By Kit Klarenberg, Substack, 7/1/22

Anatomy Of A Coup

Obvious examples of Central Intelligence Agency covert action abroad are difficult to identify today, save for occasional acknowledged calamities, such as the long-running $1 billion effort to overthrow the government of Syria, via funding, training and arming barbarous jihadist groups.

In part, this stems from many of the CIA’s traditional responsibilities and activities being farmed out to “overt” organizations, most significantly the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

Founded in November 1983, then-CIA director William Casey was at the heart of NED’s creation. He sought to construct a public mechanism to support opposition groups, activist movements and media outlets overseas that would engage in propaganda and political activism to disrupt, destabilize, and ultimately displace ‘enemy’ regimes. Subterfuge with a human face, to coin a phrase.

Underlining the Endowment’s insidious true nature, in a 1991 Washington Post article boasting of its prowess in overthrowing Communism in Eastern Europe, senior NED official Allen Weinstein acknowledged, “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.”

It Begins

Fast forward to September 2013, and Carl Gershman, NED chief from its launch until summer 2021, authored an op-ed for The Washington Post, outlining how his organization was hard at work wresting countries in Russia’s near abroad – the constellation of former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact states – away from Moscow’s orbit.

Along the way, he described Ukraine as “the biggest prize” in the region, suggesting Kiev joining Europe would “accelerate the demise” of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Six months later, Ukraine’s elected president Viktor Yanukovych was ousted in a violent coup.

Writing in Consortium News earlier that month, investigative legend Robert Parry recorded how, over the previous year, NED had funded 65 projects in Ukraine totaling over $20 million. This amounted to what the late journalist dubbed “a shadow political structure of media and activist groups that could be deployed to stir up unrest when the Ukrainian government didn’t act as desired.”

NED’s pivotal role in unseating Yanukovych can be considered beyond dispute, an unambiguous matter of record – yet not only is this never acknowledged in the mainstream press, but Western journalists aggressively rubbish the idea, viciously attacking those few who dare challenge the established orthodoxy of US innocence.

As if to assist in this deceit, NED has removed many entries from its website in the years since the coup, which amply underline its role in Yanukovych’s overthrow.

For example, on February 3rd 2014, less than three weeks before police withdrew from Kiev, effectively handing the city to armed protesters and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country, NED convened an event, Ukraine’s lessons learned: from the Orange Revolution to the Euromaidan.

It was led by Ukrainian journalist Sergii Leshchenko, who at the time was finishing up an NED-sponsored Reagan–Fascell Democracy Fellowship in Washington DC.

Alongside him was Nadia Diuk, NED’s then-senior adviser for Europe and Eurasia, and graduate of St. Antony’s College Oxford, a renowned recruiting pool for British intelligence founded by former spies. Just before her death in January 2019, she was bestowed the Order of Princess Olga, one of Kiev’s highest honors, a particularly palpable example of the intimate, enduring ties between NED and the Ukrainian government.

While the event’s online listing remains extant today, linked supporting documents – including Powerpoint slides that accompanied Leshchenko’s talk, and a summary of “event highlights” – have been deleted.

What prompted the purge isn’t clear, although it could well be significant that Leshchenko’s talk offered a clear blueprint for guaranteeing the failure of 2004’s Orange Revolution – another NED-orchestrated putsch – wasn’t repeated, and the country remained captured by Western financial, political and ideological interests post-Maidan. It was a roadmap NED subsequently followed to the letter.

Along the way, Leshchenko specifically highlighted the importance of funding NGOs, exploiting the internet and social media as “alternative [sources] of information,” and the danger of “unreformed state television.”

So it was that on March 19th, representatives of the far-right Svoboda party – which has been linked to a false flag massacre of protesters on February 20th, an event that made the downfall of Yanukovych’s government a fait accompli – broke into the office of Oleksandr Panteleymonov, chief of Ukraine’s state broadcaster, and beat him over the head until he signed a resignation letter.

That shocking incident, motivated by the station broadcasting a Kremlin ceremony at which Vladimir Putin signed a bill formalizing Crimea as part of Russia, was one of many livestreamed by protesters that traveled far and wide online.

The brutal defenestration of Ukraine’s state TV chief notwithstanding, much of this livestreamed output served to present foreign audiences with a highly romantic narrative on the demonstrations, and their participants, which bore little or no relation to reality.

The Revolution Will Be Televised

Writing in NED’s quarterly academic publication Journal of Democracy in July that year, Leshchenko discussed in detail the media’s role in the Maidan coup’s success, drawing particular attention to the fundamental role of “online journalist” Mustafa Nayyem.

He kickstarted the protests the previous November, rallying hundreds of his Facebook followers to protest in Kiev’s Independence – now Maidan – Square, after Yanukovych scrapped the Ukrainian-European Association Agreement in favor of a more agreeable deal with Moscow.

Nayyem was no ordinary “online journalist”. In October 2012, he was one of six Ukrainians whisked to Washington DC by Meridian International, a State Department-connected organization that identifies and grooms future overseas leaders, to “observe and experience” that year’s Presidential election.

Funded by the US embassy in Kiev, over 10 days they “[gained] a deeper understanding of the American electoral process,” meeting candidates and election officials, and touring voting facilities. They were also invited to discuss “Ukraine’s progress towards a more fair and transparent election process” with “equally curious” representatives of US government agencies.

With whom the sextet met is unstated, although promotional pictures show Nayyem filming a personal summit with John McCain on his smartphone. The video was posted to his personal YouTube channel – in it, Nayyem asks the noted warhawk for his thoughts on Ukraine, to which he responds, “I’m concerned with the influence of Russia.”

This is striking, for McCain flew to Kiev in December 2013 to give an address to Maidan protesters, flanked by known Neo-Nazi Oleh Tyahnybok. Then-State Department official Victoria Nuland, notoriously handing out motivational cookies to attendees.

On February 4th 2014, one day after Leshchenko’s NED presentation, an intercepted recording of a telephone call between Nuland – now Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs – and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt was leaked, in which the pair discussed how Washington was “midwifing” Yanukovych’s ouster, and named several handpicked individuals to head the post-coup government.

Whether Nayyem’s influential US contacts in any way motivated his decision to ignite the Maidan demonstrations in November 2013 isn’t certain. The pivotal part he played in promoting the protests globally is far clearer, for he was a key founder of digital broadcaster Hromadske TV.

In his Journal of Democracy article, Leshchenko records how Hromadske hadn’t even officially launched when it began streaming Maidan demonstrations live, the literal second they erupted at Nayyem’s direction.

While Leshchenko coyly states that Hromadske “drew most of its modest funding from international organizations and the donations of Ukrainian citizens,” it actually received hundreds of thousands of dollars in financing from a variety of questionable sources, including the US Embassy in Ukraine, intelligence front USAID, George Soros’ International Renaissance Foundation, American oligarch Pierre Omidyar, and – of course – NED.

Hromadske’s audience expanded rapidly both within and without Ukraine thereafter, its embedded output eagerly recycled by countless mainstream news outlets, meaning Western viewers were presented with a single, partisan perspective on the unrest – and a highly misleading one at that.

Based on Hromadske’s coverage, overseas onlookers would’ve been entirely forgiven for concluding the protests were wholly energized by concerns over human rights and democracy, and overwhelmingly – if not universally – popular.

