"Our presence in the OSCE is like a bone in the throat for many"
The permanent representatives of the EU countries are discussing on the sidelines of the OSCE the possibilities for seeking a dialogue with Russia, Dmitry Polyansky, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the organization, told Izvestia. The diplomat said that he is in contact with most of the permanent representatives of the EU countries. At the same time, even informal conversations are not continued due to the EU's common official position against Russia. The EU and NATO countries are escalating by allowing the passage of Ukrainian drones to strike Russia. Moscow warns that such steps are inexorably bringing the alliance closer to a direct clash with the Russian Federation, the diplomat noted. About the OSCE crisis and Russia's motivation to remain a member of the organization — in Dmitry Polyansky's exclusive interview with Izvestia.
"Such steps bring NATO closer to a direct clash with Russia"
— On May 27, the Drone Summit Defense Innovation Summit was held in Latvia. Due to the fact that Ukrainian drones are quietly flying through the Baltic States, can we say that the authorities of these countries deliberately took this step — to allow drones from Ukraine to strike at Russia? What is the purpose of such actions?
— The purpose of such actions, apparently, is to test the degree of our patience, how much we are willing to restrain ourselves. In fact, when we accuse these countries of taking such measures, they categorically deny it.
The first time we raised this issue in the OSCE was as soon as reports appeared after the strikes on Ust-Luga. Western countries had a real tantrum: they say, no, "in no case should you assume that."
Then the algorithm changed a bit. In recent meetings, the focus has shifted to the fact that Russia is "threatening" NATO members and making unsubstantiated accusations, including flights through the territory of the [Baltic States], preparations for a drone strike from Latvia, as well as the deployment of drone production. They categorically deny this, but the facts are completely against them.
And of course, we warn them that such steps are inexorably bringing NATO closer to a direct clash with Russia, when any slightest incident can trigger a spiral of escalation that simply cannot be stopped.
— Is it fair to say that they are even trying to provoke a conflict?
— I think they are not trying to provoke a conflict, because they themselves say they are not ready for it. They set themselves the task of preparing for this conflict in the horizon of three to five, ideally seven years. Therefore, they are now simply testing the limits of our flexibility and what we are willing to tolerate.
Probably, at some level, when they feel that they can't go any further, they will try to stop. But it is very difficult to do this, because they are now very close to direct participation in military operations. And naturally, if, for example, the production of drones is located there, we have every reason to strike at them.
If it's about allowing drones through the airspace, then I think our military knows exactly what to do in such cases. And the problem is that Western countries often interpret our patience and humanity as a sign of weakness. And they're doing it for absolutely nothing.
— On May 26, a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council was held. The Western media practically did not cover the topic of the recent Ukrainian Armed Forces strike on Starobilsk in any way. How did the representatives of Western countries in the OSCE comment on the terrorist attack?
— They pretended that he just wasn't there. They didn't say anything about it at all. It looked, of course, terrible, scary and blasphemous. We talked about this in our speech, provided facts and evidence. The colleagues were clearly uncomfortable listening. It was like a theater. They apparently agreed that they would not say anything about it. Even the Ukrainians didn't say anything.
"They have to listen to Russia on the OSCE platform"
— Russia criticizes the OSCE, regularly stating that the organization has discredited itself. Is Russia considering withdrawing from the OSCE?
— The issue of withdrawal is not being considered at this stage. In any case, I have no instructions or instructions in this regard. The OSCE is certainly not an organization where we feel comfortable and relaxed, because we are surrounded by NATO and EU countries, which, as the May 27 meeting showed, "are blowing the same anti-Russian tune," and so far there is no end in sight.
Parliamentary Deputy Minister of Defense of the United Kingdom (Minister for the Armed Forces) Alistair Karns, Minister of Defense of the Netherlands Dylan Eshilgoz-Zegerius, Acting Prime Minister of Latvia and Minister of Defense Evika Silina and Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine David Aloyan attend the international summit on unmanned aerial vehicles in Riga, Latvia, May 27, 2026
There is currently no dialogue on security issues at the OSCE site. I tell them this absolutely directly. I am saying that this organization should have launched such a dialogue, but everything depends on the bloc discipline, the common position of the EU and NATO. There is no dialogue, and it is unclear when it will be. I believe that it will be, but it is still difficult to say when and on what terms.
However, the OSCE is one of the few international platforms where Russia is forced to listen. Our position is being recorded and brought to the capitals. We don't have another such platform where we talk to NATO members and Europeans right now.
Plus, the cornerstone of the OSCE is the principle of consensus. In other words, no meaningful decision can be made without the consent of everyone, including Russia. This greatly restrains their impulses. It really pisses them off, it makes them angry, but they can't do anything about it. And of course, it is better to interfere with such attempts from the inside than to stand aside somewhere.
Our presence in the OSCE is, of course, like a bone in the throat for many. They would probably love to have another anti-Russian fight, but we don't let them do that.
