Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s address to faculty and students of Astana universities, Astana, November 7, 2024

I’m excited about the opportunity to discuss international affairs with our Kazakhstani friends and colleagues again, and to speak before the faculty and students of Astana’s higher education institutions.

Congratulations to the students on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan. I’m aware that the key personnel of the Republic’s civil service corps include the Academy graduates.

It is good to see here people from other higher educational institutions, such as Lev Gumilev Eurasian National University and the Kazakhstani branch of the Moscow State University.

A branch of my alma mater, MGIMO, will open in Astana soon and give a boost to Russian-Kazakhstani strategic partnership and alliance, as well as promote our ties in education.

I once again expressed my deepest gratitude to President Tokayev during today’s meeting for the attention that he, a MGIMO alumnus, paid to the 80th anniversary of the University. The festivities that took place in Astana have, without exaggeration, ravished with delight everyone who was unable to attend the event in person and watched it on the television. The impressions that the people who attended it shared with me when they returned from Astana (I spoke with the rector and other participants) show that it was done at a really top level and, at the same time, in keeping with the university students’ traditions. It is important to keep them alive even 50 years of public service later.

With regard to the international situation, the process for forming a multipolar international order will remain the key trend of global development for many years to come. It has long been impossible to pay no heed to the ongoing strengthening of the new centres of economic growth that lie outside the borders of the collective West. Many countries from the Global South and the Global East, the Global Majority, including China, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, South Africa, Türkiye, and Iran, have made impressive strides in the economic growth, which gave them enough power to pursue increasingly independent foreign policies, and to be more effective in upholding their national interests. And the list goes on. The number of the countries that look beyond being aware of their own identity and are willing to uphold their own interests that are steeped in traditions is growing day in and day out.

The role of multilateral associations such as the EAEU, the CSTO, the CIS, ASEAN, Gulf Cooperation Council, Arab League, African Union, Community of Latin American and Caribbean States is growing. The continued development and expansion of these regional and sub-regional integration entities, as well as the establishment of horizontal ties between them, is certainly in the best interests of the participating countries and fully fits into the logic of multipolarity, since each of these associations is based on the principle of sovereign equality of states, which is one of the key principles of the UN Charter, rather than the hegemon - subservient entity principle. Our Western “colleagues” prefer to ignore it. In addition, establishing contacts between these associations helps harmonise the development models that get implemented across the globe, successfully confront common challenges, and coordinate policies at universal venues, primarily, the United Nations.

In considering the evident advantages of harmonising regional efforts, we perceive significant potential in global groupings such as BRICS. As a global structure, BRICS can serve as both a “conductor” and a coordinator of regional processes.

The outcomes of the SCO summit in Astana this past July, alongside the recent BRICS summit in Kazan, affirm our assessments. The latter witnessed the participation of delegations from 35 states and six multilateral organisations. Our partners in the SCO and BRICS are impressed by the fact that their endeavours, as President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated, are not aimed against third countries but are centred on constructive collaboration.

We assert that the strengthening of the SCO and BRICS, two of the most advanced structures outside the Western sphere, contributes to forming a multipolar world and provides a significant counterbalance to formats like the Group of Seven. The G7 has reverted to being a “club of Western countries,” reminiscent of its origins during the Cold War era. In contrast, the G20 has emerged as a more representative and promising format, better reflecting the multipolar realities and alignment of forces in the world. It incorporates both the G7 nations, representing the “collective West,” and the dynamically evolving new centres, including the countries of the expanded BRICS and their like-minded partners. We valued the participation of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan in the BRICS summit in Kazan and anticipate that the Republic of Kazakhstan will undoubtedly join the group as a partner state.

The combined GDP of the BRICS nations, when assessed in terms of purchasing power parity, has already significantly surpassed that of the Group of Seven, and this gap continues to widen.

In his address at the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14 this year, President Putin remarked: “Global politics, the economy, and technological competition will never be the same as before.” The principal challenge in international affairs remains the Western minority’s ambition to maintain its dominant position, despite the global trends indicating otherwise. President Putin further emphasised: “If it were not for this dead-end policy, driven by aggressive messianism based on the belief in their own superiority and exceptionalism, international relations would have long been stabilised.”

