President Putin-2036: are there any other options?

March 11 2020 64

Instantly become political news No. 1 not only in Russia but also in the world, the decision of the State Duma to “nullify” the presidential term of the current head of state after amending the Constitution instantly overshadowed even the drop in stock quotes for oil and the latest reports from the global “coronavirus front”.

What names did not receive this event from commentators, journalists, politicians and experts: from the "milestone that saved the country" to the "unconstitutional coup" and the "establishment of a lifelong dictatorship". Indeed, it’s worth at least trying to understand the situation, if not completely impartially, then at least minimizing emotions and personal sympathies with antipathies. So what did happen?

Captain stays on the bridge

I’ll start with a deliberately provocative question: “Did you actually expect anything else?” Indeed, they thought that after all those long years that he spent “at the helm” of Russia, Vladimir Vladimirovich, despite everything that is happening today in the world around us, will give up his hand, spit and slam the Kremlin’s door, finally giving out something like: "You are evil, evil ... I will leave you"? The man gave his life to the Case that fell on his shoulders in 2000. All over. His. Life ... And now he, that, must modestly leave and observe from the side - what will come of it all? You can argue as much as you like, break your spears and tear your throats, figuring out whether Putin is “good” or “bad” (although such children's categories are not applicable to the rulers of world powers in principle), deciding what he did for Russia and what he could not. However, at the same time, two postulates remain completely unshakable, if you do not resort to completely terrible distortions and outright fraud. First, today Russia is in a much stronger (the key word is “strong”) position - military, economic, geopolitical, than two decades ago. Open any statistical collection - everything is written there. And, by the way, during this time the country has not lost an inch of land, but, on the contrary, has grown with it. Second: hypothetically striving for a change of power, whom do you propose for a vacant place? I humbly ask you not to offer Navalny with Kasparov humbly - let's not turn the conversation into a clownery. Again, one can hoarsely wage verbal battles about how bad it is that the current president does not have a real, indisputable and worthy successor today. However, in this way we only emphasize the obvious - at the moment it does not exist.

And what do you want to do in this case? Act on "maybe"? Hoping that the “heir”, who came to power after the leader, who had really abruptly and decisively changed the life of the country, would at least not let everything he had dust, ruin and destroy Russia, just as the last Secretary General had destroyed all that was immune to all external enemies Soviet Union? Is the risk too great? The price of error here will be, perhaps, not just unacceptable, but fatal. Moreover, domestic history gives us a lot of examples of how this can all happen. The half-century reign of Ivan the Terrible, strengthening Russia and pushing its limits, ended without a worthy successor - and the country fell into trouble, almost destroying it. The 30-year (without one year) reign of Peter the Great, ascended to the throne of the kingdom and left the Empire to the descendants. The chilling hand of the ruler, who does not have a name in order to continue the phrase: “Give everything back ...” And again the troubled times, a series of coups, are by no means the best years for the country. Then two brilliant reigns of Empresses - Elizabeth and Catherine, in 20 and 34 years. It is not without reason that they will call this century “golden” - it was during it that Russia turned into a world power, was crowned with numerous military victories and, again, significantly expanded its borders. Alas, there were no worthy successors to the great rulers. Well, let alone a story closer to us. The lack of a personality capable of upholding and continuing the era of Stalin, the greatest for our state, led to the fact that in 1953 the unprecedented rise of the first Soviet state in the world ended, promising a completely different story to the world. Everything else was, in fact, already a fall, which ended in 1991 with the collapse to which the Red Empire was led by the most degenerate successor to the Supreme.

Who doesn’t change at the crossing

However, considering the topic of long reigns and lack of continuity, one can escape from purely domestic examples and turn to international experience. Naturally, taking for comparison the very “democratic West” that loves so much to chastise Russia (and not only) with the “irremovability of power”. Charles de Gaulle ruled post-war France, having been in various senior government posts for at least 15 years. Chancellor Konrad Adenauer headed post-war Germany from 1949 to 1963. And, by the way, the German chancellors can give odds to many in terms of the number of political “long-livers”: Helmut Kohl’s 16-year rule and Angela Merkel, who has been assuming this position since 2005, is completely inconsistent. Well, and finally, the “world citadel of democracy” is the United States. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was at the head of the country from 1933 to 1945 and his reign was interrupted not by re-elections, but death. This man led the Americans through the most difficult years of their history, and it would not occur to anyone to reproach him for his “love of power” or his desire to remain in the White House at all costs. “At the crossing”, during wars, upheavals, crises and cataclysms, they don’t change, sorry for a rough comparison, not only of the horses, but also of the country's leaders. Well, of course, with the exception of those cases when, due to their utter mediocrity and incompetence, to save the state, it is just necessary to eliminate the “helmsman” who is turning the wrong things from the authorities ... However, such things invariably appear already at the initial term of government. Anyone who at the very beginning did not “break his neck,” like a politician, and did not ditch the country, is surely worthy to lead it further. However, this was exactly what Vladimir Vladimirovich directly said from the rostrum of the State Duma, specifying that the forced change of power is suitable only for peaceful, calm and well-fed times, in which the change of “first persons” does not threaten cataclysms of a national level.

Judging by the way the Western media together, who were full of publications about the "eternal Putin" (and now he will be able to rule right up to 2036), and how briskly the domestic "democratic community" quickly set about calling Russia if not to an ax, then to "Rabies", expressed in pickets and rallies, everything is done right. Why is the West shaking? Yes, because the president recently, at the mention of the Great Patriotic War, again threw him in the face: “Just try! We will repeat ... ”, adding to this the words of Alexander Nevsky about the fate of those who came to our land with a sword. They clearly made it clear: this one - maybe ... There was hope for others, more “negotiable”, but now she, sorry, was blown away. “I'm not tired and I'm not leaving” - these are the words in the West that were most afraid to hear. And they heard ... Our dear liberals, “people's sadnesses” and fighters for all good things against all bad things, are upset to impossibility. They are threatened with “long-term stagnation” and “leakage” from the country of everything that can leak. Konstantin Fomin, a spokesman for Open Russia, clicks: they say that “there is no future” in a country where “power has not changed for more than 20 years!” Does the state where power is seized, if not for 20 years, but at least for 2 years, trepachki, narcissistic posers, and, besides, through one - foreign agents, especially not hiding their own venality, does he have a future? And if so, which one? For some reason, it seems that exactly what we all got in 1991 and from which we got out of violence is, not least because of the very “irremovable” against which today Russians are called to rebel against logic and common sense. Well, everything is clear with these - I really wanted to seize power, and Vladimir Vladimirovich said how he cut off: “Russia has fulfilled the plan for revolutions!” For all the gangs affiliated with the embassies and NGOs, this is a verdict, of course. And for the country - salvation.

