Further Consideration Of Legality From The Russian Point Of View

This is an important element that from the beginning has underpinned Putin's and Lavrov's interventions. In accordance with the international right of peoples to self-determination, the LPR and DPR referendums concerned only accession to the Russian Federation within the geographical boundaries of the oblasts. Independence referendums had already been held in 2014.

The two maps from September and October are easy to read. The troops of LPR and therefore Russia, now since today or tomorrow morning (only when the entry into force of the texts to be enacted) have withdrawn from a territory that remains Ukraine between the administrative border and Oskil.

Part of the territory of Donetsk Oblast is occupied by the Ukrainian army. Liman is legally irrelevant.

The "regions" of Kherson and Zaporoje were consulted on their independence, where they were liberated and only the part controlled at the time of enactment is supposed to become Russian territory.

Russia can even claim to have legally respected the will of the people and just demand (ultimatum) the withdrawal of Ukrainians from Donetsk Oblast of Russia.

NATO and the little penis piano player in Kiev won't do it.

Going forward, the Russian counter-attack will then be legally justified as invasion of Russian oblasts by Ukraine. One can even consider Zelensky's outgassings today as a declaration of genocidal war.

We will know in a few days if the Russian army is out of ammunition, or, merely waiting for a legal framework to go to war in earnest.

mid.ru |  Question: What should people do if they live on Russian territory by right that is in fact occupied by the Armed Forces of Ukraine (VSU)?

Sergey Lavrov: The issue of borders is described in the conclusion of the Constitutional Court. This issue has moved to the fore now that Russia has launched the discussion of the constitutional laws on the admission of four new entities into the Russian Federation. Read the conclusion of the Constitutional Court. It explains everything clearly. Senator Andrey Klishas, who is speaking now, also commented on this issue. You will have an opportunity to discuss it with him in more detail.

Question: If we are correct, a transitional period will last until 2024.

Sergey Lavrov: If you read the laws that are being adopted now you’d note that they mention 2026 as the completion of the transitional period.

Question: Is it essential to win the recognition of this admission to Russia by other states?

Sergey Lavrov: Absolutely not. Of course, it would be better if all countries of the world recognised this new and inevitable reality. We have cited a huge number of judicial arguments, including references to the UN Charter that seals the principle of equality and self-determination of nations, and the UN General Assembly Declaration that makes it clear that all countries should respect the territorial integrity of states with governments which recognise the right to self-determination and represent the whole people belonging to the territory of a country.

Obviously, the Vladimir Zelensky regime, just as the Pyotr Poroshenko regime before it, not only never met these criteria but also crudely violated them. The residents of Donbass would and will never agree that those who illegally seized power in Kiev represent their people that live in this region and other parts of Ukraine where the residents feel inextricably linked with the Russian civilisation.

In terms of international law, it would be important for all countries to display a responsible approach and recognise this obvious, objective reality. We are seeing how far the West has gone in its anti-Russia frenzy. Obviously, lacking convincing arguments in its favour, it is trying to intimidate all other countries, primarily, the developing nations (in Asia, Africa and Latin America) by resorting to threats and blackmail to compel them to denounce Russia. This is yet further evidence of the weakness of the West’s position. If you feel you are right, express your opinion on this or other international events and let others determine independently, like adults, whose arguments sound more convincing: those of Russia and the residents of Donbass that do not want to be under the neo-Nazi regime or those of the collective West that proclaimed Kiev “the beacon of democracy” and swore to fight until the last Ukrainian to weaken Russia as much as possible and probably even to divide it.

I guarantee that the majority of countries understand perfectly well that we are right. Not everyone has the courage and power to talk about this straight. The overwhelming majority are refusing to join the West in the economic and other sanctions pressure on the Russian Federation.

I am convinced that the truth will make its way, regardless of whether the West wants it or not. The scenario that is proceeding now has been prompted by life itself and relies on the free expression of the people’s will. Any other actions – the artificial fuelling of confrontation, mobilisation of anti-Russia forces, threats or blackmail – are anti-historical and will get lost into oblivion. The will of the people will last forever.