2 September 2015
Moscow: 05:21
London: 03:21

Consular Section:  
+44(0) 203 668 7474   
info@rusemb.org.uk  

 

SPEECHES, INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES

03.08.2012

The Article of State Secretary - Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Grigory Karasin "Mission possible," published in "Rossiyskaya Gazeta", July 23, 2012

The history of civil confrontation in several former Soviet republics in the 90s of last century, the consequences of nationalists’ entering the political arena, tragedies accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union keep exciting the society, and are still analyzed by political scientists and historians.

The July war on the Dniester in 1992 is not exception. It broke out as a consequence of the inability of central authorities in Chisinau, manipulated by radicals, to consolidate the society. Republic of Moldova lost its territorial integrity and civil unity. The unacceptable price that they had to pay for adventurism, were broken lives, suffering and loss of thousands lives.

The debates about the causes of those events did not subside. They express shill judgments. Despite the multitude of conflicting estimations, the principal political motives for the transdniester conflict are easily understood decades later. The basis for the formation of opposing forces on the Dniester is confirmed by the realities of today. The slogans of the radical nationalists on the right bank of the Dniester, denying Moldovan identity and upholding the union with Romania, sound like a dividing factor in society. For Transdniester people the desire for self-determination, rights of Moldovans living here, Russians, Ukrainians, and other ethnic groups do not lose uniting importance.

Shock suffered by the top leadership of Moldova due to the disastrous events in summer 1992, predetermined the search of urgent solution. The solution was found with the signing on July 21, 1992 in Moscow by the Presidents of the Russian Federation and the President of Republic of Moldova the "Agreement on the principles of peaceful settlement of armed conflict in the Transdniestrian region of Moldova." The Russian Federation turned to be that trustworthy partner who since the independence of Republic of Moldova not once was able to demonstrate through words and deeds the commitment to its stability consolidation and support the effort to build a democratic, legal state, and readiness to multiply the traditions of age-old friendship.

The fact of the fire cessation, invited new victims and violence seemed to override all the doubts in the historical significance of the agreement with the Russian Federation. However, opponents doubting the wisdom of the Agreement continue to put forward new arguments. The aim is to prove that the document is outdated; obligations under this document require revision.

The arguments are general. They were expressed and for other conflicts in the CIS. We were told that Russia assumed the key role in peacekeeping operations, taking advantage of the weakness of local authorities. We were convinced that maintaining the status quo, "connives at the separatists." There is no need to talk about the traditional attempts to discredit peacekeeping due to its incompatibility with the patterns of the UN international operations.

Now we can only invite opponents to return to the heart of the Russian-Moldovan document signed in 1992. It is without doubt unique in content, since performed several tasks at once.

From the perspective of the military aspects of the conflict in Transnister, the agreement formalized commitment to the cease fire of hostilities sides against each other. The parameters of security zone control have been defined as well.

In terms of a political settlement it gave the start of solving the conflict through peaceful, political means, with the participation of international mediators, meant by negotiators at that time as the forces of the CIS and the mediation proactive establishments of the CSCE.

Introduction into the text of the detailed obligations of conflicting parties reflected the Russian leadership's firm belief that the current situation, hardening of an attitude after the bloodshed in Bender 19 - June 20, 1992 makes it impossible to conduct business related to Transnistria, without the participation of its representatives.
Finally, of the agreement affected an important aspect of the Russian-Moldovan relations concerning the status of the 14th Army and the prospects for its phased withdrawal from the territory of the Republic of Moldova.

After Boris Yeltsin and M. Snegur endorsed by signatures the agreement, negotiations on this matter have already begun next month. They were continued with a clear understanding that the problem must comply with the parallel forward-thinking, informed decisions of Moldova leadership, aimed at the conflict settlement.

Actually all clauses of the agreement in their interrelation laid the basis of the strategic partnership of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova, which has been emphasized by the two countries’ leaders by official exchange and personal meetings.

