Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov conducted his annual review of the previous year’s diplomatic developments from Russia’s perspective. Yesterday at a meeting of the Security Council, Putin said:
We have two questions today.
One concerns current security issues, and the second is about our participation in the construction of a multipolar world and our actions in this regard.
Let’s start with this and ask Sergei Viktorovich Lavrov to present his thoughts on this matter.
Mr. Lavrov had likely already gathered his thoughts and notes for today’s event and included some of them in “his thoughts,” although IMO there were some things said at that venue that weren’t repeated today. IMO, those thoughts were eerily similar to those confided to Putin in January 2022 regarding the usefulness of continuing to try talking to the West and Outlaw US Empire specifically. I believe it’s wise to keep that in mind while reading or listening to this event. The video as usual is at the link in Russian. The read itself will be long as the event lasted three hours, and I’ll add my comments at the end.
Dear colleagues! Good afternoon!
We are glad to welcome you to the traditional news conference that we hold at the end of each year, especially such a busy year as 2025. What the first twenty-day period of 2026 absorbed breaks all records for impressionability, which 2025 left behind.
I would like to congratulate you on the New Year and Christmas and sincerely wish you good health, success in the professional field and in personal affairs.
Recently, at a big news conference on December 19, 2025, President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke in detail about international politics along with the domestic political tasks of the Russian Federation.
On January 15, 2025, at the ceremony of presenting credentials at the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin, for obvious reasons, focused on international affairs.
I have already mentioned how turbulently this year began. We have witnessed unprecedented events: the brutal US armed invasion of Venezuela with dozens of dead and wounded, the capture and removal of the legitimate President of Venezuela Nicolas Maduro and his wife. In parallel with these actions, we are witnessing threats against Cuba and other countries of the Latin American and Caribbean region.
We are deeply concerned about the blatant and declared attempts by external forces to destabilise the political situation in Iran. In particular, such a “figure” of our time as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kirka Kallas recently said that by supporting the protests, the international community, apparently represented by the European Union, is seeking regime change in this country. Not to mention the desire of most Western countries to continue to use the Kiev regime for an armed confrontation with Russia. The goal of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on us is no longer heard so often, but by all indications, it remains in the heads and plans, primarily of European leaders.
Suffice it to say that German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that the German army should once again become the strongest in Europe. He also said that Russia should not be allowed to “get its way” in Ukraine, because this would be tantamount to appeasing Hitler. What do you think of this statement? Few people paid attention to this, but they should have.
We remember well and should not forget what such arrogance of the German leadership led to several times in history. Speaking about World War II, for obvious reasons, we cannot but recall it, I would like to note that in Japan there has been intensified talk about amending the Constitution in terms of not just building up the army’s offensive military potential, but also revising the country’s non-nuclear status. This is already being talked about openly.
It is clear that we are witnessing “deep” shifts in relation to the entire world order. It is indicative that the West, which for the past ten years has been actively opposing international law in its initial principled interpretation of its concept of a “rules-based world order.” Now this term has fallen out of use.
All Western European countries are trying to understand what is happening in the world in the context of the policy that US President Donald Trump has announced and is pursuing, which fits into the “rules-based world order.” Only the “rules” are not written by the “collective West”, but by one of its representatives. For Europe, this is a huge shock. We are watching this.
It is clear that what is happening and the actions announced by US President Donald Trump in the international arena reflect competition. We have repeatedly talked about the latest trends in global economic development. On the basis of the rules that the West, led by the United States, has put in the basis of the globalization model, which until recently was promoted everywhere, China has outplayed its Western competitors in trade, the economy, investment, and infrastructure projects. The economic and financial indicators of the development of the People’s Republic of China speak for themselves.
We see how they are trying to fight this situation with sanctions, tariffs, duties. The United States wants to negotiate, but so far all this is happening in the absence of any common criteria, which until recently underpinned the activities of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. All these rules, on which the world order should be based that suits the West have been crossed out.
There is a game of “who is stronger is right”. We are all witnessing this. We can talk about how the vision is conceptually changing and how specific processes in the world order are developing during an interactive dialogue. But the consequences of this policy are felt not only by the states of the Global South and East, but also by crisis trends that are accumulating within Western society itself.
Greenland is an obvious example. It is on everyone’s lips, and discussions are developing around it that were difficult to imagine could happen before, including the prospects for preserving NATO as a single Western military-political bloc.
Speaking about Greenland, we proceed from the premise that if Western countries want to talk to each other “according to concepts,” this is their choice and right. We will do business with all our partners, from the countries of the world majority and from among the Western countries, which are interested in talking with Russia and discussing specific mutually beneficial projects based on the principles of equality. [Let the West fight; we will continue as before.]
We can say that we want to apply universally accepted norms of international law, but the main thing here is equality, mutual respect and the search for a balance of interests. These are absolutely timeless approaches to doing business on the international line–-whatever you call it-–the rules and international law.
The principle of equality simply cannot be abolished. With an equal dialogue, the one who has more resources will have more influence on the outcome, but nevertheless it is necessary to achieve results that will necessarily represent a balance of interests.
Russia will defend its interests consistently, not claiming anyone’s legal rights, but also not allowing our legitimate rights to be treated freely. Our foreign policy, enshrined in the Foreign Policy Concept approved by President Vladimir Putin in March 2023, envisages resolute protection of the vital interests of our country and people, and the creation of favourable external conditions for sustainable development within the Russian Federation. Principled action to further strengthen national sovereignty is crucial.
Let me remind you that the amendments to the Russian Constitution made in 2020 were of significant help in the context of strengthening national sovereignty. We are ready to work on the external circuit with everyone who reciprocates and is disposed to negotiate honestly, on an equal basis, without blackmail and pressure. This is well known to everyone.
As for the theses that the West used with regard to the Russian Federation in 2025, the notorious “isolation” of Russia–-it is no longer a secret to anyone–-did not take place, no matter how much our ill-wishers say about it. The largest event was the events dedicated to the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War--the Parade on Red Square, a large number of foreign guests. We appreciate all those who personally took part in these celebrations or sent a special delegation.
Speaking about World War II and its results, it is impossible not to mention similar events that were held in Beijing on September 3, 2025 on the occasion of the defeat of militaristic Japan and the end of World War II. These two events clearly demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of states do not want to forget the memory, lessons and history of the Second World War. This is an important takeaway from the past year.
I will not dwell in detail on our relations with specific countries and regions. This can be discussed during the Q&A. But specific descriptions of our relations with all the leading countries, with all our neighbours, are contained in our annual report on foreign policy activities. This is a detailed document. It has all the statistics and facts. I hope that those who are interested in specific country stories have read it.
I would like to highlight several areas from the results of 2025 that are of increasing importance in 2026.
We have continued and will continue to promote the main flagship initiatives put forward by President Vladimir Putin, primarily the formation of the Greater Eurasian Partnership and, based on this material base, the creation of a continent-wide architecture of equal and indivisible security.
Together with our Belarusian friends, we are promoting the initiative to develop a Eurasian Charter on Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century, which we have declared open to all states of the Eurasian continent without exception.
I have already mentioned our relations with China. They are unprecedented in their level, depth, and coincidence of positions regarding the development of the situation in Eurasia and on the world stage.
I would like to highlight the privileged strategic nature of our partnership with India, which President of Russia Vladimir Putin visited in December 2025.
The practical embodiment of our actions to strengthen security in Eurasia was the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership with the DPRK, which provided us with fraternal allied assistance in liberating the Kursk region from Ukrainian militants.
BRICS. All the countries of the association are our good partners. In 2025, our relations with each of them strengthened and the foundation for the development of further cooperation in all areas was strengthened.
Now we are preparing the third Russia-Africa summit. An important stage in the preparations for this summit was the Second Ministerial Conference of the Foreign Ministers of Russia and the African Union, which was held in Cairo in December 2025.
Speaking about multilateral diplomacy, we note the task of strengthening BRICS and the growing interest in this association. Our Brazilian friends continued to implement many projects that we launched at the BRICS summit in Kazan in the fall of 2024.
On our initiative, which was supported by the countries of the Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, the General Assembly adopted two important, principled decisions – to declare the International Day of Struggle against Colonialism in All Its Forms (it will be celebrated on December 14) and to proclaim the International Day for Countering Unilateral Sanctions (this day will be celebrated annually on December 4).
On our initiative, the UN Convention on Combating Cybercrime was signed in Hanoi in the fall of 2025. This is the first document in the field of ensuring international information security. We hope that the same concrete results will be achieved in the ongoing discussions on how to regulate artificial intelligence.
Today I will talk about various aspects of the Ukrainian crisis. As President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed, we are committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis. If you look at its history since 2014 and especially since 2022, there has been no shortage of goodwill on the part of the Russian Federation in terms of concluding political agreements. But each time our Western, primarily European, neighbours did everything to disrupt these agreements. They are behaving in the same way with regard to the initiatives put forward by the US administration of Donald Trump, trying in every possible way to convince it not to negotiate with Russia.
If you read the statements of European politicians and leaders–-Kallas, Ursula von der Leyen, François Merz, Christopher Starmer, Emmanuel Macron and Mark Rutte–-they are seriously preparing for war against the Russian Federation and are not hiding it. Our position on Ukraine is the need to eliminate the root causes of this crisis, which the West has deliberately created for many years in order to turn this country into a threat to the security of our country, as a springboard against Russia right on our borders.
As for encouraging the openly Nazi regime that came to power as a result of a coup d’état in 2014, which set a course for the extermination of everything Russian – education, language, culture, and the media, including the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
We are interested in helping to defuse tensions in all the aggravated areas that I have listed, be it Venezuela or especially the Iranian situation, which must be resolved on the basis of respect for and Tehran’s right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. We are convinced that for a long-term settlement in the Middle East, it is necessary to finally implement the UN decision on the creation of a Palestinian state.
I would like to emphasise that this criterion remains fully relevant in the light of US President Donald Trump’s sensational initiative to create a Peace Council. [Genocide Cover-up Council.]
I am ready to listen to your questions.
Question: I would like to ask a question related to what you said at the beginning. The events of recent weeks in the world show that the very concept of international law is being destroyed. The question arises: is this international law effective, is it possible to follow it, does the principle of “every man for himself” work? How is President Vladimir Putin’s initiative on Eurasian security being implemented in the current conditions? [If we are honest, it was destroyed long ago.]
Sergey Lavrov: As for the world order, international law and everything related to it, regarding all the theses that are being promoted and implemented in some countries that contradict our understanding of international law.
I have already said that for many years the UN Charter remained a universally recognised criterion for actions in any area of various states when it was violated. Everyone was ready to discuss these violations or accusations of them within the framework of the UN Security Council. There was a heated debate, but no one disputed that it was the central place where all issues of international peace and security were discussed.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a period when the classical application of international law as the basis for multilateral contacts was replaced by what is commonly called a unipolar world order. At that time, the United States, at the head of the “Western bloc,” including the North Atlantic Alliance, decided that the “end of history” had come, as F. Fukuyama proclaimed in his famous work, and that from now on no one would ever interfere with the domination of the West with all its theories-–liberal, neoliberal and conservative-–in the international arena.
With Vladimir Putin’s coming to power in Russia following the presidential elections in 2000, the situation began to change. The prerequisites began to ripen for revising this unequivocal pro-Western approach to the world order.
In the 2000s, under President Vladimir Putin, Russia began to realise its place in the international arena and began to restore its identity with full respect for its thousand-year history, traditions, principles and friends. At the same time, the West initially thought that this was just speculation, that they would “talk and calm down,” and did not even react to President Vladimir Putin’s Munich speech in 2007, which many serious politicians now regret. They regret that they did not listen, did not hear and took it as another rhetoric. In fact, this is not the case.
