-
Rudaw’s Sinan Tuncdemir spoke with Dmitry Polyanskiy, First Deputy Permanent Representative of Russia to the UN, in New York on Wednesday, discussing a broad range of issues including Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory, the possibility of a Ukraine-Russia peace deal, the war in the Gaza Strip, as well as the Syrian crisis. Polyanskiy emphasized that the West is aiding Ukraine to attack Russian territory and blasted the US for unconditionally backing Israel in Security Council meetings. He also expressed Russia’s stance on a united Syria with complete territorial integrity and sovereignty, and said that Moscow supports talks between Damascus and the Kurdish-led administration in northeast Syria (Rojava).
The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Rudaw: Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for being with us today.
Dmitry Polyanskiy: You are welcome.
I would like to start with the Russia-Ukraine war. Since World War II, nobody dared to invade Russian land or territory, and two weeks ago we saw what happened in Kursk. Can you please tell us what is happening in Kursk?
Yes. What is happening is a fatal blunder and a mad-man move on behalf of Zelensky, and this is a position that is shared by most military experts. So actually, he wanted to divert attention from the ongoing losses of Ukraine in the eastern front, and he wanted to reach Kursk nuclear power land, and maybe to make some kind of negotiation offer to us in his mad dreams. He also wanted to divert Russian regiments from the eastern front to lessen pressure on the Ukrainian soldiers there. But he failed in both objectives, they managed to incurs, that is true, they managed to take several villages. What they are doing right now is they are squandering man power, they are squandering Western equipment, and the numbers are absolutely horrible, the numbers of losses they have. This has not led to any improvement of the situation of the Ukrainian regiment in the eastern front. On the contrary, he is being criticized by a lot of experts in his country that he actually weakened his front, and the Russian army is now advancing in a far swifter move, and we have taken a lot of sides which were specifically reinforced for many, many years, and which were there since 2014. Ukraine lost in recent days a very important battlefield line. Of course, it is up to Ukrainians to judge the successes and the rationale behind this adventure, but it is quite clear that it will not end well for Ukraine.
Do you think Ukraine could have done that without Western or United States support?
It is very unlikely. Of course, our Western partners - former partners - are now trying to behave like ostriches and say that they were not aware of this, that Ukraine did it on itself, but we know that Ukraine is not capable of doing any military operation without the support of the West, from Western arms and equipment to intelligence data and operational support, Western mercenaries, internet provision, all these things are provided by the West. So Ukraine has become nearly a private military company in the hands of the West.
Do you think there is a possibility, because the war started two and a half years ago, and it is still ongoing. Do you think there is a chance that there can be peace between Ukraine and Russia, that peace can be negotiated between the two actors?
Of course, inevitably, there should have been peace and there will be peace, but the devil is in the details. You know that we came to Ukraine to stop another war, which was ongoing since 2014, and we came there to stop the people of east of Ukraine from extermination, so we need to achieve the aims of our special military operation, these aims are quite clear. We made several offers to Ukraine, one of them was done in Istanbul in 2022, nearly one month after the start of the special military operation. It was a very favorable offer for Ukraine and it was initialed by the Ukrainian delegation, but then there was intervention on behalf of Western partners of Ukraine, namely Boris Johnson, who talked Zelensky out of agreeing to these terms, which obviously he regrets now very much, because this was a very decent way out for Ukraine and it would have avoided a lot of destruction and casualties and all those things, so they rejected it. Recently, we made another proposal in June, our president made a very generous proposal - generous viewing the situation on the front - for Ukraine to accept, and we warned that any other possible opening would be much less favorable for Ukraine. Ukraine started to kind of, contemplating and sending mixed messages about the possibility of peaceful negotiations, which encouraged a lot of our partners in the global south. But in the end, what happened was this Kursk adventure, and we view this Kursk adventure as a clear choice towards escalation and a clear rejection towards any prospect of peace. So there is no other way out for us today, but to seek the implementation of the goals of our special military operation by military means.
I would like to talk a bit about Gaza. It has been more than ten months, and unfortunately the Security Council could not make a peace there, and there is some critics for the Security Council because they think the Security Council cannot meet its responsibilities, because their responsibility is to ensure the peace and security of the world. Do you believe that Security Council can still do something, and if you do not, why?
