In an interview with Rudaw, the newly-appointed Russian Ambassador to Iraq Elbrus Kutrashev said that the American military presence in Iraq is causing tension and could lead to long-term problems.
“The American military presence and the way they deal with Iraq and its issues, it causes tensions and in the long term, it’s a big problem,” Kutrashev shared in an exclusive interview with Rudaw's Bestoon Khalid on Monday.
US forces returned to Iraq in 2014 at the request of the Iraqi government to aid in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS). However, their presence in Iraq has been a cause for concern, with frequent rocket and drone attacks against Iraqi bases hosting foreign troops following the US assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad last year.
The attacks are blamed on Iran-backed militias who want the Americans to leave the country.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein and his US counterpart Antony Blinken held talks in April, discussing US military disengagement.
Hours before the strategic dialogue was held, Iran-backed armed factions affiliated with the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF or Hashd al-Shaabi in Arabic), threatened to direct "large and precise strikes" against American forces in Iraq if Baghdad and Washington do not announce a clear deadline for the withdrawal of US troops.
Although Kutrashev believes that Iraq “can provide its security with its own efforts,” he also stresses that should the US withdraw from Iraq, it should do so with “responsibility,” and not leave behind a security vacuum.
During the interview, he also emphasized a will to develop Kurdish-Russian relations and said that “mutual trust” between Russian and Kurdish leadership is “high.”
Rudaw: Mr. Kutrashev, thank you very much for joining us today and welcome to Rudawy Emro.
Elbrus Kutrashev: Thank you very much, glad to see you.
It’s your first official visit as the ambassador of Russia in Iraq and you visited Kurdistan. What was your message to the Kurdish president, the prime minister who you met today? And what was your first impression of Kurdistan, as the ambassador of Russia?
Well, frankly speaking it is a pleasure for me to visit Kurdistan, to come here from Baghdad. I don’t have any specific message to the Kurdish leadership because our relationship, Alhamdulillah, doesn’t need us to exchange such kind of messages. We are in permanent contact, we have very good political dialogue, we are friends, finally. So, in these conditions the Russian ambassador has a chance just to come to a friendly environment and to take some breath of fresh air here because even the weather is much better here.
So that’s the meteorological weather. How about the political weather? Do you want to tell me that you cannot breathe enough in Baghdad that’s why you feel better breathing in Erbil?
No, that’s not what I mean. Well, for me Baghdad is a very important city. I’ve spent there all in all more than five years of my life. That were not always easy years, that were not easy years for Baghdad itself, but it’s part of my, an essential part of my life. My eldest son was born in Baghdad in 1999, so Baghdad is part of my family history.
So what I mean, sorry for putting it all not in a direct political way, I wanted to enjoy this chance to talk not about politics, when I am in Iraq and when I am in Kurdistan of Iraq. So of course, politically my arrival here is a kind of message that our position towards Kurdistan, towards Kurdish affairs, towards Iraq in general is the same which it was in the period of my predecessor’s, Maxim Maksimov, work. And in this respect, of course we have plenty of political and other work to be done in Baghdad and then we, from time to time, visit Kurdistan to meet with friends and exchange views.
What views did you exchange today?
On everything, on the situation in Iraq, on the situation in the region, on Syria, on Iran. Well, on all issues which are of concern to us and for our Kurdish partners.
So what’s your point of view when it comes to the situation in Iraq, and in Iran and in Syria, but starting from Iraq?
Well, I have experience with Syria, I don’t have plenty of experience with Iran. Of course I have experience with Iraq. So my comments on Iran would be quite moderate, if you allow me. As for Iraq, of course, well I don’t need to mention that the situation is complicated and some things maybe, may look much more dramatic than we want them to look. But, in general if I compare it, and I will say that what I see here, what I feel here, I always compared to 2005 when I left Iraq previously. So in comparison with 2005, everything is not bad and many things are even good. So in terms of security it’s big improvement, in terms of economic situation its improvement. With all the problems Iraq faces now, in terms of economy, in terms of social situation, in terms of electricity crisis, with all these problems compared to 2005, it’s better.
But again compared to 2005, in 2005 there were no like sectarian militia groups inside Iraq fighting for example foreign missions in the country. The involvement of neighboring countries was much less than it is today. Again do you think today’s Iraq is much more stable when you compare it to 2005 in this context?
I’m afraid, my friend, I would disagree with you because sectarian tensions were very visible 2005. Though they were not in the highest level, the highest level came I think a little bit later. But anyway, sectarian tensions existed, there were armed groups. We as the Russian Federation, we are a multi-ethnic and multi-confessional country. So, when we have problems of confessional or ethnic kind, we always understand that it’s pure politics. And in this respect it doesn’t matter for us if there are armed groups for example who struggle against the government or who attack, as you mentioned, diplomatic missions, we don’t care who they are, ethnically or confessionally. They are just terrorists, enemies and they possess a threat to us. So in this respect, we faced real security challenges in that period and finally in 2006 we lost five of our colleagues from the embassy. That is up to now the biggest loss for us, not only in Iraq, in the Middle East.
