Negotiations Report by Lavrov and Kremlin

On 25 March, Lavrov provided information about the negotiations with Team Trump in an interview with Channel One, Moscow. The Kremlin followed later in the day with two press releases that provided additional details. We’ll begin with Lavrov:

Question: Let's start with your anniversary. You have received many different congratulations. There was even a "marathon" of your wonderful poems. Did you have time to look at everything, read everything, did you have time to answer everyone?

Sergey Lavrov: I am very touched by what I heard, saw and received through a variety of information delivery channels.

I want to say "thank you" to everyone. But it is impossible to do this, so it is very opportune for us to meet today.

Before moving on to the political part of our conversation, I would like to convey my gratitude to all those who remembered my anniversary, who not only called and congratulated, but put their hearts into the recitation of my modest poems and added some of their lyrical, humorous and many other "findings".

First of all, I am grateful to President Vladimir Putin for his high assessment of my work, Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, the leadership of the Federal Assembly, ministers – my colleagues, deputies and senators, heads of the media, including, of course, Channel One and our other partners: Rossiya 1, Rossiya 24, TV Centre, NTV – channels where we often speak and convey to our citizens the essence of what is happening in the Foreign Ministry and what we are achieving at the international Arena.

I was also pleased with the congratulations from TNT, where I was not invited, but nevertheless congratulated. Leaders of sports movements, civil society in its various manifestations, of course, my colleagues at the Foreign Ministry. It is impossible to list them all. I have a thick folder on my desk. I have a lot of materials on my phone. There will be a free minute, I will definitely and gladly watch everything. But I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who celebrated and marked my anniversary.

Question: The talks in Riyadh are an important issue. What was their task and how did they come out? Please comment.

Sergey Lavrov: The talks ended with President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump reporting on the preliminary results that were achieved there. As the presidents agreed, they discussed, first of all, the issues of safe navigation in the Black Sea. This is not the first attempt.

The first attempt was made back in July 2022, when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, together with President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan, mediated with specialists representing the relevant Ukrainian and Russian agencies and agreed on a "package." It consisted of two parts. The first is to provide facilitated methods for delivering Ukrainian grain through the Black Sea through the straits when inspecting ships. So that there is no forgery, and so that if grain is declared and transported to the point where it is to be delivered, an empty flight for a new batch of grain is not used to deliver weapons.

Inspection procedures were agreed. They worked for a whole year. But after that, we were forced to stop this process, at least take a break. Because the second integral part of the "package" was simply sabotaged one hundred percent. It concerned the need to remove all "obstacles" to the export of Russian grain and fertilizers. This was due to the inclusion of all ships that transport Russian agricultural products, including fertilizers, in prohibited lists. Lloyd's, which insures these vessels, inflated the rates. Transferring money for the supply of our products was also difficult. Rosselkhozbank was disconnected from SWIFT. There was a lot of things that turned out to be aimed at inflating prices. European farmers created a situation of unfair competition for themselves, but at the same time, the bias of our Western colleagues was manifested in the fact that Ukrainian grain was dumped on European markets, although its quality was far from meeting the criteria existing in this area.

The West did everything to shield Ukraine as much as possible and punish the Russian Federation as much as possible.

Therefore, when UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, a year after the Black Sea initiative, threw up his hands and said that he was not succeeding, we said that when he succeeded, then let's return to this deal. We simply withdrew from the Ukrainian part, which was approved for a year. The year has expired. We did not extend this deal. The Memorandum of Understanding between the Russian Federation and the UN Secretariat on Facilitating the Promotion of Russian Food and Fertilisers to World Markets, which calls for removing all obstacles to the export of Russian grain and fertilisers (which account for a much larger share of world markets than Ukrainian ones), is valid for three years and remains in effect until July of this year.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and his representatives are in constant contact with us. They are trying to help in some way. But they are not looking for ways to lift sanctions in principle, demanding that the West (if it really wants to look after the interests of developing countries, the Global Majority, primarily in Africa) lift discriminatory measures in the field of food security.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has taken a different path. He decided to look for loopholes in the sanctions imposed by the West without demanding that they be lifted. Moreover, in fact, by respecting and implementing these sanctions, which is absolutely unacceptable for any UN official, and even more so for the Secretary-General. Because the UN Charter states that no employee of the UN Secretariat, including the Secretary-General and his deputies, has the right to receive instructions from any government. If the UN Secretary-General looks for "loopholes" between the sanctions, recognising that they exist, then he complies with the decisions that are made in the capitals of the UN member states. And he has no right to do this.