In a representative February 2014 essay dismissing as Russian propaganda the demonstrable fact that both the Maidan demonstrators and their leadership were riddled with neo-Nazis, academic and Journal of Democracy contributor Andreas Umland boldly declared that “the movement as a whole…reflects the entire Ukrainian population, young and old.”

Nothing could’ve been further from the truth. An extraordinarily revealing Washington Post op-ed by North American academics Keith Darden and Lucan Way published that same month detonated that narrative, which has nonetheless only endured – and intensified – ever since.

The pair forensically exposed how less than 20 percent of protesters professed to be driven by “violations of democracy or the threat of dictatorship,” only 40 – 45 percent of Ukrainains were in favor of European integration, Yanukovych remained “the most popular political figure in the country,” and no poll conducted to date had ever indicated majority support for the uprising.

In fact, “quite large majorities oppose the takeover of regional governments by the opposition,” and the population remained bitterly divided on the future of Ukraine, Darden and Way wrote. Such hostility stemmed from “anti-Russian rhetoric and the iconography of western Ukrainian nationalism,” rife among the demonstrators, “not [playing] well among the Ukrainian majority.”

Of the 50 percent of Ukraine’s population residing in regions that had “strongly identified with Russia” for over two centuries, “nearly all [were] alienated by anti-Russian rhetoric and symbols.”

“Anti-Russian forms of Ukrainian nationalism expressed on the Maidan are certainly not representative of the general view of Ukrainians. Electoral support for these views and for the political parties who espouse them has always been limited,” Darden and Way concluded. “Their presence and influence in the protest movement far outstrip their role in Ukrainian politics and their support barely extends geographically beyond a few Western provinces.”

‘Pro-Ukrainian Agenda’

Despite – or perhaps because of – such slanted coverage, Hromadske only grew from strength to strength subsequently. Such was its surging popularity, Leshchenko records, even Ukraine’s state broadcaster “struck a deal” to amplify its output, “thus handing this small ‘garage’ webcasting enterprise an audience of millions.” In the process, Ukrainians – and the world – were well-educated in the false narrative of Yanukovych being overthrown via popular will.

Hromadske’s potential to influence perceptions was evidently not lost on other Western governments either. In 2015, the British Foreign Office provided significant funds to develop “radio broadcasting” initiatives in the Russian-majority regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, for a project dubbed “Donbas calling”. The next year, London proferred more sums to the outlet, so it could serve as a local “information provider” to an “audience of up to one million people.”

In 2017, Hromadske again received hundreds of thousands of pounds to expand even further into the breakaway regions. Among other things, Britain supported the installation “of 16 FM transmitters in Ukraine-controlled areas along the contact line and ‘grey zone’ in the east,” meaning the station could reach up to two million citizens potentially possessed of separatist perspectives.

The public profiles of Leshchenko and Nayyem concurrently rose exponentially too. In Ukraine’s October 2014 elections, both were elected to parliament as part of Petro Poroshenko’s bloc, the former becoming a member of its anti-corruption committee, the latter its cross-party group on European integration, leading to glowing profiles in the Western media. All along, NED closely monitored their progress, hailing the pair as emblems of the new, liberated Ukraine that flowered in the wake of Maidan.

Nonetheless, Leshchenko’s personal commitment to democracy was rather undermined in August 2016, when he and Artem Sytnyk, head of Kiev’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau, leaked documents – dubbed the “the black ledger” – identifying payments to Donald Trump’s then-campaign manager Paul Manafort from Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, to the US media.

Leshchenko expressed his “hope” that the disclosure would damage Trump’s electoral chances and would be “the last nail in Manafort’s coffin lid,” as “a Trump presidency would change the pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy.” He was one of several prominent politicians in Kiev “involved to an unprecedented degree in trying to weaken the Trump bandwagon,” as the Atlantic Council, NATO’s propaganda arm, conceded at the time.

Manafort duly resigned, and the RussiaGate racket erupted – a connivance that went some way to ensuring the “pro-Ukrainian agenda in American foreign policy” wasn’t compromised one iota.

Indeed, Trump’s term in office was typified by ever-escalating hostility between Washington and Moscow, the Oval Office resident going to dangerous lengths his predecessor had consistently refrained from to arm and galvanize the most reactionary and violent elements of the Ukrainian armed forces, including the notorious Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, and tear up Cold War arms control treaties, much to Moscow’s chagrin.

In December 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that Leshchenko and Sytnyk’s release of the “black ledger” was illegal, amounting to “interference in the electoral processes of the US” that “harmed the interests of Ukraine as a state.”

In May the next year, a corruption probe was launched after Leshchenko purchased a $300,000 apartment in central Kiev, a sum far in excess of his apparent means. Two months later, he was voted out of parliamentc, Zelensky’s Servant of the People party candidate taking his seat in a landslide. His friend and collaborator Nayyem simply opted not to stand, in order to seek a government post “connected to the Donbas.”

Despite no longer being part of the legislature, Leshchenko has continued to wield significant sway over the Ukrainian government, directly advising Zelensky on “Russian disinformation” to this day.

What direct influence NED still exerts over him – and Ukraine’s President by extension – isn’t certain. Although, mere days before the Russian invasion began, in an interview with The Guardian, Leshchenko referred to the Minsk Accords – which Zelensky stood on a specific platform of implementing – as “toxic”, suggesting the leader would “betray” his country by adhering to their obligations, which included granting autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk.

This reflects NED’s position – on February 14th this year, its Journal of Democracy published an article declaring the Accords to be “a bad idea for the West and a serious threat to Ukrainian democracy and stability,” not least because they would mean “tacitly accepting Russia’s false narratives about the Donbas conflict” – namely, that the conflict “was caused by the West-orchestrated ‘coup’ in 2014.”

In other words, an objective analysis of what actually happened and why, in which NED is completely central. Still, the organization didn’t need to rely purely on Leshchenko to keep the Minsk Accords moribund. Its extensive network of assets in the country, and Washington’s dark alliance with Ukraine’s far-right, was more than sufficient to ensure that Zelensky’s overwhelmingly popular mission of restoring relations with Russia would and could never be fulfilled.

‘In Solidarity’

In the hours following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NED hurried to remove any and all trace of its funding for organizations in Ukraine from its website.

A search of the NED grants database today for Ukraine returns “no results,” but a snapshot of the page captured February 25th reveals that since 2014, a total of 334 projects in the country have been awarded a staggering $22.4 million. By NED President Duane Wilson’s reckoning, Kiev is the organization’s fourth-largest funding recipient worldwide.

An archive of NED funding in Ukraine over 2021 – which has now been replaced with a statement “in solidarity” with Kiev – offers extensive detail on the precise projects backed by the CIA front over that pivotal 12-month period.

It points to a preponderant focus on purported Russian misdeeds in eastern Ukraine. One grant, of $58,000, was provided to the NGO Truth Hounds to “monitor, document, and spotlight human rights violations” and “war crimes” in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

Another, of $48,000, was provided to Ukraine’s War Childhood Museum to “educate the Ukrainian public about the consequences of the war through a series of public events.” Yet another received by charity East-SOS aimed to “raise public awareness” of “Russia’s policies of persecution and colonization in the region, and document illustrative cases,” its findings circulated to the UN Human Rights Council, European Courts of Human Rights, and International Court of Justice.

