KEY POINTS FROM VLADIMIR PUTIN’S INTERVIEW ON 09.02.24

V. Putin’s interview (09.02.2024) was used as a signal to the West and the Global South, selected and broadcast via Russian state media

Basic framework:

• the thesis that the change in the world order is irreversible

• the need for the US to adapt through negotiations with the Russian Federation

• Russia’s key strategic objective:

  • negotiations with the West on Russia’s terms

  • division of zones and spheres of influence

  • a new security system (without NATO expansion)

• Two parallel tracks of Russian action:

  1. Weakening Western consolidation

     • the argument that ‘Russia is not a threat’

     • Pitting ‘interests > values’

     • Exploiting internal divisions (US, Europe)

     • Using the issue of exchanges/hostages as a bargaining chip

  2. Legitimisation of aggression

     • A systematic set of ‘false pretexts’ (Ukraine as part of the Russian Federation, ‘civil war’, 2014, ‘Nazism’, etc.)

     • demands:

       • Ukraine’s withdrawal from NATO

       • recognition of the occupied territories

       • forcing Ukraine into negotiations

• Separate track:

  • seeking channels of influence in the US (focusing on domestic politics and a change of elites)

  • signalling a willingness to engage in dialogue, but without changing Russia’s position

• An important signal:

  • Russia recognises that Western consolidation is the main obstacle

  • and that the consequences of the containment strategy are intensifying for it

Putin’s interview is not merely a communication event, but an attempt to establish a comprehensive negotiating framework for the West, in which the war in Ukraine is merely one element of a broader objective — the reordering of the world order.

Its content demonstrates that Russia is not changing its fundamental objectives, but is altering the way it pursues them: from direct confrontation to a combined strategy, where information influence, political engagement with Western elites and the creation of negotiating pressure play a key role.

The Russian Federation’s central logic lies in forcing the West to make a choice: either to continue the confrontation with the risk of escalation, or to accept negotiations in which Russia acts as an equal centre of power with the right to its own sphere of influence. To this end, Russia simultaneously:

• attempts to reduce the perception of itself as a threat, in order to weaken the West’s motivation to consolidate

• promotes an alternative interpretation of the war to absolve itself of responsibility

• creating bargaining chips (hostages, security issues, risks of escalation)

It is also significant that the interview reveals an internal realisation within the Russian Federation: without a split in the West, it is impossible to achieve strategic goals. This is precisely why the key focus is shifting from Ukraine as a battlefield to the West as a sphere of influence.

It can therefore be concluded that Russia has moved into a phase where the primary instrument is no longer merely military pressure, but a combination of informational and political influence and coercive negotiation tactics, aimed at changing the West’s position.

In short: Russia is not seeking a compromise — it is attempting to reshape the very rules of negotiation, forcing the West to recognise its right to revise the world order through the Ukrainian case.

Putin’s conversation with American journalist Tucker Carlson lasted 2 hours and 6 minutes, during which time the Russian president answered approximately 60 questions, including various clarifications from his interlocutor.

This article reflects the key points highlighted and broadcast by official Russian media (RIA Novosti and TASS, with the vast majority of these points featured on RIA Novosti). It can be assumed that these are the main (key) messages selected for the attention of the West and the Global South.

The main themes of the Russian narratives highlighted in the interview:

GLOBAL LEVEL – A CHANGE IN THE WORLD ORDER
Narrative: Negotiations with the West on Russia’s terms — a change in the world order, a new division of zones and spheres of influence:
• The assertion that changes to the world order are irreversible, so that in order to maintain its status, the US will have to adapt.
• Veiled threats against China.
• Russia’s search for new channels of influence in the US.
• Terms of security guarantees.