Therefore, our negotiators in Riyadh, appointed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, have reminded their American colleagues of this whole story and said that, given the "track record" of Ukraine itself and the entire Black Sea history, we would like there to be no ambiguity this time.

We also recalled that when the Ukrainian part of the initiative expired in 2023 and we withdrew from it after that, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan tried to resume it two or three times. A year ago, he asked for our support so that it would be possible to resume this initiative in a simplified form, without physical inspections of empty ships returning after unloading grain and fertilisers. We were ready to even do this. Then, at the last moment, President of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that Vladimir Zelensky wanted to agree not to strike at nuclear infrastructure facilities. Although they were carried out only by Vladimir Zelensky himself at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant. But since such a proposal came from Kiev, we agreed to this as well. And also without any special verification mechanisms. In other words, we have responded to all of President Erdogan's requests. Including the one that Vladimir Zelensky himself slipped to him at the last moment. We said yes. Then Erdogan called President Vladimir Putin and said, "You know, Vladimir Zelensky has changed his mind."

Given all these "rethinks", given that every time a truce is suddenly announced, Ukraine agrees to it solely because at the specific historical moment in question, it found itself in a hopeless situation on the battlefield. As soon as there was a pause, immediately within a week or a couple of months, this truce was grossly violated. This was the case throughout the Minsk Agreements.

Therefore, we now need the clearest, most concrete, verifiable and working guarantees and mechanisms. As President Vladimir Putin said at a news conference with President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko a few days ago, he supports US President Donald Trump's initiative to declare a truce for 30 days, and not just a moratorium on strikes on energy infrastructure or maritime infrastructure in the Black Sea, but a truce for thirty days in general. He said that we are in favour of it. But given the length of this line and the ability of the Ukrainian "army" to create provocations...

Recently, they hit the Sudzha gas metering station and said that Russia did it itself. Although this is our property, on which the continuation of energy supply to a number of European countries largely depends. Now it is impossible to do this, just as it is impossible to use the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, which reflects the interests of business in Kazakhstan and the United States. One of its pumping stations, Kropotkinskaya, was attacked. This damage cannot be repaired quickly. The volume of oil pumped to European consumers will decrease sharply due to another terrorist act by Ukrainians.

President Vladimir Putin said that we were in favour of a truce, but there are nuances: who will ensure the "cleanliness" of the Nazi regime in Kiev? We are also in favour of considering ways to avoid causing any damage to the energy infrastructure. This is not in our interests. As the President said, we are also in favour of resuming the Black Sea Initiative in a more acceptable form for all. It was discussed as a priority in Riyadh.

Our position is simple. I have just outlined it roughly. We cannot take this man's word for it. We want the grain and fertilizer market to be predictable, so that no one tries to "discourage" us from it. Not only because we want/wanted to make a legitimate profit in a fair competition, but also because we are concerned about the food security situation in Africa and other countries of the Global South and East, which suffer from these "games" of the West in the field of unscrupulous competition. Prices there are not ruinous at all, but they could be much lower if the West stopped interfering with the free play of market forces, which it idolized when it invited us all into this "kingdom of globalization and freedom."

As I have already said, we will need clear guarantees. Given the sad experience of the agreements with Kiev, guarantees can only be the result of an order from Washington to Vladimir Zelensky and his "team" to do this or not otherwise.

I think our American partners have taken this signal. They understand that only Washington can achieve positive results in stopping terrorist attacks and shelling of civilian energy infrastructure that is not related to the military-industrial complex.

Europe has now taken a completely different path. Like in the times of Napoleon, Hitler and the Crimean War, it is showing yet another "swiftness" to inflict a "strategic defeat" on our country. As in those years, almost all European countries, with rare exceptions, have been put under arms. Only they are not yet physically fighting against us on the territory of Ukraine, but without them this country would have been defeated long ago, and the life of this Nazi regime would have been terminated.

Pumping weapons into the Kiev regime, London and Paris (especially the two leaders, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron), with the support of the not very powerful chorus of the Baltic States and a number of other countries, are not only talking about continuing to pump weapons into Ukraine, but are also talking about some kind of "coalitions of the willing" to deploy some kind of "peacekeeping mission" or "mission to ensure Ukraine's security" after the end of the war. Or even two missions to be deployed in Ukraine: one on the border with the European Union and NATO, and the second from the countries of the Global South (India, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, even China). But these "dreamers" are proving their complete political incompetence every day, their desire not only to "contain" Russia, but to "defeat" it (someone even said that it is necessary to humiliate Vladimir Putin), as it turns out, historians can correct me, but I have a feeling that we have already gone through all this: both Napoleon and Hitler – the goals were the same. To achieve these goals, the whole of Europe was conquered by Napoleon and A. Hitler, and in this case it was mobilized.

