It's a very good question. Thank you very much.
It is true, sir, that from the Russian perspective, those two territories have different status. Russia needs Crimea. It needs Crimea for its strategic military purposes. That's why Russia occupied and illegally annexed this territory and established its regular administration. Russia doesn't need Donbass. Russia needs to keep Donbass occupied as leverage on the whole of Ukraine. That's why Russia occupied but didn't annex those territories, and didn't establish its administration directly but through proxy forces.
This is how it is from the Russian perspective. From the Ukrainian perspective, and I believe from the international perspective, those territories have the same status. They are absolutely equally occupied territories that are administered by Russia, either directly or indirectly. We have to acknowledge this. For example, we have had in parliament for two already a bill that acknowledges the illegal occupation of Ukrainian territories. We state the start dates of occupation for both Crimea and Donbass. For Crimea it's February 20, and for Donbass it's April 7. We state who occupied, that it was Russia regular forces as well as proxy forces. We state how from that moment, the Ukrainian administration could not reach there, and we don't work there. We actually give all the legal grounds for our soldiers to protect the rest of the territory. We also bring international humanitarian law to the occupied territories, because we cannot reach there. This is also a partial solution for the human rights issue, to recognize those territories as occupied and to allow international humanitarian law to reach there.
This is, we believe, the approach. It would be wonderful if the international community would recognize this as well, but we understand that because of the Russian veto on the UN Security Council, for example, it would be very difficult to do.