Greece
Source: moderndiplomacy.eu

On 10 January, China, Russia, and Iran launched joint BRICS Plus naval exercises in the strategic waters of South Africa. It is being marked as a significant display of military cooperation among countries increasingly aligned against the policies of the administration of President Donald Trump. The timing and composition of these maritime drills have ignited fierce debate within the international community. The warship exercises signal a deliberate show of solidarity. These exercises unfold against an extraordinary geopolitical backdrop: the recent capture and detention of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro by United States forces and President Trump’s repeated calls to take over Greenland, a self-governing territory of Denmark. Concerning this, Denmark, as a NATO ally, hit back at the US, saying, ‘An attack on Greenland would be the end of NATO.’ Moreover, President Trump also issued warnings to several other governments—including those of Colombia, Cuba, Mexico, and Iran. The threatening environment worsened when President Donald Trump backed a bill to impose sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil. He threatened to impose tariffs of up to 500 percent on imports. The imperialist approach of the United States is threatening the majority of countries all across the world.

The capture of the leader of Venezuela is being seen as an unprecedented action that has sent shockwaves through diplomatic channels. The event has raised fundamental questions about sovereignty, international law, and the limits of US interventionism. What if the US, like Venezuela, captured those countries that are being threatened by it? That’s the reason the BRICS Plus operation is being conducted, aiming to “ensure the safety of shipping and maritime economic activities.” ”.
BRICS is a coalition of countries comprising Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. And for further expansion, six other countries have been included. The expanded BRICS group includes Egypt, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. It is considered a counterweight to the U.S. and Western economic dominance by President Trump’s administration. The administration of President Trump fears that these countries are on a mission of de-dollarization. They are trying to break down the petrodollar monopoly. Therefore, last January, President Trump threatened all its members with an additional 10% trade tariff.

In these backdrops comes the naval exercise in South Africa. Various BRICS Plus members sent their naval forces to a very critical location in South Africa, i.e., Simon’s Town. Simon’s Town is famous for two reasons. First, due to its strategic maritime location. It is located at the junction of two oceans, i.e., the Atlantic and the Indian. Second, it houses habitat for endangered penguins. The multinational naval exercise concluded on 16 January. But it raised concerns due to its conduct during heightened tensions. The relations between the U.S. and many of the BRICS-plus countries, such as China, Iran, and Russia, have become frosty. The U.S. is not happy with both the domestic and foreign policies of these countries.

The government of South Africa denies the allegations of hostility. It stated that the purpose of naval exercise is apolitical. It is to strengthen sovereignty, promote mutual respect, and share commitment to peace and stability. According to the participants of maritime navy drills, this naval exercise was conducted for various reasons. Its aim was to protect key maritime routes and shipping lanes of the world. Moreover, the protection of the economic activities of member countries was also ensured. As many BRICS members were impacted severely by the U.S. trade war, i.e., sanctions (on Iran and Russia) and tariffs (on India and Brazil). Additionally, conducting maritime strike drills and counter-terrorism rescue operations is also one of the reasons for conducting this week-long operation. And lastly, improving coordination and joint operation capacity between these navies was the core of these drills.

The naval exercises of BRICS Plus with Russia and Iran, considering the contemporary landscape, will worsen Pretoria’s relations with the United States. The trio of Iran, the US, and Russia are currently experiencing tense times amid their ongoing conflicts. On many occasions, Iran and Russia have declared that they are at war with the US. Henceforth, if South Africa is enjoying strategic security on the maritime front, then on the other side, it needs to design its policy very carefully on the geopolitical front. 

In the time of heightened global tensions, the presence of Russian and Chinese warships at the South African naval base delivers a new perspective. The countries have raised interest in strengthening maritime power. Whether these drills aim to promote stability in international waters or deeper maritime military alignment, they should be analyzed closely. The global world order is sleepwalking towards a swamp of conflicts. Before understanding the positive and negative aspects of maritime or any other military operations, the leaders of the countries must learn the tactics of avoiding conflicts and wars.

All opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views of any affiliated institutions or entities.

China
Source: www.fmprc.gov.cn


On February 9, 2026, China's BRICS Sherpa and Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu attended the First BRICS Sherpa Meeting held in New Delhi, India.