RUSSIA’S COUNTERMEASURES AGAINST THE CONTAINMENT STRATEGY
Narrative: Weakening of Western consolidation:
• The ‘absence’ of a military threat to the West from Russia.
• Military containment of Russia through NATO.
• Interests take precedence over values.
• Bargaining with Russia over the West’s hostages.
Narrative: Russia has legitimate (lawful) grounds for its special military operation:
• False pretext: Ukraine is part of Russia.
• False pretext: Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is allegedly a civil war.
• False pretext: the ‘coup d’état’ in 2014 as a justification/reason for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.
• False pretext: Ukraine did not comply with the Minsk Agreements.
• False pretext: the fight against ‘Nazism’ in Ukraine.
• Demand: Ukraine must renounce NATO (division of spheres of influence in Ukraine).
• Demand: The West must recognise the annexation and occupation of Ukrainian territories as legitimate (division of spheres of influence in Ukraine).
• Demand: The West must force Ukraine to enter into direct negotiations with the Russian Federation on these Russian terms.

About the interview

Confusion of concepts. The Russian side presented this journalist’s position as pro-American (implying, as it were, general support for his stance in the US) – that is, as representing the majority in America, thereby creating a distorted impression of the actual position of the majority in America or manipulating it to match how the Russian Federation would like to see the majority’s position there. At the same time, the journalist himself is a representative of the far-right Republicans and used this interview to criticise the Democrats in the election campaign, exploiting the fears of the average American regarding Russia – ‘the fear of the outbreak of a nuclear war’.

Following the publication of the interview, experts provided additional explanations ‘for those who did not understand the essence’ of the Russian signals: regarding the possibility of using Russian propaganda narratives via the interview to reach the wider masses of the West and the Global South, relying on the perceived ‘authority’ of a radical American journalist, clarification regarding the immediate obstacle to the Russian Federation achieving its goals — the consolidation of the West around the US (Democrats led by Biden) — and Russia’s urgent need for direct negotiations with the West.

Narrative: Negotiations with the West on Russia’s terms — a change in the world order, a new division of zones and spheres of influence

Russia is attempting to convince the world that changes to the world order did not arise through its own fault, were not initiated by it, and were not the result of full-scale military aggression against Ukraine, the consequences of which have exacerbated global problems such as food and energy security and are having a negative impact on the global economy. As a result of this aggression, the West has rallied around the development and implementation of two new strategies – the Containment Strategy (towards Russia) and the Competition Strategy (towards China) – which do indeed alter the overall picture and certain priorities within the global order as a whole, yet they preserve the core value of the world order – the provisions of the UN Charter and international law.

Russia also acknowledges that, regardless of the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine (it appears that Russia is already considering, in particular, a scenario that is pessimistic for them – a Russian defeat in Ukraine), such changes to the world order as the new strategies regarding Russia and China are irreversible. Putin also noted that he ‘believes’ China has not sought to dominate the international arena. In this way, Putin is attempting to absolve Russia of responsibility for the fact that the aggression against Ukraine has led to the accelerated formation and development of a strategy of competition with China, turning it into a common and global strategy of the West (strengthening Western consolidation) and increasing pressure on China, in other words, the Russian Federation has effectively disrupted China’s ‘quiet game’ of gaining an advantage over the US.

On the one hand, Russia had hoped that China would adopt a more confrontational and aggressive stance towards the West and would support the Russian Federation more openly and comprehensively. But as a result, Russia is forced to acknowledge that China is inclined to seek compromises with the West, and Russia recognises this. On the other hand, by speaking of China’s compromises with the West and speculating on how far China might go in them, Russia seems to be reminding the PRC of their shared border stretching for thousands of kilometres and of its desire to dominate BRICS unilaterally or to prevent China from dominating it (Russia’s hidden fears/threats/demands towards the PRC).

In Russia’s view, in order to maintain its own level of dominance, the US will have to adapt and make compromises with Russia, the essence of which lies in accepting security guarantees on Russian terms, the main point of which is the non-expansion of NATO to the East and the division of zones (territories) and spheres of influence in the international arena, leading to a multipolar world order — the fragmentation of the international arena, including the fragmentation of the global economy, which is no longer acceptable even in China. Russia is therefore seeking new channels of influence within the US, hoping for a Republican victory in the 2024 US elections, believing it will be able to reach an agreement with them, as it has failed to do so with the Democrats.

