Connect with us

INTERVIEW

Ulrich Heyden: I can see that the German elites have sold out Germany

Published

on

With the official start of the war in Ukraine in February 2022, not only were all clocks in the US and Europe set on Russia’s military defeat, but all opinions outside the mainstream were put under immense pressure.

Especially in Germany, public debate and the crumbs of freedom in the German media have been eliminated. Israel’s bloody occupation of Gaza and Lebanon has further darkened the atmosphere. Voices calling for a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine and for Berlin to take the initiative have been silenced in many cases.

German journalist Ulrich Heyden has been writing about Ukraine and Russia for years, in addition to his book The War of the Oligarchs, which has also been translated into Turkish. We spoke to Heyden, who currently lives in Moscow, about the Maidan coup, the most important stop on the road to war, Ukrainian and Russian societies, and the present and future of Germany. Heyden shares his analysis and news on his website.

It is widely believed that the war in Ukraine started in February 2022 and that Russia is waging a war of aggression. However, in your book The War of the Oligarchs, which has also been translated into Turkish, you start with the massacre at the trade union building in Odessa on May 2, 2014 and argue that the road to war was paved by the protests on Maidan. When exactly do you think this war started?

I think the story of the civil unrest and the coup in Ukraine is very long because we had a coup in 2014 and I think the main energy that came out of it did not come from the Ukrainian people. Or maybe it came from part of the Ukrainian people, mostly from Western Ukraine. In 2005 and 2014 we saw it coming very strongly from western institutions, western funds and I think Germany, the US, Great Britain and the Netherlands and other western countries were interested in Ukraine as a region where they could process their products; they could use Ukrainian land for agriculture.

After 2014 it was very clear that Ukraine is a region where you can destabilize the border with Russia and put Russia in a very unfavorable position because no state can sit quietly when there is a very aggressive state policy against another state on the border.

The problem is that Ukraine is a multinational country and I think 30% of the people living there speak Russian and this 30% live in Russian culture. For them Russian culture is important, that is, religion and the history of the second world war and the victory over German fascism and also the victory of the Western Ukrainians over fascist organizations like the organization of Ukrainian nationalists around Bandera, which worked with the fascist German forces… I mean, there are people with very different views in a country and it is impossible for a state to exist if you don’t respect each other or try to have a dialogue.

So every government in Ukraine should try to have a tolerant and liberal attitude towards each of these minorities, not only Ukrainians and Russians, but also Hungarian minorities and other people living in the west of Ukraine.

For 20-odd years, from 1991 to 2014, it was possible to achieve peace between nations in Ukraine. But then I think the US decided to escalate and heat up this conflict in the country and they paid Western Ukrainians to come and go to the Maidan in Kiev and they held some meetings in this square for months and they bought weapons.

They stole weapons from police stations in Western Ukraine and they came to Kiev with these weapons and all this was known to people who were interested in Ukraine. But nobody writes about it in the western media, in the newspapers I write, they only write that the people of a European country want to have closer contact with the western economy, “western democracy and we must help these brothers and sisters who love democracy like us.”

Yes, we read in the western newspapers that the Ukrainian people wanted to join the European Union and NATO, but Russia was blocking them.

But this is not true because Russia was not against Ukraine being part of the European Union or European trade links. Russia was only against Ukraine joining NATO, but the western leaders demanded that Ukraine decide whether it wanted to be a member of the European Union or not, otherwise they would get nothing from them.

The President of Ukraine [Viktor] Yanukovych decided that he could not go through this planned path to become a member of the European Union and this moment was used by the western countries to escalate the situation in the country.

Ukraine and we only saw these demonstrators on western TV, we didn’t see people from Donetsk, Luhansk, Odessa who were not fans of Maidan because they wanted friendly relations with Europe, but they wanted a future for Ukraine.

Yanukovych was right when he said that they needed a lot of economic help from the European Union to build the industry at a higher level because their industry was not far enough ahead, but at that moment when they linked [Ukrainian industry] with the European Union, it would have been a disaster for the industry.

But I think the intellectual and media influence of the west has been there since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and even then people from the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada and Germany started actively coming to Ukraine, they received money from western funds to take part in building a new Ukraine. But they wanted these people from the diaspora, because most of them wanted an anti-Russian Ukraine, not a Ukraine between NATO and Russia, between the blocs, but a really anti-Russian Ukraine.

This was a minority, but this minority was financed by western funds and they invited students, they helped young people to set up NGOs in Ukraine. They funded these NGOs. So the intellectual atmosphere and the mindset in Ukraine changed a lot.

For example, if you look at the results of opinion polls, until 2014 most Ukrainians were against Ukraine’s NATO membership. Now you cannot trust these opinion polls because there is no democracy in Ukraine now. We have only one media. Opposition parties are banned. Opposition media is banned. Many people from the opposition are in jail or have fled the country.

When you look now, they tell you that the majority of Ukrainians are in favor of NATO membership, but there is no control. Who is doing these opinion polls? Because it is not a democratic society.

I mean, this is true for everybody who is interested in Ukraine. Some western newspapers say, “Okay, Ukraine is a democratic country with some faults. Okay, there is corruption, but overall Ukraine is doing very well.” But how can you say that when there is no opposition in the parliament? I mean, I mean, when we haven’t even elected a president for months.

Russian leader Vladimir Putin said that they understood that the Minsk agreements were designed to distract them. Do you think Europe, and Germany in particular, was the instigator of the war in Ukraine after 2014, or was it just forced to follow Anglo-American interests?

It is very sad for me to say this, but I actually see that a large part of the German establishment is ready and in favor of this militant path, this military path. They are not following the path of the Minsk agreements. They are going to the path of military confrontation.

And it is very sad because there are many people and alternative media also in Germany and there are also people in our parties who are not compatible with this aggressive way, this conflict way and using Ukraine only to set fire to the Russian border. Many Germans understand this, but they are not heard in our media. This is a very sad situation.

Maybe I can say that there are normal people in the Christian Democratic Party, in the Social Democratic Party. They understand these things but they have no weight. The main speakers are supporters of the American way of confrontation and now I have no hope.

This situation will only change when the peace movement in Germany gets stronger. After the elections in Saxony and Thuringia, we saw that the AfD and Wagenecht [BSW] parties received the votes of almost half of the East German voters. But after this clear statement from the East German voters, we saw that even Ukraine changed its choice of words. Now everyone is talking. Zelenskiy said we should have a new peace conference and German politicians started talking, “We should have some peace talks and peace is the way out of this crisis.”

But these are just an ornament in my opinion. The hard way is different. The hard way is that America has decided to put new long-range rockets in Germany, and they are arguing about giving missiles to Ukraine. This is going on and will go on.

Do you mean the Taurus missiles?

Yes, the Tauruses. I think it’s very clever, to escalate the military situation and on the other hand to show that we are for peace… But it’s terrible. I mean, I don’t know. I really don’t know at the moment. I don’t see how it can end. It can only be a catastrophe this way. Disaster and nuclear war.

