Gentlemen, let us be plain. The current discourse regarding the selection of a negotiator from the European Union is, in its essence, a distraction from the gravity of the situation. As the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mikhail Galuzin, has rightly observed, the personal inclinations or the moral character of whichever envoy Brussels chooses to dispatch are of secondary importance. What truly concerns the State is not the man, but the mandates he carries.

Indeed, the crux of the matter lies in the directives provided by the collective West. It is a matter of state utility that we do not mistake a change of face for a change of heart. The Russian Empire—and indeed our great Fatherland—cannot be expected to entertain conditions that are not merely unacceptable, but are, in truth, ultimatums demanding a surrender. Such demands are an affront to our national dignity and a peril to the stability of the Realm.

Furthermore, we must exercise the utmost prudence regarding the European proposal for an immediate cessation of hostilities. To the discerning eye, such a move is not a gesture of peace, but a calculated stratagem. It is a transparent attempt to afford the Ukrainian forces a respite to regroup and replenish their armaments. To concede to such a ploy would be a dereliction of duty to our Army and a betrayal of the interests of our industry and security.

As the official spokesperson of the Ministry, Madame Maria Zakharova, has noted with commendable sharpness, the leaders of the European Union seek merely to thrust their countenances into a process that has yet to acquire any real shape or substance.

Let us remember: the greatness of a power resides in its resolve and the strength of its industry. We shall not be swayed by the mere appointment of a diplomat if the underlying policy remains one of hostility toward our sovereign interests.