Sergey Lavrov: “One of the key principles of our concept of Eurasian security and the Greater Eurasian Partnership is respect for associations established in various sub-regions, including ASEAN”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions following the Russia-ASEAN meeting and the ministerial meeting of the East Asia Summit member states.

Kuala Lumpur, July 11, 2025

Good afternoon.

We have met in Kuala Lumpur for annual ASEAN events at the ministerial level. The summits will be held in autumn. There are three formats of our meetings:

First, the Russia-ASEAN Dialogue Partnership. An annual meeting was held yesterday at the level of foreign ministers.

The second format is the East Asia Summit (EAS), which includes a broad range of countries, primarily those that are developing dialogue partnerships with ASEAN. The EAS was established to discuss practical cooperation projects and economic, trade, transport and cultural connectivity.

The third format is the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) on security, which has an even larger number of participants in addition to ASEAN countries.

Taken together, we refer to them as the annual ASEAN events, which we are now holding in Malaysia. It is symbolic that it was in Malaysia that Russia first attended these events. It was here that we laid the foundation for the Russia-ASEAN dialogue partnership, which has since advanced to the level of strategic partnership. This has been fixed in our joint documents.

This year, we discussed the implementation of the obligations that all sides assumed on a mutual basis at our previous meetings, including at the Russia-ASEAN summit in 2016, a forum that mapped out the strategic trajectory of our cooperation.

We are preparing an assessment of the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan of Action to Implement the ASEAN-Russia Strategic Partnership for 2021-2025. It is being implemented in all sectors. We have pointed out today that our special representatives are working at the ASEAN Headquarters in Jakarta to prepare the fourth strategic plan. We hope to adopt it by the end of 2025, ideally, at the Russia-ASEAN summit scheduled to take place in the capital of Malaysia in October 2025.

Regarding the meeting of the East Asia Summit, which was held today, it focused primarily on the advancement of practical engagement projects in various spheres. We believe that this should constitute the basis of EAS activities.

Regrettably, our Western colleagues attending such events increasingly resort to politicisation, ideologisation and Ukrainisation – a trend that was also evident in today’s discussions. This comes at the expense of the real potential the East Asia Summit holds for achieving tangible results that matter to our countries and citizens.

For several years now, we have been advancing initiatives aimed at responding swiftly to epidemic threats – a topic that could hardly be more relevant. We first proposed this in 2021, and it was approved. However, due to the West’s intransigent stance, this cooperation has made little progress.

In 2023, we proposed stepping up cooperation in the tourism sector and encouraging greater exchanges to foster stronger people-to-people ties among our countries. Tourism is growing regardless, but the incentives we put forward were adopted for integration into day-to-day practice. Nevertheless, little has been done to move this forward.

We also proposed working together on the development of remote regions – another initiative that was agreed upon. In large countries such as Russia, Indonesia, Malaysia, China and others, there are remote areas where civilisation has arrived, but the benefits of development are not felt as strongly as in major urban centres. This is a pressing issue for all of us, and we hope to see concrete results.

Another initiative we have proposed in the humanitarian sphere is to foster cultural connectedness among our countries. Eurasia is a vast continent and  the cradle of several great civilisations. The cultural heritage of each deserves to be shared through mutual enrichment. We hope this proposal will also come to fruition.

At meetings of the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum on security, political issues are also regularly discussed. Today, all ASEAN members and most partner countries, including Russia, expressed deep concern over the ongoing and worsening tragedy in the Palestinian territories. Following the humanitarian catastrophe artificially created in Gaza, similar conditions are now unfolding in the West Bank, where Israel continues its aggressive policy of settlement construction at record levels. Soon, there may be nothing left of the territory under the Palestinian National Authority’s administration.

Today, I was surprised to read reports about a project to establish an Emirate of Hebron. This initiative is being framed as the first step towards promoting the concept of the “United Palestinian Emirates” on Palestinian territories. While such ideas may currently seem like fiction, their increasing appearance in public discourse reflects emerging risks and growing tensions surrounding the prospects for establishing a Palestinian state, as envisaged by the decisions of the UN General Assembly and Security Council. This represents a serious challenge for the international community.

