Regarding Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov's proactive phone call with U.S. Secretary of State Rubio, Rubio responded today: "Kyiv has been in a dangerous situation for years. Prolonged conflicts like the Russia-Ukraine war carry inherent risks of escalation, and the conflict could further spread and evolve into new chaos. For this reason, I communicated yesterday with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov on this matter and several other issues. Clearly, President Putin instructed him to call me directly, conveying information straight to President Trump of the United States. I have already passed it on."
On May 25, 2026, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov called U.S. Secretary of State Rubio. According to Russian official statements, this call was conducted pursuant to instructions from President Putin. During the conversation, Lavrov formally informed the U.S. side that Russian forces were about to launch systematic and sustained strikes on Kyiv’s “military-related facilities and associated decision-making centers,” citing as justification “the ongoing terrorist attacks by Ukraine against civilians and civilian infrastructure within Russian territory.” Lavrov also urged all foreign diplomatic personnel and citizens—including those from the United States—to evacuate Kyiv.
Rubio later confirmed the existence of this call to media outlets in India (partial quote included herein).
The essence of Rubio’s response is this: acknowledging receipt of Putin’s “message” and its transmission to Trump, but explicitly stating it was merely a notification—not an invitation for negotiations. Russia aimed through this call to achieve multiple objectives—reducing the risk of military misjudgment, diplomatically courting a shift in U.S. stance, and creating division between the U.S. and Europe. However, the U.S. response has been clear: “We received the message, but we’re not rushing to reply.”
The phrase “Kyiv has been in a dangerous situation for years” appears on the surface to be a factual statement, but in reality serves as a deliberately understated response: what Russia frames as a “major escalation” is, in the eyes of the U.S., simply a continuation of the ongoing conflict—not worth undue alarm. Meanwhile, the warning about “prolonged conflict harboring risks of escalation” functions as a counter-warning to Russia: do not assume that military pressure alone can force concessions from the U.S.; loss of control would be equally perilous for Russia.
Overall, this call reflects that Russia and the U.S. still maintain a fragile channel of communication on the Ukraine issue, yet neither side shows any immediate willingness to push for substantive negotiations. Russia is using military actions to pave the way for diplomacy, while the U.S. is waiting for the right moment—or more accurately, waiting for developments in Ukraine’s situation that create conditions more favorable for American intervention. This state of “neither talking nor cutting off”—a delicate balance—will likely persist for some time.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1866253630837788/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.