trips agreement 2022

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Home   |  About WTO   |  News & events   |  Trade topics   |  WTO membership   |  Documents & resources   |  External relations

Contact us   |  Site map   |  A-Z   |  Search

español   français

Discussion on the extension of COVID-19 IP waiver

At MC12, trade ministers adopted the Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement, which gives members greater scope to take direct action to diversify production of COVID-19 vaccines and to override the exclusive effect of patents through a targeted waiver over the next five years. It addresses specific problems identified during the pandemic and aims to help diversify vaccine production capacity. It also contains a commitment that no later than six months from the date of the decision (17 June), members will decide on its possible extension to cover the production and supply of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics.

Many members took the floor to welcome the successful outcome at MC12, saying it proved that WTO members can put aside differences and work together to respond to the most urgent health challenges.

A group of developing members who support an extension of the waiver to cover COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics circulated a proposal at the meeting including an indicative timeline for the TRIPS Council's next steps in this regard.

These members argued that the waiver on COVID-19 vaccines falls short of their expectation and is not enough to help developing countries comprehensively address current and future health challenges. Equitable access to therapeutics and diagnostics, as pointed out by the World Health Organization (WHO), is critical in helping detect new cases and new variants. They said this waiver extension needs to be discussed with a sense of urgency given the fact that many least developed countries (LDCs) lack access to life-saving drugs and testing therapeutics.

Many developing countries supported the initiative. They highlighted the joint statement made by the three Director Generals of the WHO, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the WTO in June 2021 reaffirming their commitment to intensifying cooperation in support of access to medical technologies worldwide to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, including vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics. There was also a shared view that the negotiation process for the waiver extension should be open, inclusive and transparent.

Other members cautioned that more time was needed to conduct domestic consultations on a possible extension of the waiver to therapeutics and diagnostics. Some members also flagged the importance of an evidence-based negotiation as there was no evidence that intellectual property did indeed constitute a barrier to accessing COVID-19 vaccines. Some also reiterated the need for members to fully make use of all the flexibilities that already exist in the TRIPS Agreement (including compulsory licensing) before requesting new flexibilities.

The chair, Ambassador Lansana Gberie (Sierra Leone), asked members that were ready to engage to commence discussing this matter in various configurations. He encouraged members to individually report on progress to the General Council meeting on 25-26 July while some members may need more time to deliberate on the matter, he noted. The chair will inform members how best to structure discussions on this matter going forward, he added.

Members also agreed to continue exchanges under the agenda item of IP and COVID-19 so that the TRIPS Council can keep abreast of new IP measures in relation to COVID-19 and share relevant experience. The Council also decided that the Secretariat will continue compiling and updating all COVID-related IP measures in its document “ COVID-19: Measures regarding Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights ” to serve as the basis for members' exchanges.

Members noted that this exercise is also in line with the Ministerial Declaration on the WTO Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Preparedness for Future Pandemics which provides for ongoing  analysis of  lessons learned and challenges experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic within the relevant WTO bodies.

IP and innovation: IP licensing opportunities

Under an item on IP and Innovation which had been requested by Australia, Canada, the European Union, Hong Kong China, Japan, Singapore, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, the United Kingdom and the United States, the co-sponsors presented their new submission with a focus on IP licensing opportunities ( IP/C/W/691 , circulated on 23 June).

The co-sponsors highlighted several major ways owners of IP assets can secure a broader reach for their products and services through licensing agreements, which enable IP owners to allow the licensee to make or sell the invention during the licence period. This includes licensing of patents, copyright, trademarks and know-how.

The proponents shared experiences on how to apply different licensing models and build up a friendly ecosystem to foster IP trading. To overcome the knowledge gap and complexity of implementing IP licensing, these countries have developed various toolkits to provide training, online guidelines, contract templates, legal services and dispute settlement so that small businesses and individuals can effectively participate in IP partnerships.

Members welcomed the discussion on IP innovation and IP licensing, with some sharing their domestic practices. WIPO introduced its recent activities in support of IP licensing, including the establishment of an IP and innovation ecosystems sector, the work of the WIPO arbitration and mediation centre, and guidance to help start-ups develop their IP strategy.

Non-violation and situation complaints

WTO members welcomed the decision adopted at MC12 to extend the moratorium on non-violation and situation complaints (NVSCs) under the TRIPS Agreement until the next Ministerial Conference (MC13). The decision tasked members to continue examining possible scope and modalities for NVSCs and to make recommendations to MC13.

This concerns the longstanding issue of whether members should have the right to bring dispute cases to the WTO if they consider that another member's action or a specific situation has deprived them of an expected benefit under the TRIPS Agreement, even if no specific TRIPS obligation has been violated.

This moratorium was originally set to last for five years (1995–99), but it has been extended a number of times since then in the absence of agreement by members on what the scope and modalities could look like if non-violation and situation complaints were to apply to the TRIPS Agreement.

At the meeting, several developing countries suggested continuing the examination of the scope and modalities of such complaints, with the aim of making it applicable to WTO dispute settlement.  Some members backed the idea of seeking a permanent solution on this matter while others were concerned that allowing NVSC dispute complaints might jeopardize the flexibilities granted in the TRIPS Agreement.

More information on the TRIPS non-violation issue is available  here .

Technical cooperation and capacity building

WIPO briefed the meeting on the  WHO-WIPO-WTO COVID-19 Technical Assistance Platform , which offers a one-stop shop to help members and WTO accession candidates address their capacity building needs to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The chair urged members to submit information on their activities in technical cooperation and capacity building as well as incentives for technology transfer by 12 September in preparation for the end-of-year annual review. Members are encouraged to use the online submission system ( e-TRIPS ) to make submissions.

Other matters

The European Free Trade Association was granted observer status for the next Council meeting.

Next meeting

The next TRIPS Council meeting is scheduled for 12-13 October 2022.

Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.

• WHAT THEY ARE SAYING: Doug McKalip Confirmed as USTR Chief Agricultural Negotiator
• Statement from Ambassador Katherine Tai Following Doug McKalip’s Senate Confirmation Vote
• Statement from USTR Spokesperson Adam Hodge
• USTR Announces Additional Senior Staff Members
• United States Requests New USMCA Dispute Consultations on Canadian Dairy Tariff-Rate Quota Policies
• Readout of Ambassador Jayme White’s Meeting with Mexico’s Under Secretary of Economy Alejandro Encinas
• Ambassador Tai Requests USITC Investigation of COVID-19 Diagnostics and Therapeutics
• Joint Statement from Ambassador Tai and Secretary Vilsack after Meeting with Mexican Government Officials
• USTR Extends Exclusions from China Section 301 Tariffs
• Joint USTR and Department of Commerce Readout of the First Indo-Pacific Economic Framework Negotiating Round
• Statement by Ambassador Katherine Tai on the Signing of the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation for Trade and Investment Between the United States and the African Continental Free Trade Area
• Readout of Ambassador Katherine Tai and Ambassador Sarah Bianchi’s Events on Day Two of the U.S. – Africa Leaders Summit
• Readout of the African Growth and Opportunity Act Ministerial During the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit
• Readout of Ambassador Katherine Tai’s Meeting With Kenya’s Ministry of Investments, Trade and Industry, Cabinet Secretary Moses Kuria
• What They Are Saying: Ambassador Katherine Tai Confirms Amendments to the Beef Safeguard Trigger Level Under the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement
• Protocol Amending the Beef Safeguard Provisions of the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement to Enter into Force on January 1, 2023
• Readout of Ambassador Katherine Tai's Meeting with Canada's Minister of Labor Seamus O'Regan
• United States and Bangladesh Convene 6th Meeting of the U.S.-Bangladesh Trade and Investment Cooperation Forum Agreement Council
• Joint Statement on the Third Meeting of the United States – Argentina Council on Trade and Investment
• United States and Panama Hold the Third Meeting of the Environmental Affairs Council under the United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement

U.S. to Support Extension of Deadline on WTO TRIPS Ministerial Decision; Requests USITC Investigation to Provide More Data on COVID-19 Diagnostics and Therapeutics

• U.S.-EU Joint Statement of the Trade and Technology Council
• USTR, Department of Labor, European Commission Host Inaugural Principals’ Meeting of the U.S.-EU Trade and Labor Dialogue with Union, Business Leaders
• United States and European Union Conclude First Ministerial Meeting of the Large Civil Aircraft Working Group
• United States and Peru Hold Meetings of the Environmental Affairs Council and the Sub-Committee on Forest Sector Governance under the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement
• Readout of Ambassador Katherine Tai's Meeting with Mexico’s Secretary of Economy Raquel Buenrostro
• PRESS ADVISORY: Media Registration for Third U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council Ministerial Meeting
• Policy Offices
• Press Office
• Press Releases

December 06, 2022

USTR releases summary of five-month consultation on extending WTO TRIPS decision showing broad divergence of views

WASHINGTON – The Office of the United States Trade Representative today announced support for extending the deadline to decide whether there should be an extension of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement (Ministerial Decision) to cover the production and supply of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics. USTR also announced that it will ask the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) to launch an investigation into COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics and provide information on market dynamics to help inform the discussion around supply and demand, price points, the relationship between testing and treating, and production and access.

“Over the past five months, USTR officials held robust and constructive consultations with Congress, government experts, a wide range of stakeholders, multilateral institutions, and WTO Members,” said Ambassador Katherine Tai. “Real questions remain on a range of issues, and the additional time, coupled with information from the USITC, will help the world make a more informed decision on whether extending the Ministerial Decision to COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics would result in increased access to those products. Transparency is critical and USTR will continue to consult with Congress, stakeholders, and others as we continue working to end the pandemic and support the global economic recovery.”

Supporters and opponents of extending the Ministerial Decision to COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics provided extensive views and arguments. USTR officials also reviewed and analyzed published information, opinions, and analysis. In both cases, the views concern both the system as a whole – whether existing WTO intellectual property protections are an impediment to access to medicines or a critical element of innovation – as well as the specific characteristics of the markets for COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics. 

The United States respects the right of its trading partners to exercise the full range of existing flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement, such as in Articles 30, 31, and 31 bis , and the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, as well as the flexibilities in the Ministerial Decision. These existing flexibilities are available as part of the effort to scale up the production and distribution necessary to overcome the challenges of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Based on available data and public input, the USITC study will explore key issues such as:

• An overview of the products, focusing on WHO-approved COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics, including key components, the production process, intellectual property protections, and a description of the supply chain (including the level of diversification in the supply chain);  
• Information on the global manufacturing industry for these products, including information on key producing countries, major firms, and production data, if available;  
• Information on the global market for COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics, including information on demand and, to the extent practicable, an assessment of where unmet demand exists for key products and contributing factors; market segmentation; and supply accumulation and distribution;  
• Data and information on global trade in COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics, if available, or if not, data and information on global trade in diagnostics and therapeutics generally; and  
• A brief overview/background of the relevant aspects of the TRIPS Agreement and the United Nations (UN) Medicine Patent Pool (MPP) and a listing of countries seeking to use the Ministerial Decision and those utilizing access to COVID-19 medicines under the MPP.

As part of the Administration’s comprehensive effort to combat the pandemic, the United States supported negotiations that resulted in the WTO issuing the Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement on June 17, 2022. Since then, USTR officials consulted with Members of Congress and more than two dozen stakeholders, including public health advocates, organized labor, academics, think tanks, companies, and trade associations. USTR has summarized the diverse views heard during the five-month consultation period.

