Interview by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the International Organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov to the United Nations correspondent for Sputnik news agency Lenka White

Mikhail Ivanovich, thank you very much for your time. You have been working in diplomacy for a long time, including here in Vienna. How would you compare this time with the past? How do they treat you here?

Well, I'll break the answer into two parts. The first thing concerns the Austrians. You know, there were several episodes when, say, literally a couple of times, local companies providing technical services for maintaining the infrastructure of our residential complex refused to work with us. Well, it's literally a couple of times. But in general, Austrians are very cordial and hospitable people. Well, I don’t observe any mass anti-Russian sentiments. Separate episodes, but isolated in nature. As for the Austrian authorities, their policy has noticeably deteriorated. They are trying to create difficulties by delaying entry visas. And, naturally, people from Moscow come to us for meetings of various UN bodies. The Austrians in this case follow the American path. Previously, they valued their reputation very much. Now, apparently, the reputation is less valuable. It doesn't do them any credit. As for the general situation on the Vienna international platform, it has, of course, changed. When I came here in 2018, Vienna was known for its Vienna spirit, its spirit of consensus. Now there is very little left of it, although countries, including many Western ones, are worried about this. Still, living together is better than being at enmity.

It’s clear, at least the Austrians don’t treat you so badly. So we can say that this is just government policy?

I specifically named the area, namely the visa policy of Austria, it has worsened. They also bear a certain responsibility to the international community, having provided Vienna as the headquarters of many international organizations. Well, they must correspond to the rank of the receiving party. In relation to us, to some other countries - I know the Iranians are complaining - the Austrians behave indecently.

We see from the example of Slovakia and Hungary that they are beginning to oppose military support for Ukraine. Do you think there will be new countries that, for example, will want to join Slovakia and Hungary? And what countries?

I don't know. Future will tell. But in general, in my opinion, it is becoming increasingly clear that the current policy, based, on the one hand, on the oblivion of diplomacy, and on the other hand, on massive arms supplies, is not working. And from this it is inevitable that at least some countries will draw appropriate conclusions. I think this will happen.

Can we call this a new trend, perhaps regarding military support for Ukraine?

I would refrain from making far-reaching predictions. Life is complex and ambiguous. Future will tell.

You mentioned that the European Union is under the Anglo-Saxon agenda. Will this be a precondition for its failure? And do you witness any desire of the member countries to break away from the influence of the European Union?

Well, regarding the Anglo-Saxon agenda, these are rather offensive words for the European Union, but they are true. And I’ll just give a few such striking examples when, on key issues related to security and economics, Europe blindly follows the lead of the United States and Great Britain to its own detriment. I remember at the beginning of the 2000s, Russia proposed a resolution at the UN General Assembly in support of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the USA and the USSR, signed back in 1972. Then the Europeans abstained.

Less than 20 years later, a similar situation arose when we proposed a draft resolution in support of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, this time the entire European Union voted against it. This is just a clear contrast, how in a decade and a half the Europeans have found themselves no longer, so to speak, under the external control of the United States, well, at least they are blindly following the lead, and in matters that concern their own security. For the United States, intermediate- and shorter-range missiles are something that has nothing to do with the security of the United States itself. But for Europeans this is a key issue. And here even they voted against it.

Let's take the example of sanctions. As far as I understand, the United States is the main beneficiary of the current situation around Ukraine. Washington makes money from this. But Europe is losing very much. Germany itself. That is, it is to their detriment, but the Europeans follow instructions from Washington. The 12th package of sanctions against Russia has just been approved. Well, we can only add to this that, according to the latest estimates, the gross domestic product in Russia this year will increase by 3.5%, more than that of the vast majority of countries in the European Union. That is, this policy is ineffective. And the last one, also a very striking example. In 2022, in March-April, it was possible, almost possible, to agree with the Ukrainians on a peace agreement, on a peace agreement with the aim of ending hostilities, but the Brits and Americans opposed it. And then, as always, the EU members joined them. If you remember, the chief diplomat of the European Union, Mr. Borrell, said that all problems must be resolved on the battlefield. Here are three examples that show that, indeed, at key points, EU policy is determined by the Anglo-Saxon agenda. Well, as far as whether there will be any changes, it doesn't really look like there will be changes yet.

