Alexander Grushko: “Russia and the United States are still able to find ways to maintain strategic stability”

Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Alexander Grushko.
Photo: IZVESTIA

Russia will begin a dialogue with the United States on intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles (INF) after the resumption of full-scale negotiations on strategic stability. This was stated to Izvestia by Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Alexander Grushko. According to him, France and the United Kingdom should be involved in talks about reducing nuclear arsenals in the future, since Russia takes into account the combined nuclear potential of NATO.

"Without the connection of Great Britain and France, things will definitely not move forward"

— Paris and London have announced strategies for modernizing their nuclear arsenals. Emmanuel Macron announced plans to deploy a "nuclear umbrella" over Europe. In September, Russia invited the United States to resume dialogue on the future of the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START Treaty). Does Moscow consider it necessary to involve Britain and France in the strategic security dialogue?

— The constructive initiative put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin on September 22 in the field of the "post-START Treaty" is not an invitation to the United States to immediately launch negotiations on an agreement to replace the 2010 treaty. His statement said that the implementation of our initiative could make a significant contribution to creating an atmosphere conducive to a substantive strategic dialogue with the United States. But, as the head of our state emphasized, the process of maturing conditions for a full-scale resumption of such a dialogue involves taking into account the entire range of efforts to normalize bilateral relations and eliminate fundamental security contradictions. Thus, the parties have yet to form the necessary political foundation for the arms control negotiation process.

We are convinced that Russia and the United States are still able to find ways and methods to maintain strategic stability when interacting in a bilateral format. At the same time, in any potential dialogue of this kind, we have to take into account the factor of the combined nuclear potential of the NATO countries. If a substantive dialogue on further reduction of nuclear arsenals is launched in the future without the involvement of Great Britain and France, things will definitely not move forward.

— Will Moscow seek guarantees that France and Britain will not deploy nuclear weapons in other parts of Europe?

— At the moment, the reverse process is taking place. In particular, American special munitions are returning to the territory of Great Britain for the tasks of extremely destabilizing "joint nuclear missions" of NATO. This once again confirms the validity of the Russian position that it is impossible to ignore the combined potential of the North Atlantic bloc, which, let me remind you, has self-proclaimed itself a "nuclear alliance."

— In 2026, the deployment of American medium-range missiles will begin in Germany. The UK and Germany want to develop a joint missile with a range of up to 2,000 km. Does Russia consider these steps as a threat and how will it respond to it? Against the background of Moscow's proposals on the START Treaty, is a dialogue on the INF possible?

— We are aware of the American plans to return to the issue of deploying its medium-range missiles in Europe, in particular on the territory of Germany. We are closely following the preparation process for this. The same applies to the British-German long-range missile project. In general, it is clear why the Americans and the British need all this. The mystery remains the maniacal desire of the German side to become a springboard for launching missiles again, that is, to return itself to the center of confrontation with all the obvious consequences for its own security.

"The concept of a "drone wall" can be not only defensive in nature"

— Recently, incidents involving the appearance of unknown UAVs have occurred in a number of European countries. The responsibility was assigned to Russia, and as a response, the EU leadership proposed creating a "drone wall." Does it pose a threat to Russia's security?

— The leadership of the EU and NATO tend to see the "hand of Moscow" behind literally every event, without providing any evidence. Even if they admit their absence, they continue to blame our country as if nothing had happened. The situation with the appearance of UAVs is no exception.

The hysteria fueled by the EES about the arrival of certain drones on the territory of the EU and the announcement of defense projects with big names are aimed at justifying in the eyes of the population an increase in military spending to the detriment of socio-economic programs, leading to a drop in the standard of living of the population.

— Can the "drone wall" have offensive potential? How does Moscow plan to respond to it?

— We take these projects very seriously. The planned autonomous systems for detecting, tracking and neutralizing drones can be used as a technological basis for high-precision strikes against ground targets. That is, the concept of a "drone wall" can have not only a defensive character, but also an offensive potential.

These political games on the part of the ruling elites in the EU ultimately lead not to a decrease, but to an escalation of military and political tensions in Europe. In turn, we will take this into account in our military planning and adapt our own modernization programs for weapons and military equipment accordingly.

— Tensions are also rising in the Baltic Sea. Denmark and Germany are tightening the rules for the passage of ships, openly declaring plans to interfere with Russian trade. A number of NATO member countries declare the need to completely close navigation for Russian vessels. Is there a high risk of armed conflict in the Baltic?

— NATO generally dreams of turning the Baltic Sea into its internal water area, completely isolating Russia. They don't hide these plans much. But they are not destined to come true — Russia has been and will remain a full member of the Baltic community.

For a long time, the Baltic Sea has been a space of multifaceted and effective cooperation, within the framework of which the problems arising in the region were solved exclusively by peaceful means. Now, through the efforts of the NATO states, this part of Europe has become a zone of confrontation, which has sharply escalated as a result of the accession of Finland and Sweden. The Alliance launched the Baltic Sentry mission this year, through which it is trying to establish its own rules of navigation in this water area. First of all, the NATO allies want to control and then limit as much as possible the maritime cargo transportation carried out in the interests of Russia.

It's not limited to that. During the alliance's exercises, scenarios such as the blockade of the Kaliningrad region are being worked out. There is an active militarization of the region, pumping it with coalition forces and means.

In these circumstances, it is very difficult to see the potential for dialogue to reduce tension. And the NATO countries, unlike us, do not demonstrate openness to conducting honest and equitable discussions on ways to de-escalate in the region.

