Interview of H.E. Denis Gonchar, Ambassador of Russia to Belgium, to MIA "Rossiya segodnya" (September 22, 2025)

– You arrived in Belgium exactly one month ago and recently presented your credentials to the King. Given that the country is considered unfriendly, what are your impressions and expectations from your first contacts with the Belgian authorities? Are there forces in the country that advocate dialogue with Russia, and what is the mood among the population?

– The start of my work as Russian Ambassador to Belgium coincided with the beginning of a new political season, so there wasn't much time to waste. Since February 2022, the Belgian authorities have ‘frozen’ political dialogue with us, so it was all the more important to use the first contacts to discuss the accumulated bilateral problems and explain our approaches to the most pressing international issues.

In less than a month, I conducted several meetings at the country's Foreign Ministry, and on 17 September, presented credentials to King Philippe. It marked the official launch of my tenure as head of the Russian diplomatic mission in Brussels.

As the discussions showed, Belgium still remembers the positive aspects of bilateral relations, including the friendship between monarchs and our alliance during the First and Second World Wars. There is a feeling of dissatisfaction with the current deplorable state of relations and a hope for positive changes. At the same time, we do not yet see any willingness to do anything about this in practical terms. Moreover, it is regrettable to note that Belgium is gradually drifting away from its former pragmatism in its Russia and Ukraine foreign policy towards the approaches of the most outrageously prejudiced EU and NATO countries.

This is evidenced by the loud statements, steps and plans announced by representatives of the current government, which came to power not so long ago. We keep hearing threats of new tough sanctions and various special tribunals, promises to supply the Kiev regime with new weapons and equipment, and support for Ukraine's accession to NATO. In the same line goes irresponsible narrative about the possibility of sending Belgian troops to the conflict zone, ‘horror stories’ about upcoming Russian drone and missile strikes on Brussels, and other nonsense which is frankly disappointing.

 We brought attention of the Belgian authorities to our concerns about such rhetoric and, most importantly, about the unfriendly actions taken in Brussels. We made it clear that the negative trend of gradual deterioration we are seeing could lead to the collapse of the entire integrity of bilateral relations. We also stated our sincere conviction that the line chosen by the political establishment is not at all in the interests of Belgian citizens.

 By the way, in reply to your question about the attitude of ordinary Belgians towards Russia, I can say with complete confidence that my initial contacts, the impressions of my colleagues, and the feedback we receive on the Embassy's public work clearly indicate that there is a huge gap between the anti-Russian stance of the authorities and the mood of society. We see neither Russophobia nor belligerence among the overwhelming majority of people. On the contrary, many express understanding and support for our country's independent course, saying that they are ashamed of their authorities, who have made the fight against the notorious ‘Russian threat’ the core element of their entire existence.

Speaking about the conditions under which Russian diplomatic missions operate in Brussels, I cannot but mention that our Embassy, as well as our Permanent Representation to the European Union, face plenty of problems – from ensuring security to staff rotation and using the services of the local banking system. We have conveyed to the Belgian Foreign Ministry that their staff in Moscow feels quite comfortable and meets no impediment in its day-to-day work. We have been assured that they are committed to look for a solution. We will seek a reciprocal attitude.

– Belgium is part of the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’ for Ukraine. The authorities have announced their intention to transfer F-16 fighter jets to Kiev ‘as soon as possible,’ allocate €100 million in aid, and participate in security guarantees for Kiev. How feasible is this in reality? Does the country have the capacity to provide significant support to Ukraine, and how much will it cost the country's population?

– Despite its small size, Belgium has become quite seriously involved in providing assistance to Ukraine, both militarily and politically, as well as financially and economically. Kiev has been promised the delivery of at least thirty F-16s and €1 billion in funding for the Ukrainian army per year. Brussels is also a member of all seven ‘coalitions’ supporting the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev with weapons and strengthening its defences in various areas. These include artillery, information technology, air defense, electronic warfare, demining, maritime security and air force.

Recently, as you rightly pointed out, another dangerous step has been taken. The Kingdom has joined the so-called ‘coalition of the willing’. Within this format, the parameters for the entry of foreign troops into Ukraine in the post-conflict stage are being discussed. The Belgians have not publicly ruled out their participation, although we have clearly stated that such operations are unacceptable to us and that it is impossible to implement any security guarantees without Russia.

Overall, Belgium's approach to the Ukrainian at the moment is extremely nonconstructive and, at times, openly aggressive.

