Ambassador Anatoly Antonov's interview with RIA Novosti

❓1. How is the interaction with the US authorities carried out today? Do you agree with the State Department's recent assessment that, despite the crisis in relations, the US and Russia have enough channels to communicate their positions to each other when necessary?

Russian-American political dialogue is at an unprecedentedly low level. It can be considered almost paralyzed. The trust is broken. The collaboration has collapsed even on the issues of mutual interest. The communication between the sides is limited and largely reduced to a discussion on technical problems.

The interaction of the Embassy with the US executive authorities has been blocked on the American initiative. The State Department prefers to communicate only by phone or email. Face-to-face conversations with representatives of the White House are extremely rare.

Episodic high-level telephone conversations occur including between the ministries of defense. It is important to maintain communications to prevent a confrontation that could result in escalation with unpredictable consequences.

❓2. Why, in your opinion, does the American leadership avoid dialogue with Russia on Ukrainian issues? Do you think that it is simply advantageous for Washington to drag out this conflict? Do you agree with Joe Biden's assessment that the world today is on the verge of Armageddon?

We often hear US officials say they “will not talk to Russia about Ukraine without Ukraine” and that it is up to Kiev to decide at what point to sit down at the negotiating table.

It is not clear what these words have more of - hypocrisy or banal unwillingness to admit one's own mistakes. The decision-making center on the fate of Ukraine is located elsewhere, but not in Kiev. Everyone could witness this in March, when a shout from Washington was enough for the Zelenskyy’s regime to nullify all the agreements reached during intensive contacts between the two countries.

The White House cannot escape responsibility for prolonging the conflict and killing innocent people. However, the United States continues with its maniacal persistence to adhere to the tactics of war of attrition by exhausting everyone - Ukrainians, Russians, Europeans as well as ordinary Americans. As they say, the war with Russia "until the last Ukrainian." Why is this happening? There are several reasons for this, one of them being the presence of economic interest. The desire to ‘skim the cream’ by selling military equipment and LNG supplies on a massive scale: nothing personal, just business.

Against this background, intimidating the world community by the 'approaching Armageddon' is groundless and dangerous. Bald statements, coming from the United States, and even from the lips of President Joe Biden, pursue a single goal - to incite as many countries as possible against Russia.

The Americans, turning everything upside down, accuse us of irresponsible nuclear rhetoric. If you look at the facts, it becomes clear that we are not threatening anyone with nuclear weapons. On the contrary, we strive to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. Russian officials and the President of Russia have repeatedly confirmed that we are not going to use nuclear weapons, including tactical ones, in Ukraine.

Despite this, the speculations in the United States do not stop. While contrary to Russia’s frank statements that it will not use nuclear weapons, the world heard the United Kingdom - Washington’s closest ally - express readiness to do exactly the opposite.

Such statements are extremely dangerous. Especially, when discussions about the use of weapons of mass destruction are becoming a common thing. This dulls the caution in the minds of those leaders in the West who add fuel to the fire of the Ukrainian conflict. They are responsible for preventing the scenario mentioned by the American President

❓3. How reliable is the security of the Embassy today? Do Russian diplomats receive threats and what restrictions do they face in their work?

We are striving to meet the present challenges. And the time is not easy now, it requires from each of us keener self-control as well as vigilance. In this regard, our diplomats are not in a privileged position. The Embassy is also in some way the frontline. We treat our official duties with a high degree of responsibility.

As for the threats, they are indeed not uncommon. Detractors try to intimidate diplomats and their family members by mail and e-mail, through social networks. We have received threats addressed to me as well. There are rallies at the gates when emotions overflow. There are egregious cases when demonstrators, for example, tried to block the entrance of guests arriving at a reception to honor of the Day of Russia. Another example is when the facade of the Consulate General in New York was splattered with permanent paint. All this is very unpleasant, but against the background of the hysterical and one-sided presentation of news by local media, it is not too surprising.

We have established a dialogue with the police and the Secret Service, which guards the President of the United States and the embassies. In the vast majority of cases, law enforcement officers promptly respond to requests for help. Although they are very reluctant to talk about the results of investigations following the incidents.

We work under the conditions of numerous restrictions against us that the host country constantly comes up with. To travel out of town, all diplomats now are to warn the State Department about the exact route a week or two in advance. Moreover, Americans can say “no” without any explanation.

To be honest, I don't understand what the point is. After all, America, in spite of everything, is a hospitable and very interesting country. Based on personal experience, I can say: the farther from Washington, the less Russophobia.

❓4-5. Is the work underway to resume dialogue with the American side on the development of an agreement to replace the New START Treaty? Do you think there is still time to reach an agreement? Or are we slowly approaching the “point of no return”? How big are the chances of not reaching an agreement at all? Will Russia make any concessions to the US in order to demonstrate to Washington its interest in negotiations on this topic?

The dialogue on strategic stability launched in 2021, within the framework of which discussions were held on possible agreements to replace the New START Treaty, has been“frozen” at the initiative of the American side. Washington does not take any practical steps to resume it.

Russia is interested in an equal and mutually beneficial dialogue on arms control. However we will not beg the United States to return to the negotiating table. We will ensure our national security in any circumstances.

We do not rule out the fact that the Biden administration will eventually "wake up" and want to engage in arms control negotiations. No one is interested in a legal vacuum between the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals. How much more will be missed is unknown. It will take a lot of time for the parties to achieve a result on strategic stability. We should not count on the 2010 scenario repeating itself, when we managed to agree in just a year. Circumstances have changed dramatically. The positions of the parties differ significantly, new technologies and threats have emerged. The factor of "third" nuclear countries is gaining importance.

If a decision to resume strategic consultations has been made, I believe that the Russian delegation will conscientiously strive to find mutually acceptable solutions. However, there is no talking about any unilateral concessions to the detriment of Russia's security.