By Guy Faulconbridge & Andrew Osburn, Reuters, 5/24/24

MOSCOW/LONDON, May 24 (Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin is ready to halt the war in Ukraine with a negotiated ceasefire that recognises the current battlefield lines, four Russian sources told Reuters, saying he is prepared to fight on if Kyiv and the West do not respond.

Three of the sources, familiar with discussions in Putin’s entourage, said the veteran Russian leader had expressed frustration to a small group of advisers about what he views as Western-backed attempts to stymie negotiations and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s decision to rule out talks.

“Putin can fight for as long as it takes, but Putin is also ready for a ceasefire – to freeze the war,” said another of the four, a senior Russian source who has worked with Putin and has knowledge of top level conversations in the Kremlin.

He, like the others cited in this story, spoke on condition of anonymity given the matter’s sensitivity.

For this account, Reuters spoke to a total of five people who work with or have worked with Putin at a senior level in the political and business worlds. The fifth source did not comment on freezing the war at the current frontlines.

Asked about the Reuters report at a news conference in Belarus on Friday, Putin said peace talks should restart.

“Let them resume,” he said, adding that negotiations should be based on “the realities on the ground” and on a plan agreed during a previous attempt to reach a deal in the first weeks of the war. “Not on the basis of what one side wants,” he said.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba said on X that the Russian leader was trying to derail a Ukrainian-initiated peace summit in Switzerland next month by using his entourage to send out “phony signals” about his alleged readiness to halt the war.

“Putin currently has no desire to end his aggression against Ukraine. Only the principled and united voice of the global majority can force him to choose peace over war,” said Kuleba.

Mykhailo Podolyak, a Ukrainian presidential adviser, said Putin wanted Western democracies to accept defeat.

NOT “ETERNAL WAR”

The appointment last week of economist Andrei Belousov as Russia’s defence minister was seen by some Western military and political analysts as placing the Russian economy on a permanent war footing in order to win a protracted conflict.

It followed sustained battlefield pressure and territorial advances by Russia in recent weeks.

However, the sources said that Putin, re-elected in March for a new six-year term, would rather use Russia’s current momentum to put the war behind him. They did not directly comment on the new defence minister.

Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov, in response to a request for comment, said the country did not want “eternal war.”

Based on their knowledge of conversations in the upper ranks of the Kremlin, two of the sources said Putin was of the view that gains in the war so far were enough to sell a victory to the Russian people.

Europe’s biggest ground conflict since World War Two has cost tens of thousands of lives on both sides and led to sweeping Western sanctions on Russia’s economy.

Three sources said Putin understood any dramatic new advances would require another nationwide mobilisation, which he didn’t want, with one source, who knows the Russian president, saying his popularity dipped after the first mobilisation in September 2022.

The national call up spooked part of the population in Russia, triggering hundreds of thousands of draft age men to leave the country. Polls showed Putin’s popularity falling by several points.

Peskov said Russia had no need for mobilisation and was instead recruiting volunteer contractors to the armed forces.

The prospect of a ceasefire, or even peace talks, currently seems remote.

Zelenskiy has repeatedly said peace on Putin’s terms is a non-starter. He has vowed to retake lost territory, including Crimea, which Russia annexed in 2014. He signed a decree in 2022 that formally declared any talks with Putin “impossible.”

One of the sources predicted no agreement could happen while Zelenskiy was in power, unless Russia bypassed him and struck a deal with Washington. However, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaking in Kyiv last week, told reporters he did not believe Putin was interested in serious negotiations.

SWISS TALKS

The Swiss peace summit in June is aimed at unifying international opinion on how to end the war. The talks were convened at the initiative of Zelenskiy who has said Putin should not attend. Switzerland has not invited Russia.

Moscow has said the talks are not credible without it being there. Ukraine and Switzerland want Russian allies including China to attend.

Speaking in China on May 17, Putin said Ukraine may use the Swiss talks to get a broader group of countries to back Zelenskiy’s demand for a total Russian withdrawal, which Putin said would be an imposed condition rather than a serious peace negotiation.

The Swiss foreign ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In response to questions for this story, a U.S. State Department spokesperson said any initiative for peace must respect Ukraine’s “territorial integrity, within its internationally recognised borders” and described Russia as the sole obstacle to peace in Ukraine.

“The Kremlin has yet to demonstrate any meaningful interest in ending its war, quite the opposite,” the spokesperson said.

