General Hodges: Russia will invade southern Ukraine in September

65

Russia will invade southern Ukraine in September, former US Army Land Forces Commander in Europe (USAREUR), retired Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, said on air of the "Actually: Peace" program on DOM.

It should be noted that the former military has now become a media expert. But Russophobia did not decrease from this. Therefore, it is popular on specific media sites.



During the program, he said that Russia could declare a humanitarian emergency in Crimea due to lack of water. According to him, Moscow in the course of military exercises will announce a crisis on the peninsula and accuse Kiev of blocking and maliciously blocking the North Crimean Canal, through which water flowed from the Dnieper to the Crimea. After that, Russia will take control of the territory of the Kherson region of Ukraine adjacent to the canal, and let water on the peninsula.

I am very concerned about what could happen in September. The forces of the Russian Federation are going to conduct the Caucasus-2020 exercises, therefore a large number of troops will be concentrated in the Southern Military District, near the Black Sea and Ukraine

- said Hodges.

Now there is more and more talk about the lack of water in the Crimea. They have significant drought due to the weather. Therefore, Ukraine correctly did that it blocked the water coming from the Dnieper River through the North Crimean Canal to the peninsula

- added Hodges.


Hodges emphasized that the problem with water in Crimea arose as a result of the “illegal annexation” of the peninsula by Russia. They also tried to find out in the program whether Russia would capture Belarus.
65 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Valentine
    Valentine
    +6
    25 June 2020 20: 49
    Once this cancerous tumor will have to be opened, and the sooner the better. Only this had to be done back in 2014, otherwise in a few years we will receive the "Fourth Reich" from Ukraine.
    1. AdepT55
      AdepT55
      +4
      25 June 2020 21: 16
      I agree that time is lost. But now this cancer tumor needs to be given time to bend itself, but at the same time force Ukraine to stop any military operations on the demarcation line with the LPR and the DPR. As long as hostilities continue, the myth that they are fighting against Russia will be supported in Ukrainian society.
  2. BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine
    BoBot Robot - Free Thinking Machine
    +2
    25 June 2020 21: 19
    I wonder how this retired general is inserted.
  3. King3214
    King3214
    +3
    25 June 2020 21: 28
    Quite legal actions from the point of view of international law. Since the shutdown of water supplies was recognized by the UN as genocide, back in the middle of the 20th century. And it is the United States, as the real owners of the Ukraine colony, must dismantle the dam on its own so as not to be accused of genocide. Since all the actions of the slave are unambiguously interpreted as the actions of the Master.
  4. Bakht
    Bakht
    +3
    25 June 2020 22: 01
    Although the general in his position should think in patterns, there is sound thought here. The conflict is now brewing in the Egypt-Ethiopia-Sudan trugolnik. Due to the restriction (not even overlapping) of the source of water. So Russia had every right to humanitarian intervention according to UN documents back in 2014.

    Humanitarian intervention - in modern international law and practice: the use of force or the threat of force carried out by a state or group of states outside its borders without the consent of the country in whose territory the force is used and aimed at preventing or suppressing large-scale and gross violations of fundamental human rights, is not being nationals of a humanitarian intervention.
    ------
    The concept of humanitarian intervention, which grew out of European social ideas and the theory of international law, proceeding from the priority of individual rights over the interests of society, contradicts another fundamental principle of interstate relations - the non-use of force or the threat of force - and reflects the formation in the international legal field of new approaches to the inviolability of state sovereignty . A humanitarian intervention is considered legitimate if it is undertaken to end genocide, religious or ethnic cleansing, and to prevent situations that can lead to crimes against humanity. The invasion must be authorized by either UN entities or authoritative regional international organizations.
    -----
    A model that has never been fully realized is more attractive, where the military phase of humanitarian intervention is followed by: the complete demilitarization of the country - the creation of institutions of power and management without the participation of the local population - the formation of the legal regime - the inclusion of the country in close financial and economic cooperation with developed societies - gradual substitution of military-political levers of economic management - phased involvement of the local population in the management of the economy and public institutions of the restored state.
    1. Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover
      0
      26 June 2020 12: 03
      Quote: Bakht
      So Russia had every right to humanitarian intervention according to UN documents back in 2014.

      This is a very, very controversial statement.
      According to UN documents, Crimea is an occupied territory, and the occupier bears responsibility for supplying such territories.

      Quote: Bakht
      Humanitarian intervention - in modern international law and practice: the use of force or the threat of force carried out by a state or group of states outside its borders without the consent of the country in whose territory the force is used and aimed at preventing or suppressing large-scale and gross violations of fundamental human rights, non-nationalscarrying out humanitarian intervention.
      ------
      The concept of humanitarian intervention, which grew out of European social ideas and the theory of international law, proceeding from the priority of individual rights over the interests of society, contradicts another fundamental principle of interstate relations - the non-use of force or the threat of force - and reflects the formation in the international legal field of new approaches to the inviolability of state sovereignty . A humanitarian intervention is considered legitimate if it is undertaken to end genocide, religious or ethnic cleansing, and to prevent situations that can lead to crimes against humanity. The invasion must be authorized by either UN entities or authoritative regional international organizations.
      -----
      A model that has never been fully realized is more attractive, where the military phase of humanitarian intervention is followed by: complete demilitarization of the country - creation of institutions of power and management without the participation of the local population - formation of the legal regime - inclusion of the country in close financial and economic cooperation with developed societies - gradual replacement of military-political levers of economic management - phased involvement of the local population in the management of the economy and public institutions of the restored state
      1. Bakht
        Bakht
        +1
        26 June 2020 12: 15
        These are UN resolutions. Not documents. And in the Security Council did not pass. International law is changing before our eyes. For example, the Golan Heights and the West Bank are occupied territories. There are UN resolutions. So what? And nothing. Have you heard anything about sanctions against Israel? Karabakh is an occupied territory. Have you heard anything about sanctions against Armenia?
        Is the supply for the "occupied territories" carried by the "occupier"? Perfectly. Russia is responsible for supplying Crimea. And Ukraine does not bear any responsibility for its citizens in the East? Then, according to UN resolutions, Donbass is not part of Ukraine. During the Chechen war, citizens of Chechnya received pensions from the pension fund of the Russian Federation.
        When the UN discussed the issues of "humanitarian intervention", it was stated that "sovereignty is not a privilege, but a duty." And the one who relieves himself of the DUTY to provide for his citizens, is deprived of the right to these territories.
        PS I don’t even cite Kosovo as an example. There was not even a referendum. But the humanitarian bombing of Belgrade was.
        -----
        Summarizing. Kiev’s refusal to pay pensions to the residents of Donbass, systematic shelling of residential buildings and infrastructure, refusal to supply Crimea with water is a direct way to recognizing these territories as non-Ukraine. In the case of the Crimea, even worse. Blocking water supplies causes an environmental disaster and threatens human life and health. Regardless of nationality. I gave the example of Egypt-Ethiopia. So the general is right. The occupation of the South-East of Ukraine is a long overdue need.
        1. Oleg Rambover
          Oleg Rambover
          0
          27 June 2020 00: 16
          Quote: Bakht
          These are UN resolutions. Not documents. And in the Security Council did not pass.

          What resolution is not a document? Well, let's say that most of the international community considers Crimea occupied.

          Quote: Bakht
          International law is changing before our eyes. For example, the Golan Heights and the West Bank are occupied territories. There are UN resolutions. So what? And nothing. Have you heard anything about sanctions against Israel? Karabakh is an occupied territory. Have you heard anything about sanctions against Armenia?

          Then I don’t quite understand your point of view, then you say that

          Quote: Bakht
          had every right to humanitarian intervention according to UN documents back in 2014

          That

          Quote: Bakht
          International law is changing before our eyes.

          But there are some differences, Israel was not an aggressor, but was subjected to aggression. And Syria does not recognize the existence of Israel. And in Azerbaijan genocide of the Armenians really took place.

          Quote: Bakht
          But Ukraine does not bear any responsibility for its citizens in the East? Then, according to UN resolutions, Donbass is not part of Ukraine. During the Chechen war, citizens of Chechnya received pensions from the pension fund of the Russian Federation.

          Why do you think so? It is interesting to know how pensions were received in Chechnya if banks in this territory of Russia were not controlled? My uncle lives in Lugansk and receives a Ukrainian pension. True, we must leave the LPR.

          Quote: Bakht
          When the UN discussed the issues of "humanitarian intervention", it was stated that "sovereignty is not a privilege, but a duty." And the one who relieves himself of the DUTY to provide for his citizens is deprived of the right to these territories.

          And who will decide? Vladimir Vladimirovich? And by the way, what position did the Russian Federation take on the "humanitarian intervention"?

          Quote: Bakht
          Kosovo is not even an example. There was not even a referendum. But the humanitarian bombing of Belgrade was.

          I agree, Kosovo was a mistake. Do not remind, the Russian Federation recognized Kosovo?

          Quote: Bakht
          Summarizing. Kiev’s refusal to pay pensions to the residents of Donbass, systematic shelling of residential buildings and infrastructure, refusal to supply Crimea with water is a direct way to recognizing these territories as non-Ukraine.

          I have already said about pensions. Chechnya is not much different from Donbass, just that "residential buildings and infrastructure" in Chechnya have been destroyed much more. No one is trying to recognize Chechnya not by the Russian Federation, although the republic is actually independent. Even the Russian Federation recognizes Donbass as Ukraine.
          And about the Crimea, recognition by whom?

          Quote: Bakht
          Blocking water supplies causes an environmental disaster and threatens human life and health. Regardless of nationality. I gave the example of Egypt-Ethiopia.

          Not sure if Egypt-Ethiopia is a good example. The Russian Federation is able to do without this water.

          Quote: Bakht
          The occupation of the South-East of Ukraine is a long overdue need.

          You do not like Russians. Not only that, such an event is fraught with the death of civilians in the South-East of Ukraine, Russian and Ukrainian military. So such an operation will be fraught with significant losses for the Russian economy, and the income of Russians has already been falling since 2014. It is not difficult to imagine what will happen to the incomes of Russian families.
          1. Bakht
            Bakht
            +1
            27 June 2020 08: 52
            International law has not existed for a couple of decades. But the world by inertia still thinks that it makes sense to appeal to it. Therefore, I cite him as an example. The most striking indicator, not even the UN, but the Hague Tribunal. The states do not recognize his decisions, but oblige other countries to recognize it. It's the same with "humanitarian interventions." Under this pretext, interventions were made in Somalia, Afghanistan and in a bunch of other countries.
            There was no Armenian genocide in Azerbaijan until the Karabakh events. Just as you do not recognize the similarities between Donbass and Chechnya, so I categorically do not recognize the similarities between Donbass and Karabakh. The Karabakh conflict is a clear tracing-paper with Kosovo. There even small details are repeated in detail.
            Israel was not an aggressor? This is an interesting statement. Formally, in 1973, Israel was attacked. But this is only formal. Attacked the territory of Israel or the territory that captured Israel? The Golan Heights were captured in 1967 when Israel attacked. Since the first day of its existence, Israel has been waging wars. And from the first day of its existence, Israel does not recognize the state of Palestine. Currently, Israel conducts preventive military operations in other countries. This is called aggression. As far as I know, the recognition or non-recognition of the state does not mean that it is possible to conduct military operations on foreign territory. The problem is not that the Arabs do not recognize Israel, but that Israel does not recognize the Arab state. This can be argued ad infinitum. But preventive military action is considered an act of war. And they are not recognized as a sufficient argument to protect their territory.
            -----
            Let's go back to Ukraine. Ukraine lost the right to the territory after 2014. She lost them before, but in 2014 a coup d'etat took place in Kiev and nationalists (Nazis) came to power. The most detailed study of the processes of secession was in the book by A. Buchanan "Questions of secession", published by the Sakharov Center (as you can see, I use different sources). The territory has the right to secession if its rights, its identity are violated. The decision of the South-East of Ukraine lies in Kiev. We need a language law, the rights of all citizens must be equal, we need a single view of history, culture, and the right to autonomy. If this is not done, then the South-East will never return to Ukraine. Therefore, in Kiev from time to time the phrases "Crimea (Donbass) will be either Ukrainian or deserted." And Russia has the moral right to provide assistance to its fellow tribesmen in any territory. The US invasion of Grenada took place under the motto of helping tourists and students. And it was from that moment that the scrapping of international law began.

            http://old.sakharov-center.ru/publications/sec/sod.html

            PS By the way, it is in the same way that I propose to solve the Karabakh problem, for which they consider me a traitor in Azerbaijan. But either autonomy is needed (the Armenians had it), or Karabakh will become deserted. I stand on the position of autonomy. And for Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, and Donbass as part of Ukraine, and Kosovo as part of Serbia.
            PPS The funny thing is that I speak of human rights, who is considered a supporter of a strong state and those who consider themselves a democrat speak about the destruction of people. Paradox...
            1. Oleg Rambover
              Oleg Rambover
              -1
              27 June 2020 16: 57
              Quote: Bakht
              International law has not existed for a couple of decades. But the world by inertia still believes that an appeal to it makes sense. Therefore, I give it as an example.

