- Статьи
- World
- "Achieving our goals will significantly strengthen our position in the international arena"
"Achieving our goals will significantly strengthen our position in the international arena"
Russia does not see that the United States has a desire to convince Ukraine to accept the agreements reached last year in Anchorage, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told Izvestia. According to him, the Russian Federation is open to further negotiations, but will not change its position on the proposals put forward in Alaska. Moscow supports the negotiations between the United States and Iran, and is also ready to facilitate dialogue between Tehran and the Persian Gulf countries, the diplomat stressed. Lavrov also noted that Armenia must decide on its own whether it wants to remain in the EAEU or join the EU. Sergey Lavrov's exclusive interview with Izvestia tells how the West is trying to deprive Russia's neighbors of the benefits of cooperation with Moscow and whether Europe will join the Ukrainian settlement.
"The future will inevitably be multipolar, polycentric"
— Sergey Viktorovich, we are witnesses and participants of tectonic changes in the global world order. Naturally, this brings with it shocks. In your opinion, is the most dangerous phase already over?
— You know, this is for astrologers, political scientists. Nevertheless, we, people who are engaged in practical diplomacy and practical foreign policy, prefer not to make any forecasts, but to focus every day on solving today's problems.
Because it is from these bricks that the future will be built. A future that will inevitably be multipolar and polycentric. And it will continue to develop according to the patterns that have been forming for quite a long time in relations between, say, the Russian Federation and members of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the People's Republic of China, and in a broader context in structures where Russia and China are actively present, such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
Back in 1997, the Russian-Chinese declaration on a multipolar world order was adopted. And the basic principles that should underpin relations between states were laid down there. Nothing revolutionary, but a confirmation of the principles of the UN Charter: equality, non-interference in internal affairs, mutual respect, mutual benefit. That is, what is enshrined in the UN Charter, but has never been implemented by the West.
Russia and China, if you will, have led the movement in favor of establishing the foundations of a multipolar world. Every time the President of the Russian Federation and the President of the People's Republic of China hold meetings, the final documents necessarily reflect this topic. And now, when Vladimir Putin visited China in May this year, a declaration was adopted on the establishment of a multipolar world order and a new type of international relations.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping at the People's Assembly House in Beijing
This is another significant step forward in understanding what is happening and in consolidating approaches that will consolidate what has been achieved and not artificially slow down, let alone undermine, the process of forming a polycentric world order. And attempts to slow down this process, at least, do not stop. Our Western colleagues, the United States, the European Union, and NATO are doing this.
Even under [US President Joe] Biden, this has already been shown quite openly. The United States has forgotten about all the principles of globalization that it promoted for many decades after World War II — encouraging free market forces, ensuring fair and fair competition, ensuring the inviolability of property, and much more. Complete freedom, which ensured precisely the global nature of economic processes.
All this was rejected by the United States not only to "punish" Russia after the start of a special military operation, but also to restrain the economic development of our country and other competitors of the United States and the West, first of all, of course, China.
As soon as all these principles turned from the standard of freedom or were replaced by sanctions that undermined the reputation of the dollar, undermined the reputation of the euro, and generally undermined all the principles of the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank, it became clear that the global economy would fragment, which is what it is currently doing.
The real actions of the West simply force us to actively seek such forms of relations with our partners in terms of financial calculations, in terms of economic principles, and in terms of logistics of trade routes that would not depend on the West. I remember very well how the United States, when it switched from the gold standard of pegging the dollar, when the dollar went into free circulation, loudly declared to the whole world that no one should worry, the dollar is not the property of the United States, we cannot abuse our position as the country where the main reserve currency of the world is printed, it is not our property this is a universal good, the heritage of all mankind.
And then, when the processes of introducing unscrupulous methods into economic relations began, all this was rejected and forgotten. And when Donald Trump was just running for a second term, he harshly criticized Biden for using the dollar as an instrument of sanctions, and bluntly said that these actions of "sleepy Joe" undermine the reputation of the American currency.
