Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov

Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov

Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov was a Russian politician and diplomat who served as Prime Minister of Russia from 1998 to 1999. He served as the director of the SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service), the successor to the KGB's First Chief Directorate, from 1991 to 1996, directly overseeing Russia's foreign intelligence operations post-Soviet collapse.

His Primakov Doctrine was the foundation of Multipolarity.

Lavrov Praise

During the Future Forum 2050 conference in June, 2025, Sergei Lavrov gushed over Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov and his "revolutionary concept" of a multipolar world:

He remains our great teacher, a brilliant and multifaceted personality with a rare gift for political and geopolitical foresight. It was he who formulated the then-revolutionary concept of a multipolar world. This was a response to the claims of well-known political scientists that the end of history had arrived and that the Western liberal order would henceforth envelop the entire globe, human thoughts, souls, hearts, and daily activities.

'Multipolar World in the 21st Century'

Future Forum 2050 Panel Discussion L-R Dimitri Simes, Sergei Lavrov, Errol Musk, Karin Kneissl, George Galloway, Jackson Hinkle, Atul Aneja, Zhang Weiwei, Larry C. Johnson

Future Forum 2050 Panel Discussion

The "Multipolar World in the 21st Century" panel discussion was held as part of the Future Forum 2050 conference in Moscow on June 9, 2025.

Dimitri Simes, Sergei Lavrov, Errol Musk, Karin Kneissl, George Galloway, Jackson Hinkle, Atul Aneja, Zhang Weiwei, and Larry C. Johnson took part in the discussion. Julian Assange's father John Shipton called into the event. The discussion vastly centered around Multipolarity, a concept that developed, popularized and expanded upon the Primakov Doctrine, named after Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov.

Transcript (translated with AI)

Dimitri Simes: Good afternoon. It is a great honor and pleasure to welcome you to this session of such an important event, organized, in my view, at the right time and for the right reasons. We often talk about the current international situation, but we sometimes forget that what is happening today may not necessarily repeat or develop over the coming decades. We live in a time of qualitative changes in the world and international relations, with many things happening that I, at least, could not have imagined ten years ago. What will the world be like in 2050? We can say with certainty it will not be as it is today. There will be new players, new rules, new opportunities, and new challenges. We are fortunate to have as our keynote speaker today Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergei Viktorovich Lavrov. [Applause]

Dimitri Simes: The Minister is a rare individual, not only due to his vast experience, great charisma, and remarkable diplomatic skill. He has found himself in a situation where he was not just a witness but a participant and architect of a fundamental shift in international relations. Consider when the Minister began as Russia’s Ambassador to the UN in the 1990s and where we are now: a different Russia, dare I say a different America, and a different world. The Minister has played a direct and significant role in all of this. When I think about his historical role, I struggle to imagine the internal transformation process required of you and how you managed to achieve it. If anyone is in a position to predict where we will be in 2050 and, more importantly, how to get there correctly, it is Minister Lavrov. He is uniquely positioned to tell us what lies ahead and how to achieve it. Minister, thank you for being here. The floor is yours. [Applause]

Sergei Lavrov: Thank you, Dimitri. Dear participants of the panel, dear friends and colleagues, Dimitri began almost with an epigraph from Kamala Harris when he said that what happens today will not repeat tomorrow. That’s roughly what she tries to express in her famous phrases. But that’s life, indeed. Thank you for the kind words addressed to me. The question of how a person changes when holding responsible positions during a turning point in history is very relevant. It’s personal in a way because I hadn’t thought about it for a long time, but now, recalling that historical era, those feelings we experienced come alive in memory and sensation—from deep disappointment and bitterness to the problem of a multipolar world, which gave rise to glimmers of hope in the mid-1990s.

I worked in New York from 1994, and in January 1996, Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov was appointed Foreign Minister. He remains our great teacher, a brilliant and multifaceted personality with a rare gift for political and geopolitical foresight. It was he who formulated the then-revolutionary concept of a multipolar world. This was a response to the claims of well-known political scientists that the end of history had arrived and that the Western liberal order would henceforth envelop the entire globe, human thoughts, souls, hearts, and daily activities.