Many astute political analysts and former politicians in the West concur with our view that the United States and its allies took the wrong path after the disintegration of the USSR. By disregarding the principal tenet of the UN Charter – respect for the sovereign equality of states – they have repeatedly and brazenly meddled in the internal affairs of other nations. Suffice it to recall the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia, the armed intervention of the US-led coalition in Iraq, the dismantling of Libyan statehood by the West, the debacle of the US’s two-decade military campaign in Afghanistan, and the orchestration of “colour revolutions” in various post-Soviet states, including Ukraine and Georgia.

The double standards of Western policy are widely recognised today. The manner in which American and EU propagandists cynically cloak the West’s geopolitical expansion with slogans of “promoting democracy,” “combating authoritarian regimes,” “concern for human rights,” and similar platitudes has become proverbial. Judgement should be rooted not in rhetoric but in the tangible outcomes of the West’s misadventures under the guise of “promoting democracy”: millions of victims, waves of refugees, shattered lives, the proliferation of terrorism, extremism, separatism, drug trafficking, and other forms of organised crime.

The consequences of blindly following in the wake of the collective West while giving up autonomy in internal and external affairs is now in full view in Ukraine, our neighbour. The country has been turned into an anti-Russia military bridgehead by Washington and Brussels. To achieve this, Western representatives rigged the presidential election results in 2004, and in February 2014, they orchestrated a state coup in Kiev, undermining the settlement agreement that President Viktor Yanukovich had signed with the opposition the day before. After seizing power, the local ultranationalists and neo-Nazis immediately unleashed a war against the residents of Donbass and Novorossiya, who refused to accept the brutal power grab and would not put up with the threats they immediately began to receive from Kiev. Crimea, following a popular referendum, supported reunification with Russia.

Following the referendum in Crimea, similar referendums were held in 2014 in the republics of Donbass. However, realising that the situation there was fraught with multiple casualties, Russia did its best to facilitate a resolution of the internal Ukrainian crisis by peaceful means. The Minsk Package of Measures was aimed at solving the problem. However, neither Kiev nor its Western sponsors, including the guarantors of those agreements, were ever planning to implement them. Everyone has heard the recent cynical confessions made by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former French President François Hollande and former President of Ukraine Pyotr Poroshenko that they signed the Minsk agreements only to buy time and allow the Kiev regime to build up its military capabilities, and subsequently deal with the Donbass issue by force. This created a great threat to Russia’s security and a threat to our compatriots from that Nazi regime, which proclaimed exterminating all things Russian – language, culture, and historical memory – as its goal. These things were outlawed, just like the Ukrainian Orthodox Church later. Those threats could not and would not be accepted or tolerated.

We were ready to resolve the situation through political and diplomatic means until the last moment. In December 2021, President Vladimir Putin proposed signing new agreements with the United States and NATO on collective security guarantees on Russia’s western borders. The Russian proposals were rejected with disdain.

Under these conditions, we had no choice but to recognise the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics and, at their request, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter, to launch a special military operation aimed at demilitarising and denazifying Ukraine to defend our compatriots’ rights, protect their lives, and uphold Russia’s legitimate security interests.

The examples I have cited show that all chances for peace have been consistently derailed: the February 2014 agreement, the Minsk agreements, and the Istanbul compromise in April 2022.

Today, we continue to prioritise political and diplomatic settlement. Russia’s peace terms, outlined by President Vladimir Putin in his June 14 address to the Foreign Ministry leadership, are well known.

However, the Kiev regime has shown no reciprocal willingness. President Vladimir Zelensky’s 2022 order prohibiting negotiations with Russia remains in place, and discriminatory laws that strip millions of Russians and Russian speakers of their rights are still enforced. Meanwhile, the collective West, led by the United States, continues to supply the Kiev regime with lethal weapons, fuelling aggression against civilians and civilian infrastructure.

There is no doubt that this policy will eventually bring about the collapse of the Ukrainian regime. I must highlight a recent statement by Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev during his meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz: “Russia cannot be defeated on the battlefield.” If leaders in Washington, London, Brussels, and other Western capitals had heeded these wise words, the Ukrainian crisis might have been resolved long ago.

Colleagues,

Russia advocates for equal interstate cooperation grounded in international law and the central role of the UN. We continue to expand and strengthen mutually beneficial partnerships with all countries and associations that show a reciprocal commitment to cooperation.

Our unwavering priority is the development and enhancement of mutually beneficial cooperation with our neighbours and other partners, in accordance with the vision put forward by President Vladimir Putin for the creation of a Greater Eurasian Partnership. This is a broad integration framework open to all states and associations across the Eurasian continent, without exception.

