Sergey Lavrov: “We do not harbour any illusions regarding people holding senior roles in the West”

Photo: MFA

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with France-Russia Dialogue Association YouTube-channel recorded on November 21, 2025.

Question: Our today’s dialogue is important for all of us within the French-speaking community who will watch this interview at the time of escalation in relations between Russia and France. In the end of the interview, we have already selected the subscribers’ questions, by tradition. I will be pleased to share the wishes of our audience with you.

There is a widespread opinion in both Europe and Russia that Donald Trump is a kind of a visionary peacemaker who can say “no” to the globalists and stop any war. Still, the United States, which as we know sticks to its national interests, has always had the idea that Russia should be severed from Europe. All media are talking about Trump’s presenting his 28-point peace plan. It seems that even Vladimir Zelensky is ready to accept it. What can you say about this?

Sergey Lavrov: Too many unclear things are happening. Now Zelensky says in Istanbul that he is ready to discuss this plan and agree on some acceptable wording. Then his representatives say (including Deputy Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations) that this out of the question.

I find it difficult to comment on such speculations. We still believe that a diplomatic settlement is, of course, preferrable. The Alaska meeting was preceded by the visit of US President’s Special Envoy Steve Witcoff to Moscow with direct instructions from the US President. Steve Witcoff brought to the meeting with President Putin some specific settlement parameters, which took into account our principled approaches consisting in the need to focus on eliminating the root causes of this conflict, which we all know well.

This drama began with the West’s attempt to have NATO absorb Ukraine, create a military threat to Russia right at our borders and in spite and in breach of all the promises given to the Soviet Union and contrary to all the understandings concluded then with the Russian Federation as part of the OSCE framework on the indivisible nature of security, the fact that no organisation, no country in Europe will seek to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others. It was approved at the highest level. NATO acted exactly the opposite way.

The second primary cause is the Nazi Kiev regime’s policy and laws. The West brought this regime to power in February 2014 by staging a bloody anti-constitutional government coup to exterminate everything Russian. Long before the special military operation Zelensky advised Russians to get out to Russia if they, being Ukrainian citizens, identify with the Russian culture. It was his direct appeal. Actually, both Donbass and Novorossiya followed his advice.

As for the very beginning of your question about the way Americans (now Donald Trump’s administration) treat Europe and, in general, everything happening in the world, there can be conflicting assessments. Above all, this is due to the fact that Trump came to power under the Make America Great Again slogan, criticised Joe Biden for interfering in all world processes for ideological reasons, for imposing neoliberal approaches, imposing neoliberal ideas and nurturing neoliberal elites. Trump said that during his tenure the United States will not do any such things. It will do what is beneficial and what serves its national interests.

Indeed, the methods are different, of course. No ideology. They have disbanded the US Agency for International Development and other instruments of ideological suppression of everybody and everything in all the continents, which had been closely aligned with the agenda of Democrats. Still, the objective to dictate everybody their will has been undoubtedly preserved, and maybe it became even more apparent when its ideological shell dropped.

There can be different ways of describing their approaches but the essence is that America should be first in everything and everybody must obey it. This approach was used not only in Europe but in all other places too. It is a different matter that Europe is more dependent on the United States in terms of security and from the point of view of its foreign policy prospects, in this case the European policy towards Ukraine. No one listens to it because Europe and the European elites placed their bets on their conviction that they could use the Nazi regime in Kiev as a proxy and cannon fodder to inflict what they call a strategic defeat on Russia.

They rejected the very possibility of talks. Then Prime Minister Boris Johnson simply forbade Zelensky in April 2022 to sign the document that was initialled and based on the settlement principles proposed by Ukrainians themselves. That was Britain’s role. It also “made itself felt.” They are fond of manipulating Europe like the United States do.

The United States is interested in attracting as much investment in its economy as possible. Recently, they held a summit with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. Each visit results in announcements of investments worth billions or trillions of dollars. All this is presented as attracting money into the US economy.

Every country must think about making its economy independent, affluent and productive, it should be able to reshore (in case of the United States) its manufacturing capabilities after “scattering” them all over the world, in the countries where the labour force was several times cheaper than in the United States and this is why the goods manufactured there by US monopolies and corporations, but using cheap labour force abroad, were competitive.

