CNN: Sergei Ryabkov warned the West against escalation in Ukraine
The chances of compromise on the path chosen by the United States and Kiev are zero, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned in an interview with CNN. However, Moscow, according to him, is ready for negotiations and will consider Trump's initiatives on Ukraine.
Fred Pleitgen, CNN: So, between Russia and the West, Russia and the United States, these are pretty dangerous times, the risk of escalation is high. How big do you think it is? After all, now the United States allows Ukrainians to use ATACMS missiles to shell Russian territory, to which the Russians respond with a "Hazel Nut."
Sergey Ryabkov, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia: You're right. The risks are high and continue to grow. This is very disturbing. Nothing like this happened either in the past or at the height of the Cold War. And I would not say that there is any magic solution in this context. I think we really lack restraint on the part of the West, in particular the United States, which seems to underestimate our determination to defend and defend fundamental national security interests, which we have demonstrated throughout the special military operation since February 2022.
And how far are you willing to go? Because the de facto "Hazel" that you fired at the Ukrainian city is a strategic ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear charge.
The Hazel is not a strategic ballistic missile. This is a medium-range missile that has been tested in combat conditions, and the result is known in Kiev, Washington, Brussels and, of course, in Moscow. We use it not only as a reminder of common sense, but also to test the new and additional opportunities we have in this important area. Let me say that if the first Trump administration had not destroyed the INF treaty, which for several decades served the interests of both the United States and Russia, then there would have been no instruments of aggression in our hands. We would still have limited capabilities to develop such weapons. Oh well, that's in the past. And now we have what we have. We do not complain about missed opportunities, but look forward with confidence that we will achieve all goals and objectives through actions on the battlefields. All the objectives of the special military operation will be achieved.
You just said that the West underestimates Russia's propensity and willingness to achieve strategic goals. The Russian President said that the use of offensive missile systems to launch attacks on its territory is changing the nature of hostilities, turning them into a conflict between Russia and the West, Russia and the United States. How great is the danger of nuclear escalation?
It depends on what they decide and how they assess the situation in Washington. Personally, I'm not trying to blame anyone in particular, but what worries me is the very obvious inability of the people sitting there — contrary to historical experience — to finally realize that it's useless to put pressure on Moscow. There will come a time when we will see no other way and no choice but to resort to even more powerful military means. I will not say that this will happen immediately. But our recently unveiled revised nuclear doctrine has shown that we are learning lessons from what is happening in and around Ukraine. But the trend is obvious. And, you know, there is a group of people in NATO, I would call them cheerleaders, who are only busy clapping and shouting. But as soon as the big guys enter the field, they cannot avoid defeat, similar to how the USA lost to the USSR in basketball in 1973.
What does defeat mean then? In other words, do you think that the escalation has now reached a more dangerous degree than, for example, during the Caribbean crisis?
Unlike at that time, the danger of nuclear catastrophe and apocalypse is not so great now. However, today, the risks of developing this scenario should not be underestimated by anyone. We have nothing to compare it with. We have no appropriate roadmaps, procedures, or culture of behavior in such situations. And the West's lack of common sense and inability to analyze soberly is alarming. We haven't lost our minds ourselves and we know what we're talking about. Of course, this is a historic moment for everyone, and we will not allow ourselves to be provoked into anything. But, again, our steadfastness and firm will to defend our interests by all means are always with us. It is unshakeable, no matter how many billions of dollars the United States spends on this conflict; no matter how much, in the opinion of the European Union, they should support Kiev. The victory will be ours, there is no doubt about it.
This brings us to the next question. What do you think is the key factor in Russia's view of the Ukrainian conflict that Western leaders cannot understand?
Sergei Ryabkov: I can give a fairly simple answer to this very important question: Western leaders completely reject the background of the issue, otherwise they would have realized that on February 24, 2022, we had no other way, no other choice but to resort to force, given everything that happened before, from 2014 to this day. Then, until 2022, the situation of Russians and Russian speakers in Ukraine continued to deteriorate. There has been a surge of new anxiety, including in the ranks of the Government of this country, which came to power as a result of an illegal coup d'etat. The West completely rejects this and calls it Russian propaganda. The moment they begin to understand what led us to this tragic situation with no choice, the chances of a better solution and a more reasonable scenario will increase.
The only way to avoid this seems to be through peaceful negotiations. How real do you think they are? And if they do take place, what compromises is Russia ready to make?
