War re Ukraine: Thread

grarpamp grarpamp at gmail.com
Mon Mar 28 23:49:13 PDT 2022


Putin's two recent manifestos / speeches (random web translations)...



February 21, 2022

Dear citizens of Russia! Dear friends!

The topic of my speech is the events in Ukraine and why this is so
important for us, for Russia. Of course, my speech is also addressed
to our fellow citizens in Ukraine.
I will have to speak at length and in detail. The problem is very serious.

The situation in the Donbass has once again become critical and acute.
And today I am addressing you directly, not only to assess what is
happening but also to inform you about the decisions that are being
taken and possible further steps in this direction.

I would like to emphasize once again that Ukraine is not just a
neighboring country for us. It is an integral part of our own history,
culture and spiritual space. It is our friends, our relatives, not
only colleagues, friends and former work colleagues, but also our
relatives and close family members.

Since the oldest times the inhabitants of the south-western historical
territories of ancient Russia have called themselves Russians and
Orthodox Christians. It was the same in the 17th century, when a part
of these territories was reunited with the Russian state, and even
after that.

It seems to us that in principle we all know this, that we are talking
about known facts. However, in order to understand what is happening
today, to explain the motives of Russian actions and the goals we have
set, it is necessary to say at least a few words about the history of
the issue.

So let me start with the fact that modern Ukraine was created entirely
by Russia, more precisely, by Bolshevik communist Russia. This process
began almost immediately after the 1917 Revolution, and Lenin and his
comrades-in-arms did it in a very crude way with Russia itself – by
secession, cutting off parts of its own historical territories. Of
course, no one asked the millions of people who lived there for
anything.

Then, before and after the Great Patriotic War, Stalin already annexed
some territories that had previously belonged to Poland, Romania and
Hungary to the USSR and transferred them to Ukraine. As a kind of
compensation, Stalin gave Poland some of the ancestral German
territories, and in 1954, for some reason, Khrushchev took Crimea away
from Russia and gave it to Ukraine. In this way, the territory of
Soviet Ukraine was created.

But now I would like to talk especially about the initial period of
the creation of the USSR. I think this is very important for us. We
will have to start, as they say, from a distance.

I would like to recall that after the October coup of 1917 and the
subsequent civil war, the Bolsheviks began to build a new state
system, and there were quite sharp disagreements between them. Stalin,
who in 1922 held the posts of General Secretary of the Central
Committee of the RKP and People’s Commissar for Nationalities in
personal union, proposed to build the country according to the
principles of autonomization, that is, to give the republics – the
future administrative-territorial units – far-reaching powers when
they joined the unitary state.

Lenin criticized this plan and suggested making concessions to the
nationalists, as he called them at the time – the “independents.”
These were precisely Lenin’s ideas of an essentially confederative
state structure and the right of peoples to self-determination up to
and including secession, which formed the basis of Soviet statehood:
first in 1922 in the Declaration on the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics and then, after Lenin’s death, in the 1924 Constitution of
the USSR.

Many questions immediately arise here. And the first of them is
actually the most important: why was it necessary to satisfy any
boundlessly growing nationalist ambitions on the edges of the former
empire? The transfer of huge, often arbitrarily formed administrative
units, the Union Republics, which often had no relation to the
territory. I repeat: they were transferred together with the
population of historical Russia.

Moreover, these administrative units were in fact given the status and
form of national state entities. Once again I ask myself: why was it
necessary to make such generous gifts, which the most ardent
nationalists did not even dare to dream of before, and, moreover, to
grant the republics the right to secede from the unitary state without
any conditions?

At first glance, this is completely incomprehensible, it is madness.
But it is so only at first sight. There is an explanation for it.
After the revolution, the main task of the Bolsheviks was to maintain
power, at any cost. For this they did everything: they accepted the
humiliating conditions of the Brest Treaty at a time when Imperial
Germany and its allies were in the most difficult military and
economic situation and the outcome of the First World War was actually
already predetermined, and they complied with all the demands, all the
wishes of the nationalists inside the country.

In view of the historical destiny of Russia and its peoples, the
Leninist principles of state-building were not only a mistake, but far
worse than a mistake. After the collapse of the USSR in 1991 this
became absolutely obvious.

Of course, the events of the past cannot be changed, but we must at
least speak about them directly and honestly, without reservations and
without political coloration. I can only add that the considerations
of the current political conjuncture, however spectacular and
advantageous they may seem at a given moment, should not or cannot
under any circumstances form the basis for the fundamental principles
of statehood.

I do not want to accuse anyone now, the situation in the country at
that time and after the civil war, before the civil war, was
incredibly difficult and critical. I just want to say today that it
was exactly like that. That is a historical fact. As I have already
said, the Bolshevik policy led to the emergence of Soviet Ukraine,
which even today can rightly be called “Vladimir Lenin Ukraine”. He
was its author and architect. This is fully confirmed by documents in
the archives, including Lenin’s strict directives for the Donbass,
which was literally squeezed into Ukraine. And now the “grateful
descendants” have demolished Lenin monuments in Ukraine. They call
this decommunization. (Translator’s note: “Decommunization” means the
eradication of everything that reminds of communism, similar to the
denazification in Germany after World War II).

You want to decommunize? Well, that’s perfectly fine with us. But you
should not, as they say, stop halfway. We are ready to show you what
real decommunization means for Ukraine.

Returning to history, I repeat that the USSR was founded in 1922 on
the territory of the former Russian Empire. However, life itself
immediately showed that it was impossible to maintain such a large and
complex territory or to govern it according to the proposed amorphous,
quasi-confederal principles. They were completely disconnected from
reality and historical tradition.

It is only logical that the Red Terror and the rapid transition to
Stalinist dictatorship, the domination of communist ideology and the
monopoly of power of the Communist Party, nationalization and the
planned economy system in practice made the declared but
unimplementable principles of statehood a mere declaration, a
formality. In reality, the Union Republics had no rights of
sovereignty at all; these rights simply did not exist. In practice, a
strictly centralized, completely unitary state was created.

Stalin, in fact, put into practice not Lenin’s, but his very own ideas
of statehood. But he did not make any corresponding changes in the
systemic documents, in the constitution of the country, did not
formally reconsider the proclaimed Leninist principles of building the
USSR. Obviously, there was no reason for that – everything worked
under the totalitarian regime and it looked very nice, attractive and
even super-democratic on the surface.

