reSee.it - Related Video Feed

The speaker argues that international security is broader than military-political stability and includes global economic stability, poverty reduction, economic security, and civilizational dialogue. He emphasizes the principle that security of each is security of all, recalling Franklin Roosevelt’s idea that “wherever peace is violated, peace everywhere is threatened.” He asserts that two decades ago the world was split ideologically and economically, with security provided by the large strategic potential of two superpowers, and that global confrontation has moved to the periphery of international relations, leaving acute economic and social issues unresolved. He criticizes the unipolar world as not achievable or acceptable, defining it as one center of power and one center of decision-making, a model he says is not democracy and ultimately destructive for both the ruled and the ruler. He notes that unilateral, illegitimate actions have not solved problems and have caused new tragedies and tens of thousands of civilian deaths. He points to the increasing and unchecked use of force in international affairs, the neglect of core principles of international law, and the tendency to resolve issues on the basis of political expediency. The speaker highlights new threats such as weapons of mass destruction and terrorism, arguing for a balanced approach that considers the interests of all international actors. He notes the rapid changes in the international landscape, including the rise of China and India, whose combined GDP (at PPP) surpasses the US, and BRICS collectively surpassing the EU, predicting that economic power will increasingly translate into political influence and strengthen multipolarity. He calls for multilateral diplomacy, openness, transparency, and predictability, with force used only as an exceptional measure and in accordance with the UN Charter, not as a substitute for collective security institutions such as the UN, NATO, or the EU. The speaker defends adherence to international treaties on nonproliferation and disarmament, recalling Russia’s agreement with the US to cut strategic nuclear weapons to 1700–2200 deployable warheads by December 31, 2012, and emphasizes Russia’s commitment to the NPT and multilateral controls on missile technologies. He critiques the proliferation of missile systems in various countries and the existence of new high-tech weapons, including space-based systems, warning that militarization of space could have consequences comparable to the nuclear era. He announces a Russian proposal for a Space Weapons Prevention Treaty and discusses concerns about missile defense deployments in Europe, arguing they provoke a new arms race and distrust. Regarding conventional forces in Europe, he criticizes the Adapted CFE Treaty for insufficient ratification and notes NATO’s expansion near Russian borders, arguing that such expansion reduces mutual trust. He recalls a 1990 NATO secretary-general statement about not placing troops beyond Germany’s borders and stresses that Russia seeks an independent foreign policy with responsible partners to build a fair and democratic world order for all. He also discusses energy cooperation, arguing that energy prices should be market-driven and that foreign capital participates significantly in Russian oil production, with investments in Russia exceeding Russian investments abroad by about 15:1. He mentions Russia’s ongoing WTO accession and criticizes double standards in poverty alleviation, noting how aid and subsidies can perpetuate economic underdevelopment and fuel radicalism and conflict. Finally, he defends the OSCE as a body intended to address security in a holistic way but contends it has been used to serve external interests and to finance NGOs that may interfere in internal affairs. He calls for the OSCE to respect sovereignty and for cooperation based on mutual trust. He closes by reaffirming Russia’s longstanding tradition of independent external policy and expresses a desire to work with responsible, independent partners to build a just, democratic world order that ensures security and prosperity for all.

Россия поддерживает инициативу Председателя Си Цзиньпина и заинтересована приступить к конкретному обсуждению предложений наших китайских друзей. И думается, что именно ШОС могла бы взять на себя лидирующую роль в формировании в мире более справедливой и равноправной системы глобального управления, основанной на примате международного права и ключевых положениях Устава ООН, быть подлинно сбалансированной и учитывать интересы широкого круга стран, гарантируя возможности для их устойчивого развития и безопасности. Russia supports the initiative of Chairman Xi Jinping and is interested in beginning concrete discussions of the proposals expressed by our Chinese friends. It is thought that the SCO could take a leading role in forming a more just and equal system of global governance, based on the primacy of international law and the key provisions of the UN Charter, truly balanced and taking into account the interests of a broad circle of countries, and guaranteeing opportunities for their sustainable development and security.

Checklist for summary approach: - Identify core positions: whether Russia views current tensions as war, and its stated objectives. - Track key diplomatic milestones and proposals: Minsk, Istanbul, security guarantees, doctrine on NATO. - Capture stated justifications for actions: language rights, minority protections, UN Charter references, self-determination. - Note referenced U.S./NATO actions and perceived aims, plus Russia’s response signals (including hypersonic test). - Highlight backchannel diplomacy and statements about negotiations, including who may negotiate and under what terms. - Preserve notable claims about casualties, rhetoric around “massacres,” and contentious episodes (Bucha, Navalny). - Exclude evaluation or commentary; reproduce claims as presented. - Maintain chronological and thematic flow to reflect interview emphasis. - Keep to 556–695 words; translate if needed (English here). Summary: Lavrov states that Russia would not describe the relationship with the United States as a war, expressing a desire for normal relations with all countries, especially the United States, and noting that President Putin respects the American people, history, and achievements, while hoping for cooperation “for the sake of the universe.” He argues that Washington’s support for Ukraine amounts to active participation in a conflict with Russia and characterizes the fighting in Ukraine as a “hybrid war,” asserting Ukrainians could not use long-range, modern weapons without direct American servicemen. He contends that Western officials have suggested that “the attack is the best defense” and warns that statements by Pentagon/NATO figures about limited or even nuclear-echo threats are dangerous, insisting that red lines are being moved and that Russia did not start the war, only a “special military operation” designed to end Kyiv’s actions against Donbas. He emphasizes Russia’s readiness for peaceful solutions based on Russia’s security interests, and the protection of Russian-speaking people in Ukraine—specifically their language, religious rights, and education—rights which he says have been eroded by Ukrainian legislation since 2017 (including bans on Russian education, Russian media, Russian language, and later restrictions on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church). He invokes the UN Charter and international law, arguing that true respect for the Charter requires consideration of the right to self-determination and equal state sovereignty. He contends that referenda in Crimea led to reunification with Russia after Crimeans rejected Kyiv’s coup in 2014; Donbas, initially labeled terrorists by Kyiv, was fought over until Minsk agreements were signed in 2015, which he says were sabotaged by the post-coup Ukrainian government. He asserts that Minsk envisaged territorial integrity for Ukraine minus Crimea, with Russian language rights and local self-governance in certain Donbas areas, plus economic ties with Russia, and emphasizes that Russia offered security guarantees to Ukraine—ultimately rejected when negotiations shifted to Istanbul in April 2022. In Istanbul, Lavrov says the Ukrainian delegation proposed “principles” for peace, which Russia accepted, including non-bloc status for Ukraine and collective security guarantees that would exclude NATO. He notes Boris Johnson’s alleged encouragement to continue fighting and claims the West has pursued a line of conduct that excludes meaningful negotiation, with Zelenskyy later banning negotiations by decree and advancing a “peace formula” and a “Victory Plan.” Russia’s position remains that no NATO bases or foreign troops on Ukrainian soil are acceptable, and that any settlement must reflect the realities on the ground, including updated constitutional changes in Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson, and Zaporozhye after their incorporation into the Russian Federation. Lavrov characterizes Western sanctions as unprecedented and says Russia must become more self-reliant, seeking cooperation with non-hostile states to counter sanctions. He argues that Western leaders aim to preserve a “rules-based” order that ensures U.S. dominance, pointing to NATO’s Indo-Pacific ambitions and ongoing security strategies that extend beyond Europe. He insists Russia seeks no war with anybody but warns against a presumed willingness in the United States to risk nuclear escalation, stressing that a limited or even threatened nuclear exchange would be catastrophic. He notes that backchannel communications exist but that there has been little meaningful dialogue with the Biden administration, and he observes Western fatigue with the Ukraine issue, while maintaining that Russia seeks a negotiated settlement grounded in Istanbul’s principles and in recognition of Russia’s security concerns, the rights of Russian-speaking populations, and an end to NATO expansion on Russia’s borders.

