It is obvious to everyone that Russia and Ukraine are currently unable to conduct any meaningful peace talks, that the situation on the battlefield is at a dead end, and the number of victims of the military confrontation has been growing every day. Therefore, the only thing that can and should be done now is to conclude a ceasefire agreement and stop killing people. But to take this vital step, it is necessary to understand the irreversible tragedy and strategic futility of what is happening, the will and diplomatic wisdom of the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, the USA, Great Britain, the European Union, and perhaps also China, India and Brazil are required.

However, the modern ruling elites have proven to be extremely weak in professional diplomacy and understanding of the future. In this, they are very reminiscent of those politicians who led the world to World War I at the beginning of the last century. They do not act in accordance with reality, but on the basis of wishful thinking, i.e., substituting the wish for reality, preferring not to understand either the meanings or the consequences of what is happening. Political somnambulism is becoming a common phenomenon among today’s global ruling class.

Modern digital technologies, omnipresent social networks, and the growing implementation of artificial intelligence have a significant impact on world politics and decision-making today. We should not forget that World War I, the disastrous Versailles Peace Treaty, and, as a result, the even more destructive World War II were preceded by a technological and industrial boom at the beginning of the 20th century. Only after surviving the catastrophe of two world wars, humanity was able to formulate the foundations of a new life together — the inviolability of human life, human rights and freedom as absolute and indisputable values. Today, these foundations have critically weakened and we are once again, like 110 years ago, find ourselves just a step away from a major war.

——

In the interview for RTVi’s Marianna Minsker Grigory Yavlinsky talks about the threatening issues of the world diplomacy, about the US role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and explains why a ceasefire is necessary.

Marianna Minsker: Grigory Alexeyevich, the other day German Chancellor Olaf Scholz unexpectedly stated that the time has come for discussions about ending the conflict in Ukraine, and [discussing it] with both Moscow and Kyiv. You have been saying something similar for a long time, and you are saying it now. How do you explain why Olaf Scholz is the one who started talking about peace right now?

Grigory Yavlinsky: In brief, it doesn’t matter what he said. If I should give a more detailed answer, this is because of his problems inside Germany. He is approaching the elections, and he has new parties there — right-wing and left-wing — that are a threat to him, so that he may be not re-elected. He knows that a significant part of the population in Germany wants peace in Ukraine and does not want to continue arms supplies from Germany, and so on. Especially since the economic situation in Germany is very unfavorable. Well, he knows all this, so after talking a little with Zelensky, he figured out what needs to be said here.

Marianna Minsker: Is this a prepared, thought-out position on the part of the German Chancellor?

Grigory Yavlinsky: No, no, it was just a statement.

Marianna Minsker: Or did he just express his personal opinion?

Grigory Yavlinsky: No, it was just a conversation. Well, he said it, but he didn’t add anything substantive to it.

Marianna Minsker: And can we guess whom he addressed? He made such a statement anyway.

Grigory Yavlinsky: The voters.

Marianna Minsker: Moscow, Kyiv, the European Union?

Grigory Yavlinsky: He addressed the voters. The voters.

Marianna Minsker: Only?

Grigory Yavlinsky: He just… This is PR, this is such a game. He addressed the voters, he addressed no one [in particular]. A few months ago, he said that none of this was needed. Now the elections were unsuccessful, some regional elections. But significantly unsuccessful. What is the short answer? Let me give you a short one. It doesn’t matter. Only Washington matters. All the other do not matter. So he can say whatever he wants. That’s it. And the last thing. When I was saying… I have been saying and am saying it, I recently published a big article. Well, the corresponding article about the ceasefire. This is something completely different. It doesn’t contain all these details: what will be done with the territories, and what with the borders.

Marianna Minsker: [Because] it is secondary?

Grigory Yavlinsky: That [will be solved] later. For years or decades — one can discuss it as much as he wants. Just stop killing each other [first]! That’s what I am talking about. But he didn’t say that. He talked about some kind of peace there. They realised that nothing worked out in Switzerland without Russia, now they play smart about inviting Russia. But what for? Just now, today, Kyiv expressed great dissatisfaction with what Brazil said, and what China said. And in such a form in which the guys from the next street usually talked to me. This means there is no diplomacy, that’s it.

Marianna Minsker: But we have seen for a long time that it is gone.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes. But this is one of the important things that is indicative of the changes that have taken place in the world. That there is no professional diplomatic approach to any problems. Diplomacy — what Henry Kissinger once did, or what Andrei Gromyko did — is gone.

