France & Vilnius: Interview with Russian Ambassador to France Alexander Meshkov

The Rossiya 24 TV channel conducted a video interview with Russia’s French Ambassador Alexander Meshkov to gain his views on Macron’s decision to supply French SCALP cruise missiles to Ukraine and his assessment of the NATO Summit at Vilnius. It’s helpful to get multiple assessments on these sorts of issues, so we should send out some virtual thank yous to Rossiya 24 and Russia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for publishing the transcript and video. You’ll find Meshkov furthering Russia’s diplomatic stance while expressing it somewhat differently from Lavrov and Zakharova who generally get the most media attention. Meshkov’s assessment of the French government needs to be noted as well as the additional information he provides about the SCALP missiles. Coincidentally, at today’s meeting of Russia’s Security Council the top agenda item was "additional measures [for] protection of critical facilities." But that's all the info we're given. And now, Mr. Meshkov:

Question: French President Emmanuel Macron has promised Ukraine long-range missiles. We are talking about SCALP ammunition - this is the French version of the British "Storm Shadow", in fact, a joint development of Paris and London. The range of these missiles is 250 km. Is anything known about the amount of ammunition that will be delivered to Kyiv, and what do they say in France on this extremely relevant topic?

A: According to the available leaks, we are talking about 50 missiles. There is also information that some, if not all, is already in Ukraine. Lately, NATO members have been doing something first, and then announcing it. This is not to say that such a decision is supported by all the French, because they are well aware that France is being drawn more and more into the war against Russia. Albeit indirectly, but this is by no means in the interests of French society, and, as you have seen, the escalation has been going on for quite some time. First, the Caesars appeared - this is a long-range weapon, then the French threw their AMX light tanks into Ukraine, which, however, showed their complete helplessness on the battlefield, and now these missiles. By the way, some analysts wonder if this is also a certain pressure from the French military-industrial complex, which does not want the practically French development of SCALP to be perceived as a secondary thing from Storm Shadow. As for the range, the question is quite complicated. Officially, missiles with a range of 250 km are exported, but the missile itself in its land version can fly 560 km, and in the sea version almost 1500 km.

Question: Earlier, Paris even ruled out the supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine out of fear that Kiev would use them to strike at Russian territory, as is the case with the British Storm Shadow, which fly to Lugansk in particular. And what happened now? Why did Paris change its point of view and does this mean some kind of fundamentally new approach on their part to what can and cannot be supplied to Ukraine?

A: Everyone has heard Emmanuel Macron's official statements. It was about strikes on the line of contact. All this, of course, is nonsense, because it is ridiculous to receive any guarantees from a criminal terrorist regime. How many times have Kiev given NATO such guarantees that they will not use weapons against our territory, and we all saw what happened in the Belgorod region, and what types of weapons were used there. Therefore, of course, the decision taken by the French government deserves the most severe condemnation.

Question: About relations between France and NATO. At the moment, the French authorities support a potential invitation to Ukraine to NATO, which French President Emmanuel Macron spoke about even before the summit in Vilnius. But back in 2019, he spoke very sharply about the North Atlantic Alliance. In particular, he said that coordination between the United States and its allies was completely lost within NATO, calling it "NATO's brain death." Now the rhetoric and politics are completely different. What do you attribute this change of course to?

A: At about the same time that Emmanuel Macron was talking about NATO's "brain death," he spoke at a meeting of French ambassadors about a deep government that is working against the interests of the French state. But it seems that this deep government still won. We traditionally recall the Gaullist foundations of the modern French republic, but the situation has really changed seriously, and convinced Atlanticists are leading in Paris today.

Question: In other words, Emmanuel Macron's rhetoric was a kind of screen, and he spoke without real leverage?

A: I can't say for sure, but there are a lot of different factors. You remember perfectly well what Angela Merkel and Francois Hollande said about the Minsk Agreements, which completely excludes the possibility of any confidence in the actions of Germany and France in relation to Russia. Therefore, we can say that this is a natural continuation of the policy of undermining ties with us. Although, we must pay tribute, at the initial stage, Emmanuel Macron repeatedly declared his interest in maintaining a bilateral dialogue and the need to take into account Russia's security interests. But, as you can see, this is not happening.