But then again, Germany has seen energy prices rise dramatically after the Ukraine war, and there is an ongoing debate about the deindustrialization of Germany in particular and Europe in general. Why is the German political elite following or pursuing Anglo-American interests, even if it means war with Russia, high inflation and the deterioration of people’s livelihoods?

Russians in Moscow ask me this question every day because they are not anti-German. For example, this is very, very interesting. Most Russians don’t think like that even when Germany sends arms to Ukraine.

The problem is that Germany was built after the Second World War mainly by American and British advisors, and in the last 20 years in the German media you see more and more often that our main newspapers, our editors are attending conferences of the Atlantic Council, and this very close contact with the American establishment is so strong, and that’s why our culture is so tied to America that sometimes I get the feeling that Germans are part of America.

Nobody knows anything about Russia and Russian culture, only some educated people. But American culture is completely dominant and the American way of life, American movies and culture are always present in Germany. So there is this thesis that we have to live for democracy and democracies in America, politicians talk about it every day and people trust it.

But now they are starting to feel it. What does that mean? Maybe it’s just an illusion. When we talk about democracy, we see that we are getting poorer and poorer and now our party system is collapsing because the parties in our government, the green liberals and the social democrats, were defeated in the elections in East Germany. For example, the Greens are the party with the strongest support that said we should give arms to Ukraine. They were defeated. They didn’t get more than 5 percent. So they are now not represented in the parliaments of the two East German states.

I have never been a friend of strong national rhetoric, but I must say that at the moment our government is not working for the nation. They are not working for our nation, for Germany. They are working for something else.

Because when people are getting poorer and poorer, when Berlin is getting dirtier, when conflicts with migrants are increasing, these problems are not well organized.

I mean, I see my country falling into a chaos, a chaotic situation. Everybody sees it. And who is benefiting from this situation? America, German business. They go and invest in America because energy is cheaper there than in Germany.

I would like to look inside the heads of the German elite and know why they are going in this way, in this pro-American way and selling their country. It’s crazy. I think we should wait a few years to find out the truth. Right now I can only see that they are selling out the German country, Germany.

In order to legitimize the so-called “Special Military Operation” that began in February 2022, Putin has at times developed a rhetoric that questions Ukraine’s statehood and emphasizes that historically it was a state “invented” by the Bolsheviks. As a journalist, you have also been to Ukraine. Can you share with us your observations on Ukrainian society and state structure? Is it an artificial country or a country fabricated by the Bolshevik conspiracy?

No, I don’t think so, because it is a reality. There is Ukrainian and there are Ukrainians, there are Ukrainian citizens. This nationality exists mostly in the center and west of Ukraine. So there are official documents, official sociological researches of the Ukrainian state about who is Russian, who is Ukrainian, who is Hungarian.

You see that the Russian nationality is strong in southern and eastern Ukraine and the Ukrainian nationality is strong in central and western Ukraine. When you look at history, you see Bogdan Khmelnitsky, a Ukrainian soldier who 300 years ago refused to accept that Poland was becoming more important in Ukraine along with the Catholic religion. Hmelnitskiy made a deal with the Tsar, with Russia, and Ukraine became a friend, a partner of Russia. And from that time Ukraine became part of the Russian empire.

After the Second World War, the Western elites, in my opinion, waited for the moment when the Soviet Union would weaken. And when that moment came, they were happy. And they were very happy because the Soviet Union was a superpower, it was very strong.

Now we see that Russia has to do a lot to have the military and economic power that the Soviet Union had at that time.

But I mean, I don’t agree with what Vladimir Putin said, for example, he made very strong arguments when he said that Lenin’s national policy was like putting a bomb under the Russian empire. I think this is not true. Lenin only did this, he saw that there was a Ukrainian nationality and in order to include this nationality in the Soviet empire he gave it special rights and special support, sometimes even more support than the Russians, more than Russian culture.

I also see a continuity in what Putin is saying, because at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were discussions about what would happen after the Soviet Union with the Slavic brotherhood, that is Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. So there were people around Yeltsin who thought that some parts of Ukraine like Odessa, Donbas and Crimea were part of the historical Russian empire. Even at that time, during the collapse of the Soviet Union, there were some powerful Russian elites who were claiming parts of Ukraine against this Bolshevik policy of nationalities. So I think there is a continuity in Putin’s claim that Ukraine is part of the de-communization of Ukraine and part of Russia’s claim to all this Crimea and Donbas, don’t you think?

Yes, you are right. When you say that there are these voices in the Russian establishment, for example, the mayor of Moscow, Yuri Lujkov, has said very strongly that Crimea is Russian.

But you have to remember that in 1991 the Russian people, the head of Crimean politics and the people did not want to be part of Ukraine, they tried to hold a referendum, they held a referendum in ’91 to become something like an independent republic, but it was not strong enough at that moment because Russia did not support Crimea’s policy of independence, Russia was completely weak and it was really a strategy for the Russians.

So in ’91 20 million Russians were living outside Russia, they were living in Kazakhstan, they were living in Turkmenistan, in Kyrgyzstan, in Romania, in Ukraine and all these Russians were in danger because there were huge economic difficulties in these republics and at that time some aggressive nationalists started attacking Russians in these former Soviet republics.

We had this kind of nationalism since 2014 when the Ukrainian army started attacking civilian villages and cities in Donetsk, in Luhansk with weapons. Western media doesn’t write about it, they don’t see a problem in these attacks.

The problem you are talking about, I mean, is Ukraine a state or not? I mean when I hear Russian politicians, especially Putin and Lavrov, I think they are basically saying that Ukraine is a state, but we cannot accept a state under the control of NATO or under the control of the West. For them Ukraine should be a politically neutral state – I mean the kind of state that we had from 1991 to 2014.

So there was Russian influence in Ukraine, there was Western influence, I think this form can exist again, it can exist again when the war is over now. There are other countries like Switzerland with three official languages and influenced by different other countries, why not Ukraine?

Now in this situation of course there are some radicals within the Russian society. People are very emotional when they see Russian soldiers dying, western tanks fighting against the Russian army like in the Second World War, and you hear some people saying, “We’re taking Ukraine, we’re taking it all, we’re going to Lviv,” but I think it’s an emotional thing. If Russia really wants to think for the future, I think a total occupation of Ukraine is out of the question.

So you are saying that the radical views that say let’s take over Ukraine do not reflect the views of the Russian state.

It is very difficult to say that because we are living in a state of war. For example, Stalin never talked like Morgenthau or some American politicians who wanted to divide Germany into five parts. The Red Army went to liberate East Germany and they created a German state under Soviet control.

I think something similar could happen in Ukraine because we had a second German state under Soviet control between 45-90 and something similar could happen in Ukraine.

The other option, if Russia cannot withstand this very strong military support, maybe there will be a peace negotiation and Ukraine will be divided. So the east and the south will be part of Russia.

