"The last four years have not been easy years for all of us. To be honest, it has been years of serious trials: it seemed we were facing a large number of simply unsolvable problems. But our people showed their best qualities as patriots and Citizens during these critical moments, coming together in the struggle to ensure the territorial integrity of the country and keep our land united, creating a basis for future growth through their work. Together we have achieved a lot and achieved it through our own efforts. "We have overcome a difficult identity confrontation and we are gradually forging a truly united nation. It is we who have remained firm against external attacks and have saved the country from the real threat of collapse. Together we have made our homeland a country open to the world, a country that seeks broad and equal cooperation, a country that has strengthened its positions on the on the international scene and has learned how to use peaceful means to defend its legitimate interests in a rapidly changing world. We have also placed the sovereignty, independence and integrity of our country as red lines that no one can cross. For this reason, we will persecute the separatists everywhere, and when we find them, forgive me the expression, we will throw them straight into the toilet bowl ".
Rhetoric of a country, Ukraine, now in the grip of Nazi-fascists? Delirium of omnipotence of a Slavic nation in search of its position in the world and in history? The proof of the aggressiveness and intolerance of Ukraine and its leaders towards the Russian-speaking minority? No, you simply read a collection, faithfully translated into Italian, of speeches by Russian President Vladimir Putin held since the 1999, on the theme of the challenges of separatist movements in the Russian Federation from the nineties and up to the other yesterday. Yeah, it's all PUTIN's sentences! Hands up who has not felt a sense of aversion to the thought of the small Slavic-eastern people who make the big voice, without even bothering to get their hands on the "rights of minorities". Now, of those who have metaphorically raised their hands, those who have changed their minds only because the adjectives have changed: not Ukrainian integrity, but the Russian one? Almost everyone ... This incipit serves to understand how our judgment is sometimes, so to speak, conditioned: yet, to seriously evaluate a scenario, it would be enough to put "Italian" instead of Russian and Ukrainian and imagine how we would feel in someone's shoes other. These are all political issues, where judgment must follow narration and not vice versa. Politics, the great Carl Schmitt teaches us, has its natural paradigm in the dichotomy between amicus and hostis:
"the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be traced is the distinction of friend and enemy ... In any case it is in the sense that it is neither founded on one nor on some of the other antitheses nor is it ascribable to them ... A world in which the possibility of a struggle of this kind, a definitively pacified globe, has been definitively set aside and destroyed, would be a world without the distinction between friend and enemy and consequently a world without politics. In it there could perhaps be very interesting contrasts and contrasts, competitions and intrigues of all kinds, but surely there would be no opposition on the basis of which one can ask men for the sacrifice of their life and men can be authorized to pay the blood and kill other men ".
Yes, that's what happened and is still happening in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict. We would have liked and still want to give both parties a voice, out of respect for so much spilled blood. The sole Ukrainian ambassador agreed to grant us this interview last Thursday 21 March, in Rome. We thank him for spending so much time with us. The questions were elaborated only by me writing: they were neither agreed nor anticipated. The Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Ukraine Yevhen Perelygin, in the presence of the attendant Vladyslav Mushka, answered all questions in Italian and in arms, even to the most uncomfortable and difficult to metabolize, without censoring any. Even those that some readers provocatively told us we would not have posed ... If the reader is curious to read the answers on the famous Italian singers "banned" from Kiev, he will have to look for them below. Enjoy the reading!
On the Russian side, it is argued that there are ideological prejudices - and consequently a negative representation - at the political and mass media level regarding Russian culture, history and politics: they speak of "russophobia"; Do you argue that anti-Ukrainian anti-Ukrainian resentments and prejudices exist at the international level?
No, I don't think this phenomenon exists: if it exists, it is only present in Russia. If we read the most recent polls, the attitude of the Russian people towards other nations is negative, especially against Americans, Ukrainians and Georgians. It is the result of the pounding internal propaganda during the last 8-10 years. It is also possible to explain how this propaganda works: when a crime occurs, almost always when the person who performed it is non-Russian, the Authorities and the Media call the person responsible according to nationality, pointing out that he is a Georgian, a Ukrainian and so on. This facilitates the diffusion of an attitude contrary to Georgia, Ukraine, United States, etc. It's a way to create the image of an enemy.
