❌

Normal view

An Expedition to Prison: Why Philosopher Nikolay Zyuzev Was Sentenced to Seven Years

By: ak
28 September 2026 at 10:18

The Supreme Court of the Komi Republic has sentenced philosopher Nikolay Zyuzev to seven years in a strict-regime penal colony on treason charges. Zyuzev, who holds both Russian and Canadian citizenship, is one of the best-known scholars of the legacy of the Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin. He left Russia after the war began, but in the summer of 2025 he returned to his native village in Komi [a republic in northwestern Russia — T-invariant], where he was arrested. According to the FSB, the scholar was training leaders of national liberation movements among Russia’s small Indigenous peoples and receiving funding for his project from foreign organizations. T-invariant looks at what Zyuzev worked on, why he kept coming back to Russia, and what his friends and colleagues make of the treason charges.

Top news on scientists’ work and experiences during the war, along with videos and infographics — subscribe to the T-invariant Telegram channel to stay updated.

A Classic Liberal

In the summer of 2025, philosophy professor Nikolay Zyuzev traveled from Europe to his native village of Podyelsk in Komi to visit relatives. And then he vanished.

“After the war started, he left Russia, just like I did. Sometimes he came to see me in Europe. I was expecting him again in the fall of 2025. But that summer he went to Russia, even though we begged him not to. There was no way he wasn’t going — his relatives were waiting for him. I guess he figured he’d get away with it, that they wouldn’t touch him. He left. And one day he just stopped responding,” Zyuzev’s friend and former student Alexander (his name has been changed at his request) told T-invariant.

For about a month, there was no word from him. His relatives refused to talk, and his acquaintances had no idea what had happened to him.
“I started sounding the alarm. Mutual friends said he was probably off fishing in his village again. Then one night I snapped, grabbed my laptop, and did a little investigating. On a Komi court website, I found a record showing that his pretrial detention had been extended. So it turned out they’d taken him even earlier, sometime around the middle of the summer,” Alexander says.

The court record didn’t say why Zyuzev had been detained. In September 2025, the website of the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic posted a notice that a criminal case had been opened against the scholar under Article 275.1 of the Russian Criminal Code, “Confidential cooperation with a foreign state or an international or foreign organization.” As Komi Daily reported, investigators searched Zyuzev’s house in the village of Podyelsk, in the Kortkerossky District, in the summer of 2025.

Zyuzev spent more than a year in pretrial detention. According to Alexander, his cell had a refrigerator, and he was taken out for an hour-long walk every day. In his free time, he read books from the prison library and solved chess problems. At the same time, Alexander says, the scholar went through bouts of depression brought on by loneliness and uncertainty. On June 10, 2026, Zyuzev marked his 70th birthday in his cell.

“We write to each other — I’ve gotten five letters so far. He’s in a fighting mood, though one letter was pretty sad. He jokingly calls his imprisonment a cultural-studies expedition to pretrial detention,” Alexander says.

His friends still can’t understand why the scholar decided to go back to Russia. His former colleague, journalist Nikolai Vokuev, has a guess: “I suspect he thought nobody was particularly interested in him and that he could spend the summer in his village. Besides, he’d frankly grown tired of other countries. He complained that he didn’t like the climate in Canada and that things there generally weren’t much to his liking. So he went to do some fishing and spend the summer in his village. And yet back in 2020, he was the one who strongly urged me to leave Russia — he said you can’t stay here. And then he went back himself. I don’t understand why he did it. After all his English-language publications, where he openly condemned the war and the regime’s policies in general, how could he take a risk like that? And whether he was even aware of the risk, I can’t say.”

