Russia's Foreign Policy

In 5 years the people of Alaska will propably beg Russia on their knees to take them (back).

Humor and dignity as Russia's new weapon, by Timofey Bordachev, Programme Director of the Valdai Club, for VZGLYAD. 02.23.2024.

Russia does not suffer from low self-esteem and is ready to contrast the unique foreign policy style of the United States with something that world politics has not yet known - calm self-confidence and emphasized correctness in relation to any interlocutor.

The fact that almost any statement by state leaders and diplomats now immediately becomes the property of the media and public attention has a bad effect on the quality of international politics. Firstly, because it often forces politicians in the West to think about the form rather than the content of their statements. Secondly, because it creates a false impression among observers of complete transparency of the process and thereby leads to inflated expectations.

But there are times when publicity makes it possible to return elements of living human participation to an area of ​​activity that at one time seemed like a boring task for professionals. In earlier times, when foreign policy was handled by monarchs, this was an important part of communication between peoples. However, at that time the exchange of caustic pleasantries remained hidden from the general public and came to us only in later memories. Now, vibrant individual style is returning, sung by democratically elected leaders. It is all the more pleasant when it manifests itself not in the form of offensive attacks, but with elegance and dignity inherent in Russia’s position in world affairs.

This was precisely the response of the Russian President to a journalist’s question about recent offensive statements addressed to him by the head of the American state. Let us note that the Russian Embassy in the United States, in turn, sent an official protest and characterized Biden’s words as a manifestation of “powerlessness and lack of common sense.” But this is a matter for diplomats, who do not have the right to ignore any manifestations of disrespect for our country.

President Putin, in turn, limited himself to reminding how difficult the internal situation in the United States is. And with his characteristic humor, he noted that Biden’s words confirmed the correctness of the fact that “Joe” is the most understandable and predictable American leader for Russia. And in general, according to the head of the Russian state, Biden’s abuse of him is an acknowledgment of the correctness of such an assessment, an outburst adequate to the position of the American leader, and even an expression of gratitude.

It must be said that American statesmen are not particularly used to being shy in expressing their emotions. This appears to be part of the existing political culture there, which was formed at a considerable geographical distance from the main centers of civilization in Europe and Asia. A society that is isolated and lives with the feeling of a “besieged fortress” does not have the opportunity to come into contact with other cultures on a regular basis. It concentrates on its experiences, which are often not interesting and incomprehensible to others, and cultivates behavioral characteristics that look quite extravagant against the general background.

However, when such an isolated nation has a significant population and almost the most serious military and economic capabilities in the world, such eccentricities are forgiven. Everyone else gets used to making exceptions, and the Americans themselves have developed a feeling that they really are allowed everything. Their political rhetoric is isolated from the rest of the world and provides it with absolutely nothing useful. Moreover, for quite a long time the only ones who spoke the same language with the Americans were states that were revolutionary in their spirit, but were much inferior to them in military strength.

Iranian leaders after the 1979 revolution called the United States “the great Satan,” and the North Korean media regularly gives the harshest assessments to Americans. However, their use of the same rhetoric, as the United States constantly does, was often perceived by others as a sign of weakness rather than strength. And in principle, in order to put someone in their place, it is not at all necessary to use the same expressions. We know this from school.

Now we see that Russia, in the person of its president, is quite capable of doing without counter-battle. But it is brilliant to demonstrate that one of the most important laws of international politics says: the capabilities of one state end where another can oppose them with something.

Now Russia is contrasting the unique foreign policy style of the United States with something that world politics has not yet known - calm self-confidence and emphasized correctness in relation to any interlocutor. When combined, these two stylistic features are an exceptionally rare phenomenon and stand out from everything else we encounter in public displays of global diplomacy. For example, it is completely unusual for Chinese behavior: in the event of such attacks from the Americans, Chinese leaders prefer to remain mysteriously silent, and only representatives of the Chinese Foreign Ministry take the floor. This is a special Chinese diplomatic style, reflecting the culture and internal structure of our close friends and allies.

Everyone else is generally timid and pretends that they have not heard offensive remarks addressed to them. This is especially true for US allies. Thus, there is a well-known example when, after the protest in Paris over the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice publicly said that “France missed the opportunity to remain silent.” The French, who are supposed to never mince words, preferred to pretend that they had not heard. In reality, they were simply afraid to enter into a discussion, knowing that they would lose. And they will receive a dozen more insults, to which they will definitely not be able to respond. The fact that the United States is capable of such insults was demonstrated to Europeans in the spring of 2014 by the example of statements made by one of the American representatives in Ukraine. In other words, the United States has long been accustomed to not mincing words with its allies, but they take it for granted.

