Foreign Ministry Interviews: Deputy Foreign Minister Vershinin with Izvestia & Director of the Department of Economic Cooperation Dmitry Birichevsky with Rossiya Segodnya

Sergey Vershinin

As the New Year approached, end-of-year interviews with various members of Russia’s Foreign Ministry is the norm, and this year’s no exception as there are four altogether. Plus there’re two important interviews, one with the Finance Minister and another with Russia’s Central Bank CEO, for a total of six packaged into four separate articles beginning with this one. Vershinin was interviewed by Izvestia on 28 December :

Question: On December 19, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on combating the glorification of Nazism, which was submitted by Russia together with a group of states. 118 countries voted in favor, 49 voted against and 14 abstained. This document has been submitted annually since 2005. Has the Russian project always been so rejected by a number of UN member states?

A: Since 2005, when Russia first submitted the text of the resolution, the document has grown from 3 to 14 pages and has become a comprehensive text that comprehensively analyses the issues of combating the glorification of Nazism and neo-Nazism, as well as countering racism, racial discrimination and xenophobia. If in the first year of consideration of the document by the UN General Assembly, nine countries co-authored it together with Russia, then in 2021 the total number of co-authors was already 58 states from all regions of the world.

From year to year, the overall picture of the voting results did not change much. As a rule, 110 to 130 states voted in favor of the draft, one to four countries opposed it, and the rest (mainly Western countries) abstained.

The situation that has developed since February last year has become a kind of litmus test, exposing the true attitude of states to this resolution and the fight against the glorification of Nazism in particular.

In December 2022, at the plenary session of the 77th session of the UN General Assembly, 120 states voted in support of the Russian initiative, 50 opposed and 10 countries abstained. The number of co-sponsors has been reduced to 32.

The results of this year's voting were almost identical. At the same time, the number of co-authors has slightly increased to 38, which is an undoubted achievement in the current geopolitical conditions in the world.

Question: Why do Western countries, which have directly faced the problems of Nazism in their history, openly resist the adoption of this document?

A: Western countries have always rejected our resolution. True, in the past they tried to cover up their true attitude to the resolution with demagogy. The U.S. explains the adoption of the resolution as a vote, not unanimous approval, concern for the observance of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, as well as freedom of opinion and expression, which, in the American interpretation, are allegedly absolute and cannot be restricted in any way.

If we develop this idea, it turns out that the processions of the Nazis, the glorification of Nazism, the erection of monuments to those who exterminated tens of millions of innocent victims, are nothing more than the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly and association. This is absolutely unacceptable.

Other Western countries, primarily the EU member states, did not hesitate to promote the well-known revisionist approaches to the results of World War II, including the thesis of "equal responsibility of the two totalitarian regimes" for unleashing it.

Naturally, we consistently reject such insinuations. We are convinced that this is not about political correctness or "freedom of speech", but about attempts to falsify the results of World War II.

Let me make it clear that the right to freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association is also our priority, but its absolutization contradicts the spirit and letter of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965.

Question: As of today, almost a quarter of UN member states have voted against Russia's resolution for the second year in a row. Why, in your opinion?

A: It is not the resolution, but the changed attitude in these countries to the obvious glorification of Nazism that is the reason for such horrific transformations. Since 2021, the text of the draft, with the exception of technical adjustments, has not undergone any changes. Accordingly, the conclusion suggests itself.

Increasingly, we see attempts to glorify the Nazi movement and whitewash former members of the SS, including Waffen-SS units: monuments and memorials are solemnly unveiled to them, demonstrations are held in their honor, as well as those who fought against the anti-Hitler coalition or collaborated with the Nazis. At the same time, monuments to those who fought against Nazism are being demolished, and those who oppose forgetting the memory of the horrors and crimes of World War II are being persecuted and arrested.

I would like to emphasise that the resolution is not an attempt at historical research. We are talking about problems that states face today not just regularly, but constantly. Unfortunately, in recent years, there has been a rapid increase in the number of attacks and acts of violence against representatives of other nationalities or linguistic and religious affiliations, and the rejection of migrants and refugees is growing.

The "Ukrainian factor" has been added to these negative trends. There is no mention of any countries in the text, it is not a "country-specific" resolution, but a thematic one. But the current Kiev regime has apparently taken the problems and challenges outlined in the document personally. As they say, "a thief's hat is on fire."

Moreover, the problem of the glorification of Nazism is closely intertwined with another one – Russophobia, which is growing like a cancerous tumor. By the way, the Russian Foreign Ministry will soon issue a solid report on this topic, which will show the state of affairs with Russophobia in different countries of the world.

Question: How would you comment on the situation with the Western amendment to our resolution on concerns about the goals of the Russian special operation in Ukraine?

A: For the second year in a row, against the backdrop of the Ukrainian crisis, Western countries are trying to manipulate the meaning of the resolution. By throwing in the same politicized anti-Russian amendment, the Westerners are trying to encourage us and other co-sponsors to withdraw the initiative or ultimately force them to vote against the Russian document. For those who may not know, let me explain: the text of the amendment says that Russia is allegedly using the topic of combating the glorification of Nazism to justify its "aggression" against Ukraine.

For our part, we do not succumb to such an obvious provocation and do not withdraw the document. It is noteworthy that our opponents, in particular the EU countries, even after pushing through their amendment to the text by voting, have been voting against the entire resolution, which, it would seem, should now suit them.

Against this background, the position of the former Axis member states, which are now also voting against the resolution, is particularly alarming. Given the dark pages of the history of Germany, Italy and Japan in the 20th century, the indulgence of such dangerous tendencies makes us wonder where the "collective democratic West" is heading.

Question: Efforts to counter the glorification of Nazism are of particular importance on the eve of the upcoming 80th anniversary of the Great Victory...

A: The revision of the lessons of history has already led to a revival of manifestations of Nazism. Regrettably, traitors and collaborators are being glorified in a number of States and must be condemned and punished for their crimes. Our goal today is to continue the fight against the glorification of these criminals for the sake of preserving the memory of those who laid down their lives in the name of the triumph of humanism and humanity.

The preservation of historical memory and the strengthening of the anti-fascist worldview is the key to the stability of the world and the stability of the world order that took shape after World War II. The peoples of our country have paid too high a price to allow anyone to question the Great Victory and the principles of the post-war world order. Such blasphemy must not be tolerated.

In recent years, various historical speculations, in fact, have become one of the tools of a large-scale information campaign unleashed against our country aimed at containing Russia and weakening its authority in the international arena. Of particular concern are the incessant attempts to revise the results of World War II enshrined in the UN Charter and other international legal documents and to equate Nazi Germany, the aggressor country, with the Soviet Union.

And what about the shameful war against the monuments and graves of soldiers-liberators in Ukraine, the Baltic states, Poland, the Czech Republic and a number of other Eastern and Central European countries, which is gaining momentum?

It is especially important to remember the lessons of the war now, when a new wave of extremism is rising in the world, and there is a real danger of an increase in the level of conflict in international relations.

Obviously, foreign official delegations will take part in the anniversary celebrations on May 9, 2025 in Moscow. On behalf of the President of Russia, invitations will be sent to foreign heads of state, government and heads of international organisations. We are also looking forward to the arrival in Moscow of distinguished public and political figures from foreign countries.

Question: This year the international community celebrates the 75th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What is the significance of this document in the current historical context for Russia, and does it remain relevant?

A: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has not lost its relevance and continues to be the fundamental UN document for the promotion and protection of human rights. The UN Member States adopted the Universal Declaration with a desire to strengthen respect for the dignity of the human person and to restore his or her value. This was a natural consequence of the Second World War. The document became the embodiment of the common humanistic worldview of all mankind and its unifying power.

Since 1948, when the declaration was adopted, safeguards and recognition of human rights have been strengthened throughout the world: progress has been made in the area of women's and children's rights, the rights of indigenous peoples have been expanded, and the death penalty has been abolished in many countries.

Despite the fact that Article 30 of the Declaration (on the impossibility of using the provisions of the Declaration as a justification for the actions of one group of individuals to destroy the rights of another) has changed all spheres of our lives, today the echoes of racism, inequality and hatred continue to pose a threat to peace. However, the letter and spirit of the Declaration can overcome division and polarization.

The Russian Federation intends to pursue a consistent policy on the inadmissibility of politicising human rights issues and the imperative of building human rights activities exclusively on the basis of international law and the UN Charter.