Question: In your opinion, the fact that France is now talking about the need to determine concrete steps for Ukraine's accession to NATO could hypothetically accelerate the process of Kiev's accession to the North Atlantic Alliance? Which, as we know, Zelensky dreams of. Or is this rhetoric of Emmanuel Macron more of a game for the public?

A: I will not reveal a big secret if I say that when such signals came from Paris, we directly asked officials in France whether this rhetoric was a change in Paris' course in the international arena and, above all, with regard to the issue of Ukraine's accession to NATO. To which we received an answer from all our interlocutors, just as it is written on a piece of paper, that back in 2008 France agreed to the need to admit Ukraine to NATO, and there are no changes in the position. But the fact that in recent months there has been a serious drift in the position of Paris towards the position of Eastern European countries, primarily Poland, is an obvious fact, it cannot be denied.

Question: On the eve of the summit, Emmanuel Macron blocked the opening of a NATO office in Japan. What do you think about this step, can it be called a demarche towards the North Atlantic Alliance from Paris? And did this step get any continuation at the summit in Vilnius?

A: I do not yet have information about the results of the summit in Vilnius. But here is a completely understandable and obvious situation. The hypothetical opening of a NATO mission in Tokyo is perceived in France, however, it seems to me, in Beijing, as a purely anti-Chinese action. And the French are now clearly not ready, especially in the current conditions of the crisis in relations with us, to decide to aggravate relations with China. France has a lot of economic interests in this country, so they are in no hurry to follow the lead of the Americans.

Question: In general, what are your impressions of the summit in Vilnius? Is there unity in the alliance or is it rather split at the moment? And most importantly, do you think we should expect any changes in the field of global security in the context of the summit?

A: Naturally, we will need to analyse in detail all the decisions that were made there. Although, admittedly, they are very predictable, so we will have to take the necessary countermeasures, as Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Presidential Press Secretary Dmitry Peskov said yesterday. As for the question of split or unification, it is not worth talking about for one simple reason. It's like the old joke: NATO has an official charter, and there is an unofficial one. The official charter states that the first point is that Washington is always right, the second point is that if Washington is wrong, read the first point. Therefore, here we are talking about hegemony and vassals. Of course, sometimes some of the vassals are given the opportunity to play a little, including in the interests of their domestic political life. But the fact that this structure is completely dependent on Washington and no one is allowed to take any positions against the official line of the United States is a fact.

Question: Regarding the independence of Paris, if we can talk about it at all. In the alliance, obviously, everything is run by Washington. Do you think this is true? Does the summit in Vilnius show, as I understand correctly, the absolute dominance of the United States?

A: Indeed, over the past decades, before Francois Hollande came to power, France had demonstrated a certain amount of autonomy. President Emmanuel Macron tried to talk about such autonomy in Europe. But now I personally do not see a single country in the European Union that could express its independent point of view in a dialogue with Washington. Naturally, in this situation, I am not talking about Hungary, which is trying to take independent steps. But Europe is united in its complete subordination to the United States. Therefore, today all decisions, including on the admission of countries to the European Union or on actions on the world stage of this seemingly regional organization, are made in Washington.

Question: Is it possible to say that Paris' foreign policy, in particular, as it manifested itself at the current NATO summit in Vilnius, is, in a sense, a continuation of France's domestic policy?

A: Whenever the domestic political situation in the country is difficult, of course, there is a desire to somehow shift the attention of public opinion to external factors. Indeed, recent months have been difficult for France from a domestic political point of view. These are mass demonstrations against the law on pensions, and the performance of young people after the murder of an Arab young man by a policeman. Of course, there was an escalation of the domestic political situation, so one of the "valves" for the release of this discontent could be the transformation of foreign policy approaches.

Question: Do you think the North Atlantic Alliance is ready to "play the long game" in the conflict in Ukraine, based on what is happening on the international platform now?

A: Now the main thing that Kiev has received is the creation of the Ukraine-NATO Council. They couldn't even come up with any new name, they just took the Russia-NATO advice on tracing paper. What they promise the Ukrainians is the same thing they promised us – that it will be a council where everyone will act in a national capacity, and Ukraine will be an equal member. At the very first meeting after the creation of the Russia-NATO Council, we were faced with the fact that it was again such a conversation between the bloc and Russia. And at the moment when this council was no longer needed by NATO, it was simply removed from the agenda. I would not expect that NATO will follow Ukraine to the end. NATO will act as the alliance needs, and Ukraine is expendable. [All Emphsis Mine]