Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions following the High-Level Week of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions following the High-Level Week of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly.

New York, September 26, 2026

We apologise for a slight delay. We were finishing the last of almost 50 meetings. It has been an intense week. As you understand, we have been busy getting out of isolation.

I have just presented the priorities of Russia’s foreign policy during a meeting of the UN General Assembly. I hope you had a chance to review them. I am not going to elaborate on these issues much. Let’s focus on the importance of adhering to the principles of the UN Charter – not selectively but in their entirety, completeness and interconnectedness – as a way to strengthen the multilateral foundations of the modern world and to counter neocolonial practices that are increasingly noticed by the countries of the Global South and East as they realise that, despite obtaining political independence in the 1960s, they remain economically dependent on the West and this dependence will not go away and will even worsen in certain aspects.

We highlighted the importance of countering, without compromise, any manifestation of neo-Nazism, primarily in Ukraine. But not only there – the metastases of this misanthropic ideology are evident in other countries on this continent, especially among the EU members, NATO, and the Baltic states. In Germany as well, which is particularly alarming. I specifically mentioned this at the General Assembly.

Our delegation had both bilateral and multilateral meetings. In particular, yesterday we met within the CSTO format and the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter. Along with our Belarusian friends and allies, we launched the work on the Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. About ten delegations expressed interest in joining a group of experts that will begin working by the end of the year. The goal is to promote an architecture of equal and indivisible security and cooperation on the Eurasian continent – the biggest and richest continent, which is home to several of the greatest ancient civilisations.

During the bilateral meetings, we discussed many critical situations, including the developments in the Gulf, the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, the disaster in Gaza, and the continuing settlement policy in the West Bank. We discussed conflicts on the African continent and the state of affairs in Latin America where tensions are mounting again around Cuba.

Certainly, we talked about Ukraine. Let me remind you that on September 23, the UN Security Council held a special meeting on the Ukrainian crisis convened by France. I offered my extensive remarks there, presenting, as we believe, a rather detailed genesis of this entire story. My remarks clearly reflect everything.

It goes without saying that the Organisation needs to be adapted to the new reality, including by reforming the Security Council to include additional representatives from Asia, Africa and Latin America. No Western seats can be provided. We cannot allow this because the West is already overrepresented in the UN Security Council. We wish for the UN to become a centre for aligning the interests of all states as prescribed by the Charter.

The UN Secretariat could certainly make its constructive contribution. But the current team, led by Antonio Guterres, is incapable of implementing the main requirements of the Charter that serve as the very foundation of the United Nations. They promote partial approaches, double standards and essentially serve Western states. If you look at the composition at the top of the Secretariat, the seven or eight posts that are most significant for the functioning of the UN and its system are held by nationals or subjects of NATO member states.

Question: You have said that Russia remains ready for a political and diplomatic settlement of the situation around Ukraine and also that your country will not agree to a pause in the military operations during negotiations. What concrete confidence-building measures is Russia ready to take now to move from diplomatic positions to actual negotiations?

Sergey Lavrov: There is only one way to build confidence, and it is to fulfil all agreements. In February 2014, when protests were boiling there at the behest of then Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland and other Western visitors, talks began under the auspices of France, Germany and Poland. They were attended by current German President Steinmeier in the role of Acting Foreign Minister, as well as his French colleague, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, and Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski (he was the Foreign Minister then and returned to this post recently).

US President Barack Obama specifically called Russian President Vladimir Putin, asking him to refrain from preventing then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych from signing that agreement promoted by the West, the Europeans. President Putin said that, if Yanukovych, who was an absolutely legitimate and globally recognised president, made a decision, he would not be able to object to a sovereign decision made by the president of a neighbouring country.

An agreement was signed, according to which Yanukovych essentially renounced his powers and agreed to hold an early presidential election within several months. A national unity government was supposed to be created for the interim period. Germany, France and Poland signed the agreement, acting as guarantors.

