Krymofoby, suffer!
The Crimea, and the whole of Russia, will soon have to celebrate the day that will forever enter history. 16 March 2014, the majority of Crimeans expressed their opinion about the fate of their peninsula. The correct decision of the Russian president and timely assistance rendered to residents of the Crimea who were threatened by a bloody war rallied Russian society. Even many opponents of the course of Vladimir Putin supported this decision. At the same time, inveterate “oppositionists” stood out, who are ready to ruin everything that the majority supports and what the authorities are doing. And here it’s not even about criticism ...
In fact, there is nothing strange that Ukrainian neo-Nazis hate Crimeans so much. The pain of the kick will long remind them of themselves. The racers and their masters did not manage to subjugate part of the country and turn people into slaves, ready to put up with the new Bandera ideology. Although Yanukovych would have been a little braver, the “Golden Eagle” would quickly have distributed to the maydanovtsy in the winter.
For Russophobes from the EU and the US, too, there are no special complaints. The paranoid fear of the revival of the USSR and the “Empire of Evil” forces them to break into hysterics at the slightest success of Russia on the world chessboard.
But the position of some Russians in the Crimea looks very strange. Often they belong to the category of outspoken Russophobes who live in Russia and hate this country. Like this! Live and hate. In short, they look like microbes twitching in an antiseptic.
If we summarize all the ardent opponents of the annexation of the Crimea, then a new term comes out - “krymofoby”. In a word Crimeophobes are citizens who are poorly versed in the political situation, unable to carry out in-depth analysis of current events and objectively evaluate information from various sources about events in Ukraine, the Crimea, Russia and the world as a whole, as well as independently build a chronological chain of events to detect cause-effect relationships.
And now it is worth understanding: what is the absurdity of the position of people who hate the Crimeans and those who supported them in their desire to live peacefully? The points:
1) "Crimeans went to Russia for money, they were not threatened by anything." Not. Crimeans went to Russia for peace. However, according to the Crimeophobes, the Crimeans were not in danger. Nothing?
And here is the banal ignorance of the facts. 24 February 2014 on the air of the 112 channel, one of the leaders of the neo-Nazi group Social-National Assembly (included in the Right Sector, now tied to the Azov battalion), Igor Mosiychuk announced that he would send “friendship trains” to Crimea case of attempted separatism. The day before, the organized criminal group of the Mejlis at the rally demanded to dissolve the Crimean parliament and change the Constitution, as well as to demolish the monument to Lenin in the center of Simferopol. The authorities gave it 10 days. Otherwise, Chubarov promised to bring 50-70 to thousands of extremists. In fact, the Majlis was preparing to seize power against the background of the successes of the ideological brothers in Kiev and under their cover.
Ukrainian neo-Nazis also had their own interests: first, to crush the resistance of ideological opponents who would never put up with the Bandera seizure of power, and secondly, just to take revenge on them. Here we must clearly understand that the majority in the Crimea would not have tolerated a coup and the power of the extremist Mejlis, or rather its inadequate elite. Who would forgive the murders of the "Berkutovtsy" and the Crimean activists under the Korsun-Shevchenkovsky February 20? February 26 parties were on the verge of applying weapons. The next time the war would begin.
2) "The fate of the Crimea should be decided only by the" indigenous people. " What is all this nonsense? For a start: the indigenous people in Crimea are not alone. According to all the laws of Ukraine, all citizens were equal in rights. Why is it that the overwhelming minority of the population must decide the fate of the overwhelming majority? Well, then let only the Indians have the right to hold public office in the United States and take part in the elections! Maybe we will arrange a competition: who occupied the territory before and whose ancestors were the first to formalize the right of ownership? This is where the ideology of the Mejlis is similar to the neo-Nazi Bandera, when oppression on a national basis is promoted against the background of ideas of national superiority, chauvinism. The ideas of the “titular nation” and the “indigenous people” are similar in this.
