A Story of Khatami, Rouhani and Crimea’s Crisis by Ukraine’s Charge d’Affaires in Iran

Since the early heightening of tensions between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, Iran has endeavored to save its ties with the two of them from the probable impact such conflicts can cause. That is why Iran tried to stay closer to Russia once it was embargoed by the West to ease the sanctions against itself by helping Russia cross economic crises now. That indeed didn’t lead to a fall in Iran-Ukraine ties, fortunately, and meanwhile, Iranian and Ukrainian officials managed to sign MOUs which could become joints of strengthening economic ties. To gain a better understanding of the recent developments in the relations between Iran and Ukraine, we held an interview with Mr. Sergey Krasnoshapka, Ukraine’s Charge d’Affaires in Tehran, who, because of his times and responsibilities at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, gave us interesting accounts and memories of Iran’s Presidents.

AVA Diplomatic’s Exclusive Interview with Sergey Krasnoshapka,
Ukraine’s Charge d’Affaires in Iran

Interview by Mohammadreza Nazari

At various turning points of the history and following the imposition of the treaties of Turkmenchay and Gulistan on Iran, a part of Iran’s soil was given to the Tsardom of Russia and later Ukraine became a member of the Soviet Union. The expansion took place while many international relations experts believed Ukraine could live on as an independent state. Why didn’t that happen?

First off, I should remind you that the membership of Ukraine in the Soviet Union happened years after the Treaty of Turkmenchay, in 1925. In 1921, however, the new government of Moscow signed a peace and neighborhood agreement with Iran, in which it confirmed all the content except the third article. In accordance to that article, the Soviet Armed Forces could enter Iran’s soil without earning the permission of the Central Government.

After the Communist Soviet gained power in Moscow, its governance began to spread in Ukraine’s realm. Ukraine’s first communist capital was Khariv, and once the main government of the country had to leave Kiev for Lviv, the Communists managed to take the power in Kiev, too.

Later, Ukraine first signed a contract for its autonomy with Moscow, but it was blown due to the negligence on the part of the then regime of Ukraine. Moscow wasn’t very much interested in Ukraine’s autonomy, and that turned the country into a subdivision of Moscow.

Some IR experts are on the belief that the Soviet Union deceived Ukraine’s then regime and didn’t allow the realization of its autonomy. Do you agree with that conception?

At first, those who were in the driving seats of the Autonomous Government of Ukraine were replaced by the proponents of the Moscow Regime. That trend went on in Ukraine and other fledgling republics of Central Asia.

It took Ukraine quite a long time to regain its independence after the final demise of the Soviet Union. It’s called the second most powerful post-Soviet state among the newly-independent countries, nonetheless. How did Ukraine cope with that transition?

Just like other Soviet republics, Ukraine possessed certain potentials and based on the policies of the Soviet Leaders, every republic was facilitated with specific industries. Of course, the core material and resources for such industries used to be taken care of in other republics, and that is why the industrial connections were very much compact and active between the republics.

Once the year of 1991 arrived, in Belovezhskaya in Belarus, Mr. Yeltsin and Mr. Kravchuk agreed that from then on, the Soviet Union continues its life in the form of independent republics and unions and consequently, Mr. Gorbachev was forced to resign from the Presidency of the Soviet Union.

Given the military potentials Ukraine enjoyed then, it could become the world’s third nuclear superpower once it won its dependence. Why did Ukrainian politicians decide that Ukraine had better not have preserved its nuclear weapons?

Ukraine, of course, enjoyed certain potentials in the case of nuclear weaponry just like Kazakhstan, Belarus and Russia and in 1994 and 1995, all those, except Russia, declared their readiness to dispose of those weapons, and in that very year, in Budapest, signed an agreement to do so.

Back then, Ukraine sought to rid of its nuclear weapons, for it intended to become a non-military, peaceful country. Mr. Kravchuk, the first President of the Independent Ukraine, made the decision for the country to go without nuclear weapons.

Mr. Kravchuk has, of course, received nearly $700mn for this contract in the form of international aids.

You should note that the transfer of the reserved nuclear weapons in Ukraine required financial support and in accordance with the bilateral agreement between Ukraine, the west and Russia, a plan was devised based on which Ukraine was to take action and to realize its content, our country was allocated financial aids.

