Connexion
Nous avons eu l’honneur de recevoir Eric BRANCA. Après une longue carrière de journaliste politique chez Valeurs Actuelles, il revient
L’article Eric Branca sur les outils du pragmatisme américain est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2065749/) with the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting media corporation (Moscow, December 15, 2025)
Read in full (https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2065749/)
Key points:
• Throughout history, Europe has repeatedly been a source of all evil and spawn of deepest crises. <…> Europe is now trying again to dictate to everyone its terms and wishes which seem to be connected with the Ukraine crisis.
• Europe is using it to assert itself, to throw sand in the wheels and scheme against the United States and all those who seek a just settlement.
• The theory and practices of Nazism are being resurrected in Europe, primarily in Brussels but also in Berlin, London, Paris, not to mention the Baltic States.
• Europe is waging a war with us once again with Ukrainians under a Nazi flag, <…> pumping Ukraine with increasingly more modern weapons.
• One of major purposes [of the new US National Security Strategy] is to make Europe know its place and to prevent it from imposing its liberal ways
• The United States wants to set up its policy for opposing China. <…> We are not against competition, however, it should be fair.
• Europeans have theft running in their blood, which we can see from the example of “frozen” Russian assets. By the way, Iranian assets are also partially frozen like Venezuelan assets and assets of many other countries.
• The West, including the United States, does not always have enough power to maintain its domination, and thus they have to resort to dirty, anti-democratic, and anti-market methods.
• The West is planning and trying to split the group of the five Caspian states and impose decisions which will not get a consensus of the Caspian countries.
• The second outrageous example is Palestine. Not only was the UN Security Council resolution violated in this case, but also a great number of resolutions of both the Security Council and the UN General Assembly.
• The last year’s developments around the Iranian nuclear programme, the absolutely outrageous illegitimate actions by Europeans, the attempts to put the blame on the Islamic Republic of Iran for the collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (#JCPOA), <…> reaffirms that the entire world order is being subject to most severe tests.
• When Iran was attacked by Israel (https://t.me/MFARussia/25345) followed by the United States (https://t.me/MFARussia/25391), we condemned those actions (https://t.me/MFARussia/25405) as having absolutely nothing to do with international legality. The key is that so far no one has offered any clear evidence that Iran has violated something, neither the IAEA, nor the Israelis, nor the Americans.
• Russia is firm in its commitment to ensuring the Islamic Republic of Iran its unconditional right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy, just as any other country.
• Russia and Iran signed a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty (https://mddoc.mid.ru/api/ia/download/?uuid=98ba2ce7-7656-4577-b8f0-c96ac946178c). We will always support Iran and promote its legitimate rights.
• Our bilateral plans [with Iran] are serious enough as are our plans of cooperation in the world arena. I mean in #BRICS, the #SCO and the #EAEU. This includes the United Nations and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.
• We are also engaged in investment cooperation. In addition to the North–South corridor, there is also such a flagship project as the Bushehr NPP – its construction is ongoing.
• There is a promising format that will help strengthen security in the [Middle East] – I am referring to the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (#GCC).
• There is the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (http://t.me/odkb_csto), and we want to work with the Islamic Republic of Iran and with other neighbouring countries, including within this organisation’s framework.
• In recent months, the Islamist Republic has made it clear that it is not seeking war or new conflicts.
• In the United States and certain countries of Europe <…> there are people who have been speaking out in favour of reviving the arms limitation and control frameworks, including transparency measures. Iran and Russia have been proactive in backing this approach.
Qatar PM, Tamim bin Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, drops bombshell – US engineered Hamas rise, Israel controls every penny to Gaza
Qatar’s Prime Minister openly stated that Doha’s relationship with Hamas began at the request of the United States. https://t.me/geo_gaganauts/13788
He further stressed that every dollar flowing into Gaza is routed with the full involvement of Israel’s security services, including Mossad.
A senior regional leader essentially described a system where Washington, Doha, and Tel Aviv all had visibility over funds entering a territory ruled by an organization they publicly condemn.
This isn’t an isolated anomaly — it fits a long historical pattern.
Great powers use intermediaries, third states, or covert channels to manage groups they cannot support openly. They shape conflicts indirectly, then distance themselves from the outcomes when the situation goes toxic.
During the Syrian civil war, the US and Israel funneled support to select rebel groups, sometimes indirectly enabling factions with extremist elements, while publicly denouncing radicalism.
More recently, reports indicate Washington and Tel Aviv have coordinated humanitarian and reconstruction funding in Gaza to influence political outcomes while maintaining public distance from Hamas.
Historically, this aligns with broader patterns: Cold War mujahideen in Afghanistan, covert interventions in Central America, and proxy networks across Africa and the Middle East, where militant groups, armed factions, and local strongmen became instruments of foreign strategy.
Afghanistan, 1979–1989
The CIA funneled billions of dollars in weapons, training, and cash under Op Cyclone to Afghan mujahideen fighting Soviet forces.
Funding was often routed through Pakistan’s ISI to maintain plausible deniability.
Some factions that were armed and trained eventually evolved into extremist groups, illustrating the long-term blowback of proxy operations.
Nicaragua & El Salvador, 1980s
The US supported the Contras in Nicaragua against the Sandinista government, using covert funding and arms shipments.
In El Salvador, American advisors and money bolstered the government while tacitly allowing paramilitary and death squads to operate against leftist groups. These interventions were justified as anti-communist efforts but the lines between legitimate support and enabling human rights abuses were blurred.
Angola (1975–1990)
The US and its allies supplied UNITA rebels with weapons and funding to fight the Soviet-backed MPLA government.
Israel reportedly provided logistical support and covert arms transfers in some African proxy conflicts, establishing a pattern of collaboration behind the scenes.
Doha’s PM exposes a modern version of the same architecture: alliances that function in shadows, conflicts managed through back-channels, and humanitarian flows intertwined with political calculations.
The interview is on Carlson’s site: https://tuckercarlson.com/tucker-show-qatar-pm
“Whatever was the real story behind the 28 pointer … the messy, even infantile “plan” posing as Hegemon in Control and mocking the BRICS/SCO is completely unworkable.”
By Pepe Escobar at the Strategic Culture Foundation.
The Circus Ringmaster’s 28-point “peace plan” for Ukraine may be seen as a pet seal splashing around in a pond to amuse the galleries. And up next, we move to another attraction.
Yet if taken seriously – and that requires not a pinch but a barrel of salt – it’s like a twin to the Circus Ringmaster’s “plan” for Gaza, this time with the objective of snatching a pitiful “victory” from the jaws of the Empire of Chaos’s own, de facto strategic defeat.
Let’s check the reactions. Here you will find Larry Johnson’s analysis – which I share – , but most of all the video of the stunning two-hour interview we had mid-week in Moscow with stellar Maria Zakharova, the most articulated Foreign Ministry spokeswoman on the planet.
What Mrs. Zakharova essentially told us is that by mid-week there was no Russian reaction because Moscow had not received anything concrete: “When we have some official information, when we receive it via a relevant channel, naturally, we will always be open to work.”
The same applied to the Kremlin. Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov: “No, we haven’t received anything officially. We see some innovations. But officially, we haven’t received anything. And there hasn’t been any substantive discussion of these items.”
Kupyansk has been liberated – Gerasimov told Putin
The political leadership of Ukraine does not give orders to its troops to surrender, Gerasimov said
— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) November 20, 2025
The first actual, terse response that came from President Putin was stunningly graphic: in camouflage, visiting a command center, and stressing that the set up in Kiev can no longer be described as a “political leadership” because it’s just “a criminal organization”.
After a few frantic days buried in a tsunami of spin concocted by NATOstan mainstream media, supporting but essentially against the 28-pointer, someone in Washington – and not necessarily Russian middleman Kirill Dmitriev – may have delivered it, officially, to the Kremlin.
So this past Friday we had, finally, President Putin’s own response, during a session of the permanent members of Russia’s Security Council.
The key Putin points must be stressed:
Alaska: “The main point of the Alaska summit, its main purpose, was that during the talks in Anchorage we confirmed that, despite some difficult issues and complexities, we nevertheless agreed with these proposals and were prepared to demonstrate the requested flexibility.”
Global South reaction: “We provided detailed information to all our friends and partners in the Global South on these matters – including China, India, the DPRK, South Africa, Brazil, many other countries, and, of course, the CSTO states. All our friends and partners, and I want to emphasise this – without exception – supported these potential arrangements.”
U.S. non-response: “However, after the negotiations in Alaska, we have seen a certain pause on the part of the U.S., and we know this is due to Ukraine’s de facto refusal to accept the peace plan proposed by President Trump. I believe this is precisely why a new version has emerged – essentially an updated plan consisting of 28 points.” Note that “updated” is the key operative word here – as in an extension of Alaska.
What the 28-pointer really means: “We have the text. We received it through our existing channels of communication with the U.S. Administration. I believe it too could form the basis of a final peace settlement, but this text is not being discussed with us in substance. And I can suggest why.
The reason, I believe, remains the same: the U.S. Administration still cannot secure Ukraine’s consent – Ukraine rejects it.
Evidently, Ukraine and its European allies remain under illusions and still dream of inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield. I think this position is rooted not so much in a lack of competence – I will leave this topic aside for now – but rather in the absence of objective information about the real situation on the ground.”
Expanding on the EU and Ukraine: “All things considered, neither Ukraine nor Europe grasp the consequences of this path. Just one very recent example – Kupyansk. Not long ago, on 4 November – just two weeks ago – officials in Kiev publicly stated that no more than 60 Russian servicemen were present in the city, and that within the next few days, as they claimed, Ukrainian forces would fully unblock it.
But I would like to inform you that already at that moment, on 4 November, the city of Kupyansk was practically entirely secured by the Russian Armed Forces. Our guys were, as they say, simply finishing the job – clearing the remaining streets and neighbourhoods. The fate of the city had already been fully determined.
What does this tell us? Either the Kiev leaders do not have objective information about the situation at the front, or, having it, they are simply unable to assess it objectively.”
The SMO will go on: “If Kiev does not want to discuss President Trump’s proposals and rejects them, then they – and their European war-instigators – must understand that the situation in Kupyansk will inevitably be repeated on other key sectors of the front. Perhaps not as quickly as we would like, but the outcome will be inevitably repeated.”
The inevitable conclusion: “On the whole, this is acceptable to us, as it leads to achieving the objectives of the special military operation by military means. But, as I have said many times before, we are also ready for peace negotiations and for resolving problems by peaceful means. However, this requires a substantive discussion of all details of the proposed plan. We are ready for that.”
Deconstructing an incoherent mish-mash
So here we have finally come back to the essentials – what everyone with an IQ over room temperature following the imperial proxy war against Russia in Ukraine already knows: Russia is ready for peace, but in Putin’s own words, “is also satisfied with the current dynamics of the SMO”. Because this is leading – slowly but surely, “to the achievement of its goals” in the battlefield.
Whatever was the real story behind the 28 pointer – assuming it was Dmtriev and Witkoff holed up in Miami for three days; and then lowly neo-con Marco Rubio and zero-expert on anything Zionist asset Jared Kushner (!) chiming in – the messy, even infantile “plan” posing as Hegemon in Control and mocking the BRICS/SCO is completely unworkable.
What if it was designed to be exactly that?
The new frantic spin is that the sweaty sweatshirt in Kiev has been given an ultimatum by Trump 2.0: under a new “aggressive timeline”, he has to get on board. Or else.
Kiev’s backers – the proverbial assortment of chihuahuas comprising the EU, the European Commission (EC) and “leaders” in selected capitals – have rejected the 28-pointer, and so did Kiev, right from the start.
The 28-pointer indeed manages the feat of assembling an incoherent mish-mash that is unworkable not only for Russia but also for the EU/NATO combo. A few examples:
Point 4: “A U.S.-mediated Russia–NATO dialogue will be launched to resolve security issues and promote cooperation”. NATO is a brainchild of the Empire of Chaos. It will never “cooperate” with “existential threat” Russia.
Point 9: “European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.” That means NATO still ready to attack Russian territory.
Point 10: “The U.S. security guarantee [to Ukraine] comes with conditions: – The U.S. receives compensation.” That’s pure “offer you can’t refuse” Mafia territory.
Point 13: “Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:
That’s what this is all about, per the Circus Ringmaster himself: grabbing Russian natural resources. Moreover Russia does not need the G8: Moscow’s focus is on BRICS/SCO.
Point 14: “Frozen Russian assets will be allocated as follows:
That’s peak Theater of the Absurd: not only the Americans want to use Russian funds to rebuild Ukraine – which they were instrumental in destroying – but their “10 per cent for the Big Guy” turns out to be a hefty 50%.
Point 17: “The U.S. and Russia will extend nuclear arms-control treaties, including New START.” A non-starter: Moscow has been stressing non-stop that arms-control treaties will not be negotiated in relation to the SMO.
Point 21: “Territorial arrangements:
Total non-starter – and not only for the EU/NATO-Kiev combo. Kherson and Zaporozhye, constitutionally, are now fully Russian – and will be liberated on the battlefield.
Point 26: “Full amnesty for all parties for all actions taken during the war: no prosecutions, no war-crimes claims.” Total non-starter: Kiev forced the draft document to use “amnesty” instead of “audit”. Moscow will settle for nothing less that full prosecution of members of the “criminal organization”. Yes, there will be a war crimes tribunal.
Point 27: “The agreement will be legally binding and enforced by a Peace Council chaired by Donald J. Trump.” That’s a Gaza replay. As if Putin and the Russian Security Council would accept a “Peace Council” chaired by a Circus Ringmaster whose expiry date is fast approaching, not to mention be subordinated to the losers in a vicious proxy war.
About a really intriguing takeaway
One plausible takeaway of the 28-pointer is that the selected oligarchy running the Empire of Chaos continues to run a protection racket – and the only way to salvage the de facto strategic defeat in country 404 is to turn a quick buck.
Another more intriguing, plausible takeaway is that the 28-pointer was never meant to be accepted by the EU-Kiev combo. It’s all about the Circus Ringmaster’s exit strategy from the debacle in Novorossiya.
Trump is already preparing the terrain – as in I tried everything, but Zelensky won’t comply. So it’s now his – and his gang’s – problem only, side by side with the EU chihuahuas. Up next: an immediate change of narrative. What else: the Empire of Chaos cannot manage reality, only narratives.
Trump 2.0 may start to work on improving U.S.-Russia relations – while blame for the collapse of the “peace process” is laid on the EU-Kiev combo. The optics of the 28-pointer P.R. op are everything: packaged as it is asking Moscow to strike a compromise, even as Russia is winning in the battlefield, while making sure the “criminal organization” in Kiev cannot agree to the main provisions.
Provisional endgame: the chihuahuas of war will keep barking while the SMO will keep rollin’ along.
Verily, it is Victory or Martyrdom.
Venezuelans have a “true sense of belonging to a project worth saving.. This is a project of collective self-emancipation. .. Those who are committed to the Bolivarian revolution assume themselves as subjects of transformation, not as victims. And this is something to be reckoned with.”
Video Description:
“I’m joined by Cira Pasqual Marquina, author and educator at the Pluriversidad Patria Grande and co-host with Chris Gilbert of the Marxist education program and podcast Escuela de Cuadros.
I ask her:
≈≈≈
Cira Pascual Marquina interviews at Venezuelanalysis.
The Imperialist Offensive is Nothing New for the Bolivarian Revolution’: A Conversation with Ana Maldonado
A Chavista organizer examines the US militarization of the Caribbean and the Bolivarian Revolution’s enduring resistance to imperial aggression.
In recent months, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the Caribbean, sending warships, aircraft, and even a nuclear submarine to waters near Venezuela amid extrajudicial attacks on fishing vessels. For many, this new phase of aggression is all too familiar — part of a decades-long campaign of hybrid warfare designed to undermine Venezuela’s sovereignty.
In this context, Cira Pascual Marquina spoke with Ana Maldonado, a sociologist, international relations coordinator for the Francisco de Miranda Front—a national Chavista movement—and member of the Venezuelan chapter of ALBA Movements. In this interview, Maldonado offers her perspective on how Venezuelans are experiencing the latest imperialist escalation, reflects on the country’s long resistance to hybrid war, and situates the current threat within the broader struggle for sovereignty in Latin America and the Caribbean.
How are the Venezuelan people experiencing this new imperialist escalation?
President Nicolás Maduro has said that in this scenario of maximum pressure, our response must be maximum preparation. At the same time, he has called on us to combine vigilance with calm, to continue our daily lives, and to defend the peace with social justice that has cost us so much to build and preserve.
You can see this clearly in the fact that, even amid the current military escalation, the new school year began normally across the country. More than 20,000 educational institutions opened their doors without disruption, and over six million children and youth returned to class, as they do every year around this time.
While we are indeed facing a serious threat of war, people are also carrying on with their everyday lives and that, in itself, is a victory, since the enemy seeks precisely to disrupt our life.
People abroad are often surprised to learn that daily routines here continue undisturbed and that Venezuelans are not living in a state of panic. How do you explain this?
This is far from our first encounter with imperialist aggression. The tactics may shift, but the strategy remains unchanged: hybrid warfare. For years, US imperialism and its allies have waged a relentless campaign against Venezuela, beginning in earnest in April 2002 with the coup d’état and the people’s heroic counteroffensive that restored democracy. That was followed by the oil sabotage, mercenary incursions, and global media campaigns against our democracy.
After Comandante Chávez passed in 2013, a new and sustained period of aggression began. Initially, they bet that we would fail to hold peaceful elections or that President Maduro would never be elected. The dominant narrative was “Maduro is not Chávez.” With that simplistic argument, they sought to demoralize the Chavista social base, implying that the Bolivarian project would not withstand the loss of the Comandante. Yet we won the elections and, even as we mourned Chávez, the project continued.
But the US and their local agents were determined not to let us go on with our revolution. In 2014, the opposition launched a violent campaign called “La Salida” [The Exit], led by Voluntad Popular and María Corina Machado, the same factions now openly calling for foreign intervention. The following year, the United States took another war-like step: Obama’s 2015 executive order declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
That decree was followed by the 2016 economic strangulation, marked by deliberate shortages aimed at making everyday life unbearable. Ten years later, we remain under a blockade that has killed tens of thousands.
In 2017, the most extreme factions of the opposition returned to the streets with fascist violence, committing atrocities such as the burning alive of a young Black man, Orlando Figuera, targeted simply for looking like a Chavista. More than 100 people were killed during this period of intensified fascist terror.
President Maduro responded by calling for a National Constituent Assembly, once again raising the banner of peace and democracy in the face of fascist violence. People from all sectors, including residents of middle-class neighborhoods whose polling centers had been attacked, were able to vote in peace at the Poliedro de Caracas.
Since then, we’ve lived through multiple phases of hybrid war: Juan Guaidó’s self-proclamation as “interim president” in 2019 and the “Battle of the Bridges,” when the opposition attempted to stage a false-flag operation on the Colombian border under the guise of a humanitarian aid effort. That was followed by massive blackouts that left the country in darkness for days and the 2020 Operation Gideon, recently further exposed in a Max Blumenthal interview with its US organizer, Jordan Goudreau, a former Green Beret.
None of these were isolated incidents: they are coordinated fronts in a sustained hybrid war combining political, psychological, economic, and military aggression.
Yet, in each of these moments, the government and the organized pueblo have responded effectively. During the 2019 electrical sabotage, for example, communities mobilized to ensure access to water and basic needs, while Operation Gideon was defeated by the same fisherfolk who are now being attacked in the Southern Caribbean.
So, to return to your original question: yes, people are alert because the threat is real, but we are also seasoned and organized. We know we are capable of defending the Revolution with unity and discipline. We are in a phase of maximum preparation, with millions voluntarily enrolling in the militia and preparing for the defense of the Patria [homeland].
Indeed, people are not only enlisting in the Bolivarian Militia but also preparing collectively. You’ve given us a historical account of the attacks faced by the Bolivarian Revolution over the past 25 years. But as we know, the current military buildup in the Caribbean is not only against Venezuela: it is an attack on the continent. How do you understand its broader implications?
The imperialist onslaught on the Caribbean is nothing new. Haiti, still punished today for its revolution more than two centuries ago, remains under siege. Now, armed gangs tied to the Dominican Republic are also involved. Puerto Rico continues to endure capitalist dispossession, with five million Puerto Ricans now living in the US while barely three million remain on the island. All the while, revolutionary Cuba has faced a brutal blockade for many decades.
However, the recent imperialist military buildup should deeply concern the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, since it signals a shift in Washington’s military policy. Around 10,000 US troops are currently stationed in the Caribbean, mainly in Puerto Rico, to say nothing of the destroyers, nuclear submarine, and air force deployments.
They are not there only to threaten Venezuela; this is the revival of the Monroe Doctrine. As Trump once said, “Why pay for Venezuelan oil, if we can just take it?” That’s how they think about the resources of the continent.
When it comes to Venezuela, beyond seizing our resources, the US also aims to strip away our sovereignty and destroy the example that we represent. If our project succeeds, it will inspire the entire continent. From Canada to Patagonia, people are struggling for liberation, and the Bolivarian Revolution represents a living example of how that can be done.
Attacking Venezuela serves two purposes: to loot our resources and to extinguish the example of participatory democracy. Since 2021, Venezuela has experienced renewed economic growth and the strengthening of its communes and popular power.
That is precisely what Washington wants to halt: they fear that the peoples of Latin America, and even within the United States, will draw inspiration from our experience.
Why the military escalation at this particular moment?
Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” is itself an admission of decline. The US is no longer what it once was, and its elites are desperate to recover lost ground. Yet even within those elites, fractures abound between the neoconservatives, the Zionist zealots, and the MAGA bloc. Their internal contradictions often produce erratic foreign policy decisions.
However, on one point they all agree: war is profitable. The military-industrial complex remains central to sustaining the US economy. So even amid domestic tensions, there is a bipartisan consensus around war as business.
Before the recent attacks on Venezuelan vessels, President Maduro warned that they might attempt to recreate a Gulf of Tonkin incident, because their hunger for war is insatiable. He was right: this aggression is ultimately driven by the economic imperative of feeding the war machine. In a post-Cold War world, it survives through perpetual “hot wars”—and what better front than Venezuela, which is rich in resources and defiant of imperial domination?
Let’s close with Chávez. He declared the Bolivarian Revolution anti-imperialist in 2004, but in truth, it always had a sovereign and anti-imperialist character. Could you reflect on Chávez’s anti-imperialism?
Indeed. The formal declaration came during a historic rally at the Botanical Garden in 2004, but the Revolution was Bolivarian from the start, and Bolívar himself was profoundly anti-imperialist. He warned that the United States seemed “destined by Providence to plague the Americas with misery in the name of liberty.” That same spirit lives in our revolution since day one.
Chávez revived Bolívar’s anti-imperialist legacy as early as 1977, when he created the People’s Army for the Liberation of Venezuela, whose founding document enshrined Bolivarianism and anti-imperialism as guiding principles. Later, in The Blue Book [1991], he outlined the vision of sovereignty and dignity that still guides us. President Maduro calls that text a “historical compass” pointing us steadfastly, no matter how much we have to maneuver, toward our strategic goal: the defense of sovereignty and the rejection of imperial domination.
For us, being anti-imperialist means not only refusing to surrender our resources, but also defending our identity, our dignity, and our very being. The empire’s elites belong nowhere; they want the world to belong to them. We, by contrast, define ourselves by belonging to a land, to a pueblo, and to a history.
That is why even symbolic aggressions, such as the attempt to erase “Bolivarian” from the Republic’s name during the 2002 coup, or mocking us as “venecos” in an attempt to erase our identity, are part of the war.
Bolivarianism and anti-imperialism are also deeply rooted in your organization, the Frente Francisco de Miranda. Can you tell us about it?
Indeed. In 2003, Fidel and Chávez founded the Frente Francisco de Miranda as a movement of Bolivarian, anti-imperialist social workers. However, anti-imperialism isn’t limited to my organization; it’s in the bloodstream of millions of Venezuelans who have resisted International Monetary Fund impositions since 1989 and continue defending the Bolivarian project today.
To be Chavista is to be anti-imperialist. Chávez was the first Latin American president to recognize Palestine, to support the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and to speak of our historical debt to Haiti. His backing of these and other liberation struggles was not just a matter of words but also about material support. He also linked the defense of Haiti to a history that, for him, didn’t begin with Pétion and Dessalines, but with Hatuey, the first known hero of an anti-colonial Caribbean rebellion.
That is our Chávez—the anti-imperialist Chávez—whose legacy continues to guide us!
≈≈≈
Cira Pascual Marquina is a Political Science professor at the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela in Caracas. She is also co‐producer and co‐host (with Chris Gilbert) of the Marxist education program Escuela de Cuadros. She is actively engaged with grassroots organizations in Venezuela and abroad, and is dedicated, both as a militant and as an investigator, to communal initiatives.
What a level-headed no-nonsense perspective by a courageous law enforcement professional who worked a quarter century in DEA and lived in South America.
“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s Founding Fathers.” — President Reagan meeting with Freedom Fighters from Afghanistan (Mujahedin), Oval Office, 1985.
Nima AlKhorshid interviews our roving eye nomad on the central Asian Stans, Al Qaeda ‘R US, and other travails of stark-naked Anglo-Zionists.
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2058518/
Question: Moscow and Washington have almost simultaneously announced nuclear test plans. Does this signify global instability or rather demonstrate equal capabilities and thus the preservation of parity?
Sergey Lavrov: I have heard nothing about Moscow announcing nuclear tests, so it is inaccurate to say that Washington and Moscow made such statements simultaneously.
As I mentioned in a recent interview with Russian media outlets, we have so far not received clarifications from our US counterparts as to what exactly President Donald Trump meant to convey in his remarks. Was it nuclear tests, delivery vehicle tests, or subcritical tests which do not involve a nuclear reaction and are permitted under the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)? There has been no answer to that so far.
The CTBT Preparatory Commission met yesterday, but a US representative failed to provide any clarifications, either, although such a forum is clearly the right place to clarify what the US President had in mind when he said that.
The US administration is still in the process of being formed. Many second and third-level positions, primarily in the Pentagon, have so far remained vacant.
In particular, Robert Kadlec has been nominated for the position of Assistant Secretary of Defence for Nuclear Deterrence Policy and Chemical and Biological Defence Programmes. Last week, he spoke before Congress, where he was grilled on the issue of nuclear testing and the current administration’s approach to nuclear weapons. He said that President Trump’s decision to resume nuclear tests was driven by geopolitical considerations. As before, there is no technical need to conduct such tests. That’s a strong statement. I’m not sure whether the speaker himself realises the gravity of what he said, but we are compelled to interpret this as confirmation of what we have been saying all along which is that there is no technical necessity for such tests. He went on to say that the goal was geopolitical and thus drove the point home for us.
What may the geopolitical goal of the United States look like? Domination, right? The use of nuclear weapons argument in this setting is alarming and represents a significant departure from the concept once agreed upon by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev where a nuclear war cannot be won and therefore must never be fought.
Robert Kadlec seeking the position of Assistant Secretary of Defence also stated that nuclear options should be developed to respond to certain regional conflicts that may flare up. That, too, is a rather curious statement. It’s a direct tell that this gentleman, once in office, will be thinking in terms of using nuclear threats in order to achieve the outcomes that the United States may need in a particular region.
He then went on to demonstrate even more instances of double standards when he said that NATO’s nuclear deterrence strategy might be revised in the wake of Russia deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. Yet, the fact that this was done after many decades of joint nuclear missions with US tactical nuclear weapons long stationed in five NATO member states and the fact that we have long proposed to redeploy all nuclear weapons back to the countries that own them was simply ignored.
Since Belarus has received nuclear weapons from Russia, the US side now wants to deploy theirs somewhere else as well. We are aware of ongoing contacts with South Korea and Japan. These games are very dangerous.
Back to your question, we have not announced nuclear test plans. At a meeting of the Security Council’s permanent members, President Vladimir Putin highlighted US President Donald Trump’s statement that Russia and China have long been doing this, and therefore the United States must do so, too. We immediately contacted our counterparts and let them know that there must have been a misunderstanding. We are looking forward to receiving clarifications.
President Putin has issued a directive not to conduct nuclear tests and not even to make preparations for them. The Foreign Ministry, along with other agencies, including military and intelligence, has been instructed to analyse the situation and to reach a consensus on whether this situation warrants considering the resumption of nuclear tests.
Our principled position was laid out by President Putin in 2023, when, taking a question during one of his speeches, he said that if a nuclear power were to conduct nuclear weapons test (not delivery system tests, not subcritical tests), then Russia will respond in kind.
Question: One more article has recently been published where the journalist and his sources claim that the United States, in particular Secretary of State Marco Rubio has been shocked by your uncompromising stance. Have you really been hard on the Americans or is this yet another article where they have gone too far with their sources?
Sergey Lavrov: We are polite people, and we try to remain polite. I have already answered similar questions in several interviews.
Since this audience consists of professional journalists, I would like to draw your attention to the latest facts of unprofessional and harmful coverage of certain events in the media, primarily British media. You know what is happening at BBC. It’s a shame that some individuals are trying to justify the situation and are speaking about an orchestrated campaign.
I would like you to take note of the item published in The Financial Times, which said that Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin agreed to meet in Budapest and instructed me and Marco Rubio to prepare that meeting. Sergey Lavrov and Marco Rubio have talked on the phone, but before that the Russians allegedly submitted a harsh memorandum after reading which the Americans decided that talking with the Russians would be pointless and meaningless.
There are so many lies here, including when it comes to the sequence of events. The memorandum the FT journalists mentioned is a non-paper, an unofficial draft we have sent to our colleagues not after but several days before the Putin-Trump conversation. It was designed to remind our American colleagues what we discussed in Anchorage, and what agreements we thought we reached (the Americans have not refuted this) during the US-Russian summit. That unofficial document did not contain anything other than what was discussed in Anchorage, which our American counterparts did not regard as cause for rejection.
The presidents’ telephone conversation was held after the document was delivered to the Department of State and the National Security Council. During that conversation, US President Donald Trump did not say a word about receiving a provocative or “subversive” paper that destroyed all hopes for a settlement. No, they had a normal conversation. President Putin gave a positive response to US President Trump’s idea of meeting in Budapest and proposed instructing the countries’ foreign ministries to prepare that meeting. That is exactly what we planned to do.
US President Donald Trump also said that Secretary of State Marco Rubio would call me. I received his call three days later. We had a polite conversation without any nervous episodes, by and large reaffirming progress based on the agreements reached in Anchorage, and went off the phone. The next step was a meeting by representatives of our foreign policy and defence departments, and possibly our security services. However, the Americans have not taken the next step, although we waited for them to take the lead when it comes to the place and time for such a preparatory meeting because they had proposed holding a summit.
Instead, they made a public statement that they don’t want to hold a meaningless meeting. When Secretary of State Rubio made public comments on our telephone conversation, he did not say that he had noticed any aggravation or that it had undermined the chances of success. If I remember correctly, he said that it was a constructive conversation that quite clearly showed where we stand, which is why there was no need for a meeting. This can be interpreted in several ways, but this is what he said. There is a joke that we have a clean conscience because we seldom use it. But it is absolutely to the point in this case.
We see no reasons to offer excuses for being and remaining committed to what our presidents discussed in Alaska. Even if they did not agree on every comma and semi-colon, they have at least reached an understanding.
Question: You just mentioned the summit in Budapest. After his talks in the United States, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said he still hopes the meeting can happen. Is that still a possibility? And why has the focus shifted from a meeting in Hungary to a discussion of nuclear tests? What has changed?
Sergey Lavrov: I believe I have already addressed this. I cannot speak to what is behind the US position on nuclear testing, because President Trump’s claims about a supposed Russian and Chinese “resumption” of testing are simply not true – assuming we are talking about full-scale nuclear weapons tests. Other types of tests, like subcritical experiments (which do not produce a nuclear chain reaction) and tests of delivery systems, have never been prohibited. So, we are seeking clarification on these allegations.
As for the facts: Russia conducted its last nuclear test in 1991, and the United States in 1993. That was over thirty years ago. China’s last test was shortly after that. The most recent test by the DPRK was in 2017. Since then, we have seen no indications that any country is preparing to resume this practice. If someone were attempting to do this covertly, deep underground, it would be up to the professionals involved to expose it. In that case, they should be briefing the White House, not operating behind closed doors.
There is a robust global monitoring system in place, which both Russia and the US participate in. It relies on seismic data to record any significant underground vibrations. They know perfectly well what the indication of a nuclear explosion looks like. So, I would not conflate the issue of nuclear tests with the Budapest Summit.
The other day I watched President Donald Trump host Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban at the White House and then speak with journalists. When asked about a meeting in Budapest, he said that he had thought it over and decided not to hold it, because, he said, “I didn’t think anything was going to be happening of significance.” This fits with the thinking he expressed not long ago when he said that “sometimes you’re better off letting them fight for a while.”
Frankly, I don’t see any causal relationship here. We are ready to discuss the suspicions raised by our US counterparts whereby we have allegedly holed up deep underground and are secretly doing something there. We are also ready to discuss with our US counterparts resuming preparatory work for the summit between the leaders of Russia and the United States, which they themselves proposed.
If and when our US counterparts renew their proposal and appear ready to begin preparations for a high-level meeting that could produce meaningful results, Budapest would, of course, be our preferred location. All the more so as, during his meeting with Viktor Orban, Donald Trump confirmed that Budapest was a preferable venue for Washington as well.
Question: There is not much time left before the New START Treaty expires, yet the United States has not presented its official stance on President Putin’s initiative. Do you think the United States will respond in the near future? If, by any chance, an articulate answer never comes, would that make a difference for Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: We have made it clear many times that this proposal is a unilateral gesture of goodwill on our behalf. No talks or consultations are needed for the United States to support our approach. All the United States needs to do is state that it will not raise the quantitative limits under the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty for one year that is at least for as long as Russia adheres to its own unilateral commitment. That’s all there is to it. No further steps are required.