Advancing in this direction will lay the groundwork for creating a framework of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia. This endeavour is especially urgent given that the previous security system, molded by Euro-Atlantic patterns, that is under US control, was effectively undermined by NATO’s reckless actions. We are convinced that the new security architecture must be built on the primary responsibility of Eurasian nations themselves for resolving regional conflicts, maintaining stability, and preventing destabilising external interference.

Reinforcing a comprehensive partnership and fostering cooperation with our Central Asian friends, allies, and like-minded partners stands as one of the paramount objectives of Russian diplomacy. We are neither imposing our will nor engaging in condescending explanations. Our approach is consistently rooted in the necessity of respecting the cultural and civilisational uniqueness of peoples and their right to chart their own future.

This marks a fundamental distinction from the Anglo-Saxons and the collective West, who, for centuries, have pursued a policy of divide and conquer, perceiving Central Asia as a geopolitical battleground reminiscent of the archaic Great Game. It is no secret that the West is linking its investments in the region and increased access for Central Asian goods to its markets with compliance requirements to illegal restrictions imposed on Russia, all the while threatening secondary sanctions. This is nothing short of a neo-colonial policy. They persist in their attempts to re-establish their military and intelligence presence in Central Asia through military programmes and training schemes. Under the guise of border protection assistance, export control organisations are deploying equipment and software with undocumented, essentially spying, capabilities.

Russia and the Central Asian countries are close neighbours, sharing common objectives that necessitate joint efforts to ensure our mutual security, rather than forming alliances against other states. Together, we stand against the threats of terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime, and illegal migration. The presence of Russian military bases in the region (in Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan), alongside close military and military-technical collaboration, cooperation in managing cross-border flows, and joint operations by law enforcement and intelligence services, objectively strengthen pan-Eurasian stability.

Our political dialogue is traditionally vibrant: in 2023 alone, more than 90 summits and high-level meetings between representatives of Central Asia and the Russian Federation have taken place.

Russia ranks among the region’s key trade and economic partners. In 2023, our total trade turnover exceeded $44 billion. While we still denominate it in dollars, we are transitioning towards more reliable currencies. The Russian market accounts for a third of all foreign trade in Central Asia, and we are swiftly moving towards mutual settlements in national currencies.

We are deeply concerned about the environmental challenges facing the region. The Russian Government has approved a special initiative to support the International Fund for Saving the Aral Sea. This very topic was discussed today with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of the Republic of Kazakhstan Murat Nurtleu. We are collaborating with our Central Asian colleagues to implement this project practically and expeditiously.

It is heartening that we can honour the shared chapters of our history, when all the peoples of the Soviet Union stood shoulder to shoulder, heroically defending their independence against a common foe.

The strategic partnership and alliance between Russia and Kazakhstan yield tangible benefits. Numerous mutually beneficial projects are underway, and a wealth of experience has been accumulated in supporting each other during critical junctures in modern history, as evidenced in January 2020.

Dialogue between Russia and Kazakhstan is robust at all levels without exception. This year alone, the Presidents have met on five occasions. Despite the collective West’s attempts to hinder this, our bilateral trade and economic cooperation are thriving. Cooperation in the energy sector is strengthening, and the transport and logistics infrastructure connecting us is developing intensively.

We attach great importance to interregional ties. Russia and Kazakhstan share the longest land border in the world, and 76 out of 89 Russian regions are involved in trade, economic, cultural and educational cooperation with the regions of Kazakhstan. It has become a good tradition to hold the Interregional Cooperation Forum annually. The 20th anniversary Forum will be held in Ufa on November 27, the day of President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s state visit. It will render additional impetus to the promotion of ties between our regions.

Educational exchanges are increasing. About 60,000 students from Kazakhstan study at Russian universities.

Membership of the Eurasian Economic Union also contributes to the stability of both countries’ economies. Given the geography and a high degree of integration of our economies, cooperation between our countries in the EAEU is mutually beneficial and privileged.

We cooperate fruitfully on other multilateral platforms as well. We appreciate our Kazakhstani friends’ interest in strengthening the CIS. In this context, I would like to note President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev’s initiative to create an International Russian Language Organisation, open to participation not only for the CIS countries, but also for any country in the world. This initiative is currently being implemented in practice.

