19 February 2017
Moscow: 17:28
London: 14:28

Consular queries:  
+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

14.02.2017 - UK – RUSSIA YEAR OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION: THE BEGINNING OF A BEAUTIFUL RELATIONSHIP? (Robin Grimes, FCO Chief Scientific Adviser, Part of Global Science and Innovation Network)

At the end of the classic film Casablanca, Rick says to the Chief of Police “I think this is the beginning of a beautiful relationship”. So, as we embark upon a year of UK Russia Science & (Science) Education events, what do we expect our scientific relationship to look like 12 months from now? There are some crucial points to bear in mind.


10.02.2017 - UK worried about its place if US-Russia ties are repaired – Russia’s UK envoy (Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko for RT)

Hacking, destabilizing Western states, building up its military might, and weaponizing information – Russia is hitting the headlines and seems to be to blame for all of the world’s problems. One of the loudest anti-Russia voices is the United Kingdom, condemning Moscow’s actions and calling for economic sanctions against it. Most of the accusations are far from proven – so is there still room left for cooperation on vital issues between world powers? And now that the UK’s ally the US may be ready to change course and start making deals with Moscow, is there a chance for a change in tone? We ask Russia’s Ambassador to the United Kingdom – Alexander Yakovenko.


08.02.2017 - Ambassador’s Alexander Yakovenko speech at the opening of "Revolution: Russian Art 1917-1932" exhibition, Royal Academy of Arts (February 7, 2017)

It’s an honour for me to be here at the opening of this impressive exhibition. The best Russian museums have provided masterpieces from their collections which give a fascinating insight into the drastic and violent transformation of culture and society in Russia 100 years ago. Our revolution was a complex, multi-dimensional phenomenon, a direct result of our common European catastrophe, which was WWI.


30.01.2017 - Alexander Kramarenko, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary for the “International Affairs” magazine (Moscow). Unaccomplished mission of Alexander Benckendorff and its lessons.

11 January marked 100 years since the death of the last Ambassador of the Russian Empire to the UK count Alexander Benckendorff, who was buried in the catholic Westminster Cathedral in London. This anniversary was a timely reminder of his unaccomplished mission in London, where he arrived in 1903. What was it and why is it still relevant now?


25.01.2017 - A visit to Syria by an independent group (31 August - 7 September).



13.12.2016 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's interview for The Daily Mail (full text)

Question: Does Russia hope for better co-operation (both political and military) with the UK and how can this be achieved/ what would this look like? Answer: Unlike MI-6 Director Alex Younger’s portrayal of Russia, I can assure you that Russia doesn’t view Britain as a strategic adversary, and it just cannot be. There is nothing strategic for us to contest. We hope for real cooperation, not war of words, primarily in the fight against terrorism, including military and special services cooperation, in political settlement in Syria and other international issues.


05.12.2016 - Ambassador Yakovenko answers to media question regarding Russia’s efforts in Syria

Question: What is Russia’s position on a draft UNSC resolution on Aleppo recently presented to the Security Council? Answer: We believe that the introduction of this draft is utterly counterproductive. In the coming days experts from Russia and the United States are to begin their work on the withdrawal of all fighters from the eastern part of Aleppo and achieving an agreement on routes and timing of their exit from the city. After that the ceasefire will come into force.


30.11.2016 - Speech by Russian Ambassador, Alexander Yakovenko at the Russian-British Business Forum (30 November 2016, London)

I am pleased to witness the ongoing constructive cooperation between business communities of our two countries in spite of the unfavorable political situation. This year has seen a number of impressive business events, including those arranged by the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce (as it marked its 100th anniversary), “VTB”, “Moscow Exchange” and the “Russian-British Working Group for the development of the International Financial Centre in Moscow”.


25.11.2016 - Ambassador Yakovenko answers to media question regarding listing Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam as terrorist organizations

Question: What was the Western partners’ reaction as regards Russia’s initiative at the UN Security Council on listing Ahrar al-Sham and Jaysh al-Islam as terrorist organizations?


23.11.2016 - Answers by Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko to media questions after the demonstration near the Embassy on the 23 of November

1. Question: How do you see today’s demonstration in support of Russia’s policy in Syria? Answer: From the very start of the Russian operation in Syria we have seen a lot of support from Britons who see that the war being waged there is а war against enemies of the whole European civilization, including Britain. This support can be felt now as well, despite the Whitehall instigated campaign to accuse Russia of “war crimes”. News of civilian suffering are cynically exploited to hamper the defeat of terrorists and their allies, to undermine the political process. It’s good that more and more people come to understand this.



all messages