In a significant statement on Wednesday, October 8, 2025, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed plan for resolving the ongoing crisis in the Gaza Strip as the “best thing on the table” and praised its “realistic” approach. Speaking in an interview for the Bridges to the East project, as reported by Russia’s state-run TASS news agency, Lavrov provided a detailed assessment of the plan, emphasizing its potential to serve as a foundation for peace in the region despite its limitations. His remarks come at a time when international efforts to address the Gaza conflict remain fraught with challenges, and his endorsement of Trump’s initiative underscores Russia’s pragmatic stance on the issue.
Lavrov highlighted that Trump’s plan, often referred to as the “20 points,” focuses primarily on the Gaza Strip while making only vague references to broader Palestinian statehood. “US President Donald Trump proposed his ‘20 points,’ which mention the word ‘statehood,’ but in rather general terms,” Lavrov noted during the interview. He acknowledged that the plan does not explicitly address the West Bank, a key territory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but argued that its limited scope does not diminish its value under the current geopolitical circumstances. “It only concerns what remains of the Gaza Strip. The West Bank isn’t mentioned, but we are realists. We understand that this is the best thing on the table right now,” he said.
The Russian foreign minister’s endorsement of the plan is rooted in its perceived acceptability to key stakeholders in the region. Lavrov suggested that the proposal could gain traction among Arab nations while avoiding outright rejection from Israel—a delicate balance in a conflict marked by deep-seated mistrust and competing interests. “At the very least, it’s the best option in terms of acceptability for the Arabs and non-rejection by Israel,” Lavrov stated. However, he was quick to emphasize that the plan’s success hinges on its acceptance by the Palestinians, who have historically been skeptical of proposals perceived as favoring Israeli interests. “Most importantly, it needs to be acceptable to the Palestinians,” he added, underscoring the centrality of Palestinian approval to any viable resolution.
Lavrov framed Trump’s initiative as a pragmatic step toward achieving immediate humanitarian and security objectives. “Returning once again to Donald Trump’s plan, it’s realistic if the Palestinians accept it,” he reiterated, signaling Moscow’s cautious optimism about the proposal’s potential to break the current impasse. The foreign minister stressed that the primary goal of any settlement must be to halt the violence and address the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza. “It’s crucial to work out the details here to prevent a relapse,” he said, pointing to the need for meticulous planning to ensure that hostilities do not resume after a ceasefire is reached.
The Gaza Strip has been a focal point of conflict for decades, with recurring cycles of violence between Israel and Palestinian groups, particularly Hamas. The region has faced significant destruction, with civilian infrastructure heavily damaged and a humanitarian crisis exacerbating the suffering of its population. Trump’s plan, as described by Lavrov, appears to prioritize stabilizing Gaza through a combination of security guarantees, reconstruction efforts, and limited political concessions. While the specifics of the “20 points” remain unclear in public discourse, Lavrov’s comments suggest that the plan outlines a framework for addressing immediate concerns, such as ending bloodshed and restoring basic services, while deferring thornier issues like Palestinian statehood to future negotiations.
Lavrov’s remarks also reflect Russia’s broader approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which balances diplomatic engagement with regional powers and a commitment to multilateral solutions. He noted Moscow’s support for ongoing indirect negotiations facilitated by Egypt, involving key players such as Türkiye, Qatar, the United States, and Israel. These talks aim to broker a ceasefire and lay the groundwork for a sustainable resolution. By aligning with these efforts, Russia positions itself as a constructive actor in the peace process, seeking to complement rather than compete with other mediators.
The Russian foreign minister’s endorsement of Trump’s plan is particularly notable given the complex dynamics of U.S.-Russia relations. While the two powers often find themselves at odds on global issues, Lavrov’s comments suggest a rare point of convergence, at least rhetorically, on the Gaza question. This alignment may reflect Moscow’s strategic interest in supporting initiatives that stabilize the Middle East, a region where Russia maintains significant influence through its partnerships with countries like Syria and Iran. By backing a U.S.-led proposal, Russia may also be signaling its willingness to engage pragmatically with Western initiatives when they align with its own objectives of reducing regional instability.
However, Lavrov’s cautious praise for Trump’s plan is tempered by an awareness of the challenges ahead. The Gaza conflict is deeply entrenched, with both sides holding firm to their respective demands. For Palestinians, any agreement that does not address core issues like statehood, the status of Jerusalem, and the right of return for refugees is likely to face strong opposition. Similarly, Israel’s security concerns, particularly regarding Hamas’s military capabilities, remain a significant hurdle. Lavrov’s emphasis on preventing a “relapse” of hostilities underscores the fragility of any potential agreement and the need for robust mechanisms to enforce a ceasefire and monitor compliance.
The broader context of the Gaza crisis adds further complexity to the prospects for Trump’s plan. The region has been plagued by recurring violence, with recent escalations causing widespread destruction and loss of life. International efforts to broker peace have repeatedly faltered, with previous U.S.-led initiatives, such as the 2020 “Peace to Prosperity” plan, failing to gain traction among Palestinians. Trump’s latest proposal, as described by Lavrov, appears to take a more focused approach, prioritizing Gaza’s immediate needs over a comprehensive resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This narrower scope may make the plan more palatable to some stakeholders but risks alienating those who see it as sidestepping critical issues.
Lavrov’s comments also highlight the delicate balance of regional and international interests in the Gaza conflict. Arab states, particularly those with normalized relations with Israel under the Abraham Accords, may view Trump’s plan as a pragmatic step toward de-escalation. However, their support is likely to depend on the plan’s ability to address Palestinian grievances without destabilizing their own domestic politics. Meanwhile, Israel’s willingness to engage with the proposal will hinge on its alignment with the country’s security priorities and its government’s political calculus. For the Palestinians, the stakes are even higher, as any agreement must deliver tangible improvements in living conditions and political prospects to gain legitimacy.
In endorsing Trump’s plan, Lavrov is also navigating Russia’s role as a global power with interests in the Middle East. Moscow has historically positioned itself as a counterweight to U.S. influence in the region, often advocating for Palestinian rights and criticizing Israeli policies. By supporting a U.S.-proposed plan, Lavrov may be seeking to bridge divides between competing powers while maintaining Russia’s relevance in the peace process. This pragmatic approach reflects Moscow’s broader strategy of engaging with all parties to maximize its diplomatic leverage.
As the international community continues to grapple with the Gaza crisis, Lavrov’s remarks serve as a reminder of the complexity of achieving peace in a region marked by deep divisions. While Trump’s plan may offer a starting point, its success will depend on the willingness of all parties to make difficult compromises. For now, Lavrov’s endorsement provides a boost to the proposal’s credibility, but the path to a lasting resolution remains uncertain. The focus, as Lavrov rightly emphasized, must be on ending the bloodshed, saving lives, and rebuilding Gaza—goals that will require sustained diplomatic effort and genuine cooperation among all stakeholders.
In conclusion, Sergey Lavrov’s endorsement of Donald Trump’s Gaza plan marks a significant moment in the ongoing search for peace in the region. By describing the plan as the “best thing on the table” and highlighting its realism, Lavrov has signaled Russia’s willingness to engage with U.S.-led initiatives when they align with the goal of stabilizing the Middle East. However, the plan’s success will depend on its ability to address the needs and concerns of the Palestinians, gain the support of Arab states, and secure Israel’s cooperation. As indirect negotiations continue, the international community will be watching closely to see whether this proposal can deliver the elusive peace that Gaza so desperately needs.
