"We aim to achieve a concrete and mutually satisfactory result"
Moscow has no contacts with Kiev and the Ukrainian side is responsible for this, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Galuzin told Izvestia. The Kiev leadership demonstrates incompetence and a complete lack of aspirations for peace. The American administration is using new approaches, different from the previous one. Russia's goal in negotiations with the United States is to achieve a practical and satisfactory result for both sides. Moscow is also ready to restore diplomatic relations with Tbilisi and, if necessary, expand flights. In addition, the Russian Federation is not going to infringe on Armenia's interests in the EAEU because of its European course, but leaving the union will be painful for the country's population, the diplomat noted. About the Russian-American negotiations, provocations by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the situation in Transnistria — in an exclusive interview with Mikhail Galuzin "Izvestia".
"The Kiev regime once again demonstrates a lack of desire for a peaceful settlement of the crisis"
— In December 2024, you drew attention to the fact that Russia was and remains open to negotiations with Ukraine. Are there any contacts between Moscow and Kiev in the context of the Ukrainian settlement, including through the foreign ministries? Are such contacts possible?
— There are no such contacts, and the responsibility for this lies not with us, but entirely with the Ukrainian side. Unfortunately, throughout the entire period of the Ukrainian crisis, the Kiev leadership has demonstrated its incompetence and complete lack of aspirations for peace. We can still see confirmation of such an irresponsible position. Russia and the United States have agreed that a moratorium on strikes against energy infrastructure facilities in Russia and Ukraine will be introduced from March 18. In words, the Kiev regime agreed to comply with it, but in fact we see almost daily attacks on energy facilities in the Russian Federation. In other words, the Kiev regime is once again demonstrating its lack of desire for a peaceful political and diplomatic settlement of the Ukrainian crisis.
— Since January 2025, the transit of Russian gas through the territory of Ukraine has stopped. Is it possible to resume transit and under what circumstances? Is this issue being discussed with countries affected by the suspension of transit, such as Slovakia and Hungary?
— Slovakia and Hungary are countries that significantly, and perhaps crucially, depend on the supply of Russian natural gas for the needs of industry and the population. On January 1, the Kiev regime stopped fulfilling the agreement on the transit of Russian gas to Europe through Ukraine. This, of course, has put Hungary and Slovakia in an extremely difficult situation — we understand this. And together with colleagues from Hungary and Slovakia, we searched for and eventually found ways to supply Russian gas to these countries, their industries, and their populations. Today, such supplies are carried out via the Turkish Stream gas pipeline. As for the prospect of resuming transit, here we see what policy the Kiev regime is pursuing. The decision to stop transit is valid, and this is the reality.
"The ruling circles of Moldova are pursuing an openly anti-Russian policy"
— Transnistria has also suffered from the cessation of Russian gas transit. The energy crisis continues there, despite the start of supplies by a Hungarian company with credit support from Russia. Is Moscow exploring alternative or additional ways to help Tiraspol?
— As for the energy crisis in Pridnestrovie, the Russian side pays the most serious attention to this problem, since, first of all, about 220,000 citizens of the Russian Federation live in Pridnestrovie, therefore we cannot but make maximum efforts to resolve the energy crisis in this area. The reasons for its occurrence are well known to everyone: This is also the aforementioned termination by the Kiev regime of gas transit through the territory of Ukraine. But there is another one — this is the refusal of the Moldovan authorities to recognize and repay the debt for gas supplies to the Russian Gazprom corporation. All this has led to a very difficult energy situation in Transnistria, and the Russian side is working to continue and maintain the supply of natural gas to Transnistria in order to provide humanitarian assistance to this region. The work continues and, hopefully, will continue to bring positive results.
— In December 2024, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service reported that Moldovan President Maia Sandu called on the government to develop a plan for a military operation to establish control over Transnistria. Are there any provocations by the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the border of Moldova and Ukraine?
— The ruling circles of Moldova are pursuing an openly anti-Russian policy, a policy of supporting the Kiev regime. And we take this very seriously. As for the situation on the border with Ukraine, we see, first of all, the provocative activity of the Ukrainian side, which is trying to convince the Moldovan authorities that a military solution to the Transnistrian problem is permissible. And, apparently, this idea has settled in the minds of the Chisinau leaders. So far, they still retain elements of common sense and do not go directly to a military solution to the Transnistrian problem, although the SVR report clearly indicates that such plans are present in the minds of Chisinau politicians.
We advocate that the Transnistrian problem be resolved in accordance with the international agreements that were reached back in July 1992, on the basic principles of resolving the crisis in Transnistria, so that the format of the peacekeeping operation that is being implemented is implemented, despite the fact that the Moldovan side is following frankly destructive steps in in this question, in order to break this format. In particular, there are calls for the withdrawal of the Russian peacekeeping contingent from Moldova, and such calls are in themselves a violation of the 1992 agreements that the peacekeeping contingent remain there until conditions are created for its withdrawal as a result of the settlement of the Transnistrian problem. But it is obvious to everyone that this is still a long way off.