Russia, as our modern foreign policy concept says, is a state-civilization. We will not abandon our roots. We have no right to do so. We honor the memory of our ancestors and the covenants they left us.
You mentioned Eurasian security. Interestingly, in Eurasia, the largest continent in the world, unlike Africa and Latin America, there is no continent-wide organization. There are many sub-regional structures, including the OSCE, ASEAN, structures in the post-Soviet space – the CSTO, the CIS, the EAEU, the SCO, the GCC, and SAARC. But there is no continent-wide structure.
While Eurasia is not only the largest continent, it is also home to a number of great civilizations, including the one that Russia represents today. Of course, there are also Chinese, Iranian, Arab, Indian civilizations. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to combine all these trends under one common “roof”.
We are convinced that it is not necessary to chase some examples and create a formal and bureaucratic structure. As a first step, it is quite enough to establish a continent-wide dialogue so countries living on the same vast expanse of the Earth can derive geopolitical and geo-economic benefits from their location.
This implies an equal dialogue between all countries. This is what the Russian-Belarusian initiative is aimed at, not only by the countries located on its continent, but also by the subregional organisations that have been formed here and between which we are already promoting cooperation both in political contacts and in terms of harmonising projects, primarily in the economic, trade, infrastructure and payment spheres.
The contacts enshrined in the relevant documents between the EAEU, the SCO and ASEAN are aimed precisely at creating what President Vladimir Putin has designated as the Greater Eurasian Partnership – the foundation of the future Eurasian security architecture.
Returning to the general global trends, I would like to note that after the Russian Federation began to consistently, non-aggressively, and through explanatory work to defend its rights and seek recognition of its rightful place in international structures, the process began to take tangible shape.
The first to notice this was our great predecessor Yevgeny Primakov, who said in 1998 that a multipolar world order was gradually but surely taking shape. This was at the same time as his initiative to start the process of cooperation in the Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle, which still exists (although it has not met for a long time), but no one has canceled it; we are working to resume its activities. It became the forerunner of BRICS. RIC became BRICS after the accession of Brazil and South Africa.
Now it is a structure that is well known to everyone. It has doubled its membership and has many dialogue partners. When multipolarity began to make its way as the main trend, many political scientists and journalists said that nothing good would come of it, because it would be tantamount to establishing chaos in international affairs. They say that when the world was bipolar–-the Soviet Union and the United States-–everything was clear. It’s just that there were peripheral conflicts somewhere, but they did not affect the “core” of the bipolar world order. When the world was unipolar, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, everything was also clear to everyone-–you need to “obey” and not be particularly “active”. Then, for some time, even a new version of bipolarity (bipolarity) was played out: “Chimerica” (China – the United States).
Now these are indeed the two largest economies, but it is still difficult to determine how the process of further strengthening the position of each of them in world affairs will go. We are in favour of this process being orderly and based on negotiations and achieving a balance of interests.
Is it true what was predicted for the multipolar world when it was said that it would turn into chaos? If you look at the current picture, you can find many supporters of this assessment, but the process never freezes at one point.
My feeling is that these rather isolated actions, primarily by the United States, and the problems that have arisen between the United States and Europe, which exist between Washington and a large number of countries in connection with tariffs, duties, sanctions and other actions that reflect the intensified competition in world markets, primarily by unscrupulous methods, are taking place and will take a long period of time. Multipolarity as an objective trend will not disappear. It cannot be put under a unipolar, bipolar “tent”: there are already too many centers of economic growth.
I mentioned China, India and Brazil. Africa is already beginning to feel the “second awakening”–-the realization that with political independence economic independence has not come, and that it continues to be exploited by neocolonial methods. And the former metropolises, having granted political independence to their former colonies, still live at their expense. That awareness is now taking root on the African continent. We feel this on a daily basis from our numerous contacts with African countries.
Growth centers reflect an objective historical process–-the development of the economy, infrastructure, the use of natural resources, and much more. At some point, we will still have to agree on how these new large, or national, or regional players in integration structures will interact with each other.
At a time when we are witnessing turbulent phenomena in the context of strengthening multipolarity, a dialogue on how to streamline it is on the agenda. This will take a considerable period of time. Some say (I understand what they are talking about) that it is a historical whole era. But this process is inevitable.
The fact that the main players are aware of it is confirmed, among other things, by US President Donald Trump’s initiative to create a Peace Council. Recently, we have received specific proposals and a draft Charter of this structure. This initiative reflects the United States’ understanding that even its foreign policy philosophy is based on the need to assemble a group of countries that will cooperate in one direction or another.
It may be objected that the “Peace Council” is conceived and announced in such a way that everyone must obey the United States. This is the kind of situation that Washington would like to see now. But I assure you that the US administration of Donald Trump, for all the actions that are now widely discussed in the world, is an administration of pragmatists. It is aware of the need not only to unite a large number of countries under its leadership, but also to fully take into account their legitimate interests.
I would like to emphasise once again that this position, readiness and understanding of the need to take into account the interests of the partner is fully manifested in the US administration’s approaches to the Ukrainian settlement. This is the only Western country that is ready to address the task of eliminating the root causes of this conflict, which was largely created by Donald Trump’s predecessor, then US President Joe Biden, and his administration.
This process is at the very beginning. It will not be easy and will require the mobilization of all resources-–the centers of growth and the centers of influence that I have mentioned. But if there is goodwill, and we are seeing signs that such goodwill will take root, anything can be achieved.
Question: Russian representatives are talking about the need to revive the OSCE. How relevant is this given Eurasian security? What is your point of view on the modern map?
Sergey Lavrov: As for the OSCE. You said that someone called for it to be rebuilt, reanimated. I don’t know how possible resuscitation is in this case. The OSCE has “fallen” so low that there is nowhere else to go.
An organization based on the principles of equality and consensus has completely degenerated into an instrument that the West, using its majority, “sharpens” against the Russian Federation on a daily basis.
Our position in relation to the OSCE boils down to the fact that we continue to participate there, but not because we harbor any hopes and illusions (in the current situation, any hopes are illusions), but because we want to support the organisation’s member states that retain common sense. There are many of them there. In addition to our colleagues in the CIS, Hungary, Slovakia and a number of other Western countries have such healthy forces.
We will continue to maintain contacts with them and keep the OSCE from burying itself as much as possible. There is hope for the current OSCE Secretary General, the representative of Turkey, F.H. Sinirlioglu. He is an experienced diplomat and understands in what a catastrophic situation, without exaggeration, he inherited the post of head of the executive structure of this Organization.
I do not know whether it will get a place in the future structures of Eurasian security, the Greater Eurasian Partnership. I’m not sure. Because the OSCE is a Euro-Atlantic structure. When it was created, the Soviet Union advocated that its members and participants should be countries located in the west of the Eurasian continent.
The countries of the current “collective West” insisted that the United States and Canada become participants. The result is a Euro-Atlantic configuration modeled on the North Atlantic Alliance. NATO and the OSCE are Euro-Atlantic structures. As such, they are experiencing the deepest crisis of this very alliance, in which there is now talk to the point that it is time to close it. Because one country of the alliance is going to attack another NATO country. This is a separate story.
I just want to emphasize that the Euro-Atlantic concept of security and cooperation has discredited itself. That is why we are talking about Eurasian security. It cannot be taken for granted that there is a European structure, be it NATO, the OSCE or the European Union.
The European Union, by the way, is also, in fact, part of the Euro-Atlantic concept, because its latest agreements with NATO completely eliminate the independence of the European Union. Although now they are trying to resume it again in some way. There are calls to create a security system for Europe, without the United States. By the way, they say that Ukraine should be organically integrated into this system. That is, again a discussion about creating some kind of “construction” against the Russian Federation. This mentality – and it underlies the positions of the majority of OSCE countries and Western countries – is pernicious and will not lead to anything good either for the West or for the organisation itself.
I can talk about this topic for a long time, I tried to set the tone. Perhaps many issues will be easier to consider later.
Question: Yesterday it was reported that the Hungarian company MOL and the Russian company Gazprom signed an agreement that the Serbian company NIS will be in the hands of MOL. If we consider this geopolitical issue, you, as an experienced Minister who has held this post for 22 years...
Sergey Lavrov: Not yet.
Question: Yes, it will.
Could you tell us whether the situation with NIS is a geopolitical problem for Russia? Will Russia be in the Balkans? Does this mean that the Russian Federation will not be in the Balkans, because Hungary is a member of NATO and the European Union? On the other hand, it is necessary that this deal is allowed by the United States.
Will this lead to the formation of a new security architecture that will maintain a balance between the Russian Federation and the United States in the Balkans?
Sergey Lavrov: As for the Naftna Industrija Srbije, if this agreement, which was announced yesterday, had been disadvantageous to the Russian side, including Gazprom, it would not have been reached. This is quite obvious to everyone. The agreement in the current situation in Serbia is mutually beneficial. President of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić said this when he arrived in Davos and was asked about it.
You are asking whether agreements are possible with some form of cooperation between Russia and the United States in the Balkans? We are open to interaction with everyone.
In this regard, I would like to remind you that the European Union, which Serbia has been striving for so persistently for many years, said at one time, through the then EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini, referring specifically to the Balkans, that when the European Union is doing something, there is nothing else to do there, meaning that Russia was ready to help its Balkan colleagues solve problems at that time.
More broadly, speaking about Serbia and its interests, I would talk not only about how Russia and the United States can interact or influence in the Balkans, but also about how the European Union treats Serbia. It has been repeatedly stated that Serbia’s future is in the European Union, and the EU responds by saying, “Let’s see, first recognize Kosovo’s independence.” That is, they say, you should humiliate yourself and, secondly, fully join all the foreign policy actions of the European Union, including sanctions against the Russian Federation. Is this decent from the point of view of Brussels?
Brussels continues to live in the same paradigm and be guided by the same philosophy that it expressed on the eve of the Ukrainian crisis, when all this was still in place before the first Maidan in 2004. This “either-or”, “if not with us, then against us”, I think, is a guarantee that the European Union will not end well.
I hope that our Serbian friends are aware of where they are being dragged and at what cost they want to expand their influence in the Balkans.
We have more opportunities to communicate with the United States in the Balkans with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina and other countries in the region. There are such contacts. They have not yet led to any positive or any other concrete results. But we are open to them. As far as I can tell, our American colleagues are also ready to develop them.
Question: In what format does the Russian Foreign Ministry plan to build further contacts with the United States, including on the normalisation of bilateral ties?
Sergey Lavrov: We are not only planning, we are already cooperating. The administration of US President Donald Trump, unlike the Biden administration, immediately showed interest in overcoming a completely abnormal situation when even the embassies of each of our countries in Washington and Moscow, respectively, could not function normally.
From the very beginning of 2025, we have established contacts and formed a dialogue mechanism on the functioning of embassies. We outlined the need–-and it was supported by the administration of US President Donald Trump-–not to limit ourselves to questions about how many visas were issued to diplomats, how security at diplomatic institutions works, how diplomats move around the host country and similar purely consular things. We proposed agreeing, first of all, on the key problem related to diplomatic relations–-the problem of Russian diplomatic real estate, which the Obama administration seized in convulsions two weeks before the eviction from the White House and which continued to be held by all subsequent US presidential administrations, including, unfortunately, the Trump administration.