Marianna Minsker: That’s a fact.

Grigory Yavlinsky: That is why we are facing such problems.

Marianna Minsker: Look, talking about the reaction or possible reaction to Scholz’s words, the head of the Russian Security Council, Sergei Shoigu, said, «Until we throw the Ukrainian Armed Forces out of our territory, we will not negotiate with them». Can this be considered Moscow’s official «no»?

Grigory Yavlinsky: That’s obvious. Sergei Shoigu could say it or not. Because what is the situation right now, as of today? Russian troops are advancing towards Pokrovsk, [this advancement is] very significant. This is a very significant, so to speak, intersection, which is located there, because many different railway lines pass through Pokrovsk. At the same time, as far as I understand, there is an active offensive on Sudzha — this is already in the Kursk region. Well, who will stop? What is the purpose of negotiations?

Marianna Minsker:  Now let us also talk about the Kursk region separately. But in any case, what Sergei Shoigu voiced is a public position, an official position. But what do you know about non-public statements, non-public conversations? What do your contacts say, maybe your sources close to the Kremlin? Are the authorities ready to take some step resembling negotiations?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, I don’t have any special sources. I can only tell you my own observations and reasoning. It was said by Moscow so many times already and in different forms that it was possible to agree to negotiations. By the way, it sounded so clearly for the first time last fall, if you remember. I was here with you, you were asking me about everything. And then there was this… and in this context this was a statement. But what was the response, well, to this oral statement? The response was then [as follows]: they sank a [Russian] military ship and actively shelled [Russian city] Belgorod. Well, that’s it. Then there was all this around journalist Tucker Carlson, who took a big interview there. 

Marianna Minsker:  Interviewed Putin.

Grigory Yavlinsky: And again it was said. But immediately, each time… as soon as it is said, some very active attack or very active action occurs.

Marianna Minsker: What is this done for?

Grigory Yavlinsky: To shift this topic to the background. This is the answer.

Marianna Minsker: So Ukraine is not ready for negotiations?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, [as it comes out] from this structure — no. So it only says all the time… What does Zelensky say? «Look, here we are preparing, we are preparing everything.» So they are preparing and increasingly preparing, there will be this, and there will be that. But what is the content there, so to speak? Nothing is known about it. At least, I don’t know what they are preparing.

Marianna Minsker: And why, what do you think?

Grigory Yavlinsky: And in response to all this, once again. Just recollect, in St. Petersburg this summer, Putin again very clearly expressed his proposals. «We are ready for negotiations,» he said, «on such and such conditions». Well, the press took it as an ultimatum, and there were ultimatums in that. I will get back to that in a moment. What happened in response? [The attack on] Kursk. That is, you see, if you follow closely, you will see it all the time: for every such proposal (real, unreal, this or that), the answer is always like this. That is, the answer is: we don’t want it, no negotiations.

Marianna Minsker: Maybe “we won’t do anything on those terms”?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Now listen. Now let’s get back to what I think have to be done. I will probably repeat this many times today. A ceasefire. And then [you can] discuss on what terms [you negotiate peace]: on these terms or on those terms. Don’t agree, conduct [negotiations] again. So, in my article, I won’t be able to give you the exact number now, but [I quote that] there were 150 or 170 such negotiations after South and North Korea finally decided to seek [a ceasefire]… There has been a ceasefire there for 80 years, or about 70 years, [exactly] 71 years since 1953. So there has been a ceasefire there for 71 years. Well, the same is true here: well, you can agree with some things, disagree with other, but just stop the escalation. Resolve a whole range of issues with the withdrawal of troops, demilitarised zones, external observers from third countries, and so on… They should have stopped in the fall of 2022. At the very least.

Marianna Minsker: For Ukraine?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Certainly. After they…

Marianna Minsker: But how to stop, on what conditions?

Grigory Yavlinsky: It is very simple. Wait a minute. The question was about what I am emphasising now… I am expressing the idea that it should have been such an initiative. Well, I am not even talking about the agreements in Turkey, they have been talked about all the time. It should be noted that they are always, endlessly discussed. They say that… deep down, everyone is almost sad, because that is how everything should have been resolved. Who canceled it all? It is already well known — the Americans. Victoria Nuland and everyone else said, «No way, go on!» Go on at whose expense? Go on at the cost of whose blood? Go on. Just go on. Here we go. In the fall of 2022, they achieved a serious result. Not like in Kursk, but a serious one. In Kharkiv and Kherson. They pushed back Russian troops and so on. That’s it. And that made a huge impression on all of Ukraine and the whole world, by the way. It was the moment when it was necessary to say, «Ceasefire and let’s start negotiations». That’s was the moment.