As for whether any talks are underway to renew the treaty, no, there are no talks. Once again, the situation is completely transparent. The quantitative levels are well known. We know what the Americans have, and the Americans know what they have. Let’s take a year to, so to speak, cool down, analyse the situation, stop measuring everything by the Ukraine yardstick, and focus on the great powers’ responsibility to maintain global security and stability, above all, in terms of avoiding nuclear war. We are ready for that.
This has nothing to do with the time constraints. A declaration to renew the quantitative limits can be made at any point before February 5. By the way, the current New START Treaty was renewed right after Joe Biden had taken office just a few days before the initial expiration date. Renewing the treaty is a much more complicated endeavour than the simple act of making a voluntary statement to continue observing and respecting its numerical parameters.
Question: Considering rising tensions in the region, has Venezuela approached Russia with a request to provide military assistance? Has Caracas asked Russia to deploy its weapons in Venezuela similar to the way it was done in Belarus?
Sergey Lavrov: No, no such requests have been made.
I believe it is inaccurate to compare our relations with Belarus which is part of the Union State and with which we share synchronised, coordinated, and unified positions on all key international security matters with our relations with the friendly nation of Venezuela which is our strategic and comprehensive partner, to which end we signed a treaty not long ago.
However, considering, among other things, the important geographic factor it would be inaccurate to juxtapose our partnership with Venezuela with our Union with the Republic of Belarus.
The treaty I mentioned is an entirely new instrument. It was signed in May during President Nicolas Maduro’s visit to Moscow to attend the events marking the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. The treaty is now in its final ratification phase. It is called the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela on Strategic Partnership and Cooperation and provides for continued collaboration in matters of security, including military-technical cooperation.
We stand ready to act fully within the framework of the commitments we and our Venezuelan friends have assumed in this treaty. It has not yet entered into force. Venezuela has completed its ratification procedures, and we have only a few days left to do so as well. Both chambers – the State Duma and the Federation Council – have held hearings to that effect, and the treaty is almost finalised. We will strictly adhere to the obligations it contains.
I’d be remiss to conclude my comments on Venezuela without mentioning our position on the unacceptable actions the United States is taking under the pretext of combatting drug trafficking as it destroys boats allegedly carrying narcotics, without trial, investigation, or any evidence whatsoever. Law-abiding nations do not do that. This kind of behaviour is more typical of those who consider themselves above the law.
Recently, citing the Daily Mail, Kommersant reported that Belgium was rapidly turning into a narco-state, where corruption, blackmail, violence, and the shadow economy based on drug trafficking flourish across all sectors, from customs to the police. Not the most reputable source, perhaps, but if even Daily Mail wrote this, they must have had a reason to do so. Why else would they slander their NATO partner?
Instead of targeting Nigeria or Venezuela under the guise of fighting drugs – and seizing oil fields in the process – the United States would do better to tackle this problem in Belgium. After all, the US and other NATO troops are already there. They wouldn’t need to chase small boats carrying three individuals each. I’m confident that the policy chosen by the Trump administration with regard to Venezuela will not lead to anything good. It will not enhance Washington’s reputation in the eyes of the international community.
Question: You have repeatedly stated that peace in Ukraine will only be achieved by addressing the root causes of the conflict. As is well known, one of these root causes is the rampant neo-Nazism in Ukraine. Is this issue discussed in your negotiations with American colleagues?
Sergey Lavrov: We regularly raise this issue. In fact, since the Anchorage meeting and my telephone conversation with Marco Rubio, we have had no further contact. We did not specifically broach this topic in Alaska, but they are well aware of our position. It is “in writing” for them. There is no secret about it. The position was articulated by President Vladimir Putin in June 2024, when he spoke at the Foreign Ministry, outlining our fundamental approaches to Ukraine and relations with the West.
Among other absolutely non-negotiable conditions for a settlement – such as demilitarisation, the removal of any threats to the Russian Federation, including by dragging Ukraine into NATO, and safeguarding the rights of Russians and Russian-speakers, as well as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – there is also the demand for denazification. This is not something we have invented as a notion alien to modern Europe.
One might think of the Nuremberg Trials. Their outcomes, forming part of the UN Charter, are a cornerstone of the international system established after the Second World War. Certainly, all of Europe signed up to this. Germany underwent denazification and a process of repentance.
Regrettably, now – perhaps even beginning with Germany – we sense that this repentance has come to very little. I have spoken about this before: some 15 years ago, during better days, in conversations with German colleagues, we noted the signals they were sending – not verbatim, but the meaning was quite clear. The gist was, “Dear colleagues, we have settled our accounts for the Second World War, we owe nothing to anyone anymore, and now we will act accordingly.”
Former Chancellors Angela Merkel and Olaf Scholz at least tried to observe decorum, while Friedrich Merz has repeatedly declared that his goal is to make Germany the primary military power in Europe once again. I think it unnecessary to explain what kind of signal such statements send – to make Germany the primary military power again. It already was a military power when it conquered more than half of Europe, calling it to arms to attack the Soviet Union.
When such Nazi relapses occur in the birthplace of Nazism, it naturally causes alarm. Naturally, it will require from us – from all those invested in a stable world – principled stances when discussing the final parameters of a settlement.
If the West finally recognises the futility of this scenario, i.e. that the demand should not be for a cessation of hostilities merely to continue arming Ukraine, but to act as President Donald Trump proposed before the Alaska meeting. He said then that a temporary truce would resolve nothing and that the conflict must be ended on the basis of principles for a sustainable settlement.
Yes, Europe later attempted (and not without success) to drag our American colleagues back into its camp of “truce, support for Ukraine, not a step back, not an inch to the left.” Nevertheless, President Donald Trump did say this, and it became the foundation of the understandings unequivocally agreed upon in Anchorage. Incidentally, this is what distinguishes the Republican administration, the administration of Donald Trump, from its predecessor – the administration of Joe Biden.
Recently, I came across an interview with Kurt Volker. He was the US State Department’s special representative for Ukraine under Joe Biden. He claimed that Russia would never agree to a peace deal. It is unclear where he got this from, because it is precisely we who are striving for a peaceful settlement. He added that Vladimir Putin does not consider Ukraine a legitimate or sovereign state. There is an answer to this as well. We recognised Ukraine when it was not a Nazi state and had not banned any language – in this case, Russian – as the only country in the world to do so. We recognised Ukraine as it was defined by the Declaration of State Sovereignty and the Act of Independence: a non-nuclear, non-aligned, neutral state. That is what we recognised, and that is how things stood.
Next, Kurt Volker asserts that Vladimir Putin is convinced Ukraine should be part of Russia (I will not even engage with that topic) and that the Russian President considers Vladimir Zelensky a Nazi. But where is the proof to the contrary? Vladimir Zelensky regularly poses on television, awarding honours to fighters of the Azov regiment [1] and other Nazi battalions, who wear the insignia of Nazi Germany on their sleeves. How else should one regard this man?
The eradication of Nazism in Ukraine – denazification – is an absolute condition for any settlement if we want it to be long-term. We do want that and will pursue it. But when no one in Europe, in their dealings with Ukraine, raises the issue of the country’s Nazification; when no one, except Hungary, addresses the rights of national minorities; when no one demands that Vladimir Zelensky repeal the law banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church…
In Alaska, when President Vladimir Putin explained to US President Donald Trump how we assess the situation in Ukraine, he mentioned that in 2024, they passed a law aimed at banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. President Donald Trump did not believe it. He asked US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who was present at the meeting, three times whether this was true. Marco Rubio confirmed that it was. It was clear that the US President was, to put it mildly, taken aback.
Returning to Ukraine and its legislation. I mentioned Hungary. When the Brussels bureaucrats, led by Ursula von der Leyen (who is now creating an intelligence structure and will personally oversee it), were pushing through the decision to begin negotiations with Ukraine on its accession to the European Union, Hungary – credit must be given to the courage of Hungarian President Viktor Orbán and his Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó – stood alone in insisting that among the conditions Ukraine must meet before negotiations begin, there must be the resumption and restoration of all Ukrainian obligations regarding the respect for the rights of national minorities. There is a rather lengthy text on this topic. It was not difficult to draft, because the Constitution of Ukraine still requires respect for the rights of the Russian (singled out specifically) and other national minorities.
Currently, there is the European Commissioner for Enlargement, Marta Kos. When she claims that Ukraine is ready and has fulfilled all the necessary conditions to begin negotiations, this is simply untrue. Nothing has been done to address or restore the rights of national minorities – not even for the Hungarian minority, despite Hungary being a member of both the European Union, which Ukraine so desperately seeks to join, and NATO, where Vladimir Zelensky is also constantly pushing for membership. No action has been taken on this front, just as nothing has been done regarding the remains of the victims of the Volhynia massacre in relation to Poland.
The European Union remains entirely silent on these blatant violations. Ukraine stands as the only country in the world to have completely banned a language. Even in Norway, where 7 percent of the population are ethnic Swedes, Swedish is an official language. The figures speak for themselves – compare that to the situation in Ukraine. From Brussels, we hear nothing about Ukraine’s actions except for the mantra that they must stand with Ukraine to the end, “until victory.”
This same refrain was recently echoed by Mark Rutte and other representatives of the Western European establishment.
They insist that they must always defend Ukraine because it is upholding European values. This is nothing less than a confession – a self-exposure. It reveals that, in the eyes of today’s Brussels bureaucracy, European values equate to the revival of Nazism. That is precisely why we cannot afford to show weakness here.
Question: Recently, Lithuanian authorities have been increasingly flirting with the idea of closing their borders and halting transit to Kaliningrad for Russians, using increasingly flimsy pretexts. What measures is Russia taking, potentially with Minsk, to prevent this? And how will Russia respond if Lithuania follows through?
Sergey Lavrov: These smaller nations – the “young Europeans,” like Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia – seem to vastly overestimate their importance in the eyes of the Western European “old guard” of the EU. Those in Europe who still possess a shred of common sense and a genuine concern for the continent’s security (a dwindling group, admittedly) are perfectly aware of the provocative role assigned to these Baltic states by their handlers, primarily British ones.
London’s penchant for provoking situations is, of course, notorious. Take the recent case where the Russian FSB exposed a plot to trick a Russian pilot, flying a fighter jet armed with a Kinzhal missile, into flying to a base in Constanta, Romania with a fake order. The obvious intent was for the plane to be shot down, creating a pretext to accuse Russia of attacking NATO. But I’ll set that aside for now; the FSB has already laid out the details. I don’t know how the British will wash away the stain, but they’ve always had a remarkable talent for this, like a duck that waddles away from a shower without a drop of water on its back.
The former empire that once ruled most of the world is gone, and so is the “good old England” they so love to parade. They have little economic weight left, and their military might is relatively weak, as even their nuclear arsenal isn’t fully under their control. They have to compensate for this weakness somehow, so they fall back on that traditional English aspiration to “divide and conquer,” to put it politely. There are, of course, less charitable terms for their actions and goals.
Now, back to your question. Indeed, recently we’ve seen not just the usual threats to block Kaliningrad transit, but certain figures – not in Lithuania, but within the EU itself – egging the Baltics on by suggesting Kaliningrad could be “razed to the ground.” Meanwhile, Lithuania has already closed its border with neighbouring Belarus, leaving hundreds of trucks from Lithuanian carriers stranded there.
On this matter, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, as always, used particularly vivid language. These actions are outrageous. It brings to mind the phrase the Americans once used about dictators in Latin America, in Central America: “He may be a son of a bitch, but he’s our son of a bitch.” That’s precisely the attitude the European bosses have towards the antics of their Baltic protégés. They’re expected to commit as many heinous anti-Russia acts as possible, while also provoking Russia into a response that can be “sold” to Washington primarily as grounds for invoking Article 5 of the NATO treaty and starting serious military action.
We see this clearly. But the obligations regarding Kaliningrad transit are not Lithuania’s alone; they are the obligations of the entire European Union. The 1994 Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between Russia and the EU included a provision on ensuring transit between neighbours. This was reinforced by a separate joint statement on transit in 2002, which had direct legal effect. Then, in 2004, when the Baltic states and other Eastern European nations were admitted to the EU, a Joint Statement on EU Enlargement and EU-Russia Relations was signed, which explicitly reaffirmed all these commitments.
Subsequent technical documents spelled everything out in minute detail, including the layout and procedures for a “temporary travel document” and the clearance processes for passenger and rail cargo transit.
The European Union must now take responsibility for the behaviour of its wayward “junior members” who are spinning out of control.
Back when decisions on admitting Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia into the European Union were being drafted in 2004, we asked our European counterparts – back then we had plenty of contacts and fairly open trust-based discussions – whether those three Baltic states were ready to meet the EU membership criteria. We were told they fell short in some areas, but…
We wondered whether bringing unqualified candidates into the EU made any sense. They said they knew where we were coming from, but having gained independence those countries were still haunted by phobias of “occupation.” “We’ll bring them into the EU and NATO,” they said, “and they’ll calm down.” Have they? I think the exact opposite happened. Not only did they not calm down, but they decided they would now call the tune in the EU and NATO, at least when it’s about openly Russophobic and anti-Russian “rhapsodies.” That’s the position they have adopted today.
In response to what I’m saying, someone in the EU may argue that we “invaded” Ukraine in violation of certain agreements we had arrived at with the EU before that. I have no doubt someone out there will be willing to come up with an argument like that. They are reluctant to recollect how things actually played out in Ukraine. How it all began long before the Minsk Agreements, long before Crimea, back in 2013, when then President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich analysed prospects for signing an EU Association Agreement and realised that many of its provisions would imperil trade, trade arrangements, and other economic benefits Ukraine enjoyed in its contacts with the Russian Federation. He became fully cognisant of this and requested to put off the signing scheduled for late November 2013. We supported his approach. We did so not because we wanted to prevent Ukraine from pursuing relations with other countries, but because we wanted Ukraine to keep its access to its commitments under the CIS Free Trade Area and its economic ties with Russia, which had been vastly beneficial for Ukraine. We also strived to avoid inconsistencies between the principles underlying relations between us and the obligations Ukraine was supposed to assume under the EU Association Agreement.
Back then, President Vladimir Putin reached out to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso (former Portuguese Prime Minister), letting him know that Russia had a free trade area agreement with Ukraine, and the EU planned to create one with Ukraine as well. The principles of these two areas are at odds with each other. Putin suggested having the three parties – Ukraine, Russia, and the European Commission – sit down and discuss ways to harmonise them. What could be more reasonable? Barroso came back through some obscure channels saying that since the EU did not interfere in Russia’s trade with Canada, Russia should likewise stay out of EU-Ukraine relations.
We often talk about former Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and her confession that $5 billion had been invested in Ukraine over the years preceding the coup. The EU catalysed the Ukraine crisis. It fueled the Maidan protests and planted the catch phrase that Ukraine must be with Europe, not Russia. They said this publicly. So, we should be left out of it, and they shouldn’t justify their own lawlessness by referring to the steps our country was forced to take after exhausting every reserve of goodwill and constructive proposals.
Here are some examples of the EU showing lack of integrity. In 2008-2009, the EU – France in particular – faced issues in Chad and the Central African Republic, which were home to small French expeditionary forces that lacked air support. They asked Russia to send in a helicopter group to assist in operations against rebels that engaged in genocide and other atrocities. We have sent the group as requested. Later, we reached out to our EU partners with a suggestion to create a joint crisis response mechanism for operations abroad based on this experience.
We proposed an approach under which, if Russia were to conduct an operation, we could invite the EU to participate in it on an equal footing, and if the EU were to engage in an operation, it could invite Russia. They were receptive of the idea. Discussions began, and everything appeared to be moving towards the sides coming to terms. Some time later they told us there would be no parity, because there already was an agreement outlining the possibility of Russia’s participation in EU operations, which covers everything. So much for an approach supposedly based on equality.
There are quite a few other examples, including the Meseberg Initiative, which we recently mentioned in our comments. Back then, President Dmitry Medvedev and German Chancellor Angela Merkel agreed in Meseberg on a declaration establishing an EU-Russia Committee on Foreign Policy and Security. Ukraine was not even mentioned, only Transnistria. Merkel insisted on having the creation of that committee come with a condition, namely ensuring progress in the Transnistria settlement. That provision was included. Following those understandings, we ensured the resumption of the “5+2” format for the Transnistria settlement, which had been dormant for several years. The format resumed its work, but when we approached the EU with a proposal to now create the joint Committee on Foreign Policy and Security, they chose not to reply and the idea went off the table. That’s how much the EU’s word and even signature is worth. In this particular case, the EU was represented by Chancellor Angela Merkel.
A particularly glaring example is the visa-free regime with the European Union. Negotiations had been underway even before 2004, as at the Russia–EU summit in 2004, the then-head of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, stated that within a couple of years we would achieve a relaxation of the visa regime. Several years elapsed. We developed our internal regulations based on the framework agreed with the EU. Once these norms were finalised domestically and all requisite bilateral agreements with individual EU member states were concluded, no outstanding condition remained unfulfilled. In response to our query regarding potential timelines for abolishing the visa regime, the European Union engaged in protracted deliberations. Its eventual response was to table a new draft document, proposing a joint consideration of further steps. The document outlined purely technical nuances. Nevertheless, we engaged in this work as well. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly recalled those times.
Back then, not only was faith alive, but there was also a lingering hope that we were dealing with honourable counterparts.
Ultimately, these additional technical matters were also resolved. This was in the summer of 2013. When we suggested announcing the agreement, they (the EU officials) withdrew from official contacts on the matter and from providing an official response. Off the record, it was intimated to us that, despite our full preparedness, political considerations precluded the conclusion of a visa-free agreement with Russia prior to finalising such agreements with Moldova and Georgia. Ukraine was not mentioned at the time.
Therefore, should the European Union level accusations of violations against us, firstly, there is not a single factual basis for such claims, and secondly, we have ample means to “pacify” our European colleagues.
Question: Next year, the Treaty on Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship, and Cooperation between Russia and China will expire. Are there negotiations underway to extend it? Or will Moscow and Beijing draft new agreements to reflect the changed realities?
Sergey Lavrov: This treaty remains entirely relevant. It is no coincidence that when its initial term expired in 2021, approximately a month prior, President Vladimir Putin and President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping signed a document extending the treaty for five years. These five years are now coming to an end. The 2021 statement affirmed that the treaty remains fully pertinent, retains its force, and serves the interests of further strengthening the comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation between our countries.
I believe this assessment still holds. However, events are unfolding rapidly, and our strategic cooperation and multifaceted partnership with the PRC are deepening, acquiring new dimensions. In principle, we have agreed with colleagues from other agencies to explore whether specific areas could be used to “enrich” this treaty. I am unsure of the form this might take. It could involve adopting another document confirming and expanding the treaty’s provisions. No definitive decisions have been made yet, nor are they necessary, as such decisions, when put in writing, merely reflect the realities on the ground. In practice, our relations have never been more advanced, close, or trusting. As our Chinese friends say: we work “shoulder to shoulder, back to back” in all spheres of international life. These are not empty words.
Thus, I assure you that the date of July 16, 2026 will not pass unnoticed. The details of how our cooperation with our Chinese friends will be confirmed, expanded, and deepened will be handled by the executive offices of our leaders. A report will subsequently be submitted at the leadership level.
The organisation is recognised as terrorist and banned in the Russian Federation. [There is no link to understand what exactly is being referred to here].
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2055699/#sel=46:39:j,46:39:j
[Note: This is a very good overview of the complete process of the start of the SMO and the US intervention in the process of making peace. That part is serious. The part that is different, is that Mr Lavrov is continuously trolling. If you want to see a highly competent and enormously talented Foreign Minister and Diplomat troll, this is it. That fine line stands out! Mr Lavrov’s description of what happened in Alaska is a comic show. All was agreed. All was confirmed in terms of Witkoff’s outline and step by step outlined as understood and agreed by Putin himself. All the pre-work for a summit was done. Russia said they are in agreement with, and accept the US outline. OK, done, sign on the dotted line. And then comes the comic – They agreed that they should take some time to think about it. This was their own concept that they needed time to think about! The subtext here is even if Russia agrees with them, they cannot be moved to a phase of execution of their own plan. This then brings the concept of ‘non-agreement capable’ to the forefront. We always think this refers to others, but these brilliant specimens of humankind cannot even agree with themselves. Follow Mr Lavrov’s troll roll thoughout.]
Question: Thank you, Mr. Foreign Minister, thank you for giving us your time.
Sergey Lavrov: My pleasure.
Question: So we are here in Moscow. And I came from Hungary, from Budapest, just a few days ago. And Moscow is beautiful. This is the first time for me in Moscow. And when we planned this interview, there was a plan for you to come to Budapest with Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State. You were going to help to set up a negotiation between President Putin and President Trump. But finally, you didn’t come. We heard many different stories about why. What really happened? Is everything ok between you and Mr. Rubio and between Russia and the United States?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, it’s up to you because you’re a journalist. And your job, your profession, is to analyze what is going on.
It is not very difficult because these days, for example, the American foreign policy is as open as it could be. The President of the United States explains every day how he feels about one thing, about another thing. And this is, I think, very interesting for the journalists to be in a position to get this information straight from the leaders.
President Putin yesterday commented upon the Russian-American relations at this particular stage. I wouldn’t repeat what he said. But as regards the relations between Marco Rubio and myself, after the presidents had their conversation on the 16th of October. This was Thursday. And three days later, on Monday, Rubio called me. We had a conversation, very specific, where I reconfirmed our full adherence to what was discussed in Alaska and to what clear understandings the presidents reached at that time. As you know, President Trump praised the Alaska meeting repeatedly, that this was a very good meeting, that it set the stage, laid the foundation. He said, there are a few issues to be fine-tuned. But this could be done easily. One issue is important, he said in his comments about the outcome of Alaska. But this important issue is absolutely subject to finding a solution, which is absolutely our assessment. After we talked with Marco Rubio regarding following up on the results of Alaska, he did not mention any new meetings or conversations. And I did not raise the issue, because the entire initiative was coming from the United States. And we would be ready to move as the Americans feel comfortable for themselves.
Then the State Department issued the communique about our phone conversation, if I remember right, which said that we had a productive discussion with Marco Rubio. And at this stage, there is no need in a personal meeting between the Secretary of State and the Foreign Minister of Russia. So I concluded that the meeting was really good if they made such a comment. And I understand what is behind it. Behind it is the clarity with which we discussed the necessary steps together with Marco Rubio, steps which the Russian Federation and the United States can take to implement very clear, very blunt understandings reached in Alaska.
Question: Obvious, if you are talking, we feel the chance the conflict can be ended. But after, when we read the press, there is a different picture. But why will you not call back Marco Rubio in this situation? And you can call back Marco Rubio and say, hello, I read in Reuters the articles and Mr. Trump told this and this. Why don’t you want to talk more often with each other?
Sergey Lavrov: I called him before Alaska, soon after Alaska. And we met in New York just three weeks ago. And as I said, look, President Putin came to Alaska with the agenda, which had been brought to Moscow by Steven Witkoff a few days before the Alaska summit. And we looked into the proposals which Steven Witkoff brought. And we said that we need to think about it.
And then in Alaska, President Putin said that he is ready to cooperate on the basis of the concept and the framework which the envoy of President Trump brought to Moscow and which they continue to discuss in Alaska. President Putin repeated each and every element of the concept which was brought by Steven Witkoff and was asking Steven Witkoff, who was present at the discussions in Anchorage, is that right? Is that right? Everything was confirmed. And then President Putin said that we are ready to accept your concept. And that’s how we believe we can move in specific terms on the basis of what you proposed. Then there was no direct response. They agreed that they should take some time to think about it.
President Trump said he needs to talk to his allies, who, as you remember, came to Washington next day. Zelensky was brought with them. And President Putin, of course, briefed our allies, our neighbors, and strategic partners. So the ball was there on the side of the Americans who proposed something which we eventually were ready to accept. And in New York, I reminded Marco Rubio about this sequence of events. He said, yes, we are still considering. We are trying. We are interested.
So from the diplomatic point of view, we don’t want to interfere in their internal considerations. We don’t want to create some discomfort for the United States, which is under huge, unbelievable pressure from the European “hawks”, from Zelensky, and others who don’t want to have any American-Russian cooperation on anything.
So there are enough people who are not very polite and who impose themselves upon Washington politicians and use every means to undermine the process which could have achieved its goals some time ago.
And one very telling thing is they are trying to push President Trump from the logic which he repeatedly presented in the past. And I will quote a couple of his statements regarding how this crisis should be resolved. He bluntly said, actually, he was the first, if not the only, leader in the West, and maybe not only in the West, but on Earth, who from the very beginning, even before he was inaugurated, early September, he was still president-elect. He said that you could never have NATO involved with Ukraine. If Russia has NATO right on its borders, it cannot tolerate it, and I could understand their feelings about that.
Zelensky and Ukraine must understand (this was already in August, a couple of months ago), must understand no getting back Obama-given Crimea, and no going into NATO by Ukraine, also in August Russia said, we don’t want them on our borders, and they were right. And everybody knew, you can’t. You just can’t do that.
And actually, in Anchorage, I almost quoted, he said, we had an extremely productive meeting, and many points were agreed to. There are just a very few that are left. Some are not significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there. That was his statement at the press conference in Anchorage. So he went public with this assessment, which fully coincides with our assessment.
And the very significant statement was made on the 16th of August, when he came back to Washington from Alaska. And he said, a great and very successful day in Alaska. It was determined by all that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement. This is key. He answered to all those who were, since probably the beginning of spring this year, they radically changed their rhetoric. And before, they were saying, no cessation of hostilities. Russia must be defeated, “strategic defeat”, and so on and so forth. Then, as of spring, about that time, they started saying immediate ceasefire without any precondition. And they continue to sing this song until now. Rutte, Macron… By the way, Macron, when they shifted to this logic, ceasefire, stop the killings without preconditions, and then we’ll see how it goes. And Macron was asked whether this cessation of hostilities, ceasefire, includes the pause in providing weapons to Ukraine. He said, no, it does not. No preconditions at all.
So when President Trump, after Anchorage, bluntly, publicly stated that in his conviction, it is not a ceasefire, but a sustainable, durable peace, which, as he said, must be a long-term peace, a very long term. And another quotation, we are not talking about a two-year peace, and then we end up in this mess again. This is exactly what happened with the Minsk agreements, which were agreed in 2015, endorsed by the UN Security Council. And then the Ukrainian government and armed forces were violating the ceasefire announced by the Minsk agreements. And later, five or six years later, when these Minsk agreements were sabotaged in a very big way, the signatories, like Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, and the former Ukrainian President Poroshenko, they said, we never intended to implement them. We needed to buy time to rearm Ukraine, so that Ukraine is able to continue to fight Russia.
So when President Trump, after Alaska, said, we are not talking about a two-year peace, and then we end up in this mess again. It’s one of the best characteristics of what happened with the Minsk agreements.
And when people now say, nothing but a ceasefire, immediate ceasefire, and then history will judge, it’s a very radical change. But this also means that the Europeans, they don’t sleep, they don’t eat, they try to twist the hands of this administration.
Question: Some people say Russia is unflexible. And are there any Russian conditions in the negotiations that are flexible, for example, about territory? What about the parts of Donbass that Russia has not taken yet? And what about Kherson and Zaporozhye and others?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, this is all reflected in many discussions. President Putin addressed this issue regularly when he was asked by journalists, or when he meets with President Trump, or with Prime Minister Orban, Prime Minister Fico, all those who are interested in talking to Russia, better understanding Russia’s position, they always have a chance and opportunity to come and discuss whatever is of interest for them.
The new territories which you mentioned, they are not actually new territories. They are historic Russian territories. Yes, after the Soviet Union disappeared, this was left inside the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. And there was no thought that this Slavic Republic could have leadership which would go the way the Nazis went before World War II. And step by step, Ukrainian government being independent from the Soviet Union, having proclaimed sovereignty, and so on, they have been more and more under the pressure and influence of the Brits, Americans, and Europeans, who were having a chance to implement the very old dream which Zbigniew Brzezinski expressed a couple of times, and some other American politicians, when they said, Russia with Ukraine is an empire. Russia without Ukraine is a mid-level player, an original player in international affairs. We never thought about this in those terms. But the philosophy of the US politicians, who were obsessed with not allowing Ukraine and Russia to be together, is very telling. It’s the same divide and rule logic, colonial desire to undermine alliances which would not be ruled by you.
And we recognize independence of Ukraine, no doubt about this. But we could never think that the people who live on these territories which you listed, which are now in our constitution, that these people would be considered second sort, especially after the coup 11 years ago in February 2014, when the putschists took power by illegal bloody coup, masterminded by the United States. Some time ago after this event, Victoria Nuland admitted at the hearings in Congress that the United States spent, by that time, about $5 billion to support Ukraine. And she said it was not in vain, because eventually democracy prevailed. This democratic government, which came to power illegally, their first statement showing their political instincts was that they will cancel the status of the Russian language next morning after the coup.
And the coup, of course, happened the day after Germany, France, and Poland guaranteed the deal between the then president, recognized by everybody as legitimate president, and the opposition. And when we called the French, the Germans, and said, guys, you guaranteed the deal, next morning the opposition took all government buildings and so on and so forth. And they said, you know, sometimes democracy takes an unexpected twist.
Interesting. And then, of course, they sent armed groups to storm Crimean parliament. That’s when the people of Crimea rejected this power, these authorities, and held referenda. Then Donetsk and Lugansk, the parts of Donetsk and Lugansk did the same.
It is not about territories for us. It is about the people who have been living on those lands for centuries. They were building cities, including the city of Odessa, a very famous place which was founded by Catherine the Great, whose monument recently was removed by Zelensky government, who would like to forget all parts of history which, one way or another, link Ukrainians and the Russians. But this is going to fail. He cannot undermine this.
So my point is that and when President Trump said about NATO in Alaska, when also in Alaska he mentioned about territories, for us, it is not territories. It is about the people who live on these territories. But then, next day, when this crowd, European crowd, brought Zelensky to the White House, and after that Zelensky was talking to the media, and some Europeans were talking to the media, and they say, nobody can prohibit Ukraine to join NATO. No territorial changes, no nothing.
Actually, I will quote some of the statements by Zelensky and his team. They, from April 2022, when Boris Johnson came and prohibited Zelensky to accept the deal negotiated in Istanbul, which was actually proposed by Ukrainian side, and which was initialed. But after this was undermined by Boris Johnson, now we know that he got about one million pounds from his friend to continue the war, because his friend was selling guns to Ukraine. So after that, they said, no negotiations with Putin. No negotiations, only he must be brought to International Criminal Court. We want European soldiers. We don’t want – no ceasefires, he was saying only one year ago. And then, in September this year, he said, to give to Putin one or another piece of land, this would never happen. It is not a solution, this is just a pause. And isolation of Russia is what must remain forever.
So when people now say, ceasefire, we know that they want just to buy some time again. And that this logic, which is deeply rooted in Zelensky, whatever moves his head, brain, is obvious for any objective observer.
Question: Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea, I understand. But what about Kherson and Zaporozhye? Could Russia ever talk about giving them back to Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: They are also part of our Constitution. And the fact that this was not just imposed from above, like in Kosovo the population was not asked. The representative of the United Nations, who was a Finnish, former Finnish president, he just said, Kosovo is independent, – full stop.
Unlike this trick, we based the decision to include them, to admit them back to Russia, because all these lands were founded by the Russian Empire and developed by the Soviet Union. Only after all of them, each of these four regions after Crimea, held referenda and bluntly expressed their desire to rejoin with Russia.
And when we now liberate remaining parts of Zaporozhye, this is the Russian way to pronounce it. And Kherson, the people, in spite of the attempts of Ukrainian army to pull them into mainland Ukraine, most of them are not leaving. They’re staying, and they’re welcoming the Russian soldiers who liberate them. So this is not our will, our “imperialist desire”, some people say. This is our concern for the future of the people who feel being part of the Russian culture.
By the way, when Zelensky and his entourage, like Macron, Starmer, Merz, and others, they still say Russia must get out of Ukraine, out of 1991 borders. And yesterday, I think, they gathered in London for this Coalition of the Willing. And Starmer, addressing the media before the event, he said that Russia, Putin is the only one who doesn’t want peace.
And this deserves some explanation. Putin supported the deal between the government and opposition in 2014, immediately after the coup. Obama called him. Obama asked him not to block the deal. He said, if the legitimate president is signing something with the opposition, how can I block him? And then you know what happened. The coup, and explanation by the Europeans that sometimes democracy is very tricky. They did not lift a finger to stop these putschists, though they knew very well that they came to power under the neo-Nazis’ banners. Then in 2015, the Minsk agreements. We negotiated the Minsk agreements. We were prepared to implement them. They, as I mentioned, said that we never intended to do this. We just needed to buy some time.
In April 2022, a couple of weeks after the special military operation started, Ukrainians asked for negotiations. We agreed. We held several rounds in Belarus and then moved to Istanbul. And in Istanbul, as I said, the Ukrainian delegation put a paper with the principles to be developed into a treaty. We accepted this paper. It was initialed. And then Boris Johnson said, don’t do this. Continue to fight Russia until we defeat them.
So when Starmer said that Putin is the only one who is against negotiations, he should remember about his former prime minister, Boris Johnson. He should remember about those in Germany and in France who signed the deal and then, a few years later, admitted that they never intended to do this in spite of the fact that it had been endorsed by the UN Security Council. And then Starmer continued to say that Putin must stop atrocities, must stop killing children, and he must withdraw to the borders of 1991.
