Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Feb 2022

Russia's Foreign Policy and Security in Europe: Engagement with Ambassador of Russia

Chairman

I welcome all present to our meeting with the ambassador of Russia to Ireland, H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov, to discuss foreign policy and security in Europe. The ambassador is welcome. I thank him for agreeing to meet the committee to discuss matters of mutual concern to our respective countries and our people. At a time of heightened tensions between Russia and the West, this meeting gives us all the opportunity to both discuss and exchange views on our different perspectives and to share ideas on how we can best move forward towards easing tensions and continuing to work together to deal not only with the issues between our respective countries, but many other issues facing humanity. I welcome the ambassador and his officials. The format of the meeting is that we will hear his opening statement before going into a question-and-answer session with members of the committee.

Before proceeding to the business of the meeting, I remind members that mobile phones should be switched off completely or put on airplane mode for the duration of the meeting as they can cause interference with the recording equipment in the committee room even if on silent. We all hope that we can proceed accordingly.

This is our first meeting in our committee room in plenary session or full committee session since the Covid restrictions have been lifted. The ambassador will see, therefore, that not only are some members wearing masks, which can be removed to facilitate dialogue, but Deputy Clarke and other members are attending the meeting from their offices outside the precincts of the committee room. They will also be facilitated by way of direct access not only to his opening address, but to observations and questions.

I remind witnesses of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make that person identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of any person or entity. Therefore, if statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person, the direction from me, as Chairman, will be that such remarks be discontinued. Of course, it is imperative that all such directions are complied with.

I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise, or make charges against any person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in a way that makes that person identifiable. I remind members that they may only participate in the meeting by remote means if they are physically present in offices or rooms on the Leinster House complex. I think the only member operating remotely is Deputy Clarke. She is very welcome and will be called in order of indication.

With that, I am pleased to invite the ambassador to make his opening statement.

H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov

I welcome the opportunity to continue our dialogue on the matters of mutual interest on international and bilateral agenda. It is obvious from our perspective that the most pressing issue now facing Russia, Europe and beyond is the threat to Russian national security resulting from the eastward expansion of NATO in recent years. The security situation on the western borders of Russia is unacceptable and has to be dealt with.

On December 15 2021, Russia proposed to the United States and NATO to sign legally binding agreements on security guarantees. The key provisions of these draft documents include obligations of non-expansion of NATO, non-deployment of offensive weapons near Russian borders, return to the configuration of NATO’s forces as at the time of the signing of the Russia-NATO Founding Act in May 1997, as well as confirmation that Russia and NATO do not consider each other as adversaries. The documents also imply mutual obligations of renunciation of the use of force, as well as interaction based on the principles of indivisible and equal security and mutual restraint in military planning.

I will outline for the committee the nature of Russia’s legitimate and reasonable concerns that are at the heart of our initiative. Having officially proclaimed Russia as the main threat, NATO has been implementing a doctrine aimed at containing Russia. NATO’s expansion led to the extension of the line of contact between Russia and NATO member countries. By advancing more than 1,000 km eastwards, NATO acquired capabilities to use non-strategic weapons to hit targets deep in Russian territory. Furthermore, the legal foundations of European security have been undermined by the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, known as the ABM Treaty, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and the Treaty on Open Skies - all with the tacit consent of NATO member countries. Moreover, NATO by its current doctrine is tasked with achieving military superiority in all spheres - sea, land, air, cyberspace and space - and in all theatres. It has been consistently involving other countries in its military activities, especially the neutral states such as Finland and Sweden. That is not to mention that NATO curtailed co-operation with Russia and imposed restrictions on the Russian permanent mission in Brussels, disrupting the political dialogue on security in Europe.

More recently, NATO intensified combat training activities in the immediate vicinity of Russia’s borders, including in the Arctic, that involve strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons, as well as naval missile defence systems. That also included increased military drills in the Black Sea region, with 15 last year compared with only eight in 2020, accompanied by more frequent reconnaissance aircraft flights in the area, which have increased by 60%. NATO’s greater capability of deployment of strike weapons at our borders, as well as the expansion of NATO’s military infrastructure further to the east, increases the risk of an armed conflict.

Of deep concern is the advanced status of the NATO-Ukraine enhanced capabilities partnership, Ukrainian military transformation on NATO’s standards, as well as the presence of alliance military personnel in that country.

Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that we must find a way to safeguard the security interests of all involved in the process: Ukraine, the European Union and Russia. It will only be possible if proposals from Russia are treated with a serious and responsible attitude. We hope that all reasonable, dialogue-oriented countries, including Ireland, will support the pursuit of peace and stability in Europe.

All those are facts on the ground and the reasons Russia insists on legally binding agreements that would help stabilise the security system in the Euro-Atlantic. The key to that is the principle of indivisibility of security. It is fundamental to the entire architecture of European security and its accurate interpretation is crucial for the prospects of our dialogue with western countries. The Charter for European Security signed at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, summit in Istanbul in November 1999, which was signed for Ireland by the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, formulates the basic rights and obligations of the participating states regarding this principle. It emphasises the right of each state to be free to choose or change the way in which it ensures its security, including treaties of alliance, as they evolve, as well as the right to neutrality. The same paragraph of the charter clearly conditions this right by the obligation of each state not to strengthen its own security at the expense of the security of others. It also states that no state, group of states or organisation may exercise preferential responsibility for maintaining peace and stability in the OSCE area or consider any part of it as its sphere of influence. At the OSCE summit in Astana in December 2010, the leaders of our countries approved a declaration, confirming this integral package of interrelated obligations. However, western countries continue to pick and choose from this package only the provisions they want, to be exact, the right of a state to be free to choose alliances to ensure exclusively its own security. They shyly omit the clause "as they evolve", as it was also an integral part of the understanding of the indivisibility of security, implying mandatory withdrawal of military alliances from the original function of deterrence, as well as their integration into the all-European architecture on collective rather than a narrow group basis. The principle of indivisibility of security is selectively interpreted to justify the irresponsible policy of NATO expansion. The western governments also try to ignore one of the key OSCE documents, the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security, which states clearly that participating states shall "take into account the legitimate security concerns of other States" when choosing methods of ensuring security, including participation in alliances, and "maintain military capabilities commensurate with legitimate individual or collective security needs".

I would like to emphasise the indivisibility of security means that security can be either one for all or none at all. As the Istanbul document stipulates, every OSCE participant has an equal right to security, not just NATO members, that interpret this right as referring exclusively to the members of this North Atlantic club.

One cannot but acknowledge that the decided aims and rhetoric by the US, NATO, and EU leaders have reached a level of absurdity. We are witnessing the daily drumbeat about the so-called imminent Russian invasion in Ukraine as well as the readiness by the West to respond to that invasion with massive and destructive sanctions against Russia. Any unbiased and serious observer would note that not only are there no facts on the ground to support such invasion fantasy and not only has Russia stated repeatedly it does not have any intention to attack Ukraine or anybody else, but there are not even hypothetically any political, economic, military or any other reasons for such invasion. Our conclusion is that a rather dangerous game of shadow-boxing is going on for the sake of a certain political agenda in Washington, Brussels and European capitals. It is indeed dangerous because it might push the current Kyiv government to undertake another military adventure in the east of the country, which would be catastrophic for Ukraine and for the entire of Europe.

We must be candid in that the EU, of which Ireland is a member state, has played far from a benign or constructive role in Ukrainian affairs over recent years. We cannot but recall a pivotal moment in modern Ukrainian history, namely, in February 2014, when the US and the EU provoked and supported a bloody unconstitutional coup in Kyiv against the legitimate government that was, by the way, not even close to being pro-Russian. As a result, radical nationalist forces came to power in Kyiv. It is they who started a military conflict, essentially, civil war, in the eastern regions of Ukraine, where the local population did not accept this coup and its nationalist agenda that includes elements of neo-Nazi ideology. People there did not want to follow Kyiv’s orders to ban the use of the Russian language, which is the mother tongue for a large number of Ukrainians. They stood for their right to maintain the way of life they were used to, preserve their cultural identity and traditions, and protect their homes and families from aggressive neo-Nazi bands. People of Donetsk and Lugansk turned out to be quite successful in defending their land. Soon afterwards some Europeans began to realise what happened. France and Germany joined Russia in the so-called Normandy Format to convince the Kyiv regime as well as leaders of Donetsk and Lugansk to sit at the negotiating table and sign the Minsk Protocol. This document remains the only viable way to resolve the internal Ukrainian conflict. The package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, as it is called, was endorsed in the Resolution 2202 of the UN Security Council in 2015, therefore, it is an international legally binding act mandatory for implementation by Kyiv, Donetsk and Lugansk.

