USA
Source: www.reuters.com

• Summary
• Modi says India will support every peace effort to stop fighting
• Modi tells Putin war needs cessation of hostilities for humanity's sake
• TASS says Putin ​briefs Modi on progress of Russia's special military operation

MOSCOW, Aug 31 (Reuters) - Indian Prime ‌Minister Narendra Modi told Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday that the war in Ukraine needed to end for humanity's sake and that New Delhi would support every peace effort to stop the ​fighting.

Modi, who made his comments at the start of talks with Putin ​in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek, called Putin "my friend" and hailed growing economic ⁠ties between the two countries which he said were guided by the need to ​put the interests of both nations above all else.

India, along with China, is one ​of the biggest buyers of Russian oil, which has helped Moscow replenish its budget since it sent tens of thousands of troops into Ukraine in 2022 and was hit with sweeping Western sanctions.

"As you ​are aware, India supports all peace efforts in this regard, and we shall continue ​to do so in the future," Modi told Putin on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation ‌Organization summit, ⁠according to a Kremlin transcript of their exchange.

"Every day that the war continues, humanity is, in effect, set back a step, whilst every step towards peace gives all of humanity real hope for peace. We need to move from endless war to an ​end to the war, ​to a cessation ⁠of hostilities. And we will need to move precisely in this direction," said Modi who has said before that he wants a ​peace settlement for Ukraine.

"Thank you very much, Prime Minister. We are ​moving forward ⁠along this path," Putin responded, according to state media.

The Kremlin - which has repeatedly said that Russia is only ready to end the war on its own terms, which Ukraine has ⁠dismissed ​as an unacceptable demand to capitulate - said after the ​talks that Putin had briefed Modi on how the special military operation, Russia's preferred description for its action ​in Ukraine, was progressing, the state TASS news agency reported.

India
Source: ddindia.co.in

The 18th Meeting of the Heads of Intellectual Property (IP) Offices of BRICS countries concluded its second day in New Delhi with member countries reaffirming their commitment to strengthening multilateral cooperation in intellectual property and promoting innovation, creativity and sustainable economic development.

The three-day meeting from September 1 to 3, being hosted by the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM), Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Around 35 delegates participated in the meeting through physical and virtual formats. Representatives from Russia, Iran and Ethiopia joined the deliberations online, while delegates from the other BRICS member offices attended in person.

The discussions were held in line with the theme of India’s BRICS Chairship – “Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation and Sustainability” – highlighting the role of intellectual property frameworks in strengthening technological resilience and supporting sustainable economic growth.
A key outcome of the meeting was the adoption of Updated Operational Guidelines for IP BRICS, aimed at promoting result-oriented cooperation, facilitating cross-border innovation and strengthening joint efforts in the development of global intellectual property standards.

The participating IP offices also highlighted the importance of protecting traditional knowledge and traditional systems of medicine as part of the shared cultural and intellectual heritage of BRICS countries.

The meeting took note of progress under a study on reinforced patent examination cooperation within BRICS, which seeks to streamline examination processes, reduce backlogs and facilitate greater exchange of patent search results among member offices.

Delegates also discussed the use of patent analytics and landscape studies to support technological development. Findings related to patent analytics and geographical indications (GIs) were noted as tools to improve efficiency and strengthen the protection and commercialisation of GI products across BRICS markets.

The meeting further concluded deliberations on several new initiatives aimed at deepening institutional cooperation. These include the BRICS Intellectual Property Awareness Series, IP BRICS FinTech Innovation Monitor, BRICS Industrial Property Commercialisation Forum and Best Practices Repository.

Other proposed initiatives cover intellectual property policies related to public health and development, research on design systems of BRICS countries, and a Manual of Patent Documentation and Information Resources of BRICS Countries.

The Heads of IP Offices stressed the importance of effective coordination mechanisms and periodic reviews to ensure timely implementation of joint projects and continuity of cooperation within the IP BRICS framework.

The participating delegates appreciated the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks and the Ministry of Commerce and Industry for organising the meeting.
The hosting of the annual IP BRICS meeting under India’s 2026 BRICS Chairship also reflects the country’s growing role in global intellectual property cooperation and its expanding IP ecosystem.

Russia
Source: en.kremlin.ru

Vladimir Putin met with Prime Minister of the Republic of India Narendra Modi in Bishkek on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit.

On the Russian side, the meeting was attended by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Prime Minister Alexei Overchuk, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Maxim Oreshkin, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office – Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov, Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov, Minister of Transport Andrei Nikitin, Minister of Economic Development Maxim Reshetnikov, Minister of Energy Sergei Tsivilev, CEO of the Russian Direct Investment Fund Kirill Dmitriev, Director of the Federal Service for Military Technical Cooperation Dmitry Shugayev, and Rosatom CEO Alexei Likhachev.

* * *

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Mr Prime Minister, friends,

I am very pleased to meet with you again. This time, our meeting takes place ahead of the SCO summit, an organisation committed to deepening contacts between the countries of the Global South and East, promoting socioeconomic and cultural development in the region, and fostering a just and multipolar world.

I would also like to note with satisfaction that Russian-Indian relations continue to develop as a specially privileged strategic partnership. This, esteemed Prime Minister, is due in no small measure to the attention you personally devote to strengthening our bilateral ties, as well as to our business relations and the warm and friendly personal relationship between us, which is something I greatly appreciate.

Your Foreign Minister, Mr Jaishankar, recently conveyed your message during a meeting in Moscow, and I fully endorse everything contained therein.

Next year, we will celebrate the 80^th anniversary of diplomatic relations and, of course, we are actively preparing for the upcoming BRICS summit in New Delhi in September.

Trade and economic cooperation is showing generally positive trends: last year saw a slight decline, but in the first six months of this year, bilateral trade has already grown by 2.6 percent.

A week ago, the Intergovernmental Commission met in Moscow and also delivered good results.
I would also like to say a few words about humanitarian cooperation. I want to highlight that India ranks among the leaders in the number of students enrolled in Russian universities: over the past ten years, this figure has grown sevenfold – a remarkable achievement – and now it stands at almost 40,000. Cultural festivals featuring Indian and Russian culture are held regularly, with the next one planned for 2027 in India.

Tourism between our countries is also on the rise, with growth in 2025 estimated at 16 percent. We coordinate our efforts closely within the UN, BRICS, the G20, and, of course, the SCO. Today we have an excellent opportunity to compare notes and chart the way forward for the further expansion of Russian-Indian relations.

Prime Minister of the Republic of India Narendra Modi (retranslated): Your Excellency, my dear friend,

I am very pleased to meet with you again today. Your visit to India last year was highly successful and remains fresh in our memory. We spent many hours together during that visit. We also organised a business forum, which was attended by major Russian companies, and thanks to that forum, our business cooperation has gained new momentum.

I am very pleased that both our teams and both our countries are working diligently to implement the summit decisions. It is gratifying to note that our cooperation continues to reach new heights, serving the interests of both nations. In doing so, we have always prioritised our national interests, the interests of our countries and our citizens, and we will continue to be guided by this same principle in the future.

Your Excellency, we have regularly discussed the issue of Ukraine. During our last meeting, you shared detailed information with me and covered all aspects of the current situation. As you know, India supports all peace efforts in this area, and we will continue to do so. Every day that the war continues, humanity takes a step backwards; yet every step towards peace gives humanity real hope. We must move from endless war to the end of war, to the cessation of hostilities. And we must move in precisely this direction. This is crucial for all of humanity. We must resolve all problems through peaceful means; the entire world demands this. And this is India’s message, among others: India is the country of Gandhi, the country of Buddha – that is our message.

Today, Your Excellency, we will have the opportunity to discuss all of these issues. And a few days after this summit, India will host the BRICS summit. Naturally, all the citizens of our country are very much looking forward to your visit and the visit of your delegation. Your visit will strengthen our bilateral relations and further deepen dialogue and interaction within BRICS.

Thank you very much.
<…>

China
Source: www.chinadaily.com.cn

BISHKEK -- Chinese President Xi Jinping said on Monday that, under his and Russian President Vladimir Putin's strategic guidance and through the joint efforts of both sides, the foundation of China-Russia relations will become ever stronger, their progress ever steadier, and their future ever brighter.

Xi made the remarks in a meeting with Putin on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) Summit 2026 in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan.

Xi said that during the successful state visit of Putin to China in May, he and Putin made arrangements to steer bilateral relations toward higher-quality and higher-level development from a strategic and long-term perspective, and reached consensus on deepening cooperation between China and Russia across various sectors under the new circumstances.

The competent authorities of the two countries are actively implementing the consensus, with substantial results already made, Xi said, adding that exchanges and cooperation between the two sides have maintained a strong momentum.

Xi noted that the international landscape is witnessing a notable increase in uncertain and unpredictable factors, against the backdrop of accelerating profound changes unseen in a century. But the pursuit of people across the world of peace, development, cooperation and win-win outcomes remains unchanged, he added.

The SCO shoulders the important responsibility for safeguarding regional stability and promoting regional development, he said.

China, he said, stands ready to work with Russia and other parties to jointly chart the course for the development of the SCO, help ensure its steady and sustained progress, and strengthen the driving force for reform of global governance and the advancement of an equal and orderly multipolar world.

Amid a turbulent and complex international landscape, Russia and China have continuously deepened their comprehensive strategic coordination, upholding equality, mutual trust, and mutual support, while cooperation and development across various fields have advanced rapidly, and Russia-China relations have become a model for relations between countries, Putin said.

Russia is willing to maintain high-level exchanges with China, strengthen cooperation in areas such as trade, energy, industry, transportation, and science and technology, enhance people-to-people and cultural exchanges, and promote bilateral relations to achieve new results, he said.

Through the joint efforts of all parties, the SCO has evolved into a dynamic and efficient regional cooperation platform with significant international influence, said Putin, noting that Russia and China should continuously strengthen their solidarity and cooperation within the organization and play a guiding role.

Russia is willing to strengthen coordination and cooperation with China within multilateral mechanisms such as the United Nations, the BRICS mechanism and the G20, support China in hosting the APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting, and jointly uphold world peace, stability and prosperity, he said.

The two heads of state also exchanged views on international and regional issues of common concern.

Russia
Source: eng.globalaffairs.ru

The 20th century was centered on the geopolitics of scarcity, with nations vying for control of limited resources concentrated in narrow geographic areas, such as oil fields, natural gas reserves, and strategic minerals. This competition forged alliances, fueled wars, and defined the hierarchy of global power.

