"I would not confuse the topic of nuclear tests and the Budapest summit"

Russia has not yet received an explanation from the United States about the nuclear tests, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an interview with Russian media. He stressed that Moscow is ready to discuss any suspicions of the Russian Federation in conducting such tests. But Moscow does not confuse this topic with a possible summit in Budapest, Lavrov said, answering a question from Izvestia. The head of the diplomatic department denied the publication by the Financial Times about the alleged disruption of preparations for a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in the Hungarian capital. According to him, the non-paper sent by the Russian side only reminded of the agreements reached in Anchorage. He stressed that Russia's demands on Ukraine — including demilitarization, the elimination of threats, the protection of the rights of Russian speakers and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as well as denazification — remain unchanged and represent a prerequisite for a long-term settlement.

"We are basically polite people"

— Does the fact that Moscow and Washington started talking about the possibility of conducting nuclear tests at almost the same time demonstrate the undermining of stability on the world stage, or is it, on the contrary, a demonstration of equal opportunities, which means maintaining some kind of parity?

— I have not heard that Moscow announced nuclear tests, and it is probably not very correct to say that Washington and Moscow did it at the same time. We still have not received clarifications from our American colleagues about what President Trump had in mind - nuclear tests, or carrier tests, or so—called subcritical tests that do not involve a nuclear reaction, which are allowed under the mutual nuclear test ban treaty, there are no answers yet.

An administration is still being formed in the United States, and many second- and third-level positions, primarily in the Pentagon, are being filled, but in particular, Mr. Robert Kadleck has been nominated for the post of Assistant Secretary of War for Nuclear Deterrence, chemical and environmental protection programs. He spoke to Congress a few days ago and, of course, he was tortured on the subject of nuclear testing. He said that Trump's decision, and I quote: "the resumption of nuclear tests is dictated by geopolitical considerations, and there is still no technical need for them."

This is a very strong statement, and I don't know how much the author himself, whom I have just quoted, is aware of the seriousness of what has been said, but we must obviously take it in the light that there is no need for a technical test of this kind.

Then he completed this thought for us, that the goal, it turns out, is a geopolitical one. And what could be a geopolitical goal for the United States? Dominance. If the nuclear weapons factor is used for this, it is alarming.

— Recently, another article was published where the author and his alleged sources claim that the United States and Marco Rubio were shocked by your uncompromising attitude. Were you really strict with the Americans? Or is this another article where the sources have moved on?

— We are basically polite people and we try to maintain our quality. I have already had the opportunity to generally answer these kinds of questions. And, given the professional audience of journalists, I would like to draw attention to the latest facts of unprofessional and, I would say, harmful media coverage of certain events.

I would like to draw your attention to the Financial Times publication, which wrote some time ago that Trump and Putin agreed to meet in Budapest, and instructed Lavrov and Rubio to prepare a meeting. Lavrov and Rubio talked on the phone, and before that, the Russians sent a tough memorandum, upon receipt of which the Americans decided that it was useless and pointless to talk to us. There are a lot of lies here, including from the point of view of the sequence of events, the memorandum mentioned by the Financial Times journalists is a non-paper.

These are completely non-official sketches that were sent to our colleagues not after Putin's conversation with Trump, but a few days before that conversation. And the purpose of this memorandum was to remind our American colleagues of what was discussed in Anchorage, and what understandings — at least it seemed to us, and the Americans did not deny it — were reached during the meeting between the presidents of Russia and the United States of America.

This informal document did not contain anything other than what was discussed in Anchorage and did not cause rejection from the American interlocutors. The presidents had a telephone conversation after this material was handed over to the State Department and the National Security Council.

And during the phone conversation, President Trump did not say a word about the fact that you are giving us some kind of provocative, subversive paper, it destroys everything, all hopes for a settlement. Absolutely not, they were talking normally. President Putin responded positively to President Trump's offer to meet in Budapest and suggested that several political departments should be tasked with preparing this meeting. That's what we planned to do. Yes, Trump told us that Marco Rubio would call me back. He called us three days later. We talked well, politely, without any disruptions, and confirmed, in principle, the movement based on understanding in Anchorage. And with that, we parted ways.

And the next step should have already been a meeting of representatives of foreign policy, military, as I understand it, departments, well, probably, special services. But there was no such further step from the Americans, and it was they who we were waiting for the initiative on a specific place and time for the preparatory meeting, since they made a proposal to prepare the summit, but instead there was a public statement that there was no point in meeting.

We have no reason to justify the fact that we were and remain committed to what the presidents talked about and, by and large, if we did not agree on every point and comma, then we reached an understanding.

"Stop measuring everything through the Ukrainian yard"

— You just mentioned the meeting in Budapest. Following Trump's talks with Viktor Orban, the American president stated that he still hoped for a summit. How is it that we are talking about nuclear tests, and before that we were talking about a meeting in Hungary? What has changed?

