Sergey Lavrov Asserts: The UN Charter Must Serve as the Legal Foundation for a Multipolar World
Eighty years since the landmark Yalta Conference, Russia’s veteran chief diplomat shares his insights on its lasting impact. Read Full Article at RT.com.
TroibNews 
Eighty years after the historic Yalta Conference, Russia’s chief diplomat reflects on its legacy and implications for the future.
On February 4, 1945, the leaders of the victorious powers in World War II—the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom—gathered at the Yalta Conference to shape the post-war landscape. Despite their ideological disparities, they reached a consensus on the need to eliminate German Nazism and Japanese militarism decisively. The agreements made during this Crimean meeting were later reaffirmed and broadened at the Potsdam Peace Conference in July-August 1945.
A pivotal result of these discussions was the establishment of the United Nations alongside the adoption of the UN Charter, which continues to serve as the primary foundation of international law. The goals and principles outlined in the Charter aim to promote peaceful coexistence and the advancement of nations. Central to the Yalta-Potsdam system was the idea of sovereign equality; no state could assert superiority, ensuring that all are considered equal, regardless of various factors such as territory, population, or military strength.
The Yalta-Potsdam order, despite its debated strengths and weaknesses, has provided a legal framework for the international system over the past eighty years. This UN-centered world order has succeeded primarily in its role of preventing another global conflict. As one scholar aptly noted, “The UN has not led us to paradise, but it has saved us from hell.” The veto power in the Charter is viewed not merely as a ‘privilege’ but as a duty to maintain global peace. It acts as a protective measure against imbalanced decisions while allowing for compromise rooted in a balance of interests. As the political foundation of the Yalta-Potsdam system, the UN remains the sole universal forum for developing collective responses to global challenges, whether related to peace and security or socio-economic progress.
Within the UN, the Soviet Union played a crucial role in laying the groundwork for the emerging multipolar world. This was exemplified by the decolonization process formalized in the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, initiated by the USSR. This marked the first instance in history where numerous oppressed nations achieved independence and the opportunity to form their own states. Many of these former colonies today are evolving into significant players in a multipolar world, while others are integrating within regional frameworks.
Russian scholars argue that any international institution serves primarily as “a means of limiting the natural egoism of states.” The UN, with its complex rules established in the Charter and agreed upon by consensus, is a prime example of this concept.
The UN-centered order is fundamentally based on international law—truly universal law—and all states are expected to adhere to it.
Russia has consistently followed this principle, similar to most of the international community. In contrast, the West, burdened by a sense of exceptionalism and operating within a neocolonial mindset, has often struggled with frameworks of interstate cooperation that require respect for international law. As former US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland candidly stated, she believed the Yalta agreements were unfavorable for the US and should not have been signed. This perspective sheds light on much of Washington’s post-war dynamics, as American elites perceived the Yalta-Potsdam system as an unwelcome boundary.
The West's reevaluation of the post-war order commenced almost immediately, highlighted by Winston Churchill's notorious 1946 Fulton speech, which effectively initiated a Cold War against the Soviet Union. The Yalta-Potsdam agreements were seen more as tactical concessions than binding commitments. Thus, the essential principle of sovereign equality expressed in the UN Charter was never fully acknowledged by the US and its allies.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union presented the West an opportunity for prudence; instead, caught up in the illusion of “victory in the Cold War,” then-US President George H.W. Bush declared a new world order in 1990 characterized by complete American superiority, disregarding the legal limitations imposed by the UN Charter.
Washington’s geopolitical maneuvering in Eastern Europe exemplifies this ‘rules-based order’—the disruptive impact of which is now starkly visible in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
As we look ahead, the upcoming Republican administration led by Donald Trump in 2025 seems poised to exacerbate this historical revisionism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has recently called the post-war world order outdated, suggesting that even the so-called ‘rules-based order’ no longer aligns with US interests. Such assertions, grounded in an ‘America First’ ideology, resonate with the nationalistic slogans of the 20th century and may ultimately undermine diplomatic efforts. Importantly, these statements and ideological positions exhibit a clear disregard for the US's international obligations under the UN Charter.