The 21st century may be built on a different logic: power may increasingly derive not from controlling scarcity, but from regulating abundance. Agricultural biomass exemplifies this shift. Every year, the world produces billions of tons of agricultural waste: rice and wheat straw, corn stalks, and sugarcane residue—that are burned, discarded, or left to decompose. This waste constitutes one of the most abundant renewable resources on the planet, yet it remains largely invisible to markets, policymakers, and strategists. This invisibility is not accidental: it is a product of an international economic system built on rewarding concentration and scarcity rather than distribution and renewal.

Agricultural biomass should be understood as a form of strategic capital—a renewable asset capable of generating economic returns, technological leadership, institutional resilience, and geopolitical independence simultaneously.

Instead of treating agricultural biomass merely as an energy source or environmental asset, we can frame how renewable biological resources can be generated and transformed into sustainable geopolitical capabilities through coordinated industrial organization. By embracing this transformation, BRICS countries can reshape the political economy of energy and food, and regain strategic power.

From Scarcity to Abundance: The Geopolitics of Biomass

Since the mid-20th century, the global economy has been organized around the principle of scarcity-driven value. Resources that are finite, geographically concentrated, and difficult to extract—oil, natural gas, and critical minerals—command high prices precisely because their supply can be controlled. This control generates rents that fund states, corporations, and strategic influence.

The post-Cold War international energy system evolved around institutions and financial mechanisms that provided considerable influence to countries controlling capital, technology, maritime routes, and reserve currencies. This architecture has created dependencies that are increasingly being leveraged for strategic advantage. From the perspective of many BRICS policymakers, recent measures—such as the proposed 100% tariffs on Russian energy buyers, the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, and the U.S. controlling the Venezuelan oil supplies—are interpreted as part of a broader pattern of strategic competition over energy markets. This system, however, is beginning to fray. As carbon pricing mechanisms expand, as the costs of pollution become harder to ignore, and as the strategic vulnerabilities of fossil fuel dependence grow more apparent, the economic calculus is shifting.

Therefore, the agricultural biomass is becoming visible not because its physical properties have changed, but because the institutional frameworks for valuing it are finally emerging. As Chatham House report notes, transitions towards bio-based economies “bring a new set of geopolitical dynamics and could give rise to new dominant players with natural resource endowments, R&D and innovation investments, and processing capacities.”

The Biomass as a Strategic Asset

Agricultural biomass exhibits characteristics that are the opposite of fossil fuels. It is abundant rather than scarce, distributed rather than concentrated, renewable rather than finite, and locally manageable rather than dependent on complex extraction infrastructure.

India alone produces over 500 million tons of agricultural residues annually, of which nearly 92 million tons of rice stubble are burned each year. The economic cost of this practice is estimated at $339.4 billion annually, equivalent to 9.5% of India’s GDP, while the human toll reaches 1.72 million premature deaths annually from fine particulate pollution. China generates even larger volumes—over 600 million tons of crop residues annually. Brazil, Russia, and South Africa collectively add hundreds of millions more.

These residues have the potential to meet up to 25% of global liquid fuel demand, while simultaneously reducing dependence on imported chemical fertilizers, which cost India alone over $14.5 billion annually. Converting agricultural residues into biofuels and biochemicals could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 60–80% compared to fossil fuels, while improving soil health through biochar and compost application.

Shared BRICS Resource

While India exemplifies both the crisis and opportunity in agricultural biomass, it is by no means the only BRICS nation rich in this resource. Russia has extensive wheat and barley straw, Brazil boasts abundant sugarcane bagasse and soybean residues, China produces enormous volumes of corn and rice straw, and South Africa has significant maize and sugarcane residues. The critical issue is not which country dominates the feedstock supply, but whether BRICS nations can forge a collective framework to transform this dispersed resource into a shared strategic asset. Joint research centers, harmonized quality standards, and coordinated investment strategies could unlock far greater value than any single country could achieve on its own.

Traditionally viewed as a renewable energy source or a component of the circular economy, agricultural biomass should also be recognized as strategic capital—an asset that delivers sustained economic, technological, institutional, and geopolitical benefits through effective management and innovation.

Its value hinges on the technologies employed to transform and govern it, positioning biomass as a vital multidimensional asset for economic growth, technological leadership, institutional resilience, and strategic independence, ultimately contributing to both economic stability and international geopolitical stability.

Why Russia Matters: A Strategic Opportunity

Russia occupies a distinctive position in the emerging bioeconomy. As the world’s largest exporter of wheat and a major producer of barley, corn, and other grains, Russia generates substantial agricultural residues—estimated at 100–150 million tons annually. These residues represent not merely a disposal challenge but a strategic opportunity to diversify Russia’s economic base beyond hydrocarbon exports.

Moreover, Russia has developed significant expertise in biocatalytic and enzymatic conversion technologies through decades of investment in biotechnology and industrial chemistry. This scientific infrastructure provides a foundation for Russia to emerge as a technology exporter in the bioeconomy, rather than merely a feedstock supplier.

Geopolitically, Russia’s potential role in the bioeconomy aligns with its broader strategic objectives: reducing dependence on Western technology and financial systems, diversifying export markets towards Asia and the Global South, and building institutional frameworks within BRICS that are independent of Western-dominated structures. The bioeconomy offers Russia a pathway to maintain its status as a major power while transitioning from fossil fuel dependence to a more diversified and resilient economic base.

The Architecture of Implementation

The transition from agricultural residues to strategic capital requires an institutional architecture capable of coordinating investment, standardizing quality, facilitating trade, and sharing knowledge. Several building blocks already exist.

First, a BRICS Bioeconomy Platform. In February 2026, President Vladimir Putin proposed launching joint bioeconomy projects with BRICS partners, describing the sector as key “from the point of view of the quality of global growth.”

Second, dedicated financing through the New Development Bank (NDB). The NDB has committed to directing 40% of all its financing to climate and energy transition projects in 2026, with approved renewable energy projects totaling $300 million for Brazil, $250 million for India, $180 million for South Africa, and $81 million for China.

Third, BRICS Biorefinery Corridors. The existing BRICS STI Framework Program supports collaborative research on biomass conversion, which could be scaled into a network of biorefinery corridors linking feedstock-rich regions with industrial processing hubs.

Fourth, harmonized standards. In July 2026, India signed a first standards cooperation pact with BRICS partners, pointing towards a common regulatory framework for biofuels and biofertilizers.

Fifth, a common BRICS market for biofertilizers. The 2025 “Indore Declaration” by BRICS
Agriculture Ministers committed member states to strengthening food security through greater cooperation.

Finally, carbon market integration. BRICS countries could collectively negotiate access to international carbon markets.

These six institutional pillars, built on existing platforms, extend them into a coherent bioeconomy architecture. What is needed is not invention, but coordination.

Limitations of the Biomass Model

Any balanced perspective must acknowledge three key limitations. First, collecting agricultural residues is often economically unfeasible due to logistical challenges, particularly in areas with weak infrastructure, where the cost sometimes exceeds the value of the raw materials. Second, a portion of the residues must remain in the fields to maintain soil health, depending on local conditions. Third, biomass has a significantly lower energy density than fossil fuels—about one-third that of crude oil—which presents challenges in storage and transportation. However, technological advancements are gradually addressing these issues. These limitations underscore the need for innovation, regional collaboration, and the development of biorefining facilities. While biomass cannot completely replace oil, it has the potential to play a significant strategic role in future energy and agricultural systems.

The New Geopolitics of Strategic Abundance

Throughout modern history, strategic power has largely been associated with the possession of finite resources. Yet the defining strategic resource of the 21st century may prove fundamentally different. It will not be exhausted by extraction, but renewed with every harvest. The transition from fossil dependence to biological abundance represents not merely an energy transition, but a transformation in the political economy of power itself.

The 20th century taught states how to compete over finite resources. The 21st century may reward those capable of organizing renewable abundance. Oil shaped the geopolitics of the past, biomass may shape the geoeconomics of the future. The strategic question for BRICS is therefore no longer whether agricultural waste has value, but whether it is prepared to recognize that value before others do.

For BRICS countries, which collectively represent nearly half of humanity, this transition offers an opportunity to break the cycle of dependency and to build a more resilient, sustainable, and equitable economic order. The resource is abundant. The technology is available. What remains is the political will to act—not as a gesture of defiance, but as a demonstration of strategic foresight.

If the 20th century rewarded those who controlled oil wells, the 21st century may reward those who mastered biological production systems. In that world, the decisive geopolitical advantage will belong less to countries endowed with scarce resources than to those capable of transforming renewable abundance into strategic power. The decisive question for the emerging international order is therefore not whether renewable abundance exists, but which states will acquire the institutional capacity to transform it into strategic capital.

Russia
Source: eng.globalaffairs.ru

The 18th BRICS Summit, to be held on 12–13 September 2026 under India’s chairmanship at Bharat Mandapam in New Delhi, is set to be a major diplomatic spectacle. The elaborate protocol, heightened security and delegations from across the Global South are to symbolize the expanded BRICS’s growing political and economic weight. One major question on the agenda is who will write the rules of the emerging digital economy.

Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in its current generative form, is already reshaping trade, production, finance, and the exercise of state power. The World Trade Organization’s 2025 World Trade Report estimates that AI could increase global trade by 34–37% and global GDP by 12–13% by 2040. AI-related goods, including semiconductors and computing equipment, are already becoming major drivers of global trade, with AI-enabling goods hitting $2.3 trillion in 2023. Over 98% of global subsidies for AI-related products currently come from high- and upper-middle-income countries, risking a deeper concentration of AI capabilities.

This transformation is distributed extremely unevenly across countries. According to Stanford University’s 2026 AI Index Report, U.S. private AI investment reached $285.9 billion in 2025, compared to $12.4 billion in China. In 2025 the U.S. also had 5,427 data centers—ten times more than any other country. Nvidia alone accounted for more than 60% percent of reported global AI computing capacity. Yet, challengers are catching up with alternative efficiencies: China now leads with 69.7% of global AI patent filings, and the performance gap between U.S. and Chinese top AI models has collapsed to just 2.7%.

These figures point to a new geopolitical reality. Countries that control advanced chips, computing capacity, cloud infrastructure, foundation models, and data and technical standards will have greater influence over the next phase of globalization.

The rules will determine how data crosses borders. They will also determine how AI-generated content is identified, how copyrighted material can be used for training, and who bears responsibility for algorithmic harm.

The Global South, therefore, faces a strategic choice. It can adapt to the rules largely developed elsewhere, or it can become a rule-maker.

BRICS+ should choose the latter.

From Digital Sovereignty to Collective Rule-Making

BRICS+ has already recognized the stakes. The 2025 BRICS Leaders’ Statement on the Global Governance of Artificial Intelligence called for inclusive and development-oriented AI governance, greater participation by developing countries, and respect for national sovereignty. It also addressed data security, intellectual property, AI safety, and AI-enabled cybercrime.