Question: Does the UN carry out global monitoring of states' compliance with the requirements set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

A: Such a mechanism exists. This is the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) procedure of the human rights situation in UN member states, which operates within the framework of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). It is periodically held by all countries without exception (and not just by the members of the Council) under the "peer-to-peer review" formula. In other words, there is an "accountability" of the state to other similar sovereign states, and not to some supranational authorities, which often ascribe quasi-judicial powers to themselves. This is a dialogue on a mutually respectful, equal basis, and its result is not legally binding "prescriptions", but recommendations for correcting the existing shortcomings in the human rights sphere.

In fact, the UN Human Rights Council is far from a perfect human rights body. Russia and many other states harshly criticize its activities for the overwhelming level of confrontation and politicization, double standards and attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of states. At the same time, the Universal Periodic Review is perhaps the only "healthy" element in the functioning of the Council, where it has so far been possible to maintain an atmosphere of constructive discussion.

The UPR procedure has been in place since 2008, and until recently, no country, except Myanmar, where a radical change of political regime has taken place, has shied away from it.

However, now the principle of the global coverage of the Universal Periodic Review has been discredited by the actions of the Kiev regime. Ukraine, with the help of Westerners in the Bureau of the Human Rights Council, literally "pushed through" an unprecedented postponement of "its" UPR for four years - from the current 2023 to 2027, referring to the fact that martial law is now in force in Ukraine, and the Kiev authorities "have no time for discussions on human rights."

In practice, this means that over the next four years, Ukraine will be allowed to continue to violate human rights and, more broadly, the norms of international humanitarian law, without any "accountability" to the international community. The UN Human Rights Council simply turns a blind eye to this, saying that we will figure it out later.

As far as Russia is concerned, we have always gone through the review procedure according to the established schedule. In November of this year, this happened for the fourth time in Geneva at the 44th session of the HRC Working Group on the UPR. Delegations from 116 countries took part in the discussion on the Russian report. 360 recommendations have been formulated for our country, and we are now working on a position on responding to them. In the course of the discussion, the overwhelming majority of States expressed their interest in a non-confrontational manner, noting, among other things, the positive steps taken by the Russian authorities to improve the legal status of citizens and the system of administration of justice.

Question: How is Russia cooperating with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on providing assistance to migrants from the new Russian regions and Ukraine?

A: The Ukrainian migration crisis affected our country long before the start of the special military operation. After the 2014 coup d'état in Ukraine, hundreds of thousands of Russian-speaking residents of what was then southeastern Ukraine flocked to Russia to escape persecution by the Kiev regime. And since February 2022, more than 5 million people have been forced to leave the DPR, LPR, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions and Ukraine, moving to safe regions of Russia. The Russian side is doing everything necessary to receive and accommodate people in trouble, as well as to provide them with comprehensive assistance, including on issues related to further employment, providing children with places in kindergartens and educational institutions, and providing social benefits and benefits. At the same time, even in the face of Western sanctions, we are doing all this on our own, at our own expense. We do not ask for assistance from international organizations. I assure you that our country is capable of solving such issues without them.

The UNHCR office in Moscow has the opportunity to verify the effectiveness of the actions of the Russian authorities in resettling migrants and respecting their rights: in total, since March 2022, more than 40 trips have been made to temporary accommodation centers located in the Russian regions.

Question: What is the state of cooperation in Europe, in particular with the Council of Europe (CoE), which Russia has not been a member of since March 2022?

A: This once-promising organisation has completely discredited itself and continues to deteriorate. Having established total control over the Council of Europe, the Westerners have turned it into a deeply unfriendly structure used in the hybrid war against Russia. Not a day goes by without sweeping accusations against our country being voiced on this platform: one gets the impression that its institutions and sectoral mechanisms are competing with each other in anti-Russian antics. Suffice it to mention the so-called register of damage "caused by Russia's aggression against Ukraine" created with the active support of the Council of Europe.

And the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has turned into a "mad printer" churning out decisions on politically charged complaints against Russia. The ECHR seeks to influence the domestic political situation in our country through its decisions. Therefore, the priority for would-be judges is the complaints of "foreign agents", representatives of organizations recognized as extremist in Russia, as well as participants in unsanctioned rallies in support of the non-systemic opposition or "non-traditional values."

At the same time, everything that is somehow related to Russia falls under the ECHR censorship: the court turned a blind eye to the flagrant violations of the rights of the Russian-speaking population of Latvia by supporting the so-called education reform carried out by Riga. Fantastic cynicism and double standards. We have talked about this before, but now the Council of Europe has surpassed itself.