Primakov not only proposed this concept but actively promoted it. The first concrete step was the 1997 declaration on a multipolar world and the formation of a new international order, signed by the leaders of Russia and China in Moscow. Primakov, by then Prime Minister, continued to influence Boris Yeltsin’s government’s foreign policy. That year, the legal foundation for multipolarity was laid, gaining a permanent place in international dialogue.

In 2002, when Vladimir Putin became President, the first trilateral Russia-India-China (RIC) summit took place. Since then, the RIC format has proven very useful for all participants. It may not have received as much attention as SCO or BRICS, but RIC has quietly and confidently advanced cooperation. Around 20 meetings of foreign ministers and dozens of others at various ministerial levels—economy, transport, energy, humanitarian spheres—have occurred.

Multipolarity has been gaining momentum, and Primakov’s analysis underpinning this concept remains fully relevant. New centers of economic growth, financial power, and political influence have emerged in Eurasia, the Asia-Pacific, the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America. This trend reflects the desire of countries in each region to take responsibility for their development into their own hands—a healthy tendency, especially as it has accelerated amid changes brought by Donald Trump’s election, which challenged the ideologically driven globalization model of his predecessors.

The West’s neocolonial methods, where the Global South and East serve as raw material suppliers while the West reaps the lion’s share of added value, are increasingly rejected. Last December, the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, initiated by Venezuela and now comprising over 20 countries, passed a resolution to counter modern neocolonial practices. This topic will be a focal point at the upcoming 80th UN General Assembly session. Statistics show multipolarity’s progress: China is the world’s largest economy by purchasing power parity, Russia is fourth, and BRICS has surpassed the G7 in this metric, with the gap widening. These achievements stem from structural transformations, as most Global South countries reduce dependence on Western currencies and mechanisms, creating new trade, transport, and cultural architectures.

Even the West acknowledges multipolarity as a geopolitical reality. Biden administration officials, Marco Rubio, and Antonio Guterres have noted its irreversibility. However, Western leaders see it not as an opportunity for equality but as a threat to their dominance. The Munich Security Conference’s February report on “multipolarization” expressed fears of multipolarity, equating it to chaos and rivalry among great powers. This logic assumes only Western hegemony ensures stability, viewing diversity as a threat. Yet, respectful cooperation among great powers proves otherwise. Our relations with China, India, BRICS, SCO, and others demonstrate that honest balances of interest can be found without threats or ultimatums.

Regarding the UN Charter, I caution against dismantling the Yalta-Potsdam system. Its principles—sovereign equality, non-interference, and eliminating war threats—remain valid. The issue is selective application. The West championed self-determination to detach Kosovo from Serbia without a referendum, yet condemned Crimea’s and Donbas’s resistance to Kyiv’s 2014 coup as terrorism. The UN Charter prioritizes human rights regardless of race, gender, language, or religion, yet Western support for Ukraine ignores these violations, framing Kyiv’s actions as defending “European values.” This hypocrisy fuels efforts to suppress multipolarity and dissent, as seen in Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia.

To conclude, integration groupings abound in Africa (African Union) and Latin America (CELAC), but not in Eurasia, the largest and most promising continent. Euro-Atlantic structures like OSCE, NATO, and the EU have failed as honest brokers. President Putin proposed a Greater Eurasian Partnership, harmonizing existing structures like the Eurasian Economic Union, SCO, ASEAN, and others. This open process, including our Belarusian friends’ Eurasian Security Conferences and the Eurasian Charter of Multipolarity and Diversity, is gaining traction. Russia’s ruling party, United Russia, recently held discussions in Perm with Asian political leaders, advancing this vision. [Applause]

Dimitri Simes: Minister, a question about the U.S. administration, which will soon be in power. It’s been nearly five months, with many statements and appointments, some already reconsidered or reversed. How do you see Russia’s relations with the new Trump administration? Where are we, and where is this heading?

Sergei Lavrov: We are in a more normal position than with the Biden administration, which, after a promising Putin-Biden summit in June 2021 in Geneva, turned 180 degrees and cut off all communication channels. At that summit, Biden spoke without notes, saying the U.S. and Russia are great powers with distinct histories that must be respected. He noted the U.S. formed as a melting pot, emerging with “human rights” stamped on its forehead, while Russia’s empire joined territories with settled peoples, respecting their traditions, culture, and religion. He acknowledged Russia’s post-2000 consolidation as beneficial, ensuring control over its nuclear arsenal. Yet, Brazilian President Lula recently quoted Biden as saying Russia must be destroyed, a stark contrast.