Unlike China, where the leader is a celestial being, or Europe, which has quietly come to terms with American behavior, Russia is a modern, open country, but not one that suffers from low self-esteem. Our contribution to international politics is to make it democratic and open to open but respectful debate. This behavior is a kind of new sincerity and can serve as an example for the leaders of the countries of the World Majority. It is the opposite of the “sincerity” that we have seen over the past two years in statements by European leaders that support, for example, for the 2015 Minsk agreements was only a way on their part to give the Kiev regime a break to prepare for new aggression. Russia offers international diplomacy a new way of communication.

Our style meets the requirements of the time, when every word of statesmen becomes known and discussed. But at the same time, he maintains conservatism, which is important for such a sensitive area, in the use of words and definitions that are usually given to interlocutors. As the international order enters its most significant overhaul in centuries, the outlines of how we will do business in the future are taking shape. And in this sense, the new style of communication that Russia is demonstrating could become a significant contribution to what global diplomacy will become in the next decades.

https://vz.ru/opinions/2024/2/23/1254908.html

The Man.

Zlatti71
@djuric_zlatko
Not to forget Sergei Lavrov, the grandmaster of global diplomacy, the longest-serving foreign minister, a man who almost seems like a fictional character, so brilliantly competent that he couldn't possibly exist. And yet, there he is.

Though he may have aged a bit, his intellect remains at the top level. And when I say top level, I mean on a Russian top level. Yes, what the West considers top level is not even average in Russian diplomatic circles.

Cephas
@CephasPeter116
It became absolutely clear to me, over this past two years of the SMO, that there is no one on par with Putin-Lavrov (+Zakharova) in terms of their diplomatic and communication skills. Definitiely not a single one in the west and I am not sure if anyone at all in the world.
12:17 PM · Feb 27, 2024
·
226
Views

2s4you 2s4you
@22s4you
Absolutely correct description of this highly intelligent man....

Intelligence and knowledge radiates from this man...his diplomatic art will not be easily matched by anyone else....

May God bless you with good health and long life, Mr. Lavrov....
12:33 PM · Feb 27, 2024
·
118
Views

Russian government approves draft agreement on military cooperation with DRC

https://tass.com/defense/1755957

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:

The-thing-next-door wrote:The reclamation of Alaska is most likely on the agenda. Tho only real question is when and how.

How so?

Alaska is inhabitated by Americans and Americans will not vote to become a part of Russia.

Inhabitated by Eskimos who are ethnically the same as other Asian Russians.
However the place is controlled by the US corporate machine right now.

Pretty interesting discussion touching many topics for those who have the time to listen

Arkanghelsk wrote:Lol he's a clown

Another one of those experts from MSU that are depressed that the west is gone

Good riddance

Not depressed, but expresses feelings of 'betrayal', on behalf of all Russians.

I'm not angry over any Western betrayal. To be betrayed by someone you have to vest them with some trust and responsibility, yet I never trusted the West to begin with or had any illusions about their agenda. I was never against good relations with Western countries mind you, but good relations at a distance so to speak.

Still that aside he makes a lot of valuable points.

S p r i n t e r F a c t o r y
@Sprinterfactory
Great Britain expels the Russian military attache

" Moscow will adequately respond to the expulsion of the Russian attaché from London ," said the official representative of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Maria Zakharova.

The British Ministry of Internal Affairs has also announced the withdrawal of diplomatic status from certain properties owned by Russia.

Put up or shut up.

Moscow has scared Britain - and all of Europe - speechless, by Irina Alksnis for RiaNovosti. 05.08.2024.

Something mysterious is happening in Europe.
It was the second day since the British ambassador (like his French colleague) was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry, where he was given the most severe - by diplomatic standards - flogging.

Following the meeting, our Foreign Ministry said in an official statement that the British envoy “was warned that the response to Ukrainian strikes using British weapons on Russian territory could be any British military facilities and equipment on the territory of Ukraine and beyond.”

The reason for Moscow's demarche was a recent statement by Foreign Minister David Cameron , in which he allowed the use of weapons transferred to Kiev - specifically long-range cruise missiles - for attacks on Russian territory. This is the same statement that Reuters first published on May 2, then withdrew “to review the details,” and then returned again without much change.