— In case of escalation and the implementation of a military scenario, is Russia ready to respond?
— Conflict situations are better prevented, so now we are actively working to ensure that no one has thoughts about such a scenario.
"We are ready to restore diplomatic relations with Georgia"
— From a territorial point of view, Russia's immediate foreign policy interests include Georgia, with which we have not yet resumed diplomatic relations. Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze stated that Tbilisi has no way to restore these relations because of Russia's positions on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Is Moscow ready to restore diplomatic and political contacts with Tbilisi?
— Diplomatic relations between Russia and Georgia were severed not by us, but by the Saakashvili regime, after this regime tried to carry out aggression against the population of South Ossetia, Russian peacekeepers, and therefore against the Russian Federation. Now in Georgia, the Saakashvili regime is being severely criticized for this. He himself is under numerous lawsuits.
Last fall, during the election campaign, the Georgian leadership made very sensible statements about the need to apologize to the people of South Ossetia and its intention to achieve reconciliation. As I understand it, official Tbilisi has the same attitude towards Abkhazia. And these are certainly positive signals. We hope that they will translate into concrete steps to normalize Georgia's relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia based on a sober perception of current realities.
We regret that the Georgian leadership continues to link the restoration of diplomatic relations with our position on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We have repeatedly stated, and I am ready to repeat this, that the decision of the Russian Federation to recognize the sovereignty and independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, adopted in August 2008, is not subject to revision.
But we are ready to further comprehensively develop mutually beneficial cooperation with Georgia. And there are a lot of possibilities for this. For Georgia, Russia remains a key market in many areas, in particular for wine products and fruits. On the other hand, Russia is a leading supplier of energy and grain to Georgia. Russia and Georgia are united by a common history, common faith, cultural, humanitarian, and human ties. Guided by the understanding of the historical close ties between our countries and peoples and the need to develop comprehensive mutually beneficial cooperation for the benefit of the two peoples, the Russian side has taken very significant steps in recent years. In particular, direct flights between Russia and Georgia have been restored. A visa-free regime has been restored for Georgian citizens upon entry. As for diplomatic relations, we are ready to restore them. We are ready to go as far as the Georgian side is ready to go. There are no restrictions for us here.
— So if there is a signal from the Georgian side, can we follow the path of restoring diplomatic and political contacts?
— Diplomats don't really like answering questions that begin with the word "if." But in this case, I'll assume that you're probably right.
— Are there plans to expand flights to Georgia?
— It expands during the peak tourist season. About 1.5 million Russian tourists visited Georgia last year. The aviation service, which is carried out on the basis of the relevant intergovernmental agreement of 1993, currently covers approximately 16 routes and about 60 flights. Of course, such flights can be expanded if necessary.
— Flights from Moscow to Sukhum will be operated from May 1. At the same time, earlier information appeared that Georgia was trying to ban flights of Russian airlines to Sukhum from the International Civil Aviation Organization. Is this possible and how can Moscow respond to this?
— We do not consider the restoration of flights with Abkhazia as something related to the issues of our flights with Georgia. This is a completely independent topic. Since 2023, the reconstruction of Sukhumi airport has begun and is already being completed. There was already a test flight from Russia. We hope that regular flights will start soon. This will make it easier for a very large number of Russians to visit Abkhazia for tourist purposes, for recreation, for business, and so on. I hope that the Georgian side, with its inherent pragmatism and understanding of the importance of ties with Russia, will continue to develop Russian-Georgian cooperation where it is beneficial to both countries. This attitude is always present on the Russian side, and we do not link our cooperation with Georgia to political or economic demands. I really hope that the pragmatism and common sense that obviously prevails in Tbilisi today will remain in this matter.
"Russia remains committed to the format of discussions on security in Transcaucasia"
— You have already mentioned several republics that participate in the Geneva discussions on security and stability in Transcaucasia. The possibility of transferring the discussions, for example, to Kenya or Kazakhstan, has been repeatedly discussed. Has any progress been made on this issue?
— Switzerland has lost its neutral status, having fully aligned itself with the anti-Russian line of the West in the context of the Ukrainian crisis. The Confederation has joined the vast majority of EU sanctions packages against Russia. And this makes it absolutely logical and natural for us to raise the issue of moving international discussions from Geneva to a more acceptable place for all participants. Our South Ossetian and Abkhaz allies support us in this. We are working on this topic together.
