Military Review

Putin and Donbass

70
In a discussion of the article “Putin Tavrichesky,” it struck one comment: why is there not a word about Donbass? A fair remark, if we are talking about the Crimea, then we must also say about the Donbass, remember the militiamen and civilians of the Donbass who fell at the hands of Bandera: they shed blood for the Crimea!


Yes, for the salvation of the Crimea now will always stand the blood of Donbass, as a reminder, from which they saved the Crimea. Yes, a favorable outcome in the Crimea paid for the sufferings of Donbass, Donetsk and Lugansk. They cry out, and there will always be a question: why did not “polite people” enter the Donbass, how did they enter the Crimea? Donbass was waiting for this, Bandera was sure of that. The Crimean road led Russia to the Donbass, but the “polite people” did not enter the Donbass, however, and Bandera did not enter either Donetsk or Lugansk.

On the hard question you need to give the same answer: to avoid a war with Europe and the United States, which stood behind Bandera, avoid the scenario of Zbigniew Brzezinski. There was a serious risk of a big war in Europe, this risk forced Moscow to abandon the introduction of troops to Ukraine, and Paris and Berlin led, in fact, to separate Minsk agreements with Moscow. Western humanism has nothing to do with it: after all, official Europe still doesn’t see Bandera’s Nazis. But ... Moscow did not come to such a formulation of the question immediately.

After an unprecedented sabotage act near its borders: the pro-American and Bandera coup in Kiev on February 22.02.2014, XNUMX, Moscow was preparing for the worst. Preparing for war, a great war with the West, led by Washington. To do this, it was necessary, at all costs, to occupy a key military-strategic position on the Black Sea, take the Crimea, save its Russian population and base fleet in Sevastopol - it was a two-fold task, it was obvious, and carried out without hesitation: it was preparation for war!

I remember the alarm in my heart in the spring of 2014, when the announcer read out reports about the exercises of entire military districts, and the Federation Council allowed Vladimir Putin, as commander-in-chief, to send troops to Ukraine, where the Russian spring flourished in the southeast, and the first clashes with Bandera began.

Then it became clear that the West “swallowed” the Crimea: Europe itself is afraid of war in its own yard, afraid of the “Ukrainian Afghanistan” conceived by Brzezinski, and Russia refused to send troops to Ukraine and to the Donbass. There were other calculations.

The euphoria of a successful, allegedly anti-corruption, coup in Kiev has affected large masses of the population in Ukraine, and there was still hope that the wave of euphoria will subside, and it will still be possible to agree that not everyone in the new Kiev government is the Nazis-Bandera. Reading about the Odessa Khatyn, one Kulikov’s words about the causes of the tragedy were pricked: we didn’t think that they would kill us, otherwise they would have acted differently. These hopes were not only among the Kulikovs, it did not immediately become clear that they were absolutely false.

The fact that Bandera came to the South-East of Ukraine just to kill, it became obvious to all after the Odessa Khatyn. When the murders of the Nazi battalions became the state policy of the Maidan regime, when, at the suggestion of Washington’s emissaries in Kiev, ATO was declared ... Then Vladimir Putin publicly stated from the rostrum that Russia would not allow the Donbass to be cut out, and he kept that word in Donetsk , and in Lugansk: Bandera in the Donbas got into the "boilers" ...

Much has been said that the events in the Crimea had a great influence on the Russian spring in the Donbas, however, not only by its example: the Crimea also created conditions for it. In the Crimea, after all, the best, shock grouping of the Armed Forces of Ukraine was concentrated, as in the most unreliable, dangerous region. Its defeat, albeit bloodless, shook the military machine of Kiev, eliminating the danger of war during the referendum in the Donbas. Bandera Kiev really had to create its armed forces from scratch, and most of the generals for them came from the Crimea, but without troops!

How many were then predictions about the defeat of the militia of the Donbass APU-they all failed. Because Putin feels his responsibility for the Donbass, and in general for Novorossia, he remembers this word, so he put a candle on the camera in the Moscow region church in memory of all those who died in the Donbass ...

... Permission to bring troops into Ukraine was withdrawn by the Federation Council, apparently, with the filing of Yevgeny Primakov. Such a conclusion can be drawn from the plots that flashed on our TV, where Primakov speaks about the unpreparedness of the economy and the military industrial complex to work in a military mode, which is necessary for at least two years to ensure critical import substitution, to patch holes in the country's defense. Recall that the C-300 complex covered the Navy base in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky only in the summer of 2015. Today, C-400 production capacity is at least doubled.

The Bandera revolution, under the American administration, the coup d'etat in Kiev — it was a reception of a hybrid war, or a color revolution, to respond to it with the introduction of troops — meant to substitute for a hybrid and propaganda blow of the West. And Putin, perhaps, on the advice of Primakov, dwelt on the hybrid answer: effective assistance to Donbas without the introduction of troops.

In other words, in 2014, Russia was not ready for a big war with the West, finding itself in the situation of 1941. When the West "swallowed" the Crimea and the opportunity arose to delay the time, Moscow went for it. However, already Minsk-2 was concluded under the dictation of Moscow, so the Bandera regime does not want, and can not execute it.

The two years requested by Primakov passed, and the situation changed fundamentally: Russia "closed" its borders with the VKS, and even entered Syria. And Putin's statements about the Bandera regime are becoming tougher, and, most likely, they will be tightened further. Putin has already refused to talk to Poroshenko’s “cynical Bandera” after sending saboteurs to Kiev in the Crimea, although unsuccessful. Why?

Caught saboteurs became the pretext for blaming Bandera in "terrorist methods". This was a surprise not only for Kiev, but also for its patrons in the West, who immediately began talking about the disproportion of the charges: they did not blow up anything. In Donetsk and Lugansk, Bandera saboteurs were noted more than once, but they got away with it, they probably thought that they would get away in the Crimea ...

Actually, there is only one explanation why Moscow reacted so harshly to the saboteur sally in the Crimea: she saw this as a reason for imposing sanctions against the “cynical Bandera”. In any case, with Turkey, after Su-24 was shot down, Moscow acted in this way.

As a result of the investigation into the saboteurs case, and the end of the G-20 in China, Moscow will apparently impose some kind of sanctions against Bandera for non-compliance with the Minsk agreements: with this, Moscow will declare that they are not being implemented precisely by Kiev.