Although, let me remind you that I was talking about this, when then-US President Barack Obama suddenly announced in late December 2016 that he was seizing our diplomatic property, Russian Ambassador to Washington Sergey Kislyak received a phone call from Mr Flynn, who was in Donald Trump’s “team” and planned to join his administration, asking him not to react to this absolutely counterproductive, I would say, illegal gesture by Barack Obama and saying: that in three weeks, in January 2017, Donald Trump will be inaugurated, they say, then we will fix everything. He asked us not to respond, not to react harshly. We heeded that advice and postponed our reaction.
Then, unfortunately, in 2017, Donald Trump’s administrative team failed to somehow correct this absolute injustice and gross violation of all diplomatic conventions. At that time, we had already explained to our colleagues in Washington that we were forced to respond. Since then, this situation has persisted. We will work to start a conversation on this issue as well. So far, our American colleagues, contrary to what was understood, do not want to talk about this topic.
In order for not only diplomatic missions to function normally, but also to have some contacts, the expansion of which Washington is in favour of under President Donald Trump, it is necessary to resume direct flights. We also include these issues in the agenda of our talks.
Other areas of our dialogue with the United States include Ukraine. As I have already said, we assessed that under President Donald Trump, the United States was the only country that not only expressed an understanding of the interests of the Russian country but also proposed solutions that took into account the root causes of the current crisis. We support this approach. We consider it absolutely justified.
In Anchorage in Alaska on August 15, 2025, President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about this publicly more than once, and we accepted the proposals made by Washington on the eve of this meeting. We still hope that these understandings are fully valid. However, we see how hysterically Europe and Vladimir Zelensky and his team are trying to distract the United States from this position and are trying to impose their concepts again, including, first of all, a sixty-day or even “eternal” truce.
It is clear that the Ukrainian side is in a bad situation on the front line, and not on the front line—in politics. In political life in Kiev, corruption scandals have overshadowed many other processes. But we cannot afford such a “luxury” as to once again rearm the Kiev regime, give it the opportunity to take a breath and pounce on the Russian Federation again.
In Davos, some meetings were recently announced, where they will again distract US President Donald Trump into approaches that have completely discredited and failed in recent years. The central point in all this is that now, when Europe is talking about resolving the Ukrainian crisis, they are saying that it is necessary to stop the war as soon as possible and at the same time agree on security guarantees for Ukraine, meaning what will be left of Ukraine.
What does this mean? I have already said that there has been talk in Europe that since the Americans are unreliable, and Greenland has confirmed this, it is urgent to create a security system in Europe without the United States, but with Ukraine. In other words, the security guarantees that our European colleagues are talking about with noble arrogance, promoting their contribution to ensuring the interests of peace, are provided for the current Nazi regime in Kiev. We should not forget about this.
No one talks about how life should be arranged in the territory that will remain under Ukrainian control. There is not a word about the restoration of the rights of Russian speakers and Russians, about lifting the ban on the use of the Russian language in all spheres of life, about lifting the ban on the activities of the Ukrainian Canonical Orthodox Church-–there is nothing at all. These tasks were contained in the first proposal of US President Donald Trump, known as the “28-point plan”. It outlined the need to solve the problems of the Russian language and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
In the subsequent materials that we saw and which at the end of 2025 were presented as a “20-point plan”-–and we did not receive any recent documents following the talks that took place in the United States, Ukraine and Europe over the past couple of weeks–-nothing was said about the need to restore the rights of the Russian language and the canonical Orthodox Church. It says that the parties undertake to show tolerance in relations with each other and that Ukraine will follow the norms of the European Union regarding the problems of national minorities. Maybe there are not even national words there, I don’t know. If we are talking about the European Union, then everything is possible there.
That is, not some international standards, including, first of all, the UN Charter, which requires ensuring human rights regardless of gender, race, language and religion, but the norms of the European Union. There is no doubt that the EU norms for Ukraine will be “brushed” in the way Ukraine headed by Vladimir Zelensky needs. Therefore, settlement proposals based on the task of preserving the Nazi regime in the part of Ukraine that will be called so are, of course, absolutely unacceptable.
Question: Moscow has announced that US President Donald Trump has decided to release two Russian citizens who are crew members of the Mariner tanker, and have they been released? If so, have they returned to their homeland? Where are they located? Do you think that the seizure of a Russian-flagged tanker by the US military did not have a negative impact on the prospects for normalising relations between Russia and the United States?
Sergey Lavrov: As soon as we learned that this tanker had been seized, we made an urgent request to the American side. The main thing for us was to liberate our citizens. There are two of them there, along with citizens of Ukraine, Georgia and India.
We were assured, in fact, on the same day or the next morning, that the decision to release them had been made at the highest level. But, unfortunately, the following days showed that this decision was not being implemented.
We expect our American colleagues to fulfil their promise, which, as I have already said, was conveyed to us.
This story of the seizure of a tanker in violation of international law on the high seas on suspicions that do not fit into the list of criteria for the detention of ships contained in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea is a cause for concern. This is also an example in a series of actions that put international law to the test.
We are not saying that the norms contained in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea are eternal. Of course, life has changed, more than forty years have passed. But if this is the case, then we need to sit down and agree on how to behave on the high seas, in special economic zones. We are ready for this. I hope that there will be an awareness that this is necessary.
Question (retranslated from English): You have repeatedly praised US President Donald Trump for his understanding of Russia’s interests. However, you have also criticized recent US decisions and actions against Russian allies such as Venezuela and Cuba. To what extent does this inconsistency, unpredictability and readiness to use unlimited force on the part of President Donald Trump pose a threat to Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: I spoke about Venezuela, Cuba and Iran. We can clearly see the inconsistency of the actions of the US President Donald Trump’s administration in terms of ensuring international security and its attitude to international law.
Answering a question a few days ago, President Donald Trump said that he was not interested in international law and that all norms of conduct in the international arena were determined by his own morality. This is an interesting statement.
We never expected that we would have a 100% coincidence of positions with any country, including our closest neighbors. There can be no such coincidence between the two largest nuclear powers, between the Russian Federation and the United States.
A good occasion to recall what the New York Times recently (December 30, 2025) reported with an article entitled “The Separation: Inside the Unraveling U.S.-Ukraine Partnership”. According to The New York Times, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio turned on the “movie buff” mode and quoted The Godfather during talks with me and our delegation in Riyadh in February 2025. He recounted the scene with Vito Corleone where he says to his son: “All my life I tried not to be careless. Women and children may be careless, but not men.” They say that nuclear powers should communicate with each other.
Such a conversation really took place. Since Marco Rubio found it possible to mention this in the press, I see no reason why I cannot add some details. At the very beginning of our meeting in Riyadh, Marco Rubio said almost the following (I cannot quote verbatim, but I convey the essence exactly, I remember it well) that US foreign policy under US President Donald Trump is determined by national interests and common sense. This presupposes, they say, that the United States recognizes the existence of national interests among its leading partners (it did not say that all countries of the world, but its leading partners, other great powers).
He went on to say that the national interests of countries like the United States and Russia will not always coincide, in most cases they will not coincide, but when they coincide (the national interests of the United States and Russia), it would be a grave mistake not to use this coincidence to agree and implement joint mutually beneficial projects in the economy, trade, investment, and so on. He then said that when these national interests of countries such as Russia and the United States do not coincide, it will be a crime to allow this discrepancy to degenerate into a confrontation, especially a hot one.
I replied that I fully shared this philosophy and logic. I proceed from the fact that the United States understands the validity of the approach outlined by Mr. Rubio.
Question: What is the EU’s attitude to the development of the EAEU?
In the EAEU, there is an association, a single state--Russia and Belarus. Are there any plans for the future to develop warmer, closer relations between the countries of Central Asia? After all, Central Asia was a good backbone in Soviet times.
Sergey Lavrov: The heart of the world.
As for the EU’s attitude to Eurasian economic integration, if I understood the first part of the question correctly, I do not know this attitude directly. The EU has never commented on these processes. He only tried to undermine them under the slogan of his right to develop relations with any partners.
They started a long time ago, before the EAEU was created, when, by and large, they spat on the existence of the Organization of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, adopted their strategy of interaction in the Black Sea. At that time, we still had contacts with them. We asked if they were not very uncomfortable with the fact that there is an organization that is geographically a collection of Black Sea countries, and they, not having full coverage of the Black Sea, put forward their own concept. No, they were not embarrassed by this.
In the same way, they put forward their concept of the Arctic region. That is, they have an inclination that they have the right to get into any part of the world where they want to either get something or harm someone, primarily the Russian Federation.
The same is happening with their relations with Central Asia. By the way, Central Asia, in principle, attracts a large number of partners. The “Central Asian five plus” format exists for a dozen countries and structures like the EU.
But in addition to “Central Asia plus the EU”, there are formats “Central Asia plus France”, “... plus Germany” and so on. There are Central Asian formats with the participation of Japan, South Korea, the United States, China, and Turkey.
Until some time, we proceeded from the assumption that since we cooperate with our Central Asian friends within the framework of the CIS, the CSTO, the SCO, and with a number of them within the framework of the EAEU, then, probably, there is no need to create such a formal “five plus one” structure. But a few years ago, we decided that it was necessary. Last autumn, the second summit “Russia plus Central Asia” took place.
A joint action plan was approved, a detailed document covering all areas of our cooperation. Therefore, I would not say that we pay little attention to Central Asia. Not at all. If you have such an impression, I would be grateful if you could tell us, maybe send us some paper, explaining on the basis of which you have formed this feeling.
The European Union does not interact with the EAEU, but it is trying to harm the Union to the fullest, including declaring to everyone that participation in the EU should be a priority for everyone who wants to develop normally, thinks about their people. Now, as you know, Armenia is also being “courted”. There are a number of other examples.
Our initiative, together with our Belarusian friends, on Eurasian security and the Greater Eurasian Partnership, involves the participation of all countries of the continent, so the doors are open to EU members as well.
I would like to mention that Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó and representatives of Slovakia regularly participate in the annual Minsk conferences on Eurasian security (there have already been three of them (1, 2 and 3). I have no doubt that this year the representation of European countries will increase at the same Eurasian conference in Minsk.
Question: I would like to ask about the Armenian-Russian relations, touching upon three aspects. How would you comment on the persecution of the Armenian Apostolic Church, in particular, the fact that both inside the country and in the West these persecutions are openly motivated by the authorities, allegedly countering Russian influence? That the mayor of Gyumri was charged with a criminal article for allegedly renouncing sovereignty because of one proposal for the Union State of Russia and Belarus, although the country adopted a law on the beginning of the process of joining the EU. And in general, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s approach to membership in the EAEU against the backdrop of his words about his intention to become a member of the European Union, about the law “On the Beginning of the Process of Joining the EU” adopted by the ruling party, which can actually be assessed as such an approach, they say, we will be in the EAEU as long as it is convenient for us.
Sergey Lavrov: I discussed this topic of membership in the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union more than once with my colleague Ararat Mirzoyan and with Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan when I last visited Yerevan in May 2025. For anyone familiar with the principles of the functioning of the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union, it is obvious that it is impossible to switch to EU standards while remaining a member of the EAEU. Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Overchuk has explained this more than once in his contacts with his Armenian counterpart.
This is simply technically impossible. They are incompatible not only because different norms are applied in trade, in investments, which do not fit with each other, but also because the European Union Brussels persistently promotes the idea of wanting to transform the regulatory legal framework of Armenia in accordance with its standards. I am not saying that in the case of Serbia, these standards imply full adherence to the foreign policy of the European Union, which also means joining the anti-Russian sanctions and statements.