Now Europe, led by Germany, starting with Ursula von der Leyen, is beginning to seriously consider the issue of remilitarisation for fabulous hundreds of billions of euros in a situation where they are doing "badly" in the economy and social sphere as a result of the fact that the Biden administration "let them off the hook" and sent them to fight the Russian Federation. They have decentralization and a huge number of problems.

This partly explains why they are so ardently demanding not to "surrender" Ukraine, to arm it, not even to stutter that this country should not join NATO and the European Union. French President Emmanuel Macron recently spoke on this topic. They directly contradict the Trump administration. The President himself, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz clearly said that preliminary discussions are underway on the parameters of a final settlement. Donald Trump clearly said that NATO should be forgotten and there was no need to stir up this topic. Joe Biden made a colossal mistake and refused to listen to Russia, insisting that Ukraine would be in NATO, thereby creating unacceptable threats. Waltz and Trump's special envoy Stephen Witkoff said that territorial issues are "the key." Because the territories where the referendums were held have always been Russian in culture, language, religion, and tradition. People want to continue to be associated with Russian culture, which the Kiev regime is legally exterminating.

Rearmament, which President of Russia Vladimir Putin spoke about, is that it is necessary to stop the supply of weapons. And Europe and Vladimir Zelensky say, no, we will not take a "pause."

Question: Can the United States and the Trump administration influence Europe today? Why is nothing happening?

Sergey Lavrov: Both US President Donald Trump and his team said that this is a taboo. The territories should be discussed, because we are not talking about some area of land, but about the people who live there and have said that their future is connected with the Russian Federation. And also about the fact that weapons should not be supplied there. On all three points, first of all, Vladimir Zelensky himself (he was rude to Donald Trump in the White House, then left for London, where he was "pinned"), when he returned to Kiev, began to make many more bold statements, including rejecting both the neutral status and the discussion of the territories. No, they say, give us "everything." And what does this mean? That you have banned everything Russian, including the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the sister of the Russian Orthodox Church, the media, and education. Now the Rada has a new bill to ban speaking Russian during breaks at school. Previously, it was only in the classroom. And that they want to return to this country citizens who said "we are Russians" in a referendum? If we, they say, lived with all our rights, we would be Russian citizens of Ukraine. And you are trying to exterminate us, including physically and legislatively.

In this situation, it turns out that Europe is not only showing "affront" in relation to US President Donald Trump's analysis of his team, that it is necessary to discuss and resolve the issue of territories without NATO. But Europe also wants to "incite" Vladimir Zelensky himself. When the Europeans talk about "peacekeeping forces" or "security forces," they are saying that at least the part that is now controlled by the Kiev regime or will be controlled by it at the time of some agreement must be urgently "picked up" for itself–-for the British and the French.

No one is saying that in the rest of Ukraine, which will return or has already returned to its "native harbor", the linguistic, educational and cultural rights of all-–both Russians and ethnic minorities–-are fully ensured. And when the "remnant" of Ukraine, if it really survives in some form, is taken under the control of the security forces of NATO countries (no matter under what flag), no one is saying that then they will strengthen democracy in the remaining territory. That they will abolish the racist and Russophobic laws that exterminate everything Russian. No one is talking about it. And if so, it means that these security forces will perpetuate the Nazi regime with a ban on everything that in any way reminds of the Russian roots of this country, which was born thanks to the Russians.

Question: How should we come to an agreement then? In a conversation with US President Donald Trump, President Vladimir Putin agreed that we would not hit energy facilities (although we did not do so) for 30 days, and then he would immediately arrive at an oil depot in the Kuban. It turns out that this is a kind of "vicious circle." How much patience should we have? It just happened the next day immediately after the conversation.

Sergey Lavrov: There were many more examples. I said that this is a non-negotiable regime. So, this is not only a non-negotiable regime, but I think that there is a new "quality" of these "characters"-–the desire not so much to deceive, but to do some nasty things out of spite, openly and publicly, which directly contradicts what you were asked to do, and you seem to have agreed.

On March 11, in Jeddah, for the first time, the Kiev regime said that it agreed to a 30-day truce. He immediately shifted the blame to Russia, saying, "Let's immediately agree without question." All sorts of Macrons, Starmers and Vonderleins immediately started shouting that the ball was now in President Putin's court. Although three days before they all said that there was no truce, they needed to pump Ukraine up from a position of strength before sitting down at the negotiating table. They instantly changed their position as soon as the wind changed.

