Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin's Interview with Rossiya Segodnya 12 July

Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin’s interview with Rossiya Segodnya on 12 July covered several points made by Maria Zakharova’s Weekly Briefing, but also went beyond them with additional information as well as responding to a different line of questions. President Putin met with the Security Council on the same day but no information aside from the attendance roster was provided, although one topic was likely discussion of the just completed NATO Summit. Now, onto the Galuzin interview:

Question: What is Russia's attitude to the idea of holding a new summit on Ukraine, which is planned to be held in Saudi Arabia? Did Moscow receive an invitation to such a meeting? If Russia is invited to the next summit on Ukraine, will it take part in it?

Answer: We are aware of the intentions of the Kiev regime and its Western curators to “rehabilitate” themselves for the disastrous "peace summit" in Bürgenstock, Switzerland, in mid-June of this year and to try to hold a similar event. They are even thinking of inviting Russia. The specific place is not defined. However, geography is not of fundamental importance. More important is the content, with which everything is very clear. We hear the previous rhetoric in the vain hope of pushing through the absolutely dead-end and ultimatum "Zelensky formula", we see a deliberate disregard for other initiatives to resolve the Ukrainian crisis. This is another manifestation of fraud. We do not accept such ultimatums and are not going to participate in such "summits".

Question: The Russian leadership has repeatedly stated that we are ready for talks on Ukraine. The Ukrainian side actually forbade itself to conduct them. Can this situation change after the US elections?

Answer: You have correctly noted who is the real master of Ukraine, to whose tune the illegitimate regime that usurped power there is dancing and whose orders it unquestioningly follows. This is the United States. It is Washington that is the main designer and beneficiary of the conflict. And it was with it that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson coordinated his demarche when, in April 2022, he banned Kiev from further negotiations with Russia and demanded the continuation of the "war to a victorious end", thereby disrupting the prospect of concluding a peace treaty on terms acceptable to Ukraine and Russia. As a matter of fact, the Americans do not hide their selfish interests. The other day, this was confirmed by the current and retired US secretaries of state. Thus, Antony Blinken stated bluntly that the new military aid allocated to Ukraine will be almost entirely invested in American industry. His predecessor, Hillary Clinton, went so far as to call the offensive of the Armed Forces of Ukraine one of the conditions for Joe Biden's re-election and insisted that Kiev launch this suicidal "counteroffensive" and not stop hostilities in any case. It is unlikely that after the presidential elections in the United States, anything will fundamentally change on the Ukrainian track. In such conditions, it is not necessary to expect that Ukraine will be ready for negotiations.

Question: Earlier you said that Switzerland has lost its neutral status, and therefore the Geneva discussions on the South Caucasus should be moved to another place that is more acceptable to all participants. Which countries are ready to provide their territory for holding regular meetings? When can they take place?

Answer: First of all, I would like to clarify that the Russian side does not question the relevance of the negotiation format itself, but at the same time advocates a change of venue. For us, these are two different questions. On the one hand, the negotiating platform has proven its usefulness over the years. Largely thanks to it, it is possible to maintain relative calm in the Georgian-Abkhaz and Georgian-South Ossetian border areas, to stop the risks of escalation of tension "on the ground." On the other hand, the need to move discussions from Geneva is dictated by objective reasons caused by the final loss of Switzerland's neutrality in the context of the conflict around Ukraine. There are many examples of Bern's practical participation in the aggressive policy of the "collective West", including joining the anti-Russian sanctions of the European Union and solidarity with the Kyiv regime. It is these circumstances that forced us to raise the issue of transferring the talks to the territory of another state, the authorities of which, firstly, would refrain from any steps that could harm the interests of any of the participants in the negotiation process, and, secondly, would have sufficient experience in hosting international dialogue formats.

We consider it premature to name specific capitals and possible dates for the "move", since work is still underway to form the consensus necessary to resolve this issue. The Abkhaz and South Ossetian allies fully agree with the Russian position.

Question: Switzerland, in addition to the venue for discussions on the South Caucasus, represents Russia's interests in Georgia. Against the backdrop of Bern's recent actions, will the Swiss side continue to be involved in representing Russia's interests?

Answer: Bern's unfriendly policy towards Moscow cannot but affect the Swiss Confederation's mutual representation of the interests of Russia and Georgia. But, as you understand, the issue of mediation in such cases is resolved on the basis of mutual consent of both parties.

Question: Does Moscow intend to start the process of strengthening the border with Abkhazia after the shootout at the Psou checkpoint in the immediate vicinity of the Russian-Abkhaz border?

Answer: As far as the Russian Foreign Ministry is concerned, we do not see the need for additional strengthening of the state border with Abkhazia. This incident did take place on June 23 before entering the Psou checkpoint on the territory of Abkhazia and was promptly stopped by local law enforcement agencies. The situation on the Russian-Abkhaz border, as far as I know, is stable.

We proceed from the fact that the Abkhaz side itself is as interested as possible in preventing such episodes, since they have a negative impact on the tourist attractiveness of a popular holiday destination among Russians.

I would also like to note that a large-scale reconstruction of the Adler international automobile checkpoint is currently underway. By the planned completion of work at the end of 2026, its standard capacity will increase to an average of 14.5 thousand vehicles and 80.5 thousand citizens per day, which will greatly facilitate the crossing of the border by residents of our states and other guests of the "Land of the Soul".

Question: Has Russia identified specific red lines, the crossing of which could mean Armenia's transition under the umbrella of NATO and the United States? How can Moscow respond to such actions?

Answer: All our assessments in this regard have been repeatedly communicated to our Armenian partners and voiced publicly. Speaking about the security sphere, I want to emphasize that Armenia remains a member of the CSTO, is a party to numerous bilateral agreements in the military and military-technical fields.

Instead of a constructive approach to discussing Yerevan's concerns, unfortunately, they have chosen a different path. Armenia prefers to increase cooperation with NATO or individual members of the alliance, especially in terms of introducing NATO standards, purchasing weapons or conducting joint combat training activities, not to mention participation in the summit of this military-political bloc taking place in Washington these days. All this cannot but cause nothing but extreme regret.

By deepening cooperation with those whose goal is the "strategic defeat" of Russia, Yerevan risks seriously destabilizing the situation in the South Caucasus with its own hands, to the detriment of its own security, among other things. I think knowledgeable specialists and politicians in Armenia understand the possible costs of such imprudent steps.

In my opinion, Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Overchuk made it very clear in his speech at the Primakov Readings forum in Moscow at the end of last month that attempts to "sit on two chairs," albeit in a different economic sphere, speaking about Yerevan's European aspirations in connection with its obligations in the EAEU.

Question: The EU mission has been working on the border between Armenia and Azerbaijan for a year and a half. How does Moscow assess such involvement of the EU in Armenian-Azerbaijani affairs? Are there any real results of its activities?

Answer: We have a negative assessment of the activities of the EU mission in Armenia, as we have repeatedly said. The EU's task is obvious and is to try to gain a foothold in the region to the detriment of the interests of the traditional partners and neighbors of the South Caucasian states – Russia, Iran and Turkey.

We do not see any tangible results of the work of the EU observers. Their presence did not prevent periodic aggravations on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. They send their reports directly to Brussels and do not share them even with the Armenian side. There is every reason to believe that the Westerners are collecting intelligence on Russian facilities, as well as all states neighboring Armenia.

We are also concerned that with the approval of Yerevan, the mission is not only expanding, but threatens to turn from temporary to permanent. In addition, as you know, in April of this year, Canadian representatives appeared in the mission, which, de facto, means a creeping penetration of NATO into the South Caucasus.

We constantly raise the issue of the EU mission in our contacts with Yerevan and other regional partners. We remain convinced that sustainable peace in the South Caucasus can only be achieved on the basis of the comprehensive implementation of the 2020–2022 set of trilateral agreements reached by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia.

Question: Will Russia take part in the settlement of the conflict between Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan and President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko after Yerevan's accusations against Minsk and Armenia's conditions for returning to the work of the CSTO?

Answer: Unfortunately, it is difficult for us to explain the tough position taken by the Armenian authorities towards their Belarusian partners. Alexander Lukashenko has always emphasised Minsk's interest in a stable and secure South Caucasus. Even in the most difficult times, the initiatives of the Belarusian leader were aimed precisely at reconciling the warring parties.

Minsk and Yerevan are allies with whom we are developing multifaceted cooperation. Armenia and Belarus are part of the CIS, the CSTO and the EAEU. Moscow is interested in ending the current period of complications between our friends as soon as possible. In any case, we hope that temporary disagreements will not have a negative impact on the promotion of cooperation within the framework of common integration associations.

We call on both capitals to look beyond the horizon and realise the importance of the moment when the contours of a new world order are emerging, in the construction of which we would like to see not only Minsk, but also Yerevan.

Question: At what stage are the projects with Minsk in the field of aircraft construction?

