing growing interest. Countries are applying to join or at least to participate. Simply appearing at these forums has become prestigious, and the corridor diplomacy surrounding them allows for meetings that are otherwise difficult to arrange.

The shift is not just about Russia. The attempt by Western governments to isolate Moscow after the escalation in Ukraine has backfired. Instead of leaving Russia in the cold, it accelerated the formation of what is now described as the “global majority.” Many states do not want to submit to anyone else’s political logic. They follow their own calculations of interest and expediency.

From rejection to attraction

Structures once mocked in the West as artificial, jealous imitations of Western clubs – BRICS and the SCO foremost among them – are now becoming indispensable. They are no longer simply ideological counters to hegemony, but practical platforms. This explains efforts to expand the BRICS New Development Bank and to set up an SCO Development Bank. These institutions will not rival the IMF or World Bank immediately, but the trajectory is clear: to build alternatives that bypass Western gatekeepers.

The West finds this almost impossible to digest. For Washington and Brussels, any institution outside their control looks like a threat, a conspiracy “against democracy.” In fact, the opposite is taking place. The West is retreating inward, shifting to a defensive crouch – sometimes aggressively so – and in the process cutting itself off from much of the world.

The formula that has gained currency in Moscow – “not against the West, but without it” – is finally becoming reality.

Trump’s catalyst

Another factor hastening this change is the blunt style of the Trump administration. Its message is simple: pay up, or pressure will follow. Allies have largely complied, reinforcing Washington’s belief that this approach works. But countries with no security obligations to the US have reacted differently. They reject being treated as clients, especially when it all comes down to money flowing to America.
Hence the surprise in Washington when so many states line up for BRICS+ or SCO+. They are not necessarily embracing Russia or China unconditionally; they are signaling their refusal to live by rules drawn elsewhere.

Russia’s place

Against this backdrop, Russia finds itself not marginalized but central. Western isolation efforts only underscored Moscow’s role as a key pole around which non-Western states can organize. For many, Russia is proof that there are alternatives to Western tutelage.

President Vladimir Putin, addressing the Eastern Economic Forum in Vlapostok just after the SCO summit, emphasized Russia’s two-headed eagle: the country looks both ways. He insisted Russia has not closed the door to the US or the rest of Europe. American businesses, he said, could benefit enormously from joint projects if their government allowed it.

At the same time, Moscow is strengthening ties with China, India, and the wider Global South. The new agreements with Beijing – from energy deals to visa-free travel – are practical steps along this path.

The symbolism matters too. At the SCO summit, Chinese President Xi Jinping launched “global governance initiative” with Putin’s backing. Far from being an anti-Western conspiracy, it reflects the search for a more balanced order.

A world in transition

What is emerging is not a neat bloc or a new Cold War pide, but something looser and more perse. International politics is shifting away from Western-centric hierarchies towards a multipolar landscape. The SCO summit should be read in this context, as part of a larger realignment.

The world is messy and the processes chaotic, but the direction is clear. Non-Western states are asserting their right to set agendas, to create institutions, and to act together without waiting for permission. The attempt to quarantine Russia has only sped this up.

The West may still believe nothing serious happens without it. But at Tianjin, as at Kazan before it, the message was unmistakable: much of the world is now prepared to move on.

Russia
Source: https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2045680/

Mr Torkunov,
Colleagues,
Friends,
First year students.

I was honoured to learn that Mr Torkunov scheduled this meeting as part of the Day of Knowledge, emphasising the importance of preserving, honouring, and developing traditions. I believe this was the right decision.

I hope it has not caused you significant inconvenience that we are meeting on September 8 rather than September 1. The challenge of scheduling our meetings arises from the fact that foreign policy work continues uninterrupted, without any breaks.

As you know, on August 15 of this year, the historic summit between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place in Alaska. Just over a week later, at the end of August and the beginning of September, President Putin undertook an unprecedented tour, which included a four-day visit to China to attend the SCO summit, conduct a separate Russia-China bilateral summit, and participate in events commemorating the 80th anniversaries of both the Victory over Japanese militarism and the end of World War II. The near future is unlikely to be any less challenging.

This week, we are holding another meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia and the Gulf Cooperation Council states. Next month will see the first-ever summit between Russia and the League of Arab States. The second ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum is scheduled for November. Before the end of the year, there will also be meetings of the EAEU – both ministerial and at the highest level – as well as sessions of the CIS and the CSTO. At all levels, including the highest, the bodies of the Union State of Russia and Belarus are actively engaged.
I will not attempt to analyse the results of all the events of the past three weeks involving President Vladimir Putin. This task is carried out very well by political scientists and analysts, including faculty members from MGIMO, who regularly share their assessments on television.

I have no doubt that if you chose MGIMO for your higher education, you actively follow developments and absorb knowledge and information. But it is not enough simply to absorb, it is essential to use what you learn to form your own independent conclusions. Do not be afraid to do this. Approach your studies creatively and do not hesitate to question authority. This may not always be welcomed, but I am convinced that without such critical engagement, personal development will be hindered.

After the start of the special military operation, many predicted economic collapse, complete isolation, and that our country and its leadership would become international pariahs. Yet the statistics – provided not by us, but by Western institutions, including the World Bank – show that Russia is now the fourth-largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity, following the USA, China, and India, and the largest economy in Europe by the same measure.

As for claims of our “isolation,” events like the SCO meetings and last year’s BRICS Summit in Kazan clearly demonstrate that these assertions are baseless. They were invented merely to allow some Western countries to publicly “wave their banners,” proclaiming themselves the leading global powers and insisting that everyone abide by the “rules” they define for the international order. These so-called rules have become uninteresting to discuss, no one has seen them, and in reality, they amount to only one thing: everyone must accept what serves the West in a particular moment. This approach will not succeed.

A good example of how the Global South and the countries of the Global Majority tend to follow requests, positions and, more recently, demands of the West can be seen in the reaction of Brazil, India, and China to the US’s threat to impose prohibitive tariffs as punishment for continuing trade with the Russian Federation, primarily through the purchase of our energy resources. Not one of these states – and they are great nations, leaders of the Global Majority – has made concessions or sacrificed their legitimate national interests.

The actions of our Western colleagues – with Europe playing an especially harmful and negative role for the future of the global economy – serve only to undermine the objective interests of those peoples who are compelled to forgo advantageous agreements and cheap raw materials, merely in order, as they imagine, to punish the exporter for alleged misbehaviour.

Let me make another statistical example. The BRICS countries (even before their number doubled in 2024, when there were only five of them) had already surpassed the G7 in terms of combined GDP measured at purchasing power parity. Since then, this gap has only widened. We harbour no desire for revenge, nor do we seek to vent anger on anyone. We firmly believe that anger and the pursuit of vengeance are poor advisers.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin reiterated this in Vladivostok, where he arrived right after the “autumn marathon” in China. He made it clear that Russia has not severed ties with anyone and does not intend to ignore anyone. When our former Western partners – now no more than neighbours – regain their senses and wish to return to Russia to work here again, we shall not turn them away. But we shall consider under what conditions such cooperation may resume, taking into account that by abruptly departing at the command of their political leaders they have demonstrated their unreliability. From now on, any such questions will be settled on terms that do not expose our key industries, or the foundations of our economy and national life, to risks – for these are directly linked to the security of the Russian Federation and to the economic and social wellbeing of our people. Without them, no state can be sovereign.

