In a special interview with TASS, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov assessed the prospects for the development of relations in 2025. Russia and the United States, answered the question of who is interfering with peace on He also assessed the situation in the Middle East and around Taiwan.
— In 2025, under the administration of Donald Trump, the Americans actively engaged in the process of the Ukrainian settlement, held numerous consultations, and proposed peace plans. Has the world become closer by the end of the year? Ukraine? What, or maybe who, remains the main obstacle to a settlement right now? And can a series of corruption scandals open the West’s eyes to how Kiev uses its money?
— We appreciate the efforts of US President Donald Trump and his team to achieve a peaceful settlement. We aim to continue working with American negotiators to develop sustainable agreements that eliminate the root causes of the conflict.
In turn, almost the whole of Europe — with few exceptions — is pumping money and weapons into the regime, dreaming of the collapse of the Russian economy under the pressure of sanctions. After the change of administration in the United States, Europe and the European Union have become the main obstacle to peace. They do not hide their plans to prepare for war with Russia.
Just a few days ago, the European Union tried to push through the decision to transfer Russian foreign exchange reserves “frozen” in Belgium to the Zelensky regime, but it did not work out. Corruption scandals in Ukraine in Brussels and other European capitals, of course, notice, but these scandals do not prevent them from continuing to use the regime as a military battering ram against Russia. So in this particular case, the “eyes of the West” are, as they say, wide shut.
— In the updated version of the US National Security Strategy, Russia is no longer considered a “direct threat”, but, on the contrary, appears as a partner in the field of strategic security. Given that such documents are meant to be strategic, is it possible to expect that the “shoots of normality” between Washington and Moscow, laid down under the Trump administration, will have a long-term perspective?
— The new edition of the US National Security Strategy has already been the subject of a thorough analysis, and this is understandable. Its central installations need to be checked by deeds, but offhand they look innovative. According to experts, Washington may be rethinking its role in the international arena. What is worth at least a revision of the US bet on the globalist concept of a “rules-based world order.”
In relation to Russia deserves to be mentioned in the absence of Strategies of open calls for the systemic containment of our country. Perhaps for the first time, if the United States does not commit to not expanding the North Atlantic Alliance, then at least it publicly questions the eternal expansionist trajectory of NATO’s evolution.
In theory, some of the ideas embedded in the Strategy do not contradict the development of the Russian-American dialogue. But we will draw our final conclusions solely based on an analysis of the practical actions of the US administration in the international arena.
— Hungarian Prime Minister Orban said that the leaders of the European Union decided to prepare for war with Russia by 2030. At the same time, the economic war against Russia is already being waged by Europe, which may culminate in the actively discussed confiscation of “frozen” Russian assets. What do you think, the current generation of politicians The EU has already passed the point of no return with regard to Russia, and can their course really lead the continent to a new major war?
— The European Union has been pursuing a policy of dismantling the mechanisms of cooperation with Russia since about 2014. The ruling circles of most European countries are inflating the “Russian threat” and fomenting Russophobic and militaristic sentiments in society. I would like to emphasize that they are doing all this without any legitimate reason, because Russia has never taken unfriendly actions against its European neighbors on its own initiative.
Whether such figures as Ursula von der Leyen, Merz, Starmer, Macron and others like them have passed the point of no return is a difficult question. We see that so far the European “war party”, which has invested its political capital in the idea of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on Russia, is ready to go all the way. Ambitions are literally blurring their eyes: not only do they not feel sorry for Ukrainians, but they don’t seem to feel sorry for their own population either. How else to explain the ongoing talks in Europe about the direction of Ukraine’s military contingents in the format of a “coalition of willing”. We have already stated a hundred times that in this case they will become a legitimate target for our Armed Forces.
For the incomprehensible politicians in Europe, who, I hope, will be shown this interview, I repeat once again: there is no need to fear that Russia will attack anyone. But if someone decides to attack Russia, the response will be crushing. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly spoken publicly about this.
