РУССКИЙ
17:25 19.09.2025 •
Photo: MFA
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with Channel One’s Bolshaya Igra (Great Game) political talk show, Moscow.
Question: It is over two months since the Russian-US summit in Alaska. In two days, it will be eight months since the Trump administration assumed power. You know better than many how inspiring that summit looked. We also know from President Trump’s public statements that he had provided grounds for serious hopes when he moved into the White House. Where do Russian-US relations stand now?
Sergey Lavrov: I don’t agree that we had serious hopes when Donald Trump won the election and moved into the White House for a second term. We appreciated his openness and frankness back then and we do now. He doesn’t use underhand tactics, and he never conceals his thoughts. We appreciate his emphasis on results. He calls it making a deal in the broad sense of the word. This includes mutually beneficial projects in the economy, space, natural resource development, and modern technologies. Donald Trump was resolved to do this during his first term as well, but the Democrats played a dirty trick on him. Several days before Trump’s inauguration, President Barack Obama introduced unsubstantiated sanctions against us, expelling over 100 diplomats and their families and seizing our diplomatic property. That is what Donald Trump inherited from him.
I remember that Michael Flynn, who was preparing to take the seat of national security adviser, called our ambassador to tell him that the Democrats acted dirty and didn’t want our relations to develop normally, which is why they had left that legacy. He pleaded with our ambassador not to overreact, promising to right the wrong. They failed to do that because the deep state was much more influential during Trump’s first term than it is now.
It is obvious that this time the 47th US President, while preparing for a second term, drew the right conclusions from his past experience and has opted for a different form of interaction with the deep state. Donald Trump has created a tight-knit, powerful and influential team of like-minded people. He had nothing of the kind during his first term. The way he is upholding America’s interests now differs from the ideologically-laden policies of his predecessors who, led by Joe Biden, set course for isolating Russia and rallied the Western “camp,” which gladly embraced the aggressive confrontational policy, towards that goal.
In recent years, we have had no opportunity to engage in dialogue at any level. The sole exception was the meeting between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and the then-President of the United States Joe Biden in Geneva on June 16, 2021. It was a reasonably good conversation, but it led nowhere. All of this served as a cover for the deep-seated aggression that had been brewing against the Russian Federation – a policy pursued by the Democratic administration to suppress our country as an independent player.
As for the new administration, the situation is different. Undoubtedly, slogans such as “America first” and “Make America great again” reflect the overarching, strategic tenets of American policy under any administration. I have already spoken about our first meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on February 18 this year in Riyadh, which was also attended by Aide to the President of Russia Yuri Ushakov and US National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, who has since been confirmed as the US Permanent Representative to the United Nations. We spoke frankly. Marco Rubio began by stating that the current US administration’s foreign policy is not driven by ideological postulates but by national interests. They fully understand that all other countries, especially great powers, also have the right to act in accordance with their national interests. He then added that in situations – and these are relatively few – where the interests of great powers align, it would be a grave mistake not to leverage this alignment to translate it into mutually beneficial, tangible projects yielding economic gains for all parties. Conversely, in cases – and these are the majority – where the national interests of great powers diverge, it would be an error, even a crime, to allow such divergence to escalate into confrontation, let alone a hot conflict. I agreed with this. This is precisely the policy that President Vladimir Putin pursues on the international stage, seeking common ground and preventing disagreements from spilling over into hot or even cold confrontation. It is far better to avoid such scenarios.
This approach was fully corroborated in Alaska. As you know, the Alaska meeting was preceded by several visits to Moscow by Steven Witkoff as the special envoy of US President Donald Trump. He met with President Vladimir Putin. Following these visits, the Americans outlined their approach to resolving the Ukraine issue and their vision of their own role.
Unlike all other Western figures – Keir Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz, Alexander Stubb, Mark Rutte – whose actions and positions boiled down to the mantra that “Ukraine is right,” that Russia must suffer a “strategic defeat,” and that Ukraine’s sovereignty must be restored within its 1991 borders, Donald Trump and his team have repeatedly demonstrated, including publicly, an understanding of the need to address the root causes of the conflict. Donald Trump has stated publicly on multiple occasions that drawing Ukraine into NATO was a mistake. He made it abundantly clear that, to achieve a settlement, these aspirations must be set aside and security must be built on different principles.
