Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited
Sergei Stepashin, former director of the FSB and Russian Prime Minister, answered REGNUM's questions about what happened in Ukraine and Kazakhstan in the 1990s and now.
by Vladimir Stanulevich
January 31, 2022 , 21:42 — REGNUM
The transformation of the civil war in Donbass in January 2022 almost into a global crisis, the failed rebellion in Kazakhstan are largely the fruits of the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are fewer witnesses to the events of thirty years ago, the facts of history and the interpretation of modernity are increasingly distorted. For REGNUM 's questions about what happened in Ukraine and Kazakhstan in the 1990s and now, the former director of the FSB and Russian Prime Minister Sergey Stepashin answered .
Vladimir Stanulevich: Sergey Vladimirovich, in 1995 you became the first director of the FSB, and a little later the border service became part of it. How do you assess the state of our border with Kazakhstan?
Sergei Stepashin: In the form in which we usually imagine the border: barbed wire, watchtowers, dogs, it doesn't exist. There is operational support and operational work. Not like, for example, Tajikistan, where Afghanistan is located nearby, the penetration of bandit formations, drug trafficking is possible ... In Tajikistan, two of our border detachments were stationed.
The border with Kazakhstan has never bothered us, this state acts independently in border issues. The border of the Russian Federation in the north of this country, as we call it, the former Russian lands, is transparent. When the January tragedy happened, I can’t name those events in Kazakhstan in any other way, there were no restrictions on movement between Russia and Kazakhstan.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Is it necessary to create a “dense” border here?
Sergei Stepashin: No, of course, it's 7,000 kilometers. Several billion rubles at least, plus huge human and construction resources. We are not Trump to build a wall, like with Mexico. No, we will not go down this path.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Do you know Nazarbayev well?
Sergei Stepashin: Good enough. He was an opponent of the collapse of the USSR, was supposed to become the chairman of the government of the new country after the agreements in Novo-Ogaryovo, did not go to Belovezhskaya Pushcha. He was the first who brought together the countries of the present CIS in Alma-Ata, then this city was still called, now Almaty. Actually, the CIS was formed not in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, but in Alma-Ata, where the CIS was formalized legally. Nazarbayev was also the author of the Eurasian Union. He had excellent relations with Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, with our entire country. By the way, I was awarded the highest order of Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev handed it to me 20 years ago.
But it happens that time changes both the situation and people. I listened to his speech, where he tried to give an assessment of what happened in January, he said that he was a pensioner, he was not going to influence any policy, he removed himself from the leadership of the Security Council and the leadership of the party.
Vladimir Stanulevich: How did Nazarbayev, an opponent of the collapse of the USSR, eventually imprison pro-Russian activists and become a nationalist?
Sergei Stepashin: I would not say that he turned into a nationalist. Kazakhs have always been Kazakhs, they have never been Russians. He had to maneuver between nationalistic sentiments, it was a mistake, and most of the Russian people left Kazakhstan. At one time, 40 percent of the population was Russian, now no more than four million live. Renaming cities and streets, building a new capital - apparently, Nursultan Abishevich believed that this would strengthen the independence of his state. From whom independence? From Russia? And without Russia, what would have recently happened in Almaty is hard to say.
Boris Nikolaevich (Boris Yeltsin)(spoke very warmly about Nazarbayev, so, they say, look how powerfully he carried out reforms, but we lacked consistency. And in fact, until January 2022, Kazakhstan looked very decent against the background of the former republics of the Soviet Union. However, it is now noticeable that the property stratification that has arisen, the oligarchic groups that influence politics, all this is very reminiscent of our country in the 1990s. I think the oligarchs were the participants in the current rebellion, organized with the help of visiting people. It wasn't the residents of Almaty who smashed the shops, the thugs were dragged from other districts where the standard of living is the lowest.
Here Tokaev made me happy. Firstly, he is a highly educated, intelligent person, not associated with any clan, graduated from our MGIMO, a brilliant diplomat and an interesting conversationalist. Everyone thought he was so soft, with glasses, we would overthrow him now, like Yanukovych. But, unlike Yanukovych, Tokayev did not run away.
He is now concerned about the need to change the structure of the economy and the structure of government in the country. He worries that practically all energy resources: oil, gas, minerals, practically do not belong to Kazakhstan today. The British, Chinese, Turks are actively working there, and, of course, "our partners" from the United States.