Well, the Security Council has been taken hostage on this issue by one of its members, the United States, so when you speak about the collective responsibility of Security Council, I will not agree with you, because 14 members of the Security Council have been working painstakingly to find solutions to this crisis. As far as Russia is concerned, we proposed the first draft resolution demanding immediate ceasefire back on the 16th of October, last year, can you imagine how many lives would have been saved if this resolution was adopted? But the United States rejected this resolution, and you know that the United States in total used its right to veto five times to protect Israel. There were two resolutions adopted that contained ceasefire, one of them was about the month of Ramadan, but immediately after adopting this text, the American representative, who abstained, said it was not binding, which was a big scandal here in the UN. Another resolution 2735 which was the last one adopted, it contained the so-called Biden peace plan, and we abstained because we said that we do not have any confirmation that this plan is accepted by the parties, by Israel first and foremost. Americans were saying that Israel is fully behind this plan, which turned out to be a lie. It was the 10th of June, now we are 21st of August, and still there is no peace deal and there is no ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, and negotiations continue, and actually Israel is always changing the rules of the game, and this maneuvering is not helping anyone, but Security Council still waits for some kind of result of these negotiations. So in fact, this resolution has become what we have warned it would become, it has become a spoiler, which prevents Security Council from further moves to enforce the ceasefire on Israel first and foremost. That is why when you speak about Security Council you need to distinguish, between Security Council as a whole and in this case, one Security Council member who consistently does everything to help Israel and to shield Israel from any criticism, and to sabotage any Security Council action to bring peace to the Middle East. That is the right picture.
What about Syria? You know that Security Council adopted a couple of resolutions, actually two resolutions, for Syria, but we did not really see the implementation of these resolutions. Do you still believe that those resolutions could work for Syria or do you believe that Security Council needs a new resolution to build peace in Syria?
I do not see the need for a new resolution. On Syria, for example Resolution 2254 contained everything necessary, provided us with a toolbox to seek a political solution in Syria. It was accepted by all the parties and you know that negotiations are happening in the framework of this resolution and efforts have been deployed, a lot of efforts. We are backing this process, as well as Turkey and Iran, and we are actively supporting this process. Of course, the crisis in Syria was very severe and very tragic, and there are no easy solutions to this. We would very much favor the full restoration of territorial integrity in Syria and sovereignty. We think that it is high time for the Syrian people to reunite and to move forward. But there are a lot of spoilers from the other side. We cannot ignore the way that the Syrian government is being treated by Western countries. They introduce unilateral sanctions and coercive measures, and with these measures, they absolutely prevent any progress in Syria. This factor should also be taken into consideration. Another issue is the question of Syrian refugees who are in the neighboring countries, and according to our information, many of them want to return, but it would be a bad scenario for Western countries who want to present a picture that there are no conditions for the return of these refugees and they are actually preventing them to return, they are discouraging them from returning. It is not as simple as it sounds, but this is a very worrying trend. So we think that these efforts are absolutely undermining the peace process in Syria and we categorically condemn these type of policies.
I would like to ask a bit about Kurds. You know Russia definitely has an important role in Syria, we see that. Do you think Russia wants Kurds and the Syrian regime to meet up and talk for this peace process?
We encourage very much, the contacts between the Kurds and the Syrian government, and we think that this process is the only avenue which could lead to the solution which would be favorable for the Kurdish population as well. We have traditional, long-rooted contacts with Kurds, both in Syria and in Iraq, and we keep good relations. There is a big Kurdish diaspora in Russia as well, which plays an important role, so we are ready to do everything to foster these contacts and we believe that this is the opportunity that should be taken right now.
In terms of that, you know the Kurds also demand autonomy in Syria, in the Kurdish region, especially northeast Syria. Do you think that Russia would support that idea or demand?
I think that is a question that should be decided within Syria itself. This is the only Syrian-led process and I do not think that anyone should interfere there and give his or her views on this issue.
Okay, quick question. How strong is the threat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. What is your opinion on that?
Well, it is very hard to judge, because there is quite conflicting information in this regard. Of course, it is there, and we know that there are reports of the Secretary General indicating that the threat is there. We just single out a very strange coincidence, that when we speak about the threat from ISIS, it is mostly from the regions occupied by the US, illegally occupied by the US, and we recall that our American colleagues initially stationed there against international law, citing the pretext of the fight with terrorism and with ISIS and those things, so how many years have happened, have passed and the threat is still there? So we believe that the US is not very candid in its fight against terrorism and it uses it only as a pretext to stay in Syria illegally against the consent of the country, for looting of its natural resources and for preventing this country to reunite.
