- Статьи
- World
- "The degradation of the OSCE in all dimensions of security is taking on catastrophic proportions"
"The degradation of the OSCE in all dimensions of security is taking on catastrophic proportions"
The OSCE will not be able to contribute to the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis and become a platform for peaceful negotiations on this topic, Russian permanent representative to the organization Aleksandr Lukashevich told Izvestiya. Nevertheless, despite the general degradation of the OSCE institution and difficulties in communicating our country's position to the West, Moscow sees it important to continue its membership: there have been no instructions from the country's leadership to freeze or suspend Russian participation. As for the Maltese Chairmanship in 2024, the State has succeeded in partially taking our position into account. On the results of the year in the OSCE, difficulties in working with partners and problems of the organization - in an exclusive interview with Alexander Lukashevich to Izvestia.
"It is very difficult to speak about the relevance of the current OSCE"
- Last year, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that everything that was created within the OSCE - in all three areas of security - had completely degraded. Has the work of the OSCE become more constructive under the Maltese Chairmanship? What is your overall assessment of the year under the Maltese Chairmanship?
- At the OSCE Ministerial Council in Malta, Sergey Lavrov developed his theses, which were clearly communicated last year. Indeed, the degradation in all dimensions of security is taking on catastrophic proportions. The Organization, by virtue of the will of the Chairmanships-in-Office, is engaged in non-consensual developments. And the main thing is the Ukrainian topic, which did not and could not receive consensus approval, which is the most important condition for the work of any Chairmanship.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at a news conference on the margins of the 31st Council of Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
In the form in which the Ukrainian topic has been presented in the OSCE since 2014-2015, it has not received general approval. For the last two years, the topic has been spinning against the Russian Federation, and the Russophobic attitude of the Western majority shows that it is absolutely impossible to agree on this topic, especially given the dynamics of the SWO.
The Maltese Chairmanship is slightly different in a positive way from the previous ones. The Maltese have tried to partially take into account the position of the Russian side and other participating States that do not go along with anti-Russian propaganda. They managed to build a minimal framework of interaction, which made it possible to solve some functional problems efficiently at the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, second left, and Slovak Foreign and European Affairs Minister Juraj Blanar, right, meet on the margins of the 31st Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.
Malta, as a member of the EU, was more inclined to take into account the opinion of its patrons than to be guided by the opinion of all participating States. But in the working mode, our Permanent Mission interacted well with our Maltese colleagues. The Maltese Chairmanship has distinguished itself by its desire to find common ground.
- To what extent is this structure necessary or useful for Russia?
- This is a big question, but so far, apparently, the Russian leadership needs our efforts. This is very clearly stated in the foreign policy concept, which was approved by presidential decree in March 2023.
The task is to form a new model of coexistence with European states, which will ensure the safe, sovereign and progressive development of Russia, its allies and partners, and lasting peace in the European part of Eurasia, including taking into account the potential of multilateral formats, including the OSCE. Another thing is the state in which we find this organization almost 50 years after its creation.
At one time it was a kind of blue dream of the founding fathers of the Helsinki Final Act - to build a Europe without wars, without confrontation, so that people cooperate, visit each other, solve problems peacefully, respect each other's interests, culture, ethnic identity and so on. All of this went into the Helsinki Final Act. As events unfolded, this beautiful dream or, one could say, beauty turned into its antipode, into a monster - this is absolutely nothing like what generations, I emphasize, generations of politicians and diplomats worked for in order to develop a matrix or model of pan-European security that would extend from the Euro-Atlantic to Eurasia.
Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Leaders of participating States sign the final act - the Helsinki Accords
It is very difficult to talk about the relevance of the current OSCE. The question remains open. We shall see as events unfold. There will be a very difficult period ahead under the Finnish Chairmanship in 2025.
Based on the results of 2024, we conclude that there is still a small "window" for rethinking by those who are thinking of turning the OSCE into another instrument for fighting Russia. This cannot happen in principle, because the nature of the OSCE gives us the opportunity to convey our concerns about this situation and to influence decisions, since consensus remains at the heart of our organization and this is essentially a guarantee of its existence in the future. The year 2025 will in many ways be decisive for the future prospects of this format.
- What are the main difficulties Russia is experiencing in its work with its OSCE partners? Given that all decisions within the organization must be taken by consensus, has this consensus become more difficult to achieve as the conflict in Ukraine continues? Does Russia have to make any concessions?
- We have never made concessions and we are not making any. It is not in our nature. We try to achieve as much as possible the goals set by the country's leadership.
Every year, especially after the start of the SWO, it becomes much more difficult to reach our opponents and to convey to them the true motives behind the decisions taken by the Russian leadership in the context of Ukraine, and this also affects the opportunities for interaction with these opponents in Vienna and within the framework of OSCE events.
Personal impression: when I was sitting in the hall at the plenary session behind the Minister, I felt that I was surrounded by some representatives of artificial intelligence who have been given the code "everything is Russia's fault", and when they encounter opposition to this thesis, we get no answers.
