Ryabov Interview Controversy: What Did He Mean?

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov was interviewed by Rossiya 1 TV channel on 4 August, its transcript has yet to appear at the MFA’s site, which has been the case for the last several of Ryabkov’s interviews and is very annoying. In this case, what he said was apparently misreported/misinterpreted by RT in an article that can no longer be found on its website. Here’s the only recent RT article involving Ryabkov published on 4 August, “US heeded Moscow’s de-escalatory message – Russian deputy FM.” It took 48 hours for the MFA to issue a correction to the article at its VK site, “Incorrect media interpretations of statements by Russian Foreign Ministry leadership,” that translated reads:

We have taken note of media reports about Kiev's attempt on President of Russia Vladimir Putin and Defence Minister Andrei Belousov during their visit to the Main Naval Parade in St Petersburg on July 28, 2024. These reports are the result of journalists' incorrect interpretation of Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov's interview with Rossiya-1 TV channel on August 4, 2024.

The interview mentions a telephone conversation between Russian Defence Minister Andrei Belousov and his US counterpart Lloyd Austin on July 12, 2024, during which the Pentagon conveyed Moscow's concern over the planned provocation against our country. At the same time, Sergey Ryabkov did not go into details related to the competence of other departments.

Answering the TV presenter's question, Sergey Ryabkov literally said the following:

"I can say that there are some signs that the signal that was sent from the Russian side to Washington – and as far as I understand, not only to Washington, but also to some other capitals controlled by Washington – has reached. We have avoided a new escalation spiral. But that particular episode is very disturbing. As is usual with them, it was planned in connection with our internal events in order to inflict maximum damage and get the maximum media effect they needed. That is, the signal of our military leadership and the Minister of Defense to our American counterpart, apparently, had an effect."

To the interviewer's direct question about whether the action at the Main Naval Parade was being prepared, Ryabkov did not answer in the affirmative, acknowledging only the presence of "a certain connection with this kind of events."

Once again, we call on media representatives to carefully check the published information in order to avoid distortions of the statements of the Russian Foreign Ministry leadership. If you have any questions, we strongly recommend that you contact the Ministry for additional clarification.

Why such an announcement was made on VK and not at its main site IMO is a good question as other events of far less importance have appeared there. The Russian news publication VZGLYAD picked up that message and linked to it in this short item:

The Foreign Ministry called the news about the assassination attempts at the Navy parade a misunderstanding of Ryabkov's words: The Foreign Ministry pointed to the incorrect interpretation of Ryabkov's words in the news about the alleged assassination attempts at the Navy parade in St. Petersburg:

The Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to the erroneous interpretation of the words of Deputy Minister Sergei Ryabkov in media reports that Ukraine was allegedly preparing an assassination attempt on Russian President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Andrei Belousov at the Main Naval Parade in St. Petersburg.

The Foreign Ministry said that the department "drew attention to the information that appeared in the media about the assassination attempt being prepared by Kiev" on Putin and Belousov "while they were" at the parade. As the ministry emphasized, these media reports were "the result of incorrect interpretation by journalists" of Ryabkov's interview.

The Foreign Ministry's message on the social network VKontakte indicates that Ryabkov in the interview did not touch on "details related to the competence of other departments." At the same time, Ryabkov "did not answer in the affirmative" to the direct question whether "the action was prepared at the Main Naval Parade," recognizing only the presence of "a certain connection with this kind of events," the Foreign Ministry stressed.

Recall that on the air of the TV channel "Russia 1", the deputy minister called the provocation prepared by Ukraine a "very alarming" episode, which was planned in connection "with our internal events in order to inflict maximum damage and get the maximum media effect they need."

As the newspaper VZGLYAD noted, to a direct question from Olga Skabeeva whether something was being prepared at the parade, Ryabkov answered diplomatically: "I do not want to go into details, but in principle there was a certain connection with this kind of events." And he called the situation itself, which was avoided, "madness."

Apparently, there’s some confusion with translation of the words for provocation and assassination, but it’s very clear that RT didn’t use that term in its English language article. Perhaps some other media besides RT got it wrong as neither the MFA or VZGLYAD named the media outlets. Only Andrei Martyanov accused RT as far as I know. Fortunately, we do have a transcript of the Ryabkov interview published by Global South which has a completely different focus and title, “The Time for Moscow’s Concessions is in the Past:”

The time for Moscow’s concessions is in the past: an interview with Sergey Ryabkov

On Friday, it was five years since the United States destroyed the foundation of global security by unilaterally ceasing to comply with the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. In July, the United States announced plans to deploy missiles in Germany. Putin warned America three times: the answer will be ironclad. So how many seconds until the apocalypse? Olga Skabeeva spoke about this with Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Ryabkov.

