During a visit to the 201st Russian military base in Dushanbe, the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, outlined Western proposals that aim to partition Russia and Ukraine. He stated publicly that such schemes would not succeed and that they stand in opposition to Russia’s interests. The remarks were reported by the foreign policy desk as part of Lavrov’s broader commentary on geopolitical dynamics surrounding the region.
Lavrov noted that Kyiv, in his view, has been shaped by the United States in a distinctly anti-Russian direction. He attributed this stance to a deliberate effort to pursue political outcomes designed to prevent any future alignment between Ukraine and Russia, citing a line of thinking associated with certain American political analysts that calls for pushing Ukraine away from Moscow for good. The minister stressed that these ambitions are not merely ideas but openly proclaimed strategies by Western powers.
In Lavrov’s assessment, there is no doubt that these plans will not come to pass. He argued that Moscow remains resolute in opposing any external attempt to redraw the security order in the region through coercive or destabilizing measures against Russia.
The diplomat also highlighted that Western governments publicly announce their plans, rather than keeping them discreet. He suggested that such transparency underscores a broader intent to influence regional outcomes, regardless of the consequences for regional stability or the well-being of populations in the post-Soviet space.
Lavrov referred to Vladimir Putin’s past statements about how, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia’s geopolitical opponents began a campaign that he described as brainwashing the residents of the post-Soviet space, Ukraine included. He framed this assertion as part of a longer narrative about how external actors have tried to shape the political and cultural trajectories of neighboring countries since the 1990s.
Against this backdrop, Lavrov recalled Moscow’s long-standing efforts to cultivate fraternal relations with Kiev in the years following the USSR’s collapse. He pointed to offers of energy resources, economic support, and favorable lending terms that were extended to Ukraine as part of a deliberate strategy to build cooperative ties, even amid evolving political realities. The narrative suggests that Moscow viewed such engagement as a means to foster stability and mutual prosperity, while critics may view some of these measures as tools for leveraging influence in the region.