The Duran Podcast - Russia’s Demands in Peace Negotiations - Dmitri Polyanskiy, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Episode Date: December 7, 2024

Russia’s Demands in Peace Negotiations - Dmitri Polyanskiy, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

So the proxy war in Ukraine appears to be coming to an end. However, some are pushing for peace negotiations, while others are attempting to prevent or even postpone the negotiations. So to discuss these issues, I'm joined today by Alexander Mercuris and Dimitri Polianski, who is the first deputy permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations. So I want to ask about the recent escalations because I guess two important developments have taken place. That is, one, the Ukrainian front lines appear to be collapsing. And the second, of course, is Trump won the presidential election.

And he seemed at least to have the intention of attempting to end this conflict. Now, the Biden administration responded by attacking Russia with this long-range, attack missiles, which is interesting because they refused to do so in the past, but now they suddenly switched. And we see Russia responded with the Orschenik missile. So I wanted to get your impression of, given that you represent Russia, you speak with the United States and other countries there at the UN. What is happening now? Are we seeing a continuous escalation, or did the Oreschnik missile put an end to it? How do you read the situation?

I think Arashnik missile revived hopes, especially in Russia that there will be a solution, a decent solution and a sustainable peace. I think it's much more complicated than one might figure out from your introduction. As far as the UN is concerned, of course there are a lot of hopes, a lot of expectations in the kuluars, people are asking questions, because everybody is encouraged by exactly these two news. Everybody, I mean mostly countries from the global south,

because we do not have a very good dialogue with the US and its allies. We know some of them. We speak on other issues, but on Ukraine, I think they are a bit at a loss right now what to do. They have changed their rhetoric a lot from Ukraine must win. Then there was Putin must not win. And now they are at the stage where they say we must ensure the best possible negotiating positions for Ukraine. So this is quite a transition. As for the others, they are asking questions. They know about the front lines and it's very hard to conceal it.

This is obvious that Ukraine is losing militarily at the France, not because of the lack of weapons. weaponry. They still do have it enough, but they lack manpower. People don't want to fight. A lot of people, a lot of conscripts, forced conscripts are leaving their positions. This is not a secret. The figures are staggering and Ukraine is announcing these figures. So it means that people don't want to fight. They forgot about volunteers a long time ago. Nobody wants to fight because they are being caught in the street and brought to this absolutely unnecessary. mid-grinder as cannon fodder. This is the picture. We are very much sad about this and we are

saying all the time at our meetings and the Security Council that this is absolutely unnecessary. This is a crime from the Zelensky regime vis-à-vis the people of his country because he had the opportunity to stop the war a long time ago. Recently the British presidency of the security Council organized a meeting and devoted it to 1,000 days since the day of the conflict, as they put it. But we said that it's worth celebrate another date, which is 950 days since the moment when the conflict could be over, if not for the intervention from the part of Boris Johnson and somebody else who prevented Ukraine to achieve a deal which would settle most of the problems with Russia. And you can imagine how many lives it would have sent.

how many destruction would have been avoided if Ukraine was allowed to follow the path it's wanted. But Zelensky was encouraged that he could win because of the support of the West and now they are where they are. So coming back to the actual situation, I would say that, well, Trump election, of course, encouraged a lot of speculations. People are speaking about peace plans. But I wouldn't be so optimistic in this regard.

First of all, we haven't seen anything concrete at this stage. There are only talks, and some of them are very controversial. Secondly, there is a lot of a game from the part of Ukraine right now. They understood that their bet has not won. They were actually, of course, betting on Harris, but then Trump was the winner. Now they're trying all their best to kind of cajole Trump team showing to them that they are not hawks but peace does and that they want peace and that Putin doesn't want peace. That's the efforts that they are doing.

That's quite clear. They want to kind of present a plan that might be interesting to the new administration. And the core part of this plan are the natural resources of Ukraine. And they feel that this is a weak point for any U.S. administration to own other countries resources and to exploit them. So also manpower, they are saying that Ukraine can be part of big European army and even substitute the soldiers, the US soldiers in Europe. So there are a lot of potentially interesting, I would say, projects for the American administration.

