- Sasha, where have you been? I'm following you on Telegram and other social networks. Was it Afghanistan?
Alexander Sladkov, VGTRK correspondent: No, no.
- Just a flashback?
- Yes, it is.
- So, what about now?
- It's been about 2 months since I returned. I was in Syria and Donbas before that.
- What about Syria? Will we able to respond?
- We will respond. I, as a reporter, pursue a slightly different goal. I'm following my colleagues' work. All statements, even tweets, are broadcast in the media. It's crucial not to scare our people so that they don't find themselves in a prebattle trance state. Otherwise, we'll die down too early.
Traditionally, a story is comprised of a certain set of things, a right proportion of figures, emotions, interviews, descriptions, reports. It shouldn’t be dominated by clumsy information that is hard for people to digest. I think we shouldn't be deepening the shades. I don't know, maybe this is a policy. It isn't true that Oleg Borisovich Dobrodeev summons us and says: "Today you tank this or that guy." No, we are to convey the truth. We should spare the people's feelings. And I'd like to add that it's hard to walk a fine line in such an avalanche of information. I mean, yesterday, today. But we must do it.
Will we respond? Of course. I talk to the commanders on their arrival from there. I call those who are still there. Speaking about the Syrians, they are so tired of this informational load and the atrocities of war, as well as our military. We will respond, of course. That's what we exist for. The army is a crowd of idlers whom we have to feed because one day they'll save our lives. That's the formula we stick to.
- Though I wouldn't call them idlers.
- Of course not.
- And now guys are there...It states that we must think over every step, we aren't provoking a war, but we're also explaining to them that we have serious intentions. Do we have enough assets and equipment there? What the US is trying to do is to build supremacy in the number of aircraft, missiles. Are we ready for an asymmetrical warfare?
- You see, firstly, I don't want to pretend to be an analyst or a person who knows all the figures. Nobody knows them for sure. And those who know them don't disclose them. Today, the media is abundant with such statistics. 40 Pantsirs have been there, there are 150 missiles, half of which being air-defense, you know, Tomahawks, some will hit the targets, others won't, their range, combat characteristics. To date, the equipment hasn't been involved yet. Now, it's the time for talks. I pin hopes on a conversation between Valery Gerasimov, Russian Chief of General Staff, and, if memory serves me right, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman. It lasted for 1.5 hours. What was the subject? I hope it was constructive.
- If it's Gerasimov, I guess it's a very serious, grown-up conversation.
- Generally, the military is ready.
- What about Eastern Ghouta? Could a chemical attack have taken place there?
- Experts are to be granted access there. To that end, the territory is to be moped up so that they aren't blown up at the very first step. Conditions for their work are to be created, which is being done. Douma is the last stage after which the area can be considered safe. Then humanitarian demining and refugees' resettlement will follow.
Dmitry Kulikov, Russia Today: I think Sasha is right to touch upon this issue. I mean all sorts of hysterics. On the one hand, why are we so excited? We've been saying for years that the US has no other option. Sooner or later, they will try to do it. As a follow up to our Sunday's conversation, I can add that the Americans appear to be driving at a major showdown. They seek to retain their dominance. It's more than crucial for them. Actually, it's also about the US rehabilitation as a nation, as a state which they are used to. Of course, everything can be changed, but nobody ever wants to change. Neither do the Americans. That's why they want to drive the situation to an extreme, to outplay Russia at that point. They see no other option. Moreover, time is running out. They want to accelerate the process. That was an objective part. We seek to slow it down in every possible way as time plays in our favor. Thus, when Putin said: "We'll win over them in the long run". I guess we should give it a thought. I mean, what is this 'long run' and 'win over.
- We never favored blitzkriegs. We prefer long games.
