The President held a meeting of the Russian Federation Security Council at the Kremlin.
February 21, 2022
18:30
The Kremlin, Moscow
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues.
We are meeting today to discuss the current developments in Donbass.
I will briefly remind you how it all started and how the situation has developed even though you know this very well. But we need general background to help us make appropriate decisions.
So, after the 2014 coup in Ukraine, part of the population did not accept the outcome. Let me remind you that this was an anti-constitutional, blood-shedding coup that killed many innocent people. It was truly an armed coup. Nobody can argue that.
Some of the country’s citizens did not accept the coup. They were residents of Crimea and the people who currently live in Donbass.
Those people declared that they were establishing two independent republics, the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic. This was the point when the confrontation started between the Kiev officials and the people living on that territory.
In this context, I would like to point out that Russia initially did everything it could to make sure these disagreements could be resolved by peaceful means. However, the Kiev officials have conducted two punitive operations on those territories and, apparently, we are witnessing a third escalation.
All these years – I want to stress this – all these years, the people living on those territories have been literally tortured by constant shelling and blockades. As you know, the people living on those territories, close to the front line, so to speak, were in fact forced to seek shelter in their basements – where they now live with their children.
A peace plan was drafted during the negotiating process called the Minsk Package of Measures because, as you recall, we met in the city of Minsk. But subsequent developments show that the Kiev authorities are not planning to implement it, and they have publicly said so many times at the top state level and at the level of Foreign Minister and Security Council Secretary. Overall, everyone understands that they are not planning to do anything with regard to this Minsk Package of Measures.
Nevertheless, Russia has exerted efforts and still continues to make efforts to resolve all the complicated aspects and tragic developments by peaceful means, but we have what we have.
Our goal, the goal of today’s meeting is to listen to our colleagues and to outline future steps in this direction, considering the appeals by the leaders of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic on recognising their sovereignty, as well as a resolution by the State Duma of the Russian Federation on the same subject. The latter document urges the President to recognise the independence and sovereignty of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic.
At the same time, I would like to note that these different matters are, nevertheless, closely linked with matters of maintaining international security, on the European continent in particular, because the use of Ukraine as a tool for confronting this country, Russia, of course, presents a major and serious threat to us.
This is why we have intensified our work with our main partners in Washington and NATO over the past few months and in late 2021, so as to reach an eventual agreement on these security measures and to ensure the country’s calm and successful development under peaceful conditions. We see this as our number one objective and a top priority; instead of confrontation, we need to maintain security and ensure conditions for our development.
But we must, of course, understand the reality we live in. And, as I have said many times before, if Russia faces the threat of Ukraine being accepted into the North Atlantic Alliance, NATO, the threat against our country will increase because of Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty that clearly states that all countries in the alliance must fight on the side of their co-member in the event of an aggression against it. But since nobody recognises the will expressed by the people of Crimea and Sevastopol, and Ukraine continues to insist that it is Ukrainian territory, there is a real threat that they will try to take back the territory they believe is theirs using military force. And they do say this in their documents, obviously. Then the entire North Atlantic Alliance will have to get involved.
As you know, we have been told that some NATO countries are against Ukraine becoming a member. However, despite their objections, in 2008, they signed a memorandum in Bucharest that opened the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. I have not received an answer to my question as to why they did that. But if they took one step under pressure from the United States, who can guarantee that they will not take another step under pressure? There is no guarantee.
There are no guarantees whatsoever because the United States is known to easily discard any agreements and documents it signs. Still, at least something must be put on paper and formulated as an international legal act. At this point, we cannot even agree on this one thing.
Therefore, I would like to suggest that we proceed as follows: first, I will give the floor to Mr Lavrov who is directly involved in the attempts to reach an agreement with Washington and Brussels, and with NATO, on security guarantees. Then I would like Mr Kozak to report on his findings concerning the talks on the implementation of the Minsk agreements. Then each of you will be able to speak. But at the end of the day, we must decide what we will do next and how we should proceed in view of the current situation and our assessment of these developments.
