Written By:
- Date published:
5:21 pm, June 26th, 2026 - 20 comments
Categories: boycott, Diplomacy, discrimination, Free Trade, history, International, kremlinology, NATO, Peace, Propaganda, Russia, trade, Ukraine, war -
Tags:
In this interview with Russian Federation Ambassador to Wellington Stanislav Krans we discussed the legality/illegality of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the state of Russian-Western diplomacy, and the central role diplomats should play in bringing the war to an end. We also touched on what it is like to be a Russian diplomat in a Western country.
The reason I chose to interview the ambassador is because I accept as self-evident the truism that all wars end with diplomacy and the sooner we return to diplomacy the better.
How have you found operating as an ambassador here in New Zealand?
Most New Zealanders are very friendly, very open-minded people. I knew I would be a bit ignored by officials in this country, but at the same time I didn’t expect the people representing the government and opposition would not be ready even to meet for some unofficial exchanges of views.
I was expecting maybe more people from the mass media will be interested to ask me about our position on Ukraine, about some geopolitics. Just a few did – The Post, the New Zealand Herald and you. So we are missing the chance to try to reboot dialogue.
My friend Ian Proud, former British diplomat who spent several years in Russia, said this week: “Diplomacy is tough, it’s not about friendship. Diplomacy is about settling differences and finding ways to coexist.” As a diplomat, tell me about the role you can play.
We say that a diplomatic solution to this conflict is preferable. It’s not the only option, but we prefer diplomacy. We would like to restart negotiations.
The main task as a diplomat is to talk. We are not traders, we are negotiators. We are the bridge between politicians of two countries, or multiple organizations, and of course, it’s very important to have channels for communications. The main point isn’t to make us friends. The main goal is to keep communication channels open 24 hours a day, seven days per week.
What else would you like to achieve in your time here?
I came here understanding that I will meet a lot of pressure from officials, that I will spend at least a few years under this pressure. But my greatest desire is to see our nations unfreeze our relations and become friends again – to reestablish good relations between governments, between people, between our businesses, between ordinary people.
Diplomacy is not only meetings with ministers and government and the opposition, but also contacts with civil society. There is, for example, a Russian-speaking community here which is more than 20,000 people.
I believe local businesses are highly interested in expanding their sales abroad – and Russia is a huge market.
The United Nations Charter is clear: there is a prohibition on the use of force and an insistence on the territorial integrity of states. The 2022 invasion clearly breached these articles. Isn’t that black and white – a clear case of an illegal invasion?
The United Nations Charter talks not only about this issue, but also the right to defense. The 51st article gives a right for every nation to defend itself and that’s what we would like New Zealanders to understand. For us, it was a reaction for the self-defense of our country.
Many people in New Zealand – and other countries – would like to simplify the problem. That’s not good. This problem did not start in 2022; there is a long history, a pre-history of this conflict that should be considered, because if you don’t understand the prior history, you cannot understand what is going on now.
NATO was expanding to the east for decades. Then the Western countries, including the US and European countries, especially the UK, were deeply involved in the coup d’etat [2014 overthrow of the elected Yanukovych government]. They then started bringing in NATO forces, experts, to Ukraine and pressed the proposal to join NATO. We [made clear]: if NATO comes closer to Russia, we have to resist. We tried to do it in a diplomatic way. We sent proposals to the Americans, to European countries, just saying: please keep in mind that we have important security concerns. But we were ignored, and unfortunately we understood that the next step of this militarization of Ukraine by NATO will be the threat to our existence as a sovereign country.
[The ambassador gave a far more detailed response which can’t be reproduced in full here but it was very much in line with the positions articulated by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in a recent article which was planned to appear in politico.eu but was censored at the last minute. You can read Lavrov’s full article here.]
When was the last time you were in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Molesworth Street?
I was there twice. Both of them were protocol, courtesy calls. At this moment we are not welcomed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
That might explain why there wasn’t a room full of New Zealand foreign affairs officials at the Russian National Day you hosted?
They did it in a very polite way – so I appreciate it – saying that none of them will attend.
We need to establish better dialogue with New Zealand. We are trying to restart political consultations. We had a very good mechanism of political consultations on the level of at least deputy foreign ministers for decades. Then came Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s decision to freeze political consultations [after the invasion of Ukraine]. I believe it was a mistake in regard to Russia because consultations should not be considered as support of any actions made by other countries. It’s dialogue.
If we don’t understand each other – or we don’t want to listen to each other – which is happening right now in New Zealand – that is what we as diplomats have to fix. The main direction of my activity here in New Zealand is to restore normal communication between the two countries.
Eugene Doyle
Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington, New Zealand. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He hosts solidarity.co.nz
Has NATO ever attacked Russia?