On March 11, the Ukrainians and Vladimir Zelensky said, "Okay, we are ready for a truce, but now we need to force President Vladimir Putin." On the same day, they sent a record number of drones (about 340) to the central regions of Russia, including Moscow and the Moscow Region. This has never happened before. The West swallowed it all. No one said how dare they, they had just agreed with them, and the Ukrainians publicly stated that they were ready for a truce. Are you now waiting for Russia to respond to you accordingly? They fired 340 drones at exclusively civilian targets. Our air defence system worked reliably.

We are seeing the same thing now. When the meeting in Riyadh was being prepared, the US administration and I first agreed with the US administration on the basis of an understanding between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump that US and Russian experts would go. But, apparently, in Washington, "such active guys" want to record something as soon as possible. As you know, they invited the Ukrainians there. They arrived a day earlier and stayed after our experts left there.

Between us (I do not think this is a big secret), in contacts on the eve of the meeting in Riyadh, it was felt that the Americans wanted to put Ukrainians and Russians in "neighboring rooms" and carry out "shuttle diplomacy" between them, and issue some kind of single text. But we explained once again (what our presidents discussed), we have an absolutely unequivocal understanding that the presidents agreed to move in such a way that all this would be reliable, and that no one else would accept unsubstantiated documents. And even those that are adopted with certain "guarantees"—so that our American colleagues take control of the implementation and observance of these guarantees by the Kiev regime.

This is what we are talking about now. Europe wants in every possible way to "undermine" the role of the United States in the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis and does not want to resolve it on the basis of eliminating the root causes. I mentioned the root causes: NATO, the extermination of the rights of the Russian population, everything that is connected with Russia legally and physically.

Question: At the same time, Stephen Witkoff is quite optimistic that a truce will be reached (at first he said in two weeks, now he says by Easter, which is in a month). Do you share his optimism? I know that you are not paid for optimism.

Sergey Lavrov: People often compare the habits and traditions of the Soviet Union with what is also manifesting itself in some Western countries. After all, we had a "five-year plan in four years." After we rejected "godlessness"–-by Easter (perhaps it could have been by Christmas, but here by Easter). I would not ask a question like that. I understand Stephen Witkoff's wish. He is an intelligent and energetic person. He thinks that everyone should understand what he thinks are elementary things. He understood the essence of this conflict, judging by his statements during an interview with T. Carlson. But he significantly overestimates the elites of European countries who want to "hang like a stone" on Vladimir Zelensky's hands in order not to allow him to give up his "weakness."

Vladimir Zelensky himself does not want to give up. He realises that his days are numbered, that his "bright image" (as he tried to build it among the people) has long faded, with the exception of the part of the population that reflects radical, ultra-right, revanchist and Bandera views (there are many such people there too).

Question: Over the years, relations between Russia and the United States have been steadily deteriorating, even during Donald Trump's first term, and have reached a low point. Why is the President of the United States changing the paradigm of relations with Russia so dramatically?

Sergey Lavrov: I think that he gained invaluable experience during his first term. First of all, with regard to the need to have his own team. Relations deteriorated to a decisive extent because random people gathered around him during Donald Trump's first term. In America, analysts say that the reason for this was the conviction that he would not be allowed to run for president, and he did not prepare very much for his first term. Therefore, there were people who betrayed him.

Recently, he recalled his then vice president, the Secretary of State, and his national security adviser, who still criticises him very impolitely (rudely, I would even say). Therefore, Donald Trump is a decisive man, and when he decided to take revenge for the previous election, where Joe Biden won with the votes of millions of "dead people" or people who sent their ballots by mail in huge numbers. Donald Trump decided to get even with this and get what history and the will of the American people are due to him. And he achieved this by conducting his campaign in a completely different way. The speed with which he approved his team in the Senate suggests that Donald Trump began to form it a long time ago.

This is a team of like-minded people. They do not hesitate to directly say things that they agree on among themselves and which, in their opinion, reflect the national interests of the American people. When Yury Ushakov and I were in Riyadh and met with Marco Rubio and Mike Waltz (I mentioned it once in an interview), Rubio said that Donald Trump's entire foreign policy is in the American national interest, but at the same time he understands that other countries, especially great powers, also have their own national interests. They do not always coincide, and in most cases they do not coincide. But when they do, it would be criminal not to use this coincidence to materialise it into some mutually beneficial, joint material projects in the economy, energy, infrastructure and logistics.