Mr Lavrov, please.
Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov: Mr President, colleagues,
As I reported to the President a week ago, we prepared our assessment of the proposals on the security guarantees that Russia submitted for consideration by the United States and NATO last December.
We received their response in late January. The assessment of this response shows that our Western colleagues are not prepared to take up our major proposals, primarily those on NATO’s eastward non-expansion. This demand was rejected with reference to the bloc’s so-called open-door policy and the freedom of each state to choose its own way of ensuring security. Neither the United States, not the North Atlantic Alliance proposed an alternative to this key provision.
The United States is doing everything it can to avoid the principle of indivisibility of security that we consider of fundamental importance and to which we have made many references. Deriving from it the only element that suits them – the freedom to choose alliances – they completely ignore everything else, including the key condition that reads that nobody – either in choosing alliances or regardless of them – is allowed to enhance their security at the expense of the security of others.
In this context, I sent our Western European colleagues that are part of NATO, EU members, plus Switzerland, detailed letters with our legal analysis of the commitments that the OSCE assumed at the top level in 1999 and 2010, as well as within the framework of Russia-NATO relations, including the 1997 Founding Act and the Rome Declaration, that the participants in the Russia-NATO meeting in Pratica di Mare approved at the top level in 2002.
Our second priority concerns the time we established relations with NATO, in 1997. Considering that the 1997 documents declared that Russia and NATO were no longer opponents and were supposed, in part, to develop a strategic partnership, we suggested returning to the 1997 configuration of NATO forces on the eastern flank. This argument was rejected, like the first one. Indicatively, in their response, some NATO countries immediately urged us to stop “the occupation of Crimea” and “withdraw our troops from the territories of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine.”
In general, these documents expressed support for the Minsk Package of Measures, but this support was absolutely “sterile.” It did not evince any readiness to compel Kiev to implement the provisions of this most important document.
In response to our other demands, including the need to rule out the deployment of arms systems that threaten us near our borders, the Americans expressed the desire to start discussing land-based medium- and short-range missiles. This issue emerged after the United States unilaterally walked out of the relevant treaty with the Russian Federation and ignored, Mr President, your initiatives of two years ago. At that time, you suggested replacing the treaty with at least a declaration on a mutual moratorium on deploying these systems with the relevant verification measures.
In the proposals we have received, the United States and NATO are also suggesting efforts in certain aspects of reducing military risks and on increasing transparency and predictability. These ideas are very close to the proposals we have repeatedly presented to both the Americans and to NATO. However, these issues were removed, separated from the context of the package agreement on security guarantees.
As for bilateral steps, the United States suggests regulating flights of strategic bombers, completing the work on measures to prevent incidents at sea and in the airspace over the sea. It is paying special attention to the transparency of surprise inspections, the resumption of contacts between the militaries, the creation of a civilian hotline, and a discussion of mechanisms to prevent dangerous military incidents.
Overall, our general impression is that our colleagues are trying to separate, as it were, Russia’s proposals, to single out from them some secondary, albeit important for us, points that can help maintain the dialogue and risk reduction but that will not affect the vital interests of the US and its allies in their unlimited expansion of NATO, and that will not limit their freedom to define the configuration of forces in the NATO space and around it.
That said, and this is particularly important in the context of the issue that the President outlined today, the beginning of a dialogue on any issue is contingent on our preliminary steps to deescalate tensions around Ukraine.
In evaluating these responses, we can say that we see some progress. These openings are small but they do exist. The consistency and principled approach that we have been displaying in promoting our initiatives since last December have, of course, shaken the United States and its allies and have compelled them to start working on many Russian proposals on the reduction of military tensions and arms control, which they ignored before.
As I reported to you, Mr President, in this context we believe it is necessary to continue this work. We responded in detail, in the spirit I described, to the documents from Washington and Brussels, but we have sent our response only to the United States for now, partly, primarily because we see NATO’s role as ancillary since they would determine their steps mainly, maybe even exclusively based on Washington’s policies.
