In this exclusive interview with Alexey Pavlovsky, the Ambassador of the Russian Federation to Australia since 2019, he shares his insights on the complex dynamics between Russia, Ukraine, and the West, as well as his reflections on Australia’s stance in the ongoing conflict.
You have been Ambassador to Australia since 2019. What interested you about Australia? Why did this post appeal to you?
Before I came here, my vision of Australia was typical, as formed by Jules Verne’s books and high school geography lessons. It was mainly focused on exotic natural wonders. But I also remember reading the Russian translation of Alan Marshall’s novel I Can Jump Puddles, which was very popular with Soviet children. Many years on, I was excited to be offered a posting in Australia, looking forward to exploring a new and challenging region after my previous work in Afghanistan, Namibia, and Portugal.
You have been in the diplomatic service since 1988, three years before the dissolution of the USSR. How have your previous posts shaped your diplomatic career and views on Russia’s relations with the West? In the early 1990s, what were the expectations of the Russian people in relation to the West after the collapse of the Soviet Union? What do you see as the major turning points in the relationship between Russia and the West since then?
I started my career as a young diplomat in the Soviet Embassy in Kabul in the late 1980s. It was the time of perestroika, a radical reform initiated by Mikhail Gorbachev that included a new political thinking, a concept of rapprochement with the West based on the so-called universal (in fact, liberal) values. To give you a taste of the epoque: in 1991, the KGB officially revealed to the American side (as a gesture of goodwill, no strings attached) all the technical listening devices previously installed in the US Embassy in Moscow. More significantly, Gorbachev acceded to the unification of Germany on just verbal promises that NATO would not move “an inch to the East”.
In hindsight, all of this was incredibly naive and idealistic. But back then, like many in the Soviet Union and later in the new democratic Russia, I was enthusiastic about the Cold War being over and ready to trust our new US and European partners to work together for a better world based on democracy, inclusion, and justice. Wasn’t that, after all, what was so solemnly preached by Western colleagues?
The following years proved sobering. We witnessed five waves of NATO enlargement, the bombing and dismemberment of Serbia, the destruction of Lybia, and the unprovoked and illegal invasion of Iraq (in which Australia was directly complicit).
Later, working in the MFA in Moscow, I could closely observe the West’s tireless efforts to disrupt historic ties between Russia and other newly independent nations to foster tensions and conflicts in the post-Soviet area. In 2008, Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili was encouraged to attack civilians and Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia. In 2014, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland masterminded a coup d’etat in Ukraine that brought to power ultra-nationalistic forces, openly worshipping the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera. Utterly and inherently Russophobic, the new rulers set out to suppress everything Russian in the country and turn it into an instrument of NATO’s anti-Russian strategies.
Is that what you consider the root causes of the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine?
Yes, in a nutshell, the root causes are existential threats to Russia’s national security created through the military assimilation of Ukraine by NATO and the blatant violations of the rights of the Russian-speaking population.
Why do you think the conflict escalated to a military confrontation in 2022? Why hasn’t it been resolved yet?
By 2022, we had been trying for years to explain our security concerns and to negotiate mutually acceptable solutions by invoking international law and the UN charter. OSCE states political commitments not to strengthen security at the expense of others. The Minsk agreements endorsed by the UN Security Council seemed to provide a path to Ukraine respecting the rights of ethnic minorities and living in peace with its neighbours. However, former leaders Angela Merkel of Germany, Francois Hollande of France and Petr Poroshenko of Ukraine are on the record now confessing they never intended to implement the Minsk agreements. It was but a trick to gain time and rearm Ukraine against Russia.
At the end of 2021, we came up with a set of draft agreements based on the principle of indivisibility of security. If accepted, they would have ensured a peaceful future for Ukraine and the continent. But they were, again, arrogantly dismissed by the West. Meanwhile, the military assimilation of the Ukrainian territory by NATO powers was going in full throttle, creating strategic, in fact, existential threats to Russia. Suffice it to mention a network of US military biolabs or steps to establish a naval base in the Azov Sea. A new large-scale offensive against Lugansk and Donetsk was being prepared by the Ukrainian armed forces, which would obviously entail ethnic cleansing campaigns. In this situation, and with all our diplomatic overtures blocked, we had no choice but to push back militarily.
Now, let’s move on to the second part of your question. About one month after the large-scale hostilities broke out, Russian and Ukrainian delegations agreed in Istanbul on peace arrangements. Boris Johnson then rushed to Kiev and told Zelensky to walk out of negotiations and fight on.
The point is that the West is interested in protracting the conflict it had instigated, not the least, I guess, because of hefty profits flowing to weapons barons.
Russia has stated a preference for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. What conditions would Russia consider necessary for peace? What steps need to be taken, both by Russia and other parties, to make this resolution possible? What role could Australia or international organisations like the UN play?
True, we have always been and remain firmly in favour of resolving the conflict at the earliest opportunity and preferably through peaceful means.
Please note that we are not interested in freezing it, which would be fraught with another war in a few years. Russia, Ukraine, and the world need a sustainable settlement that addresses the root causes of the situation and has due regard to the realities on the ground.