These talks maybe won’t work at the moment because we have a war situation and everything is flowing. Nothing is stable. I mean, how can you talk about the Ukrainian state when the Russian army is shelling Lviv, which is the west of Ukraine? I think the Ukrainian state is in a very unstable situation. And perhaps the most tragic thing is that western advisors in western financial institutions say that they completely control the central part of Ukraine, the western part. There is no such thing. There is no oligarch or political person who represents a truly independent Ukraine. This independent Ukraine does not exist at the moment because Zelensky, who is represented by the western media, is, in my opinion, a spokesman for a section of the Democratic Party of the United States of America, because he is not elected now, he has not been elected president for four or five months.

There is no really independent democratic discourse in Ukraine, there is no debate with different meanings, because it is impossible for a nation, the only voice of a nation to be a person like Zelenskiy. This is not a sign of democracy. Anyone who thinks a little bit deeper understands this.

I wrote an article about these Ukrainian oligarchs. At the beginning of 2014 they were independent oligarchs with their own interests and they had the illusion that they could do politics for their own interests. But in the last nine years these oligarchs have come completely under the control of American and British politics and financial companies.

[Igor] Kolomoyskiy is under arrest on corruption charges. I think this anti-corruption policy is also a tool of the Western governments that are trying to establish a new order in Ukraine, an economic order that serves only Western interests, economic interests and strategic interests in Ukraine. So they are using private institutions, for example the anti-corruption agency, as an additional institution to the official law of Ukraine. This is crazy.

America is very good at using progressive words and progressive thinking in these matters for its own interests and it is very, very sad for the Ukrainian people. I know them very well because I lived in Kiev in 1992 and after 1992 I traveled a lot to Kiev and other regions and I had contacts with Ukrainian patriots. My best friend was Ukrainian. He thought that Ukraine could only survive without Russian influence. In 1992 this was an interesting position for me. Now I cannot accept this position. We are not friends now because it is normal to have Russian influence in Ukraine. Russian culture in Ukraine is part of Ukraine and you cannot defeat it, you cannot eliminate it.

You are living in Moscow now. Can you tell us a little bit about how the war has affected the daily life in Moscow and Russia? The Russian economy has surprised a lot of people, especially in the West, but we know that there is also harsh criticism from some quarters inside the country against the economic management, especially the Central Bank. Do you have any idea where Russia is heading after the war?

Let’s talk about the current situation, because after the war, I have some ideas, but okay, let’s talk about today.

I see that there is inflation in Russia like in the West. I mean, it’s not that bad, but when I go to big markets, supermarkets, I see fewer people than before. I see that. I mean, according to official statistics, the number of Russian millionaires is increasing, but the number of people with less income is also increasing. So, the gap has gotten bigger.

But the government is trying to provide special support for the stabilization of families, children, especially those families that would normally exist, and they are succeeding. I don’t see any poverty on the streets in Moscow, I was in St. Petersburg and I didn’t see it there either. I don’t see people begging for money on every corner, for example, as I saw in the 90s.

The cities are not really dirty, they are clean. Some people, some Germans told me that Moscow is much cleaner than Berlin

Okay, we have a stable situation overall, I think. But underneath this stability there are some questions, some problems. For example, the owner of the best-known online startup Wildberries [Tatyana Bakalchuk] was the richest woman in Russia. She had a dispute with her husband.

I think there was a shootout in Moscow.

Yes, yes, they both owned this company. And I think this woman has 7 billion dollars. Many people remembered the situation in the 90s, already securities and gold got into some companies, they tried to get them by force. In the 90s we had this every week and people were dying. This conflict in Wildberries was also a sign for me, I hope it doesn’t happen more. These cases and some interesting discussions are going on.

I think nowadays some powerful people from the Russian church and some other people have started a debate on the theory of evolution. Do you have any information about this?

Yes. So, there are some reactionary tendencies that one has in this period. They are getting stronger and stronger. But on the other hand, I wouldn’t say that the Russian leadership has officially put direct pressure in this direction. For example, I know that Putin is not a friend of the demand to ban abortion. Does she want a baby or not? It’s the woman’s decision. I mean, there are strong sectors in the Orthodox Church and in society that want to ban abortion.

After the terrorist act in the Krokus building in Moscow, there was also some emotional debate. Like the death penalty, which we had during the Soviet era. Russia became part of the Council of Europe and declared a moratorium on the death penalty and capital punishment. This moratorium is still in place now, but there are some reactionary forces that are trying to implement it. This is very popular when you go out on the street. I mean, you hear even some Russians saying, yes, we have to fight against corruption in very strong ways. We shoot these people in the head and the problem is solved.

So, what you hear is real, especially in this heated situation, in this emotional situation with the war, a lot of people are in favor of this tough policy. This is a fact.

For example, some of the liberal voices that were very strong in Moscow and St. Petersburg in the last 30 years are not so loud anymore, the political debates are quieter now. For example, the Communist Party never demonstrated in Moscow after the corona, they were not allowed to do that because of the corona infection.

And the political life is now a bit, no no no, very quiet, because the war situation dominates everything. I mean, we are really feeling the war more and more because for example, I think ten days ago, in the town of Ramanskoye, southeast of Moscow, a Ukrainian drone destroyed part of a big house.

For example, in the center of Moscow, you cannot use a navigation device for the car because the navigation device shows you the wrong way because there is electronic jamming.

I have been in Donetsk many times, I have been in Luhansk until 2022. I saw people in wartime, they were going on with their lives, living as usual, because you have no other choice. You would see that nobody ran away. Now in Moscow you only see big posters inviting you to enlist to fight on the front. There are big posters with a few medals on the body, with soldiers who fought on the front and graduated.

War is the main theme in Russian media, in Russian television. It is completely typical media, typical television. No, there is some humor. A little bit. You have it too. It’s a mixture of everything. A little bit of humor and a little bit of war.

You mentioned that liberal voices are not very popular in Moscow and St. Petersburg these days, but there’s someone like [Central Bank Governor] Elvira Nabiullina, you know. And people like [Mikhail] Dalyagin are harshly critical of the financial circles around the Central Bank. And yet Vladimir Putin chose Nabiullina to serve the Central Bank. How is this possible even in a state of war? Because it seems that she also has a lot of connections with western institutions and she seems to be some kind of an agent of western financial powers in Russia. How is both possible?

I know that the Russian opposition or opposition thinkers have such a position. They criticize the financial block of the Russian government. Very, very harshly. I can’t say anything about these words that the Governor of the Central Bank of Russia [Elvira Nabiullina] is connected to western politics. I mean, this is a strong, very strong statement and there is no truth about it.

It’s impossible that now in Russia one person is running the central bank and working for western interests. There are such discussions, I can say for myself that I understand the criticism, people who criticize the central bank because interest rates are high and it is difficult for small businesses to get loans. It is very expensive to buy a house.