So, these groups also attacked Erbil very recently, it was one week ago to ten days ago. They conducted this attack with drones, villages near here were attacked. And before that there were also rocket attacks on Erbil. I know you condemned the attacks, but what do you think these militia groups are aiming by attacking Kurdistan, by attacking foreign missions in Baghdad and also other parts of Iraq?
Well, frankly speaking I don’t have a full picture of what’s happening and I think that most of those who witness this don’t have a full picture of what’s going on. We see it as part of events taking place in Iraq, dramatic events. So it’s hard for me to comment on it. The only thing I can say is that Iraq now is a field for different tensions and struggles and sometimes you even don't know who stands behind these.
And what’s the position of Russia in the middle of these tensions inside of Iraq?
Well, those tensions which are created by activities of terrorist groups, they should be dealt with or through via use of legitimate force by the government and by its services. Those tensions which are caused for political reasons, should be dealt with by political efforts...
Can you elaborate on that? I cannot understand what you exactly mean.
I mean that it’s well known, I don’t want to name these groups, I think you understand what I am talking about, there are groups for example which are part of Iraqi political and military structure. At the same time by some countries these groups are declared to be terrorist groups.
And you also named them as terrorists.
We don’t.
You used the word terrorist while talking about those groups who attacked Erbil.
I didn’t mean precisely those groups. I mean in general. It’s not so important for me to say these are terrorists those are not terrorists. That’s not the issue we are aiming at. We are a diplomatic mission, we need to evaluate the situation in the country and try our best to help our friends in this country to solve their problems. But the main efforts should be taken inside Iraq by Iraqis themselves because, until they face these tensions between themselves for political reasons, it would be hard for Iraq to become stable and strong, standing on its own.
So, do you think the presence of foreign soldiers, troops in Iraq, especially the American ones, is a reason for this high tension in the country? Do you think if they leave it’s going to be a better situation for Iraqis to lead their country and solve their problems?
Unfortunately, it’s not all this simple. When the United States occupied Iraq in 2003, we declared their action illegitimate because it was not sanctioned by the Security Council. But then we told them that, according to international law, since you occupy the country, as the occupying country you carry responsibility for what is going on in Iraq. And then this was provided by the Security Council resolution. So in this respect, it is clear that, on the one hand the American military presence and the way they deal with Iraq and its issues, it causes tensions. And in the long term, it’s a big problem. But in case they withdraw from Iraq and Iraqis want it and we support Iraqis in their demands, in case they leave they should leave with responsibility.
What’s that responsibility?
It means that they shouldn’t leave vacuum of security when they leave.
And how that vacuum could be filled?
That’s not a question to the Russian ambassador. That is not my headache. But those who entered Iraq by force, those who managed to keep their troops here for two decades, they should know.
They have to think about this, you tell me?
They have to know it. And they should tell me…
But why I’m asking this question, for example when the United States withdrew from some parts of Rojava, Kurdistan in Syria, it was Russia who came into these areas and filled these area when the US troop withdrew. That’s why I’m asking this question.
Well, as far as I remember, they withdrew in order not to clash with Turks. They didn’t withdraw with good intentions towards Syrians. And then Russians together with Syrian government troops, because number of Russians there was less than small, together with Syrian government forces, we managed to provide the security in certain areas so that not to let pro-Turkish forces clash with Kurdish forces.
Such a scenario for Iraq is probable, predictable?
No, for Iraq, no. I think, I need to stress this. We are absolutely sure that Iraq as a sovereign and united state, can provide its security with its own efforts. If Iraqis feel that they need assistance, they can ask for assistance.
And Russia is ready to provide this assistance?
I think so. The question was never put like that, that Russia provides any kind of security assistance for Iraqis. So we received this demand from the Syrian government and we provided it.
And you replied to that?
Well taking into consideration the situation in Iraq, I very much doubt that Iraqis might ask Russians for help.
Let’s come back to Kurdistan a bit and talk about the economic ties between Kurdistan Region of Iraq with the Russian Federation and the future of these economic ties. Rosneft is here, Gazprom is here and the presence of these two companies sometimes make the Iraqis upset in fact. What do you see in the future of these economic ties and options for investment between the two, Kurdistan Region and Russian Federation?
You said the Iraqis were upset…
Sometimes.
…you mean Baghdad?
Yeah.
First of all, all our activities in any part of Iraq should be coordinated with the Iraqi government and local legislation. This is a very important basic thing.
