Interview with Andrij Petrowitsch Klujew
EinleitungMy Interview with Andrij Petrowitsch Klujew (Andriy Petrovych Klyuyev, Андрій Петрович Клюєв) from January 2017 is now available on my website www.wehrschuetz.com in an English version. I still have not published it on TV or Radio not because of any political reason, but still because of a lack of time and space. For sure I will use it for a story about Maidan next year but in a broader context. I have put the text now on my website because of the interview an Italian journalist did with the Georgian, who claimed to have been snipers on the side of the protesters against Yanukovych in February 2014. During the days of crises I have met Andriy Klyuyev once in his office with other journalist for a background talk (off the records); his brother I have met twice after Maidan for interviews. My personal
DetailMy Interview with Andrij Petrowitsch Klujew (Andriy Petrovych Klyuyev, Андрій Петрович Клюєв) from January 2017 is now available on my website www.wehrschuetz.com in an English version. I still have not published it on TV or Radio not because of any political reason, but still because of a lack of time and space. For sure I will use it for a story about Maidan next year but in a broader context. I have put the text now on my website because of the interview an Italian journalist did with the Georgian, who claimed to have been snipers on the side of the protesters against Yanukovych in February 2014. During the days of crises I have met Andriy Klyuyev once in his office with other journalist for a background talk (off the records); his brother I have met twice after Maidan for interviews. My personal experience during the revolution and my research after has led me also to the conclusion, that there were snipers on the side of the protesters, who started shooting at the crucial day at the end of February. This does not mean that Berkut and others did not shoot or kill people, but for me it is clear that there were forces on the side of the protesters, who did not want a peaceful solution, which would have been in the interest of Yanukovych, who wanted to stay in power at least until the end of the year 2014.
P.S.: On 24 January 2014 President Yanukovych signed a decree that dismissed Klyuyev as National Security and Defense Council secretary and appointed him head of the Presidential Administration of Ukraine. On 23 February 2014, just after the "Maidan revolution", Klyuyev resigned from this post
[00:20] I.: During the last visit of Austrian President Mr. Fischer to Slovenia last year I was shooting him as I’m in charge for Balkans. And we talked about President’s Yanukovich visit to Vienna as it was historical moment because President Yanukovich claimed that Ukraine is not ready to sign the Association Agreement with European Union. Western media wrote that Yanukovich is prorussian President and so on. From your prospective, tell me, please, why Ukraine and President Yanukovich did not want to sing this Agreement?
K: Well, I have been known Yanukovich for a long time, for more than twenty years. And if it is said that some politician is proeuroperan, some is proamerican and some is prorussian to my mind principally the President, and Yanukovich was like this, the President must be proukrainian politician. He should not be prorussian, proeuropean, proamerican… actually any politician must be proukrainian and first of all any politician has to protect interests of Ukraine. That is why, when Ministry of Economic Affairs addressed Prime Minister at first as they have analyzed the final version of Association Agreement with European Union, its economic part, the Ministry of Economic Affairs suggested revising this economic part because it’s hardly lucrative for Ukraine. That’s why a decision was made to postpone, it was not the decision to cancel the signing but to postpone the signing, revise the economic part and after revision to sign this Association Agreement with European Union.
[02:45] I.: This Agreement, if I’m not mistaken, was suspended in 2011. Why did you sign the Agreement at all if two years before that the Ministry knew that some parts are not really benefit for Ukraine?
K.: No one dropped any negotiations, there were talks after failure to sign the Association, no matter what we negotiated. And when Ministry of Economic Affairs found out that… they have calculated recalculated, reread it, as we got final versions literally in six months before the signing that is final versions. So they suggested this decision. When they suggested this decision everyone had to agree that economic part needs revising. Other parts of the Association Agreement raised no questions, but economic part needed revision, so the decision was made to postpone this signing. To my view it was postponed for six months, to revise during this period the economic part of Association Agreement and sign.
I.: Tell me please, what role plaid then Brussels and from the other hand Moscow? Was there an understanding for arguments of Ukraine that economic part needs revision or reaction was negative?
[04:35] K: I’ll tell you that Ukraine has to cooperate with everyone. If it has signed the Association with European Union it does not mean that it should not cooperate with Russia, Azerbaidzhan, Kazakhstan, China, and America. Ukraine has to cooperate with everyone with whom it is profitable. Of course, it was necessary to consult with Russia and with European Union we needed additional consultations. It was necessary to do and it was done. Thus, it is a fact that economic part needed to be reviewed.