And we don't know what are the plans of Trump. He wants to stop the war. He said it openly. But what does it mean to stop the war? We repeatedly said that freezing the conflict is not a solution. We have been there once. It was Minsk agreements when the conflict was frozen. We had high hopes.

We were quite open in saying that it should be implemented. And if it were implemented, the Ukraine would have been, as it is right now, but without Crimea, of course, Crimea was away before Minsk agreements. but with Donbass because what Minsk agreements were aimed to, they were aimed to giving a big degree of autonomy to the regions of Donbass and they were aimed of returning decency to those who speak Russians to their children. So a lot of issues could have been sorted out through peaceful means.

And this is not something unique. There are a lot of countries who have undergone these processes of coming to terms with the regions who have other views on the path of development of this country. I think Alexander can maybe tell something about Scotland. I don't know. This is my wild guess, but there are a lot of things that maybe other countries have, let's recall Belgium, let's recall Switzerland where people are speaking other languages without any problems and without facing or believing in other gods i will say or having another another creed uh some differences that would do not prevent them from living in one country and from not being uh oppressed because of because of their beliefs because of their race because of their language so that's that's exactly

what we want for our neighbors because the majority of people there they still speak Russian and we want this position to be respected. We want the canonical Orthodox Church to be protected, all these things together. And of course, we are, as I told you repeatedly, we are against the situation when the Nazi collaborators are being praised as heroes. This is something that we would never tolerate after the victory in the Great Patriotic War or in the Second World War, as it is mostly known in the world. We have in our DNA something that is against fascism. So we can't tolerate it. So a lot of these things are on the table and freezing the conflict along the battlefield lines or on some other plan is not a solution. It's not a solution for us. It's not a

sustainable solution for anybody. And I think our president repeatedly said that we are against any such solutions which would be maybe interesting for the West, which may be interested for interesting for the for the for the for the for the Kiev regime because it is losing it needs some pause it it needs some regrouping it needs to catch it to catch its breath because now what is happening the Russian troops are chasing Ukrainian troops from from the east and the the territory that are now under our control are very substantial and the the pace the pace of such advancement is very impressive and I think even Western media has to acknowledge that the front is crumbling. There are now several key strongholds which Ukraine is still

holding, but they are on the brink of collapse. And I would not be surprised if we see by the end of the year maybe collapse of some very, very important strongholds. And the whole defense of Ukraine in Donbass is being hinged on this strong strongholds. So the situation is like, this and of course in such circumstances Ukraine would be interested to get on good terms with the administration with the new administration we have not as to my knowledge

had any contacts with the new team we only read the news nobody reached out to them we do not reach out to them as well we for two years we have almost virtually no contacts with the US side and when this

as far as this Arreshnik is concerned to finish to finish answering your questions. Well, Arasnik is of course, it was a warning. It was a warning. It was really a message to the West showing that we are capable of many things and you couldn't underestimate the capabilities of Russian military. We have the means that you don't have in your position and this Arashnik missile can't be intercepted by anybody in the in Europe where it can reach to any location or potentially we have other means which wouldn't be possible to be intercepted by the American system. So we have all this but it doesn't

mean that we are threatening anybody. It doesn't mean that we want to start a nuclear war. Far from this we have adopted the new, I would say, upgraded the nuclear doctrine where it is the first in the first lines it is said that we want to avoid nuclear war. And Many people just try to overlook this and going to some other elements of this doctrine. But the key element is that we don't want nuclear war. We want to avoid it. And nuclear weapons is not something that can be used at the battlefield because it will be detrimental to everybody.

And this is, of course, the last resort when the fundaments of the state are being threatened by other countries. So this is the most important message of this doctrine. And together with Arashnik, which was used without any, I would say, explosives, without any considerable explosives. It was just a test. In combination with Arreshnik, even non-nuclear means would be very, very sensitive to the West. Again, our president and my foreign minister repeatedly said that it was not about using weapons of mass destruction. with Arreshnik, big amount of explosive would be very successful if used at some locations in Ukraine or in Europe.

