When we approached the Israeli Ambassador to sit down with Hot Press for an interview, the answer was a flat ‘no’. They didn’t like the stance we had taken in relation to the murderous bombardment of Gaza by the Israeli army, and the killing  of approximately 30,000 people there, including almost 13,000 children, in just four months.

At more or less the same time, we also asked the Russian Ambassador Yuriy Filatov to conduct Hot Press’ equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition. We’ve been equally strong in our condemnation of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s disastrous, brutal and insanely costly invasion of Ukraine – and so a similar response seemed likely.

Instead, an email from the Russian embassy landed in our inbox agreeing to an interview, but on the proviso that we would send “the questions that you would like to address to the Ambassador.”

We wanted to avoid that: it takes away the element of surprise. I responded that we rarely go into these interviews with more than a dozen or so of the obvious questions – the ones  that any Hot Press reader would likely want to ask. Besides, a good interview can turn on a dime, depending on how the conversation flows – so there’s no point in trying to predict where it might end up.

I told them all that, or something like it, and added for good measure that Hot Press has a reputation for conducting fair and balanced interviews – that we never misquote or twist words.

To demonstrate, we showed them earlier interviews, including one with a previous Israeli ambassador, which was certainly combative but, at the same time, allowed the man to tell his own story.

A few days later the message came back that, “The Ambassador is interested in conducting an interview with you.” We were on…

Security was tight. Our photographer needed to provide his ID days in advance, we were told; and any car registration number had to be submitted as well. All that was done. It was time to sit down with Mr. Filatov.

WHEN IS A WAR NOT A WAR?

The Ambassador himself comes across as a well-groomed diplomat straight out of central casting. He’s a business-like, but affable character, whose English is fluent enough for him to be a master of spin.

He happily explains the need for heightened security.

“We at the embassy have received a number of anonymous threats,” he says. “There is a certain degree of hostility around the embassy which is being kept up by a permanent group of… one might call them protesters.”

He pauses.

“I don’t want to honour them with this noble notion,” he adds. “When people protest, they have a clear understanding of issues. These people simply do not have such an understanding. But, anyway, yes, we did have some bad things. We have reported that to the police as we normally do. So, it’s part of life, I guess.”

These protestors are more than likely very well-informed indeed, but – rather than getting side-tracked – I let it slide. The clock is ticking – I’m aware that the interview is going to be a bit like speed-dating, but without the obligatory pally bit.

The Ambassador might be able to shrug off the hostility to the Russian regime directed towards him in Ireland as a “part of life”, but how can he honestly keep a straight face when the Kremlin continues to claim that their invasion of Ukraine is merely a “Special Military Operation”? Surely, I ask, it is nothing short of nonsense to describe what was – and still is – a completely  unwarranted invasion of a neighbouring country in such flippant terms?

“Well, I would certainly disagree with the description that it’s nonsense,” he said, shaking his head. “It’s a very difficult, tragic situation…”

He goes on to blame the usual suspects for the events that began to unfold in February 2022: in this narrative, the USA and NATO are the main culprits – and he adds in the discrimination allegedly suffered by Russians living in Eastern Ukraine. I’m still wondering if the semantics of the situation might be a way of getting him off-script…

I make the point that the Oxford English Dictionary says that ‘War’ is “the employment of armed forces against a foreign power, or against an opposing party in the state.” The bottom line, surely, is that everyone knows that what is happening in Ukraine is a war. So why are the Russians insisting still on calling it “a special military operation?”

“Well, I understand what you’re getting into,” he said. “If you wish, it is a war. But it’s not a war in legal terms because nobody has declared a war, neither us nor, by the way, the Ukrainian government.”

Which is, of course, also nonsense. Ukraine didn’t launch a war.  The conflict in Crimea – the part of Ukraine successfully invaded by Russia in 2014 – was rumbling on, but the Ukrainian government had no desire whatsoever for a new arena of conflict. They were never going to attack Russians within Russia.

In contrast, Russia invaded Ukraine, with the clear intention of achieving a military victory, ousting the democratically elected government and installing a puppet regime. The fact that Ukraine fought back and repelled the Russian army had not been anticipated. Now, two years on, the likelihood is that close to half-a-million people have been killed in the conflict, and a vastly higher number again injured. And for what?

The Ambassador insists on sticking with the Kremlin line.

