|
NATO
Threatens Russia, “We are Rolling into A New Cold
War”
Speech by
Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev at 2016
Munich Security Conference
By
Dmitri Medvedev
Dmitry Medvedev:
Ladies and gentlemen, distinguished colleague Mr
Valls, distinguished Mr Ischinger, my speech
will be of a more general nature, but I hope it
will be useful.
The first
cold war ended 25 years ago. This is not long in
terms of history, but it is a considerable
period for individual people and even for
generations. And it is certainly sufficient for
assessing our common victories and losses,
setting new goals and, of course, avoiding a
repetition of past mistakes.
The Munich
Security Conference has been known as a venue
for heated and frank discussion. This is my
first time here. Today I’d like to tell you
about Russia’s assessment of the current
European security situation and possible
solutions to our common problems, which have
been aggravated by the deterioration of
relations between Russia and the West.
Before
coming to this conference, I met with President
Putin. We talked about his speech at the Munich
conference in 2007. He said then that
ideological stereotypes, double standards and
unilateral actions do not ease but only fan
tensions in international relations, reducing
the international community’s opportunities for
adopting meaningful political decisions.
Did we
overstate this? Were our assessments of the
situation too pessimistic? Unfortunately, I have
to say that the situation is now even worse than
we feared. Developments have taken a much more
dramatic turn since 2007. The concept of Greater
Europe has not materialised. Economic growth has
been very weak. Conflicts in the Middle East and
North Africa have increased in scale. The
migration crisis is pushing Europe towards
collapse. Relations between Europe and Russia
have soured. A civil war is raging in Ukraine.
In this
context, we need to launch an intensive dialogue
on the future architecture of Euro-Atlantic
security, global stability and regional threats
more than ever before. I consider it
unacceptable that this dialogue has almost
ceased in many spheres. The problem of
miscommunication has been widely recognised both
in Western Europe and in Russia. The mechanisms
that allowed us to promptly settle mutual
concerns have been cut off. Moreover, we’ve lost
our grasp of the culture of mutual arms control,
which we used for a long time as the basis for
strengthening mutual trust. Partnership
initiatives, which took much time and effort to
launch, are expiring one by one. The proposed
European security treaty has been put on hold.
The idea of a Russia-EU Committee on Foreign
Policy and Security, which I discussed with
German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Meseberg, has
not materialised. We believe that NATO’s policy
towards Russia remains unfriendly and generally
obdurate.
Speaking
bluntly, we are rapidly rolling into a period of
a new cold war. Russia has been presented as
well-nigh the biggest threat to NATO, or to
Europe, America and other countries (and Mr
Stoltenberg has just demonstrated that). They
show frightening films about Russians starting a
nuclear war. I am sometimes confused: is this
2016 or 1962?
But the
real threats to this small world are of an
absolutely different nature, as I hope you will
admit. The term “European security” is now more
embracing that it used to be. Forty years ago it
concerned above all military and political
relations in Europe. But new issues have come
to the fore since then, such as sustainable
economic development, inequality and poverty,
unprecedented migration, new forms of terrorism
and regional conflicts, including in Europe. I
am referring to Ukraine, the volatile Balkans,
and Moldova that is teetering on the brink of a
national collapse.
The
cross-border threats and challenges, which we
for a while believed to have been overcome, have
returned with a new strength. The new threats,
primarily terrorism and extremism, have lost
their abstract form for the majority of people.
They have become reality for millions in many
countries. As Mr Valls has just mentioned, they
have become a daily threat. We can expect an
airplane to be blown up or people in a café to
be shot every day. These used to be everyday
events in the Middle East, but now it’s the same
the world over.
We see
that economic, social and military challenges
have become mutually complementary. But we
continue to act randomly, inconsistently, and in
many cases exclusively in our own national
interests. Or a scapegoat is appointed in an
arbitrary manner.
I am
offering you five theses on security as such.
First, the
economy.
We have
approached a change in paradigm in international
economic relations. The traditional schemes are
no longer effective. Political expediency is
taking priority over simple and clear economic
reason. The code of conduct is revised ad hoc to
suit a specific problem or task or is bluntly
ignored. I’ll just point out how the
International Monetary Fund adjusted its
fundamental rules on lending to countries with
overdue sovereign debt when the issue concerned
Ukraine’s sovereign debt to Russia.