• 600 17th Street NW
• Washington, DC 20508

• Reports and Publications
• Fact Sheets
• Speeches and Remarks
• Blog and Op-Eds
• The White House Plan to Beat COVID-19
• Free Trade Agreements
• Organization
• Advisory Committees
• USTR.gov/open
• Privacy & Legal
• FOIA & Privacy Act
• Attorney Jobs

• Armed Conflict
• Economic Development
• Global Health
• Human Rights
• International Criminal Court
• Inter-State Arbitration
• Book Discussion
• EJIL: Live!
• EJIL: The Podcast!
• Announcements
• Contributing a Blog Post
• Contributing an Announcement

Analysis of the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference Decision on the TRIPS Agreement

The MC12 TRIPS Decision makes available a new waiver, with respect to COVID-19 vaccines, of an existing obligation contained in TRIPS Article 31(f) that states that exports under a compulsory licence must be restricted to the non-predominant part of the authorized amount. However, paragraph 9 of the Decision explicitly states that it is without prejudice to existing flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement, except with respect of paragraph 3(b) that sets out the new waiver. This means inter alia that neither Article 31(f), which still allows the non-predominant part of supply under a compulsory licence to be exported, nor Article 31 bis , which incorporates the first waivers given of Article 31(f), are superseded by this Ministerial Decision. Thus, these two options remain open, there being no restriction on products under Article 31 and pharmaceuticals, being the only products covered under Article 31 bis .     

It is unclear why instead of further simplifying Article 31 bis , WTO Members chose to add a third option through this Decision on COVID-19 vaccines. The waiver of Article 31(f) contained in this Decision is qualified and is subject to several conditions, as is the case in Article 31 bis . The analysis below will try to throw light on how the Decision differs from existing two options from the perspective of developing country Members. This blog first sets out the features of the MC12 TRIPS Decision that are favourable, or at least neutral vis-à-vis the existing options, and then details those that are less favourable or even more restrictive than the existing options. No claim is made to comprehensiveness.

Features of the MC 12 TRIPS Decision that are favourable or neutral vis-à-vis existing options for compulsory licensing under TRIPS

Alternative instruments to grant use without authorization : It has been clarified in paragraph 2 of the Decision that the “law of a Member” referred to in the chapeau of Article 31 is not limited to legal provisions on compulsory licensing, but also includes other acts, such as executive orders, emergency decrees, and judicial or administrative orders. While use of such alternative instruments may not have been ruled out in Article 31 nor Article 31 bis , this appears to have been a useful clarification for some developing country Members.

No requirement of prior authorisation of right owner : Unlike in Article 31 bis, developing country Members that use this Decision need not require the proposed user in their jurisdictions to make efforts to obtain a voluntary licence under reasonable commercial terms within a reasonable period of time as set out in Article 31(b). In practice, Members implementing Article 31bis did have the flexibility to incorporate very short periods of time to try to obtain such licences.

Notifications required but different: The notification requirements to the WTO for developing country Members that use this Decision, either as importers or as exporters, are set out in its paragraph 5 and the corresponding footnote. Unlike in Article 31 bis , both sets of Members will have to notify the name and address of the authorized entity, the products for which the authorization has been granted and the duration of the authorization. In addition, the quantities for which the authorization has been granted and the countries to which the products are to be supplied must be notified (presumably by the exporting Member) as soon as possible after the information is available.  However, unlike in Article 31 bis , importing country Members do not have to notify their intention to be importing Members, nor self-declare (if they are not least developed country Members) that they do not have manufacturing capacity to make these vaccines themselves.

No distinctive marking for exported COVID-19 vaccines: An important difference with Article 31 bis is that exporting developing country Members do not have to require exporters to specifically label or mark their products to distinguish them from originator products. Perhaps, this requirement was removed since there is now an absolute requirement on importing Members to prevent re-exportation (see below). Consequently, exporting country Members do not have to notify the WTO of the distinguishing features of their labelling and marking of COVID-19 vaccines. Since all manufacturers do have to mark and label their exports, the advantage gained may be debatable.  

Features of the MC12 TRIPS Decision that are less favourable vis-à-vis existing options to export under a compulsory licence under TRIPS

Use limited to developing country Members : Unlike in Article 31 and Article 31 bis , only developing country Members of the WTO are eligible to use the Decision either as an importing or as an exporting Member. Indeed, developing country Members with existing capacity are encouraged in footnote 1 of the Decision to make a binding commitment not to avail themselves of the Decision. China’s statement in the General Council meeting on 10 May 2022 is taken as one such binding commitment. The reasoning behind this restriction – whether realistic or not – appears to be that since the goal of the proponents of the original waiver proposal (in IP/C/W/669 and its revision) was to encourage local manufacture in developing countries, the Decision should be used more by those that do not currently have manufacturing and export capacity for COVID-19 vaccines. The goal under Article 31 bis differed – it was to supply generic medicines under export compulsory licences to Member countries that lacked manufacturing capacity, irrespective of where these were manufactured.

Stricter obligation on re-exportation : Those developing country Members that do import under this Decision have a binding obligation to undertake all reasonable efforts to prevent the re-exportation of the products manufactured under this Decision. The Decision allows in footnote 3 that, “in exceptional circumstances”, such an importing Member may re-export COVID-19 vaccines to another developing country Member for humanitarian and not-for-profit purposes, as long as such transactions are notified to the TRIPS Council. In contrast, in the terms set out in in paragraph 3 of the Annex to the TRIPS Agreement, this same obligation was heavily negotiated and is qualified. Here importing Members are only obliged to take measures to prevent re-exportation when such measures are 1) reasonable, 2) within their means, 3) proportionate to their administrative capacities, and 4) proportionate to the risk of trade diversion.

No double remuneration exemption: Compulsory licences – whether issued in the exporting or importing country Members – are subject to adequate remuneration under Article 31(h). However, unlike paragraph 2 of Article 31 bis , which exempts the importing Member from paying remuneration once it has already been paid in the exporting country for the same products and quantities, this Decision makes no mention of this “no double remuneration” clause. This means that those importing developing country Members that use this Decision to import COVID-19 vaccines under a compulsory licence are not explicitly exempted under it from paying adequate remuneration, unlike under Article 31 bis . Since importing Members have to change domestic laws to be exempt from paying patent owners, legal certainty on this point is important.

New standard for remuneration: Deviating from language used in Article 31 bis where remuneration has to be based on the economic value of the authorisation to the importing Member, this Decision makes it optional to take into the account the humanitarian and not-for-profit purpose of the specific vaccine distribution programs aimed at “providing equitable access to COVID-19 vaccines in order to support manufacturers in eligible Members to produce and supply these vaccines at affordable prices for eligible Members.” (Emphasis added).  Thus, a new standard of requiring a humanitarian, not-for-profit royalty rate, which results in both supporting local production in exporting developing countries as well as affordable prices in importing developing countries, is set in this Decision. It is unclear why footnote 4 was added since the paper referred to therein does not explain how such a balance could be found.

Ambiguity on test and other data protection : Paragraph 4 of the Decision states – as if it is a fact – that it is understood that TRIPS Article 39.3 does not prevent a developing country Member from enabling rapid approval for use of a Covid-19 vaccine produced under this Decision. Article 39.3 in TRIPS itself does not mandate regulatory data exclusivity and allows such data to be disclosed in public interest. Article 31 and Article 31 bis are silent about the relationship between the test data and compulsory licence provisions, giving Members the freedom to suspend any data exclusivity provisions in place to benefit the compulsory licensee. In any case, those Members that have introduced regulatory data exclusivity, pursuant to bilateral/plurilateral Free Trade Agreements, may have less flexibility unless those commitments are amended separately.

No special waiver for Regional Trade Agreements with majority LDC membership: Unlike the provision in paragraph 3 of Article 31 bis that was aimed at benefiting African countries in that they need not notify the WTO of use if it was within a RTA with majority membership of least developed countries, there is no corresponding provision in this Decision. This second waiver of Article 31(f) has never been used but was seen as valuable in those negotiations.

Limited duration of the Decision : Unlike in Article 31 or Article 31 bis where there are no time limits, developing country Members can issue authorisations under this Decision for a period of five years from the date of adoption of this Decision. This period could be extended by the General Council taking into account the “exceptional circumstances” of COVID-19 at that time. Presumably, a limited waiver was warranted for a time-limited pandemic. Even the proponents of the original waiver sought the duration of three years in IP/C/W/669/Rev.1, albeit for a much broader waiver of several TRIPS provisions. However, it is unclear whether the authorisations already issued by this date to private companies/third parties could continue to be valid beyond this date as there appears to be no time limit laid down for such authorisations, other than the logical limit up to patent expiry, just as in the case of Article 31 (except a generic requirement to rescind these once the purpose is met) or in Article 31 bis .

To conclude, this Decision includes provisions that, on the one hand, facilitate use without the authorisation of the right holder for the export/import of COVID-19 vaccines and, on the other hand, either includes those that are stricter or cause more legal uncertainty than the existing provisions, or ignores several existing provisions in Article 31 bis that are favourable for developing countries.  Thus, it is legitimate to question whether, on balance, this Decision makes the terms and conditions of waiving Article 31(f) more or less favourable for developing country Members for the export and import of COVID-19 vaccines than those already available inter alia under Article 31(f) and 31 bis . Since these existing legal avenues for export under a compulsory licence remain open, it remains to be seen if the Decision will be acted upon by developing country Members. However, the clarification of points of legal uncertainty may need to be borne in mind when WTO negotiations, which are to be concluded within six months, begin on the inclusion of COVID-19-related diagnostics and therapeutics.

Share this:

• EJIL Analysis

No tags available

Leave a Comment

Comments for this post are closed

Jerome Reichman says

July 9, 2022

Very helpful . Well done, best wishes, Jerry Reichman

Jayashree Watal says

July 12, 2022

Thanks Jerry - am glad you found it helpful. Warmly, Jayashree

Fernando dos Santos says

July 14, 2022

Many thanks for this analysis Prof. I am indeed trying to write something on the added value of this Decision. This gave me some insights. Fernando dos Santos

The June 17, 2022 WTO Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement

Updated Friday, 17 June 2022, 11:30 AM Geneva time.

Early Friday morning, 17 June 2022, the WTO’s 12th Ministerial Conference (chaired by Timur Suleymenov, Kazakshstan), adopted a Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement (WT/MIN(22)/W/15/Rev.2). The text can be found here .

There were several changes since the June 10 version. The agreement is a limited and disappointing outcome overall that is most accurately described as a narrow and temporary exception to an export restriction, not a waiver.

The Clarifications

There are several so called clarifications in the text on topics, which restate the existing flexibility in TRIPS, sometimes at the risk here of making the provisions seem exceptional, although some developing countries have welcomed them. Among the clarifications, none of which add new legal benefits, are paragraphs 2, 3(a) and 4 of the agreement. The Clarification offered on Article 39.3 of the TRIPS is somewhat helpful, but essentially restates the existing safeguard already part of 39.3. The clarification on paragraph 3(d) and footnote 4 on remuneration do not change TRIPS standards, but will be helpful in national settings, including by the fact that the WTO Ministerial Decision is citing “the Remuneration Guidelines for Non-Voluntary Use of a Patent on Medical Technologies published by the WHO (WHO/TCM/2005.1).” (I am the author of that document).

The TRIPS restriction on exports under Article 31

The TRIPS agreement contains 73 Articles describing various obligations on WTO members as regards the granting and enforcement of intellectual property rights.The original waiver proposal would have provided a clean waiver of 40 Articles in the TRIPS, as regards the manufacturing and supply of any COVID 19 countermeasure. The new considerably scaled back agreement focuses on just one part of the agreement, the 20 word paragraph 31.f which limits exports made under a non-voluntary authorization, often referred to as a compulsory license. The text reads.

(f) any such use shall be authorized predominantly for the supply of the domestic market of the Member authorizing such use;

Article 31.f of the TRIPS is controversial, and often considered an embarrassment to the WTO, because it is designed to limit the economies of scale for products manufactured under a compulsory license, and it also has a very differential impact on countries depending upon their size. For big economies like the U.S., China, India or to some extent Brazil, the impact is less severe than would be for a country like Chile, Ecuador, Portugal, New Zealand, or Thailand, but for every country, it is an odd provision for an organization created to liberalize trade and exploit comparative advantages.

