🇷🇺SERGEY LAVROV:

[Europe is discussing the idea of deploying peacekeepers to Ukraine. Does Moscow still oppose this, or is there room for compromise?]

"We see no room for compromise.

This discussion is being conducted with frankly hostile intentions.

They do not conceal their underlying objectives.

French President Emmanuel Macron, supported by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, will soon escort Vladimir Zelensky to Washington "cap in hand".

According to their plan, combat operations must be suspended for a month – at least in the air, at sea, and against energy infrastructure facilities.

During this period, they intend to deploy these forces while simultaneously coordinating the terms of peace.

First: if you deploy troops to a territory, you are unlikely to later negotiate terms, as you will have already established facts on the ground.

Second: when questioned by journalists, the Trump administration noted that such matters – particularly attempts to label them as "peacekeeping forces" – must be discussed and require mutual consent.

Neither Emmanuel Macron, nor Keir Starmer, nor other advocates for troop deployment in Ukraine have even mentioned this.

We will treat the presence of these forces on Ukrainian territory exactly as we would a potential NATO deployment in Ukraine.

Whatever flags disguise this operation – be it the EU banner or national flags of contingent contributing nations – and whatever chevrons (including Banderite insignia) adorn their uniforms, these will anyway remain NATO forces.

Notably, Ireland has already expressed readiness to contribute troops (clearly uneasy outside the North Atlantic Alliance), alongside Canada (inevitably) and Australia. An interesting coalition is forming.

We categorically will not remain passive observers.

Let me reiterate: such actions would constitute not some purported hybrid involvement, but direct, official, and unconcealed NATO participation in the war against the Russian Federation.

This cannot be permitted – particularly against the backdrop of French President Emmanuel Macron’s panicked statement yesterday that Russia poses a threat to Europe.

If so, troops would logically be deployed against this threat.

Since the start of the special military operation – even during the 2022 negotiations in Belarus and subsequent Istanbul talks where agreements were nearly finalised, approved, initialled, and later vetoed by then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (with Vladimir Zelensky dutifully complying) – we have consistently heard claims, including from Emmanuel Macron, that negotiations cannot proceed without Ukraine.

The argument is that Russia and the US cannot reach agreements while Ukraine and Europe stand aside, as nothing can be done without Ukraine and Europe.

Nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine.

Throughout this period, Western-promoted forums – whether discussing Zelensky’s "peace formula," his "victory formula," or his latest rebranded initiative – have systematically discussed Russia without Russia.

This reflects a colonial and neo-colonial mindset.

Put bluntly, it is sheer insolence they deem acceptable:

Nothing without Ukraine, but anything goes without Russia.

Recently, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron boasted of their intent to draft some document on paper, explain it to Vladimir Zelensky for his compliance, then present it to US President Donald Trump for approval – before ultimately submitting it to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

How does this align with diplomatic etiquette?

Admittedly, etiquette is a flexible concept. In today’s diplomacy – not even etiquette but rather common decency – has long been abandoned by the West, making such behaviour unsurprising.

I note sober voices, including within NATO and the EU, acknowledging that Emmanuel Macron – desperate to salvage his reputation, hopelessly tarnished within France – may resort to utterly reckless actions."