Please, recall the collapse of the USSR – brought about, to a large extent, by our own mistaken, utopian illusions that, once all ideological contradictions were removed, the West would grant us an equal place in international relations. It never intended to do so. This became clear soon enough, but illusions lingered. What happened, happened. The West regarded this not as a tragedy for millions of people suddenly torn apart, their families and communities scattered across different countries, but as an opportunity. And it pursued its course of weakening what was now the Russian Federation.
Recently, facts were presented that some marginal characters are still planning to dismember our country into separate regions. Our fugitive opposition, registered as foreign agents, is actively promoting this agenda. With little success, it must be said – yet the structures of Western states do not abandon them, keeping the idea alive. From time to time, statements are made which expose the desire of today’s Western leaders, especially in Europe, to weaken Russia and remove competitors.

After the Russian Federation regained its identity, returned to the foundations of our consciousness and values, and, since the 2000s, began to pursue a policy reflecting our national interests, we have never sought to weaken anyone or cause harm. On the contrary, we have always been ready for honest and equitable cooperation. While the West endeavoured to fragment both the former socialist bloc and the USSR, and later the Russian Federation itself, we consistently strove to unite.

This particular principle lay behind the creation of the CIS: to pool efforts and draw the maximum benefit from the legacy left to us by our Motherland, the USSR, rather than remaining isolated in a weakened state. This approach proved largely successful. From it grew the EAEU, the CSTO, and the Union State of Russia and Belarus. In each case, our efforts have been aimed at unification. The work of all these organisations is based on consensus; we have no system of one-man rule such as in NATO, where discipline is enforced by coercion, a fact well known to all. Nor do we have the type of top-down control that the European Commission seeks to impose on the European Union.
Attempts to keep everyone under strict command are not universally welcomed. The processes that are now taking place within NATO, driven largely by the position of the Trump administration, which insists that Europeans should assume greater responsibility for their own problems, are highly illustrative. They show clearly that it is impossible to impose one’s will and dictate terms indefinitely.

I would also like to highlight President Vladimir Putin’s response to a question he was asked in Vladivostok as to whether the future belongs to the Western or the Eastern world. He replied that the world will be multipolar. This is an important answer to those who have recently suggested, even within our own academic community, that a multipolar world might be built without the West. We all inhabit one small planet. It is the Western style to construct “Berlin walls” – figurative barriers – within our vast Eurasian space, which was once the Soviet Union and is now the post-Soviet space. We have no desire to build any walls. We seek fair cooperation. And if our partners are prepared to engage on an equal and mutually respectful basis, we are ready for dialogue with all.

This was clearly demonstrated during the talks between President Putin and President Trump in Alaska. The difference between that administration and its predecessors under President Joe Biden, as well as many European leaders, is that they are not only willing to listen, but also able to hear. The discussions in Anchorage revealed that President Trump and his team understood the necessity of resolving all issues, including the Ukrainian crisis, on the basis of respect for all parties’ legitimate national interests. In Ukraine’s case, this means addressing the root causes of the crisis. For many years, the West has poured billions of dollars into Ukraine to create a regime wholly obedient to it: one that would not decline NATO membership and that would remain subordinate to Western structures, including the European Union. The latter, originally conceived as an economic union, has in practice degenerated into a militant appendage of the North Atlantic Alliance, betraying its founding purposes: to improve the lives of Europeans.

Our US colleagues grasped it and publicly stated that the alliance debates were over. They were among the core underlying causes of the Ukraine crisis. They are starting to hear us when we are talking about other underlying causes, including legalised extermination of the Russian language, media, culture, education, and the ban on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. When our US dialogue partners heard in Alaska that the church had been outlawed, US President Trump was amazed to learn that this was even possible in today's civilised world, and in a country that is bragging about it allegedly defending the European values. Europe is playing along with the Ukrainians in this regard. Head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas are claiming that Ukraine is defending the “European values” in the war against Russia. It turns out that these “values” include the annihilation of human rights, including religious rights, even though this is all enshrined in the UN Charter. There is no other country around the world that would ban a language. In Israel, you can speak Arabic, and in the Palestinian territories, in the Arab countries, Hebrew has never been banned. There is no other country like Ukraine in this regard.

Forming a multipolar world is a long process that can take a historical era to complete. You will definitely have enough work to do. Not only those who choose diplomacy and international relations as their future profession, but also those who opt for the economy or the media will not be bored, because everything is interconnected in the modern world. This is clearly shown by the orientation of the departments at MGIMO, and the number of global issues. When we were students, no one even could even imagine that collective efforts in health care or artificial intelligence would be high on the list of international priorities. No one even saw the artificial intelligence coming. There are multilateral entities dealing with all areas of ​​human activities. Most of them have been formalised in the agenda of the UN system (specialised agencies, committees, commissions, and so on).

The knowledge you will receive at MGIMO will be in high demand and make it possible for you to work on international matters combining these efforts with the domestic needs of our country, just as we are trying to do now.

The Foreign Policy Concept clearly states that creating the most favourable external conditions for ensuring our country’s security, its socioeconomic development, and improving the well-being of our citizens is the main objective of our work. The fact that this relationship exists was proven by the events associated with the introduction of illegitimate, unilateral, and unprecedented sanctions on us, when they wanted to thwart this main objective of our diplomacy (creating favourable external conditions) and to create unbearable environment in hopes that we would throw our hands up and scramble to apologise. They are messing with the wrong people. I’m amazed that the West did not learn anything from centuries of history in the context of its repeated attempts to “rein in,” “subordinate,” or “punish” Russia.

We were not the ones to break off relations with the West. We are promoting the initiatives put forward by President Putin in his Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, when he proposed thinking about combining the efforts of the existing Eurasian integration entities, such as the EAEU, the SCO, the CIS, ASEAN, and others. He proposed uniting them into a “cooperative network” in the context of forming what he called the Greater Eurasian Partnership, so that integration processes in different parts of Eurasia do not duplicate, but complement each other, so that transport corridor projects also get worked through with the best routes in mind. In other words, he proposed cooperating in the development of what God, our ancestors and history gave us.

Eurasia is a single, largest and richest continent, where the greatest human civilisations lived, evolved, and are preserved. They preserve and develop their traditions and identity. We are not guided by the desire to “wall ourselves off” from any portion of this continent. We have always proceeded from the fact that the processes of forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership will be open to the western part of our continent as well, when and if (hopefully, when) they stop thinking of themselves as the “golden billion,” or the “garden surrounded by the jungle”. You are aware of the level of “modesty” of these people, and how they talk about history and their current place in it. Life will teach them a lesson. I do not advise those who engage in journalism to spend a lot of time reacting every time they “sneeze.” Their lack of desire to get to know what is happening is so transparent that I would not even waste time on them.

Healthy forces in Europe are gradually raising their heads. They must prevail through what Europeans call the democratic process, even though obstacles are put in their way as was the case in Romania and France. Now, in Germany they are trying to outlaw an opposition party. That’s the kind of “freedoms” they live by.

Just like everyone will benefit economically from an open system for forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership, ensuring security in Eurasia at the expense of any given Eurasian country is impossible.

In addressing the stuff of the Foreign Ministry of Russia in June 2024, President of Russia Vladimir Putin formulated our approach to Ukraine crisis settlement and outlined the task of creating the foundations of Eurasian security architecture that should be based on the principle of indivisible security, which postulates that no one should strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others and that no one should lay claim to military-political domination.   This is not something new. All these indivisible security principles were solemnly proclaimed by the OSCE summits in Istanbul in 1999 and in Astana in 2010, with heads of state putting their signatures thereunder. Let me remind you that the OSCE has taken shape in the context of the Euro-Atlantic security concept: Europe + the USA and Canada. It was the Europeans who insisted that the US and Canada be invited. It seemed to them at the time that they would feel miserable without overseas supervision. So, they got what they had asked for.