Second, the current US administration understands that realities on the ground are not based on somebody’s desire to “bite off” others’ territories but on the fact that the language, religious and other rights of the people who live in these territories, those which Russia controls and those which the Ukrainian armed forces so far control, were legislatively destroyed. The Russian language was banned at schools, universities and all other levels of education, as well as in the media. Russian-language media outlets, both those whose owners were Russians and Ukrainians, have been shut down in Ukraine. Books in Russian have been thrown out of libraries, just like Hitler did in the 1930s. The only difference is that the Nazis burned them while Ukrainians, who are tight-fisted people, sell them for recycling. All cultural events in the Russian language have been prohibited. In everyday life, for example when shopping, if you ask for a package of salt in Russian, the seller could reply that he wouldn’t sell salt to you unless you switched to the Ukrainian language.
During the talks in Alaska, we mentioned the fact that the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church had been prohibited in Ukraine. President Trump was shocked to hear that. He asked Secretary of State Marco Rubio several times if that was true, which clearly indicated his attitude to such things.
The proposals we put on the table were based on our understanding of the root causes of the conflict. They included respect for the security interests of the Russian Federation in light of the “NATO factor,” and for the safety of the people who live in these territories. The media described it as “a land swap.” I have told you what we really had in mind. As far as I know, following the Alaska summit Steve Witkoff informed the Ukrainian party of the US vision of future developments based on the agreements reached in Anchorage. The Ukrainian side has rejected that signal.
We would like to maintain the current dialogue between our presidents, foreign ministers, national security aides, and special envoys of the two presidents, as well as communication via other channels. We see that the American side wants this too.
The Ukraine crisis is the key priority now. According to numerous public statements and speeches of President Trump, this war would have never begun if he was president. He repeated this in Alaska. President Putin said he shared this view. Trump’s phrase that this is Joe Biden’s war and not his war reflects a situation where he is not giving priority attention to overcoming the Ukraine crisis because he considers it to be the world’s main crisis but because he inherited a situation on the international stage where the Ukraine crisis was deliberately created and Russia had no choice other than to begin the special military operation to protect the rights of the people whom the Kiev regime, which came to power after the 2014 state coup, denounced as terrorists and non-human beings. President Petr Poroshenko publicly promised that these people would rot in basements, while Zelensky called them “species” and “recommended” those who live in Ukraine yet feel associated with Russian culture to pack up and go to Russia.
Since 2008, we proposed “fixing” European security, with due consideration for the interests of all parties, including Russia, Ukraine and European countries. All this was rejected time and again. In December 2021, we submitted our proposals (for the last time) on concluding treaties between Russia and the United States, Russia and NATO. We had no choice, following the West’s negative, arrogant and contemptuous reaction to them. The inevitable happened. The West did its best to make sure that anti-Russian Ukraine, trained to contain, weaken and suppress our nation, became the main issue of the global agenda.
This is an artificial war, launched by Joe Biden and his team, that does not reflect the philosophy of the incumbent US administration. I believe this is exactly why Donald Trump’s team wants to scrap it from the agenda so as to eliminate obstacles for normal economic, technological and other relations. This will not be easy because the United States has a peculiar approach towards addressing and resolving economic issues.
Question: Eight months have passed, but, as far as I know, no specific results have been achieved. There is only one exception: The US side has started issuing visas more quickly. We continue to talk about many other issues discussed by us. I understand that our dialogue has become more profound but it is not yielding any results so far. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and you said that it would be impossible to immediately remove those formidable roadblocks in our relations. I am worried that President of the United States Donald Trump is saying that he is disappointed, that he cannot wait, and that he can impose sanctions on Russia. He is saying that he does not want to do this because he likes Vladimir Putin, and because this is not the best way to deal with Russia. But he is showing signs of disappointment and impatience. How would you react to this?
Sergey Lavrov: President of the United States Donald Trump is noting all the time that he means business, and that he specialises in deals and business operations. He is accustomed to reaching quick agreements, just like merchants did in ancient Rus and the Russian Empire. They would shake hands, and everything on which they had agreed would be implemented the very next day.
