Kazakh journalistAkmaral Batalova specially for the Kazakhstan resource Tengrinews.kz took an exclusive interview with the Minister of Defense of the Russian FederationSergei Shoigu. Answering questions, Shoigu shared his opinion on the relations between Russia and Kazakhstan, the idea of creating a "Turan army" and the actions of the United States.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu (c) tengrinews.kz
- The first question is about what is happening now in relations between Russia and the United States. In its military and national strategies, Washington has for the first time designated specific countries as geopolitical or regional adversaries. The first group includes Russia and China, the second - Iran and North Korea. Here in connection with the arrival of the new president, it seems that some softening towards China is planned. It seems that the Biden administration is going to return to the Iran deal. What about Russia? How does this apply to Kazakhstan together with Russia? What can we expect?
- What the new administration says today, in principle, these priorities were set in different periods with different priorities. Geopolitically, in the view of the United States administration, international terrorism has always been in the first place before. Then Russia and China changed in order, and Iran periodically came out on top. You can also recall that in Syria, international terrorism was just at the very top. To do this, a coalition was created, a large international coalition led by the United States. To them was added the coalition that Saudi Arabia created. Here, of course, there was a certain surprise, when Russia engaged in the fight against terrorism, international terrorism, as they say, not in a childish way.
After everything that happened in Syria, we gradually migrated from those who established peace in Syria, from those who had the main influence on the situation in this country, defeated terrorism, starting an operation when 18 percent were under the control of Damascus, and today actually more than 90 percent, then, of course, we began to say that "Russia is behaving somehow wrong in Syria".
I would also like to remind you of the times when, in general, despite all the difficulties, we have a fairly prompt, operational, and very effective dialogue, work and cooperation. At the suggestion of our President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, when he proposed: "Well, why strike at the country?" Then it was due to the presence of chemical weapons in Syria. Why strike? When it is possible to agree, both the technologies, equipment, and these weapons, and their remnants, will be transferred and destroyed peacefully by those who possess the technologies of peaceful destruction.
There were big doubts then. Obama, I just witnessed it, said:
"It is unlikely that Assad will agree to this, but if he agrees, it could be done." Then such a large, I would even call it a beautiful operation was carried out to transport, collect and destroy chemical weapons by joint efforts.
This was a really important decision for this region, and for the world as a whole. Because it was hard to imagine that they did not give up their weapons, did not give up, but struck. And the blow is applied precisely to the places where it is stored. And the consequences for the entire region can be imagined. It was a big, good joint effort.
I will not hide the fact that today in Syria, on the operational and tactical level, we have very close contacts with our American colleagues. Maybe, if it's a secret for someone, I open it, this secret. We have contacts several times a day at the level of our civil managers in the airspace and conducting work in the air to combat terrorism.
What can change? You know, the first steps are encouraging. They are encouraging, because (there has been) such rapid progress on the extension of the Strategic Offensive arms Treaty. Of course, everyone sighed. Now it is clear that after all, they have moved from impossible demands and proposals to a completely normal and constructive dialogue. I hope that, probably, in the future, those steps can be taken first, in which not only the United States and Russia, but also other countries are interested. So, today it is said: "Yes, we need to cooperate with Russia, but only in those areas where it is profitable for us." This is the negotiating platform today, or something.
I hope that one day a full - fledged, and I emphasize this word - full-fledged, and equal dialogue, the work of the Russia-NATO Council, will be restored.
Indeed, it is necessary to negotiate, there is an extreme need and an extreme need for this. For our part, we made all the steps, all the statements; we waited. For medium-range and shorter-range missiles, the agreement was, in my opinion, quite acceptable. But, as it seems to us, and it seems not unreasonably, special reasons were found, and somewhere invented, to withdraw from this agreement.
Of course, we said, " Well, get out and get out, what can you do?" But we have committed ourselves not to deploy such weapons unless they are deployed in Europe. That is, we will not do it either. But if it is posted, we will naturally respond properly. As well as in the east of our country, of course, I mean the possible deployment on the territory of Japan and South Korea.
And we, unfortunately, have not yet received an answer to this question.
- So to speak, I conclude for myself that the political rhetoric may be different, but in fact, it is not the politicians who decide and make decisions, apparently, but the military.
- First of all, this is our supreme commander-in-Chief, who determines the main strategic line on such important issues as the treaty on strategic offensive weapons, on intermediate-range and shorter-range missiles, the treaty on open skies and many other issues.
- And the Afghan direction? How can you assess the current threats to Russia and the Central Asian republics? Is there any threat from this direction?
- What we see today is such a periodic "we leave-we stay, we stay-we leave". And this happens in different countries. They seem to be a coalition, each responsible for their own zone, but with the change of presidents, we "leave", then"stay".
I told my colleagues in the United States, and I told my colleagues in the United Kingdom, that you should leave when you are absolutely sure that peaceful life has improved there. And when the local population has something that they can earn, except for drugs. Therefore, it is necessary to give them such an opportunity so that they can produce something and sell it, in order to have a normal life.
But that's not what we're talking about right now. Naturally, there are complex processes going on, not easy.
What's bothering us? And not just us, the whole region.
Large groups of terrorists are moving to different countries, including Afghanistan. ISIL has already appeared there (DAESH is a banned organization in Kazakhstan), and we are seeing the arrival of those who, first, left Afghanistan for Syria, and plus those who have already come from Syria to another country are added to them.