You might know that China and Brazil have put forward a peaceful initiative at the UN General Assembly in New York that has already received considerable international endorsement. We are grateful to our partners for their attention to this conflict and their pursuit of methods to resolve it.
What is lacking is the will of the Kiev regime. This is primarily because of the continued support and encouragement from the West. But, also due to the fact that peace talks would logically lead to lifting martial law, and immediately after that, they would have to hold presidential elections as Zelensky’s term of office has expired on 20 May. He is obviously not happy about such a scenario.
Thus, Zelensky’s draftsmen keep chasing the remaining men in the streets, supermarkets and concert halls, beat them up and send them to the front. Mandatory conscription for women and teenagers is being discussed already.
As for Australia, I expect it to continue proudly punching above its weight to help prolong the senseless slaughter of Ukrainians by supplying weapons to the Kiev regime. All that, of course, at the expense of the Aussie taxpayer.
What do you envision for the future of the eastern regions of Ukraine (Donetsk, Luhansk) currently under Russian control?
First of all, those are regions of the Russian Federation: Donetsk People’s Republic and Lugansk People’s Republic. The same goes for the Crimea, Zaporojie and Kherson regions. People living there have made a choice of becoming part of Russia, in fact, returning to Russia.
But doesn’t it constitute a violation of territorial integrity of Ukraine, unacceptable under international law?
International law is not an a la carte menu, it should be applied in its entirety. In 1970, the UN General Assembly specifically addressed the relationship between the tenets of territorial integrity and the right of nations to self-determination. A Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations was adopted and stated that everyone is to respect and observe the territorial integrity of countries whose governments respect the principle of self-determination of peoples, and, as a result, represent all the people living within the borders of that particular country. No one in their right mind would argue that the ultra-radicals who grabbed power in Kiev after the February 2014 coup and instantly made known their plan to strip the Russian language of its official status in Ukraine represented people in Crimea or Donbass.
Massive resources are now being allocated to rebuild Donbass which has been shelled and terrorised by the Kiev regime for ten years. I am sure the future of these regions is bright. What is essential is that the people of Donbass can now freely speak their language and follow their faith and traditions on the land where their forefathers had lived for centuries, the rights the proponents of ‘Ukraine for Ukrainians’ wished to deprive them of.
Many lives have been lost. How do you perceive the relationship between the Russian and Ukrainian people now? Has this conflict irreparably damaged ties?
Make no mistake, Russians feel the tragic nature of these developments much more acutely than a foreigner can possibly imagine. If only because many have relatives and close friends in that neighbouring country as a legacy of centuries-old common history.
In fact, this is a case of brothers fighting brothers. We know that Anglo-Saxon elites are especially good at applying “divide and rule” motto and this time, unfortunately, they have a reason to celebrate.
Today, Ukrainians are forced by their rulers to hate and fight their neighbours and brothers for the sake of geopolitical goals of the West. But I am sure this tragic page will be turned. The fundamental national interest of the two peoples that dictate the need for a good neighbourhood, mutually beneficial cooperation and equal security, will prevail over malign geopolitical manipulations.
How has the conflict affected Russian relationships with Australia?
Russian-Australian bilateral relations have never been of critical importance to either country, but still were quite fulfilling. Australian METS companies were welcome in Russia and making good money, the Bolshoy ballet was receiving standing ovations in Brisbane and other cities, diplomats have been in dialogue on a range of international issues of mutual interest, from Antarctica to climate change.
All of this has been deliberately and purposefully shattered by Canberra. The Australian Government has unilaterally imposed restrictions against more than 1,200 Russian individuals and entities, slapped restrictive tariffs on trade. What is more, Australia got involved in the proxy war against Russia by supplying mortal weapons to Ukraine.
The Australian government revoked plans for a new Russian Embassy in Canberra. Has this decision and other recent events affected your work here in Australia?
It was a manifestly hostile, and quite frankly, a petty move, designed to make it more difficult for the Embassy to discharge its duties. We have lost the already constructed consular building on the land in Yarralumla that was offered to us by the Australian Government for 99 years lease back in 2008. The most immediate result is that our officials now have to receive Russian and Australian nationals applying for consular services in an improvised office in the lobby of the staff’s residential building in Griffith.
How has the tense political situation impacted the Russian community here (eg., in terms of sanctions or societal perceptions)?
In 2022-23, at the peak of the anti-Russian hysteria fanned here by the media and Australian politicians, there were occasions of Russian Australians being bullied, mostly on social media, in many cases, by aggressive members of the Ukrainian community. There were also deplorable incidents of discrimination against the Russian community by the government of South Australia.
But my overall impression is that multicultural Australia, I mean, at the societal level – again, not talking about politicians – is healthy enough not to support this kind of discrimination, hostile acts and hate speech. However, with the authorities apparently interested in beefing up the bogeyman of the alledged Russian threat, there is an increasing risk for Russian Australians to be arbitrarily targeted by security services.
Some critics argue that Russia’s actions in Ukraine have strengthened NATO rather than weakened it, with countries like Sweden and Finland now joining. What is your view on this unintended consequence?
