Not an inch of land: why in Russia they seek to ban the transfer of territories


It is no secret that in difficult times there were always those who wanted to bite their piece off the territory of Russia. To make matters worse, sometimes they were indulged by weak and crafty rulers. So, in 1991, in the Bialowieza Forest, “three peasants of the USSR collapsed”, and, by the way, no one handcuffed them for this. Is it possible in principle to exclude the possibility of manipulation and speculation on the issue of belonging to any territory of the Russian Federation with the introduction of severe criminal liability in relation to decision-makers?


This question was unexpectedly for many publicly posed by the famous Russian actor Vladimir Mashkov during the discussion of the rewriting of the Constitution. According to him, he focuses on the concern of ordinary people and the statements of some political scientists in the foreign press:

While Putin is president, we can do nothing. But after the presidency moves to another person, a beautiful wording opens - a “window of opportunity”. Let’s take the opportunity to take the Kuril Islands, for example, someone pretends to the territory of Crimea, and someone even looks at Kaliningrad.

In fact, Mashkov very clearly identified those territories where problems could theoretically arise: Crimea, the Kuril Islands and Kaliningrad. If you think about it, then the fears are not so baseless. Let us try to imagine how these regions can be hypothetically lost by us.

Kurile Islands


Unfortunately, the reason for discussing this topic was given by President Putin himself in the fall of 2018, unexpectedly for everyone starting to “pedal” the issue of a peace treaty with Japan. At the same time, there was a clear link with the 1956 Joint Declaration, according to which Tokyo could well count on getting Shikotan Island and a group of Habomai Islands. Fortunately, popular discontent was so strong that this topic in 2019 until the best of times was removed from sight.

However, these times may not be so distant. So, we some time ago toldthat the Japanese edition of Sankei Shimbun reassured its worried readers by proposing to take a break and focus on the post-Putin period. And this is already 2024, that is, very soon. It is already clear that Vladimir Putin is likely to remain in power as head of the Council of State, and the responsibility for the unpopular decision, if adopted, will already fall on someone else.

Crimea


Of course, under Putin, the transfer of the peninsula back to Ukraine is unthinkable. But the accelerated process of rewriting the Constitution testifies to the fact that within domestic political "Elites" began tectonic shifts. Until 2024, another 4 difficult years amid falling oil prices, problems with gas projects and the growing crisis in China the economy. So, it is still unknown how everything will turn out eventually.

If as a result of an undercover struggle of the “elites” Putin will be replaced by a systemic liberal, then the issue of Crimea can be considered from a different angle. In exchange for lifting sanctions and improving relations with the West, domestic liberals may well transfer the peninsula to some tricky regime of joint management with Ukraine and the subsequent creeping expansion of the Kiev administration back.

Kaliningrad


Kaliningrad Oblast is the most important Russian enclave in Europe. It poses a serious threat to NATO, and no one will surrender it for nothing. But something like this is hypothetically possible as a result of a military clash with the North Atlantic Alliance. NATO regularly conducts exercises to block and capture the enclave. The conflict may begin with a border incident and go on the path of escalation.

Yes, we believe that just a little, we will erase “decision centers” into nuclear dust. By the way, as a result of the retaliatory strike of the West, we ourselves will become the same dust. How realistic is such a tough scenario if systemic liberals literally pray to this very West come to power?

It is possible that the parties may “for decency” exchange a few tactical nuclear weapons. By the way, the United States just put on ballistic missiles with low-power nuclear warheads, which we told earlier. After the leaders of some Germany or France persuade the domestic liberals to stop and not arrange the Apocalypse. As a result of negotiations, liberals may well go for the demilitarization of Kaliningrad “for the sake of peace on the whole Earth”, or even transfer it to the control of the world community in the person of the United Nations, or something like that.

Of course, all these are the most extreme scenarios that do not have to be realized. And let's hope that they never come true. But the proposal of Vladimir Mashkov, perhaps, is very appropriate and timely.
Used photos: kremlin.ru
Ctrl Enter

Noticed oshЫbku Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

15 comments
Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in

  1. 123 Offline
    123 (123) 17 February 2020 13: 18
    +1
    • 3
    • 2
    Of course, under Putin, transferring the peninsula back to Ukraine is unthinkable. But the accelerated process of rewriting the Constitution indicates that tectonic shifts began within the domestic political “elites”. Until 2024, another 4 difficult years amid falling oil prices, problems with gas projects and the growing crisis in the Chinese economy. So it is still unknown how everything will turn out eventually.