Marianna Minsker: But would Russia have taken such a step then?

Grigory Yavlinsky: I don’t know, I don’t know.

Marianna Minsker: But maybe behind the scenes?

Grigory Yavlinsky: No, there is no place for fantasies, I don’t know. Behind the scenes – I don’t believe in any Ukrainian-Russian conversations behind the scenes, I don’t see them. Only regarding the exchange of [war] prisoners – this has been happening, this is known. Well, exchange of corpses, prisoners. But I have never heard of any of these behind the scenes… No – a counteroffensive in 2023. And they lost the counteroffensive, the counteroffensive didn’t work out. Well, that’s it. And then everything went downhill. And now every next month leads to huge casualties and economic losses, and the loss of opportunities to negotiate. That is, there will be negotiations, there will be a ceasefire, but it will be when everything has pushed to the limit.

Marianna Minsker: And who will decide this?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Life will decide. If we continue like this, if we drag it out all the time in this form… Well, you have to understand: look, there are elections going on in America now — I don’t know if they make you smile, or what emotions they bring out in you — but this is also a topic that speaks about the condition of world politics and so on. That’s it. This means that in the next six months there will be no one to talk to and nothing to discuss there. No one will make any special decisions. Not like way forward solutions. Then there will be the inauguration in January, then the formation of a new administration. Well, that is, they will be ready for negotiations somewhere in April. Can you imagine what will happen during all this time, and how much will happen? But they decide everything, because they prescribe. They now even openly talk about it in their interviews everywhere, that they are like a decree. That’s the whole point. This is a confrontation between Russia and them, but on the territory of Ukraine. I said this in the summer of 2021, that this would be like this. Well?

Marianna Minsker: Regarding peace negotiations. You have been talking about the need for a ceasefire for a long time.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes.

Marianna Minsker: The Kremlin knows your point of view.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes.

Marianna Minsker: We discussed your meeting with Putin on one of our broadcasts, where you talked about this.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes.

Marianna Minsker: We discussed this in detail. Now some time has passed. Firstly, have you had any contacts with him or with anyone from his circle, conversations on the phone or in person?

Grigory Yavlinsky: No, nothing like that. But I can just say that in the context of our interview with you then and the conversation, and this conversation… well, I will indirectly refer to it. There was a huge article in the New York Times in December, which described this story with the ceasefire and Putin’s position on this issue. As I have already told you, he said it himself, and then he told Tucker Carlson all this. Well, there you go. It has been always repeated in different forms.

Marianna Minsker: Well, maybe you… [maybe the information on] the position somehow reaches you. Does the Kremlin support your initiative on a ceasefire now or how do they feel about it?

Grigory Yavlinsky: No, they formulate it there… they formulate it publicly differently. They formulate it in such a way that it [the ceasefire] comes at the end of all sorts of conditions, but it needs to be put first. But this is the question of reaching an agreement exactly on this. As we see, it is necessary to reach an agreement not only with Kyiv, but with Washington. That’s the problem.

Marianna Minsker: Let’s now speak about the second part: the fire has been ceased and then there will be peace talks. We will talk about the ceasefire in a little more detail a little later. Now about peace talks. The main question is what the subject of the bargaining will be. Because it is obvious that Kyiv will not agree to give Donbas, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia to Russia, and Russia will not agree to return them to Kyiv. It is a dead end. Where is then… where should we look for a compromise?

Grigory Yavlinsky: And no need, no need. A dead end is a dead end. Just don’t shoot — that’s all. It is impossible to agree on anything now. I am not talking about peace talks, there is no… There is no common language at the moment. Just don’t kill people! You are killing people on both sides. Do you understand? That’s the thing. You are killing those at the front, and civilians. Children are dying, women are dying, old people are dying. Simply all people are dying. Stop this, stop it! The escalation will be partially extinguished with it [the ceasefire]. Well, that’s it. Then conduct negotiations about what you wanted to discuss, whatever you wanted even throughout your life. 

