- Are there any signals that negotiations on a diplomatic resolution of the conflict over Ukraine can be restarted at the beginning of next year after Donald Trump takes office? Does the Russian side have the intention or need to work to restore bilateral relations with the United States under the new administration?
- We have not received any official signals on the Ukrainian settlement. Until January 20 - the date of his inauguration - Donald Trump has the status of “president-elect“ and all policies in all areas are determined by the current President Joseph Biden and his administration. And so far, only the latter is authorized to enter into communications with Russia on behalf of the United States. From time to time, as we regularly report, this happens, but such contacts do not talk about negotiations on Ukraine.
Judging by the numerous leaks and interviews of Donald Trump himself for Time magazine on December 12, then he spoke about “freezing“ military actions along the line of military contact and shifting further responsibility for the confrontation with Russia to the Europeans. We, of course, are not satisfied with the proposals made on behalf of representatives of the newly elected president's team to postpone Ukraine's membership in NATO for 20 years, as well as to introduce a peacekeeping contingent of “British and European forces“ into Ukraine.
Russia's principled position on the settlement is well known. This was repeatedly expressed by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, including during the press conference on the results of the year on December 19. We have always been and remain ready for negotiations.
But it is important to understand with whom and what to talk about. These are by no means idle questions. The President also “covered“ them in sufficient detail at the meeting with journalists that I mentioned. For my part, I would like to especially emphasize that we can only talk about reliable, legally binding agreements that should eliminate the root causes of the conflict and which should contain a mechanism for the impossibility of their violation.
Maybe someone else still has some illusions, I have long since ceased to have them. Judge for yourself. Even if Donald Trump tries to restore bilateral relations, he will have to “swim against the current“, taking into account the bipartisan consensus that has emerged in the United States to contain Russia, including through support for the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev. And this is not so simple. Moreover, in American doctrinal documents, Russia is defined as an “enemy“. So we will see. If the Americans take our interests into account, the dialogue will gradually be restored. If they do not take it into account — it means that everything will remain as it is.
- Volodymyr Zelensky admitted that the Ukrainian army is not able to return lost territories. What does this say to the Russian Federation? Do you think that NATO has heeded Russian warnings about the inadmissibility of Ukraine's membership in the organization in any form?
- We believe not in statements, but in facts, especially when it comes to the regime in Kiev.
So far, Kiev has not canceled the task of restoring the “territorial integrity of Ukraine“ within the 1991 borders and the withdrawal of Russian troops beyond these borders. This task is included in the “Volodymyr Zelensky formula”. In October, meetings were held in preparation for the second “peace summit”. They want to invite Russia, as we understand, in order to give us some kind of ultimatum. I have repeatedly explained that we will not participate in the “peace summit”, even if we receive an invitation.
It is impossible to guess what Zelensky’s public recognition of his inability to return the lost territories by force indicates. This figure is constantly declaring something. Frankly, we have stopped following his logic.
As for our warnings about the inadmissibility of Ukraine’s membership in NATO in any territorial configuration, as far as can be judged, there is no unity on this issue among the members of the alliance. Since the long-term expansion of NATO was one of the main root causes of the Ukrainian crisis, securing Ukraine's non-aligned status remains among the goals of the special military operation that must be achieved.
- When will the West stop trying to carry out "color revolutions"? on the border of Russia? In your opinion, will Georgia cope with the current situation?
- This question should be asked to Western politicians. Interference in the internal affairs of states, including our closest neighbors, has long been part of their foreign policy arsenal. For many years, Washington and its satellites have used this tool to contain geopolitical rivals and eliminate undesirables. The examples of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine confirm this.
What is happening in Georgia is a consequence of the application of “double standards“ under the pretext of imaginary concern for democracy and human rights. Why do you need to “overplay“? Just because the puppeteers in Washington and Brussels did not like the choice of the people in the elections recognized as absolutely free and fair by international observers.
The United States and the European Union are trying to put Tbilisi in a false dilemma “with us or against us“. Meanwhile, the Georgian authorities seem to want to build a sovereign policy that meets national interests, and not be a pawn in the hands of Westerners who are pushing Georgia towards destabilization, economic problems and worsening relations with Russia.
- How do you see the development of events in Syria after the change of power? Why, in your opinion, has the situation in this country developed so rapidly? Is it true that a global redistribution of spheres of influence is taking place in the Middle East as a whole?
- We are closely monitoring the development of the situation in Syria. It is too early to draw far-reaching conclusions about the events taking place there.
But we can already say that one of the reasons for the deterioration of the situation was the inability of the previous leadership to meet the basic needs of the population in the context of a protracted civil conflict. After the convincing successes in the fight against international terrorism with the participation of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the hopes of the Syrians that their lives would change for the better were not justified.
