Rubio and Lavrov Meet for 35 Minutes in Manila; Both Sides Report No Breakthrough on Ukraine
The U.S. and Russian foreign ministers met on the sidelines of an ASEAN forum in the Philippines on July 23, 2026, their first face-to-face talks since September 2025.
One Sentence, One Detailed Briefing
Marco Rubio and Sergei Lavrov sat down together in Pasay, Metro Manila, on July 23, 2026[2][9]. The talks lasted about 35 minutes, squeezed into the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum[2][9]. Neither man took questions or made remarks before or after[7]. It was their first face-to-face meeting in nearly a year, since September 2025[2][5][7].
Here's the strange part. Afterward, the two governments described the same half hour very differently. The U.S. State Department put out a statement that said the two men "discussed the U.S.-Russia relationship and the need to end the Russia-Ukraine war[3]." That's it. One sentence, no other detail.
Russia's Foreign Ministry said far more. It reported that Lavrov briefed Rubio on the front line and told him that "further flooding the Kiev regime with weapons" was unacceptable[4][11]. Rubio later called the exchange "a good conversation, a frank conversation[4]." So most of what the public knows about what was actually said in that room comes from Moscow, not Washington.
That gap isn't an accident. Russia benefits from being the only side telling its version of events. The U.S. benefits from keeping its position vague enough that nothing forecloses future options. Both governments got something out of saying almost nothing.
Selling, Not Giving
Lavrov's complaint centered on weapons. He wants the U.S. to stop what he calls supplying Ukraine's fight[4][11]. Rubio's answer is that U.S. policy hasn't changed, and that the U.S. still sells arms through a program called PURL[4][5].
PURL stands for the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List. Here's how it works: European and Canadian members of NATO put up the money, and the U.S. sells them equipment from its own stockpiles, which then goes to Ukraine[4][5]. Washington isn't paying for it and isn't donating it. It's acting as the seller.
That distinction matters to both sides. For Rubio, it means he can tell Lavrov that "there has been no change in our policy" while also saying the flow of weapons keeps going[4][5]. For Ukraine and its European backers, it means the weapons don't depend on the U.S. Congress approving new spending, which insulates supply from swings in American politics[5]. If arms depended on a fresh vote every year, a hostile Congress or a distracted White House could shut them off. PURL doesn't work that way.
Lavrov's framing suggests he doesn't buy the distinction, or doesn't accept it as a reason to keep the weapons coming[4][11]. Ukraine reads his focus on arms as proof they're doing their job: if the weapons didn't matter, Moscow wouldn't lead its readout with them[4][11].
Which Comes First
Underneath the arms dispute sits a bigger disagreement about sequence. Russia wants a full settlement negotiated before any ceasefire, built on what it calls the understandings reached by Trump and Putin at their Alaska summit in August 2025[6][19]. Ukraine and most European governments want the shooting stopped first, then negotiations.
The reasoning on each side is coherent, not just stubborn. Russia argues a ceasefire alone just pauses the war and lets Ukraine rebuild its army for round two[6][19]. It wants the deeper issues, like Ukraine's ties to NATO and control of the territory Russia now holds, settled as part of any deal.
Ukraine and Europe see it the opposite way. Negotiating while one army is still advancing means drafting terms as the map keeps changing in Russia's favor. Stop the fighting first, they argue, and at least the ground stops shifting under the talks.
Lavrov added a pointed line the day after the Manila meeting, at a gathering of foreign ministers from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Kyrgyzstan. He said Russia would "achieve our goals under any circumstances[20]." A side that expects to keep gaining ground has little reason to freeze the front line where it stands. That single incentive explains much of why the diplomacy keeps stalling.
Rubio, for his part, said the U.S. is ready to help end what he called a "senseless war," but that there's no quick path to a deal[1][10]. He said past mediation attempts had been "unsuccessful or at least unfruitful," and that ending the war will take sustained effort and new ideas[1][10].
A Deal With Its Own Deadline
While Rubio and Lavrov talked in Manila, a separate fight was playing out back in Washington. Congress has been pushing a Russia sanctions bill that the White House resisted for months[12][14]. On July 10, 2026, senators announced they'd reached an agreement with the administration to move it forward[12][14]. A Senate vote was reported as close on the very day of the Manila meeting[13].