    In my opinion, there is no accelerated rewriting of the Constitution and these changes are easily explained by completely different reasons. Do not be offended, but the conclusion about the tectonic shift of political "elites", especially in this direction, is far-fetched. Fortunately, the victorious procession of liberalism is not observed. The thesis about the upcoming "not simple", from the point of view of the economy, is also very controversial.
  2. Marzhecki Online
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 17 February 2020 13: 33
    +1
    • 2
    • 1
    Quote: 123
    In my opinion, there is no accelerated rewriting of the Constitution and these changes are easily explained by completely different reasons.

    I'm not offended, This is just the opinion of the reader under the nickname 123. smile
  3. Marzhecki Online
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 17 February 2020 13: 42
    +4
    • 4
    • 0
    Quote: 123
    the conclusion about the tectonic shift of political "elites", especially in this direction, is far-fetched. Fortunately, the victorious procession of liberalism is not observed.

    Judge of the Constitutional Court (Constitutional Court) Konstantin Aranovsky said that the Russian Federation should not be considered the legal successor of the "repressive-terrorist acts" of the Soviet government. The newspaper “Kommersant” drew attention to this.
    According to Aranovsky, the Russian Federation is replacing the “illegally created” state on its territory, so it has to “reckon with the consequences of its activities”, including political repressions.

    https://lenta.ru/news/2020/02/17/sssr/

    Convenient thing, the Internet. And this is the opinion of a judge of the Constitutional Court, who should protect the foundations of the Constitutional system of the Russian Federation. request
    What did you say there, well, about liberalism?

    PS By the way, if we continue the logic and be consistent, then the Russian Federation, it turns out, does not have the right to be the legal successor in relation to the repressively captured Kuril and Koenigsberg, so it turns out?
    1. Bulanov Offline
      Bulanov (Vladimir) 17 February 2020 14: 00
      +3
      • 3
      • 0
      If the Russian Federation is not the legal successor of the USSR, then it is logical to assume that it is the legal successor of the Russian Empire of the 1913 model (in addition, the coat of arms and flag are returned), and based on this, Poland, Finland, and the former republics of the Soviet Socialist Republic again depart to the Russian Empire. True, Kaliningrad with the Kuril Islands and half of Sakhalin will have to give up, but the rest will have to be turned back. Is the "global community" ready for this step?
    2. 123 Offline
      123 (123) 17 February 2020 16: 34
      0
      • 1
      • 1
      Thanks for the link, hi looked ...

      According to Aranovsky, the Russian Federation is replacing the “illegally created” state on its territory, so it has to “reckon with the consequences of its activities”, including political repressions.

      You will still laugh, but there is a certain logic in his words. laughing From a legal point of view, the USSR was indeed created illegally and again modern Russia still has to reckon with the consequences of its activities. Here, as they say, not diminish not add.
      Follow the link:

      The judge believes that the rehabilitation of victims of reprisals cannot be considered as compensation for harm by the perpetrator, since this “makes the succession controversial with the transfer to Russia of the obligations of the communist-Soviet government and its repressive and terrorist acts”. According to Aranovsky, Russia should have the constitutional status of a state that is “not involved in totalitarian crimes either“ personally ”or in succession, because it was recreated“ against the totalitarian regime and in its place ”.

      It is difficult to judge without reading the entire text, perhaps it means the lack of succession specifically in the part of “totalitarian crimes”, but how this is possible is a mystery to me. It's like being a little pregnant. Here we read, here we don’t read, here we wrap the fish .... Either you are the assignee or not. Quite a strange position for a qualified lawyer. Given that I have no complaints at all about his third quote (see below), the situation is rather strange .... belay as if the other person is talking. What exactly Aranovsky meant was a mystery to me. recourse
      In my opinion, this phrase should be considered in the context, unfortunately, I still can’t get to the source "Komersant" (the second day I’m tormented with a router, some of the sites are simply not accessible). In general, while I find it difficult to assess, on the basis of only her label "liberal" to hang prematurely. It is necessary to understand and delve into. Moreover, the publication itself does not cause much confidence.

      Earlier, Aranovsky criticized the modern system of higher education in Russia. According to Aranovsky, improvements in education that last about 30 years are still controversial and there is still no trust in diplomas. In the modern educational system, teachers have to fill out a lot of documents. In addition, it is not teaching that is valued, but educational and methodical complexes that are needed not by "students and teachers, but by services, so that they feel good and remain in an advantageous position on important matters."

