Russia’s foreign minister has rejected a reported peace deal involving Ukraine and NATO, claiming that the proposals have been made by President-elect Trump’s advisors.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made the comments during an interview with TASS, a state-run Russian news agency, on Monday. During the interview, Lavrov claimed that the U.S. plans “to suspend hostilities along the line of contact and transfer responsibility for confrontation with Russia to the Europeans.”

“We are not happy, of course, with the proposals made by members of the Trump team to postpone Ukraine’s admission to NATO for 20 years and to station British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine,” the foreign minister said, though that deal has not been announced by any American officials.

Lavrov said that the proposal came through “leaks” and Trump’s recent interview with TIME Magazine, but Trump’s interview did not contain any references to NATO. The foreign minister also claimed that NATO “has been expanding its reach for many years, which became one of the primary causes of the Ukraine crisis.”

US SLAPS SANCTIONS ON COMPANIES TIED TO NORD STREAM 2 IN BID TO SQUEEZE RUSSIA

“Those who accuse Russia of various doings should be advised to look in the mirror instead,” the foreign minister later said during the interview. “NATO military and mercenaries openly participate in the planning of combat operations and fighting on the side of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.”

“NATO is complicit in the invasion of the Kursk Region and long-range missile strikes inside Russia,” Lavrov continued. “President Vladimir Putin made this very clear in his recent public statements.”

During his TIME Person of the Year interview, Trump said that it was “an advantage to both sides,” to end the Russo-Ukrainian war, and claimed that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if he were president in 2022.

UKRAINIAN OFFICIAL TAKES CREDIT AFTER RUSSIAN GENERAL IGOR KIRILLOV KILLED BY EXPLOSIVE DEVICE IN MOSCOW

Russian President Vladimir Putin holds his annual end-of-year press conference in Moscow on December 19, 2024 (ALEXANDER NEMENOV/AFP via Getty Images)

“I disagree very vehemently with sending missiles hundreds of miles into Russia. Why are we doing that?” Trump said at the time. “We’re just escalating this war and making it worse…[but] I want to reach an agreement, and the only way you’re going to reach an agreement is not to abandon.”

Lavrov’s recent interview came over a week after Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed willingness to compromise with Trump, though he insisted that Russia is in a stronger position than it was in 2022.

“Soon, those Ukrainians who want to fight will run out. In my opinion, soon there will be no one left who wants to fight,” Putin was quoted as saying. “We are ready, but the other side needs to be ready for both negotiations and compromises.”

“We have always said that we are ready for negotiations and compromises.”

 U.S. President-elect Donald Trump smiles during Turning Point USA’s AmericaFest at the Phoenix Convention Center on December 22, 2024 in Phoenix, Arizona. (Rebecca Noble/Getty Images)

Fox News Digital reached out to Trump’s team for comment, but did not immediately hear back.

Reuters contributed to this report.

The past year is certain to be the hottest on record, according to European scientists, and the first to see average global temperatures surpass the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial period.

Soaring temperatures in 2024 were partly boosted by climate conditions known as El Niño (Spanish for “the boy”), according to the World Meteorological Organisation’s data analysis.

In 2025, another phenomenon known as La Niña (Spanish for “the girl”) could emerge to slightly cool global temperatures, meaning it looks unlikely that the 2024 temperature record will be broken next year.

But despite this, 2025 is still likely to be among the three hottest years on record, according to the UK’s weather and climate agency, the Met Office.

What are El Niño and La Niña?

El Niño and La Niña are two opposing climate conditions in the Pacific Ocean that affect the weather across the globe.

Trade winds in the Pacific tend to blow from east to west, pushing warm surface waters towards the western Pacific.

El Niño occurs when these winds weaken or reverse, making the waters in the eastern Pacific – off the coast of the Americas – warmer than normal.

In La Niña periods, the east-to-west trade winds become stronger, pushing warm waters further west towards the coasts of Australia and south-east Asia. This causes cold water to ‘upwell’ or rise from the depths of the ocean, making sea surface temperatures cooler on average, particularly in the Americas.

The episodes happen at irregular intervals every two to seven years, and usually last nine to 12 months.

Both El Niño and La Niña can affect weather patterns across the world. Although each episode is different, La Niña is associated with rainier-than-normal conditions in several parts of the world, such as northern Australia, south-eastern Africa and northern Brazil. It can also make flooding more likely in some regions, and cause a more intense hurricane season.

What are scientists predicting for 2025?

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) says La Niña conditions could emerge between November 2024 and February 2025.

But its cooling impact on global temperatures could be “weak and short-lived”, the WMO says.

“Since June 2023 we have seen an extended streak of exceptional global land and sea surface temperature. Even if a short-term cooling La Niña event does emerge, it will not change the long-term trajectory of rising global temperatures due to heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo said.