The reason for such hesitation is quite clear: Cameron’s words actually make Britain a party to the conflict, and that is how Moscow regarded them. But, obviously, in the London offices the “hawks” prevailed over their more cautious comrades, and the minister’s statement remained undisavowed.

For more than two years, the West’s policy towards Ukraine was to walk on thin ice: on the one hand, providing powerful, multifaceted support to Kyiv, and on the other, formally maintaining its non-involvement and thereby not giving Russia a reason to retaliate. In recent months, the situation has begun to change: the hopelessness of the situation for the Ukrainian Armed Forces at the front is increasingly pushing the West—primarily Europe, of course—to direct participation in the conflict. The growing aggressiveness of the rhetoric of European leaders reflects precisely the change in trend.

The subtlety is that in this case there is a huge distance between words and deeds. It’s one thing to puff up like Macron, promising to officially send French troops to Ukraine, and quite another to actually implement it. So far, everything is limited to rumors and evidence of the participation of French mercenaries in hostilities, and Macron himself, after the initial fuse, is now choosing his wording more and more carefully. For example, simultaneously with the summons of the French Ambassador to Smolensk Square, he assured that his country was not in a state of war either with Russia or with the Russian people.

However, the situation for the British is more complicated, since Cameron gave Kiev consent to strikes on Russian territory with weapons officially transferred by London . Here the usual excuses about mercenaries who act at their own peril and risk and have nothing to do with the state do not work. In general, this is indeed a very big step for Britain towards openly entering the war with Russia.

But, apparently, before the ambassador was summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry, they did not realize this; as a result, Moscow’s subsequent reaction shocked the British, and then the entire European establishment.

For many months now, ever since a public tendency to reduce support for Kyiv appeared in the West, officials there, tearing up their throats, explain that the process must be continued, because Russia will not stop in Ukraine and will inevitably go further, so under the threat of military The lion's share of Europe is located under Moscow's aggression.

And now the West finally received a reinforced concrete argument in support of its position: Moscow openly, directly and absolutely officially declared that yes, it would attack British military targets. And yes, it will hit them not only in Ukraine, but also beyond its borders. Moreover, this statement was made almost simultaneously with Russia’s announcement of exercises with non-strategic nuclear weapons.

It would seem that this is the very proof of the Russian threat, which can and should be trumpeted at all corners. But instead there is silence. While the world's media have already written about nuclear exercises, both officials and the media have taken a liking to the Russian Foreign Ministry's statement promising a military response to Britain (and outside of Ukraine). At the time of publication, this topic practically does not exist in the Western information and political field. The notorious Russophobes, who in recent weeks have been promising “surprises” to Russia for the May holidays, such as massive missile and drone attacks and the destruction of the Crimean Bridge, have also shut up and studiously ignore the topic.

We are accustomed to the fact that Western statesmen, politicians and journalists have no problems with rhetoric. At any moment and on any topic, they have ideological and speech cliches ready in accordance with the current agenda. The more than 24-hour silence of London and all other Western capitals on such an important topic as Russia’s direct military threat to Britain speaks volumes about the degree of stupor and confusion that now reigns there.

Europeans will have to reformat the entire picture of the world in their heads and realize that the popular Russian bear, which they have successfully defeated in recent years, is somewhat different from the real owner of the taiga. And in reality, no one wants to face him in a fight. Moreover, today’s date reminds us of how this matter ended last time.

https://ria.ru/20240508/evropa-1944517086.html

Russia will take into account Bern's departure from the principle of neutrality, Lavrov warned, 07.16.2024.

Lavrov: Russia will take into account Switzerland's departure from the principle of neutrality.

MOSCOW, July 17 — RIA Novosti. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, at a meeting with his Swiss counterpart Ignazio Cassis, pointed out Bern's departure from the principle of neutrality; Moscow will take this into account in its policy, according to a statement on the department's website.

"The Russian side noted the Confederation's progressive departure from the principles of "neutrality" in the context of its joining the anti-Russian actions of Western capitals, which have placed their bets on blind support for the Kyiv regime," the Foreign Ministry said.

At the meeting, Lavrov "presented fundamental assessments of the development of the situation in Ukraine, starting with the 2014 coup, and emphasized the doom of the attempts of the "collective West" to present Russia with various kinds of ultimatums."

As noted by the ministry, at the meeting "it was emphasized that such actions by official Bern cannot fail to be recorded and taken into account when building the Russian line in the Swiss direction."

The meeting took place in New York on the sidelines of the open debates of the UN Security Council. The talks lasted almost an hour. After their conclusion, Lavrov said that they were "interesting."

