IMF Says Global Economy Is Resilient Despite Rising Risks

The Global Economy has demonstrated remarkable resilience despite wars, energy market disruptions, high public debt and growing technological risks, the head of the International Monetary Fund’s steering committee said on Saturday. However, the IMF’s annual meetings in Bangkok also exposed deep geopolitical divisions, as nearly half of the delegates reportedly walked out when Russian Finance minister Anton Siluanov addressed the committee.

Saudi Finance Minister Mohammed Al-Jadaan, who chairs the International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC), acknowledged the walkout but emphasised that members ultimately agreed to the chair’s statement. He said the agreement demonstrated that international financial cooperation could continue despite disagreements over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The meetings, attended by more than 18,000 people, highlighted the competing pressures facing the global economy. Policymakers are attempting to maintain economic growth and financial stability while dealing with geopolitical conflicts, threats to energy and food security, trade tensions, rising public debt and the rapid development of artificial intelligence.

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva described the meetings as productive but acknowledged growing anxiety among member countries about widening economic differences. Her remarks underscored a central challenge for international policymakers: preserving cooperation at a time when geopolitical fragmentation and technological change are creating new economic uncertainties.

IMF Chair Says Global Economy Shows Remarkable Resilience

Al-Jadaan said the global economy had remained resilient despite a series of significant challenges, but warned governments against becoming complacent about the risks ahead.

Speaking at the final press conference of the IMF and World Bank annual meetings in Bangkok, he said the economic outlook continued to be affected by wars, threats to energy and food security, high levels of public debt and uncertainties associated with artificial intelligence.

“The message from the IMFC members is clear: there is no room for complacency,” Al-Jadaan said.

The assessment reflects a distinction between the global economy’s ability to withstand recent shocks and the risks that could undermine its performance in the future. Economic activity can remain comparatively resilient even as governments face higher borrowing costs, businesses confront uncertainty and households experience pressure from energy or food prices.

Geopolitical conflicts can complicate this picture by disrupting trade routes, affecting commodity supplies and increasing government spending. Energy price fluctuations can feed into inflation, while prolonged uncertainty can delay investment and weaken confidence among businesses and consumers.

High public debt adds another challenge. Governments with large debt burdens may have less flexibility to respond to future economic downturns or emergencies. As a result, policymakers must balance the need to strengthen public finances against the need to protect vulnerable households and maintain investment that supports long-term growth.

Al-Jadaan’s message was therefore not that the global economy was free from danger, but that its resilience should not be mistaken for an absence of vulnerabilities.

IMF Urges Governments to Rebuild Fiscal Buffers

Al-Jadaan called on fiscal authorities to rebuild financial buffers while protecting vulnerable populations and preserving investments that support economic growth. He also stressed the importance of central bank independence and policies that encourage private sector-led growth and investment.

The recommendations reflect the difficult choices facing governments as they attempt to maintain economic stability while preparing for future shocks. Rebuilding fiscal buffers generally involves strengthening public finances so that governments have greater capacity to respond to crises without placing excessive pressure on borrowing or public spending.

However, efforts to improve fiscal positions can create difficult trade-offs. Sharp reductions in public expenditure may affect essential services or investment, while excessive borrowing can increase debt-servicing costs and reduce governments’ ability to respond to future emergencies.

Al-Jadaan’s emphasis on protecting vulnerable populations alongside fiscal discipline highlights the need to balance these objectives. Governments must consider how economic adjustments affect lower-income households while maintaining investments that can improve productivity, employment and long-term growth.

Central bank independence was another important element of his remarks. Independent monetary authorities can make policy decisions based on economic conditions and their mandates, rather than short-term political considerations. Maintaining confidence in monetary policy is particularly important when governments face uncertainty over inflation, energy prices and global demand.

Policies that encourage private sector investment can also help strengthen economic resilience by supporting business expansion, innovation and job creation. However, investment decisions depend on a range of factors, including financing conditions, market access, political stability and expectations about future demand.

IMF Calls for More Support for Countries Facing Financing Pressures

The IMFC chair said member countries had called for increased support for nations facing short-term financing difficulties caused by spillovers from wars and elevated energy prices.

These pressures can be particularly challenging for countries that depend heavily on imported fuel or food. When international energy prices rise, import bills can increase, putting pressure on foreign exchange reserves and government budgets. Higher costs can also feed into domestic inflation, reducing households’ purchasing power.

Countries already facing limited access to international financing may find it difficult to absorb these shocks without cutting essential expenditure or taking measures that weaken economic activity. Additional financing support can help governments meet immediate obligations and manage temporary pressures while working towards more sustainable economic conditions.

However, short-term financing assistance does not automatically resolve deeper economic problems. Countries with persistent fiscal weaknesses, structural imbalances or limited export capacity may also need reforms and investment to improve their ability to withstand future disruptions.

Al-Jadaan also stressed that international cooperation remained essential to addressing excessive global imbalances and trade tensions. His comments reflected concerns that disagreements between major economies can complicate efforts to maintain stable trade relationships and support global growth.

Trade tensions can create uncertainty for companies making decisions about production, supply chains and investment. When governments impose restrictions or retaliatory measures, businesses may face higher costs and reduced access to markets. The consequences can extend beyond the countries directly involved, affecting suppliers, consumers and trading partners around the world.

Kristalina Georgieva Warns of Widening Economic Divisions

IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva described the annual meetings as productive but acknowledged that anxiety among member countries had increased as economic differences widened.

Her comments highlighted a concern that the benefits of economic growth and technological progress are not being distributed evenly. While some economies and businesses are positioned to benefit from new technologies, others face barriers involving infrastructure, financing, skills and access to international markets.

Artificial intelligence was one of the risks and opportunities identified during the discussions. The technology could improve productivity, support innovation and change how businesses operate. However, the economic gains may be concentrated in countries and companies that already have access to advanced computing infrastructure, investment capital and highly skilled workers.

Georgieva said many lower-income countries that were not part of the artificial intelligence value chain feared they were falling behind. Her observation points to the risk that technological advances could widen existing economic gaps if poorer countries cannot develop the infrastructure and skills needed to participate.

Countries with limited digital infrastructure may struggle to adopt advanced technologies at the same pace as wealthier economies. They may also face challenges in attracting investment, training workers and ensuring that their businesses can compete in technology-intensive industries.

For policymakers, the challenge is to support technological development while expanding access to its potential benefits. Investment in education, digital infrastructure and workforce training can help countries prepare for changes in employment and production. International cooperation may also help lower-income economies access financing and technical expertise.

Georgieva nevertheless emphasised that international dialogue remained valuable despite the growing divisions between countries.

“These meetings also have shown that in a world of repetitive shocks and geopolitical fragmentation, still there is desire for multilateral dialogue and cooperation,” she said.

Delegates Walk Out During Russian Finance Minister’s Speech

The economic discussions unfolded alongside a dramatic diplomatic incident at the IMFC meeting. Many delegates left the room when Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov addressed the committee in Russian, highlighting the continuing opposition to Moscow’s participation in international forums following its invasion of Ukraine.

Bundesbank President Joachim Nagel said at an event on the sidelines of the meetings that nearly 50% of delegates had taken part in the walkout. He described the departure as a clear signal of solidarity with Ukraine and opposition to Russia’s war.

“This is a very strong signal about solidarity and values. It would be the best for the world economy if this unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine would end,” Nagel said. He added that he was proud that so many delegates had left the plenary.

Ukraine’s central bank chief, Andriy Pyshnyi, told Reuters that he had been surprised by the number of finance officials who walked out, describing the moment as deeply emotional.

The officials who left reportedly included representatives from Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, among others. The participation of delegates from multiple European countries demonstrated the depth of opposition to treating Russia’s international presence as routine while the war continues.

The Bank of England confirmed that Governor Andrew Bailey was among those who joined the walkout. European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde, however, remained in the room, according to two people familiar with the meeting.

The different responses among officials illustrated that participation in international economic discussions does not necessarily imply a uniform diplomatic position. Some delegates chose to register their opposition by leaving, while others remained in the meeting.

IMFC Chair Emphasises Agreement Despite the Walkout

Despite the incident, Al-Jadaan stressed that the committee had achieved its immediate objective by agreeing to the chair’s statement.

“We came here for a reason, and we achieved it. Look at this chair statement, it clearly says that all members agreed to the statement, so that’s what matters,” he told Reuters.

His remarks drew attention to the difference between visible political disagreements and the committee’s formal outcome. The walkout demonstrated that divisions over the war remained profound, but the chair maintained that members had still managed to agree on the statement issued at the end of the meeting.

The distinction matters because the IMFC provides a forum for discussing the international monetary and financial system. Its work depends on cooperation among governments that may have sharply different foreign policy priorities and views on major geopolitical events.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has repeatedly complicated the committee’s ability to reach consensus statements. The latest incident took place against a background of continued disagreement over the war and renewed tensions between the United States and Ukraine.

Agreement on a chair’s statement does not mean that the participating governments have resolved their underlying disputes. It indicates that they have reached a common position on the document, even as disagreements remain over Russia’s conduct and its role in international institutions.

Al-Jadaan’s emphasis on the agreed statement suggests that maintaining a functioning forum for economic cooperation remains a priority for the committee’s leadership. The challenge will be to sustain that cooperation when geopolitical disagreements continue to influence discussions.

Russia’s International Engagement Divides the United States and Europe

The walkout also reflected wider disagreements over whether Russian officials should participate in high-level international meetings while the war in Ukraine continues.

Germany warned on Thursday against efforts to bring Russia back onto the international stage after Siluanov attended a meeting of G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in Asheville, North Carolina. The gathering marked his first in-person G20 appearance at a meeting hosted by the United States since Russia invaded Ukraine, according to the report.

Washington, which currently leads the G20, defended Russia’s participation. US Treasury Under Secretary Erin Browne told Reuters that maintaining dialogue was important to resolving international crises.

“We think it’s really important if you’re going to solve a crisis, you need to have open dialogue and open conversation,” Browne said, arguing that conflict resolution is difficult if the parties are not talking to one another.

The US position reflects the view that diplomatic engagement can preserve opportunities to discuss disputes and explore possible solutions. European governments opposed to normalising relations with Moscow have emphasised that Russia’s participation in international forums should not diminish the significance of its invasion of Ukraine.

These approaches highlight a continuing dilemma for international diplomacy. Restricting engagement can communicate opposition and maintain pressure on Russia, while continued participation can preserve communication channels. Neither approach, by itself, guarantees progress towards ending the war.

The disagreement is especially significant for institutions focused on economic cooperation. Governments may need to discuss financial stability, energy markets and international trade even when they remain divided over security and foreign policy.

Ukraine Faces Uncertainty Over Western Support

The IMF meetings took place amid growing tensions between Washington and Kyiv. Ukrainian Finance Minister Serhiy Marchenko participated virtually in the meetings so he could focus on budget priorities at home, according to the report.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy criticised US President Donald Trump’s recent diesel deal with Russia while speaking at a European Union summit on Friday. EU leaders rallied around Zelenskiy after Trump again criticised Ukraine and described its strikes on Russian refineries as a “disgrace”.

Trump also waived a new congressional requirement to impose harsh sanctions on Russia on Friday, adding another development to the debate over Washington’s approach to Moscow.

The tensions have created uncertainty over the future direction of US policy towards the war. European leaders have expressed support for Ukraine, while disagreements over sanctions, military actions and diplomatic engagement continue to shape relations among Kyiv and its Western partners.

For Ukraine, these disagreements have practical consequences because military assistance, intelligence sharing and financial support are important to its ability to sustain its defence and meet government spending needs. Any changes in the scale or terms of Western support could affect budget planning and the country’s broader economic outlook.

The presence of Ukraine’s finance minister in the discussions, even virtually, also highlighted the connection between the war and the country’s public finances. Sustaining government operations during a prolonged conflict requires resources for essential services and other spending priorities, alongside the costs associated with defence.

What the IMF Meetings Mean for the Global Economic Outlook

The Bangkok meetings brought together two issues that are increasingly difficult for international policymakers to separate: the need to maintain global economic stability and the geopolitical conflicts that threaten it.

The IMF’s assessment of economic resilience suggests that the global economy has continued to withstand significant shocks. However, the risks identified by Al-Jadaan and Georgieva indicate that resilience alone cannot guarantee stable growth in the years ahead.

Energy and food security remain vulnerable to conflict and supply disruptions. High public debt can constrain governments’ responses to new emergencies, while trade tensions can complicate investment and international commerce. Artificial intelligence offers opportunities to increase productivity but may widen economic disparities if lower-income countries cannot access its benefits.

Addressing these challenges will require national policy decisions as well as cooperation between countries. Governments will need to manage public finances, maintain credible monetary frameworks and support investment without overlooking the needs of vulnerable populations.

International institutions can provide a forum for coordinating responses, identifying shared risks and supporting countries facing financing pressures. However, their effectiveness depends partly on the willingness of member governments to cooperate despite political differences.

The walkout during Siluanov’s address demonstrated the limits of that cooperation. Yet the agreement on the IMFC chair’s statement showed that delegates were still able to reach a formal outcome despite the divisions surrounding Russia’s participation.

Conclusion: Economic Resilience Faces a Test From Geopolitical Divisions

The IMF’s annual meetings in Bangkok ended with a mixed picture of the global economy. Al-Jadaan described the economy as remarkably resilient but warned that wars, energy risks, public debt and technological uncertainty required continued vigilance. Georgieva similarly stressed that economic divisions were widening, particularly for lower-income countries that fear falling behind in the artificial intelligence economy.

At the same time, the walkout during the Russian finance minister’s speech exposed the continuing diplomatic consequences of the war in Ukraine. European officials used their departure to signal opposition to normalising relations with Moscow, while the United States defended continued participation in international forums as necessary for dialogue.

The committee’s agreement on the chair’s statement offered evidence that economic cooperation could continue despite political disagreements, but it did not resolve the underlying tensions. The wider challenge for the global economy will be to preserve cooperation on shared financial and development priorities while governments remain divided over war, trade and international security.

As policymakers confront repeated economic shocks, the ability to coordinate responses, protect vulnerable populations and ensure that technological progress reaches more countries will remain important. The Bangkok meetings showed both the resilience of the global economy and the difficult political conditions in which that resilience must be sustained.