Putin's Extraordinary Meeting with Foreign Ministry Leadership

Yes, another long read.

Meetings of this sort between Putin and Ministry of Foreign Affairs leadership don’t happen on a regular basis, the last time in 2021 the run-up to the pressure-filled days prior to Russia’s security proposals to the outlaw US Empire. This is a very long talk by Putin to those attending, which might be seen as a tune-up of Russia’s new Foreign Policy Concept that was issued last year. The MFA is very much on the front line of the ongoing geopolitical conflict and bringing about the Multipolar World and as such is extremely important. Lavrov will start and end the session:

Sergey Lavrov : Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, Dear colleagues!

We are always happy to see you at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On behalf of our entire team, let me welcome you to our next meeting.

First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the constant attention paid to the foreign service. This applies both to our professional activities and to providing the Ministry and our embassies and consulates General with everything necessary to successfully solve their tasks.

I would also like to thank our colleagues from the Presidential Administration, the Government, the Federal Assembly, and executive authorities who are present here.

We are always committed to the closest possible cooperation and coordination in pursuing a single foreign policy course, which is determined by the President of Russia and which is fixed in the Concept of our country's Foreign Policy.

You signed the latest version of the Concept in March last year. And we, guided by the strategic guidelines contained in it, are actively working to strengthen our positions in the international arena, ensure security and create the most favorable external conditions for development.

As a matter of priority, we are building up relations with the countries of the world majority, the global South, and the global East, and, accordingly, we are redistributing our material and human resources and transferring them to those areas that are most in demand in the new geopolitical conditions.

I would also like to say that we are actively supporting the establishment of foreign relations in Crimea, the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, and the Zaporizhia and Kherson regions. To this end, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has already established its representative offices in Donetsk and Luhansk, and strengthened the capabilities of the representative office in Simferopol.

I am confident that today's meeting will allow us to specify all areas of our practical work in the international arena.

Let me give you the floor.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

Dear colleagues, good afternoon!

I am glad to welcome you all, and at the beginning of our meeting and conversation, I would like to thank you for your hard work in the interests of Russia and our people.

We met in such a broad format at the end of 2021, in November. During this time, many turning points, without exaggeration, fateful events have taken place both in the country and in the world. Therefore, I consider it important to assess the current situation in global and regional affairs, as well as to set appropriate tasks for the Foreign Ministry. All of them are subordinated to the main goal: creating conditions for the country's sustainable development, ensuring its security and improving the well-being of Russian families.

Working in this direction in today's complex and rapidly changing realities requires all of us to concentrate even more efforts, initiative, perseverance, and the ability not only to respond to current challenges, but also to form our own – and long-term-agenda, and together with our partners to propose and discuss solutions to those fundamental issues in an open and constructive discussion issues that concern not only us, but the entire international community.

I repeat: the world is changing rapidly. As before, there will be no more global politics, economics, or technological competition. More and more States are striving to strengthen their sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and national and cultural identity. The countries of the global South and East are coming to the forefront, and Africa and Latin America are playing a growing role. We have always, since the Soviet era, talked about the importance of these regions of the world, but today the dynamics are completely different, and this is becoming noticeable. The pace of transformation has also accelerated markedly in Eurasia, where a number of large-scale integration projects are being actively implemented.

It is precisely on the basis of the new political and economic reality that the contours of a multipolar and multilateral world order are being formed today, and this is an objective process. It reflects cultural and civilizational diversity, which, despite all attempts at artificial unification, is organically inherent in man.

These profound, systemic changes certainly inspire optimism and hope, because the adoption of the principles of multipolarity and multilateralism in international affairs, including respect for international law and broad representation, allow us to solve the most complex problems together for the common benefit, build mutually beneficial relations and cooperation of sovereign states in the interests of the well-being and security of peoples.

Such an image of the future is in tune with the aspirations of the absolute majority of countries in the world. We see this, among other things, in the growing interest in the work of such a universal association as BRICS, based on a special culture of trusting dialogue, sovereign equality of participants and respect for each other. As part of the Russian presidency this year, we will promote the smooth integration of new BRICS members into the BRICS working structures.

I ask the Government and the Foreign Ministry to continue their substantive work and dialogue with our partners in order to reach the BRICS summit in Kazan in October with a weighty set of agreed decisions that will set the vector of our cooperation in politics and security, economy and finance, science, culture, sports and humanitarian relations.

In general, I believe that the potential of BRICS will eventually allow it to become one of the core regulatory institutions of the multipolar world order.

In this regard, I would like to note that the international discussion on the parameters of interaction between States in a multipolar world and on the democratization of the entire system of international relations is, of course, already underway. Thus, together with our colleagues from the Commonwealth of Independent States, we agreed and adopted a joint document on international relations in a multipolar world. We also invited our partners to discuss this topic at other international platforms, primarily in the SCO and BRICS.

We are interested in seeing this dialogue seriously developed within the UN, including on such a basic and vital topic as the creation of a system of indivisible security. In other words, the affirmation in world affairs of the principle that the security of some cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of others.

Let me remind you in this regard that at the end of the 20th century, after the end of an acute military-ideological confrontation, the world community had a unique chance to build a reliable and just security order. This did not require much – just the ability to listen to the opinions of all interested parties, mutual readiness to take them into account. Our country was set up for such constructive work.

However, a different approach prevailed. The Western powers, led by the United States, considered that they had won the Cold War and had the right to independently determine how the world should be arranged. The practical expression of this worldview was the project of unlimited expansion of the North Atlantic bloc in space and time, although there were, of course, other ideas on how to ensure security in Europe.

Our fair questions were answered with excuses in the spirit that no one is going to attack Russia, and the expansion of NATO is not directed against Russia. The promises made to the Soviet Union, and then to Russia in the late 80's and early 90's, not to include new members in the bloc, were quietly forgotten. And if they did, they referred with a grin to the fact that these assurances were oral, and therefore non-binding.