Poroshenko is concerned about this, and Europe understands this, and is trying to reanimate the “Norman format,” that is, to restore Poroshenko’s relationship with Putin. However, this does not work out, and European Commissioner Marosh Shefchovich is proposing to resume the trilateral negotiations with Kiev on gas, which Moscow also ignores. Finally, the “cynical Bandera” stopped the shelling from September 1, and released the prisoners to 7 on their own initiative, without exchange, an unprecedented step for him.

Will Putin meet at least somehow? Soon we will find out, however, more likely sanctions. The most obvious option, perhaps, is the termination by Moscow of a visa-free regime with Kiev, there is an iron reason for this: the saboteurs drove into the Crimea to plan sabotage, using the visa-free regime.

The past will not be returned ... Artillery shelling exhaust residents of Donbass, but the resumption of hostilities will lead to even more blood and destruction. Bandera understands this, and, posing as a victim, dreams of Russia's offensive from the "eight directions", projecting its intentions to Russia in the Donbas. But Russia does not need this at all, if only because it has not yet fully used economic measures of influence.

Putin is playing with the “cynical Bandera” for a long time, on the assumption that the Bandera regime is not the heir of post-Soviet Ukraine, and after blaming him for the breakdown of the Minsk agreements, he can be denied legitimacy.
"Cynical Bandera", the killer of post-Soviet Ukraine and the executioner of Donbass, must be punished for their crimes. But how?

You can agree with the publicist Dmitry Dzygovbrodsky (http://rusvesna.su/recent_opinions/1472550789), when he says: “Until Ukraine finally poison itself with Ukrainian integral nationalism, until all the superstructures and the very basis of Ukrainians are destroyed, this territory cannot be touched . Let him die. Bandera must commit suicide ...
Author:
70 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Same lech
    Same lech 5 September 2016 06: 53 New
    23
    The tough question must be answered in the same way: to avoid a war with Europe and the United States, which were behind Bandera, to avoid the scenario of Zbigniew Brzezinski.


    That's right ... we don’t need a war with a mountain of corpses ... so still our people have not recovered from two world wars.


    Therefore, we must choose the tactics of exhausting US forces ...
    and Americans really do not like to fight at their own expense ...
    all the wars on our planet are being fought at the expense of the warring parties and the United States has been constantly skimming this cream, this tendency must be broken.
    It is necessary to make the United States pay out of pocket for all the meannesses that this country brings to other nations.
    1. Sotskiy
      Sotskiy 5 September 2016 07: 15 New
      17
      It is necessary to make the United States pay out of pocket for all the meannesses that this country brings to other nations.

      I apologize, and therefore did our Central Bank catch up with the purchase of US bonds to 89,9 billion dollars?
      ".... The volume of investments in the US national debt in August 2016 was 3,2 times higher than the budget expenditures to support the national economy (163 billion rubles) ..."
      Is this the very "force"? hi
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 5 September 2016 07: 27 New
        +9
        I apologize, and therefore did our Central Bank catch up with the purchase of US bonds to 89,9 billion dollars?
        ".... The volume of investments in the US national debt in August 2016 was 3,2 times higher than the budget expenditures to support the national economy (163 billion rubles) ..."
        Is this the very "force"?


        No, of course ... I’ll add that 19 trillion dollars (empty pieces of paper) will tear apart any country .. but the interests of money-lenders, both in our country and in the USA, are higher than the interests of our people.

        Alas, the laws of capital are international and are not limited by the borders of our state.
        The Kremlin is not interested in doing any damage to the US financial system in this case ...

        this is a contradiction ... and I don’t know where such a dialectic of the development of our society will lead.
        1. Victor Kamenev
          5 September 2016 07: 57 New
          +8
          Contradiction ... but the financial system in the world is still a dollar one, and investment in US securities is like a physical person’s deposit in a bank, a percentage is spent on them, this deposit is used for current expenses of the country in currencies that are significant. All countries, and China, for some reason do it, and in much larger sizes.
          In the event of the arrest of this deposit ... simply confiscated assets of US firms in the country, which are much larger. Plus, some political calculations, such as confirmation that the investing country expects to save the world.
          Exiting securities is like preparing for military action. Although, this question is better addressed to Glazyev.
          1. Vladimir Postnikov
            Vladimir Postnikov 6 September 2016 02: 51 New
            +2
            For some reason, all countries, and China, are doing this, and on a much larger scale.

            Strange logic. China can afford to do this. It is not yet so obvious who holds whom for one place. The level of industrialization in China is now much higher than in Russia. China is making giant strides forward. They have covered a huge distance in 25 years. Who was an adult here 25 years ago? Remember what they said about China then. And today China has already tasted what a "culture of production" is. The fastest trains today are Chinese and in China.
            The Russian economy is going to extremes within certain rigid limits. Capitalism, but somehow strange, sovereign. There is no problem for business in Russia if there is a "ecstasy merger with the authorities." This business will receive the state order, and the profitable business will be squeezed out of the "ecstatic" ones. Where are we going? What kind of society are we building? Who can explain calmly and competently here? And China has a planned development of a market economy. GDP growth in 2015: China - 6,80% (19th place in the world), Russia - (-) 3,90% (213rd place in the world). GDP growth in 2011: China - 9,3%, Russia - 4,3%. To catch up with China with a constant lag?
            And instead of spending money on economic development, Russia, according to the author of the article, acts like everyone else. All who are dangerous are ahead! It’s too late to do like them if you want to catch up with them.
        2. Sotskiy
          Sotskiy 5 September 2016 14: 43 New
          0
          this is a contradiction ... and I don’t know where such a dialectic of the development of our society will lead

          The fact of the matter is that some kind of two-faced anus looms in our power.
      2. baudolino
        baudolino 5 September 2016 07: 40 New
        +2
        Investments in amer bonds are reduced from year to year. What is the problem?
      3. Flat5160
        Flat5160 5 September 2016 08: 55 New
        +4
        When Saudi Arabia threatened the United States that it would sell it Securities for as many lard there. States didn’t like it. Imagine this stuffing of papers and a sharp drop in their value. So you can fight with these papers. From the same series, why the United States barks at China, but can’t do anything, again these securities. The only way out for America is war and zeroing debts, but here we are with a resurgent potential. So these purchased debts from America work.
    2. Aleksander
      Aleksander 5 September 2016 08: 59 New
      +9
      Therefore, we must choose the tactics of exhausting US forces


      Look how many times NATO's GDP is larger than Russia's and it will become clear who will "wear out" whom earlier.
      Author: where Primakov talks about the unpreparedness of the economy and the military-industrial complex to work in military mode, which is necessary at least two years, to ensure critical import substitution, patch holes in the country's defense


      Amazing logic! lol But did the West have these two years for the same arms buildup, wasn’t it? And, considering, again, many times superior to the economy of the West, is it not clear who could better prepare for these two years?
      It was two years ago that Russia was more powerful than the West because of it, the West, and unpreparedness: today it is ready for more ....
      Because Putin feels his responsibility for the Donbass, and in general for New Russia, remembers the given word,


      So we remember the famous "Let them try! "and the fact that after that 10 thousand, mostly civilians, died:" fulfilled ", yes .... In fact, he deceived the hopes of the Donetsk people.