The challenge is now implementation.

BRICS members already possess substantial regulatory experience. China has established rules for generative AI services and introduced mandatory identification requirements for AI-generated and synthetic content. Russia’s National Strategy for the Development of Artificial Intelligence to 2030, originally approved in 2019 and updated by Presidential Decree #124 in February 2024, treats AI as a strategic area of national technological and economic development. The revised strategy emphasizes domestic AI capabilities, computing infrastructure, trusted AI, regulation, and international cooperation, including greater coordination with partner states on AI development and governance.

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 and the 2025 DPDP Rules provide a framework for personal-data governance. India’s AI Governance Guidelines, released in February 2026, offer “a coherent and balanced AI governance framework that favor innovation while safeguarding trust, equity, and accountability.” Brazil has advanced AI regulation through PL 2338/2023, approved by the Senate in December 2024 and currently under consideration in the Chamber of Deputies. Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) has proposed amendments to strengthen regulatory coordination and information-sharing, including cooperation on high-risk AI systems. South Africa’s 2024 National AI Policy Framework provides a foundation for AI policy that covers infrastructure, skills, research, innovation, responsible AI, and regulation. Its draft National AI Policy was withdrawn in April 2026 for revision, leaving the 2024 Framework as the country’s principal AI policy foundation.

These approaches, still evolving, are not yet aligned with one another. They must not be identical, but BRICS+ should work towards ensuring their interoperability. Common principles and technical standards could make different national systems compatible, without requiring that countries surrender their regulatory sovereignty.

The emerging international rulebook

The wider international framework is moving quickly.

The UN Global Digital Compact calls for international cooperation on AI, capacity-building in developing countries, and interoperable approaches to data and AI governance. The UN General Assembly has also established an Independent International Scientific Panel on AI and a Global Dialogue on AI Governance.

The WTO framework is equally important. The General Agreement on Trade in Services, the TRIPS Agreement and WTO work on electronic commerce already intersect with digital services, intellectual property, and cross-border data.

The lapse of the WTO moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions on 30 March 2026 provides a warning. The WTO members failed to reach consensus on extending the moratorium at MC14, thereby making digital trade rules part of the wider contest over economic sovereignty.
BRICS+ cannot afford fragmented positions on these issues. Individual developing economies will have less negotiating power if they approach them separately.

What BRICS+ Should Do

The New Delhi Summit should advance a practical BRICS+ Digital and AI Governance Framework with an emphasis on four priorities:

1. Data governance. BRICS+ should develop common principles for cross-border data transfers, privacy, cybersecurity, and trusted data-sharing. The objective should be neither unrestricted data flows nor absolute localization. Interoperable safeguards would preserve national regulatory choices while reducing unnecessary barriers to trade and research.
2. AI-generated content. China’s experience with mandatory labelling offers a practical starting point. BRICS+ could develop compatible standards for identifying synthetic text, images, audio, and video. Such standards would matter for elections, journalism, financial markets, diplomacy, and law enforcement.
3. Common position on intellectual property. AI developers are training models on enormous volumes of copyrighted material. BRICS+ should coordinate its approach to training data, licensing, transparency, and compensation. The aim should be to protect creators, without making AI development inaccessible to developing economies.
4. Cybersecurity and AI safetyaddressed together. Common minimum requirements for high-impact AI systems, incident reporting and model security would make national frameworks more compatible.

BRICS+ should also coordinate its positions in the ITU, ISO, IEC, UNESCO, and other standards bodies. Technical standards often become de facto global rules because companies adapt their products to major markets’ requirements.

The larger geopolitical question
The post-1991 international order has created an unusually concentrated distribution of economic, financial, and technological power. AI is now adding yet another layer to this structure.

For the Global South, the danger is not only in technological, but also in regulatory dependence. A country that imports AI systems, computing infrastructure and digital services may also end up adopting rules developed elsewhere. Its ability to shape how AI affects trade, employment, public services and national security would then remain limited.

BRICS+ has many of the assets required to avoid such outcome. Its members possess large markets, energy resources, scientific expertise, manufacturing capacity, digital infrastructure, and financial resources. Their combined weight gives them greater negotiating capacity than most developing countries can exercise individually.

The missing ingredient is coordination.

India’s 2026 BRICS chairmanship has already placed digital cooperation on the agenda. The BRICS ICT Working Group met in Pune in August to discuss AI, cybersecurity, future networks, digital public infrastructure, and digital ecosystem integration.

The New Delhi Summit should take the next step. BRICS+ should establish a coordinated position on AI and digital governance and carry it into negotiations at the UN, WTO, ITU, UNESCO, and international standards bodies.

The objective should not be a separate BRICS+ digital order. It should be a stronger Global South role in determining the global one.

***
The AI age is arriving while the international system is becoming more contested and multipolar. Economic power is dispersing, but technological power remains highly concentrated.
Multipolarity without technological and regulatory agency would therefore remain incomplete.
The spectacular event at Bharat Mandapam will last two days. The rules being written around AI will last much longer. BRICS+ should use the 18th BRICS Summit to make one proposition unmistakable: the Global South will enter the emerging digital order as a rule-maker, not a rule-taker.

India
Source: www.ibef.org

India and Brazil have reaffirmed their commitment to deepen bilateral trade and economic cooperation, with both countries targeting Rs. 2.65 lakh crore (US$ 30 billion) in bilateral trade by 2030. The commitment was made during the eighth India-Brazil Trade Monitoring Mechanism (TMM) meeting in Brasília, co-chaired by Commerce Secretary Mr. Rajesh Agrawal and Brazil’s Secretary of Foreign Trade Ms. Tatiana Lacerda Prazeres. Bilateral trade reached Rs. 1.33 lakh crore (US$ 15.07 billion) in FY26, with discussions focused on expanding and diversifying trade across pharmaceuticals, chemicals, engineering goods and machinery. India and Brazil also reviewed progress on the India-MERCOSUR (Mercado Común del Sur/Southern Common Market) Terms of Reference and committed to their early finalisation. Trade between India and the MERCOSUR bloc reached Rs. 1.84 lakh crore (US$ 20.84 billion) in 2025. Both sides recognised the scope to expand and modernise the India-MERCOSUR Preferential Trade Agreement and strengthen market access for businesses.

The two countries also advanced cooperation in pharmaceuticals, agriculture, trade facilitation, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and entrepreneurship. India highlighted the need for predictable regulatory pathways and greater market access for Indian pharmaceutical products in Brazil, with the CDSCO-ANVISA memorandum of understanding signed in February 2026 providing an institutional framework for healthcare and pharmaceutical cooperation. Discussions on agriculture covered phytosanitary requests and reciprocal market access, while progress was noted on mutual recognition of Electronic Certificates of Origin. India and Brazil also reaffirmed coordination through BRICS, the G20 and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), including cooperation on the Strategy for BRICS Economic Partnership 2030 and the Global Value Chains (GVC) Action Plan 2026-2030. An India-Brazil High Level Business Reception in Brasília brought together industry representatives, with an Indian delegation of more than 25 companies exploring opportunities across critical minerals, renewable energy, agri-business, infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, digital services, logistics and advanced manufacturing. The establishment of an ApexBrasil office in New Delhi is expected to further strengthen business-to-business linkages and facilitate Brazilian investment in India.

USA
Source: www.reuters.com

MOSCOW, Sept 2 (Reuters) - Russia and India, the second-largest importer of Russian oil, have built a functioning payments infrastructure using roubles ​and rupees, which now account for 96% of ‌bilateral trade, a senior Russian banker said on Wednesday.

Russia's trade with India reached a record $70 billion in 2024, tripling since the start of ​the conflict in Ukraine in 2022, as India ​stepped up imports of Russian oil discounted due to ⁠Western sanctions. Bilateral trade fell in 2025 when those ​sanctions were tightened but rebounded in the first half of ​2026.

Get a look at the day ahead in U.S. and global markets with the Morning Bid U.S. newsletter. Sign up here.

"There are no problems with settlements between Russia and India. I am ready to say that this is one of the most reliable ​and best-established mechanisms for Russia's payments with other countries," said ​Ivan Nosov, head of Sberbank in India.

Russian businesses had previously complained about ‌an "overhang" ⁠of rupees, an only partially convertible currency, in bilateral transactions, as well as trade imbalances, with Indian exports to Russia lagging behind surging imports of Russian oil.

According to official ​data, 22 Russian ​banks, including ⁠Sberbank, Russia's largest lender, which was tasked with developing the payments infrastructure, and 17 Indian ​banks are currently servicing bilateral trade.

Nosov said that ​90% ⁠of all transactions between Russia and India are processed within 10 minutes, while more than 50% are processed in less than ⁠one ​minute.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hailed growing ​economic ties with Russia when he met President Vladimir Putin on Monday.

China
Source: www.chinadaily.com.cn

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China's first-half results showed that international operations of China's largest State-owned commercial lender continued to develop steadily, while its global service capabilities were further strengthened.

At a news conference announcing ICBC's 2026 interim results on Friday, Liu Jun, president of ICBC, said the bank was accelerating its shift away from a traditional, credit-driven growth model and seeking new growth momentum through greater integration, internationalization and digitalization.

ICBC reported operating revenue of 465.86 billion yuan ($69.27 billion) in the first half, up 9.1 percent year-on-year, while its net profit rose 4.54 percent to 176.48 billion yuan.

"If past growth relied more on economies of scale, future development will inevitably require us to reshape the growth equation through deeper reform," Liu said.

He emphasized that banks' internationalization today is increasingly centered on the internationalization of the renminbi, involving both the expansion of renminbi use overseas and a broader global footprint.

From breaking down barriers related to foreign-exchange costs to creating faster and more efficient cross-border settlement services, ICBC is leveraging its capabilities in pricing and trading renminbi assets to provide solid financial support for China's domestic and international economic cycles, he said.

As of the end of June, ICBC had established 398 overseas institutions in 49 countries and regions and had indirectly covered markets in many African countries through its equity stake in Standard Bank, the largest bank in Africa.

ICBC's total overseas assets stood at $511 billion at the end of June, up more than 11 percent year-on-year and 3.94 percent from the end of last year. Overseas operations accounted for about 10 percent of the group's pre-tax profit, with their contribution to the group continuing to increase steadily.

Zhang Weiwu, senior executive vice-president at ICBC, said in the first half, the bank's international settlement volume rose 41 percent year-on-year. As of the end of June, its outstanding loans supporting Chinese companies' overseas expansion rose 9 percent from the beginning of the year.

Meanwhile, ICBC continued to strengthen platforms for international cooperation. Zhang said the bank has fulfilled its role as the chair of the BRICS Business Council Chinese Chapter, supporting cooperation among companies from BRICS countries. It also continued to expand and enhance the China-Europe Business Council, which now covers 136 members, including 51 Fortune 500 companies.