Kyiv says Putin, whose team repeatedly denied he was planning a war before invading Ukraine in 2022, cannot be trusted to honour any deal.

Both Russia and Ukraine have also said they fear the other side would use any ceasefire to re-arm.

Kyiv and its Western backers are banking on a $61 billion U.S. aid package and additional European military aid to reverse what Zelenskiy described to Reuters this week as “one of the most difficult moments” of the full scale war.

As well as shortages of ammunition after U.S. delays in approving the package, Ukraine has admitted it is struggling to recruit enough troops and last month lowered the age for men who can be drafted to 25 from 27.

TERRITORY

Putin’s insistence on locking in any battlefield gains in a deal is non-negotiable, all of the sources suggested.

Putin would, however, be ready to settle for what land he has now and freeze the conflict at the current front lines, four of the sources said.

“Putin will say that we won, that NATO attacked us and we kept our sovereignty, that we have a land corridor to Crimea, which is true,” one of them said, giving their own analysis.

Freezing the conflict along current lines would leave Russia in possession of substantial chunks of four Ukrainian regions he formally incorporated into Russia in September 2022, but without full control of any of them.

Such an arrangement would fall short of the goals Moscow set for itself at the time, when it said the four of Ukraine’s regions – Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson – now belonged to it in their entirety.

Peskov said that there could be no question of handing back the four regions which were now permanently part of Russia according to its own constitution.

Another factor playing into the Kremlin chief’s view that the war should end is that the longer it drags on, the more battle-hardened veterans return to Russia, dissatisfied with post-war job and income prospects, potentially creating tensions in society, said one of the sources, who has worked with Putin.

‘RUSSIA WILL PUSH FURTHER’

In February, three Russian sources told Reuters the United States rejected a previous Putin suggestion of a ceasefire to freeze the war.

In the absence of a ceasefire, Putin wants to take as much territory as possible to ratchet up pressure on Ukraine while seeking to exploit unexpected opportunities to acquire more, three of the sources said.

Russian forces control around 18% of Ukraine and this month thrust into the northeastern region of Kharkiv.

Putin is counting on Russia’s large population compared to Ukraine to sustain superior manpower even without a mobilisation, bolstered by unusually generous pay packets for those who sign up.

“Russia will push further,” the source who has worked with Putin said.

Putin will slowly conquer territories until Zelenskiy comes up with an offer to stop, the person said, saying the Russian leader had expressed the view to aides that the West would not provide enough weapons, sapping Ukraine’s morale.

U.S. and European leaders have said they will stand by Ukraine until its security sovereignty is guaranteed. NATO countries and allies say they are trying to accelerate deliveries of weapons.

“Russia could end the war at any time by withdrawing its forces from Ukraine, instead of continuing to launch brutal attacks against Ukraine’s cities, ports, and people every day,” the State Department said in response to a question about weapons supplies.

All five sources said Putin had told advisers he had no designs on NATO territory, reflecting his public comments on the matter. Two of the sources cited Russian concerns about the growing danger of escalation with the West, including nuclear escalation, over the Ukraine standoff.

The State Department said the United States had not adjusted its nuclear posture, nor seen any sign that Russia was preparing to use a nuclear weapon.

“We continue to monitor the strategic environment and remain ready,” the spokesperson said.

***

Russia Matters, 5/24/24

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy told Reuters that the June 15-16 peace conference in Switzerland is to focus on ensuring nuclear security, the safety of shipping in the Black Sea and Azov Sea, the return of Ukrainian children from Russia to Ukraine and the exchange of all POWs. While all these issues have earlier appeared in Zelenskyy’s peace formula, the peace formula has included several other components, including the restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and prosecution of Russian officials in the International Criminal Court. However, Reuters’ summary of the 57-minute interview with Zelenskyy doesn’t include these additional issues, and it remains unclear if the Ukrainian president will try to discuss them at the summit.¹ Meanwhile, Zelenskyy’s main diplomatic push to secure broader global support against Russia’s invasion at the pending summit has suffered a double blow, according to Bloomberg. First, Brazil and China announced a rival initiative early on May 24, inviting other nations to support their call for an international conference involving Russia and Ukraine to discuss an end to the war. Second, it emerged that U.S. President Joe Biden would likely be a no-show at the event because it clashes with an election fundraiser in California, according to Bloomberg.