However, there were large loads of normal weapons and artillery in the warehouses which, as time went by, were growing out of whack and useless. So it was necessary to neutralize and then rid of them and that is how many European countries came to help Ukraine and fortunately enough, those weapons do not exist today anymore.

Could it be a deterrent factor in the disputes between Ukraine and Russia if Ukraine had possessed nuclear weapons, just like India, Pakistan or even China?

In terms of using nuclear weapons, Ukraine share a similar attitude with Iran. If we take a look at the history of the advent of nuclear weapons, we can easily grasp the unfortunate consequences it has caused. India’s and Pakistan’s cases have their own basis and principles and the advent of such weapons has historical roots in there.

Over the years, Ukraine has never been interested in owning nuclear weapons. Even those little amounts it had were decided upon within the military doctrine of the Central Soviet Regime.

In fact, the Soviet Regime had established nuclear shields on its borders to save Moscow from probable threats. The leaders in Moscow, however, were never worried about those who lived in borderlands and were most likely to lose the most and be hit by a war in the first place.

Can a nuclear tool be deterrent for Russia under the current circumstances?

I’d have to remind you of the incidents between 1945 and 1946. Then, the US used 2 nuclear bombs against Japan and those dire explosions left the country with catastrophic consequences. It made everyone conclude that nuclear weapons are meaningless when resorted to as defensive or offensive means.

If a nuclear war breaks out on earth, then there shall be nothing left of the living beings. At the time of the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union each held their own military doctrine and were trying to use nuclear weapons as means of scaring the other. But the aftermath of the nuclear blasts in Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed that after a nuclear war, no one can live.

These consequences led some countries to conclude they really tend to obtain nuclear weapons, and in 1997, India and Pakistan could achieve this goal. Except these two, there are other countries which have nuclear weapons are not even a member of the NPT. On the other end of the story, however, there are other states which seek a world devoid of mass-destruction weapons such as Iran.

You indirectly referred to Israel who has nuclear weapons and is not an NPT member. If Israel uses nuclear weapons against the Palestinians one day, then the whole Jewish community will be destroyed by its lethal radiations. So what possible advantage can having nuclear weapons bring for them?

Those who had experienced a nuclear blast have often admitted that after a nuclear winter, there shall remain no country in the world. I think whichever country or whoever individual qualified to push the button to launch a nuclear attack shall understand that and generally, we can say that the military powers of the globe are the first to seek global peace and those who speak of using nuclear weapons are merely politicians.

When the world was affected by the Cold War, even while both the Soviet Union and the US had nuclear weapons in hand, neither Khrushchev nor John Kennedy dared to use them, and that means humanity has conquered violence and hostility.

Ukraine enjoys high potentials in the field of nuclear science and its experts are working at the nuclear site of Bushehr. How is the cooperation of Ukrainian and Russian specialists there?

The Ukrainian citizens active there in Bushehr privately sign a job contract with the Russian side and then come to Iran. That’s their tendency to work here so that they can financially support their families.

Before the political ties between Ukraine and Russia were damaged, we witnessed the close collaboration between the nuclear experts of the two countries. What changes have these collaborations undergone after the outbreak of the crisis?

Ukrainian specialists are still working at Iran’s nuclear facilities, of course. But I guess their number has by far descended. I think there used to be 700 or 800 of them, but now they are hardly 200.

Over the recent months, some news websites had pointed to the arresting of a Ukrainian spy in Iran’s nuclear facilities. If false, why was the news spread then? To what purpose?

First, it should be cleared that who benefits from such news? I don’t think it benefits Iran. Second, the agencies which reflected that, were simply websites. None of the Iranian official press spread that and no newspaper printed it.

Third, the day I heard this news, I became very much interested in figuring out who the website which spread the news belongs to. Because such things are very easy to pursue on the internet. But that website didn’t end with .ir (Iran’s specific web suffix) and it did with .com. The company in charge of registering the website didn’t belong to Iran, either, and was a possession of a foreign country. The other thing is the web owner was not verified and because of the financial problems and debts, the website was stopped from operating. So the result is such websites are phonies.

The trend didn’t stop, however, and a few weeks ago, another similar website published an article entitled, “A Zionist-Made Plane Flies in Iran’s Sky.”

