The full text of the interview is as follows:
– International institutions, including BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Eurasian Economic Union, are acting as drivers of the emerging multipolar world. What key features of the new global security architecture would you highlight?
– You know, I would start answering this question from the opposite angle. Look at the approach of those countries that believe the world should be governed from a single center of decision-making and that the international system should remain unipolar or bipolar. Look at how those who still support this logic behave.
This raises a simple question. I want to discuss this issue not in the complicated language of political science, but in simple everyday terms. Is this approach suitable for today’s world? Will the global majority support it? Let us ask ourselves honestly: do we really like such a system? Anyone who supports this approach should understand that it contradicts the views of the overwhelming majority of people around the world on how global development should proceed.
The answer to your question about the characteristics of the new system begins here. The formation of this system lies precisely in rejecting such methodologies — methods that are not only flawed and outdated, but that have no right to continue. No country has the right to reshape another country, a region, or the entire planet according to its own wishes. This is especially true when temporary political groups act solely on the basis of their own narrow understanding of global affairs and have tried for decades to present this as a “new normal.”
Therefore, when we speak about the future world order, one of its essential features must be rejection — rejection of the practices once used by colonial powers to suppress their colonies and later transformed into policies of extreme nationalism and racial or national apartheid. Those who consider themselves above the law should have no place in the world of the future.
The second key point is undoubtedly multipolarity, which is not just a beautiful phrase or political slogan. Multipolarity is a growing reality that allows regions, countries, and alliances to develop according to their own economic, human, cultural, and civilizational potential. Structures such as BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and the Eurasian Economic Union have already proven themselves and have been operating successfully for years.
These organizations continued to exist even when they were completely ignored by the West in the beginning. They exist because the people of member states need them. Even now, when the West has realized the importance of BRICS and is trying to counter it, these organizations are becoming stronger day by day.
In the end, I believe one of the most important features of this multipolar world will be adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, which emphasizes mutual respect, preservation of national sovereignty, and the independence of states.
I believe that the efforts made by the international community to establish, shape, and develop the United Nations, and which are embodied in the UN Charter, will be fully utilized, expanded, and further developed within the framework of this emerging multipolar world order.
– You mentioned the human dimension as an important element. In your view, what role does cultural diplomacy play in strengthening international cooperation?
– When we speak about “cultural diplomacy,” we are essentially talking about the use of diplomatic tools and skills to promote culture and its expressions. It is impossible to ignore the civilizational development of countries and nations, because this forms the essence of humanity itself. In this regard, official diplomacy between governments, public diplomacy, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) all possess enormous potential and importance.
Perhaps this issue would not be so vital today if we were not witnessing attempts to impose “cancel culture” on the world. This approach has already led to the erasure of cultural identity within Western countries themselves. A person who throws paint on posters of Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky, destroys a statue of Alexander Pushkin, or tears up the books of Nikolai Gogol cannot claim to be cultured.
If someone believes the works of Dmitri Shostakovich, Sergei Rachmaninoff, or Mikhail Glinka should be banned, or that the nationality of an artist who died decades ago should be rewritten, this reflects complete cultural ignorance. Those who promoted cancel culture as a norm have in fact shown themselves to be entirely uncultured and even anti-culture.
Today we speak about neo-Nazism, which is essentially the division of people based on race, ethnicity, and religion, but now supported by new technological and information infrastructures. This is a form of “neo-barbarism.” Barbarism is not merely a historical reality in which invading tribes occupied and looted lands; it is also a symbol of destroying the culture of others, something fundamentally opposed to the very concept of culture itself.
You cannot consider yourself a cultured person if you believe you have the right to destroy another culture for your own convenience or goals. That only shows that your culture itself is barbarism. This is why we speak about cultural diplomacy as a tool that can help prevent the spread and expansion of this neo-barbarism.
– Today, BRICS countries are working to establish a new financial system. According to the new strategy of the New Development Bank, the share of settlements in national currencies should increase and alternative payment systems should be developed for infrastructure projects. In your view, what steps are necessary to achieve these goals?
– It is probably still too early to speak about creating a completely new financial system on BRICS platforms. Most member states are still integrated into the existing global mechanisms. However, you are correct about the growing concern among the majority of the international community regarding processes that were once presented as opportunities.
For example, the dollar initially emerged as a currency intended to facilitate global payments. But later it became a tool in the hands of those who could no longer maintain their competitiveness and began using every available lever to slow development in other parts of the world. This has created major challenges. International monetary and financial institutions themselves have increasingly become instruments of political and economic pressure.
That is why these challenges require the creation of an effective response system within organizations such as BRICS. Let me share some developments in this regard. Tangible progress in this area has already been reflected in the statements of leaders at the Kazan summit in 2024 and the Rio de Janeiro summit in 2025. These documents emphasize the creation of mechanisms for cross-border payments, as well as shared clearing and reinsurance infrastructure.
All these issues are currently being discussed at the practical level, and the New Development Bank plays a special role in this process. Again, I stress that this is not an attempt to confront or weaken existing financial institutions. Rather, it is an effort to prevent the destruction of developing economies and to protect countries from the use of economic instruments in trade wars.
– Returning to the BRICS statements, digital transformation, while opening new opportunities, also makes cyberspace more vulnerable. BRICS countries are working to create a secure digital environment. In your opinion, which initiatives are most effective for protecting cyberspace and combating deepfakes?
– The digitalization of the economy, logistics, and all aspects of life requires enormous resources. Today even refrigerators and irons are digitalized and connected through cyber systems within integrated management networks.
We are now witnessing predictions becoming reality, where developing countries are placed in a position of exploitation. In this situation, the imposition of foreign software and hardware does not mean development, but rather the creation of technological and cognitive dependence.
When monopolies and technology giants from developed countries impose their own solutions, cybersecurity becomes highly vulnerable. They not only monitor activities, but also gain live access to sensitive information belonging to citizens. This issue is no longer limited to developing countries; even countries within the European Union have realized that by integrating into this imported digital environment, they have become completely vulnerable and subject to full control and surveillance.
This is why BRICS has developed its own solutions. Cooperation in the field of international information security has been one of the main priorities of BRICS since 2013, when a special working group was established. Member states have developed common approaches for creating a global information security system based on sovereign equality, non-interference, and the central role of the United Nations.
For example, in 2024, the BRICS contact points list was launched. This mechanism allows computer incident response teams in member countries to communicate rapidly in order to identify the sources of malicious cyber activities. Cooperation with academic and expert communities is also underway to combat cybercrime.
Another important area is the coordination of BRICS countries on multilateral negotiation platforms related to artificial intelligence and cybersecurity. This year, a global UN mechanism for international information security was established, where countries aim to promote common approaches. Such coordination is being actively pursued not only within BRICS, but also within the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and other institutions by those working toward the construction of a multipolar world.
Nournews