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.)
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 (read the Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks below)
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 (read below).
Source: https://www.indianpunchline.com/the-inside-track-of-putin-xi-jinping-talks/
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at the 32nd Assembly of the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy, Moscow, May 18, 2024
I am pleased to have the chance to once again take part in an Assembly of the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy (CFDP). I would like to ask the head of this esteemed body not to be surprised by me striving to attend each year. It is not a duty, but a pleasure to align our agendas, to share with you the direction our intellectual efforts are headed, and to get an update about the ideas that continually emerge within our expert community, the CFDP, in particular.
We are now at the starting point of another domestic political cycle following the presidential election. Our people have once again shown profound confidence in President Vladimir Putin and his policies, including foreign policy. Without a doubt, this fact puts our Ministry under significant obligations. We are working through the steps that are needed to continue to implement the revised Russian Foreign Policy Concept approved in March 2023. I want to emphasise from the start, though, that we will maintain the continuity of our country’s foreign policy, including its key goals, objectives, and priorities. We are operating in challenging circumstances, which I don’t need to elaborate on.
The US-led West sticks to its official goal proclaimed even at the doctrinal level of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia. This includes military defeat and more. The very existence of our country is seen by many most aggressive Russophobes as a threat to the Washington-led golden billion’s global dominance. Just like everyone in this audience, we are following what the Western think tanks are doing as they develop scenarios to inflict maximum damage on us and call for supplying Kiev with ever-new types of weaponry. They are now officially, at the level of government members, talking about the possibility of targeting any part of Russia’s territory. At least, they say “it’s up to Kiev to decide.” The latest remarks on this matter by US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, among others, are well known. These hawks undoubtedly insist that their governments increase investment in the defence industry and put the economy on a war footing, and fantasise about “decolonising” Russia (in plain Russian it means dismembering our country).
It’s hard to figure out who is fomenting whom. Are political analysts instigating politicians, or is it the other way round. Quite recently, on May 2, London’s Chatham House convened a conference which focused entirely on seizing Russian frozen assets in the West. Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland set the tone. We interacted more than once with her when she served as the Foreign Minister. Speaking at the conference, she promoted the idea that seizing these funds was a necessary and politically and morally justified step to save Ukraine and preserve the rules-based order. She stressed the importance of creating a precedent where the aggressor pays.
Along the same lines, a discussion, Russia’s Rupture, was held on April 25 at the Jamestown Foundation with activists from the Free Nations of Post-Russia Forum, which is openly supported by the United States, speaking there. The way these discussions are held shows that the acute phase of the military-political confrontation with the West continues and, if I may put it this way, is in full swing.
As for anti-Russia rhetoric, a special zeal in this regard is being displayed by our European neighbours. Everyone has heard remarks on an “inevitable war with Russia” by Emmanuel Macron, David Cameron, Josep Borrell, and others. I remember an article by Dmitry Trenin (who is present here), in which he said that Europe as a partner was irrelevant for us for at least one generation. I cannot but agree with him. We are experiencing this in practice almost every day. It must be admitted that many facts (as distinct from our sensations) speak in favour of this forecast. We think that this forecast is correct.
After the failure of the notorious Ukrainian counteroffensive, the West has been promoting a new and openly false point that “Putin will not stop at Ukraine.” Before the special military operation they said: Let us accept Ukraine to NATO as soon as possible and then Vladimir Putin will not dare to put into practice his plans with regard to that country. This means they proceeded from the assumption that NATO membership was something “sacred” and that Russia would never play rough towards this “holiness.” Today, they are saying the opposite: Putin will defeat Ukraine and then attack NATO. Therefore, “we” must urgently arm ourselves to the teeth.
Their current policy is to restore the strength of European armies and put NATO’s military industries on wartime footing. They have started the work, mental work so far, on an outline of a European nuclear-based military alliance.
France is the most active NATO member in this sense. Mr Macron admitted in an interview the other day that Paris and Berlin had always regarded Russia as the “main threat.” Obviously, they share an illusion in respect of 1812 and 1941. These capitals always saw this threat.
NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg claimed that the alliance had been at war with Russia since 2014. The European Parliament’s April 2024 resolution on Russia also urged the European governments to refrain from recognising Vladimir Putin as a legitimate president and curtail all contacts with him aside from humanitarian issues and “peace in Ukraine.” This resolution that shapes the political and legal reality of our coexistence with the EU (for all the reservations about the European Parliament’s role and its real role in politics) was supported by 493 deputies with 11 “nays” and 18 abstentions. These are tell-tale figures. We certainly take all these figures and other factors into account as we chart our practical policies in the Western sector.
We remain committed to the goals set by the President not only with regard to the special military operation, but also with regard to ensuring Russia’s rightful place in global politics.
Our approach will be to continue using diplomatic means to create proper conditions for the West to drop its hostile policies, and to help achieve the special military operation’s objectives. This will be the primary focus of our diplomacy.
According to President Vladimir Putin, we are open to a dialogue with the West on security and strategic stability, among other issues. However, this dialogue must rely on equal terms and with mutual respect for each other’s interests, rather than a position of power or exceptionalism. This dialogue should address the entire range of issues related to strategic stability and the broader military-political landscape.
The West, especially the United States, tends to isolate one aspect of strategic stability and claim that Russia is being uncooperative and non-constructive. For example, they have long focused on resuming inspections of our nuclear facilities, despite maintaining a hostility that contradicts the principles of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty which included mutual inspections.
Despite the intensity and high media profile of our confrontation with the West, Russia does not limit its foreign relations to a single area. Otherwise, we would not be a great power. In the current situation, it is crucial for us to develop cooperation with the Global Majority, which is not willing to sacrifice its mutually beneficial relationships with us that are based on historical memory in order to accommodate the West’s geopolitical ambitions in Ukraine.
Our relations with Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America in various formats remain our foreign policy priority. We share much with the Global Majority, including a common vision for a multipolar world and a commitment to fundamental principles of country-to-country relations, including the main one – the sovereign equality of states.
President Vladimir Putin recently visited China. This was his first foreign visit since being re-elected. The negotiations with Chinese President Xi Jinping and meetings with other Chinese leaders reaffirmed that our comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction surpass traditional alliances of the past era and continue to play a key role in maintaining international security and balanced global development.
I have read the materials drafted by some CFDP members, including reflections on what constitutes “true alliance” in our times, an alliance that aligns with Russia’s interests. This issue deserves a special discussion. We are willing to debate and discuss the ideas from these articles that are aimed at building a genuine alliance with China.
According to the assessment provided by our leaders, our relations are so close and friendly that they exceed the quality of classic alliances of the past. This assessment fully reflects the meaning of ties between Russia and China, which are getting stronger across virtually all areas.
Our actions in China and other non-Western directions evoke undisguised anger from the former hegemon and its satellites. Just look at how the United States and its allies are trying by all means to prevent Global Majority countries from dealing with Russia and to embroil them into anti-Russia initiatives, such as holding a “peace conference on Ukraine” in Switzerland. We will discuss this in more detail as well. Their goal is straightforward and is to gather as many participants as possible to create a crowd and say that Zelensky’s “peace formula” is the only acceptable plan for everyone. Next, they plan to impose it on Russia which fact they are not hiding. Vladimir Zelensky, Andrey Yermak, and many representatives from the G7 countries, who co-sponsored this conference alongside Ukraine, have expressed this view.
President Putin covered this yesterday at a news conference in Harbin. We are surprised to observe these efforts, where grown-up people engage in blatant nonsense which has no promise whatsoever. I doubt they don’t realise this, which means their goal is not to achieve peace but to turn as many countries as possible against Russia and then take further hostile steps against us. All our Global South partners understand what’s at stake. We can come back to it later and elaborate on the nuances in the positions of various Global Majority countries.
We read the West persisting in imposing Zelensky’s formula while simultaneously boosting the supplies of longer-range weapons to Kiev as a telltale sign that the West is not ready for serious talks. This means they have made their choice to resolve matters on the battlefield. We are ready for this turn of events at any time.
No matter what, Russia will successfully uphold its interests in the Ukrainian, Western, and European areas. Practically all our foreign colleagues with whom we interact realise this. I’m not sure what’s on the mind of our Western “colleagues” who surprise us with new epiphanies on a daily basis. Recently, after the UN Security Council adopted a resolution for a ceasefire in Gaza during the holy month of Ramadan, US Ambassador to the UN Linda Thomas-Greenfield stated that the resolution was not binding.
