Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Andriy Sybiga (all photos: Vitaly Nosach / RBC-Ukraine) Author: Milan Lelich
Read about the meeting with the American delegation in Jeddah, the preparation and conditions of the truce, the reaction of the aggressor country, the “red lines” of Ukraine, NATO and possible scenarios for the development of events in a long interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Andriy Sybiga.
The main event of the past week was, of course, the meeting of the Ukrainian and American delegations in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. After that, for the first time in recent years, the option of a temporary ceasefire appeared on the agenda – or at least such an option is being considered.
However, for this to happen, the consent of the aggressor country will be a priori necessary. Russia is quite obviously resorting to tactics tested over years of Minsk negotiations: it is trying to “talk down” any constructive initiatives and turn the course of events to its advantage.
As Andrey Sibiga has repeatedly noted in a conversation with RBC-Ukraine, it is still worth waiting for Moscow’s official reaction to the ceasefire initiative – and despite numerous “signals,” such a reaction has not yet been received.
– How realistic is the implementation of the ceasefire agreements that were concluded in Jeddah, after what we have already heard from Moscow and how the Americans reacted to what they heard in Moscow?
– I can tell you clearly that the Ukrainian side is ready, the American side is ready. There have really been a lot of diplomatic activities recently, this is understandable and is conditioned by our strategic goal – to achieve a fair comprehensive peace for Ukraine and end this war this year. Therefore, of course, there is an intensification of all our diplomatic efforts at all levels.
Returning to Jeddah, these were extremely important, landmark negotiations. Based on their results, we can draw several conclusions. If we take the bilateral dimension of our Ukrainian-American relations, then I can clearly say that after these negotiations we returned to the normal diplomatic track, bilateral interaction, further dialogue at various levels, including the highest. This is the first.
Second, Ukraine has once again demonstrated to the world that it is not Ukraine that is an obstacle to peace. And once again, these negotiations have shown who really wants peace and who really wants war. Ukraine, by supporting the American proposal for a truce, has demonstrated its global commitment to achieving a just peace. Therefore, diplomatically, the ball is now in Russia's court. We are waiting for a response from them, but an unconditional response.
– So far, what we have heard is just the conditions.
– Let's wait for an official answer, because as of today there is none. But we definitely proceed from the fact that no additional conditions should be put forward.
Ukraine accepted the proposal from the American side and, accordingly, the Russian side should do the same.
– Do you mean that there will be a specific official response, not some comments from Putin that have already been made, but something more formally presented?
– There are various official forms of confirmation of the state's position. As of today, there is none. This confirmation must be provided directly to the American side.
– What time frame for the beginning of the ceasefire can we talk about, as soon as possible?
– This is a very complicated process in general, in addition to reaching an agreement on a ceasefire, Ukraine has now confirmed this. On the other hand, we have such a challenge as control over the observance of the ceasefire, monitoring the observance of the ceasefire.
But here I will clarify once again that we are talking about a temporary truce. This is in no way a frozen conflict, but a temporary truce for 30 days, as recorded in our joint statement with the American delegation.
Our bitter experience of the “Minsk process” and the ceasefires established then, of which there were at least 25, shows that this is indeed a challenge. It shows that provocations should be immediately expected from the Russian side. It shows that the Russians do not adhere to their agreements and their practice is to immediately violate these ceasefires. Therefore, we really need to have an effective mechanism of objective control.
Surely it should also have an international component. Here the question is who can carry out such monitoring, because there is certainly a national component, it cannot be without us, because it is happening on our territory. Therefore, Ukraine is decisive here regarding control and monitoring of compliance with the ceasefire. And I have already said this, we have already begun to form a national team that will develop modalities, algorithms for ensuring this process.
Here we should certainly keep in mind our technical capabilities, which we have increased in recent years, I mean the possibility of using unmanned technologies for this monitoring. But there should certainly be an international component, for the objective recording of possible violations, provocations from the Russian side.
Typically, such ceasefire monitoring mechanisms operate under the umbrella of the UN, OSCE, or various other international institutions. At the same time, given our negative experience of 2014-2022, it is necessary to carefully discuss the possibility and expediency of implementing such an international component as an element of possible monitoring of a temporary ceasefire.
