July 25, 2024
Point of order:
Distinguished colleagues,
In view of the fact that by assuming the UNSC presidency the Russian Federation took on the obligation, as always, to act in a transparent and impartial manner, I would like to openly explain the situation around Ukraine’s participation in Council’s briefings.
As you well remember, last time, on July 9, Ukraine sought to participate in the briefing requested by a number of Western delegations. However, the Presidency never received a properly formulated request from the Ukrainian delegation, despite the fact that all other delegations sent letters requesting the participation under Rule 37 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure.
Finally, Ukraine was admitted because the relevant request came from a member of the Security Council, namely from the United States.
Bearing in mind that situation, we decided this time to spare our Ukrainian colleagues the need to prepare and send a request for participation, since they, unlike all other members of the United Nations, have problems with formalizing it in the form that current diplomatic practice suggests.
Rule 37 of the Council’s Provisional Rules of Procedure states that representatives of the countries that are not members of the Security Council may be invited to participate in meetings.
Guided by this rule, we proposed Council members to invite Ukraine and the EU on their behalf, so that their representatives can come to today’s meeting and contribute to the discussion. Of course, accepting or declining such an invitation is the sovereign right of any state.
However, one member of the Council opposed the invitation, arguing that it would allegedly become a way to put pressure on Ukraine and the EU, and that hey should speak at the UN Security Council only when they want to.
In view of this objection by a Council member, no invitation was extended to Ukraine and the EU.
We regret that this has happened. The position expressed by the objecting member contradicts Rule 37, which clearly states that the Council may invite a non-member State if it considers that its interests are particularly affected. The participation of such a state is intended to assist the Council in elaborating on decisions. That is the point of inviting delegations under Rule 37. This rule does not imply that delegations come to the Council only when they want to and because they “have something to say”. This is a perverse interpretation of the fundamentals of the UNSC. The Council is not an open mike, nor a talk show; it is the main body responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Main statement:
Distinguished Colleagues,
First of all, I would like to thank our briefers.
A little over a week ago, we gathered you all in this chamber to discuss ways to bring international relations out of the impasse in which they ended up as a result of the longstanding and deliberate policy of Western states to squeeze Russia out of any frameworks and equations of European and global security. Our country has been painted as an enemy, which violates the fundamental agreements and understandings that allowed the USSR and the United States to end the Cold War. The Ukrainian crisis is just one of the consequences of this policy. Today we all know, including from declassified Western documents, that the United States began its “crusade” against Russia immediately after the collapse of the USSR, camouflaging its actions by appeals and speeches about their good intentions.
The 2014 anti-constitutional coup on the Kyiv Maidan turned Ukraine into an outpost of this policy. This once friendly neighboring country was little-by-little molded into an “anti-Russia” with all its ugly attributes: violation of the rights of Russian-speaking residents, rabid Ukrainian nationalism and suppression of all dissent, glorification of Hitler’s collaborators and persecution of the canonical Orthodox Church. All of this, as we know for certain today, took place under the guise of the Minsk agreements, which the Kiev regime and its Western patrons had no intention of implementing at all, using them solely as a cover-up for arming Ukraine and preparing it for war with Russia.
It is clear that our Western colleagues are extremely reluctant to abandon this course, the obvious victim of which is Ukraine itself. This was also evident during the aforementioned open debate on multilateralism, in the course of which the United States and its allies demonstrated their absolute unwillingness to engage in any dialog and continued to employ the logic of a “zero-sum game”. They are continuously pumping arms into the Kiev regime, albeit with serious problems and setbacks. It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the pervasive corruption that comes with these supplies. Thus, the Pentagon Inspector General’s report shows that the U.S. Army failed to verify contractor accounts amounting to a total of $20 million in relation to contracts to assist Ukraine. Earlier it was reported that the Pentagon had filed more than 50 criminal cases due to violations during the supply of military aid to Ukraine.
It is clear that this is only the tip of the iceberg; Western so-called “benefactors”, together with Zelensky’s clique entrenched in power, continue to bleed Ukraine dry. As recently reported in the media, foreign corporations have already sold off more than half of Ukrainian arable land. What is being implemented in the country now is essentially a simple colonial policy. At the same time, the scale of corruption in Ukraine has already reached such unprecedented levels that Ukrainian MPs have to invent new cover-ups for it on the fly. Here is an example of a remarkable Ukrainian “know-how”. In mid-July, the Verkhovnaya Rada approved in the first reading draft law No. 11340, which will allow those suspected of receiving large bribes to “redeem” their guilt by paying money back. We cannot but admire “the beauty of the game”: if you are caught taking bribe, you can just legally “share” with the state and can go on taking bribes! I wonder if there is a similar “tax on bribe” anywhere else in the world. Or is it only Ukraine that came up with such a brilliant idea?