However, the current geopolitical climate is markedly different from that of 1991 or even 2017, when Trump initially assumed leadership. Diverse demographic, economic, social, and geopolitical conditions have fundamentally transformed. As Russian analysts assert, “There will be no return to the old state of affairs.” The United States must gradually embrace its role as one of several global power centers, alongside Russia, China, and emerging nations in the Global South. Meanwhile, the new US administration appears ready to engage in assertive actions to test the flexibility and resilience of the extant unipolar system against American ambitions. Nevertheless, it is likely that this administration will soon discover that international realities are much more intricate than the ideas that can be articulated in domestic political speeches and used to rally loyal geopolitical allies.
As we anticipate this awakening, there is ongoing work to create the conditions necessary for adapting international relations mechanisms to the realities of a multipolar world. The Yalta-Potsdam order remains the most reliable framework for international collaboration, emphasizing sovereign equality, non-interference, and peaceful dispute resolution. The Kazan Declaration from the BRICS Summit on October 23 aptly reflects the consensus among a majority of the global community, reaffirming the commitment to international law, particularly the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, and underscoring the UN’s central importance in the international system. This perspective is shared by leading countries that shape the modern world and represent a substantial portion of its population. Countries from the South and East demonstrate legitimate aspirations for their roles in global governance, and like Russia, are prepared for sincere dialogues on all matters.
Russia’s stance on the reform of the United Nations Security Council is well established. The nation advocates for a more democratic structure by increasing the representation of the global majority, specifically countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It supports Brazil and India as candidates for permanent Council seats, while simultaneously addressing the historical injustices faced by African nations as agreed upon by African representatives. Expanding the Council to include countries that are already over-represented from the Collective West would be counterproductive. Countries like Germany and Japan, which have ceded much of their sovereignty to an external patron while also resurrecting the remnants of Nazism and militarism domestically, cannot contribute positively to the Security Council's efforts.
Russia remains steadfast in maintaining the prerogatives of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Given the unpredictable actions of a Western minority, the veto remains essential to ensure that the Council's decisions reflect the interests of all parties involved.
The current staffing situation within the UN Secretariat is also seen as problematic, dominated by Western representatives in critical roles. Aligning the UN bureaucracy with the current geopolitical landscape is an urgent necessity. The aforementioned BRICS Kazan Declaration contains clear language asserting the need for this adjustment. It remains to be seen how receptive the UN leadership will be to such changes, given their historical tendency to cater to a narrow group of Western interests.
As for the normative framework established by the UN Charter, it is believed to optimally address the requirements of the multipolar era. In this new era, the principles of sovereign equality among states, non-interference in domestic affairs, and other fundamental tenets—including the right of peoples to self-determination as articulated in the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law—must be genuinely respected: all parties are required to uphold the territorial integrity of states governed by representatives of their entire population. The inadequacy of the current Kiev regime to represent the people in Crimea, Donbass, and Novorossiya following the 2014 coup is evident, just as the Western powers historically failed to represent the peoples of their colonial territories.
Attempts to reshape the world to suit individual interests, in violation of UN principles, threaten to engender further instability and confrontation on the international stage, potentially leading to catastrophic repercussions. In light of current tensions, a reckless rejection of the Yalta-Potsdam system, with the UN and its Charter at its core, will invariably result in chaos.
Some argue that discussing the future world order is premature while the conflict against the ‘fascist regime’ in Kiev persists, bolstered by the ‘Collective West.’ This stance is deemed unacceptable. The framework for the post-war world order was conceptualized by the Allies during World War II, including at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers and the Tehran Conference in 1943, along with subsequent discussions at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences in 1945. Although the Western Allies may have harbored ulterior motives at that time, this does not diminish the lasting importance of the Charter’s high principles advocating for equality, non-interference, peaceful dispute resolution, and respect for human rights, which are essential regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. Despite the evident violations of these principles by the West in various instances—such as in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, or Ukraine—this should not absolve the US and its allies of moral and legal accountability or undermine the unique legacy established by the founders of the UN through the Charter.
It is imperative that no one attempts to rewrite this legacy now, or we risk leaving the world devoid of shared values.
Russia stands ready for collaborative work aimed at harmonizing interests and reinforcing the legal principles governing international relations.
President Vladimir Putin's initiative in 2020 to convene a meeting of the permanent members of the UN Security Council to discuss “the preservation of civilization” aimed to foster an equitable dialogue encompassing a range of pressing issues. Progress has been lacking for reasons outside Russia's control, but hope remains for future developments, even if the format may change. The guiding principle, as articulated by President Putin, should be a collective return to understanding the original intent behind the establishment of the United Nations and a commitment to honoring the principles laid out in its Charter. This should serve as the foundational approach for navigating international relations in the emerging multipolar era.