We also cooperate closely in the CSTO. The maturity and high reliability of this organisation was evidenced though the effective actions of its peacekeeping forces in assisting fraternal Kazakhstan in stabilising the domestic political situation in early 2022, in response to the request of the country’s president.

In six months, we will celebrate the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and World War II. In October 2022, the leaders of the CIS member states in Astana decided to declare 2025 the Year of the 80th Anniversary of Victory and the Year of Peace. I am sure that we will celebrate this anniversary at a grand scale and pay tribute to our fathers and grandfathers who saved the world from the horrors of Nazism. We will put up a reliable barrier to the attempts to rewrite history, and protect the truth about the decisive contribution of all the peoples of the USSR to the Great Victory.

In conclusion, I would like to wish the young people in this auditorium to succeed in their studies and fulfil their goals in life. Soon, you will have to take responsibility for ensuring the prosperity of your country. I am confident that the educational institution you represent, first and foremost the faculty, will do everything to ensure that you cope with these tasks with dignity.

Question: According to media reports, Russian President Vladimir Putin is expected to pay a state visit to the Republic of Kazakhstan in late November. The cooperation between our countries is known to unfold following the principles of strategic partnership and alliance thanks to the two leaders’ trustful relationship. What current priority prospects and initiatives do you think will the bilateral agenda include? How do Russia and Kazakhstan interact within international and regional organisations?

Sergey Lavrov: Preparations for the state visit are underway. This is reality, not rumours. I have already mentioned it today. We are very thorough about organising the year’s major event. The two leaders are to release an extended political statement and sign several dozen of joint documents regarding trade, economic, investment, cultural, humanitarian, and educational cooperation. It will be a solid package of documents that will provide substantive content for the summit. 

As always, the presidents will discuss all the issues on the agenda of our Kazakhstani friends and on our agenda. Apparently, at the summit the presidents will have a trust-based private conversation as they normally do. The schedule includes extended format meetings as well as other events to highlight a special nature of our allied relations and strategic partnership.

I can safely say that the outcome of the summit and the signed documents, upon their activation straight after the summit, will have a positive effect in further deepening bilateral relations in all areas. This applies to cooperation between Russia and Kazakhstan in international organisations as well. There is practically no international organisation where Russia does not cooperate with Kazakhstan, be it the UN or the OSCE.

Actually, the OSCE is currently going through a profound crisis. I am not sure whether it will survive after the actions taken by the West in violation of all the statutory documents of this organisation to undermine and throw away the principle of consensus and try to impose its unilateral, primarily Russophobic, approaches on the OSCE. Nevertheless, as long as the organisation exists, we continue to closely coordinate our actions.

These are SCO, CSTO, CIS and EAEU. We hope Kazakhstan will become a state partner of BRICS. This will enhance opportunities for coordinating our efforts on the international arena which we highly appreciate. We always align both Kazakhstan’s and Russia’s ideas with each other as well as with our other closest friends. Following that, we jointly advance relevant initiatives via the CIS, CSTO and EAEU. I have positive expectations about the summit. 

Today I was asked by journalists that there are no problems in our relations but there are questions. Obviously, there are. The richer the agenda of a bilateral alliance, the more often questions arise. Those who do nothing have no questions. When you engage in practical efforts, questions always arise. They need to be addressed, and they are being addressed.

Thank you once again for your hospitality and the opportunity to speak to such a representative academic and educational audience.

Question: In his address to the Federal Assembly in late February, President Vladimir Putin made it clear that Russia was ready to discuss creating a new network of equal and indivisible security for Eurasia with all stakeholder countries and associations. What’s your take on the path forward to implementing this initiative?

Sergey Lavrov: This important matter was discussed at multiple events in recent weeks, including the Second International Conference on Eurasian Security held in Minsk on October 31-November 1 and yesterday's Valdai Discussion Club meeting, at which I had the pleasure of speaking highlighting Eurasian security and ways to build the architecture in question.

Today, President Putin will address the Valdai meeting participants. Without a doubt, it will be a centerpiece of his speech and the ensuing Q&A session.

The Eurasian continent started getting a sense of its identity and the natural competitive advantages that this single geopolitical and geoeconomic space provides to the countries of that continent quite a long time ago. In 2015, at the first Russia-ASEAN summit, President Vladimir Putin provided an overview of the future integration processes in Eurasia and mentioned organisations such as the EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN. They have overlapping agendas and plans to carry out concrete and mutually beneficial trade, economic, investment, transport, and logistics projects that will be beneficial for the people. Eurasia is a single continent and space providing, in addition to numerous other advantages, the shortest available routes for cooperation and trade between Asia and Europe.

