Dhu on Gate
2024-06-15 23:27:01 UTC
to senior Foreign Ministry officials, Moscow, June 14, 2024
(from Spitnuk via https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/putins-full-
speech-brics-nato-expansion-and-ukraine-peace-talk-conditions.html#more)
Dear colleagues, good afternoon!
I am pleased to welcome you all, and at the beginning of our meeting,
I want to thank you for your dedicated work in the interest of Russia and
our people.
In this broad assembly, we last met in November 2021. Since then, many
pivotal and, without exaggeration, fateful events have occurred both in
our country and in the world. Therefore, I consider it important to assess
the current situation in global and regional affairs and to set
corresponding tasks for the foreign policy department. All these tasks are
directed towards the primary goal: creating conditions for the sustainable
development of the country, ensuring its security, and improving the well-
being of Russian families.
Working in this direction in today's challenging and rapidly changing
realities requires all of us to concentrate even more on our efforts,
initiative, and persistence. It demands the ability not only to respond to
current challenges but also to shape our own long-term agenda, to propose
and discuss with partners, within the framework of open and constructive
dialogue, solutions to fundamental issues that concern not only us but
also the entire global community.
I reiterate: the world is changing rapidly. It will not be as it was
before, neither in global politics, nor in the economy, nor in
technological competition. More and more states are striving to strengthen
their sovereignty, self-sufficiency, national and cultural identity.
Countries of the Global South and East are coming to the forefront; the
role of Africa and Latin America is growing. We have always, since Soviet
times, talked about the importance of these regions of the world, but
today the dynamics are entirely different, and this is becoming
noticeable. The pace of transformation in Eurasia has also noticeably
accelerated, where a number of large-scale integration projects are
actively being implemented.
Today, on the basis of the new political and economic reality, the
contours of a multipolar and multilateral world order are being formed,
and this is an objective process. It reflects the cultural-civilizational
diversity that, despite all attempts at artificial unification, is
organically inherent to humanity.
These profound, systemic changes undoubtedly inspire optimism and hope
because the establishment of the principles of multipolarity and
multilateralism in international affairs, including respect for
international law and broad representation, allows us to collectively
address the most complex problems for the common good, to build mutually
beneficial relationships, and cooperation between sovereign states in the
interests of the well-being and security of peoples.
Such a vision of the future resonates with the aspirations of the
absolute majority of the countries in the world. We see this, among other
things, in the growing interest in the work of such a universal
association as BRICS, which is based on a special culture of trustful
dialogue, sovereign equality of participants, and mutual respect. During
Russia's chairmanship this year, we will facilitate the smooth inclusion
of new BRICS members into the working structures of the association.
I request the Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
continue substantive work and dialogue with partners to arrive at the
Kazan BRICS summit in October with a substantial set of agreed decisions
that will set the direction for our cooperation in politics and security,
economy and finance, science, culture, sports, and humanitarian ties.
Overall, I believe that the potential of BRICS will allow it to
eventually become one of the core regulatory institutions of a multipolar
world order.
In this regard, I note that the international discussion about the
parameters of state interaction in a multipolar world, about the
democratization of the entire system of international relations, is
already underway. For example, with colleagues from the Commonwealth of
Independent States, we agreed upon and adopted a joint document on
international relations in a multipolar world. We invited partners to
discuss this topic on other international platforms as well, primarily in
the SCO and BRICS.
We are interested in ensuring that this dialogue develops seriously
within the UN walls as well, including on such a fundamental, vital issue
for all as the creation of a system of indivisible security. In other
words, asserting in world affairs the principle that the security of some
cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of others.
Let me remind you that at the end of the 20th century, after the end
of the acute military-ideological confrontation, the world community had a
unique chance to build a reliable, fair order in the field of security.
This did not require much – just the simple ability to listen to the
opinions of all interested parties and mutual willingness to consider
them. Our country was precisely focused on such constructive work.
However, another approach prevailed. Western powers, led by the United
States, believed that they had won the "Cold War" and had the right to
independently determine how the world should be organized. The practical
expression of this worldview was the project of the unlimited spatial and
temporal expansion of the North Atlantic bloc, although there were, of
course, other ideas on how to ensure security in Europe.
Our legitimate questions were answered with excuses, claiming that no
one was planning to attack Russia and that NATO expansion was not directed
against Russia. Promises made to the Soviet Union and then to Russia in
the late '80s and early '90s about not including new members into the bloc
were conveniently forgotten. If remembered at all, it was mockingly said
that these assurances were verbal and thus non-binding.
We have consistently, in the 90s and later, pointed out the errors of
the course chosen by Western elites, not just criticized and warned but
proposed alternatives, constructive solutions, emphasized the importance
of developing a mechanism for European and global security that would
satisfy everyone – I want to emphasize, everyone. A simple listing of the
initiatives that Russia has put forward over the years would take more
than one paragraph.
Let's recall at least the idea of a European security treaty that we
proposed back in 2008. These same topics were raised in the memorandum
from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs handed over to the United
States and NATO in December 2021.But all our attempts – and there were
many, countless – to reason with our interlocutors, explanations,
admonitions, warnings, requests from our side found absolutely no
response. Western countries, confident not only in their own rightness but
in their strength and ability to impose anything on the rest of the world,
simply ignored other opinions. At best, they proposed discussing secondary
issues that, in essence, resolved little or topics that were exclusively
beneficial to the West.
Meanwhile, it quickly became apparent that the Western scheme,
proclaimed as the only right one for ensuring security and prosperity in
Europe and the world, did not actually work. Let's remember the tragedy in
the Balkans. Internal problems – of course, they existed – that had
accumulated in the former Yugoslavia sharply escalated due to gross
external interference. Even then, NATO's main diplomatic principle emerged
in all its glory – deeply flawed and fruitless in resolving complex
interethnic conflicts, namely: blaming one side, which for some reason
they didn't particularly like, for all sins and unleashing all political,
informational, and military power, economic sanctions, and restrictions on
them.
Later, the same approaches were applied in different parts of the
world. We know this very well: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and so on
– and they never brought anything but exacerbation of existing problems,
broken lives of millions of people, the destruction of entire states, the
spread of humanitarian and social disasters, and terrorist enclaves. In
fact, no country in the world is safe from joining this sad list.
So now, the West is aggressively intervening in the affairs of the
Middle East. They once monopolized this direction, and the result is clear
and obvious to everyone today. The South Caucasus, Central Asia. Two years
ago, at the NATO summit in Madrid, it was announced that the alliance
would now address security issues not only in the Euro-Atlantic but also
in the Asia-Pacific region. They claimed their involvement was
indispensable there too. Clearly, this is an attempt to increase pressure
on the countries of the region whose development they decided to
constrain. As is known, our country – Russia – is one of the top
priorities on this list.
I also remind you that it was Washington that undermined strategic
stability by unilaterally withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Open Skies
Treaty, and, together with their NATO satellites, destroyed the trust and
arms control measures built up over decades in the European space.
Ultimately, the selfishness and arrogance of Western states led to the
current extremely dangerous state of affairs. We have come dangerously
close to the point of no return. Calls to inflict strategic defeat on
Russia, possessing the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons, demonstrate
the extreme recklessness of Western politicians. They either do not
understand the scale of the threat they themselves are creating or are
simply obsessed with a belief in their own impunity and exceptionalism.
Both could lead to tragedy.
It is evident that we are witnessing the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic
security system. Today, it simply does not exist. It needs to be
practically recreated from scratch. All this requires us, together with
partners, with all interested countries – and there are many – to develop
our security options in Eurasia and then offer them for broad
international discussion.
This is exactly what was mandated in the Address to the Federal
Assembly. It concerns formulating, in the foreseeable future, on the
Eurasian continent, a contour of equal and indivisible security, mutually
beneficial, equal cooperation, and development.
What needs to be done for this, and on what principles?
First – it is necessary to establish dialogue with all potential
participants in such a future security system. To begin with, I ask you to
address the necessary issues with countries open to constructive
interaction with Russia.
During a recent visit to the People's Republic of China, we discussed
this issue with President Xi Jinping. We noted that the Russian proposal
does not contradict but rather complements and fully aligns with the
fundamental principles of the Chinese initiative in the field of global
security.
Second – it is essential that the future security architecture is open
to all Eurasian countries willing to participate in its creation. "For
all" means, of course, European and NATO countries as well. We live on the
same continent; regardless of what happens, geography cannot be changed,
and we will have to coexist and work together.
Yes, relations between Russia and the EU, as well as with several
European states, have deteriorated, and I have emphasized many times, not
through our fault. The anti-Russian propaganda campaign, in which very
high-ranking European figures participate, is accompanied by fabrications
that Russia allegedly intends to attack Europe. I have repeatedly said
this, and there is no need to repeat it multiple times in this room: we
all understand that this is absolute nonsense, only a justification for
the arms race.
In this regard, let me make a small digression. The danger for Europe
does not come from Russia. The main threat to Europeans lies in the
critical and ever-growing, now practically total dependence on the US: in
military, political, technological, ideological, and informational
spheres. Europe is increasingly being sidelined in global economic
development, plunged into chaos by migration and other acute problems, and
deprived of international subjectivity and cultural identity.
Sometimes it seems that ruling European politicians and
eurobureaucrats are more afraid of falling out of favor with Washington
than losing the trust of their own people, their own citizens. Recent
elections to the European Parliament also show this. European politicians
swallow humiliation, rudeness, and scandals involving surveillance of
European leaders, while the US simply uses them for its own interests:
making them buy expensive gas – incidentally, gas in Europe is three to
four times more expensive than in the US – or, as now, demanding European
countries increase arms supplies to Ukraine. By the way, there are
constant demands here and there. And sanctions are imposed on them, on
economic operators in Europe. Imposed without any hesitation.
Now they are forced to increase arms supplies to Ukraine, expand their
capacities for producing artillery shells. Listen, who will need these
shells when the conflict in Ukraine ends? How can this ensure the military
security of Europe? It is unclear. The US itself invests in military
technologies, and in technologies of the future: in space, in modern
drones, in strike systems based on new physical principles, that is, in
those areas that will determine the nature of armed struggle in the
future, and therefore the military-political potential of powers and their
positions in the world. And now they are assigned such a role: invest your
money where we need it. But this does not increase any European potential.
Well, let it be. For us, it may be good, but, in essence, that is the
case.
If Europe wants to maintain itself as one of the independent centers
of global development and cultural-civilizational poles of the planet, it
certainly needs to have good, friendly relations with Russia, and we,
importantly, are ready for this.
This really simple and obvious fact was well understood by politicians
of truly pan-European and global scale, patriots of their countries and
peoples, thinking in historical terms, and not mere figures following
someone else's will and hint. This was much talked about by Charles de
Gaulle in the post-war years. I also remember how, in 1991, during a
conversation in which I had the honor to personally participate,
Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Helmut Kohl emphasized the
importance of partnership between Europe and Russia. I expect that this
legacy will sooner or later be returned to by new generations of European
politicians.
As for the United States itself, the ongoing attempts by the liberal-
globalist elites ruling there today to spread their ideology worldwide by
any means, to maintain their imperial status, their dominance, only
further exhaust the country, lead it to degradation, and directly
contradict the true interests of the American people. If it weren't for
this dead-end path, aggressive messianism, mixed with a belief in their
own chosenness and exceptionalism, international relations would have long
been stabilized.
Third – to promote the idea of a Eurasian security system, it is
necessary to significantly intensify the dialogue process among
multilateral organizations already operating in Eurasia. This primarily
refers to the Union State, the Collective Security Treaty Organization,
the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
We see prospects for other influential Eurasian associations, from
Southeast Asia to the Middle East, to join these processes in the future.
Fourth – we believe that the time has come to start a broad discussion
on a new system of bilateral and multilateral guarantees of collective
security in Eurasia. In the long term, we need to work towards gradually
reducing the military presence of external powers in the Eurasian region.
We understand, of course, that in the current situation this thesis
may seem unrealistic, but that is for now. However, if we build a reliable
security system in the future, there will simply be no need for the
presence of extraregional military contingents. Frankly, there is no need
today either—it is just occupation, that’s all.
Ultimately, we believe that the states and regional structures of
Eurasia should themselves determine specific areas of cooperation in the
field of joint security. Based on this, they should also build a system of
functioning institutions, mechanisms, and agreements that genuinely serve
the achievement of common goals of stability and development.