There was no suggestion this wellspring would be used to document any abuses by Ukrainian government forces. UN research indicates 2018 – 2021, over 80 percent of civilian casualties were recorded on the Donbas side. Meanwhile, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe reports show that shelling of civilian areas in the breakaway regions intensified dramatically in the weeks leading up to February 24th, potentially the precursor of a full-blown military offensive.

As such, NED’s expurgation of records exposing its role in fomenting and precipitating the horror now unfolding in southeast Ukraine not only protects de facto CIA agents on the ground. It also reinforces and legitimizes the Biden administration’s sprawling, fraudulent narrative, endlessly and uncritically reiterated in Western media, that Russia’s invasion was entirely unprovoked and groundless.

Ukrainians now live with the mephitic legacy of that reckless, unadmitted meddling in the most brutal manner imaginable. They may well do so for many years to come. Meanwhile, the men and women who orchestrated it rest comfortably in Washington DC, insulated from any scrutiny or consequence whatsoever, every day cooking up fresh schemes to undermine and topple troublesome foreign leaders, hailed as champions of liberty by the mainstream press every step of the way.

By Andre Damon, World Socialist Website, 7/8/22

In May, when the Biden administration announced that it would send medium-range missile guided missile launchers to Ukraine, the White House insisted that the weapons would not be used to attack Russian territory.

“We’re not going to send to Ukraine rocket systems that strike into Russia,” Biden told reporters. “We are not encouraging or enabling Ukraine to strike beyond its borders,” he later added in a New York Times op-ed announcing the deployment of HIMARs missile systems to Ukraine.

On Friday, however, a Pentagon spokesperson indicated that the United States would not discourage Ukraine from using US weapons to attack territory claimed by Russia.

Asked by a reporter whether there were any “preclusions” on what could be targeted by US-supplied weapons, and whether the Kerch bridge in the Black Sea would be “precluded as a potential target,” the defense department official stated, “there aren’t any preclusions that I’m aware of about the Ukrainians fighting on their sovereign territory against Russia.”

The Kerch bridge was built by Russia in 2015-2018 and forms the main connection between Russia and the Crimean peninsula, which Russia annexed in the wake of the US- and EU-backed coup in Kiev in 2014. The statement by the US defense official suggesting that the bridge constitutes Ukraine’s “sovereign territory” is yet another expression of the US endorsement of Ukraine’s aim, openly adopted as military strategy in 2021, to retake Crimea by military means.

The statements by the US official can only be interpreted as a green light for Kiev to attack the Kerch bridge and constitute a significant provocation. They came just one day after Philip Breedlove, the former NATO supreme allied commander in Europe, declared, “the Kerch bridge is a legitimate target.”

Speaking to the British Independent, Breedlove said that “Several people I have spoken to say ‘dropping’ [destroying] Kerch bridge would be a huge blow to Russia. Kerch bridge is a legitimate target.”

Breedlove continued, “But if they wanted to drop the bridge, that would require a more dedicated bombing operation.”

He added, “I hear a lot of people asking whether it is right for Ukraine to take such aggressive action and whether the West would support it, but I cannot understand that argument.”

Breedlove indicated that such an attack on Russian territory could involve the use of US harpoon missiles, which are capable of attacking land targets despite being primarily known as a naval weapon.

Friday’s briefing by the Pentagon, which went largely unreported in the press, was also shockingly blunt about the extent to which the United States systematically worked to prepare its Ukrainian proxy for war with Russia over the course of years.

The United States first initiated a training program for Ukraine in 2015 — yes, 2015 — on helping Ukraine with its capacity to man, train, equip, deploy and sustain combat arms units.  It is this background that’s important for understanding how early in the war, Ukraine was able to face a larger, more capable Russian force, able to stay nimble, empower subordinates, achieve commendable successes, already be trained on certain capabilities that the United States as well as other countries had provided — notably Javelins but not only Javelins — and therefore, Russia was walking into a battle back in February with a far more capable military than it expected and that it — it had frankly faced back in 2014.

The defense official added,

And what we saw in Ukraine’s successful fighting off of the initial attack was that the years of training, equipping and advising, coupled with the surge of key capabilities such as 11,000 anti-armor and almost 1,500 anti-air weapons just in those first weeks, along with critical intelligence sharing, enabled the Ukrainian Armed Forces to successfully defend Kyiv and force the Russians to pull back and reassess their battlefield objectives and their approach.

While the US arming of Ukraine occurred over the span of years, the defense officials made clear that US involvement in the war would continue for years into the future. The US is “thinking about Ukraine’s needs over months and years,” the defense official said.

These statements were accompanied by the announcement of yet another $400 million in weapons sales to Ukraine, including the deployment of four more HIMARS medium-range missile systems to the country, bringing the total to twelve.

These statements were made against the backdrop of the G20 Summit, in which the United States categorically ruled out any bilateral discussions for bringing the war to an end.

Asked whether Secretary of State Anthony Blinken would meet with Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, State Department spokesman Ned Price gave a categorical no, saying, “We would like to have the Russians give us a reason to meet on a bilateral basis with them… But the only thing we have seen emanate from Moscow is more brutality and aggression against the people and country of Ukraine.”

As in every war, the goals of the combatants are becoming increasingly clear as time passes. Despite what the US calls “tactical” setbacks, the United States plans to surge weapons and troops into the country in order to bleed Russia dry and to enable Ukraine to eventually mount a counteroffensive, with Crimea constituting a central target. As far as the ruling class is concerned, this war, which has already claimed the lives of tens of thousands, will last, in the words of Joe Biden, “as long as it takes” to achieve these goals.

Major attacks on Russian territory, such as the destruction of the Kerch bridge, would constitute a qualitative escalation of the war. The enormous risks of such an action were spelled out in an op-ed published earlier this year in the Financial Times by Malcolm Chambers entitled, “Crimea could be Putin’s tipping point in a game of nuclear chicken.”

In the absence of a ceasefire… Ukrainian forces will be keen to prevent Crimea becoming a sanctuary from which the Kremlin can resupply its forces in the rest of Ukraine… The Kerch bridge could be a tempting prize.

If attacks on these targets were perceived as precursors to a full-scale Crimean invasion, they could increase the risk of nuclear escalation. This is one of the most concerning scenarios. Putin was at pains to emphasise this risk in the months before the invasion.

Putin’s spurious nuclear threats of recent months have begun to lose their potency. In order to be credible, Russia would have to make explicit that an invasion of Crimea constituted a red line. Faced with losing Crimea, Putin might consider this a worthwhile gamble, believing Ukraine (with western encouragement) would blink first. This would be a moment of extreme peril.

As Chambers makes clear, an attack on the Kerch bridge would massively expand the possibility for the war to spiral into a nuclear showdown with unfathomable consequences. The fact that the Pentagon has publicly refused to preclude such an action makes clear the utter recklessness and desperation guiding US policymakers.

The Global Times is considered to be an official mouthpiece of the Chinese government. What’s reported here seems to contradict western reporting about the extent to which China has supposedly held back on some of its trade with Russia post-2/24 for fear of provoking the imposition of secondary sanctions from the west. – Natylie

By Global Times staff, The Global Times, 7/5/22

Many Chinese products, particularly value-added consumer goods, such as mobile phones, cars and printers have seen rapid growth in the Russian market, as local consumers switch to what they consider reliable and affordable products amid escalating tension between Russia and the West.

