Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's statement and answers to media questions at a news conference following joint meeting of the collegiums of the foreign ministries of Russia and Belarus, Moscow, November 25, 2025
25 November 2025 16:26
1967-25-11-2025
Media members,
A joint meeting of the collegiums of the foreign ministries of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus has ended. Such meetings are convened annually. Once again, I would like to express my appreciation to our Belarusian friends for a substantive and trust-based exchange of views and ideas. All of it was useful.
As is customary for our alliance and strategic partnership, the meeting was held in a friendly and warm atmosphere.
Last night we sat down for an informal meeting to discuss bilateral priorities and joint diplomatic support for the integration process within the Union State. We discussed many international matters as well.
We have fully reaffirmed our resolve - at the presidential and ministerial levels - to continue supporting one another as allies and jointly uphold shared interests in the international arena.
We noted the unprecedentedly high level of foreign policy coordination. We welcomed the implementation by both sides of the Resolution adopted at the previous joint meeting of the collegiums and the Programme of Coordinated Actions in Foreign Policy, which is approved by our respective presidents. The current programme covers the period from 2024 through 2026. Early next year, we will begin drafting a similar programme for another three-year period.
Today, we reviewed four main issues. First, we agreed to make full use of all available humanitarian policy instruments to promote traditional values and to preserve historical memory in bilateral contacts with third countries and within multilateral associations.
We noted the importance of stepping up joint efforts to preserve cultural and civilisational diversity and to counter the politicisation of international humanitarian cooperation with particular emphasis on sports.
Second, we focused on coordinating efforts in our relations with the countries of the Global South and the Global East and their integration associations. When we discussed these matters, we stressed that this area remains our priority and its importance will continue to grow. This approach made it to the resolutions we adopted.
Third, we focused on further aligning our approaches to building relations with the countries and international organisations that pursue unfriendly policies towards Russia and Belarus. There is no need to name them as everyone knows what I'm talking about. We emphasised the importance of making coordinated efforts to counter the sanctions, legal, and media aggression carried out by these countries and the international organisations they have effectively privatised.
Fourth, we highlighted the importance of comprehensive media support for foreign policy activities. In the decisions we have adopted, we emphasised the need to expand cooperation in combatting disinformation and manipulation of public opinion.
The agreements we have come to, and additional proposals that were made during the meeting were included in the Resolution of the two collegiums, which we have just signed, and in the Ministerial Consultations Plan for 2026.
Overall, we share a common view that the continued improvement of the mechanism for foreign policy coordination between our diplomatic services in implementing the tasks set by our presidents is key to successfully advancing the interests of Russia and Belarus in the international arena and to strengthening the international standing of the Union State.
Today, we welcomed the new State Secretary of the Union State, Sergey Glazyev, who presented a number of engaging initiatives. We will work on them as a team.
Question: Did you discuss Trump's peace plan at the talks? How can Belarus contribute to a settlement, including with due regard for Belarusian interests? Was the possibility of the synchronous lifting of sanctions from Russia and Belarus discussed at the talks? Do you think a new Minsk process is possible, and if so, who could take part in it?
Sergey Lavrov: Regarding the Ukraine crisis, we discussed it, of course, in particular in an informal setting yesterday.
President Vladimir Putin provided an explicit and clear comment on President Donald Trump's peace plan at a meeting with permanent members of Russia's Security Council several days ago. Our assessment has not changed because the key provisions of Trump's plan are based on the understandings reached at the Russia-US summit in Anchorage in August 2025.
Overall, these principles have been reflected in this peace plan, which we welcomed. President Putin has pointed this out. After Anchorage, where our understandings were noted, as we thought, there was a long pause until the new document was presented. We have the text, but we have received it through unofficial channels. It has not been officially sent to us. However, we are ready to discuss concrete details, as President Putin said. Quite a few issues in that document require clarification.