3) "Sanctions against Russia because of the Crimea." Sanctions against Russia - because of Russia. Everything is very simple. After Russia formed a clear foreign policy doctrine, starting with the Syrian conflict, the United States seriously thought. After a break in Syria, the need to eliminate such a strong geopolitical player came out on top in US foreign policy on a par with Ebola and the fight against ISIS, as stated by Barack Obama. True, he said this after Russia had to respond to lawlessness on its borders and to US intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine. So, here just in Crimean phobias there is a lack of chronological chain. The annexation of the Crimea, the support of separatism in the east of Ukraine is the result of the unlawful seizure of power led by the United States. Well, if the United States was so interested in distant Ukraine, that they invested $ 5 billion in it for the “development of democracy”, then why should Russia not show interest in its internal affairs, especially since, due to its geographical location and proximity, become essentially her? I wonder how the States would have behaved if there had been a coup under the leadership of Russian intelligence services somewhere in Mexico, and revolutionaries in the streets threatened the Americans with a "bad luck". Yes, surely there would be an immediate invasion. Actually, Russia could do this in March-April, not only in the Crimea, but also in New Russia, in order to save civilians from a prolonged armed conflict. Although not too late now. But this is another conversation.
The United States would somehow find a reason to impose these sanctions. For example, Russia accepted the fled Yanukovych and did not give it to the mercy of the insane maydanovskoy crowd. And in the event of an armed conflict in Crimea, Russia would still have to intervene to ensure the safety of a large number of its citizens, as well as its servicemen. Those. The USA, by their actions in Ukraine, initially created the conditions under which Russia's reaction was inevitable.
4) "The referendum is illegal and was carried out at gunpoint." I wonder how it would look like ?! Do green men come home to a potential voter, put them in a car, drive them to the polls and force them to tick? Perhaps in the fantasies of Dzhemilev it is. No doubt.
In fact, the “green men” (soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) were designed to ensure order during the referendum, and not the referendum itself. They could be seen only at the central state institutions (Council of Ministers, Supreme Council) and military facilities of the Ukrainian army. And most often from the annoying reporters and onlookers they were separated by rows of local unarmed self-defenders. Here it is important to understand that separatism in the Crimea from the security forces was openly supported only by the “Berkutovtsy”, who were the first to advance along with self-defense to the border with the Kherson region. Well, it was not near the polling stations of Russian soldiers and armed people in general!
And now about the rule of law. One can argue endlessly about the possibility of holding such a referendum on Ukrainian legislation or in the context of international law. It is important to understand that the actions of the Crimeans and Russia have become a response to the illegal Maidan, which trampled the Constitution of Ukraine. Counteraction in response to illegal actions may not always be justified by law, but it is justified by morality, if it allows to save tens of thousands of lives.
5) "Crimeans are disappointed and will soon return to Ukraine." It is very funny to watch as the Crimean phobia cheers up the next news on sanctions against the Crimea by the EU or the US. Crimeans will not be able to buy Apple products in the official store or use Google Play. Oh God! Investments from the EU and the United States will not go to the Crimean business - despite the fact that they almost never went! What a tragedy! Well, now Crimeans will definitely be disappointed with the “occupation” and will express readiness to rush into the arms of Poroshenko and Kolomoisky, begging for forgiveness from the “great heroes of Maidan” and Chubarov with Dzhemilev. Or not?
Of course, prices have increased, but wages and pensions have increased even more. And how many promising new projects are already being implemented in the social sphere, in medicine, in industry ...
Well, about the categorical non-perception of the population of the peninsula of Ukrainian neo-Nazi ideas have already said a lot. There is no point in repeating.
6) "The annexation of the Crimea to Russia did not support the entire" civilized world. " And this is quite interesting. While there is no single concept of civilization and, in fact, uniform criteria for its definition, especially in the regional aspect, the krymofoby claim that there is a certain “civilized world”. Apparently, they mean the most economically developed countries of the West. So, maybe, in terms of GDP per capita, should civilization be determined? Or has the “counter of democracy” been invented? Well, let the West did not support. The West has its own interests and, apparently, is far from similar. Yes, and Western puppets also do not always have the opportunity to declare a different position from their patrons. In addition to 100 countries that voted "in favor" of the UN General Assembly resolution 68 / 262, 11 countries voted "against", 58 "abstained", and 24 did not vote at all. At the same time, the population of the country who voted “for” is approximately only a quarter of the world's population.