I don’t intend to analyze the foresaid website into bits and pieces, because a few hours after the publication of the news, Iran’s Aviation Organization took its official stance and announced its statement. I, too, agree with the fact that between Iran’s government and that Ukrainian aviation company, there is an authentic agreement signed in accordance with existing laws and regulations.

So the shareholder of Ukraine International Airline is not an Israeli citizen?

According to international regulations and documents, Ukraine International Airline is a Ukrainian company and Ukraine owns it. Due to the fact that it is a private company, any interested person can own its share, whether Iranian or Jewish. In fact, this corporation and its shares don’t belong to the government of Israel or even to that of Ukraine and is simply a private company.

You are referring to Mr. Aron Mayberg, the Head of the Company’s Directors’ Board, who is a Jew. In an interview on November 27, 2014, he stated that he is an Israeli citizen. Following that statement, Iran’s Parliamentary Committee for National Security and Foreign Policy harshly warned Iran’s Ministry of Transportation. But you are saying that he is not a representative of Israel, isn’t that so?

When I read that on the news, I recalled that Iran’s Grand Leader makes a distinction between Zionists and Jews. I believe this one really follows that notion, too.

Mr. Mayberg is a merchant and doesn’t feel belonged to any government. What you just quoted him as saying was stated at a press conference in Kiev, and I simply think the fact that the conference was held in Ukraine rest the case itself. The other reason is true that Mr. Mayberg is the head of the Directors’ Board, but he doesn’t work or decide alone.

Who are earning benefits from the disagreements between Iran and Ukraine?

Those who do not want Iran and Ukraine to cooperate with one another. These just go against bilateral collaborations. At a meeting with Iranian authorities at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we voiced our readiness for further cooperation therewith. 2 days ago, I also met with Mr. Afkhami Rad, the Deputy Minister of Industry, Mine and Trade and also with the Chair of the Development and Commerce Organization, and there, we both expressed our tendencies for the continuation of commercial and economic ties.

Then we should await more new MOUs between Iran and Ukraine.

That’s right. These MOUs are in the field of agriculture and industry. The bilateral cooperation between Iran and Ukraine, however, has always been extensive. In addition to the export of automobiles, Ukraine has often offered its products to Iran.

In the past, Ukraine’s steel enjoyed a fertile market in Iran. What plans are thought up thus far so as to further the economic collaborations?

We bore witness to the largest amount of trade volumes between the two countries in 2012 which was worthy of $1.2bn. But the trend began to gradually descend in 2013 and 2014, and one of the key factors to it was the intensified sanctions against Iran. We, of course, believe that this fall is temporary and that’s why both parties will undoubtedly expand their cooperation.

The realization of such a plan relies on easing the sanctions against Iran. How optimistic are you toward the talks between Iran and P5+1?

I don’t suppose optimism ranges within a scale. You either can be optimistic or cannot be. But I believe in the first.

Some IR experts believe Russia can make the most of its role in Iran-P5+1 talks as a golden card to play in the game of the West imposing it. Would that affect the nuclear talks of Iran?

I didn’t want these two to be entwined together. I loved it better if the sanctions against Russia and Iran’s nuclear talks were separated.

Some experts think Saudi Arabia intends to target Russia’s economy by keeping the oil price on an all-time low. This, however, has very much damaged oil-producing countries, including Iran, which even provoked Iran’s President’s objection. What do you think?

Some of the experts are on the belief that in the 80s, when the Soviet Union made its first military intervention, the price of oil fell to less than 10 dollars per barrel, and that served primarily to the Union’s demise.

Now, too, some reckon that the descending trend in the oil price shall lead to the demise of Russia. I, nonetheless, don’t approve of such extremism. Every country in the world should be measured and discussed on its own basis, and Ukraine, as an independent and European country, will never wish any harm and evil for none of the countries of the world.

Was Crimea worth all the trouble and negative consequences for Russia?

It never was for Russia. Russians themselves have confessed that was a political trap.

Could Russia send this message to its neighboring states that it will never allow the US to mar its integrity?

Crimea’s case was more of a campaign and an adventure. The people of Crimea will sooner or later tell their friends from their foes.