How feasible are they? In addition to the geopolitical risks that I have already outlined, it is worth saying that membership in the Ukraine's fan club comes at a very high price for Belgium. It has virtually no funds of its own – its national debt has exceeded €643 billion, equivalent to 104.7% of GDP, its budget deficit has grown to 4.4% of GDP (€26 billion) and, at this rate, will reach 5.4% of GDP by 2030. Deindustrialisation is accelerating. Last year, more than 11,000 legal entities went bankrupt, the unemployment rate in 2024 is 5.7%, and although the average inflation rate is a seemingly ‘harmless’ 4.3%, it is quite significant by European standards.

Therefore, the government has been trying to obtain money mainly from two sources. The first is the use of taxes on income from Russian frozen assets held in the Brussels-based international depository Euroclear. The second is a consistent increase in the burden on its own population and a reduction in social spending.

And what's interesting. In fact, the Kingdom's officials are deceiving their own population. They tell them that Ukraine is being financed by Russia's lost profit, but this is not the case. Unlike the looting that takes place at the EU level, the Belgian authorities are giving Ukraine the money that would otherwise legally go to the Kingdom's budget as income tax. We are talking about ten-figures sums that could be spent on infrastructure development, salaries for state and municipal employees, and social payments. In the name of solidarity with their Ukrainian brothers and the EU-NATO leadership, they are robbing their own citizens.

– How are things going in bilateral trade and economy? Are there any areas of cooperation left, and is Belgian business still interested in Russia?

– Five years ago, our countries had stable trade and economic ties. Trade turnover exceeded €16 billion. Cooperation covered a wide range of areas. The flagship ones were considered to be energy and the diamond sector. The bulk of Russian raw materials for the global jewellery industry passed through Antwerp, and oil, gas and LNG supplies ensured a comfortable life not only for Belgium but for the whole of Europe. Projects in metallurgy, logistics, and the production of medical drugs and equipment were actively developing.

The European Union's sanctions policy, which the Belgian authorities joined, effectively put an end to most areas of cooperation. Under pressure from Brussels, bilateral trade began to decline rapidly. From year to year, the reduction has been around 30%. By the end of 2024, it fell to a record low of €4.3 billion. Data for the first half of 2025 show a slight improvement, with Russian exports amounting to €1.3 billion and imports to €1.5 billion. However, there is no reason to talk about a normalisation, let alone an upward trend.

Today, the number of Russian companies remaining on the Belgian market can be counted on one hand. I will not name them, so as not to help our enemies create additional problems for them. At the same time, it is important to say that Belgian companies remain interested in the Russian market and are waiting for the unfavorable political situation to change. Several dozen Belgian entities continue to operate in Russia. They are not under any pressure and feel quite comfortable. For our part, we have made it clear to the Belgian authorities that there is no point in killing off something that is still alive. It is easy to sever ties completely, but it is much more difficult to regain trust and restore cooperation.

– Before the EU sanctions against Russia were imposed, Antwerp was one of the largest diamond trading centers in the world thanks to its cooperation with Russian partners. How are things now?

– The diamond industry has traditionally been the largest area of our bilateral cooperation. Antwerp was the world center for diamond trading and cutting, and Alrosa was one of its key suppliers. Russia's share of diamond imports to Belgium reached 40%, with turnover measured in billions of euros. This provided the country with thousands of jobs, ensured stable tax revenues and supported the Kingdom's prestige as the ‘diamond capital of the world’. However, the sanctions war unleashed by the West has overturned the usual balance. The Belgian authorities tried to protect the industry, realising that sanctions against Russian diamonds would hit not only Moscow but also Europeans themselves. But in the end, they gave up.

Since January 2024, direct deliveries have ceased as a result of the EU embargo. By the end of 2024, trade in precious stones had fallen by 23.2% to €20.3 billion. A wave of bankruptcies swept through Antwerp. Over the past two years, more than two dozen jewellery companies have announced forced closures,

Tiffany & Co.'s subsidiary Laurelton Diamonds has halved its staff, and small traders openly admit that the only way to stay afloat is to move into the grey zone. In fact, an industry that once generated tens of thousands of jobs is now teetering on the brink of survival.

At the same time, Russia adjusted faster than our foes expected. Alrosa redirected its main flows to India and the UAE. Dubai has effectively become the new global center of the diamond trade. Indian companies have gained stable access to Russian raw materials, maintaining prices and jobs.

– Until 2025, large volumes of Russian energy resources were re-exported to Asian countries via Belgian ports. How significant are the losses for Belgium now that Russia is using other routes to supply energy resources?

– Energy supplies are another area of bilateral cooperation that is being sacrificed to the destructive policies of the European Union. Just a few years ago, the Belgian port of Zeebrugge was a key link in the global logistics chain for Russian natural gas. In 2015, a 20-year contract was signed between a subsidiary of PJSC Novatek and the Belgian gas transport company Fluxys for the transshipment of up to eight million tonnes of gas annually. This agreement was backed by multi-billion dollar investments in infrastructure modernisation and development. A special storage facility with a capacity of 180,000 cubic meters was built for this purpose. Russian gas was transshipped through Zeebrugge and sent onward, including to Asia. Belgium received huge revenues.

On 27 March 2025, the European Union's 14th package of sanctions came into force, prohibiting the transshipment of Russian liquefied natural gas through European ports. Belgium complied without a fight and implemented this ban through a national decree. The infrastructure that had been built up over many years was devalued with a stroke of a pen, and the Kingdom lost its favorable position as an intermediary in international energy logistics.

At the same time, the sanctions did not affect direct gas supplies to EU countries.

Brussels continues to purchase our energy resources as before. Moreover, from 2024 onwards, the volumes are only increasing. Since the beginning of this year, around 2.9 million tonnes of Russian LNG worth €1.4 billion have already passed through the terminal in Zeebrugge. What is more, in June, the volume of imports increased by 12% compared to May.

At the same time, we cannot be entirely sure that this area of our bilateral cooperation will not ultimately be subject to the dictates of the EU against common sense. Undermining it would be yet another huge mistake, the consequences of which – far from being purely financial – would be felt first and foremost by the Belgians themselves.

– Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot has suggested that the country may take a more risky approach to frozen Russian assets. Has this issue been discussed with the Belgian authorities, and if so, will Moscow take retaliatory measures?

– The fate of Russian assets frozen in Brussels – more than €200 billion – remains one of the most pressing issues in our bilateral relations. Recently, we have noted negative changes in the position of the Belgian authorities. Whereas previously they emphasised the danger and illegality of expropriating the Bank of Russia's money frozen in Euroclear, now there are statements about the possibility of using them if the responsibility and risks are shared among all EU member states.

Our position is extremely clear and has been unequivocally communicated to the Belgian authorities: any encroachment on our money will constitute a violation of international law, bilateral agreements and contractual obligations. This applies not only to relations between Russia and Euroclear, but also to international documents signed by Belgium.

The 1989 agreement between the USSR, Belgium and Luxembourg on the mutual protection of capital investments explicitly obliges the parties to respect property rights. Any attempt to steal part of our national wealth directly contradicts these obligations.

Any attempts at confiscation will not go unanswered. Belgium will be the first to pay the price: its reputation as a reliable jurisdiction will be destroyed, investor confidence will be undermined, and the investment image that has been built up over decades will collapse in an instant.

– Belgium is home to a large number of our compatriots, there are many Russian military graves from the First and Second World Wars, as well as parishes of the Brussels-Belgian Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. Given the current geopolitical situation, how does the ‘Russian world’ feel in Belgium? Does it face pressure and difficulties? How does the Embassy respond to these challenges?

– Western attempts to divide the ‘Russian world’ are not achieving their goal. Russian culture, centuries-old traditions, history, values, and genuine spiritual ties between people cannot be destroyed by any sanctions or propaganda.

Our diaspora in Belgium is quite large, around 70,000 people. Speaking of its religious part, I have already had the opportunity to meet with the head of the Brussels-Belgian Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church, Archbishop Simon. In total, there are 18 parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate in various cities of the Kingdom, including two monasteries. It is noteworthy that the Orthodox faith was recognised at the state level by a decree of the King on 15 April 1985. We hope that the clergy of our diocese will be allowed to remain outside of politics, although there are calls in the European media to ‘check their reliability’. This is unacceptable.

I also had the opportunity to talk to active members of the Russian-speaking community. It must be said that Russians living in Belgium have faced considerable pressure in recent years, whether through negative coverage in the local media, refusals to provide banking services or rent accommodation, and so on. This is often instigated by pro-Ukrainian nationalists who harass them on social media and write complaints, which the local authorities unfortunately sometimes take seriously.

One of the most recent and egregious cases was an attack on various Russian-language additional secondary education institutions. After obviously custom-made articles in the media, the start of the academic year was effectively disrupted at one of the schools. The parents of the students, mainly Belgian citizens, wrote several petitions calling for the normal educational process not to be politicised. We have already raised this issue with the Belgian Foreign Ministry. We have been assured that there is no deliberate policy of discrimination. We will closely monitor how the situation will develop.

On a positive note, I would like to point out that the more than 800 graves of Russian and Soviet soldiers who fought in the First and Second World Wars in Belgium are in good condition. It is gratifying that at least their memory is respected and that their graves are being looked after by people who are not indifferent, both from our diaspora and Belgians. We express our sincere gratitude to them for this.

– Until November 2021, Belgium was home to Russia's Permanent Representation to NATO. After it closed, NATO topic is overseen by the Embassy. Is there any dialogue with NATO at present? Which of the alliance's actions cause us the greatest concern?

– Indeed, against the backdrop of NATO's increasingly confrontational policy towards Russia and repeated unfounded expulsions of accredited diplomats, our leadership decided to suspend the work of the Permanent Mission to NATO from 1 November 2021, and the ambassador was tasked with maintaining emergency contacts. Once I came to Brussels, we informed the NATO International Staff about my arrival. The alliance did not give a substantive response, but provided telephone numbers and email addresses, verbally confirming that this channel of communication would remain open if necessary.

Naturally, there is no meaningful dialogue with NATO at present. There is only a periodic exchange of brief letters through military channels, which mainly concern specific incidents. It is obvious that without NATO abandoning its hostile stance, there can be no return to normality. The current situation, with the bloc stirring up tensions on the ‘eastern flank’, pumping weapons into the Kiev regime, working out options for sending NATO contingents to Ukraine and providing security guarantees exclusively for Kiev, confirms once again that Brussels continues to completely ignore the legitimate interests of the Russian Federation.

I would like to point out that there is no logical explanation for the aggressive anti-Russian course taken by the alliance. All talk of our country posing a threat to the entire bloc or its individual members is pure fiction. President Putin has repeatedly and unequivocally stated that our country has never had, does not have, and will never have any plans to attack the alliance.

But what do we see on the other side? Under the pretext of a fake ‘Russian threat,’ large-scale exercises are conducted almost non-stop near our borders, contingents and equipment are being transferred to ‘frontline’ states in addition to the eight multinational combat groups already deployed there, military operations on the eastern borders of the bloc are multiplying, and projects are being actively developed to remove cross-border barriers in order to speed up the potential transfer of troops in the event of a large-scale conflict – the so-called ‘military Schengen’.

We consider the alliance's actions in the Baltic Sea to be extremely dangerous, including attempts to position it as its ‘internal sea,’ frequent large-scale naval exercises similar to Baltops 2025, as well as the launch of a new operation, ‘Baltic Sentry’ in January, in which NATO, contrary to international law, has invented pseudo-justifications for monitoring the movements of the ‘Russian shadow fleet’ with patrol ships, patrol aircraft and drones. The question is, who is to blame for creating a potential zone of military confrontation?

We are greatly concerned about NATO's militarisation of the Arctic region, which is leading to increased military and political tensions in the High North and posing a threat to Russia's national security. After drawing Finland and Sweden into its ranks, the bloc has begun intensive usage of their territories for its military purposes. In general, we are seeing an increase in military training activities near Russia's northern borders, as well as the emergence of new command posts and combat training centers. It is typical that, in order to enter the Arctic, the alliance does not hesitate to use the issue of climate change, the consequences of which allegedly threaten NATO's security, as a pretext for its anti-Russian agenda.

I cannot fail to mention the extremely alarming trends in a number of NATO countries with regard to nuclear weapons. For example, Polish President Karol Nawrocki recently made a statement about the need for his country to ‘have its own nuclear potential’ within the framework of the alliance's nuclear sharing missions. This is not the first time – back in 2022, during a visit to the United States, former Polish President Andrzej Duda expressed similar ideas, but at that time the Americans and European leaders did not support the initiative. In recent months, Lithuania has declared its readiness to host nuclear weapons. The French president has floated the idea of deploying a ‘nuclear umbrella’ over European members of the alliance to avoid dependence on the mood swings in Washington. In Germany, risky discussions on these topics have intensified. All this threatens to push the world towards a dangerous precipice.

Needless to say, with each passing year, if not month, the global appetites of NATO strategists are growing exponentially. The alliance seeks to extend its tentacles into the Asia-Pacific region, Eurasia, including the South Caucasus and Central Asia, as well as the Middle East and Africa. It's enough just to look at how closely it is working with key partner countries such as Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan, with an obvious anti-Chinese orientation. Apparently, the Euro-Atlantic NATO members are no longer satisfied with their current sphere of influence and want to create fracture lines in other parts of the world.

