Foreign Ministry’s answers to media questions for Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s news conference on the performance of Russian diplomacy in 2024

Question: February 24, 2025, will mark three years since the beginning of Russia’s special military operation. What are the results, both positive and negative, of these three years? Have we accumulated “experience, the hard-born child of error,” as a classic put it, and could we use it to finish the special military operation as soon as possible, and to achieve the declared goals?

What is the outlook for a settlement in Ukraine? When can we expect to start negotiating it?

Answer: Russia has pointed out on numerous occasions that it is ready for talks on a settlement in Ukraine. We stand for a truly final, just and lasting solution based on the elimination of the root causes of that crisis. A temporary ceasefire and a conflict freeze are unacceptable solutions. The West will inevitably use them to reinforce the Kiev regime’s military potential and to take a military revenge. We want reliable and legally binding agreements with mechanisms guaranteeing the non-resumption of the conflict.

There is a foundation for this, that is, the solutions coordinated in the spring of 2022 during several rounds of Russian-Ukrainian talks in Belarus and Türkiye, and with due regard for the situation on the ground and the positions President Vladimir Putin put forth during his meeting in the Foreign Ministry of Russia in June 2024. A peaceful settlement is hindered by the policy and behaviour of Kiev and the West.

It is a fact that Kiev, prompted by the UK, walked out of the peace talks in April 2022, and in September 2022 Vladimir Zelensky issued an executive order prohibiting such talks.

Instead of conducting peace talks, Kiev, supported by the West, opted for escalating hostilities, presenting ultimatums to Russia, and creating an anti-Russia coalition. In late 2022, Zelensky proposed the so-called “peace formula” of 10 ultimatum demands to Russia. To promote the idea, they invented the Copenhagen format in 2023, which has failed and was replaced with the Burgenstock process in 2024, which will not succeed either.

Western countries continue to supply the Kiev regime with increasingly more advanced and longer-range weapons, instructors, communications and intelligence data. They have wasted about $200 billion on that. They coordinate their military assistance with NATO structures and the Ukraine Defence Contact Group (also known as the Ramstein group) of 55 countries. These activities cannot create conditions for peace talks.

A serious factor precluding the talks is the loss of legitimacy by the Ukrainian authorities. Zelensky’s presidential term expired on May 20, 2024. President Putin has said that following that he has ceased to be a legitimate head of state and hence his signature on any documents will have no legal validity. As for the Verkhovna Rada, which so far retains its powers, it has not shown political will to promote a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

Therefore, despite the growing number of statements on the need for peace talks, no practical moves have been made that would indicate the West and Kiev’s readiness for them. On the contrary, there are continued Western military supplies to the Ukrainian army, ultimatums to Russia, and a legal ban on the peace talks, and nothing has been done to settle the problem of the Ukrainian authorities’ legitimacy.

Our approach to the potential settlement has not changed: We are ready for dialogue on the basis of the 2022 agreements and with due regard for the situation on the ground and the positions spelled out by President Putin in June 2024.

Foreign countries’ initiatives on the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis

Question: What country, in your view, suggests options for peace talks on Ukraine that are most acceptable to Russia – China, India, Hungary, or some other country? What countries influenced the escalation or de-escalation of the Ukraine crisis the most?

Answer: Much has been said on this topic. President of Russia Vladimir Putin has repeatedly addressed this issue, including during his Direct Line, at the Valdai International Discussion Club’s meeting before that, and other events.

We cannot be satisfied with empty talk. What we hear so far are conversations about the need to invent a truce. In the meantime, it is not being concealed that the truce is needed to gain time in order to continue pumping Ukraine full of weapons so that they “put themselves in order,” carry out an additional mobilisation, etc.

The initiatives on Ukraine crisis settlement that have been advanced by China and Brazil stress the need for respecting the UN Charter. The territorial integrity principle is mentioned from time to time. We tell our Chinese and Brazilian friends and other countries that cooperate in promoting this initiative dictated by the best of intentions that the UN Charter is much more multi-faceted and is not confined to the territorial integrity principle alone. The principle of self-determination of nations is no less important. Were it not for this principle, there would have been problems with decolonising African and other nations. It is this principle that furnished the international legal basis of the decolonisation. And it reflected unwillingness, unpreparedness and impossibility on the part of the African nations to live under the colonial rule.

It is exactly the same story with the population in Crimea, Donbass, and Novorossiya that is unwilling, unable and will never tolerate being ruled by the Nazis, who have seized power in Kiev. Therefore, the principle of self-determination of nations comes into play. And they did opt for self-determination. Crimea did so in 2014, and Donbass and Novorossiya in 2022. These are the realities recorded by the Russian Constitution.

To quote President Putin, we are ready to consider any serious and concrete proposals. We are always ready for consultations. If someone cannot understand our position that we have repeatedly stated in an utterly clear way, we are always ready to reaffirm this position. We are open to any talks, if they are about the substance, the prime causes, and the principles that Vladimir Putin set out in his remarks at the Foreign Ministry in June 2024. It should be emphasised that these are not preconditions. This is a requirement to fulfill what everyone signed up to while adopting the UN Charter.

By way of reminder, China’s President Xi Jinping, while advancing his global security initiative in February 2023, an initiative covering any conflicts and settlement principles thereof, focused in particular on the need to identify and remove the prime causes of any conflict in order to settle it.

Persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church in Ukraine

Question: What is happening with the persecution of Orthodox believers in Ukraine? Why have US politicians and diplomats chosen to target something as deeply personal and sacred as faith?

Answer: One of the key elements of Russophobia in the West is the hatred and systematic, cynical pressure on the Russian Orthodox Church. This is not new. Parishes and believers have long been subjected to various forms of pressure. Russophobes feel a particular hatred and animosity towards canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine, thereby exposing their true nature.

We remain steadfast in our efforts to safeguard the rights of our compatriots and fellow citizens living abroad. Apart from government agencies, Russian diplomatic missions and consular offices, a lot of public figures are engaged in these efforts, whose input is really great. Many of these people work under the auspices of our unique human rights mechanism, the Foundation for the Support and Protection of the Rights of Compatriots Living Abroad.

Regarding Donald Trump and Orthodoxy, the US President frequently emphasised the importance of preserving traditional values in his country, many of which are linked to Christianity in one way or another. He addressed the broader crisis regarding the preservation of traditional religions and Christianity in particular within the United States. It is a challenge they must address first.

We are aware that certain elements within the American establishment, the so-called deep state, are using the Kiev regime and NATO mechanisms against the Russian Orthodox Church and, by extension, Orthodoxy in general. We see what they are doing and how cynically they behave targeting canonical Orthodoxy, trying to sow discord among Orthodox believers in Europe, and how they manipulate those who are called upon to stand guard over the Orthodox canons.

We view this as a destructive assault on global Orthodoxy, no doubt about that. This opinion is shared by representatives of Orthodox institutions, churches, and individuals who practice Orthodoxy and are subjected to immense pressure in several countries.

We document these incidents and release relevant materials. Another report detailing the persecution of the Russian Orthodox Church and Orthodoxy in Ukraine is currently in the pipeline. The Foreign Ministry’s first report, titled Illegal Actions by the Kiev Regime Targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC), its Clergy, and Parishioners, was published in July 2023. An updated edition, including specific figures, facts, data, statistics, and references, will be released soon.

Russian-US relations and their outlook after Donald Trump’s inauguration

Question: Keith Kellogg, Donald Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia, has asserted that the future administration aims to achieve peace within 100 days of Donald Trump taking office. Have there been any specific signals from Washington in this regard, and how do you assess the prospects for resolving the Ukrainian conflict through US mediation?