[05:17] I.: What exactly was not profitable? Why it needed to be reviewed?
K.: The question was, as far as I remember, because at that time I was not in charge for this issue, the question was volume of goods to be delivered to Ukraine, quota, amount of quotes, all of this issues should have been reviewed.
[05:40] I.: How many economic sanctions have been posed on Ukraine by Russia since August 2013?
K.: There were no economic sanctions.
I.: So it means, you had free trade?
K.: Yes, there were no sanctions. Since August till November there were no sanctions.
I.: Was there some pressure from Russia in order for Ukraine not to sign the Agreement?
K.: I did not felt it.
[06:23] I.: In the end of November at the beginning of…
K.: There was only one talk: Please, take into account Russia’s interest, and how will you cooperate and trade with Russia. There was only such a talk but not more.
[06:40] I.: In the end of November started demonstrations at the Maidan, later on was a collision with militia [militia], because, if I’m not mistaken, radical protesters already then wanted to get into Presidential Administration. How did you settle this situation in the end of November and beginning of December?
K.: When it was Student’s Maidan it was ordinary peaceful demonstration. There were no problems. In two days before ending of protest action students have officially claimed that they end their protest, they fold their student’s maidan. It was officially said at the Maidan. A day later they claimed at the end of the day that they had completed their protest action, they begun to dismantle their equipment, stage and students begun to separate. And late at night, as far as I know, there were hardly any student, at the Maidan appeared radicals, far from being students, they began provoking the militia by throwing burning logs, rods. Naturally, how did militia react? In any other country there would be the same reaction as it was in Ukraine. By the way, two militia officers had severe injuries, they got eyes flash burns. They were put burning logs directly under their helmets. That’s why reaction was like in any other man. Every human has to protect himself. Therefore, there were practically no students. Maybe some students left there but there were separate individuals. Officially students had closed their action, there were no students. Suddenly appeared radicals, who begun provoking militia forces. And they got it, they provoked so begun the next Maidan.
[09:03] I.: Was it the beginning of December?
K.: It was at the end of November. To my mind, it was the 30th of November.
[09:10] I.: Tell me please, when those actions began the Maidan what kind of discussions were at the Presidential Administration, Ministry of Internal Affairs and so on? What was their reaction to this Maidan, tents, and protests? Because since beginning of December there were those groups and scenario was unpredictable. How did you discus then this situation?
[09:53] K.: In fact, this matter is predictable. What’s the question? It is the technology. We have already experienced the first revolution in 2004. We knew what steps will be taken: at first it is minor requirements, then bigger and bigger. Later one blocks one additional building, then the second one. Afterwards there is a need for a victim, one and another one to stir up more people. Then Maidan escalates the situation, appears Molotov cocktails, people start to burn Militia forces and “Berkut”, again more provocations and more buildings needs to be occupied, and more requirements, appear many foreign delegations, who say the situation must be settled peacefully, peace talks are in progress and the Maidan escalates the situation more and more. It is a common technology. It was worked out in Ukraine in 2004 during the first revolution. The same way it appeared… in fact the second revolution followed almost by one pattern. The one thing, thanks God, in 2004 we managed to do revolution without any victims. But this technology went further, there were victims.
[11:38] I.: Tell me please, if it was a technology why the state, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Special Forces Units did not get tough to settle the situation?
K.: The President always held peace talks; he wanted to manage all issues peacefully. Unfortunately, those who were in charge for technologies ignored it. The Maidan representatives…well there were Maidan representatives. Those were people who were deceived, they are disappointed now. Most of people got disappointed. Many of them say “What for have we had been standing at the Maidan? What we have achieved? It got even much worse.”
[12:40] I.: You had been with student at the Maidan almost ten years earlier in 2004, why at that time it was possible to regulate the crisis peacefully? Why there was no chance for it ten years later? What was the difference, what factors played the role that in 2014 it was not possible?