We discussed the repercussions of Israel’s unprovoked attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran, followed by missile and air strikes carried out by the United States. These actions constitute a violation of international law, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), and the principles of the IAEA, under whose safeguards the targeted nuclear facilities operated.

We called for upholding the declared truce without interruption. Despite the significant damage caused to the NPT framework and the IAEA’s safeguards regime, efforts must be made to restore stability, return the situation to a political track, and resolve all issues exclusively through negotiations. This is critical to ensuring that such reckless actions, which undermine the foundational documents governing the peaceful use of nuclear energy and non-proliferation, are not repeated, as well as any attempts to adopt technologies necessary for the production of nuclear weapons.

We also touched upon the situation in Myanmar, where signs of stabilisation are emerging. We support the efforts of the Myanmar leadership and ASEAN’s commitment to facilitating normalisation and fully restoring Myanmar’s participation in the work of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

We highlighted the importance of avoiding provocative actions on the Korean Peninsula, where tensions continue to escalate, particularly due to the expansion of US, South Korean, and Japanese military alliances. The increasing scale of military exercises, some involving nuclear components, carries significant conflict potential. Russia will continue to support the legitimate rights of our North Korean allies and work to prevent any provocations that could lead to dangerous consequences.

Among priority issues in the region, our Chinese friends also raised the disputes over the South China Sea. We strongly believe this matter must be resolved based on the Code of Conduct between China and ASEAN member states. Negotiations are ongoing on this solid foundation. We regard any attempts by non-regional actors to interfere in this process as unacceptable.

Foreign Minister of China Wang Yi also provided a detailed assessment of the situation surrounding Taiwan, stressing the inevitability of resolving the issue within the framework of the One China principle.

We noted the statements made by some Western representatives expressing respect for the One China policy, while simultaneously asserting that the status quo must not change. This is blatant hypocrisy. For those familiar with the situation, it is clear that the West increasingly treats Taiwan as a sovereign entity. This is why Russia reaffirmed its consistent support for Beijing’s position and expressed its readiness to assist in its implementation by all means available.

Question: Last year, during a meeting with Foreign Ministry leadership, President Vladimir Putin called for building a new Eurasian security architecture – one where no one state’s security comes at the expense of another state. How does ASEAN, or Asian nations more broadly, view this proposal amid NATO’s continued militarisation?

Sergey Lavrov: In fact, the initiative to form a Eurasian security architecture builds upon President Vladimir Putin’s earlier proposal, first introduced at the inaugural Russia-ASEAN summit – a vision for a Greater Eurasian Partnership forged through strengthened ties, deeper cooperation, and joint projects and programmes among the continent’s existing integration associations. To date, links have been established between the heads and secretariats of the EAEU and the CIS, between these organisations and the SCO, and between all of them and ASEAN countries. This useful process helps harmonise integration plans and projects, combine efforts, and avoid duplication – all the more so since the memberships mostly overlap.

We promote the Greater Eurasian Partnership concept with the understanding that discussions on the initiative and negotiations over practical steps are open to all Eurasian countries and organisations. In particular, there are strong prospects for establishing ties between the EAEU, the SCO, the CIS, ASEAN, and the GCC. Integration associations also exist in South Asia, including on the South Asian Peninsula, meaning numerous groups could contribute to and benefit from improved connectivity.

As these visions take shape through concrete actions, they create a tangible framework for dialogue and enhanced continental security. I have repeatedly addressed this topic to advance President Vladimir Putin’s initiative. Beyond Eurasia, Africa and Latin America host sub-regional integration associations – as well as continent-wide organisations like the African Union and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC). Yet Eurasia – the world’s largest, most dynamic, richest and fastest growing region – still lacks a continent-wide dialogue platform (which need not be a formal organisation).

