Source: "Mirror of week"
Tension after the Bucharest summit of North Atlantic alliance not only doesn't fall down, but also amplifies: in December Ministers of Foreign Affairs of NATO member states will discuss a question of accession of Ukraine and Georgia to the Plan of action concerning membership in this organization (PDCh). Russia doesn't intend to allow it and goes for strain of relations with these countries, affording public threats to Kiev and Tbilisi. We will remind that not so long ago the Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov and the chief of the General Staff of Armed forces of the Russian Federation Yury Baluyevsky declared that Russia will do everything not to allow admission of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO.
Kiev decided not to disregard the sounded threats and to address to the international community. This week it became known that the Ukrainian foreign policy department set to the UN the official letter concerning these scandalous statements of representatives of the Kremlin. "ZN" addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Vladimir OGRYZKO with a request to comment on this address, and also results of its negotiations with Sergey Lavrov.
- Mister minister, this week the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine sent to a staff - the UN apartment the statement concerning the statement of the Russian high-ranking officials. Whether there is an UN reaction? What actions we can expect from UN General Assembly? Whether will be this step enough that from Russia threats to Ukraine didn't sound any more?
- The Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent the statement to UN General Assembly in day of its publication. But, unfortunately, and there not everything becomes too quickly.
I don't want to speak about all arsenal of our possible actions in advance. There are very serious mechanisms of influence.First of all - it is international - legal. And you know that we used them when in the past there were similar events. In particular, there was an appeal to the UN Security Council. But it seems to me that the correct conclusions are now drawn. We - Ukraine and Russia - eternal partners and neighbors. We will live and work together. Therefore about statements of this kind in general the speech shouldn't go. And if at someone again don't sustain nerves and all of them - will appear, we reserve the right to apply all necessary is international - legal levers.
- By the way, this week in the UN also considered the situation which has developed round brought down over the territory of Abkhazia of the Georgian robot plane - the scout. This incident became the next irritant between Tbilisi and Moscow, as well as Vladimir Putin's recent decision to lift the status of the relations of Russia with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The Georgian party regards these actions of the Kremlin as attempts to annex part of the Georgian territory. How Kiev estimates reaction of Moscow? What consequences they can have for South Caucasus?
- The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine considers that such steps threaten process of peaceful settlement in the region. We more than once declared and we declare that the question of territorial integrity of Georgia isn't subject to doubt. No unilateral actions concerning Georgia us will be accepted as lawful. You know reaction of the European Union, the United States. This position is conformable that which is occupied by Ukraine.
- When concerning Georgia Russia uses the Abkhazian factor, in a case with Ukraine the Russian high-ranking officials while resort to statements. Whether during your negotiations in Moscow the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation Sergey Lavrov explained, what he meant when declared, what Russia will make everything not to allow reception of Ukraine and Georgia in NATO?
- During my recent visit to Russia I expressed our concern about the last statements of the Russian high officials. As a matter of fact, the concept "all" the Russian colleagues was treated in an understanding context by them approaches of the Ukrainian party to the euroatlantic choice. Therefore they proceed from need to take measures at bilateral level and on the international scene which would prevent this course.
We again explained that Ukraine is the sovereign state that we have foreign policy interests.We informed the Russian side that the policy of the entry of Ukraine in NATO is objective and consecutive. That this course was supported by the Ukrainian people when the majority voted for Victor Yushchenko at presidential election, and also during the last parliamentary elections as in the agreement of the parties which have created the coalition, it is written down that they support accession of Ukraine to PDCh and NATO. And at the level of the legislation the course was fixed in 2003. We once again emphasized that this position isn't anti-Russian.
From our party it was offered to reduce temperature of statements and to pass to normal bilateral dialogue to remove the concern which is available for the Russian side. Consultations, the foundation with which on our initiative it could be laid by davny - long ago will be the practical instrument of this dialogue. Unfortunately, from - for unavailabilities of Russia they were constantly postponed. But now we agreed that in May at the level of deputy ministers of foreign affairs the first round of such consultations will take place.
Following the results of negotiations with g - the number Lavrov seemed to me that such statements, without speaking about actions about which in them it was spoken, are removed from the agenda, and they any more won't be.
- The Russian side explained why it considers as threat for herself the entry of Ukraine into NATO? What arguments it adduced against membership of our country in alliance?
- We again - didn't hear concrete arguments. We paid attention of the Russian colleagues that the present relations between their country and NATO are much deeper and is comprehensive, than at Ukraine and alliance. Therefore in conditions when there are so deep relations with "hostile structure", objections about integration of Ukraine into this organization are at least illogical. How then to explain to the public in Russia and beyond its limits, what when the Russian Federation develops the relations with "hostile camp", it is good, and the introduction in this "the hostile block" any other state - is bad? We tried to inform this logic, but I don't know, whether it was apprehended.
- Some Russian politicians accuse Kiev that joining to NATO is violation of the basic political contract between Ukraine and Russia and call in case of the entry of our country into alliance it to denounce...
