Connexion
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions during an embassy roundtable discussion titled “Ukraine crisis. Diplomacy and settlement prospects,” Moscow, December 11, 2025
[Comment: It is noticed that frequently now, Russia calls the so-called ‘Peace Agreement’ for Gaza into question as a key part and a leading component of their public speeches. In this address to diplomats, he even calls out that other fora and discussions use the Russian issues to divert from the grave situation in Gaza. He also calls it an initiative, and not a Peace plan or agreement.]
Good morning, colleagues.
Your Excellencies,
Thank you for taking a lively interest in discovering our position on the Ukraine topic and international affairs in general. However, we are focusing this roundtable discussion on the Ukraine crisis, which was orchestrated by the West in an effort to turn Ukraine into an anti-Russia, and pumping it full of weapons for preparing it to wage war against our country.
Of course, this is one of the most sensitive and urgent issues on the international agenda, even if, to be honest, we are witnessing attempts to exploit the sense of urgency related to all the debates regarding Ukraine, including within international forums, for diverting attention from other challenges the international community faces, which can be even more fateful and critical, not less. I am referring to the Palestinian issue.
We welcomed the steps by President of the United States Donald Trump. The key takeaway was that his initiative’s first phase helped free people, hostages, and facilitated the return of bodies so that they could be buried according to the religious traditions. We are now all waiting for the second stage. The fact that this plan has a humanitarian focus and does not provide for a final and lasting resolution of the Palestinian issue in keeping with the UN resolutions does not inspire any optimism.
Nevertheless, we have gathered here to discuss the Ukraine crisis. If you allow me, I will say a few words regarding the way Russia assesses the developments on this topic at the present stage.
We are holding this meeting at a time when not a single day goes by without the media relaying messages which create new expectations that a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict is getting closer. All these assessments and expectations stem from the fact that various international actors have stepped up their contacts. And all this is taking place against the backdrop of reports that the economies of the Kiev regime’s sponsor countries are sinking deeper into crisis, which primarily relates to European bureaucrats, as well as most NATO and European Union members.
There has been quite a lot of speculation regarding all kinds of destructive planted stories and fakes. We view these actions as being initiated by our Western colleagues with the primary goal of making it harder to come to a negotiated solution and make the conflict last longer. This includes efforts to derail the initiatives coming from the United States and its President, Donald Trump, since their genuine purpose consists of finding solutions and addressing the root causes of the Ukraine crisis.
In Europe, no one mentions the root causes at all. All they do is demand that hostilities be stopped immediately so that Ukraine and the Europeans could breathe a sigh of relief and win some time to be able to prop up the Kiev regime with weapons and money.
Here is a recent news story, which I wanted to bring to your attention. The media has reported about a telephone conversation between US President Donald Trump, President of France Emmanuel Macron, Prime Minister of the UK Keir Starmer, and Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz. Stefan Kornelius, who is a spokesperson for the German government, made a public statement saying that the four heads of state and government discussed the talks on a ceasefire in Ukraine. Just that. Europe is not interested in anything else. Meanwhile, Russia insists on agreeing on a package of measures to achieve solid, sustainable and lasting peace with security guarantees for all the parties.
Our negotiations with the US President and his team are focused on precisely that objective: developing a long-term solution that addresses the root causes of this crisis. In contrast, as illustrated by the recent statement from the official German government spokesperson, Western Europe is currently preoccupied with securing a ceasefire – essentially pausing to catch their breath and regroup before redoubling efforts to prepare Vladimir Zelensky and his regime for renewed hostilities against the Russian Federation.
So today we will try to separate the wheat from the chaff. We will examine the dynamics that have unfolded this year and, drawing on our accumulated experience, outline our assessments. These assessments will, in turn, inform our decision-making regarding negotiation formats, timelines, and potential outcomes.
First, however, some necessary historical context. While many of you are familiar with the background story, nevertheless, it is worth reiterating that under the Joe Biden administration, the United States became the primary sponsor of the Kiev regime. Shortly after the violent seizure of power in Ukraine in February 2014, then-Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, testifying before the Senate, openly endorsed the developments in Ukraine. She noted that the $5 billion invested there in preceding years would guarantee the success of what she termed “the triumph of democracy.” In reality, it was simply a coup.
Following this coup, the United States established control over Ukraine’s political system and economy, while flooding Ukrainian neo-Nazis with modern weaponry. Donald Trump “inherited” this situation in its entirety. We recall, however, that one of his central and most prominent campaign pledges regarding foreign policy was to bring about a swift end to the conflict in Ukraine. It should be noted that the current American leader, having now returned to the White House, has indeed taken tangible steps to address the conflict and, in our assessment, now appears sincerely committed to facilitating its resolution through political and diplomatic means. We welcome this shift.
Aspiration alone, of course, is insufficient. Concrete steps are required to address the root causes of the conflict, which the President of Russia and members of our Government have repeatedly outlined. This necessitates a change in the policies we find unacceptable, specifically: ceasing efforts to bring Ukraine into NATO, contravening assurances given over the past 35 years, and halting the Ukrainian regime’s campaign to eradicate all things Russian, which is conducted in flagrant violation of the UN Charter, numerous international conventions, and Ukraine’s own constitutional guarantees for the rights of Russian and other minorities across all spheres of public life.
From the outset of the crisis, Russia has taken every possible step to facilitate its resolution. In February 2014, when the coup was carried out in Kiev, we immediately appealed to the leadership of France, Germany, and Poland. We called on them to exert their influence on the opposition – which, in fact, had orchestrated the coup with direct Western support and guidance. Specifically, we asked these European governments to demand that the opposition honour the political settlement agreement signed on February 21, 2014, with then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich.
Crucially, Berlin, Warsaw, and Paris had acted as guarantors of that very agreement. Their signatures were on the document. We told them plainly that their reputations were on the line, and urged them to take action to bring the usurpers to their senses and restrain them. Had this happened, had the Germans, French, and Poles fulfilled their obligations as guarantors, Ukraine could have been spared the civil war that the new regime, having seized power by force, immediately unleashed against millions of its own citizens who categorically refused to recognise its legitimacy.
Given that the West, even then, almost twelve years ago, simply refused to honour its own commitments, this episode provides a clear answer to the question of how sincerely these European capitals have ever wanted peace in Ukraine.
Nevertheless, Russia has persistently pursued diplomatic efforts. The Minsk Agreements were agreed upon after protracted, late-night discussions in the Belarusian capital, with direct involvement of President of Russia Vladimir Putin. These accords were not only coordinated but also initiated by Russia (a deliberate move on our part) and later endorsed unanimously by the United Nations Security Council. Article 25 of the UN Charter stipulates that the Members of the United Nations agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.
However, the West perceived these agreements merely as a stalling tactic – to buy time which they utilised to continue arming the illegitimate Kiev regime and advance their agenda of preparing for conflict against the Russian Federation. The signatories of the Minsk Agreements – the then-President of France, François Hollande, the then-Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, and the then-President of Ukraine, Pyotr Poroshenko (whose signature, naturally, is also affixed to the document) – sought only to secure time for themselves. They candidly admitted this. Three years ago, in interviews amidst the ongoing special military operation, they clearly stated that there had never been any intention to implement these agreements. Their aim, they confessed, was to bolster the beleaguered state of the Ukrainian armed forces, thereby preparing Ukraine for war against Russia.
The work of the Contact Group, established by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany to facilitate the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, also reached a deadlock. This too was sabotaged by the Kiev regime and its Western sponsors.
Concurrently, with NATO’s support, the Kiev regime enhanced its military capabilities, eventually escalating hostilities significantly against the civilians of south-eastern Ukraine – those who, as I have previously stated, categorically refused to recognise the legitimacy of the coup instigators. This refusal was partly based on the fact that upon seizing power in the immediate aftermath of the February 2014 coup, these individuals announced their intention to revoke the status of the Russian language, effectively outlawing millions of Ukrainian citizens who, like their ancestors, had been nurtured and lived within Russian culture for centuries. The southeast of Ukraine, including Odessa and Nikolaev, comprises territories and cities established by Russians. Factories, ports, infrastructure – all were constructed by Russian hands. These lands were later bureaucratically reassigned within the Soviet Union to the regions (of the then Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic) now known as Galicia and other western territories.
Yet, the core issue remains: the Minsk Agreements were never honoured. The Kiev regime had no intention of engaging in a sincere peace process or negotiating with representatives of south-eastern Ukraine. They publicly declared they would never negotiate with these representatives – a direct breach of the Minsk Agreements’ provisions.
The fact that, in late January to early February 2022, the Ukrainian armed forces significantly intensified artillery and aerial strikes on the territories of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics was corroborated by reports from the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. I will not elaborate on specifics; we have addressed this matter extensively. The key takeaway is that Russia prioritised diplomacy until the very last moment.
In December 2021, two months before the beginning of the special military operation, we pursued no agenda other than a peaceful resolution. We presented the United States and the North Atlantic Alliance with draft documents aimed at negotiating security guarantees on the western flank. We proposed signing legally binding agreements. These proposals were arrogantly dismissed by both the Americans and NATO.
It was only after it became apparent that the West sought to grant Ukrainian Nazis carte blanche to violently suppress those who refused to recognise the coup – as President Vladimir Putin stated – that we had no alternative but to launch the special military operation. Its purpose was to protect the population of south-eastern Ukraine, whom the Kiev regime had branded “sub-humans,” “creatures,” and “terrorists,” and against whom, in violation of all norms of international humanitarian law, it deployed regular armed forces, including artillery and combat aircraft.
Nevertheless, even after the commencement of the special military operation, we did not abandon efforts to resolve the situation through political means. Contacts with the Ukrainian side, at their request, took place in Belarus mere days after the operation began. These were subsequently continued in the Brest Region of Belarus, in Istanbul, and via video conference. Yet this dialogue, too, was disrupted through no fault of ours. Here, the leadership of Britain – and personally the then Prime Minister Boris Johnson – played a subversive (I can think of no better term), highly detrimental role. In April 2022, he instructed Vladimir Zelensky to abandon the settlement plan proposed by Kiev itself and already initialled, declaring that Ukrainians must fight “to the last.” All this was done in the illusory hope of witnessing the collapse of Russia’s economy. Such was the calculation of that dishevelled political figure. They believed that under sanctions pressure, we would descend into a deep crisis, precipitating political destabilisation in Russia – an outcome the West, particularly the Europeans, pursued then and continues to pursue today.
In other words, according to the schemes of Western strategists, Ukraine was to serve as an anti-Russian battering ram, holding out until the pressure on our country broke us economically, politically, and indeed morally and psychologically. Their goal was to shatter our resolve to defend the unity, sovereignty, and security of the state, as well as the dignity of Russian people who, by the twists of history, found themselves on Ukrainian territory. They would have lived there peacefully, had the Ukrainian leadership respected its own constitution, which mandates the protection of the rights of Russian and other ethnic minorities.
Their objective was to inflict a strategic defeat upon us, thereafter dictating Western terms on matters of interest to European capitals. Yet the plan for an anti-Russian blitzkrieg using Ukraine failed. Russian society demonstrated internal consolidation, while the economic and political systems proved their resilience and immense reserves of strength.
This, too, is a crucial point for understanding the historical context. As we say in Russia, whenever our nation has been attacked – our cause is just. This conviction in our righteousness – historical, legal, and moral – reflects the character of our people. It underpins the current state of affairs in the struggle against those who sought to crush all our legitimate rights and interests.
Today, the resources available to the West for conducting a proxy war – financial, logistical, and military – are being depleted. According to numerous independent estimates, the AFU’s human losses have long exceeded one million and continue to rise. The Kiev regime, once an ideologically driven combat unit fuelled by Nazi ideology, including battalions such as Azov and other neo-Nazi groups, as well as certain prohibited substances in daily life, has devolved into an organised criminal entity mired in corruption and dragging its sponsors down with it.
In these circumstances, the ruling circles of the West can broadly be divided into two camps. The majority advocate for the militarisation of European economies and preparations for large-scale armed confrontation in Europe, evidently in the hope that, as the saying goes, “war will justify everything,” and their mistakes will be forgotten.
Among such figures, I would mention NATO Military Committee Chair Giuseppe Cavo Dragone: “We are looking at acting more aggressively rather than reacting. The Alliance (NATO) could consider pre-emptive strikes as defensive actions.” How about that? This underscores how other figures – not just military but political – openly declare that preparations must be made for war against Russia by 2030, if not 2029.
“Amusingly,” Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni attempted to justify this Italian admiral’s remarks on the necessity of pre-emptive strikes against the Russian Federation. When asked how she viewed this, she stated that these words should be interpreted correctly to halt and prevent dangerous escalation. How else can one interpret an explicit call for pre-emptive strikes?
I am confident that everyone understands what is at stake and how the West, out of desperation, is attempting to escalate the situation and remain on the path of war. They hope that by stoking this issue and hyping up the “military threat” emanating from Russia, they can cling to power and save face.
