Ryabkov's TASS Interview

After some searching, I found the TASS interview with Ryabkov that RT provided snippets of in the report I tagged at the end of Lavrov’s talk yesterday. He uses some colorful language as you’ll see just below. The TASS header is followed by the body of the interview:

Sergei Ryabkov: in the United States, gopniks are in power, and in Europe there are fashionistas subordinate to them:

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister on the prospects for further relations with NATO countries:

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, in a special interview with TASS on Russian-American relations, told how the West is testing Moscow's strength, answered questions about what could lead to a decrease in the level of diplomatic relations with the United States and what the timing of a new exchange of prisoners depends on.

- Sergey Alekseevich, in January 2022, in an interview with TASS, you said that NATO needs to "pack up its bags and go to the borders of 1997." How realistic does this statement seem to you today, bearing in mind that during this time the alliance has managed to expand significantly?

If the United States, first of all, but also other NATO countries at that moment had really taken our warnings and appeals seriously, then what is happening now, all this tragedy, from the point of view of the complete destruction of the European security architecture, could have been avoided.

NATO enlargement is the process that ultimately led to the current crisis, but history does not seem to teach our adversaries anything. They continue to obsessively push the alliance to new frontiers in pursuit of the phantom of strengthening their own security.

But I think it is clear that NATO has not improved its security lately. On the contrary, countries are experiencing a significant strain on forces and resources. Another thing is what it is spent on. Well, in general, the escalatory course of the North Atlantic Alliance, where they are literally ready to balance on the brink of a direct armed clash with us, is an adventurist policy that completely crosses out the fundamental security interests of the respective countries and, most importantly, the population.

But I think time will pass, and voters will understand how pernicious a line the current elites are pursuing in relation to Russia. The vocabulary may be different, but the essence of the matter does not change from this. A deeply flawed and fundamentally erroneous policy of geopolitical development of ever wider spaces is the root of all the troubles of modern Europe and the Euro-Atlantic region.

- Is it still possible to have a dialogue on security guarantees?

— I think that the work on formalizing some security guarantees in the form of agreements that were discussed in 2021 is not relevant now. Our scale of priorities, including in the field of ensuring our own security and creating a more sustainable framework for these efforts, has completely changed. What is happening in the western azimuth is now primarily the task of the military, the task of the security forces. Diplomacy in this area works, I would say, in the mode of crisis management and control to prevent a slide into a truly large-scale conflict.

Geopolitical constructions in one form or another with NATO are generally impossible. NATO is not a negotiable counterparty, it is a grouping in which we not only do not have the slightest trust, but which causes us political and, I would even say, emotional rejection.

We will work with those who are ready to negotiate on an equal basis. The greater Eurasian space, the concept of Eurasian security is what is now being put forward at the center of architectural projects from the point of view of politics and geopolitics. In our understanding, this is what we need to focus on in the first place.

Over the past few years, Russia has lowered the level of diplomatic relations with several Western countries. Is Moscow considering such a scenario in its relations with Washington today? Is it real? What can be the very red line for the Russian side to make such a decision?

- The powers that be in the United States and other key Western states have recently gathered quite a lot of figures who are, by and large, provocateurs and have made the test of Moscow's strength a reason for their existence.

These are such political thugs who, in some cases, simply go out of lawlessness, sorry for the jargon. Therefore, I will not talk about what our red lines are, because these figures are undoubtedly concerned about constantly proving to themselves and to everyone around them that another red line of Moscow has not really become red.

They do not understand that we are showing exceptional restraint and acting strictly within the framework set by the country's leadership and defined in terms of the goals and objectives of the special military operation, but, of course, in relation to the work that the Foreign Ministry is doing.

There are such fashionistas also in the Western group, along with gopniks, who introduce a lot of such fresh ideas, as it seems to them, into the discussion about what is happening. For example, on the command from Washington, the reasoning that Russian President Vladimir Putin will not stop in Ukraine, but will definitely attack other NATO countries has become fashionable in the spring-summer season of 2024. This is utter absurdity, this is not even disinformation, this is a malicious lie and malicious distortion of the very essence of that policy and the absolutely logical foundation on which all our actions are based, which has been repeatedly set forth and communicated publicly and behind closed doors by our leadership to this Western campaign.

But there is another fashion. This is the argument that it is necessary to show strategic uncertainty and ambiguity in relation to Russia, so that Moscow does not know how NATO will act in a particular situation. But this uncertainty has always been characteristic of the doctrinal approaches of the Western group, including those related to nuclear weapons. Here, too, we will show mirroring. Therefore, we will put the topic of red lines aside.

Returning to your question, of course, unfortunately, you always need to take into account the scenario of a decrease in the level of relations. We have never, at any stage of the current downward spiral in relations with the United States or other NATO countries, taken such steps proactively. But they are quite possible, in my opinion, if the Western group follows the path of escalation. And not necessarily from the point of view of further increasing support for Kyiv, but, for example, in relation to our assets or other actions in the economic sphere.