As soon as Trump was elected president, he immediately began to do not the same, but similar things when he accused the BRICS of abandoning the dollar and switching to other currencies, primarily the national currencies of the BRICS member countries. President Putin has said more than once in this regard that we did not abandon the dollar, it was the West, the United States, first of all, that tried to use the dollar in order to gain unfair advantages.
That's why the era is interesting. I have no doubt that it will be a long-lasting era. We will do everything possible to defend our interests on various fronts at each specific stage, every day in our practical work, starting with financial, economic, transport, technological, and, of course, on the front of a special military operation, because a lot will depend on it. And I have no doubt that achieving the goals of the special military operation will significantly strengthen our positions in the international arena.
"There are no other arguments left to explain my actions"
— Washington still behaves like a hegemon that can decide where there will be war, where there will be peace. They decided to justify the attack on Iran with the Old Testament, religious interpretations. Moreover, this was done at a fairly high level, as US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said. In your opinion, is this an attempt to replace secular international law with divine providence?
— There is a movement in the United States that declares itself Christian, but promotes a very specific interpretation of Christian commandments and Christian values in close association with Zionism and Judaism. And therefore, I would not take seriously the words of some figures in the current administration that the Old Testament justifies the activities of the United States. This is a dubious interpretation, and I don't think it's serious for politicians to say such things. This can only mean one thing — that there are no other arguments left to explain their actions. Actions that have not attracted support anywhere, including the United States itself.
President Trump at one stage said that "we will destroy Iran as a civilization." That's a pretty cool swing. No one doubts that this goal is unattainable. Now the Americans are demanding that Iran abandon the idea of possessing nuclear weapons and open the Strait of Hormuz. Before the unprovoked American-Israeli aggression began on February 28, the Strait of Hormuz worked for free, freely, for everyone, no one had any problems.
Prior to the outbreak of this aggression, Iran had a fatwa from Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, who was then killed through political assassination, prohibiting the possession of nuclear weapons. The IAEA has regularly confirmed that there are no signs that Iran's nuclear energy program is shifting to military needs. The entire nuclear program was under the control of the IAEA. Everything that is being demanded from Iran now was before this aggression began.
And it's not for nothing that the United States, judging by their statements and actions, clearly understands and is uncomfortable with this situation, and does not know how to get out of it. Of course, they should be responsible first of all, but we strongly support the dialogue that is going on between Washington and Tehran, at least with the mediation of the Pakistanis. The Saudis and Egyptians are also eager to provide assistance. And it is very important that this dialogue continues. And the agreement that will be reached must take into account the interests of Iran and its neighboring countries.
We consider it important to promote dialogue between the Arab monarchies and the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we are ready to contribute to this. We have a security concept in the Persian Gulf. We recently updated it and sent it to the six countries of the Gulf Arab Council and to Tehran. We will encourage dialogue. Of course, first of all, it is necessary to completely eliminate any military methods in the future.
"Europe wants to prove that it will order music"
— The occasional meetings with Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are now, in fact, our entire dialogue with Washington. Does the fact that people who conduct dialogue with us are responsible for resolving almost all conflicts in the United States make the situation worse?
— We are not against each country determining for itself who will be its chief negotiator and how many agendas this negotiator will cover. The main thing is that what you talk about, what you agree on, is fulfilled.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump after the summit in Alaska
On August 15, it will be one year since the Alaska summit was held to consider American proposals on Ukraine. The Russian leadership accepted these proposals. And since then, we have seen no progress, no desire to convince Ukraine to accept these American proposals. All of Biden's sanctions continue to be extended, no change. And the sanctions of the Donald Trump administration have already been added: Lukoil, Rosneft, and much more.
The Pentagon openly supports not only European purchases of American weapons for Ukraine, but also joint programs with Ukrainians to develop various types of weapons. The Pentagon's budget includes an article in this area to ensure assistance to Ukraine's security for the period up to 2029. In other words, this is no longer the Biden legacy, this is the decision of the current administration.