Russia’s countermeasures against the containment strategy

The containment strategy entails increasing Russia’s isolation on the international stage – weakening or minimising the Russian Federation’s political, economic and military influence. To counter the effects of the containment strategy (isolation and sanctions) and achieve its objectives (securing security guarantees on Russia’s terms regarding the division of zones and spheres of influence, both in Ukraine and internationally, without competition and on a contractual basis), Russia is simultaneously implementing two scenarios, adopting:

• Countermeasures against the Containment Strategy – weakening Western consolidation.

• Countermeasures regarding accusations of the Russian Federation’s unjustified aggression against Ukraine – offering ‘evidence’ that Russia allegedly had legal grounds for its military operation and demanding that its consequences be accepted in Russia’s favour whilst they still exist.

Narrative: Weakening Western consolidation

The interview suggests that Russia understands that the main objective of the Containment Strategy is to weaken/minimise Russia’s influence, and above all, this involves military containment of Russia by the NATO bloc. Therefore, Moscow needs to demonstrate the alleged absence of a military threat to the West from Russia – to weaken or undermine Western unity against Russia, which could also complicate the provision of aid to Ukraine.

Putin has also drawn the Kremlin’s ‘red line’ for the West – this is the entry of regular US troops into the conflict on Ukrainian territory on the side of Kyiv. Until this Kremlin ‘red line’ is crossed, according to its experts, Russia allegedly undertakes not to use nuclear weapons (including tactical nuclear weapons) in the Ukrainian conflict or against the West. It also follows from Putin’s words that Moscow is prepared to tolerate the presence of a significant number of foreign mercenaries on Kyiv’s side, but not that of foreign regular armed forces.

Furthermore, using Germany as an example, the Russian Federation has put forward the argument that ‘interests must take precedence over values’ as a key thesis for undermining Western unity. Indeed, Putin stated that he is “surprised by the current German government, which is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than those of its own country”. According to the journalist, Russia is sending signals that it would indeed like to have friendly relations with the West, at least with some of its representatives, which could consequently weaken Western unity.

The issue of the release of American citizens imprisoned abroad is one of the top priorities for the current White House administration, particularly in the run-up to the elections. In an interview, Putin outlined his terms for a ‘deal’ – release in exchange for something else. Indeed, Putin stated that the Russian and US intelligence services are discussing the release of American journalist Evan Gershkovich, whose activities in Russia have been classified as espionage. Speaking of the possibility of an exchange involving Hershkovitz, Putin mentioned Vadim Sokolov, who was convicted in Germany, describing him as a man who, allegedly for patriotic reasons, had eliminated a ‘gangster’ in one of Europe’s capitals. Such an exchange could significantly damage the image of the current US administration during the election campaign and undermine the trust of allies.

Narrative: Russia has legitimate grounds for its special military operation

As mentioned earlier, Russia’s attempt to reach an agreement with the Democrats in the US on the division of zones and spheres of influence under new international conditions (Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, the Strategy of Containment and the Strategy of Competition) in the US, and therefore Russia is banking on new figures more loyal to its position coming to power in America, as well as seeking new channels of influence in the US which could convey Russia’s narratives on Ukraine in America and soften the West’s stance towards Moscow.

In justifying the cause-and-effect links of Russia’s actions regarding Ukraine, Putin resorted to citing false pretexts (narratives of Russian propaganda) and once again put forward demands as the consequences of satisfying Russia’s wishes regarding these false pretexts.

Thus, in an interview, Putin listed the main false pretexts which, in the Kremlin’s view, are supposed to justify Russia’s aggression against Ukraine in the eyes of the West and representatives of the Global South.

• False pretext: Ukraine is part of Russia. Consequence — the West is required not to interfere in Russia’s ‘internal affairs’ regarding Ukraine, since, in the Russian Federation’s view, it ‘is part of Russia’ (a substitution of concepts: Russia’s claim to a division of spheres of influence in Ukraine based on alleged historical expediency and alleged historical justice, rather than on the UN Charter and international law).