It is not easy for him, he will actually have to change the country. He once quoted Plato: "For friends and relatives, I am the main one, and for the rest the law."
Vladimir Stanulevich: Judging by the resignations and arrests, it seems that the leadership of the KNB participated in the conspiracy.
Sergei Stepashin: I knew the head of the National Security Committee of Kazakhstan, I met with him several times, even when he was Nazarbayev's assistant, then when he was prime minister. Back then, in 1999, we were actively negotiating on Baikonur. I don't presume to talk about the role of the KNB in this whole story, let them conduct an investigation. The fact that the KNB “slept through” this situation is 100 percent “deuce” for operational work. There was an attempt at a coup, a second Maidan, one on one, like in Ukraine. And if you didn’t oversleep, and also, as they say, led the rebellion, this is a state crime.
The KNB should have known about what was being prepared. It is one thing for dissatisfied people to act, and another thing when bandit groups seize Almaty. Why operational work, agents? Not a single department of the KNB even fought, the so-called Kazakh Chekists fled. By the way, they do not consider themselves Chekists. Whether they participated in this operation or not, let the Kazakhstani services investigate. Apparently, they understood that they were losing ground under their feet, not only the KNB, but also the large oligarchic groups that the KNB covered. One to one Ukraine - the same scenario, the same Maidan, only bloody and tough. But Tokayev was not afraid, unlike Yanukovych. And if Yanukovych had turned to us at one time, as Tokayev does today, we would also help Ukraine. Now, I think, everyone would applaud us, including the Americans.
Vladimir Stanulevich: What about the fact that Tokayev appointed an odious minister of information?
Sergey Stepashin: I think that this is an attempt to take into account the interests of the guys from the south of Kazakhstan, it's not over yet. Let's see what this "odious" minister will say. He has already repented once that he was misunderstood. After all, it was the same with us, when even candidates for members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU suddenly became anti-communists.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Tokayev did the right thing when he asked to withdraw the CSTO troops as soon as possible?
Sergei Stepashin: He did the right thing. We extinguished the fire, secured especially important facilities, did not get involved in hostilities, did not engage in disarmament. We have demonstrated that the CSTO exists, we have shown how quickly we can work. I went through all the hot spots in the Soviet Union, I know what it's like to transfer troops - the operation was carried out brilliantly. The longer we sat there, the stronger the anti-Russian sentiment would be.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Do the CSTO need military bases on the territory of the participating countries? Can they be in Kazakhstan?
Sergei Stepashin: If Kazakhstan asks, for God's sake. No - no, and there is no trial.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Do you think Kazakhstan is moving closer to Russia or moving away from us?
Sergei Stepashin: We 'll see. It is now obvious that Russia is a strategic partner of Kazakhstan - military, political and economic. We have common borders, and unlike Turkey and China, we do not want to "pinch off" anything. In my opinion, the Kazakhs understand this.
Vladimir Stanulevich: How can we further help Kazakhstan? Joint fight against corruption maybe?
Sergei Stepashin: Please, if they are ready, let them look at our legislation, our experience. We also had a sad experience, with the advent of Vladimir Putin, the situation has changed dramatically. Now they will have a difficult situation with the economy and the social sphere. There are many poor people, the income gap is huge. We also have a big gap, and this is a signal to us. For President Tokayev, this will be the main task after restoring order in the special services and changing the structure of power. There will be no more dual power, we do not need tandems, power should belong to one person.
Vladimir Stanulevich: You know that the Kazakh history books speak of genocide by the Russians. Why don't we insist that this lie be removed?
Sergei Stepashin: Of course, this must be dealt with, it is impossible to be delicate here. We have the Federation Council, inter-parliamentary relations, Valentina Ivanovna Matviyenko is an active person in this regard. Let our parliamentarians ask these questions, go there, work. It's better to move along this line.
Vladimir Stanulevich: It's getting hot in Ukraine.
Sergei Stepashin: It's always hot there. Now Poroshenko has returned, he is engaged in PR. And laughter and sin! Ukraine is a wonderful country, wonderful people, a chic Dynamo-Kiev team, for which all Soviet boys were rooting. But the situation is very bad inside. It is clear that Zelensky is a vice president. I remembered it when I was at the birthday party of my friend Valentin Symonenko, the former chairman of the Accounts Chamber of Ukraine. Zelensky had a brilliant evening, was in his place, made good films. It is clear that the Ukrainians did not vote for Zelensky, but against Poroshenko and, perhaps, for the image of Zelensky in the film. But that's their issue, let them decide it themselves.
