Умный наш посол в Нидерландах! Транскрипт интервью голландской газете "Траув"
Умный наш посол в Нидерландах! Вот транскрипт его интервью голландской газете "Траув" (левая). Правые и бульварные газеты сплошной бред несут. Но народ их высмеивает.
Full transcript of Russian Ambassador's interview to Trouw newspaper
When the scale of the tragedy was realized, it was a shock. There was feeling of compassion, feeling of grief and sorrow. Of course I knew that my President expressed our condolences to the Prime Minister, to the people of the Netherlands, but when talking to your officials I did the same. But it was more than this, because for me, I have to confess, it is a kind of déjà vu. In 2001 I was the Director of the Legal Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and then the catastrophe over the Black Sea occurred, when Ukraine shot down the Russian plane over the Black Sea with Russian and Israeli nationals on board. I was a part of the Russian Governmental Commission which was negotiating the settlement with Ukraine. I have been to Novosibirsk several times where the Russian relatives of the victims were living. The vast majority of people were living in this Siberian area and I met them. These were very difficult meetings, I mean, morally for me. Everybody was claiming to investigate, to find the guilty ones and punish them, to prosecute. I had to explain that it would be very difficult to investigate the case because of the circumstances of what happened and the prosecutors responsible, because these were, as we thought at that time, the official members of the armed forces (army) of Ukraine. I had to explain to people that in these situations usually state never admits that it was responsible for the shooting down. The usual way of the settlement is so called ex gratia payment, which was in fact accomplished. We reached an agreement with Ukraine, under which it paid appropriate money, not admitting its responsibility, but recognizing that it was a tragedy. You know the circumstances of this catastrophe: it was during the training exercises of the Ukrainian army, they established a no-fly zone in the area, but it was not wide enough and the plane was outside the zone and was hit by the missile used during the exercises.
So in a way this situation reminded me of what I already had in my professional life and all these meetings. I know how people feel. It is very tragic.
- You said that Ukraine in that case would be reluctant to let the members of the armed forces and government officials be punished…
Nobody was criminally prosecuted and the state of Ukraine never admitted its responsibility for the catastrophe. The crash was above the sea and only small part of the belongings or the remnants of the plane were discovered. I remember families would care about the toys or shoes, but it was all part of criminal procedures in Russia or in Ukraine and it was obtained, even these small things. People were angry, angry at us for being, as they thought, not tough enough with Ukraine. We tried to explain the limitations.
- At the moment many people in the Netherlands see Russia as at least indirectly responsible for what happened with MH17 plane, because contributing to an unstable situation in eastern Ukraine has ultimately led to these events. What would you like to say to them?
Personally I can understand the feeling, but objectively I cannot accept it. First, as we all know, despite all the loud statements made we were not presented but any piece of evidence not only of Russia’s involvement but also of the allegation that it was done by those militias in the eastern part of Ukraine. Of course, media plays a big role in creating this picture. For example, you see how first we are receiving kind of images, kind of stories about the evidence, about the proof of disrespectful behaviour. These initial articles are big, and they occupy front pages, TV screens. Couple of days later you have very often some small pieces of information testifying to the fact that not everything was like described initially. With evidence it is also kind of a déjà vu. We had these very loud statements made, for example, in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. Then we were left with nothing of evidence. Like, you have these pictures of a man, member of paramilitary group of the eastern Ukraine, standing with a teddy bear, a small toy. Couple days after you realize that there is a small piece of information, from which it’s clear that the shot was just taken out of context. If you see the whole video, you realize that the man was holding this teddy bear is to pay his respect…
Let me give you another example. All these accusations of these so called separatists or militias, however you call them, that they do not remove the bodies from the area and this is disgraceful and that they let the bodies to lay under the sun when the temperature is above 30 ˚C. Then there is a small piece of interview from the Dutch expert working in the field with the remains of the bodies, who is saying that, I do not remember exactly the words, he is satisfied with the job done with the scarce resources by these people to remove the bodies. Then Mr. Borodai, whatever your attitude in respect to him is, in his interview to BBC or CNN was saying that everybody was shouting at them not to touch the bodies and they were expecting experts to arrive and nobody was arriving. On the third day they said: ok, we do not touch the bodies as we were requested, but they are laying under the sun in this heat, dismembering, so we have to do it, and they did it. Or these stories with the remnants of the plane - like all they [militias] are cutting these big parts of the plane which are on the ground. But then they say: we were asked to remove the bodies, how could we remove the bodies from under the remaining parts of the plane? We had to cut it, at least for one part. Sometimes the information was about parts of the plane, big pieces of the plane, then it all came down to one big piece, for example, which was cut in two parts to enable the removal of the bodies…
I do understand the media which brings immediate information from the scene, which brings all the photos and all the images in parallel to the information about Russia’s involvement. Ok. It’s probably unavoidable. But the information to the contrary is being given in very small pieces, let’s say somewhere at the 7th page, and nobody cares because the impression is already created.
