Moscow accused Washington of abandoning agreements reached during a summit in Anchorage, Alaska, last year, alleging a shift towards economic dominance and a rejection of a potential resolution to the conflict in Ukraine. The accusations, leveled by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Monday , represent a sharp deterioration in diplomatic rhetoric and raise questions about the future of negotiations.
Lavrov, speaking in an interview with TV BRICS, claimed Russia had accepted proposals put forward by the United States during the August 2025 meeting between Presidents Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. He asserted that the U.S. Subsequently reversed course, imposing new sanctions and obstructing Russian energy exports. “In Anchorage, we accepted the U.S. Proposal… They proposed, we agreed, the problem should have been resolved,” Lavrov stated, suggesting a missed opportunity for de-escalation.
The core of the dispute centers on the alleged terms discussed in Anchorage, which, according to Lavrov, involved the cession of the Donbas region to Russia without a fight. The White House has not publicly confirmed the existence of such an agreement. However, Lavrov’s claims are supported by reports indicating a 28-point peace plan was discussed at the summit, with the U.S. Side presenting a framework Russia was reportedly prepared to implement.
Following the Anchorage meeting, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Russian energy giants Lukoil and Rosneft, actions Lavrov characterized as a betrayal of the spirit of the discussions. He also cited what he termed a “war against tankers” on the high seas, alleging U.S. Interference with Russian energy exports to countries like India, in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. These actions, Lavrov argued, demonstrate Washington’s prioritization of economic leverage over a peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian conflict.
The accusations extend to a criticism of the current U.S. Administration’s failure to repeal sanctions imposed under the previous Biden administration. Lavrov stated that despite campaign promises to the contrary, the Trump administration has maintained and even expanded restrictive measures against Russia. This suggests a continuity of policy despite a change in leadership, fueling Moscow’s sense of disillusionment.
The timing of Lavrov’s statements coincides with ongoing diplomatic efforts to address the situation in Ukraine. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently indicated on , that Washington would consider further sanctions against Russia based on the progress of peace negotiations. This suggests a continued linkage between economic pressure and diplomatic outcomes, a connection Moscow vehemently rejects.
The diplomatic friction highlights a deepening trust deficit between Moscow and Washington. Lavrov’s use of the term “Bidenism” to describe the current U.S. Approach suggests a perception that the Trump administration is, in practice, pursuing policies indistinguishable from those of its predecessor. This accusation underscores the complexities of U.S. Foreign policy and the challenges of navigating internal political dynamics while engaging in international diplomacy.
The situation also reflects a broader geopolitical context of increasing competition between Russia and the West. The conflict in Ukraine has become a focal point for this competition, with both sides seeking to advance their strategic interests. Lavrov’s accusations against the U.S. Can be seen as part of a larger effort to portray Russia as a responsible actor seeking a peaceful resolution, while blaming the West for obstructing progress.
The implications of this diplomatic breakdown extend beyond the immediate conflict in Ukraine. A failure to find a negotiated settlement could lead to a prolonged period of instability in Eastern Europe, with potential consequences for regional security and international relations. The accusations of bad faith and broken promises also raise questions about the credibility of diplomatic processes and the prospects for future cooperation between Russia and the United States.
While the specifics of the Anchorage agreements remain shrouded in ambiguity, Lavrov’s public statements serve as a clear signal of Moscow’s frustration with Washington’s perceived duplicity. The accusations of economic coercion and broken promises are likely to further complicate efforts to de-escalate the conflict and find a lasting solution to the crisis in Ukraine. The situation demands careful diplomatic engagement and a renewed commitment to transparency and good faith negotiations from all parties involved.