The second idea was that when interests do not coincide (such cases are the majority), responsible powers are obliged to do everything necessary to prevent these differences from degenerating into confrontation, especially into a "hot" one.

We supported this approach with both hands. I believe that these are the principles on the basis of which we build our relations with any countries.

These are the same principles that lie in the relationship between the United States and China. They have a lot of disagreements. They often switch to a tough exchange of "pleasantries" across the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. The Chinese say they condemn the U.S. and other Western countries' view of Taiwan as an independent state. They say that they are committed to the peaceful reunification of the motherland, but, if anything, they are ready to achieve this goal of the great Chinese people by other methods. The Americans answer, they say, don't you dare. But at the same time, their dialogue was never interrupted.

I believe that what we experienced under Joe Biden is an anomaly. This does not do credit to politicians, especially those with such experience as Joe Biden. He was proud of his experience. But when you suddenly, like a boy in kindergarten, turn away from a girl or a girl from a boy, saying, "I won't be friends with you, we won't walk in the yard"–-it's stupid.

The fact that now, despite serious differences, we have resumed dialogue is a return to normality. Such a dialogue is necessary. Moreover, much beyond Ukraine is being discussed.

Joe Biden has artificially brought the Ukrainian issue to the very top of the international agenda. Many of my friends told us that this topic did not deserve it, that there was an overly exaggerated reaction to our special military operation, launched 10 years after we began to warn that it would not lead to good. After the coup d'état, after being drawn into NATO, they warned at all "corners". Even back in 2007 in Munich, Vladimir Putin said that such a phenomenon as impunity for the West, its sense of excessive inferiority and exceptionalism, was maturing. Then it all materialized.

Of course, there are disagreements now. But the interest in restoring Europe's normal energy supply, is it only the interest of the United States and Russia? There is talk about Nord Stream. It will probably be interesting if the Americans use their influence on Europe and force it not to abandon Russian gas. But this is surrealism. Europe and business are now paying several times more for energy than American business. At the same time, people like Robert Habeck, Ursula von der Leyen and Boris Pistorius all say that they will never allow the Nord Streams to be restored. These are either sick people or suicides.

It is normal when there is a conversation. As you know, the prospect of removing obstacles to mutually beneficial (I stress again) joint economic projects was discussed. These are energy, space, and the Arctic. We are two Arctic powers.

We are not flattering ourselves. Biden's "partners" have led us too deeply into bilateral relations. But we have consensus on the fact that Donald Trump's people want to make these relations mutually beneficial where possible, mutually respectful where we disagree, and to prevent the disagreements between the two largest nuclear powers from escalating into confrontation.

Question: If we do not flatter ourselves, does this mean that we will already be some kind of others in this relationship? What mistakes that we may have made before when building relationships will we definitely not make again?

Sergey Lavrov: "Trust, but verify." This is a great commandment of Ronald Reagan. Donald Trump recalled it. We will not forget it.

This is a combination of a civilisational understanding of the current stage of development, when it is necessary to put national interests in the foreground, when it is clear that globalisation was destroyed by the efforts, including those of the previous administration. They began to use the dollar as a weapon. Even before he became president, after the election, Donald Trump said that Joe Biden had made a colossal mistake, if not a crime, when he began to use the dollar to "punish" individual countries. Accordingly, not only those whom he tried to punish by depriving them of the opportunity to use it, but also others began to take a closer look. Now they are punishing Russia, now Iran, Venezuela and someone else. What if one of us does not like it next time? Remember how Joe Biden insulted Saudi Arabia and then had to go to reconcile.

Everyone thinks about the same thing. If suddenly a US administration (each administration can cancel everything that the previous one agreed on) comes and does not like someone who is not on the "black list" now.

Maybe in this case it is better to hedge our bets and not only create our own currency, but use national currencies in settlements, and not the dollar or the euro. Europeans are even less predictable people. Payment platforms such as BRICS are now being discussed. This process can no longer be stopped.

US President Donald Trump is a man of action. He does not like to philosophize, he likes to solve problems. He said that the United States desperately needs Greenland for security. We talked about this with the Americans, and I have every feeling that they have understood this. Such comparisons are very important for them, that Ukraine is several orders of magnitude more important for Russia's legitimate security interests than Greenland is for ensuring US security. They understand this.