K.: The fact that in 2004 there were no victims is the result of the fact that Yanukovich agreed to go to the third round. He agreed for the third round and we clearly understood that he will lose the third round. Because in the second round he became a President he had won it for real. But then started the Revolution and he decided to sacrifice his post and went the third round. I clearly said him that third round we’ll lose. Really, on this wave he lost. Why in 2014? In 2014 Yanukovich wanted to settle this issue peacefully; he signed an agreement with three ministers of foreign affairs: Germany, France, and Poland. Agreement had signed three opposition leaders, who agreed all provisions of the agreement. I was one of the negotiators, I participated directly in the process; unfortunately I understand that there were one European side, who signed the agreement, and the second side, working directly with the technologies, they had totally different plans. Their plan was to destroy Yanukovich physically, his surroundings and arrange for people from Maidan to take over. I think that, Maidan leader had no clue about this scenario. At 03:00 PM or 03:30 PM the agreement was signed by Yanukovich, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany, MFA of France, MFA of Poland, Tyahnybok, Yatsenyuk and Klichko. They signed the agreement around 3:30 PM. At 05:00 PM I was the office and got a call from Boiko Yuri Anatolievich, who is now a people’s deputy, a head of counterpart, and then he was a Vice Prime Minister, and says: “Armed people start to storm the Cabinet of Ministers.” It is hour and a half after signing the agreement. I asked if they evacuated people, he said “Yes, we evacuated people but we won’t withstand a siege. Armed people take us by storm.” I said leave, otherwise you will simply be killed. Literary in 15-20 minutes at the beginning of 18:00 . I got a call from Chairman of Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Rybak Vladimir Vasilievich and said the same thing, that Verkovna Rada is being taken by storm wit unknown armed people. I also asked him to leave, because it would be the same story if he was taken captive. By that time, the Presidential Administration was completely besieged, there were already people from the Maidan, they all were armed. After 18:00, having evacuated people, I hardly left the Presidential Administration the last. Therefore, it strangely turned out, on the one hand, they signed a peace agreement and the Maidan was supposed to disperse and a normal process of civilization began, and on the other hand, an hour and a half later, unknown armed people began to storm all the government authorities what is more, begun to siege them. Thus all our calls… Yanukovich calld Ministers of Foreign Affairs in my presence but nobody picked up the phone.
[17:57] I.: Was it the 20th or the 21st of February?
K.: It was February 21st.
I.: Yes, in the afternoon.
K.: It was in the afternoon February 21st. Around 03:30 PM – 03:40 PM there was the signing and after that literary in an hour and a half around at 5 o'clock… the first was stormed Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, literary in half an hour, everything seemed to follow the script, Verkhovna Rada and fully besieged the Administration, but…
[18:27] I.: I have one question, there is another witness… because when I walked from the International hotel, if you remember, along Instytutskaya street to the Presidential Administration, there were serious barricades, but when we walked there were no militia forces or “Berkut” division, what had happened to them, did they went home or there were no other division of militia anymore?
K.: you know, somewhere on the 21st, my deputy came to me and said: "Have we already surrendered?" And I was sitting in the office at the time writing the post. I say: what do you mean? And you look out of the window. I looked out the window, and there was not a single militiaman there. I went to the president, he was in the office, I say so and so, we do not have a single militiaman, and there is no defense, no one. He phoned the interior minister then and said: "where are the people?" He said he was redeploying people. Oh well. But more people unfortunately did not appear.
[20:23] I.: On the other hand, for example, I have shot an interview in Donetsk one year ago with Sasha Khodakovsky when he was the commander of the special unit of Alpha and he told, for example, that on the same day they had no orders, decrees what to do, if the go home or obey the devision in Donetsk. Why was it a diffusion or a power discharge, so to say?
K.: Ask this question to the Secretary of the Interior Zakharchenko.
I.: You have signed… if it failed to manage… tell me please, you said that…
K.: There’s only one thing, if there is a reference that the agreement signed by Yanukovych and the foreign ministers and the opposition had a provision about troops withdrawal (I will give you all the data, you will carefully read this agreement), there is no such provision and never existed. No one intended to withdraw any troops. Yanukovych did not sign this. You can reread this agreement, it is on the Internet, I can give you, - there is no such provision there.
