Connexion
La Russie a rapatrié 205 de ses militaires détenus en territoire contrôlé par Kiev et a procédé, en échange, au
L’article Échange de prisonniers entre la Russie et l’Ukraine au format 205 contre 205 est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
L’Inde et l’Union européenne ont conclu un accord de libre-échange lors d’un sommet bilatéral. Les tensions avec les États-Unis ont
L’article L’Inde et l’Union européenne signent un accord de libre-échange en négociations depuis 20 ans est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Samedi, l’Union européenne et le Mercosur (Argentine, Brésil, Paraguay et Uruguay) signeront un accord de libre-échange. La cérémonie se déroulera
L’article L’UE se prépare à signer l’accord de libre-échange avec le Mercosur est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
This video explains in depth what happened.
There were some of our reliable journalists who continually blamed Russia for losing Syria. I was not of that opinion, as I watched Mr Lavrov at the very final regional meeting before the gates of Idlib opened. There was significant pushback on my stance, as it was more comfortable to blame Russia for ‘losing’ Syria. I also did not believe that Russia would leave the issue, but would let it develop. The criticism was around ‘Russia is only trying to keep its warm water ports’, and completely forgotten was the fact that Russia rescued at least Bashar al-Assad and offered many Syrians safety around the Russian area. This opinion, that Russia did not rescue Syria, spreading ‘Russia Sold out Syria’ became the prevailing orthodoxy. It was not correct then, and it is not correct now.
Recently, another lengthy interview was published on the issue, and I waited a moment to debunk it, as it was beginning to need serious debunking. To my joy, others recognized that the orthodoxy is becoming destructive. Throughout the time, I watched a number of journalists who remained quiet on the matter and, of course, wondered why. These are now stepping forward: journalists like Eva Karene Bartlett and, specifically, Marwa Osman, both highly competent, who have never spoken out in this way.
One can forgive those who were making up and pushing the idea of ‘Russia sold out Syria’ over and over again, because they’ve done good work. Still, during that time, no matter what was presented, they insisted on claiming a higher-than-all perception and continued with Russia Bad under the guise of: We Will Speak the Truth, no matter what. OK, but if your truth sucks and is a made-up view, to serve your world-view? There is no problem with critiquing Russia, but why not instead tell who was behind the fall of Syria instead of continually critiquing from a ‘better than’ perspective?
Here is Sharmine Narwani from the Cradle, who did a thorough and correct look-back on the fall of Syria, why Russia did what she did, and the current development trajectory. I am grateful for this work. Throughout this time, I had a sense that Russia was staying because it was blocking something, which turned out to be the correct and justifiable stance.
Eva Bartlett says: “Sharmine Narwani’s words are a rational counter to the “Russia sold out Syria” voices.
“Sharaa goes to Moscow to meet with Putin. And of course, those who are against the terror that Syria experienced and the regime change were appalled: ‘Putin’s working with the Zionists. Putin’s okay with al-Qaeda!’
No. No. Countries act in accordance with their national interests. And they’re opportunistic. Opportunism is what you need to be as a political leader of a country…”
*Note: Sharmine was going to Syria early on in the global war on Syria. If I recall correctly, she went there in 2012 or 2013, I myself started going there in 2014 (https://ingaza.wordpress.com/syria/syria-my-published-articles-from-and-on-syria-2014-2022/). She has credibility on the ground, she took a very unpopular, honest, stance back then, writing excellent articles countering the propaganda. She’s credible now.]”
A year after the fall of Bashar al-Assad and Abu Mohammad al-Jolani’s rise to power, Syria remains a politically volatile state. West Asian geopolitical analyst and Cradle columnist Sharmine Narwani joins TMJ News to reveal the power plays unfolding behind the scenes: Russia’s sudden return near the Golan, Israel expanding its reach in the south, Gulf and Turkish maneuvering, U.S. calculations, and the IMF positioning itself for influence. What does the future of Syria look like as foreign powers get involved?
Time Stamps:
00:00 One year of Jolani in Power
08:30 Syria and the Abraham Accords
16:02 Why Russia is Back in Syria
22:55 MAGA vs. MIGA
25:58 What Media get Wrong about Syria
This is a “Danny” title. I post this to hear Ben Norton’s comment both on Venezuela and on the new US National Security Policy.
Interview with Aaj Tak and Indian Today TV channels
Anjana Om Kashyap: Dear viewers,
Hello and a very warm welcome. You are watching India Today, and I’m Anjana Om Kashyap and we’re at the Kremlin today and you’re about to witness history: a very historic moment.
It is said that when two old friends meet, they have their private jokes, they have a lot of fun and they have a bond of camaraderie but the others in the room might feel a little uncomfortable. And why do I say this – I say this because as the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin meets Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New Delhi, the world will be watching very very closely.
Vladimir Putin is undoubtedly one of the most influential politicians of the world, whose decisions don’t just affect Russia, but numerous nations across the world. He is a very compelling and enigmatic figure on the world stage and it just doesn’t get more exciting than this.
Geeta Mohan: Yes, Anjana.
Hello and welcome, I’m Geeta Mohan. We have with us the man who is known to be one of the world longest serving leaders. He has seen it all – through wars and economic recessions, from disintegration of countries to a changed world order, from Boris Yeltsin to Donald Trump, from Atal Bihari Vajpaee to Manmohan Singh and to Narendra Modi. He’s seen the world change right in front of him and he is taking Russia through very turbulent times and yet has cemented his position as a force to reckon with.
Thank you so much, Mr President, for doing this for us, you are in conversation with India Today and Aaj Tak, and that’s the President of the Russian Federation for you.
Thank you so much for joining us on our network.
How are you doing?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I hope you’ll enjoy your stay in Russia. Hope that you like Moscow and the Kremlin where we are currently collaborating together.
As you see, everything is going on as planned. On the whole, we are satisfied with the current economic situation.
Most importantly, I am delighted to be meeting, as you’ve mentioned, my friend Prime Minister Modi. We have made a specific arrangement to do so in India because there are numerous topics on which we need to talk, and our collaboration with India spans an extensive array – and, of course, the unique nature of our relationship adds another layer of significance.
I also want to highlight that India’s progress over the past 77 years since gaining independence – an extremely brief span in historical terms – has been substantial indeed, and India has truly come a long way in development. I will discuss this further below.
You know, as we go about our daily lives, we often fail to notice the changes happening right before our eyes; we scarcely ever take note of them. Yet if you glance even slightly into the past and reflect on what has occurred in India – it’s almost like a miracle. For example, few people recognise that life expectancy in India has nearly doubled during this period.
Geeta Mohan: We will talk about longevity in some time from now.
Vladimir Putin: We will definitely discuss that. Anyway, our relationship with India is advancing in numerous fields. It’s a pleasure to meet Prime Minister Modi again, with whom we have both a professional and a personal, friendly relationship.
Anjana Om Kashyap: May I ask you a question?
You just talked about the Indian-Russian ties. It all dates back to almost more than seven decades, this dostee, this druzhba in Russian, this friendship dates back to more than seven decades.
My question is, how do you assess the strength of this friendship in today’s time and what would you say about Prime Minister Narendra Modi and to Prime Minister Narendra Modi whom you call your dost?
Vladimir Putin: About the Prime Minister?
Anjana Om Kashyap: Yes. And to him.
Vladimir Putin: You know, the world is evolving rapidly – and this pace keeps getting faster, which is plainly visible to all. The global configuration is changing, with new centres of power emerging, and the global power landscape is changing too. Therefore, it’s crucial to ensure stability among major nations, since this forms the groundwork for gradual progress in both bilateral and international relations.
In this context, our collaborative endeavours with Prime Minister Modi carry significant weight because they transcend our mutual ties. Given its direct relevance to both nations, ensuring stability in key areas of engagement is crucial, as it helps secure the fulfilment of our objectives. Prime Minister Modi sets very challenging tasks for the country – and for himself in the first place, then for the administration, and eventually for the nation.
Take, for example, his famous pitch, “Make in India.” It has a practical dimension, including for our bilateral relations. When we meet, he always says, “Let’s do this, let’s do that, let’s look at this area and that.” I can list them all. Therefore, we have a lot of practical areas of cooperation.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Before Geeta takes on to the next question, one little, small very interesting question, because when you met Prime Minister Modi at the SCO there was this picture and video of you and him going in a car. And we are showing it to our viewers right now how you were traveling in a car with him – was it preplanned or how did it go about, how did it happen? And what did you discuss in the car?
Vladimir Putin: We have just gone over the current topics. This wasn’t prearranged; we simply stepped out, and my car was waiting. I asked, ”Would you like to come along?“ That’s all there is to it – a gesture of human solidarity, camaraderie, and friendship. No hidden scheme was involved. We climbed into the car like old friends and talked en route. We always have things to discuss.
What’s more, we continued our conversation and just remained in the car. Eventually, I suggested: ”Let’s go, they are already waiting for us. “ There is nothing special here; it simply indicates that we have matters to discuss and those matters are very important to us.
Geeta Mohan: Thank you, Mr President. The fact that you are going to India. You just said that both leaders are going to cement the guarantees that you give each other. What are the kind of announcements that we can expect? We’ve heard about technology transfer, we’ve heard about trade enhancement. What are the solid announcements during this visit? And I ask you this, because the world – and you know who I mean – would be watching.
Vladimir Putin: The world would be watching our visit – there’s no big deal here. India is an enormous country, home to one-and-a-half billion people, boasting a growing economy with a seven-percent annual growth rate, leading among major global powers. After all, Mr Modi has made this possible. It’s something both the Indian nation and Prime Minister Modi himself can rightfully claim as their achievement. Naturally, there will always be critics who think that improvements could have been more significant. But that’s an achievement.
We’ve laid out an ambitious plan for our collaboration in key domains. The most critical areas are indeed forward-looking. I’m referring specifically to high technology. Our partnership with India encompasses such fields as space exploration, energy (notably nuclear power, exemplified by the prominent Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant project), shipbuilding, and aviation.
There are many interesting areas for cooperation that are looking to the future. Take, for example, artificial intelligence. We’ll likely discuss it further down the line. AI represents a crucial technology shaping the future, rapidly transforming the world, amplifying possibilities exponentially while simultaneously presenting certain challenges.
These are the matters we will discuss, choosing the ones that are the most significant for us, as both Prime Minister Modi and I believe. That’s what we will focus on and what we will work on.
Geeta Mohan: Are there any specific agreements?
Vladimir Putin: Well, of course. However, perhaps we shouldn’t reveal them just yet; we will do that during the visit, when we can unveil everything publicly. Then, our colleagues will first share with us all the documents they have prepared, and it would require our final approval.
Geeta Mohan: I suggest we switch to the energy sector. Just talking about sustainability and trade. There’s immense pressure on India and on Russia when it comes to oil. India has suffered in terms of the kind of pressure that we’re seeing from West. How can both countries handle this Western pressure and sanctions?
Vladimir Putin: The issue here is that the pressure you have referred to typically involves employing political instruments to influence normal competition.
Our energy cooperation with India remains unaffected by current conditions, fleeting political swings, or indeed the tragic events in Ukraine.
Regarding hydrocarbons: well before the Ukrainian situation, our business entities had already built a solid and efficient commercial relationship that is based on mutual trust.
It’s widely known that one of our leading companies acquired an oil refinery in India – this investment represented one of the largest foreign inflows into the Indian economy, totalling more than US$20 billion. Our company has been continuously expanding operations of this refinery, working with its partners, operating successfully year after year. As a result, India has become one of the major refined product suppliers to Europe – not just because it buys our oil with a discount. It took years to achieve and is in no way connected to the current economic environment.
Certain actors clearly dislike India’s growing role in international markets owing to its ties with Russia. Consequently, they’re seeking means to constrain India’s influence for political reasons by imposing artificial obstacles.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Economy is a very important point, but my question to you now would be about defence. India continues to be the biggest defence buyer, roughly 38% of the market from Russia is bought by India.
My question is in view of the sanctions by the US or the load they have laid on India, the arm-twisting methods that are being adopted – and I name, it’s America – how do you plan to circumvent all this? Will you pull back or push harder?
Vladimir Putin: It appears that both India and the world recognise that India cannot continue to be treated the way it was treated 77 years ago. India is a major global player, not a British colony, and everyone must accept this reality.
Furthermore, Prime Minister Modi is not someone who succumbs to pressure easily. The Indian people can certainly take pride in their leader. This is absolutely obvious. His stance is unwavering and straightforward, without being confrontational. Our goal is not to provoke conflict; rather, we aim to protect our lawful rights. India does the same.
What are the obstacles? Obstacles in settlements.
However, over 90% of our transactions are already conducted in national currencies. While some complications arise due to the presence of numerous intermediaries, there are also solutions: we can switch to the existing systems for exchanging electronic messages on financial transactions of the Bank of Russia and of our partners in India.
These efforts are ongoing and advancing. Those who attempt to hinder economic ties with third countries ultimately encounter difficulties and suffer losses. I am confident that once this perspective becomes firmly established, such tactics of applying external pressures will fade away.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Three specific questions, Sir.
Number one: because during Operation Sindoor the weapons we had acquired from Russia have proved to be very crucial in our victory. That is why I would like to ask you specifically about S400, the air defence system, the five S400 that are awaited – by when can we expect that?
The second question is on S500, an even more advanced air defence system.
And the third question is about the fifth generation fighter jet Su-57. How are you going to push for this and what are the updates?
Vladimir Putin: You seem to be an expert on the issue, as if we are engaged in negotiations on military-technical cooperation.
If we delve into the substance, India stands out as one of our reliable and privileged partners in this area. We are not merely selling something to India and India isn’t merely buying something from us in the sphere of defence and security. No. It is a different level, a different quality of relations we have with India, and we value this. We see how India values this relationship too.
Why? Allow me to emphasise again: we are not simply selling technology – we are sharing it, and it is a very rare thing to see in the sphere of military-technical cooperation. It speaks to the level of trust between the two countries and the level of trust between the two peoples, I would put it this way. We have a broad portfolio indeed, including naval construction, rocket and missile engineering, and aircraft engineering.
You just mentioned the Su-57 aircraft. India operates several other Russian-made aircraft too. And there’s the production of armoured vehicles. India is manufacturing our renowned T-90 tanks. Trust me when I tell you that these tanks rank among the best in the world. Moreover, the famous BrahMos missile – a joint venture between Russia and India – is manufactured primarily at Indian facilities.
Therefore, Prime Minister Modi’s “Make in India” initiative should be implemented in this area as well.
Geeta Mohan: And the Kalashnikovs.
Vladimir Putin: The Kalashnikov is certainly an important weapon. But we have been discussing high, one might even say cutting-edge technologies. Given the combat experience in using certain types of weapons, their value has multiplied manyfold.
Now, Indian military specialists – thanks to their strong ties with our military – understand clearly how and in what circumstances a particular weapon performs best, and where and when it should be deployed. This is an extremely important understanding, which is shared by both the Indian and Russian sides.
Geeta Mohan: Mr President, I have to go back to your oil question, because you spoke about strategic autonomy, which is what India has been talking about. Strategic autonomy decides for India’s interests, but has India reduced Russian intake of oil after pressure from the West?
Vladimir Putin: Well, there is a certain decline in overall trade turnover during the first nine months of this year. This is just a minor adjustment. Overall, our trade turnover stands almost at the same level as before.
I can’t give you exact monthly figures right now, but trade in petroleum products and crude oil, as well as the production of petroleum products for consumers of oil, Russian oil, is running smoothly in India. I know the sentiment of Russian partners, of Russian companies: they believe their Indian counterparts are reliable and very serious people.
Geeta Mohan: The other important aspect in terms of cooperation between India and Russia is the nuclear front. Russia has been one of the biggest movers when it comes to nuclear facilities in India. Are we looking at important announcements on the nuclear front? Nuclear today is a sensitive issue for Russia.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course we have some announcements to make.
We are indeed one of the biggest ”movers,“ as you have noted. Speaking seriously, we are not ”movers,“ we are producers of the world’s most advanced and reliable equipment for nuclear power plants. The Russian company Rosatom builds and operates more nuclear reactors for nuclear power plants abroad than any other company in the world – 22 nuclear units. The well‑known facility and our joint project, the Kudankulam plant, is one of the leaders in this regard.
These are large units, they operate efficiently and, I reiterate, have proven to be very useful.
There are some announcements you have just asked about. What is it about? The news is that Russia is probably the only country in the world today capable of building – and actually does build – small nuclear power plants. Such plants are already operational in Russia, and we can make them either floating or ground-based. It’s an excellent option for specific regions where big power stations are not needed or where connecting electricity grids between generators and end-users isn’t feasible. These compact nuclear power modules can thus be deployed in isolated and hard-to-access locations.
Geeta Mohan: That’s a lot of collaboration and cooperation. You’re talking about
”Make in India, Make With Russia.“
How do you think President Trump is going to react to all of this?
Vladimir Putin: You know, neither me nor Prime Minister Modi, despite certain external pressure we face, have ever – and I want to emphasise this, I want you to hear it – approached our collaboration to work against someone.
President Trump has his own agenda, his own goals, whereas we focus on ours – not against anyone, but rather aimed at safeguarding our respective interests, India’s and Russia’s interests. In our dealings, we cause no harm to others, and I believe that leaders from other countries should appreciate this.
Anjana Om Kashyap: With regard to Mr Donald Trump. My second question is also about him, because recently he said that if you are buying oil from Russia, – about India – you are funding the Russian-Ukrainian war.