Recently, in December 2025, a new Strategic Agenda for Armenia’s partnership with the European Union was signed. All this is enshrined there, that it is necessary to coordinate in the field of foreign policy, trade, and the economy. Armenians are offered visa liberalization, but it is due to the fact that the European Union should have a voice in solving problems in the law enforcement sphere, in the field of border protection.
It is clear that our border guards are in Armenia. The question immediately arises as to how this fits in with Yerevan’s current obligations. Therefore, the movement towards membership in the European Union, as stated and on what subject the relevant laws have been adopted, of course, cannot be combined with the preservation of membership in the Eurasian Economic Union. If Armenia makes the appropriate decision, as Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said, and accepts it as a corresponding expression of the will of the Armenian people, then this is undoubtedly the right of Armenia and the Armenian people.
I want to say that it is difficult to ignore the figures characterizing the development of the economy of the Republic of Armenia over the past 10 years. Armenia became a full member of the Eurasian Economic Union in 2015, when its GDP was $10.5 billion, and now this figure is $26 billion.--Armenia’s GDP has more than doubled during the period of membership in the Eurasian Economic Union. Due to the fact that the EAEU provides Armenian goods with free access to the markets of other member states of the Union, the Armenian foreign trade turnover, primarily with the Russian Federation, has reached record levels. Now it is $14 billion. This has never happened.
I cite these statistics simply because you asked about the relationship between the desire for EU membership and the continuation of relations with the EAEU. I want to say again that, of course, the Armenian people and the Armenian leadership should choose. But it is absolutely impossible to combine participation in both cases.
As for the attitude towards the Armenian Apostolic Church. Unfortunately, we are watching how the situation is developing. Speaker of the National Assembly of Armenia Alen Simonyan and Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan in a recent interview did not deny that there are hybrid threats against Armenia from the Russian Federation related to the situation in the Armenian Apostolic Church. But this can cause nothing but bewilderment in our country. Rapprochement with the European Union does not pass without a trace. I can mention this because it is the European Union that constantly talks about the “hybrid threats” generated by the Russian Federation. They give money for such work.
Recently, Armenia was provided with a tranche of 15 million euros. I have no doubt that the Brussels bureaucracy will force our Armenian friends to work off every cent of this 15 million tranche.
When they are trying to convince Armenia that it is necessary to distance itself from Russia, none other than EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kallas Kallas said that Moscow will act according to the “Moldovan scenario” in Yerevan.
If you remember, the “Moldovan scenario” consisted in the grossly rigging of the elections, which the ruling regime of Maia Sandu lost inside Moldova, receiving only 44% of the vote. He was able to finally declare his victory only thanks to the grossest fraud at polling stations in Europe. More than 200 of them were opened, while in Russia, where the largest Moldovan diaspora, there are only 2 and in Transnistria only a dozen. And even then, in fact, Transnistrians were not allowed to vote.
Therefore, if EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kirka Kallas frankly admits that the “Moldovan scenario” will be applied during the upcoming elections in Armenia, then if I were the Armenian society, I would seriously think about it.
As for V.N. Gugasyan. You are absolutely right to mention that he is accused of calling for Armenia to consider the possibility of Armenia joining the Union of Russia and Belarus. Arresting people for expressing political views that are in no way aimed at undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Armenia, aimed at maximizing the opportunities of their foreign relations in the interests of their own development, of course, caused serious bewilderment and concern. I know that he has now been released from custody, but remains under house arrest. We hope that politicians in Armenia who advocate the development and deepening of cooperation with Russia will not be persecuted.
Question: Just recently, President of Moldova Maia Sandu said that she supports the accession of a neutral country to Romania, which is a NATO country, under the constitution. And in a referendum, she would have voted for it. The question arises, how does the Russian Federation feel about the possibility of such a scenario and how does it assess such a scenario in principle?
I would like to ask you to tell us a little more about US President Donald Trump’s initiative to create a new organisation that will deal with peace issues, at least for the time being as part of the situation in the Gaza Strip. To what extent, in your opinion, will this organization be able to help? How much does the world need new organizations now? What is the attitude of the Russian Federation to this initiative?
Sergey Lavrov: As for Moldova, I would call its policy of rapprochement with the European Union “absorption by the European Union,” because there are growing voices that reunification or accession to Romania will be the shortest path to membership in the European Union. Of course, this course destroys the Moldovan statehood. It seems that the European Union is interested in this.
This is manifested in a multitude of facts. For example, the Moldovan language has already been renamed Romanian. In school textbooks, instead of the history of Moldova, the history of Romania is taught. Hitler’s Nazi accomplices, like Y. Antonescu, are declared national heroes. Historical facts concerning not only World War II, but also the previous and subsequent development of this region, are unceremoniously juggled or ignored. At the same time, anti-Russian sentiments are being whipped up. They are trying to blame us for all the troubles of the Republic of Moldova, including the actual collapse of the economy, the social sphere, the growth of unemployment, poverty, and so on.
By the way, we are also blamed for the outflow of the population. Moldova’s external debt is almost $12 billion, and the population is 2.38 million people. These are catastrophic figures per capita in terms of prospects for economic and social development.
The poverty rate is off the charts, the share of people with low incomes is almost two-thirds in Moldova. Other indicators are also depressing - the balance of payments deficit, a sharp decline in exports (including, by the way, a decrease in exports to the European Union). Therefore, it is always necessary to measure beautiful words with real deeds.
At the same time, members of the Maia Sandu regime do not get tired of talking about the transition to European standards. We have seen what this leads to in the example of Ukraine, and the Baltic States. Brussels does not need an independent Moldova at all—this is a purely geopolitical calculation. Probably, there are political forces in Moldova (I hope so) that understand what is happening and rely on the opinion of the majority of the Moldovan people. It is not for nothing that the Maia Sandu regime did not receive support among the Moldovans who live in this country, did not receive a majority in the last elections.
We are very interested in having normal relations with Moldova. We do not give any reason for any hostile actions to be taken from the other side, at the instigation of the European Union. But unfortunately, the EU does not lag behind the current authorities in Chisinau, which are fully accountable to it.
Question: In recent years, the Baltic States have literally become a military springboard for the entire NATO. There have been repeated provocations against Russia in the Baltic Sea. There are also obstacles to the work of navigation. Moreover, the Baltic States even threaten Chinese maritime logistics.
This raises the question, beyond diplomatic protests, what measures can Russia take against this threat?
Sergey Lavrov: The Baltic states have already become the talk of the town. When, over the past couple of years, Russophobia has been whipped up in the EU, in NATO (and bellicose Russophobia with calls to prepare for war against Russia), then, along with the same Germans, there were, of course, the Balts, including their leadership, in the forefront.
We have been subjected to all kinds of invectives—you know about all these statements by presidents, prime ministers, foreign ministers and defence ministers. A colossal incomprehensible sense of one’s own greatness shines through in these statements. I don’t know how this is measured with the real role played by the Baltic states. Probably, a long-standing defect, a disease, affects here. Because when the three Baltic countries were admitted to the European Union in 2004, they absolutely did not meet all the criteria that must be met.
As, in fact, they are now trying to “drag” Ukraine there, which does not correspond. Moreover, it violates all the criteria. When the Baltic States were admitted to the European Union, we had good relations–-the European Commission was headed by Romano Prodi. We asked our European colleagues why they were so imprudent in dragging them in. This will also be a burden for the normal functioning of the trade and economic structure that the European Union was at that time.
We were told that, of course, there are nuances, because they have not yet grown up to full membership, but for political reasons they want to accept them. Because after they were granted independence in 1991, they seem to continue to have phobias about the Russian Federation and are constantly afraid that we will attack them again, so we were told. “Therefore, we will now accept them into both the European Union and NATO, and they will calm down.” They did not calm down. On the contrary, both in the EU and in NATO, they began to try to play the first fiddle in whipping up Russophobic passions. This continues to this day.
What specific result they can present to their population from such a policy and from membership in Western institutions can be seen by looking at the statistics: how much population is left in these countries after a huge number left in search of a better life in Europe or some other parts of the world, what economic growth is demonstrated, what are the GDP per capita indicators and much more.
It is well known how Europe has long turned a blind eye to gross violations of human rights, from the very beginning of independence and the subsequent participation of the Baltic republics in NATO and the EU. Their attitude to the Russian language is known. True, the Baltic states have not reached such rudeness as the Zelensky regime. A ban on language as such in all spheres of life has not been announced there. However, certain sectors–-education, mass information, and even culture–-are gradually being subjected to targeted bans.
The Estonian Orthodox Church is another example, which, along with the same Ukrainian decisions on the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, reflects the line of the Phanar, the line of the Patriarch of Istanbul (I do not dare to call it the Patriarch of Constantinople) to destroy traditional historical Orthodoxy. This is unfortunate. I mentioned Armenia in the context of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church. This is a trend, and we cannot ignore it. This is a direct undermining of human rights, enshrined, I quote again, in the UN Charter, which states that the rights of every person must be respected regardless of religion.
Question: U.S. imperialism, to put it bluntly and not hesitatingly, has reached a new level. Previously, for 150 years, if not more, they were engaged in the southern hemisphere—the countries of Latin America, the Arab world, Africa, etc.
The nominee for the post of U.S. Ambassador to Reykjavik, B. Long, said that he would make Iceland the 52nd state of the United States and would be the governor there. That is, the Americans look greedily at Iceland and Greenland. What do you think about if there is a request from the official structures of Nuuk or Reykjavik, or from the two capitals, about a treaty with the Russian Federation on friendship and cooperation for a start and about possible military cooperation?
The degradation of the European elites is obvious. Sergey Karaganov, far from the last person in the Russian structures, said in an interview with our colleague, journalist T. Carlson, that it would be absolutely undesirable, but quite possible, to drop nuclear weapons on the European continent, and he would choose Germany. Could you comment on the words of Comrade Sergei Karaganov?
Sergey Lavrov: I will not comment on the words of Comrade Sergey Karaganov. The only one who can dispose of our nuclear arsenal is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief President of the Russian Federation. Our nuclear doctrine is an open document, everything is clearly spelled out in it. We update it periodically. It exists in the public domain. You can read everything in it.
As for the hypothetical proposal from Greenland and Iceland to conclude a mutual assistance treaty with the Russian Federation, I do not see conditions that would allow us to assume such a possibility. And I don’t think that anyone in Nuuk or Reykjavik thinks about this topic.
The logic of your question is going a little in the wrong direction. It turns out that you want these “poor territories”–-one that will be taken away now, and the second, which will be next, to run to us for help. And it’s not about someone not helping them-–Russia or China, or anyone else. The point is that they are members of the North Atlantic Alliance, and it is now undergoing a test of what it is.
Therefore, how to say, we are not at all interested in interfering in anyone’s affairs.
If we talk about Greenland, this is part of the problem related to the consequences of the colonial era. From the 13th century, Greenland was essentially a colony of Norway and later a Danish colony. And only in the middle of the twentieth century, an agreement was signed that it was part of Denmark not as a colony, but as an associated territory. It was associated with the European Union. But, in principle, Greenland is not a natural part of Denmark. Isn’t it? It was neither a natural part of Norway nor a natural part of Denmark–-it was a colonial conquest.
The fact that residents are now used to and they are comfortable is another matter. But the problem of former colonial possessions is becoming more and more serious. There are now 17 territories in the world, according to the UN register, that are either deprived of sovereignty or are directly dependent on the administering powers.
France continues, contrary to the resolutions of the UN General Assembly, to hold the island of Mayotte, which, according to all decisions of the world organisation, is part of the state of the Comoros. Britain continues to hold the Malvinas Islands, also in violation of numerous UN General Assembly resolutions. Britain is also clinging to its presence in Mauritius’ Chagos Archipelago. There are many other examples: French Polynesia, New Caledonia, the Epars Islands, which remain in the possession of the French Republic. So these questions will arise in the future.
