– Russia is preparing to start World War 3. This is something that Dmitry Medvedev has repeatedly alluded to, and it's also been emphasized by Western politicians on numerous occasions. What would be the thing that could divert Vladimir Putin from this intention?
– I can only agree with you that the possibility of a third world war with Russia is constantly announced by politicians in the West, and they do it in an extremely irresponsible manner, seemingly having lost even a basic sense of self-preservation. Russia is forced to react to such comments, and then the Western media makes a sensation out of it. Not so long ago, statements were made at the level of leadership - I emphasize: not politicians or experts, but at the level of the official leadership of the United States and NATO - that if Russia wins in Ukraine now, it will be the turn of the bloc's countries. The President of Russia had to respond to these insinuations once again during a meeting at the Russian Defense Ministry in December 2023. Нe said that Russia is not going to go to war with Europe, and we have never needed NATO countries - and we do not need them now, and we will not need them in the future. It is clear that the Americans with such statements want to further distance Europe from Russia, and on the other hand - to intimidate the European public in order to get money to finance arms supplies to Ukraine and thus to delay the failed operation to inflict a "strategic defeat" on Russia there. By the way, these words - "inflicting a strategic defeat on Russia" are a quote from official US and NATO documents. Compare them with the statement of the President of Russia, and everything will become clear to you.
– There is a recurring question that weighs heavily on the Western world: how do we know that Russia does not wish to expand any further?
– President Putin's words above are the most complete and eloquent answer to your question. I can only add that the Western public's concern about Russia's alleged territorial claims is being artificially fueled in order to create an image of Russia as the enemy.
– It's all very good and important that you have outlined all this, but is there any guarantee? After all, no one thought in 2022 that the solution to a conflict would be for Russia to invade Ukraine.
– In international relations, guarantees must be mutual. I would like to remind you that in December 2021 Russia made a proposal to NATO countries to conclude a legally binding agreement on mutual security guarantees, but our initiative was arrogantly rejected. I should add that this was preceded by many years of attempts by our diplomacy to persuade our Western colleagues to agree to translate into the language of legal documents the principle of common and indivisible security on the European continent, which is enshrined in the political declarations of the heads of state at the OSCE summits in 1999 in Istanbul and in 2010 in Astana. So, if you need guarantees, go to Washington and NATO, in Brussels. For our part, we have always been open to a serious conversation on these topics. As far as I understand, we are open even now, but on the condition of a preliminary and full-fledged rejection of the West's course aimed at undermining our security. I am sure that if the Western countries, led by the United States, had listened to Russia's opinion at the end of 2021, Europe would not be in the situation that it’s in now.
– 2023 was a turbulent year. Do you think that the current pro-war atmosphere is a power struggle between the United States and Russia or a larger ideological struggle between the West and the East?
– Indeed, this past year behind us was very unpredictable and difficult. And this is not about the conflict in Ukraine at all, as that country is being exploited by the West, as a tool in the fight against Russia. From the outset, the West has destined Ukraine to an unenviable fate, to be an instrument of anti-Russian policy, a source of increasing military threats against Russia and – unfortunately - an effective state mechanism for suppressing everything that is Russian in Ukraine, be it the language, the culture, the traditions or even religion. All this did not start yesterday, it is historical. For now, the West has no intention of abandoning its anti-Russia policies, making it premature to discuss any constructive agenda. The confrontation is escalating, and the serious signs of any desire to reset relations with Russia are lacking. Nevertheless, sooner or later, the Western countries will have to embark on an equal peer-to-peer discourse regarding our common future, and the sooner this happens, the better. Eventually, they must acknowledge Russia's legitimate interests and abandon their policy of threats and intimidation. In a broader sense, humanity is at a crossroads today, as it has been many times before. It is in our shared interest to prevent the outbreak of a serious conflict and the ultimate collapse of international cooperation mechanism established by our predecessors’ generations. Achieving this is still possible by striking a fair and equitable balance between the interests of all parties, but not at a price of unilateral concessions to the West. However, this requires a willingness to compromise in planning our joint future for the common good, rejecting diktats, coercion and the division of the world into "democracies" and "autocracies."
– Are you worried that the entire world is arming itself?
– I don't know how applicable the well-known Latin saying is: "If you want peace, prepare for war." It is indeed disconcerting to witness the arms build-up and the influx of weapons into neighboring Ukraine. After all, the Special Military Operation was, in part, forced by security threats originating from there. Russia views its security as a top priority, and it will continue to do so.