The main thing that determines the relevance of the existing peacekeeping operation established by agreement is the mandate, which includes the implementation of the security zone military administration regime, the maintenance stability in the region and creation of conditions for continuing negotiations on the conflict settlement.

In the absence of clear agreement on the formulation for the Transnistrian special, reliably guaranteed status, what is the purpose of negotiations; the talk about the operation reformatting does not make sense.

On the Moldovan side, today it would consider the base for negotiating the Law of the Republic of Moldova from 2005 on the main provisions of the legal status of the region. The Moldovan legislature determined that the dialogue is possible only with loyal to Chisinau, demilitarized, and democratized administration of Transnistria on the basis of constitutional provisions for a unitary state.
No matter what forces would ensure the autonomy of the "settlements on the left bank of the Dniester," according with logic of such settlement only coercion would be possible. Taking into account the moods of Transnistrians, which don’t accept unilateral solutions imposed from outside, it's predictable, that a conflict returns to the "hot phase".

Weighted mediation diplomacy of Russia, which became an expression of the spirit and language of Agreement on the principles of peaceful settlement of armed conflict in the Transdniestrian region of Republic of Moldova, was effective to give the parties an opportunity to clarify intents and continue the political dialogue. This impulse allowed after 1992 not only defuse recurring tensions in the region, but also to form a multilevel structure of the bilateral agreements of the conflicting parties.

The following ten years passed by them were not easy. The domestic political pressure and impact of adverse external economic factors affected the situation. Nevertheless, he saw further growth in Chisinau and Tiraspol responsibility for reaching specific agreements, development of an integrated concept of the progressive move towards a compromise.

The dynamics of negotiations and legal registration of "common spaces" of the political, economic and humanitarian cooperation, declared in 1997 intention to build a common state and become a mutual guarantors of full and undoubted implementation of their own agreements, preparation in 2003 the Memorandum on the fundamental principles of mechanism of united state impress, leave hope that the power for a political settlement remains.

It is wrong to compare the achievements with today's circumstances of the negotiation process in a linear dimension. But taking into consideration the problems of last 10 years, arisen recently risks of destabilizing and undermining the confidence of the conflicting parties, the Agreement on the principles of peaceful settlement of armed conflict in the Transdniestrian region of Republic of Moldova, the mechanisms of coherent collaboration of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces, Ukrainian observers have proved their effectiveness and importance. The emphasis of peacekeeping on early conflict prevention and scheme of its realization with participation of the Moldovan and Transnistrian troops of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces provide a reliable supply of its power. Great importance has peacekeepers’ professional experience of estimating and management of the situation in the responsibility sphere upon contact with local authorities, the interaction with national mediators, observers from the OSCE, social organizations, and citizens.

In the days when the 20th anniversary of peacekeeping operations on the Dniester is celebrated, we shall express the gratitude to the Russian militaries involved in carrying out the entrusted to them responsible mission fully conforming to the status of Russia as a mediator and a guarantor in the transnistrian settlement. Created in this respect conditions for such diplomatic works on solving complex problems is an important contribution to consolidation of relations with the people of the Republic of Moldova and to regional and European stability.




LATEST EVENTS

19.08.2015 - Russian Embassy to "Financial Times" on Ukraine



14.08.2015 - Comments of Minister-Counsellor of the Russian Embassy A.Kramarenko on some issues of WWII to the “Independent”

May I join the debate sustained by Anthony Beevor and Mick Hall (11 August). Nobody denies that crimes were committed. But what is not taken into account is the fact that the Red Army (unlike, let’s say, the Americans) saw what the Germans had done on their soil on their way from Stalingrad to Berlin. Almost every soldier and officer had personal accounts to settle. That is why strict discipline was enforced as the Red Army entered German territory, including by the security bodies nobody liked.


14.08.2015 - Russian Embassy comments for Russian media (ITAR-TASS Agency) on the state of Russo-British relationship (30 July, translated from Russian)

QUESTION: What would you say on the present state of our relationship with Britain? It looks like after the May parliamentary elections our countries resumed contacts at political level, if we take the phone call of Prime Minister D.Cameron with President V.Putin and Ph.Hammond and S.Lavrov's meeting in Veinna. Still, the same very tough rhetoric by official London at all levels against Russia over the Ukraine crisis is striking. I mean the statements on 'Russian aggression' etc, and all of it in company with the 'Islamic State' and hacking attacks. Where are things moving, and are there changes for the better?


