“Certainly, Russian-Albanian relations do not develop in a vacuum. The regional context is extremely important. We are opposed to making the Balkans a theatre of geopolitical rivalry and attempts to undermine international legal instruments including UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and Dayton arrangements,” noted Deputy FM of the Russian Federation Alexander Grushko
By Genc Mlloja
Senior Diplomatic Editor
“Russian-Albanian relations are going through a difficult period, being at one of their lowest levels since the restoration of diplomatic relations in 1990,” has said the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation Alexander Grushko in an exclusive interview with Albanian Daily News. However, even under the present circumstances the number two of Moscow’s diplomacy sees perspectives for development of interaction in areas of common interest. According to him, there is a potential for cooperation in extraction, processing and transportation of mineral resources, including hydrocarbons, in hydropower and in developing transport, energy, and other infrastructure, in information and communication sector and in trade, as well. “At the backdrop of not too bright political and economic relations, it is worth mentioning the level of Russian-Albanian cooperation in the field of culture and education. We will seek to further enhance our humanitarian ties,” said Mr. Grushko.
The interview was an opportunity to learn some of the major highlights of Russia’s foreign policy. Among others the senior diplomat underscored that Russia believed in the formation of a multipolar world against the background of the profound changes to the system of international relations. In his view the current state of Russian-American relations can hardly be considered satisfactory, but there are indeed many problems on the agenda of their cooperation.
In addition, the Deputy FM viewed the NATO expansion to the Eastern Europe and Balkans as a mistake. “It is now glaringly obvious that the expansion of the Alliance was driven, among other things, by the desire to isolate Russia by surrounding it with a kind of a “cordon sanitaire”,” he said.
Responding to accusation of Moscow’s interference in the Balkans, Mr. Grushko noted that
Russia has consistently stood for the increased stability and security in that region and stands for maintaining and developing mutually beneficial bilateral dialogue with all regional countries. “I’m convinced that this fully meets vital national interests of our partners in the South-East Europe,” said Russian Deputy FM Grushko in the following interview:
– Albanian Daily News: First of all, I would like to thank you for making it possible to hear your opinion about Russia’s position on a number of major issues. Let me start with the following question. What is Russia’s view on the current situation in the world and how does Russian foreign policy react to it?
– Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko: Generally speaking, the system of international relations is undergoing profound changes. They affect everything from economy and finance to politics and security. The root cause, in our view, is that the existing financial and economic model no longer corresponds to the geopolitical reality of today and needs to be corrected. In the coming years we will see the emergence of a new technological pattern, which may shift even further the balance of power in the world and the system of interaction between various players.
The formation of a multipolar world is an objective process. But it is perceived as a dangerous challenge by part of the Western ruling establishment who are used to military and political domination, as well as gaining unilateral advantages from the existing geo-economic system. In order to remain in the “comfort zone” they are ready for almost everything, for example undermining international institutions created after the Second World War, violating basic norms of law and decency, and universally recognized agreements, including in the security sphere.
Such perception of reality and the strategy of geopolitical confrontation based on it lead to strengthening conflict potential in the world. International life is becoming chaotic, mutual distrust is growing, while the space for cooperation is shrinking, including in the area of counteracting common challenges and threats.
In our view, it would be in the interests of the vast majority of States to reaffirm the basic principles and norms of international law and to ensure that the role of the United Nations as a universal regulator of world politics remains unchanged. Cultural and civilizational peculiarities and interests of each other should be respected. It is necessary to reject the use of force, the practice of interference in the internal affairs of other States, the zero-sum game logic, to abandon double standards and block thinking, especially when it comes to ensuring international security.
-Can you say that the majority of Russians support the main directions and goals of the national foreign policy? To what extent do critical opinions influence it?
– In general, as far as foreign policy is concerned, society and the country’s leadership are on the same wavelength. For example, according to the Levada Center independent sociological survey, more than 70% of Russians support the way the country responds to sanctions and other unfriendly actions. People are in favour of continuing the current course. The high level of trust in the President is also indicative as it is the Head of State who determines foreign policy in accordance with the Constitution.