We will see what happens when and if President Trump and his team fulfil their idea to return their manufacturing capabilities to America, what will be their costs and expenditures and how this affects the final cost. In imposing sanctions, started not by Donal Trump (although he also imposed sanctions against Russia under the pretext of the Ukraine issue during his first presidency), it was under Biden’s administration that the United States went all out on sanctions. As for the Europeans, they outstripped them, of course, in doing this.

Later came duties and tariffs. The world economy is not globalised at all these days, because none of the principles and rules of globalisation that the Americans and their allies have spent decades imposing by working through universal institutions (the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO) have been implemented by any of them. Their basic principles have long been violated because the membership of their governing bodies and the distribution of votes do not reflect the real situation in the world economy and the alignment of forces in any way. The principles of fair competition, market methods of determining what is best and inviolability of property have become a thing of the past.

I remember that many years ago when the dollar ceased to be pegged to the gold standard (this was during Richard Nixon’s presidency), Americans said, do not worry, the dollar is the most reliable currency, which is not the property of the United States. It is a universal good. The dollar belongs to humankind, it serves the interests of all and this will be forever. So, here we are. “Forever” is gone. A different era has come.

Now we all can see the advent of something close to chaos in international trade and investment. The US actions are not necessarily aimed solely at bringing Europe under its control. Their objective is to generate benefits and dividends wherever possible using any options.

The same refers to foreign policy. All the eight wars that Donald Trump stopped (we really appreciate his desire not to unleash wars, as his predecessors did, but stop them), froze for some time. Truces have been made. Truces have now been declared almost everywhere: in the Middle East, between Pakistan and Afghanistan, between Cambodia and Thailand, in the DRC and Rwanda. But these initiatives did not address the root causes. Problems have already emerged on the Cambodian-Thailand border, between Pakistan and Afghanistan and there are quite a few clouds overshadowing the situation on the Israeli-Palestinian track, so to speak.

This is why the desire to stop a bloodshed must be encouraged in every possible way. Achieving a lasting settlement, however, requires much more careful, patient initiatives without making any hasty moves.

Question: We are having this conversation under the auspices of the France-Russia Dialogue Association, which means that we would like to focus on relations between France and Russia. I suggest that we begin with topics, which have been widely discussed in the French media over the past several months, including in the context of the Ukraine conflict. First, the Russian military has been allegedly targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. Second, the notion of Russia having chosen France as its adversary – President of France Emmanuel Macron was the first to make this statement this past summer – has unfortunately gained traction in the public discourse. France’s Chief of the Defence Staff followed up by saying that Russia was preparing for a full-scale war with NATO countries in a matter of several years. Just two days ago, the current Chief of the Defence Staff of France said that the people of France had to be ready to sacrifice their children in a war with Russia. He made these remarks in his address to a French mayor and the people of France. What would be your comment regarding these statements?

Sergey Lavrov: Have you decided not to mention the Chief of Defence Staff’s last name on purpose?

Question: I was referring to General Fabien Mandon.

Sergey Lavrov: I have heard this statement and have the impression that what he said about being ready to sacrifice the lives of their children, and by the way he also mentioned the economy, and his words about the need to suffer in order to prevent Russia from winning and conquering Europe – this has already caused indignation even in France. Where these high-ranking military officials come from and what kind of university credentials they have is anyone’s guess. Seems that they are seeking to play along with their current leader, Mr Emmanuel Macron.

I do not know where he got the idea that Russia designated France as its adversary. In my opinion, it works in the opposite direction. In fact, it was France which has been treating Russia unfairly for quite some time now, which goes all the way back to the Minsk agreements, to give you an example. In 2015, France acted as a guarantor under these agreements in the person of Emmanuel Macron’s predecessor at the time, President Francois Hollande. He signed the Minsk agreements together with then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President Vladimir Putin and Pyotr Poroshenko, who was President of Ukraine at that time. But in 2020, when everyone wanted to understand how and why it all happened, and why no one complied with the Minsk agreements, they – I mean Francois Hollande, Angel Merkel and Pyotr Poroshenko openly recognised that they never intended to fulfill their part of the deal to begin with.

Question: Was there any possibility of anticipating this turn of events? Did you understand that there will be an effort to derail the Minsk agreements?