Our American colleagues have not yet sent us the version of the text which the media are writing about. The goals of those who are practicing megaphone diplomacy are far from noble.
President of France Emmanuel Macron said the other day that Trump's plan is unacceptable because it means surrender to Russia. Others have said that everything must depend on Ukraine's willingness or unwillingness to agree to this or that. But serious diplomats discuss such issues confidentially until a final agreement is reached, as diplomats should do.
This document has been deliberately leaked to make a fuss in the media environment. Those who are orchestrating this fuss make no secret of their desire to undermine Trump's [peace] efforts, and would like to change his plan to their liking.
We have communication channels with our American colleagues. We are using them. We are waiting for the version of the plan they regard as provisional in terms of its final coordination with the Europeans and Ukrainians. Then we'll see. If nothing is left of the letter and spirit of Anchorage in the key understandings, it will be a completely different situation. But so far, we have not received the official version.
As for the participation of Belarus, it was most actively involved in these efforts, when the Minsk agreements were reached following almost 20 hours of talks between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, France and Germany. President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko did much to organise this work so that it might end successfully.
Of course, none of those sitting in the Palace of the Republic in Minsk in the middle of the night could even imagine that the then leaders of Germany and France, Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande, were just falsifying the talks. Both of them, along with the third participant, Petr Poroshenko, confessed two years ago that they had no intention to implement those agreements, despite the fact that they were approved by the UN Security Council. They declared that it was necessary to play for time in order to pump Ukraine full of weapons and enable it to "entrench" itself in Donbass five levels deep underground. This is yet another testimony that they had no intention at all to give up the strong-hand methods of dealing with this issue.
President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko and our Belarusian friends played a very important role. A few days after the start of the special military operation, when we were left with no other way out or chance to ensure our security interests and the legitimate rights of Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine, the Ukrainians suggested that we have talks and our Belarusian friends provided a venue at Belovezhskaya Pushcha that hosted several rounds of talks.
Later, the Ukrainian side's whims prompted the transfer of all that to another location, but this fact does not belittle the role played by Belarus. The other location was Istanbul, as you may know. It also hosted several rounds. Each time we achieved progress or interim or more stable and long-term agreements, they were disrupted.
Currently, our European colleagues are shouting from rooftops that there will be no "new Minsk" and that nothing must be decided without Europe because allegedly this directly concerns them. Europe has failed on every count since 2014. It was Europe that presided over the effort to coordinate a plan of settlement, in February 2014, between the then President [of Ukraine], Viktor Yanukovych, and the opposition. It was Europe that put its guarantor signatures to the document signed by Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition leaders.
In the morning, when the opposition seized government buildings in violation of the signed document, it was Europe that made a helpless gesture in response to our questions - Why are you, the guarantors, keeping silence and failing to call the opposition to account? - and mumbled something like: You know, sometimes democracy takes on odd forms and twists. This was all.
It was Europe that destroyed the Minsk agreements, as we now know. They openly admitted as much. Even though France and Germany - and in their person the European Union - were also the guarantors. It was Europe (if in the person of the then UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, but Europe was taking the same stance) that talked Vladimir Zelensky out of signing the agreements that were proposed by the Ukrainian delegation itself in Istanbul in April 2022.
When they say now, 'Don't you dare do anything without us,' well, you had your chances. You failed to use those chances; you have just "flunked" them.
French President Emmanuel Macron made an aggressive statement today that, in his view, Russia and its demands are the primary obstacle to a settlement in Ukraine, arguing that Moscow is engaged in a strategic confrontation with Europe. According to Macron, Europeans must demonstrate that they will not surrender to external threats. He also said that, following a settlement, he would consider sending troops to the Kiev and Odessa regions. These are no more than futile dreams that are unrelated to a peaceful settlment.