Alexander Sladkov, VGTRK correspondent: For some reason, I used to think I was eloquent. And here we have a generator that gets the ball rolling, we fuel ourselves. Maybe, it's right and interesting. Concerning retaliatory blows, why should we be confined to one area? Why don't our planes just land in Venezuela, for example? Why don't we use Donbas? We don't have to fight there. For example, if we retake a settlement, like Krasnogorovka near Staromikhailovka, it's one thing, and it's quite another if 4 vans arrive into Donetsk, Dokuchaevsk, Gorlovka — I'm speaking about the DPR now — and the fourth, say, to Mayorsk to start granting Russian citizenship right in the field. It will be a more powerful blow to the West through Ukraine. Ukraine is still like an anvil: you hammer it, and it echoes further. Who will hinder us? Why can't we take further steps unilaterally to implement the Minsk agreements? Why not concluding agreements on economic cooperation, say, between the Rostov Region and the LPR, the Voronezh Region and the DPR? That's what people need, not our retaliatory artillery strikes at Zaitsevo or the Avdeevsk industrial zone.
- Aliens won't let us do it.
- Now I'm not that sure that they're governing the country. If we say that we should have advanced, taking Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, we should remember about the enormous humanitarian, social and economic responsibility we assume before the people living there. We do bear this responsibility. We help to rebuild dwelling ruined by war, we provide medical aid, let alone food, like stew, that we bring there, though it's very important too. Had we expanded the territory, we'd have more troubles now. Concerning Mariupol, it's about water resources.
- We expanded it to a reasonable limit.
- It's just my point of view. Mariupol is a separate matter, an important and acute one. Mariupol is a great deal pressing us with fire now, I mean, the south, near Kominternov, Sakhanka. It's recently become easier, but on the outskirts of Donetsk, like the Avdeevsk industrial zone, near the airport, from Peski side, 7 civilians got wounded today. We didn't have 7 people wounded for a long time. 200 shells were fired, of which 20 hit peaceful areas. Look at Dokuchaevsk.
- That's what made Klimkin so happy about Trump's tweet. They think Russia is focused on Syria, so they can mess up here.
- I'm sure Kiev will be talked into attacking Donbas. It won't succeed. It's not Syria, of course, our positions there are much stronger. We will have to choose between saving people...
- We won't have this choice. If they start attacking, there'll be no choice.
- That's the case.
- That's what Igor said. If we don't show our strong will in Syria, they'll think that by threatening to apply the same types of weapon in Donbas they won't let us protect Russians.
- Why don't we have a close military relationship with Mexico?
- That's a good question. We should advance and expand relations.
Igor Morozov, member of the Council of the Federation:
- Sasha, I'd like to answer your question. We maintain close contacts with our colleagues in the DPR and LPR. The Council of the Federation has a Committee for the public support of the people living in the south-east of Ukraine. We work monthly. A big forum is scheduled for April 19 where people of the DPR and the LPR, non-governmental organizations will discuss our culture, traditions...
Alexander Sladkov, VGTRK correspondent: That's very important, but the people I come across on the streets know nothing about forums. They want to work and make money, provide for their children, they want to cross the border with Russia without such troubles. They want a normal life.
- And I want them to feel our compatriots, and I want to prevent the extradition of the militiamen to Ukraine by court's decision. It's a shame which takes place regularly.
- Absolutely.
Mikhail Remizov, head of the National Strategy Institute: Now it's easy to speculate on what should have been done.
- Being unauthorized to do so.
- Exactly. Here I disagree with Dmitry. I think war could have been avoided if there had been a signal that Poroshenko's regime was illegitimate. Had we signaled that if he applied heavy armor, Russia would start a humanitarian intervention, there would be no war. It's most probable. But there was much hesitation. Now, I don't stand for territorial revanchism and beat our head against a wall. But a step-by-step recognition of the DPR and the LPR is a way to avoid, not unleash a war. The first signal of a step-by-step recognition is granting citizenship, economic cooperation, solving humanitarian issues. It's kind of a proposal. In terms of humanitarian aid, it's an immaculate plan as we are to stop the humanitarian disaster that affects several millions of people.
Alexander Sladkov, VGTRK correspondent: Not as a response, but a part of our principle position on the Donbas. That's what we want.
Mikhail Remizov, head of the National Strategy Institute: Exactly, not as a response.
- But we should bear in mind that Kiev has already cut off the Donbas.
- They don't hide it, I guess.
- Yeah, in fact, they did cut it off. Thus, it won't affect them in any way. It's not about harming them, it's our festering problem now.
- As for a response in Syria and elsewhere, obviously, talks will be possible only if we'll be able to address the challenges, both symbolic and real ones.