Through the Belt and Road Bankers Roundtable, ICBC has supported high-quality Belt and Road cooperation, with the number of member and observer institutions expanding to 216 in 79 countries and regions.

The bank has also continued to expand the use of the renminbi in cross-border business, launching comprehensive cross-border RMB financial solutions focused on areas including new quality productive forces, digital trade and the international expansion of Chinese companies, Zhang said.

In the first half, ICBC's group-wide cross-border RMB settlement volume reached 5.5 trillion yuan, up 9 percent year-on-year.

The bank continued to strengthen its cross-border RMB payment network and enhance clearing infrastructure. After expanding its network of RMB clearing banks to 12 countries, ICBC was authorized in June to jointly serve as RMB clearing banks for Africa, together with Standard Bank. In the first half, the RMB clearing volume handled by overseas RMB clearing banks operated by ICBC increased 16 percent year-on-year.

The bank also continued to strengthen its services to the offshore RMB market. In the first half, the group's offshore RMB foreign exchange market-making and client trading volumes increased 36 percent year-on-year. During the same period, ICBC underwrote 24.7 billion yuan in panda bonds, up 65 percent year-on-year, Zhang said.

"Going forward, we will continue to focus on serving the real economy and supporting China's new development paradigm, strengthen our integrated domestic and overseas operations, and further enhance our capabilities in the global allocation, trading and pricing of renminbi assets, making a greater contribution to China's high-level opening-up," Zhang said.

In China, ICBC continued to deepen its financial support in the five major areas of finance and dynamically optimize its business structure. As of the end of June, the bank's outstanding green loans exceeded 7 trillion yuan and outstanding loans to core industries of the digital economy stood at 1.26 trillion yuan.

Wang Jingwu, senior executive vice-president and chief risk officer at ICBC, said the bank has closely aligned its business with national strategies, optimized the allocation of assets and its credit structure, and steadily advanced asset-quality management.

As of the end of June, ICBC's nonperforming loan ratio stood at 1.29 percent, down 0.02 percentage points from the end of last year, while its provision coverage ratio rose 3.98 percentage points to 217.58 percent, indicating that the bank's risk-resilience capacity remained solid.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Dear friends,

I am delighted to attend the Eastern Economic Forum again. I have visited all its 11 editions and believe that with every passing year the forum is not only increasing its attendance but is also increasing the scope of issues for discussions. The issue of young people is especially relevant now.

Eurasia is our common continent, the most rapidly growing, the richest and the most densely populated continent that is distinguished from the other continents by the fact that it is home to several great civilisations, which have maintained their identity throughout thousands of years. One of them is our multinational Russian civilisation, which stands side by side with the Indian, Chinese, Ottoman, Persian and a number of other civilisations.

That is why young people, who are showing a growing interest in interacting with their Eurasian neighbours while remaining open to communication with their peers on other continents, should absorb this history. It is very difficult to preserve one’s national identity without feeling part of what our ancestors did, what they protected and lived for. And while preserving this identity, it is important to remain open to the entire world.

This has been a distinguishing feature of our country, our people and our leaders throughout history, including before the establishment of the Russian Empire, during and after the reign of Peter the Great, during the Soviet period, and in modern Russia.

The Eastern Economic Forum is a successful platform. It attracts guests from widely different countries. The leaders of India, China, Malaysia, Mongolia and Myanmar have attended it. The leaders of Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Laos and Thailand have visited it in various capacities. In the past, when the West maintained normal relations with our country, the forum was visited by the leaders of those countries that now have unfriendly governments, such as Japan and South Korea.

The business segment of the Eastern Economic Forum has long gone far beyond the geographical boundaries of Eurasia. Its frequent guests include businesspeople from South America, Africa and the Middle East.

Of course, we remain open to contacts with everyone who sincerely wants to set aside misguided ideologies and distorted politics, instead focusing on natural interests, primarily in the economic and social spheres. We have never shut our door, but we don’t want to be placed in a situation where we will depend on the “goodwill” of our so-called former Western partners.

We are developing our multilateral cooperation on the Eurasian continent through venues and platforms that are based on the principles of equality, mutual benefit and honest dialogue, which are entirely different from those of Western-oriented structures. These platforms include the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (which held a regular summit in Bishkek, the capital of Kyrgyzstan, the other day), the Eurasian Economic Union and ASEAN. They have signed memorandums of cooperation at the level of their general secretaries, emphasising their desire to harmonise their economic and social development, trade and investment programmes in order to avoid overlapping and to more effectively use the potential of these organisations.

We maintain contacts with such organisations as the Asia Cooperation Dialogue. There is also BRICS, which is broader than Eurasia but has the leading states of our continent among its members. The Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) is becoming involved in the processes which we are doing our best to stimulate within the Eastern Economic Forum.

This cross-platform cooperation between these structures is developing, growing deeper and creating a new agenda. It is objectively beneficial to all those who are engaged in these processes and constitutes the essence of what President Vladimir Putin described as Greater Eurasian Partnership more than ten years ago. He did not present it as an initiative but as principles for shaping this partnership.

This initiative has been enshrined in Russia’s Foreign Policy Concept, which was approved in March 2023. It provides for shaping a partnership based on the coincidence of economic and development interests open to every single country in Eurasia, the largest continent on the planet.

For a long time, the use of the advantages of the world’s largest and richest continent, given by God and geography, has been hindered by the policy which the West pursued and continues to pursue. The West is carrying it out even more fiercely, if not frantically now, seeking to divide our continent. You probably know that they are physically building walls along the border between the European Union and the Russian Federation and digging ditches that are a hundred metres wide (I don’t know how deep) to prevent Russia from “conquering” them.

That is a sick imagination. Moreover, I think that this is not so much a sick imagination as a deliberate policy. They – NATO and the EU – always need an enemy. Without an artificially created image of Russia as the enemy, people would get rid of their governments in the overwhelming majority of EU and NATO countries.

Our position is the exact opposite. We believe that the use and development of wealth given to our continent by God and geography should be open to all nations living here. Even if we approach this issue purely pragmatically, this will at least cut costs.

We are not building walls; we don’t want to isolate ourselves from Europe. But Europe has isolated itself from us. It has decided that our past cooperation was so important for the Russian Federation that we would plead and beg them to forgive, forget, go back, and lift sanctions. We won’t do this. It is against the genetic code of our people. e have, if you like, a pride of our own in the best sense of the word. We don’t need anybody’s goodwill. We have enough friends and partners who are ready to play fair.

Europe is not ready to cooperate in earnest, nor does it know how to do it. For more than five hundred years, Europe has been the main source of many troubles and misfortunes that have afflicted humanity. It was where two world wars began, and it is also the source of the current situation, in which it has simply stifled itself with the sheer volume of sanctions and illegal restrictions it has imposed in an attempt to defend what it considers its right to hegemony in global affairs.

Europe has never lived by its own resources or its own wits. It has always lived at the expense of others, both during the era of colonial rule and the era of slavery. Now, these unprecedented sanctions have been imposed simply because Russia is defending the interests of its people, who, in our view, have been oppressed by the Nazi regime in Ukraine. The sanctions imposed on states that cooperate with or even simply trade with Russia demonstrate that this neo-imperial, colonial – I would even say neo-Nazi – spirit remains deeply entrenched in Europe.

I have already mentioned in several of my speeches that I was simply stunned by the resurgence of Nazism in Germany. But when German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that he would once again make Germany the leading military power in Europe, I was genuinely shocked. Because if he does not understand what the word “again” means in this context, then it is indeed very sad and extremely dangerous for Europe, which is once again becoming a breeding ground for ideas of national and racial superiority.

As I have already said, we are choosing a different path. I have listed the organisations with which we cooperate: the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN, the Asia Cooperation Dialogue, and several others. One of the fundamental formats for interaction in these global spaces has always been the ASEAN Plus partners format. Russia, along with a dozen other states, is a strategic partner of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Every year, ASEAN brings its partners together for a summit. The ASEAN Ten –now eleven, following the admission of Timor-Leste – plus ten partner countries make up the East Asia Summit. This format is open to other states wishing to join, and applications can be submitted at any time. The East Asia Summit is based on what are now commonly referred to as universal principles of inclusiveness. In other words, all participants have equal rights. The mechanism is open to countries that uphold the principles and values promoted at these summits.

The West dislikes structures where it has to be part of a consensus. This is increasingly characteristic of the West, and particularly of Europe: the Anglo-Saxons – primarily the British, but also the Americans, including the current administration – are increasingly driven by the desire to continue dictating their will. These neo-colonialist tendencies are very tenacious.

Now, all Western diplomacy boils down to... Diplomacy is about reaching an agreement. I have already said that it is the oldest profession. Even in what was once considered the oldest profession, an agreement had to be reached first. Therefore, diplomacy is the oldest profession. I ask everyone to keep this in mind. However, the West seeks to dictate rather than reach an agreement. For them, diplomacy has now been supplanted by sanctions. From the perspective of our Western colleagues, sanctions are immediately imposed on anyone who “does something wrong”: primary, secondary, tertiary sanctions, and whatever comes next.

The West dislikes the consensual nature of the processes that have been evolving around ASEAN for many years. The Bali Treaty – the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, which laid the foundation for ASEAN cooperation – was signed in the mid-1970s. Since then, the Association has continued to develop. Yes, it has been a slow process – you know where haste is necessary, but building consensus takes time. It can take months or even years. But a consensus reached through such lengthy efforts is far more reliable and durable than a hastily imposed ultimatum. This, I believe, is clear to everyone.

Now the West seeks to dismantle the inclusive format that has developed around ASEAN, undermine its central role, and undermine the principles upon which the Association builds cooperation with its partners: consensus, mutual respect, and mutual benefit.

To achieve this, various bloc-based “trios” and “quartets” are being created. There is AUKUS: the United States, Britain, and Australia. This group aims to implement a nuclear-powered submarine programme for Australia using American and British technology. However, the activities of this nuclear “trio” do not fully comply with the standards and norms established for all countries within the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) framework. We are carefully examining this matter because failure to comply with, or partial compliance with, IAEA standards carries a risk of the proliferation of military nuclear technology. Unfortunately, the organisation’s current leadership seems to be taking this matter very lightly, clearly under severe pressure from the United States and Britain.

Blocs of four, or so-called “quartets,” are also being created. There is the QUAD format, or Quadrilateral Security Dialogue: the United States, Japan, Australia, and India. Our Indian friends are very uncomfortable within this format. They joined it solely because they saw the potential for additional economic opportunities. But as soon as they joined, the Americans and Japanese immediately began doing everything possible to imbue this positive economic “quartet” with a military component. They organise, or attempt to organise, maritime security exercises and are keen to draw our Indian friends, our closest partners, into games directed against another of our great friends, the People’s Republic of China.

