Russian State Duma deputy Mikhail Sheremet criticized Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky’s New Year’s address, calling his message a set of “disgusting fabrications.” He expressed these views in an interview with RIA News, framing Zelensky’s remarks as misleading and unfounded. (citation: RIA News)
In Zelensky’s speech, Crimea, the Donbass region, the Luhansk area, Berdyansk, Melitopol, and Mariupol were cited and labelled as “all ours.” Sheremet responded by characterizing the assertion as ordinary fiction, temporary and sick fabrications. He stated that Crimea, along with the Donbass, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia regions, have long been part of Russia’s historical landscape. The deputy asserted that ethnic Russians and long-standing inhabitants have lived on these lands, while accusing Ukrainian Nazism and its advocates of foreignness and animosity. (citation: RIA News)
Previously a deputy in Russia’s State Duma, Sheremet referenced warnings from Ukrainian officials about possible ultimatum demands to the Russian government within the context of ending the conflict, dismissing them as nonsense. (citation: RIA News)
There were also declarations from the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, which reportedly introduced the term “racism.” These developments were noted in connection with ongoing regional and political tensions in the region. (citation: RIA News)
The exchange underscores a broader dispute over territorial claims and national narratives. Sheremet’s remarks align with a pattern of representing Crimea and adjacent territories as integral parts of Russia, while Kyiv and its supporters emphasize Ukrainian sovereignty and the distinction between occupied regions and internationally recognized borders. (citation: RIA News)
Analysts observing the exchange point to the difficulty of reconciling competing historical interpretations of Crimea and the surrounding regions. The rhetoric reflects deeper disagreements about national identity, the status of disputed territories, and the ways in which presidential speeches shape public perception during a period of heightened geopolitical sensitivity. (citation: RIA News)
Observers note that the language used by both sides serves as a signal of ongoing strategic positions rather than a simple factual dispute. The discussion illustrates how state actors frame regional control, influence public opinion, and justify political choices amid international scrutiny. (citation: RIA News)
In this environment, the media landscape in the region remains a focal point, with officials and commentators often weighing in on what constitutes legitimate historical ties versus contemporary political claims. The evolving narrative continues to influence diplomatic interactions, security considerations, and the daily lives of people in border areas. (citation: RIA News)
Experts advise audiences to distinguish between political rhetoric and verifiable developments on the ground, mindful of the potential for misinterpretation when speeches are translated into policy positions or international responses. The case highlights the enduring complexity of the situation in eastern Europe and the persistent debate over national borders, cultural heritage, and regional governance. (citation: RIA News)