Connexion
Le Comité international olympique (CIO) a levé ses recommandations concernant les restrictions imposées aux athlètes biélorusses, selon un communiqué de
L’article Le CIO rétablit les droits des ahtlètes russes est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
East Calling has provided this for us, quickly. Thank-you!
Before we go there, let’s take a quick look at Dmitry Peskov: Peskov’s first comment after the publication of the updated US national security strategy:
And this, of course, is a very gratifying, on the one hand, but on the one hand, we know what happens when everything is written very beautifully as a concept, but what they call a deep state does everything differently. <…>
Therefore, of course, it is necessary to closely monitor what kind of implementation this concept will find.
Deputy Chairman of the Security Counsel of the Russian Federation – Dmitry Anatolievich Medvedev on his VK:
The Americans continue to tame the crazed European Union. Naturally, so that the sick animal remembers who’s the real boss. Even Musk (in response to the fine against X) contributed to this, wishing for the EU’s disintegration. Not bad! Overall, this is to our benefit. Better Trump’s great-power pragmatism than Biden’s globalist insanity.
In this regard, the new National Security Strategy prepared by the current White House administration stands out. It is notable for its realistic assessment of many modern challenges. I should point out that the significance of such a strategy should not be exaggerated. It is merely a collection of political declarations. What matters is what’s in their heads. And not only in the minds of the inconsistent Washington brass, but also in the notorious “deep state.” And yet…
1. This time, a very interesting document has emerged from the depths of the White House. This is not just another pile of arrogant American diplomatic formulas. It’s more like an attempt to turn around a huge ship that has been sailing along by inertia for a long time and has finally decided to change course. For the first time in many years, Washington is openly talking about the need to restore “strategic stability” in Eurasia and improve relations with Russia.
This is no longer the language of the money-grubbing Derzhimorda, who, under Biden, declared a virtual crusade against Moscow. The overseas superpower has begun to realize that playing superhero on its own is too costly. It hurts its own interests the most.
For us, this means that space is emerging for more or less civilized diplomacy. This is not a friendly embrace, but a fairly clear signal: the US is ready to discuss security architecture, not just slap on endless, and most importantly, senseless sanctions (although new restrictions on Russian oil mean a continuation of the current course).
2. Washington is effectively admitting that the global world no longer rests on American shoulders alone.
The sky has become too heavy for a country that so zealously portrayed itself as an Atlas. Now it’s looking for those who can share the unbearable burden.
And here, inevitably, Russia appears as one of the few countries with a real influence on European security.
For the first time in many years, our country is not called a “threat” in an American document, but a participant in a dialogue on stability. It’s noteworthy that it mentions halting NATO expansion, and Ukraine doesn’t figure at all in this context. This strategy unexpectedly resonates with what we’ve been saying for years: security must be shared, and the sovereignty of states must be respected. Russia has long proposed reaching agreements, rather than arrogantly imposing a world order based on rules that aren’t even enshrined in international law. Now, the window of opportunity for dialogue has been cracked open.
3. The United States is proposing that an imbecile Europe, bloated from parasitism, become more independent in matters of defense. For Russia, this is a double signal. On the one hand, there’s a risk that the Europeans will aggressively build up their military capabilities. This will completely destroy their economies and require the establishment of regimes bordering on dictatorship. Europe already has such a tragic experience: Hitler himself came to power with harsh militaristic slogans.
On the other hand, the easing of endless financial injections from the United States creates opportunities to reduce tensions on the Eurasian continent and engage in negotiations. This is simply because Russia is a major global player, and constructive cooperation with us is more beneficial, as it was for many years, before the events in Ukraine.
4. As I already noted, strategy is a political declaration, and certainly not, to use the words of our beloved Lenin, “a change in all our views on socialism.” Fierce disagreements within the American and European elites continue to flare up, and habits are also strong.
Russia will look not at fine words, but at concrete steps: is there any movement toward reaching an agreement? Are the US and the EU ready to discuss security with us without ultimatums? Not just guarantee the security of the half-dead country 404, but ensure pan-European security?
The Strategy doesn’t answer this. As they say, we’ll see. Especially since the arrival of another rabid Biden in the White House would quickly nip any vestiges of great-power pragmatism in the bud of the current MAGA team.
Joint Statement following the 23rd Russia-India Annual Summit December 05, 2025 “Russia-India: A Time-Tested Progressive Partnership, Anchored in Trust & Mutual Respect”
1. At the invitation of the Prime Minister of the Republic of India H.E. Mr. Narendra Modi the President of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. Vladimir Putin paid a state visit to India on December 4–5, 2025 for the 23rdRussia-India Annual Summit.
2. The Leaders reaffirmed their support for further strengthening of the Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership between Russia and India. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Declaration on Strategic Partnership between Russia and India, established during the first state visit of the President of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. Vladimir Putin to the Republic of India in October 2000.
3. The Leaders emphasized the special nature of this long standing and time-tested relationship, which is characterised by mutual trust, respect for each other’s core national interests and strategic convergence. They underscored that, as major powers with shared responsibilities, this important relationship continues to be an anchor of global peace and stability that should be ensured upon the basis of equal and indivisible security.
4. The Leaders positively assessed the multi-faceted mutually beneficial Russia-India relations that span all areas of cooperation, including political and strategic, military and security, trade and investment, energy, science and technology, nuclear, space, cultural, education and humanitarian cooperation. It was noted with satisfaction that both Sides are actively exploring new avenues for cooperation while further strengthening cooperation in the traditional areas.
5. The Leaders underlined that Russia-India ties have remained resilient in the backdrop of the prevailing complex, challenging and uncertain geopolitical situation. Both Sides have strived to forge a contemporary, balanced, mutually beneficial, sustainable and long-term partnership. Development of Russia-India relations across the entire spectrum is a shared foreign policy priority. The Leaders agreed to make all efforts to unlock the full potential of the strategic partnership.
6. The Leaders welcomed the opening of two Consulates General of the Republic of India in Yekaterinburg and Kazan, and looked forward to their early operationalisation to further strengthen inter-regional cooperation, trade and economic relations and people to people ties.
7. The Leaders noted with satisfaction the continued intensification of contacts at all levels since the last Summit, including meetings between them on the sidelines of the 16thBRICS Summit in Kazan and the 25th Summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Tianjin; holding of the 26th Session of the Russia-India Intergovernmental Commission (IRIGC) on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technological and Cultural Cooperation (IRIGC-TEC) co-chaired by First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. D.Manturov and Minister of External Affairs of the Republic of India H.E. Dr. S.Jaishankar and the 22nd Session of the IRIGC on Military & Military-Technical Cooperation (IRIGC-M&MTC) co-chaired by Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr A.Belousov and Minister of Defence of the Republic of India H.E. Mr. R.Singh; visits of Lok Sabha Speaker H.E. Mr. O.Birla, Minister of Defence of the Republic of India H.E. Mr. R.Singh, Minister of External Affairs of the Republic of India H.E. Dr. S.Jaishankar, Minister of Railways, Information Technology, and Information & Broadcasting of the Republic of India H.E. Mr. A.Vaishnaw, Ministers of State of Home Affairs H.E. Mr. N.Rai, Defence H.E. Mr. S.Seth, Youth Affairs & Sports H.E. Mrs. R.N.Khadse, External Affairs & Textiles H.E. Mr. P.Margherita and Vice Chairman NITI Aayog Mr. S.Bery from the Indian side; visits of Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. V.Volodin, First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. D.Manturov, Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. D.Patrushev, Minister of Energy of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. S.Tsivilyov, Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation H.E. Mrs. O.Lyubimova; and holding of strategic dialogue at the level of the Secretaries of the Security Councils, Foreign Office Consultations, consultations on UN issues, meeting of the Joint Working Group on Counter Terrorism, etc.
Trade and Economic partnership
8. The Leaders reaffirmed their shared ambition to expand bilateral trade in a balanced and sustainable manner, including by increasing India’s exports to Russia, strengthening industrial cooperation, forging new technological and investment partnerships, especially in advanced high-technology areas and finding new avenues and forms of cooperation.
9. The Leaders welcomed the adoption of the Programme for the Development of Strategic Areas of Russian-lndian Economic Cooperation till 2030.
10. The Leaders appreciated the ongoing intensification of the joint work on a Free Trade Agreement on goods between the Eurasian Economic Union and the Republic of India covering sectors of mutual interest. They also directed both Sides to intensify efforts in negotiations on a mutually beneficial agreement on the promotion and protection of investments.
11. The Leaders welcomed the results of the 25th and 26th Sessions of the Russia-India Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical and Cultural Cooperation and the Russia-India Business Forum held in New Delhi (November 2024) and Moscow (August 2025) respectively.
12. The Sides underline the importance of an open, inclusive, transparent and non-discriminatory multilateral trade system with the World Trade Organization at its core. Both Sides emphasised that addressing tariff and non-tariff trade barriers, removing bottlenecks in logistics, promoting connectivity, ensuring smooth payments mechanisms and regular interaction between the businesses of the two countries were among key elements for timely achievement of the revised bilateral trade target of USD 100 billion by 2030.
13. Russia and India have agreed to continue jointly developing systems of bilateral settlements through use of the national currencies in order to ensure the uninterrupted maintenance of bilateral trade. Additionally, the Sides have agreed to continue their consultations on enabling the interoperability of the national payment systems, financial messaging systems, as well as central bank digital currency platforms.
14. The Sides welcomed steps to ensure long-term supply of fertilizers to India and discussed the potential establishment of joint ventures in this area.
15. The Sides welcomed the signing of agreements on cooperation in combating irregular migration and on temporary labor activity of citizens of one state in the territory of the other state.
16. The Russian Side welcomed the participation of Indian delegations in the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (June 2025) and the Eastern Economic Forum (September 2025). The two Sides noted the contribution of the Russia-India Business Dialogue organised on the sidelines of these economic forums for promotion of bilateral trade, economic and investment cooperation.
17. The Leaders noted the importance of productive and mutually beneficial bilateral trade in mineral resources, including energy sources, precious stones and metals, as well as critical raw materials for the reliability of the international supply chains. Efficient cooperation in this area, carried out by Russia and India as sovereign states, is a significant component of their national security and social wellbeing.
Energy partnership
18. The two Sides discussed and commended their wide-ranging cooperation in the energy sector as a significant pillar of the Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership. The Sides noted the current and potential cooperation between Russian and Indian companies in fields such as oil and oil products, oil refining and petrochemical technologies, oilfield services and upstream technologies and related infrastructure, LNG and LPG related infrastructure, various existing projects in their countries, underground coal gasification technology, nuclear projects, etc. They also noted the importance of expeditious resolution of issues related to investment projects in this area, and agreed to resolve the various concerns being faced by their investors in the energy sector.
Transport and Connectivity
19. The two Sides agreed to deepen cooperation in building stable and efficient transport corridors, with the focus on expanding logistics links for improving connectivity and enhancing infrastructure capacity to support the International North-South Transport Corridor, Vladivostok-Chennai (Eastern Maritime) Corridor and the Northern Sea Route. They welcomed the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Ports, Shipping and Waterways of the Government of India on the Training of Specialists for Ships Operating in Polar Waters.
20. The Sides noted fruitful cooperation between the railways of Russia and India, aimed at establishing partnerships in the field of mutually beneficial technology exchange.
Cooperation in the Russian Far East and Arctic
21. The two Sides confirmed their readiness to intensify trade and investment cooperation in the Far East and the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. The Program of Russia-India Cooperation in Trade, Economic and Investment Spheres in the Russian Far East for the period from 2024–2029 provides the necessary framework for further cooperation between India and the Russian Far East region, especially in the sectors of agriculture, energy, mining, manpower, diamonds, pharmaceuticals, maritime transport, etc.
22. Both Sides underscored the importance of holding regular bilateral consultations on Arctic related issues and welcomed the progress made in multifaceted bilateral cooperation on the Northern Sea Route. The Russian Side appreciated the participation of the Indian delegation in the 6th International Arctic Forum held in Murmansk in March 2025. The Indian Side expressed its readiness to play an active role as an Observer in the Arctic Council.
Civil Nuclear Cooperation, Cooperation in Space
23. The Sides confirmed their intention to broaden cooperation in nuclear energy, including fuel cycle, life cycle support for operating Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plants (KKNPP) and non-power applications, as well as to elaborate new agenda of interaction in the field of peaceful use of atomic energy and related high technologies. The Sides noted the importance of the cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy as a significant component of the strategic partnership taking into account the plans of the Government of India to increase India’s nuclear energy capacity to 100 GW by 2047.
24. The Sides welcomed the progress achieved in implementation of KKNPP project including the construction of the remaining NPP units and agreed on adhering to the timeline for supplies of equipment and fuel.
25. The Sides noted the importance of further discussion on the second site in India for NPP; the Indian Side will strive to finalize formal allotment of the second site in accordance with earlier signed agreements.
26. The Sides agreed to accelerate technical and commercial discussions on the VVER of the Russian design, research and joint development of NPPs, localization and joint manufacturing of nuclear equipment and fuel assemblies for Russian designed large capacity NPPs subject to terms and conditions as mutually agreeable.
27. Noting the importance of cooperation in space, the two Sides welcomed the enhanced partnership between the Russian State Space Corporation “Roscosmos” and the Indian Space Research Organisation in the use of outer space for peaceful purposes, including in the human spaceflight programs, satellite navigation and planetary exploration. They noted the progress in mutually beneficial cooperation in rocket engine development, production and use.
Military and Military Technical Cooperation
28. Military and Military-Technical Cooperation has traditionally been a pillar of the Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership between Russia and India, which has grown from strength to strength through several decades of joint efforts and fruitful cooperation, steered by the IRIGC-M&MTC.
29. The Leaders welcomed the outcomes of the 22nd Session of the IRIGC-M&MTC held in New Delhi on December 4, 2025. Responding to India’s quest for self-reliance, the partnership is reorienting presently to joint research and development, co-development and co-production of advanced defence technology and systems.
30. The Leaders expressed satisfaction with regular military contacts, including the meeting of Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr A.Belousov and Minister of Defence of the Republic of India H.E. Mr. R.Singh in Qingdao in June 2025 on the sidelines of the SCO Member-States’ Defence Ministers’Meeting. Both Sides appreciated the joint military exercises Indra of the Armed Forces and reaffirmed their commitment to maintain the momentum of joint military cooperation activities and expand military delegation exchanges.
31. Both Sides agreed to encourage joint manufacturing in India of spare parts, components, aggregates and other products for maintenance of Russian origin arms and defence equipment under Make-in-India program through transfer of technology and setting up of joint ventures for meeting the needs of the Indian Armed Forces as well as subsequent export to mutually friendly third countries.
Cooperation in Science & Technology
32. Both Sides called for ramping up government-to-government, academia and private sector collaboration to promote application of critical and emerging technologies.
33. Recognizing the strategic importance of critical minerals for emerging technologies and advanced manufacturing, the two Sides expressed interest in deepening cooperation in exploration, processing and recycling technologies of critical minerals and rare earths.
34. Emphasizing the importance of joint research in science, technology and innovation, the two Sides called for strengthening cooperation under the ”Roadmap for Science, Technology & Innovation Cooperation between Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Science & Technology of the Government of the Republic of India“. They agreed to facilitate collaboration between government and private sector to harness opportunities for start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises of the two countries to address societal challenges through innovative technologies, including joint research and development and co-development of technologies. They confirmed their interest in further developing cooperation in the sphere of digital technologies, including those related to information protection, security of critical infrastructure and law enforcement. Both Sides agreed to design and implement soft support programs for start-ups to enable knowledge exchange, capacity building, and greater engagement of innovators and entrepreneurs.
35. Taking into account the existing rich experience of interaction between Russia and India in the field of science and higher education, the Sides expressed mutual interest in developing partner ties between educational and scientific organizations, including the implementation of various forms of academic mobility, educational programmes, scientific and research projects and the holding of specialized international exhibitions, conferences, seminars. Emphasizing the importance of joint research in science, technology and innovations, the Sides confirmed their readiness to expand cooperation within the framework of the ”Roadmap for Science, Technology & Innovation Cooperation between Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Science & Technology of the Government of the Republic of India“.
Cultural cooperation, Tourism and people to people exchanges
36. The two Sides agreed that cultural interaction and people to people exchanges are an important component of the Russia-India Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership. They appreciated the participation in major international cultural forums, book fairs, festivals and art competitions organized in both countries and welcomed the holding on a parity basis, of Cultural Exchange Festivals in their countries, aimed at the fullest demonstration of Russian and Indian culture.
37. Both Sides supported the idea of expanding cooperation in the film industry, including development of joint film production and mutual participation in international film festivals held in Russia and India.
38. The two Sides appreciated the steady increase in tourist exchanges between Russia and India and welcomed simplification of visa formalities, including introduction of e-Visa by both countries. They agreed to continue the work on further simplification of the visa regime in future.
39. The two Sides noted with appreciation the enhanced exchanges and contacts between the experts, think-tanks and institutes of Russia and India. Over the years, this track of dialogue has promoted increased mutual understanding between Russian and Indian strategic and policy making circles and businesses so as to further strengthen the Strategic Partnership.
40. Recognizing the traditionally strong cooperation between Russia and India in the sphere of education, both Sides appreciated efforts to ensure well-being of students and agreed to continue their efforts in promoting educational linkages between universities and educational institutions.
Cooperation in the UN and multilateral fora
41. Both Sides noted the high level of political dialogue and cooperation between them on issues at the UN and agreed to deepen it further. They stressed the importance of reinvigorating multilateralism, with a central coordinating role played by the United Nations. They also underlined the primacy of respect for international law and emphasized their commitment to the purposes and the principles of the UN Charter.
42. Both Sides called for comprehensive reform of the UN Security Council to reflect contemporary global realities and to make it more representative, effective and efficient in dealing with issues of international peace and security. Russia reiterated its steadfast support for India’s permanent membership in a reformed and expanded UN Security Council.
43. The two Sides highlighted their cooperation within the G20 format and agreed to intensify it. They emphasized that the important practical legacy of India’s G20 Presidency in 2023 was the consolidation of the priorities of the countries of the Global South in the agenda of the main platform for international economic and financial cooperation, as well as the entry of the African Union into the ranks of full members of the forum. They welcomed the holding of the Voice of Global South virtual summits under the Indian presidency, which sent an important signal in favour of building a multipolar world order and strengthening the position of developing countries in global affairs.
44. They emphasized that the G20 is the premier international economic forum that provides a platform for dialogue of both emerging and developed economies on an equal and mutually beneficial footing. They recognized the importance of the continued and productive functioning of the G20, based on consensus and focusing on its key mandate.
45. Both Sides stressed the importance of strengthening their BRICS partnership and further committed themselves to promote cooperation in the expanded BRICS under the three pillars of political and security, economic and financial, cultural and people to people cooperation. They reaffirmed their commitment to the BRICS spirit of mutual respect and understanding, sovereign equality, solidarity, democracy, openness, inclusiveness, collaboration and consensus. Russia pledged its full support for India’s upcoming BRICS Chairship in 2026.
46. The Sides reiterated the importance of their joint work within the framework of SCO for further deepening Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership between Russia and India.
47. India commended the Russian Side for the successful hosting of the SCO Council of Heads of Government Meeting in Moscow on November 17–18, 2025 under the Chairmanship of Prime Minister of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. M.Mishustin. The Russian Side appreciated India’s initiative to establish SCO Civilizational Dialogue Forum, the inaugural session of which will be held in India in 2026.
48. The Sides noted SCO’s increasing role in the formation of representative, democratic, fair multipolar world order, based on universally recognized principles of international law, and cultural and civilizational diversity.
49. Both Sides emphasized the importance of further strengthening SCO’s potential and cooperation in the fields of politics, security, economy, culture and humanitarian ties. In this context the two Sides stressed the necessity of promoting modernization of SCO, especially in the fields of countering terrorism, extremism, separatism, drug trafficking, cross-border organized crime, and information security threats. They will pay special attention to establishment of the Universal Center on Countering Security Challenges and Threats in Tashkent and Counter-Narcotics Center in Dushanbe.
50. The two Sides agreed to continue interaction within G20, BRICS and SCO on key issues such as efforts towards reformed multilateralism, reform of international economic governance institutions and multilateral development banks, contributing to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals in its economic, social and environmental dimensions, stimulating economic growth, enhancing sustainability and developing resilience of international supply chains, including critical minerals, compliance with free and fair trade norms and climate change.
51. The two Sides intend to further strengthen cooperation within the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, including the issues of the long-term sustainability of outer space activities.
52. Both Sides reaffirmed their commitment to further strengthening global efforts for non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Russia expressed its strong support for India’s membership of the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The two Sides urged all members of the international community to work towards enhancing the level of mutual trust in order to promote global peace and security. The Sides emphasized the non-proliferation nature of export controls and confirm their intention to continue cooperation in this area with the aim of ensuring balance between security and commercial consideration, as well as peaceful uses of technology.
53. The Sides underlined the importance of strengthening cooperation within various regional fora, aimed at deepening regional peace and security, including the East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum, ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting Plus.
54. The Parties confirm the need for strict compliance with and consistent strengthening of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BTWC), including through its institutionalization, as well as the adoption of a legally binding protocol with an effective verification mechanism. They oppose the establishment of any mechanisms that duplicate functions of the BTWC.
55. The Sides confirm the urgent need to start negotiations on a legally binding instrument on prevention of an arms race in outer space with the prohibition of the placement of weapons in outer space and the threat or use of force in outer space, from outer space or against outer space. The Sides note that the basis for such a document could be the draft of the Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force Against Outer Space Objects as well as the report of the relevant Group of Governmental Experts, adopted in 2024.
56. The Leaders, reaffirming their commitment to the principles reflected in international treaties that ensure the conservation of biological diversity and the protection of rare and endangered species, especially migratory bird species, that are uniting our countries.
57. Both Sides welcomed the adoption of the Framework Agreement by the Russian side to join the International Big Cat Alliance. The Indian Side looked forward to Russia’s early joining of the International Solar Alliance and the Coalition of Disaster Resilient Infrastructure.
