Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a news conference following Russia-ASEAN ministerial meeting

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a news conference following Russia-ASEAN ministerial meeting.

Manila, July 22, 2026

Good afternoon.

The traditional annual Russia-ASEAN ministerial meeting was held today. This year’s meeting was special, as it took place just over a month after the Russia-ASEAN Summit in Kazan in mid-June.

The meeting is taking place as we mark the 35th anniversary of Russia-ASEAN strategic partnership. A robust legal framework and an effective system of joint cooperation mechanisms had been built across a wide range of areas over the past 35 years, which was mentioned today many times with references to the productive discussions at the Kazan Summit.

According to key existing documents, Russia-ASEAN partnership is comprehensive and strategic. Today, my counterparts and I focused on coordinating measures to implement the decisions adopted at the Kazan Summit, primarily, the Kazan Declaration and the Russia-ASEAN Comprehensive Plan of Action through 2030.

We reviewed international issues as well. It goes without saying that our assessments of the current international situation converge. In short, it comes down to the fact that Russia and ASEAN are experiencing both the positive and negative consequences of the unfolding international processes. The emergence of a sustainable, fair and multipolar world order is the key process. However, this objective historical process is being strongly opposed by those who have dominated the international arena over the past 500 years in various forms, including colonialism and slave ownership. At its core, the position of those obstructing the objective process of forming a multipolar world order based on equality and mutually beneficial cooperation remains the same as it was during the colonial and slave-owning eras. It is to live at the expense of others.

We also discussed the imperative to reform the international monetary and financial system in order to protect countries from unilateral illegitimate sanctions, tariffs and other forms of abuse stemming from the West’s dominant position in the global financial and trading system.

Russia and ASEAN reaffirmed their common stance in matters of strengthening security architecture in the Asia-Pacific region based on ASEAN centrality. All the forums and entities that are meeting here today have been created at the initiative of the Association, including the East Asia summits, the ASEAN Regional Forum on security, and mechanisms such as the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus.

Russia is broadly involved in all these formats, as it continues to uphold the fundamental principle that the terms and rules established at the time these mechanisms and associations were created at ASEAN’s initiative must be respected in full. Primarily, this means consensus, equality, mutual respect, and compromises that reflect mutual interests of all participants. We will continue to approach our relations in ASEAN-led formats from these positions. Recently, Western countries have been doing everything possible seeking if not to undermine these formats, then at least to degrade them. All kinds of “triangles”, “quads,” and other off-limits configurations with an openly bloc-driven agenda aimed at containing and confronting others are being created which is fundamentally at odds with the foundational principles of ASEAN and its offshoot associations.

At today’s meeting, we agreed to continue close cooperation in food and energy security, counter-terrorism, and combatting transnational crime. Russia-ASEAN cooperation includes sector-specific mechanisms to address these matters. Speaking about combatting crime in every form, Interior Minister Vladimir Kolokoltsev is currently in Manila to participate in an ASEANAPOL conference. ASEANAPOL brings together police agencies of ASEAN member states and partner countries.

We had a detailed discussion of ways to improve the economic metrics of our cooperation. In recent years, despite the upheavals in the global economy and illegal sanctions, our trade consistently exceeded $20 billion and reached nearly $22 billion in 2025. This figure can be doubled by 2036, primarily through the development of the platform economy, cooperation in high-tech and innovation-driven industries, outer space exploration and customs and maritime cooperation. All these areas are laid out in the Kazan Declaration. Today, our colleagues reiterated their interest in moving towards these objectives as effectively as possible. At the same time, everyone praised the high quality of preparations for the Kazan Summit.

The participants highlighted the positive role that ASEAN, the EAEU, and the SCO can play in expanding cooperation in this region by combining their potential to promote integration processes across Eurasia and building the Greater Eurasian Partnership. Contacts have been established between all these entities (ASEAN, the EAEU and the SCO) on the basis of memorandums signed at the level of their respective secretariat heads. The Greater Eurasian Partnership will reinforce the material foundation for the initiatives put forward by Russia and a number of other Eurasian countries and aimed at creating continent-wide architecture of Eurasian security.

We focused specifically on humanitarian cooperation. In particular, we agreed to resume Russia-ASEAN youth summits. Next time, such meeting will take place in Vladivostok in October. We reiterated our invitation to all ASEAN members to attend the next World Youth Festival in Yekaterinburg this year.

