Lavrov explains difference between war on Iran and Ukraine conflict (FULL INTERVIEW)

Tehran violated none of its international commitments while Kiev trampled on them for years, the foreign minister has said

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa in Moscow, on January 28, 2026. ©  Sputnik/Yuri Kochetkov

[RT] The US-Israeli war against Iran stands in stark contrast with the Ukraine conflict, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said.

In a wide-ranging interview with France Televisions published on Thursday, Lavrov explained that Iran had abided by its international commitments and came under attack in the midst of active talks with the US on its nuclear program.

In contrast, the top Russian diplomat said the escalation of the Ukraine conflict in 2022 followed years of disregard by Kiev for its international commitments with tacit Western approval, as well as a Ukrainian crackdown on the rights of the Russian-speaking population and hostile policies towards Moscow.

Below is the full text of the interview.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with France Televisions public television broadcaster, Moscow, March 26, 2026

Question: Before we discuss the state of affairs in Ukraine, let us take a look at the developments in the Middle East. The United States and Israel launched a military operation against Iran 20 days ago. You have firmly stood by the Islamic Republic of Iran which is your ally. Why are you doing this?

Sergey Lavrov:Our primary focus was on upholding the international law, not so much on defending Iran which is more than our ally but is our strategic partner, as set out in the relevant intergovernmental agreement. I do not think that the French, who have historically declared their commitment to international law, fail to see what is happening. In fact, there’s no need to see it, because we are witnessing it daily in real time.

We can’t really go along with US President Donald Trump saying he doesn’t need international law and is guided by his own morality and his own mind. Russia has repeatedly tried to get a message across to the Americans about the advantages of establishing a dialogue to address issues in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East at large. Each time the United States and its allies intervene, the situation there gets worse. Iraq, Syria, and Libya have been destroyed (it’s unclear when Libya will be pieced together).

The same is now happening with the Islamic Republic of Iran. For the second time in a row, the aggression against this country has begun at the height of negotiations. Everyone is talking about this. This inevitably raises questions regarding the US negotiators who ran the point on this political and diplomatic process. When senior members of the US administration speak with bravado and pride about the cold-blooded killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader and other members of the country’s leadership, one can hardly see this as anything other than cynical behaviour.

We advocate ensuring the interests of Iran and all countries in the region, including our close strategic partners from the Gulf Cooperation Council, who are also affected by the aggression unleashed by the United States and Israel. More recently, our Arab friends have been saying two wars were underway. One is the war waged by the United States and Israel against Iran, in which they are not involved in any way. The second is what they describe as Iran’s unprovoked attacks on various sites in the Arab monarchies of the Gulf. I find it difficult to accept this logic, because the underlying cause - the US-Israeli aggression - holds the key to settlement. It is no coincidence that yesterday, on March 25, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called first and foremost on the United States and Israel to stop the war, and only then expressed hope that Iran would refrain from attacking facilities in the Arab states.

Question:I have heard those remarks. However, US intelligence claims you are helping the Iranians identify US bases as targets. Is that true? How far will Russia go in supporting Iran? Is your country supplying weapons to Iran? Do you confirm armaments transfers?

Sergey Lavrov:You are a remarkably capable journalist, because your first question was whether it’s true that we are helping Iran, and then, without waiting for me to answer your question, you went ahead and asked me how far this support would go.

President Vladimir Putin and his Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov have commented on the issue of Russia supplying intelligence to Iran which media is blowing out of proportion.  They stated that Russia indeed has close relations with Iran. We have an agreement on military-technical cooperation. We have supplied certain types of military equipment to Iran, but we cannot agree with accusations that we are providing Iran with intelligence.

You mentioned intelligence regarding the location of US military bases. Everyone in the region knows their coordinates. This is not classified information. This information is readily available. I am not surprised to see Iran target them.