58. The Sides agreed to continue the development of joint approaches to addressing global economic challenges, mobilising increased access to climate finance and technologies for developing countries and economies in transition, and ensuring a reasonable reform of international institutions of economic governance, in particular multilateral development banks.
Counter terrorism
59. Both Sides reaffirmed their commitment to strengthening bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the field of combating such common challenges and threats as terrorism, extremism transnational organized crime, money laundering, terrorist financing and illicit drug trafficking.
60. The two Leaders reaffirmed their strong commitment to preventing and countering terrorism in all its forms and manifestations: including cross border movement of terrorists and terrorists’ financing networks and safe heavens. They condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist attack in India in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir, on April 22, 2025, and in Russia at Crocus City Hall in Moscow on March 22, 2024. They unequivocally condemned all acts of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation by any religious or ideological pretexts, whenever, wherever, and by whomsoever they may be committed. They also called for concerted actions against all UN-listed terrorist groups and entities, including Al Qaeda, ISIS/Daesh and their affiliates, aimed at rooting out terrorists’ safe havens, countering the spread of terrorist ideology, eliminating terrorist financing channels and their nexus with transnational crime, and halting cross-border movement of terrorists, including foreign terrorist fighters.
61. The Sides called for an uncompromising fight against international terrorism and extremism in all their forms and manifestations, noting the importance of increasing cooperation in this area, without hidden agendas and double standards on the solid basis of international law and the UN Charter. Besides, they stressed the need for firm implementation of relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council, the UN General Assembly, as well as the balanced implementation of the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy.
62. Both Sides emphasized the primary responsibility of states and their competent authorities in combating terrorism. They called for a zero-tolerance policy on terrorism and expeditious finalization and adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism in the UN framework, as well as implementation of the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council resolutions on countering terrorism and violent extremism conducive to terrorism.
63. The two Sides recalled the Special Meeting of the UN Security Council Counter Terrorism Committee (CTC) held in India in October 2022 under India’s Chairship of the CTC and welcomed the unanimously adopted Delhi Declaration on countering the use of new and emerging technologies for terrorist purposes. They noted that the declaration aims to cover the main concerns surrounding the terrorist exploitation of information and communications technology, such as payment technologies, social media platforms and fundraising methods and misuse of unmanned aerial vehicles. Both Sides also expressed their readiness to develop further cooperation in this field with a special focus on preventing radicalization and the spread of extremist ideology in the online space. In this regard, they noted with satisfaction the positive dynamics of strengthening relevant mechanisms within the SCO and BRICS formats
Regional and International Issues
64. Both Sides noted with appreciation the close coordination between Russia and India on Afghanistan, including through the dialogue mechanism between the Security Councils of both countries. They emphasized the important role of the Moscow Format meetings.
65. The Leaders welcomed the counter-terrorism measures against international terrorist groups, including ISIS and, ISKP and their affiliates, and expressed confidence that the fight against terrorism in Afghanistan would be comprehensive and effective. They stressed the need to ensure urgent and uninterrupted humanitarian assistance to the Afghan people.
66. Both Sides reiterated their commitment to peace and stability in the Middle East, calling for restraint, protection of civilians and compliance with international law, and the need to refrain from taking actions that could further escalate the situation and compromise regional stability. They stressed the importance of resolving the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue. They expressed concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza and strongly stressed the importance for all parties concerned to remain committed to agreements and understandings reached between them for cessation of conflict, humanitarian assistance and a sustainable peace.
67. The Sides noted the importance of expanding efforts to combat climate change and achieving the goals of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. The Sides welcomed the 1st meeting of the Joint Russia-India Working Group on the issues of climate change and low-carbon development held on September 10, 2025 in New Delhi within the framework of the Memorandum of Understanding on the issues of climate change and low-carbon development. The Sides agreed to intensify the bilateral dialogue on implementing mechanisms of the Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, developing low-carbon technologies and using sustainable finance instruments.
68. The Sides agreed to continue interaction within G20, BRICS, SCO on the key issues of climate change. The Sides welcomed the results achieved by a coordinated work within the BRICS Contact Group on Climate Change and Sustainable Development; including the launch of the BRICS Climate Research Platform and the BRICS Laboratory for Trade, Climate and Sustainable Development. Both Sides encouraged fruitful cooperation in the area of addressing climate change in BRICS during the India Chairship in grouping in 2026.
69. The Sides noted with satisfaction the resilience of the Russia-India Special and Privileged Strategic Partnership and the convergent and complementary approaches of their foreign policy priorities, and reaffirmed their commitment for further strengthening it. They stressed that Russia and India as major powers will continue to strive for global peace and stability in a multipolar world as well as in a multipolar Asia.
70. President of the Russian Federation H.E. Mr. Vladimir Putin thanked Prime Minister of the Republic of India H.E. Mr. Narendra Modi for the gracious hospitality extended to him and his delegation in New Delhi and invited him to visit Russia in 2026 for the 24th Russia-India Annual Summit.
You may have heard the cliché “the fog of war.”
Well, it no longer exists.
But there is now the fog of diplomacy.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon. I am at your disposal.
First, I would like to express our gratitude to the leadership of Kyrgyzstan for organising this event and for the past year when Kyrgyzstan chaired the CSTO and hosted various events, which has certainly helped strengthen the organisation.
I believe that in the current turbulent situation it is a major factor of stability in our common space. This is important for Russia and very important for many CSTO countries.
We have coordinated everything without much difficulty, that is, all proposals advanced by the Secretariat. Everything we planned to sign has been signed. There were hardly any differences in any of the spheres we discussed. Everyone knows that it is necessary to work more closely together in the current situation. We do not threaten anyone, but we must be ready to respond to any actions that could be aggressive towards our countries.
There are many other spheres we are working in, and we will probably talk about this now. We have done good practical work in all of these vital spheres.
Overall, we can say, first, that we have achieved the desired result. And second, I see good prospects for the further development of our cooperation within the Collective Security Treaty Organisation.
As you know, Russia has taken over the CSTO chairmanship and will head the organisation for a year. I set out the priorities of our chairmanship during the expanded format meeting. I believe you are aware of this, so there is hardly any need to repeat it all. On the whole, we are very pleased with the results of our joint work.
Thank you. If you have any questions, which I am sure you do, I will do my best to answer them.
Pavel Minakov: Good afternoon, Interfax news agency.
The question concerns our priorities. So we are the chair of the Organisation, our slogan is “Collective Security in a Multipolar World.” Why was this chosen as the guiding principle for our chairmanship? Could you elaborate further on our specific priorities when we hold this position?
The second question also pertains to collective security. Prime Minister [of Armenia Nikol] Pashinyan has once again declined to attend the summit, while at the same time Armenia is conducting joint military exercises with the United States. The question is whether this poses a threat to our unity within the framework of the CSTO’s collective security. Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Let me reiterate: I outlined the priorities during the expanded-format meeting. This was done openly – you were likely present there, or at least, many of you have heard it.
There are numerous priorities: enhancing our cooperation, comparing the capabilities of our respective defence industries. As is known, since the time of the Soviet Union, this cooperation has been very extensive. We provide CSTO member states with preferential terms for the procurement of our arms and equipment. All of this is functioning and operating quite effectively.
It is perfectly clear that amid the special military operation, our capabilities for some components are currently not that great. That is to say, they are substantial, but we must meet our own needs. In specific sectors, we are achieving this in full, entirely.
I do not believe that our production capacities are excessive, but we not only meet our own needs but also continue to export our equipment, incidentally. This primarily concerns aviation technology – both aircraft and helicopters. Now we have achieved significant advancements – a revolutionary step for us, one might say – in the field of unmanned technology and unmanned aerial vehicles, drones. We are prepared to share all of this with our partners.
Another area of cooperation is enhancing the operational efficiency of CSTO management bodies. This is somewhat bureaucratic, yet it remains important, given that every country is interested in minimising expenditure and improving coordination.
We will continue, as before, to conduct corresponding joint exercises across all domains. This concerns not only cooperation between armed forces but also the work of security services.
Unfortunately, the threats posed by drugs and organised crime persist. All of this will remain within our focus. We intend to build on the work undertaken by our colleagues from Kyrgyzstan, as I have mentioned. There will be full and complete continuity. I am confident this will be to the benefit of every CSTO member state.
Concerning Armenia’s position, it, too, is well-known. It is as follows, as our Armenian colleagues inform us: “We support all decisions adopted by the CSTO, we consider ourselves members of the CSTO, but at this stage, we are abstaining from participation in the Organisation’s meetings.” That is their choice. If they deem this course of action possible for the time being, then so be it; we agree.
Since they remain members of the Organisation, we – Russia – maintain contact with them. As the country assuming chairmanship of the CSTO, we will, of course, maintain constant engagement with them in their capacity as members. Naturally, the decisions we prepare regarding each priority will be discussed and coordinated with them as well.
Leonid Kitrar: Mr President, Leonid Kitrar, Izvestia Multimedia Information Centre. I have a question about bilateral relations with Kyrgyzstan.
We are pursuing quite a few projects, among them in the energy sector. This year, Rosatom stated it was prepared to build a small nuclear power plant here. Was this discussed? Are there any concrete figures? What are the most promising areas in bilateral relations?
I have another quick question. Not long ago, there were issues with moving cargo between Kazakhstan and Russia. Are there similar issues here?
Vladimir Putin: I will start with bilateral cooperation.
I am grateful to the President of Kyrgyzstan for the invitation to come to Kyrgyzstan on a visit of high diplomatic status and for the hospitality accorded to our entire delegation.
Here is what we said during a press event following the visit. Indeed, our relations are following a very positive track, and our investors are working increasingly actively on the Kyrgyz market. Why has this become possible? I mentioned it briefly earlier, but it is crucial: this is happening in part because the current leadership of Kyrgyzstan has managed to ensure a stable domestic political situation, which is always extremely important for potential investors, because everyone hopes that the commitments undertaken by the recipient country will guarantee the implementation of all agreements. This is one of the most crucial matters. Kyrgyzstan’s leadership has succeeded in doing this. We wish them every success in strengthening domestic political stability and, as an EAEU and CSTO member, we will support and assist them in doing so.
Our relations cover many areas in addition to investment to include the mining sector and energy. As a reminder, Kyrgyzstan receives our resources at the lowest prices and exports are exempt from corresponding customs duties. Naturally, this makes our products highly competitive, to put it mildly, on the Kyrgyz market and provides strong support for the Kyrgyz economy. This includes oil and gas, but we are not limiting ourselves to this; we have plans that may include the construction of small NPPs.
As a reminder, Russia is the only country in the world that carries out such projects. Many are saying they are ready to do it, but so far we are the only ones to do it. If Kyrgyzstan decides to go ahead with this project – our colleagues are in contact with one another – we will implement these projects.
High-tech areas are also developing in the course of bilateral cooperation. I want to draw your attention to the fact that Yandex has been working here more and more actively. Hopefully, it will continue this way, meaning that Yandex is not only engaged in food delivery, transportation and taxi service; Yandex is keenly engaged in developing artificial intelligence. This is an extremely important and promising area for all of us. Yes, Kyrgyzstan is not a large country, but there is an educated part of society here, young people with good education, who have very good prospects. And this is important for us – to create a common space in this extremely promising area. So, naturally, we will work here, too.
Both us and Kyrgyzstan deem it very important to do everything so that Russian migration policy could reliably provide for the interests of native residents of the Russian Federation, our citizens, and our economy, as well as for the citizens of Kyrgyzstan who come to work in Russia. They should be ready for this, including in humanitarian terms; I mean above all their command of the Russian language, starting from an early age, from school age onwards.
In this regard, as you also know, we are assisting the leadership of Kyrgyzstan to promote the study of the Russian language. We will open schools here and work in the field of higher education. In general, there is a great scope for joint work. In Kyrgyzstan, as you know, the Russian language has the official status at the legislative level, which we appreciate very much. And we will go on working in all these areas.
Regarding cargo traffic. Yes, indeed, such a problem did occur. What caused it? I will not conceal the fact that, on my instruction, the Customs Committee – within the framework of the EAEU, our customs authorities are entitled to such actions – began random checks on the roads, so to speak. It turned out that a significant number of goods, a significant number of these lorries, as you said, cross the Russia-Kazakhstan border without any documents at all. Yes, we have a common customs space, a common market, and free movement of capital and goods.
But every such heavyweight, every such heavy lorry must have a certain set of documents agreed on between us – between the states. There aren’t that many of them, but they are a must. There should be a paper, a document about what is inside the lorry, and at least it should be clear who is the consignee of these goods. The first document clearly shows the customs value, what customs duty should be paid by the person who crosses our border with these goods, and who should pay VAT upon receiving the goods. As soon as the roadside checks started, it turned out that there were no documents at all. It is just illegal import, and forgive my manners, it’s just gushing into our customs territory. The Russian Federation is missing out on billions, tens of billions of rubles in our budget. Of course, I informed my colleagues about this situation.
We talked about this matter with President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. He understood everything, and he has no questions or problems with that. We have agreed that we will do everything possible to ensure that this large number of lorries that have accumulated on our border, on the territory of Kazakhstan, move on to the Russian Federation.
Our customs authorities have agreed among themselves that the value of the goods being transported will be declared, and the final recipient will be indicated. And we will gradually let these lorries in. There will be no queue. Yes, it will actually be almost within the framework of the green corridor, at a minimum cost, let them pay at least something, to begin with. And starting next year, our customs officers will require all the necessary documents during random checks. If there are none, then the customs service will not send these goods back. I think that the customs authorities will come to an agreement, up to and including confiscation, probably.
You see, there are all kinds of goods in the lorries, from nails to diamonds and television sets. But let them at least write down shoelaces costing five kopecks, let them start paying something, let them declare the final consignee so that we can receive VAT, even if it is modest. We just need to put things in order.
Thousands of lorries have already passed through. I think the queue will be gone by the end of the year.
Pavel Zarubin: Good afternoon. Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel.
The principal global topic of recent days has been the Trump peace plan. Naturally, we have many questions for you.
To what extent does the draft initially published unofficially take our position into account? Have we received an amended version of the document following negotiations between the United States and Ukraine? Consequently, when will Russian-American negotiations begin – which, as we understand, have not yet taken place regarding this document? When will Steve Witkoff visit you? What is your current assessment of the prospects for a peaceful settlement? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Regarding the draft agreement. There was no draft agreement per se; rather, there was a set of issues proposed for discussion and finalisation. In general, I have spoken about this on numerous occasions. Prior to my visit to the United States, before the trip to Alaska, we discussed this with American negotiators, and subsequently, a list of 28 potential points for an agreement was formulated. As I have already stated publicly, it was conveyed to us through certain channels, and we examined it.
Thereafter, negotiations were held in Geneva between the American and Ukrainian delegations. They, as I understand it, decided among themselves that all these 28 points should be divided into four separate components. All of this was passed on to us.
In general, we agree that this could form the basis for future agreements. However, it would be inappropriate for me to speak now of any final versions, as these do not exist.
Certain matters are of a fundamental nature, and overall, we observe that the American side is, in some respects, taking our position into account – the position that was discussed before Anchorage and after Alaska. There are, unquestionably, areas where we need to sit down and engage in serious discussions on specific points, and all such matters must be framed in proper diplomatic language. Because, generally speaking, one thing is to say that Russia does not intend to attack Europe. To us, that sounds ridiculous, does it not? We never had any such intentions. But if they want to have it formalised, let’s do it, no problem.
It is simply that there are individuals there – I believe they are either not entirely of sound mind or are a certain type of swindler – who seek to gain from this by publicly telling their population, their citizens, that Russia is preparing to attack Europe and that they must urgently strengthen their defence capabilities. Either they are serving the interests of the defence industry and private companies, or they are attempting to bolster their domestic political ratings against the backdrop of the dire state of their economies and social spheres. It is difficult to say what motivates them, but from our point of view, it is complete nonsense – an outright falsehood. Nevertheless, if this narrative has taken root in their public consciousness, if they have frightened their citizens who now wish to hear that we have no plans – no aggressive intentions – towards Europe, then very well, we are ready to formalise that in any manner they see fit.
Perhaps there is even merit in this, considering that we all wish to talk, to discuss, and to articulate matters of pan-European security. Probably so; we ourselves proposed this at one point. If our Western – let us once again call them “partners” – now want this, then very well, we are ready. But we all understand that this requires serious discussion, as every word carries significance.
Or, for example, one of the documents mentions that we should resolve the issue of strategic stability together with our American partners. For heaven’s sake – are we opposed to that? That is precisely what we proposed, having even suggested to the Obama administration that we should agree on certain matters. The response was, “Yes, yes,” and then, a month before the Obama administration left the White House, everything stalled. Now another treaty – New START – is expiring in February. If they do not wish to do anything, so be it.
From these papers, we see that, overall, there is a desire to revisit these issues. However, each of these issues is a separate, very serious area. We are certainly prepared for this serious discussion. Next week, an American delegation is due to arrive in Moscow.
Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.
As a follow-up on the colleague’s question. Will you please name the main Russian negotiators?
And one more thing. There were reports on talks underway in Abu Dhabi. Does it mean a concurrent process is going on there? Could you tell us who is talking to whom and what is happening there? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Obviously, the negotiator from the Russian side is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When we really sit down at the negotiating table and start discussing each of the proposed items in substance and in detail, the Foreign Ministry – on our part, from the Presidential Executive Office – Vladimir Medinsky, Aide to the President who has been engaged in that from the outset. I also included my Aide, Yury Ushakov, to deal with current issues, to organise all this work, he is in touch with his American counterparts. But he cannot deal with all of this alone – the Foreign Ministry must step in and to some extent, the Presidential Executive Office. This is a big, very extensive set of issues that need to be discussed, formalised, and properly spelled out.
That is the way it should be done, I think. It’s not that I think so, but it is never done any other way.
As for the Abu Dhabi talks, yes, I have heard some information noise on this score. But there was nothing unusual, nothing secret happening there either. Our secret services, Russian and Ukrainian, have always been in contact with each other, even in the hardest times. And they are in contact now. What are they dealing with? They are resolving a number of humanitarian issues, primarily related to the exchange of prisoners of war. The Abu Dhabi platform is actively used for this purpose. We are very grateful to the President of the United Arab Emirates for the opportunities extended to us. Thanks to his efforts, hundreds of our men, our heroes, have returned to their homeland.
At the initiative of the Ukrainian side, one of such regular meetings was scheduled and took place in Abu Dhabi. On our side, one of Russia’s FSB leaders attended it. A representative of the US administration also came to this meeting. It was a bit unexpected for us, but we never give up on contacts. He spoke with the Russian representative and wondered if perhaps we should not wait until next week to continue contacts but rather hold a meeting in Moscow this week.
I only learnt about this when the plane landed in Bishkek, but nevertheless, I said that we were ready, you are welcome, at any time. The issue is so important for everyone and for us that at any time of the day or night – we will arrive tonight, we will return, so we can meet right on Thursday, or Friday, Saturday, Sunday – whenever they want. But we agreed that we would decide, and the administration of the US President would decide who should arrive and when.
The latest information was brought to my attention yesterday that President Trump had decided that, after all, as previously agreed – and there was such an agreement earlier – the meeting is proposed by the American side to be held in Moscow next week. OK, we are always open.
As to who will represent the United States from the American side, this should, of course, be determined by the President of the United States. Therefore, we are expecting them in the first half of the next week.
Andrei Kolesnikov: Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.
Mr President, are you going to insist that the territorial issue, above all in Donbass, should be resolved here and now, and for good? Or, will you agree to postpone it, so to speak, until better days? One more question, with your permission: would you agree to return to G7, the Group of Eight, as one of the peace plan versions provides; that is, to all those people?
Vladimir Putin: As for G7 or G8, we have never asked to be there, we were invited there once and we worked there. It was a platform for coordinating certain positions. I must say, you know, please take note, even before the tragic events in Ukraine began, I stopped travelling there. Did you notice?
Remark: Yes, indeed.
Vladimir Putin: This is why, when the developments in Ukraine began, they said: “Well, we are not expecting you there.” And good riddance… I do not remember who it was, I think it was the Prime Minister who went there once. The first time I refused was because really, I do not invent anything, it was when the Government was formed after I was elected President, I think in 2012. However, we never reject contacts, we are always open for interaction. First, nobody invites us there, I have not heard of or received any official proposals. And second, we know how the great majority of that association, called the Big Seven, and I have already said it once that I do not quite understand why it is called the big seven: in terms of territory, population and contribution to the global GDP they are getting smaller and smaller. Well, it does not matter, they are our important partners anyway. In today’s situation I just cannot imagine how we can interact directly. Can you imagine it? Well, we’ve arrived, hello, and now we will be stare at each other, or what?
I believe that this should bring us to some normalisation. Maybe, if we implement all these proposals within the list that we have received from the US administration, maybe some conditions for bilateral or multilateral contacts will emerge, however, it is premature to speak about it.
Andrei Kolesnikov: And there was the second question …
Vladimir Putin: You know, I will tell you now very briefly, I think it will be clear at once what it is all about. We are still receiving proposals about ceasing hostilities there, there and there. When the Ukrainian troops leave the territories they occupy, then the hostilities will cease. If they do not leave, we will achieve it militarily. That’s that.
Yes, please.
Edmund Zhelbunov: Edmund Zhelbunov, NTV television company. A question on the progress of the special military operation.
Mr President, are the positive dynamics on the fronts continuing? If so, in which directions is the most active advance taking place? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: The positive dynamics persist in all directions. Moreover, our troops’ advance in each of these directions continues to pick up the pace, and quite noticeably. I would refrain from citing the precise number of kilometres, because I could be mistaken, but month after month, the size of the territory, so to speak, returned by our forces in all key areas is steadily increasing. In other words, the pace of our advance is accelerating.
However, the main problem for the enemy lies elsewhere: the widening gap between their losses and the number of personnel they are able to bring to the line of combat contact. In October, I believe, they suffered over 47,000 casualties, or about 47,500. Through mobilisation, or more precisely – forced mobilisation, they raised roughly 16,500, and an additional 14,500 to 15,000 returned from hospitals. If one calculates this precisely down to a tenth, the net deficit comes to around 15,000. In the previous month, the deficit was 10,000. Thus, the gap is widening.
