智慧即財富
陳立功的文學城博客：馳縱騁橫，談今博古，飛花揚月，行文交友
“我沒有預設的立場，我的立場僅僅基於基本事實。”——本博主之言。
以下是本博主在買買提上發的一個帖子。時間是在普京答記者問之前。Link如下：
http://www.mitbbs.com/article_t0/Military/41198121.html
發信人: TNEGIETNI (lovewisdom), 信區: Military
標 題: 普京有極大可能不會嚐試鼓動東部獨立並與俄合並
發信站: BBS 未名空間站 (Mon Mar 3 21:23:33 2014, 美東)
我突然間隱若地感到，俄羅斯和普京有極大可能不會（在此次軍事行動中——本文加注）嚐試策動東部獨立並與俄合並。即便是克裏米亞，也很可能依然讓它呆在烏克蘭版圖內。
圖爾奇諾夫表示不會簽署此前關於廢止俄語為官方語言的法案，表明那一派有點妥協的跡象，但或許隻是一個緩兵之計。
美歐不會譴責基輔現政權的任何不當做法，而是要通過繼續保持對俄的壓力來維持自己所認為的道義上的製高點，並以此繼續在道義上貶損俄羅斯，進而在未來的大選中為自己所支持的人加分。
如果普京就此表現出軟弱和退讓，東部以後就更難進入俄版圖了，因為後續的協議有可能會約束這一點。一旦如此，此次出兵的俄羅斯能夠取得的曆史性戰果將是非常有限的，且很可能轉瞬即逝。
我認為俄羅斯此次至少應該將克裏米亞拿回來，盡管會因此而遭受美歐的強烈反對，但如果始終在民意的基礎上堅持和平、理性和民主的方式，則可以在所不惜。
反之，如果俄羅斯放棄了此次機會，美歐便達成了其最高的戰略目標，為今後的進一步行動打下了基礎。但如果俄羅斯拿回了克裏米亞，美歐將不會為此開戰，隻是會在其它方麵進行懲罰俄羅斯。
--
思想出自心靈，又複歸心靈。
(Thoughts come from mind then return to mind.)
※ 修改:·TNEGIETNI 於 Mar 3 21:24:25 2014 修改本文·[FROM: 96.]
※ 來源:·WWW 未名空間站 海外: mitbbs.com 中國: mitbbs.cn·[FROM: 96.]
Youtube：普京在正在進行的記者會上
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg_4D_qR18s
烏克蘭局勢最新消息：在俄羅斯聯邦委員會(議會上院)批準普京對烏克蘭使用武力、俄軍進入克裏米亞後，歐美威脅孤立普京嚴懲俄羅斯。俄羅斯總統普京昨主持記者招待會，稱烏克蘭新政府是“違憲政變”，尖銳批評腐敗的烏克蘭執政集團，詳細闡述對烏克蘭政策以及俄對烏使用軍隊條件，嘲笑西方雙重標準，強硬回擊歐美的製裁威脅。觀察者網全國獨家翻譯3月4日普京記者會全文。感謝揚雲飛網友提供翻譯支持。以下是觀察者網站的原文原址，在此僅對翻譯者及網站編輯做出感謝。
http://www.guancha.cn/europe/2014_03_05_210916.shtml
此前觀察者網曾轉摘國內媒體的摘要翻譯，但原摘要翻譯僅僅選取了普京講話的很少部分，未能體現原味。為滿足讀者對烏克蘭-克裏米亞局勢的關切，觀察者網特發表全文翻譯如下（俄文和英文原文附後）：
普京總統與媒體代表見麵並且回答了一係列問題，其中包括烏克蘭局勢：
普京：大家中午好。你們知道（今天）記者招待會的規則嗎？我建議這樣做。不要把我們今天的會麵搞成采訪，而是聊天。所以希望你們先盡可能地提問題，我會記住它們，盡我最大能力進行回答。然後再發表我自己的看法，談（烏克蘭事件）的各個方麵，尤其會深入談那些大家特別感興趣的細節。
問題1：普京總統（原文為敬語）。我想提個問題(由於您很久不露麵，我們這裏積攢了很多問題)，您如何評價在基輔發生的事情？是否認為目前基輔存在合法政府和實權總統？您會在哪些前提下和他們進行外交往來？最後，大家現在經常談到2月21日達成的妥協文件，您是否認為烏克蘭局勢還有可能回到這個協議的框架內？謝謝
問題2：普京總統(原文為敬語)。俄羅斯許諾對克裏米亞進行財政支持，昨天（俄羅斯）財政部已經接到（相關）任務。你對此是否已有規劃？我們究竟會出多少錢？從哪湊集這些錢？會以什麽條件付款？何時會付款？要知道，那裏的形勢相當危急。
問題3：在何種情況下，您會在烏克蘭實施大規模軍事行動？這和俄羅斯此前的國際承諾相符嗎？您剛剛舉行過軍事演習，最終動武的可能性有多大？
問題4：關於克裏米亞想了解一下。依您所見，現在那裏還有針對俄國人或是俄羅斯族的威脅嗎？局麵現在是在轉好還是惡化？我們現在得到的是很矛盾的消息。
問題5：如果您最終決定開戰，您是否考慮過戰爭對您自己，對國家，對整個世界帶來的風險？比如經濟製裁，全球動蕩、西方國家拒絕給我們簽證或更嚴酷的封鎖？西方政客經常談論這些問題。
問題6：昨天俄羅斯（金融）市場對上議院的（動武）決議有劇烈反應，盧布匯率降到曆史性的低點。您對此有準備嗎？您認為對經濟會有衝擊？是否需要采取緊急措施，比如？舉兩個例子，您不認為央行關於盧布轉為自由浮動匯率的決定過早嗎？是不是需要臨時取消這項決議？
普京：好的，提問暫時結束。我現在開始（回答），然後我們繼續（提問）。不要著急，我盡量可能多回答。
首先，我要對在基輔、對烏克蘭全境發生的事情做個評價。評價隻可能有一個——這是違憲政變和武裝叛亂。這點不容任何人反對。有人反對這點嗎？
我對此也有一個問題不解，我那些最近經常通電話討論烏克蘭問題的同僚們（指歐美領導人）也回答不了。這個問題是這樣的：我為什麽（退讓）到這個地步？
希望大家注意。(2月)21日，三個歐洲國家——波蘭，德國和法國的外長——以及我的代表（俄羅斯聯邦人權問題全權代表弗拉基米爾*彼得羅維奇*盧金）的見證下，亞努科維奇總統和反對派已經簽署了協議。而根據這份協議——我想強調的是無論協議好壞，隻是根據事實來說——亞努科維奇已經基本上讓出了自己全部的權力。反對派的一切條件他都答應了：他同意了提前議會選舉，提前總統選舉，答應返回到2004年憲法，這都是反對派的要求。他答應了我們的要求，也答應了西方國家的要求，也首先答應了反對派的要求，不使用武力。他可沒有發過任何向可憐的遊行者們開槍的命令。他，不僅僅如此，還下令全部警力撤出首都，而警察們也執行了這個命令。然後他去了哈爾科夫參加儀式。就在他剛剛到哈爾科夫的同時，本來反對派應該讓出被占領的政府機關。相反，反對派立刻占領了他的總統官邸，占領了政府大樓，許諾的那些條款全部被推翻。
我現在也問自己這些問題：為什麽？我也想弄明白，為什麽當初這樣做？亞努科維奇本來已經實質上交出了權力。而我認為，正如我親口對他所說：他沒有任何重新選上的可能性。而（周圍）所有人也都讚同我，包括最近經常給我打電話的那些同僚們。
那麽，反對派為什麽一定要搞非法的、違憲的行為，並把國家（烏克蘭）拖入我們今天看到的混亂當中？至今基輔到處是帶麵具，手持武器的匪徒在遊蕩。而這個問題壓根就沒有答案。他們是想侮辱誰？是想示威嗎？
這在我看來是無比愚蠢的行為。並製造了他們意料以外的結果。就是這些行為導致了烏克蘭東部和東南部的動蕩。
現在可以談談，為什麽會產生這種情況。
在我看來，這種變化在很久以前就有預兆了。從烏克蘭獨立的第一天起。普通的烏克蘭公民，普通的烏克蘭漢子，就必須忍受尼古拉*克羅沃夫的統治。克拉夫丘克、庫奇馬、尤先科、亞努科維奇依次上台，人民始終被折磨，生活沒有發生任何改變，或者說基本沒有發生任何好的改變。貪汙腐敗達到了如此的程度，以至於我們在俄羅斯做夢都想不到。財富集中和社會分化問題，在俄羅斯已經是超出容忍標準的程度，在俄羅斯已經導致了尖銳矛盾，但在烏克蘭，這些問題是俄羅斯的平方，或者立方。你們知道嗎，那簡直不可容忍。原則上說，人民需要改變可以理解，但我不能鼓勵非法的變革。
在前蘇聯地區，政治結構非常脆弱，經濟停滯，所以我們更應該絕對在憲法框架內解決問題，任何違憲的做法都是根本性的錯誤。說起來，我理解那些“買單運動”的擁護者（майдан，maidan，買單，烏克蘭語趕集市場的意思，2013年抗議活動的名稱就叫“歐洲買單”運動，後來所有反對派被稱為“買單分子”看起來要一語成讖了---譯者），雖然我不歡迎這種更迭政權的方式。
與此同時，我也理解那些買單分子，那些堅決要求根本性變革的人們。為什麽他們這麽要求？
因為他們已經習慣看到這樣的變革：一個小偷被其他小偷與詐騙犯所替代。不僅如此，各地人民甚至都不能參與地方政權的組建。有段時間，俄羅斯的地方領導人由總統提名，但仍然需要地方議會批準。在烏克蘭，地方領導人完全由中央直接任命。我們這裏已經有了地方選舉了，而那裏連(選舉的)味道都聞不到。在東部地區，第一批州長都是寡頭，億萬富翁。人們當然沒法接受，因為人民認為他們的財富是在私有化過程中偷來的。說起來俄羅斯也有很多人讚同這樣，而現在這些人還被拉來執政了。
在第聶伯羅彼得羅夫斯克，卡拉梅斯基先生被弄來當州長。他正是一個罕見的詐騙犯，他甚至在兩三年前把我們的寡頭阿布拉莫維奇忽悠了。或者像我們這裏開明的知識分子圈子的用詞，“給耍了”。簽了合同，搞了個什麽交易，阿布拉莫維奇就轉給了他幾億美圓，而這廝沒有完成交易，卻把錢給吞了。我曾經問他：“嗨！您為何幹的如此不體麵？”他回答：“我自己也沒想到，這樣還能(騙)錢”。我的確不知道後來這事怎麽樣了，（阿布）拿回自己的錢了嗎？交易最終完成了沒？我都不知道。但最遲到兩三年前，現實中還有這樣的事。然後這種騙子就被推選為州長，被派到了第聶伯羅彼得羅夫斯克。人們當然不滿意，原來不滿意，之後繼續不滿意，因為自稱自己是合法政權的家夥，每個都幹得出這種事。
