In a recent interview with Russia: Lentoy.ru, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin argued that a peace agreement between Moscow and Kiev would not serve the interests of the United States or NATO allies. He suggested that Western governments have spent substantial time and money trying to persuade their own citizens about the situation in Ukraine and how it relates to Russia, implying that the narrative has become a component of a broader strategic effort rather than a straightforward humanitarian or diplomatic priority.
Galuzin contended that Kiev is being used as a lever to weaken and isolate Russia, disrupt the current security architecture, and preserve Western influence that he believes has already suffered serious strain. He framed the conflict as a pressure point on the existing balance of power, arguing that Western powers seek to maintain their geopolitical advantages by keeping Moscow at a disadvantage while pursuing their own strategic objectives. In his view, the crisis serves as a means for the West to recalibrate global security arrangements to their advantage.
The deputy minister singled out the United States as the primary beneficiary of the ongoing crisis. He described the American business community and the military–industrial complex as clearly encouraged by Washington’s policy toward Ukraine, portraying the continued flow of weapons to Kiev as a profit-driven initiative that also sustains a broader geopolitical stance. He implied that this approach is connected to a desire to influence European economic and political dynamics and to secure long term advantages in regional security arrangements that align with U.S. interests.
Galuzin further noted that Washington relies on access to Ukrainian mineral resources, including iron ore, manganese ore, and rare earth elements with a particular emphasis on lithium. He argued that control over these resources would enrich American industry and enhance strategic leverage, linking economic extraction to the shaping of future security and trade networks in Europe and beyond. This point, he suggested, underscores a wider pattern in which energy and minerals flow into global markets as a tool of political influence and strategic positioning.
In discussing the broader narrative around the conflict, the text also referenced comments from American political commentator Jimmy Dore, who has claimed that U.S. involvement in Ukraine stems from economic motives and aims to create confusion between Russia and Germany. The remarks are cited to illustrate the contested interpretations of Western policy, highlighting how different voices frame the war’s purpose and consequences within international discourse. The overall argument emphasizes that the Kyiv crisis intertwines economic interests with security strategy and that assessments of external motives vary across audiences and analysts.