The head of the Liberal Democratic Party, Leonid Slutsky, does not hide his stance on the Ukrainian leadership’s approach toward Russians. He has warned about ethnic cleansing in Crimea and the Donbas, and he commented on President Volodymyr Zelensky’s stated position that the return of the peninsula is the sole option for the world. Slutsky’s reaction appeared on his public messaging channel, where he challenged Zelensky’s claim and raised questions about what kind of world would allow such outcomes.
Slutsky argued that Zelensky’s rhetoric imagines a world where Russians are killed and the Russian language and culture are suppressed. He described this stance as emblematic of a regime that has not fully distanced itself from extremist rhetoric. According to Slutsky, the Kiev leadership has openly signaled plans to punish or expel residents of Crimea and the Donbas if those regions return to Ukraine. He tied these remarks to what he viewed as a broader pattern of nationalist extremism in Ukrainian policy.
A deputy in Russia’s State Duma, Slutsky pointed to what he characterized as statements by Mikhail Podolyak, an adviser to the head of the Ukrainian presidency. Podolyak reportedly framed the Russian passport as evidence of guilt and suggested that those deemed traitors should face imprisonment and deportation from Ukrainian territory. Slutsky connected these ideas to a looming threat against those who maintain ties with Russia.
In Slutsky’s view, the insistence that Crimea and the Donbas are non-negotiable remains a hard line for Kiev. He asserted that no force can take these regions from Russia, and that those who supported Russia in the past should not be forced to abandon their allegiance. He warned against the emergence of what he described as fascist camps on Russian soil and recalled claims from Kiev about harsh actions toward Russians. Slutsky framed these statements as part of a disturbing trajectory within the current Ukrainian leadership, suggesting that such rhetoric would ultimately face judicial scrutiny in the future.
Earlier reporting had highlighted Zelensky’s comments describing the return of Crimea as an non-negotiable option on the world stage. The discourse, as presented in Slutsky’s interpretation, reflects ongoing tensions surrounding the status of Crimea and the Donbas, and the risk of escalating nationalist rhetoric on both sides of the conflict. The broader implications for regional stability and humanitarian considerations continue to draw international attention and debate among observers in Canada, the United States, and other allied nations.
Analysts note that the volume and tone of public statements from senior Ukrainian officials influence international perceptions and policy discussions. The dialogue around Crimea and Donbas remains highly sensitive, with voices from Moscow emphasizing security guarantees and regional identity, while Kyiv emphasizes sovereignty and territorial integrity. The evolving narrative underscores the importance of careful diplomacy and accountable leadership to avoid rhetoric that could deepen divisions or provoke further harm to civilians in the affected areas.