Russian Ambassador to Australia Dr Alexey Pavlovsky’s interview with Andrew Tillett of the Australian Financial Review - 21 September 2023

A.T. Well, we are starting on a small level sort of things before we go to the bigger issues. Obviously, we had an issue with the Embassy earlier this year - the cancelled lease. Where are things up to at the moment in terms of that process? You vacated the site. Are you seeking compensation or it is now just effectively over that issue?

Ambassador. I would like to refrain from detailed comments on where the case is and what are the prospects. It is in the hands of lawyers. You know that we went last year to the Federal Court, and we challenged the previous decision to terminate the lease. The Commonwealth had to accept that their notice of termination was invalid. That's when they decided to legislate.

Allow me to give you a general picture of how we see the situation around the Embassy. We assess this as an extremely hostile move by the Australian Government. What is important, it has made it much more difficult for the Embassy to discharge its duties.

First of all, we have lost the already constructed consular building on the leased land in Yarralumla. Meanwhile, we were planning to move in soon. For the time being, my immediate problem is how consular officials can continue to provide consular services to Russian and Australian nationals because now they have to work literally in the lobby of the staff’s residential building in Griffith.

To give you some background, we signed the lease 15 years ago. At that time, our chancery on Canberra Avenue in Griffith was already becoming growingly shabby and not fit for purpose. That's why the two Governments decided that new office buildings were needed and that they would be constructed in Yarralumla (let me stress that the Yarralumla plot was offered to us, we did not choose it). And the vision was that upon constructing the Chancery and consular premises in Yarralumla, the Griffith site would be left exclusively for accommodating personnel, for residential purposes. And that's what the construction everybody could see in Griffith was about. 

We have already moved most of our administrative and technical personnel into a new residential building that has been constructed. There is also an ongoing reconstruction process for a couple of smaller buildings there, they also will be occupied by the personnel when finished.

So, the point was that our chancery and consular section would move to Yarralumla from the shabby building where it has been located since the establishment of diplomatic relations 80 plus years back, in the middle of WWII, in 1942. Now this prospect has been effectively cancelled. The current Government of Australia went to great lengths to make sure the Russian Embassy couldn’t get decent chancery and consular premises in the foreseeable future. 

A.T. Are you looking for another site or just because of the current state of bilateral relations you don’t bother asking for this sort of thing?

Ambassador. We are assessing the situation. 

A.T. But what you are saying, is you still need somewhere in Canberra to go for the office, administrative sort of work.

Ambassador. Yes, we do, and this need is very acute. But, frankly, Andrew, I am in a difficult position here. If we opt to seek another land and, say, we invest in the project, we invest in construction, and we start constructing and complete the construction of the building. And then, several years ahead, out of the blue, there will be another Act of Parliament depriving us of the land and the investments. Should we enter this river again? I don't know. Frankly, I don’t know. We have to think twice about it.

A.T. In terms of the site, you have spent money there. I think it was $2 million or $4 million on construction or something like that.

Ambassador. It was more than $5 million.

A.T. It's not like it, that block being left vacant for 15 years. You had done work on that and improved that site. Have you asked the Australian Government for compensation for those building costs?

Ambassador. I understand your insistence, but, again, this is in the hands of the lawyers, including the issue of compensation.

A.T. It’s still a live discussion, isn’t it?

Ambassador. Yes, obviously. We are seeking advice. With the assistance of our lawyers, we are undertaking certain legal steps. We will see how it goes.

A.T. Well, you mentioned the construction at Griffith was residential. I guess one question arises. Australia has a comparatively small presence in Moscow. Why does Russia have such a big diplomatic presence in Australia? 

Ambassador. I think the obvious answer is simply because we have a big community here. Nobody knows for sure, but it's from 80,000 to 100,000 people. People who have come here in several waves through one hundred plus years and who are a very vibrant community. Including in terms of being a bridge between our countries. Obviously, they need attention, and consular services, first of all. They are also very demanding in terms of being assisted in maintaining links with Russia, where many of them have relatives and travel there frequently. They want their cultural and language needs satisfied. And I must say that in the framework of Australian official multiculturalism, they have these opportunities. It is very positive.  

