Alexey Polishchuk, Director of the second CIS Department of the department, spoke about Washington's "proxy war" against Moscow, the situation in Transnistria and difficulties in relations with MoldovaDirector of the second department of the CIS countries of the Russian Foreign Ministry Alexey Polishchuk told in an interview with TASS about whether a conversation with Kiev is possible, about the "indirect war" of the United States against Russia, and also explained what status the new regions have within the framework of the Union State.
The diplomat shared his assessments of the situation in Transnistria and the difficulties that have arisen in relations with Moldova.
— The special military operation, as the Russian side has repeatedly stated, will be continued until the final achievement of the stated goals. Is it possible to say that referendums will also be held in the newly liberated territories? For example, in certain localities of the Zaporozhye region?— We proceed from the fact that the residents of these territories have the right to determine their own future.
The right of peoples to self-determination is enshrined in the UN Charter and other international documents. By the way, one of them, the 1970 Declaration on the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation between States, states that peoples should not be forcibly deprived of this right. And if this happens, peoples can take measures against such violent actions and receive the support of the international community. That is why we supported the referendums in the DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, recognized their results and accepted them into Russia.
— President of Ukraine Vladimir Zelensky has repeatedly stated, and recently signed a decree on the impossibility of negotiating with the President of Russia. Moscow has already drawn attention to the fact that such a position of Kiev only complicates the situation. Is it possible that Russia will try to enter into a dialogue with Ukrainians through some third party, be it Turkey or another country? Or will Moscow act in such a way as to force Kiev to negotiate?— We have never refused to negotiate.
As you know, at the end of February Kiev itself asked them to start, we agreed. He was ready to fix permanent neutrality, nuclear-free and non-aligned status, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine in exchange for security guarantees. When the draft treaty began to take acceptable shape, Kiev interrupted the negotiation process — clearly at the behest of Western curators who do not need peace. Then statements began to sound from Kiev about not being ready for negotiations, and on September 30, Zelensky's decree appeared on the impossibility of holding them with the president of Russia. This is an absolutely unconstructive position, it lacks common sense and does not meet the interests of Ukraine itself. The more negotiations are postponed, the further their starting point shifts, and not in favor of Kiev.
As for mediation, we ourselves have been acting in this role for eight years, since 2014, facilitating negotiations between Kiev and Donbass on the implementation of the Minsk agreements. It is now clear that all these years Kiev has been stalling and preparing to resolve the conflict in Donbass by force.
Currently, many countries offer their mediation in the negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. There is no shortage of intermediary services, and we do not refuse them. However, those who are really serious about this should first of all convince Kiev to stop fighting, stop the war that it unleashed back in 2014, and return to negotiations. We are ready for this, but, as already mentioned, we will not discuss the choice of residents of new regions of Russia. The Kiev authorities should treat their will with respect, otherwise negotiations will not work.
— Moscow has repeatedly warned Washington that the United States is separated by a thin line from becoming a party to the conflict. Given the substantial military support that the Americans are providing to Kiev, there is a feeling that they have crossed this line. What will Moscow's reaction be? What other countries, in your opinion, are dangerously close to this "red line"?— Indeed, Washington continues to intensively pump the Kiev regime with heavy weapons, supplies it with intelligence data from numerous military and commercial satellites, helps recruit foreign mercenaries, gives guidance on conducting combat operations.
All this turns him into a participant in the conflict. Many even Western experts believe that the United States is waging an "indirect war" with Russia in Ukraine.
It's no secret that Washington is connecting its allies to this, forcing them to send weapons to Ukraine. France and Germany are going to increase military-technical assistance. The UK has put on stream the training of the Ukrainian military, attracts instructors from Poland, Canada, New Zealand, and other Western countries. The European Union is going to create a mission to provide military assistance to Ukraine. This will lead to an increase in the degree of his direct involvement in the conflict.
As for the so-called "red lines", we have already designated them. This is primarily the supply of long-range or more powerful means of destruction to Kiev. Specific response measures to the actions of the United States and its allies supplying weapons to the Ukrainian regime will be determined based on a thorough analysis of the current situation. Our country has enough tools to implement them.