I.: Ok, after this can you give me that copy, please. Tell me please, you have signed this agreement with Opposition representatives: Tyahnybok, Yatsenyuk and Klichko. You you knew that these people had no control over people on the Maidan, what was your assessment of the situation on the Maidan? Who really was in power at this movement? Because there was a mix of grandmothers, who served soup or lunch and armed people, and there were units of Parubiy with their weapons. What the role did the opposition play there at all? As those parties had no serious sway with the Maidan.
[22:49] K.: They did not have a serious sway with the Maidan, but it had the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Several times all of the three Ministers of Foreign Affairs left the Presidential Administration to negotiate with the Maidan. In the long run, after the last round of negotiations, they called Yanukovich and said that they had agreed, they were going to sign. I know and understand that neither Klitschko nor Tyagnibok ... what is his name
K.: nor Yatsenyuk and nor Poroshenko had a big sway with the Maidan. Yes, they had some influence on these grandmas, but the armed units… there were many units; there was not a single man, but a whole armed unit. They had influence, I believe, indirectly. The Sway had Parubiy, Turchinov, Pashinsky and there were a large number of foreign consultants, so to say, from Georgia and the Baltic states. Those were people who gave consultations, who clearly knew all the technological cards, all the steps, what, why, when, what to do and how to do it.
[24:19] I.: Who gave the order that on 20th and 21st began the shooting? There were snipers and they started shooting, because it was obvious and I was a witness. I saw it and heard that the snipers started shooting from the Maidans against Yanukovych, against the militia. Militia did not start shooting. Who were these people?
[25:08] K.: First and foremost, the militia was unarmed. They had only protection means: batons, pepper-spray balls, shields. Naturally, Yanukovych, conducted peace talks. How could he command snipers to shoot people in order to... in order for what? To aggravate the situation? To make it even harder for him to conduct a peaceful negotiation process? Well this is a complete fullness. Of course, they began to shoot first at the Berkut and the militia. They started shooting from the side of the Maidan. We know that Pashinsky brought weapons and snipers. [25:38] I think that he, or someone like him or someone else, maybe Parubiy, he was also aware of this whole affair. Snipers started shooting at unarmed Berkut. It began on the 20th, as on the 19th, we agreed that we have peace, we are entering a peaceful negotiating process. On February the 20th, at around 6:30 am, shooting began, and began to kill militiamen. How did it happen? [26:15] Then they turn upside down and said that the militiamen and the Berkut began to kill peaceful... they killed both the Berkut and their own people to show that both sides had victims. Why the evidences were hidden? Cut off those trees? Because they withhold the evidence. Cause the bullets were found in trees from the side of the Maidan, but not from the Berkut side. And fire was from the building, which was controlled by representatives of the Maidan. [26:54] At present there are many facts. Now in Ukraine, probably only a lazy person does not understand and does not know who shot at whom. I recently saw a broadcast and they said directly that who ruled the Maidan opened this fire and this List of People Killed during Euromaidan. After all, they killed people from both sides. There are facts that representatives of the Maidan catched those snipers. They were citizens of Georgia and the Baltic countries.
[27:33] I.: That is, you say that snipers were citizens of Georgia and the Baltic countries?
K.: Maybe there were someone else and the citizens of Ukraine, but it’s a fact. I know that one Georgian citizen had been caught. Somewhere in my documents there is his surname. He was interrogated, then came Parubiy and took him away.
[28:00] I.: What the role plaid at the Maidan…
K.: Pay attention, please, that there a conversation between Catherine Ashton and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, when they clearly say that the representatives of the Maidan shoot and shoot people to death. But there is no need to pay attention to this; we must think how to raise Ukraine, what economic assistance should we give to support it. This conversation is on the Internet.
[28:34] I.: I know about this conversation. What the role played then the United States of America?
K.: The Europeans conducted a peaceful negotiating process, and the US - an aggressive policy.
[28:52] I.: This means that the US was on the side…
K.: of harsh, aggressive measures.
[29:01] I.: And Russia?
K.: Russia was neutral. [29:09] Russia’s representative participated the negotiation process, but he did not sign the agreement. He said that this agreement will not be executed. And he was right.
[29:21] I.: After you left the Presidential Administration, where did you run afterwards?