Sergey Lavrov: President Vladimir Putin is a very honest person. Speaking to an audience after the start of the special military operation on the Minsk agreements, relations between Russia and the West and the Ukraine issue in general, he said that in the early days of our relations with the West, back in the 2000s, we had a lot of illusions in this regard, but these illusions gradually faded into the background, while still leaving hope that our counterparts, primarily in Western Europe, can live up to their commitments and – I would like to place a special emphasis on this point – that they can act in good faith. However, all these hopes vanished in February 2022, as President Vladimir Putin said. Things will never be the same in our relations with the West as they were before February 2022.

This was a very strong statement. It demonstrated that there was still hope until February 2022 and the moment we realised that our only option was to launch the special military operation.

We demonstrated that this hope was real by putting forward meaningful initiatives as early as in December 2021, while the West kept perorating across the world that Russia was preparing to invade and that this invasion had to be prevented. Then CIA Director William Burns came to Russia to warn us against acting this way. We were honest when we replied that our primary goal consisted in preventing NATO from creating military threats along our borders by militarising Ukraine and including it into NATO doctrines, in which Russia was designated as an adversary, if not an enemy.

It was also back in December 2021 that we drafted the Russia-NATO and Russia-US treaties as per President Vladimir Putin’s instructions to demonstrate that there was a viable alternative. These documents provided for addressing security concerns and threats. Our President instructed us, diplomats, military agencies and special services to draft these documents in November 2021. Basically, these treaties consisted in stipulating political commitments as approved by all European countries, as well as the United States and Canada within the OSCE. They signed all these solemn pledges back in 1999 and went on to reaffirm them in 2010 at the OSCE Summit in Astana.

But nothing changed. NATO persisted with its expansion, as we can see from today’s vantage point. We still hoped that they could be treated as honest partners by trying to draw their attention to the fact that what they did ran counter to their commitments as per these pledges. But they kept replying that these commitments were political pledges, not binding obligations. This is cynicism at its finest. At the time, when Dmitry Medvedev was President, we suggested turning these pledges into binding obligations. After all, they supported these commitments by signing them. They thought about it, but only to say that NATO was an exclusive framework for granting legal guarantees.

This means that on a conceptual and mental levels, they still wanted to ensure that NATO operates as a magnate, a bate of sorts even in an era when the USSR and the Warsaw Pact did not exist anymore and when the Cold War became a thing of the past together with its ideological rivalries. This amounted to positing that if you join our ranks, we will guarantee your security, but you will have to obey us in return. But what kind of advice did they offer? Attack Russia was their only piece of advice.

Just look at the way they have been seeking to literally force our Serbian friends and brothers to, first, recognise Kosovo’s independence, and, second, make them join EU’s Russia-hating policy. Moreover, they have been quite open about it and saying this for everyone to hear by alleging that they were ready to accept Serbia into the EU. However, Serbia had to forget about Kosovo, as well as its friendship and historical ties with Russians. It had to join all the sanctions and all the aggressive preparations for waging war against Russia.

What a peculiar mindset. It is the Western Europeans, as well as the so-called young Europeans as represented by the Poles and the Baltic states who have been playing a leading role in this regard. It is striking however that even a serious country like France, as you have mentioned, decided to play along.

Only recently, President Emmanuel Macron came up with yet another catchy slogan by alleging that Russia invented this war and that there was no reason for starting it, no real threats and that it was all a hoax. I may not remember his exact words, but he talked about a convulsing power lamenting the loss of its statehood and its imperialistic colonial past. This is what President of France said. It seems that he really has a problem with his approval ratings.

You have mentioned France’s Chief of Defence Staff, but there is also Germany’s Defence Minister Boris Pistorius who said that Russia is expected to attack NATO before 2030. Now he claims that this can happen as early as in 2029 or even in 2028.

What are they preparing for their people? Do they want to create a sense of inevitability? As far as I understand, France is in the process of reshuffling its economy by forcing civilian sectors to work for the military industrial complex. I have recently come across an article saying that they were even trying to put healthcare on a military footing in an effort to prepare it for having to operate with military action underway and save French soldiers. You have mentioned someone saying in France about not sparing their children for the sake of freedom. Freedom, equality and fraternity. Marianne spun in her grave, I fancy. What an astonishing story. Let me reiterate that there is not a single piece of evidence to prove Russia’s intention to attack France.