By the way, if we touch upon this topic - obviously, we will pass later to Ukraine - I think that Australians are very supportive of multiculturalism. They benefit from these mutually enriching and very democratic practices. And they cannot even imagine how this is being tackled in Ukraine, where the actual official policy of the Kiev regime is "Ukraine for Ukrainians". The official national hero is Stepan Bandera, who was a Nazi collaborator. His organisation is responsible for massacres of Jews and Poles. Up to 60,000 Poles were massacred in Volhynia in 1943. These are "heroes" who are officially glorified in modern-day Ukraine. This is a country where a mayor of a city can be fined for speaking Russian at a function. I believe that these are things that should be known to Australians. They should understand that by "standing with Ukraine", they stand with this xenophobic and ultranationalistic regime.

A.T. I’ll come back to that in a minute. You just talked about the Russian community in Australia. Have they told the Embassy about their experience in Australia since the war began in Ukraine? Are they complaining of harassment or discrimination or anything like that?

 Ambassador. We have been approached on several occasions and sometimes people tell us about harassment, mostly in social media, in many cases, by aggressive members of the Ukrainian community, mainly those who recently arrived. But as an Embassy, we have also been witnessing everyday rallies in front of the Embassy with openly aggressive people shouting obscenities at children walking to the Embassy school. 

So, there is aggressivity targeting Russian people. There were also deplorable incidents when local Australian authorities chose to discriminate against the Russian community. I can recollect two Russian cultural and sportive organizations being denied participation in the Australia Day celebration in Adelaide, which we condemn, and the Embassy has commented on that. But my overall impression is that the multicultural society of Australia – I mean, at the societal level, not talking about politicians - is reasonable and healthy enough not to support this kind of discrimination, hostile acts and hate speech. 

A.T. You mentioned the political level today. What is your personal relationship as a diplomat, as an Ambassador of the Russian Federation? Are you getting access to DFAT? Have they cut you off? Do they still talk to you? How do your fellow Ambassadors treat you? Do they make you a pariah?

Ambassador. I would say, not more a "pariah" than Russia is a "pariah" in the international arena. Sometimes we hear these expressions from Western politicians. It is an interesting point, and it strikes the heart of the matter because sometimes our tongue betrays our thinking. Russia is sanctioned by around 50 countries, which is roughly 1/3 of the world community. The rest of the world, in fact, the global majority, maintains, as always, perfect relations of mutually beneficial cooperation and friendship with Russia. So, when people representing a minority of the world are saying that Russia is isolated simply because they don’t talk to Russia, it amounts to arrogantly identifying themselves as the whole of the world community. This betrays exactly the mindset of exceptionalism and domination which immensely irritates peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This is what Russia firmly opposes.

Let me recollect a point made by EU chief diplomat Josep Borrell who called Europe "a beautiful garden" and the rest of the world "a jungle". This is a Western politician’s mindset. They think they are superior and entitled to write rules for the whole of the international community. Which is a gross deviation from the world order as enshrined in the UN Charter. The first principle mentioned in the Charter is sovereign equality of states.

Going back to my life here. It is rewarding for a diplomat to work in such dramatic and crucial times because my personal experience reflects the global trends. My relations with most of the Ambassadors here are as cordial, businesslike and friendly as they have always been throughout my tenure since I came here in 2019. As I said, I'm not more "isolated" than Russia is allegedly "isolated" internationally.

On my relations with government officials, I mean with my immediate interlocutors in DFAT. I’d say they are ice-cold but polite. Obviously, we communicate. The communication is maintained between the Embassy and DFAT, exactly like between the Australian Embassy in Moscow and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia. If not communicating, what would be the rationale behind maintaining Embassies at all?

Of course, diplomatic work here is not easy, I mean, working with the Australian side. But as a professional diplomat, I work in the given conditions where my country sends me to. 

A.T. Australia has been a major contributor of military aid to Ukraine. What are your feelings about that? Probably from the Australian perspective that was expected, we are helping a democracy defend itself against aggression. Are there red lines in terms of aid Australia can provide to Ukraine? Like the jets, for instance. There have been talks around that F18 jets could be contributed, perhaps, in time. 

Ambassador. I have already expressed my opinion on some aspects of "Ukrainian democracy". But let me give you my perspective to understand how we see that, especially the issue of sending weapons to Ukraine by Australia and other Western countries.

First of all, the tragic conflict in Ukraine should have never started. Ukraine had every chance to prosper and live at peace with all its neighbours not presenting a threat to any of them as well as enjoy internal peace by simply abiding by the common standards of national minorities' rights. But the West had other plans for Ukraine. It brought to power in Kiev an ultra-nationalistic regime ideologically based, as I mentioned, on the glorification of Nazi collaborators, and used it as a tool against Russia. 

