In 1990 the two Germanies and the four occupying powers (France, Soviet Union, United Kingdom and United States) negotiated about a treaty covering German unification. This is usually referred to as the ‘2+4 talks’. NATO is not mentioned in the text, instead there are references to a ‘military alliance’. Article 4 deals with post-unification military preconditions. No non-German NATO troops nor nuclear weapons could be stationed on the territory of the former German Democratic Republic. There is no talk about “NATO moving eastward” as some Russian propaganda outlets have claimed.
Treaty text:
The Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America,
Conscious of the fact that their peoples have been living together in peace since 1945;
Mindful of the recent historic changes in Europe which make it possible to overcome the division of the continent;
Having regard to the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole, and the corresponding wartime and post-war agreements and decisions of the Four Powers;
Resolved, in accordance with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
Recalling the principles of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in Helsinki;
Recognizing that those principles have laid firm foundations for the establishment of a just and lasting peaceful order in Europe;
Determined to take account of everyone’s security interests;
Convinced of the need finally to overcome antagonism and to develop cooperation in Europe;
Confirming their readiness to reinforce security, in particular by adopting effective arms control, disarmament and confidence-building measures; their willingness not to regard each other as adversaries but to work for a relationship of trust and cooperation; and accordingly their readiness to consider positively setting up appropriate institutional arrangements within the framework of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe;
Welcoming the fact that the German people, freely exercising their right of self-determination, have expressed their will to bring about the unity of Germany as a state so that they will be able to serve the peace of the world as an equal and sovereign partner in a united Europe;
Convinced that the unification of Germany as a state with definitive borders is a significant contribution to peace and stability in Europe;
Intending to conclude the final settlement with respect to Germany;
Recognizing that thereby, and with the unification of Germany as a democratic and peaceful state, the rights and responsibilities of the Four Powers relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole lose their function;
Represented by their Ministers for Foreign Affairs who, in accordance with the Ottawa Declaration of 13 February 1990, met in Bonn on 5 May 1990, in Berlin on 22 June 1990, in Paris on 17 July 1990 with the participation of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland, and in Moscow on 12 September 1990;
Have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE 1
(1) The united Germany shall comprise the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the whole of Berlin. Its external borders shall be the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and shall be definitive from the date on which the present Treaty comes into force. The confirmation of the definitive nature of the borders of the united Germany is an essential element of the peaceful order in Europe.
(2) The united Germany and the Republic of Poland shall confirm the existing border between them in a treaty that is binding under international law.
(3) The united Germany has no territorial claims whatsoever against other states and shall not assert any in the future.
(4) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic shall ensure that the constitution of the united Germany does not contain any provision incompatible with these principles. This applies accordingly to the provisions laid down in the preamble, the second sentence of Article 23, and Article 146 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.
(5) The Governments of the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kindgom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America take formal note of the corresponding commitments and declarations by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic and declare that their implementation will confirm the definitive nature of the united Germany’s borders.
ARTICLE 2
The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic reaffirm their declarations that only peace will emanate from German soil. According to the constitution of the united Germany, acts tending to and undertaken with the intent to disturb the peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional and a punishable offence. The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic declare that the united Germany will never employ any of its weapons except in accordance with its constitution and the Charter of the United Nations.
ARTICLE 3
(1) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic reaffirm their renunciation of the manufacture and possession of and control over nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. They declare that the united Germany, too, will abide by these commitments. In particular, rights and obligations arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 will continue to apply to the united Germany.
(2) The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, acting in full agreement with the Government of the German Democratic Republic, made the following statement on 30 August 1990 in Vienna at the Negotiations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany undertakes to reduce the personnel strength of the armed forces of the united Germany to 370,000 (ground, air and naval forces) within three to four years. This reduction will commence on the entry into force of the first CFE agreement. Within the scope of this overall ceiling no more than 345,000 will belong to the ground and air forces which, pursuant to the agreed mandate, alone are the subject to the Negotations on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. The Federal Government regards its commitment to reduce ground and air forces as a signficant German contribution to the reduction of conventional armed forces in Europe. It assumes that in follow-on negotiations the other participants in the negotiations, too, will render their contribution to enhancing security and stability in Europe, including measures to limit personnel strengths.
The Government of the German Democratic Republic has expressly associated itself with this statement.
(3) The Governments of the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America take note of these statements by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.
ARTICLE 4
(1) The Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics state that the united Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will settle by treaty the conditions for and the duration of the presence of Soviet armed forces on the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, as well as the conduct of the withdrawal of these armed forces which will be completed by the end of 1994, in connection with the implementation of the undertaking of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the present Treaty.
(2) The Governments of the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America take note of this statement.
ARTICLE 5
(1) Until the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces for the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin in accordance with Article 4 of the present Treaty, only German territorial defence units which are not integrated into the alliance structures to which German armed forces in the rest of German territory are assigned will be stationed in that territory as armed forces of the united Germany. During that period and subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 of this Article, armed forces of other states will not be stationed in that territory or carry out any other military activity there.
(2) For the duration of the presence of Soviet armed forces in the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, armed forces of the French Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America will, upon German request, remain stationed in Berlin by agreement to this effect between the Government of the united Germany and the Govenments of the states concerned. The number of troops and the amount of equipment of all non-German armed forces stationed in Berlin will not be greater than at the time of signature of the present Treaty. New categories of weapons will not be introduced there by non-German armed forces. The Government of the united Germany will conclude with the Governments of those states which have armed forces stationed in Berlin treaties with conditions which are fair taking account of the relations existing with the states concerned.
(3) Following the completion of the withdrawal of the Soviet armed forces from the territory of the present German Democratic Republic and of Berlin, units of German armed forces assigned to military alliance structures in the same way as those in the rest of German territory may also be stationed in that part of Germany, but without nuclear weapon carriers. This does not apply to conventional weapon systems which may have other capabilities in addition to conventional ones but which in that part of Germany are equipped for a conventional role and designated only for such. Foreign armed forces and nuclear weapons or their carriers will not be stationed in that part of Germany or deployed there.
ARTICLE 6
The right of the united Germany to belong to alliances, with all the rights and responsibilities arising therefrom, shall not be affected by the present Treaty.
ARTICLE 7
(1) The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America hereby terminate their rights and responsibilities relating to Berlin and to Germany as a whole. As a result, the corresponding, related quadripartite agreements, decisions and practices are terminated and all related Four Power institutions are dissolved.
(2) The United Germany shall have accordingly full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs.
ARTICLE 8
(1) The present Treaty is subject to ratification or acceptance as soon as possible. On the German side it will be ratified by the united Germany. The Treaty will therefore apply to the united Germany.
(2) The instruments of ratification or acceptance shall be deposited with the Government of the united Germany. That Government shall inform the Governments of the other Contracting Parties of the deposit of each instrument of ratification or acceptance.
ARTICLE 9
The present Treaty shall enter into force for the united Germany, the French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America on the date of deposit of the last instrument of ratification or acceptance by these states.
ARTICLE 10
The original of the present Treaty, of which the English, French, German and Russian texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited with the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, which shall transmit certified true copies to the Governments of the other Contracting Parties.
(A ceremony for signing the treaties on the accession of the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Lugansk People’s Republic, the Zaporozhye Region and the Kherson Region to the Russian Federation took place in of the Grand Kremlin Palace’s St George Hall.)
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Citizens of Russia, citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, deputies of the State Duma, senators of the Russian Federation,
As you know, referendums have been held in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. The ballots have been counted and the results have been announced. The people have made their unequivocal choice.
Today we will sign treaties on the accession of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Lugansk People’s Republic, Zaporozhye Region and Kherson Region to the Russian Federation. I have no doubt that the Federal Assembly will support the constitutional laws on the accession to Russia and the establishment of four new regions, our new constituent entities of the Russian Federation, because this is the will of millions of people. (Applause.)
It is undoubtedly their right, an inherent right sealed in Article 1 of the UN Charter, which directly states the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
I repeat, it is an inherent right of the people. It is based on our historical affinity, and it is that right that led generations of our predecessors, those who built and defended Russia for centuries since the period of Ancient Rus, to victory.
Here in Novorossiya, [Pyotr] Rumyantsev, [Alexander] Suvorov and [Fyodor] Ushakov fought their battles, and Catherine the Great and [Grigory] Potyomkin founded new cities. Our grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought here to the bitter end during the Great Patriotic War.
We will always remember the heroes of the Russian Spring, those who refused to accept the neo-Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine in 2014, all those who died for the right to speak their native language, to preserve their culture, traditions and religion, and for the very right to live. We remember the soldiers of Donbass, the martyrs of the “Odessa Khatyn,” the victims of inhuman terrorist attacks carried out by the Kiev regime. We commemorate volunteers and militiamen, civilians, children, women, senior citizens, Russians, Ukrainians, people of various nationalities; popular leader of Donetsk Alexander Zakharchenko; military commanders Arsen Pavlov and Vladimir Zhoga, Olga Kochura and Alexei Mozgovoy; prosecutor of the Lugansk Republic Sergei Gorenko; paratrooper Nurmagomed Gadzhimagomedov and all our soldiers and officers who died a hero’s death during the special military operation. They are heroes. (Applause.) Heroes of great Russia. Please join me in a minute of silence to honour their memory.
(Minute of silence.)
Thank you.
Behind the choice of millions of residents in the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics, in the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions, is our common destiny and thousand-year history. People have passed this spiritual connection on to their children and grandchildren. Despite all the trials they endured, they carried the love for Russia through the years. This is something no one can destroy. That is why both older generations and young people – those who were born after the tragic collapse of the Soviet Union – have voted for our unity, for our common future.
In 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, representatives of the party elite of that time made a decision to terminate the Soviet Union, without asking ordinary citizens what they wanted, and people suddenly found themselves cut off from their homeland. This tore apart and dismembered our national community and triggered a national catastrophe. Just like the government quietly demarcated the borders of Soviet republics, acting behind the scenes after the 1917 revolution, the last leaders of the Soviet Union, contrary to the direct expression of the will of the majority of people in the referendum of 1991, destroyed our great country, and simply made the people in the former republics face this as an accomplished fact.
I can admit that they didn’t even know what they were doing and what consequences their actions would have in the end. But it doesn’t matter now. There is no Soviet Union anymore; we cannot return to the past. Actually, Russia no longer needs it today; this isn’t our ambition. But there is nothing stronger than the determination of millions of people who, by their culture, religion, traditions, and language, consider themselves part of Russia, whose ancestors lived in a single country for centuries. There is nothing stronger than their determination to return to their true historical homeland.
For eight long years, people in Donbass were subjected to genocide, shelling and blockades; in Kherson and Zaporozhye, a criminal policy was pursued to cultivate hatred for Russia, for everything Russian. Now too, during the referendums, the Kiev regime threatened schoolteachers, women who worked in election commissions with reprisals and death. Kiev threatened millions of people who came to express their will with repression. But the people of Donbass, Zaporozhye and Kherson weren’t broken, and they had their say.
I want the Kiev authorities and their true handlers in the West to hear me now, and I want everyone to remember this: the people living in Lugansk and Donetsk, in Kherson and Zaporozhye have become our citizens, forever. (Applause.)
We call on the Kiev regime to immediately cease fire and all hostilities; to end the war it unleashed back in 2014 and return to the negotiating table. We are ready for this, as we have said more than once. But the choice of the people in Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson will not be discussed. The decision has been made, and Russia will not betray it. (Applause.) Kiev’s current authorities should respect this free expression of the people’s will; there is no other way. This is the only way to peace.
We will defend our land with all the forces and resources we have, and we will do everything we can to ensure the safety of our people. This is the great liberating mission of our nation.
We will definitely rebuild the destroyed cities and towns, the residential buildings, schools, hospitals, theatres and museums. We will restore and develop industrial enterprises, factories, infrastructure, as well as the social security, pension, healthcare and education systems.
We will certainly work to improve the level of security. Together we will make sure that citizens in the new regions can feel the support of all the people of Russia, of the entire nation, all the republics, territories and regions of our vast Motherland. (Applause.)
Friends, colleagues,
Today I would like to address our soldiers and officers who are taking part in the special military operation, the fighters of Donbass and Novorossiya, those who went to military recruitment offices after receiving a call-up paper under the executive order on partial mobilisation, and those who did this voluntarily, answering the call of their hearts. I would like to address their parents, wives and children, to tell them what our people are fighting for, what kind of enemy we are up against, and who is pushing the world into new wars and crises and deriving blood-stained benefits from this tragedy.
Our compatriots, our brothers and sisters in Ukraine who are part of our united people have seen with their own eyes what the ruling class of the so-called West have prepared for humanity as a whole. They have dropped their masks and shown what they are really made of.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the West decided that the world and all of us would permanently accede to its dictates. In 1991, the West thought that Russia would never rise after such shocks and would fall to pieces on its own. This almost happened. We remember the horrible 1990s, hungry, cold and hopeless. But Russia remained standing, came alive, grew stronger and occupied its rightful place in the world.
Meanwhile, the West continued and continues looking for another chance to strike a blow at us, to weaken and break up Russia, which they have always dreamed about, to divide our state and set our peoples against each other, and to condemn them to poverty and extinction. They cannot rest easy knowing that there is such a great country with this huge territory in the world, with its natural wealth, resources and people who cannot and will not do someone else’s bidding.