I believe that their friends will be on the other side. It interests me really that the people of Siberia don’t deem themselves Russian, but they call themselves Siberian. You know why? Because Russian means someone from Moscow, but that city is too far from Siberia and Moscow hasn’t done a thing for them, whereas they know what Siberia needs.

That’s kind of caused villagers to rush to cities in Russia. The young try to seek their fortune in large cities. Therefore, when the elderly pass away, there is no one to take their places there.

After the occupation of Crimea by Russia and the interferences it had in the east of Ukraine, many ordinary Russian people came to Ukraine to live there. In fact, Ukraine has become a path for them. Yet there are also some others who pick up guns and walk to Ukraine.

If Ukraine had managed to reconstruct the national identity once it won its independence, then these groups of Ukraine’s society wouldn’t seek separation from its unified body. What’s your take on this?

The demise of the Soviet Union was a strong political will and after that, none of the nations of the independent subdivisions didn’t feel it really, because maybe they were faced with plenty of problems. Since the beginning of Ukraine’s independence, the country was engaged in lots of problems, most of which were financial. But the people of Ukraine helped each other with the problems which was the climax to the whole story.

The other point was that people would eventually comprehend that the unbreakable link of the Soviet time which had connected Ukraine to Russia was now gone. The language difference which exists in Ukraine wasn’t ineffective, either.

The only thing here is that the old connection was being maintained by Russia and they didn’t let it break and some pro-Russian individuals in Ukraine, like Yanukovych, too continued their advocacies of this link. But Yanukovych is no longer in power.

Hasn’t the separation of the Separatists from Ukraine resulted in a more unified country of yours?

The people of the east of Ukraine are Ukrainian, just like other Ukrainian citizens. We have Hungarian, Bulgarian, Jewish, Ukrainian and Russian people, too. What do you call these people? Russians? That’s not like it, they are Ukrainian.

Just like the people of Azerbaijan who live in Iran; are they the citizens of the Republic of Azerbaijan which neighbors Iran? These are Iranians. That’s the same in Ukraine, too.

Since 1991, an attitude started to grow in Ukraine for it to become closer with the EU. The trend has grown so strong that even Mr. Kravchuk, Ukraine’s first Communist president, now defends Ukraine’s membership in NATO. What’s the reason for such drastic change in the foresaid trend?

It’s better to ask Mr. Kravchuk about this. He’s very active and if you had the chance, you could travel to Ukraine and hold an interview with him.

I’m a Ukrainian who is younger than he is and cannot make any judgment about anyone. Each one of us, Ukrainians, have our own ideologies and have trodden on the path of Europeanism. The roads taken were not identical, of course, but they all led to one similar destination. And now that half of the way is gone, everybody understands that we have no other choice than Europeanism.

Experience has it that it shall yield no fruit if we go back to Russia. We had many enlightened figures who advised us protect Ukraine. In fact, Ukraine is an inseparable part of Europe and Kiev roots much older than Moscow, when compared.

At the time of Mr. Kuchma, Mr. Yanukovich and Mr. Yushchenko were Presidential candidates. When the Supreme Court of Ukraine voted to the third stage of the election, it was Mr. Kuchma who sought to prevent the bloodshed. But there wasn’t anyone to do so in 2014. Why?

There are many different talks about Mr. Kuchma, both negative and positive. I wouldn’t let myself comment on him and his deeds, for his life is all his.

We have courts and judiciary in Ukraine. So we should let them legally investigate the intended topics. My personal memories of Mr. Kuchma are very much positive, however. At the meeting between Mr. Kuchma and Mr. Khatami, I was present helping as interpreter and they both indicated glorified wisdom of themselves.

How did you find Mr. Mohammad Khatami then?

I can’t say Mr. Khatami was the best of all, because every politician can be beneficial for certain and specific times and eras. History wanted a politician like Mohammad Khatami to win the power, and that was the same history which wanted Ahmadinejad to sit in the driving seat. Now, it is once again the history that required a scientist, politician and diplomat named Hassan Rouhani to win the office.

How similar do you find Mr. Khatami and Mr. Rouhani to each other?

That’s a difficult question. I don’t think Mr. Rouhani is seeking to repeat Mr. Khatami. They were independent and specific individuals. They talk specifically and they work specifically, though there might be some similarities between them. Their similarity can be their optimism.