The meeting was very useful. We will continue working on sector-specific expert tracks between the sessions.

Question: How did your ASEAN colleagues react to the message that “Moscow’s reserve of goodwill towards the West has been exhausted,” and that “we no longer believe the West that it wants negotiated solutions?” Will this affect Russia’s cooperation with ASEAN? Has Moscow received requests to resume the Black Sea Initiative?

Sergey Lavrov: With regard to the Black Sea Initiative, the answer will be short: we have not received any proposals to that effect. This initiative by UN Secretary-General António Guterres clearly shows that it was a one-sided move, and that the principles underlying its implementation were observed exclusively in the interests of the Ukrainian side. The UN officials played a rather questionable role in this regard, so this issue was not brought up.

Second, regarding our relations with the West, no such interest was expressed by ASEAN member states. They are diplomatic, polite and pragmatic people, so they are primarily interested in what we can do jointly that is mutually beneficial and serves our common interests. This is what we focused on today. However, we heard general assessments of the current international situation in the wake of aggressive actions of certain countries, and everyone was interested in seeing conflicts end as soon as possible. Most importantly, there is an understanding of our position whereby all conflicts must be addressed by identifying and eliminating the underlying causes.

We outlined our approaches and provided an update of the situation surrounding Ukraine. We have a sense that the majority of countries understand our position, which we can see from their stance at the UN and elsewhere.

Question: Did you discuss the expansion of AUKUS? Germany is reported to be either planning to develop or already developing nuclear weapons. The West is arming itself and arming its partners. Are they preparing for something?

Sergey Lavrov: We did not discuss AUKUS. However, our colleagues (this has come up in bilateral contacts) are concerned that this project is being implemented with, to put it mildly, questionable compliance with the norms and principles that apply to such projects under the IAEA. We share these concerns. We have repeatedly made our position known publicly and in our contacts with the IAEA Director General, urging him to take a more principled stance with regard to enforcing compliance with the rules that apply in all other instances.

The information about Germany came from our Foreign Intelligence Service. It was made public. We stand by it. Indeed, this is a cause for concern, given that the US nuclear programme was to a significant extent created by those who fled Germany or were shipped from Germany to the United States. This historical memory cannot simply fade away.

It recently transpired that the United States had authorised Saudi Arabia to enrich uranium. Authorisation is not required, because any country party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons can enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.

When Israel and the United States launched aggression against Iran, the IAEA had said nothing concerning the status of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme. The IAEA consistently confirmed that there were no indications that this programme had been diverted towards military purposes. Now, following the aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran, political circles have emerged there that will uphold the position that they had abandoned the military component of their nuclear programme, yet were attacked and attempts were made to destroy them, to change the regime, and so on. Whenever this point comes up, people tend to recall Iraq and Libya, which similarly abandoned programmes related to possessing weapons of mass destruction. What happened to these countries?

The effect was opposite to what was probably expected from attacking Iran. By the same token, many countries will now look at Iran and other countries I just mentioned. The countries will increasingly believe that only nuclear weapons can guarantee freedom and independence. I’m saying this with much regret, because this is a fallout of the aggressive actions that the United States and a number of its allies are pursuing in international politics in an attempt to preserve their dominance.

Question: What are the prospects of seeing the approaches laid out in the Kazan Declaration, in particular, the transition to settlements in national currencies and rejecting sanction policies, ever get implemented?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe that when presidents come together and approve documents that have been drafted over many months at the expert and ministerial levels, these decisions must be implemented in any responsible country. So, I’m not going to say that prospects are good. They will get implemented. There’s no doubt about it. This applies to payment arrangements, meaning alternative payment platforms that make it possible to circumvent illegal secondary sanctions. All our partners with whom I have met have a very clear interest in making this happen.

I spoke with the foreign ministers of the Philippines, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Brazil, and Egypt. They are participating in the Regional Security Forum as partner countries.

Question: Regarding a possible meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, what will be on the agenda given that the United States seems to have already forgotten what happened in Anchorage and that President Trump has made further statements about an imminent Ukraine deal?

Sergey Lavrov: It’s not that a meeting is possible; it has effectively been agreed upon. Yesterday, I spoke briefly with Marco Rubio at a reception, and we confirmed that we would meet tomorrow in the first half of the day. I hope we will have an opportunity to share our impressions with you.