What is the Russian Foreign Ministry’s evaluation of US Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s statement on January 4 about Washington’s intention to avoid a direct military clash with Russia, considering his previous comments on providing military assistance to Kiev before February 2022?

Answer: Under the Biden administration, relations between Russia and the United States have deteriorated significantly and are now precariously close to a complete breakdown. The hybrid war initiated by Washington, with the overt doctrinal objective of “inflicting a strategic defeat on Moscow” by employing the Kiev regime as a proxy, has, of course, not succeeded but has contributed to the bilateral confrontation acquiring a protracted systemic nature.

Donald Trump’s return to the White House following last November’s presidential election significantly alters the political landscape within the United States. However, from the perspective of Russian-American relations, given the bipartisan Russophobic consensus that has developed, premised on the perception of Russia as an existential threat to American hegemony, no substantial positive developments should be anticipated.

Certainly, we take note of the signals emanating from Donald Trump’s team, as well as the contradictory and often flamboyant statements of the new head of state. Concurrently, we acknowledge the bold, by American standards, promises to revive the interstate dialogue, which was effectively suspended under Joe Biden.

We will observe what emerges from this, but the inclination to establish direct communication is, in itself, commendable. If it becomes possible to restore our relations to even a semblance of normality, including the functioning of the Ambassadors in Washington and Moscow, such progress would represent a notable achievement.

Nevertheless, it must be emphasised that we are not harbouring any illusions about the new/old president. During his first term, contrary to expectations, the deterioration of bilateral ties initiated by Barack Obama persisted, and Donald Trump surpassed his predecessors in the scale of sanctions imposed against Russia.

Should the Americans consider our interests, dialogue may gradually resume. Should they fail to do so, the situation will remain unchanged.

Donald Trump’s statements on the “enlargement” of the United States

Question: The US administration, which has yet to commence its duties, has already begun attempts to alter the world map. Donald Trump’s comments regarding the potential establishment of control over Greenland are being taken increasingly seriously. In your view, do Denmark and other countries whose territories Washington is targeting possess the strength to resist?

Answer: The fate of Greenland should be determined by the Greenlanders themselves, without external interference. Greenland’s right to self-determination is guaranteed by the UN Charter and is recognised and enshrined in law in Denmark. International law is not selective, and not the prerogative of the strongest; it is binding on all. It constitutes a framework of rights, opportunities, and freedoms, set out in relevant documents, primarily the UN Charter, enabling countries to coexist without engaging in new confrontations and crises daily.

The leadership of Greenland and representatives of Greenlandic parties have consistently reiterated that “Greenland is not for sale” and find such terminology unacceptable. They prioritise the establishment of an independent state and view sale-and-purchase discussions as either a gross disrespect towards the people of Greenland and their aspirations for genuine independence, or as interference in internal affairs.

It is noteworthy that Copenhagen has been remarkably reticent in responding to the relevant statements of the American President. This is surprising in a situation where Denmark faces a genuine threat to its territorial integrity. Simultaneously, Copenhagen does not cease to accuse Russia of posing some kind of threat, despite failing to provide a single example.

The second point of surprise is as follows. Denmark has made extensive declarations in defence of Ukraine and its territorial integrity. Now, we would appreciate hearing something from Copenhagen in defence of its own territorial integrity. They have mastered defending others on paper. But what about defending themselves, at least on paper?

It seems that the situation with Greenland presents Denmark with a clear reason to reflect on its position within the coordinate system of its principal overseas ally. After all, they are allies! Copenhagen regards Washington as an indispensable guarantor of its security.

Assessments of NATO’s anti-Russia policies

Question: What can the Foreign Ministry say about NATO’s anti-Russia policies?

Answer: In 2024, NATO continued its confrontational policies with regard to our country. Washington and its allies operate on the premise that "Russia remains the most significant and direct threat to Allies security" and "the all-domain threat Russia poses to NATO will persist into the long term". The North Atlantic Alliance has been continuously building up its military contingents near Russia's borders, conducting exercises to practice actions against our country, and expanding a logistical infrastructure for the rapid deployment of military personnel and military equipment.

The Alliance assigned Ukraine a key role in its confrontation with us. The Kiev regime is being flooded with long-range weapons systems, which are fully controlled by Western specialists. The Alliance provides the Ukrainian armed forces with intelligence, provides Ukrainians with missile guidance kits for the missiles that they fire at us. NATO creates entities to support and train the Ukrainian military and continues to claim that none of that is making the alliance a “participant in the conflict.

This hypocritical and provocative NATO policy keeps escalation on the upward trajectory and aggravates the situation in Europe and increases the risk of a direct clash between Russia and the Alliance.

Prospects for resuming constructive interaction within the OSCE

Question: When Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov participated in the OSCE Ministerial Council, the European media turned their cameras away from him and tried to avoid contacting him. However, immediately afterwards, when cameras went off, they lined up to talk to Sergey Lavrov and to shake his hand. It must be hard for them to live by such hypocritical rules. When will the Europeans start building bridges with us again? So far, as we can see from the rhetoric coming from Brussels and Ramstein meetings, they continue to stick to the position of “we will shoot ourselves in both feet if it sends Russia in a bad way.” Why are they doing it?

What about Russia’s future in organisations such as the OSCE? What is Moscow’s strategy all about? After all, they do not want to hear what we have to say. Does it make sense to “cast our pearls” and pay membership fees on top of it?

Answer: The OSCE fell victim to the US policy that seeks to bring Europe to heel by using Euro-Atlantic security concepts. Russophobia is used by the EU elites to cement European unity, and as a tool to coalesce the EU member states, to maintain internal EU discipline, to strengthen media dictatorship, and to mop up the media landscape in order to remove alternative points of view. Russia in the role of an enemy allows the establishment to justify to its citizens the accelerated militarisation of Europe, and the through-the-roof growth of defence spending in the interests of the US military-industrial complex.

This is done at the expense of addressing pressing European problems to camouflage their own mistakes and miscalculations, which led to the socioeconomic crisis and undermined the standard of living in European countries. In addition to ideological considerations that neoliberals are so passionate about, the everyday interests of voters should also be taken into account, especially so when energy costs in Europe are three to four times higher than in the United States. The Euro-Atlantic region is losing its status as the driving engine of global growth.

In addition, most Western countries are still clinging to any chance they can find to perpetuate their global dominance and to eliminate geopolitical competitors, primarily Russia, which consistently advocates the establishment of a multipolar international order grounded in respect for the interests of all participants in international relations, respect for international law and ensuring equal and indivisible security.

Agendas promoting high probability of a large-scale armed conflict with Russia within the next four to five years are being inculcated into public mind in Europe. Those who disagree with the “general line” promoting confrontation are branded as “agents of influence” of the Kremlin or just suppressed.

We are convinced that the future lies with the pan-Eurasian architecture that is open to all countries of the continent and embodies a new polycentric state of the world. It is sad to see the OSCE leadership and those who pull its strings deliberately leave this organisation outside the framework of creative work and the objective course of history. However, each Eurasian country has its own sovereign, national choice.

As for building bridges, such an opportunity will arise when the Europeans realise the lame and futile nature of their policy of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on our country.

Some places have already accumulated a certain amount of critical mass; voters are making it increasingly clear to the politicians in their respective countries that the latter have forgotten about national interests. Let’s wait and see if a generation of leaders will emerge who are focused not on fighting the infamous “Russian threat,” but on promoting pragmatic and mutually respectful dialogue. They will have to rebuild trust in the EU and to repair the damage done to the EU by its current political elites.

Plans for the further consolidation of the Global Majority

Question: Russia surprised everyone once again by becoming the torchbearer for the Global South despite all the plans and efforts by the West to isolate our country. Washington and Brussels fully realised this in the wake of the BRICS Summit in Kazan. The Russian Foreign Ministry’s role in this process can hardly be overestimated. Could you share your plans for consolidating the Global Majority and bringing their countries closer together.