Moscow Times, 4/29/24

Major European banks that continue to do business in Russia paid the government four times more in taxes in 2023 than in the year before Moscow launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the Financial Times reported. [https://www.ft.com/content/cd6c28e2-d327-4c2a-a023-098ca43eacfb]

The seven lenders — Austria’s Raiffeisen, Italy’s UniCredit and Intesa Sanpaolo, the Netherlands’ ING, Germany’s Commerzbank and Deutsche Bank, as well as Hungary’s OTP — reportedly paid around 800 million euros ($857 million) in taxes to the Russian state last year.

In 2021, those same banks paid 200 million euros in taxes, according to FT.

At the same time, the seven banks reported a combined profit of more than 3 billion euros last year, though part of these funds cannot be withdrawn from Russia due to wartime restrictions on dividend payouts. It is because of this increase in profitability that the seven banks paid more in Russian taxes in 2023, according to an analysis by FT.

The amount of taxes paid by the major European banks to the Russian government totals around 0.4% of Russia’s non-energy budget revenues expected in 2024, which highlights the role foreign companies continue to play in propping up Moscow’s financial stability despite Western sanctions and an exodus of foreign companies following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Western sanctions imposed in response to the war, which cut Russian banks off from the Swift international payment system, have increased the appeal of Western lenders among Russian clients who seek to maintain access to the West — but they have also benefited the banks themselves.

For example, Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI) saw its Russian profits more than triple to 1.8 billion euros between 2021 and 2023, a figure that is half of RBI’s total profit. Raiffeisen, which has repeatedly said it plans to exit Russia, also paid an additional 47 million euros in 2023 as a windfall tax imposed by the Kremlin on some companies, according to FT.

FT said its report did not include U.S. banks like Citigroup or JPMorgan as they “do not report comparable Russian results on the group accounts used” for its calculations.

Citigroup paid Russia $53 million in taxes last year, while JPMorgan paid $6.8 million, according to calculations by the Kyiv School of Economics.

By Ron Paul, Antiwar.com, 5/21/24

As Ukraine’s defeat in the war moves closer, the neocons are desperate to draw the US further into the fight. Over the weekend, former US State Department official Victoria Nuland told ABC News that the US must help facilitate Ukrainian missile attacks deep inside Russian territory. The Biden Administration has to this point avoided involvement in such attacks, likely because Russian president Vladimir Putin has warned that Russia will strike any facility that supplies or facilitates strikes inside of Russia, wherever they may be.

It’s a clear warning from a nuclear power, but as Nuland and her fellow neocons see their Ukraine project failing, they demand escalation. This is just what they did in their previous disastrous projects like the Iraq War, the attacks on Syria and Libya, and the 20-year occupation of Afghanistan. For them the failure is never because it was a bad idea in the first place, but that not enough lives and resources were poured into that bad idea to create a good outcome.

But Russia is no Iraq nor is it Libya. This time they are playing with World War III and nuclear destruction and no one in DC seems concerned.

Last Thursday the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Charles Q. Brown, said that NATO trainers deployed within Ukraine was inevitable. “We’ll get there eventually, over time,” he said. This, of course, is exactly how we got the Vietnam War, but Russia in 2024 is hardly late -1950s Vietnam. Russia of today is a country that can fight back and can project military power all the way to the source, which means the United States.

Is Nuland’s Ukraine project worth dying in a nuclear war over?

The whole US involvement in this proxy war has been based on lie after lie. They said we had to help Ukraine defeat Russia because democracy itself was at stake. Then Ukrainian president Zelensky cancelled elections, so they told us we have to help Ukraine defeat Russia because Putin won’t stop there – he’ll soon be marching through Berlin, London, and maybe even New York!

Doesn’t it remind you of how the neocons were warning us that Saddam was going to attack the US mainland with drones and that he was operating mobile weapons labs? Anything to get the public on board for their war.

The fact is the neocons and warmongers lie constantly. They will do whatever it takes to get their wars and sadly we do not have an independent media in the US to challenge them on their lies. Our media is so closely tied to the military-industrial complex that it is also a stakeholder in war profits, so they aren’t about to rock the boat.

Anyone who thinks we cannot get sucked into another war like we were with George W. Bush’s lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction is not paying attention. It is happening again, in real time.