- Can we just come back to the accusations against the separatists? I feel that the key issue is whether or not they shot down the plane. There are accusations made, this is the story line, this is what everyone believes here, you know. Probably separatists shot it down by accident and as evidence you have this Vkontakte post of Igor Strelkov…
Yeah, and then it was deleted and the reaction. I think that before blaming people - and it’s mostly a legal approach - you have to collect real evidence. You don’t come up with accusing everybody or targeting particular side in this exercise before you have enough evidence to do this. We now know that there are good grounds to believe that some of the telephone conversations, intercepted by the special services of Ukraine, were fake ones, that they were created artificially from several other telephone conversations. And the photo of this so called BUK missile device - there are grounds to believe that it was taken in a different place at a different time.
This is not the first time, as I said. We all had these stories before, when people came out with very loud accusations and we all know what the truth was.
- You mean Iraq?
For example. This time Mr. Kerry said that they had all the evidence, their secret services had all the evidence, their intelligence had all the evidence. And then, when the time came to provide evidence - what was provided?
Our Ministry of Defense came up with some questions, we believe they are legitimate and they have to be answered somehow, in this way or another. So far we have no reaction to these.
- These accusations, that someone like Kerry or others make, do you think there is a sort of interest in creating a certain image?
Well, I think that there are always reasons behind presenting this kind of information. I don’t want to accuse people, I won’t speculate about it, but obviously there is a tendency at least. This kind of images, they are trying to present, is a good pretext for accepting tougher approach against Russia, coming up with new sanctions. Not everybody is convinced with this, though for Dutch people, I am afraid, there is an image already, who is responsible, who is to blame.
That’s why from the very, very beginning once we found out about tragedy we immediately started to call for independent international investigation of the case. Your authorities know that we are very cooperative on this. We supported the resolution, although it is a bit different from the resolution which was adopted years ago in 1988, when the United States shot down the Iranian plane. At that time International Civil Aviation Organisation was given a leading role in the investigation, that’s what we wanted to have this time, but we accepted the Australian and others’ approach to the situation, when the investigation shall be conducted in coordination with the ICAO. This is written in the resolution, though we believe the role of the ICAO should be a crucial one like it was previously, because in our view this is the guarantee of unbiased investigation. We are ready to contribute to this investigation. Of course, we are not the state of the registry or the state of the nationality of victims, but we are providing what we have, what our Ministry of Defense has so far on the incident. I think we have already provided to our European partners, to Malaysia and to the ICAO more and more detailed information than was provided by those who started to accuse immediately Russia and eastern Ukrainian militia, blaming us for this tragedy. We provided definitely more, and not from the unknown sources, but directly from the Ministry of Defense of Russia, from the General Staff. We showed the maps, the images, we provided the information and we are ready to cooperate. So it depends on those conducting the investigation whether to include our experts, to welcome our contribution to this. We noticed, for example, that in initial reports of the Dutch authorities, which are in charge of the investigation, Russian experts were mentioned as those who already participated in the investigation. However in the letter sent to Dutch Parliament yesterday [dated 24 July] Russia is not mentioned. I do not know why, we will be trying to clarify it. Once again, we do cooperate and your Prime-Minister has his telephone conversations with my President almost every day, we do cooperate between two ministries of foreign affairs, our diplomats in New York cooperate, the day before yesterday our State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr. Karasin had his phone conversation with Mr. Timmermans, they discussed the issues as well. We are looking forward to see this new mission being sent from the Netherlands and other countries to Ukraine to protect the place where the plane crashed. This is being now actively discussed and good progress is being made on the modalities of this mission, as far as I understand. We are cooperating with the other states in the OSCE, of course, and, as you probably noticed, we accepted the decision to send the OSCE monitors to the check-points on the border between Russia and Ukraine, even before the ceasefire was reached. The initial condition was to reach the ceasefire first and then to send the monitors, but we proposed that observers from the OSCE should be sent even before the ceasefire to observe the border between Russia and Ukraine, because there are a lot of speculations. We say: ok, come and see yourself.
There are, of course, no ifs or conditional mode in history, but, for example, we do believe that if the ceasefire of 28 June was not interrupted and it was continued, as we were insisting, probably, I’m saying, probably there would have been a good chance to avoid this tragedy. Government in Kiev decided to go on with what they are calling the anti-terrorist operation. We do still believe that we need an immediate ceasefire, because lot of people are dying, civilians are dying as it happens, unfortunately, all the time in armed conflicts.