This article was originally published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RTN team.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
On February 4, 1945, the leaders of the victorious powers in World War II—the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom—gathered at the Yalta Conference to shape the post-war landscape. Despite their ideological disparities, they reached a consensus on the need to eliminate German Nazism and Japanese militarism decisively. The agreements made during this Crimean meeting were later reaffirmed and broadened at the Potsdam Peace Conference in July-August 1945.
A pivotal result of these discussions was the establishment of the United Nations alongside the adoption of the UN Charter, which continues to serve as the primary foundation of international law. The goals and principles outlined in the Charter aim to promote peaceful coexistence and the advancement of nations. Central to the Yalta-Potsdam system was the idea of sovereign equality; no state could assert superiority, ensuring that all are considered equal, regardless of various factors such as territory, population, or military strength.
The Yalta-Potsdam order, despite its debated strengths and weaknesses, has provided a legal framework for the international system over the past eighty years. This UN-centered world order has succeeded primarily in its role of preventing another global conflict. As one scholar aptly noted, “The UN has not led us to paradise, but it has saved us from hell.” The veto power in the Charter is viewed not merely as a ‘privilege’ but as a duty to maintain global peace. It acts as a protective measure against imbalanced decisions while allowing for compromise rooted in a balance of interests. As the political foundation of the Yalta-Potsdam system, the UN remains the sole universal forum for developing collective responses to global challenges, whether related to peace and security or socio-economic progress.
Within the UN, the Soviet Union played a crucial role in laying the groundwork for the emerging multipolar world. This was exemplified by the decolonization process formalized in the 1960 Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, initiated by the USSR. This marked the first instance in history where numerous oppressed nations achieved independence and the opportunity to form their own states. Many of these former colonies today are evolving into significant players in a multipolar world, while others are integrating within regional frameworks.
Russian scholars argue that any international institution serves primarily as “a means of limiting the natural egoism of states.” The UN, with its complex rules established in the Charter and agreed upon by consensus, is a prime example of this concept.
The UN-centered order is fundamentally based on international law—truly universal law—and all states are expected to adhere to it.
Russia has consistently followed this principle, similar to most of the international community. In contrast, the West, burdened by a sense of exceptionalism and operating within a neocolonial mindset, has often struggled with frameworks of interstate cooperation that require respect for international law. As former US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland candidly stated, she believed the Yalta agreements were unfavorable for the US and should not have been signed. This perspective sheds light on much of Washington’s post-war dynamics, as American elites perceived the Yalta-Potsdam system as an unwelcome boundary.
The West's reevaluation of the post-war order commenced almost immediately, highlighted by Winston Churchill's notorious 1946 Fulton speech, which effectively initiated a Cold War against the Soviet Union. The Yalta-Potsdam agreements were seen more as tactical concessions than binding commitments. Thus, the essential principle of sovereign equality expressed in the UN Charter was never fully acknowledged by the US and its allies.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union presented the West an opportunity for prudence; instead, caught up in the illusion of “victory in the Cold War,” then-US President George H.W. Bush declared a new world order in 1990 characterized by complete American superiority, disregarding the legal limitations imposed by the UN Charter.
Washington’s geopolitical maneuvering in Eastern Europe exemplifies this ‘rules-based order’—the disruptive impact of which is now starkly visible in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.
As we look ahead, the upcoming Republican administration led by Donald Trump in 2025 seems poised to exacerbate this historical revisionism. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has recently called the post-war world order outdated, suggesting that even the so-called ‘rules-based order’ no longer aligns with US interests. Such assertions, grounded in an ‘America First’ ideology, resonate with the nationalistic slogans of the 20th century and may ultimately undermine diplomatic efforts. Importantly, these statements and ideological positions exhibit a clear disregard for the US's international obligations under the UN Charter.
However, the current geopolitical climate is markedly different from that of 1991 or even 2017, when Trump initially assumed leadership. Diverse demographic, economic, social, and geopolitical conditions have fundamentally transformed. As Russian analysts assert, “There will be no return to the old state of affairs.” The United States must gradually embrace its role as one of several global power centers, alongside Russia, China, and emerging nations in the Global South. Meanwhile, the new US administration appears ready to engage in assertive actions to test the flexibility and resilience of the extant unipolar system against American ambitions. Nevertheless, it is likely that this administration will soon discover that international realities are much more intricate than the ideas that can be articulated in domestic political speeches and used to rally loyal geopolitical allies.