We have noted that when it became clear that war preparations were underway, our GCC partners strongly urged the United States not to start this reckless venture once again. They made it clear that they would not provide their airspace or allow US military bases on their territory to be used for attacking Iran. However, anyone with even cursory knowledge of war making understands that the US bases in the region were used for gathering and transmitting intelligence, including satellite data. The fact that these bases are coming under occasional attacks stems from the reckless venture that had been launched without any rationale. The Americans have evacuated most of their personnel from these bases for a reason. This also goes to show that they knew what was about to unfold. By launching this aggression, they have set up their Arab allies.

Question:Mr Minister, from an economic viewpoint, is this war beneficial for Russia? Are you now able to sell more oil to Asian countries? This trade brings billions of dollars to the Russian budget. Will this help you to cope with the deficit and fund the special military operation in Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov:We never do anything in order to take something away from others. We are never happy to see wars unleashed by other people or countries lead to global market gyrations that drive up prices for energy and other commodities exported by the Russian Federation. We will always, regardless of circumstances, trade and maintain economic relations with everyone who is interested in trading with us.

We see the United States’ interest which they have stated openly. There are official documents and official statements indicating that they seek to dominate global energy markets.

Venezuela is a stark example. The claim was that the drug traffickers’ regime must be taken down. The bottom line is that the United States is taking control of Venezuela’s oil industry.

The same is now happening with Iran. The US President Donald Trump has, in effect, stated quite plainly that he wants, in conjunction with Iran, to control the Strait of Hormuz and all hydrocarbon shipments going through it.

No one condemned explosions at Nord Stream pipeline perpetrated by Ukrainian saboteurs with the apparent support of Western intelligence services. Neither France nor Germany denounced them; Germany, in particular. I think it’s a disgrace for a country of its standing to swallow this act of sabotage and terrorism directed against its fundamental interests. The United States is now saying it wants to take over Nord Stream as well.

Sanctions have been imposed on Russian companies Lukoil and Rosneft. Their entire foreign-based business is now subject to attempted corporate raiding. So, it is not us who are using our actions in the international arena in an attempt to derive unlawful gain.

To reiterate, we will always honour our obligations under any economic circumstances. We will always maintain relations with our partners who are guided by the same principles, unlike the European Union, which decided to up and tear up all contractual and other arrangements with the Russian Federation because it wished to do so. This was the choice made by Paris and Berlin, and, of course, by your friends in the Baltic republics and in Poland, too, which I cannot fail to mention.

Question:When the war started, US President Donald Trump said he wanted to lift sanctions on Russian oil. Has he done anything in this regard?

Sergey Lavrov:This is a very engaging subject. Just like the sanctions imposed by the EU and its individual member states - Britain included, of course - the US sanctions are outright illegitimate. Complying with them is out of the question.

We cannot understand or support the position adopted by the countries that are forced to be part of these entirely unlawful restrictions. Representatives of the United States, such as the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Energy, state that they have graciously allowed the Russian Federation to sell its oil that was already at sea, in tankers, suggesting that Russia may benefit from this indulgence for a month. In reality, tankers that are already at sea and heading to their destinations continue moving exactly as they did before.

We cannot even discuss the lifting of unlawful sanctions. For us and our honest and reliable partners they simply do not exist.

Question: You said the US and Israel are violating international law in Iran. Can we ask the same question to you, saying that Russia is violating international law in Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov:I’m not the one who raised the issue of the US and Israel violating international law in Iran. This is a hard fact that no one denies – including the leadership of the French Republic and a number of other EU countries. And it is perfectly clear to everyone on other continents as well.

I would emphasise that there was a negotiating process underway in both June 2025 and February 2026. And the strikes – without a declaration of war, without any justification – took place in the midst of those negotiations, right before the next scheduled round. This, of course, is treachery. I repeat that it raises questions for many regarding the role played by American negotiators.

You mentioned Ukraine and international law. In this regard, I will have to take up more of your time than I did with the previous questions.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 (if you recall that period), Ukraine declared its independence on the basis of a special Declaration stating that the country would be a sovereign, independent, non-nuclear, neutral state that would not join or seek to join any military-political blocs.

That declaration also stated that Ukraine, as an independent state, would ensure legitimate human rights, including the rights of ethnic minorities and, as was proclaimed, their linguistic and religious rights.