In our assessment, this represents the majority of Western elites in Europe. Others, the minority, seek to devise an exit strategy from the conflict, striving to find avenues for de-escalation and the creation of conditions for a political settlement. This policy among some European countries aligns with the actions of the Donald Trump administration, which has long moved beyond rhetoric to leverage its influence over Kiev, persuading Vladimir Zelensky to return to the negotiating table.
We appreciate these efforts, as well as the willingness of certain partners to provide platforms for dialogue. Though, frankly speaking, Vladimir Zelensky, with the backing of leaders in Brussels, Berlin, London, and Paris, seeks to obstruct these efforts at every turn, concocting excuses aimed solely at derailing the Donald Trump administration from its chosen path – one oriented towards sustainable, long-term settlement. They aim to substitute all this with fabrications, just to avoid taking any meaningful action.
As you know, confirming our commitment to negotiations and a political solution, we initiated the resumption of direct talks in Istanbul this spring. Three rounds were held – in May, June, and July. We approached these meetings in good faith. We prepared and submitted our proposals to the Ukrainian side: a draft Memorandum on Settlement Principles, outlining our vision for a resolution. Specifically, we proposed establishing a joint Russian-Ukrainian centre for monitoring and enforcing a ceasefire during designated periods to address pressing humanitarian issues.
When the Ukrainian side claimed that Istanbul was unproductive – arguing that only limited humanitarian agreements on prisoner and body exchanges had been reached – we responded by offering to create dedicated working groups: one for humanitarian issues, one for military matters, and one for political questions. This proposal, too, was ignored.
Subsequently, the Ukrainian delegation complained that the level of negotiators in Istanbul was insufficient for making substantive decisions. We then proposed a significant elevation in the rank of the negotiating teams. This also received no response. Every initiative we put forward to advance the bilateral dialogue was rejected or ignored. This pattern confirmed that the Ukrainian regime is fundamentally unwilling to seek genuine solutions or agreements.
I noted that there were some positive results in the humanitarian sphere: the exchange of the bodies of the deceased and of prisoners. Nearly 2,500 individuals from each side were able to return home. Several rounds of repatriating the remains of the fallen were organised. To date, we have transferred over 11,000 bodies of fallen Ukrainian soldiers to Kiev and have received, in return, 201 bodies of our own soldiers.
Despite the above, Kiev cited a lack of progress and decided to suspend negotiations with Russia. The West, for its part, has offered no reaction and has made no attempt to compel or even encourage the Kiev regime to create even the appearance of readiness for a political settlement.
Given these events, our conclusion is clear: the Kiev regime engaged in the Istanbul talks for a single purpose – as it did during the Minsk agreements – to exploit any pretext to secure an unconditional ceasefire, thereby buying critical time for rearmament, replenishing losses, regrouping forces, and other military preparations. Naturally, we could not agree to such a scenario.
Now, a new and personal factor has emerged for Zelensky. A major corruption scandal has erupted in Ukraine, making the prolongation of the conflict a pressing political imperative for him, and perhaps even a matter of his personal survival.
For us, talks designed to achieve a negotiated settlement, as President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly emphasised, remain the preferred course of action. We have never refused to talk, which is confirmed by our constructive work to review the initiatives advanced by the United States.
We appreciate the efforts of our BRICS partners to help create an environment conducive to finding peaceful solutions to the Ukraine crisis, including the Group of Friends for Peace in Ukraine created by our Chinese and Brazilian partners. We regard these efforts as a sincere desire to make a constructive contribution to stabilising international situation.
Importantly, such work should rely on international law, above all the provisions of the UN Charter understood as an indivisible and interdependent whole. It is essential to strive for what was mentioned several times today, namely, the elimination of the underlying causes of the conflict as a key prerequisite for durable peace.
I spoke about the principles of the UN Charter. The West also keeps referring to them as the basis for a settlement. But its statements are highly specific. Recently, German Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz once again stated that the conflict must be resolved on the basis of the principles of the UN Charter and respect for territorial integrity of Ukraine. This represents a selective commitment to the Charter.
The UN Charter also speaks of many other things, including equality and the right of nations to self-determination. It was precisely the right of nations to self-determination that became the foundation for the process of decolonisation, when peoples, above all in African countries, refused to live under the rule of the colonial powers, because these powers did not and could not represent the interests of African peoples. By the same token today, the Kiev regime – everyone is clear about that – cannot in any way represent the interests of the residents of Novorossiya, Donbass, and Crimea.
There must be no double standards here. When the Group of Friends of the UN Charter created by our partners works on shaping its philosophy, we want all the principles of the UN Charter, without exception, to be taken into account. All the more so since the West forgets another principle of the Charter which includes respect for human rights regardless of race, sex, language, or religion. The Russian language and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church have been outlawed in Ukraine. I hope that many countries that are part of the Group of Friends of the UN Charter are represented here and will take these issues into account in their work. The Group should be mindful of these considerations.
The involvement over the past year of certain Western countries that are directly engaged in supporting the Kiev regime, France and Switzerland to be specific, in the work of the Group of Friends for Peace in Ukraine can hardly help achieve this goal. How can they be members of the Group of Friends (even as observers) when they directly, both in word and in deed, support the Kiev regime?
Speaking of the Americans, I mentioned earlier that, in our assessment, they are interested in figuring out what is behind the Ukraine crisis. We saw that during the Russia and US leaders’ summit in Anchorage on August 15. Mutual understandings were reached there that remain valid to us and can serve as a starting point in our quest for a settlement.
Recently, US President’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff was in Russia. Following his meeting with President Vladimir Putin, both sides confirmed the mutual understandings reached in Alaska. This is an important outcome, because the Anchorage summit was followed by a pause. Now, in our talks with the Americans on the Ukraine issue, I personally believe that misunderstandings and misinterpretations have been resolved. And the understanding reached in Anchorage is based on the proposals that President Putin once again summarised in June 2024 regarding the principles of resolving the Ukraine conflict.
Prior to Alaska meeting, Steve Witkoff visited Moscow and brought proposals that formed the basis of the understandings reached in Anchorage. These understandings come down to Ukraine returning to its non-aligned, neutral, and nuclear-free status which forms the foundation of its statehood. These particular principles were enshrined in the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine of July 16, 1990. We recognised Ukraine’s independence based on the principles proclaimed in that document.
When we hear claims that allegedly nothing can be done because the Constitution contains the goal of joining the North Atlantic Alliance… We recognised a different Ukraine. Most of those present here recognised Ukraine in 1991, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, as a country whose statehood was based on three principles, namely, neutrality, nuclear-free status, and non-alignment.
This is not about a play on words, but about recognising historical facts. The Ukraine that became independent after the collapse of the Soviet Union had guarantees in its laws and Constitution protecting the rights of the Russian and other ethnic minorities. The Ukraine as it was then did not have legislation institutionalising militarisation and Nazification of the state and society. Today, all of that exists.
It is important to understand the need to eliminate discrimination against the Russian language, Russian-speaking citizens, and other ethnic minorities. We are well aware that the Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Slovak minorities feel like second-class citizens. It is important to end the persecution of the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
As for territorial realities, Zelensky says he can’t do anything regarding the territorial issue because their Constitution prohibits territorial concessions. Take a look at that character, who doesn’t always remember what happens around him. The [Ukrainian] Constitution also enshrines the obligation – I will be saying this for a third time today – to guarantee the rights of the Russian and other national minorities.
They have no regard for that constitutional provision. They have adopted laws that expressly prohibit the use of the Russian language in education, culture and media. They have created a strainer of media outlets. It is impossible to work in the media sphere if you criticise Zelensky. They have shut down all media outlets of both Russian and Ukrainian owners that broadcast in Russian and criticised the authorities. They have banned all of them. If they really care about the integrity of their Constitution, civil and human rights are much more important than anything else.
I would like to state once again that we have a Constitution as well, and under it, Crimea, the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, and the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions are the integral and equal entities of the Russian Federation.
I will now repeat what I have said many times: We don’t want territories. We are concerned about the life of the people whose forefathers have developed these lands for centuries, building cities, roads and ports, and who have been commemorated in monuments as the founding fathers of these territories. It is the rights of these people that have been cancelled by the Kiev regime. That is why the people of the Russian entities I have mentioned took part in the referendums to express their refusal to live under the neo-Nazi rule. It is a subject that can’t be hushed up.
I assume that all countries in this audience have a correct understanding of human rights in full compliance with the principles of the UN Charter, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, race, language, religion or belief. However, we are well aware of the Western interpretation of human rights.
After the United States circulated its 28-point plan, it has been leaked to the media. I am sure you have seen it. It included vital provisions on human rights and the denazification of Ukraine. It stated that the rights of minorities and religious freedoms must be protected, and that the Nazi ideology and activities must be outlawed.
After contacts with Europeans, the number of points in that plan was decreased. The provision on prohibiting the Nazi ideology and activities disappeared, apparently at the request of Europeans and Zelensky’s regime.
As for the rights of national minorities and religious freedoms, a provision has been added on Ukraine accepting the EU’s rules on rights of national minorities and religious freedoms. I believe that issue should be phrased differently. Ukraine must comply with the UN Charter and the numerous international and universal conventions on human rights, the rights of national minorities and religious freedoms. I consider it inappropriate to limit Ukraine’s obligations to compliance with the EU’s “rules.”
The rights of national minorities and religious freedoms are not limited or regulated by the European Union. It is inappropriate to enforce one’s rules on others, especially since we know which minorities – and these are not national minorities at all – modern Europe is now concerned about. We know how they interpret religious freedoms. Just watch the broadcast of the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games in Paris, and you will understand their views on minorities and religious freedoms.
We continue to build upon the understandings reached with the American side in Anchorage. We have conveyed additional proposals to our American colleagues concerning collective security guarantees. We recognise that a discussion of such guarantees cannot be limited to Ukraine alone. The proposals that Zelensky and his handlers in Western Europe are currently commenting on have not been formally presented to us. However, if media reports are to be believed, these proposals, which reportedly include declaring a demilitarised zone along the entire border and creating a buffer zone free of heavy weapons on both sides of the border, are inherently pointless to discuss without our direct participation.
Furthermore, these reported plans envision an 800,000-strong Ukrainian army and propose security guarantees focused on Ukraine’s defence and post-war restoration. This represents yet another iteration of the flawed “Zelensky formula,” which pursued a single goal: to channel all international efforts into sustaining the current neo-Nazi regime without altering its fundamental nature, its policy of suppressing religious freedoms and human rights, while completely excluding Russia’s legitimate security interests from any dialogue.
As far back as 2008, we proposed developing a legally binding treaty on collective security with the North Atlantic Alliance. More recently, at a meeting with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner ten days ago, President Vladimir Putin clearly stated that we understand any security architecture must also encompass Ukraine. The other side, however, seeks guarantees solely for Ukraine. Judging by the information leaking to the press, these guarantees are being structured in a manner that effectively prepares for a future attack on the Russian Federation.
This, of course, is unacceptable. We believe the comprehensive proposals we submitted to the US and NATO in December 2021, which I mentioned, remain fully relevant and could serve as the foundation, or at least a starting point, for substantive discussions.
We are also prepared to consider other proposals. What is essential is a return to a fundamental consensus, as embodied in the decisions of the OSCE summits in Istanbul (1999) and Astana (2010). These principles remain valid:
First, that every state has the right to choose its own security alliances.
Second, that no state may strengthen its own security at the expense of the security of any other state.
Third, that no state, group of states, or organisation in the OSCE area can claim a position of dominance. It is precisely this position of dominance that NATO has been pursuing by steadily absorbing, one after another, the states to the west of Russia.
When we drew our Western colleagues’ attention to their duplicitous behaviour and their violation of commitments made by their own heads of state and government, their response was that those were merely political decisions, unsupported by signed legal obligations. That was it. That is their logic. That logic is untenable. If they insist on adhering to it, the outcome will be grave.
We are prepared to consider all credible proposals formulated within a collective framework to launch negotiations on fundamental, legally binding agreements. This is a matter of principle. We cannot allow one crisis to be immediately succeeded by another.
The West, however, appears intent on precisely that: sowing the seeds of a new conflict now while publicly declaring its preparations for it. We are determined to ensure that our current efforts do not meet the same dismal fate as the Minsk agreements – which, despite being unanimously endorsed by the UN Security Council, did not deter France, Germany, or other Zelensky’s handlers from their relentless zeal to inflict a “strategic defeat” upon Russia.
Earlier today, I mentioned the US 28-point plan. Next, President of Russia Vladimir Putin met with US President Donald Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine Steven Witkoff, with the meeting reaffirming the Anchorage understandings. The work will continue. In parallel, we see Europe fretting and Vladimir Zelensky shuttling between London, Paris, and other capitals. What is being leaked to the press – I have referred to that in part – is clear evidence of their intention to undermine the efforts being undertaken by US President Donald Trump and his team.
An early end to the conflict is not to the advantage of the majority of functionaries like President of France Emmanuel Macron, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Federal Chancellor of Germany Friedrich Merz, Prime Minister of Poland Donald Tusk, President of Finland Alexander Stubb, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and Vice-President of the European Commission Kaja Kallas. They are stubbornly playing on the drums of war, as the saying goes, create “coalitions of the willing,” build up military expenditures, and are trying to save their political future, as I said at the start of our conversation. They hold up the imagined threat of a Russian attack as a bogey and discuss Military Schengen plans and whether it will be possible to cut down the time for redeploying forces from Western Europe to our borders from 40 to 3 days.
