Answers by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to questions from the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, which the publication refused to publish in full without abridgement or censorship, Moscow, November 13, 2025Question: It is said that the new meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Budapest did not take place because even the US administration realized that you were not ready for negotiations on Ukraine. What went wrong after the summit in Anchorage, which gave hope for the start of a real peace process? Why does Russia stick to the demands that Vladimir Putin formulated in June 2024, and on what issues could you compromise?
Sergey Lavrov: The Anchorage understandings are an important milestone on the path to finding long-term peace in Ukraine by overcoming the consequences of the bloody, unconstitutional coup d'état in Kiev in February 2014, organized by the Obama administration. They are based on the current realities and closely echo the conditions for a fair and sustainable settlement of the Ukrainian crisis formulated by Russian President Vladimir Putin in June 2024. We assessed that these conditions were heard and accepted, including publicly, by the Trump administration – first and foremost with regard to the unacceptability of dragging Ukraine into NATO in order to create strategic military threats to Russia right on its borders. Washington also openly acknowledged that it would be impossible to ignore the territorial issue following the referendums held in five historical regions of our country, whose residents unequivocally expressed their desire for self-determination from the Kiev regime, which had declared them “subhuman” “creatures,” and “terrorists,” and for reunification with Russia.
It was precisely around the theme of security and territorial realities that the American concept was built, which, a week before the summit in Alaska, was brought to Moscow on behalf of the US President by his special representative S. Whitcoff and which, as President V. Putin informed President D. Trump in Anchorage, we agreed to take as a basis, while proposing a specific step. Whitcoff, and which, as President V.V. Putin informed President D. Trump in Anchorage, we agreed to take as a basis, while proposing a specific step that would pave the way for its practical implementation. The American leader said he needed to consult with others, but even after his meeting with allies in Washington the next day, we received no response to our positive response to the proposals delivered to Alaska and Moscow by S. Whitcoff. There was no response during my meeting with Secretary of State Rubio in New York in September, when I reminded him that we were still waiting for it. To help our American colleagues decide on the substance of their own idea, we put the Alaska understanding on an informal paper and sent it to Washington. A few days later, at the request of Donald Trump, he had a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin, and it was agreed to meet in Budapest, after careful preparation for the summit. There was no doubt that the Anchorage understandings would be discussed. A couple of days later, we spoke with Marco Rubio on the phone, and then Washington, describing the conversation as constructive (it was indeed businesslike and useful), announced that a personal meeting between the US Secretary of State and the Russian Foreign Minister to prepare for high-level contact was not necessary. I do not know where and from whom the American leader received the behind-the-scenes reports, after which he either postponed or canceled the Budapest summit. But I have outlined the sequence of events for you, based strictly on facts for which I am responsible. And I am not going to respond to blatant fakes about “Russia's unwillingness to negotiate” and the “failure” of the Anchorage talks. Talk to the Financial Times, which, as I understand it, launched this false version, distorting the essence and sequence of events in order to blame everything on Moscow and knock Trump off the path he himself proposed – namely, towards a stable, long-term peace, rather than an immediate ceasefire, which is what Zelensky's European masters are dragging him towards. Trump off the path he himself proposed — namely, toward a stable, long-term peace, rather than an immediate ceasefire, which is where Zelensky's European masters, obsessed with the desire to get a respite and pump the Nazi regime with weapons to continue the war against Russia, are dragging him. If the BBC faked a video of Trump's speech, putting words in his mouth calling for an assault on the Capitol, then the Financial Times, as we say, will lie for cheap. We are still ready to hold a second Russian-American summit in Budapest, if it is really based on the well-developed results of Alaska. However, the date has not been set. Russian-American contacts are continuing.
Question: Russian Armed Forces units currently control less territory than they did in 2022 after the first weeks of the so-called special military operation. If you are truly winning, why can't you deliver a decisive blow? Can you also explain why you are not providing official information about your losses?