Nikolay Zyuzev holds a Doctor of Sciences degree in philosophy [Russia’s higher doctorate, above the Candidate of Sciences — T-invariant]. Before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, he taught at the Komi State Pedagogical Institute, Syktyvkar State University, and Ukhta State Technical University, where he chaired the philosophy department. Much of Zyuzev’s scholarship is devoted to the legacy of the Russian-American sociologist Pitirim Sorokin. Like Zyuzev, Sorokin was ethnically Komi. After the 1917 revolution, he opposed Bolshevik policies, and in 1922 he was expelled from the country. Sorokin later moved to the United States and founded Harvard University’s sociology department. Zyuzev wrote both his Candidate and Doctor of Sciences dissertations on Sorokin’s legacy and published several books about him. Two of them, Pitirim Aleksandrovich Sorokin and Pitirim Sorokin: Teachings and Life, came out in Syktyvkar in 2019.

Nikolay Zyuzev’s books on Pitirim Sorokin. Source: ESKOM publishing house website

In 2005–2006, Zyuzev was a visiting professor at Harvard University, where he gathered material for his book Pitirim Sorokin’s Roller Coaster. “In America, Sorokin started almost from scratch and fairly quickly ended up at Harvard — and that ‘roller coaster’ is exactly what Nikolay Zyuzev studied,” Alexei, a historian who specializes in the history of the Russian scholarly emigration, told T-invariant (his last name is withheld at his request).

In 2009, Zyuzev moved to Canada, where he taught at Massey College at the University of Toronto, and in 2015 he became a Canadian citizen. That same year, he returned to Komi and resumed teaching at Syktyvkar University.

“Nikolay was my professor when I was doing my master’s at Syktyvkar State University. An amazing teacher, one of those people who make you want to learn — he got me hooked on the humanities right away. His liberal views were close to mine — a classic liberal,” Alexander recalls.

The FSB’s Show-and-Tell Video

After Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Zyuzev left the country. Even so, he kept returning to his native village of Podyelsk from time to time. According to people who know him, Zyuzev missed home and the chance to teach in his native language.
“Nikolay speaks, teaches, and writes beautifully in English — he has no problems with it whatsoever. But I know from my own experience, having lived in Germany for more than 30 years: you can feel completely at ease in a foreign language, like a fish in water. And yet that cozy, at-home feeling you get when you speak your native language may simply not be there in another language,” Gasan Guseinov, a professor at the Free University [founded in 2020 by academics forced out of Russian universities — T-invariant] and a Doctor of Sciences in philology, told T-invariant. “Pitirim Sorokin reflected on his emigration, wrote a great deal about it, and was a bilingual Komi-Russian person. And although he was completely integrated into American life, he never became trilingual, even though he wrote in English. Nikolay sensed this. On the one hand, it’s a very personal topic, and on the other, a politically charged one these days.”

On September 16, 2026, news broke that the Supreme Court of the Komi Republic had sentenced Zyuzev to seven years in a strict-regime penal colony. By then, the charge had been reclassified as high treason. Media outlets cited the FSB’s Public Relations Center, which said the scholar had been “training leaders of movements for the liberation of Russia’s small peoples and developing a project directed against Russia’s sovereignty,” with funding from foreign foundations and organizations designated as undesirable in Russia. According to the FSB, the defendant pleaded guilty. In a video released by the FSB, Zyuzev says he originally planned to create an educational website for teaching the humanities, but European sponsors showed no interest in the project. What interested them far more, Zyuzev said in the FSB video, was “spreading false information about what is happening in Russia, inciting interethnic hatred, criticizing the policies of the Russian authorities, and destabilizing Russia as a whole by developing national movements.”

“In the video, he mentions that he wanted to do an educational project — we corresponded about that too, but it didn’t work out. What he says after that is obviously a script written by ‘Comrade Major’ [a sardonic nickname for a security-service officer — T-invariant]. Those aren’t his words, you can tell — all that stuff about him supposedly wanting to destabilize the country and so on. That’s just not how he puts things,” Vokuev says.

According to the FSB, Zyuzev received a total of €2 million from 12 foreign organizations. They reportedly included German, Czech, Swedish, French, and British foundations designated as undesirable in Russia.

