INSIDE RUSSIA
Russia moves to ratify security pact with key ally
President Vladimir Putin has submitted a collective security treaty with Belarus to the Russian parliament for ratification
President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday submitted a security treaty with Belarus to the Russian parliament for ratification.
The agreement, signed in December 2024, obligates both countries to defend each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity using all available military resources and includes provisions for the potential use of Russian nuclear weapons to protect Belarus in case of external aggression.
The treaty “will ensure the security of Russia and Belarus,” reinforcing military cooperation between the two nations, Putin has said.
A key treaty provision involves the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, where Russia has already placed ballistic missiles as part of their Union State partnership, the use of which Belarus would be able to request should their use be deemed necessary.
The two countries regard the Russian nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to prevent both conventional and nuclear attacks, while their use is considered the last-resort option, according to the agreement.
Shortly after the treaty was signed, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko additionally asked for the deployment of Russia’s Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missiles on Belarusian territory. The new systems, which feature a hypersonic upper stage, could be stationed in Belarus by the end of 2025, according to Putin.
The missiles were unveiled late last year and battle-tested in Ukraine, striking the Yuzhmash military industrial facility in the city of Dnepr in November.
Last month, Lukashenko suggested the deployment of the new missiles could occur even earlier, without specifying a timeline.
“We will have the Oreshnik literally any day now. We have agreed with President Vladimir Putin that the next system will be delivered to Belarus even earlier than to Russia,” Lukashenko said.
The treaty is now pending approval by the State Duma, with Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin pledging to make the review of the document a priority.
“Security issues are key for us. The provisions of the treaty will ensure additional protection of the sovereignty of our states and their territorial integrity. This is especially important given the constant provocations from the EU countries, including those bordering Belarus,” Volodin said.
Sergey Lavrov: The UN Charter should be the legal basis for a multipolar world
Eighty years after the historic Yalta Conference, Russia’s long-serving chief diplomat reflects on its legacy
Eighty years ago, on February 4, 1945, the leaders of the victorious powers of World War II – the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom – met at the Yalta Conference to define the contours of the post-war world. Despite their ideological differences, they agreed to eradicate German Nazism and Japanese militarism once and for all. The agreements reached in Crimea were later confirmed and expanded at the Potsdam Peace Conference in July-August 1945.
One of the key outcomes of these negotiations was the creation of the United Nations and the adoption of the UN Charter, which remains the principal source of international law. The purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter are designed to ensure peaceful coexistence and the progressive development of nations. The Yalta-Potsdam system was based on the principle of sovereign equality: No state could claim dominance – all are formally equal, regardless of territory, population, military power, or other factors.
For all its strengths and weaknesses – still debated by scholars – the Yalta-Potsdam order has provided the legal framework for the international system for eight decades. This UN-centered world order has fulfilled its primary role: Preventing another world war. As one expert aptly put it, “The UN has not led us to paradise, but it has saved us from hell.” The veto power enshrined in the Charter is not a ‘privilege’ but a responsibility for global peacekeeping. It acts as a safeguard against unbalanced decisions and creates space for compromise based on a balance of interests. As the political cornerstone of the Yalta-Potsdam system, the UN remains the only universal platform for developing collective responses to global challenges, whether in maintaining peace and security or fostering socio-economic development.
It was at the UN, with the Soviet Union playing a pivotal role, that historic decisions laid the foundation for the multipolar world now emerging. A prime example is the process of decolonization, formalized in the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, which the USSR initiated. For the first time in history, dozens of oppressed peoples gained independence and the opportunity to establish their own states. Today, some of these former colonies are emerging as centers of power in a multipolar world, while others are part of regional and continental integration frameworks.
Russian scholars rightly observe that any international institution is, above all, “a means of limiting the natural egoism of states.” The UN, with its complex rules codified in the Charter and adopted by consensus, exemplifies this.
The UN-centered order is an order rooted in international law – truly universal law – and every state is expected to respect this law.
Russia, like most of the international community, has always adhered to this principle. However, the West, still afflicted by a syndrome of exceptionalism and accustomed to acting within a neocolonial paradigm, has never been comfortable with a framework of interstate cooperation based on respect for international law. As former US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland candidly admitted, in her view the Yalta agreements were not a good deal for the US and should never have been signed. This mindset explains much of Washington’s post-war behavior, as American elites viewed the Yalta-Potsdam system as an inconvenient constraint.
