РУССКИЙ
11:33 24.12.2025 •
Vladislav Maslennikov, Head of the Department of Foreign Affairs of Russia
Photo: Izvestia
The European Union is rapidly transforming into a military-political alliance focused on confrontation, Vladislav Maslennikov, the director of the Department of European Affairs of the Russian Foreign Ministry, told Izvestia.
At the same time, the challenge for Russia is not the process of EU enlargement, but its aggressive policy, which Brussels stubbornly projects on Russia's neighbors, the diplomat noted. According to him, the union cynically assigns to individual states, including Ukraine, the role of an instrument in the geopolitical confrontation with Moscow. At the same time, the process of European integration is stalling, and there is a clear split in the EU, in particular, on the issue of a "reparation" loan for Kiev. A unified approach to Russia and NATO is being erased, where "voices of reason" are still visible. At the same time, Moscow sees no signs of a change in the alliance's confrontational course in the medium term.
About the future of relations with the bloc and Russia's participation in the OSCE and the Arctic Council — in Vladislav Maslennikov's exclusive interview with Izvestia.
"Brussels can steal the assets of the Russian Federation once, but it will destroy its reputation for decades to come"
— The EU summit is taking place in Brussels on December 18-19. One of the central topics is the further financing of Ukraine, including through a "reparation" loan. How can the summit end, given that the member countries had previously agreed on an indefinite freeze on Russian assets?
— I will not speculate on whether the EU leaders will come to a consensus on the plundering of Russian assets. We will find out after the European Council meeting on December 19th. We have not expected anything good from the militant European mainstream against Russia for a long time. And the indefinite freezing of our funds that you mentioned was already approved by the EU Council on December 12.
The pro-Ukrainian majority of the member states even went to procedural machinations for this. The decision to permanently block the assets of the Bank of Russia was not taken by consensus, because there is no consensus on this issue and there cannot be. The European bureaucrats turned everything around as if as a result of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, an "economic emergency in the EU" had developed, which allows decisions to be made by a qualified majority.
There is indeed an economic emergency in the EU. However, it was the result of the anti-Russian sanctions policy, which had a negative impact primarily on the economic and social spheres of the EU member states, undermined energy security and led to deindustrialization, as well as a massive infusion of funds to support the corrupt Kiev regime.
Any attempts to manage sovereign reserves without the consent of the Bank of Russia will only worsen the situation, discrediting European financial and investment centers, undermining international confidence in the EU countries and the stability of the European currency. At the same time, it is obvious that Brussels can steal Russian assets only once. But by sacrificing property rights for the sake of "political expediency," the EU will thereby destroy its reputation as a financial partner for decades to come.
— The Bank of Russia has announced its intention to seek damages from European banks in Russian arbitration courts for the illegal blocking and use of its assets. How else can Russia react to the EU's actions?
— Our principled position remains unchanged — unilateral EU sanctions are illegitimate and are subject to unconditional and complete cancellation. As for the attempts to actually confiscate our state reserves frozen in the EU jurisdiction, our retaliatory actions will not take long. The Russian Federation will find ways to effectively protect its interests and compensate for losses from illegal fraud with our assets.
On December 12, the Bank of Russia has already stated that any form of uncoordinated use of its assets is illegal, contrary to international law and violates the principles of sovereign immunity of assets. The Bank of Russia reserves the right to proceed to the practical implementation of all available legal mechanisms for protecting interests, including challenging judicial authorities of foreign states and international organizations, arbitration and other international judicial instances, followed by the enforcement of judicial acts on the territory of the UN member states.
Concrete steps are already being implemented. On the same day, the Russian regulator notified the filing of a claim to the Moscow Arbitration Court against the Euroclear depository for recovery of losses caused to the Bank of Russia. According to media leaks, we are talking about an amount of about 18 trillion rubles.
— The European Commission has been actively pushing for the confiscation of Russian frozen assets since 2022. The idea of a "reparative" loan has been discussed for several months. Why can't the European Union come to an agreement?
— There are a number of EU member states that realize that this is actually a robbery.
— Is the split in the European Union going to get worse?
— The split is obvious. And here it should be borne in mind that the current European institutions, first of all, the European Commission, are increasingly trying to usurp the powers that actually belong to the member states. And naturally, this causes a negative reaction in a number of countries.
"The process of European integration is really stalling"
— The European Union has consistently stated that Ukraine, Moldova, and the Balkan countries will be able to join the EU in the future. At the same time, the last expansion of the union was in 2013. In your opinion, has its expansion policy reached a dead end?
