15 January 2019
Moscow: 02:49
London: 23:49

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

 
317 days have passed since the Salisbury incident - no credible information or response from the British authorities                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     309 days have passed since the death of Nikolay Glushkov on British soil - no credible information or response from the British authorities

SPEECHES, INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES

09.04.2014

On federalism, Ukraine, rhetoric and accountability (by Ambassador Yakovenko, for Russia Today)

 

The issue of federalism has become a focal point in the international effort to settle the Ukrainian crises. It started with the EU ill-conceived attempt at solf-landing Ukraine unilaterally into a more positive and sustainable future, presumably, for common good. I’d like to cite two examples of the softening power of federalism.

First. Henry Kissinger in his Diplomacy (1994) wrote about the lack of political culture of moderation in the militaristic Germany, united by Bismarck as a Greater Prussia. This critical flaw wouldn’t dissipate and would ultimately make Germany want to go to war. Our great poet and thinker Fedor Tyutchev, who spent 20 years in Munich as a diplomat, wrote in late 1840-ies, that there was no room in Europe for a united Germany as an empire, only as a federation. History proved him right, but it took two world wars to arrive at the rational solution.

It also proves that such issues are of legitimate interest to others. The history of the first German unification bears witness to something else. The Crimean War, unleashed for reasons that seem petty in hindsight, and, especially, humiliating provisions of the Freaty of Paris, all but destroyed the collective capability of Europe to manage the rise of Germany.

Second. Many stable countries tend to be federations (and the most stable of all, Switzerland, a confederation). That is true of the United States, Russia and others. In some countries, like the UK, federalism is introduced by stealth, i.e. under another name like devolution. Professor V.Bogdanor in his letter to The Financial Times (4 April) explains why. In his view, which I fully share, “a model of democracy based on the untrammelled rights of majorities cannot work in a divided society”. What is required is a dispersal of power, whatever one might call it (power-sharing or anything else). Indeed, “to insist on the absolute rights of majorities either in Ukraine or in Crimea is self-defeating”.

Just to pursue that logic further, the problem of democracy in the EU could be resolved through shaping a Europe of regions as a counterweight to Brussels if, of course, national jurisdictions are to be further trimmed. Brussels bureaucracy and the way it operates have a lot to do with the crisis in and around Ukraine. Unaccountability begets irresponsibility. Brussels means nobody in particular, and European solidarity comes into play to cover the incompetence up.

Anyway, it is only now, that people start recognizing that Brussels has been at fault in its Ukrainian project. As Gideon Rachman concedes in his blog, “the EU treated policy towards Ukraine as a technical exercise”. But for us it is difficult to be that indulgent, since we always inquired with Brussels as to what was cooking, and the response was “you’ll see when the draft Association Agreement has been initialed”. Yes, we saw it and minced no words in that it trampled upon our trade and economic interest vis-à-vis our neighbour.

In response we heard harsh rhetoric supported by capitals of EU member-states. And it was only in the course of the crisis that our EU partners admitted that Russia does have a legitimate economic interest in Ukraine. But the situation in Ukraine had already been rocked by then.

To salvage what could be salvaged under the circumstances, we pushed forward the idea that a deep constitutional process must precede Presidential and parliamentary elections. This sequence was key to the internationally mediated agreement, reached between President Yanukovich and the opposition on 21 February. It was not about the personal fate of V.Yanukovich, it was all about doing things right in a divided and destabilized nation. What could be better than people feeling empowered and assured that nobody will impose upon them someone’s national and historical narrative, which has always been the stuff of civil wars?

The Crimea’s independence and joining Russia helped to get this message across. The recent Weimar Triangle Foreign Ministers’ statement acknowledges the importance of the 21 February agreement and trilateral discussions to stabilize Ukraine.

It now depends on the West whether we achieve those objectives. That would define a real de-escalation. Moscow has always been in favour of dealing with issues of so called “common neighbourhood” collectively. Had it been done that way, we would have no crisis in Ukraine on our hands, nor seen the logic of tit-for-tat unilateralism in action.

