Over 150 nations to participate in Moscow security conference
Representatives from more than 150 nations are expected to attend the 13th international security conference in Moscow later this month, the press service of the Russian Security Council has announced.
The agenda of the annual event, which is scheduled for May 27-29 and will take place in National Center 'Russia', includes international cooperation to defend critical technology and information infrastructure.
'In particular, the formation of a new architecture of equal and indivisible security that is fairer and corresponds to today's realities will be discussed,' the press service specified.
Combating terrorist attacks, technological sabotage, and online fraud will be key issues for discussion during the event.
Russia's Security Council emphasized that challenges and threats in the information space will be discussed by national security advisers and intelligence agency heads as part of a dedicated roundtable featuring other experts.
'This will allow for the discussion of the most pressing issues in the field of information security in an atmosphere of international cooperation,' the press release stated.
The press office specified that invitations have been sent to the nations of the Global South and East, to the Commonwealth of Independent States, and to members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as to more than 20 international organizations.
'Tectonic shifts in foreign policy and international economic relations create both challenges and opportunities for the countries of the Global South and East,' said the head of the Russian Security Council, Sergey Shoigu, who chairs the forum.
'Today's security challenges and threats are global and transboundary in nature,' he added, highlighting that 'no modern state can cope with them alone or on a bilateral basis.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Russia Today
28 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Pakistan has lost thousands of lives to terrorists
Pakistan has lost 90,000 people to terrorists over the past 15 years, Syed Tariq Fatemi, special assistant on foreign affairs to the country's prime minister, has told RT. Fatemi emphasized that the Pakistani government is determined to counter terrorism and has made it clear to its neighbors that they must prevent such extremists from entering the country. 'We have lost over a billion and a half US dollars in terms of the damage that they have done,' he told RT in an exclusive interview. The diplomat was in Moscow earlier this week to meet Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and brief him on Islamabad's view of the current situation in Indo-Pakistan relations. Speaking about the April 22 attack in Pahalgam, Kashmir, that killed 26 people, mainly tourists, Fatemi re-iterated that Pakistan denies having any involvement in the attack, refuting New Delhi's claim. The region has been the epicenter of a long-standing dispute between the two neighboring countries since their independence from Britain. The terrorist attack prompted a military response from India, which conducted air strikes on what it alleged were terrorist bases in Pakistan. After a four-day escalation, the two nuclear-armed nations announced a ceasefire on May 10. Fatemi claimed that it would be impossible for terrorists to cross from Pakistan into Indian-administered Kashmir without being detected, given the heavy presence of the Indian military in the area. 'They would need to be superhumans,' he noted. The political adviser drew parallels to a similar incident that occurred in the 1990s, when Pakistan was accused of collusion in a terrorist attack during the administration of former US President Bill Clinton, before his scheduled visit to India. 'From past experience, whenever a very prominent foreign leader would visit India, something like this would take place,' he said, adding that former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright later hinted in her book that the attack had been a false flag operation and that Pakistan had had nothing to do with it. The senior adviser also expressed appreciation for the White House's efforts to broker a ceasefire between the two countries, citing US President Donald Trump's directive to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to speak with leaders in both New Delhi and Islamabad. 'The US Secretary of State suggested that Pakistan should agree to a ceasefire, which is what the Indians wanted. So we said, 'fine',' he explained. Notably, India denied Washington's role in the ceasefire, maintaining that the decision was achieved bilaterally – at the initiative of Pakistan.