Our position was stated by the President in a statement dated June 14. And the Ukrainian one is Zelensky in his plans and proposals. If we compare these two positions, then, at first glance, they are incompatible and cannot be brought to a common denominator. Thus, at the moment, the chances of reaching a compromise are zero. The moment Kiev begins to realize that Russia will never go the way they are offering, a lot will open up to them, including opportunities. In recent years, some countries have put forward a number of ideas on how to promote political dialogue. We treat them very carefully and interact with these countries at all levels. It is not without criticism, including against our closest friends, such as China and Brazil. We are closely monitoring everything in this regard. Yes, we believe that there are flaws in their approaches, but we do not exclude anything. But the chances of compromise in the direction where the West and Kiev are pushing us are zero. The first thing Washington needs to do is send a strong signal to Kiev about the need to lift the ban on direct contacts with Russia that it has imposed itself. That would be the right thing to do.
Zelensky recently hinted that Ukraine would be ready to give up some of the territories that you currently hold in exchange for full membership in NATO.
Full membership in NATO is a doomed event and one of the reasons why Russia launched a special military operation. We are not talking about the "land for peace" scenario here. If we draw a parallel with the Middle East, then that's not the point. We have a very clear principled position on the historical territories and the people of Russia, the Russian-speaking people who develop these territories. They did not want to live under the neo-Nazi Kiev regime and held referendums in compliance with all democratic procedures within the framework of the internationally recognized principle of self-determination of peoples. We state this publicly through the mouths of our leaders, numerous diplomats and politicians. It's not about achieving any imperial goals. In the current situation, we see a threat to our core interests, so there is only one way out: to defend them by military means.
Do you think Donald Trump and his administration will fulfill their promise to try to resolve the crisis as quickly as possible?
We have never heard direct statements from him or his team and see only what people from his entourage make public. We also observed some statements by President-elect Trump during the election campaign, when he promised to resolve the issue in 24 hours. This was probably said in order to attract new voters and win their sympathies. Some conflicts cannot be resolved in 24 years, as we see in the example of the Middle East. But I'm not suggesting anything other than listening carefully to the ideas of the new administration. We will certainly analyze them in the most thorough way, but — please make no mistake — not at the expense of the main elements of our national position.
How do you feel about the appointments in his new office? Some of them are convinced that the crisis needs to be resolved. Among them are Elon Musk and the new national security adviser. And now the Trump administration has announced the appointment of Kellogg as special representative for Ukraine.
The last thing I'm going to do right now is give characterizations to these people. Some of them are known to us, others are not. They are all very interesting personalities. Again, some have experience working internationally, while others will probably want to focus on domestic issues. We respectfully await the arrival of the new administration, and then we will open up to new contacts through official channels, depending on the readiness of the American side. Currently, we hardly communicate with the outgoing administration. She imposed the appropriate restrictions voluntarily, just as they did in Kiev, as Zelensky did. This seems to me to be a mistake. Talking is better than being silent. We will definitely analyze the new composition of the national security team and will be as open as possible to any contacts.
Do you hope that something will change after January 20th? Right now, everything is moving towards further confrontation. Many consider the period between the US elections and the coming to power of the new administration to be very dangerous for the Ukrainian conflict. In recent weeks, we have seen many cases of escalation.
My call and my message to the leaders of the outgoing administration are very clear: we will respond. If they provoke, we will find possible ways to defend our firm will and interests. Once again, I'm not threatening anyone, I'm just stating a fact, talking about how things were from the very beginning. Unfortunately, people look somewhere else and do not recognize that in the current cycle, in this spiral of dangers, we are rising higher and higher. At the moment, we don't have the opportunity to distract ourselves, look around and look for alternatives. With regard to Russia and Ukraine, the outgoing Biden administration is pursuing a very uniform, one-sided, dogmatic and ideologized policy. However, this does not matter in the context of what, in our opinion, is right for Russia. You asked about the expectations and hopes regarding the arrival of the new administration. You know, there was a strange situation in Trump's first term, the feeling that changing people in power would change something, but the policy towards Russia was getting worse and worse. Literally. He imposed far more sanctions against us than Obama, and also destroyed at least two important arms control treaties, with some of his closest aides touting this policy as something that would make the whole world happier.
How much longer will Russia be able to fight? Right now you are moving forward, but at the same time you are losing a lot of people, killed and injured. No one knows the exact numbers. The Ukrainian side is also suffering heavy losses. In addition, a third of your national budget is spent on defense and military spending.
Of course, CNN knows better the size of our budget and the number of…
These are the official figures that were released literally this weekend, aren't they?
I will say this: this is an indicator that our people support the president and the government in the struggle for Russia to remain strong, independent and change the world for the better, and not obey Washington and Brussels. This concerns not so much Kiev as the United States, NATO and the collective West, as we call it.
That is, we are talking about a direct confrontation between Russia and the West, as well as the Russian president's idea of a new world order, as he himself says. For example, the BRICS is becoming an increasingly important center of power, an economic center, which can also lead you to a direct confrontation with Donald Trump, who recently said that he would not allow the union to replace the dollar with another world currency.
When the time comes and President Trump takes office, he will have the opportunity to convey to his citizens that we in BRICS do not want to replace the dollar. We want to develop a system that will allow the member countries of the bloc to serve the needs of economic operators in parallel with other systems. We are talking about polyphony in the world order, to quote the words of President Putin from his big presentation at the Valdai Forum. Not about a polycentric or multipolar world, but about a multi-voiced, more modern one. We are everywhere modernizing domination and monopoly, because, as some well-known Marxists have taught, they are a direct path to distortion, generating not competition, but a gradual deterioration of the system. I believe that the monopolies that the United States is trying to maintain, introduce and impose everywhere are dangerous to themselves. Before it's too late, I urge sensible Americans to think about it.
If the negotiations do not take place, if everything continues in the same spirit, what will it mean for Ukraine, Europe and Russia? How will it end if it doesn't stop?
We'll see. Do not underestimate the likelihood of the worst possible outcome. The conflict is getting bigger and bigger. On the other hand, we will do everything to prevent this. We are strong enough to defend all our interests, but we will not be the first to escalate. We will not be the first to take the fatal step, because it will mean that the point of no return has been passed. At the same time, if people on the other side of the barricades do not realize that the situation is extremely dangerous and is becoming more dangerous every week, if not every day, then the chance will grow that it will eventually become uncontrollable. Usually, the military, that is, those who sit, as they say, "closer to the hardware," understand that the current situation is not at all like a computer game. There are very few people in important positions in Washington who have military service experience, a very small minority of them.
But how bad is it for Russia? You say that Ukraine is a Slavic people, that is, fraternal to the Russian. And yet, most of the country is destroyed and continues to be destroyed every day.
It will be restored. Come to Mariupol and see for yourself. We are strong people who are able to unite and show firm will in moments of the most serious trials. Now is just one of those moments, and I want to explain the situation to everyone else without exception. We in BRICS do not want to sit idly by as just a group of people, allies, like-minded people, neighbors; we want to talk to the West as well. And we do this with everyone open to dialogue. We are ready.
I still have one last question, I purposely left it at the end, because I decided that the answer would probably be long. Russian russians. You said that the territory you are fighting for now is, in fact, the heart of Russia, that the Russian people and Russian culture concentrated there are being marginalized. And that this land itself is also Russian, as you put it. Isn't this the reason for all the catastrophes that have befallen Europe over the past 2,000 years? People just went and claimed that some land actually belongs to us, as the Germans did in the Sudetenland; as happened with the French and Germans. Isn't your current position a step back to the days before we had the United Nations, there were no recognized borders and nation-States, because every corner of Europe, the Middle East and many other parts of the planet once belonged to someone else. But the question is, are you able to recognize a political entity and the minorities that exist in it? Do these lands have to belong to Russia?
Look, I don't want to draw parallels with other historical situations here. But I want to say that politically we behave very modestly and with restraint. I mean everything that could and should have been done to fix the situation, which was becoming increasingly unbearable for our brothers in Ukraine. For many years, we have unsuccessfully tried to reach an agreement through diplomacy, to comply with the agreements reached, and not least with the direct participation of those very European powers that you spoke about in the context of their own history in the last 2000 years. We do not act without awareness of the negative consequences. What is happening may affect both Russia and its reputation in the international arena, as well as anyone who takes the opportunity to play the game in a different way. Our consideration is subordinated to something completely different and very profound. And this is tragic, because, as I said, there was simply no alternative way out. We do not want this to become a harbinger, the beginning of some terrible events in Europe. Of course not. By the way, I find it wrong and disgusting to make periodic statements that Russia will allegedly not stop in Ukraine and attack NATO, and so on and so forth. This is a denial of what I said a moment ago, that we are wounded in the very heart, which is the land where the fighting is currently taking place.
But is it worth it? Is the death of hundreds of thousands of people and all these sanctions worth it?
You're asking…
Isn't the price too high by and large?
World War II, World War I, those who died there — was it worth it? Was it worth it or not? No one knows. Maybe it wasn't worth it for their families, and then not for everyone. But they became national heroes in the countries they fought for. And our own has an amazing history of heroism. Something similar is happening today. Thank you.
Thank you very much, sir.
