Devendra Gautam of ApEx had a wide-ranging conversation with Andrei Kiselenko, minister-counselor and charge d’affaires of the Russian Embassy in Nepal. Here it goes:

Q: Your excellency, global geopolitics is getting choppier by the day. Tensions are palpable between Russia and the United States, the US and China, India and China, India and Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, so on and so forth, marking the ascendance of a multipolar world order in place of a unipolar one. Against this backdrop, the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, was on an important visit to India. What does it mean for Nepal, the South Asian subcontinent and the world?

The visit of President Vladimir Putin to New Delhi has taken place at a moment of profound global transformation. We are witnessing the steady, irreversible evolution of a multipolar world order, where regional voices, including those of South Asia, increasingly shape the international agenda. In this context, Russia views its partnership with India as one of the key pillars of stability across Eurasia and the broader Indo-Pacific region. India is a long-standing and highly respected strategic partner of the Russian Federation. Our countries share decades of cooperation in defense, energy, nuclear technology, science, education and people-to-people exchanges. The summit will only strengthen this multidimensional relationship at a time when constructive dialogue is needed more than ever.

It is also important to highlight a development that directly connects this visit with the broader economic future of the region. On Nov 26, the first round of negotiations on a Free Trade Agreement between India and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) was officially launched. This step has the potential to create the largest free-trade framework in Greater Eurasia, opening new markets, reducing barriers and encouraging more predictable, secure and mutually advantageous economic flows. For Nepal, this trend is of direct relevance. As a close neighbor of India and an observer of shifting economic dynamics in Eurasia, Nepal stands to benefit from a more interconnected regional architecture. Enhanced India–EAEU trade routes and logistics corridors may create new opportunities for Nepali exporters, students, technologies and even labor mobility, expanding the country’s access to northern Eurasian markets. Moreover, a stronger and more stable India-Russia partnership contributes to the overall resilience of South Asia.

In a world where tensions often dominate headlines, this visit demonstrates that major powers can still choose dialogue, cooperation and long-term vision. That is a positive signal not only for Russia and India, but for Nepal and the international community at large.

Q: Historically, Russia’s strategic alignment in the subcontinent has altered the political map of the subcontinent. Given this context, is Russia aware of defense-security sensitivities of countries in the region reeling under chronic domestic instability unabated by external interference?

Russia has always approached South Asia with a deep sense of responsibility and an awareness of the region’s complex security landscape. Our engagement has never been opportunistic or destabilizing; on the contrary, Russia has consistently acted as a force of balance, predictability and dialogue.

Unlike many actors whose policies have historically aggravated regional tensions, Russia’s role has been fundamentally different. For decades, Moscow has respected the sovereignty, internal political processes and security concerns of each country in the subcontinent. This is precisely why our partnerships whether with India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka or Nepal remain stable, trusted and free of hidden agendas.

Russia is uniquely positioned as a nation that does not divide the region into “spheres of influence.” We do not impose military blocs, political conditions or ideological pressure. Instead, we support indigenous development and national self-reliance.

For Nepal, a country that values non-alignment and strategic autonomy, this is especially important. Russia’s steady, respectful approach helps ensure that regional processes evolve in a way that strengthens stability rather than undermines it.

Q: What, in your opinion, can superpowers and regional powers do to shore up defense and security of weaker states?

Security for smaller states is best strengthened through stability, dialogue and respectful cooperation. Larger powers can help by supporting national priorities rather than imposing external agendas.

Russia has a long and positive record of working with Nepal in exactly this spirit. Over the decades, Moscow has consistently supported Nepal’s sovereignty, development and capacity-building from training Nepali officers and specialists in Russian educational institutions to cooperation in disaster-response, helicopter aviation safety and hydropower. These practical areas of engagement quietly contribute to national resilience, which is an integral part of long-term security.

Q: In her development endeavors, Nepal, one of the founding members of the Non-aligned Movement, has received support from both Russia and her rivals, especially during the Cold War era. But development support from Russia has plummeted markedly after the political change of 1990. What went wrong?

Over the past years and decades, enormous changes have taken place in our countries and in the world. But the feelings of mutual sympathy between the two peoples and the desire to deepen multifaceted international cooperation have not changed.

 Russia attaches great importance to the development of relations with Nepal. Our countries have a rich history of cooperation in economic, cultural, educational, technical spheres. At all times, relations between Moscow and Kathmandu have been of traditionally friendly nature and have never been clouded by any contradictions or differences. Russia values the peace-loving foreign policy of Nepal, its adherence to the principles of Non-Alignment and peaceful coexistence.

Over the past decade, a number of Russian companies and entrepreneurs have explored various avenues to establish projects in Nepal in sectors such as energy, infrastructure, pharmaceuticals, information technology and tourism. Unfortunately, many of these efforts have faced obstacles on the Nepali side, often due to excessive bureaucratic hurdles or a lack of clear procedures for facilitating Russian investments. In some cases, Russian businesses encountered uncertainty or delays in obtaining necessary permits or approvals.

