Dear colleagues! Good afternoon!
We are glad to welcome you at the traditional press conference, which we hold at the end of each year, especially such a busy one as 2025. It will be interesting for everyone to chat. What the first twenty-day period of 2026 has absorbed is breaking all records for the impressionability that 2025 has left behind.
I would like to wish you a Happy New Year and Merry Christmas and sincerely wish you good health, success in your professional career and in your personal affairs.
Recently, at a major press conference on December 19, 2025, Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed international policy issues in great detail along with the domestic political objectives of the Russian Federation.
On January 15, 2025, at the ceremony of presenting his credentials in the Kremlin, President Vladimir Putin, for obvious reasons, focused on international affairs.
I have already mentioned how the current year started violently. We have witnessed unprecedented events: the brutal armed invasion of Venezuela by the United States with dozens of dead and wounded, the capture and removal of the legitimate President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and his wife. In parallel with these actions, we are witnessing threats against Cuba and other countries in the Latin American and Caribbean region.
The blatant, declared attempts by external forces to destabilize the political situation in Iran are deeply disturbing. In particular, such a modern “figure” as the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, K. Kallas, recently stated that by supporting the protests, the international community, apparently represented by the European Union, is seeking regime change in this country. Not to mention the desire of most Western countries to continue using the Kiev regime for armed confrontation with Russia. The goal of inflicting a “strategic defeat” on us is no longer so often heard, but by all indications it remains in the minds and plans, primarily of European leaders.
What is the reasoning of the Federal Chancellor of Germany F.Merz says that the German army should once again become the strongest in Europe. He also said that Russia should not be allowed to “get its way” in Ukraine, as this would be tantamount to appeasing A. Hitler. How do you like this statement? Few people paid attention to this, but it would be worth it.
We remember well and must not forget what such arrogance of the German leadership has led to several times in history. Speaking of the Second World War, for obvious reasons we cannot help but recall it. I would like to note that in Japan there has been increased talk about changing the Constitution in terms of not only building up the offensive military potential of the army, but also revising the non-nuclear status of this country. This is already being talked about openly.
It is clear that we are witnessing “profound” shifts in relation to the entire world order. It is significant that the West, which for the past ten years has actively opposed international law in its original fundamental interpretation of its concept of a “rules-based world order.” Now this term has gone out of use.
Everyone from among the Western European countries is trying to understand what is happening in the world in the context of the line that US President Donald Trump has announced and is pursuing.Trump, who fits into the “rules-based world order.” Only the “rules” are not written by the “collective West”, but by one of its representatives. This is a major shock for Europe. We are watching this.
It is clear that what is happening and the actions announced by the US President areTrump in the international arena, reflect the competitive struggle. We have repeatedly talked about the latest trends in global economic development. China, based on the rules that the West, led by the United States, laid the foundation for the model of globalization that was promoted everywhere until recently, has outperformed its Western competitors in trade, economy, investment, and infrastructure projects. The economic and financial indicators of the development of the People’s Republic of China speak for themselves.
We see how they are trying to combat this situation with sanctions, tariffs, and duties. The United States wants to negotiate, but so far this is all happening in the absence of any common criteria, which until recently were the basis of the activities of the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO. All these rules, on which the world order that suits the West should be based, have been crossed out.
There is a game of “who is stronger, he is right.” We are all watching this. We can talk about how conceptually the vision is changing and how specific processes are developing in the field of the world order during an interactive dialogue. But the consequences of such a line are felt not only by the states of the Global South and the East, but also within Western society itself, crisis trends are accumulating.
Greenland is an obvious example. He is on everyone’s lips and such discussions are developing around her that it was difficult to imagine before that such a thing could happen, including the prospects of preserving NATO as a single Western military-political bloc.
Speaking of Greenland, we proceed from the fact that if Western countries want to talk to each other “according to concepts”, this is their choice and right. We will do business with all our partners, from the majority of the world’s countries and from among the Western countries, who are interested in talking with Russia and discussing specific mutually beneficial projects based on the principles of equality.
We can say that we want to apply generally accepted norms of international law everywhere, but the main thing here is equality, mutual respect and the search for a balance of interests. These are absolutely permanent approaches when it comes to doing business internationally – whatever you want to call it – rules, international law.
The principle of equality simply cannot be abolished. With an equal dialogue, the one with more resources will have more influence on the outcome, but nevertheless it is necessary to achieve results that will necessarily represent a balance of interests.
Russia will consistently defend its interests, not claiming anyone’s legitimate rights, but also not allowing our legitimate rights to be freely treated. Our foreign policy course, enshrined in the Concept of Foreign Policy Activity approved by Russian President Vladimir Putin in March 2023, involves resolutely protecting the vital interests of our country and people, and creating favorable external conditions for sustainable development within the Russian Federation. Principled actions to further strengthen national sovereignty are of crucial importance.