“Secondly,” he explains patiently, “if we were at war, then you would have seen a quite different scenario and you would have seen quite different actions on our part, on our military, which is trying to achieve the principle of securing our interest in the strategic, as well as safety of the population, with very accurate strikes against military targets without any overall major assaults which normally associate with war – that in purpose explains that it is a special military operation.”

We’ve all heard the line about military strikes being precise before, but that rings extremely hollow. How does that fit with the attack on a pizza restaurant in Kramotorsk on the evening of 27 June 2023, in which there were 12 fatalities, including the twin sisters, Yuliya and Anna Aksenchenko, brutally cut down at just 14 years of age. As recently as 29 December 2023, Russia launched what was described as its biggest ever aerial attack, using 122 missiles and 36 drones and killing over 30 civilians. In fact you could spend an entire day listing out the outrages.

There have also been accusations of war crimes – look at what happened in Mariupol, a port town on the Sea of Azov; or in Bucha, where there were 73 summary executions among the 419 people who were killed with weapons. There was evidence of a torture chamber. Bodies were discovered that were mutilated and burnt.

“Again, that has been covered extensively in many, many forms including the UN and Security Council,” he says. “We have been to explain to people, for example, take Bucha – that was a staged provocation. In reality, none of our troops have been shooting people and placing their corpses on the streets so the foreign media can come and take photos of that – that thing was a staged thing because the troops there had left two days before this. We have all of the evidence.”

Even the wildest conspiracy theorists would find it hard to argue that Ukraine would butcher 458 – the total number of bodies found after Russian troops withdrew – of its own citizens citizens to gain sympathy and support.

Yuriy Filatov claims that there have been other incidents in which Ukraine murdered its own citizens for propaganda value, citing a missile hit on a railway station that killed 50 people in 2022.

“Immediately that was blamed on the Russian forces,” he says.  “But some journalists who had been there had photographed the section of the missile with the serial number of the Ukraine side.”

The Ambassador is referring to Tochka-U missiles, which are supposedly only used by the Ukrainian armed forces. However, at the time, a senior Pentagon official said the US believed Russian forces had fired the missile at the train station.

“They originally claimed a successful strike and then only retracted it when there were reports of civilian casualties,”  the official told The New York Times.

Nonetheless, the Ambassador insists that Russia “never targeted civilian populations. They only targeted to neutralise Ukraine’s military targets.”

Like a tennis match with the ball bouncing back and forth, I argued again that it is a war.

“But it’s a kind of play with words which ignores the essence of the point,” he retorts. “The essence, again, is we will simply not put up with Ukraine being transformed into a threat to Russian national security.”

RECREATING THE SOVIET UNION

So, in a nutshell, the Kremlin is blaming NATO for the fact that Russia started this war? In a sense, we are closer to the truth here – not that it offers any justification for the invasion. It also completely ignores the freedom of any sovereign nation to form its own alliances.

“That’s a fact we have been trying to explain not over just a few years,” he says. “We have warned repeatedly that we cannot allow Ukraine within NATO. We cannot allow NATO to come right to our border, in a threatening sense. We can suggest a good way of taking care of this insurance, including concerns of Ukraine. Well, that was not obviously the plan of Ukraine – the plan was conflict. They have done that, and they exploited that.

“I remind you of a very nice statement by the (US) Secretary of State in December,” he adds. “He was very openly saying, in December last year, that the continuing assistance to the Ukraine regime is a good investment for the United States because a great deal of this money was spent within the US, and creates more jobs and that is good for the US and we will follow this way further – that was the statement by the Secretary of State.”

But he suspects that a wind of change may be on the way in this regard – and looking at the machinations of the Republican Party holding up the latest Joe Biden Ukraine aid-package of $95.3billion, he may have a point.

“Europe in this stance is caught in the middle,” he observes. “At any time you could assume the US could jettison Ukraine and Europe will be sorting this disorder themselves, which is a very likely scenario in my mind.”

What about the estimated trillion euro Russia has spent so far on what is an appallingly wasteful, costly war? Surely that money would have been better spent on dealing with climate change, and alleviating poverty, and hunger across the world. (Or even improving standards of living in Russia, now that I think about it). Does the Ambassador ever think about that?

“I totally agree with you,” he offers. “It is a human life [being wasted] in the first place  – and resources. It’s a waste of time. We would very much like to avoid all that. Again, we’ve made every effort to prevent that.

“We were pressed against the wall,” he insists. “Even now, if there is still a serious proposal, we will go for that. In the absence of that, the primary target is ensuring our security. Again, you can put it into the context of any war, because war is the worst part of human history. Nobody in Moscow is hell-bent, as you put it. It would have ended much, much earlier if there were no huge arms supplies from the West.