But even after the large-scale military conflict has broken, it could have been stopped at an early stage, back in March 2022 when the parties at Russia - Ukraine talks in Istanbul agreed on peace arrangements. They were put on paper and initialled by the delegations. But the UK and US instructed Zelensky to walk out of negotiations and fight on to the last Ukrainian. I wonder how much you are aware of those developments.

I wonder if anybody gives thought to the very telling words of President Andrzej Duda of Poland, that in fact, reveal the rationale for the strategy of the West. Andrzej Duda said there is now an opportunity to deter Russia "cheaply, because American soldiers are not dying". According to this logic, Ukrainians are expendable. 

If we take a look at the facts, Zelensky’s regime keeps sending its own people to slaughter. The internet is full of videos of potential conscripts being chased on the streets of Ukrainian cities by military police like game, beaten up and taken to conscription centres. According to the latest data, out of every 100 mobilised during the last year, only 20 are still fit to serve, the rest have been killed, wounded or are missing in action. If we are talking about the so-called counteroffensive, the casualties since its beginning are 71 thousand soldiers. It’s a terrible cost for taking control of a couple of completely demolished villages.

So, that's the toll the people of Ukraine are forced to pay for their government being subservient to the geopolitical goals of the West while sacrificing the national interests of their own country.

Now to the issue of sending weapons to Ukraine. From the perspective I described, by supplying weapons to Ukraine, and it seems Australia takes special pride in punching above its weight, Australia de-facto fuels the conflict and supports the immoral strategy of war to the last Ukrainian. 

There is another aspect. Those who contribute to protracted and senseless bloodshed in Ukraine should also realise the responsibility they assume because of the enormous risks of escalation. The more weapons are given to Kiev, the longer the war, the longer the war, the more chances that it will develop into a global kinetic conflict.

Everybody already knows by now, except maybe Mick Ryan, that Ukraine just cannot win, whatever weapons it is given. In this situation dragging the West into a direct military conflict with Moscow remains the only hope for Zelensky. No wonder Ukrainian Ambassador Myroshnychenko here so enthusiastically hailed recent reports about Australian-supplied drones being used to attack an airfield in central Russia. I don’t think Australians should be equally upbeat about it. 

Actually, we have seen all kinds of reckless provocative actions from the Kiev regime, like systematic shelling Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant or creating ecological disaster by destroying the Kakhovka Dam…

A.T. You are denying that Russia was involved in destroying the dam?

Ambassador. It seems, that not even Australian media supported this Ukraine propaganda version. You just have to know that the Ukrainian side had been shelling the dam for months, methodically reducing it to the condition of being not fit to hold the stream. But even if you embrace the theory that the Russians blew it up, you will have to explain why when the dam collapsed, the Ukrainians opened the floodgates in the higher part of the Dnieper River to increase the pressure of the water and exacerbate the flooding.

I have no doubts that it was an artificial ecological catastrophe caused by the Ukrainian side. We also know that due to the destruction of the dam, Russian Crimea was deprived of water. Another consequence was that our thoroughly constructed lines of defence and minefields on the lower bank of the Dnieper River have been covered by water and eliminated. The version that it was a Russian act simply defies common sense. Like many fakes of Ukrainian propaganda, for that matter.

A.T. Russians lost hundreds of thousands of troops as well in this war. You've been accused of weaponising grain exports, of hitting civilian targets. Russia is very much the aggressor in this, isn't it? I mean, if Russian troops withdrew and went home, the war would end.

Ambassador. That is the common wisdom. But first of all, let's try to separate two different issues. 

You may disagree with the Russian actions in Ukraine. It will be most probably the case if you are not aware of the genesis of this crisis. Or simply don't want to know. You may strongly disagree with Russian actions, even call it aggression, whatever. And we can talk about that. I’ll try to explain why Russia had no other option but to take this action. I’ll ask you to reflect on why at the time of the 1962 Caribbean crisis US President John Kennedy was ready to go nuclear because he believed that Soviet missiles in Cuba were an existential threat to his country. 

So, we can discuss the reasons why Russia has taken action. Again, you could disagree and still call it aggression. But it doesn't mean that you automatically have to believe everything that you are told about so-called Russian atrocities. You mentioned the shelling of the civilian targets. Do you have something specific in mind?

A.T. Obviously, hitting civilian buildings, residential buildings with the children… theatre in Mariupol… things like that. 

Ambassador. Bucha? 

A.T. Yea. I mean, you're aware of that. 

Ambassador. And recent shelling of a market in Konstantinovka?

A.T. Yes, the market. I just use it as an example. 