K.: I got a call from the President, the thing is… we had a meeting in Kharkov, he phoned me, and said: “I need you to help me ... write a report for me.” I say that I need to know what you wanted to say, asked him to dictate some messages. Then he told me to come by him. I came to Mezhyhiria, he dictated me some messages, I wrote them down. Overnight we wrote a report to Kharkov for this conference. [30:16] Afterwards, Yanukovych's security approached and said that a large crowd is going to storm Mezhyhirya, which is not safe here. At night from 21st to 22nd, we flew to Kharkov. We were in Kharkov. I prepared documents for him for the conference.
[30:39] I.: So this conference was not held or he had not taken floor?
K.: Yes, he had not taken floor at the conference. I brought him a report somewhere at 10.00 AM or 09.45 AM. He said that he would not to take floor at the conference and told me to go to Donetsk. So I moved to Donetsk.
[31:03] I.: Do you think that this reaction was a mistake, it would be better now in Ukraine if he told you to stay in Donetsk...
K.: In Kharkov
I.: …and said “I'm still a legitimate President?”
K.: Of course, he had to stay, but after that we met in the Crimea. I got a call in Donetsk, he told me to move to the Crimea. So I Came. [31:33] All this time, when he had already been voted to be left the Presidential Office, to be lost his power. All this time he was at the territory of Ukraine, he worked. I was a witness.
[31:52] I.: The Crimea… When this situation developed on February the 27th, new people came in, started the process and ultimately brought the Crimea to an anschluss or accession to Russia, how did you survive this situation? Was it a consequence of the Maidan? Was there still an opportunity to preserve the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
[32:39] K.: You know, everything concerning the Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk regions is the consequences of the "wise" internal policy of Ukrainian leaders, who are now in power. When authorities say: "You are second-rate, you need to be fenced with a barbed wire, you have no right to speak Russian, you have the other culture, we’ll teach you" What reaction does poor people have? They began to defend themselves. [33:25] Therefore, everything that had happened first of all is due to the authorities of Ukraine, who is now at power, which conduct such a policy. This is the policy of genocide. I am a resident of Donetsk myself and I will say that... it is natural that the residents of the Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk and others, they simply did not give... it could have been deployed. Such a policy… Pay attention please what language law was registered in the faction "Samopomich". Read it. It says if you do not speak Ukrainian, you can go to jail, if you make mistakes when speaking Ukrainian, then you will be fined and so on, and so forth. This law is not the popularization of the Ukrainian language. This law was specifically introduced to fall Ukraine apart even more. Pure and simple, it is a provocative law.
[34:38] I.: But “Samopomich” did not exist in March yet.
K.: But there were such people as Parubiy and like him - pure nationalists, who clearly dictated what should be done, forbidden, restricted ... If they say everything must be fenced with a barbed wire. And in general, when the Minister of Culture says that people at Donbass are second-rate people, they have wrong genetics, other DNA. This is the Minister of Culture who has the wrong DNA.
[34:38] I.: I was in Donetsk in 2014 (and there is my witness), several months from July to October. Since the beginning of this movement, there had been very small groups in Donetsk, because when I interviewed... If we evaluate this course of events in Donetsk since March, April, May in 2014, how much power this local militia movement really had. What was the Russia’s role there?
[36:12] K.: I'll tell you it is in any process. At the beginning of the process first there is a small group, then this process develops and this group increases and increases, and increases. The fact is that I know the mood of people in Donbass, I know firsthand. I have relatives all over the Donetsk and I communicate with them every day. That's why I make some sociology, I see people’s mood, what they think, what excites them the most. I did this in 2014, and 2015, and 2016 and are now I’m doing it for February 2017. [37:08] Therefore, I own information may not for 100% but for 80% regarding the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. You see, the mood there ... as soon as initiative groups appeared there, they were supported by people. It was the people. 90% of the Donetsk citizens are in favor of not cooperating with the Ukrainian authorities. They consider them to be illegitimate. They consider them to be invaders. It is a fact. [37:48] In fact, there is a civil war. It is a fact. What kind of anti-terrorist operation? There is a real, full-scale civil war. People perish on both sides. They just perish. I know the everyday reports. Why? Because I am a native-born of Donetsk and I'm proud of it, but my soul hurts for Donbass. They shoot constantly, every day without stopping. Today, at night, the Petrovsky district of the city of Donetsk was fired from heavy weapons. The inhabited quarters were shelled. What for? Therefore, perish both, people on one side and the other one. And there is no end.