Talks on
creating economic mega-blocs could result in the
erosion of the system of global economic rules.
Globalisation, which was a desired objective,
has to a certain extent played a cruel joke on
us. I personally talked about this with my
colleagues at the G8 meetings when everyone
needed them. But times change rapidly. Even a
minor economic shift in one country now hits
whole markets and countries almost immediately.
And global regulation mechanisms cannot
effectively balance national interests.
The energy
market remains extremely unstable. Its
volatility has affected both importers and
exporters.
We regret
that the practice of unilateral economic
pressure in the form of sanctions is gaining
momentum. Decisions are taken arbitrarily and at
times in violation of international law. This is
undermining the operating foundations of
international economic organisations, including
the World Trade Organisation. We have always
said, I have always said that sanctions hit not
only those against whom they are imposed but
also those who use them as an instrument of
pressure. How many joint initiatives have been
suspended because of sanctions! I have just met
with German businessmen and we discussed this
issue. Have we properly calculated not only the
direct but also the indirect costs for European
and Russian business? Are our differences really
so deep, or are they not worth it? All of you
here in this audience – do you really need this?
This is a
road to nowhere. Everyone will suffer, mark my
words. It is vitally important that we join
forces to strengthen a new global system that
can combine the principles of effectiveness and
fairness, market openness and social protection.
Second,
the crisis of the global economic development
model is creating conditions for a variety of
conflicts, including regional conflicts.
European
politicians thought that the creation of the
so-called belt of friendly countries on the
outer border of the EU would reliably guarantee
security. But what are the results of this
policy? What you have is not a belt of friendly
countries, but an exclusion zone with local
conflicts and economic trouble both on the
eastern borders (Ukraine and Moldova) and on the
southern borders (the Middle East and North
Africa, Libya and Syria).
The result
is that these regions have become a common
headache for all of us.
The
Normandy format has helped us launch
negotiations on Ukraine. We believe that there
are no better instruments for a peaceful
settlement than the Minsk Agreements.
We welcome
France’s balanced and constructive stance on
Ukraine and on all other acute international
issues. I fully agree with Mr Valls that the
Russian-French dialogue never stopped, and that
it has produced concrete results.
It is true
that all sides must comply with the Minsk
Agreements. But implementation primarily depends
on Kiev. Why them? Not because we are trying to
shift responsibility, but because it’s their
time.
The
situation is very unstable, despite progress
made in a number of areas (heavy weaponry
withdrawal, the OSCE mission and other issues).
What is
Russia’s biggest concern?
First and
most important, a comprehensive ceasefire is not
being observed in southeastern Ukraine. Shooting
is routinely reported at the line of contact,
which should not be happening. And we must send
a clear signal to all the parties involved, in
this regard.
Second,
amendments to the Ukrainian Constitution have
not been approved to this day, although this
should have been done by the end of 2015. And
the law on a special status for Donbass has not
been implemented.
Instead of
coordinating specific decentralisation
parameters with the regions, and this is the
crucial issue, Ukraine has adopted so-called
“transitional provisions,” even though the above
requirements were put in black and white in the
Minsk Agreements.
Third,
Kiev continues to insist that local elections be
based on a new Ukrainian law. Furthermore, Kiev
has not implemented its commitment on a broad
amnesty that should embrace all those who were
involved in the developments in Ukraine in
2014-2015. Without being amnestied, these people
will be unable to participate in elections,
which will make any election results
questionable. The OSCE will not endorse this.
As I said,
the Minsk Agreements must be implemented in full
and this is Russia’s stance on the issue. At
the same time, being reasonable people open to
discussing various ideas, including a
compromise, we, for instance, accepted the
initiative of Mr Steinmeier on the temporary
application of the law on special status as soon
as the election campaign begins. After the OSCE
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human
Rights recognises the election results, this law
must be applied permanently. But there’s still
no progress here, despite the compromise
suggested.
Of course,
the humanitarian situation is extremely
alarming. The economy of southeastern Ukraine is
deteriorating, that part of Ukraine is
blockaded, and the German Chancellor’s
initiative on the restoration of the banking
system in the region there has been rejected.
Tens of thousands of people are living on the
verge of a humanitarian catastrophe.
Oddly,
Russia seems to be more concerned about this
than Ukraine, why is this so? We have been
sending and will have to continue sending
humanitarian convoys to southeastern Ukraine.