While some foreign media outlets have been hyping gains of Chinese companies in the Russian market as direct result of Western sanctions, Russian consumers and Chinese industry insiders argue that the growing popularity of Chinese products are the result of years of localization efforts, improving quality and affordability, though the sanctions also played a role.

Russia’s top electronics retailer M.Video-Eldorado said that “the total share of Chinese brands in the Russian market in terms of smartphone sales is steadily increasing – from 50 percent in the first quarter, to 60 percent in April to more than 70 percent in June,” Reuters reported last week.

Though foreign media reports have been focused on the West’s sanctions, Russian consumers said that the growing popularity of Chinese products in the country came long before the sanctions.

27-year-old Pasha, based in Moscow, the owner of an Honor 10 smartphone, told the Global Times that the bigger battery capacity and high quality camera are the main reasons he uses the Chinese brand. He also uses some other Chinese-related products, which he praised for their good quality and reasonable price.

Two other Russian consumers also said that they are using Xiaomi, because it’s practical and affordable and is one of the leading brands in the market.

In addition to mobile phones, Chinese car brands also witnessed a jump in popularity in Russia, with most US, European and Japanese car companies announcing the suspension of Russian production or halting exports to Russia.

According to a recent survey, 46 percent of respondents said they would buy a Chinese brand car, and 25 percent said they would be willing to consider a Chinese car without a European brand. 

“One important reason for the higher consumer acceptance of Chinese brands is because of the advanced model configuration and control technology over the years,” Sun Xiaohong, secretary-general of the automobile branch of China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME), told the Global Times on Tuesday.

According to data from Autostat, a Russian auto industry analysis agency, sales of Chinese-branded sedans in Russia increased by about 30 percent from April to May.

Moreover, Western sanctions against Russia have also exposed the shortcomings of the Russian auto supply chain. Russia only produces about 35-37 percent of its auto parts by itself, with imported auto parts making up as much as 62.5-65 percent, data from CCCME shows. 

Experts said this also highlights the needs for a complete and reliable supply chain, in which China has advantages. In recent years, Chinese automobiles have performed well in the Russian market, with the popularity of Great Wall, Chery, Geely and other brands continuing to expand, CCCME said.

“Russian car dealers are eager to establish and expand business cooperation these days… there will be more Chinese car brands entering the Russian market to gain market share, including new energy vehicles,” Sun said.

Wang Yu, a manager with the Russian Asian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, told the Global Times that he has received masses of inquiries about orders and cooperation from Russian companies seeking printers, whose supply has tightened due to Western sanctions on spare parts.

“One Russian company wants hundreds of thousands of printers all at once, and we have responded by coordinating with corresponding factories in China,” Wang said.

While there is the risk of being targeted by the West, industry insiders are confident that these risks can be minimized via highly self-dependent technology and complete supply chains, advantages that plants in China possess. “Unlike those Western brands, the after-sales service of Chinese brands can also be counted on,” Wang said.

While it is a normal market trend for Russian companies and consumers to rely on Chinese products in dealing with the supply chain disruption and lack of stock due to Western sanctions, Chinese companies should further actively adapt to the new market with better product and service quality in a bid to gain public recognition of their brands in the long-run, said Cui Hongjian, director of the Department of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, told the Global Times on Tuesday.

Meanwhile, as the late effects of Western sanctions on Russia emerges, including on its exports of technology and products, it cannot be ruled out that with the increasing demand from Russia and more Chinese companies entering the market, the US may further impose long-arm jurisdiction and sanctions on Chinese companies, experts said.

Chinese officials have repeatedly expressed opposition to the US’ unilateral sanctions and stated that China will continue to normal trade and economic cooperation with Russia. 

Commenting on the recent US move to blacklist five Chinese companies for allegedly supporting Russia’s military, Zhao Lijian, a spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, said that the US move has no basis in international law, nor is there a mandate of the UN Security Council allowing such moves. 

Calling the move as another example of US unilateral sanctions and long-arm jurisdiction, Zhao vowed that “China will take all necessary measures to resolutely protect lawful rights and interests of Chinese companies.”

By M.K. Bhadrakumar, Indian Punchline, 7/5/22

Bhadrakumar is a retired Indian diplomat

On July 1 at the White House, US President Joe Biden made a startling disclosure that “the idea we’re going to be able to click a switch, bring down the cost of gasoline, is not likely in the near term.”

American gas exporters have positioned themselves accordingly to fill the gap as Europe turns away from Russian imports. FT reported recently that “US liquefied natural gas producers have announced a string of deals to boost exports as the industry capitalises on shortages that have left Europe with a mounting energy crisis.”

The deals are so lucrative that Cheniere, America’s leading gas exporter, has taken an investment decision to push ahead with a project that will boost its capacity more than 20 per cent by late 2025, anticipating long-term supply deals and locked in purchases of US gas over the coming decades. The US producers of gas are reportedly running plants flat-out to increase supplies to the EU.

The US has overtaken Russia for the first time as Europe’s top gas supplier. Although LNG from the US is sold to Europe at much higher costs than pipeline gas from Russia, EU countries have no choice.

With Russian supply via Nord Stream at just 40% of capacity, and deliveries to be halted completely for annual maintenance on July 11-21, the outlook for near-term Russian gas supply to Europe appears bleak.

Germany has warned of the risk that Nord Stream gas may not return at all following the maintenance. At any rate, Russian supply to Europe is at record lows and is “set to remain constrained through the third quarter,” per S&P Global.

Germany is heading for a major economic crisis. The head of the German Federation of Trade Unions has been quoted as saying in the weekend, “Entire industries are in danger of collapsing forever because of the gas bottlenecks — especially, chemicals, glass-making, and aluminium industries, which are major suppliers to key automotive sector.” Massive unemployment is likely. When Germany sneezes, of course, Europe catches cold — not only the Eurozone but even post-Brexit Britain.

Welcome to the European Union’s “sanctions from hell.” The US literally hustled the Europeans into the Ukraine crisis. How many times did Secretary of State Antony Blinken travel to Europe in those critical months in the run-up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine to ensure that the door to any meaningful talks with the Kremlin remained shut! And American energy companies are today making windfall profits selling gas to Europeans. Won’t Europeans have the common intelligence to realise they have been had?

Now, Biden has washed his hands off the gas crisis. He brusquely stated at a press conference in Madrid on June 30 that such premium on oil prices will continue “as long as it takes, so Russia cannot, in fact, defeat Ukraine and move beyond Ukraine. This is a critical, critical position for the world. Here we are. Why do we have NATO?”

Biden’s counterfactual narrative is that the sanctions against Russia are going to work eventually and a long war in Ukraine would be Russia’s undoing. The US narrative is that if you look under the hood of the Russian economy, it may not be flexible and resourceful enough to develop an entrepreneurial bunker spirit and adopt new business models to neutralise the sanctions. Biden is convinced that Russian economy is in the grip of industrial mafias that are not very innovative and, therefore, there aren’t many options for Russia under the western sanctions.

Biden said in Madrid: “Look at the impact that the war on Ukraine has had on Russia… They’ve (Russians) lost 15 years of the gains they made in terms of their economy… They can’t even — you know, they’re having — they’re going to have trouble maintaining oil production because they don’t have the technology to do it. They need American technology. And they’re also in a simi- — similar situation in terms of their weapons systems and some of their military systems. So they’re paying a very, very heavy price for this.”

