Nikita Mikhalkov about Ukraine, Crimea and the "annexation of truth"

In the issue of the Besogon program, Nikita Mikhalkov touches on the strange attempts of Ukrainian censorship of films, including with his participation, attempts to rewrite history. We are talking, for example, about the film “Putin Witnesses”, which was released for hire in Ukraine, in which Mikhalkov appears on several frames. And Ukrainian creators decided that the face of Nikita Mikhalkov should be “covered up”, since the director “poses a threat to Ukraine”.

Mikhalkov himself is ironic about this, citing the plot from the Soviet film "Cruel Romance", where he "covers up" his face.
Nikita Mikhalkov:

If I threaten a foreign state, then what kind of state is it? I understand that there are many programs and programs about Ukraine, where people make noise, shout at a friend. And we want to calmly understand the situation and understand what is happening, what is Crimea.

According to Mikhalkov, in an issue called Annexation of Truth, Russia is constantly being challenged:

We always owe someone. We owe Estonia, Latvia, we owe Ukraine. And for some reason no one recalls what was built in these countries for their well-being: shipyards, factories, factories, roads, etc. But this is not even about that. We are in the conditions of an information war of a certain meaning.

The film director in the plot examines the history of Crimea after the First World War, the processes that took place on the peninsula, the points of the first Soviet constitution from the 1918 of the year - all that definitely shows: Crimea had nothing to do with Ukraine.

Comments

[bessmertniy]

True, steal the eyes pierces. They cannot let her into their information space.

[Uncle lee]

rewrite history.

They are doing this fruitfully.

[Comrade]

We always owe someone. We owe Estonia, Latvia, we owe Ukraine. And for some reason no one recalls what was built in these countries for their well-being: shipyards, factories, factories, roads, etc.

Old truth: Do not do good - you will not get evil.
An example from the Americans should be taken. Consider, they practically did not give Ukraine anything from their pocket, they only command. And they in response to Washington lick their heels, and they also thank that they gave it to lick.
Over the past five years, the European Union has given Ukraine up to twenty billion, and Zelensky over the phone trump complains that almost nothing, they say, the Europeans did not give us.
Forever spitting in the face of virtues, yesterday they spat in the Soviet Union, today in the European Union. And before America, which has yielded almost nothing, they are on their knees.
Mysterious Ukrainian soul ..

[However, dear]

all that definitely shows: Crimea had nothing to do with Ukraine.

Why only Ukraine? I would also explain that Crimea has nothing to do with the Greeks, Romans and Turks, "patamushta is our charm now, ever and ever and ever." Complete ... "besogon".

[carstorm 11]

but there are claims of them from someone?))) Russians have watered this land for centuries with blood and that mistake that made it suddenly become Ukrainian. so yes. this is our charm. send all your questions on contesting this to the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation. they will answer you everything and even show if you ask strongly) but I would not ask)

[However, dear]

I am not talking about that. The world is full of disputed territories. But why release a program in which the viewer is pushed that we really need this territory, we have grown to it with our souls, but they do not need it, and in general, they do not like it and have nothing to do with it, because ... this is ours " lovely ". Well, and in a circle about it. Does the author of the show think that viewers are feeble-minded? Why is this blatant hypocrisy and hypocrisy?

[Alexander Suvorov]

However, Dear (Igor)
in which the viewer is pushed that we really need this territory

And what, Crimea we do not need?

[However, dear]

Usually, I don’t feed trolls. But I can play along.

And what, Crimea we do not need?

How not needed? Why did they take it?

Mikhalkov already very sickeningly charged ...

[Alexander Suvorov]

However, Dear (Igor)
Usually, I don’t feed trolls. But I can play along. smile

Who would talk about trolls? By one of your nicknames with an avatar, it’s already clear that you are the most troll.

[However, dear]

Who would talk about trolls? By one of your nicknames with an avatar, it’s already clear that you are the most troll.

Oh, they have minded me, now I can’t see an asterisk on the chase. Well, okay, I believe, maybe you really are not a troll, but the topic was translated, simply because they misunderstood me. After all, I brought criticism to Mikhalkov's creation, by the way, on the topic of the article under discussion. And you transferred to Krymnash. Yes, I'll make a reservation right away: I have nothing to do with Ukraine. But if you want, you can discuss your question "What, we don't need Crimea anymore?" So, 5 years have passed since Crimea. What do we have after 2014? The dollar was 35-40, now 63. The standard of living has been falling for the 6th year in a row. The death rate exceeds the birth rate. Sanctions from the entire West, except Israel. European neighbors, having put in their pants from the dashing Crimea, are breaking into NATO. A new arms race has begun. Ukraine has finally turned into an enemy, and it seems for a long time. This is in brief. So, what was needed when they took it - it's clear, but aren't the costs high? Well, come on, answer, dear. Oh, I won't see "junior lieutenant" for a long time now.

[Slavutich]

Nikita tried to make Bandera flourish, of which only "Burnt by the Sun" are standing, and now he is indignant.

[evgic]

Yeah, the individual who took such a g ... it would be better to be silent. If from the masterpieces of Mikhalkov to throw out the lies and nonsense of the drunken author, then only the credits will remain

[Slavutich]

I agree with you completely!

[nikvic46]

There wouldn’t be Crimea, they’ve come up with something else. I don’t understand the argument about Crimea. Ask any English, Turkish, French historian who the Crimean War was with. They will definitely say that it’s not with Ukraine. In general, I don’t like these names like besogon. And there is still a debate about obscurantism. Liberals to the tips of the nails suddenly argued about which of them is more liberal.

[Earth]

Quote: nikvic46

Ask any historian of English, Turkish, French with whom the Crimean War was

will not answer.
Because it is called the Eastern War.
And she was with RI. The Russian Federation was not then. Like the republics. (Then even Poland was part of the Republic of Ingushetia)
In general, Crimea passed from hand to hand quite often. Most probably the Tatar-Turkish period.
Given the conditions of supply, it is quite difficult without the S. Black Sea. Logistics is becoming more expensive. And the sea is blocked by sanctions (only domestic)
Doubtful acquisition. Make everyone enemies and worsen all your performance. It was easier to buy, as is customary in the civilized world (in life there are 2 ways to buy and take away).
Where value is not territory. And communications. Crimea, therefore, belonged to Russia if not legally - but economically and in fact. The Russians felt unobstructed there. Yes, and obvious rich in comparison with more poor Ukrainians.