We recognised the independence of that Ukraine – not the one led by Nazi nationalist regime that our Western colleagues brought to power in the February 2014 coup. As guarantors, France, Germany and Poland signed the agreements between then-President Viktor Yanukovich and the opposition, which envisaged and provided for the creation of a government of national unity and the holding of new early elections. The next morning, when the opposition trampled over the signatures of France, Germany and Poland, neither Paris, Berlin nor Warsaw so much as raised their voices or demanded that the opposition honour its commitments.

When we asked our French and German colleagues about this, they told us that democracy sometimes takes completely unexpected turns. Then the Kiev regime’s aggression against its own citizens began: over 40 people were burned alive in Odessa; the centre of Lugansk, and many other cities and towns were bombed. War began.

On the initiative of then-French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Normandy process was launched, involving Russian President Vladimir Putin and then-Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko, and culminating in the signing of the Minsk agreements in February 2015. These agreements, I would note, were approved by the UN Security Council. Some time later – quite recently – after both François Hollande and Angela Merkel had already left office, they, along with former Ukrainian President Poroshenko, admitted that they had never intended to comply with these agreements – in flagrant disregard of the UN Security Council resolution. They wanted to buy time to “pump” more weapons into the Ukrainian Nazi regime.

Its Nazi character was reflected, to say the least, in the series of laws that began to be passed long before the special military operation – banning the Russian language across the board: in education (in both schools and universities), in culture, in books, and in the media. A law banning the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church was also passed.

You asked what the difference is between the situation in Iran and Ukraine. The difference is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has not violated any international obligations, including those relating to the Iranian nuclear programme. In 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was signed. It was approved by the UN Security Council. The United States undermined the JCPOA when, in 2017, during President Donald Trump’s first term, they withdrew – violating all their commitments. Iran violated nothing. Ukraine, along with its Western patrons, violated everything that could possibly be violated.

And when, in December 2021, we proposed concluding agreements with the US and NATO on security guarantees that would ensure a balanced approach to security and stability, based on a balance of interests between Russia, Ukraine and the West, we were told that it was none of our business and that Ukraine would join NATO. So to suggest that we didn’t warn anyone, or that France, Germany and Ukraine’s other patrons didn’t know they were steering matters towards a crisis, is, in my view, not entirely accurate. And I have no doubt that serious French political scientists and politicians understand perfectly well what happened and what caused the current crisis.

Question:We have heard Russia’s position. It has been articulated for four years now. We understand that it differs from the stance of France, Poland, Germany, and other European nations, which believe that the “intervention” or “invasion” of Ukraine constitutes a violation of international law. For over four years, war has raged. On February 24 of this year, you stated that not all objectives had yet been achieved. We would like to understand what your goals are. For instance, on Tuesday, you committed one of the worst acts of aggression by launching a massive drone attack on cities, deliberately targeting schools and hospitals. Hundreds of civilians perished. What are your objectives? Civilians? How far are you prepared to go to secure victory over Ukraine?

Sergey Lavrov:You remarked that our position differs from that of France, Germany, and Poland. I was not presenting a position but stating facts – facts that our Western colleagues adamantly refuse to acknowledge. These facts cannot be denied, for they were forged by the actions of our French, German, Polish, and other neighbours, who now categorically refuse to admit that they guaranteed a settlement twelve years ago, only to be ignored, spat upon, and their diplomatic efforts trampled – while they remained silent and swallowed the insult. A year later, in February 2015, the same Germany and France endorsed and approved in the UN Security Council what they termed their guarantees of the Minsk agreements, only to later confess they had no intention of fulfilling them.

Thus, I am not speaking of Russia’s position as distinct from the West’s, but of facts that France, Germany, and many of your NATO and EU partners are ashamed to acknowledge. No rational politician in Europe can fail to grasp the betrayal inherent in these actions.

As for the objectives we seek, they have been articulated by President Vladimir Putin. We have reiterated them repeatedly. They are defined by the causes of this crisis. First, we were assured at political levels that Ukraine would not be admitted into the alliance and that NATO would not expand. Then, when these assurances and agreements – reached within the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe – were violated, we were told they were political commitments, not legal ones. In other words, they lied to us when they signed these political declarations at the OSCE’s highest level.