By the way, about Greenland. This is a shameful phenomenon. Before the meeting with the US President at the White House, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte expressed the hope that the United States would not "entangle" NATO in the issue of Greenland. What is the result? The person who is obliged to protect the interests of the member states (Denmark, which now owns Greenland, is a member of NATO) and not to allow the territorial integrity of the member states to be violated, says that he is doing this, but does not even want to speak out about Greenland. At the same time, with regard to Ukraine, which is not a member of the North Atlantic Alliance and will never be, Mark Rutte does not hesitate to say that they demand that no one dare to violate the territorial integrity of Ukraine with a single finger. The territorial integrity of Denmark–-please, as much as you want, but do not touch Ukraine. A ridiculous and pathetic person.

Question: The Americans want to involve China in the New START Treaty. How realistic do you think this idea is?

Sergey Lavrov: It is up to the PRC to decide. We have said this many times. Beijing has repeatedly commented when this topic has surfaced in the public space. They boil down to the fact that China's nuclear arsenal is incommensurable with the nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia. When a comparable level is reached, we can think about how the nuclear powers will interact in the future.

We are still working in the nuclear five at the level of representatives to the UN. Meetings are also held at the level of deputy ministers. At our initiative, an online summit was held in January 2022, when the Gorbachev-Reagan formula that there can be no winner in a nuclear war and should never be unleashed was transferred to a five-sided format. The entire nuclear five repeated this formula.

We are not against continuing to work in this format. By the way, it has never stopped. It mainly discusses confidence-building measures, things that are not related to any reductions or even to discussing the quantitative parameters of nuclear arsenals and avoiding any incidents.

US President Donald Trump (and Joe Biden before him) says that China should be involved in these talks. We had the following position: first, this is Beijing's business. As he decides, we will fully respect his choice. If we are talking about expanding the circle of participants, then what to do with France and Britain? These two countries, together with the United States, are members of the same alliance, which during the years of Joe Biden, and even before him, did not say much good about us, and during his presidency simply declared us the "main threat." If we are the "main threat" and we are told, let's talk to you, but do not touch these two sides, then this is not fair.

The Russian-American dialogue on strategic stability must be restored. We agree with this. Of course, this can only be done on the basis of a return to the principles that underpinned the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms and reflected in its preamble, including the link between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms, including mutual respect and an agreement to conduct business exclusively on the basis of equality. As long as we are, in fact, doctrinally an enemy, what kind of stability can we talk about?

We are in favour of negotiations in all areas. We are both for hockey and football. By the way, these are not games, but what people want. In sports, the overwhelming majority of Russian and American masters, as well as masters of any other country, including Western ones, consider it absolutely anomalous what is happening with regard to the suspension of Russian and Belarusian athletes, as well as with regard to how a man, calling himself a woman, beats a real woman in a boxing match. The administration of US President Donald Trump is aware of the inadmissibility of perverting human essence and traditional values (religious, cultural and moral). This should have a healing effect on the entire Western society. I hope this will happen. [My Emphasis]

Next we have the two Kremlin press releases. Number one: Main results of the meeting of the expert groups of Russia and the United States:

1. In accordance with the agreement between the presidents of Russia and the United States, the Russian and American sides agreed to ensure the implementation of the Black Sea initiative, including ensuring the safety of navigation in the Black Sea, non-use of force and prevention of the use of commercial vessels for military purposes, with the organization of appropriate control measures by inspecting such vessels.

2. The United States will help restore access for Russian exports of agricultural products and fertilizers to the world market, reduce the cost of shipping insurance, as well as expand access to ports and payment systems for such Transaction.

Note:

Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall enter into force after:

Lifting of sanctions restrictions from the Russian Agricultural Bank and other financial institutions involved in ensuring operations for international trade in food (including fish products) and fertilizers, their connection to SWIFT, opening the necessary correspondent accounts;

Removal of restrictions on trade finance operations;

Lifting of sanctions restrictions on companies producing and exporting food (including fish products) and fertilizers, as well as lifting restrictions on the work of insurance companies with cargoes of food (including fish products) and fertilizers;

Lifting restrictions on servicing ships in ports and sanctions on ships under the Russian flag involved in trade in food (including fish products) and fertilizers;

Lifting restrictions on the supply to the Russian Federation of agricultural machinery, as well as other goods involved in the production of food (including fish products) and fertilizers.

3. Russia and the United States agreed to develop measures to implement the agreements of the presidents of the two countries on a ban on strikes on energy facilities of Russia and Ukraine for a period of 30 days, starting from March 18, 2025, with the possibility of extension and withdrawal from the agreement in case of non-compliance by one of the parties.

4. Russia and the United States welcome the good offices of third countries aimed at supporting the implementation of agreements in the energy and maritime spheres.