On children, it’s a shame. I mean, the amount of lies, the amount of propaganda is astonishing. We have been hearing that tens of thousands of children have been stolen by Russia from their parents. And after the Istanbul process started this year, there were three rounds. At the very first meeting, our delegation asked Ukrainians, guys, you are concerned about the kids. Can we get the list of those kids who are missing? It took some time. Eventually, we received a list of 339 names. No 10,000, not even 1,000. And we checked that list. A huge part of it are not kids, grown-ups. Many have been verified as being in Europe. So when you listen to this.. But Starmer keeps saying that we must stop hijacking children.
And that’s for “1991 borders”, and “Russia must withdraw”. Ok hypothetically, in their dreams and delusions, if we leave the territories inside the 1991 Ukrainian borders, what happens to those people whom they publicly called the respective governments of Ukraine after the coup, called them “inhumans”, called them “species”. “Species”, by the way, is the term used by Zelensky long before the special military operation started. He was asked in November 2021 what he thought about the people in Donbass on the other side of the line of contact, according to the Minsk agreements. And he was asked what he thought about those people. He said, you know, there are people, and there are “species”. And then in other interview he said if you live in Ukraine and feel like being part of Russian culture, my advice to you, for the sake and safety of your kids, for the sake and safety of your grandchildren, get out to Russia.
So in fact, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson, the population of these four territories, they follow his advice. They go back to Russia.
Question: And what about Odessa? Because President Putin told the Hungarian journalist, Gábor Stier, at the Valdai discussion that Odessa is an ancient Russian city. What did you mean by that?
Sergey Lavrov: I just mentioned it’s just the fact which any educated person know very well, that Odessa is a city. There was a very small village on that spot. And Catherine the Great founded Odessa. She built Odessa. She built the ports. She built roads, factories. And that’s what is meant. Odessa was always international city, famous for its good humor. And Odessa, of course, is the heritage. And it is part of the UNESCO list of world cultural heritage.
But when the monument to the founder of the city, Catherine the Great, was removed by the nazist regime, UNESCO just stayed shut up. And the French director general, Madame Azoulay, did not comment upon it at all.
Question: If the negotiations don’t work, when will Russia say we have reached our goals and end the war?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, the goals have never changed. I gave you some examples. When they started ‘strategic defeat’ to Russia – no negotiations. And now they are pleading and threatening. Ceasefire immediately, without any preconditions, because Ukraine is running out of weapons. And we need to replenish the weapons for Ukraine. Or there must be sustainable long-term peace, as President Trump said after Alaska. Now the Europeans are trying to dominate the agenda with the rhetoric about cease fire. They are zigzagging, depending on what is going on on the front line.
We are convinced that to save the people from the nazist regime, the people who have always been part of the Russian culture. They spoke Russian language. They were teaching their children in Russian. They watched Russian movies. They got news from the Russian media outlets, culture, theaters, what have you. And when all this has been prohibited by legislation, the Constitution of Ukraine still states that the state of Ukraine guarantees the rights of national minorities. Russian minority is highlighted separately. Russian and other national minorities, as regards education, what have you. And when all this was canceled by law and they started this canceling in 2017, long before the special military operation started. And since then and this was another root cause. The root cause, number one, NATO, because it was intended to pull Ukraine into NATO and to build military bases in Crimea on the Sea of Azov, just on our doorsteps. And I quoted President Trump, who bluntly explained why it’s absolutely unacceptable to Russia. And everybody must understand this.
But another root cause is extermination of everything Russian – history, language, media, culture, education – toppling and destroying the monuments to the Russian representatives who founded Ukraine in the eastern and southern part, toppling the monuments to those who saved Ukraine and Europe from Hitler and his nazist troops. And we ask from time to time, publicly and individually, we ask our colleagues who show any interest in helping to settle this conflict, we ask, why are you… Ok, NATO, it is something which not too many people would like to get into publicly. But human rights, it’s in the United Nations Charter. It says everybody must ensure human rights, irrespective of race, gender, language, or religion. Language, as I said, is totally banned by law. In practice, people still use Russian language because it is their native language. Ukrainian Canonic Orthodox Church had also been banned by law.
But people only ask, when are you going to end the war? When are you going to have a ceasefire? It’s not honest, if you wish. An honest discussion would be to tell Ukrainians, before anything else, restore language rights, restore all national minority rights, because your constitution says so. And in violation of the constitution, you pass so many pieces of legislation. Including, by the way, the legislation which discriminates Hungarian national minority in the Western Ukraine, though Ukrainians try to be very specific in discriminating Russian language and trying to make some concessions for the language of the European Union. There is no single international convention which says that there are some languages which are more important than others. It’s like Orwell, you know? All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
I repeatedly discussed this with Peter Szijjarto, and he assured me that when Hungary fights politically, diplomatically, for the right of national minorities, Hungary means all national minorities, as international conventions, as the United Nations Charter, require. And we appreciated the role Hungary played when this framework for negotiations with Ukraine on accession to the European Union was discussed. And Hungary, I think, single-handedly insisted that these chapters on negotiating accession included quite considerable language on national minorities, on their rights. And it is formulated not just about European Union languages. It’s about all languages and all national minorities. And we appreciate that Hungary happened to be basically the country which single-handedly achieved this.
It’s another matter that nobody in Brussels wants to remember about this deal, this consensus. And when various representatives, including the Commission for Enlargement, Mrs. Kos, as far as I understand, is saying, no, no, no, Ukraine is fully ready to begin accession negotiations. For Ukraine to be ready, they first have to undo what they have done in violation of their constitution and many, many conventions.
So it’s not, I think, appropriate when people say, when are you going to end the war? Where are you going to stop? Zaporozhye, are you going to give it back? Actually, we now have taken some other territories which do not belong to the regions reflected now in our Constitution. The reason is very simple. We need a buffer zone. Because Ukrainians continue shelling, bombing, droning Russian territory, including the territories which never were challenged by anybody. I mean, Bryansk, Belgorod, Kursk. So root causes, that’s what must be key to understanding how to help end this situation efficiently, thinking not about grabbing back territories, not about saving political losers who are ruling in Kiev, but thinking about the people who should be the utmost concern of those who say that they are champions of democracy. And when we are accused that we violate so many things, we invaded independent state in violation of one thing, like in violation of its independence, then in violation of the Budapest Memorandum of 1994.
First, we recognized Ukraine on the basis of its own Declaration of Independence and its Constitution. In 1990, Declaration of Independence was adopted, which says non-nuclear, neutral, non-bloc country with the rights of all national minorities, and so on and so forth. And this was then endorsed by the Constitution.
So we recognized the Ukraine, which was very different from the country run by the openly nazist regime. And when people pull it into NATO and say it has the right to choose alliances, it is not our reading of the situation. When we recognize somebody, it is on the basis of what this country is, according to its own proclamation.
Question: The other question, before the Hungarian-Russian relationship, I’ve been thinking a lot about if Ukraine joining NATO is a red line. Why was Finland’s NATO membership not a red line? What is the difference between Ukraine and Finland from Russia’s point of view?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, the regime in Finland, I think they made a mistake. I know Alexander Stubb very well. Since the time when he was the foreign minister, remember in 2008, when then-president of Georgia, Saakashvili, launched an attack against the city of Tskhinvali and the peacekeeping group, which was there on the basis of the mandate of OSCE. And Alexander Stubb was in Tbilisi, and then he was passing through Moscow. And he made a very, I think, sober and accurate assessment of what kind of person Mr. Saakashvili was. And he was a reasonable gentleman. We had nice human relations and nice professional relations.
And then, after the special military operation against the nazist regime in Kiev started, somehow the Finnish leadership started to experience, I think, nostalgic feelings about the times when they were helping another nazist regime to defeat Russia during World War II.
Question: If there will be another leader in Ukraine, not Zelensky, then will the regime be a Nazi? If there would be another leader.
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I am not in the guessing business. We have a bluntly nazist regime, which, as I said, shows openly the despise to anything Russian, which prohibited anything Russian. It’s the only country on Earth which prohibited a language, not to mention that this is official language of the United Nations. In Palestine, in any Arab country, Hebrew is not prohibited. In Israel, Arabic is not prohibited. But Zelensky prohibited the Russian language. Now they included Pushkin, Lermontov, Dostoevsky, some other writers of world fame in a list of materials which promote “imperialist propaganda”. No comment, as it were.
Question: So the Hungarian-Russian relationship. A few days ago, it was October 23, the anniversary of the 1956 revolution in Hungary. And that was one of the saddest days in our history, and when the Soviets occupied our country. Some Hungarians still fear the Russians. We love freedom, and we love independence. Honestly, we don’t want to be attacked again. What can you say to them? Should they worry about a Russian attack in Hungary?
Sergey Lavrov: They don’t need to be told. They know this. And we, long ago, reached agreement with our Hungarian colleagues that there would be no emotions, that there would be honest reading and rethinking of history. When President Putin was in Budapest long ago, 2006, he laid flowers to the monument to the victims of 1956 events.
And just recently, he was in Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok, I think two years ago, in 2023. And he said that this, addressing the issue of 1956, that this part of the Soviet policy was a mistake. And they don’t have any difference on assessing those events with Prime Minister Orban. But they as I said, don’t need to ignite emotions around this issue, though maybe some people in Hungary and in Russia, especially those who emigrated, maybe they would like to drive a wedge in our relations and to try to steer this history.
But the leaders of Russia and Hungary, they know better. This is part of history. We gave our assessment. Hungary gave its assessment. And we now live a new life, remembering about all periods of our history. There were good periods. There were not very good periods. There were bad ones. But they remain in our memory. They remain in history. And they do not prevent us from developing mutually beneficial cooperation, politically, economically, technologically, and other ways.
Question: I am asking because you went to Alaska wearing a Soviet Union hoodie. And some people in Hungary weren’t too happy about it. Some people said it was a secret message. Was it, or are you just a big troll?
Sergey Lavrov: There was some concern that I went to Alaska?
Question: You wore a Soviet Union hoodie in Alaska, a sweater.
Sergey Lavrov: Look, we also have t-shirts with the emblem of the Russian Empire. Many people wear it. It’s part of history. And apart from the fact that the sweater was very stylish, and it was very popular.
Question: Was it a random choice or a secret message in Alaska?
Sergey Lavrov: No.
Question: And you have Columbia sweaters or Novorossiya sweaters too?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, in any country, there are parts of clothing devoted to history, to some bright moments of history, or to some moments when, for me, the Soviet Union is my motherland.
I was born there. I enjoyed my youth. I enjoyed my employment by the Foreign ministry. And I don’t think that we should be ashamed of it. To the contrary, the Soviet Union was the key winner in World War II. Yes, we were fighting with Hungary at that time. We were fighting with Finland at that time. But that was a war which allowed everybody to create the foundation for the new world. The United Nations, everybody is equal.
And apart from Nuremberg and Khabarovsk tribunals, basically, we thought that everybody now decided to be forthcoming. Like the French and the Germans overcame the old grievances, so did we with many countries who thought that the Soviet Union was exploiting them in the COMECON (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance), in the Warsaw Treaty. But it’s very interesting.
For example, Germany. Everybody thought that the German Democratic Republic was the servant of the Soviet Union. And as soon as the freedom explodes, Germany would be reunited. And it happened. It was reunited, but not the way which people discussed. It was not an equal reunification. It was a swallowing of GDR by West Germany. And I know for sure, for example, that no one who used to work in the GDR foreign ministry was left in the united Germany foreign ministry. Many people were left unemployed, and so on and so forth.
Some other countries, including I think Poland, did the same. I don’t remember that Hungary was doing something like this, and I believe it is right. I believe that after many wars which were originated in Europe or by Europe, it has to be a different epoch. And we all must unite to build a different world, like we all agreed in 1975 in Helsinki and developed principles which are now absolutely ignored and grossly violated by those who run OSCE, those who become chairpersons, and those who work as secretary general. The current secretary general, our Turkish colleague, is trying to overcome this deficiency, and we wish him very well.
But oh, yes, I forgot to mention about Budapest memorandum. Many people said that invitation to Budapest, the meeting there, would basically mean that it is a humiliation, because Budapest already was once the place where guarantees to Ukraine was signed, and it will be a very bad memory association.
People who say so, they never read the Budapest memorandum. The Budapest memorandum says that Ukraine, as other former Soviet republics who refused to have nuclear weapons, would receive guarantees, guarantees as the nuclear powers give to non-nuclear states. That’s it. That’s all. And these guarantees say that nuclear weapons would not be used against non-nuclear powers who are members of Non-Proliferation Treaty. But parallel with the Budapest memorandum, a declaration was signed by the same signatories, which contained their commitments, solemn commitments, to observe all principles of OSCE, including national minorities, democracy, freedom of speech, and so on and so forth. All these commitments which have been reflected in OSCE documents and which were reiterated on the occasion of the adoption of Budapest memorandum have been grossly violated by the Ukrainian regime. So we don’t think we are in any way violating that document, which played a very important role in that period.
Question: So the last quick question. Can we expect you to visit Budapest soon, you, President Putin, or maybe President Trump? If there are talks, could they happen in Budapest? Because we have many great t-shirts and sweaters, some even show our old borders. But that’s a complicated topic. And we have very little time left. So can we expect you to visit Budapest?
Sergey Lavrov: I was not invited. President Trump suggested to President Putin to meet in Budapest. President Putin said, yes, let’s go into the preparatory work. We had a good conversation with Marco Rubio. The initiative was on the part of the United States.
As I said, I heard that the State Department issued a communique saying that it was a good and productive phone conversation between Rubio and Lavrov. And it was so good that for the time being, we don’t need any meetings.
So the initiative is there, and we are polite people. And when we are invited, we say, yes, let’s agree how and where and when. And when this invitation is canceled, as President Trump said yesterday in the White House. Later they said that “cancel” means “postpone”. It’s up to those who initiated the process.
The Alaska process is ‘not finished’ – Lavrov
[Note: We can title this the Day that Mr Lavrov let a cat out of a bag – but only partially. I’ve bolded that piece. In short, there is an agreement between the Presidents, and Russia is keeping Trump’s feet to the fire. Russia may expect that Trump’s feet will burn up, in which case Russia will walk away from this triumphantly. There may be a high-stakes objective here that we are not aware of. There is smoke here. In my assessment, Russia is herding Trump back to his camp, until he fulfills an understanding made between the Presidents. The Russian senior staff and spokespeople differed sharply on how to deal with the U.S. and the status of talks over the past few weeks, and it took a while before a unified story emerged from all of them.
Ryabkov said that Alaska is falling apart at its foundations. Yuri Ushakov noted that the Russia-US relationship is still being discussed. Peskov initially stated that there are no talks of import, but then he changed his story by referring to negotiations between Russia and Ukraine that seem to be non-existent.
We also know that the Alaska summit seemingly has fallen apart. But Russia is still keeping Trump to the non-public understandings between Presidents. Somebody should do it. We are also in a time where Trump may break those understandings at any moment now, judging by his presser yesterday.
Since we do not know what Russia is truly planning at the end of the day regarding the SMO, we also do not understand what Russia is planning in this process, which I see as shrinking the negotiation space for Trump. Russia is turning on the pressure with perfect diplomatic words. It reminds me of James Baker’s famous statement to Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would expand “not an inch” to the east. This time, Russia will have its pound of flesh.
Let me then guess as to what Russia’s objective is. I think that Russia believes that during this critical time of transitioning to a multipolar world, it may be in the world’s (and Russia’s) interest to keep the U.S. as stable as possible for now, even if they have to deal with the mercurial character of Trump. With this guess, we also uncover the soft underbelly of multipolarity. The concept and the implementation depend on cooperation, where the issue of sovereignty must be handled very carefully. This is for discussion at another time.]
Question: After the Alaska summit, many were expecting to see progress on the Ukrainian track, if not a breakthrough. The initial signs were promising, but now we’re seeing a rollback, with US President Donald Trump threatening to supply Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, among other things. What is happening?
Sergey Lavrov: This topic has already been addressed extensively by officials from the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Presidential Executive Office. President Vladimir Putin himself spoke about it at a news conference in Dushanbe. He summarised the potential for further action based on the agreements outlined in Alaska – not verbatim, but in essence.
I would not call it a breakthrough; it was a lengthy conversation aimed at mutual understanding. I have said repeatedly that President Donald Trump and his team are, in fact, the only representatives from the Western camp (and frankly, beyond it) who have publicly addressed the root causes of the conflict. It’s not just that they use the term; they, and Donald Trump personally, try to look deeply into their essence. Drawing Ukraine into NATO is one such root cause. President Trump has stated multiple times that this was Joe Biden’s error, one that must be corrected and not allowed to happen. Similarly, when President Trump and US Special Presidential Envoy Steven Witkoff began discussing issues of territory and demarcation, it represented an unprecedented Western recognition of reality.
Of course, we have always insisted it is not merely about land, but about the people who have lived on that land for centuries – who continued their ancestors’ work, founded cities, built plants, factories, roads, and ports, and were then reduced to a humiliating, discriminated status. Therefore, the American side’s recognition that these territories should have a status reflecting the will of the local people is a positive sign.
In Alaska, the presidents discussed how to move forward, taking these two root causes into account: NATO expansion and the fate of the people in the territories developed by Russians, which the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev now threatens to claim.
Think of Kosovo, which was almost taken from the Serbs – and effectively was, following the 2008 coup. The unilateral recognition of Kosovo’s independence was a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which defined the parameters of Serbian statehood, including Kosovo. They simply “recognised” Kosovo, perpetrating a coup and stripping the Serbs of their historical lands, the very cradle of the Orthodox religion professed by the entire Serbian people and other important processes.
In the same vein, after the 2014 coup in Ukraine, there was a decision to strip the Russian people of their homeland – the Crimeans, the residents of Donbass and Novorossiya – and to erase their history. They were declared “non-humans,” “species.” As you recall, the then President of Ukraine, Petr Poroshenko, publicly and proudly threatened that the children of those opposing the new regime in Donbass would “rot in basements,” while the children of those who seized power under neo-Nazi slogans would go to school.
To return to Alaska: those present cannot disclose the details for obvious reasons. But the essence was that President Putin brought a response to the proposals delivered to Moscow a couple of weeks earlier by US Envoy Steven Witkoff. President Putin had taken time to consider them, and in Alaska, he stated his readiness to agree with the concept Witkoff had brought, primarily because it reflected an understanding of the root causes and aimed to eliminate them. In fact, he outlined how, after accepting this concept, it could be brought to fruition.
President Trump said he needed to consult with Washington. We are awaiting their response.
Question: There has been a reaction. He is threatening to deploy Tomahawks.
Sergey Lavrov: That is not a response to the concept discussed. None of his statements about Tomahawks have any bearing on what was discussed conceptually – indeed, both conceptually and practically – in Alaska.
Yes, he is under pressure. After Alaska, he went to consult, as he put it, with his allies in Washington. They flew there, bringing along Vladimir Zelensky. They make no secret of their desire to “lead Donald Trump astray from the righteous path,” as we say – to divert him from the course he himself charted through his political instincts. They are exploiting Trump’s temperamental preference for swift decisions, deliberately protracting this process. They seek to convince him that it is not Vladimir Zelensky and Europe who are playing the fool, but rather that Russian President Vladimir Putin does not want peace.
Let me reiterate what was discussed in Alaska – and what finds understanding in Washington: NATO, and the territories where people have held referendums and expressed how they wish to live. Immediately after Alaska, after the meeting at the White House where these visitors came to see Trump, Zelensky declared that no one should think Ukraine would be barred from joining any alliance, above all NATO. If they want to, they will, as if to say. Moreover, he insisted no one should even entertain the idea that they would accept restrictions on arms supplies. Zelensky then added, incidentally, that the West ought to forget its own concerns (some, he implied, claim they lack funds, while others face shortages in other areas). Allegedly, everyone must now support Ukraine, directing all resources toward defending “civilisation” – as he labels his actions.
According to our information, after Zelensky returned from New York following the UN General Assembly, he convened a meeting where he stated there would be no changes to their policy – that the situation on the front provides no grounds even to consider showing any weakness. They must, he insisted, fight on, securing further supplies of long-range weapons. Observe the tone, the very language he uses publicly when addressing none other than US President Donald Trump. Not very polite, to put it mildly.
Europe, of course, is chiming in. Above all, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, our Finnish neighbour who has now positioned himself at the forefront of Russophobes, commented on the notorious process of negotiating security guarantees for Ukraine by flatly stating that Russia’s interests would not be accounted for in these guarantees. Those who sign them, he said, must understand they entail – if necessary – military support for Ukraine on the battlefield. The West speaks not of indivisible security, a principle we uphold, believing that when they endorsed it 26 years ago and reaffirmed it 15 years later, they were honourable people. Now, however, they openly declare that when Russia insists on applying the principle of indivisible security around Ukraine, it means Russia refuses to listen to those advocating an end to this war. In short, indivisibility is no longer their concern. There are many other examples.
What has just transpired in Sharm el-Sheikh is equally telling. On October 13 this year, Trump’s Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity was signed at the “peace summit.” It emphasises that the durability of this agreement hinges on protecting human rights, ensuring security, respecting the dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians, and fostering tolerance and equal opportunities for all regions. The declaration calls for eradicating extremism and radicalism in all forms. Noble words. Yet somehow, this applies to Palestinians and Israelis – but not to Russians in Ukraine.
Just recently, regarding another part of the Middle East – Syria – US Special Envoy for Syria (and concurrently Ambassador to Türkiye) Thomas Barrack stated that the Syrian Arab Republic requires a system close to federalism, one that preserves the culture and language of all ethno-confessional groups. This is precisely what the Minsk Agreements envisaged. Somehow, the West is prepared to apply these principles everywhere – except in Ukraine, where it claims it is not ripe.
Indeed, the Trump administration now recognises the need to delve into root causes and is striving to do so. We continue to await a concrete response to the outcomes of the Alaska talks. We remain committed to them. Let us see how matters proceed in Washington – and how the administration reacts to the brazen courting, the near-brazen ultimatums, that Vladimir Zelensky and certain Europeans are publicly issuing to Donald Trump and his team. They demand he abandon his internal convictions, his intuitive approach to Ukraine, and openly adopt the stance promoted by the most rabid Russophobes in Europe. We will see. I never imagined that Europe would act with such unbridled recklessness in its dealings with the United States.
Question: The Alaska summit was expected to produce a quick result, like an agreement or, at the very least, the beginning of full-scale talks. This has not happened. How long can the impetus from the Alaska summit last? When will the war end?
Sergey Lavrov: We believe that, conceptually, the meeting demonstrated mutual agreement. We have also provided our understanding of how that agreement can be implemented on the ground. We clearly outlined our vision. President Trump said that he needed to consult his allies. It appears that these consultations are ongoing.
It is true that statements have been made about the Tomahawk missiles, but when President Trump spoke about the possibility of supplying these missiles, he also said that he did not want to escalate the war. In other words, he has admitted that sending the missiles could lead to a serious escalation. Ukraine would no longer have anything to do with it. This would cause colossal damage to the possibility of normalising US-Russian relations and moving them out of the deadlock into which they have been pushed by the Biden administration.
As for symbols, Donald Trump has pointed out on numerous occasions that it is Biden’s war, and that he wants to settle this problem, first of all, because people are dying, which he doesn’t like. This is understandable. Second, this war is a legacy he didn’t ask for from the Biden team and their European back-up singers, who have pushed it to the forefront of the international agenda, and he wants to end it so as to save lives and make place for opportunities for full-scale cooperation with Russia. Both arguments are reasonable.
Restoring peace and saving lives are a noble cause. Also, Trump has always demonstrated an interest in mutually beneficial deals that could be made in the sphere of material cooperation and practical projects. He has never made secret of his desire, and he has always spoken out openly about it. However, Europe wants to make it Trump’s war as quickly and securely as possible. This explains their arguments.
Question: You have most likely seen a report by The Financial Times stating that the US has been providing Ukraine with intelligence for months to help guide strikes on Russia’s energy infrastructure. Has this made it Trump’s war?
Sergey Lavrov: A great deal has been written to this effect, but not all these reports have been proven true. Nevertheless, we have taken note of that report. I have instructed our personnel to ask the Americans to comment on what The Financial Times has written.
Question: Have they commented?
Sergey Lavrov: It only began several days ago, when the item was published.
Question: How long can this Alaska effect last?
Sergey Lavrov: Who knows? My guess is as good as yours. As I have said, the Alaska process is not over. We have replied to the Americans’ proposal, essentially accepting it and proposing a practical method for its implementation. We are now waiting for their response to our reaction.
Question: What about the idea of creating task groups and increasing the level of representation on both sides? Is it still on the table?
Sergey Lavrov: Do you mean meeting without the Americans? That is, directly with the Ukrainians? There has been complete silence. The idea of increasing the level of representation was raised in Alaska. President Trump seemed to be in favour of it. It is not just that he expressed a positive attitude to it but that we didn’t expect any other reaction from him.
The same goes for the three negotiating teams we have proposed creating within the Istanbul process. In principle, the Ukrainians had two complaints. The first is that our negotiators do not have the necessary powers, that we sent a low-level delegation, which is not true. Their second complaint is that our delegation only addressed humanitarian issues due to its low level, such as the exchange of prisoners and dead bodies, as well as the “forcefully deported” Ukrainian children.
In response to their concerns, we have proposed significantly increasing the level of our delegation heads. And second, we proposed that the delegation heads supervise three groups, which would not only deal with humanitarian issues, which are important anyway, but also address military and political matters. In other words, we acted in the spirit of goodwill in response to that strange criticism from the Ukrainian negotiators. Our proposals take their criticism into account and should help improve the negotiating process. We are waiting for their answer, as well as for their reaction to our proposals following the Alaska summit and a reply to our proposals on “upgrading” the Istanbul process.
Question: President of the United States Donald Trump will once again have a meeting with Vladimir Zelensky this Friday. Are there any plans for us to have any contacts with the Americans at the highest or other levels?
Sergey Lavrov: There are working contacts through all kinds of channels for dealing with various matters.
Only recently, President of the United States Donald Trump responded to journalists with a comment on the Tomahawk cruise missiles as he was about to take off from Egypt. Among other things, he said that he would probably have to raise this issue with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. He and his team know that we are always available and can engage at various levels, including to have a conversation between the two presidents to discuss specific matters. Of course, our past achievements, including during the Russia-US Alaska summit must be taken into account.
Question: You have mentioned various channels. Donald Trump has been proactive in relying not only on traditional diplomatic assets, but also his children, business leaders, partners, etc. As far as we can see, Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriyev operates one of these so-called channels on our behalf these days in our relations with the United States? What do you think about this?
Sergey Lavrov: It is true that Americans tend to rely on their families, but they all are members of the administration too.
Question: Is this model more effective compared to conventional diplomacy, or does it give rise to disputes and a plurality of approaches?
Sergey Lavrov: You cannot answer questions of this kind before you get the results. Only then you can say whether an appointee played a positive or a neutral role, regardless of whose relative we are talking about.
For example, Special Envoy of the President of the United States for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, enjoys a lot of trust with President Donald Trump, who has affirmed this in his public statements. Only recently, he said that Steve Witkoff has finally resolved all the Middle Eastern issues, so he could use his talents on the Ukrainian track. We cannot but welcome this, since he is in fact a very reasonable person. Some say that he has never worked on the Russian dossier and has just started exploring this topic. I believe that for a man who has never dealt with matters relating to Russia’s foreign policy, he has been able to get his bearings and understand what is going on quite quickly, in particular, in terms of the steps that must be taken to address the conflict’s root causes.
I hope that our US colleagues will focus on addressing the root causes in the Middle East too. So far, they are in the early stages of the 20-point peace plan as put forward by President of the United States Donald Trump. They are only approaching the question of Palestinian statehood and have been mentioning it only indirectly and in connection with the Gaza Strip, without referring to the West Bank. Therefore, there will be a lot of work moving forward. That said, Steve Witkoff is one of Donald Trump’s closest associates. And this is just one example.
The second example is Special Envoy of the President of the United States for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg. He is a complete opposite of Steve Witkoff, who, together with Donald Trump, discussed with President Vladimir Putin during their Alaska conversations ways of achieving a lasting settlement by addressing the root causes. As for Kellogg, he has been making public statements opposing any recognition for any territories by claiming that you may have de facto control over them and that it is all right. There may be a universal de facto recognition for the Baltics, while de jure no one recognised the Baltics as part of the Soviet Union. He said that the West raised this matter with the Soviet leadership and Western delegations travelled to Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius, so when the moment came, the West said that it never recognised the Baltics as part of the USSR, and therefore they could claim independence. Accordingly, what Kellogg calls for consists of freezing the conflict and sweeping it deep under the carpet so that one day the United States can take the same position by claiming that it has never given any promises to anyone, that their conscience is clear and that they would carry on with their efforts to liberate Ukraine.
Speaking of family members, Melania Trump, the President’s spouse, has been playing a very positive role, in particular on matters dealing with reuniting children with their families. Moreover, over the past months, since Donald Trump transferred her letter to President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, she made strides in her attempts to better understand this issue. Melania Trump have been following her husband and his team in their footsteps in trying to get to the bottom of the root causes behind the conflict in general. She went to great lengths to understand the actual situation with these children, considering all the lies regarding this matter.
During the second Russia-Ukraine meeting in Istanbul, our delegation insisted that Ukrainians stop professing their groundless accusations by claiming that tens of thousands of children were kidnapped or sold into slavery. Instead, all they had to do was to give us a list. Finally, and after multiple reminders, they did give us a list with 339 names on it. We have examined almost all the entries. Among them, there is a substantial group of people who are not children anymore. They can live independent lives. Those who had any relatives, had already been reunited with their families. Most of the kids on this list have never been transferred to Russia and live in Europe, where trafficking of Ukrainian children does exist, by the way. There has been an effort to silence this fact, but this is quite common, including when selling these children as organ donors. All we got was this list of 339 names.
We have just heard what Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yuliya Sviridenko, said in Vatican. She presented a list of over 750 children and alleged that they were somewhere in Russia. Just give us the names so that we can help everyone. We have yet to see this second list, and have inquired about it.
In her statements, Melania Trump said that several children returned to their families in recent days. By doing this, she sent a clear message that she wanted to understand the child issue in its essence instead of taking her cues from propaganda they keep peddling all the time, especially considering that once you take a closer look, there are too few facts.
Question: Speaking about the Tomahawk cruise missiles, all the American plans to supply weapons under the previous administration announced in official statements or through leaks to the media, from the HIMARS systems to the F-16 jets, have ultimately been implemented. Can Russia convince the current administration not to move forward with the supply of these long-range weapons?
Sergey Lavrov: We have not requested a meeting to convince the US administration that this would be an extremely dangerous move. We believe that they are smart and experienced people who are fully aware that this would move the situation to a fundamentally new level. All experts agree that only the personnel of the producer country can guide these missiles. Apart from turning Biden’s war into Trump’s war, this would mean an extremely dangerous aggravation of Russia-US relations. I have no doubt that they are aware of this.
President Putin has commented on this when talking to the media in Dushanbe and on other occasions. He said that this would be a severe blow at the efforts to normalise our relations in keeping with the line Donald Trump set out during his election campaign, as well as with the understandings reached during telephone contacts at various levels, including between our presidents, as well as during the US-Russian summit in Alaska.
Question: The post-war world order created in Yalta and Potsdam has been destroyed. Is Russia considering a new system for settling disputes and conflicts between states? Can the UN regain its role as a dispute settlement platform?
Sergey Lavrov: President Putin has more than once made statements to this effect. I spoke about this at the UN General Assembly as well. Of course, the world has changed dramatically since 1945. The number of independents states has increased fourfold, from 50 at the time of the UN’s establishment to nearly 200 now. The main thing is that all of them feel capable of promoting their own interests rather than playing by the rules that are being imposed on them.
“Rules” is a separate matter. We have always upheld the principles of the UN Charter, which we consider to be perfectly applicable norms of international law codified in the most important international legal document of the international community, which comprehensively sets out the organisational standards of international relations. Take the principle of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, the equality and self-determination of nations, which the UN Charter mentioned before the principle of territorial integrity. Incidentally, there is a direct connection between these two principles, which the UN General Assembly addressed. After years of discussions on the interpretation of the charter principles, the UNGA adopted by consensus the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter. It is a massive document and a result of colossal work by lawyers and politicians. It states that all countries must respect the territorial integrity of those countries whose governments respect the principle of self-determination and therefore represent the entire population residing within the borders of the territory in question. The principle of self-determination underlay the process of decolonisation when it became clear that those who represented the parent states in Lisbon, Berlin, London, Paris and other Western capitals no longer represented the peoples of Africa who lived in these territories under the yoke of colonisers.
The same happened after the state coup in Ukraine. Could the putschists, who seized power, designated the people of Donbass and Crimea who refused to recognise the coup as “non-humans” and “terrorists,” and used combat aircraft and artillery against them, represent the people of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya? Absolutely not.
The principles codified in the UN Charter have remained fully topical. Nobody can say that there is any injustice in them. No, it was through Western efforts that these principles were applied in a way that violated justice. The West “recognised” Kosovo because it wanted to, allegedly in keeping with the principle of self-determination, even though no self-determination referendum was held there. Years later, a referendum was held in Crimea, but the West claimed that it was a violation of the principle of territorial integrity. What about the right to self-determination? You don’t understand, this is different. This is double standards and playing with principles, when they are applied or condemned at will. These are the “rules” which the Werst is now promoting and upholding at every turn, demanding that everyone toe their line.
No one is proposing to meddle with the UN Charter, with the exception of reforming the Security Council. It is clear we must increase representation for parts of the world that have “risen” since decolonisation, reflecting the rapid development of new centres of economic growth like China, India, and Brazil. This is obvious. The UN Security Council needs to be expanded to include representatives from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This will require adjusting the Charter, but it is not a major reform of the UN’s foundational principles.
After 500 years of global domination, and especially after the dismantling of the USSR, the West decided it was the “end of history” – that everyone else should fall in line and march to their tune. It turned out differently. Russia has returned to its historical and traditional origins, and new powers have “risen up.” The West’s attempts to restrain this development with sanctions and tariffs are a reflection of those very “rules.” But it will not work.