The fact is we live in a deeply corrupt society dominated by individuals who do not believe in truth. When you don’t believe in truth you will have no qualms about manipulating others to do your will. So unless they are stopped, neocons like Nuland will demand more attacks on Russia, more US troops in Ukraine, more escalation. Until Russia fights back. Then it will all be over. Is this what we want?

By Roland Oliphant, The Daily Telegraph (UK), 4/28/24

When Russia invaded Ukraine two years ago, Vladimir sent his ex-wife and their four-year-old son abroad for safety.

Like most Ukrainian men, he stayed behind, barred from leaving by martial law. But after two years alone, and having been declared medically unfit to serve, he decided to join the family in Germany.

“A child needs a father,” he said.

Now, he could be stranded after a controversial law stripped fighting age men abroad of consular assistance. Those between 18- and 60-years-old will only be able to replace their passports in the Ukraine, meaning they will have to return to the country – and risk the draft.

The move, designed to help plug a dire manpower gap in the country’s armed forces, addresses long-running tensions over men who managed to evade a ban on foreign travel for the duration of the war. But critics, including some serving soldiers, have warned it may be unconstitutional and will simply encourage those who are already overseas to stay away. Poland has suggested it could even deport Ukrainian men back to their home country for conscription.

For his part, Vladimir, 39, will not be heeding the call and returning: “It was morally difficult [to leave] but I decided my family needs me. I don’t feel any kind of pressure from family or friends to go back. My mates all understand my situation.”

Units undermanned

Ukraine’s military commissariats, or local recruiting offices, were overwhelmed with volunteers in the first months of the invasion. But ebbing enthusiasm and high casualties over the past two years have left many units dangerously undermanned.

Ukrainian and Western military planners have identified the manpower shortage as one of three critical issues that must be addressed if Ukraine is to resist the current Russian offensive and eventually regain the initiative.

“The immediate focus has been on munitions, especially air defence artillery, on fortifications, which includes proper defensive lines, and thirdly, on this question of manpower,” one Western official said of recent talks with Ukraine.

“As far as putting people on planes goes, we have not been asked about that and I don’t imagine being asked about it either,” the official added when asked if his government would send Ukrainian men home.

The Ukrainian government has taken a number of measures to raise new recruits, including lowering the draft age from 27 to 25.

But Wednesday’s announcement appears to have caused some confusion within the Ukrainian government. One Ukrainian official told the Telegraph that they were not entirely sure how the law would work because issues like exemptions for those legitimately unable to fight – such as Vladimir – do not seem to have been addressed.

Dmytro Lazutkin, the press secretary of the Ukrainian ministry of defence, said there were no plans to issue conscription notices overseas.

“The ministry of defence cannot comment on the actions of the foreign ministry. I think it’s pretty unrealistic,” he told Radio Free Europe.

It has also drawn a mixed reaction from Ukraine’s allies. Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz, Poland’s defence minister, said “Ukrainian citizens have obligations towards the state”, and that Warsaw would help “in ensuring that those who are subject to compulsory military service go to Ukraine”.

German authorities have said some Ukrainian men will be able to extend their residency in the country even if their passports expire as long as there is some way to identify them.

Men between the ages of 18 and 60 have officially been banned from leaving Ukraine since the president Volodymyr Zelensky introduced martial law on the first day of the Russian invasion in 2022.

In practice, many were able to obtain exemptions, either by being declared unfit for military service, having three or more children, or by gaining special permission to travel from the government. Others have tried to leave illegally, some by smuggling themselves across Ukraine’s western borders. Mr Zelensky cracked down on officials abusing exemptions to travel last year. The bar for being passed fit to serve has also been lowered.

The European Union’s statistics agency, Eurostat, says 4.3 million Ukrainians are living in EU countries, 860,000 of them men 18 years of age or older. The British government says it has issued 256,200 visas under its scheme for Ukrainian refugees. It is not clear how many of them were for fighting age men.

Ukrainian men living abroad told the Telegraph they had no plans to return to fight and considered the law unfair.

“The law is not fair”

“My passport is still valid,” 39-year-old Vladimir said, “but I think for many people who came here from occupied areas like Mariupol, the situation is a bit insulting. Russia destroyed their homes, and now their own country is taking a stick to them.”

Volodymyr, a builder from Western Ukraine who has been living and working in the Czech Republic for most of the past eight years, said: “The law is not fair. And all my Ukrainian friends from the Czech Republic, Lutsk and Kyiv think so. Nobody is happy with it. The government is forcing us, and with such laws we will step away from them. We will take citizenship in other countries.”