Nevertheless, it is a great pity that the vile, utopian fantasies
inspired by the revolution, but absolutely destructive for a normal
country, were not promptly removed from the basic, formally legal
foundations on which our entire statehood was built. No one, as was so
often the case with us in the past, thought about the future.

The leaders of the Communist Party seemed convinced that they had
succeeded in forming a solid system of government and that they had
finally solved the national question through their policies. But the
distortions, changes of concepts, manipulation of public consciousness
and deception were costly. The bacillus of nationalist ambition had
not disappeared, and the original mine that had been laid to undermine
the immunity of the state to the contagion of nationalism was just
waiting to explode. This landmine, I repeat, was the right to secede
from the USSR.

In the mid-1980s, against the backdrop of growing socioeconomic
problems and an obvious crisis in the planned economy, the national
question intensified, the core of which, as always, was not the
expectations and unfulfilled aspirations of the peoples of the Union,
but first and foremost the growing appetite of local elites.

But instead of thoroughly analyzing the situation and taking
appropriate measures, especially in the economy, as well as gradually,
thoughtfully and consciously transforming the political system and
state structure, the CPSU leadership confined itself to putting into
words the Leninist principle of national self-determination.

As the power struggle unfolded within the Communist Party itself, each
of the opposing sides, in order to broaden its base of support, began
to ruthlessly incite, promote and play on nationalist sentiments by
promising its potential supporters whatever they desired. Amid
superficial and populist rhetoric about democracy and a bright future
built on the basis of a market or planned economy, but in the real
conditions of impoverishment and total deficit, no one in power
thought of the inevitable tragic consequences for the country.

And then they followed the well-trodden path of satisfying the
ambitions of nationalist elites nurtured in their own party ranks,
forgetting that the CPSU – thank God – no longer had such instruments
as state terror and a Stalin-style dictatorship to maintain power and
the country itself. And so even the infamous leadership role of the
party itself disappeared like a morning mist without a trace before
their eyes.

In September 1989, the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU
adopted an essentially fatal document – the so-called national policy
of the Party in modern conditions, the CPSU Platform. It contained the
following provisions, and I quote, “The Union republics shall have all
the rights commensurate with their status as sovereign socialist
states.”

Another clause read, “The supreme representative organs of power of
the Union Republics may challenge and suspend the decrees and orders
of the Union Government in their territories.”

And finally, “Each Union Republic shall have its own citizenship,
which shall apply to all its inhabitants.”

Was it not obvious, then, what such formulations and decisions would lead to?

This is neither the time nor the place to discuss issues of state or
constitutional law and to define the concept of citizenship.
Nevertheless, the question arises: why did the country have to be
shaken even further under these already difficult circumstances?

Already two years before the collapse of the USSR, its fate was
practically sealed. Now the radicals and nationalists, including and
especially in Ukraine, are claiming the achievement of independence
for themselves. As we can see, this is not the case at all. The
collapse of our some country was caused by historical, strategic
mistakes of the Bolshevik leaders, the leadership of the CPSU, made at
different times in state building, economic and national policy. They
have on their conscience the collapse of the historical Russia, which
bore the name of USSR.

Despite all these injustices, fraud and open robbery of Russia, our
people recognized the new geopolitical realities that emerged after
the collapse of the USSR, recognized the new independent states. And
not only that – Russia itself, which was in a very difficult situation
at the time, helped its CIS partners, including its Ukrainian
counterparts, from whom numerous requests for material support were
already received at the time of the declaration of independence. And
our country provided this support while respecting the dignity and
sovereignty of Ukraine.

According to expert estimates, confirmed by a simple calculation of
the prices of energy carriers, the volume of preferential credits and
economic and trade preferences granted by Russia to Ukraine amounted
to about $250 billion for the Ukrainian budget from 1991 to 2013.

But this is far from all. At the end of 1991, the USSR’s debt
obligations to foreign countries and international funds amounted to
about $100 billion. Originally, it was assumed that these loans would
be repaid in solidarity by all former Soviet republics in proportion
to their economic potential. However, Russia assumed the entire Soviet
debt and repaid it in full. It completed this process in 2017.

In return, the newly independent states were to renounce their share
of Soviet foreign assets, and agreements to this effect were reached
with Ukraine in December 1994. However, Kiev did not ratify these
agreements and later simply refused to implement it. It laid claim to
the Diamond Fund, the Gold Reserve, and property and other assets of
the former USSR abroad.

However, despite the well-known problems, Russia has always cooperated
with Ukraine openly, honestly, and, I repeat, while safeguarding its
interests, and our relations have developed in a wide range of areas.
For example, bilateral trade turnover in 2011 amounted to more than
$50 billion. I would like to point out that the volume of Ukraine’s
trade with all EU countries in 2019, before the pandemic, was below
this figure.

In this regard, it jumps to the eye that Ukrainian governments
preferred to act in such a way that in relations with Russia they had
all the rights and benefits, but no obligations.

Instead of partnership, dependence prevailed, which the official
bodies in Kiev sometimes considered almost a peccadillo. Suffice it to
recall the constant extortion in the field of energy transit and the
banal theft of gas. (Translator’s note: details of the gas conflicts
past, to which Putin alludes here, can be found here).

I should add that Kiev has tried to use dialogue with Russia as a
pretext to negotiate with the West, to blackmail it into rapprochement
with Moscow, and to gain advantages for itself: on the grounds that
otherwise Russian influence in Ukraine would increase.

At the same time, from the very beginning, I would like to emphasize,
from the very first steps, Ukrainian governments have started to build
their statehood on the denial of everything that unites us, they have
tried to distort the consciousness and historical memory of millions
of people, whole generations living in Ukraine. Not surprisingly,
Ukrainian society was confronted with the rise of extreme nationalism,
which quickly took the form of aggressive Russophobia and neo-Nazism.
Hence the involvement of Ukrainian nationalists and neo-Nazis in
terrorist gangs in the North Caucasus and the increasingly vocal
territorial claims against Russia.

Foreign forces, which have used an extensive network of NGOs and
intelligence agencies to cultivate their clientele in Ukraine and
bring their proxies to power, have also played their part.

It is also important to understand that Ukraine has basically never
had a stable tradition of genuine statehood. Since 1991, it has gone
the way of mechanical copying of foreign models, detached from its
history and Ukrainian reality. The state’s political institutions have
been constantly reshaped to serve rapidly rising clans with their own
interests, which have nothing in common with the interests of the
Ukrainian people.