- To get back to what you said about the ceasefire, so you think that the government in Kiev bears partial responsibility for this crash as well?
I am not accusing anybody. Once again, our insistence is that, first of all, the investigation should take place, but there are questions, of course. One of the questions is why the airspace over the military conflict zone was not closed. I mentioned the catastrophe of 2001, then the problem was that the airspace was closed, but not wide enough. Here up to some altitude it was closed, but then it was still open for the air traffic. Why? If, for example, we accept the idea that the militia had this BUK device, captured from Ukrainian forces as they claimed it at some earlier stage, and the government of Ukraine knew that, why didn’t it close the air traffic there? But even without it - it was the area of a military conflict. These are just questions. We believe these are legitimate questions and we all already noticed that the Dutch authorities, in charge of the investigation, mentioned this issue among those to which answers should be found.
- So to summarize, you think that a lot of finger pointing is being done at Russia for sort of indirect responsibility, but one can also look at the indirect responsibility Kiev might have in this?
Once again I am not trying to blame anyone and to put this burden on someone’s shoulders, but what I am saying is that first you investigate.
- And the police mission, that is now being talked about, does Russia welcome this mission, is it a good idea?
It’s obvious that we are cooperating on this, because we are in favour of thorough investigation and then, or course, of the proper conditions to be created for this investigation. It is indispensable for the investigation to have access to the place where the plane crashed, so, as is obvious, we are doing our best to secure these conditions.
- Is it an option that Russia participates in this mission as well? For example, via observers?
I think modalities should be discussed further. At the same time it’s a matter of urgency. How it will be implemented, how the modalities of the mission are going to be formulated? I tend to think personally that there should be a strong blessing from the Security Council, for example, because it is not only about the consent of the Ukrainian government. If I was contemplating such a mission - I am not the part of the exercise, but if - I would say that if one proceeds from the idea that the place is being controlled not by the government, but by the other side of the conflict, then it is not enough to secure the government’s consent to send a mission there, if you care about the effective implementation of this mission. You also have to secure the proper attitude of the other side, for this probably an appropriate message from the Security Council is necessary, or you negotiate with the other side, for example, through facilitation by the OSCE. There are different ways.
I hear this argument that the government cannot negotiate with those people. Well, if you want to have a ceasefire first of all, you negotiate with those who are opposing you and not with somebody else. On a later stage, if you want to negotiate something further, if you want to have a true, inclusive dialogue for the peace settlement, then you, of course, consider with whom to negotiate further. But at this immediate stage if you need a ceasefire, you negotiate with those who are fighting you. We have this experience from other places in the world.
- The Netherlands has a sort of trauma, so to say, from 1995 in Srebrenica, whereto poorly armed peace-keepers were sent. The strong emotion was if we send troops somewhere we will always send them only if we can provide them with means to defend themselves. Do you think it would be good for this police mission to include, for example, considerable contribution from the armed forces?
I do not know what amount of risk is present with such a mission, which will be enforced by some armed people. We read an article today in Telegraaf that the unarmed police mission would be also assisted by armed commandos. We have no official comments on this so far. The officials are talking only about unarmed policepersons who will be there and, of course, the experts. To discuss something one must have first the official position on this and not just deliberations in media, with all due respect.
Proceeding from the basic position that we want to see efficient, transparent and resultful investigation to take place, I would also think that if proper environment is needed for this kind of investigation, one can consider all necessary elements. The mandate should be clear. We all know from history that if the mandate is not that clear or there are bad intentions about the interpretation of the mandate given, this could lead us to very dangerous consequences.
- You mean it has to be very clear that the mission is just to protect the site and for the investigation and when that is done they will withdraw...
And nobody, of course, can guarantee that even clear mandate wouldn’t be interpreted in a different way. I think that we have some unfortunate examples from not that ancient history.
- Libya?
You name it. Getting back to the beginning of our conversation, for me it is dramatic to see these events and the image of my country in the eyes of Dutch people. We were working all the years - I am here for the fifth year - to promote the bilateral relations, the true good image of my country. Despite disagreements we have and differences of opinions on this or that subject we had the excellent previous year. In spite of all the unfortunate stories that could be perceived by some people as spoiling it, overall it was a very productive year. It is clear also from the letter sent by Mr. Timmermans to the Parliament on the results of this bilateral year. It is a real pity to see what’s happening now, once again, before we have real conclusions on the investigation. I can, once again, understand the feeling, but I cannot accept that this is the right approach, the right attitude.
- What, do you think, is a path forward for bilateral relations? How to get out of this?