Many of those engaged in war preparations are fantasising about sending their military servicemen to Ukraine as “peacekeepers.” For us, these “peacekeepers” will immediately become legitimate military targets. This must be understood by everyone. They have had to admit the direct involvement of British military officers, paratroopers, in the war against Russia, after one of them died and the UK Government no longer could conceal these circumstances. It was stated that no fewer than 100 British subjects were within the ranks of [Ukrainian] forces fighting against the Russian Federation. This news was reported in the evening yesterday or early in the morning today. We will draw all the necessary conclusions from this incident, which is yet another manifestation of the British regime’s true character.
The Europeans are nurturing plans to build up their forces and assets right on the border of the Union State of Russia and Belarus. Poland has announced an intention to boost the output of 155mm artillery shells by 30 times. In this context, they seek to convince everyone that they are preparing for a “just peace in Ukraine” rather than war. They are aspiring to a role in the settlement. All these Europeans, like President of France Emmanuel Macron, who claim proudly that no one will decide anything without them, without Europe.
We are not nurturing, as President of Russia Vladimir Putin stated in no uncertain terms, any aggressive plans with regard to NATO or EU members. We are ready to put the relevant commitments and guarantees in writing in a legal document, certainly on a collective and reciprocal basis in the context of the previously enunciated approaches.
But let me repeat: we stand by our words, whereas there is nothing but open warmongering on their part. Well, to quote our President Vladimir Putin, if Europe decides to go to war, we are ready for this right now, if you like.
Legal aggression persists, involving puppet organisations, such as the International Criminal Court and Europol. The Council of Europe wants to establish a special tribunal and a damage register. To the best of our knowledge, they are trying to involve countries represented here in these anti-Russia initiatives. They are striving to ensure the participation of representatives of the Global Majority, including in the December 15-16 “diplomatic conference” in The Hague, where they plan to open for signing a convention on the international claims commission in order to examine claims by the Nazi regime to the Russian Federation for saving Russian nationals from extermination in full conformity with their legitimate rights formalised in the UN Charter. Such is the essence of Western “liberals” and “champions of democracy.”
Understandably, the true goal of these “exercises” is to expand the geographical reach of the Russophobic campaign, to involve as many countries of the Global South and East as possible in their provocative actions and, of course, to put Russia at loggerheads with Asian, African and Latin American countries. I have absolutely no doubts that our friends and partners are aware of this, and that they will not yield to such provocations.
Kaja Kallas, the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice-President of the European Commission, has set forth the general line of our adversaries and sponsors of Ukraine. “The EU has a very clear two-point plan. First, weaken Russia. Second, support Ukraine,” Kallas said. This masterpiece of diplomatic art is worthy of Annalena Baerbock who demanded that President of Russia Vladimir Putin must change his course by 360 degrees.
Europe, in the person of Kallas, has insisted that supporting Ukraine is the main thing. We can observe all this in the last few days. Of particular interest are the discussions that support for the Kiev regime includes a planned robbery – the confiscation by the European Union of sovereign foreign currency reserves of the Russian Federation. Representatives of Western countries, including the Prime Minister of Belgium, the leadership of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the IMF, are warning the Brussels bureaucracy against insane and ill-conceived actions. I do not know how much of an impact this will have on certain officials, including Ursula von der Leyen and Kaja Kallas, who are engaged in a rather unsophisticated diplomacy. But they should realise that they are taking on a very serious responsibility for the possible outcome.
Kallas recently said (it appears that she sometimes makes some candid Freudian remarks) that it was not advisable to resolve the Ukraine crisis too quickly. In March 2025, Head of Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service Bruno Kahl noted that it is in Europe’s interests for the Ukraine conflict to continue for a few more years. Meanwhile, European countries would beef up their military potential, preparing for war with Russia. One can get a clear idea of the advocates of war with Russia by analysing their arguments for European audiences. First of all, these arguments imply that it is necessary to support the Kiev regime because it is fighting for European values. As they say in Russia, this amounts to admitting one’s guilt. This means that the leadership of European countries forgive neo-Nazism that has been legalised in Ukraine. The Ukrainian state glorifies people who were recognised as criminals by the decisions of the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal. Ukraine introduces racist practices and legally bans the Russian language and all things Russian, it persecutes Russian culture, media outlets and the Orthodox Church. No one in Europe is even mentioning that all this violates the UN Charter and Ukraine’s other international commitments. It turns out that this is how European values look like. I believe this is a lesson that everyone should learn.
The Ukrainian Institute of National Remembrance has offered a new take on defending the so-called European values. Established 20 years ago by the government of Ukraine, this is not a grassroots institution. It operates in the status of a central executive agency with a mission to preserve national memory and designate individuals and entities accused of undermining the interests of the Ukrainian people. The lists this institute compiles include those who are viewed as posing a threat to the state and the Ukrainian nation and have to be subjected to what they call decommunisation and decolonisation processes. This formal listing includes writers such as Ivan Turgenev, Mikhail Bulgakov, Valentin Katayev, Ilya Ilf, Issac Babel, Mikhail Zhvanetsky, Alexander Pushkin, Mikhail Lermontov, composers Mikhail Glinka and Modest Musorgsky, painter Vasily Surikov, and many others. Of course, this black list also includes major figures from our Imperial past who are viewed as a threat to Ukraine, including the Romanov dynasty, i.e., Nicholas II and his family, as well as Mikhail Lomonosov and Pyotr Bagration. The Poltava and Borodino battles have been outlawed, too.
Considering how inadequate this posturing by the Kiev regime is, we can therefore hardly expect it to be ready to engage in serious talks and, importantly, reach any serious agreements. This is something to keep in mind for anyone trying to insist that any decision for overcoming the Ukraine crisis can be taken only by working with the Kiev regime and its European masters. The fact that Europe has been treating Vladimir Zelensky as someone immaculate and deserving support no matter the circumstances also gives us reason to question whether the European leaders are in their right mind and whether they can make a meaningful contribution to the talks for achieving a solid, sustainable and just settlement based on the principles as set forth in the UN Charter and international law.
Unlike these people, we have the political will to bring about peace. President Vladimir Putin has been saying that we are ready to continue a meaningful dialogue, primarily with the United States, considering its serious commitment to achieving results. We really want to put an end to this conflict. Our principled position remains unchanged – this can be done only if we address its root causes, which are well known to everyone. I am certain that you understand this too.
I hope that the way we elaborated on this matter today will be useful for your respective governments for assessing the situation and acting accordingly.
Question: Your Excellency, the Alaska summit between presidents Putin and Trump constituted a significant breakthrough in overcoming the diplomatic impasse surrounding the Russia-Ukraine crisis. The international community received it with optimism. His Majesty the King of Bahrain dispatched two cables of congratulation and support to both presidents in recognition of their effort to achieve a resolution of this conflict. Nevertheless, the European states did not endorse this initiative, and it appears evident that they continue to harbour doubt and mistrust towards Russia despite the fact that the ongoing war poses a substantial risk to the European continent. I would like, your Excellency, to pose two questions. First, in Your Excellency’s view, what explains Europe’s apprehension towards Russia? The second question: why did Russia not take the initiative to propose assurance or security guarantees to Europe that might have encouraged it to support the American initiative. Thank you.
Sergey Lavrov: On the question of the EU’s apprehension towards the Russian Federation, as well as our plans and our thoughts, I cannot understand what guides the European leaders in their choices. Read what they have been saying so that the vanity of trying to understand their way of thinking or putting yourself in their shoes becomes clear.
Finland used to be our good neighbour for many years after World War II. We succeeded in overcoming a challenging period we had in our relations before World War II, as well as in its early days and especially with the start of the Great Patriotic War when Hitler invaded the USSR. The Finnish Army took a very active part in the war against Russia, including by sending a substantial force to enforce the inhuman and unprecedented siege of Leningrad. Finish troops took part in it alongside the German troops.
After the war, we were able to move beyond this period in history, and lived as good neighbours for several long decades with the border open for people on both sides to travel back and forth. Finland benefited from affordable Russian energy resources for developing its manufacturing, shipbuilding and timber industries. There was mutually beneficial trade and cultural ties.
But all of a sudden it seemed that our Finnish colleagues scratched off their gold plating, to use this metaphor, which included Finland’s current president, Alexander Stubb. He used to serve as a foreign minister and was my colleague, leaving an impression of being a serious and responsible politician. Finland turned into one of the most Russia-hating states and is trying to lead the pack when it comes to demanding that Russia be punished, claiming that no deals can be made with Russia anymore and that the only thing which can be done is fight and confront Russia. Only recently, the country’s current Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen said: “Take it from us: whatever happens in this war, Russia will remain a long-term strategic threat to Euro-Atlantic security. Rather than encourage, we need to keep it at bay. <…> There is no reason whatsoever to believe that Putin has moderated his demands from those he laid out in December 2021 – demands that, if accepted, would roll back decades of progress in European security. Caving to these demands would expose Europe to further aggression.” These are the words of a foreign minister from a country whose capital was where the CSCE was born and then turned into an organisation. It is within its framework that the principles of indivisible security were approved at the highest level, including the principle of not seeking to ensure security at the expense of others.
This is precisely what lay at the core of the December 2021 proposals as presented by Vladimir Putin. But Elina Valtonen has rejected them by saying that they are unacceptable since they would reverse several decades of progress in enhancing European security. I would like her to hear these proposals. This is the last chance to salvage the existing achievements in European security. The West has been trampling upon them, and has been treating the OSCE accordingly. As a country where the so-called Helsinki spirit was born, Finland cannot ignore this. Nevertheless, Elina Valtonen did not have any problem when it came to defending the Nazi regime.
Europe is doing everything to squeeze itself into the settlement process. However, it does not have any useful ideas it could contribute to these talks. They must step back, look at themselves from the outside and start doing serious things instead of persisting with their propaganda and trouble making.
As for the security guarantees, everyone knows what we propose in this regard. This information has been disclosed to the public. We made these proposals in December 2021. They are very clear and de facto consist of promoting indivisible security but not as a political commitment but as legally binding obligations with the corresponding verification mechanisms. However, the European West rejects this and wants to continue treating us as an eternal enemy.
Question (retranslated): What does Russia regard as the main humanitarian component of a durable settlement of that crisis?
Sergey Lavrov: We appreciate the ICRC’s contribution to the settlement of humanitarian problems. I would also like to once again thank our colleagues from some Arab countries – Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE, who have been working without any fuss or self-aggrandizement to help organise prisoner swaps and the return of bodies.
It would be wrong to say that some humanitarian issues are of secondary importance. Everything is important. It is important to return prisoners to their families. It is important to return the bodies so that they can be properly buried. And it is important, of course, to prevent any risks to children in such situations.
The issue of children has been excessively politicised. Kiev continues to claim that tens of thousands of Ukrainian children have been abducted by Russian servicemen and are being maltreated. When this issue was first raised, we asked our Ukrainian counterparts at the Istanbul talks – we maintained contacts at that time – to give us a list of the “tens of thousands” of children, which would be in the interests of children and in the interests of settling that problem. We repeated our request many times, and eventually the Ukrainians produced a list of 339 names, which we started checking. We also asked your respected organisation for assistance. It turned out that a large part of these names were not children, and these people were not in the Russian Federation but in Europe. This has helped us reaffirm the suspicion that some Ukrainian operators and their European accomplices were involved in child trafficking.
I know that you prefer to act discretely, in accordance with your status as a depoliticised organisation, but this issue has no relation to politics. It is about the children who are presumably cannot be found. If the ICRC is ready to help establish facts and use your opportunities to help check these lists, this will be a great contribution to our common efforts.
As for humanitarian issues in a wider context, they include language and religion. I urge our friends in this audience, including from the Friends of Peace in Ukraine, to take a look at the rights of Russians and believers in Ukraine. On November 28, 2025, in the midst of the ongoing talks and discussions, as the West’s refusal to as much as mention Ukraine’s policy of eliminating the Russian language and prohibiting the canonical Orthodox Church in Ukraine, allegedly because Ukraine is protecting European values, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the UN Khristina Gayovishin stated: “Ukraine opposes concessions on the status of the Russian language. We will not reward the genocidal intent that underpins Russian aggression by undermining our identity, including our language.” In other words, our truth, and our policy of protecting the Russians who live in Ukraine from extermination has been described as “genocidal intent.” If those who maintain contacts with the Kiev regime took notice of such statements… I believe that the feeling of complete impunity of Zelensky and his team requires attention.
On December 2, 2025, US Presidential Special Envoy Steve Witkoff brought serious proposals to Moscow. The talks in the Kremlin continued for nearly five hours. It was an extremely serious discussion of concrete problems that need to be settled to achieve a durable peace. On December 3, 2025, Verkhovna Rada adopted a law, in addition to an existing set of laws, that prohibits the use of the Russian language in all spheres of life, and excludes Russian from the list of languages to be protected in accordance with the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. It is a challenge to the ongoing peace efforts, in particular, by President Trump’s special envoy. The propaganda move that equates the fight for the Russian language to the genocide of the Ukrainian people has deliberately been made at this moment.