When US President Donald Trump says that he is disappointed (I cannot say that I know him well, but I had contacts with him on several occasions and that gave me a certain impression), I think that in part this is explained by the fact that he wants quick solutions. As he constantly stresses while referring to decades-long conflicts, in which he sought to play a positive role, he regards a quick settlement as a possibility. In some places, this may work, in others – hardly so.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a thing apart. This is a tragedy, a humanitarian disaster, like many other crises on this planet. US President Donald Trump and his team are striving to make a contribution, assume initiative and reconcile irreconcilable enemies… Well, who will object to peace being better than war? Better a bad peace than a good war, as we say in Russia.
As for the Ukrainian affairs, I don’t see any problems with sanctions being used against Russia. A huge, a record number of sanctions for that historical period was introduced during Donald Trump’s first term in office. We started drawing conclusions from the situation when the West imposed those sanctions on us. Somewhat later, during the Biden presidency, sanctions totally replaced all diplomatic work; no one was trying to find compromises. They said: Don’t you try to rule any part of the globe; we, the West, will rule the roost everywhere the way we always have. This attitude is extended not only towards Ukraine but also all our neighbours. The West is being active while disregarding our interests in a number of cases.
Our partners across the post-Soviet space understand this perfectly well. They recognise that they have not only obligations under the CIS, CSTO, EAEU, and SCO, but also vital interests realised through alliance and partnership with Russia. Yet this does not deter the West.
Turning to the issue of how the United States will proceed regarding Ukraine. I believe we will have further engagements. We parted ways in Anchorage, having accepted the logic advanced by Donald Trump, which was grounded in an understanding of the root causes and our position. He did not dispute this logic. Donald Trump stated he would consult his allies. They subsequently flew to Washington. All these Europeans made no secret of their previous and ongoing public efforts to dissuade US leadership from pursuing any constructive measures towards Russia within the context of the Ukrainian crisis. They seek to drag the United States back onto the treacherous path it followed under Joe Biden, when this was “Joe Biden’s war.” The Europeans are determined to make it “Donald Trump’s war” as well. They do not conceal this.
Question: Have they succeeded thus far?
Sergey Lavrov: I think not. Recent reports indicate the United States signed its first new contract or agreement – not merely fulfilling deals concluded under Joe Biden, but something entirely fresh – involving two arms shipments worth $500 million, to be financed by the Europeans.
Question: Congress approved $400 million to be drawn from US funds. Donald Trump pledged he would not authorise such expenditures, yet Congress passed it without White House opposition. As you rightly noted, NATO is purchasing – indeed purchasing – 500 million worth of arms for Ukraine.
Sergey Lavrov: Correct, this is not unprecedented. US President Donald Trump has emphasised from the outset that henceforth America would not incur losses but rather profit from arms sales, with Europe footing the bill for transfers to Ukraine or elsewhere.
This constitutes a notable step, particularly to the extent it pertains to the Congress. On the other hand, diplomacy and business are realms where actors sometimes make calculated concessions, anticipating future manoeuvres. The fact that since Alaska, Donald Trump has unambiguously advocated not for an unconditional ceasefire ultimatum, but for a durable, sustainable settlement represents a significant White House decision. I see no indication they have retreated from this stance.
Question: I wish to clarify a crucial point regarding the difference between Donald Trump’s current team and that of his first administration.
You dealt with these individuals firsthand – far be it from me to tell you. His previous team included non-conservatives, globalists who openly disregarded their president’s views. This is no longer the case.
My question is this: In your assessment, has he assembled a team of like-minded strategists (figures such as Nixon and Kissinger) who steadfastly supported their president, or merely loyalists who – while avoiding overt betrayal or provocation – might quietly collaborate with Europeans to nudge Donald Trump towards greater confrontation with Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: I have formed no such impression. The term “loyalists” certainly applies to his staff – but in my view (absent knowledge of internal dynamics), exclusively in the positive sense. After all, a loyalist is someone who does not betray. If they begin covertly aiding the opposing side behind their leader’s back, that would constitute something altogether different…
Question: You probably know US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent.
Sergey Lavrov: I’ve never met him or talked with him.
Question: I’ve never met him, either, but I read what he has to say. He’s clearly calling for more sanctions and is engaging closely with the Europeans. He’s encouraging European delegations to come to Washington in order to develop a joint sanctions agenda targeting Russia and then takes it to the US President.
Sergey Lavrov: He clearly and strongly believes that Russia must be punished. He believes he can act beyond the capacity of the Treasury Secretary.
Question: I’m sure you are aware that he worked for George Soros.
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, he did. I think he is acting beyond his mandate and the line drawn for him by President Trump. I don’t think this negates the importance of the support provided to President Trump by most members of his team. True, the US Treasury Secretary is an important figure, but there’s also the Vice President and the Secretary of State. There are a number of special envoys as well, such as Steve Witkoff who is clearly focused on striking a balance of interests. We understand this. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made it clear that, ultimately, a sustainable agreement means a compromise. We are prepared to seek a compromise provided that our legitimate security interests and the legitimate interests of the Russian people in Ukraine are ensured just as the legitimate interests of other parties to such an agreement are.
I mentioned earlier that the Trump administration recognises the importance of NATO-related issues. They’ve stated it publicly. There’s an understanding that the referenda in Crimea and other territories cannot be ignored. Any potential agreement must take the outcomes of these referenda into account. How exactly? Should it be done in one go or gradually can be discussed. They’ve recognised the essence of our approaches and are working on that basis.
The rest of the Western public, with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia, such as the leaders of Britain, France, Germany, Finland, the European Commission, and NATO I mentioned earlier kept insisting that Russia must suffer a “strategic defeat” on the battlefield when we launched the special military operation. Remember how it began? They stuck to this approach for about a year and a half. Then they changed their rhetoric and started saying that Russia must not be allowed to win. In the last six months, they’ve been hysterically calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. When they first put this slogan forward, French President Emmanuel Macron, commenting on it in response to a media question, said it was unconditional, meaning they would continue supplying Ukraine with arms. It was a Freudian slip, and he blurted out what they really wanted. The Minsk agreements were signed with the goal of pumping weapons into Ukraine as well.
It is likewise important that none of the Europeans ever mentioned human rights in Ukraine, even though the issue of human rights takes centre stage whenever they talk with any country. Instead, they want to occupy the part of Ukraine that will stay under the control of the current regime (they have no intention of changing it) after the settlement (even though they keep talking about the 1991 borders, they understand perfectly well where things stand), and to continue supporting the Nazi entity currently led by Zelensky. They couldn’t care less about what happens to native Russian speakers in the territory, which they will occupy in their dreams and illusions.
No one has ever mentioned the need to repeal these absolutely disgusting laws. No language has ever been banned in any country. Even in the context of the Arab-Israeli confrontation, Arabic and Hebrew are not banned in Israel or any Arab country.
We asked many Western journalists why they weren’t covering this. Western journalists are typically meticulous and inquisitive. Something as obvious as the destruction of a language in an entire country should be a matter of interest to them.
The only thing was made public thanks to the persistent efforts of our Hungarian colleagues. When Ukraine’s accession to the EU was discussed, the Europeans drafted framework documents to define the contents of the “negotiating chapters.” An entire page of that document demands that Ukraine respect the rights of ethnic minorities. These rights are enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine. This part has remained unchanged. In disregard of the Constitution, they passed laws that are directly at odds with it.
The documents that were discussed and approved in connection with the plan to draw Ukraine into the EU explicitly state that they must ensure that their legislation complies with the requirements of international instruments on the protection of the rights of ethnic minorities and human rights. They approved them and forgot about them. Only Hungary insisted on it. I know that. But no one intends to implement even what they ultimately accepted at Budapest’s insistence. No one is making any claims against them.
Question: I am trying to comprehend the objectives European leaders are pursuing (naturally, with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia). You have just articulated that they mean, among other things, the de facto occupation of Ukraine. They assert their desire for NATO military units to be stationed in Ukraine – units not merely symbolic but possessing genuine combat capabilities, air defence systems, and American air cover.
Concurrently, they proclaim their intention to pump Ukraine full of armaments so it could independently defend itself against Russia. However, for Ukraine to defend itself effectively, it must be afforded time – time also to mount an offensive. May I inquire: do they simply fail to comprehend, or do they refuse to acknowledge, Russia’s legitimate strategic concerns, and the fact that Russia will never consent to such actions? Or are they employing these arguments intentionally to obstruct any agreement? What is your perspective?