By the way, at the recent Munich Security Conference, every Western representative declared their absolute commitment to a unified approach. That unified approach was developed by the United States, so Munich has simply confirmed that we need to negotiate with Washington. This is what we are doing now, sending the response that you approved to the American document.
We believe we have clearly emphasised the most important part – that our proposals are not an a la carte menu to choose from, but they are not an ultimatum either. They actually stem from the absolutely obvious point that the global situation can only be resolved through a comprehensive approach at this stage. You, Mr President, have stressed that the Ukrainian crisis also largely depends on how relations develop between the Russian Federation and the West, led by the United States, so in our response, we underscored the integrity of the original Russian initiative.
We are also ready to discuss the matters that the Americans have recalled, including taking into account our previous proposals. But again, we will do this solely as part of addressing our main concerns: stopping NATO's eastward expansion and considering the configuration of NATO's presence on the European continent, primarily in Central and Eastern Europe, in line with the previous Russia–NATO agreements.
Naturally, our call is not a call but rather a demand, by and large, to explain why the assurances signed at the highest level that no one is to strengthen their security at the expense of others are now being ignored, and more than that, our colleagues from the respective countries are even refusing to explain what they had in mind when their leaders signed the relevant documents, and why now, regardless of what they had in mind, they are not going to fulfill their obligations.
Following your instruction, Mr President, we have sent these documents to Washington. A couple of days later, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken called me to say he had read our document and was ready to meet to discuss it, convey the American reaction and possibly ask some additional questions. With your consent, the meeting has been scheduled for later this week, February 24, in Geneva. We will be guided by the approach that you have approved, the one you defend during the meetings with your colleagues, and which we will certainly promote at the Foreign Ministry level.
Vladimir Putin: I am talking to my colleagues about this in fact, and my American colleague has assured me that they are not going to admit Ukraine tomorrow; moreover, even a moratorium is possible. But they also believe that Ukraine is not ready yet, so my answer was simple: “We do not see this as a concession to us; it is just the implementation of your plans
. You believe you need to wait and prepare Ukraine for joining NATO. A moratorium, but not a moratorium for us; you are announcing this moratorium for yourself. So where is the step towards us, to meet us halfway? So far, we have not seen this.”
I spoke twice to the President of France yesterday; actually, we spoke until 2 am this morning, so you could say we talked today. He insists that the US position has undergone some changes. But regrettably, he was unable to answer the question of what those changes are.
I think first we need to see what these changes are, if they exist at all, because your colleagues, to the contrary, publicly claimed as late as yesterday that there were no changes in the principal issues of expansion, of accepting new countries into NATO, including Ukraine. Do I understand it correctly?
Sergey Lavrov: Yes, Mr President, despite the multiplying publications of classified documents – and in the Western media at that – that were discussed by our Western colleagues in the early 90s both among themselves and with us; and even though they clearly indicated that even the West has no intention of expanding NATO to the east, confirming that in talks in a narrow circle; regardless of that, Mr Stoltenberg, the current Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance, is still rejecting obvious facts that have been declassified by a British archive and published by
Spiegel magazine.
Despite all that, they are adamant in not weakening their “open door” policy, even though you have explained several times that such a policy does not actually exist. There is the possibility under the Washington Treaty of proposing, with unanimous consent from the NATO countries, that a given country join the alliance under two conditions: if it meets the membership qualifications, and secondly, and most importantly, if that country can add a security dimension to the North Atlantic Alliance. We know, of course, that the second critical criteria has long been ignored by NATO.
As to what new ideas the Americans and their allies can offer, we presume that, as you said to President Macron, we first have to understand what the Americans mean. Because our French colleagues tell us that they have an understanding of what Washington can speak to us about. As you agreed with President Macron yesterday, I will have a telephone conversation with the French Foreign Minister today. When we were scheduling the call, I asked the French Foreign Ministry to make sure that he clarifies, even if just a little, what the Americans are ready to discuss with us as they hinted to the French.
Vladimir Putin: I see, thank you.