All we need is time. We need, of course, to investigate the situation. We need to get to the real causes of what happened, we need to present this true picture to Dutch people. Time cures. If people realize, and I hope they will, that the real picture differs from their initial perception, then I believe politicians will have to act accordingly. This, of course, will not happen tomorrow.
- So people will realize that the true picture is different from the version they hold now, and that the portion of blame that is assigned to Russia is unjust?
Yes, I think so, I think so. I never thought I would have once again to live professionally through the downing of airplanes. I thought one was enough.
- There is now a talk as well about a sort of new cold war, prolonged period of tension, that it is time maybe for you to raise up defense budgets. What do you think of this? Do you fear a sort of new period of tension?
Of course I do, and this is not something in the distance. We are feeling the consequences already and definitely cold winds are blowing. Future developments, I believe, are dependent on the outcome of the processes which we have now: investigation, settlement. If we manage to find out a way out of the crisis in and around Ukraine, then we would have a better prospect.
Not only Russia’s efforts are needed for this, definitely. We had undertaken several attempts to bring a peaceful solution to the crisis. Initially it was in February, when the agreement between Mr. Yanukovich and the opposition was signed and witnessed by the ministers of foreign affairs of the most active European states. It was not implemented. At that time we played our part and persuaded Mr. Yanukovich not to introduce the state of emergency, not to use force, but it was not implemented. We were told that it was overtaken by the events. We had to accept it. Then we reached the arrangements in Geneva, in Berlin. We still believe they are topical, and not completely overtaken by the events. For example, the observers of the OSCE which now will be sent to the check-points on the border - this is the implementation of a part of the Berlin arrangement. We were asked to exercise our influence over so called separatists, militias in east Ukraine, and we did our part. Our influence is definitely not unlimited, it has its limitations, and it’s obvious. But the government in Kiev should be also influenced by those who have leverage. Otherwise we cannot reach the ceasefire and everybody is accepting, except probably the government in Kiev, that the situation has no military solution, just yesterday it was confirmed by a representative of the United States. There is a general belief that there is no military solution to it, but at the same time the military operation continues.
I don’t know whether it is a proper moment to remind or to recall the fact that we hear nothing about the investigation of the tragedy in Odessa. Dozens of people were killed. Where is the transparent independent investigation of it? We even have no results of the investigation on the shooting in Maidan. The tragedy in Odessa was recent, it was a kind of slaughter. Of course, it is now overtaken by what happened, this disaster and catastrophe, I do understand, this time nationals of many countries are involved, the Netherlands, your country, is suffering. In Odessa in terms of nationality it was all about Ukrainians and presumably Russian nationals. I have no specific data and I am not trying to switch to another subject, but just to remind that this was also a tragedy.
- To get back to this idea of a period of tension, about three days ago President V.Putin spoke before the Russian Security Council and there are two things in his speech that struck me. In some way he described Russia as being under threat as well - NATO forces are now being boosted in the eastern part of NATO and the threat of these colour revolutions, i.e. support for groups that might try to overthrow government in Russia. Do you think Russia is under danger or threatened by?
How should we assess the situation when we are witnessing what’s going on in the eastern part of Europe, in Ukraine, in Arab states? We are witnessing the obvious involvement of third states in the situation in this or that state with the obvious results, whether it’s in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, or this time in Ukraine, our neighbouring state. How should we react when it’s all happening? We are now following all the developments with the new strategic approaches of the NATO, with the discussion on the defense budgets, with all the stories which we read in media - and, I am sure, my state has this information not only from media - on the NATO forces being moved closer to our borders. We still do not feel like there is any direct military threat to Russia, it would be too dangerous for those who would be thinking about this kind of approach. But the idea of so called colour revolutions is here. There is no doubt about it.
- A sort of protest movement in Russia that would be supported by external forces?
Yes, probably, but these days we can be rather sure of the attitude of Russian people to their Government, their President. There is an overwhelming support, and it is clear.
- So in your view, this is a potential threat that you would have to take into account?
I think it is normal for every state to take into account all the challenges. Sovereignty is not abolished at all. Sovereign state is responsible for the security and stability in the country, and security of its own people. It’s clear.
- What do you think with regard to the fact that in recent years Russia has significantly raised its defense budget?
If you compare our defense budget, for example, with that of the United States, you would have to admit that there is a huge gap. There was a period when we were not able to afford this kind of spendings, now we can afford it. We need to have our armed forces in a good shape, that’s why we are implementing the reform of the armed forces. Or course, we have to have armed forces, not just forces, I mean, modern equipment, not the old one at which people would be laughing. I presume nobody’s laughing anymore. It’s normal for every state. But we are not trying to overthrow governments in other countries. We believe that it’s up to people in each country to have the government of its liking, and we are not trying to impose the standards of our perception of what is proper to other states.
