The online conference of Ukraine’s then Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmytro Kuleba with Central Asian journalists took place on September 7, 2022.
Journalist Shokir Sharipov asked what the current Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba, would have done to steer events (“Many of us living in Central Asia watch with bitterness what is happening in Ukraine, the deaths of people, children” — Sharipov) in a different direction, if it were possible to turn back time and return 10 years.
Dmytro Ivanovych Kuleba:
Ten years ago… 2022… 2012. Euro 2012. Football was being held in Ukraine. In 2012, Ukraine’s policy toward Russia was the same as the policy of your countries today. There was visible constructiveness, but in fact Russia, precisely then, in 2012, launched the first major trade war against Ukraine.
There was no NATO, no Association Agreement with the European Union, yet the trade war initiated by Russia already existed. Because for them, trade has always been an instrument of politics, an instrument of coercion.
Of course, I would very much like us to have avoided the course of events we ended up with. You know, recently we found in the Foreign Ministry archives a letter from Mr. Vladimir Putin, written before 2010, already in his capacity as president, where he directly tells the then President of Ukraine: “If you do not stop doing this, I assure you that there will be those willing to reconsider all of Ukraine’s legacy from the Soviet period.”
You understand, long before, decades ago, President Putin already believed so strongly in his versions that such a state as Ukraine does not exist, that it is all artificially created, inherited from the Soviet Union, that even then he was threatening the then President of Ukraine. That was before 2010.
That is, these are not new ideas that appeared in his head in 2014 or later. Apparently, he always believed this, thought this way, and systematically used his position as president to implement this scenario. A scenario of restoring Russia’s imperial greatness.
And at whose expense can it be restored? Only at ours and yours. All this tinsel—when they talk about respect for international law, sovereignty, independence—should never be taken seriously (here and hereafter highlighted by Yep.uz). We went through this and paid a terrible price. We believed that if a treaty with Russia, ratified by both parliaments, said they would respect our borders, they would respect them. But nothing of the sort.
Therefore, the only thing I would change, knowing all this—that Putin always believed in what he is doing now—I will tell you honestly: from 1991, even earlier, I would not have carried out the conversion of the army. I would have invested as much as possible in the defense of my country. As much as possible.
Now, when the war began and we compared, conditionally, how many tanks we had in 1991 and how many we have now, it is simply beyond comprehension. Not to mention missiles. Now every day Russians strike our cities with missiles. You see this in the news.
We also had such missiles. But we gave them all away—to them, by the way. The Russians always knew what they were preparing for. Once we had a large gas debt to them, and do you know how they asked us to settle it? With our missile stockpiles. And, unfortunately, our not very wise government at the time—this was in the early 2000s—believed that there would be no war, that it was a good deal, no need to pay money, and they handed over some missiles from storage, supposedly of no use (in their view — Yep.uz). But all of this was part of a single plan.
So the only thing I would change is that I would not have engaged in disarming the country, believing in peace, eternal peace, but would have constantly understood that at any moment war could come from the northeast. We did not believe it.
Frankly speaking, I understand the global picture professionally, but even in my worst nightmares I could not imagine such a full-scale war. And so I ask you as well to remain clear-headed. If it seems to you that something is impossible and that it definitely will not happen to you—I assure you, anything can happen.
Uzbek journalist Jasur Pulatov asked about agreements signed between Ukraine and Uzbekistan before the war: “I would like to know how our relations will develop further, given the current position of our country, including a position that is not entirely clear to me. How will cooperation develop further and what are the future plans regarding the signed agreements?”
Dmytro Ivanovych Kuleba:
2021 was quite productive in relations with Uzbekistan. At the beginning I said that when I became minister, I placed special emphasis on Central Asian countries, and in 2021 we held consultations between foreign ministries and convened an interparliamentary friendship group.
Our relations, I will say frankly, were significantly undermined by Russia’s ban on transit from your countries to us and from Ukraine to you. This hit the economy hard, but nevertheless we tried by all means to revive these relations—both political and economic.
I sincerely very much want to visit Uzbekistan. I admire the history of your country, its backbone. Because the people went through very difficult periods of history—well, all of us did, in fact. We were all in the same Soviet Union. And our national identity was attempted to be erased as much as possible. But it endured. That was a lyrical digression.
We are ready even now, in the current conditions, to develop relations as much as possible. Because war is war, but life has not been canceled. We must move forward and even in the current reality look for what we can do together. Therefore, we are in favor of all agreements remaining in force and developing, and for concluding new agreements and implementing them.
We have very good contact with Uzbek business, there is dialogue with the Uzbek government, our embassy is actively working, your embassy here (in Kyiv — Yep.uz) is also working.
As for the position taken by Uzbekistan and other Central Asian countries toward Ukraine, I have already answered regarding Russia’s war against Ukraine. I will add only one thing — you should all, in fact, be interested in our victory. All your countries. Because if we lose, you will be next. You understand the state and the euphoria Russia will be in.
If it thinks that what we did in Ukraine went unpunished and we achieved results, then not just with doubled or tripled efforts, but ten times stronger, they will pressure Central Asian countries. And your leaders, your governments, I think, understand this.
But still we see a very restrained… It is not an unfriendly position. We feel a good attitude toward Ukraine in your countries, and my president recently spoke with the President of Kazakhstan—it was a good conversation. But we understand there are factors holding you back. These factors are called relations with Russia and Russia’s ability to influence your domestic policy.
