December 10, 2025 • 29 mins
As Ukraine prepares to present a revised peace proposal to Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he is prepared to hold elections in months - a long-standing demand from Moscow.Meanwhile European leaders appear to be edging closer to seizing frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine.
So is the peace process entering a decisive phase - or is this just another round of political theatre?
On this episode of The Fourcast, Krishnan Guru-Murthy speaks to the Russian ambassador to the UK Andrei Kelin and asks him what does the Kremlin actually want from a peace deal? Can Vladimir Putin really be trusted in a negotiation? And how would Russia respond if Europe takes its frozen billions?
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
At the moment we have to talk about surrender because Keef
should think not about the deal.So you're saying it should be a
surrender? It should be definitely.
That is not the basis for peace talks is.
It but there is no balance for the.
Field you think you're winning? We are in the winning situation,
definitely. Europe is also now talking about
seizing Russian assets and giving them effectively to
Ukraine to use. What Europe is suggesting is
(00:23):
absolutely illegal. It is simply stealing.
They will say you steal land, will steal your money.
We will see you there also in the course in London.
Hello and welcome to a special edition of the Forecast.
We are in the residence of the Russian ambassador to the United
Kingdom today here with Ambassador Andrei Kellin.
(00:46):
It is obviously an important time in the talks over a
possible peace in Ukraine. Donald Trump says he has a plan
that he says Russia is fine with, but there have obviously
been intense talks in Europe as well.
And we've also seen what Trump'snew national security strategy
might mean for Europe. So there is lots to talk about.
(01:07):
Ambassador, thank you for havingus.
So Donald Trump says Russia is fine with his peace plan.
Is that true? I haven't seen the peace plan.
That is not true to presuppose that it is in the papers, in the
newspapers, but I can't imagine several parts of it, because it
is understandable for us. So this is not about a simple
(01:29):
ceasefire. It should be a comprehensive
long term solution for everything.
It is not for only Ukraine. Security guarantees should be
given to Russia as well. Security guarantees should be
given to all European countries over over here.
It is an issue of NATO, of course, should be resolved once
and forever. We should think about also how
(01:51):
to reconstruction of Ukraine probably and the change of of
it. So it's a lot of papers and
should be done and a lot of commitments should be done in
it. It it needs a work of
professionals of course to to formulate it legally as as a
document I mean. You have always said you want a
comprehensive plan, but Trump isclearly impatient and he wants
(02:15):
some progress quickly. Now, there was a 28 point plan.
I don't know whether you know what was in it.
And then there was a new versionthat he talked about last week.
What do you understand his plan to be?
His plan to be definitely it should not be a deal.
We at the moment we have to talkabout surrender because Kiev
(02:35):
should think not about the deal,but definitely it the situation
on the ground, situation in economics of Ukraine, situation
in Europe where there is no moremoney, spare money for Ukraine.
They put Kiev in condition when they have to think how to save
the state, not to be a failed. You're saying it should be a
(02:57):
surrender? It should be definitely certain.
Surrender. I mean that that is not the
basis for peace talks, is it? Peace talks have to be about a
deal and a compromise, not a surrender.
Nobody wants to surrender. No, the issue of talks, talks
probably. I'm not sure what about
Europeans, they're talking abouta deal, but a deal is a
(03:19):
different thing. A deal when there is a certain
balance balance of on the on thefield, but there is no balance
on the field. You think you're winning?
There is a winning, we are in the winning situation definitely
because the front line is movingvery quickly, very.
Quickly. I mean very quickly is a big
claim, isn't it? It's actually moved very slowly
over 4 years. It is in your newspapers.
(03:41):
But in fact what is happening isthat it is becoming quicker and
quicker. We have during the autumn we
have liberated 87 settlements. At the moment there is a
cauldron in Mirangrat where is the thousands of UK troops,
elite united Ukraine troops, elite troops as have been
(04:02):
surrounded. We have a situation of cauldrons
nearly formed in three or four areas along the front line.
So this is an issue. We are moving to Scramatursk
because Seversk is fallen down, nearly fallen down.
Nova Pavlovka is nearly falling down.
Gullaipoli is very famous. I will say on Ukrainian map in
(04:22):
in early 20s it is nearly four. No, I wouldn't say it has fallen
down, but it is. It is now being attacked and
surrendered, which nobody is expected to be.
So this is moving quicker and quicker.
So. So Trump's talking nonsense then
if he says Russia's fine with a deal?
I mean, you're sounding like you're you're nowhere near a
deal. Expectations, of course, to have
(04:44):
it as quick as possible and I wouldn't say that we are alien
to this expectation because we would like to finish it by
diplomatic efforts and also as quick as possible, but of
course, it will be on our terms.Right.
Well, what are your terms? Terms has been laid down by by
President a year ago and we we do not change our positions.
It is, it is will know and simply do not what repeat what
(05:06):
has been said many times. So I mean that, but that that's
interesting, isn't it, that you,you have been consistent in your
message and you're saying Russia's position has not
changed and will not change. Will not change, no.
So you'll fight for as long as you need to.
Yes. Well, I can state absolutely
clearly that we have laid out our position in the very
(05:26):
beginning of the conflict, then later on has repeated and I I
don't see any deviation from what has been said.
I mean, is that why Russia seemsto be stepping up what the
British government regards increasingly as hybrid war in
Europe? Well, British government London
is very experienced in hybrid war.
(05:48):
I can remember Zeno if later in early 20s when they have first
of all invented this hybrid war and and there are repeated
issues concerning that so. You accept it's going on others.
Are only learning from London how to do it.
So right, but you're, you're accepting them that there is a
hybrid war effectively between. Well, Europe, there is no
definition. By the way, what is it and?
(06:10):
Well, they they say it's about flights, it's about boats, it's
about the spy boats off the northern coast, it's about
submarines. We can say absolutely the same
about European efforts, about British air.
I'm sure you can, but you're accepting that it happens.
No, it happens that everybody isdoing what it is.
So the hybrid war which is wagedagainst Russia is very active.
