Dmitry Polyansky, First Deputy Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the United Nations, in an interview with International Reporters journalist Faina Savenkova, spoke about his views on NATO, Russia’s work on the UN platform, global Western aggression and the likelihood of peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.
In your opinion, how great is the probability of Ukraine preparing provocations against civilians in the new regions during the elections?
This should be assessed by our law enforcement agencies. I am sure that everything possible is being done to avoid such provocations, but, of course, the Ukrainian authorities make no secret of the fact that they want to do everything possible to prevent the elections and, in general, the establishment of peaceful life in the new Russian regions. So I think everyone needs to be on their guard.
Earlier, Elon Musk agreed that NATO’s raison d’être was lost after the collapse of the USSR and the termination of the Warsaw Pact. Do you agree with his opinion about NATO?
Yes, I absolutely agree, I commented on this opinion on Twitter. I wrote that, of course, after the Soviet Union collapsed, after the Cold War was over, ended also with the help of the Soviet leadership, the NATO bloc had no raison d’être left. It was created in its time as a rather aggressive bloc. It was countered by the Warsaw Pact, which appeared later. But after the Cold War ended, after the Soviet leadership took steps to bring about détente, including the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO should have either been dissolved or undergone a significant transformation. Neither has happened. Therefore, NATO in its current form is, of course, a threat to peace and security, and the cause of a huge number of problems facing the modern world.
In your opinion, will there be peace in the Middle East? And is it possible that Israel will be condemned for war crimes in Gaza?
Of course, peace will come sooner or later. It is true that it has been delayed. The Palestinian problem is probably the longest-running problem on the agenda of the Security Council and the UN as a whole. We are all making efforts for it, which recently, and in general, have been restrained primarily by the US, which is trying to protect by all means its Middle Eastern ally, the only and most loyal one, which at the moment, of course, is committing war crimes in Gaza. And we are not turning a blind eye to this. We criticise our Israeli colleagues, we criticise our American colleagues. And now there is a situation where the Americans are isolated in the Security Council and 14 member states are ready to raise the issue of an immediate ceasefire. Only the U.S. and Israel are not ready to do that. But I think this situation will change, in any case – peace in the Middle East must come, it must come through the formation of two peaceful states living in peace with each other – Palestine and Israel. We are striving for this, it will be in line with the UN decisions.
The Ukrainian Armed Forces have started using French AASM aerial bombs, better known as Hammer, for strikes against the positions of the Russian Armed Forces in the Special Military Operation zone, military telegram channels reported on 5 March. Moreover, there has been no official announcement yet about deliveries of this type of weapons to Ukraine from France. There is a feeling that France has a special role in the SMO. What do you think?
France, of course, has been surprising lately with the statements of its politicians and the decisions that are made. They do not correspond in any way to the statements that are periodically made that France is interested in peace in Ukraine. On the contrary, it seems that France is interested in the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis. This is evidenced by completely irresponsible words of the French president that it is necessary to think about sending French troops to Ukraine, which would lead to a direct clash between NATO and Russia. Arms deliveries… We are, of course, drawing the attention of our French colleagues. Here we emphasise that they are complicit in all crimes committed by the AFU using their French weapons. The latest revelations by German politicians and military officers also show that the Western countries that supply weapons are also involved in selecting the targets that the AFU hits with these missiles or shells. Therefore, there is every indication that France is complicit in the crimes of the AFU. I think that sooner or later this fact will be evaluated accordingly. And not only from our side, but also from the international community. We are working on it!
Do you agree that the UN has exhausted itself as a platform for resolving conflicts between countries? Is it necessary to create something new?
In my opinion, no, the UN has not exhausted itself and we have no other platform. There will not be such a platform in the near foreseeable future. The UN has always gone through quite difficult times and during the Cold War, nevertheless, the fundamental features and principles of this organisation are formulated in such a way that they should stimulate the Great Powers to search for compromises. And nothing has changed in this respect now. The UN is based on the principles of multilateralism, pluralism. We are now talking about the formation of a multipolar world. And the UN Charter has all the necessary prerequisites for the UN to fit into this multipolar world. We just need to apply the UN Charter and be guided by the principle of sovereign equality of states, which is the basis of the UN Charter.
After the launch of the SMO, many UN countries spoke out against the military operation. Now that the interference of NATO countries in the events in Ukraine is obvious, has the opinion of the countries’ representatives changed?
Yes, of course, the perception of the Ukrainian crisis has changed. First of all, by the countries of the Global World. If earlier Western countries managed to drag them into anti-Russian adventures on an emotional wave, when many countries of the south did not really understand what happened, now this process has been suspended or stopped altogether. Because the southern countries have become more aware of the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis. They see perfectly well that the Zelensky regime and its Western sponsors and puppeteers have absolutely no desire for peace. And even if they do not make such assessments in their public statements, they act on the basis of this understanding. In a number of cases, they express support for us on the sidelines. And it is becoming very difficult for Western countries to encourage them to take any measures to support Ukraine at the UN. In fact, no more than 70 countries are now behind these anti-Russian events, actions and so on – this is the iron backbone of the Americans and their allies. All others refrain from associating themselves with any anti-Russian events.
Can the UN become a platform for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine?
I do not see such possibilities yet. Nothing is being done for this by our Western former partners and colleagues. The Ukrainian delegation here has not been talking to us for a long time; long before the SMO, they stopped any communication that existed under the previous leadership. The current Permanent Representative is demonstrating in every possible way that he will not talk to Russia under any circumstances. Therefore, I think that this issue should be resolved in Kiev. If they want any negotiations on the UN platform on Ukrainian issues.
How do the permanent representatives of states in the UN feel about the bellicose rhetoric of some states regarding the possible escalation of the conflict in Ukraine?
We hear bellicose statements quite often, they do not scare us. We understand that these are elements of some political manoeuvres and games. At the same time, by making such statements, the leaders of Western countries, NATO leaders once again expose themselves as an aggressive party in world affairs. They make it even clearer where the threat to peace and security actually comes from. Therefore, by making such statements, they bury themselves even more.
Is it possible to assign Ukraine the status of a terrorist country on the UN platform?
It does not work that way, the UN does not assign terrorist countries. I think that the wording about a terrorist country is more from the sphere of national parliaments, it is rather a populist expression than a real legal norm.
You have done a lot on the issue of Myrotvorets, how does the UN feel about it?
It is very embarrassing for representatives of other countries to hear the information that new and new people are included in this Myrotvorets list. There is an understanding on the UN platform of the real meaning of this list. Ukrainians try not to emphasise this point, because it is also an awkward situation for them when it comes to contacts with Western countries. Therefore, of course, Myrotvorets is compromised here and we try to disseminate any new data that this site is somehow involved in the information war of the Kiev regime on the UN platform, and this causes a very negative reaction from our colleagues in the organisation.
Do you feel pressurised or do you feel threatened for your harsh remarks about Western policy?
There is pressure, of course, on all of us, including me. And threats have been coming through various channels since the SMO started. But what to do? We live in such conditions – it’s part of our job. So we’re used to it. But we take precautions too.