In this context, we support the initiative of our Belarusian friends
to develop a program document—a charter of multipolarity and diversity in
the 21st century. It can formulate not only the framework principles of
Eurasian architecture based on fundamental norms of international law but
also, more broadly, a strategic vision of the essence and nature of
multipolarity and multilateralism as a new system of international
relations, replacing the Western-centric world. I consider it important
and ask for thorough work on such a document with our partners and all
interested states. I would add that when discussing such complex,
comprehensive issues, of course, maximum, broad representation is needed,
considering different approaches and positions.
Fifth – an important part of the Eurasian system of security and
development must, of course, include issues of the economy, social
welfare, integration, and mutually beneficial cooperation, addressing such
common problems as overcoming poverty, inequality, climate, ecology, and
developing mechanisms for responding to pandemic threats and crises in the
global economy—everything is important.
The West, through its actions, has not only undermined military-
political stability in the world but has also discredited and weakened key
market institutions with sanctions and trade wars. Using the IMF and the
World Bank, manipulating the climate agenda, it restrains the development
of the Global South. Losing in competition, even by the rules that the
West itself wrote, it resorts to prohibitive barriers and all kinds of
protectionism. In the US, they have practically abandoned the World Trade
Organization as a regulator of international trade. Everything is blocked.
Moreover, they exert pressure not only on competitors but also on their
satellites. Just look at how they are now “squeezing the juices” from
European economies, which are balancing on the brink of recession.
Western countries have frozen part of Russia’s assets and currency
reserves. Now they are considering how to provide at least some legal
basis to finally appropriate them. But despite all the legal trickery,
theft will undoubtedly remain theft and will not go unpunished, on the
other hand.
The issue is even deeper. By stealing Russian assets, they will take
another step towards destroying the system they created themselves, which
for many decades ensured their prosperity, allowing them to consume more
than they earned, attracting money from around the world through debts and
obligations. Now it is becoming clear to all countries and companies,
sovereign funds, that their assets and reserves are far from safe — in
both legal and economic terms. And the next in line for expropriation by
the US and the West could be anyone — these foreign state funds could be
among them.
Distrust of the financial system based on Western reserve currencies
is already growing. There has been an outflow of funds from securities and
debt obligations of Western states, as well as some European banks, which
until recently were considered absolutely reliable places for storing
capital. Now even gold is being withdrawn from them. And they are right to
do so.
I believe that we need to seriously intensify the formation of
effective and safe bilateral and multilateral foreign economic mechanisms,
alternative to those controlled by the West. This includes expanding
settlements in national currencies, creating independent payment systems,
and building production and distribution chains bypassing channels blocked
or compromised by the West.
Of course, efforts to develop international transport corridors in
Eurasia — a continent whose natural geographic core is Russia — must
continue.
I instruct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to fully support the
development of international agreements on all these areas. They are
extremely important for strengthening economic cooperation between our
country and our partners. This will also give new impetus to the
construction of a large Eurasian partnership, which can essentially become
the socio-economic basis of a new system of indivisible security in
Europe.
Dear colleagues! The essence of our proposals is to form a system
within which all states would be confident in their own security. Then we
can indeed approach the resolution of numerous conflicts that exist today
in a truly constructive manner. The problems of the security deficit and
mutual trust apply not only to the Eurasian continent; growing tensions
are observed everywhere. And how interconnected and interdependent the
world is, we see constantly, and a tragic example for all of us is the
Ukrainian crisis, whose consequences are felt all over the planet.
But I want to say right away: the crisis related to Ukraine is not a
conflict between two states, let alone two peoples, caused by some
problems between them. If that were the case, there is no doubt that
Russians and Ukrainians, who are united by a common history and culture,
spiritual values, millions of family, kinship, and human ties, would have
found a way to fairly resolve any issues and disagreements.
But the situation is different: the roots of the conflict are not in
bilateral relations. The events in Ukraine are a direct result of global
and European developments of the late 20th – early 21st century, of the
aggressive, brazen, and absolutely adventurous policies that the West has
been conducting all these years long before the special military operation
began.
These Western elites, as I said today, after the end of the "Cold
War," embarked on a course of further geopolitical restructuring of the
world, creating and imposing the notorious order based on rules, into
which strong, sovereign, and self-sufficient states simply do not fit.
Hence the policy of containing our country. The goals of this policy
are openly declared by some figures in the US and Europe. Today they talk
about the notorious decolonization of Russia. Essentially, this is an
attempt to provide an ideological basis for the dismemberment of our
homeland along national lines. In fact, there has long been talk of the
dismemberment of the Soviet Union and Russia. Everyone sitting in this
room is well aware of this.
Implementing this strategy, Western countries have taken the line of
absorbing and military-political development of territories close to us.
There have been five, and now six, waves of NATO expansion. They tried to
turn Ukraine into their stronghold, to make it "anti-Russia." To achieve
these goals, they invested money, resources, bought politicians and entire
parties, rewrote history and educational programs, nurtured and grew
groups of neo-Nazis and radicals. They did everything to undermine our
interstate connections, to divide and set our peoples against each other.
Such policies were further obstructed by southeastern Ukraine —
territories that have been part of great historical Russia for centuries.
People lived there, and still live, who, including after Ukraine declared
its independence in 1991, advocated for good and very close relations with
our country. People — both Russians and Ukrainians, representatives of
different nationalities, who were united by the Russian language, culture,
traditions, historical memory.
The position, mood, interests, and voices of these people — millions
of people living in the southeast — had to be taken into account by former
Ukrainian presidents and politicians who fought for this post, used the
votes of these voters. But, using these votes, they maneuvered, lied a
lot, talked about the so-called European choice. They did not dare to
break completely with Russia because the southeast of Ukraine was inclined
differently, and this could not be ignored. Such duality has always been
inherent in Ukrainian power throughout the years since recognizing
independence.
The West, of course, saw this. They had long seen and understood the
problems there that could be stirred up, understood the restraining
significance of the southeastern factor, and that no amount of years of
propaganda could fundamentally change the situation. Certainly, much was
done, but fundamentally it was difficult to alter the situation.
It was impossible to distort the historical identity and consciousness
of the majority of people in southeastern Ukraine, to eradicate from them,
including the younger generations, the positive attitude towards Russia
and the sense of our historical commonality. And so they decided to act
with force again, to simply break the people in the southeast, to
disregard their opinion. For this, they organized, financed, and certainly
took advantage of the internal political difficulties and complexities in
Ukraine, but still systematically and purposefully prepared an armed coup
d'état.
Ukrainian cities were overwhelmed by a wave of pogroms, violence, and
killings. Power in Kiev was finally seized and usurped by radicals. Their
aggressive nationalist slogans, including the rehabilitation of Nazi
collaborators, were elevated to the rank of state ideology. A course was
proclaimed to eliminate the Russian language in state and public spheres,
pressure on Orthodox believers increased, interference in church affairs,
which ultimately led to a split. No one seems to notice this interference,
as if it is normal. Try to do something different elsewhere, and there
will be so much artistic whistling that your ears will fall off. But there
it’s allowed, because it’s against Russia.
Millions of residents of Ukraine, primarily from its eastern regions,
opposed the coup, as is known. They were threatened with reprisals and
terror. And above all, the new authorities in Kiev began preparing an
attack on the Russian-speaking Crimea, which at one time, in 1954, as you
know, was transferred from the RSFSR to Ukraine in violation of all laws
and procedures, even those in force at that time in the Soviet Union. In
this situation, of course, we could not abandon, leave unprotected the
Crimeans and Sevastopol residents. They made their choice, and in March
2014, as is known, the historic reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol
with Russia took place.
In Kharkov, Kherson, Odessa, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, Lugansk, Mariupol,
peaceful protests against the coup began to be suppressed, terror was
unleashed by the Kiev regime and nationalist groups. It probably doesn't
need to be recalled, everyone remembers well what happened in these
regions.
In May 2014, referendums were held on the status of the Donetsk and
Lugansk People's Republics, where the overwhelming majority of residents
voted for independence and sovereignty. Immediately the question arises:
could people express their will in this way, could they declare their
independence? Those sitting in this hall understand that of course they
could, they had every right and grounds for it, including under
international law, including the right of peoples to self-determination. I
don't need to remind you, but nonetheless, since the media is working, I
will say, Article 1, paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter gives this
right.I remind you in this regard of the notorious Kosovo precedent. It
was talked about many times in its time, now I will say it again. The
precedent, which Western countries created themselves, in a completely
analogous situation, recognized the separation of Kosovo from Serbia as
legitimate, which took place in 2008. Then followed the well-known
decision of the International Court of Justice of the UN, which on July
22, 2010, based on paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations Charter,
ruled, I quote: "There is no general prohibition against unilateral
declarations of independence stemming from the practice of the Security
Council." And the next quote: "General international law does not contain
any applicable prohibition on declarations of independence." Moreover, it
was recorded that parts of a country, any country, that decide to declare
their independence, are not required to consult the central authorities of
their former state. Everything is written there, all in their own hand, in
black and white.
So, did these republics – Donetsk and Lugansk – have the right to
declare their independence? Well, of course, yes. The question cannot even
be considered otherwise.
What did the regime in Kiev do in this situation? Completely ignored
the choice of the people and unleashed a full-scale war against the new
independent states – the people's republics of Donbass using aviation,
artillery, tanks. Bombing and shelling of peaceful cities, acts of
intimidation began. And what happened next? The residents of Donbass took
up arms to protect their lives, their home, their rights, and legitimate
interests.
In the West, there is now a constant thesis that Russia started the
war within the framework of the special military operation, that it is the
aggressor, and therefore strikes can be made on its territory using
Western weapon systems, Ukraine allegedly defends itself and can do this.
I want to emphasize once again: Russia did not start the war; it was
the Kiev regime that, after the residents of part of Ukraine declared
their independence in accordance with international law, began and
continues military actions. This is aggression if we do not recognize the
right of these peoples living in these territories to declare their
independence. What else could it be? This is aggression. And those who
have been aiding the Kiev regime’s war machine all these years are
accomplices to the aggressor.
Back in 2014, the residents of Donbass did not give in. Militia units
stood their ground, repelled the punitive forces, and then drove them back
from Donetsk and Lugansk. We hoped this would sober up those who unleashed
this massacre. To stop the bloodshed, Russia made the usual appeals –
calls for negotiations, and they began with the participation of Kiev and
representatives of the Donbass republics with the assistance of Russia,
Germany, and France.
The conversation was difficult, but nevertheless, as a result, the
Minsk agreements were concluded in 2015. We took their implementation very
seriously, hoping that we could resolve the situation within the framework
of a peaceful process and international law. We expected that this would
take into account the legitimate interests and demands of Donbass,
enshrine a special status for these regions in the constitution, and the
fundamental rights of the people living there while maintaining the
territorial unity of Ukraine. We were ready for this and were ready to
persuade the people living in these territories to resolve issues in this
way, repeatedly offering various compromises and solutions.
But in the end, everything was rejected. The Minsk agreements were
simply thrown in the trash by Kiev. As representatives of the Ukrainian
elite later admitted, none of the provisions of these documents suited
them; they just lied and twisted as much as they could.
The former Chancellor of Germany and the former President of France,
who were essentially co-authors and guarantors of the Minsk agreements,
later admitted outright that they had no intention of implementing them;
they simply needed to stall the situation to buy time for assembling
Ukrainian armed formations and pumping them up with weapons and equipment.
They simply "fooled" us again, deceived us.
Instead of a real peace process, instead of the policy of
reintegration and national reconciliation, which they loved to pontificate
about in Kiev, Donbass was shelled for eight years. They carried out
terrorist attacks, killings, and organized the harshest blockade. All
these years, the residents of Donbass (women, children, the elderly) were
declared "second-class" people, "subhumans," and were threatened with
reprisals, saying, “we’ll come and settle scores with each one.” What is
this, if not genocide in the center of Europe in the 21st century? And in
Europe and the US, they pretended that nothing was happening, no one
noticed anything.
At the end of 2021 – beginning of 2022, the Minsk process was finally
buried by Kiev and its Western patrons, and another massive strike on
Donbass was planned. A large grouping of Ukrainian armed forces was
preparing to launch a new offensive on Lugansk and Donetsk, of course,
with ethnic cleansing and huge human casualties, hundreds of thousands of
refugees. We were obliged to prevent this catastrophe, to protect the
people; we had no other choice.