Right now the most important thing the European Union as well as the US could do to achieve peace in Ukraine is to force the Kyiv government into implementing the Minsk Agreements. Without such pressure there is no realistic chance that the current regime in Ukraine would undertake any steps to fulfil its obligations, starting with a direct dialogue with Donetsk and Lugansk. This month Russia serves as a chair of the UN Security Council. On 17 February we have scheduled a meeting of the Council on the subject of the implementation of the Minsk Agreements and invited the permanent representative of Ukraine to attend. This will be a perfect chance for the Council to insist that its decisions shall be implemented.

I would like to conclude on the issue on which I stated, namely, security in Europe. Regrettably, the situation is by no means better than in December. A response from the US to our draft agreement does not give much ground for optimism. Our key demands on the non-extension of NATO are being ignored. Our answer to that is still being assessed.

Chairman

I thank Ambassador Filatov for that opening address. With his assent, I propose to open the meeting to our members to pose questions and make comments and observations. Given the high level of interest in the ambassador's statement, and with his consent, I will group the contributions of several members together and then come back to the ambassador for his response. I will continue the process in that manner. I call Deputy Cowen, who will be followed by Deputy Brady and Senator Joe O'Reilly.

Deputy Barry Cowen

I thank the ambassador for coming to this meeting. He is most welcome and we appreciate him attending. I thank him for his role in relaying to the Russian Government in recent weeks the feelings and concerns of the Irish people regarding the proposed naval exercise in waters inside the Irish exclusive economic zone, EEZ. We appreciate the way in which that exercise has been moved away from our shores.

I am also glad the ambassador is here to hear from us as the representatives of the Irish people - and the members on this committee include a sample of those from all parties and none - about our fears and concerns and those of the people we represent regarding the accumulation of Russian forces on the border of Ukraine. I remind the ambassador that Ireland's neighbour, the UK, decided in recent years to leave the EU. In the context of the chequered history of our relationship with that country and our aspiration to unite our island, we did not agree with that decision and we did not like it. We could not understand it, and we still find it hard to do so. The UK's decision threatened Ireland financially and had grave implications for our trade with it and with other European partners. It even had the potential to contradict the Good Friday Agreement. The protocol included in the withdrawal agreement is now being further debated and clarified by the UK and, on our behalf, the EU. It is being done through negotiation because we and the other EU member states accept that the UK is a sovereign nation. Neither we nor the wider EU sought to negotiate by amassing troops on the UK's borders.

My questions, then, are simple. I heard and noted what the ambassador said and the justification he believes is necessary as a result of the growth of NATO. Does Russia accept that Ukraine is an independent and sovereign state? Equally, did not the NATO-Russia Founding Act signed in 1997 pledge "respect [...] [for] the inherent right [of all states] to choose the means to ensure their own security"? Andrei Kozyrev, who after the collapse of the Soviet Union was the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation until 1996, recently commented that: “The United States and NATO were on the right side of history by admitting new democracies to the Alliance and being willing to find an accommodation with Russia. It was Moscow that returned to its antagonism toward NATO." Would the ambassador agree with that analysis?

To reiterate my three questions, does the ambassador accept that Ukraine is an independent sovereign state; does he accept as well that, as a sovereign state, it is, of course, entitled, as it should be and as the EU and we believe it to be, to choose its own means to ensure its own security; and, does he agree with the comment made by Andrei Kozyrev about antagonism towards NATO?

Chairman

As I indicated earlier, and with the ambassador's consent, for the purposes of careful management and to ensure that all members have an opportunity to contribute, I will group the questions and comments from two or three members, and then ask the ambassador to respond. I call Deputy Brady.

Deputy John Brady

I thank the ambassador for accepting the invitation and for being here. He is welcome. I also thank him for agreeing to meet with me last week. Much of what I will say here will echo what I said to the ambassador directly last week. Given my concerns and those of my party about not only the maritime exercise planned off Ireland's south-western coast but also the escalating crisis on the Russia-Ukraine border, what we need now is some calm. We need a de-escalation of the current crisis. Unfortunately, we continue to see more sabre-rattling on all fronts. As we sit here, joint military exercises are taking place between Russia and Belarus. The Neptune Strike 2022 maritime exercise is also taking place in the Mediterranean, and encompasses the entire Sixth Fleet of the US Navy. There was also, of course, the planned exercise by Russia, which has now, thankfully, been moved out of the Irish exclusive economic zone. Today, as well, 3,000 more NATO troops have been deployed by the US to Poland, Germany and Romania. Therefore, when I call for a de-escalation of the current crisis, I direct that call at everybody involved, including NATO and Russia.

Sinn Féin has been committed to Irish neutrality and I spoke to the ambassador last week about what we see that as representing. It is active neutrality, and that means not having the UK's Royal Air Force, RAF, policing our skies, the US using Shannon Airport, or, indeed, Russia using perceived weaknesses in our defence capabilities to carry out maritime exercises. Therefore, neutral means neutral. Regarding individual nations, we support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations according to their internationally-recognised borders. That was borne out in a UN resolution passed by the General Assembly in 2014, which Ireland supported. The resolution spoke to the territorial integrity of Ukraine and it must be central to diplomatic efforts to resolve what is, unfortunately, an escalating crisis. Equally, the Minsk agreements must also be central to the situation. Unfortunately, those have not been ratified.

I have several specific questions for the ambassador. I ask him to give an assurance that Russia is prepared to work through all available platforms to attempt to find the means to de-escalate the current crisis. In addition, it was notable that he made no reference to the planned maritime exercise off our south-western coast. It is, of course, welcome that the exercise has been moved out of our exclusive economic zone and into international waters, but I would have much preferred to have seen the exercise being cancelled completely and not just moved. I refer to a broader attempt to de-escalate the crisis. I thank the ambassador for listening to the Irish people, the Irish fishermen, me, the Government and everybody who has serious concerns regarding the planned exercise.

I want the ambassador to clarify what date the Russian Federation first notified the Irish authorities of its intention to carry out military exercises in the exclusive economic zone. When were the Irish authorities first notified of that? I would also like him to clarify, in the context of the originally planned exercise in the Irish exclusive economic zone, if and when the Irish authorities highlighted to him or to the Russian Federation that the Irish authorities first needed to make a determination on the proposed exercise in accordance with Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive and Irish regulations.

Given the close proximity of transatlantic cables between Ireland and America to the original site of the planned exercise, would the ambassador agree that the location first chosen could be viewed as provocative? If he does not agree it was a provocation, why was that exact site chosen for the original naval manoeuvres? Would the ambassador agree that such an action could be viewed as an attempt to exploit vulnerabilities in the defence capabilities of Ireland aimed at sending a message to both the EU and NATO? Was Russia choosing to exploit our weaknesses as a neutral country to send a message to the EU and NATO? I would appreciate it if the ambassador could answer those points.

Chairman

I thank the Deputy. I will take one more contribution from among the members and then I will ask the ambassador to respond to the specific questions already tabled. I call Senator Joe O'Reilly.

Senator Joe O'Reilly

I welcome the ambassador and thank him for his address. I am a firm believer in dialogue and talking to each other. I served alongside Deputy Cowen at the Council of Europe for a period and he will know this to be the case. When there has been a disputation at the Council of Europe, I have always argued that we should have dialogue rather than freezing out the membership of any country. It is important that we sit and talk. For that reason, it is great the ambassador is here and we welcome him. Of course, dialogue has to be frank to have any value but I welcome the ambassador and thank him for his attendance.

We welcome the decision to move the planned military exercises outside Ireland's exclusive economic zone. However, recent reports suggest that the new location for those exercises is situated over sub-sea communications cables between the US and Europe. Can the ambassador give us some more information about the new location and what factors played a part in selecting it? Perhaps the ambassador could give us assurances that these will be exercises and no more.

Does the ambassador agree, as many reports have suggested, that these military exercises off the Irish coast are intended to send a message of intimidation not just to Ireland but also to NATO? I would like him to comment on that.

In light of the recent escalation in rhetoric, is Russia committed to a peaceful resolution of the current security situation with Ukraine and the West? Could the ambassador give us a reassurance on that point? We would be putting the very same question to the US and NATO. We want a de-escalation.

Does the ambassador believe that independent and sovereign countries should be able to decide for themselves what organisations and alliances they wish to join? Does he agree that it only becomes an issue or problematic if there is a particular threat to the neighbouring country? Should sovereign countries be free to join organisations until that point? What immediate measures will it take for there to be a de-escalation of tension? I gather Russia is now responding for a second time to America. What does the ambassador think would be enough for de-escalation?