We are fully aware that this process takes time. All countries invited to take part in these discussions must be ready to take this step. However, most of our European neighbours are clearly not yet ready for such cooperation – instead, they appear focused on expanding neo-colonial influence across Eurasia through NATO infrastructure. They argue that in the current conditions, as a defensive alliance, NATO’s purpose is to protect member states’ territorial integrity – a claim they openly and unhesitatingly assert. In their narrative, the threat to NATO countries’ security and territorial integrity originates from what they label the “Indo-Pacific region” – specifically, the Pacific Ocean, including the South China Sea, the Taiwan Strait and other areas.

One of the key principles of our concept of Eurasian security and the Greater Eurasian Partnership is respect for associations established in various sub-regions, including ASEAN, and its central role, which the Association has earned through nearly sixty years of work uniting countries committed to collaboration based on equality, openness, and inclusiveness. Our concept acknowledges and respects the roles of both ASEAN and similar associations. By contrast, the approach promoted by NATO proceeds from the assumption that the Alliance will dictate terms to everyone – prescribing how they should conduct themselves and whether ASEAN is even necessary. Formally, yes. Today, all Western countries participated in the East Asia Summit and the ASEAN Regional Forum on security.

Yet whilst uttering fine words, parallel structures are being established – as you well know – in the form of “trios,” “quartets,” and other groupings: AUKUS, the United States–United Kingdom–Australia partnership for the implementation of the nuclear-powered submarine project. I have already mentioned attempts to introduce nuclear elements into military exercises on the southern Korean Peninsula. There is the Indo-Pacific Quad – Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand – alongside a number of similar tripartite arrangements (QUAD-1, QUAD-2). These entities seek to draw ASEAN members into their frameworks, effectively pulling them away from the Association. We discuss this openly with our friends, who fully grasp the distinction between an inclusive approach – where all are invited to the table for equitable dialogue and consensus-building that reflects a balance of interests – and the approach of the North Atlantic actors, who arrive in this region intent on dictating terms and imposing their own rules. I believe this does not serve the greater good.

We are committed to ensuring that these formats and forums, held here annually, foster mutual understanding and transparent conduct – with no hidden agendas or schemes directed against any party. Yet the process currently unfolds along divergent trajectories. I am convinced that our approach holds greater promise.

Question: The recent summit in Rio de Janeiro demonstrated that, amid increasingly aggressive United States sanctions, BRICS has emerged as a reliable alternative to this sanctions overreach. Have ASEAN nations reached a point where they are ready – not just rhetorically but in practice – to deepen collaboration with Russia specifically and BRICS more broadly?

Sergey Lavrov: I believe ASEAN countries’ interest in collaboration with Russia exists irrespective of what is going on in the West and what the United States and its allies are undertaking with respect to them.

It is not the case that, “had the West not coerced us, we would not have engaged with Russia.” Not at all. Our friendship started long before the current United States administration imposed tariff-based sanctions (which are sanctions nonetheless). The development of our ASEAN relations and BRICS cooperation does not strike me as a direct reaction to external factors.

That said, if presented with a choice – between trading within a framework that rejects unfair competition, on the one hand, and engaging with parties that resort to blackmail, on the other – the conclusion is self-evident.

Question: Based on your meetings at this forum, what assessments can you share? Are ASEAN nations prepared to actively resist NATO’s encroachment and the bloc’s attempts to entrench itself in the region? Does the Association possess the resources to remain a guarantor of regional security – particularly given the substantial tariffs imposed on many ASEAN members by US President Donald Trump?

Sergey Lavrov: I have just elaborated on our assessment of NATO’s actions here: its efforts to penetrate the region, establish infrastructure, and secure a foothold. I have no doubt ASEAN states comprehend these manoeuvres and recognise the choice being presented – to formally remain within ASEAN while simultaneously joining non-inclusive, bloc-based structures aimed, in essence, at forging a political-diplomatic front to contain China (this is undisguised) and, by extension, the Russian Federation.

I will not presume to decide for them; this is their sovereign choice, which we will perceive as such. But I am certain that preserving ASEAN’s unity and its central role in shaping the mechanisms, formats, and architecture of cooperation in Southeast Asia best serves the interests of all. This will remain our guiding principle.