      If the West wanted to fight, he did not have to wait for the troops to enter the Donbass: he already had an iron motive with the Crimea, so he would swallow Russian Novorossia as well.
      1. Senior manager
        Senior manager 5 September 2016 09: 21 New
        +6
        All words with a particle would have no real weight, GOD knows, and GDP knows how much Russia is facing confrontation with banderlogs and rebuilding LDN infrastructure, the war is on and there is no end to it. Judging by the way Kerry rushes about, Russia and GDP stand firm. With such a lack of information, it is impossible to draw such unambiguous conclusions, reflect.
    3. vovanpain
      vovanpain 5 September 2016 09: 19 New
      +9
      Quote: The same Lech
      That's right ... we don’t need a war with a mountain of corpses ... so still our people have not recovered from two world wars.
      In a certain article about Donbass, he answered one lover to wave a saber, like in 2014 we could get to Kiev, rightly, maybe even to Lvov, only the minke whales were waiting for this, would flare up all over Europe, and if we won there would be only mattress covers, delivering weapons and cutting coupons. The author is right, you need to look what will happen after the meeting 20. request
      1. Aleksander
        Aleksander 5 September 2016 11: 56 New
        +3
        In some article about Donbass, he answered one lover to wave a saber, like in 2014 we could get to Kiev, // only the stripes of this are just waited this would flare up all over Europe


        They are Crimea waited and nothing. What else could they wait for, why Crimea is bad?

        They were not going to "blaze" anything: back in 1938-1940 they surrendered their direct allies, one might say, they surrendered themselves because of their unwillingness to fight, but now they have become even more "tolerant" and will not fight for some Ruin ... What Obama has repeatedly stated.
        1. vovanpain
          vovanpain 5 September 2016 12: 38 New
          +7
          Quote: Aleksander
          They waited for Crimea and .... NOTHING.
          Alexander hi Crimea was the main goal of the cartoonists, For whom Crimea, the Black Sea, for the sake of this, these races were started on the Maidan and aunt Nuland's horse baked cookies, then the polite people and the people of Crimea solved the problem. And Alexander I answered not for you, colleague , but I’ll tell you, the mattress-beds, of course, wouldn’t fight ... themselves, but every rabble would be sent there, and sent, would be pumped with dill weapons, such as land lease, such as money later, but would be given in large quantities, and not like now, a couple of inflatable boats and a few radars. They now give them money just so they don’t bend ahead of time, so Alexander, Ukraine itself must free itself from the junta, let's see by the way that after the meeting there will be 20 after the US elections .
    4. Velizariy
      Velizariy 5 September 2016 09: 57 New
      0
      Quote: The same Lech
      It is necessary to force the United States to pay out of pocket for all the meannesses that this country brings to other nations

      Any suggestions on how to do this?)
      1. Same lech
        Same lech 5 September 2016 10: 20 New
        0
        Any suggestions on how to do this?)


        There is smile ... only who will listen to a small person, however, I can not offer anything new ... events of this kind have been tested a long time ago.
  2. B.T.V.
    B.T.V. 5 September 2016 07: 06 New
    +6
    Quote: The same LYOKHA
    That's right ... we don’t need a war with a mountain of corpses ... so still our people have not recovered from two world wars.


    Add here the "dashing 90s", then, too, human losses were considerable.
  3. samarin1969
    samarin1969 5 September 2016 07: 06 New
    15
    "Moscow reacted so harshly (?) To the outbreak of saboteurs in Crimea"
    "Artillery shelling is exhausting (?) Donbass residents" .... It's time for the author to qualify as electoral lawyers. The reasons for Russia's controversial policy in the Donbas should be sought in the "sacred" interests of the business elite.
  4. 2014ya.ru
    2014ya.ru 5 September 2016 07: 24 New
    +1
    Quote: samarin1969
    The reasons for Russia's controversial policy in the Donbas should be sought in the "sacred" interests of the business elite.

    For more details please!
  5. Viktor fm
    Viktor fm 5 September 2016 07: 31 New
    0
    Bandera regime in Ukraine for a long time, will in extreme cases change color. Since the West, led by the United States, has seized it with a stranglehold, and the mentality of the population will change with new generations.
    1. Victor Kamenev
      5 September 2016 08: 12 New
      +4
      There are such predictions, but there is one "but" ... For this, the West must seriously fork out to create a "success story" for Bandera, which, by the way, is what he hopes for ... that the West will not abandon its faithful dog.
      And the West has not given a year of money, it requires all new guarantees. There is no investment at all.
      Therefore, expert Taruta is sad and expects Bandera’s economic collapse.
      1. GYGOLA
        GYGOLA 5 September 2016 22: 51 New
        0
        Poroshenko is Obama’s brainchild. The American president will change, as if he didn’t stay 1 on 1 with the Bandera regime + war in the Donbass + debt to the European Union + poverty and indignation of people. laughing a little tight.
  6. PKK
    PKK 5 September 2016 07: 31 New
    0
    Let the United States send its troops officially to the Donbass to help the junta, then Russia will make an answer to such actions.
  7. Tatar 174
    Tatar 174 5 September 2016 07: 36 New
    +5
    ... Bandera must commit suicide ...