Answer: There was a time when our country stood at the forefront of the decolonisation process. Its Victory in the Great Patriotic War came at a very high price, but it enabled us to hold the West’s expansion at bay for several decades. During the challenging Cold War era, the Soviet Union enabled its friendly countries in the Global South and East to build a manufacturing base, helped them ensure their security and secure the right to sovereign development, not to mention the USSR serving as a source of inspiration for national liberation movements around the world.

Today, we are witnessing a deep-running transformation in international relations with the emergence of a multipolar world order with greater justice for all. It must reflect the cultural and civilisational diversity of the present-day world and ensure that every nation can define its future and development path on its own.

Giving the Global Majority, i.e., the countries which do not belong to what we call the collective West and located in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America and the Caribbean, a stronger voice in international affairs has been a major trend. It is only by closing our ranks that we can effectively promote the vision of a just future we all share. In this context, it is essential that we consolidate the role played by interstate associations which stand for balanced, equal approaches to international development. This refers to frameworks abiding by the principles of equal cooperation in good faith, including BRICS, the SCO, the African Union, the EAEU, CIS, ASEAN, the Arab League, CELAC, GCC, IORA and many other associations.

Strengthening the international legal framework and stepping up collective action when taking decisions on matters of global concern has become instrumental. This is the only way of making these decisions effective and legitimate. The Charter of the United Nations is built around this very principle. Unfortunately, the decisions by the collective West, especially those on economic, financial matters, trade and in other domains are increasingly at odds with the UN Charter’s basic principles. This is why Russia, despite Western pressure, is once again locked in a struggle not only on its own behalf, but on behalf of the entire world, as President Vladimir Putin has aptly framed Russia’s position. It is high time for the Global Majority to come together and unite its efforts for delivering on this vision.

Eurasia’s new security architecture

Question: What are the key elements of the new security architecture in Eurasia? Does Russia have a roadmap or a concrete programme for its realisation? What steps will Russia take in 2025 to establish and reinforce it?

Answer: Enhancing practical cooperation in Eurasia is a priority for us. This continent serves as the geographical and geopolitical heart of the evolving multipolar international order. Currently, several independent centres of development are gaining strength here, alongside the implementation of successful integration projects. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s 2015 initiative to establish a Greater Eurasian Partnership focuses on aligning and harmonising these collaborative efforts.

Naturally, the nations of Eurasia are interested in achieving long-term stability in the military-political sphere. To this end, we are actively pursuing the development of a Eurasian security architecture grounded in the principles of equality and indivisibility, ensuring that the primary responsibility for resolving regional disputes and conflicts rests with the states of the continent. President Vladimir Putin proposed this initiative during a meeting with the Foreign Ministry leadership on June 14, 2024.

Our concept is grounded in the principle that “regional problems require regional solutions.” Responsibility for resolving conflicts and preventing harmful external interference must rest collectively with the nations of Eurasia.

This approach is particularly necessary given the collective West’s decision to prioritise a NATO-centric Euro-Atlantic architecture, effectively disregarding agreements reached primarily within the OSCE framework. These agreements, adopted by consensus at the highest level, emphasise the principle of indivisible security and affirm that no organisation should claim a dominant role.

The Eurasian security system we are developing is designed to replace the discredited Euro-Atlantic security model and its mechanisms.

In shaping this new security architecture, we consider the evolving geopolitical and international legal realities. Our approach is grounded in a genuine balance of interests, rather than the law of the strongest. Our objective is to stabilise the military-political situation across the entire continent, ensuring unity and interconnectivity. This is essential for building a just international order and fostering constructive multilateralism.

We believe it is crucial to take into account the growing experience of establishing trust-building measures of a political and military nature between states across different parts of the continent, in accordance with their needs and existing national capabilities.

Specifically, together with our Belarusian partners, we have developed a draft Security Concept for the Union State and adopted a bilateral interstate agreement on security guarantees.

In the course of fostering friendly relations with the DPRK, the Russian-Korean Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership was signed and has now entered into force.

The strategic collaboration and comprehensive partnership between Russia and China are crucial for enhancing stability in Eurasia. Our vision for the Eurasian architecture aligns seamlessly with the global security initiative proposed by PRC President Xi Jinping. One of its core principles is addressing the root causes of conflicts.

As part of advancing our initiative within the CIS framework, a Statement on the Principles of Cooperation in Ensuring Security in Eurasia was adopted. In addition to Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan have joined this document.

We will continue promoting this initiative at other platforms. We believe that existing security-related structures in Eurasia will establish cooperative ties to align their agendas. These structures include the CIS, CSTO, SCO, ASEAN, the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-Building Measures in Asia, and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf.

The mechanism of the Minsk conferences on Eurasian security has been established. The second forum of this kind took place in the capital of Belarus from October 31 to November 1, 2024.

We aim to develop a Eurasian Charter of Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. This document will outline a vision for interstate relations in the Eurasian space, focusing on security in all its dimensions within the geopolitical context of a multipolar world. It will be grounded in the principles of sovereign equality of states and the recognition of civilisational diversity. We will welcome the participation of all Eurasian countries committed to the goals of indivisible security – goals that remain unfulfilled within the failed Euro-Atlantic frameworks.

When we speak of equal and indivisible Eurasian security, we are not excluding European countries. However, their participation is contingent upon their willingness to engage in joint efforts based on equality and their commitment to rejecting hostile, bloc-oriented policies and neocolonial practices.

10th anniversary of the EAEU

Question: The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) celebrated its 10th anniversary on January 1, 2025. What do you think Eurasian integration has given to ordinary people? And how do you see the future of the association?

Answer: The EAEU is a successful regional integration association focused on the economy, with one of its objectives being to improve the wellbeing of the population in its member states. This is reflected in the favourable macroeconomic indicators in the association. For example, in the three quarters of 2024, the Union's total GDP grew by 4.2 percent compared to the same period in 2023. Naturally, this affects the living standards in our countries.

There are four freedoms of movement within the EAEU: free movement of goods, services, capital and labour. What does this mean for the people?

For example, residents of any EAEU member state can purchase goods or services produced within the EAEU countries at attractive prices and without considerable bureaucratic or time-related hurdles. Over the 10 years of the EAEU’s operation, the populations of the Union's member states have faced shortages of critical products very seldom. Our countries have successfully overcome such shortages in the shortest possible time, despite the challenges posed by the coronavirus pandemic and unprecedented sanctions pressure against Russia and Belarus.

At the same time, the EAEU provides citizens of its member states the opportunity to travel freely, seek employment, transfer money and receive social insurance in any country within the association. New enterprises are being established through the development of joint cooperation, which not only produce our own (non-imported) goods, but also create jobs. In this context, we emphasise that by the end of November 2024, the unemployment rate within the Union had fallen by 18.1 percent, and the number of unemployed was only 0.7 percent of the total working-age population. The average monthly real wages have been consistently growing.

Currently, the EAEU has a number of preferential and non-preferential trade agreements, and drafts of new trade liberalisation documents are being negotiated. These instruments aim to open access to the markets of third countries for the Union's enterprises and enable the saturation of its market with necessary products.

As for the second part of the question, the future of the EAEU undoubtedly looks positive and optimistic. Its strategic documents set ambitious goals, and we will work towards them, first of all, for the benefit of the people, who should actually feel all the advantages and benefits of integration in their daily lives within our historically common territory.

