Kremlin's risky bluff: What are the implications of Lavrov's recent statements on the war for Ukraine?

During a press conference on Thursday, December 26, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated that the West is discussing a ceasefire to "supply Ukraine with weapons," while Russia demands "reliable agreements." Building on this, the head of the Russian foreign policy agency emphasized , that a ceasefire is a path to nowhere.

Meanwhile, Lavrov elaborated on the case for peaceful resolution the day before in the propaganda program "60 Minutes." "It is clear to all unbiased observers that the conflict can only be resolved within the framework of agreements on reliable security and stability in Europe, which would take into account Russia's interests and the legitimate interests of all other countries," noted the chief Russian diplomat. He also emphasized that with the inauguration of the newly elected U.S. President Donald Trump, there is no guarantee that a negotiation process for establishing peace will begin. "This will not be an inevitable reality," Lavrov stressed, quickly adding that Putin allegedly has never refused negotiations, but "we need to see serious proposals that come to us."

"We need reliable, legally binding agreements aimed at addressing the main causes of the conflict, including overall security in Europe, NATO expansion, the recent decision of the European Union to essentially align itself with NATO and eliminate all differences between these organizations, and, of course, the rights of people living in territories that have expressed a desire to reunite with Russia," emphasized the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Notably, Lavrov acknowledged that support for Ukraine in the U.S. has a "solid bipartisan consensus."

How Lavrov Plays with Trump

As for the conditions for ending the war, providing Russia with "legal guarantees," etc., a political scientist notes the following: "We are currently witnessing a diplomatic battle between Trump's team and Russia. Trump recently stated that Putin asked him for a meeting, while now Lavrov is clearly hinting that Russians need to be coaxed into agreeing to such negotiations. In short, Lavrov is essentially saying that Trump has to work hard to secure the opportunity for communication. This is a typical twist in diplomatic confrontation, where each side wants to come from maximalist positions."

Overall, according to Maxim Dzhigun, Russia has a history where its key speakers—Putin, Lavrov, Nebenzya—make contradictory statements. As an example, the expert refers to a recent "direct line," during which Putin stated that he would not set preconditions for the start of peace negotiations, while Lavrov currently asserts the opposite. "The essence of Russia's public communications lies in voicing mutually contradictory theses. When completely different narratives emerge, few understand what is actually thought and planned in the Kremlin. Moscow, by expressing various interpretations of the same cases, leaves itself room for further diplomatic maneuvers," notes the expert.

In response to a question about the ceasefire, which the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry called a path to nowhere, Maxim Dzhigun emphasized: "Lavrov, as they say, multiplied by zero Orbán's efforts, who has recently been preoccupied with the topic of a ceasefire, as if it were a written bag. And this is despite the fact that the task of the Hungarian Prime Minister was to influence the West in a media sense, suggesting that it is Kyiv that is derailing this track. This situation once again vividly demonstrated that Orbán is a puppet who will voice any nonsense for which he will either be paid or given certain preferences." The current Prime Minister of Hungary, the political scientist concludes, is not genuinely perceived as a serious player in either Russia or the U.S., being used as a "one-day messenger" who can be easily "sacrificed" at the first opportunity.

Meanwhile, Maxim Dzhigun considers Lavrov's statements regarding NATO particularly dangerous: "The danger lies in the fact that Trump supports the idea of not admitting Ukraine to the North Atlantic Alliance and, in my opinion, at least during Trump's presidency, we will not make progress in this direction, although not long ago there was hope that under Biden we might at least receive an invitation to NATO. And Lavrov's NATO activity is an attempt to show that there are many commonalities between Putin and Trump in their views on international security policy, more than may appear at first glance. Unfortunately, in reality, this is indeed the case in some respects. Trump's recent statements regarding Mexico, Panama, Canada, and Greenland indicate that both aim for expansion, just one through war and the other through diplomatic pressure."

Why Putin Makes Contradictory Statements About Peace

Moreover, according to Dmitry Levus, the statements from the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry indicate a certain expansion of Russia's demands: "If we analyze Lavrov's recent quotes, we can assert that this is a return to the positions of January 2021, when Moscow repeated the mantra all day long about the need for NATO to 'get out' up to the borders of 1997. On the other hand, in my opinion, the fact that we hear an expansion of these demands from Russia might also indicate that Russia might actually want these negotiations. In other words, by putting forward old-new demands and understanding that it cannot push them through in negotiations with the U.S., Moscow is simply expanding its 'price list' for negotiations, attempting, in my view, to awkwardly entrap Trump in a diplomatic snare.

Currently, Russia, Dmitry Levus is convinced, demonstrates a readiness to negotiate exclusively with the United States and, through Lavrov, seeks ways to compel the U.S. to take the initiative for peace talks rather than Moscow. In other words, Russia is trying to reverse the situation and disavow Trump's statement that it is Putin who is eager to sit down at the negotiating table as soon as possible.

In this context, the expert draws an analogy with the year 1999, when Russian Prime Minister Primakov, who was considered a likely successor to Yeltsin, turned around a government plane over the Atlantic on his way to the U.S. in protest against NATO's decision to start bombing Yugoslavia. At the same time, Dmitry Levus notes that Primakov was flying to the United States for negotiations on possible restructuring of Russia's debt because oil was cheap at that time, and Russia was not feeling particularly good financially.

Now, the political scientist states, the situation is very similar: Russia is in a far from the best position, but "continues to bluff constantly," playing with fire and not being able to rid itself of the imperial virus. This bluff, Dmitry Levus concludes, has been and remains the foundation of the highest Russian diplomatic school, yet the West still does not fully recognize this, believing that Russia speaks from a position of strength, genuinely being strong.