But even if that’s the case, how does all that help the Europeans? On the other hand, President Putin’s strategic calculations with respect to the war remain very much on track. Russian forces made indisputable progress in establishing full control over Luhansk. On Monday, Putin gave the green signal to a proposal from the army commanders to launch “offensive operations.” Five months into the war, Ukrainians are staring at defeat and Russian army generals know it.

Russia didn’t wander into Ukraine unprepared, either. Evidently, it took precautionary steps both before and since the war to shield its economy. And this enables the Russian economy to settle down to a “new normal”. Washington’s options are quite limited under the circumstances. Fundamentally, western sanctions do not address the causes of the Russian behaviour, and therefore, they are doomed to fail to solve the problem at hand.

To be sure, Putin has some nasty surprises in store for Biden closer to the November mid-term elections. Biden blithely assumes that he controls all the variables in the situation. Schadenfreude is never a rational basis for statecraft.

Yesterday, the strategically important Kherson region bordering Crimea formed a new government with the First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia’s Kaliningrad region heading the cabinet and Russian nationals among his deputies. Now that HIMARS multiple launch rocket system, contrary to Biden’s promise, is blasting Russian cities, expect some major Russian retaliation.

The pathway of Russia’s offensive operations is being relaid to include Kharkov and Odessa as well, apart from Donbass. The influential Kremlin politician and chairman of Duma Vyacheslav Volodin said on Tuesday,

“Some people are asking what our goal is and when all this will end. It will end when our peaceful cities and towns no longer come under shelling attacks. What they are doing is forcing our troops not to stop on the borders of the Lugansk and Donetsk republics (Donbass) because strikes (on Russian regions) are coming from the Kharkov regions and other regions of Ukraine.”

How long does Biden think the Europeans will want to be involved in a protracted proxy war with Russia? Bild reported on Sunday that 75% of German respondents see recent price hikes as a heavy burden, while 50% said they feel their economic conditions are worsening; every second German fears a lack of heating this coming winter due to reduced Russian gas supplies and rising inflation in the European Union.

Yet, Biden says war will go on “for as long as it takes” and fuel shortage will continue “for as long as it takes.” The European economy is expected to start contracting over the course of the second half of 2022 and the recession may continue until the summer of 2023 at least.

Analysts at JP Morgan Chase, the US investment bank, said last week that Russia could also cause “stratospheric” oil price increases if it used output cuts to retaliate. It said, “The tightness of the global oil market is on Russia’s side.” Analysts wrote that prices could more than triple to $380 a barrel if Russia cut production by 5m barrels a day.

Putin’s decree last week is ominous — the Kremlin taking full control of the Sakhalin-2 oil and gas project in Russia’s Far East. State-owned Gazprom held a 50% plus one share stake in the project and its foreign partners included Shell (27.5%), Mitsui (12.5%), and Mitsubishi (10%). The decree stipulates that Gazprom will keep its majority stake, but foreign investors must ask the Russian government for a stake in the newly created firm within one month or be dispossessed. The government will decide whether to approve any request.

An aerial view of the liquefaction plant, part of the Sakhalin-2 liquefied natural gas project in Sakhalin, Russia, described as one of the world’s largest integrated oil & gas project.

This will unsettle energy markets further and put more strain on the LNG market, and can be seen as a move to put more pressure on the West by concurrently restricting gas supplies to Europe and creating more demand for LNG in Asia that will draw off supplies currently going to Europe. Sakhalin-2 supplies circa 4% of the global LNG market!

The only part of the US agenda that is going well seems to be the unspoken part of it: the very same Anglo-American objectives that Lord Ismay once predicted as the rationale behind the NATO’s existence —”to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Here is a full transcript of Putin’s speech before the Russian parliament on 7/7, which has received much attention. – Natylie

From Kremlin website, 7/7/22

At the Kremlin, in the St Catherine Hall, the President met with the leaders of the State Duma and the heads of party factions in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation.

The meeting was attended by State Duma deputy speakers Alexander Zhukov, Ivan Melnikov, Alexander Babakov, Alexei Gordeyev, Vladislav Davankov, Sholban Kara-ool, Anna Kuznetsova, Sergei Neverov, Pyotr Tolstoy, Boris Chernyshov and Irina Yarovaya; heads of political parties represented in the State Duma Vladimir Vasilyev (United Russia), Gennady Zyuganov (Communist Party of the Russian Federation), Sergei Mironov (A Just Russia – For Truth), Alexei Nechayev (New People), Leonid Slutsky (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia), as well as State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin, Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Anton Vaino and First Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Sergei Kiriyenko.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues, Mr Volodin.

The State Duma’s spring session ended yesterday, July 6, and all deputies – I want to emphasise this – all parties made a significant contribution to the overall results.

I believe the results of your work were dignified, important and significant for the people, the entire Russian state and for protecting our national interests and ensuring the sovereign, sustainable and effective development of the country.

This Duma session was rich in events and intense work and was very important given the scale and complexity of the tasks at hand. After February 24, when the special military operation began, all the country’s branches and levels of government needed to act decisively, as a team and quickly.

Today, I want to thank you for working like that: in a collected and competent manner and at a fast pace. I believe all parties have confirmed their political viability and maturity and acted in a consolidated and cohesive manner like true statesmen and patriots of Russia, for whom inter-party disagreements fade into the background in difficult conditions. We have many parties, but one Motherland, and there is nothing more important and loftier than the fate of the Fatherland.

You have passed many resolutions and laws that significantly strengthen our system of social support and provide additional protection for our people. This was not just about the advanced indexation of pensions, which is important, an increase in the subsistence level and the minimum wage – all this was done without bureaucratic red tape and delays, in a clear and professional manner; but it was also about new measures on support for families with children, the extension and expansion of the mechanism for subsidised mortgage loans and additional guarantees for our heroic military personnel. There were also many other important decisions – I will not list all of them now since you know them as well and probably better than I do, because you created them yourselves.

I would like to acknowledge and thank every parliamentary party for the organised humanitarian support of the people of Donbass. I am talking about all parliamentary parties because the media has covered this work in different ways, but I know from my reports that all of you have been taking an active part in this.

I know that many deputies have taken an official holiday and gone to the zone of hostilities in order to provide help personally, often at the real risk of their lives. They went to help organise the distribution of food, medications, and basic necessities and quickly set up humanitarian aid centres. Some of your colleagues are still there, working as volunteers. This proactive, selfless effort is truly vital and greatly needed.

I would like to mention separately that given the rapidly changing situation, the State Duma, in cooperation with the Government, continuously upgraded a series of measures to support the backbone sectors of the Russian economy and working teams of companies, including small and medium-sized businesses, the IT-industry and other vital areas.

As a result, we have managed to preserve macroeconomic stability, which is crucial for the economy, to support employment, the normal rhythm of retail trade and economic life in the regions in general, the main transport and logistics chains, to expand the freedom of entrepreneurship, and enhance protection of businesses from excessive administrative pressure and unjustified criminal prosecution. I know that much still needs to be done in this respect but overall, we have done a good job.

In a short time, as soon as in early March, several packages of anti-sanction measures were introduced in close contact with the Government. Thanks to these packages, the consequences of the Western countries’ unfriendly and clearly hostile actions were minimised. Indeed, we understand and know this, we see that these illegal measures against Russia are clearly creating difficulties for us, but not as great as the initiators of this economic blitzkrieg against Russia were counting on.