Ambassador. Example, right. Let’s take this most recent one, the market in Konstantinovka. 6 September, missile hitting a peaceful street in a Ukrainian-controlled territory, 15 civilians killed, 30 wounded. All Australian media had these headlines about Russia killing civilians. You have heard about this? 

A.T. Yes. 

Ambassador. Have you then read a New York Times piece on it a couple of days ago?

A.T. No.

Ambassador. About unravelling this incident. They employed experts, they analysed the footage, they got to the place, despite the resistance of the Ukrainian authorities. They also analysed the debris. And they proved it was a Ukrainian missile. It’s not the Embassy that says so, it's in the New York Times. 

But the Australian media just let it go. They had repeated Zelensky’s accusations about Russia shelling civilians. But when it was debunked, there was silence. So, the Australian public is kept in the dark. The thing that remains in your mind is that Russia was committing atrocities. Nobody hears about this being another fake by the Ukrainian side, debunked by a Western newspaper you can’t suspect of pushing Russian propaganda.

My point is that every such incident, every occasion you have or haven’t mentioned, can be unravelled, analysed, and debunked like that.

A.T. So, Russia is innocent at all? This is what you're saying? Is unfairly accused? 

Ambassador. In a situation of a military conflict inevitably there are casualties, victims and destructions. What I am saying, is that the rules of engagement we follow absolutely prohibit deliberately targeting civilians. And we make every effort to minimise destructions and casualties.

A.T. We are now 18 months into the war. Russia and Ukraine have put forward competing peace proposals. What are the conditions for peace that can happen? The conditions that you put forward are unacceptable for Ukraine. And the conditions Ukrainians put forward are unacceptable to Russia. Where is the way out for this conflict to end?

Ambassador. Russia’s absolute preference has always been and remains a peaceful resolution of disputes, a principle enshrined in the UN Charter. I recently came across a quote from Senator Wong. Speaking at the Labor conference she said that "building the conditions that maintain peace must be the greatest purpose of all countries’ diplomacy". Too bad, that the Ukrainian Government and their Western minders had been persistently undermining Russia’s efforts to build such conditions for years before 2022. Thus, the situation was pushed to the current military outbreak. 

You ask about the way to peace. There are countries and organisations, like the African Union with its peace initiative, China, Brazil, Vatican, that have given thought to how this conflict could be resolved. It is very unfortunate, that Australia is not among these countries. It is among the countries that support the continuation of this conflict. The strategy of the West is to inflict military defeat on Russia, to resolve this conflict on the battlefield.

Speaking about peace proposals and conditions, and how they compare. I would say that what has been aired by the Ukrainian side are not, in fact, peace proposals, it is a request for capitulation.

A.T. And similarly Russia’s conditions are unacceptable for the Ukrainians. Russia insists on keeping Crimea while Ukraine says that it should be returned to Ukraine. 

Ambassador. Crimea is part of Russia according to our Constitution, as well as the four new regions.

A.T. I mean, that's a fundamental part of the peace negotiations.

Ambassador. We can speculate on what is acceptable or not acceptable for Ukraine, but we will not find out before real negotiations start. Ever since the West ordered Zelensky to walk out from an already agreed peace formula back in March 2022 Kiev regime has not shown any appetite for discussions. There exists a legal ban in Ukraine on any negotiations with Russia, Zelensky had signed a decree to that effect. Anything you and I could discuss about formulas, conditions, acceptability – it's all just speculation because Kiev doesn't want negotiations in the first place.

A.T. You said earlier, that the West is in the minority, right? Russia still enjoys a supportive majority of international opinion. We have seen now that your fellow BRICS member President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa spoke publicly in recent days raising concerns about Ukrainian children being taken from Ukrainian families to Russia. That suggests that countries that may mostly be supportive or neutral in this conflict have reservations about what Russia is doing, doesn't it?

Ambassador. Every state in this world has reservations about the positions or politics of every other state. I guess that even Australia might have some reservations about the politics of the US, at least theoretically speaking. The point is it doesn't mean the stance of Russia in favour of a more just multipolar world, based on sovereign equality, is not supported. I think it is.

Andrew, can I briefly react on the children issue. I haven't read the statement of President Ramaphosa you mentioned, but I think that it has to do with what I was previously talking about. We witness the effect of a powerful propaganda machine that works day and night to promote Ukrainian fake narratives aimed at dehumanising Russia. We absolutely understand why they are working towards that. Because it is a situation of information war.

A.T. So, it’s not true? President Putin has been accused of what I mentioned by the Criminal court.