"We should advocate for an equal and orderly, multipolar world, and a universally beneficial and inclusive economic globalization, and make the global governance system more just and equitable." Leaders from across The Middle East and Asia gathered in a huge building, 'they boast that they represent nearly 50% of the world's population.' The enduring image was of three of the world's largest countries—Russia, China, and India—looking cordial, with Putin and Modi 'sharing a laugh with the Chinese leader on the sidelines, really almost literally rubbing shoulders.' Modi's first trip to China in seven years. As the summit wrapped up, the gathering signaled 'a time of global uncertainty,' with calls for some kind of newer, fairer system of government. They criticized 'a world order that's been dominated too much by The US since the collapse of the Soviet Union.'

Nikolay Petro and Gwen were discussing the Munich Security Conference and the broader shift in global order. The core theme is the destruction or breakdown of the post–Cold War order as the world moves toward multipolarity, with the United States and Europe following diverging paths. - The transition to multipolarity is described as chaos and a vacuum of strategic thinking. From a European perspective, this is an unwanted transition into something unfamiliar, while the US debates a more pragmatic approach that may bypass traditional institutions to position itself favorably. The multipolar world would be more democratic, with more voices in actual discussion of each nation’s needs and contributions, in contrast to the hegemonic, rules-based order. - The concept of multipolarity presumes multiple poles of interest. Nations at the top of the old order feel uncomfortable; they had a lead dog (the United States) and knew where they were going. Now the lead dog may be wandering, and the rest are lost. There’s a push to engage voices from the global South, or the global majority, though the term “global South” is viewed as imprecise. - At Munich, Kaia Kallas and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (Mertz) urged order to avoid chaos. Kallas favored restoring or preserving the structures of the past, arguing the European Union should reconnect with the US and dominate collectively as the political West. Mertz used aggressive language, saying Germany’s army must be the most powerful in Europe and that the war in Ukraine will end only when Russia is exhausted economically and militarily; he argued Europe imposed unheard-of losses on Russia. - In response, the US role in Munich was anticipated to feature Marco Rubio as the delegation head, signaling a security-focused agenda rather than deep internal European discourse. The discussion suggested the US may push a strategy of returning to or reshaping a hegemonic order, pressuring Europe to align with American priorities, and highlighting that the old order is over. - There is a perception of internal German political dynamics: the rise of the anti-establishment party (IFD) could challenge the current SPD/CSU coalition, potentially altering the German stance on Russia and Europe’s strategy toward Moscow. The possibility exists that internal German shifts could counter aggressive German policy toward Russia. - In Europe, there is a tension between those who want to sacrifice more national autonomy to please the US and those who advocate diversifying ties to avoid total dependence on Washington. In practice, EU policy has often mirrored US priorities, thereby delaying a truly autonomous European strategy. - The EU’s foreign policy structure remains weak due to political diversity among member states, the need for cooperation with national governments, and resistance to surrendering power to Brussels. There is no cohesive grand strategy within the EU, making it hard to present a unified vision in a multipolar world. The EU’s reliance on crisis-driven centralization contrasts with those internal contradictions. - Ukraine’s war exposed tensions in Europe’s cohesion. Initially, there was a rallying effect and unified front against Russia, aided by US support, aiming for a rapid Russian defeat. Now the EU’s rhetoric shifts toward seeking a ceasefire and preserving what remains of Ukraine, labeling victory in terms of saving Ukraine rather than expelling Russia. EU funding for Ukraine—about €90 billion over two years—may be insufficient, with Ukraine claiming higher needs. - The discussion suggested that European leadership’s view of Russia and Putin is unstable: some European circles believe Russia could collapse economically, while others see Russia’s leadership as capable of countermeasures. Reports of France reestablishing high-level political contacts with Russia were noted as part of this flux. - The conversation contrasted backward-looking US/EU visions with a forward-looking multipolar vision promoted by BRICS, especially Russia, which could be more promising due to its forward outlook. The EU, dominated by internal divisions, struggles to articulate an autonomous multipolar path, while the United States appears intent on reviving its dominant position and reshaping the international order, sometimes in ways that delay the shift to multipolarity. - Overall, the speakers highlighted a shared but backward-looking orientation between the EU and the US, versus a forward-looking, multipolar alternative; they also underscored the strategic vacuum, internal European divisions, and the continuing tug-of-war between attempting to restore past structures and embracing a new global arrangement.

"Ukraine is an artificial state that was shaped at Stalin's will." "NATO expansion eastward is a violation of the promise you all were made in 1990." "In 02/2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine." "Maidan and a coup in Ukraine." "denazification. After gaining independence, Ukraine began to search, as some Western analysts say, its identity." "The president of Ukraine stood up with the entire parliament of Canada and applauded this man." "the dollar is the cornerstone of The United States power." "BRICS countries accounted for only 16% in 1992, but now their share is greater than that of the G7." "the world should be a single whole, security should be shared, rather than a meant for the golden billion." "We are ready for negotiations indeed."

