Multipolarity is not an idea but a reality, also reflected in the region.
Multipolarity is not an idea but a reality, also reflected in the region.
The Center for National Strategy (USMER) has organized an international conference on the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea on July 18 and 19 in Istanbul, Türkiye. Today, we present the speech of the Russian Federation’s General Consul in Istanbul, Türkiye, Andrey Buravov.
The speech was held in Turkish, unofficial translation by UWI.
Dear Conference Organizers and Participants,
On behalf of the Consulate General of the Russian Federation in Istanbul, I am pleased to greet you. Thank you for inviting me to such a representative event.
In the context of the discussion topics set by the conference organizers, I would like to share with you some aspects related to Russia’s vision and assessment of the processes taking place in the world and in the region, possible ways to solve these problems and respond to existing challenges and threats.
I’ll begin with a general assessment of the situation. The world is undergoing profound changes. A unipolar system of international relations that serves the interests of the so-called golden billion is receding into the past. In its place is a more equitable, multipolar world order based on the principles of equality, sovereign choice, and respect for national identity.
Multipolarity is not a choice, but an objective reality, replacing the outdated neoliberal model built on neocolonial practices. The traditional globalization paradigm, based on the dominant role of so-called developed Western states, is a thing of the past. This is accompanied by the erosion of the global economic world order, exacerbated by the illegal unilateral sanctions of collective Western countries and the use of the dollar as a weapon of “punishment.” Trust in the US currency, once a reliable means of payment, has eroded. We are witnessing a rapid redistribution of global influence. While the collective West’s role in both economics and politics is significantly diminishing, the states of the Global South and East are confidently consolidating their positions.
Meanwhile, states that have long dominated international politics are desperately trying to maintain their lost leadership. To do so, they are resorting to a variety of pressure methods, from economic sanctions to outright political blackmail. They don’t disregard disinformation, interference in internal affairs, or undermining the sovereignty of other countries. All of this is presented under the eponymous slogans of “democracy” and a “rules-based world order.” A reasonable question arises: What “rules” are we talking about? In reality, it turns out that these norms are known and beneficial only to the West itself. They have no legal validity, are not based on international law, and serve merely as a tool for imposing their will.
As a result, international law, the universal foundation upon which a sustainable and just world order must be built, is gradually receding into the background. Its place is taken by arbitrarily interpreted “rules,” transforming global relations into a realm of double standards and legal arbitrariness.
The creation and improvement of regional security and development formats becomes particularly important in the face of the erosion of universal mechanisms and attempts to replace international law with various non-legal concepts reflecting the interests of certain groups of states.
After the West, through its actions, effectively dismantled all the fundamental values underlying globalization, such as equitable access to resources, transparency of world trade, and the depoliticized use of international currencies, the world community faced the need to create alternative mechanisms for economic interaction. This process was particularly evident in the Eurasian continent, where new forms of cooperation reflecting the interests of the global majority were gaining momentum.
In this context, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s flagship initiative—the Greater Eurasian Partnership (BAO)—is gaining particular significance. This is not merely a concept of regional cooperation, but a large-scale integration platform that responds to the challenges of modernity. Against the backdrop of the fragmentation of the world economy, deliberately fueled by the collective West, the BAO emerges as a comprehensive tool for harmonizing and consolidating various integration, infrastructure, production, and logistics initiatives within a single space. The BAO’s goal is not to replicate existing formats, but to coordinate and mutually reinforce them. In this context, its alignment with the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, ASEAN, and China’s Belt and Road Initiative appears highly promising. The BAO’s most important principle is the equal rights of all participants. Unlike Western models based on obedience and the imposition of “universal rules,” mutual respect, consideration of national interests, and mutual benefit are prioritized here.
The Greater Eurasian Partnership is becoming increasingly relevant. Against the backdrop of stagnating economies in developed countries and systemic problems within the European Union, cooperation with it is losing its former appeal. EU sanctions and the closure of key air, sea, and land logistics corridors significantly hinder trade between Europe and Asia. Under these circumstances, strengthening intra-continental ties between Eurasian countries is not just an alternative, but an objective necessity.
Moreover, the WAO could move beyond a purely Eurasian project and take on a transcontinental character. BRICS countries, APEC economies, and Latin American, Middle Eastern, and African states have already expressed interest in joining. This demonstrates the growing demand for new forms of cooperation based on equality, openness, and international law, rather than the dictates of unilaterally developed “rules.”
The Russian Federation consistently and actively supports the development of the WAO, advocating for the construction of a sustainable, inclusive, and non-political architecture of economic relations. We believe that a partnership based on the principles of mutual respect, cultural diversity, and equitable distribution of benefits can be the foundation for a new model of international relations aimed at more sustainable, balanced, and genuine development.
The course taken by NATO and European Union countries toward direct military conflict, active militarization, and successive increases in military spending demonstrate once again that the modern Euro-Atlantic security architecture is aggressive in nature. It continues to utilize neocolonial approaches and seeks to expand political and economic influence through power mechanisms.