Russia finally recognized the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics.
After all, we did not recognize them for eight years, still hoping to come
to an agreement. The result is now known. And on February 21, 2022, we
concluded treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance with
these republics, which we recognized. Question: did the people's republics
have the right to ask us for support if we recognized their independence?
And did we have the right to recognize their independence just as they had
the right to declare their sovereignty in accordance with the mentioned
articles and decisions of the International Court of Justice of the UN?
Did they have the right to declare independence? They did. But if they had
such a right and used it, then we had the right to conclude a treaty with
them – and we did, and I repeat: in full accordance with international law
and Article 51 of the UN Charter.
At the same time, we appealed to the Kiev authorities to withdraw
their troops from Donbass. I can tell you, there were contacts; we
immediately told them: withdraw your troops from there, and everything
will end there. This proposal was practically immediately rejected, simply
ignored, although it provided a real opportunity to close the issue
precisely in a peaceful way.
On February 24, 2022, Russia was forced to announce the start of a
special military operation. Addressing the citizens of Russia, the
residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, and Ukrainian society, I
then outlined the goals of this operation – to protect the people of
Donbass, restore peace, conduct demilitarization and denazification of
Ukraine, and thus avert threats from our state, restore the balance in the
field of security in Europe.
At the same time, we continued to consider achieving these goals
through political and diplomatic methods a priority. I remind you that at
the very first stage of the special military operation, our country
entered into negotiations with representatives of the Kiev regime. They
were held first in Belarus, in Turkiye. We tried to convey our main point:
respect the choice of Donbass, the will of the people living there,
withdraw the troops, stop the shelling of peaceful cities and towns.
Nothing else is needed, the rest of the issues will be resolved later. The
response was: no, we will fight. It is obvious that this was the command
from the Western masters, and I will talk about this now.
At that time, in February-March 2022, our troops, as is known,
approached Kiev. There were and still are many speculations about this in
Ukraine and the West.
What do I want to say about this? Our units were indeed stationed near
Kiev, and the military departments, the security block, had different
proposals regarding our possible further actions, but there was no
political decision to storm a three-million-strong city, no matter what
anyone said or imagined.
Essentially, this was nothing but an operation to force the Ukrainian
regime to make peace. The troops were there to push the Ukrainian side
towards negotiations, to try to find acceptable solutions and thereby end
the war initiated by Kiev against Donbass back in 2014, and to resolve
issues posing a threat to the security of our country, to the security of
Russia. Strangely enough, as a result, we managed to reach agreements that
basically suited both Moscow and Kiev. These agreements were put on paper
and initialed in Istanbul by the head of the Ukrainian negotiating
delegation. This means that the Kiev authorities were satisfied with such
a resolution of the issue.
The document was called the "Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and
Security Guarantees for Ukraine." It was of a compromise nature, but its
key points aligned with our fundamental demands, addressing the objectives
declared as primary even at the beginning of the special military
operation. Including, as strange as it may seem, I draw attention to, the
demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. Here, too, we managed to
find complex solutions. They are complex, but they were found. Namely: it
was intended that a Ukrainian law would be adopted to ban Nazi ideology,
any of its manifestations. Everything is written there.
Furthermore, Ukraine, in exchange for international security
guarantees, would limit the size of its armed forces, undertake
obligations not to join military alliances, not to allow foreign military
bases, not to host them or contingents, not to conduct military exercises
on its territory. Everything was written down on paper.
We, on our part, also understanding Ukraine's security concerns,
agreed that Ukraine, formally not joining NATO, would receive guarantees
practically equivalent to those enjoyed by members of this alliance. For
us, this was a difficult decision, but we recognized the legitimacy of
Ukraine’s demands for its security and, in principle, did not object to
the proposed formulations from Kiev. These were formulations proposed by
Kiev, and we generally did not object to them, understanding that the main
thing was to stop the bloodshed and the war in Donbass.
On March 29, 2022, we withdrew our troops from Kiev because we were
assured that it was necessary to create the necessary conditions for
completing the political negotiation process, for completing this process.
And that it is not possible for one side to sign such agreements, as our
Western colleagues said, with a gun to the head. Fine, we agreed to this
too. However, immediately, the very next day after the withdrawal of
Russian troops from Kiev, the Ukrainian leadership suspended its
participation in the negotiation process, staged the well-known
provocation in Bucha, and refused the prepared version of the agreements.
I think it is clear today why this dirty provocation was needed – to
somehow explain the refusal of those results achieved during the
negotiations. The path to peace was again rejected.
This was done, as we now know, at the behest of Western curators,
including the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, during whose
visit to Kiev it was explicitly stated: no agreements, it is necessary to
defeat Russia on the battlefield, achieve its strategic defeat. And they
continued to intensively pump Ukraine with weapons, talking about the need
to inflict, as I just reminded, a strategic defeat on us. And some time
later, as everyone knows well, the President of Ukraine issued a decree
prohibiting his representatives and even himself from conducting any
negotiations with Moscow. This episode with our attempt to solve the
problem by peaceful means ended in nothing once again.
By the way, on the topic of negotiations. Now I would like to disclose
another episode to this audience. I have not spoken publicly about this
before, but some present are aware of it. After the Russian army occupied
parts of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, many Western politicians
offered their mediation in peacefully resolving the conflict. One of them
was on a working visit to Moscow on March 5, 2022. And we accepted his
mediation efforts, especially since he, during the conversation, referred
to the fact that he had received support from the leaders of Germany and
France, as well as senior representatives of the US.
During the conversation, our foreign guest inquired – a curious
episode, he said: if you are helping Donbass, why are Russian troops in
southern Ukraine, including the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions? The answer
from our side was that this was the decision of the Russian General Staff
in planning the operation. And today I will add that the plan was to
bypass some fortified areas that the Ukrainian authorities built in
Donbass over eight years, primarily for the liberation of Mariupol.
Then the foreign colleague clarified – a professional person, I must
admit: will our Russian troops remain in the Kherson and Zaporozhye
regions? and what will happen to these regions after achieving the goals
of the special military operation? To this, I answered that in general, I
do not rule out the preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty over these
territories, but on the condition that Russia has a strong land connection
with Crimea. That is, Kiev must guarantee the so-called servitude – a
legally formalized right of access for Russia to the Crimean Peninsula
through the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.
This is a crucial political decision. And of course, naturally, in the
final version, it would not be made unilaterally but only after
consultations with the Security Council, other structures, and, of course,
after discussion with the citizens, the public of our country, and
primarily with the residents of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. In the
end, we did just that: we asked the opinion of the people themselves and
held referendums. And acted according to the decision of the people,
including in the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, in the Donetsk and
Lugansk People's Republics.
At that time, in March 2022, the negotiation partner informed that he
intended to go to Kiev to continue the discussion with colleagues in the
Ukrainian capital. We welcomed this, as well as any attempts to find a
peaceful resolution to the conflict, because every day of fighting meant
new casualties and losses. However, in Ukraine, as we learned later, the
services of the Western mediator were not accepted. On the contrary, as we
found out, he was accused of taking pro-Russian positions – in quite a
harsh manner, I must say, but that’s already a detail.
Now, as already mentioned, the situation has fundamentally changed.
The residents of Kherson and Zaporozhye, during referendums, expressed
their position. The Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, as well as the Donetsk
and Lugansk People's Republics, have become part of the Russian
Federation. There can be no talk of violating our state unity. The
people's desire to be with Russia is unshakeable. The issue is closed
forever and is no longer subject to discussion.
I want to reiterate: it was the West that prepared and provoked the
Ukrainian crisis, and now it is doing everything to drag out this crisis
endlessly, to weaken and mutually embitter the people of Russia and
Ukraine.
They are sending new batches of ammunition and weapons. Some European
politicians have started talking about the possibility of deploying their
regular troops in Ukraine. At the same time, as I have already noted, the
true current masters of Ukraine – unfortunately, not the people of
Ukraine, but the globalist elites located across the ocean – are trying to
impose on the Ukrainian executive power the burden of making decisions
that are unpopular with the people, including further lowering the draft
age.
As you know, it is now 25 years, the next stage could be 23, then 20,
18 or immediately 18. And then, of course, they will get rid of those
figures who will make these unpopular decisions under Western pressure,
throw them out as unnecessary, shift all the responsibility onto them, and
put other people dependent on the West, but with not yet so tarnished
reputations, in their place.
Hence, possibly, the idea of canceling the next presidential elections
in Ukraine. Now those in power will do everything, then they will be
thrown into the trash – and then they will do whatever they see fit.
In this regard, I will remind you of what they now prefer not to
remember in Kiev, and the West prefers not to talk about. What is it? Back
in May 2014, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled that – quote – “The
President is elected for five years, regardless of whether he is elected
in early or regular elections.” In addition, the Constitutional Court of
Ukraine noted that – quote – “the constitutional status of the President
does not contain norms that would establish any other term except for the
five-year term.” End of quote, full stop. The court's decision was final
and not subject to appeal. That's it.
What does this mean for today’s situation? The presidential term of
the previously elected head of Ukraine has expired along with his
legitimacy, which cannot be restored by any trickery. I will not go into
detail about the background of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine's
decision on the presidential term. It is clear that it was related to
attempts to legitimize the 2014 coup. But nevertheless, this verdict
exists, and it is a legal fact. It casts doubt on all attempts to justify
today's spectacle of canceling the elections.In fact, the current tragic
page in Ukraine's history began with a forcible seizure of power, as I
have already said, an unconstitutional coup in 2014. I repeat: the source
of the current Kiev regime is an armed coup. And now the circle is
complete – the executive power in Ukraine is again, as in 2014, usurped
and held illegally, is essentially illegitimate.
I will say more: the situation with the cancellation of elections is
an expression of the very nature, the true essence of the current Kiev
regime, which grew out of the 2014 armed coup, is tied to it, and has its
roots there. And the fact that by canceling the elections, they continue
to cling to power, these are actions that are directly prohibited by
Article 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine. I quote: “The right to determine
and change the constitutional order in Ukraine belongs exclusively to the
people and cannot be usurped by the state, its bodies, or officials.” In
addition, such actions fall under Article 109 of the Criminal Code of
Ukraine, which speaks about the violent change or overthrow of the
constitutional order or the seizure of state power, as well as conspiracy
to commit such actions.
In 2014, such usurpation was justified in the name of revolution, and
now – by military actions. But the essence of this does not change. In
fact, we are talking about a conspiracy of the executive power of Ukraine,
the leadership of the Verkhovna Rada, and the parliamentary majority
controlled by it, aimed at the usurpation of state power (it cannot be
called otherwise), which is a criminal offense under Ukrainian law.
Moreover, the Constitution of Ukraine does not provide for the
possibility of canceling or postponing the presidential elections in the
country, extending its powers due to martial law, which is currently being
referred to. What is in the Ukrainian basic law? It states that during
martial law, elections to the Verkhovna Rada may be postponed. This is
Article 83 of the country’s Constitution.
Thus, Ukrainian legislation provides for the only exception when the
powers of a state authority are extended during martial law and elections
are not held. And this applies exclusively to the Verkhovna Rada.
Therefore, the status of the Ukrainian parliament as a continuously
operating body in the conditions of martial law is thus defined.
In other words, it is precisely the Verkhovna Rada that is today a
legitimate body as opposed to the executive power. Ukraine is not a
presidential republic but a parliamentary-presidential one. This is the
essence.
Moreover, the chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, acting as President,
under Articles 106 and 112, is endowed with special powers, including in
the field of defense, security, and supreme command of the armed forces.
All this is written in black and white.
By the way, in the first half of this year, Ukraine concluded a
package of bilateral agreements on cooperation in the field of security
and long-term support with a number of European countries. Now there is a
similar document with the United States.
As of May 21 of this year, the question naturally arises about the
powers and legitimacy of the representatives of the Ukrainian side who
sign such documents. For us, as they say, it doesn’t matter, let them sign
whatever they want. It is clear that there is a political and
propagandistic component here. The United States and its satellites want
to somehow support their appointees, give them weight and legitimacy.
