The Duran Podcast - Russia Prepares to Negotiate With the US - Dmitry Polyanskiy, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Episode Date: February 2, 2025

Russia Prepares to Negotiate With the US - Dmitry Polyanskiy, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Hi and welcome everyone. My name is Glenn Dyson and I'm joined today by Alexander Mercuris and Dimitri Poliansky, the first deputy permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. So again, the world is changing a lot. We spoke not that long ago, but the world already looks like a different place. Now there's many things we can discuss, but I guess the most interesting aspect would be Ukraine, also because, well, let's be honest, this is to a large extent conflict between NATO and Russia, and when we say NATO, it's effectively, it's Washington. So with a new president in the United States, this, of course, changes a lot. And there's much talk now about possible negotiations, as Trump puts pressure on Ukraine by scaling back

support while also engaging in some tough talk toward Russia, which has a few mistakes in his facts. But nonetheless, well, what does all of this mean? How do you see it, Mr. Polanski? Is this preparation for talks? Is it signaling that the U.S. is withdrawing, pulling a bit out of Europe? I mean, are the parties too far away to realistically reach a deal? well, how does it look like there in the United Nations?

Has there at least been some restoration of diplomacy with the Americans? Well, what can I say? Of course, some kind of negotiation process is looming. Everybody understands this. But so far there has been nothing practical. We all absolutely notice the statements that you mentioned by President Trump. The statements are very controversial. One day he says one thing.

The other day he threatens Russia. Then he says that he respects our president and that it was a big mistake to start this war and Zelenskyi shouldn't have done this. So I think it's a good opportunity for very unstable and unfazed people to pick up pieces of news and information and to construct some kind of theories.

But that's not what, we are doing because we are really we are having in mind some concrete diplomatic work which to my knowledge hasn't yet started. I don't have any guidance about any context between presidential administration and the White House. Of course it will be president's office that will be first on the line to have some kind of signal. But judging from what the press secretary of our president, Mr. Peskov, has been saying recently, there has been nothing in particular. Also, you shouldn't forget that we don't have formally our ambassador in Washington right now, which complicates a little bit of things. So I know that it's up to the Americans to give an agreement for his arrival, and then it will be a technical moment that he will be there,

which I assume is very important to establish or re-establish normal communication channels between our two countries. As far as we are concerned, well, again, there is a lot of costs, a lot of expectations at the UN platform and very few things in reality. I can maybe point out a statement made by U.S. representative during the informal Security Council meeting that we hosted recently. The meeting was devoted to the crimes of the Kiev regime. There was a report about the fact that before withdrawing from the town of Sili Dova in Donetsk, in Donbos, Iranians were killing civilians and were behaving in a very bad way and committed a lot of crimes according to international humanitarian law. So we accumulated these crimes and we presented it in a form of informal security council meeting with videos, with witnesses. So absolutely ironclad proofs smoking gun, as put it this way.

And normally it's not the first meeting of that kind that we organize. And the scenario is usually the same. So we present the evidence. The Western colleagues pretend that they are blind and deaf, and they are reading aloud the pre-cooked statements about Russian propaganda and manipulation of security council and blah, blah, blah. But this time, American representative, who was a very low-profile expert, not PR, not deputy permanent representative,

he pronounced very interesting things. Actually, he didn't say anything about usual things like Russian aggression, withdrawal of troops, all these things. He said, we expect Russia to accept a deal on Ukraine. And it was kind of novelty in our UN constellation because I think even for Western colleagues of our American friend, it was something unexpected. And again, they say we expect Russia accept a deal, but there is no deal on the table. There are only discussions and speculations about possible deal and threats. And I don't know. So nothing in particular, nothing in practical terms to really report to you to your guys.

I mean, there is a deal, at least there are terms on the table, or maybe not terms. but your president did go into some detail back in June about the outline, the framework of a possible settlement in the Ukrainian conflict. I think it's important to say that from what I understood of what he said at the time, Mr Putin was actually setting out the preliminary steps, the preliminary framework, not the detailed steps. the details of it. So there would still be work to be done, even if the other side accepted the June 2024 proposals. But those do exist. What we don't have anything of is anything from the United States. And I think a lot of people, I am one of those people, I'm wondering why the Americans are taking so long, because we were led to think from the US that as soon as we as the president was inaugurated, there would be steps made to establish contacts with the Russian side.