Predictions that the European Union will collapse. I know you want to ask this question directly. I think that there are no such signs yet. On the contrary, there is a queue to join the European Union, but at the same time, the European Union has recently shown itself to be more and more unprofessional, making more and more mistakes. And if the EU leadership does not improve, then I think that sentiment against the European Union - as happened in the UK - will grow.

Yes, I’m just wondering about the migration crisis and inflation. Of course, energy prices are very high. Now, for example, in the Czech Republic, I know that people pay 200-300% more, and people have no money. And there are a lot of migrants from Ukraine.

Well, I am not professionally involved in issues of migration or the economics of European countries. But what you are talking about is very noticeable. It really is clear that there are a lot of migrants in Vienna. Much more than before. Just go to the store to see how prices change. Very fast and very significant. Well, of course, it affects people's mood. And in some countries, the results of local elections, national elections, indicate that right-wing politicians and right-wing political parties are becoming increasingly popular. As happened recently in the Netherlands. And we can expect that this trend will continue and develop further.

Now there is a question about the IAEA, if possible, also about Iran. What is the chance of restoring the JCPOA? And do you think that Iran can really create nuclear weapons?

Well, the chances of restoring the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action are minimal at this time. The agreement on the restoration of this nuclear deal was actually 99% reached by the beginning of March 2022, I headed the delegation at these negotiations, the Russian delegation, and everything had already been discussed and agreed upon. But then the Iranians, and then the Americans, took up what is called «fine-tuning». And then, apparently, in Washington, sometime in October 2022, a decision was made that this agreement should not be concluded. The same position was taken by European countries: France, Germany and Great Britain. But it must be said that these three countries often simply disappeared at the final stages of negotiations and have not appeared at the negotiating table since the end of February-March 2022. That is, they also made some political decisions. Formally, they do not refuse completely, but they are not ready to return to the negotiating table. What probably hurts me the most, the most unpleasant thing is that at the sessions of the Board of Governors they all, in unison, all these countries, for a long time, tediously, over and over again, list the Iranian sins: in what exactly Iran has deviated from the provisions of the JCPOA. These are completely hypocritical statements, crocodile tears, because they have the key to returning to the nuclear deal, its restoration. Everything is spelled out there in the draft agreement, which has never been finalized. In particular, there is now a lot of lamentation about the fact that Iran is enriching uranium to 60%, and this practice is apparently expanding. Well, in accordance with the agreement that the Westerners refused to finalize, Iran should have an enrichment of no more than 3.67%. And this can be realized, but the Westerners themselves do not allow this to happen. That's why I call their position very hypocritical, very unreasonable. And the most important thing is that the current situation is fraught with the risk of uncontrollable escalation at any moment, but this is their choice, we cannot force them to return to the negotiating table - and no one can. But this is a short-sighted and strategically erroneous position.

Permanent Representative of the USA Bruce Turner told the Conference on Disarmament in October that the US is ready to work constructively with Russia on reducing nuclear risks and on a nuclear arms control mechanism, including beyond 2026. Do you think there are now prerequisites for such a dialogue? And what version of the agreement with the United States is Russia ready to conclude as a replacement?

Well, you asked the question correctly: are there any prerequisites? There are no prerequisites. On the contrary, all US policy is aimed at aggravating our relations, and in these conditions it is completely unrealistic to discuss how, say, the Americans will inspect our nuclear facilities. Well, first they must normalize relations, and then we’ll see. Nobody probably knows what the new agreement will look like. This will depend on the state of affairs in the international arena, on the state of affairs in the military-political sphere. I can only say one thing: France and Great Britain must participate in this future agreement. For a long time it was possible to follow the path of bilateral reductions in Russian and American ones, but we, together with the Americans, have already slipped to the level where the relatively small, by old standards, potentials of France and Germany began to be of a very significant and sensitive nature for us, from a security point of view. France and Great Britain are military allies of the United States in the NATO, and we, of course, cannot ignore their potential.

