Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the 11th Primakov Readings International Forum, Moscow, June 24, 2025

Ladies and gentlemen,

Colleagues,

I would like to begin by thanking the organisers for inviting me to the latest Primakov Readings, which traditionally bring together a distinguished group of prominent politicians, researchers, experts, and public figures from around the world.

It is good to know that the interest in this forum remains strong and continues to grow. The Readings are inextricably linked to the name and legacy of Yevgeny Primakov who, many years ago, developed the concept of a multipolar world and correctly predicted that the strengthening of multipolar principles would become the main international development trend in the first half of the 21st century. Based on ongoing developments, this trend will last much longer. Most likely, the movement towards a new world order will take a historical era. We are at the beginning of this journey.

In the mid-1990s, Primakov’s doctrine provided a theoretical and philosophical response to concepts such as “the end of history,” “the clash of civilisations,” and “the end of autocracies.” We now know who was right: those who predicted groupthink and total domination of the Western liberal world order, or Yevgeny Primakov, our teacher, who inspired us to take the right side of history and embark on the right path forward towards the development of humanity based on equality and mutual benefit. President Vladimir Putin accurately stated this at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, saying that together with the People’s Republic of China and other like-minded countries, we are not artificially forming some kind of a new world order, but rather giving it a proper form and helping objective processes develop as effectively and quickly as possible.

In 1996, Yevgeny Primakov published his policy piece titled “International Relations on the Eve of the 21st Century: Issues and Prospects.” In it, he emphasised that the UN was the main mechanism capable of ensuring a smooth and the least painful transition to a multipolar democratic world, and that we should not “reinvent the wheel,” but strictly adhere to what is enshrined in the UN Charter, primarily, the principle of sovereign equality of states, which underlies multipolarity.

Many are saying that the Yalta-Potsdam system needs to be replaced. It depends on what we are talking about. If it is about the international legal framework, then there’s no need to revise the UN Charter. Go ahead and read it. It is the most equitable international document that has ever been adopted by almost all countries of our planet. True, not every country abides by the principles laid down in it. These principles get violated or ripped out of the context, or applied selectively. We insist that the principles of the UN Charter must be implemented consistently in their entirety and interconnection. Our Western colleagues go by a logic that fits into their philosophy of a “rules-based order.” No one has ever seen these rules, but they live by them.

The disintegration of Yugoslavia necessitated the severing of Kosovo from Serbia. It was decided that no referendum was required, as the former President of Finland, Martti Ahtisaari, who was at the time the UN Special Envoy for Kosovo and oversaw the dialogue between the Kosovars and Serbia, authored a report asserting that the long-standing discussions had yielded no meaningful results, and that it was, in all likelihood, time to declare independence. Without a referendum, without any formalities. They simply announced that Kosovo was, from that moment on, an independent entity. The West immediately lent its full support to this decision. President of Russia Vladimir Putin frequently refers to this episode. I bring it up once again, as it remains an undeniable and glaring example. The West claimed this was a matter of a nation’s right to self-determination and there were no acts of violence in Kosovo – no burnings, no executions – only a peaceful process. They merely concluded that the issue had been dragged on for too long, in an unproductive and tiresome fashion, and thus decided to “wrap up the whole affair.”

Six years later, however, when the people of Crimea and Donbass, in response to a bloody, illegal coup, chose to reject the putschists who had seized power unlawfully, conducted a referendum in Crimea, and proclaimed the independence of the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, the West promptly became agitated, condemning this as a gross violation of the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The West’s stance on human rights is equally contradictory. Article 1 of the UN Charter demands respect for human rights for every individual, regardless of race, gender, language, or religion. You are all aware of the treatment of the Russian language in Ukraine by these neo-Nazi “authorities,” and the fate they have decreed for the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The West, which consistently places human rights at the forefront of any global discussion – whether regarding Venezuela, Iran, the People’s Republic of China, Russia, or now even Hungary, among many others – has anyone ever heard the term “human rights” in its assessments of the actions of the Kiev regime over the past 11 years since the coup? I have not. On the contrary, figures such as Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, Josep Borrell before her, and Charles Michel have continually insisted that Ukraine must be pumped full of weapons and funds to sustain its offensive against Russia, in pursuit of the illusory goal of “inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia.” The central justification? That Ukraine is defending “European values.” The treatment of human rights regarding Russians exposes the persistent neo-Nazi tendencies and Nazi instincts within Europe. Recently, EU Commissioner for Enlargement and Ukraine’s Reconstruction Marta Kos stated that Ukraine had fulfilled all the conditions required to begin EU accession talks. That was it. That was all one needed to know about democracy and its current state in the European Union.

It is precisely to prevent such distorted and double-standard interpretations of the UN Charter that we supported Venezuela’s initiative three years ago to establish the Group of Friends in Defence of the UN Charter in New York. This group now consists of over twenty members, with others eager to join. The group is highly active, issuing regular statements – including one to be released today – on the developments in the Middle East, although primarily focused on the aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran. This coalition of like-minded states holds considerable promise. It was at their urging that the UN General Assembly, in December 2024, adopted by a substantial majority its first-ever resolution condemning modern practices of neo-colonialism. We could also discuss how, despite achieving political freedom, former colonies – particularly in Africa – have yet to attain the economic equality demanded by that very same UN Charter.