    He will do away with it, but what will happen to that time with the territories and with people, many of whom have not turned into dill and are holding on ???
    1. Victor Kamenev
      5 September 2016 08: 05 New
      +1
      Ukroexpert Taruta recently reported that with the current course, until the economic collapse of Bandera six months left - a year, you can laugh, but there are no other experts.
      To free Ukraine is precisely the sacrifice, and how justified are they? Dzygovbrodsky, as a former Ukrainian, is trustworthy ... He knows better than us what he is talking about.
  8. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 5 September 2016 07: 54 New
    +7
    All the leaders of European countries, without exception, including pshek and overseas puppeteers, ate Crimea, choked on Donbas. Remember how Putin at the beginning of 2014 offered the oligarchs to return their grandmothers to Russia, and the point was not that the oligarchs' money was a pity, but that the sanctions, which you and I had not yet suspected, had already been calculated by the RF Security Council and countermeasures were worked out. The fact that Kiev is in a stupor today is also the result of the planned work of the Security Council. Or someone thinks that the Caliber strike on the Needles in Syria was caused by the special effectiveness of this expensive weapon, but no. Putin once again poured a tub of cold water on the heated heads of his "partners." They swallowed again and will swallow, according to Lavrov's words - "Well ..., stupid, ..."
  9. 2014ya.ru
    2014ya.ru 5 September 2016 08: 00 New
    +1
    Quote: Sovetskiy
    I apologize, and therefore did our Central Bank catch up with the purchase of US bonds to 89,9 billion dollars?
    ".... The volume of investments in the US national debt in August 2016 was 3,2 times higher than the budget expenditures to support the national economy (163 billion rubles) ..."
    Is this the very "force"?

    In fact, the Central Bank lies under the Americans, since in the 90s the charter of the Central Bank was completely removed from the US Federal Reserve System and is a branch of this system. Russia is creating its own financial system, but when it works ....
  10. pioner77
    pioner77 5 September 2016 08: 00 New
    +2
    I liked the article; there is nothing to put; I put a plus
  11. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 5 September 2016 08: 08 New
    +2
    Quote: samarin1969
    The reasons for Russia's controversial policy in the Donbas should be sought in the "sacred" interests of the business elite.

    Please decrypt if possible. Perhaps you personally know what we do not know? Only about Sberbank is not necessary, because this is the only thread for settlements with Ukraine, or do we need intermediaries such as offshore banks here?
    1. Retvizan
      Retvizan 6 September 2016 15: 17 New
      +1
      and where did VTB go? And the interests of Gazprom, and the oil ... there is still a lot of "buried"
  12. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 5 September 2016 08: 38 New
    +4
    “Until Ukraine finally poison itself with Ukrainian integral nationalism, until all superstructures and the very basis of Ukraine are destroyed, this territory cannot be touched. Let diet

    And probably this is the best case scenario. As for the sanctions, they simply had to be introduced yesterday, and not support the Ukrainian regime with their concessions and deliveries.
  13. uskrabut
    uskrabut 5 September 2016 08: 46 New
    +5
    If we introduce Russian troops into Ukraine, we can lose Ukraine forever. Taking into account the official Kiev propaganda "all the troubles are from the Russians," by introducing troops, we will only affirm the duped population in this. And then, forever in the minds of Ukrainians, a stamp about the Russian invaders will sit. Therefore, they must overcome the bender on their own, having recovered from Ukrainian nationalism. Now this disease is in crisis, then either recovery or death.
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 5 September 2016 09: 22 New
      +6
      If Russian troops are brought into Ukraine, we can lose Ukraine forever
      it may be enough to repeat telegrapies! For some reason, introducing troops into the Crimea, we did not lose the Crimea. Moreover, withdrawing troops from the German Democratic Republic, Poland and the Baltic states, we lost them. And the so-called Ukraine is the Russian land. Wait a minute and the Kuril Islands will be rented out.
      1. Winnie76
        Winnie76 6 September 2016 09: 12 New
        +2
        Gardamir, did you want war? Enter Putin? Do not mind Russian blood? Then a flag in hand and a gun on the neck. And in the Donbass.
  14. Gardamir
    Gardamir 5 September 2016 09: 06 New
    +8
    a man who "did not drain" Donbass is preparing not to drain the Lion of Syria. Now he will talk with his black partner and again write a peace plan on his knee.
  15. Kirill
    Kirill 5 September 2016 09: 08 New
    +2
    Quote: uskrabut
    If Russian troops are brought into Ukraine, we can lose Ukraine forever

    I recall the winter and spring of 2014. I was very afraid that we would get involved in a mess in Ukraine. At that moment, we were economically, politically, and militarily ready for the struggle for Ukraine. The USA was waiting for our entry. But thanks to Putin for coming along the fine line of all these problems.
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 5 September 2016 09: 26 New
      +4
      But thanks to Putin
      that got into Syria, why? That the truth is there are d (smart people) who believe that ISIS can be bombed in the Syrian deserts, which is why ISIS comes, aha escapes from Russian bombing.
      1. Kirill
        Kirill 5 September 2016 09: 32 New
        +2
        In Syria, there is a grinding of Islamist resources. While Assad managed, ours did not climb. For me, the more Islamists and technology there is, the better.
        1. Gardamir
          Gardamir 5 September 2016 13: 05 New
          +5
          Syria is grinding the resources of the Islamists.
          What floor do you live on? throw the TV out the window. and look for more truthful information.
      2. Corsair
        Corsair 5 September 2016 09: 57 New
        +2
        Do we have any other foothold in the Mediterranean? Ours would have gone from Syria, degenerates, some newly appointed US, if we did not defend our base and the country in which we are standing. Lock yourself in your seas and clearly in your land borders, but in "friends" with "peaceful" NATO and moderate ISIS, this is not an option. The massive advance of ISIS to our neighbors in the USSR - can lead to color revolutions and the creation of cells already on our borders. God forbid they get through Afghanistan or Iran and set fire to Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan - and everything will no longer be the work of the Aerospace Forces, but a full-scale war with huge losses.
        1. Kirill
          Kirill 5 September 2016 21: 14 New
          0
          Gardamir! You are not behaving correctly. I am guided by the information that is common sense. And you have extremely negative emotions and a complete lack of tact.
        2. Kirill
          Kirill 5 September 2016 21: 18 New
          0
          I agree. You can argue a lot about Afghanistan, but the fact that thanks to the introduction of troops we did not get a civil war in Central Asia in the 90s is a fact. The USSR allowed us to win at least 20 years.
          1. Aleks.Antonov
            Aleks.Antonov 5 September 2016 22: 19 New
            0
            But let's not confuse sour with fresh! We got involved in Afghanistan because of the ambitions of the leaders of the KGB, the GRU and members of the Politburo.
            As for Central Asia, the collapse of the Union led to a civil war in the former republics. You just forgot about it. Or walked under the table at that time.
            Osh, Ferghana, Tajikistan. Frontier fights between Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan. Karimov, God rest him! He brought discipline in Uzbekistan with an iron hand. Hundreds of thousands of Russians having abandoned everything fled from this order to Russia.
            Tajikistan, Russian divisions are among the mujahideen and are trying to try them on. Between the trade in heroin and hemp, our military explained to the local Mujahideen that if anything, they would kill everyone, both right and wrong.
            Kyrgyzstan. This is a separate story. They are fighting there now. Most Russians, both from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, have already left.
            Kazakhstan. No, there was no war here yet. Nursultan Abishovich, Korsak, Stepnoy Lis, is trying to keep parity of interests. But! FIVE millions of Russians left officially from Kazakhstan in the period 1991-2003; TWO million Germans. And this is from a country with a population of 14,7 million people. Dozens of dead cities. Have you ever been to a dead city? When you drive through the city streets and suddenly realize that in this city you are ONE!
            By the way, according to the latest census, the population of Kazakhstan is 17,5 million people. How we laughed, counted everyone. Even the population of cemeteries! :) And the holy place is never empty! Oralmans replaced Russians and Germans. Who is it? Arabs in Europe, it is about the same as the oralmans in Kazakhstan.
            I want to pay tribute to Nursultan Abishovich. He last fought for the preservation of the Union. For the Union with Russia. Until one drunk man sent him.
            1. Kirill
              Kirill 6 September 2016 16: 52 New
              0
              I am not saying that they entered Afghanistan to distance the civil wars in Central Asia. I believe that as a result of input this happened. And for what reason was the input I do not discuss.
            2. Kirill
              Kirill 6 September 2016 16: 57 New
              0
              I have not forgotten anything. I have friends and were across the river, and Osh passed, and Karabakh. Many for my science said thanks. Just think if human resources were saved in Afghanistan by the age of 90. the United States would supply their weapons anyway in the 80s
  16. rudolff
    rudolff 5 September 2016 10: 56 New
    +5
    Should a tough reaction be understood as a refusal to hold a meeting in the Normandy format and sanctions against Ukraine after the summit? Is it worth rushing to conclusions, the summit has just begun. The coming days will show everything. And the example with Turkey is inappropriate. Assad is probably hiccuping now from our "tough" response.
    1. Retvizan
      Retvizan 6 September 2016 15: 25 New
      0
      Quote: rudolff
      Tough reaction should be understood as a refusal to hold a meeting in the Norman format and sanctions

      Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the "Norman format" is the only way to resolve the conflict in the Donbass.
      http://www.rosbalt.ru/russia/2016/09/05/1547460.h
      tml
  17. revnagan
    revnagan 5 September 2016 12: 02 New
    +5
    "Putin is playing with the 'cynical Bandera' for a long time, proceeding from the fact that the Bandera regime is not the heir to post-Soviet Ukraine, and after being held responsible for the failure of the Minsk agreements, he can be denied legitimacy."
    Why didn’t I have to wait two years in order to refuse the junta’s legitimacy, I didn’t understand why to wait for some events to hold the junta responsible for the disruption of the Minsk agreements? Wasn’t the method of the junta’s coming to power a reason for NOT RECOGNITION its legitimacy?
    http://cdn4.s.kolorado.ru/products/2/21/216/21647
    6 / 107_1_2_design.png
    The severance of relations, a boycott, no gas, coal and other "nishtyaks". And no war. All. The junta are impostors, and the Russian authorities simply have nothing to talk about with these "cynical".
    1. Retvizan
      Retvizan 6 September 2016 15: 26 New
      +1
      And why did they get it that they could not help but admit that now the reverse process is under way and Dear Petr Alekseevich suddenly ceased to be a partner and the best choice of the Ukrainian people?
      These are just words. Even a pun. Legitimate partner partners.
  18. sergeyzzz
    sergeyzzz 5 September 2016 13: 19 New
    0
    Super article, I agree with the author 200%, especially:
    “Until Ukraine finally poison itself with Ukrainian integral nationalism, until all superstructures and the very basis of Ukraine are destroyed, this territory cannot be touched. Let him die. ” Bandera must commit suicide ...
    .
    People only feel sorry, not everyone is there with Bandera, but they will mow all one size.
  19. Disorder
    Disorder 5 September 2016 15: 35 New
    0
    Crimea was an autonomous republic within Ukraine. The Government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea adopted the "Declaration of Independence" and, following the results of the all-Crimean referendum, a petition was submitted to join the Russian Federation. Russian troops were not brought into Crimea - they were already there on the basis of intergovernmental agreements.
    You can not admit, spit, piss, fight, but legally everything is legal.

    In the Donbass, there are no such favorable factors. The deployment of troops will definitely qualify as aggression with all the ensuing consequences.
    So, there are actions on the diplomatic front, humanitarian convoys and an unofficial supply of weapons.
    1. Foul skeptic
      Foul skeptic 5 September 2016 16: 41 New
      +3
      You can not admit, spit, piss, fight, but legally everything is legal.

      Oh-oh-oh, how unfounded ..! Well, why is there not enough courage to simply admit that they took by right the strong, because it was NECESSARY, and not by legal law ..? Why make any ridiculous explanations that do not stand up to criticism?

      Open the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea at the time of the events of 2014 (that is, the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea from 1998) ... Well, open it, it’s useful to read ... You don’t have to read far, there immediately, the first two articles are enough:
      Article 1. Status of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
      1. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea is an integral part of Ukraine and, within the powers defined by the Constitution of Ukraine, solves issues related to its jurisdiction.


      Article 2. Legal basis and guarantees of the status and powers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
      1. The legal basis for the status and powers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea are the Constitution of Ukraine, the laws of Ukraine, the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.
      2. In the event of a conflict of provisions of the regulatory legal acts of the Verkhovna Rada of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and acts of the Council of Ministers of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea of ​​the Constitution of Ukraine, the laws of Ukraine are governed by the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine and the laws of Ukraine.