Take your seat, please, Thank you.
Now, Mr Kozak will report – as I requested – on any developments on the Minsk settlement track, let us call it that. And after that, I would ask the other Security Council members to speak out starting with the real situation, which is now unfolding in the Donetsk People’s Republic.
Please, Mr Kozak.
Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Dmitry Kozak: Mr President, colleagues,
I will not bore you with the details of the difficult and extremely complicated talks on implementing the Minsk agreements. I will only say that today it has become absolutely obvious that Ukraine and its Western allies do not need Donbass on any conditions. Everything is being done to freeze this conflict and to shift political responsibility onto the Russian Federation. They have already persuaded the public at large, including Ukrainian and Western public opinion, that Russia assumes such responsibility, that it is a party to the conflict, and that this is solely a Russian-Ukrainian international conflict. They also want Russia to assume economic responsibility for supporting Donbass.
You are well aware, as many people are, that we have to spend astronomical sums on humanitarian aid for those territories. I would also like to say that everything that is happening in those territories is reflected in the latest statistics that we received today. Admittedly, we do not always act consistently. However, our measures and the Government’s programme gave a boost to economic activity in Donbass, the number of jobs soared, and unemployment plunged. Today, the region is facing labour shortages, and the number of vacancies exceeds that of jobless persons 2.5 times over. Here is another fact: relocation incentives and the issue of Russian passports run counter to our economic goals. But this is just a comment.
Speaking of Ukraine, it is completely obvious that neither Ukraine, nor the West needs Donbass, they do not want to resolve the conflict; on the contrary, they want to freeze it. They go into a stupor when they hear any hypothetical questions on whether they would like to reintegrate Donbass in Ukraine, so that the government of Ukraine regains control over it on some conditions. They do not know how to answer this question, and they simply keep silent and avert their eyes.
As far as Donbass is concerned, there is probably no need to explain the political and economic reasons that …
Vladimir Putin: No-no, please, tell us about the negotiating process on the Minsk agreements and its current status.
Dmitry Kozak: Its status has remained at zero level since 2015.
Let me remind you that, in accordance with the Minsk Package of Measures, a dialogue on the future regime and the status of Donbass as part of post-conflict Ukraine was supposed to have started the day after the withdrawal of heavy weapons. This withdrawal was completed on March 8, 2015. The dialogue was to have officially begun March 9, while the amendments to the Constitution drafted during this dialogue and coordinated with Donbass, as well as a permanent law on the special status were to have entered into effect by late 2015. This should have been followed by local elections held in accordance with to this status and the settlement of the conflict, with the Russian-Ukrainian border subsequently put under Ukraine’s control.
This is what should have taken place. But the dialogue never started. Ukraine has kept its notion of Donbass' status a deep secret. Obviously, the talks indicate that Ukraine views these areas as its ordinary municipal regions with traditional rights and authority, without any special status.
They have already succeeded in persuading the Ukrainian people that this part of the Minsk agreements is unacceptable. If such a precedent is set, with a certain territory with a special status, special authority and the right to language self-determination, plus its own police as well as its influence on Ukraine’s law-enforcement system, this precedent will be applied to the country’s other regions as well. Such a demand for federalisation or autonomy of Ukraine’s certain regions indeed exists, particularly in the country’s western territories. They have convinced all of Ukraine of it, and they are going to pursue it.
During the Minsk negotiations and in other international formats, they claimed that they are committed to the Minsk agreements, but as soon as they leave the negotiation room, they publicly state that the Minsk agreements are unacceptable, they are a ‘noose around their necks’ and hinder the settlement of the Donbass conflict.
Vladimir Putin: As I have already mentioned, yesterday I spoke with my French counterpart once again. He claims that Ukraine’s incumbent leadership is ready to implement the Minsk agreements and is even introducing certain new constructive ideas on their implementation, such as an election under the arrangement used for the election of German President
Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
Dmitry Kozak: I am saying once again that they have already learned lessons in the past eight years. They have often found themselves in a foolish and absolutely comical situation, and they are openly lying. And these Minsk Agreements, all the documents that have been submitted today by the Contact Group and in the Normandy Format are being interpreted differently. When they see the word “black,” they say it means “white.” I have repeatedly said that, maybe, some passages are written using invisible milk ink; so, let’s use a hot iron to see the ink.