This time, it is necessary to create a continental security system. Africa has a continental organisation: the African Union. Latin America has CELAC. Both continents have numerous sub-regional integration associations but there are also continental umbrella organisations. Eurasia abounds in sub-regional associations but it has no organisation that would be open to all countries in the continent. In putting forward his initiative, President of Russia Vladimir Putin thought it important to show that we were ready to cooperate with everyone, but let us do that honestly. The indivisible security principles that the West has trampled underfoot in the context of Euro-Atlantic processes, specifically at the OSCE, should not only be formulated and reaffirmed, but also respected as any commitment undertaken by  a self-respecting sovereign country. These are few and far between in the West. Sovereignty is an asset available to the United States alone. History shows that Western colleagues easily renounce what they have underwritten, be it a commitment not to expand NATO or respect for human rights, which the Europeans, along with the Ukrainian regime, are simply destroying and annihilating in the context of their support for the Kiev regime.  

In conclusion, I would like to wish freshmen interesting studies. Be daring, imbibe what is said and written by authorities [in different disciplines], but always seek to find something originally yours and make your own contribution.  It’s never late to study, nor is it ever early to be daring. So, I am in every way encouraging you to adopt this attitude.

I would like to say some special words of gratitude to the academic teaching staff led by Mr Anatoly Torkunov. He – and his comrades-in-arms – has not only kept abreast of the times for decades and has not only espied new burgeoning trends in the area of education but has also incorporated them in the educational process. 

An important step is President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s decision to merge the Diplomatic Academy with the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO). This process is under way. Before the end of this year, we will hold a special Board meeting. This will considerably strengthen the link between education, science and practice. The Diplomatic Academy is where a large number of our diplomats take special courses before leaving on individual foreign missions. There are also courses for representatives of other federal executive authorities. Refresher courses for foreign diplomats are popular as well. This is a good and useful process but it requires much personal exertion and energy inputs.   

I hope that all of you people have followed how the public marked your rector’s birth anniversary. I want once again to wish him many happy returns of the day and congratulate him on the high governmental award.

Question: In connection with the recent Russia-US summit in Alaska. Although that top-level meeting has answered some questions, what official objectives and priorities does Russian diplomacy stipulate today? What priorities and prospects does this aspect have nowadays?

Sergey Lavrov: The distinguishing feature of our diplomacy is that its priorities and goals are never secret. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and other Russian representatives also discuss them. Specific methods for achieving them remain confidential. This is understandable because diplomacy requires a quiet atmosphere when you really want to reach an agreement. If you want to score propaganda points and to bask in the diplomatic and foreign policy spotlight, this is something different. This genre is not called diplomacy.

Diplomacy is the art of coming to terms. I have repeatedly noted that diplomacy is the most ancient profession. It is necessary to reach agreement in all other spheres. This calls for a quiet atmosphere. Our goals are simple. We want to maintain equitable cooperation with all countries, including the United States which is displaying a similar interest.

In February 2025, Russian Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov and I met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the then National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, Mike Waltz (he is now landing another job) in Saudi Arabia. That meeting took place in the 2 + 2 format.

The US side initiated that meeting. First, Marco Rubio said that he wanted to confirm that the foreign policy of US President Donald Trump was based on pragmatism and US national interests, rather than some ideology. The administration of Donald Trump admits that all other countries, especially such great countries as the Russian Federation. have their own national interests. The United States wants to obtain maximum benefits when national interests of our powers coincide, while that such interests will not coincide in all cases. On the contrary, they will not coincide in most cases because the interests of large countries always clash in some spheres. In those situations, when these national interests do not coincide and run counter to one another, our main task is to prevent this disagreement from escalating into confrontation. I replied that this completely coincided with our position. Our interests coincide in this context. President of Russia Vladimir Putin discussed this at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.  

This highlights some interesting economic prospects, including production of liquefied natural gas in Alaska and lots more. The Arctic offers major opportunities for cooperation; the same is true of joint space exploration and many other spheres.

Our main principle implies an honest and open discussion of each other’s positions and efforts to find coincidences that should be translated into practical deeds; moreover, it is necessary to prevent disagreements from escalating into confrontation, let alone a high-intensity conflict.

Question: Given that the confrontation between the United States and China is escalating into a trade and technological rivalry with global repercussions for markets, what strategic steps is Russia taking to strengthen its foreign economic ties and diversify export markets – particularly under sanctions pressure and amid the restructuring of the global financial architecture?

Sergey Lavrov: As I have already mentioned, the imposition of sanctions entirely contravenes the principles upon which, at the initiative of the West, the international monetary and financial system, as well as the global trading system, were constructed over decades. It is a complete violation. What was established after the Second World War was founded on the necessity of fair competition – sanctions and tariffs no longer constitute fair competition – and on respect for property rights.

As you are aware, our Central Bank reserves were seized outright through robbery and remain frozen to this day. The administration of Barack Obama confiscated diplomatic property – this is beyond the pale. The principle of presumption of innocence, which the West vigorously promoted within its ideals for the international monetary, financial, and trade spheres – along with all other aforementioned principles – has been followed by everyone. What is transpiring now is lawlessness.

American leaders have long asserted – I do not recall under which administration, though no senior US official has ever refuted this –addressing all members of the international community, that the US dollar is not American property but a global public good. This good was provided to ensure the smooth, uninterrupted, efficient, and economical operation of the world’s economic and financial system, benefiting all countries without exception.

What the Joe Biden administration began doing with the dollar, weaponising it, alarmed many at the time – prompting them, mostly silently but seriously, to consider how to protect themselves from such capriciousness in the future. Back then, they decided to punish Russia, cutting off its access to dollar-denominated settlements. Who knows whom the next US administration will take offence at and deem to be behaving “incorrectly?”

The trend towards establishing alternative payment platforms and other logistical mechanisms essential for normal trade is underway. It is no coincidence that Donald Trump, during his presidential campaign, sharply criticised Joe Biden precisely for jeopardising the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency – a role that had suited everyone and kept the gears of the world economy turning. This is true. Actions that abuse the role of one’s currency undermine trust in it.

Now, members of Donald Trump’s administration are also attempting to resort to such measures. This seems somewhat illogical, since Trump himself stated that Biden’s handling of the dollar inflicts colossal harm on Americans and their leading position in the global financial system. Unfortunately, those responsible for finance in Trump’s administration have yet to heed their leader’s assessment. Thus, the process of forming reliable payment systems and logistical routes – independent of whims, diktats, or blackmail – continues to advance.

At the 2023 BRICS summit, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva proposed an initiative to create alternative payment platforms. BRICS finance ministers and central bank governors were instructed by their leaders to address this issue. They are preparing relevant reports. An interim report was presented at the BRICS summit in Kazan. This year’s BRICS summit also saw concrete proposals tabled, which are now under consideration. Some are already being implemented. Perhaps it is unnecessary to delve into specifics here – this is neither the appropriate audience nor the right discussion for detailing how a normal, free, mutually beneficial settlement system operates.

Later today, a virtual BRICS summit will convene via videoconference, to be attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The summit, initiated by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, will focus on developing additional measures to counter the West’s unlawful actions in global trade and finance, including responses to its tariff war.

Every action provokes a reaction. There is no prohibition that cannot be circumvented – especially since, in this case, most sanctions are illegitimate, violating international law and WTO norms. Meanwhile, efforts to bypass them rely on agreements between parties, without any attempt to inflict harm through unlawful means.