• False pretext: Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is presented as a civil war, i.e. justified (substitution of concepts and manipulation of the American audience: an attempt to justify its aggression through the substitution of concepts (Ukraine is part of Russia) and drawing alleged parallels with historical events in the US (the Civil War) to make Russian narratives more palatable to Americans).

• False pretext: the ‘coup d’état’ in 2014 as a justification/reason for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine (accusations against the US of alleged interference in Ukraine’s internal affairs, which led to irreversible consequences for Russia – a reduction in the Russian Federation’s influence in Ukraine).

• False pretext: Ukraine had no intention of implementing the Minsk Agreements (accusations against Ukraine based on an unfounded assumption, which was made on the basis that Russia was unable to persuade Ukraine and the West to accept its distorted interpretations of the Minsk Agreements, such as Russian propaganda narratives, manipulation and the substitution of concepts that benefit only Russia).

• False pretext: the fight against Nazism in Ukraine (a substitution of concepts following the logic: patriotism = nationalism = Nazism, leading to the conclusion that in Ukraine patriotism = Nazism; and accusations against Ukraine based on this substitution of concepts regarding a non-existent problem, in which Ukrainian patriots are automatically classified as Nazis).

The interview then went on to outline Russia’s demands:

• Demand: Ukraine must renounce NATO (a bid to carve up spheres of influence in Ukraine – reducing the West’s military influence).

• Demand: The West must recognise the annexation and occupation of Ukrainian territories as legitimate (a bid to divide spheres of influence/territories in Ukraine).

• Demand: The West must force Ukraine to enter into direct negotiations with the Russian Federation on these Russian terms — a declaration that Russia, as before, demands negotiations with Ukraine on its own terms, in which it has two main priorities: the division of spheres of influence and the division of zones of influence in Ukraine (consequently, no accession to NATO, a reduction in Western military influence, and the recognition of the Russian Federation’s violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity as lawful).

And on this basis, to proceed to negotiations with the West regarding security guarantees on Russian terms – the division of zones and spheres of influence in the international arena without competition, by mutual agreement. In other words, the West must agree to a multipolar world order as interpreted by Russia, with all the consequences that entail.

It can be stated that nothing has changed in Russia’s position, but it should be noted that the Russian Federation is making significant efforts to find a negotiating platform and channels of influence, which may indicate an intensification of the negative consequences for Russia arising from the Strategy of Deterrence.

Primary sources

About the interview

• Peskov explained that the Russian President gave the interview to this particular journalist because his stance differs from others, and it is allegedly ‘in no way pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian; rather, it is pro-American’. ^[i]

• Following an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin, American television journalist Tucker Carlson claimed that the United States is seeking to bring about ‘weak leadership’ in Russia, seemingly without realising the threat this could pose to the whole world. He also claimed that “a weak central government in the country with the largest nuclear arsenal is madness”. The journalist then sharply criticised the current American leadership (the Democrats), calling them “crazy” and focusing on two specific individuals: Joe Biden and Torrey Nuland, whom he called a “toxic idiot”. ^[ii]

On the possibility of using Russian propaganda narratives through interviews:

• Tucker Carlson will in no way be regarded as Russian propaganda. ^[iii]

• Carlson wants to tell the world the truth about the conflict in Ukraine. ^[iv]

• Russia is not as scary as the Western media portrays it, and this is already having an effect, because people there believe Carlson. ^[v]

The West’s consolidation around the US is the main obstacle to Russia achieving its goals. Russia seeks to undermine this consolidation:

• The propaganda of the Democratic Party, led by Biden, is needed to create a system of alliances to support American hegemony. Biden needs to create an external enemy and adversary for himself. If Trump becomes president after the election, aid to Ukraine will be called into question. ^[vi]

On Russia’s urgent need for direct negotiations with the West:

• The interview can be seen as a roadmap for improving relations between the US and Russia. Putin wants to convey that Russia is not actually such a frightening, aggressive, uncompromising country. ^[vii]

• Putin has signalled to the US that Moscow is open and ready for dialogue, but there is no such willingness on Washington’s part. ^[viii]

• The signal was that Russia is open to agreements. Russia wanted to negotiate from the outset. Moscow is ready for dialogue on Ukraine even though Russia’s opponents are Nazis. ^[ix]

• Putin stated that he knows Russia’s opponents want to negotiate with Moscow, but cannot figure out how to do so; the Russian Federation is not refusing. ^[x]  

Changes to the world order are irreversible, so in order to maintain its standing, the US will have to adapt.