The bill's main tool is called secondary tariffs. Rather than sanctioning Russia directly, it would tax countries that keep buying Russian oil, uranium, and natural gas[12]. The idea is that Russia's war machine runs on energy exports, so pressuring the buyers squeezes the money at its source. To get the administration's sign-off, senators trimmed the bill's teeth: the top tariff rate dropped from 500% to 100%, and the number of countries it can target was capped at five[12].
This isn't a fringe effort. The House had already passed a Ukraine aid and Russia sanctions bill on June 4, 2026, over the objections of Trump and Republican leaders[16]. That means U.S. Russia policy currently has two authors: the White House, which wants room to negotiate, and a bipartisan bloc in Congress, which wants Moscow under sustained pressure regardless of what's happening in any given meeting.
Ukraine welcomed the Senate deal[15]. It came not long after Trump met Zelensky at the NATO summit in Ankara on July 8, 2026, where Trump backed Ukrainian production of Patriot missile interceptors and the two sides struck a drone agreement[12]. Those are real, concrete gains for Kyiv, and they're separate from whatever does or doesn't come out of Rubio and Lavrov's meetings.
The Same 35 Minutes, Two Stories
News outlets covering the Manila meeting split largely along the same lines you'd expect on any Ukraine story. NBC News led with the absence of a deal, framing Rubio's own admission that there's no quick path as the headline news, ahead of the fact that talks happened at all[3]. Radio Free Europe, a broadcaster funded by the U.S. Congress, went further, reporting "no breakthroughs" and "little optimism," a mood judgment that no official on either side had actually stated[9].
Russian state media told a different story. RT centered its coverage on Lavrov's claims, describing the Alaska summit's understandings as a settled basis for peace and casting European governments as the obstacle to a deal[6]. That framing treats disputed Russian claims as established fact, and leaves out that Washington has never publicly confirmed what those understandings actually contain.
The pro-Trump outlet The Conservative Treehouse took yet another approach: it published Rubio's full press exchange rather than summarizing it, arguing that mainstream coverage distorts him[18]. That's a real service to readers who want the unedited record, but the choice to run it in full, framed as a corrective, is itself a stance on how the story should be read.
Al Jazeera's headline was among the most neutral of the bunch, but its framing still carried an angle: it emphasized that U.S. attention had shifted from Ukraine toward the Middle East, a detail that casts American commitment as conditional[2].
What Didn't Change
Strip away the framing, and the facts of July 23, 2026, are thin. No ceasefire, no signed framework, no announced follow-up meeting. The fighting in Ukraine continued through the day like every other. What exists is a channel: four in-person meetings between Rubio and Lavrov, an Alaska summit whose actual terms remain unconfirmed publicly, and a one-sentence U.S. readout next to a much fuller Russian one[3][4][11].
Neither of the two concrete mechanisms in play was touched by the meeting. Weapons keep moving to Ukraine under PURL, funded by European and Canadian money[4][5]. And the narrowed U.S. sanctions bill keeps moving toward a Senate vote, with Trump reportedly pushing to add Iran to the package[13].
Whatever comes next for Rubio and Lavrov, it will have to answer the same question that went unanswered in Manila: whether a ceasefire or a full settlement comes first. Neither side has moved off its position, and neither readout suggests it's about to.
Summary
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Pasay, Metro Manila, on July 23, 2026[1][2]. The talks ran about 35 minutes on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum[2][9]. Neither man made a statement before or after the meeting[7]. It was their first in-person meeting since September 2025[2][5]. Reporting describes it as their fourth face-to-face meeting since Rubio took office[1].
The two governments described the same 35 minutes very differently. The State Department said only that the pair discussed the U.S.-Russia relationship and the need to end the war[3]. Russia's Foreign Ministry released a fuller account. It said Lavrov briefed Rubio on the front line and told him that 'further flooding the Kiev regime with weapons was unacceptable'[4][11]. Rubio later called it 'a good conversation, a frank conversation'[4]. Asked about the weapons complaint, he said U.S. policy had not changed and that the U.S. still sells arms through the NATO purchase program known as PURL[4][5].
