Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov’s interview with RIA Novosti (January 30, 2023)

– Do you know when new US Ambassador Lynne Tracy will present copies of her credentials to the Foreign Ministry? Have you planned any contacts with her?

– All ambassadors arriving at their place of service first spend some time looking around and resolving priority issues related to their further stay in a given location. They hand over copies of their credentials to the Foreign Ministry in the country of their stay. This act signals the start of their service. We have coordinated this procedure with Lynne Trace, and it will take place early next week. She is expected to hand copies of her credentials to me.

– What does Russia think about the number of embassy staff that was discussed at a meeting with the United States in Istanbul in December? Are you planning a new meeting? If so, when and where will it take place? Or is dialogue on this issue again put on pause due to recent statements and actions by the White House?

– The number of staff at diplomatic missions was not discussed at all during the December consultations in Istanbul on bilateral irritants between the Foreign Ministry of Russia and the US Department of State. Many problems have piled up in our bilateral relations. As you understand, the root cause lies in the US policy towards Russia. To be more precise, it emerged during the diplomatic confrontation unleashed by President Barack Obama. Among other things, it was accompanied by the seizure of Russia’s six diplomatic properties and the massive expulsion of Russian diplomats. Naturally, Russia took response measures following the principle of reciprocity. They evoked a painful reaction in Washington. US officials immediately started to complain about the resulting lack of personnel. They did not mention the fact that US diplomats failed to fill their Moscow quota of 455 employees even by one third.

The time and place of the next round of Russian-US consultations have not yet been determined. Overall, we consider them useful for comparing our positions. There is no other way of finding common ground and breaking the deadlock in settling a host of problems. Now we are engaged in routine preparations for a regular meeting. We hope the tactics of small steps will allow us eventually to find mutually acceptable solutions to the most important issues on our bilateral agenda.

And I’d like to make one more point on this issue. As for the numbers of US diplomats in Russia and Russian diplomats in the US, there are many vacancies even in the quota I mentioned. Strictly speaking, these are not vacancies but opportunities to increase the number of personnel in the staffing table. If the US does not want to do this, it has its own motives, reasons for this, but we will not even try to understand them. Therefore, we do not think we must launch some consultations or talks on establishing quotas at other levels or in some other way. But we will review this idea if the Americans suggest it. However, this does not mean that we will accept it. Overall, the situation is complicated and has a prelude, so dialogue on these issues is important and we will continue it.

– Will the US decision to send a tank battalion to Ukraine complicate talks on bilateral issues?

– No doubt, this is an extremely destructive step also as an attempt to fuel escalation in Ukraine. Paradoxically, US officials claim that supplies of a broader range of increasingly modern systems, including heavy weapons, to Ukraine is not an escalation. In general, US and NATO officials have directly quoted Orwell many times recently. Almost every day, they literally say from high rostra in the West that “peace is war.” Listen to what they are saying. Likewise, after deciding to send numerous Abrams tanks, they are starting to say that this is not an escalation. They deny the obvious. The Americans decided to take this step to again line up NATO and call the roll. All this is being done before the eyes of the international community. As I understand, it is increasingly concerned over the direction in which this Western group of irresponsible, if not insane politicians and wirepullers are pushing the world.

– Let’s return to bilateral issues with the United States. Have you received any signals from Washington lately on holding a meeting of the Bilateral Consultative Commission under the New START Treaty? Do you expect progress in organising this meeting after the arrival of the new US Ambassador in Moscow?

We have noted that when it comes to this issue, the United States is focused on its own priorities, as always. In this case, it demands resuming inspections within the New START framework as soon as possible. In fact, it linked to this the holding of a meeting of the Bilateral Consultative Commission on the treaty. In conditions where the US-led “united forces of the West” have already gone from a hybrid to an all but real war against Russia, this is impossible for objective reasons. The Americans and their satellites, not us, rejected our dialogue on strategic stability and arms control. They did so by rejecting our proposals submitted in December 2021 and by placing their bets on Russia’s strategic defeat. Yet, the Russian Federation is committed to the New START treaty.