It is not for nothing that we, within the framework of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations, have taken the important initiative of a United Nations campaign to clean up all traces of the colonial era. As I have already said, on our initiative, the UN will celebrate the Day of Struggle against Colonialism in all its forms and manifestations every year on December 14.
As for Greenland specifically, I have written out some quotes on purpose. For example, President of Croatia Zavija Milanovic, who I think is a very experienced and far-sighted politician, called on US President Donald Trump not to put his interests above the rights of the people of Greenland: “I would like to emphasise that only the Greenlandic people can make a decision on the future of Greenland.” Put the “people of Crimea” in the place of the “Greenlandic people”, and many things will become clear to you. In Crimea, people went to a referendum after the unconstitutional coup d’état, when the putschists who came to power declared war against the Russian language and sent militants to storm the Supreme Council of Crimea. And no one staged any coups in Greenland, simply, as US President Donald Trump said, this territory is important for the security of the United States. Crimea is no less important for the security of the Russian Federation than Greenland is for the United States. When what is happening around Greenland is justified by the fact that otherwise it will be captured by Russia or China, there is no evidence of this. And in the West, economists and political scientists are already refuting this.
By the way, Ms Baerbock, who is now the President of the UN General Assembly, also said that the people of Greenland have made their position very clear. We are talking about their right to self-determination.
When they say such things, they would at least think one step ahead or a step back and remember what they said about the right to self-determination of the people of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya.
In any case, we proceed from the fact that we have nothing to do with this issue. Of course, we are watching this serious geopolitical situation. We will draw conclusions based on the results of the denouement of this problem.
By the way, Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said Britain. Without any offense, I think that Britain should be called Britain, because the UK is the only example when a country calls itself great. Another example was the Libyan Jamahiriya, but it no longer exists.
Question (retranslated from English): I am not offended. You said that there is no evidence that Russia and China are attacking Greenland, but this is not an answer to US President Donald Trump’s question. He said it was a threat to Greenland. The question is as follows: Is Russia a threat to Greenland? Do you have plans to take over Greenland? And if not, how would you respond to his desire to seize the island? Will you support him or not?
On the issue of colonialism, how does what Russia is doing in Ukraine differ from colonialism, which you are speaking out against here? Russia annexed Crimea and now you’re trying to take over the four eastern regions by force, how different is that from colonialism?
Sergey Lavrov: As for Greenland, I have already said everything, we have nothing to do with the plans to seize Greenland. I have no doubt that Washington is well aware that neither Russia nor the People’s Republic of China have such plans. This is not our question.
Our question, first of all, is that we are interested in establishing open and free Arctic cooperation within the Arctic Council, where the interests of security, the economy, the environment, indigenous peoples and all participants in Arctic cooperation would be taken into account. We did not stop cooperation in this structure, we did not break off contacts. By the way, the United States is interested in resuming discussions within the Arctic Council, unlike some Europeans, although at the technical level these contacts remain.
Many of our citizens did not know what Greenland was at all until it suddenly took the front pages.
Decide this within the North Atlantic Alliance. I repeat, we will see how this issue will be resolved.
As for colonialism, we have many proverbs that apply to the question you asked.
When US President Joe Biden met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in June 2021, a meeting began in a narrow format, which was attended only by US Secretary of State Antony Blinkin and yours truly. Joe Biden made an opening speech without any notes and without text and said literally the following that the United States and Russia are two great powers. They are not better than us, they are not worse than us, they are just different. The United States was created as a result of the migration of semi-criminal elements from England. They settled on their territory, solved the Indian problem. Then there were the problems of slavery and migration. All those who came to the United States, starting with the British settlers, all of them went to the “melting pot” and there were melted down, regardless of their ethnic or other origin, into Americans, and came out of this melting pot with the inscription “human rights” on their foreheads.
Russia – I quote the words of US President Joe Biden – was created differently. We developed the spaces neighboring the primordial Muscovy not by suppressing and grinding peoples, but by uniting with them, preserving their languages, traditions, religion, culture, etc. And now we have a huge country, the largest in the world in terms of area, where the population is probably the most multinational on earth, and where this multinationality is preserved and supported by the state.
Therefore, Joe Biden said, it is not easy for us to keep a country, which also possesses nuclear weapons, in a state of unity, and he respects President Vladimir Putin that he succeeds in this. And he added that he could not imagine that Russia would fall apart. This is the very case when Joe Biden spoke without a piece of paper, without a teleprompter, without a pen that signs everything itself.
I just want to draw your attention to the fact that colonialism in international law has now taken root in relation to those states that had colonies, and whose colonies did not want to live with their mother country.
It is no coincidence that in 1960 the process of decolonisation took place, which, as I have already said, was incomplete, that Britain illegally retained a number of overseas territories, including control over the Chagos Archipelago. It is no coincidence that in 1970 the General Assembly adopted the declaration by consensus: Britain voted in favor, the United States voted in favor, and everyone else, including Europeans, voted in favor of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States.
There, in the context of comparing the principles of the UN Charter, primarily the principle of territorial integrity and the principle of national self-determination, the following verdict was made: all states are obliged to recognize the sovereignty and territorial integrity of those states whose governments respect the right to self-determination and represent the entire population living in the relevant territory.
So, in the 1960s, the peoples of Africa unequivocally stated that the metropolises – London, Paris, Madrid, Lisbon – did not represent the interests of the population of the corresponding colonial territories. And the process of decolonization took place.
In 2014 and in the years following the coup d’état in Ukraine, the people of Crimea, followed by the peoples of Novorossiya and Donbass, decided through referendums and an open expression of will that the Kiev authorities, who seized power through a coup d’état, do not represent the population of the respective territories.
Therefore, with all due respect, we are not talking about colonialism or annexation, but about the full implementation of the principles that were approved by the UN General Assembly by consensus with the full consent of all our Western colleagues, including Britain.
Question (retranslated from English): Almost a year ago, you said that relations between Russia and Italy were going through the deepest crisis since World War II. That the Italian government is responsible for this, that the country has become anti-Russian.
That was in 2025. Now the year 2026 has come. Do you see any signals that there are changes and there is an opportunity to restore the dialogue? Especially after Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Meloni, referring to French President Emmanuel Macron, said that he was right and that it was time for Europe to talk to Russia.
Sergey Lavrov: As for relations with Italy and the fact that they are at their lowest point, I confirm my words. Italy is one of the few countries that now shuns Russian art. The government of the country or the governments of your regions in some cases cancel the already agreed tours of our opera singers, as was recently the case with the tour of I.A. Abdrazakov.
Before that, there were several other examples when world art stars from Russia were invited, agreements were signed, and then these tours were canceled. You know, I don’t want to compare, but the struggle with art is so uncharacteristic of the Italian people, according to my feelings from communicating with Italians, that even I don’t know how to talk about it.
There are examples, but these examples relate to the Nazi regime in Ukraine, where they created the “Institute of National Remembrance” and recently made another decision that Mikhail Kutuzov, Igor Bunin and Alexander Griboyedov are symbols of Russian imperialism, and all this should be banned. This list includes A.S. Pushkin, M.Y. Lermontov, L.N. Tolstoy, and, by the way, even such writers as I. Ilf, E. Petrov and M.A. Bulgakov.
The Ukrainian Nazis have long taught the whole world that they are allowed to do this, including by members of NATO and the EU, primarily members of the European Union. But I did not expect a ban on art and culture from Italy.
At the Venice Biennale, we have a pavilion that we are forbidden to use. Those who own this pavilion rent it out. Last time, when the Venice Biennale was held, our representatives handed it over to the countries of Latin America, in particular, Bolivia there.
I don’t know how this relates to the Italian character, to the Italian attitude to life and to the Italian rejection of the politicization of everyday normal human contacts.
As for whether it is possible to resume relations, President of Russia Vladimir Putin has spoken about this many times. It was not us who broke off relations, it was not us who closed all the doors to cooperation between Russia and the European Union, and between Russia and individual EU members, especially with our long-standing, good, historical friends and partners such as the Italians.
Now I am asked: “Emmanuel Macron said it, and Giuseppe Meloni said it, but what about you?” This does not sound very serious. When the leaders of European countries, including those mentioned, have been saying for four years that it is impossible to sit down at the same table with Russia, and then suddenly (when they want to somehow stand out among the crowd that unanimously demands a “strategic defeat” on Russia), German Chancellor Merz said that Russia is a European country and it is necessary to talk to them. It dawned on you!
Therefore, I advise those who want to talk to us seriously not to talk about it loudly and then proudly look around the audience. And if there is a serious interest, you need to call, as diplomats do, without any accusations, without any “I made such a threat, I will talk to Vladimir Putin.” Emmanuel Macron has already announced this once again.
Some time ago, last year, French President Emmanuel Macron made a phone call to President of Russia Vladimir Putin, and nothing he said in this telephone conversation differed from what Paris, including Emmanuel Macron himself, said and continues to say in public.
I could not resist–-I will quote Emmanuel Macron after his meeting with Vladimir Zelensky in November 2025: “Russia itself has chosen the path of war. Nothing justified this war, not a single real threat—only fakes. All this in complete disregard for truth, under the influence of the reflexes and instincts of the state, which cannot reconcile itself to its history.”
This is rudeness. That’s how they don’t give a damn about Russia. We are above this and treat statements of this kind not so much with contempt, but with disdain, because a Frenchman cannot but remember the history of Russia.
He cannot but understand that the story is not what EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kirka Kallas said about “nineteen wars unleashed by Russia against Europe over the past 100 years.” It lies in the fact that, beginning with Napoleon and continuing with Hitler, who put almost all of Europe under arms in order to defeat and destroy Russia, this is where history begins, and this is what our people will never give up.
I leave these statements on the conscience of French President Emmanuel Macron, just as I leave the statement that the war between NATO and Russia will begin before 2029.
If someone wants to talk, then we will never refuse, even if I understand perfectly well, I will make such a reservation that it will most likely not be possible to agree on anything with the current leaders of Europe.
They have driven themselves too deeply into hatred of Russia.
Question: The “Cross” Years of Culture of Russia and China have been successfully completed in 2025. What positive role can cultural exchanges between Chinese and Russian youth play in accordance with the sustainable and stable development of relations between our countries?
Sergey Lavrov: Relations with the People’s Republic of China occupy a special place in the scale of Russia’s foreign policy priorities. This is also happening in the foreign policy of the PRC. Russian-Chinese relations have reached an unprecedented level, as President of China Xi Jinping and President of Russia Vladimir Putin have repeatedly stated. The heads of state regularly communicate with each other.
Culture in the broadest sense, of course, encompasses both historical memory and the readiness to defend one’s values in the international arena. In this sense, last year was particularly significant. The leaders of Russia and China participated together as main guests at the events on May 9, 2025 in Moscow on the occasion of the defeat of Nazi Germany, as well as on September 3, 2025 in Beijing on the occasion of the defeat of militaristic Japan and Victory in World War II.
During these high-level meetings, our leaders held regular rounds of negotiations, which outlined new goals and milestones in the development of our strategic cooperation and partnership.
I will not even touch on the economy, although the economy is the material basis of relations between states. Here we have been reaching record figures for many years. But the desire for cooperation between our countries in humanitarian spheres is strengthening day by day.
