ANALYSIS: Lavrov promises that Moscow will “closely monitor” Trump and Zelensky in Ankara

A diplomatic momentum that seems to be slipping away from the Kremlin

The NATO summit in Ankara brings Trump and Zelensky together in person for the first time in months, against a backdrop where several recent diplomatic developments—including the Putin-Trump call from the previous weekend—are fueling speculation about a possible acceleration of negotiations. Moscow has an objective interest in knowing, in real time, the content of these exchanges.

This sustained attention reflects a simple reality: the Kremlin no longer fully controls the diplomatic timeline of this war—an unusual situation for a power accustomed to dictating the pace of negotiations from a position of apparent strength.

The Fear of Increased Diplomatic Isolation

Every Western summit that reaffirms the unity between Washington and Kyiv reinforces, by contrast, Russia’s diplomatic isolation on the international stage. It is this dynamic that Lavrov is likely seeking to monitor and, if possible, influence through rhetoric.

Let’s be clear: this stated monitoring is not diplomatic curiosity; it is strategic anxiety. Moscow rightly fears that Ankara will further consolidate the Western unity that it has been claiming to fight against for months.

North Korea’s Missile Test: A Parallel Signal

North Korea’s recent test of a strategic cruise missile from a new destroyer, reported during the same period, illustrates the ongoing consolidation of the alliance between Pyongyang and Moscow. This military cooperation, documented for several months by multiple Western sources, includes technology transfers and reciprocal logistical support.

This parallel development is significant: it serves as a reminder that the war in Ukraine is no longer being fought within a strictly bilateral Russian-Ukrainian framework, but is part of a broader geopolitical dynamic involving several authoritarian regimes aligned against the Western international order.

Iran: A Discreet but Essential Supplier

Iran, for its part, remains a key supplier of drones and military components for the Russian war effort—a reality documented by numerous Western intelligence reports since the start of the conflict. This tripartite cooperation between Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang forms the structural backdrop to the Kremlin’s current posture.

I have been repeating this for months in this column: this axis between Moscow, Tehran, and Pyongyang is no longer a matter of geopolitical speculation; it is a documented operational fact. The West must treat it as such, not as a distant hypothesis.

Diplomacy Through Veiled Threats

Lavrov’s statement is part of a well-honed Kremlin communication strategy: issuing warnings that are vague enough to avoid any concrete commitments, while maintaining constant psychological pressure on Western actors involved in the Ukraine issue.

This method has shown its limitations over the months: Moscow’s repeated warnings have not prevented the steady increase in Western military support for Kyiv, nor the regular holding of international summits dedicated to this issue.

The Wear and Tear of Repetitive Rhetoric

By repeatedly making the same accusations without ever backing them up with new evidence, Russian diplomacy risks running out of rhetorical steam in the face of an international audience that is increasingly unreceptive to this narrative, seven years after it was first articulated following the annexation of Crimea.

I note, with a certain degree of open weariness, that this Kremlin rhetoric has remained virtually unchanged for years. Repetition without new evidence ultimately produces the opposite effect of what was intended: indifference rather than fear.

A Diplomacy of Unabashed Transparency

Volodymyr Zelensky has built his wartime diplomacy on a principle opposite to that of the Kremlin: maximum transparency rather than strategic secrecy. His meetings with Trump and other Western leaders are systematically documented and publicly commented on, with no apparent fear of Russian surveillance.

This approach reflects a conviction that the Ukrainian president has reiterated since the start of the war: the legitimacy of the Ukrainian cause has nothing to fear from scrutiny, unlike the Kremlin’s more opaque calculations.

Courage as a Response to Intimidation

Faced with a statement that could be perceived as a form of diplomatic intimidation, Zelensky has, in the past, consistently chosen to maintain his diplomatic schedule without altering its substance—a steadfastness that has strengthened his credibility with Western allies over the months.

This refusal to be intimidated, repeated summit after summit, commands my respect. Zelensky could have, on numerous occasions, succumbed to the Kremlin’s psychological pressure. He never did, and it is precisely this courage that has kept Western unity intact.

A President Who Is Unafraid of Public Scrutiny

Donald Trump has, so far, reacted with relative public indifference to Moscow’s repeated warnings regarding his diplomatic meetings. This stance is part of his broader negotiating strategy, which consists of maintaining strategic ambiguity about his true intentions while simultaneously pursuing channels of dialogue with Kyiv and Moscow.

On the military front, it must be acknowledged that the Trump administration has, so far, maintained the essential framework of support for Ukraine, even though legitimate criticisms remain regarding the speed and adequacy of certain arms deliveries.

The Red Line That Must Never Be Crossed

No matter how much rhetorical pressure Lavrov and the Kremlin exert, one red line must remain non-negotiable for all Western leaders present in Ankara: no territorial concession can legitimize Russia’s 2022 aggression.

As for Trump, I stand by my usual position: I give him credit when his administration strengthens Western military deterrence, and I offer firm criticism whenever he flirts with the idea of yielding to Moscow’s rhetorical intimidation. Consistency of judgment matters more than personal sympathy.

An Alliance That Has Learned to Ignore Vague Threats

The recent history of this war shows that the Kremlin’s repeated warnings, however solemnly worded, have never prevented NATO summits from taking place or Western support for Ukraine from deepening. This continuity, despite constant rhetorical pressure, constitutes in itself an implicit response to Russia’s strategy of intimidation.

The thirty-two member countries of the Atlantic Alliance have, on the whole, maintained remarkable cohesion in the face of these repeated attempts at division, despite individual tactical differences among certain members regarding the pace and scope of the support to be provided.

This cohesion among thirty-two different voices—often portrayed as a structural weakness of NATO—is, in my view, an underestimated strength. A monolithic bloc cracks at the first sign of trouble; an alliance of democracies that debates but stands firm sends a more enduring signal.

Western Rearmament: A Long-Term Structural Response

Beyond the immediate diplomatic response, the accelerated rearmament of European NATO member countries constitutes the most enduring response to the Kremlin’s strategy of intimidation, gradually reducing Russia’s ability to influence Western strategic calculations through threats alone.

A Russia Negotiating from a Less Favorable Position Than It Claims

Lavrov’s tone, though firm in its wording, struggles to mask a more complex reality on the ground for Moscow: deep Ukrainian strikes against Russian infrastructure—documented repeatedly in recent months—have shown that Russia itself is no longer immune to the direct consequences of the war it started.

This new vulnerability, combined with the Kremlin’s growing diplomatic isolation on the international stage, partly explains why Moscow feels the need to publicly assert control over a situation that, were it in a position of true strength, it would have no need to announce.

Ukraine, in a Position to Negotiate with Greater Confidence

This dynamic also explains why analysts have noted a shift in Zelensky’s stance in recent weeks, driven by tangible military successes that strengthen his position at the negotiating table—contrary to the image of a country solely on the defensive that the Kremlin seeks to perpetuate.

I believe this announcement of surveillance says more about Moscow’s weaknesses than about its strengths. A power that negotiates from a position of dominance does not need to spy on its adversaries; it sets its own pace. That is clearly no longer the case here.

A tactic already used at previous summits

This is not the first time Moscow has publicly announced that it will “monitor” a Western summit focused on Ukraine. This tactic has been used repeatedly since 2022, usually on the eve of meetings deemed particularly sensitive for the future of Western military support.

The actual effectiveness of this tactic, however, remains debatable: no major NATO summit has been canceled or substantially altered as a result of these repeated warnings from the Kremlin in recent years.

What This Repetition Reveals About Russian Doctrine

This consistency in approach suggests that the Kremlin views this monitoring rhetoric as a low-cost but potentially useful tool for maintaining constant psychological pressure, even in the absence of concrete, measurable results regarding Western behavior.

A low-cost tool, you say? I believe, above all, that it is the only tool left to the Kremlin as its military and economic tools are gradually being exhausted in the face of combined Western and Ukrainian resistance.

Turkey, an Ambiguous Partner That Moscow Is Also Monitoring

The choice of Ankara as the summit venue adds another dimension to the monitoring announced by Lavrov: Turkey maintains active economic and diplomatic relations with Moscow, which could, in theory, provide the Kremlin with indirect channels of information on the summit’s proceedings.

This Turkish-Russian closeness—which is very real on the economic front—has, however, never prevented Ankara from maintaining its full membership in NATO, a balance that Turkey has managed with recognized diplomatic skill since the start of the conflict.