— NATO is discussing the possibility of shooting down Russian planes if they violate the airspace of alliance members. At the same time, Poland ignored the proposals of the Russian authorities to hold consultations on the issue of security. What could be the result of allowing attacks on Russian planes? Is it possible to restore contacts between Russia and NATO in order to avoid dangerous incidents?

— The first sharp reaction from the NATO countries — they say, it is necessary to shoot down Russian planes immediately after violating airspace — has now been replaced by more balanced assessments. According to Secretary General Mark Rutte, it is necessary to react proportionately. First, we need to assess whether there is a real threat. Then decide on further actions. This approach demonstrates that someone in the alliance still has remnants of prudence and the ability not to be led by the radicals from among the member countries of the North Atlantic bloc, who seek to use any reason to aggravate relations with Russia.

We have emergency communication channels with NATO countries, including to prevent dangerous incidents.

"The EU will feel our response"

— The EU has already adopted four sets of sanctions against Russia this year, and more recently, the 19th in a row. By 2028, the EU intends to completely abandon Russian energy sources. Are there general estimates of the losses of the European Union from the sanctions policy? Has it become more difficult for Brussels to agree on new restrictions?

— It is already obvious to everyone that the EU sanctions are not achieving their goal and are increasingly being criticized both inside and outside the European Union. The EU Council barely managed to agree on the 19th package, and the head of the European Foreign Policy Service, Kaya Kallas, is already announcing the development of the 20th. Isn't this evidence that, firstly, sanctions are ineffective, and secondly, that the European bureaucrats have driven themselves into a corner in allegedly defending the interests of the Kiev regime?

At the same time, there is a feeling that each new package is really being given to the EU with more and more difficulty. Otherwise, Brussels would not have to come up with new ways to push through restrictions that run counter to the interests of the EU member states themselves.

The price of the EU imposing sanctions and other trade restrictions against Russia is a drop in economic growth and a decrease in the competitiveness of the member countries of the association. The EU economy is already stagnating. Its growth slowed to 1% last year, and industrial production has consistently declined (by 2.4% in 2024). In 2025, according to the EES statistics, the picture will not change much: economic growth is expected at 1.1%. The EU's public debt in relation to GDP will increase to a record 83.2% this year. For comparison, over the past two years, Russia's GDP has grown by about 4%, while public debt has remained below 20%.

What is the result? Widespread closure of European production facilities and their outflow to third countries. Key energy-intensive industries (chemical, steel, automotive) are in deep crisis. Indeed, what kind of competitiveness can we talk about if European companies have to pay 2-3 times more for electricity than American companies, and 4.5 times more for gas?

In addition, the problem of energy poverty is getting worse in the EU: almost one in ten Europeans cannot afford to heat their homes sufficiently. This situation will only get worse in the future.

— Once again, the issue of confiscation of frozen Russian assets has become one of the relevant topics. The EU has offered to provide the Kiev regime with a "reparation loan" using Russian assets. The EU insists that such a measure will not be considered confiscation. How will Russia view this?

— The reason for such activity by Brussels was publicly voiced by the EES members themselves, including representatives of the Danish presidency of the EU Council: the European Union has no free money left for the Kiev regime. And the bellicose political statements of the European bureaucrats, inciting the regime of Vladimir Zelensky to continue the armed conflict, must be supported with something.

By the way, Brussels has already begun to "push" the idea that it would be necessary to consider the possibility of using the funds of Russian individuals and legal entities frozen in the EU for these purposes. And this, according to the calculations of the EES themselves, should amount to about € 25 billion.

At the same time, the EU is admonishing that the proposed scheme for using our state reserves is not a confiscation at all, since Russia will retain its rights to its own assets and will even be able to get them back if it pays some "reparations" to Kiev. The scheme is as illegal as it is unrealizable.

No matter what pseudo-legal justifications the EU members have fabricated in order to somehow whitewash their illegal actions against Russian assets, any manipulation of them without the consent of the Russian Federation is a gross violation of not only international, but also contractual law. Actions implying changes in the legal status of sovereign Russian assets will mean unauthorized disposal of someone else's property, that is, simply banal theft.

— Do our retaliatory measures include the confiscation of EU assets in Russia?

— The consequences for the initiators and participants of expropriation measures are guaranteed. Public refusal to respect the property rights of the Russian Federation will lead to a collapse of trust in the European financial sector, which has been formed for decades, and a large-scale outflow of capital. This is understood all over the world.

Brussels and other European capitals, which are particularly zealous in supporting the idea of de facto confiscation of Russian money, can be sure that Russia has a sufficient arsenal of capabilities for a proper political and economic response. The EU will feel our response.

"Russia will not leave compatriots in trouble"

— The Latvian authorities are preparing to deport hundreds of Russian citizens. The requirement is related to the fact that they failed to confirm their Latvian language proficiency and pass a mandatory security check within the established time frame. Is Russia ready to accept them?

— We consider the chauvinistic decisions of official Riga to expel our compatriots from the country who have not confirmed their knowledge of the Latvian language and have not passed the "loyalty test" by filling out an anti-Russian questionnaire to be absolutely illegal and unacceptable.

We strongly condemn this barbarism, especially when it comes to elderly and sick people. There are even egregious cases where unfortunate people committed suicide after language checks. The fact of the deprivation of a residence permit for deaf-mute spouses who have not passed the test has become public knowledge. This is, without exaggeration, natural Nazism.

Russia will not leave its compatriots in trouble, they are welcome in all corners of our homeland. The governors of the Pskov and Omsk regions announced that they would accept Russians, give them housing and work. Agreements have been reached between the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Pskov region on cooperation to promptly resolve these issues.

read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs