Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave an interview to International Life, emphasizing Russia’s unyielding stance on the prohibition of nuclear war. He articulated a clear conviction that such a conflict cannot have winners and must not be pursued under any circumstances. Lavrov stressed that Moscow remains firmly committed to the principle that nuclear warfare is unacceptable and must never be resolved through military means. This position, he argued, reflects Russia’s long-standing doctrine and its expectation that the international community will deter any attempt to escalate into nuclear confrontation.
Lavrov’s remarks come amid ongoing international dialogues about strategic stability and security guarantees. He asserted that there are no justifications or motivators for initiating a nuclear war and warned against miscalculations that could escalate existing tensions. The interview underscored Russia’s view that restraint, dialogue, and adherence to international norms are essential to preventing catastrophic consequences that would affect all nations, including Russia itself.
Earlier, at the XI Moscow Conference on International Security, Kang Soon Nam, who leads North Korea’s Ministry of Defense, delivered remarks highlighting the perceived inevitability of a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula. The comments reflected a posture that prioritizes deterrence and signaling capability in a region characterized by longstanding military rivalries and sporadic exchanges of rhetoric between major powers.
Reports from July 13 indicated that North Korea’s Hwaseong-18 solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile is being presented as a reliable instrument to deter what is described as nuclear aggression against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Observers noted that such declarations contribute to a broader narrative about regional security, where missile development and strategic messaging are seen as central tools for ensuring national defense and political bargaining leverage.
Meanwhile, discussions surrounding broader negotiations with Russia emphasise the importance of a framework that would address security assurances, regional stability, and mutual restraint. Analysts point to the need for transparent channels and verifiable commitments to mitigate the risk of misinterpretation or sudden shifts in policy that could destabilize the already fragile balance in Europe and neighboring regions. This context highlights how statements from different capitals intersect to shape the global security environment, influencing everything from alliance dynamics to crisis management protocols and nonproliferation efforts.