The original TRIPS agreement contains several important workarounds from the 31.f restrictions on exports. Most obviously, Article 31.k of TRIPS waives 31.f, when a compulsory license is a remedy to an anti-competitive practice, which can include, among other grounds, a finding that prices are excessive, or that a patent holder refuses to license a technology on reasonable terms, or that the patented invention is an essential facility, all highly relevant grounds for a vaccine compulsory license.

There is also the possibility to export under Article 30 of the TRIPS, if an exception passes a three step test. The Article 30 approach was strongly supported by health NGOs, generic manufacturers, the World Health Organization (WHO), and several countries in the 2002.2003 negotiations over this issue, and even tested in a 2000 WTO TRIPS dispute case ( DS114 ) relating to the early working of patented inventions, but opposed by the European Union, which favored what is now Article 31bis of the TRIPS.

Arguably the best way to address the export issue is found in the enforcement section of the TRIPS. Under Article 44 of TRIPS, a government or a judicial authority can limit the remedies to infringement to the payment of royalties, including cases where 100 percent of manufacturing output is exported.

In terms of state practice, the Articles 31.k and 44 approaches are the most widely used, by far. (More on the export alternatives here .)

Article 31bis

Article 31bis of the TRIPS was initially adopted by the WTO General Council on August 30, 2003, as an optional waiver of Article 31.f. The core elements of 31 bis are notifications to the WTO, anti-diversion measures, restrictions on eligibility and scope.

31bis applies to drugs, vaccines and some diagnostic tests. It is permanent. It applies to all diseases. 31bis limits the members that can benefit as importers.

In the 19 years since its adoption, the 31bis mechanism has been successfully used only once, by Apotex in Canada for an export of an HIV drug to Rwanda, working with MSF. Apotex indicated it would never attempt to use the mechanism again, giving the complexity and delays they experienced. The Article 31bis mechanism is implemented through national laws, and much of the problems Apotex faced were due to Canadian law and the Canadian government administration of the statute. Few countries have bothered to implement Article 31bis in national statutes, but among those that have, the statutes in India and China offer far more streamlined approaches. India’s version is Section 92a of the patents act, titled “Compulsory licence for export of patented pharmaceutical products in certain exceptional circumstances.” The first two paragraphs in Section 92A of the India patents act read as follows:

(1) Compulsory licence shall be available for manufacture and export of patented pharmaceutical products to any country having insufficient or no manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector for the concerned product to address public health problems, provided compulsory licence has been granted by such country or such country has, by notification or otherwise, allowed importation of the patented pharmaceutical products from India. (2) The Controller shall, on receipt of an application in the prescribed manner, grant a compulsory licence solely for manufacture and export of the concerned pharmaceutical product to such country under such terms and conditions as may be specified and published by him.

To date, the India statute has not been tested, but pending compulsory licenses for COVID therapeutics in Latin America may provide timely tests, if any of the cases succeed in the Latin American county.

It is important to note that Article 31bis of the TRIPS is very long, including an Article 31bis, an “Annex to the TRIPS” and and “Appendix to the Annex to the TRIPS Agreement.” The WTO analytical index for 31bis is more than five pages single spaced.

Article 31bis notifications

The Article 31bis notifications requirements are seen as a significant problem, in part because governments have to make notifications to the WTO before the exports take place, and also that the notifications involve quantities, even in cases where the importing country is not certainly how many units to purchase, or when the government is not the sole market for the product.

Governments around the world often see the use of compulsory licensing of patented inventions as politically sensitive, inviting considerable pressure from the United States, the European Union and several of its members and Switzerland. WTO notifications on the prior use of a compulsory license will typically involve several ministers or agency heads, including those working on trade, foreign affairs, health and intellectual property rights, if not heads of state. 31bis requires such notifications from both importing and exporting countries. By, as a practical matter, involving trade and foreign affairs officials, there is a greater opportunity for bilateral pressures to block actions. KEI has worked on multiple cases where importing countries were not willing to make a notification as potential importers without having a committed supplier, and the suppliers could not get their governments to make a notification regarding exporting, without the importing country having made its notifications. All of this has to be repeated for each authorization, which includes specifications of qualities and designations. These were the Rwanda and Bolivia notifications as importers, the only two received by the WTO in 19 years. ( Bolivia , Rwanda ), and Canada as an exporter, the one time an export was actually approved under the 31bis mechanism. ( Canada )

Article 31bis anti-diversion obligations Article 31bis does contain several sections regarding the obligations on importing and exporting countries to prevent the re-exportation of the products. Governments are not sure how burdensome the obligations are in practice, but they do go beyond the obligations included in the pre-31bis TRIPS text, and seem to be conflict with Articles 6 of the TRIPS on the exhaustion of rights. They may also increase the costs to the supplier if they cannot re-export unused products when the forecast demand is not met in one country.

The new Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement

The new Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement provides an exception to 31.f export restrictions that is temporary, applies only to vaccines and only to COVID 19, limits which countries and import or export, and contains notification and anti-diversion oblations.

Eligibility for importers and exporters

As noted, Article 31bis provides no limits on which countries can use the exception as exporters, but does limit the eligible importing countries. The 31bis limits on importing eligibility is implemented through an opt-out process, and countries were allowed to opt out as importers in general (37 members have done so, see open letter of April 7, 2020 ), or to declare they would only use the mechanism in emergencies.

The new Ministerial Decision on TRIPS defines eligibility for both importing and exporting in footnote 1:

For the purpose of this Decision, all developing country Members are eligible Members. Developing country Members with existing capacity to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines are encouraged to make a binding commitment not to avail themselves of this Decision. Such binding commitments include statements made by eligible Members to the General Council, such as those made at the General Council meeting on 10 May 2022, and will be recorded by the Council for TRIPS and will be compiled and published publicly on the WTO website.

While the opt-out language on eligibility is similar to the approach taken in the August 30, 2003 waiver of Article 31.f of the TRIPS, which is now part of TRIPS as 31 bis , there is an important difference. The new agreement limits the countries eligible to import or export.

There is an expectation that all non-developing countries with the current ability to manufacture and export vaccines will opt out. The status of China seems to be addressed in the reference to the May 10 meeting of the General Council, where China expressed willingness to opt out. This is in some ways an astonishing result. The WTO will continue to enforce export restrictions on vaccines from most of the leading vaccine manufacturing countries including many with sophisticated technology. At an NGO briefing during the negotiations, WTO DG Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala seemed to justify this outcome on the grounds that it would be desirable protectionism to achieve the objective of promoting vaccine manufacturing capacity in Africa and other developing countries.

Notifications

The new Decision had marginally less problematic notifications, the most notable improvement is that notifications can be made “as soon as possible after the information is available,” and while it is not exactly clear how different the requirement is, it does seem like an improvement from 31bis.

Anti-diversion

On the anti-diversion language, the new Decision has one notable but perhaps narrow improvement over 31bis, stating that “in exceptional circumstances, an eligible Member may re-export COVID-19 vaccines to another eligible Member for humanitarian and not-for-profit purposes, as long as the eligible Member communicates in accordance with paragraph 5.” NGOs such as TWN have pointed of that the Ministerial Decisions begins by “Noting the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic,” so hard to say how to interpret the “in exceptional circumstances” language here.

The time period is 5 years, which severely limits its usefulness. Paragraph 5 states:

An eligible Member may apply the provisions of this Decision until 5 years from the date of this Decision. The General Council may extend such a period taking into consideration the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic. The General Council will review annually the operation of this Decision.

The exception to the export restrictions will only last 5 years. There are currently no developing country vaccines manufactured under a compulsory license. Moderna is operating under a compulsory license from the United States, but the US will not be an eligible exporter. For the Ministerial Decision to have any use for vaccines, a developing country would have to issue a compulsory license on a vaccine or vaccine input, obtain regulatory approval for that vaccine, and export more than 50 percent of output. Under optimistic scenarios, it could take 2 to 3 years to bring a new COVID vaccine into the market, given the increasing challenges in obtaining regulatory approval not that emergency use authorizations have already been used for multiple vaccines. And that would only give the developer, if they began work today, a few years of sales under the exception. For this reason alone, the Indian government has predicted the Ministerial Decision would not lead to any new vaccine manufacturing. ( June 14, 2022, Statement by Shri Piyush Goyal during the WTO 12th Ministerial Conference at the meeting with co-sponsors of TRIPS Waiver )

“Second, with great difficulty we got the period of 5 years. But, we all know that by the time we get an investor, get funds raised, draw plans, get equipment and set up a plant, it will probably take 2.5-3 years to do that. After that, you will start producing and within 2 years, you will have to bring down your exports to the normal compulsory license level and your capacity will remain idle.”

The Ministerial Decision text will be tied with 31 bis as one of the worst ways to allow exports under a compulsory license. Articles 31.k, 30 and 40 all will dominate. (More on the alternatives here ).

The big pharma industry can be pleased with the precedents on notifications and anti-diversion, which are important to them, as well as the exclusion of most vaccine manufacturers and the 5 year duration.

It is hard to imagine anything with fewer benefits than this, as a response to a global health emergency (other than the earlier negotiating texts for this Decision). The fact that the exception is limited to vaccines, has a five year duration and does not address WTO rules on trade secrets makes it particularly unlikely to provide expanded access to COVID 19 countermeasures.

The pressure this week was to reach consensus in order to make multilateralism look like it works, which seems to have been the main justification for producing this decision.

Silver linings While the text is not expected to impact COVID 19 vaccine equity much or at all, there are some silver linings.

1. In terms of precedents going forward, the texts of notifications and anti-diversion are both much shorter and more usable than 31bis. 2. There is no 31bis requirement to limit imports to countries with no or insufficient manufacturing capacity, a sometimes ambiguous standard oddly unconnected to economic feasibility. 3. The fact that the Decision cites “the Remuneration Guidelines for Non-Voluntary Use of a Patent on Medical Technologies published by the WHO (WHO/TCM/2005.1)” will be useful in national settings. 4. If the decision is extended to therapeutics in six months, it may be much more value, given the supply constraints on therapeutics and the much better regulatory pathway. For therapeutics, even the language on 39.3 will be useful for some countries. 5. It’s not a TRIPS waiver, it’s a useful edit of some problematic elements of 31bis. But it also turns attention back to national governments to do things, and not wait on the WTO.

James Love Twitter: @jamie_love

• Access to Knowledge
• Access to Medicine
• Competition
• Government Funded research
• Intellectual Property Rights
• Legislation
• Negotiations
• Nuclear Proliferation
• Orphan Drugs
• Presentations
• Public Goods
• Research and Development
• Site Articles
• Transparency

VIEWPOINT Protecting Public Health through Technology Transfer: The Unfulfilled Promise of the TRIPS Agreement

Volume 24/2, December 2022, pp. 211-214 |  PDF

Ellen ‘t Hoen

The scrambling for access to COVID-19 vaccines by developing countries has reignited the debate on the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and its effects on public health and health-related rights.

In such debates, the TRIPS Agreement is often cast as “the big evil.” There is no denying that when the TRIPS Agreement was adopted in 1995, it ushered in intellectual property (IP) norms and standards derived from wealthy nations with robust industries. These norms and standards were suitable to expand the global protection of the IP assets of these industries. However, TRIPS was ill-suited to the needs of developing and least-developed nations, representing the majority of the WTO’s membership. In 2002, the World Bank estimated that the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developing countries would amount to more than US$20 billion in income transfers from developing countries to technology-creating nations—particularly the United States, Germany, and France. [1] The promised trade-off from the TRIPS Agreement was that the higher levels of IP protection would lead to technology transfers from high-income to lower-income countries and that the benefits of this technology transfer, creating research and industrial activities in lower-income countries, would outweigh the cost of expanded levels of IP protection. Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement stipulates that high-income countries “shall provide incentives to enterprises and institutions in their territories for the purpose of promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least-developed country Members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base.”