07.08.2015 - Regarding the comment made by the Home Office on issuing visas to the Russian Embassy staff

We have carefully examined the statement of the Home Office concerning the terms of issuing visas for Russian diplomats and other Embassy staff. In particular, it was said (quoted by "Novosti" news agency) that "diplomats must have right documents to come into UK". Does it mean that the Russian diplomatic and service passports raise suspicions of the British side? Our main concern, however, is delays in issuing visas for the Embassy staff. The Home Office spokesman, avoiding a direct reply, referred to what was said on entry into UK territory by all Russian citizens, which is "making sure false representations were not used to obtain the visa, and no facts were withheld".


06.08.2015 - Russian Embassy comments on the “public inquiry” into the “Litvinenko case”

In 2014 judicial authorities of Great Britain suspended a Coroner’s inquest into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, wherein the Investigative Committee of Russia had the status of an “interested person”. In July 2014, against the background of the tragedy of the Malaysia Airlines plane in Ukraine, the British government decided to hold, instead, a “public inquiry”.


05.08.2015 - Reply by press-secretary of the Embassy of the Russian Federation to the UK to Russian media question on UK’s diminishing Russian diplomatic presence in Great Britain

Question: How do you assess the current bilateral relations between Russia and the UK on the visa track, have you advanced? Answer: The word “progress” means moving forward. That does not apply to the present picture of our bilateral relationship as the British side is trying to shape it.


03.08.2015 - Russian Embassy comment on the "Financial Times" editorial on the Litvinenko case

Dear Sir, I find outrageous your editorial on the Litvinenko public inquiry (3 August). It proceeds from the assumption that the inquiry is up to the standards of due process and a competitive scrutiny of evidence it provides for. It is far from that. In the first place, there is nothing public in the inquiry, which will consider the British special services' evidence in secret. It was the main reason, why Russia's Investigative Committee, participating in the Coroner's inquest (now suspended), decided not to be party to the public inquiry. It is notable that one line of evidence in the public inquiry is totally absent. I mean the fact of finding traces of polonium in the restaurant Abracadabra in Jermyn Street two days before Alexander Litvinenko was presumably poisoned in the Millennium Hotel. The owner David West was killed later on and his restaurant closed. Then another crucial witness Boris Berezovsky died under the circumstances, not established by the Coroner's inquest, which ended in an open verdict. Not to mention that any evidence, including his intention to return to Russia, was pushed aside to ensure that suicide version had no credible alternative.


03.08.2015 - Answer to British media question about foreign air activities on Russian borders

Thank you for your request regarding the activities of foreign Air Forces on Russian borders. It is important to look at the Russian Air Force flights (which consists mostly of training sorties) in international airspace within the broader context of NATO countries and their partners’ activities on our borders. Feel free to use those numbers that illustrate the point – i.e. the drastic increase in the activity of foreign reconnaissance and combat planes near Russian borders.


31.07.2015 - Ambassador Yakovenko's message for the book of condolences of the Indian High Commission

I extend my sincere condolences to the people and the Government of India on the passing away of Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, former President of India. He will be remembered in Russia and by the international community at large as a highly respected leader at some of the defining moments in modern history. My thoughts go out to his family and friends.


29.07.2015 - Ambassador Yakovenko writes to David Smith and comments on Chatham House report on Russia

Dear Mr Smith, I am sorry for delay in my response to your letter. I wholly share your concern over the state of the Russo-British relationship. In the first place, Russia's policy in the Ukraine crisis was always reactive. Our Western partners admit that when they accuse us of both improvisation and pursuing a 'grand strategy'. It was not us who started all this destabilising mess. Not many care to have a look at its origins. So, I'll try to set the record straight on some key points.



all messages