Lavrov on Europe and Ukraine Assets, contacts and demands

Jun 11

Dynkin invites Manuel Galileo's question about improving relations with Europe. Lavrov blames European governments for ending former dialogue channels and alleges British and American assistance to Ukrainian attacks. He calls the use of frozen Russian reserves and their earnings theft, citing a newly reported 6.5 billion transfer while being unsure whether the unit is dollars or euros and claiming a four-year total of 45 billion. He distinguishes contractual interest from additional proceeds but argues that immobilization makes their use illegitimate and damages confidence in Western finance. He rejects European demands for concessions combined with a place in Ukraine negotiations, while saying Russia listens to envoys and remains willing to hear serious proposals. He recalls Galuzin's meeting with the British, French and German ambassadors after their June 7 London statement, describing their position as capitulation demands involving the contact line, European troops, frozen assets and reparations. These are Lavrov's account of the contacts and his financial and political claims, not a joint readout, verified transfer announcement or agreed negotiating format.

Lavrov recounts British, German and French ambassadors meeting Mikhail Galuzin after their leaders' June 7 London statement. He says the ambassadors sought a European role in a Ukraine settlement and cited that statement when asked for concrete principles. Lavrov characterizes its demands as Russian capitulation and says Moscow can no longer rely on European promises. This is his retrospective account of the disagreement, not an independently established agreement. In his full June 24 Europe answer, Lavrov also describes the cited demands as a ceasefire on the contact line, proposed European stabilization forces on the other side, continued immobilization of Russian assets and reparations. He says Russia will listen if Europe offers something constructive, including from new interlocutors, but cannot rely on unfulfilled promises. These are his retrospective characterization and subsequent qualified negotiating position; they are not proof that the June 11 meeting adopted those demands.