We have been to Paris a couple of times. In fact, we were the ones who liberated them, I mean the French. By working together with General Charles de Gaulle and his Resistance Movement, we helped them overcome their national shame after they surrendered everything they had to Adolf Hitler and started sipping coffee on Montmartre under occupation.

There is one more point I want to make in this regard. Europeans simply refuse to follow this logic, but there is no getting away from it. They keep gloating about Russia failing to achieve its objectives and that it barely manages to take over meagre pieces of land from the poor and embattled Ukrainians, which means that there is no reason to be afraid. They keep pretending that the European army is much stronger and that Russia would not use nuclear weapons, while Europe would easily defeat Russia in a conventional confrontation, considering that Europe exceeds Russia’s population by a factor of five. In these assessments, they present the way Russia’s Armed Forces have been advancing their positions as being too slow and reflecting their inefficiency. If this is the case, why are you afraid of us to such an extent, if we cannot even take over Ukraine, as they have been saying? They keep saying that Europe stands next in line after Ukraine. How can these assessments co-exist?

They seem to have a problem with their analytics and simply with their politicians whose mission consists in offering their people an honest explanation about what is going on. These elites opted for war and have staked their entire political carriers on the slogan of inflicting what they call a strategic defeat on Russia, one way or another. A couple of year ago, they talked about defeating Russia on the battlefield. Today, this is about strangling Russia with sanctions. They are already claiming that the Russian economy would break apart and would not be able to sustain this blow. They claim that their mission has almost been accomplished. People making these claims seem to forget the lessons of WWII and other instances when people came together to defend their country, national dignity, history and the future of their children in the minute, hour and year of need.

As for the situation as it is currently unfolding along the frontline, the line of contact as part of the special military operation, President Vladimir Putin has recently visited the headquarters of our Armed Forces. Information resulting from these meetings as reported in the media speaks for itself.

President of France Emmanuel Macron and Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz have been camping on an arrogant position, and this is even more true for the Belgians, the Dutch and Mark Rutte. But all this demonstrates their confusion. They do not know what to do. They probably risk losing power if they radically change their rhetoric by starting to take their cues from reasonable Europeans such as Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban and Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico who say that they needed to talk with Russia and stop placing their bets on war.

Question: I want to say a word in defence of some experts and analysts who come to us through the France-Russia Dialogue Association platform. They clearly do not want to fight with Russia; on the contrary, they consistently express the most amicable attitudes and assessments.

With your permission, I would like to return to the first part of the question. It is important, because we constantly hear accusations that the Russian military deliberately strikes civilian facilities. Could you briefly comment on this?

Sergey Lavrov: We have not seen a single piece of evidence. What we have repeatedly seen is the opposite. Whenever a projectile or fragment from an air-defence system hits a civilian facility, Ukraine and the countries that have supported its regime immediately shout that Russia is “inhuman.”

The UN Security Council convened a meeting on this issue in New York on November 19. There, they repeated tired clichés in every possible way, and no one responded to our request to present evidence. It is unfortunate that the UN Secretariat is completely under their control. When someone accuses Russia of allegedly striking Ukrainian civilian sites, UN Secretary-General António Guterres and his spokesperson, the Frenchman Stéphane Dujarric, immediately declare that they strongly condemn the use of armed force against civilian facilities. But [the reaction is different] when obvious incidents – never disputed by anyone – occur due to Ukraine’s own actions, such as the bombings they have been carrying out for more than a year now on Russia’s territory, such as the Kursk Region. There is not a single military facility there. They destroyed homes, hospitals, kindergartens, and shops. Yet Stéphane Dujarric, his superior, and others in the UN Secretariat, which is fully dominated by Westerners, merely claimed they were “looking into the matter.”

Let me remind you of the beginning of the special military operation, when there was an outcry over the railway station in Kramatorsk. A missile struck, causing many civilian casualties and damaging the infrastructure. We were immediately blamed. Later, honest experts established that it was a Tochka-U missile, and its point of impact clearly demonstrated that it had been launched by the Ukrainians themselves at a railway station under their control. It was a sheer provocation intended to blame us.

There was also the case of a maternity hospital…

Question: At the very beginning, in Mariupol?

Sergey Lavrov: Yes, in Mariupol. The women who were there and who presented as victims of “Russian inhuman aggression” later stated that nothing of the sort had happened.