Q: Where are we now, if you look at the clock of the apocalypse?

Sergei Ryabkov [SR]: I would not like to say that “we are in free fall”, “we are flying into the abyss”, “we are on the verge of sliding into uncontrollable chaos”. Although this kind of epithet is increasingly coming to mind. I would say that the Doomsday clock now shows something like two minutes to two. This does not mean that their turn is irreversible and the clock will strike. Politicians and diplomats in the West and in the capitals under its control need to take a responsible approach to what is happening. And the military needs to keep the powder dry, because the scenarios can be very different.

Q: At the same time, you allowed the deployment of missiles with a nuclear warhead in response?

SR: If the supreme commander-in-chief, if our military says that special ammunition is needed on such and such carriers, then it will be so. But they must make this decision based on a combination of factors. I admit that there may come a time when this will be necessary. The third stage of the exercise to prepare for the use of non-strategic nuclear weapons has now begun. This is a powerful signal in itself.

On August 2, 2019, Washington withdrew from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, concluded between the USSR and the United States in 1987. In accordance with the Gorbachev-Reagan agreement, the USSR and the United States destroyed all intermediate-and shorter-range land-based ballistic and cruise missiles, while also committing themselves not to produce, test, or deploy such missiles in the future. By 1991, the USSR had destroyed 1,846 missile systems, the United States – 846. That is, the Soviet Union cut twice as many of its missiles.

Q: Vladimir Putin, comparing what is happening now with the same double decision in the 80s – what does he mean? At that time, Washington outplayed us and deceived Gorbachev. How tough are the current conditions for resolving the crisis?

SR: The time of Moscow’s unilateral concessions is irrevocably in the past. Never in the future – even in the best possible circumstances in our relations with NATO and the European Union, which is now difficult to imagine – but even in these situations, no unilateral concessions on our part will be granted to the West. No handouts, gifts, concessions, any gestures to appease Washington. If they try again to impose something on us that is unilaterally beneficial only to them, then there will be no agreements. Just like that.

Q: “Appease Washington?

SR: “Appease me? It’s impossible. First of all, this is not our style. It was once possible to negotiate with Washington on a sound and reasonable basis. Something has been happening recently, especially in certain humanitarian subjects, but this does not change the overall picture. And you can only negotiate “bash on bash”, sorry for such a term. Americans understand this conversation very well.

A really tough conversation took place recently between the military departments. Russian Defense Minister Andrey Belousov called the Pentagon for the first time. And he said something that made US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin squirm.

Quote from the New York Times:

“The Russians found out about the secret operation of Ukraine against Russia, which, in their opinion, was approved by the Americans. Pentagon officials were surprised by the accusation and were unaware of any such plot. But whatever Mr. Belousov revealed, officials said it was taken seriously enough that the Americans contacted the Ukrainians and said, ” If you’re thinking of doing something like this, don’t do it.”

Kiev’s operation, if it had happened, would have plunged Russia and the United States into an unmanageable conflict phase with one hundred percent guarantee.

Q: Are there any details of this conversation?

SR: I can say that according to some indications, the signal that was sent by the Russian side to Washington – and I understand that not only to Washington, but also to some other capitals controlled by Washington-has reached. We have avoided a new escalation round. But that particular episode is very disturbing. As is customary with them, it was planned in relation to our internal events in order to cause maximum damage and get the maximum media effect they needed. Here is that particular episode, which is called “we have passed, thank God,” that is, the signal of our military leadership and the Minister of Defense to our American colleague, apparently, had an effect.

Q: Did they prepare something for the parade in Russia?

SR: I don’t want to go into details, but in principle there was a certain connection with such events.

The details of the audacious action at this moment are a state secret.

At the parade in St. Petersburg after the thwarted provocation, Vladimir Putin makes a statement that is discussed by the whole world.

Q: What does this mean in practice?

SR: In practice, this means that the unilateral moratorium announced by President Putin shortly after the INF Treaty finally went down in history will cease to apply. And we will be able to mirror, or maybe not necessarily mirror, the situation in an acceptable framework for us. We will ensure our security, and our opponent, the collective West, will not have any unilateral advantages. We won’t let him get these benefits.

Q: Do we not feel like we are catching up in this situation, when we always only respond, but never act preemptively?

SR: I am still in favor of avoiding escalation on my own initiative, but scenarios in which an escalation step is possible in fact are undoubtedly being considered. This is all too serious to talk about this kind of topic in the abstract. Secondly, it should not be limited to signals, it should be actions, otherwise we devalue the effect that we need to get from such steps.