In other countries it is widely believed that the so-called "sovranisti" do the same: days ago, in Italy, the death of a Romanian employee, the victim of a robbery, is passed almost unnoticed. Some say Moscow is a sponsor, at least cultural, of a part of European "sovereignty". In your opinion, does Moscow exercise a form of influence, at least cultural, over "sovereign" parties and movements?
I have no proof that there is a cultural influence or other kind of contribution. I can say that in Europe some populist political parties or extremist right-wing parties have agreed on Russian political positions, in particular President Putin.
Let's step back to the 2013-2014 at the time of the Euromaidan. The Ukrainian government of the time managed to effectively buffer the separatism of some regions (Kharkiv, Odessa ...) and limited the damage even in Lugansk and Donetsk. The same did not happen in the Crimea, where the Russian reaction was effective. Has the military capacity to react failed, or - as someone suggested - has it been hoped in a certain sense that Russia would be satisfied and had limited demands?
It's a very complex question: answering in two to three minutes is almost impossible. The invasion and immediately after the annexation of the Crimea were a shock to everyone at the time. First of all, Russian soldiers, already present in Sevastopol and other military bases, intervened directly in the Crimea: a military reaction would have involved a real, hot and immediate war between Russia and Ukraine. Furthermore, reading the documentation, one perceives as widespread opinion that the issue could be resolved through negotiation and not military force. Then, the crisis exploded a few days after the establishment of the new government, which had enormous difficulties in understanding what was happening due to internal communication problems. Finally, a large part of the members of the Ukrainian security apparatuses present in the Crimea decided to take sides with the Russians: at that time it was not clear who would go through Moscow; today we know that out of more than 20.000 members of the Armed Forces, only a quarter have decided to stay with Kiev and continue to serve for Ukraine. Unfortunately, it is a fact that most of these soldiers and officers moved to Moscow. In Lugansk and Donetsk the phenomenon occurred at the beginning as an attack on the integrity of the Ukrainian state by internal groups: the reaction was different. Within a few weeks we saw Russian interference in Donbass grow and the transformation of an internal conflict into an invasion, an aggression by the Russian Federation. The whole world today recognizes the very strong presence of Russian soldiers, formally in the role of instructors and advisers. In addition to personnel, Russia has provided arms separatists from these regions. as Putin himself acknowledged, stating that it is not possible to buy tanks in a supermarket. They are therefore two different situations. Putin's plan, however, was not limited to the Donbass: the goal was the entire southern end of Ukraine, up to Odessa.
Does it mean that the Russian leader intended to create a continuity between Transnistria, Crimea and the South East of Ukraine, turning it into a landlocked country?
No, we must not be so restrictive: the Kremlin foresaw the restoration of the former Soviet Empire! Without Ukraine, however, it is not possible. Since the Ukrainians decided to stay on the side of Europe, Putin has developed this alternative plan, to prevent Ukraine's positioning on the European side. The first step should have been taken in Lugansk and Donetsk; the second, almost simultaneously, in Kharkiv and Odessa. In Kharkiv they were about to do the same as in Lugansk; then, when about two hundred people proclaimed independence in the building of the Regional Council, immediately the Ukrainian special forces freed the building in less than six hours, without making victims. Thus, their initiative was interrupted: moreover, the support of the population in the Kharkiv region was also lacking. In Odessa the same thing could have happened, that is the failure of the attempt without making victims and without the support of the local population: unfortunately, there was a tragedy and in the union building almost forty people died.
I am pleased that he mentioned the dead in Odessa, without hesitation. I have to ask you two questions on controversial topics: were there and, if so how I believe, at what point are the investigations into snipers active in the Maidan in the last days of the revolution and on the victims in the union building in Odessa?
The answer is very simple. There are ongoing proceedings in Ukraine: I cannot comment because I have not yet seen all the documents of these trials, but I know for sure that in the coming weeks we will see the work of the courts and we will know everything. Hundreds of investigators worked for five years on the cases of Maidan snipers and the fire at the union headquarters. Soon the hearings will also begin and will be public. I repeat: we will see everything!