不可忽視的一點，必須要在在平等的基礎上讓人民選擇自己的命運、自己家庭的命運、自己故鄉的命運，這裏我想強調：不管人們在哪裏居住，在國家的哪個地區居住，他都有權平等地改變國家命運。
那麽今天的政權是不是合法的？一部分議會是，但其他的一切都不是，尤其是那個臨時總統的所謂合法性，那裏壓根沒有任何合法性。我隻認一個合法總統（亞努科維奇）。當然大家都知道，都明白，他沒有任何權力了。雖然我已經反複強調，但還想重複一下：毫無疑問，從法律角度來說，合法總統隻有亞努科維奇一個人。
根據烏克蘭法律，有三個辦法把總統解職：一是總統自然死亡，二是他自己辭職，三是彈劾。憲法裏有彈劾條款。而這要由憲法法庭，最高法庭，拉達(議會)共同參與。這是一個複雜的，漫長的過程。這個程序從未被啟動，所以從法律角度上來說，亞努科維奇當總統是無可爭議的事實。
不僅如此，我認為，正是因為這些法律的限製，新的偽政權才決定解散憲法法庭。而在烏克蘭乃至歐洲的法律框架裏根本就沒有這種條款。但非法驅散憲法法庭還是小事——大家仔細品味一下這句話——(反對派政府)下令總檢察院啟動對憲法法庭成員的起訴流程。這要搞什麽？這是自由審判嗎？怎麽能這樣呢——下令展開刑事調查？如果有什麽違法行為，刑事犯罪，法律機構自己就會發薪並且按程序處理。而你們直接下令展開起訴調查——這是無法無天，這是徹底瘋了！
現在談談關於對克裏米亞的經濟援助。你們知道，我們已經決定，針對克裏米亞提出的人道主義援助申請作出回應，俄羅斯已經開始組織相關的工作。我們當然會完成承諾，但多少錢，什麽時候，資金籌措方式，我還無法確定。俄羅斯中央政府現在正在做這些事情。那些與克裏米亞接壤的州地方政府也需要支持，以便他們更好的支援克裏米亞人。這些我們當然都會去做。
關於出兵，使用軍隊。目前還不必要，但是有這種可能性。對了，馬上可以說的是，我們剛剛舉行的軍事演習，他們和烏克蘭的局勢一點關係都沒有。我們很早就準備演習，隻不過沒有宣布，因為這就是有突然性的部隊應急測試行動。計劃很早就已經製定，國防部長很久以前就向我匯報過。現在，如你們所知，演習結束了，昨天我已經下令相關部隊返回常駐地。什麽情況下會動用武裝力量？這個當然是極端情況了，非常極端的情況。
首先，關於動武的合法性。就像你們知道的那樣，我們這裏有現任合法的總統、我反複確認過。烏克蘭總統亞努科維奇關於動用武力的直接請求，目的是保護烏克蘭公民的生命，自由和健康。
我們最擔心烏克蘭發生什麽？我們看到新納粹分子、種族主義者、反猶太主義者在烏克蘭的部分地區，包括基輔到處亂竄。你們，作為媒體的代表，肯定都看到過，一個合法的州長被用鐵鏈和手銬鎖在廣場上的一座建築，冬天，很冷的時候，他被澆上冷水，在此之後還被關到了地下室受到拷打。這是什麽事？這是什麽——民主嗎？這就是民主運動？說起來，他剛剛被任命，就在12月份。就算那裏的官員人人都是貪汙犯，但這個還壓根沒來得及偷到一毛錢呢。
而當占領“地區黨”總部大樓的時候呢？你們知道嗎，當時發生了什麽？那裏根本一個黨員都沒有。出來的是兩三個工作人員，技術職員，一個工程師對襲擊者說：“小夥子們，放了我們吧，放了女人吧，求你們了。我是工程師，我和政治沒有任何一點點的關係”。結果他就被人群開槍打中眼睛。第二個同樣的技術職員被趕到地下室，有人朝他扔“莫洛托夫雞尾酒”（燃燒瓶），然後他被活活燒死了。這難道也是民主的體現？
所以當我們看到這一切的時候，我們就理解了烏克蘭公民的憂慮——烏克蘭公民包括俄羅斯人，包括烏克蘭人，包括所有住在東部和南部的俄語居民。他們擔憂什麽？他們擔憂的就是無底線（行為）。所以如果我們看到這些無底線行為在東部區域蔓延，如果人們請求我們的幫助，，那麽我們就會依照現任總統的合法求助，保留使用一切力量的權利，以保護這些居民。我們認為，這是合法的行動。當然這是最極端情況。
除此之外，我還想對你們說：我們過去，現在和將來都認為，烏克蘭，不僅僅是我們的鄰居，也是我們真正的兄弟國家。我們兩國的武裝力量——他們是拿同一支武器的同誌，朋友，他們當中很多都有私人友情。而我相信，並且想強調，烏克蘭軍人和俄羅斯軍人不會站在戰壕的兩邊，一定會站在戰壕的同一邊。
說起來，我說的情況，說的兩國的一致性，就是目前在克裏米亞發生的事實。請注意看，感謝上帝，那裏沒有任何人開槍，也沒有任何犧牲者。除了一周前的廣場上踩踏事件。那裏發生了什麽事情？人們自動聚集起來，封鎖了軍營，軍隊和他們談判，認可軍隊應該服從本地人民的要求和意願。沒有任何的軍事衝突，沒有任何人開槍，沒有任何一聲槍響。
這種情況下，在克裏米亞動武的必要性，就自然消失了。這裏沒有任何的必要性。我們采取的唯一必要行動是加強我們軍事基地的安保，因為一直有針對他們的威脅。正如我們所見，種族主義武裝已開往克裏米亞。我們這樣做，正確而且及時。所以從這點來說，我們在東烏克蘭(暫時)不需要采取類似的行動。
再強調一下。我下麵說的內容不是我的職權，我們(俄羅斯)也不準備進行幹涉（烏克蘭內政）。但是我們認為，烏克蘭全體公民，重複，無論他們居住在哪裏，都必須擁有同樣參與國家決策，決定未來命運的權利。
如果我坐在那些自封的合法領導人的位置上，我會盡快加快完成相關的授權法律程序，因為他們沒有任何關於管理內政，外交，經濟政策的能力，更別說取得烏克蘭未來的全民授權了。（金融）市場的問題。關於市場麽，就像你們都知道的那樣，在烏克蘭局勢惡化之前，市場就表現出一定焦慮。這首先和美聯儲政策有關係。他們改變了金融方陣，為了刺激美國經濟，所以吸引資金從發展中國家回流美國。這是整體趨勢，完全和烏克蘭無關。我印象中，金融市場損失最大的是印度（而不是俄羅斯）。金磚五國的其它國家也受損了，俄羅斯的確也在這個範圍內，說起來比印度損失的小點，但是也有損失。這（美聯儲政策）是根本性的原因。說到烏克蘭的局勢，是的，政策總會對市場有各種影響，錢喜歡安寧，平靜和穩定（不喜歡變化）。但是我覺得，（市場做出的調整）是戰術性的，是暫時的波動。
問題7：普京總統，請問，您是否預計到了西方各國對俄羅斯的舉動有如此強硬的回應嗎？您能講講您和西方領導人們的談話細節嗎，因為剛剛新聞發言人宣布了一些事實，比如G8峰會將不在在索契舉行，您怎麽認為？
普京：說到預計的反應，G8峰會是否召開，以及其他談話內容。我必須指出，我（和西方領導人）的談話帶有保密性質，部分內容甚至是通過專線電話進行。所以我不認為我有權利公開這些談話的內容。當然我可以引用部分我的西方同僚們的公開發言，不點名，做個總體評價。
我最注意他們的哪些發言？我們經常被指責為行為非法。而我反問這個問題的時候：“你們認為，你們的都是合法的？”他們（西方）回答：“是”。我不得不提醒他們，美國和盟國對阿富汗，伊拉克和利比亞做的事情。在那裏，他們要麽無視聯合國安理會的決議，要麽扭曲了這些決議內容，比如說在利比亞。那裏，如你們所知，聯合國隻要求對政府軍設置禁飛區，結果（北約）進行了轟炸，派出特種部隊參與地麵進攻。
我們的西方朋友，尤其是美國，總是清晰明確的指出自己在全球和國內的利益，然後堅定的要遵循利益最大化原則。他們以這句有名的話勉勵自己：“不和我們站在一起，就是我們的敵人”（美國前總統小布什語——觀察者網注），然後他們把整個世界都拖下水。誰不跟著攪合進去，那麽馬上就會被敲打，根據經驗最終都會被抓點小辮子。
我們的出發點（與西方）完全不同，我們的行動都必須完全合法。而且我本人也是國際法準則的支持者。我想再次強調，我們認為，即使我們最終下定動武決心，即使我最終決定動用武裝力量，那麽這一行為也必然合法，必然完全符合國際法準則。我們有合法（烏克蘭）總統的請求，我們依據自己的義務，也遵循我們的利益，我們需要保護那些有曆史淵源的人民，有有緊密經濟聯係的人民。保護他們！——符合我們的國家利益。而且這是人道主義任務。我們不想奴役誰，不想命令別人做什麽。但是，如果我們看到那些人被壓迫，毀滅，被侮辱，我們不會坐視不理。我希望現實不要逼我出手。
問題8：您如何預測西方對烏克蘭局麵的反應，如何評估他們對我們的威脅？比如拒絕索契G8峰會，比如經濟製裁。
普京：談到製裁。製裁造成的後果，首先要由那些發起製裁措施的人來考慮。我想，在現代世界裏，所有的（經濟）事件都互相聯係在一起，並且互相依賴。製裁當然會相互造成一些損失。但是這種損失是相互的。這是他們需要考慮清楚的問題，這是其一。
其二，最重要的一點。我已經說過了我們行動的理由。那麽我們的（西方）夥伴們的製裁依據何在？他們支持違憲政變和武力奪權，宣布這些人合法並且努力支持他們。說起來，就算在這種情況下我們也是耐心等待，甚至準備和偽政權合作。我們不想停止合作。就像你們知道的那樣，前幾天我甚至下令給政府部門研究如何與基輔偽政權保持聯絡，而我們其實並不認為這些人是合法代表。我的目的是保持經濟和工業領域的協作。我們認為我們師出有名，而各種針對俄羅斯的威脅——都是無效的和有害的。
說起G8，我不清楚到底會如何。我們在作G8會議的準備工作，準備在這裏招待我的同事。如果他們不想來，那就不用來。
問題9：請允許我提問關於溝通的事情。根據我的理解，您認為克裏米亞的阿克謝諾夫是合法的權力代表。那麽您是否準備以某種形式和基輔自封的合法政權溝通？