The core dispute is not really about the meeting. It is about the order of operations for ending the war. Moscow says a full settlement must come first, built on what it calls the understandings reached by President Trump and President Putin at their August 2025 Alaska summit[6][19]. Kyiv and most European governments want the shooting stopped first, on the argument that negotiating while Russia advances rewards the advance. Rubio said the administration is ready to help end what he called a 'senseless war,' but that there is no quick path to a deal and that diplomacy will need 'new ideas'[1][10].
A second dispute runs alongside it, inside the United States. Congress has been pushing a Russia sanctions bill that the White House spent months resisting[12][14]. Senators announced a deal with the administration on July 10, 2026, and a Senate vote was reported as near on the day of the Manila meeting[12][13]. Supporters call that pressure the thing that makes talks work. The administration has argued that squeezing Moscow too hard at the wrong moment can close the channel it is trying to keep open.
The Event
On July 23, 2026, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met for roughly 35 minutes on the sidelines of the 33rd ASEAN Regional Forum in Pasay, Metro Manila[2][9]. Neither delivered remarks or took questions immediately before or after the meeting[7]. The State Department afterward said the two 'discussed the U.S.-Russia relationship and the need to end the Russia-Ukraine war'[3]. Russia's Foreign Ministry said Lavrov briefed Rubio on the situation along the line of contact and called continued weapons supplies to Ukraine unacceptable[4][11]. Rubio later told reporters the exchange was 'a good conversation, a frank conversation' and that U.S. arms policy had not changed[4].
Undisputed Facts
- Rubio and Lavrov met in Pasay, Metro Manila, on July 23, 2026, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Regional Forum[2][9].
- The meeting lasted about 35 minutes[2][9].
- It was their first in-person meeting since September 2025[2][5][7].
- The State Department's public readout said the two discussed the U.S.-Russia relationship and the need to end the war, and gave few other details[3].
- Russia's Foreign Ministry said Lavrov told Rubio that continued weapons supplies to Ukraine were unacceptable[4][11].
- Rubio said U.S. policy on arms for Ukraine had not changed and that the U.S. continues to sell weapons through the PURL program, under which NATO allies buy American equipment for Ukraine[4][5].
- Rubio said there is no quick path to a deal and that ending the war will require sustained effort and new ideas[1][10].
- Lavrov said Russia prefers a political and diplomatic settlement but will 'achieve our goals under any circumstances'[20].
- Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said shortly before the meeting that he had spoken with U.S. envoys to try to revive stalled talks[2].
- U.S. senators announced an agreement with the Trump administration on July 10, 2026, to move a Russia sanctions bill forward[12][14].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Time favors the side that is advancing
- Russia has consistently rejected a ceasefire-first sequence and insists on a comprehensive settlement instead[6][19]. Lavrov's statement — made a day after the Manila meeting, at an SCO ministerial in Kyrgyzstan — that Russia will reach its goals 'under any circumstances' is the tell[20]. A party that expects to gain ground has no reason to freeze the map. That single fact explains most of the diplomatic stalemate better than any personality does.
- Washington's attention is finite
- The gap between the September 2025 meeting and this one is roughly ten months[2][5]. Coverage notes U.S. focus shifted toward the Middle East during that stretch[2], and Trump has pushed to fold Iran into the Russia sanctions bill[13]. Diplomatic bandwidth is a real constraint, not a metaphor.
- Congress can act without the president
- The House passed Ukraine aid and Russia sanctions on June 4, 2026, over Trump's objections[16]. The administration then negotiated the Senate version down rather than block it outright[12][14]. Whatever happens between Rubio and Lavrov, U.S. Russia policy has a second author.
- Allied money keeps the weapons moving
- PURL routes European and Canadian funds into purchases of U.S. equipment for Ukraine[4][5]. That structure means supply does not require new U.S. spending, so it can survive a hostile Congress or a distracted White House. It also means Moscow's demand that the U.S. stop 'supplying' has an answer Washington finds easy to give: we are selling, and policy is unchanged[4].