The West’s revision of the post-war order began almost immediately, with Winston Churchill’s infamous 1946 Fulton speech effectively declaring a Cold War against the Soviet Union. The Yalta-Potsdam agreements were treated as a tactical concession rather than a binding commitment. Consequently, the fundamental principle of sovereign equality enshrined in the UN Charter was never fully embraced by the US and its allies.
The collapse of the Soviet Union presented the West with an opportunity to show prudence and foresight. Instead, intoxicated by the illusion of ‘victory in the Cold War’, then-US President George H.W. Bush proclaimed a new world order in 1990, characterized by total American dominance. This unrestrained unipolar ambition disregarded the legal constraints of the UN Charter.
Washington’s geopolitical maneuvering in Eastern Europe is one manifestation of this ‘rules-based order’ – the explosive consequences of which are now evident in the ongoing Ukraine conflict.
The multipolar era
In 2025, the return of a Republican administration led by Donald Trump has taken this revisionism to new heights. Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently dismissed the post-war world order as obsolete, going so far as to suggest that even the so-called ‘rules-based order’ is no longer in line with US interests. His rhetoric, anchored in the ‘America First’ ideology, eerily echoes the chauvinistic slogans of the 20th century. Indeed it bears a disturbing resemblance to the Hitler-era slogan ‘Deutschland uberalles’, and the reliance on ‘peace through strength’ may finally bury diplomacy. Not to mention the fact that such statements and ideological constructs show not the slightest respect for Washington’s international legal obligations under the UN Charter.
However, this is no longer 1991 or even 2017, when Trump first stepped onto the ‘captain’s bridge’. Demographic, economic, social, and geopolitical conditions have irreversibly shifted. As Russian analysts note, “There will be no return to the old state of affairs.” The United States must eventually reconcile itself to a new role as one of many centers of global power, alongside Russia, China, and emerging powers in the Global South. In the meantime, it seems that the new US administration will make cowboy-like forays to test the limits of the existing unipolar system’s pliability and resistance to American interests. I am sure, however, that this administration will soon realize that international reality is much richer than the ideas about the world that can be used without consequences in speeches to domestic American audiences and its obedient geopolitical allies.
In anticipation of this sobering up, let us continue our painstaking work with our partners to create conditions for adapting the mechanisms for the practical establishment of interstate relations to the realities of multipolarity. The Yalta-Potsdam order remains the most reliable framework for international cooperation, embodying principles of sovereign equality, non-interference, and peaceful dispute resolution. Here it is appropriate to mention the Kazan Declaration of the BRICS Summit of October 23, which reflects the unified position of the majority of the world’s states on this issue and clearly reaffirms “the commitment to respect international law, including the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter as its inalienable and fundamental element, and to preserve the central role of the UN in the international system.” This is the approach articulated by the leading states that define the face of the modern world and represent the majority of its population. Yes, our partners from the South and the East have legitimate aspirations for their participation in global governance. Unlike the West, they, like us, are ready for an honest and open discussion on all issues.
Russia’s commitment to international law
Our position on the reform of the United Nations Security Council is well known. Russia is in favor of making this body more democratic by increasing the representation of the world’s majority – notably states from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. We support the candidacies of Brazil and India for permanent seats on the Council, while at the same time correcting the historical injustice against the African continent within the parameters agreed upon by Africans themselves. Allocating additional seats to the already over-represented countries of the Collective West in the Council is counterproductive. Germany and Japan, which have delegated most of their sovereignty to an overseas patron and are also reviving the ghosts of Nazism and militarism at home, cannot bring anything new to the work of the Security Council.
We remain firmly committed to the inviolability of the prerogatives of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Given the unpredictable behavior of the Western minority, only the veto can ensure that the Council makes decisions that take into account the interests of all parties.
The staffing situation in the UN Secretariat remains offensive to the world majority, where there is still a dominance of Western representatives in all key positions. Bringing the UN bureaucracy in line with the geopolitical map of the world is a task that cannot be postponed. The aforementioned BRICS Kazan Declaration contains a very clear formulation to this effect. Let us see how receptive the UN leadership, accustomed to serving the interests of a narrow group of Western countries, will be to it.