As far as I can see, Mr. Rubio has not contacted Mr. Lavrov, Mr. Kellogg has not gone to Moscow. There's been no telephone call between Mr Putin and Mr. Trump and no attempt by the American side to arrange such a call. and we've had lots of statements from the American side, but nothing that remotely resembles any kind of plan. Now, is it possible that the Americans who clearly do want, I mean, I get the sense this administration does want to see an end to this conflict in what it sees as America's own interests, but that it is still trying to work out how this war ends

and what needs to be done to end it. that the Americans can at least walk away without with some sense of face preserved and that this is what is causing all the complications at the moment. You know, Alexander, maybe I will be blunt, but the last thing we are thinking about in the Ukrainian context is whether the Americans will have to save face and to walk out of this without any problem. You know that why we started this war, we explained repeatedly. it to stop the war that was ongoing there.

So this conflict has a history. So for those who are saying that unprovoked, aggression, and so on and forth, this is not true. So anyone who is claiming that he will make some efforts to bring this hot phase of Ukrainian conflict to some solution, he or she, will need to get into the root causes of this problem. Otherwise, it will not work. Of course, the easiest solution,

and there are a lot of people who are saying, maybe according to the normal practice of such situations, there should be a ceasefire, and then there will be some kind of negotiations, and then we will get into the parties. We have already been there. We were there during the agreement, which proved absolutely with all clarity,

the hypocrisy of the West, the West was arming Ukraine. And there is absolutely no illusion on our side that the moment we agree to a ceasefire, this will be used for re-arming Ukraine, for kind of letting it get on its feet. Because so far, as you know, every day, there is an advancement of Russian troops every day. There are certain places.

liberated and the Ukrainian army is crumbling nobody wants to fight people are being caught like like like cattle in the streets and brought to the front line without any any preparation that's why there are a lot of deserters hundreds of thousands of deserters this is a problem now acknowledged even by Ukraine whereas from Russian side we still have volunteers we have enough enough number of volunteers that go to the front every day. Again, it's an acknowledged fact, even from the Ukrainian point of view. And President Putin recently rebuffed a lot of statements by President Trump, because President Trump in his manner made a very heavy-handed, I would say,

statement saying that Russia should do this, otherwise I'll do that. President Putin was very come. It just reminded the conditions, most of them he formulated, as you rightly pointed out, in June that there is no talk about a ceasefire, that there should be root causes tackled, and these approaches are quite clear, and we are not demanding anything on top of what normal countries would expect from their neighbors. Of course, it's also a bigger picture that should be taken into consideration. It's a question of European security. it's a question of expansion of NATO. It's a question of trust,

which has been undermined very seriously during recent decade or maybe even more. It's a question of neo-Nazism. We commemorated recently the 80s anniversary of liberation of Auschwitz Birkenau, which coincides with the Bay of remembrance of Holocaust victims. There was a solemn

ceremony in the UN and we were invited there after a certain effort not automatically some people didn't want it but we managed to do to go there and we made our point but you know that in Poland for example in in the place of this camp Auschwitzvich now I was there repeatedly because I worked for three years in Poland neither neither Russian side was invited no Israeli side was invited. Actually, some people saw that there were only those who were committing crimes and those who were guarding the camp. That's some kind of, you know, hypocrisy. So this glorification on Nazism is something that is very deep rooted in the Eastern European societies, and especially

in Ukraine. And you should be absolutely blind not to notice the concrete facts of heroization of Nazi collaborators. And on that day, Russia circulated a letter to the Secretary General. It is an open document. You can see it on the UN website. In this document, we just enumerate all or most of the cases when somebody who collaborated with Nazis in Ukraine was honored by, for example, school was named in his or her name or some kind of street was named

there was kind of celebration with concrete rank and file nases who were killing Jews, Poles, Russians. I'm not speaking about Bandera, of course. I'm not speaking about Shukhavich, who are national heroes of Ukraine. This is obvious and this is a problem in Ukrainian-Polish relation. I'm speaking about rank-and-file nazis who have blood on their hands and being heroized daily in Ukraine. So we made this compendium. We attached it to the letter. We sent it to Secretary General to illustrate that it is not enough to commemorate victims of Holocaust. One should fight with Holocaust right now and with those who are now being pronounced as heroes and who were committing these crimes together with the Germans against Jews and not only Jews.

So that's one of the requirements, one of the preconditions for us, for any peaceful settlement. in Ukraine. And we believe that not only Russia is interested in such a scenario when there are no more terrorization of Nazis in Ukraine, but the whole world is interested. It's for our children, is for our grandchildren, because we should get rid of this problem. This is important for our memory. This is important for our conscience. We don't think it's only our problem. It's the problem of everybody. And there are a lot of things. Again, I will not dwell into details because I repeatedly said what Russia expects from the settlement and what are the preconditions. And nothing has changed here.