普京：我剛剛說過了，您，可能沒有聽清吧。
問題10：我的意思是。您在他們的高層領導內是不是有特殊聯絡，為了解決政治問題。
普京：在基輔高層我沒有朋友。那裏沒有總統。而且在全民選舉之前也不可能有。說到克裏米亞，當然了，克裏米亞的議會是在2010年成立的，如果我沒記錯的話，是在2010年12月份。他由100個議員組成，分別代表6個黨。在之前的總理辭職後，克裏米亞議會根據程序和法律在克裏米亞議會上院選出新的總理。當然他就是合法的。那裏完成了法律規定的全部流程，沒有任何的違規。前幾天有些武裝分子企圖強占克裏米亞議會大樓，這當然引起了克裏米亞人的很大擔憂。人們以為有人想把克裏米亞變成基輔，製造恐怖事件與混亂。當然克裏米亞人會非常擔心了。所以他們才設立了自衛委員會並且控製了全部（本地）武裝力量。
說起來，我昨天看了一下文件，他們手中的力量很強，簡直是一個加強的軍區。那裏有幾十台C-300防空導彈，幾十台白楊導彈，2萬2千軍人和其他各種武器。但是，感謝上帝，就像我已經說過的那樣，這些武器沒開一槍就落到了克裏米亞人民的手裏。
問題11：普京總統，可以確認一下嘛？那些包圍克裏米亞地區烏克蘭軍隊的的人——都穿著非常像我們俄羅斯的軍服。他們是俄羅斯的士兵？
普京：您自己去看看前蘇聯（的商店）。那裏到處都是類似的製服。。。。隨便去我們這裏的商店，就可以買到任何製服。
問題12：但是那是俄羅斯的士兵還是不是？
普京：那是地方自衛隊。
問題13：（自衛隊）訓練的這麽好？如果我們拿他們和基輔的自衛隊來比較的話。
普京：我親愛的同事，請看看那些砸了基輔的人吧，他們訓練精良。他們，眾所周知，都是在邊境的基地接受了訓練：在拉脫維亞，在波蘭，在烏克蘭本土。都是有備而來。他們由接受了長期的訓練，他們以幾十人或幾百人為一群行動，他們的行動有指揮，他們由良好的通訊係統。就像發條一樣運行。你沒有看到過他們的行動嗎？他們看起來非常專業，就像特種部隊。為什麽你會認為克裏米亞的人們會比不上他們呢？
問題14：如果是這樣，是否可以得到您的明確說法：我們（俄軍）是否參加了訓練克裏米亞的自衛隊？
普京：沒有！我們沒有！
問題15：你對克裏米亞的未來有何看法？你認為它是否可能並入俄羅斯？
普京：不會。我認同這樣的觀點：一個國家的居民，必須在擁有安全保證和自由決定權的情況下，才能決定自己的未來。不過，如果科索沃的阿爾巴尼亞人享有這個權力，如果世界不同地點的人們都能享有這個權力，那麽沒有人能阻止其他國家自決的權力。據我所知，這是聯合國多項文件所規定的。盡管如此，我們將不會煽動任何此類的決定，也不會鼓勵這種情緒。
我想要再次強調，我認為隻有本地居民才有權決定自身的未來。
（全文完）
俄文版：
http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/russia/2014/03/140304_putin_presse
Путин говорит о мире, но сохраняет свобод
у рук
Артем Кречетников
Би-би-си, Москва
Последнее обновление: вторник, 4 марта 2014 г., 18:26 GMT 22:26 MCK
На пресс-конференции Нажать 4 марта, посвя щенной ситуации на Украине, Владимир Пути н постарался снять возникшую напряженнос ть и избежать возобновления "холодной вой ны" с Западом, одновременно сохранив за со бой свободу рук.
По оценкам экспертов, решение об использо вании российских войск на территории Укр аины пока носит декларативный характер и направлено не на смену власти в соседнем государстве, а на обеспечение неприкосно венности своих сторонников и их участия в политическом процессе.
Дальнейшая тактика во многом не определе на, Кремль намерен действовать по обстоят ельствам, считают аналитики.
Военное давление
В субботу, когда прозвучали слова о вводе войск, многим сделалось не по себе. Казало сь, Москва вознамерилась проутюжить всю У краину танками, как Чехословакию в 1968 год у.
Во вторник Владимир Путин высказался в то м духе, что законодательное разрешение на применение вооруженных сил и их фактичес кое использование - не одно и то же, ничего особенного не случилось, и даже Нажать от рицал участие российских военных в блоки ровании частей украинской армии в Крыму, приписав его местным активистам, купивши м обмундирование в магазинах. По его словам, ввод войск - крайняя мера, к оторая последует лишь в случае "беспредел а" в отношении жителей восточных областей Украины.
Слово сказано и услышано. Вероятно, власт и Украины сделают все, чтобы не дать Москв е повода для эскалации.
Хотя пророссийские активисты на юго-вост оке захватывают административные здания, срывают флаги своего государства и бьют политических оппонентов, никто пальцем и х не трогает, и, скорее всего, не тронет, да же если у кого-то и было такое намерение.
"Проблема сузилась до локального крымско го вопроса, хотя он сам по себе достаточно острый"
Алексей Титков, Высшая школа экономики
Можно ли считать, что вопрос о вводе войск более или менее снят с повестки дня и теп ерь начнется разрядка?
"Хочется верить, но я все же сопроводил бы благие пожелания некоторым скептическим комментарием, - заявил Русской службе Би-б и-си независимый политолог Дмитрий Орешк ин. - Владимир Путин подчеркнул, что у него развязаны руки, раза три под разными раку рсами повторил, что, если мы и введем войс ка, это будет абсолютно законно".
"Предыдущие действия России отличались н епредсказуемостью, а сегодняшние объясне ния - неопределенностью, - соглашается экс перт Высшей школы экономики Алексей Титк ов. - Обстановку пока нельзя считать стаби льной. Самый большой источник нестабильн ости - действия вооруженных людей в Крыму, кто бы они ни были".