To create a more active economic and political environment, the state needs to invest more, put money into the economic process and people need to work and produce.

But for example, the Russian industry for the military is in a very, very good situation, very, very active and producing at a very high rate, but there are many problems with engineers. After the Soviet period many schools of technical education and engineering education were closed. Now Russia has to buy technological equipment from Turkey, China, other India.

This is a result of the completely neoliberal policies of the 90s and later. It was the main result of the economic process wherever the whole leadership of the state was oriented towards or supported the policy of selling oil and gas.

Now we see the results of that, that there are huge gaps in Russia’s economic structure.

There are different political wings in Russian society and in the Russian leadership. Maybe there is still liberal thinking in the economic sector of the government, but in the economy, too, state-oriented politics is getting stronger.

The fact that Putin has chosen a new defense minister who is stronger, tougher than [Sergei] Shoigu in this policy, for example.

Russia is forced to organize its domestic life very strongly in case of war. It is not possible to be anti-national policy in Russia. So maybe some other people in the Russian government will be replaced by stronger people.

Finally, let’s talk a little bit about Germany. On October 3rd, on the so-called German Unity Day, a group of pacifists will organize a rally calling for a diplomatic solution in Ukraine. Some people we spoke to in Germany last year said that they had never seen so much restriction of freedom of thought and expression in the country after the war in Ukraine. The Israeli attacks on Gaza since October 7 seem to have reinforced this pessimistic mood. Another issue is the undisputed victory of the “far-right” AfD, especially in East Germany. Where do you think Germany is heading?

I think Germany is now in a completely chaotic situation. Especially the Greens are a sign of that. The party that shouted the loudest for sending weapons to Ukraine, for changing the energy policy rapidly, for demanding that homeowners modernize their homes with special generators for heating, for banning heat pumps, and this party suffered a complete defeat in these elections.

Our Chancellor [Olaf] Scholz played a very strange role. He was not the loudest advocate of this very strange policy against Russia, this strange energy policy. He was not the loudest. It was the Greens who spoke the loudest and this Chancellor, who is not a good orator, has no charisma as a leader of a country. He is in a good position now because his party in Brandenburg has become the strongest party, but that was only because the old media, the German nationalists, opposed Alternative for Germany and people maybe voted for the social democrats because the whole media was full of controversy. The AfD was something like a new NSDAP, a new fascist party. I think the AfD is not a fascist party. There are some fascists in this party but it is not a fascist party. Mainly the people who vote for it are not fascists. I mean, maybe a small percentage, but not a big percentage.

I have a bad feeling about the migrant problem, because when a state is in an unstable situation and the government doesn’t really have a concrete plan on what to do, how to make life better for normal people, it comes back again.

Yes, we have problems with migrants and they come into our country without any control. They are linked to some aggressive acts against civilians in Germany. This has become the main topic of the last month. I think there are really problems and maybe it is really necessary to have a stronger control on immigration and immigration policy.

It is necessary, but it is used as a trick that people don’t talk about social problems and social policy and weapons for Ukraine. Migrants from other countries are used to distract attention from the mistakes of the government.

Sometimes I see the same thing in Russia. I mean, there are some migrants here too. There are many migrants from Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. They are building houses, streets and a lot of things here. Without these migrants Russia would be in a bad situation. But there is no real integration of these migrants and from what I see it is not a very good situation.

All the Germans I have talked to about the situation in Germany are very sad. They are sad and they have no idea what to do.

For me this is the end of the liberals. For me this is the end of radical liberal politics, gender politics, economic politics.

Now we will see, I think Germany is following a stronger national oriented policy. Maybe the first signs of this stronger national oriented policy will be stronger against immigrants, more propaganda for the German army, more money for the German army.

Germans have always had a difficult connection with the army. It was hard for Germans to be proud of the army because after the second world war we had no pride. We don’t know what this national pride is. Other European countries have this pride and we don’t.

Now it’s very sad because I’m a German and I’m proud of our poetry, I’m proud of our technology, I’m proud of science, German science and music, but I’m not proud of our army because they are doing things that are not good.

But I think in times of crisis, always in history, you see some people who want social unrest in Germany trying to channel people’s emotions in a direction that suits them.

So our leadership does not want that. That’s why they make some emotional speeches against migrants. That’s why they make emotional speeches in favor of arming the Ukrainian people to protect free Europe from the dictator Putin.

For my part I would like to say that I have always been a supporter of the brotherhood of nations and normal civilized processes between nations. When I lived in Germany, for example, I worked with Turks in a factory and I felt that they helped me. They helped me when they saw that I was not fast enough to pick up the machine parts.

And now I am in a different situation. I live in Moscow and our situation has changed because we have a lot of immigrants from Tajikistan and I have good relations with them too. Now, I don’t feel any regulation from the state in Moscow on these issues.

I imagine in Germany in the 70s and 80s when there was formal integration. Okay, that was another time. At that time we really did not have enough labor force. I’m not sure that Germany needs millions of immigrants now. I don’t think so. On the other hand, I don’t want to support the nationalist propaganda of the AfD, which says that Germany’s main problem is migrants. That is completely wrong.

If we Germans and Russians cannot find a normal way, a civilized way in these situations… It is very important that the contact between nations and countries should be in a normal civilized dialogue, not in a dialogue about who is stronger and who is weaker.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘China will be the primary international issue for the second Trump term’

Published

3 days ago

on

18/12/2024

By

Guy B. Roberts, one of the most influential figures in the Trump administration, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and former Deputy Secretary General at NATO, spoke to Harici: “China will be, I think, the primary international issue for the United States. The various statements by the leadership in China indicate that there will continue to be a strong push to fully integrate Taiwan within the Chinese political structure. I think that will be one of the big challenges in the first year of the Trump administration.”

Under former President Donald Trump, Guy B. Roberts served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Defense Programs and was former Deputy Secretary General at NATO for weapons of mass destruction defense.

Guy B. Roberts answered Dr. Esra Karahindiba’s questions on the expectations for the second Trump term in terms of foreign and domestic policy.

I know that you have been closely working with Donald Trump in his previous cabinet as you were Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense. You know how his policies were before, and you may foresee how it’s going to continue from January. What is your primary expectation at this point?

Well, it’s actually quite exciting because I think that President Trump has really made it clear that he intends to follow through on all of his campaign promises. He’ll likely focus almost immediately on the immigration issue—the illegal immigration into the United States—and also on revamping the tax structure to maximize tax reductions for middle-class Americans.

On the international side, I fully expect him to put pressure on allies and partners to do more for their defense and meet the commitments they’ve made regarding spending 2% or more of their GDP on defense. That was a key element in his first administration, and I actually was with him at NATO headquarters, where we talked at length about the need for our allies to step up. Once he gets his team in place, I see those things being critical upfront. Of course, the U.S. system is such that it’ll take probably six months before that happens.