I carry quotations from the statements made in Anchorage close to my heart. President Vladimir Putin said, “In Anchorage, we were asked to make compromises formulated by the Americans; we considered them and, not immediately, but upon arriving in Anchorage, said that we agreed.” He also expressed hope that “today’s agreements [as of August 15, 2025] would become a starting point for resolving the Ukraine issue” and, in general, for advancing Russia-US relations.

US President Donald Trump 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 that significant. One is probably the most significant, but we have a very good chance of getting there.” Another statement he made a day later was as follows, “A great and very successful day in Alaska… It was determined by all that the best way to end the…war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a peace agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere ceasefire agreement.” On August 18, 2025, Donald Trump also said, “We're going to make sure that this peace is going to stay a long term, very long term. We're not talking about a two-year peace, and then we end up in this mess again.”

Much was said. However, these quotations show that immediately following Anchorage, both President Putin and President Trump clearly stated that an agreement had been reached on key issues. We operate on the assumption that, at least for now, our American colleagues have not rejected their own proposals, which were voiced there and are now widely known, since there has been a great deal of comments on them.

As for President Trump’s predictions of us moving closer to a settlement, I will ask Marco Rubio about this tomorrow, since he, too, has commented on the outcome of Anchorage in rather ambiguous terms. In any case, it will be a useful meeting. It is better to ask a direct question and receive a direct answer.

Question: Europe is being militarised at a frightening pace. Do our ASEAN partners and we share a common view of where this will lead? Most importantly, does the European Union have enough resources for this war?

Sergey Lavrov: With us? Or with ASEAN?

Question: With us.

Sergey Lavrov: I do not rule anything out. I’m not privy to their plans. But these people are full of energy. I will not even try to speculate on this now. Their intentions are quite transparent.

The Defence Ministry, the Foreign Intelligence Service, and President Putin himself have provided comments on these processes, which are once again militarising Europe and the European Union which has long ceased to prioritise the socioeconomic well-being of its people. We draw appropriate conclusions not only from an analytical perspective but also in terms of material readiness for any possible scenarios.

President Putin once gave a very clear answer (perhaps, some people have already forgotten it; it was several months ago) when he was asked about the EU’s preparations for war. He said that we have no intention of attacking anyone, but if they once again bring all of Europe together under well-known banners and try to attack us, this would not be a conventional war. It will be a war of a different nature.

Question: Is the US-Iran conflict going to last for a long time, or is there still a chance of settling it peacefully? In what ways could the drawn-out conflict, which we are witnessing now, affect our planet?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot speculate as to whether this will last for a long time or not. Washington has repeatedly announced that everything is over, a settlement had been reached, and the Strait of Hormuz had been opened. Later, it turned out to be closed again. There have also been all kinds of interpretations - and they continue - of the Islamabad Memorandum signed by the United States and Iran. Then Israel said that it was not involved in these talks and was not a party to this memorandum. Recently, President Trump announced that the memorandum had been cancelled and no longer exists.

Making assumptions is a fairly hard thing to do, but I have a sense that neither the United States, nor Iran has interest in seeing hostilities continue. There are, however, those who are egging both sides on in order to keep the conflict going. We are not among them.

At the moment, in the West, particularly in Washington, they are pushing a narrative that Russia and China are directly supplying Iran with the weapons it is using to attack US targets. You know, it is almost embarrassing to hear such claims. I leave such statements on the conscience of those who have come up with this information. After all, if there is one country that should know better, it is the United States, which, through arms supplies financed by the EU, the provision of intelligence data and Starlink systems, as well as many other means, is not merely assisting but directly participating in the targeting of Ukrainian weapons at sites, including civilian sites, in Russia.

So, back to the Strait of Hormuz, we want this to stop. It affects the global economy, and Russia is part of the global economy. Despite the sanctions, the majority of countries around the world have remained our trade, economic, and investment partners.

Some people say Russia should be rejoicing over higher oil prices, now over $90 per barrel. President Putin has also spoken on this matter. We are interested in seeing stable energy prices on global markets so that we can pursue our long-term economic policies. At the same time, we draw the necessary conclusions and take into account the fact that another reckless adventure may be launched at any moment. Therefore, everything must be done to strengthen economic sovereignty in the areas that are vital for the functioning of our state and for meeting the needs of our people, while keeping our economy open to honest and equal relations with all other countries that are ready to cooperate on the same terms.