“People won’t return. The longer the war goes on, the more laws like this are passed, the more people hate Ukraine and the government. Why should I return to fight? For what? Why didn’t the government care about labour migrants like me before the war?”

“Every day we have less and less territory and fewer and fewer people. Some have been killed, others swam the Tisza river just to escape.” The Tisza, a tributary of the Danube, marks a 10-mile stretch of Ukraine’s border with Hungary.

One man, who admitted leaving the country illegally and is currently in Indonesia, said he felt no obligation to fight for the country and considered himself an observer rather than a participant in the war.

Perhaps surprisingly, the law has even drawn criticism from some soldiers. “I absolutely agree with them,” said Nikita Rozhenko, a recruiting sergeant with Ukraine’s Kharkiv-based 113th brigade, when asked what he thought of their opinions. “To tell them they left Ukraine so they are not Ukrainians any more is not normal. We need to invite people back, to greet them gladly, and not tell them they are not Ukrainians. It’s bulls***.”

“This law won’t work properly. It is a political compromise and no one wants to take responsibility. It is not good for the military and it is not good for civilians. It is for everyone and no one.”

Sgt Rozhenko, who lost an eye in the first year of the war but like many wounded is still deemed fit for service and cannot demobilise, admits current recruitment is dire. While his ideal soldier would be 27- to 30-years-old, the average candidate is around 45 or 50, from the social and economic margins of society, and often in poor health.

“The doctors pass them as capable. When they get to their units the commanders see people who are tired, with bad health, some with chronic diseases,” he said.

The fix, he argues, is not threatening people overseas, but allowing people to choose their units.

“No one has listened to the military. The military wants straight recruitment to the brigades without going through the commissariats. It will be much more effective and much fairer. This will lead us to victory and the people will serve where they want, how they want, and with people they want,” he said.

“Lots of people want to serve, they just don’t want to be assigned to a ‘meat brigade’,” he said, using soldier’s slang for units where “low level commanders and high level commanders don’t give a f*** about their people.”

He refused to give examples, but said all soldiers knew who the good and bad units and commanders were.

“Brigades who understand people are very valuable and must be kept alive” would naturally expand and grow stronger, while the poorly one units would wither and eventually disappear, he argues. Ultimately Ukraine would end up with a more efficient and professional military.

“It would be like free market recruitment – and now we have the USSR.”

By MK Bhadrakumar, Indian Punchline, 5/21

In international diplomacy, summit meetings stand apart from regular high-level meetings when they are held at key moments or important junctures to reinforce partnerships and/or launch major initiatives.

The summit meeting at Beijing last Thursday between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin last falls into such a category, taking place at a momentous juncture when a great shift in the global power dynamic is happening and the breathtaking spectacle of history in the making playing out in real time. (Read my article in NewsClick titled Sino-Russian Entente Shifts Tectonic Plates of World Politics.) [https://www.newsclick.in/sino-russian-entente-shifts-tectonic-plates-world-politics]

The two statesmen spent an entire Thursday together after Putin’s presidential jet landed at the crack of dawn in Beijing. Extensive and very detailed discussions indeed took place. As Putin said later, this was a state visit which turned into a “working visit.”

The “debriefing” on Saturday by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov for the foreign and security policy elite in Moscow at the annual plenary of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy — Russia’s equivalent of the Council of Foreign Relations headquartered in New York — soon after Putin’s entourage returned from China gives some invaluable glimpses into the ‘inside track’ of the closed-door discussions in Beijing.

At the most obvious level, Lavrov hit hard in his speech at the US and its NATO Allies with exceptional bluntness that their agenda to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia militarily and otherwise — to “decolonise’’ or “dismember” Russia, et al — is pure fantasy and it will be resolutely countered. Lavrov predicted that the escalation in western weapon supplies to Ukraine only highlights the ground reality that “the acute phase of the military-political confrontation with the West” will continue in “full swing”.

The western thought processes are veering round dangerously to “the contours of the formation of a European military alliance with a nuclear component,” Lavrov said. In particular, France and Germany are still struggling with the demons in their attics — the crushing defeat France suffered at the hands of the Russian army in the Napoleonic war and the destruction of Hitler’s Wehrmacht by the Red Army.

