Post EAM Jaishankar’s Moscow visit, Maria Zakharova, Russia’s Director of the Information and Press Department at the Foreign Ministry, sits down for a tell-all on India’s ‘human-centric’ BRICS approach, Moscow’s push for de-dollarisation and why Russia says the shift is now ‘imminent’.
Moscow rolled out the red carpet for External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar this week, but the real message was delivered inside the Kremlin. Jaishankar’s meeting with President Vladimir Putin, where he carried a personal message from Prime Minister Narendra Modi, came as India and Russia look to push bilateral trade towards $100 billion, fix payment and market-access hurdles, and deepen cooperation in energy, fertilisers and nuclear power. And now, the spotlight moves to Delhi. Putin is expected at the BRICS Summit next month, where India is looking to put its own stamp on a grouping that Russia wants to see as a pillar of a more multipolar world. So, what did Moscow make of Jaishankar’s visit, and what does it expect from India’s BRICS presidency? To unpack that, Sukanya Saha spoke with Maria Zakharova, Russia’s Director of the Information and Press Department at the Foreign Ministry. In a wide-ranging conversation, she spoke about Putin’s upcoming Delhi visit, India’s “human-centric” BRICS agenda, Russia’s push to move away from the dollar, and Moscow’s increasingly blunt accusations against Ukraine, Europe and the West over the war and billions in financial assistance to Kyiv. Excerpts below…
Q. External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar has just concluded his visit to Moscow at a time when India-Russia ties are being tested by trade imbalances, Western sanctions, and the changing geopolitical landscape. What does Moscow see as the key outcomes of the visit, and is Russia prepared to make concrete concessions to address India’s concerns, particularly on trade and payment mechanisms?
Maria Zakharova: The Russia-India partnership is based on mutual interest and benefit, which is arguably incompatible with one sided concessions by either partner. Unfortunately, many countries today have accepted an unequal model of international relations. That is certainly not the case for Russia and India. We are addressing the challenges to Russia-India relations that you mentioned. In coordination with our Indian friends, we are consistently building payment mechanisms that shield our bilateral cooperation from unlawful Western sanctions pressure. We are also developing secure transport and logistics routes for mutual trade. Both sides had high expectations from External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s recent visit to Moscow, and those expectations were fully realised. The meeting of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific, Technical and Cultural Cooperation, co-chaired by Minister Jaishankar and Russia’s First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, proved highly productive. Minister Jaishankar and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, held detailed discussions on key aspects of our foreign-policy cooperation amid the current turbulent international situation. The audience with President Vladimir Putin was undoubtedly the highlight of the visit.”
Q. President Vladimir Putin is expected in New Delhi for the BRICS Summit next month. What does Moscow want this summit to deliver that previous BRICS summits have not? And does Russia see India’s BRICS chairmanship as an opportunity to push the grouping towards a more explicitly geopolitical bloc?
Maria Zakharova: We commend the Indian BRICS Chairmanship and its contribution to promoting cooperation across key areas, including politics and security, economy and finance, and cultural and humanitarian ties. More than 300 events have been held under the official calendar, including around 30 ministerial meetings. We welcome New Delhi’s human-centric approach, guided by the principle of “people’s wellbeing above all”, as well as its commitment to practical cooperation and continuity in BRICS’ work. The New Delhi summit, to be held on September 12–13, 2026, will be the culmination of India’s BRICS Chairmanship. We are confident it will be held to the highest standard and produce tangible results. Discussions are expected to cover the reform of global governance institutions, counterterrorism, and information and communication technology security. Leaders will also discuss expanding trade and investment within BRICS, increasing the use of national currencies in mutual payments, and future cooperation in energy, healthcare, science and innovation. As for the second part of your question, transforming BRICS into a geopolitical bloc, or “the NATO of the Global South”, is not on the agenda. The group is focused on promoting a multipolar world order based on sovereign equality and constructive cooperation, in line with the aspirations of the international community, particularly the countries of the Global Majority.”
Q. Russia has been one of the strongest advocates of reducing dependence on the US dollar, but India, Brazil and several other BRICS members have repeatedly made clear that they are not seeking to abandon the dollar. Does Moscow accept that BRICS is unlikely to reach consensus on de-dollarisation, or does Russia still envisage a common BRICS financial architecture that could eventually reduce the dollar’s centrality?