Now, the second wave of Africa’s liberation is rising. Our African friends are paying more and more attention to the fact that their entire economies are still largely based on siphoning off natural resources from these countries. In fact, all value added is produced and pocketed by the former Western metropoles and other European Union and NATO members.

I will say another thing, which is important in the year of the 80th anniversary of our Great Victory. This is an obvious trend to revive Nazism despite the binding and universally respected judgments of the Nuremberg Tribunal. This is a direct way to revising the entire post-war international legal architecture. I do not doubt that they know it in the West and in Europe, and probably are trying for the same purpose to encourage neo-Nazi and Nazi trends in the Ukrainian regime, in the Baltics and in some other countries. They expect that following their concept of “rules-based order” they will use these processes and trends to cause maximum damage to Russia or, as they say, to “contain Russia.” Now, however, they say not to “contain,” but to “defeat,” otherwise our country would allegedly destroy Europe in three to four years.

The position of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, a citizen of Portugal, a member of the European Union and NATO, is evoking a great regret. He not only regularly and overtly abuses his powers and refuses (notwithstanding our repeated claims) to call things by their names and even assist in obtaining basic information. For example, this is the case with our repeated requests to invoke his authority so that we could be presented with a list of names of those whose corpses were shown by BBC journalists in Bucha in April 2022. Despite the fact that an investigation was announced, no one but us is now talking about any of its results any more. Still, we have yet to find out the names of the people, for whose lives and in memory of their sacrifices all that was conceived and another wave of sanctions was planned. I am not even talking about 2014. There is not any investigation to find who burnt 50 people alive in the Trade Unions House in Odessa. However, no investigation is necessary. All those people are recorded on video and the tapes should only be spelled out, and there is nothing else to talk about.

Now, the second wave of Africa’s liberation is rising. Our African friends are paying more and more attention to the fact that their entire economies are still largely based on siphoning off natural resources from these countries. In fact, all value added is produced and pocketed by the former Western metropoles and other European Union and NATO members.

I will say another thing, which is important in the year of the 80th anniversary of our Great Victory. This is an obvious trend to revive Nazism despite the binding and universally respected judgments of the Nuremberg Tribunal. This is a direct way to revising the entire post-war international legal architecture. I do not doubt that they know it in the West and in Europe, and probably are trying for the same purpose to encourage neo-Nazi and Nazi trends in the Ukrainian regime, in the Baltics and in some other countries. They expect that following their concept of “rules-based order” they will use these processes and trends to cause maximum damage to Russia or, as they say, to “contain Russia.” Now, however, they say not to “contain,” but to “defeat,” otherwise our country would allegedly destroy Europe in three to four years.

The position of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, a citizen of Portugal, a member of the European Union and NATO, is evoking a great regret. He not only regularly and overtly abuses his powers and refuses (notwithstanding our repeated claims) to call things by their names and even assist in obtaining basic information. For example, this is the case with our repeated requests to invoke his authority so that we could be presented with a list of names of those whose corpses were shown by BBC journalists in Bucha in April 2022. Despite the fact that an investigation was announced, no one but us is now talking about any of its results any more. Still, we have yet to find out the names of the people, for whose lives and in memory of their sacrifices all that was conceived and another wave of sanctions was planned. I am not even talking about 2014. There is not any investigation to find who burnt 50 people alive in the Trade Unions House in Odessa. However, no investigation is necessary. All those people are recorded on video and the tapes should only be spelled out, and there is nothing else to talk about.

The resurgence of Nazism – and the manner in which it is perceived in the West (either turning a blind eye or actively encouraging it) – is deemed acceptable as long as it inflicts harm upon Russia (as they see it), whether physically “on the battlefield” or morally and politically, by undermining and attempting to erase from history the Great Victory over fascism, achieved primarily through the efforts and sacrifices of our people.

Consider the conduct of officials such as United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres, who flagrantly violate Article 100 of the UN Charter – a provision mandating impartiality and restricting their functions to administrative matters. The leadership of UNESCO has followed suit, offering a brilliant example by declaring the centre of Odessa a World Heritage Site mere weeks after barbarians demolished the monument to Catherine the Great, the city’s founder under whose reign the entire region flourished, with cities, ports, and factories constructed. Another case is the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, whose Director-General Fernando Arias has capitulated to Western demands in blatant, egregious violations of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. This document explicitly requires consensus for any changes to the framework of cooperation – a principle now utterly disregarded.

Consensus, as an indispensable foundation for institutional functioning, is also a core principle of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Yet the OSCE Secretariat’s leadership – alongside chairpersons hailing from EU and NATO countries – routinely trample upon it. Finland, the current OSCE chair, is no exception, covertly preparing an event this August to mark the 50th anniversary of the Helsinki Final Act. According to our information, closed-door meetings and exclusive gatherings are being orchestrated – with no intention of addressing how Western policies have led OSCE members astray. The Finns will later draft some concluding document and loudly proclaim their jubilee to the world. Yet the overwhelming disapproval of these Western revisionist tendencies was starkly evident in the participation of dozens of Global South leaders at this year’s May 9 Victory Day celebrations on Red Square.

