Putin sheds light on Russia's relationship with the West, highlighting initial optimism for collaboration after the Soviet Union's collapse. He proposed a joint missile defense system, but it was rejected, leading to Russia's development of hypersonic missiles. Putin expresses concerns about NATO expansion and accuses the CIA of orchestrating a coup in Ukraine. He attributes the War in Ukraine to NATO's open doors for Ukraine, the coup, and the persecution of dissenters. Tensions persist due to Ukraine's refusal to implement the Minsk agreements. The posts raise questions about collaboration, Putin's interpretation of events, and the role of NATO and the CIA in the war.
𝕏 Post Text
@KanekoaTheGreat - KanekoaTheGreat
Vladimir Putin sheds light on Russia's complex relationship with the West following the collapse of the Soviet Union, detailing aspirations for collaboration with Presidents Clinton and Bush, concerns about NATO expansion, a CIA-backed coup in Ukraine, the Minsk Agreements, and the onset of the War in Ukraine in 2014.
Russia's Post-Soviet Optimism
Putin revisited the Soviet Union's dissolution, emphasizing Russia's initial hope for collaboration with the West. He highlighted Russia's voluntary acceptance of the Soviet Union's collapse, expecting the "civilized West" to view it as an invitation for cooperation. Putin recalled Russian President Boris Yeltsin's praised speech in front of the United States Congress, famously saying, "God Bless America," while expressing optimism for acceptance by the West.
Putin's Missile Shield Plan
In 2007, Putin proposed a joint U.S.-Russia-Europe missile defense system to President George W. Bush. While the U.S. claimed to build a missile shield in Eastern Europe to counter threats from Iran, Putin suggested a collaborative approach to avoid threatening Russia's security. Despite initial interest, Putin's proposal was rejected, leading to Russia's development of hypersonic missile systems.
"I suggested working together: Russia, the United States, and Europe. They said it was very interesting. They asked me, "Are you serious?" I said, "Absolutely". I said, "Just imagine if we could settle such a global strategic security challenge together. The world will change. We'll probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones. But we could drastically change the situation in the world." He says "Yes, and asks, "Are you serious? I said, "Of course". "We need to think about it." I said, "Go ahead, please."
Putin describes how Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited him in Moscow in 2007 to decline his proposal. In response, Putin explained that Russia would be forced to take countermeasures.
"We are now ahead of everyone, the United States and the other countries in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems. And we are improving them every day. But it wasn't us. We proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back. Now, about NATO's expansion to the east. Well, we were promised no NATO to the east, not an inch to the east, as we were told. And then what? They said, well, it's not enshrined on paper, so we'll expand. So, there were five waves of expansion. The Baltic states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on."
NATO Expansion Concerns
Putin describes Russia's grievances regarding NATO's eastward expansion, emphasizing the breach of promises made during earlier negotiations. He recounted the diplomatic efforts to dissuade NATO from encroaching on Russia's borders, illustrating a growing rift in relations, particularly in the aftermath of NATO bombing Yugoslavia in violation of the United Nations charter.
Putin recalled asking President Bill Clinton about Russia joining NATO. After initially expressing interest, Clinton said it would be impossible after he spoke to his advisors. Putin also mentioned the CIA's involvement in supporting opposition parties in Russia.
"The promise was that NATO would not expand eastward. But it happened five times. There were five waves of expansion. We tolerated all that. We were trying to persuade them. We were saying, please don't... We are a market economy, and there is no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate."
"In 2008, at the summit in Bucharest, they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open. Germany, France, and other European countries seemed to be against it. But then, as I was told later, President Bush exerted pressure, and they had to agree. It's ridiculous. It's like kindergarten. What kind of people are these? We're ready to talk, but with whom? Where are the guarantees? None. So they started to develop the territory of Ukraine."
CIA's Role in Ukraine
Putin took a deep dive into the Ukrainian crisis, particularly the contentious events surrounding the Orange Revolution in 2004 and Viktor Yanukovych's removal from power during the Maidan Revolution in 2014. He asserts that the United States, with a particular focus on the CIA and State Department, played a significant role in the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, characterizing it as a coup orchestrated with American backing.
