AMBASSADOR'S ARTICLES

21.04.2015

Ukraine crisis: facing a Cold War mindset (by Russian Ambassador to UK Alexander Yakovenko, special to RBTH, Full text)

The Ukraine crisis served as a trigger of a broader crisis in the West-Russia relationship. Today, a year and a half after it started, what are the stakes and the bets?

First, the declared objective of the EU’s Ukraine policy is to have it firmly integrated in a Greater Europe. We have no problem with that, all the more so that Ukraine’s transformation is long overdue and in everybody’s interest.

But why acting secretly and unilaterally, rather than openly and multilaterally? We had always been told by the EU, that a routine Association Agreement with Ukraine was in the works. We never minded. But then, all of a sudden, it turned out that a Deep and Comprehensive FTA was going to be part of that. When we enquired, we were told that it was none of our business. Though it was obvious, and recognized later on, that such an FTA was not compatible with Ukraine’s membership in the CIS FTA. Why then not full membership, which would have been honest and transparent?

The Financial Times (on 7 April) had to admit that “in Ukraine’s case, the ENP’s mechanical approach blinded EU policy makers in 2013”. The paper called on Brussels unaccountable bureaucracy “to avoid such mistakes”. The Lords in its February report also concluded that the EU sleep-walked into the current crisis. Alfred Tennyson’s line “Some one had blunder’d” comes to mind. In any case, the EU made a risky foray into old geopolitics with its expansionism on the cheap. Why lay the blame for one’s errors of judgement and failures of imagination at Russia’s door?

Second, we will never put up with a war by proxy on our border. When we get the response from Nato general’s mouths, rather than their guns’ muzzles, it would be laughable, had it not been for the death and destruction caused by Kiev’s Orwellian anti-terrorist operation (ATO). The New York Times was right when in its editorial (July 3, 2014) it described Kiev’s decision not to extend the June truce, but conduct the ATO as a fateful step.

Ed Lucas, writing in The Times on 12 August 2014, was appalled by the prospect of the West “bankrolling indefinitely a failing state, run by corrupt politicians, oligarchs and paramilitary thugs”. So far, the developments in Ukraine have not proved that prediction wrong. The choice is clear: it is either war or transformative reforms. Kiev still insists on the military solution, which undermines the Minsk agreements and the Normandy Four effort.

Third, President B.Obama in his CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria in February did admit that the US “had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine”, i.e. behind the backs of the German, French and Polish Foreign Ministers who helped reach the 21 February agreement between President V.Yanukovich and parliamentary opposition. The US, thus, endorsed the power grab which destroyed the politics of consensus and constitutional order that had held the country together for 23 years. The people in the Crimea fled revolutionary chaos and violence of an obviously nationalistic and repressive regime.

For Russia, when the cause of Ukraine’s territorial integrity was lost in the coup, the interests of the people on the ground became a paramount concern. Is it not in line with Europe’s post-modernist values, relegating a state’s sovereignty to the status of a secondary concern?

Fourth, Russia is accused of waging an effective propaganda campaign with the West and Brussels’ Eurocrats “outgunned”. Maybe, the reason is they cannot manage the truth, which is the ATO and its consequences, including indiscriminate shelling of civilian infrastructure and civilian population. But, first of all, the West cannot explain why Kiev has chosen war over political settlement. And I fully agree with The Economist that innovative thinking is in scarce supply in Europe. Mark Mazower (“FT”, 14 April) wrote about “fossilised habits of thought” as one of the problems of the Cold War, which make it difficult for the West to come to grips with complexity of a changing world.

The recipes are obvious – no prospect of Nato membership for Ukraine and federalization of a divided country (the latter option favoured by Vernon Bogdanor on The FT’s pages). Henry Kissinger and Zb. Brzezinski are among those who support these outcomes.

Finally, on rules-based order and Russia’s revisionism. It is a tricky issue. It seems that in the West it is deemed to be the Cold War reality minus the Soviet Union and Warsaw Treaty. The Soviet Union was once, at the time of the Cultural Revolution, accused of revisionism. That is nothing new to Russia, the home of avant-garde art. Remember that there was no formal post-Cold War settlement in Europe. Recently, the Ditchley Foundation conference came to the conclusion that “it was difficult to see how current tensions could be resolved without moves towards a new security system” in Europe. Anyway, in this particular case the EU laid down the rules of unilateralism which we thoroughly followed.