“Anyone who knows what life is like for people like us abroad these days understands that the grant amounts attributed to him in the indictment are absolutely astronomical — seven figures, literally the budget of an entire research center. It’s a bit like those confessions from the 1930s about a tunnel that people from Central Asia were supposedly going to dig to India or Japan to hand over secret information about the Soviet state’s defenses. Utterly unbelievable nonsense. And there were lawyers, even defense attorneys, who added all this to the case file, sat through it, and raised no objections,” Alexei notes.

“It’s a show-and-tell video about what great guys we are, what a fine job we’re doing. Here’s this terrible professor, a Canadian citizen: look, he’s got euros, he’s got a Canadian passport, while you’re living here in poverty, and they’re over there in their Canada trying to destroy our great Russia. Somebody’s getting another star on his shoulder boards for this,” Alexander says. “They say he received two million euros. That’s laughable. I wouldn’t call him a poor man, but his finances are clearly not those of someone who’s received two million euros in grants. I don’t buy it.”

Small Peoples Tearing Russia Apart

According to Zyuzev’s colleagues, preserving the languages and cultures of Indigenous peoples has always been important to him.

Nikolay Zyuzev. Photo: Radio Liberty

“His project may have been aimed, roughly speaking, at developing regional identity, supporting the Komi language, supporting small peoples. But to the FSB, that doesn’t sound so impressive. Whereas training separatist squads… Sorry, but that makes it sound like they caught some foreign superspy engaged in subversion. I think that even if the project was about developing national identity and preserving these peoples’ languages and cultures, the FSB simply recut it into its own propaganda,” Alexander says.

According to Nikolai Vokuev, after the full-scale war in Ukraine began, the situation of Indigenous peoples started getting noticeably more attention in Komi.

“When the war started, this became a common theme. A kind of wave took off, a realization that this war is also a war against the Indigenous peoples who live in Russia. In that context, there was a lot of talk about the Buryats, who were being sent to the front en masse. I work for Komi Daily. Once, for an anniversary of the start of the war, we did a story trying to figure out how many people from different Komi municipalities had been killed. And we concluded that, proportionally, more people were sent from the villages where Komi is predominantly spoken. In other words, the war hits Komi speakers wildly out of proportion,” Vokuev notes.

Vokuev suspects that Zyuzev’s interest in the situation of Indigenous peoples may have been one of the reasons he came to the FSB’s attention:

“Here’s the thing — separatism. That’s what the FSB guys love. It’s what lets them build nice careers and show how hard they’re working. They didn’t want to pass up a chance like that. They don’t have to make anything up. Here you go, a case — attempts to break up the country. And their worries probably aren’t groundless. Starting in 2020, people began rethinking their relationship with Moscow. The Shies affair had a big influence on that [mass protests against the construction of a landfill at Shies station in Arkhangelsk Oblast that began in 2018 — T-invariant]. And you could easily hear people arguing that Moscow’s policy is a colonial policy. In the 2010s, that was an extremely marginal view, but after Shies, that’s exactly how people came to see their relationship with Moscow. So I think the FSB sank its tentacles into this for a reason.”

“Komi is going through total Russification, of course. Under the republic’s constitution, we have two state languages — Russian and Komi. But there was a case where a young guy was detained at a rally in support of Navalny, back in what were, relatively speaking, less bloodthirsty times. And he tried to speak Komi in court. The judge answered him pretty rudely, something like: you went to a Russian school, what is this circus? But where else am I supposed to speak Komi, if not in Komi?” Alexander recalls.

Guseinov believes the Zyuzev case poses a threat to all scholars who work on the languages of small peoples.

“When the Soviet Union was being built, the Bolsheviks destroyed the independence of small nations, from Georgia to Tuva. But back then, the official ideology was one of bilingualism: the national language plus Russian. Russian scholars worked on the so-called young written languages. That is, languages were given writing systems, then they got their own writers, some publishing houses, films were made. These languages were built up and even brought back to life. And in nine cases out of ten, this was done artificially — in the sense that the language wouldn’t have survived on its own; it needed help, it needed education. Then the Soviet Union collapsed, and that official doctrine fell apart too. And suddenly, overnight, in 2018, people are told that small languages are of no use to anyone [that year, Russia amended its education law to make the study of the national republics’ languages optional — T-invariant]. And when someone like Nikolay Zyuzev swims against the current and comes back home to educate people, to work on his own language, they throw him in prison for God knows what,” Guseinov notes.