[38:51] I.: Tell me... now I see that the economic space of Russia is much more integrated in Donetsk and Lugansk than it was two years ago. I was a witness that now there is practically no hryvnia, and in fact there is a ruble zone. There the goods have changed because of commodity blockades, now there are primarily goods of the Russian Federation. Are there any serious prospects for the reintegration of this territory into Ukraine, despite the fact that negotiations are underway in Minsk now for two years, starting from February 2015? What is the prospect to your mind?
[39:54] K.: I will say so that due to the fact that Ukraine is blocking both the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics that is why they have no way out. Thank God they have the opportunity to cooperate with Russia. If there was no such option people would die. They would starve to death. And thanks God that humanitarian convoys come, that there is an opportunity to work, some enterprises work, they trade, people earn... thanks God. However, on the other hand it is actually a blockade. Although I believe that if the leader is wise, he should not have made any blockade. He should have done the opposite. You are our people, you’re welcomed. But the question is, the Minsk process will continue, unfortunately, of course there is no alternative to the Minsk processes, but in order to be able to move forward, at least one promise must be fulfilled. [41:15] But, unfortunately, I do not see an opportunity for people in Kiev to fulfill a promise. Let's take a law on the peculiarities of Donetsk and Lugansk regions. Currently in the Verkhovna Rada, according to my calculations, there are around 220 people. [41:48] And it must be 226. In fact, the coalition does not exist. Well this is the case. There are still other fractions, they are not in the coalition, but they sometimes vote. But if the question is raised about whether to vote for this law on the specifics of Donetsk and Lugansk regions, then, probably, the opposition block will vote. [42:19] Even with all the orders of Poroshenko, maybe part of Poroshenko’s fraction of the will vote. "People’s Front" will not vote, "Samopomich" will not vote, "Batkivshchyna" will also not vote "Volia Narody", - the same story, "Vidrodzhennya" may be will vote. There are no votes for the law. He will not find them. No matter how he works with the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada, who he persuades them, what the law it is, but this law will not pass. It is one of the starting points in the Minsk agreements, right? If this law does not pass, then no further steps can be taken. [43:07] Exchange of captives... I home they exchange captives and settle these questions. But no further action is possible. Moreover, to make amendments in the Constitution and so on and so forth. There are no 300 votes in the Verkhovna Rada at all. I understand this issue a little, I'm interested in it. Therefore, I clearly see which law will be adopted and which one will not. With the current Parliament, this law will never be adopted. Whatever it is, no matter who forces, whoever persuades, whoever negotiates, under the acting Parliament, the law will not be voted. [43:55] What is the way out for the President? Due to absence of coalition, he must go to re-elections. Will he go to these re-elections or not... most likely he doesn’t. Now the highest rating among the parties, has Batkivshchyna - about 11%, Poroshenko’s block has 5.2%, the People’s Front is not found in sociology at all, their rating is 0. They will not pass in any way. [44:25] That is, it turns out that the main partner of the Poroshenko’s block People's Front", if they now go to the elections it will be equaled to suicide. They disappear from the political map. Therefore, even if he wants to conduct early parliamentary elections, he may not hold them.
[44:54] I.: You had written the plan how to make work the Minsk agreements on the settlement of the situation. What are the main points of this plan?
K.: First of all, this is a peaceful settlement. If there is no peaceful settlement, no further issues will be resolved. But this plan was written a year ago, a year has passed, a lot of time has passed. If at that time they were hopes to solve the issue in a legislative way, now it is already clear that nothing will go through the Verkhovna Rada regarding the Minsk agreements. Therefore, the plan that I wrote a year ago is already outdated, it must be revised.
[45:57] I.: In your opinion, this means that there is no prospect?
K.: No, there is a prospect, but still have to hold parliamentary elections. If you read the paragraph in the Minsk-2 Agreement, I think you have read it, I read it more than once, there is a lot of things tied up with the Parliament. There are key points, if they are solved, then they unleash the whole tangle of these problems and they can be fulfilled. [46:32] But these key points are tied mainly with the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Therefore, if the elections take place in six months, maybe in a year, then it is really to implement the Minsk agreements. As long as this acting Parliament is in place, the negotiating team from Ukraine will find a lot of reasons that this is not so, then not this way, only because of one thing, they cannot physically... they do not want to admit it, maybe even some negotiators do not know, but they cannot fulfill them at the moment with the acting Parliament. It’s a fact.
