Oliver Mosley
Head of Press, Easter 2014
Email: pressofficer@cus.org
Press Release – 06.02.2016
“The Americans destroyed one nation… they are destroying another”
The Russian Minister-Counsellor Speaks at the Cambridge Union Society
On Monday 19th May, the Cambridge Union welcomed the Minister-Counsellor of the Russian Federation to
the United Kingdom, Alexander Kramarenko, who holds the rank of Ambassador Extraordinary and
Plenipotentiary. Considering the political instability in Eastern Europe, and the ongoing situation in Syria,
members were invited to engage with one of Russia’s key diplomatic players, and question the role of Russia
in the modern world.
The Ambassador opened on a note of warning that Cold War mentality had not been relevant for 3
generations. Citing Russia’s historical progression, he credited her with the creation of the notion of collective
security at the Congress of Vienna, but pointed out that the lessons of a united and strong Europe were lost
after the First World War, creating the conditions for the Second. Moving to the Cold War, he pointed out
that Europe originally retained the use of NATO as an outlet for Western power, refusing Russia’s entry
without unfair conditions, which had further prevented integration. Concluding his historical analysis of
Russia’s role in Europe, he pointed out “Russia has always been suspected of something in Europe,” and
that the result of this was that Russia has developed “a problem with the American establishment,” although
not with the American people. He mentioned that it is difficult for the American elite to move on from the
Cold War, or to let go of unipolarity and the notion of ‘super powers’, thus concluding his historical analysis.
In reference to Russia’s developing view of the world, the Minister-Counsellor pointed out that “It is (no
longer) the people for the state, but the state for the people.” He referenced that states now have a duty of
protection to their citizens, and that crises of the kind seen in Ukraine, which can spiral out of control when
humanitarian situations are allowed to go unchecked, must be treated with humility considering our past
failures to prevent a descent into World War. Russia, he argued, would never allow the world to reach that
stage – and furthermore, cannot afford to have a full Civil War on its borders.
Turning to the actions of other states in the global state system, the Minister-Counsellor referenced that
militarization of economically developing countries like Iraq and Afghanistan is no longer a feasible
diplomatic strategy. Saying that “it is about development” rather than warfare – he referenced the notion of
human capital that must be protected and allowed to develop of its own accord. He spoke of the delusion of
American manifest destiny, and how America must allow itself to “self-destruct” by ending its culture of
international establishment interference.
Expressing his lack of knowledge about “what was going to happen next” – the Minister-Counsellor opened
up to questions from the floor
Some questions and responses have been combined into one.
Is it the position of Russia that a territory has a right to secede without a broader consultation with
regional or national authorities?
After speaking about the stability offered by Russian forces, the Minister-Counsellor referenced the fragility
of Ukraine, and past reluctance by Ukrainian governments to attempt to impose a unifying historical narrative
across a very divided country. However, this reluctance has recently ended, and he suggested that the
THE CAMBRIDGE UNION SOCIETY, 9A Bridge Street, Cambridge, CB2 1UB, United Kingdom
Registered Charity, No. 1136030
Oliver Mosley
Head of Press, Easter 2014
Email: pressofficer@cus.org
Ukrainian government possibly did not truly know what they were doing in attempting to align with Europe.
Speaking of the private European response (that their bilateral relations with Ukraine had “nothing to do with
Russia,”) he mentioned how Russia was appalled at the notion that Ukraine should align so closely with the
European Union without any prior tri-lateral negotiations with Russia, as had previously been the norm. He
mentioned how “Russia has never been offered any project to take part in (an agreement)… it was done in
secret… from both us and the Ukrainian people” and that a solution would have been available “had the EU
behaved honestly”, but “what has been done has been utterly dishonest”. After agreeing with the American
position that “there can be no military solution in Ukraine”, he concluded by suggesting that “secret
diplomacy” is not a 21st century method of conducting diplomatic relations, and is a similar mentality to what
started the Cold War, suggesting that “the Americans destroyed one nation (Iraq) and are destroying
another”.
Where would you see opportunities for concrete collaboration between Russia and the West?
The Minister-Counsellor started by saying that the UK and Russia are “2 parts of the same European,
Christian situation” that fought “Napoleon and Hitler” and are ready to fight “whoever comes next!”
