Sergey Lavrov: “In Alaska, the presidents discussed how to move forward, taking these two root causes into account: NATO expansion and the fate of the people in the territories developed by Russians, which the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev now threatens to claim”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with newspaper Kommersant.

Moscow, October 15, 2025

Question: After the Alaska summit, many were expecting to see progress on the Ukrainian track, if not a breakthrough. The initial signs were promising, but now we’re seeing a rollback, with US President Donald Trump threatening to supply Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine, among other things. What is happening?

Sergey Lavrov: This topic has already been addressed extensively by officials from the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Presidential Executive Office. President Vladimir Putin himself spoke about it at a news conference in Dushanbe. He summarised the potential for further action based on the agreements outlined in Alaska – not verbatim, but in essence.

I would not call it a breakthrough; it was a lengthy conversation aimed at mutual understanding. I have said repeatedly that President Donald Trump and his team are, in fact, the only representatives from the Western camp (and frankly, beyond it) who have publicly addressed the root causes of the conflict. It’s not just that they use the term; they, and Donald Trump personally, try to look deeply into their essence. Drawing Ukraine into NATO is one such root cause. President Trump has stated multiple times that this was Joe Biden’s error, one that must be corrected and not allowed to happen. Similarly, when President Trump and US Special Presidential Envoy Steven Witkoff began discussing issues of territory and demarcation, it represented an unprecedented Western recognition of reality.

Of course, we have always insisted it is not merely about land, but about the people who have lived on that land for centuries – who continued their ancestors’ work, founded cities, built plants, factories, roads, and ports, and were then reduced to a humiliating, discriminated status. Therefore, the American side’s recognition that these territories should have a status reflecting the will of the local people is a positive sign.

In Alaska, the presidents discussed how to move forward, taking these two root causes into account: NATO expansion and the fate of the people in the territories developed by Russians, which the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev now threatens to claim.

Think of Kosovo, which was almost taken from the Serbs – and effectively was, following the 2008 coup. The unilateral recognition of Kosovo’s independence was a gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which defined the parameters of Serbian statehood, including Kosovo. They simply “recognised” Kosovo, perpetrating a coup and stripping the Serbs of their historical lands, the very cradle of the Orthodox religion professed by the entire Serbian people and other important processes.

In the same vein, after the 2014 coup in Ukraine, there was a decision to strip the Russian people of their homeland – the Crimeans, the residents of Donbass and Novorossiya – and to erase their history. They were declared “non-humans,” “species.” As you recall, the then President of Ukraine, Petr Poroshenko, publicly and proudly threatened that the children of those opposing the new regime in Donbass would “rot in basements,” while the children of those who seized power under neo-Nazi slogans would go to school.

To return to Alaska: those present cannot disclose the details for obvious reasons. But the essence was that President Putin brought a response to the proposals delivered to Moscow a couple of weeks earlier by US Envoy Steven Witkoff. President Putin had taken time to consider them, and in Alaska, he stated his readiness to agree with the concept Witkoff had brought, primarily because it reflected an understanding of the root causes and aimed to eliminate them. In fact, he outlined how, after accepting this concept, it could be brought to fruition.

President Trump said he needed to consult with Washington. We are awaiting their response.

Question: There has been a reaction. He is threatening to deploy Tomahawks.

Sergey Lavrov: That is not a response to the concept discussed. None of his statements about Tomahawks have any bearing on what was discussed conceptually – indeed, both conceptually and practically – in Alaska.

Yes, he is under pressure. After Alaska, he went to consult, as he put it, with his allies in Washington. They flew there, bringing along Vladimir Zelensky. They make no secret of their desire to “lead Donald Trump astray from the righteous path,” as we say – to divert him from the course he himself charted through his political instincts. They are exploiting Trump’s temperamental preference for swift decisions, deliberately protracting this process. They seek to convince him that it is not Vladimir Zelensky and Europe who are playing the fool, but rather that Russian President Vladimir Putin does not want peace.

