Ambassador Alexander Darchiev discusses prospects for relations with the United States
The indefinite postponement of the Russian-American summit, which was due to take place in Budapest, has led to suggestions that the momentum from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s meeting in August with his US counterpart Donald Trump has already disappeared.
Russian Ambassador to the United States Alexander Darchiev spoke about whether this is actually the case.
Q: Donald Trump has claimed that the US will conduct nuclear tests “very soon.” How will this affect Russian–American relations and strategic stability? Moscow’s initiative to extend the quantitative ceilings of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) has been met with a prolonged pause in response; it expires on February 5, 2026.
Alexander Darchiev: The situation is paradoxical. The American administration has still not provided an official explanation, requested by the Russian Foreign Ministry, among others, as to whether the US president was referring to live tests involving the detonation of a nuclear warhead, which would effectively bury the arms control regime that the Americans themselves have largely destroyed, or to tests of new delivery systems. This leaves a lot of room for speculation and insinuation.
If the Americans argue that they need to carefully analyze the Russian initiative in order to maintain the limits established by the New START Treaty for one year after its expiration — a process that can be completed quickly and without negotiations — then creating uncertainty around this crucial issue of international security and strategic stability does not contribute to mutual trust and casts doubt on the American side’s responsible approach.
It is worth noting that the potential resumption of nuclear testing in the United States has drawn sharp criticism not only from Donald Trump’s political opponents, but also from experts in the relevant professional community, who warn of the serious negative consequences of such a move. Claims that Russia and China are testing nuclear weapons and that America must therefore follow suit are unfounded.
Such reversals by the current administration are driven by the desire to ensure US military superiority. In Moscow, however, they are viewed calmly in light of the breakthrough models of the latest weapons developed in recent years, which provide reliable security for our country.
We have always been willing to engage in honest and equal dialogue on this vitally important issue while strictly observing Russia’s national interests. However, it is important to recognize that the conditions for such a dialogue will only be met when we observe positive changes in Washington’s policy towards Russia.
Q: The stalled negotiation process and Donald Trump’s cancellation of the proposed summit with Vladimir Putin in Budapest indicate that Washington has backed off the Ukrainian issue. Can we say that the positive momentum of the Anchorage summit has been exhausted?
Alexander Darchiev: Not at all. The significance of the first personal meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, now back in the White House, lies in the fact that the two leaders negotiated on equal terms, trying to find common ground. Just because the dialogue stalled does not mean it has stopped. Contacts at various levels continue, and this requires patience and persistence.
At the same time, of course, one cannot ignore the pressure exerted by the ‘deep state’ and its representatives in power who oppose Donald Trump. They are pushing the president to increase pressure on Moscow, which is futile, in order to force the Russians to immediately cease hostilities and save Zelensky’s regime. Furthermore, the fundamental principles of Trumpism, ‘America First’ and ‘peace through strength’, imply the necessity of robust negotiations to eliminate accumulated ‘irritants’, rather than relying on the personal ‘chemistry’ that has developed between the leaders.
However, the bumps and pitfalls of such a disillusioned dialogue, which I reiterate is taking place outside of the public eye and away from the channels exposed in the media, should not distract from the main point: As great powers, Russia and the United States are doomed to agree on at least non-confrontational coexistence. This was well understood by Soviet and American leaders when they established diplomatic relations in 1933. Following Donald Trump’s inauguration, the presidents of our countries also recognized this when they agreed in a telephone conversation on February 12 that they would seek to normalize the Russian–American agenda.
Q:What is the current status of consultations on ‘irritants’ in bilateral relations? These were initiated by the previous administration and, given the new circumstances, were intended to facilitate the swift removal of existing bans and restrictions on the operations of diplomatic missions from both countries. This has not yet happened. Furthermore, the conditions for issuing visas to Russians have become more stringent. Why?
Alexander Darchiev: Dialogue on ‘irritants’ has been ongoing, and certain improvements have been achieved to date. However, these do not change the restrictive system imposed by Joe Biden; they merely mitigate its most objectionable aspects.
For example, the notification regime for diplomatic mission staff travelling outside the 25-mile free movement zone has been relaxed. Previously, permission had to be obtained for each instance of crossing the zone, but now, permission is only required for travel outside the agreed quotas. Now, relaxations within agreed quotas have been introduced for business and tourism travel.
You correctly noted that the issuance of regular visas to our citizens, whom the Americans have stopped serving in Moscow due to a lack of personnel, is now limited to the consular sections of US embassies in Astana and Warsaw, where a Schengen visa is required. At the same time, the situation with diplomatic and service visas has improved somewhat. This is important given the mass expulsion of Russian diplomatic staff initiated by Washington, followed by retaliatory measures which ultimately led to a shortage of personnel on both sides. Incidentally, despite the smaller staff, the working regime of our depleted consular offices has not changed.
During the aforementioned consultations on ‘irritants’, the parties also agreed to ensure uninterrupted banking services for diplomatic missions. They committed not to block financial transactions with their capitals, with appropriate exemptions from the sanctions regime. This primarily concerns the United States.
However, progress has stalled in addressing the ‘root causes’ of the abnormal state of bilateral relations, which hinders the normalization process envisaged by the presidents. The US State Department categorically refuses to discuss the return of six properties that have effectively been confiscated from the Russian Federation and are now being treated as private property. The American special services, which have taken the properties under their protection, are illegally denying access to the Russian ambassador and diplomats. Similarly, by linking the commencement of any meaningful discussions on this matter to a resolution in Ukraine that aligns with US interests, the US is responding to the suggestion of resuming direct air links, which Washington suspended following the commencement of the special military operation.
Q: Is there any hope that this dialogue will get off the ground?
Alexander Darchiev: We are not giving up. We are urging the State Department negotiating team not to ‘narrow’ the dialogue on ‘irritants’, contrary to the task set by the presidents. It is important not to limit ourselves to visa issues and the day-to-day practicalities of ensuring the functionality of diplomatic missions, but rather to focus on restoring normality more broadly. The first step is to return to December 2016, when Barack Obama, frustrated by Hillary Clinton’s defeat in the presidential election, initiated the Russian-American diplomatic war. We are now painfully dealing with the consequences of this. We will continue to work persistently in this direction.
This interview was first published by Kommersant, and has been translated and edited by the RT team.