The next morning, the opposition disregarded France, Germany, Poland and all the obligations it had undertaken under the agreement. They seized government buildings and declared that Yanukovych was no longer president. The next day, the Germans, the French and the British – of course, they had to get involved – announced that democracy had solved all problems and they would recognise the new government that had come to power by staging a violent coup. I don’t think it builds much confidence when you sign something and the following morning say that, okay, you disregarded me but I will eat the dust and it’s fine.

A year after Crimea revolted against the illegitimate government, Donbass also revolted because those who came to power announced, on their first day in office, that the Russian language in Ukraine would no longer have official status. That was announced in 2014. So, it is not a last-minute idea but something that has been brewing for a long time.

They declared Crimea and the parts of Donbass that disagreed and refused to recognise the coup, to be terrorists and subhumans (according to the so-called prime minister of those authorities that came to power in February 2014). Subsequently, Zelensky himself called them “creatures.” His predecessor Poroshenko proudly declared from every rostrum that their children, the children of Ukrainians, would live and go to brightly lit schools and beautiful kindergartens while the children in Donbass would rot in basements. How else would one treat these people but refuse to deal with them in any capacity and conduct a self-determination referendum? So, that was done.

After a year of those developments, the Minsk agreements were signed and approved by the UN Security Council. The Security Council adopts decisions that are mandatory under the UN Charter – as per a specific article. For years, Poroshenko and Zelensky sabotaged the Minsk agreements, disregarding not only Britain and France but also the UN Security Council.

In December 2019, new French President Emmanuel Macron convened a meeting of the four – France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine. Then Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky attended. That was December 2019. They adopted yet another document, with Merkel, Macron and Zelensky agreeing to the statement that the Minsk agreements would be fulfilled – in particular, that that part of Donbass would be granted a special status enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution.

There were also agreements regarding the withdrawal of troops that Zelensky’s regime did not fulfil. That was the third time when one was supposed to prove its capacity to negotiate before building any confidence.

The fourth time was when we – out of desperation and seeing no other way to defend our security and the people of Donbass and Novorossiya – launched the special military operation. Three weeks in, in March 2022, Ukraine asked for talks. We agreed to the talks. There were several rounds in Belarus. Then in early April 2022 in Istanbul, the Ukrainian delegation proposed resolution principles that we accepted. I want to emphasise: we did not change them. They were initialled. One would think that a signature on a document is something that requires contractual capacity.

We trusted our Ukrainian colleagues and also initialled the document. But it turned out that instead of building confidence, they broke it, with the help of then UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and all the other European leaders who agreed with Johnson’s request that Ukraine continue to fight against Russia rather than sign the paper.

In Alaska, we also showed trust for our American colleagues. We agreed to the principles they formulated and took them as the basis for further work. Immediately, European representatives flocked to the White House to talk US President Trump out of complying with his own initiative – just like Boris Johnson persuaded Zelensky against fulfilling his part in 2022.

So, you can judge for yourself. I have described this sequence of events many times. There is no lack of confidence on our part. Moreover, we continued the bilateral talks in Istanbul and participated in the trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi with US involvement. We did not end all these rounds of talks. They were ended by those who are claiming today that the Russians are avoiding contacts and that they have nothing to say.

I believe you do your research and understand the worth of these outcries by Zelensky and his staff, who remain under the full control of the West, which, in turn, has no capacity to negotiate whatsoever, if we consider Europe’s contribution to efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis.

Question: The Russian side has previously stated that not one of the candidates for the post of the new UN Secretary-General fully satisfies it. Does this mean that we will not support any of them in the Security Council, and will veto the vote?

Sergey Lavrov: You know, we probably shouldn’t nitpick over words here. “Fully” – that is the key word you quoted, and rightly so. It was used in a statement by one of our officials. But you know where you get full agreement? Six feet under. Everyone knows that well enough.

That said, a number of the candidates currently on the table are quite worthy and possess the qualities this high-responsibility post requires.

Question: Now that President Trump has rejected the seven-day plan that Iran presented to resolve the situation in the Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz is still facing difficulties; the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait is controlled by the Houthis; and attacks on Saudi Arabia continue. How does Russia envisage a solution to this very difficult situation?

And now Palestine – ten months have passed since the Security Council adopted Resolution 2803, the so-called “Trump plan.” And not much has happened. The ISF (International Stabilisation Force) has not been deployed.

