Thank you, Mr. President, for giving an opportunity for this interview.
And I will start with the recent tragic event in Aleppo, where the majority of those killed
and wounded were children.
Who do you think organized this crime and on what purpose?
A few months ago, the same agreement was about to be implemented.
But as you know, you're talking about different factions.
All of them are linked to Al Qaeda or Al Nusrah, front.
And one of those factions attacked the buses that wanted to transport the same civilians
outside of Fouan Kafriya, inside Aleppo.
And they attacked those buses and they burned them.
And it was shown on the internet where they said, we won't allow this reconciliation to
happen.
We're going to kill every civilian that wants to use the buses.
And that's what happened when we thought that everything is ready to implement that
reconciliation.
They did what they now thought.
And they are Al Nusrah front.
They didn't hide themselves from the very beginning.
And I think everybody agree that this is Al Nusrah.
In a specific group or Al Nusrah itself?
No, because when you talk about Al Nusrah, their ideology.
So different names, and as you know, Al Nusrah itself changed its name.
So different names doesn't mean change the ideology or the behavior of the cause of killing.
So it doesn't matter what the name.
And how many people have died since the beginning of the war at this point?
Actually, you can talk only about official numbers.
It's tens of thousands, not like what you hear in the media about hundreds of thousands.
Of course, we can talk about thousands of missing people that we don't know anything
about their fate.
This is the official number.
But in the West, of course, they add all together the number of the terrorists and a large amount
of the terrorists.
Of course, they're not registered at the state who has killed or dead.
The same thing about the foreigners who came to Syria in, again, tens or maybe hundreds
of thousands to fight.
So the number that we've been hearing in the Western media during the last six years
were not precise.
It was only to inflate the number just to show how horrible the situation, to use it
as a humanitarian pretext to intervene in Syria.
So as a state, we only talk about tens of thousands of victims till this moment.
So you're not agreeing with the number that the United Nations gave?
No, because the United Nations doesn't have any means to calculate the number.
And actually, no one has, as I said, because we're talking about different factions, foreigners
and Syrians and terrorists and so on.
So it's complicated to tell.
So the only thing that we have are the official records.
Of course, it must be higher than the official record, but we cannot just estimate and give
any number.
I see.
Yesterday, there were reports that al-Baghdadi was captured by the Russian and Syrian military
at the border of Syria and Iraq.
Can you confirm it?
No, no, that's not true.
That's not true.
No, no, that's not true.
Anyway, those borders are under the control of ISIS till that moment.
It's neither Syria, nor Russia, not even Western or American or any other one.
It's only ISIS who is controlling those borders.
So it's safe for al-Baghdadi to be in that area.
All right.
So Damascus has said that it is ready for the mission of organization, for prohibition
of chemical weapons to come and to investigate the Han Shaihun incident.
Had there been any contacts between you and this organization, and what are the possible
dates for the arrival of the first team of experts?
Actually, you've seen the first attack a few years ago that happened in Aleppo by the terrorists
against our army.
We asked the United Nations to send an investigation delegation in order to prove what we said
about the terrorists having gases used against our army.
And later, many incidents happened in that way, and they didn't send any delegation.
The same now.
We formally sent a letter to the United Nations for them.
We asked them that letter to send a delegation in order to investigate what happened in Han
Shaihun.
Of course, still that moment, they didn't send because the West and the United States
blocked any delegation from coming because if they come, they will find that all their
narrative about what happened in Han Shaihun and then the attack on Shairat Airport was
a false flag, was a lie.
That's why they didn't send.
Now the only contact I think is between Russia and maybe the other country in order to send
that delegation to this moment, we didn't have any positive news regarding any delegation
coming.
What is your view of what happened there?
Because there were a lot of different reports of different kinds and misinterpretation and
accusation of fake news.
So what happened there according to your information?
Actually, that area is under the control of Al Nusrah Front, which is Al Qaeda.
The only information the whole world has is what this organization or this group, which
is Al Nusrah, published on YouTube, on the Internet in general, and in different outlets,
mainly Western outlets.
So we cannot base our judgment on their reports.
First of all, we don't know if the site that we attacked that day, half an hour before
or about 11.30, was a chemical warehouse or depot or anything like this.
Their story said that the attack happened at 6.30 in the morning.
We didn't launch any attack at that time.
So you have two possibilities.
The first one, that there was an attack at lunchtime or at about 11.30.
The other possibility that we believe in, that it was a false flag, there was no attack.
All what we saw as pictures and videos was like the video that we've been seeing for
the last year or two years or more regarding the white helmets, the humanitarian Al Qaeda,
which is an elusive story, let's say, which doesn't exist anyway.