We must also add those who desert the army. The scale of desertion is significant, and this is evident not only from our media or from Defence Ministry reports, but is also widely covered in Western media, and it is virtually impossible for them to hide this information. Therefore, there is little they can do about it, as they say.
In short, the dynamics remain positive in all directions.
Yes, please.
Yegor Piskunov: Yegor Piskunov, RT television channel. Thank you very much.
Mr President, are you aware of the fact that phone conversations between Yury Ushakov, Steve Witkoff, and Kirill Dmitriev have been leaked to the press? What do you think about it? The West, particularly numerous Western media outlets, has blown it up to a scandal. Witkoff has come under attack. What do you think about this? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: You know, speaking of leaks, that may be a fake claim, or maybe a conversation was actually eavesdropped on. Eavesdropping is a criminal offence. At least in our country, eavesdropping is illegal. You know how the joke goes, “they were instructed to spy, but they ended up eavesdropping.” Let them mind their own business. By the way, spying is a skill, too.
I will explain what I mean. I am not aware of what these wiretaps or leaks are all about. You see, we get up in the morning and work from morning till night. After the events ended, I joined you. Here is what I think the problem is all about. It is not about us. It is about the clash of opinions in the collective West and specifically within the United States regarding what is going on and what needs to be done to stop the war and to halt the hostilities.
I had a meeting with Mr Witkoff before the summit in Anchorage. After that meeting, I went to Alaska to have talks. Overall – I want to emphasise it – at least my impression was that we had an understanding of where we stood and what needed to be done to stop the hostilities.
Then we left because President Trump and I needed to return to our respective capitals, to think things over, to consult with our administrations, ministries, agencies, and allies. After that, we agreed to continue discussions.
[Sergei] Lavrov and [Marco] Rubio met in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly and had a conversation. No conflict arose between Russia and the United States on these matters. We remained on the Anchorage platform. Suddenly, the United States imposed sanctions on two of our oil companies. Why? Frankly, I was not sure what was happening.
So, there is no reason for accusing Mr Witkoff of being overly polite with his Russian counterparts. I spoke with him, and then we had that meeting in Alaska, and then – boom – sanctions that undermine our relations were imposed on us. To reiterate, we are unclear what kind of message this is. That is the first point.
Second, Mr Witkoff is apparently travelling to Moscow on President Trump’s instructions to negotiate with us. It would be quite unusual if, in his conversations with [Yury] Ushakov, he had used cuss words to insult us, or said something extremely rude, and then reached out to us in order to improve his negotiating stance. That is nonsense. Not to mention that Mr Witkoff is, apparently, a well-mannered person; he knows he should create a proper environment for interpersonal communication. That much is obvious.
This brings me to the most important point. I have known Mr Witkoff for several months now. He and President Trump go back many years, maybe even decades. He is a US citizen, and he upholds the position of his President and his country. True, our dialogue is quite challenging. We are having a civil conversation. We are not spitting at each other. We are talking like civilised people do, but each one of us is upholding his own position. To reiterate, Mr Witkoff is upholding his position, the position of the United States and the interests of the United States as he sees them and as those who delegate him to negotiate with Russia see them. These people are not just President Trump. I think they also include people from the US military, diplomatic, and administrative spheres in the broad sense of the word.
Please go ahead.
Yelena Mukhametshina: Vedomosti newspaper.
Talks about confiscating Russian assets have intensified in Europe. I want to ask how Russia would respond to this. And do you agree with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s remark that the confiscation can lead to legal disputes, multiple lawsuits and the collapse of the euro?
Vladimir Putin: Hungary is an EU member, therefore, the Prime Minister of one of the EU countries knows better how this could affect the European currency. Clearly, this will have negative repercussions for the global financial system because confidence in the Eurozone will sharply decline, will plummet. And amid problems in the economy, where the locomotive of the European economy – the German economy – has been in recession for the third year running, I think this will definitely be quite an ordeal.
On my instruction, the Government of the Russian Federation is working on a package of retaliatory measures in case this happens. It is clear to everyone, and everyone says it bluntly, that it would amount to stealing someone else’s property. In this regard, I naturally have a question: who is teaching whom? Either the thieving elite of Ukraine, which steals the money of its taxpayers and the taxpayers of Western sponsors – we are now well aware of the corruption scandal in Kiev – is learning from the Europeans, or the Europeans are learning from the Ukrainian elite. In any case, both are theft. That is how we feel about it, and we are working on retaliatory measures. However, the Government will make them public later, if that happens.
Anton Vernitsky: Anton Vernitsky, Channel One.
After Donald Trump admitted the possibility for the United States to test nuclear weapons, you gave instructions, at the Security Council meeting, to the relevant departments and security services to explore the feasibility of testing Russian nuclear weapons. Has a final decision been made yet? If so, what is it? If not, when can it be made?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I issued instructions to collect additional information about the actions of the American side, analyse it and submit proposals to me on what we should do in this situation. One of the proposals that we have received is to work together on this topic, that’s what we take from what we see. And we are ready to think all the issues concerning strategic stability over together with the US administration.
Anton Vernitsky: Could it be at the next negotiations, in Moscow next week?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, if this issue arises. Actually, even if it does not arise, we will, of course, raise this issue, because both the United States and we are perfectly aware that preparations for real nuclear weapons tests need time. And we certainly cannot let ourselves get into a situation where the United States will have had a test whereas we will be preparing for it for another year and a half. Naturally, we have to think about it. It was not us who said that, but we must be ready for any possible scenario. And I assure you, we will be ready.
Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President. Alexander Yunashev, Live.
Right now, during this visit, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is not accompanying you…
Vladimir Putin: Do you miss him?
Alexander Yunashev: A little. Although he is not away on vacation, he has not appeared on your international visits for two weeks now. The media claim he has fallen out of favour allegedly due to an unsuccessful conversation with Marco Rubio. What do you say?
Vladimir Putin: This is absolute nonsense. He has not fallen out of favour in any way. He has his own work schedule, he reported to me, informed me of his plans, and he is implementing them. He is preparing for a meeting with our American partners.
Yes, please.
Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, TASS news agency.
Allow me to return to the peace plan. There is an impression that the Western side, by proposing such swift, rapid meetings and insisting on them, is in some way pressuring Russia and you personally. Naturally, everyone wants to achieve peace as quickly as possible, but it seems such matters bear no haste.
In your opinion, is there a risk that if an agreement is railroaded or hastily assembled, there may arise a temptation later to interpret it rather loosely? You have just said that every word requires discussion. How long, in general, will this take?
Vladimir Putin: I deliberately drew your attention to the fact that every issue listed in the documents handed to us holds immense importance – each one is a key topic, do you understand? Therefore, this requires thorough consideration. Likely, some of our partners are eager to resolve these issues as quickly as possible. Why? Colleagues here have asked me about the developments along the line of contact, about the position of American negotiators. Well, what is happening? Take, for instance, Kupyansk – I will return to it shortly. Let us begin with the area of responsibility of our Centre group of forces: where are the main operations taking place? On the Krasnoarmeysk direction and around the city of Dimitrov. Krasnoarmeysk and Dimitrov are entirely encircled – just as Kupyansk was in its time. Seventy percent of Krasnoarmeysk is under the control of the Russian Armed Forces. In the southern part of Dimitrov, the enemy grouping has been cut off, it is being split across the entire city, and our forces are proceeding to systematically eliminate it.
Well, what is next? If you look at the map, shift your gaze further east, northeast – there lies Komsomolsk, and north of Komsomolsk – Kupyansk, Slavyansk, and a little further north, northeast – Seversk. In Komsomolsk, combat is ongoing within the city, and a significant number of buildings have already been liberated by our troops, with further advances underway.
As for Seversk, which, as I said, lies further northeast, our forces have approached this city from the east, south, and north. Fierce combat is taking place in the city – I believe out of 8,000 buildings, 1,700 are under our control. Do you understand, if they have approached from the north, south, and east, where is this all heading? This is a very difficult question for the Ukrainian side, for the Ukrainian armed forces.
If you look north – the city of Seversk: 1,700 buildings out of 8,000, and beyond that, further north (where our North group of forces is operating) – Volchansk is almost entirely in our hands, that is on the Kharkov direction.
Now take a look at the developments in the Zaporozhye Region. There, the enemy has spent the past ten years constructing a fortified area – they began this work back in 2014 and have reinforced it ever since – which is now facing our Dnepr group of forces. It is a heavily fortified area, and our Dnepr forces are actively operating against it. In several important sectors, thanks to the heroism of our soldiers, defences are being broken. But that is not the point. The point is that our East group of forces has broken through the enemy’s defensive lines and is rapidly advancing in the north of the Zaporozhye Region, along the border between the Zaporozhye and Dnepropetrovsk regions. I repeat: they are advancing very rapidly. They are already within 1.5–2 kilometres of Gulyaypole, an important logistics hub. Whether they take the city soon or somewhat later, they will undoubtedly continue their advance.
What does this mean? It means that the East group of forces is effectively enveloping the entire fortified area of the Ukrainian Armed Forces from the north. On one side, our Dnepr group is confronting them whereas the East group of forces is bypassing them from the north. This may lead to a collapse of the front in this sector.
Here lies the difference between those in the West who seek to achieve peace as quickly as possible, even at the cost of certain mutual concessions, including from the Ukrainian side, and those who prefer a different course. If the developments we witnessed in Kupyansk unfold in the areas I have just mentioned, the collapse of the front will be inevitable.
Some still choose to believe that Kupyansk… Let me remind you: on November 4, the head of the Kiev regime declared that the city would be in Ukrainian hands within five to seven days. We now know that the enemy forces there have been completely eliminated, the city is entirely under our control, and another 15 battalions – around 3,500 personnel – are encircled on the left bank of the Oskol River. According to some of our commanders, Ukrainian soldiers in that area now resemble homeless people. This is not a joke. Imagine trying to supply 3,500 people by drone: food, uniform replacements, ammunition. It is impossible. They have been stuck in these conditions for weeks and are now practically immobilised.
Those in the West who understand the implications of all this are the ones insisting on ceasing the fighting as soon as possible, even if it requires concessions from the Kiev regime. They understand: the front will begin to crumble in several directions, and then the Ukrainian armed forces will completely lose combat capability, including their most battle-ready units, as is currently happening near Krasnoarmeysk. “Enough: save at least the core of the armed forces and your statehood. That is what must be considered,” say those who hold this view.
And then there are others, those who still continue to believe that Kupyansk is somehow back under Ukrainian control and who insist on continuing the fighting until the last Ukrainian is killed. That is the difference in their approaches. The ones attacking Mr Witkoff are precisely those who align with this second point of view, those who want to join the Ukrainian establishment in siphoning off money while prolonging hostilities until the last Ukrainian dies. But I have already said publicly: in fact, we are prepared for this.
Please, go ahead.
Yekaterina Lazareva: Good afternoon, Mr President.
Yekaterina Lazareva, URA.Ru agency. I have a follow-up question. Back to the peace plans. There is Trump’s peace plan, and there is an alternative plan advanced by Europe. Is there an understanding of who to talk to, to negotiate with, and to sign final documents with on behalf of Ukrainian political leadership, or perhaps, the military leadership now?
Vladimir Putin: You know, signing documents with the Ukrainian leadership is pointless. I have mentioned this many times.
I believe the Ukrainian leadership made a fundamental and strategic mistake when it gave in to fear and chose not to hold presidential elections, after which the president lost his legitimacy. Russia is also amidst hostilities with Ukraine, but we held elections, presidential elections and, very recently, elections to municipal and regional bodies of authority. We did all of that, while they, for some reason, did not. As soon as a peace deal is signed, hostilities will stop, and the martial law will need to be immediately lifted. Once the martial law is lifted, elections must be announced immediately.
However, today, the current political leadership of Ukraine can hardly expect to be able to win the election without rigging it. It is almost impossible, I think. That brings to mind Stalin famously saying, “It does not matter who votes for whom; what matters is who counts the votes.” No one cancelled the use of the administrative resource. Still, they are facing a challenging situation.
Next, according to the Constitution, a referendum must be held on all territorial issues, after which the referendum must be confirmed by a Constitutional Court ruling.
What is happening with the Constitutional Court? I mentioned this earlier as well. As a reminder, when the political leadership requested that the Constitutional Court confirm the president’s powers, the Constitutional Court refused to do so and dodged the request. According to the Constitution, there is only one five-year term. That is it. It cannot be extended.
We could go into the legal details and intricacies, but extensions are not provided for even under martial law. Only the Rada can extend its own powers during wartime, not the president. So, as an officeholder, the president cannot sign it. He needs confirmation from the Constitutional Court. But when the Court was asked to confirm the president’s powers, and refused to do so, do you know what happened next? I am not sure I mentioned this before, but a funny thing happened next. The security service stopped letting him into his office. He came to work, and someone knocked on his door telling him to clear out. He ended by fleeing the country.
The Constitutional Court is not operational, and the President of the Supreme Court is doing time for corruption. Those in charge of anti-corruption activities are corruptionists of the first order themselves. The President of the Supreme Court was imprisoned on corruption charges. Meanwhile, the terms of the Constitutional Court members expired, and new members had to be elected. It is quite a lengthy procedure, you see?
So, as soon as martial law is lifted, presidential elections must be held, a referendum must be held, and a new Constitutional Court must be formed. That is a never ending story.
Well, of course, we want to work out a deal with Ukraine, but doing so right now is practically impossible, legally impossible. Whoever from their side can or is willing to talk, let them do so. What we need is for our decisions to be internationally recognised by the main global actors. That is all we need.
This matters, because there is a difference between decisions under which certain territories remain under Russian sovereignty have been recognised. If agreements get violated, it will constitute an attack on the Russian Federation, with all ensuing responses from Russia. Or, will it be interpreted as an attempt to restore law on the territory owned by Ukraine? These are different matters.
Without a doubt, we need recognition, but not from Ukraine as things stand today. I hope that in the future we will be able to work out a deal with Ukraine as well. There are enough right-minded people in Ukraine who are willing to build relations with Russia for the long-term historical perspective.
Kira Latukhina: Good afternoon. My name is Kira Latukhina, Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
Hungarian media have reported that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban will arrive in Moscow tomorrow for talks with you. Could you confirm that such a meeting will take place, and what would be the purpose of his visit? Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: We are in contact with the Hungarian side regarding a possible meeting. And we are always pleased to welcome any of our partners to Russia, including our European colleagues, despite their generally aggressive attitude toward us. Especially Viktor Orban. We know his position well. In my view, it is quite objective. He is one of the few people who assesses the situation based on real circumstances on the ground and formulates his political stance accordingly.
We also have bilateral matters to discuss. Our cooperation in the energy sector is extensive, not to mention the Paks Nuclear Power Plant. There are issues there requiring further clarification and coordination. This includes nuclear fuel supplies. For example, they used American fuel in Ukraine. We have nothing against that in principle, but in practice the fuel assemblies malfunctioned: the rods began to warp, leading to an emergency situation. Therefore, everything in this sphere must be thoroughly calculated; this is a very serious matter. But beyond that, we have many other bilateral issues. If Prime Minister Orban finds it appropriate to accept our invitation, we will be glad to see him.
Valentin Alfimov: May I, Mr President?
Valentin Alfimov, Komsomolskaya Pravda.
You have already partially addressed this, but I would like to clarify the legal aspect concerning Crimea and Donbas. In President Trump’s plan, it is stated that they recognise these territories as ours de facto but not de jure. How is that possible? As a lawyer, how do you see this distinction? How can something be recognised de facto but not de jure?
Vladimir Putin: This is precisely one of the issues that should be addressed in our negotiations with the American side.
Thank you for drawing attention to it. You are right, this is one of the key points.
Thank you very much.
All the best.
“Whatever was the real story behind the 28 pointer … the messy, even infantile “plan” posing as Hegemon in Control and mocking the BRICS/SCO is completely unworkable.”
By Pepe Escobar at the Strategic Culture Foundation.
The Circus Ringmaster’s 28-point “peace plan” for Ukraine may be seen as a pet seal splashing around in a pond to amuse the galleries. And up next, we move to another attraction.
Yet if taken seriously – and that requires not a pinch but a barrel of salt – it’s like a twin to the Circus Ringmaster’s “plan” for Gaza, this time with the objective of snatching a pitiful “victory” from the jaws of the Empire of Chaos’s own, de facto strategic defeat.
Let’s check the reactions. Here you will find Larry Johnson’s analysis – which I share – , but most of all the video of the stunning two-hour interview we had mid-week in Moscow with stellar Maria Zakharova, the most articulated Foreign Ministry spokeswoman on the planet.
What Mrs. Zakharova essentially told us is that by mid-week there was no Russian reaction because Moscow had not received anything concrete: “When we have some official information, when we receive it via a relevant channel, naturally, we will always be open to work.”
The same applied to the Kremlin. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov: “No, we haven’t received anything officially. We see some innovations. But officially, we haven’t received anything. And there hasn’t been any substantive discussion of these items.”
Kupyansk has been liberated – Gerasimov told Putin
— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) November 20, 2025
The first actual, terse response that came from President Putin was stunningly graphic: in camouflage, visiting a command center, and stressing that the set up in Kiev can no longer be described as a “political leadership” because it’s just “a criminal organization”.
After a few frantic days buried in a tsunami of spin concocted by NATOstan mainstream media, supporting but essentially against the 28-pointer, someone in Washington – and not necessarily Russian middleman Kirill Dmitriev – may have delivered it, officially, to the Kremlin.
So this past Friday we had, finally, President Putin’s own response, during a session of the permanent members of Russia’s Security Council.
The key Putin points must be stressed:
Alaska: “The main point of the Alaska summit, its main purpose, was that during the talks in Anchorage we confirmed that, despite some difficult issues and complexities, we nevertheless agreed with these proposals and were prepared to demonstrate the requested flexibility.”
Global South reaction: “We provided detailed information to all our friends and partners in the Global South on these matters – including China, India, the DPRK, South Africa, Brazil, many other countries, and, of course, the CSTO states. All our friends and partners, and I want to emphasise this – without exception – supported these potential arrangements.”
U.S. non-response: “However, after the negotiations in Alaska, we have seen a certain pause on the part of the U.S., and we know this is due to Ukraine’s de facto refusal to accept the peace plan proposed by President Trump. I believe this is precisely why a new version has emerged – essentially an updated plan consisting of 28 points.” Note that “updated” is the key operative word here – as in an extension of Alaska.
What the 28-pointer really means: “We have the text. We received it through our existing channels of communication with the U.S. Administration. I believe it too could form the basis of a final peace settlement, but this text is not being discussed with us in substance. And I can suggest why.
The reason, I believe, remains the same: the U.S. Administration still cannot secure Ukraine’s consent – Ukraine rejects it.
Evidently, Ukraine and its European allies remain under illusions and still dream of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. I think this position is rooted not so much in a lack of competence – I will leave this topic aside for now – but rather in the absence of objective information about the real situation on the ground.”
Expanding on the EU and Ukraine: “All things considered, neither Ukraine nor Europe grasp the consequences of this path. Just one very recent example – Kupyansk. Not long ago, on 4 November – just two weeks ago – officials in Kiev publicly stated that no more than 60 Russian servicemen were present in the city, and that within the next few days, as they claimed, Ukrainian forces would fully unblock it.
But I would like to inform you that already at that moment, on 4 November, the city of Kupyansk was practically entirely secured by the Russian Armed Forces. Our guys were, as they say, simply finishing the job – clearing the remaining streets and neighbourhoods. The fate of the city had already been fully determined.
What does this tell us? Either the Kiev leaders do not have objective information about the situation at the front, or, having it, they are simply unable to assess it objectively.”
The SMO will go on: “If Kiev does not want to discuss President Trump’s proposals and rejects them, then they – and their European war-instigators – must understand that the situation in Kupyansk will inevitably be repeated on other key sectors of the front. Perhaps not as quickly as we would like, but the outcome will be inevitably repeated.”
The inevitable conclusion: “On the whole, this is acceptable to us, as it leads to achieving the objectives of the special military operation by military means. But, as I have said many times before, we are also ready for peace negotiations and for resolving problems by peaceful means. However, this requires a substantive discussion of all details of the proposed plan. We are ready for that.”
Deconstructing an incoherent mish-mash
So here we have finally come back to the essentials – what everyone with an IQ over room temperature following the imperial proxy war against Russia in Ukraine already knows: Russia is ready for peace, but in Putin’s own words, “is also satisfied with the current dynamics of the SMO”. Because this is leading – slowly but surely, “to the achievement of its goals” in the battlefield.
Whatever was the real story behind the 28 pointer – assuming it was Dmtriev and Witkoff holed up in Miami for three days; and then lowly neo-con Marco Rubio and zero-expert on anything Zionist asset Jared Kushner (!) chiming in – the messy, even infantile “plan” posing as Hegemon in Control and mocking the BRICS/SCO is completely unworkable.
What if it was designed to be exactly that?
The new frantic spin is that the sweaty sweatshirt in Kiev has been given an ultimatum by Trump 2.0: under a new “aggressive timeline”, he has to get on board. Or else.
Kiev’s backers – the proverbial assortment of chihuahuas comprising the EU, the European Commission (EC) and “leaders” in selected capitals – have rejected the 28-pointer, and so did Kiev, right from the start.
The 28-pointer indeed manages the feat of assembling an incoherent mish-mash that is unworkable not only for Russia but also for the EU/NATO combo. A few examples:
Point 4: “A U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO dialogue will be launched to resolve security issues and promote cooperation”. NATO is a brainchild of the Empire of Chaos. It will never “cooperate” with “existential threat” Russia.
Point 9: “European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.” That means NATO still ready to attack Russian territory.
Point 10: “The U.S. security guarantee [to Ukraine] comes with conditions: – The U.S. receives compensation.” That’s pure “offer you can’t refuse” Mafia territory.
Point 13: “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
That’s what this is all about, per the Circus Ringmaster himself: grabbing Russian natural resources. Moreover Russia does not need the G8: Moscow’s focus is on BRICS/SCO.
Point 14: “Frozen Russian assets will be allocated as follows:
That’s peak Theater of the Absurd: not only the Americans want to use Russian funds to rebuild Ukraine – which they were instrumental in destroying – but their “10 per cent for the Big Guy” turns out to be a hefty 50%.