– There have been repeated statements that Russia has been lured into the Russia-Ukraine war. Would Russia's secret services, or the country’s military leadership be that bad?
– I can reassure you that there’s nothing wrong with these services. They saw and understood everything perfectly well. Perhaps we had naïve ideas about the true motives behind the behavior of the collective West led by Washington with regard to our country. President Putin frankly admitted this in one of his recent interviews. In the early 2000s, we thought that everyone around us understood that Russia had become a different country, that ideological confrontation no longer existed, and therefore there was no basis for confrontation, and that the support that the West gave to separatism and terrorism on Russian territory at that time was attributed by our President to "inertia of thinking and actions: they got used to fighting the Soviet Union and continue to do so”. But the reality turned out to be that after the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the West's goal was to "finish Russia's collapse", according to the ideas of Zbigniew Brzezinski, to divide it into several parts and subordinate them separately to its influence, so that they could not defend their interests as the united Russian state does. For this purpose Ukraine was consistently turned into an instrument of containment of Russia, pumped full of weapons and lured into NATO, creating very serious threats to Russia's security directly on our borders: not 10 thousand miles away (Americans once said that Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia are a threat to US interests and security), not across the ocean, but right on Russia's borders, and on the lands that were laid out, developed and settled by Russians over several centuries, and whose descendants now live there. But even seeing and realizing all this, Russia went to the conclusion of the Minsk Agreements in the hope of ending the internal conflict that began in Ukraine in 2014 and ensuring the rights of the Russian population of Donbass region. However, in this case, the West has again shown its lack of commitment. The Minsk agreements were never implemented by Ukraine, and then it turned out that both Germany and France did not even try to facilitate their implementation. Former President Hollande and former Chancellor Merkel publicly admitted that they signed these agreements only to buy time and prepare Ukraine for war.
– To date, Russia has not presented any evidence of why it attacked Ukraine. Or, more specifically, no one knows whether what they'd presented is real. Does Russia have any proof that would remove all doubt, and if so, why has it not been presented so far, as this could have prevented the deaths of more than a million soldiers on the front line?
– I have already mentioned the direct threat to Russia's security that came from Ukraine. Let me also remind you that the second main reason is an unconstitutional bloody coup d'état that took place in 2014, in Kiev. Its leaders burned some 50 people alive in Odessa, in the House of Trade Unions, just because many refused to accept the results achieved in Kiev. They declared war against their own people and the territories that did not fall in line with the new government - against Crimea, which held a referendum and voted to join Russia, and Donbass. They waged aggression against the East of the country, populated mostly by ethnic Russians. First the Poroshenko regime and then the Zelensky regime declared them "subhumans" to be exterminated. Laws were passed to ban Russian education and media; schism was provoked in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. They publicly declared that all Russians would be exterminated physically or legislatively. Therefore, the Special Military Operation was launched to put an end to Kiev's war against Russians in Donbass and, as I already mentioned, to eliminate threats to Russia's security coming from the territory of Ukraine. And these goals are being be achieved. Unfortunately, your question is constructed in such a way that any my answer, containing even a hundred facts, will seem unconvincing if I do not provide concrete "proof". Perhaps you wanted to hear something like the vial of powder in Colin Powell's hands, which he shook at the UN Security Council meeting to justify the need for war against Iraq? Or something like the bombing of Kosice in 1941, which was used as an excuse to drag Hungary into the war with the Soviet Union. Both, as it turned out later, were fabrications and well-thought-out provocations. Russia does not engage in such matters. The numerous arguments that the Russian authorities have repeatedly presented are quite sufficient and convincing enough.
– Is the partitioning of Russia made impossible by its vast size, or abundant resources? And what path will Russia choose: will it try to assert itself, or attempt to maintain its already existing relations with the West?
– The territory of the Soviet Union was once the territory of the Russian Empire and, as we can see, it has disintegrated, so Brzezinski’s plan worked. This also happened to other countries. Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic state and it fell apart, but I could also mention Hungary, which was a strong and proud power until it was torn apart by the Trianon Treaty. In each case, the pattern was the same - the weakening and dismantling of unified, independent states. Russia is doing quite well. Its economic growth exceeds 3.5 percent of GDP, it has low public debt, rising real wages and low unemployment, and all this amidst the unprecedented international sanctions.
– Are these sanctions effective?