Ma Zhaoxu stated that President Xi Jinping proposed the important concept of "high-quality development of greater BRICS cooperation", and established the cooperation framework of BRICS committed to peace, innovation, green development, justice, and closer people-to-people exchanges, charting the way forward for the BRICS mechanism. China is ready to work with India, the chair country, as well as with other BRICS members and partner countries, to keep to the right positioning, deepen practical cooperation, optimize working mechanisms, strengthen multilateral coordination, safeguard international fairness and justice, and promote the continuous development of greater BRICS cooperation.

At this Sherpa Meeting, views were exchanged on the BRICS cooperation priorities and the major event arrangements for the year, and the preparation process for the 18th BRICS Summit was officially launched.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Press release on Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s participation in BRICS sherpa/sous-sherpa meeting

On February 9 and 10, New Delhi served as the venue of the first sherpa/sous-sherpa meeting of BRICS countries as part of India’s chairmanship. Deputy Foreign Minister and Russia’s Sherpa for BRICS, Sergey Ryabkov, led the Russian delegation.

Foreign Minister of India Subrahmanyam Jaishankar received the heads of delegations.
The agenda included a presentation of the priorities for India’s chairmanship in enhancing the performance of global governance institutions, promoting deeper dialogue on topical international matters, combatting terrorism, ensuring the safety of information and communication technology, innovation, artificial intelligence, healthcare, research, food and energy security. The participants also discussed matters dealing with consolidating cooperation mechanisms within the group.

All the participants spoke out in favour of further strengthening cooperation within the BRICS framework on international platforms considering the fact that multilateralism is facing mounting challenges. They stressed the importance of ensuring continuity in the functioning of BRICS and the commitment to achieving tangible results based on the past achievements across all strategic partnership priorities, including politics and security, economics and finance, as well as humanitarian exchanges. The participants went on to express their readiness to continue carrying out the initiatives launched as part of Russia’s and Brazil’s chairmanships in 2024 and 2025.

In this context, Sergey Ryabkov placed a special emphasis on the fact that BRICS has a pressing need to create cross-border payment, settlement, depositary and re-insurance infrastructure, as well as the New Investment Platform and the BRICS Grain Exchange.

Sergey Ryabkov held bilateral meetings with his colleagues from Brazil, Egypt, India, Iran and Ethiopia on the sidelines of the event.

USA
Source: www.project-syndicate.org

The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) have long been dismissed by conventional economists as unlikely to ever launch a shared currency capable of challenging the U.S. Dollar’s dominance. Despite the bloc’s evolution into BRICS+ with the addition of five new members, the obstacles to creating a true currency rival have seemed insurmountable.

Like many conventional international economists, I have generally dismissed the idea that BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) would ever launch a shared currency to challenge the US Dollar's dominant position in the world economy. This is despite my own role in coining the BRICS acronym, which led to the creation of a formal BRICS club (since expanded to the BRICS+, with the addition of five new members).

Following the standard criteria for how major reserve currencies have historically developed, one requirement is a fully convertible capital account, allowing investors, domestically and internationally, to freely invest in and out of the issuing country whenever they choose. And when it comes to a common and shared currency like the euro, it is necessary to establish a new central bank, implying that each participating country's central bank will lose its independence, including its ability to set monetary policy according to domestic conditions and priorities.

Given these requirements, it is hard to believe that the ten BRICS+ members could make the sacrifices necessary to back a true rival to the Dollar. Imagine India ceding central-bank independence to promote a new currency bloc that also includes its longtime rival, China. And imagine either India or China giving up capital controls. The Chinese renminbi is not widely used internationally because Chinese authorities have always made a conscious choice not to allow capital to flow in and out of China freely.

These are indeed major obstacles. Still, I have begun to challenge my own thinking in recent months, for a few reasons.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has expressed interest in the renminbi playing a larger role as a global reserve currency. Multiple BRICS+ leaders have also made clear their opposition to the persistent dominance of the Dollar, and their economic advisers surely know as much about monetary history and theory as I do.

There is also the Trump effect. The current US President has been waging war on the very institutions that underpin the Dollar's dominance, not least by pursuing politically motivated criminal investigations against members of the US Federal Reserve board. The Trump Administration has also openly rejected America's role as a steward and provider of global public goods. In the name of "America First," Donald Trump has fully indulged his obsession with tariffs, and the US Dollar has weakened substantially as a result.