— We see that the process of European integration is really stalling. Brussels' current financial capacity to assist candidate countries, as well as its ability to integrate them into the EU economy, is limited and continues to decline. According to statistics, in 2024, GDP growth in the EU did not exceed 1%, industrial production decreased by 2.4%. According to the IMF, the share of this association in global GDP (at purchasing power parity) decreased from 17% in 2011 to 14% in 2024. This situation is a direct consequence of the illegitimate unilateral EU sanctions against Russia and Brussels' refusal to purchase Russian energy and other goods at adequate prices.
There are also institutional problems within the European Union. Increasingly, there are difficulties in relations between member States and European institutions. The latter are increasingly aggressively promoting their own interests, which do not necessarily coincide with the national interests of the members of this association.
In connection with the preparations for the new expansion, discussions have already begun in the public space about the possibility of "temporary" restrictions on the rights of new Member States and the expansion of the scope of the qualified majority principle in key decision-making.
As outsiders, it is obvious to us that the European Union is not in the best shape right now, to put it mildly. There is a lack of resources — economic and political — in order to "digest" the new members. And the attractiveness of the EU for the countries listed among the candidates for membership in this association is clearly decreasing, even in the face of obsessive propaganda in favor of European integration. According to the Eurobarometer opinion poll published in September 2025, only 49% of respondents in Ukraine, 43% in Georgia and 38% in Serbia had a positive perception of the EU. The share of active supporters of joining the union is only 22% in Montenegro and only 11% in Serbia.
The level of support for enlargement policy within the EU also raises questions. Less than half of the population of the member states supports the accession of Moldova, North Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia (including Kosovo), Georgia, Albania and Turkey to the EU.
The experience of the Baltic states and most of the Eastern European states is significant from the perspective of EU enlargement policy. All of them joined the EU on a wave of general euphoria with high expectations for a "bright future." But there was no economic breakthrough. Many of those that joined in the recent "expansion waves" have lost their importance as developed manufacturing centers and important transport and logistics hubs. We are faced with an aggravation of the problem of population outflow to more developed EU countries.
Despite the failures in the enlargement policy of the past years, the EU's political leadership, which has long been detached from reality, is trying by any means to draw candidate countries into its orbit, including by providing a "European perspective" without a guarantee of full membership.
During an extraordinary hearing of the European Parliament's International Affairs Committee on December 9, the EU's High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Kaya Kallas, said that EU enlargement by 2030 is a "realistic goal." At the same time, it is unclear whose interests, apart from the European bureaucracy, this goal meets.
— The EU is rapidly turning from an economic integration association into a militaristic bloc, becoming more and more like NATO. If this continues, will Russia consider EU enlargement, including at the expense of Ukraine, as a threat to its security?
— Indeed, we are witnessing the rapid transformation of the European Union into a military-political alliance focused on confrontation. To the detriment of stable economic development, the defense potential is increasing at an accelerated pace. The leadership of the European structures is doing its best to take over the functions of military and political planning, which are the exclusive prerogative of the member countries. Public opinion is being processed regarding the inevitability of a direct clash with Russia over the next three to five years.
The European Union cynically assigns to individual countries, including Ukraine, the role of only a tool in the geopolitical confrontation with our country. So, in Brussels, as a mantra, they repeat the thesis that Ukraine is the "first line of defense" against the notorious Russian threat. Despite the fact that the official start of the preparatory negotiations has not yet been given, large-scale projects are already being implemented to support Kiev, with an emphasis on military-industrial cooperation and the connection of the Ukrainian defense industry to relevant European initiatives and production chains. We are talking about a long-term strategy to create an anti-Russian outpost on our western borders, or, as Frau von der Leyen says in Europe, a "steel porcupine."
In fact, all Euro-migrants are required to immediately take an anti-Russian position and automatically join the EU sanctions decisions. In these circumstances, the challenge for Russia is not the process of EU enlargement, but its aggressive anti-Russian policy, which Brussels stubbornly projects on the countries of our immediate neighborhood.
"NATO's confrontational course is fixed at least for the medium term"
— In early December, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski unexpectedly stated that the activities of the Russia–NATO Council had been permanently terminated. Russia and NATO have had no direct political contacts for several years. Does Russia admit that after the end of the Ukrainian crisis, dialogue with the bloc can be restored?
— It is difficult to speculate about what will happen after the end of the Ukrainian crisis, especially against the background of the fact that the dialogue with NATO on security issues was difficult even before 2014. The Alliance has never wanted to recognize Russia as an equal partner, and has found it difficult to have an open conversation, including on common security threats.
In 2014, NATO simply froze all channels of communication with us, abandoning the principle of "interaction in any weather" agreed between us. The alliance has placed at the forefront of its activities countering our country, which has been declared the "most significant and direct security threat" to the members of the bloc.
Such a confrontational course of NATO is fixed at least for the medium term, and there is no evidence that it can be revised. On the contrary, the leadership of the alliance declares that Russia will remain a key security threat even after the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis.