– They are effective in destroying our relations with the West, with the United States, Europe, Canada, or Japan. But that's why we had to reorganize our economy, and we did. Now our biggest trading partner is China, and trading with India is also on the rise, it is becoming one of the biggest buyers of Russian oil. As a result of the sanctions, advanced industries, such as civilian aircraft manufacturing, have strengthened. There were no major developments in this sector around the turn of the millennium, but today we manufacture as many as two aircraft that rely solely on Russian technology and components. The Suhoj Superjet is already flying, the other MC-21 is in test mode. We are successful, and of course we could be even more successful if the West had not refused to cooperate with us.
– Can you buy Coca-Cola in today’s Russia?
– I think so, although I'm not a big fan, so I don't know. I'd rather stay with Russian beer. But this feud is not about Coke. I could mention the banking system, from which Russia has been excluded, as all the international systems are inaccessible to us: no Visa, or Mastercard. So we created our own system, MIR, which has expanded beyond Russia and is used by other countries, such as most of the former Soviet republics and Iran. A financial messaging system similar to SWIFT was launched in Russia in 2023. Almost 95 percent of our trade with China is now in national currencies. Last year, our trade volume was worth two hundred billion in dollars terms. Oil trade is not denominated in dollars exclusively any more: e.g. India also pays for the oil in rupees.
– Hungary does not agree with the sanctions policy, nor with the war. We would rather have peace as soon as possible. Where is Hungary's role in Russia's perspective? Is it a friend, an enemy, a partner? An unfriendly country?
– I would not like to attach any labels to Hungary. We have a very good, pragmatic relationship. Of course, there are some issues on which we disagree, but we respect each other's positions. And that is very important. This is why our leaders can meet regularly and discuss very challenging issues. Obviously, our economic ties are seriously affected by the sanctions, which Hungary also upholds. We see that the Hungarian side is doing everything that is possible in the face of punitive measures to maintain adequate relations. We also strive to maintain our cultural relations. We are not trying to convince each other that our views are the only viable option. However, the sanctions are slowly but surely encroaching on our ties.
– In assessing our relations, it is important to note that Prime Minister Orban and President Putin have had several meetings.
– I think these meetings indicate a mutual desire to sustain the relationship, even despite the challenges. Again, they do not agree on everything, but they respect each other's positions. After their meeting during the One Road, One Belt summit in China, our President said that he disagreed with accusations that Prime Minister Viktor Orban was harboring some pro-Russian sentiment. He explained further that “the Prime Minister was not targeted for having differing views from European leaders, but for having the courage to stand up for the interests of his people. Many of today's European politicians lack this type of courage, and they are envious of him, leading to these attacks." I think Viktor Orban knows and understands Russia well, and this creates an opportunity to maintain a pragmatic relationship.
– Many claim that Vladimir Putin's victory is a foregone conclusion. Is that really the case? And if he is re-elected as the president of the Russian Federation, what's the guarantee that his health will allow for it? After all, according to Western intelligence reports, he has at least three terminal illnesses.
– President Putin is currently the most popular politician in Russia. It is really true. According to various polls, the rating of his support by the population is consistently within the range of 70-80 percent. In the current difficult time of challenges and threats facing our country, Russian voters see in him a politician who unites our diverse, multinational population for the sake of protecting the country's sovereignty and ensuring its security, developing its economy and social sphere. Many people associate his name with real achievements in strengthening political stability and improving the well-being of citizens. The overwhelming majority of Russians understand that under his leadership Russia successfully overcame many problems, be it the financial crisis or international sanctions, and has come a long way from being a state that few people reckoned with in the 1990s to its newfound status as one of the most influential centers of global development, ensuring the balance of power in the international arena. As far as the President's health is concerned, there is nothing wrong with it. Presidential Press Secretary Peskov has had to confirm this on more than one occasion in connection with the numerous newspaper reports that are being circulated in the Ukrainian and Western media. So please, do not assist in spreading this hoax. On my own behalf, I should add that I believe that such questions are inappropriate and certainly not in the right place. Moreover, I am surprised that your interest in this part is focused on Russian elections only. I closely follow the publications in your newspaper and have not met similar questions in it, for example, regarding the health of candidates in the US election race. The only reasonable explanation for this could be that, in the case of US elections, you've got it all figured out.
– What's the guarantee that Russia will hold democratic elections? Will there be foreign observers? Will there be journalists from the West? Is it possible, for instance, for any Hungarian editorial staff to make on-site inquiries?