Don’t be shy to speak about this openly. It is only a legitimate demand to comply with international law. Europe remains silent, which is proof that its agenda includes encouraging racism, Russophobia and the revival of Nazism.
Question: Mr Minister, regarding the negotiations between Russia and the United States, the question is about the conclusion. I mean that if the current talks between you and the United States would not be able to find a political settlement and an agreement to end the war because of the destructive efforts of Europeans, as they say these days, Mr Trump may withdraw and leave the table of negotiations. The question is, what will be the alternative plan, I mean the plan of Russia in the case of failure of negotiations?
Sergey Lavrov: Trying to guess what will happen if someone suddenly changes course is not about us.
First, following the many contacts we had with the United States, including in Anchorage between the two presidents, with a follow-up at the level of their aides, special envoys of President Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, as well as at the level of Foreign Minister and Secretary of State, we have reasons to believe that the United States has a sincere and genuine interest in finding an honest solution to this conflict in terms of enabling all parties to fulfil their legitimate interests. This is what underpins our position.
We are still waiting to be informed about what came out or comes out from the contacts between Vladimir Zelensky, his European masters and Donald Trump’s administration. There are all kinds of leaks in the media. As I have already said, if these leaks are accurate, this basically means that Europeans are exclusively focusing on forcing the United States to offer security guarantees to Ukraine while ignoring Russia’s security interests. They want to agree on managing to find money for the Ukraine Recovery Fund. This is a lop-sided, unilateral approach. I have no doubt that this is what Ukraine’s contacts with the Europeans are all about. If this is the case, this approach has no future.
President Vladimir Putin made a special point when he raised this topic once again, including during his meeting with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. He said that we want and we are ready to discuss security matters taking into consideration the interests of all parties and seeking to achieve a balance of these interests collectively, taking into account the current realities. This is Russia’s position. As for those claiming that offering Ukraine security guarantees is what matters the most so that it can expand its army headcount to a million or 800,000, and so that there is nothing standing in the way of arms supplies for the Ukrainian army – these people are trying to create a new storm. This much is obvious.
You see, all options are on the table for Europe when it comes to playing its dirty tricks. I have already mentioned the robbery they are trying to arrange regarding the reserves of Russia’s Central Bank. Arms trade is another example of a blatant violation of international law and the very rules the West has been advocating.
The West went on a global shopping tour to buy up Soviet and Russian weapons which can be found in European countries and in several states present in this room. We reached out to all the capitals to tell them that there are end-user certificates which are used in military-technical affairs. When one country sells weapons to another party, the buyer does not have the right to dispose of these weapons by transferring them to someone else without the seller’s consent. But they did away with all these principles. They simply ignored them. Moreover, they are now boasting about it in public.
One developing story has come into the spotlight. Several years ago, we supplied advanced air defence systems, the S-400 complex, which is one of the best in its class, to the Republic of Türkiye. Much to the displeasure of the West, including the United States, Türkiye owns these systems. But the United States also knows that Ankara wants to buy the F-35 jets, which led the US to demand that Türkiye stops using the S-400 as a condition for delivering the F-35s. The media has been covering this story for quite some time now. Yesterday, Europe – of course, I mean the European Union, since they believe that there is no one else in Europe – said that it decided to buy the S-400 systems from Türkiye to send them to Ukraine.
It never occurred to anyone that Türkiye is under obligation, as a buyer, to refrain from taking these steps without coordinating them with the Russian Federation. But this does not seem to bother anyone in Europe. This creates an impression that they are the ones who could enable Türkiye to buy the F-35s from the United States. This is an example of Europe being ready to ignore anything to achieve its goals despite all its claims about respecting private property, the presumption of innocence and the need to comply with laws and international norms.
But going back to the question from our friend from Bahrain, Europe is proving yet again that it was not in vain that it served as the main culprit during its long history in all the human sufferings starting with colonialism and slave trade, as well as the first and second world wars. Today, Europe also finds it impossible not to act. Maybe it worries that it has been left in the cold or that the way economics and politics have been evolving around the world have sidelined it and placed it on the margins of the global processes and events taking place today. I cannot tell you the exact reason, but we are once again witnessing their belligerent instincts and attempts to use aggression to keep their head above water.
Question: I have a question and a suggestion. Tell me honestly, do you see the conflict we’re discussing ending in the foreseeable future – say, within six months? Or is it endless, with another conflict waiting to follow, instigated by different parties?
My suggestion relates to this conflict. Why doesn’t Russia donate its share in the NIS company to the Serbian government, or sell it for a symbolic one rouble? It could be returned to you in full when conditions allow. This is my personal opinion, offered without prior consultations. I do hope that, if you don’t want to answer this, President Vladimir Putin will do it on December 19.
Sergey Lavrov: Regarding predictions on when the Ukrainian conflict will end, it is European representatives who are offering specific timelines – some say before spring, others point to 2026. We are not diverting our energy to such speculation. We have clearly defined objectives. They have been publicly and unambiguously outlined within a specific framework by the President of Russia. As I mentioned earlier, we discussed the path to these objectives in detail in Anchorage, where we reached an understanding on how best to achieve them – not in the context of a mere ceasefire or temporary pause, but as the foundation for a sustainable peace. We will continue to advance along this path, irrespective of timelines set by others.
For us, the paramount issue is one of essence: the security of Russia and of the Russian people whom the Kiev regime has labelled terrorists and stripped of all rights. This remains our goal.
Concerning the Petroleum Industry of Serbia (NIS) and the situation engineered by US authorities around this enterprise, in which Russian companies hold a majority stake, negotiations are ongoing. I am aware that the Serbian leadership is engaged in appeals to the United States. It was, after all, the US that demanded this company, established through a bilateral intergovernmental agreement between Russia and Serbia, comply with its directives.
This behaviour is characteristic of the American approach. Regrettably, through such actions, unilateral sanctions, and the weaponisation of the US dollar, they are eroding the very globalised system they spent decades constructing and promoting as the foremost benefit to humanity. The realisation is growing – not immediately, and not swiftly – that this configuration of the global economy serves not the common good, but rather allows one nation to impose its own “rules” upon all others.
Of course, serious nations intent on preserving their sovereignty will inevitably create alternative frameworks. They will shift their reliance away from mechanisms that have proven to be instruments of dictatorship and coercion, and toward reliable platforms not subject to ideological dictates. This work is actively underway within frameworks like BRICS, the SCO, and CELAC. While the architects of unilateral coercive measures may derive temporary benefit from this process, its long-term historical consequence is clear: it is fundamentally eroding the very architecture of globalisation, which is now crumbling before our eyes.
As for the specific path forward regarding NIS: there are, as I mentioned, intergovernmental agreements between the Russian Federation and Serbia that explicitly prohibit nationalisation without mutual consent. The conditions under which such consent could be granted are a separate matter. I will not speculate on nationalisation or other specific solutions – perhaps the answer lies in finding a way for NIS to continue its operations irrespective of the United States’ capacity to penalise it. This is what energy ministers, relevant economic operators, including those in neighbouring countries, and NIS partner companies are currently working to determine.
One principle, however, is beyond doubt: fairness must be the ultimate criterion. To do otherwise would be to set a dangerous precedent for many other countries, and no one wants that.
Question: You highlighted several human rights-related issues. I would like to draw your attention to the tragic events unfolding in Darfur and western Sudan. The RSF forces, rebel groups, and mercenaries are committing horrendous crimes and atrocities with the support of external actors. Everyone is well aware of who these actors are. Ukrainians mercenaries are fighting in Sudan and committing horrifying human rights violations, as they commit genocide against the Sudanese people. We saw the footage that they themselves had uploaded. This incriminating evidence is available for all to see. They mistakenly believed they could oppose Russia’s presence in Sudan and, more broadly, in the African region. What are your thoughts about this?
Sergey Lavrov: I believe you can, perhaps through your representatives in Kiev – I’m not sure you have an embassy there, but if not, you can take specific steps to this end – convey your position directly to the Ukrainian government for it to stop sending mercenaries there. In case they tell you they know nothing about this, they should look into it and take the necessary steps.
With regard to the situation in Sudan, we have strongly urged the Government led by Chairman of the Transitional Sovereignty Council of the Republic of Sudan Abdel al-Burhan and forces that oppose him to sit down and talk. A number of countries with a stake in finding a solution to this conflict made proposals to this end. Others suggested that your government start a dialogue with the external actors you mentioned. Unfortunately, this did not work out and the dialogue failed to materialise. However, a proposal was made, and we passed it on.
I’m sure the important thing to do is to focus on practical solutions to this issue rather than to engage in public condemnation of whoever it may be. We are ready to help. We have the means to do so. If your government gives a green light, we will do our best to make use of these opportunities.
Question: In your opening remarks, you mentioned the efforts to end the war in Gaza. This gave hope for ensuring maritime security in the Red Sea, which would also be beneficial for the Gaza Strip and the entire region. Maritime security issues are not limited to the Red Sea; they concern the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea as well. How do you think the international law can be improved to promote maritime security across all these bodies of water?
You also mentioned legal obligations of all parties with regard to safeguarding human rights, freedom of religion, and so on, in accordance with the UN Charter. Do you think the International Court of Justice is in a position to contribute to ensuring compliance with these rights?
Sergey Lavrov: This is a serious matter. The United States is aggressively promoting its policy, whereby they can destroy ships carrying illegal drugs without trial or investigation, simply based on the information at their disposal.
As you are aware, they have destroyed several such boats and power boats. Yesterday they boarded a tanker off the coast of Venezuela, declaring that the tanker was transporting illegal oil. There is too little information. I have no knowledge about the way the United States interprets the Venezuelan situation, other than President Trump publicly calling for a regime change or for the country’s leadership to voluntarily resign. Yet, Chevron continues to operate in Venezuela and to purchase local oil. What kind of illegal volumes of this type of fuel, hydrocarbons, was that tanker carrying? This needs to be looked into.
I very much hope that despite believing they are entitled to such operations, the United States will, out of respect for the international community, provide grounds for taking such actions. We are in favour of collective discussions on ways to combat drug trafficking and to ensure maritime security to avoid situations where members of the international community are forced into dealing with unilateral actions.
As for the International Court of Justice and its role in upholding the principles of the UN Charter, there was such a precedent, including with regard to Serbia, whose Ambassador spoke here today. Acting as a representative for the Kosovo settlement, Martti Ahtisaari suddenly said – at a time no hostilities were underway – that it was pointless to continue working on the matter. He claimed there was no option left except to proclaim Kosovo’s independence.
Independence was effectively proclaimed. Our Serbian friends appealed to the International Court of Justice which said that indeed, the UN Charter contains the principle of self-determination, and that the self-determination of a part of a state may take place without the consent of that state’s central authorities. That’s all there was to it.
Kosovo declared independence without holding a referendum, just as a unilateral move. Several years later, following the coup in Ukraine, Crimea said it would not live under the government that had declared the abolition of the Russian language its main objective. A referendum was held in Crimea, and the West said it was not a matter of a nation’s right to self-determination and claimed it was a violation of territorial integrity.
We are confronted with a situation where we must interpret the fundamental rulings of the International Court of Justice consistently, or we may find ourselves in quite a challenging situation. I have no doubt that its rulings must be treated with respect, since the ICJ is a body of authority. Indeed, the rights of states and human rights enshrined in the UN Charter fall within the Court’s purview, and the Court remains available to states to bring their cases before it.
You may have heard the cliché “the fog of war.”
Well, it no longer exists.
But there is now the fog of diplomacy.
Here are a few notes on what China is up to diplomatically. The China-ASEAN free trade agreement 3.0 is the most important. Generally we drown in China information and I have so much real and valid and good developmental tidbits, that I cannot even contemplate how to present it. It has to be in tidbits. Really, this comment is not over the top. 30 Odd + travel reports with many photos, new books, large and complex analyses of where China is heading to with technologies that are mindblowing. This is before we get to our usual reporters. It appears China is building a fully fledged robot and unmanned military, AI and technology powered. We are looking into a world that is probably 30 years ahead of the muck and warmongering that we find in the west. It is both exhilirating and tiring to take a peak into all of this. It is the new world. It is also a wakeup call that Chinese citizens are mostly content with their civilization, their country and its developmental path.
Xi encourages young sinologists to bridge China, the world
China is promoting China-ASEAN FTA 3.0 upgrade protocol’s early entry into force: MOC spokesperson
Discussion between foreign affairs expert, Dr. Sreeram Chaulia, and the founder of the BRICS Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Dr. Mihaela Papa, on the changes underway in BRICS and its future evolution.
Topics covered include whether BRICS is becoming more radical and anti-Western, how the arrival of five new member states is altering the agenda of BRICS, the role and purpose of ten partner countries of BRICS, the attempts by BRICS to represent and take leadership of the entire Global South, and potential new domains and issue areas in which BRICS could be making interventions and innovations in time to come.