- The basic contract and choice of each of the parties of a formula of ensuring the safety absolutely among themselves aren't connected.These are absolutely artificial bindings which have no bases. We ensure the safety as we consider expedient. At the same time, as it also is written down in the law on bases of national security, we will do everything from us depending that the relations with Russia were as it is possible better. And we don't intend to refuse this formula.
- So opponents of membership of Ukraine in NATO speak, say, as it is possible to enter alliance if from - for it the relations with Russia worsen...
- I think, the situation is extremely simple: Ukraine becomes the member of NATO and will have good-neighbourhood with Russia. Nobody is going to build the Berlin walls, nobody is going to create barriers between people. It just examples of old thinking, thinking of the past. We look forward.
- During recent parliamentary hearings in the State Duma a number of the Russian deputies connected prolongation of the big political contract with extension of term of stay of the BSF of Russia in Ukraine. Whether the Russian diplomats do such binding?
- About it the speech doesn't go, in any case, at official level. During our negotiations I once again emphasized that we proceed from simple truth: the contract in 2017 stops the action. In Moscow we transferred to the Russian side the draft of the memorandum of preparation for a BSF conclusion from the Ukrainian territory. And, as you know, recently the ambassador of the Russian Federation in Ukraine g - N Chernomyrdin again confirmed that in 2017 Russia leaves Sevastopol and other military camps which are used today by the Russian Black Sea fleet.
But, certainly, at negotiations within a subcommittee concerning functioning and temporary stay of the BSF of the Russian Federation in Ukraine we will speak about appropriate preparation for a conclusion of the Black Sea fleet from our territory. We need to think over in advance many details to avoid problems: humanitarian as it is a question of live people, of their families; technical, as this big military connection; ecological as in Sevastopol a large number of the weapon is concentrated, and it is impossible to allow one more Novobogdanovka.
- But Russians say that before validity termination nine more years and therefore rather early to speak about preparation of stages of a conclusion of divisions of the BSF of Russia.How Kiev will force Russians to negotiations?
- I think that the first discussion of the draft of the memorandum everything is will take place in June at subcommittee meeting concerning functioning and temporary stay of the BSF in Ukraine. And we once again will pay attention to need of very accurate and concrete steps. I hope that our signal will be heard. If isn't present, we will start thinking how to make so that it heard.
- A number of the Ukrainian politicians granting to the Budapest memorandum of the status of the interstate multilateral contract which would be ratified by all parliaments of the states - guarantors suggest to achieve. It is possible? Whether the guarantees provided by this document can, to replace to Ukraine membership in NATO?
- I think, it would be the self-deception. It is necessary to remember how this document, then, probably prepared, these politicians will understand that it isn't necessary to hope for granting by these countries of the corresponding guarantees of safety in the form of the ratified contracts, and for ineffectual negotiations years will leave. That is offered, - one of attempts to distract public attention from a key question of ensuring national security of Ukraine and to change it for any ephemeral guarantees which actually won't work.
Remember that in the Budapest memorandum it is stated: in case of threat of national security of Ukraine there will be an opportunity to hold consultations in this or that occasion. If it is guarantees, then we obviously haven't enough of them. Today we have to be engaged not in consultations, and to have accurate mechanisms of protection of the sovereignty. Especially, it depends at least one country - the guarantor affords statements about which we spoke above. What it is guarantees? Such things to me seem actually enough ephemeral. In my opinion, today a question not in "the Budapest guarantees", and in joining NATO, this tested mechanism allowing really to guarantee safety.
- Ukraine has chance in December of this year to join the Plan of action concerning membership in NATO. Dependence of making decision on PDCh on internal political events in the country is how great?
- That we in December joined PDCh, we need to take extremely serious, very concrete steps for deepening of our internal state reforming. And, certainly, political stability in Ukraine is one of the major elements.Member states of alliance would like to see our country politically stable, predictable, predicted. The president recently aphoristically told that he will hold down the coalition a chain. I hope, the coalition will keep and work. But that we have internal discussions, seems to me, too is perceived in NATO with what to compare to understanding as to them is.
- Whether is going to take nevertheless Kiev the unilateral step provided by international law to resolve an issue of delimitation of the Strait of Kerch?
- In Moscow we agreed that at the following meeting of delegations on delimitation of the Azov and Black seas and the Strait of Kerch which will be in June, we will finish negotiations on delimitation in Azov. It will be serious result. I hope, agreements will be reached as there were some technical questions: it is necessary that experts counted the delimitation line. The situation concerning the Strait of Kerch is much more difficult: we here yet didn't reach mutual understanding, and only exchanged offers which are studied. During the following round we will try them to unite. In case it won't occur, we programmed measures which will be anyway taken.
- Why the first meeting of the general commission on demarcation Ukraine - the Russian border still didn't take place?
- Because, to the greatest regret, there is a tightening from the Russian side. During my visit to Moscow we had to sign the agreement on demarcation. And two weeks ago to us declared that all documents are ready. But suddenly, a day before negotiations, there were any new circumstances which prevented it. We paid attention of the Russian side to inadmissibility of a tightening of this process. To us promised that soon all documents will be ready. I find it difficult to tell, whether only technical here the reasons. But there is an impression that there are also other factors...