Both in the 1990s and later, we consistently pointed out the fallacy of the course chosen by the Western elites, did not just criticize and warn, but offered options, constructive solutions, and stressed the importance of developing a mechanism for European and global security that would suit everyone – I want to emphasize this, for everyone–. A simple list of the initiatives that Russia has put forward over the years will take more than one paragraph.

Let us recall at least the idea of a treaty on European security, which we proposed back in 2008. The same topics were raised in the memorandum of the Russian Foreign Ministry, which was handed over to the United States and NATO in December 2021.

But all our attempts-and repeated attempts, not to mention all of them-to reason with our interlocutors, explanations, exhortations, warnings, requests from our side did not find any answer at all. Western countries, being confident not only in their own rightness, but in their own strength and ability to impose anything on the rest of the world, simply ignored other opinions. At best, they were supposed to discuss secondary issues that, in fact, did not solve much, or topics that were beneficial only to the West.

Meanwhile, it quickly became clear that the Western scheme, proclaimed to be the only correct one for ensuring security and prosperity in Europe and the world, does not really work. Let us recall the tragedy in the Balkans. Internal problems – of course, they were-accumulated in the former Yugoslavia, sharply worsened due to gross external interference. Even then, the main principle of NATO-style diplomacy, which is deeply flawed and fruitless in resolving complex internecine conflicts, showed itself in all its glory: to accuse one of the parties that they don't really like for some reason, of all the sins and bring down on it all the political, information and military power, economic sanctions and restrictions.

Subsequently, the same approaches were applied in different parts of the world, as we all know very well: Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and so on, and they never brought anything but aggravation of existing problems, broken destinies of millions of people, destruction of entire states, expansion of hotbeds of humanitarian and social disasters, and terrorist attacks; enclaves. In fact, no country in the world is immune from adding to this sad list.

So, now the West is trying to get boldly involved in the affairs of the Middle East. This area was once monopolized, and the result is clear and obvious to everyone today. South Caucasus, Central Asia. Two years ago, at the NATO summit in Madrid, it was announced that the alliance will now deal with security issues not only in the Euro-Atlantic region, but also in the Asia-Pacific region. They say that they can't do without them there either. It is obvious that this is an attempt to increase pressure on those countries in the region whose development they have decided to restrain. As you know, one of the first places in this list is our country – Russia.

Let me also remind you that it was Washington that undermined strategic stability by announcing its unilateral withdrawal from the anti-missile defense treaties, the intermediate-range and Shorter-range missile defense Treaty, and the Open Skies Treaty, and together with its NATO satellites, destroyed the system of confidence-building measures and arms control in the European space that had been created for decades.

Ultimately, the selfishness and arrogance of Western States have led to the current extremely dangerous state of affairs. We have come unacceptably close to the point of no return. Calls to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, which has the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons, demonstrate the extreme adventurism of Western politicians. They either don't understand the magnitude of the threat they are creating, or they are simply obsessed with their own impunity and exclusivity. Both can turn into a tragedy.

Obviously, we are witnessing the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic security system. Today it just isn't there. It actually needs to be created anew. All this requires us, together with our partners, with all interested countries, and there are many of them, to work out our options for ensuring security in Eurasia, then offering them for a broad international discussion.

Such an instruction was given in the Message to the Federal Assembly. In the foreseeable future, the goal is to formulate an outline of equal and indivisible security, mutually beneficial and equitable cooperation and development on the Eurasian continent.

What needs to be done for this purpose and on what principles?

First – we need to establish a dialogue with all potential participants in such a future security system. First of all, I ask you to work out the necessary issues with states that are open to constructive cooperation with Russia.

During our recent visit to the People's Republic of China, we discussed this issue with Chinese President Xi Jinping. They noted that the Russian proposal does not contradict, but, on the contrary, complements and fully agrees with the basic principles of the Chinese initiative in the field of global security.

Second – it is important to assume that the future security architecture is open to all Eurasian countries that wish to participate in its creation. "For all" means that both European and NATO countries, of course, too. We live on the same continent, no matter what happens, you can't change the geography, we will somehow have to co-exist and work together.

Yes, now Russia's relations with the EU, with a number of European states, have degraded, and, as I have stressed many times, it is not our fault. The anti-Russian propaganda campaign, which involves very high-ranking European figures, is accompanied by speculation that Russia is allegedly going to attack Europe. I have said this many times, and there is nothing to repeat in this Hall: we all understand that this is absolute nonsense, only a justification for the arms race.

In this regard, I will allow myself a small digression. The danger to Europe does not come from Russia. The main threat to Europeans is their critical and ever-increasing dependence on the United States: in the military, political, technological, ideological and informational spheres. Europe is increasingly being sidelined by global economic development, plunged into the chaos of migration and other acute problems, and deprived of international subjectivity and cultural identity.

Sometimes it seems that the ruling European politicians and representatives of the European bureaucracy are more afraid of falling out of favor with Washington than losing the trust of their own people, their own citizens. The recent elections to the European Parliament also show this. European politicians swallow humiliation, rudeness, and scandals with surveillance of European leaders, and the United States simply uses them to their advantage. Either they are forced to buy their own expensive gas – by the way, gas is three or four times more expensive in Europe than in the United States - or, for example, they are now demanding that European countries increase their arms supplies to Ukraine. By the way, the requirements are constant here and there. And sanctions are being imposed against them, against economic operators in Europe. Enter for a sweet soul, without any hesitation.

Now they are being forced to increase the supply of weapons to Ukraine, expand their capacity for the production of artillery shells. Listen, who will need these shells when the conflict in Ukraine is over? How can this ensure Europe's military security? Unclear. The United States itself is investing in military technologies, and in the technologies of tomorrow: 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 and political potential of powers, their positions in the world. And these are now assigned the following role: invest money where we need it. But this does not increase any potential of the European one. Never mind them. This may be a good thing for us, but it's basically true.

If Europe wants to maintain itself as one of the independent centers of global development and cultural and civilizational poles of the planet, it certainly needs to be in good, good relations with Russia, and we are, most importantly, ready for this.