Is this the case for Gazprom and Rosneft?
Well, they are companies, so I don’t know in the deals how they entered. Probably they entered some way which didn’t make the central government happy. I don’t know it because for years I dealt with the Syrian issue, so now I am back for Iraq. Unfortunately there is lack of some details of the past. But I am telling about basic things. Basic things are that everything we do in any Middle East country, we coordinate it with its legal authorities. In this respect Kurdish Regional Government is also legal authority. And for us –
Do you find its oil operations as legitimate?
This is the issue which should be solved first of all between Baghdad and Erbil.
But this has been a non-solved dilemma for more than ten years, but still Russian companies, which are also some of them are state-owned companies, continue to cooperate with Kurdistan.
So it shows that Russia is very pragmatic and flexible. And finally it is in the interest of not just Russian companies, but Kurds and Iraqis in general. Nobody says that, if we speak about these companies, nobody told us that their activities are illegitimate.
But some activities of one of these two companies was banned in Iraq, in the Arabic Iraq let’s call it, due to activities in Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
Well, it happens. They did something wrong probably and the government reacted like that. I don’t see big problem in that.
And are there any new economic agreements on the way between Kurdistan Region and Russia, or investments?
Well, there is a general intention to develop our relations, but I haven’t heard anything about any coming agreement. It’s important to mention that now it’s very hard to speak about perspectives in this respect, because we are all facing COVID problems and its aftermath.
But life has continued.
Life is continuing so that’s why we are sitting here without masks and talking about the future.
So, you know a visit of Kurdish leadership to Russia or a visit of [Russian foreign minister] Mr. Lavrov to Kurdistan Region has been talked about recently. Is there any plan, any sort of scheduled visit of either Kurdish leadership to Moscow or Mr. Lavrov’s visit to Kurdistan Region?
Well, as I mentioned, there problems we have because of the corona situation in both countries and it affected our delegation exchange. So it was very good before the corona period. I hope it will come back. The level of mutual trust between us for example and the Kurdish leadership is very high. So if we have lack of meetings for some period, it cannot be interpreted in any political way. This is just for logistic reasons only.
But there are not any scheduled visits for the time being?
Not yet.
No invitations from any sides?
Well, frankly speaking invitations may come soon. I’m not ready to make any prognoses about that, but frankly speaking it’s not the question of Russia inviting. Well, if Kurdistan Regional Government officials, for example, if they wish to visit Russia, they simply need to let us know and we’ll organize it.
No need for invitations.
Again we have, thanks God, past the period when we needed to play these kind of protocol, political games. So, we know that we are friends for each other, so in case we want to discuss something, we simply express this desire.
Back to Iraq. You know since the last two years, Iraq has been the centre of very big events. Adil Abdul-Mahdi’s cabinet and then his resignation and then the crisis for the new cabinet are part of this, assassination of Soleimani was part of this, the demonstrations. But now, we see Iraq is like, going forward to an election in October. What do you think about, firstly about these two years of struggle inside Iraq, how do you see it? And do you think the election is going to be a cure to what happened in the last two years or will it bring more instability?
Well, if you allow me, I want to look at these events from a strategic global historic point. So in this respect, we have to recognize that Iraq, the present-day Iraq, was created by non-Iraqis in quite artificial borders. So these artificial borders in the Middle East, they are a problem which causes additional problems to these countries. So, we speak about Iraqi people, Syrian people, and so on, but these are people who have to learn to live with each other as one people.
But the last 100 years showed that these people cannot learn to live together.
No, they are learning.
Are you sure?
I am optimistic in this respect. So, still it needs time. From this point of view, I interpret the crisis, which is happening now for example in Iraq, as part of this process. And unfortunately probably that won’t be the last crisis happening. But what I mean is that Iraq has managed through several very difficult periods in the recent 20 years, for example, and it survived as one state, it survived as one nation, so I’m optimistic about its future.
That Iraq and Syria can survive as one nation, one state?
They have to.
But you told me that these borders were drawn by people who were not from this part of the world. So why do you as Russia still support these borders to stay the way they are today, the way they were drawn by other people 100 years ago?
First of all, we are not in the position of discussing other countries borders.
You are doing that. The United States is doing this, Russia is doing this.
No, Russia is not. We don’t discuss other countries’ borders. We consider it to be an internal affair of the country, part of its sovereign decision. And any discussions of changing borders, not to speak about attempts to change borders, always lead to catastrophes, dramatic events, human losses, destruction, and all this stuff. We are supporters of stability.
Stability of status quo, let’s call it.
Stability.
My final question is going to be about Rojava, Kurdistan. After the withdrawal of the United States troops there, negotiations started between Russia and the SDF. Do you think these negotiations could have gone further? Or let me ask it this way, why did these negotiations not come up with fruitful results?