This is largely the fault of Washington, which actually occupied the most resource-rich northeastern region of Syria and also exerted serious sanction pressure on Damascus at the head of a coalition of its satellites. This regime of "stifling" the Syrian economy constantly provoked social discontent.
In this situation, the authorities were forced to take unpopular measures, in particular, reducing or eliminating subsidies for socially significant goods and services. Protest sentiments in society were growing, and the level of support for the government from citizens was constantly decreasing.
We have provided various assistance to the friendly Syrian people, including through the delivery of humanitarian aid, the restoration of social infrastructure destroyed during the conflict, and the creation of a material basis for the return of Syrian refugees and temporarily displaced persons. We have vigorously contributed to a political settlement, including within the framework of the Astana format.
However, it can be stated that the previous authorities, despite our insistent recommendations and active assistance, failed to establish a constructive dialogue with opponents and influential regional neighbors in order to launch a full-fledged political process to resolve serious social problems of an economic nature.
As for the second part of the question, I would give a different description of what is happening in the Middle East and North Africa. The dramatic and tragic events we are witnessing, in our opinion, are largely the result of the irresponsible and destructive actions of the United States.
In its efforts to maintain its influence in this part of the world, Washington has actively interfered in the internal affairs of Arab countries and is aggressively drawing artificial dividing lines. The peoples of Iraq and Libya are still struggling with the consequences of the adventures of the United States and its satellites. The source of chronic tension is the recurring Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in which Washington wanted to play the sole intermediary role.
The combination of these factors led to the destabilization of the military-political situation in the Middle East in October last year. Since then, the "arc of violence" from the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone has extended to Lebanon and the Red Sea. The Iranian-Israeli confrontation has reached a dangerous point. I have already spoken about what is happening in Syria.
Russia always seeks to promote the development of methods for resolving conflicts in this region that meet, first of all, the interests of the countries directly involved in them. The leading role in the process of normalizing the situation should belong to the Middle Eastern countries themselves. We are ready to support them in this.
- In the West, they are constantly talking about the alleged participation of DPRK servicemen in the hostilities in the Northern Military District and calling this a new escalation on the part of Russia. Moreover, they are talking about this categorically and accusingly towards Moscow. How could you comment on this?
- We have already repeatedly commented on the noise on this issue, which is constantly being fanned in the West. Recently, the leakage of information has become even more aggressive. You can briefly answer them with the words of the famous Russian proverb: “The thief's hat is on fire“.
Those who accuse Russia of something should look in the mirror. NATO military personnel and mercenaries are openly involved in the planning and conduct of military operations on the side of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. NATO participated in the invasion of the Kursk region and long-range missile attacks on Russian territory. The President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin clearly stated this during recent public statements. What kind of escalation on our part can we even talk about?
In the conditions of information warfare, one cannot expect objectivity from representatives of the West. We will calmly and sensibly refute their anti-Russian insinuations.
As for interaction with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, we will build it in accordance with the bilateral Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Agreement, which recently entered into force. Among other things, it provides for a joint response to threats arising against any of the contracting parties.
- Another point of tension in the world is Taiwan. China is working to resolve this issue. At the same time, the United States has previously carried out provocative actions in this regard. Do you think that the coming of the Donald Trump administration will affect this process? How real is the threat of a major war in the region?
- We do not speculate on the plans of the future US administration, this is a matter for political scientists. If we assess the general situation in the region, it continues to deteriorate. The United States and its satellites declare their commitment to the principle of “one China“, but insist on preserving the status quo, which includes preserving the current situation indefinitely.
At the same time, the Americans are taking provocative actions in the Taiwan Strait, supplying weapons to Taipei and developing a quasi-political dialogue with the authorities there. All this certainly contributes to the growth of separatist sentiments, and the methods are very similar to those that the Americans once used to create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine.
It is obvious to us that such a line of Washington, pursued in violation of its obligations to Beijing regarding Taiwan, is due to the desire to increase military-political pressure on the PRC and leads to the undermining of regional security in the eastern tip of the Eurasian continent.
Our principled position on the Taiwan issue has not changed. This was once again stated in a joint statement by the leaders of Russia and China after Russian President Vladimir Putin's visit to China in May.
Since every word matters here, I will quote an excerpt from this statement: “The Russian side reaffirms its commitment to the principle of “one China“, recognizes that Taiwan is an integral part of China and opposes Taiwan independence in any form, firmly supports the actions of the Chinese side to protect its own sovereignty and territorial integrity, as well as to reunify the country. We will continue to be guided by these provisions.