— I can't say what is behind the United States' position on nuclear testing, because what President Trump said about the long-resumed alleged tests in Russia and China is not true. If we are talking about nuclear tests, nuclear weapons tests, and other subcritical tests, without a nuclear chain reaction and carrier tests, they have never been banned by anyone. That's why we're trying to clarify this. And speaking of facts, the last time we experienced it was in 1991, the Americans in 1993. It's been more than 30 years. In China, I did my last tests not much later.

There is a global monitoring system, and Russia and the United States participate in this system. It is based on seismic data and records any minor fluctuations in the soil. And they have long known which signal means the use of a nuclear explosive device. Therefore, I would not confuse this topic of nuclear testing with the topic of the Budapest summit.

We are ready to discuss the suspicions that our American colleagues have raised that we were secretly digging deep underground and doing something there. We are also ready to discuss with our American colleagues the resumption of preparatory work for their proposed summit of the leaders of Russia and the United States.

If and when our American colleagues renew their proposal and are ready to begin preparations for the summit meeting so that it can truly end effectively, of course Budapest will be our preferred location. Moreover, at a meeting with Viktor Orban, Donald Trump confirmed Budapest's preference for Washington.

— There is not much time left before the START Treaty expires, and the United States has not presented an official position on Vladimir Putin's initiative. Do you think we can expect a clear answer in the near future? If it doesn't happen, what difference does it make for Russia?

— We have already said repeatedly that this is our unilateral proposal, a manifestation of goodwill. And in order for the United States to support our approach, no negotiations, no consultations are needed. We just need the United States to say: okay, and we will not increase the quantitative levels of the strategic weapons test treaty during the year. At least for now, Russia adheres to this unilateral commitment. All. There is no need for any other action, but as for whether negotiations are underway to extend it, no. Once again, the situation here is absolutely transparent. Here are the quantitative levels, they are well known. And we know what the Americans have. Americans know what they have.

Let's take a year to cool down, if you want, analyze the situation, stop measuring everything through the Ukrainian yardstick and look at the responsibility of the great powers for global security and global stability, primarily from the point of view of preventing nuclear war.

We are ready for this, it has nothing to do with the fact that deadlines are pressing. Because it is possible to announce that quantitative restrictions are being extended at any time until February 5. By the way, when the current START Treaty was extended immediately after Biden took office, it was done a few days before the expiration of the original deadline, and extending the contract itself is much more difficult than just voluntarily saying that I will comply with the quantitative parameters.

"It was obvious how President Trump was just discouraged"

— You have repeatedly said that peace in Ukraine will be achieved only if the root causes of the conflict are eliminated. As you know, one of them is neo—Nazism, which is rampant in Ukraine. Are you discussing this issue with your American colleagues?

— We identify this topic regularly. Well, however, after Anchorage and my phone conversation with Marco Rubio, we had no contact, and we did not start a conversation specifically on this topic in Alaska. But they know our position perfectly well, and, as I said, they have our position on paper. It was presented by President Putin in June 2024, when he spoke at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, outlining our principled approaches both to Ukraine and to the West. And among other absolutely indispensable regulatory conditions, such as demilitarization, the removal of any threats in the Russian Federation, including by dragging Ukraine into NATO, ensuring the rights of Russians and Russian-speakers, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, there is also a requirement for denazification.

The destruction of Nazism in Ukraine and denazification are an indispensable condition for a settlement, which, if we want it to be long—term, and we want it to be, we will pursue. But when no one in the European space, communicating with Ukraine, raises issues related to the nationalization of the country, when no one, with the exception of Hungary, touches on the topic of national minority, when no one demands Zelensky to repeal the law prohibiting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the canonical church...

By the way, in Alaska, when President Putin told Donald Trump about our assessment of the situation in Ukraine and mentioned that they had passed a law last year aimed at banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church, President Trump did not believe it. He asked Marco Rubio, who was present at the meeting, three times, is this true? Is it true? Marco confirmed that it was true. And it was clear how the President of the United States was simply discouraged.

— Has Venezuela applied to Russia for military assistance against the background of the US actions? And has there been a request from Caracas to deploy Russian weapons on their territory by analogy with Belarus?

— No, there were no such appeals to us. I think it is incorrect to compare our relations with Belarus, which is part of the Union State, with which we have synchronous, coordinated, and unified positions on all relevant international security issues, on the one hand, and our relations with Venezuela, which is a friendly country and a strategically comprehensive partner, on which we recently signed a corresponding agreement.

It was signed in May during the participation of President Nicolas Maduro in events in Moscow on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War. And now it is in the final stages of ratification, it is called the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty. It states the need to continue our cooperation in the field of security, including in the field of military-technical cooperation. We are ready to fully act within the framework of the obligations that we have stipulated in this agreement on a reciprocal basis with our Venezuelan friends.

It has not yet entered into force. By the way, the ratification procedures have been completed in Venezuela. We have just a few days left. Both chambers — the State Duma and the Federation Council — have already held the necessary hearings, so he is literally on his way out. And, as I have already said, we will strictly follow the commitments that are set out in it.