The West is ready to cross every line to preserve the neo-colonial system which allows it to live off the world, to plunder it thanks to the domination of the dollar and technology, to collect an actual tribute from humanity, to extract its primary source of unearned prosperity, the rent paid to the hegemon. The preservation of this annuity is their main, real and absolutely self-serving motivation. This is why total de-sovereignisation is in their interest. This explains their aggression towards independent states, traditional values and authentic cultures, their attempts to undermine international and integration processes, new global currencies and technological development centres they cannot control. It is critically important for them to force all countries to surrender their sovereignty to the United States.
In certain countries, the ruling elites voluntarily agree to do this, voluntarily agree to become vassals; others are bribed or intimidated. And if this does not work, they destroy entire states, leaving behind humanitarian disasters, devastation, ruins, millions of wrecked and mangled human lives, terrorist enclaves, social disaster zones, protectorates, colonies and semi-colonies. They don’t care. All they care about is their own benefit.
I want to underscore again that their insatiability and determination to preserve their unfettered dominance are the real causes of the hybrid war that the collective West is waging against Russia. They do not want us to be free; they want us to be a colony. They do not want equal cooperation; they want to loot. They do not want to see us a free society, but a mass of soulless slaves.
They see our thought and our philosophy as a direct threat. That is why they target our philosophers for assassination. Our culture and art present a danger to them, so they are trying to ban them. Our development and prosperity are also a threat to them because competition is growing. They do not want or need Russia, but we do. (Applause.)
I would like to remind you that in the past, ambitions of world domination have repeatedly shattered against the courage and resilience of our people. Russia will always be Russia. We will continue to defend our values and our Motherland.
The West is counting on impunity, on being able to get away with anything. As a matter of fact, this was actually the case until recently. Strategic security agreements have been trashed; agreements reached at the highest political level have been declared tall tales; firm promises not to expand NATO to the east gave way to dirty deception as soon as our former leaders bought into them; missile defence, intermediate-range and shorter-range missile treaties have been unilaterally dismantled under far-fetched pretexts.
And all we hear is, the West is insisting on a rules-based order. Where did that come from anyway? Who has ever seen these rules? Who agreed or approved them? Listen, this is just a lot of nonsense, utter deceit, double standards, or even triple standards! They must think we’re stupid.
Russia is a great thousand-year-old power, a whole civilisation, and it is not going to live by such makeshift, false rules. (Applause.)
It was the so-called West that trampled on the principle of the inviolability of borders, and now it is deciding, at its own discretion, who has the right to self-determination and who does not, who is unworthy of it. It is unclear what their decisions are based on or who gave them the right to decide in the first place. They just assumed it.
That is why the choice of the people in Crimea, Sevastopol, Donetsk, Lugansk, Zaporozhye and Kherson makes them so furiously angry. The West does not have any moral right to weigh in, or even utter a word about freedom of democracy. It does not and it never did.
Western elites not only deny national sovereignty and international law. Their hegemony has pronounced features of totalitarianism, despotism and apartheid. They brazenly divide the world into their vassals – the so-called civilised countries – and all the rest, who, according to the designs of today’s Western racists, should be added to the list of barbarians and savages. False labels like “rogue country” or “authoritarian regime” are already available, and are used to stigmatise entire nations and states, which is nothing new. There is nothing new in this: deep down, the Western elites have remained the same colonisers. They discriminate and divide peoples into the top tier and the rest.
We have never agreed to and will never agree to such political nationalism and racism. What else, if not racism, is the Russophobia being spread around the world? What, if not racism, is the West’s dogmatic conviction that its civilisation and neoliberal culture is an indisputable model for the entire world to follow? “You’re either with us or against us.” It even sounds strange.
Western elites are even shifting repentance for their own historical crimes on everyone else, demanding that the citizens of their countries and other peoples confess to things they have nothing to do with at all, for example, the period of colonial conquests.
It is worth reminding the West that it began its colonial policy back in the Middle Ages, followed by the worldwide slave trade, the genocide of Indian tribes in America, the plunder of India and Africa, the wars of England and France against China, as a result of which it was forced to open its ports to the opium trade. What they did was get entire nations hooked on drugs and purposefully exterminated entire ethnic groups for the sake of grabbing land and resources, hunting people like animals. This is contrary to human nature, truth, freedom and justice.
While we – we are proud that in the 20th century our country led the anti-colonial movement, which opened up opportunities for many peoples around the world to make progress, reduce poverty and inequality, and defeat hunger and disease.
To emphasise, one of the reasons for the centuries-old Russophobia, the Western elites’ unconcealed animosity toward Russia is precisely the fact that we did not allow them to rob us during the period of colonial conquests and forced the Europeans to trade with us on mutually beneficial terms. This was achieved by creating a strong centralised state in Russia, which grew and got stronger based on the great moral valuesof Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Buddhism, as well as Russian culture and the Russian word that were open to all.
There were numerous plans to invade Russia. Such attempts were made during the Time of Troubles in the 17th century and in the period of ordeals after the 1917 revolution. All of them failed. The West managed to grab hold of Russia’s wealth only in the late 20th century, when the state had been destroyed. They called us friends and partners, but they treated us like a colony, using various schemes to pump trillions of dollars out of the country. We remember. We have not forgotten anything.
A few days ago, people in Donetsk and Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye declared their support for restoring our historical unity. Thank you! (Applause.)
Western countries have been saying for centuries that they bring freedom and democracy to other nations. Nothing could be further from the truth. Instead of bringing democracy they suppressed and exploited, and instead of giving freedom they enslaved and oppressed. The unipolar world is inherently anti-democratic and unfree; it is false and hypocritical through and through.
The United States is the only country in the world that has used nuclear weapons twice, destroying the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. And they created a precedent.
Recall that during WWII the United States and Britain reduced Dresden, Hamburg, Cologne and many other German cities to rubble, without the least military necessity. It was done ostentatiously and, to repeat, without any military necessity. They had only one goal, as with the nuclear bombing of Japanese cities: to intimidate our country and the rest of the world.
The United States left a deep scar in the memory of the people of Korea and Vietnam with their carpet bombings and use of napalm and chemical weapons.
It actually continues to occupy Germany, Japan, the Republic of Korea and other countries, which they cynically refer to as equals and allies. Look now, what kind of alliance is that? The whole world knows that the top officials in these countries are being spied on and that their offices and homes are bugged. It is a disgrace, a disgrace for those who do this and for those who, like slaves, silently and meekly swallow this arrogant behaviour.
They call the orders and threats they make to their vassals Euro-Atlantic solidarity, and the creation of biological weapons and the use of human test subjects, including in Ukraine, noble medical research.
It is their destructive policies, wars and plunder that have unleashed today’s massive wave of migrants. Millions of people endure hardships and humiliation or die by the thousands trying to reach Europe.
They are exporting grain from Ukraine now. Where are they taking it under the guise of ensuring the food security of the poorest countries? Where is it going? They are taking it to the self-same European countries. Only five percent has been delivered to the poorest countries. More cheating and naked deception again.
In effect, the American elite is using the tragedy of these people to weaken its rivals, to destroy nation states. This goes for Europe and for the identities of France, Italy, Spain and other countries with centuries-long histories.
Washington demands more and more sanctions against Russia and the majority of European politicians obediently go along with it. They clearly understand that by pressuring the EU to completely give up Russian energy and other resources, the United States is practically pushing Europe toward deindustrialisation in a bid to get its hands on the entire European market. These European elites understand everything – they do, but they prefer to serve the interests of others. This is no longer servility but direct betrayal of their own peoples. God bless, it is up to them.
But the Anglo-Saxons believe sanctions are no longer enough and now they have turned to subversion. It seems incredible but it is a fact – by causing explosions on Nord Stream’s international gas pipelines passing along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, they have actually embarked on the destruction of Europe’s entire energy infrastructure. It is clear to everyone who stands to gain. Those who benefit are responsible, of course.
The dictates of the US are backed up by crude force, on the law of the fist. Sometimes it is beautifully wrapped sometimes there is no wrapping at all but the gist is the same – the law of the fist. Hence, the deployment and maintenance of hundreds of military bases in all corners of the world, NATO expansion, and attempts to cobble together new military alliances, such as AUKUS and the like. Much is being done to create a Washington-Seoul-Tokyo military-political chain. All states that possess or aspire to genuine strategic sovereignty and are capable of challenging Western hegemony, are automatically declared enemies.
These are the principles that underlie US and NATO military doctrines that require total domination. Western elites are presenting their neocolonialist plans with the same hypocrisy, claiming peaceful intentions, talking about some kind of deterrence. This evasive word migrates from one strategy to another but really only means one thing – undermining any and all sovereign centres of power.
We have already heard about the deterrence of Russia, China and Iran. I believe next in line are other countries of Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East, as well as current US partners and allies. After all, we know that when they are displeased, they introduce sanctions against their allies as well – against this or that bank or company. This is their practice and they will expand it. They have everything in their sights, including our next-door neighbours – the CIS countries.
At the same time, the West has clearly been engaged in wishful thinking for a long time. In launching the sanctions blitzkrieg against Russia, for example, they thought that they could once again line up the whole world at their command. As it turns out, however, such a bright prospect does not excite everyone – other than complete political masochists and admirers of other unconventional forms of international relations. Most states refuse to ”snap a salute“ and instead choose the sensible path of cooperation with Russia.
The West clearly did not expect such insubordination. They simply got used to acting according to a template, to grab whatever they please, by blackmail, bribery, intimidation, and convinced themselves that these methods would work forever, as if they had fossilised in the past.
Such self-confidence is a direct product not only of the notorious concept of exceptionalism – although it never ceases to amaze – but also of the real ”information hunger“ in the West. The truth has been drowned in an ocean of myths, illusions and fakes, using extremely aggressive propaganda, lying like Goebbels. The more unbelievable the lie, the quicker people will believe it – that is how they operate, according to this principle.
But people cannot be fed with printed dollars and euros. You can’t feed them with those pieces of paper, and the virtual, inflated capitalisation of western social media companies can’t heat their homes. Everything I am saying is important. And what I just said is no less so: you can’t feed anyone with paper – you need food; and you can’t heat anyone’s home with these inflated capitalisations – you need energy.
That is why politicians in Europe have to convince their fellow citizens to eat less, take a shower less often and dress warmer at home. And those who start asking fair questions like “Why is that, in fact?” are immediately declared enemies, extremists and radicals. They point back at Russia and say: that is the source of all your troubles. More lies.
I want to make special note of the fact that there is every reason to believe that the Western elites are not going to look for constructive ways out of the global food and energy crisis that they and they alone are to blame for, as a result of their long-term policy, dating back long before our special military operation in Ukraine, in Donbass. They have no intention of solving the problems of injustice and inequality. I am afraid they would rather use other formulas they are more comfortable with.
And here it is important to recall that the West bailed itself out of its early 20th century challenges with World War I. Profits from World War II helped the United States finally overcome the Great Depression and become the largest economy in the world, and to impose on the planet the power of the dollar as a global reserve currency. And the 1980s crisis – things came to a head in the 1980s again – the West emerged from it unscathed largely by appropriating the inheritance and resources of the collapsed and defunct Soviet Union. That’s a fact.
Now, in order to free itself from the latest web of challenges, they need to dismantle Russia as well as other states that choose a sovereign path of development, at all costs, to be able to further plunder other nations’ wealth and use it to patch their own holes. If this does not happen, I cannot rule out that they will try to trigger a collapse of the entire system, and blame everything on that, or, God forbid, decide to use the old formula of economic growth through war.
Russia is aware of its responsibility to the international community and will make every effort to ensure that cooler heads prevail.
The current neocolonial model is ultimately doomed; this much is obvious. But I repeat that its real masters will cling to it to the end. They simply have nothing to offer the world except to maintain the same system of plundering and racketeering.
They do not give a damn about the natural right of billions of people, the majority of humanity, to freedom and justice, the right to determine their own future. They have already moved on to the radical denial of moral, religious, and family values.
Let’s answer some very simple questions for ourselves. Now I would like to return to what I said and want to address also all citizens of the country – not just the colleagues that are in the hall – but all citizens of Russia: do we want to have here, in our country, in Russia, “parent number one, parent number two and parent number three” (they have completely lost it!) instead of mother and father? Do we want our schools to impose on our children, from their earliest days in school, perversions that lead to degradation and extinction? Do we want to drum into their heads the ideas that certain other genders exist along with women and men and to offer them gender reassignment surgery? Is that what we want for our country and our children? This is all unacceptable to us. We have a different future of our own.
Let me repeat that the dictatorship of the Western elites targets all societies, including the citizens of Western countries themselves. This is a challenge to all. This complete renunciation of what it means to be human, the overthrow of faith and traditional values, and the suppression of freedom are coming to resemble a “religion in reverse” – pure Satanism. Exposing false messiahs, Jesus Christ said in the Sermon on the Mount: “By their fruits ye shall know them.” These poisonous fruits are already obvious to people, and not only in our country but also in all countries, including many people in the West itself.
The world has entered a period of a fundamental, revolutionary transformation. New centres of power are emerging. They represent the majority – the majority! – of the international community. They are ready not only to declare their interests but also to protect them. They see in multipolarity an opportunity to strengthen their sovereignty, which means gaining genuine freedom, historical prospects, and the right to their own independent, creative and distinctive forms of development, to a harmonious process.