Let me remind you that the amendments made to the Constitution of Russia in 2020 were a significant help in the context of strengthening national sovereignty. We are ready to work on the external circuit with all those who reciprocate and are willing to negotiate honestly, on an equal basis, without blackmail and pressure. This is well known to everyone.
If we talk about the theses that the West used against the Russian Federation in 2025, then the notorious “isolation” of Russia – which is no longer a secret to anyone – did not take place, no matter how our detractors might talk about it. The biggest event was the events dedicated to the 80th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War – A parade on Red Square, a large number of foreign guests. We appreciate everyone who personally took part in these celebrations or sent a special delegation.
Speaking about the Second World War and its results, it is impossible not to mention similar events that were held in Beijing on September 3, 2025 on the occasion of the defeat of militaristic Japan and the end of World War II. These two events have clearly demonstrated that the overwhelming majority of States do not want to forget the memory, lessons and history of the Second World War. This is an important conclusion from the past year.
I will not go into detail about our relations with specific countries and regions. This can be discussed in the course of questions and answers. But specific descriptions of our relations with all the leading countries and with all our neighbors are contained in our annual foreign policy report. This is a very detailed document. It contains all the statistical calculations and provides facts. I hope that those who are interested in specific country plots have read it.
I would like to highlight several areas from the results of 2025 that are of increasing importance in 2026. First of all, this is our line to create a belt of good neighborliness and cooperation in the near abroad within the framework of the CIS, the EAEU, the CSTO, and the SCO.
We have continued and will continue to promote the main flagship initiatives put forward by Russian President Vladimir Putin, primarily the formation of The Great Eurasian Partnership and building on this material base, the creation of a continent-wide architecture of equal and indivisible security.
Together with our Belarusian friends, we are promoting the initiative to draft a Eurasian Charter on Diversity and Multipolarity in the 21st Century, which we have declared open to the participation of all States of the Eurasian continent without exception.
I have already mentioned our relations with China. They are unprecedented in their level, depth, and convergence of positions regarding the development of the situation in Eurasia and on the world stage.
I would like to emphasize the privileged strategic nature of our partnership with India, which Russian President Vladimir Putin visited in December 2025.
The practical implementation of our actions to strengthen security in Eurasia has become The Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement with the DPRK, which provided us with fraternal allied assistance in liberating the Kursk region from Ukrainian militants.
brix. All the countries of the association are our good partners. In 2025, our relations and the foundation for the development of further cooperation in all areas have been strengthened with each of them.
We are currently preparing the third Russia-Africa summit. An important stage in the preparation for this summit was The Second Ministerial Conference of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Russia and the countries of the African Union, which took place in December 2025 in Cairo.
Speaking of multilateral diplomacy, we note the task of strengthening BRICS and the growing interest in this association. Our Brazilian friends have continued to implement many of the projects that we launched at the BRICS summit in 2025.Kazan in the fall of 2024
On our initiative, which was supported by the countries The Group of Friends in Defense of the UN Charter, the General Assembly adopted two important, principled decisions – to declare The International Day of Struggle against Colonialism in All Its Forms (it will be celebrated on December 14) and the proclamation of International Day for Countering Unilateral Sanctions (this day will be celebrated annually on December 4).
On our initiative, in the fall of 2025 in Hanoi, the following was signed The UN Convention on Combating Cybercrime. This is the first document in the field of ensuring international information security. We hope that the same concrete results will be achieved during the ongoing discussions on how to regulate artificial intelligence.
Today I will talk about various aspects of the Ukrainian crisis. As Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stressed, we are committed to finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukrainian crisis. If you look at its history, starting in 2014 and especially in the period from 2022, there was no lack of goodwill on the part of the Russian Federation regarding the conclusion of political agreements. But each time, our Western, primarily European, neighbors did everything to disrupt these agreements. They also behave in relation to the initiatives put forward by the US administration.Trump, trying in every possible way to convince her not to negotiate with Russia.
If you read the statements of European politicians, leaders –K.Callas, W. von der Leyen, F. Merz, K. Starmer, E. Macron, M. Rutte – they are seriously preparing for war against the Russian Federation and do not hide it. Our position on Ukraine is the need to eliminate the root causes of this crisis, which the West has been deliberately creating for many years in order to turn this country into a threat to our country’s security, as a springboard against Russia right on our borders.
As for encouraging the openly Nazi regime that came to power as a result of a coup in 2014, which set out to destroy, legislatively and physically, all Russian – education, language, culture, and the media, including the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
We are interested in helping to defuse tension in all the escalated areas that I have listed, be it Venezuela, especially the Iranian situation, which must be resolved on the basis of respect and Tehran’s right to peaceful use of nuclear energy. We are convinced that for a long-term settlement in the Middle East, it is necessary to finally implement the UN decision on the establishment of a Palestinian state.