How would you characterise Mr Donald Trump, the President of the United States of America?
Vladimir Putin: You know, I never give character assessments about my colleagues – neither those I’ve worked with in the past nor current leaders of individual states. These assessments should be made by citizens who vote for their leader during elections.
As for India’s purchases or purchase of energy resources from Russia… Well, I would like to note and have already mentioned this publicly once –
the United States itself still buys nuclear fuel from us for its own nuclear power plants. That is also fuel – uranium for the reactors operating in the United States. If the US has the right to buy our fuel, why shouldn’t India have the same privilege? This question deserves thorough examination, and we stand ready to discuss it, including with President Trump.
Geeta Mohan: You are being very kind, you say you are not characterising Trump, but he certainly does that with regard to you. Having said this, he has weaponised tariffs. And he has weaponised it against India. How do you think the two countries should be handling Donald Trump and the US administration?
Vladimir Putin: You know, he pursues his own policy, and he has advisors – his decisions aren’t made out of thin air. He has advisors who believe that implementing such tariff policies, involving the imposition of additional duties on trade partners, ultimately benefits the US economy. He is acting in good faith, I presume. Our experts believe there are risks involved, but it is the choice of each country and its leadership to decide which economic policy to adopt.
We have never engaged in such practices, do not do so now, and have no intention of doing so in the future. Our economy is open. We hope that, in the end, all violations of World Trade Organisation regulations will be rectified.
Geeta Mohan: Mr President, things have changed a little between the US and Russia. The fact that America is engaging you, we would have loved to be a fly on the wall when you were meeting with Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff. That was an important meeting. Were there red lines that Russia reiterated? What really happened?
Vladimir Putin: It’s premature to discuss that now. I doubt it would interest you to hear about it, as it lasted five hours. Frankly, even I grew weary of it – five hours is too much. However, it was necessary because…
Anjana Om Kashyap: Five hours! Witkoff and Kushner?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, and I was alone. Can you imagine it?
But speaking seriously, it was a very productive conversation, as what our American colleagues presented was, in one way or another, based on our prior agreements made before my meeting with President Trump in Alaska. We had discussed these very issues, to some extent, at the meeting in Anchorage. However, what the Americans brought us this time was truly new; we hadn’t seen it before. Therefore, we had to go through practically every point, which is why it took so much time. So it was a meaningful, highly specific, and substantive conversation.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Were there certain specific points of disagreement?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, such issues were raised, we discussed them. But this is a complex task and a challenging mission that President Trump took upon himself – fair enough, I say without irony, because achieving consensus among conflicting parties is no easy task. But President Trump, truly, I believe, he sincerely tries to do this.
We went through each point again, let me reiterate this. Sometimes we said, “yes, we can discuss this, but with that one we cannot agree.” That was how the work proceeded. To say now what exactly doesn’t suit us or where we could possibly agree seems premature, since it might disrupt the very mode of operation that President Trump is trying to establish.
But that’s what they do – shuttle diplomacy. They spoke with Ukrainian representatives, then with Europeans, came here, had another meeting with Ukrainians and Europeans. I think we should engage in this effort rather than obstruct it.
Geeta Mohan: You are saying that the 28 points peace proposal is not on the table?
Vladimir Putin: They’re discussing – that’s what they’re discussing right now. They simply broke down those 28 points, then 27, into four packages and proposed discussing these four packages. But essentially, it’s still just the same old 27 points.
Anjana Om Kashyap: We will go back to that and try to understand how it’s going forward.
What happened in Alaska? You met President Trump and it was all about the peace deal, right? What happened? Did you actually have sense of or see a sincere intent?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, there was indeed a sense – no, more than just a sense, I have absolutely no doubt that President Trump had genuine intentions (we won’t discuss here what caused them or why they appeared, but they’re definitely present). Both the United States and President Trump likely have their own understanding of why this needs to be resolved quickly.
Moreover, by the way, on humanitarian grounds too. I truly believe that is one of the motives behind President Trump’s actions regarding this matter because he constantly speaks about his wish to minimise losses, and I’m confident that his sincerity is genuine. He undoubtedly considers these humanitarian concerns when formulating his decisions.
However, other factors also come into play: political considerations and economic interests. Therefore, I believe that the US is actively seeking a solution to this problem.
Geeta Mohan: Yes, he has spoken about intentions, you’re right about. He claimed he would end wars and conflicts – causing consternation in India when he claimed that he had brought peace between India and Pakistan, now he’s looking at Russia and Ukraine. Do you really think he’s a peacemaker?
Vladimir Putin: Regarding the situation in Ukraine – yes, let me repeat once again, I am absolutely certain, with no doubt at all, he sincerely aims for a peaceful resolution.
Let me stress once again: the United States may have various reasons for this – humanitarian ones personally for Trump because he genuinely wants to end hostilities and prevent further loss of life, but there could also be political interests tied to ending the confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, or economic motives too. By the way, they can be in the energy area and in other areas. There are numerous areas where restoring economic relations between the US and Russia would benefit both sides.
I showed you some letters – I won’t go into this now – large US companies sent to us. We should remember this.
Comment: Really?
Vladimir Putin: Of course. About their existence. They’re waiting until all problems are solved, and they’re ready to return to us, they want this, asking us not to forget about them. The letters are there.
Comment: It’s surprising.
Vladimir Putin: What’s so surprising about that? Many want to return. So, of course, the Indian government is saying right: “Why should we leave…?”
Geeta Mohan: They arrived with letters from companies – quite astonishingly unexpected indeed.
Vladimir Putin: No, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. We have letters from American companies – letters they have sent us, where they urge us not to forget about their existence. These are our former partners, who did not leave by choice. They express a clear desire to resume cooperation and are waiting, among other things, for a corresponding political signal.
Anjana Om Kashyap: This conversation is becoming very interesting because there are so many highlights of understanding and it is really pleasant to see you, and your sense of humour, and how you are putting things forth.
But now we are going to go into a very serious matter – and that is the Russia-Ukraine war. So what, in your view, would constitute a victory for Russia in the Russia-Ukraine war? What are the red lines? Because you have, and I quote you, you have said very clearly that Russia will lay down arms only if Kiev’s troops withdraw from the territories claimed by Russia, which parts would that be?
Vladimir Putin: You know, it’s not about victory, like you have said. The point is that Russia is determined – and will certainly do so – to protect its interests. Protect its people living there, protect our traditional values, Russian language, and so on. Protection, by the way, of religion that has been cultivated on these lands for centuries. Yet you know that the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine is almost banned: they seize churches, drive people out of temples, etc. – it is a problem. And I’m not even mentioning the ban on the Russian language, etc. It is all part of a big set of issues.
Let me remind you: we were not the ones to start this war. The West egged Ukraine on and supported the events, orchestrating a coup d’état. That was the point that triggered the events in Crimea, followed by developments in southeastern Ukraine, in Donbass.
They don’t even mention it – we’ve tried to resolve these issues peacefully for eight years, signed the Minsk agreements, hoping that they could be resolved through peaceful means. But Western leaders openly admitted later that they never intended to honour those agreements, signing them merely to allow Ukraine to arm itself and continue fighting against us. After eight years of relentless violence against our citizens of Donbass – something the West hasn’t uttered a word about – we were forced to recognise these republics first, and secondly, provide support.
Our special military operation isn’t the start of a war, but rather an attempt to end one that the West ignited using Ukrainian nationalists. That’s what is really happening now. That’s the crux of the problem.
We will finish it when we achieve the goals set at the beginning of the special military operation – when we free these territories. That’s all.
Anjana Om Kashyap: What is the end gain for Vladimir Putin in Ukraine?
Vladimir Putin: I have said that already. Listen, we didn’t recognise these self-proclaimed republics for eight years. Eight years. They declared independence, while we were trying to establish relations between the rest of Ukraine and those republics. But when we realised this was impossible, that they were simply being destroyed, we had no choice but to recognise them – and not just their existence on part of the territory, but within administrative boundaries established during Soviet times, then later under independent Ukraine after its independence, still within those administrative borders.
And right away we told Ukraine, the Ukrainian troops: ”People don’t want to live with you anymore. They voted in a referendum for independence. Withdraw your troops from there, and there won’t be any military actions.“ No, they chose to fight instead.
Now they have pretty much fought themselves into a corner, all this boils down to one thing: either we take back these territories by force, or eventually Ukrainian troops withdraw and stop killing people there.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Before we move to the other one, just one last question. On March 8, 2014, during the annexation of Crimea, you were addressing the Federation Council and you said, ”Kiev is the mother of all Russian cities.“ What did you mean?
Vladimir Putin: Here I haven’t made up anything – historically this is how it was said. Originally, the Russian state was formed from several centres. The first capital, according to history, was in Novgorod in the northwest. Later the federal status moved to the city of Veliky Novgorod, and then it moved to Kiev. This was Ancient Rus. And since then, Kiev has been known as the ”mother of all Russian cities.“
Later, historical events unfolded in such a way that the ancient Russian state split into two parts. One part began developing with Moscow as its centre, while another part fell under other countries. For instance, the part with Kiev, along with some other lands, these parts first formed a state with Lithuania, subsequently merged with Poland, forming the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Thus, this part of the ancient Russian state ended up in Poland, and by the seventeenth century, it sought to return back to Russia.
Geeta Mohan: The fact that you know, you were mentioning the history and it brings me to what I did when the conflict was underway. I had travelled to Donetsk, I had travelled to Lugansk, Zaporozhye, Kherson, and most of the people there are Russian-speaking, they speak Russian language. They were very disappointed that Kiev had banned that language in eastern Ukraine. But they were also a little shocked at how Putin is doing this to us, we are his people. A lot of women I spoke to were in shock. So, what do you have to say to people in eastern Ukraine who actually have families in Russia, who, on a daily basis, move from Ukraine to Russia. What do you have to say to them?
Vladimir Putin: I didn’t understand the question. What exactly shocked them?
Geeta Mohan: They were shocked that there was an operation that happened, and their homes were destroyed, because they lived in eastern Ukraine. And they have love for Russia and the Russian people, and they are Russian-speaking themselves.
Vladimir Putin: The answer is quite straightforward. These individuals presumably resided in those parts of Ukraine – specifically, in the areas of the Lugansk or Donetsk region – that remained under the control of the Kiev authorities at the time. Meanwhile, that part of the Lugansk or Donetsk region outside their control was being subjected to intense military action by the Kiev authorities. We were consequently forced to extend support to those areas that had declared independence. That is the first point.
Secondly, we provided people with an opportunity to express their will in an open referendum. Those who believed it was in their interest to join Russia voted accordingly. Those who did not were free to leave unhindered for other parts of the Ukrainian state. We have never placed any obstacles in the way of that choice.
Geeta Mohan: What do you make of President Zelensky? He was promised NATO, the European Union promised him the EU. But nothing really happened. Was NATO ever on the table for Ukraine?
Vladimir Putin: When this gentleman came to power, he declared that he would pursue peace at all costs, using every means possible, without sparing even his career. But now we see things differently. He follows the same pattern as his predecessors – putting the interests of a narrow nationalist group, particularly radical nationalists, ahead of those of the people. Essentially, he is addressing their concerns rather than those of the nation.
This regime’s mindset truly resembles a neo-Nazi regime because extreme nationalism and neo-Nazism are almost indistinguishable concepts. Today, undeniably, military action dominates their approach. However, they haven’t achieved much success here either.
I have already said before that what matters most for them is realising that the best way to resolve the problems is through peaceful negotiations, and we attempted to negotiate with them back in 2022. What exactly they plan to do remains to be asked from them directly.
Anjana Om Kashyap: That would be interesting to see what they have to say on that, and how this peace process goes forward.
But you have always said that the eastward expansion of NATO is your real concern. Ukraine has not got this NATO membership as of now. My question to you – is NATO expansion a real threat or just a pretext for what you think is a part of Ukraine which is probably you want control over? Or you think that injustice is being done, the Russian language is being banned – these are the real issues?
Vladimir Putin: Listen, NATO is another matter altogether. The Russian language, Russian culture, religion, and even territorial issues – these are very important topics, one subject. NATO is something entirely different. We don’t demand anything exclusive for ourselves here.
First of all, there are general agreements that the security of one state cannot be guaranteed by undermining the security of others. This idea might seem somewhat obscure, but I’ll explain it simply. Each country, including Ukraine, has the right to choose its own means of defence and ensure its own safety. Correct? Absolutely correct. Do we deny Ukraine this? No. But it’s not acceptable if done at Russia’s expense. Ukraine believes it would benefit from joining NATO. And we say: that threatens our security, let’s find a way to secure yours without threatening us.
Secondly, we are not asking for anything unusual or unexpected, nothing falling from the sky. We are just insisting on fulfilling the promises already made to us. These weren’t invented yesterday. They were pledged to Russia back in the ’90s: no expansion eastward—this was stated publicly. Since then, several waves of expansion took place, culminating with Ukraine being drawn into NATO. This completely displeases us and poses a serious threat. Let’s remember that NATO is a military-political alliance, and Article Five of the Washington Treaty establishing NATO hasn’t been repealed. It’s a threat to us. Nobody bothers to take us seriously.
Lastly, when Ukraine became independent, few people recall this: what was the first document ratifying independence? It was the Declaration of State Sovereignty, Independence of Ukraine. That forms the foundation of Ukrainian sovereignty and modern statehood. And it clearly states that Ukraine is a neutral state.
Geeta Mohan: Was that also the basis for what happened when you decided to annex Crimea, you only seized the water port, a very important strategic port for Russia? And then Russia was no longer part of the G8. Today, the West claims, or says, that you actions in the recent past are the reason for, and I quote-unquote, the isolation of Russia.
Vladimir Putin: We didn’t need to seize that important port in Crimea because it was ours already – our Navy had been stationed there under the agreement with Ukraine, which is a fact. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, our fleet remained there regardless. The matter isn’t about that, though it’s significant, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
And we did not annex Crimea, I want to emphasise this point. We simply came to help people who didn’t want their lives or fate tied to those who staged a coup in Ukraine. They said: “Hey, nationalist extremists took over in Kiev. Did anyone ask us? Ok, we ended up as part of independent Ukraine after the dissolution of the USSR. So be it, history happened like that. Fine, ok, now we’ll live that way. But we believe that we exist in a democratic state. And if coups happen here with unknown consequences, then we won’t accept that, we don’t want to live like that.” There was a threat not just of pressure, but of outright violence against the Crimeans. Russia stepped in to help them. How could we do otherwise? If someone believes differently, thinking that Russia would act differently, they’re deeply mistaken. We’ll always defend our interests and our people.
Geeta Mohan: One brief question before we move on to the other part. Dou you want to go back to being a part of the G8, because there are a lot of reports on that. Is that something Russia is looking at?
Vladimir Putin: No.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Interesting answer. You are clear about that?
Vladimir Putin: Yes. The fact of the matter is that I myself, at a certain point – such were the circumstances, I won’t go into details now – I stopped attending those meetings. This is the first point.
The second thing is that as I have said before, it’s not entirely clear why the countries that form the G7, call themselves the ”Big seven“? What’s so big about them? In terms of purchasing power parity, India’s economy is the third largest in the world. And where are the countries like the United Kingdom in terms of purchasing power parity? What is their ranking now, tenth or thereabouts?
Of course, these are all countries with advanced, high-tech economies; a robust foundation exists, it hasn’t gone anywhere, although their share in the global economy is shrinking year after year, like a piece of Shagreen leather. This is an obvious fact, we all see it.
The trend is obvious, and it will keep going like that, as far as can be seen, among other things, due to what I would cautiously call the deeply flawed economic policies pursued by the leadership of many of those countries. A recession in Germany is evident, for the third year in a row; France is in a difficult situation, also on the brink of recession, as are other leading European nations. Nevertheless, it is an important platform; they do work there, they do make decisions, they do discuss matters among themselves, and so may they all be healthy by God’s grace. This is a good story as such.
But I will say it again, at a certain moment I simply stopped going there. And this was not connected to the events in Ukraine, but to some other events; I won’t go into details now. Incidentally, we informed our American partners about this.
Geeta Mohan: You informed them during this meeting?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, during this meeting as well.
Anjana Om Kashyap: With Mr Witkoff?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, we discussed this topic among others.
Anjana Om Kashyap: That’s a very important aspect…
Vladimir Putin: You think so? I don’t believe it’s that significant. But if you feel that way, okay.
Anjana Om Kashyap: So, coming back to…No, I just wanted to put it in perspective before we go ahead. So, you are just telling us that in your recent meeting with Mr Witkoff it was offered to you that you could make it back to G8 and you categorically said that you are not interested?
Vladimir Putin: No, this topic just came up on its own.
I explained to Mr Witkoff why I stopped attending those events long time ago. It wasn’t a suggestion or even a question, nothing like that. We just mentioned that subject. I recalled when I stopped going there – it was in 2012 after the Russian presidential elections. Then I seemed to come back there, then stopped coming again – and anyway, that’s no longer important now. But the platform still exists, I wish them to continue their job and Lord give them all the best. But other major international alliances are forming now -such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), BRICS, and the G20. We’re involved everywhere, and we definitely have a completely non-confrontational approach.
However, there’s another aspect here. Look at the current relationship between Russia and European countries. These relationships are far from being called normal. How do you imagine that I come to the G8 meeting, how would I talk to its members if they don’t want to talk to me? What am I supposed to do there then? Well, if they do want to talk about it, fine – we can come back to this topic later.
