Russian MFA 🇷🇺

🎙Statement by Russian Permanent Representative to the UN Office in Geneva Gennady Gatilov at the high-level segment of the Conference on Disarmament (February 24, 2026, Geneva) 📄Read in full Key outtakes: • The current session of the Conference on Disarmament takes place against the background of rapidly deteriorating situation in the field of international security and strategic stability. • The situation in Ukraine is a result of the policy of Western countries which for a long time have cultivated anti-Russian sentiments in Ukraine, fostered hatred for Russia and everything Russian, suppressed Russian language, history and culture, engaged in the military development of its territory and increased the supplies of long-range weapons to the Kiev regime. • Russia has always advocated for a negotiated settlement of Ukrainian crisis. At the same time, the dialogue should be based on an equal and mutually respectful basis, where an ultimate goal is to establish a long-term peace with respect for the legitimate interests of all States and nations living in this region instead of a short truce. • The ongoing tensions in the Middle East could have devastative consequences for both regional and global security. The Israeli-US attacks on Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities, which were placed under the #IAEA safeguards, have become a serious blow to the nuclear non-proliferation regime. • The existing contradictions around the Iranian nuclear program can only be resolved through politico-diplomatic means. In this regard, we welcome the resumption of the bilateral dialogue between Washington and Tehran. • We note with regret that against the background of deteriorating international security environment and persistent tensions in the military-strategic sphere the US rejected the constructive Russian initiative inviting the parties to the #NewSTART Treaty to commit officially to voluntary self-limitations to keep the quantitative ceilings specified in the Treaty following its expiration. • Currently, a limited group of countries undermines the system of agreements in the field of arms control, committing numerous violations of the fundamental imperatives of the UN Charter, such as equality, respect of sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, the resolution of disputes through dialogue. • We assign the Conference on Disarmament a crucial role in strengthening the international security architecture through elaborating multilateral legally binding agreements on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation. The development of an international legally-binding instrument on the prevention of an arms race in outer space remains a constant priority for the Russian Federation. • Against the background of the current international instability our common goal is to ensure sustainability of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. As a depository State of the NPT, Russia strictly adheres to its “letter and spirit”. We attach particular importance to the upcoming 11th NPT Review Conference, which takes place in April-May 2026. • Russia, as depositary State of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, advocates for the comprehensive strengthening of its regime, including through the adoption of a legally binding protocol to the BTWC with an effective verification mechanism. • Given the continuing threats of the use of chemical substances and biological agents as weapons by terrorists, the Russian initiative to develop at the Conference on Disarmament an international convention for the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism is more relevant than ever. #ConferenceOnDisarmament

⚡️Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia Concerning the Expiration of the Russia-US New START Treaty(February 4, 2026) On February 5, 2026, the life cycle of the Russian-US Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (#NewSTART) comes to an end; it was signed by the Parties on April 8, 2010, entered into force on February 5, 2011, and was extended for a five-year period in February 2021 on the basis of a relevant one-time option provided for in this agreement. In February 2023, the Russian Federation suspended the New START Treaty against the backdrop of the unsatisfactory state of affairs with the implementation of certain aspects of the Treaty, as well as due to the absolutely unacceptable steps by the United States running counter to the fundamental principles and understandings of the agreement enshrined in its preamble. It was a compelled measure and an inevitable response of the Russian Side to the extremely hostile policy of the Biden administration which resulted in the fundamental change in the security situation, as well as to a number of illegitimate steps taken by Washington in the context of specific provisions of the New START Treaty, which together constituted a material breach incompatible with the Treaty being further implemented in a full-fledged manner. Among the key negative factors, it is worth to highlight the destabilizing actions of the United States in the field of missile defense, contrary to the inseparable interrelationship between strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms enshrined in the New START Treaty. <...> Despite some obvious problematic moments, basically the New START Treaty used to fulfill its key functions. The conclusion of the Treaty and the years of its initially successful implementation helped to discourage the strategic arms race, allowing for significant reductions in the parties' arsenals. At the same time, due to the restrictions applied in this area a sufficient level of predictability was ensured on a long-term basis. <...> In parallel to suspending this agreement, the Russian Federation announced the intention to voluntarily maintain its commitment to the central quantitative limits on weapons regulated by the New START until the end of the Treaty's life cycle in February 2026. At that time, the United States followed suit, announcing its readiness to act in a similar manner. Striving to extend the positive effect of such reciprocal measures in terms of maintaining balance and certainty in the field of strategic offensive arms during the current turbulent period, our country took an additional constructive step. On September 22, 2025, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin publicly proposed that the Parties to the New START Treaty commit to voluntary self-limitations to keep the quantitative ceilings on the relevant weapons specified in the Treaty for at least one year after the termination of the agreement. However, no formal official response from the United States with regard to the Russian initiative has been received through bilateral channels. <...> It means that our ideas have been deliberately left unanswered. <...> In the current circumstances, we assume that the Parties to the New START are no longer bound by any obligations or symmetrical declarations in the context of the Treaty, including its core provisions, and are in principle free to choose their next steps. <...> 🇷🇺The Russian Federation remains ready to take decisive military-technical measures to counter potential additional threats to the national security. At the same time, our country remains open to seeking politico-diplomatic ways to comprehensively stabilize the strategic situation on the basis of equal and mutually beneficial dialogue solutions, if the appropriate conditions for such cooperation are shaped. Read in full