This really simple and obvious thing was perfectly understood by politicians of a truly pan-European and global scale, patriots of their countries and peoples who thought in historical categories, and not statisticians who follow someone else's will and hint. Charles de Gaulle talked a lot about this in the post-war years. I also remember very well how in 1991, during a conversation in which I personally participated, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl emphasized the importance of partnership between Europe and Russia. I hope that new generations of European politicians will sooner or later return to this legacy.

As for the United States itself, the incessant attempts of the liberal-globalist elites ruling there today to spread their ideology to the whole world by any means, to preserve their imperial status, their dominance only further exhaust the country, lead it to degradation, and come into clear contradiction with the true interests of the American people. If it were not for this dead-end path, aggressive messianism, mixed up in the belief in one's own selectness and exclusivity, international relations would have been stabilized long ago.

Third – to promote the idea of a Eurasian security system, it is necessary to significantly step up the dialogue process between multilateral organizations already operating in Eurasia. First of all, we are talking about the Union State, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

We see the prospect of other influential Eurasian associations from Southeast Asia to the Middle East joining 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. At the same time, in the future, it is necessary to work towards a gradual curtailment of 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 it is now. But if we build a reliable security system in the future, such a presence of extra-regional military contingents will simply not be necessary. By and large, to be honest, today there is no need-only occupation, that's all.

Ultimately, we believe that the state and regional structures of Eurasia themselves should determine specific areas of cooperation in the field of joint security. Based on this, we should also build a system of working institutions, mechanisms, and agreements that would actually serve the common goals of stability and development.

In this regard, we support the initiative of our Belarusian friends to develop a program document-the charter of multipolarity and diversity in the XXI century. It is possible to formulate not only the framework principles of the Eurasian architecture based on the basic norms of international law, but also, in a broader sense, a strategic vision of the essence and nature of multipolarity and multilateralism as a new system of international relations that is replacing the Western – centered world. I consider it important and ask you to thoroughly work out such a document with our partners and with all interested states. I will add that when discussing such complex and complex issues, of course, we need maximum broad representation, taking into account different approaches and positions.

Fifth – economic issues, social well–being, integration and mutually beneficial cooperation should certainly become an important part of the Eurasian security and development system, as well as solving such common problems as overcoming poverty, inequality, climate, ecology, and developing mechanisms to respond to the threats of pandemics and crises in the global economy.

The West's actions not only undermined military and political stability in the world, but also discredited and weakened key market institutions through sanctions and trade wars. Using the IMF and the World Bank, distorting the climate agenda, hinders the development of the global South. Losing out in the competition even under the rules that the West has written for itself, it uses prohibitive barriers and all kinds of protectionism. So, in the United States, they actually abandoned the World Trade Organization as a regulator of international trade. Everything is blocked. Moreover, they put pressure not only on competitors, but also on their satellites. Just look at how they are now pumping the juice out of European economies that are teetering on the brink of recession.

Western countries have frozen some of Russia's assets and foreign exchange reserves. Now they are thinking about how to bring at least some legal basis to finally assign them. But, despite all the hype, theft, of course, will remain theft and will not go unpunished, on the other hand.

The question goes even deeper. By stealing Russian assets, they will take another step towards destroying the system that they themselves created and which for many decades ensured their prosperity, allowed them to consume more than they earn, and attract money from all over the world through debts and obligations. Now it is becoming obvious to all countries and companies, as well as to sovereign funds, that their assets and reserves are far from secure, both in the legal and economic sense of the word. And the next in line for expropriation by the United States and the West can be anyone – these funds of foreign countries can be them.

There is already growing distrust of the financial system based on Western reserve currencies. There has been an outflow of funds from the securities and debt obligations of Western countries, as well as some European banks, which until recently were considered an absolutely reliable place to store capital. Now they are also exporting their gold. And they're doing the right thing.

I believe that we need to seriously step up the formation of effective and secure bilateral and multilateral foreign economic mechanisms that are alternative to those controlled by the West. This includes expanding payments in national currencies, creating independent payment systems, and building value chains that bypass channels blocked or compromised by the West.

Of course, it is necessary to continue efforts to develop international transport corridors in Eurasia, a continent of which Russia is the natural geographical core.

Through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I instruct you to contribute as much as possible to the development of international agreements in all these areas. They are extremely important for strengthening economic cooperation between our country and our partners. Thus, the construction of a large Eurasian partnership should also receive a new impetus, which, in fact, can become the socio-economic basis for a new system of indivisible security in Europe.

Dear colleagues!

The point of our proposals is to create a system in which all States would be confident in their own security. Then, by the way, we will be able to take a different and really constructive approach to resolving the numerous conflicts that exist today. The problems of lack of security and mutual trust relate not only to the Eurasian continent, but also to growing tensions everywhere. And the extent to which the world is interconnected and interdependent, we constantly see, and a tragic example for all of us is the Ukrainian crisis, the consequences of which are reverberating all over the planet.

But I want to say right away: the crisis related to Ukraine is not a conflict between two states, especially two peoples, caused by some problems between them. If this were the case, there is no doubt that Russians and Ukrainians, who share a common history and culture, spiritual values, and millions of kinship, family, and human ties, would find 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 the world and European development of the late XX – early XXI century, the aggressive, cavalier and absolutely adventurous policy that the West has been pursuing and is pursuing all these years, long before the special military operation began.

These elites of Western countries, as I said earlier today, after the end of the Cold War set a course for further geopolitical restructuring of the world, for creating and imposing the notorious rules-based order, which simply does not fit strong, sovereign and self-sufficient states.

Hence the policy of containment of our country. The goals of this policy are already openly declared by some figures in the United States and Europe. Today they are talking about the notorious decolonization of Russia. In fact, this is an attempt to provide an ideological basis for the dismemberment of our Fatherland along national lines. Actually, the dismemberment of the Soviet Union and Russia has been discussed for a long time. Everyone in this room knows this very well.