      Therefore the explanation
      Crimea was an autonomous republic within Ukraine. The Government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea adopted the "Declaration of Independence" and, following the results of the all-Crimean referendum, a petition was submitted to join the Russian Federation.


      just causes a laugh. Well and still bewilderment.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 5 September 2016 20: 52 New
        +3
        Quote: Nefarious skeptic
        Open the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea at the time of the events of 2014 (that is, the Constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea from 1998) ... Well, open it, it’s useful to read ... You don’t have to read far, there immediately, the first two articles are enough:

        Let me remind you of the elementary fact that in Ukraine there was an armed state unconstitutional coup. Under these conditions, referring to the constitution of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea or Ukraine is absurd. It is as if Lenin began to refer to the decrees of Nicholas 2 or the orders of the Provisional Government confirming the legitimacy of their actions. Trouble is not right; in fact, there is no difference between the Crimea and the Donbass; after the coup, the inhabitants of the Crimea and Donbass could self-determine in any way
      2. Disorder
        Disorder 5 September 2016 22: 35 New
        +1
        [Quote] Declaration of Independence of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol:
        We, the deputies of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Sevastopol City Council, based on the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and a number of other international documents enshrining the right of peoples to self-determination, and also taking into account the confirmation by the UN international court in respect of Kosovo of July 22, 2010 the fact that the unilateral declaration of independence by a part of the state does not violate any norms of international law, we jointly decide:
        1. In the event that as a result of the forthcoming direct will of the peoples of Crimea on March 16, 2014, a decision will be made to join Crimea, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, as part of Russia, after a referendum, Crimea will be declared an independent and sovereign state with a republican form of government.
        2. The Republic of Crimea will be a democratic, secular and multinational state that pledges to maintain peace, interethnic and interfaith harmony on its territory.
        3. The Republic of Crimea, as an independent and sovereign state, in case of relevant referendum results, will apply to the Russian Federation with a proposal to accept the Republic of Crimea on the basis of the relevant interstate agreement into the Russian Federation as a new subject of the Russian Federation.
        The Declaration was approved by the Resolution of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea at an extraordinary plenary meeting on March 11, 2014 (signed by the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea V. Konstantinov) and the Resolution of the Sevastopol City Council at an extraordinary plenary meeting on March 11, 2014 (signed by the Chairman of the Sevastopol City Council Yu. Doinikov ). [/ quote]
        As you can see, the declaration does not mention the constitution of the ARC at all. But there is an impenetrable argument: "The decision of the International Court of Justice of July 22, 2010.
        You can laugh and be perplexed, but Crimea is part of the Russian Federation, and it is impossible to dispute it legally.
        1. Foul skeptic
          Foul skeptic 6 September 2016 10: 44 New
          0
          Dear comrade Trouble, can I, in response to your comment, immediately respond to the comments of comrades Aug-Mgn and Odyssey? Just not to get sprayed on three different answers in general. Only a request to approach the written not from an emotional, but from a rational point of view. So.

          Let me remind you of the elementary fact that in Ukraine there was an armed state anti-constitutional coup.

          Undeniable and true to 100%. (just let's agree not to write the word unconstitutional before the word coup, this is already embedded in the very concept of coup, it cannot be constitutional). But from a legal point of view, everything that happened in Kiev happened in Simferopol. And, again, from a legal point of view, a coup also took place in Simferopol. The supreme law of the country was violated both there and there. Yes, it was quickly retouched by holding a referendum (incidentally, in violation of the Law on the referendum), as in Ukraine it was retouched by presidential elections, but the essence of this does not change.

          A simple question - what actions were taken by Crimea to prevent violation of the Constitution and restore the constitutional system of the country, of which they were a part, when events took place in this country that led to the arrival of the new government?

          Further, according to documents that are cited, but which are hardly read by someone ...
          But there is an impenetrable argument: "The decision of the International Court of Justice of July 22, 2010.

          It is very wrong to see in things only what one wants to see. Let us leave the legality of the decision on Kosovo on the conscience of the UN court, especially since this has nothing to do with our conversation. We are only discussing a specific "impenetrable" document.
          So if you read it, you will see that the decision says that it is not binding and that, in the framework of the issue related to Kosovo, the legal possibility of secession (or secession) as a whole is not reviewed as a means of legal protection.
          So, you could refer to this "impenetrable" document only if the UN court had passed the same decision on Crimea. I don’t remember anything like that.

          We, the deputies of the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the Sevastopol City Council, based on the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and a number of other international documents enshrining the right of peoples to self-determination


          Okay, the deputies did not read, their task is different, but what prevented you from reading what these deputies refer to? Just slowly, thoughtfully ...
          And then this right to self-determination is trumped by all and sundry, not understanding what is at stake.
          We are talking about the provisions adopted at the 25th session of the General Assembly in 1970. I cite the date not by chance, it is important for understanding the motives of those who adopted the resolution.
          Yes, indeed, it speaks of the right of peoples to self-determination. BUT it is said only in relation to peoples colonial countries! 1970th year !. The UN wanted to end colonialism! And right there, in the same document it is written that "nothing in the above paragraphs should be interpreted as authorizing or encouraging any actions that would lead to dismemberment or to partial or complete violation of territorial integrity or political unity sovereign and independent states..."

          Another simple question is if, as you say, it is impossible to dispute it legally, why did the Russian Federation not submit petitions to the UN for consideration of the status of Crimea for two years?
          1. Disorder
            Disorder 6 September 2016 14: 43 New
            0
            Only a request to approach the written not from an emotional, but from a rational point of view.

            From a rational point of view: Crimea repeated the path of Kosovo.
            You can interpret international documents as much as you like and appeal to the conscience of the UN International Court of Justice, but what was done was done, Crimea and Russia just used what was worked out for Kosovo, and any attempt to challenge the transition of Crimea from Ukraine to Russia will rest in separation of Kosovo from Serbia.
            1. Foul skeptic
              Foul skeptic 6 September 2016 16: 08 New
              0
              Sorry, but forced to repeat myself
              A simple question - what actions were taken by Crimea to prevent violation of the Constitution and restore the constitutional system of the country, of which they were a part, when events took place in this country that led to the arrival of the new government?

              Another simple question is if, as you say, it is impossible to dispute it legally, why did the Russian Federation not submit petitions to the UN for consideration of the status of Crimea for two years?
          2. Odysseus
            Odysseus 6 September 2016 17: 12 New
            +1
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            But from a legal point of view, everything that happened in Kiev happened in Simferopol. And, again, from a legal point of view, a coup also took place in Simferopol.