“Either the U.S. lets Iran become nuclear, or the U.S. has to engage diplomatically.”
In this interview, Negar Razavi speaks with @vali_nasr about his new book, Iran’s Grand Strategy: A Political History — and the choices ahead for U.S. foreign policy.
It was pleasure to speak with Security in Context on my book Iran’s Grand Strategy https://t.co/7By3bceGnS
— Vali Nasr (@vali_nasr) July 16, 2025
“Professor Vali Reza Nasr is an Iranian-American academic and political scientist, specializing in Middle Eastern studies and the history of Islam. He is Majid Khaddouri Professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C.”
This eloquent expat may provide the most balanced and rational analysis to be seen in the West, even if must operate within rigid overton windows. Born in Tehran and understanding of the current Iranian world view and spirituality, he can look through their eyes and cogently present their point of view to us
A storm in a teacup is raging after Mr Wang Yi’s visit to Europe. Wang Yi visited various European officials including German Foreign Minister Wadephul in Berlin, Belgian Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot and French Foreign Minister Jean-Nolé Barro.
This post deals with his 4-hour meeting with the ‘brilliant’ Kaya Callas and other european poodles dignataries.
Wang Yi’s visit was to mark the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between China and the European Union (EU), and as is customary in diplomatic affairs, he made a positive speech to kick off this visit. He said that the 50th anniversary is of great significance in building on past achievements and charting the future. China-EU cooperation has grown from scratch and expanded steadily. Today, the daily trade volume between the two sides is equivalent to the total annual trade volume of previous years. China-EU relations have also kept reaching new heights, forming a comprehensive strategic partnership. Both sides should take the 50th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations as an opportunity to thoroughly review and reaffirm important inspirations drawn from history. In other words, the China-EU relationship should be characterized as a partnership, with cooperation being the defining feature, independence the key value, win-win outcomes the prospect for development. Both sides should take this year’s high-level exchanges as an opportunity to cherish the efforts made by predecessors, carry forward the hard-won spirit of cooperation, and work together to open up the next 50 years of China-EU relations that will be more resilient and autonomous, more mature and stable, and more forward-looking.
Since the start of Trump’s tariff regime when Europe as a bloc realized that Trump is not going to spare them, there has been a line of European visitors to China, to do some business. Mostly they were received with dignity but sometimes China ignored them and in some cases, they landed at the airport with no dignatories to greet them. It has been a rocky relationship to say the least. This was thus a visit to build and repair relationships and open trade mechanisms and Wang Yi arrived with a friendly and conciliatory stance. It was a longer visit, from June 30 to July 6.
Mr. Wang Yi walked into a hellscape of accusations, and various parts of this visit are now being cancelled and changed. The allegations were around China’s support of Russia in the SMO and there were some unhinged accusations regarding rare earth minerals. Ms. Kallas demanded that her Chinese counterpart stop “any material support for the Russian military-industrial complex” and expressed concern about Chinese companies’ cooperation with Russia. Then she demanded that China ends its unfair practices, including restrictions on the export of rare-earth metals, which pose significant risks to European companies and threaten the reliability of global supply chains,” according to the EU press service.
Mr. Wang Yi sat in his chair for four hours of this. According to the Chinese readouts, he remained courteous.
Wang Yi said that the Ukraine crisis, occurring in Europe, has global ramifications. China’s position has been open and consistent, which includes to promote peace talks, not to provide lethal weapons to parties in the conflict, and to strictly control the export of dual-use articles, including drones. China has not only effectively fulfilled its international responsibilities but also initiated the Group of Friends for Peace with Brazil and other Global South countries at the United Nations, gathering greater collective efforts for ceasefire and cessation of hostilities. China’s objective and impartial stance has gained broad recognition from the international community.
It takes more than one cold day for the river to freeze three feet deep. President Xi Jinping has repeatedly pointed out that there is no simple solution to complex issues. Although there are still major differences in the positions of the parties involved, it is better to talk than to fight. The history of Europe over the past several centuries has demonstrated that no matter how complex and difficult the circumstances may be, the door to peace and reconciliation must never be closed. China welcomes all parties to play a constructive role in this regard, working to reach a comprehensive, lasting, and binding peace agreement, building a balanced, effective, and sustainable European security architecture, and achieving enduring peace and stability in Europe at an early date.
So far so good. Wang Yi remained in his chair and for that he deserves a medal.
Two news outlets, The South China Morning Post (out of Hong Kong, unreliable and at least half of their reporters are still Brits) and Bloomberg started reporting about the conversations during the four hour meeting, all ‘allegedly’ and from unknown ‘sources’.
Wang Yi openly admitted that China cannot allow Russia to lose in the Ukrainian conflict, and that prolonging it is even beneficial for Beijing.
This prevents the United States from fully shifting its focus to Asia, which gives China a strategic window.
In addition, the minister allegedly stated that if Beijing were to provide any assistance to Moscow in the Ukrainian conflict, the conflict would have ended earlier.
Did Wang Yi say those things or did he not? Was he set up for a failed high profile diplomatic meeting? And if so, who was set up and by who?
In the background, the trade negotiations in London between China and the US continue and the reporting from there is that they are making progress specifically on the issues of rare earth metals. China will not export these if they are of dual use. In the Chinese readout on the European accusations on rare earth metals state that this has little to do with consultations between Europe and China. Let’s call them the third force for now.
Did the third force set up both Wang Yi and Europe to make sure that any relationships and trade negotiations fail in order to give their own negotiations and agenda a better change of success?
China is already responding and we will see strong measures. They do not take it lightly that their Minister of Foreign Affairs is disrespected. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce announced the imposition of anti-dumping duties ranging from 27.3% to 34.9% on European cognac and brandy imports for a period of five years, effective from July 5.
London Paul and Ken from the Sirius Report discuss:
A short update from a journalist that is to be admired.
KAJA KALLAS BECOMES CHINA CRYING CLOWN
Kaja Kallas, is usually found strutting around Brussels like she’s the queen of geopolitics, preaching about freedom and sanctions, she’s thinks that single handed she is holding back Russia, while conveniently forgetting her husband’s company was trucking goods to Moscow during her anti-Russia sermons, hypocrisy much.
This shrill shrieking non entity was wanting to play at being a diplomat and to be taken as seriously as her father. The woman who would start a bar fight reading a peace treaty was a poor choice. Her idea of diplomacy is wagging her finger at anyone who disagrees, then lecturing people on values and democracy. An ego so bloated she thinks she is more than an Estonian cardboard cut out of Ursula Von der Leyen. She storms into EU meetings like a yapping chihuahua with a vendetta. So watching her walk into a meeting with Wang Yi, a cool consummate diplomat, know for his coolness and utter reasonableness was always going to be unmissable. In the red corner, a hardened diplomat, winner of many battles and skirmishes and in the blue corner, the venomous harpy desperate to shake off the ” I only got the job because of daddy ” image.
This horrific little harridan opened with a petulant demand that China obeys the rules based order, which was listened to in bemused and stony silence. Taking this silence for weakness, this colossal clown screeched about China not helping to arm Russia. In typical Baerbock style, neoNazi fashion, she also demanded that China condemned the Russian SMO and that China use it’s influence to obtain a halt to Russia’s inexorable, leisurely march across Ukraine.
Now anyone with an ounce of common sense, would know that to tackle or defeat China, you would need Russia’s help, and vice versa. That ship sailed long ago leaving, China as the only player in town, holding a fistful of aces. Bluffing in this situation was never going to work and to try so with China, is to invite disaster. So sending this inadequate and diplomatically barren desperate wannabe with all the charm of a sexually transmitted disease, was as deluded as thinking the European Union mattered.
She was listened to, according to our friends in the know, with bemusement, bafflement and incredulity. The Chinese were fully aware that the damsel of density was not know for her tact, but even they were taken aback by the complete lack of awareness of her situation. Once the initial shock had worn off, she was then fed into the diplomatic shredder of glaring reality.
Wang Yi pointed out that China has not helped Russia in the conflict with Ukraine and that had China done so, the conflict would already be over. It was further pointed out to a red faced and very chastened Kaja Kallas, that China had no intention whatsoever of interfering in the current conflict. A crestfallen Kallas was then informed that China had no intention of seeing Russia lose either, because they believe that, if Russia were defeated, then it would be China’s turn next. To get Wang Yi, angry enough, for that kind of volley and brevity, shows a special talent for stupidity. So at the end of this, Kallas with her preening and posturing, pushed Russia and China into an ever deepening embrace.
As our Chinese friends pointed out, they had never seen Wang Yi so angry or so publicly inclined to slap Kallas diplomatically, into oblivion. This is not the first time the European Union has sent one of it’s pre menstrual posse to lecture the Chinese. Von Der Leyen and Baerbock equally suffered a hapless humiliation when confronting China with a rhetoric full of rubbish. All three had one job, just one and between the three of them handled it with the deftness of an OnlyFans model trying to convince the world they were marriage material.
WARREN THORNTON INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST
By Andrew Cainey and Chengkai Xie
Andrew Cainey is Director and Co-Founder of the UK National Committee on China and Senior Associate Fellow, Royal United Services Institute. Chengkai Xie is Schwarzman Scholar at Tsinghua University.
Republished in South China Morning Post, https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/3313403/china-global-conflict-mediator-ambition-action
In recent years, Beijing has increasingly taken on the role of conflict mediator on the world stage — hosting negotiations, proposing peace plans, and even deploying personnel to oversee ceasefires. Once reluctant to engage in UN peacekeeping activities, it now provides more troops than any other P5 member. These are dramatic shifts for a country that was once a staunch advocate of non-interference. As its economic and security interests now reach far beyond its borders, China’s engagement on the world stage has understandably grown accordingly. It has a strong incentive to resolve conflicts that threaten its trade, overseas investments, citizens abroad, or simply regional stability.
The Six-Party Talks on the North Korean nuclear issue, beginning in 2003, marked China’s first major foray into multilateral conflict mediation. It provides a good example of Beijing’s approach to conflict mediation, summarised in its foreign policy lexicon by the phrase “劝和促谈” (persuading for peace and promoting dialogue): while Beijing had no coercive leverage over Pyongyang, it served as a consistent convener—urging North Korea to halt its nuclear ambitions while pressing the U.S. to address DPRK security concerns.
China’s ambitions are now broader. It has been positioning itself as a leader of the Global South, representing a more inclusive multilateralism than the West. The Global Security Initiative (GSI), launched in 2022, rich in principles but deliberately ambiguous in substance, signals Beijing’s growing appetite to reshape security diplomacy around its proposed set of global norms, which prioritise non-interference, dialogue, and cooperation.
As conflicts drag on from Ukraine to Gaza, the global demand for effective mediation has never been higher. At the same time, the U.S. under Trump is retreating from sustained engagement, giving China the space to step in. However, as mediation requires time, resources, and political capital, the questions are where, how and with what effect China chooses to engage.
Where to resolve conflict
Rather than espousing universalist approaches to peace, China has been engaging most where it sees potential benefits – for itself and for others – that merit the resources and effort required. The cases of Saudi-Iran, Myanmar and Russia-Ukraine provide illustrations.
The Saudi-Iran agreement was hailed as a diplomatic success and a shift from China’s traditional non-involvement. Yet, while China did facilitate engagement behind the scenes, both sides were already on a path to improved relations. The agreement represented a tactical rapprochement rather than a fundamental reconciliation. It did not require China to resolve deep-rooted conflicts or manage volatile post-agreement transitions. China scored a diplomatic win that advanced relations in the Middle East and gained kudos for its contribution with limited risk and effort.
By contrast, Myanmar highlights the deeper drivers – and limits – of China’s mediation ambitions. Earlier this year, it brokered a ceasefire between the military junta and the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army – and, in a striking departure from its longstanding policy of non-interference, dispatched a monitoring team to supervise enforcement. This shift from quiet facilitation to active oversight underscores how China’s mediation is rooted in its own economic and security imperatives. Stability in Shan State matters not only for border security, but for safeguarding China’s access to rare-earth minerals critical to its high-tech industries.
Finally, given the Ukraine war’s significance for Europe, the U.S., and Russia, it is difficult for China to avoid taking a stance on how the conflict should be resolved. Yet the differences between Russia and Ukraine are stark, perhaps irreconcilable. China has therefore limited itself to outlining rather ambiguous proposals instead of making a full-fledged effort at mediation. In 2023, it issued joint peace proposals with Brazil emphasizing dialogue without preconditions and mutual security guarantees, diverging from the West’s rights- and sovereignty-based frameworks. Special Envoy Li Hui’s shuttle diplomacy in Brazil, Egypt, and Indonesia aligned China with the Global South’s call for alternative, stability-focused approaches to conflict resolution. Some Western analysts have questioned China’s willingness to act as a truly impartial broker that engages Russia and Ukraine on equal terms, considering Beijing’s close ties to Moscow.
How to resolve conflict
China argues that it adopts a different approach to conflict resolution than the West; that it emphasizes facilitation over prescription, flexible processes over rigid frameworks, and economic incentives over normative demands. China stresses the need to avoid what it sees as the risk of hegemonic overreach and argues that it deliberately avoids imposing its will, preferring to facilitate dialogue instead of applying pressure or imposing norms tied to democracy, human rights, or governance reform.
