Interviews: Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin & Lavrov's w/ Rossiya Segodnya

Mikhail Galuzin

The year ending rounds of interviews provide opportunities for other MFA staff to get facetime with media and have their words published. Theses took place on 30 & 31 December, Galuzin then Lavrov, with Rossiya Segodnya. Mr. Galuzin’s interview is confined to the possibility of negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan, and thus is rather short:

Question: As you know, in September 2022, Vladimir Zelensky signed a decree prohibiting negotiations with the Russian leadership. What is Russia's attitude to the possibility of settling the Ukrainian crisis through political and diplomatic means?

A: We have repeatedly said that a comprehensive, sustainable and fair settlement of the conflict around Ukraine largely depends on addressing its root causes. The West must stop pumping weapons into the Armed Forces of Ukraine, and Kyiv must stop hostilities and withdraw its troops from Russian territory. It is necessary to confirm the neutral, non-aligned and non-nuclear status of Ukraine, to carry out its demilitarization and denazification, to recognize the new territorial realities, and to ensure the rights of Russian-speaking citizens and national minorities living in this country.

Unfortunately, today we do not see the political will for peace either in Kiev or in the West. The self-prohibition on negotiations with the Russian leadership established by Vladimir Zelensky's decree of September 30, 2022 remains in force. The Kiev regime rejects the peace mediation initiatives presented by various countries in recent months. At the same time, the so-called peace formula, proposed by the Ukrainian president in November last year and presented by him and his Western curators as almost the only basis for a settlement, in fact has nothing to do with peace, but is a set of ultimatums to Russia justifying the continuation of hostilities.

Kiev still thinks in terms of war and intends to continue the conflict "to the bitter end," which, obviously, means "war to the last Ukrainian." Washington and its NATO satellites are diligently helping them in this, satisfying the growing military appetites of the Zelensky regime. All this only delays the prospects for a settlement.

We have never refused to engage in dialogue with Ukraine, we have always advocated a political solution to the conflict, but so far we have no choice but to bring the special military operation to the full implementation of all its tasks.

Question: Is Russia ready to negotiate with Ukraine on the continuation of gas transit to Europe after 2024? In the current situation, how realistic is it to agree on the terms of a new contract that are acceptable to Russia?

A: First of all, I would like to note that regardless of the political situation in our neighbours, Russia remains a reliable supplier of natural gas to countries interested in sustainable supplies of this most environmentally acceptable fossil fuel. We have been building up our authority for decades and we value it.

We should not write off the fact that the supply of Russian energy resources to foreign markets contributes to the strengthening of the financial condition of our country.

However, it is necessary to take into account the emerging realities. As you know, Kiev declares its refusal to transit Russian gas to Europe through the territory of Ukraine and its unwillingness to negotiate with Russia on the extension of the current contract, which expires on December 31, 2024.

Obviously, the issue of continuing the transit of Russian gas to Europe can be discussed in detail after Gazprom has specific proposals from potential buyers of our "blue fuel".

Question: After the decision on the ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh, the question of the current status of Russian peacekeepers in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone is becoming acute. What are Russia's plans in this regard? What is the future of Russian bases in Armenia?

Maria Zakharova: Let me remind you that the Russian peacekeeping contingent was deployed in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone in accordance with the trilateral statement of the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia of November 9, 2020. It stipulates that our peacekeepers will stay in the region for 5 years, i.e. until November 2025, with the possibility of further extension.

Of course, the situation on the ground has changed dramatically after the decision of the Armenian leadership to recognize Karabakh as belonging to Azerbaijan, which was enshrined at summits under the auspices of the EU, starting with the Prague meeting in October 2022. This takes place in a mutually respectful and constructive atmosphere.

As for the Russian military base in Armenia. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on this issue in detail on December 28. The agreement on its deployment was concluded on March 16, 1995, based on the national interests of both states. According to Article 26 of this document, the term of stay of our servicemen is 49 years, after which the agreement is automatically extended for a five-year period. Russian soldiers and officers continue to effectively ensure peace and security not only in Armenia, but also stability in the entire South Caucasus. We consider any discussions about our military presence in the republic to be harmful and inappropriate.

Question: Azerbaijan and Armenia have not yet signed a peace treaty, although negotiations on this topic have been held between the parties for several years. When, in Russia's opinion, can this document be signed? Can we expect it to be signed next year, for example, in Moscow?

A: It is the prerogative of these states to determine the date and place of signing the long-awaited peace treaty between the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia. No one has the right to decide for them when this will happen. So, the question of timing, in my opinion, should be addressed to our partners in Baku and Yerevan.

At the same time, of course, we cannot remain indifferent to what is happening in the South Caucasus. Historically, Russia is one of the Caucasian states and also the only country in the region and the world that maintains allied relations with both Azerbaijan and Armenia. We are bound by centuries-old ties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance with the peoples of Armenia and Azerbaijan. This is an invaluable asset. We cherish it.