Not to mention the biggest hoax in early April 2022 – Bucha. At that time, Ukrainian negotiators in Istanbul had handed our delegation settlement principles that we accepted. These principles were initialled. We were already prepared to begin drafting the final settlement agreement.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that we withdrew our troops from the suburbs of Kiev, including Bucha, as a gesture of goodwill, at the request of certain Western intermediaries. For two days, no Russian forces – or Russians at all – were present in this suburb. During those two days, the mayor of Bucha appeared on television and publicly confirmed that Russian troops had left and that the area was once again under Ukrainian control.

Then, all of a sudden, BBC correspondents arrived two days later and began filming not some basements but a wide main street, which could not be overlooked. There, dead bodies with hands tied were laid out neatly along this main street. Moreover, despite the fact that it was April, when the weather is slushy, the clothing put on them appeared too clean. Immediately thereafter, a wave of accusations, outcry, condemnations, and yet another round of sanctions followed. Not one party responded to our proposal to conduct a proper investigation. Since then, obtaining any information on Bucha has been extremely difficult. Once the desired propaganda message was extracted, no one has shown willingness to revisit or clarify what actually happened there.

Every year when I came to New York to attend the General Assembly sessions – in 2022, 2023, 2024, and in 2025 – when speaking before the UN Security Council, I personally addressed UN Secretary-General António Guterres and asked him directly whether we could receive a list of the individuals whose bodies were shown in the BBC report as alleged victims of atrocities committed by Russian forces. Frankly, I am already embarrassed for him. He is, after all, a respected public figure. He replied that the UN follows certain rules and that this matter falls under the competence of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. When we contacted that Office, we received a formal response stating that their procedures do not allow the disclosure of confidential information if doing so could cause mental distress or other harm to surviving relatives.

I am not even going to comment on this. This is a disgrace for the organisation which publishes any facts when it finds it necessary. Concealing the names of those whose bodies have already been used for a major provocation is already a confession.

We are well aware of how the Western propaganda machine operates, how easily it fabricates and circulates anti-Russia and Russophobic narratives. On each such episode, our position is transparent. If there are doubts, we are prepared to sit down with representatives of the UN, the Red Cross and listen to any factual evidence they claim to possess. But as soon as we make this proposal, they all, as the Russian saying goes, “go under the snag” – disappear and avoid further discussion.

Question: You have been talking about propaganda. There is every chance for our today’s interview to be labelled propaganda too. Russia has been facing allegations in France in recent months of carrying out cyberattacks in Western countries, including in France. There are many alternative platforms too.

You often talk to journalists from around the world, but small channels struggle to have their voice heard on this market. What you have been saying here amounts to a de facto informational world war. In your opinion, who is dominating this war?

Sergey Lavrov: Do you mean who will win this war?

Question: My question is about who dominates this war. But if you know who will win it…

Sergey Lavrov: This depends on the way you define dominance. From a quantitative perspective, there is a plethora of media outlets in the global broadcasting and online media space, which are established in the United States, the UK, or using funding from the US and the UK. The same goes for Europe and its effort to fund affiliates beyond its borders. It is hard to compare as far as numbers are concerned.

The fact that such outlets like RT and Sputnik have been among the top performers in terms of their audience numbers demonstrates that there is another important indicator, which deals with the extent to which users trust their sources of information. From this standpoint, RT and Sputnik have a serious reputation. This is why they attract so much hatred – for telling the truth.

This has nothing to do with war. I am referring to the war the West has unleashed against us by using the Kiev regime as a proxy, staging a government coup and offering the opposition generous funding long before the government coup. Under Secretary of State of the United States Victoria Nuland mentioned investing $5 billion in preparing this government coup. President Vladimir Putin had a meeting with President of France Emmanuel Macron at the latter’s summer residence in Fort Bregancon back in 2019, long before this happened. The agenda of their meeting included the question about Elysee Palace depriving RT and Sputnik of their accreditation to.

At the time, our French counterparts refrained from offering any detailed comments. But there was a news conference in Paris following the Bregancon summit where Benjamin Grivaux, the Spokesperson for the French government, was asked why RT and Sputnik were denied accreditation from the outset. His answer was quite simple. These are propaganda tools, not media outlets, he said.

