The meeting between António Guterres And Vladimir Putinthe first since 2022, took place on the sidelines of the Summit BRICS in Kazan, immediately triggering a sea of controversy. The choice of the UN Secretary General to fly to Russia, declining the invitation to the Peace Forum in Switzerland months earlier, raised eyebrows and triggered a series of criticisms, in particular from Kiev. For Ukraineit was a “bad choice” that casts shadows on the neutrality of the UN. But why so much fuss?
In his speech, Guterres made a heartfelt appeal to the leaders of the BRICSunderlining the urgency of restoring peace in some of the most troubled areas of the planet: Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine and Sudan. «We need peace on all fronts»he forcefully declared, recalling the importance of a just solution for Ukraine, based on the UN Charter and the resolutions of the General Assembly. However, not everyone was impressed by his words.
Vladimir Putinimpassive during the speech of Guterresthen responded bluntly, accusing the West of trying to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia, a goal he called “illusory.” With his usual decisive tone, Putin remarked that those who believe they can defeat Russia ignore its history and its capacity for resistance forged over the centuries.
Among the most relevant topics of the meeting, security in the Black Sea occupied a central position, given its crucial importance for global merchant traffic. Guterres he underlined how «freedom of navigation in the Black Sea is essential for the entire international community”, highlighting that disruptions in this region have already caused serious consequences, especially in the most vulnerable countries. Although both Guterres and Putin appeared to share the same concern on this point, there remained notable differences on how to effectively ensure the security of the area.
One of the most controversial aspects of the summit was the choice of Guterres to participate in the meeting with the Russian president in Kazan, after having declined the one at the Peace Forum in Switzerland, which had seen the participation of many world leaders committed to resolving the Ukrainian conflict. According to Interfax-Ukraine, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry did not hesitate to harshly criticize this choice, calling Putin a “war criminal”. In a post about X, referring to the decision of Guterres, declared: «A bad choice that damages the reputation of the UN”.
And so, Kiev cast serious doubt on the impartiality of the Secretary General, despite the explanations provided by official UN sources, who had justified his absence in Switzerland due to urgent diplomatic commitments. However, the participation of Guterres at the Kazan summit brought out further criticism, with Ukraine raising questions about the transparency and balance of its choices at a time of such great international tension.
What further inflamed the controversy was Guterres’ meeting with Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko, a close ally of Moscow in the Ukrainian conflict. This conversation has sparked new criticism of the Secretary General, accused of excessive indulgence towards leaders believed responsible for fueling the conflict. Guterreshowever, defended his choice, reiterating the importance of dialogue even with controversial leaders, insisting that respect for international law remains a priority to ensure regional stability.
There has been no shortage of attempts by the Russian media to cast further shadows on the political conduct of Guterres. Sources close to the Kremlin have insinuated that the Secretary General could in the future aspire to roles in Russian companies such as Gazprom or Rosneft. However, these rumours, interpreted as part of a disinformation campaign, were promptly denied by the UN, which reiterated the neutrality of Guterres and his commitment as an international mediator.
The BRICS Summit, with its 36 world leaders, represented a crucial platform to discuss issues of global security and economic cooperation. During his speech, Guterres urged countries to collaborate «like a big family” to address particularly delicate issues in a context of conflicts and geopolitical divisions, such as the food crisis and energy security. The Secretary General also reiterated that cooperation is the only way to overcome the challenges of our time and ensure lasting peace.
Although Guterres’ participation opened new channels of dialogue, it inevitably polarized public opinion, raising questions about his neutrality and role. This has sparked debate about the future of his diplomatic leadership and the consequences for the UN’s reputation. The paradox is that, while attempting to promote peace and international cooperation, confrontation with figures like Putin has ended up fueling criticism and suspicion. It remains to be seen whether this strategy of dialogue with “the antagonists” will strengthen the credibility of the UN or, on the contrary, further undermine its trust, at a time when the organization is already under pressure.