(06:34):
It is just we have given an official note about the issue of
Aeroflot that has been attacked from the cyber company here in
United Kingdom. This is an official note because
we traced it. I think you're also under cyber
attack. Absolutely right.
So. So in that case, you must accept
that you're also doing it to us.Differently from Brits,
differently from London. Because it doesn't give us any
(06:56):
official grounds, any official basis for this.
We have sent this note with absolutely tracing it.
How it is happened is. This what you told the foreign
Secretary? I didn't talk with the foreign
secretary. I I did talk with first deputy
of it. Yes, we have exactly talked
about that so. So in that case, if you say
Russia is under attack in a, in a, in a hybrid war in terms of
(07:20):
surveillance and cyber, you're doing it to us as well, aren't
you? I do not know.
Simply, this is not my cup of tea I'm doing.
Well, you're very sure of one side, but not sure of your own
side. What I'm doing here is a
representing Russia, representing our public policy
views and I have now and in the other occasions just to lay it
(07:43):
out what what we are doing and how we're doing.
But if you're representing Russia, then you can also say
what Russia is doing. You know, you're very keen to
say what Britain is doing when you you don't actually know the
detail of that. I'm just asking you, what's
Russia doing? Krishnan, we are talking about
conflict in Ukraine. I just lead it out.
The situation on the ground in Ukraine, Ukraine has and you ask
(08:04):
me why? Because Ukraine has no more
manpower, they have no more reserves.
That's the main question. You also have that problem in
Russia. It's it is important.
We have huge reserves and manpower.
We are many times bigger than Ukraine.
And why are you sending African imported labour to the to the
front? This is nonsense.
I haven't seen any substance forreports about Africans.
(08:27):
And North Koreans. North Koreans, they volunteer to
do this. They would like to get some
experience. Now it looks like they're
they're helping us in demining they're helping us in the
reconstruction of the devastatedterms which has been already
liberated. But their mission is a combat
(08:47):
mission in ranked in liberation of area occupied by When it is
accomplished and they return back I.
Mean the estimates are that up to 1,000,000 people have been
affected in Russia, either in terms of injuries or, or, or
deaths. I mean, that's an enormous cost,
isn't it, for Russia? Well, all these figures, they
(09:10):
have been taken from the ceiling, but there is an
official figure which has been agreed between Russia and
Ukraine. We have had an exchange of
bodies recently, in recent threemonths.
So we have given and returned toUkrainians 9000 bodies and we
got in return 143. That is all it is.
(09:32):
It is simply a saying by itself.Are you are you claiming the
Russian deaths are in the hundreds?
Ciphers are simply saying themselves how it works.
All the rest, all the rest is all the rest is absolutely
nonsense. And I, I am not going to
speculate on this. What are the losses of Ukrainian
side? What are the losses of the?
Russian people know, don't they,that that hundreds of thousands
(09:54):
of families that have been affected by.
The Christian Probably you have another question.
Then yeah, of course. But I mean, well, I mean.
Beyond these things. That you don't.
Want to ignore beyond this discussion which which makes no
sense because there is no knowledge.
Of I'm asking you to acknowledgethe impact on the Russian people
of this war, a war you didn't even want to call a war for the
last four years. Well, it does.
(10:16):
This is not a question about thename of what is happening.
This is a conflict, what we are doing, We are trying to save
people. We are trying to save Russian
people, Russian speaking people in these territories from
oppression or suppression, from the, the human rights are
important to us. And actually, you know that they
(10:37):
have prohibited even the Orthodox Church over there,
which is they are prohibiting totalk in Russian language, which
is absolutely unthinkable in any.
Banning the Russian language, full stop.
Don't interrupt well. There's not, there's not a total
ban on speaking Russian. Oh, there is a ban and ban in
(10:58):
the last decree by their home era that this is a Parliament in
Ukraine, that it is will not be protected that was before the
day before yesterday, that it will not be protected by the
Council of Europe, by the Council of of Europe treaty
about regional languages. Now, you say this is not about a
(11:18):
ceasefire and it's not about a deal.
If Zelensky were to say ceasefire and I'll call
elections, he's saying he's prepared to hold elections.
Is yes. I mean, is that something Russia
would consider? Because you want you want him
out and you believe he would lose an election.
So if there's an opportunity foran election, is that something
(11:39):
Russia would consider having a ceasefire for?
There are very many questions about this statement, how
serious it is. It is just first pronunciation
about the necessity hold elections, which has been done
definitely under impressions of what Trump has said yesterday in
and he's talking to the interviewer.
What we can say is that under the current law of Ukraine and
(12:03):
other constitution, it is only the Hovner rather the parliament
who can continue to exist under martial law.
But a presidential elections should have been happened a year
and a half ago. So at the moment he is illegal
and we are not very eager to go into the agreement or a treaty
(12:23):
with a person who is going, who is illegal is who is going to
sign it. We can negotiate with him, but
the person who is going to send it should be absolutely legal
and has the support of of of people in his country.
Otherwise the other one will come and say, well if this is
nonsense, I didn't send it. Europe is also now talking about
(12:45):
making rapid progress on seizingRussian assets and giving them
effectively to Ukraine to use. Now.
This has been, you know, held inin in a freeze for years.
They're now talking about actually using that money.
What? What would you know?
How important is that in the negotiation?
Well, first of all, I don't think that we will introduce
(13:08):
this issue in the negotiations because what Europe is
suggesting, and it is only European Commission is
suggesting is absolutely illegal.
And under domestic law, international law, whatever it
is, it is simply stealing money.Even during the Second World
War, there is no use of money ofNazi Germany, which has been in
(13:30):
the banks over the year. But this is will be a first
example. Of course it it, it will bring a
consequences for those who has who, if they will decide to do
this, it will be very serious consequences.
Well, we have also assets in Russia, British assets, Belgian
assets, others as well. So what what they are going to
(13:53):
do is a step which will be whichhas will have very serious
because the current leaders, they do not think about the
future. They would like to win it today,
to do something today. But they have absence of
strategic perspective and they say well, tomorrow we will be
probably it is this President, President of France, President
(14:14):
of Germany. They think about how to handle
it at the moment, but they have to think about a year after.