And do you think it is necessary to include China, for example?

I don’t think so, if China suddenly wants to join and work in the format of the nuclear five, we probably won’t object. But we are definitely not going to force Beijing, as the United States is trying to do. Russia is interested in three Western, primarily nuclear powers: the USA, Great Britain and France.

How do you now assess the current situation at the Zaporozhskaya NPP? Is there still a threat of strikes from Kiev? And is the head of the IAEA Rafael Grossi expected to visit Moscow?

So, as for the Zaporozhskaya NPP. There are probably always risks, and we remember well that in July, August, September, October and November 2022, the Ukrainian Armed Forces regularly shelled the ZNPP. But at some point, someone probably told them, or they themselves came to the conclusion that it was very dangerous. There have been no attacks on the NPP since November 20, 2022. I mean, actually, the territory of the NPP inside the perimeter. But at the same time, Ukrainians regularly send their drones, including kamikaze drones, towards the power plant, about 20 a day. Our Armed Forces, the National Guard, using various electronic means, including, land or drive away these drones, but in the vicinity from time to time these flying devices carry out explosions. And, among other things, there are attacks on the city of Energodar, where nuclear workers of the ZNPP and their family members live.

Regarding Rafael Grossi’s visit to Russia, I can say that we have a very close, quite dense dialogue. In 2022 and 2023 he came to Moscow several times, primarily to participate in consultations with the interdepartmental Russian delegation on the Zaporozhskaya NPP.

On October 11, 2022 he met with President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in Saint Petersburg. And, of course, this dialogue will continue. I think that in 2024 he will visit Russia, most likely.

At the beginning of the year or in the middle? We don’t know yet, perhaps?

It depends on the willingness of both parties. There is no complete clarity in this regard yet.

Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg said on November 10 that after Russia withdraws from the CFE Treaty, NATO countries must strengthen the Alliance. What possible steps does Russia expect in this regard? And what responses are being considered?

Well, if this is an exact quote from what Stoltenberg said, then I can answer that he is not very knowledgeable about this issue, he has little understanding. Yes, indeed, we recently withdrew from the CFE Treaty officially, but in general we stopped participating in it - de facto suspended our participation - on December 13, 2007. In practical terms, in terms of security, nothing new has happened now. Therefore, any connection between Russia’s withdrawal from the CFE Treaty and the need to build up NATO forces close to, say, the Russian borders is a very unconvincing connection. But, in general, everything is heading towards the fact that the American and NATO presence will really increase. At one time, in 1997, on May 25, the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed, where the Alliance pledged not to station significant combat forces on the territory of new NATO members on a permanent basis. It was a slogan because I remember how I myself tried to get an answer to a simple question: what is a significant fighting force. And our NATO partners avoided answering in every possible way, and then de facto, according to all the signs, they began to viciously, maliciously violate this. Well, for example, a few years ago five thousand American troops appeared in Poland. And in response to the question we raised about how this relates to the obligation not to deploy significant combat forces, NATO gave a completely crafty, ridiculous answer: they are not there on a permanent basis, but rotate: five thousand people are there all the time, but the people themselves change. But this is a mockery of common sense and an indicator of how much NATO can be trusted.

Just now, literally on December 18, an agreement on defense cooperation was signed between Finland and the United States. As I understand it, the Americans will have access to military facilities in Finland. This is already a serious challenge. The fact is that we have always traditionally viewed Finland as both a neutral and, in general, a friendly country. At least, they assumed that we had good neighborly relations. Therefore, in 1990 we had 200,000 people on the territory of the Leningrad Military District, and in 2010 there were already 28,000, almost ten times less. There was no need. Moreover, the military district itself was closed in 2010. The Finns didn't like something. They apparently found this situation too comfortable. They joined NATO. Now we have made a decision to recreate the Leningrad Military District and the Moscow Military District. That is, there will always be retaliatory measures. I just don't understand how Finland benefits from this. They lived calmly, peacefully and unexpectedly found ourselves between Russia and NATO, as an integral part of the Alliance, but they are neighbors with us, and, God forbid, if there is any aggravation, then Finland itself will suffer first. I really wouldn’t want this, of course.