Let’s talk about Ukraine. Trump promised to end the Ukraine war, stating he could do so in 24 hours. His aides continue to repeat this claim today. Considering the war is taking a negative turn for Ukraine in recent months, will Trump be able to bring peace to Ukraine? Also, do you think Russian President Vladimir Putin will accept a ceasefire or a peace deal?

That’s the real challenge. I think it’s unrealistic to expect that he can resolve this in 24 hours, as President Trump claims. It’s much more complicated than that. However, I do think he will engage directly with President Putin. I can see that happening, where he’ll pressure Putin to agree to a ceasefire and take steps toward resolving this issue.

Ukraine may not be enthusiastic about giving up territory, but I do think that given the situation in the situation such as the introduction of new weapons systems, the recent intermediate ballistic missiles that Russians fired on Ukraine, Ukraine’s invasion of Kursk region of Russia can set the stage for quid pro quo type of negotiation where each side gives up something at least at the beginning in return for a ceasefire. Peace, I believe, is going to take much longer than 24 hours.

President Biden, nearing the end of his term, has made some significant moves that could complicate things for Trump. For instance, he signed a bill allowing Ukraine to use U.S.-made long-range missiles against Russia. Secondly, he sanctioned Gazprombank, which is crucial for Russian international money transfers and energy trade. Several other banks are placed in sanction list. What is Biden trying to do just before leaving his post? Is he leaving some bombs in the hands of Trump?

I believe that’s certainly in the back of his mind. He’s setting the stage for successful negotiations, whether he wants to give Trump the credit or not. His administration will probably deny that. I do think that given the kinds of things the long-range fires that he’s now authorized in, the additional increases in military hardware that he’s agreed to and his encouragement by other allies to do the same, is helping and will help in arriving at a successful ceasefire negotiation.
About Trump’s upcoming second term presidency, European leaders were not really enthusiastic and they’re not happy. Some of them are not happy that president-elect Trump is going to return to White House. What kind of reorganization do you anticipate from Europe to a new Trump era? From an alliance standpoint, the Secretary General Rutte has been a very enthusiastic supporter and a campaigner, if you will, just like his predecessor, Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg to see that the Allies do more.  I think overall they have been doing more. I mean, we’ve had, I believe, over 21 countries now meeting the 2% military spending on GDP, and the others are on the road to doing so. The newer allies, like Finland and Sweden, have shown very robust spending on defense and training, even to the point of producing manuals for the population to undertake certain activities in the event there should actually be a war. That, I think, has deterrence value. The message being sent by the alliance is that we are an alliance, and that if you cross that line and attack any of us, you have to face all of us. Likewise, we have seen in the Indo-Pasific region reaching out to building a coalition with partners in the region including of course Australia and New Zealand but also Vietnam. We just recently sold them some training jets and other countries as well. The Trump Administration will probably be less focused on Alliance building and more focused on one-on-one relationships that are self-supporting in terms of defense. That might be a shift in what we’ll see happening between the Trump and Biden administrations.

You mean that Trump will prefer a personal diplomacy instead of a corporate diplomacy.

Yes, I think whereas Biden administration has been building coalition for example we have The Five Eyes, a group of countries reaching out to build a new interconnected relationship very similar to similar actually to what was attempted back in the late 50s and early 60s of something called SETO, the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization which was tried to mimic the NATO alliance.  For a variety of reasons SETO didn’t work out and it fell apart.

But now that be in light of the Chinese aggressive behavior and it’s claims over the South China Sea and other areas, its belligerency against Taiwan and its refusal to agree to or accept the opinions by the international court of justice on the law of sea claims, the Hostile relationship they’ve had with the Philippines, so outlining islands all of that makes that particular region a potential hotspot. The recognition that the only way that there’s going to be an ability to stop and deter China from continuing and acting in that way is to build these relationships. And I think you’ll see a lot of enthusiasm for doing so.

Talking about personal diplomacy and personal relationships how would you describe a potential relationship between Trump and Xi Jinping, Trump and Macron, Trump and President Erdogan?

That’s a very important area, and I’m not sure exactly how the Trump Administration is going to proceed. However, I believe that President Trump places a lot of value on personal relationships with national leaders. That’s why I think he’s more comfortable and will be more comfortable building one-on-one relationships as opposed to forming large partnerships.

I would expect to see much more of this one-on-one approach, with Trump meeting with various presidents and prime ministers throughout the region that he considers key to establishing strategic stability, whether it be in Southeast Asia, the alliance partnership, the Mediterranean, or elsewhere. I think we can expect him to be much more proactive in building personal relationships than we saw in the Biden Administration.

Okay, talking about Trump and Erdoğan, and the cooperation and challenges between the US and Turkey, let’s discuss that a bit.  Especially the PYD issue, which is a significant issue for Turkey.  The US is trying to beat one terror group by using another, particularly as Turkey is a NATO ally but the US still ignores regarding Ankara’s concerns about the PYD.  That’s Turkey’s number one issue.

What do you think about the F-35 issue? Could Turkey rejoin the F-35 program?  What do you think about those main issues?  And finally, how do you see Turkey’s role as a facilitator in the Middle East, especially in bringing peace to Palestine and ending the war with Israel?

Well, you have just asked me a question that could take the entire day to answer.

Looking at the relationship with Turkey and its leadership, I believe Turkey is a critical partner in ensuring peace and stability in the region. At the same time, there is a lot of turmoil. One major issue is the apparent strengthening of Turkey’s relationships with Russia and China in term long term, which is inconsistent with NATO’s position on Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and Iran’s support for Russia by providing drones and missiles that we’ve already seen used on the battlefield. There’s also significant political turmoil within Turkey at the moment, you know better than I.  One unresolved issue is what to do with the two million displaced people as a result of various wars in the region.  I think President Trump would be very interested in meeting with Erdoğan to discuss resolving the Syria problem. Trump is likely looking for an exit strategy that would allow US forces to leave that particular area of the Middle East. During the campaign, he referred to such areas as “Forever Wars”, where the US is militarily involved in various regions globally.  Regarding Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups, those are major challenges.  I was very hopeful that the Abraham Accords would be the approach that the whole region would take.  This, again, was a Trump initiative during his first administration, involving countries like Israel, the UAE, Sudan, and I believe Morocco. They signed a peace treaty in which they promised to work together to develop economically, scientifically, and in engineering, as well as to maintain and create an environment for peace and security in the region, free from terrorist activities and hatred that have plagued the past several decades. To the point where I saw a country like Saudi Arabia even considering joining this process, it is now all on hold as a result of the Hamas attack on Israel and the response by Israel, which many people consider far excessive to what had happened.

