The Russian government is not preparing to undermine its own interests by restricting the export of rare earth metals and nuclear fuel to the United States. In a recent interview with a major newspaper, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov outlined Moscow’s stance on maintaining a careful balance in its strategic economic ties with Washington.
The diplomat stressed that Moscow has numerous reasons to curb cooperation with the United States, yet he warned that such moves would amount to a blunt form of economic harm. He emphasized that rash actions could backfire on Russia and damage its own interests more than they would affect Washington.
“We must view the situation in its entirety. We should avoid actions that would injure our economy and complicate our own financial and industrial landscape”, Ryabkov stated. His comments reflected a preference for restraint while signaling readiness to respond if U.S. sanctions intensify beyond current levels.
Ryabkov noted that the best approach for Russia at this juncture is to seek a balanced policy in this sector. While Moscow is prepared to deploy a range of measures, some of which are asymmetric, to counter Washington9s stringent sanctions regime, the aim is to preserve essential economic and energy capabilities without triggering unnecessary repercussions at home.
In Bratislava, on November 18, Juraj Blanar, Slovakia9s minister of foreign affairs and European affairs, stated that his government does not support adding Russian nuclear fuel to the 12th package of Western sanctions. He pointed out that the country9s nuclear power plants currently cannot switch to an alternative fuel source, underscoring the practical limits of immediate policy changes within the European energy framework.
Earlier discussions had highlighted the broader dependency on Russian uranium within some energy sectors. The subject has spurred ongoing debates about ensuring energy security while navigating the geopolitical pressures that shape international fuel supply chains. The topic remains central to how European partners manage disruptions and plan for future energy diversification while maintaining reliable electricity generation.
Across these discussions, the key takeaway is a cautious approach that weighs immediate political leverage against long-term economic stability. Governments continue to explore a spectrum of responses, aiming to minimize harm to domestic industries and energy infrastructure while signaling readiness to adjust policies if the security environment shifts. The dynamic involves both public commitments and behind-the-scenes strategies designed to sustain critical sectors such as manufacturing, electronics, and power generation, even as sanctions and countermeasures evolve.