As for the normative framework enshrined in the UN Charter, I am convinced that it best and optimally meets the needs of the multipolar era. An era in which the principles of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their internal affairs and other fundamental postulates, including the right of peoples to self-determination in the consensus interpretation, as enshrined in the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law, must be respected not in words but in deeds: All are obliged to respect the territorial integrity of states whose governments represent the entire population living on the territory in question. There is no need to prove that the Kiev regime after the coup of February 2014 does not represent the inhabitants of Crimea, Donbass, and Novorossiya – just as the Western metropolises did not represent the peoples of the colonial territories they exploited.
Attempts to crudely restructure the world to suit one’s own interests, in violation of the principles of the United Nations, can bring even more instability and confrontation to international affairs, up to and including catastrophic scenarios. At the present level of conflict, a thoughtless rejection of the Yalta-Potsdam system, with the UN and its Charter at its core, will inevitably lead to chaos.
The opinion is often voiced that it is untimely to talk about questions of the desired world order while fighting continues to suppress the armed forces of the fascist regime in Kiev, supported by the ‘Collective West’. In our view, this approach is inadmissible. The contours of the post-war world order based on the constructions of the UN Charter were discussed by the Allies at the height of the Second World War, including at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers and the Tehran Conference of Heads of State and Government in 1943, at other contacts of the future victorious powers, up to the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences in 1945. It is another matter that the Western Allies had a hidden agenda even then, but this does not detract from the enduring importance of the Charter’s high principles of equality, non-interference in internal affairs, peaceful settlement of disputes, and respect for the rights of every human being – “irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion.” The fact that, as is now abundantly clear, the West signed these postulates in ‘disappearing ink’ and in the years that followed grossly violated what it had signed – be it in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, or Ukraine – does not mean that we should absolve the US and its satellites of moral and legal responsibility and abandon the unique legacy of the UN’s founding fathers embodied in the organization’s Charter.
God forbid someone tries to rewrite it now (under the premise of getting rid of the ‘outdated’ Yalta-Potsdam system). The world would be left without any common values at all.
Russia is ready for joint honest work to harmonize the balance of interests and strengthen the legal principles of international relations.
President Vladimir Putin’s 2020 initiative to hold a meeting of the heads of the permanent members of the UN Security Council with ‘special responsibility for the preservation of civilization’ was aimed at establishing an equal dialogue on the whole range of these issues. For reasons beyond Russia’s control, progress has not been made on this front. But we do not lose hope, even though the composition of participants and the format of such meetings may be different. The main thing, in the words of the Russian president, is “a return to an understanding of what the United Nations was created for and adherence to the principles set out in the Charter documents.” This should be the guiding principle for the regulation of international relations in the new era of multipolarity.
This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team
Communications with US intensifying
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has reported an intensification of contacts with the US since Donald Trump’s inauguration as president
Engagement with Washington has increased since Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told a media briefing on Wednesday. There are contacts between “certain departments” he noted.
Last Friday, Trump told reporters that communication is ongoing between his administration and the Russian government and reiterated his goal of putting a swift end to the Ukraine conflict. Prior to taking office on January 20, Trump expressed frustration over being forced to limit his diplomatic outreach as president-elect, even as the death toll from the hostilities continued to rise.
Russia has responded to Trump’s with cautious optimism, insisting on a comprehensive resolution of the crisis, rather than a freeze of the conflict – a scenario that some reports suggest may be Washington’s goal. NATO expansion in Europe and Kiev’s discrimination against ethnic Russians must be addressed for a sustainable truce, according to Moscow.
Additionally, Russia has also questioned Vladimir Zelensky’s legal authority to sign any treaties on behalf of Ukraine given his presidential term expired last year. Kiev has suspended elections under martial law, while Zelensky contends that his rule remains legitimate because in 2019 he won in a landslide.
Despite the concerns, Peskov said Russia “remains open to negotiations,” adding that as Russian forces continue to gain territory it is in Kiev’s interest to agree to talks sooner rather than later.