The purpose of the so-called pro-Western civilizational decision of
the Ukrainian oligarchs was and is not to create better conditions for
the welfare of the people, but to subserviently serve Russia’s
geopolitical rivals in order to save billions of dollars stolen from
Ukrainians and stashed by the oligarchs in Western bank accounts.

Some industrial financial groups that took over parties and
politicians initially relied on nationalists and radicals. Others paid
lip service to good relations with Russia and cultural and linguistic
diversity and came to power with the votes of citizens who
wholeheartedly supported such aspirations, including millions from the
southeast of the country. But once in office, they immediately
betrayed their constituents, abandoned their campaign promises, and
implemented policies at the behest of radicals, sometimes persecuting
their former allies – those civil society organizations that advocated
bilingualism and cooperation with Russia. They took advantage of the
fact that the people who supported them were usually law-abiding,
moderate in their views, and accustomed to trusting the government.

The radicals, in turn, became more and more brazen, and their demands
grew year by year. It was not difficult for them to impose their will
again and again on a weak government, itself infected with the virus
of nationalism and corruption, and to cleverly replace the true
cultural, economic and social interests of the people and the real
sovereignty of Ukraine with various kinds of speculations with
national justifications and foreign ethnographic features.

There is still no permanent statehood in Ukraine and the political
electoral processes serve only as a cover, a projection screen for the
redistribution of power and property between different oligarch clans.

Corruption, which is undoubtedly a challenge and a problem for many
countries, including Russia, has taken on a special character in
Ukraine. It has literally impregnated and corroded Ukrainian
statehood, the entire system, all branches of power. Radicals
exploited people’s legitimate discontent, saddled on the protest and
led the Maidan to a coup d’état in 2014. In the process, they received
direct support from abroad. Material support from the U.S. Embassy to
the so-called protest camp on the Maidan in Kyiv, according to our
information, amounted to one million dollars per day. Other very large
amounts were brazenly transferred directly to the bank accounts of
opposition leaders. And we talked about tens of millions of dollars.
And how much did those who were actually injured, the families of
those who died in the clashes in the streets and squares of Kiev and
other cities, get in the end? It is better not to ask about that.

The radicals who came to power organized persecution, outright terror
against those who spoke out against anti-constitutional measures.
Politicians, journalists and public figures were mistreated and
publicly humiliated. Ukrainian cities were overtaken by a wave of
pogroms and violence, a series of spectacular and unpunished murders.
The horrific tragedy in Odessa, where peaceful protesters were
brutally murdered and burned alive at the Trade Union House, makes one
shudder. The criminals who committed this atrocity have not been
punished and no one is looking for them.

But we know their names and we will do everything to punish them, to
find them and bring them to justice.

The Maidan did not bring Ukraine closer to democracy and progress.
With the coup d’état, the nationalists and the political forces
supporting them finally led the situation to a dead end and pushed
Ukraine into the abyss of civil war. Eight years after these events,
the country is divided. Ukraine is in an acute socioeconomic crisis.

According to international organizations, in 2019, almost six million
Ukrainians, I emphasize about 15 percent of the total population, not
the working-age population, were forced to go abroad in search of
work. As a rule, these are casual jobs. The following fact is also
significant: since 2020, more than 60,000 doctors and other health
workers have left the country during the pandemic.

Since 2014, water tariffs have increased by nearly a third,
electricity prices by several times, and gas prices by ten times. Many
people simply don’t have the money to pay utilities; they literally
have to survive.

What’s happening? Why is all this happening? The answer is obvious: it
is because the dowry, which dates not only from the Soviet era, but
also from the Russian Empire, has been squandered and embezzled. Tens
and hundreds of thousands of jobs that provided people with a stable
income, including through close cooperation with Russia, and brought
taxes into the state coffers were lost. Industries such as machine
building, instrument making, electronics, shipbuilding, and aircraft
construction either lie idle or have been destroyed, whereas they used
to be the pride not only of Ukraine, but of the entire Soviet Union.

In 2021, the Chernomorsky shipyard in Mykolaiv, where the first
shipyards were built in Catherine II’s time, was closed down. The
famous Antonov concern has not produced a single production aircraft
since 2016, and the Yuzhmash plant, which specializes in the
manufacture of rocket and space equipment, is on the verge of
bankruptcy, as is the Kremenchuk steelworks. This sad list could be
continued indefinitely.

The gas transportation system, which was built by the entire Soviet
Union, is so dilapidated that its operation is fraught with great
risks and environmental hazards.

And this raises the question: are poverty, hopelessness, loss of
industrial and technological potential the choice of the pro-Western
civilization that deceived millions of people for years and promised
them paradise?

In pracis, it has come down to the fact that the collapse of the
Ukrainian economy is accompanied by outright plundering of its
citizens, while Ukraine itself is simply placed under foreign
administration. This is happening not only on the instructions of
Western capitals, but also on the ground through a whole network of
foreign consultants, NGOs, and other institutions that have spread
themselves throughout Ukraine. They have direct influence on all major
personnel decisions, on all branches and levels of government, from
the central government to the municipalities, on the main state
enterprises and corporations, including Naftogaz, Ukrenergo, Ukrainian
Railways, Ukroboronprom (the defense industry), Ukrposhta (the postal
service), and the Ukrainian Seaport Administration.

There are simply no independent courts in Ukraine. At the request of
the West, the Kyiv government granted representatives of international
organizations the priority right to select the members of the highest
judicial bodies – the Judicial Council and the Judicial Qualification
Commission.

In addition, the U.S. Embassy directly controls the National Agency
for Corruption Prevention, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau NABU,
the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office, and the Supreme
Anti-Corruption Court. All of this is done under the plausible pretext
of making the fight against corruption more effective. Fine, fine, but
where are the results? Corruption is in full bloom and thriving better
than ever.

Are Ukrainians themselves aware of all these methods of their
administration? Do they realize that their country is not simply under
a political and economic protectorate, but has been reduced to the
level of a colony with a puppet regime? The privatization of the state
has led the government that calls itself the “power of patriots” to
lose its national character and consistently pursue the complete
de-sovereignization of the country.

De-Russification and forced assimilation continue. The Verkhovna Rada
ceaselessly enacts more and more discriminatory laws, and a law on
so-called indigenous peoples is already in force. People who consider
themselves Russians and want to preserve their identity, language and
culture have received a clear message that they are strangers in
Ukraine.

According to the laws on education and functioning of the Ukrainian
language as a state language, Russian is banned from schools, from all
public areas to ordinary stores. The law on so-called lustration, the
“purge” of power, made it possible to dismiss disagreeable officials.

