Reviewing Lavrov’s Year-End Interview With TASS

The possible end of the Ukrainian Conflict sometime later this year and the political agreement that’ll accompany it will play the greatest roles in determining the New Cold War’s strategic dynamics in the coming future.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov gave a year-end interview with TASS where he touched upon the most important developments from the past year that’ll likely shape events in 2025. From the get-go, he rejected Trump’s reported plans to freeze the conflict, delay Ukraine’s membership in NATO, and deploy Western peacekeepers there and reminded everyone of the terms that Putin declared for ending the special operation. Russia also requires legally binding agreements that address the root of the conflict.

Lavrov expressed skepticism that there’ll be any improvement in bilateral relations under Trump since he’ll have to “swim against the current” as he phrased it in the sense of having to overcome the bipartisan consensus on containing Russia via Ukraine. On that topic, he’s equally skeptical of Zelensky’s recent admission that Ukraine is unable to reconquer its lost territories, pointing to that goal’s continued inclusion in Kiev’s “Victory Plan” as evidence that his words haven’t translated into actions.

Moving along, Lavrov was also asked about the West’s policy of orchestrating Color Revolutions, particularly in Georgia. He responded by condemning the false dilemma that they’ve placed that country into whereby it’s either considered to be with the West or against it. He also reaffirmed that Russia is determined to normalize relations with Georgia to the extent that Tbilisi is ready. Observers should keep an eye on this diplomatic track since it could have far-reaching consequences if any progress is made.

Segueing into a few words about Syria, Lavrov assessed that American sanctions played one of the most important roles in its recent regime change by depriving the Assad Government of the means for improving people’s lives after Russia’s decisive anti-terrorist victory and thus deeply disappointing them. He also criticized Assad’s inability to establish a constructive dialogue with his political opponents and neighbors, the latter in reference to Turkiye, in spite of the support that Russia provided in these regards.

Lavrov then took the opportunity to opine on other events in the region by sharing his view that the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian Conflict is responsible for an “arc of violence” spreading across West Asia over the past year from Lebanon to Yemen. He also expressed serious concern about the Iranian-Israeli confrontation and once again offered Russia’s diplomatic services in mediating between them. The end of the interview saw him share a few words about the Asia-Pacific after being asked about this region.

He emphasized Russia’s right to develop relations with North Korea and warned about how the US is replicating its Ukrainian model of proxy containment against China via Taiwan. According to him, this is being implemented as part of the US’ anti-Chinese policy, but it risks destabilizing the Asia-Pacific just like Europe has been destabilized over nearly the past three years. Lavrov also ruled out recognizing Taiwan and reiterated Russia’s firm support of China’s territorial integrity.

All in all, there was nothing new in his interview, but it did a decent job of reviewing the most important developments from the past year that’ll likely shape events in 2025. The Ukrainian Conflict is obviously the most important global issue followed by the West Asian Wars that are now winding down (including the one in Syria) and the US’ impending “Pivot (back) to Asia” to more muscularly contain China. Russia also isn’t losing sight of events in the “Near Abroad” either, especially in the South Caucasus.

Extrapolating from the insight that he shared, Russia remains committed to achieving its maximum goals in the Ukrainian Conflict, though it can’t be discounted that some mutual compromises might be made for pragmatism’s sake as an alternative to the worst-case scenario of a Cuban-like brinksmanship crisis. There still isn’t any clarity from the Trump team about how exactly they envisage ending the conflict so it remains to be seen whether he’ll truly “escalate to de-escalate” like reports claim or if that’s just a bluff.

In any case, Lavrov wanted to signal to them that Russia won’t make any concessions on its core interests in Ukraine, especially restoring that country’s neutral status. As for West Asia, Russia still remains a diplomatic power to be reckoned with, while it’s still a military one to be treated the same way in the Asia-Pacific by the US and its regional allies. The inroads that it might make later this year in normalizing ties with Georgia also show that it’s not entirely on the backfoot in its backyard like some have claimed.

The possible end of the Ukrainian Conflict sometime later this year and the political agreement that’ll accompany it will play the greatest roles in determining the New Cold War’s strategic dynamics in the coming future. The fulfillment of Russia’s maximum goals or at least most of them will enable it to more effectively “multi-align” between China, India, and the “Ummah” (the international Muslim community), while the inability to achieve this would risk making it more dependent on China with time.

Either outcome would influence the US’ “Pivot (back) to Asia”, with the first paving the way for a partial energy-driven rapprochement between Russia and the EU under American supervision that would avert the aforesaid dependence scenario even more, thus reducing China’s access to Russian resources. As for the second, China would likely obtain more resources for bargain-basement prices that Russia might agree to out of desperation, thus turbocharging its superpower trajectory at the US’ strategic expense.

It's therefore imperative that the US seriously considers allowing Russia to fulfill at least most of its maximum goals in order to create the conditions where it’s not as hard-pressed to agree to whatever deals China offers due to a lack of alternatives amidst growing Western pressure. To that end, Trump would do well to terminate the bilateral security agreement between the US and Ukraine as a trust-building measure on his first day in office or shortly after, which would facilitate negotiations with Russia.

He mustn’t under any circumstances humiliate Putin or place him in a situation where he feels like he has his back against the wall and thus nothing to lose by “escalating to de-escalate” in kind. That would be a recipe for disaster since it could place the ever-worsening Russian-US security dilemma on the path of no return if Putin decides to continue climbing the escalation ladder. Hopefully Trump’s team properly interprets Lavrov’s signals from his year-end interview with TASS and advises him to cut a decent deal.