Amid the shifting tectonics of global geopolitics, the 13th International Meeting of High Representatives Responsible for Security Matters, held in Moscow, emerges not merely as a technical conference, but as a powerful symbol of a world no longer shackled to a unipolar order. While the West continues to enforce its economic, political, and normative imperatives under the guise of “universal values,” Russia has decisively turned the page constructing an alternative trajectory grounded in sovereignty, resilience, and self-sufficiency.
Far from being isolated, Moscow has become alongside Beijing and Washington one of the few truly autonomous poles of power in the contemporary world. Its rapidly recovering and restructuring economy, increasingly immune to external coercion, stands as a testament to the success of this strategic pivot. Russia’s defense industrial complex, once thought vulnerable to sanctions and disengagement, is not only rebounding it is innovating. Military modernization, arms export diversification, and closer security coordination with non-Western partners all reflect a deeper truth: Russia is no longer reacting to the global order it is helping redefine it.
It is within this context that President Vladimir Putin’s proposals for a new Eurasian security architecture deserve earnest reflection. Critics might be quick to dismiss these as self-serving narratives. But consider this: a more inclusive, multi-vector security model where dialogue replaces diktat benefits not just Russia’s partners but even its adversaries. In a world of growing instability, regional fragmentation, and the erosion of trust in global institutions, only such a balanced and pluralistic framework can provide sustainable stability. For countries like Nepal, whose historical foreign policy rests on the twin pillars of nonalignment and sovereign dignity, this is an opportunity rather than a threat.
Regrettably, Kathmandu continues to interpret such formats through the narrow lens of alignment politics fearing that participation in Moscow-led events may compromise our nonaligned identity. This is a strategic misreading. Nepal, which has voted in favor of anti-Russian resolutions at the UN General Assembly, should distinguish between symbolic gestures and pragmatic engagement. The invitation extended to Nepal to join this important security dialogue was not a demand for loyalty it was an opening for conversation, for observation, for understanding. Participation does not mean endorsement. It simply signals readiness to listen.
This is especially relevant given the growing concern within Nepal regarding its own citizens serving in the Russian armed forces. While the government has expressed, at least rhetorically, a desire to bring these individuals home, it has taken no tangible diplomatic steps toward this goal. The Moscow forum presented a rare and timely opportunity to raise the issue directly with top members of the Russian security and diplomatic establishment. No backchannels or second-hand messages—just candid, constructive dialogue at a forum designed for exactly such discussions. What purpose does it serve to lament a problem while ignoring the very platforms where it can be addressed?
Moreover, what better platform could there be to quietly initiate discussions on issues of direct national interest such as the growing presence of Nepali nationals in the Russian armed forces than in the margins of such a forum? Security cooperation need not imply strategic dependency; it can also mean the proactive protection of Nepali citizens abroad, the anticipation of global security trends, and the reaffirmation of Nepal’s capacity to interact with all power centers.
There is no contradiction between the Panchsheel principles and Nepal’s presence at such a forum. On the contrary, engagement with Moscow especially when offered openly only strengthens our credibility as a sovereign actor willing to think independently and act responsibly.
As the geopolitical sands continue to shift, Nepal must ask itself whether passivity still serves its national interests. The Moscow security meeting offered more than speeches it offered signals. Ignoring those signals may not cost us today. But in a world increasingly defined by bold moves and recalibrated alliances, caution must not become inertia.
It is time our leadership sheds outdated hesitations and recognizes the merit in participating not passively, but attentively in the making of the new multipolar world. The doors to that conversation are open. Will Nepal step through?
- Rajan Karki