Point 17: “The U.S. and Russia will extend nuclear arms-control treaties, including New START.” A non-starter: Moscow has been stressing non-stop that arms-control treaties will not be negotiated in relation to the SMO.
Point 21: “Territorial arrangements:
Total non-starter – and not only for the EU/NATO-Kiev combo. Kherson and Zaporozhye, constitutionally, are now fully Russian – and will be liberated on the battlefield.
Point 26: “Full amnesty for all parties for all actions taken during the war: no prosecutions, no war-crimes claims.” Total non-starter: Kiev forced the draft document to use “amnesty” instead of “audit”. Moscow will settle for nothing less that full prosecution of members of the “criminal organization”. Yes, there will be a war crimes tribunal.
Point 27: “The agreement will be legally binding and enforced by a Peace Council chaired by Donald J. Trump.” That’s a Gaza replay. As if Putin and the Russian Security Council would accept a “Peace Council” chaired by a Circus Ringmaster whose expiry date is fast approaching, not to mention be subordinated to the losers in a vicious proxy war.
About a really intriguing takeaway
One plausible takeaway of the 28-pointer is that the selected oligarchy running the Empire of Chaos continues to run a protection racket – and the only way to salvage the de facto strategic defeat in country 404 is to turn a quick buck.
Another more intriguing, plausible takeaway is that the 28-pointer was never meant to be accepted by the EU-Kiev combo. It’s all about the Circus Ringmaster’s exit strategy from the debacle in Novorossiya.
Trump is already preparing the terrain – as in I tried everything, but Zelensky won’t comply. So it’s now his – and his gang’s – problem only, side by side with the EU chihuahuas. Up next: an immediate change of narrative. What else: the Empire of Chaos cannot manage reality, only narratives.
Trump 2.0 may start to work on improving U.S.-Russia relations – while blame for the collapse of the “peace process” is laid on the EU-Kiev combo. The optics of the 28-pointer P.R. op are everything: packaged as it is asking Moscow to strike a compromise, even as Russia is winning in the battlefield, while making sure the “criminal organization” in Kiev cannot agree to the main provisions.
Provisional endgame: the chihuahuas of war will keep barking while the SMO will keep rollin’ along.
Featured Image: Delegates gather for the opening session of the Third Social Summit of the Peoples in Santa Marta, Colombia. Photo: @teleSURtv
Protecting the Zone of Peace in the LAC
Civil society organizations from across Latin America and the Caribbean opened the Third Social Summit of the Peoples on Monday in Santa Marta, Colombia, aiming to strengthen regional dialogue and collective action on migration, sovereignty, and regional integration.
The meeting, held at the Irotama Hotel, begins a day before the Fourth Summit between the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) and the European Union, which will also take place in Santa Marta.
Organizers state that the summit seeks to contribute to regional peace, democratic participation, and cooperation among social movements and governments. Delegations from various countries are expected to discuss shared strategies for advancing regional integration.
The public call to the summit emphasized unity across diverse political and social backgrounds: “From within our diversity, and with the goal of strengthening regional integration, we call on you to build and participate in the Third Social Summit of the Peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean in Colombia, at a time when both the country and the continent face a historic need to defend our region as a Zone of Peace.”
Organizers highlight the importance of increased engagement within CELAC decision-making structures “from a popular, democratic, sovereign, inclusive, anti-patriarchal, and environmentally grounded perspective, with national, regional, and international projection.”
The summit also aims to develop a common agenda among social movements to support regional integration efforts and establish sustained channels of dialogue with governments. The meeting follows previous summits that sought to expand collaboration and mutual support across the region.
Working groups will address key themes, including regional sovereignty and defense; labor, migration, and rights; structural racism and historical reparations; integral agrarian reform and food sovereignty; environmental justice and climate policy; energy sovereignty; accountability for transnational corporations; and emerging financial alternatives in the Global South, including coordination with BRICS. Youth and student mobilization and children’s rights are also included in the program.
Outcomes from the Social Summit are expected to be presented and debated in parallel to the CELAC–EU Summit, situating regional social movements as active participants in shaping integration and public policy.
Concluding his three-day stay in the Republic of Tajikistan, the President of Russia answered questions from representatives of the mass media.
There were a number of speeches and discussions during these meetings, which also included the meetings of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). I selected this one to comment on as it highlights the significant issues. The CIS now also has a CIS+, and this plus will be invited from the SCO. So we have growth here as well. CIS came into being when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. He also explains the confusion of the time. Putin explains the interactions and roles of CIS, the Russia–Central Asia summit, and the EAEU.
—
RT headlines: “The multipolar revolution you missed: The alliance everyone forgot is shaping Eurasia’s future”. At the CIS summit, Russia’s regional alliance quietly evolved from post-Soviet bureaucracy into a functioning pillar of the multipolar world.
—
The CIS consists of Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Moldova was part of this group, but suspended participation. Mr Putn explains that when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, people were not very clear about the role of CIS, and generally believed that it replaced the Soviet Union. I was looking for a map on Wikipedia, and sure, I found that it said CIS replaced the Soviet Union. “As the Soviet Union disintegrated, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine signed the Belovezha Accords on 8 December 1991, declaring that the Union had effectively ceased to exist and proclaiming the CIS in its place.”
A cursory reading of this incredibly complex history soon makes it clear that the plan was for a group of countries like the EU (which came into existence more or less in the same historic period) to be relatively homogeneous and nicely manageable. Then came Mr Putin. I haven’t read much of this very recent history, but from what my father-in-law told me, it seems like the planning involved the creation of a manageable group of scattered countries. The world was being divided into blocs or groups to serve a master and simplify management. This was much less about the ‘dirty commies’ and much more about creating a world where one master would be in charge. This is evident even with a cursory investigation of the fall of the USSR, the creation of the Russian Federation, and the process of creating the EU. On the Russian side, it was during the era of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, with the happy Glasnost and Perestroika, which is the last that the Westoids heard of this vibrant Eurasian area. We westoids only saw mockumentary comedies such as Borat. Judging by what Mr. Putin explained in this presser, this ignorance of that Eurasian world was widespread, and not even the participants clearly knew what was going on.
Again, then came Putin.
[Note: By going through these questions and answers, we gain a clear lesson from Putin on how problems should be resolved in the tumultuous relationships as we transition to a new world order with new poles forming. We should have a different descriptor than the New World Order, though, as we are only now moving to the world order envisaged and clearly documented at the initial steps of creating the UN. This presser also illustrates the BRICS concept of decisions made by consensus and not by a vote. It is only highly developed civilizationals that will put in the time for problem solving, debate, even a fight or two, to clarify consensus. Again, from the West, the principle of voting, in a sense, disrupts consensus, and one continually faces the unhappy side of the vote. Westoids and unevolved societies cannot help but think that the opposite of a vote is a diktat, hence the nomenclature of anyone outside as a dictator. BRICS as an evolving group must learn the consensus mechanisms and embody them].
Mr.Putin starts with labor migration into Russia from Tajikistan, where they are combining police forces in order to calm down the migrants, through to unanswered questions on the Russian plane that crashed in Kazakhstan. He ends with the New START treaty, which, by all indications, currently will not be renewed.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening.
I will forgo any opening remarks or statements. If there are questions, I will gladly endeavour to answer them.
You are welcome to proceed.
Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, good evening.
Anastasia Savinykh, TASS news agency.
You have been working here, in Dushanbe, for three days now, with approximately half of this time dedicated to the programme of your state visit to Tajikistan. You have spent many hours in negotiations with your counterpart, President Rahmon, both in a restricted format and within the delegation framework, the composition of which underscores the mutual commitment of our two countries.
Could you please summarise the outcomes of this state visit and highlight which areas are currently demonstrating the most active and dynamic development, as well as the prospects ahead?
If I may, a brief follow-up question on this topic: we have signed a programme with Tajikistan on developing labour migration. The Ministry of the Interior is opening representative offices both in Russia and Tajikistan. In your view, does this help regulate migration flows? Does it assist in minimising illegal migration and criminal activity, and are there plans to sign similar programmes with other countries in the region?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I will begin with bilateral relations. Tajikistan is an important partner for us, both in general and specifically within Central Asia. Its significance lies in its position on the frontiers of the CIS – on the southern flank of the Commonwealth. While our two countries do not share a common border, this remains an issue of utmost importance for the security of the Russian Federation. It is not by chance that our border service personnel continue their work here, in close cooperation with their Tajik colleagues, and that our military base is stationed here.
Naturally, we have devoted considerable attention to reviewing all these matters. Indeed, we observe that the current government in Afghanistan is taking all necessary steps to normalise the situation in the country. Nevertheless, numerous challenges persist, as acknowledged by the Afghan leadership itself. Therefore, the border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan must remain entirely secure. That is the first point.
Secondly, we maintain substantial and serious economic cooperation. It suffices to mention our collaboration in the energy sector, including hydropower. Tajikistan, with its mountainous rivers, is one of the most robust hubs for this industry. Our projects – both those already completed and those under development – are well known. There are other areas of cooperation as well, including the extraction of mineral resources.
All this holds significant interest for our economies – mutual interest, I would clarify, for both Russia and Tajikistan. We observe the establishment of joint enterprises and continued investment from Russian businesses. I would also note Tajikistan’s competitive advantages in areas such as cotton cultivation and others. This is of considerable importance to us.
Of course, humanitarian cooperation is an essential area of our relations. It is extremely important that some time ago the President of Tajikistan proposed opening schools that not only teach Russian but where education is entirely in the Russian language and the curriculum is similar to that in our schools.
Many of our teachers are working here, and we will certainly help improve conditions for the branches of Russian universities that have opened here, and will also support the ambitions of young people from Tajikistan to study at Russian universities. One of the largest, if not the largest, quotas in the CIS has been approved for Tajikistan.
It is widely known, yet I would like to repeat that special attention is given in Tajikistan to the study of the Russian language and Russian culture. This includes theatres, but the most important thing is that the status of the Russian language has been enshrined in law. This is extremely important; it is the basis for the further development of our interstate ties.
As for migration, we are aware of the demographic situation in the Central Asian republics, of course. Several years ago, slightly more than five million people lived here [in Tajikistan]. The current figure is above 10 million. The population growth is rapid here, while Russia needs an additional workforce.
At the same time, we are interested in attracting the trades we need. This is the first point. And second, we want these people to live in good conditions, to respect our laws and rules and to be law-abiding citizens, as I always point out. Incidentally, this is primarily connected with knowing the language of the host country.
Nevertheless, there are quite a few problems, which the citizens of the Russian Federation point to. We must above all think about our own citizens. In this context, it is essential for the personnel of the concerned departments, in this case the interior ministries, to work in Tajikistan, I mean Russian police officers, and for their Tajik colleagues to work in Russia. This is extremely important.
Why? The reason is that they, as the legal representatives of the Tajik authorities, will be able to see for themselves what is going on, and second, will take part in adopting relevant administrative decisions together with their Russian colleagues.
In this case, the citizens of Tajikistan who live and work in Russia will see this in a totally different way. It is one thing when the police demand that they comply with some rules and laws, and it is quite another matter when law enforcement personnel from Tajikistan are involved. This will build trust on both sides and enhance the effectiveness of [law enforcement] efforts.
Kira Latukhina: Good evening, Mr President.
My name is Kira Latukhina, and I am from the Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper.
Two major international summits were held – the CIS summit and the Russia–Central Asia summit. How successful are they? And to what extent do we need such a format as the Russia – Central Asia summit? How popular is it, and what “added value” does it have?
Vladimir Putin: Some time ago, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the establishment of the CIS was announced. I believe that an overwhelming majority of our countries’ citizens did not have a very clear idea of what was going on – they believed that the CIS had replaced the Soviet Union. They believed that, in essence, very little would change. In reality, everything changed drastically.
Unfortunately, the citizens of our countries were not informed in detail about the changes underway. But we are living in conditions that have evolved historically. Apart from living in these conditions, we should see how we can improve this vast region, how to move forwards and what should be done so as not to lose competitive advantages that emerged following the establishment on the territory of the former Soviet Union of common logistics, common industrial cooperation projects, and a common cultural code, despite the cultural diversity of the Soviet Union’s nations. The CIS is called on to preserve all this.
It became obvious at a certain stage that the level of intra-CIS collaboration was not enough for addressing current complicated economic issues. For this reason, on the initiative of Kazakhstan and its President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, another association emerged – the EAEU, where its members are working within the framework of more profound cooperation between countries that deemed it possible, expedient and advisable to establish this association. But the CIS is not losing its significance; it essentially aims to maintain this common space, including its cultural and humanitarian aspects.
Regardless of the scale of cultural differences between the most diverse nations of the former Soviet Union, Soviet people had their own common and distinctive moral code, which is very significant. The CIS is called on to preserve the heritage of the Soviet Union, and it is accomplishing this objective rather successfully.
People-to-people contacts remain robust. Again, we are committed to preserving a seamless transport space, which is of paramount importance, and we actively support the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication. This is a fundamental element in uniting our efforts and preserving the competitive advantages that I mentioned earlier.
This collaborative spirit extends to addressing security challenges and combating the most dangerous types of crime, such as drug trafficking. If you examine the package of documents we adopted and signed today, you will see that it speaks directly to these priorities.
Ultimately, the preservation and strengthening of our unity is crucial for our shared future.
The situation in the Central Asian countries follows a similar logic, albeit with local specificities. We all recognise the region’s rich ethnic diversity. The further, the more each nation is developing based on its own foundation – its own economy, its own cultural code, its own traditions. Russia is developing in the same way. This makes it all the more important that we do not drift too far apart. We must maintain our shared conviction that something unites us – a great deal actually – because that is the reality.
Consider the movement of people: is there no surplus workforce in other countries? There certainly is. Yet Russia remains a primary destination for workers from the former Soviet space. Why? Because they feel that fundamental connection. They want to learn Russian – why? For the same reason. This underscores the need to actively seek out and nurture all the common ground we share and value so deeply.
Our shared history is an important unifying force. Today, we have discussed the common Victory over Nazism – a shared legacy and a source of pride for all our nations. We will talk more about it in our ongoing meetings. That is, while we are connected by the past and the present, we must constantly seek and build upon the things that will unite us in the future.
This format has been designed precisely to give special focus to this track of our foreign policy.
Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President.
Alexander Yunashev, Life.
Yesterday, you met with Ilham Aliyev. During these negotiations, were you able to outline pathways to resolve the current crisis in bilateral relations, or does a certain chill remain?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: You know, I would not even describe it as a crisis in interstate relations. Why? Because if this had been a crisis in interstate relations, we would not have seen growth in trade and economic ties. Yet despite everything we have witnessed and encountered, growth – significant growth – has continued. So, what kind of crisis in interstate relations would this be?
I would say it was more likely a crisis of emotions. It is clear why. We were confronted with a very grave incident, a tragic event – the loss of an aircraft and its passengers. Therefore, we needed to calmly analyse the situation; we required time to properly examine it.
It was necessary to conduct highly complex technical examinations – that is true. We had to locate the so-called black boxes, decode them, cross-reference all the data obtained by investigators from the Ministry of Defence, verify this information, and compile all the records gathered from air traffic control services – both ours and those of Kazakhstan. All of this had to be pieced together and analysed. This demands extensive, meticulous, highly responsible, and professional work.
I myself once, while studying at the Law Faculty of Leningrad University, undertook an internship at the transport prosecutor’s office, where I was assigned to an investigator handling such cases. I understand what this entails, you see. It is extremely painstaking, seemingly tedious work where mistakes cannot be permitted.
But in the end, we accomplished this. We agreed with Mr Aliyev that we would do everything to ensure this investigation was conducted objectively, including by the International Aviation Committee (IAC), which carried out its inquiry using all the materials provided to it.
The investigation is now nearing completion, and overall, the situation is clear. There may still be some details or nuances that specialists need to document properly. I discussed this yesterday with the President of Azerbaijan.
I sincerely hope that we have turned this page, that we will move forward, and that we will continue to develop our contacts without complications, implementing the major, truly large-scale plans that both our countries share in logistics, industrial cooperation, and, I would add, in the cultural and humanitarian sphere as well.
Let me remind you that Azerbaijan is largely a Russian-speaking country: Russian is studied practically everywhere there. This also reflects the country’s deep and enduring commitment to developing relations with Russia. I very much hope this will remain so in the future.
Emotions are inevitable, but it is always better to keep them under control so that they do not interfere with our work or hinder progress. I believe all of this is now behind us.
Please.
Yelena Shiryaeva: Thank you.
Yelena Shiryaeva, Mir TV Channel.
Back to the topic of the summit. Today, during the meeting, an agreement was reached to create a new format, CIS+. Is there an understanding which international partners are ready to join the organisation in this format, under what conditions, and, most importantly, what benefits will it bring to the people of our countries?
Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the question.
This is indeed an important decision, as it marks the organisation’s transformation from what was essentially a family gathering into a full-fledged international structure. There are many countries interested in participating in our work, in developing cooperation, finding shared interests, and addressing common challenges.
We have agreed to establish this CIS+ format, and we also decided to invite representatives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as observers. I believe these are very sound and timely decisions. They will undoubtedly strengthen both the CIS’s capacity and standing as an organisation. I have no doubt that we will soon see the benefits of this decision.
Thank you very much.
Please.
Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon, Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.
Prior to your visit to Dushanbe, one of the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Russia said that the potential of Anchorage has been exhausted. Do you agree with this assertion? Is that the end of the matter?
One more question, if I may. It has just been announced that Donald Trump did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In your opinion: should he have received it, did he deserve it, was he worthy of it?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Regarding the first part of your question. What exactly would you like to hear?
Andrei Kolesnikov: I can say, yes. I would like to hear that it has not, in fact, been exhausted.
Vladimir Putin: Do you understand the issue? We did not fully disclose what was discussed in Anchorage. We simply stated that, in general, there is an understanding – both on the part of the United States and the Russian Federation – of where we should move and what we should strive for in order to end this conflict, and by peaceful means at that. These are not simple matters.
We agreed with Donald that I, too, would need to consider the matter in Moscow and discuss it with our colleagues, as well as consult our allies. He told me the same.
These are complex issues requiring further elaboration. But we remain grounded in the discussions that took place in Anchorage. We are not changing our position on this and believe that some additional work is needed on both sides. However, overall, we remain within the framework of the Alaska agreements.
Now, regarding Trump. You know, it is not for me to decide who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. First of all, I doubt anyone here – among you, your viewers, or your listeners – would object. Let me clarify what I mean.
There have been cases where the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to individuals who had done nothing for peace. In my view, these decisions inflicted enormous damage on the prize’s prestige. A person comes along – good or bad – and within a month or two, boom. For what? They had done absolutely nothing. Is that how it should work? It ought to be awarded for actual merits. Consequently, I believe, its prestige has been significantly undermined. But that is neither here nor there – it is not for me to judge.
Whether or not the incumbent President of the United States deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, I do not know. But he has genuinely done much to resolve complex crises that have persisted for years, if not decades.
I have said this before – I know for certain: regarding the crisis in Ukraine, he sincerely strives for a resolution. Some things have worked out, others have not. Perhaps much more can still be achieved based on the agreements and discussions in Anchorage. But he is certainly making an effort, certainly working on these issues – issues of achieving peace and resolving complex international situations.
[Note: The language used by Russia is straight out of diplomacy. They refer to the discussions at Anchorage as the guiding principle because it was the last summit between presidents and set the tone for relationships. This is what diplomatic relations are all about. But, we see each time when Russian diplomats visit this topic, the language refers to Trump’s ‘sincerity’ in wanting the Ukraine war to end and to play a part in it. Never do they recognize progress or success. The words used would always be ‘striving’, ‘trying’, ‘sincerity’, ‘hopes’, or other forward-looking and clearly emotional terms. Good Buddy 10:4, 10:4. We received your message, over and out. Take a look at the next statement and confirm. If there is progress and a positive result, then it would be historic. Anyone who supposedly ‘decodifies’ Putin-speak should be aware of the straight diplomat-speak.]
The most striking example is the situation in the Middle East. If everything Donald has sought to accomplish, everything he has spoken about and attempted to achieve, is brought to fruition – it would be a historic event, truly a historic event.
If you noticed, I spoke yesterday with the Prime Minister of Iraq [Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani], who currently chairs the Arab League. We agreed with him that we would even postpone our meeting – between Russia and the Arab League. This was my initiative. I did this precisely because I did not wish to interfere with the process that has now, as we hope, been set in motion – incidentally, at the initiative and with the direct involvement of Trump – in the Middle East. Is that not an achievement? It is an achievement.
But I repeat, it is not for me to decide whether he deserves this prize or not, and whether the prize itself is worthy of such accomplishments.
Sargon Hadaya: Could you clarify something about Gaza?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.
Sargon Hadaya: Good afternoon, Mr President. Sargon Hadaya, Russia Today.
You have said that you will continue to cooperate with Arab colleagues on the Gaza issue. May I know in what format? And will Russia take part in various working groups, which will be set up on monitoring, on humanitarian issues – everything related to settlement and recognition of the Palestinian state?
Vladimir Putin: We have a very high level of trust with our Arab friends and with Palestine. I said it from the very beginning when I spoke at the Valdai Club meeting that we support the US, President Trump’s initiatives in this area at this track.
[Note: For those who are expecting Russia to flare up into anger, you will wait a long time. Mr. Lavrov noted: Trump’s Peace Plan is the best that is on the table currently.]
Still, the question of establishing a Palestinian state is one of the key issues. And, of course, this is the question for the future. As far as I understand – I haven’t yet looked closely at all the proposals – there is a question related to the transfer of power in the enclave to the Palestinian Authority after some time, its formation, there are questions related to ensuring security and the creation of local police.
You know, given the level of trust existing between Russia and our Arab, including and above all our Palestinian friends, of course, I think that our participation may be required. If our friends think it might help, of course, we will always be ready to take part in this process.
And we participated in it for decades. I think Russia has something to say and propose for resolving the issues, which will certainly arise in implementing the agreements achieved.
Welcome.