My next question relates to Belarus, a matter of great concern to many people in this country, as the ambassador will be aware. He will also be aware of arbitrary arrests and long prison sentences in Belarus for very little activity, including just participating in protests, etc. The justice system in Belarus has broken down. There is a dictatorship there. I hope the ambassador will disassociate himself from that. I hope he will say that Russia is not in support of what is happening in Belarus. I would like to hear that Russia is clearly against it. That does not preclude good neighbourliness but nobody could support what is happening in Belarus.

I again welcome the ambassador. This is an important dialogue.

H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov

I thank the Deputies for the questions. I will try to sum up the main subjects. There is no question but that Ukraine is an independent, sovereign state. That is an axiom and there is no quarrel with that. Ukraine has a right to live peacefully and securely within its borders. The point I have been trying to make is that one cannot live in a vacuum. A country cannot provide for its security without any regard for the security of its neighbours and adjoining states. That is the whole heart of the matter. If the security interests of one state overlap with those of another, those countries must talk and devise a viable rapprochement or agreement which would carry the security of both states. That is the logic with all our initiatives. I emphasise that the way it has been developing makes it abundantly clear that our way of doing things is by dialogue and looking for a peaceful and political negotiated solution. There is no other way. War is by no means in our plans. If there is a war, it is not because of Russia. I hope, and am pretty sure, there will not be any war.

If one has looked at every newspaper every day for some months, one will have seen the same thing repeated time and again, that is, there has been a build up of troops. There has not been any troop build-up in Russia in the adjoining areas to the border with Ukraine. Whatever troops are there are on Russian territory in areas of their permanent deployment. There has been no escalation over recent months. We do not trust any so-called US intelligence that points to the contrary. The hysteria looks to us as if it is a deliberate attempt to heat up the situation, create a scenario for military conflict and exploit it in a number of ways, including a political way in propaganda terms, etc. Not only is NATO pushing its military infrastructure to the Russian border, it is brazen enough to tell us to move our armed forces away from the border in our own territory.

This is not the way to run the railroad at all.

Regarding de-escalation, I think members of the committee would agree that you cannot de-escalate something you have escalated. We have not done anything in terms of escalation. That brings us to the previous point. The troops are there. They have been there. That is the deployment of a western military region. There is nothing there to support the theory that tomorrow there will be a war with Ukraine. This is ridiculous if this word is permitted; I hope it is parliamentary enough.

Let us move down the list. I do not think any responsible politician would think of anything other than a peaceful and political solution to this. We have concerns. President Putin himself just yesterday when he met the Prime Minister of Hungary in Moscow talked to the press about that. He was absolutely clear. He does not have excessive enthusiasm about the responses to our initiative, but he is very bent on pressing ahead with these well-thought-through suggestions, indeed demands, because we have to demand that. We have an imminent real threat to our national security. What would you think if some other country or bloc - military organisation - had strike missile systems at your border with five minutes flying time to Moscow? I do not think any responsible leader would be able to ignore that simple fact. We are looking for dialogue. We will be insisting on doing that quickly and without any protraction.

On the issue of exercises, as members might appreciate, I am very fond of this issue and recently I have spoken on it many times. I said it last Monday at the beginning of this whole story that it was not a big deal to begin with and it is not a big deal right now. We must remember that our navy is within its right to carry out the exercises. We talked about the fact that there is no message involved here to Ireland or elsewhere. Even the scale of the exercise is just two ships. I do not think it is enough to send any message except that it is routine training, planned probably two years in advance with no idea of pressing any buttons.

There have been plenty of amusing stories saying that there were some kinds of frantic exchanges between our governments. I would not delve into the communications between our governments, but there was nothing frantic about that. I do not have an exact date of when they received notification. It was probably last Saturday, the week before. That was done in a more or less technical manner. There have been some public comments which I, personally, did not appreciate. There was no frantic handling of this affair. However, what was there was willingness to look into the real practical concerns which, to our mind, the fishermen had. It was my initiative to invite them to have a talk, to listen to what they had in mind and hear what the problem really was. We looked at the map and at that point it became clear that there actually was not a problem. They did not have any plans of pirate-like activity or Greenpeace-like actions. These are very sensible hard-working people. They have only been concerned with their well-being. They have the quota opening on 1 February. They are looking at the opportunity to get their quota without any hindrance. It just made sense.

All in all, the area of the fishing grounds and the area of the planned exercise barely overlapped. That was not the question. However, they asked if we could ensure that nobody would go into their area and they would certainly not go into the area of the exercises. If that is the issue, we certainly tried to accommodate the whole thing. The conclusion was if there is a problem - there is a problem for the well-being of a great number of fishermen in the area - the decision was made on humanitarian grounds to relocate the exercises to avoid the completely unnecessary hardship for the fishing industry of Ireland as well as decrease the risk of any incident at sea. I think that was a responsible sensible solution which stands.

What else? The cables, my favourite. It seems like whenever you go through the Atlantic in the general area you almost certainly cross the routes of transatlantic cables. I do not put any water into the theories which are abundant that these exercises or other exercises are somehow linked to this James Bond-like story. Looking into today's newspapers, I would suggest to the proponents of this that they should care about cables in the central part of Ireland which have been cut for profit. That is probably the real problem for Ireland or at least for the rural part which lacks Internet and telephone.

I would not want to be in a position to comment on anything pertaining to the internal affairs of Belarus, which is an independent country. There has been a period of real problem there and we cannot stand by because we are bound by not only many historical, family, economic and social ties, but by the agreements on the union of two states. We have been very active making sure the situation develops into the stand-down mode. It is not easy. It is not a black-and-white picture there and has not been.

I am sure the committee members would appreciate that I am not in a position to go any further. It is a matter of very peculiar and acute attention what is and has been going on in Belarus and we support every effort which is being made there to resolve these sociopolitical problems peacefully without any problem and without any loss of life or hindrance to the population or to freedoms of the population. Let me put it this way.

I tried to cover more or less all the issues. If I forgot something, please excuse me. It was a big list.

Chairman

We will have time to come back in any event, ambassador, thank you.

Moving on to the second round, Deputy Gannon will be followed by Senator Ardagh, Deputy Lawless and Senator Craughwell. I would remind members to desist from repeating the exact same questions as have been asked already because the likelihood is that the ambassador will give the same answers he has already given. I am anxious to broaden debate and give everybody an opportunity.

Deputy Gary Gannon

I thank the ambassador for joining us today. Irish neutrality is important to us. We wear it as a source of pride. The ambassador will have heard many members around the committee room already referencing it. Does the Russian Federation believe that the State is militarily neutral in world affairs?

The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Mr. Sergei Lavrov, wrote to the Government today asking if we have changed our position on post-Cold War European security arrangements. What specific action as a neutral actor has the State taken to warrant that question in that letter today? Specifically, what has Ireland done to warrant that letter today? In that letter, the Russian Federation's Foreign Minister asked that we would respond individually and not as part of a European collective. As the ambassador answers my question, I would like him to state what we have done individually to warrant the letter in the first place.

The ambassador mentioned the famous undersea cables. One of the issues that might give suspicion to that is, for example, that in August 2021, a 300 ft Russian vessel, the Yantar, was reported to be in our economic exclusion zone. For what purpose would a 300 ft vessel be in Irish economic exclusive zones? Gabhaim buíochas leis an ambasadóir. I thank the ambassador.

Senator Catherine Ardagh

I thank the ambassador for coming before the committee. It is H.E. Mr. Filatov's second time before us in the new Dáil and Seanad. It was great to see the ambassador speak so fondly of his diplomatic incident with the Irish fishermen. It is clear from the ambassador's demeanour today that he was taken by them, their work ethos and their commitment to their communities and to the environment. It is nice to see that. It shows what dialogue can do and how positive it can be.

In relation to the issue in Ukraine and Russia's strict adherence to the concept of indivisible security, we know that means that Russia will respect all territories and their integrity and their sovereignty. I was interested to hear the ambassador say that the idea of tens of thousands of troops being positioned and increased on the Russian Federation's borders is untrue and that they are constantly being deployed there and there has been no escalation. Has the fact that there has not been an increase recently been independently verified by any third party?

Following on from Deputy Gannon's question, initially, why did the Russian Federation choose to have the naval trials in Irish waters?