But that's not our plan. Our plan was to show that, guys, listen to us, we want to have a fair, we want to have a sustainable solution to this. And we don't want the root causes of the crisis to be overlooked. We think that we need to look into the root causes, to rectify them, because otherwise there will never be peace in this part of the world. We need to do something about the new system of security in Europe, new equation, which should be formulated with the participation of Russia. This is also one of the root causes.

And of course, what is absolutely an unimaginable. is any solution that would imply Ukrainian membership in NATO or prospects of Ukrainian membership of NATO. Because this was one of the root causes from the beginning. NATO's extension to the east is a factor that we do not accept. And all the plans that Ukraine was so far voicing, it implies that they would like to be members of NATO either now or partially, I mean, part of the Ukrainian territory, or in some future. This is something that absolutely out of question for us. That's why I wouldn't be too optimistic, especially because the Ukrainians are now trying

to play the games and they might mislead a little bit the upcoming administration as to their true intentions and true colors. Maybe it will have to take some time to understand what's really happening. As for us, we always said we're ready for negotiations, we're ready for negotiable solutions. If there is none in view, then we are ready to continue our special military operation until all the goals that we want are achieved. Well, can I just say that I also have my concerns. In fact, I think there is a huge amount of wishful thinking going on in the West. I follow what goes on on the battlefronts closely.

Not only is your army advancing, it is advancing faster. That is an objective fact. It is widely acknowledged now. And yet, it seems to me that many people in the West are simply not accepting this. They still take the view that they can be a negotiation. in which you will make very substantial concessions, more substantial concessions that you were prepared to make in Istanbul back in 2022, when I cannot see why you would want to do so,

given that you are winning the wall. I mean, it doesn't make any sense to me. Now, a friend of mine once said, and said it publicly in public, by the way, that the problem we have in the West is that we spend all our time discussing elaborate peace plans and negotiating with each other. And we do not listen to what the other side, in this case, Russia, is actually saying. Now, your president set out the position very clearly at the foreign ministry in June.

your foreign minister set it out again very clearly in his interview with Tucker Carlson the other day. Lots of other officials of your government, yourself as well, by the way, have set out your position very clearly. Is it not frustrating to you that you are not being listened to? Because it seems to me this has been the problem all along and it still seems to be the case now. I wouldn't say it's frustrating. Part of the rules nowadays, because we are living in the post-truth world. It doesn't matter very much what is actually happening.

If it is not being shown on CNN in prime time, then nobody knows about it. So, people, unfortunately, people are very ignorant, and people are not very, I would say, hungry for information. So very few people actually do their own research, Because the news is there. Everybody is welcome to read it, to analyze, and to have their own opinion. But people are a bit lazy, most of the people.

People are manipulated. People have concerns. And as far as Russia is concerned, then there have been for many, many years, at least from 2008, maybe 2007. I think after Putin's speech in Munich, when it was a turning point when he opened the eyes of the world, and when they saw the real concerns and the real intention of President Putin. After that, this campaign of libeling Russia started. And there were a lot of cases when people just voiced allegations. We discussed it last time, I remember when we spoke, the Magnitsky case, the Litvinenko case,

the Skripal case, whatever, Russia's meddling in U.S. elections. All these cases, they were either incomplete because we don't have answers in Scripal case. We asked dozens of questions. There are so many inconsistencies that it's laughable to take for granted what is being fed to the public. Lithuinenko, the same, and you, yourself, I remember, shared your impression about this. Navalny, the same. There are no answers. And there are some cases like Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. elections,

which are debunked, which are clearly debunked. Everybody who is doing research would be able to see that these cases are debunked. But in the eyes of the public, when there are so many lies said about Russia, they pile up and they come to the position when public starts not to believe anything that Russia is saying.

