“We are ready to turn the page and move on”
U.S. Ambassador John Tefft told “Kommersant” about the “Embassy war” and other problems in relations with Russia.
U.S. Ambassador John Tefft on Thursday completed the work in Russia and together with his wife Mariella, and I left Moscow. On the eve of departure to Washington, he told the correspondent of “Kommersant” Helen Chernenko what he has accomplished in office, what he regrets and what happened to him in the last two weeks.
— With what feelings you leave Moscow?
— I’m leaving with mixed feelings. I am proud that my team and I were able to carry out their work professionally, with dignity and respect even in those moments when towards us have behaved differently. I think that our Embassy is well represented not only in the negotiations with the Russian government, but also in the communication with the citizens. We chose one of our priorities throughout Russia, it is true for me and for my team. We were in many places across the country and interacted with many people, made new friends here. Our consulates also have done a lot to maintain interpersonal contacts.
At the same time, I’m obviously upset that we were not able to make more progress in areas requiring the most attention and as soon as possible. First and foremost, of course, I’m talking about Ukraine. She dominated the agenda before I arrived, and continued to dominate the whole period of my work in Moscow. Horrible effect on our relationship has made cyber-attacks perpetrated against the United States. And of course, Russia’s decision to reduce our staff, which actually completes my trip and which made me very upset. Many of our Russian employees affected by this decision of their own government. But we will do everything possible to best represent our country.
I’m leaving with the feeling that leave the Embassy in good shape and I will replace a very decent and capable man. John Huntsman will get a great team that will support him in all his endeavors.
— Was it difficult for Embassy to run the old exchange, when about 60% of all employees were forced to leave?
— Of course. We tried to continue as if nothing happened, as everyone was waiting for us. But it is physically impossible with fewer people. One of the most sensitive for the Russians manifestations of this — we are not able to issue as many visas as before. Not because I don’t want, we want. We just had to cut a significant number of staff handling visa applications, including checking for compliance with the requirements of us law. We are doing everything possible to increase the number of visas issued. We want people traveled to the United States, I want to go there for a variety of programs: as tourists, as businessmen, if they meet the requirements — we want them to went there. I hope that over time we will be able to issue more visas.
You’ve probably heard the criticism from lips of the official representative of the Russian foreign Ministry…
— Yes, but I think it (the criticism.— “B”) is not very reasonable.
Maria Zakharova said that the same Italians much less employees than the United States, and they give hundreds of thousands of visas…
— We in USA are very strict laws regarding security, as you know, is perhaps the most stringent in the world. Our employees work day and night to issue as many visas. For Russian students who enroll in American universities, to tourists, the Russian delegation and journalists to work at the UN General Assembly in new York we continually improve the process. So the statement (Maria Zakharova.— “B”) any inappropriate, Italy and Russia are very different set of requirements.
— Yes, you do have extremely strict laws. I was in the United States to work at least 15 times, and each time I was given single entry journalist visa. Perhaps the workload could be reduced, if we issue multiple-entry visas…
— I’ll talk about it with the consular Department. (Laughs.) In many cases, we work with the decisions taken in Washington and we can’t change.
— What about the cuts in other departments? I read the comments of former employees of the Embassy in Facebook, and they are, for example, reported that dissolved almost the entire Department of cultural cooperation.
— We had to make a difficult choice, and we did it. We tried to explain to people that it’s not our decision. The key issue for us now is how best to distribute those 455 people, of which we were allowed to leave. We had a choice: to reduce the unit of public relations, cultural Department or something. We have tried to preserve as many functions of the Embassy, but it was hard. We increased attention to safety after the murder of American diplomats in Benghazi (the death of the US Ambassador in Libya at the hands of radical Islamists.— “B”) and a series of attacks on our diplomatic missions around the world. So we needed to maintain a high level of security.
We also need to care about the American citizens who come to Russia. To give you an understanding of the scale of our work — 120 thousand people come from the USA only cruise ship in St. Petersburg. And we have a year only in St. Petersburg more than a thousand events, including death, robbery, loss of passport, pickpocketing that occur with our citizens. And the first thing these people are doing — call the American Consulate. And we need to help them, because, in fact, is our job.
— What do you think, is over whether the “Embassy war” between Russia and the United States, as he called the series of mutual restrictive measures of the media?
— I hope. As stated by the Secretary of state Rex Tillerson, Russia provided the parity, we have provided the parity, we are ready to turn the page and move on.
— Was it sensitive that you have taken away Parking spaces?
— You know, that’s the least of our problems.
What really causes concern is that when Russian police stops cars American diplomats despite the diplomatic rooms.
They even my car stopped.
— For what purpose?
— Without purpose. This is contrary to the Vienna Convention (on diplomatic relations.— “Kommersant”).
— When did this happen?