Up-to-date videos on science during wartime, interviews, podcasts, and streams with prominent scientists — subscribe to the T-invariant YouTube channel!

What May Have Caught the FSB’s Attention

According to Alexei, regional security services began taking an interest in humanities scholars long before the full-scale war in Ukraine: “The first talk I remember about local security officials in the regions actively calling humanities scholars in for ‘chats’ and narrowing their eyes knowingly whenever international research collaboration came up goes back to around 2007–2008. You’d think these were just distant clouds on the horizon, but it had already started: who are you working for, guys, whose money is paying for your publications — come on, let’s just have a little talk. This had been rolling through the regions for a long time and clearly started earlier than in Moscow and St. Petersburg. And it was aimed specifically at humanities scholars — historians, ethnologists, and sociologists.”
Zyuzev had laid out his views on the situation of the Komi people and on relations between Russia’s regions and the federal center in public. In January 2023, the Canadian current affairs magazine Maclean’s published a first-person account by Zyuzev, “I fled Putin’s Russia for Canada. It opened my eyes,” as told to journalist Adnan Khan. The piece also features in the FSB video about the Zyuzev case. In it, the scholar explained why he had left Russia, criticized Vladimir Putin’s policies, and wrote about the war in Chechnya and the murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

“Politkovskaya’s murder was a warning to dissidents, and the crushing of the Chechen uprising was a warning to members of Russia’s Indigenous and ethnic minorities. I was both. I’m from the Komi minority, a Finno-Ugric people whose own republic, with a population of nearly one million, lies 1,000 kilometres northeast of Moscow. The Komi people have a distinct language and culture dating back at least two millennia, but under Putin’s rule, we face cultural and linguistic extinction. Like all of Russia’s nearly two dozen republics and four autonomous districts, the Komi Republic is supposed to have some degree of autonomy; in practice, it has none,” Zyuzev wrote.

In the same essay, Zyuzev recounted that in 2015 he was offered the chance to head a new research center at Syktyvkar State University. By then his daughter was already in her teens, his marriage had fallen apart, and he had failed to find an academic position in Canada — so the scholar decided to go back to Russia. According to him, the center’s mission was to build ties with scholars in Europe, North America, and other parts of the world. “So in the fall of 2021, I approached two friends—one a sociologist and retired politician, the other a linguist studying the Komi language — and brought to them a radical new idea: to establish an online Finno-Ugric University. It would offer high-quality social sciences education to Komi youth, help them think more critically and, importantly, raise awareness about the injustices suffered by the Komi people.” Zyuzev wrote.

According to Zyuzev, businessman Leonid Zilberg invited him to work with the outlet 7×7. After the war began, the project’s team left Russia and relocated to Lithuania. In May 2022, Zyuzev also moved to Vilnius and began looking for funding for the Indigenous Russia Information and Education Center.

“We sense an opportunity in the aftermath of Putin’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine: Indigenous peoples have been disproportionately affected by the war, both on the battlefield and as conscripts to Russia’s army. Minority groups in the republics are waking anew to the threat the Kremlin poses. Our hope is that demands for decolonization will become stronger, and the Kremlin will lose its grip on the republics. There may be a rare window of opportunity now to change the conversation in Russia — one we can’t waste,” Zyuzev argued. In closing, he wrote: “The only way to course-correct now is to repudiate Putin’s vision, and to embrace the diversity and vitality of [Russia’s] many peoples.”