And that will come you, you believe me, this will come.
We are we in Moscow. We are preparing an answer to
this. If ever it is going to happen,
then it we are not disclosed what we are going to do.
But since the very beginning of the conflict, I think that the
(14:38):
answer has been was being prepared in the preparation.
But isn't there more Russian cash in Britain than there is
British cash in Russia? I mean, does Britain have
anything much to fear from retaliation?
We do not reveal it, but I'm sure because during well, dozens
of years that we, we have had British investors, we have had
(15:00):
Belgian investors, we have had French investors, German
investors. And I'm sure that we, I, I
cannot, I do not think about anything in particular, but I
can imagine how many efforts hasbeen done during that time.
And and you don't think that would be part of the peace
negotiation to get the money back I.
Do not know, I do not know. There are different ideas on
(15:23):
American says how to to make howto make it I simply at the
moment I have no idea I. Mean the the answer, I suppose,
when you talk about international law is, well,
that's a bit rich given you're breaking international law in
Ukraine. You know they will say you steal
land, we'll steal your money. We will see you there also in
(15:44):
the course in London, those people and it will be very long
time. You know how there is, there are
an attempts to get some money from Abramovich.
It is lasting now for three years with no result.
You'll see them in court. We will see them in court, Yes,
definitely. Can I talk about the other very
interesting thing that's come out of America in the last few
days, which is the national security strategy?
(16:05):
It's quite extraordinary as a document.
Your, your, your spokesman in Moscow, Mr. Peskov welcomed it
and said that there are aspects to this that are in line with
Russia's. What is it you like about the
Trump national security? Document.
I read the document. In fact, yes, it is an
interesting document because it differs very much from the
(16:27):
previous year, such kind of strategies done by the previous
administration. I will point out three things
which are in particular positivefor us.
First, it is refusal to be to ofrefusal of supremacy of the
United States all over the world.
Hegemony is was always the main card of the previous
(16:50):
administration. US is hegemonic, should do
everything about the world and everything.
Now it is said no more probably Western Hemisphere.
That is one thing. Another thing.
The other thing is that no more enlargement of NATO, which is
important. It is now in the concept.
That's right. And a third thing is that they
(17:11):
stand not for confrontation withRussia, but for strategic
stability, for establishment of strategic stability.
I mean, he he is now saying Europe is weak.
Is, is that a Russian strategic success?
Is that what you have achieved? It's a, it is just a result of
development of liberal development in Europe.
(17:32):
It is, I wouldn't say that we have contributed much because
recently our relations with Europe deteriorated very
strongly. And it is not only in the last
four years, but much earlier because Europe treated us as a
minor, as some regional power. And this is a result of internal
European development which we have predicted.
I mean, the, the thing that has caused a lot of anger in Europe
(17:55):
is also is talk about civilizational erasure.
Do you think he's right about that?
I have no comment on that. I have no comment on that, no.
Well, this is an American view on on the neighbors, but many
things that has been pronounced by the Vice President Vance in
Munich conference and it is reflected in this strategy.
(18:17):
And of course Europe is not no partner at at at the moment at
all. It is adversarial party which
describes itself. It is in this strategy of the
United Kingdom. It is said that we are in, we
have adversarial relations. Do you think that Trump view of
Europe and the threat to Europe from immigration is, is in line
(18:40):
with Russia's nationalism at home?
No, we have. We don't have.
Yes, of course there are some nationalism over the year.
I, I mean in Russia in some corners of it as I wouldn't say
which one, but well, nationalismis, it is a very, I will say, I
(19:02):
would say it is a bad thing. It is nationalism definitely.
I have seen as well here in London, not in London, but it's
in one of these cities nearby, some defenders of white movement
which has been standing in frontof the church.
So nationalism exists over the world, but it is not my
(19:24):
estimation that migration is threatening to United Kingdom,
to France, to Germany. You don't think it is, You don't
think it. Is no, it is the current, the
estimation here by the politicians, what I'm seeing,
they are better about eternal life, not me, of course it's.
You see some some people say it,it it's.
A child. One thing more, the issue of
(19:47):
migration in our country in in Russia is now treated also very
seriously because we did have sort of unlimited migration from
mainly for from the Central Central Asia who has come to
work in Russia and then providing us income and money to
to their own country where thereis no job, no no work, no jobs.
(20:08):
And we have taken a new strategyto that, which is limiting
migration, which does not give avery favourable conditions for
movement or forces. So they should register, they
should learn the Russian language, they should be
civilized, they should be part of society, not forming the
walls of their own on our part of Russia.
(20:29):
So we take it very seriously, but we're discussing our own
migration. We do not discuss much of what
is happening in Europe. No, but but what people wonder
is if, if the Trump foreign policy were to work, he says
he's encouraging, he wants to encourage nationalist parties in
Europe. That is a world that is a Europe
(20:50):
Russia would like, isn't it? I have.
I don't think that we have any point of view about it.
We are we we are more or less friendly with those movements in
Europe who do not consider Russia as an enemy.
And and they tend to be the nationalists.
Do not expect, well, whatever, whatever colour they are,
doesn't matter. It is so you have here in
(21:12):
Britain at least three or four communist parties.
They're very friendly to us. I will say we talk to them as
well, of course, as we talk to the others who are friendly, but
we do not, we, we cannot have similar relationship with other
who say that Russia is is a mainthreat to us, which is
absolutely has no substance at all.
But. But it I mean, you, you say you
(21:32):
like the fact that America is nolonger talking about American
hegemony. Isn't this a different kind of
hegemony? It is trying to mould Europe in
in the same way as the MAGA movement in America.
You know it is Trump spreading his wings around the world.
I will say it is just a realisation of facts that
(21:53):
America has no dominance all over the world.
And this is good, as I have said, because this concept of
domination of United States in the world, it just LED United
States and others to the impasse.
And this is also one of the origin of the conflict that we
have in Ukraine as well do. Do you believe it as a strategy?
