December 11, 2022
1. Concluding his working visit to Kyrgyzstan, President Vladimir Putin answered journalists’ questions
(a) Q: Talking with human rights activists on Wednesday [on December 7th] you said, this is a quote: “This will be a lengthy process.” If possible, can you explain what you had in mind?
Vladimir Putin: As for the length of the SMO [Special Military Operation], I was referring to the time needed for the settlement process. The SMO is running its course and everything is stable – there are no questions or problems there now. As you can see, the Defence Ministry operates transparently. It reflects everything that is taking place in reality, on the ground, in its daily reports. This is how it stands, objectively, in this regard. I have nothing to add.
As for the settlement process in general – yes, it will probably be complicated and will take some time. But one way or another, the parties to this process will have to accept the realities that are taking shape on the ground. This is the first part of your question.
(b) Q: And another question from the same meeting. You said, and I quote: “If Russia does not use nuclear weapons first, it won’t use them second, either.” This caused an uproar. Please explain what you meant.
Vladimir Putin: Now the second part. I understand that everyone is worried and has always been worried since the advent of nuclear arms, and weapons of mass destruction in general. People, all of humanity, have been concerned about what will happen to the planet and to us? But look what I had in mind, I will explain some things.
The United States has this theory of a preventive strike. This is the first point. Now the second point. They are developing a system for a disarming strike. What does that mean? It means striking at control centres with modern high-tech weapons to destroy the opponent’s ability to counterattack, and so on.
What are these modern weapons? These are cruise missiles that we did not have at one time – we did not have land-based cruise missiles. We removed them; we scrapped them. Meanwhile, the Americans were smarter at that time when they were holding talks with the Soviet Union. They scrapped land-based missiles but retained air- and sea-based missiles that were not covered by the treaty, and we became defenceless. But now we have them and they are more modern and even more efficient.
There were plans to deliver a preventive disarming strike with hypersonic weapons. The United States does not have these weapons, but we do. Regarding a disarming strike, perhaps we should think about using the achievements of our US partners and their ideas about how to ensure their own security. We are just thinking about this. No one was shy about discussing it out loud in the past. This is the first point.
The United States has a theory and even practice. They have the concept of a preventive strike in their strategy and other policy documents. We do not. Our Strategy talks about a retaliatory strike. There are no secrets whatsoever. What is a retaliatory strike? That is a response strike. It is when our early warning system, the missile attack warning system, detects missiles launched towards Russian Federation territory. First, it detects the launches, and then response actions begin.
We hold regular exercises of our nuclear forces. You can see them all, we are not hiding anything. We provide information under our agreements with all nuclear countries, including the United States. We inform our partners that we are conducting these exercises. Rest assured they do the exact same thing.
After the early warning system receives a signal indicating a missile attack, hundreds of our missiles are launched and they cannot be stopped. But it is still a retaliatory strike. What does that mean? It means that enemy missile warheads will fall on the territory of the Russian Federation. This cannot be avoided. They will fall anyway. True, nothing will remain of the enemy, because it is impossible to intercept hundreds of missiles. And this is, without a doubt, a potent deterrent.
But if a potential adversary believes it is possible to use the preventive strike theory, while we do not, this still makes us think about the threat that such ideas in the sphere of other countries’ defence pose to us. That is all I have to say about that.
(b) Q: Angela Merkel said the other day that at the time the Minsk agreements were signed with the express purpose of giving Ukraine time to prepare and then to fight Russia. Could you explain how we should understand this? Did we know that our partners were treating us in this way?
Vladimir Putin: Honestly, this was a complete surprise to me. This is disappointing.
Frankly speaking, I did not expect to hear this from the former Federal Chancellor because I always thought that the leaders of the Federal Republic of Germany were sincere with us. Of course, they were on Ukraine’s side and supported Ukraine, but I still thought they had always been sincerely striving for a settlement on the principles which we had agreed on and which were accepted, including in the Minsk agreements.
What you have just said only shows that we did everything right by starting the Special Military Operation. Why? Because it transpired that nobody was going to fulfil these Minsk agreements. The Ukrainian leaders also mentioned this, in the words of former President Poroshenko, who said he signed the agreements but was not going to fulfil them.
But I was still hoping that other participants in this process were sincere with us. It appears they were deceiving us as well. The only purpose was to pump arms into Ukraine and get it ready for hostilities. We are seeing this, yes. Apparently, we got our bearings too late, frankly. Perhaps we should have started all this sooner, but we still simply hoped to come to terms under these Minsk peace agreements.
What can one say to this? Of course, the issue of trust is at stake. Trust as such is already close to zero, but after such statements, the issue of trust is coming to the fore. How can we negotiate anything? What can we agree upon? Is it possible to come to terms with anyone, and where are the guarantees? This is, of course, a problem.
But eventually we will have to come to terms all the same. I have already said many times that we are ready for these agreements, we are open. But, naturally, all this makes us wonder with whom we are dealing.
2. Chair of the Presidential Council for Civil Society and Human Rights Valery Fadeyev announced new figures of Ukrainian-NATO aggression on December 7
The Council has been focusing on the main and most complicated circumstances in the country.
As to the Special Military Operation. Many Council members have repeatedly visited the SMO zone, and you, Mr President, have just mentioned this. Our colleagues are working with refugees in the Russian regions. The Council has established working interaction with the authorities and civil organisations in the new regions of Russia. Today, Council members will share their impressions with us.
Both before and especially after the accession of the new regions to Russia, the Council recorded evidence of crimes committed by the Kiev regime as regards civilians. The Council is sending relevant notices to over 1,800 addresses – international human rights organisations, European parliament deputies, and editors of leading Western media. As of today, they have recorded 4,334 AFU shells and rockets in Donetsk, Ilovaisk, Gorlovka, Makeyevka, Rubezhnoye, Svatov and other residential areas. This shelling was not part of the hostilities. It was targeted not at military facilities, but at civilians, residential buildings, schools and hospitals.
In autumn, we sent information to human rights organisations about harassment of civilians in the Kharkov Region, executions in Kupyansk, the shelling of a crossing in Kherson, and executions of Russian POWs, and we have not received an adequate response so far. There are some letters from the Vatican, the Red Cross, and some European parliament deputies, but international human rights organisations remain silent.
The lack of response shows that international human rights institutions are politicised and biased and that actually they are not performing their functions. The Western community renounced any defence of the rights of Donbass residents in 2014, but the urgency of this problem has become even more obvious with the start of the SMO. Our Council will continue seeking the fulfilment of their charter tasks by the UN Human Rights Council, the Council of Europe and other international institutions.
3. AFU still shelled Donbass and other areas
Ukrainian AFU fired 20 rockets from Grad MLRS into the centre of Donetsk on December 10. The same day 15 shells of 155 mm calibre fired by Ukrainian troops have been recorded along the city of Energodar coastline that is very close to Zaporozhye NPP threatening its security and safety. Those shells were fired from the city of Marganets fully controlled by AFU.10 civilians have been wounded and three killed in a health-resort house in Melitopol.
The Kalinin hospital in the city of Donetsk was hit by Ukrainian Grad missiles on December 11, and damaged, 16 ambulances were burned. According to existing principles of international law, such institutions should not be military targets, but Ukrainian artillerymen are deliberately violating all proper regulations. Two small kids and four women have been wounded by Ukrainian fire on civilian targets. 250 missiles and artillery shells have been used that day. 19 houses and one kindergarten were damaged.
AFU is not the Army. It is the gang of criminals who can fight only with civilians, children and eldery people.
Written by Vladimir P. Kozin