(Prompting much nervous laughter from assembled members). However, he argued that powers like the
Ukrainian government “have got to be stopped” in their treatment of their citizens, and that relations with
Russia have been “badly mismanaged by the West,” which has “negatively influenced their domestic
developments”. Channelling Donald Rumsfeld, he said that the crisis in Russia’s current relationship was a
“known unknown,” for Russian diplomats, but for the West, it was an “unknown unknown.” He concluded
that Russia wants to “be together” with the West, but has to be taken seriously.
(Question from a student who was in Ukraine during the revolution)
Considering the atrocities committed in Ukraine by President Yanukovych during the revolution, is
sheltering him the most moral thing to do? And would not turning him over to the ICC not be more
sensible?
Any solution in Ukraine must be international, but until after he fled, President Yanukovych was considered
to be a democratically elected leader and was treated as such by the Russian authorities. He is, however, no
longer a player, and events have evolved whereby he doesn’t truly matter anymore, and the issue now is to
have “a truly national government in Kiev.”
Many in this room would condemn Russia’s treatment of LGBT groups. What are your views as a
representative of the Russian Government?
Arguing that “sexual orientation is a private matter… that happens in the bedroom”, he suggested that the
LGBT groups in Russia have aggressively “imposed themselves” on Russian society, before noting on the
side that that gay couples had ingrained themselves so successfully in American society due to their
consumerist nature (which drew a puzzled reaction from assembled members). To Russians, he argued, “sex
is not discussed publically” and this has to be taken into account when Russians are criticized for not
providing protections for those of a different sexual orientation. Referencing as an example the gay bars in
Sochi, he argued that this “is not part of Russian culture”, and that it is for each Russian to decide how they
view the issue.
“… but you are making it sound like homosexuality is a Western cultural export. There is nothing
fundamentally un-Russian about being Gay!”
The Minister-Counselor pointed out that it his Russia’s position is that as long as the interests of minors are
protected; there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. The issue is that Russia “is being denied equality for
THE CAMBRIDGE UNION SOCIETY, 9A Bridge Street, Cambridge, CB2 1UB, United Kingdom
Registered Charity, No. 1136030
Oliver Mosley
Head of Press, Easter 2014
Email: pressofficer@cus.org
not subscribing to everything the West considers right”. Turning again to the Cold War, he pointed out that
the American establishment sees the war as “incomplete… because Russia did not submit”, and that that is
the source of animosity over such ideas, which the West seeks to impose in order to complete their victory.
Considering a recent Bill passed by the Duma that says that popular blogs must be placed on a
restrictive list, do you support this restriction of Internet freedom?
Russia, he argued, is in the stage of evolution following the negative impact of the West on Russian
development. The problem with Russian internet usage is that it is the media that must be regulated, but the
extent to which the internet is part of the media is confusing, he pointed out, but argued that unlike the USA
– Russia does not trawl through the internet usage of its citizens, nor does it use the internet to spy on its
allies. Concluding that Russia simply did not have the capability to conduct such a large-scale surveillance
operation, and thus did not seem concerned by the Bill’s passage.
… So thus do you consider Internet that is not part of ‘the media’ to not be requiring of regulation?
Pointing out that he is not an expert, the Minister-Counselor argued that the Bill would have been subject to
scrutiny and in good taste.
Russia has failed to extradite Andrew Lugovoy, or launch its own investigation into the death of
Alexander Litvinenko. How can you justify this blatant obstruction of justice?
After mentioning that it was a “blatant obstruction of British justice”, the Ambassador argued that the
Russian government wanted to come to a conclusion on the matter, but they know very little considering the
refusal of the British authorities to release a death certificate. The matters of the case, he pointed out, were
not clear – and the British government had allowed the entry of ex-KGB agents onto British soil, before
withholding materials pertaining to the matter from the coroner’s inquest. He concluded that the information
regarding the case must be declassified and subject to a competitive, not secret, judicial process for Russia to
accept its judgment and that Russia was justifiably concerned about the efforts by British authorities to
attempt to engage in a secret rather than open judicial process.
--By Oliver Mosley
Head of Press, Easter 2014
THE CAMBRIDGE UNION SOCIETY, 9A Bridge Street, Cambridge, CB2 1UB, United Kingdom
Registered Charity, No. 1136030