Anjana Om Kashyap: You said that countries like India whose gross trade is far exceeding a lot of European countries need to just calm down and understand some things. The other thing you say is that organisations like probably G7 are losing their relevance and what would I do if they don’t want to talk to me.
But the third thing you mentioned was BRICS, and so there is my question to you: is there a new world order falling in place, because you are not going to G7, but you just visited China, and you are about to visit India. Russia, India, China. RIC. BRICS. SCO. Global South. What do you see as a new power centre in the multi-polar world?
Vladimir Putin: You asked whether the world is changing, and a new order is forming? The world changes constantly – everything flows, cuncta fluunt. The pace of change varies, but the world always evolves.
Nowadays, this rate of change is fast, indeed very high. We can see it, we can feel it, I’ve already said that. And primarily, we’re witnessing the global economic processes unfolding. These processes aren’t linked to events in Ukraine or other hotspots – they’re just happening generally. We could talk about this for hours, and I’d be happy to discuss it with you, but our viewers might grow tired from such discussions.
One fact remains, however: new centres of growth are emerging of rapid, strong growth. These include countries of the Global South, notably South Asia, India, and Indonesia, which has nearly 300 million people and is rising quickly. Of course, it’s not one and a half billion people living there, like in India, but still these are very rapidly developing countries. Let me say it again: Africa is already advancing swiftly and will accelerate even more. With its young population, these countries would be our future. They’ll strive toward higher living standards, which is inevitable. In the future, rates of change in the global economy will continue to accelerate steadily and significantly.
By the way, we often hear that Russia recently recalibrated its relationships with the Global South and Asia. That’s not true, because we’ve been doing so since the early 2000s.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Actually this picture ruffled a lot of feathers across the world. Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi. Three nation heads together. And people were going all over social media and America.
Geeta Mohan: But even if you’d look at that picture, how do you have these alternative blocs and how can they become a real force, if there are fundamental unresolved issues between key member states in that bloc?
Vladimir Putin: You know, conflicts always exist. But tell me what period of history there was no conflict at all? Let’s take a look at the historical development of major world centres or regions – wherever we point our finger in time, we will always find a conflict somewhere.
Though the point is elsewhere: it’s about finding solutions to these conflicts, seeking most effective ways to resolve them. In large alliances like BRICS, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, we share a common understanding that we have common values rooted in our traditional beliefs, which underpin our civilisations such as India’s civilisation for already hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Drawing on this heritage of the past, we work together instead of suppressing opportunities. When efforts are combined, the resulting synergy turns out unexpectedly strong and high.
We never set out to come up with ways to deceive, outsmart, or hinder someone’s development. Nothing like that has ever happened. We always focus only on positive agendas. I believe that’s important.
Geeta Mohan: That’s an important answer.
But are there alternatives? Because the biggest thing when you have these blocs is how do you make it economically viable. Are we looking at alternative payment systems? Is there going to be a BRICS currency? Or are we looking at alternative payments in terms of national currencies, rupee or ruble? Moving towards de-dollarisation basically.
Vladimir Putin: You know, there’s no rush in this, festina lente and you’ll avoid big mistakes.
For instance, we were talking about Europe. They set up the euro system and dragged in there certain countries that weren’t economically ready for one single strong currency. And now they’re dealing with some difficult social matters. There’s more than just playing around with inflation there, right? This question is far more complex than just tinkering with inflation a little bit and calling it done. Their entire economy is tied to just one stable currency, therefor social problems arise and budgetary issues emerge.
Right now we don’t aim at having a single currency within BRICS. In this process, there’s no rush anywhere, and we aren’t rushing either. There is a need to expand the use of national currencies, you’ve mentioned this already. We must make better use of the BRICS New Development Bank’s opportunities.
For example, we propose creating a new investment platform using electronic payments (with an initial capital of 100 billion dollars) to encourage joint investments both in our economies and those of developing nations in the Global South. I believe this could be very appealing option, because these investments would help us, and they would also benefit the recipient countries, since together we would produce high-quality goods at reasonable prices. These products could help the countries of the South to develop further, while also advancing our own growth.
There will be more and more tools like this. Modern payment systems and digital money exist already and they are evolving rapidly. And for us, this is definitely not about working against anyone – we see it more as refining tools that are already widely used worldwide.
Geeta Mohan: Rupee and ruble payment then?
Vladimir Putin: There are no obstacles here. These are purely economic issues. We fully understand and realise that we do have a certain trade imbalance. However, India’s government does not impose restrictions on our mutual trade. Why? Because they need both oil and petroleum products. The Indian government needs to expand its purchases of Russian fertilisers because these are crucial for Indian farmers, and Prime Minister Modi constantly raises this issue: ”Please increase the volume of deliveries.“
The issue is entirely different. It’s not about rupees; it’s about what those rupees can buy respectively for our companies. We’re also thinking about this, not only the Indian government, but we also do. And we agree that this disparity must be addressed, but not through bans, rather by finding areas beneficial for both sides.
Therefore, during my visit and at our initiative, there will be an exhibition showcasing our importers from India. I want to share with you something completely candidly: this was my direct instruction to the Government of Russia, which is to consider what else we could purchase from India. We’re considering this matter together, including from the perspective of the Russian Federation.
Anjana Om Kashyap: My next question before we move to other issues is – how do you balance – I’m going to ask that directly – how do you balance India and China? Because it is very clear that you are keen on good relations with both these countries. How do you balance them, seeing some tensions between us.
Vladimir Putin: We know this very well. India and China are our closest friends – we treasure that relationship deeply, and I do not believe we have the right to interfere in your bilateral relations. But I know that both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping are committed to finding solutions to all issues, even to the most complex interstate problems.
I know about it because both Prime Minister Modi and President Xi Jinping see that some specific tension is rising, and they both try to find solutions to these issues, exerting maximum effort – I know this well and can see it clearly. And the key reason why they would succeed would be their wisdom, which we appreciate immensely. At the same time Russia does not feel entitled to intervene, because these are your bilateral affairs.
Anjana Om Kashyap: The next important issue with regard to India is terrorism. We faced two major terrorist attacks, one in Pahalgam and then one in Delhi. My question to you is that we see a dual ideology on terror in the world from different countries. What is the solution in your eyes? Because Russia also faces terrorism, India faces it. What in your eyes is the solution to your terrorist – my – freedom – fighter ideology?
Vladimir Putin: It’s very simple. To achieve freedom, we must use lawful means only. Any actions involving criminal methods or those harming people cannot be supported – this has been decided long ago. As you’ve correctly noted, Russia has repeatedly faced acts of extreme terrorism throughout its recent history. In these matters, India is our full ally, and we completely support India’s fight against terrorism.
Geeta Mohan: But there’s another country in the neighbourhood, very important – important to Russia, important to India: Afghanistan. You are a very rare country to have recognised the Taliban regime. What really made you look at that as a strategic interest – to recognize the Taliban at the time, when the world is still saying “they have not given equal rights to women,” when there are still a lot of issues with Afghanistan actually becoming a country that holds women and men equally. And there are many other human rights issues there.
Vladimir Putin: In every country there are enough problems. And Afghanistan is not an exception, considering that for decades this country has been embroiled in a civil war. It’s just horrible. But the Taliban clearly controls the situation in Afghanistan and this is evident. Here’s what needs to be said first, and you have to accept it because it’s reality.
Secondly, what’s important to note is that the Afghan government takes many actions to combat terrorism and various terrorist organisations, including ISIL and others like them. This we also know very well.
Afghan authorities have significantly reduced opium production in their country and are actively addressing drug threats from within its borders.
There are several other important issues here. The main point is that in order to influence events happening in the country, you must stay in contact with current leadership there – exactly what we’re doing.
Geeta Mohan: Afghanistan’s Taliban minister Muttaqi was in India, and we weren’t allowed – women weren’t allowed to attend the press conference, and we fought back, and then he had to hold a press conference with women as part of that entire violation. Isn’t it interesting? I was just sharing it with you.
Vladimir Putin: There’s truth in what you say, but on the other hand, if he hadn’t come here, you wouldn’t have had any chance to influence these events at all. And now you’ve got both connections and the minister who has arrived. You were able to express your reaction to what happened. How do we measure whether that’s little or much? It seems to me that at least this is part of your influence and your partners’ influence on the situation.
But imagine there were no contacts at all. Then what? Everything remains exactly as before. And nobody, including yourself, would influence anything, or express any opinion about this. In contrast, now such an opportunity is available to you. Contacts are better than no contacts at all.
Anjana Om Kashyap: The other flash point is Gaza. And it is now being known that you, Sir, Vladimir Putin, have a new peace plan for Gaza. Trump also has one. What is your Gaza peace plan? What do you propose, Sir?
Vladimir Putin: We don’t offer any special plan. We’ve always believed that the only way to solve the Palestinian problem is by implementing the solutions adopted and considered by the United Nations over many years. And the most important one is establishing an independent Palestinian state. That’s the key to resolving all issues.
Geeta Mohan: The other important issue when you talk about Israel and Gaza that Anjana just did is the fact that the Arab world when it comes to the issue of Gaza and Palestine did not do as much as your ally, your friend Iran did. How do you look at this entire scenario? Well, this is a changed world order. We never thought that Iran would fight back for Palestinians more than the Arab world.
Vladimir Putin: Each of these countries in its way is concerned about Palestine and the Palestinian people, worrying for them. And each of them tries to contribute in resolving the situation. Some things are obvious, others remain hidden in the shadows. But it doesn’t mean that no one is doing anything. This is a complex issue that no one has managed to resolve over the years. Hence, it can’t be fixed in just a few months by clicking a button. However, we should aim precisely at achieving this goal: establishing a Palestinian state.
What has been done until now was done by President Trump. Naturally, primarily the return of Israeli hostages and Hamas took this step. I think, frankly speaking, this was the most important thing that was done as part of the latest steps for the settlement in Gaza. I believe it would be correct, perhaps, to think about the possibility of organising the governance in such a way as to transfer all authority to the Palestinians. There are such options. They are being discussed both by Arab countries and the neighbours, and beyond it. It’s being discussed in the United States as well, I know it. As part of the United Nations, we have always taken part in this process. We will continue to do that with our friends.
Geeta Mohan:Well. President Putin, we have discussed a lot of geopolitics, we’ve stick to it for a while.
Let’s talk about your journey. You are a man from the intelligence community. How would you rate intelligence agencies today? Which one, do you think, is the best? I am sure you will say Russia but I am still saying, which one is the second best then? And how does the CIA fair?
Vladimir Putin: Well, there are several powerful intelligence services in the world. There is CIA and our, Soviet and Russian intelligence. There is, as it is well-known, a very efficient service Mossad, Israeli intelligence. Many countries of the world have tradition of intelligence services.
You know, I think it is better not to give evaluation to the efficiency of other peoples’ intelligence. I am happy with the quality of work of our intelligence service.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Fair enough. So we would like to because this is a rare opportunity we get to interact with you. We want to understand what shaped Vladimir Putin and as we peep into your early years, we’ve read a little about your KGB days when you were working in Germany and then you moved on to Saint Petersburg and then Moscow, you worked with Mr. Yeltsin.
What actually shaped the man you are today, the leader you are today? Which what it is?
Vladimir Putin:My family, the family that I lived in and that I was born into, my parents, my closest people. I think that everyone is shaped, primarily, by our closest surroundings. Naturally, the social situation around, the colleagues and as you have fairly noted that work in the intelligence service because it has strict discipline, strict ideology that primarily has to do with the defence of the interests of Motherland and that was the entire point of the intelligence service of the Soviet Union and I lived in that system for many years.
Anjana Om Kashyap: I watched in your interview when I think you were interacting with schoolchildren and one of the children asked you, a girl, I think, asked you what has been the most shattering experience of your life has been. And you said the disintegration of USSR. How did that affect you? And what is your vision of Russia?
Vladimir Putin:It had an impact in a sense that we always need to very carefully look at our every step and we need to understand the consequences of that. That’s number one.
Number two. It is very important not only for the former Soviet Union but it applies also to Russia. What was the conclusion that I came to? It is that the Soviet Union at a certain point of time was in such a state that its leadership and possibly even ordinary citizens always believed that it was so big, so great that nothing, ever, under any circumstances would happen to it. And this idea of grandeur is the point when a country starts to make one mistake after another, thinking that everything is alright: yes, we made a mistake here and it was a small failure there but we are so big that it will all pass, we’ll survive. And the number of mistakes grows like a snowball and it is getting harder to manage that. I see the same is happening with some other countries today. Therefore, I am keeping an eye…
Anjana Om Kashyap: Would you name them?
Vladimir Putin:No.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Let’s return to the USSR because you talked about one mistake was rolling into another. Whom to hold responsible for the situation? I mean, you are talking about people also thought that it would probably would never happen with us. They’ll never be in disintegration but I am sure you have seen Gorbachev as you saw Yeltsin went on. Whom to hold responsible? What was the phase in which decisively USSR was disintegrating, breaking up?
Vladimir Putin:I would not want to pin-point the guilty and who is to blame more. In general, it was the system that turned out not to be viable. We need to recognise that and we need to think about it. We should not look for specific culprits but we need to think how to create a system that will not simply protect itself but develop. That’s the point. And if such system is in place, it would be self-sufficient, autonomous and effective.
Geeta Mohan: How are you looking at reintegration then?
Vladimir Putin:Reintegration of what? Of the Soviet Union.
Geeta Mohan: Yes, of the Soviet Union.
Vladimir Putin:No, of course not, that’s simply not on the table. We do not have such a goal and it won’t make any sense. There is also a question of rationale. It does not make sense in current circumstances because it would critically change the national and religious composition of the Russian Federation. It does not make sense.
Mohan: You should say about it to some Western newspapers constantly writing about how you really want the old Soviet Union back because that’s what they keep doing.
Vladimir Putin:I won’t tell it to them. You know why? Because they still do not want to listen to what I am saying. They want to listen to themselves only or they want to comment on what I am saying the way they like it.
Anjana Om Kashyap: You make a point. As Geeta said, they speak and they type a lot about you, that you are building empire back.
Vladimir Putin:Yes, they do that in order to scare their population. They abuse their monopoly in the global media. It is called manipulation of the public opinion and the goal is to justify their aggressive policy towards Russia. I don’t see another goal.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Then, if you are different, how would you, Vladimir Putin, summarise Vladimir Putin’s life and ideology?
Vladimir Putin: No, I think it is too early for me to summarise my life. I have some work ahead of me.
Geeta Mohan: I like it because we are going to talk about longevity but before there is a very important question. You are going to India. Prime Ministers of India had a huge, huge role to play in strengthening India-Russia ties. Who do you think in you span of being a leader of Russia really made that difference, since you have been in power enhancing India-Russia ties? Which of the prime ministers?
Vladimir Putin:Well, you have already asked me to characterise other leaders of other countries. I do not think it is very polite. You know, now we are working with Prime Minister of India, His Excellency Narendra Modi. Indeed, we have very trustworthy and friendly relations. He is a very reliable person. In that sense, I am speaking very sincerely. India got lucky. He lives India. I am talking to him and I know him. I hope he won’t be cross with me – I am just saying what I am seeing and what I am thinking. It is very pleasant to me to talk to such person, a person of integrity, you know. And that’s number one.
Number two, indeed, he is very sincere when it goes about strengthening Indian-Russian ties across the whole range of areas, especially crucial issues of economy and defence and humanitarian cooperation, development of hi-tech. It is very interesting to meet with him. He travelled here and we sat with him at my residence and we drank tea for the whole evening, and we discussed different topics. We simply had an interesting conversation purely like humans.
So I am looking forward to this meeting. I am sure it will be very interesting and useful.
Anjana Om Kashyap: I am sure he has this mutual admiration for you as well.
Quick question on the future because AI is the force to reckon with. You have your viewpoint on this. Do you think it is a force for chaos or it’s a force for good and where is Russia in this AI-weapon war?
Vladimir Putin:You know like any other achievement of progress it can be both good and evil. It’s clear that it’s cross-cutting technology that changes the life of an ordinary person and, of course, in the near future it will change the lives of the whole humanity. And those who will be the first to master this technology, use it most effectively would gain a tremendous benefit in the economy, in social sphere, in defence as well as in every sphere, in education, in science, healthcare, everywhere because the effective use of artificial intelligence in each of the spheres will have a multiplier effect for efficiency and productivity.
There are also challenges here and specialists know it fully well. The fact is that it is all based on processing major data sets, big data. Here comes personal data of people as well. That’s number one. And, naturally, we need to take steps to guarantee safety and protection, to ensure human rights in the widest sense of the word.
But here is yet another very important thing. It is that the people who have these databases, in essence, they can use their capacities, the capacities of the developing technologies to shape the world view of people.
Geeta Mohan: We are talking about future. You are talking about health also and you just spoke about health. There was a hot mighty moment between you and President Xi Jinping and it was reported very widely when you spoke about longevity and the stride of medicine by bio hacking. Do you think immortality is achievable?
Vladimir Putin:Everything has an end. Only God is eternal. We can extend longevity of life, one hundred percent, I am sure we can. Seventy seven years ago, average lifespan of a person in India was thirty one years and now it’s about seventy. That’s what healthcare does. In India, infant mortality was cut fourfold. We congratulate you.
These are all the results of the healthcare effort and if you use AI in healthcare and you use it to produce medical drugs, for example using genetic engineering and so on, that means it would have a tremendous effect. Nevertheless, everything comes to an end.