But our partners will have to overcome the rhetoric-driven political culture, which is mostly about the looks. May I quote from Senator Mansfield’s memorandum on Vietnam, presented to President John Kennedy on 20 August 1963: “Have we first over-extended ourselves in words, and then, in search of a rationalization for the erroneous over-extention, moved what may be essentially a peripheral situation to the core of our policy considerations?” (Thurston Clarke, JFK’s Last Hundred Days, p.75). The situation is different now, but the flawed method of dealing with it is pretty much the same. And it is the right method that ensures the right outcome.

Why not admit to an error and make things worse? Certainly, it would be a different matter if someone needs this artificially engineered crisis as a refuge from lots of intractable problems back home.




LATEST EVENTS

28.11.2018 - Statement of the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin at the Fourth OPCW Review Conference

Statement of the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the OPCW Alexander Shulgin at the Fourth OPCW Review Conference in response to the USA, United Kingdom and Canada accusing Russia of not observing its obligations under Chemical Weapons Convention. Distinguished Mr. Chair, We consider absolutely unacceptable the groundless accusations voiced in the statement of the United States that Russia is in violation of its obligations under Article I of the CWC pertaining to alleged involvement of Russian nationals in use of a nerve agent in Salisbury. Such statements have absolutely no bearing on the facts and are effectively aired to influence the international community. The refusal of the United Kingdom to cooperate in any form with Russia on the “Skripal case”, which would be in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article IX of the CWC only underlines the emptiness of the accusations. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom has addressed the Technical Secretariat with a request to confirm the outcomes of its own national investigation, which contradicts the goals and objectives of technical assistance provided to a State Party under subparagraph e) of paragraph 38 of Article VIII of the CWC. As follows from the presented materials on the assistance provided in connection to Salisbury and Amesbury cases, we have to state the politically motivated nature of the undertaken measures.


30.10.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s interview with ''Moscow. Kremlin. Putin'' TV programme Moscow, October 25, 2018

Question: Why did US National Security Adviser John Bolton come to Moscow? Sergey Lavrov: To talk. There are many matters we need to discuss. We appreciate it that it is US National Security Adviser John Bolton who is especially proactive regarding ties with his colleagues in Moscow. Question: Is this a joke? Sergey Lavrov: Not at all. Actually, we have meetings with Mr Bolton more often than with our other colleagues. He was here in July, and now he is back again. In between, he met with Secretary of Russia’s Security Council Nikolai Patrushev in Geneva. We believe that it is important when such a high-ranking official takes interest in the practical matters on our bilateral agenda.


24.10.2018 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's introductory remarks at the opening of the 2nd Russia-UK Raw Materials Dialogue, 24 October 2018

Ladies and gentlemen, To me as Russian Ambassador to the UK, it is a privilege to address such an important Russian-British conference. The 2nd Russian-UK Raw Materials Dialogue has a great meaning for the professional community in our countries, for it covers a broad range of different topics from mining technologies, new material development and use of natural resources to international academic and scientific exchanges.


27.09.2018 - Remarks by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at the UN Security Council meeting, September 26, 2018

Mr President, Colleagues, In the modern world, an efficient fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is becoming increasingly important for global and regional stability and the reliable security of all states without exception. Constructive cooperation in this area is an important component of the efforts to shape a positive international agenda. I think everybody agrees that the UN Security Council resolutions that outline specific measures against violations of non-proliferation must be strictly observed. Resolution 1540 remains the basis for this and contains obligations for the member states to take specific measures to prevent non-government agents from accessing weapons of mass destruction and their components. The UNSC decisions taken in pursuance of this resolution are particularly important as they include sanctions for handing over any types of weapons to terrorists. There have been incidents of such handovers and they must be thoroughly investigated.