Such basic principles as independence, sovereignty, national dignity and the defence of historical truth enjoy nation-wide consensus and broad support in the country. However, this does not exclude a broad public debate on tactics and ways of achieving foreign policy goals. And this discussion is ongoing.
In the course of such discussions various points of view are expressed, including critical ones. This is normal. We closely follow the responses to our actions by experts, think tanks, parliament, public associations and ordinary citizens. On our part, we also participate actively in these discussions, explaining our approaches to international affairs. At the same time, unsubstantiated accusations, especially misleading ones, those having hidden agenda or ignoring the facts, are unacceptable to us. And even more so are external blackmail and pressure.
-The relations between Russia and the United States have been marred by allegations of certain circles in Washington in the recent years that Russia had influenced Trump’s victory. Now, Donald Trump has launched a campaign for his re-election for a second term. How would you assess the current state of relations with the US?
– Obviously, the current state of Russian-American relations can hardly be considered satisfactory. There are indeed many problems on the agenda of our cooperation. Some of them are of an objective nature, reflecting the differences in the geopolitical and economic interests of the two major world powers. But there are also a lot of subjective and superficial things.
In the last few years, bilateral ties have actually become hostages to domestic political struggles in the United States where various political forces try to settle scores with their opponents by playing the “Russian card”. At the initiative of the Americans, at the end of Obama’s term in the White House many channels of dialogue which had been previously successfully used to find solutions to most difficult issues were frozen or simply abandoned.
At the same time, with the direct involvement of the previous Administration, the allegations you mentioned concerning “Russian interference in the US elections” were thrown in. We claimed from the very beginning that those were false allegations invented to be used in the American interparty struggle. This was largely confirmed by the investigation of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller, which was completed in April and found no evidence that Donald Trump’s team had conspired with Moscow. Nevertheless, certain influential forces across the Atlantic do not abandon attempts to use this farfetched issue in their own interests, including in the context of the upcoming presidential elections in 2020.
Unfortunately, this has a negative impact on the bilateral dialogue and on the US Administration’s behaviour which is far from being consistent. On the one hand, Donald Trump himself and members of his team constantly talk about being willing to break the current impasse. But when it comes to practical steps aimed at resuming cooperation, Washington hampers work in most of the areas. As a result, despite certain advances, for example the resumption of the counter-terrorist dialogue in December 2018, positive dynamics in relations is generally rather weak.
At the same time, unfriendly US actions against Russia continue unabated. Various farfetched pretexts are used to aggravate relations, including last year’s staged poisoning of Sergey Skripal and his daughter in Great Britain. Unilateral sanctions were imposed by Washington against a total of 288 Russian citizens and 486 legal entities (as of 27 August). Expanding anti-Russian measures has long become a routine issue. The fact that since 2011 they have been introduced 74 times (34 times under Donald Trump) clearly demonstrates that all previous attempts to exert pressure turned out futile and that any new ones are doomed to fail.
The US withdrawal from the INF Treaty will lead to destructive consequences not only for our bilateral relations, but also for the entire international security architecture. Moreover, the US authorities remain uncertain about the fate of the START Treaty which expires in February 2021, consistently deploying its global missile defence system and moving Pentagon’s infrastructure closer to our borders, thus provoking tension in Europe.
We try not to exacerbate the situation, but we have to respond to such aggressive acts. We will, of course, take all necessary steps to ensure our security and defence capabilities. At the same time, we remain open to building sustainable mutually beneficial relations with the US when they prove ready to cooperate on the basis of equal rights and respect for our interests. And, of course, we do not lose hope that the artificial influence of American internal momentary factors on our relations will gradually weaken.
– Can we say now, in 2019, that after the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, the world order has finally changed from bipolar to multipolar? If so, how would you assess the role of newcomers in the Club of Great Powers? To what extent can they influence the balance of power in the world?