As I have already said, we have many like-minded people in Europe and the United States, and we feel and see their support. An essentially emancipatory, anti-colonial movement against unipolar hegemony is taking shape in the most diverse countries and societies. Its power will only grow with time. It is this force that will determine our future geopolitical reality.
Friends,
Today, we are fighting for a just and free path, first of all for ourselves, for Russia, in order to leave dictate and despotism in the past. I am convinced that countries and peoples understand that a policy based on the exceptionalism of whoever it may be and the suppression of other cultures and peoples is inherently criminal, and that we must close this shameful chapter. The ongoing collapse of Western hegemony is irreversible. And I repeat: things will never be the same.
The battlefield to which destiny and history have called us is a battlefield for our people, for the great historical Russia. (Applause.) For the great historical Russia, for future generations, our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. We must protect them against enslavement and monstrous experiments that are designed to cripple their minds and souls.
Today, we are fighting so that it would never occur to anyone that Russia, our people, our language, or our culture can be erased from history. Today, we need a consolidated society, and this consolidation can only be based on sovereignty, freedom, creation, and justice. Our values are humanity, mercy and compassion.
And I want to close with the words of a true patriot Ivan Ilyin: “If I consider Russia my Motherland, that means that I love as a Russian, contemplate and think, sing and speak as a Russian; that I believe in the spiritual strength of the Russian people. Its spirit is my spirit; its destiny is my destiny; its suffering is my grief; and its prosperity is my joy.”
Behind these words stands a glorious spiritual choice, which, for more than a thousand years of Russian statehood, was followed by many generations of our ancestors. Today, we are making this choice; the citizens of the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics and the residents of the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions have made this choice. They made the choice to be with their people, to be with their Motherland, to share in its destiny, and to be victorious together with it.
On Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence
With a view to provide for the implementation of the State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence I hereby resolve:
1. To approve the attached Basic Principles of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence.
2. This Executive Order shall enter into force upon its signing.
President of the Russian Federation
Vladimir Putin
Moscow, Kremlin
June 2nd, 2020
No.355
APPROVED
by Executive Order of the President of the Russian Federation of June 2, 2020 No.355
BASIC PRINCIPLES
of State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence
I. General Provisions
1. These Basic Principles represent a strategic planning document in the area of ensuring defence and reflect the official view on the essence of nuclear deterrence, identify military risks and threats to be neutralized by implementation of nuclear deterrence, the principles of nuclear deterrence, as well as the conditions for the Russian Federation to proceed to the use of nuclear weapons.
2. The guaranteed deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies is one of the highest state priorities. Deterrence of aggression is ensured by the entire military strength of the Russian Federation, including its nuclear weapons.
3. The State Policy of the Russian Federation on Nuclear Deterrence (hereinafter – “the State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence”) is a set of political, military, military-technical, diplomatic, economic, information and other measures, coordinated and united by a common design, implemented through reliance on forces and means of nuclear deterrence to prevent aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.
4. State policy on Nuclear Deterrence is defensive by nature, it is aimed at maintaining the nuclear forces potential at the level sufficient for nuclear deterrence, and guarantees protection of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the State, and deterrence of a potential adversary from aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies. In the event of a military conflict, this Policy provides for the prevention of an escalation of military actions and their termination on conditions that are acceptable for the Russian Federation and/or its allies.
5. The Russian Federation considers nuclear weapons exclusively as a means of deterrence, their use being an extreme and compelled measure, and takes all necessary efforts to reduce nuclear threat and prevent aggravation of interstate relations, that could trigger military conflicts, including nuclear ones.
6. The normative and legal foundation of these Basic Principles is formed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, universally recognized principles and norms of international law, international treaties of the Russian Federation on defence and arms control, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and other normative and legal acts and documents that regulate defence and security issues.
7. The provisions of these Basic Principles are mandatory for implementation by all federal government bodies and other government bodies and organizations that are involved in ensuring nuclear deterrence.
8. These Basic Principles may be further specified depending on the external and internal factors that influence defence implementation.
II. Essence of nuclear deterrence
9. Nuclear deterrence is aimed to provide comprehension by a potential adversary of the inevitability of retaliation in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.
10. Nuclear deterrence is ensured by the presence in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of the combat-ready forces and means that are capable to inflict guaranteed unacceptable damage on a potential adversary through employment of nuclear weapons in any circumstances, as well as by the readiness and resolve of the Russian Federation to use such weapons.
11. Nuclear deterrence is ensured continuously in peacetime, in periods of a direct threat of aggression and also in wartime, up until the actual use of nuclear weapons.
12. The main military risks that might evolve into military threats (threats of aggression) to the Russian Federation due to changes in the military-political and strategic situation, and that are to be neutralized by implementation of nuclear deterrence, are as follows:
a) build-up by a potential adversary of the general purpose forces groupings that possess nuclear weapons delivery means in the territories of the states contiguous with the Russian Federation and its allies, as well as in adjacent waters;
b) deployment by states which consider the Russian Federation as a potential adversary, of missile defence systems and means, medium- and shorter-range cruise and ballistic missiles, non-nuclear high–precision and hypersonic weapons, strike unmanned aerial vehicles, and directed energy weapons;
c) development and deployment of missile defence assets and strike systems in outer space;
d) possession by states of nuclear weapons and (or) other types of weapons of mass destruction that can be used against the Russian Federation and/or its allies, as well as means of delivery of such weapons;
e) uncontrolled proliferation of nuclear weapons, their delivery means, technology and equipment for their manufacture;
f) deployment of nuclear weapons and their delivery means in the territories of non-nuclear weapon states.
13. The Russian Federation implements its nuclear deterrence with regard to individual states and military coalitions (blocs, alliances) that consider the Russian Federation as a potential adversary and that possess nuclear weapons and/or other types of weapons of mass destruction, or significant combat potential of general purpose forces.
14. While implementing nuclear deterrence, the Russian Federation takes into account the deployment by a potential adversary, in the territories of other countries, of offensive weapons (cruise and ballistic missiles, hypersonic aerial vehicles, strike unmanned aerial vehicles), directed energy weapons, missile defence assets, early warning systems, nuclear weapons and/or other weapons of mass destruction that may be used against the Russian Federation and/or its allies.
15. The principles of nuclear deterrence are as follows:
a) compliance with international arms control commitments;
b) continuity of activities ensuring nuclear deterrence;
c) adaptability of nuclear deterrence to military threats;
d) unpredictability for a potential adversary in terms of scale, time and place for possible employment of forces and means of nuclear deterrence;
e) centralization of governmental control over the activities of federal executive bodies and organizations involved in ensuring nuclear deterrence;
f) rationality of structure and composition of nuclear deterrence forces and means and their maintaining at the minimal level sufficient for implementing the tasks assigned;
g) maintaining permanent readiness of a designated fraction of nuclear deterrence forces and means for combat use.
16. The nuclear deterrence forces of the Russian Federation include land-, sea- and air-based nuclear forces.
III. Conditions for the transition of the Russian Federation to the use of nuclear weapons
17. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.
18. The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken by the President of the Russian Federation.
19. The conditions specifying the possibility of nuclear weapons use by the Russian Federation are as follows:
a) arrival of reliable data on a launch of ballistic missiles attacking the territory of the Russian Federation and/or its allies;
b) use of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction by an adversary against the Russian Federation and/or its allies;
c) attack by adversary against critical governmental or military sites of the Russian Federation, disruption of which would undermine nuclear forces response actions;
d) aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is in jeopardy.
20. The President of the Russian Federation might, if necessary, inform the military-political leadership of other states and/or international organizations about the Russian Federation’s readiness to use nuclear weapons or about the decision taken to use nuclear weapons, as well as about the fact that nuclear weapons have been used.
IV. Tasks and functions of federal government authorities, other government bodies and organizations for implementing state policy on nuclear deterrence
21. Overall direction of state policy in the area of nuclear deterrence is carried out by the President of the Russian Federation.
22. The Government of the Russian Federation implements measures to carry out the economic policy aimed at maintaining and developing nuclear deterrence assets shapes and exercises the foreign and information policy in the area of nuclear deterrence.
23. The Security Council of the Russian Federation shapes the basic principles of military policy in the area of nuclear deterrence, coordinates the activities of federal executive bodies and organizations involved in implementation of the decisions adopted by the President of the Russian Federation and related to ensuring nuclear deterrence.
24. The Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, acting through the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, directly plans and carries out organizational and military measures in the area of nuclear deterrence.
25. Other federal executive bodies and organizations participate in the implementation of decisions adopted by the President of the Russian Federation and related to ensuring nuclear deterrence in accordance with their authority.
Petr Kozlov: Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation and headquarters were designated as extremist organisations and disbanded this year. He is in prison now, after being poisoned, conducting an investigation into the poisoning and claiming to have identified the individuals involved.
Over 100 media outlets have been put on the foreign agents’ registry. Most of them were listed this year, actually, during the past six months.
What happened in Russia recently for the number of those who the authorities consider extremists, undesirable organisations or foreign agents to have grown so fast?
Let me say a few words about history. You often talk about history, and you know it. Probably, you remember that each time power in Russia was concentrated in the hands of one person in the absence of active opposition, when Russia was in a state of active, acute confrontation with the West, ultimately this situation prompted a response which plunged the country into the abyss of wars and revolutions. Do you not think that you, possessing all the power, are now laying the foundation, perhaps, for such wars and revolutions?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: First of all, speaking of history, as a reminder, our opponents have been saying throughout the centuries that Russia cannot be defeated, but can only be destroyed from within, which they successfully accomplished during World War I, or rather, after it ended, and then in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union was being dismantled from within. Who was doing it? Someone serving the interests of others that run counter to the interests of the Russian and other peoples of the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the Russian Federation today.
Vladimir Putin
You mentioned the person who was allegedly poisoned. The Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation has sent multiple official inquiries asking to provide at least some materials corroborating that he was in fact poisoned. There are none. How can this be explained? Not a single thing about Novichok or whatever you call it.
We suggested that our specialists go there and join the investigation. I spoke with the President of France and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, asking them to allow our specialists to come, take samples and verify things, so that we can at least have some grounds to open a criminal case. No response whatsoever. We ask them: how can this be explained? Silence. So, there is no need to discuss it, let us turn the page if there is nothing to say in response.
As for inmates, every country has always had them, and that is never going to change. Do not commit criminal offences under the guise of political activity.
Next, regarding the list of media acting as foreign agents and media outlets designated as foreign agents. I agree with you, it’s not good. But let me remind you once again that this law was not invented here; it was invented in a state that – you represent the UK here, and the UK is the closest ally of the United States – a state everyone considers to be the beacon of democracy.
The United States adopted this act back in the 1930s, but this is not the point. What is important is that it is in effect now. It is in force today. About 0.034 [percent] organisations have been labelled foreign agents there. Is this surprising now? We have the same share of foreign agents, 0.034, the same number. What is the difference? The difference is that in the United States, if you have not shut down, you face criminal liability, up to five years in prison. Even if you stop any activity and close the organisation it does not exempt you from criminal liability – five years.
We do nothing like that. We do not prohibit the work of these organisations; we just want organisations that are engaged in internal political activity in Russia to clearly explain and disclose the sources of funding for their operations. That is all, they can continue doing what they are doing. Our law is much more liberal. If you think this is not enough, if, like your colleague here, you think we need to introduce liability, administrative or criminal, for failure to get vaccinated – why don’t we introduce criminal liability for foreign agents’ operations if the organisation fails to close, like in the US? But we do not even demand termination of their operations – we just want them to be honest about their sources of funding.
There may be questions about the understanding of ‘political activity.’ I agree with you here. There may be questions about regulating this kind of activity. We have 74 organisations designated as foreign agents of 200,000 registered NGOs – that’s 0.034. Just like in the States, but we do not have such severe penalties, which include criminal liability.
Now, regarding keeping power in the same hands. We have distinct branches of power – the executive, legislative and judicial authorities. Clearly, the delineation of authority between these branches can have minor variations depending on the specific country at a specific stage of its development. We will strive to ensure that they are independent, so that the country is cohesive, efficient and forward-looking. And in the end, it will be up to the Russian people to choose their system of society and state, not up to those who you serve today.
Next, please.
Dmitry Peskov: Let us continue. I suggest giving the floor to the television channels
Vladimir Putin: Of course.
Dmitry Peskov: I see NTV, Irada Zeinalova. You do not need to introduce yourself.
Irada Zeinalova: Good afternoon, Mr President, colleagues.
Since we were talking about history, I would say that things are happening almost according to [Alexander] Gorchakov, who said, “Russia is focusing.” Of course, we would like to focus on our internal problems, to address our internal affairs.
However, over the past few weeks the global media have been fuelling tension, saying that the Russians are coming, Russia is planning to attack Ukraine and wants war. Serious people call you, and you talk with them and explain our position, but they do not calm down. As a result, we send our proposals, establish our ‘red lines’ and, roughly speaking, explain the rules of the game, which, you must agree, did not exist before. For the past 30 years, we have been living in a swamp and have been told that we do not meet certain standards.
We have set our red lines, and we know that we have outlined our security priorities and interests. But we also remember from history that any agreement reached during negotiations can remain on paper, the way it happened many times in the past. The smallest provocation after such talks can lead to a big war, and the agreements remain on paper or are forgotten again.