“And the real tragedy is precisely that he, in the grip of a deep love for his homeland, came back to his part of the world to educate and enlighten. And now these brutes are pinning God knows what on him. Because the way they see it: we’ve got our own life here, everything’s under control, we don’t give a damn about this Komi language. And you’re just spoiled rotten. You went off to the West, picked up some ideas there, came back, and now you’re trying to lecture us — well, we’ll put you in your place, you lousy intellectual. It’s a kind of revenge for their own indifference, for their own wretchedness. Nikolay came back to a country that had already turned thoroughly fascist, where it was clear they would do something to him, some vile thing. Living under the rule of law had spoiled him. He couldn’t imagine they could do something like this to him. That’s the kind of naivety it was,” Guseinov emphasizes.

[[socialnetworks]]

Zyuzev’s arrest came shortly before searches at Syktyvkar’s Revolt Center, an independent cultural space whose founders included Leonid Zilberg. In the summer of 2025, the center was designated a “foreign agent” and shut down, and one of its founders, Pavel Andreev, was later charged with treason. However, according to Andreev, Zyuzev had no connection to the Revolt Center team and had only spoken at its venue a few times.

Zyuzev’s friends are now trying to draw the international academic community’s attention to his case. “Right now we’re looking for prominent Canadian sociologists and philosophers who could bring the Zyuzev case to the attention of politicians. Maybe, with Canada moving closer to Europe, they’ll take an interest,” Alexander says.

Zyuzev is not the only Russian humanities scholar to receive a long sentence in a criminal case in recent years. Among others, sociologist and political scientistBoris Kagarlitsky, convicted under the law against justifying terrorism, is serving time in a penal colony.

“Quite a few people I know are in prison right now. Boris Kagarlitsky, whom I’ve known since childhood — we lived in the same building. It’s absurd. These are people who are in prison for being smart. That’s the tragedy. It’s the same kind of persecution we saw in the ’30s, the ’40s, and the ’50s: oh, you think you’re too smart — well, here’s what you get. Sociology is a science that makes it possible to improve society. Or to destroy it, if it gets snuffed out. And we’re watching the second process. These cretins don’t even understand what Nikolay Zyuzev’s work is about. They simply don’t understand what intellectual work is for. Because their brains just don’t work. What works are their jaws, which chew people up. And what’s especially painful with Nikolay is that no voice coming from the West, or that could come from there, from Canada, say, will ever reach his jailers’ ears. Maybe there will be some kind of prisoner swaps. There’s no other way he’ll be freed,” Guseinov says.

Alexei also sees the Zyuzev case as a warning to other scholars working on politically sensitive topics:

“Right now, any Tatar, Karelian, or Bashkir historian or ethnologist, say, who back in the 2010s traveled freely to Turkey or Finland, studied figures from the Civil War era and the emigration, and, God forbid, worked with some Germans on sensitive topics like wartime collaborationism, I think, feels like they’re in the crosshairs. For them, the Zyuzev case is an unmistakable signal that anything and everything can be held against them, now and in the future. It seems to me the goal right now is clearly to intimidate scholars. I hope there were no informers involved in the Zyuzev case. But in other fields, unfortunately, they may turn up: self-appointed guardians and pseudo-patriots from within the scholarly community itself.”

“The only thing we can count on is that scholars with an instinct for self-preservation, and people who would like their children to become scholars, will simply leave. Mobility today is completely different from what it was in the 20th century. People are highly mobile and can cross borders relatively easily. And if we prepare for this kind of movement, then young people, at least, can and should be taken out of the Russian Federation — so they can get a normal education and integrate into a more or less humane society,” Guseinov concludes.

Support T-invariant’s work by subscribing to our Patreon and choosing a donation amount that suits you.

The post An Expedition to Prison: Why Philosopher Nikolay Zyuzev Was Sentenced to Seven Years appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

The Crisis Within BRICS Will Be Resolved Through ‘More BRICS’ – Pursued Autonomously, Gradually, and Patiently

17 September 2026 at 05:00

The strikes launched by Israel and the United States against Iran, coupled with the Iranian retaliation against the Gulf states, have had a profound impact on BRICS. Certain analysts have rightly identified the emergence of a BRICS crisis. Specifically, this is driven by the exchange of hostilities between Iran and the United Arab Emirates (UAE); more broadly, it stems from the group’s inability to resolve this friction. Within this context, India’s presidency of BRICS plays a pivotal role in attempting to normalise relations within the bloc. The critical question remains: is India prepared to rise to this challenge? 

In the immediate term, the preeminent crisis confronting BRICS lies in the relationship between the UAE and Iran. According to diplomats close to the negotiations, the increasingly exasperated exchange of mutual accusations between the two nations is paralysing progress on the BRICS agenda during sherpa meetings. For the first time in the group’s history, there is a tangible possibility that the upcoming summit in September will fail to produce a final joint declaration. Should a declaration materialise, all indications suggest it will be highly generic and superficial, avoiding the controversial issues that were openly addressed in the previous year’s Rio de Janeiro declaration. 

Many observers point to the 2023 expansion of membership as the primary catalyst for the current impasse. This, however, appears to be a superficial reading of events. The root of the problem does not lie in the expansion of the group per se, but rather in how both long-standing and newly admitted members have been managing their alliances outside of the bloc.

The original “BRICS-5’ consolidated its strength through the convergence of two core pillars: the defence of multipolarity and the pursuit of development. While the emphasis placed on these two dimensions varied among member states over time, it ultimately crystallised into China and Russia championing multipolarity, while Brazil, South Africa, and India prioritised development through the diversification of their partnerships. Because these latter nations also seek partnerships within the Collective West, BRICS members typically characterise the group as “non-Western” rather than “anti-Western”. Consequently, some analysts have labelled these states as “swingers”­—a characterisation that seems exaggerated. Until recently, partnerships with Western nations remained flexible and did not threaten fundamental BRICS values. It was entirely feasible, for instance, in 2012 for Brazil to reaffirm its role within BRICS while simultaneously seeking to strengthen its bilateral ties with the United States. 

In recent years, however, the character of the alliances that certain BRICS members maintain with external states has fundamentally shifted. The most critical cases for understanding the current crisis involve the UAE and India. The UAE was the first Gulf State to sign the Abraham Accords, brokered under US supervision in 2020. The normalisation of relations between the Gulf monarchies and Israel served the strategic American objective of politically and militarily isolating Iran. To this end, the United States authorised the sale of F-35 fighter jets to the Emirates, and the Kingdom initiated deep cooperation with Israel, culminating in bilateral trade exceeding $14 billion by 2026. As is frequently the case in relations with Washington, the F-35 acquisition was subsequently frozen due to American demands for technological safeguards, prompted by growing suspicion over military ties between the UAE and China. Nonetheless, in the recent war, the UAE-Israel relationship has strengthened further. During the conflict, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu dispatched military personnel to the UAE to operate an Iron Dome anti-aircraft battery, shielding the kingdom from Iranian strikes. This alliance emboldened the UAE to launch covert military retaliations against Iran, according to US media reports, bringing the escalation dangerously close to spinning out of control. The current deadlock in BRICS political negotiations is a direct and obvious consequence of this geopolitical backdrop. 

India, which holds the group’s presidency in 2026, is positioned to play a key role in defusing this dispute. However, New Delhi’s foreign policy of multi-alignment appears to have reached its structural limits. For years, India has invested in diplomatic alliances designed to bolster its stance in regional disputes and project its status as a major future global power. Civil nuclear cooperation with the US and active participation in the Quad are long-standing examples—preceding the current administration—of Indian assertiveness in managing regional rivals Pakistan and China. This did not prevent India from cultivating deep ties with the nations of the “World Majority”, where BRICS offers a vital channel for tangible gains when traditional multilateral institutions are paralysed. Yet, of late, India’s alliances are consolidating into highly ambitious commitments that restrict its strategic autonomy. 