Question: On Saturday, Japan’s Defence Minister stated that discussions on nuclear weapons in the country should be free from taboos. What is your assessment of the likelihood of nuclear weapons showing up in Japan, and what possible impact could that have on the situation on the Korean Peninsula? Did you discuss this during the recent visit to Moscow by North Korean Foreign Minister Choe Son-hui?

Sergey Lavrov: I have not heard what the Japanese Defence Minister had to say. I did hear what Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi stated, though (I may not have the wording exactly right). She said it was time to review the three principles enshrined in Japan’s Constitution: not producing, not possessing, and not deploying nuclear weapons on the country’s territory. This was openly stated by the head of government. Without a doubt, it is a serious signal that echoes the processes taking place in the region (I mean the Republic of Korea and the United States, which regularly conduct increasingly intensive military exercises, gradually introducing a nuclear component into them). The Japanese are considering joining these exercises, so the situation is serious.

Therefore, during the visit to the Russian Federation by Foreign Minister of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea Choe Son-hui, the Russian side clearly reaffirmed its full support for the policy pursued by Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the DPRK Kim Jong Un aimed at strengthening the sovereignty and defence capabilities of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We reaffirmed the official statement made two years ago that, with sufficiently aggressive manoeuvres being conducted around the DPRK with an openly stated aim of containing, or even provoking, the DPRK into taking military action, Russia no longer joins calls to denuclearise the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK has amended its Constitution accordingly. Given the circumstances that the DPRK has been living in for many years now, including the disregard for the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions calling for the easing of sanctions, our North Korean friends and allies see no other way to protect their sovereignty. The Russian Federation fully understands this position.

However, we very much hope that common sense will ultimately prevail, because escalating tensions and abandoning the understandings that have been reached as part of the six-party framework on the Korean Peninsula are leading to very serious complications. It is worth noting that the term “denuclearisation” was agreed upon and endorsed back in the day (in the mid-2010s) as a goal to be pursued with regard to the entire Korean Peninsula. Yet Seoul, Tokyo and some US politicians are now talking about denuclearising the DPRK, rather than the entire Korean Peninsula. As they say, there is a subtle nuance to it. So, once again, I hope that common sense will prevail.

Question: It was noted that at ASEAN ministerial meetings the Russian side intended to draw the attention of its regional partners to the risks of the Western “Indo-Pacific project” and NATO’s expansion into Asia. Could you share with us whether this was achieved and how our partners reacted to it?

Sergey Lavrov: We drew their attention to this issue. We always do so when we talk with countries in the region, and above all with ASEAN members. They are not particularly inclined to speak publicly on this subject, but I am convinced - and this is confirmed by my impressions from discussions with my counterparts - that they see risks to ASEAN-centred architecture that they have been building for decades in the wake of “Indo-Pacific” strategies. “Indo-Pacific” strategies are an invention primarily aimed at (and no one is hiding it) further containing China and leaving Russia out. It is not in any way consistent with, but rather outright contradicts the principles underlying ASEAN and the architecture around it: the East Asia Summit, the ASEAN Regional Forum on security, the ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting-Plus (“ADMM-Plus”), dialogue partners (SMOA-Plus), and many other formats. In contrast, under the banner of “Indo-Pacific” strategies, narrow, closed and bloc-based formats are being promoted, such as “triangles”, “quads,” and other configurations which, by and large, are directly geared to confrontation, containment and rivalry. ASEAN members understand the risks. This is my impression based on their statements concerning general international affairs. I very much hope that, as they put it, the “ASEAN Way” - a way that has always been promoted and presented as based on openness, the universal nature of all formats created in security, trade, and humanitarian cooperation, and on the principle of consensus - will prevail. I will say it again: there are those who seek to undermine this principle. Attempts are even being made to split ASEAN by drawing its individual members into bloc-based entities with military dimension that are being created in the region.

I very much hope that ASEAN will remain true to the principles enshrined in the Bali Treaty. July 24 will mark its 70th anniversary. Russia will reiterate its commitment to these principles based on the assumption that all other countries will pursue the same course as well.

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