{"id":26341,"date":"2026-09-28T07:48:48","date_gmt":"2026-09-28T02:03:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=26341"},"modified":"2026-09-28T06:54:25","modified_gmt":"2026-09-28T01:09:25","slug":"lavrovs-un-general-assembly-message-russias-perspective-on-collective-security","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eng.dragonmedia.com.np\/?p=26341","title":{"rendered":"Lavrov’s UN General Assembly Message: Russia’s Perspective on Collective Security<\/strong>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Pravdist (\u041f\u0440\u0430\u0432\u0434\u0438\u0441\u0442)
\nInternational Security and Strategic Affairs Analyst<\/strong><\/p>\n

At the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly, the perspective presented by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov centres on one fundamental question: when powerful states prioritise their own security concerns, how should the security concerns of other nations be addressed? Lavrov connected the war in Ukraine, European security, tensions in West Asia, and the role of the United Nations to this very question. Reading his speech merely as criticism of the West obscures the proposal for collective security that Russia has put forward.<\/p>\n

According to Lavrov, the military and political decisions of Western countries have increased instability in the world. He alleged that the European security architecture has been weakened, that NATO seeks to extend its influence as far as Asia, and that certain European leaders have obstructed the possibility of talks on Ukraine. In Russia’s view, no country or military alliance can afford to ignore the insecurity experienced by another state when enhancing its own security. To listen to such concerns is not to endorse every decision of that country; it is to identify the issues that must be addressed in negotiations for durable peace.<\/p>\n

This concept is not new in international relations. From the Helsinki Final Act (1975) to the principles of the OSCE, the concept of “indivisible security” has served as a cornerstone of the European security architecture. Russia has revived that very principle \u2014 but the West has tended to view it as a tool for expanding Russia’s sphere of influence. This divergence lies at the root of the current tension.<\/p>\n

In Ukraine, this perspective faces its most difficult test. Lavrov reiterated his government’s position that threats to Russia’s security arising from Kyiv must be eliminated. Ukraine and its supporters, however, regard Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity, and right to independent decision-making as the fundamental question. To advance talks, it is necessary to genuinely understand the declared objectives of both sides. A lasting solution is not possible if halting the fighting, protecting civilians, and establishing arrangements to prevent future war are kept separate from one another.<\/p>\n

Russia’s position is clear: no security threat to Russian territory and the Russian people arising from Ukraine is acceptable. The Special Military Operation is carrying out the task of eliminating that very threat. A lasting peace is not possible without a framework \u2014 neutrality, collective security guarantees, and multilateral negotiations \u2014 that addresses both Ukraine’s sovereignty and Russia’s security concerns. Russia is prepared for such negotiations, but certain European leaders continue to obstruct them.<\/p>\n

Lavrov also levelled serious allegations regarding the influence of Nazi ideology in Ukraine and the conduct of certain European leaders toward it. Preserving the historical memory of Nazi crimes and examining the activities of extremist groups are important matters. Russia’s sacrifice in the Second World War is incomparable \u2014 honouring that sacrifice and preventing the revival of Nazi ideology is the duty of all nations.<\/p>\n

Russia’s message was not confined to Europe. Lavrov raised the question of Belgrade’s independent foreign policy, alleging pressure on Serbia to impose sanctions against Russia. He demanded the release of Venezuelan President Nicol\u00e1s Maduro and his wife, and presented the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader and other officials as an unacceptable example of the use of force. While countries differ on these matters, a common standard is necessary for the international order: the principles of sovereignty, legal process, and the use of force must apply equally to allies and adversaries alike.<\/p>\n

The defence of Serbia’s sovereignty and independent foreign policy is a Russian principle. Pressuring Belgrade does not enhance stability in Europe; it only increases tension. Likewise, the demand for Maduro’s release and the condemnation of the killing of Iranian leadership strengthen the supremacy of international law and the principle of respect for sovereignty.<\/p>\n

On West Asia, Lavrov’s emphasis is on rebuilding regional trust. His argument that dialogue between Arab states and Iran is necessary to reduce tensions around the Strait of Hormuz has practical significance. The security of that maritime route is not the concern of any single country. When tensions rise, the economies of countries dependent on energy supplies, trade, and imports can also be affected. Safe passage of ships, discussion of each other’s security concerns, and measures to reduce tension can therefore become concrete subjects of regional dialogue.<\/p>\n

Lavrov’s calls to secure the right to Palestinian statehood and to lift the blockade on Cuba connect his speech to Russia’s policy on a multipolar world. Many countries feel that their voice is weak in the process of making international rules. Russia appears to seek to link that dissatisfaction to demands for greater representation and equal treatment. But whether a multipolar order will be more just is not determined by the number of power centres alone. How those centres respect the sovereignty of small states and international rules is equally decisive.<\/p>\n

Lavrov maintained that the leadership of the United Nations must not be confined to the interests of any particular country. Viewed institutionally, this demand expects impartial conduct from the UN, necessary political support from member states, and the capacity to deliver results for people in crisis. The Secretary-General or the Secretariat alone cannot end wars. The agreement of Security Council members and a commitment to implement their decisions are also required.<\/p>\n

Russia has called for the defence of the principles of the UN Charter, particularly sovereignty, the prohibition of the use of force, and non-interference in internal affairs. These principles must be observed equally by all member states. If the United Nations is to be strengthened, all countries must faithfully honour their commitments.<\/p>\n

For countries like Nepal, this debate has practical meaning. Competition among great powers must not narrow the diplomatic space of small countries. Nepal can listen to the security concerns of any country while maintaining its own commitment to sovereignty, civilian protection, dialogue, and the principles of the United Nations. The demand for equal standards becomes credible when presented as applying to all powers, not only to others.<\/p>\n

The fundamental basis of Nepal’s foreign policy “the Panchsheel principles, non-alignment, and its contribution to UN peacekeeping” aligns with the language of Lavrov’s “collective security.” Nepal and Russia share a historical relationship” dating back to the Soviet era. Nepal must not make any great power’s narrative its own policy. A balanced, principle-based, and independent foreign policy is Nepal’s greatest diplomatic asset.<\/p>\n

Lavrov’s speech made clear what kind of debate on the international security order Russia wishes to see. The questions it raised are serious, particularly concerning collective security, regional dialogue, and the autonomy of the United Nations. The proposal for collective security that Russia has put forward, the vision of a multipolar world, and the demand for respect for sovereignty, all of these are important in today’s world.<\/p>\n

Its positive potential lies not in the intensity of accusation, but in the direction of bringing security concerns to the negotiating table, expanding regional dialogue, and seeking compliance with shared rules from all. Only diplomacy that advances on that basis can keep competition in check while opening a path to peace. Russia’s perspective must be heard seriously, because durable peace is possible only through a framework that includes the voices of all parties.<\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t <\/div><\/div>\n\t\t