BRICS is a key platform for the global majority
With its current membership, Lavrov said, the organization now accounts for close to half of the planet's population and around 40% of global GDP in terms of purchasing power parity – surpassing the combined economic weight of the G7.
Given these figures, Lavrov argued, it is natural that BRICS continues to attract countries from the Global South and East, as many 'seek equal and mutually beneficial partnerships for the sake of joint development.'
'We view BRICS as a focal point for coordinating the interests of the World Majority's leading countries, a key pillar of a multipolar world, and an important mechanism for advancing genuinely multilateral cooperation,' Lavrov said.
He also emphasized that BRICS places particular focus on innovation and economic modernization, 'sustainable finance, digitalization, and transport connectivity.' Within that context, Lavrov highlighted women's entrepreneurship as a critical force for progress, not only within BRICS countries but globally.
'Women's entrepreneurship is one of the key drivers of progress in these and other areas,' the Russian foreign minister said.
According to Lavrov, the creativity, determination, and leadership qualities demonstrated by female entrepreneurs continues to unlock opportunities. Their work, he said, opens up 'new horizons for the development of our countries' economies and social spheres.'
Lavrov also emphasized that the initiatives put forward at the forum will certainly be considered in the run-up to the BRICS summit scheduled for July 6–7 in Rio de Janeiro, and will 'contribute to the collective efforts.'
BRICS was established in 2009 by Brazil, Russia, India, and China, with South Africa joining in 2011. In 2024, the bloc extended its full membership to Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia, and the United Arab Emirates. Nigeria and Uganda became partner states of BRICS in January 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
6 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Kremlin reveals expectations for upcoming Ukraine talks
Russia does not expect a breakthrough 'of the miraculous kind' in the upcoming peace negotiations with Ukraine, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has said. The third round of talks is expected to take place this week in Istanbul, where the two sides met in May and June. During the previous round last month, the two delegations exchanged draft memorandums on peace terms and agreed to humanitarian measures, including the return of prisoners of war and transferring the remains of soldiers. Speaking to journalists on Tuesday, Peskov said Russia hopes the next meeting will be held this week, adding that the date will be announced once both sides are ready. According to the spokesman, the upcoming session will include discussions of the memorandums shared earlier, among other topics. Asked about Moscow's expectations for the upcoming talks, Peskov said, 'there is no reason to count on any miraculous breakthroughs,' as the situation is too complex. Peskov pushed back, however, against suggestions that the talks will be fruitless. He pointed to previous progress, such as the humanitarian exchanges, saying they represent tangible results. He reiterated that Russia expects to secure its interests and 'fulfill the tasks that we set from the very beginning.' Asked whether a peace deal could be expected within a year or any other time period, Peskov said, 'Any forecasts would be wrong' due to the number of variables involved.
Russia Today
9 hours ago
- Russia Today
The age of American nuclear privilege is over
The question of nuclear proliferation is no longer hypothetical. It is happening. The only uncertainty now is how quickly it will proceed. In the not-too-distant future, we may see 15 nuclear powers instead of today's nine. Yet there is little reason to believe this development will fundamentally upend international politics, or bring about global catastrophe. The invention of nuclear weapons was a technological breakthrough that reshaped global affairs. More than anything else, nuclear weapons define the military hierarchy of states, creating a threat that no government can ignore. Perhaps their most profound consequence is the emergence of states that are essentially immune to external aggression. This was never true in the long history of war. No matter how powerful a state was, a coalition of rivals could always defeat it. The great empires were vulnerable to invasion. The Enlightenment-era monarchies – including Russia – depended on a balance of power system where no single nation could dominate the rest. But with nuclear weapons, that balance shifted. Two countries – Russia and the US – now possess such overwhelming destructive capability that neither can be seriously threatened, let alone defeated, even by a coalition. China, too, is gradually joining this exclusive tier, though its arsenal is still a fraction of Moscow's or Washington's. In this sense, nuclear weapons have brought a strange kind of peace: Not from trust, but from terror. War between nuclear superpowers is not only unthinkable, it is politically irrational. Becoming a nuclear superpower, however, is extremely expensive. Even China, with its vast resources, has only recently begun to approach the scale of Russian and American stockpiles. Few others can afford the same path. Fortunately, most countries don't need to. Major regional powers like India, Pakistan, Brazil, Iran, Japan, and even smaller ones like Israel, do not seek military invincibility on a global scale. Their nuclear ambitions, where they exist, are regional in nature – aimed at deterring neighbors, not conquering continents. Their limited arsenals do not upset the global balance of power. Nor do they need to. For decades, serious scholars – Western theorists as well as Russian strategists – have argued that limited nuclear proliferation may actually enhance international stability. The reasoning is simple: Nuclear weapons raise the cost of war. Nations become far more cautious when the price of aggression could be national annihilation. We've seen this play out already. North Korea, with a modest nuclear arsenal, feels emboldened in its dealings with Washington. Iran, by contrast, delayed too long and was attacked by Israel and the US in June 2025. The lesson was clear: In today's world, non-nuclear states are far more vulnerable to attack. This has exposed the weakness of the current non-proliferation regime. Countries like India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea have all violated it, yet none have been meaningfully punished. Iran tried to comply and paid the price. It's no wonder others are watching and drawing their own conclusions. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan – each may be tempted to pursue nuclear weapons, either independently or with quiet American support. Washington has already shown it cares little about the long-term consequences for its East Asian allies. It is willing to provoke instability if it helps contain China. In this context, a wave of new nuclear powers is not just likely – it is practically inevitable. But it will not mean the end of the world. Why? Because even with more nuclear states, the true balance of power remains intact. No emerging nuclear country will soon reach the scale of Russia and the US. Most will build modest deterrents, enough to shield themselves from invasion but not to threaten global security. Their arsenals may be enough to inflict horrific damage on a rival – but not to destroy humanity. A regional war – between India and Pakistan, Iran and Israel, or others – would be a tragedy. Millions could die. But the catastrophe would be geographically limited. These are not world-ending scenarios. And in cases such as these, the nuclear superpowers – Russia and the US – would likely act to impose peace before escalation spirals out of control. Of course, this is hardly a utopia. But it is also not the apocalypse Western hawks love to predict. In fact, compared to the real nightmare – a direct nuclear conflict between Russia and the US – this multipolar nuclear world may be the lesser evil. Proliferation may be regrettable. It may complicate diplomacy. But it is not madness. It is a rational response by sovereign states to a system where only nuclear-armed nations can truly secure their interests. The monopoly of power enjoyed by a handful of countries is eroding. That is not a failure of the system – it is the logical outcome of it. The strategic architecture of the post-war world has long rested on a fiction – that non-proliferation is universal, and that the West can police it indefinitely. This fiction is now collapsing. Countries are learning that treaties mean little without enforcement – and that security cannot be outsourced. In the long run, this will require a new approach. A world with 15 nuclear powers may not be ideal, but it is manageable – especially if the dominant players act with restraint and responsibility. Russia, as one of the original nuclear powers, understands this burden well. It will not be Moscow that upends this balance. But the West, driven by arrogance and short-term calculations, may yet provoke a crisis it cannot control. Washington's recklessness in East Asia, its casual indifference to the risks it imposes on allies, and its determination to maintain strategic dominance at all costs – that is the real danger. We are entering a new nuclear age. It will be more crowded, more complex, and more fragile. But it will not be ungovernable – so long as those with real power behave as custodians, not crusaders.
Russia Today
16 hours ago
- Russia Today
Graham threatens Putin: US war hawk escalates rhetoric in alignment with military lobby
US President Donald Trump will 'whoop' his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and punish countries importing Russian oil, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham has stated. In an interview with Fox on Sunday, Graham suggested that China, India and Brazil could face 100% tariffs for 'helping' Putin. He claimed that Trump has been 'tough on Iran' and warned that similar action would soon be directed at Russia, claiming that Putin's 'turn is coming.' Graham previously introduced a bill to impose 500% tariffs on states conducting business with Russia. However, the Senate later froze the legislation after Trump announced a 50-day deadline for Moscow to reach a settlement on Ukraine. If no deal is reached, the US president has threatened to impose 100% secondary tariffs on Russian oil buyers. History of promoting increased military spending and interventions Graham has consistently supported a hardline approach to countries the US deems its adversaries. He has backed nearly every major US military intervention of the past two decades, including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the NATO-led campaign in Libya, and operations in Syria. He has also endorsed continued military aid to Israel and Ukraine, and praised US strikes against Iran. Public campaign finance records and Graham's long voting record have suggested an alignment of his interests with the US defense industry. In addition to his legislative support for military funding, Graham has also held key roles on Senate committees overseeing defense and foreign policy, including the Appropriations, Armed Services, and Judiciary Committees, which has given him direct influence over weapons spending, military aid, and foreign intervention policy. Donations from US defense companies According to OpenSecrets, he has received over $55,000 from Boeing since 2019, in addition to donations from Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and individuals employed by the Department of Defense. He has also received campaign contributions from Political Action Committees (PACs) specifically tied to defense‑industry interests, such as the Free Syria PAC, which supports US intervention in Syria, and L3Harris Technologies, a Defense Electronics PAC. In the 2015–2016 election cycle, Graham also received $760,244 from defense-linked donors, according to a joint investigation by Time and the Center for Public Integrity. The report noted that Senate Budget Committee Republicans received an average of $472,000 each from top contractors, placing Graham well above the committee average. Increasing US military budget In 2015, Graham backed a measure to increase military spending by $38 billion through a special fund known as the Overseas Contingency Operations account. The fund allowed the government to bypass normal budget limits, leading some critics to describe it as a way to finance wars off the books. Graham claimed the increase was needed to address 'the growing threats' to the US. In February 2025, Graham also introduced a budget plan to increase defense spending by $150 billion using a fast-track process that bypasses the Senate filibuster. He called the proposal a way to give Trump's team the resources they need 'in a troubled world.' Continued support for war The senator has been a staunch supporter of continued US military aid to Kiev, framing its conflict with Russia as a proxy war being fought 'on behalf of Washington.' Moscow has designated Graham a terrorist and extremist. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov has called him an 'embarrassment' to the US.