Laws giving Ukrainian law enforcement agencies grounds for rigorous
suppression of freedom of expression and dissent, as well as
persecution of the opposition, are being bred. The sad practice of
unilateral illegitimate sanctions against other states, foreign
individuals and legal entities is known worldwide. Ukraine has outdone
its Western curators and invented such an instrument as sanctions
against its own citizens, companies, TV channels, other media and even
members of parliament.

Kiev also continues to massacre the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the
Moscow Patriarchate. And this is not an emotional assessment, but
concrete decisions and documents prove it. The Ukrainian government
has cynically turned the tragedy of the church split into an
instrument of state policy. The current leadership of the country does
not respond to the requests of the citizens of Ukraine to repeal the
laws that violate the rights of believers. Moreover, new draft laws
against the clergy and millions of parishioners of the Ukrainian
Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate were registered in the
Rada.

I would like to speak separately about Crimea. The people on the
peninsula have freely chosen to belong to Russia. The government in
Kyiv has nothing to counter this clear and unequivocal will of the
people and therefore relies on aggressive actions, on activating
extremist cells, including radical Islamic organizations, on sending
subversive groups to carry out terrorist attacks on critical
infrastructure and to kidnap Russian citizens. We have direct evidence
that such aggressive actions are carried out with the support of
foreign intelligence services.

In March 2021, Ukraine adopted a new military strategy. This document
is almost exclusively dedicated to confrontation with Russia and is
aimed at drawing foreign states into conflict with our country. The
strategy envisions building a kind of terrorist underground in Crimea
and the Donbass. It also outlines the contours of the expected war,
which, according to today’s strategists in Kiev, should end – and I
quote from here – “with the help of the international community on
terms favorable to Ukraine.” And also, as Kiev expresses itself today,
and I quote here as well, please listen more carefully, “with the
military support of the international community in a geopolitical
confrontation with the Russian Federation.” Basically, this is nothing
but preparation for military action against our country-against
Russia.

We also know that there have already been statements that Ukraine will
develop its own nuclear weapons, and this is not empty boasting.
Ukraine has Soviet nuclear technology and the means to use such
weapons, including aircraft and Tochka U missiles, also of Soviet
design, with a range of more than 100 kilometers. But they will
increase that, it’s just a matter of time. There is Soviet-era
know-how.

So it will be much easier for Ukraine to get hold of tactical nuclear
weapons than for some other states-I won’t name them now-that actually
do such developments, especially if it gets technological support from
abroad. And we must not rule that out either.

If Ukraine comes into possession of weapons of mass destruction, the
situation in the world, in Europe, especially for us, for Russia, will
change dramatically. We cannot but react to this real danger,
especially to the fact that the Western patrons could facilitate the
appearance of such weapons in Ukraine to create another threat to our
country. We can see how persistently the Kiev regime is pumped full of
weapons. The United States alone has provided billions of dollars
since 2014 for this purpose, including weapons, equipment, and
specialized training. In recent months, Western arms have flowed
steadily into Ukraine, ostentatiously and in full view of the world.
The Ukrainian armed forces and intelligence services are run by
foreign advisors, we are well aware.

In recent years, military contingents from NATO countries have been
almost constantly on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of
exercises. The command and control system of Ukrainian troops has
already been integrated into NATO forces. This means that command over
Ukrainian forces, including individual units and subunits, can be
exercised directly from NATO headquarters.

The U.S. and NATO have begun shamelessly opening up Ukrainian
territory as a theater for potential war. The regular joint exercises
are clearly anti-Russian. Last year alone, they involved more than
23,000 troops and more than a thousand pieces of military equipment.

A law has already been passed on allowing armed forces from other
countries on the territory of Ukraine in 2022 to participate in
multinational exercises. It is clear that we are talking about NATO
forces in the first place. At least ten such joint maneuvers are
planned for this year.

It is obvious that such events serve as a cover for the rapid buildup
of the NATO military force in Ukraine. This is all the more true since
the network of airfields developed with the help of the Americans –
Boryspil, Ivano-Frankivsk, Chuguev, Odessa and so on – can ensure the
transfer of military units in the shortest possible time. Ukrainian
airspace is open to flights of American strategic bombers and
reconnaissance aircraft and drones used to monitor Russian territory.

I would like to add that the American-built Maritime Operations Center
in Ochakov makes it possible to support the actions of NATO ships,
including their use of precision weapons against the Russian Black Sea
Fleet and our infrastructure along the entire Black Sea coast.

At one time, the U.S. wanted to build similar facilities in Crimea,
but the Crimeans and the residents of Sevastopol thwarted those plans.
We will always remember this.

I repeat, today such a center is being established, it has already
been established in Ochakov. Let me remind you that in the 18th
century soldiers of Alexander Suvorov fought for this city. It is
thanks to their courage that it became a part of Russia. At the same
time, in the 18th century, the Black Sea lands, annexed to Russia as a
result of the wars with the Ottoman Empire, were called Novorossiya.
Today, these milestones of history are forgotten, as are the names of
statesmen of the Russian Empire, without whose actions many large
cities and even access to the Black Sea in modern Ukraine would not
exist.

Recently the monument to Alexander Suvorov in Poltava was demolished.
What to say about it? You deny your own past? From the so-called
colonial heritage of the Russian Empire? Well, then be consistent
here.

Further. I would like to point out that Article 17 of the Ukrainian
Constitution does not allow the establishment of foreign military
bases on the territory of Ukraine. However, it turned out that this is
just a convention that can be easily circumvented.

NATO countries have sent training missions to Ukraine. In fact, they
are already foreign military bases. They just call the bases
“missions,” and it’s bagged.

Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course toward NATO membership.
Yes, of course, every country has the right to choose its own security
system and enter into military alliances. And that would all be so if
there were not a “but.” International documents explicitly enshrine
the principle of equal and indivisible security, which, as you know,
includes the obligation not to strengthen one’s own security at the
expense of the security of other states. I can refer here to the OSCE
Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul in 1999 and the OSCE
Declaration of Astana in 2010.

In other words, the choice of security should not be a threat to other
states, and Ukraine’s accession to NATO is a direct threat to Russia’s
security.

Let me remind you that in April 2008, at the Bucharest Summit of the
North Atlantic Alliance, the U.S. pushed through the decision that
Ukraine and, for that matter, Georgia would become members of NATO.
Many European allies of the U.S. were already aware of all the risks
of such a prospect, but had to bow to the will of their senior
partner. The Americans simply used it to pursue a clearly anti-Russian
policy.