So—whatever these factors may be—I want everyone to remember: if we lose, you will be next. The Russians will not stop if they achieve victory, and in that state of euphoria they will pressure everyone.
Just as they consider us artificial formations, they consider you artificial formations as well. That is the harsh truth.
And I think that a wise ruler should always find a way to help the country in whose success he is interested. Because he understands that the success of that country is also a guarantee of his own country’s security.
Tamara Vaal: “You just said that Central Asian leaders understand that Russia is a threat, not a friend, and that one must behave very cautiously with it. And you said that Mr. Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke with President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev. I would like to hear your view on what happened on June 17 at the forum in St. Petersburg, when Margarita Simonyan asked Mr. Tokayev about the special operation and our president said that Kazakhstan does not recognize either Donetsk or Luhansk. In my view, there is no caution in these words, that is, Kazakhstan clearly stated its position.”
Dmytro Ivanovych Kuleba:
We are closely monitoring the development of Kazakh–Russian relations and we see that President Tokayev is, in principle, implementing the policy I described: on the one hand, maintaining relations with Russia, on the other, firmly defending his country’s sovereignty. When he expresses a position that is unpleasant for Putin sitting next to him, that is a manifestation of sovereignty. So he deserves a very positive assessment for defending his country’s interests and not being afraid to do what he knows will irritate Russia.
But having said “A,” one must say “B.” A simple example: what is this war about? It is about the violation of the principle of territorial integrity. I think this issue is very relevant for Kazakhstan. The north of the country—we all understand. Right? So, in principle, your government should firmly stand on the principle of respect for territorial integrity. Because it concerns you as well, just as it concerns us.
While noting positively Mr. Tokayev’s position on the DPR and LPR, I cannot fail to note that Kazakhstan for some reason refused to participate in the Crimea Platform summit. Are Crimea and the DPR/LPR different phenomena? Is this not a violation of the same principle of territorial integrity? That is the point.
I repeat, the conversation between the presidents was very good. We all heard it. It was substantive. But acts of balancing are important in diplomacy; however, to be able to defend oneself, one must stand firmly on certain principles. Using the example of the answer about the DPR/LPR and participation in the Crimea Platform, I have shown what I meant.
By the way, I miss it very much. When I was in Kazakhstan, I became a fan of shubat (a fermented camel milk drink — Yep.uz). I dream of having a glass someday. And kumis (a fermented drink usually made from mare’s milk — Yep.uz), of course. But the best was fresh mare’s milk—just phenomenal in taste. It felt like chewing steppe grass. That was a lyrical digression, a memory of my visit to Kazakhstan.
Tamara Vaal: “I also had another question—do you have information about whether there are citizens of Kazakhstan on the territory of Ukraine taking part in its defense? And how do you assess overall support from Central Asian governments, in particular Kazakhstan?”
Dmytro Ivanovych Kuleba:
I do not have information about the exact number of citizens—from any country. I am sure your embassy in Ukraine has that information. It is better to contact them. As for your second question, I have already answered it in detail over the previous half hour of our conversation.
Marina Kozlova (Uzbekistan): “The last time I was in Kyiv was in 2016, we drove from Moldova to Tashkent by car, including through Ukraine. Those are the most pleasant memories. I am afraid those roads are now destroyed. I would like to convey my admiration for the people, the government of Ukraine, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine. All my friends support Ukraine; they are not poisoned by Russian propaganda. And if you come to Uzbekistan, let me know—I will organize the best tour for you. I hope this is not our last meeting and that one of them will take place in a café, we will drink tea on the embankment of Ukrainian Yalta.
Now to the question. It has largely been answered already. It is also impossible now to ask about the specific fate of Uzbeks who disappeared near Bucha in early March. But I would like to ask a bit further. In the middle of next week there will be a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Samarkand, and, apparently because of Putin, unprecedented security measures are already in place; even Samarkand schoolchildren will start classes two weeks later. And they are going to receive Putin.
Also, despite statements about neutrality by Uzbekistan and even two shipments of aid to Ukraine, nevertheless the leadership of Uzbekistan, Mr. Shavkat Mirziyoyev, has spoken with Putin many times but has not once spoken with or called Zelenskyy to ask how to help. And they say that Putin’s “wallet,” Alisher Usmanov, is located here.
So how correct is it, in your view, to receive Putin, shake his hand, and arrange extensive security measures in Samarkand at the expense of the local population? How correct is this and how might it backfire on Uzbekistan in the near to medium term?”
Dmytro Ivanovych Kuleba:
It is unpleasant to me that Vladimir Putin will have the opportunity to enjoy the phenomenal, outstanding architecture of Samarkand and breathe your air. He does not deserve it, of course.
As for children—it turns out that children suffer from Putin’s policies everywhere. Even in Uzbekistan they have to stay home and postpone the start of the school year. Although, of course, children like not going to school. But that is another matter.
On the second part of your question, I will answer very briefly—President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is ready to speak with the leaders of Central Asian countries. We are open. I do not know why so far there has only been a conversation with Kazakhstan. Or rather, I do know, but I will remain a diplomat and will not comment.
The invitation (to organize a tour of Uzbekistan — Yep.uz) is accepted. I will gladly use it. Thank you.
This material is part of a series: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4