Interview of Ambassador to the United States Alexander Darchiev with Kommersant, November 19, 2025
20 November 2025 13:45
1943-20-11-2025
Question: Donald Trump claims that the United States will conduct nuclear tests very soon. Will this impact Russia-US relations and strategic stability? Also, Washington hasn't so far responded to Moscow's initiative to renew restrictions on the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads and delivery systems under the New START Treaty following its expiration [on February 5, 2026 - Kommersant.]
Answer: This situation is nothing short of a paradox. The US administration has so far failed to provide an official clarification requested by the Foreign Ministry, among other channels, as to whether the US president meant full-scale tests involving the detonation of a nuclear warhead, which, if it ends up taking place, will bury what remains of the arms control regime that has been largely dismantled by the Americans themselves, or whether he was referring to tests involving new delivery systems. This ambiguity provides ample room for speculation and all kinds of conspiracy theories.
If, with regard to preserving the treaty's numerical limits during one year after New START expires - something we are not pushing for and which can be done quickly without entering talks - the Americans are saying they need to conduct a rigorous analysis of Russia's initiative, then their efforts to obfuscate the most critical issue of international security and strategic stability do nothing to build mutual trust and raise doubts as to whether the US approach is genuinely responsible.
Notably, the prospect of resuming nuclear testing has drawn sharp criticism from Donald Trump's political opponents and the expert community. Analysts warn of serious negative consequences if this step were to be taken, and claims that Russia and China are supposedly conducting nuclear weapons tests and America must, therefore, catch up are entirely unsubstantiated.
This kind of turnaround tactics by the current administration are driven by the desire to secure military superiority for the United States. Moscow, however, takes them in stride in light of the groundbreaking and unmatched innovative weapons systems it has created in recent years, which reliably ensure our country's security.
We have never turned down an open dialogue among peers in this vital area, provided Russia's national interests are strictly upheld. It must be understood, however, that the conditions for launching such a dialogue will materialise when we see further improvements in Washington's policy towards Russia.
Question: The stalled negotiating process and Donald Trump cancelling the summit with Vladimir Putin in Budapest which he himself proposed suggest that Washington has backed down on the Ukraine track. Does this mean the positive momentum created during the Anchorage summit has run its course?
Answer: Not in the least. The importance of Vladimir Putin's first face-to-face meeting with Donald Trump after the latter returned to the White House lies in the fact that both leaders negotiated as peers, trying to identify points of overlapping interests. A stalled dialogue does not mean a halted dialogue. Contacts continue at different levels and call for patience and persistence.
Of course, one cannot discount pressure coming from the deep state and its representatives in the government who are in opposition to Donald Trump. They are inciting the president to ratchet up pressure on Moscow, which is an exercise in futility to begin with, in order to coerce the Russians into immediately ceasing hostilities in order to save the Zelensky-led regime. The core principles of Trumpism, such as America First and Peace through Strength imply driving a hard bargain as a way to remove existing irritants, rather than relying on the interpersonal chemistry that has formed between the leaders.
Nevertheless, the bumps and pitfalls in a dialogue that is free from illusions and - I'll say it again - is conducted mostly privately with just a few media outlets covering it, should not obscure the main point which is that, as great powers, Russia and the United States are destined to come to terms when the issue is about non-confrontational coexistence. That is at the very least. Soviet and American leaders understood this well when they established diplomatic relations in 1933. Our respective presidents were fully aware of this as well when, in a telephone conversation on February 12, shortly after Donald Trump's inauguration, they agreed to work towards bringing Russia-US relations back to normal.
Question: What is the status of consultations on irritants in bilateral relations? These talks began under the previous administration and, in theory, should have led to quick removal of the legacy restrictions affecting the work of both countries' diplomatic missions. This has not happened so far. Moreover, visa regulations for the Russian citizens have been toughened. Why?
Answer: The dialogue on irritants has been ongoing, and certain improvements have been achieved. Sure enough, they do nothing to change the restrictive system imposed under Joe Biden, but they do alleviate its most egregious elements.
One example is the travel-notification regime for the embassy personnel planning to go beyond the 25-mile radius (a mirror regime of 41 km was established for the Americans in Moscow). Each time, prior to travelling beyond the 25-mile radius, they are required to obtain permission. The agreed quotas for official and tourist travel have been eases now.
You were right when you said that, citing staffing shortages, the Americans stopped issuing regular visas to Russian citizens in Moscow. Visas can now be obtained only at US embassies in Warsaw, Poland, and you need a Schengen visa to go there, or Astana, Kazakhstan. The situation with diplomatic and official visas has slightly improved. This is important considering mass expulsions of Russian diplomatic staff initiated by Washington, followed by reciprocal measures, which resulted in severe personnel shortages on both sides. The operating regime of our depleted consular offices has not changed despite the fact that they must cope with minimal staffing.
During the above consultations on irritants, the sides also agreed on uninterrupted banking services for their diplomatic missions, committing not to block financial transactions with their respective capitals. Appropriate exemptions from the sanctions regime have been made. This applies primarily to the United States.
However, progress in addressing the underlying causes of abnormal bilateral relations which is the key prerequisite for getting our relations genuinely normalised as envisioned by the presidents, has stalled. The State Department flat out refuses to discuss returning six seized diplomatic properties owned by the Russian Federation as private property. US security agencies which stand guard around them unlawfully deny access to the Russian ambassador and diplomats. The American side ties serious discussions of this matter in with a settlement in Ukraine that suits its interests. It rejects our proposal to resume direct air travel, which Washington suspended after the start of the special military operation, tying it to Ukraine settlement as well.
Question: Is there hope that this dialogue will resume?
Answer: We are not giving up on it and continue urging the State Department's negotiating team not to narrow down the dialogue on irritants. The presidents have set quite the opposite task. It is important not to limit discussions to visas and minor technical issues related to the functioning of diplomatic missions, but to focus on normalising relations in a broader sense. As a first step, we need to return to the starting point of December 2016, when, frustrated by Hillary Clinton's defeat during the presidential campaign, then President Barack Obama launched the Russian-American diplomatic war. Dealing with its consequences is extremely painful. We will continue working hard towards this end.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