In my opinion, if you see both of them in person, you’ll feel the sparkling of hope and inspiration in their eyes which positively helps others be constructive about a project. There are also some others whose eyes are devoid of any sort of feeling, but these two are not any close to the like.

And how do you see Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

He was an interesting President. Although he made statements which made many quiver at times, his deputies and vice presidents had to do something, for a President leads a team and doesn’t remain an individual. As much as it is about diplomacy, politics is also about group work. What I liked in Mr. Ahmadinejad was his spirits for Achaemenid emperors. He made many mistakes, though. Either way, each of these people had their shares in the history of their country. Ukraine has had the same story, too.

How do you evaluate Mr. Kuchma’s terms?

Mr. Kuchma’s positive aspects first were his experience of team work and the fact that he’d gone through level-work operations in large factories.

If they wanted to launch a large missile, all of the employees had to go to the platform. In the killing cold of Kazakhstan’s winter, the general manager and the employees were living shoulder to shoulder. Mr. Kuchma managed to bring his experiences and special relations from the factory to governmental levels.

How much feasible do you see the NATO membership of Ukraine given what is taking place there?

That’s the question many are asking me nowadays, but not an important one, really. There are some political and economic prerequisites for a country’s NATO membership and unless they are not met, they won’t be NATO members. Ukraine cannot meet them and no one can tell for sure when they will be.

Ukraine can have military cooperation with this organization even without a NATO membership.

Yes. The letters signed by the ex-soviet states with NATO are not considered to be expansion or membership with it. I don’t see it close for countries like Ukraine or Georgia to become a NATO member, for that treaty advances over time.

At the Soviet time, the NATO treaty was seen as bad, but now, not only does it do military works, but it has also begun operations in economics, politics and culture. Ukraine shall cooperate with NATO, but when it becomes a member thereof is yet to be cleared.

What really matters here is that before the recent turn of events in Ukraine, many were in favor of its NATO membership, around 30%. But now, the ration has soared up to 70% or 80%, thanks to Russia. In fact, Russia did that for us.

So Russia has caused the people of Ukraine to be more inclined toward the West after it extended its soil to Crimea.

That wasn’t extension, I must say, but it was annexation. Ukraine recognizes Crimea as the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the world sees Crimea as belonging to Ukraine according to the international rules. For example, in the field of airways, it is Ukraine who owns Crimea’s airways and the aviation corporations have come to terms with that. In fact, in spite of the fact that Crimea’s space and soil is now temporarily occupied, it belongs to Ukraine.

We saw the crash of a passenger plane from Malaysia in the east of Ukraine whose passengers all died. Did the cause to that incident come into light?

According to the latest investigations about which I read on various sources, the cause has been Russia. At first, they tried to show Ukraine was the culprit, but that didn’t work out, because satellites had recorded the whole thing. The culprit to that was Russia and the separatists. They apparently wanted to destroy a transit plane of the Ukrainian Army, but they targeted Malaysia’s plane.

Given the crisis broken out between Russia and Ukraine, how do you see the future of the ties between the two countries?

I must first point to two different matters: first is the propaganda and second is the relations between Ukraine and Russia.

On the note about propagandas, as I witnessed in Iran, most of the news, analyses and assessments sources belong to Russia and only a small number of them belongs to the west. But Iran is an independent country and thus are the media.

Most of what is being reflected about Russia in Iran is wrong and these are the propagandas of Russia. Since the majority of Iranian news wires do not have a direct connection with Ukraine, they have to repeat and distribute Russia’s propagandas.

In response to questions about the future of the ties between Ukraine and Russia, given what Russia has committed thus far, it seems pretty far to see the ties revitalized in a foreseeable future.

At the end, I must add that the separatists who are fighting at the other end of Ukraine are no longer fighting the Ukrainian soldiers. A few days ago, they bombarded a bus with shrapnel and 10 non-military, innocent individuals were killed. Another 11, most of whom being kids, were wounded.

You should take into account that in those areas, those who call themselves Presidents or Parliamentary Spokespeople, use the People’s Republic of Donetsk, or the Republic of Luhansk seek nothing but power and personal hegemony.