• The world will change regardless of how events in Ukraine unfold. The only question is how this will happen: painfully, quickly, or gently, gradually. ^[xi]

• The American political elite fails to understand that the world is changing due to objective circumstances, and that to maintain its level of dominance, it must make informed and timely decisions. ^[xii]

• The Roman Empire was great, yet the barbarians’ potential gradually built up, and under their assaults the empire collapsed—a process that took 500 years; today, however, the processes of change are occurring much more rapidly. Some nations and countries rose, multiplied, and grew stronger, only to then fade from the international stage in the capacity to which they had become accustomed. ^[xiii]

China’s hidden threats:

• Putin dismissed as ‘scaremongering’ the suggestion that China would dominate the international arena, and in particular within BRICS, noting that China’s foreign policy philosophy is non-aggressive. ^[xiv]

• We share a thousand-kilometre border with them. ^[xv]

• China’s foreign policy thinking is always seeking – seeking compromise, and we can see that. ^[xvi]

Russia’s search for new channels of influence in the US:

• We need people who think, look ahead, and are capable of analysing and recommending solutions at the level of political leadership. ^[xvii]

• During his most recent conversation with his American counterpart Joe Biden, Putin told him that he was making a mistake of historic proportions by alienating Russia. ^[xviii]

• After the collapse of the USSR, the US pursued a crude, unfounded policy of pressure against Russia; this was a mistake, a policy of pressure: NATO expansion, support for separatists in the Caucasus, the creation of a missile defence system, and dragging Ukraine into NATO. We need to get rid of this – there must be new, fresh forces, people who look to the future and understand what is happening in the world. ^[xix]

• The issue is not who comes to power in the US, but the mindset of the elites; if the idea of dominance at any cost prevails in American society, nothing will change, and things will only get worse. The world is changing due to objective circumstances, and we must be able to adapt to them in time, making use of the advantages that the US still retains today. ^[xx]

Conditions for security guarantees

• A new security system is needed in Europe; there is no need for NATO to expand. ^[xxi]

The ‘absence’ of a military threat to the West from Russia

• Putin called statements about whether the Americans would have to go to war with Russia if aid to Kyiv were to cease a cheap provocation. ^[xxii]

• NATO countries are trying to intimidate their populations with an imaginary Russian threat; sensible people understand perfectly well that this is a hoax. ^[xxiii]

• The scare stories about Russia used by Western countries are needed to extract extra money from taxpayers to fund the confrontation with the Russian Federation on the Ukrainian theatre of war. ^[xxiv]

Military deterrence of Russia through NATO

• Had Russia received approval for its proposal to join NATO and seen genuine interest from its partners, a process of rapprochement would have begun, and accession to the alliance could have taken place. ^[xxv] Russia was refused when it asked about possible NATO membership. ^[xxvi]

• NATO members obediently vote under pressure from the US, even if they do not like it; this also applies to the situation in Ukraine. ^[xxvii]

• If the US sends regular troops to Ukraine, this will bring humanity to the brink of global conflict; moreover, America has no reason to fight in Ukraine – it has enough problems of its own. It would be better for it to reach an agreement with Russia and treat its interests with respect, as Russia will defend them to the end. ^[xxviii]

• Dragging the Russian Federation into a global war defies common sense; it would bring all of humanity to the brink of destruction. Putin dismissed as a cheap provocation the claims that the Americans would have to fight Russia if aid to Kyiv were to cease. ^[xxix]

• Putin: I do not understand why American soldiers should be fighting in Ukraine. There are mercenaries from the United States there. Most of the mercenaries are from Poland, followed by the US, and then Georgia. ^[xxx]

Comment by a Russian expert.