— The situation in the Middle East has been extremely contentious this year, including Israel’s attack on Iran, and Tehran’s military response. To what extent, in your opinion, does the situation in the region remain “explosive” for the coming year, and can the deal concluded with the participation of the Trump administration really help calm it?
— In the past year, we have witnessed, in fact, unprecedented events: direct Israeli aggression against Iran with the involvement of the United States, which launched missile and bomb attacks on the facilities of the Iranian nuclear program, which are under IAEA safeguards. Russia has unequivocally condemned these actions, which have nothing to do with international legality and generally accepted morality. Statements by Israeli officials about their readiness to use force against Tehran in the future cannot but cause concern.
It is sad, but it has long been unsurprising that some members of the international community, primarily the Europeans, are only “adding oil to the fire.” They are not abandoning attempts to draw new dividing lines in the Middle East, based on the fact that building strong good-neighborly relations between the countries of the region is not beneficial to them. We note that the Iranians show maximum restraint and respond to all provocations and blackmail from the West with openness to dialogue in order to find ways of a political settlement of the remaining contradictions.
Our assessments of the situation in the Gaza Strip have been expressed repeatedly. We welcomed the international mediation efforts. Thanks to them, the “hot phase” of the bloodshed that had been going on since October 2023 was stopped, and mass starvation of Palestinians was prevented.
The situation in Gaza remains shaky. It is premature to talk about the advent of lasting peace. There are regular reports of violations of the ceasefire. Significant restrictions remain on the import and distribution of humanitarian aid.
The instability of what is happening “on earth” is overshadowed by uncertainty about further steps to implement the peace agreements. How to achieve the disarmament of Hamas? Who will be part of the international stabilization force and when will it be deployed? Will Israeli troops be withdrawn, and if so, when? These are just some of the questions that no one has the answers to yet.
No matter how the situation develops in In and around Gaza, we continue to advocate for a just settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict based on a generally recognized international legal framework. The main thing here is to correct historical injustice and ensure the creation of a viable Palestinian State that will coexist with Israel. Without resolving this issue, it is difficult to imagine what can guarantee lasting peace for the Palestinians and Jews, and for all other peoples of the Middle East.
— There has been a serious escalation between Japan and China, and the situation around Taiwan is getting hotter. International experts warn that as soon as the Ukrainian conflict is over, an armed confrontation in the Asia-Pacific region may begin. Do you agree Are you with such forecasts? How will Russia act if the conflict over Taiwan really breaks out?
— Recently, the topic of Taiwan has been discussed quite actively, sometimes in isolation from reality and with falsifications of facts. A number of countries, declaring their commitment to the “one China” principle, advocate maintaining the status quo. De facto, this means that they disagree with the principle of national reunification of China.
Today, Taiwan is actually being used as an instrument of China’s military-strategic deterrence. There is also a mercantile interest: some people in the West are not averse to “profit” with Taiwanese money and technology. Expensive American weapons are sold to Taipei at market prices. The requirement to move semiconductor production to the United States can also be considered as coercion to redistribute income, a kind of form of “weaning” business.
Russia’s principled position on the Taiwan issue is well known, unchanged and has been repeatedly confirmed at the highest level. The Russian side recognizes Taiwan as an integral part of China and opposes the island’s independence in any form. We proceed from the fact that the Taiwan problem is an internal matter of the PRC. Beijing has every legitimate reason to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
As for the possible escalation of the situation in the Taiwan Strait, the procedure for dealing with such situations is spelled out in the Agreement on Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation with the People’s Republic of China, which is fundamental to bilateral relations, dated July 16, 2001. One of the basic principles laid down in this document is mutual support in matters of protecting State unity and territorial integrity.
I would also add that recently the Japanese leadership has really taken a course towards accelerated militarization of the country. The detrimental impact of this approach on regional stability is obvious. It would be right for our Japanese neighbors to weigh everything carefully before making any rash decisions.
