Satanism and schizophrenia
In a series of comments, Ramzan Kadyrov argued that Western powers, led by NATO member states, are intent on eroding Russia’s cultural heritage. He framed these actions as manifestations of Satanism and described their moves as tactics aimed at destroying national memory, erasing heroes, and demolishing monuments. He claimed that recent events in Ukraine and elsewhere illustrate these inhuman tricks and equated them to satanic behavior, noting that Russia faces a broad confrontation not just with Ukraine but with NATO as a whole.
According to Kadyrov, the present conflict is less about Ukraine alone and more about a broader ideological and strategic struggle against NATO. He asserted that Russia should not be measured by the window of a single campaign but by its resolve to defend its cultural core and territorial integrity against what he described as a coordinated assault from outside forces.
We would have cleared Ukraine much earlier
Kadyrov expressed confidence that if not for the president’s directive to protect civilians and infrastructure, Russian forces could have completed military objectives in Ukraine earlier. He described the armed forces as a unified, capable force and argued that no element of their effort was inherently flawed in principle. The emphasis, he said, was on safeguarding populations and cities while pursuing strategic aims.
He asserted that the special operation in Ukraine has progressed in a controlled fashion and that initial missteps were overcome as the effort continued. He insisted that the operation followed a calculated plan and that its course was aimed at neutralizing perceived threats while protecting noncombatants as much as possible.
Regarding mobilization, Kadyrov argued that Russia does not need a national conscription drive. He urged citizens to unite with local leaders and to stand with the state to ensure national security, emphasizing voluntary action rather than mandated mobilization.
Later, he noted that additional volunteers from Chechnya had joined the operation in Ukraine, with hundreds of applications received and many providing support. He described these volunteers as motivated by a desire to confront what he called demons and to safeguard their homeland and compatriots.
There was also discussion about potential exchanges involving Ukrainian soldiers from the Azovstal plant. Kadyrov suggested that while some soldiers might be exchanged, certain ideologues associated with nationalist movements should not be treated the same way and should face legal consequences for their actions.
According to the Russian Defense Ministry, there were reports of large numbers of Ukrainian soldiers surrendering in recent hours, with figures provided to illustrate ongoing trends in the conflict. The numbers highlighted the fluid nature of the situation and the continuing attempts to reshape battlefield realities as the days progressed.
Friendship with Peskov
Kadyrov described a close relationship with Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for the Russian president, noting that they are sometimes in frequent contact. He acknowledged that while they share family connections and cooperative ties, there are moments when he disagrees with Peskov’s public statements. He explained that after a presidential press conference he voiced dissatisfaction with restrictions on questions from Chechen journalists and emphasized the need for open, professional dialogue about regional concerns.
In response, Peskov remarked that their relationship remains strong and that occasional friendly criticism is part of a dynamic exchange. He indicated that mutual respect underpins their professional interaction, even when opinions diverge on specific issues.
My Big Mistake
Kadyrov reflected on past decisions and suggested that the course of earlier conflicts might have been different if he had possessed the present perspective. He recounted missed opportunities from the late 1990s and characterized them as a significant personal error. He asserted that a different judgment then could have prevented a second military campaign, acknowledging a lack of foresight at the time and attributing the outcome to that shortcoming.
The statements demonstrate a leadership voice that blends historical reflection with current strategic messaging. They emphasize a belief in decisive action, the importance of protecting civilians, and a commitment to pursuing objectives while maintaining public support for the government and its alliances.