This process continues. It's too early to talk, especially publicly, about any alternative locations. At the same time, Russia remains committed to the very format of international discussions on security and stability in Transcaucasia. Because regardless of where geographically these discussions are held, this is the most important and unique platform for direct dialogue between Tbilisi on the one hand and Abkhazia and South Ossetia on the other on possible ways to restore relations, taking into account the new realities that have developed since August 2008. This is an important platform for a dialogue on security in the region in a broader context: reaching a legally binding agreement on the non-use of force by Georgia against Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
In other words, the format of international discussions on security and stability in Transcaucasia is important for us. We consistently advocate for its preservation. It is working, discussions are taking place, and the very fact of such discussions is very important for maintaining relative stability in the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian borderlands, as well as in the Transcaucasian region as a whole. We will continue to participate in these discussions, while simultaneously raising the issue of their geographical relocation.
— Do the other participants in the Geneva discussions agree on the need to postpone them, or are there some obstacles on their part?
— All decisions in the framework of discussions are made by consensus. Our South Ossetian and Abkhaz friends support us. We will continue to work with other participants. The diplomatic process is underway. When and if we are ready to announce something, we will make it official.
"We have no plans to infringe on Armenia's interests in any way"
— Russia's regional interests coincide with Armenia's. Recently, they adopted a law on the beginning of the process of joining the European Union. You have noted that it will be difficult for Armenia to move closer to the EU while remaining a member of the EAEU. Is it possible to exclude Yerevan from any forms of cooperation in the Eurasian Economic Union? Is the state's participation in the work of the EAEU decreasing?
— It's not that Russia or anyone else wants to exclude Armenia or harm it in the context of our very developed economic cooperation. Our trade turnover last year amounted to about $12 billion, demonstrating significant growth. We have no plans to infringe on Armenia's interests in any way. This is our ally, a strategic partner, with whom we are connected, just like with Georgia, by a centuries-old common history, a common victory in the Great Patriotic War, the 80th anniversary of which we hope to celebrate together on May 9th.
The fact is that objectively simultaneous membership in the EU and the EAEU is impossible, since these unions have different customs and tariff regulations, they are essentially different economic blocks. Accordingly, the Armenian colleagues will probably have to decide at some stage in which direction they are following: towards integration into the European Union or continued participation in Eurasian integration through the EAEU. This participation brings obvious benefits to the Armenian population. And this is reflected primarily in the very significant figures of Armenia's GDP growth. In the last year, it has been about 6%.
On the other hand, what is the European Union at this stage for Armenia and other countries? This is a set of requirements, criteria with vague prospects for entry. If Armenia follows the path of the European choice, it will objectively entail a revision of the well-established economic relations that Yerevan and its partners currently have through the EAEU. It will probably be quite a painful process, including, unfortunately, for the Armenian population. It is logical to assume that the country's leadership will explain to its population what it can lose by leaving the EAEU, and what it can really gain from membership in the European Union.
These are mostly ephemeral ideologies, not real economic cooperation. Even today, Armenia's trade turnover with each of the EU countries is several times lower than with Russia. Not to mention the fact that the EU openly pursues a hostile policy towards Russia, Armenia's key economic partner and strategic ally. It consists in the already obsessive, maniacal desire to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia and weaken our country, in blocking any actions aimed at a political and diplomatic settlement of the crisis in Ukraine, at achieving peace, in attempts to drive a wedge in relations between Russia and its strategic partners and allies in the CIS, EAEU, CSTO.
I hope that official Yerevan sees this situation and assesses it accordingly. So far, Armenia has not withdrawn from any structures of the Eurasian Economic Union. We highly appreciate her successful presidency of the EAEU in 2024, so our cooperation continues. Representatives of the country also actively participate in all events of the CIS bodies, in all expert meetings.
"We are grateful to the states that have offered and are offering their sites"
— Now all attention is focused on the discussions between Russia and the United States. In the context of the Ukrainian settlement, they are being held in Riyadh, and in Istanbul to normalize bilateral relations. Is Russia considering other platforms for negotiations with the American side?
— First of all, we are grateful to all those states that have offered and are offering their platforms for Russian-American contacts to normalize relations and find ways to resolve the Ukrainian crisis politically and diplomatically. We are very grateful to everyone, we appreciate it very much. But for all the importance of choosing the optimal venue for negotiations, the most important thing is their content and result. And we are primarily focused on achieving a concrete practical result that suits both sides, whether it is the normalization of Russian-American relations or the search for ways to resolve the Ukrainian crisis.
— Is Russia–USA–Ukraine trilateral cooperation possible?
— So far, we have conducted and are conducting a dialogue with the United States of America, as it remains a key ally and sponsor of Ukraine, although this American administration outlines new approaches that differ from the previous one. But unfortunately, the Kiev regime is demonstrating its incompetence and lack of will for peace, including by violating the moratorium on attacks on energy facilities in Russia and Ukraine, which it has verbally approved.
We have been recording these strikes on an almost daily basis since March 18, while Russia is honestly and conscientiously observing this moratorium. So conscientiously that when the order of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief was followed to stop attacks on Ukrainian energy facilities, our military shot down seven Russian unmanned aerial vehicles that were already flying on a corresponding mission. Unfortunately, we do not see anything like this from the Kiev side.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
