Full interview with the Russian ambassador Aleksey Pavlovsky

Steve Evans: Some people say that when you're expanding the embassy or when you wanted to expand the embassy over to the new site, the Yarralumla site, that's so that you could increase your capability of doing espionage.

Ambassador Pavlovsky: So I treat these assertions with the degree of irony they deserve. And with a clear understanding of where this narrative comes from and why.

To take a specific case, you probably have in mind, in fact, a professor who is I quote, "one of the country's most reputable experts on the security services", who also happens to be an official historian of ASIO, told your newspaper that several new floors below ground have been constructed in the Russian embassy compound in Griffith.

So, the logical question arises, how does he know?

And then you and I, we understand what his sources are.

And then I suggest we try and use some common sense. Construction works at the embassy compound in Griffith are conducted by an Australian company according to plans previously submitted and approved by all kinds of Australian authorities

So they are comfortably monitoring the Griffith site, I'm sure on a 24/7 basis, in highly professional ways. So I have no doubts that with the overall paranoia the trends here.

Every brick and every nail that has been entering the construction site have been counted.

Steve Evans: Do you mean the new construction?

Ambassador Pavlovsky: No, no. I am talking about Griffith, Canberra Avenue. Yeah, yes. But I think it applies very much to the Yarralumla site as well, though, probably, the monitoring is less comfortable there.

Anyway, so my point is that the professor's sources know full well that what has been constructed in Canberra Avenue is just a residential building, inhabited now by our personnel who previously lived in rented apartments now moved in.

And there is also a modest use for modest underground parking with some recreational facilities.

Still, as we see the professor in question, with an appropriately grave and authoritative air, is pushing fanciful stories about the Russian embassy being an underground fortress of espionage.

Now, it is anyone's guess what the professor's sources have told the National Security Committee about the Yarralumla site.

READ MORE:

And for both chambers (of parliament) to pass a special legislation in a matter of hours, the advice must have been really impressive.

But so far, we only know about the sensational revelation that the construction site remains exactly the same distance from the Parliament House as it was 15 years ago.

But nevermind, as I understand none of the MPs or senators asked questions anyway.

Steve Evans: So what do you think the motivation for the federal government really is then? To stop you? To block that site and they have blocked it now? Because you lost the High Court decision. So what's the motivation of the Australian government, do you say?

Ambassador Pavlovsky: Attempting to terminate the lease last year, they cited concerns that I quote, "ongoing unfinished works detract from the aesthetic dignity of the area". That was the motivation presented last year. Now it's about protecting processes in the parliament from interference. So that's what I call a theatre of the absurd. And it is really embarrassing.

I'll leave it to them to explain their motivations. But, to me, there seems to exist a sort of obsession in Canberra governmental quarters with obstructing the Russian Mission from having decent accommodation.

Steve Evans: Why do you say it's not decent now in Canberra Avenue?

Ambassador Pavlovsky: Look, 15 years ago, when we signed the lease, already, the Chancery in Griffith occupied by the Soviet and then Russian Embassy since the establishment of diplomatic relations back in 1942 was becoming growingly shabby and not fit for purpose at that time already.

And that is why the two governments agreed that a new chancery and consular section was needed. And the Australian side offered the land in Yarralumla for the construction. And I would like to stress that it was not the Russian government that picked this plot of land. It was what we were offered by the Australian government. That's the point. There was a drastic need for new accommodation for the embassy, 15 years back already.

It is still here. My problem now - my immediate problem - is where can my consular officials work? How can they provide services to Russian nationals and Australian nationals?

Steve Evans: Do you think the Australian government is fulfilling its obligations as one country hosting another country in an embassy?

Ambassador Pavlovsky: I want to refer to the Vienna Convention, and the Vienna Convention says that the receiving country has to assist a mission in getting proper accommodation, obviously assist rather than obstruct under a far-fetched pretext.

Steve Evans: What will you do then? Will you appeal for another site or what will you do?

Ambassador Pavlovsky: It's a difficult issue for me. I have already explained why we needed this new accommodation for the chancery and the consular section while leaving Canberra Avenue completely for residential accommodation of personnel. It was what we needed.

And, okay, after we got the lease, of course, there have been some problems for some years. It is well known.

But exactly at the stage when construction was steadily advancing, with the consular building already completed, the 99 years lease was abruptly terminated under pretexts that do not hold water.

So, I'm asking myself whether it would be reasonable to seek another site, invest in it, build premises, while knowing it can be simply taken from you.

And frankly, I'm not sure that I'm ready to recommend to my government to re-engage in what, in my opinion, turned out to be a three shells game.

Steve Evans: Three shells game?

Ambassador: Let's say not a fair, fair game.

Steve Evans: The elephant in the room with all of this is Ukraine. Where do you say Ukraine fits in? Does the Ukraine situation motivate the Australian government, do you think? What do you think is going on?

Ambassador Pavlovsky: I can refer you to the (Australian) prime minister's press conference of 15th of June announcing actually the legislation to terminate the lease. And if you re-read or review the footage, you will see that he mentioned the anti-Russian position - well known to Russia the position of the Australian government on Ukraine in the very first lines of his introductory remarks.

In this connection, let me recount to you a story. A couple of weeks ago, one of those guys who are paid to stage pro-Ukrainian rallies off our compound in Canberra Avenue, choosing a moment when police were not around, threw a dead possum body over the fence to the embassy territory.

Most probably, he saw this vulgar act of hooliganism as some form of commendable political signaling.

And sometimes I'm struggling with the thought that the motives behind the government's vindictive actions around the Yarralumla site are of some kind of similar nature.

It seems to me that in this case, the self-induced anti-Russian hysteria among Australian politicians prevailed over the basics of statecraft and common sense.

One of fundamental notions of modern international relations is that diplomats and embassies exist exactly to tackle difficult situations and crises in world politics.

So having properly functioning diplomatic channels with major world powers is a benefit for every country especially with ambitions of a middle power.

Unfortunately, this logic apparently is not working with the Australian political system.

Steve Evans: Does that mean that the Australian Embassy in the Australian diplomats in Moscow could be impeded in a similar way?

Ambassador Pavlovsky: We never do anything that is inconsistent with the Vienna Convention. So, impede - is not a proper word. We don't want to impede anyone from doing their functions. The Russian side is interested in having diplomatic channels properly working - but certainly no more than the Australian side. Reciprocity is reciprocity.