Syria update

Question: What are the prospects for Russian-Syrian relations in the current circumstances? Furthermore, how would you assess the interest of the new Syrian authorities in maintaining cooperation with Russia? At what stage are the negotiations between Moscow and the new authorities in Damascus today, particularly concerning Russian military bases? What measures and possibilities does Moscow envisage for preserving Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, given the intention of some parties to control parts of Syrian land? What are the prospects for the Astana format?

Answer: Syria continues to navigate a transitional period associated with the establishment of new authorities. Representatives of the current Syrian leadership identify their priority tasks at this stage as ensuring security and law and order, organising the effective functioning of state agencies, and extending the provisional government’s control in Damascus over the entire territory of the Syrian Arab Republic. The immediate initiation of an inclusive political process through broad dialogue, aimed at achieving national harmony while considering the interests of the various political, ethnic, and confessional components of Syrian society, remains on the agenda.

The necessary foundation for this dialogue already exists in the principles outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which defines the key areas of international efforts supporting a comprehensive political settlement in Syria. The ultimate goal is to hold general elections, the results of which will be recognised by all. Undoubtedly, this is a challenging endeavour that requires time. According to statements by the new Syrian authorities, preparations for the elections could span several years.

We remain hopeful that the Syrian people will successfully overcome the challenges they face and develop consensus decisions about the future of their state. We stand ready to provide the Syrians with all possible support.

We are open to constructive dialogue on all facets of Russian-Syrian relations, building upon the solid base of bilateral cooperation established over many years. This includes the functioning of our military bases, which could temporarily assume the additional role of humanitarian hubs, given the acute need for external assistance by the population of the country.

Regarding the Astana format, I would like to highlight that the positions of the three guarantor countries – Russia, Iran, and Türkiye – indicate that its potential is far from exhausted and that it can play a useful role in the future. As is known, Syria’s Arab neighbours – Lebanon, Iraq, and Jordan – have also made valuable contribution to its work as observers. For our part, we are committed to intensifying practical cooperation with our partners in the region to promote a comprehensive and sustainable settlement of the situation in and around Syria.

In light of the recent dramatic events in Syria, we emphasise the importance of maximum commitment by all regional players, including the Republic of Türkiye, to the principles of sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic, as well as the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2254.

Russia’s stance on the Middle East

Question: The situation in the Middle East is developing rapidly. The Syrian government has changed, and a new President has been elected in Lebanon. To what extent have Russia’s positions in this region changed?

Answer: We can see that the role of Arab countries is growing in the context of the emerging multipolar world. They possess rich cultural, economic and political potential, and pursue a balanced foreign policy. Strengthening comprehensive, mutually beneficial cooperation with leading Arab states, as well as their regional associations, primarily the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation Council, aligns with the interests of both Russia and its Middle Eastern and North African partners.

Our bilateral trade and economic relations with the countries in the region are overall stable. It is noteworthy that there has been a significant increase in humanitarian contacts, including cultural exchanges, an increase in the number of Arab tourists visiting Russia, and an expanding geography of trips by our citizens.

The direction and pace of the development of our relations are set by President of Russia Vladimir Putin, who regularly communicates with his Middle Eastern counterparts on a wide range of bilateral and international issues. Last autumn, the leaders of Egypt, Mauritania, the UAE, and Palestine took part in events within the framework of the BRICS summit in Kazan. In October 2024, President of the United Arab Emirates Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan visited Russia.

Russia makes a significant contribution to the search for comprehensive solutions for stabilising the situation in the hotspots in the Middle East and North Africa, including the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and Libya. Our Arab partners highly appreciate our constructive approach to resolving existing contradictions based on the need to take into account the opinions of all interested regional states.

Russia’s stance on the Kurdish issue

Question: Russia plays a major role in the Middle East. As we know, Russia has proposed several options for resolving the Kurdish issue in Syria and the Middle East as a whole. What will Russia’s stance on the Kurdish issue be under the current circumstances?

Answer: Russia’s stance on this issue is very well known. We have discussed it repeatedly and see no reason to adjust our principled approaches. We believe that the only way to ensure the sustainable stabilisation of the situation in Syria and create favourable conditions for its post-conflict restoration is to launch a comprehensive political process based on the fundamental elements envisaged in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, with the participation of all influential political forces and ethnic and confessional groups in the country, including, of course, the Kurds. We also proceed from the need to strictly adhere to the principles of unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic.

As for the special status of the Kurdish region, we believe that this sensitive issue is a purely internal matter for the Syrian Arab Republic. We believe that decisions on such a delicate matter as state structure should be made by the Syrians themselves based on a national consensus and without external prompts.

Russian-Iranian relations

Question: In which direction do Russia and Iran intend to advance their cooperation under the Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership, signed during Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian’s visit to Russia on January 17? Which sectors will be prioritised, and how will this Treaty influence Russia-Iran relations, particularly given the sanctions and pressure from Western countries?

Answer: The Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran was formalised following highest-level Russian-Iranian talks at the Kremlin on January 17, 2025. This document had been in development for the past three years, with all conditions having long been favourable. Our bilateral cooperation has achieved an unprecedented level under the direction of the leaders of both nations. The conclusion of such a comprehensive agreement marks a significant event, representing a new milestone in the history of bilateral relations, which have now reached the status of a comprehensive strategic partnership.

As President of Russia Vladimir Putin remarked, the revised interstate treaty is a genuinely ground-breaking document, setting forth ambitious objectives and benchmarks for enhancing cooperation in the long term. This pertains to political, military and military-technical, trade and investment, transport, energy, cultural and other priority areas.

The treaty legally enshrines the outcomes of cooperation across various domains achieved in recent years and establishes a framework for their continued development in line with contemporary demands. In terms of content, it will be augmented by specific interdepartmental and sectoral documents of a practical nature, which is particularly significant given the major infrastructure projects on our agenda.

Regarding the sanctions aspect, the treaty includes a comprehensive article dedicated to countering unilateral coercive measures. The parties unequivocally define these as internationally unlawful and unfriendly acts and commit to coordinating efforts to eradicate the detrimental practice of applying such measures in international relations. Furthermore, Russia and Iran have agreed to foster cooperation to establish a payment infrastructure independent of third countries, transition to bilateral settlements in national currencies (a goal practically realised), and enhance direct interbank communication. These are crucial areas our relevant agencies are addressing, with a clear understanding of the necessity to erect a robust barrier against adversaries in their determined attempts to harm Russian-Iranian trade and economic cooperation.

Russia-China cooperation on preserving the memory of WWII

Question: This year Russia marks the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War. What joint events are planned with the People’s Republic of China to celebrate this occasion? How would you evaluate the collaboration between Russia and China in preserving the memory of WWII and its historical events?

Answer: This year, we are celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory across both the European and Asian theatres of conflict. The peoples of the Soviet Union and China, having shouldered the formidable burden of resisting the aggressors, valiantly withstood the severe trials and triumphed over the enemy, albeit at the cost of tremendous human and material sacrifices. The memory of this monumental achievement by our forebears remains sacred to our nations, serving to fortify the enduring Russian-Chinese friendship and instil a sense of patriotism in our youth.

Russia and China are poised to celebrate this significant anniversary on a grand scale. The theme of the Great Victory, alongside the imperative of preserving historical memory and jointly countering any political distortions of the events from that era, will undoubtedly be at the forefront of Russian-Chinese engagements throughout the coming year, including at the highest level. Numerous commemorative ceremonies, scientific conferences, and exhibitions will be organised, with participation from public representatives, facilitated by the Russian-Chinese Committee of Friendship, Peace and Development, as well as other friendship associations from both countries.

Our cooperation with our Chinese friends in these areas and on international platforms is flourishing. This includes efforts to preserve historical memory, combat the glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism, and, more broadly, prevent any attempts to revise the outcomes of the Second World War and the post-war world order.