Let me repeat myself: regardless of personal approval or censure of certain specific actions or decisions of the Kremlin, any sane person will have to admit that today a radical change in the country's course is possible only in the form of its surrender to the West. In the form of surrendering everything that all the last years believed in, for which they were rooting and fighting. All then will be in vain - and the "Crimean Spring", and the blood shed in the sands of Syria and the steppes of Donbass. Life contrary to sanctions, our unwillingness to “bend” under someone and the desire to prove to the whole world that the Russians are not giving up, “Immortal Regiment” and Victory Day, August 2008 and March 2014 — all this will be written off, recognized “Wrong” and “wrong”. If not, if we intend to continue to pursue our own course, and not what we are trying to impose on us from Washington, Brussels or elsewhere, then what kind of sense in the ritual change of surnames? Already played these games for the sake of it is not clear to anyone, that's enough. There are simply no other alternatives to the current leader and his course, other ways for Russia that do not lead to a dead end or to the brink of an abyss. They will appear - then there will be something to discuss. In the meantime, we rejoice that the country, apparently, does not expect "Perestroika" 2.0 - at least in the coming years. Whoever doesn’t like it can go to a rally, don’t go to vote on April 22nd and continue whining about the “eternal Putin”. The normal ones, I think, felt relieved from the heart. Will it be better - see. It certainly won’t be worse.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Arkharov

-1

11 March 2020 08: 53

Of course have. For example, one of them: wait for the end, or voluntarily resign and announce new democratic elections.
1. Marzhecki
  
  +3
  
  11 March 2020 09: 20
  
  In jurisprudence there is such a concept as "the spirit of the law."
  The provision on the prohibition of 1 and the same person and his team in power for more than 2 terms is rather loosely interpreted by one "lawyer from St. Petersburg".
  1. Regis
    
    0
    
    11 March 2020 12: 33
    
    Democracy is an invention of the Rockefellers and other Morgan and Rothschilds. As W. Churchill said - "democracy is the most vile form of government." Tell me, which of the presidents and their team has reported at least once in their five years and, God forbid, were responsible for their period of government? Do you need "checkers", Marzhetsky, or go? So let Navalny be pushed into the presidency ... I think that in half a year the Ukrainian Nazis will be sitting in the "stalls" with popcorn because all the circles of hell will open up over Russia ... , because this is her death, my country and my people. And people like you like to say that everything is being done wrong, but they do not know how to do it right, they do not know how and do not want to. Their lot is chatter and writing.
    1. Oleg Rambover
      
      +2
      
      11 March 2020 15: 21
      
      Quote: Regis
      ..democracy is the most meager form of government
      
      You are not quite accurate, it was said this way:
      
      Democracy is the worst form of government, except for everyone else.
      1. Regis
        
        +1
        
        11 March 2020 15: 49
        
        And what has changed besides the wording? Content? So the further into the forest, the "thicker the guerrillas", the further away, the more democracy resembles a fire in a brothel during a flood ...
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -1
        
        11 March 2020 17: 21
        
        Quote: Regis
        And what has changed, apart from the wording? Content?
        
        Actually, yes, it says that everyone else is even worse.
        
        Quote: Regis
        So the further into the forest, the "thicker the guerrillas", the further away, the more democracy resembles a fire in a brothel during a flood ...
        
        It’s hard to understand what you mean, but it’s hard to deny that people’s life has been improving lately. There are no major frontal wars with millions of victims, famine has receded from most countries of the world, people live longer, people live richer. There are problems, there is great inequality across countries, but humanity has never in history lived as good as it is now. And Churchill himself refutes your idea that democracy is an invention, he was not re-elected.
        Korean president was convicted, Berlusconi, Nixon.
        
        Regis
        
        0
        
        11 March 2020 18: 02
        
        The question is - what were they convicted for? For failure to fulfill their pre-election promises or for the fact that the state, headed by them, has lost economic and social indicators? Do not be cunning, they were convicted of personal crimes in the heat of the pre-election "democratic" struggle. Well, their competitors would be cleaner and more honest ...
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        +1
        
        11 March 2020 19: 53
        
        Quote: Regis
        For failure to fulfill their election promises
        
        I doubt that somewhere there is a criminal article for unfulfilled promises. They are usually not re-elected, others come to power. Why is irremovable power better in this regard, I wonder?
        
        Regis
        
        +1
        
        12 March 2020 09: 23
        
        Do not confuse God with righteous. We are not discussing the criminal procedure code, but we are talking about responsibility, or rather, about the irresponsibility of democratically elected politicians. There is no ideal system of government. Under a monarchy, in most cases, an adequate monarch thought that he would leave to descendants. But in a democracy, that the mayor of a small town, that the president of the country, cannot really do anything in 4-5 years, and if he is replaced by a politician of the opposite camp, then, as a rule, he cancels out all the initiatives of his predecessor and everything starts all over again. Nobody talks about irreplaceable power. Let the same Putin be elected as he wants, if the majority votes for him. The rest, i.e. the minority, let them do what they want - this is their problem. I personally call this problem the problem of the late Soviet people - "I want to live like in an American cinema," now and immediately, but they do not want to plow in the American way. For some reason, urban scum (the so-called creative professions, which have never created anything comparable to the Soviet period, do not count Pavlensky's nailed eggs) and schoolchildren with students, mainly from humanitarian universities, are indignant and jumping at rallies.
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -2
        
        12 March 2020 15: 08
        
        Quote: Regis
        There is no ideal power system.
        
        Undoubtedly, ceteris paribus, democracy is better than everyone else.
        
        Quote: Regis
        Under the monarchy, in most cases, an adequate monarch thought he would leave to descendants.
        
        This is a strange statement for a person living in Russia. Nicholas II also dreamed of leaving the empire to his son. Where are those monarchies? You can count them on the finger of one hand. If they were so effective, they would not die out as a class.
        
        Quote: Regis
        But under democracy - that the mayor of the provincial town, that the president of the country, for 4-5 years will not be able to do anything really, and if he is replaced by a politician of the opposite camp, then, as a rule, he crosses out all the undertakings of his predecessor and everything starts all over again.
        
        This problem is solved by a developed party system. So that the next party representative will continue the policy of his predecessor.
        Here we take our situation. Vladimir Vladimirovich has led the Russian economy to a standstill, population incomes have been falling for 6 years, for 20 years he has not been able to create a non-resource-based economy, but apparently he is not going to leave. In my opinion, this is wrong.
        
        Quote: Regis
        Putin himself should be elected as much as he wants, if the majority votes for him.
        
        So in the end are you all the same for democracy?
        
        Quote: Regis
        For some reason, the city scum (the so-called creative professions that have not created anything at least comparable to the Soviet period, except for the nailed eggs of Pavlensky) and schoolchildren with students from mostly humanitarian universities are indignant and jumping at rallies.
        
        The modern economy needs fewer workers, for this scum is the future (all over the world).
        
        Regis
        
        +1
        
        12 March 2020 15: 58
        
        No, I am not for democracy, I am against it, but I understand perfectly well that in order to change the opinion, time must pass, and "democracy" must show itself "in all its glory."
        The "modern economy" of the Western persuasion, which has almost completely discredited itself, which is now frantically looking for someone to rob in order to get out of the beginning crisis.
        And no need to play with words, "scum" is the creative lumpen proletariat, parasitizing on the economy, and all this blogging gang-fraternity.
        As for Nicholas II, yes, the sovereign was not brilliant. But here the case is not typical, the Anglo-Saxons just removed all the old empires in order to impose a democracy you love so much. Virtually any and all forms of government are better than democracy, for democracy leads to a dulling of the people, their transformation into a consumer.
        
        Oleg Rambover
        
        -1
        
        12 March 2020 17: 05
        
        Quote: Regis
        No, I’m not for democracy, I’m against it, but I understand perfectly well that in order to change opinion, time must pass and democracy must show itself "in all its glory"
        
        It will take a long time. Do you know where the expression "decaying West" came from?
        
        Quote: Regis
        The "modern economy" of the Western persuasion, which has almost completely discredited itself, which is now frantically looking for someone to rob in order to get out of the beginning crisis.
        
        Once again, humanity has never lived so well in history as it is now. There is no other economy and is not expected.
        
        Quote: Regis
        And no need to play with words, "scum" is the creative lumpen proletariat, parasitizing on the economy, and all this blogging gang-fraternity.
        
        The cost of progress, in developed countries, industry employs about 10% of the working-age population and the figure continues to decline. All the rest, as you put it, "scum", "parasitic on the economy."
        
        Quote: Regis
        As for Nicholas II, yes, the sovereign was not brilliant. But here the case is not typical, the Anglo-Saxons just removed all the old empires in order to impose a democracy you love so much.
        
        Well, firstly, Nicky and Vili are evil Pinocchio themselves, and they have no one to blame but themselves. And secondly, there are almost no absolute monarchies around the world and this cannot be attributed to the action of the evil Anglo-Saxons.
        
        Quote: Regis
        Virtually any and all forms of government are better than democracy, for democracy leads to a dulling of the people, their transformation into a consumer.
        
        Well, what, for example? Do you think some kind of serf peasant of the times of Ivan the Terrible, whose whole raison d'être - how not to die of hunger, was much more intellectual than the modern "consumer"?
    2. Nick
      
      -1
      
      11 March 2020 19: 39
      
      Quote: Regis
      Democracy is the invention of the Rockefellers and other Morgan and Rothschilds.
      
      Well, actually, democracy has various forms. The example of the Russian Orthodox Church can serve as an example of reasonable democracy. The patriarch is elected collectively, but for life. And that gives the Church incredible stability. The Church of Christ has existed for more than 2000 years, despite total persecution, internal disorder and heresies. Not a single state, not a single empire has existed for so long.
      I think that it would be good for us Russians to take a closer look at the Church, in terms of its organization and management, and to use the useful thousand-year experience of the Church and in the state structure of Russia.
      1. Regis
        
        +3
        
        12 March 2020 09: 10
        
        Are you serious ?! The Russian Orthodox Church and democracy were not close. The ROC is a caricature of a political party, all the signs are there. Starting with the trade in vodka and cigarettes in the 90s, through dummies, but with the benefits provided by the Russian Orthodox Church. Now, I have no doubt, the same thing is happening, only we disguised ourselves better and deeper. The whole history of the ROC is about power and money. It was for the power and money that the ROC betrayed the emperor and the people, and then began to whine that the Bolsheviks "crucified" them. Yes, there were true believers, but there were only a few of them, even among the martyrs to whom monuments are erected throughout Russia, most of the priests who played into politics, who in fact received what they deserved. Nowadays, only one shell has remained of the faith, and the church has turned into a political instrument of a handful of bishops. There is an abyss between the ROC and faith. Evidence of this is the dominance of American churches and other sectarians in Russia.
        
        Nick
        
        0
        
        19 March 2020 03: 12
        
        Quote: Regis
        Are you serious? !! ROC and democracy did not stand nearby
        
        The patriarch is elected in a conciliar manner, that is, by a majority vote. Sometimes the three most worthy are elected, and then the only one of the three is chosen by lot, you cannot dispute this.
        
        Quote: Regis
        Starting with the trade in vodka and cigarettes in the 90s, through dummies, but on the benefits provided by the Russian Orthodox Church. Now, I have no doubt, the same thing is happening, only they disguised themselves better and deeper.
        
        And you doubt it. Only intellectually limited people do not doubt.
        