So, here is my question. Mr President, what should we prepare for? What is a realistic outlook, and since the word “war” has been said out-loud, have we estimated the probability of war even as the result of a provocation?
Vladimir Putin: You brought up Gorchakov and the end of his phrase, “Russia is focusing.” You may also recall that the first part of the phrase – in reply to a question about whether Russa was angry – was, “No, Russia is not angry, Russia is focusing.”
I will try to give a short answer, yet I will have to begin at the beginning. The aggravation began in 2014. Before that, even though the Soviet Union had ceased to exist and part of historically Russian territories with a historically Russian population, primarily in Ukraine, had found themselves living outside Russia, we accepted that as a fact of life and felt more or less comfortable about it. We even helped those new republics to get back on their feet, and we worked, were ready to work and are still working together with their governments, whatever their foreign policy priorities.
Suffice it to recall our relations with President [Viktor] Yushchenko and Prime Minister [Yulia] Timoshenko, who indicated, like the current Ukrainian leadership, their absolutely pro-Western position. But we worked with them anyway. It is true that we argued over gas, and there were conflicts, but eventually we came to an agreement, and we worked, and were ready to continue to work together, and we never even thought about doing anything about Crimea.
But what happened in 2014? A bloody coup, people were killed and burned alive. I am not talking now about who was right and who was to blame. Obviously, Ukrainian citizens were rightfully indignant and displeased at what was happening in the country. The then president, Yanukovych, had agreed to everything. Three foreign ministers – of Poland, Germany and France – guaranteed the peaceful development of the situation and the peace process. I talked with the US president at that time at his initiative. He asked me to support this process as well. Everyone agreed but then a coup took place in a day or two. What for? There is no answer. Why was it needed? President Yanukovych agreed to everything anyway. He was ready to give up power anytime. The elections and the victory of the opposition were inevitable. Everyone knew this very well. Why was it done then?
Then Crimea happened. But how could we turn down the request of Sevastopol and Crimea, the people who lived there, to take them under our protection, under our wing? It was not possible. We were simply put in a situation where we could not have acted differently. Or were we supposed to just look on passively at what was happening in the southeast, in Donbass, which has only ever thought of itself as part of Russia, even during the formation of the USSR in 1922–1924? But Lenin and his comrades wedged Donbass in there by force. At first, they decided to make it part of Russia and then said the decision had to be revised.
They revised it and created a country that had never existed before. We will not talk about it now, but this is what happened then. They crammed in there the historical lands of people whom nobody asked how or where they wanted to live. All right, this is what happened, we agreed. But we had to do something in 2014 and this led to the crisis that is unfolding today.
All right, the Ukrainian authorities twice attempted to resolve the Donbass problem by force although we persuaded them not to do this. I personally persuaded Mr Poroshenko: Anything but military operations! Yes, yes, he said and then resorted to force. What was the result? Encirclement, losses and the Minsk agreements. Are they good or not? I think they are the only possible way out. So, what is the problem? There is no desire to implement them. They adopted a law on indigenous people and announced that the Russian people who lived on this land, on their own land, were not indigenous. Incidentally, the same was done to Poles, Hungarians and Romanians. Hence the disputes in Ukraine’s relations with these countries. They exist. They do not get a lot of attention, but they are there.
Language came next. The Russians and the Russian-speaking population are being forced from their historical lands – that is what is happening. All right. Everyone says: Russia must abide by the Minsk agreements. We agreed. But they, the government suddenly submitted to parliament a law on a transitional period. How does it tally with the Minsk agreements? Instead of amnesty, this law provides for a ban on amnesty, all but criminal liability for amnesty. Instead of elections, this law introduces military government, and instead of amnesty – lustration. What is all this about? And they got it approved by the Venice Commission. So, how are we supposed to react to all this?
This is the domestic policy component. But then we hear: war, war, war. You could get the impression that maybe a third military operation is in the making. Moreover, they are warning us in advance: “Do not interfere, do no protect these people. If you do interfere to protect these people, certain sanctions will follow.” It may well be that they are preparing for this. This is the first option we need to respond to, and act, while keeping this in mind.
The second option is, in general, to create, as I said in my article, an anti-Russia of sorts on this territory by constantly stockpiling the latest weapons there and brainwashing the local population. Just imagine how Russia must live and carry on, from a historical perspective? Do we have to live, while constantly keeping an eye on what is going on over there, and what new weapons’ systems were delivered? Under the cover of these new weapons’ systems radicals may well decide to settle the Donbass issue, as well as the Crimean issue, by military means. Why did they support the Crimean Platform? On the sidelines they keep saying: “Fine, let’s forget about Crimea.” But no! They mean to get even there.
After all, we have to be mindful of our own security, not just for today and not just for next week, but in the short term. How is Russia to live with all this? Do we always have to stay on guard, watching what happens there and when a strike might come?
This is a serious matter. I have just spoken about our plans for infrastructure development, social policy, and healthcare. But what does it all mean if we end up in the conflict you are asking about? This is not our choice, and we do not want this.
It is for this reason that I responded to President Biden’s proposal, who suggested appointing responsible representatives to lead strategic stability talks. Stability and security, ensuring security on this territory and in this area is one of the key matters on today’s agenda. We must understand how to ensure our security. With this in mind, we spoke out clearly and directly against any further eastward expansion by NATO. The ball is in their court. They need to respond in one way or another.
In this connection, I would like to emphasise that the overall response we have been seeing has been quite positive. Our American partners are telling us that they are ready to launch this conversation by starting talks early next year in Geneva. Both sides have appointed representatives. I hope that the situation develops in this very direction.
(…)
Dmitry Peskov: Maybe we should give the floor to foreign media.
Sky News.
Diana Magnay: Thank you for taking my question. I am afraid it is in English.
You have talked a lot about security guarantees, and now we have seen your proposals. You also say you have no intention of invading Ukraine.
So, will you guarantee unconditionally that you will not invade Ukraine or any other sovereign country? Or does that depend on how negotiations go?
And another question: what is it, do you think, that the West does not understand about Russia or about your intentions?
Thank you
Vladimir Putin: Regarding your question about guarantees or whether things depend on the negotiations, our actions will not depend on the negotiation process, but rather on unconditional guarantees for Russia’s security today and in the historical perspective.
In this connection, we have made it clear that any further movement of NATO to the East is unacceptable. Is there anything unclear about this? Are we deploying missiles near the US border? No, we are not. It is the United States that has come to our home with its missiles and is already standing at our doorstep. Is it going too far to demand that no strike systems be placed near our home? What is so unusual about this?
What would the Americans say if we stationed our missiles on the border between Canada and the United States, or between Mexico and the United States? Haven’t Mexico and the US had territorial disputes in the past? Which country owned California? And Texas? Have you forgotten? All right, nobody is talking about this now the way they are talking about Crimea. Very well. But we are trying to avoid talking about the creation of Ukraine as well. Who created it? Vladimir Lenin did, when he established the Soviet Union. This is set out in the 1922 Treaty on the creation of the Soviet Union and in the 1924 Constitution. True, this happened after his death, but in accordance with the principles he formulated.
But the matter at hand concerns security, not history, but security guarantees. This is why it is not the negotiations themselves but the results that matter to us.
We remember, as I have mentioned many times before and as you know very well, how you promised us in the 1990s that [NATO] would not move an inch to the East. You cheated us shamelessly: there have been five waves of NATO expansion, and now the weapons systems I mentioned have been deployed in Romania and deployment has recently begun in Poland. This is what we are talking about, can you not see?
We are not threatening anyone. Have we approached US borders? Or the borders of Britain or any other country? It is you who have come to our border, and now you say that Ukraine will become a member of NATO as well. Or, even if it does not join NATO, that military bases and strike systems will be placed on its territory under bilateral agreements. This is the point.
And you are demanding guarantees from me. It is you who must give us guarantees, and you must do it immediately, right now, instead of talking about it for decades and doing what you want, while talking quietly about the need for security guarantees to everyone. This is the point. Are we threatening anyone?
Now to your second question. Repeat it, please.
Diana Magnay: What is it that you think that the West does not understand about Russia or about your intentions?
Vladimir Putin: Does the West understand or fail to understand something? You know, sometimes I get the feeling we live in different worlds. I just talked about things that are obvious. How can you not understand them? They told us: there will be no expansion, but they expanded. They promised us equal guarantees for all under several international treaties. But this equal security has failed to materialise.
Look, back in 1918, an aide to US President Woodrow Wilson said that it would be a relief for the entire world if instead of one huge Russia, that a separate state in Siberia and another four countries in the European part be created.
In 1991, we divided ourselves into 12, I believe, parts, and we did this ourselves. Still, it seems that this was not enough for our partners. They believe that Russia is too big as it is today. This is because the European countries themselves turned into small states. Instead of vast empires, they are now small states with 60 to 80 million people. However, even after the Soviet Union collapsed, and we were left with just 146 million, it is still too much for them. I believe that this is the only way to explain this unrelenting pressure.
Take the 1990s, for example. The Soviet Union did everything to build normal relations with the West and the United States. I have said this many times, and I will repeat it, so that your listeners and viewers understand. I do not recall what media outlet you represent, but this is not the point. We had representatives from American intelligence services at our nuclear, military facilities; monitoring Russia’s nuclear weapons sites was their job. They went there every day and even lived there. Many advisors, including CIA staffers, worked in the Russian Government.
What else did you need? Why did they have to support terrorists in the North Caucasus and use organisations of a clearly terrorist nature in attempts to break the Russian Federation apart? But they did this, and as former Director of the Federal Security Service, I know this all too well. We worked with double agents, and they reported to us on the objectives set for them by Western intelligence services. But why? They should have treated Russia as a potential ally, and made it stronger, but it all went in the opposite direction; they wanted to break it down even further.
And then they started expanding NATO eastwards. Of course, we told them not to do this, arguing that they promised not to. But they asked us: “Do you have any paper record? No? If not, go away, we don’t care about your concerns.” This continued year after year, every time we showed our teeth and tried to prevent something and voice our concerns. But no: they did not want to hear anything, saying that they would do what they considered necessary.
There were one, two, three, four, five – five waves of expansion. What is it they don’t understand? I don’t know. You can say that this is all abundantly clear. I do believe that it is clear as daylight: we want to ensure our security.
(…)
Ekho Moskvy, please.
Maxim Kurnikov: Maxim Kurnikov, Ekho Moskvy.
Mr President, I would like to continue with the topic that my colleague from Sky News began. She asked for some guarantees, and you said we would not give any guarantees. But you have already spoken with Biden several times, at least twice, as far as we know, and I want to understand how you see this situation. Do you have the same vision for the future of Donbass, and the future of the Minsk agreements? Because when later we hear statements from the White House, and statements from Mr Peskov, it sounds as if many things coincide, or seems to coincide, and yet the word ‘war’ is heard increasingly often.
Here we are, discussing the possibility of war. But at this very moment, Ukrainians are probably watching us and spitting at the screen, because war already came to their land in 2014, and they actually hold you and me responsible for it. They might not be aware of the details of who issues which orders, but they actually believe Russia is already at war with Ukraine.
You refused to give guarantees. How do you see it?
I received calls from listeners the day before yesterday, and we talked about how their families were discussing a possible war with Ukraine. And actually, it is shocking enough just to say the words. How do these thoughts appear inside your head, what do you think about this, is it possible? How can one give an order to a Russian soldier to shoot at a Ukrainian one, and vice versa?
And one more short remark. There are people who could not attend this news conference, and my colleague from Novaya Gazeta, Dmitry Muratov, a Nobel prize winner, gave me a question for you. I will read it out, so as not to miss a single word: “Mr President, do you personally know the names of those who ordered the murders of Politkovskaya and Nemtsov?”
Vladimir Putin: Let us start with the last part. I made every effort to see these cases solved; all the necessary instructions, directives and orders were given to every law enforcement and special service. As you know, people have been convicted and incarcerated for the crimes they have committed. Some say they are contractors, not the employers – the latter got left out of the equation, went into hiding or were given shelter, but investigative bodies have no knowledge of this. They have made every effort to expose the perpetrators of these crimes, and some of them died while being apprehended. I think you are aware of this.
And in general, I think that this score-settling is not just unacceptable, it does nothing but harm our country. So, I am absolutely sure that, even if there were some political motives, that can also be accommodated in the minds of those who do not understand what they are doing. But they must understand that the state will fight this kind of crime. We will continue doing everything within our power. If it was really ordered by someone that we do not know about, we will look for them. This is my first point.
Now, the first part of your question, the future of Donbass. The future of Donbass must be determined by the people who live in Donbass. There is no other way. We see ourselves as mediators for creating the best conditions in which the local population can determine its own future. Are there problems? Yes, because, according to the Minsk agreements, Russia is to act as a mediator but somebody else wants to make us a party to this conflict. There is no such provision in the Minsk agreements and it is not something we agreed to.
Speaking about those who may be spitting at the screen while watching this or any other event, there will always be people to spit at the screen, whether it is showing today’s event or what is happening in Ukraine: horrible poverty and the prospect of a harsh winter. When Verkhovna Rada deputies visit regions, they meet pensioners who ask them: “Why are you killing us?” Of course, they spit at the TV when they hear the bragging of the current Kiev regime. No matter the cause, there will always be people who spit, on both sides.
