РУССКИЙ
12:37 24.09.2026 •
Photo: MFA
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the UN Security Council on Ukraine, New York.
September 23, 2026
I would like to begin with expressing gratitude to our Western colleagues, primarily European ones. Let me explain.
If not for them, the situation in Ukraine would have remained in limbo, and the people of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya would have been deprived of the right to choose.
Back in 2004, when Ukraine was forced to hold the illegal third round of presidential elections, Brussels decided to fully clarify the matter, demanding that Ukrainians make a choice between Russia and Europe. In 2013, when public unrest was orchestrated in Kiev to demand the immediate signing of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, Brussels insisted on its approach to the matter, completely disregarding its obligations under the CIS Treaty on a Free Trade Area. Assuming leadership of the February 2014 negotiations between the legitimate president and the opposition, Europeans secured a crisis settlement agreement, under which Viktor Yanukovych accepted all their conditions, including the creation of a national unity government that was to prepare an early presidential election provided that both the authorities and the opposition immediately renounce any violence. That document was signed on February 21, 2014, under the official guarantees of Germany (Frank-Walter Steinmeier), Poland (Radoslaw Sikorski) and France (Laurent Fabius). However, on the night of February 22, 2014, the opposition trampled on these guarantees and its own commitments, seizing government buildings and announcing the establishment of not a “national unity government” but a “government of victors.” As they say, feel the difference.
As for the guarantors of the agreement, which the putschists trampled down, Paris stated with a straight face as soon as February 23, 2014, that the nascent democratic transition meets the aspirations of the Ukrainian people.
Britain could not stand idly by, of course. Foreign Secretary William Hague stated on February 22, 2014: “Events in the last 24 hours show the will of Ukrainians to move towards a different future.” He said about Yanukovych on February 24, 2014, that “his authority is no longer widely accepted in Ukraine as a legitimate President.”
A bit later, on March 1, 2014, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel joined in: “We must provide all-round assistance to the striving of the Ukrainian people for freedom and democracy.”
The new authorities in Kiev, emboldened by the free hand granted by the West, immediately declared the goal of terminating the status of the Russian language, and responded to the protests of people in Crimea and Donbass against the bloody coup by denouncing them as terrorists and sending groups of armed fighters and regular army units, including artillery and aviation, against them. This resulted in the Crimean referendum on its independence from the openly Nazi regime that seized power in Kiev, and on its reunification with Russia.
If Europeans had not been cheating but would have forced the opposition to honour the agreement signed in February 2014 under the guarantees of Berlin, Paris and Warsaw, Ukraine would have retained its territorial integrity within the 1991 borders, which Zelensky and his Western patrons dream of. But Europeans could not suppress their inherent instinct to lie and to achieve their goals by criminal means.
A year later, the Minsk Agreements, which Berlin and Paris strongly requested, were signed. They were signed on February 12, 2015, and on February 17, 2015, they were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council at Russia’s initiative. It should be noted that under Article 25 of the UN Charter, member states “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”
However, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko categorically refused to do that, and his patrons in Berlin and Paris did not even try to reason with him. When Emmanuel Macron assumed office in France, there was a surge in traditional French activity. On December 19, 2019, the Normandy Four (Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine) held a summit in Paris, where the Kiev regime was represented by Vladimir Zelensky, who had come to power under the high-sounding slogans of establishing peace and good-neighbourliness with Russia and putting an end to attacks on the Russian language. They adopted a declaration that reaffirmed the need to ensure strict compliance with the Minsk Agreements, including to enshrine the special status of certain Donbass areas in the Constitution of Ukraine. This status did not imply anything extraordinary – only the right to use the Russian language and establish local self-governments.
Had the 2015 Minsk Agreements, which were reaffirmed in Paris in 2019 when Zelensky was president, were fulfilled in accordance with the requirements of the UN Security Council, Ukraine would have remained within the 1991 borders, with the exception of Crimea, of course, and everyone is fully aware of this. However, Europe did not allow this again. As Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko admitted after leaving office, they never planned to implement the Minsk Agreements they signed. They only needed time to flood Ukraine with weapons. A very candid confession. All those meetings, like the one in Paris, were only needed to feign intense diplomatic activity, using it as a cover for building up the anti-Russia campaign.
