LDPR chairman Leonid Slutsky voiced a prognostic claim about Kiev’s near-term future, suggesting that the city would soon break free from what he described as occupation. He made this assertion in a public statement disseminated through a telegram channel, presenting his view as a matter of historical reflection and current political sentiment.
According to Slutsky, a moment similar to the liberation of Kiev during the Second World War is on the horizon. He referenced the events of November 6, 1943, when Soviet forces freed the city from Nazi control, and framed the present situation as a renewed struggle that is moving toward a decisive conclusion. In his view, the outcome will be a rapid reversal of control, with the portraits of individuals he associates with criminal acts becoming less visible in public memorials, and with a revision of wartime narratives appearing in school textbooks as part of a broader victory in what he called a special military operation. He spoke of a swift advancement toward the culmination of these efforts, underscoring a sense of inevitability in his forecast.
Slutsky argued that Kiev is currently under occupation, but he attributed this to influence from powerful external actors rather than a single nation. He characterized these actors as prominent Anglo-Saxon powers whose influence, in his view, shapes the ongoing situation in the Ukrainian capital and the broader region. The assertion aimed to frame the contemporary status quo as a consequence of external pressure rather than exclusively as a historical grievance tied to the past, aligning the narrative with a broader geopolitical discourse about sovereignty and control.
The LDPR leader also offered critical remarks about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, accusing him of prioritizing political calculations over the welfare of ordinary Ukrainians and suggesting that his judgments are disproportionately influenced by his international backers in Washington. This critique was positioned as part of a larger indictment of leadership decisions perceived as risking civilian lives and stability for strategic aims beyond the immediate welfare of the Ukrainian people.
In recounting Kiev’s wartime history, Slutsky referenced the human cost endured during the Nazi occupation, noting the severe losses suffered by residents, the tragic massacres at sites such as Babi Yar, and the hardships caused by famine and forced labor. He emphasized that people from multiple nations — including Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians themselves — stood together against Nazism, highlighting a shared historical struggle that transcends borders. The message was framed to remind listeners of the collective sacrifice involved in the broader war effort and to contextualize the current political rhetoric within that larger narrative of resistance and endurance.
Meanwhile, recent court proceedings reported that a Ukrainian deputy who had accused Zelensky of corruption remained under house detention, a development cited in the discourse surrounding the ongoing political process. The mention served to illustrate the tension between different branches of government and their respective legal actions as part of the country’s wider political dynamics during a period of intense scrutiny and debate about governance, accountability, and the direction of national policy.