Tag Archives: Vladimir Chizhov

EU summons RUssian Ambassador

Brussels 03.05.2021 “The Secretary-General of the European Commission, Ilze Juhansone, and the Secretary-General of the External Action Service, Stefano Sannino, jointly summoned the Ambassador of Russian Federation to the European Union, Vladimir Chizhov, on Monday to condemn the decision of the Russian authorities from last Friday to ban eight European Union nationals from entering the territory of the Russian Federation.

“Ambassador Chizhov was informed of the strong rejection and firm condemnation by the EU institutions and EU Member States of this decision, which was purely politically motivated and lacks any legal justification.
Secretaries-General I. Juhansone and S. Sannino also recalled Russia’s expulsion of Czech diplomats and the executive order of the Russian Federation of so called “unfriendly states”, expressing their grave concern for the cumulative impact of all these decisions on the relations between the EU and the government of the Russian Federation.
“They also noted that the EU reserves the right to take appropriate measures in response”.

“On 3 May 2021 Ambassador Vladimir Chizhov, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the EU, met with Secretary-General of the EEAS Stefano Sannino and Secretary-General of the European Commission Ilze Juhansone.

The current state of relations between Russia and the European Union was discussed. Both sides expressed regret in connection with the recently intensified trend towards their deterioration.

Ambassador Vladimir Chizhov provided additional comments regarding the measures announced by Russia on 30 April 2021 in response to unilateral decisions of the European Union.

The importance of diplomatic efforts to rectify the current unhealthy situation in the dialogue between Moscow and Brussels was stressed. The Russian side reaffirmed its readiness for this endeavour”.

Russia concerned by ‘humanitarian’ cash flows to terrorists

I am perplexed by the format of today’s meeting that does not include official representatives of the Syrian government, – Russian Ambassador to EU Vladimir Chizhov said, addressing II Conference on Future Syria in Brussels.

“It looks strange, to say the least, that the distinguished delegates are planning to help Syria in a situation when official contacts with the legitimate government of the country have for many years remained a taboo for European politicians, and some states have even been promising “not to give a cent” until political change takes place in Syria“, Ambassador continued. He added that Russia supports Syria in its determination to defeat the main military and political stronghold of terrorists, ISIS (Daesh).

Amb.Chizhov draw attention to established by Russia, Turkey and Iran Astana format of talks in support of the Syrian settlement, which “genuinely enabled progress” towards a political solution to be attained via a broad intra-Syrian dialogue and talks under UN auspices as envisaged by UNSC Resolution 2254.  The Sochi Congress of Syrian National Dialogue was another contribution to the process, he continued.

“We are convinced that the key to success on this track lies with ensuring compliance of all influential international and regional actors with their obligations regarding the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic” – Amb.Chizhov confirmed.

Sharing the view on humanitarian assistance to the population. Ambassador mentioned those civilians caught in military operations in Eastern Ghouta, Aleppo, the villages of al-Fu’ah and Kefraya still besieged by terrorists.

Chizhov reminded about inhabitants of Raqqa, the city “totally destroyed by US-led coalition bombings and half-forgotten by the international community“, or the Rukban camp for IDPs with no access available due to a 50 km “security zone” around al-Tanf unilaterally established by the US“.

Ambassador finds “surprising” a phenomenon of declaring “humanitarian catastrophe” on the territories controlled by militants. However as soon as the Syrian armed forces liberated Aleppo, or Eastern Ghouta from terrorists, the international community virtually went crying loud that a humanitarian catastrophe was allegedly unfolding there. “This was as long as militants were there. But once the issue was resolved nobody cared about the future of Syrians who had been living and continue to live there” – Chizhov regretted.

He pointed at Western  financial and economic sanctions as “inhuman‘, “suffocating“, and “counterproductivee”, denying the Syrian people the restoration of social and economic infrastructure. “Devastation, extreme poverty and despair form a fertile soil for new extremism to emerge and preserve conflict potential for many years ahead” – Chizhov warned.

Russia is seriously concerned by the forms and mechanisms of providing humanitarian aid by the West, while  transferring it directly to recipients in the form of cash, which allows to diverted to purposes quite different from those the donors are willing to achieve. “Cases are known when aid received was then sold at exorbitant prices, the proceeds from such trade used to buy weapons for terrorists, recruit new militants” – Chizov revealed.