What, in your opinion, are the prospects for creating a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East in the current situation?

This issue will remain on the international agenda. As the European Union now says, as long as it takes – until the implementation of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East. The prospects for creating a zone, of course, now look very remote, and not only because of Gaza, because of the situation in the Gaza Strip, but also because the Israelis refuse dialogue with their neighbors, refuse to participate in the UN conference on the creation this zone. And without Israel, naturally, such a zone would have no meaning. That is, the prospect is quite distant, but, most importantly, the process is underway. Just a month ago, another session of the conference took place. Israel's neighbors are in no hurry. The conference will be held annually. Well, we'll see. But I repeat once again, this issue will remain on the agenda until the zone is created.

Now a little about news censorship in Europe. Since you live in Vienna, can you assess this situation? Many Russian media were banned from working here. The European Union also does not like, for example, platform X and wants them to play by their rules? How will the situation develop in the future, including regarding X? And how do you generally evaluate the platform, since you are its user?

Well, of course, what the European Union is doing is a disgrace. This is a manifestation of totalitarian tendencies in the European Union. They are essentially depriving their population of alternative sources of information. Normal people are indoctrinated by the one-sided presentation of news and assessments, especially in the context of the Ukrainian situation. But all this, of course, is very alarming; these are anti-democratic trends that persist and may still gain strength. As for X, I have my own attitude towards this social network. For almost three years I was doing this quite actively, and the account was growing, receiving more and more solid outreach, but two years ago, from the beginning of the special military operation, either X or Twitter, or outside people with influence on Twitter, decided to restrict my account. There was a shadow ban, so-called, and now some algorithms are still in effect that do not allow my tweets to spread widely, and the number of subscribers is limited. You know, I can just compare the first three years and the last two. A striking contrast. Now, let's say, they apparently set the bar somewhere at 33,605 subscribers, no more.

As soon as the number of subscribers approaches this figure, 10, 15, 20 subscribers are immediately eliminated without their consent, and this continues for a month. After about a month, they set a new bar. Already the last numbers are not 605, but 625. And again within a month the same story. This has been going on for two years now. This was before Musk, it became and persisted under Musk, so my attitude towards X and Twitter is quite skeptical. Well, it’s undignified to behave like that. I understand that this is a private company, it can determine the rules, but if you are declaring some kind of freedom of speech, openness, then you must comply with this. And don't be scared of my small account.

I don't think it's small, but on the contrary. I follow it very often. And I think that what you publish is very interesting.

Some people don't like it.

Maybe the European Union?

I suspect that these are some structures in the USA that are larger. But yes, at the same time I will add - this is an important addition - I myself have become convinced that, in fact, what we used to call Twitter, now X, is a very important new tool in the practice of multilateral diplomacy.

This was especially noticeable during the pandemic. It is possible to bring the Russian point of view to the entire Viennese diplomatic corps, almost, to a large extent, to the New York one, because many of my colleagues read here, very many, well, both from Western countries and from others. That is, X is really a tool. Several times we managed to find peaceful resolutions to pressing issues; somewhere on Saturday and Sunday, also through Twitter, there were such episodes. That is, this matter, it seems to me, is promising, but at the same time, the skepticism that I just told you about, of course, remains valid and has every reason.

Maybe after the Ukrainian crisis everything will be better? Or will new platforms simply be created where everything will be fair?

I would prefer that the Russian state take care of this issue and create a strong platform that works for both internal and external audiences. If a private person creates Telegram, and successfully, then, probably, the Russian state is able to do something similar. But this is not happening, because for this, apparently, it is necessary that appropriate decisions are made. But there are no such solutions yet. And, frankly, it's a shame. I think we could gain a lot if we took care of this problem. Including in terms of the image of our country in the West. And I said at the very beginning of the interview that sometimes we still encounter such hostile attitudes, not often, but we do. This is due to the lack of objective information, due to the fact that people cannot familiarize themselves with different points of view. Only the Western point of view dominates and has a complete monopoly. This is the result. It would be better to fix this.