And this is the aim. This is the aim to show that Russian leaders are liars. They are not saying the truth, telling the truth. They know only how to know. manipulate information. So this has started several years ago. It's a plan which is continuing. And of course, it gained enormous momentum during the special military operation and in everything that is considered about Ukraine. If you ask somebody in the street, even people who are not, I don't know, ignorant, but who have some knowledge of the events, maybe some background,

what do you think, what is Ukraine right now? How do you see Ukraine? I think the majority of of people in Western countries would say that Ukraine is a beacon of democracy, it's a free state where there are free elections, unlike Russia, which is a dictatorship, where people are being caught on the street, if they actually saw what has become of Ukraine and it has started to be so long before our special military operation, they would have been absolutely appalled about what, in fact, Ukraine is. But there is an image of Ukraine that is being put. protected by Western countries, that Ukraine is always, I would say, white and fluffy and ideal. Everything that Ukraine does is right.

Everything that Ukraine declares is true. Everything that Russia says is a wrong thing. And this public opinion of the West has become the hostage of this absolutely perverted and untrue picture of Ukraine. Let me remind you only one thing. You recall, I think it's your colleague, Gonzalo Lira, who. was tortured to death by the Ukrainian military service. He's American and Chilean citizen.

Nobody tried even to ask for his release. And now, recently, I think there were some kind of revelations from Ukrainians themselves about the way he was tortured. And it is absolutely unimaginable how it can happen. But this is only one case. This is only one case. We have hundreds, if not thousands of these cases. I know people personally, some people who escaped this torture machine.

So this is happening nowadays and this country is being presented as a model and the West is allegedly supposed to help this country. This is only one example. There are a lot of lies like this. It's very easy to tarnish a country, a leader nowadays. So information has become the main, I would say, weapon, the main tool. It's much easier sometimes to win a war. on the ground than to win a propaganda war, information war.

We are battling very hard here at the UN from the outset. We are debunking a lot of things about Russia. And I feel that we are successful because a lot of my colleagues in the United Nations are now asking us right questions. They are doing the same research. But people in the West and even some leaders in the West, they are comfortable in this bubble of lies. They are comfortable in this system that they have their own invented.

the system of coordinates, the system of values. They don't have international law. They have rules-based international order. What is rules? Rules are set by the United States. If the United States says that these rules are right, it's okay. Everybody should obey it. And this is the world, the Pax Americana,

that they just don't want to lose. They don't want it to collapse. And they are seeing that objectively, there are other countries who challenge it and that there is much appetite, interest on the other part of the world, to have a better, more fair and sustainable setting. And that's what drives them mad, actually. So they don't want to lose grip of the world right now,

and they don't want to lose control of the minds of their citizens. That's the reality. You are more sophisticated, you are more hungry for information, and you can get the information for yourselves. And if you are saying in person, then I think that you will have too many questions that do not have answers if you believe all this official propaganda from the West.

But if you are not, then you are, unfortunately, you have to follow the patterns that are being uploaded to your head by the mass media and by the politicians. That's how it looks. I wanted to ask briefly about the negotiations

because I saw the interview with Lavrov, with Tucker Carl. and well I guess it wasn't any big revelation but effectively argued the main three issues will be Ukraine restoring its neutrality, these territorial concessions and lastly of course minority rights for Russia speakers within Ukraine but but it seems that the conflict kind of has three layers obviously have the internal issues with language well not just language but religious rights minority rights in Ukraine but the second of course is a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but there's also this third layer, which is the main regional conflict,

that is we don't have a European security architecture. We have only NATO expanding towards Russian borders, everything, effectively revived this Cold War logic. Now, the last layer seems kind of important because until 2014, there was no security competition between Russia and Ukraine. There was not, they didn't have this issue of minority rights, and there was no conflict, and it was really, if we recognized that it was NATO incursion into Ukraine with the coup that triggered this competition, shouldn't issue of European security, the security architecture, be a part of negotiations, or if at least the talks around how to, as you said, prevent, well, address the source of this conflict, because if it hadn't been for this issue, again, there was no conflict in 2000.