In 2014 the blow for you must have been tremendous: you lost a province and witnessed the proliferation of separatism in other regions. How did you manage, so to speak, to limit the damage to the most oriental oblasts? How did you keep control of almost the whole country, "cooling" not only Odessa but all the Russian-speaking regions to the East, not least the same Mariupol and Zaporizia?
We did it first of all because, unlike the separatists, the unity of Ukraine had the convinced support of almost the entire population. Last year I was nine kilometers from Donetsk and was able to talk to the people living in that area, along the separation line. They are civilians who live in very heavy conditions, but they absolutely do not intend to live under those who now command in Donetsk. Then, because a very generous movement of volunteers was triggered between May and June of the 2014, which created the conditions for the Ukrainian army and special forces to stop this phenomenon in Lugansk and Donetsk. And these volunteers did not come only from the West: many are also from the same region as the Donbass.
Over the past five years, how has national security improved in Ukraine?
Very very much. As mentioned by some politicians, in the year 2014 we didn't really have an army! After five years, our Armed Forces are much closer to the standards of European and North American countries. For this reason, our safety today is not that of the 2014: this is why Putin could not continue to do as in the 2014! I met our defense minister here in Rome and was able to visit the military bases in Donbass, but above all I did military service at the time of the Soviet Union and I can see the difference between the system we had before and what we have today. . We have declared that it is our goal to integrate politics, society, armed forces, all parts of the country into NATO. In the last five years we have had the help of many countries: Poland, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and even Italy ... Italy has helped us and helps us in the formation of the army ...
Even now, with the current government?
Yes, as a member of NATO, Italy helps us.
How have the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Defense suppliers changed over the past five years?
When one starts from a Soviet or Russian model, it is not easy to change quickly: however, every year we have gradually changed not only the operating system of the Armed Forces but also the armaments. We receive armaments from Canadian, American, British suppliers etc. but above all we have to produce internally. Ten years ago a private company could not have worked as a supplier in the military industry: there were only state-owned companies! Today there are hundreds of private companies that produce at the request of the state. In short, today we import and produce weapons!
Now I have to ask two questions in one, about the Ukrainian prisoners: what is the situation of the former Ukrainian citizens detained in prisons of the Russian Federation? How are prisoners exchanged between you and the separatists?
We negotiate with Russia directly for the release of political prisoners, that is, Ukrainian citizens who found themselves with Russian citizenship in Crimea and ended up in prison for their opinions: we are talking about journalists, scientists, directors but also ordinary civilians, none with the uniform. They are political prisoners. Unfortunately, Russia does not respond. Ukrainians caught during operations in the Donbass are another thing. We also have people in our prisons who have fought against Ukraine: for this reason, we have proposed to exchange prisoners. Our proposal was: all for all. The last exchange - two almost full buses - in the Donbass was almost three years ago, after a personal and public meeting between a representative of the Ukrainian Government and Putin, with a request for exchange on humanitarian grounds, in the presence of the Patriarch of Moscow . Since then, all our exchange proposals have been ignored. Why? First, they told us that we had to wait for the presidential elections in Russia: after Putin's re-election, we expected to go ahead, but we heard that the Russians prefer to wait for the elections in Ukraine. Meanwhile, hundreds of people remain imprisoned in Donbass: for our part, we are willing to make this exchange. But there is no answer even from the self-proclaimed illegal authorities of Donetsk and Lugansk, because they do not receive instructions from Moscow. There is only one person who can authorize this exchange - for humanitarian reasons - and it is Putin.
Have you ever asked for international mediation?
Our president and our parliament have made official requests to European leaders. Both Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron called Putin and spoke to us personally, but without results. Here, I have made many attempts, asking the Italian political parties closest to Putin personally or to his party, united Russia, to mediate for a humanitarian reason. I asked for neither for myself nor for Ukraine, but for human persons. Unfortunately, positive results have not arrived.
What is the situation of the Russian-Ukrainian crisis in the Azov Sea and what consequences does it have on the city of Mariupol?