Question: I would like to learn more about the beginning of your career. It is known that you started your service at the Embassy in Sri Lanka. What difficulties did you encounter at the outset? What were the greatest challenges in your work in those early days, and how did you overcome them?

Sergey Lavrov: It was a long time ago, right after I graduated from the institute. Sri Lanka is a country with a marvelous climate, a fascinating history, and even then, an active political life. At the time, the country was emerging from an internal conflict, when the Tamils living in the north of Sri Lanka had taken up arms in an attempt to defend their rights.

I will be honest, the most difficult aspect was not directly related to my official duties at the Embassy, but rather to the habits and outlook that any young person develops at that age. We lived well there. As the saying goes, there is a time for work and a time for leisure. The atmosphere at the embassy was good. The ambassador, Rafik Nishanov – may he rest in peace – was very supportive of the younger staff and we, in turn, did our best to work conscientiously. What is difficult, of course, is that immediately after university one often feels insufficiently prepared. But when higher education equips you properly, the transition into “adult” professional responsibilities is smooth. In those circumstances, as the song says: we worked hard, and we will rest well.

Question: Since the new administration came into power in the US, the trade between our countries has done up by 20 percent. Considering the intensification of Russian–American dialogue, what advantages and opportunities exist for trade and investment?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already touched upon this issue. A 20 percent increase alone does not mean very much yet, because our trade used to be around $30 billion, whereas last year it was only $3 billion. A 20 percent rise may simply reflect fluctuations in global prices for uranium, which the Americans continue to purchase, and for certain other metals. So, while not a statistical error, it is largely a result of price volatility on world markets.

As for opportunities, I have already listed them. Among them, there is the Arctic, including joint projects on liquefied natural gas production, both here and in Alaska. Besides, there are projects of interest to Western businesses in Sakhalin, as well as the vast expanses of Siberia, which is among the richest regions in the world in terms of natural resources. There is also space exploration.
I have no doubt that cooperation could also be established in high technology, including artificial intelligence, although, given its potential military applications, this may first require a higher degree of mutual trust. Nevertheless, there are no limits to what we could achieve together, provided our interests coincide.

If both the United States and Russia are interested in increasing LNG production... if both we and they want the Arctic to be our common home, particularly given the Trump administration’s interest in Greenland... if we recognise our mutual interest in space – which is obvious, and an area where our partnership has never been interrupted – then the opportunities are vast.

Let me also mention sports: ice hockey and football. The United States will host the 2026 FIFA World Cup, together with Mexico and Canada. I know that in certain circles, including among the FIFA leadership, the idea of holding a football match between the hosts of the 2018 and 2026 World Cups is already being discussed. In the past, we had a tradition of ice hockey “tours” in each other’s countries, and there is considerable interest in reviving this, including among retired players, both in Russia and in the US.

On the initiative of President Vladimir Putin, the first Intervision international song contest will be held on 20 September. More than 20 countries will take part, including nearly all BRICS states, CIS partners, and a number of countries from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. A participant from the US is also expected.

I firmly believe that the more contacts and the more exchanges at various levels we have, the better. We have never had insurmountable problems in our relations with the United States. The obstacles have always been ideological. Let me recall that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told me that their foreign policy is no longer based on ideology but on national interests. If that is indeed the case, then there is a great deal where we can find common ground.

Question (retranslated from English): My question is about President Putin’s upcoming visit to India. India is a key partner to Russia. What issues will be under discussion? What role do Russian-Indian relations play in creating a mutual respect-based international order?

Sergey Lavrov: This topic was covered well-nigh several times per day in all news reports and analytical programmes over the past week. The photograph with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and PRC Chairman Xi Jinping went round the world, causing totally incomprehensible wrath and consternation in certain Western leaders, who called it a challenge to the “rules-based international order.” None of our countries has approved this “order,” while the Troika – Russia, India, and China – has existed for a long time in addition to our bilateral relations with India and the People’s Republic of China. 

The quality of Russia’s bilateral relations with India has been constantly growing. This found an expression in the terms used during numerous summits held between Moscow and New Delhi. At first, they were “relations of strategic partnership,” next they were promoted to “relations of privileged strategic partnership.” Under the former Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, they became a “specially privileged strategic partnership,” and this appellation is valid until today. There is nothing to add.

With the People’s Republic of China, we have relations of strategic interaction and multilateral partnership. With either country, these relations go back many decades. Our partnership with India is directly related to its independence. With China, we were jointly waging warfare to defend a new international order. With the Indian side, we have a ramified system of cooperation mechanisms at the top level. There is an intergovernmental commission on trade and the economy. Foreign ministers and defence ministers maintain regular contacts. Formerly, we held a 2+2 meeting between both countries’ foreign and defence ministers. Somewhat later, the pandemic set in, and all of that was put off until better times.

We are making thorough preparations for President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s visit to India, which is due to take place before the end of this year. Let me assure you that we have much experience and grand plans in politics, the economy, the social area, culture, military affairs, and military-technical cooperation. These plans were reaffirmed during the meeting between Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and President of Russia Vladimir Putin in China.

I said that the Troika had existed for a long time. Yevgeny Primakov, while in capacity of Russia’s foreign minister, insisted that it had much promise. In 1998, he came up with the idea to establish a standing mechanism composed of Russia, India and China, RIC. Nearly 20 meetings in this format at the level of foreign ministers have taken place since then. There were also meetings of the ministers of economy, trade, finance, and culture. But then the pandemic intervened again. Later there was a surge in tensions on the China-India border. So, we kept postponing Russia-India-China meetings. 
Today, to everyone’s satisfaction, China and India have found it possible to overcome their differences and problems that prevented them from holding a normal dialogue at that stage. They are exchanging visits. We have the impression from contacts with our Indian and Chinese friends that we will soon be able to resume this business. This will benefit all sides. It is not by chance that everyone got agitated as soon as the joint photograph of the three leaders appeared in the media. In the US, certain “analysts” asked how it would be possible to pit the Troika against each other, if they were on friendly terms? That’s the kind of philosophy they have.

The “Indo-Pacific strategies” have been invented for this purpose, strategies aimed at undermining the ASEAN-centric security system in Southeast Asia, based on the principles of equality, inclusiveness, as they say, consensus, and much else. The West, while formally refraining from efforts to dismantle this system, began an infiltration of its narrowly bloc structures in this region. This push started way back under Joe Biden and is, in fact, an attempt to strip ASEAN of its “first fiddle” capacity for discussing security issues. They are creating “threesomes” and “foursomes…” NATO is attempting to expand its infrastructure to the region.  

They have created the QUAD made up of the US, Japan, Australia, and India. When they were first told about this initiative, our Indian friends declared publicly that they saw an economic interest in it but would support no actions related to military-political affairs. This was a far-sighted remark because increasingly more attempts are being made to use this organisation as an irritant in relations with China, which no one would fancy.

When the great powers of Eurasia, the three great civilisations, work together, this is a source of concern for certain Western circles, if only because they are unwilling to lose the opportunity of playing each of these countries against another. But this is wrong. These are not our methods. These methods go back to the past epochs of colonialism. [The West] is seeking to revive them by bringing back the neo-colonial methods whose essence is in living at the expense of others. But we – India, Russia, and China – want to live at the expense of our people’s talents and by pooling these talents and our capabilities.

Question: What are your priorities for Russian diplomacy in the South Caucasus, given the relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia?