In this conversation, Brian Berletic discusses the current collision between the United States’ global strategy and a rising multipolar world, arguing that U.S. policy is driven by corporate-financier interests and a desire to preserve unipolar primacy, regardless of the costs to others. - Structural dynamics and multipolar resistance - The host notes a shift from optimism about Trump’s “America First” rhetoric toward an assessment that U.S. strategy aims to restore hegemony and broad, repeated wars, even as a multipolar world emerges. - Berletic agrees that the crisis is structural: the U.S. system is driven by large corporate-financier interests prioritizing expansion of profit and power. He cites Brookings Institution’s 2009 policy papers, particularly The Path to Persia, as documenting a long-running plan to manage Iran via a sequence of options designed to be used in synergy to topple Iran, with Syria serving as a staging ground for broader conflict. - He argues the policy framework has guided decisions across administrations, turning policy papers into bills and war plans, with corporate media selling these as American interests. This, he says, leaves little room for genuine opposition because political power is financed by corporate interests. - Iran, Syria, and the Middle East as a springboard to a global confrontation - Berletic traces the current Iran crisis to the 2009 Brookings paper’s emphasis on air corridors and using Israel to provoke a war, placing blame on Israel as a proxy mechanism while the U.S. cleanses the region of access points for striking Iran directly. - He asserts the Arab Spring (2011) was designed to encircle Iran and move toward Moscow and Beijing, with Iran as the final target. The U.S. and its allies allegedly used policy papers to push tactical steps—weakening Russia via Ukraine, exploiting Syria, and leveraging Iran as a fulcrum for broader restraint against Eurasian powers. - The aim, he argues, is to prevent a rising China by destabilizing Iran and, simultaneously, strangling energy exports that feed China’s growth. He claims the United States has imposed a global maritime oil blockade on China through coordinated strikes and pressure on oil-rich states, while China pursues energy independence via Belt and Road, coal-to-liquids, and growing imports from Russia. - The role of diplomacy, escalation, and Netanyahu’s proxy - On diplomacy, Berletic says the U.S. has no genuine interest in peace; diplomacy is used to pretext war, creating appearances of reasonable engagement while advancing the continuity of a warlike agenda. He references the Witch Path to Persia as describing diplomacy as a pretext for regime change. - He emphasizes that Russia and China are not credibly negotiating with the U.S., viewing Western diplomacy as theater designed to degrade multipolar powers. Iran, he adds, may be buying time but also reacting to U.S. pressure, while Arab states and Israel are portrayed as proxies with limited autonomy. - The discussion also covers how Israel serves as a disposable proxy to advance U.S. goals, including potential use of nuclear weapons, with Trump allegedly signaling a post-facto defense of Israel in any such scenario. - The Iran conflict, its dynamics, and potential trajectory - The war in Iran is described as a phased aggression, beginning with the consulate attack and escalating into economic and missile-strike campaigns. Berletic notes Iran’s resilient command-and-control and ongoing missile launches, suggesting the U.S. and its allies are attempting to bankrupt Iran while degrading its military capabilities. - He highlights the strain on U.S. munitions inventories, particularly anti-missile interceptors and long-range weapons, due to simultaneous operations in Ukraine, the Middle East, and potential confrontations with China. He warns that the war’s logistics are being stretched to the breaking point, risking a broader blowback. - The discussion points to potential escalation vectors: shutting Hormuz, targeting civilian infrastructure, and possibly using proxies (including within the Gulf states and Yemen) to choke off energy flows. Berletic cautions that the U.S. could resort to more drastic steps, including leveraging Israel for off-world actions, while maintaining that multipolar actors (Russia, China, Iran) would resist. - Capabilities, resources, and the potential duration - The host notes China’s energy-mobility strategies and the Western dependency on rare earth minerals (e.g., gallium) mostly produced in China, emphasizing how U.S. war aims rely on leveraging allies and global supply chains that are not easily sustained. - Berletic argues the U.S. does not plan for permanent victory but for control, and that multipolar powers are growing faster than the United States can destroy them. He suggests an inflection point will come when multipolarism outruns U.S. capacity, though the outcome remains precarious due to nuclear risk and global economic shocks. - Outlook and final reflections - The interlocutors reiterate that the war is part of a broader structural battle between unipolar U.S. dominance and a rising multipolar order anchored by Eurasian powers. They stress the need to awaken broader publics to the reality of multipolarism and to pursue a more balanced world order, warning that the current trajectory risks global economic harm and dangerous escalation.

The speaker addresses international security, stating it involves more than military and political stability, including global economic stability and dialogue between civilizations. The speaker critiques the concept of a unipolar world led by one master, arguing it's flawed and undemocratic. The speaker claims the hyper-use of military force is plunging the world into conflict, with increasing disdain for international law. The speaker notes the economic potential of countries like India, China and the BRIC countries will strengthen multipolarity. The speaker advocates for openness, transparency, and predictability in politics, with the UN as the sole legitimate authority for using military force. The speaker highlights the stagnation in disarmament and supports renewing dialogue, while expressing concern over plans to expand anti-missile defense systems to Europe and NATO expansion. The speaker emphasizes the need to strengthen the nonproliferation regime and proposes international centers for uranium enrichment. The speaker calls for uniform market principles and transparent conditions in the energy sector. The speaker criticizes developed countries for maintaining agricultural subsidies that hinder developing countries. The speaker also criticizes the OSCE, claiming it is being used to promote the interests of select countries. The speaker concludes by affirming Russia's commitment to an independent foreign policy and collaboration with responsible partners to build a fair and democratic world order.

The speaker criticizes the unipolar model, stating it's impossible in today's world due to lack of moral foundations. They condemn the US for overstepping its boundaries in various aspects, making no one feel safe. NATO's expansion is seen as a provocation, with American bases near Russia's borders. The speaker asserts Russia's long history of independent foreign policy won't change.

На Валдайском клубе 22-го заседания обсуждался полицентричный мир: инструкции по применению. Участники отметили более открытое, творческое внешнеполитическое пространство, где решения зависят от точности выверенных действий и договорённостей между многочисленными участниками. Мир становится многополярным: растёт роль культурно-цивилизационных различий, региональных объединений (БРИКС, ШОС) и общего мирового большинства, которое настаивает на консенсусе и гармонии в решении вопросов безопасности. Гегемония Запада утративала хватку; формируется система договорённостей, а не принуждения. Россия подчёркнута как важный элемент глобального баланса и устойчивости, перенёсшая санкции. Вопросы ядерного сдерживания, возможной паузы в рамках соглашений с США и Китая, а также роль Европы обсуждались на фоне украинского кризиса и ближневосточных процессов. Подчеркивается значимость культуры, традиций и взаимного уважения для мирного сотрудничества. In the Valdai Club's 22nd meeting, the multi-polar world was discussed: how to apply it. Participants noted a more open, creative foreign policy space where decisions depend on precise, well-balanced actions and agreements among many players. The world is becoming multi-polar, with rising roles for civilizational differences, regional unions (BRICS, SCO), and the common world majority advocating for consensus and balance in security issues. Western hegemony has weakened; a system of agreements, not coercion, is forming. Russia is highlighted as a crucial part of global balance and resilience, having endured sanctions. Debates covered nuclear deterrence, the possibility of a pause in treaty regimes with the US and China, and Europe’s role amid Ukraine and Middle East conflicts. Emphasis is placed on culture, traditions, and mutual respect as foundations for peaceful cooperation.

Спасибо за возможность выступить на этой конференции. Проблемы международной безопасности выходят за рамки военно-политической стабильности и включают экономическую безопасность и преодоление бедности. Однополярный мир невозможен, так как он создает центры власти, которые разрушают систему. Мы наблюдаем рост конфликтов и применение силы, что угрожает международному праву. Необходимо искать баланс интересов всех стран и укреплять многостороннюю дипломатию. Россия поддерживает сокращение ядерных вооружений и выступает за предотвращение размещения оружия в космосе. Мы открыты к сотрудничеству в области ядерной энергетики, но также осознаем риски, связанные с распространением оружия. Важно создать справедливую экономическую систему, чтобы предотвратить радикализм и конфликты. Россия будет продолжать проводить независимую внешнюю политику и стремиться к сотрудничеству с ответственными партнерами. Thank you for the opportunity to speak at this conference. International security issues extend beyond military-political stability to include economic security and poverty alleviation. A unipolar world is impossible as it creates power centers that undermine the system. We are witnessing an increase in conflicts and the use of force, threatening international law. It is essential to seek a balance of interests among all countries and strengthen multilateral diplomacy. Russia supports nuclear disarmament and advocates for preventing the placement of weapons in space. We are open to cooperation in nuclear energy but recognize the risks of proliferation. It is vital to create a fair economic system to prevent radicalism and conflicts. Russia will continue to pursue an independent foreign policy and seek cooperation with responsible partners.