A crucial aspect of this collaboration is war memorial work. In China, more than 80 sites dedicated to our fallen soldiers have been registered, with several accorded the status of patriotic education sites at the legislative level. Our Chinese partners diligently maintain these monuments, ensuring they receive proper care and timely repairs. We can assert with confidence that together with our Chinese friends we are resolutely preserving the memory of those historic events and the sacrifices made by the peoples of both nations for the sake of future generations.

Prospects of a visa-free travel between Russia and China

Question: China has been steadily expanding the list of countries with visa-free entry, including unilaterally offering this to EU member states. However, Russia has not yet been included on this list (except for group travel). Do we understand the reasons behind this, and is there any resistance from Russia to establishing a visa-free regime?

Answer: We believe that one of the most important objectives of Russian-Chinese cooperation is the adoption of measures intended to create conditions for increasing contacts between the citizens of the two countries. To this end, we maintain a dialogue with our Chinese partners with a view to progressively liberalising the mutual travel regime.

Our countries have successfully implemented the 2013 Agreement on the Facilitation of Travel for Citizens, which provides for simplified visa processing, as well as agreements on the mutual cancellation of visa requirements with the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the PRC (2009) and Macau (2012).

The bilateral intergovernmental agreement on visa-free group tourist travel of 2000 was renewed in August 2023. The Russian Ministry of Economic Development is currently working on the possibility of reducing the threshold for the minimum size of a tourist group and increasing the period of visa-free stay in the host country.

We look forward to further developing our interaction with our Chinese partners in this area, based on the practice and results of implementing the existing agreements.

Russia’s interaction with African countries

Question: Russia’s engagement with African nations is intensifying, with exports flourishing across various sectors, prominently within the food industry. Conversely, Western collaboration with African countries is diminishing, most notably exemplified by the withdrawal of French and American troops from several nations on the continent. Should we anticipate deliberate Western attempts to undermine Russian-African relations in 2025?

Answer: Russia has been systematically striving to enhance the full spectrum of relations with African states. The solid foundations of successful Russian-African collaboration lie in our shared objective of cultivating a just world and, to a large extent, a harmonious approach to addressing pressing international issues.

Over the past year, we have maintained a traditionally high calibre of political dialogue both bilaterally and with major continental integration associations, devoid of politicisation, coercion, or interference in internal affairs.

Particular emphasis was placed on coordination with African states across various multilateral platforms, primarily at the United Nations. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, Russia contributes significantly to formulating a unified strategic direction for bolstering peace and stability in Africa, resolving and preventing conflicts. Concurrently, we align with the consolidated stance of the African Union, as conveyed by the non-permanent African members of the Security Council, and support enhancing their influence when adopting relevant resolutions and other Council decisions.

The year’s pivotal event was the inaugural ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, convened in early November 2024 in Sochi, with the participation of African foreign ministers and leaders of integration associations’ executive bodies. This event enabled us to synchronise with most of our African partners and discuss subsequent steps to deepen cooperation. On the sidelines, a significant suite of documents was signed, including two intergovernmental agreements on visa-free travel for diplomatic and service passport holders with Rwanda and the Central African Republic and four memoranda on foreign ministry consultations with Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and Chad.

We are expanding our diplomatic footprint in Africa. In December 2024, the Russian Government mandated the establishment of an embassy in the Republic of South Sudan and the reinstatement of diplomatic missions in the Republics of Niger and Sierra Leone after a prolonged hiatus.

Taking into account the needs of our partners, Russia seeks to leverage its inherent competitive advantages, where we possess expertise and experience.

Given that the situation in certain parts of Africa remains exceedingly challenging due to the activities of numerous extremist groups, we have aided in bolstering the counter-terrorism capabilities of African states and enhancing the combat effectiveness of national armed forces by deploying our specialists, as well as facilitating training in Russia for personnel from these countries’ military and security agencies.

Russia has consistently fortified multifaceted trade and economic relations, especially in sectors that resonate with the aspirations of Africans themselves and influence their social and economic development: agriculture, energy, information and communications technology, and healthcare.

Cultural cooperation is flourishing. We are systematically expanding assistance in cultivating the human resource potential of African nations, including increasing the number of scholarships, opening branches of Russian universities and schools, and establishing a network of open education centres.

A programme to support African countries in ensuring the sanitary and epidemiological well-being of their populations from 2023 to 2025 is underway. We continue to bolster the continent’s food security through grain and fertiliser supplies.

Concerning Western efforts to undermine Russian-African relations, the collective West has, for many years, waged an unprecedented campaign against the Russian Federation, particularly in areas where we are making substantial progress. Relations with Africa fall into this category.

The United States and its allies persist in exerting pressure on African leaders through threats of sanctions and the withdrawal of financial and humanitarian aid. In some instances, they resort to outright blackmail and coercion. They are striving by all conceivable means to preserve their neo-colonial dominance, which allowed them to disregard the sovereignty of African countries and continue exploiting their resources to fulfil their hegemonic ambitions.

Today, Western countries are confronted with the urgent necessity to replenish the depleted vital resources needed to sustain their industries and develop their economies, ideally at minimal cost. Their objective now is to address, one might say, existential challenges. This is evident from the methods they employ.

In stark contrast, it is a tradition of Russian diplomacy, with its centuries-old history, to advance its own agenda, prioritising the state interests of Russia and its allies, while considering all possible external factors based on the principles of sovereign equality of states and justice. We have no intention of deviating from this course.

Our nation staunchly upholds the principle of free choice in the developmental path of sovereign countries, which underpins the development of Russian-African relations.

We consider the balance of national interests and forge constructive relations with foreign countries, which independently determine their domestic and foreign policy. This is the primary distinction between Russia’s foundational approaches and those of the former Western metropolises.

It will not be long before it becomes clear who stands on the right side of history with their approaches.

Russia’s stance on potential US sanctions against NIS

Question: How does Moscow view the US sanctions imposed on NIS? Are they targeting Russia or Serbia, and what is the intended goal? Are Moscow and Belgrade conducting any consultations on this matter?

Answer: The US motives concerning NIS are driven by a desire to undermine at all costs the extremely successful project of cooperation between the Russian investor and the Serbian side. This is a blow to the decades-long effective cooperation between our countries, as well as the Serbian economy and citizens. The logic of “either with us or not at all,” which the West has become accustomed to, has no regard for Serbian interests. The American claim that the sanctions are not directed against Belgrade is a lie and an example of hypocrisy.

This issue is not just about the previous US administration; it reflects the long-term policy of the collective West aimed at the neocolonial subjugation of other countries and control over their economies and resources. They are allergic to and reject genuine independence and sovereignty.

So far, Russia and Serbia have successfully withstood aggressive attacks and shielded their cooperation from hostile intrigues. We trust that a mutually acceptable solution will be found this time as well. We are working together on the situation, proceeding from the need to maintain a strategic partnership with Serbia, which is based on the centuries-old fraternal ties between the peoples of our two countries, as well as on the fundamental national interests and fair cooperation.

We believe that in the year of the 80th anniversary of the Great Victory, it is utterly important to reaffirm in practice our commitment to true guidelines and values, to the legacy of the victors. The peoples of Russia and Serbia stood shoulder to shoulder against the enemy in two world wars, defeated Nazism together, and laid the foundation for a new system of international relations. Today, not only our countries, but the entire world is undergoing another test of strength. We are confident that we will be able to maintain close relations for the sake of future generations.

We look forward to welcoming our Serbian friends in Moscow at the celebrations marking the anniversary of the Victory.

Media counteraction to the falsification of history

Question: In the CIS, 2025 marks the 80th anniversary of Victory. There is not a single family in the CIS countries that has not been impacted by the Great Patriotic War. Why is it important to keep memory of this? What goal are those who are trying to rewrite history pursuing?