I also asks the ambassador to comment again on the issue in relation to Belarus. Obviously, we have a huge love of Belarus. As we have with Russians, we have much in common with them. We have great ties with that beautiful country and the beautiful people there and we are shocked and upset at the unlawful detentions stemming from pro-democracy protests. It is something that we are concerned about. If possible, I would like to hear more of the ambassador's thoughts on it. Gabhaim buíochas leis.

Deputy James Lawless

I welcome the ambassador to the committee. It is good to have H.E. Mr. Filatov here to have this exchange; it is always good to talk.

Like some of my colleagues, my first question to the ambassador is why the Russian Federation chose to have a military exercise in the corner of Irish waters and EU waters in the first place. The Russian Federation cannot have been unaware of the damage to fish stocks and marine life. The fishermen made the ambassador aware of it, if he was not already. Going beyond that, the Irish Government has a programme of legislation to develop our marine potential. I refer to significant infrastructural investment - everything from renewable energy through to the telecommunications and cables that we have already talked about. It is a sensitive and important part of Ireland's footprint - its marine waters. These are also EU waters. It seems very curious that a decision would be taken to have an exercise within a corner of the EU and within a corner of Irish waters.

Deputy Gannon and Senator Ardagh already alluded also to the submarine cables. The ambassador laughed it off with a James Bond reference. Much worse than James Bond happened in the past 50 years. There is a real threat with much of this. It is also a fact, I believe, that there was circling by Russian aircraft of those same submarine cables in the past two years. There was an exercise where aircraft circled for many hours. Potentially, they could have been mapping the plot of those cables. A certain number were in the area. There seems to be ongoing Russian interest in those areas of the cables where they join and I would wonder why that is. In terms of an area, the shipping lane is the naval gateway or approach to Europe where vessels would arrive. All of this prompts the question, "why would you go there in the first place?" If I were to play football, I would not start on my neighbour's lawn. I would go out on the green field outside of it. There is the whole Atlantic Ocean in front of the Russian Federation. Why pick a corner of Europe, and a corner of Ireland, to do it in?

Even though the Russian Federation has moved - I thank the ambassador and his country for taking that decision - there will still be a downstream impact in terms of whatever manoeuvres are performed or whatever military exercises are done, or whatever firing is done. The waters will still be knocked on. The marine life, potentially, will be impacted, even though it is a little further afield.

There was a statement this evening, at approximately 5 p.m., before the meeting started and a question was put to the Irish, either by the ambassador or by his colleagues, asking whether the Government changed its position. I do not know if it has or not. I do not speak for the Government. I am a member of a Government party but I am not a Minister. If it had, if any of us had, could the ambassador blame us? With all we have seen in the past couple of weeks, the activities and the exercise and the fact that the Russian Federation has chosen to perform military exercises in the corner of what is still a neutral country's hinterland, would the ambassador think it unusual or in any way surprising if we had begun to reconsider these issues? It could be said that Russian activity in the past couple of weeks has done more for NATO recruitment in this country than the US ever did in the past 40 years. It is something the ambassador should think about very carefully.

I will be very interested in the ambassador's answer to the final question I put to him. In his opening statement, the ambassador talks about theatres of war and theatres of exercise and about naval, air, etc. The ambassador also talks about cyberspace. There has been significant suggestion that Russia has played an active part in disinformation campaigns and disruption campaigns in the UK, in the US, but also in Western Europe and also within the EU. Has it ever done that in Ireland? Will the ambassador be in a position to advise us on that today? It is a significant concern that Russian disinformation campaigns permeate cyberspace in this country and elsewhere. I look forward to the ambassador's responses, and thank him.

Chairman

I will call Deputy Clarke now because the Deputy has indicated that she has to leave to go to the Chamber and also promises to be brief. Then I will come back to the ambassador.

Deputy Sorca Clarke

I thank the Chair for his understanding. The ambassador is most welcome. I will keep my questions short because a number of questions I had wanted to ask have been asked already.

I listened with interest to the ambassador's responses around the escalation and the commitment to a diplomatic route but what I have not heard is how Russia intends to use the Presidency of the UN Security Council to achieve that. If the ambassador could give us an outline on that, that would be very helpful.

I read recently of a report dating back to last September regarding the parliamentary elections in Russia involving Apple and Google acquiescing to the demands of the Russian Government in terms of the removal of apps and the removal of YouTube videos. On Russia's foreign policy, could the ambassador indicate to us "the level of truth" perhaps is the correct term there is in Russia seeking to develop its own sovereign Internet?

Chairman

I will give the floor to the ambassador now to answer the questions raised and then I will resume with Deputy Berry.

I cannot grasp the motive beyond the question about the neutrality of Ireland. This is a fact. This is Ireland's choice and this is your policy that is enshrined in your Constitution. What else is there for me to say? We certainly respect the choice of the Irish people. It is a fact of life and law. There is nothing to debate here.

With regard to letter, as referred to by the foreign Minister, is not an exclusive message to Ireland. This letter, sent to all foreign ministers of all the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, countries, OSCE, which comprises all of Europe, and including United States, and Canada, was a point and a question. I tried to dwell upon this in my opening statement: "how do you at this point in time view the principle of indivisibility of security?" This is the heart of the matter now as we are debating it and as one can tell from our own discussion here, it is quite important and crucial as we make up our minds. Everything else will depend upon the answer to this question. This is not a challenge, it is a respectable question that will be factored into our own deliberation and the report to the President as to the next steps by Russia in the ongoing dialogue. This is a pretty obvious and, I believe, respectful way of conducting diplomacy. There is no hidden agenda. Ireland is among the partners with whom we talk about these things.

The next question was about only one independently verified information about troop deployments. I can tell the committee that we certainly know for sure where they are and where they have been. I do not know of any independent actor in this area of the verification of troop deployments. We had the open skies agreement, which the United States has unilaterally ruined. Under that agreement one could have imagined that there would be aircraft flying, taking photos, and ensuring that the situation is there, but there is no chance to do that because this agreement is no longer working. Ireland just has to believe us or them; it is for Ireland to choose. We are not in a game of trying to whip up tensions. There is no reason for us to do so. Ukraine is our neighbouring country and we want stability there. We want the conflict there to be over, with a good reliable outcome. That is the whole policy motive, reason, aim and goal. That is it. I reject any speculation about our troops on our own territory.

In our press, we have a newspaper Kommersant, which is a well-regarded, more or less, like an opposition paper. They sent news reporters to the areas adjoining the Ukrainian border, and they went through village talking to people and asking them "Have you seen anything there?" People did not, at first, get the idea of the question because there had been no tanks there, nothing except maybe hungry wolves running around because it has been quite a winter this year. The overall picture there just shows that the troops, whatever they are, are in their winter quarters and stationed as they were. There is no activity at all. The highway from Belgorod, which is a Russian city, to Kharkov, which is a Ukrainian city, is a major highway. It is working okay and the checkpoint on the border is working okay. The traffic is not that much, but it is still there and trucks are going both ways. The committee might be surprised to hear it, but trade is still going on between Ukraine and Russia. We did not respond to the sanctions the Kyiv Government imposed in certain areas of our economy. We are still carrying on trade in the interests of many economic operators in both countries. There is also the humanitarian exchange with people going back and forth for family reasons. The reality there is different if one compares it with the pictures in the newspapers here.

I certainly believe that the whole hoopla is a political gimmick. It is a well calculated attempt. There are plenty of experts in the intelligence area in the US. The committee members might remember the old US movie "Wag the Dog". Perhaps the members have seen it. The story is about how to make up a conflict in Europe by manipulating the media, without any conflict, and just with certain technology of manipulation. This very much resembles the whole story now with the build up.

On the famous cables and the question of "why there?", I am not aware of any specific reason the general staff of our Navy picked this particular point of the Atlantic. I am aware that they have been carrying out training in all parts of the Atlantic. I am pretty sure that there is no specific point to it that is connected to the transatlantic communication cable, even for technical reasons. We are talking about two corvettes going there for five days. I must make one very important. The committee will be aware, as I am sure it has received well-prepared briefings, that the exclusive economic zone is not territorial waters. These are international waters and our Navy is pretty much in their own right, under international law, to carry out these exercises. This exercise is a small, small part of the military activity around Ireland that is carried out by the UK Navy and the US Navy. I honestly cannot recall over recent years, since I have been here, anybody in the press raising an issue of environmental damage to the Irish economic interests as a result of such military activity by Ireland's neighbours.

I appreciate the attention paid to Russia in this regard, but I do not think that it is in any way comparable to what is going on. Not on a daily basis, but on a constant basis there is a lot of nuclear submarine traffic around the north side of Ireland. There have been numerous incidents in the past. They have inflicted lethal damage on fishermen with their propellers taking in the nets. If you compare the two things, there is nothing to be concerned about.