And of course, it's up to Trump administration to try to bully us and to try to pretend that they have a stronger hand in this thing. We are ready to continue our special military operation and to achieve these goals through military means if we are not successful in diplomatic interaction with our colleagues. And I think that the US administration knows this. Maybe from here, this pause that they really want to formulate the position very clearly, not to be rebuffed publicly. After that, maybe they want also to bring together the whole team,

which is dealing with Ukrainian issue. I don't know. It's up to them. But again, nobody reached out to us. As far as I understand, according to the statements of our private secretary, president. Nobody reached out to presidential administration. So so far, it's only in the media that we have from time to time certain speculations, certain statements, certain appeals, but that's it. I think nothing in the field of diplomacy so far. Can I just very quickly,

I'm sorry, can I just very quickly say that as somebody whose family was witnesses to the Holocaust, many important aspects of it. I am deeply ashamed as a European about what happened in Auschwitz, just to make that absolutely clear. And I think it should be, it should be condemned in the strongest terms. As for the fact that some people don't see what there is going on in Ukraine, what kind of people are there? Well, there's that expression. Those are the most blind who will not see. They choose not to see. Hopeless people.

Anyway, Glenn. By now, I just want to say, I was a bit confused as well by Trump's initial outbursts and, yeah, threats because, well, first, Russia seems to be willing to talk to the American. So it seems a bit of surprise, but also I think one of the things that perhaps I annoyed Russia was the reluctance to ever take Russian security concerns into consideration. I mean, what I find interesting in Russia is this continuous topic since the 90s where there's a complaint that diplomacy in the hegemonic era was replaced with ultimatums and threats. So you do this, you do that. But typically in diplomacy, one would map out each other's key strategic interests and see where you can harmonize.

But instead, of course, Trump came out with all guns blazing, but perhaps that's just his style. I did just want to ask about the format if so, of the negotiations, because it's a bit confusing, if so, who would partake? And also, what would be the scope? Because, well, obviously, the United States and Russia would have to participate. But one would also think Ukraine. But again, Zelensky at this point obviously has this decree where they can't negotiate with Russia, even though it appears is walking it back a little bit. but also the demands such as having 200,000, if not NATO, European and American troops guarding the Ukrainian border, it seems, let's say, improbable considering that Russia, as you said,

fighting this war to get NATO away from its borders. But also the Europeans, because, again, they still haven't really want to sit down with the Russians. and they're seen, I guess, both a little bit from, if I'm not mistaken, by Russia and by United States, as perhaps being a bit spoilers, not actually seeking a peace, but maybe perpetuation of the conflict. So what role would Ukraine and the Europeans have in such a negotiation? And also just finally, what might be included? You mentioned previously the European security system, because obviously if we didn't have returned, to block politics where everything is zero sum, they might have been able to find some

security agreements based on indivisible security, where we are able to enhance collective security. But because I've seen the Americans appear to be bringing in topics like long-range missiles and even discuss wider topics, try to tie it into this conflict. Is this a way of trying to look at the wider security architecture, or is this not the direction they're trying to take it, well, from your perspective? Well, again, I have to repeat that it's hard to say at this point, what do Americans want? He, I mean, Mr. Trump from time to time, mentions several aspects. He mentions disarmament, he mentions Indian-Rage missiles, as though he doesn't know.

or maybe he in fact doesn't realize that it was United States who undermined all the treaties that were in force. And we made enormous efforts from Russian side to save what still could be saved. Now we have, if I'm not mistaken, only one treaty, they start three treaty, which expires in February next year, 2006. But we never, never ducked away from, you know, negotiations. We were ready to do it. But we are against cherry picking that United States want to discuss this issue and then it leads aside everything else that could be of interest Russian side. That wouldn't work. President Trump is a is a adapt of deals. So nobody knows how this deal is, we'll be looking like from his perspective. But if you, if I, if I

If I'm to answer your direct question of how this format of negotiations of settling Ukrainian crisis would look like, I will be very blunt. We have, in my understanding, we have only two key players here, Russia and the United States. Because this crisis started with the involvement of the United States with interference into Ukrainian affairs. Yes, you can cite Europe. But what is Europe? Europe has really lost 90% maybe of its political might, of military might. Europe is not capable of doing anything on its own, including Britain. I'm saying not about only European Union, but of the United Kingdom as well.

