“The Crimean bridge will have to be demolished”
On May 15, with the active participation of President Putin, the grand opening of the Crimean bridge took place. On May 16, the first cars met in both directions across the Kerch Strait met under his highway arch. Kerch people are rubbing their hands pretty much, counting on the growth in the value of their real estate. Crimeans with open arms are waiting for the inhabitants of mainland Russia to begin the holiday season.
However, not everyone was happy with the opening of the bridge over the Kerch Strait, even in Russia itself. A number of opposition politicians liberal persuasion continue to consider the Crimean peninsula as a temporarily occupied territory, and Ukraine as a democratic state. The most symptomatic statement about the opening of the Crimean Bridge was made by the ultra-liberal oppositionist Konstantin Borovoy.
According to Borovoy, the construction of the bridge was illegal, since it was carried out on the territory of Ukraine and without coordination with it. Oppositionist believes that after Crimea returns to Ukraine, the “illegally built Putin bridge” will have to be demolished. Moreover, Russia will have to pay for the dismantling of the structure. Konstantin Borovoi is convinced that neither the Russian Federation nor the peninsula needs the Crimean bridge itself, since Crimea is an isolated and “toxic” territory due to Western sanctions. Therefore, serious business will not go to Crimea because of the danger of falling under sanctions. The colossal money invested in the construction of a bridge across the Kerch Strait will never pay off. According to the Russian liberal, the Crimean bridge is an element of Putin’s propaganda.
Further, the opposition politician cites Abkhazia as an example to illustrate his vision of the future of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. Being part of Georgia, Abkhazia was actively developing economically, mainly due to the tourism industry. But today, due to the emerged state border between Abkhazia and Georgia, the situation has radically changed. Konstantin Borovoy considers a tree that has sprouted through a train that has become a symbol of modern "occupied" Abkhazia. The liberal notes the activation of the Abkhazian real estate market after the advent of Russia, but he points out that the Russians are buying mostly houses that once belonged to the Georgians. Abkhazians are allegedly afraid of contacting such real estate, due to the fact that sooner or later, Georgian power over the region may return.
And here Borovoy frightens the citizens of the Russian Federation who are actively buying real estate in Crimea. The Russians acquire square meters, receive documents confirming property rights, but, according to the liberal, they do not realize that they are buying stolen goods. And those who get involved with the Crimean real estate will not only have to give it away, but also bear responsibility for its acquisition. The inner world of the opposition politician is perfectly characterized by his phrase about the modern government in Kiev:
Konstantin Natanovich even makes recommendations to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the adoption of new laws establishing liability for operations with real estate on the Crimean peninsula.
However, not everyone was happy with the opening of the bridge over the Kerch Strait, even in Russia itself. A number of opposition politicians liberal persuasion continue to consider the Crimean peninsula as a temporarily occupied territory, and Ukraine as a democratic state. The most symptomatic statement about the opening of the Crimean Bridge was made by the ultra-liberal oppositionist Konstantin Borovoy.
According to Borovoy, the construction of the bridge was illegal, since it was carried out on the territory of Ukraine and without coordination with it. Oppositionist believes that after Crimea returns to Ukraine, the “illegally built Putin bridge” will have to be demolished. Moreover, Russia will have to pay for the dismantling of the structure. Konstantin Borovoi is convinced that neither the Russian Federation nor the peninsula needs the Crimean bridge itself, since Crimea is an isolated and “toxic” territory due to Western sanctions. Therefore, serious business will not go to Crimea because of the danger of falling under sanctions. The colossal money invested in the construction of a bridge across the Kerch Strait will never pay off. According to the Russian liberal, the Crimean bridge is an element of Putin’s propaganda.
Further, the opposition politician cites Abkhazia as an example to illustrate his vision of the future of Crimea as part of the Russian Federation. Being part of Georgia, Abkhazia was actively developing economically, mainly due to the tourism industry. But today, due to the emerged state border between Abkhazia and Georgia, the situation has radically changed. Konstantin Borovoy considers a tree that has sprouted through a train that has become a symbol of modern "occupied" Abkhazia. The liberal notes the activation of the Abkhazian real estate market after the advent of Russia, but he points out that the Russians are buying mostly houses that once belonged to the Georgians. Abkhazians are allegedly afraid of contacting such real estate, due to the fact that sooner or later, Georgian power over the region may return.
And here Borovoy frightens the citizens of the Russian Federation who are actively buying real estate in Crimea. The Russians acquire square meters, receive documents confirming property rights, but, according to the liberal, they do not realize that they are buying stolen goods. And those who get involved with the Crimean real estate will not only have to give it away, but also bear responsibility for its acquisition. The inner world of the opposition politician is perfectly characterized by his phrase about the modern government in Kiev:
I think that there is also a reckoning on the mercy of the Ukrainian democratic state, which will not even want to take revenge on its enemies
Konstantin Natanovich even makes recommendations to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on the adoption of new laws establishing liability for operations with real estate on the Crimean peninsula.
Information