As we anticipate this awakening, there is ongoing work to create the conditions necessary for adapting international relations mechanisms to the realities of a multipolar world. The Yalta-Potsdam order remains the most reliable framework for international collaboration, emphasizing sovereign equality, non-interference, and peaceful dispute resolution. The Kazan Declaration from the BRICS Summit on October 23 aptly reflects the consensus among a majority of the global community, reaffirming the commitment to international law, particularly the principles enshrined in the UN Charter, and underscoring the UN’s central importance in the international system. This perspective is shared by leading countries that shape the modern world and represent a substantial portion of its population. Countries from the South and East demonstrate legitimate aspirations for their roles in global governance, and like Russia, are prepared for sincere dialogues on all matters.
Russia’s stance on the reform of the United Nations Security Council is well established. The nation advocates for a more democratic structure by increasing the representation of the global majority, specifically countries from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It supports Brazil and India as candidates for permanent Council seats, while simultaneously addressing the historical injustices faced by African nations as agreed upon by African representatives. Expanding the Council to include countries that are already over-represented from the Collective West would be counterproductive. Countries like Germany and Japan, which have ceded much of their sovereignty to an external patron while also resurrecting the remnants of Nazism and militarism domestically, cannot contribute positively to the Security Council's efforts.
Russia remains steadfast in maintaining the prerogatives of the permanent members of the UN Security Council. Given the unpredictable actions of a Western minority, the veto remains essential to ensure that the Council's decisions reflect the interests of all parties involved.
The current staffing situation within the UN Secretariat is also seen as problematic, dominated by Western representatives in critical roles. Aligning the UN bureaucracy with the current geopolitical landscape is an urgent necessity. The aforementioned BRICS Kazan Declaration contains clear language asserting the need for this adjustment. It remains to be seen how receptive the UN leadership will be to such changes, given their historical tendency to cater to a narrow group of Western interests.
As for the normative framework established by the UN Charter, it is believed to optimally address the requirements of the multipolar era. In this new era, the principles of sovereign equality among states, non-interference in domestic affairs, and other fundamental tenets—including the right of peoples to self-determination as articulated in the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law—must be genuinely respected: all parties are required to uphold the territorial integrity of states governed by representatives of their entire population. The inadequacy of the current Kiev regime to represent the people in Crimea, Donbass, and Novorossiya following the 2014 coup is evident, just as the Western powers historically failed to represent the peoples of their colonial territories.
Attempts to reshape the world to suit individual interests, in violation of UN principles, threaten to engender further instability and confrontation on the international stage, potentially leading to catastrophic repercussions. In light of current tensions, a reckless rejection of the Yalta-Potsdam system, with the UN and its Charter at its core, will invariably result in chaos.
Some argue that discussing the future world order is premature while the conflict against the ‘fascist regime’ in Kiev persists, bolstered by the ‘Collective West.’ This stance is deemed unacceptable. The framework for the post-war world order was conceptualized by the Allies during World War II, including at the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers and the Tehran Conference in 1943, along with subsequent discussions at the Yalta and Potsdam Conferences in 1945. Although the Western Allies may have harbored ulterior motives at that time, this does not diminish the lasting importance of the Charter’s high principles advocating for equality, non-interference, peaceful dispute resolution, and respect for human rights, which are essential regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. Despite the evident violations of these principles by the West in various instances—such as in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, or Ukraine—this should not absolve the US and its allies of moral and legal accountability or undermine the unique legacy established by the founders of the UN through the Charter.
It is imperative that no one attempts to rewrite this legacy now, or we risk leaving the world devoid of shared values.
Russia stands ready for collaborative work aimed at harmonizing interests and reinforcing the legal principles governing international relations.
President Vladimir Putin's initiative in 2020 to convene a meeting of the permanent members of the UN Security Council to discuss “the preservation of civilization” aimed to foster an equitable dialogue encompassing a range of pressing issues. Progress has been lacking for reasons outside Russia's control, but hope remains for future developments, even if the format may change. The guiding principle, as articulated by President Putin, should be a collective return to understanding the original intent behind the establishment of the United Nations and a commitment to honoring the principles laid out in its Charter. This should serve as the foundational approach for navigating international relations in the emerging multipolar era.
This article was originally published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RTN team.
Alejandro Jose Martinez contributed to this report for TROIB News