Therefore, this is also a subject for discussion with our European colleagues, with the American side, and we are now also conducting these consultations, I personally am also conducting them as a minister, because here we need both expertise and collective diplomatic wisdom.
– It is logical to assume that the aggressor country can say: we do not trust any controllers from Ukraine, say Poland, say France or Lithuania. Therefore, if they are there, then on our side there will be “controllers” from Belarus, say Kazakhstan or China.
– I will not assume that they will come up with something for themselves. There is a clear understanding, clear rules of how it should be in order to comply with the process of ensuring a ceasefire. This is our position, we understand the configuration approximately, we already have enough diplomatic scars in our history to clearly understand both our national interest and those steps that are truly effective.
– How soon will we begin to understand whether things are generally moving towards a truce or the opposite?
– There is no need to invent anything here, the main criterion is the official response of the Russian side. We have already made a huge step towards bringing a fair peace closer with these agreements with the American delegation. Now we are waiting for the response of the Russians.
– And at this stage, are we waiting for steps from the American side, in particular with regard to Russia? Do you admit that the United States – if Russia starts playing the games it has always played, trying to talk to the issue – could take serious measures: sanctions, increase aid to us?
– We proceed from the fact that the American side is currently conducting contacts with the Russian side to obtain this position. My opinion is that a negative response, a refusal by the Russian side on this proposal presupposes the possibility of using the necessary elements of pressure on the Russians to achieve peace. And for this, I am convinced, there is a necessary diplomatic toolkit, in particular sanctions.
– Considering what has been happening in the Kursk region in recent days, is Kursk still a “card” for us, in the terminology of President Trump, a card that we can play? And how would you assess Trump’s latest appeal to Putin to “spare” some of our military personnel who are supposedly surrounded somewhere?
– Let us focus on the official statements of our General Staff and our Commander-in-Chief, who gives the current picture and its development dynamics. Yes, Kursk will continue to be an important factor in achieving the relevant agreements to establish a just peace.
– Over the last 2-3 weeks, we have heard many, many statements from our European friends about helping us, there has been a lot of diplomatic activity, even by the standards of the last three years. But to what extent are these statements, as of now, supported by real actions in military assistance to Ukraine?
– I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the European side immediately and collectively welcomed the agreements in Jeddah, and as a minister I received many messages and words of support and readiness to further assist Ukraine in implementing these agreements. We also saw support for President Zelensky from the overwhelming majority of European leaders. Therefore, this is important, since this agreement is supported by the world, our allies.
Returning to specific actions, it seems to me that we are now at such a dynamic geopolitical stage, when Europe is increasingly aware of the need to take responsibility for its own security. This is true, and it is happening before our eyes. We see all these recent statements and initiatives about the need for rearmament, greater self-sufficiency, primarily in the defense sector, and this is good.
And here Ukraine can also play one of the key roles in building our common security architecture, because I always say: the security of Ukraine and the security of Europe are inseparable things.
About specifics – yes, we already clearly understand the list of countries that are ready to deploy their troops as important effective elements of the future system of security guarantees. Therefore, we are already at the stage of discussing details. Details are geography, quantity, mandate. And on Saturday, the summit of this coalition with the participation of President Zelensky took place. There is constant communication along the line of Andriy Yermak, with national security advisers.
That is, these are no longer abstract ideas; these are already things that are not at the stage of discussion, but of implementation.
– Will our European friends, who are interested in sending their contingents, be ready to do this without the approval, assistance, and support of the Americans?
– I think the support of the American side is extremely, critically important. We need America, we need American involvement and American leadership.
– The aggressor country has repeatedly reacted to the idea of a contingent as a non-starter, categorically rejecting it. Will we be able to break – or ignore – this resistance?
We will do everything that is in our national interest and that truly guarantees Ukraine’s security for a long period.
We are not satisfied with the mere absence of military action. Peace is not simply the absence of war. And we are talking about a sustainable, long-term, fair peace with the prevention of a resumption of Russian aggression in the long term. Therefore, this is precisely what our efforts, together with our allies, were aimed at.
We now have a clear, solid coalition, that is, Ukraine is not alone.