You mentioned the “cross” Years of Culture of Russia and China. Within the framework of these years, several hundred different events were organized in Russia and China. In their mutual New Year’s messages, President of China Xi Jinping and President of Russia Vladimir Putin announced a new initiative. In 2026-2027, the Years of Education of Russia and China will be held, which is also an important part of cultural exchanges, primarily youth exchanges. Therefore, the year that has begun will be rich in these events.
In addition to youth contacts, ties are also being promoted in the field of sports, through archival services, which is also important for the preservation of national culture, traditions and identity.
Contacts in the field of culture and in any other areas will be facilitated by the current visa-free regime on a reciprocal basis. The indicators of relevant trips have already reached record levels. I think that this trend will continue. Thus, in the humanitarian sphere, we have rich cooperation, which organically complements interaction in the economic sphere and strategic cooperation in the international arena, where China and Russia are the most important stabilizing factor in international affairs, the importance of which is only growing in the current conditions.
Question: Major political events are taking place in Vietnam these days. This is the congress of the leading Communist Party of Vietnam, which will determine the course of development, as well as tasks for the next five years. As the head of the diplomatic department of the Russian Federation, what do you expect and how do you assess the impact of the results of the congress on strengthening cooperation and bilateral relations between Russia and Vietnam?
Sergey Lavrov: First of all, the Vietnamese people should have expectations from the congress of the Communist Party of Vietnam. We know that the Communist Party is the ruling party structure and has traditionally determined all areas of development since the victory of Vietnam in its anti-colonial struggle.
We actively support the activities of our Vietnamese friends in the development of their society, economy and foreign relations, including fraternal relations with the Russian Federation. In addition to contacts at the level of presidents and heads of government, we strongly encourage inter-party contacts, including relations between the Communist Party of Vietnam and United Russia, our ruling party. I know that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation also has ties with the Communist Party of Vietnam.
We have no doubt that the leading role of the Communist Party of Vietnam is in the interests of the Vietnamese people. Therefore, we will wait for the results of the congress. We will take them into account in further plans for the development of our strategic partnership and special relations with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Question: Do you see any opportunities for changes in relations with Japan under the cabinet of Shinzo Takaichi, who continues the line of her predecessor Shinzo Abe? In early February of this year, elections to the House of Representatives of the Parliament of Japan are expected. Residents of the so-called northern territories are aging every year. The issue of Japanese citizens visiting the graves of relatives in the Kuril Islands is, in the opinion of the Japanese side, of a humanitarian nature. What do you think about the prospects for such humanitarian trips and, in general, the prospects for resuming dialogue between Russia and Japan in the current conditions?
Sergey Lavrov: In my opening remarks, I have already briefly touched on the topic of Japan, expressing concern that along with Germany, Japan is also experiencing unhealthy trends related to the desire of some political forces to return to the militarisation of society.
We are following the development of strategic military-political cooperation between Tokyo and Washington, how joint military activity is unfolding in your region, around Japan and on the territory of Japan with the involvement of extra-regional players (I mean not only the United States, but also other NATO members). All this is happening in the immediate vicinity of the Russian borders. Given the chaotic nature of the development of events in the international arena to a certain extent, we cannot but be concerned about this.
We became aware of some things that directly affected our security interests. Through diplomatic channels, we conveyed to our Japanese neighbours the unacceptability of the appearance of American ground-based strike systems on Japanese territory. It was last year. In September 2025, at the Iwakuni Base in Yamaguchi Prefecture, these batteries of the Typhon mobile missile system–-the same ground-based strike systems–-were deployed, as we were told, on a temporary basis only for some exercises. But according to our data, these Typhon combat systems, which are designed to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, have not been withdrawn from the territory of Japan. Therefore, we are probably talking not only about exercises, but about a more permanent presence. There has been no official confirmation that these systems have been withdrawn. Therefore, our concern remains.
In November 2025, Japanese Defence Minister Shinzo Koizumi announced plans to deploy medium-range missiles on Yonaguni Island near Chinese Taiwan. This is probably not the most peaceful step either. Quite the opposite.
We have repeatedly pointed out both during direct contacts with our Japanese neighbours and in the public space that such steps have a negative impact on stability and security in the region. We called on our Japanese colleagues not to follow the path of remilitarisation and to return to the positions enshrined in the Constitution of Japan and characterised by an exclusively defensive policy in Japanese military development. Unfortunately, the current Japanese administration ignores our concerns.
We are convinced that this is an unhealthy situation. Individual point contacts took place between parliamentarians. We never refuse such contacts and hope that they will help the Japanese leadership better understand Russia’s legitimate interests, as well as the need to remain committed to the principles enshrined in the Japanese Constitution and the UN Charter with regard to the results of World War II.
Against this background, I would like to note (returning to the question of our colleague from Italy) that despite the deepest contradictions in geopolitical issues, cultural and humanitarian cooperation between Russia and Japan is developing very positively. There are no attempts to cancel our culture, art, our performers in Japan (unlike Italy). No obstacles are created in relation to the events that are held annually as part of the festival of Russian culture.
Every year, in spite of everything, this festival was held with great success in the Japanese capital. And this year the 20th anniversary Festival of Russian Culture will take place. For our part, we will never and will never hinder the implementation of the Japanese side’s cultural initiatives in Russia.
Question: The Treaty on the Further Reduction of Strategic Arms Restrictions between Russia and the United States expires on February 5, 2026. President of Russia Vladimir Putin said that in order not to provoke a further arms race and to ensure an acceptable level of predictability and restraint, Russia is ready to adhere to the restrictions on strategic offensive arms for a year after February 5. US President Donald Trump recently announced that if the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires, the United States will conclude a more successful treaty with Russia. Explain what kind of agreement it will be and whether China will take part in it?
Sergey Lavrov: And why are you addressing me with this question? This was announced by US President Donald Trump.
As you said, we are committed to what President Vladimir Putin proclaimed several months ago, proposing the following in order not to create a complete vacuum in the sphere of strategic stability in the context of the expiration of the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty on February 5 of this year. Given that Russia has suspended the Treaty and all its provisions, we nevertheless remain committed to the quantitative restrictions and ceilings that are enshrined in this treaty.
The Russian head of state said that we are ready to comply with these restrictions for another year on the understanding that the United States will reciprocate and will not build up its nuclear forces beyond the limits established in this treaty. At least another year will be gained so that everyone can “cool down” from the hot foreign policy topics that overwhelm the international agenda and see how to move forward in this key area of strategic stability.
Meanwhile, when President Donald Trump was asked whether he would comply with the ceilings of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty like Russia, he replied that he would not. They say, the contract expires and let it expire. Indeed, the Americans are signaling that it is necessary to start some new negotiations on strategic stability. China is mentioned. But all this is done in the public space, in the course of communication with journalists. There are no specific contacts on this topic between specialists from the two countries.
At the same time, we are witnessing attempts by the United States to create its superiority in certain areas of strategic stability. I have already mentioned the forward deployment of ground-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles–-the Typhon, which we have already talked about today, which appeared not only in Japan, but also in the Philippines. It is planned to deploy it in Germany. I will also mention that they are trying to expand the basing of nuclear weapons in Europe. Such plans were voiced in the public space. In addition, I would like to mention the development of the US global missile defence system called the Golden Dome project.
Let’s not forget that the United States is actively pursuing a policy of weaponization of outer space and the deployment of weapons in outer space. When we at the UN are trying to mobilize the international community in favour of a decision on the inadmissibility of placing weapons in outer space, the United States refuses to support such an initiative and instead invites us to support the initiative not to deploy nuclear weapons in outer space. We answer, they say, please, only threats to outer space and to the Earth, respectively, are created by the deployment of non-nuclear weapons, which the United States is planning. We suggest that they accept an agreement that no weapons will be deployed in space. They say that no, they say, they can only oppose the deployment of nuclear weapons. This means that non-nuclear weapons will be deployed there in accordance with the plans of the United States. Therefore, there are many problems here.
As for the second part of your question about who will be a participant in such talks if such talks begin, it should be said that China has indicated its position. It clearly stated that the United States and the Russian Federation are far ahead in terms of their nuclear weapons and their number. The PRC does not have the same arsenals, so at this stage it does not see the need to participate in such negotiations. We fully respect this position.
Another thing is that if we are talking about expanding the participants in the negotiations on strategic stability, limiting nuclear weapons at some stage, then it is impossible to leave aside Britain and France. They are allies with the United States, bound by mutual obligations within NATO. Therefore, it is impossible not to take their arsenals into account when we consider the threats projected by the US nuclear arsenal. In contrast to this situation, from the situation of the intra-Western “nuclear troika”, Russia and China do not have a military alliance. Therefore, the situation here from a legal and practical point of view, of course, looks different. But I repeat, so far we are not talking about any specific initiatives. Obviously, everyone is busy with more pragmatic things that everyone is well aware of and hear about every day.
I apologize, I have not yet answered the question that was asked about the “Peace Council” created by US President Donald Trump (when Al Jazeera refused to ask a question about the Middle East).
I have already said in my opening remarks that Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed yesterday that President Vladimir Putin had received an invitation from US President Donald Trump to join the Peace Council. We have also received an annex to this letter–-a document called the Charter of the Peace Council, from which it follows that this Council will be ready not only to deal with the Gaza Strip, which, I think, is not mentioned there, but also to contribute to the resolution of conflicts around the world.
Of course, we want to clarify the conceptual and practical vision of our American colleagues for this initiative. Now we are trying to clarify such issues. We will be in contact. But in general, of course, when it comes to resolving the problems of the Middle East region, primarily the problems of the Gaza Strip, in connection with which the Peace Council was first mentioned in the very resolution adopted by the UN Security Council in the fall of 2025 at the initiative of the United States. We cannot approach these problems otherwise than to adhere to the position that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the entire international community in resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly.
When the US initiative was considered last autumn in New York, we doubted that any additional formats were needed in addition to those enshrined in UN resolutions. It is simply necessary to implement these decisions, to create a Palestinian State and to do so through direct dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian National Authority. But at that time, the initiators of this resolution, which approved US President Donald Trump’s plan for the Gaza Strip, did not want to refer to the UN decision. In this regard, Russia and China abstained. We did not oppose the adoption of this resolution solely because the Palestinians themselves and virtually all other Arab countries asked us to give this initiative a chance. And that’s what we did.
It is in this context that we are considering the invitation. We are interested in using any opportunities that will bring us closer to resolving the problems of the Palestinian people, first of all, the most acute humanitarian problems caused by Israel’s military actions that go beyond the framework of international humanitarian law (everyone is well aware of this). Following the resolution of the humanitarian problems of the Palestinian people, it will be necessary to address the political situation through — and we remain convinced of this — the implementation of United Nations decisions. Without the establishment of a Palestinian State, the Middle East cannot be stable.
Question: As you know, Russia and Iran are long-standing partners. Recently, US President Donald Trump said that the country that will conduct trade relations with Iran will be subject to a 20% increase in duties. In your opinion, how can this affect Russian-Iranian relations in the field of trade, the volume of which is increasing every year?
Sergey Lavrov: We trade with you (Iran). You and us. As we decide, so will trade develop. We have good plans with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Not only in trade, but also in the investment sphere. The Bushehr nuclear power plant is actively expanding. The most important section of the North-South International Transport Corridor between Russia, Azerbaijan and Iran is being worked out. Many other projects are in the works. I do not see any reason why we or our Iranian friends should stop these projects.
Yes, US President Donald Trump uses duties and tariffs as policy tools. Whenever unilateral coercive measures are involved in trade and economic relations, this indicates that the initiator of these measures is not quite confident in its competitive abilities in world markets. Therefore, life will put everything in its place.
French President Emmanuel Macron said that he would not participate in the activities of the Peace Council, which was proposed by President Donald Trump. When the latter found out about this, he said that he would impose 200% sanctions and tariffs against the French president and the entire French economy. Life is much more multifaceted than any specific situation.
Question: Is there active mediation work, including by Russia, to resolve the situation with Iran on the Iranian track? Are there any successes or what are the results of this active Russian mediating role? We see the latest telephone conversations at the highest level with Israel and with the Iranian side. Are there any results? Can Russia use its rather successful mediation experience to resolve the situation, including those related to Lebanon and Israel, given Russia’s fairly strong relations with Israel and Lebanon?
Sergey Lavrov: As you know, we maintain contacts with the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Israeli leadership and our Lebanese friends. We never try to advertise what we do.
Your question is probably primarily related to the fact that there was a leak of information that in contacts between Moscow, Tehran and Tel Aviv in the last months of 2025, some understandings were discussed on not threatening attacks on each other. So that Iran does not threaten Israel, and Israel does not threaten Iran. Since this leaked to the media, I will just say that such contacts were initiated by our interlocutors, both Israeli and Iranian. When people turn to us for help, we are always ready to use our good offices. We never impose these good offices. When we are needed, we always respond. This is our principle. The same principle applies to the situation in Lebanon.
We see how difficult the situation is in the Middle East as a whole. This includes Iran, but if you mentioned Lebanon, it is also Lebanon and Syria, including the Golan Heights and the buffer zone adjacent to them, which until recently was under UN control, and which is now also occupied by Israel.
There are agreements on Lebanon. But from time to time, information slips through the media that the Israeli leadership is not very inclined to withdraw its units completely from Lebanese territory. There is bargaining over the implementation of US President Donald Trump’s plan, which we have just talked about in connection with the creation of the Peace Council. The bargaining is how to interpret the demands for the disarmament of Hamas. At the same time, Hamas seems to be ready, but this readiness seems insufficient to Israel.
There are a huge number of questions. In particular, how to liberate the Gaza Strip? Israeli officials (this is no secret) openly declare that they do not want to withdraw from the entire Gaza Strip. Therefore, it is difficult to say how the plan will be implemented. There are too many components here.
The fact that US President Donald Trump has invited 50 states to his Peace Council shows that he understands that this problem cannot be solved alone, like any other problem on Earth. No matter how realistic the chances may seem to be solved overnight, on your own, in one case or another.
The example of the creation of the Peace Council shows that the awareness of the need for collective efforts is nevertheless recognized and takes place in Washington. To reiterate, if this authoritative group of countries, which was invited to the Peace Council, can help move towards stabilising the region, including through the implementation of the relevant UN resolutions, then Russia believes that this will already be useful.
Question: We all know you as a defender of the rights of our citizens and compatriots living in many countries around the world. But recently, there have been quite a lot of cases when our compatriots have not been able to confirm their citizenship while living in other countries. It comes to the point that at the consulates, citizens are offered to fill out the questionnaires again in order to obtain Russian citizenship, and do not issue them passports. Do you think it is possible to solve this problem on a systematic basis? Won’t it turn out that we are actually creating the institution of non-citizens ourselves?
Sergey Lavrov: This problem can be solved. We are doing this. Our Ministry has initiated the relevant work in an interdepartmental format.
The roots of the problem lie in the fact that at the turn of the 1990s, when Soviet structures were replaced by Russian ones, when a huge number of compatriots (as we now call them), citizens of the Soviet Union, who felt like Russians, Russians, found themselves abroad, and much more. You know what a wave of problems then had to be solved, as they say, “from the wheels”.
The large number of complaints about the aspect of this problem that you mentioned, namely, the problem of obtaining Russian citizenship, is due to the fact that in many cases our consulates issued foreign passports to Russians, but people could not get internal passports, did not have time, because they did not plan to go to Russia, but wanted to remain part of the Russian world. And they received such passports.
When the validity of these passports expired, they, of course, began to apply to the consular offices with a request to extend them. There, according to some of our bureaucratic regulations, they began to demand confirmation of Russian citizenship, which, I think, is wrong. The presence of a passport is already such a confirmation.
Probably, we can appeal to the fact that there were probably cases when these passports were not issued quite legally. Probably, there are no rules without attempts, including successful ones, to break them. But all this can be verified.
We are now actively working on this with our colleagues from the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and other agencies that are related to consular, visa and civil issues, and we are preparing a report to the Government and the President.
Question: The authorities of their restive Baltic neighbours tell Belarus and Russia that they are always afraid of something or pretend to be afraid of something. They make ridiculous provocative decisions. Suffice it to recall the closure of the border with Belarus, as a result of which hundreds of Lithuanian trucks could not get to their homes. Here are the next plans. The Lithuanian Minister of Defense announced his intention to create a fortified area in the area of the Suwalki corridor. What do you think lies behind these plans and to what extent do they threaten the security of the Union State?
Sergey Lavrov: I am tired of following and commenting on such statements by Baltic politicians. There is no reason to “blow up” this problem. Statements of this kind achieve the opposite result. It’s just that Russia and Belarus have a natural feeling that they are embarking on some kind of provocation in order to provoke us to concrete actions and then call for the unity of the EU and NATO. From the same series of threats against the Kaliningrad region.
We will not get involved in an exchange of rhetorical threats. But everyone should know that it will be suicide for those who start such provocations. But if they are concerned about the Suwalki Corridor, then I have seen a lot of video and photo materials–-large military resources will soon be released in Greenland.
Question: Last year was marked by the first contacts in the new format between Russia and the Alliance of the Sahel States. At the same time, the Russian Foreign Ministry has repeatedly pointed to attempts by Western countries to destabilize the situation in the region. What are they connected with and how Russia intends to build relations with the states of the Sahel countries in the future?
Last year, the conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo flared up with renewed vigor. Despite the mediation efforts of the United States and the signing of peace agreements, Washington has not been able to completely settle the conflict. Why have these initiatives not led to peace? Where do you see the key to resolving this crisis? Is Russia ready to provide its mediation efforts if requested?
Sergey Lavrov: Answering the previous question, I have already said that if someone asks us for mediation, we never refuse.
We have good relations with the Democratic Republic of the Congo and with Rwanda. We would like the conflict between them to stop. Although there are no prospects for its settlement.
You mentioned US President Donald Trump’s initiative. He listed the conflict as one of eight stopped wars but recently said that the war had flared up again. There are serious underlying reasons, without the elimination of which it will not be possible to simply declare that “we have agreed and everything is fine”. There is also a not quite legitimate, but quite powerful M23 movement. There are many other factors as well. Again, if we are contacted, we will see what we can do in this situation.
For many years now, we have been resuming close cooperation with Africa. In 2019 and 2023, two (1, 2) Russia-Africa summits were held. A third is planned for this year. Two ministerial conferences of the Russia–Africa Partnership Forum were held (in Sochi in 2024 and in Cairo in 2025).
We are actively restoring and expanding the network of our diplomatic missions, which has been significantly reduced. It suffered after the disappearance of the USSR, when Russia, both financially and politically, began to pay less attention to the regions of the developing world – Africa, Asia, Latin America.
In 2025, embassies were put into operation in Niger, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan. Next in line are the Gambia, Liberia, Togo, and the Comoros. The total number of our embassies in Africa will reach 49, that is, in almost all countries without exception. We are also restoring the network of sales offices. Now they already cover trade with 15 African states, which is not enough, but the process is underway.
You mentioned the Alliance of Sahel States. In the last two and a half years after this Alliance was created, we have been actively assisting these countries in getting rid of neocolonial dependence on the former metropolises, in establishing an independent economy, strengthening the foundations of statehood and defense capability. Our specialists work there—economic, military, and in the field of security.
Last year, we signed fundamental basic agreements with Mali and Togo. Bilateral intergovernmental commissions are being established with these countries. It has already been established with Mali. The process with Burkina Faso, Niger and the Central African Republic is being completed. A number of other agreements are also signed with them.
We see how the French, the former “masters” of this Sahara-Sahel “troika”, are trying in every possible way to prevent the successful establishment of governments and power in these countries. They resort to the use of terrorist methods, the use of various terrorist groups, “fragments” of the Islamic State and other terrorist structures in Africa. There are facts that such activities are being carried out, including with the involvement of Ukrainian instructors who are ready, on the instructions of the Kiev regime, to harm the Russian Federation and all our friends anywhere in the world. Fortunately, their affairs in the country are “established;” they can also engage in external expansion. They “do” it.
I am convinced that African countries are well aware of the perniciousness of this kind of influence and interference in their internal affairs. There are now good prerequisites for establishing normal, mutually beneficial relations between the Alliance of Sahel States and ECOWAS, as well as between the Alliance of Sahel States and the African Union. After nationally oriented figures came to power in Burkina Faso, Niger and Mali, there were some “gaps” in these relations. Efforts are now being made to restore normal cooperation and relations. We welcome this and are ready to contribute to this in every possible way.
Question (retranslated from French): US President Donald Trump told his European friends to focus on Ukraine. Is Russia ready to let the Europeans play their role in Ukraine, especially after the peace agreement?
Sergey Lavrov: The point is not that someone gives or does not allow someone to play a role. The point is, do you want to, and if you do, then–-the second question is- –can you play a role that will lead to sustainable peace? I do not see them among those European figures who are active on the Ukrainian issue. These are, first of all, Berlin, Paris, Brussels, Helsinki, the Baltic countries, London, which is increasingly speaking on behalf of the EU. Maybe they filed an application with a request to take them back? But such a “quartet” was formed – Kevin Starmer, Emmanuel Macron, François Merz and Ursula von der Leyen (and other Brussels leaders). I do not see their interest in ending the conflict.
I recall once again what I said some time ago in this Chamber. They are seeking approval of Vladimir Zelensky’s “plan” (as they call it) consisting of some 20 points, the essence of which boils down to one thing–-an immediate truce and the accompaniment of this truce by declaring legal guarantees of Ukraine’s security. The question arises as to what these security assurances will address. The way it looks now, and how it really is, are guarantees of the preservation of the current Nazi regime in the part of the territory of Ukraine that will be retained by it. At the same time, all this talk about how this is the “best plan,” that it “must be adopted,” that “the main thing is to convince Donald Trump, and then let Donald Trump force Vladimir Putin, we will all pile on him,” pursue exactly the goal I mentioned—to preserve this regime. Moreover, the Kiev regime itself-–Vladimir Zelensky publicly stated this again the other day–-will never legally recognise that Crimea, Novorossiya and Donbass are Russian. Absolutely not. And a truce along the current line of contact, and then “foreign countries will help us” will build bases. Colin Starmer and Emmanuel Macron said that they would deploy their multinational forces in Ukraine, build a network of military hubs (read: military bases) there and continue to develop this territory, pumping it with even more weapons in order to pose a threat to the Russian Federation.
Donald Trump’s idea, which was discussed and supported by us in Anchorage, is categorically crossed out by this European group of “elites.” They don’t want any final results. Vladimir Zelensky says that they will stop now, they will be given security guarantees, and Donald Trump and they will sign a plan to rebuild Ukraine worth $800 billion, but they will not recognise anything; they will leave it for later. This is just a frank admission of your intentions. They will continue to use military force to threaten the Russian Federation.
As for our desire or unwillingness to cooperate with Europe. The new British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said that London sees a high degree of Ukraine’s commitment to a peaceful settlement based on the US plan, keeping silent about the fact that it was “turned upside down” compared to Alaska and is now what I said–-a plan to preserve the Nazi regime and refuse to recognise the realities on the ground. She also said that “there is no evidence of Moscow’s desire for peace.” English ladies categorically declare their positions. But this is in line with your question: is there a place for Europe?