Vladimir Putin suggested that the fact that these associations and other entities are operational in Eurasia and are in contact with each other will contribute to the efforts designed to form the Greater Eurasian Partnership. The name is tentative, but it reflects what really lies beneath the trends we are witnessing. Importantly, this is not some theory concocted in academic offices, but processes that are rooted in real life.

The art of the politics is to grasp and use these trends in real life for the benefit of the people and the state. The integration entities in Eurasia are not limited to the above three organisations. There is also the GCC and entities that have been formed in South Asia at India’s initiative, as well as many others. Every time Putin mentions Eurasian issues and trends, he makes it clear he is talking about the Greater Eurasian Partnership which is not off-limits to any country on this continent, including western Eurasia, which has so far been engulfed by associations like NATO or the European Union that openly antagonise their competitors. We do not have associations of that sort. We are in favour of promoting cooperation in our common interests and are not going to oppose anyone.

As I mentioned earlier, the OSCE has seriously discredited itself, but no one is closing the door for the countries from western Eurasia when it comes to expanding economic, trade and investment ties. Anyhow, the process is under way.

Certain EU and NATO countries are keen not to miss out on their advantage and wish to engage in these processes. We observe the actions of Hungary and Slovakia, and I am confident that there are prudent politicians in other European nations who do not wish to fritter away the natural benefits and opportunities presented by the swiftly expanding processes of sustainable development. These processes, while shaping the Greater Eurasian Partnership, will concurrently lay a solid foundation for agreements on a new security architecture. For many decades, the Euro-Atlantic concept of NATO engagement has dominated the part of the continent where western Russia is located. Similarly, the OSCE is inherently Euro-Atlantic.

There once was a European Union, established by Europeans for Europeans, but it has now entirely succumbed to the steamroller of the North Atlantic Alliance. The EU’s development programmes have become significantly militarised, diverging from the original vision of its founding fathers, and are now subordinated to the interests of the military bloc, and consequently, to the interests of the United States in Europe.

This is why we assert that security on our continent should not hinge on states located 10,000 miles across the ocean but should be rooted in our collective, God-given geography, economy, and history. The Eurasian security architecture, as well as the Eurasian economic partnership, remains open to any country or organisation on the Eurasian continent.

In the realm of security, we have amassed potential comparable to that in the economic sphere. The CSTO is responsible for ensuring the security and stability of its region.

The SCO is increasingly focusing on addressing existing challenges and threats, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, and organised crime. The SCO’s Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure is evolving into a universal mechanism to combat all challenges without exception, particularly since terrorism is intertwined with organised crime, drug trafficking, illegal migration, and many other issues. This will significantly bolster the potential of the SCO.

ASEAN also places a substantial emphasis on security within its activities. The organisation convenes annual East Asian summits with its partners, including Russia, where the secure development of the entire region is deliberated. ASEAN also hosts an annual Regional Forum of Security, with regular participation from an expanded roster of invited countries. We actively support this process, even though the United States attempts to undermine the universal nature of the structures surrounding ASEAN. Washington seeks to form narrow blocs like AUKUS, and other smaller “troikas” and other groupings, involving South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and extra-regional nations such as Germany, France, and UK (which seems to pop up everywhere). This contradicts the trend towards unity and inclusiveness in all these processes.

The GCC also plays its role, where Arab monarchs neighbour Iran, representing a sub-region of Eurasia where it is vital to overcome the contradictions between Arabs and Persians. Our initiatives in this regard, related to the formation of the Collective Security Concept for the Persian Gulf, are well known. With the recent establishment of diplomatic relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran, these initiatives are gaining fresh momentum.

Being in Astana, I must mention the ongoing processes within the framework of the Conferences on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia. These efforts aim to structure interaction in this format. Given the comprehensive nature of the countries invited to such Conferences, I envisage that CICA could well play a role in shaping the foundations of the Eurasian security architecture, contributing to the backbone trends in the continent-wide context. It is impossible to predict when and how this process will conclude.

Life has no final destination, with all processes ever-evolving and improving. However, there is no doubt that the inclination to embrace the growing recognition of Eurasian identity by the majority of countries on the continent is strengthening. Moreover, there is no doubt that, together with our Kazakhstani friends, we will support this trend in every conceivable way.