Ship traffic between the inland Azov Sea, on the Ukrainian side, and the open sea, both Black Sea and Mediterranean, is hindered a great deal. Today no boat can sail freely through the Kerch Strait because the Russian service stops and inspects each ship, sometimes holding them for three or four days. This constitutes a heavy mortgage for trade and industry: every day lost is a financial loss. Over the last ten months more ships have passed through 600 inspections and lost whole days, with financial losses and lost earnings. For Mariupol products it involves an unsustainable increase in costs compared to international competition: consider that this is the first port for the Ukrainian metallurgical industry and the second for cereals. The leader of the Ukrainian steel market, Azovstal, is Mariupol's.
Let's talk about a topical issue: how are your relations with Hungary made and what is the condition of linguistic minorities in Ukraine?
We have always had excellent relations and developed many projects with Hungary, which is our neighbor. Twenty years ago I was a member of the intergovernmental commission between Ukraine and Hungary and I worked a lot with Budapest. We have a Magyar minority in one region: in the past, there were no linguistic or other problems. Two years ago we changed the legislation - which now has the goal that all Ukrainian citizens are able to speak and understand our language - and a problem has arisen. A year ago our foreign minister attended the inauguration of the Hungarian Consulate in the Trans-Carpathian region. It should be noted that this Consulate should serve the Ukrainians who have interests in Hungary. The minister spoke to the staff, more than 20 Ukrainian citizens: of them, only one spoke the Ukrainian language. The others, while living in Ukraine and being Ukrainian citizens, were unable to speak or understand the Ukrainian language! I speak in the interest of these people: if they do not speak the Ukrainian language, they cannot work or study in other cities or regions and remain bound to their village. The law now requires everyone to study the Ukrainian language, but does not prevent them from using or learning the Magyar language: on this there was a lack of understanding. First, in the schools of these communities they only learned Hungarian: now, they learn both Ukrainian and Hungarian.
So, Hungarian and especially Russian-speaking minorities have nothing to fear?
I tell her that, to give an example with the Magyar language, the teaching of Hungarian literature and history will remain in that language in public schools. Ukrainian and mathematical literature will be in Ukrainian.
In the future will you overcome the ban, still of Soviet flavor, of the second passport?
Among Ukrainian politicians - including the foreign minister - there are more and more people who support the idea of dual citizenship.
I am asking you a tremendously current question: Ukraine - along with Kazakhstan and Belarus - is the only country - to date - to have renounced the status of nuclear power, in the 1994. If you could retrace your steps, do you think Kiev would think twice about giving it up? What message comes to other countries - notably, to North Korea - from the latest events that have struck Ukraine?
I supported and felt at the 100% just the decision of the 1994 to renounce nuclear weapons. Ukraine would not have done it in any other way.
Is it still ...?
I still believe that Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus have made the right decision in the 1994. There was an error in receiving the warranty from Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, etc. The error was not in the renunciation of weapons, but in the ambiguity of the English formulation of the international guarantee: the security of Ukraine received assurances, not guarantees.
And this will have to take Kim Korea's into account, I guess ... Finally, a lighter question. In the last few days, you've been a lot in the media about the blacklisting of some artists and intellectuals. What is this blacklisting?
These people cannot penetrate into Ukrainian territory. We have a law that if an intellectual or artist does not recognize the territorial integrity of Ukraine or, more simply, he recognizes Crimea as a part of the Russian Federation, he cannot visit Ukraine. Likewise, his films or concerts cannot be broadcast on Ukrainian territory. For this, this list of 147 people of culture was formed.
How many Italians are on this list?
Only one: Albano Carrisi, because with public statements he recognized the Crimea as part of Russia and that, literally, it is good that Crimea has returned to Russia. He has been included in the list of ungrateful people at the request of the secret services and the Ministry of Culture. Then, on another list of those who have violated the law there is the "famous" Giulietto Chiesa. In the list of men of culture there are also a famous American actor, Steven Seagal, some French artists and more than a hundred Russians.
Photo: Ukrainian Embassy / MoD Ukraine / Kremlin