How can someone issue orders to shoot? You should ask the political leaders of Ukraine how they bring themselves to issue orders to fire on Donbass every single day.
You know, some time ago we reached agreement that only senior officials, all the way up to the relevant ministries, are allowed to issue orders to retaliate if either party fires. In one case it is Donetsk and Lugansk, and in another it is Kiev.
Why that decision? To make sure that attacks cease. The Kiev officials later back-pedalled and authorised field commanders to issue this kind of order. The shooting resumed. Ask them why they did that and how they brought themselves to issue orders to shoot at their own citizens since they consider Donbass residents Ukrainian citizens? Their own citizens. Not some other country.
As for the future, the Minsk agreements state that the Ukrainian Constitution must be amended to grant these regions autonomy, to hold elections and grant amnesty. As I said, what do we see in the draft law on transition period? A military government instead of elections. Lustration instead of amnesty. Returning troops to their permanent bases instead of elections and political solutions to political issues. This is the reality. What does it mean, returning troops to their permanent bases? It means sending troops to the territory without any political process or elections.
Look, as I have already said, there is a requirement in the Minsk Agreements to amend the Constitution. Where are these amendments? It is written there that these amendments must be coordinated with the representatives of the LPR and the DPR. They must be coordinated. I remember this perfectly well because I took part in drafting these solutions. Far from coordinating anything or making any proposals on amending the Constitution, they are refusing pointblank even to talk with Donbass representatives, although when these agreements were signed in Minsk, they insisted that Donbass representatives sign this document. And they did. Frankly, they were refusing to sign it. We had to talk to them to persuade them to do it. They did but now nobody is even talking to them. They are called terrorists and any possibility of talking with them is rejected. Can you explain why? Because instead of responding to the call for peace in Ukrainian society, which Zelensky exploited to come to power, he chose not to keep his promises, having fallen, like previous leaders, under the influence of radical elements that are called “natsi’ in Ukraine.
What is the problem for us? I think I have said about Donbass. We want to build friendly relations with Ukraine, moreover, we want to achieve this at any cost and will go to practically any lengths. But how is it possible to develop relations with the current leaders, considering what they are doing? It is practically impossible.
However, we are ready to work with those who would like to develop relations with Russia in the spirit of friendship. What is happening with these forces? Extrajudicial executions, sanctions against Ukrainian nationals in violation of Ukrainian law and Constitution, or simply killings in the street. Nobody is looking for the murderers.
You just asked me about murders that sadly took place in our country. You asked, where are those who ordered the contract killing? People are in prison. Whether they ordered it or not, they are in prison in any event. And what happens there? If a murder takes place in the street, nobody searches for the culprit at all. People were burned alive in the Trade Union House in Odessa – has anyone lifted a finger to find the criminals? Not in the least.
In other words, we do not have any chance of working with those people who want to move relations forward. The people who want to work with us are being destroyed – this is the gist of the problem.
Now about my agreements with President Biden. Yes, I have already said that he suggested appointing official representatives for discussing strategic stability issues including our concerns over the growing threat from Ukraine. He made an offer, we countered, and I think it was a very constructive and quick deal. Incidentally, I told him during our conversation: I promise you that we will send you our proposals in the near future. And we did this, we sent them to both the United States and NATO. We are ready to discuss them at the OSCE platform as well. I hope this first positive reaction and the announcement that work will begin shortly, in the first days of January, will allow us to move forward.
(..)
(While answering a question about the 2022 Olympic Games:) I have already talked about the situation with NATO’s eastward expansion. Why did they have to do this? Take, for instance, Egon Bahr. He was a politician from the Social Democratic Party of Germany and proposed building a new security architecture in Europe after the Soviet troops left Germany and Eastern Europe: keeping NATO without expanding it to Central and Eastern European countries, and creating a new system of equal security with Canada, the United States and Russia. According to the archival documents on his talks with the Soviet leaders, including Falin and others, otherwise the virtual Berlin wall will keep moving east, leaving us with the same problems. This is precisely what happened. Why? This was an attempt at containment. However, this is an erroneous policy, just like the attempt to use sports for momentary political gain.
De voorzitter: Dank u wel, mevrouw Van der Plas. Dan geef ik tot slot het woord aan de heer Van Meijeren van Forum voor Democratie.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Dank u wel, mevrouw de voorzitter. In een functionerende democratie zou de journalistiek moeten optreden als waakhond, als controleur van de macht, altijd op zoek naar de waarheid en niets dan de waarheid.
Mevrouw Michon-Derkzen (VVD): Ik wil aan de heer Van Meijeren vragen of het klopt dat ook zijn partij de pers tuig van de richel vindt, en ook vindt dat de mainstreammedia fakenieuws brengen.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Op die laatste vraag zeg ik in ieder geval een volmondig ja. De mainstreammedia brengen aan de lopende band desinformatie en fakenieuws. Het is werkelijk schandalig. Daarmee zou ik een groot deel van de journalisten die werken voor de mainstreammedia, uitzonderingen daargelaten, ook wel willen omschrijven als tuig van de richel. Ja.
De voorzitter: Tot slot, mevrouw Michon-Derkzen, en dan mevrouw Van der Werf.
Mevrouw Michon-Derkzen (VVD): Het is prettig dat we dit gelijk aan het begin van het betoog weten. Ik stel vast dat de heer Van Meijeren van Forum voor Democratie direct bijdraagt aan de bedreigingen en het geweld waar journalisten dagelijks mee te maken hebben. Hij is onderdeel van deze Kamer. Hij bevestigt nog een keer die walgelijke zinnen die hij en zijn voorman ook op Twitter zeggen. Hij neemt daar dus duidelijk geen afstand van, waarvan akte.
De voorzitter: Mevrouw Van der Werf, D66.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Nou, ik wil hier eigenlijk wel even kort op reageren hoor.
De voorzitter: Ja, dat mag. Gaat uw gang.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Wij maken ons op geen enkele manier schuldig aan agressie of bedreiging richting journalisten. Wij hechten wel een waardeoordeel aan journalisten die hun taak als controleur van de macht totaal niet serieus nemen en desinformatie verspreiden. Journalisten die zelf dapper genoeg zijn om mensen aan te merken als “nazi”, “racist”, “fascist”, “complotdenker”, “wappie”, en daarmee zelf het klimaat creëren van een toelaatbaarheid van geweld tegen politieke tegenstanders … Dan is het niet zo vreemd dat daar ook met woorden een keer iets tegen ingebracht wordt. Dus ik zie dat totaal niet als het bijdragen aan agressie. Totaal niet, nee.
Mevrouw Van der Werf (D66): De heer Van Meijeren had het net over desinformatie. Wat nu eigenlijk wel steeds duidelijker wordt, is de rol die zijn partij, Forum van Democratie, zelf speelt in het verspreiden van desinformatie, en dan met name als het gaat om bijvoorbeeld coronacomplottheorieën. Een recent onderzoek van The London Story liet zien hoe uw partij die desinformatie over COVID-19 actief promoot, onder andere via politieke advertenties op Facebook. En uw partij had daar maar liefst twee ton voor over. Heeft u enig idee hoe groot de impact daarvan is, van die desinformatie?
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Nou, mijn vraag is eigenlijk: zou deze spreker kunnen toelichten welke informatie die wij verspreid hebben, zij aanmerkt als “desinformatie”? Want anders kan ik deze vraag niet beantwoorden. Wij verspreiden geen desinformatie.
De voorzitter: Ik geef mevrouw Van der Werf de kans om dit toe te lichten. Mevrouw Van der Werf?
Mevrouw Van der Werf (D66): Ja, voorzitter. Ik ben uiteraard bereid om dat onderzoek van The London Story naar u toe te mailen na dit debat, maar dat kan ik hier niet via de microfoon doen. Het feit alleen al dat u dat geen desinformatie noemt, het continu ondermijnen van alles wat wetenschappers en journalisten over deze pandemie schrijven, tja, dat is ook een ondermijning van onze democratie. En dat is waar ik hier de heer Van Meijeren op aanspreek. Voelt u dan geen enkele verantwoordelijkheid naar al die mensen die dat lezen, die denken “nou, ik zal dan maar geen vaccinatie gaan halen”? Voor journalisten die zich bedreigd voelen vanwege taal die u naar hen uitslaat? Dat is toch gewoon walgelijk?
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Nou ja. Mevrouw Van der Werf kan kennelijk niet eens zeggen welke informatie moet worden aangemerkt als “desinformatie”. Als het informatie is waar mensen de conclusie uit trekken dat ze geen vaccin moeten gaan halen, dan geef ik ze groot gelijk. Ik geef iedereen bij dezen het advies om je vooral níét te laten injecteren met een experimentele gentherapie, waarvan de bijwerkingen op lange termijn nog niet eens onderzocht zijn. En de desinformatie wordt verspreid door het RIVM, dat verspreidt dat die vaccinaties veilig zijn en voldoende zijn onderzocht. Dát is desinformatie. Het RIVM verspreidt desinformatie, en heeft een geschiedenis als grootste verspreider van desinformatie in deze hele coronacrisis, of eigenlijk dit hele coronaschandaal.
De voorzitter: Dank u wel. De heer Kwint, SP.
De heer Kwint (SP): Nou ja, goed, ik moet de heer Van Meijeren meegeven dat als er één man in staat zou zijn om die geschiedenis van desinformatie te herkennen, dat dat inderdaad de heer Van Meijeren zou moeten zijn. Dus misschien weet hij daar meer van dan ik. Het ging mij om iets anders wat hij net zei. Hij verwijt eerst journalisten met hun uitspraken bij te dragen aan een klimaat van agressie richting Forum. En vervolgens zegt hij: ja, maar wat wij doen, heeft niks met bedreiging te maken; wij zullen nooit bedreigingen goedpraten of ook maar willen initiëren. Hoe zit het nou, volgens u? Hebben woorden die mensen uiten, uiteindelijk mogelijke consequenties in daden die andere mensen gaan doen, of heeft dat helemaal niks met elkaar te maken? Want dat kan niet twee kanten op.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Ik heb het helemaal niet gehad over een klimaat tegen Forum. Ik heb het erover gehad dat de media zelf ook termen bezigen waardoor bijvoorbeeld een van de leiders van een van deze partijfracties dagelijks beschermd moet worden, waardoor Pim Fortuyn door zijn hoofd geschoten is en vermoord. Dus als mensen daadwerkelijk worden neergezet als een gevaar voor deze samenleving, dan kan dat inderdaad op enig moment door sommige personen helaas, veelal uit linkse hoek, worden aangemerkt als een soort van rechtvaardiging om dan maar weer naar de wapens te grijpen. Woorden van Forum hebben daar nooit toe geleid. Dat woord “tuig” heb ik zelf overigens niet eens in eerste instantie gebruikt, maar ik kan me er best iets bij voorstellen dat je dit soort journalisten, die zich gedragen als politieke activisten, als “tuig” zou willen aanmerken. Maar dat leidt niet tot ernstige bedreigingen of geweld tegen journalisten. Dat er iemand een keer met een T-shirtje rondloopt waarop staat “NOS is fake news” … Nou, dat lijkt me nou niet een reden om in angst de stickers van je busje af te halen en niet meer naar een demonstratie te durven gaan. Als je journalist bent, hoort het bij je beroep dat je af en toe tijdens je werk, als je de hitte van de strijd opzoekt, ook te maken krijgt met een momentje van beperkte vreugde. Maar met agressie en bedreigingen heeft dat weinig tot niets te maken.
De voorzitter: Dank u wel. De heer Kwint tot slot, en dan mevrouw Ellemeet.
De heer Kwint (SP): Die momenten van beperkte vreugde herken ik ook wel. Ik moet dat hele leuterverhaal aanhoren. Het gaat mij om de inconsequentie in uw eigen redenering. U zegt eerst: die journalisten zorgen voor bedreiging, demonisering en geweld, maar als ik wat zeg, luistert er niemand en gebeurt er nooit wat. Dan kan ik me ondertussen na een paar minuten wel voorstellen. Ik kan het iedereen aanraden om te stoppen met luisteren. Maar de redenering is intern totaal inconsequent. Als journalisten wat zeggen, draagt dat bij aan een klimaat van bedreiging en intimidatie, maar u mag hier alles zeggen zonder ooit enige verantwoording ervoor af te leggen. Dat is toch totaal hypocriet?
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): De grens ligt voor Forum voor Democratie altijd bij geweld, of bij het oproepen of aanzetten tot geweld. Daar maken wij ons niet schuldig aan. Naar mijn mening kan zoiets pas zo stellig worden gesteld als de heer Kwint dat doet op het moment dat dat geweld zich ook daadwerkelijk voltrekt. Nou, dat hebben we gezien bij onder meer de heer Fortuyn. Dat hebben we nooit gezien bij een journalist die door Forum onheus bejegend zou zijn. Dus u kunt wel zeggen dat onze woorden aanzetten tot geweld, maar de feiten wijzen daar niet op. Dus het is klinkklare kletskoek wat ik de heer Kwint hoor zeggen.
De heer Kwint (SP): Er worden mij woorden in de mond gelegd.
De voorzitter: Wilt u een punt van orde maken, omdat het een persoonlijk feit is? Dat mag. Gaat uw gang.