5. Russia and the United States will continue to work to achieve a lasting and lasting peace.

Number two: The list of Russian and Ukrainian facilities agreed between the Russian and American sides that are subject to a temporary moratorium on strikes on the energy system:

1. Oil refining Enterprise;

2. Oil, gas pipelines and storage facilities, including pumping stations;

3. Electricity generation and transmission infrastructure, including power plants, substations, transformers and distributors;

4. Atomic Power plant;

5. Dams Hydropower plants.

Temporary The moratorium is valid for 30 days, starting from March 18, 2025, and, by mutual agreement, can be extended.

In case violation of the moratorium by one of the parties, the other party has the right to consider itself free from obligations to comply with it.

The initial steps in the long complex negotiation process have commenced and resulted in a few positive outcomes, while there remains a very large number of considerations or nuances. The capricious and untrustworthy nature of Zelensky is well noted, but it isn’t just him that must be take into consideration since he’s merely a front for the Nazis behind him that the Outlaw US Empire and NATO still refuse to admit exist. And all the legal issues I’ve written about still remain to be solved, while there are others I haven’t mentioned that also apply, the most important being amending Ukraine’s constitution so the president can cede territory. Lavrov broached the previously unmentionable possibility that Ukraine may cease to exist as a state: “And when the "remnant" of Ukraine, if it really survives in some form.” This issue was just raised by Witkoff as his “elephant” but not in the same context as Lavrov’s words. IMO, Americans are essentially illiterate when it comes to Russian and especially Ukrainian history and have little knowledge of the latter’s artificial construct over time which relates to how it’s likely to be deconstructed. The Nazis don’t want any Russians, yet the Poles, Hungarians, and Slovaks don’t want any Nazis. The Romanians are currently not at all sovereign and because they’re proto-Nazi an EU/NATO controlled Romania would likely allow Nazis entrance. IMO, that’s the real elephant in the room that has yet to even be mentioned by the West, which will make reaching a solution be all the more difficult.

Now, about the recent reports that Putin mentioned Odessa’s status during the closed session of the Industrialists and Entrepreneurs Congress on 18 March, which appear to stem from a Kommersant report about the meeting’s two sessions, including hearsay from the closed session from participants, that resulted in this:

Now, according to my interlocutors, the talks are about the fact that what has been achieved cannot be taken away from Russia and that Crimea, Sevastopol and four well-known territories should be recognized as part of Russia: the Lugansk, Donetsk republics, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.

If that happens anytime soon, Russia will not lay claim to Odessa and other territories now belonging to Ukraine, participants told me.

But this point can also move, because "they do not have time to dig in."

The above was expanded upon today by an RTVI report, “Putin's condition for Russia's abandonment of claims to Odessa became known,” which leads with this paragraph:

Moscow will not claim Odessa and "other territories now belonging to Ukraine" if the West "in the near future" recognizes the Crimea, DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions as part of Russia. This was reported by Kommersant special correspondent Andrei Kolesnikov with reference to the participants of a closed meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and representatives of the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs (RSPP) on March 18.

As you see, nothing new is added. That’s then followed by this:

Participants in the closed meeting claim that on the eve of the conversation with US President Donald Trump, the Russian leader spoke not about business, but about Ukraine, Kolesnikov writes.

As you see, this is hearsay. And there are other reports in other Russian language media that all cite the initial Kommersant hearsay report. I’ve looked for any official word from the Kremlin conforming or denying such words by Putin but have found nothing. Instead, there’s this interesting report by MKRU published on 23 March, “"Putin takes Odessa - Trump agrees": the "great deal" can finish off Zelensky” that I’ll fully translate:

Some analysts believe that one of the key points of a possible deal between Moscow and Washington could be the transformation of the port of Odessa into the main logistics hub through which the United States will be able to promote its interests in the region. Such a prospect could lead to a change in the status of both Odessa itself and the entire Black Sea region. This is written by international journalist, Tsargrad columnist Igor Pshenichnikov.

The central topic of a possible dialogue between Russia and the United States could be the redistribution of territories and the establishment of new zones of influence. According to information leaked from the White House, Donald Trump is probably ready to consider concessions in favor of Moscow in exchange for control of a significant part of Ukrainian territories. However, the question remains: at what price could such an agreement turn out to be for both sides?

American media report that Trump's entourage made it clear that the issue of Crimea's ownership is no longer subject to discussion: it remains with Russia. At the same time, the US president himself is in no hurry to disclose the details of negotiations with Vladimir Putin regarding the future fate of other Ukrainian territories. The administration believes that we are talking about lands that are already actually controlled by Russian forces - this is about a fifth of the entire territory of Ukraine.