By implementing this strategy, Western countries have taken a line of absorption and military-political development of territories close to us. Five, and now six, waves of NATO expansion have taken place. They tried to turn Ukraine into their springboard, to make it "anti-Russia". To achieve these goals, they invested money and resources, bought politicians and entire parties, rewrote history and educational programs, and fed and nurtured groups of neo-Nazis and radicals. They did everything possible to undermine our inter-State ties, divide our peoples, and set them against each other.

This policy was even more brazenly and unceremoniously hindered by the south-east of Ukraine-territories that have been part of great historical Russia for centuries. There lived and still live people who, including after the declaration of independence of Ukraine in 1991, advocated the best and closest relations with our country. People – both Russians and Ukrainians, representatives of different nationalities – who were united by the Russian language, culture, traditions, and historical memory.

The position, mood, interests and voices of these people – millions of people who live in the south-east – were simply forced to take into account, and the then Ukrainian presidents and politicians who fought for this post used the votes of these voters. But, using these voices, they got out of it later, maneuvered, lied a lot, and talked about the so-called European choice. They did not dare to make a complete break with Russia, because the south-east of Ukraine was set up differently, it was impossible to ignore this. This ambivalence has always been inherent in the Ukrainian authorities throughout all the years after the recognition of independence.

The West, of course, saw this. He has long seen and understood the problems that exist there and that can be stirred up, understood the deterrent value of the south-eastern factor, as well as the fact that no long-term propaganda can radically change the situation. Of course, a lot was done, but it was hard to reverse the situation completely.

It was not possible to distort the historical identity and consciousness of the majority of people in the south-east of Ukraine, to erase from them, including from the younger generations, a good attitude towards Russia and a sense of our historical community. And so they decided to use force again, just to break the people in the south-east, regardless of their opinion. For this purpose, they arranged, organized, financed, of course, took advantage of the difficulties and difficulties of the internal political nature in Ukraine, but still consistently and purposefully prepared an armed coup d'etat.

The cities of Ukraine were overwhelmed by a wave of pogroms, violence, and murders. Power in Kiev has already been finally seized and usurped by the radicals. Their aggressive nationalist slogans, including the rehabilitation of Nazi henchmen, were elevated to the rank of state ideology. The policy of abolishing the Russian language in state and public spheres was proclaimed, pressure on Orthodox believers increased, interference in the affairs of the church, which eventually led to a split. No one seems to notice this interference, as if it is necessary. Try to do something else somewhere, there will be so much artistic whistling that your ears will fall off. And there it is possible, because it is against Russia.

Millions of people in Ukraine, especially in its eastern regions, opposed the coup, as you know. They were threatened with reprisals and terror. And first of all, the new authorities in Kiev began to prepare a strike on the Russian-speaking Crimea, which, as you know, was transferred from the RSFSR to Ukraine in 1954, in violation of all the norms of law and procedures that were then in force in the Soviet Union. In this situation, of course, we could not leave the Crimean and Sevastopol residents without protection. They made their choice, and in March 2014, as you know, the historic reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia took place.

In Kharkiv, Kherson, Odessa, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, Luhansk, and Mariupol, peaceful protests against the coup were suppressed, and terror was unleashed by the Kiev regime and nationalist groups. You probably don't need to remember everything that happened in these regions.

In May 2014, referendums were held on the status of the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, where the absolute majority of residents voted for independence and sovereignty. The question immediately arises: in general, could people express their will in this way, could they declare their independence? Those sitting in this Hall understand that, of course, they could and had every right and every reason to do so, and in accordance with international law, including the right of peoples to self-determination. I do not need to remind you, but nevertheless, since the media work, I will say: Article 1, paragraph 2 of the Charter of the United Nations gives this right.

Let me remind you of the notorious Kosovo precedent. We have already said this many times in our time, and now I will say it again. The precedent that the Western countries created themselves, in a completely similar situation, recognized the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, which took place in 2008, as legitimate. This was followed by the well-known decision of the International Court of Justice, which on July 22, 2010, on the basis of paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations, ruled-further quote: "No general prohibition on the unilateral declaration of independence follows from the practice of the Security Council." And the following quote: "General international law does not contain any applicable prohibition on the declaration of independence." Moreover, it was also written that those parts of the country, whatever it was, that decided to declare their independence, are not required to apply to the central authorities of their former state. Everything is written there, everything was written in black and white by their own hand.

So did these republics – Donetsk and Luhansk - [have the right] to declare their independence? Of course, yes. The issue can't even be addressed in any other way.

What did the regime in Kiev do in this situation? He completely ignored the people's choice and unleashed a full-scale war against the newly independent states – the people's republics of Donbass-using aircraft, artillery, and tanks. Bombing and shelling of peaceful cities and acts of intimidation began. And then what happened? Residents of Donbass took up arms to protect their lives, their native home, their rights and legitimate interests.

The West is now constantly hearing the thesis that Russia started the war as part of a special military operation, that it is an aggressor, so it is also possible to strike at its territory using Western weapons systems, Ukraine is supposedly defending itself and can do this.

I want to emphasize once again: Russia did not start the war, it is the Kiev regime, and I repeat, after the inhabitants of a part of Ukraine declared their independence in accordance with international law, it began fighting and continues it. This is aggression if we do not recognize the right of these peoples who lived in these territories to declare their independence. But what about it? Then what is it? This is aggression. And those who have helped the military machine of the Kiev regime over the past years are accomplices of the aggressor.

Then, in 2014, the residents of Donbass did not accept it. The militia units held out, repulsed the punishers, and then drove them back from Donetsk and Luhansk. We hoped that this would sober up those who started this massacre. To stop the bloodshed, Russia made the usual calls – calls for negotiations, and they began with the participation of Kiev and representatives of the republics of Donbass, 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 and hoped that we would be able to resolve the situation within the framework of the peace process and international law. We hoped that this would lead to taking into account the legitimate interests and demands of the Donbass, securing the special status of these regions and the fundamental rights of people living there in the Constitution, while preserving the territorial unity of Ukraine. We were ready for this, and we were ready to persuade people who live in these territories to resolve issues in this way, and we repeatedly offered various compromises and solutions.