Sergey Lavrov: Our priorities have never changed: it is peace and cooperation. They remain unchanged today. The Russian Federation, through the decisive efforts of President Vladimir Putin, played a key role following the outbreak of the second Nagorno-Karabakh war. Numerous late-night telephone conversations were held. This conflict could have been stopped much earlier, but not every party was ready for such a decision. Nevertheless, President Putin succeeded in reaching an agreement that was signed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and President Ilham Aliyev on the night of November 9-10, 2020. This was followed by a series of other trilateral summits, where important agreements were reached to unblock economic and transport links; create a mechanism, led by the three deputy prime ministers of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, to oversee this process; as well as an agreement on principles for border delimitation and later demarcation; and an initiative to bring together public figures from the three countries to complement interstate dialogue with civil-society dialogue. We have never refused to implement these agreements.

We can see that it was decided to conclude a peace treaty – which stems from the understandings reached between 2020 and 2022 by the leaders of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan (1,2,3,4) – on the territory of the United States. This is, of course, our neighbours’ sovereign choice. But it still remains to be seen how this will work in practice. All the enthusiastic commentary that followed the Washington meeting was later tempered by more sceptical assessments once the text of the document was published, revealing that not everything had actually been agreed.

There is a certain genre in foreign policy where something must be done in a dramatic fashion and presented attractively in the media. This approach can have its benefits in particular circumstances. But if no substance follows, it remains merely a flash. Russia is interested in concluding a genuine peace treaty.

In this regard, we welcome the normalisation process between Armenia and Türkiye. Another contact has recently taken place, and, according to at least some analyses, Türkiye may no longer condition the restoration of relations with Armenia on the full normalisation of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Another step forward is the recent resumption of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Pakistan. We hope that work within the framework of the 3+3 initiative, suggested by Türkiye and Azerbaijan, will be resumed. It involves the three South Caucasus states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) together with their three major neighbours (Iran, Türkiye, and Russia). We held a number of meetings at ministerial level in 2023, as well as meetings at deputy-minister level. We believe the time has come to revive this format. Our Iranian neighbours fully support the process, while Türkiye and Azerbaijan were its initiators. I hope we will be able to meet again soon in this format.

Question: What do you think of the current situation in the Gaza Strip? How can Russian diplomacy end violence and reduce casualties?

Sergey Lavrov: The Gaza Strip is a graphic example of how our Western colleagues interpret international law. The United Nations Organisation, the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly have adopted decisions with regard to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; these documents call for establishing a Palestinian state. A decision to establish this state was made in 1948 on a par with a decision to create the state of Israel. These inter-linked decisions served as a foundation for reaching consensus among all members of the United Nations. The state of Israel was quickly established, but the state of Palestine was not. I will not discuss the causes of this. The Palestinian Arabs themselves failed to accomplish many objectives for achieving this goal, set by the UN, but external factors played a decisive role, refusing to fulfil these agreements.

Several wars took place; in their wake, the territory, initially reserved for the Palestinian state, dwindled steadily. Consequently, everyone saw Palestinian territory (that was left following yet another Arab-Israeli war) as the main criterion. But we understand that Israel is concerned about its security, and we always emphasise this. A decision on establishing two states (Israel and Palestine) was followed by a statement that they should be established in such a way as to coexist in safety and neighbourliness.

But we have fallen into this “trap.” Regional stability is hardly possible, unless the Palestinian state is established. They do not want to establish it because Israel says that this will threaten its security. Arab street protests tended to increase while the implementation of this decision was delayed time and again. The thing is that decades-long injustice with regard to the Palestinians influences public opinion in Palestine and in Arab countries that rightfully consider the Palestinians to be their brothers.

We talked with our Israeli colleagues – long before the current bloody events – insisting on the idea that without the creation of a Palestinian state, extremism fuelled by the deep sense of injustice suffered by the Palestinians will only continue to grow. This thesis, however, was never truly accepted. Recently, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated outright that there would be no Palestinian state, as his priority is not to consider such a prospect but to guarantee the security of Israel. This is understandable. Yet, in our view, it is difficult to ensure Israel’s security by undermining the security of the Palestinians. Security, after all, is indivisible. One cannot guarantee Israel’s security while simultaneously denying the Palestinians the right to their own state.

When the terrorist attack occurred in Israel on October 7, 2023, we unequivocally condemned it. However, we could not accept the response, which was neither carefully thought-out nor directed at identifying and neutralising the perpetrators and organisers, but instead sounded more like collective punishment of the Palestinian people. I recall that Israeli leaders at the time justified their actions by claiming they were destroying Hamas. When some pointed out that civilians were also being targeted through such sweeping military measures, a minister in Mr Netanyahu’s government (I do not want to speak against anyone here) responded that there were no civilians there: everyone was a terrorist, starting from the age of three. This statement provoked no particular reaction from the West.

But it is a fact that the refusal to establish a Palestinian state, the blockade, restrictions on movement, and constant raids over the years have all inevitably fuelled discontent from which extremist sentiments can easily be fostered.

Regarding the Golan Heights. During the Biden administration, Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke at an event where he described Russia as having “annexed” and “occupied” Ukraine, declaring this to be unacceptable. He was asked about the Golan Heights, which, under all UN resolutions, are recognised as part of the Syrian Arab Republic, yet which Israel annexed: an act recognised by the previous US administration and effectively upheld by the Biden administration. How could this contradiction be explained? Mr Blinken replied simply: “This is different.” Because, he argued, Israel’s security depends directly on the Golan Heights. That was the entire explanation.

So, he denied Russia the right to be equally concerned about its own security. Not in the sense of “annexation,” because it was not Jews or the Jewish people’s brothers and sisters who lived there, but in the context of NATO’s expansion, which sought to extend its influence into Ukraine – territories that for centuries had been Russian, where Russian people had lived for generations, building cities, ports, roads, and developing those lands. When NATO sought to draw Ukraine into its orbit, was that not a direct threat to our security? Of course, it was.

We recognized the Palestinian State in 1988. The West does not want to do it, they are constantly looking at other interests, not those of the Palestinian people. And I want to say it again that we firmly stand for Israeli security but not at the expense of Israeli’s intrusion. In addition to Golan Heights, they have also penetrated the buffer zone, which should be under the UN control, and entered into the south of Syria. They also have a number of other territorial plans.

What is most important, if you look at the map, and all of us repeat it like a spell, is that: “long-term crisis resolution consists in the establishment of a Palestinian State within the boundaries of 1967.” Look at the map. The facts on the ground preclude establishing a state. It is no coincidence that French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and some other European leaders condemned the violence a couple of months ago when there was another bloody outbreak of violence and said that they would definitely recognise the Palestinian state when they come to the UN General Assembly session. I have a question: why don’t you recognise it at once, if you have decided so? I can only say that they expect that there will be nothing to recognise by that time. That’s that.

The hypocrisy is evident. I will say it again: we are in close contact with Palestinians, other Arabs as well as with Israel. President Putin discussed this situation by phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on many occasions. They have long-standing relations. It is a most complex conflict. However, the West benefits from sweeping all these complexities, which require it to take a position of principle, under the carpet. One of its tools is to emphasise its senseless and deadlock position on the Ukraine crisis.

Question: I came from Slovenia. Being a Slovenian citizen, I am proud of my country’s historical and cultural ties with Russia.

Sergey Lavrov: Where did you come from?

Question: From Slovenia.

Sergey Lavrov: A nice place.

Question: In 2001, Slovenia hosted a meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and George Bush, which underscored its role as a bridge between East and West. Today, Slovenia, as a member of the EU and NATO, is more West-oriented. Do you think that small countries like Slovenia can maintain dialogue and cooperate with Russia today?

Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult for me to answer this question, because there are other NATO countries which, unlike the current Slovenian government, have not broken off dialogue with us. Hungary has never interrupted contacts with Russia. In Slovakia, after Robert Fico returned to office as Prime Minister, relations were also resumed. He even attended an SCO event at the invitation of the Chinese leadership. We have the warmest feelings towards the Slovenians. To be honest, we have never had any prejudices against any country.

Recently, President Vladimir Putin has once again recalled that there is now a category of “unfriendly countries” in Russian legislation. This may be necessary as a legal mechanism, when some issues must be addressed. But in reality, we have no unfriendly countries, only governments that pursue unfriendly policies towards us. That is how we view the matter.

Let me repeat: we have not severed ties. If our Western colleagues, including those in Slovenia, wish to restore dialogue, we will be ready.

Of course, it will no longer be “business as usual” as before. We will build relations while keeping in mind the risks inherent in certain areas of cooperation, particularly those where we previously became overly dependent on Western technologies.

Slovenia, like other EU and NATO members, will live through the current situation when the West is attempting to defeat Russia on the battlefield. After that, we shall see. But I repeat: we retain warm feelings towards the Slovenian people. I have visited many times and always left with the warmest impressions.

Question: I would like to digress a little from political and economic issues and ask a more personal question. You are often asked about what you read, and whether we should expect a new collection of poetry. But I was wondering what music you listen to, and whether it helps you get into a working frame of mind?

Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, I mostly read documents. Although sometimes I find time to read fiction, but too often my book just sits there, silently reproaching me for not opening it. There is little time left for literature.

I still try to keep up with poetry, especially my own. I wrote verses for Anatoly Torkunov’s 75th birthday. My friends published a collection of my poems for my anniversary, but that stopped in 2004 when I was appointed minister. Since then, I have only written verses for friends’ anniversaries, usually on everyday topics. The creative energy that once went into poetry is now channelled into prose on the diplomatic stage.

I love music. I am very fond of bards. Vladimir Vysotsky is not just a bard but more than a bard. I like Bulat Okudzhava and Yury Vizbor. I am sorry that contemporary bard singers in Russia are not promoted enough. Popular music dominates instead. It is also a kind of zeitgeist. But for us, a bonfire and a guitar are a symbol of home, of patriotism itself.

There are certainly young people today who write their own songs. During the special military operation, many talented poets have emerged, whose works have been set to music. TV channels like Solovyov Live are making efforts to promote them, but I think more could be done to ensure their music is heard. Perhaps, in time, we may even see a dedicated competition for soldier poets. During the Great Patriotic War, many poets wrote verses at the front and sent them back. I think reviving that tradition would be a right thing to do.

Of course, if MGIMO University continues to maintain its cultural traditions, such as its choir, poetry club, book club, all of this should be promoted. We should have presented its rich cultural life at Rector Torkunov’s birthday.

Friends, I wish you every success in your studies. All the conditions for that are in place. You have excellent teachers and mentors. As Anatoly Torkunov said, both the retired workers of the Foreign Ministry and current diplomats are always ready to talk with you, to help, and to answer the questions that inevitably arise.

Let me remind you once again: absorb knowledge, but also dare think independently. Based on what you learn, look for something new and useful, both for your country and for yourselves.

Russia
Source: russiancouncil.ru

Why are the population-rich nations (PRN) conducting the global economic symphony while the knowledge-rich nations (KRN), which are primarily out of tune, seem to have lost their melodies?

What has happened over the past few decades that has allowed knowledge-rich nations, predominantly in the West, to fall behind the population-rich nations, mainly in Asia? What are their respective powers and weaknesses, and who is more trade commerce savvy, and who is more swayed into Fakery and Wokeism?

Over the last decade, Expothon has highlighted critical issues regarding how the Knowledge-Rich Nations (KRNs) of the West have failed to measure real growth accurately. Captivated by social media and misled by fake news, they became intoxicated by the illusion of success, believing that numerous moving pictures and flickering lights equated to productivity. Without entrepreneurial spirit, which is the cornerstone of all growth, there can be no actual productivity, performance, or profitability. To address these matters, deep immersion visits to Asian economies are essential.

The Anti-Job Creation Syndrome: Investigate why the Anti-Job Creation Syndrome has now visibly hindered job creation in Western economies, the education system has missed almost all its targets, and the mythical powers of AI remain untested. AI is superb software, and with zero human intelligence inside, it is a good actor.

Despite the challenges, the next 1,500 days hold immense potential. AI, a superb software, will not only replace a billion senior management roles but also orient, retrain, and recreate a billion super-skilled individuals to manage the future paradigm positions. It will solve high-priced senior management challenges in seconds for cents, while also uplifting and training a billion entrepreneurial job seeker mindsets. This is a future where nations with specific skills and open to job-creator mindsets can mobilize to meet these challenges.

Human Intelligence will only make artificial ignorance shine.

The notion that AI alone can forge prosperous economies is as ludicrous as tossing a toolbox into a jungle and expecting a car assembly line a decade later.

Humanity's progress hinges on critical thinking, the root of all technological leaps. No AI growth is possible without a population trained to optimize productivity, performance, and profitability. This underscores the integral role each individual plays in their own mental power in the process of economic growth.

Forget MBAs: Study How Communist China is Succeeding

The USA created the first, largest, and most successful agro-industrial nation long before economic theories became popular. Today, communist China is the world's largest producer of almost everything and the largest entrepreneurial country, operating under a communist system.

The West must not become communist; instead, it should study different systems, especially its own economic nobility, with its prizes, which have now become a questionable performance. It's crucial to study China, India, and Asia with an open mind, as this open-mindedness is key to adapting to the changing global economic landscape.

The Divides: There is no single country, small or superpower, that can rule the world, in any shape or form. Many countries are global leaders in certain aspects, characteristics, and performances, but no matter what, controlling the world, subjugating humankind, and possessing all the world's resources is impossible.

Understanding the Global Mood: Gone are the days when 'national public opinion' drove internal national politics; it is no longer, as it is now, the 'global-public opinion,' like an umbrella that opens and shuts with or without rain or sunshine but follows global winds of social justice and fairness. Unless there is proven mastery of national and 'global public opinion,' nations, often misled by their own miscalculation, cheerfully convince themselves of the popularity of national public opinion, but are still in denial of why the global public opinion about them is still just the opposite.

The world is the most fascinating assembly of people, cultures, traditions, and now, as billions are exposed on a personal level, their traits, mentalities, and actions are cataloged by social media and individual expressions. The old or new world order would make no difference, as the foundation of world order will shift from a 'seek and destroy' mentality to more towards 'collaborate, align and build grassroots prosperity'

Why is New Thinking So Offensive? The urgency of the global age demands immediate global age audits to balance the circumnavigations of abstract ideas. Humankind just defeated Fakery and Wokeism. Soon, the "seek and destroy" doctrine will end and may become a tattoo on the forehead of its followers.

Warnings: The First Industrial Revolution of Mind: The first industrial revolution of mind will become the new standards for the nations to acquire special skills with the use of AI, as in open space on tactical battle fields of commerce, it will be the 'mentality of performance,' leaving behind the 'physicality of work' and engaging with the first industrial revolution of the mind, forget about the most expected 4th Industrial Revolution which never came... count the next 1500 days when the world of 2030 speaks a different key words on economic survival: The only landmark and worthy achievement of the nations of the day.

What Can KRN Not Achieve Against PRN?