• This is Putin’s first manifesto to the collective West in the last two years — Putin has sent an important message to the West: Russia has no intention of starting a third world war by entering into direct conflict with NATO, and, even less so, has no intention of being the first to use either strategic or tactical nuclear weapons.^[xxxi]

Carlson’s repetition of Russian narratives

• Putin is ‘deeply hurt’ by the West’s rejection, whilst ‘Europeanism’ in Moscow can not only be seen but also felt at a cultural level. ^[xxxii]

• Only an idiot could believe in Moscow’s intentions to attack Europe. Russia is already huge, the largest in the world. Moscow simply wants security on its borders. ^[xxxiii]

• NATO has set itself the task of containing Russia, and this greatly upsets Russian President Vladimir Putin. ^[xxxiv]

Interests take precedence over values

• Putin has stated that he is surprised by the current German government, which is guided by the interests of the collective West rather than those of its own country. ^[xxxv]

Bargaining over Western hostages in Russia

• Speaking about the possibility of releasing journalist Evan Gershkovich, Putin stated that Russia has made so many gestures of goodwill that it seems to have exhausted all limits. ^[xxxvi]

• The Russian and US intelligence services are discussing the release of American journalist Evan Gershkovich; we do not rule out that we may do so if our partners make a reciprocal move. ^[xxxvii]

• Putin described journalist Gershkovich’s activities in Russia as espionage: he was working on behalf of the US intelligence services. ^[xxxviii]

• Putin, speaking of the possibility of exchanging American journalist Evan Gershkovich, mentioned Vadim Sokolov, who was convicted in Germany, a man who, for patriotic reasons, eliminated a gangster in one of the European capitals. ^[xxxix]

False pretext: Ukraine is part of Russia.

• American journalist Tucker Carlson stated that he had received an ‘extremely detailed’ response from Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding the causes of the Ukrainian crisis — a folder of documents handed over by the Russian president, whom he described as ‘bedtime reading’.[xl] Putin handed over documents confirming Bohdan Khmelnytsky’s request to bring the southern territories of Russian lands under the strong hand of the Tsar of Moscow. And after the conclusion of the ‘eternal peace’, the entire left bank of the Dnieper, including Kyiv, passed to Russia, whilst the entire right bank of the Dnieper remained with Poland.[xli]

• The idea of the Ukrainisation of the southern Ruthenian lands was actively promoted by the Austrian General Staff prior to the First World War. Theorists of Ukrainian independence emerged as early as the 19th century, but they all insisted that Ukraine must maintain very good relations with Russia; they were adamant on this point.[xlii]

• Russian President Vladimir Putin has described Ukraine as an artificial state created by Stalin’s will. Soviet Ukraine acquired a vast amount of territory that had never had any connection to it whatsoever, primarily the Black Sea region.[xliii]

False pretext: The Russian Federation’s military operation in Ukraine is supposedly a civil war.

• Ukrainians still feel Russian; what is happening now is, to some extent, an element of a civil war.[xliv]

• In the West, it is believed that the hostilities in Ukraine have permanently divided one part of the Russian people from the other, but reunification will take place.[xlv]

Comment by a Russian expert:

• Putin’s words in an interview that what is happening between Russia and Ukraine is ‘an element of a civil war’ provide a clear explanation of the Ukrainian crisis for American society, for whom civil war is an important part of history. Perhaps the civil war narrative will work.[xlvi]

False pretext: the ‘coup d’état’ in 2014 as a justification/reason for Russia’s aggression against Ukraine.