I mean, when Trump publishes a document like that, do you take
(22:16):
it on face value? As far as all my experience for
a long time, I know that American diplomats take this
type of guidances very seriouslyand the following them, but also
very seriously in the negotiations in international
forest and in provision of in inin providing diplomacy all over
(22:36):
the world. It is a guidelines for American
diplomacy and politics around the world.
And, and do you see Trump? I mean, I think over the last
year we've talked before about how Trump is coming round to, to
Russia's way of thinking on manyissues.
Do you see this as a further step towards your world view?
(22:57):
I don't think no, it is. It is coming from his conviction
which has he has already unveiled during his pre election
campaign, he he, he said. And now it is on paper it is, so
why not? But do you think it's in line
with Russia's world for you? Is there more agreement between
you now? We have much more complicated
view on the world. It is.
(23:18):
It is not just to please Americans or to please the
current government. We have our own strategy.
It is laid down. We have a concept of foreign
policy. It is laid out I guess a year
ago or a year and a half, something like that.
It is not in line. It is just some indications,
some points that I have singled out.
(23:38):
These points are in line, yes, about strategic, strategic
stability, about stopping enlargement of NATO because it
is detrimental to our security, absolutely.
And it is about multipolarity inthe world multipolar world is
this is what most important, which is in our United States is
recognizing. When when President Putin said
(23:59):
we don't want war with Europe, but we're ready for war, what
does that? Mean it means that well,
President Putin has said many times that we do not want and we
have no plans, no intentions andno reason to have war with
Europe. And we always need to, that is
absolutely clear. But by by, by the situation is
(24:24):
that here in Europe, the leadersof those who are speaking about
the war in two years, they simply do not hear it.
They do not listen to what President is saying.
That is why he was a bit, he he said of this thing that we are
ready and that is absolutely true that we can do it now.
We do not want to delay. We we are not, we are prepared
(24:45):
to anything. We have a strong army, we have
very strong and modernised forces on all sides.
So, but we still do not understand why Europeans, why
European leaders, special defence ministers, generals,
brigades, they speak about the war.
We have a conflict in Ukraine when we have resolved to resolve
this issue, which is serious forour security, which is a vital
(25:06):
for our security. But do you nothing else.
And then we we need as coming back to our initial
conversation, we need a comprehensive peace agreement.
But do you understand why peopledon't believe Putin?
Because so many things he said over the years turned out not to
be true. Issue of believe or not believe.
Well, it's quite important, isn't?
(25:27):
It and why it has it has no nothing about it.
It is an American concept. I don't believe you.
Well, he, he's a man who said hewasn't going to annex Crimea and
he annexed Crimea. He said he wasn't going to
invade Ukraine, He invades Ukraine.
So so so trust is a is a huge problem when it comes to
believing what president. Do you believe your own
politicians when when they're saying that we have that?
(25:51):
So you're agreeing with me? I agree.
I agree in a sense. Do you believe your Minister of
Finance, who has said there was a gap, enormous gap in the
budget and turned out to be no gap in the.
So you don't believe Putin either?
I don't believe, I don't believeto your politician neither.
So the question of belief or nonbelief should be resolved in
negotiations. But but but belief is is
(26:14):
fundamental to a negotiation, isn't it?
Because you have to believe and trust that the person who is
sitting across the table from you means it, and we'll stick to
what they're saying. In 1975 when we have, we're
close to concluding Health and Care Decalogue or Health and
Care Act, which has a tremendousimportance for the European
security and nobody, no one believed to nobody to anybody or
(26:37):
to this stage. We didn't believe Americans for
very many years. Americans didn't believe to us
on us, we didn't believe Europeans.
And and So what we have come to an agreement because we have a
joint project, very serious joint project how to settle
security in Europe and all over the world.
And we have done this and from this trust has started to
(26:57):
evolve. And then we have come to much
more agreements in Paris. We have we have come to
strategic, strategic weapon limitation agreements.
Most fundamental was ABM agreement and ballistic missile
agreement was that cornerstone of strategic stability in in in
a climate of total unbelief to each other.
(27:21):
And what that suggests is that each side will regard security
and strength as fundamental to underpinning any kind of future
agreement. So we are looking at escalation,
aren't we, An arms race? Why It depends, of course.
It depends of those if someone would like to escalate, we are
ready. If we can settle and de
(27:44):
escalate, we are ready to. What else I can tell you about
that? Nothing, not not very much about
it. De escalation is now in high in
the agenda, not escalation. And one should speak not about
terms of remilitarisation, remilitarisation, but in terms
(28:05):
of de escalation of current tension, which is important,
about re establishment of strategic stability, which is
absolutely vital now for Europeans and for the Americans
because we are coming, that strategic limitation treaty is
coming to an end, end of February.
This is vital of course as well.We have to take, we have to
(28:27):
think about curbing arms race, not increasing arms race.
That is most important. And we have to talk about how to
finish up the issue in Ukrainianconflict.
Just just finally, how much economic pressure do you think
both sides are under? We know that Ukraine has a
(28:48):
problem paying it's bills, but Russia also is facing a much
lower oil price. Underpinning your economy.
You're facing inflation at a much higher level, lower growth.
Isn't that a pressure on you to?We have had a lower growth
because previous years we have had previous two or three years
(29:09):
we have had more than 4% and it is absolutely normal that we
have a lower growth. Yes, we do have inflation which
is about 8%, I guess something like that.
But Britain has 8% inflation 2 years ago.
Well, you have done it by 4. We are trying to bring it also
by 4. So I wouldn't say that we feel
(29:30):
economically serious pressure because we did have several
conferences right now with including which including
business people, bank people, governmental people, nobody
complained so far. And and thanks to India and
China, I suppose. Not only we we have we are
trading with 85% of the world which is non Western countries.
(29:51):
It's the majority of the world. Ambassador, thank you very much
indeed.
At the moment we have to talk about surrender because Keef
should think not about the deal.So you're saying it should be a
surrender? It should be definitely.
That is not the basis for peace talks is.
It but there is no balance for the.