Marianna Minsker: Grigory Alexeyevich, please explain it to me, a completely non-military person. So they signed a ceasefire agreement. That’s it, they stopped shooting. But at the same time, there still remains a bunch of weapons on both sides. We know that the West produces and supplies weapons to Ukraine, and Russia, Russian defence industry enterprises, many of them, as we know, work in three shifts. Can this all stop suddenly?

Grigory Yavlinsky: No, it won’t stop.

Marianna Minsker: And where will these weapons go?

Grigory Yavlinsky: They won’t go anywhere. They will be in arsenals, some will be at the front, there will be replacements. All this will continue, but there will be no shooting. That is how it has always been, throughout our entire lives. The Americans made weapons, Europe made weapons, the Soviet Union made weapons ad infinitum. The Soviet Union, by the way, suffered an economic collapse due to the fact that it had been producing an endless number of these weapons. So what? Well, that’s how we have always lived, and that’s how it will be again.

Marianna Minsker: Or could it be that a ceasefire agreement was signed at the top (this is the official position), but since the weapons are still there, and people are still there, they may shoot, they continue to shoot?

Grigory Yavlinsky: A hundred times, whatever you may say. But that will be later. It {the ceasefire agreement] will be violated, it will be interrupted, something may start brewing again. But this is the only way.

Marianna Minsker: But why doesn’t anyone follow it then?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, because as soon as someone suggests something on this topic…

Marianna Minsker: But we haven’t heard of any proposals to simply cease fire.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Why, and in Turkey?.. No, no. Because everyone is setting some kind of ultimatum. Well, because things are going well, and why? Everyone is happy — those who decide.

Marianna Minsker: Well, because everyone thinks that they will win?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Yes.

Marianna Minsker: Moscow thinks that Moscow will win, and Kyiv thinks that…

Grigory Yavlinsky: I don’t know what they think there.

Marianna Minsker: In Kyiv?

Grigory Yavlinsky: And I don’t know what… Well, I think that Washington wants Russia to be as weakened as possible, so that later they can do whatever they want there. What they think in Kyiv, I can’t really imagine, I don’t know. But in Moscow they think that everything [is ok] — “we’ll manage”. We will keep pushing and pushing, and we will get to the result we need. What result? Well, to start the conversation, they talk about what they did in Turkey during the negotiations there.

Marianna Minsker: Return to that position?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, now one can’t go back to what was done there. But there were a lot of meaningful things there. That’s it. The question is different: won’t they come up with a way to a major clash later? Well, this question also remains open.

Marianna Minsker: Well will it be such a major clash? 

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, it is a world war. Between Russia and China on one side, and the United States and Europe on the other side. Something like that. What do they mean in this regard, where are they moving in this regard, how will events develop in this regard? Well, you see how the UN’s authority is decreasing, you see that the Security Council has stopped working altogether, you see that American politicians are very cunningly talking about leaving Europe. But what will Europe do without them? It simply cannot imagine how it will live. Well, what should their enemy or opponent do in such conditions? It offered them Yalta-2, they refused Yalta-2. Well, now look what will happen.

Marianna Minsker: Look, Joe Biden and Antony Blinken are hinting that they will soon allow the Ukrainians to strike Russian territory with long-range missiles. Moreover, this decision has allegedly been made already — this is what the Guardian writes, citing sources in the British government. If these long-range missiles fly to Russian cities and actually reach their targets, and they strike Russian territory, will this mean crossing those notorious red lines? How will the Kremlin respond, how will it respond? 

Grigory Yavlinsky: There will be a terrible response. The end. I don’t know what exactly, but there will be a terrible response. This is an escalation!

Marianna Minsker: But this will be a nuclear response?

Grigory Yavlinsky: It can end up with anything. I don’t know.

Marianna Minsker: In general, such decisions about a nuclear response — maybe you hear some rumours – are they discussed in the corridors of the Kremlin?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Now? I don’t know. But they can. Well, this has been said many times. It [nuclear weapons] was sent to Belarus, then there tests, then all the agreements were broken and so on. Are you asking me if this conflict contains such a danger? It does. 

Marianna Minsker: Yes, and we have talked about this.

Grigory Yavlinsky: How big is this danger? It changes. Sometimes it gets bigger, it…

Marianna Minsker: And what is it now?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Right now, in my opinion, it is not the highest, because I cannot yet say with certainty that any missiles will actually fly somewhere.