Meanwhile, given the total unwillingness of Ukrainians to fight and die for Western geopolitical interests, the United States and its allies are forced to bog down deeper and deeper into the conflict, sending not only their mercenaries but also instructors to that country. They, of course, become a legitimate target for the Russian Air Force. As a result, the West is witnessing more and more obituaries for high-ranking military officers who “mysteriously disappeared during a walk in the mountains” or “suddenly died of a heart attack”. According to a NATO officer’s confession exposed to the media, the recent strike on Odessa killed 18 British Special Air Service personnel, and a number of French Special Forces soldiers. All of them were not mercenaries, but active duty military personnel. Another 25 were injured. On July 23, about 50 foreign instructors were killed in the Kharkov region. Yesterday, about 200 foreign specialists were hit in Izmail. We warned about such a scenario, and repeatedly warned our Western colleagues that the consequences would be dire. Not all of them seem to have realized the real state of affairs on the front and the prospect for Ukraine as state in the event that this conflict is resolved militarily.
However, the reality has started to hit some of them, which is perhaps thanks to the growing number of publications by Western journalists revealing unflattering facts about the Ukrainian authorities. Among those who suddenly began to dress up as peacekeepers, we see the former head of the British government, Boris Johnson, who in fact was one of the main perpetrators of the unfolding Ukrainian tragedy. We all remember that it was the one who dissuaded the Ukrainian leader in late March – early April, 2022 from signing a peace agreement. That agreement was actually very favorable for Ukraine and, what is more, it had been initialed by the Ukrainian delegation at the talks in Istanbul. This is what he says now: for the sake of peace, he argues, Ukraine could give up its demand to return to the 1991 borders and, “as compensation,” grant rights to the Russian-speaking population. The degree of cynicism of the retired British politician is staggering. It turns out that the rights of the Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine are a matter of bargaining for him! But what about the rights of the British or, say, the Flemish in Belgium? Does he treat them similarly?
We must disappoint the British pseudo-peacemaker: we are not trading in the rights of the Russian-speaking residents of Ukraine! Neither are we trading in the issue of the denazification of Ukrainian society. We do believe that it is the moral duty of all Europeans to seek the eradication of these ugly phenomena, which are a disgrace to the European civilization itself, especially given the fact that it would be in line with the demand of the European public. For example, the head of the Polish Ministry of Defense, Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysh, recently unequivocally stated: “We must make it clear, we will not see Ukraine’s accession to the EU until the issue of the Volyn massacre is addressed”. We cannot agree more with the opinion of the Polish politician, however, as a saying goes, once you let it drop, don’t stop. Ukraine will not be accepted as long it glorifies those who committed that massacre and thousands of other atrocities against Jews, Poles, Russians and the Ukrainians themselves, gaining favor with their Nazi masters. I reiterate that not only Russia needs this, but all of Europe and the entire West, if they want to claim even the slightest conformity with the values that our grandfathers defended together at the cost of their lives 80 years ago!
Dear Colleagues,
The effects of the Ukrainian crisis will not be surmounted as long as the lies that underpin the Kiev regime continue to live. Those lies are fueled and propagated by Ukraine’s Western masters, they are multifaceted and are ingrained in the Western narrative on Ukraine… like a mud stain. This includes the Bucha provocation, the denial of Kiev’s long-standing aggression against the population of Donbass, the silencing of the truth about the Odessa Trade Union House tragedy, and, indeed, the genuine motivation behind the 2014 coup and the ensuing bloodshed.
A few days ago, we commemorated the tenth anniversary of one of those most high-profile “Ukrainian untruths”. I am referring to the Tragedy that took place in the skies above Donbass on July 17, 2014. On that day, the Malaysian Boeing carrying out flight MH17 was shot down, and 298 people on board were killed. That catastrophe had a direct impact on the course of the conflict that Ukraine had unleashed a month earlier. Struck by the scale of the tragedy, Donbass self-defense forces stopped their successfully unfolding offensive against Ukrainian troops and created all necessary conditions for Dutch investigators in the hope that they would identify the true perpetrators of the tragedy.