The talk took place on 25 July 2014.
ссылка
Full transcript of Russian Ambassador's interview to Trouw newspaper
When the scale of the tragedy was realized, it was a shock. There was feeling of compassion, feeling of grief and sorrow. Of course I knew that my President expressed our condolences to the Prime Minister, to the people of the Netherlands, but when talking to your officials I did the same. But it was more than this, because for me, I have to confess, it is a kind of déjà vu. In 2001 I was the Director of the Legal Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia and then the catastrophe over the Black Sea occurred, when Ukraine shot down the Russian plane over the Black Sea with Russian and Israeli nationals on board. I was a part of the Russian Governmental Commission which was negotiating the settlement with Ukraine. I have been to Novosibirsk several times where the Russian relatives of the victims were living. The vast majority of people were living in this Siberian area and I met them. These were very difficult meetings, I mean, morally for me. Everybody was claiming to investigate, to find the guilty ones and punish them, to prosecute. I had to explain that it would be very difficult to investigate the case because of the circumstances of what happened and the prosecutors responsible, because these were, as we thought at that time, the official members of the armed forces (army) of Ukraine. I had to explain to people that in these situations usually state never admits that it was responsible for the shooting down. The usual way of the settlement is so called ex gratia payment, which was in fact accomplished. We reached an agreement with Ukraine, under which it paid appropriate money, not admitting its responsibility, but recognizing that it was a tragedy. You know the circumstances of this catastrophe: it was during the training exercises of the Ukrainian army, they established a no-fly zone in the area, but it was not wide enough and the plane was outside the zone and was hit by the missile used during the exercises.
So in a way this situation reminded me of what I already had in my professional life and all these meetings. I know how people feel. It is very tragic.
- You said that Ukraine in that case would be reluctant to let the members of the armed forces and government officials be punished…
Nobody was criminally prosecuted and the state of Ukraine never admitted its responsibility for the catastrophe. The crash was above the sea and only small part of the belongings or the remnants of the plane were discovered. I remember families would care about the toys or shoes, but it was all part of criminal procedures in Russia or in Ukraine and it was obtained, even these small things. People were angry, angry at us for being, as they thought, not tough enough with Ukraine. We tried to explain the limitations.
- At the moment many people in the Netherlands see Russia as at least indirectly responsible for what happened with MH17 plane, because contributing to an unstable situation in eastern Ukraine has ultimately led to these events. What would you like to say to them?
Personally I can understand the feeling, but objectively I cannot accept it. First, as we all know, despite all the loud statements made we were not presented but any piece of evidence not only of Russia’s involvement but also of the allegation that it was done by those militias in the eastern part of Ukraine. Of course, media plays a big role in creating this picture. For example, you see how first we are receiving kind of images, kind of stories about the evidence, about the proof of disrespectful behaviour. These initial articles are big, and they occupy front pages, TV screens. Couple of days later you have very often some small pieces of information testifying to the fact that not everything was like described initially. With evidence it is also kind of a déjà vu. We had these very loud statements made, for example, in the case of Iraq, weapons of mass destruction. Then we were left with nothing of evidence. Like, you have these pictures of a man, member of paramilitary group of the eastern Ukraine, standing with a teddy bear, a small toy. Couple days after you realize that there is a small piece of information, from which it’s clear that the shot was just taken out of context. If you see the whole video, you realize that the man was holding this teddy bear is to pay his respect…
Let me give you another example. All these accusations of these so called separatists or militias, however you call them, that they do not remove the bodies from the area and this is disgraceful and that they let the bodies to lay under the sun when the temperature is above 30 ˚C. Then there is a small piece of interview from the Dutch expert working in the field with the remains of the bodies, who is saying that, I do not remember exactly the words, he is satisfied with the job done with the scarce resources by these people to remove the bodies. Then Mr. Borodai, whatever your attitude in respect to him is, in his interview to BBC or CNN was saying that everybody was shouting at them not to touch the bodies and they were expecting experts to arrive and nobody was arriving. On the third day they said: ok, we do not touch the bodies as we were requested, but they are laying under the sun in this heat, dismembering, so we have to do it, and they did it. Or these stories with the remnants of the plane - like all they [militias] are cutting these big parts of the plane which are on the ground. But then they say: we were asked to remove the bodies, how could we remove the bodies from under the remaining parts of the plane? We had to cut it, at least for one part. Sometimes the information was about parts of the plane, big pieces of the plane, then it all came down to one big piece, for example, which was cut in two parts to enable the removal of the bodies…
I do understand the media which brings immediate information from the scene, which brings all the photos and all the images in parallel to the information about Russia’s involvement. Ok. It’s probably unavoidable. But the information to the contrary is being given in very small pieces, let’s say somewhere at the 7th page, and nobody cares because the impression is already created.
