“We don’t see the desire of the sponsors of Kyiv”: Nebenzya - about the possibility of dialogue on Ukraine and the silence of the crimes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine by the West

— 

 — Yes, we have heard recent statements by Zelensky, Angela Merkel, Hollande and Poroshenko himself, who, in fact, let it slip — admitted that the Minsk agreements were a hoax to buy time for Ukraine.

In addition, the Minsk agreements are an example of the failure of the UN's preventive activities.

The fact is that if they had been conscientiously executed, what is happening now would not have happened.

But it turned out that they were not going to do anything there.

And to those who say that it started a year ago, we answer like this: “Your chronology is wrong.

It started nine years ago.

Nine years ago we begged you to listen to us, but no one did.”

- From a number of Western leaders, we heard that the end of this conflict can only be with the defeat of Russia.

If this is the attitude, can we hope for any negotiations?

“They don’t just say that the end of this can only come with the defeat of Russia,

- they are now talking about the dismemberment of Russia, the destruction of Russia.

Some high-level officials talk about the Russian leadership: is it in its place?

Some statements generally go beyond the scope of not just diplomatic etiquette, but the principle of civilized communication.

As for the possibility of negotiations.

Our position here is very clear, and we have stated it many times.

We have declared the aims of our special military operation.

We were and remain ready for serious negotiations, which were interrupted, stopped in April last year by the Ukrainian side.

Of course, at the direction of their owners and sponsors.

In addition, many statements were made by high-ranking Ukrainian officials regarding their point of view on the possibility of a dialogue with Russia.

And in Ukraine, there is a decree signed by Zelensky himself, by which he forbade himself to deal with the current leadership of Russia.

So from the Ukrainian side, we do not see any serious efforts regarding negotiations.

And all their initiatives about the peace plan, which we hear about from the platforms of various summits - all this, frankly, is not serious.

• Russian-Ukrainian talks in Istanbul in 2022

• © Sergey Karpukhin

Moreover, we understand very well that they do not make decisions.

Those who can force them to enter into serious negotiations are people who live in the United States and somewhere in Europe, on one of the islands across the English Channel... If these people want, the Ukrainians will start a dialogue.

But we do not see any desire among Kyiv's sponsors to move on to serious negotiations with Russia.

And we do not intend to conduct them on the basis of the ultimatums that we hear.

- 

“There is always hope that they will open their eyes to the truth, but I'm afraid they still refuse to see it in regards to this matter.

The meeting of the UN Security Council, which we requested earlier this week, has just taken place.

The topic is the supply of arms to Ukraine and their consequences.

The huge effort and money being pumped into Ukraine is fueling the conflict.

As you know, we have invited Roger Waters to this meeting.

- Yes.

- There were doubts whether he could act as a speaker on this issue, but he proved that he could, and, I want to say, quite skillfully.

Roger Waters did not take a pro-Russian stance in his speech.

He said what he thinks.

When we invite speakers to meetings of the UN Security Council, we never impose anything on them, we do not put any conditions on what needs to be said.

We don't text them.

You heard what happened at that meeting.

So far, this is really a dialogue between the deaf and the blind.

- 

• Consequences of an APU missile hitting a former school building in the village of Volodarskoye in the DPR

• © Sergey Baturin

We have been raising these issues for the past nine years and continue to do so.

But you need to understand that we are dealing with an iron wall - an iron wall of the media, I would say so.

We are doing everything in our power to bring this to the people.

We recently held a so-called Arria meeting, an informal meeting dedicated to what is happening in the Donbass now and what has happened there before, and not only in recent years, but also in recent months.

The fact is that recently the intensity of shelling of residential areas of Donbass has increased tremendously... 16,000 over the past couple of months, if I'm not mistaken.

We invited witnesses who shared their personal observations of what was happening.

All this is ignored.

They recite their mantras and do not want to listen to anything. 

Yes, many who are now committing crimes in Ukraine by the Kyiv regime must be brought to justice.

And we officially declare that we record all the crimes of the Kyiv regime.

We won't forget this.

And the day will come when they will stand trial for the crimes they have committed - including on the battlefield.

They use civilians as human shields.

We don't do that, they do it all the time.

They commit crimes against prisoners of war.

Take, for example, the outrageous events when Russian prisoners of war were shot point-blank without trial or investigation.

Also on russian.rt.com Point-blank fire: the identity of the militant of the Armed Forces of Ukraine who shot Russian prisoners of war became known

The West has largely ignored this.

However, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights was forced to admit that the videos presented were genuine and deserved to be investigated.

— Western leaders in their speeches often refer to a rules-based world order.

They talk about it all the time.

My question is: how is this kind of rhetoric and talk about a rules-based world order viewed in South America, Asia, Africa?

How does the world react to the statements of the US and Western leaders?

“We've been talking about this rules-based world order for a long time.

We note that this is not international law, which is enshrined primarily in the UN Charter.

Few then seriously listened to us.

But I think that now the point of view in the countries you mentioned is changing.

Most recently, it was the 20th anniversary of the UN Security Council meeting where Colin Powell spoke with a test tube, which can be considered the beginning of the current stage in the development of this rules-based world order.

We tell our partners that they should carefully evaluate what is happening and understand: today they came for Russia, and tomorrow they will come for any country that is not on the same wavelength as those who believe that they own the world.

- 

- In general, the world is much larger than the so-called collective West.

The world is Africa, Greater Eurasia, Latin America... And the world is indeed becoming more and more multipolar.

At the same time, perhaps, it is becoming less and less multilateral - at least as far as a certain group of countries is concerned.

If we talk about the role of Russia, then whether someone likes it or not, it cannot be erased from the world map.

