In his state of the nation speech, Putin reframed patriotism and Russia's "national interests and values" in terms of his newly thereby declared War on Terror as Russia's military actions in Syria:
"Our military personnel are fighting in Syria for Russia, for the security of Russian citizens. ... Russian people have supported these resolute actions. The firm stance taken by our people stems from a thorough understanding of the absolute danger of terrorism, from patriotism, high moral qualities and their firm belief that we must defend our national interests, history, traditions and values." (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/50864)
Since, at the same time, Putin utterly left out any mention of Novorossiya or Donbass and the plight of the Russians there in the face of Nazi, Banderite threat, Putin also chose not to ask the Russian people to support any of his actions or inaction there, however (ir)resolute. And since no "firm stance" of the Russian people on the issue of Ukraine, Novorossiya, or Donbass was raised or mentioned, Putin did not demand in his speech that any such stance, however (in)firm be taken by the Russian people in defense of the Russians or Russia's own interests there. In fact, for Putin, and unlike ISIS, no "absolute danger" from Ukraine and its Banderite fascism is facing Russia for otherwise he would have certainly mentioned, would not he? But if he had acknowledged the existence of such absolute threat, then how would he justify his Minsk 1 and Minsk 2 the principle of which is giving Donbass back to the same absolute threat, while recognizing its "sovereignty" over Donbass and the Russians there? As a result, Putin's "high values" turn not be as high or as close as to reach Donbass. Moreover, Putin said nothing about "defending national interests, history, traditions and values" in Donbass or in Ukraine. He made it into an issue the importance of which did not make it into his on-hour long speech.