Sergey Lavrov asked a number of specific questions: why did the OSCE leadership not react to the Nord Streams or to the gross violations of human rights in Ukraine? They have not been answered, and the main value of diplomacy is dialog, even in a confrontational environment. Nevertheless, we will try to make some more moves to restore at least some elements of normality in the dialog.
Leakage at the Nord Stream pipeline
- You have described your observations during the OSCE plenary session. In your opinion, was our Minister heard or did his words pass by the diplomats present at the meeting?
- The conjuncture allowed Sergei Lavrov to speak third. Thanks to certain mechanisms and with the support of our partners, we manage to get to the top of the list of speakers and it makes sense to set the tone for ministerial meetings.
He was listened to and listened to very attentively - both at the plenary session and at the working lunch. Many people told me afterwards that they listened and took notes.
But what our opponents said is hard to take as truth. It is a crude, false anti-Russian line that is very difficult to perceive objectively. The language used by some of the representatives was inappropriate, it does not even come close to diplomatic etiquette - like swearing in the street. This whole community is a "Euro-Atlantic mafia group" that you have to deal with and explain on your fingers that they are wrong.
"The OSCE has no right to work in the context of further steps to resolve the Ukrainian crisis"
- Is it possible to involve the OSCE mission in the context of resolving the conflict in Ukraine and can the organization become a platform for peace talks? Do you see a possible return of the OSCE peace mission to Ukraine?
- I saw how the OSCE shamefully failed in Ukraine in 2015 and how it was unable to prevent the conflict situation in that territory from developing. It had a frankly outstanding chance to stop the bloodshed and make the OSCE the platform for reaching agreements and the implementation of the Minsk agreements, of which it would have been the guarantor.
But, having deployed a special monitoring mission, it behaved differently, essentially allowing a violent confrontation between Kyiv and Donbas. This was pandering to the Kyiv regime in order to deal with unwanted regions and prepare the ground for aggressive actions against the Russian Federation. The OSCE has no right to work in the context of further steps to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, it is incompetent, it is an instrument of the Western community, which does not accept peaceful methods of dispute settlement.
Meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council in Belgrade, 2015
Nowhere in the post-Soviet space, in the Balkans or anywhere else - the OSCE has not shown its ability to prevent crisis events.
- Does Russia feel the influence of the United States on the work of the OSCE?
- There is certainly influence, and a lot of it, given that Washington is pursuing such an aggressive anti-Russian line and many people are adjusting to it. And we must recognize this fact.
The achievements of Helsinki are first and foremost compromise agreements between the Russians and the Americans. Now we look at the role and importance of the OSCE in the geopolitical framework differently - for them it is nothing more than a tool, for us it is an attempt to preserve some channel of communication in the Euro-Atlantic.
It is difficult for me to say yet how it will be under the new administration, but based on past experience, we came out of crisis situations largely thanks to interaction with the Americans.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken meeting before the Foreign Ministers' Council meeting
So far, the acting [U.S. deputy U.S. ambassador] is working here - a talking propaganda head. We'll see if there will be some reasonably clear representative of the new administration, with whom we could at least discuss some things professionally and work out joint decisions.
- Finland will take over the OSCE Chairmanship next year. What does Russia expect from the Helsinki Chairmanship?
- We do not expect anything good, given that Finland is no longer the same Finland to which we gave permission to chair this organization in 2021.
Finnish representatives gave out wrong signals at the plenary session, which was open to the press. According to them, supposedly all ministers or the vast majority sent a signal that they will continue to support Ukraine, that the OSCE needs resources. You see, if I were sitting there examining a Finnish minister, I would say: "Kol, go get ready."
That is why I assume that further work with this chairmanship is unpredictable, as well as the prospects for restoring some normality in this organization, but the struggle is always tough but interesting.
Former Finnish President Sauli Niinistö at a plenary session of the European Parliament
That said, the next Ministerial Council will be held not in Helsinki, but in Vienna. In the jubilee year for this organization, it will be interesting to see whether this will be the end of the road or whether we will jointly try to pave additional opportunities to preserve the dialogue in this format.
- Do you see a possible scenario for freezing Russia's membership of the OSCE? Is a complete reorientation of Russia to the East in security issues possible? And could the SCO or other organizations become a substitute for the OSCE for Russia?
- I cannot tell you about the freeze - so far there have been no such instructions from our country's leadership.
Yes, we have suspended work in the Parliamentary Assembly because there is no consensus there, there is an intolerant attitude towards our parliamentarians. Nevertheless, this is not a freeze, but a suspension until the situation returns to a more normal dialog.
As for replacing the OSCE, as Sergei Lavrov said, we are working on the prospect of creating a Eurasian security platform. We are working on other platforms - the SCO, the CIS, the CSTO - all of these remain part of our collective efforts to build a completely different model, different from the OSCE, acceptable to all who respect each other's interests and work on the basis of sovereign equality and in the interests of the security of all - these are the principles that should have guided the OSCE. But anti-Russianism has clouded the judgment of all these Western politicians.