Russia has completed the creation of the second largest national segment of the International Monitoring System. How effective is this system?

Well, almost all parties to the agreement have joined this system. For now, all verification is operating in test mode on a temporary basis until the agreement comes into force. But, nevertheless, the system functions. Yes, the 32nd station - seismic this time - was put into operation and certified. Data from it are already arriving in Vienna, at the International Data Center. We became the second nuclear power after France to complete the creation of a national segment. France, I think, has 18 objects, we have 32, which is why it took longer. And the Americans have the largest segment, about 38 stations, and they still have a lot of work to do, but overall this International Monitoring System is more than 90% ready. There should be a total of - I may be a little confused with the numbers - relatively speaking, 320 objects, now 290, even more already, certified. That is, the system works and works, in my opinion, quite effectively. This is evidenced by the fact that, for example, all nuclear tests conducted by North Korea were recorded by this monitoring system.

Thank you very much. And the last question. Western countries constantly talk about Russia's international isolation. How can you comment on this? Are there any signs of isolation in Vienna?

I think that our Western colleagues are passing off wishful thinking as reality. And here, in Vienna, we do not feel any isolation, including because the West represents, in my opinion, 12% of the global population, is not so much, but a huge number of countries are represented here in Vienna, with which we have quite good working contact, mutually respectful, often friendly relations. Well, communication with Western countries is now, of course, reduced to a minimum, although when the need arises, some resolutions are agreed upon, but communication occurs at the expert level. And so, mostly into the microphone. Mutual exchange of reproaches and critical assessments. We don’t like it, but if they offend us, I, for example, always respond. And our Western partners usually don’t like this very much, because a huge number of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America learn a lot of interesting things about Western policies, including in the context of the Ukrainian crisis, which Western countries would not like to talk about.

Regarding isolation, I will tell you that many people perceive us as a leader. It is very nice. And in many ways they focus on us. For example, just recently, we organized the coordination of a joint statement of sensible countries on drugs. We gained 44 co-authors. This is quite a lot by several standards. Stating that violation of conventions, legalization of cannabis, non-compliance with legal obligations are unacceptable, they indicated that a comprehensive approach must be taken to the drug problem, because more and more Western countries are saying that the most important thing is to ensure human rights and solve gender issues problem, and then the drug problem will go away. This is nonsense, of course. But in fact, they impose such attitudes. And 44 countries said: we don’t agree with you. Law enforcement measures are also an integral part of the fight against drugs. Literally three weeks ago, even less - two and a half - on our initiative, a large joint statement was made against islamophobia, the burning of the Quran and religious intolerance in general. Thirty-three countries joined, I repeat, this also happened on our initiative. And, you see, many countries are willing to join such steps proposed by the Russian Federation. So, again, there can be no talk of isolation. These are only people with a hypertrophied consciousness, those who believe that everything, as we say, has come together like a wedge in the West. If the West ignores us and isolates us, then that means Russia is already isolated. No, we are probably a little isolated from the West, but this is a very small segment. Just as we isolate, one might say, Western countries to some extent, refuse to talk to them on certain issues. This also happens. In principle, this is not normal, of course, but these are the times, and over time this will be overcome.

Now I have another question. Do you think the USA will be isolated because of Gaza?

Oh, I don’t know, you see, isolating Russia didn’t work, Russia is too big, but the United States is also a very big country, and isolating the United States is quite difficult. They, of course, partially isolate themselves. You asked about a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Yes, the USA and Israel are engaged in self-isolation, they are invited there, but they do not go, but all conditions have been created for them. Well, if you don’t want to show up at the conference, that’s your right. But this is what I would call self-isolation. This, of course, is a big mistake on the part of the United States, it is generally indecent. The fact is that the United States, together with Great Britain and Russia, are co-authors of the 1995 resolution on the Middle East that I mentioned. The resolution that allowed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to be extended without a vote, indefinitely. Naturally, Great Britain, Russia and the United States bear a special responsibility for the implementation of this resolution. And the United States refuses to even appear in the meeting room as an observer. This is completely indecent. But this is self-isolation.