The rest of the world is not taking American aggression lying down. Most other countries, including many longstanding US allies, are pursuing new trade agreements among themselves. In the past few weeks, major deals have been announced between Canada and China, the European Union and Mercosur (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay), and the EU and India. The United States may still be the world's largest economy, accounting for 25pc of global GDP. But that leaves 75pc of global GDP still on the table.

Lastly, these recent developments have led me to question whether it is actually the case that major global reserve currencies require free capital flows. In the broad sweep of history, this has been true only since the collapse of the Bretton Woods system in 1971-73. The euro has been successful as a currency of exchange between participating countries. If it has not been fully internationalised, that is partly because its largest member, Germany, never wanted to challenge the Dollar directly, and was long reluctant to allow for a truly pan-eurozone bond market.

Given the success of the euro, perhaps it is feasible for BRICS+ members, especially the larger ones, to explore a common currency for use in settling trade among themselves, even if they resist liberalising their capital accounts. The process would certainly be cumbersome at first and would presumably require a basket of participating countries' currencies, weighted by their respective GDPs. But if this was part of a larger process to pursue freer and larger volumes of intra-BRICS+ trade, it could be worth the effort.

That brings me to a final thought. Advocates of Dollar-denominated stablecoins and other digital currencies claim that these will extend and deepen the Dollar's dominance. But there is a big problem with this argument. The same technologies would also make it easier for the BRICS+ to develop alternative payment rails for settling trade among themselves.

Is a BRICS currency feasible, or still a fantasy?

We will find out soon enough.

Russia
Source: mid.ru

Question: Mr Lavrov, on February 10, Russia marks Diplomatic Worker’s Day, a professional holiday for the personnel of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its missions abroad. You probably celebrate this day at work as usual. How do you find this holiday? How important is it personally for you and your colleagues? What do you consider the most important outcomes of the Ministry’s work?

Sergey Lavrov: It is perhaps not for us to judge the results. We have the President to whom we report, as established by the Constitution; he defines our foreign policy, including the approval of the Foreign Policy Concept. The most recent one, adopted in March 2023, reflects the profound changes taking place across the globe. Those are long-term, fundamental transformations that will shape the bulk of our practical work.

It is equally important that we develop action plans tailored for each partner country covering trade and economic cooperation, investment, scientific collaboration, and coordinated activity on the international stage, including at the United Nations and other organisations, based on agreements reached between presidents and prime ministers. Particular attention is devoted to the CIS, the EAEU, the CSTO, and the post-Soviet space at large. This day-to-day work relies on long-term planning and delivers tangible mutual benefits to both Russia and its partners.

The global arena is undergoing a transformation that began some time ago with the objective transition toward a multipolar world order. This is neither the bipolarity of the Soviet-American era with the Warsaw Pact and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, nor the unipolarity that emerged after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Instead, it is multipolarity that is shaping the trajectory of global development. For many years, the United States functioned as the engine of the global economy and the regulator of international finance, using the role of the dollar to reinforce its dominant position. It is now, objectively, losing economic significance and influence within the global system. Meanwhile, countries such as the People’s Republic of China, India, and Brazil are rising. Significant developments are also taking place across Africa, where nations are increasingly seeking to develop domestic industry rather than simply export natural resources – an effort that the Soviet Union once supported.

Multiple centres of rapid economic growth, power, and financial and political influence have thus emerged. The world is being reshaped through competition. The West is reluctant to relinquish its formerly dominant positions. Moreover, with the arrival of the Trump administration, this struggle to constrain competitors has become particularly obvious and explicit. Indeed, the Trump administration openly asserts its ambition to dominate in the energy sector and harness their competitors.

Blatantly unfair methods are being used against us: the operations of Russian oil companies such as Lukoil and Rosneft are being banned, and there are attempts to dictate and restrict Russia’s trade, investment cooperation, and military-technical ties with our major strategic partners, including India as well as other BRICS states.

A struggle is underway to preserve the old world order, one built around the dominance of the dollar and the rules formulated and enforced by the West through the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organisation. When the new centres of growth, operating under these very rules, began to demonstrate far more substantial economic results and significantly higher growth rates – as is evident across the BRICS countries – the West started seeking ways to block this transition. This cannot succeed, because it is an objective, irreversible process. For several years now, the BRICS countries’ growth rates and GDP volumes have, in terms of purchasing power parity, substantially exceeded the combined GDP of the G7.