The last time two weeks ago. President (Vladimir.— Kommersant) Putin assured us that it would stop but it continues. But in any case, as we move forward, we are looking for areas where we can cooperate.
In the past few weeks, visited Russia’s main negotiator on North Korea Joseph Yun, he met with Deputy Minister of foreign Affairs Igor Morgulov and Ambassador-at-large Vladimir Burmistrov M. V. successfully managed. We are continuing negotiations over the situation in Syria, we will have the meeting between Mr. (assistant to the President Vladislav.— “B”) and Surkov (the US special envoy on Ukraine.— “B”) By Kurt Volker. This will be their second meeting. A lot going on. I spoke about three major foreign policy issues, but there are many areas in which we continue cooperation: space, science, health, and so on.
— About two weeks ago, the American edition Buzzfeed published a document that Moscow allegedly sent in March in Washington. It was reported to have been proposed almost a new reset of relations, identified promising areas for cooperation. Most of the proposals, as I understand it, was never accepted in the United States.
— I think, should refer to the words that the Secretary of state Tillerson said after talking with the Minister (of foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation.— “B”) Sergei Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin. He clearly outlined the position of the US administration, which is that currently relations are at a very low level of trust is almost there. The administration (the President of the United States.— “B”) Donald trump wants to improve relations, but it requires hard work. Rex Tillerson highlighted several points, in particular Ukraine, where the U.S. expects Russia’s positive steps. Here is the current course of Washington against Moscow. A lot of documents with proposals circulating in both directions, but the statement of the Secretary of state had verified and agreed upon, and it very accurately sums up our position, both then and now.
Among these proposals was one on cybersecurity. It was proposed to hold a special meeting to discuss all the differences that have accumulated in this area. Wouldn’t it be a good idea?
— Russia still has not recognized that carried out cyber attacks against the United States.
— Because the United States has not publicly provided any evidence.
We provided the public with some evidence, but we are also very careful because I don’t want to reveal sources and methods by which the evidence was obtained. And I think that Russian special services would use the same approach in a similar situation.
But now there is growing evidence about the money that Russia has invested in, say, advertising on Facebook, to affect the election results. Evidence constantly emerging.
We want Russia somehow admitted that she really committed these attacks and clearly stated that will never do.
This topic was somehow behind closed doors informed all the members of Congress. And a new package of sanctions voted by an overwhelming majority of members of both houses of Parliament precisely because they were convinced that Russia did it.
You know, I regularly visit in the Midwest USA, I have relatives there. The people there can be quite different views on politics, someone like Donald trump, someone who supported Hillary Clinton. But there is complete unanimity on the question of the inadmissibility of Russian interference in democratic processes in the United States. This is seen as an attempt to influence something that is sacred to us, on the basis of our statehood. And people still very painful to this concern.
— Let me return to the topic of discrediting sources and methods of intelligence. Deputy Secretary of the Russian security Council Oleg Khramov in interview with “Kommersant” said that the United States sent Russia the inquiry about hacker attacks.
— Yes, it was last fall.
But it turns out that once the us side had shared with the Russian Tamimi data about this incident, then they can be published without damage to US intelligence?
— No, it is not. We didn’t give them anything that would put at risk our sources and methods. We only shared with them our concern that these attacks took place. This is a significant difference, but I would not want to go into discussion of the details of this topic.
But from his comment was that Russia has given the United States in January of this year all that was available to it on this account information and took all the concerns of Washington.
— I can’t remember such a response (from the Russian side.— “B”) can be sent directly to Washington.
He said that Russia’s response was “exhaustive” and the issues the US was no more.
— I doubt that in Washington think the same.
So many things I ask about it, because — as you said — this issue affects a very sensitive strings and is now in the very core of the contradictions between Russia and the United States.
The problem is that all the official representatives of the Russian Federation deny that Russia did it. But in the US all convinced that this is so.
Well, in the Russian secret service involvement in hacking email members of the Democratic party of the United States I doubt even some American experts.
The people with whom I spoke, are absolutely convinced that the intervention took place.
— In your opinion, the US imposed sanctions against Russia to take effect?
— I think so, and the President of Russia, like a number of other official representatives of the Russian Federation, is recognized.
But did these sanctions to a radical change of the situation in Ukraine? Obviously not.
Nevertheless, I believe that Russia has paid a serious price for its military actions against Ukraine.
First of all, it affected its access to financial markets. But you’d have to ask the Russian businessmen who are directly facing these problems.
— The U.S. Congress recently gave the President an opportunity to introduce new, more stringent sanctions against Russia. Do you think he will take advantage of this right?
— Honestly, I find it hard to answer this question. This will be addressed in Washington. And I don’t know at what stage is currently discussing this issue.
— The authorities of several EU countries is very critical about new sanctions the U.S. law, because its adoption was not agreed with the EU. Is it possible in this context to talk about the rift between the United States and the European Union on the Russian question?