Frankly speaking, it is somewhat difficult to understand why the Nepali side continues to delay responses on several important pending draft agreements and memorandums, which have been under discussion for quite some time. These include, for example, the Protocol on Cooperation between the Election Commissions, the Agreement between the Ministries of Home Affairs, the Memorandum of Understanding on cultural cooperation, the Agreement on Readmission and others. From the Russian side, we remain fully ready to move forward on these documents, as they would provide a solid legal framework for deepening our bilateral cooperation in a number of key areas. We sincerely hope that the competent Nepali authorities will be able to give due consideration to these proposals in the near future.

Moreover, an additional factor cannot be ignored: some Nepali partners, especially in the private sector, remain hesitant to deepen their cooperation with Russian companies due to political pressure and informal warnings from Western, particularly European and American actors. The fear of falling under secondary sanctions or losing access to Western financial systems still plays a significant role in shaping such cautious attitudes.

Q: Your excellency, do you see the possibility of the revival of historic cooperation? If so, what are some of the probable areas?

It is important to stress that Russia stands fully ready to engage more actively with Nepal across multiple sectors. The Russian side sees enormous potential in Nepal’s development, be it in hydropower, agriculture, aviation, modern industry, or education. I believe that if Nepali authorities and business circles create a more transparent and welcoming environment for Russian investors free of unnecessary red tape and external political influences we will see very dynamic and mutually beneficial cooperation in the near future.

Q: What are your thoughts on SAARC? Do you think the region is better off without the regional body? Should Nepal, the seat of the SAARC Secretariat that played a key role in the establishment of the regional bloc, step up efforts to revive it?

SAARC remains an important regional platform with significant potential. Its activity has fluctuated due to well-known political constraints, yet the very creation of SAARC reflected the desire of South Asian nations to work together rather than drift apart. It is especially symbolic that this December marks the 40th anniversary of the signing of the SAARC Charter—a reminder that the region has a long tradition of seeking collective solutions. In this context, I believe that revitalized and pragmatic SAARC could address many shared challenges more effectively.

Nepal, as the host of the SAARC Secretariat and a country that played a pivotal role in the organization’s establishment, naturally has a unique moral authority to encourage fresh dialogue. If Nepal chooses to step up efforts to energize SAARC at this symbolic moment, it would be fully consistent with its long-standing role as a promoter of regional stability, balance and cooperation. I also sense that many member-states themselves quietly hope to see the organization become more active, more effective and more technically focused.

At the same time, experience from other regions shows that even when multilateral structures go through difficult phases, bilateral and inter-regional initiatives can maintain momentum. In this regard, Russia sees clear potential for greater complementarity between South Asia and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Expanded trade flows, streamlined access for agricultural and industrial products, new transport and logistics corridors, cooperation in hydropower and energy engineering, educational and professional exchanges, as well as dialogue on digital technologies, innovation and standards—all these areas open practical opportunities for Nepal and the wider region.

Q: These days, countries like Nepal see a stiff competition of sorts between heavyweights to lead the Global South that appears to be another name for diversity. Do you think any self-proclaimed leader can truly voice concerns and do justice to the aspirations of this entity?    

The Global South is, above all, a community of diverse nations with different histories, priorities and development trajectories. It is not a bloc that can be represented by any single “leader,” nor does it require one. The idea that one country can speak on behalf of dozens of others is increasingly outdated.

What matters today is not self-proclaimed leadership, but genuine respect for sovereignty and the ability to listen rather than dictate. In this regard, the countries of the Global South, including Nepal, expect relationships based on equality, non-interference and practical solutions to shared challenges.

Russia has long adhered to these principles in its engagement with developing nations. Our approach has never been to claim leadership, but to promote multipolarity, fairness and the sovereign right of each state to determine its own path. This is why Russia is widely viewed across Asia, Africa and Latin America as a reliable and predictable partner that treats others as equals.

Q: Russia used to be the chess powerhouse in the 1990s. What is the status of the game in your country at present? Do you see any possibility of promoting chess diplomacy between our two countries?

Russia remains one of the world’s strongest chess nations, and we take great pride in this tradition. Our grandmasters continue to perform at the highest international level, and chess is deeply rooted in our educational and cultural life. The game is widely practiced in schools, clubs and regional centers. It is truly a part of our national identity.

We also appreciate that even in the world of chess, Russia and Nepal have an unexpected yet beautiful point of connection in the personality of Anish Giri, who has both Russian and Nepali heritage. His success is a reminder that chess is a bridge between cultures and that our peoples can meet each other in the most inspiring ways.

Another positive example is the visit of a large Nepali delegation of the Nepal Chess Federation, led by its President Herakaji Maharjan, to the Republic of Kalmykia (a region within Russia) in September this year. The delegation took part in the First Chess Tournament of Buddhist Countries. We were delighted to see Nepal so actively represented.

As for the future, we certainly see great potential for developing “chess diplomacy” between our two countries. Friendly tournaments, youth exchanges, training camps, master classes and participation in international competitions, all of these can strengthen not only the game, but also mutual understanding between our peoples.

And, if I may add on a personal note, it would be our dream to participate in a major chess event in Nepal—a tournament where, as always, the real winner would be friendship.