Interview by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the International Organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov to TASS news agency

Interview by Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the International Organizations in Vienna Mikhail Ulyanov to TASS news agency

On March 6 the IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi visited Sochi and met with the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. Did he have any other contacts there?

Yes, Rafael Grossi had a long conversation with the Director General of the State Corporation «Rosatom» Alexey Likhachev, and then he and members of his team held detailed consultations with the Russian interdepartmental delegation. Its members include representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defence, the Russian National Guard, the State Corporation «Rosatom» and Rostekhnadzor. These consultations provided a good opportunity for Russian participants to convey to the Agency – each from their own departmental angle – assessments of the state of affairs at the Zaporozhskaya NPP. I think that this was useful for the leadership of the IAEA.

Does Rafael Grossi plan to visit Russia, including ZNPP, again this year? Is this prospect being discussed?

There are no specific plans for the Director General of the Agency to visit Russia this year yet, but I would not rule it out. Over the course of a year and a half, Rafael Grossi visited Zaporozhskaya NPP four times. I wouldn’t be surprised if the next trip takes place before the end of this year. In addition, the Director General has an invitation from Alexey Likhachev to attend one of the major events that «Rosatom» will hold this year

Russia regularly informs the IAEA about the situation with drones in the area of the Zaporozhskaya NPP. In your opinion, can we expect that Mr. Grossi’s visit will have an impact on the Ukrainian side and that UAV activity will decrease?

I don’t think that Rafael Grossi’s visit to the Zaporozhskaya NPP can influence the Ukrainian side in terms of reducing the activity of its UAVs in the area of the NPP. On the contrary, after the last visit of the General Director to the Zaporozhskaya NPP on February 7, the activity of drones increased sharply. Only in the period from February 26 to March 4, the Russian side managed to suppress 278 UAV’s launched by Ukraine with the aim of attacking and provoking the Zaporozhskaya NPP and the city of nuclear workers Energodar.

The IAEA previously adopted a resolution calling on Moscow to «withdraw military and other personnel from the Zaporozhskaya NPP». Why is the Agency allowed to discuss such issues when they obviously go beyond its mandate?

Your question is absolutely fair. Indeed, the 20 members of the IAEA Board of Governors, who voted on March 8 for the anti-Russian resolution on the Zaporozhskaya NPP, clearly went beyond the mandate of not only this Board, but also the Agency as a whole. The irrepressible desire to politicize the discussion forces our opponents to commit obvious violations of established rules. Many members of the Bosrd did not like this, to put it mildly, so 14 of them refused to support this resolution. This is a double increase compared to the first such resolution, adopted in March 2022. Those who abstained and voted against cited going beyond the IAEA’s mandate as the main reason for such a vote.

One of the main topics at the IAEA Board of Governors is traditionally the DPRK. Last year Mr. Grossi said in an interview with Yonhap that Russia could help establish cooperation between the DPRK and the Agency. Was the prospect of such mediation discussed between the Russian side and the IAEA? Has there been a corresponding proposal from the IAEA to Russia? In your opinion, is Russia interested in such a format?

I would not say that the issue of the DPRK nuclear program is one of the main ones on the agenda of the IAEA Board of Governors. Rather, it is of a kind of ritual nature. Discussions on this topic do not have any practical meaning. Pyongyang has long ago decided to withdraw from the IAEA. And they have no intention of returning to the Agency or establishing any interaction with its Secretariat.

Under these conditions, there are no prerequisites for any mediation. Theoretically, something can change in this regard only if major political decisions are reached on the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. However, there are no prospects in this direction. The United States, during the presidency of Donald Trump, attempted to do something in this regard, but failed miserably. The Joe Biden administration's policies have pushed the situation further into a deadlock.