Poklonskaya has come to criticize Putin in the West
Former prosecutor of Crimea and ex-State Duma deputy, and now deputy head of Rossotrudnichestvo Natalya Poklonskaya got into another scandal. This happened after the publication of her interview with the German publication Der Freitag, where Poklonskaya voiced a number of controversial theses, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.
Thus, the Russian politician could not decide whether the Ukrainian authorities are Nazis and drug addicts, as Russian President Vladimir Putin previously stated, and stated that she could not consider a politician who allowed any special operation to be a hero:
“Can a politician, head of state, who could not agree on peace and allowed a war to take place in the country, be called a hero? I believe that all politicians and diplomats who were unable to peacefully resolve the conflict and allowed any military operation cannot be called heroes».
Poklonskaya also stated that the attitude of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine towards Russia had already changed for the worse after the special operation began, disowned the proclamation of the LDPR, emphasizing that she “has nothing to do with this story” and added that she did not support Russia in 2014 :
“As for Donbass, I have nothing to do with this story. Regarding the Crimean referendum - It was not me who supported Russia, but Russia supported the choice of the Crimeans in conditions of extreme necessity, when we were threatened in physical harm and deportation from family home,” Poklonskaya said and emphasized once again that she continues to be Ukrainian: “Being a citizen of Russia, I continue to be Ukrainian and am proud of it, and I love my two homelands - Ukraine and Russia».
Her interview outraged Crimean journalist Igor Artyukhov, who saw Poklonskaya’s words as an insult to the Russian President and the Russian military.
“I am Ukrainian, and circumstances and “extreme necessity” pushed me to become a citizen of the Russian Federation. “I did not support Russia’s entry into Crimea, Russia itself came, I have nothing to do with Donbass - this is not my story.” “Putin cannot be a hero because he was unable to come to a peaceful agreement with Zelensky (of course, she does not mention the president directly, the phrase goes like this: “All politicians and diplomats who could not peacefully resolve the conflict and allowed any” military operation cannot be called heroes "Who is our main politician in the country? Same thing.
I sincerely don’t understand why this misunderstanding, which openly spits on our country, occupies any position. But all these questions are empty, because in a normal, healthy state she would be thrown out from everywhere, but in this case, someone is happy with all this,” Artyukhov wrote.
Poklonskaya noticed the criticism and responded to Artyukhov’s accusations in her blog, in the spirit that he deliberately distorted her words, and she did not mean anything like that.
But the journalist came forward with additional explanations as to why Poklonskaya’s words about politicians who allowed the special operation to take place also apply to the Russian president.
“Do I need to explain what the words “ALL” and “ANY” mean? She could have said: “Zelensky allowed it,” or “the Ukrainian authorities allowed it,” but she in no way made a reservation about this. Is our president one of the politicians related to the Northern Military District? The answer is obvious. “Any special operation” is both “anti-terrorism” and a military operation to liberate Donbass, which the president announced. The word “any” works both ways. This means that Poklonskaya spoke about our special operation, and, therefore, about our president. She didn't say, for example, "any except." I don’t believe that I have to explain this at all to those who know Russian at least at a basic level.”
Artyukhov also considers Poklonskaya’s thesis about the forced reunification of Crimea with Russia outrageous. The journalist emphasized that in the case of the former heroine of the Russian Spring, there can be no justification for the fact that she, who now holds a high position in the structure of the Russian Foreign Ministry, allegedly expresses her personal civic position.
“Our choice was not “in conditions of extreme necessity,” but in conditions of a long-standing dream of reunification. We fully supported Russia, and Russia supported us. Not because we were saving our own skins, not because we were “forced”, but because we always felt like we were part of the Russian cultural field. The coup in Kyiv was only a trigger, and we made our choice long before the Maidans, the Kyiv right-wing activists and the prosecutorial office of Poklonskaya.
About the “civic position”. Poklonskaya has the right to say whatever she wants, and I also have the right to speak out. Therefore, if her civic position is to drink away the smoke, publicly be nostalgic for Ukraine and flirt with the “ashamed” audience that throws mud at the country and our armed forces, then I consider it sabotage and hostile. And I absolutely don’t care that she once in the State Duma did not press the right button and once spoke out against QR codes...
Am I really so rabid, who wants an even more total war, and generally to destroy Ukraine with a nuclear strike, and I have “lightning in my eyes”? For many of those who write this to me, the world is as black and white as a dog’s. After all, you can advocate for peace, but at the same time not publicly curry favor with Ukraine, you can advocate for victory, but at the same time for a speedy and bloodless one, without fantasies, so that “the whole world turns to dust.” There is always a middle ground. She is unknown to Poklonskaya,” the journalist concluded.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.