S.V. Lavrov: The special military operation (SMO) is not a war for territory, but an operation to save the lives of millions of people who have lived on these lands for centuries and whom the Kiev junta wants to exterminate – legally, by banning their history, language, and culture, and physically, with the help of Western weapons. Another important goal of the SMO is to reliably guarantee Russia's security and thwart NATO and EU plans to create a hostile puppet state on our western borders, based in law and practice on Nazi ideology. This is not the first time we have stopped fascist and Nazi aggressors – it happened in World War II, and it will happen again this time.
Unlike Westerners, who wiped entire city blocks off the face of the earth, we spare people – both civilians and military personnel. Our armed forces act with the utmost responsibility, delivering high-precision strikes exclusively on military targets and their transport and energy infrastructure.
As a rule, we do not speak publicly about losses on the battlefield. I will only say that this year, during the repatriation of fallen servicemen, the Russian side handed over more than 9,000 bodies of Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers. We received 143 bodies of our soldiers from Ukraine. Draw your own conclusions.
Question: Your appearance at the summit in Anchorage wearing a sweatshirt with the letters “USSR” raised many questions. Some saw this as confirmation of your desire to recreate the former Soviet space (Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Baltic states), if not to restore the USSR altogether. Was this a coded message or just a joke?
S.V. Lavrov: I am proud of my country, where I was born and raised, received a decent education, and began and continue my diplomatic career. Russia, as we know, is the successor to the USSR, and our country-civilization has a thousand-year history. Democracy appeared at the Novgorod veche long before the West began its experiments with democracy. Incidentally, I have a T-shirt with the coat of arms of the Russian Empire, but that does not mean that we want to revive it. One of our greatest assets, of which we are rightly proud, is the continuity of the development and strengthening of the state throughout its great history of uniting and rallying the Russian and all other peoples of the country. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about this in detail recently during the celebration of National Unity Day. So don't look for political signals here. Perhaps in the West, the sense of patriotism and loyalty to the motherland is dying out, but for us, it is part of our genetic code.
Question: If one of the goals of the special military operation was to bring Ukraine back into Russia's sphere of influence, as might be inferred from demands to determine the amount of its armaments, do you not believe that the current armed conflict, regardless of its outcome, is giving Kyiv a distinct international role and identity that is increasingly distancing it from Moscow?
S.V. Lavrov: The objectives of the special military operation were defined by Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2022 and remain relevant to this day. This is not about spheres of influence, but about Ukraine returning to a neutral, non-aligned, non-nuclear status, strictly observing human rights and all the rights of Russian and other national minorities. These obligations are enshrined in Ukraine's 1990 Declaration of Independence and its Constitution, and it was precisely with these proclaimed obligations in mind that Russia recognized the independence of the Ukrainian state. We are striving for and will achieve Ukraine's return to the healthy, sustainable foundations of its statehood, which implies refusing to obsequiously allow its territory to be used for military development by NATO (and the European Union, which is rapidly turning into an equally aggressive military bloc), purification from Nazi ideology, which was banned at Nuremberg, and the restoration of all rights to Russians, Hungarians, and all other national minorities. It is telling that the Brussels elites, dragging the Kiev regime into the EU, remain silent about the blatant discrimination against “non-indigenous peoples” (as Kiev contemptuously refers to Russians who have lived in Ukraine for centuries) and at the same time praise Zelensky's junta as defending “European values.” This is further confirmation that Nazism is rearing its head again in Europe. There is much to think about, especially in light of the fact that Germany and Italy, together with Japan, have recently begun voting against the UN General Assembly's annual resolution on the inadmissibility of glorifying Nazism.
Westerners make no secret of the fact that they are effectively waging a proxy war against Russia with the help of Ukrainians, which will not end “after the current crisis.” This has been repeatedly stated by NATO Secretary General M. Rutte, British Prime Minister K. Starmer, Brussels bureaucrats U. von der Leyen and K. Kallas, and US Special Envoy for Ukraine K. Kellogg. It is obvious that Russia's determination to ensure its security from threats created by the West with the help of the regime it controls is legitimate and justified.