2014. So how, do you do, or do you think that's too ambitious to look at the entire European security architecture? I don't think it's too ambitious. I think it's high time to do it. Because as you recall, before the start of our special military operation, at the end of 2021, we presented concrete proposals to the US to NATO about the treaties on the new European security architecture. But they were snobishly declined. by the US, by NATO. And that was one of the last, I would say, elements that convinced our leadership that we don't have other way, especially when Ukraine activized the fighting at the Eastern Front, and there were hundreds of thousands of refugees. You can browse in the news at this time. But security, of course, it's a core issue. Security architecture should be fair.

Of course, it's all something of some leftovers of the Cold War, where the West has declared itself unilaterally. A winner forgetting about the path that Soviet Union has followed, and when the Soviet leaders had certain arrangements, oral arrangements, but it doesn't change a lot. It's a question of trust with the West, and they were not implemented. the West. It all goes from that time. And I wouldn't agree with you, Glenn, in the situation that there were no problems between Russia and Ukraine. Security problems may be. But I would say that the Western incursion into Ukraine has begun much earlier. And you should bear in mind the 2004, for example, when there was the first attempt of the color revolution in Ukraine. But the question is that to majority of Ukrainians, the prospect of cutting any ties with Russia and forgetting their own identity

was something unbelievable at that time. And they were still quite, I would say, brave enough to say it loudly. That's why the first orange revolution failed after Ushankar, after this third round of elections, which was anti-constitutional, but still, after his rule, which was a which was really a mess. Then the Ukrainians elected Yanukovych. And it seemed that the balance is back. And some leaders even said that, well, now it comes back to the logical development.

But it didn't for many reasons. And I'm not trying to whitewash Yanukovych saying that he was the best president for Ukraine. No. The problem for Ukraine is that unlike Russia, unlike many countries from the former Soviet space, Ukraine has remained in the 90s, with all this oligarchy, with all this corruption, which is absolutely incredible. It hasn't changed, and the West just tries to close the eyes. It was visible even when you visited Ukraine. I was there several times.

So I saw what it was. I spoke with people. It was like Russia in the 90s, really. So it hasn't evolved in this sense. And in the combination with the penetration of the West, with all these NGOs, with all these funds and all the agents of on the Western service, I would say. This led to the situation when Ukraine had this color revolution in 2004, and then when they understood that there are no, I would say,

there are no reasons and possibilities to conduct another color revolution. Then they made a coup. And this coup in 2014 was tragic in the sense that, it was only a very small minority, small but active minority of activists with big involvement from the West, with the United States, which they do not conceal even now and didn't conceal at that time. And they managed to impose their will on the quiet majority, which was not at all anti-Russian, which was not at all nationalistic, which just wanted to lead its own peaceful life there and not to be involved in any scheme.

So all of a sudden, the whole Ukrainian society was head of the bottom. So really, this was tragic, and this is tragic for Ukraine. And a lot of people didn't accept it, but they didn't dare to raise their voice against it, especially when they saw, for example, what happened in Odessa, where people were burnt alive only for showing that they have different positions about the elites that came to power and nationalists. So, of course, many people just didn't have guts to protest, and this is a tragedy. And we see these people right now coming to Russia, when they find themselves in Russia,

they are relieved. And there was a very, I would say, devastating statistics for the Kiev regime recently, when they had to accept that almost 150,000 of those who fled from the territories that are now under Russian control, they return. They return to Mariupol. Because of the conditions of life that they have in Ukraine, and because they do not mistrust Russia. It was not about Russia.

It was about the policy of their authorities. And if you add it to the number of people who found refuge in Russia, which is about 5 million, you will understand that Ukrainians and Russians are not enemies. Some of them are, of course. There are some nationalists with whom I don't think we will be able to come to terms. But we are still brothers and sisters in our mentality.