I must say
that Russia has shown and will continue to show
reasonable flexibility in the implementation of
the Minsk Agreements where this doesn’t
contradict their essence. But we can’t do what
is not in our competence. That is, we cannot
implement the political and legal obligations of
the Kiev government. This is under the direct
authority of the President, the Government and
the Parliament of Ukraine. But unfortunately, it
appears that they don’t have the will or a
desire to do it. I think this has become obvious
to everyone.
As for
Syria, we have been working and will continue to
work to implement joint peace initiatives. This
is a difficult path, but there is no alternative
to an interethnic and interreligious dialogue.
We must preserve Syria as a union state and
prevent its dissolution for denominational
reasons. The world will not survive another
Libya, Yemen or Afghanistan. The consequences of
this scenario will be catastrophic for the
Middle East. The work of the International Syria
Support Group gives us a certain hope. They
gathered here the day before yesterday and
coordinated a list of practical measures aimed
at implementing the UN Security Council
Resolution 2254, including the delivery of
humanitarian aid to civilians and outlining the
conditions for a ceasefire, except for terrorist
groups, of course. The implementation of these
measures is to be led by Russia and the United
States. I would like to emphasise that the daily
work of the Russian and American militaries is
the key here. I’m talking about regular work
without the need to seek incidental contacts,
day-to-day work, everyday work.
Of course,
there should be no preliminary conditions to
start the talks on the settlement between the
Syrian government and opposition, and there is
no need to impend anyone with a land military
operation.
Third, we
sincerely believe that if we fail to normalise
the situation in Syria and other conflict areas,
terrorism will become a new form of war that
will spread around the world. It will not be
just a new form of war but a method of settling
ethnic and religious conflict, and a form of
quasi-state governance. Imagine a group of
countries that are governed by terrorists
through terrorism. Is this the 21st century?
It is
common knowledge that terrorism is not a problem
within individual countries. Russia first raised
this alarm two decades ago. We tried to convince
our partners that the core causes were not just
ethnic or religious differences. Take ISIS,
whose ideology is not based on Islamic values
but on a blood-thirsty desire to kill and
destroy. Terrorism is civilisation’s problem.
It’s either us or them, and it’s time for
everyone to realise this. There are no nuances
or undertones, no justifications for terrorist
actions, no dividing terrorists into ours or
theirs, into moderate or extremist.
The
destruction of the Russian plane over Sinai, the
terrorist attacks in Paris, London, Israel,
Lebanon, Pakistan, Iraq, Mali, Yemen and other
countries, the grisly executions of hostages,
thousands of victims, and endless other threats
are evidence that international terrorism defies
state borders. Terrorists and extremists are
trying to spread their influence not only
throughout the Middle East and North Africa but
also to the whole of Central Asia.
Unfortunately, they have so far been successful,
mostly because we are unable to set our
differences aside and to really join forces
against them. Even cooperation at the security
services level has been curtailed. And this is
ridiculous, like we don’t want to work with you.
Daesh should be grateful to my colleagues, the
leaders of the Western countries who have
suspended this cooperation.
Before
coming to this conference, I read much material,
including some by Western experts. Even those
who don’t think positively about Russia admit
that, despite our differences, the
“anti-terrorist formula” will not be effective
without Russia. On the other hand, they
sometimes frame this conclusion in an overall
correct, but slightly different way, saying that
a weak Russia is even more dangerous than a
strong Russia.
Fourth,
regional conflicts and terrorism are closely
related to the unprecedentedly large issue of
uncontrolled migration. This could be described
as a great new transmigration of peoples and the
culmination of the numerous problems of modern
global development. It has affected not only
Western Europe but also Russia. The inflow of
migrants from Syria to Russia is not very large,
but the inflow of migrants from Ukraine has
become a serious problem. Over a million
Ukrainian refugees have entered Russia over the
past 18 months.
Wars and
related deprivations, inequality, low standards
of living, violence, and fanaticism force people
to flee their homes. Unsuccessful attempts to
spread Western models of democracy to a social
environment that is not suited for this have
resulted in the demise of entire states and have
turned huge territories into zones of hostility.
I remember how my colleagues once rejoiced at
the so-called Arab Spring. I literally witnessed
it. But has modern democracy taken root in these
countries? Looks like it has, but in the form of
ISIS.
