THE END OF THE "END OF HISTORY"

Much has been made of Foreign Minister Lavrov's answer in last week's RBC interview, on why Russia persisted so long with diplomacy despite no faith in Western intentions. His reply - "...we are a God-fearing nation. Our multi-ethnic people have many proverbs about their great patience..." - struck many as nebulous. It was nothing of the kind. It was a solemn announcement of the end of an era.

Moments later, asked whether after everything Russia still believes the West, Lavrov replied: "I would point to our national character and to the proverbs that reflect our faith in people, right to the very end. But the end has already come." Note the question: not whether Russia would keep talking, but whether it believes. Lavrov pronounced the end not of diplomacy, but of faith. He invoked the epic hero Ilya Muromets, idle on the stove for thirty-three years before rising to serve his homeland - similar to the span from the Soviet collapse to today. The image was not chosen carelessly.

The interview shows Russian diplomacy in full swing: the Vatican's chief diplomat and the CIA Director in Moscow the same week, the Anchorage summit. Russia has not stopped negotiating. What has ended is the premise beneath it: that agreements would be honored because the two sides shared values. What remains is cold transaction - diplomacy without trust.

What crystallized this for me: 30 August marked four years since the death of Mikhail Gorbachev - the man who laid that foundation of faith and mutualism for Soviet, and later Russian, foreign policy.

I met Mr. Gorbachev as a journalism student at Moscow State University in the mid-1990s, when he visited. We asked unscripted questions about his time in office and the new Russia emerging around us. A memorable experience: the author of Glasnost and Perestroika among us students, just having a friendly conversation.

Gorbachev is a polarizing figure in Russia, and my argument will meet pushback. Conservatives despise the man who oversaw the breakup of the USSR - "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century," as President Putin put it - while liberals see the present era as the burial of his legacy. I am arguing what almost nobody in Russia argues: that for four decades, Russian diplomacy proceeded from Gorbachev's mutualist premise of shared values. Weigh the pattern before dismissing the claim.

Gorbachev rejected the idea of an eternal, zero-sum East-West struggle, insisting the peoples of the USSR and the West share universal values. The West drew a different lesson: Fukuyama's "end of history" - which Lavrov invokes at the start of the interview - declared the Western model had won, permanently. Many Westerners still believe the West "won" the Cold War; in truth, it ended because Gorbachev destroyed its ideological justification.

The pattern since is a persistent - perhaps stubborn - commitment to conciliation. As Moscow sees it, Russia spent forty years turning the other cheek to broken assurances on NATO expansion - confirmed by US Ambassador Jack Matlock, warned against by George Kennan. Western readers may cite Georgia 2008, Crimea 2014 and the war in Ukraine; a Ukrainian reader may find "cheek-turning" impossible to accept. I don't ask them to adopt Moscow's account - only to note that at every rupture Moscow returned to the table: Minsk, Normandy, Istanbul, Anchorage. Proceeding, right to the very end, as though the relationship could be restored. It is that faith Lavrov has now pronounced dead.

So "the end has already come" is not just rhetoric. It marks a historic shift in Russia's perception of the collective West: from Gorbachev's insistence on shared humanity to a cold accounting of interests. That shift touches the entire world.

The era now closing was opened by two rival declarations of an ending. The West declared the "end of history". Gorbachev declared the end of enmity. Lavrov has announced the final end of that era - and, as he observed, the generation now living on Earth may not witness what replaces it.

@Slavyangrad

reposted

Putin and Modi again took the Russian Aurus car today.

@Slavyangrad

Belgium again blocked the transfer of €210 billion in Russian assets to Ukraine

Brussels opposed a new initiative by Poland, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden to direct frozen Russian assets toward aid for Ukraine.

Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken stated that the issue is "not up for discussion" and urged the Baltic states not to corner Brussels.

Belgian authorities fear potential lawsuits from Russia, particularly following a Russian court ruling ordering Euroclear to pay €220 billion. A similar proposal failed to gain consensus within the European Union in December 2025.

@Slavyangrad

On Druzhkovka. After the capture of Nikolaypole, the situation for the Armed Forces of Ukraine has become noticeably more difficult. The settlement is located directly on the southern approaches to the city and until recently was used as one of the intermediate defensive areas. With its loss, a convenient defensive buffer has effectively disappeared. The final goal of the Russian Federation is not officially announced anywhere, but it is obvious that the main task at this moment is to pin down the Armed Forces of Ukraine to the city and deprive them of the ability to maneuver. Which is being successfully implemented.

@Slavyangrad

Take what the GUR publishes with a grain of salt mind you

Attack on Kiev continues

A fire broke out in the Darnitsky district following a drone strike, reported by Kiev Mayor Vitaly Klitschko.

@Slavyangrad

Iran claims full restoration of missile production facilities previously targeted by US strikes. IRGC representative Mohammad Reza Nagdi stated that new capacities were relocated to more protected areas, with output rates allowing for the compensation of consumption. According to him, Iran produces more missiles daily than it uses and can sustain production even during a prolonged war.

If these claims are true, the initial objective of the US and Israel has not been achieved, making future strikes significantly more difficult. A one-time hit on several large enterprises and mountain bases no longer guarantees a long-term reduction in production if equipment, personnel, and technological chains can be quickly restored or relocated.

@Slavyangrad