Putin explained that Germany, Poland, and France signed an agreement between Yanukovych and the opposition that would guarantee a peaceful resolution through an early election. Putin criticized the decision to resort to violence instead of allowing an early election, asserting that the CIA's actions were a political miscalculation.
"He had no chance of winning, frankly speaking. Everyone knew that. Then, why the coup? Why the victims? Why threaten Crimea? Why launch an operation in Donbas? This I do not understand. That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that they cost a large sum of money. Almost 5 billion. But the political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do that? All this could have been done legally, without victims, without military action, and without the loss of Crimea. We would have never considered even lifting the finger if it hadn't been for the bloody developments on Maidan."
"The armed opposition committed a coup in Kiev. With the back of the CIA, of course. They have always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically, they did everything right. They achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from a political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake. Surely, it was political leadership's miscalculation. They should have seen what it would evolve into."
War in Donbas 2014
Putin discusses the events leading to the 2014 War in Ukraine, attributing it to NATO's open doors for Ukraine in 2008, the subsequent coup, and the persecution of those opposing it.
"In 2008, the doors of NATO were opened for Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup. They created the threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched the war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There's a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above."
"They launched a large-scale military operation. All this against the background of the military development of this territory and the opening of NATO's doors. How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side, this would have been a culpable negligence."
"We addressed the leadership of the United States and European countries to stop these developments immediately and implement the Minsk agreements."
The Minsk Agreements
Putin explained that current tensions result from Ukraine's leadership's refusal to implement the 2014-signed Minsk agreements. He highlighted Ukraine's reluctance to adhere to the agreements, with leaders openly declaring their refusal. Putin also mentioned former German and French leaders admitting to signing the agreements without intending to implement them. Despite the complexity, Putin expressed readiness to implement the agreements, criticizing Ukraine for favoring a military solution and accusing them of starting the war in 2014.
"It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war. And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it."
Why did the United States and the West refuse to collaborate with Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
What do you think about Putin's interpretation of events that led to the War in Ukraine?
Do you agree with Putin's assertion that NATO expansion and a CIA-backed coup in Ukraine led to the War in Ukraine?
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the collapse of the Soviet Union and the expectations of Russian leadership regarding cooperation with the West. They highlight the broken promises of NATO expansion and the negative response from the West towards Russia. The speaker also mentions the events leading up to the conflict in Ukraine, including the coup and the failure to implement the Minsk agreements. They express their willingness to resolve the conflict peacefully but emphasize the need to protect Russian interests and the people of Donbas.
Speaker 0: I'm coming to a very important point of today's agenda. Thank you. After all, the collapse of Soviet Union was effectively initiated by the Russian leadership. I do not understand what the Russian leadership was Guaido and I at the time. But I suspect there were several reasons to think everything would be fine.
Of 1st, I think that then Russian leadership believed that the fundamentals of the relationship shipment between Russia and Ukraine were, in fact, a common language. More than 90% of the population there spoke Russian. Family ties, every third person there had some kind of family or friendship ties, common culture, common history, finally, common faith, coexistence with a single state for centuries, and deeply interconnected economies all of these were so fundamental. All these elements together make our good relationships inevitable. The second point is a very important one.
I want you as an American citizen and your viewers to hear about this as well. The former Russian leadership assumed that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. And therefore, There were no longer any ideological dividing lines. Russia even agreed voluntarily early and proactively to the collapse of the Soviet Union and believe that this would be understood by the so called civilized west as an invitation for cooperation and association. That is what Russia was expecting both from the United States and the so called collective West as a whole.
There were smart people, including in Germany, Egon Barr, a major politician of the Social Democratic Party, who insisted in his personal conversations with the Soviet leadership on the brink of the collapse of the Soviet Union, that a new security system should be established in Europe. Help should be given to unify Germany, but a new system should be also established to include the United States, Canada, Russia, in other Central European countries. Yes. But NATO needs not to expand. That's what he said.
If NATO expands, everything would be just the same as during the Cold War, only closer to Russia's borders. That's all. He was a wise old man, but no one listened to him. In fact, he got angry once. Of if he said you don't listen to me, I'm never setting my foot in Moscow once again.
No. Everything happened just as he had said.
Speaker 1: It will of course, it did come true, and I and you've mentioned this many times. I think it's a fair point. You've never explained why you think that happened except to say that the West fears a strong Russia, but we have a strong China the West does not Seem very afraid of. What about Russia do you think convinced policymakers they had to Take it down.