On Tuesday, Lavrov spoke at a UN Security Council meeting on multilateral cooperation in the interests of creating a more just, democratic and sustainable world order. Among other things, he commented on Germany's decision to deploy American long-range missiles, calling it a humiliation for Berlin.

The minister also touched on the Ukrainian conflict, emphasizing that the resolution of this crisis must be accompanied by concrete steps to remove threats to Russia emanating from the West.

https://ria.ru/20240717/lavrov-1960143955.html

Peskov: Russia is interested in improving relations between Turkey and Syria, 07.23.2024.

Moscow is interested in helping Syria and Ankara improve relations, said the Russian leader's press secretary Dmitry Peskov.

According to him, many countries, and certainly Russia, are interested in helping Ankara and Damascus improve relations.

Peskov added that this is important not only for resolving the Syrian conflict, but also for stability in the entire region.

Earlier, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad announced his readiness to meet with Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The Turkish President allowed for the possibility of resuming diplomatic relations between Turkey and Syria.

https://russian.rt.com/world/news/1345119-erdogan-asad-moskva

Trần Thanh Mẫn, Chairman of Vietnam National Assembly, visited Russia.

Russia's humanitarian aid to Vietnam to relief the damages caused by Yagi storm. The amount is 35 tonnes of goods and equipments.

The ending is predetermined, by Elena Karaeva for RiaNovosti. 09.23.2024.

Russian diplomacy is going on the offensive: tomorrow the UN General Assembly summit opens in New York, the head of our foreign policy department Sergey Lavrov "has planned a colossal program of meetings "on the sidelines" of the UN General Assembly High-Level Week," the Foreign Ministry reported. And just below, Deputy Minister Sergey Ryabkov added that "the world is not all about Ukraine." And such statements are one of the forms of the battle that Russia is waging for a new world order that is fair and safe for all. For the same rules, laws and norms for all. The era when "everyone is equal, but some are more equal" is a thing of the past with the beginning of the NWO.

Russia intends to remind everyone present at the 79th session of the General Assembly why this organization was created . And that the United States has no right to subjugate its work.

The US is in a hurry: the time when they could crush with their economic might is gone, the country has no alternative development, and hegemony (and gendarme habits) must be supported somehow. That is why America is pushing ahead, not noticing that the world has changed very much. This can also be called the continuing agony of the Western-centric world.

The "sparkling city on a hill" and the "Garden of Eden" that adjoins it are not united, because the West is now more fragmented politically than ever and is no longer economically viable. In two key European powers, Germany and France , the most unpopular politicians in decades are in power - Scholz and Macron. The share of the dollar and the euro, once the main reserve currencies, is decreasing, albeit gradually but steadily.

Meanwhile, BRICS has already managed to overtake the G7 in terms of its share of the global economy (33 percent versus 30 percent for the G7 ) and in terms of purchasing power parity.

As for Ukraine, it is in New York only because Zelensky desperately needs long-range JASSM missiles of American manufacture and formal permission to use them, and also to do something to draw Russia into discussing some Kyiv “peace initiatives.”

As for Kiev's "peace plan" , Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said: "Zelensky's initiative has become a pain in the neck for everyone, it is a pure ultimatum." Agreements must be reached "honestly and without paperwork," he stressed.

At the current session of the UN General Assembly at the highest level, two approaches to resolving problems and crises will thus be presented. Ours. And the one used by the West and its Ukrainian subcontractor.

As for the supply of a new type of American JASSM missiles to Ukraine (and permission to use them, as well as Kiev's completely insane desire to "receive an invitation to NATO from Biden"), the US is hesitant for now. Those who permit them are extremely afraid of our asymmetric response.

But NATO reconnaissance aircraft appear very often over the Black Sea – they collect information and then pass it on to Ukraine. The French do this, and, of course, the Anglo-Saxons. For now, it is a war of nerves. The delivery of JASSM can change a lot in this short phrase.

The British Defence Journal cynically boasts that NATO almost deliberately makes the flights visible. Because "the Russians are receiving an open signal about our support for Ukraine." All this is funny, like any boasting, but it once again makes us understand who we are fighting and who is really fighting against us. Hiding behind Ukraine. As Russia has said, claimed, and explained many times. This is a proxy war with NATO - the further it goes, the more it loses the prefix "proxy".

Russia, with a healthy economy, a united society, and a clear understanding of its mission, will express ideas about a new international order at the Future Summit dedicated to UN reforms. Russia's position is based on the unanimous opinion of the BRICS member states.