- Can we just come back to the accusations against the separatists? I feel that the key issue is whether or not they shot down the plane. There are accusations made, this is the story line, this is what everyone believes here, you know. Probably separatists shot it down by accident and as evidence you have this Vkontakte post of Igor Strelkov…
Yeah, and then it was deleted and the reaction. I think that before blaming people - and it’s mostly a legal approach - you have to collect real evidence. You don’t come up with accusing everybody or targeting particular side in this exercise before you have enough evidence to do this. We now know that there are good grounds to believe that some of the telephone conversations, intercepted by the special services of Ukraine, were fake ones, that they were created artificially from several other telephone conversations. And the photo of this so called BUK missile device - there are grounds to believe that it was taken in a different place at a different time.
This is not the first time, as I said. We all had these stories before, when people came out with very loud accusations and we all know what the truth was.
- You mean Iraq?
For example. This time Mr. Kerry said that they had all the evidence, their secret services had all the evidence, their intelligence had all the evidence. And then, when the time came to provide evidence - what was provided?
Our Ministry of Defense came up with some questions, we believe they are legitimate and they have to be answered somehow, in this way or another. So far we have no reaction to these.
- These accusations, that someone like Kerry or others make, do you think there is a sort of interest in creating a certain image?
Well, I think that there are always reasons behind presenting this kind of information. I don’t want to accuse people, I won’t speculate about it, but obviously there is a tendency at least. This kind of images, they are trying to present, is a good pretext for accepting tougher approach against Russia, coming up with new sanctions. Not everybody is convinced with this, though for Dutch people, I am afraid, there is an image already, who is responsible, who is to blame.
That’s why from the very, very beginning once we found out about tragedy we immediately started to call for independent international investigation of the case. Your authorities know that we are very cooperative on this. We supported the resolution, although it is a bit different from the resolution which was adopted years ago in 1988, when the United States shot down the Iranian plane. At that time International Civil Aviation Organisation was given a leading role in the investigation, that’s what we wanted to have this time, but we accepted the Australian and others’ approach to the situation, when the investigation shall be conducted in coordination with the ICAO. This is written in the resolution, though we believe the role of the ICAO should be a crucial one like it was previously, because in our view this is the guarantee of unbiased investigation. We are ready to contribute to this investigation. Of course, we are not the state of the registry or the state of the nationality of victims, but we are providing what we have, what our Ministry of Defense has so far on the incident. I think we have already provided to our European partners, to Malaysia and to the ICAO more and more detailed information than was provided by those who started to accuse immediately Russia and eastern Ukrainian militia, blaming us for this tragedy. We provided definitely more, and not from the unknown sources, but directly from the Ministry of Defense of Russia, from the General Staff. We showed the maps, the images, we provided the information and we are ready to cooperate. So it depends on those conducting the investigation whether to include our experts, to welcome our contribution to this. We noticed, for example, that in initial reports of the Dutch authorities, which are in charge of the investigation, Russian experts were mentioned as those who already participated in the investigation. However in the letter sent to Dutch Parliament yesterday [dated 24 July] Russia is not mentioned. I do not know why, we will be trying to clarify it. Once again, we do cooperate and your Prime-Minister has his telephone conversations with my President almost every day, we do cooperate between two ministries of foreign affairs, our diplomats in New York cooperate, the day before yesterday our State Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Mr. Karasin had his phone conversation with Mr. Timmermans, they discussed the issues as well. We are looking forward to see this new mission being sent from the Netherlands and other countries to Ukraine to protect the place where the plane crashed. This is being now actively discussed and good progress is being made on the modalities of this mission, as far as I understand. We are cooperating with the other states in the OSCE, of course, and, as you probably noticed, we accepted the decision to send the OSCE monitors to the check-points on the border between Russia and Ukraine, even before the ceasefire was reached. The initial condition was to reach the ceasefire first and then to send the monitors, but we proposed that observers from the OSCE should be sent even before the ceasefire to observe the border between Russia and Ukraine, because there are a lot of speculations. We say: ok, come and see yourself.
There are, of course, no ifs or conditional mode in history, but, for example, we do believe that if the ceasefire of 28 June was not interrupted and it was continued, as we were insisting, probably, I’m saying, probably there would have been a good chance to avoid this tragedy. Government in Kiev decided to go on with what they are calling the anti-terrorist operation. We do still believe that we need an immediate ceasefire, because lot of people are dying, civilians are dying as it happens, unfortunately, all the time in armed conflicts.