              It has not always been respected before. Recall the USSR in Afghanistan or US support for Nicaraguan US contras. But this does not mean that it does not exist, just the world community cannot always force everyone to observe it.
              But why do you appeal to international law if you do not believe in it? And moreover, you are trying to apply it selectively, and for example, the actions of the Russian Federation in Crimea in 2014 from the point of view of international law do not raise any questions.

              Quote: Bakht
              There was no Armenian genocide in Azerbaijan until the Karabakh events. Just as you do not recognize the similarities between Donbass and Chechnya, so I categorically do not recognize the similarities between Donbass and Karabakh. The Karabakh conflict is a clear tracing-paper with Kosovo. There even small details are repeated in detail.

              The genocide began before the formation of an independent state of Armenia. As I don’t recognize the similarities, I directly say that Donbass and Chechnya are very similar, but for some reason the patriots are sure that the Russian Federation has the right to restore order in Chechnya by harsh methods, and Ukraine in Donbass is not.

              Quote: Bakht
              The territory has the right to secession if its rights and its identity are violated.

              So you think that Chechnya should have been let go?

              Quote: Bakht
              We need a language law, the rights of all citizens should be equal, we need a single look at history, culture, and the right to autonomy. If this is not done, then the South-East will never return to Ukraine.

              Now are not equal? For most residents of Ukraine, the Russian language is native. Why a single view of history? Southeast of Ukraine will not return in the next decade, regardless of the laws adopted.

              Quote: Bakht
              Therefore, in Kiev from time to time the phrases "Crimea (Donbass) will be either Ukrainian or deserted."

              Do people say this in the likeness of local Sapsan136 or P69, dreaming of destroying the population of Ukraine?

              Quote: Bakht
              And Russia has a moral right to assist its tribesmen in any territory.

              Does this not remind you of anything? And yes, excellent help, 13 thousand dead, destroyed cities, impoverished people, semi-gang power. By the way, who are the tribesmen? On the opposite side of the front are not Russians dying?

              Quote: Bakht
              Let's get back to Ukraine. Ukraine lost the right to the territory after 2014. She lost them before, but in 2014 a coup d'etat took place in Kiev and nationalists (Nazis) came to power.

              Why is this before? Why is it since 2014? Right Nazis?

              Quote: Bakht
              PS By the way, it is in the same way that I propose to solve the Karabakh problem, for which they consider me a traitor in Azerbaijan. But either autonomy is needed (the Armenians had it), or Karabakh will become deserted. I stand on the position of autonomy. And for Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan, and Donbass as part of Ukraine, and Kosovo as part of Serbia.

              I personally do not care how, but the main thing is that people do not die and the regions do not turn into "ghettos" with a ruined economy.
              Quote: Bakht
              The funny thing is that I speak of human rights, which is considered a supporter of a strong state and those who consider themselves a democrat speak about the destruction of people. Paradox...

              Where do you find such "democrats"? Do not flatter yourself, you just proposed to arrange a war in Ukraine. Regarding a strong state, have you read Mussolini about his idea of ​​a strong state?
              1. Bakht
                Bakht
                +2
                27 June 2020 17: 31
                You also have selective logic. Genocide in Transcaucasia began at the beginning of the 20th century. Here you are right. Just make a mistake in the direction. The genocide of the Muslim population has been described in detail in the writings of historians.
                You do not understand the basic value of a person. This is his language and culture. Forcing a person to abandon language is already a direct path to war.
                Have you been to Chechnya in the early 90s? I was. Do not confuse banditry and genocide with the struggle for independence. What I saw, no one can convince me. Have you been to Karabakh at the end of the 80s? I was. And I also saw the beginning with my own eyes. The struggle for independence should not be confused with territorial claims. The original slogan was "miatsum". And not in Stepanakert, but in Yerevan.
                I am not proposing to arrange a "war" in Ukraine. I propose to Ukraine to pass the language law and to decentralize the country. Federalization. This is the only way out. Otherwise there will be a war. But this I do not call. This is done by people with bright faces, like Tymoshenko or Zelensky and Poroshenko.
                -----
                You clearly do not understand how to solve such problems. And you confuse conflicts with different reasons.
                1. Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover
                  -1
                  29 June 2020 14: 32
                  Quote: Bakht
                  You also have selective logic. Genocide in Transcaucasia began at the beginning of the 20th century. Here you are right. Just make a mistake in the direction. The genocide of the Muslim population has been described in detail in the writings of historians.

                  I meant the end of the 20th century. Let's get this together:

                  However, at the same time, they seem to confirm the sad truth expressed by Bartov regarding the memory of the tragic events: after all, it is often forgotten that the Azerbaijanis were not only victims of violence, but they themselves committed violence, and that the Armenians were not only rapists, but and victims. Not a single massacre was committed in isolation. For every March 1918, September 1918 falls. Sumgait accounts for every Khojaly. For every Black January 19-20, there is no less “black” January 13-14.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  You do not understand the basic value of a person. This is his language and culture. Forcing a person to abandon language is already a direct path to war.

                  It seems you do not understand. As far as I remember, in the first place are the values ​​of survival (food, water) and procreation. The second is security. And only on the third - communication and belonging to a certain community.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  Were you in Chechnya in the early 90's? I was. Do not confuse banditry and genocide with the struggle for independence. What I saw, no one can convince me.

                  There is a very fine line between the bandit and the independence fighter. Usually, if the struggle ended successfully, then the independence fighter, if not, then the bandit. Vaughn Zakharchenko was an independence fighter, but that did not stop him from being a gangster. Or the Kadyrovs (both father and son), it is generally unclear who they are, freedom fighters, bandits or heroes of Russia.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  I am not proposing to arrange a "war" in Ukraine. I propose to Ukraine to pass the language law and to decentralize the country.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  The occupation of the South-East of Ukraine is a long overdue need.

                  This, at least, is aggression, and quite possibly, a war with victims, including among civilians.

                  Quote: Bakht
                  I propose that Ukraine introduce a language law and decentralize the country. Federalization. This is the only way out. Otherwise there will be war. But that I do not call. This is done by people with bright faces, like Tymoshenko or Zelensky with Poroshenko.
                  -----
                  You clearly do not understand how to solve such problems. And you confuse conflicts with different reasons.

                  In my opinion, you are too optimistic. This conflict is for decades, and no laws on the language (in Ukraine, and so the main language of communication is Russian) or federalization (most do not understand what it is) can not stop it. Neither the authorities of the Russian Federation, nor the authorities of the LNR, nor, probably, the authorities of Ukraine need the world (at least on the conditions of the Russian Federation). No law will change that. Peace is needed only by the locals, but war is fierce and it becomes easy to convince them of the impossibility of peace. A quick solution is only the type of Crimea, or if the Russian Federation ceases to support the people's republics.
                  1. Bakht
                    Bakht
                    +2
                    29 June 2020 15: 33
                    This is the only way. And I did not propose pure intervention. A humanitarian intervention. These are two big differences.
                    People need peace first of all, here we converge. Russia needs peace (here we differ) and the authorities of Ukraine absolutely do not need it. I am 100% convinced of this.
                    1. Oleg Rambover
                      Oleg Rambover
                      -1
                      1 July 2020 01: 08
                      Quote: Bakht
                      This is the only way. And I did not propose pure intervention. A humanitarian intervention. These are two big differences.

                      Performed by the Russian Federation humanitarian intervention in Ukraine? In Ukraine, the Russian Federation has interests and that it will act only for humanitarian reasons, the highest naivety. No one will believe. This situation is for decades, there is no way out of this impasse.

                      Quote: Bakht
                      Russia needs peace (here we disagree)

                      https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/877224

                      A man said a man did. After such statements, it is difficult to believe in the humanitarian nature of such an intervention. Without the help of the Russian Federation, this war would not have been so bloody and long. This article describes the motives of the Russian Federation. As long as there is a threat of Ukraine joining NATO, there will be no peace.
                      For the authorities of the DPR, LPR, peace means a loss of power, they also do not need this, but their opinion is not decisive.
                      For the Ukrainian authorities it’s becoming more and more complicated, they definitely don’t need a war like in 14-16 (like probably no one), but they need peace on certain conditions that are unlikely to be realized in the coming years.
                      So it will be a frozen conflict. And no laws on the language or no "federalization" understandable to anyone will change this.
                      PS So all the same, as a statesman, how do you feel about such a prominent statesman as Benito Mussolini?
                      1. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +3
                        1 July 2020 09: 25
                        What are you pulling me towards Mussolini? A strong state is not only Mussolini. What is your current situation in the USA? The defeat of the police - this is the decline of the state. Do you like that? How to relate to the situation of the 90s in the USSR? Almost everyone here knows and has seen what it is. Do you really like the fall of the state in the USSR? Millions of the dead. This is the result of a weak state.
                        Putin’s words have been known for a long time and I often quoted them. This has a direct bearing on safety. If the Ukrainian authorities are so stupid that they do not understand, these are their problems.
                        Ukrainian nationalists (or rather, the Nazis) wanted to crush the entire country for themselves, at least half the population to become wordless slaves. This is not the intervention of Russia created the current situation. This is a civil war. Civil. It is a fact. When the citizens of one country shoot at each other. And while they shoot at each other, this war will not end. Or it will end with the victory of one side and the destruction of the other. Russia has absolutely nothing to do with it. For what reason does Kiev not want to go for federalization and language law? The whole world knows the example of a federal country in which the concept of the state language is completely absent. Language is the main reason for the war in Ukraine.

                        I have already told you - we have different ideas about life and a different worldview. The war began not with the words or actions of Putin, but with the slogans "Moskalyak on Gilyak" and the murders near Korsun. From the murders in Odessa.

                        I do not always respond to your statements. But you have ABSOLUTELY unacceptable concepts for me. If your difference between the bandit and the independence fighter is almost imperceptible, then for me there is a huge distance between them. When a gangster and a robber stands in front of you and demands money (he didn’t even stutter about independence), it’s hard for me to believe in his good intentions.
                        -----
                        There is a civil war in Ukraine, and sooner or later Russia will not give a damn about public opinion and the reaction of the world. A strong state is obliged to ensure the security of its borders and the security of its citizens and tribesmen. States will not let lie. Grenada is an example for you. Do not even write about Crimea. Back in 2013, M. Saakashvili said that if Ukraine joins NATO, it will lose Crimea. This is an axiom that everyone knew.
                      2. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +2
                        1 July 2020 09: 51
                        “May 2 in Odessa became a point of no return in Civil war in Ukraine. Actually, Ukraine ceased to exist in the House of Trade Unions. Because the camp, which is now commonly called “Colorado” and which has already taken shape in the form of proto-states of the DPR and LPR, has understood that it will not work out anything with the “Euro-Ukrainians”. Because it is about the physical destruction of any dissent.

                        According to the statement of the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s Office, there was no corpus delicti in the House of Trade Unions. A fire broke out inside the building due to the fault of those gathered there

                      3. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        2 July 2020 16: 11
                        Quote: Bakht
                        What are you pulling me towards Mussolini? A strong state is not only Mussolini.

                        What other ideology, besides fascism, proclaims statist ideas?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        What is your current situation in the USA? The defeat of the police - this is the decline of the state. Do you like that?

                        And what is the situation in the USA? I am not sitting. Is the police defeated in the USA? What a horror, again. Do you think that when detainees die with a bottle of champagne in the anus, is this normal and society should not be indignant? You recently said that the United States is a strong state. I personally believed that from the point of view of US statehood, a weak state, with a weak central authority, and very large powers of local authorities, maybe this is their strength.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        How to relate to the situation of the 90s in the USSR? Almost everyone here knows and has seen what it is. Do you really like the fall of the state in the USSR? Millions of the dead. This is the result of a weak state.

                        The collapse of the country is always bad, thank the Communists for it, starting with Stalin, who led the country to this. Treat as historical inevitability. About millions of dead - is this again from the realm of faith? This is the result of incompetent management that does not meet the challenges of the times. At the same time, state power was strong, but brought the country into a failed state.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Ukrainian nationalists (or rather, the Nazis) wanted to crush the entire country for themselves, at least half the population to become wordless slaves.

                        You are talking with some slogans. Who in Ukraine profess Nazi views, who wants to make slaves? Why did you draw such conclusions? Do you just believe it again?
                        By the way, Nazism also meant the subordination of the interests of citizens to a certain "common good" that is, the state.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        This is not the intervention of Russia created the current situation. This is a civil war. Civil. It is a fact. When the citizens of one country shoot at each other. And while they shoot at each other, this war will not end. Or it will end with the victory of one side and the destruction of the other. Russia has absolutely nothing to do with it.

                        The Russian Federation took advantage of the situation. Indisputably there were internal causes. But without help from outside this story would not go beyond the limits of individual skirmishes in the squares and the number of victims would be less by orders of magnitude. And you are too bloodthirsty, the experience of the last civil war in the Russian Federation showed that the destruction of the enemy is not necessary, you can co-opt.
                        Quote: Bakht
                        For what reason does Kiev not want to go for federalization and language law? The whole world knows the example of a federal country in which the concept of the state language is completely absent. Language is the main reason for the war in Ukraine.

                        Well, probably from experience, Crimea was both autonomy and a regional language, but this did not help much. Can you explain how in a country where Russian is the native language for the majority of the population, the language became the cause of the war?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I have already told you - we have different ideas about life and a different worldview. The war began not with the words or actions of Putin, but with the slogans "Moskalyak on Gilyak" and the murders near Korsun. From the murders in Odessa.

                        The war began with the killings on the Maidan, and the fall of Yanukovych’s power (in which there is no one to believe except Yanukovych himself). In Donbass, the war began with the assassination of an SBU officer.
                        But in the events in Ukraine, the Russian authorities saw a threat to Ukraine’s withdrawal from the influence of the Russian Federation and the Crimea and the Donbass happened.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        If your difference between the bandit and the independence fighter is almost imperceptible, then for me there is a huge distance between them. When a gangster and a robber stands in front of you and demands money (he didn’t even stutter about independence), it’s hard for me to believe in his good intentions.

                        Well, in the Donbass, the nineties are now back with racketeering, extortion, and so on. Freedom fighters do this, but for you they are still fighters. When the Chechens did this, they are bandits for you. Everything is subjective.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        There is a civil war in Ukraine, and sooner or later Russia will not give a damn about public opinion and the reaction of the world. A strong state is obliged to ensure the security of its borders and the security of its citizens and tribesmen. States will not let lie. Grenada is an example for you. Do not even write about Crimea. Back in 2013, M. Saakashvili said that if Ukraine joins NATO, it will lose Crimea. This is an axiom that everyone knew.

                        So Ukraine is not NATO. Agree, the Russian Federation pursued a mediocre policy towards Ukraine. With such a price for oil, the Russian Federation is unlikely to give a damn about the reaction of the world.
                      4. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +1
                        2 July 2020 16: 25
                        Useless. I did not even read carefully. We have no reason to communicate - believe me. I have already said - we will NEVER understand each other.
                        ----
                        And do not have illusions. I repeat - we are enemies.
                      5. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +2
                        2 July 2020 16: 36
                        For blinded nonsense who think in cliches.

                        “The experience of countries experiencing a transformational transition since the beginning of the 1990s has clearly shown that the“ increase in freedoms ”necessary for launching sustainable economic development mechanisms is by no means linearly dependent on the reduction of state functions. On the contrary, only a strong state, with well-functioning institutions, is able to provide proper guarantees of civil rights and freedoms, and create conditions for the success of reforms. ” According to the famous American philosopher, sociologist and futurologist F. Fukuyama, the construction of such a state, consisting in the creation of new government institutions and the strengthening of existing ones, is one of the most important problems of the world community

                        http://yanko.lib.ru/books/politologiya/fukuyama-state_building--ru-2007-l.pdf

                        Francis Fukuyama "A Strong State. Governance and World Order in the XXI Century"

                        Countries should be able to create state institutions not only within their own borders, but also in other, less organized and more dangerous countries.
                      6. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        4 July 2020 15: 46
                        Quote: Bakht
                        For blinded nonsense who think in cliches.

                        And do you consider yourself Mr. Objectivity?

                        “The experience of countries experiencing a transformational transition from the beginning of the 1990s has clearly shown that the“ increase in freedoms ”necessary for launching sustainable economic development mechanisms is by no means linearly dependent on the reduction of state functions. On the contrary, only a strong state, with well-functioning institutions, is able to provide proper guarantees of civil rights and freedoms, create conditions for the success of reforms. ”

                        Who said who the author of the statement is?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        http://yanko.lib.ru/books/politologiya/fukuyama-state_building--ru-2007-l.pdf

                        Francis Fukuyama "A Strong State. Governance and World Order in the XXI Century"
                        Countries should be able to create state institutions not only within their own borders, but also in other, less organized and more dangerous countries.

                        Have you read this book yourself? Or just ripped out a piece that suits you

                        Countries should be able to create state institutions not only within their own borders, but also in other, less organized and more dangerous countries. In the past years, they would have done it simply by invading such a country and administratively adding it to their empire. Now we insist on promoting democracy, self-government and human rights and that any attempt to rule another people is just a temporary measure, not an imperialist one.
                        aspiration.

                        One of the mistakes in our understanding of statehood is that the word "power" is often used in the same way as in relation to what is indicated here as a sphere of influence, and in relation to strength or power.

                        For Fukuyama, some Finland is a stronger state than the Russian Federation.

                        https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-37897243

                        He talks about the need for a strong state in the sense of strong institutions. For the state to be able to enforce the law of all its citizens without exception. But at the same time, it does not deny the benefits of reducing the presence of the state, with some reservations, in various areas of society, especially in the economy.
                        Do you really agree with Fukuyama? For example -

                        There is no doubt that the inclusive public sectors of the former communist world were in dire need of fragmentation

                        One of the directions of development led to the fact that Friedrich and Brzezinski (Friedrich and Brzezinski 1965) were designated as a “totalitarian” state, which tried to completely destroy civil society and subordinate the remaining disparate individuals to their political goals. The legal-political version of this experiment ended in 1945 with the defeat of fascist Germany, while the left-political version collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.

                        In the late 1980s. The Soviet Union began to fall apart, losing the general strength of the state’s legal capacity precisely because the dictatorial character of the Soviet illegitimate regime found itself in front of its citizens.
                      7. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        4 July 2020 15: 58
                        Of course, it's useless. You simply believe and try not to preach your faith in an argument.
                        I have no illusions. That we exchanged a few words on the Internet does not make you an enemy for me. In the photo above, where young people are bottling gas, they are also going to fight enemies, what are you better than them? If you go to power, what are you going to do with the enemies?
                      8. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +1
                        4 July 2020 18: 09
                        I just gave you a link that a "strong state" is not Mussolini. A strong state is the basis for the prosperity of citizens. And a guarantee of their freedoms. Otherwise, go to Kropotkin.
                        F. Fukuyama I read. I do not agree with all its conclusions. But the question is not what he is right or wrong. And the fact is that without a strong state there is no country. And there are no citizen freedoms. They are trying to refute this axiom now. But so far it turns out badly.
                        ----
                        I am not going to do anything with the enemies. Moreover, to kill them, as the democrats do. The term "enemy" has connotations if you don't know. An ideological enemy also happens. And you don't have to kill him. So, I'm much better than the ones in the photo. Better than Novodvorskaya (who dreamed of a leather jacket and Mauser), better than Yulia Tymoshenko, who wanted to shoot all those who disagree "from atomic weapons." And better than those girls who bottle gasoline. By the way, the one in the photo, according to rumors, committed suicide a month later. Either she stepped off the roof, or she was helped to step. But I didn't shed a single tear.
                        ----
                        PS I am always surprised by the phrases that I do not argue my statements and simply believe. I got tired of giving you quotes and arguments. If you don’t see this, then it’s not my fault either. On the contrary, I often see the absence of arguments and incorrect information from my opponents.
                      9. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        6 July 2020 02: 08
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I just gave you a link that a "strong state" is not Mussolini. A strong state is the basis for the prosperity of citizens. And a guarantee of their freedoms. Otherwise, go to Kropotkin.

                        Did I say somewhere that I share anarchist views? It seems that we have some discrepancy in terms. No one argues that a failed state is bad. You said that you are a statesman, in my understanding a statesman (statism) advocates a leading role in the life of society in the state, intervention and full control of the state in the economy, culture, public relations, and the main purpose of an individual is to serve the interests of society (expressed by the state). In contrast, for example, from communism, which generally says that the state is superfluous and necessary only for the transition period. Or liberalism (not to be confused with libertianism), which says that the state is a tool to satisfy the needs of the individual. Therefore, it seems to me that statism is the cornerstone of fascism and no longer any ideology builds its concepts, starting from it.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        F. Fukuyama I read. I do not agree with all its conclusions. But the question is not what he is right or wrong. And the fact is that without a strong state there is no country. And there are no citizen freedoms. They are trying to refute this axiom now. But so far it turns out badly.

                        The whole question is what do you mean by a strong state. If total control in all spheres of life, then at least according to F. Fukuyam, this is not a sign of a strong state. For him, the modern RF was a weak state and even the USSR was, judging by this book, also not very strong. It is hard to believe that you agree with him on this.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And it’s not necessary to kill him.

                        Well, thank God, at least not necessarily. And even if you come to power, it will do without the closure of opposition parties, the media, Internet restrictions?
                        That you dug into the late unhealthy woman, what did she do to you. You, as I understand it, are trying to make some generalizations about all the democrats for this late lady. Let us then judge all the statesmen, for example, by Zhirinovsky.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And better than those girls who bottled gas.

                        It is wonderful. And tell me, that day in Odessa the first person to die from the opposite camp. Do you think his killer is better than these girls? Or we have a certain Sapsan136 on the forum, he claims that he fought in the Donbass and wants to equalize all Ukrainian cities with grandees, since their inhabitants remained loyal to the Ukrainian government, is he better than these girls? Slayer Pentecostals in Slavyansk are better than these girls. Or the killers of Chubenko Stepan from Kramatorsk?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        PS I am always surprised by the phrases that I do not argue my statements and simply believe. I got tired of giving you quotes and arguments. If you don’t see this, then it’s not my fault either. On the contrary, I often see the absence of arguments and incorrect information from my opponents.

                        Well I do not know.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Useless. I did not even carefully read.