Human
capital is degenerating in the countries the
refugees are leaving. And these countries’
development prospects have taken a downward
turn. The ongoing migration crisis is rapidly
acquiring the features of a humanitarian
catastrophe, at least in some parts of Europe.
Social problems are growing too, along with
mutual intolerance and xenophobia. Not to
mention the fact that hundreds and thousands of
extremists enter Europe under the guise of being
refugees. Other migrants are people of an
absolutely different culture who only want to
receive monetary benefits without doing anything
to earn them. This poses a very real danger to
the common economic space. The next targets will
be the cultural space and even the European
identity. We watch with regret how invaluable
mechanisms, which Russia also needs, are being
destroyed. I am referring to the actual collapse
of the Schengen zone.
For our
part, we are willing to do our best to help
address the migration issue, including by
contributing to efforts to normalise the
situation in the conflict regions from which the
majority of refugees come, Syria among them.
And fifth,
let’s be as honest as possible. The majority of
these challenges did not develop yesterday. And
they were definitely not invented in Russia. Yet
we haven’t learned to react to these challenges
properly or even proactively. This is why the
bulk of resources go into dealing with the
consequences, often without identifying the root
cause. Or we invest our energy not in fighting
the real evil, but in deterring our neighbours,
and this problem has just been voiced here The
West continues to actively use this deterrence
doctrine against Russia. The fallacy of this
approach is that we will still be debating the
same issues in 10 and even 20 years. Provided
there will be anything to debate about, of
course, as discussions are not on the agenda of
the Great Caliphate.
Opinions
on the prospects for cooperation with Russia
differ. Opinions also differ in Russia. But can
we unite in order to stand up against the
challenges I mentioned above? Yes, I am
confident that we can. Yesterday we witnessed a
perfect example in the area of religion.
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia and
Pope of the Catholic Church Francis met in Cuba
following hundreds of years when the two
churches did not communicate. Of course,
restoring trust is a challenging task. It’s
difficult to say how long it would take. But it
is necessary to launch this process. And this
must be done without any preliminary conditions.
Either all of us need to do this or none of us.
In the latter case, there will be no
cooperation.
We often
differ in our assessments of the events that
took place over the past two years. However, I
want to emphasise that they don’t differ as much
as they did 40 years ago when we signed the
Final Helsinki Act and when Europe was literally
divided by The Wall. When old phobias prevailed,
we were deadlocked. When we managed to join
forces, we succeeded. There is much evidence to
support this. We managed to agree on the
reduction of strategic offensive weapons, which
was a breakthrough achievement. We have worked
out a compromise solution regarding Iran’s
nuclear programme. We have convinced all sides
in the Syrian conflict to sit down at the
negotiating table in Geneva. We have coordinated
actions against pirates. And the Climate Change
Conference was held in Paris last year. We
should replicate these positive outcomes.
Ladies and
gentlemen,
The
current architecture of European security, which
was built on the ruins of World War II, allowed
us to avoid global conflicts for more than 70
years. The reason for this was that this
architecture was built on principles that were
clear to everyone at that time, primarily the
undeniable value of human life. We paid a high
price for these values. But our shared tragedy
forced us to rise above our political and
ideological differences in the name of peace.
It’s true that this security system has its
issues and that it sometimes malfunctions. But
do we need one more, third global tragedy to
understand that what we need is cooperation
rather than confrontation?
I’d like
to quote from John F. Kennedy, who used very
simple but the most appropriate words, “Domestic
policy can only defeat us; foreign policy can
kill us.” In the early 1960s the world stood at
the door of a nuclear apocalypse, but the two
rivalling powers found the courage to admit that
no political confrontation was worth the human
lives.
I believe
that we have become wiser and more experienced
and more responsible. And we are not divided by
ideological phantoms and stereotypes. I believe
that the challenges we are facing today will not
lead to conflict but rather will encourage us to
come together in a fair and equal union that
will allow us to maintain peace for another 70
years, at least.
Thank you.
Excerpts from replies to questions by
journalists
Question:
My name is Mingus Campbell, I am from the United
Kingdom. My question is addressed to Prime
Minister Medvedev. Is it accepted in Russia that
increased influence in Syria brings with it
responsibility for all of the citizens of Syria?
And if that is so, how has that responsibility
been exercised in respect of the citizens of
Aleppo who are now fleeing in such numbers?