But everything was eventually rejected. Kiev simply threw the Minsk agreements into the trash. As representatives of the Ukrainian elite later revealed, they were not satisfied with any of the articles in these documents, they simply lied and dodged as best they could.

The former German Chancellor and the former French president, in fact co-authors and as guarantors of the Minsk agreements, suddenly later also directly admitted that their implementation, it turns out, was not planned, they just needed to "blab" the situation in order to gain time for putting together Ukrainian armed formations, pumping them with weapons and equipment. They just cheated us once again, deceived us.

Instead of a real peace process, instead of the policy of reintegration and national reconciliation that Kiev liked to talk about, the Donbass was shelled for eight years. They staged terrorist attacks, murders, organized the most severe blockade. All these years, the residents of Donbass-women, children, the elderly-were declared second-class people, subhuman, threatened with reprisals: they say, we will come and get even with everyone. What is this but genocide in the center of Europe in the 21st century? And in Europe and the United States, they pretended that nothing was happening, no one noticed anything.

At the end of 2021-beginning of 2022, the Minsk process was finally buried, and buried by Kiev, its Western patrons, and a massive strike was again planned on the Donbass. A large group of the armed forces of Ukraine was preparing to launch a new offensive on Lugansk and Donetsk, of course, with ethnic cleansing and huge human losses, hundreds of thousands of refugees. We had to prevent this catastrophe, protect people – we couldn't make any other decision.

Russia has finally recognized the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. After all, we did not recognize them for eight years, everyone expected to agree. The result is now known. And on February 21, 2022, we concluded treaties of friendship and mutual assistance with these republics that have recognized them. Question: Did the People's Republics have the right to ask us for support if we recognized their independence? Did we have the right to recognize their independence, just as they had the right to declare their sovereignty in accordance with the articles I mentioned and the decisions of the International Court of Justice? Did they have the right to declare independence? They had it. But if they had such a right and used it, then we had the right to conclude a treaty with them – and we did it, and I repeat, in full compliance 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 the Donbass. I can tell you, there were contacts, and we immediately told them: get the troops out of there, and everything will end there. This proposal was almost immediately rejected, simply ignored, although it gave a real opportunity to resolve the issue 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 Luhansk republics, and the Ukrainian society, I outlined the goals of this operation-to protect people in the Donbas, restore peace, demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, and thereby remove threats from our state, and restore the balance in the security sphere in Europe.

At the same time, we continued to prioritize the achievement of these goals through political and diplomatic means. Let me remind you that already at the very first stage of the special military operation, our country went to negotiations with representatives of the Kiev regime. They were held first in Belarus, then in Turkey. We tried to convey our main message: respect the choice of Donbass, the will of the people living there, withdraw your troops, stop shelling peaceful cities and towns. Nothing else is needed, and we will resolve the remaining issues in the future. The answer was: no, we will fight. It is obvious that this was the team from the Western hosts, and now I will also talk about it.

At that time, in February-March 2022, our troops, as you know, approached Kiev. In this regard, both in Ukraine and in the West, both then and now, there is a lot of speculation.

What can I say about this? Our formations were indeed stationed near Kiev, and the military departments and the security bloc had various proposals on options for our possible further actions, but there was no political decision to storm the three-million-strong city, no matter what anyone said or speculated.

In fact, it was nothing more than an operation to force the Ukrainian regime to make peace. The troops were there to push the Ukrainian side to negotiate, to try to find acceptable solutions and thereby end the war unleashed by Kiev against the Donbass back in 2014, to resolve issues that pose a threat to the security of our country, to the security of Russia.

Oddly enough, as a result, it was really possible to reach agreements that, in principle, suited both Moscow and Kiev. These agreements were put on paper and initialed in Istanbul by the head of the Ukrainian negotiating delegation. So, the Kiev authorities were satisfied with such a solution to the issue.

The document was called "The Treaty on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees of Ukraine." It was of a compromise nature, but its key points were in line with our fundamental requirements and solved the tasks that were stated as the main ones, even at the beginning of a special military operation. In particular, strange as it may seem, I would like to draw your attention to the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. And here, too, we managed to find complex interchanges. They are complex, but they were found. Namely, it was meant that the Ukrainian law banning the Nazi ideology, any of its manifestations, would be adopted. It's all written there.

In addition, Ukraine, in exchange for international security guarantees, would limit the size of its armed forces, accept obligations not to join military alliances, not to allow foreign military bases, not to deploy them and contingents, and not to conduct military exercises on its territory. Everything is written on paper.

For our part, also understanding Ukraine's security concerns, we agreed that Ukraine, without formally joining NATO, would receive guarantees almost similar to those enjoyed by members of this alliance. This was not an easy decision for us, but we recognized the legitimacy of Ukraine's demands to ensure its security and, in principle, did not object to the wording proposed by Kiev. These are the formulations proposed by Kiev, and we generally did not object to them, understanding that the main thing is to stop the bloodshed and war in the Donbas.

On March 29, 2022, we withdrew our troops from Kiev, because we were assured that we needed to create the necessary conditions for the completion of the political negotiation process, for the completion of this process. And that it is impossible for one of the parties to sign such agreements, as our Western colleagues said, with a gun to its head. Well, we agreed to this as well.

However, immediately, the day after the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kiev, the Ukrainian leadership suspended its participation in the negotiation process, arranging a well-known provocation in Bucha, and refused to prepare a version of the agreements. I think today it is clear why this dirty provocation was necessary – to somehow explain the rejection of the results that were achieved during the negotiations. The path to peace was once again rejected.

This was done, as we now know, at the behest of Western curators, including the former British Prime Minister, during whose visit to Kiev it was explicitly stated: no agreements, you need to defeat Russia on the battlefield, achieve its strategic defeat. And they began to continue to pump Ukraine heavily with weapons, and started talking about the need to inflict on us, as I just reminded, a strategic defeat. And some time later, as everyone knows, the President of Ukraine issued a decree forbidding his representatives and even himself to conduct any negotiations with Moscow. This episode with our attempt to solve the problem by peaceful means again ended in nothing.