"При этом нужно четко отличать Крым от ост альной Украины, - считает аналитик. - На ос тальном юго-востоке объединительные наст роения не так сильны, как может казаться. Для населения не все сводится к националь ному и языковому вопросу, популярны антик оррупционные лозунги, близкие к майданов ским. Старая номенклатура, связанная с Па ртией регионов, скептически относится к в ласти в Киеве, но и явно пророссийскую поз ицию предпочитает не занимать, а делает у пор на своей способности самостоятельно решать все проблемы. Ввод войск в Донецку ю или Харьковскую область крайне маловер оятен, и сегодняшняя пресс-конференция Вл адимира Путина подтверждает это".
"Вероятно, предполагалось, что вдохновлен ные российской поддержкой активисты на в остоке тут же проложат для России сухопут ный коридор в Крым, а вооруженные силы Укр аины начнут массово переходить на россий скую сторону, однако этого не произошло. В вод войск не принес реального результата, не создал ощущения победы",- указывает Дм итрий Орешкин.
"Проблема сузилась до локального крымско го вопроса, хотя он сам по себе достаточно острый", - подытожил Алексей Титков.
Отношения с Киевом
До вторника оставалось совершенно неясны м отношение Москвы к взаимодействию с нов ым руководством Украины и статусу Виктор а Януковича.
Днем ранее Нажать МИД РФ потребовал выпол нения соглашения от 21 февраля между Януко вичем и оппозицией. В каком смысле? После всего случившегося вернуть Януковича к в ласти? Вероятно, с таким же успехом можно было требовать вернуть в Россию династию Романовых, поскольку революция 17-го года тоже было нелегитимна.
На встрече с журналистами в Ново-Огарево Владимир Путин расставил точки над "i", ска зав, что, хотя Янукович и остается в его гл азах легитимным президентом, политическо го будущего у него нет.
По его словам, Москва по-прежнему считает смену власти на Украине неконституционны м переворотом, но готова к сотрудничеству на уровне министерств и ведомств, а также премьеров Дмитрия Медведева и Арсения Яц енюка.
Путин заявил, что ему не о чем говорить с и .о.президента Украины Александром Турчин овым, которого он не считает законным гла вой государства, но дал понять, что после выборов 25 мая вопрос о легитимности украи нской власти для России будет закрыт.
Он также не исключил визита в Москву бывш его премьера Юлии Тимошенко, правда, указ ав на отсутствие у нее официального стату са.
"Понятно, что Януковича больше нет, что на Украине существует власть, пользующаяся поддержкой населения и контролирующая си туацию"
Дмитрий Орешкин, независимый политолог
"В этой части пресс-конференции тоже заме тна большая неопределенность. Однако Пут ин пошел на определенные уступки, частичн о признав легитимность Верховной Рады и п ремьера Яценюка, а также допустив возможн ость контактов с Турчиновым, но не как с п резидентом, а как со спикером Рады", - комм ентирует Алексей Титков.
"А куда нам деваться? - заметил Дмитрий Оре шкин. - Понятно, что Януковича больше нет, что на Украине существует власть, пользую щаяся поддержкой населения и контролирую щая ситуацию. Можно упрямо отрицать очеви дное, но это было бы не по-путински, он все- таки прагматик".
"Владимир Путин косвенно признал легитим ность украинского правительства, начав д авать ему разные советы", - добавил экспер т.
"Легитимность - понятие не столько юридич еское, сколько социологическое, она опред еляется поддержкой общества, - указывает Алексей Титков. - В этом смысле, как ни пар адоксально, своим заявлением о вводе войс к Владимир Путин немало поспособствовал укреплению легитимности нынешней власти".
Категоричными заявлениями о нелегитимно сти Москва сама загнала себя в угол, счита ют аналитики. Теперь найдено решение, поз воляющее не отказываться от своих слов и сохранить лицо: взять паузу на два с полов иной месяца до украинских выборов.
Правда, отвечая на вопрос из зала, Путин з аметил, что Россия может и не признать их результаты, если выборы пройдут "в услови ях террора". Таким образом, по мнению эксп ертов, он оставил себе свободу маневра и р ычаг давления на Киев.
Роль Запада
Частичная корректировка позиции Москвы в о многом вызвана реакцией Запада, уверены собеседники Русской службы Би-би-си.
"Владимир Путин не ожидал такой жесткости , - уверен Дмитрий Орешкин. - Вероятно, он р ассчитывал, что пресса пошумит, а ответст венные лица, принимающие решения, промолч ат. После войны с Грузией разговоры о санк циях звучали из уст парламентариев, а сей час он услышал крайне неприятные слова от Нажать президента Соединенных Штатов Ам ерики. При этом Путин понимает, что Обаме очень не хотелось произносить их, но, раз уж произнес, то за словами последуют дела".
"И Россия, и европейско-американская стор она проявили достаточно много неадекватн ости, относясь к Украине как к пространст ву для своих маневров"
Алексей Титков, Высшая школа экономики
"Президент не может не прислушиваться к с воему окружению, - полагает Алексей Титко в. - Часть его занимает последовательно ан тизападную позицию, но экономический бло к правительства добивается такой коррект ировки, чтобы Нажать санкции, если и состо ятся, были символическими. В отличие от На жать Сергея Глазьева, полагающего, что "Ро ссия выйдет из санкций с выгодой для себя" , там думают не о том, как жить в условиях с анкций, а о том, как их избежать".
В вышеупомянутом заявлении МИДа от 3 март а говорилось о возможности переговоров п о украинской проблеме между Россией и Зап адом. Владимир Путин об этом не упомянул, и, по мнению собеседников Русской службы Би-би-си, правильно сделал. В конце концов, Украина - суверенное государство, а не ме ждународный протекторат, чтобы решать ее
судьбу на какой-то новой Мюнхенской конфе ренции.
"Возможность управлять событиями в любой стране извне не следует переоценивать, - з аявил Алексей Титков. - Начиная с декабря прошлого года и Россия, и европейско-амер иканская сторона проявили достаточно мно го неадекватности, относясь к Украине как к пространству для своих маневров. Это в полной мере относится к соглашению от 21 ф евраля, которое было достигнуто при посре дничестве представителей ЕС, но не учитыв ало главную сторону - протестующих на Май дане. Шансов на его выполнение с самого на чала было немного".
Будущее Крыма Владимир Путин заявил, что не видит Крым в качестве субъекта Российской Федерации.
"Абхазский вариант" чреват большими пробл емами, прежде всего, для самих крымчан. В ч астности, они не смогут путешествовать с паспортами государства, не признанного н икем, кроме России.
Существует еще одна возможность. На рефер ендум 30 марта, вообще-то, вынесен вопрос н е о выходе из состава Украины, а о расшире нии прав автономии. Это понятие неконкрет ное. Ну, выскажутся граждане за расширени е автономии, и что дальше? Как это понимат ь?
"Крымская элита и большинство населения н е желают быть под Киевом, и почти в такой ж е степени не желают быть под Москвой"
Дмитрий Орешкин, независимый политолог
"Думаю, что Россия настроена на абхазский сценарий, однако будет проявлять крайнюю осторожность, - считает Алексей Титков. – К иев уже делает все возможное, чтобы загла дить явную ошибку с законом о языке. Не ис ключаю, что, в конце концов Крым формально останется в составе Украины, но будет пол итически и экономически контролироватьс я Москвой. Правда, трудно прогнозировать, чем закончится подобное двоевластие".
"Нажать Ясности с Крымом нет, - говорит Дми трий Орешкин. - Крымская элита и большинст во населения под Россию вовсе не хотят. Ес ть так называемая "русская партия", но бол ьшинство не желает быть под Киевом, и почт и в такой же степени не желает быть под Мо сквой. Заветная мечта любого начальника - быть суверенным, иметь красную дорожку к самолету и называться президентом чего-н ибудь".
"Вполне вероятен вариант, когда руководст во Крыма вступит в переговоры и будет выт орговывать себе полномочия и преференции , опираясь на результаты референдума и си лу российского оружия, а Киев многим пост упится, чтобы сохранить формальную целос тность Украины", - прогнозирует политолог.
"Правда, тогда будет непонятно, в чем закл ючается достижение Путина. Для победного пиара нужно что-то более существенное", - д
обавляет он.
英文版：
The President of Russia met with media representatives to answer a number of their questions, in particular with regard to the situation in Ukraine.
PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good afternoon, colleagues,
How shall we do this? This is what I’d like to suggest: let’s have a conversation, rather than an interview. Therefore, I would ask you to begin by stating all your questions, I will jot them down and try to answer them, and then we will have a more detailed discussion of the specifics that interest you most.
Let’s begin.
QUESTION: Mr President, I would like to ask (you took a lengthy pause, so we have quite a few questions by now) how you assess the events in Kiev? Do you think that the Government and the Acting President, who are currently in power in Kiev, are legitimate? Are you ready to communicate with them, and on what terms? Do you yourself think it possible now to return to the agreements of February 21, which we all talk about so often?
QUESTION: Mr President, Russia has promised financial aid to Crimea and instructions were issued to the Finance Ministry yesterday. Is there a clear understanding of how much we are giving, where the money is coming from, on what terms and when? The situation there is very difficult.
QUESTION: When, on what terms and in what scope can military force be used in Ukraine? To what extent does this comply with Russia’s international agreements? Did the military exercises that have just finished have anything to do with the possible use of force?
QUESTION: We would like to know more about Crimea. Do you think that the provocations are over or that there remains a threat to the Russian citizens who are now in Crimea and to the Russian-speaking population? What are the general dynamics there – is the situation changing for the better or for the worse? We are hearing different reports from there.