In December 2021, NATO and the Biden administration arrogantly rejected Russia’s proposals to reach an agreement based on mutual respect for the security interests of Russia, the countries of Europe and North America. From a practical standpoint, preparations were underway to have Kiev take over Donbass territories which were outside of its control. In February 2022, to prevent the Western scenario from materialising, we were forced to launch the special military operation. Just one week into it, the Ukrainians requested talks. We agreed. After several rounds of negotiations in Belarus and Istanbul, Ukraine came forward by proposing the key settlement principles, and our negotiators accepted them. The main provisions provided for asserting Ukraine’s neutrality, recognising the reality on the ground, while also setting forth collective security guarantees as a reliable safeguard for preventing any future military escalation, provocations or aggressive undertakings. The Ukrainian and Russian delegations initialled the document, but everyone knows how the events unfolded from that point. The then UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, prevented the Ukrainians from entering into a legally binding agreement based on the text as suggested and initialled by Kiev. Instead, he urged Ukraine to fight back. Europe de facto agreed with London’s position.
Had this initialled agreement been executed as a treaty and honoured, Ukraine would have remained within its 1991 borders, minus Crimea and a part of Donbass.
After that, Europe continued “to contribute to peace efforts” following the August 2025 summit meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump in Alaska. At the summit, the President of Russia accepted Washington’s proposals with their compromises, as he has said many times. The leaders of Russia and the United States made it clear during their joint press conference in Anchorage that an agreement of principle had been reached, and President of the United States Donald Trump made the same point in his statements the following days.
Unnerved by these developments, Europe rushed to persuade the President of the United States to back out of his own initiative, just like Boris Johnson forced Ukrainians to withdraw their own proposals in Istanbul. A European squadron was instantly dispatched to Washington with a mission to do everything to make sure that any further efforts to fulfil the Anchorage agreements stalled. As a result, during the Group of Seven Summit in Evian and the NATO Summit in Ankara in June 2026, Emmanuel Macron and other Western leaders were boasting about burying Anchorage, while alleging that the United States was firm in its commitment to siding with Ukraine.
When Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner once again visited Moscow recently, they reaffirmed Washington’s interest in facilitating a settlement for Ukraine. Just as President of the United States Donald Trump said after the Anchorage meeting in August 2025, everyone agrees that what was needed was not some kind of a ceasefire deal, but a lasting peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine to end the war for good.
Russia is ready to hold talks to reach this kind of a just and sustainable peace, just as President Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions. He set forth the objectives that must be reached to achieve this goal with abundant clarity in his program-setting speech in June 2024. That said, considering our negative experience, we will not make any pauses in the special military operation during talks, regardless of their format. However, this is what Europe is after, with the same straightforward goal of getting a respite and replenishing the Kiev regime’s depleted war arsenals. Having found itself in this dire situation, it has switched to what amounts to outright terrorism.
Apart from guaranteeing Russia’s security interests, the special military operation’s objectives include ensuring that all the rights of Russian and Russian speakers are fully respected not only in Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya, but also on the territory of Ukraine where there are still laws in force as encouraged by the West to fully cancel the Russian language in all spheres, including education, mass media, culture and in everyday life, while also outlawing the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Having started in 2017, the effort to adopt these laws by far pre-dates the special military operation. But Europe and NATO stayed silent.
At the same time, there was a legislative effort to encourage Nazi ideology and practices. It culminated with Vladimir Zelensky and other regime officials taking a knee to honour the remains of Hitler’s accomplices. These remains received what amounted to royal honours when they were transferred from Europe to be reburied in Kiev. Moreover, they plan to create what they call a Pantheon of Ukrainian Heroes based on these devilish tombs on the territory of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, which is a sacred site for all Orthodox believers. It is saddening that our former allies with whom we fought against Hitler and Nazism have been condoning these undertakings.