I will not delve exhaustively into our specific approaches to resolving the Ukrainian crisis. President Vladimir Putin has once again articulated them in meticulous detail (they have never changed) during discussions at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum.

Unlike our position, the approaches of Western so-called leaders mutate incessantly, reflecting the failure of their initial designs. Recall how it began? “Russia must suffer a strategic defeat on the battlefield.” The rhetoric was shrill, hysterical. Then the slogan shifted: “Russia must not win in Ukraine.” Now they plead for an “immediate ceasefire without preconditions” – precisely what Vladimir Zelensky categorically rejected a couple of years ago, when he still operated under the mantra of “strategic battlefield defeat.” The fiasco of Western strategy and tactics is undeniable, yet Europe persists.

Two circumstances are particularly disquieting. Regarding NATO, we harboured no illusions. As for the EU – even before the coup in Ukraine – we consistently emphasised that Ukraine must adhere to the principles underpinning its independence, principles upon which we recognised its sovereignty. The President reiterated them: a non-aligned, neutral status and, consequently, a nuclear-free status, as enshrined in the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine. We have long maintained that NATO is an aggressive bloc whose sole raison d’être is to seek enemies. Having found Russia – after our country restored its rightful global standing in the early 2000s and 2010s – they now designate the Russian Federation as their common adversary, having fled Afghanistan.

We insist on Ukraine’s commitment to remain a non-aligned country being fully respected. Speaking of the European Union, it is, indeed, an economic association the purpose of which is to improve socioeconomic situation in European countries. We have nothing against that. A radical transformation of the European Union has taken place since and it is going on, whereby the EU continues to morph into an aggressive military-political bloc, essentially a branch, or rather an offshoot, of NATO. They signed an agreement with NATO a couple of years ago, under which NATO will have the right of way for their troops and equipment if they need to move eastward (such plans have been made public) through the territories of the countries that are not NATO members, but are EU members. That means they are directly involved in getting ready for a war against our country.

The position of Germany is of great concern. For some time now, it has been voting at the UN General Assembly alongside Italy and Japan against our annual resolution on combatting the glorification of Nazism. In addition, it has assumed the role of a leader in supporting the Nazi Kiev regime and flowing money and weapons into it. They have come up with an arrangement to produce weapons inside of Ukraine. Multiple unbiased columnists have cited facts showing that nothing of the kind will ever happen. Germany is using this as a front to supply weapons from Germany and other European countries directly to the Ukrainian armed forces claiming this is not support, not flooding Ukraine with weapons, but helping it develop its own production process. They come up and implement many such tricks.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz made it clear immediately after taking office that making the German army the strongest European army was his priority. He uttered these words amid Germany becoming deeply involved in the Taurus missile-related controversy where he threatens to supply these missiles to Ukraine, even though they cannot be handled without the Bundeswehr military. Such rhetoric suggests that the ruling circles of modern-day Germany are oblivious of the dark chapters of their history, and time is ripe for them to come to their senses before it’s too late.

The West is not limited to containing Russia and behaves aggressively towards any manifestation of independent behaviour even within its own ranks. There are right-minded people in the EU and NATO. They are not pro-Russian, but they are saying they prefer to follow their national interests rather than what Ursula von der Leyen and other European Commission members come up with in Brussels. They are not elected officials and the commission’s membership is decided upon behind closed doors by heads of the EU countries’ national governments.

The fact that NATO is going beyond its traditional scope of responsibility and is trying to entrench itself in the Middle East, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Arctic is clearly fraught with risks. In the Asia-Pacific region, the West is vigorously advancing its Indo-Pacific strategies that openly seek to destroy the universal open security architecture that has been in the making for decades based on ASEAN-centric philosophy.

Forming a united anti-China front was openly stated by US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth at a recently held Shangri-La International Forum in Singapore.

Tensions are up in the Middle East following the military move by Israel and the United States against Iran, including its peaceful nuclear programme facilities. This constitutes gross violation of the UN Charter, the IAEA Charter, the UN and the IAEA resolutions which say that peaceful nuclear facilities are off-limits targets. The generally accepted norms of international law have similar stipulations.

Citing the right to self-defence cannot mislead anyone, because not a single fact, not even a single suspicion has been provided to back up the theory that Iran either attacked or was plotting an attack on Israel. International law does not condone the preemptive use of force against a country that has not attacked the country that wishes to use military force.

Continued destabilisation of the Middle East and the use of political assassinations to eliminate military leaders and researchers are fraught with major threats to global security and the global economy, and especially to the non-proliferation regime.

The overall situation is worrisome, but we strive, as Yevgeny Primakov instructed us and as our Chinese friends advise us, to use crises as an opportunity to move forward. In light of the fact that NATO is targeting the whole of Eurasia and the Far East, and its ambitions cover every bit of space all the way to the Pacific, we believe it is important to start looking for new ways forward and new forms of Eurasian security architecture which will replace the hopelessly bankrupt Euro-Atlantic paradigms.