Pavel Zarubin: Good evening,
Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel. Happy belated birthday to you.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
Pavel Zarubin: On that day, we were again wondering where you were and what you were doing, because normally nobody ever sees how you celebrate your birthday. In the evening, we saw you with the military at the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg, in the sepulchre with the tombs of Russian emperors, beginning with Peter the Great. Why there? And why with the military at that?
Vladimir Putin: I think it is clear why I was with the military. Because Russia’s fate is largely, is always exclusively in the hands of the Russian people. And right now, our military are in the foreground, on the frontline – in the literal and figurative sense of the word. They are resolving the tasks fateful for our country – both the men at the front, on the line of engagement, and their commanders, of course.
As you have noticed, I met with the commanders of all our groups of forces that are active on the line of engagement. I invited them to the Peter and Paul Cathedral, the cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress, namely, to the sepulchre of our sovereigns, our tsars. And indeed, we first laid flowers at the tomb of Peter I.
Why? I think it is also clear. Because it was Peter I who laid the essential foundations of the contemporary Russian state, whatever you call it – the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, but the basic essential foundations were laid exactly by Peter I.
Meanwhile, our military in general – both commanders, soldiers and officers on the ground – are, in fact, defending what Peter I created and what his successors continued to strengthen.
Russia’s fate has evolved differently throughout history – it has grown larger or became smaller in size at different times. Under Catherine II – her tomb is actually next to Peter I’s – Russia made the greatest acquisitions of territory, as you know. That is, on that day we paid tribute to those persons who had made a unique, fundamental contribution to the establishment of our state.
And then we just had a briefing with the military colleagues. They reported to me on the situation at each section of the front, the sections they were personally responsible for. Following the meeting, we had a luncheon together, while, in fact, continued the same conversation informally.
Pavel Zarubin: Traditionally, people come to someone’s birthday with gifts. Did they give you a birthday present?
Vladimir Putin: They did, indeed. There were different military-themed presents – figurines and books. Yet two of them are of special value. One of the commanders gave me two icons our soldiers had on them, and those icons saved their lives. The icons were indented by bullets, and the soldiers sent them to me as a present. I am very grateful to them. I will make sure to find them and talk to them.
Even now, taking this opportunity, I would like to convey to them, via the media, my most sincere words of gratitude. And may the Lord protect them as he did before.
Pardon, what? About which Tomahawks?
Stanislav Ivashchenko: The American ones.
Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.
Stanislav Ivashchenko: Stanislav Ivashchenko, Zvezda TV channel.
In Kiev, Zelensky threatens to strike Russia with Tomahawks, even targeting the Kremlin itself. There is even talk that this constitutes a form of posturing… blackmail against Russia.
Vladimir Putin: You did not misspeak – posturing as well. There is certainly an element of showing off here.
Stanislav Ivashchenko: In this context, a question. The Americans say that whether they will transfer the Tomahawks or not depends entirely on Russia’s negotiating position regarding Ukraine. If our negotiating position does not suit them, they will proceed with the transfer. Is our response to this ready?
Vladimir Putin: Our response is the strengthening of the Russian Federation’s air defence systems.
Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: May I ask about START?
Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.
Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.
Konstantin Kokoveshnikov. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.
As is already known, you have proposed extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires very soon, in February 2026. Judging by initial statements from Washington, Trump appears not to oppose this.
Are there any signals through closed channels, perhaps, that Washington is indeed prepared to hold such consultations? Will four months be sufficient to complete this process? Am I correct in understanding that a new personal meeting between you and your American counterpart will be required?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: We maintain contacts through the Foreign Ministry and the Department of State. Will these few months be enough to reach a decision on extension? I believe it will suffice if there is goodwill to prolong these agreements. Should the American side deem this unnecessary, it is totally not critical for us – everything in this regard is proceeding according to plan.
I have spoken about this before, and it is no secret: the novelty of our nuclear deterrent systems surpasses that of any other nuclear state, and we are advancing this very actively. What I mentioned in previous years is all being developed. We are refining these systems, and I believe we will soon be able to announce new weapons that were previously unveiled. They are materialising and undergoing successful tests.
Regarding the intercontinental components at sea and in the air, I reiterate: the novelty and modernity of our systems, as military experts say, are at a very high level, which we maintain. We are prepared to negotiate if this proves acceptable and beneficial for the American side.
If not – then so be it. It would be regrettable, as nothing would then remain in terms of strategic offensive arms control.
Please.
Anna Sedykh: Good afternoon.
My name is Anna Sedykh, Interfax news agency.
My question follows up on the Nobel Peace Prize topic. Zelensky stated that he would support Trump’s candidacy if he supplied Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine: essentially, a peace prize in exchange for weapons. How would you assess this “businesslike approach”?
Vladimir Putin: I do not think the Nobel Committee was interested in the opinion of the current Kiev regime’s leader when making its decision. This is the first point.
Second, linking the Nobel Peace Prize to arms supplies is absurd. It simply speaks volumes about the current Kiev regime’s level.
Thank you very much.
Anything else?
Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.
At the Valdai Club meeting, you mentioned that one country is preparing to test nuclear weapons. Could you please clarify whether that country is the United States? If, as you said, Russia responds in kind and also conducts a nuclear test, wouldn’t that throw our countries and all of humanity back to the 1990s, when the entire world refused to test nuclear weapons? And wouldn’t this provoke a new nuclear arms race between Moscow and Washington?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I think that, frankly speaking, a certain arms race is underway. Whether it will be a throwback or not is hard to say.
However, I never said the United States is preparing for such tests. I said that some countries are preparing. This is well known to specialists, because there is always a temptation to test the effectiveness of the combat fuel that has been stored in missiles for many, many years.
All of this is currently simulated on computers. Specialists believe this is sufficient, but some of those same experts think that full-scale tests should still be conducted. As far as we know, some countries are considering this and even making preparations. So I said that if they do it, we will do the same.
Is that good or bad? From the standpoint of ensuring security, it is good; from the overall perspective of deterrence and efforts aimed at – if not reducing, then at least containing – the arms race, it is probably not bad either.
But our proposal to extend the New START Treaty for at least one year is in the same context. Let everyone think about it.
Goodbye, thank you very much. All the best.
Le Comité international olympique se retrouve au cœur d’un énorme scandale. Le Premier ministre espagnol Pedro Sánchez a appelé le
L’article La Russie non, mais Israël oui ? Le Comité international olympique accusé de « deux poids, deux mesures » est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Le Comité paralympique russe a retrouvé son adhésion au CIP, mais des questions se posent sur la participation des Russes
L’article Le Comité international paralympique réintègre le Comité russe, mais la participation des athlètes paralympiques russes aux Jeux de 2026 restent en discussion est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Update: Below is the full text of the Declaration.
We cannot say if this is worth anything, but at this time, any little pressure helps. Trump just mildly scolds Israel, saying that they have to be careful if they attack allies. Oh boy. The Arab-Islamic summit is learning a very harsh lesson.
Marco Rubio in Israel has nothing new to say. In their joint speech, Netanyahu tries to justify Israel’s destruction of Gaza’s last high-rises. The excuse? Of course, we’ve heard it before. They’re all “Hamas strongholds.” The real aim, which he admits, is ethnic cleansing — driving Palestinians out of Gaza. Netanyahu, standing beside Marco Rubio, openly justifies bombing U.S. ally Qatar. Rubio doesn’t even blink. Minutes after Rubio ignores Israel bombing a U.S. ally and the Hamas negotiation team, he attacks European countries planning to recognize Palestine at the upcoming UNGA, claiming they are the ones undermining peace in Gaza by “emboldening Hamas.” Marco Rubio claims everyone has forgotten why Gaza is in crisis. For him, history only begins on October 7 — when, as he puts it, “barbaric animals attacked the innocent people of Israel.” It was too good an opportunity for Rubio to miss, so he took a shot at Iran as well: The U.S. will keep up “maximum pressure” on Iran “until they change course.” Bombing the negotiation team on the soil of a U.S. ally is fine, but recognizing a Palestinian state is not — at least when it comes to “peace” in Gaza. Let that sink in.
Netanyahu is doing his best to stem the flood of information about his actions. Netanyahu says Qatar and China are pouring vast sums into influencing Western media with an anti-Israeli agenda, deploying bots, AI, and propaganda. Hasbarra is the domain of zionist-israel. If we are overcoming the Hasbarra, we are doing well! Keep reporting! I agree wholeheartedly with George Galloway: This is one entity. The US and Zionist-Israel are one entity, and their friends are disappearing fast.
To sum it up, from the US/zionist-israeli side, nothing has changed. It is becoming clear however that Israel has lost control over itself.
Yet the rhetoric from the Arab-Islamic Summit has changed. Iran is more respected as their rhetoric was at least honest and everyone knows it.
Iranian president calls on Arab and Muslim leaders to unite to confront Israel:
“Israel continues its attacks and escapes the law because it enjoys Western cover.
No Arab or Islamic country is immune from Israeli attacks, and we have no choice but to unite.
The attack on Doha crossed all red lines.”
— Masoud Pezeshkian, President of Iran.
The Draft Statement from the urgent summit and the most important is the language of shared security and solidarity. (Again, I say fwiw):
– Reaffirm absolute support for Qatar, its security, sovereignty, and the safety of its citizens.
– Emphasize the collective duty to respond to Israeli aggression in defense of our shared security.
– Condemn the Israeli attack on Qatar as an assault on all Arab and Islamic countries.
– Highlight that the aggression against Qatar undermines diplomatic efforts to restore peace.
– Strongly reject any attempts to justify Israel’s attack on Qatar under any pretext.
– Condemn repeated Israeli threats to target Qatar again.
– Stress the need for international action to stop Israeli aggressions in the region.
– Support Qatar, Egypt, and the United States’ efforts to halt the assault on Gaza.
– Call for standing against Israel’s plans to impose a new reality in the region.
– Affirm condemnation of any Israeli attempts to forcibly displace the Palestinian people under any pretext.
Again, for what it is worth, yet I stay with the mantra that any little pressure now is valuable.
UPDATE: Full Text of the Final Communique Issued by Arab-Islamic Emergency Summit in Doha (This final version did not mince any words),
Doha, September 15 (QNA) – The final Communique of the Emergency Arab-Islamic Summit to discuss the Israeli attack on the State of Qatar was issued.
The summit was held in Doha on Monday with the participation of Their Majesties, Excellencies, and Highnesses, heads of delegations participating in the summit.
The following is the text of the statement:
We, the Leaders of States and Governments of the Arab League and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, meeting today, Monday, 22 Rabi’ Al-Awwal 1447 AH, corresponding to Sep. 15 2025, in the Qatari capital, Doha, at the gracious invitation of HH the Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani, and under his chairmanship, to discuss the Israeli aggression against the State of Qatar and to express our unified stance in condemning it and our full solidarity with the sisterly State of Qatar.
Expressing our profound gratitude and appreciation to HH the Amir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani for the generous hosting, and to the sisterly State of Qatar for the excellent organization.
Guided by the principles of the Charters of the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and recalling the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular Article 2 (4), which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.
Recalling all relevant resolutions adopted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League over the past decades, which reject aggression against Member States and affirm Arab and Islamic solidarity and the security of Arab and Islamic States in the face of external threats, including those relating to the Palestinian Cause.
Reaffirming our unwavering commitment to the sovereignty, independence, and security of all Member States of the League of Arab States and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and recalling our collective duty to respond to this aggression in defense of our common security, we reiterate our categorical rejection of any infringement upon the security of any of our States, firmly condemning any aggression targeting them, and reaffirming our absolute and steadfast solidarity in confronting all that threatens their security and stability.
Noting the emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council held on Sep. 11, 2025, which witnessed consensus in condemning the Israeli attack as a breach of international peace and security, and welcoming the press statement issued by the Council, which condemned the attack, expressed solidarity with the State of Qatar, and supported the vital role that Qatar continues to play in mediation efforts in the region, alongside Egypt and the United States, reaffirming respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State of Qatar, in line with the principles of the UN Charter.
Stressing that the absence of international accountability, and the silence of the international community in the face of repeated Israeli violations, have emboldened Israel to persist in its aggressions and to further entrench its flagrant violations of international law and international legitimacy, thereby perpetuating a policy of impunity, weakening the international justice system, and threatening to dismantle the rules-based global order, posing a direct threat to regional and international peace and security.
Reaffirming our absolute support for the sisterly State of Qatar, its security, stability, sovereignty, and the safety of its citizens, we declare our united stand with Qatar in confronting this aggression, which we consider a flagrant violation of its sovereignty, a blatant breach of international law, and a grave threat to regional and international peace and security.
We hereby decide to:
1. Reaffirm that the brutal Israeli blatant aggression against the sisterly State of Qatar, and Israel’s continued aggressive practices, including crimes of genocide, ethnic cleansing, starvation and siege, as well as settlement activities and expansionist policies, undermine prospects for peace and peaceful coexistence in the region.
2. Condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the cowardly and unlawful attack carried out by Israel on 9 September 2025 against a residential neighborhood in the Qatari capital, Doha, which included housing facilities designated by the State for hosting negotiating delegations in the framework of Qatar’s multiple mediation efforts, in addition to a number of schools, nurseries, and diplomatic missions, resulting in martyrs, including a Qatari citizen, and injuries among civilians.
This attack constitutes a flagrant act of aggression against an Arab and Islamic State, a Member of the United Nations, represents a grave escalation exposing the aggressiveness of the extremist Israeli Government, and adds to its criminal record that threatens regional and international peace and security.
3. Reaffirm absolute solidarity with the State of Qatar against this aggression, which constitutes aggression against all Arab and Islamic States, and to stand firmly with Qatar in all measures it may take in response to this treacherous Israeli aggression to safeguard its security, sovereignty, stability, and the safety of its citizens and residents, in accordance with the UN Charter.
4. Reaffirm that this aggression on Qatari territory, a State serving as a principal mediator in efforts to secure a ceasefire and end the war on Gaza, and to release hostages and prisoners, constitutes a grave escalation and an assault on diplomatic efforts to restore peace. Such an attack on a neutral venue for mediation not only violates Qatar’s sovereignty, but also undermines international mediation and peace-making processes. Israel bears full responsibility for this assault.
5. Commend the civilized, wise, and responsible stance adopted by the State of Qatar in addressing this treacherous assault, its firm adherence to international law, and its insistence on upholding its sovereignty and security and defending its rights by all legitimate means.
6. Support the efforts of States engaged in mediation, in particular the State of Qatar, the Arab Republic of Egypt, and the United States of America, to end the aggression on the Gaza Strip, and, in this context, to reaffirm the constructive role played by Qatar and its valued mediation efforts with their positive impacts in support of endeavors to establish security, stability, and peace; to commend Qatar’s multiple initiatives at both the regional and international levels, especially in the fields of humanitarian assistance and support for education in developing and poor countries, which enhance its standing as an active and supportive partner for peace and development regionally and internationally.
7. Reaffirm the categorical rejection of any attempts to justify this aggression under any pretext whatsoever, and to stress that it constitutes a blatant violation of international law and the UN Charter, directly targeting ongoing mediation efforts to halt the aggression on the Gaza Strip and undermining serious efforts to reach a just and comprehensive political solution that ends the occupation and ensures the realization of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people.
8. Categorically reject repeated Israeli threats of possible renewed targeting of the State of Qatar, or of any Arab or Islamic State, considering such threats provocative and a grave escalation that threatens international peace and security, and to urge the international community to condemn them in the strongest possible terms and take deterrent measures to halt them.
9. Welcome the adoption by the Council of the Arab League at ministerial level of the resolution entitled “Shared Vision for Security and Cooperation in the Region,” and, in this context, to reaffirm the concept of collective security and shared destiny of Arab and Islamic States, the necessity of unity in facing common challenges and threats, and the importance of beginning to put in place the required implementation mechanisms. We stress that any future regional arrangements must enshrine the principles of international law and the UN Charter, good-neighborly relations, respect for sovereignty, noninterference in the internal affairs of States, equality of rights and duties without preference of one State over another, settlement of disputes by peaceful means, and renunciation of the use of force, while underscoring the necessity of ending the Israeli occupation of all Arab territories, establishing the State of Palestine along the lines of June 4, 1967, and ridding the Middle East of nuclear weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction.
10. Reaffirm the necessity of confronting Israel’s schemes to impose a new fait accompli in the region, which pose a direct threat to regional and international stability and security, and the necessity of resisting them.
11. Reaffirm the condemnation of any Israeli attempts to forcibly displace the Palestinian people, under any pretext or designation, from their occupied territories of 1967, and to consider such acts crimes against humanity, flagrant violations of international law and international humanitarian law, and a policy of ethnic cleansing wholly rejected. In this context, to stress the necessity of implementing the Arab-Islamic reconstruction plan, both politically and technically, and to launch the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip as quickly as possible, calling on international donors to provide the necessary support and urging their active participation in the forthcoming Gaza Reconstruction Conference to be hosted in Cairo once a ceasefire is secured.
12. Condemn Israeli policies that have caused an unprecedented humanitarian catastrophe, whereby siege, starvation, and deprivation of civilians of food and medicine are used as weapons of war against the Palestinian people, in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions; stress that these practices constitute a fullfledged war crime requiring urgent international action to put an end to them and to ensure the immediate, safe, and unimpeded entry of humanitarian assistance into all parts of the occupied Palestinian territory.
13. Warn of the catastrophic consequences of any decision by Israel, the occupying power, to annex any part of the occupied Palestinian territory, and rejecting such a move as a blatant assault on the historical and legal rights of the Palestinian people, a violation of the Charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law, and relevant United Nations resolutions, and as a nullification of all efforts to achieve a just and comprehensive peace in the region.
14. Reaffirm the necessity of urgent action by the international community to halt Israel’s repeated aggressions in the region and to stop its ongoing violations of the sovereignty, security, and stability of States, within the framework of respecting international law and relevant international legitimacy resolutions, and to warn of the grave consequences of continued international inaction in curbing Israeli aggressiveness, including its aggression against the sisterly State of Qatar, its ongoing and escalating brutal assault on the occupied Gaza Strip, its illegal settlement practices in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and its continued aggressions against States in the region, including the Lebanese Republic and the Syrian Arab Republic and the Islamic Republic of Iran all constituting flagrant breaches of international law and blatant violations of State sovereignty.
15. Call upon all States to take all possible legal and effective measures to prevent Israel from continuing its actions against the Palestinian people, including by supporting efforts to end its impunity, holding it accountable for its violations and crimes, imposing sanctions on it, suspending the supply, transfer, or transit of weapons, ammunition, and military materials — including dual-use items — reviewing diplomatic and economic relations with it, and initiating legal proceedings against it.
16. Call upon the Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation to examine the extent to which Israel’s membership in the United Nations is consistent with the Charter, in view of its clear violations of the conditions of membership and its persistent disregard for United Nations resolutions, and to coordinate efforts aimed at suspending Israel’s membership in the United Nations.
17. Reaffirm the importance of commitment to international legitimacy and relevant UN resolutions as the fundamental reference for achieving international peace and security, and to reject Israeli rhetoric that exploits and promotes Islamophobia in order to justify the continuation of its violations and its pursuit of policies outside international law, including ongoing extermination and settlement projects in the West Bank, as well as attempts to distort the image of Arab and Islamic States.
18. Welcome the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the “New York Declaration” on the implementation of the two-State solution and the establishment of an independent Palestinian State, as a clear expression of international will supporting the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, foremost among them their right to establish their independent State along the lines of 4 June 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital; and to commend the efforts made by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the French Republic, which contributed to the adoption of this declaration.
19. Welcome the convening of the Two-State Solution Conference, co-chaired by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the French Republic, to be held on 22 September 2025 in New York, and calls for the concerted efforts of the international community to ensure broad recognition of the independent State of Palestine with East Al-Quds as its capital.
20. Commend the pivotal role played by the representatives of Arab and Islamic States that are members of the Security Council, foremost among them Algeria, Somalia, and Pakistan, in defending the Palestinian cause, in putting an end to the Israeli aggression on the Gaza Strip, securing a ceasefire, and achieving full membership of Palestine in the United Nations. It further values their effective contribution in calling for and ensuring the convening of the emergency session of the Security Council dedicated to addressing the Israeli aggression against the State of Qatar.
21. Reaffirm support for the historic Hashemite custodianship exercised by His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein over the Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem, as reaffirmed in the agreement signed between His Majesty King Abdullah II and His Excellency President Mahmoud Abbas, President of the State of Palestine, on 31 March 2013; and further affirming that Al-Aqsa Mosque / Al-Haram Al-Sharif, in its entirety of 144,000 square meters, is a place of worship exclusively for Muslims, and that the Jerusalem Awqaf and Al-Aqsa Mosque Affairs Department, affiliated with the Jordanian
Ministry of Awqaf, is the sole legitimate authority vested with exclusive competence to administer Al-Aqsa Mosque, maintain it, and regulate entry thereto.
22. Reaffirm the necessity of enabling Palestinians in Jerusalem to remain steadfast on their land, and of supporting the Al-Quds Committee chaired by His Majesty King Mohammed VI of the Kingdom of Morocco and its executive arm, Bayt Mal Al-Quds Al-Sharif Agency.
23. Reaffirm that a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace in the Middle East will not be achieved by bypassing the Palestinian Cause, ignoring the rights of the Palestinian people, or through violence and targeting mediators, but rather through adherence to the Arab Peace Initiative and relevant international legitimacy resolutions. In this regard, we call upon the international community, in particular the Security Council, to assume its legal and moral responsibilities in ending the Israeli occupation and establishing a binding timetable for that purpose.
24. Mandate the Member States of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation that are States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, consistent with their obligations under international law and, where applicable, to take all feasible measures within their domestic legal frameworks to support the enforcement of the arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court on 21 November 2024 against the perpetrators of crimes against the Palestinian people; and further calls upon OIC Member States to exert diplomatic, political, and legal efforts to ensure Israel’s compliance, as the occupying power, with its binding obligations under the provisional measures issued by the International Court of Justice on 26 January 2024 in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip.