Nevertheless, if later in the US a serious legal examination of such
an agreement is carried out (I am not talking about the essence, but about
the legal component), then the question will inevitably arise: who signed
these documents and with what authority? And it will turn out that all
this is a bluff, and the agreement is void, and the whole structure will
collapse, of course, if there is a desire to analyze the situation. They
can pretend that everything is normal, but there is nothing normal about
it, I have read it. Everything is written in the documents, everything is
written in the Constitution.
I also remind you that after the start of the special military
operation, the West launched a vigorous and very brazen campaign trying to
isolate Russia on the international stage. Today it is clear to everyone
that this attempt has failed, but the West has not abandoned its idea of
building some semblance of an international anti-Russian coalition,
creating the appearance of pressure on Russia. We understand this too.
As you know, they began actively promoting the initiative of holding a
so-called high-level international conference on peace in Ukraine in
Switzerland. Moreover, they plan to hold it immediately after the G7
summit, that is, the group of those who, in fact, ignited the conflict in
Ukraine with their policies. What the organizers of the meeting in
Switzerland are proposing is just another trick to divert public
attention, to swap the cause and effect of the Ukrainian crisis, to lead
the discussion astray and somewhat give the appearance of legitimacy to
the current executive power in Ukraine once again.
Therefore, it is logical that no truly fundamental issues underlying
the current crisis of international security and stability, the true roots
of the Ukrainian conflict, are going to be discussed in Switzerland,
despite all attempts to give the conference agenda a more or less decent
appearance.
Already now it can be expected that everything will be reduced to
general demagogic discussions and a new set of accusations against Russia.
The ploy is obvious: by any means, drag in as many countries as possible
and present the case as if the Western recipes and rules are shared by the
entire international community, and therefore our country must
unconditionally accept them.
As you know, we were not invited to the meeting in Switzerland. After
all, in essence, these are not negotiations, but the desire of a group of
countries to continue pushing their line, to decide on issues that
directly affect our interests and security at their own discretion.
I want to emphasize in this regard: without Russia's participation,
without honest and responsible dialogue with us, it is impossible to reach
a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and in general regarding global European
security.
Meanwhile, the West ignores our interests, while at the same time
forbidding Kiev to negotiate, and hypocritically calling on us for some
negotiations. It just looks idiotic: on the one hand, they forbid them to
negotiate with us, and on the other, they call us for negotiations and
even hint that we are refusing negotiations. It’s some kind of nonsense.
But we are living in a kind of Wonderland.
But first of all, they should give Kiev the command to lift the ban,
the self-ban on negotiations with Russia, and secondly, we are ready to
sit down at the negotiating table even tomorrow. We understand all the
peculiarity of the legal situation, but there are legitimate authorities
there even according to the Constitution, I just mentioned it now, there
is someone to negotiate with. Please, we are ready. Our conditions for
starting such a conversation are simple and are as follows.
You know, I will now take some time to reproduce the entire chain of
events once again, so that it is clear that for us what I am about to say
is not a matter of today’s conjuncture, but we have always adhered to a
certain position, we have always strived for peace.
So, these conditions are very simple. Ukrainian troops must be
completely withdrawn from the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics,
Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. Moreover, I emphasize, precisely from the
entire territory of these regions within their administrative boundaries,
which existed at the time of their entry into Ukraine.
As soon as Kiev announces that it is ready for such a solution and
begins the real withdrawal of troops from these regions, and also
officially notifies [us] of the refusal of plans to join NATO, from our
side, immediately, literally at that moment, an order will be given to
cease fire and begin negotiations. I repeat: we will do this immediately.
Naturally, at the same time, we guarantee the unhindered and safe
withdrawal of Ukrainian units and formations.
Of course, we would like to hope that such a decision about troop
withdrawal, non-aligned status, and starting dialogue with Russia, on
which the future existence of Ukraine depends, will be made in Kiev
independently, based on the existing realities and guided by the genuine
national interests of the Ukrainian people, and not at the behest of the
West, although there are, of course, great doubts about this.
Nevertheless, what do I want to say again in this regard, what to
remind you of? I said that I wanted to chronologically trace the events
once more. Let's take the time for this.
So, during the events on the Maidan in Kiev in 2013–2014, Russia
repeatedly offered its assistance in a constitutional resolution of the
crisis, which was actually organized from the outside. Let's return to the
chronology of events at the end of February 2014.
On February 18, armed clashes began in Kiev, provoked by the
opposition. A number of buildings, including the city hall and the House
of Trade Unions, were set on fire. On February 20, unknown snipers opened
fire on protesters and law enforcement officers, that is, those who were
preparing the armed coup did everything to push the situation further
towards violence and radicalization. And those people who were on the
streets of Kiev in those days and expressed dissatisfaction with the then
authorities were deliberately used for their selfish purposes, as cannon
fodder. They are doing exactly the same today, mobilizing and sending
people to be slaughtered. And yet, there was an opportunity for a
civilized way out of the situation at that time.
It is known that on February 21, an agreement was signed between the
then President of Ukraine and the opposition on the settlement of the
political crisis. Its guarantors, as you know, were official
representatives of Germany, Poland, and France. The agreement provided for
a return to a parliamentary-presidential form of government, the holding
of early presidential elections, the formation of a government of national
trust, as well as the withdrawal of law enforcement forces from the center
of Kiev and the opposition’s surrender of weapons.
I will add that the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law excluding the
criminal prosecution of protest participants. Such an agreement, which
would have allowed stopping the violence and returning the situation to
the constitutional field, was in place. This agreement was signed,
although in Kiev and in the West they also prefer not to remember it.
Today, I will say more about another important fact, which also has
not been publicly mentioned before, namely – literally in the same hours
on February 21, a conversation took place at the initiative of the
American side with my American counterpart. The essence was as follows:
the American leader unequivocally supported the Kiev agreement between the
authorities and the opposition. Moreover, he called it a real
breakthrough, a chance for the Ukrainian people to ensure that the
violence did not go beyond all conceivable limits.
Furthermore, in the course of the conversations, we jointly worked out
the following formula: Russia will try to persuade the then President of
Ukraine to behave as restrained as possible, not to use the army or law
enforcement against the protesters. And the US, accordingly, it was said,
would call on the opposition to calm down, to free administrative
buildings, so that the streets would calm down.
All this was supposed to create conditions for life in the country to
return to normal, within the constitutional and legal field. And in
general, we agreed to work together for a stable, peaceful, and normally
developing Ukraine. We fully kept our word. The then President of Ukraine
Yanukovych, who, in fact, did not plan to use the army, nevertheless did
not do this, and moreover, even withdrew additional police units from
Kiev.
And what did the Western colleagues do? On the night of February 22
and then throughout the following day, when President Yanukovych went to
Kharkov, where a congress of deputies from the southeastern regions of
Ukraine and Crimea was to be held, the radicals, despite all the
agreements and guarantees from the West (both from Europe and, as I just
said, from the US), seized control of the Rada building by force, took
over the Presidential Administration, and seized the government. And not a
single guarantor of all these agreements on political settlement – neither
the United States nor the Europeans – lifted a finger to fulfill their
obligations, to call on the opposition to vacate the seized administrative
buildings, and to renounce violence. It is clear that such a turn of
events not only suited them, it seems that they were also the authors of
the development of events in this vein.
Also, on February 22, 2014, the Verkhovna Rada, in violation of the
Constitution of Ukraine, adopted a resolution on the so-called self-
removal of the then President Yanukovych from the post of President and
appointed early elections for May 25. That is, an armed coup, provoked
from outside, was completed. Ukrainian radicals, with the tacit consent
and direct support of the West, thwarted all attempts to peacefully
resolve the situation.Then we urged Kiev and the Western capitals to start
a dialogue with the people in the southeast of Ukraine, to respect their
interests, rights, and freedoms. No, the regime that came to power as a
result of the coup chose war, in the spring and summer of 2014 launched
punitive actions against Donbass. Russia again called for peace.
We did everything to resolve the acute problems that arose within the
framework of the Minsk agreements, but the West and the Kiev authorities,
as I have already emphasized, did not intend to implement them. Although
in words, Western colleagues, including the head of the White House,
assured us that the Minsk agreements are important and that they are
committed to the processes of their implementation. That, in their
opinion, this will allow us to get out of the situation in Ukraine,
stabilize it, and take into account the interests of the residents of the
east. Instead, they actually organized a blockade of Donbass, as I have
already said. The Armed Forces of Ukraine were consistently prepared for a
full-scale operation to destroy the Donetsk and Lugansk People's
Republics.
The Minsk agreements were finally buried by the Kiev regime and the
West. I will return to this again. That is why in 2022 Russia was forced
to start a special military operation to stop the war in Donbass and
protect the peaceful inhabitants from genocide.
At the same time, from the very first days, we have again put forward
options for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis, I have already spoken
about this today. These are negotiations in Belarus, Turkiye, the
withdrawal of troops from Kiev to create conditions for signing the
Istanbul agreements, which were generally agreed upon by all. But these
attempts of ours were ultimately rejected again. The West and Kiev took
the course to defeat us. But, as you know, all this failed.
Today we are making another specific, real peace proposal. If Kiev and
the Western capitals reject it, as before, then ultimately this is their
affair, their political and moral responsibility for the continuation of
the bloodshed. Obviously, the realities on the ground, on the line of
combat contact, will continue to change not in favor of the Kiev regime.
And the conditions for starting negotiations will be different.
I emphasize the main thing: the essence of our proposal is not some
temporary truce or cessation of fire, as the West wants, to recover
losses, rearm the Kiev regime, and prepare it for a new offensive. I
repeat: it is not about freezing the conflict, but about its final
resolution.
And I will say once again: as soon as Kiev agrees to such a course of
events as proposed today, agrees to the complete withdrawal of its troops
from the DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, and actually begins
this process, we are ready to start negotiations without delay.
I repeat: our principled position is as follows – neutral, non-
aligned, non-nuclear status of Ukraine, its demilitarization and
denazification, especially since these parameters were generally agreed
upon during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022. Everything was clear about
demilitarization, everything was spelled out: the number of this and that,
tanks. Everything was agreed upon.
Undoubtedly, the rights, freedoms, and interests of Russian-speaking
citizens in Ukraine must be fully ensured, the new territorial realities,
the status of Crimea, Sevastopol, the Donetsk, Lugansk People's Republics,
Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions as subjects of the Russian Federation must
be recognized. In the future, all these basic and principled provisions
should be fixed in the form of fundamental international agreements.
Naturally, this also implies the lifting of all Western sanctions against
Russia.
I believe that Russia is offering a variant that will allow the war in
Ukraine to be truly ended, that is, we are calling for the tragic page of
history to be turned over and, albeit difficultly, gradually, step by
step, but to begin to restore relations of trust and good neighborliness
between Russia and Ukraine and in general in Europe.
By resolving the Ukrainian crisis, we, including together with our
partners in the CSTO, SCO, who are making a significant, constructive
contribution to the search for ways to peacefully resolve the Ukrainian
crisis even today, as well as with Western, including European states,
ready for dialogue, could begin addressing the fundamental task I spoke
about at the beginning of my speech, namely, creating an indivisible
system of Eurasian security that takes into account the interests of all,
without exception, states on the continent.
Of course, a literal return to the security proposals we put forward
25, 15, or even two years ago is impossible; too much has happened,
circumstances have changed. However, the basic principles and, most
importantly, the subject of the dialogue remain unchanged. Russia
recognizes its responsibility for global stability and again confirms its
readiness to engage in dialogue with all countries. But this should not be
a simulation of the peace process aimed at serving someone’s selfish will
or interests, but a serious, thorough discussion on all issues, on the
entire range of global security issues.
Dear colleagues! I am sure that you all well understand the scale of
the tasks facing Russia, how much we need to do, including in the field of
foreign policy.I sincerely wish you success in this difficult work of
ensuring the security of Russia, our national interests, strengthening the
country’s positions in the world, advancing integration processes and
bilateral relations with our partners.
The state leadership will continue to provide necessary support to the
diplomatic department and to all those involved in the implementation of
Russia's foreign policy.
Once again, thank you for your work, thank you for your patience and
attention to what has been said. I am confident that we will succeed.
Thank you very much.
(from Spitnuk via https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/putins-full-
speech-brics-nato-expansion-and-ukraine-peace-talk-conditions.html#more)
Dear colleagues, good afternoon!