Here is the latest graphic example. On September 17, 2021, they said Russia was a party to the conflict. We told them to write down that Russia was a party to the conflict, as well as obligations it should fulfil under the Minsk Agreements as a party to the conflict. They replied that they knew nothing about these obligations. I approached the Ukrainians saying that they considered Russia an aggressor, and I asked them whether they could formulate their position and thus help the Germans and the French. They replied that they would prefer the French and the Germans to do this. In the long run, the French and the Germans said that it would be better if Russia invented its own obligations under the Minsk Agreements, and that they knew nothing about them. Here is another example. I told them that, to make things easier for them, it was necessary to establish what provisions of the Minsk Agreements Donbass was complying with or not complying with. The thing is that Donbass adopted an offensive position and submitted a multitude of proposals on fulfilling the Minsk Agreements. They said they did not know what provisions Donbass was failing to comply with, that they were unable to formulate this aspect, and that Russia should invent something instead.
Vladimir Putin: Meaning we don’t know what? We don’t know what provisions of the Minsk Agreements Donbass is not complying with.
Dmitry Kozak: Yes, of course. They have no position on any matter. They don’t know what obligations Russia should assume, and what obligations Donbass should fulfil or refuses to fulfil.
Vladimir Putin: Please explain once again about Clauses 9, 11 and 12 stating expressly that decisions should be taken in dialogue with …
Dmitry Kozak: During consultations and discussions.
Vladimir Putin: During consultations and in dialogue with these republics. What do you have to say on this matter?
Dmitry Kozak: They believe that, contrary to what is written there (quite possibly, they had to bring the Cambridge English Dictionary to Berlin the last time), this requirement does not imply direct dialogue. Discussions and consultations do not mean direct dialogue between Donbass and Kiev on political aspects of the peace settlement.
Vladimir Putin: Do you mean that, in their opinion, the provision reading “during dialogue and by agreement” does not mean direct dialogue?
Dmitry Kozak: Yes.
Yesterday, President Macron told you that it was necessary to conduct this dialogue solely within the framework of the Trilateral Contact Group and under OSCE supervision. This, too, is a far-fetched problem because this dialogue is taking place exclusively within the framework of the OSCE-moderated Trilateral Contact Group. This is a far-fetched problem that does not exist.
All of Donbass’ proposals are submitted to the Trilateral Contact Group via the OSCE, and everyone is trying to discuss them under the auspices of the OSCE. But when Donbass representatives say anything, Ukrainian representatives turn away and do not hear them. When asked to reply, they say that they will reply if Russia asks them something. When Russia enquired as to when the Ukrainians would amend the Constitution under the Minsk Agreements (this took place about two years ago in Berlin), the very next day, Ukraine threw such a tantrum, claiming that Russia was interfering in Ukraine’s domestic affairs, and that it was making categorical demands for amendments to be made to Ukraine’s Constitution. “This is the sovereign right of Ukraine, and no one has the right to interfere in this.”
Vladimir Putin: Do we understand you correctly thatthe Kiev authorities do not want to talk to the republics directly? They say they intend to do this in dialogue with Russia, but as soon as Russia suggests steps towards settlement as part of the Minsk Agreements, they throw a tantrum, claiming that Russia is interfering in Ukraine’s internal affairs?
Dmitry Kozak: Yes, this is obvious. Absolutely. They are pushing us to respond and start suggesting something regarding political terms, and after that, they would begin accusing us of interference.
Vladimir Putin: Yes. And what about [their claim] that the Minsk Agreements should be interpreted in such a way that it is the current Kiev official authorities, rather than the unrecognised republics, that should introduce initiatives and proposals on how to implement the Minsk Package of Measures?
