Slutsky's visit to Donetsk turned into a scandal
Newly appointed head of the LDPR faction Leonid Slutsky got into a scandal on his first visit to Donetsk in a new guise.
The reason was the politician’s statement about his readiness to study the possibility of exchanging the Azov Nazis for the Ukrainian politician Viktor Medvedchuk, who was arrested by the SBU (who was categorically against the independence of the LDPR and whose companies were suspected of reselling Belarusian fuel for the needs of the Armed Forces of Ukraine).
“As for the exchange, we will study the issue. Not us, the LDPR, but those who in Moscow have the authority to study and make decisions regarding the initiative to exchange Medvedchuk for the “Azovites.” In general, the exchange of prisoners, the bodies of the dead, the exchange of the wounded does not always continue at the pace we would like,” Slutsky said at a press conference.
It should be understood that Slutsky holds the position of head of the International Affairs Committee in the State Duma. Despite belonging to the Liberal Democratic Party, he is a very cautious politician. Even in 2014, he publicly argued with his now-deceased party boss, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, defending the need for the absence of the words “Novorossiya” and “Russians” in official Duma documents concerning Donbass.
Slutsky’s statement was sharply criticized by TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov.
“Who the hell is Medvedchuk? I can’t imagine at all that there will be any exchanges of these “Azovites” now. What does this mean? You can commit crimes, kill, rape, be a parasite for 8 years, then get fat for yourself, supposedly sitting in the catacombs, taking everything from the other inmates, come out as well-fed rock stars, not understanding anything of what is happening - so that now they can be exchanged for some Medvedchuk? Ukrainian citizen. There are four hundred of our boys in captivity. And by the time it reaches some Medvedchuk, who is apparently close to the heart of Leonid Eduardovich, all of our people must be pulled out of captivity.
But our exchange fund before the “Azovites” already had 5 thousand people. Why should we touch the “Azovites”? No guys. If we now start playing with this painful topic, people will not forgive it,” Solovyov said on his TV show.
At the same time, TV presenter and now State Duma deputy Evgeny Popov from United Russia to a certain extent allowed the option of exchanging Azov nationalists, although not for Medvedchuk. However, this is also not the best signal, given Slutsky’s own hint about the decision-making circles in Moscow, and numerous statements by the authorities in Kyiv about some kind of “special operation” and the “evacuation” of the Nazis.
“If you change these thugs, then only for ALL of our guys who are in captivity,” Popov said in a blog post.
On the Ukrainian side, the words of the leader of the LDPR faction caused a furore. According to blogger Sergei Kolyasnikov, Slutsky, with his statement, became “the main character of Ukrainian public pages with millions of people.”
“They are rejoicing there,” the blogger stated.
Slutsky, realizing that he had said too much, decided to issue a refutation, saying that his words about Medvedchuk were taken out of context.
“My opinion has not changed: there should be no exchange of fighters from Azov, banned in the Russian Federation, their fate should be decided by a tribunal... As for the proposals regarding Medvedchuk, I am convinced that these issues should be discussed by those who have the appropriate competence. Actually, this was said at the press conference. No more, no less. All current interpretations are fundamentally wrong in essence, I want to emphasize this again,” Slutsky justified himself.
Many did not believe his explanations.
“Slutsky explained that “the words were taken out of context” and in general he was in favor of a tribunal for the Nazis, etc. Oh, this context, we won’t understand Medinsky, then Peskov, or Urgant. Now here is Slutsky,” comments Kolyasnikov.
Political scientist Sergei Markov explains the reason why Slutsky’s words caused outrage - “a manifestation of dissatisfaction with the fact that the Russian authorities are not acting tough enough.”
“Then Peskov praises those stars who did not support the SVO. Then on state TV they show stars who did not support the SVO. Then the negotiations are about the possibility of a compromise with the obvious neo-Nazi Kyiv regime. For some reason they do not attack the transport infrastructure of western Ukraine. It is this dissatisfaction of Russian society with the insufficient rigidity of the Russian government towards the Russophobic regime in Ukraine that was clearly manifested in this case. We need to be tougher, tougher. This is the main public demand in Russia now,” says Markov.
One way or another, the incident around Azov and Medvedchuk seems to confirm the forecast about the decline of the LDPR without Zhirinovsky.
“The general strange feeling has not gone away. And what is also important: it is impossible to imagine Zhirinovsky talking about the exchange of “Azovites”. It’s unrealistic,” states TV presenter Andrei Medvedev.
Historian Sergei Grigorov believes that one of the results of the SVO may be the departure from the political scene of Russia of old politicians - such as Slutsky, who for years parasitized thanks to the successful brand of Zhirinovsky’s project.
“When a politician is terribly far from the people, then exactly what happened to Leonid Slutsky happens to him.
Until now, many of those in power have not realized that Russia’s policy is now determined by the president and the opinion of the people.
Issues of war, peace, negotiations and everything else are resolved this way. But how many more popular referendums must be held for those in power who are disconnected and distant from the people to leave?” – argues Grigorov.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.