Question: The US is also sending weapons to Ukraine and recently even discussed the possibility of transferring Tomahawk cruise missiles to Kyiv. Why do your position and assessments of US and European policy differ?
S.V. Lavrov: Most European capitals now form the backbone of the so-called “coalition of the willing,” which wants only one thing: for the fighting in Ukraine to continue as long as possible, “until the last Ukrainian.” They apparently have no other way to distract their electorate from their own sharply worsening domestic socio-economic problems. With European taxpayers' money, they are sponsoring the terrorist regime in Kiev, supplying weapons that are being used to systematically kill civilians in Russian regions and Ukrainians who want to escape the war and Nazi executioners. They are sabotaging any peacekeeping efforts and refusing direct contact with Moscow. They are introducing new “sanctions” that are backfiring and further damaging their economies. They are openly preparing for a new major European war against Russia. They are persuading Washington not to pursue an honest and fair diplomatic settlement.
Their main goal is to undermine the position of the current US administration, which initially advocated dialogue, sought to understand the Russian position, and showed a willingness to find a sustainable peaceful solution. Donald Trump has repeatedly acknowledged publicly that one of the reasons for Russia's actions was NATO's expansion and the alliance's infrastructure moving closer to our country's borders – something that President Vladimir Putin and Russia have been warning about for the last 20 years. We hope that common sense and commitment to this principled position will prevail in Washington and that they will refrain from actions that could escalate the conflict to a new level.
That said, our military does not distinguish between where the weapons for the Armed Forces of Ukraine come from – Europe or the US. Any military targets are immediately destroyed.
Question: You were the one who pressed the “reset button” with Hillary Clinton, although things subsequently turned out somewhat differently. Is it possible to restart relations with Europe? Could common security become a basis for improving current relations?
Sergey Lavrov: The confrontation that resulted from the ill-considered and short-sighted policies of the European elites is not Russia's choice. The current state of affairs is not in the interests of our peoples. I would like European governments, most of which are pursuing a fierce anti-Russian policy, to realize the danger of such a destructive course. Europe has already fought under Napoleon's flags, and in the last century under Nazi banners and Hitler's standards. Some European leaders have short memories. When this Russophobic frenzy – there is no other way to describe it – passes, we will be open to contact, to listening to how our former partners intend to conduct business with us in the future. Then we will decide whether there are still prospects for honest cooperation.
The Euro-Atlantic security system that existed until 2022 has been completely discredited and dismantled by the efforts of Westerners. In this regard, President Vladimir Putin has put forward an initiative to form a new architecture of equal and indivisible security in Eurasia. It is open to all states on the continent, including its European part, but it will be necessary to behave politely, without neo-colonial arrogance, on the basis of the principles of equality, mutual respect, and balance of interests.
Question: Did the armed conflict in Ukraine and Russia's subsequent international isolation probably deprive you of the opportunity to act more effectively in other crisis areas, such as the Middle East?
Sergey Lavrov: If the “historical West” has decided to isolate itself from someone, then that is called self-isolation. And even here, the ranks are not solid: Vladimir Putin has had meetings this year with the leaders of the US, Hungary, Slovakia, and Serbia. It is also clear that the modern world is not limited to the Western minority. Those days are gone with the advent of multipolarity. Our relations with the countries of the Global South and East – which account for more than 85% of the world's population – continue to expand. In September, the Russian President paid a state visit to China, and in recent months alone, Vladimir Putin has taken part in the SCO, BRICS, CIS, and Russia-Central Asia summits, while our high-level government delegations have participated in the APEC and ASEAN summits and are now preparing for the G20 summit. Summit meetings and ministerial meetings between Russia and Africa and between Russia and the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf are held on a regular basis. The countries of the global majority are guided by their fundamental national interests, not by the dictates of former colonial powers.
Our Arab friends appreciate Russia's constructive participation in efforts to resolve regional conflicts in the Middle East. Current discussions on the Palestinian issue at the UN confirm the need to harness the potential of all influential external players, otherwise nothing lasting will be achieved; at best, there will only be colorful ceremonies. On many other international issues, our positions with our Middle Eastern friends also coincide or are very close, which facilitates cooperation in the UN and other multilateral forums.
Question: Don't you think that in the new multipolar world order that you are promoting and supporting, Russia's economic and military dependence on China has increased, thereby creating an imbalance in your historic alliance with Beijing?
S.V. Lavrov: We are not “promoting” a multipolar world order; it is developing objectively – not through conquest, enslavement, oppression, and exploitation, as the colonizers built their “order” (and then capitalism), but through cooperation, consideration of each other's interests, and rational distribution of labor based on combining the comparative competitive advantages of participating countries and integration structures.
As for relations between Russia and China, this is not an alliance in the traditional sense, but a more effective and advanced form of interaction. Our cooperation is not bloc-based and is not directed against third countries. The categories of “leader” and “follower,” which are common for alliances that emerged during the Cold War, are not applicable here. Therefore, it is inappropriate to talk about any “imbalance.”
The equal and self-sufficient ties between Moscow and Beijing are built on mutual trust and support, as well as centuries-old traditions of good neighborliness. We are firmly committed to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs.
Russian-Chinese trade, investment, and technological cooperation brings real practical benefits to both countries, contributes to the stable and sustainable growth of our economies, and improves the well-being of our citizens. Close cooperation between our armed forces provides important complementarity, helping our countries to defend their national interests in the sphere of global security and strategic stability, and to effectively counter traditional and new challenges and threats.
Question: Italy is an “unfriendly” country. You yourself have repeatedly said this, in November 2024, and even emphasized it. At the same time, in recent months, even on the Ukrainian issue, our government has shown solidarity with the US administration, which Vladimir Putin has called, if not an ally, then certainly a “partner.” And the recent change of the Italian ambassador in Moscow gives reason to believe that Rome wants a certain rapprochement. What is the state of our bilateral relations?
Sergey Lavrov: For Russia, there are no unfriendly countries or peoples, there are countries with unfriendly governments. Due to the presence of such a government in Rome, Russian-Italian relations are experiencing the most serious crisis in their post-war history. This did not happen on our initiative. It was surprising how easily Italy, contrary to its national interests, joined those who bet on Russia's “strategic defeat.” So far, we have not seen any significant changes in this aggressive approach. Rome continues to provide comprehensive assistance to the neo-Nazis in Kiev. The desire to sever cultural ties and contacts between civil societies is also striking. The Italian authorities are canceling performances by prominent Russian conductors and opera singers and have for several years now refused to allow the Verona Dialogue on Eurasian cooperation, which originated in Italy, to take place. This is not at all characteristic of Italians, who are open to art and human communication.
At the same time, many of your citizens are seeking to understand the causes of the Ukrainian tragedy. For example, the book “The Ukrainian Conflict Through the Eyes of an Italian Journalist” by the well-known Italian public figure E. Bertolazzi contains documentary evidence of violations of international law by the Kiev authorities. I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with this publication. It is not easy to find the truth about Ukraine in Europe today.
Equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between Russia and Italy is in the interests of our peoples. If Rome is ready to move towards restoring dialogue based on mutual respect and consideration of interests, let them let us know. We are always ready to listen, including to your ambassador.
https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/2058998/#
NATO #
US #
USA #
american #
ukraine #
ukrainian #
eu #
europe #
european #
warmongers #
nazi #
neo-nazi #
SMO #
denazification #
demilitarization #
russian #
politics #
Putin #
Russia #
interview #
Lavrov