In fact, meteorologists say the temperature forecasts for 2025 are extremely high considering the probability of La Niña conditions.

“Years such as 2025 which aren’t dominated by the warming influence of El Niño, should be cooler. 2016 was an El Niño year and at the time it was the warmest year on record for global temperature. In comparison to our forecast for 2025 though, 2016 is now looking decidedly cool,” according to Professor Adam Scaife, who leads the UK Met Office’s global forecast for 2025.

ADVERTISEMENT

Paris Agreement not (yet) breached

It looks likely that 2024 temperatures will for the first time exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times, a benchmark set by the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement for the first time.

But passing that threshold for one year is not considered a breach of the Paris threshold. Scientists say that the threshold would need to be breached persistently, over a period as long as 20-30 years.

Some scientists say the link between climate change and the phenomena of La Niña and El Niño is not entirely clear.

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb emailed a letter to Cleveland Browns owners Jimmy and Dee Haslam on Monday threatening legal action via Ohio Revised Code 9.67—more popularly known as the “Art Modell law”—unless the Browns provide “the City or others with the opportunity to purchase the team, as required by law.”

Bibb wrote the Browns have until Jan. 9 to respond or face unspecified legal action. One potential action would be Cleveland petitioning a court for an injunction to stop the NFL franchise from taking relocation-related steps. The Browns could contest that petition and argue the city lacks the legal justification for an injunction.

The mayor’s letter is the latest development in an escalating feud pitting Cleveland and the publicly owned Huntington Bank Field (HBF) against the Browns, which are exploring a stadium project in Brook Park, a city about 15 miles from Cleveland. The Browns are bound by a lease agreement to play at HBF until after the 2028 season but could move thereafter.

In October, the Browns sued Cleveland in an Ohio federal court. The lawsuit contends that the Modell Law violates several provisions of the U.S. Constitution and that, even if the law is found to comply with the Constitution, the Browns have followed it. The case is before U.S. District Judge David A. Ruiz.

The Modell Law came into force after then-Browns owner Art Modell relocated the franchise to Baltimore in 1995. Ohio, spurned by Modell, wanted to make it more difficult for other pro sports owners to relocate a team from the Buckeye State. The law forbids Ohio-based pro teams that use a “tax-supported facility for most of its home games” and that “receive financial assistance” from playing home games “elsewhere.”

The word “elsewhere” is unclarified as to whether it could refer to an intrastate move or is intended to only cover out-of-state relocations. 

Should a team wish to move, the Modell Law says it must provide the government with six months’ notice and offer the team for sale to the city or local buyers. Bibb’s letter complains the Browns haven’t provided the city or others with the opportunity to buy the franchise. He demands that if the Browns “intend to begin the six-month window during which the team must be offered for purchase,” the team must provide dates to meet scheduling benchmarks. 

For instance, Bibb says he needs “a day and time” to send over city representatives so they can “begin inspection and evaluation of the Browns’ records.”

Whether the Modell Law could actually block the Browns from relocating to Brook Park is an untested legal concept. Although the law was cited in court filings when the Columbus Crew planned to move to Austin, Texas, seven years ago, that legal dispute was resolved via settlement. It also concerned an out-of-state relocation, whereas the Browns seek a comparatively local move.

As Sportico detailed in October, the Browns contend the law is impermissibly vague because it: (1) doesn’t clarify how far a team must move for it to apply; (2) doesn’t explain what triggers six months’ advance notice; (3) violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which prohibits states from excessively interfering with other states’ economies, by giving Ohio residents “preferential treatment” to buy the team; (4) violates the Constitution’s Contract Clause by impairing the Browns and NFL’s contractual obligations to one another concerning league approval of franchise relocation; and (5) violates the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause by discriminating against citizens of other states (at least those who want to buy an NFL team). 

Peter John-Baptiste, the chief communications officer of Haslam Sports Group, the Browns’ parent company, told Sportico in a statement that “we received and are reviewing the correspondence from Mayor Bibb.” He added, “As we stated months ago when we filed our lawsuit seeking clarity on the ‘Modell Law,’ the statute and the City’s actions create uncertainty and do not serve the interest of Greater Cleveland.” 

John-Baptiste also mentioned the team intends to meet all lease obligations while exploring ways to address longer-term stadium issues.

“As the City knows, after the 2028 season, we will have fulfilled our lease obligations at the current stadium. We are determined to create a project to solve our long-term stadium planning by building a new enclosed Huntington Bank Field and adjacent mix-used development, resulting in a substantial increase in premier large-scale events and economic activity for our region that will generate significant revenue for the City, County, and State. We intend to respond directly in due course to Mayor Bibb’s letter and have no further comment at this time.”