Sergey Lavrov: I think that there exists a third facet as well. Undoubtedly, they seek to impede any agreement – they oppose a settlement that would terminate their protracted endeavours to transform Ukraine into a perpetual irritant, if not an explicit threat, to the Russian Federation. That is obvious.
Another consideration may be their aspiration to revitalise Europe’s war machine, which is now almost entirely reliant on the United States. This ambition emanates from the approach promulgated by Donald Trump – America First. The rhetoric is the following: make America great again, rather than squander resources on charity by guaranteeing Europe’s security. Washington has already articulated this openly. It is no coincidence that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, in his recent speeches (one must examine them to grasp the trajectory), has commenced emphasising Europe’s need for strategic military autonomy. Admittedly, he articulated it diplomatically – America remains their ally, of course, but times are evolving, and Europe must assume greater responsibility. This is essentially a reaction to Trump’s demands: that Europe must contribute more to its own security, allocate five percent of its budget to defence spending, and so forth.
Consideration must also be given to their deteriorating economic situation. They have sawed off the very branches they were sitting on concerning energy security and prosperity, which was constructed on inexpensive, reliable energy supplies. Yet, with pride – as European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has done for years – they declare their liberation from dependence on Russian energy. Concurrently, she omits the cost. And the cost is exorbitant. Observe the prices of oil and gas they are now incurring in lieu of Russian hydrocarbons. The public is beginning to grumble. Bellicose slogans, whipping up hysteria, inflating the non-existent Russian threat – these tactics likely assist in diverting some of the discontent and compelling people to endure hardships for the sake of survival in this war.
They continue to assert that post-Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland, NATO countries will be next. They refuse to listen. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated: we have never had, do not have, and will never have any plans to attack any NATO or EU country. Since 2008, we have tabled documents guaranteeing indivisible security and ensuring that no country enhances its security at the expense of others. This was endorsed by all parties within OSCE summits.
Yet, notwithstanding these solemn declarations, the Alliance persisted in expanding. Thus, we inquired: how does this make sense? Here are the OSCE documents – they explicitly state that no organisation in the Euro-Atlantic space shall claim dominance. Yet NATO does precisely that. Their response? That these were merely political commitments –disregarding that they were signed by presidents and prime ministers. Back in 2008, we suggested: fine, political commitments. If they suffice, let us codify them into a treaty. Their answer? Political commitments remain political, while legally binding security guarantees are reserved for NATO members. This was a deliberate policy to undermine all OSCE principles – principles they had so vigorously insisted we adhere to.
What is also of concern is the situation in Germany – and elsewhere in Europe, to be frank, – where revanchist sentiments are resurging. I was astounded by how expeditiously Finland’s leadership discarded its neutral veneer and how Finnish revanchism is now “barging out” (pardon the unparliamentary expression). However, in Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz repeatedly underscores in his public speeches that Germany is rising again. Germany has amended its laws to markedly augment military spending. Most crucially, the country must once again become Europe’s leading military power. I am uncertain if he comprehends the ramifications of the word “once again” in that sentence – but I suspect everyone else does.
Question: This is worrying me a lot. And not only me but many people in Russia, when they hear such statements from the German Chancellor. Today, I read a statement by the new Polish president, who said that Poland should have access to nuclear weapons. Donald Trump has convinced most European countries to raise their military spending to five percent of the GDP. This begs the question as to whether or not this creates a new security threat for Russia.
Sergey Lavrov: This is exactly the case. That’s why we have repeatedly reacted to Europe attempting to lick into shape its Ukraine policy contrary to Donald Trump’s guidelines (as at least they were formulated in Alaska and later presented to the US allies) in a bid to “break” them and again involve the United States into their Russia containment “games,” including, as you said, to have the US provide air cover for the forces that NATO and the EU are hoping to deploy in Zelensky-controlled Ukrainian territory.
This is also expressed in their substituting all the key notions in the settlement processes. They are calling for a truce, and that’s all. In this context, Vladimir Zelensky additionally forces everyone to mention the theme of talks. A truce and a meeting immediately in its wake, he says. Without any preconditions! His only hope is to play yet another “circus number.” To show how a bearded Mr Zelensky, so virile in his combat fatigues, will start telling President Putin or anyone else what to do. The important thing for him is to upstage someone. But we cannot go along with this.