The picture that shows children being killed by Russian air strike to discover later that
it wasn't real picture.
They put a boy, they covered him with a mud and the fake blood, of course.
And so on.
All this ploy could be part of them.
This could be part of them.
That's what we believe in because the attack was already prepared and they didn't want
to listen.
They didn't want to investigate.
They only wanted to know if they attacked.
We believe it was a false flag.
For one reason and simple reason, if there was gas leakage or attack and you're talking
about 60 dead in that city, how could the city continue its life normally?
They didn't evacuate the city.
No one left the city.
Life continued as normal and this is mass destruction.
The other day they attacked where they said there was the gas depots and they attacked
all the depots and there was no gas coming out of that airport.
No one of our army officers or military staff was affected by any gas.
So for us, there was no gas attack and no gas depot.
It was a false flag play just to justify the attack on the Shairat base.
The main version is that no chemical weapons or no chemicals were used there.
I mean, even if you look at the pictures, you can see that the rescuers, the presumable
rescuers were rescuing people without masks, without gloves and they were moving freely.
This is against all the specifications of the saringas that they talked about.
They cannot.
They would have been dead like the others.
And you don't know that those people who are lying on the ground, were dead or not.
You can fake this image, very easy.
So you cannot just base your judgment on images and videos, especially made by Al Qaeda.
And is there a threat of using of chemical weapons by the terrorists?
And if so, from where do they get it, from which countries?
From Turkey.
Directly from Turkey.
And there was evidence regarding this.
Some of them being shown on the Internet a few years ago.
You had many parties and parliament members in Turkey who questioned the government regarding
those allegations.
So it's not something hidden.
Many in Syria knew that.
And the only way, the only route for the terrorists to get money, armaments, every logistic supports,
recruit.
And this kind of material is through Turkey.
They don't have any other way to come from the north.
So they have 100 percent Turkey.
I see.
And regarding Turkey, you've mentioned, so in the north of Aleppo, in Al-Bab, the Syrian
Army is facing Turkey forces that have invaded Syria in breach of international law.
Will the Syrian Army undertake any action to put an end to this Turkish intervention?
And I saw when and how this could take place.
When you talk about the Turkish invasion, when you talk about the American troops, again
its invasion, and when you talk about the terrorists on the ground, it's one entity.
There's no difference.
There's one master who's controlling all these factions.
So the priority now is to defeat the terrorists.
When you defeat the terrorists, the Turkish Army and any other army will be weak on the
ground.
And the strength are their proxies, not their own army.
In that regard, when you defeat the terrorists in different areas, it's going to be very
easy to expel any other one, including the Turks.
Either they leave or it's your land.
You have to defend it.
You have to go and fight.
You can't say they can stay or let's negotiate.
No, you don't negotiate.
It's your land.
You defend it.
You expel them.
You fight them.
But the priority now is to fight their proxies because they are the strongest element on
the ground.
Do you think that there can be an improvement in the bilateral relations between Syria and
the United States?
We always try to look at the full half of the cup, but we couldn't find it.
We tried to see anything positive.
We said that this president, what he said, we said promising.
I describe it as promising a few months ago.
But actually, it's not about what they promised, because we all know that the American officials
say something and do something different.
They never committed to their promises or to their words.
So that's what has been proven recently after the attack on Shairat.
They say something and they do something different.
In politics, you don't say, I wouldn't do this.
However, there's a window of hope that this state or this regime can change its attitude
toward respecting your sovereignty, toward more preventing of any bloodletting in your
country.
You have to cooperate.
It's not a personal relation.
It's not hate and love.
It's the interest of your own people.
So I cannot say this escalation has changed anything, because this escalation is the real
expression of the reality of the American regime that's been there for decades.
It's not new for the United States to do such a thing.
But you need to deal with the United States as a great country, at least to refrain it
from any harmful effects generally.
I'm not talking only about Syria.
Can they change their behavior?
We already do.
We don't have a problem.
Have you tried to establish any contacts or do you plan to have contacts with the representatives
of the Trump administration?
Not really.
We don't have any channel now between Syria and the United States regime or administration.
We don't have.
So we just talked about the situation on the North and something is happening there down
on the South.
So do you have any information about Jordan's plans to deploy its troops in Syria in coordination
with the United States under the pretext of fighting the ISIS, as certain media reported?
And this is the case.
So do you think that there is a threat from the neighboring countries to dismember Syria?
We have those information, not only through the media, but through the different sources,
you know, we have the same tribe, the same family living on both sides of the borders
so they can see any changes in the mood or in the logistics, any new plans of the army.
You can see it on the ground.
