РУССКИЙ
10:59 26.06.2026 •
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov
Photo: TASS
Russia and the United States are planning to hold a new round of expert consultations to eliminate "irritants" in bilateral relations. This was stated to Izvestia by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov at the Primakov Readings forum, which is taking place on June 23-24 in Moscow. According to the diplomat, there is a fundamental understanding that this work should continue, but specific dates for the meeting have not yet been determined. Moscow intends to continue to advocate for the resumption of direct flights, as well as to achieve full normalization of the functioning of diplomatic missions, Ryabkov stressed. However, progress on these and other issues will depend on political will in Washington.
The problems of the bilateral dialogue with the United States and the prospects for a new telephone conversation between Lavrov and Rubio are discussed in an exclusive interview with Sergey Ryabkov to Izvestia.
"The dialog is currently going through a phase of some stagnation"
— You stated that Moscow hopes to normalize relations with Washington under the presidency of Donald Trump. At the same time, direct dialogue to eliminate "mutual irritants" is difficult, and there are still a significant number of unresolved issues. For example, the diplomatic property of the Russian Federation has not been returned. Is there still a chance for progress in the dialogue to eliminate mutual irritants and what is the real potential for de-escalation?
— You are right that there are difficulties in this dialogue. We can consider it as going through a phase of some stagnation now. Good results were achieved last year and there was a brisk start. I won't say that we've hit a wall now — that would be an exaggeration. But at least there are setbacks, and each new step forward comes at the cost of considerable effort. We have such a promotion in small things.
I don't even want to go into these details right now, it's more important to talk about the trend. It is such that the Trump administration is increasingly closing in on potential progress towards removing "irritants" by reaching agreements that suit Washington specifically to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. This is different from what the Trump administration started with in terms of dialogue with us, and it certainly makes any discussions difficult.
There is no change in Washington's negativism regarding our demand to hand over our illegally seized diplomatic real estate without any further conditions. This happened at the end of the Barack Obama administration. That is, it's been a long time. This course is taught by "two and a half" administrations. One can probably conclude that this aspect is an element of the bipartisan anti-Russian consensus that has developed in Washington and which is very difficult to overcome.
— While the dialogue on the restoration of direct flights between Russia and the United States is stalling...
— The second area where there has been no progress throughout the Trump administration's tenure is the issue of resuming direct flights. I want to say that abandoning it has become a shooting in the foot for Americans. They have worsened the competitive conditions in which their air carriers operate in comparison with the airlines of some other countries that use the right of passage over Russian territory and have the opportunity to build optimal routes.
The lack of direct flights certainly complicates not only contacts between people. Of course, flights on routes that take dozens of hours are both expensive and burdensome. But direct flights are in themselves a catalyst for contacts, including for business. Therefore, we continue to advocate the resumption of direct flights. The issue here is political will. I think that if it were available, some regulatory aspects could be resolved fairly quickly.
— Are there any plans for new expert consultations on the elimination of irritants this year?
— Yes, I can confirm that there are such plans. There is nothing to announce, because there are no specific dates, but there is an understanding that they will be continued. In my opinion, all this should take place, in any case, before the end of the summer.
"Military orders promise high profits, it is difficult for businesses to refuse them"
— Should we expect any progress in issuing visas and lifting restrictions on the work of Russian diplomats in the United States in the near future?
— We would like to proceed to the full normalization of the functioning of our diplomatic missions. It's not that bad. Visas are issued to official delegations. American officials began to visit us. We have seen, among other things, their solid participation in events within the framework of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. But this is just one of the aspects. In this sense, the situation differs from the one that was observed a year ago and earlier.
But, of course, there is still a long way to go to return to full normality in this segment of our relations. Here, too, everything, by and large, depends on Washington's political will. Its presence is a matter that can be discussed.
In my opinion, the anti—Russian consensus that has long been firmly established in the American elite (specifically in Congress, the media, and major think tanks) is a ballast that drags relations to the bottom and hobbles the administration, preventing it from finding the right solutions. That is, without looking at this "backyard", major issues are not solved there. But we will continue to persistently explain to our American colleagues that the benefits of normalizing relations far outweigh the ephemeral gestures that the administration is sending to anti-Russian sections of the American political class by the lack of such progress.
— Donald Trump previously stated that car companies, including Ford and General Motors, may start producing weapons. According to him, we are talking about missiles for Patriot anti-aircraft systems, as well as Tomahawk cruise missiles. Is this a concern for Russia?
— Regardless of such statements, I can say that the general course of the collective West towards the militarization of the economy and public life causes us legitimate concern. First of all, due to the fact that all this is heavily implicated in the myth of the "Russian threat."
Myths can be dispelled if sane people correctly perceive the objectively existing world around them. But they can transform into what can be called a "self-fulfilling prophecy." I would not like the second one. Everything here depends on where the collective West turns in its further attempts to comprehend what is happening and draw certain conclusions from it.
Is the course for a direct head-on collision with us consolidating? This is inevitably fraught with disastrous consequences for those who encroach on our security in this way. Or common sense will prevail and there will be an understanding that it is necessary to "lower the temperature."
Efforts to lock large manufacturers (including those that have been profiled in civilian sectors for decades) into the needs of the NATO or EU military machine do not contribute to the right decisions. Of course, in conditions where military orders are guaranteed to promise high profits, it is difficult for businesses to refuse them, and there is a logic that pushes them to participate in this kind of policy. But for the public good, social stability, this line carries nothing but negativity.
Regardless of what is happening in the US economy, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that Germany, France and other European countries are the "pioneers" in this matter. These disturbing moments fit into the outline of poorly concealed preparations by the collective West (in particular, claiming the strategic autonomy of the European Union) to unleash a large-scale conflict with Russia at the turn of 2030, which we are openly talking about. We warn the European Union against fatal mistakes for it.
— Are talks between Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio planned in the near future?
— They can be organized in the format of a telephone contact quickly enough. We have repeatedly seen evidence of this throughout the entire period of the Trump administration in power. There were also face-to-face meetings. There is no specific schedule for today. But this is not a moment that should be given political importance. This is a purely operational moment. Contacts will continue. There is no doubt about it.
— Is work underway to continue prisoner exchanges between the Russian Federation and the United States? Is the issue still on the agenda?
— The topic is present in our dialogue. The fate of every Russian citizen is important to us. Recently, we have again noted the intensification of attempts by American quasi-law enforcement officers to unleash a real hunt for Russians. Moreover, this can happen in any country that has relevant bilateral agreements with the United States. A list of such countries can be easily found on the website of the Russian Foreign Ministry. There is also our constantly updated warning.
We are not trying to dissuade anyone from anything. This is just a form of reminding everyone that if a person may suspect the existence of certain claims, even far-fetched ones, on the part of the American femida or special services, it is worthwhile to additionally reflect on how a few days or hours spent on the beach in a particular country pay off the prospect of being in a robe and further becoming the subject of agreements on exchanges that have been developed over the years.
— The Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START III) officially expired in early 2026. What is the current legal and factual reality in the field of arms control? Are there even unspoken "gentlemen's agreements" on mutual deterrence between Moscow and Washington?
— There are quite clear agreements in the field of ensuring elements of strategic stability regarding ballistic missile launches and large-scale strategic exercises. Some other elements of the previous architecture in this area have been preserved. We are not going to dismantle them. We believe that they play a significant role. There are "hotlines" — they are also functional.
We have a format for discussions on specialized topics, primarily related to doctrines. This is the so-called "nuclear five". She has held useful meetings at the senior official level over the past years, including shortly before the start of the recently concluded NPT Review Conference. I think this practice will continue.
But there is no bilateral dialogue with the Americans — systematic, structured, covering the entire range of issues related to strategic stability, as it was in the past — now. And in order for such a dialogue to begin, it is necessary to see significant and real changes for the better in Washington's policy towards Russia. Real actions should follow, which signal that something is changing here. We haven't seen anything like this yet.
Moreover, with regard to Ukrainian affairs, there is reason to say that the approach of the US administration at the moment has turned out to be tied to those formulations and demands for Moscow that were formulated by the most militant European group and fixed, in particular, in the documents of the recent G7 summit in Evian, France.
"The argument that NATO is a defensive alliance can no longer mislead anyone"
— By the way, France is now actively promoting the expansion of its "nuclear umbrella" to other European countries, including in Northern Europe. How does Moscow assess the nuclear rhetoric of European countries? Will the Baltic region become a new zone of permanent nuclear confrontation?
— We, of course, carefully record, analyze and on this basis draw conclusions about the plans and intentions of Paris, as well as other NATO countries with nuclear weapons. We continue to work on exposing the unacceptability of NATO's "joint nuclear missions" from the point of view of the requirements of the NPT.
The recent meeting of NATO defense ministers was marked, among other things, by the release, for the first time in many years, of a separate, albeit short, public statement by the Nuclear Planning Group, which repeatedly declares the nuclear nature of the entire NATO. This is a reflection of the alliance's general super-aggressive attitude towards Russia.
The argument that NATO is a defensive alliance can no longer mislead anyone. These arguments were left far in the past by the NATO members themselves. If it comes to the development of nearby territories in this area (and the Baltic region as a whole is in the focus of our attention), countermeasures will follow. And the security of these countries, to put it mildly, will weaken.
I don't want to anticipate any decisions here, but it's better not to bring them to them. And those who play these "games" and try to scare us are harming themselves. It is quite possible that such "games" will turn out badly for them.
— Russian Presidential aide Yuri Ushakov said that Moscow is ready for dialogue with the EU. How does Russia assess the head of the European Council, Antonio Costa, as a potential negotiator on behalf of the entire EU?
— I can only say that we are watching with some interest the twists and turns of discussions in the European Union on who can act as their negotiator with Russia. But this is a classic case when the cart is placed in front of the horse. Let's first discuss how to ensure that future agreements fit into the framework that was agreed upon by Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Anchorage. We will not back down from this position. If the other side holds different views, it needs to reflect further on the reasons for its own erroneous approach to this extremely important, very serious and disturbing problem.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