                        It is difficult to call this a reasoned position. You have long and stubbornly proved the transfer of German divisions from Italy, but you did not bother to bring any evidence. Very often you ignore uncomfortable questions. But do not worry, you are better than any of the Stalinists in this forum, you can defend your position.
                      10. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +3
                        6 July 2020 10: 22
                        You attribute to me what I did not say.
                        A strong state is the guarantor of your personal rights and freedoms. What does total control have to do with it, only you know. On this issue, I agree with Fukuyama and a dozen other scientists and sociologists who wrote on this issue. Starting from Ancient Greece. All quotes give you? We have all witnessed the weakening of state institutions. Who guaranteed your rights in the 90s? How many people have lost everything, many and life. A weak state is the absence of any rights and freedoms. I am only talking about this. And if in order to save your (personally your) life you will need to introduce total control - then for some reason I am sure that you will not mind.
                        I do not fully read your comments, because you often misinterpret the facts. The same applies to the negotiations in Geneva in 1945. Stalin wrote that the Germans had thrown three divisions, Roosevelt denied this. I have no intelligence on this. Similarly, you do not have them. But you think that Stalin lied, and Roosevelt was telling the truth. And do not argue this. You demand evidence from me. Why should I do this? There are letters of Stalin and Roosevelt. These are official documents. According to them, the negotiations in Geneva were recognized as a misunderstanding and both sides decided to close this issue. The very fact of negotiations was already a violation of allied obligations. And your comparisons with capitulations on the Eastern Front are not worth a penny. I explained why.
                        You can argue with you if you begin to recognize ALL the facts, and not accept them selectively. Who killed whom first is a moot point. Ukraine denies the fact of the killing near Korsun; Crimea considers it proven. I have no reason to believe Kiev. But even if one person was killed in Odessa, is this an indulgence for burning people? Do you want to bring me this fact as proof of your innocence?
                        You get the simple thing. There is a photo in which the girls bottled gas. There is a fact of burning people. And there is a statement by the Prosecutor General of Ukraine that in Odessa there was no corpus delicti. After that, I do not believe a single (I repeat - NONE) statement of official Kiev. And I won’t even read them. A liar has no faith.
                        ---
                        I believe that "dill will not grow in Ukraine. It will beat him with a hail."
                      11. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        7 July 2020 15: 20
                        Quote: Bakht
                        A strong state is the guarantor of your personal rights and freedoms.

                        But then it turns out, Fukuyama is right that the Russian Federation is a weak state. And in the USSR, especially under Stalin, things were not doing very well with personal rights and freedoms. Do you really agree with that?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        What does total control have to do with it, only you know.

                        What do you mean by a statesman?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And if in order to save your (personally your) life you will need to introduce total control - then for some reason I am sure that you will not mind.

                        If there is any kind of emergency, then yes, within the framework of the law. But the main thing is that there should not be, as under Stalin, such a situation, there is no law, but there is total control.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I do not fully read your comments, because you often misinterpret the facts.

                        Do you always interpret facts correctly? Is there any help?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The same applies to the negotiations in Geneva in 1945. Stalin wrote that the Germans had thrown three divisions, Roosevelt denied this. I have no intelligence on this. Similarly, you do not have them. But you think that Stalin lied, and Roosevelt was telling the truth. And do not argue this. You demand evidence from me. Why should I do this?

                        I gave you an example where Stalin lied, but God be with him, I’m probably wrong in interpreting the facts again, although I won’t know how to do this in Katyn. There are two telegrams that contradict each other. Suppose we have the same trust in these sources, respectively, they level each other. A third source is needed to establish a fact. I understand that you believe in it, but your faith is not enough for other people to accept your interpretation of events.
                        You started a conversation about the transfer of divisions, and you say that this is a fact, respectively, and the burden of proof lies with you. In general, a strange accusation, what can you say if you say without evidence that the land is controlled by reptilians from Nibiru, should I also look for evidence of your wrong?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And your comparisons with capitulations on the Eastern Front are not worth a penny. I explained why.

                        Yes, it was explained by the fact that from the eastern front, German troops did not let go to the western. An excellent explanation, only one small point, you could not bring a single fact to transfer from the west to the east.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You can argue with you if you begin to recognize ALL the facts, and not accept them selectively. Who killed whom first is a moot point. Ukraine denies the fact of the killing near Korsun; Crimea considers it proven. I have no reason to believe Kiev. But even if one person was killed in Odessa, is this an indulgence for burning people?

                        What facts did I deny? Do you have reason to believe Moscow? One crucified boy is worth. Or a Boeing. I do not believe either one or the other. In my opinion, who was the first to be killed in Odessa is not a contentious issue, but oh well, this does not justify the burning of people. I’m just wondering, is there a difference for you between a frostbitten Maydan activist who killed an anti-Maidan activist and a frostbitten anti-Maidan activist who killed a Maidan activist? For me, these events are street riots that got out of hand, for you a conspiracy to physically destroy political opponents.
                        And yes, in a civil war, usually both sides are equally good, Donbass is no exception.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        There is a photo in which the girls bottled gas. There is a fact of burning people. And there is a statement by the Prosecutor General of Ukraine that in Odessa there was no corpus delicti. After that, I do not believe a single (I repeat - NONE) statement of official Kiev. And I won’t even read them. A liar has no faith.

                        It is certainly bad that the perpetrators are not punished, this indicates the weakness of the Ukrainian state.
                        But on the other hand, Girkin walks free and tells how he killed the citizens of another country, but according to Russian laws he is a criminal. And there are thousands of them. What is the difference between the Ukrainian and our authorities? And it turns out, Fukuyama is right that modern Russian statehood is weak.
                      12. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +1
                        7 July 2020 15: 29
                        This is the reason. A woman from the West of Ukraine spoke of a crucified boy. A good provocation and Russian TV fell for her. It's better not to talk about Boeing. There Ukraine lies from the first minute and still.
                        Have you heard about Casannik? The one that offered his mandate to Yeltsin. So he wrote that under Stalin the rule of law was respected. Just the laws were like that.
                        Of course, Russian statehood is weak. This can be seen with the naked eye.
                        We can discuss everything else indefinitely. And about the transfer of troops from West to East, and about everything else. And about the mercenaries, and about the murders of citizens of other countries. In Ukraine, a civil war, and in a civil war, not the smartest, but the most decisive ones, always emerge. And the status of volunteers (a mercenary is not suitable here. Girkin did not receive money), no one canceled. By the way, there were volunteers in Spain. And in 1973, the USSR announced that it would not impede the departure of volunteers in Egypt. Terminology is already of secondary importance. Ukraine has only one way to preserve its statehood. And I voiced it. In all other cases, this is not a weak state, but not a state at all.
                      13. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        0
                        9 July 2020 00: 15
                        Quote: Bakht
                        This is the reason. A woman from the West of Ukraine spoke of a crucified boy. A good provocation and Russian TV fell for her.

                        Something I do not remember, that the Russian media would sprinkle ashes on their heads and rush to publish refutations of this fake.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        It's better not to talk about Boeing. There Ukraine lies from the first minute and still.

                        But the authorities of the Russian Federation and state media are not lying from the first minute? I personally do not watch or read the Ukrainian media, why do you use them?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Have you heard about Casannik? The one that offered his mandate to Yeltsin. So, he wrote that under Stalin the rule of law was respected.

                        He said garbage.
                        For some reason, I don’t remember the article of the Criminal Code prohibiting being a fist and having a couple of plows and three horses, and they were deprived of their property, their freedom was restricted, many, especially children, did not survive dispossession. And I don’t remember the laws obliging me to hand over my property to collective farms and work there. But collectivization was carried out and cost millions of lives.
                        And if you find in the 36-year constitution mention of extrajudicial triples and the possibility of extrajudicially depriving people of their freedom and life, without a judge, defense counsel (that is, without the right to defense) and the presence of the accused, I’ll buy you a bottle of good cognac.
                        I’m silent about signing the execution lists and !!! quotas !!! for executions and deprivation of liberties of citizens of the USSR by a person who does not have not only the status of a judge, but a few posts in state bodies.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Of course, Russian statehood is weak. This can be seen with the naked eye.

                        So still, in your understanding, the statesmen are who?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        In Ukraine, a civil war, and in a civil war, not the smartest, but the most decisive ones, always emerge.

                        I hope you are talking about both sides of the conflict?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And the status of volunteers (a mercenary is not suitable here. Girkin did not receive money), no one canceled.

                        What is volunteer status? Grandmothers in the village to chop wood? You read article 359. Mercenary, its actions fall under paragraph 1.
                        And article 208. The organization of an illegal armed formation or participation in it is paragraph 1, and paragraph 2 too.



                        Here he talked about the murder, and illegal arms trafficking, and illegal border crossing, and the creation of an illegal armed formation. All citizens of the Russian Federation who received a salary in the armed groups of the DNI of the LPR, fall under the article Mercenary.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Terminology is already of secondary importance.

                        God bless her, with terminology, it’s a shame that Russian laws have a secondary or tertiary meaning.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Ukraine has only one way to preserve its statehood. And I voiced it. In all other cases, this is not a weak state, but not a state at all.

                        I do not agree, federalization will not, Ukraine is unlikely to disappear, the DNI and LC will remain unrecognized entities in the coming decades. Wait and see.
                      14. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        9 July 2020 00: 18
                        You are wrong. But ... wait and see.
                        In my understanding, Ukraine is no longer a fall state, but simply no state.
                      15. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        10 July 2020 10: 56
                        Quote: Bakht
                        In my understanding, Ukraine is no longer a fall state, but simply no state.

                        You have the wrong understanding.
                        I say, you do not answer uncomfortable questions.
                      16. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +1
                        10 July 2020 11: 34
                        I try not to answer your questions at all.
                        Articles 208 and 359 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation have no relation to Girkin. Read carefully.
                        That is why I do not answer your questions.
                      17. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        13 July 2020 01: 33
                        That is, you will argue that the practice of the Stalinist triples did not contradict the 36-year constitution.
                        Specifically:

                        Article 102. Justice in the USSR is administered by the Supreme Court of the USSR, the Supreme Courts of the Union Republics, regional and regional courts, courts of autonomous republics and autonomous regions, district courts, special courts of the USSR, established by order of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, and people's courts.
                        Article 103. The consideration of cases in all courts is carried out with the participation of lay assessors, except in cases specially provided for by law.
                        ...
                        Article 110. Proceedings are conducted in the language of a union or autonomous republic or autonomous region with provision for persons who do not speak this language, full familiarization with the case materials through an interpreter, as well as the right to speak in court in their native language.
                        Article 111. Proceedings in all courts of the USSR are open, since the law does not provide for exceptions, ensuring the accused has the right to defense.

                        Regarding Girkin and volunteers:

                        Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 208. Organization of an illegal armed formation or participation in it
                        1. The creation of an armed formation (association, detachment, squad or other group) not provided for by federal law, as well as the leadership of such formation or its financing shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of ten to twenty years with a restriction of liberty for a term of one year to two years .

                        Girkin says in an interview that I quoted above that he organized and armed !!! his detachment in Russia is already in Crimea and crossed the border with Ukraine in the Rostov region.
                        Criminal Code Article 359. Mercenary

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Criminal Code Article 359. Mercenary
                        1. The recruitment, training, financing or other material support of a mercenary, as well as its use in armed conflict or military operations, shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of four to eight years, with or without restriction of liberty for a term of up to two years.
                        3. The participation of a mercenary in armed conflict or hostilities -
                        shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three to seven years with restriction of freedom for a term of up to one year, or without it.

                        As far as I know, the militia was paid a salary. Accordingly, Girkin paid mercenaries and falls under part one, and volunteers, receiving money, under part three.
                        Judging by the initiative of the deputies, I am right.

                        https://iz.ru/news/572924

                        How is Artem Shirobokov different from any Prilepin?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I try not to answer your questions at all.
                        Articles 208 and 359 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation have no relation to Girkin. Read carefully.
                        That is why I do not answer your questions.

                        It seems more like you just have nothing to answer.
                      18. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +2
                        13 July 2020 08: 22
                        There is something to answer. Both in the Constitution and in the Laws of the Russian Federation you have missed very significant points. Do not want to pay attention to all the details. Under the Constitution of the USSR, triples were legal. And according to the laws of the Russian Federation, Girkin does not fall under their action.
                        Study the material more carefully.
                      19. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        0
                        13 July 2020 14: 29
                        Quote: Bakht
                        There is something to answer.

                        So why don't you answer?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Both in the Constitution and in the Laws of the Russian Federation you have missed very significant points. Do not want to pay attention to all the details.