Q: Does it make sense to talk to Germany in this regard, or is Berlin’s position secondary here?

SR: We don’t stand with our hands outstretched. We have enough opportunities to deliver certain signals, including to the German government. We won’t ask anyone for anything. They think that they should not talk to us at this level, so we take it for granted. When they reconsider their approach, when they realize how wrong this line is, then let them tell us about it, we will see if it is worth talking to them. This is not why we started the SVO, so that we can now fulfill the ultimatums of this group.

The other day, German Foreign Minister Baerbock recalled her sporting past by performing a trampoline flip.

Q: Don’t you think that there is some kind of absurdity and madness going on?

SR: You can jump on a trampoline, or over a fire, or whatever you want. But this should be done in your spare time, and at the same time work should be conducted solidly and professionally. That’s what our opponents have big problems with. There is no professionalism anywhere. There is simply an attempt to serve the geopolitical tasks formulated in several cabinets, and then impose all this on the rest of the world.

Q: F-16s made their first sorties in Ukraine. Strikes on Russia are also allowed. Our actions?

SR: They do not have the means to change the situation on the battlefield in their favor. F-16, like everything that we saw on Poklonnaya Gora, and now in Patriot Park, their wreckage and burnt fuselages will also be displayed there. The problem is escalation. The problem is that there are no limiters left. You correctly said that strikes on the territory of Russia are allowed. American assurances that no such decisions were made and no indulgences were granted to Kiev are worthless.

Q: If they fly from NATO airfields, will we strike?

SR: Any means and any forces used against us in connection with or in the course of the SVO are legitimate goals for us. And let those who listen only to themselves listen, sitting in Washington, in Brussels, in Warsaw – anywhere.

Q: I will ask more specifically: if they fly from Romania, from Poland, from Moldova, will we strike?

SR: I don’t mention any goals; their list is not a question that we should discuss when we are on TV. But here, too, the scenarios are different, and it’s not for me to exclude any of them. [My Emphasis]

I’ve always found Ryabkov more cryptic in his speech than Lavrov, and this case is an excellent example. And now to cap this excursion into the speculative, here’s what Pepe Escobar wrote today at his Telegram:

IMAGINE THE TRANSCRIPT OF THIS MESSAGE


The confirmation came from Deputy FM Ryabkov, on Rossiya TV, and it’s a howler. Ryabkov, mega-competent, is also the Russian sherpa for BRICS+.

Ryabkov was very cautious. When asked directly whether "an action was being prepared at the Main Naval Parade" against Putin, Ryabkov "did not answer in the affirmative, only acknowledging the presence of "a certain connection with this kind of event" - according to the Russian Foreign Ministry.

Ryabkov called a provocation being prepared by Ukraine a "very alarming" episode, which was planned in connection "with our internal events in order to inflict maximum damage and obtain the maximum media effect they need."

So this is how it really happened.

Russian intel discovered that Kiev intel was setting up the joint assassination of Putin and Defense Minister Belousov during the Navy Day parade in St. Petersburg.

Normally we would have Bortnikov (FSB) or Patrushev (special adviser to Putin) pickin' up the phone and calling the CIA’s Burns to ask for an explanation.

In this case it was much more hardcore. Belousov himself called the Pentagon weapons peddler Austin and told him in no uncertain terms to tighten the leash on the Kiev goons - OR ELSE.

Now imagine the transcript of this blunt Russian message.

As Martyanov remarked, Belousov must have detailed how Kiev would simply cease to exist - and in due time, “so would D.C.” if the Americans decided to authorize the hit.

Ryabkov also referred explicitly to “some other countries”. Translation: Brits and Poles.

Moscow finally seems to be gettin' the picture: there’s no way to deal with terror entities, except to politely tell them in their faces they will be incinerated with no mercy.

Unfortunately, the most prominent “terror entity” is Zionist Occupied Palestine, and “incinerating” it would cause wide-spread collateral damage to the people Moscow would be trying to protect, which is the very big problem I mentioned earlier.

So, why is all this hullaballoo important? Although not officially announced, a very well-placed rumor is now very public within Russia that’s not going to help relations with the West or with Ukraine. But in Western media I’ll bet there’s zero mention of this affair, which IMO begs the question if leaking the retaliatory threat would be beneficial for the US public and/or for Trump? If Biden was willing to announce that Trump needed to be put into a bullseye, then wouldn’t he be even more ready to say that’s where Putin belongs since Outlaw US Empire policy is Russian regime change? And what sort of additional resolve will this add to Russian forces now that the Crocus Hall attack’s been linked to the UK? And what further response will there be to the attack on Kursk region? We can only watch to see what happens next.

*
*
*
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!