25 July 2021
Moscow: 01:16
London: 23:16

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

 
1239 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     1231 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities

SPEECHES, INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES

07.09.2012

Ambassador A.Yakovenko: thinking on Syria

Over the past few months meeting British Government Ministers, politicians and people in academia and media I have been often asked questions on Russia’s position on the Syrian crisis and its conceptual reasoning. The Embassy has also been receiving letters from British citizens on those issues. I’d like to answer them, though Russia has always been clear on where we stand on Syria, including at the level of President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, as well as in the course of our diplomatic contacts with Foreign Office.

First of all, Russia’s position on settlement of the Syrian crisis is a position of principle. The principles of sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs of other states, enshrined in the UN Charter, have not been codified in international law just like that. They represent the wisdom, paid for dearly by the world over centuries of wars, including Wars of Religion and Revolutions in Europe.

Those principles represent awareness that outside interference into these processes, profoundly intimate for the nations concerned, can only distort and deligitimize the final outcome. The British saw it in their own history and take pride in having been able to draw a line under the experience of their Revolution and Civil War early enough, although it took almost 40 years to achieve that. This was, by the way, George Kennan’s recommendation to the West for the post-Soviet period in Russia.

Revolution releases elemental forces, and the way they play out is resolved by history alone. To think that an outsider knows better is utterly arrogant. Based on our own experience of Revolution and Civil War, we know that when every participant fights for his/her vision of his/her country, the logic of armed struggle inevitably brings the most ruthless on top for people, among other things, fight for their lives.

As to the unintended consequences of outside intervention, we know what happened in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union intervened there and the USA followed to support the other side. It was all done presumably for a good cause, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Then followed war in Iraq, intervention in Libya, which, for now, led to destabilization of another neighbouring country, as rightly noted recently Stephen Kinzer in The International Herald Tribune.

Revolutions are a serious business, they take generations to run their course. Transformations once started, follow their own unpredictable logic. And in an argument between a life that happens to be and a life that ought to be, it is usually the former that prevails. In Europe the Revolutions didn’t help to prevent the tragedy of the Great War and everything that followed. Is there a need to dig as far back in history as civil wars in Rome with their proscriptions. The same pattern repeats itself everywhere with violence begetting violence in a vicious circle and people always losers.

The only realistic thing to do for international community is encouraging the parties involved to display moderation and engage in an inclusive political dialogue. This has been a consistent policy of Russia on Syria, as President Vladimir Putin has stated on successive occasions. On 30 June 2012 the Action Group on Syria at its first meeting in Geneva agreed precisely this position. Unfortunately it has not been followed through by our partners, tempted by ambivalent ideas of a political transition imposed on the Syrians.

 If either of the parties to the conflict does not feel compelled to seek middle ground early on, then what incentives would they have to act in that fashion when winner gets all? The foundations for moderate politics and policies, required for national reconstruction and reconciliation, have got to be laid early. That is why things look more inspiring and sustainable in Tunisia and Egypt. This approach is plainly pragmatic. And if it doesn’t work in Syria, the reason is that the opposition has never been influenced in earnest in that way.

These views do not differ much from those expressed by Seumas Milne in The Guardian on 8 August 2012. The evidence in their support has been mounting on the ground over the past weeks and days. What else is required for our Western partners to reassess the situation and admit that their initial assumptions were wrong?

It seems that outside interventions reflect the political imperative to be seen doing something, though there is objectively nothing spectacular that could be really done. Or is it just to have one’s way?  Another factor is self-delusion that those things can be managed from outside and countries and entire regions ordered and re-ordered. We don’t share that view.

It is worth mentioning that in 2006 in American conservative think-tanks various plans were drawn of territorial restructuring of Iraq and neighbouring states. New “organic borders” were supposed to be established through “creative destruction” under the slogan of “New Middle East” (for example, see the June 2006 issue of The Armed Forces Journal). They provided for partitioning of Iraq, creation of “Free Kurdistan”, “Islamic Sacred State” etc. It was done to find ways to ensure regional stability after it had been destroyed by the war in Iraq. These ideas now seem becoming a reality with a prospect of a fragmented Syria. At that time, with no Arab spring on the horizon, the authors of this intellectual exercise didn’t mind the consequences of such a scenario, for example, for Turkey (The Financial Times was quite eloquent on that recently), as well as the states on the Arabian peninsula, which is the ultimate objective of Al-Qaida and its likes, who, sure, will take advantage of mutual destabilization of regional states if it comes to that. It was presumed that things like this were manageable and would provide “decent outcomes”, otherwise unachievable. Now comes the reality check, with the costs to be borne both by the nations of the region and the outside world. Do we really need to go that far and risk an explosion, the region has not seen since the end of the Ottoman empire a hundred years ago? 

This is not to say, that one can get away from history. Niall Ferguson’s and Jeremy Paxman’s Empires are primarily about the present state of the nation and the world, which would be impossible to understand otherwise. As wrote The Independent the other day, colonial history cannot be wished away in the Middle East and other regions. Why then shifting blame on to Russia?

I don’t know. But Russia was not a party to suppressing the first wave of political awakening in the Broader Middle East in early 1950-ies. We have never dominated this region. We have nothing to atone for. We have no vested interest in preserving the status quo. But history has a lot to do with the Arab Spring, the ways events have been unfolding over the past year and a half. The absolute minimum we owe to the peoples of the region and our international partners are honesty and openness. We’ll never engage in Great Games there or anywhere else.