This approach draws on Confucian philosophy, which emphasizes “和谐“(harmony) over confrontation and sees conflict as a rupture in relationships rather than a clash of rights or ideologies. This outlook is amplified by the concept of ”关系“ (relationship) which prioritizes trust and mutual benefit over public adjudication or moralizing. Consistent with this worldview, China’s diplomacy emphasizes the quiet management of tensions and the need to preserve face for all parties rather than assigning blame.
Indeed, prominent Western mediators also emphasize trust, common interests, patience and symbolic gestures – principles not so different from a Confucian-informed ethos. Moreover, attractive as a Chinese alternative may appear, especially to the Global South, China’s ‘non-intrusive’ style may be less a deliberate philosophy and more a reflection of its limited experience in conflict resolution.
Demonstrating impact
China’s coming of age as a conflict mediator is both inevitable and consequential: its willingness to engage in conflict diplomacy offers new possibilities as its global footprint grows and traditional Western leadership evolves. Wherever and however China engages in conflict resolution, what matters is the practical impact: fighting stopped, lives saved, people safe and back to living prosperous lives.
However, unlike the U.S. or European Union, which have spent decades working on complex peace processes, China is relatively new to the arena. It has yet to demonstrate whether it can manage the intricate work of post-conflict institution-building, transitional justice, or ensuring implementation of fragile agreements. Performative efforts issuing peace plans that lead nowhere will bring at best transitory benefits for China and soon lead to greater cynicism about any engagement by China.
China’s ability to be a truly effective mediator rests ultimately on three foundations. First, its ability to build trust with all parties involved. Indeed, the presence of such trusted relationships helps identify those conflict situations where China is best placed to play a constructive role. Second, its willingness to acknowledge where its own interests are aligned with those in conflict and where they are not. This is not a uniquely Chinese challenge. All mediators, including the U.S., pursue their own interests to some degree; what matters is transparency, balance, and credibility. Finally, success requires the willingness to persist and put in the effort required to secure lasting agreement: as Xi Jinping might put it, the need to ‘struggle’ in order to end conflict. In a multipolar world starved of effective diplomacy, the opportunity for China is real. Success will demand not just ambition, but patience, impartiality, and a willingness to struggle for peace, even when it tests China’s own interests. Turning ambition into action is now China’s diplomatic test.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.
By Peter Koenig
“Peace is the most powerful weapon for mankind.”—Mahatma Gandhi
***
Peace is an economic driver for every country, for the world and even more so in a globalized world, where countries and regions are connected. Conflicts and wars interrupt not only supply chains, harming also economies that have nothing directly to do with the conflict, but they destroy countries physically and economically.
From 2020 until recently, Covid was a bio-war. Applied measures and dictates wiped out entire economies and left countries, especially the poorer ones, at the bottom, with unheard-of numbers of bankruptcies and resulting astronomical numbers of unemployment and extreme poverty, leading to many other diseases than covid – and for many to death.
A WHO study puts the economic loss at 1% of world GDP (US$ 110 trillion in 2024), i.e., about US$ 1.1 trillion. Another study, assessing the value of lives lost – which is only partially addressing the economy – puts the figure at US$ 4.4 trillion – see this https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2771764 .
In reality, the economic losses due to Covid and imposed subsidiary measures from 2020 up to the end 2024 may easily be estimated in tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars. Assets were wiped out, and their real values transferred from the bottom to the top which worldwide statistics prove without a shadow of a doubt: Poverty for the lower half of the population increased drastically, while the riches of the multi-multi billionaires duplicated manifold in the same period.
To be sure, the economic impact of Covid and the ensuing coerced vaccination campaign is not finished yet. Covid clearly was a war, a new kind of bio-war (soon to come molecular wars), killing and disabling silently, without shots, bombs, and explosions.
Economic health and prosperity are questions of Peace. And Peace is often a matter of diplomacy. Over the last thirty years or so, diplomacy has gradually vanished and today is practically non-existent, especially in the west. Foreign Ministries, Ambassadors and other diplomats should have the capacity of talking with conflicting partners, of shaking hands with them, of listening and using their professional skills to mediate. This, ideally before a war breaks out, and at the latest, when a conflict has started – to bring it to a halt.
This capacity is gone. Just look at the European Union. To bring the Ukraine war to an end, instead of going to Russia or inviting the Kremlin to Brussels for Peace talks, Ms. Von der Leyen, the unelected EU President, as well as the EU’s authority for external relations, are on belligerent footing, promising a Euro 800 billion to a trillion war-budget to confront Russia by 2030, if not earlier. Germany does the same.
This is sheer economic suicide.
The German and European economies in general are on a free-fall and these resources could be used to for productive and infrastructure investments, instead of destruction.
Diplomacy is also missing in the US. Big-mouthing about “we are the best and greatest… like never before seen in history” (Trump), does not help diplomacy a bit. President Trump promised Peace on day One of his Presidency. Even if it was meant symbolically only, it is meaningless. Under Trump Washington has sent and committed tens of billions-worth of weaponry to Israel, to continue genociding Palestinians in Gaza, in the West Bank and for taking over Lebanon, Syria and who knows how far they will go to attack Iran.
In the Ukraine-Russian conflict, so-called US diplomats are shuttling from Moscow to Kiev, to the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, soon Qatar), while Washington keeps promising – and supplying the Zelenskyy regime with billions-worth of weaponry. – A clear encouragement to break ceasefires, something Kiev has been doing numerous times from the very beginning of these recent ceasefires, including the one initiated for Easter by President Putin.
So, the killing will not die.
——
Where is diplomacy?
In the olden days, Switzerland was known and famous for her diplomatic services, for mediating between conflicting countries. Switzerland’s Neutrality was engrained in the Swiss DNA. Neutrality is the “raison d’être” for Switzerland.
A Neutral Switzerland for Good Services; that is diplomacy at its best, what Swiss tradition has carved out for the Swiss Confederates for almost 400 years.
Swiss neutrality dates to 1515 when Switzerland was defeated at the Battle of Marignano and to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, which drew a line under the Thirty Years’ War. Swiss neutrality was, however, only formally recognized by the international community in 1815, at the Congress of Vienna.
As a neutral state, Switzerland does not take part in external armed conflicts, provides no armed assistance, and is not a member of any military alliances. In 1907 Switzerland formalized this position with the signing of the Hague Convention governing the rights and obligations of neutral states in the event of war. Therefore: No to NATO.
But Neutrality was never enshrined in the Swiss Constitution. The Swiss Federal Constitution, Article 2 states that Switzerland “shall pursue a policy of peace and non-intervention.” This comes close to Neutrality, but not quite.
This may be the legal grounds, why in the last twenty years or so Swiss Neutrality has been “softened” – mostly for economic reasons, financial greed and for politically “doing the right thing” – being in tune with the EU, and those who give the EU orders, Washington. For example, one of the big “not-to-dos” for a neutral country, is taking over the US and EU sanctions against Russia, or any country for that matter.
This has unfortunately happened over the past years. Every time the two regional blocks, Washington and Brussels, issued new sanctions against Russia, Switzerland went along.
When Switzerland offered her good services to mediate the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov said in no uncertain words – NO, Switzerland is no longer neutral, no longer credible as a neutral mediator. So, Peace Talks were held in Saudia Arabia instead of Geneva. Now the traditional Swiss role of neutrality to mediate conflicts, are taken over by Riyadh, Istanbul, Doha – and who else is next?
The Swiss weapon industry is not significant compared with the rest of the world, but significant enough for the greed of its shareholders to benefit from the lucrativeness of wars. Therefore, Switzerland is moving ever closer to NATO – the worldwide war machine.
This must be reversed, and it may. A people’s referendum for Swiss Neutrality is pending and may be voted on in early 2026. If accepted by the people, Swiss Neutrality will be enshrined in the Swiss Constitution.
——
The resolution of conflicts is essential for a well running economy, worldwide, as well as regionally and all the way down to the sovereign local national levels. Peace economics, be it in Switzerland, or other countries that do not just profess neutrality but also practice it, like Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, not least China, and to some extent India, and certainly others, are benefitting from their political position. Their economic performance over the last few years with a GDP growth from between 5% and 7%, is testimony for Neutrality and Peace leading to economic prosperity.
The BRICS are not quite there yet, but one of their stated objectives is being neutral in world affairs. With ever-more BRICS associates a growing network of Peace-loving and Peace-promoting nations is emerging.
The future lies in Neutrality by which, We, the People, will win Peace.
———–
Peter Koenig is a geopolitical analyst, regular author for Global Research, and a former Economist at the World Bank and the World Health Organization (WHO), where he worked for over 30 years around the world. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed; and co-author of Cynthia McKinney’s book “When China Sneezes: From the Coronavirus Lockdown to the Global Politico-Economic Crisis” (Clarity Press – November 1, 2020).
Peter is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is also a non-resident Senior Fellow of the Chongyang Institute of Renmin University, Beijing.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to media questions during the special session of the IV Antalya Diplomacy Forum
This is a rare pleasure – English commentary by Mr Lavrov. Unfortunately there is no embedding possible now and of course the transcript will take some time. There are issues to discuss and highlight.
Quote: It is a time of great uncertainty, no one knows how situation with world trade will evolve — Lavrov
https://mid.ru/en/press_service/video/
Available on X and again, embedding is not possible now. Update: We now have an embed for this one:
— MFA Russia
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1gqGvjMRqQaGB
If those two links do not work for you, the Russian MFA has more available: https://t.me/MFARussia/24415
TRANSCRIPT
Moderator: Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests, welcome to ADF Talks-Russia, which is a one-on-one conversation at a time when the global diplomatic landscape is under, I think it’s fair to say, extraordinary pressure and transition.
We are joined today by His Excellency, Mr. Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. As we all know, he is a seasoned statesman and one of the most enduring figures in global diplomacy. Mr. Lavrov has served as Russia’s top diplomat since 2004. From the UN Security Council to the Geneva talks and beyond, he has shaped and responded to pivotal moments in global affairs over the past two decades.
Today, with Europe’s security architecture and infrastructure under immense strain and the global order fragmenting into competing visions, we’re wondering about Russia’s posture, its strategy, its alliances, and worldview. We’ll be exploring over the next hour or so Minister Lavrov’s perspective on this evolving geopolitical reality.
What does Russia want? What role does it see for itself in an emerging multipolar world? And how does it define peace, power and diplomacy in the 21st century? So, let’s begin.
Minister Lavrov, welcome to Antalya once again. I know that you’re likely to respond in your mother tongue of Russian, but if I could ask this one question in English. You see a full room out here. I think after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, you are by far the most popular figure here. How does it feel to be a diplomatic rock star?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, I think if we have heads of state being a real rock star, then there is nothing wrong with diplomats to be what they are. And if people like it, if people believe this is fun, so be it.
Question: Well, I think, as they say, the proof is in the pudding. It’s a full room. Next year, we should be asking for maybe the Aspendos Ancient Theater, just about 14 kilometers from here. It can fit 14,000 people, I think. Anyway, last year I had the privilege and honor to share the same stage with you. And one of the things that you tried to emphasize was the rise of the multipolar world. Twelve months on, how do you assess the current state of this transition? And how do you feel this trajectory has met your country’s expectations?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, I think the trend became even stronger. More and more countries, big countries, medium-sized countries, small countries would like to have an equal say in the world affairs in full conformity with the United Nations Charter, which says that the UN is based on sovereign equality of states.
And more and more countries want to determine their life themselves, to have fair treatment, to have fair competition in economy, trade, in other areas, just in line with the principles of globalization, which were promoted by our Western friends, especially by the United States, for so many decades. And when everybody became persuaded, the globalization stopped, and what we observe is fragmentation of the world economy. This is the time of uncertainty, I would say. Nobody knows how the situation with world trade and investment is going to end. Well, there would be no end, how it is going to evolve, I would say, because there would be new twists in this situation.
But generally speaking about multipolarity, it is gaining ground, no doubt about this. Not only big countries like China, India, Brazil, Türkiye, Indonesia, Egypt, South Africa, many others. They believe that they deserve a say in world affairs, and therefore, multipolarity is a chance for the United Nations Charter principles to be materialized.
Because before, during this globalization, especially during the Cold War, the sovereign equality of states was never respected by our Western colleagues. If you retrospectively consider history after World War II and creation of the United Nations, there was no single conflict where the leaders of the West would be treating parties to a conflict as equals, and I understand that this might sound idealistic, and maybe this equality would never be brought to life.
But the principles of the Charter, drafted by the founding fathers, they already provided for multipolarity. Just like they provided for respect for human rights, respect for the right of nations to determine their fate themselves, and this is also on the rise, manifestations are plentiful.
And it is very important to underline that in our vision of multipolarity, as we promote this concept with our partners in Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS, in Eurasian Economic Union, the concept of multipolarity does not exclude the West. It embraces everybody, just like the Charter instructed us.