Ambassador called for establishing close cooperation between potential donors and legitimate authorities of the Syrian Arab Republic to facilitate humanitarian aid access, and genuine improvement of the situation for people of Syria.



Amb.Chizhov: Russia and EU are key actors in Europe

H.E. Ambassador of Russian Federation to the EU Vladimir Chizhov

The promise of a Russia-EU continental fulcrum

In December 1994, only months after Russia and the EU had signed the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement, which was to guide their relationship for decades to come, the CSCE Budapest summit proclaimed the creation of a “genuine partnership” of states in a Europe “whole and free”. This mirrored the emerging post-bipolar philosophy of a more cohesive pan-European order devoid of dividing lines, in essence a “common European house”.

Sadly, today this venerable objective seems utopian at best. In the Russian view, the subsequent policies of NATO and EU enlargement, export of democracy and erosion of continent-wide arms regimes have put to rest any hopes for a truly inclusive governance of Europe. The 2013-2014 Ukrainian crisis, provoked in part by the divisive “Eastern Partnership” initiative (and its inherent politicised choice between Russia and the EU), exemplifies this. The resulting sanctions standoff has disproportionately affected European, rather than US, economy, shredding local jobs and disrupting trade. Above all a sense of instability is once again looming large in the people’s minds on our war-torn continent. Even the seemingly more secure Western Europe is struggling, with Brexit and elevated Euroscepticism highlighting the loss of continental balance.

Could this lamentable development have been avoided? Back in 2005 Russia and the EU charted a course towards a set of common spaces, ranging from the economy to research and education to security and international cooperation. The relationship, while not without its difficulties (then again, no third country has so far claimed to enjoy an unproblematic relationship with the EU), has underpinned booming trade, with bilateral turnover growing over ten-fold since 1994, reaching 338.5 bln. euros in 2012 – practically a billion euros a day. Even coordinated Russia-EU crisis management in troubled regions of our shared neighbourhood was picking up steam. We were also on the verge of further slashing red tape for bilateral travel of Russian and EU citizens with a visa-free regime in sight. Just imagine a future of borderless travel from Lisbon to Vladivostok, with a state of the art continent-wide economy powered by a highly-educated workforce and low-cost fuel.

Certainly, today’s nascent polycentric world offers alternatives to the more traditional European vector of Russian diplomacy. The past years have witnessed a flurry of economic and diplomatic multilateralism, with trend-setting formats like the G20, BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (of which all Russia is part), at times eclipsing the more exclusive Western-dominated clubs. And where European exporters have been prevented, either by EU unilateral restrictions and Russian countermeasures, or the extraterritorial effect of US sanctions from accessing the profitable Russian market, their competitors from Asia and Latin America have quickly stepped in. In the agricultural sector, for instance, Russia has posted record growth, becoming a prime exporter of wheat (which in the 1990s the country was busy importing).

Nevertheless, even in these troubled times Russia-EU relationship retains considerable potential. Cumulatively the European Union will remain Russia’s No 1 trading partner and investor for the foreseeable future. The Ukrainian crisis may have hindered decisive convergence between our countries but has not removed its underlying motives and benefits. Ever since Peter the Great’s foray into Western Europe in the late 17th century via the “Baltic portal”, Russia and other European nations have converted their civilizational, cultural, linguistic and religious proximity into economic interdependence, social modernisation and technological progress. Even the tumultuous 20th century, with its ideological zigzags, has not bucked this trend.

Today Russia and the EU as key European actors must assume responsibility for both eliminating dividing lines in our continent and working to bring stability and prosperity to our shared neighbourhood. Differences will remain, for sure, and a return to a “business as usual” model is unlikely. Rather than trying to reinvent the “strategic partnership” formula, which in the end was not backed up by a partner-like treatment of mutual interests, we should aim for a more sober pragmatic mode of cooperation, based on equality and respect.

Economic interdependence remains an important cohesive factor. The spurt of mutual Russia-EU trade, averaging 28.7%, which was recorded in the first half of 2017, should be used as a stepping stone towards further amplifying coordination, both on a bilateral level, and in the promising relationship between the European and Eurasian bodies of integration. Above all, we should keep our eye on the prospect of a Greater Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, unavoidable if we are to finally bury the demons of the past. As President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker correctly observed recently, “there is no European security for centuries to come without Russia”.
Article by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the EU Ambassador Vladimir Chizhov for the Baltic Rim Economies Review (BRE), November 2017