So what's the point of bringing Europeans there? We tried once with Minsk agreements. What it led to, everybody knows. Ukraine was armed. There were some empty promises and lip service and it turned out to be just a smokescreen for Ukraine to be prepared with the war with Russia. Now, Europe is doing everything it can shooting in its feet to show that it's not dependent of Russia. Okay, we accept this logic. We can't prevent Europe from this suicidal logic. But it doesn't make Europe, a participant in these kind of negotiations

doesn't make Europe a serious player, not at all. So, United States, yes, we repeatedly said that this crisis could be ended within one day if Washington wants to do it. Even now, you see that the US has frozen certain types of aid And already now, all these organizations that are using grants in Ukraine, which were claimed to be kind of national, democratic, independent, they are all crying wolves saying that they will not be able to function without US money. So yes, money is indispensable, is crucial for foreign interference in Ukraine.

If U.S. says that, okay, guys, we will turn this page, the issue will be over very quickly. Military issue will be over very quickly because it's, of course, the U.S. who is providing Ukraine with the things that it needs. It's not only missiles, not only munitions, but also intelligence data, which is crucial, which is very important. NATO is providing this data. Who is NATO? NATO is the United States. We know that without United States, any operation of NATO is impossible. Not a single European country, correct me if I am wrong, Alexander.

Not a single European country, including UK, can do anything on its own. Even within NATO, everything is in the hands of the United States. So, of course, you need to get agreement with the boss. Why should we get agreement with those who are trying to look important, but they are not? And the third layer of this issue is the Ukrainian side. Of course, at some point of time, after we reach understanding with the United States, first and foremost with the United States, there will be a moment when there should be some kind of framing of this agreement, whatever it will look like.

But the question is, with whom in Ukraine can we do it right now? Zelensky is not legitimate. Zelensky lost its legitimacy. Last May, when he overstepped again over his constitution, trampled on the constitution of Ukraine, saying that there will no be elections. So technically he is no longer legitimate. And if we imagine theoretically that we signed something with Zelensky, the next leader who will be elected hopefully democratically will say,

I have nothing to do with it because this is a guy who was usurping power for some, time and he agreed to something so let's start from scratch it's hard to say who is legitimate right now in Ukraine maybe the parliament but again it's it's a doubtful doubt in claim and there should be some legal people arguing about it but Ukraine at this stage before elections before there is a leader who reflects the will of Ukrainian people truly reflects Ukraine is not is not the play objectively. And we know that Zelensky came to power in 2019

while promising a lot of things which he never delivered. Like peace with Russia, like support for the Russian language, respect for canonical Orthodox Church, he had done exactly the opposite. So if you try to gauge the real

mood in Ukraine right now, the real attitude towards this to Janta, which is now in power in Kiev. We will need to hold elections. And maybe after the results of this election, I'm speculating. Maybe there will be a leader who would without any problems sign a good, normal,

sustainable deal for both Ukraine and Russia without getting into Europe, without getting into the United States, proceeding from the national interests of Ukraine because it's not in the national interests of Ukraine to have a war with Russia. It's not in the national interest of Ukraine to oppress Russian speakers and to oppress canonical Orthodox Church. This is absolutely contrary to what people want. So these three layers bring me to the conclusion that, of course, right now, the only way to seek any deal on Ukraine would be direct Russian-American contacts.

And judging from certain signals from the Trump administration, we see that they also understand it. Ukraine is not a player. Europe is not a player whether they want it or not so that's how it looks like I just wanted to say quickly and I'm going to be very short which is

firstly that the Secretary of State Mr. Rubio has given a very interesting interview yesterday in which he spoke about the unipolar moment having ended that we're in a world of multi-polarity that there are great powers that the United States cannot act

pretend any longer that it's the global government. These are words, but they're interesting words. He also said some interesting things about Ukraine and the conflict there and about how Ukraine has been deceived and the dishonesty of American policy previously. So these are interesting things, but for me, very quickly, the most important thing is this. Russia has won the war in Ukraine. I think this is the first thing people need to understand. We might still have some more fighting to do, but everybody can see what the outcome of the war militarily is going to be. The Americans know this. They wouldn't be talking about negotiations if it was otherwise, given that Russia is going to win the war in Ukraine, if you are going to look for a negotiated solution, the starting point must logically be the proposals of the Russian president.

You go to the people who are going to win the war and you say to them, what are the terms that you are prepared to settle upon? If that happens, and I agree, it has to be the Americans because the Europeans and the Ukrainians are incapable of doing, of doing it. doing this. If this recognition is made, then I think we could actually move forward. But until that happens, I can't see how we can. Very truly. Yeah. Mr. Polanski, thank you so much. I know you're a busy man, so yeah, we thank you very much for your time. And yeah, we hope to speak to you again in the future. Thank you very much. All the best team.