When Europeans say they must stand with Ukraine to the end because Ukraine is fighting for their European values, this amounts to a voluntary surrender and confession that Europe is encouraging the ideology and practice of Nazism, which are legalised in Ukraine. This means that Europe is encouraging racism, which has taken the form of a legislative ban on the Russian language and all things Russian - culture and media - and a ban on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. These are the European values that Ukraine defends in the name of Europe.
In this case, we can see countries that could play a constructive role as mediators. These are Belarus and Türkiye, which President Vladimir Putin has recently discussed with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who is also interested in helping create the platform. It was not us who rejected the Istanbul negotiation track. The Ukrainians did.
We have not received any response so far to our proposal to establish three working groups: humanitarian, political, and military. They complained that Istanbul was only discussing the humanitarian aspect of the situation, while staying away from issues that are crucial for the settlement. We proposed creating three groups: humanitarian, political, and military. There was no response. That was in July. They also complained that the delegation level was not high enough. We proposed substantially raising the level of participants in the Istanbul talks. Once again, this was met with silence.
When statements like President Emmanuel Macron's are made, suggesting that Russia is the only "red line" preventing a settlement, it is worth recalling that the Russian President has already commented on some of the actions taken by our European neighbours. These actions, he noted, seem directed primarily at distracting their electorates from the failure of domestic policies in the economic and social spheres, and from the real interests of their own populations.
Russia stated that it was prepared to see Belarus among potential mediators. President Alexander Lukashenko said numerous times that the issue has practical significance for Belarus due to its geographic proximity to both Russia and Ukraine. Belarus's stance will depend on how security issues are resolved. We fully consider our ally's security concerns when evaluating proposals and ideas.
The new Minsk process. The original Minsk process included negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, mediated, as they believe, by France and Germany. Today, however, any mediation by either France or Germany is entirely out of the question. Among potential mediators, we value the positions of Belarus, Turkiye, and Hungary. The latter has expressed readiness to host the proposed Russia-US summit in Budapest, as initiated by President Donald Trump. We certainly appreciate the stance of the United States, which, unlike London, Brussels, Paris, or Berlin, is the only Western actor to have taken an initiative aimed at reaching a settlement. I repeat: we recognise and appreciate this. I would particularly note that Donald Trump's 28-point plan (the version we have; we have not seen any other) most importantly reflects the key understandings reached at the Alaska summit.
Question: Following up on security, you mentioned the recently held security conference in Minsk several times today. What are its prospects? Can it become a venue to be used to work out new security architecture, for Europe, too, and take the place of the Munich Conference which has become an unfriendly venue and lost credibility?
Sergey Lavrov (speaking after Maxim Ryzhenkov): I would like to say more about the Minsk Conference's competitiveness. It is highly competitive, because it opens its doors to all countries of the continent, the largest and richest continent that is home to several great millennia-old civilisations that have preserved their civilisational ethos and traditions.
You mentioned the Munich Conference which has completely discredited itself, including through the efforts of its own leadership. They have stopped inviting participants with the viewpoints that offer an alternative to the European discourse, primarily the neoliberal discourse, which the Munich venue has always promoted.
Some Europeans are now beginning to ponder the future. The Ukraine crisis will not last forever. We are neighbours, and sooner or later we will need to restore relations, perhaps, after shedding Russophobic neo-Nazi nostalgia. Finnish President Alexander Stubb raised this issue, saying relations with Russia will need to be restored. The verb "restore" was used intuitively, because the Europeans want relations to be restored within the frameworks that they control, first and foremost, the OSCE, which they have fully privatised and which has ceased to play the part assigned to it originally. It is sad to see this happening under the leadership of Finland that once hosted the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, which established the principles of consensus and agreements that reflect a balance of interests. These are the very principles that the Western establishment has trampled upon and turned the OSCE exclusively into a tool for promoting its interests, primarily in the media sphere, condemning everyone who disagree with the Western attempts to restore its dominance and return, essentially, to the era described as neocolonialism.
Finnish President Alexander Stubb said that relations with Russia will need to be restored. Speaking of what was there before and what they want to restore, we are looking at the Euro-Atlantic models that have run out of steam. NATO and the OSCE are Euro-Atlantic organisations. The EU has long ceased to be a European forum representing the interests of Europeans and has become a NATO appendage developing military programmes and activities designed to make the territory of all EU members, regardless of their NATO affiliation, available for the alliance's infrastructure to move eastward and, if need be, to fight on the eastern flank against we know who.
That is why the Eurasian approach to security is the only viable approach that is being advanced through the Minsk conferences, three of which have been held so far.
I fully agree with Minister Ryzhenkov when he says that if someone was to come up with a more practical and workable idea, we would be happy to participate. Most importantly, we are not forcing anything on anyone. We keep our doors open, we listen to what people have to say, and try to shape a concept of future architecture that suits all Eurasian countries.
The EU is steeped in the colonial mindset. Back when we operated through a ramified system of relations with the EU, including its various bodies, we proposed discussing the South Caucasus and Central Asia as well. The EU avoided these discussions. They follow their own strategies, including the ones that concern Russia. They are unwilling to sync approaches. They have their own Arctic, Central Asian, and Black Sea strategies. Meanwhile, there is the Organisation of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation, but they do not consider themselves under an obligation to respect what the countries in a given sub-region are doing among themselves. To reiterate, Euro-Atlantic models have no future. In this sense, Belarus has come up with a truly proactive and future-oriented initiative.
We strongly support the Eurasian approach to security. Eurasia is a single geopolitical space, and our approach to security must also be single, reflecting the balance of interests of all Eurasian countries, rather than depending on western Eurasia's desire to dictate everything to everyone, as the EU and NATO are trying to do.
Question: I have a question about Ukraine and the peace plan. You said the American side has not yet provided you with an updated version. Reportedly, Russia-US talks on Ukraine are underway in Abu Dhabi which means Russia is aware of the revised version. What can you share with us about the talks in Abu Dhabi? Who is part of the Russian delegation? And how close (or how far) do you think we are to a negotiated settlement?
Sergey Lavrov: We have channels of communication with the Americans that are always on. President Vladimir Putin mentioned this when providing his assessment of the peace plan proposed by President Donald Trump. We are not hiding it.
Our diplomatic service is accustomed to doing its job professionally.
Professional diplomacy is all about - I mentioned this on earlier occasions - not letting information out before a final agreement is reached. The people who represent diplomacy and politics in Europe are doing the exact opposite. These leaks, unending speculations, and rumour mongering have one goal which, in this particular case, is to undermine President Trump's initiative in part that concerns the agreements reached in Anchorage. Europeans are not even hiding it.
Read what German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and other political figures, including the Brussels bureaucracy, have to say. We do not do that. Instead, we prefer to go about our work as foreign policy professionals do, that is to negotiate in private before making public statements. Approaching it from a different angle would expose valuable initiatives to the risk of being sabotaged by those who are out there to undermine them. The Europeans are doing this in the media, your corporation included. There have been examples of this recently.
That's not how we do it. As I said earlier, the channels are there, but we prefer to engage in diplomacy rather than run our mouths trying to provoke and undermine various positive and promising initiatives.
We are not rushing our US counterparts. We waited for a very long time after Anchorage. We spoke with them to let them know that we remain committed to the agreements we had worked out, and it is good that the Americans have finally put this initiative (Trump's plan) forward and confirmed their commitment to the Anchorage agreements. It remains to be seen how staunchly the Americans will uphold their position and how effectively they will be able to resist the attempts to lead them astray. We expect that once the United States considers its consultations with the Ukrainian regime and the Europeans complete, they will inform us accordingly. We hope this will happen within a reasonable timeframe in the near future.
Question: You do not confirm the fact of talks in Abu Dhabi?
Sergey Lavrov: I have answered your question.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
