In an interview with EURACTIV, Ukraine’s Ambassador to the European Union Vsevolod Chentsov discussed last week’s Eastern Partnership Summit and the EU Summit, tensions with Russia, Nord Stream-2, NATO’s wishes, and Ukraine’s security strategy.
Vsevolod Chentsov is a professional diplomat. He was the ambassador to the Netherlands before being appointed as Ukraine’s ambassador to the European Union in August 2021.
He talked with Georgi Gotev, EURACTIV’s senior editor.
Mr. Ambassador, we are speaking two days after the Eastern Partnership (EaP) summit and one day after the EU summit. The situation around Ukraine is part of the agenda. Are you satisfied with the level of EU support your country has received?
The President of Ukraine’s participation in the EaP summit and his bilateral meetings with the EU leadership helped structure this discussion and made Ukraine’s views very clear. The threat is there. The Russian army is at the Ukrainian border and the Russian equipment is there. Despite the promises and declarations, it did not withdraw. We need to cooperate with major partners such as the European Union, NATO, and the United States to establish deterrence and control the situation. We don’t need to wait for the situation to get worse. The President made it very clear that the pressure on Russia, including sanctions, should be used to involve Russia and allow them to sit down and talk, rather than wait for the situation to escalate and then consider the final result. revenge.
This is the point made by the President of Ukraine. I also want to emphasize that this summit is very special because security issues in the context of EaP dominate. We in Ukraine tried to promote this, and we succeeded. This is not only related to Ukraine. There is no doubt that we expressed this by referring to things in the right way: this is Russia’s war against Ukraine. Regardless of their broader geopolitical interests, they are all waging war against Ukraine. We explained that the situation is serious. It would be naive if someone considers developing trade and departmental cooperation in the region without solving the security problem. The good news is that we are not alone. Some member states have similar ideas and made it clear. General understanding at the level of EU member states is improving.
Other regional conflicts, Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia and the surrounding situation of Azerbaijan were also discussed. In this regard, the summit is also very special. This is the first time that the two countries have not only blamed each other, but also made real progress in the participation of the EU and the President of the Council, trying to achieve concrete results, and are well prepared for Armenia and Azerbaijan to express optimism. This is an example of how the EU provides services.
So does the soft power of the EU still exist?
Yes, of course, it does exist, and recovery after the conflict, the economic recovery of the region is a goal that can be truly achieved in the natural field. The relevant parties put forward opinions on the construction of the railway line. I see real potential here.
Can you speak in more detail?
It is the President of Armenia who mentioned this potential project This can unite the two countries and truly promote regional development. Once again, it’s about confidence-building measures, it’s about mine clearance, it’s about the exchange of prisoners, it’s all the issues related to security files. Then you can go beyond security on this basis and contribute to system stability, trade and economic development. This EU involvement makes this summit very special.
Does this herald a new role for the European Union in areas previously under the responsibility of other institutions such as the OSCE?
They are still responsible, but I think the EU can play a role here. Not to replace someone, but to play a unique role.
Regarding the conflict in Ukraine, you call it the conflict of war. There is the so-called Normandy model. The EU is not a participant, but a model in which Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany participate. There are also discussions involving the United States. But most importantly, this process has stalled…
This is not the fault of Ukraine or the European Union and the specific member states you mentioned. The Russian Federation has a very clear will and action to slow down and freeze it. Now we are trying to revive this process. President Zelensky met with two leaders, the new leader of Germany and President Macron, and discussed how to involve Russia.
Do you think the new leadership in Germany will make a difference? Recent news reports indicate that Merkel has twice vetoed the US through the NATO procurement plan to sell weapons to your country…
I cannot comment on the actions or lack of action of the former German government. We now need to concentrate on establishing contacts with new governments at all levels. The positive thing is that there is a willingness to participate in this format, which was confirmed at the Normandy Trilateral Conference. You said that in this form, Germany and France are actors, but I think this is a European form. The French President calls on EU leaders to make political investments in this peace process, so we should say that the EU is represented by France and Germany.
The new German government may also have a different view on the Beixi No. 2 project, and whether the pipeline is invested or not seems to be a powerful bargaining chip. What is Ukraine’s view on this?