Attempts are being made to establish a second QUAD, with the Philippines supplanting India in this so-called “quartet,” with the manifest intention of fracturing ASEAN unity. There also exists an Indo-Pacific Four – Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, and Australia. Furthermore, efforts are underway to devise numerous other configurations of restricted membership and bloc orientation. Additionally, NATO is actively advancing into this region, intent on embedding its infrastructure here.

Several years ago, the then NATO Secretary-General, Jens Stoltenberg, was queried at a news conference regarding NATO’s designs on Southeast and Northeast Asia. After all, the Washington Treaty, which established the North Atlantic Alliance, stipulates that the bloc’s principal objective is the defence of its member states’ territories. What, therefore, is the relevance of the eastern extremity of the Eurasian continent and its territories to this mandate? Without the slightest hesitation, he asserted that the bloc’s purpose – the defence of member territories – remained unchanged, but that contemporary threats to those territories now emanate from the Taiwan Strait, from Southeast Asia at large, and so forth. This is merely a pretext.

NATO is desperately seeking new rationales to prolong its now thoroughly artificial existence. This organisation ought to have dissolved itself, as the Warsaw Pact did, following the collapse of the Soviet Union. It did not. Initially, NATO found a justification for maintaining this military bloc in the events in Afghanistan. Subsequently, when that episode ended in disaster for NATO – it fled ignominiously – the “Russian threat” was conjured up to supplant the former Soviet threat.

Yet it is not only NATO that seeks to entrench its architecture in the region. Now, the concept of an Indo-Pacific Treaty organisation has been put forward. There is, in fact, a bill before the US Congress, which has lain dormant for several months, but which nevertheless provides for the establishment of such a body. In essence, this would amount to a replication of NATO’s ideology and mindset in the very region where we now find ourselves.

I have already mentioned the dangers associated with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The triangle comprising the United States, Japan, and South Korea has been intensifying its military collaboration and conducting joint exercises. Admittedly, US President Donald Trump recently cancelled, or at least drastically reduced, his plans for military exercises with these countries. Nevertheless, the overarching trend is unambiguous: military interaction within the US–Tokyo–Seoul triangle is being reinforced. Moreover, the South Koreans, and more recently the Japanese under Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, have demonstrated an increasing interest in ensuring that this military cooperation acquires nuclear components, which likewise exacerbates the threat and risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Therefore, I reiterate: our open policy, which is shared by the majority of countries in this region – the policy of establishing universal mechanisms for collaboration and fostering linkages among these mechanisms – the SCO, the EAEU, ASEAN, and other structures, including, incidentally, the GCC (which has also been invited to participate in these linkages) – this open and sincere approach is being countered by a strategy aimed at creating closed blocs of an overtly aggressive character. It is not concealed that all these “troikas” and “quartets” pursue, as their primary objective, the undermining of ASEAN’s central role, seeking to supplant this positive, central function with these bloc-based concepts.

The strategic goal – the containment of the People’s Republic of China – is not concealed either. And, simultaneously, the containment of Russia. It is believed by the Americans and their allies that the main task in this region is to diminish China’s influence – and ours as well, as we are the closest strategic partner of the People’s Republic of China.

The situation on the Korean Peninsula also plays a substantial role, where, despite the many twists and turns demonstrated by US President Donald Trump in relation to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (he recently declared that he enjoys very good relations with Kim Jong-un, that they are friends, and that they are prepared to meet and engage; God willing, should they succeed in easing tensions), the core of the US strategic line there remains, of course, the containment of the DPRK.

Thus, this region presents the West with an array of tasks from the perspective of preserving its dominance. This is no secret. All those who develop with relative independence (I am not referring solely to China, Russia, or the DPRK), who, in spite of pressure, do not renounce maintaining trade, economic, cultural, and educational ties with the Russian Federation – all of them are subject to the pressure which the West exerts on them, based on its philosophy of dominance. For this reason, the region is of considerable interest.

I have heard that many of you aspire to pursue careers in fields related, in one way or another, to foreign policy. I can say candidly: you will not be short of work.

Everything we are now discussing represents long-term trends that must be considered in the context of what we term the formation of a multipolar or polycentric world. The West, which for five centuries controlled global development with varying degrees of success, is now confronted with the objective trend towards the emergence of new centres of economic growth, financial power, political authority, including military influence.

China stands as the foremost example. Then there are India and Brazil. Russia has always been counted among the independent actors on the global stage, save for a brief period following the dissolution of the Soviet Union until the early 2000s. Thankfully, that period is long past. To resist this multipolarity is to resist a force that cannot be stopped. Moreover, China is advancing at a pace that has long been unattainable for the West.

The same applies to India and many others.

Africa is now awakening for the second time. Whereas in the 1960s Africa attained political independence and spent decades taking pride in having cast off the yoke of colonialism, it now realises that, though it has liberated itself politically, it remains economically dependent on its former metropoles. Africa’s economy is, to a large extent, founded on the scheme imposed by the departing colonisers, whereby raw materials are extracted from Africa, while all added value is generated in the metropoles.

I cited this example at the second Russia-Africa Summit in 2023. President of Uganda Yoweri Museveni noted that the global coffee market, for example, is valued at some 450 billion euros, of which only 25 billion remains in Africa, while the remainder is realised in Germany and other Western countries, where it is ground, packaged, and distributed via retail networks.

Africa now seeks to ensure that its natural wealth is processed into final goods demanded by the market, not somewhere far from the continent, but precisely in the countries where these resources are extracted.

Thus, these processes are of considerable interest. On our side lies the objective, organic course of history; on the West’s side is the attempt to subvert this natural progression, to reverse it, to halt it. This is impossible. These are mere fantasies – they are not destined to materialise – yet the efforts being made by the West in this direction will, of course, impede the universalisation of the world order.

I will, perhaps, pause here. I stand ready to answer your questions further. Thank you.

Question: Thank you very much. Mr Lavrov, I would like to thank you once again for being here with us today.

Sergey Lavrov: You haven’t thanked me yet.

Question: No, I have thanked you many times, as well as the entire audience, because, to be honest, we have been looking forward to meeting with you.

Sergey Lavrov: Thank you.

Question: Let me ask the first question, and then we will move into the audience. Today, Russia is actively developing relations with India and China. You have just spoken about this. Could you please tell us how this cooperation is being implemented in practice, and what areas are currently the most important for us?

Sergey Lavrov: You already told me about this matter during the preparation for this event. You know, statistics is not something you can keep in your head. That is why I asked for a written response to this question – simply to have a comprehensive overview of our relations with India and China. You should have the relevant materials on hand.

If we are talking about live communication rather than simply providing statistical data, then, of course, these are our two leading partners. We have a relationship of strategic partnership and comprehensive cooperation with China. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping maintain regular contact. Just a few days ago, they held another meeting – there have been many of them, around 50 in total – on the sidelines of the SCO summit in Bishkek they reaffirmed the strategic course toward comprehensive deepening of our partnership and confirmed that, for the fifth consecutive year, trade has exceeded $200 billion. The growth in trade this year suggests that $250 billion is by no means the limit.

We are seeing similar trends in our relations with India. Our trade, which just a few years ago was slightly above $10 billion, has now confidently approached the $60 billion mark. This upward trend is continuing.

We have intergovernmental commissions on trade and economic cooperation both with China and India. With China, we have as many as five. In addition to these five sectoral commissions dealing with investment, trade, and social ties, there is a mechanism for annual meetings between the heads of government, who receive reports from these five sectoral bodies. So, this is a comprehensive system covering virtually all areas of cooperation and going well beyond the economy and investment.

We have numerous plans with both China and India. Let me highlight nuclear energy. In China, in addition to the units already built by Rosatom, further capacities are currently being planned. Similar processes are underway with India. There are specific plans to build additional nuclear power plants both in India and beyond. The first such example is Bangladesh, where we are working with our Indian friends to build a nuclear power plant. This was also discussed at recent meetings with our Indian colleagues. A couple of weeks ago, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, who co-chairs the intergovernmental commission, visited us in Moscow. He co-chaired a meeting of the commission together with our First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov. I also met with him, and we discussed foreign policy cooperation.

Of course, cultural and educational contacts with both our Chinese and Indian friends are of great importance: festivals, the Russian Seasons, the number of students at our universities – many thousands come from both China and India –and sporting events. We recently participated in the Games of the Future, which our government officials call “phygital,” that is, a combination of physical and digital competition. A team first plays a computer football match and then plays futsal with the same lineup, scoring goals with their feet and heads. We hosted the Games in 2024 and 2025, the second Games of the Future took place in the UAE, and this year they are held in Kazakhstan. I know that our Chinese friends are interested in hosting one of the future Games in their country.

So, there are many plans, and I will not further elaborate on our diplomatic cooperation. Both China and India share our approaches on foreign policy matters, and we share theirs on the vast majority of issues on the international agenda.

I will conclude by noting that Yevgeny Primakov, my great predecessor, launched a format called RIC – Russia, India, China – back in 1998, when he moved from the position of Foreign Minister to that of Prime Minister. Since then, this group of three has met regularly, both at the level of foreign ministers and at the level of sectoral ministries dealing with practical areas of cooperation: the economy, trade, investment, culture, and so on. There was a pause following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, but we are now working to restore this format. It functioned quite regularly, without interruption, from 1998 onward, with the exception of this COVID pause.

This group, RIC, served as the core of what is now known as BRICS. Brazil then joined the trio, so RIC became BRIC, and later South Africa joined, adding the “S” to form BRICS. Then, when the number of BRICS members doubled, we decided not to change the acronym. BRICS sounds like bricks, which is good. Bricks are a symbol of creation.

The role of this trio, regardless of what grew out of it and became BRICS, remains the same. Our Chinese and Indian colleagues confirm that they want to preserve this trilateral format of cooperation.
So, that is it, in short. But I repeat: you have additional material on hand.

Question: Yes, we do. We have distributed it to everyone. Thank you very much.

Today, Russia is talking about creating a new security system in Eurasia, where every single country on the continent will be able to participate. You have repeatedly emphasised that NATO, the EU, and the OSCE are becoming a thing of the past. What will this mean for ordinary people? When will we be able to experience this firsthand and realise that something has changed?

Sergey Lavrov: If the initiative put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin on Eurasian security is implemented, it will give ordinary people a sense of calm, security, and comfort. It will allow them to go about their daily lives without being distracted by violence or having to fear becoming the target of the frenzied policies of Western countries that seek to punish everyone and everything simply because those who are punished do not obey Western demands. We are seeing this, for instance, in the case of Ukraine. The situation has reached such a level of absurdity that I hardly know how to speak about it.