We are fully and in good faith fulfilling all of the treaty’s quantitative and qualitative restrictions and continue the information exchange envisaged by the treaty. This exchange ensures the required level of transparency and predictability in the strategic area. At the same time, nobody has cancelled the international legal reservation rebus sic stantibus (if the circumstances remain unchanged – Ed.). This reservation makes it important to consider whether the circumstances in which an agreement was signed remain the same. Let me recall that according to the preamble to the treaty, the US signed (this is a quotation) the following: “Working therefore to forge a new strategic relationship based on mutual trust, openness, predictability, and cooperation,” and “Guided by the principle of indivisible security.” These are important provisions, and a preamble of any treaty is no less important than the operational articles. But the US actions crudely and cynically violate these provisions I just quoted. They are aimed at resolving the so-called “Russian issue” by frontal aggressive deterrence bordering on a direct clash of the US and NATO with Russia. It is also aimed at destroying our historical and cultural code. Washington must realise that without renouncing its current course and displaying willingness to come to terms based on mutual respect and consideration of national interests, it will be impossible to conduct normal interstate interaction, including on strategic stability.

– You said recently that Russia would deeply regret the dismantling of the New START framework, but Moscow will not keep the US in it by force. Does this mean that Russia is already considering scenarios where there will be no arms control treaty with the Americans at all after 2026?

– This scenario is quite possible. Unfortunately, during all recent years, Washington was guided by the principle that its egoistic interest is all that matters, while all the rest can be ignored. This is why we were seeing a deliberate dismantling of the entire arms control structure, including multilateral treaties, not just bilateral agreements with the Russian Federation. The New START treaty may also fall victim to this approach. We are ready for this scenario. We are considering it and its consequences, and we are thinking about what we should focus on to guarantee our security. However, we are not hiding that this is not our choice. It would be rational to take a different path – to resume the discussion of strategic stability and start working on a new security equation that would consider all factors affecting strategic stability.

– But it appears that the sides are in a deadlock without a way out. The US is unlikely to change its position towards Russia as far as Ukraine goes and give a signal about changing the principle in the New START treaty that you said it has already violated …

– You are right in saying that this is a deadlock – practically in all areas of our bilateral dialogue with the US. Washington’s anti-Russia policy has led our relations into this deadlock. It has been toughening it every month and year during the recent years. As for the principle that I cited and you mentioned, it concerns a fundamental change in the circumstances that existed during the signing of the treaty. I mentioned this principle to explain why we cannot apply the work-as-usual or business-as-usual approach to US demands to resume inspections as soon as possible and return other elements of this issue into another phase, pretending that nothing is happening around us. This is impossible. A division line, a waterproof partition cannot be erected between one and the other. The entire security situation has become hostage to the US policy of inflicting strategic defeat on Russia. We will do all we can to counter this, using all available methods and means at our disposal for this purpose.

– Has Russia offered the US a prisoner exchange according to the all-for-all formula? Or would such an exchange be unequal considering the number of Russians in US prisons? Is there precise information on the number of prisoners on both sides? Is a dialogue on new potential exchanges being maintained?

– Prisoner exchanges are a very delicate issue that directly affects people’s lives. This is understandable because these people were arrested or detained for quite definite actions, such as spying or smuggling drugs. As for our people in the US, they were put in prison for political reasons or fabricated criminal charges. As such, the all-for-all formula is hardly suitable for realistic exchange options. Moreover, to our great regret, we do not have precise information on all Russian citizens imprisoned on US territory. The Department of State is systematically ignoring the repeated requests of the Russian Embassy in Washington to provide this information. At the same time, according to the information we do have, there are many more Russian citizens in US prisons and pre-trial detention centres than there are Americans in Russia. I will be straight – such an extremely delicate issue as prisoner exchange requires silence. It is not worth taking it to the public because this is obviously counterproductive. We have a confidential channel for communicating with the Americans and it has proved its effectiveness when we exchanged Konstantin Yaroshenko for Trevor Reed and Viktor Bout for Brittney Griner.

– But will you continue talks on exchanging prisoners with the US?

Of course, we will, using the available confidential channel.

– Do you discuss via this or any other channel an opportunity for exchanging Americans that were taken prisoner in Ukraine? Is there a possibility of exchanging them for Russians in US prisons? Do they have a prisoner of war status, being mercenaries? Can mercenaries be viewed as prisoners of war?

– If you are asking about the Americans missing on the territory of Ukraine, Washington should inquire about their fate directly in Kiev. Russian authorities are not responsible for the security of US citizens in other countries and certainly do not monitor their stay. As for the Americans who went to Ukraine as mercenaries or instructors, taking part de facto in crimes against Russian military and civilians, the best thing they can do is return home immediately if they want to remain safe and alive.

– Can the conditions for peace talks with US participation emerge while hostilities have somewhat slowed this year?