Ambassador. Let me tell you this. Do you know how many children they claim we abducted?

A.T. Tens of thousands. 

Ambassador. The recent tweet by the Ukrainian Ambassador was about 20,000 allegedly separated from families and forcibly transferred to Russia. But do you know that when officially prompted to give the names, the Ukrainian Human Rights Commissioner Mr Dmitro Lubinets came up with the list of, how many do you think? 11 kids that were lost track of and were believed to be in Russia. That was all the Ukrainian side could provide to substantiate their accusations.

By the way, they always have problems with numbers. Speaking of the so-called "Bucha massacre" Mr Miroshnichenko cited four different numbers of victims on four different occasions, ranging from 200 to 800. There is no official list of those allegedly "tortured and killed" by the Russians in Bucha. We tried even through the UN Secretary-General. There is no such list.

These are facts. But again, I think that people in South Africa, just like people in Australia haven't heard about it. The mainstream media, according to their editorial policies, are busy pushing Ukrainian propaganda while suppressing everything that is inconsistent with it.

Therefore, we hear about Russian atrocities. But what do you know about Ukrainian war crimes? Unlike the former ones, mostly fake, the latter are very well documented. Human rights organisations now begin to recognise it. Like using civilian residential blocks in the cities to place there artillery, tanks and other weaponry, which is, in fact, responsible for the destruction of civilian sites by return fire. Like using civilians as human shields, and it's a very common practice and it has been documented. Recently just horrible video evidence emerged that Ukrainian formations engage in the Nazi practice of sending POWs to the minefields, to demine the passage for their military. All of that is known but is being covered up.

A.T. Two quick bilateral sort of questions. Simeon Boikov, the "Aussie Cossack", in the Russian consulate in Sydney. He has been in the news this week, helping organise campaign rallies against the Voice to Parliament here in Australia. Is the Russian Government encouraging him in these activities? Does this constitute foreign interference?

Ambassador. The Russian Government is not encouraging anything of what you are talking about. Our principal position is that we don't interfere in the internal affairs of foreign states. We are against it. Unlike our Western so-called partners who do that as an everyday practice and boast of it. Mr Biden, who was Vice-President at that time, is on the record relating proudly how he went to Kiev and gave six hours to the then-President Poroshenko to fire his Prosecutor General. Because, by the way, he was investigating Burisma company. So, unlike the Western countries that even don't care to conceal the practice of interference in the internal affairs of other states, we don't do this, we don't encourage anything like that. 

It's ridiculous to say that opinions around this important referendum Australia will have, is somehow to the smallest degree influenced from outside of Australia. We know how much Australians are involved (for "Yes" or for "No") in this process. How much time, thought, and effort do they give to consider this important point.

A.T. Is there a responsibility on Russia, again, to discourage him from what he is doing, given that he is on diplomatically Russian soil, using effectively Russian resources to get out his campaign?

Ambassador. I wonder what Russian resources do you mean? He has been very proactive on Telegram and other social media for many years.

A.T. I mean, from a practical point of view. He holes up in your Consulate. Do you have a responsibility for what he's doing? For example, he's using the electricity at the Russian consulate. You could…

Ambassador. Switch off the electricity?

A.T. It’s just a silly example. But you know, you have some influence over this person, presumably.

Ambassador. He's an Australian citizen. Wouldn’t it be an interference in internal Australian debate, just to prevent an Australian citizen from expressing his opinion on an important Australian issue? I think this is not an option.

A.T. Fair, yes. What is the option for resolving this case? Are you going to make him a Russian diplomat so you can send him away to Moscow? What's going to happen to this case? 

Ambassador. Obviously, he can’t be made a Russian diplomat.

A.T. What's your tolerance? What's your level of patience to continue to have this house guest? Is he going to be there infinitely?

Ambassador. Let me just limit myself by saying that we are in touch with DFAT on that. 

A.T. And finally, we saw earlier this year the head of ASIO talk about dismantling a "hive of spies", was his phrase. It was reported that the Russian spies had their visas cancelled or not renewed. Were they Russians?

Ambassador. Should I comment at all? It seems this topic is not trending any more. I have already in my interview to Canberra Times, it seems, spoken at length about this. I even commented on Professor Blaxland’s fanciful stories about the Embassy constructing several floors below the ground. I think that the "hive of spies" thing is from the same series. We understand who is manufacturing these stories and why, and who is pushing that. It's all very clear. I don't believe I have to comment on this nonsense. 

A.T. All right. Thank you very much for your time.