Anjana Om Kashyap: I would not like to mention you age but there have been recently a lot of gen-Z protests across the world.
How do you connect with the young generation? We have a lot of leaders who are looking now younger and younger and younger. How does this happen? And how do you connect with the young people in Russia?
Vladimir Putin:You know, there is nothing new here. In literature and in art, this topic of contradiction of the older generation and the younger generation, of fathers and sons in our classic literature, these images have always existed, fathers and sons. There is nothing new here.
You know what’s new? The technology: those messengers, Telegram and so on. They are used to influence the youth.
The younger generation, this generation is more or less the same. Young people are always more mobile, more radical. The younger people, a young person thinks that they are coming across this injustice and so on and no one saw it before them. And now they saw that and they will tell it to everyone around, and they think that these injustices are very easy to deal with, they can be easily solved.
And when a person becomes more mature, he or she is trying to change something, it turns out that they start to understand that it’s possible to find the solution but it’s not as easy as it seemed at first glance.
Therefore, we need to work with people. We can’t just say that you are just young, you don’t understand anything, you are just sitting there in your homes; it does not work like that. You need to always keep in touch with young people and to use their tools, their devices of obtaining information, to use feedback, social networks and so on. You need to work there.
And I am sure that you partly do that. I’d like to wish you every success.
Geeta Mohan: Mr. President, we would spend hours talking but we are reaching the end of our conversation with you.
You just mentioned religion a while ago and the Orthodox Church, a very important aspect. I have travelled to Moscow a few times now and every time you are coming here around Christmas, it is unbelievably lit, unbelievable to see how beautiful Moscow as a city looks like.
Anjana Om Kashyap: I am for the first time here.
Geeta Mohan: That’s why she was surprised, it was better than any European city.
But religion does play a very important role now. How do you see spirituality when it comes to the morality question and leadership, to the Russian society and for you personally?
Vladimir Putin:Well, that’s the foundation. We always turn to our traditional values as we call them, at least that’s what we have been doing lately.
This does not mean that we use these traditional values to just sit idly, this is simply the foundation that we feel very solid on but we need to look forward, naturally, we need to develop and use all modern means of development. And only with that, using our basic fundamental values and vision of the future, that’s the only way to efficiently achieve the goals that we are setting for ourselves. And that’s the way we have shaped or formulated our goals – the goals of national development.
I would really like our national goals and the goals of India shaped by government of India headed by Prime Minister Modi, I would really hope that they coincide so we could join efforts and achieve maximum result.
Anjana Om Kashyap:Welcome with open heart to India and we look forward to whatever it comes out of the meetings.
But I don’t know how much of Hindi films or songs you’ve ever heard. There is a song that was very popular in Russia “Sar pē lāl ṭōpī Rūsī, phir bhī dil hai Hindustānī”. Actually, it just means there is red cap on the head, you are wearing a red Russian hat but the heart is Indian. It was very popular even in Russia, a lot of people knew about it.
Anything that you wanted to say about India, Indian society and Indian culture? And what is your message to all Indians, who like you a lot and who would want to listen to what Mr. Putin has to say to them.
Vladimir Putin:You’ve just mentioned the Indian culture and the Russian culture. You know I think that we have a lot of citizens in the Russian Federation also having notion of Indian culture as about a fairy tale, a beautiful, bright, colourful fairy tale. From the time of the Soviet Union, people here like Indian movies and Indian music. I would even say that certain known people from Russian society have a cult of the Indian culture and I like that very much because I think that it is, as they say, from heart to heart.
And we’ll be doing everything in our power so that this interest would not lose its spark. I would like people in India to know that.
Anjana Om Kashyap: Mr President, we are very thankful to you for this very open interview that we had with you and the best part, I think, of this entire interview is that we touched everything we talked about. Everything but this is a bond, India-Russia bond, it’s a friendship that is to be cherished forever, there are seasonal friendships but there are friendships that last a lifetime. It means a classic vintage and let’s see what comes out of it.
We are very thankful to you for this interview.
Geeta Mohan: You watched the interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The interview was conducted by Aaj Tak and India Today. We discussed Russia. Russia will not be isolated and it will protect its interests. And it says that it would make part of the developed world but not part of any society like G8.
India and the whole world are looking at you. Thank you, Mr President.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
Going absolutely viral. A wonderful story and a lovely song about the family from Volchansk, that was rescued from the frontline by a Russian drone unit. Now with English subtitles.
All social media and many reliable media are in chaos. The major issues:
Even Sony Thăng started speaking out, only to be met with screeds and pages of justifications. These journalists feel scorned because Russia, China, and BRICS are not taking the action they decided should be taken.
In addition, we have AI. Here we have to change our perspective. Whereas before we ‘trusted’ certain information from well-known and reliable journos, essayists, and commentators, our default position now has to change. We cannot believe what our eyes see or what our ears hear.
Trust Nothing Unless Verified. Everything is someone else’s opinion. Use extreme informational filters on everything and everybody. Don’t stop resisting!
The reality is that even the good can become crazy overnight, as this level of crazy is communicable.
Is the move to multipolarity fun enough for you yet?
This is the NO RULES commenting thread. Say what you want. I just did and have more. Your karma is yours.
The “rules-based order” is dead and Washington now acts without boundaries
Fyodor Lukyanov
A year has passed since November 2024, when Donald Trump won the US presidential election for the second time. And it makes more sense to start the clock there, rather than on Inauguration Day. The political and psychological shift began immediately. From that moment, the American agenda started to mutate, revealing what in US behavior is anchored in institutions and what is simply the product of personality.
Trump’s personality is impossible to ignore. His sheer theatricality colors everything he touches and can make events seem more chaotic than they really are. But here’s the important point: Trump does not break American political conventions. He exaggerates them. He turns their volume up so loud that one can finally hear the underlying logic clearly.
The most striking shift is external. Washington has abandoned the unified ideological framework it relied on for decades. For years, the “liberal world order” – later rebranded as the “rules-based order” – served as the language through which the United States pursued its interests. These rules were written by the West, for the West, but framed as universal. Their very existence created a structure for international behavior, even if that structure was often porous.
In 2025, the United States behaves as if no such boundaries exist. If Trump has a core approach, it is his insistence on dealing with every country one-on-one. No scaffolding, no institutions, no broad coalitions. Everything is personalized, bilateral, transactional. Washington is convinced that in any individual matchup, America has the upper hand. So why dilute that advantage by working through organizations where others might collectively balance it?
Institutions become a nuisance
This logic explains the growing irritation toward institutions the US once built and championed. They are now seen not as force multipliers but as bureaucratic ballast. Structures where non-Western states play leading roles – BRICS in particular – are treated with open hostility, not because of what they do, but because of what they symbolically represent: countries trying to join forces to limit American dominance. In Trump’s worldview, that is intolerable.
Paradoxically, Trump is well-suited to a multipolar world, though he would never describe himself that way. Someone who believes he is the strongest player in any bilateral setting naturally prefers a global landscape composed of disparate, uneven actors. Multipolarity, yes. But only if it is spontaneous and unstructured, with no mechanisms that cushion contradictions or reduce imbalances.
Before Trump, the American approach was to promote economic and political globalization. The United States sat atop the hierarchy and used that position to shape the world. Under Trump, fragmentation – economic, political, institutional – becomes a tool to achieve the same aim. A world of disconnected units is easier for a heavyweight to dominate.
In that sense, less has changed than it seems.The rhetoric is different, but American hegemony remains the assumption. Foreign policy continues to serve narrow interests, only now without the grand moral narratives that once justified it. Instead of “defending democracy,” Washington resurrects older, simpler slogans.
Trump’s recent remark that Nigeria may face intervention because it “mistreats Christians” is a conservative variant of the old democracy-promotion logic. The call for regime change in Venezuela is suddenly tied to drug trafficking: an issue Venezuela has never been central to, but convenient now that Washington wants it to be. That both countries have significant oil reserves, and that the US seeks to squeeze Russia and Iran out of global energy markets, is of course a coincidence.
Power without patience
What hasn’t changed is the US belief in military force. Trump frequently invokes “peace through strength,” but his interpretation is highly specific. He has no desire to become bogged down in long wars. The preferred model is a rapid, theatrical strike, maximum visibility, minimal commitment. After that, diplomacy takes over, supported by behind-the-scenes pressure and loud self-congratulation.
Is this approach better or worse? It depends who you ask. Some will say that blunt honesty, even if impulsive, is preferable to multi-layered hypocrisy. Others point out that Trump’s style – sudden enthusiasms, sharp mood swings, hyperbolic praise – is inherently unstable. When the world’s most powerful state behaves impulsively, everyone else has to live with the consequences.
So how should America’s counterparts operate in this environment? Trump’s hostility to group coordination suggests the answer. If the United States insists on bilateralism, then the logical countermeasure is the opposite: combine resources, cooperate where possible, create small but functional coalitions focused on specific goals. Not grand new institutions – that is impossible today – but practical partnerships that reduce vulnerability to American pressure.
This is especially true for non-Western states navigating a complex and turbulent international order. Trump’s approach rewards fragmentation. Those who do not wish to play by that script must work – quietly, carefully – in the other direction.
A world of clarity, for better or worse
Trump has not remade America so much as stripped away its old varnish. The vision of a universal liberal order is gone. The pretence that the United States plays by the rules it demands of others is gone. What remains is raw power, openly expressed, and a country comfortable acting without boundaries.
For some, this honesty is refreshing. For others, it is alarming. But it does provide one thing: clarity. We now see the conventions of American behavior with unusual sharpness. And that may prove useful for those preparing for the next phase of global politics.
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2055699/#sel=46:39:j,46:39:j
[Note: This is a very good overview of the complete process of the start of the SMO and the US intervention in the process of making peace. That part is serious. The part that is different, is that Mr Lavrov is continuously trolling. If you want to see a highly competent and enormously talented Foreign Minister and Diplomat troll, this is it. That fine line stands out! Mr Lavrov’s description of what happened in Alaska is a comic show. All was agreed. All was confirmed in terms of Witkoff’s outline and step by step outlined as understood and agreed by Putin himself. All the pre-work for a summit was done. Russia said they are in agreement with, and accept the US outline. OK, done, sign on the dotted line. And then comes the comic – They agreed that they should take some time to think about it. This was their own concept that they needed time to think about! The subtext here is even if Russia agrees with them, they cannot be moved to a phase of execution of their own plan. This then brings the concept of ‘non-agreement capable’ to the forefront. We always think this refers to others, but these brilliant specimens of humankind cannot even agree with themselves. Follow Mr Lavrov’s troll roll thoughout.]
Question: Thank you, Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you for giving us your time.
Sergey Lavrov: My pleasure.
Question: So we are here in Moscow. And I came from Hungary, from Budapest, just a few days ago. And Moscow is beautiful. This is the first time for me in Moscow. And when we planned this interview, there was a plan for you to come to Budapest with Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State. You were going to help to set up a negotiation between President Putin and President Trump. But finally, you didn’t come. We heard many different stories about why. What really happened? Is everything ok between you and Mr. Rubio and between Russia and the United States?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, it’s up to you because you’re a journalist. And your job, your profession, is to analyze what is going on.
It is not very difficult because these days, for example, the American foreign policy is as open as it could be. The President of the United States explains every day how he feels about one thing, about another thing. And this is, I think, very interesting for the journalists to be in a position to get this information straight from the leaders.
President Putin yesterday commented upon the Russian-American relations at this particular stage. I wouldn’t repeat what he said. But as regards the relations between Marco Rubio and myself, after the presidents had their conversation on the 16th of October. This was Thursday. And three days later, on Monday, Rubio called me. We had a conversation, very specific, where I reconfirmed our full adherence to what was discussed in Alaska and to what clear understandings the presidents reached at that time. As you know, President Trump praised the Alaska meeting repeatedly, that this was a very good meeting, that it set the stage, laid the foundation. He said, there are a few issues to be fine-tuned. But this could be done easily. One issue is important, he said in his comments about the outcome of Alaska. But this important issue is absolutely subject to finding a solution, which is absolutely our assessment. After we talked with Marco Rubio regarding following up on the results of Alaska, he did not mention any new meetings or conversations. And I did not raise the issue, because the entire initiative was coming from the United States. And we would be ready to move as the Americans feel comfortable for themselves.
Then the State Department issued the communique about our phone conversation, if I remember right, which said that we had a productive discussion with Marco Rubio. And at this stage, there is no need in a personal meeting between the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of Russia. So I concluded that the meeting was really good if they made such a comment. And I understand what is behind it. Behind it is the clarity with which we discussed the necessary steps together with Marco Rubio, steps which the Russian Federation and the United States can take to implement very clear, very blunt understandings reached in Alaska.
Question: Obvious, if you are talking, we feel the chance the conflict can be ended. But after, when we read the press, there is a different picture. But why will you not call back Marco Rubio in this situation? And you can call back Marco Rubio and say, hello, I read in Reuters the articles and Mr. Trump told this and this. Why don’t you want to talk more often with each other?
Sergey Lavrov: I called him before Alaska, soon after Alaska. And we met in New York just three weeks ago. And as I said, look, President Putin came to Alaska with the agenda, which had been brought to Moscow by Steven Witkoff a few days before the Alaska summit. And we looked into the proposals which Steven Witkoff brought. And we said that we need to think about it.
And then in Alaska, President Putin said that he is ready to cooperate on the basis of the concept and the framework which the envoy of President Trump brought to Moscow and which they continue to discuss in Alaska. President Putin repeated each and every element of the concept which was brought by Steven Witkoff and was asking Steven Witkoff, who was present at the discussions in Anchorage, is that right? Is that right? Everything was confirmed. And then President Putin said that we are ready to accept your concept. And that’s how we believe we can move in specific terms on the basis of what you proposed. Then there was no direct response. They agreed that they should take some time to think about it.
President Trump said he needs to talk to his allies, who, as you remember, came to Washington next day. Zelensky was brought with them. And President Putin, of course, briefed our allies, our neighbors, and strategic partners. So the ball was there on the side of the Americans who proposed something which we eventually were ready to accept. And in New York, I reminded Marco Rubio about this sequence of events. He said, yes, we are still considering. We are trying. We are interested.
So from the diplomatic point of view, we don’t want to interfere in their internal considerations. We don’t want to create some discomfort for the United States, which is under huge, unbelievable pressure from the European “hawks”, from Zelensky, and others who don’t want to have any American-Russian cooperation on anything.
So there are enough people who are not very polite and who impose themselves upon Washington politicians and use every means to undermine the process which could have achieved its goals some time ago.
And one very telling thing is they are trying to push President Trump from the logic which he repeatedly presented in the past. And I will quote a couple of his statements regarding how this crisis should be resolved. He bluntly said, actually, he was the first, if not the only, leader in the West, and maybe not only in the West, but on Earth, who from the very beginning, even before he was inaugurated, early September, he was still president-elect. He said that you could never have NATO involved with Ukraine. If Russia has NATO right on its borders, it cannot tolerate it, and I could understand their feelings about that.
Zelensky and Ukraine must understand (this was already in August, a couple of months ago), must understand no getting back Obama-given Crimea, and no going into NATO by Ukraine, also in August Russia said, we don’t want them on our borders, and they were right. And everybody knew, you can’t. You just can’t do that.
And actually, in Anchorage, I almost quoted, he said, we had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there. That was his statement at the press conference in Anchorage. So he went public with this assessment, which fully coincides with our assessment.
And the very significant statement was made on the 16th of August, when he came back to Washington from Alaska. And he said, a great and very successful day in Alaska. It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement. This is key. He answered to all those who were, since probably the beginning of spring this year, they radically changed their rhetoric. And before, they were saying, no cessation of hostilities. Russia must be defeated, “strategic defeat”, and so on and so forth. Then, as of spring, about that time, they started saying immediate ceasefire without any precondition. And they continue to sing this song until now. Rutte, Macron… By the way, Macron, when they shifted to this logic, ceasefire, stop the killings without preconditions, and then we’ll see how it goes. And Macron was asked whether this cessation of hostilities, ceasefire, includes the pause in providing weapons to Ukraine. He said, no, it does not. No preconditions at all.
So when President Trump, after Anchorage, bluntly, publicly stated that in his conviction, it is not a ceasefire, but a sustainable, durable peace, which, as he said, must be a long-term peace, a very long term. And another quotation, we are not talking about a two-year peace, and then we end up in this mess again. This is exactly what happened with the Minsk agreements, which were agreed in 2015, endorsed by the UN Security Council. And then the Ukrainian government and armed forces were violating the ceasefire announced by the Minsk agreements. And later, five or six years later, when these Minsk agreements were sabotaged in a very big way, the signatories, like Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, and the former Ukrainian President Poroshenko, they said, we never intended to implement them. We needed to buy time to rearm Ukraine, so that Ukraine is able to continue to fight Russia.
So when President Trump, after Alaska, said, we are not talking about a two-year peace, and then we end up in this mess again. It’s one of the best characteristics of what happened with the Minsk agreements.
And when people now say, nothing but a ceasefire, immediate ceasefire, and then history will judge, it’s a very radical change. But this also means that the Europeans, they don’t sleep, they don’t eat, they try to twist the hands of this administration.