So we have such information.
But anyway, Jordan was part of the American plans in the beginning of the war in Syria.
Whether you like it or not, he has to obey the orders of the Americans.
Jordan is not independent country anyway, whatever the American wants, it will happen.
So if the American wants to use northern part of Jordan against Syria, they're going to
use it.
So it's not about Jordan.
We don't discuss Jordan as a state.
We discuss Jordan as land in that case because it's the United States who defined the plan,
who defined the players and who endorsed everything regarding Syria coming from Jordan.
And many of the terrorists coming from Jordan and, of course, Turkey, since day one of the
war in Syria.
So it changed the situation, the military situation, and as you said, there are threats
from the north, from the Iraqi part of the border, from Jordan, and the military missile
attack from the U.S. ships.
In this situation, are you going to ask Russia for more help to enhance the Russian assistance,
including probably on the ground?
Actually, the Russian air forces were very effective and efficient during the last year
and a half, a little bit more, in supporting the Syrian Army.
And everybody knows that since that support started in 2015, the balance has changed.
And we could recapture Palmyra and Aleppo and many other areas.
And we could defend it.
Hama recently, it was very huge and well-organized attack, but we could repair it.
So that support was very efficient and, of course, we shouldn't forget the efficient
support of the Iranian.
Oh my God, they didn't send the troops, but with their officers, with their advisors,
they played a very important role.
So I don't think now there's a need for ground troops.
Sometimes when there's intense attack on different fronts, as you mentioned, north,
east, south, and in the middle, the Russian missiles attack from the sea, the cruise missiles.
The Russian strategic bomber came from Russia to attack in Syria.
So the military support, the Russian military support is not limited to their base in Syria.
Usually they are aware about what the need of the fight.
You have this fluctuation, but you don't need troops on the ground till that moment.
Maybe in the future, if our enemies and their supporters, their terrorists, the proxies,
change their strategy and bring more terrorists from around the world, and you have full armies
of terrorists at that time, it could be needed.
But this moment, I don't think it's needed.
What's been done is good and enough.
Using the future of political settlement, how do you see it, taking into account the
low effectiveness of the Geneva talks?
And can Astana replace Geneva as a main platform for negotiations?
And another question, are there any people with whom you are ready to contact, to engage
in direct talks from the opposition side, I mean, from those who come to Astana, from
the military faction, or in Geneva?
First of all, our estimation of Geneva that it hasn't started yet, till this moment, nothing.
It's stillborn.
It's dead.
Because, I mean, if you want to buy utility in the market, the first thing you read on
the box is the requirement.
What the requirement for this utility to work properly, to deliver what you expect, the same
for anything in this world.
If you're talking about Geneva, it could be a good idea.
Astana is a very good idea, but do we have the requirement for these two means to produce?
Till that moment, no, because part of this event, which is Russia, Iran, and of course
Syria, they are willing to achieve a peaceful solution.
They respect the sovereignty of Syria.
They're looking for the unity of Syria.
They respect the charter of the United Nations, the different Security Council resolutions,
and so on.
While, if you look at the other party, the Western bloc, with their allies in the region,
and their proxies, of course, they are on the other side.
They are using these events only as political umbrella for the terrorists, not for a political
solution.
So, the requirements that to have one objective, now you don't have one objective, you have
different objectives, you have at least two objectives.
You need to discuss it with the other side that is called the opposition, whether they
are militants or political opposition.
But they are different factions and they have different points of views, so you're not talking
about one entity.
So, I have so many other requirements that hasn't been provided yet for these initiatives
to succeed at this moment.
Now, are we ready to sit?
Of course, in Syria, we sat with the terrorists, and how can we make those reconciliations
if we don't sit with them?
From the very beginning, we noted that there was no real and genuine political track for
the reason that I just mentioned.
So we said, let's go and pave the way for your own political track, which is direct
negotiations with the terrorists or militants in different areas, and tell them if you give
up your arguments, I will give you amnesty and go back to your normal life, live normally
like any other citizen.
Otherwise, if you're not part of this reconciliation, you can live anywhere you want, and that's
what's happening today, and yesterday and every day that's happening from time to time.
And that helped the stability in many areas in Syria, and that undermined the terrorists
and their masters.
So, yes, we are ready to sit with whoever could help us stopping this bloodshedding
in Syria.
We don't have whoever, we don't have any problem, we don't have any taboo in that regard.
But you don't have any preferences as well.
In what way?
What do you mean?
In the way of having some concrete people, concrete names with whom the Syrian government
can talk directly.
No, sometimes you can say, I'm going to sit with the political opposition.
I wouldn't sit with the militants, let's say.
