President Putin, Russian Security Council: Russia, Ukraine, Donbas, Donetsk, Luhansk

February 21, 2022

President Putin: Those individuals declared that they formed two independent republics, Donetsk and Luhansk. From that point on there was an opposition between the Ukrainian government in Kiev and the population, and from the very beginning we did our utmost to resolve all of the contradictions that were arising, and we used peaceful means to get them, but twice the government in Kiev carried out punitive military operations on the territory, and it seems as though there is now a third peak in military tensions in this region, and I would like to remind everyone that for all those years the residents in those regions have been bullied, they have come under regular mortar fire, artillery fire, and, as you well know, the residents that live near the contact line have been forced to live hunkered down in their basements together with their children.

Since then there have been talks, there have been negotiations, and this has led to the declaration of Minsk, this was an attempt at achieving peace, but everything that is happening at the moment demonstrates that the government in Kiev has no intention of implementing the Minsk agreement as announced repeatedly at the highest level of government, in particular by the security council and the foreign affairs ministry.

So it is clear to everyone that Kiev has zero intention of actually implementing the Minsk agreement; however, Russia has worked hard and will continue to work hard so as to resolve all of those complex and tragic issues using peaceful means.

Unfortunately we are now faced with the situation that you are fully familiar with, and we are here today to talk to each other and discuss what measures should be taken on this front.

There are several aspects that I’m referring to. Russia has asked that the sovereignty of those two republics be recognized, but also, in reference to the Dumas decision on this front, and we have also called heads of state and government to recognize the sovereignty and independence of the people’s republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Meanwhile I would like to remind you that these issues are interconnected, they are inherently intertwined to global security issues, whether across the world, or more specifically on the European continent, Ukraine is being instrumentalized against Russia, and we are of course seeing this as a very serious threat. And that is why for a number of months we have wrapped up our deadlock with our partners on the other side of the Atlantic via NATO so as to achieve security and peaceful resolution. We need peace and security. We need to create the right conditions for development; however, we need to come to terms with reality of the current circumstances, and as I said before, if we are faced with the threat of Ukrainian accession to NATO, then we believe that this will be a much bigger threat to our country.

Article 5 of the NATO charter stipulates that all NATO members should stand in defense of any NATO member, should they come under attack. And since nobody believes that the request of Crimean residents are legitimate, there’s always a risk that Ukraine may want to get Crimea back through military means. This would mean that the whole of NATO would be forced to join those military operations.

Now we are being told that a number of NATO members are against Ukraine joining NATO. However, in 2008 in Bucharest a memorandum was signed, and this memorandum opens up NATO’s doors to Ukraine and Georgia, and when I ask the question, “Why they did that?” I don’t get any answer, and there is no answer because of pressure from the US.

NATO members did it under US pressure, so we are getting no guarantees that this won’t happen again, we’re getting no guarantees whatsoever, because the US go back on a lot of obligations they’re undertaking on a lot of documents that they’ve actually signed. So we need a document to be signed and that would be valid under international law, and we have yet to receive that assurance. So I’m going to hand over to Sergei Lavrov because he is busy at the moment trying to achieve security guarantees with Washington and with Brussels, and then I will hand it over to Dmitry Kozak, and he will inform us about his assessment of what is happening in terms of talks and implementation of the Minsk agreement. Everyone will then have an opportunity to speak.

But the onus is on us today to explain what the next steps are as far as we’re concerned, based on the circumstances, based on the situation that we find ourselves in, and how we see this situation evolving. Minister you have the floor.

Minister: President. Dear colleagues.

As I told the president a week ago, we have prepared an evaluation of the proposed security guarantees as we received following Russia’s initiatives dating back to last year. The reaction of our European counterparts show that they are not willing to accept proposals that are so key to our eyes, in other words a ban on NATO’s enlargement in Eastern Europe. In other words, NATO is continuing with its open doors policy, and we’re getting no positive answers from NATO or from the US to try to resolve the situation.

Security is indivisible. This is principle that is crucial to us, and the US is trying to sidestep that principle. The US is forgetting a key prerequisite. When the time comes to choose an alliance, at any other time nobody has the right to strengthen their own security to the detriment of other countries’ security, and this is why in January we talked to all of our counterparts whether in Switzerland or in Western Europe, or counterparts at the European Union or in the US, we sent them all an answer, an answer that contained our analysis of the documents, of the legal instruments. Our answer contained our analysis of the situation over time since the Rome initiative, an initiative that was approved by the NATO-Russia council.