25. Express our deep appreciation to the State of Qatar, its Amir, Government, and people, and in particular His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, for their tireless efforts in hosting and organizing the meetings of this Summit with wisdom and strategic vision, and for the facilities and resources provided to ensure its success. We highly value Qatar’s active role in fostering a spirit of consultation and consensus among Member States, and its tangible contributions to supporting the course of joint action, reflecting its constant commitment to strengthening solidarity and unity. (QNA)
From Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan
The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has steadily evolved from a modest regional forum into one of the most significant multilateral platforms of the Global South. What began in 2001 as a security-focused grouping of China, Russia, and Central Asian states has now expanded its agenda to cover development, finance, connectivity, and global governance. With nine full members, several observers, dialogue partners, and applicants, the SCO today represents almost half of the world’s population and a vast proportion of its natural resources.
The 2025 Tianjin Summit was a landmark moment in this journey. Not only was it the largest SCO summit ever held, but it also carried profound implications for the organization’s institutional evolution, policy direction, and global relevance. The summit outcomes, particularly the launch of the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) and the decision to establish a multilateral SCO Development Bank, underscored the SCO’s growing capacity to translate vision into concrete action.
The SCO: A Unique Model of Cooperation
Unlike traditional military alliances or purely economic groupings, the SCO has always pursued a holistic model. Its foundation rests on the “Shanghai Spirit”—mutual trust, equality, respect for cultural diversity, and the pursuit of common development. This ethos sets it apart from exclusive Western-led blocs that often divide the world into competing camps.
The SCO’s agenda has gradually expanded from counterterrorism and border security to encompass trade, energy, health, climate cooperation, and digital connectivity. Its ability to bring together diverse actors—China, Russia, Central Asia, South Asia, and now increasingly West Asia—shows that multipolar collaboration is not only possible but increasingly necessary in today’s fractured world.
Key Outcomes of the 2025 Tianjin Summit
The Tianjin Summit marked a turning point for the SCO’s trajectory. Several outcomes deserve particular attention:
1. Global Governance Initiative (GGI)
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s proposal of the Global Governance Initiative (GGI) was the most visionary highlight. The GGI aims to create a cooperative framework for fair, inclusive, and rules-based governance at the international level. Unlike the status quo dominated by a handful of powers, the GGI embodies the principle that all nations, regardless of size or economic weight, should have a voice in shaping global rules.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the initiative, noting its alignment with the UN Charter’s principles of equality, multilateralism, and sustainable development. By embedding the GGI within the SCO framework, China demonstrated both leadership and a commitment to building bridges rather than walls.
2. The SCO Development Bank
The decision to establish a Multilateral SCO Development Bank was another milestone. The bank is envisioned as a dedicated financial institution to support infrastructure, energy, climate resilience, and digital innovation projects across the SCO space.
This bank could become the Global South’s answer to financial asymmetries long dictated by Bretton Woods institutions. While the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and BRICS’ New Development Bank already play transformative roles, the SCO Bank would be rooted directly in the needs of Eurasia and South Asia—regions central to the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). It will provide concessional financing, encourage cross-border investments, and promote economic integration across the world’s largest landmass.
3. The Tianjin Declaration and 10-Year Development Strategy
The Tianjin Declaration, adopted unanimously, reaffirms the SCO’s commitment to peace, mutual respect, and regional stability. Alongside it, the Development Strategy 2025–2035 lays down an ambitious roadmap: expanding energy connectivity, promoting green technologies, advancing digital economies, and strengthening educational and cultural exchanges.
This long-term strategy shows that the SCO is not merely reactive but forward-looking. It seeks to consolidate its role as a stable pillar of global governance at a time when other institutions struggle with crisis management.
4. Strengthened Multilateralism
The summit also highlighted SCO’s embrace of inclusive multilateralism. UN support, coupled with growing interest from countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, suggests that the SCO is evolving into a global forum rather than a purely regional one.
China’s Leadership Role
China’s role in the SCO is indispensable. As the world’s second-largest economy, China provides both vision and capacity to the organization. President Xi’s speech in Tianjin emphasized that the SCO is shouldering greater responsibilities for safeguarding peace and promoting development.
China’s leadership manifests in several ways:
Pakistan’s Contributions and Opportunities
Pakistan has been an active and constructive member of the SCO since joining in 2017. Its strategic location, bridging South Asia, Central Asia, and West Asia, makes it a vital connectivity partner within the SCO framework.
Pakistan contributes in multiple dimensions:
For Pakistan, active engagement in the SCO offers opportunities to diversify partnerships, strengthen economic resilience, and enhance its global standing as a responsible actor in multilateral platforms.
The SCO as a Pillar of the Global South
The Tianjin Summit underscored the SCO’s growing importance as a pillar of the Global South. In an era marked by geopolitical fragmentation, the SCO provides a rare platform where countries of diverse political systems and cultures come together on the basis of equality and shared interests.
Its expansion beyond Eurasia reflects a natural trajectory: nations in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia are increasingly looking toward the SCO as a forum that represents their aspirations more authentically than Western-led institutions. With its principles of non-interference, sovereignty, and mutual development, the SCO resonates strongly with these regions.
As the Global South’s voice grows louder, the SCO is likely to emerge as a unified forum for development, dialogue, and diplomacy—helping shape a new, multipolar order that is more balanced and inclusive.
The Way Forward
Looking ahead, the SCO faces both opportunities and responsibilities:
SCO’s Rising Trajectory
The 2025 Tianjin Summit was more than a diplomatic gathering—it was a statement of intent. By launching the Global Governance Initiative and deciding to establish the SCO Development Bank, the organization has positioned itself as a genuine force for multipolar cooperation and equitable development.
China’s leadership, Pakistan’s constructive engagement, and the collective will of member states have transformed the SCO into a rising pillar of the Global South. At a time when global governance structures are under strain, the SCO offers a model of inclusivity, balance, and pragmatism.
The future of the SCO is bright. As it gains momentum day by day, it will increasingly serve as a unified platform for dialogue, development, and diplomacy—reshaping the contours of international order in favor of fairness, stability, and shared prosperity.
—
Author: Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Founding Chair GSRRA, Sinologist, Diplomat, Editor, Analyst, Advisor, Consultant, Researcher at Global South Economic and Trade Cooperation Research Center, and Non-Resident Fellow of CCG. (E-mail: awanzamir@yahoo.com).
Zionist Israel has told many lies over the course of their genocide on Gaza and Palestinians. Some of the information is now leaking. PressTV describes the military document that says they failed.
The Israeli military has admitted its May assault failed to defeat the Gaza Strip’s Hamas resistance movement and seize 75 percent of the territory’s expanse, despite the sheer size of its equipment and forces.
The Israeli regime’s Channel 12 reported the admission on Sunday, citing a confidential document compiled by the military.
The document, prepared by Brig. Gen. (res.) Guy Hazut, explicitly contains the words “we failed,” listing several major areas, where the hyped-up and heavily-Western-backed assault fell drastically short of its objectives.
According to the document, the so-called “Operation Gideon’s Chariots” met critical failures such as stopping short of defeating Hamas either militarily or politically, as the regime had intended.
Nor did the assault enable the return of the regime’s captives to the occupied Palestinian territories, it noted.
The operation, meanwhile, took a heavy toll on Israeli forces, the document stated, saying the assault had “drained” the troops.
Finally, it lamented that the indiscriminate and internationally condemned nature of the offensive had increased the regime’s global notoriety.
“Gideon Chariots” was launched between May 16 and August 4 as part of a genocidal war that the regime had begun waging on the Gaza Strip roughly two years earlier.
The operation was ordered after the regime refused to extend a ceasefire deal with Hamas following the expiry of a previous accord in January.
It has been internationally denounced for what critics have called its intensified devil-may-care attitude towards civilian casualties and suffering.
This has been reflected in the genocide’s soaring death toll, now nearing 63,500 civilians, mostly women and children.
Ignoring the far-and-wide condemnation, however, the regime has even resorted to launching the operation’s second edition, which seeks to seize Gaza City, the Gaza Strip’s biggest urban area.
Backed by tens of thousands of Israeli reservists, “Operation Gideon Chariots II” is aimed at expelling more than one million Palestinian residents from the city.
Mahmood OD has more details First he discusses what is happening in Zionist Israel as a result of the hit on Yemen. He then gives more information about the fact that Gideon’s Chariots (number 1) was a total failure.
Note: This is important but what is more important is China’s proposal of a New Global Governance. President Putin mentioned that they are studying it now.
‘Cold War mentality, hegemonism & protectionism still haunt the world… Global governance stands at a crossroads’ — President Xi Jinping proposing a new Global Governance Initiative
He stressed the need to uphold peaceful coexistence & strengthen win-win cooperation
—
Key statements of the Tianjin Declaration approved by heads of state of SCO countries:
Geopolitical confrontation, challenges and threats to security and stability are escalating in the world, including in the SCO region;
The SCO members urge to preserve the historical memory of the heroic deed of the peoples and the lessons of World War II;
The principles of non-interference in internal affairs and non-use of force are the basis for the sustainable development of international relations;
The SCO countries adhere to a line that excludes bloc-based and confrontational approaches to solving international development problems;
The SCO members confirm determination to continue the joint fight against terrorism, separatism and extremism and stress that double standards in the fight against terrorism are unacceptable;
The SCO countries have adopted the SCO Development Strategy until 2035;
The SCO countries oppose unilateral coercive measures, including economic ones;
The SCO members strongly condemn the actions that led to casualties and the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, they believe that the only way to ensure peace and stability in the Middle East is a just settlement of the Palestinian issue;
The SCO members condemn the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran;
The SCO members have decided to establish the SCO Development Bank;
The SCO countries reaffirm their commitment to the establishment of Afghanistan as an independent, neutral and peaceful state;
Unilateral buildup of global missile defense systems by a number of countries has a negative impact on security;
The SCO stands for keeping outer space free of weapons of any kind;
The SCO categorically opposes the militarization of information and communication technologies.
Primarily born to address security concerns, the SCO has, over its 24-year development, grown into a comprehensive regional organization representing nearly half of the world’s population.
An aerial drone photo taken on Aug. 25, 2025 shows a light show along the Haihe River in north China’s Tianjin. (Photo by Du Penghui/Xinhua)
AN EVOLVING REGIONAL BLOC
The SCO traces its roots to the “Shanghai Five” mechanism, when China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan came together in 1996 to manage border security issues after the end of the Cold War. On June 15, 2001, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization was established with Uzbekistan joining as the sixth member.
What began as a regional security grouping has evolved into a regional organization encompassing nearly half of the world’s population, a quarter of the global landmass and a quarter of global GDP. With the accession of India, Pakistan, Iran and Belarus, the SCO now has 10 member states, alongside two observer states and 14 dialogue partners.
Dedicated to maintaining regional security and promoting common development, the SCO adheres to the Shanghai Spirit, which features mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and pursuit of common development.
This spirit has guided the bloc to chart a path of regional cooperation, transcending differences in ideology, social system and development path, and setting an example for a new type of international relations.
Over the years, SCO member states have seen deepened political mutual trust and fruitful cooperation, which led to regional stability, steady trade growth, joint infrastructure projects, and coordinated action in fields such as food and energy security.
Through mechanisms such as the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure, SCO members have worked together effectively to maintain regional peace and stability by combating terrorism, separatism, and extremism. Security frameworks have been strengthened, and joint exercises have expanded into cyberspace.
In the first 20 years since its establishment, the total trade value of SCO member states increased nearly 100-fold, while their share of global trade rose from 5.4 percent in 2001 to 17.5 percent in 2020, demonstrating growing influence, according to a trade development report released in 2022.
People visit the pavilion of India during the 2025 Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) International Investment and Trade Expo in Qingdao, east China’s Shandong Province, July 18, 2025. (Xinhua/Li Ziheng)
“The Shanghai Spirit is the ‘root’ and ‘soul’ of the SCO,” said Fan Xianrong, a Chinese foreign ministry official responsible for coordination work in the SCO.
In the face of the ever-changing international landscape, SCO member states would continue to champion this spirit through concrete actions, offering their solutions for creating a fair and equitable global governance system and support for the building of a community with a shared future for humanity, according to Fan.
CHINA: A FIRM UPHOLDER OF SHANGHAI SPIRIT
As one of the founding members, China has always made the SCO a diplomatic priority and firmly upheld the Shanghai Spirit. The country has put forward a series of important initiatives and propositions, and contributed Chinese wisdom, solutions and dynamism to the regional development.
China has proposed the building of an SCO community with a shared future, an inspiring vision that enriches the Shanghai Spirit. It also called on SCO members to build a common home featuring solidarity and mutual trust, peace and tranquility, prosperity and development, good-neighborliness and friendship, as well as fairness and justice.
On the economic front, trade and investment ties between China and other SCO members have become increasingly robust, with cooperation spanning across sectors such as infrastructure, energy, agriculture and technology, enhancing the well-being of the people across the region.
In 2024, China’s trade with other SCO members, observer states and dialogue partners reached a historic high of 890 billion U.S. dollars, or 14.4 percent of the country’s total foreign trade. In the same year, the number of China-Europe freight trains passing through the SCO countries and regions reached 19,000, an increase of 10.7 percent compared with 2023.
This file photo taken on Oct. 13, 2022 shows an international freight train about to depart from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Lianyungang) International Logistics Park in Lianyungang City, east China’s Jiangsu Province. (Photo by Wang Jianmin/Xinhua)
In one of its latest efforts to promote tech cooperation, China has welcomed all SCO parties to use its BeiDou navigation system and participate in the development of the International Lunar Research Station, while pledging to provide at least 1,000 training opportunities on digital technology to other SCO countries in three years.
Since taking over the SCO presidency in July 2024, China has worked closely with all parties and hosted over 100 events with the theme “SCO Year of Sustainable Development,” including ministerial-level meetings, an SCO political parties’ forum, a media and think tank summit, and an art festival.
“China will work with all parties of the SCO to remain true to the organization’s original aspiration, shoulder its mission, carry forward the Shanghai Spirit, and provide SCO solutions for global governance and reform,” Assistant Foreign Minister Liu Bin told the press last week.
WHAT TO EXPECT FROM TIANJIN SUMMIT
With leaders from more than 20 countries and heads of 10 international organizations set to participate, the upcoming SCO Summit 2025 is expected to pool consensus and steer the organization toward building a closer community with a shared future.
Key outcomes will include the signing of a declaration by leaders of SCO member states at the summit as well as the approval of a development strategy of the bloc for the next 10 years, according to Liu.
The summit will also issue statements marking the 80th anniversary of the victory in the World Anti-Fascist War and the 80th founding anniversary of the United Nations, and adopt a series of outcome documents on strengthening security, economic, people-to-people and cultural cooperation.
Delegates sign documents at the 36th meeting of the Council of the Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure (RATS) of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, March 18, 2021. (Photo by Zafar Khalilov/Xinhua)
China will also elaborate on its new vision and propositions for the SCO in carrying forward the Shanghai Spirit, embracing the mission of the times, and responding to the people’s expectations, and announce new measures and initiatives to support the high-quality development of the SCO and comprehensive cooperation.
“China believes that a friendly, united and productive Tianjin Summit will advance the SCO into a new phase of high-quality development, characterized by greater solidarity, closer coordination, stronger momentum and higher effectiveness,” Liu said.
Sheradil Baktygulov, director of the Institute of World Policy of Kyrgyzstan, expressed high expectations for the summit. “The SCO Tianjin Summit will take place at a difficult time of global turbulence, but it will become a guiding bright star — showing the right path to safe and stable development.”
From August 31 to September 1, Tianjin will host the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, with over 20 foreign leaders and representatives from international organizations in attendance.
Xi Jinping will chair the 25th Meeting of the Council of Heads of State of the SCO and the “SCO Plus” Meeting, and deliver keynote speeches, the Foreign Ministry announced on Friday.
From the preparation of the Summit in Alaska, to the end of the Summit in the White House.
Yes, I am excited. Had a tough day yesterday and was out most of the day, with good results from my labors. But administrative red tape takes its toll, and this morning I feel like the Beer I had for Breakfast was not Bad, so I’ll have one more for Dessert. (Just joking).
Let’s step back for a moment to this morning’s Daily Chronicles and quote two sentences:
There is no common EU stance that can be teased out, and the best assessment of the near future is that they will attempt to nickel and dime the principle of a peace agreement to shreds. I cannot see a common decision among the EU twats.
—
-Nothing changes in reality. NATO is strengthened via buying weapons from the US. Either the SMO war grinds on until objectives are achieved militarily, or it temporarily ceases, as a Peace Agreement will not hold. The objective of a larger or a perpetual war by the EU twats has not changed.
And one more quote by FM Lavrov:
In addition, the Foreign Minister added that without respect for Russia’s security and fully recognizing the rights of Russians in Ukraine, there can be no talk of any long-term agreements. … If Kiev abandons the principles of neutrality and non-entry into NATO, then the statements underlying the recognition of Ukraine’s independence disappear.
Mr Lavrov’s interview is now translated and on the Russian MFA’s website. Let me add one more quote:
When these delegates in Washington insisted that efforts must commence with formulating security guarantees for Ukraine – and simultaneously for Europe (as emphasised by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer among others) – not once did they mention Russia’s security. Yet the OSCE document I referenced (universally drafted and adopted by consensus) mandates security arrangements acceptable to all.
The patronising disregard for international law, for pledges often made deceitfully and formalised on paper, remains evident in these officials’ approach to the Ukrainian crisis. Without respect for Russia’s security interests, without full recognition of the rights of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine, no lasting agreements are possible – for these are precisely the issues requiring urgent resolution in the context of the crisis settlement.
So I am excited because the ‘Global Southies’ and more, sussed out the rock bottom of what we are looking at, literally overnight. This is not a peace agreement. Perhaps a peace agreement in name only, given that we are now accustomed to hear peace, and think war.
The reality is that Mr Trump and Mr Putin’s understanding of a ‘peace agreement’ at the end of the Alaska Summit, is already being nickeled and dimed to shreds.
We have a visibly subjugated Europe; a vassal that will speak The Circus Master’s Voice as if they are the Master himself.
Let us not be naive. The new geopolitical design for Europe is not only policy preference but demands subservience in total. As long as Ukraine is an unresolved conflict, and as long as Europe can balance (with Master) to keep Ukraine unresolved, Europe will pay for Ukraine’s defense and funnel dollars into the US military-industrial complex. The issue is not peace, it is war and money.
To split Europe away from affordable Russian energy is but one of the aspects of this. It binds Europe, and stops any meaningful integration on any level. In a manner of speaking, this disallows the emergence of any kind of European cohesion and while Europe can be held in bondage, the US can maintain a hegemonic stance and relevance, even with only Europe as vassal.
What we have seen across the two summits is a cynical and manipulative use of US national interests while flying a peace flag. The US demands loyalty but will pay back with transactional gifts only. They will support the current European hatred of Russia (here is your gift) while pretending to Russia that they come in peace. It is now shattered, and we see it. If Russia perceives even superficial warmth from America, it may think before committing resources to join a direct challenge to US primacy. Nothing to do with Ukraine and nothing to do with the masses of dead soldiers lying in the fields that Trump is so sorry for. The US is simply dangling the illusion of a normalized relationship between itself and Russia. What the concept of the puppet Ukraine did for them during these past years, they have now recruited Europe to add spice to their objective to literally own the world. That is not a joke any longer but is hard realpolitik. If Witkoff and the meetings that took place between Russia and the US over months could not shift the needle toward normality in relationships one iota (Russian property taken by the US, normalized flight schedules, visa provision etc.), what makes us think that it will happen this time should Trump go and visit Russia?
There is a desperation in this tactical sleight of hand. All of the European Leaders are out this morning making comments, just the same as before the Alaska Summit. The UK will suddenly ‘HELP’ Ukraine with elections once the conflict ends, to ‘strengthen DEMOCRATIC values’. (Of course they want to pick the compliant winner).
Brian Berletic says:
Even amid the theater, the recurring theme is to a) freeze the war b) deploy Western troops to Ukraine to ensure it stays frozen and c) re-arm Ukraine with billions in US weapons;
What of this has not happened? I posted this morning Trump’s sneaky comment: Trump said that France, Germany and the UK want to deploy their own forces in Ukraine, and that this would not create problems with Russia. Don’t believe me? Here is the clip: https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/157857
Angelo Giuliano says:
In the emerging multipolar world order, Europe is not envisioned as an autonomous pole of power. Instead, it must function as a compliant satellite within America’s exclusive sphere of influence—weakened, perpetually controllable, and stripped of sovereign agency. Energy dependence, military outsourcing, and economic fragmentation are tools to enforce this subjugation. Europe will be denied the capacity for strategic independence or collective strength. To guarantee compliance, the U.S. will intensify its covert engineering of European political leadership. Weak, compromised figures—pre-selected for their susceptibility to blackmail (financial scandals, moral indiscretions) or ideological malleability—will be elevated to key positions. These handpicked proxies will dutifully enforce American directives, sabotaging initiatives that might foster European autonomy or bridge-building with Moscow. The goal is a continent governed by elites whose survival depends on obedience to Washington, not the aspirations of their own citizens. … In Trump’s calculus, Europe’s strength is America’s vulnerability. Its weakness is his advantage. Vassalage, not partnership, is the design.
The stakes transcend Ukraine or energy prices or security guarantees.
We are in a systemic battle for the architecture of 21st-century power. I believe Lavrov’s major interview (which is not out in English yet) will give some form to this.
3️⃣ “If Ukraine rejects neutrality and NATO non-membership, then the provisions that were the basis for recognizing Ukraine’s independence disappear” — Russian FM pic.twitter.com/SU9de4wRHi
— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) August 19, 2025
What does this all mean? It means we have taken a step forward in definition of the new activities by the empire and their attacking stance. We’ve also, in understanding this, taken a step forward in definition of how BRICS and SCO etc., will be defending. We need to take a very good look at the talks between Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping early in September. West Asia is under massive attack now, for hegemonic ownership of the region. Peace is War. For a period Russia will be relatively free from meddling, and then it will start all over again. Either Russia will be left being sweet-talked for a period and the attacks will move to China (and of course Latin America), or Russia will be hit with more punitive action. It is an interesting time, but a very dangerous time.