Sergey Lavrov: Are you going to relay the entire resolution?

Question: No, but – it hasn’t been implemented, and that implementation is what we need. What should be done next?

Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, the failure to implement Security Council resolutions is nothing new. In every instance, that failure stems from the West pursuing its own hidden agenda. Take Resolution 1244 on the settlement in the former Yugoslavia. It stipulated that Kosovo would remain part of Serbia, and that Serbian police forces (however symbolic) would be deployed within Kosovo, among other provisions. That resolution is effectively gone now. Yet we constantly point out that there were opportunities for a proper settlement – one that did not involve unilateral “declarations of independence,” made without holding any referendum at all.

Then there was Resolution 1515, on the Middle East crisis and the creation of a Palestinian state. It involved the quartet of international mediators – Russia, the US, the UN, and the EU (which was, incidentally, a useful mechanism) – supporting the implementation of the roadmap, which envisaged the proclamation of a Palestinian state within a year.

This is not the first time resolutions have gone unimplemented. I will not list the others, given that our focus here is Palestine; these are just a few examples.

To be honest, we abstained on Resolution 2803 for one simple reason: we had our doubts. We informed the American drafters that a resolution on Palestine which makes absolutely no mention of the UN looks rather odd – especially when the Security Council is asked to adopt a text that includes no reference to the role of the Organisation that has been dealing with the Palestinian issue for decades. At the time, however, the majority of Arab countries, and the Palestinians themselves, asked us not to use our veto against that resolution. China also abstained. So we are left with the situation we have now.

As for Washington’s rejection of the “seven-day plan” proposed by Iran – this is not the first time such a thing has happened either. There was the Islamabad Memorandum, which contained specific agreements. It was signed at the highest level.

So, this is not a new phenomenon in global politics at its current stage.

As for what should be done: we believe the Islamabad Memorandum was, to use the common phrase, a fair deal. Since it was signed at the highest level, the parties presumably did so deliberately. So why not revisit it?

Question: Mr Foreign Minister, thank you for meeting with us every year so we can exchange ideas, especially on Palestine. In your speech just a few minutes ago, you said that Russia is willing to take an initiative to move things forward and that, if Russia can do something about it, the implementation of the two-state solution could become a reality. But you know what is happening in the West Bank now – there is almost nothing left of the Palestinian state. And in Gaza, as you know, they are cornering every person. So, assuming that Russia can take an initiative to move things forward, as you just said, what can Russia do to get us a little closer to implementing the two-state solution?

Sergey Lavrov: In my address to the General Assembly, I stated that the situation in the West Bank is deteriorating very rapidly, and that the recent decisions regarding settlements in East Jerusalem – if those settlements are indeed established – will sever the link between Gaza and the West Bank. In effect, there will soon be nowhere left to establish a Palestinian state. You are right; I agree with you.

Resolution 2803, which endorsed the “Trump plan” – the “peace plan” and the “Board of Peace” – envisages that the greater part of Gaza (there is not a word about the West Bank) should come under the control of Palestinian entities, subject to the oversight, so to speak, of this Board of Peace. But as you rightly noted, the Palestinians currently control, at most, perhaps 20 percent of the territory.

What is to be done? For many years, as long as I can remember holding this post, we have advocated for Palestinian unity, because the rift among Palestinians boded ill for them. And that is being borne out today. Even now, there is no hope of bridging the divide between Fatah and Hamas as a political movement. We fully support the need to ensure that this entity pursues only political objectives.

We held several meetings in Moscow. We invited all 14 Palestinian factions and secured their agreement to unite, to set aside their differences, and to advance the Palestinian cause – the creation of a Palestinian state – in lockstep.

Our Chinese colleagues did the same a year later. Unfortunately, all these confidence-building agreements remained merely on paper – and through no fault of our own. Our Palestinian brothers were unable to overcome their internal divisions, despite their declarations that they would ensure unity within their ranks.

I recall that during negotiations, back when the quartet (Russia, the US, the EU, and the UN) was still active, whenever we discussed the need for action or for specific initiatives within that group, the Americans would often say they welcomed the idea, but were not sure who they should talk to, given the internal rift among the Palestinians: some agreed, while others did not.