• Russian President Vladimir Putin described the third round of the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election and Viktor Yushchenko’s victory in it as a coup d’état.[xlvii]

• We in Russia believe that everything that has happened since 2014 stems from the coup d’état, and in this sense even the current government is illegitimate.[xlviii]

• The conflict between Moscow and Kyiv was provoked by the coup d’état in Ukraine, whilst the threats to Crimea and the operation in Donbas were a colossal political mistake by the US. There was no point to the coup d’état.[xlix]

• Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Viktor Yanukovych, who led Ukraine from 2010 to 2014, was perhaps not the best head of state or politician.[l] During the events on Maidan in Ukraine, the US asked to ‘calm down’ Viktor Yanukovych, promising in return to calm down the opposition; Russia agreed at the time. [li]

• The coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014 was carried out by the armed opposition with the support of the CIA.[lii] The CIA executed the coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014 technically correctly, but from a political point of view it was a colossal mistake.[liii]

• Ukraine started the war in Donbas in 2014, using aircraft and artillery against civilians; there is video footage of an air strike on Donetsk. The US political leadership pushed us to a point of no return, beyond which we could not go, as it would have destroyed Russia itself. Russia could not throw its fellow believers – and, in essence, part of the Russian people – ‘under the military machine’. [liv]

False pretext: Ukraine was not complying with the Minsk Agreements.

• Russia repeatedly proposed seeking a peaceful resolution to the problems that arose in Ukraine following the 2014 coup, but no one listened to us. Ukraine passed a law declaring Russians a non-titular nation, whilst simultaneously restricting the rights of non-titular nations.[lv]

• Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking about the implementation of the Minsk Agreements, stated that he did not know how this would be done, but was prepared to comply.[lvi]

• They never intended to implement the Minsk Agreements; they were simply stringing us along. The leadership of today’s Ukraine, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, other officials, and subsequently the President himself, have stated that they do not like anything about these Minsk Agreements. In other words, they have no intention of implementing them.[lvii]

False pretext: the fight against ‘Nazism’ in Ukraine

• During the negotiations in Istanbul in 2022, Russia agreed with Ukraine that neo-Nazism in the country would be banned by law.[lviii]

• Putin expressed his conviction that Zelenskyy is driven by fear of nationalists and is under the influence of the US, which uses anyone who opposes Russia.[lix]

• The applause for a Nazi in Canada is proof that Hitler’s legacy is still alive, and that Nazi ideology has not been completely eradicated; the denazification of which Russia speaks is a salvation from those who are trying to preserve this ideology. SS troops, formed from Ukrainian nationalists, carried out this dirty work. The President of Ukraine stood alongside the entire Canadian Parliament and applauded this man.[lx]

Demand: Ukraine must renounce NATO (division of spheres of influence in Ukraine).

• In accordance with its Declaration of Independence, Ukraine is a neutral state, but in 2008 the NATO countries opened the door to their alliance for Kyiv. Then the Western countries ‘began to exploit Ukrainian territory’. That was not what we agreed. All the presidents who came to power in Ukraine relied on an electorate that, in one way or another, had a certain attitude towards Russia. [lxi]

Demand: The West must recognise the annexation and occupation of Ukrainian territories as legitimate (division of spheres of influence in Ukraine).

• Western countries can properly recognise Russia’s control over the new territories; there are options for this, provided there is a willingness to do so.[lxii]

The West must force Ukraine to enter into direct negotiations with the Russian Federation on Russia’s terms

• Ukraine decided to abandon negotiations with Russia on instructions from Washington; now the US must find a way out and rectify this mistake. Let them now, if they see in Washington that this is the wrong decision, let them abandon it, find some subtle pretext, one that is not offensive to anyone, and find a solution.[lxiii]

• Negotiations with Ukraine in 2022 were practically concluded, but after the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kyiv, the Ukrainian side ‘threw out’ all the agreements. Volodymyr Zelenskyy went further and legislatively banned anyone from negotiating with Russia.[lxiv]

• Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that he did not know why former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson had urged Ukraine to abandon negotiations with the Russian Federation.[lxv]

• Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that Volodymyr Zelenskyy has the freedom to negotiate with Russia, or at least had it. [lxvi]

• Ukraine has taken on board the instructions of Western countries to fight Russia to the bitter end.[lxvii]

Journalist’s comment:

• Carlson stated after the interview that the Russian leader’s words about readiness for a peaceful resolution to the Ukrainian crisis were surprising, but he would not have spoken of it if he did not believe it to be true.[lxviii]