India , Brazil and South Africa have long sought to obtain the right to the level of permanent representation at the Security Council. According to Moscow , reform of the UN working bodies is necessary, and the expansion of the UN Security Council itself should be carried out strictly according to procedure.

This is the brief Russian agenda for the UN General Assembly High-Level Week. In Ukraine, these realities are not the end of the world. And it is absolutely clear that we have not been and are not threatened by any "international isolation".

Another thing is also clear. The Western-centric world has finally lost its leading position. Russia no longer needs it, and the countries of the Greater South do not treat it warmly either. This, of course, is far from the end. But it is undoubtedly the beginning of an inglorious end for the Euro-Atlantic world order.

https://ria.ru/20240923/politika-1974118225.html

Russia's Victory in Ukraine Will Change the UN Security Council, by Anastasia Kulikova for VZGLYAD. 09.25.2024.

Experts talk about Russia's views on UN Security Council reform.

Russia has proposed its vision of the UN Security Council reform. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the Security Council should be replenished with countries representing the interests of Asia and Africa. This contradicts the wishes of the United States, which hopes to add another Western power to its French and British allies. However, all members of the Council understand that reform of the organization is inevitable. What exactly will change and when should we expect the Security Council to be updated?

Russia has spoken out against the expansion of the UN Security Council (UNSC) by including Germany and Japan. According to Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the international body does not need additional members of NATO, the EU and their allies. He added that the inclusion of these states would only exacerbate the injustice that has developed in the organization.

At the same time, Moscow is ready to support the entry of India or Brazil into the permanent membership of the Security Council. In addition, Russia proposes to "satisfy African aspirations." Lavrov specified that "collective positions" have already been formed on the continent on this issue, which our country respects.

In general, according to the head of the diplomatic department, developing countries still remain unrepresented in the UN Security Council. Therefore, in the matter of expanding the Council, the main support should be aimed at satisfying the interests of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Interestingly, some Western representatives even question the need for Russia's membership in the Security Council. Thus, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski called Moscow's receipt of a permanent seat after the collapse of the USSR debatable, and US Permanent Representative to the world organization Linda Thomas-Greenfield agreed with Kiev's right to raise the issue of excluding Russia from the agency.

Meanwhile, Russia and the West's views on the reform of the Security Council diverge not only on the issue of increasing the number of permanent members. Thus, in an interview with TASS, Sergei Lavrov criticized France's intentions to limit the right of veto in the international agency. According to him, Paris's actions are a manifestation of hypocrisy and are aimed at creating an external effect.

He explained that Britain and the United States have dual positions on this issue. However, London and Washington are ready to support those who want to speed up the discussion of the issue of changing the nature of the veto right. France is the main supporter of such an initiative. Against this background, the minister expressed dissatisfaction with the arbitrariness of NATO states.

"Wherever the West has been infiltrating as the main 'fixer', excuse me for this jargon, a crisis situation has set in, things have become much worse: hundreds of thousands of victims, devastation, socio-economic problems," he noted . Lavrov recalled that such behavior by the US and its allies demonstrates disrespect for the central principle of the UN Charter - the sovereign equality of states.

"The UN Security Council reform is urgently needed. Since the middle of the last century, the world has moved away from the "Yalta model" and changed: we are no longer talking about a unipolar, but a multipolar structure," noted German political scientist Alexander Rahr. He recalled that talks about expanding the number of permanent members of the Security Council have been going on since the end of the Cold War. "But the countries that received the right of veto 80 years ago do not want to lose their privileges," the interlocutor specified.

Nevertheless, the US and Russia understand the need to increase the number of members of the Security Council. "Thus, Washington advocates the inclusion of its allies - Germany and Japan. Russia wants to see the BRICS countries in the Security Council. France and Britain, in turn, only want to maintain their leading positions and therefore torpedo the reform," the speaker detailed.

“It seems that one of the fundamental consequences of the Ukrainian conflict could be a ‘second Yalta’,” the political scientist allowed. In his opinion, in this case it will be possible to satisfy the demands of all parties. "That is, the expansion of the Security Council can occur at the expense of the BRICS countries, as well as Germany and Japan. The alternative to this is a new division of the world, as it was before the Second World War," Rahr concluded.

Russia's fundamental position is that the Security Council should reflect current realities, said Timofey Bordachev, program director of the Valdai Discussion Club. He believes that granting Berlin and Tokyo the status of permanent members of the Security Council looks unnecessary. "The fact is that these countries are not independent. Their foreign policy is determined in Washington," the source explained.