I am pleased to welcome you all, and at the beginning of our meeting,
I want to thank you for your dedicated work in the interest of Russia and
our people.
In this broad assembly, we last met in November 2021. Since then, many
pivotal and, without exaggeration, fateful events have occurred both in
our country and in the world. Therefore, I consider it important to assess
the current situation in global and regional affairs and to set
corresponding tasks for the foreign policy department. All these tasks are
directed towards the primary goal: creating conditions for the sustainable
development of the country, ensuring its security, and improving the well-
being of Russian families.
Working in this direction in today's challenging and rapidly changing
realities requires all of us to concentrate even more on our efforts,
initiative, and persistence. It demands the ability not only to respond to
current challenges but also to shape our own long-term agenda, to propose
and discuss with partners, within the framework of open and constructive
dialogue, solutions to fundamental issues that concern not only us but
also the entire global community.
I reiterate: the world is changing rapidly. It will not be as it was
before, neither in global politics, nor in the economy, nor in
technological competition. More and more states are striving to strengthen
their sovereignty, self-sufficiency, national and cultural identity.
Countries of the Global South and East are coming to the forefront; the
role of Africa and Latin America is growing. We have always, since Soviet
times, talked about the importance of these regions of the world, but
today the dynamics are entirely different, and this is becoming
noticeable. The pace of transformation in Eurasia has also noticeably
accelerated, where a number of large-scale integration projects are
actively being implemented.
Today, on the basis of the new political and economic reality, the
contours of a multipolar and multilateral world order are being formed,
and this is an objective process. It reflects the cultural-civilizational
diversity that, despite all attempts at artificial unification, is
organically inherent to humanity.
These profound, systemic changes undoubtedly inspire optimism and hope
because the establishment of the principles of multipolarity and
multilateralism in international affairs, including respect for
international law and broad representation, allows us to collectively
address the most complex problems for the common good, to build mutually
beneficial relationships, and cooperation between sovereign states in the
interests of the well-being and security of peoples.
Such a vision of the future resonates with the aspirations of the
absolute majority of the countries in the world. We see this, among other
things, in the growing interest in the work of such a universal
association as BRICS, which is based on a special culture of trustful
dialogue, sovereign equality of participants, and mutual respect. During
Russia's chairmanship this year, we will facilitate the smooth inclusion
of new BRICS members into the working structures of the association.
I request the Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
continue substantive work and dialogue with partners to arrive at the
Kazan BRICS summit in October with a substantial set of agreed decisions
that will set the direction for our cooperation in politics and security,
economy and finance, science, culture, sports, and humanitarian ties.
Overall, I believe that the potential of BRICS will allow it to
eventually become one of the core regulatory institutions of a multipolar
world order.
In this regard, I note that the international discussion about the
parameters of state interaction in a multipolar world, about the
democratization of the entire system of international relations, is
already underway. For example, with colleagues from the Commonwealth of
Independent States, we agreed upon and adopted a joint document on
international relations in a multipolar world. We invited partners to
discuss this topic on other international platforms as well, primarily in
the SCO and BRICS.
We are interested in ensuring that this dialogue develops seriously
within the UN walls as well, including on such a fundamental, vital issue
for all as the creation of a system of indivisible security. In other
words, asserting in world affairs the principle that the security of some
cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of others.
Let me remind you that at the end of the 20th century, after the end
of the acute military-ideological confrontation, the world community had a
unique chance to build a reliable, fair order in the field of security.
This did not require much – just the simple ability to listen to the
opinions of all interested parties and mutual willingness to consider
them. Our country was precisely focused on such constructive work.
However, another approach prevailed. Western powers, led by the United
States, believed that they had won the "Cold War" and had the right to
independently determine how the world should be organized. The practical
expression of this worldview was the project of the unlimited spatial and
temporal expansion of the North Atlantic bloc, although there were, of
course, other ideas on how to ensure security in Europe.
Our legitimate questions were answered with excuses, claiming that no
one was planning to attack Russia and that NATO expansion was not directed
against Russia. Promises made to the Soviet Union and then to Russia in
the late '80s and early '90s about not including new members into the bloc
were conveniently forgotten. If remembered at all, it was mockingly said
that these assurances were verbal and thus non-binding.
We have consistently, in the 90s and later, pointed out the errors of
the course chosen by Western elites, not just criticized and warned but
proposed alternatives, constructive solutions, emphasized the importance
of developing a mechanism for European and global security that would
satisfy everyone – I want to emphasize, everyone. A simple listing of the
initiatives that Russia has put forward over the years would take more
than one paragraph.
Let's recall at least the idea of a European security treaty that we
proposed back in 2008. These same topics were raised in the memorandum
from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs handed over to the United
States and NATO in December 2021.But all our attempts – and there were
many, countless – to reason with our interlocutors, explanations,
admonitions, warnings, requests from our side found absolutely no
response. Western countries, confident not only in their own rightness but
in their strength and ability to impose anything on the rest of the world,
simply ignored other opinions. At best, they proposed discussing secondary
issues that, in essence, resolved little or topics that were exclusively
beneficial to the West.
Meanwhile, it quickly became apparent that the Western scheme,
proclaimed as the only right one for ensuring security and prosperity in
Europe and the world, did not actually work. Let's remember the tragedy in
the Balkans. Internal problems – of course, they existed – that had
accumulated in the former Yugoslavia sharply escalated due to gross
external interference. Even then, NATO's main diplomatic principle emerged
in all its glory – deeply flawed and fruitless in resolving complex
interethnic conflicts, namely: blaming one side, which for some reason
they didn't particularly like, for all sins and unleashing all political,
informational, and military power, economic sanctions, and restrictions on
them.
Later, the same approaches were applied in different parts of the
world. We know this very well: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and so on
– and they never brought anything but exacerbation of existing problems,
broken lives of millions of people, the destruction of entire states, the
spread of humanitarian and social disasters, and terrorist enclaves. In
fact, no country in the world is safe from joining this sad list.
So now, the West is aggressively intervening in the affairs of the
Middle East. They once monopolized this direction, and the result is clear
and obvious to everyone today. The South Caucasus, Central Asia. Two years
ago, at the NATO summit in Madrid, it was announced that the alliance
would now address security issues not only in the Euro-Atlantic but also
in the Asia-Pacific region. They claimed their involvement was
indispensable there too. Clearly, this is an attempt to increase pressure
on the countries of the region whose development they decided to
constrain. As is known, our country – Russia – is one of the top
priorities on this list.
I also remind you that it was Washington that undermined strategic
stability by unilaterally withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Open Skies
Treaty, and, together with their NATO satellites, destroyed the trust and
arms control measures built up over decades in the European space.
Ultimately, the selfishness and arrogance of Western states led to the
current extremely dangerous state of affairs. We have come dangerously
close to the point of no return. Calls to inflict strategic defeat on
Russia, possessing the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons, demonstrate
the extreme recklessness of Western politicians. They either do not
understand the scale of the threat they themselves are creating or are
simply obsessed with a belief in their own impunity and exceptionalism.
Both could lead to tragedy.
It is evident that we are witnessing the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic
security system. Today, it simply does not exist. It needs to be
practically recreated from scratch. All this requires us, together with
partners, with all interested countries – and there are many – to develop
our security options in Eurasia and then offer them for broad
international discussion.
This is exactly what was mandated in the Address to the Federal
Assembly. It concerns formulating, in the foreseeable future, on the
Eurasian continent, a contour of equal and indivisible security, mutually
beneficial, equal cooperation, and development.
What needs to be done for this, and on what principles?
First – it is necessary to establish dialogue with all potential
participants in such a future security system. To begin with, I ask you to
address the necessary issues with countries open to constructive
interaction with Russia.
During a recent visit to the People's Republic of China, we discussed
this issue with President Xi Jinping. We noted that the Russian proposal
does not contradict but rather complements and fully aligns with the
fundamental principles of the Chinese initiative in the field of global
security.
Second – it is essential that the future security architecture is open
to all Eurasian countries willing to participate in its creation. "For
all" means, of course, European and NATO countries as well. We live on the
same continent; regardless of what happens, geography cannot be changed,
and we will have to coexist and work together.
Yes, relations between Russia and the EU, as well as with several
European states, have deteriorated, and I have emphasized many times, not
through our fault. The anti-Russian propaganda campaign, in which very
high-ranking European figures participate, is accompanied by fabrications
that Russia allegedly intends to attack Europe. I have repeatedly said
this, and there is no need to repeat it multiple times in this room: we
all understand that this is absolute nonsense, only a justification for
the arms race.
In this regard, let me make a small digression. The danger for Europe
does not come from Russia. The main threat to Europeans lies in the
critical and ever-growing, now practically total dependence on the US: in
military, political, technological, ideological, and informational
spheres. Europe is increasingly being sidelined in global economic
development, plunged into chaos by migration and other acute problems, and
deprived of international subjectivity and cultural identity.
Sometimes it seems that ruling European politicians and
eurobureaucrats are more afraid of falling out of favor with Washington
than losing the trust of their own people, their own citizens. Recent
elections to the European Parliament also show this. European politicians
swallow humiliation, rudeness, and scandals involving surveillance of
European leaders, while the US simply uses them for its own interests:
making them buy expensive gas – incidentally, gas in Europe is three to
four times more expensive than in the US – or, as now, demanding European
countries increase arms supplies to Ukraine. By the way, there are
constant demands here and there. And sanctions are imposed on them, on
economic operators in Europe. Imposed without any hesitation.
Now they are forced to increase arms supplies to Ukraine, expand their
capacities for producing artillery shells. Listen, who will need these
shells when the conflict in Ukraine ends? How can this ensure the military
security of Europe? It is unclear. The US itself invests in military
technologies, and in technologies of the future: in space, in modern
drones, in strike systems based on new physical principles, that is, in
those areas that will determine the nature of armed struggle in the
future, and therefore the military-political potential of powers and their
positions in the world. And now they are assigned such a role: invest your
money where we need it. But this does not increase any European potential.
Well, let it be. For us, it may be good, but, in essence, that is the
case.
If Europe wants to maintain itself as one of the independent centers
of global development and cultural-civilizational poles of the planet, it
certainly needs to have good, friendly relations with Russia, and we,
importantly, are ready for this.
This really simple and obvious fact was well understood by politicians
of truly pan-European and global scale, patriots of their countries and
peoples, thinking in historical terms, and not mere figures following
someone else's will and hint. This was much talked about by Charles de
Gaulle in the post-war years. I also remember how, in 1991, during a
conversation in which I had the honor to personally participate,
Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany Helmut Kohl emphasized the
importance of partnership between Europe and Russia. I expect that this
legacy will sooner or later be returned to by new generations of European
politicians.
As for the United States itself, the ongoing attempts by the liberal-
globalist elites ruling there today to spread their ideology worldwide by
any means, to maintain their imperial status, their dominance, only
further exhaust the country, lead it to degradation, and directly
contradict the true interests of the American people. If it weren't for
this dead-end path, aggressive messianism, mixed with a belief in their
own chosenness and exceptionalism, international relations would have long
been stabilized.
Third – to promote the idea of a Eurasian security system, it is
necessary to significantly intensify the dialogue process among
multilateral organizations already operating in Eurasia. This primarily
refers to the Union State, the Collective Security Treaty Organization,
the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and
the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
We see prospects for other influential Eurasian associations, from
Southeast Asia to the Middle East, to join these processes in the future.
Fourth – we believe that the time has come to start a broad discussion
on a new system of bilateral and multilateral guarantees of collective
security in Eurasia. In the long term, we need to work towards gradually
reducing the military presence of external powers in the Eurasian region.
We understand, of course, that in the current situation this thesis
may seem unrealistic, but that is for now. However, if we build a reliable
security system in the future, there will simply be no need for the
presence of extraregional military contingents. Frankly, there is no need
today either—it is just occupation, that’s all.
Ultimately, we believe that the states and regional structures of
Eurasia should themselves determine specific areas of cooperation in the
field of joint security. Based on this, they should also build a system of
functioning institutions, mechanisms, and agreements that genuinely serve
the achievement of common goals of stability and development.
