Французская Республика
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statement and answers to media questions at a joint news conference following talks with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of the Republic of Zimbabwe Amon Murwira, Moscow, March 6, 2025
Ladies and gentlemen,
We held productive negotiations with Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Trade of the Republic of Zimbabwe Amon Murwira.
Appointed Zimbabwe’s Foreign Minister in October 2024, Mr Murwira attended the inaugural ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum in Sochi just one month later, in November 2024. This event was a resounding success.
Before assuming his current role, Mr Murwira visited Russia for many years as Zimbabwe’s Minister of Education. He is thus well acquainted with Moscow, our country, and his counterparts. In his new capacity, Mr Murwira’s circle of friends will undoubtedly broaden.
We emphasised the paramount importance of the traditionally friendly relations between Russia and Zimbabwe, which are rooted in the principles of equality and mutual respect. We welcomed President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s commitment to deepening our partnership based on agreements reached during his meetings with President Vladimir Putin, including on the sidelines of the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in June 2024.
Within the bilateral agenda, we prioritised strengthening trade and economic cooperation. Additional steps were agreed to identify promising areas for joint engagement, particularly in geological exploration, mineral resource development, nuclear energy, agriculture, space technology, and information and communications technologies.
Co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Commission on Trade and Economic Cooperation (one of which is Mr Murwira) will convene a special meeting this year to outline specific issues requiring detailed preparation for discussion at the Commission’s next plenary session.
Cultural cooperation also boasts rich traditions. Annually, we allocate 125 scholarships for Zimbabwean citizens to study at Russian universities. We are prepared to increase this quota, as demand is clearly evident. The St Petersburg State University project, the Centre for Open Education in Zimbabwe, is operational, with over 500 individuals enrolled in online Russian language courses – a figure that continues to grow. I am confident this new centre will be in demand. We are prepared to replicate such initiatives through other Zimbabwean educational institutions.
Regional collaboration shows promising trajectories. There are advancements in Zimbabwe’s relations with Tatarstan and the Moscow Region. A cooperation agreement is in place between the Government of the Sverdlovsk Region and the Government of the Midlands Province concerning international and foreign economic relations in trade and economic, scientific and technical, cultural, and social and humanitarian spheres.
We discussed in detail the global and regional agenda, where our positions align closely across nearly all key issues. We advocate strict adherence to international law, including the UN Charter’s principles in their entirety and interconnection. Foremost among these are the sovereign equality of states, non-interference in their domestic affairs, and the right of nations to determine their own destiny and their own models of political and socio-economic development.
We consistently align our actions on resolutions presented for a vote at the UN. Zimbabwe co-authors many of these resolutions and supports all Russian initiatives, including key ones such as combatting the glorification of Nazism, the demilitarisation of space, and ensuring international information security. We have also discussed additional steps to enhance our coordination on foreign policy.
Our discussions also focused on the ongoing conflicts across the African continent, including those in the Central African Republic, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Somalia, and the Great Lakes region of Africa.
We greatly value the efforts of African nations, the African Union, and subregional organisations to alleviate crises on the continent. This includes the work of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), which has been instrumental in providing support and resolving the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Zimbabwe currently holds the chairmanship of this Community, with President Emmerson Mnangagwa personally leading active mediation efforts.
The Russian Federation will continue to support the efforts of the global community in promoting stabilisation and conflict resolution across Africa. However, we believe that the methods of resolving these conflicts should be determined by the African countries themselves, with the assistance of relevant continental organisations. Externally imposed solutions have proven ineffective in achieving lasting peace. We will uphold the principle that African problems require African solutions.
Russia will continue to enhance its support for countries in the region through bilateral cooperation, including strengthening the combat capabilities of national armed forces, training military personnel, and reinforcing security and law enforcement agencies. This is aimed at boosting the capacity of our African partners to combat terrorism, drug trafficking, organised crime, and other forms of criminal activity on their territories.