The second issue we and our compatriots – Russians and Russian-speakers in Ukraine – have faced is the wholesale eradication of their rights, met with total silence from so-called beacons of freedom and democracy like France and other EU members. Can you imagine a country banning a language, let alone an official UN language, in every conceivable sphere? In Ukraine, using Russian can result in administrative or even criminal penalties. We recently discussed Iran, where Hebrew is not banned. In Israel, no language – neither Arabic nor any other – is prohibited. Yet Ukraine stands alone in enforcing such practices.

Now, the West promises Ukraine “security guarantees.” President of France Emmanuel Macron has spoken on this topic with such fervent conviction, claiming these “guarantees” – including the deployment of “stabilisation forces” from unspecified international structures – are part of the solution. In reality, this would amount to outright occupation.

Even if we abstract from the specific forms of these security guarantees – who are they for? For a Nazi regime. Neither France, nor Germany, nor anyone else in the West is currently telling Ukraine: “We are helping you. Restore the Russian language, as enshrined in your Constitution, and cease persecuting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.” Has anyone said this? This is not a bargaining chip. It is an integral part of dialogue with any normal country (I hope France is a normal country). So when you claim you will guarantee the security of Vladimir Zelensky and his junta – this is not liberty, equality, or fraternity. It is something else entirely.

And finally – you mentioned civilian casualties. I suppose this is what interests you most? You listed a series of facilities which, according to your sources, were targeted. These were civilian sites, with civilian casualties. We have repeatedly stated – through the words of President Vladimir Putin and the leadership of the Russian Ministry of Defence – that we never direct strikes at purely civilian targets. Every target selected, in one way or another, supports the operational activities of the Ukrainian armed forces on the front lines. The Ukrainian armed forces, incidentally, never shy away from attacking exclusively civilian sites.

Our representative, Ambassador-at-Large of the Russian Foreign Ministry for Crimes of the Kiev Regime Rodion Miroshnik, is currently staying in Geneva. He has brought with him concrete evidence – voluminous documentation detailing the crimes of the Kiev regime and its violations of international humanitarian law.

As for accusations against us – we have never seen concrete proof. Only television reports or social media posts. Remember how, at the very outset of this crisis, attempts were made to accuse us based on imagery that journalists later revealed to be a decade-old photograph from Iraq?

My question to you is this: if you, as journalists, are genuinely concerned about upholding international humanitarian law, why not conduct a journalistic investigation? Many journalists undertake such investigations precisely because they distrust governments.

I travel annually to New York for the UN General Assembly sessions and hold news conferences there. I ask journalists: Why does no one pose one simple question? When your colleagues at the BBC, in April 2022, broadcast footage from a suburb of Kiev – the residential community of Bucha – where corpses with bound hands were neatly arranged, claiming these were atrocities committed by the Russian Armed Forces, we were accused of every imaginable sin, and new sanctions were imposed. Four years have passed since then. We still cannot obtain a list of the individuals whose bodies were shown by the BBC. Is this not a fair question from the country accused of these “atrocities”? Nothing has been proven. We appealed to the UN Secretary-General and the UN Human Rights Council. Their responses were bashfully evasive – they claim they cannot address this. Why? If António Guterres and his team – who have effectively privatised the UN Secretariat on behalf of the West – cannot handle it, why don’t journalists step in? Journalists who display such zeal on other occasions that one can only admire them further.

Bucha. If you will, this is my challenge to you. Yours is a reputable, major media company. When you ask why Russia is killing everyone – perhaps you ought to present at least some evidence. We disseminate evidence of the Ukrainian regime’s atrocities, including today, once again, at the UN platform in Geneva. I call upon the journalistic community to also demonstrate some balance and responsibility.

Question: You mentioned the BBC as an example. Our channel also reports on civilian casualties, and we have seen and filmed buildings destroyed by Russian drones.

I would like to ask about another issue. You had meetings with Ukrainian representatives and with members of the US President Trump administration. How are the peace negotiations progressing? Are you disappointed with Donald Trump’s conduct and his ability to bring this war to an end?

Sergey Lavrov: You said that your company, like the BBC, shows destroyed buildings. My example was completely different: when the BBC team was reporting from a suburb of Kiev showing footage of bodies, no other journalistic team was noticed there. For four years now, we have sought to obtain the identities of those whose bodies were shown in that footage. One would expect such questions to be of interest to any journalist. I would encourage you to examine this matter at least. The events in Bucha have become widely known, yet the West is trying hard to forget them. And journalists who were always renowned for their meticulousness do not say a word.

As for the negotiations, President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that Russia favours a resolution of the Ukrainian crisis created by the West. French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer have publicly expressed their intention to inflict a “strategic defeat” on Russia. “Not a step back.” All recent NATO and EU meetings have reaffirmed continued support for the Ukrainian regime, including future security guarantees once this war the West unleashed against us using the hands of these Nazis is over.

The negotiation process has been shaped above all by the results of the summit between President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump held in Alaska in August 2025 – the summit to which we were invited. President Vladimir Putin accepted the invitation. In preparation for that meeting, US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff came to Moscow with a set of proposals on behalf of President Trump. President Vladimir Putin has said repeatedly that these proposals were carefully examined. They contained points that are of a compromise nature.

In the end, when we arrived in Alaska, President Putin told President Trump that Russia had examined these proposals and appreciated that they addressed the main task: the core roots of the conflict and the real situation on the ground after the people living in southeastern Ukraine had held referendums, reaffirming their wish to reunite with the Russian Federation. President Putin told President Trump that Russia agreed with the US proposals. There was a clear understanding.

Today, the “Anchorage spirit” is often referred to. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have always enjoyed a good relationship. They have respect for each other without agreeing on many points. However, they know how men and major political figures should talk to each other: in a candid and open dialogue, without shying away from problems and discrepancies. This is what the good “spirit” was about. Nevertheless, this is not so much about the “spirit” but about the clear understandings that were reached there. The Americans know about this. After Anchorage, all further progress in negotiations has been stalled by the EU and NATO leadership, especially Ursula von der Leyen and Mark Rutte, who worked hard to undermine these understandings and to steer the US administration away from the agreements that it had put forward and Russia had supported. The prolongation of the conflict is largely due to this subversive policy of the European Union and the North Atlantic Alliance leadership.

As you know, several rounds of negotiations have been held after Alaska, the most recent just before the US and Israel attacked Iran. Now, a pause followed. Despite this, we are aware of the contacts that took place between the Americans and the Ukrainians. We have been informed of this. We can see that the American side is making every effort to secure Kiev’s consent to the understandings reached by the Russian and American presidents in Alaska. We believe this approach is the only correct one.

Question: Before discussing relations with France and the European Union, I would like to ask: do you still trust Donald Trump? Do you consider him a good person and a reliable partner? My second question: Why doesn’t President Vladimir Putin want to meet with President Vladimir Zelensky and negotiating directly with him?

Sergey Lavrov: When it comes to trust, we rely on concrete actions. There is plenty of rhetoric – Washington, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, and London all produce a great deal of it – but we place our confidence in tangible deeds.

Let me reiterate: we have just received information from our American colleagues, and we have every reason to believe it is true that they are working toward finalising the agreements reached in Alaska. This reflects the scope of their engagement with the Kiev regime. I see this as the only viable path forward. Admittedly, the Alaska agreements were not all-encompassing; a wide range of other issues will need to be addressed once Kiev agrees to accept the understandings reached in Anchorage.

Matters requiring particular attention include the previously mentioned issues concerning the Russian language and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. I do not believe we should expect any initiatives from Kiev in these areas. What is needed instead is to insist, on behalf of the European Union and NATO, on the restoration of the provisions of the Ukrainian Constitution that guarantee the rights of all national minorities, especially the Russian national minority and Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine, including their linguistic and religious rights.

The fact that the West and France, long known for their democratic traditions, remain completely silent on this matter suggests that the EU and NATO are intent on sustaining the Nazi regime in Kiev and laying the groundwork for another war against the Russian Federation.

We are not just hearing slogans about Russia supposedly “attacking” someone again by 2030, or even sooner. We are also witnessing unprecedented decisions to raise military spending to record levels. The great writer Anton Chekhov once wrote that if you place a gun on stage, it will inevitably fire. Today, the European Union is actively placing artillery and aircraft on the stage of European geopolitics. Even your President, Emmanuel Macron, has attempted to “place” a nuclear bomb on this European stage. He is now promoting a new strategic initiative, offering French nuclear forces as a nuclear umbrella and declaring plans to expand France’s nuclear potential, without specifying the quantities. This suggests that he may not intend to engage in any future nuclear deterrence negotiations.

We could speak at length about the military preparations currently taking place in Europe. Opposition parties in both France and Germany are increasingly voicing concern that this will not end well. I believe responsible European politicians in power today should take these warnings seriously.

Meanwhile, Vladimir Zelensky himself states that Kiev does not intend to concede anything and is proposing only a ceasefire along the line of contact. He has said that he will never recognise referendum results where the residents of Novorossiya and Donbass chose to join Russia as legally valid, maintaining that the territory will remain Ukrainian and will ultimately be reclaimed. This has nothing to do with the understandings reached in Alaska

Second, Vladimir Zelensky says it is imperative to stop immediately at the line of contact. He is backed by French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. However, as I have noted, this effectively means supporting a freeze of the conflict – one in which the Kiev regime is currently losing – and providing guarantees for the regime to retain control over its remaining territory. This approach does not require a return to compliance with the UN Charter, which guarantees human rights, including linguistic and religious ones, nor does it obligate the regime to fulfil its commitments under international conventions.

It is Europe – not the broader West – that seeks to preserve the Nazi regime in Ukraine, right on our borders. And when NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte declares that Ukraine will join the Alliance, how are we expected to accept that as common sense? When neither French President Emmanuel Macron, nor German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, nor anyone else voices any objection to Rutte’s statements, what are we supposed to think?

Question: You mentioned a delivery of a nuclear bomb from the European Union. We have never heard of this, and, fundamentally, no one in France has ever said that a nuclear bomb should be delivered to Ukraine.

You also mentioned France. A month earlier, you said that if President of France Emmanuel Macron were serious about engaging with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, he could have telephoned him. However, I feel compelled to ask: Does Vladimir Putin wish to speak with Emmanuel Macron? Do you want to restore dialogue with the Europeans, or do you view them as adversaries?

Sergey Lavrov: First, I never mentioned that France and Britain intend to provide Ukraine with either a “dirty bomb” or components of a nuclear charge. This information originated from our intelligence agencies and was published several weeks ago. We submitted formal demarches regarding this to Paris and London.

We are aware that the French, the British and all others categorically deny this fact. It’s the only way for them to save face and avoid becoming gross violators of the non-proliferation regime. Nevertheless, we have no doubt that those in France and the UK who are privy to such information and involved in the matter are fully aware of the issue. However, I did not mention it in my answer. We have a saying that goes: He that commits a fault, thinks everyone speaks of it. Excuse me for using it, but I did not mention the episode to which you referred.

What I did mention was that President Emmanuel Macron had publicly revealed a decision to expand France’s nuclear potential and offer it to European countries as an umbrella, perhaps to replace the American one. He also made a public statement that France would accumulate and increase its nuclear arsenal without disclosing its capacity to anyone. 

When the Americans tell us that we should resume dialogue on strategic stability, nuclear deterrence and arms control, we believe that this becomes relevant at a certain stage.  However, the conditions for such dialogue are not yet present, given that the Americans have completely undermined our partnership in the military sphere, in the strategic sphere. The doctrinal documents of the United States bear no evidence that it is ready to get back to the conditions that made it possible to sign treaties on strategic offensive weapons.

At present, the Americans are more inclined towards coercing the People’s Republic of China into participating in those eventual talks. Our position is straightforward: the PRC makes its own judgment as to what serves its national interests. China has laid out its position, and we fully respect it. But China is not our ally, and we do not have any allied commitments. Meanwhile, the United States has such commitments with France (which is your country, and you might be interested in this) as well as with the UK. Therefore, speaking about the need to restore a nuclear deterrence and strategic stability dialogue while excluding France and the UK will lead to a blind alley. This is especially true now that President Emmanuel Macron has shown a keen interest in nuclear issues. 

Question: Mr Minister, do you consider France an adversary? Do you think Russia and France are adversaries?

Sergey Lavrov: Sorry, I didn’t answer your question about contacts between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of France Emmanuel Macron. There has not been a single instance where President Macron called the Kremlin and President Putin did not pick up the phone. Not once, not ever.

There have been many occasions when President Macron, during the special military operation, publicly stated from time to time that he would definitely call President Putin but later, not now.

If you want to get on the phone with your counterpart, with whom you have long-established relations, why announce it and not follow through? That can come across as either a threat or a gesture meant to attract attention. If you want to make a call, and you are a serious politician, just go ahead and place a call. Our President will always pick up the phone.

Moreover, our President always speaks with President Macron one-on-one. No one else is present in the office from which President Putin communicates with President Macron. Whereas in Paris (as seen on television and social media), President Macron speaks with President Putin in the presence of a large audience. No one is hiding it. There have even been leaks at times about what our presidents discussed. However, the principled position of President Putin is that he is always ready for dialogue.

As for your question of who the French and France are to us. An adversary? Well, certainly not an ally. I can tell you that straight away.

We were partners with France, as we were with the entire European Union. We even had a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which formed the basis of our relations. This agreement was used to create an unprecedentedly extensive framework of relations. We were building four common spaces in the economy, culture, and security.

We had around two dozen (perhaps, even more) specialised sector-specific dialogues. We held two summits annually, too, at a time when no other country had two summits per year with the European Union. There were annual meetings of foreign ministers and the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, under whose auspices a coordination mechanism was established to oversee the implementation of all agreements. All of this was cut off overnight by the European Union, and Russia was declared a country that must be dealt a “strategic defeat.”

If someone threatens us with a “strategic defeat,” who are they to us? A partner or an adversary? The decision is yours to make. I believe the facts extensively presented in the information space over the past four years are sufficient to understand the situation.

Question: I understand you. You say you do not consider France an ally. Let me repeat the question: Is France your adversary? You are aware of our statements. Here in France, they say that Russia is the primary adversary in the information war, in the war for territories.

What would you say to the French authorities who claim that you are waging a hybrid war in France to destabilise the French system? Will you interfere in the presidential campaign scheduled for next year? How would you respond to this?

Sergey Lavrov: I have already stated that the European Union and France have, in essence, declared us an adversary – if not worse – when they asserted (and continue to assert) that Russia must suffer a “strategic defeat.” President of France Emmanuel Macron has repeatedly stated that President Vladimir Putin is the main obstacle to peace. Such remarks of his exist, you may review them. I remember them well.

Regarding hybrid warfare – just yesterday, I read an interesting piece. I even have a note on this matter. In February of this year, a right-wing conservative activist was killed in France. This occurred in Lyon. He was murdered by a group of activists from an extreme left-wing youth organisation. In short, representatives of a youth movement that aligns politically and ideologically with the French mainstream, embodied by the current French leadership, killed a young right-wing conservative man.

The US Embassy in France and the US Department of State published a statement calling for the perpetrators to be held accountable and expressing concern that the rise of left-wing radicals in France and their violent actions threaten public safety. In response, your Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Noël Barrot erupted in anger and demanded that the United States cease interfering in France’s internal affairs and national political discourse. He described this as unacceptable for any state.

That same month, in February of this year, the French Foreign Ministry issued several statements recalling the death of Alexey Navalny and explicitly stated that France holds the Russian authorities entirely responsible for his death, adding that Paris stands with all those in Russia courageously defending personal freedoms and the rule of law.