Take the latest example: in Leipzig, Germany, a drone crashed at the airport, and they decided that it resembles drones used by the Russian Federation, although they cannot confirm this as a definitive conclusion. On the basis of this assumption, this supposition, this conjecture, they officially decided to close our last remaining Consulate General in Bonn, as well as the Russian House – our Russian cultural centre in Berlin, which has long been a symbol of our relations with post-war Germany. They decided to close these institutions and expel the people who worked there. Admittedly, they said they were “in no hurry,” but these diplomats and employees of our cultural centre are nevertheless expected to leave.

Even from their own perspective, if they seek to maintain relations and exert influence – and they certainly do – then they, Germans, have branches of the Goethe Institute operating in Moscow, St Petersburg, and Novosibirsk. Obviously, those will be closed once our cultural centre is closed. Otherwise, we would not be respecting ourselves.

In other words, they are deliberately taking a step (and they could not fail to understand it) that clearly means the end of their cultural presence in the Russian Federation, a presence that had survived despite all the upheavals in our relations with the West over Ukraine. Let me explain why. I believe they understood that they would have fewer, if any, direct opportunities to engage with our population through the Goethe Institute branches. They have made a final choice in favour of influencing our people not through open, honest cultural and humanitarian ties, but by indoctrinating our “fugitives,” to use Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko’s description of those who left his country. Many of them have already been designated as foreign agents, but I am referring specifically to those who did not simply flee Russia because they disagreed with our efforts to defend Russians in Ukraine from the Nazi regime, but who fled in order to continue their subversive activities from abroad.

The fact that the Germans have decided to take the steps I have mentioned means only one thing: instead of maintaining open contacts for culture and ideas to be exchanged, they have chosen to support these fugitive agents of influence. Just like Belarusians abroad create temporary governments in exile, our aggressive émigrés are also creating similar structures. So they have decided to exert their influence through these structures. Unfortunately, this once again demonstrates (as I have already mentioned in connection with Friedrich Merz’s statement) that Germany is attempting to once again “subjugate” everyone else and suppress any tendency toward normal relations with Russia that still exists in some EU countries – only a few, but nevertheless.

Therefore, it appears to me that the European Union has now ceased to be the economic association that, some 20 years ago, everyone aspired to join – seeking to derive benefits, to obtain subsidies from the central EU budget (as practised by countries whose level of development is lower than that of the founders of the European Union), to secure grants, and to enjoy a single area without restrictions on the movement of people, capital, and services. Undoubtedly, all these factors confer advantages.

However, first and foremost, these advantages are now being gravely eroded. One needs only observe the migrant crisis, which has arisen as a direct consequence of a policy not merely of open doors, but of wide-open gates: “whoever wishes, may enter.” Perhaps, at one stage, this did reflect the love of humanity professed by the European Union. Now, in a number of countries, including Germany and Britain (which, too, was once an EU member), the population of migrant origin is becoming the majority, and in demographic terms at that.

Look at those who currently hold the offices of Mayor of London, of Glasgow in Scotland, and the many politicians across European countries – they, too, are, so to speak, “of non-native origin.” Perhaps there is nothing particularly shameful in this, save for one critical issue: the predominance of newcomers is fast becoming a challenge to internal development and is provoking the discontent of the indigenous population, which is compelled to pay taxes in order to support newly arrived citizens.

Ukrainian citizens fall within this same category: from the very outset of the special military operation, as they fled en masse their country, they have been provided with subsidies and benefits in European Union countries which, in a number of instances, significantly surpass the unemployment benefits payable in those same states to their own citizens. This, in turn, provokes internal protests and discontent, and devalues the economic fundamentals of the European Union. In addition to this objective factor, there are also numerous other economic challenges, not least those relating to energy prices.

The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen – whom we refer to as “Führer Ursula” – is endeavouring to appropriate for the European Commission those competences and powers which, by decisions of the entire European Union, were not transferred to Brussels, but remain with national governments. This tendency is becoming increasingly pronounced. Several years ago, when we commenced the special military operation, in response to the question “what is to be done – the Nord Stream pipelines and Russian gas have been blown up,” she remarked that their electorates would suffer because energy prices would rise considerably, but that they were obliged to endure this so that the Ukrainian people might uphold their “European values.”

No one questioned her on what these “European values” actually are. If the legislative prohibition of the Russian language in education, culture, daily life, and the media reflects European values, then Europe is welcome to revert to Nazism. The ban on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church likewise aligns with “European values.” When President Vladimir Putin and I visited Alaska just over a year ago – on August 15, 2025 – he was explaining to President of the United States Donald Trump what the Nazi regime of Vladimir Zelensky represents. When he mentioned the ban on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Donald Trump simply did not believe him. He quite literally started in astonishment and began questioning US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was also present at that meeting, as to whether it was indeed true that a religion had been banned. Rubio replied that yes, regrettably, it had. The President of the United States clicked his tongue; but not a single signal (incidentally, this is a small parenthetical remark) has ever been sent to the Kiev regime by Washington, or by anyone else – absolutely no one – to the effect that the Russian language must be restored, or that obstacles must not be created for the canonical church.

Whenever we raise these issues with our Western colleagues, including the Americans, and enquire how they can support those who are engaged in blatantly racist, Nazi activities, they respond that there will be negotiations and that all such matters will be included on the agenda. That is incorrect. Some matters cannot be made subject to conditions. The rights to language and religion are among such matters.

Article 1 of the UN Charter encourages respect for human rights without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. Moreover, not only the UN Charter but also the Constitution of Ukraine says that the state guarantees the rights of the Russian and other national minorities. But nobody takes this into account. They have adopted numerous laws that contradict the UN Charter, the Constitution, and everyone says that this is in full conformity with “European values.”

In other words, this is what I regard as the Werst’s absolutely abhorrent and untenable position. It is no coincidence that when speaking about Ukraine, all that European group of individuals (I must be polite) does nothing but demand more sanctions against Russia in order to “strangle” Russia, inflict a “strategic defeat” on it, and save Zelensky because “Ukrainians are dying for Europeans.” If this is yet another wave of the revival of Nazism in Europe, which is the only conclusion I have, then we’ve gotten into a fine mess, regrettably.

What is the West doing now? Sorry for switching to the subject of Ukraine, but it is directly connected to NATO and the European Union. President Putin has clearly put forth our views on a settlement. In his address at the Foreign Ministry in June 2024, he enumerated the tasks of the special military operation: demilitarisation of the regime, denazification of Ukraine, and, of course, the reunification with our historical territories, which were incorporated, by a twist of fate and the decisions of Nikita Khrushchev and his predecessors, into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic rather than the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. It was done to dilute the pro-Western sentiments of the western regions of Ukraine, which were incorporated into the Soviet Union after WWII, with normal Russian regions.

Regrettably, these pro-Western regions ultimately got their hooks into the whole of Ukraine, the republic that was part of the Soviet Union and ceded from it after its collapse. The neo-Nazis and radicals took it over, regardless of who ran in these elections.

Donald Trump calls for taking realities on the ground into account. We regard this as the fundamental difference from the position of Europe, which demands returning to the 1991 borders. Imagine that! Regardless of whether they like us or not, no realistic politician would say that the Ukraine problem can be resolved by returning to the 1991 borders.

I would say that we recognised that Ukraine, but we did so on the basis of its Declaration of Independence, which still says that Ukraine will be an independent, neutral, non-aligned and nuclear-free power. All these principles have been erased. Vladimir Zelensky publicly complained that Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons back then. Non-alignment is long forgotten too. They demand admission to NATO.

Donald Trump has said they should forget about NATO, that it is impossible, that the Russians said a thousand times before President Putin that this is unacceptable. But NATO officials, including Secretary General Mark Rutte, don’t care about what the US President says. They claim that Ukraine is a natural member of NATO, not now, but definitely in the future.

In other words, the principles on the basis of which we and everyone else recognised Ukraine’s independence have long been trashed. Nevertheless, the West is defending Ukraine as a country that is upholding “European values.” Returning to your question, that is why the EU has economically shot itself in the foot, in the head and in other parts of the body by rejecting Russian energy carriers and exploding the Nord Stream pipelines. Turning a blind eye to that terrorist attack, which has caused colossal economic and financial damage to Germany as the driver of European development and to other countries, can only be described as self-humiliation.

Today, they pay 800 euros for a thousand cubic metres of gas (I recently looked up the exchange market price of LNG and pipeline gas). They bought our gas for a third of that, or even less under long-term contracts. And yet they continue to say that they must suffer for Ukraine. How can a sensible person (regional elections will be held in Germany in three days) vote for the leaders who urge them to suffer, and not even for a progressive regime that is being unfairly discriminated against, but for an openly Nazi government of Vladimir Zelensky?

In short, the EU is squandering its economic advantages actively and of its own accord. Enterprises are fleeing from Europe to the United States, where energy prices are three to four times lower because the Americans are smart people, unlike their European allies. And taxes are lower there too. The Trump administration’s task is to dominate energy and industrial world markets, luring foreign industrial enterprises to their country. The European Union is losing its economic advantages due to many factors, including their lack of foresight, if not outright folly.

Some countries – our Serbian friends, our Armenian colleagues – continue, by inertia, to declare their intention to join the European Union. I am confident that this “willingness” will soon come to an end.

In parallel, the European Union has transformed into an overtly aggressive, anti-Russia military bloc – an auxiliary to NATO. In my estimation, it will not endure long in this guise. Or, more precisely, it will not retain its original raison d’être. NATO, too – as I underscored in my remarks – is desperately seeking a pretext to justify its continued existence.

Following the terrorist attacks in New York in September 2001, Afghanistan emerged as the focus. That campaign concluded ignominiously. Subsequently, a movement was set in motion to revive Russophobic, anti-Soviet, and anti-Russia sentiments. I do not believe these efforts will persist for long, because the attempt to contrive new justifications for perpetuating their dominance – by projecting their influence into this region, into Southeast and Northeast Asia under the banner of containing China (where the Taiwan issue is being artificially magnified) – simply cannot continue indefinitely. It will, inevitably, run out of steam.

Once again, electorates will begin to question their leaders’ actions. After all, the sums involved are colossal when military spending is increased (as has already been decided) from 2 percent to 5 percent of the budget or GDP. Naturally, this affects directly the day-to-day standards of living in those countries.

Against these aggressive constructs – designed to impose their vision of the world upon others – we set fourth universal formats, based exclusively on the principle of general agreement and consensus. I reiterate: achieving consensus on all matters is indeed more arduous and significantly more time-consuming than simply acquiescing, as it were, with a “Yes, sir, General.” Yet, decisions forged through consensus are immeasurably more resilient than those delivered by diktat, as is the practice in both the European Union and NATO.