The West is doubling down on its dangerous and irresponsible strategy of containing Russia through NATO expansion that has already led to the current crisis in and around Ukraine. All this can achieve is to further aggravate the situation.
Given Russia’s strong stance against NATO expansion, what would an acceptable security arrangement in Europe look like from Russia’s perspective?
Euro-Atlantic security models including NATO, the OSCE, and the European Union have failed miserably. Russia suggests discussing the Eurasian continent-wide security architecture, emphasising that its doors will be open to everyone, including countries from the west of the Eurasian continent.
Do you believe the US election will have any bearing on the Russia/Ukraine conflict, and
if so, how?
I wouldn’t be holding my breath. Disregard to legitimate security interests of Russia (and many other countries, for that matter) has been shown by all Washington administrations over decades. It’s not about personalities or political parties, it’s about the deep instincts of the US ruling class which is to make sure no one can undermine their dominance.
The good news, however, is that the goal to retain global supremacy is illusory. The historical process is objectively heading in a different direction, and this has to be reckoned with.
Having said that, we are ready to interact with any administration voted in by the American people, but only if such a dialogue is mutually respectful, and both parties listen and hear what the other party has to say.
How do you gauge public opinion in Russia regarding the Ukraine conflict? Do you feel that most Russians support the military operation?
Yes, that’s indeed my reading. Of course, no one in Russia rejoices about the fighting that is going on, the destructions and human toll it involves. Everyone would have preferred if it could have been resolved peacefully. But there is also an overwhelming understanding of what is at stake – the very existence of Russia as a sovereign independent state.
But Russia has allegedly experienced waves of protest against the war and domestic crackdowns on dissent. How do you view the state of political freedoms in Russia during this time of conflict?
With the predominant mood of support that I described, such a dramatic turn as the launch of the special military operation has naturally stirred up a range of opinions in Russia. Many consider that a harder line in front of the Kiev regime and its handlers would be appropriate. Some others have taken a position of abstract pacifism and that is actually what was hyped in the Western media as anti-war protest. Quite a few recognisable public personalities defiantly left Russia declaring that it was against their conscience to live in a country that is waging war on its neighbours (paradoxically enough, many of them migrated to Israel).
Anyway, no limitations on political freedoms in Russia have been imposed. Whereas in “democratic” Ukraine, formally banned are 11 political parties, three TV channels, and the Ukranian Orthodox Church with millions of followers. Not to mention discriminatory laws against the use of the Russian language in education, culture and public life.
How does Russia respond to claims of disinformation campaigns aimed at Western audiences? Is the Western media guilty of its own form of misinformation? What do you want Australians to understand about the conflict? (President Putin has said that the West has made Ukraine their colony and military outpost aimed at Russia.)
If the humankind does make it through the current turbulent period without annihilating itself in a global catastrophe (which frankly is not unthinkable anymore), our times will be remembered as the Big Gaslighting, when not just reasonable discourse, but common sense itself succumbed to political propaganda.
Having thoroughly monitored Australian media since day one of the military operation in Ukraine, it is my firm conviction that the coverage of the events has been extremely one-sided and biased, to the extent of feeding Australians with blatant propaganda aimed at demonising Russia, especially with fake stories of atrocities, while the true colours of the Ukrainian regime, including egregious war crimes routinely committed by its military, were being deliberately omitted.
In this vein, accusations of disinformation levelled against Russia are meant to discourage the public in the West from diversifying its sources of information and using their critical thinking faculty. Classifying anything that dissents with the mainstream and government position as disinformation makes a meaningful public debate impossible.
Can you foresee a time when relations between Russia, Ukraine and the West could be normalised or restored to pre-conflict levels?
Russia would like to see the tragic page of history turned and relations with the West gradually normalised. What is essential, though, is determining what those normalised relations will look like.
Pre-conflict relations were unjust and detrimental to Russia’s legitimate interests, which in fact, reflected the unfair and hegemonistic international system. The current crisis should be seen as an opportunity to accelerate advancement towards a more just and sustainable world order.
The recent BRICS summit in Kazan, attended by the leaders of 45 countries and six international organisations including the UN Secretary-General, was a practical case of international relations based on mutual respect and consideration of each other’s interests as opposed to the West-promoted authoritarian unipolar model underpinned by the Orwellian principle “some animals are more equal than others”.
Was there anything else you wished to say?
I’d like to highlight a few simple facts of the matter.
Russians have never set foot on the Australian soil carrying arms. Notably, the chain of forts that had been constructed along the East Coast in the end of 19th century never saw the Russian invasion they were built to repel. Our nations fought together in the First World War and were allies in WWII against Nazism. If the names of 27 million citizens my country has lost in that war were inscribed on bronze panels like those in the Australian War Memorial, the Roll of Honour would extend to Westfield Woden.
And yet, as we speak, weapons provided by Australia are killing Russians thousands of kilometres away from here to protect a regime that is openly neo-Nazi in its ideology and practice. This just can’t be right.
As a Russian diplomat who was privileged to meet and become friends with many Australians, I am confident there is every reason for understanding between our two countries and peoples. In any case, no Australian national interests can be served by helping the Zelensky regime to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.
I am hopeful my points pass the pub test.
