Director of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service Sergey Naryshkin: interview to ‘Razvedchik’ (‘Intelligence Officer’) news magazine

❓ Question: Late last year, the Razvedchik (Intelligence Officer) magazine published your article about international development trends in the outgoing year 2024. To what extent have your forecasts come true, and what are the nascent new trends? What can Russia and the international community fear and hope for next year?

💬 Sergey Naryshkin: The main forecast about the growing crisis of the US-centric world and its replacement with a multipolar world has certainly materialised. We saw elements of that process throughout the year, like the failure of the US Summit for Democracy. That revenge-seeking forum was created by the Biden team to formalise the redivision of the world on Washington’s terms, establish the notorious “rules-based order” and ostracise those who refused to comply with these rules. The forum was devised as a global event but has not risen above a mediocre ministerial meeting, which the White House barely forced a score of its closest allies to attend.

The Americans and their satellites received another painful flick on the nose at the so-called summit on peace in Ukraine held at the Burgenstock resort. The leaders of the largest non-Western countries simply refused to attend that farce, and many of those who went to Switzerland refused to sign the final communique. The world is fully aware of the absurdity of attempts to settle the Ukrainian crisis without Russia, especially in light of the situation on the front line. This awareness underlies the peace-making and mediation efforts of Brazil, India, Indonesia, China, Türkiye, and Arab and African countries. Yet the West continues to live in an alternative reality that has no connection to the real world, a reality in which it has “isolated” Moscow and, considering the ICC heinous warrants, has inflicted a “strategic defeat” on us.

Thankfully, the real world is not a laboratory or a computer game. It cannot be structured with the use of information and political technologies. The failure of Western efforts to “isolate” Russia was clearly demonstrated at the triumphal BRICS summit in Kazan. It was a truly milestone event for the development of a multipolar world in terms of the number of participants, the agenda, and the atmosphere in which it was held. The Western media often compare BRICS with the G7. However, there is a fundamental difference between them, as I have pointed out on many occasions. The G7 is a group of Washington and its vassal states, that is, a direct offspring of the unipolar world based on the US dollar and American arbitrariness. BRICS, especially since its enlargement, is a union of equal states or rather civilisations, which are working together to find solutions to the biggest modern challenges with due regard for national interests. The G7 is the past, and BRICS is the future.

Of course, our opponent does not want to “cede the sky” to us, as a character in a popular Soviet film said, refusing to admit that the age of its undivided rule is over. It is not that Washington and London are unable to grasp the essence of the current developments; they are prevented from doing this by the inertia of their colonial mentality and deep-seated racism. On the other hand, the West sometimes lose their nerve, as you can see from their transition to open terrorism and attempts on the lives of their opponents. In other words, they have clearly moved to the latter option in their favourite “buy or kill” principle. Take the scandalous attempt on the life of Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico, who dared to speak up for his country’s national interests. This just one example. Or take reports of physical intimidation against President of Serbia Aleksandar Vucic and Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban. It is obvious that absolutely all bright leaders of the rising multipolar world are under attack.

❓ Question: Does this mean the West is ready to take drastic measures?

💬 Sergey Naryshkin: I assume it is. One of the possible scenarios in the medium term envisions the Western countries attempting to unleash a global armed conflict with an epicentre in Eurasia. That would be the global capital’s tried and true strategy of dealing with a crisis. It is encouraging, however, that Washington and London are by no means the only ones who are bound by what they call shared values. There are new, equally resilient groups of countries in the world. There are more responsible players who, if united, will be able to resist the West’s adventurous plans and resolve any problems independently, keeping the planet from sliding toward World War III.

❓ Question: How can the above processes reflect on the Ukrainian conflict?

💬 Sergey Naryshkin: The West’s strategy in the Ukrainian crisis is very clear: they seek to impose on us a protracted war of attrition which would split Russian society and pave the way for a colour revolution. They will fight to the last Ukrainian, as they say, and when there are no Ukrainians left, they will force the Baltics, Eastern Europe, and potentially Germany as well to fight the “terrible Russian bear.” Globalists have the necessary techniques for brainwashing their populations and pressuring local elites.

However, I can confidently assert that further escalation will not only fail to exhaust Russia, as Washington and London expect, but will accelerate the strategic defeat of the West instead. Despite the sanctions and the theft of our sovereign assets, the Russian economy is growing, and import substitution is accelerating, including in high-tech industries. New supply chains are emerging, and economic ties with non-Western countries are strengthening, primarily in Greater Eurasia.

All attempts to shatter Russia’s balance have been unsuccessful. The people realise that the enemy we are fighting is not the Kiev junta, but the collective West, and the stake in this battle is our freedom and sovereignty. The situation on the battlefield is hardly advantageous for Kiev today. We have the strategic initiative in all areas, and we are close to achieving our goals, while the Ukrainian armed forces are on the verge of collapse, and the Zelensky regime has completely lost its legitimacy and, as a consequence, its ability to negotiate.

❓ Question: What can you say about situation in the post-Soviet space as a whole?

💬 Sergey Naryshkin: The analysis of information available to our Service shows that the post-Soviet space remains a priority sphere for both American and British security services. The West has set itself an ambitious goal of rupturing not only economic and political ties but also deep historical and humanitarian connections between our countries. This approach is based on the West dictum, “Whoever rules Eurasia, controls the world.” For them, to rule means to divide and wreak havoc so they can offer themselves to the exhausted nations as the “non-partisan security guarantors.” You can see this from Ukrainian example.

Meanwhile, America’s fixation on Ukraine is having a destructive effect on the global financial and military-political system created by Washington. The United States is losing initiative in all areas, from the Middle East to Asia and Africa and suffering failure in the post-Soviet space. In Georgia, where the puppet Saakashvili gnawed on his tie only recently, the West could not prevent the victory of the ruling Georgian Dream party. The Georgian leaders have seen through the danger of reckless affiliation to the West, decided to act in their own interests and are purposefully moving away from the ultra-liberal transhuman agenda, which external forces imposed on them, because it is infinitely alien to the traditional Georgian values. The regime of Maia Sandu in Moldova stretched itself to report the necessary election result, which actually reflected a deep divide in society. Azerbaijan and Armenia are not listening much to the US and EU recommendations on a peace settlement, preferring to decide these matters themselves.

In the summer of 2024, President Vladimir Putin proposed creating a new collective security system in Eurasia in place of the obviously bankrupt Euro-Atlantic version. The idea of creating a contour of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia without the military presence of external countries has become an integral part of the international discourse. It was also discussed on the sidelines of the BRICS summit in Kazan.

At one time we invited the West to build a common security space from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which they refused to do. So, we will now build a new security architecture without it, for example, from Minsk to Pyongyang.

❓ Question: Do you think the West can play a constructive role in building a new international system? Is it possible to reach agreement with the Western countries or is direct conflict inevitable? What place do you think they will have in the future system of international relations?

💬 Sergey Naryshkin: Only history will tell who has what place. A multipolar world should certainly include the United States and Europe, provided that they have equal rights with the others. Today, humanity faces serious common challenges such as pandemics, climate change and related global migration, as well as uncontrolled development of artificial intelligence. Leading regional and global powers need to work together to find ways to respond to them. The American and European ‘poles’ with their entrepreneurial and innovation spirit can and should play an important role in these processes.

However, I fear that Americans and Europeans are still far from returning to their identities. They are likely to go through a difficult, dramatic period of internal strife, which they will blame on Moscow’s hand as they always do. The West finds it difficult to recognise the decline of its power. The US still has powerful technological capabilities, while the dollar, along with the euro, remains the world’s reserve currency. McDonald’s and MacBook have presence in many corners of the planet, as are American aircraft carrier groups.

Nevertheless, Washington’s influence in the world is increasingly sagging. Even its closest allies are less inclined to listen to the White House today, seeking to expand the boundaries of what they can do in politics and the economy. You cannot imagine how many US partners from Asia, Africa and Latin America are asking us through various channels not to stop halfway in the Ukrainian conflict. In addition, the West is literally slaughtering its own sacred cows, such as the inviolability of private property. It is obvious to everyone that any state could be in Russia’s place.

Ultimately, all the above is pushing the Global Majority to seek greater autonomy. We are witnessing a genuine decolonisation of the Global South, which has begun to see itself as a full-fledged geopolitical entity, rather than as someone’s backyard. You may have noticed that the Kazan summit coincided with a rather dreary British Commonwealth forum in Samoa, where the former colonies demanded that England pay them compensation for damages. And this is just the beginning. The Irish and the Scots have their own grievances against London, as do the people of Wales. In the United States, the movement to decolonise Texas and California is gaining popularity. Such aspirations might seem naïve now, but they do reflect a general trend, which is growing.

https://telegra.ph/Director-of-Russias-Foreign-Intelligence-Service-Sergey-Naryshkins-interview-to-Razvedchik-Intelligence-Officer-news-magazine-12-10