Clearly, they tried to do more than just hit the Russian economy hard. Their goal was to sow discord and confusion in our society and to demoralise people. But here too, they failed since nothing came of it, and I am sure nothing ever will.

In this regard, the example of the Russian parliament as the highest representative body is quite telling. The policy of the parliament is based on the will of the people of Russia, our firm position and conviction that we are on the right side of history, on the unwavering resolve of the vast majority of the country’s citizens to uphold Russia’s sovereignty and to help our people in Donbass. This is what underlies the policy of our state in general.

The so-called collective West led by the United States has been extremely aggressive towards Russia for decades. Our proposals to create a system of equal security in Europe have been rejected. Initiatives for cooperation on the issue of missile defence were rejected. Warnings about the unacceptability of NATO expansion, especially at the expense of the former republics of the Soviet Union, were ignored. Even the idea of Russia’s possible integration into this North Atlantic alliance at the stage of our, as it seemed then, cloudless relations with NATO, apparently, seemed absurd to its members.

Why? Just because they do not need a country like Russia, that is why. That is why they supported terrorism and separatism in Russia, and internal destructive forces and a ‘fifth column’ in our country. All of them are still receiving unconditional support from the collective West.

We are being told, we hear some people say that we started the war in Donbass, in Ukraine. No, the war was unleashed by the collective West, which organised and supported the unconstitutional armed coup in Ukraine in 2014, and then encouraged and justified genocide against the people of Donbass. The collective West is the direct instigator and the culprit of what is happening today.

If the West wanted to provoke a conflict in order to move on to a new stage in the fight against Russia and a new stage in containing our country, we can say that it has succeeded to a certain extent. A war was unleashed, and the sanctions were imposed. Under normal circumstances, it would probably be difficult to accomplish this.

But here is what I would you like to make clear. They should have realised that they would lose from the very beginning of our special military operation, because this operation also means the beginning of a radical breakdown of the US-style world order. This is the beginning of the transition from liberal-globalist American egocentrism to a truly multipolar world based not on self-serving rules made up by someone for their own needs, behind which there is nothing but striving for hegemony, not on hypocritical double standards, but on international law and the genuine sovereignty of nations and civilisations, on their will to live their historical destiny, with their own values and traditions, and to align cooperation on the basis of democracy, justice and equality.

Everyone should understand that this process cannot be stopped. The course of history is inexorable, and the collective West’s attempts to impose its new world order on the rest of the world are doomed.

At the same time, I want to say and emphasise that we have many supporters, including in the United States and Europe, and even more so on other continents and in other countries. And there will be more, no doubt about that.

To reiterate, even in the countries that are still satellites of the United States, there is a growing understanding that their ruling elites’ blind obedience to their overlord, as a rule, does not necessarily coincide with their national interests, and most often simply and even radically contradicts them. Eventually, everyone will have to face this growing sentiment in society.

Today, these ruling elites are raising the degree to which they manipulate the public consciousness right before our eyes. The ruling classes of the Western countries, which are supranational and globalist in nature, realised that their policies are increasingly detached from reality, common sense and the truth, and they have started resorting to openly despotic methods.

The West, which once declared such principles of democracy as freedom of speech, pluralism and respect for dissenting opinions, has now degenerated into the opposite: totalitarianism. This includes censorship, media bans, and the arbitrary treatment of journalists and public figures.

These kinds of prohibitions have been extended not only to the information space, but also to politics, culture, education, and art – to all spheres of public life in the Western countries. And, they are imposing this on the world; they are trying to impose this model, a model of totalitarian liberalism, including the notorious cancel culture of widespread bans.

However, the truth and reality is that the people in most of these countries do not want this life or this future, and really do not want the formal semblance of sovereignty, they want substantive, real sovereignty and are simply tired of kneeling, of humiliating themselves before those who consider themselves exceptional, and of serving their interests even to their own detriment.

Today we hear that they want to defeat us on the battlefield. Well, what can I say? Let them try. We have already heard a lot about the West wanting to fight us ”to the last Ukrainian.“ This is a tragedy for the Ukrainian people, but that seems to be where it is going. But everyone should know that, by and large, we have not started anything in earnest yet.

At the same time, we are not rejecting peace talks, but those who are rejecting them should know that the longer it goes on, the harder it will be for them to negotiate with us.

Colleagues,

Our patriotic state approach is fully reflected in the work of the State Duma; in fact, it determines the entire legislative and political agenda. This is the way it should be in a democratic and truly independent state.

I am convinced that for Russia’s leading parties, a concern for the good of our country and our people, for the people who voted for you, who entrusted you with the high status of lawmaker, and who expect honest, diligent service and the adoption of effective, fair and deeply thought-out legislative acts from a parliamentary body, has been and will remain paramount. It is the people who will give their unbiased assessment of each party, including during the next regional and municipal elections in September.

I hope that the election campaigns will not harm the approach of partnership that we see here in the eighth convocation of the State Duma.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Please, the floor is yours.

State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin: Mr President, colleagues.

Mr President, I would like to say thank you. Despite your busy schedule, you always give attention to the State Duma’s agenda and we can always discuss it with you, as we are doing today at this round table.

But I want to start – and I think my colleagues will support me – by saying thank you on behalf of all the deputies for your decision to recognise the independence of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Lugansk People’s Republic, as well as your decision to launch the special military operation. We all believe that, if it had not been for those decisions, there would have been a humanitarian catastrophe and a huge number of people would have died.

And today, when we are talking about the work of the State Duma, we see it as our duty and priority to do all we can for our soldiers and officers, to provide their families with care, attention and, of course, create, within our capacities, a legislative framework to overcome the challenges that our country is facing.

As many as 11,160 sanctions have been imposed on Russia. No other state has ever faced so many challenges. Therefore, for us it is a moment of truth. We must see our work differently and, as you rightly said, today we have only one party, which is our country. The interests of the Motherland must be superior to any party programmes, and we aspire to achieve that.

Since January, we have adopted 361 new laws, 35 percent of which are of social significance. This is more than in previous years, despite the fact that, to act promptly, we had to hand over authority to the Government. We could not do otherwise in the current situation. The number of directly applicable laws is growing, as per your instruction to the State Duma. Today 63.4 percent of the laws that have been adopted are immediately applicable laws. Obviously, they deal with people’s problems more effectively.

Before they are adopted, the laws are open for discussion, as a measure to improve the quality of our decisions. Therefore, it is extremely important for us to ensure that the State Duma takes effective decisions that respond to the current developments.

The summer holidays will begin soon, and deputies will work in the regions. We plan to approach this in a different way than we did before. On the one hand, we will try to pay more attention to our voters by working in the regions and solving problems that people face. On the other hand, we will use this summer time to prepare for the autumn session and to work on draft laws on import substitution and the creation of new Russian technologies together with the Government.

And, of course, given the problems and the situation in our fraternal republics – Lugansk and Donetsk – and with regard to the requests made by our colleague deputies, we have agreed to help them with creating a legal framework to deal with the issues of healthcare, education and social protection.

They visited us several weeks ago and we discussed joint work within relevant committees so that such lawmaking assistance will be provided by creating model laws and harmonising legislation, so that they will have a legal framework to address these issues. So, this summer will be quite an important time for us.