            Curious, do you yourself believe in what you write? Or are you deliberately deceiving and engaging in propaganda? Let's go over the points.
            1) No "coup" in Sevastopol or Simferopol could have been a priori. A coup d'etat in the state of Ukraine can be carried out against the highest bodies of state power at their location, that is, in the city of Kiev.
            2) If at legitimate authorities, local citizens and / or local authorities are not subordinate to these legal authorities, this is interpreted as rebellion. If, however, they also talk about separation from the central government, then this is separatism.
            It really was in January-February 2016, but not in Sevastopol, but in Western Ukraine. It is there that the rebels and separatists lost control legal power of Yanukovych.
            3) After the coup d'état, when the rebels seized power in the country, duty both citizens and local authorities disobey the rebels. And if local authorities do not fulfill this obligation, they also become outside the law and it is the citizens' duty to establish such authorities that would not obey the rebels.
            Therefore, all actions of citizens in the Crimea and in the former Donetsk and Lugansk regions are completely laws. Moreover, according to the law, they are obliged to withdraw from the subordination of the authorities of Maidan Ukraine and with respect to Maidan Ukraine have the right to any self-determination.
          3. Odysseus
            Odysseus 6 September 2016 17: 34 New
            0
            Quote: Nefarious skeptic
            A simple question - what actions were taken by Crimea to prevent violation of the Constitution and restore the constitutional system of the country, of which they were a part, when events took place in this country that led to the arrival of the new government?

            Amazing logic. Bandits came to your house and killed your wife and children, you go to the police, and there they say that you yourself are to blame. And when you are surprised at this way of asking the question, they ask, What actions have you taken to stop their illegal actions? This is an example of your logic.
            In reality, this state should take actions to preserve legal power in the state. Yanukovych and his government should have eliminated the Maidan rebels.
            The duty of the Crimean authorities was to maintain legal authority in the Crimea. Which was done. Before coup d'etat there functioned all legally elected authorities.
            PS But as if in a mockery of you, the legal authorities of the Crimea on January 22, 2014 adopted an official statement where they called for establishing order in the country and stated that they would not obey the rebels. On January 23, the Chairman of the Supreme Council once again indicated in a special statement that
            "All decisions of the" Maidan "unconstitutional bodies, including those on holding any extraordinary elections, have no force on our peninsula and will not be carried out by anyone."
    2. Retvizan
      Retvizan 6 September 2016 15: 29 New
      0
      and yet there is no referendum on the rest of Ukraine or even a Crimean decision. And as for the UN, everything was unambiguously recognized as illegal there.
      So, despite the impeccable wording of correctness in Russia, the partners do not agree. And a lot of countries have signed the resolution. But the recognition of the "correctness of the referendum" few agreed.
      So the problems of "recognition" remain. And they affect the economy.
      1. Odysseus
        Odysseus 6 September 2016 21: 15 New
        0
        Quote: Retvizan
        and yet there is no referendum on the rest of Ukraine or even a decision on the Crimean

        belay Why is it needed?
        In Ukraine, the rebels seized power. The territories that have recognized the power of the rebels form a new state "Maidan" Ukraine (although this is illegal).
        Those who legally did not recognize the power of the rebels are disconnected from the Maidan of Ukraine. At the same time, it would be completely absurd to demand confirmation of the recognition of this disconnection from those who supported the rebels.
        Quote: Retvizan
        partners disagree. And a lot of countries have signed the resolution. But the recognition of the "correctness of the referendum" few agreed.

        This already relates, not to the law, but to reality (which defines these laws).
        By law, both the Crimea and the Donbass had every right to separate from the Maidan of Ukraine. But the recognition or not recognition of this fact depends only on the balance of power and political expediency.
  20. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 5 September 2016 19: 21 New
    +1
    Quote: Nefarious skeptic
    Therefore the explanation
    Crimea was an autonomous republic within Ukraine. The Government of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea adopted the "Declaration of Independence" and, following the results of the all-Crimean referendum, a petition was submitted to join the Russian Federation.

    just causes a laugh. Well and still bewilderment.
    Well, not bad (from the legal point of view), outwardly true, BUT ...
    A coup d'etat took place in the country, a legally elected president was forcibly removed from office (from a legal point of view). Part of the country's population did not want to live under the new government and adopted [b] document [/ b (from a legal point of view)
  21. aleks700
    aleks700 6 September 2016 07: 08 New
    +1
    An act of unnamed treason disguised in beautiful words.
  22. rudolff
    rudolff 6 September 2016 08: 06 New
    +2
    Viktor Kamenev, how do you comment on Putin’s press conference yesterday regarding the Norman format? Tough reaction?
  23. kumaxa
    kumaxa 6 September 2016 15: 33 New
    0
    citizens will not be too clever! writer BULGAKOV running. turbine days!
  24. Retvizan
    Retvizan 6 September 2016 15: 35 New
    +1
    These all of Ukraine, the Baltic states and so on will be until Russia (not the Russian Federation) has a nationally oriented government.
    And while there is the Russian Federation, there is Ukraine, there are problems, there are interests and there are "partners". And their interests are more important than the interests of the peoples. But, for some reason, we are forced to think that their interests are our interests! And they explain their actions - by our interests!
    Somewhere I already saw ...
    about Norman
    http://www.rosbalt.ru/russia/2016/09/05/1547460.h
    tml
    about sanctions - this is probably Miller’s persuasion to buy gas.
    Actions that the Russian government that the United States that Ukraine to put it mildly do not coincide with the rainbow picture of the article.
  25. Operator
    Operator 6 September 2016 16: 52 New
    0
    Quote: A vile skeptic
    A simple question - what actions were taken by Crimea to prevent violation of the Constitution and restore the constitutional system of the country, of which they were a part, when events took place in this country that led to the arrival of the new government?
    Another simple question is if, as you say, it is impossible to dispute it legally, why did the Russian Federation not submit petitions to the UN for consideration of the status of Crimea for two years?

    Simple answers:

    The actions of Crimea and Sevastopol in 2014 after the unconstitutional seizure of power in Kiev - holding referenda on secession from Ukraine. If most regions of Ukraine took the same action, the coup in Kiev would have been forced to leave.

    Paragraph 1 of the UN Charter on the right of nations to self-determination is self-sufficient and does not require approval / disapproval at the level of the UN General Assembly or the UN Security Council.
    Moreover, the UN Charter as a constituent document is not subject to restriction by any international treaty, pact, convention, etc. I do not agree with the Charter - leave the UN.
    Recently, Eritrea (1), East Timor (1993), Kosovo (2002), South Sudan (2010) and Crimea with Sevastopol (2011) have taken advantage of paragraph 2014 of the UN Charter. As can be seen from the list, not one of these countries has previously been a colony of third states.