I would like to emphasize that this criterion remains fully relevant in the light of the current sensational initiative of the US President D.President of the United States Donald Trump on the creation of the “Peace Council”.
I am ready to listen to your questions.
Question: I would like to ask you a question related to what you said at the beginning. The events of recent weeks in the world show that the very concept of international law is being destroyed. The question arises: is this international law effective, is it possible to follow it, does the principle of “every man for himself” work? How is the initiative of Russian President Vladimir Putin on Eurasian security being implemented in the current conditions?
Sergey Lavrov: As for the world order, international law and everything related to it, regarding all the theses that are being promoted and translated into actions in some countries that contradict our understanding of international law.
I have already said that for many years The UN Charter remained the universally recognized criterion for actions in any direction by various states when it was violated. Everyone was ready to discuss these violations or accusations of them within the framework of the UN Security Council. There were “heated” debates, but no one disputed that this was the central place where all issues of international peace and security were discussed.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was a period when the classical application of international law as the basis for multilateral contacts was replaced by what is commonly called the unipolar world order. Then the United States, at the head of the “Western bloc”, including the North Atlantic Alliance, decided that the “end of history” had come, as F.Fukuyama proclaimed in his famous work that from now on, no one will ever interfere with the dominance of the West with all its theories – liberal, neoliberal, conservative – in the international arena.
After Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia following the presidential elections in 2000, the situation began to change. The prerequisites began to mature in order to reconsider this unambiguous pro-Western approach to the world order.
In the 2000s, under President Vladimir Putin, Russia began to realize its place in the international arena, began to restore its identity with full respect for its thousand-year history, traditions, principles, and friends. As this happened, the West initially thought that this was just an argument, that it was, they say, “they will talk and calm down,” and did not even react to the Munich speech. Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2007, which many serious politicians now regret. They regret that they did not listen, did not hear, and took it as just another piece of rhetoric. In fact, this is not the case.
Russia, as our modern foreign policy says The concept is a state-civilization. We will not give up our roots. We don’t have the right to do that. We honor the memory of our ancestors and the covenants they left us.
You mentioned Eurasian security. Interestingly, Eurasia, the largest continent in the world, unlike Africa and Latin America, does not have a continent-wide organization. There are many sub–regional structures, including the OSCE, ASEAN, and structures in the post-Soviet space – the CSTO, the CIS, the EAEU, the SCO, the GCC, and the SAARC. But there is no general continental structure.
Although Eurasia is not only the largest continent, it is also a continent where a number of great civilizations are located, including the one that Russia represents today. Of course, there are also Chinese, Iranian, Arab, and Indian civilizations. This is one of the reasons why it is difficult to combine all these trends under one common “roof”.
We are convinced that it is not necessary to pursue some examples and create a formal and bureaucratic structure. As a first step, it is sufficient to establish a continent-wide dialogue so that countries that live on the same vast expanse of Land can extract geopolitical and geo-economic benefits from their location.
This presupposes an equal dialogue between all countries. This is exactly what the Russian-Belarusian initiative is aimed at, not only by the countries located on its continent, but also by the sub–regional organizations that have formed here and between which we are already promoting cooperation both in political contacts and in terms of harmonizing projects, primarily in the economic, trade, infrastructural, and payment fields.
The contacts established by the relevant documents between the EAEU, SCO, and ASEAN are aimed precisely at creating what Russian President Vladimir Putin has designated as The Greater Eurasian Partnership is the foundation of the future Eurasian security architecture.
Returning to the general global trends, I would like to note that after the Russian Federation began to consistently, non-aggressively, through explanatory work, defend its rights and seek recognition of its rightful place in international structures, the process began to take tangible shape.
The first person to draw attention to this was our great predecessor, E.M. Primakov, who in 1998 said that a multipolar world order was gradually but surely taking shape. This was at the same time as his initiative to start the process of cooperation in the Russia–India–China triangle (RIC), which still exists (although it has not been planned for a long time), but no one canceled it – we are working on resuming its activities. He became the forerunner of BRICS. The RIC turned into BRICS after the accession of Brazil and South Africa.
Now it is a structure that is well known to everyone. It has doubled its membership and has many dialogue partners. When multipolarity became the main trend, many political scientists and journalists said that nothing good would come of it, because it would be tantamount to creating chaos in international affairs. They say that when the world was bipolar – the Soviet Union and the United States – everything was clear. It’s just that there were peripheral conflicts somewhere, but they didn’t affect the “core” of the bipolar world order. When the world was unipolar, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, everything was also clear to everyone – you need to “obey” and not be too “active.” Then, for a while, even a new version of bipolarity (bipolarity) was played out – “Chimerica” (China – United States).