[47:25] I.: What role plays Russia in Minsk agreements now?
K.: They are guarantors. They are negotiators. They are the same guarantors as Germany and France. In general, the negotiation process should go between Lugansk National Republic (LNR), Donetsk National Republic (DNR) and the authority of Ukraine. And the three parties are guarantors of the fact that these agreements are being implemented.
[47:50] I.: So you think that for a peaceful settlement we need negotiations directly between LNR, DNR and Kyiv?
K.: Negotiations must be anyway. There is a leader of one republic, there is another one, there is a leader of the country. I'm not saying that the President should negotiate, but someone from the Presidential Administration. They must sit down and settle all these questions, negotiate. Otherwise, it will not be anyway. This is called "I was roped without being consulted". [48:31] There are still people, they are called differently, but they are people. And they live there, they work. On the other hand, there are people too, but people must agree among themselves, first of all. So, when you say: “tell them that we want this and that, and you tell this and that”. It does not work that way. And it won’t work. Anyway, sooner or later someone will have to negotiate with the People from DNR, LNR and from Kiev. [49:15] I'm not saying that the President of Ukraine or the Prime Minister of Ukraine should negotiate. But the head of the administration, or the first deputy head of the administration, should already negotiate.
[49:27] I.: I will ask one question, how do you see the status of Ukraine in Europe in the future? As a huge state, as a state on the road to the European Union? For example, I interviewed the chief of delegations in Minsk from Ukraine with Leonid Davidovich Kuchma, who told me that there is no future in the European Union, there is no need to move further.
[50:06] K.: I think that Ukraine was neutral as it was, let it be neutral. Neutral country. Ukraine should cooperate with all and not to fight. Then it will be an independent strong state.
[50:24] I.: Is it NATO or EU?
I.: Neutrality in the military sense is primarily NATO.
[50:33] K.: In the military sense. There are no problems with the European Union. We must also cooperate with Russia. The question is that no one will let Ukraine into the European Union anyway. We must be realistic. We are realists with you. The leaders of the European Union had officially stated that there are no prospects for Ukraine's membership in the European Union. Not yet. But it can be 10 and 20 and 30 years. Right? [51:12] Therefore, we must cooperate with everyone. Moreover, to make it beneficial to Ukraine.
[51:18] I.: Tell me, how is your status now connected with the European Union and Austria? Because after the Maidan, you are under EU sanctions. There were charges of money laundering and so on. ... Statement from the Prosecutor's Office of Austria on the crime of crime. What is your status? How do you now look at your legal status?
[52:05] K.: I will say so. I now have quite an interesting status, I give work to lawyers. I was sanctioned in 2014, lawyers work in court. I won the trial, that the sanctions imposed on me are not legal. Only won, as again automatically fell under the sanction in 2015. - He sued. I think I will win. Then in 2016 they will give me. This is called work for lawyers. I win the courts on one side, but they automatically extend the sanctions to me. [52:57] Frankly speaking, I do not understand what the sanctions are for, but it's such a thing. Because, some money laundering, and everything else. In 2014, the Prosecutor's Office sent visually angry letters to me that I was an enemy of Ukrainian demography. Everywhere he stole everything. The Austrian prosecutor's office checked everything. I checked it for a long time. I reviewed every paper and came to the conclusion that the Ukrainian prosecutor's office was all falsified [53:39] according to notes on the Internet, they falsified criminal cases. There was never any money laundering and could not be. Because I was not even close to the money. The National Security and Defense Council had nothing to do with money. Therefore, all this is thought out. There are official documents from the Austrian prosecutor's office, that all this is falsified. I win a lot of ships. In general, now I am an employer for lawyers. Advocates are profitable. The more sanctions are extended for me, the longer they work for me.
[54:31] I.: And in the end how this company «SLAV» ended.
K.: Now they actually bankrupted. They also shut down this company. But now there will be time to revive it. It is my office, in my opinion since 1990, for which I received permission from the National Bank of Ukraine to open it. We opened it officially. It created jobs both in Ukraine and in Austria. Then she automatically began to block all accounts. Well, how it can work.
[55:12] I.: Do you have more companies in Ukraine?
K.: No, there are currently no companies in Ukraine.
I.: Thank you very much!