Disputes around access to HIV medicines in the late nineties and early 2000 first called the TRIPS promise into question: medicines were accessible in wealthy countries, but IP protection meant that treatment prices were often several times the per capita income if they were available at all in the lower-income countries hardest hit by the disease. It was not until patent barriers were cleared away that low-cost generic medicines became widely available where they were needed most. More recently, the unsuccessful attempts by vaccine producers—most of them in developing countries—to access the intellectual property, manufacturing know-how, and technology needed to produce COVID-19 vaccines may have confirmed the view that the TRIPS Agreement primarily serves the rich to the detriment of the poor. [2]

The right to health, including access to medicines and vaccines, is firmly rooted in international human rights law and some domestic constitutional law. [3] However, this right is hard to realize and enforce when medicines and vaccines are predominantly available from private corporations that hold monopoly rights to those products. As a result, those companies determine when, where, and at what price the products are made available.

While this is the reality of today, the stated objective of the TRIPS Agreement in fact focuses on creating societal benefits for all and supporting the transfer of technologies. In particular, articles 7 and 8, which lay out the objectives and principles of the TRIPS Agreement, deserve more attention.

Article 7 acknowledges that the protection and enforcement of IP should benefit society as a whole, not only rights holders. It describes the IP system as a social policy tool rather than a means to gather and hold on to assets. It refers explicitly to technology transfer and dissemination of technology. Article 8 acknowledges countries’ rights to take measures to protect the public interest and specifically public health. It further states that measures may be needed to prevent abuse by IP holders and to prevent practices that restrain trade or adversely affect technology transfer.

The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, adopted by the WTO Ministerial Conference in 2001, confirmed this right and spotlighted compulsory licensing (the authorization to use patents without the consent of the patent holder against an adequate remuneration) to ensure access to medicines for all, further strengthening the hand of governments to intervene when patents are a barrier to accessing medical products. [4]

While TRIPS articles 7 and 8 and the Doha Declaration do not explicitly refer to human rights, they are crucial provisions for the realization of the right to health. [5] For example, the Doha Declaration states that the TRIPS Agreement “can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members’ right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.” This paragraph echoes article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which requires that states take steps necessary for the full realization of the right to health. The importance of taking the Doha Declaration into account when interpreting the TRIPS Agreement was confirmed by a WTO panel in the Australia – Tobacco Plain Packaging case. [6] This ruling offered important encouragement for pro-public health interpretation and implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.

The TRIPS Agreement provides ample scope for WTO members to intervene in private IP rights on public interest grounds, to protect public health, or to respond to an emergency in international relations such as a pandemic. [7]

In the past, countries have resorted to compulsory licensing, including government use of patents, to allow the supply of generic antiretroviral medicines for the treatment of HIV. Since 2001, the TRIPS Flexibilities Database—a resource that tracks when TRIPS flexibilities are proposed or executed—has documented 80 instances of compulsory licensing for public health in 43 countries. [8] Thirty-four least-developed country (LDC) members of the WTO have used the special provision for LDCs that allows them not to grant or enforce pharmaceutical product patents. [9] The WTO has 35 LDC members.

In 2021, all of the 10 new instances of compulsory licenses concerned products to prevent or treat COVID-19. This underlines the value of being able to get around IP protection when public health is at risk. Of course, compulsory measures come into play only when voluntary measures are not sufficient, which was the case for COVID-19 vaccines. Collaboration with the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, a voluntary mechanism for sharing IP related to pandemic countermeasures established in May 2020, was rejected by COVID-19 vaccine companies.

Compulsory licensing is also at the core of the WTO Ministerial Decision of June 17, 2022, on the TRIPS Agreement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, often referred to as “the TRIPS waiver.” [10] The decision reiterates members’ rights to authorize the use of the subject matter of patents needed for the production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines, without the consent of the patent holder. The decision further waives the TRIPS requirement that a compulsory license of vaccine technology be predominantly for the supply of the domestic market, so that equitable access can be achieved across countries. But since compulsory licensing extends only to patents and not to other forms of IP that are essential in vaccine production, such as manufacturing know-how, the utility of the decision for vaccines will likely be limited. Discussions are now ongoing at the WTO to extend the decision to COVID-19 therapeutics and diagnostics, which are more suitable technologies for compulsory licensing.

Tension between protecting IP and protecting the human right to health remains. The COVID-19 pandemic and the inability of developing-country manufacturers to obtain IP, know-how, and technology needed to produce COVID-19 vaccines through voluntary measures illustrates the need for a more forceful implementation of the measures the TRIPS Agreement offers to rebalance IP and human rights. If vaccine companies had agreed to collaborate with the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool to share IP, provide manufacturing know-how, regulatory information needed to obtain marketing authorization, and technical assistance, eligible producers in various countries would have been able to start producing and supplying COVID-19 vaccines. Instead, vaccines were first supplied within the wealthy nations that held the technology to produce them. The subsequent hoarding of vaccines by those nations might have cost a million lives. [11]

In 2015, the then United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon established the High-Level Panel on Innovation and Access to Health Technologies to “review and assess proposals and recommend solutions for remedying the policy incoherence between the justifiable rights of inventors, international human rights law, trade rules and public health in the context of health technologies.” [12] The eight recommendations of the panel regarding the protection of intellectual property center around the use of TRIPS flexibilities, which can be implemented within the current TRIPS framework. However, the panel also warned against the pursuit of stricter levels of IP protection in bilateral and regional trade talks. Specifically, the panel recommended that countries refrain from demanding that their trading partners implement IP obligations that go beyond TRIPS. The recently leaked draft IP chapter of the UK-India free trade agreement is evidence that high-income countries continue to seek to erode TRIPS flexibilities implemented in national law. [13] The lack of transparency around such trade negotiations means that democratically crafted national legislation is changed in closed-door trade negotiations. Considering the important role of the Indian pharmaceutical industry in the supply of low-cost medicines, applying stricter IP rules that are not required under WTO law will have consequences far beyond India alone.

The panel further recommended that public financing for research should require that the research results be shared and that IP be licensed, including through patent pools, to promote technology transfer and enable broad access to innovations.

The pandemic treaty that is currently being negotiated at the World Health Organization is an opportunity to remind the international community about the objectives and principles underlying the TRIPS Agreement and to see them put into practice for more equitable management and sharing of IP, know-how, and knowledge needed for pandemic preparedness and response. In October 2021, Medicines Law & Policy held an expert working group meeting that formulated seven recommendations for the pandemic treaty that are consistent with international human rights law. [14] One of the recommendations is to mandate technology transfer for government-funded research and to incentivize or mandate it for privately funded research on pandemic countermeasures.

The lack of equity in access to COVID-19 vaccines makes us wonder what would have happened if governments had taken measures to ensure the sharing of health innovations and the knowledge needed to make them. The World Health Organization’s pandemic treaty negotiations offer a new opportunity to put technology transfer and sharing of IP at the heart of global pandemic preparedness and response for more equitable and rights-based access to medicines for all.

Ellen ‘t Hoen, PhD, is a lawyer and public health advocate with a focus on pharmaceutical and intellectual property policies, and director of Medicines Law & Policy, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Please address correspondence to the author. Email: [email protected].

Competing interests: None declared.

Copyright © 2022 ‘t Hoen. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original authors and source are credited.

[1] World Bank, Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries (Washington, DC: World Bank, 2001) .

[2] G. Krikorian and E. Torreele, “We Cannot Win the Access to Medicines Struggle Using the Same Thinking That Causes the Chronic Access Crisis,” Health and Human Rights Journal 23/1 (2021).

[3] L. Forman, “‘Rights’ and Wrongs: What Utility for the Right to Health in Reforming Trade Rules on Medicines?,” Health and Human Rights Journal 10 (2008); K. Perehudoff, B. Toebes, and H. Hogerzeil, “Essential Medicines in National Constitutions: Progress since 2008,” Health and Human Rights Journal 18/1 (2016).

[4] Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference, Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2 (2001); E. ‘t Hoen, “TRIPS, Pharmaceutical Patents, and Access to Essential Medicines: A Long Way from Seattle to Doha,” Chicago Journal of International Law 3 (2002).

[5] C. Correa, “Interpreting the Flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement,” South Centre Research Paper 132 (2021).

[6] T. Romero, “Public Health and Plain Packaging of Tobacco: An Intellectual Property Perspective,” South Centre Research Paper 108 (2020).

[7] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1C, 1896 U.N.T.S. 299 (1994), arts. 27, 30, 31, 31bis, 44.2, 66, 73(b)iii; South Centre, “A Public Health Approach to Intellectual Property Rights: Public Health Related Flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement,” https://ipaccessmeds.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Public-Health-Related-Flexibilities-in-the-TRIPS-Agreement.pdf; F. Abbott, “The TRIPS Agreement Article 73 Security Exceptions and the COVID-19 Pandemic,” South Centre Research Paper 116 (2020).

[8] Medicines Law & Policy, “The TRIPS Flexibilities Database, http://tripsflexibilities.medicineslawandpolicy.org; E. ‘t Hoen, J. Veraldi, B. Toebes, and H. Hogerzeil, “Medicine Procurement and the Use of Flexibilities in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 2001–2016,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization 96/3 (2018).

[9] Fourth WTO Ministerial Conference (see note 4), para. 7.

[10] World Trade Organization, Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement (June 17, 2022).

[11] H. Ledford, “Covid Vaccine Hoarding Might Have Cost More Than a Million Lives,” Nature (November 2, 2022).

[12] United Nations, Report of the United Nations Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines: Promoting Innovation and Access to Health Technologies (New York: United Nations, 2016).

[13] Bilaterals.org, “UK-India FTA: Draft Intellectual Property Chapter” (April 2022), https://www.bilaterals.org/IMG/pdf/uk-india_fta_ip_chapter_dated_april_2022_68_.pdf.

[14] K. Perehudoff, E. ‘t Hoen, K. Mara, et al., “A Pandemic Treaty for Equitable Global Access to Medical Countermeasures: Seven Recommendations for Sharing Intellectual Property, Know-How and Technology,” BMJ Global Health 7/7 (2022).

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy walk in Kyiv on April 9, 2022. (Photo: Ukrainian Presidency/Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Boris Johnson Pressured Zelenskyy to Ditch Peace Talks With Russia: Ukrainian Paper

"the british government has become an obstacle to peace in ukraine," said the stop the war coalition. "the conflict there is developing into a proxy war between russia and nato and it is the ukrainian people who will suffer the consequences.".

The Ukrainian news outlet Ukrayinska Pravda reported Thursday that British Prime Minister Boris Johnson used his surprise visit to Kyiv last month to pressure President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to cut off peace negotiations with Russia, even after the two sides appeared to have made tenuous progress toward a settlement to end the war.

Citing unnamed sources from Zelenskyy's "inner circle" and advisory team, Pravda reported that "Johnson brought two simple messages to Kyiv":

"The first is that Putin is a war criminal; he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they are not. We can sign [an agreement] with you [Ukraine], but not with him. Anyway, he will screw everyone over," is how one of Zelenskyy's close associates summed up the essence of Johnson's visit... Johnson's position was that the collective West, which back in February had suggested Zelenskyy should surrender and flee, now felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined. Moreover, there is a chance to "press" him. And the West wants to use it.

In public remarks during his trip, Johnson vowed that the U.K.--in line with the U.S., Germany, and other western powers--would continue ramping up its "military and economic support and convening a global alliance to bring this tragedy to an end, and ensure Ukraine survives and thrives as a free and sovereign nation."

"I made clear today that the United Kingdom stands unwaveringly with them in this ongoing fight," the right-wing British leader said, "and we are in it for the long run."

In the weeks ahead of Johnson's April 9 visit, high-level diplomatic talks held in Belarus and Turkey had failed to yield a diplomatic breakthrough, though reports in mid-March indicated that Russian and Ukrainian delegations "made significant progress" toward a 15-point peace deal that would involve Ukraine renouncing its NATO ambitions in exchange for the withdrawal of Moscow's troops.