Field you think you're winning? We are in the winning situation,
definitely. Europe is also now talking about
seizing Russian assets and giving them effectively to
Ukraine to use. What Europe is suggesting is
(00:23):
absolutely illegal. It is simply stealing.
They will say you steal land, will steal your money.
We will see you there also in the course in London.
Hello and welcome to a special edition of the Forecast.
We are in the residence of the Russian ambassador to the United
Kingdom today here with Ambassador Andrei Kellin.
(00:46):
It is obviously an important time in the talks over a
possible peace in Ukraine. Donald Trump says he has a plan
that he says Russia is fine with, but there have obviously
been intense talks in Europe as well.
And we've also seen what Trump'snew national security strategy
might mean for Europe. So there is lots to talk about.
(01:07):
Ambassador, thank you for havingus.
So Donald Trump says Russia is fine with his peace plan.
Is that true? I haven't seen the peace plan.
That is not true to presuppose that it is in the papers, in the
newspapers, but I can't imagine several parts of it, because it
is understandable for us. So this is not about a simple
(01:29):
ceasefire. It should be a comprehensive
long term solution for everything.
It is not for only Ukraine. Security guarantees should be
given to Russia as well. Security guarantees should be
given to all European countries over over here.
It is an issue of NATO, of course, should be resolved once
and forever. We should think about also how
(01:51):
to reconstruction of Ukraine probably and the change of of
it. So it's a lot of papers and
should be done and a lot of commitments should be done in
it. It it needs a work of
professionals of course to to formulate it legally as as a
document I mean. You have always said you want a
comprehensive plan, but Trump isclearly impatient and he wants
(02:15):
some progress quickly. Now, there was a 28 point plan.
I don't know whether you know what was in it.
And then there was a new versionthat he talked about last week.
What do you understand his plan to be?
His plan to be definitely it should not be a deal.
We at the moment we have to talkabout surrender because Kiev
(02:35):
should think not about the deal,but definitely it the situation
on the ground, situation in economics of Ukraine, situation
in Europe where there is no moremoney, spare money for Ukraine.
They put Kiev in condition when they have to think how to save
the state, not to be a failed. You're saying it should be a
(02:57):
surrender? It should be definitely certain.
Surrender. I mean that that is not the
basis for peace talks, is it? Peace talks have to be about a
deal and a compromise, not a surrender.
Nobody wants to surrender. No, the issue of talks, talks
probably. I'm not sure what about
Europeans, they're talking abouta deal, but a deal is a
(03:19):
different thing. A deal when there is a certain
balance balance of on the on thefield, but there is no balance
on the field. You think you're winning?
There is a winning, we are in the winning situation definitely
because the front line is movingvery quickly, very.
Quickly. I mean very quickly is a big
claim, isn't it? It's actually moved very slowly
over 4 years. It is in your newspapers.
(03:41):
But in fact what is happening isthat it is becoming quicker and
quicker. We have during the autumn we
have liberated 87 settlements. At the moment there is a
cauldron in Mirangrat where is the thousands of UK troops,
elite united Ukraine troops, elite troops as have been
(04:02):
surrounded. We have a situation of cauldrons
nearly formed in three or four areas along the front line.
So this is an issue. We are moving to Scramatursk
because Seversk is fallen down, nearly fallen down.
Nova Pavlovka is nearly falling down.
Gullaipoli is very famous. I will say on Ukrainian map in
(04:22):
in early 20s it is nearly four. No, I wouldn't say it has fallen
down, but it is. It is now being attacked and
surrendered, which nobody is expected to be.
So this is moving quicker and quicker.
So. So Trump's talking nonsense then
if he says Russia's fine with a deal?
I mean, you're sounding like you're you're nowhere near a
deal. Expectations, of course, to have
(04:44):
it as quick as possible and I wouldn't say that we are alien
to this expectation because we would like to finish it by
diplomatic efforts and also as quick as possible, but of
course, it will be on our terms.Right.
Well, what are your terms? Terms has been laid down by by
President a year ago and we we do not change our positions.
It is, it is will know and simply do not what repeat what
(05:06):
has been said many times. So I mean that, but that that's
interesting, isn't it, that you,you have been consistent in your
message and you're saying Russia's position has not
changed and will not change. Will not change, no.
So you'll fight for as long as you need to.
Yes. Well, I can state absolutely
clearly that we have laid out our position in the very
(05:26):
beginning of the conflict, then later on has repeated and I I
don't see any deviation from what has been said.
I mean, is that why Russia seemsto be stepping up what the
British government regards increasingly as hybrid war in
Europe? Well, British government London
is very experienced in hybrid war.
(05:48):
I can remember Zeno if later in early 20s when they have first
of all invented this hybrid war and and there are repeated
issues concerning that so. You accept it's going on others.
Are only learning from London how to do it.
So right, but you're, you're accepting them that there is a
hybrid war effectively between. Well, Europe, there is no
definition. By the way, what is it and?
(06:10):
Well, they they say it's about flights, it's about boats, it's
about the spy boats off the northern coast, it's about
submarines. We can say absolutely the same
about European efforts, about British air.
I'm sure you can, but you're accepting that it happens.
No, it happens that everybody isdoing what it is.
So the hybrid war which is wagedagainst Russia is very active.
(06:34):
It is just we have given an official note about the issue of
Aeroflot that has been attacked from the cyber company here in
United Kingdom. This is an official note because
we traced it. I think you're also under cyber
attack. Absolutely right.
So. So in that case, you must accept
that you're also doing it to us.Differently from Brits,
differently from London. Because it doesn't give us any
(06:56):
official grounds, any official basis for this.
We have sent this note with absolutely tracing it.
How it is happened is. This what you told the foreign
Secretary? I didn't talk with the foreign
secretary. I I did talk with first deputy
of it. Yes, we have exactly talked
about that so. So in that case, if you say
Russia is under attack in a, in a, in a hybrid war in terms of
(07:20):
surveillance and cyber, you're doing it to us as well, aren't
you? I do not know.
Simply, this is not my cup of tea I'm doing.