The architecture we are discussing must include all, without exception, Eurasian countries and associations. Africa has the African Union along with numerous sub-regional integration entities, Latin America has CELAC along with sub-regional integration organisations, whereas Eurasia, which is the largest, wealthiest and most promising continent which gave rise to many great civilisations that have remained intact to this day, has only isolated integration processes, but no unifying pan-continental forum as do Africa or Latin America. Concepts that rely on Euro-Atlantic principles such as NATO have lost every bit of credibility. The European Union is also there, considering that it is now essentially at the heel of NATO and the OSCE, which is also a Euro-Atlantic entity. When the Helsinki Conference was being planned, the Soviet Union argued that the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe should bring together countries from the Atlantic to the Urals, speaking in general terms. European participants insisted on bringing our North American colleagues aboard, too. They became members, and have since then imposed their terms on their allies, NATO, above all.

Security on the Eurasian continent benefits from Russia-China relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction. They are a model for cooperation between great powers and constitute an important stabilisation factor on the international stage. The personal diplomacy of our respective leaders, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, is of paramount importance.

The Russian-Belarusian strategic partnership and alliance positively impacts the international situation. The Treaty on Security Guarantees within the Union State was recently concluded between our two countries. We are supportive of the Belarus’ initiative to hold an annual conference on Eurasian security in Minsk. In conjunction with our Belarusian colleagues, we are promoting the project of the Eurasian Charter for Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century. The Treaty on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is also part of these efforts and lends stability to Northeast Asia, as well as Eurasia and the Pacific.

The importance and the potential of a particularly privileged strategic partnership with India are quite notable. Yevgeny Primakov’s legacy features prominently in this regard. Many years ago, he initiated the formation of a bureaucracy-free troika named RIC (Russia, India, and China). It has met several times over the past years. Our meetings have been on pause for a while, first, because of the pandemic, and later because of the escalation on the India-China border. Reportedly, the situation is getting better, and we expect RIC to resume its work soon.

Yevgeny Primakov believed that making international economic ties more democratic and refraining from their politicisation was a prerequisite for the development of a multipolar world. However, the West is using illegal unilateral sanctions, which increasingly become the harbinger of a military attack, as this has happened in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya and is now happening in Iran, as well as the instruments of unfair competition, initiating tariff wars, seizing other countries’ sovereign assets and taking advantage of the role of their currencies and payment systems. The West itself has actually buried the globalisation model, which it developed after the Cold War to promote its interests.

Russia and other like-minded states are actively working to establish foreign trade mechanisms the West will be unable to control, such as transport corridors. alternative payment systems and supply chains. This process was discussed at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum, and that is what BRICS, the SCO and CELAC countries are doing. President of Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has put forth his views on this matter. The African Union is considering it as well. Overall, while proclaiming a desire for Eurasia to take a firmer stand in the global economy and to make use of the numerous advantages given to it by God and history, including transit routes and natural resources, we also encourage the development of ties between the organisations that have been created and are working on this continent, including in the economy. These organisations are the EAEU, ASEAN, SCO and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). There is also the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), and the five Central Asian states are also an integral part of this space.

All these integration projects can easily be aligned with China’s major Belt and Road Initiative. We are encouraging contacts between these organisations and the harmonisation of their programmes as a way towards what President Vladimir Putin has described as Greater Eurasian Partnership.

In conclusion, I would like to say that Yevgeny Primakov always believed that differences between global players, especially the leading countries that bear special responsibility for international security, must not be allowed to hinder dialogue and joint work.

We wholeheartedly support this recommendation of our great predecessor. Despite the deep differences between Moscow and Washington, we have supported the proposal, which the Trump administration issued after assuming office, to resume our dialogue without any preconditions and to launch a professional and concrete discussion of ways to normalise our bilateral relations without propaganda and politicisation.

It is not an easy process, especially against the backdrop of the situation on the global stage. It may take long, but if both sides persist and demonstrate responsibility for the future of the world, it will benefit humanity as a whole, including in terms of holding discussions to prevent the crises the likes of which we are now witnessing.

Europe, which is fomenting yet another big war, has little to offer due to its marginalisation in international affairs. We can see this happening too. The EU can hardly be regarded as a major pole in the objectively rising multipolar world. However, we are ready – under any circumstances, as President Putin said – to honestly search for a balance of interests with those who are ready to act honestly and on equal terms. We will do this wherever possible.

As for those who have cut relations with us to the detriment of their nations, suffering huge financial and reputation losses as a result, we will wait for them to come and make their offer to us when they stop acting impudently and realise their mistakes. We will make decisions depending on our interests.

Question: An armistice should have come into effect in the Middle East four and a half hours ago. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and you met with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. What scenarios do you envisage? Do you believe that this armistice will set in?  What are your estimates in this regard?

Sergey Lavrov: The estimates came from, among others, President of Russia Vladimir Putin and your humble servant.

Our position is simple. What is most important, as Vladimir Putin emphasised during his meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi yesterday, is that our proposals on how to settle this crisis were submitted rather long ago. This was done during confidential contacts with the US, Israeli and Iranian sides, including in the course of conversations at the supreme level. Both Washington, and West Jerusalem, and Tehran reacted positively. But nothing was forthcoming in practical terms to implement the ideas that have been put forward.

Right now, we do not want to recapitulate them point by point, but I can say that they were aimed at overcoming the main obstacle – the desire of the US and Israel to reach an agreement by violating the fundamental right of Iran, as for that matter any other country, to uranium enrichment in the context of efforts to implement peaceful nuclear programmes. We proposed a solution that seemed realistic to us.