A number of Alliance member states are already very skeptical about
Ukraine joining NATO. At the same time, we are getting a signal from
some European capitals saying, “What are you worried about? It’s not
literally going to happen tomorrow.” In fact, our American partners
are talking about it, too. “Well,” we say, “not tomorrow, but the day
after tomorrow. What does it change in the historical perspective?
Basically nothing.”

More than that, we are aware of the position and words of the
leadership of the United States that the active hostilities in eastern
Ukraine do not preclude the possibility of that country joining NATO
if it can meet the criteria of the North Atlantic Alliance and defeat
corruption.

Yet they keep trying to convince us that NATO is a peace-loving and
purely defensive alliance. They say that there is no threat to Russia
whatsoever. Once again, they suggest that we take their word for it.
But we know the true value of those words. When the issue of German
reunification was discussed in 1990, the Soviet leadership was assured
by the United States that NATO’s jurisdiction and military presence
would not be extended one inch eastward. And that German reunification
would not lead to an eastward expansion of NATO’s military
organization. That is a quote.

They talked, made verbal assurances, and it all turned out to be empty
noise. Later, we were assured that NATO membership of Central and
Eastern European countries would only improve relations with Moscow,
relieve those countries of the fear of their difficult historical
legacy, and, moreover, create a belt of Russia-friendly countries.

The exact opposite has occurred. The governments of some Eastern
European countries, peddling their Russophobia, brought their
complexes and stereotypes about the Russian threat into the alliance
and insisted on building collective defense capabilities to be used
primarily against Russia. And this happened in the 1990s and early
2000s, when relations between Russia and the West were at a high level
thanks to openness and our goodwill.

Russia fulfilled all its obligations, including the withdrawal of
troops from Germany and from the Central and Eastern European states,
thus making a great contribution to overcoming the legacy of the Cold
War. We have always offered various opportunities for cooperation,
including within the framework of the NATO-Russia Council and the
OSCE.

More than that, I am going to say something now that I have never said
publicly before, I am going to say it for the first time. In 2000,
when outgoing U.S. President Bill Clinton visited Moscow, I asked him,
“What would America think about admitting Russia into NATO?”

I won’t divulge all the details of that conversation, but the response
to my question looked outwardly, shall we say, very guarded, and how
the Americans actually reacted to that possibility can be seen in
their practical steps toward our country. These include open support
for terrorists in the North Caucasus, a dismissive attitude toward our
demands and security concerns in the area of NATO expansion,
withdrawal from the ABM Treaty on the prohibition of missile defense,
and so on. It makes you wonder: why? What is the point of all this?
All right, you don’t want to see us as a friend and ally, but why do
you have to make an enemy out of us?

There is only one answer: it is not because of our political regime or
anything else, they simply do not need such a big independent country
as Russia. That is the answer to all questions. It is the source of
traditional American policy toward Russia. Hence the attitude to all
our security proposals.

Today, it is enough to look at the map to see how the Western
countries have “kept” their promise not to expand NATO to the East.
They have simply deceived us. We have seen five waves of NATO
expansion, one after another. In 1999, Poland, the Czech Republic and
Hungary were admitted to the Alliance. In 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia,
Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. 2009 Albania and
Croatia. 2017 Montenegro and 2020 Northern Macedonia.

As a result, the Alliance has come right up against Russia’s borders
with its military infrastructure. This was one of the main causes of
the Euro-security crisis and has had a very negative impact on the
whole system of international relations, leading to the loss of mutual
trust.

The situation continues to deteriorate, including in the strategic
sphere. For example, positions for missile defense missiles are being
established in Romania and Poland as part of the U.S. global missile
defense project. It is known that the launching pads placed there can
be used for Tomahawk cruise missiles, i.e. offensive attack systems.
(Translator’s note: details can be found here).

In addition, the U.S. is developing the universal Standard 6 missile,
which not only solves air and missile defense problems, but can also
hit sea and land targets. In other words, the supposedly defensive
U.S. missile defense system is being expanded and new offensive
capabilities are emerging.

The information available to us gives us every reason to believe that
Ukraine’s accession to NATO and the subsequent stationing of NATO
assets in that country are a foregone conclusion; it is only a matter
of time. It is clear to us that in such a scenario the military threat
to Russia will increase many times over. And I particularly point out
that the danger of a surprise attack on our country will increase many
times over.

I would like to clarify that the American strategic planning documents
– they are official documents! – provide for the possibility of a
so-called preemptive strike against enemy missile systems. And we also
know who is the main opponent of the U.S. and NATO. It is Russia. NATO
documents officially declare our country directly as the main threat
to Euro-Atlantic security. And Ukraine will serve as a springboard for
such a blow. If our ancestors heard this, they probably would not
believe it. And we don’t want to believe it today, but it’s true. I
want this to be understood both in Russia and in Ukraine.

Many Ukrainian airfields are close to our borders. NATO tactical
aircraft stationed here, including high-precision weapon carriers,
will be able to hit our territory as far as the
Volgograd-Kazan-Samara-Astrakhan line. The deployment of radar
reconnaissance equipment on Ukrainian territory will allow NATO to
strictly control Russian airspace all the way to the Urals.

After the United States broke the treaty on short- and medium-range
missiles, the Pentagon is already openly developing a range of
ground-based offensive weapons, including ballistic missiles capable
of reaching targets up to 5,500 kilometers away. If deployed in
Ukraine, such systems could strike targets throughout Russia’s
European territory as well as beyond the Urals. Tomahawk cruise
missiles would take less than 35 minutes to reach Moscow, 7 to 8
minutes for ballistic missiles from the Kharkov region, and 4 to 5
minutes for hypersonic missiles. That is what you call having the
knife at your throat. And I have no doubt that they will implement
these plans just as they have repeatedly done in recent years,
expanding NATO eastward and moving military infrastructure and
equipment to Russia’s borders, completely ignoring our concerns,
protests, and warnings. Along the lines of, excuse me, we don’t give a
damn about them, and we’ll do whatever we want, whatever we think is
right.

And, of course, we are also expected to continue to behave according
to the wellknown saying, “The dog barks, but the caravan moves on.” I
say right away that we have not agreed to that and never will. At the
same time, Russia has always been and still is in favor of solving the
most complex problems by political and diplomatic means at the
negotiating table.