But the talks have since been at a standstill as Russia continues its devastating and illegal assault.

On April 12, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that the peace negotiations had reached a "dead end." And while Zelenskyy demanded a face-to-face meeting with Putin in late March, one of the Ukrainian president's advisers said in a radio interview last month that "this is still not the time for negotiations between the two presidents."

"A little later, probably, it will [happen]," said Mykhailo Podoliak. "But we want Ukraine's position in these negotiations to be very, very strong."

Johnson, too, has publicly dismissed the prospect of an imminent diplomatic resolution to the conflict. Speaking to reporters on April 20, the British prime minister said that negotiating with Putin was like dealing with "a crocodile when it's got your leg in its jaws."

"It is very hard to see how the Ukrainians can negotiate with Putin now given his manifest lack of good faith," Johnson said. "His strategy, which is evident, is to try to engulf and capture as much of Ukraine as he can and perhaps to have some sort of negotiation from a position of strength."

It's not clear how Zelenskyy himself responded to Johnson's reported push to halt peace talks. On the same day of the British prime minister's arrival in Kyiv, Zelenskyy told the Associated Press in an interview that "no one wants to negotiate with a person or people who tortured this nation."

"It's all understandable," he continued. "And as a man, as a father, I understand this very well."

But, Zelenskyy added, "we don't want to lose opportunities, if we have them, for a diplomatic solution."

On Friday, Zelenskyy said in a virtual address to the British think tank Chatham House that "not all the bridges" to a peaceful settlement with Russia "are destroyed."

Related Content

Anti-War Voices Say More Diplomacy--Not 'Weapons, Weapons, Weapons'--Needed in Ukraine

Jake Johnson

Pravda 's reporting, along with the public statements of Johnson and other western leaders, heightened longstanding concerns that global powers are actively dashing the chances of a diplomatic resolution to Russia's war, which has killed thousands of civilians and sparked a humanitarian crisis with global implications.

"The British government has become an obstacle to peace in Ukraine by encouraging the continuation of the war through huge arms shipments and incendiary rhetoric," Lindsey German, convenor of the U.K.-based Stop the War Coalition, said in a statement Friday. "The conflict there is developing into a proxy war between Russia and NATO and it is the Ukrainian people who will suffer the consequences."

"We're campaigning for an immediate ceasefire and a negotiated settlement--anything less risks an escalating conflict with unfathomable consequences," German added.

Russia's invasion is now in its third month as Moscow focuses its assault on eastern Ukraine and Ukrainian forces heavily armed with western weapons look to drive Russian troops out of key cities.

"Ukrainian soldiers went on the offensive against Russian forces in northeast Ukraine on Friday... as the grueling battle for control over territory in the east increasingly turns into a brutal war of attrition, with neither side able to score a major breakthrough in the fighting," the New York Times reported . "Ukraine's assertion that it was shifting to offensive actions in part of the country came as more sophisticated weapons and long-range artillery provided by Western allies were flowing to the front, allowing Ukraine to take more aggressive action."

Last week, as Common Dreams reported, U.S. Pentagon Secretary Lloyd Austin said that the Biden administration's objective in arming Ukrainian forces is to "see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine."

Foreign policy analysts and peace advocates perceived Austin's remarks as another troubling indication that the U.S. is committed to a long-term proxy war with Russia, one that could risk direct confrontation between the two nuclear-armed powers.

"If the claim from inside President Zelenskyy's team as reported by Ukrainian media is true... it would not be inconsistent with recent U.S. actions," Phyllis Bennis, director of the New Internationalism Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, told Common Dreams in an email on Friday. "U.S. actions have made clear that Washington's priority is to weaken Russia, not protect Ukrainians."

Citing unnamed U.S. officials, the Times reported Wednesday that in addition to billions of dollars worth of advanced weaponry, the Biden administration has provided Ukraine with "intelligence about Russian units that has allowed Ukrainians to target and kill many of the Russian generals who have died in action in the Ukraine war."

The Pentagon denied the report, though agency spokesperson John Kirby acknowledged the U.S. military has provided some level of intelligence to the Ukrainians and would continue to do so.

Anatol Lieven, a senior research fellow on Russia and Europe at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, warned in a column on Thursday that "giving Ukraine intel on Russian generals is a risky gamble."

"The Biden administration and the U.S. establishment need to ask themselves just one question: If the position were reversed, how would the United States react to a third country deliberately helping to kill U.S. commanders?" Lieven wrote. "The Biden administration must move immediately to assure Russia that U.S. strategy is to help defend Ukraine, but not to impose a complete defeat on Russia and use this to weaken or destroy the Russian state."

"The first step," Lieven argued, "should be for Washington to declare publicly that it supports a diplomatic solution to the issues of the status of Crimea and the Donbas, and that if Russia will cease its offensive in Ukraine and agree to a ceasefire, the United States will respect that ceasefire."

This story has been updated to include comment from Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies.

Join Us: News for people demanding a better world

• Anti-War Voices Say More Diplomacy--Not 'Weapons, Weapons, Weapons'--Needed in Ukraine ›
• What Steps Can the US Take to Foster Peace Talks in Ukraine? | Common Dreams ›
• Opinion | US National Security Experts: Give Peace in Ukraine a Chance | Common Dreams ›
• Russian Airstrike on Ukrainian School Reportedly Kills Dozens ›
• Opinion | Stop the Doomsday Clock: Why We Need a Ceasefire in Ukraine | Common Dreams ›
• Opinion | After 2 Years of War in Ukraine, It’s Time for Peace | Common Dreams ›

• Bahasa Indonesia
• Slovenščina
• Science & Tech
• Russian Kitchen

Is it possible to visit Russia as a tourist right now? (Q&A)

Who can enter Russia as a tourist?

At present, people from 80 countries can enter Russia. There are two main conditions: first, one must be a citizen of that country or have a permanent residence permit; and second - one needs to enter Russia by plane. The primary document that regulates entry during the coronavirus pandemic is Order no. 635-r (March 16, 2020), which is regularly updated. 

Some of the countries on the list include the United States, Britain, Greece, Germany, Tunisia, Israel, Japan, Armenia, Qatar, Portugal, Mexico, Croatia, Belgium, China, France, Denmark, New Zealand, Iran, Peru, Norway and Argentina. Click here for the full list. 

In the meantime, any country with which Russia currently has a travel agreement can serve as the port of departure (however, the transit country must be on the above list).

What type of visa is required?

Those who already have a valid Russian visa - and citizens of the above countries - can enter Russia using that visa. Those who do require a visa can submit their documents at the Russian consulate in their home country.

What is still not possible at this point is obtaining a unified electronic visa (a type of visa that is valid for up to 16 days, takes only four days to process and does not require submitting any documents relating to the purpose of visit). Therefore, in order to receive a regular tourist visa (valid up to six months) it is necessary to have a confirmed accommodation booking or an agreement with a travel agency.

Is a COVID test required?

Yes, PCR tests must be performed no earlier than 48 hours before arriving in Russia. The results must be printed in Russian or English (this is required even if you received a Sputnik-V vaccine shot). If you’re flying with children, they, too, must obtain a test, irrespective of age. And a form for arrivals must be filled in before entering the country.

Who is not affected by the rules? 

These restrictions don’t apply to foreigners with a valid Russian residence permit or those with close relatives. They can enter Russia from any country using any means of transportation, including by land.

They also do not apply to partially recognized republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, as well as citizens of Belarus (or those with Belarusian permanent residence permits), Kazakhstan and citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk national republics. Entering by land is also possible when traveling from Mongolia or China. 

Furthermore, if Eurasian Economic Union citizens cross over by land, they don’t have to submit a coronavirus test or fill out the arrivals form. 

Is vaccination required? 

No. The QR codes required for visiting public gatherings before spring (including cafes, bars, hotels, etc.) are no longer required in the majority of regions. The same goes for various other COVID restrictions: regions have the final say, but almost all have been lifted.

What about masks?

Masks are also no longer a requirement. However, some regions still require people to wear masks in some places, including stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, movie theaters and so on. In Moscow, the rule on masks has been completely lifted, while, for example, in Kaliningrad, some places still enforce them. 

Are there any quarantine regulations in place?

No, you will not be required to quarantine on arrival to Russia. However, if you get sick in Russia, you will have to be quarantined for a period of seven days at your own expense. Those who have come in contact with infected people do not require quarantining (provided they did not contract the coronavirus). 

Important! In many countries, there are still restrictions on LEAVING for the purpose of tourism, so having a Russian visa does not guarantee you will get permission to leave your country. This must be clarified before making any trips.

The information listed here is valid as of June 1, 2022. 

If using any of Russia Beyond's content, partly or in full, always provide an active hyperlink to the original material.

to our newsletter!

Get the week's best stories straight to your inbox

• Russia at sunrise: 20 breathtaking PHOTOS
• The most dangerous cities in the USSR
• This bizarre ‘dancing’ forest continues to baffle experts (PHOTOS)

This website uses cookies. Click here to find out more.

China and Russia reaffirm their close ties as Moscow presses its offensive in Ukraine

B EIJING (AP) — Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping on Thursday reaffirmed their “no-limits” partnership that has deepened as both countries face rising tensions with the West, and they criticized U.S. military alliances in Asia and the Pacific region.

At their summit in Beijing, Putin thanked Xi for China's proposals for ending the war in Ukraine , which have been rejected by Ukraine and its Western supporters as largely following the Kremlin's line.

Putin’s two-day state visit to one of his strongest allies and trading partners comes as Russian forces are pressing an offensive in northeastern Ukraine’s Kharkiv region in the most significant border incursion since the full-scale invasion began on Feb. 24, 2022.

China claims to take a neutral position in the conflict, but it has backed the Kremlin's contentions that Russia was provoked into attacking Ukraine by the West, and it continues to supply key components needed by Moscow for weapons production.

China, which hasn't criticized the invasion, proposed a broadly worded peace plan in 2023, calling for a cease-fire and for direct talks between Moscow and Kyiv. The plan was rejected by both Ukraine and the West for failing to call for Russia to leave occupied parts of Ukraine.

China also gave a rhetorical nod to Russia’s narrative about Nazism in Ukraine, with a joint statement Thursday that said Moscow and Beijing should defend the post-World War II order and “severely condemn the glorification of or even attempts to revive Nazism and militarism.”

Putin has cited the “denazification” of Ukraine as a main goal of the military action, falsely describing the government of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish and lost relatives in the Holocaust, as neo-Nazis.

The largely symbolic and ceremonial visit stressed partnership between two countries who both face challenges in their relationship with the U.S. and Europe.

“Both sides want to show that despite what is happening globally, despite the pressure that both sides are facing from the U.S., both sides are not about to turn their backs on each other anytime soon,” said Hoo Tiang Boon, who researches Chinese foreign policy at Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University.

While Putin and Xi said they were seeking an end to the war, they offered no new proposals in their public remarks.

“China hopes for the early return of Europe to peace and stability and will continue to play a constructive role toward this,” Xi said in prepared remarks to media in Beijing's Great Hall of the People. His words echoed what China said when it offered a broad plan for peace .

Earlier, Putin was welcomed in Tiananmen Square with military pomp. After a day in Beijing, the Russian leader arrived in Harbin, where he was expected to attend a number of events on Friday.

On the eve of his visit, Putin said China’s proposal could “lay the groundwork for a political and diplomatic process that would take into account Russia’s security concerns and contribute to achieving a long-term and sustainable peace.”

Zelenskyy has said any negotiations must include a restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, the withdrawal of Russian troops, the release of all prisoners, a tribunal for those responsible for the aggression and security guarantees for Ukraine.

After Russia’s latest offensive in Ukraine last week, the war is in a critical stage as Ukraine’s depleted military waits for new supplies of anti-aircraft missiles and artillery shells from the United States after months of delay.

The joint statement from China and Russia also criticized U.S. foreign policy at length, hitting out at U.S.-formed alliances, which the statement called having a “Cold War mentality.”

