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 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.

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's new national security strategy might mean for Europe.

So there is lots to talk about.

Ambassador, thank you for having us.

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 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 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 is clearly impatient and he wants 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 version that 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 talk about surrender because Kiev 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 more money, 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 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 about a deal, but a deal is a different thing.

A deal when there is a certain balance balance of on the on the field, 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 moving very 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.

But in fact what is happening is that 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 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 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 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 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 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 seems to be stepping up what the British government regards increasingly as hybrid war in Europe?

Well, British government London is very experienced in hybrid war.

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?

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 is doing what it is.

So the hybrid war which is waged against Russia is very active.

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 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 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 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 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 for reports about Africans.

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 devastated terms which has been already liberated.

But their mission is a combat 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 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 three months.

So we have given and returned to Ukrainians 9000 bodies and we got in return 143.

That is all it is.

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 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 acknowledge the 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.

This is not a question about the name 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 have prohibited even the Orthodox Church over there, which is they are prohibiting to talk 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 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 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 for an election, is that something 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 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 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 making rapid progress on seizing Russian assets and giving them effectively to Ukraine to use.

Now.

This has been, you know, held in in 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 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 of Nazi Germany, which has been in 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 do is a step which will be which has 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 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 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 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 has been 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 American says how to to make how to 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 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?

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 previous year, such kind of strategies done by the previous administration.

I will point out three things which are in particular positive for us.

First, it is refusal to be to of refusal of supremacy of the United States all over the world.

Hegemony is was always the main card of the previous 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 stand not for confrontation with Russia, 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.

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 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.

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 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, nationalism is, it is a very, I will say, I 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 front of the church.

So nationalism exists over the world, but it is not my 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 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 there is no job, no no work, no jobs.

And we have taken a new strategy to that, which is limiting migration, which does not give a very 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.

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 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 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 main threat to us, which is absolutely has no substance at all.

But.

But it I mean, you, you say you like the fact that America is no longer 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 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 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 seriously and the following them, but also very seriously in the negotiations in international forest and in provision of in in in providing diplomacy all over 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 many issues.

Do you see this as a further step towards your world view?

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.

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.

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 in the world multipolar world is this is what most important, which is in our United States is recognizing.

When when President Putin said 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 and no reason to have war with Europe.

And we always need to, that is absolutely clear.

But by by, by the situation is that here in Europe, the leaders of 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 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 for our security, which is a vital 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 people don'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?

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 he wasn'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?

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 believe to your politician neither.

So the question of belief or non belief should be resolved in negotiations.

But but but belief is is 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 tremendous importance for the European security and nobody, no one believed to nobody to anybody or 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 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.

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 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 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 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 Ukrainian conflict.

Just just finally, how much economic pressure do you think both sides are under?

We know that Ukraine has a 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 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 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.

It's the majority of the world.

Ambassador, thank you very much indeed.