                        Which ones, for example?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Under the Constitution of the USSR, triples were legal.

                        Article 102 clearly spells out who can administer justice to the USSR. The triples are not included in this number. If only they were doing something else ...
                        On the basis of what people were deprived of the right to protection?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And according to the laws of the Russian Federation, Girkin does not fall under their action.

                        What to study here. An organized group of people with weapons who are not members of the power structures of the Russian Federation is obviously an illegal armed group. The circulation of military weapons is prohibited.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Study the material more carefully.

                        What happened to you? Previously, you were able to lead a reasoned argument, now you get off with insignificant mysterious phrases, slip into the level of the respected 321.
                      20. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +2
                        13 July 2020 14: 43
                        I said that I do not even want to argue with you. You don't pay attention to details. And they are important. "Threes" and even "twos" were quite legal. It was just that there were such Laws then. You cited a reference to the 1936 Constitution, without paying attention to the main word. And on one of the points. Take a closer look.
                        As for Girkin, you inattentively read the laws of the Russian Federation. In particular, about mercenarism. Everything is indicated there. Girkin is not subject to these laws. It also clearly states this. But you persistently do not notice it.
                        I'm just tired of chewing everything. If a person is convinced, then you can’t prove anything to him.
                        From a legal point of view, your arguments are untenable. You look into the text and see only what you want to see. Believe me, I, not being a lawyer, went through such processes that I needed a lawyer only to process my requests. I found all the necessary laws myself. And have not yet lost.
                      21. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        15 July 2020 10: 55
                        Quote: Bakht
                        You do not pay attention to details.

                        For example, which ones?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        "Threes" and even "twos" were quite legal.

                        But comrade Beria does not agree with you:

                        About 200 thousand people were sentenced for up to 5 years through the so-called police threes, whose existence was not legalized 1.

                        http://istmat.info/node/24582

                        This is it about the enemy of the people, the conspirator and lover of same-sex love Yezhov. There's a lot about "legality".
                        But although what to take from citizen Beria, like all the leaders of the NKVD, he is an enemy of the people and a traitor (trying to collude with Hitler). What could he know? Indeed, unlike you, he could not defend himself in court.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You cited the 1936 Constitution without paying attention to the main word. And on one of the points. Take a closer look.

                        Rather than writing this text, it would be easier to quote. What is the main word? You know, it's hard to look for a black cat in a dark room, especially if, most likely, this cat exists only in your imagination.

                        Condemn the extrajudicial mass repressions of the Stalinist period, recognize unconstitutional the "troika" of the NKVD-UNKVD, the OGPU collegiums and the "special meetings" of the NKVD-MGB-MVD of the USSR, which were in force in the 30s and 40s and in the early 50s, and annul the extrajudicial decisions made by them that were not canceled by the time this Decree was issued.

                        Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of January 16, 1989

                        But you, of course, it is better to know what is constitutional and what is not.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        As for Girkin, you inattentively read the laws of the Russian Federation. In particular, about mercenarism. Everything is indicated there. Girkin is not subject to these laws. It also clearly states this. But you persistently do not notice it.

                        Girkin organized an armed group? Yes. Is it legal? Not. He organized it in the territory of the Russian Federation? Yes. In my opinion, clearly falls under 208.
                        Girkin recruited his fighters? Yes. Provided with a weapon? Yes. Used your fighters in an armed conflict? Yes.
                        Were his fighters mercenaries?

                        A mercenary is a person who acts for the purpose of receiving material compensation and who is not a citizen of a state participating in an armed conflict or hostilities, who does not reside permanently in its territory, and who is not a person who is sent to perform official duties.

                        Did his fighters receive material rewards? Yes. Lived in Ukraine? Not. Referred to official duties? Not. Participated in hostilities? Yes.
                        In my opinion, it clearly falls under 359.

                        Are you sure that this is not you watching the text and seeing only what you want to see?
                      22. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +1
                        15 July 2020 11: 50
                        Article 208 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

                        2. Participation in an armed formation not provided for by federal law, as well as participation on the territory of a foreign state in an armed formation not provided for by the legislation of that state, for purposes contrary to the interests of the Russian Federation
                        Note. The person who first committed the crime provided for in this article, voluntarily ceased participation in an illegal armed group and surrendered weapons, is exempted from criminal liabilityif his actions do not contain a different corpus delicti.
                        -----
                        USSR Constitution 1936 of the year
                        Article 103. The consideration of cases in all courts is carried out with the participation of lay assessors, except as expressly provided by law.

                        The creation of extrajudicial triplets was authorized by the decision of the Politburo and signed by all the highest officials of the USSR. The composition of each troika was approved by the country's leadership. The line-ups of almost 200 or 300 triplets were changed. Troikas were liquidated by the decision of the Council of People's Commissars. A government agency. The activities of the "troikas" were not subject to court decisions. This point is stipulated in the 1936 Constitution. Read carefully.
                        -----
                        You can say that this is casuistry. But in all Codes and Laws of most countries of the world it is clearly indicated that any ambiguous and implicit statement is interpreted IN THE FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED. I would have won this case in court. Kazannik spoke of the same thing. Lawyer by education. At one time he held the position of Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation.
                      23. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        16 July 2020 00: 37
                        Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Article 208. Organization of an illegal armed formation or participation in it
                        1. The creation of an armed formation (association, detachment, squad or other group) not provided for by federal law, as well as the leadership of such formation or its financing shall be punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of ten to twenty years with a restriction of liberty for a term of one year to two years.
                        Note. Face, first who has committed the crime provided for in this article, voluntarily ceased participation in an illegal armed formation and surrendered a weapon, shall be exempted from criminal liability, if his actions do not contain a different corpus delicti.

                        Paragraph one, whether it contradicts or not the interests of the Russian Federation (who, interestingly, determines these interests?)
                        Girkin did not participate for the first time (there was still Yugoslavia and Transnistria) and admitted that he personally shot a man (I do not remember a Ukrainian or a Russian).
                        By mercenarism, as I understand it, there are no questions?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        USSR Constitution 1936 of the year
                        Section 103. Cases in all courts carried out with people's assessorsexcept as otherwise provided by law.

                        What does the people's assessors have to do with it? What do triples have to do with ships? What law is provided for (do you understand the difference between law and order?).

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The creation of extra-judicial triples was authorized by the decision of the Politburo and sealed by the signatures of all the highest officials of the USSR.

                        Article 126. In accordance with the interests of the working people and in order to develop organizational activity and political activity of the masses, citizens of the USSR shall be guaranteed the right to form public organizations: trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations, sports and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies, and the most active and conscious citizens from the ranks of the working class, working peasants and labor intelligentsia voluntarily unite in the Communist Party of the Soviet Unionwhich is the advanced detachment of the working people in their struggle to build a communist society and represents the leading core of all workers' organizations as public,
                        and state.

                        On what basis did the public organization authorize the creation of extrajudicial triples? By what law were these triples generally regulated?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The composition of each trio was approved by the country's leadership.

                        If the triples are unconstitutional, then this is a crime.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The triples were eliminated by the decision of SNK.

                        AND? They were created by order of the NKVD, also a state body.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The activities of the "troikas" were not subject to court decisions. This point is stipulated in the 1936 Constitution. Read carefully.

                        I read it carefully. There are no reservations that citizens can be administratively deprived of their life without the right to protection. Can I have a specific article where this is stipulated?
                        I correctly understood that Beria was wrong and misinformed Stalin that

                        About 200 thousand people were sentenced for up to 5 years through the so-called police threes, whose existence was not legalized

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I would have won this case in court.

                        That’s why I like you, it’s for your unrealistic optimism.
                        Millions of people rehabilitated on the basis that they were unlawfully persecuted, and you are going to easily win the trial. Who is the accused in whose favor is interpreted? Order 00447?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Kazennik spoke of the same thing. Lawyer by education. At one time he held the position of Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation.

                        But what about the statement of another lawyer -

                        https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/4258690

                        And, by the way, do not share the link to the statement of Kazannik? And then some LJ issues, looks like a fake.
                      24. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +3
                        16 July 2020 01: 35
                        It is said that a person is exempted from responsibility. As for mercenaries, you need to look at the dates. When Girkin created detachments in the Crimea, was it authorized by the leadership of the Crimea, was Crimea part of the Russian Federation then. By the way, I personally do not really like Girkin. I screwed up a lot of things. But he is hardly guilty in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.
                        About the "triplets". I'm still trying to bring you to the realization of a simple truth. The Constitution says about the JUDICIAL system. And "troikas" are EXTRAJUDICIAL tools. So your references to the Constitution are inappropriate. Your phrase

                        is there a law according to which it is possible to deprive people of their lives without the right to protection

                        - quite contradictory. As the liberals liked to say, "everything that is not forbidden is allowed." People were deprived of their lives by the internal order of the NKVD, which was approved by the Politburo. And it had the power of the Law. Formally, Kalinin was the head of state. But in reality, until the end of the 80s, all decisions were made at the Politburo. Beria could say whatever he wanted in accordance with the conjuncture. It was necessary to hang the executions on someone. It was decided to conduct extrajudicial processes and references to the courts and the Constitution do not pass. This was the very exception. There is a difference between an order and a law. Tell me one case in the history of the USSR when the decision of the Politburo was not carried out? They had the force of law. Even if it was not officially fixed.

                        There is one more thing. The most ineresting. Stalin had nothing to do with state power at all. He was the party secretary. Then take the trouble to delete the phrase "Stalinist repressions" from your dictionary. It would be more correct to say "Kalinin repressions". Or do you hang all the blame on Stalin and then the decisions of the Politburo have the force of law. Or troikas are illegal organs, and then all the blame lies with Kalinin.
                        By the way, why exactly in the 37th were "troikas" created? In general, I cannot stand the term "Great Terror". There are reasons for that.
                      25. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -2
                        19 July 2020 01: 37
                        Quote: Bakht
                        It has been said that a person is exempt from responsibility.

                        It is released under certain conditions, under which Girkin does not fall.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        As for the mercenary, you have to look at the dates. When Girkin created detachments in Crimea, was it sanctioned by the leadership of the Crimea, was Crimea then a part of the Russian Federation?

                        Look not, Girkin is not a citizen of Ukraine, did not live there and "is not a person sent to fulfill official duties."

                        Quote: Bakht
                        But he is hardly guilty in accordance with the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

                        He confessed to the murder of a man through the media, this alone is enough to initiate a case.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I'm still trying to bring you to the realization of a simple truth. The Constitution says about the JUDICIAL system. And the "troikas" are EXTRAJUDICIAL tools.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Under the Constitution of the USSR, triples were legal.

                        Have you changed your point of view? Tool of what? The judicial system is an instrument of justice, but the troika?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Your phrase

                        is there a law according to which it is possible to deprive people of their lives without the right to protection

                        - quite contradictory.

                        What is this?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        People were deprived of their lives by the internal order of the NKVD, which was approved by the Politburo. And it had the power of the Law.

                        This order is unconstitutional. It contradicts several articles of the constitution. What is this constitution that can be canceled by a decision of the Politburo?
                        And at the same time

                        Article 30. The supreme body of state power of the USSR is the Supreme Council of the USSR.
                        Article 31. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR exercises all the rights assigned to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution, since they are not, by virtue of the Constitution, the competence of the USSR bodies accountable to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR: the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and People's Commissariats THE USSR.
                        Article 32. The legislative power of the USSR is exercised exclusively By the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.
                        Article 39. A law is considered approved if it is adopted by both chambers of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR by a simple majority of each.
                        Article 73. The People's Commissars of the USSR issue orders and instructions within the competence of the respective People's Commissariats based on and pursuant to applicable laws, as well as resolutions and orders of the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR and check their implementation.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        As the liberals liked to say, "everything that is not forbidden is allowed."

                        This refers to the rights of citizens, not the rights of the state. Since these rights are in conflict.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Formally, Kalinin was the head of state. But in reality, until the end of the 80s, all decisions were made at the Politburo.