    The decision of the UN International Court of Kosovo of 2010 of the year merely clarifies the situation that is not regulated by paragraph 1 of the UN Charter - whether the nation has the right to create a second national state. The court decided that it has.
    At the same time, the court disavowed the provision of the Helsinki Act on Security and Cooperation in Europe of the 1975 year, according to which the participating states (including the United States and Canada) voluntarily committed themselves to prevent changes in the borders of European countries.

    So Russia, concluding agreements in the 2014 year with Crimea and Sevastopol (previously using paragraph 1 of the UN Charter) on their joining the Russian Federation, acted strictly in accordance with international law.
    From this, by the way, it directly follows that we have the right to recover all economic damage from unlawful sanctions by Western states at the International Arbitration (well, or not pay the bills for the same amount) bully
    1. Foul skeptic
      Foul skeptic 6 September 2016 17: 39 New
      0
      No-no-no, let's get to the point.

      I asked the question, not what did Crimea do at all, but what did it do to prevent violation of the Constitution and restore the constitutional order of the country, of which they were a part, when events took place in this country that led to the arrival of the new government?

      This is a very big difference. After all, as we recall, the conversation we started with the legitimacy of action. WITH AUTHORITY. Just as Kiev could not change the power in the country in such a way, so Simferopol could not carry out transformations in this way at home. ILLEGAL that one, that another. You still remember that we have a conversation about the legal basis of what happened, and not about the rationality of what happened.

      Well, then you generally went ugly. Tell me honestly, where did you copy it from? You did not check what was written No.

      Recently, Eritrea (1), East Timor (1993), Kosovo (2002), South Sudan (2010) and Crimea with Sevastopol (2011) have taken advantage of paragraph 2014 of the UN Charter. As can be seen from the list, not one of these countries has previously been a colony of third states.


      Eritrea - Former Colony of Italy
      Timor - former colony of Portugal
      Sudan - Former British Colony

      Let's go further.

      I ask you to give the full name of the document from where you take the paragraph with the right of nations to self-determination. Answer - The UN Charter on the right of nations to self-determination does not work. For one simple reason - the right of nations to self-determination has been adopted for decades in the form of various resolutions and I do not remember that there was a "UN charter on the right of nations to self-determination." Don't you see that the wording with the interpretation is not connected in this phrase? request
      1. Operator
        Operator 6 September 2016 19: 10 New
        +1
        The Constitution of Ukraine does not say anything about the obligation of the Crimea and Sevastopol to do something in case of violation of the Constitution in the capital of Ukraine. And the right of the people of Crimea and Sevastopol to self-determination was not given by the Constitution of Ukraine, but by the UN Charter.

        At the time of the declaration of sovereignty, East Timor, Eritrea, and South Sudan had been independent states for several decades — Indonesia, Ethiopia, and Sudan, respectively. Kosovo has never been anyone’s colony at all.

        UN Charter, Chapter 1, Article 1, paragraph 2:
        "To develop friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equality and self-determination of peoplesand take other appropriate measures to consolidate world peace. "
        http://www.un.org/ru/sections/un-charter/chapter-
        i / index.html
        1. Foul skeptic
          Foul skeptic 7 September 2016 16: 30 New
          0
          Oh, how hard ...
          Firstly
          As can be seen from the list, not one of these countries has previously been a colony of third states.

          these are your words and nobody forced them to write you. I just pointed out that they are not true.
          Now on
          At the time of the declaration of sovereignty, East Timor, Eritrea, and South Sudan had been independent states for several decades - Indonesia, Ethiopia, and Sudan, respectively.


          If you took the time to familiarize yourself with the document that I referred to earlier (well, where the 25th UN Assembly is mentioned), you might know why there is no inconsistency with regard to East Timor, Eritrea and South Sudan. THEY HAVE FULL RIGHT TO DO THIS! Based on the "Declaration on Decolonization" adopted by the UN in the 60s. A list of territories (72 in number) that were colonies was approved. And the peoples in the territories from this list received the right to self-determination. Timor, Eritrea, and South Sudan are (or rather were) on this list! Therefore, it does not matter that they were later included in other states! The same Western Sahara, which is now part of Morocco, if it wants, can become an independent state and Morocco will have to silently agree with this. Because Western Sahara was previously a Spanish colony and is on the mentioned UN list!
          Because of Kosovo, the whole fuss then flared up that the petition went against the UN documents. Therefore, this ill-fated court and a collegial decision were required! But one BUT !!! In Kosovo it is said - YES, and in the Crimea -?. I'm waiting for an answer to
          Another simple question is if, as you say, it is impossible to dispute it legally, why did the Russian Federation not submit petitions to the UN for consideration of the status of Crimea for two years?
          Well, if everything is legal, then the UN will recognize Crimea as Russian, as it was with Kosovo. And that means that sanctions will immediately be lifted from us. That's how it all works out wonderfully, but for some reason this question is not something that cannot be resolved, it is also vetoed. Why would you suddenly? Yet in accordance with international law?

          UN Charter, Chapter 1, Article 1, paragraph 2:
          "To develop friendly relations between nations based on respect for the principle of equality and self-determination peoples, as well as take other appropriate measures to consolidate world peace. "

          You cling to the word self-determination absolutely without seeing any other words of those around him, nor correlating it with what is being asked of you. Like a red rag for a bull, honestly.

          Where is the interpretation of the concept of "self-determination" deciphered in the piece of text you quoted ?! So where?! You rip out this word and interpret it in your own way, as it is convenient for you, and not as the UN interprets it. But it is the UN interpretation that is protected by international law, and yours is just your wish. Again, self-determination implies the possibility of obtaining sovereignty for the former colonial entities! Only for them, and not for anyone who wanted it! Otherwise, any gypsy camp could bite off a piece of territory!
          Read at your leisure resolution 637 ((VII session of the General Assembly) and resolution 2625 (XXV session of the General Assembly). And also why at the VI meeting of the UN Committee they rejected the amendment to paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the Charter, which referred to the "right of peoples to self-determination", and why, in the future, this concept is fixed by separate documents, and not by the Charter.
  26. jonht
    jonht 8 September 2016 05: 33 New
    0
    It's a good article, you can add that the referendum in Crimea was immediately for joining Russia, and in Dombassa for independence and only secondly for joining Russia, many mistakes were made in organizing the referendum, and political slogans of different directions, the same it was above the roof .... But we do not take patience, as they say, "The road will be mastered by the one walking" ....