We need to distinguish a few things. We do not consider this pipeline to be an economically viable project or a European project. The European Commission has never supported it out of common interest. This is why it needs to be reviewed in accordance with EU rules.This U.S.-Germany Bilateral Statement This commitment was passed in July, and the commitment that energy should not be used as a weapon should also be implemented in the context of future certification of the project.
Why is it important that pipelines are also reviewed by the European Commission? This is a way to ensure that it will not be used as a weapon. If it is used as a pipe, this is a problem. If it is used to give the Kremlin greater political influence in the EU, that is another matter. It is very important that our friends in the EU do not deceive themselves and others.
Let us be blunt. Do you agree with this analysis: Nord Stream 2 and its southern version TurkStream were designed by Moscow to eliminate Ukraine’s role as a gas transit country. The transit of natural gas is a security guarantee for Ukraine, and Russia will not take stupid actions against it. Without transit, there is no security guarantee, and this is the real problem.
I agree with your analysis. I hope that EU institutions and member states will do the same. If they were not clear a few years ago, when the development of this project started, at least they should be clear now. And they need to do everything possible now, not to allow third parties to gain greater influence and monopolize the natural gas market, and it does create new challenges to the EU’s supply security and political stability.
A few weeks ago, when energy prices started to climb with all possible consequences, we had a preview, including the political consequences for member states. This is a powerful and good lesson that should be a wake-up call for many people in the EU, including the beneficiaries of new projects. We can recognize that the member states’ industries have their own legitimate goals, but governments and European institutions should consider this complex situation. It is also necessary to explain to the industry the consequences of such transactions with Gazprom.
Great changes have taken place in Ukraine since Maidan. Do you think it is realistic for Ukraine to become a NATO member?
I can only repeat what President Zelensky said at the summit, that Russia is pushing Ukraine towards NATO. If at the beginning of this war, the approval rate for joining NATO was 30%, now it is 70%, this is the result of Russian aggression.
I can use your president’s words: If Russia were not so aggressive, wouldn’t Ukraine be tempted to join NATO?
It’s hard to imagine what will happen. I hope the Kremlin will never make the choice to annex Crimea and create this war in eastern Ukraine. I hate to speculate here. But if our armed forces reach the level of NATO member states, we can withstand the pressure.
You mean joining NATO is one thing, but is it equally important to meet NATO standards?
It is equally important. Of course, this is about collective defense and also about deterrence. Participating in a structure that makes you feel protected and guaranteed by collective defense is a goal, and we need it for another reason; because the Budapest Memorandum…
You are referring to the 1994 memorandum, according to which the West provided Ukraine with security guarantees in exchange for the Soviet Union’s withdrawal of nuclear weapons from its territory…
Yes. We have received these guarantees, but it is clear that we cannot use them. Have a different understanding of these guarantees from the guarantor and Ukraine, instead of talking about Russia. Therefore, in this case, we need strong guarantees, but I agree with you that it is equally important to develop our armed forces to the best standards.
The EU is not unified on the Ukrainian issue. Some countries such as Poland and the Baltic countries are very supportive, while other countries such as Italy and even France are less. What do you think of this divided EU?
Reaching consensus on foreign and security policy issues is not easy, but we have indeed seen substantial progress. And this EaP summit is also very special in this regard, because many countries in the South Wing use their own names to refer to things. And why it happened—this is because of a better understanding of the situation around Ukraine, a better understanding of the origins of this conflict and the motivations of the Kremlin, especially now, as the border situation escalates and The so-called Russian proposal regarding its security guarantees. So in the end, they made it clear that it had nothing to do with Ukraine, but repositioned themselves as a global power.
In the next discussion between President Biden and President Putin, is it possible for them to reach an agreement to keep Ukraine in Russia’s control zone, and the United States will accept this country and other countries as a natural buffer zone for Russia?
I think it is impossible to go back to the situation in the middle of the 20th century…
Go to Yalta?
To Yalta. Even if our eastern neighbor wants us to take this time machine back to 70 years ago, this is impossible. The world has changed, and other problems are now at risk. This is not about mobile borders and territorial divisions; it is about trade, economic development, innovation, and soft power. Today, the forces of the real world influence the world through completely different means and tools.