In this context, we support the initiative of our Belarusian friends
to develop a program document—a charter of multipolarity and diversity in
the 21st century. It can formulate not only the framework principles of
Eurasian architecture based on fundamental norms of international law but
also, more broadly, a strategic vision of the essence and nature of
multipolarity and multilateralism as a new system of international
relations, replacing the Western-centric world. I consider it important
and ask for thorough work on such a document with our partners and all
interested states. I would add that when discussing such complex,
comprehensive issues, of course, maximum, broad representation is needed,
considering different approaches and positions.
Fifth – an important part of the Eurasian system of security and
development must, of course, include issues of the economy, social
welfare, integration, and mutually beneficial cooperation, addressing such
common problems as overcoming poverty, inequality, climate, ecology, and
developing mechanisms for responding to pandemic threats and crises in the
global economy—everything is important.
The West, through its actions, has not only undermined military-
political stability in the world but has also discredited and weakened key
market institutions with sanctions and trade wars. Using the IMF and the
World Bank, manipulating the climate agenda, it restrains the development
of the Global South. Losing in competition, even by the rules that the
West itself wrote, it resorts to prohibitive barriers and all kinds of
protectionism. In the US, they have practically abandoned the World Trade
Organization as a regulator of international trade. Everything is blocked.
Moreover, they exert pressure not only on competitors but also on their
satellites. Just look at how they are now “squeezing the juices” from
European economies, which are balancing on the brink of recession.
Western countries have frozen part of Russia’s assets and currency
reserves. Now they are considering how to provide at least some legal
basis to finally appropriate them. But despite all the legal trickery,
theft will undoubtedly remain theft and will not go unpunished, on the
other hand.
The issue is even deeper. By stealing Russian assets, they will take
another step towards destroying the system they created themselves, which
for many decades ensured their prosperity, allowing them to consume more
than they earned, attracting money from around the world through debts and
obligations. Now it is becoming clear to all countries and companies,
sovereign funds, that their assets and reserves are far from safe — in
both legal and economic terms. And the next in line for expropriation by
the US and the West could be anyone — these foreign state funds could be
among them.
Distrust of the financial system based on Western reserve currencies
is already growing. There has been an outflow of funds from securities and
debt obligations of Western states, as well as some European banks, which
until recently were considered absolutely reliable places for storing
capital. Now even gold is being withdrawn from them. And they are right to
do so.
I believe that we need to seriously intensify the formation of
effective and safe bilateral and multilateral foreign economic mechanisms,
alternative to those controlled by the West. This includes expanding
settlements in national currencies, creating independent payment systems,
and building production and distribution chains bypassing channels blocked
or compromised by the West.
Of course, efforts to develop international transport corridors in
Eurasia — a continent whose natural geographic core is Russia — must
continue.
I instruct the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to fully support the
development of international agreements on all these areas. They are
extremely important for strengthening economic cooperation between our
country and our partners. This will also give new impetus to the
construction of a large Eurasian partnership, which can essentially become
the socio-economic basis of a new system of indivisible security in
Europe.
Dear colleagues! The essence of our proposals is to form a system
within which all states would be confident in their own security. Then we
can indeed approach the resolution of numerous conflicts that exist today
in a truly constructive manner. The problems of the security deficit and
mutual trust apply not only to the Eurasian continent; growing tensions
are observed everywhere. And how interconnected and interdependent the
world is, we see constantly, and a tragic example for all of us is the
Ukrainian crisis, whose consequences are felt all over the planet.
But I want to say right away: the crisis related to Ukraine is not a
conflict between two states, let alone two peoples, caused by some
problems between them. If that were the case, there is no doubt that
Russians and Ukrainians, who are united by a common history and culture,
spiritual values, millions of family, kinship, and human ties, would have
found a way to fairly resolve any issues and disagreements.
But the situation is different: the roots of the conflict are not in
bilateral relations. The events in Ukraine are a direct result of global
and European developments of the late 20th – early 21st century, of the
aggressive, brazen, and absolutely adventurous policies that the West has
been conducting all these years long before the special military operation
began.
These Western elites, as I said today, after the end of the "Cold
War," embarked on a course of further geopolitical restructuring of the
world, creating and imposing the notorious order based on rules, into
which strong, sovereign, and self-sufficient states simply do not fit.
Hence the policy of containing our country. The goals of this policy
are openly declared by some figures in the US and Europe. Today they talk
about the notorious decolonization of Russia. Essentially, this is an
attempt to provide an ideological basis for the dismemberment of our
homeland along national lines. In fact, there has long been talk of the
dismemberment of the Soviet Union and Russia. Everyone sitting in this
room is well aware of this.
Implementing this strategy, Western countries have taken the line of
absorbing and military-political development of territories close to us.
There have been five, and now six, waves of NATO expansion. They tried to
turn Ukraine into their stronghold, to make it "anti-Russia." To achieve
these goals, they invested money, resources, bought politicians and entire
parties, rewrote history and educational programs, nurtured and grew
groups of neo-Nazis and radicals. They did everything to undermine our
interstate connections, to divide and set our peoples against each other.
Such policies were further obstructed by southeastern Ukraine —
territories that have been part of great historical Russia for centuries.
People lived there, and still live, who, including after Ukraine declared
its independence in 1991, advocated for good and very close relations with
our country. People — both Russians and Ukrainians, representatives of
different nationalities, who were united by the Russian language, culture,
traditions, historical memory.
The position, mood, interests, and voices of these people — millions
of people living in the southeast — had to be taken into account by former
Ukrainian presidents and politicians who fought for this post, used the
votes of these voters. But, using these votes, they maneuvered, lied a
lot, talked about the so-called European choice. They did not dare to
break completely with Russia because the southeast of Ukraine was inclined
differently, and this could not be ignored. Such duality has always been
inherent in Ukrainian power throughout the years since recognizing
independence.
The West, of course, saw this. They had long seen and understood the
problems there that could be stirred up, understood the restraining
significance of the southeastern factor, and that no amount of years of
propaganda could fundamentally change the situation. Certainly, much was
done, but fundamentally it was difficult to alter the situation.
It was impossible to distort the historical identity and consciousness
of the majority of people in southeastern Ukraine, to eradicate from them,
including the younger generations, the positive attitude towards Russia
and the sense of our historical commonality. And so they decided to act
with force again, to simply break the people in the southeast, to
disregard their opinion. For this, they organized, financed, and certainly
took advantage of the internal political difficulties and complexities in
Ukraine, but still systematically and purposefully prepared an armed coup
d'état.
Ukrainian cities were overwhelmed by a wave of pogroms, violence, and
killings. Power in Kiev was finally seized and usurped by radicals. Their
aggressive nationalist slogans, including the rehabilitation of Nazi
collaborators, were elevated to the rank of state ideology. A course was
proclaimed to eliminate the Russian language in state and public spheres,
pressure on Orthodox believers increased, interference in church affairs,
which ultimately led to a split. No one seems to notice this interference,
as if it is normal. Try to do something different elsewhere, and there
will be so much artistic whistling that your ears will fall off. But there
it’s allowed, because it’s against Russia.
Millions of residents of Ukraine, primarily from its eastern regions,
opposed the coup, as is known. They were threatened with reprisals and
terror. And above all, the new authorities in Kiev began preparing an
attack on the Russian-speaking Crimea, which at one time, in 1954, as you
know, was transferred from the RSFSR to Ukraine in violation of all laws
and procedures, even those in force at that time in the Soviet Union. In
this situation, of course, we could not abandon, leave unprotected the
Crimeans and Sevastopol residents. They made their choice, and in March
2014, as is known, the historic reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol
with Russia took place.
In Kharkov, Kherson, Odessa, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, Lugansk, Mariupol,
peaceful protests against the coup began to be suppressed, terror was
unleashed by the Kiev regime and nationalist groups. It probably doesn't
need to be recalled, everyone remembers well what happened in these
regions.
In May 2014, referendums were held on the status of the Donetsk and
Lugansk People's Republics, where the overwhelming majority of residents
voted for independence and sovereignty. Immediately the question arises:
could people express their will in this way, could they declare their
independence? Those sitting in this hall understand that of course they
could, they had every right and grounds for it, including under
international law, including the right of peoples to self-determination. I
don't need to remind you, but nonetheless, since the media is working, I
will say, Article 1, paragraph 2 of the United Nations Charter gives this
right.I remind you in this regard of the notorious Kosovo precedent. It
was talked about many times in its time, now I will say it again. The
precedent, which Western countries created themselves, in a completely
analogous situation, recognized the separation of Kosovo from Serbia as
legitimate, which took place in 2008. Then followed the well-known
decision of the International Court of Justice of the UN, which on July
22, 2010, based on paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations Charter,
ruled, I quote: "There is no general prohibition against unilateral
declarations of independence stemming from the practice of the Security
Council." And the next quote: "General international law does not contain
any applicable prohibition on declarations of independence." Moreover, it
was recorded that parts of a country, any country, that decide to declare
their independence, are not required to consult the central authorities of
their former state. Everything is written there, all in their own hand, in
black and white.
So, did these republics – Donetsk and Lugansk – have the right to
declare their independence? Well, of course, yes. The question cannot even
be considered otherwise.
What did the regime in Kiev do in this situation? Completely ignored
the choice of the people and unleashed a full-scale war against the new
independent states – the people's republics of Donbass using aviation,
artillery, tanks. Bombing and shelling of peaceful cities, acts of
intimidation began. And what happened next? The residents of Donbass took
up arms to protect their lives, their home, their rights, and legitimate
interests.
In the West, there is now a constant thesis that Russia started the
war within the framework of the special military operation, that it is the
aggressor, and therefore strikes can be made on its territory using
Western weapon systems, Ukraine allegedly defends itself and can do this.
I want to emphasize once again: Russia did not start the war; it was
the Kiev regime that, after the residents of part of Ukraine declared
their independence in accordance with international law, began and
continues military actions. This is aggression if we do not recognize the
right of these peoples living in these territories to declare their
independence. What else could it be? This is aggression. And those who
have been aiding the Kiev regime’s war machine all these years are
accomplices to the aggressor.
Back in 2014, the residents of Donbass did not give in. Militia units
stood their ground, repelled the punitive forces, and then drove them back
from Donetsk and Lugansk. We hoped this would sober up those who unleashed
this massacre. To stop the bloodshed, Russia made the usual appeals –
calls for negotiations, and they began with the participation of Kiev and
representatives of the Donbass republics with the assistance of Russia,
Germany, and France.
The conversation was difficult, but nevertheless, as a result, the
Minsk agreements were concluded in 2015. We took their implementation very
seriously, hoping that we could resolve the situation within the framework
of a peaceful process and international law. We expected that this would
take into account the legitimate interests and demands of Donbass,
enshrine a special status for these regions in the constitution, and the
fundamental rights of the people living there while maintaining the
territorial unity of Ukraine. We were ready for this and were ready to
persuade the people living in these territories to resolve issues in this
way, repeatedly offering various compromises and solutions.
But in the end, everything was rejected. The Minsk agreements were
simply thrown in the trash by Kiev. As representatives of the Ukrainian
elite later admitted, none of the provisions of these documents suited
them; they just lied and twisted as much as they could.
The former Chancellor of Germany and the former President of France,
who were essentially co-authors and guarantors of the Minsk agreements,
later admitted outright that they had no intention of implementing them;
they simply needed to stall the situation to buy time for assembling
Ukrainian armed formations and pumping them up with weapons and equipment.
They simply "fooled" us again, deceived us.
Instead of a real peace process, instead of the policy of
reintegration and national reconciliation, which they loved to pontificate
about in Kiev, Donbass was shelled for eight years. They carried out
terrorist attacks, killings, and organized the harshest blockade. All
these years, the residents of Donbass (women, children, the elderly) were
declared "second-class" people, "subhumans," and were threatened with
reprisals, saying, “we’ll come and settle scores with each one.” What is
this, if not genocide in the center of Europe in the 21st century? And in
Europe and the US, they pretended that nothing was happening, no one
noticed anything.
At the end of 2021 – beginning of 2022, the Minsk process was finally
buried by Kiev and its Western patrons, and another massive strike on
Donbass was planned. A large grouping of Ukrainian armed forces was
preparing to launch a new offensive on Lugansk and Donetsk, of course,
with ethnic cleansing and huge human casualties, hundreds of thousands of
refugees. We were obliged to prevent this catastrophe, to protect the
people; we had no other choice.
Russia finally recognized the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics.