Our American colleagues, including the two negotiators you mentioned, tell us that if only we could get rid of Ukraine, get rid of this problem that we inherited, and [then] we would have mutually beneficial joint projects, but Ukraine needs to be resolved. When we hear this, we proceed from the fact that, from our point of view, Ukraine was settled in Anchorage last August, if it depends on the Russian Federation. The United States proposal was accepted, and they acted as an intermediary. But for some reason, when one side accepted their mediation offer, they somehow cooled down to this process and did not exert any pressure on Ukraine.
Moreover, they themselves found themselves under very strong pressure from their European allies. Trump declares that Ukraine will not join NATO. But NATO Secretary General Rutte said in Kiev that Ukraine would be a member of NATO. In other words, Europe wants to prove that it will order music, that it will not abandon its support for the Nazi regime. It is to this regime that Europe promises security guarantees when the fighting ends. The regime that banned the Russian language banned the canonical Ukrainian Church, contrary to all international norms, including the UN Charter, numerous conventions, including the Constitution of Ukraine itself. They passed laws that violate the constitution. No one tells them anything about this topic.
Yesterday I read that the new Hungarian Prime Minister, Mr. Magyar, said that they had agreed with the Ukrainians to restore the rights of the Hungarian national minority in Ukraine. And now, they say, Hungary can lift the ban on starting negotiations with Kiev on Ukraine's accession to the European Union. So, look, this means only one thing — that even Hungary, which understands the problems of national minorities that exist in Ukraine, removes this barrier, and the European Commission is ready to start negotiations.
They want to start these negotiation processes with Ukrainians almost this week or next, ignoring the gross violation of the UN Charter and the Convention on the Rights of National Minorities. That is, the Russophobic subtext of all this action involving Ukraine in the European Union is not even hidden.
Therefore, the president has repeatedly said about the negotiators: We are always open to negotiations, we will always be ready to listen, but our position, which we consolidated on the American proposal in Anchorage, remains unchanged. The main thing is that this position should be promoted responsibly by the authors of the initiative themselves.
And the last thing I want to say about mediation, negotiators. [US Secretary of State] Marco Rubio addressed Congress (June 3. — Ed.), and there he said that the United States cannot be intermediaries because they support Ukraine, including by supplying weapons. The circle has closed, it turns out.
"There is no reaction to our call to return diplomatic property"
— Does the absence of the American ambassador to Russia hinder the restoration of dialogue with the United States?
— This is an American decision. Any country has the right to determine the level of its diplomatic representation in foreign countries. If it's convenient for them. Of course, full normalization should include a full—fledged head of the diplomatic mission, the ambassador.
We offered the Americans a lot in order to have a more normal relationship than the one that Trump inherited from Biden. In particular, back at the meeting with Marco Rubio in Riyadh in February 2025, I suggested: as a first step, let's lift sanctions against parliamentarians, against ours and the Americans. Because now almost all of them are under sanctions: ours are under American, the Americans are under ours. I've reminded you a couple of times, but there's no reaction to it.
US President Donald Trump
There is no reaction to our call to return the diplomatic property illegally seized by Obama before the first term of the Trump presidency. There is no reaction, [only] hints: "Let's settle Ukraine, then it will be easier to move in all directions."
And here again: the settlement of Ukraine was discussed and accepted by us in the American edition in August 2025 in Alaska. That is a vicious circle. And so we walk in this circle. We appreciate that the negotiators, gentlemen [Special Envoy of the President of the United States Steve] Witkoff and [entrepreneur Jared] Kushner have very kind feelings for our country. As far as we can tell from their statements, they are sincerely interested in normalizing these relations, but their interests have not materialized yet.