Yesterday, President of Russia Vladimir Putin reiterated that we were still ready [to join the process], if the parties involved were directly interested and asked us to participate.   He stressed in particular that we were in no way intruding our mediating services.

As for the avalanche of statements issuing from Washington, West Jerusalem, and Tehran since  one am today, it is hard to draw any final conclusion at this point or get a clear picture.  US President Donald Trump, for one, declared that there was an agreement on a “forever” peace. The Americans reportedly convinced Israel to accept a ceasefire and an indefinite truce. The same was done by our Qatari friends in respect of Tehran.

We would only welcome this agreement, if it really exists. But there were reports about an exchange of strikes between Israel and Iran in the wake of the announcement. Let us not jump to hasty conclusions based on piecemeal information. But we are definitely for peace.

Question: We have witnessed how the Minsk Agreements served merely as a facade. Western officials have since admitted that the agreements provided a cover for militarising Ukraine. We have also seen the West declaring its commitment to the talks with Iran and a peaceful resolution of the nuclear issue. Simultaneously, a decision was made to launch military strikes, including against Iranian nuclear facilities.

In these circumstances, how can we continue negotiating with the West, including with the United States, when trust has been eroded? How can we ensure a result without being fooled once again?

Sergey Lavrov: It is hardly the first time in history when the West has demonstrated its inability to negotiate. The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact serves as a particularly stark example, when Adolf Hitler needed time to prepare for a war against the Soviet Union, which he did.

The Minsk Agreements, warranted and signed by Germany alongside other countries, were similarly exploited to facilitate the preparations for a war against the Russian Federation.

As for whether the West deserves trust, I believe that even former US President Ronald Reagan’s formula, “trust, but verify,” would be insufficient here. Verification may require multiple approaches. One can verify through negotiating a treaty with compliance mechanisms. One can verify through intelligence gathering, both political and military.

As you are aware, Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service actively monitors activities that directly damage the Russian Federation. I would say, we would require ironclad guarantees, enshrined in a UN Security Council resolution. Although I must reiterate that the West remains consistent with its behaviour pattern. Such Security Council guarantees have been repeatedly trampled over in the past. The same happened in Kosovo, when Western powers breached a resolution protecting Serbia’s sovereignty over this Serbian region and mandating the presence of Serbian police, border control and customs officials in Kosovo. NATO’s largest base in the Balkans and KFOR forces are currently located in the region. This area is off limits.

When confronted with the provisions of their own resolutions, they repeat the same refrain used when we insisted that NATO abandon its plans of eastward expansion, despite not only verbal assurances but also written commitments in OSCE documents: in particular, these agreements explicitly prohibited enhancing one’s security at the expense of others’ security, and forbade any Euro-Atlantic organisation from pursuing regional dominance. We have confronted them with their own obligations.

They said it was a political commitment. We countered that these were agreements signed by presidents. Their response was: legal guarantees can only be obtained from the North Atlantic Alliance. They consciously created a magnet out of NATO, pressuring the regimes (Vladimir Zelensky’s administration serving as one example) into wishing to abandon other partnerships and to sever contacts with anybody but NATO.

It is difficult for me to elaborate on specific mechanisms. But should and, hopefully, when this conversation with the West and the United States resumes (though we remain far from addressing strategic stability in substance), and when Europeans come to their senses and calm down (I apologise for my language), we will need to exercise extreme diligence in constructing reliable security guarantees in order to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Regarding the Iranian situation, the UN Security Council held a session on June 22 at the initiative of Russia, China and Pakistan. On June 23, the IAEA Board of Governors also convened. Some noteworthy details were revealed.

Allow me to refresh the context for you. Several weeks ago, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi initiated a comprehensive report regarding Iran’s nuclear programme. As usual, the IAEA Secretariat could make varying interpretations of facts in this report. 

For example, in 2015, UN Security Council Resolution 2231 was adopted, which endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action for the final resolving of outstanding issues around Iran’s nuclear programme.

During that period, before such a verdict was issued, initially the IAEA and later the UN Security Council reviewed reports indicating that minute traces of radioactive material had been discovered during regular IAEA inspections at three Iranian facilities. These findings underwent thorough analysis at the time. The IAEA established that the radioactive traces had been date-stamped as originating from 2003. No further findings have been made since.

In 2015, a comprehensive review was conducted, including of the findings from those three facilities. The review determined there was no evidence supporting the claim that Iran had attempted to incorporate military elements into its peaceful nuclear programme. It was based on that conclusion that the IAEA Board of Governors and the UN Security Council issued their decisions.

In 2019, after his “first coming,” Donald Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).  The European Troika – the UK, France, and Germany – played a curious role in this regard, having participated in efforts to develop the JCPOA alongside the US, Russia and China.  They expressed their distress but offered no criticism of the United States. Some time later, they urged Iran to explain why it was refusing to allow inspectors for additional inspections and visits. Iran responded that it was doing what was envisaged under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Agreement on Guarantees with the IAEA – “no less but also no more.”  The “extra” inspections were included in the deal on the Iranian nuclear programme in exchange for the West’s reciprocal steps, primarily concerning the gradual lifting of sanctions.