Now we see the Americans in a trade squabble with China. The United States imposed 100 percent tariffs, and China defended itself by imposing retaliatory tariffs on its own exports, many of which the Americans desperately need. This is a vicious circle, but it has nothing to do with a struggle for human rights or justice. These are measures to suppress a competitor. The Americans operate on the belief that everyone else will have no choice but to agree to their terms. This is due to inertia; for decades after the war, the world assumed almost on a “genetic level” that the United States was the preeminent power, the issuer of the world’s reserve currency.
Decades ago, there were repeated proposals to introduce other means for mutual settlement. But the Americans argued that the dollar was not their property, but a global public good, a common asset, the “lubricant” of the entire world economy. They claimed everything was spinning smoothly and seamlessly. Then came the sanctions (including those after the referendum in Crimea) which involved using the dollar as a weapon. It is no coincidence that Donald Trump, during his campaign, specifically highlighted the disastrous role played by the Biden administration in abusing the dollar’s reserve status, weaponising it to punish those that administration disliked. The essence of his argument was that a time bomb had been planted under the foundations of US power – under the very currency that provided Americans with their decisive position in world markets.
It is difficult to say what will happen to the dollar now. Donald Trump, while in the White House, has not yet taken concrete steps to restore confidence in it. The processes of “moving away” from the dollar continue within BRICS, the SCO, and CELAC. Brazilian President Lula da Silva is actively advocating for the creation of alternative payment platforms. To reiterate, on our initiative, BRICS is already working on creating such mechanisms and “reinsurance” structures.
When asked about this, President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that we never sought to move away from the dollar. Rather, we faced restrictions on its use and were forced to find other ways to trade with our partners, settling this trade in national currencies. Now, digital currencies will also play a role.
Multipolarity will not come overnight. In France, perhaps, once the rooster crows, things happen immediately. But in reality, this is a long era, just as the colonial era was, and the era of decolonisation that followed. We had a deeply interdependent global economy, which strengthened after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Everyone thought the mechanisms were impeccable, the tools were all there, and globalisation was universally accepted – until we reached this supposed “end of history.”
It turned out that the principles of globalisation could be easily sacrificed when it came to eliminating competition. This is what they did to us, to Iran, and to other countries, whose gold and foreign exchange reserves were seized and became tools of blackmail and pressure. The inviolability of property – a sacrosanct principle – was simply swept aside overnight. There is no such thing as fair competition. Tariff wars are now being waged, even separately from sanctions. And much more besides.
Question: New epochs have typically emerged following major and bloody conflicts. The victors would formulate new rules and devise new structures and organisations. First, Russian infantry would occupy Paris, and then everyone would gather to determine the way forward. Is diplomacy capable of settling – almost for the first time in history – such a global conflict?
Sergey Lavrov: Diplomacy is indeed capable. What is lacking are diplomats on the other side of the front line. Just observe what they are articulating. Former Commander of US Army Europe Ben Hodges stated that “in 2014, we failed to make it clear that Russian aggression would not go unpunished,” and proceeded to say – “Even the Minsk Agreements turned out to be a farce.” I wonder if he has been observing how these Minsk Agreements are being commented upon, who is commenting on them, and who is admitting that they turned them into a farce? Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former French President François Hollande, and former Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko have not concealed this. Ben Hodges also claimed that if Russia were to attack Poland in 2025, it would be destroyed by NATO’s air forces and the Alliance’s ground troops, that Kaliningrad and Sevastopol would be wiped off the map, and all military installations would be obliterated. These “lads” are really puffing themselves up.
NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte – another great “strategist” – is chiming in. This is outright provocation. He stated that “it is highly likely that China will force the junior partner in that relationship, being Russia, … to move against NATO here, to keep us busy.” That is, to divert attention from whatever China is supposedly plotting “over there,” while we are “over here.” There is an abundance of such statements.
EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas made an “interesting” remark: “Russia was addressing China: we fought the Second World War, we won the Second World War, we won the Nazis, and I was like, okay, that is something new. But, you know, I can tell you, nowadays, people don’t really read and remember history that much, which is that, you know, you can see that they buy these narratives.” This is coming from the head of European diplomacy! And you ask whether diplomacy stands a chance?
Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna declared: “The USSR started the world war, deported millions of people, and went unpunished.” Meanwhile, his neighbouring Latvia is carrying out ethnic cleansing, expelling people by the thousands. The West has fallen silent. The OSCE, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights – no one has commented on this in any way. The process is underway. This is Nazism, the creation of a “racially pure” state.
Naturally, we are accepting these people. Additional special measures have already been determined.
Question: I would like to ask about the START Treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin made a proposal to US President Donald Trump. Many here perceived it as historically significant. Moreover, Trump himself has stated that this is precisely the kind of agreement that must not be lost. He spoke of a certain denuclearisation involving Russia and China. Yet, thus far, the US reaction has been, to put it mildly, restrained. Do you expect an agreement to be reached? If not, will we proceed to expand our nuclear arsenal?
Sergey Lavrov: Donald Trump made the sole positive comment that it was a good idea. Our proposal was made in a clear context, as President Vladimir Putin explicitly explained. Given what is now fashionably termed turbulence across various parts of the global arena, and bearing in mind that the Treaty expires in three months, he proposed not extending it – its implementation has been suspended on our part – but rather making a statement. When we suspended the Treaty, we voluntarily assumed self-restraints: not to exceed the quantitative limits enshrined in the document. President Putin stated that Russia is extending these voluntary self-restraints on the quantitative parameters outlined in the Treaty – provided that after February 5, 2026, the United States does the same. Otherwise… Well, it is clear that in such matters, one cannot play a one-sided game.
We are waiting. We have spoken with professionals at the Department of State and the National Security Council. They see merit in this. Presumably, they have not fully disclosed to us the analysis they are conducting. There are glimpses of concern in the form of leaks – that they would now freeze for a year alongside Russia, while China expands its arsenal at an unprecedented rate. Then, they argue, history may record a scenario where China and Russia possess far more than they do.
The longstanding initiative, advanced during both Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s presidencies, remains relevant – irrespective of the self-restraints we announced – namely, trilateral strategic stability talks involving the United States, Russia, and China. This idea has lingered in various forms for many years.
We have maintained, and continue to do so, that this is a matter for the People’s Republic of China. They have their own approach, grounded in the fact that their arsenal remains incomparable to ours and that of the United States. At the same time, we remind our American colleagues, when they raise this issue, not to overlook their allies – France and Britain – who, unlike us and China, are part of the same military alliance in which the United States also holds membership.
We anticipate a response. I hope it will come in a timely manner, before the Treaty’s expiration. This is not a complicated matter. We know how these delivery vehicles and warheads are stored. Let us hope.
Question: It will not be easy to reach a trilateral agreement. After all, the three countries are not connected by any blocs among themselves. What if Russia and the United States team up to oppose China at a certain point, or China teams by with the United States against Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: Russia will not team up with anyone for the sake of opposing someone, especially against the People’s Republic of China. How could it ever occur to anyone?
We have built a solid contractual legal framework with China which perfectly reflects the kind of relations we share. These relations consist of supporting one another and helping each other build stronger economies, improve defence capabilities and reinforce our respective international standing.
Question: In your opinion, would it be possible to create a trilateral framework for strategic weapons?
Sergey Lavrov: This is something the Americans have been suggesting for several years now. China has its own way of treating this matter, and we respect its position. China says that it is not ready and that we are not on the same page in terms of our strategic capabilities, which means that they still have a long way to go before they can achieve parity in this domain. We respect this position.
Question: Europe is going through a similar escalatory cycle these days. We are saying that they are undermining efforts to achieve a settlement for Ukraine, while seeking to inflict what they call a strategic defeat on us. They claim that Russia is waging a hybrid war against them. How can we stop this sequence of actions and counteractions before they reach a point of no return?
Sergey Lavrov: The Europeans want the war to become Donald Trump’s war. This would serve as a balm for their spirit, as the saying goes. For now, they are figuring out the best way to steal our reserves. It seems that that they even managed to get the Belgians onboard regarding sharing the responsibility, which amounts to covering up for each other, as they say in the criminal world. President of France Emmanuel Macron said that he would never allow this to happen because it would amount to robbery. The Elysee Palace has not lost all its bearings, after all.
What were the other accusations? Drones flying around like flies? In most of the cases when they blamed it on us, not a single drone carried a military payload. We did tell them that if this is a matter of concern for you, we can rely on military-to-military channels to sit down and have a calm and professional discussion on what fell from the sky over there, even if no one invited us to do so. They ignored us. If what they have shown is true, these drones do not have the range to reach Poland, its central regions, from the Russian Federation.
Question: They claim that we have been using tankers in the Baltic Sea to launch these drones.
Sergey Lavrov: I have read about it. They point to the so-called shadow fleet. How can anyone be serious about it? We told them that to present any accusations against us, they had to show where these drones were.
We have been asking to share the names of those whom the BBC showed in Bucha, just as simple as that. Finally, we got an answer from UN Secretary General, and just as a statement during a press conference – nothing more. He said that they do not have this information. It is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights who has it, but he refuses to share it because they have their own criteria and cannot disclose information which can hurt the victims or their families.
I did not understand anything. One thing is clear, though. They will not share any names and will not assist us in any way. In April 2022, they pulled all the stops in flinging mud at us and used Bucha as a pretext for imposing new sanctions. Just keep a low profile and keep silent – this was their message for us. The UN, as represented by its Secretariat, did not want to help us. That is all I have to say about it.
But this amounts to pleading guilty and confirming that all means are justified: stage a provocation, get the propaganda working to benefit from a new round of sanctions, and who cares what comes next?
The situation with the Nord Stream pipelines is even more amusing. It now turns out that building them was an anti-European initiative rather than bombing them. Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, said, more or less, that the problem was not that the pipelines were bombed but that they had been built. This tells you a great deal about Poland’s relations with its German neighbours and the kind of a love relationship they share. In fact, Europe, and primarily Germany, are ready to sacrifice their economic interests and social safety net to hurt Russia. They have now updated their forecasts. They used to claim that we would start a war against them before 2030, but now they pushed this timeline to 2036.
Question: The Germans say this could happen much sooner.
Sergey Lavrov: It depends on what they want. Some want to get budgetary allocations without delay. Germany has cancelled the law that restricted its military spending. Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz has proudly announced the news, just like he stated proudly that they now have an opportunity to increase the defence budget, which will allegedly make the Bundeswehr the “strongest conventional army in Europe” again. It is notable that the word “again” has been used several times before. He is probably referring to Germany’s past.
I have also been shocked that former Chancellor Angela Merkel extolled that statement by Merz, saying that she was inspired by a statement about “the new powerful Germany.”
When political leaders retire, their former ambitions manifest themselves in different ways. Jens Stoltenberg has written a relatively honest book after his retirement from the post of NATO Secretary General. It shows that deep down he was aware of the real shape of things but had to act in accordance with his responsibilities.
Former Chancellor Merkel is a different matter. All those years, she pretended to uphold the Minsk agreements and working jointly with Russia. When she retired, she unexpectedly upheld Merz’s revenge-seeking slogans. She said that back in 2021 she wanted to do everything differently but was prevented by Poland and Lithuania.
Here is another example. In 2010, when Dmitry Medvedev was Russian president and Merkel was German chancellor, they held a summit meeting in Meseberg. The hottest issue on the international agenda was Transnistria. The Germans asked us to influence the region, to force or encourage them to relaunch talks in the 5+2 format. We promised to give it a try. There were many mechanisms of cooperation in 2010, including the four common spaces and the committee of foreign ministers of Russia and the EU. We proposed coordinating our actions in the sphere of crisis management. A four-point document drafted at Meseberg provided for establishing a ministerial EU-Russia Committee on Security and Foreign Affairs to exchange views on the situation in hot spots in the world’s regions of concern for the two parties, and to coordinate the mechanisms of joint humanitarian and security operations. It marked a breakthrough in our relations.
When all issues were coordinated, Chancellor Angel Merkel said that she was all for it but Transnistria was a conflict zone yet it would be unreasonable to meet again to discuss it. We promised to send a signal to Tiraspol in favour of reviving the 5+2 mechanism. Merkel proposed adding Transnistria to the four-point document and implement it in full. As a result, we helped relaunch the 5+2 mechanism, but all the other points have been scratched.
This happened in 2010, when hope was still alive. Europe has proved again that it is for a reason that it is seen as the source and initiator of world wars and all other conflicts, including colonial and enslavement wars. Well, it is Europe’s genetic code.
Judge Nap catches our roving eye nomad—pilgrim between flights to review the incendiary moment
Rock’n Roll Geopolitics:
RYABKOV UNPLUGGED
“We have a certain building of relations, which has cracked, which is collapsing – the Americans are to blame for this. Now the cracks have reached the foundation. I think it’s easier to destroy than to build. We are ready to build, but we don’t see any reciprocal movement from that side.”
Well, Burning Down the House is the Empire’s trademark.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with Channel One’s Bolshaya Igra (Great Game) political talk show, Moscow, September 18, 2025
[Note: This deserves study as the master diplomat is at work. You will see how Russia understands the US, and that is straight down the line, according to what Trump said at Alaska. Completely pragmatic. And then, what is multipolarity? Again, that is revisited.]
Question: It is over two months since the Russian-US summit in Alaska. In two days, it will be eight months since the Trump administration assumed power. You know better than many how inspiring that summit looked. We also know from President Trump’s public statements that he had provided grounds for serious hopes when he moved into the White House. Where do Russian-US relations stand now?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t agree that we had serious hopes when Donald Trump won the election and moved into the White House for a second term. We appreciated his openness and frankness back then and we do now. He doesn’t use underhand tactics, and he never conceals his thoughts. We appreciate his emphasis on results. He calls it making a deal in the broad sense of the word. This includes mutually beneficial projects in the economy, space, natural resource development, and modern technologies. Donald Trump was resolved to do this during his first term as well, but the Democrats played a dirty trick on him. Several days before Trump’s inauguration, President Barack Obama introduced unsubstantiated sanctions against us, expelling over 100 diplomats and their families and seizing our diplomatic property. That is what Donald Trump inherited from him.
I remember that Michael Flynn, who was preparing to take the seat of national security adviser, called our ambassador to tell him that the Democrats acted dirty and didn’t want our relations to develop normally, which is why they had left that legacy. He pleaded with our ambassador not to overreact, promising to right the wrong. They failed to do that because the deep state was much more influential during Trump’s first term than it is now.
It is obvious that this time the 47th US President, while preparing for a second term, drew the right conclusions from his past experience and has opted for a different form of interaction with the deep state. Donald Trump has created a tight-knit, powerful and influential team of like-minded people. He had nothing of the kind during his first term. The way he is upholding America’s interests now differs from the ideologically-laden policies of his predecessors who, led by Joe Biden, set course for isolating Russia and rallied the Western “camp,” which gladly embraced the aggressive confrontational policy, towards that goal.
In recent years, we have had no opportunity to engage in dialogue at any level. The sole exception was the meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the then-President of the United States Joe Biden in Geneva on June 16, 2021. It was a reasonably good conversation, but it led nowhere. All of this served as a cover for the deep-seated aggression that had been brewing against the Russian Federation – a policy pursued by the Democratic administration to suppress our country as an independent player.
As for the new administration, the situation is different. Undoubtedly, slogans such as “America first” and “Make America great again” reflect the overarching, strategic tenets of American policy under any administration. I have already spoken about our first meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on February 18 this year in Riyadh, which was also attended by Aide to the President of Russia Yuri Ushakov and US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who has since been confirmed as the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations. We spoke frankly. Marco Rubio began by stating that the current US administration’s foreign policy is not driven by ideological postulates but by national interests. They fully understand that all other countries, especially great powers, also have the right to act in accordance with their national interests. He then added that in situations – and these are relatively few – where the interests of great powers align, it would be a grave mistake not to leverage this alignment to translate it into mutually beneficial, tangible projects yielding economic gains for all parties. Conversely, in cases – and these are the majority – where the national interests of great powers diverge, it would be an error, even a crime, to allow such divergence to escalate into confrontation, let alone a hot conflict. I agreed with this. This is precisely the policy that President Vladimir Putin pursues on the international stage, seeking common ground and preventing disagreements from spilling over into hot or even cold confrontation. It is far better to avoid such scenarios.
This approach was fully corroborated in Alaska. As you know, the Alaska meeting was preceded by several visits to Moscow by Steven Witkoff as the special envoy of US President Donald Trump. He met with President Vladimir Putin. Following these visits, the Americans outlined their approach to resolving the Ukraine issue and their vision of their own role.
Unlike all other Western figures – Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz, Alexander Stubb, Mark Rutte – whose actions and positions boiled down to the mantra that “Ukraine is right,” that Russia must suffer a “strategic defeat,” and that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be restored within its 1991 borders, Donald Trump and his team have repeatedly demonstrated, including publicly, an understanding of the need to address the root causes of the conflict. Donald Trump has stated publicly on multiple occasions that drawing Ukraine into NATO was a mistake. He made it abundantly clear that, to achieve a settlement, these aspirations must be set aside and security must be built on different principles.
Second, the current US administration understands that realities on the ground are not based on somebody’s desire to “bite off” others’ territories but on the fact that the language, religious and other rights of the people who live in these territories, those which Russia controls and those which the Ukrainian armed forces so far control, were legislatively destroyed. The Russian language was banned at schools, universities and all other levels of education, as well as in the media. Russian-language media outlets, both those whose owners were Russians and Ukrainians, have been shut down in Ukraine. Books in Russian have been thrown out of libraries, just like Hitler did in the 1930s. The only difference is that the Nazis burned them while Ukrainians, who are tight-fisted people, sell them for recycling. All cultural events in the Russian language have been prohibited. In everyday life, for example when shopping, if you ask for a package of salt in Russian, the seller could reply that he wouldn’t sell salt to you unless you switched to the Ukrainian language.
During the talks in Alaska, we mentioned the fact that the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church had been prohibited in Ukraine. President Trump was shocked to hear that. He asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio several times if that was true, which clearly indicated his attitude to such things.
The proposals we put on the table were based on our understanding of the root causes of the conflict. They included respect for the security interests of the Russian Federation in light of the “NATO factor,” and for the safety of the people who live in these territories. The media described it as “a land swap.” I have told you what we really had in mind. As far as I know, following the Alaska summit Steve Witkoff informed the Ukrainian party of the US vision of future developments based on the agreements reached in Anchorage. The Ukrainian side has rejected that signal.
We would like to maintain the current dialogue between our presidents, foreign ministers, national security aides, and special envoys of the two presidents, as well as communication via other channels. We see that the American side wants this too.
The Ukraine crisis is the key priority now. According to numerous public statements and speeches of President Trump, this war would have never begun if he was president. He repeated this in Alaska. President Putin said he shared this view. Trump’s phrase that this is Joe Biden’s war and not his war reflects a situation where he is not giving priority attention to overcoming the Ukraine crisis because he considers it to be the world’s main crisis but because he inherited a situation on the international stage where the Ukraine crisis was deliberately created and Russia had no choice other than to begin the special military operation to protect the rights of the people whom the Kiev regime, which came to power after the 2014 state coup, denounced as terrorists and non-human beings. President Petr Poroshenko publicly promised that these people would rot in basements, while Zelensky called them “species” and “recommended” those who live in Ukraine yet feel associated with Russian culture to pack up and go to Russia.
Since 2008, we proposed “fixing” European security, with due consideration for the interests of all parties, including Russia, Ukraine and European countries. All this was rejected time and again. In December 2021, we submitted our proposals (for the last time) on concluding treaties between Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO. We had no choice, following the West’s negative, arrogant and contemptuous reaction to them. The inevitable happened. The West did its best to make sure that anti-Russian Ukraine, trained to contain, weaken and suppress our nation, became the main issue of the global agenda.
This is an artificial war, launched by Joe Biden and his team, that does not reflect the philosophy of the incumbent US administration. I believe this is exactly why Donald Trump’s team wants to scrap it from the agenda so as to eliminate obstacles for normal economic, technological and other relations. This will not be easy because the United States has a peculiar approach towards addressing and resolving economic issues.
Question: Eight months have passed, but, as far as I know, no specific results have been achieved. There is only one exception: The US side has started issuing visas more quickly. We continue to talk about many other issues discussed by us. I understand that our dialogue has become more profound but it is not yielding any results so far. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and you said that it would be impossible to immediately remove those formidable roadblocks in our relations. I am worried that President of the United States Donald Trump is saying that he is disappointed, that he cannot wait, and that he can impose sanctions on Russia. He is saying that he does not want to do this because he likes Vladimir Putin, and because this is not the best way to deal with Russia. But he is showing signs of disappointment and impatience. How would you react to this?
Sergey Lavrov: President of the United States Donald Trump is noting all the time that he means business, and that he specialises in deals and business operations. He is accustomed to reaching quick agreements, just like merchants did in ancient Rus and the Russian Empire. They would shake hands, and everything on which they had agreed would be implemented the very next day.
When US President Donald Trump says that he is disappointed (I cannot say that I know him well, but I had contacts with him on several occasions and that gave me a certain impression), I think that in part this is explained by the fact that he wants quick solutions. As he constantly stresses while referring to decades-long conflicts, in which he sought to play a positive role, he regards a quick settlement as a possibility. In some places, this may work, in others – hardly so.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a thing apart. This is a tragedy, a humanitarian disaster, like many other crises on this planet. US President Donald Trump and his team are striving to make a contribution, assume initiative and reconcile irreconcilable enemies… Well, who will object to peace being better than war? Better a bad peace than a good war, as we say in Russia.
As for the Ukrainian affairs, I don’t see any problems with sanctions being used against Russia. A huge, a record number of sanctions for that historical period was introduced during Donald Trump’s first term in office. We started drawing conclusions from the situation when the West imposed those sanctions on us. Somewhat later, during the Biden presidency, sanctions totally replaced all diplomatic work; no one was trying to find compromises. They said: Don’t you try to rule any part of the globe; we, the West, will rule the roost everywhere the way we always have. This attitude is extended not only towards Ukraine but also all our neighbours. The West is being active while disregarding our interests in a number of cases.
Our partners across the post-Soviet space understand this perfectly well. They recognise that they have not only obligations under the CIS, CSTO, EAEU, and SCO, but also vital interests realised through alliance and partnership with Russia. Yet this does not deter the West.
Turning to the issue of how the United States will proceed regarding Ukraine. I believe we will have further engagements. We parted ways in Anchorage, having accepted the logic advanced by Donald Trump, which was grounded in an understanding of the root causes and our position. He did not dispute this logic. Donald Trump stated he would consult his allies. They subsequently flew to Washington. All these Europeans made no secret of their previous and ongoing public efforts to dissuade US leadership from pursuing any constructive measures towards Russia within the context of the Ukrainian crisis. They seek to drag the United States back onto the treacherous path it followed under Joe Biden, when this was “Joe Biden’s war.” The Europeans are determined to make it “Donald Trump’s war” as well. They do not conceal this.
Question: Have they succeeded thus far?
Sergey Lavrov: I think not. Recent reports indicate the United States signed its first new contract or agreement – not merely fulfilling deals concluded under Joe Biden, but something entirely fresh – involving two arms shipments worth $500 million, to be financed by the Europeans.
Question: Congress approved $400 million to be drawn from US funds. Donald Trump pledged he would not authorise such expenditures, yet Congress passed it without White House opposition. As you rightly noted, NATO is purchasing – indeed purchasing – 500 million worth of arms for Ukraine.
Sergey Lavrov: Correct, this is not unprecedented. US President Donald Trump has emphasised from the outset that henceforth America would not incur losses but rather profit from arms sales, with Europe footing the bill for transfers to Ukraine or elsewhere.
This constitutes a notable step, particularly to the extent it pertains to the Congress. On the other hand, diplomacy and business are realms where actors sometimes make calculated concessions, anticipating future manoeuvres. The fact that since Alaska, Donald Trump has unambiguously advocated not for an unconditional ceasefire ultimatum, but for a durable, sustainable settlement represents a significant White House decision. I see no indication they have retreated from this stance.
Question: I wish to clarify a crucial point regarding the difference between Donald Trump’s current team and that of his first administration.
You dealt with these individuals firsthand – far be it from me to tell you. His previous team included non-conservatives, globalists who openly disregarded their president’s views. This is no longer the case.
My question is this: In your assessment, has he assembled a team of like-minded strategists (figures such as Nixon and Kissinger) who steadfastly supported their president, or merely loyalists who – while avoiding overt betrayal or provocation – might quietly collaborate with Europeans to nudge Donald Trump towards greater confrontation with Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: I have formed no such impression. The term “loyalists” certainly applies to his staff – but in my view (absent knowledge of internal dynamics), exclusively in the positive sense. After all, a loyalist is someone who does not betray. If they begin covertly aiding the opposing side behind their leader’s back, that would constitute something altogether different…
Question: You probably know US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.
Sergey Lavrov: I’ve never met him or talked with him.
Question: I’ve never met him, either, but I read what he has to say. He’s clearly calling for more sanctions and is engaging closely with the Europeans. He’s encouraging European delegations to come to Washington in order to develop a joint sanctions agenda targeting Russia and then takes it to the US President.
Sergey Lavrov: He clearly and strongly believes that Russia must be punished. He believes he can act beyond the capacity of the Treasury Secretary.
Question: I’m sure you are aware that he worked for George Soros.
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, he did. I think he is acting beyond his mandate and the line drawn for him by President Trump. I don’t think this negates the importance of the support provided to President Trump by most members of his team. True, the US Treasury Secretary is an important figure, but there’s also the Vice President and the Secretary of State. There are a number of special envoys as well, such as Steve Witkoff who is clearly focused on striking a balance of interests. We understand this. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made it clear that, ultimately, a sustainable agreement means a compromise. We are prepared to seek a compromise provided that our legitimate security interests and the legitimate interests of the Russian people in Ukraine are ensured just as the legitimate interests of other parties to such an agreement are.
I mentioned earlier that the Trump administration recognises the importance of NATO-related issues. They’ve stated it publicly. There’s an understanding that the referenda in Crimea and other territories cannot be ignored. Any potential agreement must take the outcomes of these referenda into account. How exactly? Should it be done in one go or gradually can be discussed. They’ve recognised the essence of our approaches and are working on that basis.
The rest of the Western public, with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia, such as the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Finland, the European Commission, and NATO I mentioned earlier kept insisting that Russia must suffer a “strategic defeat” on the battlefield when we launched the special military operation. Remember how it began? They stuck to this approach for about a year and a half. Then they changed their rhetoric and started saying that Russia must not be allowed to win. In the last six months, they’ve been hysterically calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. When they first put this slogan forward, French President Emmanuel Macron, commenting on it in response to a media question, said it was unconditional, meaning they would continue supplying Ukraine with arms. It was a Freudian slip, and he blurted out what they really wanted. The Minsk agreements were signed with the goal of pumping weapons into Ukraine as well.
It is likewise important that none of the Europeans ever mentioned human rights in Ukraine, even though the issue of human rights takes centre stage whenever they talk with any country. Instead, they want to occupy the part of Ukraine that will stay under the control of the current regime (they have no intention of changing it) after the settlement (even though they keep talking about the 1991 borders, they understand perfectly well where things stand), and to continue supporting the Nazi entity currently led by Zelensky. They couldn’t care less about what happens to native Russian speakers in the territory, which they will occupy in their dreams and illusions.
No one has ever mentioned the need to repeal these absolutely disgusting laws. No language has ever been banned in any country. Even in the context of the Arab-Israeli confrontation, Arabic and Hebrew are not banned in Israel or any Arab country.
We asked many Western journalists why they weren’t covering this. Western journalists are typically meticulous and inquisitive. Something as obvious as the destruction of a language in an entire country should be a matter of interest to them.
The only thing was made public thanks to the persistent efforts of our Hungarian colleagues. When Ukraine’s accession to the EU was discussed, the Europeans drafted framework documents to define the contents of the “negotiating chapters.” An entire page of that document demands that Ukraine respect the rights of ethnic minorities. These rights are enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. This part has remained unchanged. In disregard of the Constitution, they passed laws that are directly at odds with it.
The documents that were discussed and approved in connection with the plan to draw Ukraine into the EU explicitly state that they must ensure that their legislation complies with the requirements of international instruments on the protection of the rights of ethnic minorities and human rights. They approved them and forgot about them. Only Hungary insisted on it. I know that. But no one intends to implement even what they ultimately accepted at Budapest’s insistence. No one is making any claims against them.
Question: I am trying to comprehend the objectives European leaders are pursuing (naturally, with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia). You have just articulated that they mean, among other things, the de facto occupation of Ukraine. They assert their desire for NATO military units to be stationed in Ukraine – units not merely symbolic but possessing genuine combat capabilities, air defence systems, and American air cover.
Concurrently, they proclaim their intention to pump Ukraine full of armaments so it could independently defend itself against Russia. However, for Ukraine to defend itself effectively, it must be afforded time – time also to mount an offensive. May I inquire: do they simply fail to comprehend, or do they refuse to acknowledge, Russia’s legitimate strategic concerns, and the fact that Russia will never consent to such actions? Or are they employing these arguments intentionally to obstruct any agreement? What is your perspective?
Sergey Lavrov: I think that there exists a third facet as well. Undoubtedly, they seek to impede any agreement – they oppose a settlement that would terminate their protracted endeavours to transform Ukraine into a perpetual irritant, if not an explicit threat, to the Russian Federation. That is obvious.
Another consideration may be their aspiration to revitalise Europe’s war machine, which is now almost entirely reliant on the United States. This ambition emanates from the approach promulgated by Donald Trump – America First. The rhetoric is the following: make America great again, rather than squander resources on charity by guaranteeing Europe’s security. Washington has already articulated this openly. It is no coincidence that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, in his recent speeches (one must examine them to grasp the trajectory), has commenced emphasising Europe’s need for strategic military autonomy. Admittedly, he articulated it diplomatically – America remains their ally, of course, but times are evolving, and Europe must assume greater responsibility. This is essentially a reaction to Trump’s demands: that Europe must contribute more to its own security, allocate five percent of its budget to defence spending, and so forth.
Consideration must also be given to their deteriorating economic situation. They have sawed off the very branches they were sitting on concerning energy security and prosperity, which was constructed on inexpensive, reliable energy supplies. Yet, with pride – as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has done for years – they declare their liberation from dependence on Russian energy. Concurrently, she omits the cost. And the cost is exorbitant. Observe the prices of oil and gas they are now incurring in lieu of Russian hydrocarbons. The public is beginning to grumble. Bellicose slogans, whipping up hysteria, inflating the non-existent Russian threat – these tactics likely assist in diverting some of the discontent and compelling people to endure hardships for the sake of survival in this war.
They continue to assert that post-Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland, NATO countries will be next. They refuse to listen. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated: we have never had, do not have, and will never have any plans to attack any NATO or EU country. Since 2008, we have tabled documents guaranteeing indivisible security and ensuring that no country enhances its security at the expense of others. This was endorsed by all parties within OSCE summits.
Yet, notwithstanding these solemn declarations, the Alliance persisted in expanding. Thus, we inquired: how does this make sense? Here are the OSCE documents – they explicitly state that no organisation in the Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. Yet NATO does precisely that. Their response? That these were merely political commitments –disregarding that they were signed by presidents and prime ministers. Back in 2008, we suggested: fine, political commitments. If they suffice, let us codify them into a treaty. Their answer? Political commitments remain political, while legally binding security guarantees are reserved for NATO members. This was a deliberate policy to undermine all OSCE principles – principles they had so vigorously insisted we adhere to.
What is also of concern is the situation in Germany – and elsewhere in Europe, to be frank, – where revanchist sentiments are resurging. I was astounded by how expeditiously Finland’s leadership discarded its neutral veneer and how Finnish revanchism is now “barging out” (pardon the unparliamentary expression). However, in Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz repeatedly underscores in his public speeches that Germany is rising again. Germany has amended its laws to markedly augment military spending. Most crucially, the country must once again become Europe’s leading military power. I am uncertain if he comprehends the ramifications of the word “once again” in that sentence – but I suspect everyone else does.
Question: This is worrying me a lot. And not only me but many people in Russia, when they hear such statements from the German Chancellor. Today, I read a statement by the new Polish president, who said that Poland should have access to nuclear weapons. Donald Trump has convinced most European countries to raise their military spending to five percent of the GDP. This begs the question as to whether or not this creates a new security threat for Russia.
Sergey Lavrov: This is exactly the case. That’s why we have repeatedly reacted to Europe attempting to lick into shape its Ukraine policy contrary to Donald Trump’s guidelines (as at least they were formulated in Alaska and later presented to the US allies) in a bid to “break” them and again involve the United States into their Russia containment “games,” including, as you said, to have the US provide air cover for the forces that NATO and the EU are hoping to deploy in Zelensky-controlled Ukrainian territory.
This is also expressed in their substituting all the key notions in the settlement processes. They are calling for a truce, and that’s all. In this context, Vladimir Zelensky additionally forces everyone to mention the theme of talks. A truce and a meeting immediately in its wake, he says. Without any preconditions! His only hope is to play yet another “circus number.” To show how a bearded Mr Zelensky, so virile in his combat fatigues, will start telling President Putin or anyone else what to do. The important thing for him is to upstage someone. But we cannot go along with this.
President Putin said that he was ready for a meeting, provided it was well-prepared.
Question: What does this mean in specific terms?
Sergey Lavrov: We must get reactions to the proposals we have promoted and to the approaches that were discussed in Anchorage.
Question: Ukraine is yet to do so, isn’t it?
Sergey Lavrov: According to our information, they have rejected this. The US President’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has communicated to them the considerations that the Americans have conceived after the Alaska summit, considerations reflecting their understanding of the root causes and the need to remove them. But they were rejected.
Instead, Europe is accusing President Vladimir Putin of the rejection of dialogue. In parallel, they have concentrated on drafting security guarantees for Ukraine, which are being discussed without the Russian Federation’s participation. But if you discuss a belligerent’s security without the other belligerent being present, it means you want to formulate these security guarantees in support of a continued war against the neighbour. This is clear. True, they make reservations all the time that they will only deploy troops after an agreement on conflict settlement and a truce is signed. But this does not change anything. It only shows their intention for the following. All the arrangements they are making during the conflict and for the period after the conflict are meant to contain Russia. This is how they formulate it. But we have a very concrete argument to these “games.”
Question: Unfortunately, our arguments are usually ignored. I have the impression that you, and President Putin as well, are quite effective in maintaining dialogue with countries such as China, India and Brazil. We see an active process of building a new world order. How is this work progressing?
Sergey Lavrov: This work is proceeding without respite and cannot be stopped. It is an objective process. It is not that someone decided to create a new bloc and started hastily drafting documents and principles for unification. Rather, it stems from the natural evolution of the global economy. New centres of economic and financial power have emerged, bringing with them political influence and leadership in advanced technologies that will shape the future configuration of the global economy.
China, but also India and Brazil, have achieved – and continue to achieve – economic success based on the very rules the West itself laid down decades ago in the globalisation model. At its core were principles such as fair competition, the presumption of innocence, the inviolability of property, and so on.
To uphold and enforce these principles, the Bretton Woods system was established, with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the WTO still operating today.
That would be all well and good, but as soon as China began to outplay the United States in the economic game on the basis of these same rules, Washington started putting brakes on the functioning of the Bretton Woods institutions. If today the IMF’s voting rights reflected the real share of BRICS countries in the global economy, the United States would lose its veto power. Its share of the votes would decline, and with it the ability to block decisions. That would make for a very different picture.
For years, the US has blocked the WTO dispute settlement system. China has filed hundreds of complaints there, which would inevitably have resulted in rulings against the discriminatory barriers the United States has erected to block the import of high-quality, affordable, competitive Chinese goods.
That is why we now see a crisis in the IMF and the World Bank. The latter, by the way, has in just three years of the Ukraine crisis extended concessional loans to Kiev worth dozens times more than the total amount granted to all African countries combined over the same period. This is a telling example that discredits the Bretton Woods institutions and demonstrates their politicisation.
Meanwhile, the new emerging economies continue to assert themselves. All forecasts point to this being a long-term and sustainable trend. Naturally, these countries will seek – and are already seeking – a fairer role in world affairs. For now, economic concerns are at the forefront. BRICS countries are not always ready to engage directly in political processes or to put forward specific demands. But when it comes to political assessments of the international situation, there is unity both within BRICS and within the SCO. We reject domination and diktat, and advocate for indivisible security across all regions.
Question: Will this unanimity be able to withstand Western pressure – specifically Donald Trump’s demand that, for example, both India and China stop buying Russian oil and gas?
Sergey Lavrov: In fact, we are already seeing how these demands are perceived in Beijing and New Delhi. Beyond the economic fallout – which has, at a minimum, created serious difficulties by forcing these nations to find new energy markets, transition to new sources, and ultimately pay more – there is a potentially more significant moral and political objection to this approach.
China and India are ancient civilisations. They will not be spoken to in such terms: ‘Stop doing what we do not approve, or we will impose tariffs on you.’ The ongoing dialogue between Beijing and Washington, and New Delhi and Washington, shows that the American side understands this. They put forward demands, but then begin seeking mutually acceptable approaches – ones that reflect a balance of economic interests without appearing to infringe on political interests, national pride, or core principles.
Today’s global dynamics are far more fluid and complex than in the era preceding the Soviet Union’s collapse – a period defined by two distinct camps, the Cold War, and détente. The world map now features a greater number of influential leaders. These nations demand recognition for their economic achievements and insist that their geopolitical weight be acknowledged. It will take an entire era to determine how this new multipolar world will be governed.
A range of outcomes is possible, and this is an active topic among political scientists. The future could see either the creation of new international frameworks or a period of chaotic competition – with sanctions, tariffs, and a constant struggle for influence.
We are keen to streamline these processes, but to do so effectively, we must sit down at the negotiating table and seriously consider the proposals put forward by the members of BRICS, the SCO, the African Union, and CELAC. These blocs have many constructive ideas in this regard. By reflecting regional integration – with BRICS already serving as an overarching global mechanism – these associations are actively laying the framework for a multipolar world.
Some of our political scientists (I won’t name them here) argue that a multipolar world will be formed without the West, existing entirely outside the Western system. But this would not be a truly multipolar world; it would be a separate, non-Western one. However, we all share a very small planet, a reality that becomes more palpable with every technological advance – hypersonic systems, quantum computing, and other breakthroughs I hope our country will soon master, along with the rest of the world.
We are therefore convinced that a genuine multipolar system must embrace all regions of the world, including the West. Even as its relative share of global influence shrinks, the West remains an immensely powerful player.
Question: George Washington, the first US president whom I regard as the greatest US president, emphasised in his Farewell Address to the nation that the United States should steer clear of permanent military alliances, which have a logic and dynamics of their own and can undermine the flexibility of foreign policy and involve countries in undesirable conflicts. That is exactly what has happened to NATO. There are no rational arguments for the bloc’s continued strengthening after the end of the Cold War. Today, political analysts and experts argue, including in Moscow, that a correct response to NATO would he a broad military-political integration of the SCO, BRICS and other organisations. Do you think that a response to NATO’s challenge should include new elements of military-political coordination, if not integration by the Global Majority countries?
Sergey Lavrov: We have our own military-political alliances, primarily the Union State of Russia and Belarus. The CSTO and the SCO also have a strong military-political dimension related to ensuring the security of member states.
None of these formats ever sought to be hostile towards anyone. Their task is to ensure the security of the member states’ territories without any expansionist goals. Initially, NATO was established under the Washington Treaty as a defensive organisation, which must ensure the security of the member states’ territories. However, NATO began to – I have nearly used the Soviet phrase “spread its tentacles” – expand its interests towards the eastern border of Eurasia. It began during the tenure of the previous Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. He was asked at a news conference if NATO remained a defensive alliance ensuring the security of its member states’ territories. He replied in the affirmative. He was then asked what the bloc was doing in the South China Sea, trying to expand its infrastructure there. What is the bloc doing in northeast and southeast Asia, and what plans does it have for the Taiwan Strait? Stoltenberg replied that NATO was expanding its political, and possibly military technical infrastructure there, but this is not a violation because threats to the bloc’s territorial integrity were coming from that direction.
I believe it is clear to everyone that this amounts to an open and undisguised hostile move towards China. In addition, they are creating anti-China groups of three and four countries, such as AUKUS (Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States), trying to involve India in anti-Chinese platforms, creating QUAD-like groups, and seeking to convince the Philippines to leave ASEAN for various closed groupings of the bloc. They have also been flirting with other ASEAN nations in a bid to undermine the Association’s unity. They also hold war games in the region. The recent example is a command staff exercise held under the NATO umbrella, which involved very many Asian and Southeast Asian countries, as well as Latin American states.
This brings us to the issue of our security. There are many subregional integration organisations in Africa and Latin America. But there are also continental organisations there too, such as the African Union and CELAC. As for Eurasia, the largest continent where several great civilisations with unique identities, the richest natural resources and the largest number of population have lived for thousands of years, has no regional or continental organisation. The reason is that Euro-Atlantic security structures, namely NATO, dominated the western part of the continent until recently, during the Cold War, because the West was more active and powerful than many others due to its centuries-long superiority. The OSCE, which is also based on the Euro-Atlantic concept, and the EU, which was created as a purely European organisation, are actually merging with NATO. Agreements are signed under which EU countries will open their territory (“military mobility”) if NATO decides to send its tanks and armoured vehicles towards the Russian border. This is part of the Euro-Atlantic logic, which has exhausted itself. The war in Ukraine which the West has organised against us has proved that the Euro-Atlantic concepts have not lived up to the promises made during their creation.
That is why President Putin advanced the initiative for creating a continental Eurasian security architecture in 2024, starting with joining the efforts and launching dialogue between subregional integration organisations and gradually moving towards a continental agreement. At the same time, we point out that the door is open for all organisations.
Question: That is, we will develop this architecture together with the West, if it opts for joining in, instead of spearheading it against the West?
Sergey Lavrov: Moreover, we have already mentioned Hungary. A third conference on Eurasian security will be held this year in Minsk at the initiative of President Lukashenko. I took part in the first two conferences (1, 2), which were also attended by a number of European representatives and ministers, in particular from Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. They are interested in this work. During the third conference, which will meet in Minsk in late October, we will submit a draft Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity as a conceptual framework. Since we live on the same continent, it would be a shame not to make use of the geoeconomics and geopolitical advantages we have been gifted with by nature, geography and history. We’ll see what comes of it.
At the same time, NATO leaders are advocating a completely different concept. They say that NATO should spread its infrastructure across the entire Eurasian continent. They are making advances to some Eurasian regions and trying to impose such military cooperation aspects on Central Asian states. They are also interested in the South Caucasus. In other words, discussions won’t be simple.
Let’s compare arguments. We offer cooperation on the continental scale on our common continent, with due respect for the interests of all sides. As for them, do they want to do in Eurasia what they are doing in Ukraine, that is, divide it and turn it into a porcupine, as Ursula von der Leyen has proposed?
Question: A steel porcupine.
Sergey Lavrov: Exactly, and put that porcupine in control of the Nazi state.
You mentioned George Washington. There is an ongoing, global debate about the very meaning of democracy. This extends to the state of free speech in Europe, the protection of human rights, and the principle of keeping sport, art, and other spheres of human endeavour free from politicisation.
This brings to my mind a concept embedded in the American Declaration of Independence – that of the “consent of the governed,” a phrase I believe was incorporated by Thomas Jefferson. The reason it resonates is that just a few years ago, Antonio Guterres cited this very requirement as a fundamental principle of democracy. He did so while outlining his vision for how the United Nations must evolve to meet the demands of the modern world. However, if the consent of the governed is the true measure of democracy or its absence, then the situation in Ukraine must be viewed from a different perspective.
After all, this very principle, first articulated in the American Declaration of Independence, was later enshrined in the United Nations. Specifically, the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation among States acknowledges – by consensus – that all nations must respect “the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory.”
How could those who seized power in Kiev through a coup possibly claim to represent the interests of Crimea, Donbass, or Novorossiya? The people in these regions declared they would have no interaction with the usurpers. This mirrors the era of African decolonisation: the colonisers had long ceased to represent the interests of the people they subjugated, and those people categorically refused to live under their rule. This is the very opposite of the consent of the governed.
Question: Thank you very much. I know we’ve already taken more time than promised, but I hope you’ll indulge me with one final question.
Sergey Lavrov: I’ll most certainly indulge you – we are friends. Let’s hear it.
Question: Intervision. Tell us about this project.
Sergey Lavrov: A few days ago, we held a news conference here at the Foreign Ministry Mansion. The initiative originated from the Traditions of Art Foundation, a non-governmental organisation established five years ago with a focus on preserving cultural heritage and promoting both national and world culture.
They approached us with a proposal: to revive the Intervision song contest for a new era. The vision was to transform it from a Soviet era event for the socialist camp into a broader festival, open to all but relying on the countries of the Global Majority. We held consultations with the Government, the Presidential Executive Office, and Channel One – as it is their brand. Following this, we presented a report to the President of Russia, who gave his approval to the project.
The project will culminate in a major song contest gala on September 20 at Live Arena, featuring over 20 participants from across all continents. It promises to be a highly entertaining event.
Question: Channel One will broadcast it on Saturday at 8:30 pm.
Thank you so much for your time today, and for your continued leadership on this critical issue.
Ahead of his official visit to the People’s Republic of China, Vladimir Putin gave a written interview to the Chinese news agency Xinhua.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/77864
Question: In May this year, President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping paid a state visit to Russia and took part in the celebrations marking the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War – a visit that proved highly successful. Your own visit to China is expected shortly. What are your expectations for the upcoming visit? Over the past decade, you and President Xi have maintained close contacts, shaping and guiding the steady development of bilateral relations. How would you describe President Xi Jinping as a leader?
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Indeed, the visit of our friend, President of China Xi Jinping, to Russia in May was a resounding success, drew wide international attention and was highly regarded in our country. His arrival coincided with a date that is sacred to us, the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, thereby lending deep symbolic significance to the further development of Russian-Chinese relations. We reaffirmed the strategic choice of our peoples in favour of strengthening the traditions of good-neighbourliness, friendship, and long-term, mutually beneficial cooperation.
The Chinese leader was the principal guest of honour at the celebrations in Moscow. During our high-level talks, we held a very productive discussion of key issues in cooperation between our nations. The outcome was a comprehensive joint statement and the signing of a substantial package of bilateral documents.
Very soon, at the invitation of President Xi, I will pay a return visit to China. I greatly look forward to visiting the city of Tianjin, which will host the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit under China’s presidency. We expect that the summit will give the Organisation powerful new momentum, strengthen its capacity to respond to contemporary challenges and threats, and enhance solidarity across our shared Eurasian space. All this will help shape a fairer multipolar world order.
As for the Russian-Chinese talks, these will take place in Beijing. I look forward to in-depth discussions with President Xi Jinping on all aspects of our bilateral agenda, including political and security cooperation, as well as economic, cultural and humanitarian ties. And, as always, we will exchange views on pressing regional and international issues.
In Beijing, we will also pay tribute to the shared act of heroism of our fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, who together defeated militarist Japan, thereby bringing the Second World War to its final conclusion. We will honour the memory of those who sealed with their blood the brotherhood of our peoples, defended the freedom and independence of our states, and secured their right to sovereign development.
President Xi Jinping treats his country’s history with utmost respect; I know this from personal communication with him. He is a true leader of a great world power, a man of strong will, endowed with strategic vision and a global outlook, and unwavering in his commitment to national interests. It is of exceptional importance for China that such a person stands at the helm at this challenging, pivotal moment in international affairs. The President of China sets an example for the entire world of what a respectful and equitable dialogue with foreign partners can and should be today. In Russia, we deeply value the Chinese leader’s genuine commitment to advancing our comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation.
Question: China and the Soviet Union, as the principal battlegrounds of the Second World War in Asia and Europe, bore enormous sacrifices and made a significant contribution to victory in the global fight against fascism. In your view, what is the relevance of preserving the memory of that Victory in today’s complex international environment? How should China and Russia jointly defend their shared historical memory at a time when some forces on the international stage are attempting to distort historical truth?
V.Putin: As I have already noted, this year, together with our Chinese friends, we commemorate the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and the capitulation of militarist Japan, which marked the end of the Second World War.
The peoples of the Soviet Union and China bore the brunt of the fighting and suffered the heaviest losses. It was our citizens who endured the greatest hardships in the struggle against the invaders and played a decisive role in defeating Nazism and militarism. Through those severe trials, the finest traditions of friendship and mutual assistance were forged and strengthened – traditions that today form a solid foundation for Russian-Chinese relations.
I would remind you that even before the full-scale outbreak of the Second World War, in the 1930s, when Japan treacherously launched a war of aggression against China, the Soviet Union extended a helping hand to the Chinese people. Thousands of our career officers served as military advisers, assisting in strengthening the Chinese army and providing guidance in combat operations. Soviet pilots also fought bravely alongside their Chinese brothers-in-arms.
Between October 1937 and June 1941, the Soviet Union supplied China with 1,235 aircraft, thousands of artillery pieces, tens of thousands of machine guns, as well as ammunition, equipment, and supplies. The principal route was an overland corridor through Central Asia to China’s Xinjiang Province, where Soviet specialists built a road in record time to ensure uninterrupted deliveries.
The historical record leaves no doubt as to the scale and ferocity of those battles. We remember the great significance of the famous Hundred Regiments Offensive, when Chinese Communist forces liberated a territory with a population of five million from Japanese occupation. We also recall the unparalleled feats of Soviet troops and commanders in their clashes with Japan at Lake Khasan and the Khalkhin Gol River. In the summer of 1939, our legendary commander Georgy Zhukov won his first major victory in the Mongolian steppes, which in effect foreshadowed the later defeat of the Berlin-Tokyo-Rome Axis. In 1945, the Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation played a decisive role in liberating northeast China, dramatically altering the situation in the Far East and making the capitulation of militarist Japan inevitable.
In Russia, we will never forget that China’s heroic resistance was one of the crucial factors that prevented Japan from stabbing the Soviet Union in the back during the darkest months of 1941–1942. This enabled the Red Army to concentrate its efforts on crushing Nazism and liberating Europe. Close cooperation between our two countries was also an important element in forming the anti-Hitler coalition, strengthening China as a great power, and in the constructive discussions that shaped the post-war settlement and helped to reinvigorate the anti-colonial movement.
It is our sacred duty to honour the memory of our compatriots who displayed true patriotism and courage, endured all hardships, and defeated powerful and ruthless enemies. We pay deep respect to all veterans and those who gave their lives for the freedom of future generations and the independence of our countries. We are grateful to China for its careful preservation of memorials to Red Army soldiers who gave their lives in battles for the liberation of China.
Such a sincere and responsible attitude towards the past stands in stark contrast to the situation in some European countries, where monuments and graves of Soviet liberators are desecrated in a barbaric manner or destroyed, and inconvenient historical facts are erased.
We see that in certain Western states the results of the Second World War are de facto revised, and the verdicts of the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals are openly disregarded. These dangerous tendencies stem from a reluctance to acknowledge the direct culpability of the predecessors of today’s Western elites in unleashing the world war, and the desire to erase the shameful pages of their own history, thereby encouraging revanchism and neo-Nazism. Historical truth is being distorted and suppressed to suit their current political agendas. Japanese militarism is being revived under the pretext of imaginary Russian or Chinese threats, while in Europe, including Germany, steps are being taken towards the re-militarisation of the continent, with little regard for historical parallels.
Russia and China resolutely condemn any attempts to distort the history of the Second World War, glorify Nazis, militarists and their accomplices, members of death squads and killers, or to defame Soviet liberators. The results of that war are enshrined in the UN Charter and other international instruments. They are inviolable and not subject to revision. This is our shared, unwavering position with our Chinese friends.
The memory of the joint struggle of the Soviet and Chinese peoples against German Nazism and Japanese militarism is an enduring value for us. I would like to reiterate that the participation of President Xi Jinping in Russia’s commemorations of the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory carried profound symbolic importance. To mark the 80th anniversary of the USSR’s Victory in the Great Patriotic War, China’s Victory in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, and the founding of the United Nations, we signed a Joint Statement on Further Deepening the China–Russia Comprehensive Strategic Partnership of Coordination for a New Era. This document provides a consolidated response by our countries to attempts by certain states to dismantle humanity’s historical memory and to replace the well-established principles of world order and dialogue forged after the Second World War with the so-called “rules-based order.”
Question: In recent years, practical cooperation between China and Russia in areas such as energy, agriculture, automotive manufacturing and infrastructure has produced positive results and brought about new breakthroughs, while bilateral trade has reached record levels. How do you assess the current state of Chinese-Russian practical cooperation? What are your plans for further promoting high-quality, mutually beneficial cooperation between China and Russia?
V.Putin: Economic relations between Russia and China have reached an unprecedented level. Since 2021, bilateral trade has grown by about 100 billion dollars. In terms of trade volume, China is by far Russia’s leading partner, while last year Russia ranked fifth among China’s foreign trade partners.
I would stress that while trade figures are denominated in US dollar equivalents, transactions between Russia and China are carried out in rubles and yuan, with the dollar or euro share reduced to a statistical discrepancy.
Russia firmly retains its position as a leading exporter of oil and gas to China. Since the Power of Siberia pipeline began its operation in 2019, cumulative deliveries of natural gas have already exceeded 100 billion cubic metres. In 2027, we plan to launch another major gas route, the so-called Far Eastern Route. We are also working together effectively on LNG projects in Russia’s Arctic region.
We continue our joint efforts to reduce bilateral trade barriers. In recent years, the export of pork and beef to China has been launched. Overall, agricultural and food products occupy a prominent place in Russia’s exports to China.
Bilateral investment volumes are growing. Last year, Russia and China agreed to an updated Plan for Bilateral Investment Cooperation. This year, a new Agreement on the Promotion and Mutual Protection of Investments has been signed. Large-scale joint projects are being implemented in priority sectors.
Our countries are cooperating closely in industry. Russia is one of the world’s principal markets for Chinese car exports. At the same time, production is being localised in Russia not only for Chinese cars but also for household appliances. Together, we are building high-tech manufacturing and infrastructure facilities. We also have large-scale plans in the construction materials industry.
To sum up, economic cooperation, trade, and industrial collaboration between our countries are advancing across multiple areas. During my upcoming visit, we will certainly discuss further prospects for mutually beneficial cooperation and new steps to intensify it for the benefit of the peoples of Russia and China.
Question: This year marks the conclusion of the cross years of culture between China and Russia. During this period, our countries have developed extensive cooperation in education, cinema, theatre, tourism, and sports. How do you assess the results of Chinese-Russian cultural and humanitarian exchanges and cooperation? What prospects do you see for further promoting ties between the peoples of China and Russia?
V.Putin: Large-scale bilateral cultural and humanitarian initiatives make a significant contribution to fostering friendly relations. The Russian Year in China and the Chinese Year in Russia (2006–2007) were a great success. The subsequent themed years of languages, tourism, youth, media, regional cooperation, sport, science and innovation, launched successively from 2009 onwards, received broad public resonance.
Today, cultural exchanges between Russia and China continue to develop dynamically. The Russia-China Roadmap for Humanitarian Cooperation until 2030, which includes more than 100 major projects, is being consistently implemented.
I would particularly highlight the successful organisation of the Russia and China Years of Culture, held in 2024–2025 and timed to the 75th anniversary of diplomatic relations between our countries. The rich and diverse programme met with an enthusiastic response both in Russia and China.
I would also note that the Russian side initiated the Intervision International Song Contest, scheduled for September 20 this year, and we are pleased that our Chinese partners have shown keen interest in this project.
Education and science remain especially promising areas for cooperation. Academic mobility and inter-university contacts continue to grow. Today, more than 51,000 Chinese students are studying in Russia, while 21,000 Russian students are studying in China. In May, President Xi and I agreed that 2026–2027 will be designated as the Russia-China Years of Education.
Cooperation in science, technology, and innovation is also expanding, including in fundamental research and megascience projects. For example, Moscow State University and Peking University plan to open a joint institute for fundamental research. We fully support the establishment of modern laboratories and advanced centres in priority high-tech fields to strengthen the technological sovereignty of Russia and China.
Film production is another vibrant area of cooperation. In February, the joint Russian-Chinese adventure film Red Silk premiered in Russia, and we expect it to reach Chinese audiences soon. In May, an Action Plan for Film Production was signed in Moscow. We anticipate the release of many new Russian-Chinese films in the near future: films that will promote sound moral principles and traditional spiritual and ethical values, while presenting truthful accounts of important historical events. To this end, we have also launched a new initiative, the Open Eurasian Film Award, a unique platform for cinema, free from bias or political intrigue.
Tourism is another important sphere I would like to note. The figures here are encouraging: by the end of 2024, mutual tourist flows had increased 2.5 times, reaching 2.8 million people.
Sports cooperation has also been productive. We are grateful to our Chinese partners for their active participation in international sporting events hosted by Russia, including the innovative Games of the Future, BRICS Games, and many others. The Chinese national team was among the largest delegations at these competitions. We firmly believe that sport should remain free from any politicisation.
Youth policy is another priority area.
We highly value the coordinated work of leading Russian and Chinese media, and our cooperation between archives plays an important role in preserving historical truth.
It is encouraging that bilateral cultural and humanitarian cooperation continues to gain momentum. This is undoubtedly a strategic dimension of our relationship, helping to build a broad public base of friendship, good-neighbourliness, and mutual understanding.
Question: The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), jointly established by China and Russia, serves as an important platform for comprehensive regional cooperation, crucial for ensuring peace, stability, and development across the Eurasian space. China holds the rotating SCO presidency for 2024–2025, and the 25th SCO Heads of State Council meeting will soon take place in Tianjin. How do you assess the constructive role the SCO has played over more than two decades in maintaining regional peace and stability and promoting common development and prosperity? In your view, in which areas should member states further strengthen exchanges and cooperation?
V.Putin: The establishment of the SCO in 2001 embodied the shared aspiration of Russia, China, and the Central Asian states – Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan – to build trust, friendship, and good-neighbourly relations, and to promote peace and stability in the region.
Over the years, the SCO has developed a solid legal and institutional framework, creating mechanisms that enable effective cooperation in politics, security, trade and investment, as well as cultural and humanitarian exchanges. Since then, its membership has expanded to include India, Pakistan, Iran, and Belarus, while partner and observer countries, representing the political, economic, and cultural diversity of Eurasia, are also actively engaged in joint activities.
The SCO’s appeal lies in its simple but powerful principles: a firm commitment to its founding philosophy, openness to equal cooperation, non-confrontation with third parties, and respect for the national characteristics and uniqueness of each nation.
Drawing on these values, the SCO contributes to shaping a fairer, multipolar world order, grounded in international law, with the central coordinating role of the United Nations. A major element of this global vision is the creation in Eurasia of an architecture of equal and indivisible security, including through close coordination among SCO member states. We view the Greater Eurasian Partnership, linking national development strategies, regional integration initiatives, and strengthening ties among the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union, the CIS, ASEAN, and other international organisations, as the socio-economic foundation of this architecture.
I am confident that the Tianjin summit, along with the SCO Plus meeting, will mark an important milestone in the SCO’s history. We fully support the priorities declared by the Chinese presidency, which focus on consolidating the SCO, deepening cooperation in all areas, and enhancing the organisation’s role on the global stage. We attach particular importance to aligning this work with the practical measures taken under Russia’s presidency of the SCO Heads of Government Council. I am confident that, through our joint efforts, we will give the SCO new momentum, modernising it to meet the demands of the time.
Question: As President Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasised, China is ready to work hand in hand with Russia to strengthen mutual support across multilateral platforms, including the UN, the SCO, and BRICS, to safeguard the development and security interests of both nations, unite the Global South, and promote an international order that is fairer and more rational. How do you assess cooperation between China and Russia within these multilateral frameworks? In your view, in which areas can China and Russia set new benchmarks in global governance, particularly with regard to emerging fields such as climate change, artificial intelligence governance, and reform of the global security architecture?
V.Putin: Cooperation between Russia and China in multilateral formats is a key pillar of our bilateral relations and plays a major role in global affairs. Time and again, our exchanges on critical international issues have shown that Moscow and Beijing share broad common interests and strikingly similar views on fundamental questions. We are united in our vision of building a just, multipolar world order, with a focus on the nations of the Global Majority.
The Russia-China strategic partnership acts as a stabilising force. As the two leading powers in Eurasia, we cannot remain indifferent to the challenges and threats facing our continent and the wider world. This issue is a constant focus of our bilateral political dialogue. Russia’s concept of creating a common space of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia resonates closely with President Xi Jinping’s Global Security Initiative.
The interaction between Russia and China at the UN is at an unprecedentedly high level, fully reflecting the spirit of comprehensive partnership and strategic cooperation. Both countries attach special importance to the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter, a vital mechanism for consolidating the Global South. Among its key achievements is the resolution “Eradication of colonialism in all its forms and manifestations,” adopted by the UN General Assembly on December 4, 2024.
Russia and China support reform of the UN so that it fully restores its authority and reflects modern realities. In particular, we advocate for making the Security Council more democratic by including states from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Any such reforms must, however, be approached with the utmost care.
Close cooperation between Moscow and Beijing has positively shaped the work of leading economic forums, including the G20 and APEC. Within the G20, together with like-minded nations, and especially BRICS members, we have redirected the agenda towards issues of real importance to the Global Majority, strengthened the format by including the African Union, and deepened the synergies between the G20 and BRICS.
This year, our South African friends hold the G20 presidency. As a result of their efforts, we look forward to consolidating the Global South’s achievements and establishing them as a foundation for the democratisation of international relations. Within APEC, China’s chairmanship in 2026 is expected to give fresh impetus to Russia-China engagement.
We are working closely with China within BRICS to expand its role as a key pillar of global architecture. Together, we advance initiatives aimed at expanding economic opportunities for member states, including the creation of common platforms for partnership in strategic sectors. We are paying special attention to mobilising additional resources for critical infrastructure projects. We stand united in strengthening BRICS’ ability to address pressing global challenges, share similar views on regional and international security, and take a common stand against discriminatory sanctions that hinder the socioeconomic development of BRICS members and the world at large.
Alongside our Chinese partners, we support the reform of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
We are united in the view that a new financial system must be based on openness and true equity, providing equal and non-discriminatory access to its tools for all countries and reflecting the real standing of member states in the global economy. It is essential to end the use of finance as an instrument of neo-colonialism, which runs counter to the interests of the Global Majority. On the contrary, we seek progress for the benefit of all humanity. I am confident that Russia and China will continue to work together towards this noble goal, aligning our efforts to ensure the prosperity of our great nations.
The video is part of the transcript here: https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2042813/
It is advisable to watch the video.
Transcript
Question: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Mr. Foreign Minister, welcome to Meet the Press.
Sergey Lavrov: Thank you. And welcome to meet the Russian diplomats.
Question: Thank you so much for joining us after a very significant week. Let’s dive right into the state of these talks. Has President Putin committed to a one-on-one meeting with President Zelensky?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, those are the speculations which are being spread by, first of all, Mr. Zelensky himself and his European sponsors. It was not discussed in Anchorage. It was raised later as something which is kind of impromptu, appearing from the meeting in Washington between President Trump and his guests.
President Putin received the call of President Trump after that meeting, and he clearly stated that we are ready to continue the negotiations, direct Russian-Ukrainian negotiations, which started in Istanbul and already had three rounds convened there. And he said that meetings at the top level, the summit meetings, especially between the leaders of Russia and Ukraine, must be very well prepared, so a preparatory process must be agreed. And for this, we suggested to raise the level of delegations who were meeting and will be meeting in Istanbul to address specific issues which need to be brought to the attention of President Putin and Zelensky. And those issues relate both to humanitarian, military, and to political matters.
Last time our delegations met in Istanbul, we suggested to create three working groups, including on political matters. More than one month passed already, there is no response from the Ukrainian side. And when Mr. Zelensky says the immediate priority is a meeting with Putin, well, it’s basically a game. A game he is very good to play because he wants theatrics in everything he is doing. He does not care about substance. And it is not by chance that now they try, I mean the Ukrainians and the Europeans who attended the meeting in Washington, they try to distort what was discussed in Anchorage between President Trump and President Putin regarding, in particular, the security guarantees.
I read some Bloomberg reports yesterday and today saying that the negotiations between the U.S. and Russia on security guarantees for Ukraine have been, in fact, undermined because of the demands by Moscow to include the principle of indivisible security. It’s a very telling statement.
Indivisible security is something which was enshrined in many documents adopted by consensus at summits of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, in particular in Istanbul in 1999, and in Astana in 2010. This principle goes like: no one can strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others. No organization in the European space can pretend to dominate in military and political matters. And NATO has been doing exactly the opposite. So, when we are accused that by flagging the principle of indivisible security we are undermining the process of negotiations between the U.S., Russia and Ukraine, this means that the people admit that they want divisible security, that they want security built for Ukraine, which is being discussed now, but built against Russia. Those discussions which took place yesterday, before yesterday, after the Washington meeting, they clearly indicate that people see security as only security for Ukraine and they are prepared to send an intervention force, an occupying force, to the Ukrainian territory to deter Russia. They don’t conceal that this is the goal. And this is not the way to handle the situation.
President Putin and President Trump in Anchorage discussed the security guarantees, and President Putin recalled that in April 2022 in Istanbul, during negotiations initiated by the Ukrainian side, very soon after we started our special military operation, during those negotiations in April 2022, the Ukrainian delegation presented the draft principles to reach a treaty, to reach agreement on ending the war. Those principles were initialed by both delegations. As regards the security guarantees for Ukraine, those principles proposed by the Ukrainian delegation, I underline this once again, they provided for the creation of a group of guarantors, this group containing permanent members of the Security Council: Russia, U.S., China, UK and France, plus they mentioned Germany, Turkiye and any other country which would be interested to join this group of guarantors. And the guarantors would be guaranteeing the security of Ukraine, which must be neutral, which must be non-aligned with any military bloc and which must be non-nuclear.
Question: Mr. Foreign Minister, we are going to get to the security guarantees, we’re going to have a big conversation about that, but I just want to stick to this idea of a one-on-one meeting between President Putin and President Zelensky. It’s not the Zelensky thing at the White House that President Putin told President Trump he’s willing to meet face-to-face with President Zelensky. And I guess the question is, how can you claim to be serious about a peace process when you can’t tell me directly, is President Putin willing to meet with President Zelensky? Is that the plan?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I hope that those who are interested in what is going on around Ukraine, they follow the statements of President Putin, especially when they try to see some wrongdoing on our side. President Putin repeated this statement, that he is ready to meet with President Zelensky.
Actually yesterday at my press conference after my meeting with the Minister of India, I repeated this, that he is ready to meet with President Zelensky, provided this meeting is really going to decide something.
To meet for Zelensky to have another opportunity to be on stage is not what we believe is useful. We are not against him playing games and playing various shows, but it is not going to resolve the issue, because he publicly stated that he is not going to discuss any territories, thus challenging President Trump, and other American colleagues who stated the territorial issue must be on the table. He clearly stated that nobody can prohibit him from joining NATO, which again categorically challenges what President Trump was saying, and quite a number of other things. He also said that he is not going to restore the rights of the Russian-speaking people and cancel legislation, which was passed long before this Special Military Operation, starting from 2019. A series of legislation was passed in Ukrainian Parliament, prohibiting Russian language, exterminating Russian language, Russian culture, Russian education, Russian media, and canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
So when he said that, I don’t give a damn about what you are saying, what President Trump believes must be a part of the solution, but I am ready to meet, just to do what? So if we are all going to be concentrated on, you know, imaginary effect, it’s not what diplomacy is about, it’s what the showman normally do with pleasure.