We proceed from the premise that the fate of the South Caucasus should be determined by those for whom it is a common home [including Russia]. No one from the outside will open the way to sustainable peace and stability in the South Caucasus. Betting on "miraculous" Western aid is illusory and dangerous. The examples of Serbia's Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, which was derailed by the Middle East settlement (which was actually monopolized by the United States), and show with their own eyes what the interference of well-known "democratizers" and "conciliators" is fraught with. The scheme is simple: first, they will get in somewhere under beautiful slogans, turn everything around, and as soon as it starts to "bake", they will run away, leaving behind a scorched field. And, as a rule, there is no one to ask. Washington has long made no secret of the fact that it views the South Caucasus as a springboard for opening a "second front" against Russia. All of this is fundamentally contrary to the true interests of the peoples of the region.

For our part, we have made and continue to make efforts to assist Azerbaijan and Armenia in developing a balanced peace treaty designed to make an indispensable contribution to the reconciliation of the two neighboring states and to the restoration of peace and security in the South Caucasus in the long term.

Reconciliation envisages the normalization of Azerbaijani-Armenian relations. The road map is well known. This is a set of statements by the leaders of Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia in 2020-2022. The Russian negotiation platform is always at the disposal of our allies and partners.

There are no trifles in the negotiation process and in what accompanies it. Everything requires the utmost care, deep understanding and endurance. It is important not only to prepare and sign a mutually acceptable agreement. No less in demand is the creation of conditions for its subsequent strict observance. In this regard, Baku and Yerevan can rely on the 3+3 Regional Consultative Platform (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia on the one hand, Russia, Iran, and Turkey on the other). Its cornerstone principle is strict respect for the sovereignty and independence of each of the participants. [My Emphasis]

The reiteration of some Q&As gets to the point where you know the answer before it’s given. Each MFA member is very close to saying the same thing in response; but, what else can one really say as Russia needs to refute constant Western propaganda and misinformation such as secret negotiations and other pish, tosh and twaddle. The point made about Russia being “one of the Caucasian state” carries great importance and lays down another Red Line for the Outlaw US Empire in case it’s ignorant of that fact which is very likely. And again, the gas transit issue solution resides with Europeans, not Russia. Without Europe as a full customer as it was previous to 2022, Russia still exported more pipeline gas than ever before, as Gazprom CEO Miller told Putin during their chat a week ago.

And now, Mr. Lavrov gets to sit in the interviewee’s chair, a position he’s quite accustomed to. Again, the field of questions and answers is well hoed as this interview shows. Let’s look for surprises:

Question: What awaits representatives of the Kiev regime after Russia fulfills the goals of its special military operation? Will an investigation into the crimes of the Kiev regime be initiated, and what will be the trial?

A: An investigation into the crimes of the Kiev regime is already underway. Russian law enforcement agencies are carefully recording and documenting the atrocities committed by Ukrainian neo-Nazis, while not limiting themselves to the period of the special military operation. The suffering of the civilian population of Donbass began much earlier, back in 2014.

The Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation is investigating a number of articles of the Criminal Code. According to the ICR, more than 4,000 criminal cases have been initiated against about 900 people, including not only members of radical nationalist associations, representatives of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and mercenaries, but also representatives of the military and political leadership of Ukraine. Those of them who were charged in absentia have been put on the international wanted list.

Based on the evidence collected by the ICR, the courts of the Russian Federation have already sentenced more than 200 representatives of the Ukrainian armed formations to long terms of imprisonment for the atrocities committed. The same fate awaits all other criminals. Righteous retribution will overtake each of them.

Question: Does Moscow plan to organise talks on Russian territory between Palestinian movements, in particular, Fatah and Hamas, in order to achieve the goals of national unity? What are the chances that the Palestinians will be able to agree on the formation of a government?

A: Russia has consistently advocated the launch of Palestinian-Israeli talks. The lack of Palestinian unity remains an obstacle to them.

We support the actions of our partners, in particular Egypt and Algeria, aimed at resolving this problem. For our part, we are also helping our Palestinian friends find solutions. We provided them with a Russian platform for meetings. We urge the Palestine Liberation Organisation to unite on a political platform. We explain the danger of a split for the prospects for the creation of a Palestinian state.

In April 2023, Russia put forward an initiative to convene multilateral consultations to synchronize approaches to ensuring Palestinian unity. At the second stage, it is planned to involve representatives of the main Palestinian movements in the dialogue. Our proposal remains on the table.

Most recently, on December 20, I took part in the sixth session of the Russian-Arab Cooperation Forum, which was held in Morocco. With my colleagues from a number of Arab states, we discussed the situation in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone and possible steps to resolve it. The discussion showed that, among other things, we are united by a common understanding of the need to restore Palestinian unity as soon as possible.

Question: Russian officials held a number of meetings with their Serbian partners against the backdrop of the protests in Belgrade, and Prime Minister of Serbia Aleksandar Brnabic thanked the Russian special services for the information about the planned riots. Can you confirm that Moscow has indeed provided such assistance? Which specific Western countries are involved in organizing these protests? What other assistance can we provide to Belgrade, and have we received any requests from our Serbian partners? Is there a threat of a coup in this country and its joining the anti-Russian coalition?