There is another aspect regarding relations with NATO and the 1997 documents. Under those documents Russia and NATO are no longer adversaries, and the goal was to build a partnership, particularly a strategic partnership, and based on that we suggested going back to the NATO configuration which existed in 1997. This argument was denied, just like the first argument, and in their answer NATO and the US called on us to stop occupying Crimea and pull out our troops from Ukraine, Crimea, and Moldova. When it comes to Ukraine the Minsk agreement needs to be emphasized, and it has been emphasized, but only rhetorically. Kiev needs to comply with the provisions of that most important document.

Now the answer does not rule out the possibility of deploying armaments at the borders of Russia, but the US suggested reopening talks on medium and long range missiles, ground based missiles, and then question came up when the US left the treaty and failed to accept Mr. Putin’s proposal of a mutual moratorium with adequate verification measures, so the US came up with other proposals regarding working together, transparency, predictability, and those suggestions from the US are very close to our own suggestions to our US partners and our NATO partners. However, in their answer, there are excerpts from the package that we are proposing, and there are other aspects that are being addressed, such as: security issues at sea or in the sky, military contacts, civilian hotlines, mechanisms for preventing dangerous military incidents. Our general impression is that our counterparts are trying to take our package of proposals and are trying to extract a number of things that seem to us secondary. Of course they could help produce risks to some extent, but those aspects are secondary and would not constrain NATO or the US when it comes to distribution of powers and troops around our space. In addition, our partners are setting a condition around Ukraine. In other words, Russia is being asked to take action first.

The initiatives that we undertook in December, and the fact that we persevered with those initiatives, have made it possible for our US and NATO partners to take into account some of our proposals in terms of arms control and reducing existing tensions.

This work, this dialogue must continue. Our answer has been detailed, but we have only sent it to the US, and that is our answer to the second proposal.

Why did we first answer the US? Because NATO is secondary. In other words, NATO will only decide what to do once Washington has taken a stance. The Munich Security Conference, which just ended, has once again heard every western country speak in support of a joint position, a joint position that is based on the US position, and this is why we first set the answer to our US partners.

Now the main thing that we addressed is this: our position isn’t a menu that you can freely select from, nor is it an ultimatum, our answer is based on the following basics: this noble situation requires a holistic solution, we need to take into account all of these moving parts, that dovetail together. As you said, Mr. President, what is key is the relationship between Russia and the Western World, spearheaded by the US. Once again we emphasize that the Russian initiative from December is a package. It’s a package of measures. What we’re trying to achieve is to get answers to those questions that are so important to us. NATO needs to stop expanding eastward. NATO needs to limit its presence on the European continent, particularly in central and European countries.

In light of the initial agreements and declarations between NATO and Russia, our first demand is this: this document that was signed, according to which nobody should expand their security to the detriment of the security of their counterparts, how come this document is being ignored? We need western countries to explain why they signed that document and now show they have zero intention of putting their money where their mouth is.

Upon your request we have sent this document to Washington. I received a call from Anthony Blinken, he let me know that they have read our answer, and he is ready to meet with me to discuss this, explain the US position, maybe have a discussion, and ask questions.

You have green-lighted this meeting which will take place on February 24th, so this week in Geneva, and we will base ourselves on the position that you stand for.

President: I discussed this with my US counterpart and the US president has assured me that Ukraine would not become a NATO member tomorrow, and that there was the possibility of a moratorium, and maybe this is because Mr. Biden does not believe Ukraine to be ready at this point.

My answer was this: This is you being free to do what you want to do. This is about your freedom of action. What you’re saying is that the moratorium is in your interest, not in ours, because once Ukraine is ready, you are free to admit them into NATO. We talked until 2 am, and he told me that while the US position had shifted, when I asked why or how, he was unable to tell me. So we first need to understand what those tremors are about. Why has the US position shifted slightly? Your counterpart said publicly yesterday that the position in principle regarding NATO enlargement had not changed, that NATO’s opening it’s doors to other countries including Ukraine had not changed. Am I understanding this properly?