It’s really interesting. I interviewed you in Ankara before, as you may remember. It was a one-hour interview, and we discussed this topic. I don’t want to repeat the same thing; perhaps our audience can watch that episode again. But again, like all the Western discourse, they repeat the same thing as if everything started with the Hamas attack on October 7th. Nobody talks about what has been happening since 1948. Okay, I’m the moderator and the presenter but I want to contribute to this discussion. I really don’t understand why, if the US government is willing to make peace in the region with the Abraham Accords and bring everyone together for a peaceful period, the US does not address Palestine’s need for freedom according to UN resolutions. Under these oppressions since 1948, Palestine has not been given that freedom. The two-state solution is still pending. How many people were injured or killed on October 7? I don’t know the exact number. But now, according to international organizations’ reports, almost 100,000 people have died in Gaza, including those in the West Bank. The West Bank is still witnessing numerous settlements. What do settlements mean? They are taking people’s lands and homes, creating a situation where peace cannot exist. Why doesn’t the US push Israel to implement the two-state solution to bring peace to the Middle East?

Well, that’s a very good question and needs to be addressed. The challenge is that I wouldn’t go back to 1948; I’d go back to 1917 and the Balfour Declaration, which created the environment we are in today. That declaration guaranteed a Jewish homeland. The problem is that you’ve got groups like Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, and others with charters stating that their goal is to exterminate Israel. When that’s a primary goal, it’s very difficult to sit across the table and negotiate a peace agreement. If we got beyond that and all players in the region agreed to Israel’s right to exist, I personally believe that all the issues you mentioned would be subject to negotiation. I think the Israelis would give up quite a bit to have a guarantee that there wouldn’t be hundreds of rockets fired into their territory and that there wouldn’t be terrorist attacks all the time.

Recognition of Israel as a legitimate state with a right to exist would open the door to negotiations. I think everything else would be subject to negotiation, and I think they’d give up a lot. But when you’re at that particular point, and again, you have groups engaging in massive human rights violations—and I certainly wouldn’t put it past the fact that both sides have committed law of war or humanitarian violations—it creates an environment where people are consumed with hatred. As a result, that attitude gets passed on to the next generation, and 10 years from now, we’ll have another intifada or a similar kind of situation where people are already at each other’s throats. To sit here and say, ‘We can come up with a solution’ is absolutely right—we can come up with a solution. But there’s no willingness on the part of anybody to sit down and say, ‘Okay, let’s come up with a good deal.’ And that just doesn’t seem to be happening. I wish it would. I think the Trump administration, again, with President Trump’s personal intervention, has a great opportunity to negotiate some of the things you mentioned as enticement to bring everyone to the table.  We’ve had people come to the table before. In the past, we sat down and tried to hammer out agreements regarding weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East or arms control. We came up with some great ideas—they’re all out there. It just takes political will to implement them.

Unfortunately, there is no political will to do it. So, we just have to keep trying and build consensus among the region’s leaders that it’s in their best interest—and the people’s best interest—to sit down and craft a lasting peace. But whether that will happen, I have to say, after 40 years of looking at this issue, the likelihood is that we’ll face another cycle of violence in 10 years. That’s just the way it is in that region.

But we have the reality in the International Criminal Court, which announced an arrest warrant for Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, because of war crimes. This is the reality—we’re talking about dozens of thousands of people. We always say 50,000 people, but it is almost 100,000 people, and that is really insane. If you don’t want war in the region, the main issue is: with whom do you have war? With Iran, Lebanon, Hezbollah? You don’t like the Muslim Brotherhood, etc., but all of these are connected to the issue of a free state of Palestine. It’s not happening this way. It’s not going to happen. I don’t want to go deep into this discussion because it has no end.

So, in our last five minutes, I’d like to go back to Trump’s foreign policy. He was really pro-Israel in his first term and moved the embassy to Jerusalem. But later on, he also had negative moments with Netanyahu. For the 2024 campaign, he has garnered greater Israeli support this time around. How will this affect his policies towards Iran and the Middle East in general?

Well, yes. I mean, the primary player in the area right now is, in fact, Iran, because it is recognized as the number one supporter of international terrorism. This has been recognized by the Gulf Cooperation Council. They support Hamas and Hezbollah, both identified as international terrorist organizations. Coupled with the firing of rockets from Iran into Israel, which in turn creates an Israeli response, the spiral of violence continues. This needs to be stopped, and there are ways to work towards peaceful coexistence. But as we know, the rhetoric in Iran is “death to Israel, death to the United States.” That kind of attitude does not make peace negotiations conducive. I wish I could give an answer that says, “This is the solution, and it will be embraced by everyone.” But, as you said, we could talk for hours about the problems and challenges in the Middle East.  For example, in Lebanon, I’m watching what’s going on, and I’m actually thinking back to 1982 when I was in Lebanon. We had an attempt to maintain peace among the various groups, and then we had the Israelis invading Beirut, creating a siege situation, cutting things off. It feels like déjà vu all over again. How can we stop the cycle of violence? It really is beyond me. I’ve been dealing with this issue for a long time, and every time we came up with solutions, those solutions were quickly ignored. Hatred then became prominent. So, we just have to keep trying and, hopefully, someday we’ll get to that point.

Okay, let’s hope. My last question is on relations with China. Trump’s cabinet has hawkish figures who are strongly against China. Trump promised a 60% tax on China, which is a big concern. How do you think U.S.-China relations will progress under a second Trump term?

China will be, I think, the primary international issue for the United States. China’s long-term strategy is clear, and President Xi has made no secret of his ambition for China to become the world’s hegemon by 2049. They made statements to that effect and don’t hide it. They have a very aggressive policy of reaching out to multiple countries to build relationships through loans and various other economic incentives. They have also made claims in the South China Sea, which are very destabilizing. These claims are inconsistent with recognized international law of the sea. They have tried to harass many countries in the region over their territorial sea claims.

This has resulted in countries like Vietnam building a strong relationship with the United States. During one of my last trips as Assistant Secretary of Defense to Hanoi, I found the Vietnamese very enthusiastic about working with the U.S especially on defense sector. Other countries in the region feel the same way due to Chinese encroachment and bullying. China has also built a strong global network, acquiring port facilities in the Panama Canal, the Suez Canal area, the Straits of Malacca, and other choke points. They have created a very strong presence which in a hostile environment could be a way to strangle the world economy. We see these kinds of things happening and recognize within the United States that there are activities on the part of China that have a negative impact on national security and the collective security relationship around the world. I think we’ll see a much more active and proactive confrontation of China on these issues. There are some very big flashpoints or hot points, with Taiwan probably being the number one at the moment. The various statements by the leadership in China indicate that there will continue to be a strong push to fully integrate Taiwan within the Chinese political structure. I think that will be one of the big challenges in the first year of the Trump administration.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘Indigenous peoples standing to fight against colonialism and imperialism’

Published

2 weeks ago

on

10/12/2024

By

In Venezuela, as well as in much of Latin America that was colonized by the Spanish empire more than five centuries ago, the month of October represents a date to remember and take pride in the indigenous roots of the American continent, called by the ancestral peoples “Abya Yala”. However, even today, 500 years after the arrival of Christopher Columbus, Spain continues without recognizing the genocide of the native peoples and their cultures, nor does it recognize the plundering of the riches of these lands. Currently, the empire is represented by another hegemonic power, the United States, and by another type of colonialism, the culture of the “American Dream” that seems more like a nightmare, but the threat to indigenous peoples, as well as Afro-descendant peoples that makes up Venezuela, continues to be the same. And in the face of this imperial and colonialist threat, Venezuela and other countries of the Abya Yala are struggling, resisting and winning the battle.