Dmitry Medvedev:
Thank you. I will continue answering questions
concerning Syria, including the situation in
Aleppo, but not limited to that.
I think a
large part of the people present here have never
been to Syria, whereas I have been there. I made
an official visit there when Syria was a quiet,
peaceful, secular nation, where life was stable
and balanced for everybody: the Sunnis and the
Shiites, the Druze, Alawites and Christians.
Almost six
years have passed since then. Today we see Syria
that is torn by a civil war. Let us ask a
question: who is to blame for that? Is it
al-Assad alone? It is absolutely evident that
without a certain external influence Syria could
have gone on with its life. But I remember those
talks, those conversations with my partners,
both European and American, who kept on telling
me the same thing over and over: al-Assad is no
good, he should step down, and then peace and
prosperity will reign there. And what has came
of it? It resulted in a civil war.
This is
the reason I cannot but agree with my colleague,
Prime Minister Valls, in that we must join
efforts to solve this issue, but we must work
effectively, not just watch as events unfold
there, not just watch one party attack another;
not divide the warring parties into those who
are on our side and adversaries, but instead sit
them all down at the negotiating table, except
those who we have agreed to treat as real
terrorists. We know who they are.
Russia is
not pursuing any special goals there except the
ones that have been declared. We are defending
our national interests because a large number of
militants fighting there came from Russia and
neighbouring countries, and they can come back
to wage terrorist attacks. They must stay there…
This does
not apply to civilians in any way. Unlike most
of the countries present in the region, we have
been helping civilians. Nobody has any proof
that we have been bombing civilian targets
there, even though they keep on talking about
it, about wrong targets and so forth. They do
not share information. I have just said this
from the stand – the military must keep in
constant contact. They should call each other a
dozen times a day. Otherwise there will always
be skirmishes and conflicts. And this is our
mission. We are ready for such cooperation. I
expect that we will see some positive
development from the dialogue we had here in
terms of both achieving a ceasefire in Syria and
the humanitarian issues. It is crucial that we
should agree on key points, because otherwise,
and I think it is no secret for anyone, Syria
will split into separate parts, the way it
happened to Libya and the way it is in fact
happening with a number of other nations in the
region. What does that entail? It poses a threat
of the conflict becoming permanent. The civil
war will go on, Daesh or its successors will
always be there, while we will engage in
arguments as we try to figure out which of them
is good and which is bad, who should receive our
support and who shouldn’t. We have a common
enemy, and that it the premise we should start
with.
Now I
would like to come back to the topic of Ukraine.
I cannot assess the past developments in
Ukraine; the Russian leadership has already done
this a number of times, including myself. I will
answer the part of the question regarding the
air crash investigation. Obviously, the Russian
Federation is no less interested in an unbiased
investigation than the countries whose citizens
lost their lives in the crash. It is indeed an
enormous tragedy. But even the tone of the
question implies that the person asking it has
already decided who is responsible, who should
bear the legal responsibility, no investigation
is needed, certain justice committees should be
set up instead and certain legal procedures
followed. But this is not the way it is done.
This should be a regular comprehensive
investigation that would cover all the relevant
aspects. This is the first point. And second,
this is unfortunately not the first case in the
world of this kind. Such tragedies have never
been dealt with by criminal courts or other
similar agencies. These are issues of a
different order. And this is what we have to
agree on. Russia is ready to provide any
information to contribute to a quality
investigation.
Medvedev:
Syria, Ukraine and the economic crisis – an
exclusive interview
Russia
is increasingly feared by many in the West as a
growing security threat, yet paradoxically it’s
one of the key players in finding a solution to
the Syrian conflict.
Meanwhile, the country is buckling under an
economic crisis – to discuss these issues I’m
joined in an exclusive interview, by Russia’s PM
Dmitri Medvedev, at the Munich Security
conference.
Isabelle Kumar: Many thanks for
being with us on The Global Conversation. The
issue of Syria is dominating the international
agenda. But we feel we could be reaching the
turning point yet it’s unclear which way it is
going to go. What do you think?
Dmitri Medvedev: You know, as I
was heading to this conference, I had a feeling
that the situation in this area is very complex
and challenging because we have yet to come to
an agreement with our colleagues and partners on
key issues, including the creation of a possible
coalition and military cooperation.
All
interactions in this respect have been episodic
so far. That said, I note that here, in Munich,
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met with
Secretary of State John Kerry, and other
colleagues acting in various capacities later
joined them. They agreed on what should be done
in the short run. For this reason, I’m
cautiously optimistic about the prospects for
cooperation on this issue. Let me emphasise that
this cooperation is critical, because unless we
come together on this issue, there will be no
end to the war in Syria, people will keep dying,
the massive influx of refugees to Europe will
continue, and Europe will have to deal with
major challenges. Most importantly, we will be
unable to overcome terrorism, which is a threat
to the entire modern civilisation.
Isabelle Kumar: What precise
military actions and other, in that case, is
Russia prepared to take to help in this
de-escalation of the
conflict in Syria?
Dmitri Medvedev: Let me remind
you the reasons behind Russia’s involvement in
Syria. The first reason that compelled Russia to
take part in this campaign is the protection of
national interests. There are many fighters in
Syria who can go to Russia at any time and
commit terrorist attacks there. There are
thousands of them in Syria.
Second,
there is a legal foundation in the form of the
request by President al-Assad. We will therefore
take these two factors into account in our
military decisions and, obviously, the
developments in the situation. What matters most
at this point is to agree on launching the talks
between all the parties to the Syrian conflict.
Another important thing is to coordinate a list
of terrorist groups, since this issue has been a
matter of endless debates on who’s good and
who’s bad. This is the first point I wanted to
make.
My
second point is the following. I learned that
Secretary of State John Kerry said that if
Russia and Iran do not help, the US will be
ready to join other countries in carrying out a
ground operation. These are futile words, he
should not have said that for a simple reason:
if all he wants is a protracted war, he can
carry out ground operations and anything else.
But don’t try to frighten anyone. Agreements
should be reached along the same lines as Mr
Kerry’s conversations with Mr Lavrov, instead of
saying that if something goes wrong, other Arab
countries and the US will carry out a ground
operation.
I’ve
answered this question only recently. But let me
reiterate that no one is interested in a new
war, and a ground operation is a full-fledged,
long war. We must bear this in mind.
“We want sound, advanced
relations both with the United States and
the European Union”
Assad’s future
Isabelle Kumar: Clearly, one of
the key issues is the future of Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad. Will Russia continue to support
him at this crucial moment in time?
Dmitri Medvedev: Russia does
not support President al-Assad personally, but
maintains friendly relations with Syria as a
country. These ties were built not under Bashar
al-Assad, but back when his father, Hafez
al-Assad, became president. This is my first
point in this respect.
Second,
we have never said that this is the main issue
for us in this process. We simply believe that
there is currently no other legitimate authority
in Syria apart from Bashar al-Assad. He is the
incumbent president, whether anyone likes it or
not. Taking him out of this equation would lead
to chaos. We have seen that on numerous
occasions in the Middle East, when countries
simply fell apart, as it happened with Libya,
for example.
It is
for that reason that he should take part in all
the procedures and processes, but it should be
up to the Syrian people to decide his destiny.
Syria’s future
Isabelle Kumar: Are you
therefore already working on ideas of political
transition now in Syria?
Dmitri Medvedev: I don’t think
that we should go into too much detail on these
issues. I’m talking about Russia, the
European Union and the United States. We
should focus on facilitating the launch of this
process. We must make sure that everyone sits
down at the negotiating table, in fact, make
them talk to each other. Let’s be honest and
recognise that it will be anything but simple
given the parties involved. On one side, you
have President al-Assad, supported by a part of
society and the military, and, on the other
side, the other part of society, often
representing different confessions, people who
don’t like al-Assad but have to sit with him at
the same negotiating table. Nevertheless, they
need to come to an agreement for the sake of
keeping Syria united.
Ukraine crisis
Isabelle Kumar: I’d like now to
switch focus and look at the conflict in
Ukraine. We talk of the frozen conflict there
with, it appears, renewed fighting in the east.
What can Russia do to bring about the thaw in
that conflict, to bring an end to this conflict?
Dmitri Medvedev: Well,
understandably, the answer here is somewhat
easier than in Syria’s case. It is not just
because this conflict is not as brutal, but
because there is a clear understanding of how to
move forward – by implementing the Minsk
Agreements.