“The regretful consequence of the confrontation is that Ukraine will probably have ceased to exist as a ‘non-country’, more or less devastated, with the promise and money from the European Union and the United States. If it stops, everything would stop.”

Which is just a different way of saying that Russia would have successfully subjugated Ukraine if the US and Europe had stood idly by. It is curious, I speculate, that the Kremlin now blames NATO for its decision to invade Ukraine, because originally the so-called ‘special military operation’ was, they claimed,  to ‘de-nazify’ the region.

“It’s a combined notion,” he says. “Because the thing I already explained to you is – there is a huge neo-Nazi element involved here, because the current legal regime involves glorifying the Nazi element of Ukrainian nationals.

“It’s particularly scary in Ukraine to speak out against this line. So, I don’t think there is any real journalism left in the mainstream media [is] just almost like propaganda.”

There is a jaw-dropping element to hearing a representative of the Kremlin talking about ‘real journalism’, given the extent to which censorship rules – and increasingly so – in Russia. But this line makes no sense, anyway, given that Ukrainian President  Volodymyr Zelenskiy, is himself Jewish.

“Yeah, we know that,” the Ambassador says. “We also know some Jews have felt more safe in terms of following the Nazi Pope!”

He doesn’t miss an opportunity to sully the man perceived as a hero by so many across the world who are opposed to Russian imperialism.

“Zelenskiy has proven himself as an absolute opportunist,” Filatov says about the Ukrainian President. “He would take anything which would suit his well-being, politically and monetarily. In a way, he’s a hostage [to the] right-wing, ultra-nationalist movement in Ukraine.

“He has been in such a position [for some time] but now more and more. Overall, the government of Ukraine is dictated by the US government.”

On reflection, as I transcribed this tape, I realised how absurd it is to claim that a Jewish president could be influenced by both right-wing Nazis at home and the – relatively – liberal US government of Joe Biden. The reality is that the mention of Nazis was always intended as a dog-whistle for Russians who remember the war.

Meanwhile, in terms of Vladimir Putin’s desire for peace, I am reminded of Mel Brooks’ line in the film To Be Or Not To Be, in which he played Hitler: “All I want is peace! A little piece of Poland. A little piece of France. A little piece of Portugal…”

Can the Ambassador understand that many people suspect that Putin is hell-bent on recreating the Soviet Union again?

“Funny, very funny. Very funny thing. Certainly, it’s not truthful. It’s a farce,” he says.

JAILING PUSSY RIOT

We move on. In the recent past, certain members of the Russian diplomatic staff were expelled from Ireland because they had made contact with former IRA and loyalist members. Why were they in touch with hostile members of the Irish state?

He looks surprised by the question. “Well, I’m not aware of any diplomacy. I’m not sure what you’re talking about.”

Sweden and Finland were both threatened by Russia when they applied to join NATO.  How would Russia respond if Ireland were also to join?.

“Well, it’s entirely up to the Irish government, the Irish people, to make these decisions,” he says. “I don’t think that it would make any real difference. We see that the Irish infrastructure is more or less, inter-critical to the Western alliance.”

What’s his view of the fact that the American military fly back and forth through Shannon Airport all the time?

“I'm not commenting on what’s going on in Shannon,” he says – but he would welcome discussion of the issue of Irish neutrality.

Can he explain why Russian ships were in Irish waters in 2023?

“Oh, that’s my favourite,” he says, pausing to chuckle. “They’ve been in Irish waters in 1950/60/70s and they will be in 20 [year’s time]. There is nothing unusual If you simply look at the map.”

One of those boats had cruise missiles on it.

“Well, I see some other ships, battleships from UK and US and NATO and they approach the same waters and nobody seems to be concerned about that,” he responds.

An even bigger issue is the growing realisation that Russia is increasingly involved in a hybrid form of warfare, with cyber attacks, ad-funded disinformation campaigns, targeting of communications and energy infrastructure, and extra-territorial assassinations all being part of the wider game-plan. Most people assume that the Russian ships were scoping out the underwater cables running from off the Irish coast to and from North America, but also to the UK and Europe.

What would bring Russia to the negotiating table in relation to Ukraine?

“We are still open for serious discussions,” he says. “I am not talking about (with) Ukrainians – for example, Zelenskiy has prohibited himself and his government from negotiating with Russia. It’s a decree. Okay, so your suggestion leaves us with the question, if there is anyone in the West.”