So my point is that President Putin said clearly that he is ready to meet, provided this meeting is really going to have an agenda, Presidential agenda.
Question: But that’s a big if. There’s no meeting planned, Mr. Foreign Minister. That’s a big if.
Sergey Lavrov: Kristen, I am awfully sorry, you’re not listening. There is no meeting planned, and I am not challenging this, but you cannot, I think, understand what I am saying.
Putin is ready to meet with Zelensky when the agenda would be ready for a summit, and this agenda is not ready at all.
President Trump suggested, after Anchorage, several points which we share, and on some of them we agreed to show some flexibility. When President Trump brought those issues to the meeting in Washington, with Zelensky present together with his European sponsors, he clearly indicated, it was very clear to everybody that there are several principles which Washington believes must be accepted, including no NATO membership, including the discussion of territorial issues, and Zelensky said no to everything. He even said no to, as I said, to cancelling legislation prohibiting the Russian language. How could we meet with a person who is pretending to be a leader, the leader of a country, which is the only country on Earth to have prohibited a language, not to mention that this is one of the official UN languages. In Israel, Arabic language is not prohibited. In Palestine and other Arab countries, Hebrew is not prohibited. But Ukraine does whatever they believe is necessary to promote the Russophobic, nazist agenda, and the West, which is normally crazy about human rights when they discuss anything anywhere, but in relation to Ukraine, the words “human rights” were never used during those years after the coup in 2014.
So yes, he is ready to meet, but no, we cannot meet just for him to have a picture and to say that, now I am legitimate.
Legitimacy is another matter, because irrespective of when this meeting might take place, and it must be very well prepared, the issue of who is going to sign the deal on the Ukrainian side is a very serious issue.
Question: You don’t think President Zelensky is the legitimate leader of Ukraine? President Putin doesn’t recognize him as the legitimate leader of Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: No, we recognize him as de facto head of the regime. And in this capacity, we are ready to meet with him.
But when it comes to signing legal documents, the entire picture is just part of it, which suits you. When we come to a stage where you have to sign documents, we would need a very clear understanding by everybody that the person who is signing is legitimate.
And according to the Ukrainian constitution, Mr. Zelensky is not, at the moment.
Question: Okay, well, he is a democratically elected President. Mr. Foreign Minister, let’s keep moving. President Trump told French President Macron this week, quote, “I think Putin wants to make a deal for me.” Is that accurate? Does President Putin want to make a deal for President Trump?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, I would not go in this semantic, you know, exercise.
President Putin was invited by President Trump. He visited Alaska. They had a very substantive meeting in Anchorage. They discussed the practical way, not just who is going to meet whom and what kind of broadcasting would be provided. They discussed real things regarding security. The violation of Russian security interests was one of the root causes of what has happened. And this relates to many years of lies when we were promised, starting from 1990 and then many times we were promised that NATO would not be expanding. And the OSCE summit documents, which I quoted, said in the past, and nobody canceled it, that no organization must claim superiority in Europe, and NATO has been doing exactly the opposite. So the security guarantees which Russia presented several times. In 2008, we suggested to sign a pact between Russia and NATO. And it was ignored. In 2021, before we had to take a decision on launching the Special Military Operation, we suggested two treaties, one between Russia and the United States, and one between Russia and NATO. This was also ignored in a very, I would say, arrogant way.
Blinken, who was Secretary of State at the time, told me when we met in Geneva in January 2022, he said, “Forget about this. We can discuss some limits on the weapons which we, the West, would supply to Ukraine. But NATO membership is not for discussion with anybody.” When I told him that this bluntly violates the principle of indivisible security, he said, “The indivisible security in OSCE is political declaration.” But political declaration signed by the leaders, I think, is something which just out of decency, out of diplomatic and political decency, you have to respect.
Question: Okay. Mr. Foreign Minister, we have a lot to get to, so I do want to keep moving. Just this week, Russia bombed an American-owned factory near the Hungarian border. I’ve spoken to people who frankly see that as a slap in the face to President Trump, to the entire peace process. Isn’t it?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, I would say that those who are sincerely interested in understanding what is going on should know by now that never, ever Russia deliberately targeted any sites which are not linked to military abilities of Ukraine.
Question: This is an electronic factory, though, sir. This is an electronic factory. I’ve spoken to people on the ground there. It builds coffee machines, among other electronics. This is not a military site.
Sergey Lavrov: Well, I understand that some people are really naive, and when they see a coffee machine in the window, they believe that this is the place where coffee machines are produced.
Our intelligence has very good information, and we target only, as I said, either military enterprises, military sites, or industrial enterprises directly involved in producing military equipment for the Ukrainian army.
And on the contrary, I never recall any concern expressed by the media in the West regarding the activities of Ukrainian armed forces when they, for example, in the Kursk region, when they invaded it one year ago, there is no military targets at all. All the targets which they have been hitting daily are civilian. They, by the way, took civilian hostages from there who had nothing to do with the conflict. Recently, they undertook the third attempt to blow up the Crimean bridge. They attacked, a few days ago, another nuclear power station. They used to attack the one in Zaporozhye. Now they attack the nuclear power station in Smolensk. And they continue to do this, they continue to exercise terrorist attacks. There is no other way to call them.
But if you believe that if there is American capital in an enterprise which is used to produce weapons to kill Russians, and you believe that be it American, be it Hungarian, be it anybody’s capital that this gives impunity to those who build weapons to kill us, I don’t think so, I don’t think this is fair. This is kind of, I would say, imperialistic.
Question: Mr. Foreign Minister, just to confirm, you are confirming that Russia did in fact target and attack the American-owned company that was hit.
Sergey Lavrov: You should be professor in the Soviet universities because you twisted very interestingly what I said.
I did not say that I confirmed that incident. I never heard of it. I just asked a rhetorical question. Do you believe that if there is an enterprise producing weapons and being part of the Ukrainian military machine intended to produce things to kill Russian citizens, and just because this enterprise happens to have some American capital in it, it should be immune? That was my question.
I haven’t heard about the episode, and if you can send me some reference to this incident to which you referred, I would look at it.
Question: Okay. Mr. Foreign Minister, President Trump says he thinks President Putin wants to end the war, but if you are serious about peace, why not stop dropping bombs?
Sergey Lavrov: There was some interruption, but we are dropping bombs. We come again and again to the same issue. We are dropping bombs on the targets which are directly involved in building Ukrainian military machines targeting the Russian civilians and continuing the war which Ukrainians started by instigation from the Biden administration, from the Europeans, those who supported the coup in 2014, and later were doing everything to turn Ukraine into an instrument to contain Russia. Lately, a few years ago, it was announced that Ukraine is an instrument to inflict strategic defeat on the Russian Federation.
So when I give the examples of what we are doing, and this has been explained repeatedly, if you can provide us a proof that we hit any civilian target indiscriminately, a target not linked to the military machine of Ukraine, we would be looking into this.
But the facts of Ukrainians hitting purposefully civilian targets are plentiful, and they are available in the information which we are circulating to the international community.
Question: Mr. Foreign Minister, here are the facts. Close to 50,000 civilians have either been killed or injured in this war. Russia has taken maternity warrants, churches, schools, hospitals, a kindergarten just this past week. So either the Russian military has terrible aim, or you are targeting civilians. Which is it?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, NBC is a very respectful structure, and I hope you are responsible for the words which you broadcast.
I ask you to send us, or to publicize the information to which you just referred, because we never targeted the civilian targets of the kind you cited. You might be missing the information because it is a fact that quite a number of churches were purposefully hit by the Ukrainian regime. Quite a number of just civilian settlements, human settlements.
Question: But what about your actions, Mr. Foreign Minister?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, we are going by circles. I told you already what we mentioned repeatedly, that we never target civilian sites. That we only attack the sites which are directly involved in the Ukrainian military machine, which the West is trying to beef up.
And if you have any proof of what you just said about churches, kindergarten, schools, and so on and so forth, I challenge you to make it public. Make it public with the dates, with the addresses, and so on and so forth.
As I said, NBC is a very reputed broadcasting agency, and your listeners and watchers deserve to have some specific information when you make such claims. Question: I just said all of the information is publicly available. We do have reporters on the ground who’ve seen these strikes with their own eyes. I do want to keep moving, though, and talk about security guarantees, an issue that you raised this week. And you have said right here today that Russia should have the power to reject any security guarantees for you.
Sergey Lavrov: Look, don’t. Kristen, please don’t play Zelensky. Be an honest journalist.
Question: Why should the country that’s bombing Ukraine be responsible for the security of Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: Why is the country and countries who prepared the anti-Russian coup in Ukraine, who pumped up modern weapons in Ukraine to attack the Russian territory, countries who supported the nazist regime, prohibiting human rights, which they had to respect under the United Nations Charter and many other conventions. Why should we be swallowing all this? I explained to you, I never said that Russia must have a veto on security guarantees. But security guarantees must be subject to consensus.
I reminded you that it was okay for Ukrainians in April 2022 to present a document which could have ended this war and which started by declaring that Ukraine is going to be neutral, non-bloc, non-nuclear.
By the way, this statement, this declaration, not to have any nuclear weapons, not to be members of military blocs and to remain neutral status, this was the essence of the Ukrainian declaration of independence in 1990. And this declaration, it is because of this claim that they would never be NATO members, that they would never have nuclear weapons, and that they would be neutral, that they were recognized as an independent state.
So, if you believe that Russia being, you know, marginalized in the discussions on security issues on our borders, that this is something which is natural and normal, then I’m sorry, something is wrong with the philosophy of your channel.
Question: Just yes or no, are you talking about Russian boots on the ground?
Sergey Lavrov: Where?
Question: In Ukraine, in that region.
Sergey Lavrov: No, Russian boots on the ground are because this ground was moved, you know, was turned, was being turned in a stronghold to inflict strategic defeat upon the Russian Federation.
The Russian boots on the ground are not to protect the ground. They are to make sure that this ground would never be hosting weapons capable to reach the Russian territory.
Russian boots on the ground are because this ground is the territory where hundreds and hundreds of years ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people were living. They actually founded those lands. They historically developed Russian culture, Russian language, and they respected Russian history.
And when all this was prohibited after the coup took place, the coup which was very bloody and very unconstitutional, we did not have any other choice but to defend these people against the bluntly nazist regime.
And the proof that the regime is nazist is plentiful, and I hope that some days your correspondents could visit and see what is going on with glorification of military criminals, collaborators of Hitler, and so on.
Question: President Trump has been in office now for seven months, and attacks against Ukraine have doubled in that time. President Putin says the war wouldn’t have started under President Trump. If that’s the case, why is it escalating under President Trump?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, it’s becoming traditional for some of the broadcasting channels to simplify things.
When President Trump said that the war wouldn’t have happened had he been President at that time, that means, in my view, that the Americans would not prepare, finance, and organize the coup to topple the legitimate president of Ukraine in February 2014.
Just one day after a deal was reached between the President at that time and the opposition, the deal guaranteed by the European Union, Germany, France, Poland, and so on. And next morning, the opposition broke the deal. The deal was to create a government of national unity and hold early elections. And the legitimate President agreed to this. The opposition signed this. The European Union guaranteed this. Next morning, there is a coup. And instead of a government of national unity, the opposition announced that, we created the government of the winners. Have you heard about this? I don’t think so.
They immediately stated, when they took over all government buildings, that their first action would be canceling the status of the Russian language. And they sent military groups to storm the Crimean Parliament. That’s how this all started.
So I don’t think that President Trump, with his concentration on MAGA, on the national interest of the United States, on the common sense, would ever get involved in preparing a coup against a legitimate President in any country, including Ukraine.
I am answering your question, why did we think that President Trump would have avoided this situation? I answered you.
Question: But I want to ask about what is happening on the ground right now. Attacks against Ukraine have doubled in the time since President Trump took office. If President Putin has so much regard for President Trump, why is he taking actions that are undermining his push for peace?
Sergey Lavrov: President Putin has regard for President Trump, respecting President Trump’s concentration on the interest, national interest of the United States, national interest and well-being, and historic heritage of the American people.
And I don’t have any doubt that President Trump respects the same attitude of President Putin to protecting the national interests of Russia, to protecting basic interests of the Russian citizens, including the right to be a nation which has very rich history, very rich traditions, and which has the duty, if you wish, to support those who share the values of the Russian language, Russian world, if you wish.
And when, you know, once the United States launched a military attack, it was last century, a military attack against, I think, Nicaragua or some other Central American country, because one of the journalists was physically attacked. American citizen, American journalist. And this was never causing any questions in the American media.
We are protecting millions of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people who wanted to be citizens of Ukraine, but the coup leaders who took power in Ukraine declared them “terrorists”.
And Zelensky, long before the special military operation, in an interview to one Western media, he said those who are fighting the regime, who decided that the regime doesn’t represent the interest after the coup, they are not people, they are “species”. And he also said that if you believe that, living in Ukraine, you belong to Russian culture, Russian history, then for the sake and safety of your children and grandchildren, get out of Ukraine and go to Russia. Is it the kind of democracy the Americans support?
Question: Mr. Foreign Minister, let me ask you about something that President Putin said in June. He said, quote, I consider the Russian and Ukrainian people to be one nation. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours. Does President Putin believe that Ukraine has a right to exist?
Sergey Lavrov: No, this is not true.
Ukraine has the right to exist, provided it must let people go. The people whom they call “terrorists”, whom they call “species”, and who during a referendum, several referenda, in Novorossiya, in Donbass, in Crimea, decided that they belong to the Russian culture. And the government which came to power as a result of the coup was determined as a priority to exterminate everything Russian.
Question: But a number of those people did not want Russia to invade. Mr. Foreign Minister, do you acknowledge that Russia invaded Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, democracy is about the people, you know, having a chance to vote. The people voted, the people pronounced themselves. And when it started in Crimea…
Question: Did Russia invade Ukraine? Mr. Foreign Minister, did Russia invade Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: No. Russia started the special military operation to defend the people whom Zelensky and his predecessor did not consider as humans. They called them “beings, species”. You should look, you should really…
I understand that you need something to sell today. But if you are raising and touching upon so serious things, my suggestion is to take a look at the history of Ukrainian development after the coup in 2014. I have some material.
Question: But it’s a yes-or-no question, it’s a yes-or-no question, Mr. Foreign Minister, do you acknowledge Russia invaded Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: I said to you that we started the special military operation to protect the people whom the regime declared terrorists and enemies, and whom the regime was bombing.
Look, one thing, one thing about the facts. You were asking me about churches and so on, allegedly bombed by Russia. One very blunt thing, the simplest on Earth. And I would ask you as a journalist whether you are professionally proud of what you are doing.
In April 2022, when a deal was negotiated in Istanbul, but the British and the Biden administration prohibited the Ukrainian regime to endorse this deal, there was an incident in Bucha, the outskirts of Kiev, when as a gesture of goodwill to make the deal I mentioned happen, Russians withdrew from that part of the Ukrainian territory.
This place called Bucha. It was retaken by Ukrainian authorities, and the mayor of Bucha was on TV saying how good that we are back in our city.
And two days later, a BBC broadcasting team showed the images of central street of that Bucha with bodies, dozens of bodies lying in some interesting order. They immediately accused Russia, they immediately, I mean the West, introduced new packages of sanctions.
And we still, three and a half years thereafter, we cannot get any response to our official request to circulate, to share some information about what actually happened there.
Several times when I was in New York for the General Assembly sessions, I was meeting with the media, including NBC correspondents, and I said, this Bucha incident was used to raise stakes against Russia in this situation. Can you, and we requested, the Secretary General of the United Nations, of the OSCE, other organizations, can you make sure that the names of the persons whose bodies were shown by the BBC are made public? Silence.
Then I asked, last year and the year before last, I asked at my press conference, the UN correspondents, guys, normally journalists are very intrusive, they would like to know facts. Can you start a journalistic investigation? Can you demand that the names of the people whose bodies were shown, were broadcast by the BBC, be made public? So, I think it would be an interesting case for NBC as well.
Question: Alright. Mr. Foreign Minister, I understand there is a lot of history. We want to talk about what’s going to happen next, though, and I want to talk about these discussions. There are reports as a part of the peace deal, Russia is demanding control of all of Donbass, even though much of it still remains under Ukrainian control. And Russia wants to freeze the rest of the front lines. Is that what Russia is asking for?
Sergey Lavrov: We explained during our meetings with President Trump, with other American officials, the goals of the special military operation.
Actually, we explained them to everybody publicly, but apparently NBC was not listening attentively. We have the goals which will be achieved. The goals are: to remove any security threats to Russia coming from the Ukrainian territory, to protect the rights of the ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking people who believe they belong to the Russian culture and Russian history. And the only way to protect them against this nazist regime is to give them the right to express their will. They did in 2014 in Crimea, in 2022 in the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics, and later in Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. So this is implementation of the goal of the Special Military Operation. The goal is based on respect for the United Nations Charter, which says you cannot discriminate human rights in any area, including language and religion rights, which is totally ignored by the regime.
And then, of course, as I said, Ukraine must remain neutral, must remain out of any military blocs, and must remain non-nuclear. Those are the stepping stones in the Declaration of Independence of 1990, and those are the principles which made it possible to recognize Ukraine as an independent state.
You said let’s not go into history. We don’t want to forget about history, because everything which is going on now has reasons in the decades and decades, of years when the West was building NATO, was moving NATO directly on Russian borders, and was building Ukraine as an instrument to defeat Russia in the battlefield, as it were.
Question: Okay, well, speaking of history, Russia was a part of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine’s security, but Russia violated that agreement when it invaded Ukraine in 2014. Why should Russia be trusted with Ukraine’s security and the peace agreement?
Sergey Lavrov: Have you read the Budapest Memorandum?
Question: Yes.
Sergey Lavrov: What does it say?
Question: There’s a security agreement between a number of countries, including you and Ukraine, not to invade another country, and that’s exactly what you did.
Sergey Lavrov: No, it seems you did not read it. The Budapest Memorandum was signed by…
Question: And Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons, Mr. Foreign Minister. That was a critical piece of it.
Sergey Lavrov: May I answer you? Ukraine gave up the nuclear weapons, exactly, and then the Memorandum guaranteed the security of Ukraine as of any other non-nuclear state. And the legal obligations of the nuclear states, when they give guarantees to non-nuclear countries, is not to attack, to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
We never, ever signed up to providing security to Ukraine after an illegal bloody coup d’etat, which brought to power open nazists and racists, under anti-Russian slogans. When they said that, we changed our constitution, now the constitution says they would be members of NATO.
Now Zelensky, in I think January 2022, was saying that it was a mistake to reject nuclear weapons and they might think about having them again. This is not something which we guaranteed in the Budapest Memorandum.
And apart from this, the Budapest Memorandum was accompanied by a declaration by those who signed the Budapest Memorandum, which said that all participants, including Ukraine, would respect human rights, would respect the rules of OSCE, principles of OSCE, non-aggression, and so on and so forth, which was grossly violated by those who took power in Ukraine in February 2014, with the help of the United States, when Victoria Nuland proudly stated that, eventually we spent 5 billion bucks, but we achieved what we wanted. She said this after the coup. But this is history, this is history.
Question: I should be very clear. Is the only concession Russia is offering not to invade the rest of Ukraine? Is that your concession?
Sergey Lavrov: No, we don’t speak in those terms. We don’t have any interest in territories. We have the biggest territory on Earth.
What we are concerned about, unlike those who raise the issue of invasion, taking more and more land, we are concerned about the people who live on those lands, whose ancestors lived there for centuries and centuries, were founding cities, were building factories, ports, developing agriculture. And these people are now called “foreigners”.
Question: But we have thousands of those people who live on those lands who have been killed by Russian bombs, Mr. Foreign Minister.
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I’m awfully sorry, but the primitivism of questions… You repeat the same and only question again and again.
And I ask you, please, kindly send me the list of those churches, the list of those kindergartens, please. And I will send you the factual information about how the Ukrainian army is fighting only civilians. I give you the example of the Kursk region. There is no military sites at all. There was also a terrorist attack on the passenger train. But you never reported this.
Question: Mr. Foreign Minister, the reality is so much of this has been captured on television. We have reporters on the ground. And I will send you a list as well, but the bottom line is the world has watched with its own eyes as people in all of these regions that have been taken over by Russian troops have been killed. With our own eyes. But let me ask you…
Sergey Lavrov: No, I remember many images saying that Ukrainian civilians are being attacked by Russians. And then these images would turn out to be taken in Iraq, 10 or 20 years ago.
So my question is, do you believe, NBC, your policy, does it provide for acceptance, the extermination by law of a language in any country?
Question: Mr. Foreign Minister, I want to just ask you, when you landed in Alaska, you were wearing a USSR sweatshirt. Were you sending a signal that Russia wants to reestablish the former Soviet Union?
Sergey Lavrov: No.
We were born in the Soviet Union. President Putin repeatedly stated that those who are not sorry what happened to the Soviet Union, they don’t have a heart. But those who want to restore the Soviet Union, they don’t have any brains. This is an absolutely correct statement.
We have recognized all the former Soviet Republics as independent states. We developed relations with them as fully independent states. But when countries like Ukraine begin to, you know, physically and by law exterminating everything Russian, as if, I don’t know, in any country, English language would be prohibited. History would be prohibited. American history would be prohibited. This is not the case.
The Soviet Union, and if you don’t remember your roots, if you don’t have nostalgic, you know, memories about your childhood, about your youth, about your first love, about your friends, then I don’t think you really represent humanity and human values.
To remember and to cherish what happened in your life for many years is not the same as to try to take over militarily each and every place. This is not true.
Question: Mr. Foreign Minister, final question. Does Russia, does President Putin want peace?
Sergey Lavrov: Yes.
Question: And what say you to U.S. lawmakers here who believe you are stringing along President Trump? Are you?
Sergey Lavrov: It is not for the lawmakers or for any media outlets to decide, you know, what President Trump is motivated by.
We respect President Trump because President Trump defends American national interests. And they have reason to believe that President Trump respects President Putin because he defends Russian national interests. And whatever they discuss between themselves is not, is not a secret. We want peace in Ukraine. He wants, President Trump wants peace in Ukraine.
The reaction to the Anchorage meeting, the gathering in Washington of these European representatives and what they were doing after Washington, indicates that they don’t want peace. They say we cannot allow the defeat of Ukraine. We cannot allow Russia to win. They speak in these terms, win, defeat, and so on and so forth.
We proposed several times a peaceful resolution on a diplomatic basis. And as I said, it was not us who blew up the deal practically already in April 2022. It was personally Boris Johnson and it was personally several officials from the Biden administration, the French and the Germans. We know this. Anything else?
Question: Those are all of my questions. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, thank you so very much for your time.
Sergey Lavrov: Thank you very much.
Question: Hopefully next time we can see you in person.
Sergey Lavrov: Come to Moscow, but ask your people to give you some more variety of questions, you know.
And history is important because it is very tempting to use cancel culture in addressing the Ukrainian situation. Forget about the coup, as they were telling us. You must, you know, de-occupy Crimea because everything started with annexation of Crimea. We tell them, what about the coup, which was implemented against your guarantees? They say, no, this is past us. Let’s concentrate on today. It’s a very usual trick that people say.
Cancel culture in modern history is dangerous.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with VGTRK, Moscow, August 19, 2025
Question: What a pity you are not wearing the sweatshirt with a USSR logo on it.
Sergey Lavrov: I think that this whole story has been blown out of proportion to make it look like a sensation of some sort. But there was nothing extraordinary about this. We have so many goods around us which replicate Soviet-era symbols. I do not think that I must be ashamed of wearing them. This is part of who we are, and how we used to live, this is part of our history – the USSR was our Motherland. Today, it evolved into the Russian Federation living side by side with the former Soviet republics, our friendly neighbours. Of course, there is no getting away from clashes of interest – they do happen. This is how life is.
I believe that this is a fashion trend, if you will. I saw that after the Anchorage summit, young people studying here showed off these sweatshirts. There are no imperial aspirations in this posture, as far as I can judge, nor there are attempts to revive what some call an imperial mindset. There is nothing to suggest that. The message here is that history exists, and we do have a past. It is our duty to preserve this history, including with a light touch of humour.
Question: How did the Americans react when they saw you wearing this outfit?
Sergey Lavrov: They took it in stride, so there were no hysterical responses of any kind. They simply said that they liked the shirt I was wearing – this is what US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said.
Question: How would you describe the overall atmosphere there?
Sergey Lavrov: The atmosphere was quite good, actually, and it made its way into the statements by presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump following the talks. It was a useful conversation.
It showed without any doubt, first that the US leader and his team are sincere in their commitment to achieving tangible results by bringing about something lasting, durable, and sustainable. This is what sets them apart from the Europeans who, at the time, shouted at every corner that they would not accept anything but a ceasefire, while continuing to supply weapons to Ukraine even after it is declared.
Second, President of the United States Donald Trump and his team have developed a clear understanding of the fact that this conflict has its causes which means – this is what some presidents and prime ministers from Europe have been saying – that all the speculation alleging that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked – all this is just baby talk. I cannot find any other way to frame this. What matters here is that they are still sticking to this narrative. Their meeting with President of the United States Donald Trump in Washington, where they summoned Vladimir Zelensky, demonstrated that they continue to demand an immediate truce. At least some of these leaders, for example Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz, are still talking about the need to pressure Russia with sanctions. Not a single of these gentlemen mentioned the term human rights.
Whenever they raise any foreign policy matters involving countries which do not belong to their camp, and do not fit into a neoconservative or neoliberal mould, be it Venezuela, China, Russia and even Hungary these days, as well as a host of other countries too, they invariably focus first and foremost on ensuring human rights as part of what they call a rules-based order.
But if you look back from where we are today and remember what they have been saying about Ukraine for all these years, you will not find any references to human rights. But how could someone posing as champions of democratic principles fail to be appalled by a total ban on the Russian language in all its everyday applications? Not at all. No one felt any misgivings with the fact that this is the only country in the world to ban a language. As for their statements on having to agree on a territorial swap – someone among them did say these words, first, it is up to Vladimir Zelensky to decide. Second, they went on to perorate about deploying a peacekeeping mission of some sort, which means sending a military force there disguised as peacekeepers. What does this mean? This means that ensuring human rights will be up to a person on whose watch the country adopted laws to strip the Russian-speaking population of its rights, including the rights to language, education, accessing the media in Russian, as well as norms denying them the right to practice their religion. In fact, there was a law de facto banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Therefore, they believe that this is the man who must be in charge of striking a deal with Russia as he deems fit. We have not heard anyone say that this man should start by cancelling these laws before moving forward with these talks, not least because there is the UN Charter which stipulates the need to promote and encourage respect for human rights for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.
From the standpoint of language and religion, the UN Charter is being flagrantly violated in Ukraine. It is important to recall that Vladimir Zelensky declared in Washington that, while he was prepared to engage in negotiations, he would not entertain any discussions about territorial concessions, as these are prohibited by the Constitution. This is an intriguing point, as – absurd though it may appear – the Ukrainian Constitution still mandates the state to fully guarantee the rights of the Russian language (specifically highlighted as such), alongside other ethnic minorities, despite the enactment of laws banning Russian in all spheres of public and private life. If he is so concerned about his Constitution, I would advise beginning with its initial articles, which explicitly enshrine this obligation.
Nevertheless, it has long been apparent that such realities have been ignored by various political figures – Ursula von der Leyen, Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Friedrich Merz, and, prior to him, Olaf Scholz. Naturally, Joe Biden and his administration took the lead in disregarding and distorting the facts underpinning the Ukrainian crisis. Notably, these European delegates, who accompanied Vladimir Zelensky as a support group in Washington on August 18, spoke of the necessity to take action and move forward – a clear response to the fact that US President Donald Trump and his team (particularly following the Alaska summit) have adopted a far more substantive approach to resolving the Ukrainian crisis, recognising the imperative to address its root causes, as Russia and President Vladimir Putin have consistently emphasised.
One such root causes lies in Russia’s security concerns. These arise from the decades-long, systematic violation of commitments made to us against NATO’s eastward expansion. President Putin has repeatedly acknowledged that, subsequent to these assurances, the Alliance underwent five waves of expansion. To suggest these were merely verbal promises is categorically false. They were formalised in writing through political declarations signed at the highest level during the OSCE summits in Istanbul (1999) and Astana (2010), which explicitly state that security is indivisible and no one may strengthen their own security at the expense of others. NATO did precisely that. No state or organisation has the right to assert dominance over the OSCE space. Yet they acted in direct contravention. To claim otherwise is mendacious – not least because a verbal promise carries weight, and crucially, there exists not only documented evidence of these facts but also highest-level signed documents.
When these delegates in Washington insisted that efforts must commence with formulating security guarantees for Ukraine – and simultaneously for Europe (as emphasised by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer among others) – not once did they mention Russia’s security. Yet the OSCE document I referenced (universally drafted and adopted by consensus) mandates security arrangements acceptable to all.
The patronising disregard for international law, for pledges often made deceitfully and formalised on paper, remains evident in these officials’ approach to the Ukrainian crisis. Without respect for Russia’s security interests, without full recognition of the rights of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine, no lasting agreements are possible – for these are precisely the issues requiring urgent resolution in the context of the crisis settlement.
I reiterate: the Alaska summit demonstrated that the US administration is genuinely committed to a settlement not to rearm Ukraine for war (as occurred after the Minsk agreements), but to ensure this crisis never recurs – guaranteeing the lawful rights of all states in this region and the peoples inhabiting them.
This understanding was reaffirmed during President Putin’s late-night call with US President Donald Trump yesterday, in which the latter briefed our leader on his discussions with Vladimir Zelensky and this so-called “European support group.”
Question: One of the proponents of ‘European support’ – Finnish President Alexander Stubb – drew a parallel between the current situation in Ukraine and the war of 1944, when Finland gave up part of its territories. How should this be understood?
Sergey Lavrov: That’s one parallel, but there are others to consider.
For decades after World War II, Finland enjoyed ideal conditions for economic growth. It was able to address social issues and ensure the well-being of its population largely because of its access to Russian energy resources and, more broadly, its deep cooperation with the USSR and later the Russian Federation. This included Finnish businesses running profitable projects on our territory. The immense benefits Finland gained from these special ties (a status earned by its neutrality) have now been discarded almost overnight.
This gives one certain thoughts. In 1944, Finland, which had fought on the side of Hitler’s Germany, was implicated in the atrocities of the Nazi regime, with its military units involved in numerous war crimes. It was that Finland that signed a series of definitive agreements with the Soviet Union.
Recently, President Alexander Stubb himself referenced those very agreements. I know him well from his time as Foreign Minister. They signed an agreement that enshrined a principle of indefinite neutrality, stating that neither the Soviet Union nor Finland would ever join any blocs directed against the other. So one must ask: where did that commitment go?
Finland has now joined an alliance that explicitly considers Russia its enemy. So, if President Stubb’s parallel was meant to evoke the territorial changes that resulted from WWII, then yes – that was indeed one of its outcomes. Such territorial adjustments are often an integral part of reaching a definitive peace. There are multiple examples of this kind.
In this case, I would like to reiterate: we have never stated any interest in seizing territories. Neither Crimea, nor Donbass, nor Novorossiya were ever the goal in and of themselves. Our goal was, and remains, to protect the Russian people – people who have lived on that soil for centuries, who first discovered those lands and shed their blood for them. They are the ones who built the major cities in Crimea and across the region – cities like Odessa and Nikolayev – and who developed the ports, factories, and plants.
Everyone is aware of the role Catherine the Great played in developing those lands. We all know how they were later incorporated into the Ukrainian SSR and, ultimately, became part of an independent Ukraine. They ended up as part of that independent state through the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty, adopted by the Kiev leadership. This document also stated that Ukraine would forever remain a non-nuclear, neutral, and non-aligned state. It was this very commitment that formed the foundational basis for its subsequent international recognition as an independent state.
If Vladimir Zelensky’s regime now rejects all these commitments – by discussing nuclear weapons, pursuing NATO membership, and outright rejecting neutrality – then it logically follows that those provisions, that very foundational basis for Ukraine’s independent statehood, cease to exist. This is a critical point that must be considered. Otherwise, we are left with a situation where international law is not front and centre. Instead, we see the application of those so-called “rules” again – the ones the West has never formally written down but seems to invent whenever it needs to justify an action, or condemn the very same action if its interests change. This will not work anymore.
Once again, I would like to reiterate that we value the understanding shown by the current US administration. Unlike the European approach, it appears to be sincerely striving to understand the core of the problem and help resolve the root causes of this crisis – the ones that were nurtured in Ukraine by the West, led by the previous US administration, under Joe Biden, with the goal of using Ukraine as an instrument to contain and suppress Russia, ultimately aiming to inflict upon us what they termed a “strategic defeat.”
Question: Did you discuss sanctions with the American side? After all, as the Americans said, they had to pay for petrol with cash.
Sergey Lavrov: You always have to pay for petrol, whether it is cash or not. These are the costs borne by the country whose leader with a delegation visits another state.
We did not discuss the sanctions. Many of our experts, politicians and officials have repeatedly stated that lifting the sanctions may have adverse effects. That would create illusions for some economic sectors that now we can finally overcome the problems by returning to the strategies developed and implemented in the 1990s and the early 2000s.
Many believe that would undo the achievements we have made recently and which we are experiencing first-hand in terms of strengthening our technological sovereignty and the key matters pertaining to military, economic and food security, as well as reliance on our own technology. Do not shut the door on cooperation but do not become dependent like when essential goods and technologies were in shortage here. Overall, I believe that the current process is more reliable and has more prospects than even six months ago when Joe Biden’s administration was finishing up its term.