I will now refer to cyberspace. This is a developing story. We are very well aware of the dangers and potential of harm there in terms of many issues such as intrusion into personal life and disruptions in critical infrastructure. We have been through one of these episodes here in Ireland, as the committee knows perfectly well, with the attack by hackers on the HSE system. It was suggested that the hackers were Russian. We immediately suggested our assistance in the investigation of this matter, as we have a very potent cybercriminal force within our police department. Our Irish partners decided to go another way but, in any case, we would appreciate such co-operation because it can only be done bilaterally. We need to pinpoint these kinds of people if they are in Russia. If they are doing harmful things, we have to grab them. We are interested in that. In Russia, we suffer more than 20,000 attacks a year of a major magnitude. I do not remember exactly, but out of that there is a considerable portion of ransomware attacks and we are very concerned about that. There is nothing here other than a huge blanket area of co-operation. We have been active at the UN. We need a legal basis for that, and we have promoted a UN convention on cybercrime because we do not yet have the universal instrument in this area that we need. That would facilitate co-operation on practical matters in instances like the one I mentioned.

The sovereign internet is an idea that is being played out in a number of countries, including in Russia. It does not mean closing the Internet to outside access. The idea is probably to have a back-up system like we have a backup of a hard drive just to make sure that if it goes down we have something to rely upon. That is the only thing.

Could you help me with the question asked by the member online, Chairman?

Chairman

Was it about cyberattacks?

H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov

No, I covered that.

Chairman

Was it the Russian presidency of the Security Council and how that might assist in the process?

H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov

I do not think that the UN Security Council can produce a more positive impact on the situation, other than what we have planned - the meeting on the Minsk agreement. We have to recognise it as a fact. That is certainly shared by many within the council – by the US and others - that it has to be implemented. The issue is how to go about that. That is a job for diplomats to do. That is the most practical way we could use the council's resource and political clout to provide an impetus in this direction. As I mentioned in my opening statement, it all boils down to 2014. If, at that point, there was not a mistake made by the UN and the US - that was a colossal blunder and a strategic mistake to support this violent overthrow and access to power by radical elements – we would not be discussing it today. Everything would be fine for Ukraine, more or less. The Minsk agreements were the only way out at that point in time, which provided a framework to get the two sides in Ukraine together – the government and what they call separatists. These people in the east simply did not recognise what happened in Kyiv. They did not like that, and they did not want anything to do with that. It would take serious, sensible dialogue with them to settle things within Ukraine. Unfortunately, that was not on the cards and that is the still the issue. If only the western guarantors of the agreement, namely, France and Germany, would employ all their political pressure, we could see a good outcome.

That brings up a very interesting point about the sovereignty of Ukraine. Literally speaking, it is a sovereign, independent state, but in reality it has become a highly questionable proposition. It is abundantly clear that the current government of the country is accountable not to its own people but mainly to Washington and other capitals upon which it depends, in terms of political, financial and economic assistance. It looks like a very profitable proposition. I heard just the other day the President of the European Commission announcing another €1.2 billion of assistance to Ukraine. That is good. I would be happy if it reaches the people in Ukraine, but I am not sure about that. That is just a footnote to that.

On the question of Belarus, I reiterate that we support the agreement. As was said about Ukraine, it all goes back to Belarus - the independence, sovereignty and integrity of Belarus, including the integrity of the society. There has been lots of turmoil. They have come through that dramatic period. I hope that our dialogue with Minsk, which is not entirely public, will help to calm things down and will play to the overall improvement of the political and economic situation there.

I will stop at this point.

Chairman

I thank the ambassador. I move back to members, beginning with Deputy Berry.

Deputy Cathal Berry

I thank the Chairman. I wish the ambassador and his team a good evening and thank him for coming before the committee. It is very useful to have an in-person meeting because we can both listen to the ambassador's words but also read his body language, which is perhaps more revealing and more insightful.

I have four questions. The first one is on Ukraine and the remaining three are on Ireland. Ukraine received its independence in the 1990s and agreed to hand over all its nuclear warheads to Russia in return for security guarantees. Will the ambassador briefly outline to the committee what guarantees were give to Ukraine in return for the nuclear warheads? Ukraine honoured its part of the agreement by handing over the nuclear weapons. What is the ambassador's assessment of whether Russia has honoured its side of the agreement?

On the embassy in Dublin, I think it was four years ago that the embassy applied for planning permission to increase the size of its building by approximately five times. The application was eventually declined. My question has two parts. Had the application been approved, would that have made the Russian Embassy in Dublin the largest Russian embassy in the European Union? Second, does the Russian Embassy have any further plans to submit planning applications to increase the size of the building?

A number of years ago after the Salisbury poisoning attack, Ireland expelled one member of staff of the Russian Embassy. Has the number of personnel working at the embassy increased or reduced since that date? I ask that the ambassador give us an approximate figure for how many personnel are working at the embassy and whether the SVR or GRU have personnel based there.

My final question is more straightforward. We note the Irish Aviation Authority, IAA, has not received any further notification of a live-fire exercise somewhere in the Atlantic. Are we to take it Russia does not intend to run a live-fire component as any part of an exercise in the next week or two in the Atlantic?

Senator Diarmuid Wilson

The ambassador is very welcome. I thank him for taking time to answer all the questions that have been put to him. Like colleagues, I welcome the resolution of the proposed military exercises off the south-west coast in our economic zone. I congratulate both governments and others for their involvement in that. We believe the Ukrainian people are a sovereign, independent people and should make their own decisions without hindrance from outside. The ambassador agreed with that in his contribution when he said Ukraine has a right to live peacefully and safely within its borders. My first question to him is: "Why not the people of Georgia?" I understand the ambassador has stated Russian troops are present in foreign countries only by official invitation. Is that correct? The people or Government of Georgia never asked Russia to invade their country. My other question is when will Russia withdraw from the occupied Georgian territories.

Deputy David Stanton

I join others in welcoming the ambassador. He is a very impressive diplomat. I have seen him in action before and he does his job well, so I congratulate him on that.

I am from Cork and I know many of the fishermen he dealt with last week. We were very pleased the Russian Navy and the Irish fishers fleet would not be coming head to head in the Atlantic. That was a good outcome. When was the last time the Russian Navy carried out exercises in the Irish exclusive economic zone such as those recently planned? When was the last time such exercises occurred there, if ever? That is one question.

The second question is on economics. The last time we spoke I asked the ambassador about the impact of Covid-19 in Russia and on the people in Russia. It has has an impact in many countries, so he might give us a quick overview of the impact of that disease on the Russian people and economy.

I have been wondering about this for quite some time and take the opportunity to ask the question. How would the ambassador describe the political system in Russia? Is it a democracy, an autocracy or a pseudo-democracy? How would he describe their political system? How would he describe the Russian economic system? Is it capitalist? What is it? In the past there was socialism involved in the USSR, in the early days, but what is it now in the ambassador's view?

He has mentioned that the media have been manipulated. That is if I heard him correctly; he may correct me if I am wrong. He said, and I wrote it down, that "there has been no escalation in recent months" of military on the borders of Ukraine. He may correct me if I am wrong but he said war is not in Russia's plans, and we welcome that. The ambassador says what is there now is a permanent deployment. Will he give us an idea of what the scale is of the military establishment, if you like, on the borders of Ukraine? We have seen satellite imagery of large troop deployments, tanks, heavy weaponry and so forth. Is that all media manipulation? Is it a mirage? What is going on there, if anything? Will he give us an idea of what is happening? Maybe the Chairman would like to visit and see for himself what is going on, if that is something we could do as a neutral country. In his statement, the ambassador said: "The security situation on the Western borders of Russia is unacceptable and has to be dealt with". Will he say more about what he means by "has to be dealt with"? Later he said: "Let me outline the nature of Russia’s legitimate and reasonable concerns, that are at the heart of our initiative." What "initiative" are we talking about? What did he mean by "at the heart of our initiative"? He did not go on to say what that is, except for criticising NATO and so on. What Russian initiative is he referring to there? I would be interested in that.

Most of the other questions I was going to ask have been answered. Those are just five or six short questions.

Chairman

I am going to return to the ambassador now, having regard to the fact that we have had a number of specific questions and specific issues raised by Deputies Berry and Stanton and Senator Wilson. After we hear the ambassador's replies we will return to Senator Craughwell. Then I think Deputy Gannon has a quick supplementary and perhaps Deputy Brady does also. However, I am conscious of time and the fact our members have other plenary duties as it our Wednesday evening in Parliament.