                        I don't argue with that. But this does not mean that the decisions of the Politburo are above the constitution and laws of the USSR. According to Fukuyama, these are the signs of a weak state, when written, declared rules and laws are replaced by party needs, criminal concepts or corporate interests.
                        You actually acknowledge that these orders are unconstitutional and illegal.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Beria could say whatever he wanted in accordance with the conjuncture. It was necessary to hang the executions on someone.

                        If this is a legitimate action, why should anyone hang executions on someone?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        It was decided to conduct extrajudicial processes and references to the courts and the Constitution do not pass.

                        Why don't they fit? Is the Politburo above the Constitution?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        This was the very exception

                        What is it? Where is it written?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Tell me one case in the history of the USSR when the decision of the Politburo was not carried out? They had the force of law. Even if it was not officially fixed.

                        Again, see Fukuyama about a weak state. And it was officially enshrined that every accused has the right to defense, and the orders of the NKVD should not run counter to the constitution and laws, and if they do, then this is a crime.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Then take the trouble to delete the phrase "Stalinist repressions" from your dictionary. It would be more correct to say "Kalinin repressions". Or do you hang all the blame on Stalin and then the decisions of the Politburo have the force of law. Or troikas are illegal organs, and then all the blame lies with Kalinin.

                        What nonsense? The documents bear the signatures of Stalin, and even Kalinin put his signatures as a member of the Politburo. Whether the decisions of the Politburo were not officially the force of law or not, does not at all negate the fact that, according to the current official regulations, the decision of the Politburo and the orders of the NKVD that gave the start to the "Great Terror" are unconstitutional and illegal, and the people who signed these documents and put them into practice , criminals under the laws in force at that time.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        By the way, why exactly in the 37th were "troikas" created? In general, I cannot stand the term "Great Terror". There are reasons for that.

                        Why?
                        "Great terror", because more people were executed in a year than during the entire period of Soviet power.
                      26. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        0
                        19 July 2020 08: 34
                        As always, the conversation between the blind and the deaf.
                      27. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        20 July 2020 01: 38
                        Quote: Bakht
                        As always, the conversation between the blind and the deaf.

                        I don’t know, I don’t know how for me it turned out quite interesting.
                        Of course, in the process, you changed position from

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Under the Constitution of the USSR, triples were legal.

                        on

                        Quote: Bakht
                        It was decided to conduct extrajudicial processes and references to the courts and the Constitution do not pass.

                        For some reason they dragged people's assessors here. And they could not substantiate their position as to why the decisions of the Politburo can cancel part of the Constitution and not be unconstitutional at the same time, except as a sacramental - like, it has always been so before and after.
                        Well, okay, let's not find fault.
                        As the saying goes, a productive discussion strengthens the parties in their delusions.
                      28. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +2
                        20 July 2020 18: 42
                        I haven't changed my point of view. It was from the point of view of the Constitution that the troikas were legal.
                        The NKVD order itself appeared as a result of the decision of the Politburo. At that time, it was the main body of the state. And it remained so until the end of the 80s.
                        By a decision of the Politburo, the NKVD was instructed to prepare an order, which was done (albeit with a delay). The composition of the triplets was also determined by the decision of the Politburo. They were: the secretary of the relevant district committee, the head of the NKVD and the prosecutor. This is the standard composition of the troika. Besides the secretary, two others are quite state employees. The signature of the first deputy of the People's Commissar is under the circular letters of the NKVD, regulating the work of troikas. This is Beria's signature. What he said later is no longer interesting.
                        The creation of triplets was not a spontaneous decision. And the terror of the late 20s and early 30s was much more widespread. The tale about the terrible 37th was invented, because it was in 37th that the creators of the terror of the 20s and 30s went under the knife. The so-called "Leninist Guard". In 1936, the Constitution was adopted and the resistance to its adoption came precisely from the party nomenklatura. The troikas were created as a temporary body of extrajudicial persecution and faded very quickly. All the blame was placed on Yezhov and shot. And Beria (whose signature is on many documents) became the People's Commissar.

                        As always, they switched from Ukraine to the evil Stalin and the lawless USSR. This is not true. Many are poisoned by the yellow press of the 90s. The reality is that Stalin abandoned the ideas of Leninism and began to build a state. Russian state. Hence the hatred of him on the part of the West and the new Russian liberals. I remember very well the slogans of perestroika:
                        "Lenin - Party - Gorbachev"
                        "Stalin - Beria - Ligachev"

                        I advise you books and articles by Shambarov and Narochnitskaya. This is a fairly serious study. Especially Shambarov "State and Revolutions". There is little about the triplets (practically nothing). But there the stages of the construction of the Soviet state are precisely noted.
                        And the books of Kara-Murza "Soviet Civilization" are also very good. Two-volume edition.
                      29. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        23 July 2020 01: 01
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I haven't changed my point of view. It was from the point of view of the Constitution that the troikas were legal.

                        Something you confuse me if

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Under the Constitution of the USSR, triples were legal.

                        why

                        Quote: Bakht
                        It was decided to conduct extrajudicial processes and references to the courts and the Constitution do not pass.

                        And if "references to the Constitution do not pass," then how can triplets be constitutional?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The NKVD order itself appeared as a result of the decision of the Politburo. At that time, it was the main body of the state. And it remained so until the end of the 80s.

                        I do not argue that the Politburo has unofficially concentrated all power in itself (which is unconstitutional in itself, see Fukuyama about weak institutions), but this does not put him above the constitution. And officially, from the point of view of the current constitution, the Politburo could not give any orders to the NKVD or other commissariats. Such orders are unconstitutional, that is, illegal.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        By a decision of the Politburo, the NKVD was instructed to prepare an order, which was done (albeit with a delay). The composition of the triplets was also determined by the decision of the Politburo. They were: the secretary of the relevant district committee, the head of the NKVD and the prosecutor. This is the standard composition of the troika. Apart from the secretary, two others are quite state employees.

                        The presence of civil servants in anti-constitutional troikas does not make this extrajudicial body legal, but makes these employees criminals.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The signature of the first deputy People's Commissar is under the circular letters of the NKVD, regulating the work of troikas. This is Beria's signature. What he said later is no longer interesting.

                        You are probably confusing something, it was about militia troikas, they could only give up to 5 years, without a VMN.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The creation of triplets was not a spontaneous decision. And the terror of the late 20s, early 30s was much more massive.

                        Are you talking about the dispossession policy? The execution was then used much less frequently. But the victims also numbered in the hundreds of thousands. 37 was a continuation of this policy.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The tale about the terrible 37th was invented, because it was in 37th that the creators of the terror of the 20s and 30s went under the knife. The so-called "Leninist Guard".

                        If the main creator was allowed to go under the knife, it was only at 53. I know you won’t answer, but what do you know about the practice of repression in 37-38? What relation did the discussed orders and troikas have to the "Leninist Guard"? Order No. 00447, the so-called "kulak line", and orders No. 00485, No. 00593, No. 50215, etc., the so-called "national lines", did not concern the "Leninist guard" from the word "absolutely". And along these lines the overwhelming majority of the victims were repressed.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        In 1936, the Constitution was adopted and the resistance to its adoption came precisely from the party nomenklatura.

                        I hope you do not want to drag out the old songs about the main thing, that like Stalin was going to arrange almost a multi-party democracy, and the evil party members did not want to and forced Stalin to arrange the "Great Terror"?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        All the blame was placed on Yezhov and shot.

                        I do not understand, if, in your opinion, everything was legal, what blame could they have blamed on Yezhov?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        This is not true.

                        You think so, but your argumentation is rather weak.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I advise you books and articles by Shambarov and Narochnitskaya. This is a fairly serious study. Especially Shambarov "State and Revolutions". There is little about the triplets (practically nothing). But there the stages of the construction of the Soviet state are precisely noted.

                        Honestly, I'm shocked. Have you seen this movie?



                        There, your Shambarov and Narochnitskaya are telling in all seriousness that the revolutions of 05 and 17 are the first "colored" ones inspired by Japanese, German intelligence and the capitalists of the United States. Moreover, the Bolsheviks are conscious agents of these forces and are financed by them. Something is said casually about your pet, like a bandit Tiflis raid. Shambarov and Narochnitskaya monarchists, telling how good life was under the tsar, and that Jews in Ingushetia were not oppressed.
                        Are you a monarchist?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And the books of Kara-Murza "Soviet Civilization" are also very good. Two-volume edition.

                        Unfortunately, I do not have that much time, especially since I do not believe in the concept of civilizations, the concept of a world-system is closer to me.
                      30. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +2
                        23 July 2020 10: 34
                        I repeat once again that I have not changed my point of view. At that time the USSR had such laws. The principle of the rule of the people was in effect. And there was a definition "enemies of the people." You also have a rather strange approach to legality. In different countries and at different times. From the point of view of the Constitution of Ukraine, all power in Ukraine is illegal. In the same way, as the Belovezhskaya agreements contradict the Constitution of the USSR and are illegal. Power in the USSR belonged to the Politburo and the CPSU. Let me remind you of your link. Article 126 of the USSR Constitution of 1936:

                        Article 126. In accordance with the interests of the working people and in order to develop the organizational initiative and political activity of the popular masses, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed the right to form public organizations: trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations, sports and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies, and the most active and conscientious citizens from the ranks of the working class, working peasants and working intelligentsia voluntarily unite in The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to build a communist society and representing the governing core of all workers' organizations, both public and state.

                        Article 6 of the 1977 USSR Constitution:

                        Article 6. The governing and the guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.

                        Have you forgotten the slogans of the USSR? I can remind you. The KPSS is the leading and the guiding force of the Soviet people.
                        According to the Constitutions of 1936 and 1977, it was the CPSU that was the governing body of the Soviet Union. When YOU understand and acknowledge this, then all doubts about the decisions of the Politburo and their legality will disappear. This is reality.
                      31. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        26 July 2020 03: 19
                        Quote: Bakht
                        I repeat once again that I have not changed my point of view. At that time, the USSR had such laws.

                        But you stubbornly do not want to bring these laws.
                        You said that these are unofficial laws (decisions of the Politburo).

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Tell me one case in the history of the USSR when the decision of the Politburo was not carried out? They had the force of law. Even if it wasn't official fixed.

                        But there were no official laws. And you can't sew unofficial laws to business.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The principle of the rule of the people was in effect.

                        It's funny, the USSR was a totalitarian dictatorship during Stalin's time. The people's power would never have allowed collectivization with such an incredible number of victims.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You also have a rather strange approach to legality. In different countries and at different times. From the point of view of the Constitution of Ukraine, all power in Ukraine is illegal.

                        What's so strange? If it does not contradict the laws, it is legal, if it does not contradict it, it is illegal. The modern government of Ukraine can hardly be accused of being anti-constitutional, probably in 14. That is, you consider the power in Ukraine illegal, because the transition did not comply with the constitution, but the Stalinist troikas are legal, although they also did not comply with the constitution. Double standards, however.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        In the same way, the Belovezhskaya agreements contradict the Constitution of the USSR and are illegal.

                        This is undoubtedly an anti-constitutional coup. Do you know why you can be punished in a criminal order for an attempted coup, but you cannot be punished for a successful one? There are some differences here, Yeltsin and Co. destroyed the USSR and its constitution, as it stood in their way to power, and the USSR constitution was no longer valid. The Stalinist constitution was in effect, and no one disputed its legitimacy.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Let me remind you your link. Article 126 of the USSR Constitution of 1936:
                        Article 126. In accordance with the interests of the working people and in order to develop the organizational initiative and political activity of the popular masses, the citizens of the USSR are guaranteed the right to form public organizations: trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations, sports and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies, and the most active and conscientious citizens from the ranks of the working class, working peasants and working intelligentsia voluntarily unite into the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which is the vanguard of the working people in their struggle to build a communist society and represents the leading core of all workers' organizations, both public and state.