Well, you're very sure of one side, but not sure of your own
side. What I'm doing here is a
representing Russia, representing our public policy
views and I have now and in the other occasions just to lay it
(07:43):
out what what we are doing and how we're doing.
But if you're representing Russia, then you can also say
what Russia is doing. You know, you're very keen to
say what Britain is doing when you you don't actually know the
detail of that. I'm just asking you, what's
Russia doing? Krishnan, we are talking about
conflict in Ukraine. I just lead it out.
The situation on the ground in Ukraine, Ukraine has and you ask
(08:04):
me why? Because Ukraine has no more
manpower, they have no more reserves.
That's the main question. You also have that problem in
Russia. It's it is important.
We have huge reserves and manpower.
We are many times bigger than Ukraine.
And why are you sending African imported labour to the to the
front? This is nonsense.
I haven't seen any substance forreports about Africans.
(08:27):
And North Koreans. North Koreans, they volunteer to
do this. They would like to get some
experience. Now it looks like they're
they're helping us in demining they're helping us in the
reconstruction of the devastatedterms which has been already
liberated. But their mission is a combat
(08:47):
mission in ranked in liberation of area occupied by When it is
accomplished and they return back I.
Mean the estimates are that up to 1,000,000 people have been
affected in Russia, either in terms of injuries or, or, or
deaths. I mean, that's an enormous cost,
isn't it, for Russia? Well, all these figures, they
(09:10):
have been taken from the ceiling, but there is an
official figure which has been agreed between Russia and
Ukraine. We have had an exchange of
bodies recently, in recent threemonths.
So we have given and returned toUkrainians 9000 bodies and we
got in return 143. That is all it is.
(09:32):
It is simply a saying by itself.Are you are you claiming the
Russian deaths are in the hundreds?
Ciphers are simply saying themselves how it works.
All the rest, all the rest is all the rest is absolutely
nonsense. And I, I am not going to
speculate on this. What are the losses of Ukrainian
side? What are the losses of the?
Russian people know, don't they,that that hundreds of thousands
(09:54):
of families that have been affected by.
The Christian Probably you have another question.
Then yeah, of course. But I mean, well, I mean.
Beyond these things. That you don't.
Want to ignore beyond this discussion which which makes no
sense because there is no knowledge.
Of I'm asking you to acknowledgethe impact on the Russian people
of this war, a war you didn't even want to call a war for the
last four years. Well, it does.
(10:16):
This is not a question about thename of what is happening.
This is a conflict, what we are doing, We are trying to save
people. We are trying to save Russian
people, Russian speaking people in these territories from
oppression or suppression, from the, the human rights are
important to us. And actually, you know that they
(10:37):
have prohibited even the Orthodox Church over there,
which is they are prohibiting totalk in Russian language, which
is absolutely unthinkable in any.
Banning the Russian language, full stop.
Don't interrupt well. There's not, there's not a total
ban on speaking Russian. Oh, there is a ban and ban in
(10:58):
the last decree by their home era that this is a Parliament in
Ukraine, that it is will not be protected that was before the
day before yesterday, that it will not be protected by the
Council of Europe, by the Council of of Europe treaty
about regional languages. Now, you say this is not about a
(11:18):
ceasefire and it's not about a deal.
If Zelensky were to say ceasefire and I'll call
elections, he's saying he's prepared to hold elections.
Is yes. I mean, is that something Russia
would consider? Because you want you want him
out and you believe he would lose an election.
So if there's an opportunity foran election, is that something
(11:39):
Russia would consider having a ceasefire for?
There are very many questions about this statement, how
serious it is. It is just first pronunciation
about the necessity hold elections, which has been done
definitely under impressions of what Trump has said yesterday in
and he's talking to the interviewer.
What we can say is that under the current law of Ukraine and
(12:03):
other constitution, it is only the Hovner rather the parliament
who can continue to exist under martial law.
But a presidential elections should have been happened a year
and a half ago. So at the moment he is illegal
and we are not very eager to go into the agreement or a treaty
(12:23):
with a person who is going, who is illegal is who is going to
sign it. We can negotiate with him, but
the person who is going to send it should be absolutely legal
and has the support of of of people in his country.
Otherwise the other one will come and say, well if this is
nonsense, I didn't send it. Europe is also now talking about
(12:45):
making rapid progress on seizingRussian assets and giving them
effectively to Ukraine to use. Now.
This has been, you know, held inin in a freeze for years.
They're now talking about actually using that money.
What? What would you know?
How important is that in the negotiation?
Well, first of all, I don't think that we will introduce
(13:08):
this issue in the negotiations because what Europe is
suggesting, and it is only European Commission is
suggesting is absolutely illegal.
And under domestic law, international law, whatever it
is, it is simply stealing money.Even during the Second World
War, there is no use of money ofNazi Germany, which has been in
(13:30):
the banks over the year. But this is will be a first
example. Of course it it, it will bring a
consequences for those who has who, if they will decide to do
this, it will be very serious consequences.
Well, we have also assets in Russia, British assets, Belgian
assets, others as well. So what what they are going to
(13:53):
do is a step which will be whichhas will have very serious
because the current leaders, they do not think about the
future. They would like to win it today,
to do something today. But they have absence of
strategic perspective and they say well, tomorrow we will be
probably it is this President, President of France, President
(14:14):
of Germany. They think about how to handle
it at the moment, but they have to think about a year after.
And that will come you, you believe me, this will come.
We are we in Moscow. We are preparing an answer to
this. If ever it is going to happen,
then it we are not disclosed what we are going to do.
But since the very beginning of the conflict, I think that the
(14:38):
answer has been was being prepared in the preparation.
But isn't there more Russian cash in Britain than there is
British cash in Russia? I mean, does Britain have
anything much to fear from retaliation?
We do not reveal it, but I'm sure because during well, dozens
of years that we, we have had British investors, we have had
(15:00):
Belgian investors, we have had French investors, German
investors. And I'm sure that we, I, I
cannot, I do not think about anything in particular, but I
can imagine how many efforts hasbeen done during that time.
And and you don't think that would be part of the peace
negotiation to get the money back I.