        Quote: Regis
        It was for the power and money that the ROC betrayed the emperor and the people, and then began to whine that the Bolsheviks "crucified" them. Yes, there were true believers, but there are only a few of them, even among the martyrs to whom monuments are erected throughout Russia, most of the priests who played into politics, who in fact received what they deserved.
        
        To make such statements, it is necessary to present irrefutable facts, not fabrications. Can you present them?
        
        Quote: Regis
        Now, one shell has remained of faith, and the church has become a political tool for a handful of archpriests. There is an abyss between the Russian Orthodox Church and faith.
        
        Are you a church Orthodox Christian? Do you participate in the life of the church community? If not, then you can’t say anything, at least on the basis of personal experience, about the situation in the Russian Orthodox Church, and, therefore, your statements are false.
        
        Regis
        
        0
        
        19 March 2020 15: 15
        
        There is an abyss between the church and the faith, you have not convinced me, somehow rather weak. I am glad that you are a "church-going Orthodox Christian", but this is only your problem. As for irrefutable facts, only you do not notice and do not see them, including on the sensational case. Blessed is he who believes. I'll say it again - I'm just happy for you.
        
        Nick
        
        -1
        
        21 March 2020 13: 37
        
        Quote: Regis
        There is an abyss between the church and the faith, you have not convinced me, somehow rather weak. I am glad that you are a "church-going Orthodox Christian", but this is only your problem. As for irrefutable facts, only you do not notice and do not see them, including on the sensational case. Blessed is he who believes. I'll say it again - I'm just happy for you.
        
        Idle talk
        
        Regis
        
        0
        
        20 March 2020 14: 26
        
        I can say anything I want. You have no logic (you do not believe, so you are deceitful). I don't care about your faith as long as you don't touch me. And what to do in a sect? Indeed, in essence, Christianity is a victorious sect. Which at first was "chased" and burned, then it, this sect, began to burn and persecute ... According to some historians, Christianity slowed down the development of mankind and destroyed, in particular, most of the identity of the Russian people. After all, bonfires blazed in Russia. Not like in Spain or Europe, but enough (what is not a fight against dissent, what is not a reaction). And the recognition of Jesus Christ as God? In general, a song worthy of the artist's brush. Party meeting - who is in favor of recognizing God? Who is against? The saints, following your example, declared all this a lie and untrue. And facts are facts. And the editing of the Bible by Konstantin Porphyrogenitus? The book was translated several times by semi-literate monks from language to language and, in addition, edited by the emperor - "the most holy book". In it, everyone - both the murderer and the villain - will find the answer and justification. Zampolits with Marxism-Leninism were even more honest.
        
        Nick
        
        +1
        
        21 March 2020 13: 41
        
        Quote: Regis
        You have no logic (you do not believe, which means you are false).
        
        You are also engaged in fiction, I did not say that. Once again confirmed that you are lying.
    3. vvnab
      
      0
      
      13 March 2020 19: 21
      
      Democracy is different. Are you talking about bourgeois democracy? Then yes, one posturing. Better tyranny. At least cheaper ...
    4. Observer2014
      
      -1
      
      14 March 2020 17: 10
      
      Do not collect saliva, I am not for Putin ...
      
      Don’t even lie to yourself. Also here I am, a brutal and independent patriot.
  2. Nick
    
    -2
    
    11 March 2020 19: 28
    
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    The provision on the prohibition of 1 and the same person and his team in power for more than 2 terms is rather loosely interpreted by one "lawyer from St. Petersburg".
    
    But the vote on 22.04.2020/XNUMX/XNUMX will show whether it is freely interpreted or in accordance with the spirit of the people.
Mihail55

-2

11 March 2020 09: 29

I agree with the author. There is no other equal leader, no matter how bitter. Against all this whistle-blowing with the amendment of the Constitution. For the dispersal of all sorts of Doom at any level ... some savings will be !!! But executive power is badly needed. A break in work is simply unacceptable. And it's time to introduce elections for all the bosses of any level.
1. Arkharov
  
  -2
  
  11 March 2020 10: 35
  
  I agree with the author. There is no other equal leader, no matter how bitter.
  
  - is there really no 140 million? Although it can be admitted, it seems that everything has been done to ensure that it is not found, or at least to pretend that this is so. All this is complete nonsense and fairy tales for the faint-hearted and gullible. A striking example of such a zombie - this article and all the "creativity" of this, to put it mildly, the author.
Marzhecki

-1

11 March 2020 10: 28

Quote: Michael55
I agree with the author. There is no other equal leader, no matter how bitter. Against all this whistle-blowing with the amendment of the Constitution. For the dispersal of all sorts of Doom at any level ... some savings will be !!! But executive power is badly needed. A break in work is simply unacceptable. And it's time to introduce elections for all the bosses of any level.

Tell me, what exactly is Putin doing, what, in principle, is no one else capable in the country who has reached the age of 35?
At one time, I watched with pleasure a very sympathetic film "A Day with President Putin".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-0Y6FAxZ1E

Look from 10 minutes. I wouldn’t say that he works straight for a rowing oar: he gets up late, bathes, plays with a dog, practices trainers, listens to reports, eats special cereals, then goes somewhere, says something.
Is this what any other 35-year-old Russian is not capable of doing?
1. Nick
  
  0
  
  11 March 2020 19: 49
  
  Quote: Marzhetsky
  Look from 10 minutes. I wouldn’t say that he works straight for a rowing oar: he gets up late, bathes, plays with a dog, practices trainers, listens to reports, eats special cereals, then goes somewhere, says something.
  Is this what any other 35-year-old Russian is not capable of doing?
  
  Any of the above you can do any. Only there is one big BUT that is not reflected in the film, it is the management of a huge, complex, multinational state. In short, you have a too primitive view of the responsibilities of the President of Russia.
Mihail55

-2

11 March 2020 10: 35

Quote: Marzhetsky
Tell me, what exactly is Putin doing, what, in principle, is no one else capable in the country who has reached the age of 35?