President Putin said that he was ready for a meeting, provided it was well-prepared.
Question: What does this mean in specific terms?
Sergey Lavrov: We must get reactions to the proposals we have promoted and to the approaches that were discussed in Anchorage.
Question: Ukraine is yet to do so, isn’t it?
Sergey Lavrov: According to our information, they have rejected this. The US President’s Special Envoy Steve Witkoff has communicated to them the considerations that the Americans have conceived after the Alaska summit, considerations reflecting their understanding of the root causes and the need to remove them. But they were rejected.
Instead, Europe is accusing President Vladimir Putin of the rejection of dialogue. In parallel, they have concentrated on drafting security guarantees for Ukraine, which are being discussed without the Russian Federation’s participation. But if you discuss a belligerent’s security without the other belligerent being present, it means you want to formulate these security guarantees in support of a continued war against the neighbour. This is clear. True, they make reservations all the time that they will only deploy troops after an agreement on conflict settlement and a truce is signed. But this does not change anything. It only shows their intention for the following. All the arrangements they are making during the conflict and for the period after the conflict are meant to contain Russia. This is how they formulate it. But we have a very concrete argument to these “games.”
Question: Unfortunately, our arguments are usually ignored. I have the impression that you, and President Putin as well, are quite effective in maintaining dialogue with countries such as China, India and Brazil. We see an active process of building a new world order. How is this work progressing?
Sergey Lavrov: This work is proceeding without respite and cannot be stopped. It is an objective process. It is not that someone decided to create a new bloc and started hastily drafting documents and principles for unification. Rather, it stems from the natural evolution of the global economy. New centres of economic and financial power have emerged, bringing with them political influence and leadership in advanced technologies that will shape the future configuration of the global economy.
China, but also India and Brazil, have achieved – and continue to achieve – economic success based on the very rules the West itself laid down decades ago in the globalisation model. At its core were principles such as fair competition, the presumption of innocence, the inviolability of property, and so on.
To uphold and enforce these principles, the Bretton Woods system was established, with the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the WTO still operating today.
That would be all well and good, but as soon as China began to outplay the United States in the economic game on the basis of these same rules, Washington started putting brakes on the functioning of the Bretton Woods institutions. If today the IMF’s voting rights reflected the real share of BRICS countries in the global economy, the United States would lose its veto power. Its share of the votes would decline, and with it the ability to block decisions. That would make for a very different picture.
For years, the US has blocked the WTO dispute settlement system. China has filed hundreds of complaints there, which would inevitably have resulted in rulings against the discriminatory barriers the United States has erected to block the import of high-quality, affordable, competitive Chinese goods.
That is why we now see a crisis in the IMF and the World Bank. The latter, by the way, has in just three years of the Ukraine crisis extended concessional loans to Kiev worth dozens times more than the total amount granted to all African countries combined over the same period. This is a telling example that discredits the Bretton Woods institutions and demonstrates their politicisation.
Meanwhile, the new emerging economies continue to assert themselves. All forecasts point to this being a long-term and sustainable trend. Naturally, these countries will seek – and are already seeking – a fairer role in world affairs. For now, economic concerns are at the forefront. BRICS countries are not always ready to engage directly in political processes or to put forward specific demands. But when it comes to political assessments of the international situation, there is unity both within BRICS and within the SCO. We reject domination and diktat, and advocate for indivisible security across all regions.
Question: Will this unanimity be able to withstand Western pressure – specifically Donald Trump’s demand that, for example, both India and China stop buying Russian oil and gas?
Sergey Lavrov: In fact, we are already seeing how these demands are perceived in Beijing and New Delhi. Beyond the economic fallout – which has, at a minimum, created serious difficulties by forcing these nations to find new energy markets, transition to new sources, and ultimately pay more – there is a potentially more significant moral and political objection to this approach.
China and India are ancient civilisations. They will not be spoken to in such terms: ‘Stop doing what we do not approve, or we will impose tariffs on you.’ The ongoing dialogue between Beijing and Washington, and New Delhi and Washington, shows that the American side understands this. They put forward demands, but then begin seeking mutually acceptable approaches – ones that reflect a balance of economic interests without appearing to infringe on political interests, national pride, or core principles.
