August 9, 2023

1. Moscow stance on the Jeddah meeting on Ukraine

On August 7, 2023 Russian Foreign Ministry gave explanations about the results of meeting on Ukraine held in Jeddah (August 5-6)

Question: What is your comment on the recent meeting on the Ukrainian crisis in Jeddah?

Answer: The Foreign Ministry of Russia took note of the news about the consultations concerning the Ukraine crisis, held in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on August 5 and 6, at the initiative of the Kiev regime and the G7. The consultations were attended by our BRICS allies and other partners. We hope they will share their assessments with us in keeping with the existing agreements, and we reiterate our stance on Zelensky’s so-called “peace formula,” which the Kiev regime and the West try to promote at such meetings.

By promoting Zelensky’s “formula,” the Kiev regime and the West are attempting to belittle the great importance of peace initiatives proposed by other countries and to monopolize the right to their advancement. In effect, as we said, they are fighting dissent at the international level and making attempts to smuggle in unviable ideas on the settlement by dishonest manipulations.

We greatly appreciate the mediating and humanitarian initiatives advanced by our friends from countries of the Global South, initiatives aimed at reaching peace. Unlike the Kiev regime, which broke off and banned negotiations with Russia, we have always been open to a diplomatic solution to the crisis and are ready to respond to serious proposals. No meetings on the Ukraine crisis add any value without Russia’s participation or regard for its interests.

They should confirm the original foundations of Ukraine’s sovereignty, that is, its neutral, non-bloc and nuclear-free status. They should recognize the new territorial realities that took shape after the residents in the new Russian regions exercised their right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter. The next step is to ensure Ukraine’s demilitarization and de-Nazification as well as the rights of its Russian speakers and ethnic minorities under its domestic laws and international law. We are certain that implementing these elements fully conforms to international peace and security, which are the goals that Russia is working to reach.

Note: the text highlighted in two boxes above is marked by myself

2. My personal comment on some ideas on peace settlement of the situation in Ukraine

(questions have been put by Press Service, Center for Military and Political Studies)

Q: In a number of political proposals put forward by foreign countries dealt with the ways to defuse the current situation in Ukraine there have been idea to immediately reach a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine. What is your stance on that matter?

A: In general terms this idea is a positive one. There is nothing wrong with that. Usually, many interstate and regional armed conflicts are resolved namely by such move as initial arrangement that opens up new grounds for further accords along other directions. However, in terms of unjustifiable and cruel Ukrainian-NATO aggression against Russia – unleashed initially since April 13, 2014 against Donbass, and later, since February 14, 2022 against Russia – such principle should be resolved in special order.

Ukraine should be the first side who must officially announce that it will stop military fire and every military activity everywhere along the line of engagement with Russia and on the Russian territory because Ukraine initiated such two types of armed aggression. Kiev’s commitment on a stable and genuine ceasefire has to be certified and guaranteed by NATO and the UN Security Council. As a part of the ceasefire package the Armed Forces of Ukraine should pool back all its contingents from the current line of engagement 500 km deep into Ukrainian territory, and eliminate all their military installations on the demilitarized zone. After the ceasefire arrangement is actually enacted Russia should announce its ceasefire obligations. At the same time, Russian Armed Forces will stay permanently in Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions within their original administrative borders existed in 1991.

Q: Some political figures share president Zelensky’s demand that after reaching a verifiable ceasefire agreement by a specific date and hour Russia should return to Ukraine all territories “it has seized after 1991” and return them to Ukraine. What is your opinion: is this proposal feasible for Russia and the population of Crimea, Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions?

A: No, not at all. Such proposals are irrelevant. People of all these areas do not wish to live in an undemocratic, ultra-nationalist state called Ukraine engaged in ethnic cleansing and using heavy weapons against civilians for nearly 9 years state.

Can anybody persuade the population of Crimea that that became a part of Russian Empire since 18th century and where the majority of population are ethnic Russians?

Can anybody you persuade the citizens of two Republics in Donbass that have already lost more than 20,000 civilians killed by Armed Forces of Ukraine or the people of Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions who suffered too many tragedies from current and previous Kiev’s military-political neo-Nazi regimes? Who will urge them to forget that each day and each night their homes and their social infrastructure are being heavily and constantly shelled by NATO heavy 155-mm artillery and missile systems, and by cluster munitions?

Can anybody persuade the Orthodox Christianity followers in all these areas to return to Ukraine that trampled underfoot such religion that is widely professed for more than one thousand years? Never. Nobody can influence upon such people whose voices “Nyet!” (“No!”) have been fixed during the respective referenda.

Q: Many proposals are dealt with the issue of material compensation: who will pay whom? How much, and what for if the aggression is really over? What is your view on that dilemma?

A: In all wars and armed conflicts aggressors have paid such compensation, not the winners and not those who were defending its territories against the aggressor. Could you imagine that anti-Hitler coalition in 1945 paid any compensation to Nazi Germany when the WWII in Europe was over? So, in this particular case Ukraine must pay real compensation to Russia, Crimea, two Donbass’s Republics namely DPR and LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson Regions for all human and material losses they have sustained since April 2014 till now. I believe that Russian position on that issue should be stated clearly and without any delay.

Q: Zelensky issued his presidential decree prohibiting anybody in Ukraine to conduct peace talks with Russia. It is a stumbling block, is not it? What is the way out from such impasse?

A: It is really an impasse, if one side has no desire to conduct peace talks with its opposite number. The exit from such self-imposed deadlocked position is to proclaim null and void such ‘a decree’. Tango without a partner is not a tango.

Q: Are you happy with the term “conflict” or “crisis” or “confrontation” permanently used to identify the present-day developments in Ukraine?

A: No, I am not, and for several reasons.

First, it put on an equal footing the real aggressor (Ukraine) and the country that decided to block such aggression as its victim (Russia). It is wrong formula. Ukraine is de facto and de jure aggressor state who began the policy of genocide and ethnic cleansing against its own citizens and the citizens of Russia.

Second, such three terms you have mentioned prevents to find a genuine political solution of the issue created exclusively by Ukraine and NATO in 2014.

Third, such ‘three-dimensional’ terminology helps the transatlantic alliance to stockpile criminal Ukrainian regime with deadly, long-range heavy weapons that never will bring peace in this part of Europe.