China and Russia also accused the U.S. of deploying land-based intermediate range missile systems in the Asia-Pacific under the pretext of joint exercises with allies. They said that the U.S. actions in Asia were “changing the balance of power” and “endangering the security of all countries in the region.”

The joint statement demonstrated China's support to Russia.

China is “falling over themselves to give Russia face and respect without saying anything specific, and without committing themselves to anything,” said Susan Thornton, a former diplomat and a senior fellow at the Paul Tsai China Center at Yale Law School.

The meeting was yet another affirmation of the friendly “no-limits” relationship China and Russia signed in 2022, just before Moscow invaded Ukraine.

Since then, Russia has become increasingly dependent economically on China as Western sanctions cut its access to much of the international trading system. China’s increased trade with Russia, totaling $240 billion last year, has helped the country mitigate some of the worst blowback from sanctions.

Moscow has diverted the bulk of its energy exports to China and relied on Chinese companies for importing high-tech components for Russian military industries to circumvent Western sanctions.

“I and President Putin agree we should actively look for convergence points of the interests of both countries, to develop each’s advantages, and deepen integration of interests, realizing each others’ achievements,” Xi said.

U.S. State Department deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said that China can't "have its cake and eat it too.

“You cannot want to have deepened relations with Europe … while simultaneously continuing to fuel the biggest threat to European security in a long time,” Patel said.

Xi congratulated Putin on starting his fifth term in office and celebrated the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, which was established following a civil war in 1949. Putin has eliminated all major political opponents and faced no real challenge in the March election.

“In a famous song of that time, 75 years ago — it is still performed today — there is a phrase that has become a catchphrase: ‘Russians and Chinese are brothers forever,’” Putin said.

Russia-China military ties have strengthened during the war. They have held a series of joint war games in recent years.

China remains a major market for Russian military, while also massively expanding its domestic defensive industries, including building aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines.

Putin has previously said that Russia has been sharing highly sensitive military technologies with China that helped significantly bolster its defense capability.

Huizhong Wu reported from Bangkok. Yu Bing and Wanqing Chen in Beijing, Christopher Bodeen in Taipei, Jim Heintz and Dasha Litvinova in Tallinn, Estonia, and Ellen Knickmeyer in Washington contributed to this report.

• International

Iranian president helicopter crash

Biden graduation speech

May 15, 2024 - Russia's war in Ukraine

By Heather Chen, Sana Noor Haq, Adrienne Vogt and Maureen Chowdhury, CNN

Our live coverage of  Russia's war in Ukraine has moved here .

Russian President Vladimir Putin arrives in Beijing at the start of a 2-day state visit to China

From CNN's Abel Alvarado

Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Beijing early Thursday morning local time to begin a two-day state visit to China, according to TASS and Chinese state media CCTV.

Russia is stepping up disinformation campaign against Zelensky, US intelligence shows

From CNN's Alex Marquardt

Russia has stepped up its disinformation efforts to discredit Ukraine’s  President Volodymyr Zelensky  and raise questions about his legitimacy in recent months, US intelligence agencies have observed.

A recently downgraded intelligence assessment shared with CNN says that Russia has seized on various recent events to fuel criticism about Zelensky’s abilities and place as Ukraine’s leader, a senior Biden administration official said in an interview.

Russia has spread disinformation about Zelensky since before the war started but recent intelligence shows “it’s definitely increasing,” the official said.

Russia has highlighted two main areas in this recent disinformation push, the intelligence indicates: Ukraine’s  painful withdrawal  from the eastern city of Avdiivka and the fact that Ukraine postponed its presidential election scheduled for this Spring due to the war.

Wider impacts: The US is more concerned about the impact of the disinformation on countries abroad than on Ukrainians’ confidence in Zelensky, the official said.

“That’s why we’re briefing our allies and partners about this,” the official said. “We want to make sure that this type of Russian disinformation doesn’t take hold and other countries that might not realize, ‘Oh, of course, they can’t hold elections because they’re in a state of martial law as a consequence of Russia’s war.’”

Dive deeper into Russia's disinformation campaign and what it could mean.

Blinken visits Kyiv and reaffirms US support for Ukraine as fighting in Kharkiv intensifies. Here's the latest

From CNN staff

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken concluded his trip to Kyiv on Wednesday, where he reaffirmed the Biden administration's support for Ukraine as Russia's advances continue in the Kharkiv region of the country.

Earlier Wednesday, Blinken announced $2 billion in foreign military financing for Ukraine and said much-needed ammunition and weapons are being rushed to the front lines. The US State Department acknowledged that the $2 billion in foreign military financing is coming primarily from the recently passed Ukraine Security supplemental and $400 million of it is coming from existing Foreign Military Financing (FMF) that had not previously been allocated to Ukraine.

Blinken also said that the US remains "committed" to helping Ukraine win the war against Russia, but it is not encouraging strikes on Russian territory. Blinken added that Washington strongly supports a Ukrainian peace summit set to take place next month in Switzerland. 

Here are more of the latest headlines:

• Kharkiv and Russian gains: Ukrainian officials suggested further gains by Russian forces on Wednesday in the Kharkiv region, as Moscow continues its push into northeastern Ukraine. The town of Vovchansk, located about 60 kilometers (or about 37 miles) northeast of Ukraine's second-largest city of Kharkiv, is seeing some of the most intense battles in areas near the border, with one police official saying Russian forces are already in the town.
• Zelensky: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will halt all international events scheduled for the coming days, his office announced, as Russian troops push into the northeastern Kharkiv region .
• UNICEF report: At least 1,993 children in Ukraine have been killed or wounded since Moscow launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022, according to the UN's children's agency (UNICEF), reiterating calls for a ceasefire. On average, at least two children lose their lives in Ukraine every day, UNICEF reported on Tuesday.

US not encouraging Ukrainian strikes on Russian territory, Blinken says 

From CNN's Radina Gigova in London 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the US remains "committed" to helping Ukraine win the war against Russia, but it is not encouraging strikes on Russian territory. 

“We’ve not encouraged or enabled strikes outside Ukraine but ultimately Ukraine has to make decisions for itself about how it's going to conduct this war, a war it's conducting in defense of its freedom, of its sovereignty, of its territorial integrity and we’ll continue to back Ukraine with the equipment it needs to succeed," Blinken said on Wednesday during a joint news conference with Ukrainian Foreign Minster Dmytro Kuleba in Kyiv. 

Blinken also announced that the US will provide an additional $2 billion in foreign military financing for Ukraine, adding "we put this together in a first-of-its-kind defense enterprise fund."

The fund will have three components, Blinken said, including:

• Providing weapons for Ukraine now
• Investing in Ukraine's defense industrial base
• Financing military equipment purchases from other countries

"Of course, everyone's eyes are focused on the situation in the east and northeast, Kharkiv in particular. And so the newest support that I just announced, but particularly the $60 billion supplemental, we know is coming at a critical time," Blinken said. 

Zelensky condemns shooting of Slovakia's pro-Russian prime minister

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky called a shooting attack on Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico "appalling."

"We strongly condemn this act of violence against our neighboring partner state's head of government. Every effort should be made to ensure that violence does not become the norm in any country, form, or sphere," Zelensky wrote in a post on X Wednesday.

Fico was shot multiple times, according to a statement on his official Facebook page, adding he is currently in a life-threatening condition.

"We sincerely hope Robert Fico recovers soon and express our solidarity with the people of Slovakia," Zelensky continued.

For context: Fico won a third term as Slovakian prime minister last October after running a campaign that criticized Western support for Ukraine. Ahead of the election, Fico made no secret of his sympathies toward the Kremlin and blamed “Ukrainian Nazis and fascists” for provoking Vladimir Putin into launching the invasion, repeating the false narrative Russia’s president has used to justify his invasion.

Fico, who began his fourth term last October, has shifted Slovakia’s foreign policy toward pro-Russian positions and initiated reforms in criminal law and media regulations, raising concerns about the erosion of the rule of law.

Fico also had pledged an immediate end to Slovak military support for Ukraine and promised to block Ukraine’s NATO ambitions in what would upend Slovakia’s staunch backing for Ukraine.

Ukrainian officials suggest there are more Russian gains amid ongoing push in Kharkiv region 

From CNN's Radina Gigova and Maria Kostenko 

Ukrainian officials suggested further gains by Russian forces on Wednesday in the Kharkiv region, as Moscow continues its push into northeastern Ukraine.

The town of Vovchansk, located about 60 kilometers (or about 37 miles) northeast of Ukraine's second-largest city of Kharkiv, is seeing some of the most intense battles in areas near the border, with one police official saying Russian forces are already in the town. 

"The situation in Vovchansk is extremely difficult. The enemy is taking positions on the streets of Vovchansk," said Oleksii Kharkivskyi, chief patrol officer of the Vovchansk Police Department, urging residents to evacuate. 

Gen. Serhii "Marcel" Melnyk, the commander of the Kharkiv city defense forces, also suggested there have been changes in Ukrainian positions in Vovchansk and a possible tactical withdrawal. 

"Heavy fighting is ongoing. In some areas, near Vovchansk and Lukiantsi, Ukrainian defenders were forced to move to more favorable positions to more effectively use their forces and defend the region from the offensive," Melnyk said Wednesday. 

At least 24 people, including four children, were injured as a result of Russian shelling in various parts of the Kharkiv region on Wednesday, Melnyk said.

The Ukrainian monitoring group DeepStateMap indicated on Wednesday that Russian forces have reached northeastern parts of Vovchansk as they continue to push further south into Ukrainian territory. Russian forces have taken control of more than nine villages near the border in recent days. 

Mandatory evacuations continue from all northern border settlements, according to Roman Semenukha, deputy head of Kharkiv Regional Military Administration. Nearly 8,000 people have been evacuated from these areas since May 10, when Russia launched its push. 

Nearly 2,000 children have been killed or injured since Russia invaded Ukraine, says UNICEF

From CNN's Sana Noor Haq

At least 1,993 children in Ukraine have been killed or wounded since Moscow launched a full-scale invasion in February 2022, according to the UN's children's agency (UNICEF), reiterating calls for a ceasefire.

On average, at least two children lose their lives in Ukraine every day, UNICEF reported on Tuesday.

“Ukraine’s children urgently need safety, stability, access to safe learning, child protection services, and psychosocial support," the agency said in a statement. "More than anything, Ukraine's children need peace."

Mental health impact: The war in Ukraine has "harmfully affected" the mental health and wellbeing of children , UNICEF said, adding that half of teenagers report trouble sleeping. At least one in five suffer intrusive thoughts and flashbacks.

Loss of education: Almost half of children enrolled in school in Ukraine have been robbed of in-person education, according to the report. Nearly one million children across the country cannot access any in-person learning "due to insecurity," UNICEF added.

Earlier this year, CNN reported on Ukrainian children attending newly built bunker schools in the northern city of Kharkiv, as daily Russian strikes rained down overhead.

US secretary of state announces $2 billion in foreign military financing for Ukraine

From CNN's Radina Gigova in London

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced Wednesday the provision of additional $2 billion in foreign military financing for Ukraine and said much-needed weapons and ammunition are being rushed to the front lines. 

"Ukraine is facing this renewed brutal Russian onslaught," Blinken said during a news conference in Kyiv, speaking alongside Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, adding he discussed weapons deliveries with Kuleba and President Volodymyr Zelensky. 

"We are rushing ammunition, armored vehicles, missiles, air defenses. Rushing them to get to the front lines to protect soldiers, to protect civilians," Blinken said, pointing out that air defenses are "a top priority."

Blinken also said Washington strongly supports a Ukrainian peace summit set to take place next month in Switzerland. 

This post has been updated with the latest comments from Blinken.

Please enable JavaScript for a better experience.

Screen Rant

A gentleman in moscow ending explained.

Your changes have been saved

Email Is sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

A Gentleman In Moscow Cast & Character Guide

Ewan mcgregor's historical drama weirdly copies his 2022 star wars show, the deeper meaning behind a gentleman in moscow episode 3's bees.