On Tuesday, Zelensky announced that an American delegation will soon visit Kiev, without specifying the date. Keith Kellogg, Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine, was reportedly set to travel to the country last month, but postponed his trip over what Zelensky described as “legal reasons.” According to the Ukrainian media, the senior US official is expected to arrive sometime after February 11.
Zelensky has urged Trump to adhere to the principle “peace through strength” by preserving US military assistance to Kiev and increasing pressure on Russia, forcing Moscow to meet Ukrainian demands during potential peace negotiations.
Russia’s rival to Eurovision will be free of ‘perversion’
The Intervision Song Contest will focus on culture, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has suggested
Russia’s newly revived Intervision song contest, an alternative to Eurovision, will be free of “censorship” and “perversion,” Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said. The top diplomat made the comment on Wednesday while extending an invitation to the event to representatives of foreign diplomatic missions in Moscow.
President Vladimir Putin on Monday ordered the revival of Intervision, a Soviet-era music competition, with the aim of “developing international cultural and humanitarian cooperation.” The event is scheduled to take place in Moscow this autumn.
The “unique musical expo” will “provide an opportunity for all countries, without any censorship, to showcase their best musical traditions… I guarantee that there will be no perversion and abuse of human nature as we saw in the Paris Olympics,” Lavrov stated during a diplomatic round table in Moscow.
The top diplomat was referring to part of the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics, which involved drag artists and was perceived by many as a parody of Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘The Last Supper’ and disrespectful to Christian traditions.
Russia was expelled from Eurovision in 2022 following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict. In response, Moscow accused the contest organizers of long favoring Western participants and promoting anti-Russian sentiment.
The Eurovision Song Contest has been embroiled in numerous scandals in recent years, particularly over performances and themes seen as overtly sexual or politically charged.
In 2014, Austrian drag performer Conchita Wurst won the contest, in what was celebrated as an LGBTQ triumph. However, the victory also drew widespread backlash in various nations, including Russia.
The Intervision contest will be a “chance to promote real music” and “not fake values that are alien to any normal person,” Russian senator LiliyaGumerova, the head of the Committee on Culture in the upper house of the Russian parliament, has said.
Russia has been striving to promote “traditional values” to prevent the spread of what it deems harmful ideologies. The country outlawed “LGBT propaganda” in 2022, after which the “international LGBT movement” was designated as an extremist group.
The Eurovision Song Contest has faced accusations of political bias from various countries over the years. Critics argue that voting patterns often reflect political alliances, cultural similarities, or historical relationships rather than the musical quality of the entries.
Russia Unveils Revolutionary Method to Collapse-Proof Buildings
A new method for protecting buildings from progressive collapse, based on a mathematical model, has been developed by scientists at VyatSU. According to the authors, the development is cost-effective and can be used in the reconstruction of industrial and public buildings, as reported by the university’s press service to Sputnik.
In recent decades, incidents such as terrorist attacks, industrial explosions, transport collisions, and local subsidence have become more frequent worldwide. These situations impact building structures in ways not accounted for under normal operating conditions, often leading to progressive or avalanche collapses. This occurs when damage to one of a building’s load-bearing elements causes most or all of the building to collapse.
Currently, to protect existing industrial facilities from potential progressive collapse, recommendations suggest increasing the cohesion and static indeterminacy of structures. This typically involves reconstructing freely supported girders into rigidly pinned girders with increased cross-sections and adding additional girders, trusses, and connections.
Scientists from Vyatka State University (VyatSU) have developed a mathematical model for an alternative, simpler, and more affordable method to increase the stability of buildings with steel frames and hinged connections between beams and columns, achieved by modernizing their nodes.
“Our method is based on the predicted transformation of a beam system into a hanging system. Essentially, the beam structure, initially working in bending, acquires significant deflection due to the destruction of a part of the central section, which causes it to work in tension. We have figured out how to enable and predict this transformation,” said Andrei Cherepanov, a graduate of VyatSU’s Faculty of Construction and Architecture.
He explained that when an element bends, the stresses are distributed unevenly, with one part of the cross-section compressed and the other stretched. When the design load is exceeded, the stretched part “tears,” and the compressed part “crumbles.” When the structure transitions to a hanging system, the entire section is stretched and uniformly engaged, thus increasing the load-bearing capacity.