What can be the trigger is not a question of today, and at least I am not ready to speculate on this topic. If there is a further aggravation, all this will be the subject of separate analysis and decision-making at the level of political leadership.

But I do not rule out such a scenario, the logic of what has been happening recently and the absolute recklessness of this Western group gives, I think, all the reasons to calculate such options too.

— For several years now, citizens of the Russian Federation — be they politicians, diplomats, businessmen, journalists — have been facing the same problem, namely, the non-issuance of US visas to participate in official events. Just a few weeks ago, for this reason, a meeting of the delegations of the ministries of finance and the central banks of the BRICS was disrupted. What way out of this situation do you see as a way out? Can the Russian side completely refuse to participate in face-to-face events in the United States?

"We need to be cold and detached about both the issuance and non-issuance of American visas. We need to plan our participation in these events in such a way that there are options for practical work and communicating our position where and when it is required and in the absence of our representatives sent from Moscow, because the American side did not bother to issue visas.

Washington is doing its best to create irritants and harm, by and large, for us in large and small ways. And the visa issue is also part of such a multifaceted campaign to unbalance Moscow and our citizens, our officials.

Some visas are not issued because they are on these endless sanctions lists, some are not issued simply voluntaristically. And this, apparently, will continue, there should be no illusions. We must be ready to connect via video format where necessary, and to look for alternative platforms where necessary.

We have repeatedly drawn attention to the fact that the United States is not fulfilling its obligations to host and organise international events. On the whole, we have certainly put forward and will continue to make claims in this regard. But given the general bias of the United States to divide the whole world between the socially close and the socially distant and, accordingly, to favor the socially close and demonstrate rejection in relation to everyone else, there can be no change in the direction of equality and a sensible approach, recognition of the sovereign equality of states, in my opinion. This intoxication with one's own exceptionalism, which allows one to act voluntarily and neglect one's obligations as the country on whose territory the UN is located, is too deeply rooted.

By the way, the leadership of the UN Secretariat is doing nothing to comply with our demand to launch an appropriate arbitration procedure with the country hosting its headquarters. We discussed, including at official venues, the issue of finding alternatives for holding relevant events. At one time, the topic of an alternative platform for the UN headquarters was discussed. But, unfortunately, not everyone in the international community shares our logic.

We will continue to explain the intolerance of the current situation and look for practical and political alternatives to this unacceptable situation, which is deliberately being created by the American side. But I do not foresee an improvement in the situation with the issuance of American visas in a broad sense.

- Continuing the topic: earlier the US Embassy in Moscow reported that the parties are discussing the possibility of resuming a number of consular services, including the issuance of visas to Russians. Is there any progress in this dialogue?

"This topic is part of a broader agenda that appears in our working dialogue with the Americans on the so-called irritants in bilateral relations.

There were various episodes and twists and turns – some of our officials and delegations were issued visas in a timely manner, while others were deliberately not issued in order to disrupt our participation. We do not see any logical picture of what is happening here and are not going to look for it.

This is pure arbitrariness. The issuance of visas for participation in official events is a direct responsibility, there can be no deviations from this rule. But let's see what happens next.

We do not have an agreement on improving something here. We have episodic problems that arise and, I think, will continue to arise. We have situations when everything is relatively normal with trips to various kinds of events. But, for example, on the topic of going on long business trips of employees of diplomatic missions, there is a complex negotiation process, if you will, bargaining. I think everything is in this vein and will continue in the future.

– A few days ago, US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken paid a working visit to Kyiv. How would you comment on the results of the talks between the representatives of the United States and Ukraine? Did Moscow know in advance about this trip of the head of American diplomacy? Or are relations between the Russian Federation and the United States at such a level that the Foreign Ministry also learns about this from the media?

— I'll start with the second part. Shortly before the departure of this group to Kyiv, we received the relevant information

There is no dialogue about the content of what is happening, and in principle there cannot be. Because what we convey to the Americans in connection with their deeper involvement in what is happening in Ukraine, and what we present to them in the form of warnings and demarches, is a slightly different genre. It is in many ways the opposite of the dialogue that diplomats conduct in the interests of finding solutions.

We warn that they are playing with fire. They have long been in a state of proxy war with the Russian Federation. They somehow cannot grasp that for the sake of their own geopolitical ideas, they are approaching a phase when it will be very difficult to manage what is happening and prevent such a landslide crisis. And this rhetoric, this beating of drums, this constant incitement of their allies to help Ukraine even more, to expand support, testifies to only one thing: people live, as they themselves say, "in the box". They live in their own enclosed space, and they do not perceive external impulses that are alternative to what they have determined for themselves.

This is associated with a great risk of the current situation, because it is impossible to reach them.

— Is there a possibility of meetings on neutral platforms, for example, on strategic stability?

- The United States has canceled all formats of dialogue that has been conducted for many years on many topics. Now we have a situation where discussions with the Americans concern purely utilitarian, narrow issues – mainly the functioning of diplomatic missions, humanitarian cases and some exchanges of delegations, visits of certain groups to certain events. There is no other.