The Europeans have adopted a distinctly imperial and neo-colonial stance: do not follow the example of the United States; they can but you cannot; you must meet all your commitments. At the IAEA HQ in Vienna, they actively pressured IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi ahead of the recent meeting, where he was to deliver his report, to include highly ambiguous and negative assessments regarding Iran in his paper. He complied. Embracing these formulas, the trio (along with the Americans they invited) submitted a resolution to the IAEA Board of Governors condemning Iran for failing to adhere to all the terms that had been undone by Washington. A few days later, Israel launched its attacks. In this context, a logical chain can be discerned. The Europeans share part of the blame for the execution of these attacks.   

Now Mr Grossi, who, generally speaking, has “served the ball,” could write a clearer report. He is currently urging Iran to ensure the IAEA’s access to its nuclear facilities to ascertain the location of enriched materials and to assess the situation: they launched attack after attack, yet we find nothing; you have hidden it somewhere – show us where it is.   Are there guarantees that this will not be leaked? I don’t see any.

The secretariats of international organisations are under heavy Western influence. In a way, the West has privatised them, because Westerners employed by the secretariats of international organisations, starting with the UN, are not guided by the requirement for impartiality or the prohibition on taking directives from any government whatever it may be.  

Question: I wanted to ask, how can the principle of sovereignty be upheld in the face of actions that violate the territorial integrity of nations, and what steps can be taken to ensure that all countries’ rights are respected under international law?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already mentioned the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity in the context of all the provisions contained in the UN Charter forming one single whole. They must all be honoured. The main thing here is that there is no contradiction or conflict between the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination, even though the West used the latter to justify the unilateral proclamation of Kosovo’s independence.

But soon after the UN was established, the fact that the Charter mentions the right to self-determination first, while territorial integrity comes up later in its text, has caught the attention of many. This led to a whole process, which gathered a lot of momentum in the 1960s when decolonisation was at its peak. In fact, it was primarily the USSR and our friends from the so-called socialist camp who were behind this initiative. The decolonisation largely reflected the principle of self-determination. Had the principle of territorial integrity been given priority, this would have enabled colonial powers to keep their conquered territories in Africa and other parts of the world.

This is when people noticed what seemed like a contradiction between what was called territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination. Negotiations lasted for several years and resulted in the adoption of the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The provisions dealing with the topic you have raised stipulate that everyone must respect sovereignty and the territorial integrity of states whose governments respect the principle of self-determination of the people and for that matter the entire population living in the corresponding territory. But did London, Madrid, Paris or Lisbon represent during decolonisation the interests of African territories they had conquered by waging their predatory wars? Of course, they did not. And African countries did not think that way either. This helped create a solid legal foundation under international law to back the decolonisation process.

The same applies to what happened after the government coup in Ukraine. Fascists came to power. After February 24, 2014, they proclaimed that they were cancelling the status of the Russian language and sent their armed fighters to attack the Crimean parliament. Just like Donbass, Crimea refused to accept the government coup. Did they represent the interests of these people? They branded them as terrorists after these people refused to obey. Neither Crimea nor Donbass were the ones who launched military action against the part of Ukraine controlled by the neo-Nazis. There is a strict prohibition under international humanitarian law on using combat aviation, artillery or other armed forces within the national territory. But they did it. No one said anything about it, just like about the May 2, 2014, crime in Odessa when people were burned alive, as I had already mentioned. In this sense, everyone must recognise that Vladimir Zelensky and his team do not represent people living in Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya.

There is a selection of quotes by the people who came to power following the government coup referring to the Russians living in Ukraine. Petr Poroshenko ran for President back in May 2014 and posed as a peacemaker, just like Vladimir Zelensky, by the way, but just several weeks later he launched a war against Donbass, while Germany and France encouraged him. Poroshenko wanted people in Donbass to fall in line and said that his side would emerge victorious, and that their children would be going to kindergartens, schools and universities, while children in Donbass would rot in their basements. This was the mildest of what was said about the people who viewed themselves as Ukrainians, while seeking to enjoy the rights as per the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the Russian language, Russian history and Russian culture. They used disparaging terms like Rusnya – or Russian scum, and called people in Donbass and Crimea inhuman. This was how Arseny Yatsenuyk, who served as Prime Minister under Petr Poroshenko, called them. Then Ukrainian Ambassador to Kazakhstan, Petr Vrublevsky, said in 2022 in a live appearance on a Kazakhstani television network that their main goal consisted of killing as many Russians as possible so that the Ukrainian children have less work left for them. This fully reflects what German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said when talking about Israel doing the dirty work for Europe by fighting Iran. This fully reflects the Nazi spirit. As for Vladimir Zelensky, in September 2021, when the special military operation was not even on the horizon, he shared his thoughts in an interview about the people on the other side of the line of contact (in Donbass). This would-be philosopher pensively opined that there were people, and there were what he said were species. He then went on to advise those living in Ukraine but feeling an affinity towards Russian culture and Russian civilisation to get out and move to Russia for the sake of enabling their children and grandchildren to live in happiness and security. This is all there is to know about the way the Kiev regime treated the principle of self-determination.