– The process of forming a new structure of international relations is still ongoing. It is not yet completed. The majority of authoritative experts agree with our assessment that the balance of forces in the world is shifting. There are several major independent centres making decisions in the areas of politics, economy and finance. There is a growing demand for establishing a new balance of interests and defining the common rules of the game.
The formation of a multipolar world order is already at a rather advanced stage. This is clearly illustrated by the ten-year experience of successful work of the BRICS Group which brings together leading emerging economies. Part of the overall process is the aspiration of a large number of States on all continents to ensure regional integration and to pursue sovereign economic, defence and foreign policies. This, by the way, is also true for Europe where voices are heard in favor of “strategic autonomy”.
In our view, the multipolar structure reflects cultural and civilizational diversity more adequately than the world in which one hegemon, no matter how enlightened and benevolent it is, controls all. But relations between major geopolitical players should be governed by universally recognized norms of international law and should be based on the principles of mutually beneficial cooperation rather than rivalry and confrontation.
-What do you think about the advancement of NATO deep into the Eastern Europe and how could you respond to that? Does Russia feel somehow “isolated” after many of its former Warsaw Treaty allies joined the North Atlantic Alliance? Does Russia have any regrets about that?
– What we should regret in the first place is the chance to build a genuinely democratic system of European security based on equality and consideration of interests of all European States, which was missed, through no fault of ours, in the 1990s. Instead, the North Atlantic Alliance that, in fact, outlived itself with the end of the Cold War set off for expansion. As a result, the dividing lines that existed in Europe in the age of block standoff have been moved further to the East rather than erased. In our opinion, that counterproductive and extremely dangerous policy is in conflict with the real pan European interests and doesn’t promote security of either States joining NATO or their neighbors.
In that context, we view the NATO expansion to the Eastern Europe and Balkans as a mistake. The North Atlantic Alliance has not brought either stability or security to anywhere. Many countries have to accept an ill-grounded policy of confronting “the threat from the East” which is imposed on them but is absolutely alien to their interests.
It is now glaringly obvious that the expansion of the Alliance was driven, among other things, by the desire to isolate Russia by surrounding it with a kind of a “cordon sanitaire”. However, attempts to that end have failed. As of today, Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an active participant in major international and regional formats. We do not face a shortage of countries wishing to cooperate with us on the basis of equality and mutual respect. In fact, the list of our good partners includes also NATO countries. Many of them increasingly realize that is impossible to solve common security problems of the continent without Russia.
-Despite the fact that the European Parliament of the ninth convocation started its work only on 2 July this year, serious contradictions have already emerged in its work due to the disruption of the traditional balance of power. In that connection, do you think that basic premises of the EC foreign policy with regard to Russia can change?
– If, talking about the disruption of the traditional balance of power in the European Parliament, you have in mind the increased presence of right wingers, greens and euro-skeptics in it as a result of the last May elections and weaker positions of the two political groups – the European People’s Party and the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats – that used to dominate it, you are right. However, one should not overstate contradictions in the work of the Parliament. We do not expect too much from that European institution which has already found time, at one of its first plenary sessions, to discuss the human rights situation in Russia and to adopt an extremely politicized resolution on the subject. It appears that the majority of the deputies of the European Parliament have made it clear that they are not going to abandon their unconstructive approach to Russia.
At the same time, we cannot but note the growing number of those who raise their voice in favor of overcoming the current abnormal situation. I think that politicians increasingly realize that there are a lot more things that unite the EC and Russia than divide us. Hence, we are all interested in working together to restore the mutual trust and full-fledged interaction.
-Ukraine went through significant political changes after the last elections when the party of Vladimir Zelensky won absolute majority in the parliament and the pro-Russian party of Victor Medvedchuk returned to the parliament receiving 12.8 per cent of the voices. Taking into account these changes, do you see possibilities for a thaw in the Russian-Ukrainian relations and for the end of the conflict in the Donbass?