Do not know, I do not know. There are different ideas on
(15:23):
American says how to to make howto make it I simply at the
moment I have no idea I. Mean the the answer, I suppose,
when you talk about international law is, well,
that's a bit rich given you're breaking international law in
Ukraine. You know they will say you steal
land, we'll steal your money. We will see you there also in
(15:44):
the course in London, those people and it will be very long
time. You know how there is, there are
an attempts to get some money from Abramovich.
It is lasting now for three years with no result.
You'll see them in court. We will see them in court, Yes,
definitely. Can I talk about the other very
interesting thing that's come out of America in the last few
days, which is the national security strategy?
(16:05):
It's quite extraordinary as a document.
Your, your, your spokesman in Moscow, Mr. Peskov welcomed it
and said that there are aspects to this that are in line with
Russia's. What is it you like about the
Trump national security? Document.
I read the document. In fact, yes, it is an
interesting document because it differs very much from the
(16:27):
previous year, such kind of strategies done by the previous
administration. I will point out three things
which are in particular positivefor us.
First, it is refusal to be to ofrefusal of supremacy of the
United States all over the world.
Hegemony is was always the main card of the previous
(16:50):
administration. US is hegemonic, should do
everything about the world and everything.
Now it is said no more probably Western Hemisphere.
That is one thing. Another thing.
The other thing is that no more enlargement of NATO, which is
important. It is now in the concept.
That's right. And a third thing is that they
(17:11):
stand not for confrontation withRussia, but for strategic
stability, for establishment of strategic stability.
I mean, he he is now saying Europe is weak.
Is, is that a Russian strategic success?
Is that what you have achieved? It's a, it is just a result of
development of liberal development in Europe.
(17:32):
It is, I wouldn't say that we have contributed much because
recently our relations with Europe deteriorated very
strongly. And it is not only in the last
four years, but much earlier because Europe treated us as a
minor, as some regional power. And this is a result of internal
European development which we have predicted.
I mean, the, the thing that has caused a lot of anger in Europe
(17:55):
is also is talk about civilizational erasure.
Do you think he's right about that?
I have no comment on that. I have no comment on that, no.
Well, this is an American view on on the neighbors, but many
things that has been pronounced by the Vice President Vance in
Munich conference and it is reflected in this strategy.
(18:17):
And of course Europe is not no partner at at at the moment at
all. It is adversarial party which
describes itself. It is in this strategy of the
United Kingdom. It is said that we are in, we
have adversarial relations. Do you think that Trump view of
Europe and the threat to Europe from immigration is, is in line
(18:40):
with Russia's nationalism at home?
No, we have. We don't have.
Yes, of course there are some nationalism over the year.
I, I mean in Russia in some corners of it as I wouldn't say
which one, but well, nationalismis, it is a very, I will say, I
(19:02):
would say it is a bad thing. It is nationalism definitely.
I have seen as well here in London, not in London, but it's
in one of these cities nearby, some defenders of white movement
which has been standing in frontof the church.
So nationalism exists over the world, but it is not my
(19:24):
estimation that migration is threatening to United Kingdom,
to France, to Germany. You don't think it is, You don't
think it. Is no, it is the current, the
estimation here by the politicians, what I'm seeing,
they are better about eternal life, not me, of course it's.
You see some some people say it,it it's.
A child. One thing more, the issue of
(19:47):
migration in our country in in Russia is now treated also very
seriously because we did have sort of unlimited migration from
mainly for from the Central Central Asia who has come to
work in Russia and then providing us income and money to
to their own country where thereis no job, no no work, no jobs.
(20:08):
And we have taken a new strategyto that, which is limiting
migration, which does not give avery favourable conditions for
movement or forces. So they should register, they
should learn the Russian language, they should be
civilized, they should be part of society, not forming the
walls of their own on our part of Russia.
(20:29):
So we take it very seriously, but we're discussing our own
migration. We do not discuss much of what
is happening in Europe. No, but but what people wonder
is if, if the Trump foreign policy were to work, he says
he's encouraging, he wants to encourage nationalist parties in
Europe. That is a world that is a Europe
(20:50):
Russia would like, isn't it? I have.
I don't think that we have any point of view about it.
We are we we are more or less friendly with those movements in
Europe who do not consider Russia as an enemy.
And and they tend to be the nationalists.
Do not expect, well, whatever, whatever colour they are,
doesn't matter. It is so you have here in
(21:12):
Britain at least three or four communist parties.
They're very friendly to us. I will say we talk to them as
well, of course, as we talk to the others who are friendly, but
we do not, we, we cannot have similar relationship with other
who say that Russia is is a mainthreat to us, which is
absolutely has no substance at all.
But. But it I mean, you, you say you
(21:32):
like the fact that America is nolonger talking about American
hegemony. Isn't this a different kind of
hegemony? It is trying to mould Europe in
in the same way as the MAGA movement in America.
You know it is Trump spreading his wings around the world.
I will say it is just a realisation of facts that
(21:53):
America has no dominance all over the world.
And this is good, as I have said, because this concept of
domination of United States in the world, it just LED United
States and others to the impasse.
And this is also one of the origin of the conflict that we
have in Ukraine as well do. Do you believe it as a strategy?
I mean, when Trump publishes a document like that, do you take
(22:16):
it on face value? As far as all my experience for
a long time, I know that American diplomats take this
type of guidances very seriouslyand the following them, but also
very seriously in the negotiations in international
forest and in provision of in inin providing diplomacy all over
(22:36):
the world. It is a guidelines for American
diplomacy and politics around the world.
And, and do you see Trump? I mean, I think over the last
year we've talked before about how Trump is coming round to, to
Russia's way of thinking on manyissues.
Do you see this as a further step towards your world view?
(22:57):
I don't think no, it is. It is coming from his conviction
which has he has already unveiled during his pre election
campaign, he he, he said. And now it is on paper it is, so
why not? But do you think it's in line
with Russia's world for you? Is there more agreement between
you now? We have much more complicated
view on the world. It is.
(23:18):
It is not just to please Americans or to please the
current government. We have our own strategy.