And, of course, what is very, very serious about drug trafficking and drug production. We all live in this region, in this common territory of ours. Our neighbors and we cannot fail to understand that they are not only neighbors with us, they are neighbors with our closest friends, with our fraternal peoples, with those with whom we have lived together for centuries and, God willing, will continue to live together. Of course, this includes Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan.
- Russia's partnership with Turkey has recently been quite productive. But at the same time, some individual, let's say, politicians in Turkey have questions, and among some circles we have the idea of recreating the "Great Turan" and creating the "army of Turan" - a single army of the Turkic countries. How do you feel about this?
- The first thing I would like to say to these people, I do not know whether to call them politicians or by whom. Well, here you are dreaming about it, you are trying to make some steps towards it. For what and against whom? Exactly the same Turkic-speaking peoples live on the territory of Russia, we have quite a lot of them. Our country is multi-religious and multi-ethnic. And we've lived together for centuries.
If we talk about relations with Turkey, we are working very hard,very difficult, but very productive. Joint work. It is difficult because it is hindered, and it is hindered by the fact that Turkey is a member of NATO. Of course, this hinders, but in itself it is, I would say, even a unique experience, when one country is in NATO, another country is not a member of NATO. They find a common language, they conduct joint work and joint operations, they find compromises where it seems impossible. But we are finding solutions. For example, the Idlib de-escalation zone. In general, the creation of de-escalation zones in Syria, in our opinion, is a new page and a new mechanism for resolving such conflicts. Create de-escalation zones so that people start talking to each other, so that there really is a kind of separation. Here some are ready to live like this, and others are not ready to live like this, so these zones appear.
And we (with Turkey) are currently conducting joint patrols in the north-east of Syria. And together we are engaged in the fight against terrorists. We are working together, quite often in joint airspace. And we regulate and control many crossing points, we deal with refugees together.
This is not an easy, complex job. I will not talk about what they are trying to impose sanctions for, and in some parts they have already been imposed against Turkey by their own NATO partners. The latest work is, of course, Nagorno-Karabakh. This is such a very difficult operation. That's what I'd like to call it, and nothing else. Because it involved a huge number of arguments, elements, and motives. After all, you will agree, when two fraternal peoples, two close neighbors, those with whom we lived, are at war with each other, I will repeat once again, and we will continue to live in peace, harmony and friendship…
On the other hand, Turkey is involved in this, so we had to talk and engage with our Turkish colleagues. Our president, who, believe me, made a titanic effort to make all this happen. And everyone had to be persuaded. That is, there was no one who would say: "I agree, but convince them." No, I had to convince everyone, of course. We have also spoken with our Turkish colleagues at the level of our colleagues or defense ministers. But what has been done today is, first, that people have stopped killing each other. Secondly, I hope that now is the time for them to move on to bilateral contacts and talk to each other, start talking. I mean Armenia and Azerbaijan.
And here, of course, much depends on the relations that have developed in Russia with Turkey. New players also appear, old neighbors appear, but they appear with their own proposals. I mean Iran. This is the development of infrastructure, this is the railway, this is hydroelectric power, and transport links. Lots of questions.
- You are now talking about those who are really trying to solve the problem in a positive way. But if we talk about those who try in every possible way to divide our countries and try to put Russia in a negative light. We even have some who seriously believe that Russia wants to annex Kazakhstan to itself.
- You know, these are the kind of questions I listen to patiently from you, in any case, only because I know that you are a deeply educated, very intelligent and, I will not hide, very charming person, who knows history well, knows it well and understands it. But let's get down to earth from all these fantasies! I can speculate about Abylai the Great ( Abylai Khan) - a historical figure that I have studied, his path and his exploits, his merits.
You can talk a lot, but we have a long-established fraternal relationship. We have no reason to share anything, and no reason, absolutely. Because we did a full border demarcation back in ' 98.
Moreover, we signed a border agreement, which I think was signed in 2005. We have a great relationship, why get involved in all this?
And in general, everything that concerns intervention, especially when two friends begin to argue about something, there is someone third, whom they did not know and never took into account in their friendship.
In this case, I am talking about Ukraine and the United States. Those who sat down at the same table one fine evening, signed up under guarantees that everything will be within the framework of the constitution, that the president is outgoing, elections will be held within a year and that he will not go to these elections and everything will be fine. And there, after 4 hours, they were already looking for him in all the nooks and crannies. After that, they got on a plane and flew away, leaving everything there in that state. And after that, someone says that Russia is to blame for all this? Is Russia to blame for the fact that they arranged everything that happened there next?
And is Russia to blame for the fact that they started shooting at peaceful cities with multiple rocket launchers? That helicopter gunships and planes have started flying over peaceful cities and firing at them? Well, you guys sat down, you guaranteed, you signed up for this. Well, then, go on with it all, go on with it all!
Therefore, I have always treated everything taking into account the fact that on April 17 I will be 30 years old as a member of the Russian government, and it so happened that I had to deal with the conflicts of South Ossetia - Georgia, Abkhazia - Georgia, Transnistria - Moldova, the Uzbek-Tajik conflict. Well, and many other things, and the reception of refugees from many, many republics of the former Soviet Union, who came here in tens and hundreds of thousands from the same Karabakh, from Baku, from Armenia. I mean, it was such a difficult time, but even at that time, I was always sure that everything would be fine and that we would live together and in peace.