Sergei Ryabkov on dialogue with Ukraine: They don’t want negotiations and don’t want results
RTVI has released an exclusive interview with Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov. He spoke about the situation with the fall of a rocket in Poland, spoke about the possibility of using nuclear weapons and the rupture of relations with the United States, and also said that Ukraine does not want a dialogue with Russia and suggested that there may be unprofessional conversations at the talks in Cairo with the United States.
About negotiations with Ukraine:
The negotiating position has been repeatedly formulated by our leadership. We are not against negotiations with Ukraine, but the longer the process drags on, the more difficult it will be to reach agreements. I would like to add a phrase due to the fact that there has been a lot of speculation lately about whether there are any preconditions.
It is counterproductive to enter into negotiations with preconditions in front of you. This means that people do not want negotiations and do not want a result. This is exactly what we see now in the position of Kiev. They don’t want negotiations, so they put forward preconditions. But the preconditions are one thing, the position that is being worked out is another thing. The position, of course, ensures our territorial integrity as part of all those subjects that have recently been adopted in the Russian Federation. The position in which it is necessary to implement, through diplomatic instruments, the fixation of the goals facing a special military operation — this position is unshakable. These are not prerequisites. We must implement this position during the negotiations.
About the fall of a rocket in Poland:
Our opponents are looking for any excuse, an excuse, in order to increase pressure, to move along the path of escalation. Our enemies are absurdly and absolutely stubbornly, stubbornly trying to put some responsibility on us for what happened. This is a reflection of the depth of the fall into which they led themselves and where they ended up. We say: if there had been no intervention by Western countries in 2014 in the form of organizing a coup, there would not have been much of what followed. And they keep their own event report. And I think common sense doesn’t even smell close here, sorry for such a word. But we will patiently explain, in the end, who is responsible for what happened and what is happening.
On the possibility of using nuclear weapons:
We have repeatedly noted, and this is the core, the core of the position of the Russian Federation, that recourse to the use of nuclear weapons is possible in two situations: the first is when an attack is carried out against us or our allies using nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction, the second is when an act of aggression is carried out against Russia using conventional weapons and the situation has reached a stage where the very existence of our state is at risk. In other situations, the use of nuclear weapons is impossible.
The risk of escalating into a hot phase of this confrontation cannot be underestimated, too many irresponsible figures are at the helm in a number of capitals, in a number of capitals that consider themselves to be part of the NATO bloc, the European Union, etc. I’m not talking about who I have to deal with in Kiev.
About negotiations with the USA:
We are not standing with our hand outstretched. I want to say that we don’t need a dialogue with the Americans any more than they do. If someone in Washington has illusions that we will come running, we will tell them, “let’s resume the dialogue on strategic stability, we will look comprehensively at what needs to be done in this area,” no, this will not happen. When they mature, if and when they mature, then, probably, there will be a basis for appropriate discussions. If they don’t mature, then there will be no dialogue. There is an embassy, there are telephone contacts to discuss current issues, there are also a lot of these issues, they should not be underestimated. We will work in this format for the time being.
About communication channels between the USA and Russia:
As for communication channels, our Ambassador Anatoly Ivanovich Antonov is very active. He contacts colleagues in various US structures, including colleagues in the State Department. But not only in the State Department. He has a lot of high media activity. I want to say that Moscow and Washington periodically have telephone calls at the appropriate levels. We exchange notes, conduct other forms of correspondence.
On the appointment of a new US ambassador to Russia:
We have agreed to appoint a new American ambassador to Moscow. A well-known diplomat, Mrs. Tracy, she previously worked for us. We do not know when the hearings in the Senate of the US Congress on her confirmation may take place, so I do not undertake to predict the timing.
About whether a break in relations between Russia and the United States is possible:
It depends entirely on the choice that is being made in Washington. I do not rule out anything in advance, but this is not our way and not our move. We are pursuing our policy consistently, proactively, and not reactively, including in the American direction, guided solely by our national interests. It is in our interests not to sever diplomatic relations with the United States. Communication is needed, dialogue is needed. If the Americans at some point find for themselves that this is not what they need, then it will probably end in a breakup.
The level of Russophobia in the United States, in all levels and branches of government and mainstream media is completely unprecedented. We feel this every day. It is also impossible to underestimate the consequences of this, but we work calmly, methodically, coolly, without emotions — this is the only way to work with such a, in quotes, sorry, client.
About the negotiations in Cairo with the United States and the treaty of the DSNV:
Such sessions were held twice a year before Covid, now, after a long pause, we have agreed on the parameters of orgmodality and formed the agenda. There are issues on the agenda that are of priority interest to the other side, there are, of course, our issues that are very important to us. It cannot be said that the US track record in terms of the implementation of the treaty is impeccable, rather the opposite. I will mention the well-known problem of the unilateral withdrawal by the Americans of their strategic carriers, that is, heavy bombers and ballistic missile launchers of the Trident II submarines, due to the account under the treaty.
I want to say once again that for us, as a responsible party to the agreement, there are no closed topics, no taboos — we discuss everything in a calm constructive way with the Americans. And we hope that they will prove themselves in the same way during this face-to-face contract after a long pause. But will there really be a conversation of professionals, or may there be attempts of politicization and artificial pumping with “non-core” plots. We’ll see.
On the victory of the Republicans in the elections to the House of Representatives:
I don’t think [Republican control of the House of Representatives] will affect [the US course towards Russia and military assistance to Ukraine], because the Anti-Russia project, which our opponents and opponents in Washington have been engaged in for many years, enjoys, as they say, bipartisan support in the US, and there should be no illusions. In this situation, we will not see any change in the American course, we will still be dealing with a deeply hostile system that has taken a course, and this has been officially announced, to inflict strategic defeat on Russia. It is impossible to underestimate such statements and, unfortunately, they are shared, including in the Republican Party.
About how Moscow’s cooperation with Latin American countries is developing.
Literally these days we are holding a series of important events with our strategic partner and ally — Cuba. Intensive political dialogue and contacts with Venezuela do not stop. We will also have major and important events before the end of the year. There is a firm understanding here that Moscow, Havana, and Caracas are natural strategic allies. No one can prevent the deepening of our relations and their further strengthening. No one can do it: neither the United States, nor the common collective West, to use this term.
Our relations with these countries, with our key allies and partners in the region, are much broader and richer than military contacts and military cooperation, and military-technical. We are developing across the entire spectrum: from education and culture to long-term economic projects in various fields.