Warning: Spoilers ahead for the finale of A Gentleman in Moscow.

• Count Rostov finds family, love, and purpose in his confinement at the Metropol Hotel, despite his initial imprisonment.
• The ending of A Gentleman in Moscow remains ambiguous, leaving Alexander's fate open to interpretation.
• Love and sacrifice are the central themes of the show, as Alexander risks everything to ensure the safety and happiness of his found family.

The ending of A Gentleman in Moscow brings with it the conclusion of Alexander Rostov's story, with his 35-year stretch of imprisonment inside Moscow's Metropol Hotel coming to a halt. After returning home from Paris in 1918 to save his grandmother from the violence of Russia's Bolshevik revolution , Count Rostov is sentenced to life imprisonment for his status as a member of the nation's ruling class. However, instead of being locked in a prison cell, Ewan McGregor's character is confined to the walls of a luxury hotel in the nation's capital.

Alexander's is spared execution, unlike so many of his other social peers. The reason for the leniency is Alexander being incorrectly credited with a poem titled "Where is our Purpose Now?" The literary work, actually written in 1913 by Alexander's old friend, Mishka, was partially credited as inciting the Revolution. The count manages to carve out some level of existence for himself at the Metropol , with the novelty of his situation quickly wearing off. Along the way, Alexander Rostov finds the family he'd never had before, giving a man who'd lost everything something else to lose.

The Paramount/Showtime limited series A Gentleman in Moscow is led by Golden Globe and Emmy winner Ewan McGregor and his wife Mary Elizabeth Winstead.

What Happens To Alexander Rostov After He Leaves The Metropol Hotel Explained

The post-escape fate of mcgregor's character is unknown.

At the end of A Gentleman in Moscow episode 8, "Adieu," Alexander dons his hat and strolls through the doors of the Metropol Hotel. After all the phones in the building ring at once as Richard Vanderwhile's signal that Sofia is safe, Alexander can depart while knowing his surrogate daughter is in trusted hands. While Alexander is shown successfully leaving the building , the other side of the door isn't shown, so it's impossible to confirm what happens to the Count after this scene. Even the show's narrator, an older Sofia, confirms that she never knew what her father did next.

"I discovered that Papa had escaped the hotel, but what happened after remains a mystery. I like to imagine [Alexander and Anna] finally free, living out the rest of their lives together. They gave me the greatest gift of life. I'll keep them in my heart. Always. "

The sequence that's shown of Alexander's reunion with Anna in "Adieu" is shot in the same 4:3 aspect ratio as A Gentleman in Moscow 's flashbacks sequences, which were often from Count Rostov's point of view. However, as Sofia confirms that she never saw her parents again , this particular scene can't be a memory. Instead, what's being shown is Sofia's imaginings, dreaming of the two people who risked so much to save her enjoying a well-deserved, peaceful life.

Alexander does still have his stolen Finnish passport when he leaves the hotel, so it is possible he was able to flee the country and reunite with Anna.

The black apples shown during this scene are another sign that it's nothing more than Sofia's fantasy . Earlier in the same episode, Alexander tells the Metropol staff of an old legend from when he was growing up. The story tells of a tree hidden deep in the woods, bearing " Apples as black as coal ." If a person found and ate the apples, they would have the chance to live their life anew. Alexander immediately adds that he wouldn't eat the apples if he were to find them today, as despite his tumultuous life, it's a journey he doesn't regret.

Alexander is never shown telling Sofia this same story, but the presence of the black apples in the story's closing sequence suggests that he did share the tale with her at some point.

How & Why Sofia Flees Russia At The End Of A Gentleman In Moscow

Sofia's one-way trip to america took careful planning.

Despite being a staunch patriot, Alexander is still of the opinion that Sofia would have a better life in America than she would if she were to stay in Russia. Thankfully, Alexander's spying on the country's top brass in A Gentleman in Moscow episode 7 , "An Assembly," also presents an opportunity for McGregor's character to send his daughter to safety. The scheme is carried out in collaboration with Alexander's American ally , Richard Vanderwhile, who plans the operation for them.

Only Sofia is granted asylum by the Americans, with Alexander telling his daughter that the request for himself and Anna to receive the same treatment was simply too much to ask.

With the recordings from the meeting in her possession, Sofia heads to Paris as part of a musical tour. After performing, she cuts her hair short and changes her clothes to blend in with the crowd and leaves without being spotted. The powers that be grow wise to her scheme, as they move her performance slot from before the interval to the penultimate position in the running order. Thankfully, Sofia still has just enough time and barely manages to avoid being detected. After arriving at the American embassy in Paris, Vanderwhile arranges for Sofia to be flown to the USA .

Where Alexander Rostov Stands With Osip Glebnikov At The End Of A Gentleman In Moscow

Alexander & osip exchange declarations of friendship.

Alexander's relationship with Osip Glebnikov is intentionally unclear throughout A Gentleman in Moscow . Although Osip is essentially responsible for making sure Alexander doesn't break the terms of his sentence by leaving the Metropol, Alexander's jailer chooses to spend more time with his prisoner than is necessary for him to perform his duties. They engage in etiquette lessons, debates about literature, and even start to watch movies together. However, it mostly seems as though Osip is forcing the interactions to take place. Despite the ambiguity of their arrangement, Osip admits in the finale that he values their relationship .

The story of Ewan McGregor's Alexander Rostov from A Gentleman in Moscow shares some strong parallels to that of the actor's Star Wars character.

While warning McGregor's character of the danger Sofia is in - and by extension, Alexander himself - Osip says, " I like you, Alexander. I think of you as a friend ." The count replies in his signature guarded style: " As do I you, in a manner of speaking ." Osip may not have been the most valued figure to Alexander in his day-to-day life, but their friendship offered both men a different perspective. In addition, Osip also assisted Alexander return to the Metropol undetected following Sofia's trip to the hospital - an act that could have had both characters severely punished, if not killed.

Osip is also instrumental in making sure Anna departs for Finland without Alexander. By the time of "Adieu," Osip's wife and daughter are dead. So, Osip wants to make sure Alexander's family doesn't suffer the same fate.

Did Alexander Leave Manager Leplevsky To Die?

Alexander finally takes the revenge he's been trying to avoid.

Leplevsky is the biggest villain throughout the story of A Gentleman in Moscow , with Alexander's life at the Metropol Hotel becoming more difficult as his nemesis rises through the ranks. With Alexander's planned departure from the hotel imminent, it initially seems as though he's willing to let bygones be bygones and spare Leplevsky any acts of revenge. Unfortunately for the hotel manager, his last-minute discovery of Alexander's plan to escape results in McGregor needing to take action .

After arming himself with the dueling pistols from the manager's office, Alexander chains up Leplevsky in the bowels of the Metropol Hotel.

After arming himself with the dueling pistols from the manager's office, Alexander chains up Leplevsky in the bowels of the Metropol Hotel. At the same time, he incinerates the files the manager had been collating about the hotel's staff - Alexander and Sofia included. Leplevsky begs to be set free as Alexander departs , with the exchange between the two adversaries suggesting it would be a while before anyone finds the trapped hotel boss. So, while Alexander doesn't directly murder Manager Leplevsky, he could still be responsible for his death.

How Alexander's Imprisonment In The Metropol Hotel Was The Beginning Of His Life (Not The End)

Alexander rostov's personal life somehow flourished at the metropol.

When Alexander was sentenced to life imprisonment, he was in his early thirties. His only surviving family member was his grandmother, whom he had helped escape the country four years previously. In addition, he was estranged from Mishka - his oldest friend. Alexander had never married, nor fathered any children. Despite his life of wealth and privilege that had preceded his incarceration, he was deeply alone. Somewhat surprisingly, Alexander's decades trapped in the Metropol led to some of the most important relationships in his life .

Despite the early trauma of seeing Prince Nikolai being dragged out of the hotel to be shot in the street in A Gentleman in Moscow episode 1 , Alexander went on to hit a rich vein of social bonds. His friendship with Nina was vital during the early stages of his sentence, and although the pair struggled to stay on the same political wavelengths at times, their special relationship weathered the storm. Alexander also eventually managed to build bridges with Mishka .

Eventually, Alexander's on-and-off romantic dynamic with Anna Urbanova solidified into a solid foundation of love and trust, with the pair essentially becoming joint parents to Sofia.

If Alexander was a father figure to Nina, then he was essentially a grandfather in his role as generational caretaker when Sofia was left in the count's care. Alexander raised Sofia as his own , while making sure she never forgot her birth mother. Eventually, Alexander's on-and-off romantic dynamic with Anna Urbanova solidified into a solid foundation of love and trust, with the pair essentially becoming joint parents to Sofia. As a result, Alexander hit several milestones during his imprisonment that he either neglected or failed to achieve while he was a free man.

The Real Meaning Of A Gentleman In Moscow's Ending

Alexander's unconfirmed destiny compounds the story of love and loss.

A Gentleman in Moscow , like so many other stories, is about love. However, the show's theme of love is also tied into the concept of loss, and how the two interact with one another. The love that Alexander Rostov has for Anna and Sofia results in him putting their safety first , ensuring they are away from the Metropol Hotel and safely on their respective ways to their new homes at the time of him making his escape attempt.

Alexander Rostov's journey in A Gentleman in Moscow has been full of twists and turns, but the bees in episode 3 serve as a brilliant metaphor.

Alexander is fully aware of the risks to himself, Anna, and Sofia that their plan presents. Still, the love he has for his found family makes him willing to put himself in harm's way if it means there's a chance of a better tomorrow for the daughter he cherishes and the woman he loves. Osip acts in a similar vein by helping Alexander. Despite losing his wife and daughter, Osip chooses not to let his grief turn him bitter and instead makes sure Alexander doesn't suffer the same heartbreak.

Sofia's fantasy of her parents living out their days together is about as perfect an ending as the show can expect, with the unconfirmed nature of the scenario contributing to the dark beauty of the story's conclusion.

Sofia's fantasy of her parents living out their days together is about as perfect an ending as the show can expect , with the unconfirmed nature of the scenario contributing to the dark beauty of the story's conclusion. The trio would never have had the life they'd wanted in the building that brought the three of them together. Knowing this, they give their best effort to free themselves of the restrictions imposed upon them by Alexander's prison sentence. A Gentleman in Moscow 's final episode perfectly encapsulates the tale's message of sacrifice in the name of love.

All episodes of A Gentleman in Moscow are available to stream on Paramount+.

A Gentleman in Moscow

Based on the novel by Amor Towles, A Gentleman in Moscow is a historical dramatic-thriller created by Ben Vanstone for Paramount+ and Showtime. Following the advent of the Russian Revolution, Count Alexander Ilyich Rostov is forced to spend several decades locked away in a hotel room and watch as the country around him transforms.

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

TSA and AFGE Reach New Collective Bargaining Agreement

WASHINGTON — TSA has reached a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), which will take effect on May 24. The new agreement will provide benefits for all TSA bargaining unit employees comprised of non-supervisory screening officers. AFGE approved the agreement through the ratification process followed by Agency Head Approval and reflects the expanded scope of bargaining permitted under the 2022 Determination on Transportation Security Officers and Collective Bargaining .

“Since joining TSA in 2017, my paramount focus at TSA has been supporting the dedicated professionals who ensure the security of our transportation systems every day,” said TSA Administrator David Pekoske. “I extend sincere appreciation to the collective bargaining teams from TSA and AFGE for their unwavering commitment and diligence throughout the negotiation process. I look forward to our ongoing partnership as we implement this expanded new CBA.”

For the first time, the two parties agreed upon a range of topics that more closely mirror what is negotiated at other federal agencies. This included expanding upon existing articles in the current CBA and adding new topics that had not been previously addressed, such as grievance and arbitration processes, procedures for impact and implementation bargaining at the national level, local bargaining consistent with the 2022 Determination, official time, and bargaining unit employee rights and union rights.