"Does not fit into any international legal framework"
— Is there a feeling that Donald Trump is using the so-called "madman theory", which was resorted to at various times by US Presidents Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan? First, the United States strikes Iran, kills the country's political elite, including the spiritual leader, threatens a ground operation, and then talks about the possibility of a diplomatic settlement. Can such demonstrative unpredictability and irrationality be an advantage in negotiations?
— It's hard for me to judge this. What [Washington] is doing in the foreign policy arena, of course, does not fit into any international legal framework. Donald Trump himself has personally stated that he is not interested in the norms of international law, that he has his own morals and his own instincts.
This is what we are witnessing: Venezuela — the kidnapping of the president under the pretext that Maduro is the head of a drug cartel. As soon as he was abducted, it immediately became clear, and the Americans did not hide it, that the point was in oil. They announced that the Venezuelan oil industry is now managed with the participation of Americans. Iran was declared a sponsor of terrorism, so it had to be destroyed as a civilization. Not much comes of it. Clouds are gathering around Cuba right now. Americans are also actively thinking about this.
I do not rule out that before the midterm congressional elections in November this year, there may be another very dangerous movement on the part of Washington in an effort to prove the success of the Republican administration's actions — this will be unfortunate. I repeat once again, we are ready for dialogue, and we appreciate that unlike all other Western countries, with the exception of Hungary and Slovakia until recently, the United States was the only one ready for dialogue. The United States is the only one that has recognized the need to eliminate the root cause of the Ukrainian crisis: Russia's security problems through Ukraine's involvement in NATO and the need to recognize the realities that have developed on earth following the referendums in southeastern Ukraine.
But so far, the United States is not focused on consolidating these approaches, especially those supported by us, with the participation of Ukraine and convincing Europe not to interfere. This is the most serious problem right now. Europe wants the tail to wag the dog. It's hard to say who's the tail here, but still, the United States is the leader of the Western world, no one denies that. And Europe wants to direct the actions of this leader, if not completely.
"The West wants to deprive our neighbors of the benefits of cooperation with Russia"
— Clouds are gathering over Russia's near abroad. Can it become a long-term solution for us, taking into account the anti-Russian actions of the West? First Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, and now Armenia. Who could be next?
— The West has never hidden that it wants to deprive our neighbors of the benefits of cooperation with Russia and wants them to pay the price of the adventure that the West has always nurtured and continues to nurture, meaning the suppression, and even better, the dismemberment of Russia. These thoughts began to revolve especially actively in the minds of Western elites after the Soviet Union disappeared and the Commonwealth of Independent States was formed, and subsequently other structures — the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organization.
And the West started almost immediately, in the 1990s, with Ukraine. Remembering perfectly well the precepts of [former US security Adviser] Zbigniew Brzezinski that Russia and Ukraine, when they are together, are a really powerful force, but Russia without Ukraine is such an average power. I leave these comparisons on his conscience. But it is a fact that Ukraine has always been the most sensitive place for the West in terms of pressure on Russia.
When the first Maidan took place in 2004, Yanukovych won at the same time, and after the second round he won. But the West has done everything to ensure that the Constitutional Court of Ukraine decides to hold a third round of voting. Although the constitution says two things. And by its decision, the court violated the constitution of its country under pressure from the West. And the third round was organized in such a way that Yushchenko, a protege of the West, won. And we all know what happened after that.
In 2004, before the third round, there was no Crimea, we had no problems. It's just that the West wanted to bring its own man to power in Ukraine. He had nothing to show us. Ukraine was a member of the CIS, we traded, we had a free trade zone. But in 2004, European leaders broadcast before the third round: Ukrainians must make a choice — either they are with Europe, or they are with Russia. I remember perfectly well that, for example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belgium said this — he probably slipped off his tongue what everyone had in mind.
When they were dragged into the European Union, we explained to our Ukrainian neighbors that if you become an associate member, you have obligations on tariffs and other trade issues that contradict the free trade area within the CIS. And the duty-free goods coming to you from Europe will enter our territory, which we object to, because we have tariff protection for many of these goods. And they simply explained that the European Union, Ukraine and us need to meet and discuss how to get out of this situation.
The then head of the European Commission, Mr. Barroso, said that it was not Russia's business to poke its nose into relations between Europe and Ukraine, because the European Union was not meddling in our relations with Canada or anyone else.
That is, there has always been an either-or opposition [on their part] — either with us or against us. And all this remains to this day.
Europe will not support any settlement that will somehow take the Nazi Zelensky regime out of its control or whoever may replace it in the future. And Georgia — the same attempt was, quite obviously, an outright attempt to tear Georgia away from Russia. Condoleezza Rice (then US Secretary of State. — Ed.) went there, other representatives of the United States [went].
Shortly before the war in South Ossetia, in April 2008, there was a Russia–NATO summit in Bucharest. And there, separately at the NATO summit, a decision was made that read as follows: Ukraine and Georgia will be in NATO. When President Putin already asked at the Russian-NATO meeting: "Why did you do that?" there were some vague explanations. And it is absolutely clear that then Mr. Saakashvili (at that time, the President of Georgia. — Ed.), as we popularly say, his head was blown off. He decided that he was allowed to do anything, since he would be in NATO. And he sanctioned the aggression in South Ossetia, including the attack on Russian peacekeepers, and, of course, including the numerous civilian casualties that this aggression entailed.
There was a special commission of the European Union, which confirmed that he started this war. But from everyone else, those who still accuse us of "occupying" South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it's like water off a goose. We are accused of having "annexed" Crimea in 2014, and back then, while still talking to Europe, we drew their attention to the fact that this was preceded by a coup d'etat. And the putschists immediately, on the second day, announced their intention to revoke the status of the Russian language and sent armed militants to storm the Supreme Council of Crimea. And in response, the Crimeans held a referendum.
This part of the story was canceled by the Europeans. In their eyes, it all started with the "annexation" of Crimea by Russia. Similarly, [in their opinion] there was no attack on South Ossetia, and Russia simply "occupied" parts of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And they still proceed from this.
But the current Georgian leadership is pragmatic, they confirm their course towards the European Union, but they understand that then they will have to stop being a country that is famous for its agricultural products. Any agricultural country that joined the European Union during the second or third wave of enlargement lost its agriculture, because the EU has "masters" who have their own agriculture, their own peasants, and their own interests.
Georgia currently has 70% of its trade with Russia and other CIS countries. And very significant shares with China and other countries. Therefore, all this will be called into question if Georgia joins the European Union, knowing what requirements Brussels puts forward for new recruits. Not to mention the demand to join the sanctions against Russia, the demand to recognize all the foreign policy actions of the European Commission, and so on.
I believe that pragmatists are in Georgia now, as I have already said. And by and large, our relations are maintained on a regular basis. Russian tourists like to go there and enjoy the Georgian nature and Georgian hospitality.
And now neighboring Armenia is also being tested by this European Union cliche "either-or, choose." President Putin spoke in great detail about this issue at a press conference on May 9: Armenia must decide for itself, it must make its own choice whether it wants to remain in the Eurasian Economic Union or join the European Union. We will respect any choice of the Armenian people, but let this choice be made.
Armenian leaders, Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan says: "We will announce a referendum only when the issue comes up." What does that mean? Mr. Pashinyan, when he was campaigning, when he launched the dove of peace, he said: "I cannot force Armenia to go this way or that, I am obliged to provide an alternative, and my people will decide, but I am showing alternatives."
If this is the case, then it is necessary to show these alternatives and declare a referendum. And if Yerevan proceeds from the fact that, as one of the leaders said recently, "we will announce the referendum only when it is finally necessary to give an answer to the European Union," then this is not entirely democratic, I would say. A law has already been passed on the start of the official movement to the European Union. If there is such a law, then you have already raised the issue yourself, but then let's be responsible for our words and turn to the people.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