Dmitry Kozak: Yet another recent proposal that emerged in Berlin on February 10 was a specimen of legal cretinism. Since the case in point is Ukraine’s legislation, the initiatives on amending its laws should come solely from Ukraine. All right, the initiatives are coming. But if the proposals or amendments to these initiatives are outlandish, like Ukraine’s delirious proposals you were discussing with President Macron yesterday, and if Donbass suggests some alternative proposals, will they be considered? “We do not know,” they say and lower their eyes. Obviously, this is the entirety of their latest tactics – they are showing their ingenuity. It is silly, awkward and ridiculous, but they display it constantly, improvising new schemes as they proceed.
The gist of the matter is that no one can discuss Ukrainian proposals on amending their Constitution and laws because this is the sovereign right of Ukraine. If Russia wants to do it, this is a case of Russia interfering in their internal affairs, if Donbass wants to – they are separatists, who have no right either. This is the stand taken by Ukraine, which France unexpectedly supported yesterday.
Vladimir Putin: Do I understand you correctly that the key provision of the Minsk Agreements that all these amendments, including constitutional amendments, should be coordinated with the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, is being disregarded?
Dmitry Kozak: Yes, at this point it is being disregarded. Certain schemes are invented, schemes, as I said, belonging to the realm of legal cretinism, like “let us plant something in the Trilateral Contact Group; we don’t talk to anyone, we don’t hear Donbass; if Russia suggests something, we will see how to respond.” More likely than not, they will respond the way described by you and me. And later, the OSCE will allege that this has been coordinated within the black box known as the Trilateral Contact Group. This is a trumped-up procedure.
Vladimir Putin: Ok. Then I have what I can call a final question for this part. Tell me and our colleagues your opinion as to whether or not the Kiev authorities will implement the Minsk Agreements?
Dmitry Kozak: They will not – ever – if the developments follow their normal course. Let me reiterate: as is obvious, they do not want, either with Minsk, or without Minsk to bring Donbass back into Ukraine.
Vladimir Putin: Ok.
Dmitry Kozak: It is useful.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you, all right.
Dmitry Kozak: Mr President, now or later? I just wanted to answer the question about whether or not to annex Donbass; what we should do about this later and how to use it at talks with the West, because this is a very serious problem.
Vladimir Putin: Let us now confine ourselves to your remarks…
Dmitry Kozak: Ok. But later, I think, we will discuss it separately.
Vladimir Putin: Mr Kozak, we will confine ourselves to your remarks on the negotiating process within the framework of the Minsk Agreements and to your assessment of prospects. We have understood that, in your opinion, there are no prospects for the development of the negotiating process within the framework of the Minsk Agreements.
Thank you.
(Addressing Alexander Bortnikov.) Now I would like to ask Director of the Federal Security Service, Mr Bortnikov, to report on the situation at the border, including with regard to border officers recording the number of people crossing our border, refugees, and on developments at the border.
Director of the Federal Security Service Alexander Bortnikov: Mr President,
We can see that the situation is deteriorating in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics. We see that shelling is intensifying, threatening primarily the lives of civilians. Because of these circumstances, refugees have started moving towards the Russian border, and as of 9 am this morning, around 68,500 civilians had entered Russia from the DPR and LPR, according to statistics provided by the border service.
First, we are maintaining direct contact with representatives of the government bodies in the regions that are dealing with refugees.
Second, we can see that, as a result of intensified shelling by Ukrainian forces in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, there have been shells landing in the Russian Federation, first of all, in the Rostov Region. Given this circumstance, the Federal Security Service and the Russian Investigative Committee are carrying out the necessary operative investigative measures.
Last night, two Ukrainian sabotage groups approached the border with Russia in the Lugansk region and Mariupol. As a result of the battle fought by our border troops, supported by the Defence Ministry, these two sabotage groups were destroyed. One military of the Ukrainian troops was captured. Further steps are being taken.