Question: Thank you very much, Mr Lavrov. The audience will not forgive me if we do not give them an opportunity to pose a question. There is already a sea of hands raised.

Sergey Lavrov: I myself would not forgive you for that. I am eager to listen.

Question: Being constantly, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in such an aggressive environment, how do you find the time to write poetry? For instance, I am aware that you composed the MGIMO anthem, if I am not mistaken. How do you manage this, given your unrelenting schedule?

Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult to answer your question. Ultimately, it all comes from within. Something emerges in your mind which you feel compelled to commit to paper. Sometimes it is a memorandum devoted to some foreign policy issue. But we are all human. Occasionally, even in my youth – from the age of 16 – certain images would form that lent themselves to rhyme, and I have been engaged in this ever since.

Yes, I composed the MGIMO anthem – both the lyrics and the melody. Although I do not know musical notation, I simply sang the anthem, and subsequently it was performed. Now, it is played at MGIMO every first of September. That is a source of pride for me, there is no reason to conceal it.

Question: You endeavour to keep abreast of contemporary authors, yet you always return to the classics. Could you suggest, or advise, on the best way to come to know the world and the human being within it?

Sergey Lavrov: That is, indeed, an existential question. Every individual is unique. Good people are shaped in the most varied circumstances and environments. If you have the sense that you have come into this world by good fortune, that life is a gift from God, that others in this world are just like you – or, if you prefer, chosen – who have appeared in the world and been granted this greatest gift, the gift of life on Earth, and you grasp that you all possess equal rights, then I believe that is already a sound and sufficient foundation for a person to become balanced and positive.

As for upbringing, it begins in the family, from the cradle. Children perceive, even as crawlers, what is said by their parents and by those who visit their home (their friends). Then come nursery and school.

We have held extensive debates on how to reform and modernise the upbringing programme in pre-school institutions, schools, and universities. There were experiments which, to a large extent, mirrored our vacillations towards Western standards. As though it were self-evident that nothing could surpass the Bologna Process. Now, we are, in fact, returning to the finest traditions of the Soviet education system. I do not idealise it. I myself studied (why conceal it) in fits and starts. At certain parties in the senior years, we would poke fun at some of the Soviet school’s traditions. Those who attended educational institutions in those days will doubtless understand what I mean.

Yet the core of the programme, I believe, was entirely correct and essential for developing in a person the ability to absorb information and art, and to draw their own conclusions – to discern what one agrees or disagrees with.

I am genuinely pleased that now, as part of ongoing reforms of secondary and higher education, we are returning to these principles and traditions, wholly unconnected to Soviet or any other ideology, which have demonstrated their enduring value.

Question: Mr Lavrov, could you specify the title of a book and the author? Where should one begin? Which book should one read?

Sergey Lavrov: You see, everyone has their own preferences. I do not wish to slight any of the authors of the multitude of brilliant books, novels, novellas, and short stories.

Our classics – Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Alexander Pushkin, and Nikolai Gogol – feature in the school curriculum. I believe it is most important, at the very least, to take the school curriculum seriously. Guide your children along this path and help them comprehend literature, especially when some works seem rather difficult.

To prescribe, “read this book and not that one” – I cannot do that. I do not wish to offend anyone, nor do I wish to diminish the wealth of our literature and art.

Question: When I listen to you, I wonder where one can learn to speak like you. What a huge number of books you have read! You speak so well that I have forgotten the questions I wanted to ask, because it’s so interesting to listen to you. I am telling you this in all sincerity, and I’m sure the audience will agree with me, right? I am completely honest.

Sergey Lavrov: Actually, I am primarily grateful for this to my mom. I think mothers play the definitive role in shaping us as human beings.

Question: I know that you speak English, French and Singhalese. What language should be studied today?

Sergey Lavrov: It all depends. Many are studying Chinese now. The children of many of my friends signed up for Chinese.

When I enrolled at MGIMO University, I thought I spoke fluent English, which was confirmed during the entrance exams. We were asked what languages we would like to learn. We had to choose two language, one basic and the other auxiliary. I asked for French and Arabic. But I was assigned to study English and Singhalese, which is spoken only on the island of Sri Lanka. It was known as Ceylon back then. It had a population of 10 million, and 25 percent of them spoke a different language, Tamil. Anyway, I was assigned to study English and took up French as my third foreign language.

I believe that English will maintain its dominant influence in international contacts. Yes, it is a vestige of the colonial era, but it is also a useful means of communication. English is a state language in India, which is populated by dozens if not hundreds of ethnic groups. There are a great many languages apart from Hindi there, so a common language is absolutely essential there.
French is another vestige of the colonial era. But many African countries, which comprise many tribes, also need a unifying means of communication.

But Russian, which is a language of interethnic communication in our country and several other countries (we have recently been in Kyrgyzstan, where Russian is an official language), is a great asset of our state. Our country and our statehood have an imperial background, yet the ethnic groups living in the Russian Federation (and the Soviet Union in the past) have never – never – been treated as colonial provinces.

You know what I just thought of? I hope former US President Joe Biden will forgive me. When he met with President Putin in Geneva in June 2021 – the meeting was also attended by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and yours truly – he had notes and discussion materials in front of him, but he started speaking without even glancing at them. Mr President, he said, I would like to say outright that the United States is not against Russia. The US is no better than Russia, and Russia is no better than the US. They are just different. We have some common things in our history, like the fight against Nazism (I might say a few words about this later), but we are different.

He said that the Americans are a nation of migrants, many of them with a criminal past, who fled from Europe and settled in America. The gold rush. Indians in their reservations. But the Russians, he said, are a nation that has taken deep root in the land where it is now, and has spread its statehood to neighbouring territories.

He said that migrants came to America from all over the world, including slaves brought from Africa, who were granted citizenship and independence at some stage. People from different countries and continents were thrown in that “melting pot,” he said, where they are “melted down” and from which they emerged with the inscription “human rights” written on their foreheads. He went on to say that the Russian Empire emerged through spreading its influence on neighbouring territories. And we didn’t throw other nations into “melting pots.” We preserved their languages, culture, traditions and religions. That is how our multinational people emerged.

Joe Biden later said that this is a great achievement in terms of the preservation of culture and identity, but it is extremely difficult to govern such a multifaceted state and keep it united, especially since Russia is a nuclear power. Therefore, Joe Biden said, I wish good health to President Putin, for he is a man who can do this. He made it clear that he did not want anything bad to happen that would destabilise Russia, contrary to what some people claim.

That is what he said. He spoke without notes. I think that he is an experienced politician. There are so many things you could criticise him for. But he knew and understood, at least at the end of his career, the importance of respecting Russia’s interests. I think that’s right.

You know, I am on the list of top five candidates of the United Russia party. As the election day is approaching, we see frantic attempts to undermine our society. We can see this, and the West makes no secret of this. Apart from the associations of Russian émigrés, who fled to the West and have decided to join political anti-Russia activities, attempts have been made to stage various provocations through Western diplomats in Russia. We are aware of this. Our intelligence services are working on this.

They [the West] spare no effort to spark public discontent. I am fully aware of this. I communicate with a great number of people, and not only with my official colleagues but also with my friends, and also with you, right now.

Among the methods used to undermine our stability, the West is openly encouraging terrorist acts by the Kiev regime. In July of this year, on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Türkiye, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the United States understood the significance of strikes deep into Russian territory – because, he said, they bring Russia closer to the negotiating table. I met with him a month after that statement, on the sidelines of ASEAN events in the Philippines, and asked him how they could so openly encourage terrorism. His reply was that they wanted negotiations to begin sooner.

But negotiations actually began a year ago – in Alaska. And they ended with the proposals put forward by the Americans... We have always noted the differences in outlook between President Donald Trump and his administration and their European counterparts. The Europeans keep insisting that Russia is the aggressor, and that it should be stripped of its newly incorporated territories. The Americans, by contrast (as soon as Donald Trump returned to the White House) based their initiatives on the realities on the ground. I have already mentioned that Donald Trump, even when he was running for a second term, categorically ruled out Ukraine’s membership in NATO.

For us, however, realities on the ground do not simply mean territories, as Europe claims. For us, realities are not merely the presence of our troops there, defending the choice made by the people in referendums. For us, realities are the people’s choice itself, enshrined in our Constitution.

Ahead of the Alaska meeting, we were presented with proposals. President Vladimir Putin then went to Alaska, met with President Donald Trump, and said he accepted the Americans’ proposals. Is that not an understanding? Is that not a deal? In Russia, this has been our custom since times immemorial – a handshake and a merchant’s word. That is it – a deal. And NATO promised Mikhail Gorbachev that the alliance would not expand eastward. When expansion began, we reminded them of that promise. But they said the promises were made verbally, not on paper. Then, in 1999, at the OSCE summit, they laid it down “on paper” – security is indivisible, no country can strengthen its security at the expense of another, no entity in this entire space can claim dominance. It was written down at the highest level, signed. And yet the expansion continues.

We said: fine, you gave President Gorbachev your word verbally. But here you signed off. They replied that it was a political declaration, not a legally binding document. For us, it is in our national character – we shake hands and that is a deal. Sacred. While for them, it can all be crossed out.

The incident with the drone that crashed in Leipzig has already been mentioned. The Germans claim it was a Russian drone. They don’t even bother to think twice.

We still cannot get a clear answer to numerous cases that have been used as a pretext for new anti‑Russia campaigns and fresh sanctions.

For example, we still have not been able to obtain the results of the tests performed on Alexey Navalny at the Bundeswehr hospital in the autumn of 2020. When he collapsed in Omsk, he was immediately airlifted to Germany by a German medical evacuation team. We waived all the protocols that normally apply in such situations – just so he could have a chance, as they saw it, to save his life. They brought him to Germany. The civilian clinic’s tests revealed nothing. But the Bundeswehr hospital allegedly found traces of Novichok – a chemical agent. We asked for those test results – a natural request, given that we were being accused. They told us the results would be handed over to the OPCW. Now, they claim, it is their property. We contacted that organisation – of which we are founding members – and asked the Director-General to show us the results. He refused, citing the Germans’ instructions not to show them to anyone. We are still waiting for those results.

And finally, something I have already made a very pressing issue in my contacts, including in the UN. In April 2022, during negotiations in Istanbul, the Ukrainians put a document on the table, which we accepted as the basis for an agreement to end the conflict. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly mentioned this document. We initialled the paper proposed by the Ukrainians. After that, then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and other Western figures forbade the Ukrainians from signing it. They told them to keep fighting.