Answer: Russian industrialists are interested in expanding the participation of Belarusian allies both in existing Russian projects in the field of aircraft construction and in the creation of joint aircraft. This prospect fully meets the tasks of strengthening technological sovereignty and deepening industrial cooperation in the Union State. Belarus has the necessary production base and human resources.

Thus, effective cooperation has already been established with the Minsk Civil Aviation Plant No 407, which produces components for the Russian medium-haul MS-21 aircraft. The plans are to increase the volume of orders and expand the range of products manufactured for the liner at Belarusian enterprises.

Russia and Belarus are working on a joint project for the production of light aircraft, which are in high demand for the creation of an extensive network of interregional air routes that meets the requirements of today. Following the talks between the heads of government on April 15 in Moscow, an intergovernmental agreement was signed on the development and joint production of the nineteen-seat Oswey aircraft in Belarus. At the same time, from the very beginning of joint work, Belarusian specialists have been involved in all research and development work in this project. By 2030, it is planned to produce about 90 aircraft. The possibility of joint production and maintenance of nine-seat Baikal aircraft is being worked out.

There is no doubt that cooperation with Belarusian allies in the field of aircraft construction will help solve the problems of import substitution of foreign products from unfriendly states and ultimately create safe and competitive aviation equipment in foreign markets.

Question: How is the project to create a Belarusian port in the Murmansk Region, through which it is planned to transship Belarusian goods, developing?

Answer: Thanks to joint decisions, we have significantly increased the volume of transit traffic of Belarusian export cargo to third countries. Last year, 15.5 million tons of oil products and potash fertilizers alone were sent to foreign buyers. The total volume of transit traffic of goods from Belarus exceeded 20 million tons.

Under these conditions, the proposal of the Belarusian side to build its own multifunctional complex in the port of Lavna in the Murmansk region was supported by the Russian leadership. Our Belarusian friends are planning serious investments in this promising project, which will provide them with access to the transshipment of containers, mineral fertilizers and oil products through the Northern Sea Route.

It is obvious that the interest of Belarusian partners in the creation of port facilities in the Murmansk Region is associated with the successful implementation of another initiative in this area - the acquisition of the Bronka terminal in the Big Port of St. Petersburg. In 2023 alone, the volume of transshipment of Belarusian cargo there amounted to 4.3 million tons, and this year it is planned to transport 6 million tons.

Without a doubt, the development of transport and logistics infrastructure in Russia meets our common interests.

Question: President of Russia Vladimir Putin has announced the intention of Moscow and Minsk to abolish roaming in the territory of the Union State. When can this happen? Can we expect this this year?

Answer: Indeed, we consider it important to speed up the complete abolition of roaming in the Union State. We are confident that such a decision will contribute to the development of tourism and contacts between people.

To date, a lot of work has already been done in this direction. In November 2020, the cost of tariffs was significantly reduced. Thanks to this, the number of subscribers of Russian telecom operators in Belarus has increased, incoming voice traffic, SMS messaging and Internet traffic have increased. From April 1, 2022, the fee for incoming calls in roaming on the territory of the Union State has been canceled.

Now, together with our Belarusian friends, we are preparing a comprehensive decision to abolish roaming in the territory of the Union State. At the preparatory stage, we agreed to calculate the financial and economic model of the average data on the use of tariffs that do not exceed 300 minutes of outgoing calls and 20-25 GB of traffic per month. Such parameters are in line with the best international practice.

In general, our experts believe that the use of communication services for Russian subscribers in Belarus and Belarusian subscribers in Russia at the level of "home" tariffs can be provided from April 2025. We will do everything necessary to complete the work by this date. [My Emphasis]

Quite a wide variety of questions not normally seen dealing with Near Abroad issues. Expansion of Union State activity is a priority. Belarus was hit very hard economically with the USSR’s dissolution as it lost easy access to seaports which is only now finally being rectified. It must be noted that Belarus like Armenia “sat in two chairs” and made itself a target for the West it narrowly escaped. Armenia’s ties also provide it essential economic support it will lose if it continues down the Moldovan and Ukrainian path. As I’ve stated before, Pashinyan IMO is a traitor to Armenia backed by an equally diabolical diaspora very similar to Ukraine’s. The tug-of-war between NATO and Russia over Georgia is behind the ongoing negotiations of Abkhazian and South Ossetian relations. It ought to be clear by now that some former Soviets have a better sense of where the present and future interests lie and refuse to be sell-outs allowing themselves to be corrupted by NATO. The Big Picture sees the majority of nations seeking to combine their efforts in support of each other, while the Plundering nations continue to try and seduce nations away from their best interests and divide them from those that would be their friends.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!