– Our position on this issue is well known. I think Washington is familiar with it as well. We are prepared to study any serious initiatives on settling the crisis in Ukraine but nobody has yet made sensible proposals on it. We have not rejected negotiated solutions at any point. We demonstrated this in March 2022 in both Minsk and Istanbul. However, at the prompting of its Western curators, Kiev rejected the almost completed agreements and then publicly declared its unwillingness to continue the dialogue, setting patently unacceptable conditions. Last September, Zelensky prohibited any talks with Russia by executive order. Now that Washington has announced its decision to provide tanks and its vassals, including Ottawa, are competing over who can supply the most armoured vehicles, especially old ones, to Ukraine, it is pointless to talk not only to Ukro-Nazis but also to their puppeteers. Many of them look like caricatures in their ignorance. After the revelations of [former Chancellor of Germany] Merkel, [former President of France Francois] Hollande, and now [former Prime Minister of Britain] Boris Johnson, nobody has any illusions about Western mediation in the Minsk agreements and the Normandy process. Obviously, the United States is not only the main driver of this entire crisis in Ukraine but also its biggest beneficiary. In part, Washington views Ukraine as a testing ground for the products of its defence manufacturers. It is testing different weapons, including modern long-range systems and methods of their use. The purpose is to establish their resilience to Russian weapons. By taking equipment from its allies and sending it to the Ukrainian theatre of hostilities to be scrapped, the Americans are hoping to impose on the Europeans new, multi-billion dollar contracts for the purchase of their own military goods. This is a cynical game and we are confident it will have a bad end for those who are playing it for all they are worth.

– What does Moscow think about the joint article by US former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and ex-Pentagon chief Robert Gates in The Washington Post arguing that Russian cannot cede to Ukraine the territories it gained during the special military operation and will try to keep them to turn them into bridgeheads for attacking the West in the future?

– Sadly, the level of US expertise on Russian issues has declined precipitously during the past decade. If not for that, Washington would have pursued a much more sensible and adequate policy towards Russia. We have expressed our views and proved them with our actions many times. We do not want anything from the West. We want to be left in peace. But NATO was consistently creeping toward our borders with a maniacal persistence worthy of a better use. At the same time, it was zombifying our neighbours with Russophobic horror stories. We tried to make it clear many times and explained politely and in tougher terms that this should not be done that such actions would have consequences. We said we would not forego our own security interests and would not let anyone offend Russian people. The Americans did not listen to our warnings. Nor did they take them seriously. They continued inciting Kiev against Russia in all possible ways. Hence, the forced decision to launch the special military operation. We simply had no other options.

– Are you preparing a new meeting with IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi on the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant? Can statements by the head of the Energoatom energy company of Ukraine and the Kiev authorities on the unfeasibility of creating a protective zone put an end to the joint efforts in this area? By what percentage is the agreement on the protective zone around the Zaporozhye NPP ready?

– We are continuing talks with the IAEA Secretariat on creating a zone for protecting the operational and physical nuclear security at the Zaporozhye NPP. Our goal is to do all we can to prevent Ukraine’s attacks on it and avert a man-made disaster with unpredictable consequences. While we are conducting such consultations with the IAEA, it would be a mistake to make public any information on the potential parameters of this zone. The negotiating process is an uphill road. We submitted our proposals to IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi. As far as we know, Kiev has not yet responded to his initiative. Judging by everything, it is simply playing for time. Ukraine repeatedly shelled the plant, damaging its infrastructure, thereby demonstrating its complete neglect of the risks linked with the security of nuclear facilities. It seems that Kiev is using it for nuclear blackmail. All this shows once again that there are no constraints for the Kiev authorities. In all probability, relying on the support of their sponsors, they believe they have complete impunity to commit crimes.

– Has the IAEA really suggested withdrawing from the plant the National Guard of Russia which is protecting it now? Does Russia agree to this and if this is true, who will protect the plant and ensure its security?

– Actually, the proposals to withdraw the National Guard of Russia units from the plant came from some representatives of Ukraine and its Western supporters. The plant is located on Russian territory. In accordance with our legislation, units of the National Guard of Russia are in charge of security at all nuclear facilities, including this one. Neither the IAEA Secretariat, nor member countries of the agency have the right to interfere in the protection of a nuclear power plant of any state. The IAEA’s mandate does not envisage this and its Secretariat strictly adheres to its mandate on this issue. It has made no proposals to this effect. As for contacts with Mr Grossi, our permanent mission in Vienna is regularly in touch with him. His visit to Russia is quite likely but we need to coordinate it in more detail.