De heer Kwint (SP): Ja, laten we het dan een punt van orde noemen. Waar het mij om gaat, is dat ik … Ik heb echt niet de hoop dat u van standpunt gaat veranderen; het gaat mij om de consequentie van uw eigen woorden. Als u één kant op zegt dat het oproepen tot geweld is, als u één kant op erkent dat woorden gevolgen hebben en mensen tot daden kunnen aanzetten, kunt u niet als een soort kleuter met uw vingers in uw oren wegrennen, al “nanananana” roepend, op het moment dat iemand uw woorden neerlegt en vraagt wat daar de consequenties van zijn.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Met het risico om in herhaling te vervallen zal ik er toch nog een keer op reageren. Wij hebben natuurlijk het volste recht om kritiek te hebben op andere politici, op journalisten, op onderzoekers, op wetenschappers en op linkse ambtenaren bij de NCTV. Wij hebben kritiek, en dat is ons goed recht. De heer Kwint trekt daar ten onrechte de conclusie uit dat dit aanzet tot geweld, want dat geweld vindt helemaal niet plaats. Dat geweld vindt plaats vanuit linkse hoek. Dat zijn gewoon de feiten. Die kan ik helaas niet veranderen voor u. Waar zien we dat er sprake is van geweld tegen mensen die gedemoniseerd zijn? Dat is aan de lopende band geweld vanuit linkse hoek.
De voorzitter: Dank u wel, meneer Van Meijeren. Graag via de voorzitter. Dan geef ik eerst het woord aan mevrouw Ellemeet en dan aan mevrouw Palland.
Mevrouw Ellemeet (GroenLinks): Ik moet zeggen dat de rillingen mij echt over de rug lopen als ik de heer Van Meijeren hoor praten: de onafhankelijke media volledig diskwalificeren als fake news. Wat dat doet in een samenleving … En dan nog beweren dat zulke uitspraken niet leiden tot geweld. Ik begon mijn eigen inbreng met allemaal voorbeelden van journalisten die geconfronteerd zijn met geweld. Dat komt ergens vandaan. Wil de heer Van Meijeren hier ontkennen dat uitspraken die wij doen, die hij doet, leiden tot beïnvloeding van heel veel mensen, wat vervolgens kan leiden tot geweld?
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Het is eigenlijk dezelfde vraag als de heer Kwint zojuist al stelde. Natuurlijk kunnen woorden aanzetten tot geweld. Dat is ook gewoon strafbaar. Dus als u van oordeel bent dat mijn woorden aanzetten tot geweld, moet u aangifte doen tegen mij, want dan zou ik een strafbaar feit plegen. Daar is op dit moment totaal geen sprake van. De feiten wijzen daar niet op. Ik vind het heel vervelend dat de rillingen over uw rug lopen. Mij lopen de rillingen ook weleens over de rug, maar de feiten veranderen niet door uw rillingen.
Mevrouw Ellemeet (GroenLinks): Forum voor Democratie diskwalificeert onze onafhankelijke media en geeft aan dat journalisten onze samenleving ondermijnen. Dat zijn heel vergaande uitspraken, die mensen aanzetten tot allerlei gedrag. Dan kan je wel zeggen dat het niet een-op-een is, maar het gaat erom — ik hoor dat heel veel collega’s zeggen — dat woorden niet onschuldig zijn. We moeten goed nadenken over woorden. Het diskwalificeren van onze journalisten, die hun werk onafhankelijk doen, heeft gevolgen. Daar kunnen we niet van wegkijken.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Mevrouw Ellemeet spreekt zichzelf totaal tegen door het te hebben over “onze” journalisten die onafhankelijk zijn. Het zijn úw journalisten, niet de onze. Ze zijn totaal niet onafhankelijk, want als we het even over de NPO hebben, dan staan ze onder leiding van een D66-baas die betaald wordt door de overheid en daar dus afhankelijk van is. De zogenaamd onafhankelijke journalisten in Nederland hebben hun ziel ook al totaal verkocht. De hoofdredacteur van de Volkskrant heeft opgeroepen om met één mond te spreken in de coronacrisis en de lijn van het RIVM te volgen. Dat heeft niets meer te maken met het controleren van de macht. Dan ben je een applausmachine van de macht. Er is vanuit het kabinet druk uitgeoefend op De Telegraaf om niet al te veel kritiek te hebben op het RIVM. Dus over welke onafhankelijke media heeft u het eigenlijk? Er zijn nog maar een paar onafhankelijke journalistieke platforms in Nederland op dit moment. Dat zijn niet de mainstream media. Díé platforms hebben te maken met agressie, bedreigingen en geweld. Daar kom ik zo dadelijk nog op.
De voorzitter: Mevrouw Ellemeet, tot slot.
Mevrouw Ellemeet (GroenLinks): Het is dood- en doodeng dat wij in ons parlement een partij hebben die zulke uitspraken doet. Het is doodeng dat deze partij, Forum voor Democratie, journalisten die zich baseren op feiten en wetenschappelijk onderzoek diskwalificeert. Dat betekent dat het des te belangrijker wordt dat wij met alle partijen hier in deze Kamer, ook al verschillen wij op heel veel punten van elkaar, laten horen dat dit niet kan en dat wij dit niet accepteren.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Nou ja, voor de laatste keer: voor ons ligt de grens bij geweld. Geweld tegen journalisten moet keihard aangepakt worden. Forum voor Democratie heeft dit jaar nog een motie gesteund om geweld tegen journalisten harder aan te pakken. En wie stemde tegen? Onder meer mevrouw Ellemeet van GroenLinks. Waarom wil mevrouw Ellemeet geweld tegen journalisten niet strenger aanpakken? Blijf bij de feiten, mevrouw Ellemeet.
Mevrouw Palland (CDA): Soms weet je bijna niet waar je moet beginnen om het gesprek nog met elkaar te zoeken, ook in dit huis. Maar ik probeer het toch. Deelt de heer Van Meijeren de analyse, die hier breed in de Kamer wordt gemaakt, dat er een probleem is met dreigingen die journalisten ervaren en dat zij zich daardoor belemmerd voelen in het uitvoeren van hun werk? Deelt u de analyse dat dit aan de hand is?
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Absoluut. Ik heb daar ook tal van voorbeelden van. Daar zal ik zo dadelijk ook volop aandacht aan besteden. Maar dan heb ik het dus over geweld waar aangifte van gedaan wordt en niet over iemand die een keer met een T-shirt rondloopt waarop staat “NOS is fakenews”. Want dat heeft met geweld of intimidatie helemaal niets te maken.
Mevrouw Palland (CDA): Het is helder dat dat uw analyse is. Maar we constateren hier volgens mij ook in grote meerderheid dat woorden ertoe doen, in dit huis, maar ook buiten dit huis. Ik hoor u eigenlijk zeggen: dat zal wel, maar aan ons ligt het eigenlijk niet. Dan wil ik u toch voorhouden dat u afgelopen zaterdag heeft gezegd “de overheid is de vijand; we willen het gezag niet meer erkennen”, en dat er gisteren volgens mij nog een tweet vanuit uw partij uit is gegaan die oproept om de wet te overtreden door harder te gaan rijden waar dat mogelijk is en om je niet te houden aan bijvoorbeeld de snelheidslimieten in dit land. Je kunt toch niet zeggen dat dat niet oproept tot burgerlijke ongehoorzaamheid? Het brengt mensen in ieder geval niet dichter bij elkaar en is juist opruiend.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Het doet mij oprecht, oprecht pijn dat ik moet constateren dat de regering zich op dit moment opstelt als vijand van de bevolking. Voor het eerst sinds de Tweede Wereldoorlog hebben we weer een regering die wetten voorbereidt op grond waarvan een staat van apartheid wordt gecreëerd en waardoor mensen worden buitengesloten van het sociaal-maatschappelijk leven. Het is noodzakelijk om niet te zwichten voor tirannen. Wij zullen niet zwichten voor tirannen. Als er regelgeving tot stand komt op grond waarvan complete bevolkingsgroepen worden gediscrimineerd, dan roep ik op om daar niet aan te gehoorzamen. Want dan is gehoorzaamheid een grotere misdaad dan ongehoorzaamheid. De verschrikkingen die de Joden zijn aangedaan in de Tweede Wereldoorlog zijn gepleegd door mensen die gehoorzaam waren en niet door mensen die ongehoorzaam waren.
De voorzitter: Dank u wel. Meneer Van Meijeren, ik wil zelf als voorzitter ook wat zeggen. U gebruikt grote woorden. U maakt weer een vergelijking met de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Ik hecht er waarde aan om te zeggen dat ik dit echt ongepast vind. Ik denk dat een aantal collega’s daar ook iets over willen zeggen. Allereerst mevrouw Palland van het CDA.
Mevrouw Palland (CDA): Ja. Nogmaals, je weet soms niet waar je moet beginnen om elkaar hier nog aan te spreken, maar het is volstrekt ontoelaatbaar wat u hier allemaal te berde brengt. We nemen daar denk ik als volledige Kamer volstrekt afstand van. U heeft geen idee wat een dictatuur of een tirannie is.
De voorzitter: Als ik naar de gezichten van de collega’s kijk, denk ik dat mevrouw Palland het heel goed heeft samengevat. Ik wil u vragen, meneer Van Meijeren, om echt op uw woorden te passen.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Feit is dat het voor het eerst sinds de Tweede Wereldoorlog zo is dat mensen weer een pasje krijgen aan de hand waarvan ze moeten bewijzen of ze wel of niet toegang krijgen tot het sociaal-maatschappelijk leven. Ik zou willen dat er in de jaren dertig mensen waren opgestaan die hier keihard tegen ingingen. En nog even tot slot, voordat u allemaal verontwaardigd naar de interruptiemicrofoon loopt.
De voorzitter: U krijgt zo de kans.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): In het jaar 1933 was er een gekozen volksvertegenwoordiger die Adolf Hitler “een boef” noemde. Hem werd het woord ontnomen, met twintig stemmen tegen zes. Als een meerderheid vindt dat er geen sprake is van tirannie, betekent dat dus niet dat er daarmee geen sprake is van tirannie. Wij zullen ons altijd met hand en tand blijven verzetten tegen ieder beleid dat erop gericht is om bevolkingsgroepen te discrimineren.
De voorzitter: Meneer Van Meijeren, ik doe nogmaals een oproep aan u. Uw woorden zijn kwetsend. Als ik kijk naar mijn collega’s, zie ik ook hun reactie. Ik wil dus nu echt vragen om echt op uw woorden te letten en uw verhaal af te maken. Vervolgens schorsen we de vergadering even.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Om misverstanden te voorkomen, …
De voorzitter: Ik zou het heel fijn vinden als u aan mij als voorzitter bevestigt dat u echt rekening houdt met uw woorden in deze Kamer. Het is ook mijn rol om daar toezicht op te houden. Ik zie de reacties van de collega’s. Ik weet zeker dat ook buiten deze Kamer uw woorden als heel kwetsend opgevat kunnen woorden. Ik wil u dus echt vragen om daarop te letten. Dan geef ik u weer het woord om uw verhaal af te maken.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Om misverstanden te voorkomen: Forum voor Democratie bepleit op geen enkele manier dat de verschrikkingen van de Tweede Wereldoorlog in de buurt komen van wat op dit moment ongevaccineerden wordt aangedaan. Natuurlijk niet. Het is een glijdende schaal. Eerst werden de Joden uitgesloten om naar de bioscoop te gaan, toen mochten ze …
De voorzitter: Meneer Van Meijeren, ik schors de vergadering even en wil heel graag even met u in gesprek.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Prima.
De vergadering wordt enkele ogenblikken geschorst.
De voorzitter: Ik wil aan de heer Van Meijeren vragen om zijn verhaal af te maken. Het woord is aan de heer Van Meijeren.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Voorzitter. In 2010 beweerde de heer Job Cohen in een interview in Vrij Nederland, en ik citeer: “Moslims in Nederland worden buitengesloten zoals de Joden dat rond het begin van de Tweede Wereldoorlog overkwam”. Waar was toen de verontwaardiging? Moslims in Nederland werden niet uitgesloten van het sociaal-maatschappelijk leven; die zijn altijd welkom geweest, in ieder restaurant, in de …
De voorzitter: Helaas, ik schors de vergadering weer.
De vergadering wordt enkele ogenblikken geschorst.
De voorzitter: Ik geef tot slot het woord aan de heer Van Meijeren.
De heer Van Meijeren (FVD): Dank u wel, voorzitter. Ik vervolg mijn betoog.
Onze democratie, voor zover überhaupt nog van democratie gesproken kan worden, functioneert totaal niet. De mainstreamjournalistiek is vandaag de dag volstrekt ongeloofwaardig. Niet meer serieus te nemen. Niet eens geïnteresseerd in de waarheid maar vooral druk om de waarheid te manipuleren. Geen controleur van de macht maar schoothondje van de macht. Een applausmachine van de macht. In feite hebben we het hier niet over journalisten maar over activisten.
