In an exclusive interview with TASS, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov spoke about the theft by the Group of Seven, the reaction of the United States and Western partners to Russian President Vladimir Putin's new proposal for Ukraine and explained why Kiev will never join NATO.
— Sergey Alekseevich, earlier the G7 leaders reached an agreement on allocating $50 billion to Ukraine from profits from frozen Russian assets until the end of 2024. However, later, John Kirby, coordinator for strategic communications at the White House National Security Council, said that the profit transfer mechanism was still being worked out. How would you rate such a decision? How long can it take?
— This is a scandalous topic from all points of view. First of all, the cynicism with which these people discuss an obvious case of theft is striking. This is stolen property that they want to dispose of.
The purchase of stolen goods is punishable worldwide under very strict articles. Meanwhile, these quasi-high-minded figures demonstrate a complete unwillingness to call a spade a spade. On the contrary, they are trying to put a certain legal basis under their theft. Orwell is just resting, he wouldn't have thought of that, actually.
Feeling how problematic all this is, they are probably still trying to make at least some kind of mine with a bad game. And this leads to a certain delay in the final announcements about the withdrawal of profits, or whatever else they have planned, from frozen Russian assets.
There is a group of more aggressive-minded figures who, discarding the last decency, talk about a certain moral imperative to withdraw these funds. That is, we postpone the legal side altogether, pushing it into the back drawer, realizing, apparently, that we cannot find any arguments and no most sophisticated legal acrobatics in Anglo-Saxon performance will help. They just say: that's what we decided, and we have the moral right to do so.
It's just an indicator of the morality that dominates their society. The civilizational decline is what is most characteristic of this group. The Group of Seven demonstrates the maximum level of disregard for the norms of the dormitory on our planet and the maximum level of readiness to do everything in the name of preserving their quasi-monopoly on finance and the banking system, their attempts to dictate to those who do not suit them for some reason, their notorious rules, on the basis of which they want to continue to maintain a certain world order. This is not a world order, this is lawlessness.
— But in your opinion, will they bring this matter to an end?
— I think they will. It is more important for them to infringe on Russia. And in this blind hatred of our country, they completely negate everything that should be absolutely unshakable foundations in their own society. Private property, other people's property is always sacred and inviolable. Now it's all crossed out.
I am sure that the global majority draws the appropriate conclusions. If this continues, more and more people will simply be afraid to have any kind of relationship with this group.
— You said earlier that it was the deterioration of the asset situation that could become the red line for the Russian Federation to take some steps in diplomatic relations with the United States.
— Yes, but at the same time I said that we would never initiate a break in diplomatic relations. The rupture of diplomatic relations is one of the elements in the arsenal of our means of response. Depending on the degree of challenge they will continue to throw at us, we will decide how to respond to it. I'm not ruling out any options, but I'm not anticipating any options either. In any case, all this is the subject of a separate political decision, and this decision will be made at an appropriate very high level in Moscow.
— What will be our response to such a possible step?
— It may include retaliatory measures against some Western assets that we have. It may include asymmetry of another kind, and lowering the level of diplomatic relations is also in the arsenal of means. It can just be a set of steps, it can be one thing.
Once again, depending on the saturation of their actions with poison, we will calibrate our response measures.
— According to the new peace proposal of the President of Russia, of course, there was already plenty of reaction in the media space. Through two-way channels, you mentioned that our signals are being monitored. Did we have any diplomatic contact with the United States after Putin's proposals?
— With the USA? No. The entire dialogue that we are conducting with the United States today concerns specific issues of the functioning of diplomatic missions, some humanitarian cases, and visa issues. And occasional exchanges on multilateral platforms, specialized, I would say, narrow-profile, also sometimes take place. But there is no other dialogue, including on issues that were reflected in the speech of the President of the Russian Federation on June 14, with the Americans.
— Have Western countries responded to our proposals via diplomatic channels?
— I have not heard of any reaction other than the one that was voiced publicly.
— Sergey Alekseevich, the ASEAN Council of Ministers will be here soon. Are we able to have any contacts with the Americans there, or are we not even considering face-to-face contacts with them yet?
— We are not considering or working through: there is no subject, and we will not initiate them.
— As for the exchange of prisoners, you said that even through the channels through which contacts with the United States are going on, you somehow stopped responding to our proposals. Has our conversation resumed now, even though these channels are closed, or is this silence continuing again?
— I am not authorized to go into details, but let's put it this way: according to the laws of the genre of diplomatic communication, there is such a thing as "the ball is on someone's side." In this situation, the ball is on the side of the United States, we are waiting for them to respond to the ideas that were presented to them. They are well known to the relevant parts of the US administration. I understand that there is probably something about these ideas that Americans are not satisfied with. That's their problem. We consider our approaches to be fully justified, sound, and balanced. We expect that this is how they will treat them.
— Earlier, Vladimir Putin did not rule out the supply of long-range weapons to other countries. Is this issue being discussed with our partners today, bearing in mind the statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the possible putting of the alliance's nuclear warheads on alert?
— As for the statement by the NATO Secretary General, I would like to clarify the context in which it was made. Some media outlets, in pursuit of reposts and circulations, to some extent place accents in their own way.
Of course, the escalating course of the alliance is obvious. Self-proclaimed as a nuclear alliance, this NATO inter-gang is starting to rattle weapons more and more. We should not react rhetorically, not respond literally to every signal from Brussels or from some other NATO capital, but systematically work on our agenda, including strengthening our own security, including doing so using military means, not excluding the nuclear component. All this is given priority attention.
We will continue to act in this way. After all, these gentlemen don't understand any other language, they only understand the language of power. Of course, both in Asia and Latin America there are our closest partners with whom the security situation is being worked out in detail, not only at the level of exchange of assessments. This will continue to happen, but we will do it with full respect for their sovereign choice and for the obligations that our partners bear under other international treaties, including those to which the Russian Federation is not a party.
This is nothing new. Topics of this kind (placement of long—range weapons - approx. TASS) is present in profile contacts with a number of our partners.
— Sergey Alekseevich, Stoltenberg also said that in order for Ukraine to join NATO, it first needs to defeat Russia.
— So it will never happen. I hope Mr. Stoltenberg understands this.
He knows better than I do how the notorious decision of 2008 was prepared, when NATO leaders recorded at the highest level that Ukraine would become a member of NATO. This was the trigger to a large extent of the entire crisis that we are witnessing today. If NATO members are ready to continue walking on these rakes and history does not teach them anything, then they will get hit on the forehead with the handle of these rakes. And the bruises will get worse.
— So, in your opinion, Ukraine will never join NATO?
— I think that's out of the question.
— Sergey Alekseevich, a conference on Ukraine was held in Switzerland last weekend. How could you comment on this event, in particular the participation of US representatives in it? So, US Vice President Kamala Harris stayed in Switzerland for only one day...
— This is what Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has been constantly talking about. A gathering in Switzerland is a family photo (family photo — approx. TASS). It was important to line up on the podium and take a picture. And it turned out poorly, because the composition was much more numerically limited, and the level did not meet the expectations of the organizers and the Americans behind them.
— Earlier, Switzerland announced its readiness to hold new meetings on Ukraine, including with the participation of Russia. Will we accept the invitation if it arrives?
— I can't anticipate anything in this regard. The President [of Russia Vladimir Putin] spoke very concretely and clearly about the settlement parameters that we are ready to accept and on which it is possible to restart negotiations that were interrupted in 2022. It's in front of them on paper, they can turn to this position at any moment.
The President has exhaustively said what needs to be done and how. And the roadmap is on the table, let them read into these proposals and understand their logic and react further. So far, this has not happened. So far, we have not heard anything but the denial of these proposals.
Naturally, in the context of this total negativism and anti—Russian frenzy, what kind of participation in some subsequent gatherings a la Burgenstock can we talk about?
— Sergey Alekseevich, if I may, a question about BRICS. Are there plans to admit new countries to the organization at the summit in October?
— In BRICS, such decisions are made by consensus. This does not happen with a wave of a magic wand and a click. This requires some diplomatic work. And it is very early to talk about who will become the next BRICS members.
In practical terms, we are focused on developing a category of partner States. This is not identical to the entry of new members.
— Does Russia plan to cancel visas or at least make the process of obtaining them as easy as possible for the member countries of the organization?
— We have to go towards this, but we have our own specifics with each of the BRICS countries. So, with Venezuela, if we talk about potential candidate countries for entry, there has been such a regime for a long time.
I assume that we have a regime close to this with the majority of BRICS members, but there is also a situation that does not quite coincide. There are reasons for this. The unification of migration policy and visa policy within the framework of BRICS as an idea probably has a right to exist, but this is a topic that requires deep and, I would say, long-term study.