The world marked the International Day to End Impunity for Crimes against Journalists recently. Speaking on behalf of the EU, the infamous Kaja Kallas made a bombastic statement to say that freedom of speech operates as the EU’s cornerstone and that it should not be restricted in any way. I think that anyone who has been following what the EU is doing in terms of freedom of expression and speech knows well that this is all a big fat lie.

The way RT and Sputnik were treated in France serves as an example of something that happened long before the special military operation. When it started, they went the whole nine yards, as the saying goes, to prevent our media from reaching their wider audience.

Skill can replace numbers, as we say in Russia. In this case, our international broadcasters demonstrated their skill by acting as true professionals. Western journalists who work for RT and Sputnik are doing this not because they want Russia to dominate and not because they earn generous salaries, but because they are professionals. And they feel ashamed when forced to lie from the screen or online, and view this as offending their professionalism.

Question: You recalled President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with President of France Emmanuel Macron in 2019. The France-Russia Dialogue Association was established 20 years ago. Then President of France Jacques Chirac and President Vladimir Putin created this platform which served as an impetus for promoting bilateral relations. We marked the 20th anniversary in 2024.

The last thing people in France who care about what is going on remember is the long table separating Emmanuel Macron from Vladimir Putin. It happened right before the sorrowful events, and there was a lot of talk about this. Is there no going back to the normal relations our two countries used to enjoy?

Sergey Lavrov: Are you speaking about a long table all covered with luxurious food?

Question: No, an empty one.

Sergey Lavrov: Did it happen before the special military operation started?

Question: I think it was in January 2022.

Sergey Lavrov: It was February 7, 2022, in the midst of the pandemic.

It is not that I have a problem commenting on this matter. In fact, I do not want to comment it. We are being told all the time that we have betrayed what they call the European ideals. However, they were the ones who betrayed these ideals, as demonstrated by facts.

I am referring to everything approved by the OSCE… the 1990 Paris Charter for a New Europe, for example. Russia still tries honouring its provisions even today, believing that it remains relevant, while the principles it sets forth are just and reflect our commitment to working together on an equal footing. However, France basically ignores this document, despite the fact that it hosted that summit. The same applies to other EU and NATO members, including in terms of media freedoms.

This summit paved the way for several decisions. In 1990, the Soviet Union was living its last days, and everyone tried to enchant Mikhail Gorbachev and build a forward-looking future. Some probably thought that the Soviet Union was about to fall apart, and even at that time there were those who thought about diminishing Russia’s role, as we can now see from the archival documents.

Among other things at the summit, the OSCE adopted at the highest level a document on accessing information. It sets forth without any doubt or ambivalence that every OSCE member must ensure free access to information regardless of whether its sources are in the corresponding state or beyond its borders. There cannot be any restrictions in this regard.

RT and Sputnik offer a glaring example of the way the West has been ignoring what it once championed. But back then it acted this way for opportunistic reasons so that the USSR opens up as much as possible in order to make it easier for infiltrating it and promoting the Western agenda.

We do not harbour any illusions regarding people holding senior roles in the West. Prime Minister of Hungary Victor Orban and Prime Minister of Slovakia Robert Fico are an exception. Andrej Babis has now taken office as Prime Minister of the Czech Republic These are pragmatic-minded people. It is not that they are pro-Russian. They are pro-Hungarian, pro-Slovakian and pro-Czech, and focus on their people. They do not want to call on their people to sacrifice their children for the sake of supporting the Nazi regime.

My former colleague Alexander Stubb, who used to serve as Foreign Minister of Finland, now pretends to know everything and camps on outright Russia-hating positions after becoming president, which included, of course, playing golf with Donald Trump.

Finland maintained its neutrality for many decades, but this did not prevent the sprouts stemming from the Nazi past of the Finnish states from resurfacing. They worked with Adolf Hitler to occupy the Soviet Union, organise the siege of Leningrad and were involved in atrocities and ethnic cleansing. However, I always had a sincere conviction that these years of neutrality and neighbourly relations with Russia did matter. I have been to Finland’s border cities many times for taking part in Arctic Council meetings. People living close to the border used to visit each other and could travel without any visas. They used to hold cinema and dance festivals, and they forged family-to-family bonds of friendship. But they cancelled everything in an instant. I am not even talking about economic damage and the way the closing of borders affected people-to-people ties. They are now building up NATO infrastructure along this border. However, there is rampant Russia-hating ideology which consists in reminding that there was a time when we took something from Finland while referring to the fact that the nationalist regime refused to take into consideration Russia’s legitimate security interests right before World War II started when military units needed just a day to reach St Petersburg.