      By the way, if we continue the logic and be consistent, then the Russian Federation, it turns out, does not have the right to be the legal successor in relation to the repressively captured Kuril and Koenigsberg, so it turns out?

      To be consistent and to continue the logic, in the sense that if we are not the successors, it is still worse. But, I repeat, I would like to first read the source, as I get to it, I will unsubscribe additionally.
      1. Bulanov Offline
        Bulanov (Vladimir) 18 February 2020 09: 37
        +1
        • 1
        • 0
        If the USSR is not an assignee, then the Republic of France is not an assignee! They executed the king, drowned France in blood ...
    3. Oleg Rambover Online
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 19 February 2020 22: 55
      -1
      • 0
      • 1
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      What did you say there, well, about liberalism?

      But it’s interesting, you refer to whom the guarantor?

      https://tass.ru/obschestvo/7796783

      https://www.rbc.ru/politics/19/01/2014/570416189a794761c0ce5bf4
  4. Marzhecki Online
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 17 February 2020 14: 04
    +3
    • 3
    • 0
    Quote: Bulanov
    ..logically, assume that it is the legal successor of the Russian Empire of the 1913 model (in addition, the coat of arms and flag are returned), and based on this, Poland, Finland, and the former republics of the Soviet Socialist Republic again go to the Russian Empire.

    One does not follow from the other. Nobody will really give anything to us. But to pick up with aiding internal forces - easily. It will be easier for the West to imagine the Russian Federation as a “terrorist" aggressor state, which in principle has no right to anything. And the statements of the judge of the Constitutional Court only condone this. And this is the representative of the third branch of state. authorities.
  5. steelmaker Offline
    steelmaker 17 February 2020 14: 53
    0
    • 1
    • 1
    I think we do not have the main thing - IDEOLOGY. It was the lack of ideology in 1991 that contributed to the collapse of the USSR, despite the referendum. It was the correct ideology that contributed to the formation of the USSR. And when Putin himself begins to negotiate the transfer of the Kuril Islands, when the Donbass is forcibly forced to remain part of Ukraine, when Russia builds gas pipelines for Europe and Turkey for its money, and forces its citizens to pay everything (580 thousand rubles per house).
    CONCLUSION: When people come to power without shame and conscience, no referenda and amendments to the Constitution will save! Ideologically literate people should be in power. And the first thing that indicates that a person is ideologically brought up correctly is FAMILY and BUSINESS should be in RUSSIA!
    1. A.Lex Offline
      A.Lex (Secret information) 17 February 2020 20: 33
      0
      • 1
      • 1
      Stalevar, you were initially wrong - there was an ideology in the USSR. And the collapse of the USSR did not happen for a reason

      lack of ideology in 1991

      but because of the betrayal of the elites. This "elite" wanted to convert their power into loot - which they did.
  6. Oleg Rambover Online
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 17 February 2020 15: 13
    0
    • 0
    • 0
    The constitution is generally a liberal concept.
  7. Marzhecki Online
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 18 February 2020 06: 58
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    Quote: 123
    From a legal point of view, the USSR was indeed created illegally and again modern Russia still has to reckon with the consequences of its activities. Here, as they say, not diminish not add.

    Cool terminology is the legal creation of a state. How many countries were so created?
    1. 123 Offline
      123 (123) 18 February 2020 09: 57
      +1
      • 1
      • 0
      Cool terminology is the legal creation of a state. How many countries were so created?

      No, of course, for example, the United States, those are still “separs,” and even our power was often transferred not “feng shui”, palace coups are not an isolated case, the USSR collapsed, as a result of 15 such states. As for the specific case with Aranovsky, I still find it difficult to assess, I need to delve into what exactly he meant (I still have problems with the Internet). Here you have next to him Neukropny him "anathema" sings, deservedly or not, I do not know yet what
  8. Observer2014 Offline
    Observer2014 18 February 2020 09: 51
    +1
    • 1
    • 0
    Not an inch of land: why in Russia they seek to ban the transfer of territories

    Because Gorbachev set a bad example of how to get a pension. We don’t want to worry anymore about the fact that a person who finds himself in a political period of a country for some period of historical time will wander into his head.
  9. Wanderer039 Offline
    Wanderer039 18 February 2020 19: 47
    +3
    • 3
    • 0
    In Russia, the majority are sick of Yeltsin and his ilk ... Anyone who begins to merge the interests and territories of Russia will end worse than Nicholas II ... I suppose he will be hanged!