A: Our dialogue with Serbia is rhythmic, characterized by openness and a focus on developing a variety of areas of cooperation, including in the field of security. This is quite a sensitive area. It would be correct to say that Moscow is always ready to lend a shoulder to its Serbian friends.

What happened in Belgrade is yet another attempt to orchestrate an illegal seizure of power. Apparently, not everyone in the West is ready to put up with the fact that Serbian voters have expressed support for President Aleksandar Vučić and his political course in the elections.

The trend, frankly speaking, is not new. It is well known how such adventures usually end. Suffice it to recall the coup d'état in Ukraine in February 2014, inspired by Washington and Brussels.

In Serbia, this has not been forgotten either, including thanks to their own experience. Apparently, this is why the number of protesters is relatively small – only a few hundred people. Citizens do not trust figures who speak out against violence, but in fact behave in exactly the opposite way: they ignore the results of the expression of the will of citizens and provoke law enforcement agencies.

We assess the overall situation in Serbia as stable. The country's leadership firmly keeps the situation under control, clearly understanding that this is the national interest now.

Question: Recently, there have been signals that our country may reconsider its unilateral moratorium on the deployment of intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles. Is that really the case? Is it possible to lift the moratorium until the United States deploys such weapons in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region? Have probable locations for Russian missiles been identified?

A: An unequivocal signal that we can, under certain conditions, revise the unilateral moratorium on the deployment of ground-based intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles (INF) was laid down in the original wording, in which we announced the adoption of appropriate self-restrictions.

Let me remind you that our commitment to this moratorium is strictly linked to the potential appearance of US-made land-based intermediate-range missiles in the relevant regions. Due to the characteristics and peculiarities of the use of weapons of this class, the question of their deployment by hostile countries is very sensitive from the point of view of Russia's national security. In the case of the United States, this aspect is of particular importance, given its direct relationship with other factors that affect strategic stability. Obviously, Washington's creation of additional missile risks will require us to take serious retaliatory measures.

In the absence of extraordinary steps on the part of the United States to increase pressure on us by other means, Russia will not be the first to deploy missile weapons previously banned under the INF Treaty. However, judging by the Pentagon's preparations, it is not long before the Americans take practical action to deploy ground-based intermediate-range missiles in various regions of the world. So the moment when we will have to make the necessary political decisions is, in fact, brewing.

Question: Summing up the results of the year, President of Russia Vladimir Putin noted Moscow's readiness to restore full-fledged relations with Washington in the face of certain fundamental changes within the United States. Do we expect such shifts if the Republican nominee wins next year's presidential election? Can this lead to the improvement of bilateral relations?

A: Our readiness to resume a full-fledged dialogue with the United States should not be taken for granted. Russian-American relations have "thinned" to the limit through the fault of Washington, which has doctrinally formalized the task of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia. Although the White House is still wary of destroying everything that remains of relations to the ground, the Americans are clearly not yet ready to conduct a dialogue honestly, on the basis of mutual respect and consideration for each other's interests.

We will be able to reach a formula of peaceful coexistence with cooperation in certain areas only after Washington recognises our fundamental national interests and begins to negotiate in earnest. Meanwhile, the U.S. ruling circles deny the realities of a multipolar world and continue to think in terms of their own superiority and exceptionalism.

The American political establishment, regardless of party affiliation, sees Russia as an enemy and an existential threat. Given the existing bipartisan consensus on this issue, it would be naïve to hope for an improvement in relations if the Republican candidate wins. By and large, we don't care who wins the race for the presidency in the United States. [My emphasis]

Well, relations with the Outlaw US Empire remained mostly the same for the year. Lavrov’s specifying the PLO as the stumbling block to unified Palestinian political relations is significant. Too many point at Hamas’s Zionist origins as a tool to split the Palestinians politically when the real problem is the PLO’s having become a Zionist policing tool in the West Bank. IMO, if it were possible to hold an election today, Hamas would win. But in reality any sort of election involving Palestinians is impossible currently, not because of what’s happening in Gaza, although that’s important; rather, the inability of Palestinians to freely discuss politics and have an election free from manipulation from compromised institutions and Zionist interference are the real drawbacks. As Lavrov points out, having substantive negotiations with anyone requires the Palestinians be united politically, a situation that hasn’t existed since the Outlaw US Empire and the Zionists refused to recognize the Hamas 2006 election victory thus splitting Palestinians and preventing any reunification, which IMO was the goal. Can’t reach a negotiated solution when there’s supposedly no party to negotiate with.

Serbia’s experience shows the Global Majority that the West will use whatever means to get what it wants regardless the cost. Thus, any institution connected to the West in any sort of way must be presumed guilty until proven clean, as that’s the only reliable policy to adopt.’

That Russia doesn’t give a hoot about who wins the 2024 US Presidential election is right and proper as the policy doctrine will continue as it is now.

*
*
*
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!