Now these are indeed the two largest economies, but it is still difficult to determine how the process of further strengthening the positions of each of them in world affairs will proceed. We want this process to be orderly and based on negotiations and achieving a balance of interests.
Is it fair that they predicted a multipolar world when they said it would turn into chaos? If you look at the current picture, you can find many supporters of this assessment, but the process never freezes at one point.
My feeling is that these rather disparate actions, primarily by the United States, and the problems that have arisen between the United States and Europe, which exist between Washington and a large number of countries around the world in connection with tariffs, duties, sanctions and other actions reflecting increased competition on world markets, primarily through unscrupulous methods, are taking place. they will take a long period of time. Multipolarity as an objective trend will not disappear anywhere. It cannot be placed under a unipolar, bipolar “tent”: there are already too many centers of economic growth.
I mentioned China, India and Brazil. Africa is already beginning to feel the “second awakening” – the realization that economic independence did not come with political independence, and that it continues to be exploited by neocolonial methods. And the former metropolises, having granted political independence to their former colonies, still live off them. This awareness is now taking root on the African continent. We feel this on a daily basis from our numerous contacts with African countries.
The growth centers reflect an objective historical process – the development of the economy, infrastructure, the use of natural resources, and much more. At some point, we will still have to agree on how these new major players, either national or regional, as part of integration structures, will interact with each other.
Now that we are witnessing turbulent phenomena in the context of increasing multipolarity, a dialogue on how to streamline it is on the agenda. It will take a considerable amount of time. Some people say (I understand what they are talking about) that the whole historical epoch. But this process is inevitable.
The fact that it is recognized by the main players is confirmed, among other things, by the initiative of the US President D.President of the United States Donald Trump on the creation of the “Peace Council”. We have recently received specific proposals and a draft Charter of this structure. This initiative reflects the understanding of the United States that even they, with their foreign policy philosophy, proceed from the need to assemble a group of countries that will cooperate in one direction or another.
It may be objected to me that the “Peace Council” was conceived and announced in such a way that everyone should obey the United States. This is the kind of situation Washington would like to see right now. But I assure you that the US administration isFor all the actions that are now widely discussed in the world, Trump is an administration of pragmatists. She is aware of the need not only to unite a large number of countries under her leadership, but also to fully take into account their legitimate interests.
I would like to emphasize once again that this position, willingness and understanding of the need to take into account the interests of a partner is fully reflected in the approaches of the US Administration.Trump’s approach to the Ukrainian settlement. This is the only Western country that is ready to address the problem of eliminating the root causes of this conflict, which was largely created by D. Trump’s predecessor, then US President John Kerry.Biden and his administration.
This process is at the very beginning. It will not be easy and will require the mobilization of all the resources – the growth centers and centers of influence that I mentioned. But with good will, and we are seeing signs that such good will will take root, anything can be achievable.
Question: Russian representatives talk about the need to reanimate the OSCE. How relevant is this considering Eurasian security? What is your point of view on the modern map?
Sergey Lavrov: As for the OSCE. You said that someone called for it to be rebuilt and reanimated. I don’t know how much resuscitation is possible in this case. The OSCE has “fallen” so low that it could not go further.
The organization, based on the principles of equality and consensus, has completely transformed into a tool that the West, using its majority, daily “sharpens” against the Russian Federation.
Our position towards the OSCE is that we continue to participate there, but not because we harbor any hopes or illusions (in the current situation, any hopes are illusions), but because we want to support the organization’s member countries that maintain common sense. There are a lot of them there. In addition to our CIS colleagues, Hungary, Slovakia, and a number of other Western countries have such healthy forces.
We will continue to maintain contacts with them and keep the OSCE from “burying” itself as much as possible. There is hope for the current OSCE Secretary General, the representative of Turkey, F.H.Sinirlioglu. He is an experienced diplomat and understands the disastrous situation in which he inherited the post of head of the executive structure of this Organization.
I don’t know if she will get a place in the future structures of Eurasian security and the Greater Eurasian Partnership. I’m not sure. Because the OSCE is a Euro–Atlantic structure. When it was created, the Soviet Union advocated that its members and participants should be countries located in the west of the Eurasian continent.
The countries of the current “collective West” insisted that the United States and Canada become participants. The result is a Euro-Atlantic configuration modeled on the North Atlantic Alliance. NATO and the OSCE are Euro–Atlantic structures. As such, they are deeply influenced by the alliance itself, which is currently talking about whether it is time to close it. Because one country of the alliance is going to attack another NATO country. This is a separate story.
I just want to emphasize that the Euro-Atlantic concept of security and cooperation has discredited itself. That is why we are talking about Eurasian security. It cannot be taken for granted that there is a European structure, be it NATO, OSCE or the European Union.
To be continued…