Marianna Minsker: But can you admit the idea that long-range missile strikes on Russian territory are possible? That the Americans will actually allow it, which they previously… well, at least verbally said they would not.

Grigory Yavlinsky: Well, I don’t want to fantasise. Anything is possible. The situation is very serious. We return to what we started our conversation with: there is no diplomacy, diplomacy has stopped working.

Marianna Minsker: Well, there is no way to fix that.

Grigory Yavlinsky: And when there is no diplomacy, anything can happen. In other words, once again, the situation has developed in such a way that there has been a collapse of world politics. A large-scale, from different sides, and very deep. There was once a book called «Political Entropy». The collapse of world politics — that’s what happened. This is a very dangerous situation, it will not be possible to resolve it right away — it is impossible. My interest here is only in one thing: [make you] understand, that there is nothing more important than saving human lives (and the live of a person, a child).

Marianna Minsker: You have started talking about America. Donald Trump said at the debates that it was time to stop the war. In response to this, Kamala Harris accused him of pandering to dictators.

Grigory Yavlinsky: So, she told him: «You are pandering to dictators, we must continue the war!» she said. Right? Well, that’s what I have just told you. She has power there now, she is…

Marianna Minsker:  But she couldn’t say it any other way. Obviously.

Grigory Yavlinsky: I don’t know, I don’t know. I think that a significant part of Americans want to end it already. They are interested in money. They are interested in taxes, money, the cost of food, and the cost of housing. They are interested in this, the American public is not interested in anything else.

Marianna Minsker:  If Trump wins this election, will the war stop?

Grigory Yavlinsky: I don’t know, it’s not that simple. It is populism. He can’t laugh like his competitor Kamala Harris can. He doesn’t laugh as well, which some people really like, as you know. Well, what else can one say about it? They discuss the sea of ​​blood and discuss it in such… Well, he chatters there that they will finish it all in a day. Well, it is…

Marianna Minsker: But whose victory in the American elections is better for Russia?

Grigory Yavlinsky: I don’t know. It is hard to say in the current circumstances.

Marianna Minsker: Who are you for?

Grigory Yavlinsky: I will explain why. First, because what they say today and what they will do may be completely different things. Second, I personally think that none of them really knows what they will do — in this part. Third, the world has changed so much and become so special that no one in the ruling elite has any idea today of ​​what needs to be done and what policies to pursue in such a new world. This ruling elite is similar to the ruling elite that led to World War I. They are the same sleepwalkers who seem to see everything and are going somewhere, but they do not understand the essence of where they are going and what they will come to. And this is a mass phenomenon in today’s ruling class in the world. One of the reasons for such their condition are the networks: the Internet, social networks, new technologies, and digital technologies. Soon there will be artificial intelligence. We will get more than we bargained for. So, when very large technological changes occurred, the world came to World War I. And World War II grew out of it. Because World War II was a continuation of World War I. They concluded the Versailles Peace in such a way that they led to World War II. Only after that – after 1945 – did human rights, human life, human freedom, human dignity, and human health emerged. And so we lived for 70-80 years. Now all this has left the stage again. And sleepwalkers have appeared again. Again, one way or another, in these and other ways, they are again leading [the world] to something similar.

Marianna Minsker: To the Third World War?

Grigory Yavlinsky: To something similar, yes, to terrible things. Well, really, well, I am so… Becaues you are asking me. That is how I see it, how I understand it, that is what I am telling you.

Marianna Minsker: Still, to finish the topic with the American elections, who are you for, Trump or Harris?

Grigory Yavlinsky: I am for a meaningful policy. I, personally, will take this for granted. In both cases, I will think about how to respond, how to behave in order to save human lives. By the way, I have to tell you that in a certain sense, in terms of foreign policy, they have not gone far from each other. Biden is not far from Trump in terms of foreign policy. Europe should understand this.

Marianna Minsker: And what do you think, what are the general goals that the Americans are pursuing in this military conflict between Russia and Ukraine?

Grigory Yavlinsky: Weakening Russia and their hegemony.

Marianna Minsker: But the Kremlin also says that one of the goals of the Americans is to weaken Russia. But if the Kremlin understands this, then why don’t they try to stop the war that is weakening the country?

Grigory Yavlinsky: No, they want to prove that no one can weaken them. They have their own [ideas].

Marianna Minsker: It was Grigory Yavlinsky.

I am Marianna Minsker, and you hang on there and subscribe to the RTVI Telegram channel, there is a lot of important stuff there.