I have to make an excursion into history, because no matter how many times I talk about it, they still ask questions. In February 2014, after the coup d’état, we told the Europeans that two days before the coup d’état, they had guaranteed an agreement between then-President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition that there would be early elections and that there would be no use of force, and that they should force the opposition to comply with these agreements and vacate all the administrative buildings it had occupied. In Paris, Berlin, and Warsaw, we were told that sometimes democracy takes on unusual forms. That’s all.
Before this settlement agreement was signed between then-President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition in February 2014, then-US President Barack Obama called Vladimir Putin and asked him not to interfere with the signing of this agreement. Vladimir Putin said that if President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych is ready to sign it, how can he prevent the legitimate president of a sovereign state from making any decisions? Then we called the Americans. We said that they asked us to support us, and now can’t you stop your “wards” whom you financed and who eventually started a coup d’état? They avoided answering altogether.
The coup group that came to power first of all announced that they would abolish the status of the Russian language in Ukraine. This was the first official announcement. The second official announcement was that they had sent militant detachments to storm Crimea and seize the building of the Supreme Soviet. When, after that, the Crimeans rebelled against this government and said that they did not want to deal with them, held a referendum, and then Donbass did the same, the Kiev regime sent combat aircraft and used artillery against its own people in violation of all norms of international humanitarian law. Remember how planes bombed the center of Lugansk and the administrative buildings of Lugansk. What did Europe say then? NATO Secretary General Andern Rasmussen called on the new authorities in Kiev to use force proportionately. And when, before the coup d’état, President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych refused to use force against those who occupied the central square, the Maidan, NATO demanded that the Ukrainian authorities not use force against civilians on a daily basis. They were not allowed. When those who were paid came to power (as Nuland said, they paid $5 billion to create this group of putschists), they were called upon to use force proportionately. Europe “squandered” its chance for the first time in February 2014, when it failed to force the opposition to fulfill the terms of the agreement it guaranteed.
Europe had a second chance in February 2015, when the Minsk Agreements were signed with the participation of France, Germany, Ukraine and Russia. France and Germany have always stated that these are agreements between Moscow and Minsk, and they, Berlin and Paris, are their guarantors. They went to the UN Security Council, approved these agreements, and then it turned out (former French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted this a couple of years ago) that no one was going to comply with these agreements, it was necessary to buy time to rearm Ukraine. This is exactly what is now openly declared as an imperative for Ukraine—a truce for two months, or even more, and then “we’ll see”. The main thing is to maintain the regime.
Europe had a third chance when, before the start of the special military operation, it had a chance to support President Vladimir Putin’s initiative to conclude an agreement on measures to ensure the security of the Russian Federation and the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. They disgustedly turned away from us, refused even to discuss, said that it was none of our business what was happening in the Alliance, who was going to join NATO and how they would accept them there.
After that, the start of a special military operation was announced in response to the requests of the LPR and DPR, which we then recognized as independent. Europe “overlooked” its capabilities in December 2021, and then in April 2022, when, at the suggestion of Ukraine, the parameters of the settlement were agreed upon at the talks in Istanbul. Europe did not oppose the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who banned Vladimir Zelensky from signing these agreements.
I can’t understand where Europe is “striving” now. Again, in some situation where it will be possible to deceive everyone, lie to everyone and promote their anti-Russian agenda in practice. Why do you need it? You are already “trying”.
Question: Today, Russian embassies in countries with unfriendly governments are literally under threat. It’s not just about the actions of the United States. Consulates General in Poland were also closed, attacks on missions in Sweden are constantly recorded, and just recently the ambassador to Denmark said that the authorities of the kingdom threatened to take away land from the Russian mission. What arsenal of means does Russia have to respond, and will the response necessarily be symmetrical in this case?
Sergey Lavrov: As for yesterday’s decision or intention of the municipality of Copenhagen to take away the land on which the Russian Embassy is located. I think it has something to do with Greenland. Maybe they want to resettle people somewhere from there, and there is not enough territory, premises. I can’t say.
There is no doubt that this is diplomatic rudeness. Of course, we will respond to this with dignity. I do not think that these Danish bureaucrats will be able to create a precedent in such a crude way that will affect many other situations.
I will quote one great Russian figure: “It has long been possible to predict that this frenzied hatred, which for thirty years has been inflamed more and more strongly in the West against Russia, will one day break free from the chain. That moment has come. Russia was simply offered suicide, a renunciation of the very basis of its existence, a solemn recognition that it is nothing but a wild and ugly phenomenon in the world, an evil that requires correction.” This is F.I. Tyutchev, a poet and diplomat. He wrote this in 1854, immediately on the eve of the Crimean War, which was unleashed against the Russian Empire.
I hesitated to refer to this document. Someone will say that this is paranoia. Allegedly, we see some kind of threats everywhere. For today’s event, I reread the statement of the Europeans. I quoted President of France Emmanuel Macron, German Defence Minister Benjamin Pistorius, NATO Secretary General Martin Rutte and President of Finland Antonio Stubb. Nothing has changed. The strategic defeat of Russia is the goal that stood back in the XIX century, starting with Napoleon, the Crimean War, intervention, World War II.
Unfortunately, Europe, which is the source of all the main misfortunes of mankind, starting with slavery, colonialism, the unleashing of two world wars with a colossal number of victims, cannot change its mentality. Reading today’s figures and watching what intrigues they are weaving in order to preserve a regime that is absolutely hostile to Russia, accountable to them, professing the very ideas and practices of Nazism that led Hitler to Nuremberg, I am amazed that this does not disappear anywhere.
But healthy forces in Europe have nevertheless woken up. Their voice is already heard. Not only in Hungary, in Slovakia, in the Czech Republic, but also in Germany and France, there are forces that care about their national interests, and not about imperial ambitions, which have long been collapsed and will never return.
Question: The other day, President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about the possibility of returning to the discussion of the architecture of global and European security. I would like to know how such a discussion with the Europeans would be possible and under what conditions.
Sergey Lavrov: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly and in detail spoken about this, including when he spoke in this hall in June 2024.
We proceed from the premise that Eurasian security concerns the entire continent, otherwise it is impossible to fragment a single geographical, geopolitical and geo-economic space.
Until recently, those who promoted the concept of Euro-Atlanticism were doing just that. They have created a “club” called NATO with an appendage in the form of the European Union. They created the OSCE together with the USSR (but in different conditions), and after the disappearance of the Soviet Union, these instruments began to aim at eliminating any influence of the Russian Federation in this geopolitical space.
Recently, NATO, the EU and the OSCE have been used to penetrate into the areas of our country’s traditional influence–-the South Caucasus, Central Asia and the Far Eastern regions. They wanted, without creating an equal continental architecture, to control everything from the Euro-Atlantic center. These ideas are still relevant to them. They struggle to hold on to them. I do not know what will happen to NATO as a result of the “Greenland drama”, but this mentality is very deeply rooted in the brains of most of the current European “elites”.
In Central Asia, they say, they don’t need to do anything with Russia, they don’t need to do anything with China, come on with us, they will all harm their development, and we will “help” with democracy, human rights, LGBT and other “charms”. Other countries, such as Mongolia, are discouraged from cooperation with Russia and China. They are trying to establish their own “order” in the Far East, including by introducing elements of Euro-Atlantic structures there, as is happening in relations with Japan, South Korea and the Philippines. They are trying to undermine ASEAN unity.
Instead of a continental, equal structure, which we are advocating for, where the interests of all will be balanced, they want to lead this huge, richest continent, the most populous continent from the Euro-Atlantic center. Such a plan, at least, existed until recently.
NATO is in the deepest crisis, the European Union is in the deepest crisis, the OSCE is “breathing well.” All these plans are doomed to failure. Those who are more provincial, let them join our efforts, together with our Belarusian friends, to promote the Eurasian Charter for Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. As I have already said, a number of European ministers and representatives are already participating in the relevant annual conferences in Minsk. Their number will grow. [My Emphasis]
I must strongly object to Lavrov’s positive view of Trump’s Peace Council, which is as unilateral to the nth degree. I also strongly disagree with his view that the Trump Gang are “pragmatists” when they’re clearly gangsters. Lavrov seems to have forgotten trump’s initial proposal for Gaza once all the Palestinians were killed—a killing spree he continues to support as Genocide Don. What I see is a group of sociopaths telling Russia what Russia wants to hear, except when it comes to actions like repatriating the stolen diplomatic properties excuses of all sorts arise. There’s no easing of CIA activity to contain Russia, the most obvious being the currently suspended attack on Iran, but also the prying away of Moldova and Armenia, while Georgia remains a part. And much effort is ongoing in the Stans with coup attempts in 2024 and 2025. Attacks along the Arc of Instability are continuous. And the attack on Novgorod was clearly CIA. And when exactly were the roots of the Ukraine crisis started, and it wasn’t with Biden, which Lavrov knows, so why does he lie? I see absolutely zero “goodwill” from the Trump Gang at home or elsewhere. Lavrov’s assessment of the OSCE is closer to the overall reality of all interactions with the West: “any hopes are illusions.” I don’t recall seeing anything confirming “proposed solutions that took into account the root causes of the current crisis” that was presented in writing to Russia and published. Putin just said at the Kremlin a few days ago that it was the false “promises” that must be made true, although his phrasing was not as direct. “Inconsistency” is an odd way of describing criminal actions grossly violating international and national US laws. On Rubio’s remarks, do the Outlaws practice what they preach? IMO, the evidence says no. Lavrov’s remarks about the EU and the Arctic shows that the EU apes the Outlaw US Empire’s goals and its orders. The colonialism issue was clearly brought forth by a BBC person who Lavrov slapped rhetorically.
The plans of NATO, of the European elites related to Ukraine, Russia and Eurasia that Lavrov spent most of the last third of his Q&A dealing with were all prepared by the Globalists within the Outlaw US Empire who still aspire to Full Spectrum Dominance, which Trump in his first term also supported—actions speak for themselves and contradict what the West says constantly. Read what the AI tech billionaires within the Trump Gang want to establish—the total overthrow of the USA’s constitutional order. Read what the Millers in that Gang want to do. Read the attitudes of the vast majority of Senators who would need to ratify any surrender treaty Trump manages to arrange with Russia—such a treaty will never be ratified, and the Trump Gang knows it. There’s been a great deal of theatre since the 2024 election surrounding Trump’s plans to solve Ukraine all of which were just that—theatre. The EU is now a massive colony of the Outlaw US Empire that was a long time in becoming overt but finally became visible by 2022-3. Biden’s then Trump’s policies toward EU/NATO are very similar—EU/NATO do the Empire’s bidding and pays tribute to the Empire. Lavrov himself, IMO unwittingly, let his inner thoughts slip out several times both related to unrealistic expectations related to “hope.”
*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!
I strongly object to my PM being referred to as Kevin & Colin Starmer in this post, it's Sir Queer Starmer.
I agree with your remarks regarding the US administration and I'd go as far as saying he's delusional, it's not what you say but how things are conducted. And the conduct of giving the US a pass has only increased the tempo of provocations. Is this some clever plan? I'd say it invites greater danger as the US mounts the escalation ladder, and will gladly throw it's vassals at the wall. And here's the issue - is Russia really happy to continue hitting the peripheral bits of the hydra? If the US gets hypersonics they'll be more than glad to eliminate Putin and Xi and their entourages. In the meantime Japan's financial woes are worsening, so let's see if they collapse before lashing out. Ditto the settler colony.