Minister: Mr. President.

Despite the secret documents that are finding their way into the media, particularly western media, secret documents regarding agreements with Russia, agreements between different western countries, at the time those documents came out, western countries had no intention to expand eastward. Yet, the NATO secretary general actually denies those documents ever existed, and yet those documents have been declassified by the UK government. We need NATO to discontinue their open doors policy.

In the Washington agreement their is the possibility, should all NATO members agree unanimously to open their doors to additional members, assuming those members meet NATO criteria, and if the addition would increase NATO security, and this is a criterion that has been ignored by NATO for a long time. When it comes the change in the US position and the position of their western allies, we agree with your position, the position that you expressed to president Macron.

We first need to understand what this change means. Our French counterparts say they understand what those changes mean. In agreement with you, I have agreed to talk with the French foreign affairs ministry and I have asked our French counterparts to make sure we can address that issue of potential shifts in the US position and potential proposals.

President: I’ve asked Dmitry Kozak to give us an overview of what happened in terms of implementation in terms of the Minsk agreement. I’m referring to the third echelon, and then other members of the security council of the Russian Federation will have a chance to speak on the situation with the two republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.

Kozak: Mr. President. Dear colleagues.

I do not wish to bore you with the details of such complex negotiations regarding implementation of the Minsk agreement. It is now obvious that neither Ukraine nor its western allies are interested in Donbas. They are doing their utmost for that conflict to be set in stone. They managed to plant that seed in the minds of the world that this conflict is a conflict between Russia and Europe, and that Russia is responsible for the conflict. Yet, we are paying a dear price. We have sent humanitarian aid, we are aiding because our own Russian citizens are in distress there.

In Donbas today, or rather before this conflict erupted, many jobs had been created, unemployment was down, the economy was recovering, things were going quite well, in line with our economic policy goals. Now when it comes to Ukraine, it’s obvious that neither Ukraine nor the western countries want to resolve the conflict in the Donbas. They want that conflict to continue.

Now this is a hypothetical, but what about Donbas and how to integrate it into Ukraine? They are at a loss for words, they look down, they can’t answer, they have no idea how to answer that question, and when it comes to Donbas, I believe there is no need to explain the economic and political reasons.

President: No, tell us how the talks are going regarding the Minsk agreement.

Kozak: Well, the talks have been at a standstill since 2015. As you well know, under the Minsk agreement, there is to be a dialogue on the status of Donbas following the conflict, and this dialogue was supposed to start as soon as heavy weapons had been withdrawn from the contact line. The heavy armament was officially pulled out, and that was over on March 8, and we were supposed to start the dialogue on March 9. By the end of 2015 we should have seen amendments to the Ukrainian constitution, and those amendments should have been approved by the population of Donbas. Now against the backdrop of the amended constitution, elections should have taken place. But the dialogue has not started, and Ukraine is keeping mum on the status of Donbas and what their plans are on that front. Maybe they’re thinking, ordinary Ukrainian municipalities without any specific status, and the Ukrainian government has managed to convince the public that that part of the Minsk agreement on the republics of Donetsk and Luhansk are impossible to implement. If that precedent was accepted, then the other regions of Ukraine would follow suit, and would also try to break away. There is another example, a similar request from Ukraine, and the Ukrainian government firmly believes that, and the public firmly believes that as well.

On the talks on the Minsk agreement, they recognize that the agreement is important, but as soon as they’re out of the room, they officially say that the agreement is a noose around their necks and that there is no way of implementing it.

President: I talked to my French counterpart, yesterday, and he said to me that the Ukrainian government was ready to implement the Minsk agreement and even has new ideas in terms of implementation, in particularly in elections, in line with the Steinmeir formula.

Kozak: Allow me to say this again, this has been going on for 8 years. Ukraine found itself in unusual circumstances at times as they are lying through their teeth. You see things written on paper, and they deny that those things have been written, maybe this has been written in invisible ink!

So I ask, do you believe Russia to be the attacker?

In that case, do ask the Germans and French to detail what they think Russia should do. That way we wouldn’t be accused of creating our own obligations.

We are willing to help.

What is the situation in Donbas? Is it that they themselves refuse to implement part of the Minsk agreement, and our answer is, “We don’t know!”

[Continued]

[Transcribed]