— I do not think that the split takes place. Yes, there are differences, but I’m not immersed in the negotiations between American and European officials and cannot comment on them.
But between the United States and our allies there are always some differences, whether in the framework of NATO, in relations with the EU or on a bilateral level. And that’s absolutely fine. For example, I remember a time when often heard that NATO is in a permanent crisis, because there are different interpretations that one, that’s another issue. With the EU we now have really different approaches to issues of trade and several other topics. But the split over the issue of Russia. And even if we have some differences, they do not affect the basic trust between the United States and our allies on the strong relationships that we have established with partners in Europe. I am sure that EU representatives would answer you the same way.
— The authorities of the EU — Germany, said that sending peacekeeping mission to Ukraine may be a first step towards curtailing anti-Russian sanctions. And the US think?
— Our position on this matter is pretty clear. We believe that the Russia-proposed idea is worth to explore. And I know that the UN Security Council in new York have already begun this work.
We are convinced that the mandate of such a mission should be based on respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty and to contribute to the aim of restoring its territorial integrity. The UN peacekeeping force should have a broad mandate that would allow them to operate in all conflict-affected areas, including the possibility of international control of the Ukrainian side of the border between Ukraine and Russia in order to avoid deepening or institutionalizing the dividing lines within Ukraine itself.
We will discuss this issue with the authorities of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia. As I said, Kurt Walker will meet with Vladislav Surkov in early October. We believe it is important to try to come to an understanding on the question of the mandate of a possible peacekeeping mission. But those criteria I mentioned are very important and they are key in the decision (to send a mission.— “B”), since we assume that any such operation should be primarily to facilitate the implementation of the Minsk agreements.
Well, if the mission still will be able to agree this will be a step towards the lifting of sanctions?
— I think that the current US administration adheres to the same opinion (as the previous one.— “Y”): if we can make progress in the Donbass, we are ready to cancel part of the sanctions. But we don’t even come close to this goal, so a serious conversation on this topic (ease of sanctions.— “B”) was not.
Based on your extensive experience in diplomacy, do you think that mission will be able to agree on?
— I don’t know, because the issue of peacekeepers is part of a broader discussion. But I have given optimism to the negotiations between (ex.— “B”) by U.S. assistant Secretary of state Victoria Nuland and Russian presidential aide Vladislav Surkov. It was consultation in support of the “Normandy format”. The United States are not members of the group and not trying to become them. But we’re trying to help the Germans, the French, the Russians and Ukrainians with the implementation of the Minsk agreements. We know that these agreements consist of a number of provisions, there are requirements in the security and political points, which impose obligations on both sides. Our goal is to help them to reach a compromise solution so that the Minsk agreement remained only on paper.
— Working for several years in Moscow, you have a better understanding of the position of the Russian authorities in Ukraine and why they acted as they acted, and not otherwise?
— I personally felt that this story was a great tragedy. Killed 10 thousand people. In the name of what? I understand the situation in Ukraine is quite good, because when I was Ambassador in Ukraine, I am pretty much traveled the country. I was in Sevastopol many times. I understand the Russian position, I know the story of what (former Soviet leader Nikita.— “B”) Khrushchev gave control of Crimea to Ukraine.
But the fundamental problem here is that Russia used force in order to take the Crimea, and sent armed formations on the Donbass. This all goes against the fundamental principles of the European security system, which we helped to build many decades, together with the EU and to its occurrence.
Almost every nation of Europe has territorial claims to the neighbors, but none of them uses the power to return land. The only method to which they resorted to negotiations. That is why the EU and the US reacted strongly and imposed sanctions. The principle of non-use of force seen as critical for international security. If we want to live in a peaceful and prosperous Europe we can’t allow one country sent to another camouflaged troops entered somewhere the army. It is a fundamental rule that Russia violated.
— Until Russia will get guarantees of non-entry of Ukraine into NATO, to resolve the crisis will be hard…
— You know, I have many friends in Russia and a lot of friends in Ukraine. Some of my Russian friends say that when he and his family are going on Sunday for lunch, that is a topic that cannot be discussed: Ukraine. Because this will be followed by a fierce dispute. This whole situation will sooner or later be settled, but it will be thousands of dead. For what did they die?
Let’s move on to Syria. Two years have passed since the beginning of operations in Syria. What is your opinion about its course? Initially, it was a lot of criticism from Washington, and now some experts say that Russian intervention prevented the occupation of the country by terrorists. Now there is a truce zone and cooperation with the United States, albeit a limited…
— I’m not sure that I should evaluate, I’m not in the military. From the moment I got here, I have always believed that Russia and the U.S. can cooperate in Syria. Our main common goal is to destroy ISIS (“Islamic state” banned in the Russian Federation terrorist group.— “Kommersant”). There the foothold ISIS, we’re fighting for something that he wasn’t there. And we are approaching this goal.