Russian President Vladimir Putin recently put forward the concept of an equal and indivisible security architecture in Eurasia. He did so, taking into account that the pan-European security mechanisms that emerged from the “détente” of the 1970s have been effectively destroyed by the current Europe’s rampant militarism and complete loss of strategic sovereignty.
Therefore, we advocate for a sustainable and equitable security system in which all states on the continent will engage in dialogue, and none will strengthen their own security at the expense of others. Eurasia has enormous potential, and it must be harnessed for the benefit of all states there.
Organizations such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), and ASEAN could play a special role in this process. Combining their efforts could help establish effective forms of security cooperation. Russia proposes establishing a system of bilateral and multilateral guarantees in Eurasia, jointly countering military threats, and ensuring long-term stability.
We invite all interested countries to engage in an open dialogue on creating conditions for the peaceful development of Eurasia as a shared space of mutual trust and harmonious interests. Some steps have been taken in this direction. I would like to refer, in particular, to the joint declaration of the Ministers of the CIS countries on the principles of cooperation in ensuring security in Eurasia (Moscow, October 7, 2024) and the Common Vision of the Charter for Eurasian Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century, announced by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Russia and Belarus (Minsk, November 22, 2024). Related work is envisaged to continue during the Third Minsk International Conference on Eurasian Security (October 28-29, 2025).
In the crisis surrounding Ukraine, we clearly see that NATO and the European Union, in particular, are preparing for a military conflict with the Russian Federation. Increasingly aggressive and militaristic statements are coming from Brussels and other European capitals. In some European countries, already substantial military spending is increasing rapidly, amidst a difficult socio-economic situation largely stemming from the consequences of their own sanction measures against Russia. To justify this, propaganda hysteria about “Russia’s growing threat to the West” is artificially intensified. Europe’s current leaders appear to have completely forgotten the painful lessons of history and are attempting to mobilize Europe once again for war against Russia, following the example of Napoleon and Hitler.
NATO’s expansion, contrary to previous agreements, its interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, and its incitement and support of “color revolutions” are all attempts by the West to preserve its lost influence. These tendencies were particularly evident in the Ukraine crisis.
Since 2014, we have been witnessing the deliberate cultivation of Russophobia, supported from abroad. An artificial enmity with Russia was imposed on the Ukrainian people, a state coup was supported, and then forces that did not represent the interests of the entire population came to power. The Russian-speaking population has been subjected to discrimination, restrictions on their rights, oppression, and violence, including the banning of their native language. The exercise of the right to self-determination by the residents of Crimea, Donbas, and Novorossiya is a direct consequence not of “external intervention” but of an internal crisis of the legitimacy of the government in Kyiv.
Here too, it’s important to remember that the right to self-determination is established as a cornerstone of international law. In particular, the Declaration on Principles of International Law Regarding Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States under the 1970 UN Charter states that the territorial integrity of states is inviolable only if they respect the principle of self-determination and represent the interests of all citizens, regardless of language, religion, or ethnicity. Can the Ukrainian leadership assume such a role? Clearly not. Instead of consolidating society—its division, instead of dialogue—they have chosen the armed suppression of those who hold different views.
Against this backdrop, the West’s international response only confirms its true objectives: not to protect Ukraine, but to use its territory and population as a tool to deter Russia. The scale of the arms procurement, the imposition of illegal, unilateral sanctions, and the direct involvement in the conflict (providing intelligence and deploying instructors) all speak to a proxy war waged with a single objective: to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.
Our repeated calls for a peaceful resolution of the conflict by addressing its root causes remain unanswered. We consistently advocate for a sustainable and long-term peace that takes into account both the real conditions on the ground and Russia’s legitimate security interests. The Russian side’s participation in peaceful settlement negotiations in 2022 and 2025 is clear evidence of this.
I would also like to highlight Türkiye’s significant role as a key regional actor in Eurasia. Despite its deep integration into Western political and defense structures, Ankara consistently pursues a foreign policy based primarily on its own national interests. Such an independent and balanced approach, which sometimes provokes irritation and open opposition from the collective West, deserves respect as a manifestation of true sovereignty and responsibility.
Ankara’s approach to regional responsibility issues, particularly in the Black Sea region. It is the coastal states that must play a leading role in resolving issues related to stability, security, and sustainable development in the Black Sea basin. As practice shows, external intervention not only fails to contribute to a solution but often exacerbates existing contradictions and creates new lines of tension.
In this context, the European Union’s “new strategic approaches” in the Black Sea region, which envision a significant expansion of the influence and physical presence of extra-regional actors, are a source of serious concern. We share the concerns about such attempts at external interference in the affairs of sovereign states and the imposition of foreign political and ideological narratives on them.
The necessary efforts to establish fair, balanced, and inclusive formats for regional cooperation can only be mobilized through engagement with constructive-minded partners. At its core, there must be an equal partnership, respect for sovereignty, and consideration of the legitimate interests of all participants.