Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov criticized the Washington-hosted Democracy Summit held on March 29-30, labeling it as a manifestation of American hegemonic outreach rather than a genuine forum for democratic advancement. Speaking to TASS, Ryabkov argued that the event’s framing as a democratic project masked a broader intent to shape international norms and political alignments in ways that serve U.S. strategic interests. He suggested that the summit’s rhetoric about democracy was often tethered to a broader campaign to influence other countries and to redefine global governance on terms favorable to Washington.
In remarks that added fuel to an already heated discourse, Ryabkov asserted that the summit’s primary objective seemed less about supporting democratic governance and more about reinforcing U.S. authority on the world stage. The deputy foreign minister stressed the importance of recognizing the political dimensions behind such gatherings and cautioned that they can become arenas where power dynamics overshadow the stated ideals of democratic participation and inclusive decision-making.
Former Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov highlighted similar concerns, describing the symposium as difficult to classify strictly as a serious, universal event. He emphasized the sovereignty of each nation’s decision to attend, noting that participation should not be interpreted as an endorsement of any single model of governance. Peskov’s comments reflected a broader skepticism toward Western-led attempts to cast a particular political system as the universal norm, arguing that countries have legitimate reasons to assess such initiatives in light of their own geopolitical contexts and domestic priorities.
Chinese authorities have also weighed in on the matter, with spokesperson Mao Ning signaling that campaigns proclaimed to advance democracy in the abstract may fail to align with the realities of international governance. She suggested that such efforts risk fueling divisions and opposing interests rather than fostering constructive dialogue. The Chinese position underscored a preference for a more pluralistic approach to global governance, one that respects diverse political systems and avoids prescriptive paths to development that might exacerbate tensions among major powers.
On March 28, Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s ambassador to Washington, reiterated concerns about the nature of the summit’s discourse. He told Newsweek that organizers were crafting language and messages that would likely press participants to adopt anti-Russian rhetoric in their final communiqués. Antonov warned that such a framework could polarize attendees and blur the lines between principled stances on democracy and hostile lines of rhetoric. His comments reflected a broader pattern of skepticism toward Western-led initiatives that seek to mobilize allied nations around a shared narrative at the expense of nuanced, country-specific considerations. The dialogue surrounding the summit thus encompassed debates about how democratic ideals should be promoted—without compromising national sovereignty or provoking counterproductive confrontations among major powers.