— The Russian Foreign Ministry said earlier that they do not plan a mirror response to the introduction of visas for Russians by Ukraine. But what measures can still be taken? When will they be announced? Is there a possibility that entry to the territory of our country may also be restricted for Ukrainians?— As you know, in mid-June Kiev withdrew from the 1997 Russian-Ukrainian agreement on visa-free travel of citizens and from July 1 banned the entry of Russians to Ukraine without visas.
The Ukrainian authorities, going to denunciation, deliberately tried to cause maximum damage to contacts between citizens of our countries, to sever family and friendly ties.
According to the terms of the agreement, it continues to be valid until January 1, 2023. We observe it. The question of retaliatory measures is being worked out. They should not be mirrored. It is necessary, first of all, to be guided by the interests of Russia, our citizens, to take into account humanitarian considerations. Ordinary Ukrainians, including refugees who seek protection from Ukrainian nationalists, are already experiencing enormous difficulties. We also do not forget about family and other ties that unite our citizens. The decision must be made before the expiration of the agreement, taking into account all these circumstances.
— Earlier, President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko expressed support for Russia's actions in Ukraine. In this regard, the question arises: what are the prospects that Minsk will officially recognize Crimea as Russian? Is the possibility of the Belarusian leader's visit to the peninsula being worked out?— Crimea is an integral part not only of Russia, but also of the Union State of Russia and Belarus.
The 1999 treaty on its creation states that "the territory of the Union State consists of the State territories of the participating States," which in turn are determined by their constitutions. This means that the Republic of Crimea, Sevastopol, as well as the new regions of Donbass and Azov after joining Russia became part of the Union State.
Belarus is developing cooperation with Crimea and Sevastopol primarily in the trade, economic, cultural, humanitarian and tourism spheres. Belarusian goods are sold in Crimea, and citizens of Belarus rest on the peninsula on a par with Russians.
As for the prospects of the President of Belarus coming to Crimea, he is a welcome guest in any Russian region. The Belarusian leader himself will decide when it is more convenient for him to visit the peninsula. I am sure that the Crimeans will give him the warmest welcome and provide a rich business program.
— In June, the State Secretary of the Union State Dmitry Mezentsev stated that Russia and Belarus had reached the "finish line" of economic integration. When can this process be completed? What will follow? How else can cooperation between the two countries be strengthened against the background of sanctions pressure on Moscow and Minsk? How is the work with Belarus on the abolition of roaming going? Is it possible to count on its complete cancellation before the end of this year?— Progress in the implementation of the 28 Union Economic Integration Programs approved in November 2021 is obvious.
More than half of almost a thousand events have already been completed. Key decisions have been taken on the harmonization of customs legislation, the introduction of a unified system for the administration of indirect taxes. The economic conditions within the Union State are being leveled. There is a unification of regulatory regulation in key sectors of the economy. All this contributes to the growth of mutual trade.
The implementation of the Union Programs is designed for the period until the end of 2023. However, their positive effect is already noticeable. In January-July, the bilateral trade turnover reached a record $22 billion. By the end of the year, we can reach $45-50 billion. These are big numbers. We had so much with Ukraine until 2014.
The implementation of Union programs will have a positive impact on the financial stability and economic efficiency of enterprises and the welfare of citizens. Currently, the Governments of our countries are working on defining tasks for the next three—year stage - 2024-2026.
Thanks to the integration Russia and Belarus manage to minimize the impact of illegitimate Western sanctions. Joint efforts have ensured the financial stability of key sectors of the economy, industrial cooperation is deepening, and new import substitution projects are being launched.
A lot has also been done to cancel roaming. Tariffs for subscribers have been reduced to a comfortable level, and since April 1, the fee for incoming calls has been canceled. The result was a noticeable increase in the consumption of communication and Internet services by Russians when traveling to Belarus and Belarusians to Russia. Now the operators of our countries are working out issues designed to regulate the technical and economic aspects of the cancellation of roaming. We hope that this will happen in the near future.
— At a meeting with MGIMO students, Minister Sergey Lavrov said that any actions that would threaten the security of Russian peacekeepers in Transnistria would be regarded as an attack on Russia. After that, the Moldovan diplomatic department requested clarification from the Russian Embassy. Have explanations been provided to the Moldovan side?— The topic of the Transnistrian settlement, including its most important component, such as the peacekeeping operation on the Dniester, is always on the agenda of our dialogue with the Moldovan side.
Chisinau is well aware of Russia's position on this issue, which we have repeatedly brought up, including the "red lines" that are fundamental for us.
— How do we assess the situation around Transnistria as a whole today? Is Moscow currently recording certain attempts of provocations against Russian peacekeepers? What is the fate of the "5+2" format, given the actual suspension of its work? Has the diplomatic settlement of the Transnistrian crisis reached an impasse?— Unfortunately, the danger of escalation of the situation around Transnistria persists.
This is due to attempts by external forces, primarily Kiev, to shake up the situation in the region. In April-June, a series of terrorist acts were committed in Transnistria, the traces of which, as they say in Tiraspol, lead to Ukraine. At the same time, Kiev is promoting the thesis about the threat allegedly emanating from the Russian military, who are serving on the left bank of the Dniester. The goal is obvious — to try to provoke the Moldovan authorities to use force. It is gratifying that in Chisinau they understand the consequences of the "unfreezing" of the conflict on the Dniester and are not led to such provocations.
As for the "5+2" format, in our opinion, despite the pause in work, it remains the only multilateral mechanism within which it is possible to find a comprehensive solution to the Transnistrian issue. There is no alternative to it.
Speaking about the state and prospects of the Transnistrian settlement, it should be noted that in the current difficult situation, it is more important than ever to establish a productive dialogue between the banks of the Dniester. It's not just about cooperation in terms of solving practical issues in trade and economic, transport and logistics, medical and other areas that directly affect ordinary residents of the region. There is still something to work on here. As you know, Tiraspol has repeatedly appealed to Chisinau with calls to start substantive negotiations on the parameters of a comprehensive settlement on the Dniester. However, there has not been a clear reaction from the Moldovan side so far, and without counter constructive steps, it is unlikely to expect any progress in the Transnistrian settlement.
— In your opinion, what are the opportunities for straightening Russia's relations with Moldova? Or is it not necessary to wait for this under the current leadership in Chisinau? Are the country's authorities trying to negotiate lower gas prices with Russia?— We stand for a pragmatic, mutually beneficial and mutually respectful dialogue with Moldova.
We are convinced that this meets the interests of the peoples of our countries, who are bound by a common history and close cultural ties. At the same time, we do not believe that the European integration course of Chisinau is an obstacle to the continuation of our cooperation both at the bilateral level and within the framework of multilateral formats, primarily in the CIS.
Unfortunately, negative aspects have been accumulating in our relations lately. After the start of the special military operation, the Moldovan leadership aligned itself with the Kiev regime. Moldova applies EU anti-Russian sanctions in the banking sector and in relation to the re-export of Russian goods. The military development of the republic's territory by EU and NATO structures has intensified. We are extremely concerned about the ban imposed by Chisinau on Russian news and information-analytical programs, films about the Great Patriotic War, the St. George tape, the actual blocking of the work of our media, the situation of the Russian language in Moldova.
Despite this, Russian-Moldovan cooperation continues mainly through diplomatic channels. We discuss the existing problems directly, strive to build a constructive dialogue and hope to preserve the accumulated positive in our relations.
As for the supply of Russian gas to Moldova, all related issues lie exclusively in the commercial plane and are the responsibility of PJSC Gazprom. I will only note that the formula for calculating the gas price established by the contract between Gazprom PJSC and Moldovagaz JSC, extended for five years in October 2021, satisfied the Moldovan side a year ago. Despite this, this year Moldovagaz has repeatedly violated the terms of the contract for the payment period for supplies. Gazprom has always been sympathetic to the partners' requests for a postponement. We hope that Moldova will fulfill its obligations under the gas contract and refrain from politicizing cooperation with Gazprom.
Maria Ustimenko was talking