QUESTION: If you do decide to use force, have you thought through all the possible risks for yourself, for the country and for the world: economic sanctions, weakened global security, a possible visa ban or greater isolation for Russia, as western politicians are demanding?
QUESTION: Yesterday the Russian stock market fell sharply in response to the Federation Council’s vote, and the ruble exchange rates hit record lows. Did you expect such a reaction? What do you think are the possible consequences for the economy? Is there a need for any special measures now, and of what kind? For instance, do you think the Central Bank’s decision to shift to a floating ruble exchange rate may have been premature? Do you think it should be revoked?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Fine, let us stop here for now. I will begin, and then we will continue. Don’t worry; I will try to answer as many questions as possible.
First of all, my assessment of what happened in Kiev and in Ukraine in general. There can only be one assessment: this was an anti-constitutional takeover, an armed seizure of power. Does anyone question this? Nobody does. There is a question here that neither I, nor my colleagues, with whom I have been discussing the situation in Ukraine a great deal over these past days, as you know – none of us can answer. The question is why was this done?
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that President Yanukovych, through the mediation of the Foreign Ministers of three European countries – Poland, Germany and France – and in the presence of my representative (this was the Russian Human Rights Commissioner Vladimir Lukin) signed an agreement with the opposition on February 21. I would like to stress that under that agreement (I am not saying this was good or bad, just stating the fact) Mr Yanukovych actually handed over power. He agreed to all the opposition’s demands: he agreed to early parliamentary elections, to early presidential elections, and to return to the 2004 Constitution, as demanded by the opposition. He gave a positive response to our request, the request of western countries and, first of all, of the opposition not to use force. He did not issue a single illegal order to shoot at the poor demonstrators. Moreover, he issued orders to withdraw all police forces from the capital, and they complied. He went to Kharkov to attend an event, and as soon as he left, instead of releasing the occupied administrative buildings, they immediately occupied the President’s residence and the Government building – all that instead of acting on the agreement.
I ask myself, what was the purpose of all this? I want to understand why this was done. He had in fact given up his power already, and as I believe, as I told him, he had no chance of being re-elected. Everybody agrees on this, everyone I have been speaking to on the telephone these past few days. What was the purpose of all those illegal, unconstitutional actions, why did they have to create this chaos in the country? Armed and masked militants are still roaming the streets of Kiev. This is a question to which there is no answer. Did they wish to humiliate someone and show their power? I think these actions are absolutely foolish. The result is the absolute opposite of what they expected, because their actions have significantly destabilised the east and southeast of Ukraine.
Now over to how this situation came about.
In my opinion, this revolutionary situation has been brewing for a long time, since the first days of Ukraine’s independence. The ordinary Ukrainian citizen, the ordinary guy suffered during the rule of Nicholas II, during the reign of Kuchma, and Yushchenko, and Yanukovych. Nothing or almost nothing has changed for the better. Corruption has reached dimensions that are unheard of here in Russia. Accumulation of wealth and social stratification – problems that are also acute in this country – are much worse in Ukraine, radically worse. Out there, they are beyond anything we can imagine. Generally, people wanted change, but one should not support illegal change.
Only constitutional means should be used on the post-Soviet space, where political structures are still very fragile, and economies are still weak. Going beyond the constitutional field would always be a cardinal mistake in such a situation. Incidentally, I understand those people on Maidan, though I do not support this kind of turnover. I understand the people on Maidan who are calling for radical change rather than some cosmetic remodelling of power. Why are they demanding this? Because they have grown used to seeing one set of thieves being replaced by another. Moreover, the people in the regions do not even participate in forming their own regional governments. There was a period in this country when the President appointed regional leaders, but then the local legislative authorities had to approve them, while in Ukraine they are appointed directly. We have now moved on to elections, while they are nowhere near this. And they began appointing all sorts of oligarchs and billionaires to govern the eastern regions of the country. No wonder the people do not accept this, no wonder they think that as a result of dishonest privatisation (just as many people think here as well) people have become rich and now they also have been brought to power.
For example, Mr Kolomoisky was appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. This is a unique crook. He even managed to cheat our oligarch Roman Abramovich two or three years ago. Scammed him, as our intellectuals like to say. They signed some deal, Abramovich transferred several billion dollars, while this guy never delivered and pocketed the money. When I asked him [Abramovich]: “Why did you do it?” he said: “I never thought this was possible.” I do not know, by the way, if he ever got his money back and if the deal was closed. But this really did happen a couple of years ago. And now this crook is appointed Governor of Dnepropetrovsk. No wonder the people are dissatisfied. They were dissatisfied and will remain so if those who refer to themselves as the legitimate authorities continue in the same fashion.
Most importantly, people should have the right to determine their own future, that of their families and of their region, and to have equal participation in it. I would like to stress this: wherever a person lives, whatever part of the country, he or she should have the right to equal participation in determining the future of the country.
Are the current authorities legitimate? The Parliament is partially, but all the others are not. The current Acting President is definitely not legitimate. There is only one legitimate President, from a legal standpoint. Clearly, he has no power. However, as I have already said, and will repeat: Yanukovych is the only undoubtedly legitimate President.
There are three ways of removing a President under Ukrainian law: one is his death, the other is when he personally steps down, and the third is impeachment. The latter is a well-deliberated constitutional norm. It has to involve the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court and the Rada. This is a complicated and lengthy procedure. It was not carried out. Therefore, from a legal perspective this is an undisputed fact.
Moreover, I think this may be why they disbanded the Constitutional Court, which runs counter to all legal norms of both Ukraine and Europe. They not only disbanded the Constitutional Court in an illegitimate fashion, but they also – just think about it – instructed the Prosecutor General’s Office to launch criminal proceedings against members of the Constitutional Court. What is that all about? Is this what they call free justice? How can you instruct anyone to start criminal proceedings? If a crime, a criminal offence, has been committed, the law enforcement agencies see this and react. But instructing them to file criminal charges is nonsense, it’s monkey business.
Now about financial aid to Crimea. As you may know, we have decided to organise work in the Russian regions to aid Crimea, which has turned to us for humanitarian support. We will provide it, of course. I cannot say how much, when or how – the Government is working on this, by bringing together the regions bordering on Crimea, by providing additional support to our regions so they could help the people in Crimea. We will do it, of course.
Regarding the deployment of troops, the use of armed forces. So far, there is no need for it, but the possibility remains. I would like to say here that the military exercises we recently held had nothing to do with the events in Ukraine. This was pre-planned, but we did not disclose these plans, naturally, because this was a snap inspection of the forces’ combat readiness. We planned this a long time ago, the Defence Minister reported to me and I had the order ready to begin the exercise. As you may know, the exercises are over; I gave the order for the troops to return to their regular dislocations yesterday.
What can serve as a reason to use the Armed Forces? Such a measure would certainly be the very last resort.
First, the issue of legitimacy. As you may know, we have a direct appeal from the incumbent and, as I said, legitimate President of Ukraine, Mr Yanukovych, asking us to use the Armed Forces to protect the lives, freedom and health of the citizens of Ukraine.
What is our biggest concern? We see the rampage of reactionary forces, nationalist and anti-Semitic forces going on in certain parts of Ukraine, including Kiev. I am sure you, members of the media, saw how one of the governors was chained and handcuffed to something and they poured water over him, in the cold of winter. After that, by the way, he was locked up in a cellar and tortured. What is all this about? Is this democracy? Is this some manifestation of democracy? He was actually only recently appointed to this position, in December, I believe. Even if we accept that they are all corrupt there, he had barely had time to steal anything.
And do you know what happened when they seized the Party of Regions building? There were no party members there at all at the time. Some two-three employees came out, one was an engineer, and he said to the attackers: “Could you let us go, and let the women out, please. I’m an engineer, I have nothing to do with politics.” He was shot right there in front of the crowd. Another employee was led to a cellar and then they threw Molotov cocktails at him and burned him alive. Is this also a manifestation of democracy?
When we see this we understand what worries the citizens of Ukraine, both Russian and Ukrainian, and the Russian-speaking population in the eastern and southern regions of Ukraine. It is this uncontrolled crime that worries them. Therefore, if we see such uncontrolled crime spreading to the eastern regions of the country, and if the people ask us for help, while we already have the official request from the legitimate President, we retain the right to use all available means to protect those people. We believe this would be absolutely legitimate. This is our last resort.
Moreover, here is what I would like to say: we have always considered Ukraine not only a neighbour, but also a brotherly neighbouring republic, and will continue to do so. Our Armed Forces are comrades in arms, friends, many of whom know each other personally. I am certain, and I stress, I am certain that the Ukrainian military and the Russian military will not be facing each other, they will be on the same side in a fight.
Incidentally, the things I am talking about – this unity – is what is happening in Crimea. You should note that, thank God, not a single gunshot has been fired there; there are no casualties, except for that crush on the square about a week ago. What was going on there? People came, surrounded units of the armed forces and talked to them, convincing them to follow the demands and the will of the people living in that area. There was not a single armed conflict, not a single gunshot.
Thus the tension in Crimea that was linked to the possibility of using our Armed Forces simply died down and there was no need to use them. The only thing we had to do, and we did it, was to enhance the defence of our military facilities because they were constantly receiving threats and we were aware of the armed nationalists moving in. We did this, it was the right thing to do and very timely. Therefore, I proceed from the idea that we will not have to do anything of the kind in eastern Ukraine.
There is something I would like to stress, however. Obviously, what I am going to say now is not within my authority and we do not intend to interfere. However, we firmly believe that all citizens of Ukraine, I repeat, wherever they live, should be given the same equal right to participate in the life of their country and in determining its future.
If I were in the shoes of those who consider themselves the legitimate authorities, I would not waste time and go through all the necessary procedures, because they do not have a national mandate to conduct the domestic, foreign and economic policy of Ukraine, and especially to determine its future.
Now, the stock market. As you may know, the stock market was jumpy even before the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. This is primarily linked to the policy of the US Federal Reserve, whose recent decisions enhanced the attractiveness of investing in the US economy and investors began moving their funds from the developing markets to the American market. This is a general trend and it has nothing to do with Ukraine. I believe it was India that suffered most, as well as the other BRICS states. Russia was hit as well, not as hard as India, but it was. This is the fundamental reason.
As for the events in Ukraine, politics always influence the stock market in one way or another. Money likes quiet, stability and calm. However, I think this is a tactical, temporary development and a temporary influence.
Your questions, please.
QUESTION: Mr President, can you tell us if you expected such a harsh reaction to Russia’s actions from your western partners? Could you give us any details of your conversations with your western partners? All we’ve heard was a report from the press service. And what do you think about the G8 summit in Sochi – will it take place?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding the expected reaction, whether the G8 will meet and about the conversations. Our conversations are confidential, some are even held over secure lines. Therefore, I am not authorised to disclose what I discussed with my partners. I will, however, refer to some public statements made by my colleagues from the west; without giving any names, I will comment on them in a general sense.
What do we pay attention to? We are often told our actions are illegitimate, but when I ask, “Do you think everything you do is legitimate?” they say “yes”. Then, I have to recall the actions of the United States in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, where they either acted without any UN sanctions or completely distorted the content of such resolutions, as was the case with Libya. There, as you may know, the resolution only spoke of closing the airspace for government aircraft, while it all ended with bomb attacks and special forces land operations.
Our partners, especially in the United Sates, always clearly formulate their own geopolitical and state interests and follow them with persistence. Then, using the principle “You’re either with us or against us” they draw the whole world in. And those who do not join in get ‘beaten’ until they do.
Our approach is different. We proceed from the conviction that we always act legitimately. I have personally always been an advocate of acting in compliance with international law. I would like to stress yet again that if we do make the decision, if I do decide to use the Armed Forces, this will be a legitimate decision in full compliance with both general norms of international law, since we have the appeal of the legitimate President, and with our commitments, which in this case coincide with our interests to protect the people with whom we have close historical, cultural and economic ties. Protecting these people is in our national interests. This is a humanitarian mission. We do not intend to subjugate anyone or to dictate to anyone. However, we cannot remain indifferent if we see that they are being persecuted, destroyed and humiliated. However, I sincerely hope it never gets to that.
QUESTION: How do you asses the reaction of the west to the events in Ukraine and their threats regarding Russia: are we facing the possibility of sanctions or withdrawal from the G8?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding sanctions. It is primarily those who intend to apply them that need to consider their consequences. I believe that in the modern world, where everything is interconnected and interdependent, it is possible to cause damage to another country, but this will be mutual damage and one should bear this in mind. This is one thing.
The second and the most important thing. I have already told you what motivates us. And what motivates our partners? They supported an unconstitutional armed take-over, declared these people legitimate and are trying to support them. By the way, despite all of this we have been patient and even ready to cooperate; we do not want to disrupt our cooperation. As you may know, a few days ago I instructed the Government to consider how we can maintain contacts even with those powers in Kiev that we do not consider legitimate in order to retain our ties in the economy and industry. We think our actions have been absolutely reasonable, while any threat against Russia is counterproductive and harmful.
As for the G8, I do not know. We will be ready to host the summit with our colleagues. If they do not want to come – so be it.
QUESTION: Can I add about contacts? The way I see it, you consider the Prime Minister of Crimea Mr Aksyonov to be a legitimate representative of government authorities. Are you ready to have any contacts with those who consider themselves the legitimate authorities in Kiev?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have just spoken about it. You must have missed it.
QUESTION: I mean, at the top level for a political solution.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I do not have a partner at the top level there. There is no president there, and there cannot be one until the general elections.
As for Crimea, the Parliament there was formed in 2010, in December 2010 if I remember correctly. There are 100 MPs representing six political parties. After the previous Prime Minister resigned, the Crimean Parliament, in compliance with the existing legislation and procedures elected a new Prime Minister at a session of the Crimean Supreme Council. He is definitely legitimate. They have complied with all the procedures envisaged by the law; there is not a single violation. However, when a few days ago a group of armed men tried to occupy the building of the Crimean Supreme Soviet, this caused the concern of the local residents. It seemed as though someone wanted to apply the Kiev scenario in Crimea and to launch a series of terrorist attacks and cause chaos. Naturally, this causes grave concern among the local residents. That is why they set up self-defence committees and took control over all the armed forces.
Incidentally, I was studying the brief yesterday to see what they took over – it is like a fortified zone. There are several dozen C-300 units, several dozen air-defence missile systems, 22,000 service members and a lot more. However, as I said, this is all in the hands of the people of Crimea and without a single gunshot.
QUESTION: Mr President, a clarification if I may. The people who were blocking the Ukrainian Army units in Crimea were wearing uniforms that strongly resembled the Russian Army uniform. Were those Russian soldiers, Russian military?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Why don’t you take a look at the post-Soviet states. There are many uniforms there that are similar. You can go to a store and buy any kind of uniform.
QUESTION: But were they Russian soldiers or not?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Those were local self-defence units.
QUESTION: How well trained are they? If we compare them to the self-defence units in Kiev…
VLADIMIR PUTIN: My dear colleague, look how well trained the people who operated in Kiev were. As we all know they were trained at special bases in neighbouring states: in Lithuania, Poland and in Ukraine itself too. They were trained by instructors for extended periods. They were divided into dozens and hundreds, their actions were coordinated, they had good communication systems. It was all like clockwork. Did you see them in action? They looked very professional, like special forces. Why do you think those in Crimea should be any worse?
QUESTION: In that case, can I specify: did we take part in training Crimean self-defence forces?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we did not.
QUESTION: How do you see the future of Crimea? Do you consider the possibility of it joining Russia?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, we do not. Generally, I believe that only residents of a given country who have the freedom of will and are in complete safety can and should determine their future. If this right was granted to the Albanians in Kosovo, if this was made possible in many different parts of the world, then nobody has ruled out the right of nations to self-determination, which, as far as I know, is fixed by several UN documents. However, we will in no way provoke any such decision and will not breed such sentiments.
I would like to stress that I believe only the people living in a given territory have the right to determine their own future.
QUESTION: Two questions. You said that sending troops into Ukraine is an extreme measure, but you are nevertheless not ruling it out. Still, if Russian troops enter Ukraine, it could start a war. Doesn’t that bother you?
And a second question. You say that Yanukovych did not give the order to shoot people. But somebody shot at the protestors. And clearly, these were snipers, trained snipers.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, some people, including those who were recently among the protestors, have expressed the opinion that these were provocateurs from one of the opposition parties. Have you heard this?
REPLY: No, I have not heard this.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Look at these materials – they are freely available. That is why it is very difficult to get to the bottom of the situation. But you and I saw for ourselves when the Berkut fighters stood there with their shields and were shot at – and those were not air weapons that were used against them but assault weapons that pierced their shields. That is something we saw for certain. As for who gave the orders – that I do not know. I only know what Mr Yanukovych told me. And he told me that he did not give any orders, and moreover, he gave instructions – after signing a corresponding agreement – to even withdraw all militia units from the capital.
If you want, I can tell you even more. He called me on the phone and I told him not to do it. I said, “You will have anarchy, you will have chaos in the capital. Think about the people.” But he did it anyway. And as soon as he did it, his office was seized, and that of the government, and the chaos I had warned him about and which continues to this day, erupted.
QUESTION: What about the first question? Are you concerned that a war could break out?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I am not concerned, because we do not plan and we will not fight with the Ukrainian people.
QUESTION: But there are Ukrainian troops, there is the Ukrainian army.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Listen carefully. I want you to understand me clearly: if we make that decision, it will only be to protect Ukrainian citizens. And let’s see those troops try to shoot their own people, with us behind them – not in the front, but behind. Let them just try to shoot at women and children! I would like to see those who would give that order in Ukraine.
QUESTION: Can I ask a question, Mr President? Our colleagues, my colleagues, who are currently working in Ukraine, are saying practically every day that the situation for the Berkut fighters is only getting worse (perhaps with the exception of Crimea). In particular, in Kiev, there are injured Berkut officers who are in hospitals now, where nobody is treating them and they are not even getting fed. And their families, including elderly family members, they simply cannot leave the house, because they are not being allowed; there are barricades all around, they are being humiliated. Can you comment on this? And can Russia help these families and colleagues?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, this issue is of great concern to us. After all, these are not Russia’s Interior Ministry officers, and we were not managing the situation there. But out of humanitarian considerations, it would be good if our human rights organisations got involved in this as well; we might ask Vladimir Lukin, either alone or together with his colleagues, representatives from France, Germany and Poland, with whom he participated in developing the well-known document of February 21, 2014, to go on location and see what is happening there with these Berkut officers, who have not broken any laws and acted in accordance with their orders. They are military service members, they stood there facing bullets, they were doused with fire and had Molotov cocktails thrown at them. They have been wounded and injured and are now in a hospital. It is even hard to imagine – even prisoners of war are being fed and treated. But they not only stopped treating them, they even stopped feeding them. And they have surrounded the building where these fighters’ families live and are bullying them. I think that human rights organisations must pay attention to this. And we, for our part, are ready to provide them with medical care here in Russia.
QUESTION: Mr President, getting back to the West’s reaction. Following the US Secretary of State’s harsh statement, the Federation Council suggested that we recall our ambassador to the United States. Do you support this idea?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: The US Secretary of State is certainly an important person, but he is not the ultimate authority that determines the United States’ foreign policy. We hear statements from various politicians and representatives of various political forces. This would be an extreme measure. If necessary, it will be used. But I really don’t want to use it, because I think Russia is not the only one interested in cooperation with its partners on an international level and in such areas as economy, politics and foreign security; our partners are just as interested in this cooperation. It is very easy to destroy these instruments of cooperation and it would be very difficult to rebuild them.
QUESTION: Russia got involved in Yanukovych’s fate. How do you see his future role and his future destiny?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, it is very hard for me to say; I have not analysed it carefully. I think he has no political future, and I have told him so. As for “getting involved in his fate” – we did this on purely humanitarian grounds. Death is the easiest way for getting rid of a legitimate president, and I think that is what would have happened. I think they would have simply killed him. Incidentally, the question arises: what for?
After all, look at how it all began, what triggered these events. The formal reason was that he did not sign the European Union Association Agreement. Today, this seems like nonsense; it is ridiculous to even talk about. But I want to point out that he did not refuse to sign the association agreement. He said: “We have carefully analysed it, and its content does not correspond with our national interests. We cannot sharply increase energy prices for our people, because our people are already in a rather difficult position. We cannot do this, and that, and that. We cannot immediately break our economic ties with Russia, because our cooperation is very extensive.”
I have already presented these figures: out of approximately 14 billion [dollars] in export, approximately 5 billion represents second and third technological processing level products exported to Russia. In other words, just about all engineering products are exported to Russia; the West is not buying any Ukrainian products. And to take all this and break it apart, to introduce European technical standards in the Ukrainian economy, which, thankfully or unfortunately, we are not using at the moment. We will adopt those standards at some point, but currently, we do not have those standards in Russia. This means the next day, our relations and cooperation ties will be broken, enterprises will come to a standstill and unemployment will increase. And what did Yanukovych say? He said, “I cannot do this so suddenly, let’s discuss this further.” He did not refuse to sign it, he asked for a chance to discuss this document some more, and then all this craziness began.
And why? Did he do something outside the scope of his authority? He acted absolutely within the scope of his authority; he did not infringe on anything. It was simply an excuse to support the forces opposing him in a fight for power. Overall, this is nothing special. But did it really need to be taken to this level of anarchy, to an unconstitutional overthrow and armed seizure of power, subsequently plunging the nation into the chaos where it finds itself today? I think this is unacceptable. And it is not the first time our Western partners are doing this in Ukraine. I sometimes get the feeling that somewhere across that huge puddle, in America, people sit in a lab and conduct experiments, as if with rats, without actually understanding the consequences of what they are doing. Why did they need to do this? Who can explain this? There is no explanation at all for it.
The same thing happened during the first Maidan uprising, when Yanukovych was blocked from power. Why did we need that third round of elections? In other words, it was turned into a farce – Ukraine’s political life was turned into a farce. There was no compliance with the Constitution at all. You see, we are now teaching people that if one person can violate any law, anyone else can do the same, and that’s what causes chaos. That is the danger. Instead, we need to teach our society to follow other traditions: traditions of respecting the main law of the nation, the Constitution, and all other laws. Of course, we will not always succeed, but I think acting like this – like a bull in a china shop is counterproductive and very dangerous.
Please.
QUESTION: Mr President, Turchynov is illegitimate, from your point of view.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: As President, yes.
QUESTION: But the Rada is partially legitimate.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes.
QUESTION: Are Yatsenyuk and the Cabinet legitimate? And if Russia is concerned about the growing strength of radical elements, they grow stronger every time they find themselves facing a hypothetical enemy, which in their view, they currently consider Russia and Russia’s position of being ready to send in troops. Question: does it make sense and is it possible to hold talks with moderate forces in the Ukrainian government, with Yatsenyuk, and is he legitimate?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Listen, it seems like you didn’t hear what I have said. I already said that three days ago, I gave instructions to the Government to renew contacts at the government level with their colleagues in the corresponding ministries and departments in Ukraine, in order not to disrupt economic ties, to support them in their attempts to reconstruct the economy. Those were my direct instructions to the Russian Government. Moreover, Mr Medvedev is in contact with [Arseniy] Yatsenyuk. And I know that Sergei Naryshkin, as speaker of the Russian parliament, is in contact with [Oleksandr] Turchynov. But, I repeat, all our trade and economic and other ties, our humanitarian ties, can be developed in full only after the situation is normalised and presidential elections are held.
QUESTION: Gazprom has already said that it is reverting to its old gas prices beginning in April.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Gazprom could not have said that; you were not listening carefully or it did not express itself clearly. Gazprom is not reverting to the old prices. It simply does not want to extend the current discounts, which it had agreed to apply or not apply on a quarterly basis. Even before all these events, even before they hit the crisis point. I know about the negotiations between Gazprom and its partners. Gazprom and the Government of the Russian Federation agreed that Gazprom would introduce a discount by reducing gas prices to $268.50 per 1,000 cubic metres. The Government of Russia provides the first tranche of the loan, which is formally not a loan but a bond purchase – a quasi-loan, $3 billion dollars in the first stage. And the Ukrainian side undertakes to fully repay its debt that arose in the second half of last year and to make regular payments for what they are consuming – for the gas. The debt has not been repaid, regular payments are not being made in full.
Moreover, if the Ukrainian partners fail to make the February payment, the debt will grow even bigger. Today it is around $1.5-1.6 billion. And if they do not fully pay for February, it will be nearly $2 billion. Naturally, in these circumstances, Gazprom says, “Listen guys, since you don’t pay us anyway, and we are only seeing an increase in your debt, let’s lock into the regular price, which is still reduced.” This is a purely commercial component of Gazprom’s activities, which plans for revenues and expenditures in its investment plans like any other major company. If they do not receive the money from their Ukrainian partners on time, then they are undercutting their own investment programmes; this is a real problem for them. And incidentally, this does not have to do with the events in Ukraine or any politics. There was an agreement: “We give you money and reduced gas rates, and you give us regular payments.” They gave them money and reduced gas rates, but the payments are not being made. So naturally, Gazprom says, “Guys, that won’t work.”
QUESTION: Mr President, [German Federal Chancellor] Merkel’s Press Service said after your telephone conversation that you had agreed to send an international fact-finding mission to Ukraine and set up a contact group.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I said that we have people who have the training and skills needed to be able to examine this issue and discuss it with our German colleagues. This is all possible. I gave the instruction accordingly to our Foreign Minister, who was to or will meet with the German Foreign Minister, Mr Steinmeier, yesterday or today to discuss this matter.
QUESTION: All eyes are on Crimea at the moment of course, but we see what is happening in other parts of Ukraine too, in the east and south. We see what is happening in Kharkov, Donetsk, Lugansk and Odessa. People are raising the Russian flag over government buildings and appealing to Russia for aid and support. Will Russia respond to these events?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Do you think we have not made any response? I think we’ve just spent the last hour discussing this response. In some cases though, the developments taking place are unexpected in my view. I will not go into the specific details of what I am referring to here, but the reaction that we are seeing from people is understandable, in principle. Did our partners in the West and those who call themselves the government in Kiev now not foresee that events would take this turn? I said to them over and over: Why are you whipping the country into a frenzy like this? What are you doing? But they keep on pushing forward. Of course people in the eastern part of the country realise that they have been left out of the decision-making process.
Essentially, what is needed now is to adopt a new constitution and put it to a referendum so that all of Ukraine’s citizens can take part in the process and influence the choice of basic principles that will form the foundations of their country’s government. But this is not our affair of course. This is something for the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian authorities to decided one way or another. I think that once a legitimate government is in place and a new president and parliament are elected, which is what is planned, this will probably go ahead. If I were them, I would return to the matter of adopting a constitution and, as I said, putting it to a referendum so that everyone can have their say on it, cast their vote, and then everyone will have to respect it. If people feel they are left out of this process, they will never agree with it and will keep on fighting it. Who needs this kind of thing? But as I said, this is all not our affair.
QUESTION: Will Russia recognise the planned presidential election that will take place in Ukraine?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let’s see how it goes. If it is accompanied by the same kind of terror that we are seeing now in Kiev, we will not recognise it.
QUESTION: I want to come back to the West’s reaction. As all this tough talk continues, we have the Paralympics opening in a few days’ time in Sochi. Are these Games at risk of ending up on the brink of disruption, at least as far as international media coverage goes?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I don’t know, I think it would be the height of cynicism to put the Paralympics at risk. We all know that this is an international sports event at which people with disabilities can show their capabilities, prove to themselves and the entire world that they are not people with limitations, but on the contrary, people with unlimited possibilities, and demonstrate their achievements in sport. If there are people ready to try to disrupt this event, it would show that these are people for whom there really is nothing sacred.
QUESTION: I want to ask about the hypothetical possibility of using the military. People in the West have said that if Russia makes such a decision, it would violate the Budapest Memorandum, under which the United States and some NATO partners consecrated territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for its promise to give up nuclear weapons. If developments take this turn, could global players intervene in this local conflict and turn it into a global conflict? Have you taken these risks into account?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Before making public statements, and all the more so before taking practical steps, we give issues due thought and attention and try to foresee the consequences and reactions that the various potential players could have.
As for the Memorandum that you mentioned, you said you are from Reuters, is that right?
RESPONSE: Yes.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: How do the public and political circles in your country view these events that have taken place? It is clear after all that this was an armed seizure of power. That is a clear and evident fact. And it is clear too that this goes against the Constitution. That is also a clear fact, is it not?
RESPONSE: I live in Russia.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good on you! You should join the diplomatic service; you’d make a good diplomat. Diplomats’ tongues, as we know, are there to hide their thoughts. So, we say that what we are seeing is an anti-constitutional coup, and we get told, no, it isn’t. You have probably heard plenty of times now that this was not an anti-constitutional coup and not an armed seizure of power, but a revolution. Have you heard this?
RESPONSE: Yes.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Yes, but if this is revolution, what does this mean? In such a case it is hard not to agree with some of our experts who say that a new state is now emerging in this territory. This is just like what happened when the Russian Empire collapsed after the 1917 revolution and a new state emerged. And this would be a new state with which we have signed no binding agreements.
QUESTION: I want to clarify a point. You said that if the USA imposes sanctions, this would deal a blow to both economies. Does this imply that Russia might impose counter-sanctions of its own, and if so, would they be a symmetrical response?
You spoke about gas discounts too. But there was also the agreement to buy $15 billion worth of Ukrainian bonds. Ukraine received the first tranche at the end of last year. Has payment of the remaining money been suspended? If Russia provides aid, on what specific economic and political terms will this be done? And what political and economic risks are you taking into consideration in this case?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: To answer your question, we are in principle ready to look at taking the steps needed to make the other tranches available with regard to the purchase of bonds. But our Western partners have asked us not to do this. They have asked us to work together through the IMF to encourage the Ukrainian authorities to carry out the reforms needed to bring about recovery in the Ukrainian economy. We will continue working in this direction. But given that Naftogaz of Ukraine is not paying Gazprom now, the Government is considering various options.
QUESTION: Mr President, is the dynamic of events in Ukraine changing for the better or for the worse?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Overall, I think it is gradually starting to level out. We absolutely must send the signal to people in Ukraine’s southeast that they can feel safe, and know that they will be able to take part in the general political process of stabilising the country.
QUESTION: You have made several mentions now of future legitimate elections in Ukraine. Who do you see as compromise candidate? Of course you will say that this for the Ukrainian people to decide, but I ask you all the same.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: To be honest, I really don’t know.
RESPONSE: It seems that the people also don’t know, because no matter who you talk to, everyone seems to be at a loss.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I really can’t say. You know, it’s hard to make predictions after events of this kind. I have already said that I do not agree with this method of taking power and removing the incumbent authorities and president, and I strongly oppose this kind of method in Ukraine and in the post-Soviet area in general. I oppose this because this kind of method does not inculcate legal culture, respect for the law. If one person can get away with doing this, it means that everyone is allowed to try, and this only means chaos. You have to understand that this kind of chaos is the worst possible thing for countries with a shaky economy and unstable political system. In this kind of situation you never know what kind of people events will bring to the fore. Just recall, for example, the role that [Ernst] Roehm’s storm troopers played during Hitler’s rise to power. Later, these storm troopers were liquidated, but they played their part in bringing Hitler to power. Events can take all kinds of unexpected turns.
Let me say again that in situations when people call for fundamental political reform and new faces at the top, and with full justification too – and in this I agree with the Maidan – there is a risk too that you’ll suddenly get some upstart nationalist or semi-fascist lot sprout up, like the genie suddenly let out of the bottle – and we see them today, people wearing armbands with something resembling swastikas, still roaming around Kiev at this moment – or some anti-Semite or other. This danger is there too.
QUESTION: Just today, incidentally, the Ukrainian envoy to the UN said that the crimes committed by Bandera’s followers were falsified by the Soviet Union. With May 9 coming closer, we can see now who is in power there today. Should we even have any contacts with them at all?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: We need to have contact with everyone except for obvious criminals, but as I said, in this kind of situation, there is always the risk that events of this kind will bring people with extreme views to the fore, and this of course has serious consequences for the country.
QUESTION: You said that we should make contact with everyone. Yulia Tymoshenko was planning it seems, to come to Moscow.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: As you know, we always worked quite productively with all of the different Ukrainian governments, no matter what their political colour. We worked with Leonid Kuchma, and with [Viktor] Yushchenko. When I was Prime Minister, I worked with Tymoshenko. I visited her in Ukraine and she came here to Russia. We had to deal with all kinds of different situations in our work to manage our countries’ economies. We had our differences, but we also reached agreements. Overall it was constructive work. If she wants to come to Russia, let her come. It’s another matter that she is no longer prime minister now. In what capacity will she come? But I personally have no intention of stopping her from coming to Russia.
QUESTION: Just a brief question: who do you think is behind this coup, as you called it, in Ukraine?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: As I said before, I think this was a well-prepared action. Of course there were combat detachments. They are still there, and we all saw how efficiently they worked. Their Western instructors tried hard of course. But this is not the real problem. If the Ukrainian government had been strong, confident, and had built a stable system, no nationalists would have been able to carry out those programs and achieve the results that we see now.
The real problem is that none of the previous Ukrainian governments gave proper attention to people’s needs. Here in Russia we have many problems, and many of them are similar to those in Ukraine, but they are not as serious as in Ukraine. Average per capita [monthly] income in Russia, for example, is 29,700 rubles, but in Ukraine, if we convert it into rubles, it is 11,900 rubles, I think – almost three times lower than in Russia. The average pension in Russia is 10,700 rubles, but in Ukraine it is 5,500 rubles – twice lower than in Russia. Great Patriotic War veterans in Russia receive almost as much as the average worker each month. In other words, there is a substantial difference in living standards. This was what the various governments should have been focusing on right from the start. Of course they needed to fight crime, nepotism, clans and so on, especially in the economy. People see what is going on, and this creates lack of confidence in the authorities.
This has continued as several generations of modern Ukrainian politicians have come and gone, and the ultimate result is that people are disappointed and want to see a new system and new people in power. This was the main source of fuel for the events that took place. But let me say again: a change of power, judging by the whole situation, was probably necessary in Ukraine, but it should have taken place only through legitimate means, in respect for and not in violation of the current Constitution.
QUESTION: Mr President, if Crimea holds a referendum and the people there vote to secede from Ukraine, that is, if the majority of the region’s residents vote for secession, would you support it?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: You can never use the conditional mood in politics. I will stick to that rule.
QUESTION: Is Yanukovych even still alive? There have been rumours that he died.
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I have seen him once since he arrived in Russia. That was just two days ago. He was alive and well and wishes you the same. He’ll still have a chance of catching a cold at the funeral of those who are spreading these rumours of his demise.
QUESTION: Mr President, what mistakes do you think Yanukovych made over these last months as the situation intensified in Ukraine?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would rather not answer this question, not because I do not have an opinion to express, but because I do not think it would be proper on my part. You have to understand, after all…
QUESTION: Do you sympathise with him?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: No, I have completely different feelings. Anyone in this office bears an enormous responsibility on their shoulders as head of state, and they have rights and also obligations. But the biggest obligation of all is to carry out the will of the people who have entrusted you with the country, acting within the law. And so we need to analyse, did he do everything that the law and the voters’ mandate empowered him to do? You can analyse this yourselves and draw your own conclusions.
QUESTION: But what feelings do you have for him? You said “not sympathy, but other feelings”. What feelings exactly?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Let’s talk later.
QUESTION: You said just two questions back that we must above all send a clear signal to people in the south and southeast of Ukraine. The southeast, that’s understandable, but…
VLADIMIR PUTIN: We need to make our position clear to everyone, really.
We need to be heard by all of Ukraine’s people. We have no enemies in Ukraine. Let me say again that Ukraine is a friendly country. Do you know how many people came from Ukraine to Russia last year? 3.3 million came, and of that number almost 3 million people came to Russia for work. These people are working here – around 3 million people. Do you know how much money they send back home to Ukraine to support their families? Count up the average wage of 3 million people. This comes to billions of dollars and makes a big contribution to Ukraine’s GDP. This is no joking matter. We welcome all of them, and among the people coming here to work are also many from western Ukraine. They are all equal in our eyes, all brothers to us.
QUESTION: This is just what I wanted to ask about. We are hearing above all about the southeast of Ukraine at the moment, which is understandable, but there are ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people living in western Ukraine too, and their situation is probably even worse. They probably cannot raise their heads at all and are a downtrodden minority there. What can Russia do to help them?
VLADIMIR PUTIN: Our position is that if the people who call themselves the government now hope to be considered a civilised government, they must ensure the safety of all of their citizens, no matter in which part of the country, and we of course will follow this situation closely.
Thank you.
BTW, I have answered your question - have you seen it?