Speaker 0: The west is afraid of strong China more than it fears a strong Russia. Because Russia has 150,000,000 people and China has 1,500,000,000 population, and its economy is growing by leaps and bounds over 5% a year, it used to be even more. But that's enough for China. As Bismarck once put it, potentials are the most important. China's potential is enormous.
It is the biggest economy in the world today in terms of purchasing power parity and the size of the economy. It has already overtaken the United States quite a long time ago, and it is growing at a rapid clip. Let's not talk about who is reign of whom? Let's not reason in such terms. And let's get into the fact that after 1991, when Russia expected that it would be welcomed into the brotherly family of civilized nations, nothing like this happened.
You tricked us. I don't mean you personally when I say you. Of course, I'm talking about the United States. The promise was that NATO would not expand eastward, but it happened five times. There were 5 waves of expansion.
We tolerated all that. We were trying to persuade them. We were saying, please don't, we are as bourgeois now as you are. We are market economy, and there's no Communist Party power. Let's negotiate.
Moreover, I have also said this publicly before. There was a moment when a certain rift started growing between us. Before that, Yeltsin came to the United States. Remember, he spoke in congress and said the good words, God bless America, everything he said were signals. Let us in.
Remember the developments in Yugoslavia before the Yeltsin was lavished with praise. As soon as the developments in Yugoslavia started, he raised his voice in support of Serbs, and we couldn't but raise our voices for Serbs in their defense. I understand that there were complex processes on the way there. I do. But Russia could not help raising its voice in support Serbs because Serbs are also a special and close to us nation with orthodox culture and so on.
It's a nation that has suffered so much for generations. Well, regardless, what is important is that Yeltsin expressed his support. What did the United States do? In violation of an international law and the UN Charter, it started bombing Belgrade. It was the United States that led the genie out of the bottom.
Moreover, when Russia protested and expressed its resentment, what was said, the UN Charter and international law have become obsolete. Now everyone invokes international law. But at that time, they started saying that everything was outdated. Everything had to be changed. Indeed, some things need to be changed as the balance of power has changed.
It's true. But not in this manner. Yeltsin was immediately dragged through the mud, accused of alcoholism, of understanding nothing, of knowing nothing. He understood everything. I assure you.
Well I became president in 2,000. I thought, okay. The Yugoslav issue is over, but we should try to restore relations. Let's reopen the door that Russia had tried to go through. The end, moreover, I said it publicly, I can reiterate.
At a meeting here in the Kremlin with the the outgoing president Bill Clinton right here in the next room, I said to him. I asked him. Bill. Do you think if Russia asked to join NATO, do you think it would happen? Suddenly, he said, you know, it's interesting.
Ink. I think so. But in the evening, when we met for dinner, he said, you know, I've talked to my team. No. No.
It's not possible now. You can ask him. I think he will watch our interview. He'll confirm of I wouldn't have said anything like that if it hadn't happened. Okay.
Were you sincere?
Speaker 1: Possible now? Would you have joined NATO?
Speaker 0: Look. I asked the question, is it possible or not? And the answer I got was no. If I was insincere in my desire to find out what the leadership position was But if
Speaker 1: he had said yes, would you have joined NATO?
Speaker 0: If he had said yes, the process of reproachment would have commenced. And, eventually, it might have happened if we had seen some sincere wish on the other side of our partners. But it didn't happen. Well, no means no. Okay.
Fine.
Speaker 1: Why do you think that is? Just to get to motive. I know you're clearly bitter about it. I understand, but why do you think the West rebuffed you then? Why the hostility?
Why did the end of the Cold War not Fix the relationship? What motivates this from your point of view?
Speaker 0: You said I was bitter about the answer. No. It's not bitterness. It's just a statement of fact. We're not bride and groom, bitterness, resentment, it's not about those kind of matters in such circumstances.
We just realized we weren't welcome there. That's all. Okay. Fine. But let's build relations in another manner.
Let's look for common ground elsewhere. Why we received such a negative response, you should ask your leaders. I can only guess why. Too big a country with its own opinion and so on. And the United States, I've seen how issues are being resolved in NATO.