In 2023, the launch of the India-Middle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC)—announced during India’s G20 presidency and financed by the G7 —linked India, the UAE, and Israel in a single landmark initiative. In early 2026, India formally acceded to the US-led Pax Silica, an initiative that also counts on the enthusiastic participation of both the Emirates and Israel. The convergence of the Quad and the Pax Silica was formalised in New Delhi in May 2026 with the adoption of the Quad Critical Minerals Initiative Framework, which projects the mobilisation of $20 billion for joint ventures. This framework secures the supply chains of raw materials vital for semiconductor and artificial intelligence production, which are controlled by the US via its Pax Silica paradigm. 

The overlap of these strategic initiatives serves to solidify the trilateral India-UAE-Israel axis. In retrospect, this alignment explains, among other factors, India’s enthusiastic support for the UAE’s admission into BRICS in 2023. It likewise sheds light on Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s high-risk visit to Netanyahu in February 2026, occurring a mere two days prior to the outbreak of hostilities against Iran. 

Under normal geopolitical conditions, the partnerships of the UAE and India with the Collective West would not have disrupted the internal cohesion of BRICS. However, we are witnessing the twilight of the “rules-based order”.

Systematic efforts by the United States to dismantle liberal multilateralism are turning the legitimate, pragmatic alignments of these two nations into binding moral commitments to the hegemon—alliances that are increasingly difficult to reconcile with BRICS principles. To put it bluntly: American assertiveness and the emergence of associated neocolonial practices are forcing traditionally pragmatic nations to choose sides. This is an uncomfortable position that provokes domestic criticism within each administration, and threatens the domestic legitimacy of decision-makers. Yet, this is precisely the core of US strategy. The weaponisation of sanctions, tariff barriers, the prolonged conflict in Ukraine, and recurrent aggressions against Iran serve exactly this purpose: to force the consolidation of alliances around the US neocolonial project and isolate potential challengers, notably China, Russia, and Iran. 

To reclaim their strategic manoeuvrability and balance their relations with the West, the optimal alternative for both India and the UAE is to double down on their commitment to BRICS. The bloc can serve as the most effective platform—free from Western arbitrariness—for India to articulate its legitimate concerns regarding China’s regional projection via the Belt and Road Initiative. Similarly, the UAE can leverage the diplomatic influence of China and Russia, Iran’s primary economic and geopolitical partners, to help de-escalate tensions with the Persian nation. 

As an alternative to the economic incentives offered by the West, India and the UAE could strengthen their cooperation with BRICS nations in sectors where Western partnerships appear most attractive. In this regard, given that BRICS countries hold 85% of the world’s rare earth elements, a joint BRICS initiative could mobilise Chinese and Emirati capital for the collaborative development and local processing of these critical materials, without the restrictive exclusivity regimes characteristic of the aforementioned US proposals. Beyond fostering technological cooperation and delivering substantial economic benefits, such an initiative would reinforce other BRICS endeavours, ultimately building long-term mutual trust among its members. Consequently, gradualism and patience represent the most viable strategies for navigating the current crisis.

Valdai Discussion Club

The Final Frontier Goes to War: The Militarisation of Space

30 September 2026 at 14:59
Space is becoming an increasingly contested domain as major powers expand military capabilities, satellite infrastructure, and counterspace systems, while the U.S. Golden Dome initiative reshapes strategic stability and raises new questions about the future of space governance. On 14th September 2026, US Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink confirmed that the US has “on-orbit” […]

Why America keeps losing wars?

30 September 2026 at 12:30
America has become an imperial power that aims to invade and dominate the weak countries. This tendency has created global insecurity and led America to lose wars. In terms of natural resources and firepower, America dominates like no other country. It has the largest and most flexible military, the most weapons, and the most devices […]

Statement of the Russian-American Science Association in Support of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

By: ak
30 September 2026 at 10:57

We, the members of the Russian-American Science Association (RASA), strongly condemn the drone attack on the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine which caused serious damage and, according to reports, resulted in casualties.