Let me reiterate what was discussed in Alaska – and what finds understanding in Washington: NATO, and the territories where people have held referendums and expressed how they wish to live. Immediately after Alaska, after the meeting at the White House where these visitors came to see Trump, Zelensky declared that no one should think Ukraine would be barred from joining any alliance, above all NATO. If they want to, they will, as if to say. Moreover, he insisted no one should even entertain the idea that they would accept restrictions on arms supplies. Zelensky then added, incidentally, that the West ought to forget its own concerns (some, he implied, claim they lack funds, while others face shortages in other areas). Allegedly, everyone must now support Ukraine, directing all resources toward defending “civilisation” – as he labels his actions.

According to our information, after Zelensky returned from New York following the UN General Assembly, he convened a meeting where he stated there would be no changes to their policy – that the situation on the front provides no grounds even to consider showing any weakness. They must, he insisted, fight on, securing further supplies of long-range weapons. Observe the tone, the very language he uses publicly when addressing none other than US President Donald Trump. Not very polite, to put it mildly.

Europe, of course, is chiming in. Above all, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Finnish President Alexander Stubb, our Finnish neighbour who has now positioned himself at the forefront of Russophobes, commented on the notorious process of negotiating security guarantees for Ukraine by flatly stating that Russia’s interests would not be accounted for in these guarantees. Those who sign them, he said, must understand they entail – if necessary – military support for Ukraine on the battlefield. The West speaks not of indivisible security, a principle we uphold, believing that when they endorsed it 26 years ago and reaffirmed it 15 years later, they were honourable people. Now, however, they openly declare that when Russia insists on applying the principle of indivisible security around Ukraine, it means Russia refuses to listen to those advocating an end to this war. In short, indivisibility is no longer their concern. There are many other examples.

What has just transpired in Sharm el-Sheikh is equally telling. On October 13 this year, Trump’s Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity was signed at the “peace summit.” It emphasises that the durability of this agreement hinges on protecting human rights, ensuring security, respecting the dignity of both Israelis and Palestinians, and fostering tolerance and equal opportunities for all regions. The declaration calls for eradicating extremism and radicalism in all forms. Noble words. Yet somehow, this applies to Palestinians and Israelis – but not to Russians in Ukraine.

Just recently, regarding another part of the Middle East – Syria – US Special Envoy for Syria (and concurrently Ambassador to Türkiye) Thomas Barrack stated that the Syrian Arab Republic requires a system close to federalism, one that preserves the culture and language of all ethno-confessional groups. This is precisely what the Minsk Agreements envisaged. Somehow, the West is prepared to apply these principles everywhere – except in Ukraine, where it claims it is not ripe.

Indeed, the Trump administration now recognises the need to delve into root causes and is striving to do so. We continue to await a concrete response to the outcomes of the Alaska talks. We remain committed to them. Let us see how matters proceed in Washington – and how the administration reacts to the brazen courting, the near-brazen ultimatums, that Vladimir Zelensky and certain Europeans are publicly issuing to Donald Trump and his team. They demand he abandon his internal convictions, his intuitive approach to Ukraine, and openly adopt the stance promoted by the most rabid Russophobes in Europe. We will see. I never imagined that Europe would act with such unbridled recklessness in its dealings with the United States.

Question: The Alaska summit was expected to produce a quick result, like an agreement or, at the very least, the beginning of full-scale talks. This has not happened. How long can the impetus from the Alaska summit last? When will the war end?

Sergey Lavrov: We believe that, conceptually, the meeting demonstrated mutual agreement. We have also provided our understanding of how that agreement can be  implemented on the ground. We clearly outlined our vision. President Trump said that he needed to consult his allies. It appears that these consultations are ongoing.

It is true that statements have been made about the Tomahawk missiles, but when President Trump spoke about the possibility of supplying these missiles, he also said that he did not want to escalate the war. In other words, he has admitted that sending the missiles could lead to a serious escalation. Ukraine would no longer have anything to do with it. This would cause colossal damage to the possibility of normalising US-Russian relations and moving them out of the deadlock into which they have been pushed by the Biden administration.