Maria Zakharova: Financial cooperation within BRICS is a comprehensive and ongoing effort that goes beyond reducing dependence on any particular currency. The primary aim is to create financial mechanisms that are more resilient to external risks, serve the interests of developing countries, facilitate economic growth and promote sustainable development. The use of national currencies in trade is an important part of this effort. Today, national currencies account for more than 90 percent of Russia’s settlements with BRICS countries. During Russia’s BRICS Chairmanship in 2024, projects were launched to develop mechanisms for cross-border transactions, as well as joint settlement, clearing and re-insurance infrastructure. These are major undertakings requiring considerable effort and political will, but all BRICS countries remain committed to making progress in this direction. The New Development Bank is also set to play an important role. As discussed at the NDB’s annual meeting in Moscow in May 2026, we are committed to strengthening its capabilities as a key instrument for advancing the economies of the Global South and East and adapting its operations to meet the current needs of its shareholders.”
Q. Is Russia’s push for de-dollarisation fundamentally an economic project, or has it become a geopolitical response to the weaponisation of the dollar and US sanctions? And given President Trump’s repeated use of tariffs and economic pressure, do you believe India, Brazil and other BRICS countries are now more willing to reduce their dependence on the dollar than they were before?
Maria Zakharova: One of the primary reasons this idea has become so popular is the dollar’s growing inability to support the normal functioning of the global economy, largely because Washington has weaponised its currency for geopolitical purposes. Today, BRICS countries account for about 40 percent of global GDP and are driving much of the world’s economic growth, while the West’s share of the global economy has been steadily declining. Those who once dominated the world as hegemons are trying to hold on to their monopoly in the financial sector. Through threats of illegitimate restrictive measures and tariffs, they disrupt manufacturing and supply chains, markets and cross-border settlements. Faced with this pressure, BRICS countries and others in the Global Majority have had to reduce their reliance on the US dollar in settlements and reserves, while diversifying payment instruments and increasingly using national currencies. The growing number of initiatives to develop alternative settlement and financial mechanisms across Asia, Africa and Latin America shows that de-dollarisation is a steady and imminent process. In 2025, the dollar’s share in settlements declined to 50 per cent, while its share in global reserves fell to 58 per cent. More transactions are now being conducted in yuan, Indian rupees, dirhams and roubles. National currencies account for more than 90 per cent of Russia’s settlements with BRICS countries, while the share of Western currencies does not exceed 15 per cent. These are manifestations of fundamental shifts in the global economy. Let me also emphasise that developing alternative payment platforms and interbank settlement systems does not mean that BRICS is opposed to the US dollar. We were not the ones who initiated the de-dollarisation process. It was the use of politically motivated restrictions and the dollar as an instrument of pressure and manipulation that led to the declining use of the US currency. Any country can face such restrictions at some point. Many BRICS partners remain highly integrated with global financial institutions, but they are increasingly questioning the effectiveness of these mechanisms and whether they can serve the interests of all countries. That is why the need for a more solid and reliable settlement system is relevant not only to Russia, but to many BRICS countries and other members of the Global Majority.
Q. President Trump has repeatedly threatened tariffs and other economic consequences for countries that challenge the dollar-centric financial system. How seriously does Moscow believe BRICS should take these threats? And does Russia believe Trump’s pressure could actually push BRICS members closer together, or could it instead expose the very divisions within the grouping?
Maria Zakharova: President Vladimir Putin, the Presidential Administration and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have repeatedly given detailed comments on the US leader’s statements concerning BRICS. The reason many countries are diversifying their payment mechanisms, including by increasing the use of national currencies in trade and investment, is not a desire to challenge the dollar’s position, but Washington’s policy of using the dollar as an instrument of pressure against states pursuing an independent course. I would stress that BRICS cooperation is not directed against anyone. It is constructive in nature and focused on strengthening the socioeconomic, innovative and human potential of its members, while supporting developing countries in addressing their pressing challenges. The collective efforts of BRICS countries, despite inevitable differences in their national positions, should primarily focus on building resilience and expanding practical cooperation. We will continue to promote a constructive and consolidating agenda within this format and contribute to a fairer and more equal multipolar system that takes into account the interests of the Global Majority. In our dialogue with BRICS partners and other constructively minded states, we consistently stress the need to shape economic strategies while taking into account the role of the United States and the collective West, which, despite their declining share of the global economy, will continue to pursue what we see as an unfriendly policy in the coming decades. The need to revise the foundations of the global financial and economic architecture is becoming increasingly urgent as new divisions emerge in the global economy. The existing financial system can constrain economic sovereignty and requires fundamental change. This includes countering Western pressure on countries of the Global Majority, minimising its impact, expanding cooperation on alternative payment arrangements and reforming multilateral financial institutions. BRICS can play a key role in shaping new economic realities in a multipolar world. Implementing agreements reached at BRICS summits can also help build a new global financial architecture and unlock the full potential of economic cooperation among our countries. This includes Russia’s proposals for mutual payment arrangements among BRICS countries through a specialised platform, the Cross Border Payment Initiative, as well as stronger cooperation in depositary services, insurance and investment. We expect the Indian chairmanship to continue its active work in these key areas.
Q. On the Ukraine front, Moscow has said it is ready to return to negotiations, but only if Russia’s core demands and what it calls the “realities on the ground” are taken into account. Given that Ukraine and its Western partners reject several of those demands, do you genuinely believe there is a realistic path to a negotiated settlement? What would Russia be prepared to compromise on?
Maria Zakharova: Russia has compromised many times, unlike the Kiev regime, which, with the support of its NATO sponsors, has shown an inability to negotiate and continues to pursue a policy of armed escalation. Our country is being confronted with deliberately dead-end ultimatums at G7 and NATO summits and meetings of the so-called “coalition of the willing”. Their two objectives are to force Russia to abandon the goals of its special military operation and preserve the Kiev regime in its current form, thereby creating permanent threats to Russia’s security from Ukrainian territory. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian armed forces, using weapons supplied by Western taxpayers, are intensifying attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure in Russia. Through sabotage and subversive activities, they are also destabilising the Azov-Black Sea region, affecting international transport and logistics routes. At the end of last year, the Ukrainian side unilaterally withdrew from the Istanbul format discussions without providing a clear explanation. We therefore have every reason to believe that Kiev’s rhetoric about its desire for peace is a propaganda ploy aimed at placing the blame for the military escalation on Russia. As long as Kiev and its sponsors rely on escalation, the Russian Armed Forces will continue to respond to emerging threats. The intensity of our response will remain at the level necessary to achieve our objectives. “Sustainable and lasting peace requires serious dialogue aimed at eliminating the root causes of the conflict completely and irreversibly, rather than Western political manoeuvres calling for a temporary ceasefire simply to re-equip the Ukrainian armed forces. It also requires restoring Ukraine to the foundations of its statehood as a nonaligned, neutral and nonnuclear state. These steps would help restore the balance of power in the region and create an equal and indivisible Eurasian security architecture.”
Q. Russia has at times described the US as playing a constructive role in the negotiations, while also accusing Washington of continuing to arm Ukraine and exert pressure on Moscow. Does Russia believe the Trump administration is genuinely trying to broker peace, or is Washington still pursuing a strategy aimed at improving Ukraine’s negotiating position? And what would Moscow need to see from the US to consider it a fair mediator?
Maria Zakharova: We have noted a certain shift in official American rhetoric— initially based on a declared desire to find constructive solutions to the conflict— toward the demands of the Kiev regime and its European handlers. Regarding reports of Washington’s continued military and military-technical assistance to Ukraine, we have requested clarification from the State Department. I believe the United States must first determine what role it is willing to play in the negotiation process before discussing any “new ideas” with anyone.”
Q. Billions of dollars in aid have flowed into Ukraine since the war began, yet questions continue to be raised about corruption, procurement and oversight. The obvious question is: where is all that money going, and how much of it is actually reaching the Ukrainian government, military and people? Does Moscow believe Western governments have adequate mechanisms to ensure that this money is being properly accounted for?
Maria Zakharova: It would be more appropriate to address this question to those Western figures who devotedly continue to send a flow of weapons to the terrorist Kiev regime, oblivious to the rampant corruption that has taken hold. Unlike the Europeans, who blindly dream of Russia’s “strategic defeat,” the US, by all appearances, is acutely aware of the thieving nature of Vladimir Zelensky and his cronies. It is unlikely that the West will be able—or even willing—to control Kiev’s embezzlement of the allocated funds. The only adequate response is to stop sponsoring Ukrainian armed forces’ strikes against civilians and humanitarian facilities in our country, abandoning the cynical principle of “war to the last Ukrainian.”