The whole basis of our cooperation with Russia was based on two pillars: to defeat ISIS and to find a diplomatic way out of the political crisis in Syria. We believe that (Syrian President Bashar al -.— “B”) Assad must go. This was the position of the previous administration, which believed that the first Assad must go and the current administration, which believes that it is inevitable afterwards. We do not see a peaceful future for Syria, led by Bashar al-Assad.
Secondly, as for the channel “deconflicting” (to prevent accidents.— “B”), I suppose it works well enough. The military of our countries are constantly communicating on many levels.
This week the information appeared that Russia accuses the U.S. of death of a Russian General (Valeria Asapuwa.— “Kommersant”). I, first, would like to Express my condolences to his family. Awful when soldiers die. But the statement that we are responsible for what happened, is completely unfounded. They have no relation to reality. They are wrong. And in Washington this was already clearly stated.
Frankly speaking, such accusations make us doubt that Russia wants to cooperate with us in Syria. A good example of such cooperation is in the South of the country, near the border with Jordan, where was created the first zone of de-escalation. But if Russia wants to cooperate with us, why all the baseless accusations and suspicion?
— From the Russian side were accused not only in the fact that the USA bears some responsibility for the death of the General, but in the fact that they were trapped in the 29 Russian military.
In Syria’s civil war. To accuse the USA that they are directly linked to these incidents, absolutely wrong, this is not true.
— The Russian side said that only the channels for conflict prevention are a few that need coordination on the ground in order to avoid incidents, possible clashes between forces of the Russian Federation and the United States.
— We have a fairly serious level channels for communication. The heads of the General staffs of Russia and the USA regularly. There is a center in Amman, where negotiations are currently underway between Russia and the United States as on the issue of the South area of de-escalation, and some incidents that took place in the area of Deir ez-Zor. We will continue to work on conflict prevention. But there are restrictions on cooperation with the armed forces of Russia imposed by the U.S. Congress.
— That is working to minimize the probability of possible conflicts and to coordinate joint actions — no?
— You can say so, but I’m not ready to delve into the semantic subtleties. Our main goal is to destroy ISIS. And American military jointly with his Russian counterpart efforts between the U.S. and Russia there were no conflicts.
— In the statements of Donald trump during a speech at the UN General Assembly and in many other of his statements a lot of militancy against North Korea. We used to hear crazy statements from Pyongyang, but Washington they sound weird. Do you feel that such rhetoric does not help resolve the conflict?
The President is trying to convey, what is the essence of our policy. Some people don’t like the way he does it, but our position is very simple: we continue to strive for the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. And the Minister of foreign Affairs of Russia Sergey Lavrov said us that is the goal of Russia. The white House gave enough to understand that our goal now is to increase diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea to persuade them to negotiate. We had a great series of talks with special envoy of the UN and Deputy Minister by Margulova, and we know that in Moscow in the near future remains a high-ranking representative of the foreign Ministry of the DPRK. Let’s see what she has to say. But the basic idea is that we want nuclear and missile tests stopped. They threaten international peace and security.
Our Russian friends tend to treat this question like any other foreign policy issue, but I think they are wrong. North Korea is an existential threat. When a country threatens to send nuclear warheads and strike at the continental United States is very serious, it directly threatens our citizens. We will do everything in our power to protect them from any military attack. That is why we hurry our Russian and Chinese friends to put pressure on the DPRK as much as possible, to increase sanctions to the level where they stop the testing and sit down at the negotiating table.
— It seems that just when the US needs Russia’s help, it is referred to as “the friend”.
— We know that Russia is a world power that has an effect on many processes. And we come to the interaction with her is very pragmatic. But, I think, the Russian authorities have similarly come to collaborate with the United States.
One example of successful cooperation between Russia and the United States we have seen — on the Iranian nuclear dossier.
— Yes, under the previous administration signed a Joint comprehensive plan of action (SVPD.— “Kommersant”). But as you know, the current administration believes that the agreement does not meet the stated purpose and not all the concerns. In the preamble of this document says that it aims to strengthen peace and security, but the Iranians launched an Intercontinental ballistic missile.
— AGREEMENT does not cover the missile program of Iran.
— Yes, does not cover. But why is Iran agreeing to limit its nuclear program, continues to test ballistic missiles, against whom directed his missile program? In addition, we see that Iran continues to support terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. The administration of Donald trump has made it clear that such actions are unacceptable.
— I would like to understand what its like for the diplomats when they — as it was the case with the Iranian nuclear program for many years conducted negotiations, and these efforts were crowned with success, and then comes the new administration, and says it’s “the worst deal”.
You should contact with this question to (former U.S. Secretary of state.— “B”) John Kerry. (Laughs.)