He dismisses the notion that young people in Russia have been suffering as a result of the war.

“I am not young anymore,” he says. “But I know many young people. First of all, the notion that life stopped in Russia is not true. It is very much alive. We do have [the] internet and we do have everything. And then there is usually feelings from the youth that we are on the right side of history.”

And yet countless Russians absconded when they got wind of compulsory military recruitment plans. What about the increasingly hostile attitude toward people who are gay or LGBTQ+ in Russia.

“I don’t think that the notion of somehow Russia being hostile to such people –  it’s not true,” he says.

The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, signed the Gay Propaganda Bill himself, outlawing any public expression of LGBTQ+ behaviour or lifestyle in Russia.

“The overall view, simply,” the ambassador says, “is that people, whatever they prefer personally, they follow their lives. But when they cross this line trying to impose their own agenda onto others, that creates certain resistance.

“People think like, you know, ‘We live our lives, you live your life, and please don’t sort of be aggressive about that’. That’s basically it. I don’t think that there is so much animosity towards gay people. It’s alright as long as it doesn’t interfere with other people’s lives. That’s it.”

Most gay people see it as an aggressive censorship of their right to express themselves. Does the Ambassador himself have any issues with same-sex civil partnerships?

“Well, it’s a question of, first of all, personal views; and maybe some Church issues; and some State issues. Personally, I don’t take an official position on that. We have a constitution which sets traditional values as a basis of the society,” he says.

“We tend to believe that traditional marriage is really a strong basis, a platform for social development. And that’s probably the important thing, really important, which does not mean that people are denied the right to live as they wish. It’s a question of profound psychological, philosophical, not necessarily political standing, not only in Russia, in many other countries, as you know perfectly well. But the basic thing is that nobody is trying to impose the theory – the ideal thing would be that nobody would impose anything on anybody. Well, it’s in the ideal world.”

Does he believe that LGBTQ+ people are entitled to equal rights to straight people?

“Certainly, certainly.”

I for one would not feel comfortable walking down Red Square with a Pride flag because you’d probably end up behind bars – just like the band, Pussy Riot, who were arrested and dumped in jail. Why is a group of musicians seen as such a threat to the Russian state?

He laughs.

“Well, first of all, they are not musicians,” he claims.

They have two albums to their credit and played countless gigs.

“It’s just a group of, I don’t know, hooligans, or maybe pranksters,” he argues. “Well, there are people everywhere of this kind, in Ireland or elsewhere.

“But they are.... I don’t know, what’s the right word in English?... Probably in French it is ‘appâtage’. You know, this word? It’s just a line of some young people’s outrageous activism, behaviour, having fun in the process.

“And that certainly didn’t go well when they came into the sacred place, into the church, into the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, and performed some out-of-place dances with a clear intent to, well, make noise, to make themselves visible.”

You think they deserved jail time for that?

“Well, they have been punished, according to the law, because they have broken several points in the criminal court. They would like to portray themselves as victims of a regime which they are not, in my view. I would have called them stupid. I don’t think they are stupid to that extent because they monetise their notoriety. They make a living out of all that – it’s not a unique story.”

MORE BLOODSHED

Sadly, the Ambassador is right on that score, though not in the way he intended. A few days after this interview, the jailed Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny died out-of-the-blue, at the relatively young age of 47. He had previously been poisoned with a nerve agent in 2020 and was arrested when he returned to Russia in 2021.

I fired off a series of questions to the Russian embassy about Navalny’s mysterious demise. I asked, does the Ambassador believe he died from natural causes? And I also asked, did he believe Navalny should have been imprisoned in the first place?

The Ambassador’s press secretary Nikitia Isakin replied with the following, “You can get a comment from me regarding the issue: As the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia has already informed, on February 16, 2024, after [the] regular walk at the IK-3 penal colony Mr. Navalny collapsed, losing consciousness.

“Within minutes medical staff of the penal institution and an ambulance from a nearby hospital performed all necessary resuscitation measures, but to no avail. Prison authorities and the Central office of the Federal Penitentiary Service are engaged at this time in all necessary measures to establish all facts of the incident, including the cause of the death of Mr. Navalny.

“Until all facts are established, further comments on the matter would be highly inappropriate. Any loss of life is regrettable and this one is not an exception. All attempts to whip up political speculation around Navalny’s death, exploiting it for the sake of attacking Russia – as the Tanaiste has done today in his remarks on ‘X’ – are unacceptable and unconscionable.”