Answer: Russian diplomacy is using every available platform and level to uphold the historical truth, the truth about the Great Patriotic War, and is fighting for our monuments. Now, as we can all see, the entire collective West is opposing us.

It takes on a special meaning in the run-up to the 80th anniversary of Victory and Defender of the Fatherland Year announced by President Putin in honour of our heroes and participants in the special military operation of today and in memory of the feats of all our ancestors who fought in different historical periods for the Motherland, and to glorify our fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers who crushed Nazism.

The Anglo-Saxons never stop to test the determination of Russia and the world majority to uphold the law-based world order enshrined in 1945 in the UN Charter. The West’s ideological war on our Victory is an integral part of its efforts to dismantle the post-war world order. A liberal agenda and a neo-colonial “rules-based” world order are being promoted in its stead. We have seen what this has led to in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and now Ukraine.

The West has consistently created an ideological foundation for revanchist Russophobic forces, placing “heroes” from among the “Forest Brothers”, thugs from the OUN-UPA, and ethnic SS divisions on a historical pedestal. Dozens of monuments have been erected to commemorate them in Canada and the United States, which have become places of worship for new generations of extremists and neo-Nazis. Since the 1990s, the “emissaries” that were raised in the West have been placed in the top positions in the leadership of the Baltic countries and infiltrated the leadership of Ukraine.

We can see that the masks have been thrown off in the international arena when it comes to voting at the UN General Assembly on the resolution that is put forward annually by the Russian Federation and is titled “Combating glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and other practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.” Until a few years ago, only the United States and Ukraine consistently opposed it; the EU abstained. Now, the West is voting “against” as one. It is called “bloc discipline.”

There is a coordinated campaign run by several countries to distort the history of World War II. Particularly blasphemous are the claims replicated by Western politicians, experts and mass media to the effect that Russia has allegedly appropriated victory and diminished the role of other Soviet peoples and the Allies. The absurd assertions, such as that, for example, the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was liberated by Ukrainians, Americans and anyone else but Soviet soldiers, have one goal - to wipe out the role of the Red Army from the history of the defeat of Nazism, to smear the Soviet Union with accusations of silencing the tragedy of the Holocaust, and so on.

On a daily basis we have to tell in foreign languages through our information resources about the true heroes of World War II from rank-and-file soldiers to marshals, that it was the Soviet Union that put an end to the extermination of the Jews. During her weekly briefings, the Ministry’s spokeswoman speaks about manifestations of neo-Nazism in Europe and overseas, such as extremist marches, desecration of Soviet war memorials, and attempts to rewrite history, and exposes the falsehoods that are spread in the West.

Our entire media arsenal, including digital diplomacy tools - more than 1,200 social media accounts with a monthly outreach to up to 75 million users - is used to disseminate objective information, in major foreign languages, about World War II, the crimes committed by the Third Reich and its henchmen, Holocaust deniers, and the genocide of the Soviet people.

We have long cooperated with our historians and experts in exposing and publicising the crimes committed by the Nazis and their henchmen. We are talking about popularising domestic research and declassified materials concerning the facts of the genocide of the Soviet people.

Recognising at the international level the crimes committed by the Nazis on the Soviet territory as acts of genocide has been a long time coming. It will restore historical justice to all peoples of the former Soviet Union. Recognition of the genocide of the Soviet peoples will confirm the international community’s outright rejection of the hateful ideology of Nazism and racial superiority.

The authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany recognise the genocide by Nazi Germany of the Jewish ethnos, gypsies, targeted extermination of religious and other groups of the population under Nazi control. At the same time, Berlin refuses to recognise the genocide of the Soviet peoples, which is not only absurd in terms of logic and reasoning, but is also deeply offensive to the descendants of the victims of Nazism in the former Soviet Union, and is considered by us as an attempt to introduce a “hierarchy of victims” and rewrite history.

We call on all countries of the world to join Russia’s initiative and to support it on international platforms. The solidarity of all the forces that share our beliefs - public, expert, Russian and foreign - is critically important.

Russian-Moldovan relations: the Transnistrian settlement

Question: This question is about the situation around Transnistria: its residents are increasingly being turned into pariahs the way it happened to DPR and LPR residents against whom Kiev launched the so-called anti-terrorist operation. In Moldova, the opposite side is now doing exactly the same thing by pushing talk of expelling the Russian peacekeeping contingent from that territory. Can this problem be solved diplomatically, or is there a risk that it will follow the Ukrainian scenario – disruption of the Minsk agreements and provocation of hostilities?

A humanitarian crisis is developing in Transnistria due to the cessation of gas transit by Ukraine. There are only a few weeks’ worth of gas reserves left, and the same problem with coal reserves. What steps is the Russian Foreign Ministry taking to help the republic? What options exist to solve the problem? Are there any negotiations on this issue?

Answer: The situation in Moldova remained tense in 2024. The October-November presidential elections and a referendum on Moldova’s accession to the EU further undermined the internal stability, fragile as it was. The authorities backed up by Washington and Brussels resorted to election rigging. The victory by the ruling forces was ensured by Moldovan expats in the West whereas voters inside the country resolutely voted against.

The destructive policy of the authorities and their refusal to engage in dialogue with the people have led to the extreme polarisation of society and further undermined confidence in the leadership which continues to lead the country along the path of Ukraine, recklessly following disastrous instructions from the West. Under the guise of European integration, Moldova’s sovereignty and national identity are being dismantled, and a neoliberal agenda alien to Moldovan society is being forcibly introduced. Despite the status of neutrality enshrined in the Constitution, rapprochement with NATO continues at an accelerated pace.

At the same time, Chisinau is pursuing a course of destroying the legal and contractual basis for cooperation within the CIS in various spheres. The Moldovan authorities have decided that about 120 agreements allegedly “have no practical value,” and keep consistently denouncing them.

Chisinau’s attitude towards our country remains strongly hostile. The statements that Russia is the key threat to the republic are enshrined in the updated doctrinal documents of the country: the National Security Strategy and the National Defence Strategy. The official bilateral dialogue is actually frozen. Obviously, not at our initiative.

The Moldovan authorities are cynically trying to shift the responsibility for all internal problems onto Russia, including the current acute energy crisis which has affected the inhabitants of Transnistria the most. This policy is part of the Russophobic campaign unleashed in the country and confirms that the anti-people regime of Maia Sandu has nothing else to offer except the myth of the “Russian threat.”

The past 2024 did not change the deadlocked situation in the Transnistrian settlement. Chisinau, supported by Kiev and the West, continued its efforts to reshape the existing multilateral mechanism of this process to its own liking. Certain participants in the 5+2 negotiation format directly or indirectly blocked its work. This approach was accompanied by an ultimatum position from the Moldovan authorities in their dialogue with Tiraspol, which they tried to justify by Moldova’s European integration commitments.

Chisinau was building up unconcealed financial, economic and logistical pressure on Tiraspol. In fact, there were attempts of economic strangulation of the left bank. Obviously, it is hardly possible to expect any substantive discussion between the parties about the prospects for the settlement of the Transnistrian problem in these circumstances.

The energy crisis that befell the region in late 2024 - early 2025 due to the Moldovan leadership’s failure to recognise its debt to Gazprom and Kiev’s refusal to extend the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine has finally exposed Chisinau’s indifference towards Transnistria. The Moldovan side is openly avoiding solving the gas problems that arose due to its fault.

Against the background of the growing militarisation of Moldova, the assurances by the country’s leadership that it intends to settle the Transnistrian problem by peaceful means are not credible.