We are aware of our great responsibility for regional and global
stability. As early as 2008, Russia presented an initiative to
conclude a European Security Treaty. The key message was that no state
or international organization in the Euro-Atlantic area can strengthen
its security at the expense of the security of others. However, our
proposal was rejected from the outset: Russia could not be allowed to
restrict NATO’s activities.

More than that, we were explicitly told that only members of the North
Atlantic Alliance could have legally binding security guarantees.

Last December, we sent our Western partners a draft treaty between the
Russian Federation and the United States of America on security
guarantees and a draft agreement on measures to ensure the security of
the Russian Federation and NATO member states.

The response from the United States and NATO consisted of many common
words. While there were some reasonable points, they dealt with
secondary issues and looked like an attempt to divert the discussion
in another direction.

We responded accordingly, stressing that we are ready to go down the
road of negotiations, but on condition that all issues are considered
as a package, as a whole, without separating them from the basic
Russian proposals. And these contain three important points. The first
is the prevention of further NATO enlargement. The second is the
refusal to allow the alliance to deploy offensive weapons systems on
Russia’s borders. And finally, the return of the bloc’s military
capabilities and infrastructure in Europe to where they were in 1997,
when the NATO-Russia Founding Act was signed.

It is precisely these our principled proposals that have been ignored.
Our Western partners, I repeat, have once again uttered the hackneyed
phrase that every state has the right to freely decide how to ensure
its security and join any military alliances and alliances. In other
words, nothing has changed in their position, and they keep referring
to NATO’s infamous “open door policy.” Moreover, they are trying to
blackmail us again by threatening us again with sanctions, which, by
the way, they will impose anyway as Russia’s sovereignty and the power
of our armed forces increase. And a pretext for another sanctions
attack is always found or simply invented, regardless of the situation
in Ukraine. The goal is the same – to suppress Russia’s development.
And they will do it as they have done before, even without any formal
pretext, because we will never compromise our sovereignty, our
national interests and our values.

I want to say clearly that in the current situation, when our
proposals for an equal dialogue on fundamental issues have gone
virtually unanswered by the United States and NATO, when the scale of
threats to our country is increasing significantly, Russia has every
right to take countermeasures to ensure its own security. That is
exactly what we are going to do.

As for the situation in the Donbass, we see that the leadership in
Kyiv is constantly stating publicly that they are not ready to
implement the Minsk package of measures to settle the conflict and
that they are not interested in a peaceful solution. On the contrary,
they are once again trying to organize a blitzkrieg in the Donbass, as
they did in 2014 and 2015. We still remember how these adventures
ended then.

Now practically not a day goes by without shelling of towns and
villages in the Donbass. A large group of troops constantly uses
attack drones, heavy equipment, rockets, artillery and multiple rocket
launchers. The killing of civilians, the blockade, the mistreatment of
people, including children, women and the elderly, continues unabated.
There is no end in sight.

And the so-called civilized world, the only representatives of which
our Western colleagues have appointed themselves, prefers not to take
note of this, as if all this horror, genocide, to which almost 4
million people are subjected, did not exist, and only because these
people did not agree with the Western-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014
and resisted the increased state movement towards a cavalier and
aggressive nationalism and neo-Nazism. And they are fighting for their
most basic rights: to live in their own country, to speak their own
language, to preserve their culture and traditions.

How long can this tragedy continue? How much longer can we endure it?
Russia has done everything to preserve Ukraine’s territorial integrity
and has fought hard and patiently all these years for the
implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 2202 of February 17,
2015, which enshrines the Minsk Agreement of February 12, 2015 to
resolve the situation in the Donbass.

All in vain. Presidents and deputies of the Rada change, but the
essence and aggressive, nationalistic character of the regime that
took power in Kiev does not change. It is exclusively a product of the
2014 coup d’état, and those who took the path of violence, bloodshed,
and lawlessness have not recognized any solution to the Donbass issue
other than a military one and will not do so in the future.

In this context, I believe it is necessary to take a long-overdue
decision: to recognize the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk
People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic without delay.

I ask the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to support this
decision and then ratify the treaties of friendship and mutual
assistance with both republics. These two documents will be drafted
and signed in the near future.

And from those who have taken and hold power in Kiev, we demand the
immediate cessation of hostilities. Otherwise, the responsibility for
the possible continuation of bloodshed will rest solely on the
conscience of the regime that governs the territory of Ukraine.

In announcing the decisions taken today, I trust in the support of the
citizens of Russia and all patriotic forces of the country.

I thank you for your attention.






February 24, 2022

Citizens of Russia, friends,

I consider it necessary today to speak again about the tragic events
in Donbass and the key aspects of ensuring the security of Russia.

I will begin with what I said in my address on February 21, 2022. I
spoke about our biggest concerns and worries, and about the
fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created
for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year.
I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its
military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.

It is a fact that over the past 30 years we have been patiently trying
to come to an agreement with the leading NATO countries regarding the
principles of equal and indivisible security in Europe. In response to
our proposals, we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies
or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic
alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns. Its
military machine is moving and, as I said, is approaching our very
border.

Why is this happening? Where did this insolent manner of talking down
from the height of their exceptionalism, infallibility and
all-permissiveness come from? What is the explanation for this
contemptuous and disdainful attitude to our interests and absolutely
legitimate demands?

The answer is simple. Everything is clear and obvious. In the late
1980s, the Soviet Union grew weaker and subsequently broke apart. That
experience should serve as a good lesson for us, because it has shown
us that the paralysis of power and will is the first step towards
complete degradation and oblivion. We lost confidence for only one
moment, but it was enough to disrupt the balance of forces in the
world.

As a result, the old treaties and agreements are no longer effective.
Entreaties and requests do not help. Anything that does not suit the
dominant state, the powers that be, is denounced as archaic, obsolete
and useless. At the same time, everything it regards as useful is
presented as the ultimate truth and forced on others regardless of the
cost, abusively and by any means available. Those who refuse to comply
are subjected to strong-arm tactics.

What I am saying now does not concerns only Russia, and Russia is not
the only country that is worried about this. This has to do with the
entire system of international relations, and sometimes even US
allies. The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a redivision of the
world, and the norms of international law that developed by that time
– and the most important of them, the fundamental norms that were
adopted following WWII and largely formalised its outcome – came in
the way of those who declared themselves the winners of the Cold War.