George Friedman (of “Stratfor”) revealed to the Chicago Council on global affairs, that the Ukraine crisis represents America’s grand strategy to establish a cordon sanitaire to keep Russia and Germany apart. So far this conspiracy against Europe succeeds. Hopefully, the Europeans, who, to borrow from T.S.Eliot, have had the experience, but missed the meaning, will wake up to the reality and will not allow their continent to be raped by divide-and-rule tactics.

The revisionism outcry betrays politics and policies of status quo, which are challenged not only by Russia but by the EU electorate. The present systemic European crisis testifies to the unsustainability and untenability of an order and mindset, rooted in the Cold War era. The radically evolving regional and global context will ultimately determine the outcome. A new mainstream is taking shape. And Russia is proud to be part of this process, to be on the side of common sense and truths universally acknowledged, that underlie it.

Show comments (0)

LATEST EVENTS

Ambassador Andrei Kelin gave an interview to the Daily Mail newspaper, covering the Russia Report, bilateral relations with UK and a broad international agenda.

Q: Thank you Mr Ambassador for speaking to us today. My first question is have you seen the report today, have you read it, what do you think? A: Yes, of course, I’ve seen it and and I have read it this morning. My first impression is that the Shakespeare’s phrase is very much applicable to it: much ado about nothing. The report is called “Russia”. But if you put the name of any other country, it will be the same, because this report is not about Russia. It is about the relationship between different intelligence agencies inside the UK.

Ambassador Andrei Kelin's article published on the website of Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) on 2 July 2020.

On 27 November, 2019 Ambassador Andrei Kelin gave an interview to Sputnik News Agency during the V Russian-British Business Forum.

Following an interview with President Vladimir Putin published by the Financial Times a month ago, the issue of the future “liberal world order” in its idealistic version has been part of London’s political discussion agenda, with the emphasis being put on moral and political leadership in the present-day world.

In the recent interview with President Putin, the Financial Times seems to have launched a discussion on liberalism only at its own peril. Inadvertently, a real problem was touched upon, whose pressing nature is no longer denied by anyone in the West. The newspaper had to admit it in its Editorial of 29 June. Its authors claim that the threat to liberalism comes from within, including President Trump and his policies, Brexit and, certainly, the rise of “populist nationalism”. They refer to voters’ disillusionment with liberalism and loss of confidence in the economic system and trust in political elites. The latter are invited to redouble their efforts to take into consideration issues raised by voters and “to renew liberalism”.

In response to the Ambassador Beruchashvili’s letter, offering not so much a recollection of the August 2008 events in the Caucasus, but rather a misleading reiteration of the Georgian claims against Russia I have to refer to some of the universally recognized facts and consequences resulting from those tragic events.

When talking about Russia’s Far East, you invariably remember its stunning natural beauty, abundance in natural resources and vast territories. But when one thinks of its investments prospects, you also invariably remember its harsh climate, low average population density and the lack of transport and other infrastructure. But now the situation is changing fundamentally. The region is undergoing a huge and qualitative revival. The development of the region has been declared one of the national priorities for Russia. In the last 5 years 18 advanced development zones and 5 free ports have been established in the Russian Far East. Long-term tax exemptions have been provided for large investment projects. Paperless e-visas for visitors of Vladivostok are available for citizens of 18 countries.

On 4 March 2018 two Russian citizens Sergei and Yulia Skripal were reportedly poisoned in Salisbury, Wiltshire with the toxic chemical named A-234 under the British classification. On 12 March Foreign Secretary Johnson summoned me to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and said that Russia was “highly likely” responsible for the attack. He invited us to respond by the next day, whether this had been a direct act by the state or Russia had lost control over this nerve agent. The incident had international repercussions, including expulsion of 150 Russian diplomats from 28 countries, notwithstanding the fact that the charges were based on assumptions and unverifiable intelligence. The Western countries lost the same number of Moscow-based staff. Meanwhile, the British government provided no evidence either to the public, its allies or Russia. Subsequent events revealed that no proof of Russia’s involvement existed. On 1 May, National Security adviser Sir Mark Sedwill confirmed that (despite a number of previous leaks) no suspect had been identified, a statement that speaks for itself.

Amid the rapid advance in technologies we face a growing number of cyber-crimes: in 2016, these offences caused damage of $445 billion and by 2020, according to experts, this figure can reach up to $3 trillion, exceeding the overall income received from the Internet.