These global economic processes – both the objective emergence of new development centres as well as the subjective efforts by established powers, which are losing their influence, to hinder this natural evolution – form the foundation of our work, which involves not solely global analytical forecasting but also practical bilateral cooperation with each individual country. All of these geopolitical confrontations, along with the attempts to derail the objective course of history, inevitably affect bilateral relations. I am not going to mention them all; those include sanctions, the so-called “shadow fleet” invented by the West, attempts to detain vessels by military force in the open sea in blatant violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and much more. Tariffs imposed for purchasing oil or gas from certain suppliers have now become commonplace.

So, what lies at the heart of our work? There is a song that actually serves as the anthem of Russia’s Ministry of Civil Defence, Emergencies, and Disaster Relief, but it is just as applicable to our Ministry – and basically any state institution in our country: “Our concern is simple, our concern is this: that our homeland might live, and there are no other worries.”

However, in today’s circumstances, this particular goal – “that our homeland may live” – is a challenging one; it encompasses the reliable safeguarding of our security, particularly in a situation where certain figures in Europe, masquerading as politicians, are threatening to “unleash a war” against Russia. Safeguarding security likewise demands sustained action to ensure that the Nazi state established on our borders in Ukraine – and supported by the West as a vehicle for renewed confrontation – cannot continue to exist in its present form.

Nazi foundations must be eliminated. We will ensure, and I have no doubt about it, our own security interests, by preventing the deployment on Ukrainian territory of any weapons threatening us, and, second, by guaranteeing reliable and full protection for the rights of Russian and Russian-speaking people, who have been living in Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya for centuries, and whom the Kiev regime that came to power after a coup declared subhuman “species” and “terrorists” and unleashed a civil war against.

This is a most vital task of ensuring “that our homeland may live,” to say nothing of the economy and social matters, which are under the permanent control of President of Russia Vladimir Putin and which are handled by the Government.

In our case, one of the main tasks of the Ministry and our foreign policy is to create and ensure maximally favourable external conditions for the country’s internal development (in economic, social and industrial terms), and for the growth of the citizens’ well-being.

It is clear that, given the global war unleashed against us and the feverish attempts of the West to “punish” all our partners by demanding that they stop trading with us and cooperating in the military-technical sphere, it is significantly harder to do our job and to provide maximally favourable conditions for internal development than it was, say, 10 or 15 years ago. But this does not make the tasks less relevant.

We are doing everything to cope adequately with the tasks entrusted to us by President Putin. It is for Russians to judge.

I know that Russian citizens are actively interested in the Ministry’s work. We welcome this, but it imposes great additional obligations. Hopefully, as we prepare for and celebrate Diplomatic Worker’s Day on February 10, we will be able to tell you more about our activities, and most importantly, to answer the questions sent to the Ministry from our citizens, which we always try to answer as fully as possible, keeping in touch with our people. It is important for us.

It is important to understand how they feel about the external problems that Russia is facing. It often gives us good guidance. Public opinion polls and the suggestions sent to us provide useful hints for choosing our practical foreign policy steps.

Question: In 2025, the Republic of Indonesia joined BRICS. You have already mentioned India and China. Do I understand it correctly that you are now paying still more attention to international cooperation within BRICS? What development prospects can you see in your work?

Sergey Lavrov: No doubt.

Everything that I have said in answer to the first question means that when the West is losing its hegemony but keeps on clinging to the institutions set up to secure that hegemony, which by default can no longer reflect the real situation and the fair nature of interactions at the international level, the establishment of new entities to facilitate international economic, investment, trade, and transport links is inevitable.

We are not advocating for the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO to cease their existence. For many years since the establishment of BRICS, we have been seeking a reform of these institutions so that the member states (and these were and still are the fastest growing world economies and trading powers) receive votes and rights in all those Bretton Woods institutions commensurate with their real weight in the world economy, trade and logistics.

The West is trying to oppose it categorically. President Putin has said on many occasions that we are not the ones refusing to use the dollar. The United States under President Joe Biden did everything to make the dollar a weapon against those who are deemed objectionable.

I would note that, for all the statements from President Donald Trump’s administration to the effect that the war in Ukraine started by President Biden should be ended, that we should come to terms and remove it from the agenda, and that supposedly then we would see bright and clear prospects of Russian-US mutually beneficial investment and other interaction, the administration has not challenged all the laws adopted by Joe Biden to “punish” Russia after the start of the special military operation.