The discussion centers on India’s position in 2025 amid a shifting international order and U.S. efforts to recalibrate a multipolar world. - The year 2025 is characterized as eventful for India, with the country under pressure to choose a path in a world where power is more distributed. The conversation opens with a framing of the U.S. adjusting to multipolarity, the return of Trump, and various global tensions, noting that India’s role has received relatively less attention. - Speaker 1 reflects that 2025 was not a good year for India. At the start of the year, India expected to remain a fulcrum of U.S. policy to contain China and to shuttle between powers, maintaining a growing trade relationship with China while navigating U.S. pressures. The Trump presidency disrupted this balance. India perceived U.S. interference in its domestic politics, including alleged U.S. fingerprints in color revolutions in Bangladesh and Nepal, and a perception that U.S. entities like the National Endowment for Democracy were involved. The 50% trade tariff on India by the U.S. shocked New Delhi, and Trump’s public and private statements criticizing India complicated the relationship. - The discussion notes India’s sensitivity to becoming overly dependent on the U.S. for strategic protection against China, given Modi’s emphasis on Indian sovereignty and self-reliance. Modi’s perceived humility toward Trump, followed by a cooling of the relationship after Trump’s tariff threats, created a crisis of confidence in the U.S.-India alignment. Modi’s personal interactions with Trump—such as a cordial birthday exchange followed by threats of 100% tariffs on India—were seen as signaling mixed signals from Washington. - India’s options in 2025 include: (1) retrenchment and continuing to seek a balancing act between the U.S., China, and Russia; (2) charting an independent course by strengthening ties within BRICS and the Global South; or (3) aligning more with the U.S. with the hope of future U.S. policy shifts. The economic reality complicates choices: while India’s exports did reasonably well despite tariffs and some FDI, opening Indian dairy and agriculture to the U.S. market would threaten farmers’ livelihoods, potentially destabilizing an electorate sensitive to domestic issues. - There is a broader point about Washington’s approach: demand loyalty from regions and countries while using tariffs and pressure to shape alignment, and Trump’s approach is described as a fear-and-intimidation strategy toward the Global South. - On the China-India axis, the speakers discuss how China’s rise and India’s size create a power disparity that makes simple dominance difficult for either side. India’s strategy involves leveraging BRICS and other forums (including the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, SCO) to expand multipolar governance and reduce dependence on a single power center. The interlocutors emphasize that BRICS operates by consensus and is not a vetoed UN-style body; thus, it offers a platform where major powers can cooperate without a single dominant voice. - The potential paths for India include growing within BRICS and the Global South, seeking mutual economic advantages, and developing a strategy that reduces vulnerability to U.S. coercion. One line of thought suggests using digital tools to help Indian small and medium-sized enterprises access global markets, and building coalitions using shared developmental and financial needs to negotiate better terms in global trade, similar to how an OPEC-like approach could coordinate commodity pricing for the Global South. - The conversation also touches on border and regional issues: a historical context where Russia resolved border tensions with China via settlements that altered the balance of power; the suggestion that India and China could adopt joint administrative arrangements for disputed border zones to reduce conflict risk and foster cooperation, though this requires careful handling to avoid loss of face for either side. - The role of China is described as patient and multipolar-friendly, seeking to buy more from India and to cultivate mutual trade, while recognizing India’s internal challenges, such as power reliability and structural issues like caste and crony capitalism, which affect India’s ability to produce and export higher-value goods. - The broader takeaway is a vision of a more integrated multipolar Eurasia, where India’s leadership within BRICS/SC0 and its ability to create innovative economic arrangements—such as “resource bourses” or shared supply chains—could alter the balance of power and reduce dependency on U.S. policy dynamics. There is an emphasis on avoiding a new Cold War by fostering dialogue and joint governance mechanisms that include China, India, Russia, Brazil, South Africa, and other Global South actors. - The speakers close with a cautious optimism: 2026 could be better if nations learn to push back against coercive power, redefine security around development and governance rather than force, and pursue multipolar institutions that preserve autonomy while enabling peaceful competition. The expectation is that seeds of hope exist within these analyses, even as the present year has been challenging.

The BRICS countries are implementing large scale initiatives in the area of nuclear energy and aviation, new materials and IT industry, robotics engineering, and artificial intelligence. Certainly, particular attention is being paid to strengthening connection within the BRICS block. Their mutual goods turnover of our countries has already exceeded 1,000,000,000,000 U. S. Dollars and continues to grow. All of that are elements of the global platform for growth. They are founded on the key principles of BRICS, that is primarily consensus, parity, accounting for the interest of one another. Russia welcomes all of its partners to make their contribution to shaping new global growth model.

С двух сторон был нанесён удар по глобализму. Мы начали строить многополярный мир, отказываясь от либерализма и возвращаясь к традиционным ценностям. Это один фронт. Второй удар пришёл изнутри Вашингтона, что ставит в сложное положение таких лидеров, как Обама, Байден, Макрон и Кирстармер. Им теперь нужно выбирать: выступать против Америки, менять свою позицию или создавать фронт против Трампа. --- A blow has been dealt to globalism from two sides. We began building a multipolar world, rejecting liberalism and returning to traditional values. This is one front. The second blow came from within Washington, complicating the situation for leaders like Obama, Biden, Macron, and Starmer. They now face a choice: oppose America, change their stance, or form a front against Trump.

Jeffrey Sachs and the host discuss the four-year anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and reference the 12-year anniversary of the NATO-backed coup in Ukraine. They frame the conflict as humanitarian and strategic disaster, arguing it risks Europe and potentially nuclear escalation. They question why the war persists given high stakes. Sachs argues the war started from Western delusions in the 1990s that the US could bring Russia into a US-led world and reduce Russia to a secondary power or even fragment it. He cites Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1990s predictions of a divided Russia as evidence of “triumphalism” and says when Russia resisted Western demands after 2014 and 2022, those resistances were used by Western politicians to justify prolonging the conflict. He condemns Boris Johnson for saying Ukraine could not sign a peace with Russia without threatening Western hegemony, calling the situation “millions of lives” lost over a game of Western dominance. He characterizes European leaders as complicit, noting resistance to NATO enlargement in Europe but eventual acquiescence, and criticizes German leadership (Merkel, Scholz, and Scholz’s successor, Mertz/Merz?—context suggests Olaf Scholz and then Olaf Scholz and Friedrich Merz) for lack of truthful or constructive intervention. He emphasizes that the push for NATO enlargement and the Maidan coup signaled a failure by Europe to prevent war, with specific reference to the 2008 Bucharest Summit (NATO enlargement), the 2014 Maidan coup and the 2015 Minsk agreements, which Sachs claims Germany and France did not enforce. He asserts Merkel initially resisted but capitulated on enlargement, and that Minsk II was treated as a holding period to build Ukraine’s strength for war, a point he attributes to Merkel’s later statements. He argues Germany bears high responsibility as the largest EU member and a central actor in these decisions. Sachs then discusses what could have prevented the war, arguing that Germany should have counseled peace with Putin and engaged directly with the goal of avoiding escalation. He asserts that Merkel, Merkel’s successors, and the German leadership failed to prevent the conflict, calling for German initiative to seek peace. The conversation shifts to the possibility of negotiated settlement. The host notes Russia views NATO expansion and Ukraine’s invasion as existential threats, while Ukraine sees an existential threat from the invasion. The host asks what settlements might look like and what role the US and Europe should play. Sachs reiterates Germany as the key actor and calls for direct diplomacy between Germany and Russia to explore peace, suggesting a need for a political settlement and a reconsideration of Ukraine’s status. Sachs expands the discussion to global order. He references Brzezinski’s The Grand Chessboard, describing how Russia’s shift toward Eurasia and China challenged Western assumptions. He argues the West’s sanctions failed to keep Russia aligned with Europe, pushing Russia toward China and India, and turning the world toward multipolarity. He characterizes the US as a declining hegemon and Europe as demoralized and divided, with BRICS and other regions seeking prosperity through partnerships with China, India, and Russia. He argues that Europe should move away from Russophobia and toward collective security. The hosts touch on Joe Biden’s 1997 Atlantic Council remarks and Joseph Chamberlain’s imperial rhetoric as examples of misjudgments about global power dynamics. Sachs concludes by underscoring the need for a more realistic approach to the world order to avoid further conflict, and the host agrees to continue the discussion in the future.

Richard Sakwa, a professor of politics at the University of Kent, discusses the Ukraine war, diplomacy, and the deeper roots of the conflict across four to five interlinked levels, emphasizing how shifting narratives and power dynamics shape the path to peace. - Current phase and diplomacy: Sakwa notes that Europe is shifting from a war-framed narrative (unprovoked invasion, good-versus-evil) toward recognizing mutual security concerns and engaging in diplomacy. He cites the evolving European appetite for diplomacy, referencing past proposals (Kirill Dmitriev–Steve Witkoff peace framework) and recent 20-point peace plan, which Moscow finds unacceptable in full. He highlights that Washington and European capitals are now planning to engage Moscow more substantively, with the battlefield still central for months, before durable diplomacy can take hold. He frames this as a liminal moment where deeper root causes must be addressed if negotiations are to succeed. - Four to five layers of roots: Sakwa articulates a multi-layered framework to understand the war’s origins. 1) Internal Ukrainian layer: He contrasts two visions of Ukrainian statehood since 1991. The monist vision posits a primordial Ukrainian nationalism that can shed Russian (and Polish-Lithuanian) colonial legacies to reveal an inherent Ukrainian state. The alternative “Russo-Ukrainian” vision (the book and concept he has developed) portrays Ukraine as pluralistic, tolerant, multilingual, and multi-confessional. Moscow’s demand for denazification and protection of linguistic and cultural rights sits within this frame, illustrating a core domestic-divide issue in Ukraine. 2) Russo-Ukrainian interstate/intercultural layer: Sakwa emphasizes a mimetic dynamic (citing Rene Girard) where proximity and shared space between Russia and Ukraine fuel intense conflict, rooted in their shared East Slavic, Orthodox-leaning civilizational space and long entwined history. This layer explains why hostility persisted for decades and why nationalist tendencies in Ukraine resist rapprochement with Russia. 3) Intra-European layer: He argues we must go back to 1945 and beyond to understand postwar arrangements. The post-1990s “Atlanticist” settlement—NATO and EU leadership shaping Europe—marginalized Russia, fueling security dilemmas and NATO enlargement. He suggests that the Cold War’s end did not produce a pan-European continental unity; instead, European powers reinforced a Western-centered security order that contributed to the current conflict. 4) United States–Russia superpower layer: He describes a deteriorating US-led framework where attempts to manage Europe and Russia were compromised by changing US policies and leadership (including Trump’s unpredictable positioning). The envisaged peace by “above” (grand bargains among great powers) has faltered, revealing a weakened Western-led order and fragile strategic coherence. 5) Civilizational and new security architecture layer (potential fifth): He mentions a broader civilizational struggle narrative (Russia versus Western liberal order) and the possibility of shifting toward a post-Western Russia that remains European in identity. He also notes discussions about building parallel institutions (BRICS, SCO) as alternatives to Bretton Woods and a more plural security order, including the idea of a pan-European, post-American European security framework. - Civilizational and identity dynamics: The dialogue highlights decolonial tendencies in Ukraine, cautioning that portraying Russia as an imperial relic risks domestic and international instability (purging culture, language, media, and political parties). Solzhenitsyn’s observation about Russians and Ukrainians being both brotherly and destabilizing is invoked to illustrate the double-edged sword of deep cultural ties. Sakwa argues for a nation-building Ukraine that is distinct from Russia while not being anti-Russian, to avoid inflaming internal and regional security tensions. - European strategic trajectory and a post-American Europe: The conversation critiques ongoing European war-centering and NATO expansion, warning that a divided Europe risks becoming dependent on the US and vulnerable to external powers, including China. Sakwa advocates a pan-continental vision—potentially a North Eurasian confederation—rooted in UN Charter norms and multilateral cooperation, rather than renewed bloc confrontation. He fears the United Nations system itself is deteriorating under great-power politics, as seen in US withdrawals and the politicization of international bodies. - Outlook and optimism: Both speakers acknowledge a subdued optimism about small openings for diplomacy but remain broadly pessimistic about rapid resolution. Sakwa emphasizes the need for new ideas and a reimagined security architecture, warning that the current trajectory risks prolonging conflict and deepening divisions. In closing, Sakwa stresses that diplomacy is on the agenda but remains uncertain in its effectiveness, with a wary prognosis for a quick end to the war. The discussion underscores that resolving Ukraine’s crisis requires addressing deep-rooted structural issues across Ukrainian internal politics, Russo-Ukrainian relations, European security order, US–Russia dynamics, and broader civilizational narratives, while pursuing a cooperative, rules-based international framework.

Mario: Let's start with Venezuela. Do you think this is a strategy by Trump? Larry: I saw something similar back in 1988. The CIA was involved with trying to provoke Manuel Noriega into taking some action, so we could say we had to respond to set the stage for a military invasion, which I believe that in 2018, Donald Trump signed a finding authorizing a covert CIA action to get rid of Maduro. That attempt failed. And now the objective is to get control of the oil. That's the number one priority, with an eye toward the risk of a renewed Iran conflict and the prospect of shutdown of the Persian Gulf, and the need to have an alternative supplier. Ukraine defeating Russia was the plan, and Russia’s military is now around 1,500,000. Mario: What’s your initial reaction to Venezuela? I talked to John Kuriaki who said to read naval movements to gauge what the military plans. The buildup on the coast of Venezuela is significant. They’ve got 14, 12 warships, including the Gerald Ford. Do you think they are bluffing or this is a Trump strategy? Larry: It could be a bluff. I saw something similar in 1988. I was in the Central America branch, and the CIA’s analytical thrust was to provoke Noriega into taking action to justify a response and invasion. That happened in 1988. But that time there were US bases in Panama; Quarry Heights was full. Southern Command was there. Now Southern Command has moved to Miami, just near Southcom. Another issue: within the military, the concept of supported and supporting commands means the special operations command (SOCOM) would normally be the supporting commander, but here Southern Command would be subordinate to SOCOM, which is problematic because SOCOM cannot fight a conventional war. Delta Force, SEAL Team Six, and others are light infantry for raids, not mass warfare. So launching shells or sending ground forces won’t solve Venezuela; terrain is rugged and favors ambushes. If US troops ashore, body bags would likely exceed those from Iraq and Afghanistan. Venezuelans will fight, and insurgents from Brazil and Colombia could join. Decapitation strikes against Maduro could provoke an insurgency that the US would struggle to pacify. Mario: Could we see a decapitation strike like Israel against Hezbollah and Iran? Larry: Decapitating Maduro would still leave loyalists and other actors with weapons; an insurgency could erupt, and the US would be unable to pacify it. The real objective here is unclear. The State Department’s INL/INSCR programs have long documented Venezuela as a transit point for drugs; Trump claimed fentanyl is the issue, but most cocaine also goes to Europe. The 2018 Trump era mentioned the Trendy Aragua as a pretext to justify covert actions; I believe Trump signed a finding authorizing a CIA operation to remove Maduro, leading to Guaidó, but that failed. The broader agenda appears to be regaining oil influence and countering Russia, China, and Iran’s influence in Venezuela. Mario: Elaborate the agenda and strategy behind these strikes on boats out of Venezuela and Trump’s public acknowledgement of a CIA covert operation. What’s the strategy and intention? Larry: The objective is to restore oil control in Venezuela and reduce adversary influence. Maduro once aligned with the CIA, and Chavez/Maduro have maintained cordial relations with Moscow and Beijing. The US aims to curtail BRICS and reduce Venezuelan ties to Russia, China, and Iran, potentially moving Venezuela away from the dollar-based system. The theory that this is a message to Putin circulates, but if that were the aim, it’s a poor strategy given the broader geopolitical dynamics in Syria, Iran, and the Palestinian-Israeli arena. The US previously overpromised in the Red Sea and failed to secure freedom of navigation, signaling limited military capacity for large-scale campaigns. The objective of any Venezuela action must be concrete, otherwise it risks entanglement in an insurgency. Mario: Turning to general foreign policy under Trump. What about the national security strategy? Europe’s criticisms, and Trump’s approach to Ukraine—Witkoff and Kushner meeting Putin? Larry: The 2025 national security strategy signals change, but these documents are not blueprints; they’re guidelines. Europe is being asked to step up, while the US distances itself, arguing Europe’s resources and industrial capacity have diminished while Russia and China shift. Europe’s censorship and defense spending are under scrutiny. The US–UK intelligence relationship still lingers, but overall the West’s ability to project force is questioned. Russia and China’s relationship is deep and mutually reinforcing; the Rand Corporation’s earlier ideas that Ukraine would defeat Russia to force Moscow to join the West have not materialized. Ukraine’s fight has forced Russia to mobilize and shift front lines; casualty counts are contested, but Russia’s front has expanded with a larger force and higher attrition. Mario: What about Ukraine negotiations and Putin’s terms? Larry: Putin’s terms (as stated on 06/14/2024) are: Crimea, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson, Donetsk, and Luhansk permanently part of Russia; Ukraine must withdraw forces from those territories before negotiations begin. An election must be held in Ukraine with a legitimately elected president, potentially replacing Zelenskyy, and Russia would then talk to Ukraine. Russia’s stance treats these territories as non-negotiable; freezing lines is not acceptable to Russia. If negotiations fail, Russia is likely to maintain control over large parts of Donbas and southern Ukraine, potentially extending into Kharkiv and Odessa. Western military support is insufficient in scale to match Russia’s production; Russia’s oil revenue remains a significant portion of GDP, and the global south is pivoting toward BRICS, with Modi’s meeting signaling stronger ties with Russia and China. The strategic trend is a shift away from Western dominance toward a multipolar order. Mario: Larry, appreciate your time. Larry: Pleasure as always, Mario.

BRICS will continue to expand and may announce a new currency or trading system to counteract the American-led system. BRICS doesn't have to replace the dollar, it just has to threaten it, as finance is based on confidence. Putin will maintain a close relationship with China; he needs China to remain neutral so Russia can pressure the American empire. Over the next few years, the Ukraine war will continue without expanding. Iran will take the initiative against the United States. North Korea will become more belligerent, forcing America to focus on East Asia. The relationship between Putin and Xi Jinping will strengthen.

The speaker argues that Russia, China, and India are the major powers, with a potential union under SCO or BRICS posing a US disaster, a result of failed US policy. He claims only three powers matter—Russia, China, and the United States—and suggests a two-against-one dynamic, with the US aligning with Russia to isolate China. Citing Nixon’s 1971 pivot to China, he asserts this approach helped isolate the Soviet Union. He urges engaging with Russia rather than treating it as a pariah, noting the war in Ukraine blocks a pivot. At the Alaska summit, Trump reportedly listened to Putin unfiltered, and Putin seeks a comprehensive peace treaty with security guarantees, though misunderstandings over those guarantees (and Article 5) persist. The plan would involve Russia, China, perhaps Turkey, with minimal Western boots, and sidelining Zelensky to seal a quick deal.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss a cascade of developments around Ukraine, Russia, and Western policy. - Speaker 0 notes that Trump reportedly changed his stance on Tomahawk missiles, mentions a meeting with Zelensky where Zelensky supposedly urged acceptance of a Putin deal, and recalls that the Trump-Putin meeting was canceled. Speaker 1 responds that Russia has 100% made clear there will be no freeze and that for the war to end, Ukraine must leave all Russian territory. He says Tomahawk missiles were never on the table, that this was a pressure ploy by Trump to push Russia, and that it could have led to a thermonuclear war, which Putin reminded the US about in their conversations. - According to Speaker 1, Ukrainians will die, Russians will advance, Ukrainian economy will be destroyed, and Ukrainian energy infrastructure will be annihilated, leading to the collapse of Ukraine as a nation. Speaker 0 sketches a timeline: initial plans for a Putin-Trump-Zelensky sequence, Putin’s call after Trump hinted at Tomahawks, then a Zelensky meeting where Zelensky allegedly pressed Trump to accept a Putin deal, after which Tomahawks were no longer on the table and the Trump-Putin meeting was canceled. - Speaker 1 repeats: Tomahawks were never on the table; this was a pressure tactic. He explains the Russia-US exchange as frank, with Russia laying down the law; he asserts that the US would have faced a major escalation if Tomahawks had been supplied, because Tomahawks are nuclear-capable. He claims Ukraine would have been made a party to the conflict through US involvement. He adds that Russia will not accept a freeze because, constitutionally, Ukraine must leave all Russian territory, including Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Lugansk. - Speaker 0 asks why Tomahawks would matter, and Speaker 1 reiterates that Storm Shadow and Scout missiles are not nuclear capable, while Tomahawks would be, and contrasts this with Ukraine’s Flamingo drone, dismissing Flamingo as a propaganda tool. He describes Flamingo as a wooden drone designed to mimic a flock of birds and says it will be shot down and is not a serious threat; Ukraine’s drone capability is strong, with Ukrainians as the second-best fighters and drones in the world, while Russians are first in drone capability. - They discuss the trajectory of the war: Speaker 1 emphasizes that Russia’s advance is strategic, with drone warfare transforming the battlefield into piecemeal advances. He asserts Russia’s kill ratio of 36 Ukrainians to 1 Russian, and argues the West’s narrative of Russia suffering more is fantasy. He notes the West’s support for Ukraine drains Ukraine’s resources while Russia’s defense industry booms, and that Russia’s economy, energy, and sanctions resistance show resilience. - On economics, Speaker 1 claims the Russian economy is thriving; gas is cheap in Russia, Novosibirsk and Ekaterinburg are booming, and sanctions have not toppled Russia. He argues Europe’s sanctions are not beating Russia and that Russia’s ruble remains strong; he contrasts this with Western expectations of Russia’s collapse. - They discuss casualty figures and manpower. Speaker 0 asks for a definite casualty number; Speaker 1 cites Ukrainians dying daily (tens of thousands over time) and asserts Russians suffer hundreds daily on their worst day, noting Ukraine’s manpower shortages and Russia’s mobilization efforts: Russia conducted a one-time 300,000-mobilization; Ukraine has mobilized seven or eight times and relies on volunteers and external manpower, including Western units in some cases. He contends Russia’s total forces expanded to 1.5 million due to NATO expansion and ongoing operations. - On battlefield tactics, Speaker 1 explains Russia’s algorithm: three-man assault teams using drone support to seize bunkers held by larger Ukrainian forces, followed by reinforcement, all while drone warfare dominates. He asserts Ukraine’s drone capacity is strong, but Russia counters with its own drones and targeting of Ukrainian drone operators. - They debate why Russia would not freeze lines even if Ukraine yielded Donbas, Lugansk, and Donetsk. Speaker 1 insists those regions are Russian territory per referendum and constitutional absorption in September 2022, and argues that Ukraine cannot give up Donbas, which is Russia’s, and that a freeze would not be acceptable to Russia. He asserts that Moscow will not abandon these territories and that any idea of a freeze is a Western fantasy. - The discussion touches on the Minsk accords, the Istanbul talks, and the argument that Ukraine’s leadership initially pursued peace but later prepared for renewed conflict with NATO backing. Speaker 1 contends that Minsk was a sham agreed to buy time, and that Russia’s goal was to compel Ukraine to honor commitments to protect Russian speakers; Ukraine’s leadership is accused of pursuing war rather than peace after early negotiations. - They discuss Wagner and Prigozin’s role: Wagner provided a vehicle to surge capabilities into Lugansk and Donetsk; after September 2022 these troops were to be absorbed into the Russian military, but Prigozin continued operations in Bachmuth, recruited prisoners, and pressured for offensive allocations; this culminated in a confrontation with Shoigu and Gerasimov, and Wagner eventually faced disbandment pressure and a mobilization response. - In closing, Speaker 0 notes recent sanctions and Putin’s response condemning them as attempts to pressure Russia, while Speaker 1 reiterates that Russia seeks to end the war and rebuild relations with the US, but not under ongoing Ukraine conflict. He emphasizes that India and China will stand with Russia, citing strategic partnerships and the desire to maintain sovereign energy decisions, and predictsRussia will endure sanctions while seeking new buyers and alliances. - The exchange ends with Putin signaling that new sanctions will have costs for the EU, while Speaker 1 reiterates that Russia will adapt and maintain its strategic position, with China and India aligned with Russia rather than yielding to Western pressure.

Vladimir Putin presents a long, historically framed justification for Russia’s actions and the Ukraine conflict, arguing that Ukraine’s status and borders have been shaped by centuries of Russian influence, foreign domination, and shifting empires. He begins by outlining Ukraine’s origins in a narrative of a centralized Russian state forming around Kyiv and Novgorod, with key moments including the adoption of Orthodoxy in 988, the fragmentation of Rus, and the subsequent rise of Moscow as the center of a unified Russian state. He asserts that lands now in Ukraine were historically part of Russia, and that Polish and Lithuanian unions, as well as later Polish oppression and colonization, shaped Ukrainian identity as a fringe or border region rather than a separate nation. He claims documents show Ukrainian lands and peoples sought Moscow’s rule in 1654 and that Catherine the Great later reclaimed those lands for Russia, reinforcing a line that Ukraine’s borders were continually redrawn by empires. Putin emphasizes that the Soviet period created a Soviet Ukraine, and that Lenin’s decisions and Ukrainianization policies made Ukraine an “artificial state” formed by Stalin’s later redrawing of borders after World War II, incorporating Black Sea lands and other territories into the Ukrainian republic. He questions whether Hungary or other neighbors should reclaim lands lost in earlier centuries, and shares a personal anecdote about Hungarians in Western Ukraine as evidence of long-standing ethnic ties there. He suggests that post-Soviet borders were decided under coercive international pressures and that NATO’s expansion violated assurances given to Russia in 1990 not to expand eastward. The interview then moves to the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and Russia’s expectation of a welcoming partnership with the West that did not materialize. Putin contends that NATO expanded five times despite Russian hopes for cooperation, and recounts a perceived Western willingness to undermine Russia’s security through missile defense systems, support for separatists in the Caucasus, and a “special relationship” with Ukraine. He tells a story of a 2000s-era dialogue with US leaders about a joint missile defense system, describing assurances from US officials (Gates, Rice) that such cooperation might occur, which he says later failed and led Russia to develop its own hypersonic capabilities in response. He insists that the West’s treatment of Serbia in the 1990s—bombing Belgrade and overriding UN norms—demonstrates a double standard and a willingness to ignore international law when it serves Western interests. He asserts that the Bucharest 2008 agreement promised NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia, despite opposition from Germany, France, and others, and claims that President Bush pressured European partners to expand NATO anyway. He argues that Ukraine’s move toward association with the EU would harm Russian economic interests, given their interlinked industries, and that Yanukovych’s hesitation to sign the association agreement was abruptly exploited by the West, leading to the Maidan coup in 2014. On the Donbas and Minsk, Putin states that Ukraine’s leadership in 2014 declared they would not implement Minsk and that Western leaders openly admitted they never intended to implement Minsk. He says Russia’s goal was to stop the war started by neo-Nazis in Ukraine in 2014, not to invade in 2022, and he blames the West for pushing Ukraine toward militarization and for pressuring Kyiv. He claims the current Ukrainian leadership and its foreign backers refused to engage in negotiations and even banned talks with Russia, citing Istanbul negotiations as a missed opportunity that could have ended the war many months earlier. Denazification is presented as a central objective: Putin describes a nationalist Ukrainian movement that idolizes figures who collaborated with Nazi Germany, culminating in neo-Nazi iconography and the glorification of Bandera-era figures. He argues that Ukraine’s leadership and legislature have supported or tolerated neo-Nazi symbolism, including a Canadian parliament ceremony supporting a former SS member who fought against Russians. He insists denazification would mean prohibiting neo-Nazi movements at the legislative level and removing their influence in Ukraine, and says Ukraine’s leadership has refused to implement this, contrasting it with Istanbul’s negotiated proposals that supposedly prohibited Nazism in Ukraine. Regarding negotiations and settlements, Putin says Russia is open to dialogue and that Istanbul proposals could have ended the conflict eighteen to twenty-four months earlier if not for Western influence, particularly Johnson’s opposition. He states Russia is not seeking to humiliate Ukraine but wants a negotiated settlement, including the withdrawal of troops and protection for Russian-speaking populations. He suggests that Zelenskyy’s freedom to negotiate exists, but asserts Kyiv’s decrees and the influence of the United States and its allies have prevented meaningful talks. He contends that the Ukraine conflict is driven by a Western-led alliance system that seeks to deter Russia and preserve strategic advantages, while Russia seeks a multipolar world where security is shared. In discussing geopolitics and economics, Putin argues the global order is shifting. He notes a rising China and a growing BRICS, with the United States increasingly using sanctions and weaponizing the dollar, which he believes undermines American power. He provides statistics: Russia’s share of dollar-denominated trade has fallen, yuan and ruble use have risen, and he suggests the dollar’s role as a reserve currency is eroding as countries seek alternatives. He asserts that the world should not be split into two blocs and that cooperation with China is essential, highlighting a bilateral trade volume with China around 230–240 billion dollars and saying their trade is balanced and high-tech oriented. Finally, Putin discusses broader questions about religion and identity, linking Orthodoxy to Russian national character and arguing that Russia’s spiritual and cultural ties unify diverse peoples within the country. He rejects the notion that war contradicts Christian ethics, arguing that defending the homeland and its people is a form of protection rather than aggression. Throughout the interview, Putin reframes the Ukraine conflict as a consequence of Western expansion and security policy, presents Russia as seeking peace and dialogue, and positions Moscow as defending historical legitimacy, protecting Russian-speaking populations, and resisting a re-drawn European security architecture that he argues threatens Russia’s sovereignty. He repeatedly points to missed opportunities for negotiated settlement and emphasizes that additional talks remain possible if Western leadership chooses to engage in good faith.

Pepe Escobar and Glenn discuss the Iran situation amid escalating US-Israeli pressure and Iran’s response. Key points: - Iran as “the holy grail” in US policy: Iran has long been seen as the ultimate target within a broader project that includes Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran, with the goal of reshaping West Asia and advancing a Greater Israel concept. The project dates back to at least the nineties, with frameworks like the Project for the New American Century and Clean Break cited as influencing DC thinking. - War planning and messaging: The war was described as planned for decades, with Iran identified as the likely target when other measures failed. The Trump administration reportedly pressed forward, and the “barbarian baboon in the White House” metaphor is used to underscore perceived Zionist influence and financial beneficiaries around the war. - Domestic US-financial dynamics: The war’s perceived profitability for insiders is highlighted, naming Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Steve Lutnick, and others as profiting from related moves. The discussion emphasizes that financial markets (bond yields, gold, oil) influence US decisions, with high bond yields constraining US action. - Iranian strategic posture: Iran’s leaders reportedly signaled that there are no conversations with the US at the moment, and that a deal is impossible given the lists of demands from both sides. The Iranians have shifted from defense to offense, with missiles and drones increasingly employed. - Iranian deterrence and capabilities: The talk notes Iran’s use of missiles such as the Khorramshahr 4 and Fateh-2, with added emphasis on underground missile cities in the Sistan Baluchistan region and near the Afghan border. Iran’s deterrence is described as decentralized and mosaic, enabling precise targeting and escalation control. The Iranian approach includes limiting attacks to dual-use civilian infrastructure in Israel while avoiding civilianTargeted attacks in Iran, and threatening Dimona if Natanz is bombed. - Israeli and Iranian targeting: Iran has begun to attack civilian dual-use infrastructure in Israel and is targeting Haifa refineries and military installations near Ben Gurion Airport, while Israel continues to strike near Natanz and other Iranian sites. The balance of escalation is framed as a deterrence dynamic, with both sides escalating in different ways. - International alignment and support: Russia and China are described as backing Iran diplomatically and with intelligence support, including satellite intel and the movement of Iranian Shahids between Russia and Iran. The three BRICS actors—Russia, China, and Iran—are cited as central to a multipolar Eurasian integration project, with BRICS described as currently comatose or nonfunctional due to internal divisions and external pressures (e.g., UAE and India’s actions). - BRICS and SCO status: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization released a weak statement; BRICS is portrayed as having internal problems, with India’s actions, especially in relation to Iran, criticized as betrayals from many countries. Russia and China are positioned as active backers of Iran, while BRICS’s future is uncertain. - Iran’s regional strategy and neighbors: The discussion covers Azerbaijan, Turkey, and India’s roles. Azerbaijan could be drawn into potential conflicts, with Iran warning that involvement could bring severe consequences. Turkey is described as hedging and pursuing its own strategy; Erdogan’s stance is viewed as unreliable. India’s involvement is criticized for inviting Iran to participate in naval exercises and later backing away from condemning US actions against Iran, while still seeking to preserve a Middle East corridor aligned with energy and transport routes. - Long-term outlook: Iran is portrayed as fighting for the global South with Russia and China, challenging Western-dominated orders. The potential for a postwar settlement remains remote, given the Iranians’ demands (no more US bases in West Asia, reparations, no sanctions). Mediation is considered unlikely unless Russia intervenes as a mediator. The conversation concludes with the view that Iran’s resistance, continuity through leadership like the IRGC, and soft-power appeal have changed global perceptions, while the broader Eurasian integration project remains dependent on Iran, Russia, and China. - Closing note: The participants reflect on the costs and uncertainty of the conflict, noting that ending the crisis will require navigating deep geopolitical fault lines, including Azerbaijan and the broader energy architecture of Eurasia.

Спасибо за приглашение на конференцию, где обсуждаются важные вопросы международной безопасности. Безопасность включает не только военно-политическую стабильность, но и экономическую устойчивость, борьбу с бедностью и межцивилизационный диалог. Однополярный мир невозможен и губителен, так как он не учитывает интересы всех стран. Мы наблюдаем рост конфликтов и пренебрежение международным правом, что ведет к гонке вооружений. Необходимо искать баланс интересов и укреплять многостороннюю дипломатию. Россия готова к диалогу по разоружению и поддерживает международные усилия по нераспространению ядерного оружия. Важно создать справедливую экономическую систему, чтобы избежать радикализации и конфликтов. Россия будет продолжать проводить независимую внешнюю политику, стремясь к сотрудничеству с ответственными партнерами. --- Thank you for the invitation to the conference, where important issues of international security are discussed. Security encompasses not only military-political stability but also economic resilience, poverty alleviation, and inter-civilizational dialogue. A unipolar world is impossible and detrimental, as it does not consider the interests of all countries. We are witnessing an increase in conflicts and disregard for international law, leading to an arms race. It is essential to seek a balance of interests and strengthen multilateral diplomacy. Russia is ready for disarmament dialogue and supports international non-proliferation efforts. It is crucial to create a fair economic system to avoid radicalization and conflicts. Russia will continue to pursue an independent foreign policy, aiming for cooperation with responsible partners.

Спасибо большое. The international security landscape is far broader than military issues; it encompasses economic stability, poverty reduction, and intercultural dialogue. The Cold War left behind ideological stereotypes and double standards, and the attempted imposition of a unipolar world has failed. A unipolar world, with a single center of power, is neither acceptable nor feasible; it lacks a moral foundation and has generated new conflicts and human tragedies. The disregard for international law and the excessive use of force are destabilizing factors. The economic rise of countries like China and India reinforces multipolarity. We must work towards a balance of interests, reviving disarmament dialogue and ensuring the universal application of international law. The expansion of NATO raises concerns, and we need responsible partners committed to building a just and democratic world order for all. We support the peaceful use of nuclear technology but oppose its proliferation. Economic security requires fair competition and the rejection of political manipulation of energy prices. Russia is committed to playing a constructive role on the global stage while maintaining its independent foreign policy.