Russia Today
43 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Fyodor Lukyanov: Kiev's drone strikes prove Moscow's point
The second round of talks between Russian and Ukrainian delegations in Istanbul, and the events leading up to them, offer a clear snapshot of the current state of the conflict. It is far from over. Paradoxically, Ukraine's weekend attacks only reaffirmed Mocow's long-standing position: no ceasefire is possible without a basic agreement on the terms of a future settlement. Military force remains the key negotiating tool. In a confrontation of this scale and intensity, no party is willing to forfeit it. Russia has made this its official policy. Ukraine's latest actions confirm it in practice. If we look at the major drawn-out military confrontations of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, excluding interventions against vastly weaker foes, we see a consistent pattern: political negotiations don't follow a ceasefire, they run in parallel with military operations. In Korea and Vietnam, the process dragged on for years. This isn't cause for celebration, but realism dictates that only this path offers any hope for a durable outcome. It should come as no surprise that talk of ceasefires has now faded into the background. Despite vocal objections from Kiev and its Western allies, the talks are proceeding on Russia's terms. This means: no ultimatums, no artificial deadlines, and a carefully staged approach to dialogue. Washington, too, seems comfortable with this pace. What matters for President Trump is the appearance of progress, not dramatic breakthroughs. At least for now. Kiev, ideally, would prefer to disrupt this rhythm – to inject chaos and unpredictability, which aligns with its more improvisational political-military style. From that perspective, Russia's decision to proceed with the Istanbul meeting despite Ukraine's high-profile sabotage attempts was strategically sound. Kiev likely hoped the Russians would walk away. They didn't. The contrast between the actual tone of the Istanbul negotiations and the media frenzy surrounding them is stark. Each round was preceded by breathless hype and inflated expectations, only to be followed by muted results. This is partly media instinct, partly deliberate spin. People crave movement, even when none exists. Contact between the delegations deflates these illusions, and then the cycle begins anew. So, what came of the second meeting? Most notably: the process continues. Neither side wants to halt it. The theatrical posturing common to Ukrainian politics has been absent – for two reasons. First, the invisible presence of Donald Trump looms over the table. Both Moscow and Kiev see him as a vital third player. Trump wants talks. Both sides are happy to give the impression that talks are happening. Second, both know this channel may become indispensable. Circumstances will change. When they do, real conversations will be necessary. It's better to have the bridge already built. The so-called 'root causes of the conflict' remain untouched. Both sides are sticking to peripheral matters that can be addressed without triggering political landmines. From a humanitarian point of view, this is valuable, but it is far from a comprehensive settlement. Does this limited dialogue foster understanding between negotiators? Possibly. That may help later, when harder questions arise. But does it signal a narrowing of the vast gulf between Russia and Ukraine? No. Are the public memorandums issued by each side, despite their contradictions, worthwhile? Yes. Diplomatically, it is better to stake out clear positions than wallow in strategic ambiguity. True, the documents clash on nearly every point. But history shows that changing conditions often soften even the most rigid positions. Ultimately, battlefield developments will shape diplomacy. Military operations are expanding – both in geography and in the sophistication of tactics and weaponry. Each side has its advantages and will press them. There is no sign of the war ending anytime soon. A response from Russia to Sunday's bridge and airfield attacks is inevitable. It will likely be proportional to the scale of Ukraine's strikes. Importantly, this response will not be aimed solely at Kiev. It will be a message to all involved parties – including the United States and Western Europe. Russia's reply must reflect the multifaceted nature of the conflict and its many audiences. But none of this means the negotiations will stop. In fact, the talks may become more valuable precisely because the conflict article was first published in the newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta and was translated and edited by the RT team
Russia Today
43 minutes ago
- Russia Today
Zelensky takes apparent dig at Trump for calling Putin
Ukraine's Vladimir Zelensky has claimed that there is no value in trying to reach a peace deal with Moscow if powerful countries do not put pressure on Russia, in an apparent reference to US President Donald Trump's recent phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin. On Wednesday, the Russian and American leaders held a 75-minute call to discuss the Ukraine conflict. Trump described the conversation as 'good,' but noted that it would not lead to 'immediate peace' after Putin had told him 'very strongly, that he will have to respond to the recent attack on [Russian] airfields.' Ukrainian drones struck several Russian airbases across five regions on Sunday, ranging from Murmansk in the Arctic to Irkutsk in Siberia. Kiev claimed to have destroyed or damaged some 40 aircraft, including long-range bombers. Moscow has denied both the numbers and the extent of the damage. Writing on X on Wednesday, several hours after Trump disclosed the content of his conversation with Putin, Zelensky claimed that 'many have spoken with Russia at various levels. But none of these talks have brought a reliable peace, or even stopped the war.' The Ukrainian leader criticized 'those who still hesitate to increase pressure' on Russia and suggested that if 'the powerful do not stop Putin, it means they share responsibility with him,' apparently referring to Trump and the fact that he has yet to impose additional sanctions on Moscow. Zelensky's post comes after the New York Times reported, citing sources, that Trump regularly describes the Ukrainian leader as a 'bad guy' who is pushing the world closer to a nuclear conflict. Advisers told the outlet that while Trump has grown 'exasperated' with both Moscow and Kiev, he 'reserves special animosity' for Zelensky. Meanwhile, Russian officials have repeatedly expressed their appreciation for Trump's efforts to end the conflict and have reiterated Moscow's openness to negotiations. However, Russia has insisted that a final peace deal with Kiev would have to take into account the realities on the ground and address the root causes of the conflict, such as Kiev's efforts to join NATO, the spread of neo-Nazism within the country, and the infringement of the rights of Ukraine's Russian-speaking population.