By the way, to the topic of negotiations. Now I would like to make one more episode public in this audience, maybe. I haven't talked about this publicly before, but some of those present know about it. After the Russian army occupied parts of the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, many Western politicians offered their mediation in the peaceful end of the conflict. One of them was on a working visit to Moscow on March 5, 2022. And we accepted his mediation efforts, especially since during the conversation he referred to the fact that he had enlisted the support of the leaders of Germany and France, as well as high-ranking representatives of the United States.

During the conversation, our foreign guest asked – a curious episode, he said: if you are helping the Donbass, then why are Russian troops in the south of Ukraine, including the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions? The answer from our side was that this was the decision of the Russian General Staff to plan the operation. And today I will add that the plan was to bypass some of the fortified areas that the Ukrainian authorities built in the Donbas over eight years, primarily for the liberation of Mariupol.

Then a foreign colleague clarified – a professional person, we must pay tribute: will our Russian troops remain in the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions and what will happen to these regions after the goals of the Free Defense are achieved? To this, I replied that in general, I do not exclude the preservation of Ukrainian sovereignty over these territories, but on condition that Russia has a strong land connection with Crimea.

That is, Kiev must guarantee the so – called easement-a legally formalized right of access for Russia to the Crimean Peninsula through the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions. This is a major political decision. And of course, of course, in the final version, it would not be adopted alone, but only after consultations with the Security Council, with other structures, of course, after discussion with citizens, the public of our country and, above all, with 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 they did as people decided, including in the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, in the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.

At that time, in March 2022, the negotiating partner announced that in the future he was going to go to Kiev to continue the conversation now with colleagues in the Ukrainian capital. We welcomed this, as well as the attempts to find a peaceful solution to the conflict in general, because every day of fighting meant new victims and losses. However, in Ukraine, as we later learned, the services of a Western intermediary were not accepted, but, on the contrary, as we learned, they accused him of taking pro – Russian positions-in a rather harsh form, I must say, but these are details.

Now, as I have already said, the situation has changed radically. Residents of the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions expressed their position during referendums, and the Kherson and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, became part of the Russian Federation. There can be no question of violating our state unity. The people's will to be with Russia is unshakable. The issue is permanently closed and is no longer discussed.

I want to repeat once again: it was the West that prepared and provoked the Ukrainian crisis, and now it is doing everything to prolong this crisis indefinitely, weaken and mutually harden the people of Russia and Ukraine.

They send more and more shipments 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, it is the current, true masters of Ukraine – and this, unfortunately, is not the people of Ukraine, but the globalist elites located overseas – who are trying to impose on the Ukrainian executive the burden of making unpopular decisions among the people, including further lowering the military age.

Now, as you know, it is 25 years, the next stage can be 23, then-20, 18 or just 18. And then, of course, they will get rid of those figures who will make these unpopular decisions under pressure from the West, throw them out as unnecessary, throwing all responsibility on them, and put in their place other people who are also dependent on the West, but not yet with such a tarnished reputation.

Hence, perhaps, the idea of canceling the next presidential election in Ukraine. Now those in power will do everything, then put them in the trash-and then they will continue to do what they see fit.

In this regard, I would like to remind you about what Kiev now prefers not to remember and in the West they prefer not to talk about it. What is it about? Back in May 2014, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled that-further 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-further quote - " the constitutional status of the President does not contain norms that would establish a term other than five years." End quote, period. The court's decision was final and not subject to appeal.

What does this mean in relation to the current situation? The presidential term of the previously elected head of Ukraine has expired along with his legitimacy, which cannot be restored by any tricks. I will not talk in detail about the background of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on the presidential term. It is clear that it was connected with attempts to legitimize the coup d'etat of 2014. But nevertheless, there is such a verdict, and this is a legal fact. It calls into question all attempts to justify today's spectacle with the cancellation of the elections.

In fact, the current tragic page in the history of Ukraine began with the forceful 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 putsch. And now the circle is closed: the executive power in Ukraine is again, as in 2014, usurped and held illegally, in fact it is illegitimate.

I will say more: the situation with the cancellation of the elections is an expression of the very nature, the real gut of the current Kiev regime, which grew out of the armed coup of 2014, is tied to it and has its roots there. And the fact that they continue to cling to power after canceling the elections is an action that is 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 specifically refers to the violent change or overthrow of the constitutional order or 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 meaning of this doesn't change. In fact, we are talking about a conspiracy of the executive power of Ukraine, the leadership of the Verkhovna Rada, the parliamentary majority controlled by it, aimed at usurping state power – there is no other way to call it-which is a criminal offense under Ukrainian law.

Further: the Constitution of Ukraine does not provide for the possibility of canceling or postponing the election of the President of the country, the continuation of his powers in connection with martial law, which is now referred to. What is in the Ukrainian Basic Law is that during martial law, the elections of the Verkhovna Rada can be postponed. This is article 83 of the country's Constitution.

So the Ukrainian legislation provided for the only exception, when the powers of a state authority are extended for the period of martial law and elections are not held. And this applies exclusively to the Verkhovna Rada. This marks the status of the Parliament of Ukraine as a permanent body under martial law.

In other words, it is the Verkhovna Rada that is today a legitimate body, unlike the executive branch. Ukraine is not a presidential republic, but a parliamentary-presidential one. That's the point.

Moreover, the Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada, acting President, by virtue of Articles 106 and 112 is given special powers, including in the field of defense, security, and the supreme command of the armed forces. Everything is written there in black and white.

By the way, in the first half of this year, Ukraine signed a package of bilateral agreements on security cooperation and long-term support with a number of European states. Now there is a similar document with the United States.

Since May 21 of this year, the question naturally arises about the powers and legitimacy of representatives of the Ukrainian side who sign such documents. We, as they say, don't care: let them sign whatever they want. It is clear that there is a political and propaganda component here. The United States and its satellites somehow want to support their proteges, give them weight and legitimacy.