07.09.2018 - Remarks by Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, following the UNSC meeting on the incident in Salisbury

Q: Do you expect British sanctions on Russia soon? A: We are not expecting or afraid of anything. Taking to the account how things have been developing during the recent years we do not exclude anything. This discussion and yesterday’s speech by the British Prime-Minister in the British Parliament are not coincidental. I think that’s looks like a prelude to a new political season. Q: So, Ambassador it’s really coming from the highest level in the UK. A: It always comes from the highest level. Last time when the incident took place it also came from the highest level. Q: But it seems that you are not taking it seriously. A: We are taking it very seriously. We were saying it all the time. Why we’ve been asking for cooperation with the UK from day one. Only few minutes ago Ambassador Pierce was referring to an ultimatum that Boris Johnson made in his letter to the Russian Ambassador in London when the incident took place presented as a request by the British site to cooperate while in fact it was a demand to to accept the gilt. At the same time our requests which we sent to British authorities constantly through OPCW and bilaterally were ignored.


06.09.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at Bolshaya Igra (Great Game) talk show on Channel One, Moscow, September 4, 2018

Question: Today we have a special guest in our studio, one of the main participants in the “great game”, someone the future of the world really depends on in many ways: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. We are happy to welcome you in the Great Game studio. Sergey Lavrov: Thanks for inviting me.


22.08.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's comment on UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's anti-Russian claims

At a joint news conference following talks with Foreign Minister of Serbia Ivica Dacic Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt's urges to European partners to slap their own sanctions on Russia in connection with the Salisbury incident.


16.08.2018 - Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko's interview for "Salisbury Journal"

The Russian Ambassador said he stands together with the people of Salisbury in a meeting with the Journal last week, as the United States announced new sanctions against the country. Speaking at his official residence in Kensington Palace Gardens on Thursday, Alexander Yakovenko said: “We are together with the people of Salisbury.”


24.06.2018 - Greeting by Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko for the Znaniye school Family Day (Ealing, 24 June 2018)

Dear friends and guests, I am delighted to welcome you at a Family Day celebrating Russia and the World Cup. Today, Russia is the place to be for the whole world. It is a great pleasure to hear fans from all continents appreciating Russia’s hospitality, friendliness and openness to everyone. Right now, people from virtually every country see the 11 host cities, from the Baltic Sea to the Urals on the border of Europe and Asia, and realize how diverse and beautiful our country is. We’d like to bring a bit of Russia and the excitement of the World Cup to Ealing, for those who couldn’t make it to the tournament. By the way, so far both our teams are doing very well, and let us hope they keep up this good work. We cheer for both Russia and England but I’m afraid this can change if both teams meet at the semi-finals.


20.06.2018 - Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks and answers to questions at the Primakov Readings international forum, Moscow, May 30, 2018

Mr Dynkin, Colleagues and friends, Ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful for a new opportunity to speak at the international forum named after Academician Evgeny Primakov, an outstanding Russian statesman, academic and public figure. It is indeed a great honour for me. I consider Mr Primakov, with whom I worked at the Foreign Ministry in the latter half of the 1990s, my senior comrade and teacher, as probably do the majority of those who crossed paths with him at one point. Holding this representative conference under the aegis of one of Russia’s leading academic institutes – National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) that also bears Primakov’s name – has become a good tradition. The Primakov Readings have earned a reputation as a venue for serious dialogue of authoritative specialists on the most pressing issues of international politics and the global economy. Today, there is no lack of buzzwords used by politicians, experts and scientists to capture the current moment in international relations. They talk about the crisis of the “liberal world order” and the advent of the post-Western era, “hot peace” and the “new cold war”. The abundance of terms itself shows that there is probably no common understanding of what is happening. It also points to the fairly dynamic and contradictory state of the system of international relations that is hard to characterise, at least at the present stage, with one resounding phrase. The authors of the overarching theme of the current Primakov Readings probably handled the challenge better than others. In its title “Risks of an unstable world order’ they provocatively, and unacademically, combine the words “unstable” and “order”.



all messages