It is laid down. We have a concept of foreign
policy. It is laid out I guess a year
ago or a year and a half, something like that.
It is not in line. It is just some indications,
some points that I have singled out.
(23:38):
These points are in line, yes, about strategic, strategic
stability, about stopping enlargement of NATO because it
is detrimental to our security, absolutely.
And it is about multipolarity inthe world multipolar world is
this is what most important, which is in our United States is
recognizing. When when President Putin said
(23:59):
we don't want war with Europe, but we're ready for war, what
does that? Mean it means that well,
President Putin has said many times that we do not want and we
have no plans, no intentions andno reason to have war with
Europe. And we always need to, that is
absolutely clear. But by by, by the situation is
(24:24):
that here in Europe, the leadersof those who are speaking about
the war in two years, they simply do not hear it.
They do not listen to what President is saying.
That is why he was a bit, he he said of this thing that we are
ready and that is absolutely true that we can do it now.
We do not want to delay. We we are not, we are prepared
(24:45):
to anything. We have a strong army, we have
very strong and modernised forces on all sides.
So, but we still do not understand why Europeans, why
European leaders, special defence ministers, generals,
brigades, they speak about the war.
We have a conflict in Ukraine when we have resolved to resolve
this issue, which is serious forour security, which is a vital
(25:06):
for our security. But do you nothing else.
And then we we need as coming back to our initial
conversation, we need a comprehensive peace agreement.
But do you understand why peopledon't believe Putin?
Because so many things he said over the years turned out not to
be true. Issue of believe or not believe.
Well, it's quite important, isn't?
(25:27):
It and why it has it has no nothing about it.
It is an American concept. I don't believe you.
Well, he, he's a man who said hewasn't going to annex Crimea and
he annexed Crimea. He said he wasn't going to
invade Ukraine, He invades Ukraine.
So so so trust is a is a huge problem when it comes to
believing what president. Do you believe your own
politicians when when they're saying that we have that?
(25:51):
So you're agreeing with me? I agree.
I agree in a sense. Do you believe your Minister of
Finance, who has said there was a gap, enormous gap in the
budget and turned out to be no gap in the.
So you don't believe Putin either?
I don't believe, I don't believeto your politician neither.
So the question of belief or nonbelief should be resolved in
negotiations. But but but belief is is
(26:14):
fundamental to a negotiation, isn't it?
Because you have to believe and trust that the person who is
sitting across the table from you means it, and we'll stick to
what they're saying. In 1975 when we have, we're
close to concluding Health and Care Decalogue or Health and
Care Act, which has a tremendousimportance for the European
security and nobody, no one believed to nobody to anybody or
(26:37):
to this stage. We didn't believe Americans for
very many years. Americans didn't believe to us
on us, we didn't believe Europeans.
And and So what we have come to an agreement because we have a
joint project, very serious joint project how to settle
security in Europe and all over the world.
And we have done this and from this trust has started to
(26:57):
evolve. And then we have come to much
more agreements in Paris. We have we have come to
strategic, strategic weapon limitation agreements.
Most fundamental was ABM agreement and ballistic missile
agreement was that cornerstone of strategic stability in in in
a climate of total unbelief to each other.
(27:21):
And what that suggests is that each side will regard security
and strength as fundamental to underpinning any kind of future
agreement. So we are looking at escalation,
aren't we, An arms race? Why It depends, of course.
It depends of those if someone would like to escalate, we are
ready. If we can settle and de
(27:44):
escalate, we are ready to. What else I can tell you about
that? Nothing, not not very much about
it. De escalation is now in high in
the agenda, not escalation. And one should speak not about
terms of remilitarisation, remilitarisation, but in terms
(28:05):
of de escalation of current tension, which is important,
about re establishment of strategic stability, which is
absolutely vital now for Europeans and for the Americans
because we are coming, that strategic limitation treaty is
coming to an end, end of February.
This is vital of course as well.We have to take, we have to
(28:27):
think about curbing arms race, not increasing arms race.
That is most important. And we have to talk about how to
finish up the issue in Ukrainianconflict.
Just just finally, how much economic pressure do you think
both sides are under? We know that Ukraine has a
(28:48):
problem paying it's bills, but Russia also is facing a much
lower oil price. Underpinning your economy.
You're facing inflation at a much higher level, lower growth.
Isn't that a pressure on you to?We have had a lower growth
because previous years we have had previous two or three years
(29:09):
we have had more than 4% and it is absolutely normal that we
have a lower growth. Yes, we do have inflation which
is about 8%, I guess something like that.
But Britain has 8% inflation 2 years ago.
Well, you have done it by 4. We are trying to bring it also
by 4. So I wouldn't say that we feel
(29:30):
economically serious pressure because we did have several
conferences right now with including which including
business people, bank people, governmental people, nobody
complained so far. And and thanks to India and
China, I suppose. Not only we we have we are
trading with 85% of the world which is non Western countries.
(29:51):
It's the majority of the world. Ambassador, thank you very much
indeed.
Popular Podcasts
Two Guys, Five Rings: Matt, Bowen & The Olympics
Two Guys (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers). Five Rings (you know, from the Olympics logo). One essential podcast for the 2026 Milan-Cortina Winter Olympics. Bowen Yang (SNL, Wicked) and Matt Rogers (Palm Royale, No Good Deed) of Las Culturistas are back for a second season of Two Guys, Five Rings, a collaboration with NBC Sports and iHeartRadio. In this 15-episode event, Bowen and Matt discuss the top storylines, obsess over Italian culture, and find out what really goes on in the Olympic Village.
iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2026 Winter Olympics.
Milan Cortina Winter Olympics
The 2026 Winter Olympics in Milan Cortina are here and have everyone talking. iHeartPodcasts is buzzing with content in honor of the XXV Winter Olympics We’re bringing you episodes from a variety of iHeartPodcast shows to help you keep up with the action. Follow Milan Cortina Winter Olympics so you don’t miss any coverage of the 2026 Winter Olympics, and if you like what you hear, be sure to follow each Podcast in the feed for more great content from iHeartPodcasts.