Nevertheless, if later in the same United States they conduct a serious legal examination of such an agreement – I'm not talking about the essence, but about the legal component-then the question will certainly arise: who signed these documents and with what authority? And it turns out that all this is a bluff and the contract is null and void, and the whole structure will crumble, of course, if there is a desire to analyze the situation. You can pretend that everything is normal, but there is nothing normal there, I read it. Everything is written in the documents, everything is written in the Constitution.

Let me also remind you that after the start of the special military operation, the West launched a violent and very cavalier campaign, trying to isolate Russia in the international arena. Today, it is clear to everyone that this attempt failed, but the West, of course, did not abandon its idea to build some kind of international anti-Russian coalition, to put a semblance of pressure on Russia. We also understand this.

As you know, they have begun to actively promote the initiative of holding the so-called high-level international conference on peace in Ukraine in Switzerland. Moreover, it is planned to hold it immediately after the summit of the "Group of Seven", that is, a group of those who, in fact, with their policy ignited the conflict in Ukraine. What the organizers of the meeting in Switzerland suggest is just another ploy to divert everyone's attention, reverse the cause and effect of the Ukrainian crisis, put the discussion on the wrong track, and to some extent indicate the appearance of legitimacy of the current executive power in Ukraine once again.

Therefore, it is natural that Switzerland is not going to discuss any truly fundamental issues that underlie the current crisis of international security and stability, the true roots of the Ukrainian conflict, in principle, despite all attempts to give a more or less decent look to the conference agenda.

Even now, we can expect that everything will come down to general demagogic conversations and a new set of accusations against Russia. The idea is easy to read: by any means to pull up as many states as possible and, as a result, present the case as if Western recipes and rules are shared by the entire international community, which means that our country must also accept them unconditionally.

We were not invited to the meeting in Switzerland, as you know, of course. After all, these are not really negotiations, but the desire of a group of countries to continue pushing their line, to resolve issues that directly affect our interests and security at their own discretion.

In this regard, I would like to emphasize that without Russia's participation, without an honest and responsible dialogue with us, it is impossible to reach a peaceful solution in Ukraine and in general on global European security.

In the meantime, the West ignores our interests, while forbidding Kiev to negotiate, all the time hypocritically calls us to some kind of negotiations. It looks simply idiotic: on the one hand, they are forbidden to negotiate with us, and we are called to negotiate and even hinted that we refuse to negotiate. It doesn't make sense. Well, we live in some kind of looking glass.

But, first of all, we would first give Kiev the command to lift the ban, self-ban on negotiations with Russia, and secondly, we are ready to sit down at the negotiating table even tomorrow. At the same time, we understand all the peculiarities of the legal situation, but there are legitimate authorities there, even in accordance with the Constitution, as I just said, and there is someone to negotiate with. Please, we are ready. Our conditions for starting such a conversation are simple and come down to the following.

You know, I'm going to spend some time now to repeat the whole chain of events that took place once again, so that it will be clear that for us what I'm going to say now is not the current situation, but we have always adhered to a certain position, we have always sought peace.

So these conditions are very simple. Ukrainian troops should be completely withdrawn from the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions. And, I would like to draw your attention, it is from the entire territory of these regions within their administrative borders that existed at the time of their entry into Ukraine.

As soon as Kiev declares that it is ready for such a decision, and begins a real withdrawal of troops from these regions, as well as officially notifies us of the rejection of plans to join NATO, we will immediately, literally at the same moment, be ordered to cease fire and start 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.

We, of course, would like to expect that such a decision on the withdrawal of troops, on the non-aligned status, and on the beginning of a dialogue with Russia, on which the future existence of Ukraine depends, will be made in Kiev independently, based on the current realities and guided by the true national interests of the Ukrainian people, and not at the behest of the West, although there are, of course, big doubts about this.

Nevertheless, what do I want to say again in this regard, what should I remind you of? I said that I would like to go through the timeline again. Let's spend some time on this.

So, during the events on the Maidan in Kiev in 2013-2014, Russia repeatedly offered its assistance in the 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 started 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, unidentified snipers opened fire on protesters and law enforcement officers, meaning that those who were preparing an armed coup were doing everything possible to further push the situation to 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 own selfish purposes, like cannon fodder. They are doing exactly the same thing today, mobilising people and sending them to slaughter. And yet, there was still an opportunity for a civilized way out of the situation.

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 the parliamentary-presidential form of government, 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 surrender of weapons by the opposition.

I would like to add that the Verkhovna Rada has passed a law excluding criminal prosecution of protest participants. There was such an agreement that would allow stopping the violence and returning the situation to the constitutional field. This agreement was signed, although both in Kiev and in the West they also prefer not to remember it.

Today I will tell you more about another important fact, which was also not publicly mentioned before, namely: literally at the same time on February 21, at the initiative of the American side, a conversation took place with my American counterpart. The bottom line was this: the American leader [Obama] unequivocally supported the Kiev agreement between the government and the opposition. Moreover, he called it a real breakthrough, a chance for the Ukrainian people so that the violence that broke out does not go beyond all imaginable borders.

And then, in the course of our conversations, we actually worked out the following formula: Russia will try to convince the then acting President of Ukraine to behave with maximum restraint, not to use the army and law enforcement agencies against the protesters. And the United States, accordingly, so it was said, will call the opposition, as they say, to order, to release administrative buildings, to ensure that the street calms down.

All this was supposed to create conditions for life in the country to return to normal, to the constitutional and legal field. In general, we agreed to work together for a stable, peaceful and normally developing Ukraine. We kept our word completely. The then President of Ukraine Yanukovich, who in fact did not plan to use the army, nevertheless did not do so and, moreover, even withdrew additional police units from Kiev.

What about our Western colleagues? On the night of February 22, and then throughout the following day, when President Yanukovych left for Kharkiv, where the congress of deputies of the south-eastern regions of Ukraine and Crimea was to be held, the radicals, despite all the agreements and guarantees from the West – both Europe and, as I have just said, the United States – they forcibly took control of the building of the Rada, 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 – has lifted a finger to fulfill their obligations, to call on the opposition to release the occupied administrative facilities, to renounce violence. It is clear that this course of events not only suited them, it seems that they were the authors of the development of events in this way.