We discussed the importance of a new format for our communication with Africa, particularly the first ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum, which took place in Sochi in the autumn of 2024. This event was organised based on the decision made at the second Russia-Africa summit held in St Petersburg in 2023. Preparations are already underway for the third summit in 2026. This year, we plan to hold the second ministerial forum in one of the African countries.
We also addressed the situation in Ukraine and the developments surrounding it. We are grateful to our Zimbabwean friends for their objective and consistent stance, as well as for their understanding of the root causes of the conflict created by the West over many years and aimed at turning Ukraine into an instrument for combatting the Russian Federation and undermining our position on the global stage.
Once again, I would like to express my gratitude to my colleague and friend, Amon Murwira, for a meaningful, constructive, and result-oriented discussion.
Question: There have been media reports saying that the United States suspended military aid for Ukraine on March 4, 2025, until President Donald Trump sees Kiev’s commitment to peace talks. In your opinion, when could this military aid resume? Can we expect US-Ukraine relations to change any time soon, especially considering Vladimir Zelensky’s attempts to apologise for what happened at the White House? What does Russia think about the suspended military aid for Ukraine?
Sergey Lavrov: We have said many times already that EU’s former diplomacy chief, Josep Borrell, was right when he said that the Ukraine conflict can be stopped very quickly, say, in a matter of two weeks, simply by pulling the plug on providing military assistance to the Ukrainian regime. This was his way of putting this, and this is also the answer to your question. We share this assessment.
However, Josep Borrell would go on to perorate about the need to rule out this possibility. He called for inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia and then imposing their terms and measures on us. He was a high-ranking official, by the way. We understand just how naïve he was. Josep Borrell’s successor in this office, Kaja Kallas, has been sticking to the same logic, and the same goes for most European countries. The way they behave should not come as a surprise anymore. They are all saying that peace would be worse for Ukraine than war today – get an upper hand on the battlefield first and then talk to a weaker Russia.
True, they have stopped mentioning the need to inflict a strategic defeat on the Russian Federation. Yesterday, President of France Emmanuel Macron made a rather lengthy and somewhat confused statement in which he argued that the war should not end with Ukraine’s surrender. In fact, they have come a long way from seeking to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia to talking about Ukraine’s capitulation. At least they had the strength to cover the huge distance that separates these two notions.
As for the current situation with military aid and a pause in delivering weapons as announced by the United States, it also involves a pause in sharing intelligence data. This confirmed what we have been saying all along. President Vladimir Putin has said many times that launching long-range missiles targeting facilities on our territory would have been impossible for the Ukrainians without the direct involvement of the West – the United States, the UK, France, Germany and other countries which have been sharing their intelligence and helping Ukraine use the corresponding technology. This is an important admission.
I will not elaborate on whether this pause would last. We have our objectives as set forth by President Vladimir Putin. And for all these years we have been making it clear that we are open to holding talks.
Russia welcomed the position adopted by the Donald Trump administration. Unlike Biden’s team, he said that he wanted peace, not war. Russia also stands for peace and is ready to engage in an honest conversation taking into account the root causes of this conflict, including the core issue of security for the Russian Federation and guarantees that NATO would not swallow up Ukraine to transform it into a permanent threat for the Russian Federation.
Amon Murwira has reaffirmed that Zimbabwe understands the need to focus on eliminating these root causes instead of taking stop-gap measures for supplying more advanced weapons to the Nazi regime in Kiev in order to enable it to continue its war against the Russian Federation.
Question: President of France Emmanuel Macron stated in his address to the nation yesterday evening that Russia was a threat to France and Europe. He also called for discussing the use of France’s nuclear weapons to protect the European Union. What do you think about the French president’s statement about the “Russian threat”? How dangerous is this nuclear rhetoric? Can these words by the French president be regarded as a threat to Russia?