Material realityNothing changed on the ground on July 23, 2026. The fighting continued. No ceasefire was declared, no framework was signed, and neither government announced a next meeting. What exists is a channel: four in-person Rubio-Lavrov meetings, a 2025 Alaska summit whose contents remain publicly unverified, and a State Department readout of roughly one sentence[3]. Russia's published account of the same conversation is far more detailed than America's[4][11]. That asymmetry is a durable feature, not an accident — Moscow gains from being the sole source of the record, while Washington gains from keeping its options undefined. Meanwhile the two concrete instruments in play are unaffected by the meeting: allied-funded U.S. weapons keep flowing to Ukraine under PURL[4][5], and a narrowed U.S. sanctions bill aimed at buyers of Russian energy moves toward a Senate vote[12][13].
Narrative as a weaponThree actors are shaping how this 35 minutes reads. Russia's Foreign Ministry filled the vacuum left by the State Department's near-silence, so much of what the world knows about the room comes from Moscow's version — which centers Russian grievances about weapons and European 'militarism'[4][11]. Moscow wants you to believe a deal is already on the table at Anchorage and that Europe and Kyiv are blocking it[6]. The Trump administration wants you to believe that talking is itself progress and that its patience, not its inattention, explains the pace[1][10]; its near-empty readout is a choice that keeps the story open. Ukraine and its European partners want you to believe that Moscow's demand to cut off arms proves the arms are working, and that any pause without pressure is a trap[5]. U.S. outlets on both sides then sort the same facts by their priors: the right emphasizes that Trump keeps a channel open, the left emphasizes that the channel has produced nothing. Both are accurate; neither is the whole thing.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asThe administration's case is that ending the war requires talking to the side that is fighting it, however unpleasant that is. Rubio's argument is that earlier mediation attempts were 'unsuccessful or at least unfruitful,' and that the honest response is to keep the line open and wait for conditions to change, not to promise a deal that isn't there[1][10]. He frames both Moscow and Kyiv as having reason to stop a 'very bloody war' that has cost both sides badly[1]. On weapons, the administration draws a line its critics often blur: the U.S. is selling, not donating. Under PURL — the Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List — European and Canadian NATO members put up the money and buy American stockpile items, which are then transferred to Ukraine[4][5]. So U.S. policy can be 'unchanged' and self-funding at the same time. Rubio said as much when Moscow raised it[4].
WhyTrump has said publicly, including on Fox News, that the war could be settled before his term ends[1]. A negotiated end is a signature promise. The administration also wants to avoid an open-ended commitment while its attention has shifted toward the Middle East[2]. Keeping Lavrov on the phone costs little and preserves the option.
Impact on themDomestically, the administration is being squeezed from its own side of the aisle. It spent months resisting a Russia sanctions bill before cutting a deal with senators on July 10, 2026[12][14]. Reporting says the House had already passed a Ukraine aid and Russia sanctions measure on June 4, 2026, over the objections of Trump and GOP leaders[16]. Every month without a deal makes the 'I can end it' claim harder to carry.
Frames it asMoscow's strongest argument is about sequence and durability, not about goodwill. Russia says a ceasefire alone is a pause that lets Ukraine rearm, so it insists on a comprehensive settlement that deals with what it calls the root causes — Ukraine's alignment with NATO and the status of the territory Russia holds. Lavrov says the framework already exists: the understandings he says Putin and Trump reached at Anchorage in August 2025, which he describes as favoring a lasting deal over a temporary truce[6][19]. On that reading, Moscow is not stalling; it is asking Washington to honor something Washington's own president agreed to. Lavrov's second argument is that the U.S. cannot be both mediator and supplier. He has accused Washington of a direct role through intelligence sharing, satellite communications and equipment paid for in part by Europeans, and he calls further weapons flows 'unacceptable'[4][11]. He casts European capitals, not the U.S., as the obstacle — a 'militaristic frenzy' aimed at inflicting a 'strategic defeat' on Russia[2][4].
WhyRussia wants sanctions relief, recognition of its territorial position, and a Ukraine outside NATO. It also gains from the split it is describing: if Washington is the reasonable partner and Europe the spoiler, the Western coalition weakens. Lavrov's line — made the day after the Manila meeting, at an SCO foreign ministers' gathering in Kyrgyzstan — that Russia will reach its goals 'under any circumstances' is a signal that time is on Moscow's side[20].