Question: Some people say Russia is unflexible. And are there any Russian conditions in the negotiations that are flexible, for example, about territory? What about the parts of Donbass that Russia has not taken yet? And what about Kherson and Zaporozhye and others?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, this is all reflected in many discussions. President Putin addressed this issue regularly when he was asked by journalists, or when he meets with President Trump, or with Prime Minister Orban, Prime Minister Fico, all those who are interested in talking to Russia, better understanding Russia’s position, they always have a chance and opportunity to come and discuss whatever is of interest for them.
The new territories which you mentioned, they are not actually new territories. They are historic Russian territories. Yes, after the Soviet Union disappeared, this was left inside the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. And there was no thought that this Slavic Republic could have leadership which would go the way the Nazis went before World War II. And step by step, Ukrainian government being independent from the Soviet Union, having proclaimed sovereignty, and so on, they have been more and more under the pressure and influence of the Brits, Americans, and Europeans, who were having a chance to implement the very old dream which Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed a couple of times, and some other American politicians, when they said, Russia with Ukraine is an empire. Russia without Ukraine is a mid-level player, an original player in international affairs. We never thought about this in those terms. But the philosophy of the US politicians, who were obsessed with not allowing Ukraine and Russia to be together, is very telling. It’s the same divide and rule logic, colonial desire to undermine alliances which would not be ruled by you.
And we recognize independence of Ukraine, no doubt about this. But we could never think that the people who live on these territories which you listed, which are now in our constitution, that these people would be considered second sort, especially after the coup 11 years ago in February 2014, when the putschists took power by illegal bloody coup, masterminded by the United States. Some time ago after this event, Victoria Nuland admitted at the hearings in Congress that the United States spent, by that time, about $5 billion to support Ukraine. And she said it was not in vain, because eventually democracy prevailed. This democratic government, which came to power illegally, their first statement showing their political instincts was that they will cancel the status of the Russian language next morning after the coup.
And the coup, of course, happened the day after Germany, France, and Poland guaranteed the deal between the then president, recognized by everybody as legitimate president, and the opposition. And when we called the French, the Germans, and said, guys, you guaranteed the deal, next morning the opposition took all government buildings and so on and so forth. And they said, you know, sometimes democracy takes an unexpected twist.
Interesting. And then, of course, they sent armed groups to storm Crimean parliament. That’s when the people of Crimea rejected this power, these authorities, and held referenda. Then Donetsk and Lugansk, the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk did the same.
It is not about territories for us. It is about the people who have been living on those lands for centuries. They were building cities, including the city of Odessa, a very famous place which was founded by Catherine the Great, whose monument recently was removed by Zelensky government, who would like to forget all parts of history which, one way or another, link Ukrainians and the Russians. But this is going to fail. He cannot undermine this.
So my point is that and when President Trump said about NATO in Alaska, when also in Alaska he mentioned about territories, for us, it is not territories. It is about the people who live on these territories. But then, next day, when this crowd, European crowd, brought Zelensky to the White House, and after that Zelensky was talking to the media, and some Europeans were talking to the media, and they say, nobody can prohibit Ukraine to join NATO. No territorial changes, no nothing.
Actually, I will quote some of the statements by Zelensky and his team. They, from April 2022, when Boris Johnson came and prohibited Zelensky to accept the deal negotiated in Istanbul, which was actually proposed by Ukrainian side, and which was initialed. But after this was undermined by Boris Johnson, now we know that he got about one million pounds from his friend to continue the war, because his friend was selling guns to Ukraine. So after that, they said, no negotiations with Putin. No negotiations, only he must be brought to International Criminal Court. We want European soldiers. We don’t want – no ceasefires, he was saying only one year ago. And then, in September this year, he said, to give to Putin one or another piece of land, this would never happen. It is not a solution, this is just a pause. And isolation of Russia is what must remain forever.
So when people now say, ceasefire, we know that they want just to buy some time again. And that this logic, which is deeply rooted in Zelensky, whatever moves his head, brain, is obvious for any objective observer.
Question: Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea, I understand. But what about Kherson and Zaporozhye? Could Russia ever talk about giving them back to Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: They are also part of our Constitution. And the fact that this was not just imposed from above, like in Kosovo the population was not asked. The representative of the United Nations, who was a Finnish, former Finnish president, he just said, Kosovo is independent, – full stop.
Unlike this trick, we based the decision to include them, to admit them back to Russia, because all these lands were founded by the Russian Empire and developed by the Soviet Union. Only after all of them, each of these four regions after Crimea, held referenda and bluntly expressed their desire to rejoin with Russia.
And when we now liberate remaining parts of Zaporozhye, this is the Russian way to pronounce it. And Kherson, the people, in spite of the attempts of Ukrainian army to pull them into mainland Ukraine, most of them are not leaving. They’re staying, and they’re welcoming the Russian soldiers who liberate them. So this is not our will, our “imperialist desire”, some people say. This is our concern for the future of the people who feel being part of the Russian culture.
By the way, when Zelensky and his entourage, like Macron, Starmer, Merz, and others, they still say Russia must get out of Ukraine, out of 1991 borders. And yesterday, I think, they gathered in London for this Coalition of the Willing. And Starmer, addressing the media before the event, he said that Russia, Putin is the only one who doesn’t want peace.
And this deserves some explanation. Putin supported the deal between the government and opposition in 2014, immediately after the coup. Obama called him. Obama asked him not to block the deal. He said, if the legitimate president is signing something with the opposition, how can I block him? And then you know what happened. The coup, and explanation by the Europeans that sometimes democracy is very tricky. They did not lift a finger to stop these putschists, though they knew very well that they came to power under the neo-Nazis’ banners. Then in 2015, the Minsk agreements. We negotiated the Minsk agreements. We were prepared to implement them. They, as I mentioned, said that we never intended to do this. We just needed to buy some time.
In April 2022, a couple of weeks after the special military operation started, Ukrainians asked for negotiations. We agreed. We held several rounds in Belarus and then moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, as I said, the Ukrainian delegation put a paper with the principles to be developed into a treaty. We accepted this paper. It was initialed. And then Boris Johnson said, don’t do this. Continue to fight Russia until we defeat them.
So when Starmer said that Putin is the only one who is against negotiations, he should remember about his former prime minister, Boris Johnson. He should remember about those in Germany and in France who signed the deal and then, a few years later, admitted that they never intended to do this in spite of the fact that it had been endorsed by the UN Security Council. And then Starmer continued to say that Putin must stop atrocities, must stop killing children, and he must withdraw to the borders of 1991.
On children, it’s a shame. I mean, the amount of lies, the amount of propaganda is astonishing. We have been hearing that tens of thousands of children have been stolen by Russia from their parents. And after the Istanbul process started this year, there were three rounds. At the very first meeting, our delegation asked Ukrainians, guys, you are concerned about the kids. Can we get the list of those kids who are missing? It took some time. Eventually, we received a list of 339 names. No 10,000, not even 1,000. And we checked that list. A huge part of it are not kids, grown-ups. Many have been verified as being in Europe. So when you listen to this.. But Starmer keeps saying that we must stop hijacking children.
And that’s for “1991 borders”, and “Russia must withdraw”. Ok hypothetically, in their dreams and delusions, if we leave the territories inside the 1991 Ukrainian borders, what happens to those people whom they publicly called the respective governments of Ukraine after the coup, called them “inhumans”, called them “species”. “Species”, by the way, is the term used by Zelensky long before the special military operation started. He was asked in November 2021 what he thought about the people in Donbass on the other side of the line of contact, according to the Minsk agreements. And he was asked what he thought about those people. He said, you know, there are people, and there are “species”. And then in other interview he said if you live in Ukraine and feel like being part of Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake and safety of your kids, for the sake and safety of your grandchildren, get out to Russia.
So in fact, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson, the population of these four territories, they follow his advice. They go back to Russia.
Question: And what about Odessa? Because President Putin told the Hungarian journalist, Gábor Stier, at the Valdai discussion that Odessa is an ancient Russian city. What did you mean by that?
Sergey Lavrov: I just mentioned it’s just the fact which any educated person know very well, that Odessa is a city. There was a very small village on that spot. And Catherine the Great founded Odessa. She built Odessa. She built the ports. She built roads, factories. And that’s what is meant. Odessa was always international city, famous for its good humor. And Odessa, of course, is the heritage. And it is part of the UNESCO list of world cultural heritage.
But when the monument to the founder of the city, Catherine the Great, was removed by the nazist regime, UNESCO just stayed shut up. And the French director general, Madame Azoulay, did not comment upon it at all.
Question: If the negotiations don’t work, when will Russia say we have reached our goals and end the war?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, the goals have never changed. I gave you some examples. When they started ‘strategic defeat’ to Russia – no negotiations. And now they are pleading and threatening. Ceasefire immediately, without any preconditions, because Ukraine is running out of weapons. And we need to replenish the weapons for Ukraine. Or there must be sustainable long-term peace, as President Trump said after Alaska. Now the Europeans are trying to dominate the agenda with the rhetoric about cease fire. They are zigzagging, depending on what is going on on the front line.
We are convinced that to save the people from the nazist regime, the people who have always been part of the Russian culture. They spoke Russian language. They were teaching their children in Russian. They watched Russian movies. They got news from the Russian media outlets, culture, theaters, what have you. And when all this has been prohibited by legislation, the Constitution of Ukraine still states that the state of Ukraine guarantees the rights of national minorities. Russian minority is highlighted separately. Russian and other national minorities, as regards education, what have you. And when all this was canceled by law and they started this canceling in 2017, long before the special military operation started. And since then and this was another root cause. The root cause, number one, NATO, because it was intended to pull Ukraine into NATO and to build military bases in Crimea on the Sea of Azov, just on our doorsteps. And I quoted President Trump, who bluntly explained why it’s absolutely unacceptable to Russia. And everybody must understand this.
But another root cause is extermination of everything Russian – history, language, media, culture, education – toppling and destroying the monuments to the Russian representatives who founded Ukraine in the eastern and southern part, toppling the monuments to those who saved Ukraine and Europe from Hitler and his nazist troops. And we ask from time to time, publicly and individually, we ask our colleagues who show any interest in helping to settle this conflict, we ask, why are you… Ok, NATO, it is something which not too many people would like to get into publicly. But human rights, it’s in the United Nations Charter. It says everybody must ensure human rights, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion. Language, as I said, is totally banned by law. In practice, people still use Russian language because it is their native language. Ukrainian Canonic Orthodox Church had also been banned by law.
But people only ask, when are you going to end the war? When are you going to have a ceasefire? It’s not honest, if you wish. An honest discussion would be to tell Ukrainians, before anything else, restore language rights, restore all national minority rights, because your constitution says so. And in violation of the constitution, you pass so many pieces of legislation. Including, by the way, the legislation which discriminates Hungarian national minority in the Western Ukraine, though Ukrainians try to be very specific in discriminating Russian language and trying to make some concessions for the language of the European Union. There is no single international convention which says that there are some languages which are more important than others. It’s like Orwell, you know? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I repeatedly discussed this with Peter Szijjarto, and he assured me that when Hungary fights politically, diplomatically, for the right of national minorities, Hungary means all national minorities, as international conventions, as the United Nations Charter, require. And we appreciated the role Hungary played when this framework for negotiations with Ukraine on accession to the European Union was discussed. And Hungary, I think, single-handedly insisted that these chapters on negotiating accession included quite considerable language on national minorities, on their rights. And it is formulated not just about European Union languages. It’s about all languages and all national minorities. And we appreciate that Hungary happened to be basically the country which single-handedly achieved this.
It’s another matter that nobody in Brussels wants to remember about this deal, this consensus. And when various representatives, including the Commission for Enlargement, Mrs. Kos, as far as I understand, is saying, no, no, no, Ukraine is fully ready to begin accession negotiations. For Ukraine to be ready, they first have to undo what they have done in violation of their constitution and many, many conventions.
So it’s not, I think, appropriate when people say, when are you going to end the war? Where are you going to stop? Zaporozhye, are you going to give it back? Actually, we now have taken some other territories which do not belong to the regions reflected now in our Constitution. The reason is very simple. We need a buffer zone. Because Ukrainians continue shelling, bombing, droning Russian territory, including the territories which never were challenged by anybody. I mean, Bryansk, Belgorod, Kursk. So root causes, that’s what must be key to understanding how to help end this situation efficiently, thinking not about grabbing back territories, not about saving political losers who are ruling in Kiev, but thinking about the people who should be the utmost concern of those who say that they are champions of democracy. And when we are accused that we violate so many things, we invaded independent state in violation of one thing, like in violation of its independence, then in violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
First, we recognized Ukraine on the basis of its own Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. In 1990, Declaration of Independence was adopted, which says non-nuclear, neutral, non-bloc country with the rights of all national minorities, and so on and so forth. And this was then endorsed by the Constitution.
So we recognized the Ukraine, which was very different from the country run by the openly nazist regime. And when people pull it into NATO and say it has the right to choose alliances, it is not our reading of the situation. When we recognize somebody, it is on the basis of what this country is, according to its own proclamation.
Question: The other question, before the Hungarian-Russian relationship, I’ve been thinking a lot about if Ukraine joining NATO is a red line. Why was Finland’s NATO membership not a red line? What is the difference between Ukraine and Finland from Russia’s point of view?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, the regime in Finland, I think they made a mistake. I know Alexander Stubb very well. Since the time when he was the foreign minister, remember in 2008, when then-president of Georgia, Saakashvili, launched an attack against the city of Tskhinvali and the peacekeeping group, which was there on the basis of the mandate of OSCE. And Alexander Stubb was in Tbilisi, and then he was passing through Moscow. And he made a very, I think, sober and accurate assessment of what kind of person Mr. Saakashvili was. And he was a reasonable gentleman. We had nice human relations and nice professional relations.
And then, after the special military operation against the nazist regime in Kiev started, somehow the Finnish leadership started to experience, I think, nostalgic feelings about the times when they were helping another nazist regime to defeat Russia during World War II.
Question: If there will be another leader in Ukraine, not Zelensky, then will the regime be a Nazi? If there would be another leader.
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I am not in the guessing business. We have a bluntly nazist regime, which, as I said, shows openly the despise to anything Russian, which prohibited anything Russian. It’s the only country on Earth which prohibited a language, not to mention that this is official language of the United Nations. In Palestine, in any Arab country, Hebrew is not prohibited. In Israel, Arabic is not prohibited. But Zelensky prohibited the Russian language. Now they included Pushkin, Lermontov, Dostoevsky, some other writers of world fame in a list of materials which promote “imperialist propaganda”. No comment, as it were.
Question: So the Hungarian-Russian relationship. A few days ago, it was October 23, the anniversary of the 1956 revolution in Hungary. And that was one of the saddest days in our history, and when the Soviets occupied our country. Some Hungarians still fear the Russians. We love freedom, and we love independence. Honestly, we don’t want to be attacked again. What can you say to them? Should they worry about a Russian attack in Hungary?
Sergey Lavrov: They don’t need to be told. They know this. And we, long ago, reached agreement with our Hungarian colleagues that there would be no emotions, that there would be honest reading and rethinking of history. When President Putin was in Budapest long ago, 2006, he laid flowers to the monument to the victims of 1956 events.
And just recently, he was in Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, I think two years ago, in 2023. And he said that this, addressing the issue of 1956, that this part of the Soviet policy was a mistake. And they don’t have any difference on assessing those events with Prime Minister Orban. But they as I said, don’t need to ignite emotions around this issue, though maybe some people in Hungary and in Russia, especially those who emigrated, maybe they would like to drive a wedge in our relations and to try to steer this history.
But the leaders of Russia and Hungary, they know better. This is part of history. We gave our assessment. Hungary gave its assessment. And we now live a new life, remembering about all periods of our history. There were good periods. There were not very good periods. There were bad ones. But they remain in our memory. They remain in history. And they do not prevent us from developing mutually beneficial cooperation, politically, economically, technologically, and other ways.
Question: I am asking because you went to Alaska wearing a Soviet Union hoodie. And some people in Hungary weren’t too happy about it. Some people said it was a secret message. Was it, or are you just a big troll?
Sergey Lavrov: There was some concern that I went to Alaska?
Question: You wore a Soviet Union hoodie in Alaska, a sweater.
Sergey Lavrov: Look, we also have t-shirts with the emblem of the Russian Empire. Many people wear it. It’s part of history. And apart from the fact that the sweater was very stylish, and it was very popular.
Question: Was it a random choice or a secret message in Alaska?
Sergey Lavrov: No.
Question: And you have Columbia sweaters or Novorossiya sweaters too?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, in any country, there are parts of clothing devoted to history, to some bright moments of history, or to some moments when, for me, the Soviet Union is my motherland.
I was born there. I enjoyed my youth. I enjoyed my employment by the Foreign ministry. And I don’t think that we should be ashamed of it. To the contrary, the Soviet Union was the key winner in World War II. Yes, we were fighting with Hungary at that time. We were fighting with Finland at that time. But that was a war which allowed everybody to create the foundation for the new world. The United Nations, everybody is equal.
And apart from Nuremberg and Khabarovsk tribunals, basically, we thought that everybody now decided to be forthcoming. Like the French and the Germans overcame the old grievances, so did we with many countries who thought that the Soviet Union was exploiting them in the COMECON (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance), in the Warsaw Treaty. But it’s very interesting.
For example, Germany. Everybody thought that the German Democratic Republic was the servant of the Soviet Union. And as soon as the freedom explodes, Germany would be reunited. And it happened. It was reunited, but not the way which people discussed. It was not an equal reunification. It was a swallowing of GDR by West Germany. And I know for sure, for example, that no one who used to work in the GDR foreign ministry was left in the united Germany foreign ministry. Many people were left unemployed, and so on and so forth.
Some other countries, including I think Poland, did the same. I don’t remember that Hungary was doing something like this, and I believe it is right. I believe that after many wars which were originated in Europe or by Europe, it has to be a different epoch. And we all must unite to build a different world, like we all agreed in 1975 in Helsinki and developed principles which are now absolutely ignored and grossly violated by those who run OSCE, those who become chairpersons, and those who work as secretary general. The current secretary general, our Turkish colleague, is trying to overcome this deficiency, and we wish him very well.
But oh, yes, I forgot to mention about Budapest memorandum. Many people said that invitation to Budapest, the meeting there, would basically mean that it is a humiliation, because Budapest already was once the place where guarantees to Ukraine was signed, and it will be a very bad memory association.
People who say so, they never read the Budapest memorandum. The Budapest memorandum says that Ukraine, as other former Soviet republics who refused to have nuclear weapons, would receive guarantees, guarantees as the nuclear powers give to non-nuclear states. That’s it. That’s all. And these guarantees say that nuclear weapons would not be used against non-nuclear powers who are members of Non-Proliferation Treaty. But parallel with the Budapest memorandum, a declaration was signed by the same signatories, which contained their commitments, solemn commitments, to observe all principles of OSCE, including national minorities, democracy, freedom of speech, and so on and so forth. All these commitments which have been reflected in OSCE documents and which were reiterated on the occasion of the adoption of Budapest memorandum have been grossly violated by the Ukrainian regime. So we don’t think we are in any way violating that document, which played a very important role in that period.
Question: So the last quick question. Can we expect you to visit Budapest soon, you, President Putin, or maybe President Trump? If there are talks, could they happen in Budapest? Because we have many great t-shirts and sweaters, some even show our old borders. But that’s a complicated topic. And we have very little time left. So can we expect you to visit Budapest?
Sergey Lavrov: I was not invited. President Trump suggested to President Putin to meet in Budapest. President Putin said, yes, let’s go into the preparatory work. We had a good conversation with Marco Rubio. The initiative was on the part of the United States.
As I said, I heard that the State Department issued a communique saying that it was a good and productive phone conversation between Rubio and Lavrov. And it was so good that for the time being, we don’t need any meetings.
So the initiative is there, and we are polite people. And when we are invited, we say, yes, let’s agree how and where and when. And when this invitation is canceled, as President Trump said yesterday in the White House. Later they said that “cancel” means “postpone”. It’s up to those who initiated the process.
A time travel across History – the Ancient Silk Roads as well as Xinjiang may well be the ultimate crossroads of civilizations. Along Central Asia, they are the (beating) heart of the Heartland…
By Pepe Escobar at the Strategic Culture Foundation.
ON THE SOUTHERN SILK ROAD – Silk is the stuff of legend. Literally. At first manufactured only in China, silk historically was not only a luxury product but a monetary unit: a key element of trade and export revenues.
In 105 B.C., a first-ever Chinese diplomatic mission landed in Persia, then dominated by the Parthians, who also occupied Bactria, Assyria, Babylon and parts of India. Under the four-century long Arsacid dynasty – contemporary of the Han in China – the Parthians at the time were the essential middlemen of transcontinental trade. Chinese and Parthians sat down to discuss – what else – business.
The Roman Empire faced some serious trouble with the Parthians – between the massive defeat of Crassus in Carrhae in 53 B.C. and the victory of Septimus Severus in the year 202. In between, silk hit Rome. Big time.
The first time Roman soldiers saw silk was in the battle of Carrhae. Legend rules that the silk banners deployed by the Parthian army, their scintillating appeal making serious noise under the fierce winds, frightened the Roman cavalry: talk about the first instance of silk contributing to accelerate the decline of the Roman Empire.
Well, what matters is that silk perpetrated nothing less than an economic revolution. The Roman Republic and then Empire had to export gold like there’s no tomorrow to get their silken ways.
Parthian rule was followed by Sassanid Persia. They reigned until the mid 7th century – their empire stretching from Central Asia to Mesopotamia. For quite a while the Sassanids incarnated the role of great power between China and Europe – up to the conquests of Islam.
(L): Silk Road, the ancient Chinese way: from Xian to Alexandria, not Rome ; (R): The stone tower: Tashkurgan Fort, the landmark between China and the rest of Eurasia
So imagine, at the start of the Christian era, bolts of silk moving overland all along across the Silk Road spectrum. What’s fascinating is that Rome and China never (italics mine) entered in direct contact – for all the vast cast of characters (merchants, adventurers, fake “ambassadors”) that tried.
In parallel, a Maritime Road was also in play – already in effect during the times of Alexander The Great; it later became the Spice Route. That was how Chinese, Persians and Arabs reached India.
Since the Han dynasty, the Chinese reached not only India but also Vietnam, Malaysia and Sumatra. Sumatra soon developed as a key maritime entrepot, with Arab vessels arriving non-stop. In a more long-distance vein, it was the discovery of the rules of the monsoon – in the first century B.C. – that allowed the Romans to also reach the western shores of India.
So silk arrived in Rome by land and sea, via loads of different middlemen. And yet Rome never knew anything about the origin of silk, nor went further than the Greeks in their wobbly knowledge of the distant, mysterious land of Seres.
The twists and turns of the Panlong Ancient Road, in Pamir lands
I went down to the (Pamir) crossroads
After the mid-1st century, the Kushan empire, actually Indo-Scythian, gets a protagonist role in southern Central Asia, in what was known then as Eastern Turkestan. The Kushan, rivals of the Parthians in the role of messengers of international trade, not only facilitated the spread of Buddhism but also Gandhara – Greco-Buddhist – art (some originals are still to be found today, at exorbitant prices, in art galleries in Hong Kong and Bangkok).
And yet, further on down the road, the rules of the game never substantially changed: two great Silk Road poles – Sassanid Persia and Byzantium – involved in a real, cutthroat industrial war with silk right in the middle. The secret of silk manufacturing had already been leaked to South Asia.
This trade war got even more complicated with the onslaught of Turk tribes across Central Asia, and the emergence of a trade kingdom in Sogdiana (with Samarkand at the center).
By the mid-7th century, the Tang dynasty recovered control over parts of the Silk Road ruled by Tarim basin kingdoms. That was an absolute must for business to go on – because caravan routes traversing these kingdoms encircled, and bypassed, by north and south, the fear-inducing Taklamakan desert, as they still do today.
Tang China wanted absolute control all the way at least up to the Pamir mountains where, in the legendary stone tower relentlessly described by adventurers but never really located with 100% certainty, Scythian, Parthian and Persian caravans met Chinese caravans to trade that precious silk plus several other commodities.
The stone tower mentioned by top geographers such as Ptolemy is actually Tashkurgan Fort in the Pamir mountains: ultra- strategic, straddling the Silk Road, and nowadays a top tourist attraction very close to the Karakoram highway.
The stone tower is the symbolic landmark between the Chinese world and the rest of Eurasia: to the west is the Indo-Iranian world.
I traveled the Pamir Highway in Tajikistan back-to-back before Covid interrupted everything. This time our mini-caravan crossed Pamir lands along and around the Karakoram highway on the way to the China-Pakistan border: that is now prime China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) territory, a key plank of BRI.
It’s the Pamirs that in Ancient Silk Road times allowed reaching the oasis of Kashgar. The Pamirs tie a gigantic mountainous knot between the western limits of the Himalayas, the Hindu Kush and the southern slopes of the Tian Shan.
This has always been the key crossroads between the triangular trade uniting northern India, eastern Central Asia – with China nearby – and western Central Asia, with the steppes not so far away.
China meets Islam: a great, historical “what if?”
Silk, bearing serious value as a unit of capitalization and trade, had a much larger role than its usage. In Byzantium, silk was the object of an imperial monopoly. Everything was strictly regulated: professions, state ateliers where women worked, and customs. The state protected its monopoly via a fierce bureaucracy.
Meanwhile, the Maritime Road was booming. A Buddhist and maritime power, Srivijaya, controlled the ever-crucial Malacca strait out of the island of Sumatra. It’s under this configuration that Islam enters the Big Picture.
As much as History ruled that Rome and China would never meet directly along the Silk Road, it also ruled a stark separation between Islam and China. Or try to imagine if China, in the mid 8th century, had become a land of Islam.
The battle of Talas, in 751 – in what is today’s Kyrgyzstan – pitted China against the Arabs. And its result ended for good any Chinese whim of conquering Central Asia. Today, with the New Silk Roads/BRI, is another story – about Chinese trade/investment power projection all across the Heartland, and beyond.
(L): Culture interpenetration: Bukhara meets Kashgar ; (R): Samarkand. Opening the doors to another dimension.
Back in the early 8th century, the key player was Umayyad dynasty General Qutayba ibn Muslim. He first conquered Bukhara and Samarkand; crossed the Ferghana valley; the Tian Shan mountains; and nearly reached Kashgar. The Chinese governor at the time, sensing that Qutayba might be about to take over Chinese lands, sent him a bag full of earth’s soil, a few coins and four princes as hostages. He calculated that’s how the Arab conqueror might not lose face, and leave the Middle Kingdom alone.
As incredible as it might seem, this arrangement lasted for half a century. Until the battle of Talas. Now compare it with Poitiers in 732 – one century after the death of Prophet Muhammad. We can certainly interpret Talas and Poitiers, together, as the two key landmarks of how Islam was on the verge of extending itself all cross Eurasia (including its European peninsula), creating a political-military empire from Rome to Chang’an (today’s Xian).
Well, it did not happen. Still, that’s one of the most extraordinary “what ifs” in History.
The importance of the battle of Talas – virtually ignored in the West, except in rarefied scholarly circles – is really larger than life. Among other issues, it imposed a new circulation of techniques. The Arabs took away with them artisans, sericulture experts but also paper makers. Ateliers at first were set up in Samarkand. Later on, in Baghdad and all across the Caliphate.
So alongside the Silk Road, we saw the birth of a very busy Paper Road.
An extraordinary Silk Road exhibition currently at the Gansu museum in Lanzhou
Deserts, mountains, oases – and no “slave labor”
Rolling down the highways across Xinjiang shooting a documentary after retracing the initial Ancient Silk Road from Xian to the Gansu corridor is an incomparable, historical time travel – as we may retrace in detail centuries of Central Asian turmoil all the way to the decline of some local pre-Islamic cultures by the 9th century. It’s a thrill to reconnect with the main actors: Uyghurs, Han Chinese, Sogdians, Indians, nomads, Arabs, Tibetans, Tajiks, Kyrgyz – and Mongolians.
The nomad groups thar proclaimed themselves heirs to the fierce Xiongnu came from the northwest of Mongolia and the Altai mountains. They incorporated several ancient nomads of western Central Asia during the 4th century, sharply remodeling the political and ethnic landscape.
The Xiongnu, on and off, pillaged parts of northern China – and were occasionally enticed into serious trade, offered tribute, or simply bribed to stay away. Actually the Xiongnu had a branch established in China and separated for at least two centuries from the previous ones: they ended up taking Samarkand in the year 350. Later on, it’s the Turks that once again came from Mongolia (don’t tell Erdogan about it; he wouldn’t know), unifying the steppe in the 6th century, way before the arrival of Islam.
Arguably the key Silk Road imperative is the desert and oasis contrast/dichotomy.
(L): The stark beauty of the fierce Taklamakan ; (R): Good pasture in Pamir lands
Deserts such as the Taklamakan and the Gobi, and several others, as well as arid steppes and mountains are among the most forbidding on the planet: these are the essential features of what amounts to roughly 6 million km2.
What is very rare in Central Asia is cultivated land (yet we can see a succession of cotton fields) or good pasture (we can see it in the Gansu corridor, and even in Pamir lands near the mighty Muztagh Ata). Still, deserts and mountains are at the heart of everything.
Some oases are of course more equal than others. Khotan is the most important oasis of the Southern Silk Road – not far from the immense, deserted Tibetan plateau. That’s fabulous for agriculture but most of all, courtesy of an alluvial cone, for precious stones, especially jade, supplied for over 2,000 years to every Chinese dynasty. Khotan spoke an Iranian language – close to those of ancient nomads Saka and Scythian, masters of the steppes.
The kingdom of Khotan was a fierce rival of the oases further west, Yarkand and Kashgar. It was only intermittently under Chinese control. And may have been conquered by the Kushans in the 2nd century. Indian influence is omnipresent – as we still see in dress patterns and food in the Night Market. In the 3rd century Buddhism was already a major influence – featuring the most ancient testimonials in the Tarim basin.
The Silk Road, actually Roads, is of course The Buddhist Road. In Dunhuang, in the Gansu corridor, Buddhism was also popular since the 3rd century: a famous local monk, Dharmaraksa, was the pupil of an Indian master. The Dunhuang Buddhist crowds were a mix of Chinese, Indian and Central Asian – once more testifying to the non-stop interpenetration of cultures.
(L): The Chinese character for “silk” inscribed in jade in front of a factory in Khotan ; (R): Playing the Uyghur blues
The Shakespearean “all the world is a stage” metaphor totally applies to the history of the Silk Road: all those actors from all corners of the Heartland historically were playing several roles, sometimes all in one go – an apotheosis of the favourite Xi Jinping-coined “people to people’s exchanges”. That’s the spirit of the Ancient and the New Silk Roads.
We were fortunate enough to be on the road smack in the middle of the 70th anniversary of the establishment of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.
Among so many accomplishments by socialism with Chinese characteristics in Xinjiang in terms of sustainable development, the taming of the Taklamakan – or “sea of death” – is in a world class of its own.
We crossed the Taklamakan from the Northern Silk Road in Aksu to the Southern, near Keriya: and we experienced everthing from the impeccable highway bordered by the reeds composing the “China magic cube” – to keep the sands away – to some of the 3,046 km-long sand-blocking green belt, featuring plants such as the desert poplar and the red willow.
The Taklamakan has always been Sandstorm Central – a major threat to the succession of oases. The terrain all around the oases is hardcore: deserts, barren mountains, Gobi wasteland, poor soil, sparse vegetation, low rainfall, high evaporation, dry air.
Well, what we see today started even before the Go West campaign launched in 1999: since 1997, an array of central and state agencies, central state-owned enterprises, and 14 Chinese provinces and municipalities have sent a massive amount of funds and personnel to properly develop Xinjiang.
Now compare all that with original research shared at an academic conference on Xinjiang recently organized by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and Hong Kong University – my neighbors when I lived in the Fragrant Harbor. The research showed how British MI6 since the 1990s was instrumentalizing a minority of Uyghurs side by side with a massive global P.R. campaign with the explicit target of breaking China into three parts.
That evolved into the CIA-concocted “genocide” accusations of the past few years and of course “forced labor” masses barely surviving in concentration/re-education camps. In our extensive travels, guided by Uyghurs, we were dead set on finding slave labor in cotton fields along the Northern Silk Road or in the middle of the Taklamakan. Well, sorry: they don’t exist.
The propaganda though was essential to regiment loads of Uyghurs into ISIS, including their sizable contingent in Idlibistan now roaming free between Syria and the Turkish border. They wouldn’t dare coming back to Xinjiang and face Chinese intel.
Forget about barbarian propaganda. What really matters, historically, is that the Ancient Silk Roads as well as Xinjiang may well be the ultimate crossroads of civilizations. Along Central Asia, they are the (beating) heart of the Heartland. And now, once again, they are back as protagonists in the heart of History.
Part II of the celestial Travelogue through the western regions of China.
By Silk Road pilgrim Pepe Escobar on the Strategic Culture Foundation.
DUNHUANG – Across History, the Silk Road – actually a network of roads – is the supreme Highway Star: the most important connectivity corridor ever, rolling across Ancient Eurasia, linking what Chinese scholars consensually define as the main civilization systems in the world: China, India, Persia, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as showcasing several historical stages of economic and cultural exchanges between East and West.
Prof. Ji Xianlin, a top scholar of Dunhuang Studies, came up with a formulation certified to drive Western supremacists crazy for all eternity:
“There are only four, rather than five, influential cultural systems in the world: Chinese, Indian, Greek and Islam. They all met only on China’s Dunhuang and Xinjiang”.
Dunhuang’s prime geo-strategic position across History was inevitably bound to generate spectacular artistic achievements.
After years since my previous journeys, then the Covid shock, then China’s subsequent recovery, I have been privileged to finally embark on a renewed Journey to the West to retrace the original Ancient Silk Road, starting in Xian – the former imperial capital Chang’an – all the way through the Gansu corridor to Dunhuang.
Brilliant Eurasian cultures converged, interacted and spread their wings on the Ancient Silk Roads. Dunhuang – on the western end of the Hexi corridor in Gansu province – was the most vital hub in the eastern section of the Chinese Silk Road, framed by mountains to the north and south, the central plains to the east, and Xinjiang to the west.
Dunhuang, the “Blazing Beacon”, held a supremely strategic position controlling two passes – Yangguan and Yumenguan. Han Emperor Wu Di clearly understood that Dunhuang was the last major water source before the fear-inducing Taklamakan desert to the west, as well as sitting astride the three main Silk Road routes heading west.
Yumenguan was the all-important Jade Gate pass – set by the Han empire in the 2nd century B.C.: placed in the south Gobi and the western end of the Qilian mountains, actually marking the western limit of classic China.