I will give you another example now concerning Ukraine. The US leadership exerts pressure, and all NATO members obediently vote. Even if they do not like something. Now I'll tell you what happened in this regard with Ukraine in 2008, although it's being discussed. Of I'm not going to open a secret to you, say anything new.
Nevertheless, after that, we tried to build relations in different ways. Of For example, the events in the Middle East, in Iraq we were building relations with the United states in a very soft, prudent, cautious manner. I repeatedly raised the issue that the United States should not support separatism or terrorism in the North Caucasus. But they continue to do it anyway. And political support, information support, financial work, even military support came from the United States and its satellites for terrorist groups in the Caucasus.
Of I once raised this issue with my colleague, also the president of the United States. He says, it's impossible. Do you have proof? I said yes. I was prepared for this conversation, and I gave him that proof.
Of he looked at it, and you know what he said? I apologize, but that's what happened. I'll quote. He says, well, I'm gonna kick their ass. We waited and waited for some response.
There was no reply. I said to the FSB director, write to the CA, what is the result of the conversation with president? He wrote once, twice, and then we got a reply. We have the answer in the archive. The CIA replied, we have been working with the opposition in Russia.
We believe that this is the right thing to do, and we will keep on doing it. Just ridiculous. Well, okay. We realized that it was out of the question.
Speaker 1: Force is in opposition to you. So you're saying the CA is trying to overthrow your government?
Speaker 0: Of course, they meant in that particular case, the separatists, the terrorists who fought with us in the Caucasus, that's who they call the opposition. This is the second point. The third moment is a very important one. It's the moment when the US missile defense system was created. The beginning.
We persuaded for a long time not to do it in United States. Of moreover, after I was invited by Bush junior's father, Bush senior, to visit this place on the ocean I had a very serious conversation with president Bush and his team. I propose that the United States, Russia, and Europe jointly create a missile defense system that we believe, if created unilaterally threatens our security despite the fact that the United States officially said that it was being created against missile threats from Iran, that was the justification for the deployment of the missile defense system. I suggested working together, Russia, the United States and Europe, they said it was very interesting. They asked me, are you serious?
I said, absolutely.
Speaker 1: May I ask what year was this?
Speaker 0: I don't remember. It is easy to find out on the Internet when I was in the USA at the invitation of a Bush senior. It is even easier to learn from someone I'm going to tell you about. I was told it was very interesting. I said, just imagine if we could tackle such a global strategic security challenge together.
The world will change. Will probably have disputes, probably economic and even political ones, but we could drastically change the situation in the world. He says yes and asks, are you serious? I said, of course. We need to think about it.
Time, so I said go ahead, please. Then secretary of defense Gates, former director of CIA and secretary of state the rice came in here, in this cabinet, right here at this table. They sat on this table. Me, the foreign minister, their the Russian defense minister on that side they said to me, yes. We have thought about it.
We agree. I said, thank God. Great. No. But with some exceptions.
Speaker 1: So twice you've described US presidents making decisions by the people who were elected in your telling.
Speaker 0: That's right. That's right. In the end, they just told us to get lost. I'm not going to tell you the details because I think it's incorrect. After all, it was confidential conversation.
But our proposal was declined. That's a fact. It was right then when I said, look. But then we will be forced to take countermeasures. We will create such strike systems that will certainly overcome missile defense systems.
The answer was, we are not doing this against you, and you do what you want, assuming that it is not against us, not against the United States, I said, okay. Very well. That's the way it went. And we created hypersonic systems with intercontinental range, and we continue to develop them. We are now ahead of everyone, the United states and the other countries in terms of the development of hypersonic strike systems, and we are improving them every day.
But it wasn't us. We proposed to go the other way, and we were pushed back. Now about NATO's expansion to the east. Well, we were promised no NATO to the east, not an inch to the east as we were told. And then what?
They said, well, it's not enshrined on paper, so we'll expand. So there were 5 waves of expansion, the Baltic states, the whole of Eastern Europe, and so on. And now I come to the main thing. They have come to the Ukraine ultimately. The way.
In 2008, at the summit in Bucharest, they declared that the doors for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO were open. Now about how decisions are made there. Germany, France seem to be against it as well as some other European countries. But then as it turned out later, president Bush, and he's such a tough guy, a tough politician, as I was told later, he exerted pressure on us, and we had to agree. It's ridiculous.