– Is this coalition big?
– Yes.
– What are Ukraine’s red lines in any future negotiations?
– I don't like this definition. There are fundamental things that are not discussed, that cannot be touched upon. The first is the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. Ukraine will never recognize the occupied territories.
Secondly, no country has a veto on the choice of the Ukrainian people, on Ukraine's choice regarding participation in one or another union. Either it is the European Union, or it is NATO.
Thirdly, there can be no limitations on Ukraine's defense capability, no limitations on the strength of our army, our capabilities. Therefore, these are fundamental things that our partners know about. Russia must be held accountable. These are all elements of a comprehensive peace. And I will remind you that they were also spelled out in our “peace formula”, they reflect the approaches that determine our position in the international arena. Fundamental things, principled for us, are “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine”, “nothing about Europe without Europe”. And we have support here too.
– The Western contingent is obviously one of our security guarantees. As for NATO, we are told that as of now, it is not on the table. What else, what other security guarantees would Ukraine like to receive?
– NATO cannot be removed from the agenda, this is the first position.
Yes, it is true that today there is no consensus among our partners regarding Ukraine’s membership in NATO, but I repeat, this is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, this is the strategic choice of the Ukrainian people, and the most effective guarantee of Ukraine’s security is membership in NATO.
If we talk about other specific, effective security guarantees, this includes air patrols, the use of air fleets, and the air defense systems of our allies.
This is, of course, the sea. This is, of course, the opportunities that follow from engaging the fleet in the Black Sea. This is, of course, support for our defense industry. We must become increasingly self-sufficient in the defense industry. We must strengthen our position so that the enemy clearly understands the consequences and the cost of possible further provocations, possible further aggression. But the top priority is, of course, air defense systems, this is building up our capabilities for drones and, of course, these are artillery capabilities – both shells and artillery. That is, all these priorities are clearly known, we are working with partners and focusing on achieving specific results.
– What is the danger from the fact that the aggressor country has recently de facto emerged from the isolation in which it was? We see how even our adequate friends in the West, like NATO Secretary General Rutte, are talking about the need to “restore relations” with Russia. But we hear much less about punishing the aggressor country, about the fact that they must answer for what they have done.
– I don't quite agree with you. I think that this diplomatic isolation continues. Despite certain isolated contacts. And of course, Putin and Russia are trying to use these contacts to legitimize themselves in the international arena and to show a picture of a return to normality.
No, this has not happened and is not happening. The sanctions continue, all sanctions packages are in effect today. We are talking about limiting Russia's participation in a number of international organizations, in important international events. We are talking about Russia's diplomatic and political isolation.
And if we talk about Russia's responsibility, we have progress in reaching agreements on the creation of a special tribunal. This work is underway because certain macro-decisions were made at the beginning, then everything moved to the level of more expert, professional work, and now we have achieved a truly significant process, with the prospect of accelerated further movement.
– So, punishment of aggressors is not off the table?
– It cannot be removed. Therefore, the work on the special tribunal continues, on the registry of losses. There was a precedent, this Russian criminal was convicted in Finland. And here is a clear example for you that punishment of the enemy for those war crimes, crimes against humanity, for this genocidal policy on the territory of Ukraine, is inevitable.
– What further scenarios do you see before us in general: optimistic, pessimistic, realistic?
– We always proceed from realistic scenarios, where the final goal is to achieve a just peace, and here we have the support of the United States, European partners, and we have the will to make this happen. That is, a very significant set of factors so that there is the right dynamics of development.
We need to involve the Global South more, so in the near future we should expect diplomatic activities of the President of Ukraine with key capitals of the Global South both to prove our position and to involve them. Personally, I will be in India this week at a security forum, there will be many meetings with countries of the Global South, and certainly with our Indian partners.
Therefore, now everything depends on the position of the Russian side. This is also a test for those propaganda things where they tried to shift the blame onto us and accuse us of not wanting to achieve a fair peace. Therefore, most of the components indicate movement in the right direction. And it seems to me that a very good diplomatic pace has been reached now, which allows us to quickly overcome obstacles and achieve specific results. Because Ukraine, like no one else in the world, strives to end this war this year.