As for symbols, Donald Trump has pointed out on numerous occasions that it is Biden’s war, and that he wants to settle this problem, first of all, because people are dying, which he doesn’t like. This is understandable. Second, this war is a legacy he didn’t ask for from the Biden team and their European back-up singers, who have pushed it to the forefront of the international agenda, and he wants to end it so as to save lives and make place for opportunities for full-scale cooperation with Russia. Both arguments are reasonable.

Restoring peace and saving lives are a noble cause. Also, Trump has always demonstrated an interest in mutually beneficial deals that could be made in the sphere of material cooperation and practical projects. He has never made secret of his desire, and he has always spoken out openly about it. However, Europe wants to make it Trump’s war as quickly and securely as possible. This explains their arguments.

Question: You have most likely seen a report by The Financial Times stating that the US has been providing Ukraine with intelligence for months to help guide strikes on Russia's energy infrastructure. Has this made it Trump’s war?

Sergey Lavrov: A great deal has been written to this effect, but not all these reports have been proven true. Nevertheless, we have taken note of that report. I have instructed our personnel to ask the Americans to comment on what The Financial Times has written.

Question: Have they commented?

Sergey Lavrov: It only began several days ago, when the item was published.

Question: How long can this Alaska effect last?

Sergey Lavrov: Who knows? My guess is as good as yours. As I have said, the Alaska process is not over. We have replied to the Americans’ proposal, essentially accepting it and proposing a practical method for its implementation. We are now waiting for their response to our reaction.

Question: What about the idea of creating task groups and increasing the level of representation on both sides? Is it still on the table?

Sergey Lavrov: Do you mean meeting without the Americans? That is, directly with the Ukrainians? There has been complete silence. The idea of increasing the level of representation was raised in Alaska. President Trump seemed to be in favour of it. It is not just that he expressed a positive attitude to it but that we didn’t expect any other reaction from him.

The same goes for the three negotiating teams we have proposed creating within the Istanbul process. In principle, the Ukrainians had two complaints. The first is that our negotiators do not have the necessary powers, that we sent a low-level delegation, which is not true. Their second complaint is that our delegation only addressed humanitarian issues due to its low level, such as the exchange of prisoners and dead bodies, as well as the “forcefully deported” Ukrainian children.

In response to their concerns, we have proposed significantly increasing the level of our delegation heads. And second, we proposed that the delegation heads supervise three groups, which would not only deal with humanitarian issues, which are important anyway, but also address military and political matters. In other words, we acted in the spirit of goodwill in response to that strange criticism from the Ukrainian negotiators. Our proposals take their criticism into account and should help improve the negotiating process. We are waiting for their answer, as well as for their reaction to our proposals following the Alaska summit and a reply to our proposals on “upgrading” the Istanbul process.

Question: President of the United States Donald Trump will once again have a meeting with Vladimir Zelensky this Friday. Are there any plans for us to have any contacts with the Americans at the highest or other levels?

Sergey Lavrov: There are working contacts through all kinds of channels for dealing with various matters.

Only recently, President of the United States Donald Trump responded to journalists with a comment on the Tomahawk cruise missiles as he was about to take off from Egypt. Among other things, he said that he would probably have to raise this issue with President of Russia Vladimir Putin. He and his team know that we are always available and can engage at various levels, including to have a conversation between the two presidents to discuss specific matters. Of course, our past achievements, including during the Russia-US Alaska summit must be taken into account.

Question: You have mentioned various channels. Donald Trump has been proactive in relying not only on traditional diplomatic assets, but also his children, business leaders, partners, etc. As far as we can see, Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Kirill Dmitriyev operates one of these so-called channels on our behalf these days in our relations with the United States? What do you think about this?

Sergey Lavrov: It is true that Americans tend to rely on their families, but they all are members of the administration too.

Question: Is this model more effective compared to conventional diplomacy, or does it give rise to disputes and a plurality of approaches?

Sergey Lavrov: You cannot answer questions of this kind before you get the results. Only then you can say whether an appointee played a positive or a neutral role, regardless of whose relative we are talking about.

For example, Special Envoy of the President of the United States for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, enjoys a lot of trust with President Donald Trump, who has affirmed this in his public statements. Only recently, he said that Steve Witkoff has finally resolved all the Middle Eastern issues, so he could use his talents on the Ukrainian track. We cannot but welcome this, since he is in fact a very reasonable person. Some say that he has never worked on the Russian dossier and has just started exploring this topic. I believe that for a man who has never dealt with matters relating to Russia’s foreign policy, he has been able to get his bearings and understand what is going on quite quickly, in particular, in terms of the steps that must be taken to address the conflict’s root causes.

I hope that our US colleagues will focus on addressing the root causes in the Middle East too. So far, they are in the early stages of the 20-point peace plan as put forward by President of the United States Donald Trump. They are only approaching the question of Palestinian statehood and have been mentioning it only indirectly and in connection with the Gaza Strip, without referring to the West Bank. Therefore, there will be a lot of work moving forward. That said, Steve Witkoff is one of Donald Trump’s closest associates. And this is just one example.

The second example is Special Envoy of the President of the United States for Ukraine, Keith Kellogg. He is a complete opposite of Steve Witkoff, who, together with Donald Trump, discussed with President Vladimir Putin during their Alaska conversations ways of achieving a lasting settlement by addressing the root causes. As for Kellogg, he has been making public statements opposing any recognition for any territories by claiming that you may have de facto control over them and that it is all right. There may be a universal de facto recognition for the Baltics, while de jure no one recognised the Baltics as part of the Soviet Union. He said that the West raised this matter with the Soviet leadership and Western delegations travelled to Riga, Tallinn and Vilnius, so when the moment came, the West said that it never recognised the Baltics as part of the USSR, and therefore they could claim independence. Accordingly, what Kellogg calls for consists of freezing the conflict and sweeping it deep under the carpet so that one day the United States can take the same position by claiming that it has never given any promises to anyone, that their conscience is clear and that they would carry on with their efforts to liberate Ukraine.

Speaking of family members, Melania Trump, the President’s spouse, has been playing a very positive role, in particular on matters dealing with reuniting children with their families. Moreover, over the past months, since Donald Trump transferred her letter to President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, she made strides in her attempts to better understand this issue. Melania Trump have been following her husband and his team in their footsteps in trying to get to the bottom of the root causes behind the conflict in general. She went to great lengths to understand the actual situation with these children, considering all the lies regarding this matter.

During the second Russia-Ukraine meeting in Istanbul, our delegation insisted that Ukrainians stop professing their groundless accusations by claiming that tens of thousands of children were kidnapped or sold into slavery. Instead, all they had to do was to give us a list. Finally, and after multiple reminders, they did give us a list with 339 names on it. We have examined almost all the entries. Among them, there is a substantial group of people who are not children anymore. They can live independent lives. Those who had any relatives, had already been reunited with their families. Most of the kids on this list have never been transferred to Russia and live in Europe, where trafficking of Ukrainian children does exist, by the way. There has been an effort to silence this fact, but this is quite common, including when selling these children as organ donors. All we got was this list of 339 names.

We have just heard what Prime Minister of Ukraine, Yuliya Sviridenko, said in Vatican. She presented a list of over 750 children and alleged that they were somewhere in Russia. Just give us the names so that we can help everyone. We have yet to see this second list, and have inquired about it.

In her statements, Melania Trump said that several children returned to their families in recent days. By doing this, she sent a clear message that she wanted to understand the child issue in its essence instead of taking her cues from propaganda they keep peddling all the time, especially considering that once you take a closer look, there are too few facts.

Question: Speaking about the Tomahawk cruise missiles, all the American plans to supply weapons under the previous administration announced in official statements or through leaks to the media, from the HIMARS systems to the F-16 jets, have ultimately been implemented. Can Russia convince the current administration not to  move forward with the supply of these long-range weapons?

Sergey Lavrov: We have not requested a meeting to convince the US administration that this would be an extremely dangerous move. We believe that they are smart and experienced people who are fully aware that this would move the situation to a fundamentally new level. All experts agree that only the personnel of the producer country can guide these missiles. Apart from turning Biden’s war into Trump’s war, this would mean an extremely dangerous aggravation of Russia-US relations. I have no doubt that they are aware of this.

President Putin has commented on this when talking to the media in Dushanbe and on other occasions. He said that this would be a severe blow at the efforts to normalise our relations in keeping with the line Donald Trump set out during his election campaign, as well as with the understandings reached during telephone contacts at various levels, including between our presidents, as well as during the US-Russian summit in Alaska.

Question: The post-war world order created in Yalta and Potsdam has been destroyed. Is Russia considering a new system for settling disputes and conflicts between states? Can the UN regain its role as a dispute settlement platform?

Sergey Lavrov: President Putin has more than once made statements to this effect. I spoke about this at the UN General Assembly as well. Of course, the world has changed dramatically since 1945. The number of independents states has increased fourfold, from 50 at the time of the UN’s establishment to nearly 200 now. The main thing is that all of them feel capable of promoting their own interests rather than playing by the rules that are being imposed on them.

“Rules” is a separate matter. We have always upheld the principles of the UN Charter, which we consider to be perfectly applicable norms of international law codified in the most important international legal document of the international community, which comprehensively sets out the organisational standards of international relations. Take the principle of sovereign equality of states, non-interference in internal affairs, the equality and self-determination of nations, which the UN Charter mentioned before the principle of territorial integrity. Incidentally, there is a direct connection between these two principles, which the UN General Assembly addressed. After years of discussions on the interpretation of the charter principles, the UNGA adopted by consensus the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter. It is a massive document and a result of colossal work by lawyers and politicians. It states that all countries must respect the territorial integrity of those countries whose governments respect the principle of self-determination and therefore represent the entire population residing within the borders of the territory in question. The principle of self-determination underlay the process of decolonisation when it became clear that those who represented the parent states in Lisbon, Berlin, London, Paris and other Western capitals no longer represented the peoples of Africa who lived in these territories under the yoke of colonisers.

The same happened after the state coup in Ukraine. Could the putschists, who seized power, designated the people of Donbass and Crimea who refused to recognise the coup as “non-humans” and “terrorists,” and used combat aircraft and artillery against them, represent the people of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya? Absolutely not.

The principles codified in the UN Charter have remained fully topical. Nobody can say that there is any injustice in them. No, it was through Western efforts that these principles were applied in a way that violated justice. The West “recognised” Kosovo because it wanted to, allegedly in keeping with the principle of self-determination, even though no self-determination referendum was held there. Years later, a referendum was held in Crimea, but the West claimed that it was a violation of the principle of territorial integrity. What about the right to self-determination? You don't understand, this is different. This is double standards and playing with principles, when they are applied or condemned at will. These are the “rules” which the Werst is now promoting and upholding at every turn, demanding that everyone toe their line.

No one is proposing to meddle with the UN Charter, with the exception of reforming the Security Council. It is clear we must increase representation for parts of the world that have “risen” since decolonisation, reflecting the rapid development of new centres of economic growth like China, India, and Brazil. This is obvious. The UN Security Council needs to be expanded to include representatives from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. This will require adjusting the Charter, but it is not a major reform of the UN’s foundational principles.

After 500 years of global domination, and especially after the dismantling of the USSR, the West decided it was the “end of history” – that everyone else should fall in line and march to their tune. It turned out differently. Russia has returned to its historical and traditional origins, and new powers have “risen up.” The West’s attempts to restrain this development with sanctions and tariffs are a reflection of those very “rules.” But it will not work.

Now we see the Americans in a trade squabble with China. The United States imposed 100 percent tariffs, and China defended itself by imposing retaliatory tariffs on its own exports, many of which the Americans desperately need. This is a vicious circle, but it has nothing to do with a struggle for human rights or justice. These are measures to suppress a competitor. The Americans operate on the belief that everyone else will have no choice but to agree to their terms. This is due to inertia; for decades after the war, the world assumed almost on a “genetic level” that the United States was the preeminent power, the issuer of the world’s reserve currency.

Decades ago, there were repeated proposals to introduce other means for mutual settlement. But the Americans argued that the dollar was not their property, but a global public good, a common asset, the “lubricant” of the entire world economy. They claimed everything was spinning smoothly and seamlessly. Then came the sanctions (including those after the referendum in Crimea) which involved using the dollar as a weapon. It is no coincidence that Donald Trump, during his campaign, specifically highlighted the disastrous role played by the Biden administration in abusing the dollar’s reserve status, weaponising it to punish those that administration disliked. The essence of his argument was that a time bomb had been planted under the foundations of US power – under the very currency that provided Americans with their decisive position in world markets.

It is difficult to say what will happen to the dollar now. Donald Trump, while in the White House, has not yet taken concrete steps to restore confidence in it. The processes of “moving away” from the dollar continue within BRICS, the SCO, and CELAC. Brazilian President Lula da Silva is actively advocating for the creation of alternative payment platforms. To reiterate, on our initiative, BRICS is already working on creating such mechanisms and “reinsurance” structures.

When asked about this, President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that we never sought to move away from the dollar. Rather, we faced restrictions on its use and were forced to find other ways to trade with our partners, settling this trade in national currencies. Now, digital currencies will also play a role.

Multipolarity will not come overnight. In France, perhaps, once the rooster crows, things happen immediately. But in reality, this is a long era, just as the colonial era was, and the era of decolonisation that followed. We had a deeply interdependent global economy, which strengthened after the Soviet Union’s collapse. Everyone thought the mechanisms were impeccable, the tools were all there, and globalisation was universally accepted – until we reached this supposed “end of history.”

It turned out that the principles of globalisation could be easily sacrificed when it came to eliminating competition. This is what they did to us, to Iran, and to other countries, whose gold and foreign exchange reserves were seized and became tools of blackmail and pressure. The inviolability of property – a sacrosanct principle – was simply swept aside overnight. There is no such thing as fair competition. Tariff wars are now being waged, even separately from sanctions. And much more besides.

Question: New epochs have typically emerged following major and bloody conflicts. The victors would formulate new rules and devise new structures and organisations. First, Russian infantry would occupy Paris, and then everyone would gather to determine the way forward. Is diplomacy capable of settling – almost for the first time in history – such a global conflict?

Sergey Lavrov: Diplomacy is indeed capable. What is lacking are diplomats on the other side of the front line. Just observe what they are articulating. Former Commander of US Army Europe Ben Hodges stated that “in 2014, we failed to make it clear that Russian aggression would not go unpunished,” and proceeded to say – “Even the Minsk Agreements turned out to be a farce.” I wonder if he has been observing how these Minsk Agreements are being commented upon, who is commenting on them, and who is admitting that they turned them into a farce? Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former French President François Hollande, and former Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko have not concealed this. Ben Hodges also claimed that if Russia were to attack Poland in 2025, it would be destroyed by NATO’s air forces and the Alliance’s ground troops, that Kaliningrad and Sevastopol would be wiped off the map, and all military installations would be obliterated. These “lads” are really puffing themselves up.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte – another great “strategist” – is chiming in. This is outright provocation. He stated that “it is highly likely that China will force the junior partner in that relationship, being Russia, … to move against NATO here, to keep us busy.” That is, to divert attention from whatever China is supposedly plotting “over there,” while we are “over here.” There is an abundance of such statements.

EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas made an “interesting” remark: “Russia was addressing China: we fought the Second World War, we won the Second World War, we won the Nazis, and I was like, okay, that is something new. But, you know, I can tell you, nowadays, people don't really read and remember history that much, which is that, you know, you can see that they buy these narratives.” This is coming from the head of European diplomacy! And you ask whether diplomacy stands a chance?

Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna declared: “The USSR started the world war, deported millions of people, and went unpunished.” Meanwhile, his neighbouring Latvia is carrying out ethnic cleansing, expelling people by the thousands. The West has fallen silent. The OSCE, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights – no one has commented on this in any way. The process is underway. This is Nazism, the creation of a “racially pure” state.

Naturally, we are accepting these people. Additional special measures have already been determined.

Question: I would like to ask about the START Treaty. Russian President Vladimir Putin made a proposal to US President Donald Trump. Many here perceived it as historically significant. Moreover, Trump himself has stated that this is precisely the kind of agreement that must not be lost. He spoke of a certain denuclearisation involving Russia and China. Yet, thus far, the US reaction has been, to put it mildly, restrained. Do you expect an agreement to be reached? If not, will we proceed to expand our nuclear arsenal?

Sergey Lavrov: Donald Trump made the sole positive comment that it was a good idea. Our proposal was made in a clear context, as President Vladimir Putin explicitly explained. Given what is now fashionably termed turbulence across various parts of the global arena, and bearing in mind that the Treaty expires in three months, he proposed not extending it – its implementation has been suspended on our part – but rather making a statement. When we suspended the Treaty, we voluntarily assumed self-restraints: not to exceed the quantitative limits enshrined in the document. President Putin stated that Russia is extending these voluntary self-restraints on the quantitative parameters outlined in the Treaty – provided that after February 6, 2026, the United States does the same. Otherwise… Well, it is clear that in such matters, one cannot play a one-sided game.

We are waiting. We have spoken with professionals at the Department of State and the National Security Council. They see merit in this. Presumably, they have not fully disclosed to us the analysis they are conducting. There are glimpses of concern in the form of leaks – that they would now freeze for a year alongside Russia, while China expands its arsenal at an unprecedented rate. Then, they argue, history may record a scenario where China and Russia possess far more than they do.

The longstanding initiative, advanced during both Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s presidencies, remains relevant – irrespective of the self-restraints we announced – namely, trilateral strategic stability talks involving the United States, Russia, and China. This idea has lingered in various forms for many years.

We have maintained, and continue to do so, that this is a matter for the People’s Republic of China. They have their own approach, grounded in the fact that their arsenal remains incomparable to ours and that of the United States. At the same time, we remind our American colleagues, when they raise this issue, not to overlook their allies – France and Britain – who, unlike us and China, are part of the same military alliance in which the United States also holds membership.

We anticipate a response. I hope it will come in a timely manner, before the Treaty’s expiration. This is not a complicated matter. We know how these delivery vehicles and warheads are stored. Let us hope.

Question: It will not be easy to reach a trilateral agreement. After all, the three countries are not connected by any blocs among themselves. What if Russia and the United States team up to oppose China at a certain point, or China teams by with the United States against Russia?

Sergey Lavrov: Russia will not team up with anyone for the sake of opposing someone, especially against the People’s Republic of China. How could it ever occur to anyone?

We have built a solid contractual legal framework with China which perfectly reflects the kind of relations we share. These relations consist of supporting one another and helping each other build stronger economies, improve defence capabilities and reinforce our respective international standing.

Question: In your opinion, would it be possible to create a trilateral framework for strategic weapons?

Sergey Lavrov: This is something the Americans have been suggesting for several years now. China has its own way of treating this matter, and we respect its position. China says that it is not ready and that we are not on the same page in terms of our strategic capabilities, which means that they still have a long way to go before they can achieve parity in this domain. We respect this position.

Question: Europe is going through a similar escalatory cycle these days. We are saying that they are undermining efforts to achieve a settlement for Ukraine, while seeking to inflict what they call a strategic defeat on us. They claim that Russia is waging a hybrid war against them. How can we stop this sequence of actions and counteractions before they reach a point of no return?

Sergey Lavrov: The Europeans want the war to become Donald Trump’s war. This would serve as a balm for their spirit, as the saying goes. For now, they are figuring out the best way to steal our reserves. It seems that that they even managed to get the Belgians onboard regarding sharing the responsibility, which amounts to covering up for each other, as they say in the criminal world. President of France Emmanuel Macron said that he would never allow this to happen because it would amount to robbery. The Elysee Palace has not lost all its bearings, after all.

What were the other accusations? Drones flying around like flies? In most of the cases when they blamed it on us, not a single drone carried a military payload. We did tell them that if this is a matter of concern for you, we can rely on military-to-military channels to sit down and have a calm and professional discussion on what fell from the sky over there, even if no one invited us to do so. They ignored us. If what they have shown is true, these drones do not have the range to reach Poland, its central regions, from the Russian Federation.

