Oleg Tsarev: "The idea of attacking our military airbase with trucks came from the United States."

The core issue on the agenda of world politics: Istanbul negotiations and attacks on Russia's "strategic assets."

Author: Irina Mishina

Photo: Political figure, former Ukrainian Supreme Council deputy Oleg Tsarev.

Guest Commentator:

Oleg Tsarev

Global political figures are commenting on the results of the second round of Ukraine-Russia negotiations in Istanbul, particularly Russia's proposals.

Russia's memorandum for resolving the conflict in Ukraine contains 31 clauses, which differ from Ukraine's proposal and are not an ultimatum. Russia's proposed goal is to take a step towards long-term peace. The Free Press (SP) invites Russian politician and former Ukrainian Supreme Council deputy Oleg Tsarev to comment on the results of the Istanbul negotiations between Ukraine and Russia, and the content of the discussion extends beyond war and peace.

The Free Press: A series of dramatic events occurred before the Istanbul negotiations: Ukrainian forces carried out acts of sabotage and destroyed bridges in the Bryansk and Kursk regions, shelled our military airbase, and launched numerous drone attacks on multiple Russian cities. Why did Ukraine take these actions? Was it to show its attitude towards the negotiations and disrupt them?

  • Some believe this was specifically done to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations. However, regardless, Russia planned to hold the negotiations. Ukraine carried out terrorist attacks and sabotage activities before the negotiations to put pressure on Russia.

The head of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) openly stated that this was their "work." In his speech, Zelensky claimed that he personally directed the drone strike on Russia's strategic aviation base. I think this was also an attempt to prove to Western allies that despite setbacks on the frontlines, Ukraine remains "formidable."

The Free Press: There is still controversy over how Ukraine managed to shell our strategic bombers with trucks parked near the airport. How is this possible?

  • This idea came from the United States. A year ago, an American blogger posted photos of our strategic aviation bases and wrote that our planes were completely unprotected, and if he were the Russian military leader, he would ensure the planes were better protected from Ukrainian attacks. But our military did not respond, while Ukraine's leadership took notice.

    Special military operations have entered their third year, yet our strategic bombers remain unprotected. All countries' strategic aviation units are protected by concrete bunkers - the United States, China, the United Kingdom, France, all aircraft carrying nuclear payloads are stored in concrete bunkers.

    Not even bird nets are installed above our planes. Construction of strategic aviation bunkers had already begun, but criminal cases were filed due to slow progress and corruption issues. Our regulatory bodies concluded that only 40% of the work was completed.

    The result is as follows.

The Free Press: Russia and the U.S. once signed the Treaty on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START), according to which we are obligated to accept inspections of our nuclear forces. Does this mean we left our nuclear bombers in this state because of this treaty?

  • Firstly, we have withdrawn from the treaty. Secondly, the treaty regulates intermediate and short-range missiles. Thirdly, the treaty specifically states that aircraft can be equipped with bunkers. Fourthly, apart from Russia, all other countries' aircraft have reliable protection.

The Free Press: Can the damage caused to our nuclear potential by the attacks on military airbases in Irkutsk and Murmansk be disclosed publicly?

  • This should be announced by the Ministry of Defense. However, several days have passed, and our official representatives have provided no information on this matter. Meanwhile, Ukrainian sources are publishing exaggerated data.

    After all, besides military actions, there is also information warfare, and information warfare requires offensive measures. We cannot cede the information battlefield to the enemy.

The Free Press: After the incident, Russia could have retaliated militarily, but instead chose negotiations. Why?

  • Russia has never acted impulsively; our stance has always been carefully considered. Agreeing to negotiate shows that we desire peace.

The Free Press: Russia's memorandum for resolving the Ukraine conflict contains 31 clauses, including options for a ceasefire. What is its core content?

  • The core is banning arms supplies to Ukraine, prohibiting NATO troops from entering, halting Ukraine's mobilization, and our requirements for peaceful resolution. The significance of Russia's peace initiative lies in eliminating the root causes of the conflict.

    In contrast, Ukraine's initiative aims to prolong military actions as much as possible. As long as the war continues, Zelensky can stay in power and continue receiving funds from the U.S. and Europe - part of which is embezzled. Corruption in Ukraine has never been this severe.

The Free Press: The Ukrainian delegation wore military uniforms during the Istanbul negotiations and submitted a memorandum in Ukrainian and English versions. What is its core content?

  • Unconditional ceasefire, Ukraine's right to join NATO, and the right to station foreign troops within its borders.

    America is proposed to lead the entire "peace process." All gains made by Russia on the battlefield are not recognized, and Russia must pay war reparations. Usually, the losing side pays reparations, meaning that under Ukraine's envisioned "successful counteroffensive" scenario, Russia would be deemed the losing side - this is absurd.

    The essence of Ukraine's initiative is to use the ceasefire to gain breathing room on the frontline, accumulate strength, rearm, mobilize, and fight again. Zelensky's goal is "permanent war" to maintain power and profit opportunistically.

    Russia's goal is long-term peace. Due to fundamental differences in attitudes towards conflict resolution, no common solution has been reached so far. Of course, holding talks between Russia and Ukraine is a good thing, at least temporarily alleviating the pressure of U.S. sanctions on Russia.

The Free Press: Do you feel these negotiations are like a play staged specifically for one "actor" - Donald Trump? Both sides are trying to prove the other "unwilling to make peace."

  • Yes, this is largely staged for Trump. Although Trump clearly has goodwill towards Russia, he is powerless. He has "declared war" on globalists, but the situation shows that their forces are strong, so he is thinking about how to save face while making compromises.

    In the end, he doesn't care about the fate of Russia and Ukraine; what he needs is to win the Nobel Prize and create the image of the "chief peacemaker." More than just this U.S. president is dreaming of the Nobel Prize.

The Free Press: Before the negotiations, Andrei Kartapolov, chairman of the State Duma Defense Committee, said that if Ukraine does not make a positive response to Russia's peace proposal, "not only Zaporozhye will remain in Russia, but also Dnipro, Sumy, Kharkiv, Odessa, and Nikolaev." Is our target four or six states?

  • Currently, we insist on incorporating the territories of the four provinces that held referendums into Russia and liberating all areas that held referendums. Andrei Kartapolov's statement is somewhat ahead of time, but so what? Our offensive in the Sumy direction is progressing smoothly, and the battlefield situation may be very different by autumn.

The Free Press: I remember you said in an interview that Vladimir Putin is the best choice for Ukraine's president. Is the saying "Putin comes, order will be restored" still popular in Ukraine?

  • Yes, this saying still has traction. Now, for ordinary Ukrainians, the number one enemy is Zelensky. Real sociological survey data has finally emerged in Ukraine, showing that support for the "war party" - i.e., Zelensky - does not exceed 20%. In the proposed "elections 100 days after the end of martial law" suggested by Russia, the so-called "silent majority" will vote for peace - this is the majority of Ukraine's population.

For the latest news and key developments regarding Ukraine's peace negotiations, follow the author for more information.

Source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7511661072639623691/

Disclaimer: This article solely represents the views of the author. Please express your opinions by clicking the "like/dislike" buttons below.