We have already said a thousand times that no one is going to attack Ukraine. The Americans use the Ukrainian theme, although the United States does not need Ukraine, almost all Americans will not even say where Ukraine is located. They consider Ukrainians who live in the States to be Russians. We, conducting military maneuvers, say - guys, if you start a military intervention against the Donbass, where there are 500,000 Russian citizens, we will be forced to protect our people. The Americans would do the same.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Exclusively defensive tactics.
Sergei Stepashin: Do you remember Grenada when Maurice Bishop ruled there? When American students were wounded there in 1983, US troops moved in and Bishop was killed. I'm not talking about Yugoslavia, about Milosevic and all the others whom they grabbed there and, in fact, killed. We just said guys get hit in the teeth. It is necessary to explain the interests of Russia, and Sergei Lavrov consistently, accurately, clearly formulates our position. He explained it to the minister girl from Germany, he explained it to Blinken as well.
Vladimir Stanulevich: You said that if Yanukovych had asked, Russian troops would have helped him?
Sergei Stepashin: I almost ended up as an ambassador to Ukraine. Vladimir Vladimirovich offered me this post after his resignation from the Accounts Chamber. I said then, I think that Yanukovych is a political corpse, it is impossible to support him.
Vladimir Stanulevich: If you had agreed, would Maidan have won?
Sergei Stepashin: There were 2 months left before the Maidan, it was already too late. If it were 3-4 years before him, when it was possible to prepare his own elite of Ukraine ...
Vladimir Stanulevich: Ambassador to Ukraine Viktor Chernomyrdin "overslept" the situation?
Sergei Stepashin: Even after Viktor Stepanovich, it was possible to “reverse” the situation. Viktor Stepanovich, who was also friends with Kuchma, behaved like the second leader of Ukraine. What to blame on Chernomyrdin? The secret services were supposed to work there quickly. We had to prepare our people. The Americans have prepared their own.
Vladimir Stanulevich: What could have been done after the Maidan to keep Ukraine neutral?
Sergei Stepashin: When Yanukovych fled from Kiev to Kharkov, there was no need to let him go. There is a picture before my eyes - there is a meeting of the party - but Yanukovych did not appear at it, he was frightened. Our comrades were sitting there, the governor of the Belgorod region Yevgeny Savchenko, a number of other governors. Kharkiv is the first capital of Soviet Ukraine. Do you understand the idea?
Vladimir Stanulevich: Why were they released?
Sergei Stepashin: He is a coward, he ran away and that's it. I told the story of how in April 2014 I was in Syria on behalf of Vladimir Vladimirovich and met with Assad. He said the words that Putin liked very much: “I am not Yanukovych, I will not run anywhere,” although the situation was terrible.
First: in Ukraine, they bet on the wrong person. Second: well, Yanukovych would have signed a framework agreement with the European Union. The EU would ruin the Ukrainian economy and agriculture in six months, and in a year there would be a pro-Russian Maidan in Ukraine. And we offered him 15 billion dollars, it’s good that we gave him only 3.5 billion, and they disappeared.
I do not understand why Vladimir Lukin went there, who sat in Kiev during the Maidan together with the EU foreign ministers, did not sign anything, traded his face and left. Covered up essentially their actions. Sergei Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs, had to go, sign for Russia as a guarantor of the agreements, take Yanukovych to our residence and not give him away, sit next to us. And at night after the signing of Yanukovych, they overthrew him.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Is Ukraine forever lost to Russia?
Sergei Stepashin: I don't know. Young people today are anti-Russian, oriented towards the West, and most of the young people are already working there. Plus new textbooks, new history, teaching English. In one generation, anything can be erased from memory. I believe that the loss of Ukraine is the second sore point for our country after the collapse of the Soviet Union. By the way, it was Ukraine that played a decisive role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was Kravchuk who initiated the Belovezhskaya Accords. Yeltsin was not going to sign anything, he didn't even have it in his head. And Kravchuk arrived: “We left the Soviet Union and held a referendum, think about it.”
