Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave an interview to TASS, in which he discussed a wide range of issues.
– The United States has been proactive in contributing to the Ukraine settlement process in 2025 under the Trump administration by holding a plethora of consultations and putting forward peace plans. Have these efforts brought peace in Ukraine within closer reach in any way? What or maybe who is currently the main obstacle to achieving a settlement? Will the West finally understand how Kiev uses its money in the wake of several successive corruption scandals?
– Russia appreciates efforts by President of the United States Donald Trump and his team to achieve a peace settlement. We are committed to continuing to work with the American negotiators to devise lasting agreements for addressing the conflict’s root causes.
We see that Vladimir Zelensky’s regime and his European curators are not ready to engage in constructive talks. Kiev persists with its attempts to change the situation on the frontline where the Russian army firmly holds the initiative. This regime terrorises civilians by targeting civilian infrastructure in our country with its acts of sabotage.
Meanwhile, almost all European countries with few exceptions have been pumping the Kiev regime full of money and weapons. They dream about the Russian economy crumbling under the pressure of their sanctions. After a new administration came to power in the United States, Europe and the European Union emerged as the main obstacles to peace. They are making no secret of the fact that they are getting ready to fight it out with Russia on the battlefield.
The other day, there was an effort to force the European Union to approve a decision for handing over Russia’s foreign exchange reserves to the Vladimir Zelensky regime. This effort failed. Of course, Brussels and other European capitals could not fail to notice Ukraine’s corruption scandals, even if these scandals did nothing to prevent them from using the Kiev regime as a battering ram against Russia. Therefore, in this particular case, the eyes of the West are wide shut, as the saying goes.
– The updated National Security Strategy of the United States no longer designates Russia as posing an immediate and direct threat. Instead, it casts Russia as a partner in terms of strategic security. Considering that documents of this kind are designed to have a strategic role, can we expect the nascent normality in US-Russia relations as established by the Trump administration to last within a longer horizon?
– There has been a thorough effort to review the updated version of the US National Security Strategy, which is quite understandable. Its central tenets must be supported by what the US does, but even today it offers a new vision. Experts believe that this could be indicative of an effort in Washington to reconsider its international standing. Just look at the way the United States revised its policy in terms of relying on a globalist concept of a rules-based order.
Speaking of Russia, one thing worth mentioning is the fact that the strategy does not contain any calls to subject our country to a system-wide containment and deterrence policy. It may be the first time for the United States when it publicly questioned NATO’s long-standing commitment to expansionism, even if it stopped short of undertaking not to expand NATO.
As far as theory is concerned, some of the ideas set forth in this strategy are not at odds with efforts to promote dialogue between Russia and the United States. That said, we will make our final decisions only by looking at what the US administration does on the international stage.
– Prime Minister of Hungary Viktor Orban said that the leaders of the European Union decided to prepare for war with Russia by 2030. Meanwhile, Europe is already de facto waging an economic war against Russia, which could culminate with the much-talked about confiscation of the frozen Russian assets. In your opinion, has the current generation of EU politicians reached a point of no return in their relations with Russia? Can their policy line place the continent on the brink of a new and large war?
– The European Union has been seeking to dismantle mechanisms for working with Russia. It all started somewhere around 2014, when the ruling elites in most European countries started perorating about the so-called Russian threat and inciting Russia-hating and militarist sentiment among their people. I would like to place a special emphasis on the fact that these actions on their behalf were totally illegitimate. After all, Russia has never taken the initiative to target its European neighbours with unfriendly actions.
Whether leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Friedrich Merz, Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron and the like have reached a point of no return is hard to say. We do see that so far, the European war party has been investing its political capital in inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia, and is ready to go the whole nine yards. These ambitions have literally blinded them. Not only they do not care about the Ukrainians but they do not care about their people either. This is the only way to explain the fact that there is still talk in Europe about sending military forces to Ukraine as part of the so-called coalition of the willing. We have said many times that in this case our Armed Forces would view them as a legitimate target.
My messages for European politicians who seem to have problems getting to grips with this fact – I hope they get to read this interview – is to repeat one more time that there is no need to be afraid of Russia attacking anyone. However, should anyone consider attacking Russia, they would face a devastating blow, as President Vladimir Putin has been saying all along.
– There has been a lot of conflicts in the Middle East over the past year, including with Israel attacking Iran, and Iran’s retaliation. In your opinion, to what extent will the situation in the region remain explosive next year, and could the deal concluded with the Trump administration’s participation help bring about calm?
– In 2025, we witnessed unprecedented events with Israel carrying out a direct act of aggression against Iran together with the United States, which targeted facilities related to the Iranian nuclear programme with missile and bomb strikes despite the fact that these facilities benefit from IAEA’s guarantees. Russia has firmly condemned these actions. They are completely at odds with international standards and universally recognised moral imperatives. The fact that Israeli officials have been saying that they are ready to use force against Tehran in the future too is a matter of grave concern.
It is quite sad but not surprising for anyone that some members of the international community, primarily the Europeans, are simply adding fuel to the fire, as the saying goes. They have been persisting with their attempts to create new dividing lines in the Middle East by proceeding from the premise that they would not benefit from countries within this region forging solid neighbourly ties. We would like to note that the Iranians have been exercising maximum restraint and composure by responding to all the provocations and blackmail on behalf of the West by stating their commitment to dialogue and resolving the lingering differences by political means.
We have shared our assessment of the situation in the Gaza Strip many times. We welcomed international mediation efforts. Thanks to these efforts the hot phase of the bloodshed that lasted since October 2023 was stopped and the mass starvation of the Palestinians prevented.
The situation in Gaza remains shaky. It is still too early to speak about lasting peace. We regularly receive reports about ceasefire violations. Considerable restrictions on delivering and distributing humanitarian aid are still in place.
The instability of what is happening on the ground is exacerbated by the uncertainty regarding further steps in implementing peace agreements. How do you disarm HAMAS? Who will join the international stabilisation forces and when will they be deployed? Will the Israeli troops be withdrawn, and if yes, when? These are just some of the questions that have yet to be answered.
No matter how the situation in and around Gaza unfolds, we reaffirm our commitment to a just settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the basis of the universally recognised legal framework. The main thing here is to remedy the historical injustice and provide for establishing a viable Palestinian state, which would coexist with Israel. Without solving this issue, it is difficult to imagine what could guarantee lasting peace for Palestinians and Jews, and indeed for all other nations in the Middle East.
– A serious escalation is crystalising between Japan and China, and the situation regarding Taiwan is becoming increasingly heated. Specialists in international affairs warn that as soon as the Ukraine conflict is over an armed confrontation may begin in the Asia-Pacific Region. Do you agree with these forecasts? How would Russia act if the Taiwan conflict actually flares up?
– The topic of Taiwan has been discussed quite actively of late, sometimes in isolation from reality and by manipulating facts. Several countries, while declaring their commitment to the One China policy, favour preserving the status-quo. Actually, it means their disagreement with the principle of China’s national reunification.
In fact, Taiwan is currently used as a tool of military-strategic deterrence against the PRC. This is also a matter of pursing vested interests: some in the West are keen to profit from Taiwanese money and technologies. Expensive US armaments are sold to Taipei at market prices. Demands to transfer semiconductor manufacturing to the United States may be regarded as coercion for income redistribution or a sort of business alienation as well.
Russia’s principled position on the Taiwan issue is well known, remains unchanged and has been repeatedly reaffirmed at the highest level. Russia recognises Taiwan as an integral part of China and stands against the island’s independence in any form. We believe that the Taiwan problem is an internal affair of the PRC. Beijing has every right to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As for the possible escalation in the Taiwan Strait, procedure for acting in such situations is set forth in the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation with the People’s Republic of China of July 16, 2001. One of the basic principles of that document is mutual support in defending national unity and territorial integrity.
I will also add that recently the Japanese leadership has been seeking to accelerate the country’s militarisation. The detrimental influence of such an approach on the regional stability is obvious. Our Japanese neighbours should have weighted everything properly before taking any hasty decisions.