We will continue to keep consistently working to build new international balances, mechanisms, and instruments that serve the interests of Russia and its partners in line with the realities of a multipolar world. In a recent interview, Sergey Karaganov elaborated on the importance of such efforts. We have some thoughts on this matter and would be happy to share them with you and hear what you think about them.
As far as I understand, we all acknowledge the complete failure of the previous Euro-Atlantic security model and the West’s strategy of dual containment targeting Russia and China. Fyodor Lukyanov described the US and its allies’ approach within the Indo-Pacific strategies as “NATO incarnation in Asia.” Euro-Atlantic security traditionally involved the OSCE, relations with NATO and the EU, including the NATO-Russia Council and the Partnership for Peace.
Clearly, none of the above, which included numerous treaties and agreements such as the four common spaces with the EU and more, has remained relevant today. All of this has been scrapped, destroyed, and torn apart by the West itself. Simultaneously, the West, through NATO, has declared its intention to take a leading role in the Indo-Pacific region – the term they use to describe the Asia-Pacific region – primarily, Southeast Asia. The alliance has proclaimed the indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific regions, which includes blocs, or NATO incarnations. Their attempts multiply. Trios, quads, AUKUS, and much more are being created. It appears that having failed with implementing the Euro-Atlantic security model, which offered some hope 30 years ago to certain politicians, US-led NATO has decided to bring matters in the southeast of our continent under its control.
In this context, we must consider how to structure our security efforts, given these circumstances. In his Address to the Federal Assembly, President Vladimir Putin set the task of working on the Eurasian security concept. Clearly, the CIS space is our absolute priority. It is the centerpiece of the neighbouring countries in which Russia, just like our neighbours, allies, and partners, has special interests.
In the new geopolitical circumstances, extra efforts will be needed to unlock the EAEU potential, to harmonise it more closely with China’s Belt and Road Initiative, and to give a new impetus to the SCO, as well as to develop ties with the Big Five of Central Asia which is on its way to become an independent integration project. Many leading countries, including all key Western states, Russia, China, Türkiye, and India, are proposing to expand the dialogue in the Central Asia +1 format.
ASEAN, with its rich history of shaping the philosophy and ensuring security based on a balance of interests that goes back decades, is also a factor to reckon with. The architecture built around ASEAN over these long decades has come under attack from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the EU. They seek to replace it with smaller alliance blocs. However, efforts in these areas are a continuation of the efforts to form a Greater Eurasian Partnership in line with the idea advanced by President Vladimir Putin at the Russia-ASEAN Summit in 2015.
The Greater Eurasian Partnership and the relationships between the structures I earlier mentioned, which have been formalised and are fully operational, have the potential of becoming a material foundation for the Eurasian security concept which is something we must consider and cannot ignore. Both the SCO and ASEAN have programmes that involve military-political issues, which play an increasingly important role in their activities. The CSTO has also established relations with the SCO. The CIS has a military-political aspect in its programme strategy, as well as aspects of combating new challenges and threats.
As food for thought, it would be ideal to unite these Eurasian sprouts of a new architecture and a new configuration under a common umbrella.
In this regard, I would like to mention Kazakhstan’s initiative to transform the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia (CICA) into a standing organisation. In contacts with our Kazakhstani friends, we share our assessments and suggest that turning CICA into an organisation and gearing this process towards developing a Eurasian security model could at least provoke engaging discussions.
Let us keep in mind that China, through Xi Jinping, once proposed a concept of ensuring global security based on the logic of indivisible security, where no country should ensure its security at the expense of others. This logic, on a global scale, replicates what was enshrined in the OSCE in 1999 and in Istanbul and Astana in 2010, when indivisible security was proclaimed as a political commitment for all of us.
You are aware of how the West treated these commitments. They have consistently ignored and undermined their commitments, attempting at every step to undermine the security of the Russian Federation, including trying to turn our allies against us. These lines of action are also well-known.
Nevertheless, PRC President Xi Jinping’s initiative regarding global security was discussed as part of our visit to China during meetings that were held in various formats, including meetings of the delegations, restricted-format meetings, and one-on-one meetings between the leaders. We see significant value in beginning the practical implementation of the idea of global security by establishing the foundations for Eurasian security, free from any Euro-Atlantic influences. Naturally, the Euro part will remain, but the Atlantic part will go as it is no longer relevant.
I understand this is a complex issue. We recognise the interconnectedness between the United States and its allies in Europe, East Asia, and the Pacific. It is a network of alliances and coalitions that entangle Eurasia with the involvement of the overseas and trans-English Channel representatives. However, it would be wrong not to consider ensuring the security of our own continent using our own efforts.
Considering the above, we want to work these processes through and to try to initiate them with a group of our partners who share our perspectives. I primarily refer to the SCO and other associations within the Eurasian space that I mentioned earlier. We will keep the door open to all countries and associations located on our continent and related to Eurasia for them to join this process.
This is all the more important as processes are being regionalised on a global scale in other parts of the world as well. Various countries and their organisations are striving to take control of their future in their own hands and to no longer depend on the whims of those who controlled all the tools and mechanisms, as well as the US-created models and globalisation systems.
We observe such processes unfold in Africa, where African unions and sub-regional associations have stepped up their activities significantly. In Latin America, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States has gained its second wind with Brazil’s return and is actively working to mitigate risks to their economic, financial, and investment projects from the disruptions plaguing the global system.
We should not forget that regional activities will benefit if we harmonise processes across different continents. I would be remiss not to mention the potentially important role of BRICS whose membership has effectively doubled. About 30 countries are waiting in line to become formal members. As the BRICS chair this year, Russia is prioritising preparations for the ministerial meeting in June in Nizhny Novgorod and the summit in October in Kazan. We are focusing specifically on ensuring smooth integration of new members into our work. Our leaders have identified the development of criteria for BRICS partner countries as a second priority, which I hope will be discussed at the summit in Kazan this autumn.
Press release on Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s meeting with Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi
20 May 2024
On May 20, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China Wang Yi on the sidelines of the SCO Council of Foreign Ministers meeting in Astana.
Sergey Lavrov extended gratitude for the warm reception of President Vladimir Putin in Beijing and Harbin on May 16-17. In return, the Chinese side expressed appreciation for the selection of the People’s Republic of China as the destination for the Russian leader’s first state visit after assuming office.
The ministers highlighted the critical significance of highest-level engagements in advancing the deepening of comprehensive partnership relations and strategic interaction between both nations. They delved into the substantive discussion regarding the execution of agreements made during the Beijing summit, along with addressing various other topics on the bilateral agenda.
They also exchanged opinions on the current status and future prospects of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The foreign ministers of Russia and China acknowledged the joint efforts of member states in upholding peace and stability in Eurasia. They also highlighted the increasing influence of the Organisation on global and regional affairs.
The ministers reaffirmed their dedication to enhancing mutual coordination within the UN, its Security Council, as well as the SCO, BRICS, the G20, APEC and other key international organisations and dialogue platforms. Various pressing issues were addressed, including the Middle East peace process, developments in the Red Sea region, and the situation on the Korean Peninsula. The meeting participants also put an emphasis on the necessity of constructing a new security framework for Eurasia, particularly given the stagnation of Euro-Atlantic mechanisms.
Sergey Lavrov thanked the Chinese partners for their well-balanced stance on resolving the Ukrainian crisis and appreciated Chinese President Xi Jinping’s proposal to convene a peace conference with an equal participation by Russia and Ukraine, considering Moscow’s legitimate security interests and the current situation.
There was a thorough discussion regarding the situation in the Asia-Pacific region, particularly concerning the increased provocative actions by the United States and its allies. These actions aim to involve specific Asia-Pacific nations in narrow-bloc arrangements, undermining the ASEAN-centric security framework and deploying destabilising weapon systems in the region.
The parties strongly condemned the interference of third countries in China’s internal affairs, particularly regarding the Taiwan issue. Amid the inauguration of Taiwan’s “president” Lai Ching-te on May 20, the Russian Foreign Ministry reaffirmed Moscow’s steadfast adherence to the “one China” principle. The discussion was held in the usual trust-based and constructive manner.
Emma Olive 