I did not write that the above citizen is to my liking. Are there people right now who can rule a huge country? Waiting for a huge list ...
Dimy4

+1

11 March 2020 10: 48

About horses and crossing we already passed in the 90s.
1. Arkharov
  
  -1
  
  11 March 2020 11: 01
  
  Wide, you see, a river, or can it be the sea?
steelmaker

+1

11 March 2020 10: 49

.. during this time, the country has not lost an inch of land, but, on the contrary, has grown with it.

- only DO NOT LIE !!
In 2005, China was given 337 square meters. km of Bolshoi Island, Tarabarov and half of the Bolshoi Ussuri Island.
2010 - in the Barents Sea, Norway was given either 80 or 175 thousand square meters. km, in return received 3 thousand square meters. km
2011 - Two villages were handed over to Azerbaijan: Khrakh-Ubal and Uryan-Uba together with the residents. If this goes so, then Siberia will be transferred to China in time, along with the inhabitants!
2017 - residents of the Novosibirsk region reported that Russia gave Kazakhstan the whole Lake Sladkoe. But the authorities said that the lake was simply shallow.
And there are laws that have been passed thanks to Putin. And these laws are only against the people.

It certainly won’t be worse.

And for 20 years of rule, something can be done better. And not only so that people do not die of hunger!
Demography is a great indicator!
1. Nick
  
  +2
  
  11 March 2020 20: 32
  
  Quote: steel maker
  - only DO NOT LIE !!
  In 2005, China was given 337 square meters. km of Bolshoi Island, Tarabarov and half of the Bolshoi Ussuri Island.
  2010 - in the Barents Sea, Norway was given either 80 or 175 thousand square meters. km, in return received 3 thousand square meters. km
  2011 - Two villages were handed over to Azerbaijan: Khrakh-Ubal and Uryan-Uba together with the residents. If this goes so, then Siberia will be transferred to China in time, along with the inhabitants!
  2017 - residents of the Novosibirsk region reported that Russia gave Kazakhstan the whole Lake Sladkoe.
  
  Do not confuse the demarcation of borders with the surrender of territories. China and the Russian Federation divided the islands, which were considered neutral under the Nerchinsk Treaty, but subsequently self-captured by the Republic of Ingushetia during the Opium Wars.
  Disputes have continued along the maritime border with Norway since Soviet times. Yes, there one could still wrestle with the Norwegians, but precisely because of the constitutional limitation of the presidential term, Putin was forced to resign and D. A. Medvedev was elected president. It was Medvedev, not Putin, who in 2010 signed an agreement on the transfer of 80 thousand square meters. km of the Barents Sea to the Norwegians.
  As for the two Dagestan villages on the territory of Azerbaijan, the Decree of the USSR Council of Ministers of 1954 on the transfer of these villages to the jurisdiction of the Dagestan Republic ended in 2004. This was the reason for the transfer of two Dagestan enclaves in Azerbaijan to the Azerbaijani side.
Marzhecki

+3

11 March 2020 10: 49

Quote: Michael55
Quote: Marzhetsky
Tell me, what exactly is Putin doing, what, in principle, is no one else capable in the country who has reached the age of 35?

I did not write that the above citizen is to my liking. Are there people right now who can rule a huge country? Waiting for a huge list ...

The fact that he likes someone is a matter of taste. Tastes differ. We need to talk about the results of 20 years of rule, and they are determined by the team of the president.
The main thing is not whether you like the president’s naked torso, but another: Putin is also tightly tied to him by Medvedev, Miller, Sechin, the Rotenberg brothers, Nabiullina, Kudrin, Chubais, Gref, Siluanov and so on. effective managers and efficient businessmen.
As for the huge list, the questions are for the architects of "managed democracy", who do not allow anyone else to appear in public space. But this does not mean that there is no other person in the country worth 140 million who can swim in the pool in the morning, play with a dog, eat porridge, and have so much free time from work to dive on bathyscaphes, fly with Siberian Cranes, drive a truck and a train. and stroking the tiger cub.
Mihail55

+1

11 March 2020 11: 04

Quote: Marzhetsky
Putin is also tightly tied to him by Medvedev, Miller, Sechin, the Rotenberg brothers, Nabiullina, Kudrin, Chubais, Gref, Siluanov and so on. effective managers and efficient businessmen.

And here to the very point !!! I won't tie anyone to these gentlemen - the result will be predictable! Revolution??? Maidan? There are theoretical developments about the transition from this so-called "capitalist" mess to a normal state ??? The likeness of Lenin's articles, Stalin's theses ...
The comment was deleted.
kriten

+3

11 March 2020 11: 47

The Putin elite, which has become fat on theft and robbery of the country, is trying to survive. That's all. The booth with the Constitution is started only for the sake of maintaining the seat of GDP. The authorities will hold any elections with the result they need. Only the right people will come, and they will be considered the same. Before the elections, they will brainwash ... that in Russia we don’t have a second person who cares for Great Russia. All this is a lie and a lie. And it’s extremely shameful ...
1. Nick
  
  -1
  
  11 March 2020 20: 36
  
  Quote: kriten
  The Putin elite, which has become fat on theft and robbery of the country, is trying to survive. That's all.
  
  All this is a lie and a lie. However, if you are a citizen of the Russian Federation, you can vote against the amendments. This right has not been taken away from the Russians.
Marzhecki

+2

11 March 2020 12: 52

Quote: Regis
And people like you like to say that everything is done wrong, but they themselves do not know how to do it right, do not know how and do not want to. Their destiny is chatter and scribble

How do you know? You don't know anything about me to judge me.
Marzhecki

+1

11 March 2020 12: 54

Quote: Regis
Do you need "checkers", Marzhetsky, or go? So let's get Navalny to run for president ...

Your pearls speak of your personal level of awareness. Navalny is a person with a criminal record; his way to the presidency is closed in principle. The bulk of the unenlightened people are scared mainly by trolls on salaries.
Irina Klyuchnikova

-3

11 March 2020 13: 37

I don’t see anyone except Putin, I read the comments, just a lie, to scrub - not to knit brooms, not to mention something more global.
master3

+1

11 March 2020 18: 10

Putin-2036: are there any other options?