Alas, those hopes were never to come true, even though our country has consistently advocated an independent, comprehensive and credible investigation into the causes of what happened. Russia was at the origin of the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 2166 and remains fully committed to its implementation in the interests of establishing the truth and bringing those responsible to justice.
However, we cannot recognize the biased conclusions of the technical investigation of the Dutch Safety Board and the subsequent criminal investigation by the Joint Investigation Team, which consists of states hostile to Russia. Their sole purpose was to hastily “concoct” an indictment of Russia’s involvement in the Boeing crash and make a slobby attempt to accommodate evidence to their conclusion. Our proposals to work together were rejected, and the data we provided as an irrefutable proof that the missile could not have been launched from the militia-controlled territory were ignored.
Over the past 10 years, the Netherlands, guided by anti-Russian logic, never gathered strength to look into the details of the tragedy. The obvious issue of Ukraine’s responsibility for not closing its airspace over the war zone was never investigated, as were many other egregious facts.
Moreover, with the active support of its allies, the Hague is trying to employ its dubious experience on the “MH17 case” at international forums, including the ICAO Council and the ECHR, in order to cement a false version of Russia’s involvement in the Boeing crash in the eyes of the international community. At ICAO, Russia provided extensive and convincing evidence testifying to our country’s non-involvement in the crash. We called on the Organization to conduct an impartial investigation into all the circumstances of the accident, which the ICAO Council refused to do. It is also telling that the parties concerned ignored the decision of the UN International Court of Justice of January 31, 2024 on the case initiated by Ukraine in January 2017. That decision rejected Kiev’s demand that Russia be held responsible for the crash of the Malaysian Boeing.
We regret to note the lack of a comprehensive, thorough and depoliticized impartial international investigation. The politically biased versions promoted by the Netherlands and its associates shield Kiev and deliberately shun all the facts pointing out to its responsibility for the tragedy. In these circumstances, there can be no talk about objectivity and restoring justice.
In this connection, we once again express our condolences to all those who lost their loved ones in Donbass 10 years ago. We would like to believe that one day the truth about this tragedy will come out, and that the true perpetrators, as well as all those who covered up for them, will receive the punishment they deserve. Unfortunately, this is still a long way off.
Dear Colleagues,
In this regard, I would like to point out that the readiness for negotiations voiced by the Kiev regime is in line with our position that the diplomatic path is the preferable way of resolving the Ukrainian conflict. As you know, we have never rejected negotiations; it was Zelensky and his clique who did it at the instigation of their Western sponsors. What is important in this regard is details and nuances, but we do not know them. What we do know for sure is that back in November 2022, the Kiev ringleader legislatively banned himself and his subordinates from any conversations with the Russian authorities, and that decree is still in force. We also know that just recently the Kiev authorities promoted Zelensky’s pseudo-peace formula as the only basis for resolving the conflict that suited them. This formula makes no sense in terms of both basic logic and the actual situation on the frontline. Therefore, we have many questions, without answers to which we cannot assess the nature of the modified Ukrainian position.
The representative of the Kyiv regime could possibly provide some clarity, but he ignored our invitation to attend the meeting today for reasons known only to him. Incidentally, the EU representative acted alike, demonstrating once again the unwillingness of this once influential union to engage in any diplomatic efforts. The very fact that Kiev’s Western sponsors found it unnecessary for a representative of the Kiev regime to attend today’s meeting on Ukraine is revealing indeed, it proves once again that today’s Ukraine can make no sovereign decisions in principle.
Colleagues,
Before “walkers” come to us with an appeal to assess a potential change in the rhetoric of the “expired” ringleader of the Kiev regime, who is failing on the front, we would urge you to clarify the details of his “epiphany”. Perhaps nothing has actually changed in his views. If he has finally “ripened” towards talking about peace, he has the peace proposals put forward by the Russian President a month ago. And we advise him to hurry up, because Ukraine will certainly not get anything better. In no way, will it be given a respite on the battlefield in the form of a preliminary ceasefire. We have seen how much arrangements with Ukraine can be trusted on the example of the Minsk agreements.
And while the Kiev leader is considering our proposals, our Special military operation in Ukraine goes on and all the objectives will be attained, either on the battlefield or as a result of negotiations. So it is for Kiev to decide now.
I thank you for your attention.