This DNA and the memory of having to keep Russia at bay instantly resurfaced in Alexander Stubb’s case. I do not know how it all happens and how he imagines this. Truth be said, even he has recently recognised that they would have to talk with our country one day.

These moments of truth do come. But when they are ready to talk, we will think about what we will talk about. If they hope that we will come running once they express their readiness to sit down with Russia at the negotiating table, this will not happen. We want to understand what they are ready to bring to the negotiating table. After that, we will decide.

Question: Military operations continue in Ukraine. There is a certain paradox: we have recently been told that the front is advancing and that Russia is dominating on the battlefield, and these are results that are difficult to hide. Yet for major Western countries – France, Germany, and Great Britain – these outcomes seem not to exist.

On November 17, Vladimir Zelensky visited Paris, for the ninth time, I believe. Together with Emmanuel Macron, he signed a declaration of intent for Kiev to purchase up to 100 Rafale fighter jets. A lot of discussion is now underway as to who will pay for all this, though it is most likely a matter for French taxpayers. My question is: what has been the strategy of France, Great Britain, and Germany from the very beginning? Is it simply, “we give money to Ukraine and we believe in Ukraine’s victory”?

Sergey Lavrov: I cannot comment on this situation from the standpoint of common sense. Have they promised him 100 Rafales?

Question: Up to one hundred.

Sergey Lavrov: Vladimir Zelensky signed a 100-year agreement with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. It seems to me he likes the number 100.

It was recently revealed that another 100 million was spent on bribes to corrupt officials. Has anyone in the Brussels bureaucracy, or in the countries that are pumping Ukraine full of money, explained to their taxpayers that they must endure and suffer? Perhaps there are some beneficiaries involved as well. I do not rule anything out.

But as for why this Russophobia has taken root in their hearts, I cannot analyse that. The only thing that is probably fair to say is that all the smiles and hugs directed toward Russian representatives before the Ukrainian crisis were nothing but a performance. They pretended to be benevolent, but in reality, they always wished Russia harm and misfortune.

The fact that they are now predicting the collapse of our economy, imagining that our people will rise with pitchforks and overthrow everyone – this once again demonstrates that Europe continues to live up to its reputation earned over the last 500 years, with all major misfortunes originating precisely from this group of states (some smaller, some larger). Two world wars began in Europe because of the ambitions of various European leaders. Sadly, this “historical code” does not disappear, and aggressiveness with a Russophobic tint continues to persist in Europe.

Question: In recent years, there has been a trend toward silencing or diminishing the role of the Soviet Union in the victory in World War II. You just mentioned Kaja Kallas. She said she was surprised to learn that the USSR and China made the main contribution to the victory.

In two decades, young people in the West will know absolutely nothing about this war – and essentially, few know much about it even now. How can we remind the world of what really happened?

Sergey Lavrov: EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaja Kallas, is not alone. She certainly does not give the impression of being a top student, especially in history. But when she claims that Russia and China assert they won World War II and therefore defeated Nazism – and calls this, as she put it, “something new” – well, one must know history. Unfortunately, many forget it.

Her colleague, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna, went even further, saying outright that the Soviet Union started World War II, occupied half the world, and deported everyone in the territories it occupied. This is what happens when no proper textbooks exist. Presumably, such ideas are also passed on to Estonian youth. This is the kind of people they are raising.

As regards the actual contribution: at the Yalta Conference in February 1945, statistics were presented based on analyses of battles and combat operations. They showed that Germany spent – if measured in “man-days” or “soldier-days” – at least ten times more such days on the Soviet front than on all other fronts combined. Four-fifths of German tanks and 75 percent of German aircraft were destroyed specifically on the Soviet front. There are also statistics showing that the Soviet Union accounted for 75 percent of all military efforts of the anti-Hitler coalition. That is evidently a decisive role. We, the peoples of the Soviet Union, defeated more than 620 divisions, over 500 of them being German.