Earlier, the French Foreign Ministry published an official statement expressing concern over the “spiral of repression” in Russia, targeting all who criticise the authorities, and demanded that our country release them immediately.

You mentioned hybrid warfare in the information space. France expressed profound regret over the inclusion of the Reporters Without Borders NGO on the list of undesirable organisations in Russia. It was declared that this decision was “part of a campaign of repression waged by the Russian leadership against all critics of the authorities, with complete disregard for freedom of expression and the press.”

This was stated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of a country that, for nearly a decade, has barred journalists from RT and Sputnik from attending briefings at the Élysée Palace. This first occurred ten years ago. They – RT and Sputnik – are simply denied accreditation. At the time, we asked our French friends (we genuinely believed we were friends) why your country, a beacon of freedom, prohibits journalists from obtaining accreditation at the Élysée Palace. Do you know what they told us? They replied that these are not journalists but propagandists. Their broadcasts are banned.

It is ironic that it was in Paris in 1990 that the OSCE Summit took place. The Paris Charter for a New Europe was adopted there. Among other commitments, it proclaimed that all OSCE members ensure complete and free access to information, whether generated abroad or within their own countries.

Since then, France has adopted numerous decisions that severely restrict access to information. I have provided you with one such example. Our television channels and media outlets are discriminated against, notably by being denied access to the Élysée Palace. This pertains to the question of hybrid wars.

Question: We have five minutes left, Mr Minister. A quick question regarding the events of a few weeks ago. Our aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, was in the Baltic Sea when it was attacked by a drone. It has been suggested that a Russian drone approached our vessel. Could you confirm whether this was indeed a Russian drone?

Sergey Lavrov: We have consistently stated at the official level that we do not target civilian entities in Ukraine nor engage vessels in international waters belonging to states with which we are not officially at war.

Recently, there was similar noise in Estonia, reminiscent of the current discussion. A supposedly Russian drone was sighted, resulting in loud proclamations, only for the government to later acknowledge that the drone was Ukrainian.

It is fortunate that your aircraft carrier is in the Baltic Sea and not the Persian Gulf. Aircraft carriers have been deployed there too, although they have since departed. France, it appears, is also contemplating joining the coalition to ensure freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

I am uncertain of how this situation will unfold, but I hope that reason will ultimately prevail. Our Western colleagues should not persistently demand that Iran cease any retaliatory measures while neglecting to urge the United States and Israel to halt the war they initiated without any justification whatsoever.

However, speaking of incidents in the high seas, you somehow did not inquire about Bucha. I even prompted you to ask someone about the individuals displayed there.

Here is a very recent instance. Our tanker, the Arctic Metagaz, was struck in the Mediterranean Sea by a Ukrainian drone, an unmanned vessel. The tanker was carrying 140,000 tonnes of hydrocarbons. This is a potential environmental catastrophe. It is now adrift with a massive hole in its hull. The crew were in grave danger and were barely evacuated. Representatives from Libya assisted us in the evacuation. They are now attempting to address the security issues surrounding this significant cargo. Not a single European country is willing to discuss this matter anywhere. Your media outlets have not mentioned this incident involving the tanker – which, I reiterate, was struck by a Ukrainian unmanned vessel.

I understand that for you, the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is more important than our tanker.

Question:Are you following our electoral campaign? Are there any candidates whom Russia wishes success and victory?

Sergey Lavrov:We wish all the best to those whom the French people choose to vote for.

Question:At the summit involving Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, we all saw what you were wearing – the inscription “USSR.” What signal were you trying to send? What message did you want to convey? Do you feel nostalgia for the Soviet Union?

Sergey Lavrov:I was born in the Soviet Union. What message does a Frenchman convey when he remembers and honours Marianne on the barricades?

Question:That is history. But when you, as the Foreign Minister, wear a T-shirt with USSR, there is no doubt you are sending a message.

Sergey Lavrov:The Soviet Union is also history, just like the Russian Empire, just like the Great French Revolution.

I do not think you mean to say that you have the right to remember the French Revolution, but we must forget our own history. I believe that is not what you are implying. I think you understand what we are talking about.