What This Situation Means for the Future

This complex dynamic between Ankara, Moscow, and NATO illustrates the persistent difficulty of building a completely impenetrable Western front against Russia, while demonstrating that this relative permeability has not, so far, prevented the Alliance from maintaining substantial cohesion on the most fundamental issues of the Ukrainian crisis.

I readily acknowledge the complexity of Turkey’s role in this matter. One can criticize certain choices made by Erdogan without denying that his balancing act ultimately serves the cause of a dialogue that might not exist without this unlikely platform.

The Need for Control as a Sign of Vulnerability

Historically, authoritarian regimes often express their strategic anxiety through an increased need for surveillance and control over information, precisely at the moment when their actual grip on events begins to erode. Lavrov’s statement fits this classic pattern documented by numerous analysts of authoritarian regimes.

This observation, however, should not lead us to underestimate Russia’s real and ongoing capacity to cause harm on the military front, where the bombing of Ukrainian civilians continues unabated, regardless of the Kremlin’s psychological state.

Two Coexisting Realities

We must therefore simultaneously acknowledge two truths that do not cancel each other out: the Kremlin is going through a period of visible strategic anxiety, and Russia continues to pose a direct and deadly military threat to the Ukrainian civilian population.

Holding these two truths together is uncomfortable, but it is necessary. A psychologically weakened adversary remains an adversary capable of killing. Military vigilance must never be relaxed under the pretext of an optimistic interpretation of the Kremlin’s psychology.

A Indicator for Gauging the Coming Months

This statement by Lavrov, however minor it may seem in isolation, offers a valuable indicator for anticipating the evolution of Russia’s diplomatic stance in the coming months: the more the Kremlin issues such surveillance announcements, the more it signals a real loss of control over the diplomatic tempo of this war.

Western observers and decision-makers would do well to incorporate this indicator into their overall strategic analysis, rather than treating each Russian statement in isolation without looking for the broader pattern it reveals.

What This Means for the Course of Negotiations

If this assessment proves correct, the coming weeks could see Moscow stepping up its rhetorical displays of resolve precisely as its actual negotiating position continues to weaken both on the ground and diplomatically.

I will keep a close eye on this hypothesis in the coming weeks, without, however, clinging to it rigidly. The course of this war has seen enough reversals to prompt me to remain cautious, even when a pattern seems to be clearly emerging.

Bombings Continue as Moscow Monitors Diplomats

While Lavrov announces his diplomatic monitoring of Ankara, Russian bombings of Ukrainian civilian infrastructure continue unabated, as evidenced by the ballistic missile attack on Kyiv documented in early July. This juxtaposition of measured diplomatic rhetoric and actual violence on the ground must remain at the center of any analysis of this conflict.

No declaration of diplomatic monitoring, however skillfully worded, can compensate for the daily reality faced by Ukrainian civilians under the constant threat of Russian strikes.

Why this hierarchy of priorities must guide our understanding

Diplomats have the luxury of Ankara’s hushed salons to debate who is monitoring whom; Ukrainian civilians have only shelters, air raid alerts, and daily uncertainty. This hierarchy of priorities must remain the guiding principle of any serious analysis of this summit.

I refuse to let this whole issue of diplomatic surveillance become an intellectual exercise disconnected from the blood that has been shed. Let us always keep this hierarchy in mind: Lavrov’s words have never stopped a single missile.

What this analysis cautiously suggests

Upon closer examination, Sergey Lavrov’s statement regarding surveillance of the Ankara summit reveals more about the Kremlin’s strategic concerns than a genuine show of force. This assessment, however, remains a cautious interpretation based on documented precedents, rather than an absolute certainty regarding Moscow’s actual intentions.

What remains certain, however, is that this rhetoric has so far never prevented continued Western support for Ukraine, nor the regular holding of summits dedicated to this issue.

This remains to be seen

The weeks following the Ankara summit will reveal whether this assessment holds true, particularly through changes in Moscow’s tone and the concrete response from Western allies to Zelensky’s request for additional interceptors.

I conclude this analysis with the same caution with which I began it: measured confidence in Western resilience, and persistent mistrust of the Kremlin’s calculations. History will judge this sequence by its concrete results, not by its declarations of vigilance.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist