Possibility of settling the Ukrainian crisis
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 certain remarks on US expansion
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.
To be continued…