What about Turkey? When it comes to the Turkish role in Syria, does Russia take any steps to build that relationship between Syria and Turkey?
We encourage reconciliation between Turkey and Syria and we noted several quite favorable signals from Turkish leadership and the Syrian leadership and I think that it is in the interest of the whole region, and of course of Turkey and Syria themselves, to normalize relations and to move forward, because there are so many risks coming from elsewhere that the efforts of these two countries would count to them more efficiently.
You said Russia has a good relationship with the Kurds, and I know that there is a lot of Russian oil companies in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq doing business. So I wonder how is the relationship between Iraqi Kurdistan and Russia nowadays?
The relations are developing. We view Iraqi Kurdistan as a part of Iraq and we do it with full transparency and information of the central government in Baghdad. We have our consulate general in Erbil, which plays quite an important role, so we do not think that development of relations with regions of one country is contradictory to the improvement of relations with a country as a whole. I think that is the pattern that we use vis-à-vis to Kurdistan and we receive full understanding from Baghdad for our contacts and we encourage dialogue between central authorities and Kurdistan to sort out the remaining problems as it should be done in one state.
Do you think the Turkish relations with Ukraine, because we know that Turkey gives drones to Ukraine, and also Turkey has a relationship with Russia. How does that affect Russian-Turkish-Ukraine relationship? I mean, especially, how does the Turkish-Ukrainian relationship affect the Russian-Turkish relationship?
I do not think that the Turkish position is black and white, it has always been more gray, and our Turkish friends know our position on their views. We are not hesitating to criticize certain moves of this country. On the other hand, this country also plays quite an important role in mediation efforts and there was a history of these mediation efforts which we very much commend. So Turkey is an important regional player, you cannot ignore it in your foreign relations especially when you are a neighbor. We believe and we hope that the eyes of our Turkish friends will open to the true colors of the Kyiv regime, and that there will eventually, but sooner than later, take a position on the right side of history.
The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.
Rudaw: Mr. Ambassador, thank you very much for being with us today.
Dmitry Polyanskiy: You are welcome.
I would like to start with the Russia-Ukraine war. Since World War II, nobody dared to invade Russian land or territory, and two weeks ago we saw what happened in Kursk. Can you please tell us what is happening in Kursk?
Yes. What is happening is a fatal blunder and a mad-man move on behalf of Zelensky, and this is a position that is shared by most military experts. So actually, he wanted to divert attention from the ongoing losses of Ukraine in the eastern front, and he wanted to reach Kursk nuclear power land, and maybe to make some kind of negotiation offer to us in his mad dreams. He also wanted to divert Russian regiments from the eastern front to lessen pressure on the Ukrainian soldiers there. But he failed in both objectives, they managed to incurs, that is true, they managed to take several villages. What they are doing right now is they are squandering man power, they are squandering Western equipment, and the numbers are absolutely horrible, the numbers of losses they have. This has not led to any improvement of the situation of the Ukrainian regiment in the eastern front. On the contrary, he is being criticized by a lot of experts in his country that he actually weakened his front, and the Russian army is now advancing in a far swifter move, and we have taken a lot of sides which were specifically reinforced for many, many years, and which were there since 2014. Ukraine lost in recent days a very important battlefield line. Of course, it is up to Ukrainians to judge the successes and the rationale behind this adventure, but it is quite clear that it will not end well for Ukraine.
Do you think Ukraine could have done that without Western or United States support?
It is very unlikely. Of course, our Western partners - former partners - are now trying to behave like ostriches and say that they were not aware of this, that Ukraine did it on itself, but we know that Ukraine is not capable of doing any military operation without the support of the West, from Western arms and equipment to intelligence data and operational support, Western mercenaries, internet provision, all these things are provided by the West. So Ukraine has become nearly a private military company in the hands of the West.
Do you think there is a possibility, because the war started two and a half years ago, and it is still ongoing. Do you think there is a chance that there can be peace between Ukraine and Russia, that peace can be negotiated between the two actors?
