26 мая 2016
Москва: 03:34
Лондон: 01:34

Консульские вопросы:  
+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

14.05.2016 - Letter of Consul General Mr Andrey Pritsepov to The Herald newspaper, published 13.05.2016: "Policy judgement based on prejudices?"

Not without a slight amazement have I read in the Herald from 11.05.2016 about a “fracking expert” claiming that “the only real winner of this (non-fracking in Scotland) is Vladimir Putin”.


09.05.2016 - Ambassador Yakovenko’s remarks at the wreath-laying ceremony at the Soviet War Memorial (London, 9 May 2016)

Every May on this day we pay tribute to our war dead, to all those who sacrificed their lives in the fight against fascism.


18.04.2016 - UNESCO resolution on preserving Palmyra - approved 8 April

UNESCO’ Role in Safeguading and Preserving Palmyra and other Syrian World Heritage Sites


13.04.2016 - Syrian future implies all-inclusiveness (By Ambassador Yakovenko for RT)

On 31 March, Russia circulated in the UN Security Council a draft press statement, emphasizing the need to ensure that the Syrian talks in Geneva are inclusive. The main purpose of this document was to underline that all opposition groups should join the negotiations, including the Kurds. Unfortunately the Western members of the UNSC, including UK, blocked the draft by proposing amendments that run counter to the spirit of the statement. Such a position is regrettable, especially as it contradicts the International Syria Support Group's decisions and provisions of the UNSC Resolution 2254. This step is even harder to understand, since it came from our Western colleagues. Probably it was a result of the pressure by regional players, some of whom still prioritize their ambition to have a Sunni government in Syria.


06.04.2016 - "Russia’s strategy based on diplomacy backed by force" (Letter to the Editor, FT)

Sir, In his otherwise brilliant analysis “The self-induced twilight of the west” (April 4), Edward Luce has got some things wrong. Particularly, he is uncritical of the US military’s allegation of the Russian Air Force “weaponising refugees” with no evidence provided. It is well known that the exodus of refugees from Turkey to Europe started well before we intervened militarily on September 30 2015.


23.03.2016 - Letter to the Editor of The Times, sent on 22 March

For quite a while the British Government has been referring to perceived Russia/the Kremlin’s interest in the Brexit debate. Unfortunately, Oliver Kamm makes the same point in the Times (“Brexit would play into the hands of Putin”, 21 March). What all the pronouncements of this sort have in common is the claim to know better than the Russian Government where our national interest lies and what our policies are. By the way, the “Pravda” hasn’t been speaking for the Russian Government for the past 30 years.


14.03.2016 - Talking points of Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets at the launch of exhibition "Russia and the Arts"

Dear Friends, It gives me pleasure to congratulate you on the opening of the “Russia and the Arts: The Age of Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky” exhibition dedicated to the 160th anniversary of the State Tretiakov Gallery. This exhibition is yet another evidence of a profound connection between our cultures. Russia and Great Britain gave the World a plethora of great artists and works. In our country, works of William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, William Thackeray, Bernard Shaw, Arthur Conan-Doyle and other British classics are widely known. I know that in Britain they take no lesser interest in writings of Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Anton Chekhov or music by Piotr Tchaikovsky and Dmitry Shostakovich. The new BBC version of Tolstoy’s “War and Peace” is a great example of such continuing mutual fascination.


15.02.2016 - Russian Embassy representative’s comments on Prime Minister David Cameron’s statements on Russia in Hamburg

Media question: Speaking the other day in Hamburg, Prime Minister D.Cameron referred to the perceived "Russian threat" as a reason for Britain to stay in the European Union, whatever the outcome of the alleged "sham" talks on EU reform and terms of British membership. What would you say on such a disingenuous attempt to win the upcoming EU referendum on Russia’s back? ' Answer: It became fashionable ever since the Bush Administration’s "axis of evil" to juggle with such a "troika" of threats to meet domestic and foreign policy objectives. As to our British partners, they made us part of the construction comprising "Islamic State" and Ebola. Now, like in the Lego kids game, the Ebola brick is replaced with North Korea. And the reason is our differences over Ukraine. As to the Crimea, it is a reunion. As to East Ukraine, the people are fighting a nationalistic regime for human rights of the minorities and an autonomy. All of it is about Ukraine and has nothing to do with the Baltic or any other states. So, the notion of a "Russian threat" to Europe is a false one. The real and immediate threats to Europe are different, those are the Eurozone and migration crises. Russia has not got anything to do with neither of them. The attempts to drag Russia into the British domestic debate on whether to stay in the EU does not make credit to the present Tory Government. We just wonder what other domestic problems the Government would wish to resolve at Russia’s expense.


12.02.2016 - Alexander Yakovenko for RT

Russia and the United Kingdom - these two powers, for centuries, have been tied into the most complicated relations: enemies at one time, and yet allies and cooperators at another. But now the temperature between the two is steadily going down, with Britain leading the anti-Russian sanctions and, just recently, coming out with allegations of Moscow’s involvement with a death of former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko. What’s pushing London to make such statements? Does the Cold War-like vector of Cameron’s policy resonate with public opinion? How much is this public opinion is shaped by the voice of mainstream media? And, finally, is there a hope for a thaw? We ask the Russian Ambassador to the UK. Alexander Yakovenko is on Sophie&Co today.


12.02.2016 - Opinion: credibility of British Litvinenko Judgment Doubtful (Eurasia Review, By William Dunkerley, February 10, 2016)

A dark cloud of suspicion still hangs over a 2006 British murder mystery. The Litvinenko affair started as a London spy mystery. It made top headlines back in the day. Riveting allegations claimed Alexander Litvinenko died of polonium poisoning ordered by Russian president Vladimir Putin. Now almost ten years later, the mystery has evolved into a government political scandal. After years of false starts and inaction, an official inquiry was finally called in 2015. Getting to the bottom of things was its ostensible purpose.



all messages