So, if we are simply to avoid dragging the Palestinian issue any deeper into a bottomless pit, it is worth considering... I do not know how realistic this is right now, but it was our initiative. What can we do at this stage? Our Palestinian friends, and everyone in the Arab world interested in a stable, long-term settlement, know that we are always ready to help. Our past record proves it. We are at their service – but there must be an interest in our services.

Unlike some of our Western colleagues, including certain permanent members of the Security Council, we do not impose initiatives that merely culminate in grand events, perhaps on the Champs-Élysées, only for nothing concrete to be done and for the initiatives themselves to be forgotten.

Question: How will the S-400 issue with Turkiye be resolved? Do you agree to Turkiye selling S-400s to another country?

Sergey Lavrov: The S-400 air defence missile systems were supplied under a contract that stipulates full compliance with the end-user certificate. They know very well they can’t sell these systems beyond their borders without Russia’s official consent. No such request has been made.

Question: In the opening remarks, you have already said that preparation for the development of the Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century began yesterday. However, I would like to ask about further plans in this regard.

Sergey Lavrov: The plan is to develop this charter. The decision has been made.

We have released a statement. I thought everybody interested has seen it. We are creating an expert group consisting of the core countries that have expressed readiness to participate in the development of this document. It is an open-ended group. Anybody interested can join at subsequent stages.

The first expert talks will take place in Minsk before the year is out. The second meeting is expected to be held in Moscow in the first half of 2027. Subsequently, several countries have expressed interest in hosting the consultations on their own territory.

We are not setting any artificial deadlines but, of course, it would be better not to protract this work considering that the Eurasian continent really needs a pancontinental structure that would be open to all countries without exception and continental organisations free from external interference. Africa and Latin America have such pancontinental structures – both continents have multiple sub-regional organisations but also pancontinental ones. Eurasia does have many sub-regional organisations but there is no “umbrella” – it doesn’t even have to be called an organisation – or a platform for all countries and organisations of the continent to meet regularly and exchange views. I believe it is an omission.

Question: You have just met with German Foreign Minister [Johann Wadephul]. He reportedly asked you to de-escalate, especially on hybrid attacks. What did you answer? And could you let me know, from your perspective, at what stage German-Russian relations are.

Sergey Lavrov: I would refer you to my remarks at the UN Security Council meeting three days ago. I briefly reiterated when answering the first question. I think you also noted the developments preceding the current events. Our conscience is completely clear.

Unlike the conscience of those who signed and vouched for the agreements made in February 2014, those who signed the Minsk agreements in February 2015, and those who signed the Paris agreements in December 2019 – mainly Germany and France, of course.

Neither Germany nor France fulfilled any of these agreements, despite the fact that the Minsk documents were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, which Germany so insistently – I’d even say obtrusively – wants to join, although with no chance.

As for German Foreign Minister Wadephul, he asked for a meeting at the last minute, yesterday or the day before. We had a slot available this morning before my remarks at the General Assembly. We never turn down an opportunity to listen to any of our colleagues, including those who accuse Russia of all mortal sins. President Vladimir Putin has proved this multiple times with his personal example. We are always ready to listen.

When we met, I suggested that the Foreign Minister lay out the matter. He put out his notes and read out a text that fully reiterates what Germany conveys through its leaders every day, publicly and officially. I pointed that out to him. There was nothing new for me to hear.

The subtext was that he allegedly deigned to meet with us and, in response to his goodwill gesture, we were to make concessions on the Ukrainian front and secure the agreements on the Black Sea so that tankers and bulk carriers could navigate there without problems. He added that our colleagues from India, Egypt and Turkiye had also addressed Russia on this matter.

Of course, they have – and we discussed it with them. But our response is simple: name at least one incident when commercial vessels operating in their interests were targeted by Russia. Usually it is the end of the conversation. No such incidents have occurred.