While this process was underway in Istanbul and a potential agreement was being considered, it was suddenly announced that dozens of bodies, allegedly tortured by Russian troops, had been discovered in the Kiev suburb of Bucha. Meanwhile, during those same days, when the Istanbul agreements were being discussed, French President Emmanuel Macron called Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that the process was going well and that there was a chance of reaching a settlement. He asked to make a goodwill gesture and withdraw from Kiev. We withdrew, including from Bucha.

The mayor of this town appeared on every television screen, declaring that the Ukrainians had regained control of Bucha and were now in there. Another two days passed. Suddenly, BBC correspondents broadcast a report from Bucha showing corpses neatly laid out along the main street, on both sides of the roadway. Everyone’s hands were bound, everyone was wearing clean clothes, despite dirt everywhere. And then they said that was done by Russians, that they had discovered atrocities, and so on. A new package of sanctions was imposed. Unlike other similar stories, there were no signals from relatives. Usually, relatives come forward and demand… but nothing happened at all.

We asked the UN to help us obtain a list of the people whose bodies had been shown by the BBC. It will soon be five years since we first asked. To the UN’s shame, Secretary-General Antonio Guterres replies that they investigated something and have information, but it is somehow confidential because the relatives do not really want it disclosed… We ask: where are the relatives? Usually, relatives are the loudest voices demanding justice.

We will not leave this matter alone, especially since Europeans continue to visit Ukraine. Incidentally, I do not know why we allow them to engage in this kind of political tourism. When they come, representatives of the Kiev regime always take them to Bucha. There, they pay their respects to these so-called victims.

In a week or two, I will go to New York for the UN General Assembly, and I will raise this issue with Antonio Guterres again. Moreover, at every session of the UN General Assembly, I raise this issue at my news conferences.

There is also the UN Correspondents Association, which brings together around 70 representatives from various media outlets. I have already appealed to them, telling them that there is such a thing as journalistic pride: you always want to conduct investigative reporting, whether there is a reason for it or not. Take Bucha, for example. They showed dozens of corpses. The episode resonated. The BBC broadcast it around the world. Sanctions were imposed, hostilities by Ukraine intensified, weapons were pumped into the Kiev regime, with consequences that are still being felt. Where is your journalistic and professional pride? Unlike other stories, there is a deathly silence on this one. Clearly, there is a reason behind all this.

Question: Mr Lavrov, we have to let you go, although we really do not want to. We are always delighted to have you with us. Please come and speak at the Znanie Society lecture hall. You are an incredible speaker. Thank you very much.

Sergey Lavrov: In conclusion, I would like to say what I consider most important. This concerns the atrocities committed by the Kiev regime, including attacks on marketplaces, oil refineries, and other infrastructure facilities that provide essential services and make everyday life possible for society and ordinary citizens. This is what they are seeking to disrupt. The day before yesterday, I believe, Vladimir Zelensky said that civil aviation in Russia should stop operating because it has no place in areas where Ukrainian combat drones are flying. I will refrain from characterising this person. But the expectation that society will become destabilised and rise up in protest is being stated openly.

I quoted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said that the Ukrainians should be allowed to use their long-range weapons to strike deep inside Russia, which would make Russia more accommodating at the negotiating table. We were accommodating in the negotiations. We agreed to what was proposed in Alaska. It was the Americans who backed away from their own proposal.
But what does the West want? They no longer talk about inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia as often as they once did. Instead, they say that the fighting along the line of contact must be stopped immediately in order to save lives. And then – as they also openly declare – the West, NATO, and the European Union will deploy “stabilisation forces” to the remaining Ukrainian territory and guarantee the security of Ukraine in its new form, while refusing to recognise that the Russians have taken Donbass, Novorossiya, and Crimea.

This means only one thing. They want to preserve and perpetuate the Nazi regime that has banned the Russian language in all spheres of public life. Let me note in passing that there is not a single country where a language is banned, let alone one of the official languages of the United Nations. In Israel, people can speak Arabic and Farsi; in Iran and all Arab countries, they can speak Hebrew. Different languages can be spoken everywhere. But here, that is simply not the case. They want to perpetuate this anti-Russia, Nazi regime.

It is no coincidence that denazification and demilitarisation are among the goals set out by President Vladimir Putin. Yet they want to preserve this source of tension indefinitely.

This is unacceptable in practical terms because it would create a direct and tangible NATO threat on our borders. They are already saying that Ukraine will not be admitted to the alliance but will be given the same security guarantees as NATO members. So, they want to freeze the conflict rather than resolve it, while preserving the threat on our borders. There is also another, non-material dimension to this issue. If we were to accept this on the grounds that our people want a more comfortable life – agreeing to let this regime remain in place, ceasing hostilities, and effectively giving the green light to the revival of Nazism in the literal sense, in the form of a quasi-state entirely dependent on the West while openly adhering to Nazi ideology – we would be betraying our ancestors who defeated Nazism in 1945.

I do not believe our people are prepared for that. As a nation, we are accustomed to sacrificing material comforts for the sake of preserving the memory and legacy passed down to us by heroes throughout the centuries-long history of the Russian state.

Russia
Source: brics-plus-analytics.org

Actionable ideas section launched

To help our clients navigate the ecosystem of BRICS+ Analytics ideas and policy proposals we have launched a new section that will keep track of such concepts, with a brief description and the relevant links attached: https://brics-plus-analytics.org/actionable-ideas/

Our ideas portfolio includes actionable proposals for BRICS, small open economies such as OASES, as well as frameworks for global governance and environmental policy. Some of these ideas to a varying degree have been put into practice as has been the case with the BRICS+ format, the creation of a platform for land restoration, platforms for regional development institutions as well as a cooperative platform for small open economies. We will aim to continuously expand the repository of actionable proposals with the view to expanding the set of communication lines and potential alliances in the world economy. Proposals marked with an asterisk (*) have been implemented to a varying degree.

1. BEAMS – BIMSTEC, Eurasian Economic Union, AfCFTA/AU, Mercosur, SCO – a platform, bringing together regional integration arrangements in which BRICS countries are members: https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/beams-of-the-sunrise-a-look-at-brics-5-year-cycles (June 2018)
2. BRICS+* – an extension of the BRICS format that may assume various modalities, with the key trajectory bringing together the regional integration arrangements of BRICS economies and their regional development institutions: https://brics-plus-analytics.org/re-thinking-the-brics-on-the-concepts-of-brics-and-brics/; (February 2017)
3. BRICS++ – an expansion of the BRICS+ format to include regional development institutions and regional organizations with the participation of advanced economies; one of the potential candidates for such a format may be the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP): https://brics-plus-analytics.org/what-are-the-modalities-of-brics-expansion/; (February 2017 – August 2023)
4. BRICS Troika* – a governance mechanism that emulates the G20 Troika framework in bringing together the past year’s, current and next year’s presidency; the proposal has been adopted across the BRICS+ tracks such as BRICS Youth: https://brics-plus-analytics.org/a-brics-troika-format-for-chairmanship-transition/; (March 2025)
5. CEIBAS – China, Egypt, India, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa: the largest pair economies from the three main regions of the Global South, namely Africa, South America and Asia: https://brics-plus-analytics.org/alternative-perspectives-on-em/; (December 2024)
6. Hemispheric QUAD – a proposed group of the largest economies in their respective hemispherical segments: the US in the Northwestern segment, China in the Northeastern, Brazil in the Southwestern and Australia in the Southeastern; the arrangement may be employed in global institutions (WTO, UN) to forge consensus across membership: https://brics-plus-analytics.org/hemispheric-governance-an-exercise-in-semi-globalism/; (April, 2026)
7. Land restoration global platform* – proposed in 2024 on the basis of OASES economies and implemented by BRICS in 2025: https://brics-plus-analytics.org/a-global-platform-for-land-restoration/; https://brics-plus-analytics.org/brics-to-create-a-platform-for-land-restoration/; (October 2024)
8. OASES* – Oriental Republic of Uruguay, Austria, Switzerland, Emirates (UAE), Singapore: a platform for small open and neutral economies to advance trade liberalization, peace mediation and superior economic policy practices; has been implemented to a significant degree in September 2025 in the form of the Future of Investment and Trade Partnership (FIT): https://europeansting.com/2022/02/23/from-brics-to-oases-a-global-platform-for-small-economies-on-the-international-arena/ ; (February 2022)
9. PEAKs/InPEAKS* – Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Argentina, Kazakhstan, Saudi Arabia: a group of emerging markets that was to serve as a model of the next generation of BRICS economies; the concept largely predicted the composition of the expansion wave of BRICS+ in 2023-2025: https://brics-plus-analytics.org/a-look-at-brics-derivatives-and-alter-egos/ (April 2018)
10. PIERs – Panama, Indonesia, Egypt and Russia: bi-oceanic economies that are at the same time trans-continental; may be operationalized via BRICS+ plurilateral formats: https://brics-plus-analytics.org/bridging-oceanic-divides-in-search-of-new-connectivity-paradigms/ (August 2026)
11. R5 initiative (Renminbi, Real, Rand, Rouble, Rupee) – advanced in 2017 and developed further in 2018, the R5 initiative calls for the greater use of BRICS+ national currencies in mutual transactions as well as the creation of a common R5/R5+ currency: https://eng.globalaffairs.ru/articles/boosting-the-use-of-national-currencies-among-brics/; https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/monetizing-brics-r5?sphrase_id=1375776; (August 2017-September 2018)
12. R20 (regional 20) – a proposed engagement group/horizontal platform for regional integration arrangements within the G20; https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/towards-a-g20-global-governance-framework (November 2018)
13. SAGES – SCO, ASEAN, GCC, EAEU, SAARC – a platform for economic cooperation that brings together the main regional integration arrangements of Eurasia from the Global South; the SCO+ format has already featured the participation of blocs such as ASEAN and the EAEU: https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/comments/the-assembly-lines-of-grand-eurasia/ (July 2022)
14. SCO+ format* – the expansion in the SCO format to include regional organizations and regional integration arrangements from Eurasia, such as ASEAN and the GCC; the SCO+ format was launched and institutionalized during the SCO summit in Tianjin, China (September 2025) with the participation of regional integration arrangements from Eurasia, including ASEAN and the Eurasian Economic Union: https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/imago-mundi-a-south-south-concert-of-continents (January 2018)
15. Southern Five – a proposed platform for the largest economies of the Southern Hemisphere that are members of the G20: Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia and Australia : https://brics-plus-analytics.org/the-southern-five-a-platform-to-balance-the-global-economy/; (March 2026)
16. Syndicated regionalism* – the policy of forming platforms of regional development institutions for purposes of co-financing and economic policy coordination. Has been implemented in part via platforms for MDBs formed by the World Bank and coordination mechanisms by the IMF with RFAs: https://valdaiclub.com/a/highlights/syndicated-regionalism-the-missing-link-in-global; (January 2018)