- Russians do not, and no one asks them. And if they try to "beep" - there are Cossacks, 300 of the National Guard, etc.
1. Nick
  
  -2
  
  11 March 2020 20: 38
  
  Quote: master3
  And if they try to "beep" - there are Cossacks, 300 of the National Guard, etc.
  
  What does the Rosguard have to do with it. There is a vote, meow there.
  1. master3
    
    +1
    
    11 March 2020 22: 17
    
    Who is voting?
    1. Nick
      
      -2
      
      11 March 2020 22: 19
      
      Quote: master3
      Who is voting?
      
      Citizens of Russia, is it really not clear? You tighten your knowledge in social science somehow.
Tramp1812

-2

11 March 2020 18: 14

Author's article - Overton window. One of the first, but mark my word - not the last. With a priori known result: Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin should be the President of Russia !!! Until 2036. Here are just about the fourth term of the FDR - well, no need. You shouldn't keep everyone for the character in the Polish preference. The US Constitution refers to the so-called "hard" Constitutions. Which do not change for one cotton. Units of amendments throughout the history of the United States. So, the US Constitution did not stipulate how many times the President can be re-elected. But, according to an unwritten tradition, it was believed that no more than three times. Roosevelt, undoubtedly, as for me, the most outstanding President of the country, broke this tradition. And he went for a fourth term. Being at the peak of popularity. And never did he gain so few votes. Moreover, after the death of the FDR, an amendment to the US Constitution was immediately adopted, which prohibits running for more than two terms. In the situation under consideration, everything is exactly the opposite. Is this good or bad? This is a rhetorical question. And there will be many answers to it. Both positive and negative. And objective: in a hundred years, or even more. For example, the author called Stalin's rule brilliant. For me, he is the greatest villain of all time and people. And the end of the era of Stalinism was the collapse of the USSR, empty counters, mass extrajudicial executions, the collapse of agriculture, colossal territories that broke away from Russia, and the loss of allies. The system created by Dzhugashvili could not stand the test of time and fell apart. With a bang. That's all the shine. But both the author and I can today express an opinion about this historical figure. And not be shot for it. Against the background of the tyrant Stalin - Putin - Academician Sakharov. It's true. But legally, the extension of his presidency is not perfect. Although, on the other hand, the majority of the country's population currently supports him. And if so, then this factor has no fundamental significance. In theory, Putin may not be re-elected in 2024. It was possible to say about this, and not to convince readers that we do not need the sun, the party is shining for us. And even more so, to trump Stalin during the "brilliant period", during whose reign up to a million innocent people were shot, and 20 million were repressed.
1. Nick
  
  +1
  
  11 March 2020 20: 41
  
  Quote: Rogue1812
  And even more so to trump Stalin during the "brilliant period" of whose rule up to a million innocent people were shot, and 20 million were repressed.
  
  Do not repeat nonsense after the Solzhenitsyn.
  1. Tramp1812
    
    +1
    
    11 March 2020 22: 26
    
    The surname of the Nobel Prize laureate officer Solzhenitsyn - a participant in the Second World War and an order bearer is written in the capital letter.
    You, as I understand it, are the Lord God, or even higher that you can personally judge where the "delirium" and where the truth is. Unlike you, I believe the statistics, according to which only one person - Blokhin Vasily Mikhailovich - the chief executioner of the NKVD, personally shot and signed 15000 people. The horrors of the Stalinist era are described not only by Solzhenitsyn, but also by people who have been in this hell. In particular, Evgenia Ginzburg in "Steep Route", Emmanuel Razgon in "Invented". There is official state statistics on the number of those shot and rehabilitated posthumously. It can be found in open sources. There are execution lists endorsed by your idol. Do you like Stalin. To your health. This is your choice and your right. I consider him the number one criminal in all of human history. And this is my choice and my right. And not only I think so. None of the former 14 union republics immortalized the memory of this historical figure. With the exception of Georgia, for completely understandable purely ethnic reasons. Similarly, they honor the memory of their world-famous national executioners: Uzbeks of Tamerlane, Kazakhs of Beibars, Mongols of Genghis Khan.
    There is also a culture of discussion that does not allow the rudeness your post sins.
    1. Nick
      
      0
      
      11 March 2020 23: 16
      
      Quote: Rogue1812
      The surname of the Nobel Prize laureate officer Solzhenitsyn - a participant in the Second World War and an order bearer, is written from the capital letter.
      
      Read carefully, I wrote about the Solzhenitsyn, to whom, as it turned out, you belong, and not about Solzhenitsyn A.I., even worthy Shnobel Prize, a master of literary fantasies on the themes of repression of the 20s - 50s.
      
      Quote: Rogue1812
      You, as I understand it, are the Lord God, or even higher, that you can personally judge - where is "nonsense" and where is the truth.
      
      The Lord endowed people with some talents that allow, in some cases, to verify what is true and what is false.
      
      Quote: Rogue1812
      Unlike you, I believe statistics
      
      It’s precisely on the basis of statistical data that I’m saying that your statements about the number of repressed people are nonsense akin to Solzhenitsyn’s.
      
      As appears from the document prepared by N.S. Khrushchev, when he was preparing to spit on his predecessor I.V. Stalin, from 1921 to the beginning of 1954, 642 people were sentenced to death for political charges, 980 to imprisonment, 2 to exile.
      
      The document was signed by Attorney General R. Rudenko, Minister of Internal Affairs S. Kruglov, Minister of Justice K. Gorshenin. ”
      
      Source: https://fishki.net/2068937-masshtaby-stalinskih-repressij--tochnye-cifry.html © Fishki.net
      
      Note, the period covers both the Lenin and Malenkov-Khrushchev periods.
      1. Tramp1812
        
        0
        
        12 March 2020 04: 25
        
        Quote: Nick
        Quote: Rogue1812
        The surname of the Nobel Prize laureate officer Solzhenitsyn - a participant in the Second World War and an order bearer, is written from the capital letter.
        
        Read carefully, I wrote about the Solzhenitsyn, to whom, as it turned out, you belong, and not about Solzhenitsyn A.I., even worthy Shnobel Prize, a master of literary fantasies on the themes of repression of the 20s - 50s.
        