All the damage caused to commercial navigation is the result of Ukrainian terrorist attacks, both in the Black and Caspian seas. There is a Caspian Pipeline Consortium. Its biggest investor is Kazakhstan but Chevron and ExxonMobil also have shares in it. Ukraine has struck the consortium’s infrastructure several times. About a month and a half ago, they hit a Chevron tanker. I spoke to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and told him that we need to hear the Americans’ thoughts on this. They sent some sort of signals.

Foreign Minister Wadephul also spoke about the situation around Black Sea navigation. I explained everything to him.

So, when our colleagues address us, I propose bilateral agreements – Russia-Egypt, Russia-Turkiye, Russia-India – under which we would guarantee that we would continue to refrain from targeting their ships, as we have always done. They also need to speak to the Ukrainians – maybe in the language of demands rather than requests.

Speaking of which, Foreign Minister Wadephul also complained about some unattributed drone that was discovered in Leipzig. It was immediately stated that the drone had been “highly likely” Russian, as they say. They closed our consulate general in Bonn, despite the fact that the consulate supports our participation in the Bonn-based international organisations.

When the German capital moved to Berlin, Bonn was left with a great number of vacant spaces that nobody wanted. And then, back in the 1990s, agreements were made with our support to transfer the secretariats of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, and the headquarters of some other organisations, to Bonn. The Germans know very well that the consulate general in Bonn had several staff members who were involved in Russia’s work within those international bodies rather than consular duties.

Germany signed a host-country agreement for each of these bodies, pledging to do everything to ensure the proper operation of these secretariats and adequate conditions for representatives of participating countries.

They must have forgotten about that. They seem to forget many things, including the fact that no NATO infrastructure can be based on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic. All this has been forgotten.

Foreign Minister Wadephul said that it is very important to implement the Black Sea initiative. He said something else, too. But compared to Berlin’s daily public statements, I didn’t hear anything new. I frankly told him I thought he had something interesting and unusual to say. They could have made it a telephone conversation and just told us to read their official statements. I just heard yet more remarks on the same topic.

Question: At the Security Council meeting and in your remarks today, you spoke about the manifestations of Ukrainian nationalism. Journalists in the hall and your counterparts in the bilateral meetings received brochures with a catchy title, Goebbels’s Descendants. This silencing of the problem by the West – do they really not see a problem here or do they consciously turn a blind eye for the sake of pressuring Russia and supporting Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov: I think it goes beyond pressuring Russia. I have just touched on this matter in my remarks at the General Assembly. Nazism is resurging.

It is not just about Europe supporting and protecting Zelensky when he kneels before the ashes of Nazi criminals that the obliging Europeans gladly handed over to the Kiev regime knowing it would make a spectacle out of it. They want to build a pantheon of Ukrainian heroes out of these Satanist remains at the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra.

This tendency of undisguised Nazism has manifested itself in more than European support. As I said in my remarks, when German Chancellor Merz says – and it was not a slip of the tongue because he repeated it several times – that his goal is to make Germany the leading military power in Europe again, does he realise the implication of the word “again” in this sentence? I want to stress that it was not a slip-up, as he repeated the words several times on different occasions.

Not to mention that the entire memory of those who defeated Nazism is being erased from textbooks and through the demolition of monuments in a number of European countries.

These are very dangerous trends that allow many analysts to observe that we are witnessing attempts to create the Fourth Reich.

Question: Has the Russian position changed on the third parties over the S-400 systems? There were reports that the systems could be transferred to the United Arab Emirates. Is that an option Russia would consider? And is Russia involved in any talks between the Americans and Ankara?

Sergey Lavrov: I am not going to comment now, but it is only possible with our consent, if a country that is to receive the S-400 systems is responsible and maintains a friendly relationship with the Russian Federation, so that we can be certain that these systems will not end up anywhere besides this country.

It is especially important for us to know because there has been a glaring number of cases when the Europeans crawled around, I apologise, the world buying weapons from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Arab world and signed assurances that these weapons would not end up anywhere else, but they were eventually handed over to the Ukrainian regime. We would be ready to transfer the S-400 systems to a third country, upon request, if there is a guarantee of no such violation.

Question: Is that an option, Minister?

Sergey Lavrov: We are not considering any options. Have you not heard me? When there is a request, we will know what our Turkish colleagues want to do. They may not receive aircraft either.