They
should be implemented fully and in their
entirety by all the parties. In fact, Russia
calls on all the parties to do so, both those in
power in the southeast, and the Kiev
authorities. It is not a matter of Russia having
some disagreements with Kiev or mutual dislike.
It
would be fair to say that most of the provisions
that were the responsibility of southeast
Ukraine have been fulfilled. Most importantly,
hostilities have ceased almost completely.
Unfortunately, some action takes place from time
to time, but not often. Finding political and
legal solutions in keeping with the Minsk
Agreements has now become vital. Whose
responsibility is it? Of course, it is Ukraine’s
responsibility. If Ukraine regards the southeast
as part of its territory, it is within the
jurisdiction, competence and authority of the
President, Parliament and Government of Ukraine.
Isabelle Kumar: If you meet
President Poroshenko here, at the Munich
security conference, what will you say to him?
Dmitri Medvedev: I haven’t seen
him and, to be honest, I haven’t missed him.
President Poroshenko is in contact with
President Putin. There is no doubt that the main
thing my colleagues should undertake is to do
everything it takes to implement the Minsk
Agreements. It would benefit them, as well as
the Ukrainian state, which, no matter what
anyone says, is a close, neighbouring country
for Russia.
Crimea
Isabelle Kumar: Obviously, one
of the major sticking points in this, for
Ukraine, but also for the international
community, is Crimea. Is the future of Crimea up
for negotiation?
Dmitri Medvedev: No, there is
no such issue for Russia. This issue was settled
once and for all. Crimea is part of Russia. A
referendum was held there, we amended the
constitution. The Republic of Crimea and the
city of Sevastopol are part of the Russian
Federation.
Isabelle Kumar: So the
conflict in Syria, the situation in Ukraine
has contributed to a real degradation of
relations with Russia, with the EU and the
US. Do you think a reset is possible?
Dmitri Medvedev: The
question is how and for whose sake. If
something is to be reset, it should be done
on a fundamentally different basis. What
kind of basis? Equitable, fair, solid basis
for relations, considering that Russia is
not the only nation that needs this – the
European Union and the United States need it
as well. We want sound, advanced relations
both with the United States and the European
Union.
The
European Union is our most important trade
partner, a group of countries located on the
same continent as us, so we are bound by our
shared European identity, history and
values. These continuing tensions aren’t
doing us any good. But if we are told that
they no longer want us around, of course,
the first steps towards reconciliation
should be taken by those who initiated the
alienation. As for us, we are ready to
discuss any issues.
Russia’s economy
Isabelle Kumar: Well, one
of the repercussions of the souring of
relations has been the sanctions that have
been imposed on Russia, which are hitting
hard. How much of a priority is it for your
government to get those sanctions lifted?
Dmitri Medvedev: They told
us we were the bad guys and had to be
punished. And then they made some
calculations and began to weep: it turns out
that for some reason it was hitting their
own business.
We
had a trade turnover with the European Union
at 450 billion euros. It was 450 billion!
Now it is down to 217 billion euros. Why
don’t they ask the people in the EU who are
employed by the various companies that used
to make products for Russia – how do they
like all of this?
Again, we are not the ones who started this,
so it is not up to us to undo it. They have
always been trying to intimidate us with
some sanctions, which were introduced even
in the Soviet period, many times. It never
brought them anything but lost profits. What
is happening now is no different. They will
have to have the courage to say, guys, we’ll
just scrap all this from day X, and could
you please reciprocate by lifting your
response measures as well. That would be the
right approach.
Isabelle Kumar: So how are
ordinary Russians feeling this economic
crisis? Because the sanctions are
contributing towards this, the falling oil
prices are also contributing to this. What’s
it like for ordinary Russians?
Dmitri Medvedev: Indeed, we
aren’t in the best economic situation right
now, with the dramatic fall in oil prices
probably contributing the most to the
overall state of the economy, to the decline
in revenues. This is something we haven’t
seen for 17 years. The current prices are
comparable to those in 1998. Unfortunately,
our budget remains very dependent on oil
prices. Although the structure of revenues
has been improving, in terms of the share of
oil and other sources, but yes, it remains
commodity-dependent to a great extent. This
could not but affect the incomes and the
general standing of our people with their
jobs and their real incomes.