It is time to accept the fact that the Crimea has moved to Russia. Forever and ever. Most of the inhabitants of this peninsula showed courage and, with the help of Russian brothers, left brutal mounts abroad. And let the crimpofobs suffer from their ridiculous arguments, powerlessness and their own banal ignorance. This is their choice.
In fact, there is nothing strange that Ukrainian neo-Nazis hate Crimeans so much. The pain of the kick will long remind them of themselves. The racers and their masters did not manage to subjugate part of the country and turn people into slaves, ready to put up with the new Bandera ideology. Although Yanukovych would have been a little braver, the “Golden Eagle” would quickly have distributed to the maydanovtsy in the winter.
For Russophobes from the EU and the US, too, there are no special complaints. The paranoid fear of the revival of the USSR and the “Empire of Evil” forces them to break into hysterics at the slightest success of Russia on the world chessboard.
But the position of some Russians in the Crimea looks very strange. Often they belong to the category of outspoken Russophobes who live in Russia and hate this country. Like this! Live and hate. In short, they look like microbes twitching in an antiseptic.
If we summarize all the ardent opponents of the annexation of the Crimea, then a new term comes out - “krymofoby”. In a word Crimeophobes are citizens who are poorly versed in the political situation, unable to carry out in-depth analysis of current events and objectively evaluate information from various sources about events in Ukraine, the Crimea, Russia and the world as a whole, as well as independently build a chronological chain of events to detect cause-effect relationships.
And now it is worth understanding: what is the absurdity of the position of people who hate the Crimeans and those who supported them in their desire to live peacefully? The points:
1) "Crimeans went to Russia for money, they were not threatened by anything." Not. Crimeans went to Russia for peace. However, according to the Crimeophobes, the Crimeans were not in danger. Nothing?
And here is the banal ignorance of the facts. 24 February 2014 on the air of the 112 channel, one of the leaders of the neo-Nazi group Social-National Assembly (included in the Right Sector, now tied to the Azov battalion), Igor Mosiychuk announced that he would send “friendship trains” to Crimea case of attempted separatism. The day before, the organized criminal group of the Mejlis at the rally demanded to dissolve the Crimean parliament and change the Constitution, as well as to demolish the monument to Lenin in the center of Simferopol. The authorities gave it 10 days. Otherwise, Chubarov promised to bring 50-70 to thousands of extremists. In fact, the Majlis was preparing to seize power against the background of the successes of the ideological brothers in Kiev and under their cover.
Ukrainian neo-Nazis also had their own interests: first, to crush the resistance of ideological opponents who would never put up with the Bandera seizure of power, and secondly, just to take revenge on them. Here we must clearly understand that the majority in the Crimea would not have tolerated a coup and the power of the extremist Mejlis, or rather its inadequate elite. Who would forgive the murders of the "Berkutovtsy" and the Crimean activists under the Korsun-Shevchenkovsky February 20? February 26 parties were on the verge of applying weapons. The next time the war would begin.
2) "The fate of the Crimea should be decided only by the" indigenous people. " What is all this nonsense? For a start: the indigenous people in Crimea are not alone. According to all the laws of Ukraine, all citizens were equal in rights. Why is it that the overwhelming minority of the population must decide the fate of the overwhelming majority? Well, then let only the Indians have the right to hold public office in the United States and take part in the elections! Maybe we will arrange a competition: who occupied the territory before and whose ancestors were the first to formalize the right of ownership? This is where the ideology of the Mejlis is similar to the neo-Nazi Bandera, when oppression on a national basis is promoted against the background of ideas of national superiority, chauvinism. The ideas of the “titular nation” and the “indigenous people” are similar in this.