We are willing to be part of a collective international effort on that basis, which includes a joint intelligent analysis and joint thinking the situation through. We started that in Geneva. We are not far apart in what we want for the region. But we differ on the methods to achieve that goal, and it is a case where method defines outcome, where style equals substance.




LATEST EVENTS

23.07.2021 - Comment by Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova on recent statements by MI5 Director General Ken McCallum

We have noted statements by MI5 Director General Ken McCallum, which have been taken up by the British media, referring to security threats facing the United Kingdom, allegedly emanating from the actions of hostile states, namely, cyber-attacks, misinformation, etc. Director General Ken McCallum also lists Russia among such hostile states. At the same time, all of his assertions are in the well-known “highly likely” style. He provides no evidence or specific facts and merely speaks about certain hybrid threats. There is no specific example to confirm all this; however, this creates a narrative that is detrimental for and has a destructive effect on interstate dialogue and the normal development of bilateral ties.


22.07.2021 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's interview with Interfax news agency, Moscow, July 21, 2021

Question: The German-US draft agreement on the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline ties up Ukraine's energy security with new sanctions on Russia that the Germans will be able to impose. Does Russia think the latest threat of sanctions is acceptable? Will it affect the implementation of the project? Sergey Lavrov: Any threat of sanctions, be it new, old or ongoing, is unacceptable, because only the UN Security Council can impose them. Our Western colleagues, primarily the United States and the European Union, which is quickly adopting these “bad habits,” are quite often carried away by sanctions. They are no longer interested in the culture of diplomacy or talks. In fact, they are losing it. They want instant results.


17.07.2021 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation between China and Russia, published by the newspapers Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Russia) and Renmin Ribao (China), July 16, 2021

Relations between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China have reached an all-time high, setting an example of interstate cooperation in the 21st century. Just as in any story of success, there are backbone pillars in our relations that set the tune for our forward development in the years ahead. One such pillar in the development of modern Russian-Chinese ties was the signing of the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation. Twenty years ago, it was signed by President of Russia Vladimir Putin and President of China Jiang Zemin.


13.07.2021 - Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“, 12.07.2021

During the recent Direct Line, when I was asked about Russian-Ukrainian relations, I said that Russians and Ukrainians were one people – a single whole. These words were not driven by some short-term considerations or prompted by the current political context. It is what I have said on numerous occasions and what I firmly believe. I therefore feel it necessary to explain my position in detail and share my assessments of today's situation.


09.07.2021 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s address on Russia’s International Activities for Russian Regions’ Development, delivered at Far Eastern Federal University (FEFU), and answers to questions from students and faculty, Vladivostok, July 8, 2021

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here. I have returned from a short Asian tour, during which I visited Indonesia and Laos. We also held a meeting of the Russian and ASEAN foreign ministers in a hybrid format. What we do during our foreign trips and talks with our foreign partners is not done for its own sake. We do it to implement our foreign policy, which was approved by the President of Russia in the Foreign Policy Concept adopted in 2016.


22.06.2021 - Article by President Vladimir Putin ”Being Open, Despite the Past“ published in the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit, 22 June 2021

Article by Russian President Vladimir Putin ”Being Open, Despite the Past“ published in the German weekly newspaper Die Zeit on the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War.


09.05.2021 - President Putin's address at the military parade marking the 76th Anniversary of Victory

Citizens of Russia, Dear veterans, Comrades soldiers and sailors, sergeants and warrant officers, midshipmen and sergeant majors, Comrades officers, generals and admirals, Happy Victory Day! The Victory had a colossal historic significance for the fate of the entire world. It is a holiday that has always been and will remain a sacred day for Russia, for our nation. It is our holiday by right, for we are blood relatives of those who defeated, crushed, destroyed Nazism. It is ours because we descend from the generation of victors, a generation we are proud of and hold in great honour.


22.04.2021 - Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova's Comment on new legislative initiatives in the UK

We have noted the publications announcing a number of upcoming legislative initiatives of the UK government aimed at countering the hostile activities of foreign states – primarily, Russia and China. Of particular interest with regards to this is the act regulating the work of foreign agents, which includes the requirement for all individuals and legal entities working on behalf of foreign countries in Britain to register their presence. Failure to do so will be a criminal offence and will entail deportation. The publications note that London plans to use the experience of its allies, primarily the United States, in this matter.


21.04.2021 - President Vladimir Putin's Address to the Federal Assembly, 21 April 2021

The President of Russia delivered the Address to the Federal Assembly. The ceremony took place at the Manezh Central Exhibition Hall. The ceremony was attended by the senators of the Russian Federation, State Duma deputies, members of the Government, the heads of the Constitutional and Supreme courts, regional governors, speakers of regional legislatures, the heads of traditional religious denominations and public activists.


06.04.2021 - Interview by Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov to Hindustan Times, April 6, 2021

Question: With India and Russia set to resume high-level engagements after the Covid-19 crisis, what will be priorities for bilateral agenda in 2021? Sergey Lavrov: Russia is satisfied with the vigorous political dialogue with India on all levels that keeps on actively developing despite serious restrictions caused by the coronavirus pandemic. In 2020 we managed to successfully organize several events in face-to-face and online formats. Summits of the SCO and BRICS – a new type of multilateral associations where our countries cooperate fruitfully – are among them.



all messages