Question: How does Russia envision the peacekeeping mechanism in South Ossetia and Abkhazia at present?

Answer: Now the first condition for restoring peace is implementing the deal reached in Moscow with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and backed up in the EU. The return of the Georgian armed forces to their places of permanent deployment will ensure a ceasefire and calm down the situation. Russia remains the chief peacekeeper in the region according to all the agreements. It was on the basis of the previous agreements that Moscow fulfilled its duty in this tragic situation.

It is clear that Georgian troops can in no form be in South Ossetia. Compliance by the Georgians with their obligation to return the troops to the permanent places of deployment must be placed under international monitoring: it is necessary to guarantee nonresumption of hostilities, ruling out strikes at South Ossetia from the territory of Georgia and armed sallies.

Question: What does Russia think of Tbilisi’s hopes of “internationalizing” the peacekeeping in Georgia?

Answer: They’ll never come true. This would require the consent of all the parties. Russia has firmly established itself as the most reliable peacekeeper. The South Ossetian side is unlikely to entrust its security to anyone other than the Russian contingent, which has proved its determination to stop sallies of any dimension. Now reliable guarantees are needed to ensure that the conflict does not break out anew, not debates on formats of peacekeeping missions. Consideration of other possible international presences in Georgia, including the specification of the functions of the mission of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is a secondary task. It is necessary to at once conclude a legally binding agreement on the nonuse of force between Georgia and South Ossetia and between Georgia and Abkhazia. The OSCE, Russia and the EU could become their guarantors.

Question: The discussion of the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will continue at the international level – in what formats?

Answer: As part of the Russia-EU dialogue, in the UN and in the OSCE. We need to ensure that the opinion of the Abkhaz and South Ossetian peoples is heard. The world community as represented by all its main organizations and players must give a principled assessment of the act committed by the Georgian leadership. The scales must fall from the eyes of our many our partners, stupefied by the democratic rhetoric of Tbilisi. The barbarous firing at Tskhinvali went under the big talk of Mr. Saakashvili about defending democratic and American values.

We hope that a lesson will be drawn from this tragic history. The Georgian leadership threw down a challenge not only to Russia, but to the contemporary world order as well. The international community must give a response to this. Responsible behavior of states is the sole guarantee of creating a reliable system of international security. If, however, everything is steeped in ideology, beautiful phrases, then we will continue to be faced with challenges like the adventures of the Georgian leadership.

Question: What is now to be done with the principle of “territorial integrity of Georgia”?

Answer: While a principle is a principle, by his adventure Saakashvili has inflicted “irreparable harm upon the territorial integrity of Georgia,” our president stressed. I think that it will take decades before any question realistically arises of a political construct which would let Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Georgia coexist normally, let alone this construct being one entity. In any case it is up to the peoples of Abkhazia and South Ossetia to decide. They have won this right through suffering.

Question: Who will be monitoring the situation in South Ossetia?

Answer: The monitoring mission of the OSCE that was in place in Tskhinvali could continue its work, when security conditions permit. For, the office of this organization in Tskhinvali was also bombed out during the inhuman Georgian operation. And the OSCE Chairman-in-Office, Mr. Alexander Stubb, expressed protest in this connection. Its staff were evacuated to Tbilisi.

Question: Georgia a few days ago withdrew from the agreement on the peacekeeping operation in Abkhazia. Is the termination of our operation there possible after this?

Answer: The agreement was supported within the CIS framework and by numerous UN Security Council resolutions. In the present acute situation the chief thing is to give a principled assessment of the war crimes of the Saakashvili regime and secure guarantees for the nonresumption of conflict.

Question: How was it that the missions of OSCE observers in Georgia, and the emissaries of NATO and the EU in the Caucasus overlooked the war of Saakashvili?

Answer: I don’t know. But we had been warning everybody that the threat of a military adventure was mounting and that Georgia needed to be induced to fulfill all the obligations assumed and to conclude a legally binding agreement on the nonuse of force with Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We had been trying to persuade our partners to give up arms supplies and equipment to Georgia. By the way, supplies made in violation of the Principles Governing Conventional Arms Transfers, where it is clearly written down that states must, in considering proposed transfers, take into account the presence of local conflicts in the recipient state.

Question: Will not the presence in NATO, and then in the EU too, of the anti-Russian lobby in the person of Poland, the Baltic states and the US undermine the negotiation process with the EU on a new strategic partnership treaty with Russia?

Answer: The statement of the four states regarding the prospects of conducting talks on a new strategic agreement between Russia and the EU, in our opinion, was hasty and counterproductive. If the EU takes that stance, it will harm both relations with Russia and, most important, the EU itself. We think that the EU will be sensible enough to study how the situation developed and to draw conclusions about who, how and why unleashed the bloody massacre.

Question: What is the degree of US involvement in the conflict? Military instructors from the United States worked in Georgia for a long time. By the way, were they there under Pentagon or NATO auspices?

Answer: They were and are there under the auspices of both NATO and the Pentagon. When in 2002 the US launched its Georgia Train and Equip Program, we kept pointing to the dangers inherent in this program, as it brought with it the temptation to resort to military force to solve the conflicts on Georgian territory. Then our American colleagues had given assurances to us that the units to be trained in the process of this program would never be used in an internal conflict. Alas, our warning had been ignored. Absolutely wrong was the violation of the principles of arms trade in terms of heavy equipment supplies to Georgia by certain countries of NATO and the CIS, Ukraine in particular.

Question: Are we going to raise the question of demilitarizing Georgia?

Answer: The right question formulation, because there is no trust in the Georgian leadership at present. The chief condition is already set forth in the six principles for resolving the South Ossetia and Abkhazia conflicts: Georgian troops must return to their places of permanent peace time deployment. This obligation must be verifiable.

Question: But the sixth principle regarding security issues was altered by Saakashvili: removed from it is the part concerning discussion of the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and of ways to ensure their security. Yet, there is the precedent of Kosovo – this Serbian province declared its independence in February. And it was recognized by the US and many EU countries, but not by Russia.

Answer: We then said a precedent was being created in Kosovo that would influence both the policies and aspirations of certain players. As to the sixth principle, we understand it thus: the question of status is an integral part of the solution.

On the map of Europe there exist such entities, people live in them and human rights must be guaranteed in them, along with access to social and economic boons. And it is the task of the international community to find ways of providing them with this. It is necessary to develop common principles for solving the problems of such territories. The events in Georgia will give an impetus to reflections on this theme.

Question: Where and in what format?

Answer: Back in the early 1990s the OSCE was close to starting discussion of the theme of the relationship between the principles of territorial integrity and the right of peoples to self-determination. But then the discussion did not take place because of the rapidly developing events in former Yugoslavia.

Recall that Russia has been very consistent in upholding its approaches to solving the so called frozen conflicts. We have always said that the questions of status can be tackled only by the parties in conflict without the use of force or outside pressure. But you have to move from the simple to the complex, without focusing on status issues at the first stage. You have to start with confidence-building measures and with economic projects. People in such territories should not feel isolated. And lastly, the entire work must proceed within the mechanisms already approved by the international community. If we take the path of changing them, this will evolve into endless discussions on procedure, not substance.

Question: Russia was planning to file a suit at the Hague International Court of Justice over the crimes committed by Mikhail Saakashvili. But Russia has not ratified the statutory documents of this court…

Answer: The crimes of Mikhail Saakashvili cannot remain without legal consequences. And Russian citizens who have suffered from the barbarous actions will apply to the International Criminal Court and the European Court of Human Rights.