        Quote: Rogue1812
        You, as I understand it, are the Lord God, or even higher, that you can personally judge - where is "nonsense" and where is the truth.
        
        The Lord endowed people with some talents that allow, in some cases, to verify what is true and what is false.
        
        Quote: Rogue1812
        Unlike you, I believe statistics
        
        It’s precisely on the basis of statistical data that I’m saying that your statements about the number of repressed people are nonsense akin to Solzhenitsyn’s.
        
        As appears from the document prepared by N.S. Khrushchev, when he was preparing to spit on his predecessor I.V. Stalin, from 1921 to the beginning of 1954, 642 people were sentenced to death for political charges, 980 to imprisonment, 2 to exile.
        The document was signed by Attorney General R. Rudenko Minister of the Interior S. Kruglov Minister of Justice K. Gorshenin.
        
        Source: https://fishki.net/2068937-masshtaby-stalinskih-repressij--tochnye-cifry.html © Fishki.net
        
        Source: https://fishki.net/2068937-masshtaby-stalinskih-repressij--tochnye-cifry.html/gallery-3758887/ © Fishki.net
        
        Note, the period covers both the Lenin and Malenkov-Khrushchev periods.
        
        The data you provided is terrifying. But for you - under the million executed - confirmation of the correctness of the policy of the monster Stalin. You are the ultimate truth and fast in the spirit of accomplice Stalin comrade Vyshinsky:
        
        The whole Soviet people require one: crush the damned reptile !!!!
        
        The numbers, by the way, are understated. Because both Rudenko, and Khrushchev, and Kruglov, and Gorshenin are themselves accomplices of the Stalinist crimes. And here is another link. Moreover, with the text. How to count?
        
        Estimates of the number of victims of reprisals vary greatly depending on the counting methodology. If we take into account those convicted only under political articles, then according to the data of the regional departments of the KGB of the USSR, cited in 1988, 4 people were arrested by Soviet authorities (Cheka, GPU, OGPU, NKVD, NKGB, MGB), of which 308 were executed.
        
        Tramp1812
        
        -1
        
        12 March 2020 05: 16
        
        This is a specific link.
        
        http://russian7.ru/post/stalinskie-repressii-ckolko-na-sam/?utm_medium=source&utm_source=rnews
        
        Nick
        
        +2
        
        19 March 2020 02: 46
        
        Quote: Rogue1812
        This is a specific link.
        
        http://russian7.ru/post/stalinskie-repressii-ckolko-na-sam/?utm_medium=source&utm_source=rnews
        
        It's buulshit. I gave you a link to a specific document, and you gave me a link to an article of some journalism. That's how you and your friends are trying to manipulate public opinion.
        Then you too will take the trouble to type in Yandex the phrase "Stalin is with us" and watch a documentary based on archival documentsdeclassified in 2013. Maybe you’ll understand if you call JV Stalin a monster by mistake, and not by position.
        
        Tramp1812
        
        -2
        
        19 March 2020 12: 22
        
        This is exactly: "You and your friends" are trying to shoot the whole country again. And those who will be left to rot in the GULAG. Stalin, thank God, is not with us. And with you and only, fortunately, virtually. Journalists are "zhurnalyugi" in your country, but people like Vasily Blokhin are ideal. Well, now a little documentary literature, I emphasize - documentary. And the facts stated in it are generally recognized. The same your idol - the paranoid Stalin. I read this literature personally. B. Bazhanov: "Notes of Stalin's Secretary". A. Orlov: "History of Stalin's crimes", Rapoport: "At the turn of two eras", Vyshinsky: "Selected speeches", Sudoplatov: "Moscow and Lubyanka", Gordievsky: "KGB. From Lenin to Gorbachev", Raskolnikov: "Open letter Stalin ", Volkogonov" Triumph and Tragedy ", Acceleration" Non-Invented ", Ginzburg" Steep Route ". I can cite documentary evidence of eyewitnesses further. But a few examples are better. Marshal Meretskov, the only one allowed to report to Stalin while sitting: in the cellars of the Lubyanka, broke all his bones, he could not stand. The legendary Queen, at the very first interrogation, knocked out all the teeth with a decanter. Aircraft designer Kalinin was simply shot without trial. The aircraft designer Tupolev was sentenced to 15 years for allegedly leading the Russian-fascist party, and at the same time his wife and young daughter were arrested. Rehabilitated only after Stalin's death, in 1955. Molotov and Kalinin's beloved wives were sent to prison. Moreover, Comrade Stalin personally demanded that the husbands vote for the arrest. Molotov, however, abstained, but the next day in writing he asked the monster to read off his voice. The world famous director Mikhoels was strangled by Stalin's personal order, and an accident was staged. They buried magnificently. The killers were awarded the highest awards. Sudoplatov, who faithfully served Stalin, saw him shortly before his death, wrote in his memoirs: “Before me sat a schizophrenic - paranoid.” And so it was. Stalin's diagnosis of paranoia was made by the world famous psychiatrist Bekhterev. Then he was immediately killed. The most prominent scientists and military leaders, poets and writers were shot. Examples? Drop a line - I will. Stalin turned the country into a single prison, and in terms of cruelty - medieval. And now about your manner of conducting a discussion. Rudeness and labels. Which is not surprising: in the spirit of your idol: a monster, a murderer and a paranoid. I have the honor.
        
        Nick
        
        +1
        
        21 March 2020 13: 34
        
        Quote: Rogue1812
        I have the honor.
        
        Do not have.
      2. Oleg Rambover
        
        -2
        
        12 March 2020 15: 19
        
        Quote: Nick
        It’s precisely on the basis of statistical data that I’m saying that your statements about the number of repressed people are nonsense akin to Solzhenitsyn’s.
        