I would sit with the opposition that are not linked to Qatar or to Saudi Arabia or to France
and so on.
It's not part of the foreign agenda against Syria.
But at the end, the main question that you're going to ask before starting any negotiation,
is he able to deliver what can he do?
If I sit with somebody who doesn't have any influence on the ground, on the reality in
Syria, what are we going to agree upon?
It's just a waste of time.
So actually we are very pragmatic in that regard.
We say, let's sit with whoever can change the situation in two ways.
The first one is to stop the killing.
This is number one.
This is prior to every Syrian, not for the government, every Syrian.
If you ask anyone, he'll tell you, we need security, we need stability.
This is number one.
Second, if you want to discuss it politically, you can talk about anything, you can talk
about the constitution, the future of Syria, the political system that you want, the economic
system, anything else is going to be viable.
It won't be complicated at the time.
But without stability, you cannot achieve anything in any negotiation.
That's why I said we went directly to talk to the militant that is not our favorite as
your question, but it's the most effective in the meantime.
You've mentioned Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and recently Kazakhstan is a host country of
Astana process, not invited but proposed to invite more countries to this process, including
Qatar and Saudis.
How do you think about that?
I think the more countries you have, the better in different ways.
You either have more support to this initiative, and that will protect that initiative and
raise the possibility of success, or you have the same country that they're going to oppose
it, whether they are part of it or outside.
But if they are part of it, you can point at them, you can tell them that you are part
of the problem, and you have to help.
And if you are genuine about helping, not only by your discourse and rhetorics, this
is the initiative, be part of it, and show us that you are again the terrorism.
Show us that you support what the Syrian people want.
So in both ways, it's positive to invite whoever wants to come.
So I support what the Kazakhstan officials announced yesterday about expanding the participation
in Astana.
And regarding the constitution, have you already studied the project that is now debated in
Geneva, and what do you think about the proposal of withdrawing the word Arab from the name
of the country?
Again, we don't own as government, we don't own the constitution.
It should be Syrian consensus.
If the Syrian doesn't believe in the word of Arab state, what the meaning of having
this word, just because the government believe?
No.
We have to be the mirror of the Syrian, the majority of the Syrian, when we say yes or
no.
Our impression, the majority of the Syrian, they are adhered to this word, because they
are their identity, the majority of Syrians are Arabs, and they believe in their identity.
But again, I wouldn't say that this is right or wrong, till the Syrians have their own
say in referendum, before saying the president said he support this word, or his, again,
that word.
It means nothing in the meantime.
Still early to discuss that point, it's not the contention issue.
I mean, nobody is discussing it now.
Few people in Syria, mainly among the Kurds, mentioned this issue.
It's not a big problem.
Let's talk a little bit about the bilateral relations in economic field.
So recently, our vice prime minister, Dmitry Agozin, has visited Damascus and he said that
there was an agreement to promote Russian companies in Syria, and that he received guarantees
from you that Russian companies will be well-perceived and have priorities here.
So what are the specific mechanisms that were established to fulfill this purpose?
We have our laws regarding how to make contracts with different companies.
We already started with some of the companies after his visit, especially as the Western
companies left Syria not because of the security situation, not for security reasons, actually
for political reasons.
So if you want to call it market, the Syrian market is free now for Russian companies to
come and join and to play an important part in rebuilding Syria and investing in Syria.
The most important part for me, and I think for them as well, is the oil field, the oil
and gas.
Some Russian companies now joined, let's say, that sector recently, during the last
few months, and the process of signing the contract, the final steps of signing the contracts
is underway.
So that's how I look at it.
Are any concrete negotiations underway with the Russians regarding the purchasing of
new air defence systems?
Yes, it's already the case before the war and during the war.
Of course, we need more armaments after the war and because of the consumption.
This is part of the daily relation between the two institutions in the Ministry of Defence
in Russia and Syria.
Has there been any talks of possible non-repayable deliveries, delivery for free from Russia,
or is it a commercial contract?
In this situation, I mean our war, Russia looks at this war as more than Syrian war
and more than Syrian Russian war.
I think it's the war of every country that wants to protect its citizens from the terrorists.
So when Russia supports our army, it not only protects the Syrian citizens, it also protects
the Russian citizens and I think the Europeans and others.
So for them, they don't look at it as a commercial war, like the Americans.
When they launch a war, they calculate how much jobs can you create out of this war.
They look at it as a war that needs to protect their citizens, our citizens, other citizens.
The position of Russia, the balance, the political balance, the military balance around the world
as a great country.
So in that regard, you don't look at the armaments as how much do they cost or how much do they
bring as benefit or profit.