The authors claim that the proposed solutions are more economical than traditional ones, due to lower metal intensity and technological simplicity. Further research will be conducted to prepare the development for implementation.
OUTSIDE RUSSIA
USAID and NED Done For, Ukraine Project Lost: Ex-CIA Analyst
It’s been a helluva week in politics so far, with Elon Musk and the DOGE going after Washington’s favorite soft power tools, USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy, while President Trump proposed tying future US aid to Ukraine to its rare earth riches. Sputnik asked veteran retired CIA-analyst Larry Johnson to help unpack events.
With USAID and NED Neutered, Big Reason Behind Ukraine Crisis Gone
“I think she is right now facing prospects of becoming just increasingly irrelevant because the foundation for supporting the war in Ukraine is disappearing,” former CIA analyst Larry Johnson told Sputnik.
Ukraine Taught US Limitations of Its Own Power
“The United States has been shown the limitations of its own power” after picking a fight with Russia, Johnson, a former CIA analyst and veteran political observer, explained
Trump Wouldn’t Be Demanding Ukraine’s Rare Earths If He Just Looked at a Map
“Russia controls Donetsk,Lugansk. It is going to be taking control of Zaporozhye, Kherson. So where the rare earth minerals are located – Ukraine has no control over them” – Larry Johnson.
Moscow rejects Trump’s Gaza plan
Russia insists on a two-state solution for the Middle East conflict, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said
Russia has rejected US President Donald Trump’s plan to “take over Gaza.” A two-state solution is the only way to settle the Middle East conflict, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov has reiterated.
Speaking on Tuesday following a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, Trump reiterated his view that the two million Palestinians who live in Gaza should be permanently resettled to countries such as Egypt and Jordan. The US would “take over” the territory and lead efforts to clear the destruction left by 15 months of war between Israel and Hamas, he added.
According to the UN, approximately 92% of homes in Gaza have been destroyed or severely damaged.
Moscow’s position is that the only way to resolve the Middle East conflict is to create a Palestinian state to exist side-by-side with Israel, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated during a press briefing on Wednesday.
”This is the thesis that is enshrined in the relevant UN Security Council resolution, this is the thesis that is shared by the overwhelming majority of countries involved in this problem. We proceed from it, we support it and believe that this is the only possible option,” he told reporters.
Trump’s resettlement idea has also been rejected by major Arab nations, including Egypt and Jordan, noted Peskov. Moscow holds the same position, he added.
Asked to clarify what exactly he meant by a “takeover,” the Trump said he envisions a “long-term ownership position” that would supposedly bring “great stability” to the entire Middle East.
Netanyahu praised Trump’s plan, saying that it “could change history.”
The proposal has faced significant international criticism. Palestinian authorities have denounced the plan, asserting that it violates international law. Arab nations, including Saudi Arabia, as well as Türkiye, Germany, and China, have also condemned it.
Russia has consistently called for de-escalation of the conflict and a return to negotiations. Moscow has also engaged in diplomatic efforts, including hosting talks between Palestinian factions and advocating for international mediation.
A ceasefire, in which the US played a significant role, was established between Hamas and Israel in Gaza on January 19, after 15 months of hostilities.
Authorities in the enclave updated the death toll earlier this week to nearly 62,000, having added those who are missing and now presumed dead.
How the CIA Spawned Google
American tech giant Google has faced regulatory scrutiny on numerous occasions amid accusations of antitrust violations. Google’s relationship with the CIA, ranging from early financial support to collaborative efforts have been decried as undermining privacy rights and free speech in the digital landscape.
Google’s creation played a crucial role in the US intelligence community’s scheme to attain global dominance by controlling information.
How it Started
The Pentagon founded its private sector project the Highlands Forum during the Clinton administration in 1994, according to the INSURGE INTELLIGENCE project.
Together with defense contractors, the group hammered out a strategy for “network-centric warfare.”
The 9/11 terrorist attacks were seized upon by US spy agencies to justify not only military invasions across the Muslim world, but also mass surveillance of civilian populations.
CIA Steps In
The CIA’s Massive Digital Data Systems (MDDS) program, which originated in the 1990s, was designed to enhance query techniques and track users’ digital footprints.