Journalisten en onderzoekers die hun rol wél serieus nemen en wél op zoek durven te gaan naar de waarheid, krijgen te maken met ernstige bedreigingen, censuur, agressie en intimidatiepraktijken. Zelfs vanuit de overheid. Neem het journalistieke platform Blackbox. Een journalist die een interview afnam met iemand die kritisch is op het overheidsbeleid, kreeg de politie aan de deur. De reden: hij zou een complotdenker hebben geïnterviewd. Toen hij vroeg “wat is dan een complotdenker?”, kreeg hij van de politie — ik citeer — te horen: “Iemand die tegenovergesteld denkt als wat de overheid verwacht.” Dus denk je anders dan de overheid verwacht, dan kun je de gedachtepolitie aan je deur verwachten. Hoe beoordeelt de minister deze afschuwelijke intimidatiepraktijken richting de vrije pers?
Ook andere ambtenaren van de minister intimideren erop los. Het journalistieke platform De Blauwe Tijger werd in de dreigingsanalyse van de NCTV aangemerkt als “een doorgeefluik van antioverheidspropaganda”. Dus als je niet de overheidspropaganda klakkeloos kopieert, zoals de mainstreammedia, maar een ánder geluid laat horen, dan vorm je voor de regering een bedreiging. En woorden blijven niet zonder gevolgen. De ING besloot vervolgens om de bankrekening van dit journalistieke platform te blokkeren, net als bankrekeningen van tal van andere journalistieke platforms die een kritisch geluid laten horen in het coronadebat. Onderzoekers die publiceerden over het buitensporige geweld door de politie tegen coronademonstranten kregen te maken met ernstige doodsbedreigingen. Kan de minister aangeven wat de stand van zaken is van een strafrechtelijk onderzoek naar deze doodsbedreigers? En hoe beoordeelt de minister de harde realiteit dat journalisten die niet zwichten voor de druk vanuit de overheid om de coronapropaganda over te nemen, te maken krijgen met ernstige agressie? Graag een reactie.
Forum voor Democratie zal zich altijd met hand en tand blijven inzetten voor de vrijheid en veiligheid van onze journalisten. Want zonder vrije pers geen democratie.
Dank u wel.
(bron: ongecorrigeerd verslag van een plenaire vergadering van de Tweede Kamer over bedreiging van journalisten, 9 september 2021)
Dertig jaar geleden (op 27 juni 1991) begin in Slovenië de eerste van de vier burgeroorlogen in het voormalige Joegoslavië. Hij duurde maar kort (10 dagen) en er vielen betrekkelijk weinig slachtoffers. De oorlogen in Kroatië, Bosnië en Kosovo zouden volgen en waren van een heel andere orde van grootte. Maar voor mij was het de eerste oorlog die ik meemaakte. Alleen al daarom een indrukwekkende ervaring.
Begin 1991 was ik in Praag begonnen als freelance correspondent Oost-Europa van de Telegraaf. Al rap kwam Joegoslavië bovenaan het prioriteitenlijstje. In snel tempo dreigde het land uiteen te vallen en alom werd rekening gehouden met gewelddadigheden of zelfs oorlog.
Telegraaf, 18 maart 1991
Op 25 juni verklaarden Kroatië en Slovenië zich onafhankelijk. Twee dagen later brak dus in het laatste land de pleuris uit. De reden: de Slovenen hadden alle grensposten (en dus de douane-inkomsten) overgenomen van het centraal gezag in Belgrado. De regering stuurde wat militaire eenheden naar die posten om ze terug te veroveren, maar dat werd grotendeels een mislukking.
De Slovenen hadden zich in de voorafgaande maanden degelijk voorbereid en de ‘territoriale reserves’ van het federale leger omgetoverd tot een eigen legertje. Niet zwaarbewapend met tanks en zo, maar sterk genoeg om de betrekkelijk bescheiden inzet van het federale leger het hoofd te bieden. Hun sterke punt: hinderlagen, bijvoorbeeld met anti-tank wapens. Ik zag ook tankauto’s (met benzine, naar ik aannam) die dwars over bergweggetjes waren gezet, slimme improvisatie.
De Slovenen boden de internationale pers prima service. Er waren briefings van leidinggevenden zoals de toen nog jonge minister van Defensie Janez Janša, nu premier van het land. Ik maakte vanuit de hoofdstad Ljubljana dagtripjes met behulp van studenten die als gids voor de buitenlandse pers werden ingezet. Of reed zelf op goed geluk rond in het land, op zoek naar verhalen. Internet, gsm en smartphones bestonden nog niet dus was het een soort houtje-touwtje verslaggeving.
(Janez Janša)
Ik trok de bergen in omdat ik gehoord had dat er buitenlandse toeristen waren gestrand. En inderdaad, ik trof er Nederlanders aan die, vernikkeld van de kou en zonder veel cash bij zich geen kant op konden. In het zuiden bezocht ik een federale tankeenheid. Na een prettig gesprek met twee dienstplichtige soldaten aan de poort stormde een dolgedraaide officier met getrokken pistool op me af. Wat hij schreeuwde kon ik niet verstaan maar de boodschap was duidelijk – ik blies de aftocht. Eenmaal terug in de auto begonnen mijn knieën onbedaarlijk te trillen.
Ik bezocht in Krško ook de enige kerncentrale van Slovenië, vlakbij de grens met Kroatië. De vrees bestond dat de ‘federalen’ het complex zouden kunnen aanvallen, maar een woordvoerder verzekerde me dat het dak van de Honeywell-centrale dik genoeg was om een directe treffer te kunnen weerstaan. Er waren wel andere gevaarlijke scenario’s waarmee men rekening hield maar ik herinner me niet dat ik daarover details heb gepubliceerd.
Telegraaf, 28 juni 1991
Een eindje verderop werd op een gegeven moment flink gevochten. Ik klopte bij mensen aan om de redactie in Amsterdam te kunnen bellen (zoals gezegd, mobiele telefoons bestonden nog niet). Ik werd hartelijk ontvangen met koffie en zo. Het gezin keek geïnteresseerd naar de TV. Wat daar te zien was? Gevechten die zich twee dorpen verderop bleken af te spelen. Bizar…
Achteraf bleken de vijandelijkheden in Slovenië relatief gezien maar kinderspel te zijn geweest. Er waren geen wreedheden en moordpartijen zoals later in Kroatië en Bosnië. Er waren ook nauwelijks etnische tegenstellingen – geen Servische minderheid van enige omvang bijvoorbeeld. Dat er een oorlog uitbrak was bizar genoeg, al was het maar omdat het Sloveense landschap en de huizen zoveel leken op die in buurland Oostenrijk – Slovenië was ook veruit de meest welvarende republiek van Joegoslavië. Dat maakte de ervaring voor mij ook bijzonder: dat in een ogenschijnlijk welvarend en beschaafd land van de ene op de andere dag een oorlog kon uitbreken.
(Verzameling van mijn artikelen over Slovenië in Delpher)
Aan de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal Postbus 20018 2500 EA Den Haag Datum 10 december 2020
Betreft Verstoring Russische economische spionageactiviteiten door AIVD
Zoals gemeld in het meest recente jaarverslag ziet de Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst (AIVD) dat steeds meer landen invloed proberen te krijgen op Nederlandse belangen. Ons land hoort bij de meest ontwikkelde naties van de wereld op het gebied van economie, wetenschap en techniek. Onder invloed van globalisering maakt dit dat Nederland een aantrekkelijk, maar ook in toenemende mate kwetsbaar doelwit is van spionage. *1
De AIVD zet zich in samenwerking met partners in om schade aan de economie en de nationale veiligheid door spionage te beperken en waar mogelijk te voorkomen door het vergaren van inlichtingen en het creëren van bewustzijn.
In dit licht informeer ik u, mede namens de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken en de minister van Justitie en Veiligheid, over de recente verstoring van Russische economische spionageactiviteiten van de Russische civiele inlichtingendienst SVR door de AIVD.
Verstoringsoperatie Zoals eerder in jaarverslagen van de AIVD gemeld staat Nederland in het vizier van de Russische inlichtingendiensten, die heimelijk informatie verzamelen die voor Rusland van belang is, waaronder informatie op het terrein van economie en wetenschap.
De AIVD beëindigde recentelijk operaties van een Russische inlichtingenofficier (IO) van de SVR. De IO -die als geaccrediteerd diplomaat op de Russische ambassade werkte- hield zich bezig met spionage op gebied van technologie en wetenschap. Hij bouwde een substantieel netwerk op van bronnen, die allen werkzaam zijn of waren in de Nederlandse hightech-sector. De interesse van de IO ging onder meer uit naar informatie over kunstmatige intelligentie, halfgeleiders en nanotechnologie. Veel van deze technologie is zowel bruikbaar in civiele als militaire toepassingen.
De Russische inlichtingenofficier legde contact met personen met toegang tot gevoelige informatie binnen de hightech-sector, en in sommige gevallen was in ruil daarvoor ook sprake van betaling. Een tweede Russische inlichtingenofficier van de SVR, tevens geaccrediteerd als diplomaat, vervulde een ondersteunende rol.
Bedrijven en onderwijsinstelling geïnformeerd De hightech-sector in Nederland beschikt over hoogwaardige en unieke kennis. De spionage heeft zeer waarschijnlijk schade aangebracht aan de organisaties waar de bronnen actief zijn of waren en daarmee mogelijk ook aan de Nederlandse economie en de nationale veiligheid.
De bronnen van de Russische inlichtingenofficier zijn door de AIVD aangesproken om hun activiteiten te verstoren. In een aantal gevallen heeft de AIVD een ambtsbericht aan betrokken bedrijven en een hogere onderwijsinstelling uitgebracht zodat zij maatregelen kunnen treffen. In één geval is aan de IND een ambtsbericht uitgebracht. De IND treft op grond hiervan vreemdelingrechtelijke maatregelen tegen een bron. De AIVD onderzoekt of er additionele ambtsberichten uitgebracht kunnen worden aan de IND.
Er kunnen geen mededelingen worden gedaan over de identiteit van de bronnen en om welke betrokken bedrijven en onderwijsinstelling het gaat.
PNG-verklaringen Vanwege de onderkende spionageactiviteiten is de Russische ambassadeur op 9 december jl. ontboden door het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken en is medegedeeld dat de inlichtingenofficier, evenals de samenwerkende collega IO van de SVR tot Persona Non Grata (PNG) zijn verklaard.
Strafbaarstelling spionage Vanwege de toenemende kwetsbaarheid van Nederland voor spionage is door het kabinet de toegevoegde waarde van de strafbaarstelling van spionage op het bestaande instrumentarium onderzocht. Het strafrecht biedt reeds mogelijkheden om op te treden jegens misdrijven die verband houden met schending van staats-, ambts- en bedrijfsgeheimen. Echter, spionage -als in de heimelijke samenwerking door personen met een buitenlandse inlichtingendienst- is op dit moment op zichzelf niet als zodanig strafbaar. Het kabinet heeft vastgesteld dat een aanvullende strafbaarstelling wenselijk is en zal onderzoeken op welke wijze daaraan vorm kan worden gegeven en vervolgens een wetstraject opstarten.
Vervolgaanpak Uit deze casus blijkt nogmaals dat de statelijke dreigingen ten opzichte van Nederland reëel zijn. We informeren u nader over de bredere aanpak via het vervolg op de Kamerbrieven Tegengaan statelijke dreigingen (d.d. 18 april 2019) en Kennisveiligheid hoger onderwijs en wetenschap (d.d. 27 november 2020).
Bewustwording De AIVD zet zich in voor de bewustwording van de risico’s van spionage en legt waar mogelijk uit aan bedrijven, overheden en onderwijsinstellingen hoe ze dit nu en in de toekomst kunnen voorkomen.
De minister van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties,
Hierbij reageer ik op het verzoek van de Tweede Kamer om een brief over het NRC-artikel van 15 november ‘Leger verzamelde data in Nederland’. Dit artikel gaat in op de activiteiten van het experimentele Land Information Manoeuvre Centre (LIMC) van de Koninklijke landmacht. Deze brief betreft een eerste reactie hierop hangende de uitkomsten van het onafhankelijke onderzoek hiernaar door de Functionaris voor Gegevensbescherming Defensie. Als het onderzoek gereed is, stuur ik deze met mijn reactie naar de Tweede Kamer. In afwachting van de uitkomsten hiervan heb ik besloten om de activiteiten van het LIMC voor wat betreft het verzamelen en analyseren van informatie stil te zetten.
Het LIMC De informatie-omgeving is volop in ontwikkeling met grote gevolgen voor de omgeving waarin de krijgsmacht opereert en voor het opereren van de krijgsmacht zelf. De Defensievisie-2035 die het kabinet u op 15 oktober toestuurde, gaat hier uitgebreid op in. De visie stelt verder dat een van de drie eigenschappen van de krijgsmacht is dat deze naast technologisch hoogwaardig en een betrouwbare partner en beschermer, ook informatiegestuurd moet zijn. Het gaat hierbij om moderne IT die nodig is om vooral voor de eerste en tweede hoofdtaak van Defensie grote hoeveelheden informatie te verzamelen en snel te verwerken, zodat de commandant tijdig betrouwbare informatie ontvangt. Dit is cruciaal voor elke militaire operatie, voor de bescherming van de eigen mensen en voor de bescherming van de bevolking in de omgeving waarin de krijgsmacht opereert.