Of course, inevitably, there should have been peace and there will be peace, but the devil is in the details. You know that we came to Ukraine to stop another war, which was ongoing since 2014, and we came there to stop the people of east of Ukraine from extermination, so we need to achieve the aims of our special military operation, these aims are quite clear. We made several offers to Ukraine, one of them was done in Istanbul in 2022, nearly one month after the start of the special military operation. It was a very favorable offer for Ukraine and it was initialed by the Ukrainian delegation, but then there was intervention on behalf of Western partners of Ukraine, namely Boris Johnson, who talked Zelensky out of agreeing to these terms, which obviously he regrets now very much, because this was a very decent way out for Ukraine and it would have avoided a lot of destruction and casualties and all those things, so they rejected it. Recently, we made another proposal in June, our president made a very generous proposal - generous viewing the situation on the front - for Ukraine to accept, and we warned that any other possible opening would be much less favorable for Ukraine. Ukraine started to kind of, contemplating and sending mixed messages about the possibility of peaceful negotiations, which encouraged a lot of our partners in the global south. But in the end, what happened was this Kursk adventure, and we view this Kursk adventure as a clear choice towards escalation and a clear rejection towards any prospect of peace. So there is no other way out for us today, but to seek the implementation of the goals of our special military operation by military means.
I would like to talk a bit about Gaza. It has been more than ten months, and unfortunately the Security Council could not make a peace there, and there is some critics for the Security Council because they think the Security Council cannot meet its responsibilities, because their responsibility is to ensure the peace and security of the world. Do you believe that Security Council can still do something, and if you do not, why?
Well, the Security Council has been taken hostage on this issue by one of its members, the United States, so when you speak about the collective responsibility of Security Council, I will not agree with you, because 14 members of the Security Council have been working painstakingly to find solutions to this crisis. As far as Russia is concerned, we proposed the first draft resolution demanding immediate ceasefire back on the 16th of October, last year, can you imagine how many lives would have been saved if this resolution was adopted? But the United States rejected this resolution, and you know that the United States in total used its right to veto five times to protect Israel. There were two resolutions adopted that contained ceasefire, one of them was about the month of Ramadan, but immediately after adopting this text, the American representative, who abstained, said it was not binding, which was a big scandal here in the UN. Another resolution 2735 which was the last one adopted, it contained the so-called Biden peace plan, and we abstained because we said that we do not have any confirmation that this plan is accepted by the parties, by Israel first and foremost. Americans were saying that Israel is fully behind this plan, which turned out to be a lie. It was the 10th of June, now we are 21st of August, and still there is no peace deal and there is no ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, and negotiations continue, and actually Israel is always changing the rules of the game, and this maneuvering is not helping anyone, but Security Council still waits for some kind of result of these negotiations. So in fact, this resolution has become what we have warned it would become, it has become a spoiler, which prevents Security Council from further moves to enforce the ceasefire on Israel first and foremost. That is why when you speak about Security Council you need to distinguish, between Security Council as a whole and in this case, one Security Council member who consistently does everything to help Israel and to shield Israel from any criticism, and to sabotage any Security Council action to bring peace to the Middle East. That is the right picture.
What about Syria? You know that Security Council adopted a couple of resolutions, actually two resolutions, for Syria, but we did not really see the implementation of these resolutions. Do you still believe that those resolutions could work for Syria or do you believe that Security Council needs a new resolution to build peace in Syria?
I do not see the need for a new resolution. On Syria, for example Resolution 2254 contained everything necessary, provided us with a toolbox to seek a political solution in Syria. It was accepted by all the parties and you know that negotiations are happening in the framework of this resolution and efforts have been deployed, a lot of efforts. We are backing this process, as well as Turkey and Iran, and we are actively supporting this process. Of course, the crisis in Syria was very severe and very tragic, and there are no easy solutions to this. We would very much favor the full restoration of territorial integrity in Syria and sovereignty. We think that it is high time for the Syrian people to reunite and to move forward. But there are a lot of spoilers from the other side. We cannot ignore the way that the Syrian government is being treated by Western countries. They introduce unilateral sanctions and coercive measures, and with these measures, they absolutely prevent any progress in Syria. This factor should also be taken into consideration. Another issue is the question of Syrian refugees who are in the neighboring countries, and according to our information, many of them want to return, but it would be a bad scenario for Western countries who want to present a picture that there are no conditions for the return of these refugees and they are actually preventing them to return, they are discouraging them from returning. It is not as simple as it sounds, but this is a very worrying trend. So we think that these efforts are absolutely undermining the peace process in Syria and we categorically condemn these type of policies.