(L): The remains of the Great Han Wall ; (R): Xian
I spent a whole blinding beautiful blue-sky day in the pass and its surroundings after striking a deal with a taxi driver in Dunhuang. It’s a thrill to admire how the Han dynasty organized their traffic management system, the beacon fire system, and the Great Wall defense system (remains of the Han Wall are still there) – guaranteeing the safety of the long-distance Silk Road connectivity corridor.
Talk to the caravan: the secret of “people to people’s exchanges”
At the impeccably organized Dunhuang Book Center, historical records refer to it as “a metropolis where the Han people and non-Han peoples meet”. Quite the antecessor to Xi Jinping’s “people to people’s exchanges.” The spirit remains, especially at the fabulous Night Market, a gastronomic feast with pride of place for Uyghur recipes.
Silk and porcelain from the central plains, jewelry and perfume from “the western regions”, camels and horses from north China, grains from Hexi, everything was traded in Dunhuang. Merchant deals, migrations, military games, cultural exchanges, a profusion of literati, scholars, artists, officials, diplomats, religious pilgrims, military brought classic Chinese culture into an effervescent mix – Sogdian, Tibet, Uyghur, Tangut, Mongolia – all absorbed into what eventually became Dunhuang art.
(L): Uyghur businesswomen at the fabulous Dunhuang Night Market ; (R): The Desert Princess look. Affordable. Less than $60 for a set of clothes, make-up, 25 exclusive pics and retouches.
Itinerant Buddhism, Nestorianism, Zoroastrianism, Islam – the sophisticated aesthetic feel of Dunhuang was progressively influenced by architecture, sculpture, paintings, music, dance, weaving, dyeing techniques all the way from Central Asia and West Asia.
“Silk Road” terminology in Xi’s “moderately prosperous” modernized China is an extremely nuanced business. For instance, already in Xian, at the Small White Goose pagoda, we see it described as “Silk Roads: The Routes Network of Chang’an-Tian Shan corridor”.
Xian. (L): The perfect lamian at the Muslim Quarter – since Tang times ; (R): DON’T mess with a Tang warrior princess
That’s a geographically correct interpretation, stressing the Tian Shan mountains instead of the politically correct Xinjiang (which was essentially part of the “western regions”, not necessarily Chinese territory, for centuries).
As for how the Silk Road began, that now follows a single, scholarly accepted version: Han Emperor Wu Di, in 140 B.C. sent Zhang Qian as an envoy to the “western regions” on two business missions. The “Records of the Grand Historian” show that Zhang Qian, as the first official diplomat in Chinese history, de facto opened channels of communications with the “western regions” and then all the states in the northwest started trading with the Han, especially silk.
(L): On the road to the Jade Gate Pass. Electrification ; (R): At the Dunhuang Academy museum: where the artists came from
From Xian’s Shaanxi History Museum to the Dunhuang Academy, and including the Gansu museum in Lanzhou, in interactions with scholars and museum curators as well as in complement to formidable Silk Road exhibits, it’s fascinating to retrace the now established official narrative on the Silk Roads, according to which “the civilization of ancient China represented by silk started to impact the states in the western regions, Central Asia and West Asia.”
It was way more complex than that – as spices, metals, chemicals, saddles, leather products, glass, paper (invented in the 2nd century B.C.), everything was on the market, but the general drift applies: merchants from the central plains defying deserts and mountain peaks in caravans laden with silk, bronze mirrors and lacquerware from China, seeking to exchange them for commodities, while merchants from the western regions brought furs, jade, felts to the central plains.
Talk about multi-ethnic “people to people’s exchanges”. And by the way, no one ever used the term “Silk Road”; it was “the road to Samarkand” or just the “northern” or “southern” routes around the ominous Taklamakan desert.
About the Tang dynasty monetary system…
By the 3rd century, Dunhuang was already at the apex of Silk Road connectivity; and that’s when merchants and pilgrims started to sponsor the construction of the nearby Buddhist Mogao caves.
The Mogao Caves are part of what is known in Gansu province as the five Dunhuang grottoes. It’s the same system of caves – 813 surviving, with 735 in Mogao. To approach Mogao is a major thrill in itself: we need to be in an official park bus, crammed with zillions of Chinese tourists, rolling through the desert, and suddenly we are in the eastern foot of the Mingsha mountains, with the Dangquan river running right in front of us, facing the Qilian mountains to the east, with the caves set back against and cut into the cliff face, connected by a series of ramps and walkways.
the Mogao caves (L): the main pavilion ; (R): One of the Buddha highlights
The caves started to be built as early as in the 4th century – all the way to the 14th century (the earliest wall paintings are from the 5th); it’s a group of caves in four levels, 1,6 km from north to south along a cliff as much as 30 meters high. The 492 caves in the southern area house more than 45 km of wall paintings, over 2,000 painted statues, and five wooden eaves. They were originally used for worshipping Buddhas.
What we are still able to see takes our breath away. Highlights include a wrestling scene from Buddha’s life on cave 290; a girl apsara – mythic dancer – on cave 296; the Deer King on cave 257; a hunting scene on cave 249; a Garuda – defined in Chinese as “the Scarlet Bird” – on cave 285; parables of the Magic City from the Lotus Sutra, a masterpiece of High Tang dynasty, on cave 217; a sitting Boddhisattva on cave 196; impeccably preserved worshipping bodhisattvas on cave 285.
Rules are extremely strict: visit only to selected caves, with an official guide, no photos, only the guide’s torchlight to illuminate the grottoes. I was privileged to visit guided by Helen, who studied in Dunhuang University and is now doing her PhD in Archeology. After the visit she explained in detail the ground-breaking conservation work of the Dunhuang Academy.
The construction of the caves was a spectacular undertaking in terms of division of labor. Just imagine: chiselers to dig and excavate a cave out of the cliff; stonecutters, who also dug caves; bricklayers to build wooden or earthen structures; carpenters, who also repaired wooden tools; sculptors to create the statues; and painters to paint the caves and statues.
Mogao, as an aesthetic experience, is unequaled in its striking collection of Buddhist wall painting criss-crossing China, Persia, India and Central Asian art.
And then there’s what we cannot see: more than 40,000 scrolls found in the library cave, the largest deposit of documents and artifacts discovered anywhere along the Silk Road, with texts on Buddhism, Manicheism, Zoroastrianism and the Eastern Christian Church (from Syria) showing how cosmopolitan Dunhuang was. That’s part of the European scholarly – and otherwise – plunder of the Dunhuang wealth starting in the late 19th century, a completely different, complex, and long, story.
Kashgar. A big fan of the lemonade drink Baksap found everywhere in Xinjiang
In geoeconomic terms, for nearly ten centuries Dunhuang was extremely wealthy, especially during the Tang dynasty (6th to 9th century). The Tang had a fascinating monetary system – with three different currencies: textiles (silk and hemp), grain and coins.
The central government, in the imperial capital Chang’an, used a single aggregate unit to represent all trade. The Dunhuang garrison was a key strategic post: payments came in no less than six different types of woven silk. Well, each place paid their taxes with their locally produced cloth. What the Tang did was to transfer all these textiles to Dunhuang. The garrison’s officers then converted the tax cloth into coins and into grain, to pay local merchants and to feed the soldiers.
So in a nutshell the Tang dynasty was all the time injecting a lot of money – via woven cloth – into the Dunhuang economy. Talk about a public-private state development model – which certainly did not escape Beijing planners when they came up, in 2013, with the concept of the New Silk Roads.
ADDENDUM
≈≈≈
Le groupe palestinien Hamas a libéré ses sept premiers otages. Ils ont été remis à la Croix-Rouge de Gaza, rapporte
L’article Israël et le Hamas commencent leur échange de prisonniers est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Viewed as a global strategy, Russia is performing a balancing act here, intently testing the US-imposed ‘rules-based system’ in West Asia. By boosting military ties with Iran, Russia underscores that the post-World War international order defined by a ‘rules-based system’ has become an aberration..
By Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar at the Deccan Herald.
An uneasy calm has settled over the Gulf region since a hastily brokered ceasefire ended the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran in June. But the protagonists lost no time to prepare for a second round that both anticipate to be apocalyptic. For Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this is the last chance to realise his 25-year-old dream of regime change in Iran, even as Israel’s international isolation is deepening, the spectre of a Palestine State looms ahead, and Iran is steadily boosting its deterrent capability.
Iran’s BRICS membership gives it a diplomatic reach as never before; the ties with Russia and China have assumed the nature of an entente cordiale. The Russian-Iranian Treaty of Comprehensive Strategic Partnership came into effect on October 2, within a week of E3 members of the JCPOA reimposing, with the US leading from rear, a priori additional sanctions on Iran.
The Moscow announcement highlighted the security implications of the treaty by flagging that the document ‘stipulates tighter interaction on the international stage in conditions of the emerging multipolar world, including close coordination within the leading multilateral associations, joint efforts to strengthen stability and security in the region, as well as countering common threats and challenges.’ The accent on security is striking, hinting that Moscow won’t be a bystander in a future Israeli attack on Iran. Indeed, Russian-Israeli ties have sharply deteriorated lately due to growing evidence of Mossad’s tie-up with Britain’s MI6 in Ukraine’s terrorist attacks on Russian territory.
On its part, Iran has tweaked its longstanding policy not to take foreign help to safeguard national defence. Suffice to say, the overall military balance in West Asia is shifting. Both Russia and China have questioned the legitimacy of the contrived Western move to reimpose JCPOA sanctions on the eve of Russia assuming the presidency of the UN Security Council on October 1. The Termination Day of the JCPOA is set for October 18, 2025, 10 years after Adoption Day. According to the JCPOA, 10 years after adoption day, all remaining UN and EU sanctions against Iran should have been terminated.
Russia and Iran, in a defiant move, signed a $25-billion deal last week to build four nuclear power plants in Sirik, which is a doubling down of bilateral co-operation in nuclear technology transfer. As of now, Iran has only the Bushehr NPP built by Russia. Russia and Iran are cocking a snook at the Donald Trump administration at this juncture, when the nuclear talks have broken down and the whereabouts of the enriched uranium stock remains unknown, and IAEA inspectors have no access.
Moscow is indebted to Tehran for providing drone technology that has been crucially effective in Ukraine, while China has been traditionally Iran’s main arms supplier. But Russia and China will not send in troops (which Iran doesn’t need), and instead will outfit Tehran appropriately. The US is in no position in any way to wage a continental war in Iran, which is roughly half the size of India. Even more than the nuclear issue, what is worrisome for the US and Israel is Iran’s success in developing advanced missile technology, which may now have Russian and Chinese support.
In these changed circumstances, the situation around Iran has the potential to bring the US and Russia into a military confrontation, which, of course, neither superpower wants. In principle, this contradiction should discourage Trump from joining any Israeli attack, but in reality, with the Epstein files hanging like a Damocles’ sword on his political future, combined with the powerful Jewish lobby’s control of Congress and Beltway, it is Netanyahu who will call the shots.
Viewed as a global strategy, Russia is performing a balancing act here, intently testing the US-imposed ‘rules-based system’ in West Asia. By boosting military ties with Iran, Russia underscores that the post-World War international order defined by a ‘rules-based system’ has become an aberration, a fragile and artificial construct, sustained only by deliberate US power. Interestingly, Russia has also strongly denounced Washington’s ‘increasing escalation’ against Venezuela.
The influential Iranian news website Nournews has called the Iran-Russia Treaty “a part of the new architecture of international relations, particularly meaningful within the frameworks of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Eurasian Union… Iran’s strategic alignment with Russia, complementing its 25-year agreement with China and convergence with other countries, symbolises the structural transformations of the global order, in which political and economic independence will replace subordination to domination.”
There is no question that maintaining the rules-based system to provide the underpinning of Israel’s security is becoming a fraught endeavour going forward. The ecosystem is no longer hospitable for Israel anyway, and there is little that Washington can do to restore the status quo ante.
Israel may repeat a surprise attack, but Iran is prepared for war. Decapitation as a strategy won’t work this time. Critical weapon systems have been dispersed all over the country. Air defence capability is much better than before. Iran will not necessarily exercise restraint this time and will use all means at its disposal to defend, since this is a fight to the finish, including the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and attacks on US bases.
Against this backdrop, Trump announced on September 29 an extraordinary security pact between the US and Qatar, where the Central Command is headquartered, almost mirroring aspects of a Nato alliance. At first glance, Trump’s move may seem to lay down a marker affecting the fragile and combustible regional dynamics. However, according to former US ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro, a simpler explanation is to see the executive order as more of an extraordinary prize for the ruling Al Thani family while seeking a quid pro quo from the emir to cajole Hamas’ Doha-based leadership to voice support for the Gaza Plan. Coincidence or not, Hamas and Israel began indirect talks in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, on Monday.
Meanwhile, the US military build-up of aircraft, ammunition, missiles, refuelling capabilities, and the reallocation of vessels at sea in and around the Gulf region on such a massive scale is ominous. Keeping armed forces in hype for a prolonged period is impractical. The Pentagon must pull the trigger sooner rather than later, or, will have to stand down. But standing down will mean that the apocalyptic high noon passes and the paradigm shift in the geopolitics of Iran becomes a fait accompli for the US and Israel.
La Russie et l’Ukraine ont procédé à un échange de prisonniers de guerre à raison de 185 pour 185. L’information
L’article La Russie et l’Ukraine procèdent à un échange de prisonniers au format 185 contre 185 est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
As reported …
Islamabad (QNN)- Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar said on Tuesday that US President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan is not the same that was approved by leaders of Arab and Muslim countries, including Pakistan.
“This is not our document,” Dar told reporters at a press conference in Islamabad. He explained that Pakistan and its allies had demanded several key points that were missing. “There are some key areas that we want covered … If they are not covered, they will be covered,” he added.
Dar said the immediate priorities remain a ceasefire, stopping the genocide, allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza, and ending forced displacement.
The minister described Trump’s announcement as “an announcement from their side.” He stressed that Pakistan stands by a joint statement signed with seven other Muslim-majority states. “We own this. If there is any difference anywhere, we would go by — we are committed to this,” he said.
Leaders of Türkiye, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, and Indonesia met Trump during the UN General Assembly session in New York. Trump presented his 20-point plan at the meeting.
Dar later told Pakistan’s Geo News that the White House draft “does not include all of our proposals.”
Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani also raised concerns. Speaking to Al Jazeera, he said Trump’s plan “achieves a key objective by ending the war, but there are some issues that require clarification and negotiation.”
On Monday, Trump unveiled the plan at the White House alongside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The proposal calls for the release of all Israeli soldier prisoners in exchange for dozens of Palestinian prisoners, the full disarmament of Hamas and resistance factions, a phased withdrawal of Israeli troops, and the creation of a technocratic, non-partisan Palestinian committee to run Gaza.
The plan mentions Palestinian self-determination as a “possibility,” but stops short of promising statehood.
Israel’s genocide in Gaza has already killed more than 66,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, since October 2023. Continuous Israeli airstrikes and ground assaults have destroyed homes, hospitals, and schools. Aid agencies warn that starvation and disease are spreading, making Gaza nearly uninhabitable.
Empire is regime change status hot currently. Nepal for one is turning very violent. The protesters demand to appoint the new prime minister as the mayor of Kathmandu, Balendra Shah, who used to be a rapper.
Brian Berletic now comes into his own as he has studied the methodologies, the financing and the slow regime change operations (now picking up speed) in Asia and across the world.
What we are dealing with, is the many decades of US buildup of its forces to complete global supremacy. It seems as if these are going to have to be broken down one by one. It seems to me as if there is a change in tactics judging by Nepal, where the government could not be changed by any of the existing tactics or color revolution strategies. What we see, is open killing of government members and family. (No soft coups any longer, as the Juan Guidó spectacle and pretence in Venezuela.) It is now decapitacion and killing the leaders.
Protesters in Nepal set fire to the parliament building, the ruling party’s central office, the Supreme Court building, the president’s office, and the government complex – they attacked the FM physically in the streets and one of the parliament member’s wife was killed, because their house was set on fire. The pretext for this revolution, technical companies must abide by Nepal law, was as usual, only a pretext. The PM has quit and in general I don’t see any governance left.
Brian talks about ‘reckless military aggression’ that he has not seen with all the previous coups.
Experience the future of global governance as “Think BRICS” presents Yaroslav Lissovolik’s deep dive into BRICS, SCO, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS Plus, and Eurasian integration—revealing how partnership belt, regional organizations, and regional development are transforming the global south. Discover insights on the development bank, BRICS summit outcomes, trade liberalization, South-South trade, and the rise of BRICS+ alignment. Explore the connectivity revolution in Central Asia, ambitious plans for regional integration, new initiatives merging observers and dialogue partners, and the critical roles of the Eurasian Economic Union and Brazil’s leadership at COP30. This video provides a thorough breakdown of trade response strategies against protectionism, prospects for WTO reform, and innovative visions of sustainable, environmental growth shaped by the upcoming BRICS summit in Brazil. Dive into the dynamic expansion of regional blocs, the transformative power of regional development institutions, and an expert’s perspective on the next chapter of Eurasian integration.
While Yaroslav Lissovolik offers an expert, evidence-driven analysis on the BRICS and SCO’s growing influence, the video does not discuss specific case studies from individual member countries, nor does it explore in-depth country-by-country impacts of these integration strategies. There is no evaluation of the domestic political challenges faced by BRICS Plus or SCO nations, nor does the video address sector-specific outcomes (such as technology, security, or energy policies) in detail. It also does not include interviews with government officials or real-time coverage from the actual BRICS or SCO summits themselves. Instead, the episode delivers a macroeconomic and institutional overview, focusing on systemic change, global south cooperation, and the broader sweep of Eurasian, BRICS, and SCO-driven economic transformation.