Question: Yesterday, after a meeting with you, US State Secretary Marco Rubio said a new plan for Ukraine had been discussed. Which side proposed new approaches, what are they about, and what makes them fundamentally different from the previous ones? Are US weapon supplies also part of the plan? Were they discussed?

Sergey Lavrov: I will use President Trump’s words to answer your question “I’m not going to tell you. We are going to have a very big announcement to make.”

I’m not sure about a “big announcement,” though, but you, as someone familiar with the diplomatic work and who often accompany us in our travels, know that there are things that are not commented on. Yes, we discussed Ukraine, and reaffirmed the position articulated by President Putin in a conversation with President Trump on July 3 and earlier occasions.

Regarding this “dialogue,” “leak,” or “recording” (I have no way of knowing whether it’s a neural network product or not) about bombing Moscow and Beijing, we focused on serious matters during our discussion.

Question: Did you discuss strategic offensive weapons during the meeting with Marco Rubio? Is there an understanding of the future of START-3 which expires next year?

Sergey Lavrov: No, we did not discuss that.

Question: Not long ago, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz stated that diplomatic means of resolving the Ukraine conflict have been exhausted. On the one hand, I would like to ask you, as the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, to provide an official reaction. On the other hand, as an experienced professional diplomat, does such rhetoric coming from Germany fit into the diplomatic arsenal? Is it part of diplomacy?

Sergey Lavrov: That’s a good question.

It concerns us, because the latest statements coming from Berlin, Paris, and London, as well as their actions, clearly show that the current class of politicians who have come to power in these and several other countries have forgotten the lessons of history, the conclusions that humanity has drawn from them, and are largely trying to rally Europe for a war (no longer hybrid this time) against Russia.

At a news conference, a Frenchman from the audience who often visited Donbass asked Foreign Minister of France Jean-Noel Barrot why Paris strongly supports the Nazi regime that has come alive in Ukraine. Did you see Minister Barrot fly off the hook and yell hysterically that they, supposedly, defend the territorial integrity of Ukraine and the international law? A portion of the audience clapped their hands upon hearing this. But after everything that we know about what the Kiev regime did and why it needs territorial integrity ... It needs it to suppress the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking people, and physically destroy the people who do not agree with the position adopted by the Kiev authorities after the coup.

Yesterday, I handed over to Secretary Marco Rubio a digest of quotes from Vladimir Zelensky, Prime Minister of Ukraine Dmitry Shmygal, head of the President’s Office of Ukraine Andrey Yermak, and Yury Podoliak, which directly say Russkies must be destroyed legally, or better yet, physically.  When Mr Barrot and his ilk say they do not want to look beyond Ukraine’s territorial integrity, they are accusing themselves by saying so.

German Chancellor Merz has repeatedly made amusing statements, including his main goal of making Germany Europe’s top military power again. He didn’t even flinch saying the word “again.” He also said things like let Israel “work” in Iran, as it’s doing the “dirty work” for us. That’s a quote from the concentration camp “masters” when they delegated the dirty work of exterminating Jews to collaborators.

If Chancellor Merz believes that peaceful solutions have been used up, then he has conclusively decided to devote himself completely to the militarisation of Germany at the expense of his own people, just to ride again under Nazi slogans to rebuff the “threats emanating from Russia.” This is utter nonsense. I hope fair-minded politicians understand this.

President Putin has repeatedly made it clear that this nonsense is used to keep people obedient and prevent protests that inevitably lead to the worsening of the socioeconomic situation and stagnation in Europe. All this is due to the fact that hundreds of billions have been directed and are being sent to Ukraine again.

I came across a quote. It was interesting how Europe perceived Germany back in the day. This quote comes from the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet dated June 22, 1941. The editorial article runs as follows, “Germany has broken its chains and with renewed vigour has broken into freedom towards its European and historically significant mission which is to crush the Red regime, which creates a threat to the nature of freedom.” That is, they praised the Nazis as a symbol of freedom. If Europe is heading back to this ... Well, what can I say? It’s sad.

We will fully take this into account in all areas of our planning.

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