We are not going to stand and demonstrate interest in dialogue with the United States either in the sphere of strategic stability or in other areas for the simple reason that its policy is deeply hostile towards Russia. And until the start of some visible changes in this policy, we do not see any grounds for restoring this kind of channels and formats.

Although, I think everyone in Washington has heard the instruction that President Putin formulated at the inauguration ceremony, that we are open to dialogue. But the dialogue should be equal, it should involve an attentive and respectful approach on the part of the other side to what we declare and what is our position. Now this is just not the case, there is only the opposite.

The Americans cross out and deny everything that is at the heart of the Russian approach.

- The exchange of prisoners between Russia and the United States is certainly a delicate topic. As far as we know, the parties are now conducting a dialogue on this issue through a special closed channel. How often do such contacts take place? Can we expect that the next exchange will take place before the presidential elections in the United States?

- It depends on Washington. They are well aware of what the Russian side sees as further steps.

The topic is extremely delicate. Previously, it was possible to close some high-profile cases, as they say, and then there was the current long pause. We are concerned about the situation with a number of our compatriots, who in some cases are serving simply mind-boggling sentences under far-fetched articles. And this story did not end with Viktor Bout and Konstantin Yaroshenko.

Who can appear where, in what schemes is a separate question. In general, I can say that, as far as I can tell, although the Foreign Ministry, as you know, is not a direct participant in these exchanges, which are taking place through a specialised channel, our proposals have not yet been accepted by the American side. They, in turn, arrange episodic public shows and are engaged in such an escalation of information noise around some fairly high-profile cases.

We still urge them to focus on a real search for solutions based on the proposals that were put forward from Moscow and about which they are well aware.

In November of this year, presidential elections will be held in the United States. Is Moscow following the election race? In particular, how realistic do media reports look for you that Michelle Obama may be nominated as the Democratic candidate instead of Joe Biden? Is the Russian side ready for the already standard accusations of interference by hackers from the Russian Federation in the US elections?

— Everything is possible. Literally every day at different venues, and there are many of them, various kinds of hearings and conferences are held in Washington, functionaries from the administration are invited to Congress, to both chambers, where they speak on various kinds of hot topics. And, as I understand it, the topic of Russian hacking, Russian encroachment on certain information resources or systems comes up quite often. We have seen this not only in the United States, but also in Western Europe recently.

In general, this anti-Russia group, which is inspired by the idea that Russia now needs to be inflicted with a strategic defeat, which will not happen under any circumstances, constantly exploits stories related to information and communication technologies and our role in this regard.

As for the idea that Russia will interfere in the election campaign in the United States, in my opinion, this is already a spent steam. And even those who are ready to speculate on this kind of stories inside the United States should understand that it is impossible to play this very melody indefinitely. The vinyl record is sawed down to such an extent that, except for crackling, nothing can be heard anymore. But there are those who like to listen to such a sound.

There was no Russian interference in the elections in the past, and there is no now. As a matter of principle, we do not interfere in election campaigns in any country, and the United States is no exception here. As for the prospects for the outcome of the elections, we, of course, are following what is happening. But by and large, it does not matter to us who will be the next US president, largely because there are no prospects for changing the overall situation for the better, given the fundamentally anti-Russian consensus of the American elites.

- Sergey Alekseevich, the festive events on the occasion of Victory Day have just taken place. In your opinion, is there at least a small percentage of probability that in the next 5-10 years on May 9, high-ranking representatives of the United States or even the leader of this country will be present among the guests at the Victory Parade?

God bless the veterans of World War II who are alive in the United States, so that they have the opportunity to come to our parade in the coming years in conditions where they will not be prosecuted for this. We will honour them together with other veterans from the anti-Hitler coalition.

And the US authorities and political elites have gone so far as to deny the truth about World War II. In their pursuit of more and more narratives in order to denigrate Russia, the Americans deny the key role of the Soviet Union in the victory over Nazi Germany. They are not able to change their approach, and therefore we will not invite them. If something changes in terms of the emergence of greater common sense in the approach of official Washington, then of course. But so far there are no signs of this. [Bolded italics my emphasis]

And relations won’t change until Washington changes, an outlook shared by the whole of Team Putin. The lack of performance by the UN in upholding its basic rules is very troubling. Now that China’s Global Security Initiative is going to get greater effort from Russia to implement, a change in the UN’s venue IMO needs to be included in that. Another thought is the formulation of a United Nations 2.0 that would include reforms to the Security Council and other bits of needed house cleaning. For example, if a nation refuses to abide completely with the UN Charter, then they lose their membership. One needs to ask these serious questions: What value do Outlaw Nations bring to the UN; why should any nation be allowed to destabilize the UN? A question I want to see asked of Russia’s top diplomats: When will Russia, China and their affiliates decide to enforce the UNSC resolutions on Palestine and to hell with what the Zionists and their Outlaw US Empire backers say about the matter?

*
*
*
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!