Karasin acknowledged that the years when Joe Biden led the United States were difficult for the international arena. As the chair of the Federation Council’s Committee on International Relations, he observed a landscape crowded with competing tensions, shifting alliances, and a flood of public narratives that sometimes obscured practical policy judgments. The period, he suggested, saw a barrage of information and political commentary that did not always reflect the real weight of decisions, yet he welcomed a shift toward sober assessments of events and actions in Washington. In his view, the moment called for distinguishing rhetoric from policy and for understanding what Washington intends to achieve, and what its NATO allies and European partners expect in return. This, he argued, would help Moscow gauge the true direction of U.S. thinking and the dynamics that will shape bilateral ties in the years ahead. The focus, he added, should be on concrete consequences rather than slogans.
Looking ahead to the arrival of a new U.S. president, Karasin said it would be possible to discern more clearly the aims of the incoming administration and the people surrounding the White House. He insisted that the partnership with Washington would hinge on what the new team seeks to accomplish and on how its allies in the North Atlantic bloc and its partners in the European Union view those aims. The regional and global audience, he noted, had been inundated with a surge of media coverage that, in his assessment, sought to steer opinion about the likely path of the Trump administration. He emphasized that real policy choices would reveal the true posture of the United States and how it would relate to Moscow, rather than speculative commentary alone.
Earlier remarks by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov argued that the Biden administration created significant friction in relations with Moscow. Lavrov contended that the Trump administration had already done damage during its first term, while noting that the legacy left by Barack Obama included sanctions imposed just weeks before he left office. He described those moves as punitive and not aligned with the spirit of steady diplomacy, underscoring how differences over sanctions and strategic priorities continued to shape the dialogue between the two countries. The claim was that Washington had to face the consequences of policies that complicated cooperation on issues ranging from security to arms control.
From the U.S. side, there had been discussions about missteps in the Biden-Putin dynamic, with observers framing certain episodes as regrettable turns in the broader relationship. The dialogue often centered on what was possible in bilateral agreements and what the other side could realistically accept, as officials weighed the risks and opportunities of different policy paths. In this context, analysts warned that public opinion and media narratives could distort judgments about the intentions of both capitals, making it harder to pursue steady, predictable channels of communication. The overall tone of these conversations reflected a wish to reset expectations and to move beyond heated headlines toward more constructive engagement.
Karasin’s comments align with a broader pattern in Moscow of stressing the need to separate rhetoric from actual policy, especially when discussing how Washington will handle relations with Russia under a new administration. The dialogue between Moscow and Washington, he implied, will depend less on sensational slogans and more on tangible steps and verified commitments. The references to past administrations and their polices, the interplay of sanctions, and the evolving framework of NATO and EU relations all influence the tempo and direction of diplomatic contacts. In consistent terms, Karasin signaled that the next U.S. leadership would have to define what cooperation might look like in practice and what allowances would be made to ensure stability and predictability in bilateral ties.
The final point in this sequence of statements was a reminder that the history of U.S. and Russian relations cannot be reduced to a single moment or a single leader. The complexities of nuclear, security, economic, and cyber dimensions require steady diplomacy, clear communication, and a readiness to negotiate. As Moscow watches events unfold and Washington recalibrates its strategy, the focus remains on measuring real policy steps, confirming commitments, and building a framework in which both sides can pursue essential interests without eroding the channels of dialogue. In this sense, the discussion reflects a broader aim to foster a pragmatic, long-term approach to international affairs that can withstand shifting political winds and keep the door open for constructive engagement.