Russia will always be a major player in world politics. 

— I want to ask about the UN Security Council itself.

I know there are calls to reform this body and reconsider how states are represented in it.

What is Russia's position on this issue?

We do not object to the reform of the UN Security Council.

This process has been going on for a long time - more than twenty years.

And the problem is not that someone is blocking it, be it Russia or anyone else.

The point is a very significant difference in the positions of both groups of countries and individual countries.

• AP

• © Mary Altaffer

Because of this discrepancy, it is impossible to reach any consensus in a short time.

But we understand that the UN Security Council no longer fully represents today's world, which has changed since the formation of this body.

Regions such as Africa, Asia and Latin America in particular are underrepresented in the Security Council and this needs to be corrected.

We do not see any advantage in including in the Security Council - especially as permanent members - the countries of the so-called collective West, since there are already enough of them.

In our opinion, they will not bring anything new to the work of the body.

However, I repeat, the so-called intergovernmental negotiations on the reform of the Security Council continue in the General Assembly.

But at the moment it cannot be said that any agreement on this issue will be reached in the near, foreseeable future.

- In our conversation, you mentioned that horrific video of the murder of Russian prisoners of war.

And now its authenticity has been confirmed: this crime was indeed committed.

What needs to happen in order for the Western media to recognize the monstrous things that Kyiv is doing?

Do you see the possibility that these atrocities will be widely publicized?

- Perhaps, inside, among themselves, they recognize them, but in the mass media field these things are simply ignored.

You probably remember such terrible productions as the so-called massacre in Bucha or the murder of people at the Kramatorsk railway station.

In Kramatorsk, these unfortunate people died as a result of a Ukrainian missile strike, which was captured in photographs.

Now the Western media do not talk about this at all, but public opinion attributes this crime to Russia.

No one goes into details: what happened, how it happened, where is the truth and where is the lie.

So I do not have a particularly optimistic forecast that the truth about these heinous crimes will be brought to the Western public by the Western media.

- 

- Relations between Russia and African countries - and among them there are many of our partners - are expanding.

This causes jealousy among those countries that consider Africa their backyard.

Also on russian.rt.com “We actively prepared Ukraine, creating direct threats to our security”: Lavrov on the hybrid war of the West against Russia

I will give an example - and I think that now I will not betray any secret by this.

A couple of years ago, at the high-level session of the General Assembly, Minister Lavrov met with the current head of European diplomacy, Josep Borrell.

He recently distinguished himself with a number of comments that threw the public into bewilderment.

Borrell then asked Minister Lavrov: “Why are you dealing with Mali?

Why is Mali trying to interact with you?”

Minister Lavrov said in response to this: “Look, this is a sovereign country, and it decides for itself who to deal with.

If she has decided that she will deal with Russia, then that is her choice.”

The head of European diplomacy reacted to this with the following phrase: "Do not screw up in our place."

Can you imagine this?

— 

- At the end of January this year, a meeting of the UN Committee on Agriculture was held.

There was a rather sober analysis of their problems in the agricultural industry related to the pandemic, inflation, energy and food prices, their hasty transition to a green economy, and so on.

When it comes to themselves, they are able to assess their situation quite soberly.

But when the situation is presented to the general public, they put the blame for the current food crisis on some kind of Kremlin machinations.

We have consistently stated that the food crisis did not begin a year ago.

It was the result of their own political decisions that preceded this mark by at least three to five years.

This includes, for example, large-scale money printing by large economies, and selfish policies regarding food supplies, and so on.

So this crisis is certainly not the result of last year's events.

If we are talking about a grain deal ... or even, rather, about the Istanbul agreements, they consist of two parts.

One part is a grain deal for Ukraine, and the second is a memorandum on the export of Russian fertilizers and food from the Russian Federation.

So, the grain deal is working in full force.

More than 20 million tons of various types of grain have already been exported from Ukraine.

And they send this grain for the most part not to those countries that need it the most.

Yes, they ship too.

But only a very small proportion - something like 3% - goes to those countries that are really fighting hunger.

At the same time, in accordance with the second part of the deal, not a single grain was exported, and very little fertilizer was exported.

Yes, I admit, the Secretary General is doing his best to solve the problem, but he is hitting a blank wall because of all these sanctions.

They keep saying that grains and fertilizers are not under sanctions.

Formally, no.

But cargo transportation is under sanctions, as is insurance, as are banking services and financial transactions.

Do not count everything.

This also does not contribute to solving the food crisis in the world and may even exacerbate it.

One thing is the food crisis, the food itself.

Another thing is the harvest in the future, which largely depends on fertilizers.

And fertilizers come from Russia.

They are of paramount importance for the future of agricultural production.

- As far as I understand, the supply of Russian fertilizers to Syria is blocked at the moment?

Is this issue being discussed at the UN?

“It's not that the supply of Russian fertilizers to Syria is blocked, but that the operators refuse to deliver them, since these fertilizers are considered dual-use products and are subject to the infamous American "Caesar law."

Yes, I have reached out to the UN Secretary General and asked for help with this issue, as the Syrians are in desperate need of this fertilizer, especially in these tragic times they are going through right now.

But so far the fertilizer has not been shipped.

- 

- No. 

Is 

“There is always hope, but it is limited by the many rules and regulations associated with sanctions imposed by these countries, in particular the EU.

They claim to have made some exceptions, but in reality they have not been implemented at the national level.

And besides, there is a so-called overfulfillment of restrictions, when companies are afraid to fall under sanctions themselves for working with Russia, even if in their case it is legal, but illegal in general.

Thank 

Watch the full interview with Vasily Nebenzey on the RTD website.