Sergey Lavrov: Of course, it is a threat against Russia. If they regard Russia as a threat and convene a meeting of the chiefs of general staffs of European countries and Britain, and if they say that nuclear weapons should be used against Russia and that they should be ready to use them, we regard this as a threat.
Unlike his predecessors who wanted to fight against Russia, like Napoleon and Adolf Hitler, Mr Macron is not acting elegantly. They openly said that they wanted to conquer and defeat Russia. He obviously wants the same, but for some reason he says that they need to go to war with Russia so that it does not defeat France. He insists that Russia poses threats to France and Europe.
Emmanuel Macron is known for saying that he would call President Putin to talk with him. He has the ability to do so; nobody will stop him. On the contrary, President Putin has pointed out on numerous occasions that he was open to contacts with all his colleagues. Regarding the patently unwise claims that Russia is preparing for a war against Europe, Vladimir Putin has stated repeatedly that this is nonsense and madness. Every reasonable person can see that this is not what Russia wants. We need to eliminate the root causes of the situation which the West has created in Ukraine for the purpose of influence and suppression, and for launching a war against Russia. The prime cause is NATO’s expansion. US President Donald Trump and his team are fully aware that this is the main cause of the current situation. They have said so publicly.
However, Europeans, who have decided for some reason that the United States has betrayed their interests, keep silent about these root causes while trying to knock together combat forces within the alliance for deployment in Ukraine.
As for another root cause, we have pointed it out many times. They have legislatively outlawed the Russian language, the Russian media and culture, and the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The West keeps silent about this even though they speak out for human rights in all other instances.
The EU has held a meeting with the Central Asian states, although there is little to discuss apart from human rights. But people in Central Asia are free to speak any language, be it Russian or French, whereas Ukraine has banned the Russian language. At the same time, Zelensky’s officials claim that Ukraine is “the most open democracy in the world.” Europe swallows these lies and remains silent.
It sounded strange to me that Mr Macron, stepping into the shoes of Napoleon who wanted to conquer Russia, and masking his clearly delusive intentions, has accused President Putin of deception. By doing this, he has joined a dialogue in absentia with US President Trump, who has said that everything he agreed on with Putin was always implemented. President of France Emmanuel Macron has decided to do as Zelensky did, who claimed in the Oval Office that Vladimir Putin had violated some “agreements” 25 times. It is funny to hear this from a man who came to power by promising to restore peace and implement the Minsk Agreements, and who said soon afterwards that he would never implement them.
Emmanuel Macron also said that Vladimir Putin always violated everything they discussed. In particular, this suggests that his accusation also applies to the Paris meeting. The French President hosted a Normandy Four summit in December 2019, which included, alongside himself, then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Vladimir Zelensky. As the French and Germans announced, the meeting focused on saving the Minsk agreements.
Back then, while preparing that event at the Elysee Palace, we reached consensus at the expert level. At the level of ministers, we fully agreed on the meeting’s final documents. The first paragraph of that document stated that we agreed on the need to withdraw troops from the line of contact along its entire length. All the parties agreed. When the leaders had already sat down and were given the copies of what the experts and ministers had agreed upon, Vladimir Zelensky suddenly said that he would not do it. He said he would not withdraw troops along the entire line of contact, because doing so would make that line a permanent border. That was how he treated the Minsk agreements. He said he could only go so far as to withdraw troops from three points on the line of contact. Ukrainian representatives pointed them out. We had to agree, even though both Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel were surprised, and not in a good way. But this character’s tendency to use hospitality in his own way is well known.
In retrospect, I would like to add that nothing changed at any of the “points” that Zelensky himself indicated as places where he would agree to withdraw forces from the line of contact. The Ukrainians derailed this agreement. The political part of the document adopted in Paris reaffirmed what the Minsk agreements stipulated: the need to legislate the special status of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics by amending the Constitution accordingly. This was what they said. A few days later, it became clear that Zelensky was not going to do anything. On videos from the four leaders’ news conference following the December 2019 summit in Paris, Zelensky can be seen pulling faces and generally clowning around during Vladimir Putin’s speech, thereby showing his attitude to the document that had just been signed.