Question: What can we anticipate further? Will it be bilateral or trilateral talks?
Sergey Lavrov: We are not rejecting any forms of work, either bilateral or trilateral. Russian President Vladimir Putin has said it multiple times. It is important that any formats, 1+1, 1+2, or multilateral formats which exist in abundance, including within the UN, are not exploited for the purpose of media coverage, in morning newspapers or in evening news, or on social media, to skim the propaganda cream off the top. These formats are designed for step-by-step, consistent preparations for summits, from the expert level and up. We will always support this sort of serious approach. Any contacts involving top officials must be prepared extremely carefully.
Question: Is it possible that US President Donald Trump will fly to Moscow this year?
Sergey Lavrov: As you know, he has been invited. During the news conference in Alaska, President Putin confirmed this invitation. As far as I remember, President Trump said it would be very interesting.
It would indeed be interesting to everybody.
Judge Nap interviews our roving eye nomad on taking on the entire BRICS in one fell swoop. “Moneyprinters with nukes: CHARGE!”
Jamarl Thomas interviews KJ Noh on China’s hidden role in Iran’s new defense posture against US aggression, and the big view at the moment.
[machine transcript]
Jamarl Thomas: You look good. You look good. You look good. Let me bring him on. KJ. No. The man himself. KJ is a journalist, political analyst, writer, and teacher specializing in the geopolitics of the Asia Pacific region. He’s contributor to the book Capitalism on a Ventilator. Once censored by Amazon. It is now available at .org. You can also find him on Breakthrough News Network. Again, fantastic network with the China Report. KJ, welcome to the show, man. How you doing today? You doing all right?
KJ Noh: I’m doing well, thank you.
Jamarl Thomas: It is always a pleasure to have you, KJ, there is reporting out that Iran is purchasing jets from China. Now, China got a lot of publicity recently in the war between Pakistan and India. And India was running a lot of propaganda, very angry at China because the thought was that it was Chinese weapons that were knocking out Indian planes out of the sky. , and that those weapon systems that they got from China was extraordinarily effective, especially against Western equipment that didn’t seem to be up to snuff. And now it seems that Iran is purchasing, and this goes in two fronts.
One, Iran’s purchasing Chinese aircraft, top of the line for air defense, but also that they got rid of GPS and they the ethic is called by DU that they’ve been using China’s global system for their military campaigns, which is in part responsible for the accuracy of the weapon systems that we saw in their war against Israel. Let’s go to the first one first. And it sounds weird, but I’ll go with it. as are they purchasing these planes from China? And then I want to go to the GPS thing because the GPS thing is really interesting to me. But let’s go for the first one first.
KJ Noh: Yeah. So there are not official statements but there sources there statements from good journalists who have said that this is the case. So I think that certainly something is in the works. we know that the 10 ministers of the 10 defense ministers of the SCO met very recently with the Chinese defense minister. and so whatever is happening something big is happening and certainly it is related to defense and defense acquisitions regarding the Chinese jets. The thing to understand about arms in general and warfare in general is that all modern warfare is joint arms combined warfare. That is you’re using systems together.
So for example, you might be using Chinese jets along with you know for example you know other types of surveillance aircraft along groundbased radar with missile drones, missile interceptors, etc. And so it’s all combined arms warfare. Everything is joint and connected. And so you have to understand it. It’s not simply that if they do acquire the J10s, it’s not simply that they’re acquiring the J10, they they’re acquiring the entire system and in particular the tactical data networks that connect everything. You know, it’s like, you know, it’s not simply like you’re buying a cell phone, which is just you know, it’s just an expensive paper weight without a SIM card. So once you have the SIM card and once you have the various apps then it becomes a mini supercomputer in your pocket. And so we have to understand it that if Iran acquires Chinese J10s or other technology then it’s an entire defense ecosystem that is being built in for Iran. And then the other piece of it is that because this weaponry is so complex, involves ongoing support and maintenance and you kind of get the after service contract. So essentially it’s a form of relationship building. So interesting. So what we’re looking at here if it turns out to be true and I think that it most likely is based on the sources that I’ve read is that China is strengthening its defense cooperation. Iran is strengthening its defense cooperation with China along with the entire SCO block. So that’ll be very very interesting. So big moves of foot here.
Jamarl Thomas: Thank God. Thank God, man. Because Iran freaks me out. They freak me out. And they freaked me out because it seems like they were like, “We want to do this on our own. We want to, you know, we don’t want to buy equipment. We want to just build our own.” And obviously their equipment and the political structure was able to withstand the attack from internally and externally.
But from from my point of view and from many people’s point of view I think Sarah Bills will back me up on this too, the one from DDGeopolitics. Russia, China and Iran are a force of the new world. meaning and even though it’s frustrating to me, I understand why they go with this notion of international law. I would say there is no such thing, but they have been cidously with this notion of we’re going to stay within the bounds of law. And so even though the West has no red lines, we have red lines. We’re not going to go after civilians.
We’re not going to go after targets that are not military targets. we’re going to be very legalistic in the way that we talk about this stuff. And on some level, you kind of get it if indeed they see themselves as a fulcrum of a new world — that you want that new world to be based on law, not what came before it. So, I do get it. But it just felt like for the longest time they were flying on their own. So, I’m glad that they have now started this kind of military cooperation with and I’m saying cooperation in sense of getting equipment and relationship with China and even Russia in this front.
The other one is the satellites. From my understanding, they weren’t using GPS. They got rid of GPS. In fact, from my understanding, a lot of their equipment, especially from India, was infiltrated by Israeli agents. And so they seem to be getting a lot more equipment from China as opposed to from India, especially using Beidou as a satellite platform as opposed to GPS. Is that correct? Am I getting that right? I saw a reporting on this, but I wasn’t certain it was true.
KJ Noh: Yes, I think I think that is most certainly correct that they’re using the Chinese quote unquote you know positioning system it’s the Chinese version of GPS and of course that in doing so they’ve made themselves impervious to US interference because GPS can be cut off anytime the US sees fit.
So that’s another way in which they’ve created a kind of electronic sovereignty over their air territory which you know as you know Brian has been saying this but there key domains of sovereignty which are essential you know of course you want sovereignty over your land that’s the basis on which the whole notion of statehood is con you know is conceived but you also want sovereignty over your own airspace and then you want sovereignty over a certain portion of your naval territory and then you want and this is important because the US conceives of war fighting in multiple domains.
So you want sovereignty over the cyber domain what I refer to as digital sovereignty or what my colleagues sometimes refer to as digital vestalia. But you need digital sovereignty the sovereignty over the cyber domain or else you have nothing. and then you also want to have you know that includes sovereignty or you know your own control over your own devices and apps that are run inside you know the cyber domain.
Otherwise you are completely porous. You are you know a sieve, you’re a colander, you know, from which you can be undermined as we have seen. And so the fact that Iran is, you know, taking measures to ensure that that is the case is really important. So I think that we need we should pay attention to that and understand that these are actually strong defensive measures that are actually necessary.
Jamarl Thomas: I’m curious how does China view this? You know I spoke to Marandi I’ve spoken to Mark and I guess they would give you a perspective of in of Iran and a perspective of Russia. How does China view all of this? I mean, for all intents and purposes, you have an empire that is setting fires all across the globe with this notion of hegemonic control.
They went after Russia. It didn’t work. They went after Iran. They will keep going after Iran for right now. It didn’t work. And Iran is trying to deal with, let’s say, bolstering itself and solidifying itself. And for all intents and purposes, not just it didn’t work, it made Iran stronger, weirdly enough, because you have this youthful generation that didn’t understand that the West were monsters. They thought, well, the US is love and light. Look, they have Superman and pizza.
What what’s, you know, what’s your issue? Our economy would be better off if it wasn’t if we could work with the West. You guys are just not being cooperative. And then they see in their own mind was negotiating. People like me saying they should have, but they weren’t negotiating. They get attacked during negotiations. It’s clear as day that the West was behind it. It’s clear as day that the West backed it. And they could see with their own eyes what their government had been telling them was true. China for the most part has been on the outskirts and has only had to deal with that in an economic sense. Taiwan, yes, but not really in a direct military sense. China has to see these events unfold. What is it thinking from its own point of view after a 12- day war and after the attack on Russia?
KJ Noh: You know, I think they’re seeing things very clearly. I mean, the Chinese are not fools. They know that the US has been agitating, militating to war since 2009. Certainly, actually before that. But we know that the war plans were. I mean the war plans were printed developed in 2009 and then in 2011 we had the pivot to pivot to Asia really the pivot to encircle China in 2011 that was formally declared in Darwin in Australia and then they saw all the extraordinary undermining that was being taking place.
The entire approach was both regime change and military encirclement and a really a fullcourt press that has been ongoing since 2009. So we’re you know 16 years into this process. Well, what happened in 2009, 2008, the global capitalist financial system collapsed around its ears.
And remember, prior to that, of course, the west was engaging with China, but their theory was that we engage with China in order to regime change it. This was essentially the same process that they envisioned happening in the Soviet Union. China, it was a Potemkin state. Once they see our KFC and our hamburgers, you know, they will throw themselves at their knees and beg to be our vassels. That was the theory, you know, that was what they really believed.
And on the other hand, you had people like Hillary Clinton who said, you know, China is, you know, it’s on its last legs. You know, this Gordon Chang Hillary Clinton theory is that, you know, it’s it’s a paper tiger. It’s a Potemkin state. it’s ready to fall down and we just have to be ready to swoop in and sweep up all of its, you know .. its wealth. And this is how they think.
And then what happened in 2008 was the, you know, the financial collapse. And it showed that it wasn’t China that was about to collapse that was on its last legs. It’s actually the western capitalist world. The entire capitalist system collapsed. This is why Sarkozi, right-wing French president said “Laisez faire c’est finis”, you know, capitalism is finished.
You know, this is a right-wing French leader saying that we’ve seen the end of capitalism, and because of that, that’s when the daggers came out. The West decided that China was not going to collapse of its own accord from its own internal contradictions because rather the contradictions were with the western systems.
And therefore it needed a good shove down the stairs and so that’s when they built this doctrine of war called Air-Sea Battle and they also built up, they declared the Pivot to Asia Plan, encircling and choking China out. They were doing all kinds of dirty tricks as far as you know encouraging corruption, opening the doors wide so that foreign exchange could be extracted.
So there was all kinds of financial warfare going on. When China started to clamp down and they said oh you know Xi jinping is a dictator, but no they were just trying to prevent this you know kind of drainage of Chinese wealth overseas which you know is again another kind of precursor to creating collapse.
And then they also started to implement the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is actually has a similarity to what’s going on right now with the tariffs, but the idea was to isolate China and exclude it from the entire Pacific zone as far as trading is concerned. That is you would have all the Pacific economies they would trade with each other but China would be excluded from it. They referred to this as an economic aircraft carrier.
So there was all kinds of dirty tricks and subkinetic warfare that was happening and the Chinese are not deceived by any of this. So they started to build out the belt and road. Remember the belt and road happened after this US initiative to take down China. So that’s a way of bypassing these naval choke points by creating overland routes or overland routes that bypass the immediate choke points such as the Straits through CMEC and CPEC — China Myanmar Economic corridor, China Pakistan Economic Corridor.
And then you can see how then the US was initiating different kinds of disruption in both Pakistan and Myanmar, in particular the supporting of terror activities against those construction projects infrastructure projects. It’s this kind of continuous game that you see escalating in different – it’s Go – it’s like a ladder happening. You see the continuing move and counter move happening.
But again there’s this concerted program of countering this US approach to choke it out which China has been building. And so again in the South China Sea they started to militarize some of the islands there because that is the cost for the US. The US shrieks and screams that China has, you know, overseas bases and they’ve militarized the entire South China Sea.
Absurd, because all five or all six of the claimants to the South China Sea have islands that they’ve militarized and five of them have air strips on them, but it’s only China which is being, you know
Jamarl Thomas: KJ just to point out the US has like 800 military bases around the globe. The notion that they are screaming that China, oh my god, China has two military bases, it’s outrageous.
KJ Noh: Yeah, it has one military base in Djibouti. It has one military base in Djibouti as part of a UN mandated antipiracy program which it does in collaboration with five or six other countries. Even Japan has a base in Djibouti and Japan is supposed to be a pacifist nation with no military. So that tells you how threatening you know or technically how, anyway!
So China does not have bases. The US has 8 – 900 bases. Nobody really knows, but we know that it has a military presence in at least 170 countries. And it’s not really the bases themselves that count. It is the basing agreements. That is to say, a lot of what the US does is it sets up a basing agreement with a country and then that allows the US to go in and use the bases in this almost eminent domain type of way. So whether you see troops or not, what you really have to look at is there some kind of basing agreement? Is there some kind of use agreement?
If that’s the case, then you know that that base, you know, is like a Uber or an Airbnb that can be immediately taken over for US military purposes. So even that 900 number is actually an undercount. It’s much more aggressive and you know threatening all than that.
So US has encircled China with bases. It’s essentially staging the entire Pacific and the entire Asian continent for war. And there’s no way the Chinese have not caught on to this. They’re very clear on what’s happening and they’re creating defensive counter measures. as I’ve pointed out.
Jamarl Thomas: is it fair to say that from the Chinese point of view, I would say probably even the Russians and maybe even the Iranians, that the more time that they get, the weaker the position of the West gets, which is the reason for the seemingly desperate fire setting.
I mean, if you look at Serbia, they attempted to take down Georgia. They’re going after Azerbaijan got involved into this at this point. Of course, Russia, Iran .. they tried to take down the South Korean government. All of these things bespeak of desperation. They failed in South Korea. They’re failing in Russia. They failed in Iran.
And so, yeah, they may have some of these government bases, but the previous prime minister of Japan just came out saying, “We need to have a Japan without US bases.” I think people are seeing them committed genocide and think to themselves, these people are monsters.
From the point of view of China, Iran, Russia, is it just we need more time? The more time that goes by, the weaker they get and the worse their plans become. Is that the thought that China has?
KJ Noh: I think that’s a large part of it. You know, we spoke about the fact that China has the time. As our friend Dr. Wilmer Leon says, “You have the watches, we have the time.” I think that the Chinese always think in terms of the long haul in terms of you know the strategic and long duration, you know they think ahead.
If you go to China what’s astounding is that you see civil engineering projects that have been built over 600 years that means that you know whatever they were doing, you know, they were planning experience. So, for example, some of the canals in China, that’s a 600-year project. So they think big and they also think long term.
So certainly vis-a-vis the United States, they know that if they can avoid getting pulled into a war, which the US wants, then they can essentially, you know, sports analogy, they can run the clock down because they are ahead.
Jamarl Thomas: Speaking of that, Donald Trump is saying that there is a deal between China and the United States. Is that true?
KJ Noh: Well, I’ll believe it when I see it. I’m sure there are all kinds of deals that are being proposed. Whatever it is, I don’t think that they are trustworthy. As Sergey Lavrov said, the US is not agreement capable. It has broken every single deal, agreement, treaty, that it has ever made with any country or entity that it considers an enemy or a vassal.
Just think of the what 360 (hundreds) of treaties signed with the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Every single one of them violated. Not a one, not a one, upheld, right? Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you know, this kind of darling of the liberal, you know, of the liberal class, she was the one who hammered into the Supreme Court decision, the doctrine of discovery; this colonial era, theory, that you can simply take what you want.
So no the US is not agreement capable and I think the counterparties are aware of that and so I think they may be negotiating, they may be discussing things certainly, it’s better to discuss than to go to war. But you know I’ll believe it when I see it.
Certainly even if the president negotiates something, first that assumes that the president actually is the driver of the car and secondly it assumes that it won’t be overturned the moment that there’s a new administration in there or the moment that you know the deep state decides it’s going to undermine it.
A good example of this is North Korea. They had an agreement and then you know the moment it was signed, it was already null and void — within two weeks it was null and void.
Think of the Korean war the ceasefire that was signed in 1953 was null and void the next day. The US literally came out and said we are not looking for a peace here.
So this is how you know the empire works. They pretend or they use diplomacy and negotiation as a part of their military toolkit. It’s simply one of the diversions or ruses or tactics that they use.
But ultimately what they believe in and what they assert is raw power, raw domination. and I think that other countries are certainly wise to this. Certainly I hope Iran is aware of this. I don’t think the Chinese are deceived. And then regarding your point around the desperation, you know, the US says that “China will go to war in 2025 or 2027”. I thought it was 27. Yeah, there were two dates, but they’ve been set up as a kind of a window now. So we know somewhere between this year and two years from now the US will go to war with China.
They’ve declared it. You know they’ve calendared the dates.
And of course they’re saying that China will start the war. Of course not. China is not starting any wars anywhere. It’s trying really really hard not to get pulled into a fight, but certainly the US is extremely anxious and desperate for a war, because it knows that if it doesn’t go to war it will essentially lose hegemony.
And for them losing hegemony is the end of the world. And they would rather end the world than see the end of their hegemony. So this is the really dangerous moment we’re in.
Jamarl Thomas: The US is a powerful country among other powerful countries. And the moment that a country has the ability to end all things, then hegemony is over with. Like meaning, if you are the only one with nukes, if I have a powerful military that I can effectively win every contest, okay, then I’m a hegemon, right? I can control all of these things because ultimately when it comes down to it, I can win a military contest.
But the moment that both of us have the capability of destroying the world, the hegemony is over. At that point, we’re just in a contest of, I’m threatening to use nukes and you’re threatening to use nukes and both of us are threatening to use nukes — basically threatening to end the world, in any negotiation that ultimately takes place.
Meaning any war that takes place between the United States and China or the United States and Russia is effectively a contest of “either you back off, I’m going to end the world.” “No, you back off or I’m going to end the world.” There’s no way to win that.
And I and I know they may have this thought of tactical nukes. A tactical nuke is still a nuke. It doesn’t, you know, the moment that you lower the threshold of using a nuclear weapon, you’ve lowered the threshold to use a nuclear weapon. There’s no way out that box. So, correct me if I’m wrong on this. Maybe I’m missing something.
KJ Noh: Well, I’ve said before — I don’t think I need to repeat it that, well, the people who are driving this are some of them are millenarian Christians who believe in the Apocalypse.
They think it’s their interest to have an Apocalypse because that’s what their faith tells them. I mean very recently saw Peter Thiel, you know, talking with Ross Douthat, [JT: Terrifying]. He’s a terrifying person. I mean he looks like, you know, death warmed over, right? I mean, this is the man who has certainly significant influence over policy. [02 – excerpt][03 – full]
Do you think that he cares about the future of humanity?
I mean, the man looks dead already. This is the corpse of Roy Cohn warmed over, right?
Jamarl Thomas: I think he looks like he touches himself to killing puppies. Yeah he looks terrifying.
KJ Noh: These are very very frightening people. And I believe at heart they are nihilists or they are Christian fundamentalists who have a belief in the Apocalypse, which is the ultimate conflict of interest as far as I’m concerned.
And then you have to look at the doctrine that has been built out over nuclear war. Traditionally, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence was called M.A.D., right? Mutually Assured Destruction. It’s a kind of Samson project. And the idea associated with this is what’s called countervalue strikes.
You strike our capital, we strike your capitals. We have, automated means of launching missiles that will — the dead man’s hand — that will launch even after you’ve hit us. So are you willing to trade Beijing for Washington? Are you willing to trade New York for Shanghai? This is the traditional countervalue theory which is based on ultimately rational leaders will pull back from mutual assured destruction.
Starting around the period of Carter, towards the end of his administration, the US started to postulate this thing called NUTS. Not MAD, but NUTS. So NUTS is shorthand for Nuclear Utilization Target Selection, which is just silly, you know, military jargon for the idea that we get in the sucker punch. [01]
We get the sucker punch in first, and then anything else that they launch against us, we just kind of clean the deck with missile defense systems. We get in the sucker punch and anything they try and launch after that, we just kind of clean up and our missiles will shoot that down.
It really is the notion that if we do a nuclear first strike, we win. That is the doctrine behind this. So this notion that with counterforce strikes that the US can prevail in a nuclear war is literally one of the underpinnings of this US escalation to global war, global domination.
They believe that if push comes to shove and conventional warfare is not working, then we escalate to tactical nukes. Right now, there’s a lot of policy papers saying that we have to rehearse this, we have to make this part of formal doctrine. We have to make the conventional and nuclear continuum seamless.
That’s seamless in execution, rehearsal and preparation. And then of course at the end of the day they have this N.U.T.S. doctrine, which is the idea then if that doesn’t go to plan we simply fire off the nukes first and we will win.
Of course what that doesn’t take to account is the fact that, first, those missile defense systems don’t work as we’ve seen very recently in the Iran-Israel war. The much vaunted THAAD system doesn’t work. And it’s expensive as hell, but essentially it is these things do not perform as they’re advertised.
It’s like those little stunt things where somebody catches a bullet with their teeth. That entire thing is a setup, right? I mean it requires a lot of skill but it’s a setup and it’s not going to happen. it’s not going to happen in real life and that’s what we’ve just seen.
So have the military planners noticed this? Have they realized that if Iranian missiles can penetrate five layers of the most sophisticated western defense systems — that is the British the American the Israeli (three four layer system), if Iran’s old antiquated missiles can punch through this, then what do you think will happen when you go to war with China which has more much much more advanced missiles. Have they taken that into consideration? I have no idea. I have no idea.
Jamarl Thomas: It’s just dystopian. It’s almost like it’s like “hey we need a new doctrine”. Oh I know. Let me just think one up. This is kind of the conversation I have with Brian Berletic. It’s one thing to write something down, reality is different.
And Yemen just fired a missile that that wasn’t taken down. One missile. It just missed. I’ve seen Iran fire missiles where helicopters were chasing it, and they still couldn’t get that thing down. This is a fool’s errand if they indeed go into a nuclear strike.
So KJ, we’ll see. KJ, you are always appreciated, man. Thank you for this. By the way, when is your next report coming out for China report?
KJ Noh: Probably next Tuesday. Just one more thing, Jamarl. The thing here we have to really make sure is that we don’t lapse into despair. You know, there’s nothing we can do, right? You know, “if they’re you going to use nukes, they’re going to use nukes”. There’s nothing we can do.
The fact is that we despair is not an option. We have to challenge this escalation to war.
And we were talking about domains of warfare. Of course there’s you know air, sea, land, cyber, there’s media, there’s information space.
And also your mind itself is a terrain of battle. Literally, the military planners see your mind as a terrain of contestation or terrain of battle. And the idea is to occupy and colonize your mind. And that is the work of propaganda, of mainstream media, of PsyOps, of everything that the Guardian and the New York Times and Amy Goodman does day in and day out. All of this is a way to occupy your mind, to colonize your mind, so that you acquiesce and you give up to the war mongers.
That’s where the resistance has to start — to degaussing your brain, degaussing your mind. Do not let your mind be taken over. Don’t become a bot or a propaganda repeating bot. And then resist that mental colonization. Then what you do is you start to share the facts, the truth. You degausse these influences and then you start to build anti-war coalitions that resist this insane drive and along the way you start to unpack and understand you know the reality of politics and history.
This is the task that every single person can do. In fact it’s what we have to do right now as well as all the other work that we should be doing in protesting you know the genocide, in protesting this mad escalation to war, to protesting the complete and total militarization of our society and the entire planet.
Jamarl Thomas: That’s why we’re here. That’s what we’re here. If it pushes the needle 0.1%, it pushes the needle 0.1%, it’s better than what it was prior. [KJ Noh: Every day counts]. Right.
KJ Noh. journalist, political analyst, writer, teacher, specializing in the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region, contributor to the book “Capitalism on a Ventilator”. One censored by Amazon. It is now available aicenter.org. [04] You can check them out on the China Report on BreakThrough News. [05] KJ man, always appreciate you. Thank you for this. You be safe, okay.
Links:
[01] Nuclear utilization target selection (NUTS) doctrine of the United States
[02] Excerpt of Peter Thiel interview with Ross Douthart
[03] Full Interview of Peter Thiel with Ross Douthart
[04] “Capitalism on a Ventilator”
[05] The China Report on BreakThrough News YouTube channel
WAR ON IRAN: Rania Khalek’s Dispatches w/ Elijah Magnier
Veteran war correspondent Elijah Magnier joins Rania Khalek for a special live episode of Dispatches to break down what just happened, what’s coming next, and whether the region is now spiraling into all-out war.
Israel has launched an all out war on Iran, with hundreds of strikes across the country on military, nuclear and civilian infrastructure as well as assassinations of military commanders and scientists. This shocking escalation comes as the U.S. publicly distances itself, even as prominent American politicians cheer it on and while Washington pretended to pursue nuclear negotiations with Tehran.
Ed. comments:
Judge Nap interviews Alastair Crooke : Why Israel is to Blame
IRGC Statement on the Eighth Wave of Operation True Promise 3
Public Relations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC):
Victory comes only from God, the Almighty, the All-Wise.
Public Relations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
A cargo plane from Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport flies southwest over eastern Turkmenistan, descending as it approaches Iranian airspace. 15.06.2025
George Galloway interviews Pepe Escobar in the capital of the Last Rome
‘Ukraine’s negotiators said to my face — foreign partners are against the deal’.
Russia’s top negotiator Vladimir Medinsky reveals behind-the-scenes of peace talks in the premiere episode of RT’s flagship show ‘Sanchez Effect’ with Award-winning American journalist, Rick Sanchez.
Medinsky – a portrait of sanity – on negotiations with Ukraine.
Pepe Escobar: Worth quoting him at length:
“I feel that deep down, they [the Ukrainian side] are better than they want to appear. They even want to say something, but they can’t. I saw the opposite… Two-thirds of their delegation is in military uniform. They are military personnel. I look into their eyes. First of all, they are no different from Russians. They are exactly the same. I see in their eyes a reluctance to fight. They don’t want to fight and they don’t want to send their soldiers to their deaths.
They remind me a little of top managers hired by some giant corporation. They can make some decisions, but for fundamental ones, they have to consult with the board of directors.
I would divide the Ukrainian people, the Ukrainian army, the soldiers, and those who suffer the most, those who are close to the front line and are under attack in one way or another, and a small part of the ruling elite. It seems to me that the Ukrainian leadership is beginning to remind me of Latin American dictators to some extent.
They were also good guys once, when they came to power and promised a lot during the elections. But then they gradually turned into dictators. And in order to remain in power forever, you need a constant enemy. You need a war that does not threaten you personally. And this war does not threaten your families either. Because all your families are abroad, with British passports, and they are doing very well. And you can no longer control the situation without war.
I will tell you one thing that I have probably never said publicly before. If Ukraine had wanted to, if it had been ready, if it had made its own decisions, we could have signed a peace treaty on February 28, 2022. At the first meeting. And its terms were softer than what we are offering today.
By and large, all we wanted was for Ukraine to refuse to join NATO and to refuse to allow foreign military bases on its territory. I told them: be like Austria. Let you have an army like Austria. Second, restore the Russian language and the Orthodox Church on an equal footing. And the third point was to recognize Crimea, because it cannot be ignored.
And the last proposal from our side was this. There are two territories: Donbass, two regions that do not want to be part of Ukraine. Previously, we proposed returning them to Ukraine with autonomous status, so that they could simply elect their own governor.
Ukraine refused and said: we will conquer them. They were unable to conquer them.
Then, on February 28, 2022, we proposed: well, you were unable to conquer them, and you will not be able to live with them, so leave them alone. We finally agreed for the first time in Istanbul, and we prepared a treaty.
On April 15, President Putin reviewed the agreement and made one or two legal comments — he is a professional lawyer. On the same day, I handed the document to Zelensky. Zelensky remained silent for two weeks.
We do not need war at all. Why did the situation for Ukraine get worse? Because referendums were held in four regions. And they are officially part of Russia. And Russia cannot leave there because it would betray all the people. It is impossible. They are enshrined in the Russian Constitution.
But if the conflict is stopped along the front line and no real peace agreement is reached — just some kind of truce, ceasefire, whatever — then that will be it. You know, there was this disputed region between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Karabakh? This region will turn into a huge Karabakh. After some time, Ukraine will join NATO, try to recapture it, and that will be the end of the planet, it will be a nuclear war.”
“weak leaderships bring calamities on nations”
Amb. Bhadrakumar explores the deeper psycho-geopolitical questions we all ponder. The western assessment is that “Putin shies away from taking tough decisions.” Russia was bearded in their own den, shown by the perpetrators of the strategic bomber bases attack to be perhaps riding a paper tiger, and are now under Judgment.
This aggression on a central pillar of their national security would neither have been tolerated by the old soviet cadre, nor dared by their enemies.
Commensurate hell would already have visited the US strategic bases, at minimum. What is going on? There cannot be business as usual when the very survival, much less credibility of Russia is on the line. How did events get sliced incrementally to this point, after so many red lines were cheekily breached by the West?
He also notes Orange has been dissembling. A leopard does not change spots. His lack of heart in Gaza demonstrates the emptiness of the clutch of words over “saving lives” in 404. All this is not new to us, nor surprising in the amoral imperial core. And no Emperor wants to be the one left holding the stinky bag when the music stops in 404.
But this is really about Russia, and the putative “US-Russia relationship”, the lunge for an elusive mirage which risks snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory, if more unbelievable red line after red line are breached without consequence for the ultimate puppet-masters.
“There is something very wrong with the way Russia is governed today” to have allowed events to escalate to this prior unimaginable threshold. Mere tit-for-tat retaliation cannot now suffice; a rethink and deeper engagement with the opposing US authorities is required. Otherwise Russia will be bled white, and inside her walls, with impunity.
Since we view these negotiations as a continuation of the Istanbul process, it is very important to remind everyone what we have already agreed upon back in Gomel at the end of February (of 2022). And what might have happened if Ukraine had agreed to peace then? Which they didn’t. They dragged things out. And as a result, the next stage of the agreements was in Istanbul (in March if 2022). Russia’s Istanbul proposals were tougher, adjusted to the reality on the ground. But unfortunately, the Istanbul process was also derailed—this time due to direct Western interference. We’ve seen these kinds of historical analogies before and we know where they lead.
Take, for example, the many Russo-Turkish wars. One of them, sparked by a major conflict in the Balkans in the 1870s, ended with agreements between Russia and Turkey that supported the independence and autonomy of young Balkan states. But then the West intervened. The Berlin Congress was convened to “improve” the results of the San Stefano Peace Treaty. And what did those “improvements” lead to? The Balkan Wars of 1912–1913, and eventually, the outbreak of World War I.
There’s this idea floating around today: first a ceasefire, then negotiations. People say, “That’s how it’s always done—30 days, 60 days, then talks.” But these people know nothing of history. As Napoleon said, wars and negotiations usually happen at the same time.
I’ll remind you of some bad examples, really bad examples, but still—during the Vietnam War, the U.S. and Vietnam negotiated throughout 15 years of active conflict. Same with the Korean War. Or take the Soviet-Finnish War. Stalin offered Finland peace. Britain and France egged Finland on: “Don’t deal with the Soviets. We’ll send help, volunteers, expeditionary forces.” But no one came. The Finns were left to fight alone. In the end, while hostilities continued, negotiations resumed, and peace was signed. That’s how history works—wars and talks go hand in hand.
Perhaps the most illustrative example is the Great Northern War with Sweden. It lasted 21 years. Early on, Peter the Great offered peace. He said: we need nothing more than just a route to the Baltic—St. Petersburg and a bit of land around it. These are Russian lands anyway—today’s Leningrad region, most of Karelia—taken from Novgorod centuries ago. But Peter didn’t even demand all that back—just a safe access to the sea. Russia can’t live without it.
Sweden said no. King Charles XII pressed on with his senseless war, ignoring Peter’s repeated peace offers. And guess who supported him? England and France, who endlessly financed Sweden. Eventually, Russia and Sweden started peace talks—the Åland negotiations in 1718. But England and France pushed hard to block them: “No direct talks. Let’s mediate.” Why? Because it benefited them to see two great powers fight. The negotiations collapsed. Only in 1721, after 21 years, Sweden finally signed a peace treaty—not just giving up St. Petersburg, but also Karelia, the Leningrad region, the Baltics. And Sweden lost its status as a great power—forever.
Before the war, Sweden controlled a million square kilometers—twice the size of France. The Baltic Sea was Sweden’s internal sea. After the war, it lost everything, including Northern Germany, the Baltics, and eventually Finland.
History repeats itself in striking ways.
Bismarck, who was once an ambassador in St. Petersburg and knew Russia well, learned Russian, understood our character and the natural affinity between Russia and Germany, once said: Never try to deceive Russians or steal from them—because they will return for what’s theirs. Always.
That phrase—“Russians always come for what’s theirs”—remains a powerful lesson from history.
Judge Nap interviews roving nomad geopolitician Pepe Escobar on the amazing turn of fortune for the former combined West on every front and in every quadrant.
To the day of Victory over the nazi internationale!
#Victory80
Thanks to Tariffs, China Ditching US Tech. Napolitano interviews geopolitician Pepe Escobar, April 30th, 2025.
“… in this wilderness of narrative mirrors, Trump should be perceived as all characters combined: the White Rabbit, Humpty Dumpty (“When I use a word, it means what I choose to mean, no more and no less”), the Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts (“Off with their heads!”)”
[Note: Mr Lavrov is in Brazil for the BRICS Foreign Minister’s meeting in preparation for the upcoming BRICS summit in July. In this interview he again listed the Russian requirements for ending the Special Military Operation in Ukraine and a peace agreement. Here is a summary:
Lavrov unveils Russia’s terms for Ukraine peace deal at BRICS summit:
Lift ban on talks with Russia
No NATO membership
International recognition of new Russian territories
Deal with anti-Russian actions by neo-Nazi regime
Security guarantees against NATO and EU threats]
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2011929/
Question: Expanding trade among BRICS countries is one of the objectives for Brazil’s chairmanship in this group in 2025. What kind of opportunities does Russia see in terms of increasing the share of trade transactions in national currencies?
