The Kremlin
Vladimir Putin visited Arkhangelsk nuclear-powered cruiser submarine.
The President toured the cruiser’s control centre, the crew quarters and weapons storage facilities, and also spoke with the crew members.
Communications department commander, Captain III rank Frolov:
Could you share your assessment of the latest developments and how the special military operation has been unfolding?
Vladimir Putin:
… Overall, we can clearly see what is happening right now. Our troops have the strategic initiative along the entire contact line. Only recently, I said that we would squeeze them into a corner, but now we have reason to believe that we are set to finish them off. I think that people in Ukraine need to realise what is going on.
Our Armed Forces have been gathering momentum and acting increasingly effectively. …
… As regards the situation along the line of contact, let me reiterate, emphasise: across the entire frontline, the strategic initiative lies unequivocally with the Russian Armed Forces.
The Lugansk People’s Republic has been 99 percent liberated, while the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions stand at over 70 percent. Our forces, our troops, are advancing daily, liberating territory after territory, area after area.
Petty Officer II class Ivan Domnin:
Today, the entire world’s attention is focused on the negotiations between Russia and the United States. Unexpectedly, we have begun dialogue and rapprochement with our main rival. If possible, I would like to hear first-hand about the progress and the outcomes of these talks.
Vladimir Putin:
I understand that everyone in the world and in our country is closely following these developments. In this regard, I would like to state – first and foremost – that, in my view, the newly elected President of the United States sincerely wishes to end this conflict for a number of reasons – I will not list them now, as they are numerous. But in my opinion, this aspiration is genuine.
It is clear that the conflict I have just mentioned and briefly characterised in terms of recent developments, remains complex and requires thorough discussion and consideration.
We stand for resolving all these issues by peaceful means, as I have just stated, reinforcing the measures we have taken from the very beginning – first, second, and third.
Therefore, we advocate resolving these issues through peaceful means, but with the elimination of the root causes that have led to the current situation. We must undoubtedly ensure Russia’s security from the long-term historical perspective. Any step taken to achieve this objective will be welcomed by us, and we will work with any partners who strive towards this goal. This includes not only the United States but also the People’s Republic of China, India, Brazil, South Africa, all BRICS nations, and many others, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with which we have a signed treaty. Article 4 of this treaty outlines in detail our mutual obligations for support. Cooperation with this country is also progressing in both military-technical and defence spheres.
We are prepared to work with Europe as well, despite their inconsistent behaviour and constant attempts to lead us up the garden path. Nevertheless, we have grown accustomed to this. I trust we will avoid making mistakes rooted in excessive trust towards our so-called partners.
But in general, they have a problem over there, which is never highlighted, just mentioned in passing. I am highlighting it. What is it? Ultranationalists have had considerable influence in Ukraine from the start, in fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. These people hold openly neo-Nazi views, and they even use the term in Ukraine, so we were not the ones who invented it. Curiously, few people mention this now, either.
In 2017, the United States Congress added a provision to the government spending bill that prohibited financing or having any relations with units like the Azov militia unit. An American lawmaker directly described that paramilitary group as terrorist and anti-Semitic.
Moreover, although the amendment was not supported by the Senate at that time, in a year or two, its sponsors, including the oldest member of the US Congress, supported that legislation, and it was adopted by Congress. The US Congress recognised Azov as a terrorist, anti-Semitic, and neo-Nazi organisation.
Has anything changed since then? No. Essentially, Azov has not changed. It has remained the same. However, in 2022, the State Department decided that US military aid could go to that controversial unit because it had been integrated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine – apparently, the bill allowed this interpretation. The fact that it was integrated into the official armed forces changed nothing. Their views and actions remained the same as they were at the start.
If anything, it has become worse, because now they plan to strengthen these units, including Azov, and elevate them to divisions. This means that such people now have even more weapons at their disposal. They have more supporters, people they have persuaded to fight for them by implanting their views.
What happens next? As a result, the current civil authorities in Ukraine have no legitimacy in accordance with the country’s constitution. Ukraine has held no presidential election, while according to the constitution, all key officials are to be appointed by the president, including regional government bodies, governors and so on. So, if the president is illegitimate, so are all the others.
So, under these circumstances of de facto illegitimacy, neo-Nazi formations receive additional weapons and recruit new personnel. What does this lead to, what could it lead to? It results in de facto power being in their hands. This, in turn, means that it is already unclear with whom to sign documents and what effect such documents might carry, for tomorrow new leaders may come to power through elections and declare: “We do not know who signed those papers, so goodbye.”
The issue is not just this uncertainty; it is that these neo-Nazi formations, such as Azov, among others, are effectively beginning to run the country. This raises the question: how is it possible to conduct negotiations with them?
In such situations, international practice follows a well-established path. Within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, there have been several cases of what is termed external governance or temporary administration. This occurred in East Timor, I believe in 1999, in parts of the former Yugoslavia, and in New Guinea. In short, such precedents exist.
In principle, it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine. To what end? To conduct democratic elections, to bring to power a competent government that enjoys public trust, and only then to begin negotiations on a peace treaty and sign legitimate agreements that would be recognised worldwide as consistent and reliable.
This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. At present, there is no opportunity – and perhaps no possibility – to lay out every detail, as the situation is evolving rapidly. But this remains a viable option, and such precedents exist within UN practice, as I have already noted.
Ultimately, we advocate for the resolution of all conflicts, including this one, through peaceful means. But not at our expense.
Vladimir Putin visited Arkhangelsk nuclear-powered cruiser submarine.
The President toured the cruiser’s control centre, the crew quarters and weapons storage facilities, and also spoke with the crew members.