Overall, the situation at the border on our side is stable. We are monitoring the border and providing military reinforcements, including to the Border Service. We are working together with law enforcement agencies and the Defence Ministry.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
Mr Shoigu, I know that the Defence Ministry is monitoring the situation in the conflict zone. Please report.
Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu: Mr President, colleagues,
Reporting on latest developments, more than 107 shelling incidents were reported between February 19 and 20, including over 70 by heavy weapons, 122-mm weapons and mortar guns.
Due to the activity of both the sabotage groups and artillery in Donetsk, the city has been left practically without water. Around 90 percent of the city has no water supply.
As for Lugansk, two-thirds of the city has no gas. In fact, all people living at the contact line have been forced to evacuate. A small segment of the population that has to stay and work there, at continuous cycle facilities, has been affected, unfortunately. Literally today, a miner was killed at a bus stop by an artillery round.
In the past 24 hours or overnight, to be more precise, more than 40 shelling incidents were reported across all areas, in total, in a single night. Based on our data and expert reports, we believe that the attacks are not random but targeting specific sites. It is fire for effect. They understand what they are hitting.
Mr President, in this context, I would like to briefly report that as of today, a total of 59,300 troops are concentrated at the border with the Lugansk and Donetsk regions from the Ukrainian side.
As a result of your negotiations and lengthy talks on security measures, troops and heavy arms (especially heavy arms) were supposed to be withdrawn from the contact line to shooting distance, in order to prevent fire from reaching populated areas. Today, we can see troops being concentrated and heavy weapons returning to their previous positions.
What is the current situation? They have 59,300 troops, Tochka-U launchers, 345 tanks, 2,160 armoured vehicles, 820 artillery guns and mortar launchers, and 160 multiple-launch rocket systems, including Smerch.
I cannot help but point out that these forces do not include those nationalist battalions that have been talked and written about so much and which, based on our completely objective data, are poorly controlled by the country's leadership and commanders on the ground. Naturally, they act as they see fit – hence the sabotage groups that break through in different locations and commit terrorist attacks such as blowing up vehicles, damaging power lines, substations, gas pipelines and more.
Outside the context of the developments in the Lugansk and Donetsk regions, I would like to draw the Security Council members’ attention to Mr Zelensky’s statement in which he said that Ukraine wants to regain its status as a nuclear power. “Power” may not be the right word. A nuclear country.
This is extremely dangerous for several reasons. First, over the long years when Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union, resources were created in Ukraine to build both nuclear weapons and launchers. By the way, since tactical and nuclear weapons are based in Germany, the same weapons could easily emerge in Ukraine as well – using existing launchers. I mentioned Tochka-U. Its launcher is easily compatible.
They possess the equipment and technology and they have specialists who, in our estimation, have capabilities far greater than those of Iran and North Korea – the countries which are discussed at all levels in the context of agreements on their de-nuclearisation.
Then, there are those nationalist battalions scattered all over Ukraine. I think it is no secret that they are to a great extent in control of the situation in specific locations, cities and regions of Ukraine. I am talking about extremely radical nationalist views, extremely radical calls concerning Donetsk, Lugansk, Crimea and, of course, our country.
The overall situation is extremely tense. Since February 14, we have noted a more active phase and efforts to bring forces to the highest level of combat readiness. It means that considerable and more serious provocations are in the making or at least they are preparing to deal with the Donbass issue with the use of force. This has been indicated by changes in the deployment of heavy machinery and artillery guns, and changes in radio frequencies used for their communications. Then, of course, there is everything connected or connected in the first place with frontline activity – I am talking about shelling. It has been a long time since anything like this happened. We are very close to the 2014–2015 situation.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
Colleagues,
I think we are all aware of the status of the negotiating process on the Donbass settlement. It has been described in sufficient detail by the Federal Security Service Director and the Defence Minister.
We need to give an answer to the question that was raised a long time ago and is included in the State Duma’s appeal to the head of state. This question concerns recognising the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic.
We see the threats and blackmail coming from our Western colleagues, and we understand where this step stems from, but we understand the situation at hand as well.
Mr Medvedev.
www.rp.pl
www.mining.com