Even against the background of the years-long and devastating war, an attack on a national academy of sciences is particularly horrifying. We express our solidarity with the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and with our Ukrainian colleagues, and we extend our deepest condolences to the families and colleagues of those who were killed.

[[socialnetworks]]

Scientific institutions are part of the shared heritage of humanity. They are places where knowledge is created, preserved, and transmitted across generations and across national borders. 

The international scientific community has a responsibility to uphold the principles of protecting human life, scientific freedom, international cooperation, and respect for institutions devoted to the pursuit of knowledge.

We reaffirm our commitment to the protection of science as a sphere of international cooperation and human progress, even in times of war.

The post Statement of the Russian-American Science Association in Support of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine appeared first on Т-инвариант / T-invariant.

Trump and the Multipolar Middle East: Is Washington Unintentionally Creating Space for Its Rivals?

30 September 2026 at 09:30
Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025 pushed US Middle East policy toward a familiar mixture of pressure, bargaining, and demands for measurable economic returns. His May 2025 tour of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates made that approach particularly visible: investment, artificial intelligence, defence, aviation, and energy agreements dominated […]

LIVE: Responsibility for the Future: Limits of the Possible, or Limitless Possibilities? Plenary Session of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Valdai Club

30 September 2026 at 07:55

From 28 September to 1 October 2026, the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club is taking place under the theme: “Responsibility for the Future: Limits of the Possible, or Limitless Possibilities?” The Club’s flagship conference brings together 120 participants from 40 countries, including Algeria, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

You can watch the live broadcast of the plenary session of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club on our website on October 1.

LIVE BROADCAST

Last year, participants in the Annual Meeting discussed the factors that enable states to remain resilient amid ongoing change. Today, the organisers believe that, despite the crisis in the global order and the unprecedented escalation of conflicts, it is important to continue analysing what the future may look like in order to be able to influence the process of shaping it.

The issue of responsibility for the future has been a central theme, shaping the agenda of Valdai events throughout the year. Participants in the Annual Meeting will continue to discuss the question of how manageable and predictable international affairs can be against the backdrop of the crisis facing multilateral institutions. The organisers propose that participants in the 23rd Annual Meeting consider the possible consequences of escalating the military and political situation, the restructuring of trade and economic ties, and the introduction of new technologies, as well as discuss the responsibility of states and their role in the future international order.

Read the Programme for details.

Read the Annual Report of the Valdai Discussion Club here.

 

Wie der Spiegel Russland für von Kiew verursachtes Leid verantwortlich machen will

30 September 2026 at 06:00
Im Spiegel ist ein Artikel mit der Überschrift „Unter russischer Besatzung – In Oleschky essen sie Unkraut, um zu überleben“ erschienen, der durch seine Dreistigkeit hervorsticht. Die Geschichte des Artikels ist schnell erzählt: Der Spiegel berichtet über den Ort Aljoschkin, für den der Spiegel den ukrainischen Namen Oleschky benutzt, in dem die Menschen angeblich hungern […]

Grossi’s Poisonous Legacy: How the IAEA Chief Became a Tool of U.S. and Western Aggression

30 September 2026 at 05:59
Rafael Grossi has turned a UN technical body into Washington’s political weapon, and the visa scandal in Vienna has laid bare the cynicism of the Western bloc. From Technical Body to Political Weapon The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was created as an impartial technical body meant to guarantee the peaceful use of atomic energy. […]

Die neue Strategie der russischen Streitkräfte scheint aufzugehen

30 September 2026 at 04:00
Im September gab es in deutschen Medien einige Schlagzeilen, die zeigen, wie sehr die Ukraine in den letzten Wochen geschwächt wurde. Im Spiegel erschien am 23. September beispielsweise unter der Überschrift „Schläge gegen Stahlwerke und Apothekenlager – Russlands neues Kriegsziel? Die Vernichtung der ukrainischen Wirtschaft“ ein recht guter Artikel, in dem der Leser erfuhr, dass […]
❌