In the big scheme of things : The NPT (Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons)
The Russian Foreign Ministry prepared a statement on the ending of the NPT Review Conference without a statement. What is very clear is that the west wants to claw out a permission to have nuclear weapons, with no rules, and under ‘Orwellian 1984’ type reasoning. They say they want to do nuclear testing in order to support the NPT. Since the last weapons treaty was abandoned by the US (The New START), it is a free for all and there is no nuclear weapons treaty active in the world today. Treaties such a those that control anti-personnel mines and other non-proliferation treaties are also now in the cross-hairs. I saw Iranian commentary on their experience at the Review Conference where their nuclear stance (civilian) was attacked (Iran should not have a nuclear industry), while Israel was given a free card. Since then, I’ve seen some Iranian comment that they might leave the NPT, which means they will be free and open to create nuclear weapons depending on what they decide.
Russia says in their commentary that the NPT reflects the overall state of affairs in international relations. Ambassador Do Hung Viet from Vietnam, leading the Review, was devastated because there was no outcome. He kept apologizing and obviously felt that he personally had failed. But he did not.
The West crashed the conference.
It is high time that the UN and its tentacles get into control and we are in deep need for a new world configuration.
In the Big Scheme of Things, this is a Very Big Thing, The NPT is an international treaty.
The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 191 States have joined the Treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon States. More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty’s significance.
The 11th Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) completed its work on May 22.
Held in New York, it lasted for four weeks and was chaired by Ambassador Do Hung Viet, Permanent Representative of Vietnam to the United Nations.
The conference took place against the dramatic deterioration of the regional and global security environment, which is marked by a significant escalation of threats and the growing importance of strong-arm politics in international affairs. The gathering demonstrated the existence of stark differences between many state parties to the NPT, which defined the way the debates unfolded and their substance, as well as the conference’s overall outcome.
The aggression by Israel and the United States against Iran in June 2025 and February and March 2026 under the far-fetched pretext of defending the nuclear non-proliferation regime became a major stumbling block in terms of achieving the forum’s objectives. This was not the first time the NPT was used as a means of settling political scores and justifying the use of force. However, the latest developments demonstrated that these unprovoked, unjustified and unlawful actions can have disastrous consequences for the NPT. The conference was ill equipped to offer an accurate assessment of the Iran situation.
The delegations of the so-called collective West contributed to creating an unfavourable environment at the conference. They came to New York in the pursuit of their vested political interests which have nothing to do with the NPT or its subject matter. These countries, primarily European Union and NATO members, as well as the EU bureaucrats, did everything to undermine productive dialogue by promoting a destructive agenda with a primary focus on criticising Russia, China, Iran and the DPRK.
These European nations with their dual allegiance professed groundless accusations and did everything to evade any justified criticism against them. They were cynical and clumsy in the way they sought to justify their involvement in mechanisms for carrying out nuclear exercises by alleging that these actions help strengthen nuclear non-proliferation. As a result, these countries were completely opposed to discussing any possibilities for adopting a more transparent posture in terms of their involvement in nuclear-related practices which run counter to the NPT.
Unfortunately, those who have been proactive in advocating total and immediate nuclear disarmament were not always ready to accept the present-day military, political and global strategic reality, which did not help promote a constructive and effective discussion on the NPT’s three pillars: disarmament, non-proliferation and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
During the conference, the Russian delegation sought to assert the incontestable principles considering that reaffirming them is instrumental when several countries are seeking to undermine the very foundations of the NPT. In particular, Russia spoke out in favour of setting forth in the forum’s resolutions provisions on the unacceptable nature of a nuclear war and the fact that progress on nuclear disarmament is largely defined by the international security environment. Russia was also consistent in deflecting attempts to use selective approaches to interpreting and applying the NPT’s provisions. Its representatives spoke out in favour of upholding and maintaining IAEA’s mechanism for ensuring objective, politics-free, technically-grounded control mechanisms in keeping with the rights and obligations of the parties to the IAEA safeguard agreements. Russia sought to assert the ability of states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes as their unalienable right and free from any reservations or exemptions. We affirmed that there was no alternative to the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty as the only path towards the complete and unconditional prohibition of nuclear tests.
Supported by responsible states, Ambassador Do Hung Viet worked hard to achieve compromises and succeeded on several occasions. He must take credit for preparing a draft outcome document which came close to being adopted by consensus. However, this document was not submitted to the conference for approval due to the failure to address several specific matters, which was attributable to the hard line adopted by the United States and its allies. This was how the chair prevented a new round of political confrontation which would have created a negative backdrop for the next review cycle.
The way the conference completed its work did not come as a surprise. It reflects the overall state of affairs in international relations, including within the NPT framework. Russia is convinced that the fact that the conference failed to produce an outcome document does not cast a shadow on the NPT’s relevance. It is and remains the cornerstone of international security and nuclear non-proliferation. The fact that the NPT review took place is what matters the most.
Russia would like to praise the conference’s chair for his honest and sincere efforts in the search for mutually acceptable solutions and in reaching a consensus on the outcome document.
We hope that the state parties to the NPT will be able to learn the necessary lessons from the latest review cycle as we move towards the 12th NPT Review Conference, which is scheduled to take place in 2031, and avoid repeating their own mistakes.
As an NPT depositary, the Russian Federation will keep stepping up its efforts for ensuring its integrity and asserting its authority in the interests of peace, security and stability.