To better serve its goals, in 1999, the CIA established its own venture capital firm, In-Q-Tel, to invest in potentially useful technologies.
Ph.D. students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, were working on precisely such a tech start-up.
The design of the search engine and algorithms that ultimately evolved into Google was funded by CIA grants through a program aimed at enhancing mass surveillance capabilities.
China is launching an investigation into Google for suspected antitrust violations. The US tech giant is no stranger to regulatory scrutiny. Here’s a list of the most notable cases.
PRISM
Whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed in 2013 that the NSA had direct access to Google’s systems through its secret PRISM program, enabling the agency to harvest vast amounts of data on American citizens, Washington’s allies, and foreign nationals.
Ex-CIA spooks are employed in almost every department at Google, according to a 2022 report based on the analysis of employment websites.
Google has been slapped with multiple lawsuits stemming from its history of data misuse and privacy violations.
SPECIAL MILITARY OPERATION IN UKRAINE
Russian forces fighting in Kursk ‘impressively, competently, courageously’
“The Black Sea Fleet marines of the 810th brigade, paratroopers of the 106th division, the 76th division and many other units are also fighting in the same way in this part of the battlefield, and all of them will be appropriately decorated,” the president said
MOSCOW, February 5. /TASS/. The Russian Armed Forces units are fighting in the Kursk area “impressively, competently, courageously,” President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with Acting Kursk Region Governor Alexander Khinshtein.
During the meeting, Khinshtein presented Putin with a request from Russia’s 155th marine brigade to give it an honorary name after Kursk. The head of state pointed out that all servicemen fighting in the Kursk area would be decorated accordingly.
“Indeed, the marines from the Far East are fighting impressively, competently, courageously. The Black Sea Fleet marines of the 810th brigade, paratroopers of the 106th division, the 76th division and many other units are also fighting in the same way in this part of the battlefield, and all of them will be appropriately decorated,” the president said.
Speaking about the request of the 155th marine brigade, Putin pointed out that it would be granted. “With words of gratitude for everything they do for the Motherland,” he added.
Kiev loses over 57,655 troops since Kursk incursion
In addition, the Ukrainian armed forces also lost 106 electronic warfare stations, 15 counterbattery radars, five air defense radars, 33 engineering and other vehicles
MOSCOW, February 5. /TASS/. The Ukrainian army has lost more than 57,655 troops since its incursion into Russia’s borderline Kursk Region, including some 325 personnel over the past 24 hours, the Russian Defense Ministry reported on Wednesday.
“During the last 24-hour period, the Ukrainian army lost roughly 325 personnel, three tanks, an armored personnel carrier, 36 armored combat vehicles, 29 motor vehicles, three field artillery guns and two mortars,” the ministry said in a statement.
Over the period of fighting in the Kursk frontline area, the enemy has lost more than 57,655 troops, 334 tanks, 244 infantry fighting vehicles, 193 armored personnel carriers 1,744 armored combat vehicles, 1,827 motor vehicles, 409 artillery weapons, 45 multiple rocket launchers, including 13 HIMARS and six MLRS of US manufacture, 17 surface-to-air missile launchers and eight transporter-loader vehicles, according to the statement.
In addition, the Ukrainian armed forces also lost 106 electronic warfare stations, 15 counterbattery radars, five air defense radars, 33 engineering and other vehicles, including 14 obstacle removing vehicles, one UR-77 mine-clearing vehicle, nine armored repair/recovery vehicles and a command and staff vehicle, the ministry specified.
Moreover, the ministry continued, Battlegroup North units struck formations of six mechanized and three air assault brigades, a marine infantry brigade, four territorial defense brigades of the Ukrainian army and a National Guard brigade near the settlements of Bogdanovka, Viktorovka, Gogolevka, Guyevo, Daryino, Zazulevka, Zaoleshenka, KazachyaLoknya, Kolmakov, Kositsa, Kurilovka, Lebedevka, Loknya,
Russia’s operational/tactical aircraft and artillery also inflicted losses on enemy’s manpower and equipment near the settlements of Basovka, Belovody, Veselovka, Zhuravka, Ivolzhanskoye, Iskriskovshchina, Mirlogi, Miropolye, Mogritsa, Sadki, Stetskovka, Yunakovka and Yablonovka in the Sumy area, the ministry added.