The discussion of the UN Security Council reform continues, but this issue is not "burning", the analyst believes. "The primary problem is the actions of the West, which lead to international confrontation. Possible changes in the organization are a working topic that will develop and somehow evolve as a new understanding is achieved between the largest states of the world," the political scientist believes.

As for Sikorski’s “doubts” about Russia’s right to the USSR’s place in the UN Security Council, the Polish Foreign Minister’s statement should be assessed by narcologists, Bordachev added ironically.

The idea of ​​creating the Security Council arose at the final stage of World War II, says Stanislav Tkachenko, professor of the Department of European Studies at the Faculty of International Relations at St. Petersburg State University and an expert at the Valdai Club. “Initially, there were five participants: the USSR, the USA, Britain, China, and France,” he says. The expert noted that the issue of UN reform was discussed in the 1960s and after the end of the Cold War.

“The era has changed, and discussions have become more frequent, the interlocutor specified. There are indeed a number of questions about the current UN Security Council. In particular, this concerns Britain and France. "Representatives of these countries have been voting "as one front" with the United States for the past few decades. It has happened that the United States imposed a veto, and they abstained, but there has never been a situation where the Americans voted for, and the British and French voted against," Tkachenko detailed.

Therefore, Moscow's position is to expand the Security Council by including truly sovereign states. According to the expert, India is first on the list of contenders. "This is the most populous country on the planet, a state that will be, along with China, the main engine of global economic development in the next 30 years. Granting Delhi the status of a permanent member of the Security Council is a pressing issue on which Russia and the United States have no disagreements. However, the idea may be torpedoed for some time by China. But in the end, I think Beijing will give in," the speaker explained.

The second contender is Brazil. "It is obvious that the Western Hemisphere should be represented in the UN Security Council not only by the United States. Moreover, this country has confirmed its status as a sovereign state that puts national interests above pressure from Washington," the political scientist believes.

It is assumed that the third candidate will be from Africa. "The population of the continent in 30 years will increase, according to forecasts, from 1.5 to 2.5 billion people. The economy in the region will also grow at an accelerated rate. Therefore, of course, Africa should be represented in the Security Council," Tkachenko believes.

He recalled the idea that had been voiced earlier, according to which the continent could be represented in the Security Council by the African Union. “The initiative is elegant, but, in my opinion, it will not attract a large number of allies. The fact is that this organization is such an inactive union that its political subjectivity is still in doubt. Therefore, it seems to me that the continent could be represented by Nigeria, as well as Ethiopia,” the interlocutor reasons. According to the analyst’s forecasts, some progress on the UN reform issue may occur after the end of the Ukrainian conflict.

"These events are linked chronologically - one follows another," Tkachenko pointed out. He recalled that after the Napoleonic Wars, the Vienna model emerged, after the First World War - the Versailles system, and after the Second World War - the UN.

"The current conflict, which initially began as a special military operation of Russia in Ukraine, has turned into a grand confrontation of the West against Moscow. When the military actions end with our victory, we will have the right to raise the issue of the fact that the states of the world majority are underrepresented in the entire UN system, as well as in the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other organizations," the analyst believes.

At the same time, Russia, unlike the West, has a “Plan B,” Tkachenko added. “It consists of creating the same structure – but without the participation of the US and its allies – based on BRICS. These two movements – the discussion about reforming the UN and filling BRICS with power and content – ​​are going in parallel,” the interlocutor noted.

He stressed that Moscow is not giving up its membership in the UN. “After all, this is the basis of international law, and the Security Council is a place where great powers come face to face, regulating their relations. The only problem is the long-standing absence of a positive agenda. We hope that it will appear in BRICS, and thus this association will become a real alternative to the Security Council,” Tkachenko concluded.

https://vz.ru/politics/2024/9/25/1289089.html

Holt shit if second comment is true

comments under youtube video about Russian Ambassador leaving the US:


@returntoyehovahthelord6185
"Ohh. If Ambassador Antonov left the US, that is a big deal. I’ve actually been waiting for that. He recently warned that his office and staff had been receiving threats. Wow. Very interesting. But bad for the U.S."

@martinst-jean8102
"When the Russian Ambassador left, his entourage took with them all the communications gear, cryptographic gear, classified documents, all Diplomatic Staff and - here's the big "tell" -- the entire Diplomatic Security Staff. It is worth noting that Japan did similar things with their Embassy staff and gear, just prior to Pearl Harbor."