Finally, a sharp-eyed commentator found this video from John Helmer and Nima. The second half of it is not critical, but John did some good work in lining up the detail of exactly how, and what of the understandings from Alaska has been walked back on in the first half of the video. It is worth watching for that detail.
By Dmitry Trenin, a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).
Many now speak of humanity’s drift towards World War III, imagining events similar to those of the 20th century. But war evolves. It will not begin with a June 1941 Barbarossa-style invasion or a Cuban Missile Crisis-style nuclear standoff. In fact, the new world war is already underway – it’s just that not everyone has recognized it yet.
For Russia, the pre-war period ended in 2014. For China, it was 2017. For Iran, 2023. Since then, war – in its modern, diffuse form – has intensified. This is not a new Cold War. Since 2022, the West’s campaign against Russia has grown more decisive. The risk of direct nuclear confrontation with NATO over the Ukraine conflict is rising. Donald Trump’s return to the White House created a temporary window in which such a clash could be avoided, but by mid-2025, hawks in the US and Western Europe had pushed us dangerously close again.
This war involves the world’s leading powers: the United States and its allies on one side, China and Russia on the other. It is global, not because of its scale, but because of the stakes: the future balance of power. The West sees the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia as existential threats. Its counteroffensive, economic and ideological, is meant to put a halt to that shift.
It is a war of survival for the West, not just geopolitically but ideologically. Western globalism – whether economic, political, or cultural – cannot tolerate alternative civilizational models. Post-national elites in the US and Western Europe are committed to preserving their dominance. A diversity of worldviews, civilizational autonomy, and national sovereignty are seen not as options, but as threats.
This explains the severity of the West’s response. When Joe Biden told Brazil’s President Lula that he wanted to “destroy” Russia, he revealed the truth behind euphemisms like “strategic defeat.” Western-backed Israel has shown how total this doctrine is – first in Gaza, then Lebanon, and finally Iran. In early June, a similar strategy was used in attacks on Russian airfields. Reports suggest US and British involvement in both cases. To Western planners, Russia, Iran, China and North Korea are part of a single axis. That belief shapes military planning.
Compromise is no longer part of the game. What we’re seeing are not temporary crises but rolling conflicts. Eastern Europe and the Middle East are the two current flashpoints. A third has long been identified: East Asia, particularly Taiwan. Russia is directly engaged in Ukraine, holds stakes in the Middle East, and may become involved in the Pacific.
The war is no longer about occupation, but destabilization. The new strategy focuses on sowing internal disorder: economic sabotage, social unrest, and psychological attrition. The West’s plan for Russia is not defeat on the battlefield, but gradual internal collapse.
Its tactics are all-encompassing. Drone strikes target infrastructure and nuclear facilities. Political assassinations are no longer off-limits. Journalists, negotiators, scientists, and even their families are being hunted. Residential neighborhoods, schools, and hospitals are not collateral damage – they are targets. This is total war.
This is underpinned by dehumanization. Russians are portrayed not just as enemies but as subhuman. Western societies are manipulated to accept this. Information control, censorship, and historical revisionism are used to justify the war. Those who question the dominant narrative are labelled traitors.
Meanwhile, the West exploits the more open systems of its adversaries. After refusing to interfere in foreign politics for decades, Russia now finds itself on the defensive. But those days must end. As our enemies coordinate their attacks, we must disrupt their unity. The European Union is not a monolith. Hungary, Slovakia, and much of southern Europe are not eager for escalation. These internal fractures must be widened.
Western strength lies in unity among its elites and their ideological control over their populations. But this unity is not invulnerable. The Trump administration presents tactical opportunities. His return has already reduced US involvement in Ukraine. Yet Trumpism should not be romanticized. The American elite remains largely hostile to Russia. There will be no new détente.
The war in Ukraine is becoming a war between Western Europe and Russia. British and French missiles already strike Russian targets. NATO intelligence is embedded in Ukrainian operations. EU countries are training Ukrainian forces and planning attacks together. Ukraine is just a tool. Brussels is preparing for a wider war.
What we must ask is: Is Western Europe preparing to defend or attack? Many of its leaders have lost their strategic judgment. But the hostility is real. The goal is no longer containment, but to “solve the Russian question” once and for all. Any illusion that business as usual will return must be discarded.
We are in for a long war. It will not end like in 1945, nor settle into Cold War coexistence. The decades ahead will be turbulent. Russia must fight for its rightful place in a new world order.
So, what must we do?
First of all, we must strengthen our home front. We need mobilization, but not the rigid models of the Soviet past. We need smart, adaptive mobilization across all sectors – economic, technological, and demographic. Russia’s political leadership is a strategic asset. It must remain steady and visionary.
We must promote internal unity, social justice, and patriotism. Every citizen must feel the stakes. We must align our fiscal, industrial, and technological policy with the realities of a long-term war. Fertility policy and migration control must reverse our demographic decline.
Secondly, we must consolidate our external alliances. Belarus is a strong ally in the west. North Korea has shown reliability in the east. But we lack a similar partner in the south. This gap must be addressed.
The Israel-Iran war offers important lessons. Our adversaries coordinate tightly. We must do the same. Not by copying NATO, but by forging our own model of strategic cooperation.
We should also pursue tactical engagement with the Trump administration. If it allows us to weaken the US war effort in Europe, we should exploit it. But we must not confuse tactics with strategy. American foreign policy remains fundamentally adversarial.
Fellow European powers like Britain, France, and Germany must be made to understand they are vulnerable. Their capitals are not immune. The same message should reach Finland, Poland, and the Baltics. Provocations must be met swiftly and decisively.
If escalation is inevitable, we must consider pre-emptive action – firstly with conventional arms. And if necessary, we must be ready to use ‘special means’, including nuclear weapons, with full awareness of the consequences. Deterrence must be both passive and active.
Our mistake in Ukraine was waiting too long. Delay created the illusion of weakness. That must not be repeated. Victory means breaking the enemy’s plans, not occupying territory.
Finally, we must penetrate the West’s information shield. The battlefield now includes narratives, alliances, and public opinion. Russia must once again learn to engage in others’ domestic politics, not as an aggressor, but as a defender of truth.
The time for illusions is over. We are in a world war. The only path forward is through bold, strategic action.
—
This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.
https://www.rt.com/news/621486-dmitry-trenin-world-war-iii/
By Peter Koenig
The NATO Summit of The Hague, 24-25 June 2025 has come and gone.
However, the scene of the infamous Sumit reverberates with many uncertainties, illusions for some, deceptions for others.
At the outset, it looks like President Trump came to The Hague with the idea of shaping a NATO that vibrates to his liking and – indeed – to the liking of his European (vassal) allies.
But was that really so? President Trump came with the glorious, and extravagant idea to increase European military spending from an earlier NATO request to 2% of GDP – which most EU NATO allies did not meet – to increase it to 5% of GDP. Yes, you read right; fully 5% of GDP.
This means of course suffering for social sectors – education, health, basic infrastructure – as these are always the first ones to be cut. In some countries even so-called guaranteed state pensions may be put on the cutting board, to the detriment of workers mostly.
But people have nothing to say in the dictatorial European Union. Nobody wants war. Literally 99% of the people want Peace, do not want to go to war, and least against Russia. Yet, the unelected tyranny in Brussels decides over their heads that their money must be spent to make the armament industry even richer and to kill people, and especially to fight the “invented” archenemy, Russia.
In addition, how would a “united” Europe be able to accept such spendings, when their economy, through their own doing – and by instructions of the globalist Deep State [who they are is your own guess] is being suicided, decimated on purpose, by Germany and France – and all the other “minor EU states” are following suit?
This is the question, nobody dares to ask. Yet, with a miserable economic growth of an annual average of less than 1.6%, since 2021, the US mandate is increasing war-spending from an already exaggerated 2% to 5% of GDP, and the puppets accept, minus Spain’s PM Sanchez. Spain is currently spending 2.1% on their military budget, already too much for Spain’s faltering economy, projected to growth at a halting 2.4% in 2025 (Bank of Spain).
Mr. Trump, however, was quick to warn Pedro Sanchez of sanctions in the form of double the taxes “we are currently negotiating”. This could amount to 50% import duties on all imports from Spain. This, he muttered with one of those Trump-grins of Schadenfreude (epicaricacy), will cost him more than the 5% military budget.
After the Covid contraction of 2020, apparently the EU economy flourished with 5.2% growth in 2021, falling to 3.4% in 2022, followed by 0.5% in 2023 and barely holding at 1% in 2024. This year, 2025 growth, is projected at 1.4%. This according to BusinessEurope.
Compare this to peace-seeking non-warmongering Asia, where many countries, including Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, and not least China, have an annual average GDP growth of around 6% to 7%, or more.
NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, former PM of Holland and foremost the favored “child” of Klaus Schwab’s (former CEO WEF), Young Global Leaders (YGL), was doing whatever he could to please Trump. So, this almost unison EU-agreement to Trump’s extravagant request of 5% for defense spending (i.e., war spending), for a literally dying economic region which is the EU, may have come as a surprise to self-styled world emperor Trump.
He may have expected more backbone and counter-arguments from the Europeans to his bold 5% demand. But no.
In, what many analysts consider a sign of disgust [for Europe – which Trump seems to dislike profoundly], he left the NATO Summit early to fly to another farce summit, that of the hapless and outdated G7 in Canada.
Unlike in previous NATO Summits, Ukraine’s Zelensky was sidelined in The Hague, perhaps an indication that Ukraine, indeed, lost priority status for Washington.
——-
After Trump left, Rutte said, “This is a stronger, fairer and more lethal alliance that NATO leaders have begun to build.” Rutte said it. NATO must be lethal – a killer force; nothing to do with Peace.
Mr. Rutte continued, “Trump made it clear: America is committed to NATO. But the president also made clear that America expects European allies and Canada to contribute more. And that is exactly what we see them doing.”
See more on the NATO summit, here https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-06-25/nato-leaders-endorse-historic-plan-to-boost-defense-spending .
>But did it occur to this bunch of bowing European leaders, including the new NATO Chief, that Trump, who had apparently not the kindest words for NATO on Air Force One, on the way over to The Hague, may have come with the idea to softly kill NATO, by presenting his so-called allies with a staggering 5% military budget demand?
But ever submissive Europe fell for it – which may have added – or confirmed – Trump’s disgust when he left the meeting early for another unimportant encounter in Canada.
Maybe to kill the beast, next time Trump must come with a demand to hike military spending to 10% of GDP. Would that be the final death knell for the useless, preposterous NATO killing machine?
An added benefit for all may be: Killing NATO would also mean the end of the European Union, NATO’s twin-sister.
———
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.
By Dmitry Trenin on RT, a research professor at the Higher School of Economics and a lead research fellow at the Institute of World Economy and International Relations. He is also a member of the Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC).
The trademark style of the current US president, Donald Trump, is verbal spectacle. His statements – brash, contradictory, sometimes theatrical – should be monitored, but not overestimated. They are not inherently favorable or hostile to Russia. And we must remember: Trump is not the ‘king’ of America. The ‘Trump revolution’ that many anticipated at the beginning of the year appears to have given way to Trump’s own evolution – a drift toward accommodation with the American establishment.
In that light, it’s time to assess the interim results of our ‘special diplomatic operation’. There have now been six presidential phone calls, several rounds of talks between foreign ministers and national security aides, and sustained contact at other levels.
The most obvious positive outcome is the restoration of dialogue between Russia and the United States – a process that had been severed under the Biden administration. Crucially, this revived dialogue extends beyond Ukraine. A range of potential areas for cooperation have been mapped out, from geopolitical stability to transportation and sport. These may not carry immediate strategic weight, but they lay the groundwork for future engagement. Under Trump, the dialogue is unlikely to break off again – though its tone and pace may shift.
One visible result of this diplomacy was the resumption of talks with the Ukrainian side in Istanbul. While these negotiations currently hold little political substance – and the recent prisoner exchanges occurred independently of them – they nonetheless reaffirm a core tenet of Russian diplomacy: we are ready for a political resolution to the conflict.
Still, these are technical and tactical achievements. The strategic reality remains unchanged.
It was never realistic to expect Trump to offer Russia a deal on Ukraine that met our security requirements. Nor for that matter would Russia accept one that compromised its long-term security interests. Likewise, any notion that Trump would ‘deliver’ Ukraine to the Kremlin, join Moscow in undermining the EU, or push for a new Yalta agreement with Russia and China was always fantasy.
Trump will almost certainly sign the new US sanctions bill into law – but he’ll try to preserve discretion in how those measures are applied. The sanctions will add friction to global trade, but they will not derail Russian policy.
On the military front, Trump will deliver the remaining aid packages approved under Biden, and perhaps supplement them with modest contributions of his own. But going forward, it will be Western Europe – especially Germany – that supplies Ukraine, often by buying US-made systems and re-exporting them.
Meanwhile, the United States will continue to furnish Kiev with battlefield intelligence, particularly for deep strikes inside Russian territory.
That’s because the fight is not fundamentally about Ukraine.
What we are witnessing is an indirect war between the West and Russia – part of a much broader global confrontation. The West is fighting to preserve its dominance. And Russia, in defending itself, is asserting its sovereign right to exist on its own terms.
This war will be long. And the United States – with Trump or without him – will remain our adversary. The outcome will shape not just the fate of Ukraine, but the future of Russia itself.
—
This article was first published in Kommersant, and was translated and edited by the RT team.
“… on June 22 Trump struck and a terrible beauty was born.”
By Ambassador MK Bhadrakumar at the Indian Punchline.
The former President and Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Security Council Dmitry Medvedev who is one of the most authoritative voices in the Kremlin, wrote on the Telegram channel on June 23 a critique on the Middle East crisis following the US attack on Iran’s three key nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan.
Medvedev listed ten points, which, taken together, messaged that Russia’s stance on the developing situation around Iran has markedly shifted to one of proactive mode marked by profound scepticism and deep concern about President Donald Trump’s intentions.
As recently as on June 4, Trump had sought Putin’s help to advance the US-Iran negotiations on the nuclear issue and Putin, in good faith, agreed to help. Indeed, the Iranian government spokesperson had disclosed on June 12 that preparations were under way for a visit by Putin to Tehran.
But on June 22, Trump ordered the air strike on Iran’s three nuclear sites without taking Putin into confidence. Such surreptitious behaviour may be nothing new to Washington in inter-state relationships but it caused embarrassment to the Kremlin. Medvedev’s comments show it when he ridicules Trump’s triumphalism about the air strike.
Medvedev listed ten points under the heading What did the Americans achieve with their night strike on three points in Iran? They underscore that Russia’s stance on the developing situation around Iran has shifted to one of unequivocally distancing itself from the US approach going forward. The 10 points are:
Quote.
Unquote.
On the whole, Medvedev’s assessment is in sync with the swathe of opinion among neutral observers, including Western analysts, about the state of play. However, Points 2 and 3 stand out as particularly noteworthy in their prognosis that inexorably, Iran has now been pushed into a path of making the nuclear bomb and, more importantly, Tehran can expect help in this direction from “a number of countries (who) are ready to directly supply Iran with their nuclear weapons.”
This is the first time that Russia has explicitly spoken about Iran’s likely ‘nuclearisation’. That in itself is a paradigm shift. Medvedev has approvingly presented it in a marked departure from Russia’s stated affirmations in the past that Iran’s nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes. Russia has been historically a cornerstone of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
Three things have changed. First, the US itself has become a proliferator. In Europe, the US’s allies freely fly its planes fitted with nuclear bombs during exercises. German pilots have familiarised themselves with such planes. In Asia-Pacific, AUKUS alliance actually involves transfer of nuclear weapon technology to Australia, which is technically an NPT member.
Second, when it comes to Iran, a key ally of Russia, the US aggression has crossed Iran’s “big red line” — to borrow the words of foreign minister Abbas Araghchi — which leaves Tehran with no alternative but to act in self-defence. Besides, in the ‘rules-based order’ imposed by the US on Iran, its own ally Israel, a non-NPT member country, has a fully-developed clandestine nuclear weapon programme and is estimated to have a stockpile of some 200 nuclear missiles but all that Trump blithely ignores.
Third, things have come to such a pass today that smaller countries must nuclearise in the quickest way possible, which is their only iron-clad guarantee to preserve their sovereignty and territorial integrity from the US attacks in the chaotic international situation today. North Korea’s success in pushing back US pressure is due to its nuclear deterrent capability. What is absolutely galling is that Trump has not even cared to seek a mandate from the UN Security Council and has gone to war with Iran without getting Congressional approval.
Evidently, Medvedev’s commentary pooh-poohs the pious hopes in Washington and Tel Aviv about forcing a ‘regime change’ in Iran. Medvedev assertively proclaims that not only has Iran’s political system become stronger but “people are consolidating around the spiritual leadership” including elements that “did not sympathise with him” previously.
Russia shares the prevailing opinion in the world community that by embracing on a military confrontation with Iran, Trump has added to the US’ growing isolation in the world community.
An intriguing point here is that in Medvedev’s prognosis, the US is being drawn into a new conflict abroad “with the prospect of a ground operation.” He didn’t explain how this may happen. Iran, which is almost the size of Europe, is a big country and has approximately 610,000 active duty personnel plus 350,000 reserve and trained personnel that can be mobilised when needed. Then, there is the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) which has approximately 125,000 personnel and a voluntary militia, Basj, under it with a further approximately 90,000 active personnel.
Even a limited US commando operation is fraught with high risk. The Operation Eagle Crew — undertaken in April 1980 in an attempt to rescue the US hostages — ended tragically. Of eight helicopters sent into Iran, two became disabled and a third was blown into a C-130 cargo plane in a fierce desert sandstorm, killing eight American servicemen whose bodies, left behind, were later paraded before Iranian television cameras. The Carter administration, humiliated by the failed mission and loss of life, expended great energy to have the bodies returned to the US. Trump is unlikely to risk such escapades.
In geopolitical terms, the seismic shift in the Kremlin thinking can be a game changer for Iran which must be regretting that it declined a Russian offer to include a provision for mutual security assistance in times of war in the two countries’ recently concluded treaty of strategic partnership, similar to what Russia has with DPRK. Also, Putin disclosed last week that Russia had offered to develop an integrated air defence system jointly with Iran (that could access Russian satellite data) but Iran showed no interest. Curiously, he revealed that Tehran was yet to ask for any help, either!
That was on June 19. But on June 22 Trump struck and a terrible beauty was born. It appears that Khamenei ordered Araghchi who was busy parleying with Europeans to go East and meet Putin.
Anyway, at a meeting with Araghchi in the Kremlin today, Putin used exceptionally strong words to condemn the US attack on Iran which he called a “completely unprovoked act of aggression against Iran … without foundation or justification.”
Putin added, “Russia has long-standing, strong, and trustworthy relations with Iran, and we are committed to supporting the Iranian people through our continued efforts… Your visit provides us with an important opportunity to discuss these sensitive issues in depth and to explore ways we might work together to navigate the current situation.” (The Kremlin readout is here.)
Will Russia’s entry deter Trump on his warpath? That is the million dollar question in the coming days. If Trump persists with such belligerence in cahoots with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, a protracted war of attrition will ensue that will most certainly bring in China at some point with which Iran has a strong mil-to-mil relationship.
I’d like to say that here in Minsk, we have a few hundred small, medium, and large-sized Russian enterprises, those who are directly involved in developing integration and economic ties with the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union. They understand firsthand how much this integration does for them and how much needs to be done to improve them even further.
The EAEU has been a successful integration association, and the volume of trade turnover of the EAEU is comparable to the world’s leading economic powers, Russian President Vladimir Putin says at the Eurasian Economic Forum.
Statements published by Ria Novosti:
The EAEU is making a real contribution to creating a space for partnership and economic growth;
Russia will take into account all the useful ideas and recommendations made at the Eurasian Economic Forum in Minsk in its work to strengthen the EAEU;
The EAEU has grown stronger in 10 years since its creation, the economic potential of the five countries has strengthened;
The EAEU is open for cooperation with all interested partners;
The unemployment rate in the EAEU is 2.8%;
The unemployment rate in Russia is now 2.3%, which is one of the best indicators in the world today;
BRICS is working to create a digital investment platform, and similar initiatives can be implemented in the EAEU;
The EAEU countries are jointly making efforts to integrate financial infrastructure;
The situation in the Middle East is calming down;
The stop of the Iran-Israel conflict allows the world to count on the development of relations with the countries of the Middle East, including with Iran;
The freezing of Russian gold and foreign exchange assets is a robbery by the West;
The movement towards regional financial institutions in the world will only accelerate if frozen Russian assets are confiscated;
Russia is seeking to reduce the dependence on Western financial institutions;
Russia’s dialogue with the World Bank is now difficult due to the bias of Western financial institutions.
Some 15 or 20 years ago, nobody here had any serious objections to Kiev seeking EU membership. The attitude was: go ahead, godspeed. You’ll just be kicking yourself later when you lose the EAEU market. Kiev’s choice of economic ties would seem to carry no fundamental threat to Russia – especially considering their chances of joining the EU were virtually zero. For us, the key point was to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. The bloc’s expansion to our borders was and remains a direct threat to Russia’s national security.
But the old European Union, the one that once grew from the Coal and Steel Community, has essentially ceased to exist.
It has become a politicized, globalist and, more recently, rabidly Russophobic organization. An organization that dreams of settling an old score with Russia. The dim-witted European politicians of recent years have done everything to make this happen. They have completely destroyed the perception of the EU as an economic giant that abhors wars and avoids discord between European powers – a giant whose trade turnover with Russia reached nearly €500 billion.
Now, its main ideology is vicious Russophobia, stoked by an imaginary “Russian threat” which they’ve conjured up to serve their own petty agendas. Slowly but surely, the EU is transforming into a self-sustaining military bloc that will gradually come to compete with NATO, especially in the Trumpist era. The Brusselian cockroaches and narrow-minded leaders of EU countries are now proclaiming their own defense strategy, heralding a new “era of rearmament.”