Sergey Lavrov: We are witnessing an accelerating trend in the fragmentation of the global economy. Against this backdrop, it is quite natural for the countries of the Global South and East to reduce the share of Western currencies in their mutual settlements. No one wants to suffer from sanctions, considering that the West has been imposing them on undesirable countries by exploiting its monopoly on financial markets. Using reserve currencies as a competitive tool is unacceptable. Payment transactions can be blocked for political reasons, even when dealing with supplying socially important goods.
We have been working within BRICS to ensure that there are no disruptions when carrying out payments and have been quite effective in our efforts.
To give you an example, the rouble and currencies of our friendly countries accounted for 90 percent of Russia’s settlements with BRICS countries in 2024.
Establishing resilient payment mechanisms is also among our priorities. Adopted in Kazan, the declaration of the BRICS 2024 Summit mentions the Trans-Border Payment Initiative, as well as payment and clearing infrastructure, a re-insurance company, and the New Investment Platform. These initiatives are designed to create favourable conditions for increasing trade and investment within BRICS. Russia hopes that we will continue working on these projects this year as part of Brazil’s chairmanship.
Question: Does the creation of a single currency remain a long shot for BRICS?
Sergey Lavrov: The effort to move away from the dollar, also known as the dedollarisation, has been one of the defining global economic trends, which is attributable to the lack of trust towards the Western-led international financial institutions.
It would be premature to discuss a transition to a single currency for BRICS. We are working together to create a payment and settlement infrastructure for carrying out cross-border settlements among BRICS countries. In particular, as I have already said, this includes increasing the share of national currencies in our transactions.
We can come back to the question about a common currency or a single payment unit for BRICS once the necessary financial and economic conditions are in place.
Question: Reinforcing global governance and promoting multilateralism is another major topic for BRICS. What do you think BRICS countries can do to this effect?
Sergey Lavrov: BRICS has become much stronger compared to when this group took shape back in 2006. Today, it stands as a focal point with a mission to coordinate the interests of the Global Majority’s leading countries. BRICS fully adheres to the principles of equality, mutual respect and balance of interest among its participants. Russia views this group as one of the pillars of a multipolar world and an important mechanism for international cooperation.
BRICS tends to attract countries seeking equal partnerships for the sake of fostering shared development. It was during Russia’s chairmanship in 2024 that BRICS leaders reaffirmed their decision to invite Indonesia to join BRICS. We also created a special status for partners. Nine countries have obtained it so far.
That said, BRICS countries are not seeking to take someone else’s place. Their aim consists of creating a favourable environment for building capacity. The group has other priorities too, including supporting countries within the Global Majority in addressing the urgent challenges they face, as well as increasing the representation of the Global South and East in global governance.
Question: Brazil calls for expanding the UN Security Council. What is Russia’s current stance on this issue? Would it vote for making Brazil a permanent member?
Sergey Lavrov: Russia believes in a balanced reform of the Security Council as one of the main UN bodies, which is primarily responsible, as per the UN Charter, for maintaining international peace and security.
It is absolutely obvious to us that the shaping of a multipolar world should include broader representation of the countries of the Global South and East, that is, Asian, African and Latin American countries, at the UN Security Council.
We believe that Brazil, which is conducting an independent foreign policy and can make a substantial contribution to settling international problems, is the right candidate for a permanent seat on the UNSC. We also support the nomination of India, on the condition that Africa would be represented at the Security Council as well.
I would like to use this occasion to point out that we are against giving more seats to Western countries and their allies. There are too many of them at the Security Council as it is. We are not ready to support the nominations of Germany and Japan because of the revival of the militarist ideology there and their openly unfriendly policy towards Russia.
Question: During consultations between foreign policy planning departments of the BRICS countries’ foreign ministries, the Russian delegation mentioned talks with the United States on the Ukrainian conflict. What conditions should be created for launching Russia-Ukraine peace talks?
Sergey Lavrov: During our contacts with representatives of the US administration, we provided the details of the root causes and genesis of the Ukrainian crisis. We explained the parameters necessary for its final settlement, with due regard for Russia’s legitimate interests, primarily in the sphere of security and human rights.
We got the impression that our American counterparts now have a better understanding of Russia’s stance on the situation around Ukraine. We hope that this will help them during their dialogue with Kiev and individual European countries. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed me of the engagements he had in Paris on April 17 later the same day. He noted that the discussion was held in the spirit of the Moscow-Washington consultations.
We remain open to negotiations, but the ball is not in our court. Kiev has not shown readiness for negotiations so far. The latest evidence of that is the Ukrainian armed forces’ inability to respect the 30-day moratorium on strikes on energy facilities (March 18 to April 17) or the 30-hour Easter truce (from 6 pm on April 19 to midnight on April 21). Zelensky’s regime has shown that is lacks the political will for peace and the ability to stop the war, which is being fuelled by the Russophobic circles of certain EU countries, primarily France and Germany, as well as Britain.
Question: Do you think that other countries should take part in the potential peace talks, for example, Brazil, which maintains dialogue with both sides?
Sergey Lavrov: Russia appreciates the striving of our partners to help create conditions for a peaceful settlement of the Ukrainian crisis. Over 20 countries and a number of regional associations in Latin America, Asia and Africa have put forth such initiatives.
Brazil is one of such countries. In January 2023, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva proposed creating a multilateral negotiating format. That idea was reflected in the Brazilian-Chinese initiative for establishing the Group of Friends for Peace in Ukraine at the UN. Its operation is gaining momentum. The Group has held three meetings, and there are grounds to assume that it can become a respected platform of the countries of the Global South and East.
It is essential that all members of that Group of Friends for Peace take the root causes of the crisis into account and are guided in their activities by the principles of the UN Charter in their entirety and as a whole. The principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity of states should not be applied in isolation from the right of nations to self-determination and the protection of human rights without distinction of any kind, such as language, race, sex and religion.
Question: On what terms would Russia agree to come to the negotiation table with Ukraine at this point?
Sergey Lavrov: I have already given you part of the answer to this question. It was Kiev which withdrew from the negotiating process in April 2022. It acted this way at the request of its Western curators. In September of the same year, Vladimir Zelensky outlawed all talks with Russia. This piece of legislation remains in force. It must be cancelled. Otherwise, talks cannot resume. In his recent interview with CBS, Vladimir Zelensky once again spoke out against talks with Russia. Let me quote his words: “We can’t trust Russia. It’s that we can’t trust negotiations with Russia.”
We have made no secret regarding our position on the settlement. Russia proceeds from the premise that Kiev’s non-accession to NATO, as well as reaffirming its neutral and non-aligned status as per the 1990 Declaration on Ukraine’s State Sovereignty – these factors form one of the two pillars for a final settlement to the Ukraine crisis that would meet Russia’s security interests. The second pillar consists of overcoming the legacy of the neo-Nazi regime which took power in Kiev after the February 2014 putsch, including the initiative by its perpetrators to eradicate and cancel, in both physical and legislative terms, everything Russian, be it the Russian language, media, culture, traditions, or the canonical Orthodox faith.
The international recognition of Crimea, Sevastopol, the DPR, the LPR, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions as part of Russia is another imperative.
All the commitments Kiev assumes must be legally binding, contain enforcement mechanisms and be permanent.
Demilitarising and de-Nazifying Ukraine is also on the agenda, along with lifting sanctions, withdrawing lawsuits and cancelling arrest warrants, as well as returning Russian assets subjected to the so-called freeze in the West.
We will also insist on obtaining solid security guarantees for the Russian Federation in order to shield it from any threats emanating from hostile activities by NATO, the European Union and some of their member states along our western border.
Question: What do you think about the role and actions by the EU and the United States in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict at the current stage?
Sergey Lavrov: The European Union has been sticking with its policy to offer all-round support to the Kiev regime. Brussels does not want anything but Moscow’s unconditional defeat. Any other outcome would amount to losing the geopolitical game for it. The EU believes that by ending its support to Ukraine it would demonstrate its strategic incompetence and impotence. In other words, the bureaucrats in Brussels focus on saving their reputation rather than achieving a fair and lasting peace.
Instead of facilitating a settlement, the European Union has been seeking to undermine agreements by arguing that there has been little, if any, effort to invite it to contribute to these talks. At the same time, the EU is preparing to send military units from NATO countries to Ukraine despite all our warnings that this would be unacceptable. Arms deliveries to Kiev are continuing. The EU also plans to ramp up defence manufacturing. They are creating all these coalitions of the willing and discussing ways of creating extra-budgetary mechanisms for procuring more weapons for Kiev.
Against this backdrop, the fact that the current administration in the United States is trying to understand the root causes of the crisis is quite encouraging and contrasts with the Joe Biden administration, which pumped the Kiev regime full of lethal weapons and was proactive in its efforts to draw Ukraine into NATO. President Donald Trump has said many times that there would be no conflict if the preceding administration did not seek to drag Ukraine into NATO. Moscow and Washington maintain a dialogue to find a path towards a settlement. We hope that this paves the way for mutually acceptable results.
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2011803/
The video is available at the link and it is Mr Lavrov in English. This was not a friendly interview.
Question: Good morning, Minister Lavrov. I want to ask you about what happened in Kiev. There was a large Russian attack on that capital city about 1 o’clock in the morning. President Trump has said publicly the Russian strikes are not necessary and very bad timing. “Vladimir, stop”, was his quote. What made it worth killing civilians when Ukraine says it’s ready for a ceasefire?
Sergey Lavrov: We only target military goals or civilian sites used by the military. President Putin expressed this for so many times, and this is not different this time as well. We never consciously target civilian sites, unlike the Zelensky regime.
Question: So was this an intentional attack then, not a mistake?
Sergey Lavrov: If this was a target used by the Ukrainian military, the Ministry of Defense, the commanders in the field have the right to attack them.
Question: So just to be clear, when the President of the United States says, “Vladimir, stop,” is this a rejection of that request, or was the assessment that because of what you say regarding the concerns that this loss of civilian life made it worth it?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, I can assure you that the target attacked was not something absolutely civilian like a TV center in Belgrade in 1999. This was an intentional attack against civilian target.
In our case, we only target those sites which are used by the military. And regarding the ceasefire and regarding the call to stop, President Putin immediately supported President Trump’s proposal a few weeks ago to establish a 30-day ceasefire provided we do not repeat mistakes of the last 10 years when deals were signed, and then Ukraine would violate those deals with the support and with encouragement from Biden administration and from European countries.
This was the fate of the deal of February 2014. Then this was the fate of the Minsk agreements, and this was the fate of the deal reached on the basis of Ukrainian proposals in Istanbul in April 2022.
So President Putin said, “Ceasefire, yes, but we want the guarantees that the ceasefire would not be used again to beef up Ukrainian military, and that the supplies of arms should stop.”
Question: Ukraine accepted on March 11th that idea of a U.S.-brokered ceasefire without preconditions. You’re saying the preconditions are a negotiation to end something else?
Sergey Lavrov: No, it is not a precondition. It’s the lessons learned after at least three times. The deals, similar to the one which we are discussing now, were broken by the Ukrainian regime with the strong support from European capitals and Biden administration.
If you want a ceasefire just to continue supply arms to Ukraine, so what is your purpose? You know what Kaja Kallas and Mark Rutte said about the ceasefire and the settlement? They bluntly stated that they can support only the deal which at the end of the day will make Ukraine stronger, would make Ukraine a victor. So if this is the purpose of the ceasefire, I don’t think this is what President Trump wants. This is what Europeans, together with Zelensky, want to make out of President Trump’s initiative.
Question: Will Russia continue targeting Kiev despite President Trump saying, “Vladimir, stop”?
Sergey Lavrov: You’re not listening to me. We will continue to target the sites used by the military of Ukraine by some mercenaries from foreign countries and by instructors whom the Europeans officially sent to help target Russian civilian sites.
If you take a look at the situation in the Kursk region of Russia, for example, there is no single military target for the last six months which the Ukrainians would fire at.
And there was also a proposal by President Trump immediately supported by President Putin to have a one-month moratorium on the attacks on energy infrastructure. We never violated this commitment of President Putin. And Ukrainians violated what Zelensky seemed to support several hundred times. And I sent to Marco Rubio and to the United Nations the list of those attacks. It’s really very, very telling and eloquent.
Question: Ukraine disputes that, but putting that aside, I want to ask you about what President Trump said on Wednesday. The President of the United States says he thinks the U.S. and Russia have a deal, let’s get it done. Does President Putin agree?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, the President of the United States believes, and I think rightly so, that we are moving in the right direction. The statement by the President mentions a deal, and we are ready to reach a deal, but there are still some specific points, elements of this deal which need to be fine-tuned, and we are busy with this exact process. And the President of the United States did not spell out the elements of the deal, so it is not appropriate for me to do this.
Question: But he did say there was a deal, and that he was sending his envoy, Steve Witkoff, to meet with Vladimir Putin Friday in Russia. Is that meeting still happening, and should we expect a deal this week?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, you don’t trust the word of the President of the United States?
Question: I was asking your President’s word. What will he tell the U.S. envoy?
Sergey Lavrov: We continue our contacts with the American side on the situation in Ukraine. There are several signs that we are moving in the right direction, first of all, because President Trump is probably the only leader on Earth who recognized the need to address the root causes of this situation. When he said that it was a huge mistake to pull Ukraine into NATO, and this was a mistake by the Biden administration, and he wants to rectify this.
And Marco Rubio expressed yesterday, I think, also the assessment that the American team now is getting a better understanding of the Russian position and of the root causes of this situation. One of these root causes, apart from NATO and creation of direct military threats to Russia just on our borders, another one is the rights of the national minorities in Ukraine. Everything Russian, media, education, culture, anything was prohibited by law in Ukraine. And to get out of this crisis, you cannot just forget about human rights.
Whenever we discuss Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, anything, American negotiators put on top human rights. They have claims in this regard to China, to us, to anybody. But whenever Europeans and other Western nations speak about Ukraine, nobody can mumble the words human rights. Just nobody.
On the contrary, what Ursula von der Leyen and other people in Brussels and in Europe say that Ukraine is defending the European values. So one of these values is cancelling the Russian language. Imagine if Israel cancelled Arabic language in Palestine. Just imagine.
Question: You mentioned that the U.S. and Russia need to work on some of these fine points of a deal.
Sergey Lavrov: Yeah, you want the fine points to be spelled out?
Question: Well, of course, I’d love that, but this is not the way. European sources say that the U.S. proposal is really just kind of a list of bullet points. Does Russia have details, the details you need at this point?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, we are really polite people. And unlike some others, we never discuss in public what is being discussed in negotiations. Otherwise, negotiations are not serious.
To ask for somebody’s opinion regarding the substance, go to Zelensky. He is happy to talk to anybody through media, even to President Trump. He presents his claims.
We are serious. We are serious people. And we consider serious proposals. We make serious proposals. And this is a process which is not supposed to be public until the end of it.
Question: OK. So no deal is imminent?
Sergey Lavrov: I didn’t say this. Now I understand, by the way, why you wanted to get brief answers to your questions. You want some slogans to be in the broadcast.
Question: No, the President of the United States said there was a deal with Russia. So I wanted to ask Russia if there is a deal with the United States.
Sergey Lavrov: Well, we made our comments on this statement. The negotiations continue. And until the end of the negotiations, we cannot disclose what it is about.
Question: OK. The National Security Advisor Mike Walz said last month that President Trump is asking for thousands of Ukrainian children who were taken into Russia to be released now as part of what he called “confidence building measures”. What steps has Russia taken to meet Mr. Trump’s request?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, long before the request coming from Washington, we have been addressing the issue of the fate of the kids who during the conflict found themselves outside their homes, outside their families. Most of these kids were attending orphanage. And as soon as and we announce whatever details we have about those kids, and as soon as relevance, I mean, the parents or other relevant relatives make themselves available, they are getting the kids back. This has been the process for the last almost three years between the ombudsmen of Russia and Ukraine.
Question: So there’s no new release of thousands of Ukrainian children at the request of President Trump?
Sergey Lavrov: No, there was nobody. Nobody knows why some experts advised the President about thousands of Ukrainian children.
Every now and then, once in two or three months, we organize exchanges with Ukrainians with the help of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, who do not, you know, make any noise about what they’re doing. They just do something which we are participating in a very constructive manner, bringing kids back to their parents or relatives.
Question: But what “confidence building measures” can Russia offer now, particularly after this strike in Kiev, where the President of the United States is saying, “Vladimir, stop”. How do you convince the United States that Russia is actually serious about peace?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, “confidence building measures” have been plentiful in the last 10 years. I mentioned a deal in February…
Question: That strike was overnight.
Sergey Lavrov: You want a brief answer, right? As I understand from your initial words, or you want an answer which is explaining the situation?
The proposal by President Trump on 30 days moratorium on the strikes against the energy infrastructure was supported by President Putin and observed strictly. This was a confidence building measure against the policy and action taken by the Zelensky regime. As I said several hundred times civilian energy infrastructure was struck.
Another confidence building measure was the proposal of President Trump and his team to resume the deal on Black Sea. And the delegations met in Istanbul, in Riyadh. The delegations exchanged the views how this can be implemented in practical terms. And the proposals made by Russia are being considered by the United States. There are many other examples about confidence building measure.
But if you believe that it’s only Ukraine who is interested in confidence building, I think a short answer would be this is an illusion.
Question: Do you take President Trump at his word when he says if Russia is unable to make a deal on ending the bloodshed in Ukraine, he’ll put secondary tariffs I think you mean sanctions there on oil coming out of Russia. Or do you think that at this point, the relationship between Russia and America has been rebuilt and that won’t happen?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, I cannot comment on what you think President Trump meant when he said something.
Question: What do you think he meant when he said secondary tariffs on oil coming out of Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, we hear many things coming from President Trump. President Trump said that he’s sick and tired of the situation in this settlement, especially yesterday when he commented the statements by Zelensky. And President Trump has his own proposals and has his own style in mentioning those proposals in his public speeches.
We concentrate, as I said, on the real negotiations which President Trump supports and instructed his people to continue to engage in these negotiations. I’m sorry, the answer was a bit longish, but it’s difficult to explain otherwise.
Question: So I asked about the threat of sanctions or secondary tariffs, because you recently said in an interview, if you had to personally pick sides, you would keep the existing sanctions in place on Russia. You said you’ve restructured the economy to be self-sufficient. And there is a growing fear that, quote, cunning Americans will lift sanctions all of a sudden to flood our market with services and technologies. So if that’s the case, why should the United States consider lifting sanctions at all?
Sergey Lavrov: Why do you ask me? You just quoted my statement, and this statement is clear for me and clear to all those who read it. If you have questions to the American side, how they treat the situation, it is not the right address to raise it with me.
Question: So you want to keep sanctions in place. Is that really the Russian position?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t want to re-explain what I explained, I think, in quite a clear manner. And you quoted, I think, very close to the real content. Yeah, but it was a bit longer than normally you prefer, I know.
Question: Well, back in February. Though one of your colleagues, Kirill Dmitriev, who runs the Sovereign Wealth Fund and has been active in the diplomacy with the United States, said something a bit different. That’s why I’m asking for clarification, because he said there is the expectation that American companies would return to the Russian market in the second half of 2025.
Sergey Lavrov: Well, the President of Russia commented upon this situation. He said that we have nothing against American companies, but those companies who decided to leave their business in Russia might find that their place has been occupied already by Russian or other foreign investors. And in this case, we would not make any decisions which would discriminate those who came to invest in Russia instead of Americans. If American companies would like to come to a place which is not yet occupied, if they want to propose a project, a new project on top of the previous business ties, of course, we will look into this. And if we find balance of our interests, I think it would be only natural to get into business together.
Question: Well, what areas has the U.S. offered to lift sanctions on? Because it wouldn’t be possible for many American companies to enter the Russian market right now under the existing sanctions.
Sergey Lavrov: It is up to them to decide.
Question: So no offer has been made?
Sergey Lavrov: No. How can we offer something? In a situation when…
Well, the United States clearly tells us that they are interested in doing business together. We never reject business proposals provided they are based on the equal opportunities and the treatment of each other and lead to a balance of interest.
Specific proposals which are being mentioned in the media, I cannot comment upon. This is not serious. We are not acting like the people in Kiev who talk to the world through the media, including talking to presidents of great countries.
Question: So if I understand you correctly, you neither fear sanctions nor want them lifted?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, you quoted my statement and you quoted it right. That’s my position.
Question: Okay. So when President Trump threatens new sanctions, that’s not a concern?
Sergey Lavrov: You’re asking this for the third time. This was a brief answer, by the way.
Question: You are being brief and direct on that part. I was asking on the sanctions for clarity and directness. Broadly speaking, when you look at what’s happening in the battle space in Ukraine right now, analysts say about 18% of Ukrainian territory is under the control of Russian forces. U.S. intelligence says battlefield trends are in Russia’s favour. So if that’s the case, why should the U.S. believe Russia is serious about ending the war if everything is in your favour?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, we judge by the reaction of our American colleagues to what we tell them. And this is being done during negotiations. They are confidential, as any serious negotiation. And they know our position. And as I quoted Marco Rubio, he publicly said that now they better understand the Russian position and the reasons for what is going on. And he said that nobody in Washington lifted a finger to do the same to try to understand Russia during the Biden administration.
And this implies that the dialogue continues, that the dialogue is supported by the United States, and I reiterate that it is supported by the Russian Federation, and this dialogue continues.
Question: So President Trump said he expects to meet soon with Vladimir Putin. What’s an acceptable time and location? Why should they meet?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, the presidents are masters of their own destiny and of their own schedule.
I heard President Trump say that he is planning to be somewhere mid-May, and that after that he would be suggesting some dates. I cannot add anything else.
Question: Right, he said he was asked about meeting with Vladimir Putin specifically in Saudi Arabia, and he said most likely not. That’s in mid-May, but shortly thereafter.
Sergey Lavrov: You said the same thing as I did.
Question: Right.
Sergey Lavrov: So we read the same newspapers and watch the same channels on TV.
Question: Right, but I can’t pick up the phone and call Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, like you can. What plans are you making for the two to meet?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I hope your listeners understand very well that it is not ethical for a foreign minister to prejudge, to presume what presidents might or might not discuss.
Question: But you think it would be good for the two leaders to meet soon? Do you expect that Rubio and Whitkoff is negotiated?
Sergey Lavrov: We’re always in favour of meeting with people who are ready for a dialogue. President Putin repeated this thousands of times.
When we met in Riyadh, together with President Putin’s Foreign Policy Advisor Yury Ushakov, with Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz, the American colleagues clearly stated that the US policy is based firmly on US national interests. They understand that the Russian policy led by President Putin is also based on Russian national interests, and that it is the responsibility of great powers to make sure that whenever those national interests do not coincide, and this is in most of the cases, this difference should not be allowed to degenerate into confrontation. And that’s what dialogue is for.
But they also added that when the national interests of two countries or more countries coincide, it would be stupid to miss an opportunity to translate this coincidence into some material mutually beneficial projects. This is absolutely our position.
Question: You know that President Trump is coming up on 100 days in office, and he has made clear his patience is wearing thin with the diplomacy here. Do you expect the US and Russia to continue to talk after these potential peace talks fall apart? I mean, is the rebuilding of the relationship so significant now that you think it could withstand the peace talks in Ukraine falling apart?
Sergey Lavrov: First, Russia is always available for a dialogue. So you have to address the question to the American side. Second, you prejudge the current process by saying that eventual collapse of the talks.
We concentrate on doing business, not on thinking, you know, about failures or victories, about anything. Unless you concentrate on the facts, that’s what we do. You cannot be serious about what you are doing.
Question: Well, President Trump and Secretary Rubio said that the window was closing, that time is running out here. That’s not my opinion. That’s what they said. Sergey Lavrov: No, wait a second. I just quoted Marco Rubio, who yesterday said about better understanding of the Russian position. So maybe you missed that. Question: Well, he also said a decision in days needed to be made and that the US has other things to focus on.
Sergey Lavrov: No. We understand the impatience. Because in American culture, you create expectations, and you ignite tension around those expectations. This does not help to do real politic.
But in our case, as I said, we are always ready for dialogue, ready for negotiations, and we would not, you know, begin by banking on a failure. This would be a characteristic of bad dealmakers, inexperienced dealmakers.
Question: Others in the Russian government have proposed that the US and Russia could work together in the Arctic. Are there specific areas of discussion for cooperating right now?
Sergey Lavrov: You always want me to disclose things which might be discussed by respective officials of Russia and the United States, by those who are responsible for trade, economic cooperation, investments, and so on and so forth.
How do you expect a participant of negotiations, which are still to reach some kind of specific understanding, to disclose details in public? It is not serious.
Yeah, I read President Trump’s book, “The Art to Make a Deal,” and he doesn’t advise to disclose information before it’s time.
Question: Respectfully, President Trump speaks quite a lot about the things he would like to do with Russia and opportunities to work together. I understand you don’t want to. On the specific things President Trump has said in public, one of the things he brought up is that the U.S. could work with Ukraine to operate the largest nuclear power plant in Europe, which is in an area you know, Zaporozhye. Russians control that area right now. Do you agree with President Trump’s public statements that the best security would be for the U.S. and Ukraine to operate that together?
Sergey Lavrov: No, we never received such an offer, and if we do, we would explain that the power station, Zaporozhskaya Nuclear Power Station, is run by the Russian Federation state corporation called Rosatom. It is being under monitoring of the IAEA personnel permanently located on the site, and if not for the Ukrainian regular attempts to attack the station and to create a nuclear disaster for Europe and for Ukraine, as well, the safety requirements are fully implemented. It is in very good hands.
Question: So that’s a no?
Sergey Lavrov: No. I don’t think any change is conceivable.
Question: Okay, because that was in a public statement from the White House to the media.
Sergey Lavrov: We, as I said, we did not receive any proposal which would be specific, so, you know, I understand that journalists have to speculate. We cannot speculate on something which is really not being mentioned during the negotiations.
Question: Zaporozhskaya station is not being negotiated right now?
Sergey Lavrov: Shall I say that for the third time? You wanted me to be brief.
Question: I heard you, but I just want to be abundantly clear because that is also widely reported to be in the US proposal currently on the table.
Sergey Lavrov: Why don’t you ask me about President Trump’s position on Crimea?
Question: You liked what President Trump said about Crimea yesterday when he said that it has been under Russian control.
Sergey Lavrov: It’s not about liking or disliking. It’s about the fact that he said the truth, and when Zelensky said that this is absolutely excluded because Crimea is part of Ukraine according to the Constitution, nobody in Europe or in the States, by the way, reminded him that apart from territorial issues, the Ukrainian Constitution guarantees, I quote, “the free development, the use and protection of the Russian and other national minorities’ language in Ukraine,” and they guarantee the development of ethnic, cultural, language, and religious identity of all peoples and national minorities in Ukraine. This is also in the Constitution, but as I mentioned already, and you decided not to go deeper into this topic, nobody in the West even mentions human rights when they demand that ‘Ukraine defeat Russia in the battlefield’.
Question: President Trump said Crimea is not even being discussed right now.
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, because this is a done deal.
Question: You mean Russia occupies and controls and will not negotiate the future of Crimea? Is that what you’re saying?
Sergey Lavrov: Russia do not negotiate its own territory. And President Trump understands this.
Question: One specific thing that you do want in the public space, you said everything else that I’ve asked you about in the US proposal is too sensitive to discuss. Is there any other part of the US proposal that you do like?
Sergey Lavrov: No, no, no. I only commented what was said publicly. And I also said that normal negotiators – I emphasize this once again – normal negotiators do not negotiate by throwing a microphone. They meet and they discuss, they listen to each other, they try to understand, they try to see where a balance of interest can be reached, and this is how our contacts with the American representatives are organized.
Question: Respectfully, you’ve been in the top levels of Russian diplomacy for 30 years…
Sergey Lavrov: For how many?
Question: For at least 30 years. I mean, you’ve been in very key diplomatic roles within the top of the Russian diplomatic system for a very, very long time. I don’t think any part of this is typical or normal, to use the words you used. Steve Whitkoff is the envoy. Kirill Dmitriev is Vladimir Putin’s envoy here. Do you think it’s unfortunate that the international system of diplomacy isn’t being used more and that it’s this kind of one-on-one personal envoy structure?
Sergey Lavrov: You did not express your disappointment that the international system of diplomacy was not used for the entire duration of the Biden administration. You did not mention that Europeans are really very nervous that they’re being marginalized. But I can quote a lot of what Europeans stated. I mentioned already Kaja Kallas and Ursula von der Leyen, who said, “Any deal must make sure that Ukraine is stronger and that Ukraine is on top of Russia.”
Look, do you need negotiators who believe in this kind of logic and who don’t want to look for honest balance of interest? The Trump administration is interested in searching for a balance of interest. They sincerely want to understand better the Russian position. And they’re getting this understanding. And we understand better the American position through negotiations and meetings and discussions, which we have with them.
Question: Back in January, Russia signed a deal with Iran to become a strategic partner. Would Russia be willing to sever that relationship at the request of the U.S. if it meant better relations with America?
Sergey Lavrov: There was never any request like this. And we welcome the process which was initiated between the United States and Iran. We are ready to be helpful if parties believe this can be the case. And they know this.
Question: You were the negotiator back in 2015 on behalf of Russia for that landmark international agreement, the JCPOA. And part of how Russia was helpful was destroying Iran’s enriched nuclear material. Is that an offer you would do again?
Sergey Lavrov: We were not involved in destroying Iran’s nuclear material.
Question: Disposing.
Sergey Lavrov: Part of the deal was to move some amount of this material to Russia for keeping.
Question: Okay. So not destroying, but keeping. Would you keep Iran’s enriched nuclear material that they’ve made?
Sergey Lavrov: Look, I said, “We are not putting our nose in the negotiations between the two countries, one of which is not Russia.” And I said very clearly, I believe, but you wanted a brief answer, I will have to be longer, since it is not probably getting through.
We welcome the dialogue between the U.S. and Iran. We would be certainly ready to help if both parties believe this is going to be useful. And they know that we are ready.
Question: Well, back then, there were sanctions and pressure at the U.N. It’s a very different dynamic now. I want to ask you quickly about nuclear weapons, because Russia is such a nuclear powerhouse. According to U.S. intelligence, Russia is developing a new satellite meant to carry a nuclear weapon, which would knock out other satellites and devastate the U.S. if it’s used. That’s in publicly published material. Does Russia intend to violate past treaties and actually put a nuclear weapon in space?
Sergey Lavrov: Well, before asking this question, you have to check whether this is true or not, what your military, U.S. intelligence says…
I was listening to President Trump about his views of what is the list of achievements of U.S. intelligence. And I have my own facts on which I rely.
We have been promoting for many years in the United Nations a resolution prohibiting putting any nuclear weapons into outer space. The country which is categorically against it is the United States. At the same time, the United States promotes an approach according to which they want to prohibit putting conventional weapons in outer space. And they cannot answer the question, “Does this mean that nuclear weapons, they would be planning to move to the orbit?”
So my answer is very clear. We have been championing in the United Nations a legal prohibition of placing any nuclear weapons in outer space. And the United States, at least during the Biden administration, this was the case, they were categorically against it.
Question: It was the Trump administration’s intelligence community that published those findings just a few weeks ago. Are you saying the Trump administration’s intelligence community findings are incorrect in regard to Russia developing a new satellite meant to carry a nuclear weapon?
Sergey Lavrov: We denied those allegations. We, once again, cannot help repeating, have been promoting for years in the United Nations a treaty – not a declaration – a treaty prohibiting placing weapons in outer space. And the United States is against it. I cannot comment about the validity of the intelligence reports, as I told you. We never received any facts which would confirm the allegations.
Question: Do you have any interest in arms-control talks with the United States, with the Trump administration?
Sergey Lavrov: It was the United States which broke the process of strengthening strategic stability. And if the United States is willing to get back to this track, we will see what are the conditions under which this might be possible. As long as in the U.S. doctrinal documents, we are described as adversary, when the officials in Washington called some time ago, called us enemy.
So we want to understand what Washington thinks of our relationship and whether Washington is ready for, I would emphasize once again, an equal, mutually respectful dialogue heading to finding a balance of interest. If this is the approach, everything is possible.
Question: Minister, we are coming up on time, but just before I let you go from everything you laid out, I haven’t heard from you that Russia is willing to make any concession on anything to date.
Sergey Lavrov: No, my brief answer is you are wrong.
I have been emphasizing repeatedly in relation to Ukraine, in relation to strategic relations with the United States, I have been emphasizing our readiness to seek balance of interests. If this is not what your station considers readiness for negotiations, then I don’t know how to be even less eloquent in trying to be brief in my answers.
Question: Well, there have been very clear, specific things said by the Trump administration, such as the Vice president saying that the current lines of contact in Ukraine would freeze and end up fairly close to where troops are right now. Do you actually consider that a concession?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t discuss publicly the details of what is being subject of negotiations. I understand that you love rumors because rumors are played around…
Question: The Vice president of the United States said it on camera.
Sergey Lavrov: Was it a question? What did you say?
Question: Well, rumor. Rumor. You said it was a rumor. The Vice president said it.
Sergey Lavrov: No, I said about us. We are not discussing things which are subject to negotiations.
Question: Okay. Minister Lavrov, thank you for your time.
An excellent wide ranging discussion and follow-up on the Spirit of Shanghai article.
Image: File Image
On Thursday’s “The Record with Greta Van Susteren,” Putin Investment Envoy Kirill Dmitriev responded to questions about American hostages, the war in Ukraine, and restoring Russian American relations and business.
Judge Napolitano interviews geopolitican and roving nomad Pepe Escobar from Sanaa, Yemen. Includes Pepe’s address to 1 million Yemenis – mind-boggling does not even begin to describe it.
Minor errata –
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 