As statements go, it’s a strong one given that it publicly criticises the Tánaiste, Micheál Martin – but it predictably sidesteps the question about whether imprisoning Navalny was ever justified.

As it happens, Russia’s position on the current carnage in the Middle East is probably closer to Ireland’s than to any other European country. But, of course, the war is a boon to Russia, given that it is a draw on US resources and a distraction from the lethal day-to-day conflict in Ukraine.

“No. It’s a weird kind of thinking,” he says in response. “How can anyone be pleased with what has been going on? And by saying that I would certainly start with October 7. What happened with this incursion into Israeli territory was a clear act of terrorism. And we have denounced that in most resolute terms.”

And what about the clearly genocidal campaign on the Israeli side?

“What followed that,” he says of the October 7 attack, “that’s despicable carnage of people who basically do not have any direct relation to Hamas other than being Palestinians – women, children – on a scale which we have not seen since probably the Second World War.

“We agree with the majority of the world opinion that it should be stopped immediately, with an immediate ceasefire, with the resumption of humanitarian supplies. Unfortunately, now the most part of the northern Gaza is uninhabitable. But these are issues [for] afterwards.”

Most people in the West would be of the view that Russian allies Iran must have agreed in advance to that attack?

“Well, I can’t speak for the Iranian government… This is a pressure cooker in a way. It just boiled over. It doesn’t take Iran or anyone else. It takes mistaken policies on the part of Israel and certain politicians in the US, who support these kind of policies in Jerusalem.”

You mentioned it boiled over. At the same time, Hamas must have realised, deep down, that it was a very unnecessary and stupid attack and that it would give the Israelis a licence to start butchering people in Gaza?

“Well, I don’t want to speculate on the motives of Hamas.”

An increasing number of people in Ireland feel the United States is wrong to have offered more or less unconditional support to Israel.

“Well, you frame the issue slightly, in my view, in the wrong way. It’s not the issue of supporting Israel. It’s the issue of supporting wrong policies by a certain political government in Israel. Because Israelis, they have suffered throughout the years as much as Palestinians. And our opposition is not anti-Israeli, it’s pro-peace in the region. And that is a must.”

What’s the long-term solution?

“We are pretty solid in our belief that the only way to get out of all that is to create two States independently, which would live peacefully, coexist with the security of each one, taken care and insured, guaranteed by the international community. This is the only way. I don’t see any other way realistically. But I think that the drive internationally is such that we could hope this: we could hope for some [positive] result.”

He refers to the United States as the elephant in the room in the Middle East.

“This is quite characteristic of the US policies, which brought misery to many countries: Syria, Libya, Iraq, for that matter. Well, as you probably understand, we don’t have very much dealings with the US at this point in time, but we do talk to the main, say, players in the region who have a certain influence –  and we talk to the Israelis and we try to steer things away from the war scenario into looking for a peace scenario. It’s hard stuff, but we have to do it.”

The respect implied for an international rules-based order sounds like so much hokum, given the extent to which Vladimir Putin and his henchmen have flouted one UN resolution after another. And, of course, Russia itself has invaded Afghanistan, annexed parts of Georgia, fought a war in Chechnya, invaded Syria and, most recently, Ukraine. They are also involved in imperial adventures in the Central African Republic and in Mali.

Reading between the lines, the Russian Ambassador himself seems resigned to the fact that the war Russia is waging on Ukraine will see much more bloodshed on both sides. But then, Russia has a long history of seeing soldiers as cannon fodder.

“We are standing up to the very fear of the West, which is true,” the Ambassador says, like someone speaking at a podium at a political rally. “The majority (of Russians) will say we will finish that, with whatever it takes. More and more soldiers have fallen – but there is a feeling that it is not in vain. We have to finish it because, if it is a war, finish it.

“We have a war which was initiated back in 2015 by the Ukrainians,” he says – a line which will be seen as an outrageous untruth by 99% of people who read it. “They have started that. So we have to put an end to that. We have a very heavy majority. We will have a presidential election in March. And I suggest that you look closely at it.”

Alexei Navalny is dead. The idea of any meaningful opposition to Vladimir Putin being free to show their colours is a mad fantasy. His control is absolute and is exercised brutally.

Unfortunately, nothing the Ambassador has to say here will change the Irish perception of any of this – or of the needless war in Ukraine. But it is a valuable – and sadly disillusioning – exercise to hear him out.