This grotesque metamorphosis of the EU pursues a specific goal: to arm the neo-Nazi Kiev regime to such an extent that it becomes invulnerable to Russia. It was the EU that signed an agreement with the illegitimate ringleader of collapsing Ukraine on long-term commitments to ensure its so-called security. It is the EU that is supplying weapons and armor to the Banderite freaks, ramping up its own military industrial output and building defense factories on their territory. It is the EU that is sending its personnel to train Ukrainian militants, so that they can kill our citizens and carry out terrorist attacks in our country. And it is the same EU that brazenly uses profits from Russia’s frozen assets to finance its vile activities.
Brussels today is Russia’s true enemy.
In this perverted form, the EU is no less of a threat to us than the North Atlantic Alliance.
So the soft-hearted motto “Join anything you like except NATO” requires an update. Stuffed with weapons, rainbow freaks and yapping bitches in Brussels, the EU constitutes a direct threat to Russia. And it should be treated as such – at least until it changes its tune. This, of course, should not hinder our bilateral cooperation with individual European states.
Therefore, having so-called Ukraine in the EU would be a danger to our country. This danger can be mitigated in two ways: a) either the EU itself realizes that it doesn’t need the Kiev quasi-state at all; or, better, b) there is no state left to join the EU…
The first ever ASEAN-China-GCC trilateral summit was a de facto celebration of the New Silk Road spirit.
By Pepe Escobar at the Strategic Culture Foundation.
The first ever ASEAN-China-GCC trilateral summit earlier this week in Malaysia – with 17 Global South nations at the table – was a de facto celebration of the New Silk Road spirit.
Malaysian Prime Minister and current ASEAN chair Anwar Ibrahim summed it all up: “From the ancient Silk Road to the vibrant maritime networks of Southeast Asia to modern trade corridors, our peoples have long connected through commerce, culture, and the sharing of ideas.”
That inspires a lot of reflection. Let’s try a first, succint approach matching East and West – and what divides them – guided by an extraordinary study, La Mediterranee Asiatique: XVI-XXI Siecle, by CNRS research director Francois Gipouloux, also a specialist in the Chinese economy.
The European tradition is far from monolithic – and it’s only part of the picture – when it comes to global perceptions about political philosophy and the conception of the State. There are stark differences even when referred to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
The heart of the matter used to be the land/sea opposition. For Carl Schmitt, land/sea relates to friend/enemy – the matrix of politics – providing a key interpretation of world history, yet one among many.
It’s on “continental” Europe – to borrow the Anglo terminology –, mostly in France and Prussia, and not in England, that the Hobbesian concept of the State materialized. Britain became a world power thanks to its navy and trade, eschewing the characteristic institutions of the state such as a written constitution and a legislative codification of law.
Anglo-Saxon international law in fact voided the continental conception of the State and also war. According to Schmitt, it developed its own concepts of “war” and “enemy” out of maritime and trade conflicts which did not make a distinction between combatants and non-combatants (when it comes to its lasting legacy, think “the war on terror”).
My war is Just, because I said so
The opposition then solidified between the right to wage war on land – war is “just” if it happens between sovereign states, via regular armies, and sparing civilians – and waging war on sea, which does not imply a state-to-state relation. What mattered was attacking the trade and the economy of the enemy. And methods of total war were directed against either combatants or non-combatants.
That led to a new Western concept of “Just War” and international law: when the enemy is turned into a criminal, juridical and moral equality between belligerents is shattered.
That’s the perverse logic behind psycho-pathological genocidals legitimizing the destruction of Palestine.
These differences in the formulation of law came out of two different conceptions of space: closed, overland – featuring sovereign states, territorially delimitated – and open, over the seas – a unique space, unlimited, free of every state control, where primacy is about securing communication links. The British did not think about space in terms of territory, but of routes of communication, just like the Portuguese and the Dutch before them.
Schmitt identifies in the State an entity linked to land and territory. So, as startling as it seems, it’s Behemoth, the terrestrial animal of the Old Testament, and not the marine monster Leviathan that should have been chosen by Hobbes as a symbol of the State.
In the development of the West, three institutional forms – equally viable – were in competition: Leagues of Cities – like the Hanseatic Legue; City-States – especially in Italy; and the Nation-State, especially in France.
Few across the West may remember that the Hanseatic League and the powerful Italian city-states, for at least two centuries, were viable alternatives to the territorial state. Two top researchers, Douglass North and Robert Paul Thomas, in The Rise of the Western World: A New Economic History, argue that the modern state was imposed on Western Europe because it was the best equipped to fulfill two key tasks: to efficiently guarantee property rights and the physical security of people and goods.
If we go back to Europe in the 14th century, before the Renaissance, there were at least a thousand states, of all sizes. That means no concentration of power – and some sort of creative competition in store. There was a reasonable amount of choice for those who wanted to find better places to exercise their freedom.
We had for instance Germany, with its three main actors constituted as the Emperor, the nobility and cities; Italy, with its main actors as the Papacy, the Emperor and cities. And France with its three main actors as the King, nobility and cities. In each case, different alliances proliferated.
In Germany, the Emperor allied with the nobility against the cities. In Italy, nobility was urbanized, and cities profited from endless squabbles. In France, nobility was very suspicious of the bourgeoisie, and the King allied himself with the cities against nobility. England chose a completely different path. Even before France, the Brits created a centralized state, but under a quite original political set up.
Asia and the Mandala State
Asia is a completely different story. Here we cannot use the terminology of “state” to designate the political constructions of Southeast Asia before decolonization. In Southeast Asia, the borders were arbitrary between the tribe, so-called “primitive” political formations (from a Western perspective) and the State.
Springing up from political concepts prevailing in India, Islam and the West, states showed up in the Insulindia (maritime Southeast Asia) archipelago, for instance, as courtly bureaucracies, based on a network of complex alliances. Whatever the degree of institutionalization, the distinction between The King, The Vassal and The Bandit was tenuous at best.
Vietnamese researcher Nguyen The-Anh has remarked how “political fragmentation is generally the preliminary conclusion of the first Europeans who made contact with Southeast Asia. Marco Polo saw in the north of Sumatra ‘eight kingdoms and eight crowned Kings…each kingdom possesses its own language.”
China, on the other hand, featured a unitary state imposing – via a quite efficient administration – social order over a vast territory. There was no competition against the centralized state issuing from a landed aristocracy; no urban bourgeoisie; and no military contesting the imperial order, as in Europe. That’s the major difference between China and the West.
Thomas Aquinas decreed that if the power of the king belongs to a multitude, it’s not unjust that the king is deposed or sees his power restrained by this very own multitude if he turns into a tyrant and abuses royal power.
This distinction is completely alien to the Chinese tradition. What happened over the past century or so in China is that the peculiar configuration – and competition – between local actors and central power led to what could be defined as an unstructured empire, whose force comes from its shape-shifting borders and the diffused character of transnational networks.
In a global economy, this gives China an exceptional projection capacity. When borders become fuzzy, and the link between the state and individuals is fuzzy, the unstructured character of this Empire allows the Asian periphery of China to develop in an arc from Japan and the DPRK to Singapore and Indonesia. This is exactly the subtext of some of the key discussions in Kuala Lumpur at the ASEAN-China-GCC summit. Jeffrey Sachs totally got the picture beforehand.
Now, the opposition between a system of international relations deemed “backwards” and irrational in Asia and modern and rational – because based on realpolitik – in the West is over. Cultural factors now shape reality in Asia as well as in the West about the conception of the state and international relations.
China is finally self-assured enough to start disengaging from the current, Western-dominated system of international relations – because it has the means to do so.
The Chinese concept of harmony in international relations used to be linked to the proclamation of a natural order of which China would be the guarantor. But now we are a long way away from the 18th century, when the international environment of the China of 18 provinces was constituted by Korea, Manchuria, Mongolia, Chinese Turkestan, Tibet, Burma, Annam, the Ryuku archipelago and Japan. The Qin dynasty was keen to reassert its suzerainty on the political and cultural domains, assuring the protection of China by managing a belt of favorably disposed states.
Today a self-assured China sees a new system of international relations directly linked to a Belt and Road network of geoeconomic opportunities for all. That underlies the relationship between China and ASEAN, GCC, CELAC, Central Asia and the whole of Africa.
Welcome to the archipelagic world
The world has surpassed the “overland” or “maritime” dilemma, beyond Mackinder and Mahan. The world is now best defined, as Gipouloux coined it, as archipelagic (italics mine), linking urban nebulas of different sizes and vocations.
Globalization accelerated the transformation of a terrestrial world into an archipelagic world. New technologies, economic and financial pressure, disinformation on a mass scale – China is navigating all these rocks in shallow straits in the quest to solidify itself as a global power.
All that implies the progressive, thalassocratic advance of China: a flexible and tolerant Empire (“community of shared destiny for mankind”), a rich confederation with a capacity for global influence supported by polymorphic communities – the “bamboo internet” of the Chinese diaspora.
This is what was on display in Kuala Lumpur – and will continue to evolve via an array of multilateral organizations. Mandala at work, Chinese-style.
From the Cradle
The inaugural summit of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the six-member Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and China occurred in Kuala Lumpur, the capital of Malaysia, on 27 May.
“From the ancient Silk Road to the vibrant maritime networks of Southeast Asia to modern trade corridors, our peoples have long connected through commerce, culture, and the sharing of ideas,” Malaysian Prime Minister and current ASEAN chair Anwar Ibrahim said during his opening remarks.
The Malaysian leader also noted that the relationships reflect both “immense existing linkages as well as substantial untapped potential.”
Chinese Premier Li Qiang echoed Anwar’s remarks, highlighting “the deep historical ties” that support China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).
“At a time when unilateralism and protectionism are on the rise and world economic growth is sluggish, [China, ASEAN, and GCC countries] should strengthen coordination and cooperation and jointly uphold open regionalism and true multilateralism,” Li said during his remarks.
Beijing and other participants reportedly proposed exploring the inclusion of the GCC in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a 15-member trade pact that includes China and ASEAN.
Furthermore, Beijing and others expressed “disappointment” over the trade war initiated by US President Donald Trump.
“I believe the ASEAN–GCC partnership has never been more important than it is today, as we navigate an increasingly complex global landscape marked by economic uncertainty and geopolitical challenges,” the Malaysian prime minister said.
Six of ASEAN’s 10 members were significantly impacted by Trump’s tariffs earlier this year, with Cambodia facing a 49 percent import duty, followed by Laos at 48 percent and Vietnam at 46 percent.
Together, ASEAN, China, and the GCC account for over 20 percent of the global gross domestic product (GDP) and encompass a market of 2.15 billion people.
In 2024, ASEAN’s total trade value with China and GCC countries surpassed $900 billion, almost twice the $453 billion in trade with the US.
Tuesday’s landmark summit occurred just a few weeks after western media reports revealed that the de-dollarization of trade is gaining momentum in Asian markets.
In March 2023, ASEAN finance ministers and central bank governors discussed eliminating the US Dollar, Euro, Yen, and British Pound from financial transactions, opting instead for settlements in local currencies.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin sent greetings (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76933) to the Heads of State and Government taking part in the 34th Arab League Summit (May 17, 2025)
The message reads, in part:
“Your meeting is being held at a difficult time.
The escalation of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which has claimed tens of thousands of civilian lives, has dramatically aggravated tensions and enhanced many social and economic problems in adjacent countries and throughout the #MiddleEast as a whole.
The role of the Arab League as an effective mechanism for multilateral dialogue and interaction is especially important in this situation.
For its part, Russia has consistently supported the collective political and diplomatic efforts taken by Arab countries within both the Arab League and in other formats to resolve current contradictions in the region.
We believe that all disputes should be settled on the basis of existing norms of international law and unwavering respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
We intend to continue to develop all-round constructive dialogue with the Arab League and friendly relations with all its members.
In this connection, I would like to invite the leaders of all Arab League states, as well as the Secretary-General of the Arab League, to the first Russian-Arab Summit, which we plan to hold on October 15.
I am confident that this meeting will help strengthen multifaceted mutually beneficial cooperation between our countries and also search for ways to bring about peace, security and stability in the Middle East and North Africa.”
We can’t stand by in the face of the U.S. blockade on Cuba,” said Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva at the 9th CELAC Summit, where leaders from across the hemisphere called for an end to decades of U.S. sanctions. pic.twitter.com/n2xsANiZ8C
— Belly of the Beast (@bellybeastcuba) April 11, 2025
#Brazil | President Lula da Silva called for Latin American unity at CELAC Summit, prioritizing democracy, climate action, and economic integration amid global instability.https://t.co/D5LAJgFcIu
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) April 10, 2025
Statement by First Deputy Permanent Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy at a UNSC Briefing on the Situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories
Mr. President,
We note the statement by Mr. Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. We thank Mr. Younes Al-Khatib, President of the Palestinian Red Crescent Society, for his thorough briefing on the situation in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict zone. We are also grateful to Mr. Al-Khatib for his additional briefings and meetings with delegations during his stay in New York. This allowed us to get the latest information about the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT).
It was without hesitation that we supported the request by Algeria for today’s Council meeting, since the situation in the OPT, in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank remains unacceptably critical. Following the breakdown of agreements between Hamas and Israel, Palestinian civilians have been living in conditions of full ground air and maritime blockade for over a month now. Not only has West Jerusalem blocked the delivery of humanitarian supplies but also imposed restrictions on the work of UN humanitarian organizations, which entailed existential problems for two million people. Here is a simple example – all bakeries in the enclave have closed due to a shortage of flour and fuel. We are puzzled – How the lack of bread in Gaza can help Israel to free the hostages who are not receiving bread either?
Alongside the humanitarian catastrophe, we see civilian infrastructure being destroyed and humanitarian workers dying. Since October 2023, at least 408 humanitarians have been killed in Gaza, which makes this conflict the most lethal on record by that measure.
We can hardly hope that the situation will change for the better, since Israeli strikes against Gaza continue almost unabated. On April 2, at 10 a.m., the Israeli Air Force hit the UNRWA medical center in Jabaliya. Although the facility was no longer being used for medical purposes, it served as a shelter for more than 700 people. This new inhumane Israeli attack reportedly killed dozens of civilians, including a baby who was barely two weeks old. Despite the warnings from UNRWA about the risks of staying in the building after the attack, many displaced families remained there because they simply had nowhere else to go.
Today alone, indiscriminate Israeli airstrikes across the Strip have killed at least one hundred people. Bombs have been dropped on residential buildings, a school that was used as a shelter and tent camps. Eyewitnesses report that in Gaza City, where 58 people were killed, local residents – in the absence of any rescue equipment – had to dig through the rubble with their bare hands in the hope of finding any miraculous survivors. We express our sincere condolences to the families of those who have been killed and wish a speedy recovery to those injured. We emphasize that the so-called security zones established by the Israelis themselves are also being hit. Such blatant disregard for the norms of international humanitarian law deserves our strongest condemnation. In total, since the beginning of the war, more than 300 United Nations facilities have been attacked, some of them repeatedly so.
Mr. President,
We were shocked by the news of the discovery on March 31 of a mass grave with bodies of 15 aid workers, including a UN staff member and eight medics from the Palestine Red Crescent Society. OCHA officials have already placed the responsibility for the crime on Israel. According to the UN, after the first group of medics and aid workers went missing on March 23, the Israelis methodically eliminated anyone who tried to come to rescue their comrades. By the way, the ambulances were clearly marked, as were the doctors’ uniforms. There can be no justification for such actions. While discussing this specific subject, we call upon all parties to make every effort to find one member of the Palestine Red Crescent team that is still listed missing – Assad Al-Nassasra – his body has not been found among the dead.
The protection of humanitarian personnel, which the Council discussed in detail at this very Chamber as early as yesterday, is an absolute imperative and obligation under international humanitarian law.
Mr. President,
Upon the completion of phase 1 of the agreement with Hamas, Israel put forward new demands regarding the further implementation of the deal, then resumed its military operation and is gradually expanding its control over the Gaza Strip. On April 1, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced the creation of a second “Philadelphi Corridor” – the Morag axis, which will cut off Rafah from Khan Younis. In the same vein, we should consider the statements by Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz about the expansion of the area of operation in the enclave and the creation of additional “security zones”. Thus, the territory wherein the Gazans have to huddle is steadily shrinking. People are compelled to choose whether to leave their homes in Gaza or remain there without water, electricity and sufficient food hoping that the Israeli operation will cease one day and they will not fall victim to another airstrike. Of course, under such conditions, there can be no discussion of either “voluntary emigration” or evacuation. We reaffirm our position of principle that territorial or demographic changes are unacceptable in Gaza, which is (and has always been) an integral part of the Palestinian State.
In the context of the catastrophic humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip, specifically under the total blockade introduced since March 2, we are seriously troubled by the signals coming from various sources about Israel’s plans to establish full control over the delivery and distribution of aid in the enclave. We hope that West Jerusalem will not go ahead with these measures, as they would run counter to the reports by Sigrid Kaag, UN Senior Humanitarian and Reconstruction Coordinator for Gaza, on the operation of the one-stop shop mechanism agreed with Israel, which we all supported. We also reaffirm our strong support for UNRWA, which plays an indispensable role in assisting the Palestinians. The Agency’s expertise, its extensive system of humanitarian assistance and the infrastructure built up over decades are vital in the current critical situation in the enclave. We call on the Israeli authorities to reconsider their discriminatory and prohibitive decisions regarding UNRWA and to return to compliance with the relevant international legal obligations.
Mr. President,
The situation in the West Bank is also alarming. Israel’s Operation “Iron Wall” is expanding. In Jenin alone, 34 people were killed, dozens were injured, 21,000 people became internally displaced, and over 600 homes were destroyed. Since October 7, 2023, some 16,000 people have been detained in the West Bank. Provocations by settlers are ongoing. For example, 50 extremist settlers carried out a pogrom in the Palestinian village of Douma. Unfortunately, the Israeli authorities not only fail to punish the offenders but also often egg them on.
Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank is proceeding at a relentless pace, with 47% of land having already been taken away from the Palestinians. Over the first three months of 2025, there has been approved the construction of 10,503 housing units, which is higher than the similar figure for the whole of 2024. By some estimates, if the settlement activity continues at such a pace, any prospects for the “two-state solution” will be entirely wiped out within just two years. Even today, the West Bank is essentially divided into two parts due to Israel’s infrastructure projects in Jerusalem; and hundreds of checkpoints throughout the West Bank are severely restricting daily activities of Palestinians.
Such actions are fully in line with the tactics that Israel has pursued over the past decades in the West Bank to preclude the territorial contiguity of the OPT.
The key steps here are as follows: constructing settlement blocs and related infrastructure, erecting a dividing wall, creating a system of roadblocks and checkpoints, demolishing Palestinian buildings, confiscating land, and conducting regular security raids, which are now spilling over into full-fledged operations in Jenin, Tulkarm and other towns. We are also extremely concerned by further regionalization of the conflict, by resumed arbitrary Israeli strikes on Beirut, ongoing air strikes on Syria, US strikes on Yemen, as well as by preparations of public opinion for a full-scale operation against Iran.
As a result, today the entire Middle East region has come closer to a large-scale armed conflict, which may result in catastrophic consequences. We urge everyone to step back from this dangerous brink.
Mr. President,
The logic of war rules out any possibility of Israeli hostages returning home. In this war paradigm, there is scope only for new senseless deaths and destruction, for mass graves of doctors and thousands of murdered children. This logic precludes any prospects for the reconstruction of Gaza, which were realistically outlined in the plan proposed by the Arab States. In the West Bank, people have to survive in artificially created utterly inhumane conditions, which provides a breeding ground for radicalization and cultivates hatred towards Israel and its people. What is the point for West Jerusalem of getting rid of Hamas if its place is likely to be immediately taken by other people under a different name? – for them, fighting Israel will appear to be the only way to restore justice. In fact, the decades-long inability to find a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is precisely what engendered the current tragic situation.
We are convinced of the need to establish an immediate and unconditional ceasefire, to release all forcibly detained persons and provide safe and unhindered humanitarian access. At the same time, it is important that the agreements reached be sustainable. As practice shows, without guarantees and oversight on the part of the international community, any truce can collapse in no time. In this regard, it is the UN Security Council that must play a key role in the negotiation process and in ensuring the compliance with its outcomes by all parties. We call on international mediators to prioritize the return to a peaceful settlement. In this context, we would like to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the establishment of an independent Palestinian State within the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital. It must coexist with Israel in peace and security, in accordance with the internationally recognized legal decisions.
Colleagues,
Under the current circumstances, it may be extremely dangerous to have continued vacancies for the key UN posts in the region, namely Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Senior Coordinator for humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians. We call on the UN Secretary-General to present the Security Council with the candidates to that effect as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I would like to emphasize that when it comes to possible practical steps by the Council and the adoption of its “products” related to worsening crisis in Gaza, we are guided by the position of the group of Arab States. We are also stand ready to work with all those who seek to achieve a just, lasting and sustainable peace in the Middle East on the basis of the well-known decisions of the UN Security Council with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian settlement process.
Thank you.
Image: File Image
On Thursday’s “The Record with Greta Van Susteren,” Putin Investment Envoy Kirill Dmitriev responded to questions about American hostages, the war in Ukraine, and restoring Russian American relations and business.
RT has a series of telegram videos that are too long to embed. It starts here:
https://t.me/rtnews/89465
Mr Dmitriev is the head of the Russian Direct Investment Fund. He states that he visited the US on the instruction of his president (President Putin). Note that this is the first visit of a Russian envoy since 2022. He says the talks centered around ‘restoring relations between Russia and America’, although ”Different countries are trying to undermine and thwart this dialogue’.
He says the Trump administration is different from Biden because it hears Russia’s position and understands Russian concerns. Key people in the Trump administration are willing to address the entire spectrum of Russia-US partnership issues, including geopolitical issues. There are differences, but there is dialogue, and the dialogue will help overcome the differences.
US companies want to return to Russia, and the parties addressed the issues of economy and investment. There are ideological differences. US companies could take up niches that are open from European countries who left, and there now are opportunities for joint ventures between Russian and American businesses.
Many issues piled up during the time when there was no communication between Russia and the United States, but there are opportunities for joint business. Addressing the issues that piled up will take time, but he feels it was a positive and constructive meeting.
Dmitriev says the final timeline for Ukraine talks will be established soon.
They discussed potential cooperation between Russia and the US in the Arctic, rare earths, and other areas where positive and constructive relations are possible.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 