Today’s global dynamics are far more fluid and complex than in the era preceding the Soviet Union’s collapse – a period defined by two distinct camps, the Cold War, and détente. The world map now features a greater number of influential leaders. These nations demand recognition for their economic achievements and insist that their geopolitical weight be acknowledged. It will take an entire era to determine how this new multipolar world will be governed.
A range of outcomes is possible, and this is an active topic among political scientists. The future could see either the creation of new international frameworks or a period of chaotic competition – with sanctions, tariffs, and a constant struggle for influence.
We are keen to streamline these processes, but to do so effectively, we must sit down at the negotiating table and seriously consider the proposals put forward by the members of BRICS, the SCO, the African Union, and CELAC. These blocs have many constructive ideas in this regard. By reflecting regional integration – with BRICS already serving as an overarching global mechanism – these associations are actively laying the framework for a multipolar world.
Some of our political scientists (I won’t name them here) argue that a multipolar world will be formed without the West, existing entirely outside the Western system. But this would not be a truly multipolar world; it would be a separate, non-Western one. However, we all share a very small planet, a reality that becomes more palpable with every technological advance – hypersonic systems, quantum computing, and other breakthroughs I hope our country will soon master, along with the rest of the world.
We are therefore convinced that a genuine multipolar system must embrace all regions of the world, including the West. Even as its relative share of global influence shrinks, the West remains an immensely powerful player.
Question: George Washington, the first US president whom I regard as the greatest US president, emphasised in his Farewell Address to the nation that the United States should steer clear of permanent military alliances, which have a logic and dynamics of their own and can undermine the flexibility of foreign policy and involve countries in undesirable conflicts. That is exactly what has happened to NATO. There are no rational arguments for the bloc’s continued strengthening after the end of the Cold War. Today, political analysts and experts argue, including in Moscow, that a correct response to NATO would he a broad military-political integration of the SCO, BRICS and other organisations. Do you think that a response to NATO’s challenge should include new elements of military-political coordination, if not integration by the Global Majority countries?
Sergey Lavrov: We have our own military-political alliances, primarily the Union State of Russia and Belarus. The CSTO and the SCO also have a strong military-political dimension related to ensuring the security of member states.
None of these formats ever sought to be hostile towards anyone. Their task is to ensure the security of the member states’ territories without any expansionist goals. Initially, NATO was established under the Washington Treaty as a defensive organisation, which must ensure the security of the member states’ territories. However, NATO began to – I have nearly used the Soviet phrase “spread its tentacles” – expand its interests towards the eastern border of Eurasia. It began during the tenure of the previous Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. He was asked at a news conference if NATO remained a defensive alliance ensuring the security of its member states’ territories. He replied in the affirmative. He was then asked what the bloc was doing in the South China Sea, trying to expand its infrastructure there. What is the bloc doing in northeast and southeast Asia, and what plans does it have for the Taiwan Strait? Stoltenberg replied that NATO was expanding its political, and possibly military technical infrastructure there, but this is not a violation because threats to the bloc’s territorial integrity were coming from that direction.
I believe it is clear to everyone that this amounts to an open and undisguised hostile move towards China. In addition, they are creating anti-China groups of three and four countries, such as AUKUS (Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States), trying to involve India in anti-Chinese platforms, creating QUAD-like groups, and seeking to convince the Philippines to leave ASEAN for various closed groupings of the bloc. They have also been flirting with other ASEAN nations in a bid to undermine the Association’s unity. They also hold war games in the region. The recent example is a command staff exercise held under the NATO umbrella, which involved very many Asian and Southeast Asian countries, as well as Latin American states.
This brings us to the issue of our security. There are many subregional integration organisations in Africa and Latin America. But there are also continental organisations there too, such as the African Union and CELAC. As for Eurasia, the largest continent where several great civilisations with unique identities, the richest natural resources and the largest number of population have lived for thousands of years, has no regional or continental organisation. The reason is that Euro-Atlantic security structures, namely NATO, dominated the western part of the continent until recently, during the Cold War, because the West was more active and powerful than many others due to its centuries-long superiority. The OSCE, which is also based on the Euro-Atlantic concept, and the EU, which was created as a purely European organisation, are actually merging with NATO. Agreements are signed under which EU countries will open their territory (“military mobility”) if NATO decides to send its tanks and armoured vehicles towards the Russian border. This is part of the Euro-Atlantic logic, which has exhausted itself. The war in Ukraine which the West has organised against us has proved that the Euro-Atlantic concepts have not lived up to the promises made during their creation.