Dit kan onder andere volgens het principe van Concept Development & Experimentation (CD&E) dat ook door de NAVO wordt gezien als instrument voor capaciteitenontwikkeling. Dit is een iteratief proces van passen en meten, vallen en opstaan en voortdurend herhalen van dit proces. Volgens deze methode wordt regelmatig tussentijds geëvalueerd. Naleving van wet- en regelgeving is hierbij altijd het uitgangspunt. Met het oog op de gewenste doorontwikkeling op het gebied van informatiegestuurd opereren heeft Defensie in maart een experimentele eenheid opgericht die het CD&E traject volgt, het LIMC. Behalve voor de eerste en tweede hoofdtaak zou het experimentele LIMC in voorkomend geval ook activiteiten onder en ten behoeve van het civiele gezag kunnen uitvoeren.
Het juridisch kader en onafhankelijk onderzoek Sinds de oprichting van het LIMC is er door de civiele autoriteiten geen verzoek tot bijstand gedaan. Daarmee gelden voor de omgang met persoonsgegevens voor het LIMC de reguliere kaders die volgen uit de Algemene Verordening Gegevensbescherming (AVG) en niet bijvoorbeeld de Wet politiegegevens (Wpg) in geval van bijstand aan de politie. De krijgsmacht heeft geen algemene wettelijke taak en bevoegdheid om persoonsgegevens uit open bronnen te verzamelen zoals politie, justitie en de MIVD en de AIVD onder bepaalde voorwaarden wel hebben. Het gebruik van open bronnen voor de taakuitoefening waarbij geen persoonsgegevens worden verwerkt, is overigens wel toegestaan.
Naar aanleiding van het desbetreffende NRC-artikel doet de Functionaris voor Gegevensbescherming Defensie een eigenstandig onderzoek naar de naleving van de AVG bij het LIMC. De Functionaris Gegevensbescherming is de wettelijke, onafhankelijke, interne toezichthouder van Defensie op het gebied van gegevensbescherming. Zij zal de resultaten van haar onderzoek en de aanbevelingen vastleggen in een rapport. Het streven van de Functionaris Gegevensbescherming is erop gericht het rapport begin 2021 aan mij aan te bieden. Vervolgens zal ik dit met mijn appreciatie naar de Tweede Kamer sturen.
De beantwoording van de ingezonden vragen van 24 november 2020 van de leden Belhaj (D66) en Karabulut (SP) over LIMC, JISTARC en andere inlichtingenwerkzaamheden door de krijgsmacht vergt meer tijd en deze antwoorden worden op een later moment verstuurd.
DE MINISTER VAN DEFENSIE
Drs. A.Th.B. Bijleveld-Schouten
1 Het verzoek van het lid Van Weyenberg (D’66) in het ordedebat van 17 november, Kenmerk 2020Z21843.
2 Defensievisie-2035, 15 oktober 2020, Kamerstuk 34919-71.
De voormalige Binnenlandse Veiligheidsdienst had van eind jaren zestig tot diep in de jaren ’80 niet één maar drie mantelorganisaties gericht tegen communistisch China. Dat waren naast de Marxistisch-Leninistische Partij Nederland ook de Stichting Nederland-Albanië en de Stichting Nederland-Kampuchea (Cambodja). Sleutelfiguur in al die organisaties was een agent van de BVD die onder de schuilnaam Chris Petersen door het leven ging.
Een en ander is tegenover de Wereldomroep onthuld door de nu 61-jarige Paul Wartena die als overtuigd Maoïst twaalf jaar lang actief lid was van de verschillende organisaties, zonder ooit te hebben geweten dat de BVD deze had opgericht om samen met de Amerikaanse CIA meer inzicht te krijgen in de Chinese invloeden in West-Europa. Wartena bezocht samen met BVD-er ‘Chris Petersen’ (echte naam: Peter Bouvé) onder meer China en het toen pro-Chinese Albanië als officiële afgevaardigden van de MLPN. Dat de BVD achter die partij zat werd afgelopen september al onthuld door oud-medewerker Frits Hoekstra.
Bekeerling Veel deed de partij niet, zegt Wartena in een gesprek met de Wereldomroep. “Een keer per week of per maand vergaderen, af en toe pamfletten verspreiden”, zegt Wartena. Naar hij zelf zegt is hij er pas veel later achter gekomen dat de partij ook maar zeer weinig echte leden had: vijf tot tien. De rest van de MLPN bestond uit agenten en ambtenaren van de BVD, die bijvoorbeeld in eigen huis het partijblad “De Kommunist” maakten.
Dekmantel Later maakte Wartena samen met ‘Chris Petersen’ deel uit van twee andere organisaties die in naam pro-China waren maar net als de MLPN een dekmantel waren van de Nederlandse veiligheidsdienst. “Ik werd een tijdje lang bestuurslid van de Stichting Nederland-Albanië en heb ook samen met Chris Petersen Albanië bezocht. Tijdens een 1 mei-viering stonden we samen met dictator Enver Hoxha op het podium, en ik heb ook zijn boeken uit het Engels in het Nederlands vertaald. Geen hond heeft die denk ik gelezen”.
Peter Bouvé alias 'Chris Petersen' (rechts) ontmoet de communistische dictator van Albanië, Enver Hoxha
In de tweede helft van de jaren ’70 richtte de BVD in de persoon van Chris Petersen een nieuwe organisatie op, de Stichting Nederland-Kampuchea (Cambodja) en ook daarvoor werd Paul Wartena actief. De stichting steunde de dictator Pol Pot, geheel in lijn met de visie van de Chinese Communistische Partij. In 1978 viel Vietnam Cambodja binnen en maakte een eind aan het bewind van Pol Pot, hoewel deze tot 1985 officieel in functie bleef. Het zou tot 1981 duren voordat de informatie over de ‘Killing Fields’, de massamoorden ten tijde van Pol Pot, Paul Wartena deed besluiten een streep te zetten onder zijn carrière als maoïst en de politiek de rug toe te keren. “Op een gegeven moment heb ik er mee gekapt en me ook van de klassenstrijd afgekeerd”, zegt Wartena. ‘Chris Petersen’ reageerde tijdens een vergadering kwaad: “Je bent dus eigenlijk geen marxist meer!”
“Moord is niet communistisch” Wartena heeft tegenover de Wereldomroep ook verteld over contacten tussen de maoïstische organisaties en de ‘Rode Jeugd’, die een meer gewelddadige ‘klassenstrijd’ voorstond. “Er was op een bepaald moment sprake van om bepaalde mensen te vermoorden en ik heb daar altijd heel scherp tegen verzet. Ik heb toen gezegd: ‘dat is niet communistisch, dat is fascistisch’. Deze mededeling strookt met eerdere onthullingen door oud-BVD-er Frits Hoekstra.
Ook de ‘Rode Jeugd’ was namelijk door de BVD geïnfiltreerd en op een gegeven moment leverde de dienst zelfs wapens voor een aanslag om hun eigen bron binnen die organisatie geloofwaardig te houden – maar de aanslag of aanslagen werden uiteraard wel verijdeld. Begin jaren ’80 keerde Paul Wartena zich geheel van de politiek af en begon een nieuwe fase van zijn leven.
Geschokt In een interview met de Amerikaanse krant the Wall Street Journal heeft Peter Bouvé, de echte naam van BVD-agent ‘Chris Petersen’, Paul Wartena “een idioot” genoemd. Wartena is daar ondanks alles toch door geschokt. Petersen was tijdens de twaalf jaar onderling contact een goede vriend geworden en was zelfs spreker op zijn bruiloft. “Zoals alles destijds gelopen is, vind ik helemaal niet erg. Ik ben zelf ook van communist een anticommunist geworden. Maar dat Peter Bouvé dat nu zo zegt, dat schokt me wel een beetje, gewoon, buiten de politiek om, als mens”.
Wartena zou het verder op prijs stellen indien hij de contributie die hij twaalf jaar lang aan de ‘partij’ heeft afgestaan zou kunnen terugkrijgen. “Vrijwillig stond ik een flink deel van mijn op zich magere inkomen af”. Naar pas afgelopen september is gebleken ging dat geld dus gewoon naar de BVD”.
A story from 2004, retrieved by the Wayback Machine
by security and defense specialist Hans de Vreij 4 December 2004
From the late 1960s until well into the 1980s, the Dutch secret service BVD ran three cover organizations which targeted communist China. This year, a former Dutch intelligence officer revealed that the ‘Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands’ (Marxistisch-Leninistische Partij Nederland) had been used as a cover for the secret service, now known as the AIVD.
It appears that two pressure groups – the Netherlands-Albania and the Netherlands-Kampuchea foundations – were also BVD covers, created in order for the Dutch intelligence service BVD and the American CIA to obtain information about China’s influence inside Western Europe. In the Netherlands this intelligence project, which remained secret for a long time, was known as ‘Operation Mongol’, while it reportedly went under the name of ‘Operation Red Herring‘ within the CIA.
One of the few ‘genuine’ members of these three organizations has now given an interview. From 1969 to 1981, Paul Wartena (61), once a committed Maoist, played an active role in the three groups, only to discover in September of this year that the secret service had been using him all along as part of the camouflage for their activities. This discovery followed publication of the memoirs of former BVD staffer Frits Hoekstra, who made the first disclosures about ‘Operation Mongol’.
In the interview he gave to Radio Netherlands Paul Wartena explained how, as a young man, he joined the Communist Party of the Netherlands (CPN), then began to develop more sympathy for the Chinese version of communism after the famous ideological split between Moscow and Beijing. He eventually laid eyes on his first copy of ‘The Communist’, a newspaper published by the Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands. What he didn’t know was that this paper was written and published by the BVD secret service. He wrote a letter asking to join the organization, and subsequently met the ‘secretary-general’ of the MLPN, a man who called himself Chris Petersen, but who was in fact Peter Bouvé, a BVD operative.
Paul Wartena joined one of the party’s ‘cells’, and – as he says himself – became one of the MLPN’s most fanatical activists. Not once once did he suspect nor notice any involvement by the secret service, and only now has he discovered that the ‘party’ never had more than between five and ten real members. The remainder of the MLPN was made up of intelligence officers and operatives working for the BVD.
Speaking to Radio Netherlands, Mr Wartena said the party never actually did very much. According to him, party meetings were held on either a weekly or monthly basis, and occasionally they would distribute leaflets. However, on one occasion in 1974 he and fellow ‘party member’ Chris Petersen did pay an official visit to Beijing. Later on, he and ‘Petersen’ both joined two other organizations with a pro-China line; both of them actually BVD cover operations. “I was on the board of the Netherlands-Albania foundation for a while, and I visited Albania together with Chris Petersen. We stood on the same podium as dictator Enver Hoxha at the country’s May Day celebrations, and I also translated his books from English to Dutch. I don’t think anybody ever read them.”
‘Murder is not part of communism’ Mr Wartena also told Radio Netherlands about the contacts between the Maoist organisations and the radical Marxist ‘Red Youth’ movement, which was pushing the idea of a more violent ‘class war’ in the Netherlands. “There was even talk of murdering certain individuals in the Netherlands, and I always strongly opposed that. I was always against violence, and I even said at the time that it wasn’t Communist, it was Fascist.”
His version of events is backed up by earlier revelations by former BVD staffer Frits Hoekstra, who said the ‘Red Youth’ had also been infiltrated by the BVD. At one point, the intelligence service even supplied the group with weapons for an attack in order to maintain the credibility of its own ‘plant’ inside the movement. Of course, the attack – or attacks – never materialized.
‘Chris Petersen’ (the cover name of Peter Bouvé) meets Albanian communist dictator Enver Hoxha
In the second half of the 1970s, the BVD used ‘Chris Petersen’ to set up a new organization, the ‘Netherlands-Kampuchea foundation’, in which Paul Wartena also was to play an active part. This group toed the Chinese Communist Party line in backing Cambodia’s then dictator Pol Pot. In late 1978, Vietnamese troops invaded ‘Democratic Kampuchea’ and ended the Pol Pot regime, although Pol Pot himself did not officially give up his position until 1985. In 1981, the many reports about the ‘Killing Fields’, the mass murders committed by the Pol Pot regime, caused Paul Wartena to end his membership of the foundation: “I was principally opposed to violence and, after all the reports about the mass murders, I quit, completely turning my back on politics.”
Paul Wartena began to study religion and psychology, became an assistant at the University of Utrecht, and currently gives lectures on subjects such as the future of religion and the relationship between culture and how people experience happiness.
Shocked In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, former BVD member Peter Bouvé described Paul Wartena as ‘an idiot’. Despite all the other revelations, Paul Wartena – a mild-mannered man with a remarkable political past – is still quite shocked by that description. During the 12 years which they were in contact, Mr Petersen became a good friend, and he even spoke at Wartena’s wedding. “I am not bothered at all about the way things went back then. Even I went from being a Communist to being an anti-Communist. But the fact that Peter Bouvé has said that now, that simply shocks me as a human being.”
Paul Wartena would like to get back the money he contributed to the ‘party’ over a period of twelve years. “I gave a considerable part of my meagre income to the party”. In September of this year it became clear that this money went straight to the Dutch secret service. Not only that, but his contribution was a mere drop in the ocean compared to the amounts which the authorities in China and Albania gave to ‘Marxist-Leninist Party of the Netherlands’ – whereby the two Communist nations were unwittingly subsidizing one of the West’s most successful intelligence campaigns, of which they were the main targets.
Hans de Vreij's blog 