The Biden administration ignored our December 2021 security proposals with NATO and the U.S., dismissing guarantees against Ukraine’s NATO membership. Blinken offered only a limited deal on medium-range missiles, which was unacceptable. Escalating Donbas shelling and Kyiv’s plan to forcibly retake the region left us no choice but to act. Regarding the Trump administration, in February, Marco Rubio told me in Riyadh that U.S. foreign policy under Trump prioritizes national interests, recognizes other great powers’ interests, and seeks to avoid confrontation where interests diverge while capitalizing on alignments for mutual benefit. I fully support this approach, as does President Putin. We are ready for honest dialogue without compromising our core interests, seeking compromises and balances. However, we must remain realistic about how the Trump administration evolves. [Applause]

Dimitri Simes: We now move to questions from participants. Time is short, so I’d appreciate brief questions. First, Larry Johnson, a well-known American military and political analyst. I’ve known Larry for years and recall his warnings about the Bush administration’s Iraq invasion and neoconservative globalism. Welcome, Larry. Your question. [Applause]

Larry C. Johnson: A simple question. The U.S. often lacks cohesive foreign policy, while Russia coordinates its diplomatic and military efforts as a leader. What obstacles do you see as Russia conducts its special military operation, which is increasingly a counterterrorism operation, especially after recent terrorist acts in Bryansk and Kursk?

Sergei Lavrov: You’re right; the terrorist threat is serious, not just due to recent events in Bryansk and Kursk but because Kyiv’s regime has employed such methods from the start. In Kursk, Ukrainian Nazis targeted no military objects, unlike our forces, which strike Ukrainian military targets. President Putin recently outlined our conclusions on this matter. The threat is significant, and Kyiv would be helpless without Western support, particularly from the British, and possibly U.S. special services by inertia. We are taking measures through the FSB, Interior Ministry, Rosgvardia, and public vigilance to suppress these risks and protect our citizens. [Applause]

Dimitri Simes: Next, Professor Zhang Weiwei] from Fudan University in China. [Applause]

Zhang Weiwei: Thank you, Minister Lavrov, for an inspiring speech. Russia’s 2023 conceptual document describes itself as a civilization based on Eurasian traditions. What are the implications of this cultural and civilizational sovereignty for Russia’s relations with Europe and the U.S.? How will it shape the architecture of multipolarity, particularly through Russia and China, transcending Western categorizations? What are the prospects for synergistic initiatives like China’s Belt and Road and Russia’s Eurasian proposals?

Sergei Lavrov: Eurasia is unique, hosting multiple civilizations—Russian, Chinese, Indian, Ottoman, and echoes of the Roman Empire—not found as distinctly in Africa or the Americas. Despite differing symbols and religions, we find common ground with our neighbors and major powers. Dialogue among civilizations can give this process a continental resonance. Russia and China should play a leading, initiative role. A first step is reviving the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral, which hasn’t met at the foreign minister level recently. With tensions easing on the India-China border, I hope we can resume RIC work, advancing continental processes. [Applause]

Dimitri Simes: Next, Errol Musk, a politician, businessman, and father of the well-known Elon Musk. [Applause]

Errol Musk: I listened with great interest to Minister Lavrov’s clear explanation of today’s world, where people distrust their governments for many reasons. In 2024, I traveled across the U.S. under the Biden administration and saw a country and people uncertain about their future. Biden’s presidency was unsuccessful, and people felt lost. Migrants arrived hoping to escape global troubles but found uncertainty. Trump’s election brought hope; people began smiling again. In April, I saw 80%—no, 100%—support for Trump in California and Texas because he emphasizes U.S. sovereignty. I agree that sovereignty comes first before building relations with others.

This is my first time in Russia. Growing up in the West, I was taught Russia is a terrifying place where you must hide, fearing attacks or execution. My 32-year-old daughter was warned by foreign ministries not to travel here, told her life would be in danger. Yet, upon arriving, I saw a beautiful civilization, a city rivaling ancient Rome—perhaps the best capital in the world. [Applause] I’m critical by nature, but Minister Lavrov’s intelligent, subtle TV appearances always impress me. He speaks as a winner. How can we change the West’s perception of Russia, which I see as one of the best countries I’ve visited?