INSIGHTS
Fyodor Lukyanov: Why global powers can’t agree on a New World Order
Eighty years after Yalta, here’s why it can’t be repeated
Eighty years ago, on February 4, 1945, the Yalta Conference brought together the leaders of the anti-Hitler coalition to lay the groundwork for the post-war world order. This was a landmark event that shaped global relations for decades. While the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 marked another milestone, it was an extension of Yalta’s principles rather than a new foundation. Since the end of the Cold War, however, there have been no binding agreements that define the global order.
The world has changed fundamentally, and the current dynamics make it unlikely that a similar agreement could be reached. The unraveling of established norms and increasing geopolitical competition have sparked calls for a “new Yalta” – a grand treaty to establish principles for today’s reality. With US President Donald Trump’s return to the political stage, such discussions have intensified. On one hand, Trump’s rhetoric often undermines the remnants of the old rules. On the other, he has a penchant for striking deals. But can a new grand bargain really emerge? Hardly.
Trump’s approach to deal-making prioritizes monetary gain and situational advantage over comprehensive, long-term solutions. His understanding of agreements is transactional, lacking the vision required for a treaty on the scale of Yalta. Yet this is not solely about Trump.
The Yalta-Potsdam agreements emerged from the ashes of a global war, with victorious powers jointly dismantling the challenger to world domination. This unprecedented collaboration gave the Allies the moral and political authority to shape the world order. Despite the intensity of current conflicts, particularly in Ukraine, it is incorrect to equate them with a world war. Much of the planet views today’s clashes as internal disputes among powers unable to fully conclude the Cold War. While sympathies vary, most nations prefer to stay on the sidelines, minimizing their own risks and costs.
Moreover, the concept of a “world order,” as understood in Western terms, is losing relevance. For centuries, the great powers of Europe and later the Northern Hemisphere imposed rules that gradually extended to the entire planet. But as Western hegemony wanes, those rules no longer resonate universally. The rising powers of the Global South and East are not eager to take up the mantle of global leadership. Instead, they prioritize safeguarding their interests in specific contexts, echoing Trump’s transactional approach.
China offers a compelling example. While Beijing frequently proposes global initiatives, these are often broad, aspirational statements that lack detailed implementation plans. China’s principles may hold internal coherence, but they fail to gain traction globally. The same applies to other major powers with unique cultural and political traditions. As their influence grows, their willingness to conform to external rules diminishes.
This shift does not eliminate the need for frameworks of coexistence. However, future international relations are more likely to resemble the flexible, informal structure of BRICS+ rather than rigid, binding agreements. This model acknowledges shared interests without imposing strict criteria or legal obligations.
Could a new “Yalta” agreement be possible between Russia and the West? In theory, yes. A limited arrangement aimed at resolving specific regional disputes might emerge. However, there are no signs of such an initiative at present. Even if it materialized, its global impact would be limited. The era of comprehensive agreements defining world order appears to be over.
The end of liberal globalization – often framed as the “rules-based order” – marks a significant turning point. While the fragmentation of the international system has not occurred, the interconnectedness of the global economy persists despite political tensions. Efforts to isolate countries like Russia have resulted in distortions and inefficiencies, but they have not severed global ties. This resilience highlights the enduring complexity of international relations.
The current state of affairs is neither entirely dire nor entirely hopeful. While the absence of a unifying global framework creates uncertainty, it also opens the door for pragmatic, case-by-case agreements. However, attempts to revive imperial politics and establish spheres of influence risk further instability. The balance of power no longer favors a single normative authority, whether the United States, China, or any other nation.
In the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic and the ongoing geopolitical upheavals, the world has entered a period of profound transformation. The varnish of the old order has been stripped away, revealing its underlying fragility. While the challenges are significant, they also present opportunities for reimagining global relations. The question remains: can the international community rise to the occasion, or will it succumb to the forces of division? The first steps of this new era suggest that while a return to the past is impossible, the future remains unwritten.
This article was first published by the newspaper Kommersant and was translated and edited by the RT team.