                        This article does not speak about government agencies, but about "workers' organizations". And this article does not say that the communist party is above the constitution. Actually, this is a declaration, the constitution does not say that the Politburo has the right to issue laws. And Art. 32 and art. 39 directly indicates who has the constitutional right to pass laws and this is not the Politburo. You are selective in your reading of the constitution.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Article 6 of the 1977 USSR Constitution:

                        We are still discussing the 36-year-old constitution and the 37-38 troika.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Have you forgotten the slogans of the USSR? I can remind you. The CPSU is the leading and guiding force of the Soviet people.

                        You can't sew slogans to business either. Moreover, at the end no one believed in them.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        According to the Constitutions of 1936 and 1977, the CPSU was the governing body of the Soviet Union.

                        In my opinion, you are quite free in your interpretation of Article 126 of the 36 Constitution on public organizations.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        When YOU understand and acknowledge this, then all doubts about the decisions of the Politburo and their legality will disappear. This is reality.

                        Do you know how Ivan the Terrible's oprichnina differs from Joseph Stalin's "Great Terror"? The oprichnina was legal, since then the will of the sovereign, the absolute monarch, was law. His subjects, from the very last stinker to a boyar from a noble family, were in fact his property, and the tsar could, at his own discretion, execute them or have mercy, depending on which foot he got up that day. Then came the era of enlightenment and liberalism arose with the idea of ​​limiting the power of the monarch by law (and then power in general).
                        By and large, you are now trying to prove that it is necessary to discard 300 years of social development and return to medieval practices, that the Politburo and Stalin personally are some kind of absolute monarch, whose will is above laws and the constitution. But one cannot agree with this.
                        I would not be surprised if you turned out to be a monarchist who considers Stalin the red tsar. As they say, tell me what you read and I will tell you who you are. If you are a fan of the creativity of the monarchists Shambarov and Narochnitskaya, then why not.
                        And yes, besides the fact that the "Great Terror" is illegal, it also caused colossal material and political damage to the Soviet Union. They still argue about the reasons for these repressions; by and large, it is impossible to find those responsible. And in the end, these orders are immoral, even if one believes in the absolute power of the Politburo.
                      32. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +3
                        26 July 2020 10: 19
                        Aren't you tired yet?
                        Did you live in the Soviet Union? Whose will and orders had the force of law? Executive Committee, Council or District Committee? The minister could propose a candidate or a draft decision. Without the approval of the secretary, it didn't matter. The USSR was a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat. And the decisions of the party had the force of the Law.
                        Are you referring to the Constitution? The nomination of deputies to the Soviets was allowed only from the bloc of communists and non-party people. And the deputy, in addition to the mandate, also obeyed party discipline.
                        I didn't know at all where the district council of deputies was located. But everyone knew perfectly well where the party district committee was located. According to the Constitution of the USSR, the governing body of the country is the Communist Party. And everything else was of subordinate importance. Do you know why so many copies were broken for the abolition of the 6th article of the Constitution? As soon as it was canceled, the country ended.
                        You cling so stubbornly to the illegality of the triplets ... They were created by the decision of the country's governing body. And they were quite legal by the standards of that time.
                        ------
                        According to the Ukrainian Constitution, the removal of Yanukovych was illegal. The rights of a huge number of citizens are not respected in the country. The decisions of the Constitution are not implemented. By all indications, this is not a state at all. Regardless of your or my perception.
                        -----
                        About Girkin. By law, he is released from responsibility. In the same way, thousands of Chechen citizens have been exempted from responsibility. Including R. Kadyrov. Don't you want to bring thousands of Chechens to justice?
                        This (amnesty) could only be done by a strong state. Ukraine will not be able to do this precisely because of its illegality and weakness.

                        Honestly, this topic is boring. I believe that in the USSR the power of the Politburo and the Communist Party was absolute. And this was enshrined in the Constitution. And that was the real practice. You think that the power of the Communist Party was illegal. Your opinion contradicts the real practice of the state at that time.

                        Whom I read and who I consider myself to be is my own business. Again, you draw a conclusion on the wrong facts. I read everything that interests me. And if I'm interested, then I read all sides. I also read the memoirs of German generals. So what? In your opinion, am I a Nazi? On the contrary. Those who read only those authors that they like, I consider insufficiently prepared for discussion.
                      33. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        29 July 2020 00: 26
                        An interesting topic.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Did you live in the Soviet Union? Whose will and orders had the force of law? Executive Committee, Council or District Committee? The minister could propose a candidate or a draft decision. Without the approval of the secretary, it didn't matter.

                        Yes, he lived in the USSR. And I didn't know where the district committee was. It feels like you don't understand me. If the ruling party through an elected body appoints any candidates for this or that position, there is nothing surprising, and even more so illegal. If the ruling party passes some law through parliament that does not contradict the constitution, this is also normal. If the ruling party changes or adopts a new constitution through legal procedures, there is no question. But when a party directly controls the People's Commissariat bypassing the Armed Forces and the Council of People's Commissars, it is unconstitutional. If these orders are contrary to the constitution, it is unconstitutional. If these orders violate the rights of citizens, for example, the right to life, it is a crime. Want the opinion of another lawyer? From 1.40



                        Quote: Bakht
                        According to the Constitution of the USSR, the governing body of the country is the Communist Party. And everything else was of subordinate importance. Do you know why so many copies were broken for the abolition of the 6th article of the Constitution? As soon as it was canceled, the country ended.

                        But not above the constitution. You once cited Article 6 of the 77 Constitution, but not all

                        Article 6. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union is the guiding and guiding force of Soviet society, the core of its political system, state and public organizations. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.
                        Armed with Marxist-Leninist teachings, the Communist Party determines the general outlook for the development of society, the line of internal and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great creative activity of the Soviet people, and gives a systematic, scientifically substantiated character to its struggle for the victory of communism.
                        All party organizations operate within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR.

                        Looks like it was added after the "excesses" of 37-38 years. This article is clear to me, everything is logical. The party determines the direction of the development of society and the state, the authorities implement a policy to achieve the set goal, but within the framework of the law and the current constitution. The Politburo does not replace either the legislative or the executive, or even more so the judiciary. Cancellation of this article is not a cause, but an effect.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        You cling so stubbornly to the illegality of the triplets ... They were created by the decision of the country's governing body. And they were quite legal by the standards of that time.

                        You yourself said that this body was unofficially governing, accordingly, and its decisions are unofficial. And according to official laws, this decision of the Politburo is anti-constitutional and criminal.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        According to the Ukrainian Constitution, the removal of Yanukovych was illegal. The rights of a huge number of citizens are not respected in the country. The decisions of the Constitution are not implemented. By all indications, this is not a state at all. Regardless of your or my perception.

                        That Ukraine is not a state is your personal, unfounded opinion. The main sign of the state's solvency is its international recognition. Nobody disputes the statehood of Ukraine in the world, including the Russian Federation.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        About Girkin. By law, he is released from responsibility. In the same way, thousands of Chechen citizens have been exempted from responsibility. Including R. Kadyrov. Don't you want to bring thousands of Chechens to justice?

                        What is the law? When was the number accepted? The State Duma accepted the amnesty for the Chechen war, and it released from responsibility only for participation in illegal armed men on the territory of Chechnya. The amnesty did not apply to serious crimes (for example, murder, creation of illegal armed groups). No amnesties were adopted regarding Donbass.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        This (amnesty) could only be done by a strong state. Ukraine will not be able to do this precisely because of its illegality and weakness.

                        Some kind of strange statement. That is, the Russian Federation during the Yeltsin era is a strong state, since more than one amnesty was held. A criminal amnesty in Ukraine will not work?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I believe that in the USSR the power of the Politburo and the Communist Party was absolute. And this was enshrined in the Constitution. And that was the real practice. You think that the power of the Communist Party was illegal. Your opinion contradicts the real practice of the state at that time.

                        This is the second time I pierce myself like this, I wanted to hurt you by comparing Stalin's rule with the practices of the Middle Ages with his absolute monarchy, and you took and confirmed that Stalinism is precisely medieval practice. In the twentieth century, absolute power is an anachronism. It must be limited by law, and by written law.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Your opinion contradicts the real practice of the state at that time.

                        If a practice is contrary to the constitution, it cannot be lawful.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Whom I read and who I consider myself to be is my own business. Again, you draw a conclusion on the wrong facts. I read everything that interests me. And if I'm interested, then I read all sides. I also read the memoirs of German generals. So what? In your opinion, am I a Nazi? On the contrary.

                        But you did not claim to share the Nazi views.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I advise you books and articles by Shambarov and Narochnitskaya. This is a fairly serious study. Especially Shambarov "State and Revolutions". There is little about the triplets (practically nothing). But there the stages of the construction of the Soviet state are precisely noted.

                        I understand that you share their view. You would not advise an author who contradicts your beliefs.

                        PS Let's do this. There are several questions regarding the legality of triplets.
                        1. Powers of the Politburo. What makes you think that his power is absolute? Where is it officially registered? Article 126 does not pass, since it is about

                        workers' organizations, both public and state.

                        2. Why do you think that the decisions of the Politburo are above the constitution. Where it is officially spelled out. (As it was not officially, it does not apply to the topic of legality).
                      34. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +2
                        29 July 2020 09: 09
                        This is no longer interesting, because the positions are designated and we have a different approach. You are talking about constitutionality, and I am talking about legality. In the USSR in the 30s, these were different concepts. The top priority was the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Constitution was only an instrument. If the Supreme Council or the CEC makes a decision, then it is legal, regardless of the Constitution.
                        Specifically about the Order of the NKVD:

                        But returning to the emergence of "triplets": here is an order issued, yes, it was issued by the head of the NKVD, that is, Commissar, member of the Council of People's Commissars. Had the right to issue such an order?

                        He had, but he had no right to create such a body on his own. But this order was approved and signed by the members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). And here comes an interesting moment - they usually say: this was not signed by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, but by members of the Politburo. And here we come back to the theory of separation of powers, which in fact did not exist in the Soviet Union. For example, the head of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee at that time was, the chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was a certain Mikhail Kalinin, and he was also a member of the Politburo, and the head of the Politburo was Comrade Stalin, who was a member of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. Those. in fact, most of the members of the Politburo were members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, and when they say that they were signed, they say, by members of the Politburo, and not members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, then in this case liberal ideologists simply trite substitute concepts. Those. signed by the members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, they are the same people.

                        Was it right or wrong from a legal point of view? Was it possible to do this or not?

                        How exactly? These are the signatures of specific people who are members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee.

                        There is some kind of, so to speak, attribution - that you first write the position, and then the surname.

                        So the fact is that in the Soviet Union it was not obligatory. Here, at this level, here, what picture is obtained - that the members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee signed, i.e. all the signatures on the document are members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee. And one SNK member - Yezhov.

                        Yes, we will assume that such a version has the right to exist.

                        So, these people, having signed the order of Yezhov, made the "troikas" a legal judicial body. Not constitutional, but completely legal from the point of view of Soviet laws. This was signed by people who had the authority to sign such a document and to make such a decision. Those. One point is absolutely ... it turns out that according to Soviet laws, the "troikas" were a legitimate judicial body.
                      35. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        0
                        30 July 2020 17: 00
                        Quote: Bakht
                        You are talking about constitutionality, and I am talking about legality.

                        I don't understand how it can be both legal and unconstitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, all other legal acts (criminal, procedural codes, orders of departments, etc.) must comply with it. Are you saying that the constitution was Filkin's letter? One comrade said:

                        The essence of the constitution is that the basic laws of the state in general and the laws concerning the right to vote in representative institutions, their competence, etc., express the actual balance of forces in the class struggle. A fictitious constitution when law and reality diverge; is not fictitious when they converge.

                        Did the USSR have a fictitious constitution? Or you do not use the word "lawfully" in a legal sense?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        In the USSR in the 30s, these were different concepts.

                        Is this your personal opinion or did you get it from somewhere? I hope not from the same place where they took the quote about the legality of triplets.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The top priority was the dictatorship of the proletariat and the Constitution was only an instrument.

