I will not dwell on the fact that the investigation labels the organisation I have the honour of belonging to — the Free Russia Forum — a terrorist community, though no decision by any state body has yet recognised the Free Russia Forum as one. For now we are merely an ‘undesirable organisation.’
But this petty trickery from my armed enemy is of little interest to me. I do try, after all, to speak about things that matter.
What matters here is the platform of the Free Russia Forum, in whose drafting I took direct part, and which sets the Free Russia Forum apart from most other opposition groups and organisations.
Let me remind you that this platform comes down to three points.
First. We stand for the unconditional return to Ukraine of all its internationally recognised territories now occupied by Russia, including Crimea. Yes — Крим це Україна[1].
Second. We support all those who fight to achieve this aim, including citizens of the Russian Federation who have joined the Armed Forces of Ukraine of their own will.
And third. We recognise any form of struggle against Putin’s tyranny within Russia, including armed struggle. Of course, the methods of ISIS are deeply repugnant to us — when innocent people become the target of attacks, as was the case at Crocus City[2].
But are the Kremlin’s war propagandists a legitimate target? The Free Russia Forum has not specifically discussed this question and has passed no resolutions on it. So I express here only my personal position.
I consider that propagandists like the television host Vladimir Solovyov, for example, deserve what Hitler’s propagandist Julius Streicher got — hanged by sentence of the Nuremberg Tribunal. As long as such monsters in human form have not fallen into the hands of a new Nuremberg Tribunal, this war goes on. They are a lawful target of combat operations.
The comparison between Putin’s and Hitler’s propagandists is not, for me, merely a rhetorical device. The greater part of my writings and speeches has been devoted to proving the Nazi nature of the Putin regime — a regime with which peaceful coexistence is impossible in principle.
I have appealed and continue to appeal, above all, to Europe — to remember the origins of the present European order. Since 1945, Europe has been building a world in which predators were no longer to be the masters of life. A world founded on the principles of law, justice, freedom, humanism. Europe achieved much along this path and seemed to have freed itself, once and for all, from mass killings and territorial redrawings.
Europe had grown accustomed to thinking that this safe and prosperous world of hers was reliably protected by a great and powerful ally across the ocean. Today, that world is being smashed to splinters from both sides, in tandem, by a pair of scoundrels — the one in the Kremlin and the one in Washington. In the United States of America, people with a pro-fascist value orientation have come to power. We are witnessing a vile attempt at a purely imperialist collusion between two predators — a collusion still more shameful than the Munich collusion of 1938. If Putin’s annexations are legitimised, this will spell catastrophe for civilisation.
Europe, you have been betrayed. Wake up and go fight for your world!
Death to the Russo-fascist invaders! Death to Putin, the new Hitler, murderer and scoundrel! Glory to Ukraine! Glory to her heroes!
These are the words with which I usually close my speeches. But today I will be asked further whether I plead guilty.
Well — I am the accuser here. I accuse Putin’s corpse-stinking ruling clique of preparing, unleashing, and waging a war of aggression. Of war crimes in Ukraine. Of political terror in Russia. Of the moral corruption of my people.
And it is I who ask the servants of the Putin regime present here, those little cogs and screws of his repressive machine: do you plead guilty to complicity in Putin’s crimes? Do you repent of your complicity?
That is all I have to say.