        This is how to count. This does not include dispossessed (+ 4 more), resettled peoples (I don’t know how much), numerous deprived persons (deprivation of a part of their rights without imprisonment).
2. Oh_ho_ho
  
  +1
  
  13 March 2020 07: 18
  
  What was - was ... That's just a multiple exaggeration of the number of victims of repression is not necessary. The truth only suffers from this.
  If you didn’t invent a lie yourself, but just repeated it after someone, there is no excuse!
  1. Tramp1812
    
    -2
    
    14 March 2020 04: 51
    
    This is the 1988 data provided by the regional departments of the KGB of the USSR. And this does not include dispossessed and repressed peoples who were shot "for spikelets". They shot under "Stalin wise, dear and beloved" under a million innocent people, repressed 20 million. This is the official statistics on the results of Stalin's "brilliant rule". Are you proposing to keep silent about unprecedented crimes against your own people?
    1. plabu
      
      0
      
      14 March 2020 18: 57
      
      Quote: Rogue1812
      This is the 1988 data provided by the regional departments of the KGB of the USSR. And this does not include dispossessed and repressed peoples who were shot "for spikelets". They shot under "Stalin the wise, dear and beloved" under a million innocent people, repressed 20 million. This is the official statistics on the results of Stalin's "brilliant rule". ...
      
      No, do not hush up, just be critical enough to almost all the data of that period, even to the figures that you gave - the reason is simple - it was after 85 that some began to understand that now it is possible to "get out", although about this I never dreamed of it before - at about that time I was told how a certain Volkogonov created his "disclosures", people worked in his office and gave very specific examples - so your calculations that the KGB is ... are not justified ...
Citizen Mѣshkov

0

11 March 2020 21: 02

The author asks us: are there any other options? Answer: of course there is. This is a revival of monarchical rule. Under monarchical rule, the question of successor / heir will not be so acute and the state will keep its course. During the implementation of this project, Vladimir Putin will not go into the shadows, but will continue to fulfill his duties, but in the role of Actual Privy Councilor under the Emperor Emperor (the highest rank in the ranking table). Moreover, to enter into all current political upheavals, a person like Putin, with his knowledge in modern politics, is simply needed. I consider all other political options unreasonable and inappropriate, since the phrase mentioned by the author of the article “Give everything ...” was relevant at all times.
petrol cutter

0

11 March 2020 21: 21

.... But there are no other options! ... Such a squiggle.
Who?! Give me the candidacy. Let's consider, let's study / discuss.
Sergey Latyshev

+3

12 March 2020 09: 15

There are no options.
Everything is like in advanced Africa.
Life President, Father of the Nation and Senator.
And even a referendum is not needed, just a simple vote.

And if options appear, then something always happens to them. From a plane crash to a banal withdrawal from the election due to confusion in applications ...
Dzafdet

+5

12 March 2020 10: 50

Author, Failure. Enough, it's time to free the slave from the galleys. As for the territory: Putin gave Damansky, and Medvedev part of the sea ... It’s time to resign, it’s high time ...
AleBors

+1

12 March 2020 14: 02

The article is propagandistic. Glorifying our "helmsman". And the well-known training manual ... Of course, the author does not see any other "alternative", except for piling up with little dogs. And he does not want to, he is not paid for this.
Oh_ho_ho

+1

12 March 2020 17: 33

And what, heavenly times have come for Russia? Is it calm around, no threats or dirty tricks from the neighbors? There are a lot of different NGOs and non-profit organizations inside the country, aren't they ready to destroy, trample, lower Russia for foreign grants? And the parliamentary parties, not to mention the extra-parliamentary "trifles", bite and bite both the President and United Russia. I can't remember even one of their sensible and feasible proposals - all self-promotion, for example, we will increase pensions at the expense of defense, etc.
Russia today is in a harsh hybrid war, both with obvious enemies and with dubious allies. In a war-fight for survival.
Under Gorbachev, they just didn’t bow to anyone ... Under Yeltsin, God forbid to repeat those times.
Putin came. Someone patronizes Russia. It was under him that Russia began to rise from its knees. Both economically and internationally and domestically. In military terms (no war !!!) - they bite, bite, rattle with "swords", and HAVE a direct collision. They no longer laugh at Putin's reminder:

Whoever comes to us with a sword will perish by the sword!

All this, why am I? Putin is leading Russia on the rise! Hard times have not passed. Good Presidents at such times do not change. Yes, and I do not see a replacement equivalent to it. I do not want to make dubious experiments.
Nominate, nominate ... The constitution allows, Putin does not interfere. And the people will decide !!! The elections will show ... Enter the election and control commissions. Participate, control ... But do not interfere!
PS Zyuganov and "K" (literally and figuratively) made fun of their abstention during the vote on amendments to the Constitution. For what? Then to shake with their party cards - and we have nothing to do with it (?!). "K" not able to go "to the embrasure" ... Yes, and in the Second World War there were dubious "white riders" ...
1. Oleg Rambover
  
  0
  
  13 March 2020 00: 28
  
  Can you speak Korean? It will be more fun.
Tramp1812

-1

21 March 2020 16: 57

Quote: Nick
Quote: Rogue1812
I have the honor.

Do not have.

The great Russian poet A. I. Nekrasov wrote about people like you:

Serf people
real dogs sometimes
The harder the punishment
so gentlemen gentlemen ....

I have the honor.
Emma Nikolaev

-1

22 March 2020 20: 12

It is a pity that there is no way to respond to comments. For example, on the commentary of Marzhetsky (Sergey), who informed us that:

I wouldn’t say that he works straight for a rowing oar: he gets up late, bathes, plays with a dog, practices trainers, listens to reports, eats special cereals, then goes somewhere, says something. Is this what any other 35-year-old Russian is not capable of doing?

Apparently he is very young, this Marzhetsky, and did not have time to see life under Yeltsin. Then he would have known that besides all of the above, he knew about Putin. Putin saved Russia from its complete disappearance as an independent state. I was sure that Yeltsin's lawlessness could no longer be fixed. That everything is already irreversible. What force of will and spirit needed to be shown in order to save Russia after that !!! And the return of the Crimea and Sevastopol! Those who do not understand the scale of Putin or stupid insignificance, or ungrateful bastards, or conscious enemies of Russia. I am sure that Putin does not cling to power for the sake of power. He knows what else needs to be done for Russia and that nobody will do it better than him. Surely, he also has a fear for Russia, for what will be done after it and how.