It's like kindergarten. Where are the guarantees? What kindergarten is this? What kind of people are these? Who are they?
You see, they were pressed. They agreed. And then they say Ukraine won't be in the NATO, you know? I say, I don't know. I know you agreed in 2,008.
Why won't you agree in the future? Well, they pressed us then. I say, why won't they press you tomorrow? And you'll agree again. Well, it's nonsensical.
Who's there to talk to? I just don't understand. We're ready to talk. But with whom? Where are the guarantees?
None. So they started to develop the territory of Ukraine. Whatever is there, I have told you the background, how this territory developed. What kind of relations there were with Russia? Every second or third person there has always had some ties with Russia.
And during the elections in already independent sovereign Ukraine, which gained its independence as a result of the declaration of independence. And by the way, it says that Ukraine is a neutral state, and in 2,008, suddenly the doors or gates to NATO were open to it. Oh, come on. This is not how we agreed. Now all the presidents that have come to power in Ukraine, they relied on electorate with a good attitude to Russia in one way or the other.
This is the southeast of Ukraine. This is a large number of people. And it was very difficult to swayed this electorate, which had a positive attitude towards Russia. Viktor Yanukovych came to power and how? The first time he won after president Kuchma, they organized a 3rd round, which is not provided for in the constitution of Ukraine.
This is a coup d'etat. Just imagine someone in the United States wouldn't like the outcome.
Speaker 1: In 2014.
Speaker 0: Before that. No. This was before that, after president Kuchma, Viktor Yanukovych won the elections. However, his opponents did not recognize that victory. The US supported the opposition, and the 3rd round was scheduled.
What is this? This is a coup. Treaty too. The US supported it, and the winner of the 3rd round came to power. Imagine if in the US something was not to someone's liking and the 3rd round of election, which the US constitution does not provide for, was organized.
Nonetheless, it was done in Ukraine. Okay. Viktor Yushchenko, who was considered a pro western politician, came to power. Fine. We have built relations with him as well.
He came to Moscow with the visits. We visited Kyiv. I visited Sue. We met in an informal setting. If he's pro western, so be it.
Its fine. Let people do their job. The situation should have developed inside independent Ukraine itself. As a result of Kuchma's leadership, things got worse and Viktor Yanukovych came to power after all. Maybe he wasn't the best president and politician.
I don't know. I don't want to give assessments. However, the issue of the association with the EU came up. Of We have always been leaning to this. Suit yourself.
But when we read through the Treaty of Association, it turned out ought to be a problem for us since we had a free trade zone and open customs borders with Ukraine, which under this association had to open its borders for Europe, which could have led to flooding of our market. We said, no. This is not going to work. We shall close our borders with Ukraine then. The customs borders, that is.
Yanukovych started to calculate how much Ukraine was going to gain, how much to lose and said to his European partners, I need more time to think before signing. The moment he said that, the opposition began to 8 destructive steps, which were supported by the West, it all came down to Maidan and a coup in Ukraine.
Speaker 1: So he did more trade with Russia than with the EU. Ukraine did.
Speaker 0: Of course. It's not even the matter of trade volume, although, for the most part, it is. It is the matter of cooperation size, which the entire Ukrainian economy was based on. The cooperation size between the enterprises were very close since the times of the Soviet Union. One enterprise there used to produce components to be assembled both in Russia and Ukraine and vice versa.
They used to be very close ties. A coup that was committed. Although I shall not delve into details now as I find doing it inappropriate, the US told us. Calm Yanukovych down, and we will calm the opposition. Let the situation unfold in the scenario of a political settlement.
We said, alright. Greece, let's do it this way. As the Americans requested, Yanukovych did use neither the armed forces nor the police, yet the armed opposition committed a coup in Kyiv. What is that supposed to mean? Who do you think you are?
The key I wanted to ask the then US leadership.
Speaker 1: With the backing of whom?
Speaker 0: With the backing of CIA, of course, the organization you wanted to join back in the day, as I understand. We should thank God they didn't let you in. Although, it is a serious organization. I understand. My former vis a vis in the sense that I served in the 1st main directorate, Soviet Union's intelligence service.
They have always been our opponents. A job is a job. Technically, they did everything right. They achieved their goal of changing the government. However, from political standpoint, it was a colossal mistake.
Surely, it was political leadership's miscalculation. They should have seen what it would evolve into. So in 2,008, the doors of NATO were opened poor Ukraine. In 2014, there was a coup. They started persecuting those who did not accept the coup, and it was indeed a coup.
They created a threat to Crimea, which we had to take under our protection. They launched the war in Donbas in 2014 with the use of aircraft and artillery against civilians. This is when it all started. There's a video of aircraft attacking Donetsk from above. Of they launched a large scale military operation, then another one.
When they failed, they started to prepare the next one. All this against the background of military development of this territory and opening of NATO's doors. How could we not express concern over what was happening? From our side, this would have been the culpable negligence, that's what it would have been. It's just that the US political leadership pushed us to the line, we could not cross because doing so could have ruined Russia itself.
Besides, we could not leave our brothers in faith, in fact, a part of Russian people in the face of this war machine.
Speaker 1: What was the so but that was 8 years before the current conflict started. So what was the trigger for you? What was the moment where you decided you had to do this? Of
Speaker 0: Initially, it was the coup in Ukraine that provoked the conflict. By the way, back then, the representatives of 3 European countries, Germany, Poland, and France, arrived. They were the guarantors of the signed agreement between the government of Yanukovych and the opposition. They signed it as guarantors. Despite that, the opposition committed a coup, and all these countries pretended that they didn't remember that they were guarantors of the peaceful settlement.
They just threw it in the stove right away, and nobody recalls that. I don't know if the US know anything about the agreement between the opposition and the authorities and its 3 guarantors who, instead of bringing this whole situation back in the political field, supported the coup, although it was meaningless. Believe me. Because president Yanukovych agreed to all conditions, he was ready to hold an early election which he had no chance of winning, frankly speaking. Everyone knew that.
Then why the coup? Why the victims? Why threatening Crimea? Why launching an operation in Donbas? This, I do not understand.
That is exactly what the miscalculation is. CIA did its job to complete the coup. Of I think one of the deputy secretaries of state said that it cost a large sum of money, almost 5,000,000,000. But the political mistake was colossal. Why would they have to do that?
All this could have been done legally without victims, without military action, without losing Crimea. We would have never considered to even lift a finger if it hadn't been for the bloody developments on Maidan. Because we agreed with the fact that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, our borders should be along the borders of former unions republics. We agreed to that. But we never agreed to NATO's expansion, and Moreover, we never agreed that Ukraine would be in NATO.
We did not agree to NATO bases there without any discussion with us. For decades, we kept asking, don't do this, don't do that. Of And what triggered the latest demands? Firstly, the current Ukrainian leadership Blair that it would not implement the Minsk agreements, which had been signed, as you know, after the events of 2014 in Minsk, or the plan of peaceful settlement in Donbas was set forth. But now the current Ukrainian leadership, foreign minister, all other officials and then president himself said that they don't like anything about the Minsk agreements.
In other words, they were not going to implement it. A year or a year and a half ago, former leaders of Germany and France said openly to the whole world that they indeed signed the Minsk agreements, but they never intended to implement them. They simply led us by the nose.
Speaker 1: Was there anyone free to talk to? Did you call a US president, secretary of state, and say if you keep militarizing Ukraine with NATO forces, this is gonna get this is gonna be a we're gonna act.
Speaker 0: We talked about this all the time. We addressed the United States and European countries' leadership to the stop these developments immediately. So implement the Minsk agreements. Frankly speaking, I didn't know how we were going to do this, but I was ready to implement them. These agreements were complicated for Ukraine.
They included lots of elements of those Donbas territory's independence. Events. That's true. However, I was absolutely confident, and I'm saying this to you now. I honestly believe that if we managed to convince the residents of Donbas and we had to work hard to convince them to return to the Ukrainian statehood, then gradually, the wounds would start to heal.
When this part of territory reintegrated itself into common social environment, when the pensions, social benefits were paid again, all the pieces would gradually fall into place. No. Nobody wanted that. Everybody wanted to resolve the issue by military force only. But we could not let that happen.
And the situation got to the point when the Ukrainian side announced, no. We will not do anything. They also started preparing for military action. It was they who started the war in 2014. Our goal is to stop this war.
And we did not start this war in 2022. This is an attempt to stop it.