- To get back to what you said about the ceasefire, so you think that the government in Kiev bears partial responsibility for this crash as well?
I am not accusing anybody. Once again, our insistence is that, first of all, the investigation should take place, but there are questions, of course. One of the questions is why the airspace over the military conflict zone was not closed. I mentioned the catastrophe of 2001, then the problem was that the airspace was closed, but not wide enough. Here up to some altitude it was closed, but then it was still open for the air traffic. Why? If, for example, we accept the idea that the militia had this BUK device, captured from Ukrainian forces as they claimed it at some earlier stage, and the government of Ukraine knew that, why didn’t it close the air traffic there? But even without it - it was the area of a military conflict. These are just questions. We believe these are legitimate questions and we all already noticed that the Dutch authorities, in charge of the investigation, mentioned this issue among those to which answers should be found.
- So to summarize, you think that a lot of finger pointing is being done at Russia for sort of indirect responsibility, but one can also look at the indirect responsibility Kiev might have in this?
Once again I am not trying to blame anyone and to put this burden on someone’s shoulders, but what I am saying is that first you investigate.
- And the police mission, that is now being talked about, does Russia welcome this mission, is it a good idea?
It’s obvious that we are cooperating on this, because we are in favour of thorough investigation and then, or course, of the proper conditions to be created for this investigation. It is indispensable for the investigation to have access to the place where the plane crashed, so, as is obvious, we are doing our best to secure these conditions.
- Is it an option that Russia participates in this mission as well? For example, via observers?
I think modalities should be discussed further. At the same time it’s a matter of urgency. How it will be implemented, how the modalities of the mission are going to be formulated? I tend to think personally that there should be a strong blessing from the Security Council, for example, because it is not only about the consent of the Ukrainian government. If I was contemplating such a mission - I am not the part of the exercise, but if - I would say that if one proceeds from the idea that the place is being controlled not by the government, but by the other side of the conflict, then it is not enough to secure the government’s consent to send a mission there, if you care about the effective implementation of this mission. You also have to secure the proper attitude of the other side, for this probably an appropriate message from the Security Council is necessary, or you negotiate with the other side, for example, through facilitation by the OSCE. There are different ways.
I hear this argument that the government cannot negotiate with those people. Well, if you want to have a ceasefire first of all, you negotiate with those who are opposing you and not with somebody else. On a later stage, if you want to negotiate something further, if you want to have a true, inclusive dialogue for the peace settlement, then you, of course, consider with whom to negotiate further. But at this immediate stage if you need a ceasefire, you negotiate with those who are fighting you. We have this experience from other places in the world.
- The Netherlands has a sort of trauma, so to say, from 1995 in Srebrenica, whereto poorly armed peace-keepers were sent. The strong emotion was if we send troops somewhere we will always send them only if we can provide them with means to defend themselves. Do you think it would be good for this police mission to include, for example, considerable contribution from the armed forces?
I do not know what amount of risk is present with such a mission, which will be enforced by some armed people. We read an article today in Telegraaf that the unarmed police mission would be also assisted by armed commandos. We have no official comments on this so far. The officials are talking only about unarmed policepersons who will be there and, of course, the experts. To discuss something one must have first the official position on this and not just deliberations in media, with all due respect.
Proceeding from the basic position that we want to see efficient, transparent and resultful investigation to take place, I would also think that if proper environment is needed for this kind of investigation, one can consider all necessary elements. The mandate should be clear. We all know from history that if the mandate is not that clear or there are bad intentions about the interpretation of the mandate given, this could lead us to very dangerous consequences.
- You mean it has to be very clear that the mission is just to protect the site and for the investigation and when that is done they will withdraw...
And nobody, of course, can guarantee that even clear mandate wouldn’t be interpreted in a different way. I think that we have some unfortunate examples from not that ancient history.
- Libya?
You name it. Getting back to the beginning of our conversation, for me it is dramatic to see these events and the image of my country in the eyes of Dutch people. We were working all the years - I am here for the fifth year - to promote the bilateral relations, the true good image of my country. Despite disagreements we have and differences of opinions on this or that subject we had the excellent previous year. In spite of all the unfortunate stories that could be perceived by some people as spoiling it, overall it was a very productive year. It is clear also from the letter sent by Mr. Timmermans to the Parliament on the results of this bilateral year. It is a real pity to see what’s happening now, once again, before we have real conclusions on the investigation. I can, once again, understand the feeling, but I cannot accept that this is the right approach, the right attitude.
- What, do you think, is a path forward for bilateral relations? How to get out of this?
All we need is time. We need, of course, to investigate the situation. We need to get to the real causes of what happened, we need to present this true picture to Dutch people. Time cures. If people realize, and I hope they will, that the real picture differs from their initial perception, then I believe politicians will have to act accordingly. This, of course, will not happen tomorrow.
