Kislyak’s Take: America Understands It Is Losing World Empire and is Now Striking Back
The Assembly of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy took place on April, 14-15. Here's an interview with one of the speakers, Sergey Kislyak, Russian ex-ambassador to the US, now a Senator.
- Yesterday, there were many comments on the sensational news. But how did you, as an insider well aware of the US domestic landscape, react to the airstrikes? Was it unexpected to you?
Sergey Kislyak, Russian ex-ambassador to the US: Perhaps, the date and the artificial reason were unpredictable, unlike the policy itself because the US understands it's losing its global dominance. Americans aren't silly, they're perfectly aware of global developments. Though, it doesn't mean they're ready to admit them.
Thus, the attempt to secure their predominance by the use of force isn't very much surprising. This move is likely to be guided more by the desire to demonstrate the US power rather than by an alleged chemical attack, which I believe, didn't take place.
- We know that Trump and his team face serious internal problems. To what extent do the external policies result from the internal ones and the desire to gain ground within the US?
- You know, the internal factor is important. It's especially true for the US, where foreign politics reflects domestic politics. However, we should pay tribute to his consistency, he campaigned on the "Make America Great Again" platform. For Americans, a great America means an exceptional America dominating the world. His rivals have multiple times blamed him for being spineless while dealing with Russia. The combination of these factors results in the strong-arm symptoms of the illness that Americans have today.
- The US ambassador to the UN has recently said that the time for talks is over. Just how cautious should we be to such statements? Should we be afraid of the future?
- Firstly, we shouldn't be afraid of anything, we're a powerful state that can ensure its people's and our friends' safety. That's what I always proceed from and recommend that my friends do so. Concerning the talks, frankly speaking, I have no idea what talks Haley meant because the US hasn't participated in any important talks so far.
By the way, speaking about the Syrian settlement and all the recent major initiatives that began to improve the situation, it's our achievement, resulting from our cooperation with the states that are ready to work on it with us. The US finds itself on the sidelines. Although, in the beginning, we wanted it to participate in the process. So, I don't know what talks Haley means. To be frank, I don't take it that seriously.
- Is it safe to speak about international talks? Any UN resolution is vetoed either by us or by the US. Is it safe to say that this global negotiating venue is outdated and no more efficient?
- No, firstly, the Security Council is the only legitimate body which is entitled to authorize the use of force in the international relations.
- But Americans don't listen to it, they don't need it now.
- Well, it's an old idea, actually. Take the war against Yugoslavia, unleashed by the US and its NATO allies in Europe. The first war in Europe after WWII was unleashed by the Americans, naturally, without the authorization of the Security Council. Take Libya. A decision was taken by the Security Council to impose certain restrictions for humanitarian reasons. The US and its allies ignored it to complete their own goals, which, certainly, wasn't authorized by the Security Council. Take the US war in Iraq in 2003. Again, the Security Council was ignored.
Unfortunately, it's part of the US mindset. We and many other countries, including European ones, speaking about the UN, say: "We, within the UN...", while the US thinks and says differently: "We and the UN..." The US is ready to cooperate with the UN as long as it serves its interests. That's their policy if we put it simply.
- Then, what's the point of talking to them there if they view it only as a tool?
- We must talk to everybody within all the bodies. Whatever exceptional and most wanted globally the US portrays itself, it isn't so actually. All the states are represented in the UN. It's crucial for us, firstly, to make ourselves clear to the world, and secondly, that the US still considers the global public opinion.
- How do you think the situation in Syria will develop and where's the end?
- It's a difficult question. For the past 7 years, Syria has been torn by the war unleashed against its legitimate government. Of course, the back of international terrorism, that has been the major issue there, is broken. But it hasn't been eradicated yet. Thus, it will take some time to finish it up. I'm absolutely sure that the Syrian government, backed by its friends, will achieve peace nationwide for the benefit of the Syrian people.
- Isn't it Western bellicose rhetoric that is now the main threat there instead of terrorists? Will this trend go up or down?
-It depends on what you mean by 'trend' because the Western rhetoric is quite equivocal. On the one hand, they favor the Geneva process and the political settlement, which will be hard for them to refuse. On the other hand, they do their best so that those whom they have backed survive and fulfill their tasks. I think it will be overturned.