H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov

I will try to be as concise as possible. With the first question, I suspect the Deputy has been referring to the Budapest memorandum of 1994.

That was the agreement concerning Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons that remained on its territory after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The signatories, Russia, the US, the UK and Ukraine, pledged not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine and to use all the OSCE principles without exception. We remain fully committed to honouring these obligations. The memorandum was made strictly in the realm of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In legal terms, that is the area of its legal power. The memorandum does not provide for a commitment by any of the signatories to put up with silence in respect of, or much less support for, an unconstitutional, armed coup d'état in Ukraine. In signing the memorandum, Russia did not undertake any obligation to force any part of Ukraine to remain in Ukraine against the will of the people living there. We believe that memorandum has been violated by the US and the European Union, which openly provoked and supported this coup d'état in 2014. We do not accept any arguments about the 1994 memorandum. This is a completely different story and there is nothing in that memorandum that pertains to the events of recent years.

The embassy construction is a long story. We have applied for and received the permit, which suggests all the relevant State agencies have examined it, as the Chairman knows well. After we had broken ground, we heard news of a decision taken by a different element of the Irish Government to suspend or revoke this permit, on the grounds of national security. We have been talking to the Government since then because we do not accept that argument. We do not think the construction of our embassy could, in any imaginable way, bear any risk to the national security of Ireland. We are in dialogue still to try to find a compromise. The Deputy has his figures wrong. It is not by any standard the largest Russian embassy in Europe and it will not be five times larger than it was. In essence, we are seeking to build a protocol reception area with the necessary equipment, such as a kitchen, a storage facility and so on, and to install two new housing blocks. The extension of the office space is quite insignificant. The current building is 100 years old and it was designed for living in, not for office use. It is just about working according to modern standards, if I can put it that way.

On the question about our staff, I do not want to comment on the very unfortunate and unwarranted episode in our relations, namely, the expulsion of a member of staff, which was severely mishandled by the Irish Government. The Government knows my opinion on that. It simply wanted to show solidarity with other countries in Europe without any due regard to our relations. The moment has passed, although we do have some current visa programmes that may be relevant. That is diplomatic life. The complement of our staff is slightly lower because of these circumstances of personnel but it is not a big deal.

On the issue of the notification of the air authority, that takes time and the forces made a decision to relocate. As a result, they had to redo all the paperwork from scratch. They are doing that and it will take time. As for whether it will involve air notification or only maritime notification, I do not know. That is not my job. I am pretty sure they will do everything according to the law and to standard procedures.

We did not occupy Georgia. The fact of the matter in 2008 was that we had a small peacekeeping contingent stationed in South Ossetia. Unfortunately, the leader of Georgia at the time, Mikheil Saakashvili, probably thought he was almighty and could resolve the issues there. The area dates back centuries. Ossetia, north and south, has been back and forth in respect of Georgia and the Soviet Union redrew the borders. It does not matter. The only reason we have been there with our military personnel is to ensure the disengagement line between Georgia and South Ossetia. Saakashvili made a decision to attack South Ossetia and, in the process, we lost a number of our servicemen. The decision was made to answer that attack with force, which we did. We did not go to Tbilisi, although, as military experts have noted, there was plenty of opportunity to do that. We simply restored the status quo. Politically speaking, we recognised South Ossetia because there was no way for it to return to Georgia after what had happened. It was war that had been waged on them. That was a clear oppression on the part of the Georgian Government, which led to the downfall of Saakashvili, if you take an internal political view in Georgia.

I do not have details on the previous time we conducted exercises in the vicinity of Ireland, although I can look into it and supply it to the committee later if that is desired. This is not about sending a message. It was not in the past and it is not now. There can always be a first time, as they say, but there is nothing behind it. There is no message, no harm and no trouble for Ireland. It is not related to Ireland. That is not to diminish the stature of Ireland within the world but is rather a reality of life.

On Covid-19 in Russia, we are a step behind because we were quite well during the December period of peak here, but now things are okay in Ireland and we are experiencing our peak with Omicron. It has the same characteristics as here. There are massive numbers with illness but it is a mild form. There is not as much hospitalisation so the system is quite all right and capable of handling that.

That was a very nice try with the question on the political and economic system in Russia. It is pretty much clear that it is in the eye of the beholder. The way it is being portrayed is that it is a dictatorship by Vladimir Putin. It is clear to me that the Russian people do not think so because they have voted for the president on numerous occasions, and have voted directly. It is not the way, for example, people vote in the United States. One will never ever discern what is really the count there and who won or lost. That is their way of building democracy. Ours is a direct vote. We have always invited international observers. People are free to watch. We have an elaborate system of monitoring the elections and the voting procedure. It is on the screen constantly. I do not have any doubt that the outcome of the elections is the outcome that people want. By that standard, and this is the only standard, it is democracy, no matter what people elsewhere think. What matters is what Russians think.

Regarding the economic system, it is a market economy. We had a period of more or less wild capitalism. We have moved through the period of the early accumulation of capital, as Karl Marx put it, which took perhaps decades in the West. We ran through that in a few years, leaving the country in a very poor state. Now it is starting to level off. The economy is working. By the way, the Covid-19 pandemic showed the resilience of the economic system. We moved through that with decent figures. We did not have a huge downturn in domestic product. Inflation is manageable and unemployment is more or less okay, so it is working.

On troops and satellite images, the only image I have seen is troops stationed in their garrison in Yelnya, which is in the Smolensk Oblast region. It is very far away from the Ukrainian border. It is the only image being printed over and over again in known newspapers. They say in Langley that they have other images, but they do not show them. That is my only comment. I am of the opinion that it is being played out as an intelligence propaganda disinformation campaign, all combined with certain political purposes. I am sorry that I was probably so mute in my initial statement because the Deputy asked what initiative was taken. The initiative is that on 15 December we passed to the US and NATO draft agreements, texts of legally binding treaties on mutual guarantees of security in Europe. That has been published. The Deputy can read it in English on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, if he is meticulous about the diplomatic legal things. That is our initiative. It is based on the concept of indivisibility of security. One simply cannot live in security if one's security is based on devoiding one's neighbour of security. That creates instability. That is a law of physics almost. That is our initiative and let us hope it works. That is our intention.

Senator Gerard P. Craughwell

The ambassador is very welcome. I am sure it is getting tiresome having to respond to so many of us. I will try to get through this as quickly as I can.

Regarding Russia's relationship with Ireland, we would like to think that our countries would be friendly towards each other. There are two issues that continually arise with respect to Russia and Ireland. One is the ships that are regarded as spy ships off our west coast. Does Russia have spy ships travelling up and down our west coast? The other one is that, as friends, why would Russia's aircraft fly along our west coast with their transponders switched off? Why would that happen? I live in a housing estate and it is like me looking over the wall of a neighbour's house under cover of some sort to see what is going on. One would not expect a friend to do that. I am interested to hear the ambassador's comments on that.

I accept that there was a great deal of media coverage of the Russian exercise in the Atlantic and I accept that it is not an unusual occurrence. All navies have exercises in the Atlantic, so there is nothing unusual about that. However, the location was unusual and I regard it as a provocative move towards Europe more than a provocative move towards Ireland, given Ireland's inability from a defence point of view. Many people in Ireland would have seen it as a provocative move. Clearly, the ambassador's response to the fishermen is welcome and I am delighted Russia decided to move the exercise elsewhere. Can he tell us precisely where it is likely to take place now? Is it true that Russia informed the UK before Ireland was informed that the exercise was to take place? I am interested to know that.

The ambassador spoke about Russia's friends in Belarus and about Russia being a peacekeeping force, a people who want the same freedoms as the rest of the world. What steps has Russia taken to convince the Belarusian authorities that the detention of political prisoners is wrong? What steps has it taken to try to convince those authorities to release them? I hope I am not going too fast for the ambassador.

The ambassador says in his document that states have a right to choose their partners and their friends. Why does it worry Russia so much that they choose to be friendly with NATO countries? NATO is not in Ukraine at present, so why would that worry Russia? With respect to the aerial photographs of the build-up we are seeing, if it is just normal everyday behaviour for the Russian Federation to have so many troops on the border with Ukraine, is the ambassador saying there is an equal number of troops on the borders with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia? If it has, it must have a massive entire force.

My colleague, Senator Wilson, raised the issue of Georgia. Members of this committee have seen photographs of the area in Georgia that is now covered by Russia. Prior to the occupation, which is what we believe it is, there were villages and farm buildings there.