Sergei Lavrov: Thank you for your kind words. The happiest moment for many Russians and Soviet peoples was the symbolic meeting on the Elbe, defeating a terrible enemy despite Western diplomatic maneuvers early in the war. That moment of shared victory over evil was undermined when, before World War II ended, our allies planned Operation Unthinkable against the USSR. Churchill’s Fulton speech and the Cold War followed. Today’s fight is also about good versus evil. The West, led by aggressive figures like Starmer, Merz, and Macron, not only arms Ukraine but seeks to isolate Russia by discouraging travel here. European ambassadors in Moscow should report the truth, but their capitals ignore Russia’s reality, banning them from engaging with us. They falsely accuse us over Navalny and Bucha without evidence, mirroring their handling of the MH17 case. Truth is on our side, and multipolarity will prevail. [Applause]

Dimitri Simes: Next, George Galloway, a renowned British politician, journalist, former MP, and fearless figure. [Applause]

George Galloway: Your Excellency, as half-Irish, half-Scottish, I disclaim responsibility for Anglo-Saxon historical crimes. [Applause] Is President Trump truly in power, or is he merely in the White House? Recently, he’s performed 360-degree turns daily, like Annalena Baerbock. Is this his personality, or does the U.S. have dual power, with a deep state undermining Trump’s positive intentions, possibly linked to Ukrainian attacks on Russian airbases?

Sergei Lavrov: In any society with an established political system, a bold, unconventional leader triggers undercurrents to maintain the status quo. In Russia, some hoped for a return to Western business and consumerism, but President Putin made clear that post-February 2022, things will never revert. He naively hoped our 2021 NATO and U.S. proposals would be taken seriously, but the West proved untrustworthy, investing billions to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russia. The EU’s unelected Commission plays a similar deep state role, countering nationalist leaders. I hope U.S. constitutional norms allow Trump to exercise his powers fully. I’m unaware of how he’s informed about Ukrainian operations, but American advisors and instructors are deeply involved. Trump’s comment about Ukraine facing consequences for attacks suggests he's aware, but I don’t know the extent of his briefings. [Applause]

Dimitri Simes: Next, John Shipton, an Australian anti-war activist, architect, and father of Julian Assange. [Applause]

John Shipton: Your Excellency, what circumstances might shape diplomacy’s future role in global affairs?

Sergei Lavrov: Diplomacy, the oldest profession, will never disappear, as agreements are always needed. Post-Cold War naivety about reduced force in global affairs was misguided. Diplomacy remains essential to prevent uncontrolled arms races, especially nuclear ones, and address risks like artificial intelligence. The Trump administration’s interest in resuming strategic dialogue is welcome, but it requires aligning with equal negotiation principles. In Ukraine, our frontline fighters are our best diplomats, defending truth and dignity. We’re not fighting for territory but for people whose ancestors lived there for centuries. Diplomacy will complement military efforts, addressing humanitarian issues like prisoner exchanges and eventually formalizing outcomes legally. [Applause]

Dimitri Simes: Our final question from Karin Kneissl, former Austrian Foreign Minister, now a professor at St. Petersburg University. [Applause]

Karin Kneissl: Thank you, Mr. Simes. It’s a pleasure to meet Minister Lavrov again. You care deeply about the UN, where your diplomatic career began. My question: Given that international organizations are hosted in “neutral” countries like Switzerland and Austria, which have abandoned neutrality in the past three years, should these organizations relocate in a multipolar world? For example, could Geneva-based bodies move to Africa, or could Istanbul host something like OPEC?

Sergei Lavrov: The best place for the UN would be Sochi. [Applause] Stalin proposed this seriously but compromised with Roosevelt for New York. Relocating UN structures now would be a massive undertaking due to entrenched infrastructure and personnel. Like the UN Charter, whose principles remain valid but are selectively applied, host countries’ obligations—issuing visas promptly, ensuring diplomats’ movement—are often violated. In New York, we established a committee to ensure the U.S. fulfills its host duties. Enforcing existing agreements is more practical than relocating and upholds the principle that Russia always honors its commitments. Thank you for your time; I must go. [Applause]

Dimitri Simes: Minister, thank you for your time and great work.