Once again, we should like to warn the hotheads in Chisinau against fantasising about using the energy crisis in the country to resolve the Transnistrian issue by force. Russia will respond adequately to any provocations and will ensure the protection of Russian citizens in Transnistria, the peacekeeping contingent, servicemen of the Operational Group of Russian Forces and the military depots in the village of Cobasna.

Russia will continue to play a decisive role in ensuring peace and stability on the Dniester. Russian peacekeepers are professionally and reliably pursuing their mission as part of the Joint Peacekeeping Force.

Russian-Armenian relations

Question: As usual, Russians are not indifferent to what is going on in Armenia. It hurts to watch the Armenian PM ruining Russia-Armenia relations, supporting Russophobia, and stubbornly attempting to step into Kiev’s 2014 shoes.

According to Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk, Moscow regards Armenia’s discussion of a bill on joining the EU as the start of its withdrawal from the EAEU. What is the likely procedure for expelling Armenia from the EAEU? What line in diplomacy should Moscow follow?

Answer: Russian-Armenian relations are going through a difficult period. In many respects, this is the consequence of the West’s actions. Last year, the West was building up pressure on Armenia and incited it to break off its traditional ties with Russia. It also attempted to impose value orientations that are alien to the Armenians. Regrettably, the republic often responded benignly to the totally unsupported US and EU promises to replace Russia for Armenia. In the meantime, the Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) is the cornerstone of Armenia’s security and the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) is the key to its economic prosperity.

We have repeatedly explained to our Armenian friends that, in fact, neither Washington nor Brussels have ever given thought to the fate or interests of their partners. The West tends to view them solely from the utilitarian point of view. Yerevan could not but take notice of the developments in Georgia late last year. In all evidence, people in Armenia also heard the notoriously cynical remarks about it being a “low-cost” affair for the Europeans to “delink” Yerevan from Moscow, as well as the advice that the Armenians should be ready for “several cold winters.” This matches the recent forecast issued by Stratfor, a US intelligence company known for its close ties with the US security services. The document said openly that the new administration in Washington would hardly be as keenly concerned with Armenia as its predecessor.

Moscow has always cherished its fraternal relations with Yerevan. We regard the republic as one of our natural strategic partners and allies. We are committed to the entire scope of agreements with Armenia in trade, economy, and the military-political area, signed both bilaterally and as part of the legal infrastructure at common integration associations. At the same time, Russia has no hidden agenda or “projects” that might affect Armenia’s security or economic wellbeing.

This is confirmed by the indicators of bilateral trade and economic cooperation. Calculations are yet to be finalised, but we can safely state that trade reached an absolute record in 2024. Incidentally, the republic’s trade with the EU and the United States, both of them urging Armenia to give up the Russian market, is at an incomparably lower level and suffering a decline.

Russia remains Armenia’s main trade and investment partner. Russian economic operators invariably lead in terms of tax payments to the Armenian budget and are among the major employers. The recent meeting of the Russian-Armenian Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation was quite productive. We rate highly the outcomes of Armenia’s chairmanship of the EAEU governing bodies in 2024. There is no doubt that it is Armenia’s involvement in Eurasian integration that fueled the rapid growth of its GDP in recent years. At the same time, we have to reiterate that Eurasian economic integration and EU membership are incompatible.

We hope that in 2025, we will be able to make much headway in implementing a number of important projects and boost cultural, humanitarian, and inter-regional exchanges.

Russian-Georgian relations

Question: The Georgian Dream party has declared that the European Parliament will pass a resolution on Georgia soon, which will urge Tbilisi to go to war with Russia. The party believes that these measures would lead to the collapse of the Georgian economy. Is Moscow ready to support Georgia in the face of the Western pressure, if Tbilisi asks it to, of course?

Answer: Russia is not by far indifferent to the developments in neighbouring Georgia. Both nations’ destinies are closely intertwined and they are united by common history, culture, faith, and extensive people-to-people contacts.

But, unlike the US and the EU that continue trying to impose their will on Georgia in their usual flagrant manner, we do not interfere in the republic’s internal affairs. The outgoing US administration and the EU are doing whatever they can to change the sovereign choice that the Georgian people and their elected authorities have made in favour of peace and prosperity. Their ultimatum to Tbilisi is: either you are with the West or with Russia. We are convinced that the Georgian people will be firm and wise enough not to become a plaything in someone else’s hands that are pushing the country towards an economic and political instability.

As for our bilateral relations, we would like to stress that their normalisation meets the interests of both Russian and Georgian people. President Vladimir Putin’s 2023 decisions to resume the air service [with Georgia] and cancel visas for short-term Georgian visits to Russia have incentivised tourist exchanges. Direct air flights are increasingly frequent, reaching more destinations. To promote humanitarian and business ties, in October 2024, Russia extended its visa-free regime to Georgian citizens coming to Russia to study, work, or take residence. We are ready to normalise Russian-Georgian relations still further, advancing along this path as far as Tbilisi will be prepared to contemplate.

Situation on the Korean Peninsula

Question: The situation on the Korean Peninsula aggravated following the beginning of the conflict involving Ukraine. What can you say about current Russia-DPRK relations?

Answer: Thanks to the great emphasis placed on them by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin and Chairman of State Affairs of the DPRK Kim Jong-un, Russia’s relations with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have reached an unprecedentedly high level, which was duly formalised following the historic meeting of the leaders of the two countries in Pyongyang in June 2024.

The signing of a new foundational document between the two countries - the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between the Russian Federation and the DPRK, which officially entered into force after the exchange of instruments of ratification in Moscow on December 4, 2024 - was the most consequential outcome of the summit. It codified the allied nature of the traditionally friendly Russia-North Korea ties that are making wide strides amid the existing geopolitical circumstances that have undergone dramatic changes and are based on mutual support regarding key international issues.

The renewed status of our relations is underscored by the newly launched strategic ministerial dialogue, the first round of which was held in Moscow on November 1, 2024.

During the 11th meeting of the Russian-Korean Intergovernmental Commission on Trade, Economic, Scientific and Technical Cooperation held in Pyongyang the same month, the participants summed up the performance results and set ambitious goals to further expand mutually beneficial practical cooperation.

It is particularly comforting to see contacts expand in the humanitarian sphere, particularly at the regional level, between educational and cultural institutions, as well as youth and sports organisations.

We are committed to continuing energetic joint efforts with our Korean partners to implement the existing agreements aimed at deepening and comprehensively expanding Russia-DPRK cooperation across a wide range of areas.

The government of the Republic of Korea, though, continued to follow the openly hostile anti-Russia policy pursued by the collective West.

For our part, we urged Seoul to prevent the collapse of Russia-South Korea ties, and to preserve the existing wealth of political, economic and humanitarian cooperation with an eye towards reinstating it, provided that South Korea realises that its unfriendly policies with regard to Russia are a mistake and adjusts its Russian policy.

Amid the unprecedented internal political crisis ravaging the Republic of Korea, we reaffirm our unwavering commitment to continuing a constructive dialogue with the legitimate government of that country which has a stake in normalising relations with Russia and reducing tensions on the Korean Peninsula, among other things.

Last year, amid the continuing woeful deterioration of the security situation in that country, threats of a new large-scale military conflict have been mounting as a result of the sweeping militarisation of this sub-region by the United States and its allies. The rift between the parties involved in the Korean settlement has been deepening as a result of bloc confrontation imposed by Washington.

Having reformatted the bilateral alliance into a “nuclear” alliance, the United States and the Republic of Korea proceeded to consistently increase joint military activity, practiced preventive “decapitation” strikes against the DPRK, and strengthened the triple alliance with Japan by imparting NATO-like functions to this alliance. Clearly, confrontational policies of this kind pose a real threat to security on the Korean Peninsula and throughout Northeast Asia.