The big picture is that the West is not ready for a serious conversation. Lavrov lamented that “they have made a choice in favour of a showdown on the battlefield. We are ready for this. And always.” That Lavrov spoke in such exceptionally tough tone suggests that Moscow is supremely confident of Beijing’s support in the crucial phase of the Ukraine war going forward. This is the first thing.

The current Russian offensive in the Kharkov Region took off when only six days were left for Putin’s forthcoming visit to China. Moscow gave the clearest signal possible that this is Russia’s existential war which it will fight no matter what it takes. Beijing understands fully the highest stakes involved. 

In Lavrov’s words, “Russia will defend its interests in the Ukrainian, Western and European directions. And this, by and large, is understood in the world by almost all foreign colleagues with whom we have to communicate.”

In his speech, Lavrov acknowledged that the stance of the Chinese leadership is a matter of great satisfaction for the Kremlin. As he put it, “Just the day before, President Vladimir Putin visited China. This is his first foreign visit since his re-election. Negotiations with Chinese President Xi Jinping and meetings with other representatives of the Chinese leadership have confirmed that our comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation surpass the traditional interstate alliances of the previous era in quality and continue to play a key role in maintaining international security and balanced global development.” This is the second thing.

The salience of Lavrov’s speech, however, lies in certain momentous remarks he made regarding the future trajectory of the Russia-China entente as such. In measured language, Lavrov declared that Russia has an open mind on “building a real alliance with China.”

“This topic can and should be discussed specifically. We [Russian foreign and security policy elites] can and should have a special conversation on this topic. We are ready to debate and discuss the ideas expressed in publications and aimed at building a real alliance with the PRC,” he told the elite audience.

Indeed, this is a hugely consequential statement against the backdrop of the gathering storms in the US-Russia-China triangle, with Russia in the middle of a bitterly-fought proxy war with the US and Beijing bracing for the inevitability of a confrontation with Washington in Asia-Pacific.

Lavrov, the consummate diplomat, ensured that his explosive idea of a “real alliance” had a soft landing. He said, “The assessment given by our leaders says that the relationship is so close and friendly that it surpasses the classic alliances of the past in quality. It fully reflects the essence of the ties that exist between Russia and China and are being strengthened in almost all areas.”

Indeed, the very fact that Lavrov aired such views openly is important, signalling coordination between Moscow and Beijing. In some form or the other, the topic figured in the discussions in Beijing just the previous day between Putin and Xi. 

Of course, never in their history have Russia and China been so deeply entwined. But for the Sino-Russian entente to assume the form of “a real alliance,” conditions are steadily developing in the Asia-Pacific. Lavrov noted meaningfully that “Our actions in Chinese and other non-Western areas arouse the undisguised anger of the former hegemon [read the US] and his satellites.”

He argued that even as the US is on overdrive “to set up as many countries as possible against Russia and then take further hostile steps,” Moscow will “work methodically and consistently to build new international balances, mechanisms, and instruments that meet the interests of Russia and its partners and the realities of a multipolar world.”

With an eye on China, Lavrov pointed out that the NATO is actively making a bid for its leading role in the Asia-Pacific region. The NATO doctrine now speaks of the “indivisibility of security in the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific region. Blocks are being introduced into it — the incarnation of the same NATO. More and more numerous attempts. “Threes”, “fours”, AUKUS and much more are created.”

Lavrov concluded that “it is impossible not to think about how we should structure our work on the topic of security in these conditions.” He sensitised the audience that the time may have come to combine “the Eurasian ‘sprouts’ of a new architecture [EAEU, BRI, CIS, CSTO, SCO, etc], a new configuration with some kind of “common umbrella.”

Lavrov assessed that such an effort will be entirely in sync with Xi Jinping’s “concept of ensuring global security based on the logic of indivisibility of security, when no country should ensure its security at the expense of infringing on the security of others.”    

Lavrov disclosed that Xi Jinping’s concept on global security was indeed discussed during Putin’s visit to China both at delegation level as well as in a restricted narrow format, and during the one-on-one conversation between the two leaders. He summed up that “We see a great reason for the practical promotion of the idea of ensuring global security to begin with the formation of the foundations of Eurasian security.”

Lavrov made these profound remarks publicly on the eve of his working visit to Astana to take part in the Foreign Ministers Meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. China is assuming the SCO Chair later this year. Lavrov continued the discussions on this complex issue with his Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister Wang Yi, whom he met earlier today in Astana. The Russian readout is here:

https://www.mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/1951678