Question: In connection with the termination of its membership in the Council of Europe, does Russia no longer recognise the jurisdiction of the ECHR?

A: That's right, according to the current legislation, only ECHR rulings that entered into force before March 15, 2022 were subject to execution. This, of course, angers the Strasbourg bureaucrats, who are trying to drag UN agencies into the anti-Russia campaign, counting on their pressure on Russia on the implementation of ECHR decisions. We resolutely oppose these unlawful attempts to expand the mandate of UN agencies.

Question: Everything is clear with the conventions and monitoring bodies of the Council of Europe, which are tied to membership in the organisation – this is a thing of the past for us. But there are also conventions open to non-member states. Does Russia remain a party to them?

A: The termination of our membership in the Council of Europe did not automatically lead to our withdrawal from all the organization's legal acts. We remain a party to more than 40 conventions. However, even here the attempts of anti-Russian "charged" forces to restrict the conventional rights of our country do not stop. Such discrimination is unacceptable to us, and we are ready to take decisive action up to and including withdrawal from this or that treaty. Thus, this year, the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities were denounced.

At the same time, it would be wrong to remove all these conventions from the Russian legal field right away. Each of them requires an individual approach. Although the withdrawal from the Council of Europe has not affected the level of human rights protection in our country – and this is obvious after almost two years – it is necessary to analyze the consequences of each step taken, first of all, for our citizens. For this reason, in contact with the concerned authorities, before making decisions that have international legal implications, we analyze the situation in each "affected" convention. [My Emphasis]

Clearly aimed at informing the Russian audience as to some of the happenings regarding Russophobia and human rights at the international level, it’s possible to see how Europe is confining itself to a box disassociating it with long time moral standards, making it correct for Russia to be concerned about those developments.

Foreign Ministry's Department of Economic Cooperation’s Director Dmitry Birichevsky's interview with Rossiya Segodnya took place on 30 December:

Question: How highly does Moscow assess the risks of increasing the effectiveness of anti-Russian sanctions as a result of the adoption of the 12th EU package? Is Moscow ready for new restrictions?

A: The new wave of sanctions did not come as a surprise to us. There have already been many of them. We are ready for them. We regard the 12th package of anti-Russian sanctions as yet another manifestation of the EU's aggressive course against our country. But such a policy is clearly running out of steam, its arsenal is becoming scarce, and its effectiveness is rapidly declining. The "boomerang" damage from the restrictions is hitting their initiators more and more tangibly.

Of course, hostile attacks do not go unanswered by us. We adhere to a comprehensive approach to analysing the consequences of retaliatory steps, primarily from the point of view of our own economic interests. We act in a measured and precise manner, observing the principle "do not harm yourself". Our countermeasures are both overt and non-public, and can be symmetrical or asymmetrical, depending on the circumstances.

At the same time, it is important that our response is aimed at increasing the resilience and invulnerability of our country in the face of external challenges. Priority is given to ensuring the smooth functioning of the Russian economy, its industry and financial system. We pay special attention to the renewal of production and supply chains, the creation and debugging of our own distribution infrastructure, the search for new opportunities for import substitution of products in sensitive industries and the strengthening of technological independence.

Among the most important tasks is to promote the establishment of trade, economic and financial institutions independent of Western influence, and to reorient towards building foreign economic relations with reliable partners who adhere to a constructive line in relations with Russia. And these, as we say, are the world majority.

On an ongoing basis, we are working with friendly and neutral countries on the possibility of implementing joint projects in energy, metallurgy, mechanical engineering, the chemical industry, construction, transport and infrastructure, agriculture, and the food industry. Our main priority is our allies and friends in the EAEU and the CIS. China and India are key partners in the far abroad, and ties with ASEAN, South Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Africa are rapidly developing.

We will continue our efforts to consolidate the international community against the presence of unilateral economic restrictions in modern international relations at all multilateral venues. Our comprehensive response to illegitimate restrictions is to cultivate a multipolar, fair global economic system that is free from sanctions.

Question: Does Russia consider it economically feasible to extend the agreement with Ukraine on the transit of Russian gas to Europe, which expires next year? Is Moscow working on possible options in the event of the termination of gas transit after the completion of the contract?