One: While KRN may not be able to match the population size of PRN, it can excel in trade by offering solid experiences in management, organizational structuring, and ideas for global expansion.
Two: KRN cannot fully adopt PRN's cultural sizes and divides, but it can blend and integrate with an open mind, embracing a global vision of diversity and inclusion.

Three: Although KRN cannot scale to match PRN's sizes and volumes, it can provide sharper skills in quality production and long-term expansion strategies.

Four: While KRN may not fully align with PRN's desires and goals, it can present global ideas and examine business modeling and global image programs for mutual benefits.

Unlimited Jobs: Organize SME Oceans: Seven Stages

Observe how remote workers gradually transition to self-employment.
Self-employed individuals begin to identify who the job creators are.
These job creators start small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).
SME Oceans allow supportive environments for them to grow.
Only in such vast oceans can Godzilla-size global giants emerge.
Large SME programs must start with job creators, not job seekers.
Every country can mobilize entrepreneurship on a national scale.

AI: The Steering Wheel for Job Creators: AI is a flying carpet for job creators and entrepreneurial mindsets. AI is not like a car engine; it's more like a steering wheel. A car mechanic with a job-seeker mindset will examine the car engine, assess all risks involved, classify them, and rank them to address at least one risk for every situation.

On the other hand, a lemonade stand founder with a job-creator mindset would see 100 possibilities for how this steering wheel can promote their lemonade business at trade shows, sell more lemonade, and one day grow to the size of Coca-Cola. Every country needs millions of lemonade stands, not Ivy League degrees for job seekers.

Study how AI will empower hundreds of millions of SMEs to transform economies, fueling the "National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism", a global movement to unleash grassroots innovation. Learn more at expothon.com.

The Job-Seeker Trap:

Economic theorems cannot create jobs, nor can they rescue trapped governments. Discover job creators who built the USA over a century ago and now thrive in China, India, and beyond. Job seekers fear other job seekers, but why?

Western economies, knowledge-rich nations, have lost ground to population-rich nations over recent decades. Why? Policymakers must examine this to act effectively. The world has advanced: Only grassroots prosperity, driven by job-creating mindsets that build oceans of SMEs, gives birth to Godzilla-sized global giants, and nowhere else. The West missed the boat, a deep study of 'anti-job creation syndrome' explains.

It's established:
Job-seeker mindsets cannot create jobs.
It's proven: 99% of economic mindsets are job seekers.
It's evident: 99% of free economies are led by job seekers.
It questions leadership to ignore such a visible shift.

AI's Entrepreneurial Dance: It's not about who controls AI, as it's impossible to maintain control over it. Nor is it about who has the smartest brain. It's about global-scale entrepreneurial skills. The world's booming economies are thriving on entrepreneurship. Why do some embrace anti-job-creation syndrome? What matters is when entrepreneurial mindsets take the lead. When AI partners with entrepreneurship, it sparks extraordinary gains in the marketplace.

The Future: Job Creators Lead. The prime dancer at the Silicon Valley fanfare was "software," but it stepped back; job seekers made way for job-creator mindsets to take the lead. This is where technology stands today. The "National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism" calls for bold action; hence, entrepreneurs and policymakers must harness AI to build thriving SME ecosystems. Join the movement.

Bright Growing Nations vs. Deeply Dark Debt-Driven Economies

Growing nations are mostly in less debt, while others are deeply dark, debt-driven economies, yet they still convince the world of their illusions of being economically wealthy superpowers. Any small, tiny business knows what drives an enterprise directly into bankruptcy. Study the 21 Pillars of Nouveau Rationalism

The West has unequivocally forgotten a crucial aspect of transforming economic thinking into entrepreneurialism. The books and number games of economics, without this shift, have no value in productivity generation. The education system, in this context, has failed them, stripping them of confidence and burdening them with education debt.

The Global Narrative: PRN leads the march

Spin the globe, and wherever it halts, the narrative is straightforward: Population-rich nations now wield the baton of global economic destiny, their vast, vibrant populations transformed into entrepreneurial dynamos, each citizen a trading post via mobile connectivity, orchestrating a crescendo of grassroots prosperity.

Knowledge-rich nations, once titans of intellectual supremacy, stumble in a dissonant fog, their outdated models—clinging to mega-technologies and bureaucratic inertia—crumbling under the weight of their hubris.

Population-rich nations, once cursed to feed hungry masses, now harness a billion new entrepreneurs across Asia, chilling the corridors of Knowledge-Rich Nations' chambers of commerce and trade associations, who watch helplessly as their SME bases erode, and middle classes vanish.

Knowledge-rich nations' costly education systems churn out job seekers, not job creators, while Population-Rich Nations' pragmatic tech and low-cost brilliance fuel an industrial revolution of the mind. Without bold new discussions, Knowledge-Rich Nations risk fading into economic irrelevance as their once-mighty knowledge becomes a free-flowing commodity, outpaced by the relentless drive of Population-Rich Nations.

The world stage is set for Population-Rich Nations to lead as Knowledge-Rich Nations scramble for plans, their silence a stark contrast to the vibrant, entrepreneurial legato of the rising global south.

Where Population-Rich Nations Will Help Knowledge-Rich Nations

One: Entrepreneurial Infusion: The emergence of billions of new entrepreneurs in population-rich nations offers Knowledge-Rich Nations a lifeline, sharing agile and low-cost business models to revitalize stagnant small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This fosters cross-border collaborations that spark innovation and revive economic vibrancy in struggling knowledge-based economies.

Two: Demographic Synergy: Population-rich nations' young, skilled workforces can fill Knowledge-Rich Nations' aging labor gaps, providing dynamic talent pools via entrepreneurial visa programs, enabling Knowledge-Rich Nations to harness demographic dividends and boost productivity in high-value sectors.

Three: Pragmatic Tech Transfer: The mastery of affordable, practical technologies by population-rich nations can guide Knowledge-Rich Nations away from manipulative mega-tech, equipping their SMEs with cost-effective tools to compete globally, thereby enhancing efficiency and market reach.

Four: Market Expansion: The vast consumer bases of population-rich nations offer Knowledge-Rich Nations new markets for high-value exports, encouraging partnerships that leverage the scale of population-rich nations and the expertise of knowledge-rich nations, creating mutually beneficial trade ecosystems.

Five: Cultural Exchange: The diverse, global-age mindsets of population-rich nations inspire Knowledge-Rich Nations to embrace inclusivity, fostering open economic dialogues that break down bureaucratic silos and spark creative solutions to shared global challenges.

How Knowledge-Rich Nations Can Still Stay in the Global Race

One: Upskill Workforces: Knowledge-rich nations must invest in lifelong learning, retraining workers with global-age skills to match the agility of Population-Rich Nations, ensuring competitiveness in high-value, innovative sectors despite demographic declines.

Two: Foster Entrepreneurialism: Knowledge-rich nations should launch visa programs and incubators to attract entrepreneurs from population-rich nations, revitalizing SMEs and creating job creators, not just job seekers, to rebuild economic dynamism.

Three: Adopt Pragmatic Tech: Knowledge-rich nations must shift from data manipulation to value-driven technologies, empowering SMEs with affordable tools to compete with Population-Rich Nations' low-cost, high-impact innovations.

Four: Reform Education: Knowledge-rich nations need to overhaul their costly business schools, prioritizing entrepreneurial mindsets over resume-building and aligning curricula with real-world needs to produce leaders of a global age.

Five: Global Partnerships: Knowledge-rich nations can form strategic alliances with Population-Rich Nations, leveraging their intellectual capital to co-develop high-value products, ensuring relevance in a Population-Rich Nations-dominated economic landscape.

In the Grand Orchestra of Global Economics

In the grand orchestra of global economics, Population-Rich Nations now play the leading melody, their vibrant, entrepreneurial legions—each a mobile trading post—composing a symphony of grassroots prosperity that reverberates across continents, leaving Knowledge-Rich Nations in a silent, discordant struggle, their once-mighty scores of intellectual supremacy torn asunder by the free flow of knowledge and the weight of bureaucratic inertia.

Global Challenge and Summit Invitation

Decades ago, Expothon Worldwide, with prophetic clarity, sounded the clarion call for a National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism, urging nations to harness SME-driven revolutions. Yet, international economic institutes, ensconced in their ivory towers, shunned this bold crescendo, fearing its disruption of Western-centric dogmas. Today, Population-Rich Nations' billion new entrepreneurs march, seeking fertile grounds, while Knowledge-Rich Nations, bereft of plans, face a reckoning.

Expothon vision, ignored by rigid economic academia, heralded this tectonic shift, proving that entrepreneurialism, not conformity, drives progress. Institutes' silence stems from their entanglement in complex debt games and psycho-crypto escapism, unable to fathom the primal force of Population-Rich Nations' industrial revolution of the mind, a legacy of diversity and pragmatism that now commands the global stage, leaving Knowledge-Rich Nations to scramble for relevance.

Global trade pivots on this divide as illuminated nations, radiant with entrepreneurial energy, outshine dark-in-debt nations mired in financial chaos and bureaucratic malaise. The silent global political economy, entangled in debt and crypto escapism, sinks Knowledge-Rich Nations, blind to the SME-driven revolutions reshaping commerce. From this upheaval emerges a new economic superpower, the National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism, rejecting outdated dogmas to unlock human ingenuity and redefine global leadership.

Why is Expothon Worldwide gaining global attention? An international platform for entrepreneurial innovation and authority on National Mobilization of SME protocols, now so focused on 100 countries. Why is it challenging to use immediately deployable methodologies for all massive SME sectors within the GCC, OIC, European Union, African Union, Commonwealth, BRICS, and ASEAN for national mobilization of entrepreneurialism as pragmatic solutions? Over the last decade, these insights have been shared weekly and reached approximately 2,000 selected VIP recipients, including National Cabinet-level senior government officials, across 100 free economies. This track record of expertise and trust forms the foundation of its proposed strategies.

This is no mere shift but a clarion call to global economic intellectualism: confront the silence, embrace this tectonic change, and forge bold solutions. We invite visionaries to an international summit where minds and bodies converge to craft a future where enlightened nations lead, unshackled from the shadows of debt, ensuring prosperity for all.

Global Challenge and Summit Invitation: Decades ago, Expothon Worldwide prophetically called for a National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism, urging nations to harness the potential of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to drive revolutionary changes. However, international economic institutions, comfortable in their ivory towers, dismissed this bold vision for fear of disrupting Western-centric beliefs. Today, a billion new entrepreneurs from population-rich nations are emerging, searching for opportunities, while knowledge-rich nations, lacking clear plans, are facing significant challenges.

The global political economy, burdened by debt and the allure of cryptocurrency, is increasingly challenging for Knowledge-Rich Nations, which remain unaware of the SME-driven, population-rich nations' revolutions reshaping new global commerce. We invite visionaries to an international summit where minds and bodies come together to create a future where enlightened nations lead, free from the constraints of debt, ensuring prosperity for all.

BRICS exemplifies the PRN-KRN dynamic: Core members, such as India, China, Brazil, and South Africa, are PRN powerhouses, harnessing their large populations to drive entrepreneurial growth. Meanwhile, Russia contributes KRN elements with its expertise in energy and technology. New entrants, such as Indonesia and Nigeria, enhance the strengths of PRN, promoting demographic synergy and market expansion to counter KRN's dominance in global forums. Expothon plays a crucial role in this bloc, facilitating the implementation of large-scale skills transformations.

A Path Forward: Collaborate with this framework, accessible via its free 50-page report on the 21 Pillars of Nouveau Rationalism, download from expothon.com

Expothon can bring deployment-ready solutions to BRICS on a fast-track basis: National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism to unleash SMEs across the bloc, AI as a steering wheel for job creators, and pragmatic tech transfers to boost grassroots prosperity. This aligns with BRICS' focus on AI governance and trade, enabling the bloc to lead an industrial revolution of the mind. A dedicated global summit within BRICS could convene visionaries for collaborative audits, accelerate remedies for anti-job-creation syndrome, and illuminate the bloc against dark debt threats.
The rest is easy.

Russia
Source: brics-plus-analytics.org

As we expected, the online summit convened by President Lula yesterday did not seek to introduce retaliatory trade restrictions versus the US, but rather focused on the exploration of possible modalities of closer trade cooperation between BRICS economies. These discussions in our view will serve as a foundation for practical steps and initiatives in the coming years that will target greater trade and investment partnerships within the BRICS and the BRICS+ circles. The real significance of the meeting was the positioning of the BRICS bloc to take the lead in advancing multilateralism and trade liberalization in the world economy.

The main message in the statement delivered by China’s leader Xi Jinping to BRICS partners and the global community in general: “economic globalization is an unstoppable trend of history”. The key three proposals featured: the centrality of multilateralism, greater openness and the consolidation of the efforts and resources of the Global South and the BRICS bloc. President Xi further underscored the importance of upholding the multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core – something that has also been reflected in the Declarations of the BRICS summits in the past several years.

Another message coming from China’s leader – the importance of “BRICS+” cooperation, a message that points to the continuation of active outreach of the BRICS bloc to the international community and to building new alliances in the years to come. In other words, BRICS as a bloc is likely to continue to operate in “extrovert mode” through expanding the partnership belt and potentially building new modalities of alliances and trade accords that may include regional integration blocs and organizations.

For his part India’s Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar pointed to the need for BRICS economies to address some of the imbalances in their mutual trade. In particular, the Indian representative stressed the importance of ensuring greater sustainability in mutual trade via addressing the issue of sizeable trade deficits, with India registering high and growing trade gaps with some of the BRICS economies. These considerations could in our view be incorporated into the overall package of trade agreements between BRICS economies to achieve a reduction in trade imbalances alongside the rise in mutual trade turnover. This in turn could potentially be attained via bringing down non-tariff barriers in South-South trade (potentially important for the pharma industry), exploring the scope for greater trade liberalization in the services and agricultural sectors as well as in the sphere of e-commerce. There is clearly ample to scope for BRICS scholars to explore in depth the potential modalities of trade accords across the BRICS+ space that could facilitate a reduction in trade imbalances across the BRICS core as well as the BRICS partnership belt.

Overall, the statements and discussions delivered at the online summit will serve as an impulse for BRICS experts and state officials to delve into the practicalities of advancing closer trade cooperation between BRICS/BRICS+ economies. We continue to believe that the three key priorities in this area lie in forming a unified BRICS bloc within the WTO (in the “groups in negotiations” of the WTO); delineating a roadmap for reducing mutual tariff/non-tariff barriers; launching a platform for the cooperation among the regional trading arrangements of the Global South (the BEAMS mechanism). As such these steps may position the BRICS bloc to become the main source of trade liberalization impulses in the world economy and the leading force of a revitalized globalization effort[1].

For more on the discussion of the results of the online BRICS summit please see our most recent video interview: https://youtu.be/fcL2gWF-UBs?si=MzI0oSLPucCWPKV7
[1] https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/brics-plus-alternative-globalization-in-the-making/