Remarks to the press by First Deputy Representative Dmitry Polyanskiy on the detention of the leader of the Gagauz autonomy, Ms. Yevgenia Gutsul
Dmitry Polyanskiy: I just wanted to let you know that we have just drawn attention of our fellow members of the Security Council to the situation in Moldova, namely we spoke about the detention of the leader of the Gagauz autonomy, Ms. Yevgenia Gutsul, who is a meaningful opposition politician. This is not the first case when the Moldovan authorities harass political opposition in this country. We are far from interfering into the internal affairs of Moldova, and we do not call for the members of the Council to do so. But the Council has a preventive function, and we think that in line with this preventive function, we should do our best to avoid a situation when the state of affairs in Moldova moves to a very bad and unstable setting. I don't want to speculate on this, but the development is very troubling. It goes into the context of the recent elections, presidential elections in this country, which were largely contested and proceeded in a very controversial atmosphere. It is also adjacent to a number of provocations against Transnistria, the situation in Romania (neighboring Romania is also raising a lot of brows because of banning the leading candidate to run for the election).
So, the whole region is not stable, and we just thought that it was our responsibility to raise the awareness of the members of the Council about this absolutely intolerable situation.
Q: Ambassador, what action might Russia take over this on the ground?
A: We are not on the ground there, but we think that the collective action, collective position of international actors and their support of stability and national dialogue and inclusiveness in Moldova might play a role. This country is facing parliamentary elections in the upcoming summer. And, of course, the situation should not be destabilized in the run-up to these elections. I think it is our duty as a traditional friend of Moldova. You know that there are a lot of Russian speakers in Moldova, and this country is very much divided, having a lot of ethnic and religious minorities. So, we really have to be vigilant and to warn everybody about potential dangers of this unfortunate event, the arrest of one of the key opposition figures of Moldova.
Q: The US and Russia are discussing a possible ceasefire in the Black Sea, and Russia has laid out its conditions for that. Do you think there is a role for the UN to play in any kind of deal, given the past history with regard to the Black Sea?
A: I think that the UN has tried to do its best in terms of the implementation of the second part of the grain deal. You recall that it consisted of two different processes. One is the Black See Grain Initiative, which was implemented until a certain moment. And then there was also the memorandum between Russia and the UN on the access of Russian food and fertilizer products to global markets. And this memorandum was not implemented, not because the UN was not active. Ms. Grynspan and Secretary-General Guterres were acting in good faith, and they tried to do a lot, but they were facing the intransigent position of Western countries who did not want to lift sanctions because of this. So, now we think that there is a window of opportunity for this part of the deal to be implemented, and then it will bring us to the moment when we can in good faith implement the whole grain deal. So, let's view it in this regard. Of course, UN efforts were not in vain and will not be in vain. But so far, the framework of the implementation of this agreement is bilateral.
Q: Is there a need for a ceasefire in the Black Sea? Everything seems to have been fairly calm there.
A: Well, a ceasefire deal is part of this package, let's put it this way. It will enter into force when these conditions are met. This is very much in the power of those who take the decisions right now about the crisis in Ukraine.
Q: If I'm not wrong, Russia has never sold as much grain as now. So, what's the interest for Russia to go for a ceasefire deal on the Black Sea initiative?
A: Well, first of all, we are a peaceful country. We have always been advocating for peace. Since the beginning of the Ukrainian crisis, we were always saying that democracy and diplomacy should prevail. So, we are interested, of course, in peaceful coexistence with all our neighbors, provided these neighbors do not represent a threat to us. This is the case of cooperation within the Black Sea region.
Normally, there wouldn't be any problem with a ceasefire, but you know that, unfortunately, the Ukrainian Black Sea ports are used for activities against Russian objects in the Black Sea and in surrounding areas. So, of course, this all must stop for us to be implementing this arrangement.
And again, the ceasefire in the Black Sea region is only part of this arrangement, which is about Russian agricultural products coming to European markets. We have a very big potential there, and there are a lot of countries that are interested, especially in fertilizers. It's also a separate field of our cooperation with African countries, for example, which are very much interested in this. But there are a lot of hurdles in this regard that can be removed, and it's quite easy to remove them.
One of the main hurdles is, of course, the transactions, which we can't make in the way that they should be made for those countries who are interested in Russian agriculture and other products. So again, the wind is blowing and it's a backwind, but we need to get use of this wind and to understand what we can do. If the other side is acting in good faith, I think that we can really see the rebirth of this initiative quite soon.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, do you see a role for the United Nations in implementing this deal [the Black Sea Agreement] and doing inspections of ships as they did in the original deal and perhaps something else?
A: I think we are not at this stage yet – to discuss the concrete parameters of the implementation of the deal. As far as I understand, after several years of attempts by the United Nations, which were made in good faith, in terms of the memorandum between Russia and the UN, now it is the time for the US to step in and try to put its weight behind the implementation of these very important agreements, important for the whole world.
I'm not aware of any arrangements that could bring the UN within this deal. They had a mechanism which was monitoring the ships that were coming to Ukrainian ports. It didn't work quite satisfactorily. We had a lot of things to reproach there. So maybe the new mechanism will be more successful provided, of course, it comes to the implementation of this deal, because so far – as far as I understand – the European and Ukrainian sides are totally rejecting any possibility of the partial lifting of sanctions from Russian entities that are involved in the implementation of this deal. Keeping fingers crossed, but so far, a lot of questions are in the air.
Q: Mr. Ambassador, can I ask you about some reports that there's a Russian computer scientist from Harvard who, I think, was detained in February? She's being held in ICE facility in Louisiana waiting for deportation to Russia. Do you know anything about that?
A: I haven't heard about it. Sorry.
Q: President Trump has just withdrawn Elise Stefanik's nomination as UN Ambassador. Do you have any reaction to that? Is the fact of the US not having Ambassador appointed here hindering the work?
A: We were sad to hear this because we were already thinking about her as our colleague, but it's, of course, the sovereign right of the United States President to appoint whoever he wants to be UN Ambassador. I think that's the internal position of the United States, and we will wait for any representative and we will be ready to engage and to work with any US representative whom the US President chooses to represent his country here in the United Nations.
Q: The Russian Federation has been working a lot closer with the United States on several issues in the last few months. How important would it be for the Russian Federation to have some clarity as regards the US mission? Is it hindering any work with the US here at the UN, given that there is no clarity on the US Permanent Representative yet?
A: I wouldn't say that our current US colleagues are doing something that we are not satisfied with in terms of openness and contacts. We interacted quite closely with the current Chargé d'Affaires Dorothy Shea on the issues related to Ukraine and on the issues related to Syria. You know that there was a presidential statement adopted recently on the developments in Western Syria.
Our US colleagues are very forthcoming, but I know that, of course, the mission should be complete and the head of the mission is a very important figure. She or he will be a political figure, and that's why we understand that it will reinforce further the US mission here. But I don't have anything to reproach to our US colleagues and can't say that they are not responding or they are not cooperating. They're acting in good faith, and they're very forthcoming in terms of what we can do together.
Thank you.
