Sergey Lavrov: “In Alaska, the US proposals were discussed and were accepted by the Russian side”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s answer to a media question.

Moscow, June 26, 2026

Question: The other day, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that during the meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Alaska, where the situation surrounding Ukraine was discussed, only a proposal for an approach to a settlement was made, and no agreement was ever reached there. Could you comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: Indeed, we have been receiving a considerable number of questions on this matter. It is imperative to elucidate the situation as we perceive it. I trust this will provide clarity for our audience.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio asserted that, in Alaska, there were only proposals and no agreements concerning a settlement in Ukraine. Consequently, as he put it, it is unclear why Moscow appears so concerned. The reality of the situation is that, viewed in the broader context, several days prior to the Alaska meeting, US President’s Special Envoy, Steve Witkoff, arrived in Moscow bringing those very proposals from President Donald Trump. We duly took them into account. President of Russia Vladimir Putin pledged to present his response during the Alaska meeting.

Subsequently, in Anchorage, as the two presidents sat down for negotiations – and I must note that Marco Rubio and your humble servant were also present – President Vladimir Putin, addressing Steve Witkoff, who was likewise in attendance, began to enumerate the US proposals point by point. Following each item, in the presence of US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, he enquired of Steve Witkoff whether he had accurately captured the ideas brought to Moscow ahead of Anchorage.

To each of these queries, Steve Witkoff responded in the affirmative. Therefore, when my colleague Marco Rubio contends that only proposals were made in Alaska and no agreement was reached, I am left to question what precisely is meant by “agreement.” If one party, in this case the United States, puts forward its proposals for a settlement – for an approach to resolving this crisis – and the other party expresses concurrence with these proposals, then to state that no agreement was reached appears, to put it mildly, somewhat inelegant.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio also remarked, at another engagement somewhere in the Middle East, that the United States stands ready to move forward and play a constructive role, should the opportunity arise. In his words, bringing the parties together and bringing an end to this war is precisely what US President Donald Trump has been endeavouring to achieve for a year and a half.

All of this, presumably, may be “credited’ as confirmation that there were indeed American proposals in Alaska, which we accepted. However, the quotation I have just referenced prompts a further question. I am referring to Secretary Marco Rubio’s recent testimony during hearings in Congress, during which he stated that the United States cannot act as a mediator because it supports Ukraine.

Yet, when an interest is expressed in the United States playing a constructive role, in uniting the parties – this already begins to resemble a claim to mediation.

It is, of course, necessary to bring clarity to the entirety of this situation. Nevertheless, the fact remains: in Alaska, the US proposals were discussed and were accepted by the Russian side.

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