Communications department commander, Captain III rank Frolov:
Could you share your assessment of the latest developments and how the special military operation has been unfolding?
Vladimir Putin:
… Overall, we can clearly see what is happening right now. Our troops have the strategic initiative along the entire contact line. Only recently, I said that we would squeeze them into a corner, but now we have reason to believe that we are set to finish them off. I think that people in Ukraine need to realise what is going on.
Our Armed Forces have been gathering momentum and acting increasingly effectively. …
… As regards the situation along the line of contact, let me reiterate, emphasise: across the entire frontline, the strategic initiative lies unequivocally with the Russian Armed Forces.
The Lugansk People’s Republic has been 99 percent liberated, while the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions stand at over 70 percent. Our forces, our troops, are advancing daily, liberating territory after territory, area after area.
Petty Officer II class Ivan Domnin:
Today, the entire world’s attention is focused on the negotiations between Russia and the United States. Unexpectedly, we have begun dialogue and rapprochement with our main rival. If possible, I would like to hear first-hand about the progress and the outcomes of these talks.
Vladimir Putin:
I understand that everyone in the world and in our country is closely following these developments. In this regard, I would like to state – first and foremost – that, in my view, the newly elected President of the United States sincerely wishes to end this conflict for a number of reasons – I will not list them now, as they are numerous. But in my opinion, this aspiration is genuine.
It is clear that the conflict I have just mentioned and briefly characterised in terms of recent developments, remains complex and requires thorough discussion and consideration.
We stand for resolving all these issues by peaceful means, as I have just stated, reinforcing the measures we have taken from the very beginning – first, second, and third.
Therefore, we advocate resolving these issues through peaceful means, but with the elimination of the root causes that have led to the current situation. We must undoubtedly ensure Russia’s security from the long-term historical perspective. Any step taken to achieve this objective will be welcomed by us, and we will work with any partners who strive towards this goal. This includes not only the United States but also the People’s Republic of China, India, Brazil, South Africa, all BRICS nations, and many others, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, with which we have a signed treaty. Article 4 of this treaty outlines in detail our mutual obligations for support. Cooperation with this country is also progressing in both military-technical and defence spheres.
We are prepared to work with Europe as well, despite their inconsistent behaviour and constant attempts to lead us up the garden path. Nevertheless, we have grown accustomed to this. I trust we will avoid making mistakes rooted in excessive trust towards our so-called partners.
But in general, they have a problem over there, which is never highlighted, just mentioned in passing. I am highlighting it. What is it? Ultranationalists have had considerable influence in Ukraine from the start, in fact, since the collapse of the Soviet Union. These people hold openly neo-Nazi views, and they even use the term in Ukraine, so we were not the ones who invented it. Curiously, few people mention this now, either.
In 2017, the United States Congress added a provision to the government spending bill that prohibited financing or having any relations with units like the Azov militia unit. An American lawmaker directly described that paramilitary group as terrorist and anti-Semitic.
Moreover, although the amendment was not supported by the Senate at that time, in a year or two, its sponsors, including the oldest member of the US Congress, supported that legislation, and it was adopted by Congress. The US Congress recognised Azov as a terrorist, anti-Semitic, and neo-Nazi organisation.
Has anything changed since then? No. Essentially, Azov has not changed. It has remained the same. However, in 2022, the State Department decided that US military aid could go to that controversial unit because it had been integrated into the Armed Forces of Ukraine – apparently, the bill allowed this interpretation. The fact that it was integrated into the official armed forces changed nothing. Their views and actions remained the same as they were at the start.
If anything, it has become worse, because now they plan to strengthen these units, including Azov, and elevate them to divisions. This means that such people now have even more weapons at their disposal. They have more supporters, people they have persuaded to fight for them by implanting their views.
What happens next? As a result, the current civil authorities in Ukraine have no legitimacy in accordance with the country’s constitution. Ukraine has held no presidential election, while according to the constitution, all key officials are to be appointed by the president, including regional government bodies, governors and so on. So, if the president is illegitimate, so are all the others.
So, under these circumstances of de facto illegitimacy, neo-Nazi formations receive additional weapons and recruit new personnel. What does this lead to, what could it lead to? It results in de facto power being in their hands. This, in turn, means that it is already unclear with whom to sign documents and what effect such documents might carry, for tomorrow new leaders may come to power through elections and declare: “We do not know who signed those papers, so goodbye.”
The issue is not just this uncertainty; it is that these neo-Nazi formations, such as Azov, among others, are effectively beginning to run the country. This raises the question: how is it possible to conduct negotiations with them?
In such situations, international practice follows a well-established path. Within the framework of the United Nations peacekeeping operations, there have been several cases of what is termed external governance or temporary administration. This occurred in East Timor, I believe in 1999, in parts of the former Yugoslavia, and in New Guinea. In short, such precedents exist.
In principle, it would indeed be possible to discuss, under UN auspices with the United States and even European countries – and certainly with our partners and allies – the possibility of establishing a temporary administration in Ukraine. To what end? To conduct democratic elections, to bring to power a competent government that enjoys public trust, and only then to begin negotiations on a peace treaty and sign legitimate agreements that would be recognised worldwide as consistent and reliable.
This is just one option; I do not claim that others do not exist. They certainly do. At present, there is no opportunity – and perhaps no possibility – to lay out every detail, as the situation is evolving rapidly. But this remains a viable option, and such precedents exist within UN practice, as I have already noted.
Ultimately, we advocate for the resolution of all conflicts, including this one, through peaceful means. But not at our expense.
No comments:
Post a Comment