- So people will realize that the true picture is different from the version they hold now, and that the portion of blame that is assigned to Russia is unjust?
Yes, I think so, I think so. I never thought I would have once again to live professionally through the downing of airplanes. I thought one was enough.
- There is now a talk as well about a sort of new cold war, prolonged period of tension, that it is time maybe for you to raise up defense budgets. What do you think of this? Do you fear a sort of new period of tension?
Of course I do, and this is not something in the distance. We are feeling the consequences already and definitely cold winds are blowing. Future developments, I believe, are dependent on the outcome of the processes which we have now: investigation, settlement. If we manage to find out a way out of the crisis in and around Ukraine, then we would have a better prospect.
Not only Russia’s efforts are needed for this, definitely. We had undertaken several attempts to bring a peaceful solution to the crisis. Initially it was in February, when the agreement between Mr. Yanukovich and the opposition was signed and witnessed by the ministers of foreign affairs of the most active European states. It was not implemented. At that time we played our part and persuaded Mr. Yanukovich not to introduce the state of emergency, not to use force, but it was not implemented. We were told that it was overtaken by the events. We had to accept it. Then we reached the arrangements in Geneva, in Berlin. We still believe they are topical, and not completely overtaken by the events. For example, the observers of the OSCE which now will be sent to the check-points on the border - this is the implementation of a part of the Berlin arrangement. We were asked to exercise our influence over so called separatists, militias in east Ukraine, and we did our part. Our influence is definitely not unlimited, it has its limitations, and it’s obvious. But the government in Kiev should be also influenced by those who have leverage. Otherwise we cannot reach the ceasefire and everybody is accepting, except probably the government in Kiev, that the situation has no military solution, just yesterday it was confirmed by a representative of the United States. There is a general belief that there is no military solution to it, but at the same time the military operation continues.
I don’t know whether it is a proper moment to remind or to recall the fact that we hear nothing about the investigation of the tragedy in Odessa. Dozens of people were killed. Where is the transparent independent investigation of it? We even have no results of the investigation on the shooting in Maidan. The tragedy in Odessa was recent, it was a kind of slaughter. Of course, it is now overtaken by what happened, this disaster and catastrophe, I do understand, this time nationals of many countries are involved, the Netherlands, your country, is suffering. In Odessa in terms of nationality it was all about Ukrainians and presumably Russian nationals. I have no specific data and I am not trying to switch to another subject, but just to remind that this was also a tragedy.
- To get back to this idea of a period of tension, about three days ago President V.Putin spoke before the Russian Security Council and there are two things in his speech that struck me. In some way he described Russia as being under threat as well - NATO forces are now being boosted in the eastern part of NATO and the threat of these colour revolutions, i.e. support for groups that might try to overthrow government in Russia. Do you think Russia is under danger or threatened by?
How should we assess the situation when we are witnessing what’s going on in the eastern part of Europe, in Ukraine, in Arab states? We are witnessing the obvious involvement of third states in the situation in this or that state with the obvious results, whether it’s in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, or this time in Ukraine, our neighbouring state. How should we react when it’s all happening? We are now following all the developments with the new strategic approaches of the NATO, with the discussion on the defense budgets, with all the stories which we read in media - and, I am sure, my state has this information not only from media - on the NATO forces being moved closer to our borders. We still do not feel like there is any direct military threat to Russia, it would be too dangerous for those who would be thinking about this kind of approach. But the idea of so called colour revolutions is here. There is no doubt about it.
- A sort of protest movement in Russia that would be supported by external forces?
Yes, probably, but these days we can be rather sure of the attitude of Russian people to their Government, their President. There is an overwhelming support, and it is clear.
- So in your view, this is a potential threat that you would have to take into account?
I think it is normal for every state to take into account all the challenges. Sovereignty is not abolished at all. Sovereign state is responsible for the security and stability in the country, and security of its own people. It’s clear.
- What do you think with regard to the fact that in recent years Russia has significantly raised its defense budget?
If you compare our defense budget, for example, with that of the United States, you would have to admit that there is a huge gap. There was a period when we were not able to afford this kind of spendings, now we can afford it. We need to have our armed forces in a good shape, that’s why we are implementing the reform of the armed forces. Or course, we have to have armed forces, not just forces, I mean, modern equipment, not the old one at which people would be laughing. I presume nobody’s laughing anymore. It’s normal for every state. But we are not trying to overthrow governments in other countries. We believe that it’s up to people in each country to have the government of its liking, and we are not trying to impose the standards of our perception of what is proper to other states.
The talk took place on 25 July 2014.
ссылка