Question: In 2025, when you had your first meeting with Marco Rubio on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly here, German journalists asked German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul if he would agree to speak with you. He answered, and I quote, “Only when there is a new trustworthy approach, there is a point in engaging in dialogue.”

What changed? Did the Germans see a “new trustworthy approach”? And to what end did he come to see you?

Sergey Lavrov: Frankly, I was not and am not interested.

Our stance is simple. If you want to speak to anybody from our country, we never turn people away. Although today was another occasion when we realised that such requests from Western states do not bring anything new.

We have several communication channels with a whole number of EU and NATO countries. If you wish, there are confidential paths for exchanging opinions bilaterally. Certain Western bodies do convey their positions to us. We do not disclose that, but I can only say that we are always willing to listen.

Why did Wadephul change his opinion? I don't know and I don't want to make guesses. But everybody following the developments claims that Europe is desperately looking for a chance to wedge into the process encouraged by the United States. They occasionally encourage it, too, unless Iran or Palestine distracts their attention or something else happens.

Either way, the United States actively continues its efforts. I have already commented on Anchorage. We believe an agreement was reached in Anchorage and we are still ready to revisit it. Europe feels left behind. Remember, US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent said that Europe can’t be considered an intermediary and only the United States can be one.

Despite his statements last June, when he said they were on the side of Ukraine and, therefore, could not mediate, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said that the United States wants to find at least some approaches and new proposals. The Europeans want to as well. They are used to calling the shots.

Question: Can these talks be considered as resumption of the dialogue with Germany?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already said: he reiterated the official, public position condemning Russia. Judge for yourself if it was a dialogue or not.

Question: Thank you, Minister Lavrov, for continuing the tradition of engaging media from all over the world.

Last month the Kurdish-led autonomous administration in Syria came to an end after it had been functioning for more than a decade. Now the Kurds in Syria are struggling to keep their linguistic, cultural rights as well as political rights within the country.

Russia has long presented itself as a supporter of Kurdish rights in the whole Middle East. I just wonder whether in your meetings with your Syrian counterparts, you pressed for Kurdish rights in the new Syrian constitution as we go forward?

Sergey Lavrov: We maintain very good relations with virtually all Kurdish movements, including the Syrian Democratic Forces. We know these people.

Whenever they faced a crisis – such as when the Americans stopped supporting them (there was a moment during Donald Trump’s first term when he announced a withdrawal from northeastern Syria) – the Syrian Democratic Forces immediately turned to us, asking us to integrate into these processes. We stepped in to help. Later, the Americans returned, and the Syrian Democratic Forces lost interest in us.

So we are always ready to be of assistance. That said, it is a fact that northeastern Syria has now voluntarily agreed to sign a relevant document with the central authorities in Damascus. And that is their sovereign decision.

I have not heard of the Kurdish language being banned. That is simply not the case. This is not like the Ukrainian regime, which is busy pushing its own nationalist – Nazi – agenda.

So if the relevant parties ever express an interest in Russia playing a role, we will be ready to hear exactly what they would like to see from us.

Question: Mr. Minister, it’s always nice to see you back here.

Sergey Lavrov: You say this every year.

Question: I say that every year, and I think we all mean it! We know you know this place probably better than any other minister who speaks here.

You made clear in your speech to the General Assembly that you see dramatic changes in global politics, with new powers emerging – and the United States, along with the West, diminishing.

And I wonder: in your discussions with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, did you see any prospects for better cooperation with the Trump administration?

Sergey Lavrov: We maintain a regular dialogue with President Donald Trump’s administration in various formats, and that in itself represents a return to normalcy. After all, if a relationship boils down to issuing propaganda statements every morning condemning Russia and demanding a “strategic defeat” for Russia, that is not diplomacy.

The Americans are engaging in diplomacy. Yes, it is a tough brand of diplomacy, because alongside these conversations – which are very, I would say, human, even friendly – they are pursuing a hard-line policy aimed at squeezing Russia out of the global economy. You are well aware of this.