I sympathise, but did agree with Ardern at the time. Eugene is right to give him the courtesy of a hearing though:
The ambassador's role is apologist, so let's see how it works (not well):
NATO expansion proceeds on the natural basis of common interests. Sovereign nations exercise their right to join or retain trad ties with Russia. Some even seek to do both simultaneously, I suspect, to change the polarity game. Putin's tsarism made him see Ukraine as a delinquent part of his imperial inheritance. Realpolitik tends to defeat such personal delusions and whatever state scheming they generate.
Wikipedia paints a different picture to the ambassador. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity]. The state shot too many protestors, so parliament rebelled:
Calling the revolution a coup d’etat is technically incorrect. The state was not captured by anyone involved: it's democratic forum used collective power to remove the president in accord with the constitution.
I think the Warsaw pact placed a protective buffer between Russia and the West. When that buffer was removed the acceptance of its former members, after an undertaking to move NATO not one inch further East had been given, into NATO was clearly provocative.
These days NATO is an anachronism – European states are unlikely to go to war with one another these days, and it is hard to see that Russia would have anything to gain by attacking western countries – so anyone who thinks that NATO is a "defensive" pact is clearly deluded.
Calling this "diplomacy" is generous. What you've actually done is provide an almost unchallenged platform for the official Kremlin narrative.
Interviewing the Russian ambassador isn't the problem. The problem is reproducing claims like "Ukraine was a coup", "Russia acted in self-defence", and "NATO forced Russia's hand" without seriously interrogating them or providing factual context.
Diplomacy requires talking to adversaries, not uncritically swallowing their narrative and laundering it for them. Attempting to understand all sides of a conflict is laudable. Apologia is not.
More fundamentally, you've become so caught up in the process that you've forgotten the point. This isn't a choice between war or dialogue. It is war and dialogue. States negotiate before wars, during wars, and after wars.
The question has never been whether we should talk to Russia. The question is whether we should lose sight of who started this war in the first place.
Whether intentionally or not, in your haste to play diplomat you've forgotten the essential, inescapable truth: Russia chose to invade Ukraine. While you sit and pontificate about the virtues of dialogue, thousands of Ukrainians are fighting and dying for their right to determine their own future in peace.
Diplomacy cannot begin by pretending the aggressor and the victim bear equal responsibility for the war.
You seem to have an extraordinary dedication to the belief that one factoid is all that is necessary to explain complex conflict issues. Closed mind doesn't cut it; more like trying to describe the world by looking through the wrong end of a telescope.
History and context are important. Historian Niall Ferguson wrote this in late March 2022 around the time that Russia and Ukraine were negotiating for peace in Turkey, reaching tentative agreement which was scuppered by Boris Johnson.
From the article:
European efforts are now going at G7 and NATO into persuading Trump to support them once again and keep the war going.
That is why it makes very good sense to talk to the Russians in every possible forum.
History and context are essential. They help explain why states make the choices they do.
What they don't do is remove agency or moral culpability.
My criticism of Eugene's piece isn't that he interviewed the Russian ambassador or discussed diplomacy. It's that he largely reproduced one side's justification for the war without critically examining it.
And if we're going to talk about isolated factoids:
Irrespective of the complicated history of Ukraine, both inside and outside the Russian Empire and later the USSR, or concerns about being "encircled" by NATO, Russia was not forced to do anything.
Putin chose to invade Ukraine. Whether he believed it would be a quick victory, underestimated Ukrainian resistance, or misjudged the resolve of Ukraine's allies, the decision to launch the invasion was Russia's alone.
That's not a rejection of diplomacy. It's a reminder that diplomacy and war are not opposites. They happen simultaneously. The purpose of diplomacy is to end the war—not to obscure responsibility for starting it.
Russia chose to defend herself.
By invading a neighbour that had not attacked it, had no plans to attack it, and would never feasibly be in a position to attack it?
The spectre of a threat induces a defensive reaction that morphs into a proactive attack. I call this effect the warp factor. Seems in this instance to be darwinian intent. Some commentators opine that Putin was paranoid about a fascist state in Ukraine. Perhaps Z ought to do what Trump did with Mamdani in the Oval Office according to Google:
Z could riff on this by reassuring P that he's merely a comedian with no fascist tendencies whatsoever. He could suggest that the UN send a fact-finding mission into Ukraine with a fascist-detector device to scan the terrain.
Calling this "diplomacy" is generous. What you've actually done is provide an almost unchallenged platform for the official Kremlin narrative.
You seem to imply that only the West is entitled to a "narrative". And that accordingly Russia should button her lip.
PS: And when you mention "diplomacy”, what about the two Minsk agreements, and the "Turkesh" agreement scotched by Boris Johnson; what were they if not diplomatic efforts.
Russia is entirely entitled to present its narrative. That's what the ambassador is paid to do.
My criticism isn't that he made Russia's case. It's that Eugene largely reproduced that case without seriously analysing it, ignored the realities on the ground, and then presented the exercise as an act of moral virtue in the name of diplomacy.
Those are two very different things.
Presumably Eugene will also interview the nearest Ukraine Ambassador.