The New York Times reports that the entourage of Acting President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky expressed serious concern about Donald Trump's possible support for Vladimir Putin's additional demands regarding territorial changes in Ukraine. In particular, we can talk about the strategically important port of Odessa. In fact, this means that Kiev was made to understand: Russia insists on the transfer of Odessa under its jurisdiction.

Tsargrad columnist Igor Pshenichnikov expressed the opinion that the issue of Odessa is inextricably linked with neighboring regions. According to him, if we talk about the Odessa region, it is logical to assume that Nikolaev and the surrounding territories should follow. He also stressed that without this, Odessa as a Russian exclave loses its strategic meaning. At the same time, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, according to Pshenichnikov, are already perceived as an integral part of Russia, and their status is beyond doubt.

Some analysts believe that the terms of a possible "big deal" between Russia and the United States may be completely unexpected for the public. One of these scenarios is the transformation of the port of Odessa into a crucial logistics center through which the United States will promote both its geopolitical and economic interests in the region.

Political strategist Igor Dimitriev suggested that Washington is unlikely to openly transfer Odessa to Russia or agree to completely deprive Ukraine of access to the sea. However, he noted that behind closed doors, various compromise options can be discussed that will suit both sides.

Analysts believe that the best option for the United States could be to turn Odessa into a free economic zone. This is due not only to the city's status as a key port, but also to its importance as a major logistics hub linking European and Asian markets.

If Washington plans to use this transport hub to bring Russian exports to the world stage, Odessa could become the epicenter of the clash of interests of several players at once - Ukraine, Great Britain, the United States and Russia. At the same time, the main beneficiary of such a scheme, according to experts, will be the United States.

Igor Pshenichnikov noted that the failure of the "Ukraine project" forces Washington to curtail it in the most favorable format for itself, presenting itself as a peacemaker. He stressed that in such a scenario, the United States will try to maintain at least a small anti-Russian bridgehead from the remaining territories controlled by Kyiv. The journalist also added that the Americans fear: if they do not have time to consolidate their positions, they may lose all influence in the region.

This alignment, according to analysts, explains why Donald Trump is demonstrating haste and may be ready to transfer Odessa along with the Black Sea region to Russia. Bloomberg is already publishing materials describing the likely division of Ukrainian territories as "assets." Trump's opponents, in turn, express concern that the Republican president, who promised to quickly end the conflict during the election campaign, may agree to concessions to Moscow without taking into account the interests of Ukraine. The final answer to this question, according to analysts, can only be given by a personal meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

I’ve opined that to “give away” Odessa after proclaiming it a “Russian City” during last December’s “Direct Line” would be a huge political mistake by Putin. I provide this TASS report as a reminder:

Odessa is a Russian city and everyone is well aware of this, Russian President Vladimir Putin said at the combined Direct Line Q&A session and year-end press conference.

"The whole southeast of Ukraine has always been pro-Russian, because these are historically Russian territories. Turkey knows this well, the entire Black Sea coast went to Russia as a result of the Russo-Turkish wars. What does Ukraine have to do with this? It has nothing to do with it. Neither Crimea, nor the entire Black Sea coast in general," Putin said in response to a TASS question. "Odessa is a Russian city. We know this. Everyone knows this. But no, they drummed up all sorts of historical nonsense," he pointed out.

At the same time, the president noted that once upon a time "Vladimir Lenin gave away the whole of Ukraine when he created the Soviet Union." "We came to terms with this after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We accepted it and were ready to live in this paradigm," the Russian president emphasized. "But this part, the southeast [of Ukraine], is pro-Russian. It was also important for us," he underscored.

Putin explained that the residents of these territories had always voted for those who "went along with the pro-Russian agenda of Ukraine's domestic and foreign policy," and in general "Russia was quite satisfied with that." "But after the coup in 2014, it became clear to us that we would not be allowed <...> to establish normal relations with Ukraine," the Russian leader added.

Did Putin make his own leak during the closed session? It’s been over a week since and no mention by Peskov, yet there’s plenty of chatter in Russian media as the above news accounts attest. So, while the minutia gets discussed the bigger points are also being thought about. Is the Odessa ploy a ruse to get Zelensky to agree to peace so Ukraine retains Odessa and other regions that are being discussed as being ceded? There’s lots of additional Russian military activity in the Kherson region with Russian forces in control of the islands in the Dnieper delta that are required as a prelude to a river crossing and other signs. IMO, Zelensky is frozen by the Nazis and perhaps MI6 having a gun at his back. What will happen next?

*
*
*
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!