If the United States had been interested in a political and diplomatic settlement in the region, it would have taken practical steps to help de-escalate military and political tensions and restart the negotiating process. However, we have seen nothing of the sort take place over the past year. Moreover, justifying their aggressive plans in the UN Security Council, Washington and its allies continued to advocate for ratcheting up the inhumane and indefinite sanctions on the DPRK. At the same time, they ignored the resolutions prescribing to address the issues of the peninsula exclusively by peaceful, diplomatic and political means.

We are convinced that considering the circumstances at hand Pyongyang is fully within its right to take its own measures to ensure its security and to protect its sovereignty. We consider the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between the Russian Federation and the DPRK an effective instrument for deterring external aggression. Its Article 4 says our countries may provide each other with appropriate assistance. This provision is fully consistent with the spirit and letter of the Charter of the United Nations and is designed to reduce the risk of recurring hostilities on the peninsula, including with the use of nuclear weapons, and also to eventually become an element of a sustainable architecture of indivisible security in this region and, more broadly, Eurasia.

Russian-Japanese relations

Question: What is Russia’s take on the prospects for continued cooperation with Japan in the energy sector considering sanctions imposed on it? Are there plans to expand LNG supplies or to implement new joint projects?

What are the prospects for signing a peace treaty with Japan considering the circumstances? What steps is Russia willing to take in order to have it signed?

Is there an ongoing dialogue between Russia and Japan in the humanitarian sphere regarding the resumption of Japanese visits to ancestral graves on the Kuril Islands?

Are there any plans to expand Russia-Japan relations in terms of cultural and staff exchanges this year?

Answer: The energy sector is one of the few remaining areas in which our countries still maintain constructive interaction. Russia is keeping its obligations under the existing agreements in full and is not preventing the Japanese businesses from participating in the projects implemented in our country, particularly on Sakhalin. Unfortunately, energy cooperation is marred by elements of fleeting political considerations inherent in Tokyo’s Russian policy. After the special military operation in Ukraine had begun, Japan adopted an openly anti-Russia policy as a nod to the so-called Western solidarity, which led to the dismantling of decades-old relations of neighbourliness and mutually beneficial cooperation. There is no place for illusions. The Japanese authorities recognise that energy cooperation with Russia at this point is vitally important for national energy security. However, we have not heard Tokyo disavow statements carried by the media concerning its plans to “become completely independent” from Russian energy.

Unfortunately, new projects are out of question given the circumstances. The complete destruction of every foundation underlying the pragmatic approach to interaction, for which the Japanese government is entirely responsible, and Tokyo’s across-the-board dependence on its allies’ decisions are taking their toll. In particular, the United States has essentially frozen Japan’s participation in Arctic LNG-2 project to suit its own commercial interests, despite the fact that Japan also referred to this energy project as a major part of its energy security.

Of course, it’s up to Japan to decide on what to do next. Our energy will find its consumer no matter what.

With regard to a peace treaty with Japan, we emphasise that since the beginning of the special military operation in February 2022, the Japanese government has embarked on an openly unfriendly path in its relations with Russia. Packages of illegal sanctions are multiplying, and the Russophobic sentiment is purposefully instigated in Japanese society. Also, jointly with the United States and other NATO members, Japan is increasing its military activity near the Far Eastern borders of our country, which includes exercises involving the use of attack weapons. Japan is providing direct logistical assistance to Kiev as well.

Considering the circumstances, we see no path for continuing the erstwhile dialogue on concluding a foundational document to establish long-term neighbourly relations with Japan. Our position on this matter was reflected in full in the Foreign Ministry’s statement of March 21, 2022.

The 1991 agreements on visa-free exchanges between the southern Kuril Islands and Japan, and the 1999 agreement on former Japanese residents of the southern Kurils visiting their former places of residence were terminated as well.

However, we did not shut Russia’s doors to Japanese citizens. Anyone willing to visit the graves of their relatives in the southern Kuril Islands can do so using passports and visas. The stance adopted by the Japanese government, which has, in fact, banned such trips, is the only obstacle that stands in the way of such travel.

With regard to plans to expand Russian-Japanese relations in the humanitarian sphere, cultural and humanitarian exchanges have been preserved despite the overall negative background between our countries. In the current situation, they are particularly important for maintaining ties between the peoples of Russia and Japan. However, interaction in this sphere should be a two-way road rather than a tool to advance the interests of one side only.

Japanese cultural events continue unfettered in our country. The annual Festival of Russian Culture in Japan, which invariably attracts ordinary Japanese citizens, is scheduled to be held this year.

Unfortunately, elements of the Western cancel-Russian-culture policy can be seen in Japan as well. In particular, the Festival organisers occasionally receive threats and demands to terminate it. Japanese media play an important role in this, as they foster an environment of intolerance and even hatred with regard to anything that is related to Russia.

This approach has taken its toll on tourism as well. Indeed, the number of Russian tourists visiting Japan is on the rise, but not the number of Japanese tourists to Russia. The politically biased advisories issued by the Foreign Ministry of Japan to stay away from visits to our country are part of the reason explaining this state of affairs.

Without a doubt, resuming direct flights could help a lot in restoring people-to-people exchanges, especially since neither side has officially closed its skies to the other.

Russian-Italian relations

Question: In late 2024, President of Russia Vladimir Putin told a news conference that Russia felt sympathetic towards both the Italian public and Italy itself. Does this feeling extend to the Italian Government led by Giorgia Meloni? Can Italy play a role in Ukrainian settlement or in protecting Russia’s interests in the EU? Does it have potential for being a bridge between Russia and the EU?

Answer: Russia, in fact, is sincerely sympathetic towards the Italian people. We are fond of Italy’s rich culture, arts, and creative achievements. The majority of Italians are sober-minded and friendly people. Russians and Italians have much in common, including a commitment to beauty and justice, respect for family and kinship ties, and a shared interest towards each other.

At the same time, it is hardly possible to use abstract categories such as sympathy or antipathy where interstate relations are involved. As we define our policy towards Italy, we are guided by our national interests and the principle of reciprocity. Regrettably, Russian-Italian relations are in a crisis, the worst one since World War II, and there is no doubt that Rome is to blame for it. It was the Italian initiative to freeze all mechanisms of institutional interaction, causing a collapse of bilateral ties. In effect, we have lost the achievements that took decades to be earned.

We will not engage in guesswork as to how soon Rome will come to its senses and realise the full extent of the economic, social and reputational damage caused by the collective West’s reckless policy to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia and contain it through its illegitimate sanctions. But it is evident that reviving Russian-Italian mutually beneficial cooperation would meet the interests of both nations. Yet, let us stress once again: Rome is to blame for disrupting our bilateral dialogue and it is up to Rome to clear the mess created by its detrimental actions.

As for the second part of your question, it is hard to imagine what role in settling the Ukrainian conflict could be played by a country which has been in the vanguard of the hostile anti-Russian policy since the start of the special military operation, intends to support the bloody neo-Nazi Kiev regime across the board and “as long as it takes,” as Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni likes to say, and renders it considerable military, military-technical, and financial assistance.

Given Italy’s anti-Russian posture, we cannot regard it as a possible participant in the peace process and even less so as an “upholder of Russian interests in the EU.” The situation being what it is, this sounds clearly ridiculous.

If Italy wants to make an actual and tangible contribution to peace settlement, it should primarily stop pumping Ukraine with weapons and sending there increasingly advanced types of weapons and military equipment. This can only lead to an uncontrolled escalation and more casualties, including among civilians.

Основные новости внешней политики

Международная безопасность

Foreign Ministry’s answers to media questions for Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s news conference on the performance of Russian diplomacy in 2024

Основные новости внешней политики

Международная безопасность

Поделиться ссылкой на выделенное