Of course, practice, international relations and the rules regulating
them had to take into account the changes that took place in the world
and in the balance of forces. However, this should have been done
professionally, smoothly, patiently, and with due regard and respect
for the interests of all states and one’s own responsibility. Instead,
we saw a state of euphoria created by the feeling of absolute
superiority, a kind of modern absolutism, coupled with the low
cultural standards and arrogance of those who formulated and pushed
through decisions that suited only themselves. The situation took a
different turn.

There are many examples of this. First a bloody military operation was
waged against Belgrade, without the UN Security Council’s sanction but
with combat aircraft and missiles used in the heart of Europe. The
bombing of peaceful cities and vital infrastructure went on for
several weeks. I have to recall these facts, because some Western
colleagues prefer to forget them, and when we mentioned the event,
they prefer to avoid speaking about international law, instead
emphasising the circumstances which they interpret as they think
necessary.

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. The illegal use of
military power against Libya and the distortion of all the UN Security
Council decisions on Libya ruined the state, created a huge seat of
international terrorism, and pushed the country towards a humanitarian
catastrophe, into the vortex of a civil war, which has continued there
for years. The tragedy, which was created for hundreds of thousands
and even millions of people not only in Libya but in the whole region,
has led to a large-scale exodus from the Middle East and North Africa
to Europe.

A similar fate was also prepared for Syria. The combat operations
conducted by the Western coalition in that country without the Syrian
government’s approval or UN Security Council’s sanction can only be
defined as aggression and intervention.

But the example that stands apart from the above events is, of course,
the invasion of Iraq without any legal grounds. They used the pretext
of allegedly reliable information available in the United States about
the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. To prove that
allegation, the US Secretary of State held up a vial with white power,
publicly, for the whole world to see, assuring the international
community that it was a chemical warfare agent created in Iraq. It
later turned out that all of that was a fake and a sham, and that Iraq
did not have any chemical weapons. Incredible and shocking but true.
We witnessed lies made at the highest state level and voiced from the
high UN rostrum. As a result we see a tremendous loss in human life,
damage, destruction, and a colossal upsurge of terrorism.

Overall, it appears that nearly everywhere, in many regions of the
world where the United States brought its law and order, this created
bloody, non-healing wounds and the curse of international terrorism
and extremism. I have only mentioned the most glaring but far from
only examples of disregard for international law.

This array includes promises not to expand NATO eastwards even by an
inch. To reiterate: they have deceived us, or, to put it simply, they
have played us. Sure, one often hears that politics is a dirty
business. It could be, but it shouldn’t be as dirty as it is now, not
to such an extent. This type of con-artist behaviour is contrary not
only to the principles of international relations but also and above
all to the generally accepted norms of morality and ethics. Where is
justice and truth here? Just lies and hypocrisy all around.

Incidentally, US politicians, political scientists and journalists
write and say that a veritable “empire of lies” has been created
inside the United States in recent years. It is hard to disagree with
this – it is really so. But one should not be modest about it: the
United States is still a great country and a system-forming power. All
its satellites not only humbly and obediently say yes to and parrot it
at the slightest pretext but also imitate its behaviour and
enthusiastically accept the rules it is offering them. Therefore, one
can say with good reason and confidence that the whole so-called
Western bloc formed by the United States in its own image and likeness
is, in its entirety, the very same “empire of lies.”

As for our country, after the disintegration of the USSR, given the
entire unprecedented openness of the new, modern Russia, its readiness
to work honestly with the United States and other Western partners,
and its practically unilateral disarmament, they immediately tried to
put the final squeeze on us, finish us off, and utterly destroy us.
This is how it was in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the
so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs
of mercenaries in southern Russia. What victims, what losses we had to
sustain and what trials we had to go through at that time before we
broke the back of international terrorism in the Caucasus! We remember
this and will never forget.

Properly speaking, the attempts to use us in their own interests never
ceased until quite recently: they sought to destroy our traditional
values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our
people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing
on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation
and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature. This is
not going to happen. No one has ever succeeded in doing this, nor will
they succeed now.

Despite all that, in December 2021, we made yet another attempt to
reach agreement with the United States and its allies on the
principles of European security and NATO’s non-expansion. Our efforts
were in vain. The United States has not changed its position. It does
not believe it necessary to agree with Russia on a matter that is
critical for us. The United States is pursuing its own objectives,
while neglecting our interests.

Of course, this situation begs a question: what next, what are we to
expect? If history is any guide, we know that in 1940 and early 1941
the Soviet Union went to great lengths to prevent war or at least
delay its outbreak. To this end, the USSR sought not to provoke the
potential aggressor until the very end by refraining or postponing the
most urgent and obvious preparations it had to make to defend itself
from an imminent attack. When it finally acted, it was too late.

As a result, the country was not prepared to counter the invasion by
Nazi Germany, which attacked our Motherland on June 22, 1941, without
declaring war. The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it,
but this came at a tremendous cost. The attempt to appease the
aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake
which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after
the hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic
importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this
mistake the second time. We have no right to do so.

Those who aspire to global dominance have publicly designated Russia
as their enemy. They did so with impunity. Make no mistake, they had
no reason to act this way. It is true that they have considerable
financial, scientific, technological, and military capabilities. We
are aware of this and have an objective view of the economic threats
we have been hearing, just as our ability to counter this brash and
never-ending blackmail. Let me reiterate that we have no illusions in
this regard and are extremely realistic in our assessments.

As for military affairs, even after the dissolution of the USSR and
losing a considerable part of its capabilities, today’s Russia remains
one of the most powerful nuclear states. Moreover, it has a certain
advantage in several cutting-edge weapons. In this context, there
should be no doubt for anyone that any potential aggressor will face
defeat and ominous consequences should it directly attack our country.

At the same time, technology, including in the defence sector, is
changing rapidly. One day there is one leader, and tomorrow another,
but a military presence in territories bordering on Russia, if we
permit it to go ahead, will stay for decades to come or maybe forever,
creating an ever mounting and totally unacceptable threat for Russia.

Even now, with NATO’s eastward expansion the situation for Russia has
been becoming worse and more dangerous by the year. Moreover, these
past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they
need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s
infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. In other words, they have
been toughening their position. We cannot stay idle and passively
observe these developments. This would be an absolutely irresponsible
thing to do for us.

Any further expansion of the North Atlantic alliance’s infrastructure
or the ongoing efforts to gain a military foothold of the Ukrainian
territory are unacceptable for us. Of course, the question is not
about NATO itself. It merely serves as a tool of US foreign policy.
The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to
note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape.
Fully controlled from the outside, it is doing everything to attract
NATO armed forces and obtain cutting-edge weapons.

