Below, please see an extract of the interview of Ukraine’s Minister for foreign affairs. The chief diplomat of the country speaks about Minsk and Normandy formats, as well as about the new challenges that MFA is facing. This is an unofficial translation into English; please, see the original text in Ukrainian published by ‘Yevropeiska Pravda’ (‘European Truth’) in case of discrepancies.

[…]

– Another question about Russia. Can the coronavirus destroy the sanctions?

– Russia sincerely hopes so. They act from afar and suggest, for humanitarian reasons, abandoning those sanctions that prevent the fight against coronavirus. So far, they are not directly talking about the lifting of sanctions enforced in response to the Russian aggression against Ukraine. But we understand perfectly the logic of their actions. We are working to prevent this scenario. I cannot even assume that someone in Europe does not understand their strategy.

“The Foreign Ministry should have a role in the Minsk process”

– Who is in charge of Ukrainian diplomacy?

– The President of Ukraine.

– And the law “On Foreign Service” believes that this should be done by the Foreign Minister.

– Besides the law, there is the Constitution of Ukraine. But it is clear that the top manager of Ukrainian diplomacy is the foreign minister.

– Your predecessor, Mr. Vadym Prystaiko, admitted that he had a certain distribution of powers with the Head of the President’s Office, Mr. Andrii Yermak.  Do you have such a distribution of functions?

– I have not inherited any distribution, but it is obvious that Ukraine has formed an institutional infrastructure to work with the occupied territories. At the government level, this is Vice-Prime-Minister and Minister for Reintegration, Mr. Oleksiy Reznikov. Andrii Yermak, as a person deeply immersed in the Minsk and Normandy processes, also deals with these issues. But it does not mean that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is not involved in this process.

When I took office three weeks ago, my colleagues told me that over the past six months, the involvement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the Minsk process was steadily declining. I believe that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs should be involved in this process, should be a player. And the driving force on our part should be the two institutions that I mentioned (headed by Reznikov and Ermak – ed.).

As for the Normandy format, the leading role of the Foreign Ministry is obvious, it is a classic diplomatic format.

– Do I understand correctly that you accuse Prystaiko of diminishing the role of the Foreign Ministry in Minsk?

– God forbid! Vadym and I have known each other too long to understand the logic of each other’s actions and support each other. He and I are like-minded in foreign policy. I’ve never even thought of accusing him. If you follow the public statements of Minister Prystaiko, you will see that he has commented a lot on both “Minsk” and “Normandy”.

It is just that at different stages of history, starting from 2014, the Foreign Ministry has been involved in these processes to varying degrees. In 2014, the Foreign Ministry was involved everywhere. Then the Presidential Administration began to play a more active role. So, this is a process, not a subject for accusation.

– Is the Foreign Office going to be “everywhere” again?

– No. I’m convinced it shouldn’t be everywhere. Everyone has to do their job.

– You say you’ll be more involved in Normandy and Minsk. If you see something going on there that is harmful to Ukraine, are you ready to say “no”?

– Absolutely. What are you talking about?

– Has it not just happened?

– No, it hasn’t.

– On March 11th in Minsk, it was initialled…

– No, this is not an international legal document to be initialled. A protocol on the results of the meeting was signed.

– Is it all right? After all, the annex refers to the format of the Advisory Council? …

– The annex was not signed by anyone.

– So it hasn’t been agreed with Ukraine?

– It has not been signed. Moreover, you follow the developments and see that the situation around the Advisory Council is not developing.

– So it’s not a coincidence? 

– Well, you will have to conduct a journalistic investigation on that.

… The structure of the Trilateral Contact Group has remained unchanged. There is a state that has attacked, Russia, and a state that has to defend itself, Ukraine, and the OSCE in the middle. The position of the Foreign Ministry is very clear: both the Ministry and I personally as the Minister are against any reformation of the TCG.

As for the Advisory Council, when I became the Minister, this issue was already in progress and I was informed that this was going on. But as I have already said, the situation with the Advisory Council is not moving further.

– What are the “red lines” in the issue of Donbas for us?

– We have only one “red line” which is the state border of Ukraine.

– It does not seem enough. If there is a state border and a federalized state inside it, will it be okay?

– I beg you! No. For me, as for the Minister of Foreign Affairs and as a citizen of Ukraine, it is absolutely unacceptable scenario when one, two or three regions of Ukraine will have more rights to influence domestic and foreign policy decisions of Ukraine than other regions. And the “red line” is the state border of Ukraine, and Russia should not only formally withdraw its armed units, its advisors and its agents of influence, but also fully comply with it.

“We will not consider the “a Transnistria scenario” of Donbas

-When will the Normandy Summit take place?

– We are working according to the dates we have previously agreed to – from April. But everything depends on the stabilization of the coronavirus situation or the ability to come up with an online format of the summit. And of course, we have to go to the summit with concrete results.

– Do you have any expectations that we will have any results in April?

– I have no expectations, I have work to do. We cannot afford freezing the Normandy or the Minsk process. We must look for the solutions. The hopes of a certain part of the Ukrainian society that it will just go away, and everything will be cool, will not materialize. We have to look for compromises if we want to return the temporarily occupied territories. I want to return them. In no way I accept the position ‘let’s cut them off and forget about them’”.

In Paris, a specific document was signed that outlines the further sequence of events. And we want to see an exchange of prisoners, a ceasefire; we want to see the processes that will allow us to have another summit in the Normandy format.

– Russia does not adhere even to the first point of the Minsk agreements, the condition about the ceasefire, and we are talking about the implementation of the 12th point, the elections. Why do we need it?

– Of course, there can be no election without security. But if we don’t talk about it, if we don’t prepare for the moment when the elections will be held – we’ll just waste time. But I emphasize once again that there will be no election without security.

– When can they theoretically happen?

– I would not want to step into the space of hypothetical solutions. We have soldiers dying, we have wounded. It’s a lack of security. When there is security, when there is a ceasefire, then we will start planning when we are all prepared for the elections.

– There was an idea that within a year Ukraine should choose an option for its further actions in Donbas.

– The President of Ukraine said in his interview that he could not wait forever for the constructive position of Russia, and I have no doubt that the President objectively assesses the situation. But our goal is to use various tools to stimulate movement in the right direction. No one will give up the occupied territories in a year. This is our land, our people, and we will fight for them.

– There was an idea to “freeze” the conflict. Relatively speaking, to cut it off, but not to refuse from them completely.

– Please, I beg you! We have an example of what happens if we protract it for decades, this is Transnistria. I am sure there are people in the society who are in favour of this scenario. I personally am against it.

– So we do not consider the scenario of Transnistria?  

– No, we don’t.

– What will happen after this conditional year?

– We will be always looking for a scenario, ways, steps to make sure that the Ukrainian flag returns to Simferopol, Donetsk, Luhansk.

Source: Evropeyskaya Pravda