I see no reason why China and the U.S. shouldn’t have good relations, why Russia and the U.S. shouldn’t have good relations, why everybody shouldn’t be treated with respect and with understanding of national interests.
I had some contacts with the members of the Washington administration. I liked the message which they were carrying. I’m not quoting, but in essence, the message was that the foreign policy of the United States is based on the national interests of the United States.
At the same time, the United States recognize that other countries also have their national interests, and those interests would never coincide fully, maybe even half of these interests would not be similar. But when the interests, especially the interests of big countries, coincide, it is essential for them to find ways to materialize them into mutually beneficial economic, logistical, and other projects, while when these interests contradict each other, it is the responsibility and duty of countries, especially if we speak about big powers, not to allow these differences to degenerate into confrontation, especially the hot confrontation.
And this is something which we absolutely support. We have been acting the same way throughout our history. And the last element of this multipolarity, in our common region, the security issues after World War II have been addressed from the Euro-Atlantic logic. The NATO, of course. EU was European per se, but lately the European Union signed a deal, a treaty with NATO, treaty or agreement, I don’t know, but European Union is now part of Euro-Atlantic policies, no doubt about it, including the provision of its territory for NATO plans to move eastward, southward, I don’t know where.
OSCE was created as an obviously Euro-Atlantic creature. All of these Euro-Atlantic constructions, I think, failed. They failed to consolidate security and stability. What they succeeded in is igniting tension and re-militarizing Europe, including Germany, in spite of the fact that the economic and social situation is degrading.
But all efforts of this Euro-Atlantic community are concentrated on getting ready for a new war. And Germany, together with France and Britain, are in the lead of this.
If you think about how the world looks now, well, everywhere there are sub-regional organizations, many of them, the Organization of Turkish States here, Eurasian Economic Union, ASEAN, Shanghai Cooperation, many. The same is true for Africa, many sub-regional groupings, and in Latin America.
But Africa and Latin America, they do have their all-continental structures – African Union and CELAC. In Eurasia, there was never anything like this, and as I said, the attempts to bring some big unifying projects were only made on the basis of Euro-Atlantic concept.
President Vladimir Putin, last year when he spoke in the Foreign Ministry, he suggested to consider the discussion on potential security architecture in Eurasia as a continent, architecture where all countries, without exceptions, including the Western part of the continent, will be invited to participate, where all regional organizations would be invited to join.
And actually we have, some years ago, started building bridges between Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Eurasian Economic Union, Eurasian Economic Union and ASEAN, Shanghai Cooperation Organization – ASEAN. We have been also planning contacts between these groups and, for example, Gulf Cooperation Council, which is a security but also an economic organization.
And about 10 years ago we started building these bridges without having anything in mind in the security area, but economically, logistically, finding ways to cooperate, to join efforts, to harmonize plans. And this is a promising process. We call it Greater Eurasian Partnership. This is something like potential material foundation for the future security system open to all countries and organizations representing Eurasian continent.
So, I think we are in favor of interactive discussion, so I, with your permission, stop here.
Question: No, please, by all means. Do you feel that it’s perhaps the West’s failure? Some of the institutions and bodies that they have set up after World War II, you’ve described it as a failure, that’s how you said. And the fact that you’re talking about a Greater Eurasian Partnership, aside the military, aside the strategic perspective, is that a success in the 21st century?
Sergey Lavrov: No, we cannot call a success something which is just being born in the minds of people. But the process of analyzing the situation is based on the failures of the Euro-Atlantic models of security.
NATO should have been dissolved in the first place, after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, after the Warsaw Treaty ceased to exist, and there were voices in the West saying “Guys, let’s now concentrate on OSCE. Let’s give it some push, and let’s be all in one organization.” NATO, you know, the promises given to Mikhail Gorbachev, then to Boris Yeltsin, and there are memoirs where some people ask “Why didn’t you insist on a written guarantee when James Baker said NATO would not move an inch to the East?”
My answer, it just occurred to me. You know, in the Russian history, since the 17th, the 18th century, when the trade was booming, nobody signed any contracts. They shook hands. The word of honor, and it was never violated. So probably those who were running NATO at the time that we are discussing didn’t have any relatives in the former Tsarist empire, which was not my fault, and did not inherit those traditions.
But NATO not only stayed, remained, it was basically announced that this would be the only organization which can guarantee your security. 1999, Istanbul, Summit of OSCE, the solemn declaration is adopted, which among other things said, “Security is equal and indivisible.” Everybody, yes, has the right to choose security alliances. But this cannot be done at the expense of diminishing security of others. Then it was even blunter when it said, “No country, no group of countries, no organization in the Euro-Atlantic, OSCE area can claim dominance,” and NATO was doing exactly this.
And when Vladimir Putin came to power, was elected president, he was repeatedly warning about the very dangerous nature of this course. In 2007 in Munich, if you relisten it now, it was very farsighted, unfortunately. Then in 2008, NATO summit in Bucharest, which was also followed by a Russia-NATO summit. I was there with President Putin. When it was announced that Germany and France did not allow to pass a decision formally launching the negotiating process for Georgia and Ukraine to be admitted to NATO, the Germans and the French were proud, they said, but they included in the declaration the statement that Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO.
When President Vladimir Putin asked Chancellor Angela Merkel what is the difference, she said, “No, no, no, no, this is just a political statement,” and what we managed to avoid was a legal process to be launched. But it’s, frankly, childish. Because Mikhail Saakashvili lost his brains a few months after Bucharest when he ordered to attack Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, violated the OSCE-endorsed agreement, and so on and so forth.
Then in 2010 in Astana, this was the last summit of OSCE so far, the Istanbul formula was repeated verbatim, no organization can claim dominance, no one strengthens his security at the expense of the security of others.
So, and then when this NATO expansion continued and when it was clear that these principles promulgated in OSCE about equal and indivisible security, that they were not being implemented, then we suggested having the same language and codify it in a legally binding agreement.
We were told, it was during the Obama administration, “No, no, no, guys, you don’t understand. Legally binding guarantees, one can only get in NATO.” We said, “But your president signed this OSCE declaration.” They said, “This is a political statement.”
Cheating is the key word for what was happening. And our last attempt, but we’re still in 2008 and 2010, we proposed the draft agreements between Russia and NATO, Russia and the United States.
The same we did in December 2021, to no avail. And so yes, my point is that NATO did not, or rather NATO failed to strengthen security because NATO was manipulated by those who did not want to share security benefits. And they wanted to leave all the benefits for themselves, for others to listen and get instructions.
OSCE, another Euro-Atlantic creature, has failed a few years ago when the basic principle of consensus was grossly violated by the people who replaced each other at the position of the chair in office, at the secretary general position. All the institutions, national minorities, freedom of media, what else?
You see, I even forget about some institutions, which means that OSCE is not on anybody’s mind anymore. Yes, they failed. We are not suggesting, you know, to have another closed club.
All continents have their own continental roofs, if you wish, not in Eurasia. And Eurasia is the biggest, the richest, I would say. Well, Africa is also very rich, but it is not yet opening up this potential. And if you speak from a civilizational point of view, the number of great civilizations – coming from Eurasia, including this one, including China, Persia, India, Türkiye. Russia is younger. But you would forgive me if I also say that it’s a great one.
Question: Indeed. Minister Lavrov, you’ve stated here that NATO’s desire for eastward expansion is the root problem, and then you went on to say that the OSCE is another chapter in this cheating. Do you feel that there is a viable path – I’m not saying return – a viable path to cooperative security on the European continent?
Sergey Lavrov: Cooperative security is one of the terms used in NATO, in the European Union, in OSCE. It all depends.
Frankly, we are just at the beginning of the process. We don’t want to rush things. We want everybody to join in free discussions, to present his or her views.
And I mentioned repeatedly that a couple of years ago President Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus convened a first Conference on Eurasian security. The second one was held last fall. I participated in both. And it is an annual feature. And not only like-minded countries were invited to this conference, but also members of NATO and the European Union. Some other Europeans like Serbia, Hungary of course participated in both of them, Slovakia, and the list of invitees would be growing. It is not against anybody. It is not against NATO.
I think the biggest enemy of NATO is NATO itself and those who were trying to use it to dominate in violation of their own pledges in OSCE. But the fragmentation process which I mentioned, which is taking place in the world economy, it is also reflected in the security area, the discussions of NATO, the scares of Europeans, that they would be left to their own devices. We don’t interfere.
If they believe that they are still relevant in the form which failed many times, this is their right. This is their right to decide. Our right is to make sure that the matters of the Eurasian continent are discussed and resolved by the countries located on this continent. This is not to close the door for outsiders.
Take, for example, Central Asia. The 5+1 format is, I think, mushrooming 10 or 12 groups like this, with the US, with the European Union, separately with France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Türkiye, Russia, of course.
I just had yesterday the meeting with five foreign ministers of Central Asian countries. So, outsiders always are participating in something which they believe is of interest to them and if they can find a form of cooperation which would be mutually beneficial.
We cooperate with many countries in Africa, in Latin America, so do Western countries. Türkiye in Africa is very much present. So do the Arab countries. The matter is, when you come to somebody’s region, you should respect the views of the regionals, and host countries, if you wish, and not impose your rules, like our European and British colleagues are running all over the world.
It used to be also Biden administration involved in this, running all over the world, saying, “Don’t trade with Russia, don’t sell to Russia, don’t buy from Russia, don’t meet with Russia.” I know because those are the facts. And this is not multipolarity. This is obsession with your global role, which you invented yourself and which worked during colonialism, during post-colonial times for some period, but now there is a second awakening of the Global South.
After the decolonization process, the Global South was happy, freedom, but now they understand that the global economy was crafted the way which left them with peanuts from the use of the natural resources which they inherited from God and history. Absolutely.
I remember during the second Russia-Africa summit in 2023 in St. Petersburg. President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda was giving statistics of the world coffee market. All in all assessed at about 460 billion dollars. Of which Africans were left with 2,5 – less than 1% because their contribution was raw beans, harvested and sent for roasting, packaging, advertising. Germany alone was getting more from the world coffee market than all African countries together. So, this awakening is inevitable.
Yes, the tariff war which we witness now is going to, you know, change many things. We hear that many countries would like to sit down with the United States and negotiate. Fine.
We will only be happy if people reach some deals peacefully and to their mutual satisfaction. World Trade Organization unfortunately is paralyzed. It was paralyzed by previous American administrations for many years. There is no global institution which would be authoritative enough for everybody to accept its ruling.
So, I believe we just must have these discussions about security, Eurasian security, but in the context of the multipolarity movement, which is shaping itself up objectively.
Question: You’ve mentioned on many occasions that your country’s relationship with Western neighbors essentially depends on their willingness to acknowledge and rectify some mistakes. You’ve gone over some of them in the past 15-20 minutes. But I want to ask, and we talked about the U.S. administration.
How is it like to have Donald Trump on the other side? Is it easier? Because in the last 48 hours, all of a sudden, we’re talking about the possible lifting of sanctions against your country’s flagship airline, Aeroflot, the release of Ksenia Karelina, the ballerina. Is there a potential for more movement?
Sergey Lavrov: There is always a potential.
And as I said in my opening remarks, nothing is wrong if the U.S. and Russia have good relations, if U.S. and China have good relations. And what is going on between us and the Trump administration is really a very banal thing.
Countries talk to each other without dictating to each other, without asking for any precondition. They just talk to each other.
China and the United States. They have many differences. Russia was doctrinated by the Biden administration as the immediate threat. China is the long-term biggest challenge to American dominance. So, competition in the world of economy, you see what kind of forms it acquires. And Taiwan, the situation in the Strait of Taiwan, the situation in the South China Sea, who is going to have more influence with countries of East, South Asia. And they exchange statements, China and the United States, which are not very pleasant to each other, including on Taiwan.
When the West, headed by the United States and other Western countries, they say we recognize, we follow one China policy, but they immediately say, “Don’t even think of touching the status quo”. And what is the status quo? It is not one China policy.
And from time to time, we hear from Washington the threats to Beijing, “Don’t even think of using force, this would be catastrophic”. So, they exchanged “niceties” publicly, but they never stopped talking to each other at the level of foreign ministers, ministers of defense, national security advisors, and presidents.
And somehow the Biden administration decided that with Russia, it should be different. Russia must learn a lesson. And this lesson, this punishment would be in the form of isolation – stupid, to put it very politely, not talking to each other.
So, Donald Trump has suggested to come back to normalcy, to stop this idiotic posture, which was a disgrace for the American role in the world affairs, let me put it this way.
And yes, we discuss bilateral relations, starting with the normalization of the work, of the conditions in which our embassies work. The Obama administration started throwing out diplomats. He stole several pieces of diplomatic property, which are still under arrest. Just like the Biden administration has stolen the Russian assets, and they are now thinking what to do with it, as not to create a precedent. They created precedent already, and if they believe that they should not touch the body of the stolen money, but they can steal the interest and spend it on Ukraine. This is disgusting logic that shows that neo-colonial thinking never left these people.