As for sovereignty, there is nothing to discuss in this regard. Ukraine lacked sovereignty since the government coup, which was engineered by the United States and the British. This sovereignty is now on life support. Ukraine fully depends and has to rely on its Western curators. At this stage, these curators primarily include London, as well as Brussels, Paris and Berlin, which have been quite proactive in this regard.

Question: The New START treaty on the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms between Russia and the United States will expire in February 2026. It is clear a serious dialogue on extending it has been suspended in the current situation. Do you think this dialogue can be resumed? Could a binding agreement similar to that treaty be reached with the Trump administration in the future?

Sergey Lavrov: Not necessarily. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov spoke on this matter yesterday. We welcome the fact that the Trump administration is ready for dialogue, unlike the Biden team. But at this stage dialogue has not reached a level where we can form opinions of the current administration’s strategic goals.

The Americans have recently asked us to cancel or postpone consultations on the functioning of our embassies, which is regarded as irritants. We previously agreed that we would transfer from Istanbul and other places to each other’s capitals, and that they would come to Moscow for consultations and we would likewise go to Washington. They were not pleased with something. Or maybe they have changed their mind.

As for creating conditions for the resumption of a strategic dialogue, I had positive feelings after a meeting with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and then National Security Adviser Michael Waltz in Riyadh.

Mr Rubio has publicly stated what I am saying now. He stated at the beginning of our meeting that Donald Trump’s foreign policy was based on national interests. It is much easier for them when they talk with the partners who have the same concept based on national interests, without any ideology or any form of collective responsibility, which also applies to Russia as another great power. These interests will not coincide in the overwhelming majority of cases. But when they coincide, it would be criminal not to turn this coincidence into mutually beneficial, practical and tangible projects in the economy, energy, high technology, space exploration and other spheres. When these interests do not coincide, which will be in majority of cases, it is the sacred duty of great powers to prevent this difference from deteriorating into confrontation, let alone an open military conflict. We are all for this approach. He has formulated the principle our foreign policy has been based on under President Putin. We are always open for communication with everyone and ready to a search for compromises.

There were numerous examples in the 21st century when we proved our readiness to search for mutually acceptable compromises in our dialogue with both NATO and the EU. But that spirit was destroyed by those who decided that we were talking not as their subordinates but as self-sufficient and independent participants in the process. Conceptually, we are on the right track. We are only at the beginning of this road, but a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Question: Will Russia retain its role in the WTO?

Sergey Lavrov: Speaking of the WTO, it’s essential that we get to the root of the issue. When the Americans realised that the globalised system they had created – one built on fair competition, inviolable property rights, the presumption of innocence, and similar principles, and which had allowed them to dominate for decades – had also begun benefiting their rivals, primarily China, they took drastic action. As China started outplaying them on their own turf and by their own rules, Washington simply blocked the WTO’s Appellate Body. By artificially stripping it of a quorum, they rendered this key dispute settlement mechanism inactive – and it remains so to this day.

As a result, hundreds, if not thousands, of claims from China, filed in full compliance with WTO obligations, are piling up, with no functioning Appellate Body to review them.

Question: How did it happen that Russia dismantled its military capabilities, reducing its nuclear stockpiles faster than the United States under the same treaties – despite the agreements reached? Who should be held accountable for this?

Sergey Lavrov: I would rather not discuss those responsible for the past arms reductions. The current leadership of the Russian Federation is responsible for the New START Treaty. Unlike previous iterations, we ensured that it contained no lopsided clauses granting the Americans significant advantages – particularly concerning inspections and access to information on our strategic forces.

Question: How effectively will import substitution be promoted in the current conditions?

Sergey Lavrov: When the term “import substitution” was coined, the general idea was “so what if we’re cut off from this market, we’ll buy the goods somewhere else.” I do not think it is relevant. We need to manufacture what we need locally.

Question: Every year, Russia sponsors a UN General Assembly resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism. Voting trend shows that over the past two or three years, the number of countries that are against it has grown from two to 53. In the 1990s, Italian philosopher Umberto Eco wrote about eternal fascism, warning that it should not be seen merely as a 20th century phenomenon, because it could return. Is the voting statistics at the UN General Assembly a sign that Nazism – fascism – may have a future, and will have to be defeated again?

Sergey Lavrov: Our biggest concern today is that it has a present. By ending its present right now, we are working to ensure that fascism never revives, though many political scientists and experts argue that human nature (when viewed collectively) contains the seeds of various ideologies, movements, and trends. This suggests that Nazi tendencies will always linger in some portion of humanity. I consider this a passive outlook; we must take active measures to prevent the resurgence of Nazism, including through reminders like UN General Assembly resolutions. You rightly pointed out that when Russia launched its special military operation, the Biden administration – backed by a chorus of faceless zealots in Brussels – quickly herded the pliant and the obedient into an anti-Russia camp, much like Hitler did, making them direct their military resources (aside from overt manpower, though their personnel are covertly involved as well) against our nation, like Napoleon and Hitler did. History is repeating itself.