The West, and above all – the European Union, is ever ready to speak about human rights at every conceivable opportunity. Yet in relation to the Kiev regime, one never hears that phrase. Russia insists on the strict observance of Article 1 of the UN Charter, which requires all states to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. We understand that with regard to sex (gender), the Kiev regime looks more to Europe for guidance, but where language and religion are concerned, no subterfuge will avail them here. When we draw attention to the unacceptability of the ban on the Russian language and the UOC, we are told, at best, that when a comprehensive settlement is reached, this aspect will be taken into account “in the package.” Yet the requirements of the UN Charter cannot be made the subject of bargaining. They must be upheld unconditionally, without any caveats. Those who cosset the Kiev regime are duty-bound to ensure that this is done. In practice, however, Ursula von der Leyen and other figures in Brussels and across European capitals declare with fervour that Ukraine is moving towards the European Union and must continue to be supported with funds and weapons, because – note well – “Ukraine is defending European values.” This implies that racism, the persecution of the Church and its clergy, and the glorification of Nazism in the loathsome, bestial forms of Ukrainian nationalism are the very values on which the European Union today rests. President of Finland Alexander Stubb recently made a wistful confession: “Western countries are now learning more from Ukraine than Ukraine is learning from them.”
Nowhere in the world, save for Ukraine, is an entire language banned. This is to say nothing of the fact that it is one of the official languages of the UN. One can speak Arabic and Farsi in Israel, and Hebrew – in any Arab country and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where there is a Jewish community with its own synagogues. Even in Ireland, one can speak English. Yet in Ukraine, Russian is banned, and, as we understand it, the members of the EU and NATO are perfectly content with this. They even take their cue from Vladimir Zelensky – as the Baltic states do.
Naturally, I cannot fail to mention the position of the guardian of the UN Charter – the Secretary-General of our Organisation. For a long time, since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, he and his official representatives have repeated one and the same thing: “The conflict must be settled on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, the relevant General Assembly resolutions , and the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” In response to our regular remarks, including those addressed personally to Mr António Guterres, pointing out that the Charter contains a whole series of other principles, including the right of nations to self-determination and respect for the right to one’s native language and religion, we were told that the formulation regarding Ukraine was “well-considered and not subject to change.”
When President Donald Trump announced that Greenland could well become part of the territory of the United States, the official UN spokesperson was asked at a press conference what he thought about this. He replied: “The matter must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, the principle of the territorial integrity of Denmark and the right of the population of Greenland to self-determination.”
During the press conference held on January 29 of this year, António Guterres was asked: “Does the UN believe that the right of self-determination applicable to Crimea and Donbass?” The Secretary-General replied (I am compelled to quote him in full): “We have had very interesting discussions on this. And there are two principles that are essential. First principle is territorial integrity of states. The other principle is self-determination of peoples. But, self-determination of peoples has a number of requisites. So, the way it is defined has a number of requisites. And after a very careful study by our Office of Legal Affairs, it is our position that the principle of self-determination does not apply in the situations of Crimea and Donbas. So, in that situation, the principle that prevails is the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” If anyone has understood a word of that, I envy them.
As we can see, Greenland is not Crimea nor is it Donbass, and “never the twain shall meet.” We await the continuation of this “soap opera” with keen anticipation; it will be interesting to hear the Secretariat’s reaction to possible questions from journalists about the plans of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
We hope that the new Secretary-General will return the language used in the statements of the Secretariat’s official representatives to the international legal mainstream.
This might perhaps also help our Western colleagues, above all the European ones, to return to the realms of reality and to realise what consequences their reckless course of unstinting support for Ukrainian Nazism is leading to, and has already led to.
In conclusion, I will once again refer to the consensus Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The Declaration clearly stipulates that the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity are applicable to those states which comply with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and have a government representing the whole people inhabiting the given territory, without distinction as to race, creed or colour. It seems to me that it is obvious to all that the Kiev regime cannot be considered a government representing the interests of the inhabitants of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya, whom it has branded “terrorists, subhumans and creatures.”
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
