Speeches that Changed the World

VLADIMIR PUTIN

Born in St Petersburg (then Leningrad) on 7 October 1952 to a war veteran father and mother who had survived the siege of Leningrad.

He graduated in law in 1975 before joining the Soviet security agency, the KGB. Following the collapse of the USSR, he embarked on a political career in the early 1990s. After a stint as deputy mayor of St Petersburg, he was brought into the Kremlin by President Yeltsin. He headed the FSB (Russia’s successor to the KGB) and in 1999 was appointed Acting Prime Minister. When Yeltsin resigned at the end of the year, Putin became Acting President. In 2000 he was elected to the position on a permanent basis and has remained in office ever since, apart from a spell as Prime Minister between 2008 and 2012. Widely regarded as the ‘hard man’ of Russian politics, he has sought to give the country greater influence on the international stage.

With the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the ideological war between capitalism and communism seemed to have been won and the ‘new world order’ established. It was widely presumed that one superpower, the USA, would oversee the hegemony of Western liberal democratic ideals.

Today such arguments seem tinged with naivety. The USA remains a superpower but a faded one, diminished by years of costly interventionist foreign policy, wearied by the threat of international terrorism, and struggling to hold off the economic tiger that is China. Russia, meanwhile, continues to yield major influence over the global political balance under the steely direction of its president, Vladimir Putin.

The dominant figure in Russian politics since the turn of the century, Putin has overseen a period of domestic modernization and broad economic growth, while his handling of the war in Chechnya earned him a reputation for ruthless toughness. Accused by his critics of being an autocrat, internationally he has been unafraid to lock horns with either the USA or the European Union.

Post-Cold War tensions between East and West were never more acute than when Putin authorized the annexation of Crimea (hitherto a province of Ukraine), following the collapse of Viktor Yanukovych’s regime in early 2014. In a speech to the Russian parliament in March 2014, Putin laid out what he believed to be the historical justification for the annexation. Specifically, he claimed to be protecting the region’s ethnically Russian population, who had called for reunion with Moscow in a referendum earlier in the month that lacked international recognition.

Putin also used the address to attack the track record of the wider international community (and in particular, the USA) in interfering in the politics of independent nations. It was a theme he had touched on before. For instance, seven years earlier he had addressed the Munich Security Conference on what he perceived to be USA expansionism.

His 2014 speech, meanwhile, looked back ruefully on the dissolution of the Soviet Union over two decades earlier. Some commentators detected the groundwork being laid for other potential ‘land grabs’ where there is an ethnically Russian majority – a notion sure to strike fear into several nations that were once outposts of the USSR. Those who had believed Russia would retreat into itself after the collapse of communism could not possibly labour under that illusion any more.

We have have gathered here today in connection with an issue that is of vital, historic significance to all of us. A referendum was held in Crimea on 16 March in full compliance with democratic procedures and international norms.

More than 82 per cent of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96 per cent of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia. These numbers speak for themselves.

To understand the reason behind such a choice, it is enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.

Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptized. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilization and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea. There is also Sevastopol – a legendary city with an outstanding history, a fortress that serves as the birthplace of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Crimea is Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan and Sapun Ridge. Each one of these places is dear to our hearts, symbolizing Russian military glory and outstanding valour.

. . . Russians and Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and people of other ethnic groups have lived side by side in Crimea, retaining their own identity, traditions, languages and faith.

Incidentally, the total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about 290,000–300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown, also lean towards Russia.

. . . In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was passed from generation to generation, over time, under any circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through during the entire 20th century.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer the Crimean Region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a federal city.

. . . What matters now is that this decision was made in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then . . . Back then, it was impossible to imagine that Ukraine and Russia may split up and become two separate states. However, this has happened.

. . . And as this collapse was legalized, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol – the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest, ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.

. . . Time and time again attempts were made to deprive Russians of their historical memory, even of their language, and to subject them to forced assimilation. Moreover, Russians, just as other citizens of Ukraine, are suffering from the constant political and state crisis that has been rocking the country for over twenty years.

. . . I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty . . . However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing.

. . . It is also obvious that there is now no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine . . . Those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.

Naturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.

First, we had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law. Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.

Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating? True, the President of the Russian Federation received permission from the Upper House of Parliament to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine. However, strictly speaking, nobody has acted on this permission yet. Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with an international agreement.

. . . Next, as it declared independence and decided to hold a referendum, the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the right of nations to self-determination.

. . . Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our Western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia – exactly what Crimea is doing now – was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities.

. . . Like a mirror, the situation in Ukraine reflects what is going on and what has been happening in the world over the past several decades. After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our Western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle ‘If you are not with us, you are against us’.

To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organizations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.

. . . In short, we have every reason to assume that the infamous policy of containment, led in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries, continues today. They are constantly trying to sweep us into a corner because we have an independent position, because we maintain it, and because we call things like they are and do not engage in hypocrisy. But there is a limit to everything. And with Ukraine, our Western partners have crossed the line.

. . . Today, I would like to address the people of the United States of America, the people who, since the foundation of their nation and adoption of the Declaration of Independence, have been proud to hold freedom above all else. Isn’t the desire of Crimea’s residents to freely choose their fate such a value?

. . . I also want to address the people of Ukraine. I sincerely want you to understand us: we do not want to harm you in any way, or to hurt your national feelings . . . We do not want to divide Ukraine; we do not need that. As for Crimea, it was and remains a Russian, Ukrainian, and Crimean-Tatar land.

. . . We want to be friends with Ukraine, and we want Ukraine to be a strong, sovereign and self-sufficient country.

. . . Russia’s foreign-policy position on this matter drew its firmness from the will of millions of our people, our national unity and the support of our country’s main political and public forces.

. . . Members of the Federation Council, deputies of the State Duma, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol, today, in accordance with the people’s will, I submit to the Federal Assembly a request to consider a Constitutional Law on the creation of two new constituent entities within the Russian Federation: the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, and to ratify the treaty on admitting to the Russian Federation Crimea and Sevastopol, which is already ready for signing. I stand assured of your support.

‘With Ukraine, our Western partners have crossed the line’