A: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that gas transit through the Ukrainian GTS is regulated exclusively at the level of economic entities under a commercial contract, not an interstate agreement. Regardless of the political situation, Russian companies are striving to regularly fulfill all their obligations to counterparties in Europe for the supply of energy resources, including under the five-year contract for gas transit through the territory of Ukraine, which expires on December 31, 2024.

Back in March 2022, the EU announced a policy of abandoning Russian natural gas, which [supposedly] gave Europeans huge competitive advantages and made a significant contribution to their economic and social well-being. More recently, there have been statements from Kiev about its disinterest in extending the transit contract. In this context, the question arises for us: "Does the refusal to transit gas through the territory of Ukraine next year and deprive Kiev of revenues from it mean?"

When planning natural gas supplies in Russia, factors such as the availability of demand from consumers and the operability of cross-border infrastructure are naturally taken into account. It is this logic, I believe, that will guide the consideration of the issue of continuing Ukrainian transit.

Currently, Russian gas in comparable volumes is supplied to European countries through the second branch of the Turkish Stream. Deliveries to Turkey via the Blue Stream and the first branch of the Turkish Stream are steady.

Question: How highly do you assess the likelihood of an agreement between Russia and Western countries on the mutual exchange of frozen assets? Or is Moscow ready to take mirror measures and, if the European Commission approves the procedure for using a tax on income from frozen Russian funds, to "put into circulation" and use income tax on foreign funds that remain in Russia? Is there any data on how much money remains blocked after Western companies leave our country?

A: We are ready for any development of the situation with frozen assets. It seems that the scheme of mutual exchange proposed by the Russian side could be of interest to Western counterparties, whose funds are in our jurisdiction on type "C" accounts.

At the same time, as everyone knows, "it takes two to tango." In the context of the ongoing rabid Russophobic campaign in the West and against the backdrop of new unilateral sanctions, I believe it is pointless to try to guess the reaction of the authorities of foreign countries whose residents could potentially take part in such an exchange. If the other side is ready for dialogue, we are open to it, but "there is no trial," as they say.

The signals coming from the US and the EU can hardly be called optimistic. Brussels continues to try to provide a legal basis for the seizure of investment profits from our frozen assets. Washington, according to information that regularly appears in the media, has allegedly invented and is actively promoting a new formula by which it is possible to recognize itself as a victim of the Russian special operation and confiscate the sovereign reserves of our country. Against this background, it does not matter where these funds will be directed next – to provide military support to Ukraine or to plug holes in chronically deficit Western budgets. Whatever option the West comes up with, it is about the theft of Russian property, no matter on what scale.

Sensible experts in the West (although there are not many of them left) warn against such steps, aware of the detrimental consequences of the planned expropriation for their own finances and investment climate. After all, the countries of the World Majority are unlikely to continue to place free funds in Western jurisdictions, risking losing their savings at any time if Washington or Brussels need to implement some other major geopolitical project.

Of course, we assume that we will be forced to act symmetrically if Russian assets or part of them are confiscated. I will not talk about specific amounts (this is the competence of the Ministry of Finance and the Bank of Russia), but the amount of funds that can be covered by our special economic response measures is significant.

Question: Is an agreement on a free trade zone between the EAEU and Egypt expected to be signed in the near future?

A: Since the adoption of the relevant decision, six rounds of negotiations on the EAEU-Egypt Free Trade Agreement (FTA) have taken place, the last one in August 2023 in Moscow. Regular intersessional consultations of experts are held between rounds. Work on such agreements requires a comprehensive and scrupulous approach, since it affects the trade and economic interests of six countries at once, including the Eurasian five. There should be no rush in such matters. The emphasis is not on the timing of the signing, but, first of all, on the quality and detailed study of all modalities of the future trade deal to achieve a mutually beneficial balance.

At the moment, we can say that the FTA project is in a high degree of readiness, all parties are determined to complete the negotiation process. [My Emphasis]

As the year wears on, Russia will further insulate itself from illegal sanctions, and the West through it’s idiocy will continue to shoot itself in the head. We await the implementation of the Turkish gas bourse and its use by European nations not wanting to subject their economies to the Outlaw US Empire’s diktat. And will Erdogan take the plunge and ask to become a BRICS+ member? 2024 will see some exciting events to change the status quo.

*
*
*
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!