After all, we did not recognize them for eight years, still hoping to come
to an agreement. The result is now known. And on February 21, 2022, we
concluded treaties of friendship, cooperation, and mutual assistance with
these republics, which we recognized. Question: did the people's republics
have the right to ask us for support if we recognized their independence?
And did we have the right to recognize their independence just as they had
the right to declare their sovereignty in accordance with the mentioned
articles and decisions of the International Court of Justice of the UN?
Did they have the right to declare independence? They did. But if they had
such a right and used it, then we had the right to conclude a treaty with
them – and we did, and I repeat: in full accordance with international law
and Article 51 of the UN Charter.
At the same time, we appealed to the Kiev authorities to withdraw
their troops from Donbass. I can tell you, there were contacts; we
immediately told them: withdraw your troops from there, and everything
will end there. This proposal was practically immediately rejected, simply
ignored, although it provided a real opportunity to close the issue
precisely in a peaceful way.
On February 24, 2022, Russia was forced to announce the start of a
special military operation. Addressing the citizens of Russia, the
residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, and Ukrainian society, I
then outlined the goals of this operation – to protect the people of
Donbass, restore peace, conduct demilitarization and denazification of
Ukraine, and thus avert threats from our state, restore the balance in the
field of security in Europe.
At the same time, we continued to consider achieving these goals
through political and diplomatic methods a priority. I remind you that at
the very first stage of the special military operation, our country
entered into negotiations with representatives of the Kiev regime. They
were held first in Belarus, in Turkiye. We tried to convey our main point:
respect the choice of Donbass, the will of the people living there,
withdraw the troops, stop the shelling of peaceful cities and towns.
Nothing else is needed, the rest of the issues will be resolved later. The
response was: no, we will fight. It is obvious that this was the command
from the Western masters, and I will talk about this now.
At that time, in February-March 2022, our troops, as is known,
approached Kiev. There were and still are many speculations about this in
Ukraine and the West.
What do I want to say about this? Our units were indeed stationed near
Kiev, and the military departments, the security block, had different
proposals regarding our possible further actions, but there was no
political decision to storm a three-million-strong city, no matter what
anyone said or imagined.
Essentially, this was nothing but an operation to force the Ukrainian
regime to make peace. The troops were there to push the Ukrainian side
towards negotiations, to try to find acceptable solutions and thereby end
the war initiated by Kiev against Donbass back in 2014, and to resolve
issues posing a threat to the security of our country, to the security of
Russia. Strangely enough, as a result, we managed to reach agreements that
basically suited both Moscow and Kiev. These agreements were put on paper
and initialed in Istanbul by the head of the Ukrainian negotiating
delegation. This means that the Kiev authorities were satisfied with such
a resolution of the issue.
The document was called the "Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and
Security Guarantees for Ukraine." It was of a compromise nature, but its
key points aligned with our fundamental demands, addressing the objectives
declared as primary even at the beginning of the special military
operation. Including, as strange as it may seem, I draw attention to, the
demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. Here, too, we managed to
find complex solutions. They are complex, but they were found. Namely: it
was intended that a Ukrainian law would be adopted to ban Nazi ideology,
any of its manifestations. Everything is written there.
Furthermore, Ukraine, in exchange for international security
guarantees, would limit the size of its armed forces, undertake
obligations not to join military alliances, not to allow foreign military
bases, not to host them or contingents, not to conduct military exercises
on its territory. Everything was written down on paper.
We, on our part, also understanding Ukraine's security concerns,
agreed that Ukraine, formally not joining NATO, would receive guarantees
practically equivalent to those enjoyed by members of this alliance. For
us, this was a difficult decision, but we recognized the legitimacy of
Ukraine’s demands for its security and, in principle, did not object to
the proposed formulations from Kiev. These were formulations proposed by
Kiev, and we generally did not object to them, understanding that the main
thing was to stop the bloodshed and the war in Donbass.
On March 29, 2022, we withdrew our troops from Kiev because we were
assured that it was necessary to create the necessary conditions for
completing the political negotiation process, for completing this process.
And that it is not possible for one side to sign such agreements, as our
Western colleagues said, with a gun to the head. Fine, we agreed to this
too. However, immediately, the very next day after the withdrawal of
Russian troops from Kiev, the Ukrainian leadership suspended its
participation in the negotiation process, staged the well-known
provocation in Bucha, and refused the prepared version of the agreements.
I think it is clear today why this dirty provocation was needed – to
somehow explain the refusal of those results achieved during the
negotiations. The path to peace was again rejected.
This was done, as we now know, at the behest of Western curators,
including the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, during whose
visit to Kiev it was explicitly stated: no agreements, it is necessary to
defeat Russia on the battlefield, achieve its strategic defeat. And they
continued to intensively pump Ukraine with weapons, talking about the need
to inflict, as I just reminded, a strategic defeat on us. And some time
later, as everyone knows well, the President of Ukraine issued a decree
prohibiting his representatives and even himself from conducting any
negotiations with Moscow. This episode with our attempt to solve the
problem by peaceful means ended in nothing once again.
By the way, on the topic of negotiations. Now I would like to disclose
another episode to this audience. I have not spoken publicly about this
before, but some present are aware of it. After the Russian army occupied
parts of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, many Western politicians
offered their mediation in peacefully resolving the conflict. One of them
was on a working visit to Moscow on March 5, 2022. And we accepted his
mediation efforts, especially since he, during the conversation, referred
to the fact that he had received support from the leaders of Germany and
France, as well as senior representatives of the US.
During the conversation, our foreign guest inquired – a curious
episode, he said: if you are helping Donbass, why are Russian troops in
southern Ukraine, including the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions? The answer
from our side was that this was the decision of the Russian General Staff
in planning the operation. And today I will add that the plan was to
bypass some fortified areas that the Ukrainian authorities built in
Donbass over eight years, primarily for the liberation of Mariupol.
Then the foreign colleague clarified – a professional person, I must
admit: will our Russian troops remain in the Kherson and Zaporozhye
regions? and what will happen to these regions after achieving the goals
of the special military operation? To this, I answered that in general, I
do not rule out the preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty over these
territories, but on the condition that Russia has a strong land connection
with Crimea. That is, Kiev must guarantee the so-called servitude – a
legally formalized right of access for Russia to the Crimean Peninsula
through the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions.
This is a crucial political decision. And of course, naturally, in the
final version, it would not be made unilaterally but only after
consultations with the Security Council, other structures, and, of course,
after discussion with the citizens, the public of our country, and
primarily with the residents of the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. In the
end, we did just that: we asked the opinion of the people themselves and
held referendums. And acted according to the decision of the people,
including in the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, in the Donetsk and
Lugansk People's Republics.
At that time, in March 2022, the negotiation partner informed that he
intended to go to Kiev to continue the discussion with colleagues in the
Ukrainian capital. We welcomed this, as well as any attempts to find a
peaceful resolution to the conflict, because every day of fighting meant
new casualties and losses. However, in Ukraine, as we learned later, the
services of the Western mediator were not accepted. On the contrary, as we
found out, he was accused of taking pro-Russian positions – in quite a
harsh manner, I must say, but that’s already a detail.
Now, as already mentioned, the situation has fundamentally changed.
The residents of Kherson and Zaporozhye, during referendums, expressed
their position. The Kherson and Zaporozhye regions, as well as the Donetsk
and Lugansk People's Republics, have become part of the Russian
Federation. There can be no talk of violating our state unity. The
people's desire to be with Russia is unshakeable. The issue is closed
forever and is no longer subject to discussion.
I want to reiterate: it was the West that prepared and provoked the
Ukrainian crisis, and now it is doing everything to drag out this crisis
endlessly, to weaken and mutually embitter the people of Russia and
Ukraine.
They are sending new batches of ammunition and weapons. Some European
politicians have started talking about the possibility of deploying their
regular troops in Ukraine. At the same time, as I have already noted, the
true current masters of Ukraine – unfortunately, not the people of
Ukraine, but the globalist elites located across the ocean – are trying to
impose on the Ukrainian executive power the burden of making decisions
that are unpopular with the people, including further lowering the draft
age.
As you know, it is now 25 years, the next stage could be 23, then 20,
18 or immediately 18. And then, of course, they will get rid of those
figures who will make these unpopular decisions under Western pressure,
throw them out as unnecessary, shift all the responsibility onto them, and
put other people dependent on the West, but with not yet so tarnished
reputations, in their place.
Hence, possibly, the idea of canceling the next presidential elections
in Ukraine. Now those in power will do everything, then they will be
thrown into the trash – and then they will do whatever they see fit.
In this regard, I will remind you of what they now prefer not to
remember in Kiev, and the West prefers not to talk about. What is it? Back
in May 2014, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled that – quote – “The
President is elected for five years, regardless of whether he is elected
in early or regular elections.” In addition, the Constitutional Court of
Ukraine noted that – quote – “the constitutional status of the President
does not contain norms that would establish any other term except for the
five-year term.” End of quote, full stop. The court's decision was final
and not subject to appeal. That's it.
What does this mean for today’s situation? The presidential term of
the previously elected head of Ukraine has expired along with his
legitimacy, which cannot be restored by any trickery. I will not go into
detail about the background of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine's
decision on the presidential term. It is clear that it was related to
attempts to legitimize the 2014 coup. But nevertheless, this verdict
exists, and it is a legal fact. It casts doubt on all attempts to justify
today's spectacle of canceling the elections.In fact, the current tragic
page in Ukraine's history began with a forcible seizure of power, as I
have already said, an unconstitutional coup in 2014. I repeat: the source
of the current Kiev regime is an armed coup. And now the circle is
complete – the executive power in Ukraine is again, as in 2014, usurped
and held illegally, is essentially illegitimate.
I will say more: the situation with the cancellation of elections is
an expression of the very nature, the true essence of the current Kiev
regime, which grew out of the 2014 armed coup, is tied to it, and has its
roots there. And the fact that by canceling the elections, they continue
to cling to power, these are actions that are directly prohibited by
Article 5 of the Constitution of Ukraine. I quote: “The right to determine
and change the constitutional order in Ukraine belongs exclusively to the
people and cannot be usurped by the state, its bodies, or officials.” In
addition, such actions fall under Article 109 of the Criminal Code of
Ukraine, which speaks about the violent change or overthrow of the
constitutional order or the seizure of state power, as well as conspiracy
to commit such actions.
In 2014, such usurpation was justified in the name of revolution, and
now – by military actions. But the essence of this does not change. In
fact, we are talking about a conspiracy of the executive power of Ukraine,
the leadership of the Verkhovna Rada, and the parliamentary majority
controlled by it, aimed at the usurpation of state power (it cannot be
called otherwise), which is a criminal offense under Ukrainian law.
Moreover, the Constitution of Ukraine does not provide for the
possibility of canceling or postponing the presidential elections in the
country, extending its powers due to martial law, which is currently being
referred to. What is in the Ukrainian basic law? It states that during
martial law, elections to the Verkhovna Rada may be postponed. This is
Article 83 of the country’s Constitution.
Thus, Ukrainian legislation provides for the only exception when the
powers of a state authority are extended during martial law and elections
are not held. And this applies exclusively to the Verkhovna Rada.
Therefore, the status of the Ukrainian parliament as a continuously
operating body in the conditions of martial law is thus defined.
In other words, it is precisely the Verkhovna Rada that is today a
legitimate body as opposed to the executive power. Ukraine is not a
presidential republic but a parliamentary-presidential one. This is the
essence.
Moreover, the chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, acting as President,
under Articles 106 and 112, is endowed with special powers, including in
the field of defense, security, and supreme command of the armed forces.
All this is written in black and white.
By the way, in the first half of this year, Ukraine concluded a
package of bilateral agreements on cooperation in the field of security
and long-term support with a number of European countries. Now there is a
similar document with the United States.
As of May 21 of this year, the question naturally arises about the
powers and legitimacy of the representatives of the Ukrainian side who
sign such documents. For us, as they say, it doesn’t matter, let them sign
whatever they want. It is clear that there is a political and
propagandistic component here. The United States and its satellites want
to somehow support their appointees, give them weight and legitimacy.
Nevertheless, if later in the US a serious legal examination of such
an agreement is carried out (I am not talking about the essence, but about
the legal component), then the question will inevitably arise: who signed
these documents and with what authority? And it will turn out that all
this is a bluff, and the agreement is void, and the whole structure will
collapse, of course, if there is a desire to analyze the situation. They
can pretend that everything is normal, but there is nothing normal about
it, I have read it. Everything is written in the documents, everything is
written in the Constitution.
I also remind you that after the start of the special military
operation, the West launched a vigorous and very brazen campaign trying to
isolate Russia on the international stage. Today it is clear to everyone
that this attempt has failed, but the West has not abandoned its idea of
building some semblance of an international anti-Russian coalition,
creating the appearance of pressure on Russia. We understand this too.
As you know, they began actively promoting the initiative of holding a
so-called high-level international conference on peace in Ukraine in
Switzerland. Moreover, they plan to hold it immediately after the G7
summit, that is, the group of those who, in fact, ignited the conflict in
Ukraine with their policies. What the organizers of the meeting in
Switzerland are proposing is just another trick to divert public
attention, to swap the cause and effect of the Ukrainian crisis, to lead
the discussion astray and somewhat give the appearance of legitimacy to
the current executive power in Ukraine once again.
Therefore, it is logical that no truly fundamental issues underlying
the current crisis of international security and stability, the true roots
of the Ukrainian conflict, are going to be discussed in Switzerland,
despite all attempts to give the conference agenda a more or less decent
appearance.
Already now it can be expected that everything will be reduced to
general demagogic discussions and a new set of accusations against Russia.
The ploy is obvious: by any means, drag in as many countries as possible
and present the case as if the Western recipes and rules are shared by the
entire international community, and therefore our country must
unconditionally accept them.
As you know, we were not invited to the meeting in Switzerland. After
all, in essence, these are not negotiations, but the desire of a group of
countries to continue pushing their line, to decide on issues that
directly affect our interests and security at their own discretion.
I want to emphasize in this regard: without Russia's participation,
without honest and responsible dialogue with us, it is impossible to reach
a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and in general regarding global European
security.
Meanwhile, the West ignores our interests, while at the same time
forbidding Kiev to negotiate, and hypocritically calling on us for some
negotiations. It just looks idiotic: on the one hand, they forbid them to
negotiate with us, and on the other, they call us for negotiations and
even hint that we are refusing negotiations. It’s some kind of nonsense.
But we are living in a kind of Wonderland.
But first of all, they should give Kiev the command to lift the ban,
the self-ban on negotiations with Russia, and secondly, we are ready to
sit down at the negotiating table even tomorrow. We understand all the
peculiarity of the legal situation, but there are legitimate authorities
there even according to the Constitution, I just mentioned it now, there
is someone to negotiate with. Please, we are ready. Our conditions for
starting such a conversation are simple and are as follows.
You know, I will now take some time to reproduce the entire chain of
events once again, so that it is clear that for us what I am about to say
is not a matter of today’s conjuncture, but we have always adhered to a
certain position, we have always strived for peace.
So, these conditions are very simple. Ukrainian troops must be
completely withdrawn from the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics,
Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. Moreover, I emphasize, precisely from the
entire territory of these regions within their administrative boundaries,
which existed at the time of their entry into Ukraine.
As soon as Kiev announces that it is ready for such a solution and
begins the real withdrawal of troops from these regions, and also
officially notifies [us] of the refusal of plans to join NATO, from our
side, immediately, literally at that moment, an order will be given to
cease fire and begin negotiations. I repeat: we will do this immediately.
Naturally, at the same time, we guarantee the unhindered and safe
withdrawal of Ukrainian units and formations.
Of course, we would like to hope that such a decision about troop
withdrawal, non-aligned status, and starting dialogue with Russia, on
which the future existence of Ukraine depends, will be made in Kiev
independently, based on the existing realities and guided by the genuine
national interests of the Ukrainian people, and not at the behest of the
West, although there are, of course, great doubts about this.
Nevertheless, what do I want to say again in this regard, what to
remind you of? I said that I wanted to chronologically trace the events
once more. Let's take the time for this.
So, during the events on the Maidan in Kiev in 2013–2014, Russia
repeatedly offered its assistance in a constitutional resolution of the
crisis, which was actually organized from the outside. Let's return to the
chronology of events at the end of February 2014.
On February 18, armed clashes began in Kiev, provoked by the
opposition. A number of buildings, including the city hall and the House
of Trade Unions, were set on fire. On February 20, unknown snipers opened
fire on protesters and law enforcement officers, that is, those who were
preparing the armed coup did everything to push the situation further
towards violence and radicalization. And those people who were on the
streets of Kiev in those days and expressed dissatisfaction with the then
authorities were deliberately used for their selfish purposes, as cannon
fodder. They are doing exactly the same today, mobilizing and sending
people to be slaughtered. And yet, there was an opportunity for a
civilized way out of the situation at that time.
It is known that on February 21, an agreement was signed between the
then President of Ukraine and the opposition on the settlement of the
political crisis. Its guarantors, as you know, were official
representatives of Germany, Poland, and France. The agreement provided for
a return to a parliamentary-presidential form of government, the holding
of early presidential elections, the formation of a government of national
trust, as well as the withdrawal of law enforcement forces from the center
of Kiev and the opposition’s surrender of weapons.
I will add that the Verkhovna Rada adopted a law excluding the
criminal prosecution of protest participants. Such an agreement, which
would have allowed stopping the violence and returning the situation to
the constitutional field, was in place. This agreement was signed,
although in Kiev and in the West they also prefer not to remember it.
Today, I will say more about another important fact, which also has
not been publicly mentioned before, namely – literally in the same hours
on February 21, a conversation took place at the initiative of the
American side with my American counterpart. The essence was as follows:
the American leader unequivocally supported the Kiev agreement between the
authorities and the opposition. Moreover, he called it a real
breakthrough, a chance for the Ukrainian people to ensure that the
violence did not go beyond all conceivable limits.
Furthermore, in the course of the conversations, we jointly worked out
the following formula: Russia will try to persuade the then President of
Ukraine to behave as restrained as possible, not to use the army or law
enforcement against the protesters. And the US, accordingly, it was said,
would call on the opposition to calm down, to free administrative
buildings, so that the streets would calm down.
All this was supposed to create conditions for life in the country to
return to normal, within the constitutional and legal field. And in
general, we agreed to work together for a stable, peaceful, and normally
developing Ukraine. We fully kept our word. The then President of Ukraine
Yanukovych, who, in fact, did not plan to use the army, nevertheless did
not do this, and moreover, even withdrew additional police units from
Kiev.
And what did the Western colleagues do? On the night of February 22
and then throughout the following day, when President Yanukovych went to
Kharkov, where a congress of deputies from the southeastern regions of
Ukraine and Crimea was to be held, the radicals, despite all the
agreements and guarantees from the West (both from Europe and, as I just
said, from the US), seized control of the Rada building by force, took
over the Presidential Administration, and seized the government. And not a
single guarantor of all these agreements on political settlement – neither
the United States nor the Europeans – lifted a finger to fulfill their
obligations, to call on the opposition to vacate the seized administrative
buildings, and to renounce violence. It is clear that such a turn of
events not only suited them, it seems that they were also the authors of
the development of events in this vein.
Also, on February 22, 2014, the Verkhovna Rada, in violation of the
Constitution of Ukraine, adopted a resolution on the so-called self-
removal of the then President Yanukovych from the post of President and
appointed early elections for May 25. That is, an armed coup, provoked
from outside, was completed. Ukrainian radicals, with the tacit consent
and direct support of the West, thwarted all attempts to peacefully
resolve the situation.Then we urged Kiev and the Western capitals to start
a dialogue with the people in the southeast of Ukraine, to respect their
interests, rights, and freedoms. No, the regime that came to power as a
result of the coup chose war, in the spring and summer of 2014 launched
punitive actions against Donbass. Russia again called for peace.
We did everything to resolve the acute problems that arose within the
framework of the Minsk agreements, but the West and the Kiev authorities,
as I have already emphasized, did not intend to implement them. Although
in words, Western colleagues, including the head of the White House,
assured us that the Minsk agreements are important and that they are
committed to the processes of their implementation. That, in their
opinion, this will allow us to get out of the situation in Ukraine,
stabilize it, and take into account the interests of the residents of the
east. Instead, they actually organized a blockade of Donbass, as I have
already said. The Armed Forces of Ukraine were consistently prepared for a
full-scale operation to destroy the Donetsk and Lugansk People's
Republics.
The Minsk agreements were finally buried by the Kiev regime and the
West. I will return to this again. That is why in 2022 Russia was forced
to start a special military operation to stop the war in Donbass and
protect the peaceful inhabitants from genocide.
At the same time, from the very first days, we have again put forward
options for a diplomatic resolution of the crisis, I have already spoken
about this today. These are negotiations in Belarus, Turkiye, the
withdrawal of troops from Kiev to create conditions for signing the
Istanbul agreements, which were generally agreed upon by all. But these
attempts of ours were ultimately rejected again. The West and Kiev took
the course to defeat us. But, as you know, all this failed.
Today we are making another specific, real peace proposal. If Kiev and
the Western capitals reject it, as before, then ultimately this is their
affair, their political and moral responsibility for the continuation of
the bloodshed. Obviously, the realities on the ground, on the line of
combat contact, will continue to change not in favor of the Kiev regime.
And the conditions for starting negotiations will be different.
I emphasize the main thing: the essence of our proposal is not some
temporary truce or cessation of fire, as the West wants, to recover
losses, rearm the Kiev regime, and prepare it for a new offensive. I
repeat: it is not about freezing the conflict, but about its final
resolution.
And I will say once again: as soon as Kiev agrees to such a course of
events as proposed today, agrees to the complete withdrawal of its troops
from the DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, and actually begins
this process, we are ready to start negotiations without delay.
I repeat: our principled position is as follows – neutral, non-
aligned, non-nuclear status of Ukraine, its demilitarization and
denazification, especially since these parameters were generally agreed
upon during the Istanbul negotiations in 2022. Everything was clear about
demilitarization, everything was spelled out: the number of this and that,
tanks. Everything was agreed upon.
Undoubtedly, the rights, freedoms, and interests of Russian-speaking
citizens in Ukraine must be fully ensured, the new territorial realities,
the status of Crimea, Sevastopol, the Donetsk, Lugansk People's Republics,
Kherson, and Zaporozhye regions as subjects of the Russian Federation must
be recognized. In the future, all these basic and principled provisions
should be fixed in the form of fundamental international agreements.
Naturally, this also implies the lifting of all Western sanctions against
Russia.
I believe that Russia is offering a variant that will allow the war in
Ukraine to be truly ended, that is, we are calling for the tragic page of
history to be turned over and, albeit difficultly, gradually, step by
step, but to begin to restore relations of trust and good neighborliness
between Russia and Ukraine and in general in Europe.
By resolving the Ukrainian crisis, we, including together with our
partners in the CSTO, SCO, who are making a significant, constructive
contribution to the search for ways to peacefully resolve the Ukrainian
crisis even today, as well as with Western, including European states,
ready for dialogue, could begin addressing the fundamental task I spoke
about at the beginning of my speech, namely, creating an indivisible
system of Eurasian security that takes into account the interests of all,
without exception, states on the continent.
Of course, a literal return to the security proposals we put forward
25, 15, or even two years ago is impossible; too much has happened,
circumstances have changed. However, the basic principles and, most
importantly, the subject of the dialogue remain unchanged. Russia
recognizes its responsibility for global stability and again confirms its
readiness to engage in dialogue with all countries. But this should not be
a simulation of the peace process aimed at serving someone’s selfish will
or interests, but a serious, thorough discussion on all issues, on the
entire range of global security issues.
Dear colleagues! I am sure that you all well understand the scale of
the tasks facing Russia, how much we need to do, including in the field of
foreign policy.I sincerely wish you success in this difficult work of
ensuring the security of Russia, our national interests, strengthening the
country’s positions in the world, advancing integration processes and
bilateral relations with our partners.
The state leadership will continue to provide necessary support to the
diplomatic department and to all those involved in the implementation of
Russia's foreign policy.
Once again, thank you for your work, thank you for your patience and
attention to what has been said. I am confident that we will succeed.
Thank you very much.
--
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglais.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)
Duncan Patton a Campbell
Je suis Canadien. Ce n'est pas Francais ou Anglais.
C'est une esp`ece de sauvage: ne obliviscaris, vix ea nostra voco;-)
Duncan Patton a Campbell