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 current President Yanukovych from the post of President and called early elections for May 25. That is, an armed coup, provoked from the outside, took place. Ukrainian radicals, with the tacit consent and direct support of the West, thwarted all attempts to peacefully resolve the situation.

Then we tried to persuade Kiev and Western capitals to start a dialogue with people in the south-east of Ukraine, to respect their interests, rights and freedoms. No, the regime that broke through to power as a result of a coup d'etat chose war, and in the spring and summer of 2014 launched punitive actions against the Donbass. Russia has once again called for peace.

We did everything possible to resolve the acute problems that have arisen within the framework of the Minsk agreements, but the West and the Kiev authorities, as I have already stressed, were not going to implement them. Although in words, our 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 this, in their opinion, 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, as I have already said, of the Donbass. The Armed Forces of Ukraine consistently prepared for a full-scale operation to destroy the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics.

The Minsk agreements were finally buried by the hands of the Kiev regime and the West. I'll come back to that again. That is why in 2022 Russia was forced to launch a special military operation to end the war in the Donbas and protect civilians from genocide.

At the same time, from the very first days, we have once again put forward options for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. These are negotiations in Belarus and Turkey, the withdrawal of troops from Kiev to create conditions for signing the Istanbul agreements, which were agreed upon by everyone in principle. But even these attempts were ultimately rejected again. The West and Kiev have taken a course to defeat us. But, as you know, all this failed.

Today we are making another concrete, real peace proposal. If it is also abandoned in Kiev and in the Western capitals, as before, then in the end it is their business, their political and moral responsibility for the continuation of bloodshed. Obviously, the reality on the ground, on the line of contact will continue to change not in favor of the Kiev regime. And the conditions for starting negotiations will be different.

I would like to emphasize the main point: the essence of our proposal is not some temporary truce or suspension of fire, as the West wants, in order to restore losses, rearm the Kiev regime, and prepare it for a new offensive. I repeat: this is not about freezing the conflict, but about its final end.

And I will say again: as soon as Kiev agrees to the similar course of events proposed today, agrees to the complete withdrawal of its troops from the DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, and actually starts this process, we are ready to start negotiations without postponing them.

I repeat, our principled position is as follows: the neutral non-aligned nuclear-free status of Ukraine, its demilitarization and denazification, especially since everyone generally agreed on these parameters during the Istanbul talks in 2022. There and on demilitarization everything was clear, everything was spelled out: the number of this, that, tanks-everything was agreed.

Of course, the rights, freedoms and interests of Russian-speaking citizens in Ukraine must be fully ensured, new territorial realities must be recognized, and the status of Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, and Kherson and Zaporizhia regions as subjects of the Russian Federation must be recognized. In the future, all these basic and fundamental 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 offers an option that will allow us to really end the war in Ukraine, that is, we call for turning a tragic page in history and, even if it is difficult, gradually, step by step, but start restoring relations of trust and good neighborliness between Russia and Ukraine and in Europe as a whole.

Having settled the Ukrainian crisis, we, including together with our partners in the CSTO and the SCO, who are still making a significant and constructive contribution to the search for ways to resolve the Ukrainian crisis peacefully, as well as Western, including European states, are ready for dialogue, and could begin the fundamental task that I spoke about at the beginning of my speech. The goal is to create an indivisible system of Eurasian security that takes into account the interests of all states of the continent without exception.

Of course, a literal return to the security proposals that 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 itself remain unchanged. Russia is aware of its responsibility for global stability and once again confirms its readiness to talk to all countries. But this should not be an imitation of the peace process in order to serve someone's self-serving will, someone's self-serving interests, but a serious, thorough conversation on all issues, on the entire range of issues of global security.

Dear colleagues!

I am sure that all of you are well aware of the large-scale tasks that Russia faces, and how much we need to do, including in the foreign policy area.

I sincerely wish you success in this difficult work to ensure Russia's security, our national interests, strengthen the country's position in the world, promote integration processes and bilateral relations with our partners.

For its part, the state leadership will continue to provide the necessary support to the diplomatic department and all those involved in the implementation of Russia's foreign policy.

Thank you again for your work, for your patience and attention to what has been said. I am sure that you and I will succeed.

Thank you very much.

Sergey Lavrov: Mr President, first of all, I would like to thank you very much for your appreciation of our work.

We are trying, and life forces us to try even better, and we will do it, because everyone understands that this is required for the fate of the country, the fate of our people and, to a certain extent, for the fate of the world. Your instructions, which you have just outlined, detailing the concept of Eurasian security, will all be carried out very specifically together with our colleagues from other departments.

In the context of building a new just, as you said, indivisible security system based on the same principles, we will continue to help resolve individual crisis situations, of which, of course, the Ukrainian crisis is of the highest priority for us.

We will certainly use your new initiative in a variety of situations, including in our work within the framework of BRICS, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the People's Republic of China, Latin America and Africa, which also put forward their own initiatives, but which are still completely ignored by those who run Ukraine.

Thank you again! We will continue to do our best.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you. [My Emphasis]

President Putin put on his lawyer hat and made an excellent case that completely undermines the bogus Swiss conference. The additional historical facts he provided further indict War Criminal Obama who will most likely lie and deny what Putin has explained. Putin used the term genocide three times as the descriptive term for what was being done and planned to be done to Russian speakers within Ukraine, which I’ll remind readers was made clear to him at a government meeting in November 2021 when undeniable facts and testimony were presented. I sort of feel sad for those that had to sit through all that repetition of events they know very well, although there were those new revelations. There’s clearly another reason for Putin’s speech—to signal to the Global Majority Russia’s continuing willingness to negotiate very generously, and also to signal to European nations and their people that Russia actually has their interest at heart with its pan-Eurasian security proposal. The West has its longstanding Establishment Narrative that says to me that it will not respond to Putin, at least from the “Masters.” I do expect some European leaders to respond. Now to see what Lavrov had to say prior to taking questions from the media in the presser he held following this meeting. That will be the subject of the next article.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!