In April 2025, they extended Executive Order 14024, on the emergency regime, the core of which is the “punishment” of Russia and sanctions against our country, including the freezing of Russia’s gold and currency reserves. That document mentions “harmful foreign activities of the Government of the Russian Federation.” Examples include efforts to undermine the conduct of elections in the United States (something that US President Donald Trump speaks against daily, categorically rejecting all this) and the violation of international law and human rights. You can find anything there!

This is all pure “Bidenism,” which President Trump and his team reject. Nevertheless, they have easily pushed through the law and sanctions against Russia, which continue to be in effect. They have imposed sanctions against Lukoil and Rosneft. And they did it in the autumn, a couple of weeks after a good meeting between President Putin and President Trump in Anchorage.

They tell us that the Ukraine problem should be resolved. In Anchorage, we accepted the US proposal. If we regard it “as men,” it means that they proposed it and we agreed, so the problem must be resolved. President Putin has said on many occasions that it is not important for Russia what Ukraine and Europe are going to say; we can clearly see the primitive Russophobia of most regimes in the European Union, with rare exceptions. The US position was important to us. By accepting their proposal, we seem to have completed the task of resolving the Ukrainian issue and moving on to a full-scale, broad-based and mutually beneficial cooperation.

So far, the reality is quite the opposite: new sanctions are imposed, a ‘war’ against tankers in the open sea is being waged in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. They are trying to ban India and our other partners from buying cheap, affordable Russian energy resources (Europe has long been banned) and are forcing them to buy US LNG at exorbitant prices. This means that the Americans have set themselves the task of achieving economic domination.

Furthermore, while they ostensibly made a proposal regarding Ukraine and we were ready to accept it (now they are not), we do not see any bright future in the economic sphere either. The Americans want to take control of all the routes for providing the world’s leading countries and all continents with energy resources. On the European continent, they are eyeing the Nord Streams, which were blown up three years ago, the Ukrainian gas transportation system and the TurkStream.

This illustrates that the US objective – to dominate the world economy – is being realised using a fairly large number of coercive measures that are incompatible with fair competition. Tariffs, sanctions, direct prohibitions, forbidding some from engaging with others – we have to take all of this into account.

While remaining open, just like India, China, Indonesia and Brazil, to cooperation with all countries, including a major power such as the United States, we are in a situation where the Americans themselves are creating artificial obstacles along the way. We are forced to look for additional secure ways to develop our financial, economic, integration, logistics and other projects with the BRICS countries.

Russia chaired this association in 2024. At that time, a summit was held in Kazan, and a number of our initiatives were put into action: alternative payment platforms, payment mechanisms in national currencies, the creation of reinsurance opportunities for trade within BRICS and between the association and its partners, the creation of a grain exchange, and a new investment platform.
All this is not to spite anyone, especially the United States. This is due to the fact that the United States seeks to bring all processes in the areas I mentioned under its strict control and demands unilateral concessions. Without giving up contacts with them, to the extent that they are willing to engage on a mutually beneficial basis, we are interested, together with our BRICS partners, in creating an architecture that will not be subject to the illegal actions of one or another player from the Western flank.

Question: The BRICS principles include equality, openness and mutually beneficial cooperation, which is similar to the principles of the Eurasian Economic Union. It is an integration association. Do you think the Greater Eurasian Partnership project will also facilitate international cooperation as much as the SCO and ASEAN?

Sergey Lavrov: I firmly believe the Greater Eurasian Partnership was bound to appear on the agenda. Many years ago, at the 2015 Russia – ASEAN Summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested this term which is based on an objective trend of Eurasia becoming the biggest, richest and fastest-growing continent, especially its Pacific part. It is the most heavily-populated continent which, importantly, has seen several great civilisations emerge and continue to exist – the Chinese, Indian, Arab, Persian and Russian civilisations.

We can hardly find as many historical processes in the history of Africa or Latin America as there were in Eurasia. Africa and Latin America also have a rich and old history, yet it is the Eurasian continent that has such a variety of cultures and civilisations. Eurasia has a number of subregional structures – the EAEU, the CIS, ASEAN as well as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), the Gulf Cooperation Council, and many others. There are many subregional organisations in Africa and Latin America, too, but they also have continent-wide umbrella structures such as the African Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States.

Eurasia does not have a similar common “canopy” for everyone. This is largely due to the fact that since the times of colonialism, Europeans were mainly preoccupied with making their own countries more comfortable whereas other territories, including in Eurasia, were used as colonies, be it India, China or any other territory. They were focused on improving the western part of the continent presuming that they are the masters of its remaining part as well. 