Within the framework of the Day of Indigenous Resistance in Venezuela, which since 2002 has been commemorated every October 12, we interviewed Clara Vidal, Minister of Indigenous Peoples of Venezuela. Vidal is originally from the Kariña indigenous people, based in the state of Sucre, eastern Venezuela, and has been Minister for Indigenous Peoples since 2022.

Why does Venezuela commemorate the Day of Indigenous Resistance?

Today we reflect on the importance of that tragic date, while today Spain commemorates a national holiday, they call it “Hispanic Day”, with joy, with airplanes, etc. That is, Spain celebrates the death of 90 million indigenous people, they are celebrating the greatest genocide in the history of humanity.

But we from Venezuela commemorate the 532 years of the beginning of the resistance of the indigenous peoples who to this day are in battle for a horizon and a victorious future that awaits us.

So today’s reflection is that nothing and no one, not the Spanish monarchy, nor the decadent U.S. empire will be able to defeat us, because 200 years ago we expelled them from these lands, because we do not want more colonialism or imperialism, we want to be sovereign, free and independent.

What are the references of the indigenous peoples in Venezuela today? And what is its importance? 

Well, let me say that we are today in the land of Commander Hugo Chávez, of the Liberator Simón Bolívar, of the Great Chief of Chiefs Cacique Guaicaipuro, the leader of the resistance of the indigenous peoples, because 532 years ago took place the invasion of our lands, and practically 90 million indigenous brothers were exterminated by an European Empire.

Precisely, according to what we have experienced and what our ancestors experienced, we can say that we are a free, sovereign and independent country, that throughout our history we are not going to allow any empire to controls us, dominates us, and that is why we have among our main historical references, which we must always remember: 

  1. The fight of the indigenous Cacique Guaicaipuro, our older brother. 
  2. Then the fight for our emancipation from the Liberator Simón Bolívar, and
  3. More recently, the rescue of our freedom through our eternal Commander, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, who after that “For now” of February 4, 1992, and assuming our presidency in 1999, has rescued our freedom, our sovereignty, our independence for the present and for our national future.

The Bolivarian Revolution, what role has it given to the indigenous peoples?

Well, the Bolivarian Revolution gave us the main thing, which is the guarantee of the rights of indigenous peoples. The arrival of the Revolution fought and ensured that each of our indigenous peoples had a special chapter within the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela of 1999. That is where the great appreciation of our revolutionary process towards the recognition and respect of rights begins. of indigenous peoples. In addition to that, the thousands of tools that it has given us as public policies: the Guaicaipuro Mission, the Ministry of Popular Power for Indigenous Peoples, which at an international level is a unique experience. Venezuela is a pioneer in having an institution especially for indigenous peoples, other countries now have ministries, like Brazil, for example, but we paved the way.

In addition to that, we have legislators, in the municipal councils, councilors, we have national deputies, who are indigenous. We have our voice represented before the national, regional and municipal Legislative Power.

The presence of the United States in Latin America

The presence of agencies of imperialism such as the CIA, DEA, or NATO, among other interventionist institutions in Latin America, must be considered according to the excess of their functions. The United States acts not as a country but as an interfering organization in the internal policies of each of the nations.

The United States intervenes in the policies of each of the nations, that is, violating the sovereignty of the people. And the most important thing is that they do not respect the culture and idiosyncrasies of each of the peoples.

Precisely, when we refer to colonialism, unlike imperialism, it is about dominating and controlling and imposing their culture, belittling the cultures of the native peoples. Now, when we talk about imperialism, this is total control, from every point of view: political, social, cultural, military of each of the peoples and nations.

From there the United States and Europe then fall into fascism, neo-fascism and similar expressions. From Venezuela, the indigenous peoples: Say no to the imperial presence in our lands and nations!

Imperialism in neo-fascist governments in Latin America attacks indigenous peoples

The indigenous peoples are brave peoples, in those countries with extreme right-wing, neo-fascist governments, the indigenous peoples have been totally criminalized or have been totally forgotten, denied to exercise their own culture in their own territories. Today we can tell you, from Venezuela, that the indigenous peoples are not alone, and we also encourage them to continue the fight for their rights. The right-wing and neo-fascist governments will never, ever love indigenous peoples, because they want to erase our history.

Those governments will never protect any rights of indigenous peoples. The Venezuelan left, Bolivarian socialism, has been a fundamental part of the demands of all these sectors, mainly indigenous peoples and communities, as well as Afro-descendants, because we are the same people, the oppressed peoples. So to the indigenous peoples of Abya Yala we say that the fight must continue until we get the victory. Venezuela is proof that it is possible to recover our identity, our rights and our indigenous culture.

Imperialism and genocidal colonialism in the world: Genocide in Gaza

We call on the world, the international community, and national and international public opinion to reflect on what is happening in Gaza. Just as today there is genocide in Gaza, against the people of Palestine, we also remember what we experienced more than 500 years ago. Just as it happens today with the Palestinian people, so it happened with our ancestors, just as yesterday our ancestors had victory, because we are alive today. Today we declare our solidarity and tell the people of Palestine that they will also win, because in the face of hatred, in the face of imperialism, in the face of colonialism, love and justice will always win. So today’s reflections are that we continue fighting, because victory belongs to the people who fight for their emancipation.

We are going to remember this date as the beginning of the greatest genocide in the history of humanity so that there can never again be any empire that can raise its arm and its hatred against the people, to impose the slavery of man by man, but rather there is peace, hope as we are proposing from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela with our constitutional president, Nicolás Maduro.

What is the message that Venezuela gives to other indigenous peoples? 

To the brother peoples of the South, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, and also of great Brazil, because in Brazil there are also indigenous peoples, indigenous brothers and sister who were also invaded by Portugal like us; Today we tell all of you that this is the time of the people, we are going to unite, we are going to create a network of networks. The historical block necessary so that this decadent empire, or any other that may emerge, can never again defeat us. 

They have tried today with the Internet, with artificial intelligence, to oppress us, but here we say that with the ancestral human intelligence of indigenous peoples they will not be able to win. Here we are fighting. Let no one make a mistake, because there is a homeland here, as Commander Chávez said. So all our ancestors today are together, united to say enough of imperialism and colonialism. Victory will be of the people! Long live the people! Long live the indigenous peoples! Long live peace and long live freedom!