Just to understand why this Russian Ambassador would comfortably defend murdering over 200,000 Ukrainians in 4 years.
Also, do pop over and talk to the Israeli Ambassador and ask about their own genocide justification.
Such courage and virtue you have.
This is just snark Ad; you can do better than this. The Ukrainian ambassador is getting plenty of airtime at the New Zealand Institute of International Affairs
It is wise to listen and meet with the Russian diplomat. I see our past approach as that of a red-faced simple-minded farmer John Bull pursuing a perceived enemy with a viewpoint of having perfect integrity. I cannot overlook the knowledge that our willingness to see reds under the bed led us to spy on one of our prominent activists from the time she was 10*. Then Dr Sutch, probably the most able and knowledgable civil servant in the country, trying to be informed beyond the Iron Curtain, possibly on a mutual basis, being chased and the Russian, like a Keystone Cop formula.
We have been involved in wars and death from our first appearance in this country. We have upheld the Mother Country and west in more than two wars. We aren't innocents, and we need to play the games of diplomacy and understand the double dealing that may seem appropriate and intrinsic.
Kiwis refusing to communicate with other countries, presumably because of 5 Eyes treaty is unwise. World War 1 may not have happened if there had not been such deep commitments made, we must not have cast-iron promises resulting in isolating ourselves with refusal to meet or treat with others. We need to keep in closer 'touch' enabling agreements to be made to ensure barren hostility cannot grow.
We did trade at one time with Russia – butter for Lada cars. Remember we managed to sink the Mikhail Lermontov, which had been of some Russian national investment and pride. We have had close exchanges on trade in the past and should continue talks in a wary awareness; similar to ours with France (sank a peaceful ship at port in this country) for example.
Note that treaties agree to work and assist each other in a number of ways also in mutual defence, and need to be also to foster mutual – peace with honour. I think that countries have gone too far, put aggression foremost, and that weakens the benefit of a treaty surely? We however, need to keep an understanding of the brain farts that do occur in people with much power and position, so it would be foolish to not watch with care and interest as to the direction and tone of all world powerful, including treaty partners.
Some links I haven't time to devour but seem of value in considerations:
https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/news/free-trade-not-the-only-answer/ 2015
https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/news/russian-butter-discoveries-baffle-experts/ 2017
The Moscow Times – https://www.themoscowtimes.com › 2013 › 10 › 16 › russia-offered-new-zealand-nuclear-sub-to-settle-dairy-debt-in-1990s-a28672
We have international events of mutual maneouvres here regularly – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exercise_Southern_Katipo.
Do those moves by forces planned to control theoretical power and political disruption lead to directing the Tom Phillips hunt to the point where he was stressed enough to became a target for death in front of his children? The use of force and violence can become a foremost method of dealing with dissent and individual thought.
*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU2lpOCJ280 Activist spied on since she was 10 | Q&A 2024 with Jack Tame
I have learned this from reading and watching over the decades as any ordinary citizen could if they bothered to try to keep informed and think.
We've heard this sort of nonsense from the Russian ambassador before.
"… The London warmongering clique thus gave Warsaw the freedom to act, in the secret wish that Warsaw would begin the conflict that the London plutocrats needed in order to begin their long desired and carefully prepared military measures against the Reich.
The government in Warsaw understood. Beginning in April, terror and persecution of ethnic Germans climbed beyond the previous normal and tolerable level. On 13 April, severe anti-German persecutions occurred on the Danzig border. The terrorist attacks on Germans rose throughout Poland after Germany began its efforts to improve relations…"
Joseph Goebbels, new years speech 1940.
Worth checking the whole thing out, it is farrago of invented grievance and self pitying every bit as nauseatingly fake as the lies spilling from this ambassadors mouth.
https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/goeb21.htm
In response to Mikesh above…it is hard to see that Russia would have anything to gain by attacking western countries…
Then why has it sent drones into Latvia, Poland, Roumania and Moldavia in the past 18 months? And built up troops along the Belarus border with Nato countries? Why did Sweden give up its neutrality and join Nato recently?
These are clear threats by Putin to Nato members, as those countries see it. And I say Putin because this is Putin's war, not Russia's.
https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2025/09/11/poland-latvia-restrict-airspace-following-russian-drone–attacks/
https://www.dw.com/en/russian-drones-fly-undeterred-over-moldova-and-romania/a-74944321
Poland, Latvia, Roumania, and Moldavia, can scarcely be regarded as "western" countries, albeit that they are members of NATO. However, I think the drones in question were meant for Ukraine.
Sweden has a border with Russia in the far north, close to the arctic circle.
None of this would mean that Russia has any interest in attacking the West, except to the extent that they may be supplying Ukraine with money and weapons.
There is no international land border. Sweden's are with Norway and Finland.
The interface is in the Baltic Sea.
Norway does.
The term West has a meaning separate from the NATO-Warsaw Pact division in Europe during the of the Cold War.
In that broader context separate from Eurasian, African and Asian.
It sometimes includes Oceania.