This led to the emergence of concepts that reflect Euro-Atlantic approaches to ensuring security after World War II – NATO and the European Union, which currently has become an appendix of the North Atlantic alliance, and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) which is also based on the Euro-Atlantic logic since North America (the US and Canada) are among its active members. All these organisations are nearing their end – both NATO with its unredeemed promises of not expanding eastward, given to the Soviet Union at the time, and the European Union that has completely destroyed the established infrastructure of cooperation with our country, to say nothing about the OSCE which has totally yielded to the West’s unilateral actions and forgotten the foundational principle of consensus of all its members. 

It is for a reason that our initiative on building a common Eurasian security architecture, set forward by President Putin in 2024, is gaining momentum. It is increasingly attracting interest. Essentially, this idea of providing security for all nations on the continent rests on the material foundation, a basis which is the Greater Eurasian Partnership. The stronger the ties between regional and subregional organisations, the sturdier the foundation for building a common security model.

The Greater Eurasian Partnership process is unfolding. It began through the relations between the EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN. In this context, they also factored in the Belt and Road initiative by the People’s Republic of China. Heads of the executive bodies of these organisations hold regular meetings, exchange information on their current plans and the ones in the making. That allows for taking decisions on a more efficient execution of certain projects, also at a lower cost, by collaborating rather than duplicating. Cooperation is ongoing also within the International North-South Transport Corridor and the projects connecting South Asia with the Russian Far East, as well as projects of joint use of the Northern Sea Route. So, these processes continue.

Understandably, the Eurasian partnership involves countries and continents. BRICS is a global association that attracts attention across the continents. It unites not only Eurasian nations but also many Latin American and African countries. This development will continue. BRICS is a framework, an “umbrella” for the integration process on particular continents.

Over the longer term, this association may very well become a platform for harmonising development plans in the economy and infrastructure in Eurasia, Africa and Latin America. The fact that the Eurasian powerhouses like China, India, Russia, and now also Indonesia are in BRICS certainly makes the association potentially efficient and helpful with the establishment of the Greater Eurasian Partnership.

Question: India has assumed the BRICS chairmanship. The country has already revealed its priorities – Building for Resilience, Innovation, Cooperation, and Sustainability. How do these priorities resonate with your vision of international cooperation development? What is the role of the global information space? Each of us consumes a lot of information every day. And, looking ahead, what outcomes of India’s chairmanship do you personally anticipate? 

Sergey Lavrov: Every BRICS chairmanship shows an established continuity. I have already mentioned the initiatives launched during our chairmanship in 2024 related to alternative platforms and tools for servicing the global economy. The initiatives are still being discussed and elaborated as it happened in 2025 when Brazil held the chairmanship. The same is happening now when India has assumed the position.

India pays special attention to fighting terrorism, a problem that, regrettably, remains highly relevant. We see acts of terror in Afghanistan and around it, on the territories between India and Pakistan, India and Afghanistan, Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are plenty of such places – the Middle East, including its Asian part. That is the reason this priority matters to us, too. Especially since we, along with India, are actively promoting the initiative at the UN to adopt the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. So far, consensus has not been reached. But it is a different story.

India is also interested in and has included in its chairmanship programme food and energy security issues. It will be interesting to consider energy security in view of the Trump administration’s actions in global energy. It is also bound to absolutely practical capabilities and outcomes. India puts special emphasis on information and communication technologies security. We actively support it. 

In February, India will host a summit on artificial intelligence. Russia is among the invited parties. Our country has been actively engaged in working out the summit agenda that bears importance considering that standards of international cooperation in AI and AI application standards by each state are so far just in the making. This is a fairly grave diplomatic struggle which also has a direct practical dimension because these standards will regulate (we hope this will be the case) the conduct that security issues depend on.

You know that some actors are taking extensive action to introduce AI in the military domain. Every country has the right to see how it will unfold. But even now we see some countries’ attempts to subdue others and create a structure under their rule and subjugate everything other countries are doing, can do and have the right to do with AI in the military domain. Clearly, nations such as BRICS countries will not agree to such restrictions on their sovereignty. Nevertheless, transparency in this area is also crucial. 

India’s chairmanship has a relevant and modern programme that reflects today’s objectives and targets tomorrow. We will be supporting it more actively.