SPEECHES, INTERVIEWS, ARTICLES
01.11.2019
Permanent Representative of Russia to the OSCE Alexander Lukashevich’s interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, October 29, 2019Question: Mr Lukashevich, I would like to start with a difficult question. The people seldom understand the role and importance of such institutions as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). They believe that it is all talk and little action, apart from that of the adoption of resolutions. This is partly true. Are there too many international organisations that are hardly having any influence on realities? And it also costs a fortune to maintain them.
Alexander Lukashevich: In general, multilateral diplomacy helps to increase predictability when it comes to international relations. In the modern day world, it is difficult to resolve any problems in a bilateral interstate format alone. International organisations are platforms for interaction between states, dialogue and the coordination of positions on complicated global and regional matters. Whether we want it or not, the absolute majority of problems nowadays are of a cross-border nature. One country alone or even a group of countries cannot resolve them. Coordinated collective efforts are needed for the maintenance of peace and stability on the European continent. This is exactly what the OSCE is doing. Andrey Gromyko said on this account that 10 years of talks are better than one day of war.
Question: Can the OSCE be regarded as the European UN?
Alexander Lukashevich: A vital part of the Charter for European Security is the Platform for Cooperative Security, which is based on cooperation and stipulates a framework for the interaction of various regional organisations under the umbrella of the OSCE. At that time, we believed that we only needed to take the last step towards creating a European UN, that is, approve a charter that would confirm the central role of the new organisation in the European security architecture. But that step has never been taken.
The OSCE is still not a subject of international law. In other words, it can only issue recommendations, not adopt binding decisions. The charter has not been adopted. The result is that the OSCE is a major platform for the discussion of common European topics but not a decision-making centre.
Question: How have the OSCE’s priorities changed over the past decades?
Alexander Lukashevich: At its inception, the OSCE was designed to set the rules of the game for the coexistence of two confronting systems. Later, there was a short period of time when the OSCE was expected to become the central link in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture. At some stage we managed to keep the OSCE in the front ranks of international relations. Important moves were taken, which I have mentioned. But eventually the Western countries refused to bring this process to its logical conclusion. They probably feared losing the dividends of “Cold War winners.” The numerous phases of NATO enlargement were not designed to create an open system of European security but to draw East European countries into the orbit of American influence.
However, we look at the OSCE as a promising venue for rebooting the system of European security. The biggest problem is that the OSCE’s potential is not being used in full measure. Instead of building bridges between the conflicting parties, this unique organisation, which includes all Euro-Atlantic states and some Eurasian countries, is largely running idle or, worse still, is being used for increasing confrontation. Russia is categorically against this approach. We have been trying to direct the OSCE’s efforts towards reducing tension in Europe and combating common for all countries transnational challenges, such as terrorism, drug trafficking, cybercrime and organised crime.
To be continued...
LATEST EVENTS
We are ready to address humanitarian issues, as happened yesterday, when thanks to the initiatives of the Russian military on the ground it proved possible to evacuate hundreds of wounded soldiers from the Azovstal plant. These are the principles that form the basis of the Russian army’s ethos.
Western politicians should accept the fact that their efforts to isolate our country are doomed. Many experts have already recognised this, even if quietly and off the record, because saying this openly is “politically incorrect.” But this is happening right now. The non-Western world is coming to see that the world is becoming increasingly more diverse.
We had a busy day today in our meetings with His Majesty Sultan Haitham bin Tariq Al Said and Deputy Prime Minister for the Council of Ministers of Oman Fahd bin Mahmoud Al Said, as well as talks with my colleague and friend Foreign Minister of Oman Badr bin Hamad Albusaidi.
We discussed the entire range of Russian-Omani relations and expressed satisfaction with the intensive political dialogue and cooperation in trade, the economy, culture and education.
According to tradition, today we are conducting a ceremony dedicated to the most sacred holiday in the history of our country: Victory Day in the Great Patriotic War.
By tradition, we honour everyone who gave their lives for the freedom and independence of our country and Europe and for delivering the entire world from the Nazi threat.
We have provided many proposals. During all these years we have been initiating draft treaties, draft agreements with NATO, with countries of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Lately, in December last year, we proposed another initiative to the United States and to NATO to conclude treaties with both of them on security guarantees to all countries in the Euro-Atlantic space without joining any military alliance.
Russia has never ceased its efforts to reach agreements that would guarantee the prevention of a nuclear war. In recent years, it was Russia who has persistently proposed to its American colleagues that we repeat what Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan did in 1987: adopt a statement reaffirming that there can be no winners in a nuclear war, and therefore it must never be unleashed.
When we talk about the Ukrainian crisis, first of all we need to look at the destructive policy of the Western states conducted over many years and led by the United States, which set a course to knock together a unipolar world order after the end of the Cold War. NATO’s reckless expansion to the East was a key component of those actions, despite the political obligations to the Soviet leadership on the non-expansion of the Alliance.
What we deem necessary has been announced by President Vladimir Putin. I am referring to the need to destroyUkraine’s military infrastructure in the context of demilitarising it. To quote President Putin, Ukraine has been turned into an “anti-Russia” and a direct threat to this country. But the Russian military must meet very strict requirements to minimise damage to the civilian population.
The real reason is the complacency of most countries of the world after the end of World War II, when our Western colleagues, led by the United States, declared themselves winners and in violation of the promises to the Soviet and Russian leadership started moving NATO eastward.
President Vladimir Putin explained in detail the reasons for the decision on the special military operation. These include eight years of sabotage of the Minskagreements accompanied by the daily bombing of Donbass; the flooding of Ukrainewith Western weapons; and the sending of instructors that trained the most extremist units that were later sent to the Armed Forces of Ukraine. They formed the backbone of the groups that are now resisting our operation to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine.
all messages  | 
Tweet Follow @russianembassy