That is why President Putin advanced the initiative for creating a continental Eurasian security architecture in 2024, starting with joining the efforts and launching dialogue between subregional integration organisations and gradually moving towards a continental agreement. At the same time, we point out that the door is open for all organisations.
Question: That is, we will develop this architecture together with the West, if it opts for joining in, instead of spearheading it against the West?
Sergey Lavrov: Moreover, we have already mentioned Hungary. A third conference on Eurasian security will be held this year in Minsk at the initiative of President Lukashenko. I took part in the first two conferences (1, 2), which were also attended by a number of European representatives and ministers, in particular from Serbia, Hungary and Slovakia. They are interested in this work. During the third conference, which will meet in Minsk in late October, we will submit a draft Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity as a conceptual framework. Since we live on the same continent, it would be a shame not to make use of the geoeconomics and geopolitical advantages we have been gifted with by nature, geography and history. We’ll see what comes of it.
At the same time, NATO leaders are advocating a completely different concept. They say that NATO should spread its infrastructure across the entire Eurasian continent. They are making advances to some Eurasian regions and trying to impose such military cooperation aspects on Central Asian states. They are also interested in the South Caucasus. In other words, discussions won’t be simple.
Let’s compare arguments. We offer cooperation on the continental scale on our common continent, with due respect for the interests of all sides. As for them, do they want to do in Eurasia what they are doing in Ukraine, that is, divide it and turn it into a porcupine, as Ursula von der Leyen has proposed?
Question: A steel porcupine.
Sergey Lavrov: Exactly, and put that porcupine in control of the Nazi state.
You mentioned George Washington. There is an ongoing, global debate about the very meaning of democracy. This extends to the state of free speech in Europe, the protection of human rights, and the principle of keeping sport, art, and other spheres of human endeavour free from politicisation.
This brings to my mind a concept embedded in the American Declaration of Independence – that of the “consent of the governed,” a phrase I believe was incorporated by Thomas Jefferson. The reason it resonates is that just a few years ago, Antonio Guterres cited this very requirement as a fundamental principle of democracy. He did so while outlining his vision for how the United Nations must evolve to meet the demands of the modern world. However, if the consent of the governed is the true measure of democracy or its absence, then the situation in Ukraine must be viewed from a different perspective.
After all, this very principle, first articulated in the American Declaration of Independence, was later enshrined in the United Nations. Specifically, the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-Operation among States acknowledges – by consensus – that all nations must respect “the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory.”
How could those who seized power in Kiev through a coup possibly claim to represent the interests of Crimea, Donbass, or Novorossiya? The people in these regions declared they would have no interaction with the usurpers. This mirrors the era of African decolonisation: the colonisers had long ceased to represent the interests of the people they subjugated, and those people categorically refused to live under their rule. This is the very opposite of the consent of the governed.
Question: Thank you very much. I know we’ve already taken more time than promised, but I hope you’ll indulge me with one final question.
Sergey Lavrov: I’ll most certainly indulge you – we are friends. Let’s hear it.
Question: Intervision. Tell us about this project.
Sergey Lavrov: A few days ago, we held a news conference here at the Foreign Ministry Mansion. The initiative originated from the Traditions of Art Foundation, a non-governmental organisation established five years ago with a focus on preserving cultural heritage and promoting both national and world culture.
They approached us with a proposal: to revive the Intervision song contest for a new era. The vision was to transform it from a Soviet era event for the socialist camp into a broader festival, open to all but relying on the countries of the Global Majority. We held consultations with the Government, the Presidential Executive Office, and Channel One – as it is their brand. Following this, we presented a report to the President of Russia, who gave his approval to the project.
The project will culminate in a major song contest gala on September 20 at Live Arena, featuring over 20 participants from across all continents. It promises to be a highly entertaining event.
Question: Channel One will broadcast it on Saturday at 8:30 pm.
Thank you so much for your time today, and for your continued leadership on this critical issue.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