Well, I am afraid I can’t agree with the way you put the question.
That’s why I asked in two different ways.
Because first of all, Americans never withdrew from areas controlled by Rojava, they still remain there. And they are dominating there.
They withdrew from the areas which were later occupied by Turkey.
These are first of all small areas. The problem of Americans occupying parts of Syrian land remains. So it’s not only southeast of Syria, it is also Tanf area where they have their illegal military base and 55-kilometer security zone around it, which we don’t recognize but which we have to take into consideration in order to avoid clashes with Americans. We have deconfliction mechanism. So Americans never withdrew from southeast of Syria –
You want to say northeast?
Sorry, northeast of course. They are dominating there. They are participating in robbery of Syrian national resources, first of all oil. And their role there is very destructive. As for the SDF, negotiations are taking place not with Russia but with the central government in Damascus. And Russia, according to our relationship with both sides, we are trying to play the role of mediator, or moderator for this process.
You know, General Mazloum Kobane [Abdi] had a meeting, a video conference, with your minister of defense at the time when the Turkish troops attacked Gire Spi and Sari Kani.
Yes, but this was not in terms of Russian-Kurdish negotiations. It was an attempt to solve the problem which appeared at the time and it was solved.
It was solved by the time.
It was solved with the interference of Russia plus Damascus.
What do you see in the future of Syria for the Kurds? Do you see some sort of autonomous region for the Kurds in the future of Syria? Let’s say after this war, after the intervention of international countries and other countries. Do you see something like what we have here in Iraqi Kurdistan for the Kurds in Syrian Kurdistan?
Well, unfortunately I have to say that this is a very complicated question. And I’m afraid I won’t be able to answer it the way that makes you feel satisfied. The issue of Kurdish rights in Syria, for us it’s clear that they should be given the rights they need. So as I mentioned Russia is a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-confessional state. We have no problem with recognizing rights of minorities, ethnic groups. We have local authorities in different areas of Russia, having political, economic, etc. full range of authority, rights and so on. For us it’s not a problem.
But this issue should be dealt with the high level of responsibility. So anything you say can be misunderstood in this respect. What can I tell you, with all responsibility is that we try our best to provide permanent, full-scale and fruitful dialogue between Damascus and the Kurdish authorities in the northeast of Syria. The process is very complicated. It is complicated for the both sides. It is complicated for Russia as a mediator of the process, but we’re trying our best because we strongly believe that there is no other solution for the situation, except dialogue between two sides. Inevitably they have to agree.
Well, maybe I would go a little bit further than my position allows, but since having experience with Syria, I would dare to say that both sides there are those who are skeptical about the future of these negotiations. So, this shows how complicated the issue is. And the issue becomes even more complicated taking into consideration that there is always external intervention in this process. So, but as I told you, it is inevitable for Syrians, and we consider both sides to be Syrians, it’s inevitable for them, they have to agree because there is no solution for the issue by use of force or anything of this kind.
As for the model they agree finally on, we want to leave this to Syrians because it’s a very bad habit for some external powers to come to the Middle East with their scenarios how everything should go. That’s how I would put it.
To which I did not get any answer for my exact question.
Frankly speaking, I know people from both sides who negotiate and from both sides these are important, wise, influential people. I hope that they would agree.
Okay, you mentioned the model of Kurdistan Region here in Iraq. It seems to me and I think many people would agree with me here in Iraq and even here in Kurdistan, that this model, probably, is not realistic on the Syrian side, for geographical, demographic reasons, not for political reasons. But, as I told you, let Syrians decide what model they agree on.
Finally, for us it is absolutely clear that certain rights should be provided to all minorities wherever they are, whatever the region they live in, whatever the country they live in. So, if we speak about cultural, economic, administrative, and so on. As for political issues so again this should be decided between the sides which participate in the negotiations.
If this is your position as Russia, don’t you think the Kurds in Rojava Kurdistan it’s going to be probable, expected for them to be pro-American because the American presence right now in the region helps them to strengthen their de facto self-administration in the area?
Well, it’s enough to just study what happened with countries who relied too much on Americans and to understand that they’re not so reliable. Well, I always wish the best to everybody, so I don’t want to put any dramatic predictions in this respect, but there is the problem that Kurdish authorities in Syria they rely too much on Americans while not having guarantees for the future from the same Americans. So American administration today can do this, tomorrow they can change their mind very easily and do the opposite. And then who pays the bill? Local people, they pay the bill. Do I need to mention Afghanistan for example?
Very recent example.
We hope this won’t happen with Syrians.
Mr. Kutrashev, thank you very much for joining us and nice to see you here in Kurdistan.
Thank you very much.