Finally, what is the importance of the union of indigenous peoples and Afro-descendant peoples in Venezuela

On this important day, Venezuela shows the rest of the indigenous peoples of Latin America its struggle and its resistance. Today, 532 years after the great genocide in Abya Yala, here we are, the indigenous peoples present alongside the Afro-descendant people, the indigenous people in general, the Venezuelan people of men and women who continue to resist. Today we can say with a firm voice, with a voice of love and with a voice of joy, that we continue in resistance.

We continue in a tireless fight for the vindication of our indigenous peoples. And that today in Venezuela we have more than 54 indigenous peoples, that means that we have resisted and that we will continue to resist and win.

Afro-descendant peoples have also fought a battle to survive and assert their rights. And here we are claiming the day of indigenous resistance, but we are also fighting for that ancestral history of the Afro-descendant peoples who were the object of imperial ambition, and which forcibly brought them here, but which today has precisely led us to walk the hand making revolution. 

We are now writing a new history, because we were here before the Spanish empire arrived, because the indigenous peoples were on this land, because the men and women who arrived enslaved now have a new horizon, precisely, which is not to forget history, our origins, but that we also know that our destiny is to definitively free ourselves from the yoke of imperialism, to emancipate ourselves from our minds and move forward towards the new generations with the vision of knowing that we are a people that resisted and that continues to resist because Nobody discovered us. We already existed.

Continue Reading

INTERVIEW

‘The majority of the European politicians are pro-war’

Published

3 weeks ago

on

03/12/2024

By

Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó told Harici: ‘In the European Union, the majority of European politicians are in favour of war. Since we are not a pro-war but a pro-peace government, it is clear that we do not fit into the current mainstream of European foreign policy.’

Responding to Dr. Esra Karahindiba’s questions, the Hungarian minister harshly criticised the majority of EU member states for their ‘non-peaceful’ policies, and also commented on President Biden’s decision to allow Ukraine to use US-made ballistic missiles against Russia and the US sanctions on Gazprombank.

Excellency Minister, thank you very much for taking the time to talk to us. Let’s start with the criticism against Hungary by the EU. You are accused of not adhering to the European Union’s common foreign policy. What is your response to this, and how was your experience during your presidency of the Council of the European Union?

Unfortunately, those European politicians are in a majority in the European Union who are in favor of the war. Since we are not a pro-war but a pro-peace government, it is obvious that we are not falling in line with the current European foreign policy mainstream. We have been standing up for a ceasefire and peace negotiations to be started. The majority of the European politicians are pro-war. They make measures which are putting the risk of escalation higher and higher. So definitely, we will not align with that. We will continue our peace efforts, and we hope that, as President Trump enters into the White House in January next year, internationally speaking, pro-peace politicians will gain more strength.

When I interviewed you at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, you told me about that, and you told me that you believe if Trump is elected, peace is possible between Ukraine and Russia. Now Trump is the president-elect, and as you said, he’s going to take his post in January. Are you in contact with the Trump Administration, and are you taking any initiatives for making peace between the two countries? What are the items on your agenda, and what are you negotiating about?

Look, after President Trump has been elected, he has called our Prime Minister, congratulated him, and they agreed that the upcoming four years will be a golden age from the perspective of US-Hungary relations. You know, there are very strict regulations in the United States when it comes to a transition period, so the serious negotiations, the substantial negotiations between us and the Trump Administration will get started, obviously, right after President Trump enters the White House. There are some issues on the agenda already which we discussed way before, but for example, the Democrat Administration has terminated the bilateral tax treaty with Hungary. We hope that this will come into force again. The US Democrat Administration has restricted the access of Hungarian citizens to the ESTA visa system or a kind of visa system. We hope that with the Trump Administration entering into power, we will get back the status where we used to be. Of course, we hope that President Trump generally will carry out a policy which will help peace return to the Central European region and will allow a much better atmosphere in Europe to be created.

Frankly speaking, what is your position about Ukraine’s territorial integrity regarding Crimea and the Donbas region? Because those regions could be the number one condition for Russia to make peace.

Well, territorial integrity and sovereignty are principles that must be respected. On the other hand, I think sequence is important. First, a ceasefire has to take place, then peace negotiations have to be started, and then a peace deal must be made.

Talking about energy issues, today you joined the Istanbul Energy Forum here and had bilateral talks with several counterparts. Hungary announced that it signed an additional contract with Gazprom to use the Turkish Stream pipeline at full capacity. What do you expect from this development?

Look, Russia is a reliable partner when it comes to energy supplies. Turkey is a very reliable partner when it comes to transit. So, it is our honor that we can work together with Turkey and Russia in order to guarantee the security of energy supplies for Hungary. What we expect is that with the increased volumes, the price gets more competitive. Obviously, we have a very important program in Hungary through which we ensure that Hungarian families and households pay the lowest price when it comes to utilities. These additional contracts signed between Gazprom and our gas trading company are essential from the perspective of keeping the utility costs low in Hungary.

Let’s keep on the energy issue. I know that, as an observing member of the Organization of Turkic States, your term in the EU Council presidency is very important to be a bridge between these two regions. Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan are very eager, and actually, the EU is very eager to buy energy from these two countries. There are dozens of billions of dollars of infrastructure expected by the EU to be invested in this OTS region. What are the latest numbers? What is the latest development on that?

When it comes to the Turkic region or the Caucasian or Central Asian region, we do consider those regions as possible sources of future energy deliveries. We definitely count on the so-called Middle Green Corridor project to be successful, through which electricity from renewable sources from Azerbaijan and Georgia will be delivered to Central Europe through Romania to Hungary. We also count on gas from Azerbaijan to play a bigger role in our national energy mix. For that, the bottleneck is the capacity of the Southeast European pipeline network. But we do hope that we can increase the capacity in a way that allows us to increase the role of gas from Azerbaijan and the gas from Turkey in our national energy mix.

The Middle Corridor is gaining so much importance as the northern route is not being able to be used now, as you said. Meanwhile the Biden Administration, just before leaving office, has made its last steps and gave Ukraine permission to use US missiles against Russia. Russian leader Putin says “nothing will remain unanswered”. How do you see the upcoming future?

This is really dangerous. This definitely goes against the interests of the people in Central Europe. This definitely goes against the will of the American people since the American people have elected a different administration. They have elected a pro-peace president. So, I think it’s really dangerous what the current American Administration is doing. These measures can lead to an escalation, and we do hope that by January 20, we can somehow avoid escalation. Then, when President Trump takes office, hopefully, he will still have the chance to make peace. I do hope that the current Democrat Administration will not make it totally impossible to make peace in January.

My last question: what is your take on the Istanbul Energy Forum? What was your agenda here, and what are the expected outcomes for Hungary, Turkey, and other counterparts with whom you have had bilateral talks?

The most short-term duty of ours is now to overcome the challenges put forward by the US Administration’s decision to put Gazprombank on a sanctions list, since we are paying for the gas to the accounts of Gazprombank, as many other countries here in the region are. So, here we came together to find out how to overcome this challenge. I’m pretty sure that since we are united, we will find a way to overcome that and ensure the security of supplies in the future as well.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey