23. März 2022

When I show atti­tu­de, I show human atti­tu­de. In balan­ce. With figh­t­ing in a civi­li­zed way. I want only to give the posi­ti­ve in terms of my actions. I dont want to harm any of my citi­zens. Peop­le are important, becau­se peop­le are defen­ding our sta­te, this means, that they are our most important tre­a­su­re and pro­tec­tion, this is our iron dome. This is our secu­ri­ty uni­on! This is our peop­le. [*smi­les*]

Regar­ding what I read right now, I dont read fic­tion now, to be honest. I love it. But I under­stand, that I cant. I read the first page. But then by the second, I’m alrea­dy thin­king about whats hap­pe­ning here. So I read the second page again, becau­se I didnt take in what I had read the­re. Then I move on to the third, and for­get it again. Becau­se the brain is clog­ged up with other decisi­ons. Its dif­fi­cult to relax.

Next ques­ti­on:

Dear Mr, pre­si­dent, the­se are his­to­ri­cal­ly hard times. But the Ukrai­ne also is uni­fied as never befo­re. Do you see this as a chan­ge only in Ukrai­ne, or may­be also in euro­pe. And what is at the cen­ter of this change?

The world will chan­ge, it has alrea­dy chan­ged, poli­ti­ci­ans are alrea­dy afraid of their peop­le, they are afraid of social respon­si­bi­li­ty. They see, that peop­le are reac­ting dif­fer­ent­ly. And in many coun­tries, peop­le sup­port us 100%, but their lea­ders, do not sup­port us 100%, for one rea­son or ano­t­her. I’m not say­ing here who is right [?!?!], but it means, that social and public opi­ni­on will be stron­ger than any lea­der in the world. That is to say, we are all see­ing chan­ges and pro­ces­ses. Chan­ges that not only lead to theo­re­ti­cal, but to popu­lar demo­cra­cy, popu­lar demo­cra­cy is not a revo­lu­ti­on - demo­cra­cy is first and fore­mo­st, power of the peop­le. If you want to be the lea­der of your socie­ty, you have to be the lea­der of socie­ty, not to com­mand, but to be a lea­der and live with them in the same spi­rit. The­re­fo­re [?!] it seems to me, that this popu­lar demo­cra­cy is taking place in the world, and that this will lead to cer­tain secu­ri­ty alli­an­ces [?!], I am con­fi­dent, that the­re will be new secu­ri­ty alli­an­ces in the future. This does not mean, that its necessa­ry to lea­ve any uni­on. It does not mean, that it is necessa­ry to des­troy things that work. No it does not mean that. Peop­le just want peace, tran­qui­li­ty, sta­bi­li­ty and most import­ant­ly - con­fi­dence. Here, in all the­se chal­len­ges, con­fi­dence. Be it the new Covid, or god for­bid, war. A per­son who lives, pays taxes, resi­des here, was born or came here, is a citi­zen of the world for peace. And this per­son must know, that they must be pro­tec­ted in this coun­try. And if this per­son lea­ves for ano­t­her coun­try, this per­son will be pro­tec­ted the­re. The per­son will not suf­fer. The world is just facing such a chal­len­ge. It will eit­her accept this model, and come to such alli­an­ces, or the­re will be a chan­ge of many world lea­ders, and their socie­ties will find pro­per peop­le for themselves.


First of all, real­ly, a home­sto­ry, now?

Second of all,


Next ques­ti­on:

Mr Pre­si­dent, I have a ques­ti­on regar­ding the­se alli­an­ces. Have you thought about not joi­ning Nato - con­si­de­ring the war and all exter­nal thre­ats that are incoming?

In the con­sti­tu­ti­on, we have our inten­ti­ons with Nato. The­re is ambi­gui­ty from Nato in rela­ti­on to our accep­t­ance to the alli­an­ce. The­re is cla­ri­ty from some coun­tries, which see us belon­ging the­re, and only with them. At a mini­mum at lie­ast one third of all coun­tries dont see us the­re. Some of them will not say publicly, that they’ll accept us the­re. Most of them are afraid to talk about it publicly. This, is why we need to revert to the pre­vious ques­ti­on. They think, that socie­ty will pres­su­re them. The­re­fo­re I think we need to divi­de this up into several approa­ches for this migh­ty chal­len­ge. In gene­ral we need to find a for­mat in which we have an under­stan­ding on whe­ther rus­sia wants to stop the war. Other­wi­se, we may not get to all the rest. In princip­le, it con­cerns whe­ther rus­sia wants it, or rus­sia even able to do it. If we under­stand, that rus­sia is able to do it, or will face pro­blems due to sanc­tions - inter­nal pres­su­re, con­flicts wit­hin its bor­ders, empty shel­ves at shops, or chan­ge of poli­ti­cal eli­te, which are cau­sed by the war against us, and we under­stand, that all the­se things we have laun­ched with out wes­tern part­ners tog­e­ther -- then we will have taken the first step towards, the uni­on nee­ded in the world. By being united, we can stop any aggres­sor. In this moment, this is why I belie­ve in my mee­ting with the pre­si­dent of the rus­si­an fede­ra­ti­on. In any for­mat! I’ll repeat it again, and I’ve repeated it and pro­po­sed it for several years. I know only one thing. Our future will not for­gi­ve us for the loss of our popu­la­ti­on. Our sta­te will not for­gi­ve us for the loss of our peop­le. Our future genera­ti­ons will not for­gi­ve us for the loss of our ter­ri­to­ries. They will ask us - what whe­re we figh­t­ing for? I want to know exact­ly whe­re we are. Who are our friends? And who doubts us? I’m not say­ing we have enemies in the west. No, the­re are peop­le who are rea­dy for anything on our behalf, but the­re are tho­se who are not rea­dy. That is all. The­re­fo­re, it is important, when we talk about cer­tain com­pro­mi­ses. I said, when I beca­me the pre­si­dent, that we can­not give up any part of our land, becau­se we must do ever­ything for Don­bas and Cri­mea to return. This is not a pla­ti­tu­de, all our peop­le belie­ve and think so. The ques­ti­on now is, when can we stop this war? The­re is no need for rus­sia to shout har­sh rhe­to­ric, we have an ulti­ma­tum, it will not lead to anything. We have an ulti­ma­tum, here are the points, you will ful­fill them, and then we will end the war.

[Ques­ti­on from the repor­ter, not translated.]

This is incor­rect, it will lead nowhe­re. The ques­ti­on doesnt con­cern only me. This ques­ti­on con­cerns the fact, that the peop­le in government are united, we are not all going to be able to do that. You cant do that with ulti­ma­tums [give in, I sup­po­se]. Ulti­ma­tums will not be ful­fil­led by Ukrai­ne, we just can not com­ply with it phy­si­cal­ly. We’­ve lost peop­le, our peop­le. How can we do it? All of us will be des­troy­ed. Then their ulti­ma­tum will be auto­ma­ti­cal­ly ful­fil­led. For examp­le. Give us Char­kiw, for examp­le, give us Mariu­pol, give us Kyiv. Neit­her Char­kiw, or Mariu­pol or Kyiv resi­dents, nor the pre­si­dent will be able to do this. And we even see it in the occu­p­ied cities, in Meli­to­pol in Ber­dyansk. When they enter, peop­le will noti­fy each other. They rai­se the flag and peop­le take it down. They kil­led a man, so peop­le hid and came at night and remo­ved the flag, well - what do you want? To des­troy ever­yo­ne? That is why I said, we will ful­fill and ulti­ma­tum only when we do not exist. You can auto­ma­ti­cal­ly cap­tu­re the city, but you will live the­re, by yourself. You will work the­re by yourself. Peop­le will eit­her lea­ve the city, or tho­se who can­not lea­ve, will fight to the end. The­re­fo­re an ulti­ma­tum is a bad thing. Becau­se it will lead to geno­ci­de, and the dest­ruc­tion of the ukrai­ni­an peop­le. We are so ener­gi­zed right now! The­re­fo­re it comes down to the dia­log. We are for peace! I repeat it again. Even no mat­ter how dif­fi­cult it is, it is bet­ter than war, and even though we hate the­se tro­ops, that are out the­re. The right word is nego­tia­ti­on. Nego­tia­te howe­ver you can. But nego­tia­te. Do not exe­cu­te ulti­ma­tums. This is an important point. A com­pro­mi­se can be found in dia­log. For me any com­pro­mi­se is irrele­vant, becau­se, as you know this hat­red will be for every word. For every word. For every demand. For every cour­se. For every gua­ran­tor of secu­ri­ty. For ever­yo­ne. You under­stand, right? Time must pass. The­re­fo­re, if they want to end the war, they must agree one sei­ze fire, with­draw tro­ops, then pre­si­dents meet, agree, that tro­ops are with­drawn, and that the­re are cer­tain secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tors. Here you can find com­pro­mi­se. The­re are cer­tain gua­ran­tors of our secu­ri­ty. They must say tomor­row, that they are accep­t­ing Ukrai­ne into Nato, and not being unclear any­mo­re. Or say, we are not accep­t­ing it now. That is true. And they them­sel­ves under­stand, that they dont want to go with rus­sia. So they do not accept us. The ans­wer is very simp­le. We alrea­dy under­stand ever­ything. “We’­re not accep­t­ing it” - becau­se they are afraid of rus­sia, thats all. And we need to calm down and say that. [Reac­tion was cau­sed by the jour­na­list initi­al­ly asking the ques­ti­on nod­ding affir­ma­tively, when Zelen­skyy went into the “So they do not accept us” part.] Say - we need other secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees. The­re are Nato mem­ber sta­tes that want to be the gua­ran­tors of our secu­ri­ty, which unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly cant pro­vi­de us full mem­bers­hip in the alli­an­ce. But are rea­dy to do ever­ything that the alli­an­ce would have to do, if we were mem­bers of the alli­an­ce. And I think, thats a nor­mal com­pro­mi­se. Its a com­pro­mi­se for ever­yo­ne. For the west which does not know what to do with us in the Nato issue, for Ukrai­ne which wants secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees, and for rus­sia, which does not want to let nato expand fur­ther, and says it has had such agree­ments with Nato coun­tries, with the west. And so, a com­pro­mi­se must be found in this. Becau­se, this will be the end of the war. For Rus­sia, this is not the end. The­re is this public let­ter. I dont know by whom, I dont remem­ber, by the minis­ter of for­eign affairs, or by the pre­si­dent of rus­sia. Stop tal­king to us with phra­ses like den­azi­fi­ca­ti­on etc. - we immedia­te­ly said, that this sounds like an ulti­ma­tum - and we do not tole­ra­te this. Becau­se as soon as we are accu­sed of nazism, by peop­le, who fol­low in the foots­teps of nazism, then we will not be able to tole­ra­te it. The­re­fo­re public rhe­to­ric can be anything, its the busi­ness of every sta­te in this world - but this will not be bin­ding rhetoric.

Next ques­ti­on:

Mr. Pre­si­dent - a cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on, whe­re are Cri­mea and Don­bas in this?

They will come later, thats why I’m tal­king about approa­ches. I’ll finish now. I think, this is a very dif­fi­cult nar­ra­ti­ve for ever­yo­ne. Both cri­mea and don­bas. It will be hard to digest for ever­yo­ne. And to find a way out we need to take this first step. Which is, as I’ve said, secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees. The end of the war. At the same time, we should also agree, that we are resol­ving the issue of tem­pora­ry occu­p­ied ter­ri­to­ries. We have to resol­ve it. But after the end of the war! Why? Becau­se ever­ything is very hot, as I’ve said. Very hot. And so [?!] this blo­cka­de will end. And after this blo­cka­de, plea­se, lets talk. At the first mee­ting, with the pre­si­dent of rus­sia - I am rea­dy to rai­se the­se issu­es. They are rele­vant. For us the occu­p­ied ter­ri­to­ries are important. But I’m sure that this decisi­on will not ari­se in this mee­ting, becau­se the­re is, if we are frank, we’ll have to talk about con­sti­tu­tio­nal chan­ges. Chan­ges in Ukrai­ni­an legis­la­ti­on, when it comes to secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees. And if we talk about it, it will - in any case be deci­ded, not only by the pre­si­dent, but as it is qui­te a long pro­cess, by both the par­lia­ment, and the peop­le of Ukraine […]


So I sum­me­ri­ze, becau­se of popu­lar demo­cra­cy, lea­ders in the free world that are against a Nato mem­bers­hip of Ukrai­ne will be topp­led. Or not, if we are frank. In that case - The first step is for secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees to be enac­ted. No, no, actual­ly the first step is for the rus­si­an army to lea­ve the coun­try ent­i­re­ly (inclu­ding Don­bas and Cri­mea), then for secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees to be enac­ted (Qua­si Nato, without Nato, agree­ments on a bila­te­ral basis). Then Zelen­skyy will talk to Putin, this will sol­ve the Don­bas and Cri­mea situa­ti­on. But only in a one on one. Then the­re needs to be a bunch of time that needs to pass, becau­se Zelen­skyy needs to think about how to deal with the “brain­wa­s­hed peop­le”. And then the­re will be decisi­ons about con­sti­tu­tio­nal chan­ges, that allow for the secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees to beco­me per­ma­nent (Nato being writ­ten out of the Ukrai­ne con­sti­tu­ti­on), and then the­re will be a referendum.

In NO CASE, can the­re be nego­tia­ti­on papers with deman­ds, that are cir­cu­la­ting befo­re hand, or mee­tings of dele­ga­ti­ons that deci­de on a dif­fe­rent out­co­me - becau­se by vir­tue of them being named that way, tho­se are ulti­ma­tums. And Zelen­skyy cant be made to deal with tho­se, becau­se peop­le. In the Ukrai­ne, and also ever­yo­ne around him.




Zuge­ge­ben, es klingt nach Science-Fiction: Der ukrai­ni­sche Prä­si­dent Wolo­dym­yr Selen­skyj hat ange­kün­digt, über eine even­tu­el­le künf­ti­ge Ver­ein­ba­rung mit Russ­land per Volks­ab­stim­mung ent­schei­den zu las­sen. In einem Land mit zer­bomb­ten Städ­ten, zer­stör­ter Infra­struk­tur und mil­lio­nen­fach ins Aus­land geflo­he­nen Bür­ge­rin­nen und Bür­gern ist das der­zeit nur schwer vor­stell­bar – nicht nur aus orga­ni­sa­to­ri­schen Erwä­gun­gen, son­dern vor allem aus politischen.

src: click

Sonst aber alles super duper normal.

In der Ukrai­ne herrscht wei­ter­hin Kriegs­recht. Gleich­zei­tig sind Tei­le des Lan­des von rus­si­schen Trup­pen besetzt, was ein Refe­ren­dum natür­lich aus­schlie­ßen wür­de. Man erin­ne­re sich an das Jahr 2014, als auf der ukrai­ni­schen Schwarz­meer­halb­in­sel Krim über die Ein­glie­de­rung in die Rus­si­sche Föde­ra­ti­on abge­stimmt wurde.

Der Urnen­gang wur­de von der Ukrai­ne selbst und den meis­ten ande­ren Staa­ten nicht aner­kannt – unter ande­rem des­halb, weil die Krim damals bereits unter mas­si­vem rus­si­schem Druck stand.

Der ukrai­ni­sche Prä­si­dent Wolo­dym­yr Selen­skyj hat ange­kün­digt, über eine even­tu­el­le künf­ti­ge Ver­ein­ba­rung mit Russ­land per Volks­ab­stim­mung ent­schei­den zu lassen.
Ein auch nur annä­hernd ähn­li­ches Sze­na­rio kann nicht in ukrai­ni­schem Inter­es­se sein. Und dass Mos­kau in abseh­ba­rer Zeit sei­ne Trup­pen abzieht, um freie und fai­re Wah­len in der Ukrai­ne zu ermög­li­chen, ist ein Gedan­ke, den wohl nicht ein­mal die größ­ten Opti­mis­ten im Reper­toire haben. Abge­se­hen davon, dass eine Ver­hand­lungs­lö­sung, über die dann abge­stimmt wer­den könn­te, in wei­ter Fer­ne liegt und wohl solch kom­pli­zier­te Punk­te wie den Sta­tus der Krim und des Don­bass oder das Ver­hält­nis der Ukrai­ne zur Nato beinhal­ten müsste.

Welt­fremd ist Selen­sky­js Erklä­rung den­noch nicht. Sie mag viel­leicht kei­ne unmit­tel­ba­re Zukunfts­per­spek­ti­ve abge­ben, dafür aber sagt sie umso mehr aus über die Gegen­wart. Selen­skyj sen­det mit ihr ein Signal an die Welt und an sein rus­si­sches Gegen­über Wla­di­mir Putin: In Kiew regiert kein Alleinherrscher.

Ach­so, und ich dach­te schon… Aber es ist ein­fach alles super duper normal.


Zelen­sky calls for “more pres­su­re on Rus­sia to res­to­re peace” in address to Japa­ne­se lawmakers

src: click

Hinterlasse eine Antwort