We believe that it is necessary, in view of the current challenges, to restructure the way in which we work and we plan to start doing this, together with all parliamentary parties and relevant committees, when the deputies start working in the regions on Monday.

I want to thank you, Mr President, once again for all these decisions. We feel that there is dialogue and feedback. Your support is crucial for us.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you, Mr Volodin.

Please, Mr Zyuganov, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Head of the CPRF faction Gennady Zyuganov: Mr President,

This Duma started its work by taking its cues from the address you gave here in the Kremlin Palace. I am focusing on your address because it contains five main goals that this country should achieve: first of all, to become one of the five most advanced countries – and we have the necessary wherewithal for that – then to stop depopulation and impoverishment and do whatever we can to acquire cutting-edge technologies.

But during four out of the past ten months, we have had to live with a military-political operation, which is crucial from every point of view. We fully support your decision to this effect, because what is at stake is the survival of the Russian world. We must stop US globalism, which is attempting to dictate its terms to the rest of the world. Moreover, we must do whatever we can to prevent Nazism and Banderaism from spreading across Europe.

Last time, when fascism and Nazism engulfed the whole of Europe, mankind paid the cost of 71 million lives, 27 million of which were the lives of the best sons and daughters of the great Soviet homeland.

I made it a point to visit the economic forum in St Petersburg, where I followed closely your remarks and jotted down 26 statements. I felt, perhaps for the first time, that we are on the same page for every issue you identified.

I noticed even earlier, when you were addressing the Valdai Club, that you said: Yes, capitalism is at a dead-end. Macron used even tougher language, saying that it [capitalism] has gone mad. We see it run mad in the citadel of capitalism, England, and we must do our utmost to prevent the people, who have not only gone mad but have also decided to continue dictating their terms, from igniting a great war.

In this connection, our team has drawn up a “victory programme”: 12 laws and a development budget. We did our best to formulate the key measures and show in practice that these problems can be successfully solved.

As for the military-political operation, we have always called for recognising the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, Crimea and Sevastopol. I must inform you that the executive committee [of the movement] of left-wing patriotic forces held a meeting earlier today, and that each and every one of its 132 organisations across the planet, which celebrated, along with us, the anniversary of the Great October Revolution and are now preparing to celebrate the 100^th anniversary of the USSR, all of them have supported our political line. We believe this is our common victory.

In fact, I have talked with you many times, and I am very glad that you have strengthened our eastern wing: your trip to Beijing and India, as well as constant consultations within BRICS and efforts to expand this organisation. This very powerful counterweight to the Anglo-Saxon idea of ​​crushing us and then dealing away with China is gaining more and more support. I am sure that if you prepare an executive order – I believe my colleagues in the State Duma will support us – we should celebrate the 100^th anniversary of the formation of the USSR as a great national holiday, because then we fought the first battle against those aggressors who tried to enslave and destroy us.

It seems to me that today the tougher mobilisation of resources for implementing the programme you have outlined is an acute issue. We have all tools for this.

We have a well-developed programme for new industrialisation and innovations. I presented to you the programme of a new university created by Zhores Alferov, which today shows examples of how to train students of the future.

Now we were all watching your meeting with the future leaders. Look, what faces, what interesting young people, what glorious ideas they suggest! After all, they are born everywhere, and in this regard, we are ready to actively promote this idea in Novosibirsk, developing the second phase of Akademgorodok. You were there and authorised this. Our mayor, Anatoly Lokot, took up this idea. In our team, in our parliamentary party, every third person has a scientific degree, like Ivan Melnikov, and every second person in the party leadership does too.

The idea of creating our own cutting-edge technology has been supported greatly by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin. He has allocated an additional 100 billion for the development of electronics and robotics. And now the goal of developing domestic aviation is of special importance for us.

We also developed the New Virgin Lands programme, which you submitted to the State Council, and Vladimir Kashin together with Nikolai Kharitonov and Nikolai Kolomeitsev worked on this programme. Over the last two years, we have added 28 percent in agricultural machine-building. In fact, this happened after you gave a direct instruction to the Government at the State Council meeting. I believe that we can cope with this challenge very effectively.

I went to our famous Kirov Plant; Germans came to visit, too; they were gushing over how quickly we had localised production and started manufacturing modern high-class machines.

Tomorrow and the day after tomorrow, Tatarstan will hold a big festival celebrating friendship among nations. We took a public enterprise there, Kazankovskoye, similar to Pavel Grudinin’s Lenin State Farm. We will show 100 types of Russian-produced equipment and demonstrate how we can operate in modern conditions without driving up prices and still producing food products of a very high quality.

I believe that, if we could promote this idea nationwide and build at least one public enterprise in every district, we would be able to fill up our markets with affordable high-quality products, and food will be our priority and litmus test.

By the way, you set a goal of harvesting 130 million tonnes of grain this year. I believe this task is absolutely realistic, especially if my colleagues actively support the New Virgin Lands programme in the three-year budget that we are already working on.

And the new style and your idea: deadlocked? Capitalists are not only deadlocked. They are going mad. There is only one antidote because capitalism only creates Nazism, fascism and Bandera movements. Nothing but socialism can defeat it.

That is why I expect that in your next speech you will set socialist goals. I think even United Russia will support it. Vyacheslav Volodin is smiling, I can see he likes the idea. He chairs major hearings on the main issues at the State Duma. One of the recent ones was a brilliant session on education. We are ready to put our law on education into practice for everybody.

And look, you supported Andrei Klychkov to govern my home region, the Orel Region. Thank you, it is a matter of principle to me. My entire home region is scarred up. There are 800 mass graves; more than 400,000 of the best people are buried there who were breaking the back of the Nazi beast during the defence of Orel-Kursk.

This year, the Orel Region, which is not a black-earth area, will produce 6 tonnes of grain per capita. Six tonnes is the best harvest in our country. We have doubled the budget in Khakassia over the three years, the only Siberian region to do so. And even those who are called oligarchs are happy to pay taxes. They say they do not steal and instead do business, support people and lend a hand to children of war.

By the way, 44 regions have already adopted a law on children of war. I hope that you will support other regions as well. This issue has been around for a long time.

We will organise a Red Route in Ulyanovsk with our Chinese friends. They are holding their 20^th congress this year and preparing a programme for the next 30 years. It will bring significant profit, 10–12 million. We are renovating the Lenin Memorial Museum there. There is also an excellent programme on advanced technology and aircraft engineering.

Our parliamentary party will therefore actively support all the main tasks in this context.

But above all else, we need to provide maximum support for the special military operation. We have sent 97 convoys, 15,000 tonnes of humanitarian aid to Donbass. We are helping the children to the greatest possible extent. We have accommodated 10,500 children at your business administration’s holiday hotel in Snegiri. We are now actively preparing another batch of aid. I should say that your Executive Office is hard at work there.

We have many interesting people there who have achieved a lot at production facilities, who are quite tough, and who are absolutely pro-Russian because the fight against Russophobia is becoming particularly topical nowadays. However, persons with anti-Soviet views are more Russophobic than the rest. I would like to ask you, and we have already stated this viewpoint: unfortunately, Russian culture and media outlets provide too much anti-Soviet information, and we need to stop this. It is a complete disgrace because humankind has no other experience except that of Russian-Soviet patriotism and victory over Nazism. We consider this to be highly important.