The new CBA also includes the following benefits for bargaining unit employees:

• enhanced shift trade options to assist Transportation Security Officers who need to take unscheduled leave;
• increased allowance for uniforms;
• continuation of full parking subsidies;
• a national Childcare Working Group to explore potential options to make childcare more affordable for bargaining unit employees; and
• the addition of parental bereavement leave and weather and safety leave to the CBA.

The new CBA expands upon prior CBAs and more than doubles the number of articles compared to the current agreement from 15 to 37. This new CBA also has the longest duration of any TSA-AFGE CBA at seven years. While the new CBA contains more bargaining unit employee and union rights than previous CBAs, it also maintains the flexibility necessary to carry out TSA’s security mission.

TSA and AFGE engaged in CBA negotiations from June 2023 to March 2024. As part of the agreement, TSA and AFGE each may reopen up to three articles for negotiations during the middle of the CBA’s duration at the three-and-a-half-year mark.

Ukraine war latest: Ukraine 'destroys Russian Black Sea minesweeper'

Ukraine's navy says it has destroyed a Russian Black Sea fleet minesweeper. Meanwhile, an attack on a residential area in Kharkiv left six civilians injured - with Ukraine saying it is investigating the bombing as a potential war crime.

Sunday 19 May 2024 17:40, UK

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

• Six killed - including pregnant woman - in strikes on Kharkiv recreation area
• Ukraine investigating 'potential war crime' after civilians wounded
• Ukrainian soldiers reveal how they were secretly moved ahead of Russian invasion
• Russia takes control of village in Kharkiv - defence ministry

We're pausing our coverage of the Ukraine war for the moment.

Scroll through the blog below to catch up on today's developments.

Russian forces likely intend to launch the second phase of their offensive following their anticipated seizure of Vovchansk, three miles from the Russian border, according to the latest analysis from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said yesterday that Russian forces advanced between five and 10 kilometres in the northern Kharkiv region before Ukrainian forces stopped Russian advances.

The ISW says Russian forces are currently prioritising the seizure of Vovchansk because it is likely one of the remaining tactical objectives of the first phase, noting it is the largest settlement immediately on the border that would provide Russian forces with a staging ground to prepare for and launch the second phase.

The Russian objectives of the second phase are not yet clear, the ISW says. It could be to expand the "buffer zone" further in width along the border, or to advance closer to Kharkiv city.

Russian forces have also recently intensified efforts to seize the operationally significant town of Chasiv Yar, the ISW says, seeking to exploit the pressure on stretched Ukrainian forces. 

The number of people killed in Russian strikes on a Kharkiv recreation area has risen from five to six, with an employee of the resort still unaccounted for. 

At least 27 people were injured in the two airstrikes, which came about 20 minutes apart, according to an update from the Kharkiv regional prosecutor's office on Telegram. 

The missing employee was fishing by a reservoir when the attack happened, the update said. 

Two police officers are among the injured, it added. 

The UK's defence secretary has confirmed the military aid that has been "rushed" to Ukraine. 

Grant Shapps said the "world cannot wait" as he urged nations to "step up" and support Kyiv's fight against Russia. 

Among the items sent by the UK are 80 defence missiles, one million rounds of ammunition and 20 Viking amphibious protected vehicles. 

Mr Shapps' tweet comes after he urged allies to give permission to Ukraine to use the weapons they have supplied against targets in Russian-annexed Crimea.

"We have been very, very clear with the world and helpful to Ukraine - for example, providing permissions for our weapons to be used throughout the whole of Ukraine ... that includes Crimea, which was taken by Putin in 2014," he told the BBC's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg: 

"Now, we do not get into how we would allow targeting with our weapons to be used outside of that. But we do provide our weapons to Ukraine in order for them to defend their country."

Pressed on Volodymyr Zelensky's calls for weapons to be available for strikes inside Russia, Mr Shapps said: "I can't go into the specifics of those private conversations about how the weapons are precisely used."

Finland will propose a law that would see it turn back migrants to Russia without processing their asylum applications - despite this potentially breaching its international human rights commitments.

Finland shut its border with Russia last year to stop a growing number of arrivals from countries including Syria and Somalia.

It accused Moscow of weaponising migration against Finland and the European Union, an assertion the Kremlin denies. 

"As this phenomenon is in Russia's hands - who comes, where from and when, to Finland's border - we cannot permit it," Prime Minister Petteri Orpo told reporters.  

"Therefore we have to augment our legislation." 

The bill would allow border authorities to turn back asylum seekers who cross from Russia, with or without using force. But it would not apply to children and disabled people.

The proposal will go to parliament next week, where it will be submitted to the constitutional committee for review. It will need five-sixths of votes cast in parliament to pass - the high bar required for constitutional matters - and success is not certain. 

The General Staff of Ukraine's armed forces have published their daily operational update... 

It says "intense" fighting is ongoing along almost the entire frontline, with 78 "combat clashes" already today, compared to 110 for the entirety of yesterday. 

The Russian forces became increasingly active on the Kharkiv front, with seven clashes reported so far today.

The situation in Kharkiv is "dynamic", it says, with Russian troops trying to push back the Ukrainian units near Vovchansk, Starytsia and Lyptsi.

Russia said on Saturday its forces had captured the village of Starytsia, bringing the total number of villages it has taken in the Kharkiv region to 13.

Russia has been pushing ahead with a ground offensive in recent days that opened a new front in northeastern Ukraine's Kharkiv region and put further pressure on Kyiv's overstretched military. 

Russian forces have also increased their activity on the Siversk front and are attempting to break through Ukrainian defences in Bilohorivka, Verkhnokamianske and Rozdolivka, the update says. 

Oleksandr Usyk defeated British boxing star Tyson Fury to become the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world on Saturday night.

But Fury says the outcome was down to the Ukraine war. 

He disputed his loss after the match, saying: "I believe I won that fight. I think he won a few rounds but I won the majority of them.

"His country is at war, so people are siding with the country at war. Make no mistake, I won that fight in my opinion."

In response, Ukrainian Usyk said he was "ready for rematch," but later added: "I don't think about rematch now, I want to rest."

After today's attacks President Volodymyr Zelenskyy again called on Western allies to supply Kyiv with additional air defence systems to protect Kharkiv and other cities. 

He said there were reports "every hour" of fresh attacks. 

"Missiles, bombs, artillery are the only things that allow Russia to continue its aggression," he said on Telegram. 

"The world can stop Russian terror - and to do so, the lack of political will among leaders must be overcome."

"Two Patriots for Kharkiv will make a fundamental difference," he said, referring to Patriot missile defence systems. 

Air defence systems for other cities and sufficient support for soldiers on the front line would ensure Russia's defeat, the president added. 

This morning, Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said the delay in giving aid to Ukraine gave Russia a window of opportunity for its new offensive. 

Five people have died in strikes on two villages in the Kupiansk district in Kharkiv, local officials say. 

It brings the number of people killed in the Kharkiv region today to 10, after five people died in strikes on a recreation area in a northern suburb of the city of Kharkiv.

Local governor Oleh Syniehubov said Russian forces shelled two villages with a self-propelled multiple rocket launcher. 

At least nine people were injured in the attacks. 

We're getting photos of the aftermath of strikes on a recreation area just outside Kharkiv which killed five people and left at least 16 injured. 

The pictures show a lakeside resort, where shortly before the attacks local residents were "resting, enjoying a normal way of life", according to a local police inspector (see our 11.54 post).

Parademics and police tend to the wounded, but were also caught up in the second strike, which came about 20 minutes after the first. 

These are known as "double tap" strikes, which kill or injure emergency workers at the scene of strike impacts. 

Here are the latest photos from the scene...

Be the first to get Breaking News

Install the Sky News app for free

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Russia-Ukraine war: Blinken announces $2bn in aid as Russia claims to have taken more settlements – as it happened

US secretary of state says ammunition, armoured vehicles and missiles will be rushed to frontline as Moscow says it has captured more territory

• 4d ago Closing summary
• 4d ago EU agrees to sanction pro-Russian outlet 'Voice of Europe'
• 4d ago Russian strikes injure at least 17 in Ukraine's south
• 4d ago Putin: Russian forces 'improving positions every day in all directions'
• 4d ago US does not encourage Ukraine to hit targets in Russia with US weapons but it is decision for Kyiv to make, Blinken says
• 4d ago US-Ukraine security agreement could be signed in weeks, says Blinken
• 4d ago Blinken announces additional $2bn in foreign military financing for Ukraine
• 4d ago Russian forces claim to have taken control of more settlements in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia region
• 4d ago Ukraine's Zelenskiy postpones foreign visits amid Russian offensive
• 4d ago Russia suspends two airports’ traffic over drone threat
• 4d ago Intensifying war increasing threat to Ukraine economy, EBRD warns
• 4d ago Volodymyr Zelenskiy cancels visit to Spain and Portugal
• 4d ago Ukraine says it has withdrawn troops in parts of Kharkiv region
• 4d ago Opening summary

“If Putin showed any interest in seriously engaging in negotiations, I’m sure Ukrainians would respond to that,” said Blinken .

“Every delay of supply results in setbacks on the frontline,” said Kuleba .

Blinken said: “We’re rushing ammunition, armoured vehicles, missiles, [and] air defences to get them to the frontlines.”

Blinken announces additional $2bn in foreign military financing for Ukraine

At a press conference in Kyiv , Blinken announced an additional $2bn in foreign military financing from the US for Ukraine . He said new support from the US was coming at a “critical time”.

He was speaking at a joint press conference in Kyiv alongside Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba , adding that the support would be aimed at investing in Ukraine’s industrial base.

Portugal ’s new government is keen on ramping up sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine , environment and energy minister Maria da Graca Carvalho said on Wednesday, reports Reuters.

The European Commission ’s next sanctions package is expected to propose restrictions on Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) for the first time, including a ban on trans-shipments in the EU , according to a document seen by Reuters.

This would not directly bar Russian LNG imports to the bloc, but would ban provision of re-loading services by EU facilities for trans-shipment of Russian LNG to third countries, writes Reuters.

“In general, the Portuguese government is aligned with the European Union’s energy policies, namely with the measures that aim to ensure our strategic sovereignty … just as it is in favour of toughening sanctions” to pressure Russia to end the invasion, the minister said in a statement sent to Reuters.

She declined to comment specifically on the preliminary version of 14th sanctions package that needs to be formalised by the commission and then approved by all member states in the council.

The US secretary of state Antony Blinken is due to take part in a press conference in Kyiv with Ukraine ’s foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba shortly. You can watch the live stream via the video at the top of this page.

Earlier Blinken visited a drone manufacturing facility in Kyiv on the second day of his visit to Ukraine.

According to AFP, the Ukrainian interior ministry said that three civilians have been killed in the Kharkiv region over the last 24 hours and that a Russian drone has injured two policemen.

Russian forces claim to have taken control of more settlements in Kharkiv and Zaporizhzhia region

Russian forces have taken control of two more settlements in Ukraine ’s Kharkiv region and one in the Zaporizhzhia region , the defence ministry said on Wednesday, reports Reuters.

The ministry said that Russian troops had captured Hlyboke and Lukiantsi in Kharkiv and Robotyne in Zaporizhzhia.

Reuters could not independently verify battlefield reports.

Russian president Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping will focus on questions of global and regional security in face-to-face talks this week, the state RIA news agency cited Duma deputy speaker Ivan Melnikov as saying on Wednesday.

Putin is set to visit China on 16-17 May.

Ukraine's Zelenskiy postpones foreign visits amid Russian offensive

Further to the news earlier that Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy had cancelled a visit to Spain and Portugal ( see 08.54 BST ), his press secretary has now said that all upcoming foreign visits scheduled for Zelenskiy have been postponed.

“Volodymyr Zelenskiy has instructed that all international events scheduled for the coming days be postponed and new dates coordinated,” Sergii Nykyforov said on Facebook, according to Reuters.

• Ukraine war live

Most viewed