I spoke to Mikhail Sergeyevich (Mikhail Gorbachev) about the consequences of Ukraine's withdrawal in September 1991, when I reported on the results of the investigation of the commission on the State Emergency Committee, created by decrees of the two presidents. Mikhail Sergeevich then says: “We will sign the union treaty now, and everything will return to normal.” I said then: “Mikhail Sergeyevich, excuse me, what is a union treaty without Ukraine?” He looked at me and didn't answer.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Is the collapse of the Soviet Union a transition to an inevitable confrontation between the former Center and the outskirts?
Sergei Stepashin: We already had an even worse and terrible confrontation, I mean the Civil War, after the Bolsheviks took power. Power was lying on the ground, everything was blown up by the Provisional Government, Kerensky Alexander Fedorovich. He lived for more than 90 years, and he was asked: “Do you know who would have to be killed so that there would be no October coup?”
Everyone thought the answer would be Lenin. He answered - Kerensky. He understood that the authorities missed everything. And the Bolsheviks recreated the empire, Stalin recreated it. Stalin was in fact the emperor. What a communist he is, the rhetoric was communist, and he was the emperor. The bomb under the Soviet Union was planted by Ulyanov-Lenin, the creation of the country on an ethno-national basis. When the union republics were created, a bomb was planted, and it exploded.
Vladimir Stanulevich: You have been watching Gorbachev for a long time. Some say that he is a stupid person, others that he is a traitor. What do you think?
Sergei Stepashin: Not one or the other. He would have been a good president of Switzerland, and the presidency of the USSR turned out to be none of his business. As Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin said, Gorbachev wanted the best, expected to democratize the country, but made a lot of mistakes. I do not support Gorbachev and am not going to throw mud at him. 90% of the current political elite has grown thanks to Gorbachev. He wanted to give people freedom, and they “profaned” it.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Gorbachev's lesson didn't work, there are many who want to go the same way again.
Sergei Stepashin: Putin is criticized for tightening the screws. How else? Processes must be manageable. Not like it was under the Bolsheviks, of course...
Vladimir Stanulevich: Is there a chance for Belarus to become an example of a reverse movement?
Sergei Stepashin: Alexander Grigoryevich is a very complex person. That Boris Gryzlov, my comrade, an experienced, strong politician, was sent to Minsk, this is an integration signal. But the saddest thing is that the opinion of the majority of Belarusians aged 40 and younger is that they do not want to go to Russia. We are unattractive to them, unfortunately.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Will another Russia be attractive to them?
Sergei Stepashin: A strong, powerful Russia will be attractive. Why people are drawn to the United States, knowing full well the inferiority of some of its political, economic and ethnic principles - because they are strong. People are drawn to the strong. Why was the Russian Empire created? Those who were offended were drawn to us, Russia saved them, Russia fed them.
Vladimir Stanulevich: What needs to be done now to make Russia attractive in the current political situation?
Sergei Stepashin: We need a structural change in the country's economy. We must be competitive. All political and other things are derivatives of economics. Mikhail Sergeevich started with politics, "hit the headquarters", beautifully opened the information gateways. And it was necessary to start with the economy, with the elimination of obstacles for private medium and small businesses. This had to be done under Boris Nikolayevich, and we gave the oligarchs the most delicious and sweet to eat. Thank God, they are no longer oligarchs with Putin, although they are not poor people.
There should be a Ministry of Economic Development, not a Ministry of Economic Stagnation. I am not a supporter of the revival of the State Planning Commission, but there are things that need to be planned through taxes, through laws. Now Mishustin is trying to do this.
Vladimir Stanulevich: Economic reforms?
Sergei Stepashin: Not reforms. The word reform means failure. Reforms… We have already gone through this in medicine. Now we understand what these reforms led to when entire hospitals and medical care industries were liquidated. Now we are beginning to understand that this could not be done. We tried to reform education through the Bologna system when we made it a public service. Teaching is primarily education, not a public service.
I mean the restructuring of the economy, the creation of a new industrial potential. They tried to do it through Skolkovo, where are the results? I'm not talking about Rusnano, billions can't find...
Vladimir Stanulevich: Thank you for the interview, Sergey Vadimovich!
Подробности: https://regnum.ru/news/society/3493010.html
Любое использование материалов допускается только при наличии гиперссылки на ИА REGNUM.