— Does the OSCE have a future?
— So far, the future of this organization is very vague. I would say that she is on artificial respiration and is practically in a coma. Under certain circumstances, it may have prospects if there really is any dialogue on European security issues. And we are already talking about the need to discuss Eurasian security in a broader perspective. And the OSCE, under certain conditions, can become a part of this discussion. But that's still a long way off.
— Can countries for which we are like a bone in their throat deprive us of the right to vote?
- no. No one can kick us out of the organization. This should also be a consensus decision. And this is precisely the strength of our position. They would love to do this, of course, they would monopolize the OSCE brand, implement some projects solely in their own interests, but we do not allow them to do this, and they do not have the mechanisms to force us to do this.
The organization should be perceived as a front, a trench, where the battles in which we participate take place. And they will learn about these battles in European capitals. Plus, there are, of course, backstage areas. On the sidelines, I have certain contacts with those countries that do not have any bilateral conversations with us. They don't even want to start them.
We can still exchange something on the OSCE platform, but the European Union discipline and NATO bloc solidarity are in the way. They can't step out of it and really start some kind of substantive, practical dialogue about how we can get out of this difficult situation and bring our relations with Europe onto some more predictable straight line rather than a curve.
"I communicate with the permanent representatives of the European Union one way or another"
— Are individual representatives of the EU countries holding discussions on finding a compromise with Russia at the OSCE site, bypassing the official hard line of Brussels?
— It hasn't come to that yet. As I said, I have contacts with many permanent representatives. We can informally cross paths somewhere. Sometimes even hold a separate meeting, but it's not public. I would say that I communicate with about two thirds of the EU permanent representatives in one way or another.
But for now, it all boils down to the statement that the situation is unsatisfactory, this should not happen, and the statement that it is necessary to engage in dialogue in some way. And then it all comes down to the fact that they cannot circumvent the EU's position and openly say that until the military operations in Ukraine are stopped, it is difficult for them to imagine that their channels will be officially activated.
But on the other hand, they ask questions about some aspects of our position. We provide clarifications. They get to the capitals one way or another. Therefore, we can say that we have some kind of informal, behind-the-scenes dialogue and information exchange with individual Western permanent representatives. I will not mention any names, because these people could probably get into trouble if this information gets out, since Brussels has not given any sanction for such contacts.
— Earlier there were talks about moving the headquarters of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) from Poland. Is there any solution in this regard?
— There is no such solution, and here the principle of consensus plays the other way. There is an understanding that this is taking place in Warsaw, and the Poles are holding on to it. And despite the fact that they behave in the most inappropriate way from the point of view of the host state — they do not give visas to our participants, they discriminate against them. But in order to move the annual conference on the human dimension of the ODIHR from Warsaw, a consensus decision is needed, which does not exist.
But on the other hand, as far as I understand, this conference has not been an OSCE event for a couple of years now, because we have not agreed to hold it. It is being implemented as a kind of presidential event. That is, only those who want to be there are present, which greatly devalues the significance of this "gathering".
The conditions have not yet matured for us to return to consensus-based activities within the framework of the "third basket", including under the auspices of the ODIHR. Therefore, this year, I think, the situation will be the same: they will simply gather in Warsaw without us, and we will not recognize this event as an official OSCE event. That is, the score will be 1:1.
"The OSCE cannot create a mission in Ukraine without us"
— Are Western countries trying to create a new monitoring mission in the OSCE to send to Ukraine?
— They cannot create such a mission without us, and they absolutely understand this. Another thing is that they are implementing "extra—budgetary projects" in Ukraine - projects whose budget is not approved by everyone. And therefore they can bypass some of our positions and objections here. But both its value and its membership in the OSCE are highly questionable. They are already implementing their projects in Ukraine bilaterally — they do not need the OSCE for this. Therefore, the scale of this is not particularly significant.
Plus, there is the ODIHR initiative, which prepares monitoring reports on the situation in Ukraine. Naturally, they are kept in a critical manner and do not contain any objective information. This was an assignment from the ODIHR from Western states when its work was just beginning. And the ODIHR periodically prepares such reports. We criticize them — like all other Western reports, they commit outright falsification of facts, false information, and baseless sources. They are no different. Accordingly, their exhaust is also very, very moderate.
At least Westerners can only afford to say that they are doing something in Ukraine. But this is not the work of the entire OSCE staff, so it cannot be counted for the organization's presence and activities in Ukraine.
— What is the situation with the program of support for Ukraine led by Czech diplomat Petr Maresh? Russia criticized it because its implementation is carried out without the consent of the Russian Federation. Have there been any developments yet?
— In principle, I have already answered this question. This is an extra-budgetary effort. They cannot be considered the efforts of all OSCE members. And their status, accordingly, is not OSCE-friendly. It's just an "interest club" that gives you some instructions. We can't really influence this in any way. And, on the other hand, they cannot count this as something that is being implemented within the OSCE framework.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