Regarding China’s role: 90 percent of everything undertaken against militarist Japan was China’s contribution. Russia and China ended World War II together by defeating the Kwantung Army. There is correspondence: US President Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote to Joseph Stalin as early as mid-1942 that the Russian army was bearing the main burden of the war. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill also wrote to Stalin that it was the Russians who had “torn the guts out” of the German war machine – this was in the autumn of 1944. Another matter is that Roosevelt was not known for duplicity, while Churchill, as later became clear from archival documents, was already thinking – even as he wrote those words – well, you “tore the guts out” of the German war machine, but we want to “tear the guts out” of the Soviet Union as well. They were already plotting Operation Unthinkable at that time.

Actually, they were forced to become our allies. They had spent a while hesitating over whether to open a second front, watching which way the scales would tip, and ultimately betting on the winner. But at the same time, they were already drawing up plans to attack the USSR – both the Americans under President Harry S. Truman and Great Britain under Prime Minister Winston Churchill.

Question: If France wants to join BRICS, will BRICS accept France?

Sergey Lavrov: President of France Emmanuel Macron has already said somewhere that he intends to participate in BRICS. However, no one has extended an invitation to him.

I do not believe there is a consensus within BRICS, nor even a majority, that would welcome France given its current positions in the global economy, politics, and finance. In my view, France’s natural place remains within NATO and the European Union, which today are hardly distinguishable from one another; and, obviously, within the G7, which is losing relevance…

Incidentally, the G7 foreign ministers recently met in Canada, which currently holds the presidency. They adopted a statement asserting their uncompromising commitment to the principles of free markets and fair competition, ensuring that no one abuses their position in the global economy and that free-market rules are observed.

The impetus for this lofty and in fact reasonable declaration was the situation with Chinese rare-earth metals, which China began to limit on the market in response to unilateral US and EU sanctions. Swift calls for “fairness,” “free markets,” and so on followed. This is a case of self-exposure.

A closer look at how Western countries actually interpret the norms and rules of the free market and the principles of globalisation, which they once promoted as the ideal model of economic interdependence, shows that when they seek to punish someone, whether Russia, Iran, or Venezuela, they demonstrate hypocrisy, double standards, an inability to negotiate, and dishonesty. Unfortunately, these traits are now openly visible in the actions of our Western partners.

Question: Will Russia accept French businesses back?

Sergey Lavrov: A significant number of French businesses continue operating in Russia. I hope I am not revealing anything confidential when I say that I sometimes meet with their representatives at their request. They are primarily interested in the conditions under which they continue to work here. They also maintain dialogue with Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Finance. We have no intention of expelling or restricting the rights of those who have remained.

When members of the French business association meet with me, they are also interested in international political trends. These are people who, I believe, act in good faith. They have invested in Russia, want their investments to function, and are prepared to shoulder political risks imposed by their Russophobic governments.

This applies not only to the French. German companies and businesses from other European and EU countries also remain here. According to our statistics, more foreign companies have stayed in Russia than have left. And those who departed left their market niches free. Some closed their operations in various ways. President Vladimir Putin has spoken about this more than once. He said that those who left and would later decide to return may find their former niches already occupied, and those who replaced them are now our priority. During challenging times, they placed business interests above politics. Incidentally, I have recently seen reports on social media of several companies re-registering their trademarks and brand names in Russia.

Question: One last, philosophical question. Considering the times we live in, have you ever regretted becoming a diplomat?

Sergey Lavrov: I have never thought about it. That is simply how my life unfolded. The work is truly exciting. I do not have the time to ponder whether I regret it. I take genuine interest in being part of the process of understanding the historic events and transformations we are witnessing on the international stage.

If my team here at the Central Office and abroad succeeds in their work, I take great pride in that. I would like to express my gratitude to all my colleagues.

I believe that throughout this crisis in relations with the West, our team has demonstrated unity. Many expected that some would abandon their duties, tempted by various “offers.” There were indeed many such “offers,” and foreign intelligence services, both overseas and in Europe, repeatedly attempted to recruit our diplomats. Only one such attempt succeeded: a minor employee who left from Switzerland and has since disappeared into oblivion; no one remembers him. As the saying goes, “every family has its black sheep.”

Let me repeat this: as President Vladimir Putin has emphasised, the war that the West unleashed against us through Ukraine has united our society and allowed us to cleanse ourselves of those who lacked sincerity in their attitude toward the Motherland. The Foreign Ministry staff likewise remains united, effective, and result-oriented. We always feel the President’s support; he defines the foreign policy that we implement across all areas of international affairs.

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