There was every sign of people living there. Now, it seems to be devoid of all buildings. We are being told, and I would like the ambassador to explain this, that there is constant probing on the borders with Georgia now, which is to say, the enforced borders. We are also being told that farmers and farming families have been separated from their lands and if they try to get back to their lands, they are arrested when they cross the border.

The ambassador says Russian troops are there in a peacekeeping role. Has Russia stood idly and quietly by while whoever is in charge has destroyed buildings and razed entire villages to the ground? Is he aware of that taking place? If he is, who does he blame for it, if it is not a Russian takeover of that particular part of the country?

The last time I spoke to the ambassador about Crimea, he gave me a history lesson. Perhaps he will give a history lesson to the entire committee about Russia's rights to be in Crimea.

Other than that, I wish we could see a de-escalation by all sides of what is going on right now because all it takes is one unforeseen act to drag all of us into some sort of conflict. While my colleagues talk about neutral Ireland, I talk about militarily non-aligned Ireland. There is a slight difference. I do not want to see conflict and conflict does not take a whole lot. I was around in the 1960s during the Cold War and anything could have happened at that time. In the situation we are in now anything could happen again. It only takes one person to do something wrong and the next thing, we have a war on our hands. I thank the ambassador for being here. I hope he will deal with those issues.

Chairman

As time is moving on, I will ask a couple of brief questions before we conclude. I very much welcome the ambassador's presence. I was struck by a number of statements in his opening commentary. He stated that he felt that his government saw no reason to invade Ukraine and in reply to Deputy Stanton, he spoke of the need to de-escalate.

I will raise three issues, the first of which relates to a domestic matter. I was struck last week by some public commentary of a meeting that took place between the ambassador and the Chief of Staff of the Irish Defence Forces. Let me say that such meetings are commonplace. The meeting in question was labelled a courtesy call, which again is perfectly normal. What struck me, however, was a statement following the meeting. I hope I am not misquoting anybody but the statement attributed to the Russian embassy in Dublin noted that the meeting discussed "prospects of contacts between [the] armed forces" of Ireland and Russia. What might those prospects be?

The second issue relates specifically to what has happened since our meeting last year. I do not wish to dwell on the situation in Belarus, and I acknowledge what the ambassador has said regarding the internal affairs of the country. However, he has heard from Senator Ardagh and others of the importance of the relationship between Ireland and Belarus. I direct the ambassador to the Ryanair flight that was forced down over Belarus on 23 May of last year. Does he have a view on that? Does he have any information he might like to share with the committee on the whereabouts of Mr. Roman Protasevich, the young reporter who was taken from the Ryanair flight and about whom we have heard little in recent times?

The final issue, which is the subject matter of our meeting, goes back to the points raised by Deputy Stanton. How might matters now be de-escalated, having regard to the highly charged and tense situation within Europe? These are issues that do not just pertain to Ukraine, however important those are. We are dealing with issues that are central to the future of Europe, as I think the ambassador also indicated. In recent times, I read a fascinating article by Vladimir Putin, dated 12 July 2021, in which he speaks in graphic and indeed comprehensive terms of the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians. In the context of current developments, when he speaks about a family, a spiritual relationship and unity, it strikes me as extraordinary that Russia would amass tens of thousands of troops, heavy artillery and armed equipment of a quite threatening nature along the border and directed at members of its family. Will the ambassador elaborate on the steps he would see as being appropriate towards a de-escalation, which I think we are all in agreement should take place?

The ambassador mentioned a list of issues that were presented by his government in December. However, I have to say that these requests were actually demands that cannot be met. I am struck by a statement by one of Russia's neighbours, the President of Finland, today. Again, like Ireland, Finland is a militarily neutral country. The President of Finland stated: "The list of demands presented by Russia in December aims at a fundamental change in the structures of European security." He reminded governments in Europe and beyond that nobody can ignore the situation any longer and the demands of the Russian government are shaking the foundations of European security and have already been rejected.

In response to the ambassador's commentary that these requests, demands or requirements are still on the table, they are really not going to be met. I wonder how at the same time we can advance issues of diplomacy. We did not really get a chance to talk to any great extent about the Normandy talks and the Normandy format. I believe there is a real opportunity to continue in that guise. I am struck by a statement made last week on behalf of the Normandy group that there will be "unconditional observance of the cease fire [...] regardless of differences on other issues of the implementation of the Minsk agreements". Is the ambassador in position, on behalf of his government, to guarantee this committee that the unconditional observance given in Normandy last week in the Normandy format will continue? The group has not met this week but may meet next week. By way of concluding comments, will the ambassador indicate how he would see matters being de-escalated, having regard to the fact that everybody in this room believes that is the only way forward?

Before the ambassador responds, I will invite Senator Ó Donnghaile to contribute. He is attending remotely and has been very patient.

Senator Niall Ó Donnghaile

I thank the Chair for allowing me a brief opportunity. In deference to him, my colleagues and the ambassador, I will keep my contribution brief.

I thank the ambassador for his engagement and his contributions at the committee. Colleagues have outlined the importance that we place on Ireland's neutrality on the international stage. We also place a great deal of importance and pride on our own process of conflict resolution, moving beyond conflict, and the peace process here in Ireland that we have benefited from. In the context of all that has been said so far, does the ambassador believe that there is a position for Ireland, not least through our place on the UN Security Council, to play a proactive role in seeking to practically assist that process of de-escalation? I welcome the opportunity to engage with the ambassador this evening. I know that colleagues have put a whole range of questions to him, so I do not need to rehearse those. Does the ambassador think that Ireland can do something through the UN Security Council to utilise our soft diplomatic power internationally, as well as our experience with peace-building and conflict resolution to practically assist the process of de-escalation? I thank the Chair for allowing me in at the very end.

H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov

There are no spy ships to the west of Ireland, as far as I know. Maybe there are some that nobody knows of, but as far as I know, there is none. We have covered the matter of the transponders a number of times already. There are no military aircraft in Irish space. Ireland has responsibility for a huge area of air traffic control. For decades, there have been training flights by our military aircraft in that area. That is always done under strict rules and procedures, designed to keep it safe with no hindrance to anyone. I do not accept the analogy about peeking in at the neighbour. There is nothing to be concerned out. I do not think our exercises are provocative for Europe. I will get back to the nature and scale of these exercises. As far as I know, they were planned well before this period of tension. If we were to send any signal to Europe, I do not think that would be it. It could have been done in any other way, but not in this particular way.

Regarding the question of the UK before Ireland, I do not know. There might be some procedure of air traffic control channels. I am not particularly well aware of those. One does not have to put much into that. It is very much a technicality.

Regarding our friends in Belarus, we have been with them throughout the recent period of tension and turmoil. It is a delicate thing. Tempers flare and sometimes there are over-reactions. We look at what happened in Kazakhstan recently. I would not want that kind of thing in Belarus or elsewhere. People have cut heads off police officers who tried to maintain some semblance of order. We have done what we can under the circumstances. There have been requests from the Government of Kazakhstan to the Collective Security Treaty Organization, which comprises Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia and Kirghizia. We have a peacekeeping force which can be deployed efficiently to assist, within 24 hours. We have been on the verge of that but there have been no requests from the Government of Belarus, which is an independent and sovereign state as much as Ukraine is, probably even more so under these circumstances. There are many friends of ours in the world, not only Governments but elsewhere. We maintain a close dialogue with them.

The matter regarding NATO in Ukraine is quite clear. I agree with the Chairman. The core issue of security is not about Ukraine per se. It is one aspect, though it is a very vivid access. If, for example, ground-to-ground missile sites of NATO are in the vicinity of Dnipropetrovsk, it is a range of just 500 km from Moscow. The posture of NATO has been decidedly anti-Russian over recent years. On top of that, there is the hostility of the Kyiv Government towards Russia. This is a recipe for a real threat to our national security, which we cannot ignore. We are trained to achieve results through dialogue and diplomacy. The president has said that if it fails, then we will have to think about other measures to safeguard our own security. I hope it will not come to that.

I do not think there has been any real change, as members might imagine from press reports, in the military posture in the western region of Russia. This is striking to me. I have seen just one photograph republished over and over again, of Yelnya. Yelnya is a small town in the Smolensk region. It is ridiculous. It resembles the late Secretary Colin Powell. I respect him as a gentleman, but he was often at the UN with a small vial of white powder, saying that it was a weapon of mass destruction. The current situation resembles that. Secretary Powell has been upstaged by US intelligence. I hope the whole story now will not go in the same direction.