In this connection, I would like to ask you once again to revisit this note, including a pardon for some of our comrades who have been punished. I believe that this is illegal. Please tell us to reexamine this issue together with Mr Vaino and Mr Kiriyenko. We will find the relevant solutions that are now virtually available.

The consolidation of society and support is the main issue today. We will support your address and your policy to strengthen national security and unity in a joint fight against Nazism, the supporters of Bandera and American globalism. This is a matter of principle and our historical survival.

Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Thank you very much.

I have no doubts that members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation are sticking precisely to this position. Regarding the socialist idea, there is nothing bad about it. We should flesh out this idea, especially in the economic sphere. Some countries have given it substance, and this is linked with market regulation forms, etc. This idea is working quite effectively. We need to look into this.

Regarding the involvement of the state, the relevant debate focuses on the extent of such involvement and its forms. We should see how the state should regulate its economic activities. We will certainly address this during our discussions and debates. I assume that we will find these solutions, while realising that the interests of the people and the country are at stake.

Thank you very much.

Mr Slutsky, go ahead please.

Head of the Liberal-Democratic Party of Russia faction Leonid Slutsky: Mr President,

On April 6, our party the LDPR, the country and the entire Russian world sustained an irretrievable loss – the death of the founder and only leader the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia has had, Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Thank you very much for your condolences.

I am meeting you in a new position today for the first time. Thank you very much for your consent to a brief separate meeting. I will report to you on a consolidated request of the State Duma Speaker and all parliamentary parties’ leaders to honour the memory of Vladimir Zhirinovsky. We believe this is very important today for our society, for all those who remember Vladimir Zhirinovsky. He was a great figure and, as we are seeing, his forecasts and estimates are coming true and will continue coming true in the near future.

Thank you, Mr President, for your personal trust in appointing me one of the four negotiators on Ukraine. You repeated today what I have said more than once and mentioned recently to our counterparts in Kiev. It would seem we had come to terms on the entire humanitarian package, with the exception of a law on heroes – they wouldn’t give up on Bandera and Shukhevich. But unfortunately, they reverted back to their initial positions. I said more than once that it would be more difficult, much more difficult further on.

As for the LDPR, I am grateful for the support from 300,000 – in fact a bit more of our party members at the congress. The delegates in all branches voted unanimously for me as the Chairman of the party. This is an enormous responsibility.

For us, this session is very difficult but effective nonetheless. We submitted at it several dozen draft laws (some of them have already been passed): on the payment of the 13^th pension to pensioners; the return of inflation-adjusted pensions for working pensioners; the increase of the minimum wage to 20,000 rubles; zero tax for individuals making under double the minimum wage; progressive taxation; reimbursement of half of all housing and utility fees for combat veterans, to name a few.

I must say that today is not the time for party differences. Today we must consolidate society and remove rather than draw dividing lines between political forces with a view to supporting the national economy and social obligations.

There is no doubt that sanctions and restrictions against us will stall. In fact, they have already stalled.

Two years ago, as Chair of the State Duma International Committee, I addressed the sensible politicians of the world urging them to abandon sanctions and restrictions as a crude practice, as something atavistic and archaic in modern politics. More than 60 national leaders responded, as well as UN Secretary-General António Guterres (he recently visited Moscow), with whom we are now actively discussing Ukraine, and they supported my statement. Now we see the opposite happening.

At the same time, you are absolutely right when you say that a reverse process is under way: European politicians, including the European parliament members, in almost every country with almost no exceptions (no exaggeration here), in Asia, Africa and Latin America, more and more politicians, public figures, representatives of academia and science are saying that the approaches used against Russia today are warped and threaten the stability of the global architecture that should have become stable and secure by now.

We proceed from our understanding that the world order must remain multipolar, as it was determined after World War II when the United Nations with its dominant role was established. At the same time, Washington keeps trying to break into the Security Council. Unfortunately, it has prevailed on a number of dossiers. I am certain that we will be able to achieve our goal with the colleagues who support us. That includes BRICS, the countries accounting for one-third of the world’s GDP. They are against a unipolar world where Washington can be the only pole of power. No matter how desperately our “strategic friends” in the West keep scrabbling, it will be in vain. In this context, I would like to support your statements.

LDPR, which includes people of different ages, faiths and walks of life, unanimously supported the special military operation in Ukraine. We send out big teams of volunteers. We also provide humanitarian assistance. I will report in more detail at a separate meeting. I should say that right now, there is nothing more important than helping these courageous people who, for eight years, have been the targets of bombs with “For the children of Donbass” written on them, solely because they wanted to remain part of the Russian world and continue to speak and teach their children in a language that had been a mother tongue to many generations before them.

Mr President, the ideas you put forward 10 years ago, in 2012, are more relevant today than ever. Vladimir Zhirinovsky repeatedly quoted them in his speeches. Back then, you came out with a major policy article “Russia and the Changing World” in which you said that we must increase our cultural and humanitarian presence around the world by orders of magnitude and increase it by an order of magnitude in places where they speak Russian or understand Russian. This has not been done in full yet.

Today, we are asking the Government to support, at a breakthrough level, relevant federal programmes to promote the Russian world and the Russian language as its cementing foundation. I am confident that we can make it work, even though we are moving towards this goal rather slowly. Given the circumstances, it makes sense, perhaps, to step up our efforts in this area.

In 2012, you came out with another major policy essay titled “Social Policy: Building Justice for Russia,” which we also supported back then and in subsequent years. There is an excellent section in it, “Preservation of Russia.” Mr President, you wrote that if our ethnic, migration and demographic policies remain sluggish, we – one-sixth of the planet’s land, but only 2 percent of the world’s population – we run the risk of becoming, I quote, “an empty space, the fate of which will be decided by someone else.” Of course, it will not be that way.

We need to take back thousands of people – this was mentioned during recent world congresses of our compatriots – who are registered with our foreign missions and are willing to come back. It is imperative to create clusters with excellent health care and education – we can afford it – with jobs and take our people back. This is the right time for doing so.

Now the spirit of St George’s Ribbon is simply flying in the air above the entire Russian world, no matter how far away people live from Moscow. It is necessary to support their desire to return home. To achieve this, we must take certain measures that were drafted long ago. It is simply necessary to strengthen relevant federal departments with state support mechanisms.

No war and no cutting-edge weapons can knock us down. I will say without excessive pathos that we are the most combat-ready power in the world. But we may be knocked down if the education of our youth is eroded.

We conducted a questionable experiment on ourselves with the Bologna education system in 1999. We adopted it quickly but now we have to quit very gradually.

Owing to Mr Volodin, our Speaker, we held fundamental parliamentary hearings. Rector of Moscow University Viktor Sadovnichy, our living legend, also took the floor. I have the honour to head as President the Faculty of Global Politics in his university as a public service.

I must say that we should consistently move in this direction and restore the world’s best educational system where representatives of political and business elites from over a hundred countries received their education.

This won’t take too much time. We started working towards this end and I would like to report to you on this and to ask for your support. Nothing is more important than the comprehensive education of our successors.

Thank you very much for your initiative and all-round support for the Sirius Centre. Now it is not just a centre but also Sirius Territory. But this is just a part of what should be done in this area.

We will work as the LDPR and its parliamentary party in close cooperation, as we are doing now, with other parties to resolve the issues on our current agenda. We will work intensively – this is all-important today – to enhance our national economy and the social sphere and implement our national projects.

To be continued.