🎙Interview by Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of Russia Dmitry Medvedev to TASS, Reuters and the WarGonzo project(February 2, 2026) Key outtakes: #Venezuela • What happened to Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro is an obvious violation of all norms of international law. There can be no other description than a catastrophe for international law and international relations. • The US has its own arguments which, in my view, are legally untenable. The actions taken against the president of a sovereign state – regardless of how Americans may view him – go far beyond purely American agendas. It undermines the entire system of international relations. • I am confident that within the US itself there will be many who will analyze what happened and explain how it contradicts, among other things, American approaches. #Britain • When I visited Britain on official trips in the past, our communication was absolutely normal. Yes, there were contradictions, and it was not always easy to come to agreements, but the key point was that we communicated. • What the current British leadership is doing amounts to rabid, primitive Russophobia aimed at propping up its own electoral ratings. These are purely practical reasons – regardless of the names of prime ministers, the course does not change. And that is regrettable. • I am not even mentioning that Britain’s position sustains and nourishes the neo-Nazi Bandera regime. The desire to dismantle the Soviet Union or Russia has always existed in Britain. What is particularly sad is that the trend emerged just a few years after we were Allies, fighting shoulder to shoulder against Nazism. • Our list of grievances against the British leadership and elites is very long. Only a fundamental change in Britain's positions can ultimately lead to an improvement in relations. #Ukraine • For the stability of international relations, it is critically important that the current political regime in Ukraine – not the state, but the political regime – simply disappears. This regime is anti-Russian and hostile to Russia, built on hatred of people who do not share its ideology. • Regardless of the size of the Ukrainian state that may remain after the end of hostilities – the key point is that no threat must ever again emanate from there. No threat of revanche. Especially if such a threat is encouraged by Western countries. #NewSTART • For nearly 60 years, our strategic nuclear potentials have always been subject to certain limitations. Now that situation may change. • I am not saying this immediately means catastrophe or that nuclear war will begin, but it should nonetheless be alarming to everyone. Counting the number of warheads and deployed delivery systems is merely a way to control the situation, not to resolve the problem as a whole. Still, it is a means of verifying each other’s intentions. • Despite all its drawbacks, the Treaty is an element of trust. When it exists, there is trust. When it does not, trust is exhausted. The fact that we are now entering such a situation is, in fact, evidence of a crisis in international relations. #EnemiesOfRussia • Who is an enemy of Russia is, in essence, a philosophical question. It is fairly obvious today: those are countries that wish Russia ill – its defeat and disintegration – and state this absolutely unequivocally. • Unfortunately, these are Western countries. Particularly regrettable is that this now includes a significant number of European states. It pains me that European countries, which in terms of civilizational code are close to us, have adopted such a rabid Russophobic stance. • “Unfriendly states” is a diplomatic term usually applied when there are no hostilities. When hostilities are underway, these are enemies. Those who help wage war against us act as enemies – by supplying weapons, providing intelligence, or inputting targets, for example, into the memory blocks of missiles and other weapons. • This will forever remain in the history of our relations. Read in full (in Russian)