Vladimir Chizhov - Russia's Ambassador to the European Union HARDtalk

Now on BBC News: HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk, with me, Sarah Montague.

Just a few months ago, Russia was congratulating

Donald Trump on becoming president, and expressing the hope that

both countries would take their relationship

to a whole new level.

Now, Moscow's relations with the US and the West are so bad

that the Russian Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev talks

of them as "ruined".

That was after America's response to the recent

chemical attack in Syria.

But even before that, there was the stand-off in Ukraine,

and accusations of Russian interference in American elections.

Now there are fears the Russians could meddle in the French elections

and other European votes this year.

My guest is Vladimir Chizhov, Russia's ambassador to the EU.

Will Russia promise not to pervert democracy in Europe?

Vladimir Chizhov, welcome to HARDtalk.

Thank you.

France's Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has

accused Russia of meddling in French democratic life.

Is that true?

Of course it's not.

Well, I'm afraid that this wave of anti-Russian rhetoric

has become contagious, and has spread across

the Atlantic Ocean.

That's very bad for our relations with our countries involved,

but I think it's bad for those countries themselves,

including their democratic procedures and processes.

But the accusation is being levelled against Russia for a reason.

If we look at some of the things that are being said...

Richard Ferrand, who is Secretary General

of Emmanuel Macron's En Marche, Onwards Party, said that

their campaign was being hit by hundreds, if not thousands,

of attacks probing their computer systems, and that was coming

from locations inside Russia.

Well, in the modern world, you can never be sure where hacking

attacks are coming from.

There is no technical possibility of tracing anything.

So, this is not a piece of hard evidence, by any means.

But you can follow, you can, via the technology, follow

where attacks are coming from.

Emmanuel Macron's campaign say these attacks are coming from Russia.

Well, that's an allegation that I wouldn't accept

without any hard evidence.

OK, what about the accusation of fake news that is

being spread by Russia?

Again, Richard Ferrand says two of the big media outlets belonging

to the Russian state, Russia Today and Sputnik,

spread fake news on a daily basis, they are picked up, quoted

and they influence democracy.

Well, I believe that those news outlets have been so successful,

to the chagrin of their competitors among the Western media.

That has been the case, because they have been providing

alternative angles of the same events, and giving the floor

to people, including many Westerners, who were willing to put

forward their own views, which would, in some cases,

contradict the so-called mainstream.

But it's, in some cases...

It's things that are wrong, they are saying things that

are factually incorrect.

Take a headline, they had to be picked up on it

by France's polling commission, suggesting Francois Fillon,

somebody who has in the past spoken very positively about Russia...

Sputnik said he was at the head of the polls, and the polling

commission said that's not true, that actually a poll

is defined by law in France.

They were improperly calling it a poll when it wasn't,

and they shouldn't be saying things like that.

Well, it's an expression of free press.

Isn't that one of the main European values?

If you compare the amount of fake news that are addressed

to Russia from the West, that's incomparably more.

And I would say to that, that anybody has a right to have

one's own view on what the outcome of a future election would be.

But this is something different, isn't it?

You seem to be saying, and let's be clear, these

are organisations that are owned by the Russian state,

"it's fine if they say things that are wrong",

is that your situation?

Well, I'm not saying...

First of all, what makes you so sure that they are wrong?

Secondly, they have a right to say that.

If you want to challenge that...

Francois Fillon...

This is a matter of fact, Francois Fillon was not

at the head of the polls, he was way behind.

So why, if they say something that's wrong and they are picked up on it

by the polling commission?

If they were wrong on that one, well, perhaps they might wish

to apologise, or present some facts that would support

the point of view.

But the Russian government has nothing to do with that.

The difficulty is that both these two organisations,

the information they are releasing appears to be things that either

support the conservative candidate, or the far-right candidate,

the Front National of Marine Le Pen, and damage Emmanuel Macron.

For example, it was down to Sputnik that there were stories that came

out suggesting that he had a gay relationship outside his marriage.

He actually had to come out and say: "that's not true".

Well, what would you say if, in the view of the upcoming British

election, those two outlets support Theresa May and the Conservatives?

On the candidates in the French election, who is it that you want?

Would you like Marine Le Pen to win the French election?

We would like France to come out of this election

without undue politicisation of the French society.

Which means what?

Would you like Marine Le Pen to win?

Well, I am not a French voter, so I wouldn't

want to speculate who is best.

Sure, but we know that Marine Le Pen, the Front National,

has been given a 9 million euro loan by a Russian private bank.

Something that presumably is only possible when it's

authorised by the Kremlin.

Is that because Russia supports Marine Le Pen?

That story is fake, it was not a Russian bank,

it was a Czech bank, actually, with some

Russian participation.

And since the 9 million loan was given to the Front National,

the bank actually went bankrupt.

And those people who have undertaken their affairs,

they are now demanding the money back.

And so those who said, for example, Mikhail Kasyanov,

who was Prime Minister under President Vladimir Putin before

he joined the opposition, said: "For me, there is no doubt

the loan was authorised by the Kremlin".

Is he wrong?

I am sure he is wrong.

He was Prime Minister very long ago.

OK, let's move on to Germany.

You say all these things are inconsequential,

what about the fact that the German Chancellor Angela

Merkel refers to Russia "sowing false information in Germany",

and her warning that it could play a role in

the coming election campaign?

Well, I respect her views as a German politician,

and as a candidate in the upcoming Bundestag election,

and of course, as Chancellor of the Federal Republic.

But, whether there is hard evidence, I don't know if there is.

Maybe she would like to present it.

The head of the German domestic security service,

Hans-Georg Maassen, says: "We see aggressive and increased cyber

spying and cyber operations that could potentially endanger German

government officials, MPs, employees of democratic parties".

And he says, and he said after the Bundestag computer

system was shut down, that in addition to spying:

"Lately Russian intelligence agencies have shown a willingness

to conduct sabotage".

Is he wrong?

Well, I think, as I said in the beginning, this

anti-Russian hysteria is really becoming contagious.

Look at what was happening a few months ago in the United States.

It has now evidently spread on to France and onwards to Germany.

I wonder if the United Kingdom will come clean in this situation

in view of the upcoming election?

I hope it does.

But as far as that is concerned, you're right that even the current

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who was of course appointed

by President Trump, who, the accusations go, benefited

from Russian involvement in the American elections,

even he says: "It's pretty evident that Russia is taking similar

tactics into the electoral processes throughout Europe,

and so they are really undermining any hope for improved relations

with many European countries".

Well, I think you should perceive these words as indication

that there was no Russian involvement in the US election.

So you would say categorically, this is just Russia...

Clearly this was a man, part of President Trump's team,

who didn't believe there was, but has now become convinced.

He says it's becoming that Russians are getting involved in European

countries' elections, they are all saying Russia

is, and you're saying they are all hysterical?

MR CHIZHOV CHUCKLES.

Well, I would say that...

It all starts with people who lose elections, then it spreads

all across the political spectrum.

And I would say that it is a sign of degradation of the intellectual

and ethical level of electoral campaigns in the West, in general.

I am not blaming any particular country.

But it seems to be a contagious disease.

Except in this case it's the winning team in the United States.

And it's also not just politicians, it's the American intelligence

agencies, who said: "We assess with high confidence that

President Putin ordered an influence campaign

in the presidential elections.

The consistent goal was to undermine public faith".

Well, I leave it to the current US administration to judge the degree

of confidence in the information they get from the

intelligence community.

They are known in recent history to have misled

previous administrations.

OK, so you're saying they are wrong on this.

The effect of all this has left us in a situation

where your Prime Minister, Dmitri Medvedev, talks

of "completely ruined" relations between the United States

and the West, and Russia.

And he said that after there was the American response

to the chemical attack in Syria.

But he talks about Moscow and Washington.

He talked then of Moscow and Washington being on the verge

of a military clash.

Is that still the case, do you think?

Well, of course Russian-American relations are at a low

level today, definitely.

And the lower the level is for two nuclear powers,

the greater is the risk of a military clash.

Well, I hope it won't come to that, of course.

And I think Secretary Tillerson's visit to Moscow has proved to be

a small step in promoting the mutual understanding that is

so necessary, particularly in a situation like this.

President Trump has said: "We're not getting along with Russia at all,

we may be at an all-time low".

Is he right?

Well, "an all-time low" might be right or wrong,

but we've known other periods when relations were quite low.

But, in recent history, yes, I think he's right.

If we compare this within the period of the last 10-15 years, yes,

we are at a very low point.

Your views on President Trump, because of course Russia was very

hopeful that there might be a new relationship with this

new American president.

And then we have a situation where, after recent events,

not just what's happened in Syria, but also the warnings

in North Korea, where the anchor of your main weekly television news

show, who is a very pro-Kremlin, Dmitry Kiselyov, says:

"The world is a hair's breadth from nuclear war".

He talks about the confrontation between Donald Trump

and Kim Jong-Un: "Both are dangerous, but who

is more dangerous?

Trump is, Trump is more impulsive and unpredictable".

Do you think he's right?

I can refer to you the commentary made by the spokesman

for President Putin, Mr Peskov.

He said that: "That view of Mr Kiselyov was his own,

and was not the official position of the Russian government".

So what is the official position of the Russian government

now on President Trump?

Well, that's an interesting question, in view of some,

I would say, evolutions of the US president's approach to various

international issues.

I think the position of the new administration

will settle in a matter of weeks or months, because I think

it's too early to say.

It's too early to say?

On that, what appears to have damaged, what Dmitri Medvedev talks

of ruining the relationships, was when there was the United States

air strike on an airbase in Syria in response to a chemical attack.

Now, Russia had it within its powers to activate air defence systems,

and prevent some of that attack on the Syrian airbase.

Why did it not do so?

Well, first of all, I would ask you not to cut corners

in describing the sequence of events that happened.

If you referred to a "chemical attack", then you would perhaps

wish to at least say an "alleged chemical attack".

Because there is no confirmation of that attack having happened.

Of course, there could have been a direct counter-hit,

but that might have led to much more serious consequences

in Russia-US relations.

I'm not talking about a retaliatory strike, I'm talking

about something that neutralised.

You can just say: "Look, we didn't have the military capability".

Is that what you're saying?

No.

So there was the military capability to neutralise?

I'm not a military expert, but I will tell you what I think of it.

OK...

I think that particular situation required consideration

of all the different aspects.

So it was a political decision not to do that and use

the air defence systems?

Perhaps, but my guess would be as good as yours.

OK.

You picked me up on my question, because you said there isn't

even evidence that there was a chemical attack.

Are you really going to hold to that position?

Well, until proven otherwise.

Did you see the images?

The staged images.

You know, let me tell you, I am not a chemical expert either.

But you're a human being, and I imagine you saw those images

coming out of Syria.

Of course. Yes.

You know, sarin is a very toxic substance, so if you

have an agonising child, you cannot hold it close

to your chest without dying in a few minutes afterwards.

The infamous White Helmets, that are known to have staged

artificial scenes on video, they were there without any

protective garments, without even gas masks.

So the whole thing was fabricated, do you seriously suggest that?

I suggest that, but I'm not saying that that was the case,

because there was no...

You know, two weeks have passed, but still there has

been no investigation.

The British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and the French Foreign

Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault described that story as: "A shameless

production of lies".

They say that British scientists and others have analysed samples

which have tested positive for sarin, or a

sarin-like substance.

You are not implying that British scientists were there on the ground

collecting the samples.

Nobody, either from Britain, the United States, or France,

went there and had any inspection on the ground.

Why...

Let me finish.

That is why my country has been consistently demanding that

international investigators, experienced specialists

from the Organisation for the Prohibition

of Chemical Weapons, should go down there...

So why did you veto the UN resolution calling

for an investigation?

Because the resolution, the draft resolution blamed

the Syrian government for that.

If it had been only a call for investigation, we would have

supported that, wholeheartedly.

Do you think Russia...

Actually, we tabled an alternative draft,

which unfortunately was not supported.

Not supported?

You were isolated.

Is there a danger that Russia has become almost dangerously isolated

as a result of this issue?

I do not accept the claim that Russia was isolated,

even in this particular case.

As you know, the Western draft resolution was not supported by five

of the 15 members of the Security Council.

Abstained rather than vetoed.

Well, there is only the need for one permanent member

to veto a resolution.

And on the question of what happened with...

Whether there was a chemical attack, you call for

an investigation by the OPCW.

They are going to carry out an investigation.

Will you accept whatever their finding is?

Of course.

I wonder why they are not there yet, because two weeks have passed.

The Syrian government has invited them to inspect the airfield

which was the object of the US air attack, and certain prominent

figures of the opposition that controlled the area

where the alleged chemical attack happened, they said

that they would ensure safety of the inspectors.

So I don't see any real obstacle preventing those

inspectors from going.

The former director of the CIA, John Brennan, who was in post

until this year, said this month: "The Russians feign sincerity

better than anyone I know.

They would promise they would work with us, try to restrain the Syrian

government and military from carrying out these atrocious

attacks, and they wouldn't, so I lost faith in their willingness

and interest to do the right thing".

Is that Russia's problem here, that you are losing the trust

of people around the world?

I don't have that impression.

Actually, this in my view isn't the case at all.

You don't fear that that might happen?

I don't think so, because Russian foreign policy has been

clear and transparent, and of course, our goals

are quite obvious, be it in Syria or elsewhere.

Vladimir Chizhov, thank you for coming on HARDtalk.

Hello.

After several days of fairly quiet weather taking us through much