In brief
At a Moscow roundtable on November 9, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov characterized Russia as a neutral actor with no plans to strike European states and urged that any conflict arise only if Europe initiates aggression. He also criticized NATO’s ‘escalation management’ concept and called for dialogue that considers Russia’s interests to achieve long‑term European stability.
At a roundtable in Moscow on Monday, November 9, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov stated that Russia has no intention or plans to attack any European country, saying Moscow would only respond if provoked, and dismissed Western discussions of an impending conflict as “predetermined and inevitable.” The meeting, titled “Militarization of Europe: What Next?” and held under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), drew foreign‑policy experts from several European states and Russian officials.
In his remarks, Ryabkov emphasized that Russia poses no threat to any nation and that the country would not launch an attack “in the near, medium or long term.” He urged European leaders to re‑evaluate their approach to the Russia‑Ukraine war, arguing that “some European governments have not truly intended to end the conflict.” Ryabkov explained that a resolution could have been reached by incorporating the legitimate interests of all parties, but that the West had absorbed Ukraine into a “war” scenario, leaving no room for “reasonable solutions.”
Ryabkov further articulated Russia’s perspective on European stability, saying that “long‑term stability in Europe cannot be achieved without taking into account the interests of Russia and its allies.” He called for dialogue based on “equality, indivisible security, pragmatism and mutual consideration of interests,” hoping that European states would eventually be willing to engage on such terms.
He also criticized NATO’s “escalation management” concept as being harmful and unrealistic. “It is a mistake to believe that an escalation between Russia and NATO could be kept under control,” Ryabkov said, warning that the concept encourages both NATO and the European Union to act recklessly, thereby not reducing military risks.
Back‑to‑back comments from Yulia Zhdanova, head of the Russian delegation to the Vienna Negotiations on Military Security and Arms Control, reinforced Ryabkov’s stance. She noted that European countries presented no vision for future stability beyond the notion that conflict with Russia is inevitable, and echoed his criticism of NATO’s management plan.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova was not present at the session, but her recent statements on Saturday echoed a similar dismissal of European involvement in a peace negotiation, saying European representatives “have no place at the negotiating table on Ukraine.” While Zakharova’s remarks were not made during the roundtable, they reflect consistent rhetoric from Moscow’s diplomatic community.
Against the backdrop of these speeches, the OSCE noted that the roundtable “provides an opportunity for dialogue on security, but the political realities on the ground require a different approach.” Analysts observed that Moscow used the platform to reinforce its narrative regarding European actions and to assert that Russia will only act if it experiences provocation.
In the broader context, international bodies have called for binding agreements to end Russia’s full‑scale war against Ukraine. China, for instance, urged the UN Security Council on November 9 to support a “binding agreement that would end the conflict.” However, Moscow maintained that such international pressure does not alter its position that it will not initiate violent retaliation.
Overall, the Moscow gathering was framed as a critique of Western strategy, an affirmation of Russia’s defensive posture, and a call for inclusive dialogue that respects Russia’s interests. By asserting that the country would only respond to provocation, Ryabkov aimed to reassure European partners that hostilities remain unlikely, while simultaneously cautioning against overconfidence in NATO’s risk‑management claims. The conversation is set to continue as international relations communities navigate the complex balance between deterrence, diplomacy, and a persistent security dilemma across Europe.