                        Lenin, it seems, said that the constitution should just express the interests of the proletariat and legitimize this dictatorship, respectively, an attempt on this constitution is an attempt on the dictatorship of the proletariat. You asserted that Stalin was not a communist, why do you then drag the dogmas of Marxism here? By the way, what is your attitude to the opinion of Rosa Luxemburg and Kautsky about the dictatorship of the proletariat? In my opinion, the real practice of the authorities of the USSR has clearly demonstrated their correctness.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        If the Supreme Council or the CEC makes a decision, then it is legal, regardless of the Constitution.

                        I'm not asking for much, for some kind of justification for your words, if this is not purely your opinion, this should be spelled out somewhere. And yes, regarding triples, not the Supreme Council, not the CEC, no decisions were made.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Specifically, by order of the NKVD:

                        Whose words are these? Obviously not a lawyer or a historian. It's not for me to talk about illiteracy, but a person confuses the Central Executive Committee with the Central Executive Committee (unlike you) and enlisted Stalin in this Central Executive Committee, who was not there when he was born.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        He had, but he had no right to create such a body on his own.

                        Not justification why he had, not justification why he did not have it alone.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        And here comes an interesting moment - they usually say: this was not signed by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, but by members of the Politburo.

                        So on the document the title "Politburo decision" has to do with the All-Russian Central Executive Committee and even the Central Executive Committee?
                        Did the Politburo have a leader?
                        Of the eight people who signed the Politburo decree, only two were members of the CEC, one of them was shot. And only in the presidium of the CEC there were 15 people.
                      36. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +2
                        30 July 2020 23: 38
                        Many copies have been broken about triplets. Some of the historians and lawyers support your point of view, and some support mine. I have provided an interview that confirms my point of view. There are also opposite ones.
                        There was no division of power in the USSR. The decisions of the Politburo had the force of law. In the late USSR, the signature looked like this "General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR." In the Stalinist USSR, Stalin's signature was never challenged by anyone. Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M. Kalinin put his signature. And according to this decision, the People's Commissar V.D. Yezhov prepared an order. From my point of view, this is legal. You think that you are right and we continue to grind water in a mortar. The reality is this. In the USSR, the decisions of the Politburo had the force of law, and all ministries and people's commissariats were obliged to carry them out. The fact that the decision was not drawn up on the letterhead of the Central Executive Committee does not change anything. The same people signed.
                        -----
                        I know several countries that still do well without a Constitution. For example, Israel.
                      37. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        0
                        2 August 2020 01: 26
                        Quote: Bakht
                        Some of the historians and lawyers support your point of view, and some support mine. I have provided an interview that confirms my point of view.

                        Yes, now it is clear why you did not give a link to this interview, I would also be ashamed to refer to Boris Yulin. He is not a historian, but a history buff. Is he the most authoritative "historian" who shares your views?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        There was no division of power in the USSR.

                        And why then all these SNK, Congress of Soviets, CEC, Supreme Court?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Chairman of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee M. Kalinin put his signature. And according to this decision, the People's Commissar V.D. Yezhov prepared an order.

                        Do you know what the All-Russian Central Executive Committee is? The All-Russian Central Executive Committee, the highest authority in the RSFSR. The CEC is the central executive committee of the USSR, the highest authority in the USSR. It is a parliament composed of the Union Council and the Council of Nationalities. The Union Council consists of 371 members. Another hundred people in the Council of Nationalities. There the decision is made by majority vote. Why could Kalinin alone make a decision for the entire CEC?

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The reality is this. In the USSR, the decisions of the Politburo had the force of law, and all ministries and people's commissariats were obliged to carry them out.

                        The decisions of a thieves' gathering in some prison are also mandatory, but this does not make them legal and above the rules of the regime.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        The fact that the decision was not drawn up on the letterhead of the Central Executive Committee does not change anything. The same people signed.

                        Signatures of two out of 500.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        I know several countries that still do well without a Constitution. For example, Israel.

                        AND? Are mass executions carried out in Israel? The reality is that the Soviet authorities adopted the Constitution, but they themselves were in no hurry to comply with it. Which was contrary to Article 130.
                      38. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +1
                        2 August 2020 09: 56
                        I told you my point of view. I take the first links I come across. There are both historians and lawyers. This topic is completely uninteresting to me. I just know for sure that the decisions of the Politburo had the force of law. And your attempts to reduce everything to a "thieves gathering" I also understand. The signatures of top government officials make this order completely legal. And the order itself did not appear by itself, but by the decision of the Politburo.
                        That's all I can say. Your references to the Constitution are inappropriate. For the simple reason that I have already said. The Constitution stipulates that the governing body of the country is the Communist Party. And attempts to compare warm and round (that is, democracy and dictatorship) make you draw erroneous conclusions. I gave Israel as an example that you can live without a Constitution. As in the UK or Canada. You can change it, as it was changed 4 times in Russia - the USSR. Several dozen amendments can be made, as in the United States. The constitution is a general set of rules and a direction of movement. The daily life of the country (real life) is in accordance with the laws and decisions of the governing bodies. For example, like in Israel.
                        ------
                        I practically no longer read your arguments. They were known to me 5-6 years ago. And you simply cannot tell me anything new.
                        ----
                        Addition. I didn't want to talk, but I have to. The constitutional rights of tens of thousands of people have been violated in Azerbaijan. Hundreds of applications to the ECHR. So what? And nothing. The European Court of Human Rights decided that the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of Azerbaijan is binding. Although it is contrary to the Constitution. I do not live in your paper world, but in my real one. Therefore, our dispute is useless.
                      39. Bakht
                        Bakht
                        +2
                        23 July 2020 10: 41
                        About the movie. No, I didn't. I don't watch television. I don't look from the word "at all". I read. And about Fukuyama you are wrong. If you say that the USSR in the 30s was a weak state, I will laugh for a long time. We put different meanings into this concept. A weak state is the USSR of the 20s, this is the USSR or its remnants in the 90s. The weak state at the present stage is the USA of our day. Ukraine today is not a state at all.
                      40. Oleg Rambover
                        Oleg Rambover
                        -1
                        26 July 2020 03: 05
                        Quote: Bakht
                        ... the film. No, I didn't. I don't watch television. I don't look from the word "at all". I read.

                        So the film is based on the book. Or a book on the film, I didn't get it. There is a book anyway.



                        Quote: Bakht
                        And you are wrong about Fukuyama. If you say that the USSR in the 30s was a weak state, I will laugh for a long time. We put different meanings into this concept. A weak state is the USSR of the 20s, this is the USSR or its remnants in the 90s. The weak state at the present stage is the USA of our day.

                        You yourself did not define a strong state, but referred to Fukuyama. According to Fukuyama:

                        https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-37897243

                        In my understanding, a strong state is above all an effective state.

                        State, which respects the law, there is an independent and fair judicial system, the infrastructure is developed and the systems of social services and health care work effectively.

                        The USSR of the 30s clearly does not fit this definition.

                        Quote: Bakht
                        Ukraine today is not a state at all.

                        Ukraine has all the features of a state. Your personal attitude towards Ukraine does not cancel its statehood.
          2. Bakht
            Bakht
            +2
            27 June 2020 11: 40
            I can’t say anything concrete about your uncle in Lugansk. But there is such information

            Matilda Bogner, head of the UN monitoring mission on human rights in Ukraine, called on the new government of Ukraine and the Verkhovna Rada to ensure the payment of pensions to residents of uncontrolled territories. This problem has not been solved since 2014, when an armed conflict broke out in the Donbass. Today, the Ukrainian pension is accompanied by a large number of restrictions for residents of territories not controlled by Kiev. At the same time, the vote in the Verkhovna Rada on the bill, which should simplify bureaucratic procedures, failed. According to experts, Kiev authorities continue the policy of denying pensions to residents of self-proclaimed republics.

            According to other sources, the number of pensioners who have not received a pension since 2014 is about 700 thousand people. The Rada discussed this issue and recognized debts in the amount of 3 billion euros. The discussion ended in nothing. The Ukrainian "state" is unable to pay off the debts on pensions in full.
            -----
            About the Russians. I love them. They do not like them who force them to abandon their language, culture and identity. It has been said a hundred times - money is not the most important thing here. The main thing seems different. In the 90s, Russia threw millions of its own into the territories of the former Union. Millions If he throws even 10-20 million more in Ukraine now, then the costs will have to be considered not billions and trillions. The cost may be the very identity of Russians as a people.
            And than. The territory of Donbass is not a desert. These are people (the most important resource) and resources and industry. If this is such a burden, then why did Kiev grab onto these territories? Fairy tales about "depressed regions" were not rolled out even in 2014.
            1. Oleg Rambover
              Oleg Rambover
              -1
              27 June 2020 17: 31
              Quote: Bakht
              I can’t say anything concrete about your uncle in Lugansk. But there is such information

              True, as always, somewhere in between. Yes, my uncle was registered in the territory controlled by Ukraine, but he lived in Lugansk. Now, as I understand it, registration is not required.

              https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/3732747

              Quote: Bakht
              They do not like them who force them to abandon their language, culture and identity. It was said a hundred times - money is not the most important thing here.

              I was in Kiev a couple of years ago, the vast majority in everyday life speaks Russian. Rather, the Ukrainian language in Ukraine is endangered. For their president (Nazi?) Ukrainian is not their native language. Again, familiar speeches about the infringement of compatriots abroad.

              Quote: Bakht
              In the 90s, Russia threw millions of its own into the territories of the former Union. Millions If he throws even 10-20 million more in Ukraine now, then the costs will have to be considered not billions and trillions. The cost may be the very identity of Russians as a people.

              Ukraine is the last place where Russians are infringed (I don’t understand how to distinguish Russian from Ukrainian). Compared to Central Asia, for sure. But you and our authorities were concerned about the fate of the Russians in Ukraine. It seems to me that the fate of the Russians in these events worries our authorities, in the best case, in the fourth place, if (judging by the Donbass) they really care. 20 million is half of the inhabitants of Ukraine.

              Quote: Bakht
              And than. The territory of Donbass is not a desert. These are people (the most important resource) and resources and industry. If this is such a burden, then why did Kiev grab onto these territories? Fairy tales about "depressed regions" were not rolled out even in 2014.

              What did you want to say? Who says it's a burden? Now, yes, some expenses and no income, so what? No government in any country wants to let go of their regions. Remember the Russian Federation and Chechnya. There was also (and probably is) a "burden", so what?
              1. Bakht
                Bakht
                +2
                27 June 2020 17: 34
                As for the situation in Ukraine, there are people who live there. Ask them. Since 2014, I have been communicating with people living in Kiev. Moreover, supporters of the Maidan and opponents. They do not understand each other. And some have already fled to Israel.
                1. Oleg Rambover
                  Oleg Rambover
                  -1
                  29 June 2020 12: 01
                  Quote: Bakht
                  They do not understand each other.

                  So what? We do not understand each other either. What does it change. What does Israel have to do with it? Less from Russia escaped to Israel?
  5. Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev
    0
    25 June 2020 22: 30
    In fact, all these statements in the style of a shepherd Tolstoy are already tired.
    6 years - and everyone will "invade, invade". Real people don't pay attention to clowns from all sides, IMHO.
  6. Dima Dima_2
    Dima Dima_2
    +1
    25 June 2020 23: 03
    Kohl already taken the Crimea, if you please solve the problem with water.
    1. 123
      123
      0
      26 June 2020 01: 40
      You first decide in Transcarpathia, then you will learn.
  7. Cheburgen
    Cheburgen
    0
    26 June 2020 05: 49
    And if he doesn’t invade, then he is a complete under-hegemon.
  8. Roarv
    Roarv
    0
    26 June 2020 09: 52
    The layman does not understand what these generals consume - cocaine, heroin, opium, or different salts and chemicals or hemp grass ....
    Generals, remember - excessive consumption of anything leads to mental breakdown, persecution mania, shouts - "The Russians are coming ..." ... and a jump from the window of a high-rise building ...
    Russians come without predictions and predictions.
  9. rotkiv04
    rotkiv04
    0
    27 June 2020 11: 58
    It is hard to believe, but would sooner.
  10. bubasa
    bubasa
    0
    27 June 2020 18: 17
    What, by that time in the Pentagon a new batch of drugs will appear? winked