I would like to ask a bit about Kurds. You know Russia definitely has an important role in Syria, we see that. Do you think Russia wants Kurds and the Syrian regime to meet up and talk for this peace process?
We encourage very much, the contacts between the Kurds and the Syrian government, and we think that this process is the only avenue which could lead to the solution which would be favorable for the Kurdish population as well. We have traditional, long-rooted contacts with Kurds, both in Syria and in Iraq, and we keep good relations. There is a big Kurdish diaspora in Russia as well, which plays an important role, so we are ready to do everything to foster these contacts and we believe that this is the opportunity that should be taken right now.
In terms of that, you know the Kurds also demand autonomy in Syria, in the Kurdish region, especially northeast Syria. Do you think that Russia would support that idea or demand?
I think that is a question that should be decided within Syria itself. This is the only Syrian-led process and I do not think that anyone should interfere there and give his or her views on this issue.
Okay, quick question. How strong is the threat of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. What is your opinion on that?
Well, it is very hard to judge, because there is quite conflicting information in this regard. Of course, it is there, and we know that there are reports of the Secretary General indicating that the threat is there. We just single out a very strange coincidence, that when we speak about the threat from ISIS, it is mostly from the regions occupied by the US, illegally occupied by the US, and we recall that our American colleagues initially stationed there against international law, citing the pretext of the fight with terrorism and with ISIS and those things, so how many years have happened, have passed and the threat is still there? So we believe that the US is not very candid in its fight against terrorism and it uses it only as a pretext to stay in Syria illegally against the consent of the country, for looting of its natural resources and for preventing this country to reunite.
What about Turkey? When it comes to the Turkish role in Syria, does Russia take any steps to build that relationship between Syria and Turkey?
We encourage reconciliation between Turkey and Syria and we noted several quite favorable signals from Turkish leadership and the Syrian leadership and I think that it is in the interest of the whole region, and of course of Turkey and Syria themselves, to normalize relations and to move forward, because there are so many risks coming from elsewhere that the efforts of these two countries would count to them more efficiently.
You said Russia has a good relationship with the Kurds, and I know that there is a lot of Russian oil companies in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq doing business. So I wonder how is the relationship between Iraqi Kurdistan and Russia nowadays?
The relations are developing. We view Iraqi Kurdistan as a part of Iraq and we do it with full transparency and information of the central government in Baghdad. We have our consulate general in Erbil, which plays quite an important role, so we do not think that development of relations with regions of one country is contradictory to the improvement of relations with a country as a whole. I think that is the pattern that we use vis-à-vis to Kurdistan and we receive full understanding from Baghdad for our contacts and we encourage dialogue between central authorities and Kurdistan to sort out the remaining problems as it should be done in one state.
Do you think the Turkish relations with Ukraine, because we know that Turkey gives drones to Ukraine, and also Turkey has a relationship with Russia. How does that affect Russian-Turkish-Ukraine relationship? I mean, especially, how does the Turkish-Ukrainian relationship affect the Russian-Turkish relationship?
I do not think that the Turkish position is black and white, it has always been more gray, and our Turkish friends know our position on their views. We are not hesitating to criticize certain moves of this country. On the other hand, this country also plays quite an important role in mediation efforts and there was a history of these mediation efforts which we very much commend. So Turkey is an important regional player, you cannot ignore it in your foreign relations especially when you are a neighbor. We believe and we hope that the eyes of our Turkish friends will open to the true colors of the Kyiv regime, and that there will eventually, but sooner than later, take a position on the right side of history.
![Flags of Iran [left] and US, UK, France, Germany and Italy [right]. Graphic: Rudaw](https://www.rudaw.net/s3/rudaw.net/ContentFiles/815732Image1.jpg?mode=crop&quality=70&rand=1&scale=both&w=362&h=226&version=6836954 "Flags of Iran [left] and US, UK, France, Germany and Italy [right]. Graphic: Rudaw")
Comments
Rudaw moderates all comments submitted on our website. We welcome comments which are relevant to the article and encourage further discussion about the issues that matter to you. We also welcome constructive criticism about Rudaw.
To be approved for publication, however, your comments must meet our community guidelines.
We will not tolerate the following: profanity, threats, personal attacks, vulgarity, abuse (such as sexism, racism, homophobia or xenophobia), or commercial or personal promotion.
Comments that do not meet our guidelines will be rejected. Comments are not edited – they are either approved or rejected.
Post a comment