If NATO is ready to abandon its anti-Russian position and engage in dialogue based on respect and consideration of mutual interests and the principle of equal and indivisible security, then we are open to conversation.
— Is NATO getting closer to abandoning its anti-Russian position?
— For now, Europe is under the illusion and obsession that it will be able to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.
— It turns out that since 2021 there have been no fundamental changes in their attitude towards Russia?
— We see different positions of individual member countries.
— Do you mean the USA?
— The progress that has been made with the United States. We see statements from other member states, for example, Hungary. There are some voices of reason.
"The OSCE has no future in its current state"
— How does the Russian side assess the results of the 32nd meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council, held in Vienna on December 4-5?
— Our assessments of the results of the OSCE ministerial meeting have been voiced repeatedly. I don't see any reason to pay extra attention to the last meeting. The Foreign Ministry has not created anything that could contribute to correcting the current depressing state of affairs in the OSCE.
— Does Russia now see any role for the OSCE in resolving the Ukrainian crisis?
— We do not see the OSCE's role in terms of involvement in the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis — the organization has discredited itself through the biased activities of the OSCE special monitoring mission in Ukraine, and besides, it does not have the necessary mechanisms and resources to resolve anti-crisis issues.
— Russia says that the OSCE is currently in crisis and needs to be updated in order to adapt to new challenges. Is the number of countries in the OSCE sharing this point of view growing?
— Undoubtedly, many countries participate in the work of the OSCE, whose representatives are able to think and act independently, and not under the dictation of the "collective West." But even those political elites who for many years sought to subordinate the OSCE to the solution of the block tasks of NATO and the European Union have now come to realize that the OSCE has no future in its current state. Another thing is that we have different "recipes" for updating the OSCE. Instead of the Western pro-Ukrainian agenda and dubious liberal values, Russia and like-minded countries propose a return to the Helsinki principles of mutually respectful dialogue and decision-making based on the consensus rule. This is the only way to ensure that the rights of all OSCE participating States are respected and thus preserve the organization.
— Is the possibility of creating a "new OSCE" being discussed now?
— There are no such ideas. But there are various ideas for deep reform of the current organization. Some of them are even aimed at diluting the principle of consensus. This is completely unacceptable for us, and the OSCE will not survive without consensus.
— Earlier, when asked whether Russia would contribute to the OSCE budget for 2026, you said that Russia was "ready to pay for the political product that suits it." Was it possible to approve the draft budget for next year?
— In recent years, the coordination of the consolidated budget has become an impossible task for the OSCE. And not because of Russia, but because of the desire of a number of countries to politicize this purely financial document. At the moment, the draft consolidated budget has not been approved even for the outgoing year 2025, including due to the unprofessional approach of the current Finnish presidency. At the same time, from our point of view, it would be possible to come up with an acceptable option. The discussion of the draft for 2026, presented by the future Swiss Presidency, has just begun. But the United States is already demanding significant budget cuts.
"The Russian Federation plays a leading role in the Arctic"
— Today, all Arctic countries, with the exception of Russia, are members of NATO. Given the current difficult situation in Russia's relations with the alliance, does the Arctic Council (AU) remain relevant?
— The Arctic Council is, in fact, the only surviving format of multilateral cooperation in high latitudes. He continues to play an important role in developing collective solutions to pressing issues on the Arctic agenda, including the sustainable socio-economic development of the region, adaptation to climate change and environmental protection, and protection of the interests of indigenous peoples.
In the current geopolitical situation, the AU is indeed far from being in the best shape. Since March 2022, the political dialogue has been frozen, meetings of the main coordinating body, the Committee of Senior Officials, have not been held, and working groups meet only remotely. The exchange of scientific information, the interaction of rescue services, and contacts between indigenous peoples are limited.
At the same time, there are some positive developments. In May of this year, the 14th AU session was held in a hybrid format with the participation of all Arctic countries, the final joint statement of which confirmed the importance of further strengthening the council's role as a key platform for multilateral cooperation in the Arctic, and emphasized the desire to maintain peace and security in the region. Russia remains a full member of the AU, and all decisions in the organization are made by consensus. The activity of the working groups has intensified.
For our part, we will continue to make the necessary efforts to restore the full-scale work of the organization. We will continue to build our future line in the AU, primarily based on Russia's national interests and depending on the real willingness of the other Council member countries to work together.
It is obvious that without Russia, any attempts to effectively solve pressing problems in the Arctic are futile. The Russian Federation plays a leading role in the Arctic, is self-sufficient and at the same time open to dialogue with all constructive partners, including non-regional ones.
read more in our Telegram-channel https://t.me/The_International_Affairs