3) "Sanctions against Russia because of the Crimea." Sanctions against Russia - because of Russia. Everything is very simple. After Russia formed a clear foreign policy doctrine, starting with the Syrian conflict, the United States seriously thought. After a break in Syria, the need to eliminate such a strong geopolitical player came out on top in US foreign policy on a par with Ebola and the fight against ISIS, as stated by Barack Obama. True, he said this after Russia had to respond to lawlessness on its borders and to US intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine. So, here just in Crimean phobias there is a lack of chronological chain. The annexation of the Crimea, the support of separatism in the east of Ukraine is the result of the unlawful seizure of power led by the United States. Well, if the United States was so interested in distant Ukraine, that they invested $ 5 billion in it for the “development of democracy”, then why should Russia not show interest in its internal affairs, especially since, due to its geographical location and proximity, become essentially her? I wonder how the States would have behaved if there had been a coup under the leadership of Russian intelligence services somewhere in Mexico, and revolutionaries in the streets threatened the Americans with a "bad luck". Yes, surely there would be an immediate invasion. Actually, Russia could do this in March-April, not only in the Crimea, but also in New Russia, in order to save civilians from a prolonged armed conflict. Although not too late now. But this is another conversation.
The United States would somehow find a reason to impose these sanctions. For example, Russia accepted the fled Yanukovych and did not give it to the mercy of the insane maydanovskoy crowd. And in the event of an armed conflict in Crimea, Russia would still have to intervene to ensure the safety of a large number of its citizens, as well as its servicemen. Those. The USA, by their actions in Ukraine, initially created the conditions under which Russia's reaction was inevitable.
4) "The referendum is illegal and was carried out at gunpoint." I wonder how it would look like ?! Do green men come home to a potential voter, put them in a car, drive them to the polls and force them to tick? Perhaps in the fantasies of Dzhemilev it is. No doubt.
In fact, the “green men” (soldiers of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation) were designed to ensure order during the referendum, and not the referendum itself. They could be seen only at the central state institutions (Council of Ministers, Supreme Council) and military facilities of the Ukrainian army. And most often from the annoying reporters and onlookers they were separated by rows of local unarmed self-defenders. Here it is important to understand that separatism in the Crimea from the security forces was openly supported only by the “Berkutovtsy”, who were the first to advance along with self-defense to the border with the Kherson region. Well, it was not near the polling stations of Russian soldiers and armed people in general!
And now about the rule of law. One can argue endlessly about the possibility of holding such a referendum on Ukrainian legislation or in the context of international law. It is important to understand that the actions of the Crimeans and Russia have become a response to the illegal Maidan, which trampled the Constitution of Ukraine. Counteraction in response to illegal actions may not always be justified by law, but it is justified by morality, if it allows to save tens of thousands of lives.
5) "Crimeans are disappointed and will soon return to Ukraine." It is very funny to watch as the Crimean phobia cheers up the next news on sanctions against the Crimea by the EU or the US. Crimeans will not be able to buy Apple products in the official store or use Google Play. Oh God! Investments from the EU and the United States will not go to the Crimean business - despite the fact that they almost never went! What a tragedy! Well, now Crimeans will definitely be disappointed with the “occupation” and will express readiness to rush into the arms of Poroshenko and Kolomoisky, begging for forgiveness from the “great heroes of Maidan” and Chubarov with Dzhemilev. Or not?
Of course, prices have increased, but wages and pensions have increased even more. And how many promising new projects are already being implemented in the social sphere, in medicine, in industry ...
Well, about the categorical non-perception of the population of the peninsula of Ukrainian neo-Nazi ideas have already said a lot. There is no point in repeating.
6) "The annexation of the Crimea to Russia did not support the entire" civilized world. " And this is quite interesting. While there is no single concept of civilization and, in fact, uniform criteria for its definition, especially in the regional aspect, the krymofoby claim that there is a certain “civilized world”. Apparently, they mean the most economically developed countries of the West. So, maybe, in terms of GDP per capita, should civilization be determined? Or has the “counter of democracy” been invented? Well, let the West did not support. The West has its own interests and, apparently, is far from similar. Yes, and Western puppets also do not always have the opportunity to declare a different position from their patrons. In addition to 100 countries that voted "in favor" of the UN General Assembly resolution 68 / 262, 11 countries voted "against", 58 "abstained", and 24 did not vote at all. At the same time, the population of the country who voted “for” is approximately only a quarter of the world's population.
It is time to accept the fact that the Crimea has moved to Russia. Forever and ever. Most of the inhabitants of this peninsula showed courage and, with the help of Russian brothers, left brutal mounts abroad. And let the crimpofobs suffer from their ridiculous arguments, powerlessness and their own banal ignorance. This is their choice.
Information