– At the NATO summit in The Hague in June, high-profile decisions were made to significantly increase military spending and ramp up the military-industrial complex. Are all the countries in the alliance ready to carry out the tasks set before them? Is Belgium, which has traditionally lagged behind, ready to catch up, and if so, at what cost? How is the public reacting to this?

– The Americans have long insisted that Europeans are significantly underperforming in terms of ensuring collective security. Pressure on allies was intensified during Donald Trump's first term as president, when demands were increasingly voiced for the actual achievement of the 2% defense spending target, which had previously been considered a desirable but not mandatory benchmark. During the recent Hague summit, Washington managed to get its allies to sign up to a new ‘dizzying’ requirement to allocate 5% of GDP to military purposes. Even during the preparations for this event, it was clear how difficult and even painful the planned decisions would be for most NATO members. Many countries experienced a wave of public protests.

Since the 5% threshold is practically unattainable for almost all members of the alliance, they came up with a ‘clever’ scheme for accounting for expenses, dividing them into military and ‘defense- and security-related’ expenses in order to make life easier for themselves. A number of countries have tried to obtain exemptions and concessions – Spain, for example, for which it was severely reprimanded by Washington.

In Belgium, this issue has also sparked fierce inter-party and public debate. Politicians at all levels and analysts have, for the most part, expressed extreme doubts that the Kingdom will be able to meet the new standard. Brussels lags behind in terms of defense spending and until recently was second to last in the relevant NATO rating (1.3% of GDP). Now, according to the latest NATO reports, the Belgians will supposedly reach this threshold by the end of the year, at least on paper. It is obvious that in reality this ‘leap’ will be achieved at the expense of the citizens' needs, as well as through all sorts of tricks. For example, they are trying to count the costs of passenger screening at airports and the conversion of underground car parks for possible military use as defense expenditures. In general, they are doing whatever they can to get around it.

Many other countries are also resorting to tricks. Luxembourg, for example, uses gross national income instead of gross domestic product to calculate defense spending. Italy attempted to include investments in the construction of a bridge between Sicily and Calabria, costing €13.5 billion, in the ‘defense-related expenditure’ column, but due to discontent expressed, in particular, by representatives of the United States, Rome had to abandon this plan. Many hope to cover excessive defense costs by joining the EU's SAFE program, and the number of applications submitted already exceeds the available funding.

To better understand the enormous figures involved, let me remind you that, according to a recent annual report on the military spending of alliance member countries, in 2025, NATO countries will collectively spend approximately $1.5888 trillion on defense – much more than all other countries in the world combined.

– The EU and NATO have thrown a real tantrum over the incident in Poland on the night of 9-10 September involving the alleged incursion of Russian UAVs. You were summoned to the Belgian Foreign Ministry. NATO announced the launch of another operation, ‘Eastern Sentry’. How should these steps be interpreted? Does all this mean a transition to a new level of confrontation between the West and Russia?

– NATO's behaviour in the context of the incident in Poland is another striking example of how, without waiting for an investigation and confirmation of the facts, NATO members a priori blame Russia and immediately use this as a pretext to escalate anti-Russian measures. Incidentally, the Belgian authorities have actively joined in the hysteria – Defense Minister Theo Francken began pointing the finger at Moscow on social media even before Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk made his ‘official’ allegations on the matter.

Taking advantage of the situation, the bloc announced the launch of a new operation called ‘Eastern Sentry’. As part of this operation, fighter jets from Germany, Denmark and France, several Czech combat helicopters and a frigate are being deployed to the country. In addition, citing the Russian-Belarusian exercises ‘West 2025,’ the Polish-Belarusian border was closed. Meanwhile Warsaw is conducting large-scale military exercises ‘Iron Defender’ in the north and east of the country, involving 34,000 military personnel, including from NATO countries – the United States, Norway and Sweden – and more than 600 pieces of military equipment.

 It is obvious that such a course of action will only increase the confrontational tension on the eastern borders of the alliance. We can already see that the most hot-headed individuals are suggesting not only to monitor the situation in the air and on the ground on the eastern borders, but also to create a no-fly zone over Ukraine and shoot down Russian drones over its territory with NATO forces. As you understand, this is a direct incitement to military confrontation between the alliance and Russia. We can only hope that leadership in Brussels will have enough common sense to prevent the current situation which is already tense from escalating into something worse.