But the embassy activities, issuing visas in a certain time frame, not waiting, so the diplomats don’t wait for years to get the visa, to normalize the issues of the U.S. visas to the Russians who are admitted to the United Nations Secretariat, there were also problems. And yes, we want to see what joint project we can consider and discuss together. This was the proposal from the Americans. We never rejected proposals to cooperate, in economy, in conflict resolution, never.
When we met with Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz together with President’s Advisor Yuri Ushakov in Riyadh, we touched upon some regional issues, the Middle East, the situation with the Iranian nuclear program, some other topics, and of course we discussed Ukraine.
I will repeat again what I said then, and I repeated this publicly also, when we speak about eliminating root causes of any conflict, including Ukrainian conflict. This is the only way to resolve the problem and to establish long-lasting peace – remove root causes.
President Trump was the first and so far I think almost the only one among the Western leaders who repeatedly, with conviction, several times stated that it was a huge mistake to pull Ukraine into NATO. This is one of the root causes which we quoted so many times.
They also mention now another thing which is related to the root causes, namely territorial issues. They publicly, including Steve Witkoff, recognized that the territorial issues would have to be handled in the context of the long-lasting settlement. By the way, when Ukrainian and the U.S. delegations in Riyadh agreed on some paper in favor of 30-day ceasefire, this was done in the context of the Americans saying NATO and territories, inevitable. No NATO and discussion on the status of territories.
Ukrainians and the people like Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, and Ursula von der Leyen, now they say Ukraine is in favor and Russia is against the ceasefire. But they lose sight, I think on purpose, from the nuances, as President Putin called them. NATO and territories. Because it is in the context of these aspects that the American proposal was put forward.
Immediately after this was mentioned by the Americans, Zelensky administration said NATO is none of your business, territories we don’t discuss, we need arms, arms, and arms. And then since it was in time of discussions of this peacekeeping thing, Zelensky said we don’t need peacekeepers, we need fighting units.
So, the schizophrenia of these mutually exclusive statements is very obvious. But on territories, I want to make a very important point. We are not about territories. We are about people who live on these lands, whose ancestors lived there for centuries, who founded cities like Odessa, Catherine the Great, who built factories, who built houses, ports, and these people, by twist of history, during the Soviet days, became not part of Russia, but part of Ukraine, because this was considered a consolidating factor to neutralize the ultra-radicals living in the Western part of Ukraine when it joined the Soviet Union after the war.
The people who live there, they are being deprived of all human rights. I quoted the UN Charter, which in Article 1 says everybody must respect the human rights of every individual, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion.
Human rights and language rights of anybody who is ethnic Russian and lives on the territory which used to be Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, they were deprived of their basic rights. The Russian language has been prohibited at all stages of education, in the areas of culture, media.
Russian books have been thrown out of the libraries. The Nazis in Germany were burning them, but Ukrainians are much more smart. They utilize them and get money for this, you know, but everybody is happy.
And recently, the canonic Ukrainian Orthodox Church was prohibited by law. They literally exterminate anything Russian. When in September 2021, long before the operation which we had to launch, Zelensky was asked in an interview what he thought, and at that time the Minsk Agreement was still valid, though later Germans, the French, and the Ukrainian president before Zelensky admitted that they never intended to implement them, they needed more time to arm Ukraine, speaking of the ceasefire for 30 days, logic is the same.
In November 2021, Zelensky was asked what he thought about the people on the other side of the line of contact in Donbass. And he said, trying to sound clever, “You know, there are people and there are species”. Another time he gave his advice “to those who live in Ukraine but feel associated with the Russian culture, for the sake of your kids, for the sake of your grandchildren, get out to Russia”.
And just a couple of weeks ago, in another interview, when he was asked what is driving him, he said, “Hatred to Russia.” The interviewer wanted to clarify, “To President Putin?”, he said, “No, to all Russians.”
And this is said by the person who during his artistic days was defending the right of Ukrainians to speak Russian, and he said, “Get lost, don’t even think about touching the Russian language, it’s our history.” So, this is where we are.
Hatred is not the best guide. By the way, maybe somebody knows, Israel never prohibited Arab language, no? I don’t think so. So, I think Ukraine is the only country on Earth which is multinational, and the language of one huge ethnic group is prohibited.
So, if you read and listen to what the West is saying, EU, NATO, especially EU. Human rights is on top of everything. When they discuss Venezuela, Russia, Serbia, Türkiye, they never forget about human rights. Check what they’re saying on the situation in Ukraine. They say Zelensky and his team defend European values. If your value is exterminating the language of those who founded the country, if your value is to glorify Nazis and their collaborators who were convicted by the Nuremberg Tribunal, to whom you put monuments, whose birthdays you celebrate as national holiday, while ruining, toppling the monuments to those who saved Europe from Nazism, toppling the monument in Odessa, which I mentioned already, to Catherine the Great, who founded that city.
By the way, soon after this monument to Catherine the Great, the Empress, was toppled, UNESCO granted the Odessa central region where the monument was located the status of World Heritage. It’s such a shame to the lady who happens to be French and happens, I think, by default to become director-general of this respected organization.
Question: Minister Lavrov, all right, so you eliminate the root cause and you talked about territory. I was just in a session talking about the European security structure and there was the Ukrainian foreign minister and he says when it comes to territory, I hear your concept, your idea, your position on territory, but they’re not going to accept anything less than the 1991 borders.
Sergey Lavrov: It’s not about them accepting. It’s about making 100% certain that the people who have been living there for centuries are not deprived of their inherent right and if Ukrainian nazi regime, I cannot describe it otherwise, enjoys the cover from the European Union, which as I just mentioned, never dropped a word about the situation with human rights in Ukraine, then this is not our problem.
We listen to those people who voted at the referendum to join Russia to restore all their rights which belong to them by international law and by history, by justice.
Question: Okay, you have stated on numerous occasions that it is a hostile act to even entertain the idea of foreign peacekeepers. Would under any circumstance the Russian Federation think about neutral peacekeepers in the territory?
Sergey Lavrov: The biggest advocates of something like stability force, sustainability force are Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer. They are not thinking about any neutral force. They say we, France and Britain, would be the countries who would provide the most of the contingent. They talk by the way to countries outside the European Union including Türkiye, according to the rumors. They said that they are talking to China, which is a lie, India, Indonesia, they mention.
My question is, first, President Trump, who as I mentioned already, seems to understand much more about what is going on than any European leader, except I would highlight Hungary and Slovakia. These leaders are quite thoughtful.
But it was President Trump who said first many things on NATO, on territories, and he said that when asked about this idea of contingent, a force, a group, whatever you call it, there should be some discussion between the parties.
They say, I think President Macron said, no discussion with Russians, Ukraine is a sovereign country, it has the right to invite anybody, and they are inviting us. In brackets, I would repeat what Zelensky said, we don’t need peacekeepers, we need fighting units.
So, make your own conclusion, but Keith Kellogg, by the way, yesterday said that why don’t we divide Ukraine like we divided Berlin after World War II. Then he said he was misunderstood, misspoken.
But everybody is missing the key point. Imagine, yes, the leaders of Brussels bureaucracy, they say we must reach a deal which at the end of the day must guarantee Ukraine sovereignty. They, by the way, didn’t mention territorial integrity, but sovereignty.
My question is to them, you mean you want to have peacekeepers to keep the same regime which is now headed by Zelensky? You don’t want to ask this regime whether it would be interested in implementing the international commitments including the UN Charter regarding the rights of minorities for national minorities language and religious rights? Nobody is raising the issue.
So my conclusion is that by ignoring the gross violation of all the international norms about human beings, by ignoring these norms and violations by Zelensky of these norms, and at the same time, by discussing deployment of something military, call it peacekeeping, call it stabilization force, on the remaining part of Ukraine, they want to use this force not to keep peace, but to keep and protect the Nazi regime, and this is the key. Something else is a smoke screen.
Question: You mentioned the important talks that were going on in Riyadh and some of the conversations that you had with the American delegation. Also, what was talked about is safe navigation in the Black Sea. We know that there was a process going on in building this with the Turkish side, with the Republic of Türkiye. What is your stance in terms of developing this?
Sergey Lavrov: It was one of the proposals mentioned by President Trump in his latest phone conversation with President Putin.
President Vladimir Putin said, “Okay, but we have to specify the deal the way which would not allow the failure of the first one to be repeated.” And the first one was in 2022. It was a package: guarantees for Ukrainian exports, and the second part of the package was memorandum between the UN and Russia to guarantee the exports from Russia by ensuring normal freight rates, insurance rates, by ensuring the right of the Russian bulkers with fertilizers, with grain, to call in European, in Mediterranean ports, and so on and so forth. Just the normal terms of trade, no concessions. And the Ukrainian part of the deal was implemented. The Russian part did not even start.
We don’t blame the United Nations, whose representatives were trying, and they continue to try. Because formally the Russia-UN deal lasts until July this year. It was a three-year deal, while the deal on Ukraine was one year. And of course, after the first year elapsed, we said, “Thank you very much. We don’t want to play one way.” And then Secretary General Guterres was trying, Secretary General of UNCTAD, Rebecca Greenspan was trying, but the UN position, the UN Secretariat position, was very, you know, tricky. Basically, they were saying, “We cannot touch sanctions.” The fact that they recognized unilateral sanctions as legitimate, so they told us, “We will try to find a way bypassing sanctions so that we don’t violate them.” And they have been trying to do this for almost three years and to no avail.
So, it is not for the first time that this Black Sea topic is popping up again. Last year, President Erdogan, I think in March, proposed to President Putin to resume the deal. He said that Zelensky is ready to cooperate. The proposal was different from the original deal. Because the original deal provided for inspections of the Ukrainian cargo vessels going back to Ukrainian ports to make sure that they don’t carry any weapons.
Last year, the proposal by President Erdogan to President Putin was “to trust me”. It would be an announcement that there are no weapons on board, and it would be allowed to go. It was not an easy situation, but President Putin said that he will support it, provided President Erdogan uses his good offices to discipline Ukrainians so that they don’t violate. And then, at the last moment, Zelensky refused.
Actually, he first added – President Erdogan called President Putin and said Zelensky also wants to add commitment not to attack nuclear power stations. Putin said, ok, it has nothing to do with Black Sea traffic, but ok. And then when he agreed to this addition, Zelensky refused.
So, we are coming again and again to this situation. In the meantime, Ukrainians, frankly speaking, I don’t think they complain about difficulties for their grain being exported. They send a lot on dumping prices to the European Union. The European Union is not happy. And instead of doing something about this situation for the sake of their citizens Brussels people threatened to stop importing any grain from Russia. They’re very specific leaders. They say that Kaja Kallas, Annalena Baerbock, they were saying yes, when criticized by the people who saying, “We live worse than before”. Yes, we understand, but our electorate should suffer for the sake of Ukraine, while at the same time thousands and thousands of Ukrainians living there in European luxury, buying very expensive vehicles. But this is what the European elite calls European values, which they defend in the person of Zelensky regime.
So this time, when President Trump suggested another Black Sea deal, President Putin said, “Yeah, we are ready, but we need to draw lessons from the past, and let’s make sure – before we launch it, let’s resolve the things on freight, insurance, calling on the ports.” The Americans took this, and they are considering – they didn’t come back to us after this.
Another initiative of President Trump was 30-day moratorium – not a total ceasefire, but a 30-day moratorium on attacking energy infrastructure. During this phone conversation, President Putin immediately agreed, and he authorized – gave orders to the chief of General Staff to stop attacking Ukrainian energy infrastructure, even infrastructure related to the military. And at that moment, seven drones, Russian drones, were airborne. And President Putin gave order to shut them down, which was done.
Since then, we have been keeping the word, and Ukrainians have been attacking us from the very beginning every passing day, maybe with two or three exceptions. And I gave to our colleagues from Türkiye, to Minister Hakan Fidan, what we give to Americans, to UN, to OSCE, the list of facts, listing the attacks by Ukraine during the last three weeks against Russian energy infrastructure.
We understand he hates all Russians, so he gives orders. Either he gives orders, and they are not taken, or he is lying, that he is giving these orders. It’s a tragedy. It’s a tragedy.
Question: Has there been any direct or indirect contact by the Ukrainian side here in Antalya?
Sergey Lavrov: Not to my knowledge. I came here to work.
Moderator: Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re coming to the end of our allocated time.
I’ve talked about relations with the West, the United States, and the situation in Ukraine. If any esteemed journalist has a question on anything else…
Question: Mr. Minister, would you say that President Trump or some guys that are on President Trump’s side, they’d like to adopt the so-called counter-Nixon approach to drive away Russia, China, and realign with Russia after the aftermath of the Korean War? How would you see, or how would you evaluate this kind of so-called counter-Nixon approach?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I can only tell you that in none of our contacts with the Americans, in none, be it phone conversation, be it meeting in person, this issue was never raised or even hinted upon, never.
And I think that President Trump and his people are very experienced in life. And when you understand life, it’s much easier to do politics. And since he understands life, I believe those who understand life, they would never even think about trying to drive away between Russia and China.
Moderator: Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, we’ve run out of time. We’d like to thank Minister Sergey Lavrov for your insights and for your candor and for your participation here at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum. Thank you very much.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 