Impact on themA settlement on Moscow's terms would lift economic pressure. Failure carries a specific new cost: the U.S. sanctions bill would let the president impose steep tariffs on countries that buy Russian oil, uranium and gas — the mechanism aims at Russia's customers, not Russia directly[12]. Reporting says senators cut the top secondary tariff rate from 500% to 100% and capped the number of targeted countries at five[12].
Frames it asKyiv's case is that talks about a war are not the same as ending one, and that only leverage moves Moscow. Zelensky's own move was to work the U.S. channel directly — he said he had spoken with U.S. envoys shortly before the Manila meeting to try to restart stalled talks[2]. The European and Ukrainian argument on sequence is the mirror image of Russia's: negotiate first and cease fire later, and you are drafting terms while one army is still advancing. Stop the shooting first, and the map stops moving. On weapons, PURL is the point, not a loophole. Because allies pay for American equipment, supply does not depend on a new U.S. appropriation, which insulates Kyiv from U.S. domestic politics[5]. Ukraine also reads Lavrov's demand as revealing: if the arms did not matter, Moscow would not lead its readout with them[4][11].
WhyUkraine needs to keep U.S. weapons and intelligence flowing while avoiding any deal negotiated over its head. European governments want the U.S. tied into any security guarantee, since a settlement Washington does not stand behind is one Europe alone would have to enforce.
Impact on themKyiv welcomed the Senate-White House sanctions agreement[15]. Reporting says Trump met Zelensky at the NATO summit in Ankara on July 8, 2026, and backed Ukrainian co-production of Patriot interceptors and a bilateral drone agreement[12]. Those are the concrete gains at risk if U.S. attention drifts.
Frames it asThis group's argument is that diplomacy without pressure is just a schedule of meetings. Its instrument is secondary tariffs: rather than sanctioning Russia directly, the bill would tax imports from countries that keep buying Russian oil, uranium and natural gas[12]. The logic is that Russia's war is funded by energy sales, so the way to reach the war chest is through the buyers. The coalition is genuinely cross-party — the House passed a Ukraine aid and Russia sanctions bill on June 4, 2026, against the wishes of Trump and Republican leaders[16]. Its members argue the record is on their side: four Rubio-Lavrov meetings and an Alaska summit have not stopped the fighting.
WhySenators in both parties want a durable Russia policy that does not swing with each White House. Some also want to force a public choice on an issue where the administration has been deliberately vague.
Impact on themThe bill has been narrowed to get the administration's sign-off — the reported cuts to the tariff rate and to the number of countries that can be hit are the price of that deal[12]. A Senate vote was reported as near on July 23, 2026, the same day as the Manila meeting, with Trump pushing to add Iran to the package[13].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.6
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Press | U.S. center | 2 | 'Rubio meets Russia's Lavrov in Manila to try to revive prospect of US helping end war in Ukraine' | 'Try to revive' and 'prospect of' do a lot of quiet work — the headline pre-loads doubt about the outcome before reporting one. Otherwise the copy is straight, attributing each claim to the government that made it. |
| NBC News | U.S. left of center | 3 | 'U.S. committed to helping end Ukraine war but no quick deal, Rubio says after meeting with Russia's Lavrov' | The 'but' is the frame. The administration's stated commitment is placed first, then immediately undercut by its own caveat, making the story about a shortfall rather than a contact. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | 'Top US and Russian diplomats discuss Ukraine war in Manila' | The most neutral headline in the set. The angle shows in emphasis: it foregrounds that U.S. focus has 'switched from mediating in Ukraine to dealing with war in the Middle East,' a framing that serves its regional readership and casts U.S. commitment as conditional. |
| Kyiv Post | Ukrainian, pro-Kyiv | 5 | 'Lavrov Warns Rubio Against US Arms for Ukraine in First Face-to-Face Meeting in Nearly a Year' | 'Warns' casts Lavrov as issuing threats rather than stating a position, and the arms demand is elevated to the headline over everything else discussed. 'In nearly a year' quietly signals U.S. inattention. |
| Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty | U.S. government-funded broadcaster | 5 | 'No Breakthroughs, Little Optimism As Rubio, Lavrov Meet On Ukraine War' | Leads with the absence of a result and adds a mood judgment — 'little optimism' — that no official on either side stated. Readers should know this outlet is funded by the U.S. Congress and has an explicit mandate to broadcast into Russia. |
| The Conservative Treehouse (Opinion) | U.S. right, pro-Trump blog | 6 | 'Marco Rubio Answers Media Questions from ASEAN Summit After Meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov' | Publishes Rubio's Q&A at length rather than summarizing it, on the premise that mainstream summaries distort him. That is a real service to readers, but the selection is the argument: the unedited transcript is offered as a rebuttal to coverage the site treats as hostile by default. |
| RT | Russian state-funded | 8 | 'Ukraine peace, Europe's militarization, Iran war and nuclear proliferation: Lavrov's ASEAN briefing' | Lavrov's characterizations are relayed as findings, not claims — 'Europe's militarization' appears in RT's own headline voice rather than in quotation marks. The Anchorage understandings are presented as settled agreement; the fact that Washington has never publicly confirmed their content is omitted. |
References
- Rubio meets Russia's Lavrov in Manila to try to revive prospect of US helping end war in Ukraine — Associated Press · U.S. nonprofit wire cooperative owned by member news organizations; centrist newsroom conventions
- Top US and Russian diplomats discuss Ukraine war in Manila — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar; generally critical of U.S. and Israeli policy, cautious on Gulf states
- Secretary Rubio's Meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov — U.S. Department of State · Primary source; official U.S. government statement
- Russia warns US against Ukraine arms sales in Manila meeting — Agence France-Presse · French wire service; partially funded by French government subscriptions, standard wire conventions
- Lavrov Warns Rubio Against US Arms for Ukraine in First Face-to-Face Meeting in Nearly a Year — Kyiv Post · Ukrainian English-language outlet, privately owned; pro-Kyiv perspective
- Ukraine peace, Europe's militarization, Iran war and nuclear proliferation: Lavrov's ASEAN briefing — RT · Funded and directed by the Russian state; sanctioned or restricted in the EU, UK and Canada
- Lavrov and Rubio hold talks in Manila (VIDEO) — RT · Funded and directed by the Russian state
- No Breakthroughs, Little Optimism As Rubio, Lavrov Meet On Ukraine War — Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty · Funded by the U.S. Congress via the U.S. Agency for Global Media; editorially independent by charter but with a mandate to broadcast into Russia and Eastern Europe
- U.S. committed to helping end Ukraine war but no quick deal, Rubio says after meeting with Russia's Lavrov — NBC News · U.S. commercial network owned by Comcast; audience and coverage lean left of center
- Lavrov to ask Rubio for clarification about Trump's comments on Ukraine — TASS · Russian state-owned news agency; primary source for Russian government positions
- Bipartisan senators announce agreement with Trump administration on Russia sanctions — CNN · U.S. cable network owned by Warner Bros. Discovery; audience and coverage lean left of center
- Trump-backed Russia sanctions bill nears Senate vote — Axios · U.S. digital outlet owned by Cox Enterprises; centrist, insider-access reporting style
- Russia sanctions bill no longer deadlocked after Senate-White House agreement — The Washington Times · U.S. conservative daily
- US Senators, Administration Agree To Advance Russia Sanctions Bill; Kyiv Hails Move — Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty · U.S. congressionally funded broadcaster
- House approves Ukraine aid and Russian sanctions, defying Trump and GOP leaders — CNN · U.S. cable network, left of center
- Rubio says U.S. is ready to help end war in Ukraine but no quick deal ahead — NPR · U.S. nonprofit network, member-station and donor funded; audience leans left of center
- Marco Rubio Answers Media Questions from ASEAN Summit After Meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov — The Conservative Treehouse · U.S. pro-Trump opinion blog; not a newsroom
- Lavrov and Rubio Set to Meet at ASEAN Summit to Discuss Ukraine Peace Talks — The Moscow Times · Russian-founded outlet now based in Amsterdam; designated 'undesirable' by the Russian government, editorially opposed to the Kremlin
- Lavrov says Russia will pursue Ukraine war aims regardless of Alaska summit understandings — A News · Turkish English-language broadcaster owned by Turkuvaz Media, aligned with the Turkish government