Russia in Global Affairs

We must recognize, however difficult it may be, that ‘Europeanness’, in the present circumstances, is increasingly becoming a sign of intellectual narrow-mindedness and moral duplicity. And given the current orientation of European elites, it is simply harmful to us, the representatives of the great multinational, multi-confessional and multicultural Russian people.

We have been forced into a global historical struggle that directly threatens to destroy our country—and, in the medium term, all of humanity. The answer is obvious: the militarization, and concentration on defense, of our political and economic thinking. Not a mindless rush into an unlimited arms race. But our entire ideological, economic, and domestic policy should be geared towards not only our survival, but also towards winning the world war imposed on all humankind.

We are entering an era in which countries remain deeply interconnected while becoming increasingly determined to defend their own interests and identities, and that’s the central contradiction of the new international system. In this world, every major election becomes an international event, and whether we like it or not, we’re all watching, and the spectacle is at the very least fascinating.

The Trump administration’s sudden decision to suspend sanctions on Russian diesel supplies appears to contradict its recent actions, including the adoption of tough new sanctions legislation intended to increase pressure on Moscow, and while some attribute the reversal to US President Donald Trump’s unpredictability, others see evidence of a fundamental change in the administration’s approach to Ukraine.

Russia’s revised list of states offering “adequate” protection of personal data came into force on 30 October 2026, following Roskomnadzor’s Order #253, which excluded Ukraine and the U.S. but retained China and India. Moscow has thus recognized the validity of the data regimes of its two major trading partners for its own transfer rules.

Sea power is an essential element in building strategic strength. This insight is particularly relevant amid the current tensions surrounding vital maritime corridors—the Strait of Hormuz, the Bab el-Mandeb, and the Red Sea—where instability has disrupted trade flows and altered regional and global power balance.

Fyodor Lukyanov has a conversation with The Peacemonger. He offers a frank assessment of why Western Europe remains committed to the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine – and why ending it now could create serious political challenges for Brussels, Berlin and Paris. The discussion focuses on the internal logic of the European Union, the position of Donald Trump’s America, Russia’s red lines, the future of Donbass, Vladimir Zelensky’s political prospects, and Europe’s military-industrial dependence on the conflict in Ukraine. The conversation also addresses why the prospects for genuine diplomacy remain extremely limited.

How realistic are the current prospects for a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Ukraine, and why is Europe emerging as the principal source of uncertainty? In an interview with the Die Weltwoche, Fyodor Lukyanov examines the dynamics of the ongoing confrontation, the positions of its key stakeholders, and the factors that continue to hinder progress towards a political resolution.

Will the future be better for those living in today’s world compared to those who preceded them? Not necessarily. After all, future is always a set of probabilities that come to fruition to various degrees. There are specific patterns defining the way developments unfold, but it all depends on how responsible we are in our approach.

There is no doubt that today’s shifts are profound and are taking place across virtually all domains. That said, they cannot be viewed as an expression of someone’s deliberate will but should rather be regarded as a series of processes which were quite predictable and natural. These changes are not “the biggest since…” – they simply represent a new era that does not need to be compared to any other.

The monograph by Anatoly Torkunov and Kim Hak-chun is undoubtedly unique; its release has become not only an outstanding event in the history of Korean studies in Russia and Russian studies in Korea, but also a milestone in the history of scientific and cultural cooperation between the two countries.

In 2020, about a year before the “escape from Kabul” drama began to unfold, the academic collection of essays entitled On Strategy: A Primer hit the shelves in the United States. Chief editor of this book Nathan Finney well represents the modern cohort of U.S. staff officers boasting a remarkable combination of professional military training and fundamental university education.

A military campaign is easy to start; it is much more difficult to end—especially when initial goals remain unachieved. This is precisely the situation in which the U.S. found itself after it had failed to crush Iran with bombing.

The Russian President’s visit on 13 August to Iturup Island, which Japan regards as one of its Northern Territories, marked more than just a bifurcation point in Russia’s relations with Japan. It is entirely possible that future historians will date the emergence of a new geopolitical configuration in Asia from this very event.