Today, he makes lofty statements claiming that Russia has failed to implement the Paris agreements. What Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron said in Paris in 2019 about the need for that summit to save the Minsk agreements also turned out to be a lie. Because after this summit, former French President Hollande, who had signed the Minsk agreements, and Chancellor Merkel both said that they were not going to fulfil them. They admitted that they needed to buy time to pump Ukraine full of weapons. This means she was also lying when she called for “saving” the Minsk agreements.
Naivety is not welcome in politics. We will never practice naivety again.
Question: Europe is discussing the idea of deploying peacekeepers to Ukraine. Does Moscow still oppose this, or is there room for compromise?
Sergey Lavrov: We see no room for compromise.
This discussion is being conducted with frankly hostile intentions. They do not conceal their underlying objectives.
French President Emmanuel Macron, supported by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, will soon escort Vladimir Zelensky to Washington “cap in hand”. According to their plan, combat operations must be suspended for a month – at least in the air, at sea, and against energy infrastructure facilities. During this period, they intend to deploy these forces while simultaneously coordinating the terms of peace.
First: if you deploy troops to a territory, you are unlikely to later negotiate terms, as you will have already established facts on the ground.
Second: when questioned by journalists, the Trump administration noted that such matters – particularly attempts to label them as “peacekeeping forces” – must be discussed and require mutual consent. Neither Emmanuel Macron, nor Keir Starmer, nor other advocates for troop deployment in Ukraine have even mentioned this.
We will treat the presence of these forces on Ukrainian territory exactly as we would a potential NATO deployment in Ukraine. Whatever flags disguise this operation – be it the EU banner or national flags of contingent contributing nations – and whatever chevrons (including Banderite insignia) adorn their uniforms, these will anyway remain NATO forces. Notably, Ireland has already expressed readiness to contribute troops (clearly uneasy outside the North Atlantic Alliance), alongside Canada (inevitably) and Australia. An interesting coalition is forming.
We categorically will not remain passive observers. Let me reiterate: such actions would constitute not some purported hybrid involvement, but direct, official, and unconcealed NATO participation in the war against the Russian Federation. This cannot be permitted – particularly against the backdrop of French President Emmanuel Macron’s panicked statement yesterday that Russia poses a threat to Europe. If so, troops would logically be deployed against this threat.
Since the start of the special military operation – even during the 2022 negotiations in Belarus and subsequent Istanbul talks where agreements were nearly finalised, approved, initialled, and later vetoed by then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (with Vladimir Zelensky dutifully complying) – we have consistently heard claims, including from Emmanuel Macron, that negotiations cannot proceed without Ukraine. The argument is that Russia and the US cannot reach agreements while Ukraine and Europe stand aside, as nothing can be done without Ukraine and Europe. Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.
Throughout this period, Western-promoted forums – whether discussing Zelensky’s “peace formula,” his “victory formula,” or his latest rebranded initiative – have systematically discussed Russia without Russia. This reflects a colonial and neo-colonial mindset. Put bluntly, it is sheer insolence they deem acceptable: Nothing without Ukraine, but anything goes without Russia.
Recently, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron boasted of their intent to draft some document on paper, explain it to Vladimir Zelensky for his compliance, then present it to US President Donald Trump for approval – before ultimately submitting it to Russian President Vladimir Putin. How does this align with diplomatic etiquette? Admittedly, etiquette is a flexible concept. In today’s diplomacy – not even etiquette but rather common decency – has long been abandoned by the West, making such behaviour unsurprising.
I note sober voices, including within NATO and the EU, acknowledging that Emmanuel Macron – desperate to salvage his reputation, hopelessly tarnished within France – may resort to utterly reckless actions.
Дополнительные материалы
-
Фото