Moscou a renvoyé 84 militaires à Kiev et en a reçu autant de la part de l’Ukraine. À Istanbul, la
L’article Moscou et Kiev procèdent à un échange a minima de 84/84 prisonniers est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Kiev refuse d’accueillir un millier de soldats des forces armées ukrainiennes capturés, a rapporté sur Telegram Vladimir Medinsky, conseiller du
L’article Medinsky affirme que Kiev a refusé d’échanger 1000 de ses prisonniers est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Un avion Il-76MD transportant des militaires russes capturés par les forces armées ukrainiennes a atterri dans la région de Moscou,
L’article Kiev et Moscou ont procédé à un échange de prisonniers est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
How is the Chancay Port in Peru faring after six months of operation? Xi Jinping visited at the time of the port’s inauguration and took part in the ceremony. It was that important.
There are glimmers of change at the Southern end of South America, a clear target for meddling that we could notice specifically from Southcom, which claims this area as one of its areas of significant responsibility. (The US Back-Yard and Monroe Doctrine area).
Glimmers of change
Brazil (LULA) has just told the US to go and pound sand in terms of 50% Tariffs. Peru is profiting from its Chancay Port, which is always very good news after such a significant project, despite a quite deplorable Peruvian administration. Chancay is part of China’s Belt and Road initiative. In Argentina, the Senate just walked all over Milei and passed emergency legislation to lift pensions and other social responsibilities. Argentina faces significant economic challenges, notably its substantial indebtedness to the IMF, making it difficult to ascertain whether Argentina retains sovereignty at this point. Argentina is living on a Chinese multi-billion-dollar currency swap agreement, which can be described as an erstwhile ‘open to buy ‘ but restricted, and the serial Argentinian defaulter must pay to keep this lifeline going. The agreement was extended in April of this year despite fierce opposition to the deal in Washington. The agreement has become yet another front in a battle between Washington and Beijing for influence in Latin America.
Mexico has just been hit with a 30% Tariff, despite the negotiations and the respect that they’ve consistently shown toward the US administration. Get ready for expensive tomatoes and avocados up North in the Big Babylon.
In the article, you will see how Peru is positioning itself for BRICS membership. It is not mentioned here, but the two intercontinental trade railways for South and Central America are in the planning, again with Chinese support. Little information is available at this time.
Written by Roberto Sánchez Palomino, Member of Congress of Peru and Chairman of the Special Congressional Committee on the Chancay Port Project.
Cooperation among Global South nations is no longer optional—it is a civilizational imperative.
Port workers load fresh Peruvian fruit from Chancay Port in Peru, which arrived at Shanghai’s Yangshan Port, onto trucks for distribution on December 19, 2024. Photo: VCG
As the global economy undergoes profound transformation, Peru is recalibrating its development strategy by increasingly embracing win-win international cooperation — with China emerging as a key partner in the world.
Peru consistently demonstrates development potential not only in mining but also in tourism, agricultural exports, and productive sectors linked to marine and meteorological resources. Integrating this potential into major global value chains is of critical importance for Peru.
However, our main challenge lies in transforming this wealth of raw materials into added value. This is precisely where the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) represents a valuable opportunity for us. We need to focus on strengthening our domestic markets to become more competitive, adopt green energy, and seize the opportunities presented by having a port hub.
The Chancay Port project, a flagship of Peru-China cooperation, stands as a testament to this strategic alignment.
Of course, this transformation won’t happen overnight, and there will always be challenges and risks. But no one imagined that nearly 50,000 tons of cargo would move through the Chancay megaport in just six months, from November to April, in trade with Asia. That is undeniably significant in both economic scale and impact. Commercial activity, income, and tax revenue from November and December have been extraordinary. If Chancay continues at this pace, it could contribute no less than 1.5 percent of Peru’s GDP—an extraordinary prospect for the country.
Yet such progress is unfolding against a complex geopolitical backdrop.. Powerful actors are increasingly attempting to disrupt new paths of development for the Global South.
As we often say, it’s impossible to cover the sun with one finger, right? There is undeniable geopolitical attention. One country that once championed free trade is now embracing protectionism.
The shift in Peru’s trade patterns over the past three decades is revealing.
For Peru, China is now its largest trading partner. Thirty years ago, the trade relationship between China and the US in Peru was 27 to 1 — overwhelmingly in favor of the US. Back then, the US was our main trade partner. But what happened over the past 30 years? This shift was not the result of imposition, but as a result of market forces, investment, initiatives, cooperation, and reciprocity.
This is not just a matter of trade figures — it reflects a broader development model that prioritizes dignity and production.
Today, I believe our country is beginning to understand — and demonstrate — what we truly want: development for our people, a dignified life, and investment that enables creation and production. This is exactly what’s happening through Peru’s partnership with China, our No.1 trading partner, and this is a process that cannot be stopped. There may be political noise, but the pursuit of our people’s development will always outweigh everything else.
Ironically, those who once defined the rules of globalization are now turning their backs on them.
Life is full of paradoxes. Those who once championed free markets are now trying to return to protectionism. But that’s impossible. Global trade cannot go back to the prehistoric era. It simply cannot.
Free trade has taught us standards of cooperation, mutual benefit, shared values, and peace. It has shown us that what is exchanged is not only goods and services, but also cultures. When some realize they are losing ground, they react arbitrarily—imposing irrational tariffs and trade barriers driven by psychological impulses or political disputes. But such actions will inevitably fail, because these practices no longer align with the spirit of this new civilizational era founded on mutual benefit and consensus.
At this civilizational crossroads, unity and consensus across the Global South is more vital than ever.
Today’s civilization is in crisis and urgently needs shared platforms like the BRICS economies and the Global South. Here, we embrace sovereignty, the right of peoples to self-determination, dialogue, peace, and respect for diversity—all within a framework of free trade as a superior value.
I firmly believe in the power of cooperation across the Global South. What we need is a peaceful kind of leadership—one of intelligence, innovation, and openness to dialogue—not driven by ideology, but by the desire for better lives, access to education, cultural identity, and self-determination. That’s what makes us happier, and I believe the consolidation of the Global South is unstoppable.
The US’s attempt to impose unmanageable tariff rates reflects its commercial and technological vulnerabilities. This reveals a contradiction and incoherence with the free-market economy it once so strongly proclaimed. The US fails to realize that this offensive would ultimately backfire like a boomerang, further impacting its already weakened economy.
Cooperation among Global South nations is no longer optional—it is a civilizational imperative.
Brian Berletic, please see the video or if you have no time, take a look at the tweet.
After repeatedly lying to Iran, attacking it amid negotiations designed specifically to lure it into complacency, then announcing a 2 week deadline to decide on strikes on Iran that took place hours later, US President Trump is claiming a ceasefire was agreed to;
Iran would need to be beyond naive to accept or trust any word or action by the US – the US has not spent decades trying to topple Iran amid its regional murder spree to suddenly abandon it – its ENTIRE global aspirations hinge on it – it has used Israel as a conduit to launder its war crimes & provocations through & will continue to;
To effect regime change, the US would benefit most by luring Iranian leaders out of cover & striking them, provoking retaliations & further war;
Iran requires not a “Libya model,” but a “North Korea model” or else this process will repeat itself until it concludes in Washington and Wall Street’s favor;
The same “experts” who failed to see this war coming in the first place are now citing 5D chess strategies to explain how the Trump administration somehow averted a war entirely of its (and the establishment it serves) own creation and design to begin with;
The US will only stop when (1) people stop falling for this through excessive delusion, and (2) the rest of the world unites to force the US to stop;
If a genuine ceasefire is reached, it will likely have been the work of Russia and China quietly forcing the US to, through private but sufficient threats coupled with a graceful public exit ramp – though the chances of the US honoring it hover around 0%;
The same US and Israel openly threatening to kill innocent women and children are the same 2 governments Iran should agree to… https://t.co/Q2s9A5ZCtM
— Brian Berletic (@BrianJBerletic) June 24, 2025
Le deuxième cycle de négociations russo-ukrainiennes s’est déroulé sans résultat négatif, comme l’a déclaré l’un des responsables turcs. Les parties
L’article Le 2e cycle de négociations aboutit à un nouvel échange de prisonniers entre Kiev et Moscou est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
China’s role in geopolitical, military and economics spheres is evolving.
China has dropped to the third-largest holder of U.S. Treasury securities, following the UK and Japan, a maneuver that reflects its shifting economic focus amidst ongoing trade tensions with the United States. This change emphasizes China’s cautious approach to its financial investments, particularly as it navigates the complexities of the U.S.-China trade war.
Furthermore, China is tightening its economic ties with Iran, as seen by the U.S. Treasury imposing sanctions on an Iranian military-affiliated network accused of smuggling oil to China. This action underscores the geopolitical chess game between the U.S. and its adversaries, with China positioned to benefit and not moving from its position.
Still on the economic track, China is drawing APEC (22 member bloc) together very actively. Li Chenggang, China’s international trade representative with the Ministry of Commerce and vice minister of commerce, at the 31st Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Ministers Responsible for Trade Meeting, held during the past week, made it clear. Recently some economy has implemented the so-called reciprocal tariffs and provoked global trade frictions, which have seriously violated WTO rules, impacted the multilateral trading system and caused global economic turmoil. Many trading partners have expressed strong dissatisfaction and clear opposition. APEC members should work together to maintain the stability of the international economic and trade order, practice true multilateralism, resolutely oppose unilateralism and protectionism, objectively view and properly handle the global trade disorder caused by unilateral tariff measures and ensure the smooth operation of global trade under the WTO framework, Li said.
In South Asia, India’s concerns about China’s influence are growing, especially in Myanmar, where China’s dominance remains unchallenged. This development has prompted discussions among Indian experts about the need for India to focus on its strategic responses to China’s assertiveness in the region. It is generally accepted that the quick ‘cease-fire’ between India and Pakistan as reported by Trump, was a move of desperation as Pakistan (read China in terms of weaponry), was making minced meat out of India’s US weaponry. This is partially supported by the plunge in the stock price of France’s Dassault Rafale multi-role fighter aircraft.
In military affairs, Japan is preparing to test its Type 88 long-range missile, a move aimed at strengthening its defense against perceived threats from China. This military enhancement reflects the broader trend of regional powers bolstering their defenses in response to China’s expanding military capabilities.
China’s recent arms deal with Nigeria further illustrates its intention to deepen ties with West Africa, enhancing its global influence and presence in military collaborations. Such partnerships could have long-term implications for regional stability and alignments.
This is a comment from Pepe Escobar’s Telegram and there is no source for it. I do not question the validity as I have seen similar other signs and portends filter through.
China just recently shot up into space a network of sensing satellites (three of them), supposedly for measuring various earth phenomenon. Are they helping the Yemeni’s with targeting? That is not beyond the calculous.
These dynamic events collectively may indicate a change in China’s posture. We cannot yet say China is moving away from its stance of peace above all, but what we see is that China is getting closer to contentious actions in international politics and economics. In casual language and reading the smoke signals, it my assessment that China is fed-up with tiptoeing around the US web of deceit and unilateral actions. This is appearing as moving the pivot to finally redefine global alliances and economic strategies as they accurately reflect in the developing world. (We’re not into minority rule!)
In terms of hard monetary value which cannot compete with the amounts of money that Trump gained during his visit to the Gulf States, nevertheless we have this: Russia signs 11 billion ruble export deal with China at ‘Made in Russia’ fair in Harbin. At least we know that very little of this 11 billion rubles will travel through SWIFT or western financial pathways. Top Chinese influencers will be promoting Russian goods throughout Eurasia. Soft power is meeting hard currency.
Sources: South China Morning Post, Miami Herald, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, The Economic Times, NDTV.com, Army Recognition
Le chef du bloc conservateur CDU/CSU, Friedrich Merz, n’a pas réussi à obtenir suffisamment de voix au Bundestag pour être
L’article Merz élu chancelier au Bundestag seulement après le second tour, une première dans l’histoire de la RFA est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
by Peter Koenig
On April 20, 2025, Easter Sunday, the Board of Trustees of the World Economic Forum (WEF) called for an extraordinary meeting – behind closed doors.
The Board of Trustees includes among others, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, former US Vice President Al Gore, Jordan’s Queen Rania Al Abdullah and European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde as members. BlackRock is the WEF’s most important sponsor. Thus, BlackRock’s voice must weigh accordingly.
What they debated was a new Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article, apparently based on an anonymous whistleblower letter, this time accusing, Klaus Schwab and his wife, Hilde Schwab, of misusing the WEF Foundation’s money and property for personal purposes.
Mentioned were personal massages, luxury air-travel at the WEF’s expense, for personal trips – and the use of a CHF 30-million restored historic mansion, paid for with WEF money, to be used for WEF special events, but is mostly used for Klaus Schwab and his family’s personal purposes.
Mr. Schwab apparently also used junior staff to withdraw thousands of dollars from ATM machines for his personal use. Verbally quoting the WSJ: The Schwabs, “mixed their personal affairs with the Forum’s resources.”
The WSJ article also repeated accusations of discrimination, sexual harassment and nepotism within the organization, points already mentioned in a WSJ’s article about a year ago. See this https://www.wsj.com/business/world-economic-forum-opens-board-probe-of-workplace-culture-8571c6fd .
The Board opened an immediate investigation into these allegations. Schwab said he would take legal action against the WSJ and decided – or was told – to resign immediately from the Board’s chairmanship. He stepped back last year as President and CEO of the WEF, but assumed the Chair for the Board of Trustees with a timeline through 2027. This timeline was cut short by the whistleblower and the WSJ article.
Other WEF executives, especially the Schwabs’ children, also exited following a board probe into workplace culture, a topic that has plagued the WEF for years, but came to the fore the first time a year ago.
With immediate effect the Board decided on an interim replacement for Klaus Schwab, a former longtime President and CEO of Nestlé, Peter Brabeck-Letmathe. He was CEO and chairman of the Nestlé Group from 1997 to 2008. Brabeck was deputy chair of the WEF’s Board of Trustees.
Brabeck is not less controversial than Schwab. He was and still is a staunch defender of the idea that water is not a public good. Mr. Brabeck is perhaps best known for declaring that water is not a human right, but a market commodity. When he led Nestlé, the food giant was one of the global leaders in the privatization of water. Brabeck is also an aggressive promoter of GMOs (genetically modified organisms).
GMO food may have significant negative health effects and especially, it does not allow farmers to collect seeds from one harvest to the next. This has severe implications for farmers, especially in so-called developing countries, or the Global South.
India is a case in point, where GMO seeds were sold without telling the farmers that the plants’ seeds could not reproduce, i.e., could not be used for next year’s harvest. When the farmers realized, they could not afford buying every year GMO seeds, thousands committed suicide, as they were unable to maintain and feed their families.
Nestlé under Mr. Brabeck, was also at the forefront of a scandal about powder-milk that should replace breastfeeding.
Nestlé especially targeted Africa, where the product was introduced against healthy common breastfeeding habits. As we also know in the west, breastfeeding provides babies and children with a basic, strong immune system, which powder-milk for infants does not.
In addition, rising prices of Nestlé’s milk-powder made that women could no longer afford it, and since they did not start with breastfeeding, they did not produce breast milk. With the combination of unnatural powder-milk, lack of breastmilk and the natural immune system, many babies got sick and often died.
See this for more details https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpoCSf2olGs .
Mr. Brabeck is known for his anti-human and anti-Human Rights stance on many issues growing to ever-more importance in the current geo-political and economic environment we are living.
Mr. Brabeck certainly does not make the WEF a better place. Perhaps to the contrary. For sure, a number of investigations – WEF internals and externals – and law suits are already ongoing or pending.
For the full WSJ article, see this https://www.wsj.com/business/davos-founder-klaus-schwab-to-step-aside-as-forums-chair-0f3231b0 .
——-
At the outset all of this might look like the globalists agenda is gradually dismantling. Maybe it is, maybe it is not.
Just imagine for a moment a different scenario. During last Easter weekend, several “coincidences” happened basically simultaneously:
Who knows what else happened on that crucial Easter weekend 2025. There are no coincidences. Easter is the celebration of resurrection. The Dark Cult, or Deep State, or whatever else you may call this evil entity which is currently pretending to run the world, is full of symbolism and rituals.
Coud it be that globalism is sensing an ever-stronger pushback by the people, so they feign a collapse, when in reality, they take the lull in people’s attention to regroup to reappear later with new much stronger strategies to take over the world?
It is like a ceasefire which is used by the weaker to re-arm and re-strategize heir aggression. This is not just a hint to the Ukraine ceasefire, but a tactic followed worldwide.
We must be aware, that a Cult movement with the monetary power they have behind and over hundred years of preparation, will not just go away. They will fight to the last world-citizen, if they are not defeated before. As Bill Gates once said – not verbatim, but by meaning – in one of his more lucid moments, “even if I disappear, the system is so strong and well prepared, it will continue the same without me”.
We, the People of the world, must make sure that the movement for a multipolar world continues, back to Human Rights and basic human values, as well as away from digitization, from the digital Gulag, will continue until we are free and sovereign people again.
And yes, it is possible, if we are aware and conscious.
————
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 