For the United States and its allies, it is a policy of containing
Russia, with obvious geopolitical dividends. For our country, it is a
matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a
nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a
very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our
state and to its sovereignty. It is the red line which we have spoken
about on numerous occasions. They have crossed it.

This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces
that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping
it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned
the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight
endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the
situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain.

As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion
at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We
had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who
live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is
their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the
main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the
independence of the Donbass people’s republics.

I would like to additionally emphasise the following. Focused on their
own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right
nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive
the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to
reunite with Russia.

They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have
done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the
punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did
during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to
several other Russian regions.

If we look at the sequence of events and the incoming reports, the
showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only
a matter of time. They are getting ready and waiting for the right
moment. Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear
weapons. We will not let this happen.

I have already said that Russia accepted the new geopolitical reality
after the dissolution of the USSR. We have been treating all new
post-Soviet states with respect and will continue to act this way. We
respect and will respect their sovereignty, as proven by the
assistance we provided to Kazakhstan when it faced tragic events and a
challenge in terms of its statehood and integrity. However, Russia
cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat
from the territory of today’s Ukraine.

Let me remind you that in 2000–2005 we used our military to push back
against terrorists in the Caucasus and stood up for the integrity of
our state. We preserved Russia. In 2014, we supported the people of
Crimea and Sevastopol. In 2015, we used our Armed Forces to create a
reliable shield that prevented terrorists from Syria from penetrating
Russia. This was a matter of defending ourselves. We had no other
choice.

The same is happening today. They did not leave us any other option
for defending Russia and our people, other than the one we are forced
to use today. In these circumstances, we have to take bold and
immediate action. The people’s republics of Donbass have asked Russia
for help.

In this context, in accordance with Article 51 (Chapter VII) of the UN
Charter, with permission of Russia’s Federation Council, and in
execution of the treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with the
Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, ratified
by the Federal Assembly on February 22, I made a decision to carry out
a special military operation.

The purpose of this operation is to protect people who, for eight
years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by
the Kiev regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and
denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated
numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens
of the Russian Federation.

It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend
to impose anything on anyone by force. At the same time, we have been
hearing an increasing number of statements coming from the West that
there is no need any more to abide by the documents setting forth the
outcomes of World War II, as signed by the totalitarian Soviet regime.
How can we respond to that?

The outcomes of World War II and the sacrifices our people had to make
to defeat Nazism are sacred. This does not contradict the high values
of human rights and freedoms in the reality that emerged over the
post-war decades. This does not mean that nations cannot enjoy the
right to self-determination, which is enshrined in Article 1 of the UN
Charter.

Let me remind you that the people living in territories which are part
of today’s Ukraine were not asked how they want to build their lives
when the USSR was created or after World War II. Freedom guides our
policy, the freedom to choose independently our future and the future
of our children. We believe that all the peoples living in today’s
Ukraine, anyone who want to do this, must be able to enjoy this right
to make a free choice.

In this context I would like to address the citizens of Ukraine. In
2014, Russia was obliged to protect the people of Crimea and
Sevastopol from those who you yourself call “nats.” The people of
Crimea and Sevastopol made their choice in favour of being with their
historical homeland, Russia, and we supported their choice. As I said,
we could not act otherwise.

The current events have nothing to do with a desire to infringe on the
interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. They are connected with
the defending Russia from those who have taken Ukraine hostage and are
trying to use it against our country and our people.

I reiterate: we are acting to defend ourselves from the threats
created for us and from a worse peril than what is happening now. I am
asking you, however hard this may be, to understand this and to work
together with us so as to turn this tragic page as soon as possible
and to move forward together, without allowing anyone to interfere in
our affairs and our relations but developing them independently, so as
to create favourable conditions for overcoming all these problems and
to strengthen us from within as a single whole, despite the existence
of state borders. I believe in this, in our common future.

I would also like to address the military personnel of the Ukrainian
Armed Forces.

Comrade officers,

Your fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers did not fight the
Nazi occupiers and did not defend our common Motherland to allow
today’s neo-Nazis to seize power in Ukraine. You swore the oath of
allegiance to the Ukrainian people and not to the junta, the people’s
adversary which is plundering Ukraine and humiliating the Ukrainian
people.

I urge you to refuse to carry out their criminal orders. I urge you to
immediately lay down arms and go home. I will explain what this means:
the military personnel of the Ukrainian army who do this will be able
to freely leave the zone of hostilities and return to their families.

I want to emphasise again that all responsibility for the possible
bloodshed will lie fully and wholly with the ruling Ukrainian regime.

I would now like to say something very important for those who may be
tempted to interfere in these developments from the outside. No matter
who tries to stand in our way or all the more so create threats for
our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond
immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen
in your entire history. No matter how the events unfold, we are ready.
All the necessary decisions in this regard have been taken. I hope
that my words will be heard.

Citizens of Russia,

The culture and values, experience and traditions of our ancestors
invariably provided a powerful underpinning for the wellbeing and the
very existence of entire states and nations, their success and
viability. Of course, this directly depends on the ability to quickly
adapt to constant change, maintain social cohesion, and readiness to
consolidate and summon all the available forces in order to move
forward.

We always need to be strong, but this strength can take on different
forms. The “empire of lies,” which I mentioned in the beginning of my
speech, proceeds in its policy primarily from rough, direct force.
This is when our saying on being “all brawn and no brains” applies.

We all know that having justice and truth on our side is what makes us
truly strong. If this is the case, it would be hard to disagree with
the fact that it is our strength and our readiness to fight that are
the bedrock of independence and sovereignty and provide the necessary
foundation for building a reliable future for your home, your family,
and your Motherland.

Dear compatriots,

I am certain that devoted soldiers and officers of Russia’s Armed
Forces will perform their duty with professionalism and courage. I
have no doubt that the government institutions at all levels and
specialists will work effectively to guarantee the stability of our
economy, financial system and social wellbeing, and the same applies
to corporate executives and the entire business community. I hope that
all parliamentary parties and civil society take a consolidated,
patriotic position.

At the end of the day, the future of Russia is in the hands of its
multi-ethnic people, as has always been the case in our history. This
means that the decisions that I made will be executed, that we will
achieve the goals we have set, and reliably guarantee the security of
our Motherland.

I believe in your support and the invincible force rooted in the love
for our Fatherland.


More information about the cypherpunks mailing list