-Vladimir Zelensky is sending different signals after his election. On the one hand, he expresses his desire to secure peace in the country. On the other hand, he rejects the very thought of dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk and doesn’t want even to listen to his co-citizens from the south-east. But he is wrong to act that way. People there do not want and do not ask for anything extraordinary. It is important to them that the peace comes as soon as possible, that the Donbass be given a special status, that social and economic as well as humanitarian rights of its population be respected, including the right to speak freely their own, Russian, language. All this is written into the Minsk Agreements, endorsed by the UN Security Council.
There is no other alternative. What is needed to implement the agreements reached in Minsk is political will but those who had ruled Ukraine during the last five years, alas, were clearly short of it. Unfortunately, our Western partners, instead of prompting Kiev to respect the obligations it had undertaken, openly ignored its desire to evade their implementation by fair means or foul, to substitute the notions and in the end to shift the responsibility for the conflict in Donbass to Russia. We hope that today’s Ukrainian authorities will not blindly pursue the failed policy of their predecessors and will be able to use the current credit of trust from the population to peace in Ukraine. There are all the possibilities for that. The most important is that Ukrainians themselves should come into the agreement among them about the future development of their common State with a comfortable and secure life for all its citizens, with a complete respect for human rights in all their diversity, without wild outbursts of radicalism and nationalism.
We would like to hope that nevertheless Kiev will also adopt a realistic approach to the development of Russian-Ukrainian relations. What will serve common interest of both our countries is a pragmatic cooperation on the basis of confidence and mutual understanding, and not confrontation. Moscow is ready for that. But we need concrete actions. Only practical steps of the new parliament and government of Ukraine will enable us to judge about their soundness.
– Russia is blamed for trying to expand its influence in the Balkans. How would you comment these accusations and could you voice the priorities of Russia in the region of Western Balkans?
– Unfortunately, we have to note that the vicious practice of absurdly accusing Moscow of interfering into the internal affairs of foreign States is used for the countries of the Balkan region as well.
The proceedings in Podgorica on the case of the co-called attempt of a “coup d’état” showed the unjustifiability of the accusations that had been brought. We have denied on many occasions Russia’s involvement in any attempts to organize wrongful acts in Montenegro. I can only reaffirm this position. There’s no any evidence to the contrary.
Russia has consistently stood for the increased stability and security in the Balkans through reliance on the international law as well as maintaining and developing mutually beneficial bilateral dialogue with all regional countries. I’m convinced that this fully meets vital national interests of our partners in the South-East Europe.
-The history of relations between Russia and Albania after the Second World War has a record of blooms and recessions. How do you assess them and what are your expectations regarding their further development?
– Russian-Albanian relations are going through a difficult period, being at one of their lowest levels since the restoration of diplomatic relations in 1990. Since 2014, Albania has proactively joined anti-Russian EU sanctions thus finding itself in the list of countries living under Russia’s countermeasures. In 2018, Tirana deported two Russian diplomats, which evoked our symmetric reaction. Undoubtedly, these circumstances are not at all about the historically created friendly spirit of relations between the peoples of our countries. Moreover, the tone set by Tirana hampers the development of the potential of bilateral ties, especially economic ones. Having proactively joined the anti-Russian sanctions Albania lost for itself the capacious Russian agricultural market and deprived its producers of the possibility to export to Russia.
However, even under the present circumstances we see perspectives and call for development of interaction in areas of common interest. There is a potential for cooperation in extraction, processing and transportation of mineral resources, including hydrocarbons, in hydropower and in developing transport, energy and other infrastructure, in information and communication sector and other fields. Objectively, our bilateral trade turnover has the place to grow.
At the backdrop of not too bright political and economic relations, it is worth mentioning the level of Russian-Albanian cooperation in the field of culture and education. We will seek to further enhance our humanitarian ties. Certainly, Russian-Albanian relations do not develop in a vacuum. The regional context is extremely important. We are opposed to making the Balkans a theatre of geopolitical rivalry and attempts to undermine international legal instruments including UN Security Council Resolution 1244 and Dayton arrangements./ADN