If you listen carefully to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s statements, it’s clear that these so-called “respected members of the international community” – self-proclaimed beacons of “European values” and democracy – have abandoned diplomatic niceties. We were unsurprised when 50 states suddenly voted against our resolution, and we remained undaunted. These votes came from the European Union, NATO, and several Asian nations – Japan, Korea, Australia, and New Zealand – along with a handful of others they managed to rally. This reveals their command-driven system, which has nothing to do with democracy. Indeed, they’re little more than a compliant herd following orders. Yet dissent is manifesting. We’ve seen it within NATO and the EU – isolated voices so far, but their message is clear: they do not want unelected European bureaucrats to tell them – elected leaders – what to do.

I just quoted US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who stated that US President Donald Trump’s foreign policy was driven by national interest – and these countries, too, want their policies guided by their own interests, and they want this approach respected. What they do not want is being strong-armed by some “qualified majority decision” forced through unless the European Council unanimously agrees to fully cut off Russian energy. Why should this rest solely with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen? Why isn’t it open to broader debate within the EU? These decisions belong to legitimately elected European governments – though some, like Romania’s, lack even that legitimacy. The complexities run deep.

Returning to the UN resolution against the glorification of Nazism, it passed with an overwhelming majority (130−140 votes). Yet this was just one victory on a single international stage. Far more crucially, and on a much broader scale, we are implementing President Vladimir Putin’s instructions through concrete actions: revising school textbooks and working with young people through other projects to shape values from childhood, restoring monuments to the heroes of the Great Patriotic War and World War II across Russia and Europe, and countering campaigns to erase this heritage. We are pursuing legal action against those who vandalise or demolish these memorials, particularly those standing on burial sites, in blatant violation of international conventions. While the Kiev regime is the primary offender, the Baltic states and a few others are equally complicit, albeit to a lesser extent. Safeguarding historical truth and preventing distortions remains a core mission, now crystallised and further defined as we mark the 80th anniversary of Victory this year. This work will not cease.  

Question: We currently see the potential for the Israeli-Iranian conflict to reach resolution. How do you assess the impact of this conflict’s cessation on the conflict in Ukraine? Russia has played an important peaceful role in de-escalating the Iranian-Israeli tensions. In your view, might this development lead the United States to devote greater attention to and maintain consideration of Russia’s interests regarding the Ukraine issue?

Sergey Lavrov: There is an opinion that, the longer, God willing, the tensions in the Middle East between Israel and Iran, with US involvement, persist the better. This would keep the United States busy — and, as some experts argue, could increase US President Donald Trump’s disappointment with Vladimir Zelensky. There is an American expression: “You can’t walk and chew gum at the same time.” Applied to the current situation, this mentality will somehow be realized. But it does not bear much consequence to our interests.

Should nations supporting the Nazi regime choose to reduce or terminate their assistance, hopefully, we will consider this as their acknowledgement of the actual reality, including the true nature of the regime itself and, most importantly, the objective conditions on the battlefield, on the ground. Without such realisation, other factors become irrelevant. Because merely hoping that the US will become entangled in the Middle East to our advantage… Our actions do not depend on such speculations and considerations. The Middle East crisis represents a genuine geopolitical challenge rather than something artificially manufactured.

I recall my time at the United Nations in New York (more than 20 years ago) when Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the UN General Assembly displaying an oversized poster depicting a primitive picture of a bomb (reminiscent of explosive devices used by terrorists in the Russian Empire, a sphere and a fuse). He claimed it was what Iran had. This confrontation has been building up for a long time; it is rooted in a fundamental disagreement between the perception of one’s own existential interests and the existential interests of a country against which one plans various long-term actions. This animosity has been brewing gradually over time, with neither side attacking the other.

Neither Hebrew nor Judaism are prohibited in Iran; there are synagogues operating in Iran, much like in Palestinian territories, where Hebrew remains in use among settlers. Arabic is not prohibited in Israel. Ukraine is the only country where a specific language, particularly an official language of the United Nations, has been systematically restricted. When this process started, Russians faced the discrimination described in the quotes I mentioned. Seriously violating the Minsk Agreements endorsed by the UN Security Council, the Ukrainians continued to intensify artillery strikes against Donbass that was supposed to become their territory, causing civilian casualties, and continued to plan military seizure of the territory. Intelligence indicated plans to build NATO bases in Crimea. The British planned to build a base on the Sea of Azov. It is a well known fact. These developments constituted explicit violation of NATO’s obligation not to expand toward Russian borders. Military security threats and legislative measures targeting everything Russian – these are the original circumstances that we had no right to tolerate and will not tolerate. We are not tolerating them now.

It would be unfair to draw direct parallels between these distinct conflicts. There is no single evidence demonstrating Iranian hostilities against Israel. If somebody suspects that the Non-Proliferation Treaty has been violated, there are established predures for the IAEA to investigate such claims. And the IAEA has verified such suspicions. The IAEA has inspected Iran’s nuclear programme with unprecedented scrutiny and exceptional intrusion. Apart from the most recent IAEA report, which contains unsubstantiated misrepresentation of the actual situation, there was no supporting evidence.

Following the recent strikes, IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi immediately came to his senses and clarified that the IAEA holds no evidence confirming that Iran is developing a military nuclear programme. When in this situation Israel and the United States insist that they are certain, they fundamentally undermine the multilateral non-proliferation mechanism. With international legal procedures in place, they disregard such established verification procedures in favour of their own rules — meaning, if there is no evidence but they are certain − they can act as they please. These are the long-term risks of such an approach.