And I think it will take some time, of course, but we will come back to normalcy. Because we still have a lot of things that happened between us, positive things. And this is a good building block for the future. So if not for this Eli, if not for these nationalists, if not for the intervention from the West and from the United States, I don't think we will have any problems with Ukraine of the dimension that we are having right now or that we had before the special military operation. So we would have been able to come to terms on most of the issues, as we did in Istanbul, as you mentioned. So a lot of issues were settled, but the moment the West interfered, it all again went nowhere.

That's very illustrative. Ambassador, I'm going to be very short, and this is more a comment again than perhaps a question, but you're welcome to respond, which is that here in Europe, we should logically welcome a reconsideration of the security architecture in Europe. It is absolutely in our interests to do so. Opting for NATO and NATO expansion, in other words, a bloc politics, has been a total disaster for us. We have had a war in Europe. a war which we in effect are losing because it is a proxy war and we are losing it. We have an economic crisis right across Europe. We have a political crisis in more and more countries, in France, in Germany.

We've had elections now and nulled in Romania. I don't know what to make of that. We should work together with you. This is a comment, as I said, not a question. We should work together with you to secure a lasting, just, sustainable peace in Europe. It is incredible to me that people resist this idea so strongly. I totally agree with you, and I also can quote my president recently, I think a couple of days ago. He was asked a question about the possibility of coming back to terms with the West,

and he said it was not us who really initiated it. It was their choice. We're ready to go to normalcy, of course, with necessary respect and with guarantees that this will not happen again. But I think that Europe, frankly, is the main loser of this conflict. Not Ukraine even, not Russia. And of course, not United States. United States is the main beneficiary because it managed to tie Europe even closer to its size. it managed to substitute to certain extent

Russian supplies of Russian energy supplies which were predictable and at a good price with energy supplies from the US which are not predictable and that market price. And militarily, you're absolutely right because it is in the core interests of Europe, not Russia, of Europe, to change something in the security architecture

because European countries are defective. They are dwarfs in this combination with the United States. They are not able of doing anything on their own. And they themselves acknowledge it. So if United States is out when there was the prospect, I don't know if it materializes or not, it's not up to me to judge.

But if Trump says we will withdraw from NATO, there is no NATO. It's quite clear. Everything has been really pinned on NATO in Europe. And without NATO, these are dwarves. These are military dwarfs. And this is a reality. Russia has never threatened Europe.

Russia has always been on good terms with Europe. It doesn't mean that we will, if theoretically there is a detent with Europe, that we will show our back to China, because we should have opened to China a long time ago, and it's because we are neighbors, because Asia is much more dynamic than Europe, even before all this crisis. This is logical. Europe also wants good relations with China, which is understandable, and economical, I think, that's the best possible choice. choice. The only country that is against is the United States, because the United States has its own interests, which does not coincide with that of Europe,

and it wants to impose its own will on all the countries. It's enough to mention this threat on sanctions against using, if we do not use dollars in that was really

very illustrative of the American logic. And again, my president responded to this, but you yourself did it in the way that everybody wants to get rid of dollar because this is unreliable. You yourself made it unreliable. You made the wire transfers impossible, and every country is understanding that it is possible to happen. It may happen only if there is such a will from the United States,

and they will not be able to do anything. So they see it at the example of Russia. They see that their money can be frozen and stolen. This is also, I think that was a shock for many, especially for Arabic countries. So you yourself, I mean, the United States are doing it in the way that is detrimental to the dollar. And then you are trying to blackmail everybody saying that you need to stick to the dollar. This is ridiculous.

But this is the mentality. This is the cowboy mentality, I would say. I'm the cowboy. I have the gun. And everybody should listen to me. Otherwise, you'll have problems. That's how it happens. Yeah, that will say, yeah, if you're...

If the world stops using the dollar, this is a threat to democracy, so it had to be fought. I thought that was an interesting comment. Anyways, Mr. Poliansky, I know you're a very busy man, so thank you very much for your time. And yeah, thanks again.