– The Russian presidential election will take place over three days, from March 15 to 17, and it is in the interest of the entire Russian society that the race is held in the most open and organized manner possible, so that the maximum number of Russians participate. The breadth of coverage of voters, of whom there are more than 112 million in Russia according to the latest stats, is an indispensable condition for the democratic nature of the expression of the will of the people. According to the experience of previous years, the turnout at presidential elections in our country has been traditionally high. The Central Election Commission is doing everything possible to ensure that this time again every citizen of Russia is able to express his or her opinion. Naturally, such an opportunity will also be provided to Russian citizens who are in Hungary. Information about it will be placed on the website and in social networks of the Embassy. Besides, the elections will be held on a competitive basis. Four candidates were registered by the Central Election Commission. Of course, the elections will also be properly monitored. The Election Commission has sent invitations to observers from 95 countries and expects the participation of 500 to 1,000 foreign observers, some of whom will come as part of delegations of international organizations. They will be guaranteed the most open and favorable conditions for observation. In particular, they will be able to travel to the regions they deem necessary. We expect that foreign parliamentarians, foreign experts and, of course, journalists, not only from the West, but also from the South and the East, will come to observe the elections. The interest in our elections is enormous, as they are very important indeed. Representatives of foreign media who have received accreditation from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs are considered accredited. If your editorial colleagues have an interest in working on-site at the elections, let them apply for accreditation to our Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The scheme is very simple and clear.
– Our editorial office was one of those that reacted quite sensitively to the painful Russian interpretation of the events of 1956, with immediate effect. If memory serves, our question at the time went somewhat like this: why was it necessary to humiliate Hungary with such an insult? So, what actually happened? How did the 1956 Revolution become depicted as a Nazi uprising in Russian textbooks?
– It is no secret that in the joint history of our two peoples there are complex issues that require constant attention and a balanced attitude. They did not arise yesterday and cannot be solved overnight. What is important in such matters is how to approach these problems. In my view, that approach should include, at a minimum, the following elements. Firstly, it is impossible to judge the events of the past from the perspective of today, to forget about the historical context that existed at that time, and therefore it is very important to have a professional conversation with the participation of historical scholars, as well as people who witnessed those events. Secondly, there is a need for political will to recognize that certain decisions were a mistake and move forward in the development of relations between the countries. And finally, I’d like to emphasize that it’s extremely short-sighted to exploit the tragic events of the past in order to extract opportunistic political dividends in the current realities. It is particularly unfortunate when third parties do this. The events of 1956 certainly belong to such complex issues of our joint history, which require a delicate and thoughtful attitude. I would like to assure you that modern Russia respects the historical memory of the Hungarian people and always endeavors to follow exactly the approaches outlined above. Back in November 1992, President Yeltsin, during his visit to Budapest, spoke publicly on this issue. At that time, he symbolically handed over to the Hungarian side archive documents on the events of those years and recognized the actions of the Soviet leadership as a mistake. Later, in 2006, President Putin noted in Budapest that despite all the problems of the past, which undoubtedly include 1956, it is necessary to think about the future and develop our bilateral co-operation. Last year, during the plenary session of the Eastern Economic Forum, President Putin reiterated that Russia had long recognized this part of the Soviet Union's policy as a mistake, and stressed that "you cannot do anything in the sphere of foreign policy that is in clear contradiction with the interests of other nations". Later in October, he reiterated what he had said earlier, noting the existence of serious internal protest in Hungary at the time, but also pointing to the role of Western countries in fueling the problems Hungarian society was facing. Thus, in political terms, we consider this topic closed. As for assessing the 1956 uprising in a historical context, there is an appropriate bilateral commission for this purpose. Its activities could be resumed if necessary. Among other things, such a professional and responsible conversation would make it possible to rule out the possibility of opportunistic rewriting of history, expunging inconvenient facts from it, and silencing the role of its active participants. Of course, it is impossible to avoid the topic of the new Russian history textbook with regard to its coverage of the Hungarian events of 1956. I can state unequivocally that the authors of the textbook did not and do not intend to offend Hungary. Unfortunately, the news about the textbook came to the Hungarian media from a biased news outlet and in a deliberately distorted form, which is probably why it caused a reaction that it did not deserve. However, according to the information currently available to the embassy, the author's team has taken into account the debate that its content has provoked in Hungarian society and plans to make some adjustments to the text.
By the way, the Russian Embassy school is holding a drawing competition dedicated to Diplomatic Worker's Day, which is celebrated in our country on February 10th. You must agree that if the aim of the educational process was to create a negative image of Hungary, it is unlikely that the children would have submitted works of this kind to the competition.
The interview was conducted before the death of Alexei Navalny.
Cover photo: Yevgeny Arnoldovich Stanislavov, the Russian Federation's Ambassador to Budapest (Photo: Istvan Mirko)