The
sanctions have had some effect as well. This
is obvious, since some of our companies, for
example, lost the financing they used to
have from European banks, which means they
cannot grow, some of them anyway. Therefore,
in this sense, the economic situation is not
the easiest. But there is also a positive
effect. The economy is healing, it is
becoming less dependent on oil, and we have
an opportunity to develop our own industry
and agriculture.
Perhaps one of the advantages of these
sanctions and our response measures is that
we started concentrating harder on domestic
agriculture, so, to a large extent, we are
now satisfying our demand for food, while
wheat, for example, is now exported in large
quantities. In this sense, the sanctions
have helped. But they probably didn’t help
farmers in the European Union.
Isabelle Kumar: I was
asking about the ordinary Russians and how
this was affecting them. And we hear of
possible social unrest as their lives become
more and more difficult in Russia. Is that
something you are concerned about?
Dmitri Medvedev: Of course,
the government must first of all think about
the social impact of economic changes and
the economic situation. Frankly, we have
been compelled to cut budget spending in
many areas, but we never touched social
spending, or the public sector wages and
benefits.
Moreover, we even indexed pensions last
year, and this year, too, maybe not
completely, but we did. We will try to
continue doing this in the future. That is,
the government’s social spending is large,
but it is inviolable. In this sense, we will
try to do everything towards Russian
citizens’ social wellbeing, to keep them as
comfortable as possible under these
conditions. It is truly a priority for the
government.
Russia’s human rights
record
Isabelle Kumar: If we take
an international perspective once again, a
black mark on Russia’s reputation is the
issue of human rights and freedom of speech,
which Russia seems to continually backslide
on. Why is that?
Dmitri Medvedev: To be
frank, we’ve always differed in our views on
the situation with the freedom of expression
and the media in Russia. We’ve often been
criticised and we are still coming under
criticism. We have our own position on the
issue. Perhaps in Russia, the media are
somewhat different, for example, from the
European media.
There are historical differences and there
are growth issues. I rarely watch TV or read
newspapers in print and I receive virtually
all of my information from the Internet. And
over half of Russia’s population does the
same. As you know, on the Internet, there is
no regulation in this sense. All points of
view are represented there, including, to
put it bluntly, even extremist ones. So I
believe it’s not serious to think that some
people have no access to different kinds of
information in today’s global world.
Litvinenko enquiry
Isabelle Kumar: Yes, but
also it seems that dissidents are silenced.
In Britain, as you know, there has been –
the results of the inquiry into the murder
of Alexander Litvinenko, which the inquiry
said – it pointed the finger at President
Vladimir Putin, saying that it was likely
that he ordered that murder. Will you be
pursuing the British Government on this?
There was talk of you suing the British
Government over this inquiry.
Dmitri Medvedev: You’ve
mentioned some report by some retired judge,
in which practically every paragraph and
each section opens with the word “probably”.
What is there to comment on? What is
regrettable about this whole story is that
the British Prime Minister and the Foreign
Secretary comment on a report that abounds
in words like “probably”.
This is reminiscent of a witch-hunt. When
all is said and done, let it be on the
conscience of the commentators. As for any
legal action, this is simply ridiculous. We
don’t need this and the Russian Federation
will never sue any country over some foolish
fabrications or funny films.
Highlights
Isabelle Kumar: Finally, Mr
Prime Minister, you’ve held the post of
prime minister and also held the presidency,
so you’ve got an overview, a full
perspective of the issues we’ve been talking
about, but if I were to ask you about one of
the highlights of the your time in power,
could you say what that’s been?
Dmitri Medvedev: Well,
there’ve been plenty. Both these posts are
very serious and challenging. These eight
years of my life – and it has been almost
eight years – you know, it’s this constant
drive. As for events, there have been
plenty, both in Russia – very good ones for
me personally, notable, major, and sometime
tragic events, like the ones we’ve been
talking about now, and international events.
After all, we have not only argued and
quarrelled. We’ve also accomplished a thing
or two. For example, at some point we agreed
on a New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.
That was not bad at all. The document was
signed. It is in force. It is being
implemented and therefore we can work
together and agree on different things.
There have been contacts with my colleagues,
including here in Germany, as well as in
other European countries. We have dealt with
a lot of issues. All of this is remarkable
and exciting. Maybe one day I’ll talk about
this in detail. For the time being I
continue working and this work is
interesting.
Prime Minister, many thanks for joining us.
By
Isabelle Kumar
|