Senator Craughwell's information on Georgia resembles some news stories in the Tblisi newspapers. They are not necessarily true. I know he is a man of integrity but I ask him to take this stuff with a grain of salt. There are no signs of life, proving constantly there is no military activity there whatsoever on the part of South Ossetian troops. There is no reason for that. I hope Georgians understand that too.

The question on Crimea requires a long time to answer. I suggest we could meet specifically to discuss that matter. I will try to respond in a few words. Crimea has always been Russian and it always will be. The only period of interruption was under the Soviet rule when nobody cared and Khruschev transferred the administrative command over Crimea from the Russian Federation to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Nobody cared. Come 1991, the Crimean people cared and, on the break-up of the Soviet Union, they wanted to go to Russia where they belong. Unfortunately and tragically for them, nobody in Moscow listened to them. Those in Kyiv made every effort to keep Crimea within the newly independent Ukraine. There have been three referendums on the issue, all indicating that the will of the people in Crimea is to be with Russia. In the end, the coup in 2014 provoked the people in Crimea to stand aside. There had been no conflict there thanks to the Russian troops that were stationed in Crimea through all those years, under an agreement with the Ukrainians. They essentially played the role of peacekeepers. They made sure there was no intervention by the political parties in Crimea. The referendum that was organised was legal and legitimate under the UN Charter. The people voted overwhelmingly with no machine guns at their heads. It was their initiative and a long-standing belief they demanded and deserved. That was it. This is a stand-alone subject. We, as diplomats, are normally not allowed to show any emotion but I have relatives in Crimea and I know how it went through the years. I know of the jubilation at that time all over the peninsula. It was like spring. It happened in spring and they called it the Crimean spring. I do not want any people to insult the good-natured people in Crimea for their choice with all this political hoopla.

I was also asked about my meeting with General Clancy. It has been played up in the media in a bad way, which is unfortunate and unwarranted. I do not want to repeat anything. There have been enough comments from the defence side and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Defence. It is an absolutely normal diplomatic practice. I asked for a courtesy call with the new chief of staff in November. In a general sense, the more dialogue we have bilaterally the better because we understand each other better. The Chairman made a point about military contacts. Perhaps as a former Minister, he recalls there is an Irish contingent in the Golan Heights between Israel and Syria. We were invited by the Syrian Government to bring Russian military police to the area and that has been the case for some time. They co-operate and maintain a useful and important contact. We touched on that point with General Clancy. We certainly both said that should be continued because it is an important thing. That is what we have in mind. There are other things that do not relate to the military per se. We have regular army games and some Irish servicemen participate. I know a boxer from the Irish Defence Forces took a bronze medal in those games. I do not know what is bad about that. It is a good thing to build trust among servicemen.

I was also asked about de-escalation. The Chairman mentioned an article by the Russian President, unity and so on. In the overall thrust of our position towards Ukraine, one simply cannot find anything pointing to any hostility on our side towards Ukrainians. We are interested in stability and peace and, hopefully, a good neighbourly relationship with Ukraine. That is for sure. We have seen a lot of manipulation by some western powers in their accusations that Ukraine is stimulating nationalism, even radical nationalism. There is a notion that Ukraine is anti-Russia. That is a very unfortunate way of analysing the situation. I believe those powers are simply using Ukraine as a tool to maintain some sort of instability on the Russian border and in that way putting political pressure on Russia. That is our assessment of the intention of some people in Washington and beyond.

I agree that there was slight movement recently when the representatives of the political council within the Normandy format met in Paris under the initiative of France, and we welcomed that. We took part in that. It was good. Ceasefire is good. It is something Luhansk and Donestk tried to maintain for years. There is always a chance of shelling. We have supported the idea of disengagement, which would physically prevent this kind of stuff going on. When forces disengage to the point of 30 km or 40 km, it is okay because artillery fire cannot reach the other side. That was not the case for many years. Some 13,000 people have died there, the majority of whom came from the civilian population of the Donestk and Luhansk regions. Those fatalities were a result of shelling from the Ukrainian side. That is a fact. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, OSCE, monitors who are there attest to that in their reports.

I was asked about the role of Ireland and there is a distinctive role it can play.

I hope it will be played by Ireland because of the real independent, in some ways, perspectives on international affairs and principles we share on the central role of the UN, the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the preference for dialogue instead of guns and the peacekeeping experience Ireland has had. All of that combines into a force for good. I respectfully suggest that Ireland uses this right now to help this very important dialogue we have started. The obvious way would be to tone down the rhetoric. This is extremely important. Every day you listen to reports and you see repeated statements by Josep Borrell, or the UK foreign minister, that tomorrow there will be destructive sanctions, we will crush Russia etc. What point is made by that? Do they want to frighten us? They will not frighten us. The only result of this is spoiling the atmosphere. It makes it a little bit more difficult to proceed with the dialogue, that is the only result. If Ireland, and I see some signs of this in the recent comments by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and others, I see there is a certain movement towards understanding the importance of the moment and the political side of things, not exchanging verbal shells, not about guns and munitions but about getting down to business at the table and negotiating. We will not be going public with that, we will work hard but let us keep our fingers crossed.

Chairman

I thank the ambassador. I was going to suggest that was a good note on which to wrap things up but I see Deputy Brady indicating, and Deputy Stanton.

Deputy John Brady

Just very briefly-----

Chairman

It might be, Deputy Brady and Deputy Stanton.

Deputy John Brady

Russia will take on the presidency of the UN Security Council and while much focus has rightfully been on Ukraine and the escalation of tensions, it would be useful for this committee on what the priorities are for Russia on the UN Security Council. We do not need that today, but I suggest a written submission be made to the committee. There is a humanitarian crisis in Yemen and also the situation in Ethiopia, so I would be interested to hear the views of Russia on those. Amnesty International issued a very useful report yesterday dealing with the apartheid policies of Israel on the Palestinian people, and there are specific asks of the UN Security Council in that report, in terms of sanctions, arms embargoes, and the creation of the UN Special Assembly on Apartheid which was stood down. There is a specific ask for that to be re-established. I would be interested to hear Russia's views on some of those issues and a written submission would be useful to avoid prolonging the meeting here today.

Chairman

Deputy Brady is opening a number of new fronts.

Deputy John Brady

I am seeking a written reply, Chair.

Chairman

I am not indicating that the ambassador is reluctant to reply but perhaps a note could be sent to Deputy Brady.

H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov

I have an answer ready. We have a paper outlining our priorities for the Chair of the UN Security Council and we will provide that.

Chairman

We might ask the ambassador to circulate it. I call Deputy Stanton.

Deputy David Stanton

My question, which the Chair asked, is on the forced grounding of the Ryanair flight and the position of the reporter who has disappeared. We have heard nothing about that since. Perhaps the ambassador can fill us in. I am quite concerned about that activity. I am not sure if the man was charged with any crime. The forcing down of that aircraft was an extraordinarily rare event.

H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov

There has been a very thorough investigation by International Civil Aviation Organization, ICAO. It looked at all the evidence and just recently issued the report. I have not read that report but I am sure it is available to all ICAO members. The main conclusion was that there was no intention of forcefully landing the aircraft. That is not my conclusion, that is the ICAO conclusion. The Deputy can look it up on the ICAO website and see for himself. On the other issue, the man in question is probably very much okay where he is in Minsk.

Mr. Igor Molyanov

He had a press conference.

H.E. Mr. Yuriy Filatov

Yes, he seems to be all right. He is free and making some press statements. I am not the judge of him but I would refer you to the ICAO report. This is something that we initially suggested as the best way to handle the whole affair. ICAO is a respectable, independent body of experts across the world and I have no hesitation about trusting that.

Chairman

I thank the ambassador. It is two and a half hours since he first entered our Chamber to be with us. I thank him for his time. On behalf of members, let me say that we are grateful for his attendance. We acknowledge that he is not answerable to an Irish parliamentary committee and is in no way accountable to Dáil Éireann or Seanad Éireann. Having regard to that we are grateful for the time he has spent with us and for his acceptance of our invitation to attend. He will be aware, as we are, that we meet at a time of great uncertainty, a time of considerable instability in Europe. He has listened to members of our committee who represent all parties in Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann and some Independents. While we differ over a range of issues he will have heard that we are united in our position as an all-party committee in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. He will have heard an expression of a unified voice for the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. We leave him with that strong message, that he should use his undoubted influence - as indeed we saw last week - and his good offices in Moscow to take a message that de-escalation of current tensions and the pursuit of diplomacy is the only way forward at this time. We thank him for being with us and look forward to further engagement.

The joint committee adjourned at 8 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 8 February 2022.