When we first met with Marco Rubio – in Riyadh in February 2025, shortly after Trump’s return to the White House – he stated in his opening remarks that the United States wanted its Russian counterparts to understand that, under Trump, they were pursuing a policy grounded in national interests, free from ideology. At the same time, they acknowledged that other states, especially great powers, also have national interests, which they were prepared to respect. He noted that where the interests of the US and its partner – in this case, Russia – coincided (though such instances would be rare) it would be a mistake not to translate that alignment into mutually beneficial, practical and tangible projects. Conversely, where US and Russian interests did not align, it would be an even graver error to allow that divergence to escalate and devolve into confrontation – particularly a severe confrontation.

We fully agree with this position. Numerous meetings have taken place; I believe I have met with Marco Rubio five or perhaps six times since the start of the new Republican administration. In parallel, representatives of President Trump, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, have visited and engaged with other Russian officials. President Vladimir Putin has received them, and their discussions have been very productive.

They consistently emphasise that the war in Ukraine was former US President Joe Biden’s war – not theirs. They point out that, unfortunately, by the time they returned to the White House, Biden’s efforts had placed Ukraine at the very top of the international agenda. Therefore, whether we like it or not, it was “getting underfoot” and had to be cleared to make room for a flourishing of mutually beneficial Russian-American cooperation.

In Anchorage, it seemed a step was taken to leave the Ukraine issue out of the equation. We accepted what US President Donald Trump proposed; Vladimir Zelensky refused to do so. Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron – following the summit in Évian last June – publicly and proudly declared to journalists that they had “buried” Anchorage, and that America was now on their side. It is not for Macron to judge that, however; it is for America itself.

We are ready. We will always engage in dialogue – especially with countries like the United States. We will always listen, and we will always speak frankly about the points on which we disagree. And one such point, in particular, is that, while these talks are ongoing (amid the dragging out of the “Ukraine saga” and the inability to compel Zelensky to accept those necessary compromises), it is no longer Joe Biden but Donald Trump who is imposing sanctions on Russia. Moreover, the current administration is automatically extending all the sanctions introduced by Joe Biden – absolutely all anti-Russia sanctions.

A month after Anchorage, new sanctions were announced against our private oil company, Lukoil, and the state-owned oil company, Rosneft. They are now effectively being squeezed out of international markets.

We therefore interpret this to mean that this is precisely where the national interests of the United States lie. The US has adopted a doctrine requiring North American dominance (excluding Canada, of course – for now, just the US) in global energy markets.

Look at what happened in Venezuela. It was claimed that Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro was a drug trafficker, and that the regime there consequently needed to be changed. Now it turns out that the Americans have simply taken the oil industry into joint US-Venezuelan ownership. Iran was accused of supporting terrorism for 47 years. Yet later, during negotiations, there were periods when the Americans proposed that the Iranians jointly control the Strait of Hormuz. We understand – and must state this frankly – that the national interests of the United States are quite self-serving.

In our discussions, we try to explain to them the point we started with: in today’s world, it is impossible to solve all global problems alone, even for a country like the US, and certainly not at the expense of other nations. I am confident that experience will teach our American partners to start thinking in terms of multilateralism: they are not the only ones in this world representing economic and military power, or, more broadly, acting as an independent player on the international stage.

Question: We heard your remarks in the General Assembly about the qualities that Russia would like to see in the next Secretary-General. As you know better than anyone, the race is now entering its final stage, over the next few months. My question is: is Russia satisfied with the current candidates in the race? And the second part of my question specifically concerns the two candidates who have received the most encouraging votes in the three straw polls held by the Security Council – Rebeca Grynspan and Carolyn Rodrigues-Birkett. Does Russia have any problems with either of those two candidates? Thank you.

Sergey Lavrov: I touched upon this earlier in today’s press conference. These qualities are enshrined in the UN Charter. It states that the Secretary-General is the chief administrative officer. This already establishes certain boundaries that should not be crossed. It is unacceptable for the Secretary-General to attempt to make unilateral decisions, or to take sides when UN members are divided on a particular issue.

The second criterion set out in the UN Charter is the impartiality and balance of the Secretary-General’s actions – as well as those of any Secretariat staff member. I have reason to believe that, unlike the current Secretariat leadership, there are individuals among the current candidates for the post of Secretary-General who meet these criteria – representatives from Latin America and other continents, although Latin America currently holds priority status due to the established informal understanding regarding rotation. Among them are the two representatives from Latin America you mentioned.

Question: What would you say to the leaders of Europe that consistently and seriously call for preparing for a war with Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: This has become a dull topic by now. We have stated our position repeatedly, so I can’t add anything here.

President Vladimir Putin stated this position personally. Recently he reaffirmed this stance in St Petersburg. He said that we have no intention of waging a war with Europe. But it is Europe that is preparing for a war with us. They confirm every day that at least by 2030, they, the Europeans, must be ready for a war. This position may turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy because they are investing enormous sums in weapons production. And at some point, an adventure-seeker – of whom there are plenty among the elites – might say: “We have amassed so many weapons. What shall we do with them? There’s no use for them. But wait, we promised to attack Russia.” In this case, if they attack us – because we have no such intention, as President Putin said – we will respond. He also said it would be a completely different war – and a brief one.

Question: In 2016, President Vladimir Putin warned that Romania was now in Russia’s crosshairs because of the US missile defence system based at Deveselu. Is Deveselu still on the list of targets for the Russian military in Romania?

Sergey Lavrov: It’s confidential.

Question: President Trump, through Secretary Rubio, has invited President Putin to Miami in December for the G20. He says there will be a chance to interact in this setting. I don’t expect you to give an answer whether President Putin will attend. Does this represent something else? More movement towards bilateral relations, as President Trump has just met with Xi Jinping? And do you see it as a warming of relations with Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: I have just spoken at length on our assessment of the current status of Russia’s relations with the United States. There are many contradictory aspects to it. 

As for the G20 invitation, there is no such thing as “an invitation to speak with us.” The twenty states included in the Group of Twenty are all equal members of this association.

The country holding the presidency selects and sets the date and sends out the invitations. However, it is not a matter of someone saying, “I am inviting you to the G20 summit.” The invitation simply states: “Dear Mr President, you are a member of the G20. We are holding a meeting this year on such-and-such a date.” That is all. That is how we view it. Incidentally, in my contacts with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, I mentioned that it is improper to claim the US would not invite South Africa to the summit – or that they would invite Poland instead of the Republic of South Africa. That violates the functions and authority of the presidency. On what grounds? G20 expansion requires consensus. There has been no discussion about excluding the Republic of South Africa and admitting Poland in its place. So, in this instance, our American “friends” have somewhat overstepped their authority.

Question: You often talk about the restrictions put on Russia, coming to the United States, coming to the UN, only going to the mission. This would give Russia the chance of going to Miami.

Sergey Lavrov: You think I am dying to get to Miami?

Question: I have no idea. I’d like to hear that from you.

Sergey Lavrov: Announcements regarding where President Vladimr Putin is traveling are made by his Executive Office.

Question: Was there a concrete agreement to allow a Turkish military operation in Afrin, in northern Syria, in 2018? And how does Russia assess the current SDF–Damascus integration process? Beyond Syria, is Russia working to build ties with the Kurds in Iran so as not to lose them to the Americans again?

Sergey Lavrov: If you have been following our position regarding the countries in the region you mentioned, then you should be well aware of it.

Indeed, during the second half of the 2010s, we reached several agreements with our Turkish colleagues concerning both the northern border between Syria and Turkiye and the issues surrounding the Idlib zone.

Not everything was implemented exactly as agreed, yet we believe that, on the whole, we are dealing with Turkish representatives who are capable of honouring agreements. Things do not always work out, but we have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the discussions and agreements we hold with our Turkish counterparts.

As for the Kurds, we have never severed ties with Syrian, Iraqi or Iranian Kurds. The Iranian Kurds face a specific issue, as they are located within Iraqi territory. Attempts to use them against the Islamic Republic of Iran are, of course, a provocation.

We would not want the agreements currently being reached – however imperfectly – regarding Palestine and the Strait of Hormuz to suffer the same fate that the West ordained for the decisions made concerning the Ukrainian crisis over the past twelve years.

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