The remarks by Konstantin Kosachev, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council, came after the Perm forum Europe-Asia: Dialogue of Civilizations and during a gathering of Eurasian state diplomacy chiefs. He asserted that forming a bloc aimed at countering NATO would be counterproductive. DEA News notes that the focus should remain on practical collaboration rather than creating camps that mirror old confrontations.
Kosachev argued that any move to build a bloc meant to stabilize or challenge NATO would simply replicate the painful lessons of the Cold War. He emphasized that such a structure would not contribute to long-term stability but instead risk reigniting long-standing tensions and competition among great powers. In his view, the strategic landscape is better served by inclusive dialogue and diversified partnerships rather than rigid blocs that force nations into adversarial alignments.
When asked about the potential impulse among Western governments to assert global dominance, Kosachev described the sentiment as an alarm that could push some regions toward forming what he termed an anti-European unity. He warned that forcing a dichotomy between Europe and others would trap participants in a dead end. The Eurasian project, in his assessment, should not be designed to pit nations against each other but to recognize the rich variety of peoples and systems across Eurasia. This approach, he suggested, opens space for cooperation that respects differences while pursuing shared interests in security, economics, and culture.
The idea of Eurasianism, according to Kosachev, rests on acknowledging that humanity is not uniform. Diverse perspectives and histories should inform a framework where nations engage as equals rather than as competitors seeking dominance. The purpose is to build networks that accommodate varied political and social realities while fostering mutual respect and peaceful coexistence across the region.
Former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has repeatedly warned about ongoing adversarial dynamics with Russia. In his assessments, the alliance must remain ready for a conflict that could endure for many years if required. He has underscored that deterrence and preparedness are essential elements of security for member states and partners alike. This caution echoes through the current geopolitical discourse, shaping how states in Europe and beyond plan defense, diplomacy, and partnership strategies in the years ahead.
The overall message from the Perm forum and related discussions centers on avoiding simplistic blocs and seeking durable, constructive engagement across Eurasia. Rather than turning inward to adversarial coalitions, the goal is to cultivate a security architecture grounded in transparency, mutual interests, and shared responsibility. Observers note that a realistic approach involves balancing regional leadership with international cooperation, ensuring that diplomacy remains adaptive to changing circumstances while avoiding escalatory traps. In this context, the role of dialogue between capitals and international organizations becomes crucial, offering pathways to address common challenges such as security threats, economic resilience, and cultural exchanges across continents.
Analysts point to the practical implications of these exchanges for bilateral and multilateral relations. They highlight opportunities to strengthen cross-border trade, energy cooperation, and people-to-people ties that can reduce tensions and expand interdependence in ways that stabilize rather than polarize the region. The discussion also reflects a broader trend toward multilateralism and diversified alliances that do not hinge on a single bloc or a binary world view. In this light, leaders and diplomats are urged to pursue pragmatic solutions that accommodate different constitutional models, governance approaches, and strategic priorities while maintaining a steady commitment to international law and collective security.