Question: They claim that we have been using tankers in the Baltic Sea to launch these drones.

Sergey Lavrov: I have read about it. They point to the so-called shadow fleet. How can anyone be serious about it? We told them that to present any accusations against us, they had to show where these drones were.

We have been asking to share the names of those whom the BBC showed in Bucha, just as simple as that. Finally, we got an answer from UN Secretary General, and just as a statement during a press conference – nothing more. He said that they do not have this information. It is the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights who has it, but he refuses to share it because they have their own criteria and cannot disclose information which can hurt the victims or their families.

I did not understand anything. One thing is clear, though. They will not share any names and will not assist us in any way. In April 2022, they pulled all the stops in flinging mud at us and used Bucha as a pretext for imposing new sanctions. Just keep a low profile and keep silent – this was their message for us. The UN, as represented by its Secretariat, did not want to help us. That is all I have to say about it.

But this amounts to pleading guilty and confirming that all means are justified: stage a provocation, get the propaganda working to benefit from a new round of sanctions, and who cares what comes next?

The situation with the Nord Stream pipelines is even more amusing. It now turns out that building them was an anti-European initiative rather than bombing them. Prime Minister of Poland, Donald Tusk, said, more or less, that the problem was not that the pipelines were bombed but that they had been built. This tells you a great deal about Poland’s relations with its German neighbours and the kind of a love relationship they share. In fact, Europe, and primarily Germany, are ready to sacrifice their economic interests and social safety net to hurt Russia. They have now updated their forecasts. They used to claim that we would start a war against them before 2030, but now they pushed this timeline to 2036.

Question: The Germans say this could happen much sooner.

Sergey Lavrov: It depends on what they want. Some want to get budgetary allocations without delay. Germany has cancelled the law that restricted its military spending. Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz has proudly announced the news, just like he stated proudly that they now have an opportunity to increase the defence budget, which will allegedly make the Bundeswehr the “strongest conventional army in Europe” again. It is notable that the word “again” has been used several times before. He is probably referring to Germany’s past.

I have also been shocked that former Chancellor Angela Merkel extolled that statement by Merz, saying that she was inspired by a statement about “the new powerful Germany.”

When political leaders retire, their former ambitions manifest themselves in different ways. Jens Stoltenberg has written a relatively honest book after his retirement from the post of NATO Secretary General. It shows that deep down he was aware of the real shape of things but had to act in accordance with his responsibilities.

Former Chancellor Merkel is a different matter. All those years, she pretended to uphold the Minsk agreements and working jointly with Russia. When she retired, she unexpectedly upheld Merz’s revenge-seeking slogans. She said that back in 2021 she wanted to do everything differently but was prevented by Poland and Lithuania.

Here is another example. In 2010, when Dmitry Medvedev was Russian president and Merkel was German chancellor, they held a summit meeting in Meseberg. The hottest issue on the international agenda was Transnistria. The Germans asked us to influence the region, to force or encourage them to relaunch talks in the 5+2 format. We promised to give it a try. There were many mechanisms of cooperation in 2010, including the four common spaces and the committee of foreign ministers of Russia and the EU. We proposed coordinating our actions in the sphere of crisis management. A four-point document drafted at Meseberg provided for establishing a ministerial EU-Russia Committee on Security and Foreign Affairs to exchange views on the situation in hot spots in the world’s regions of concern for the two parties, and to coordinate the mechanisms of joint humanitarian and security operations. It marked a breakthrough in our relations.

When all issues were coordinated, Chancellor Angel Merkel said that she was all for it but Transnistria was a conflict zone yet it would be unreasonable to meet again to discuss it. We promised to send a signal to Tiraspol in favour of reviving the 5+2 mechanism. Merkel proposed adding Transnistria to the four-point document and implement it in full. As a result, we helped relaunch the 5+2 mechanism, but all the other points have been scratched.

This happened in 2010, when hope was still alive. Europe has proved again that it is for a reason that it is seen as the source and initiator of world wars and all other conflicts, including colonial and enslavement wars. Well, it is Europe’s genetic code.

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