In Europe, they calculated how much Crimea cost Russia

November 25, 2020 59

After Joseph Biden's victory in the US presidential election, many are confident in the strengthening of anti-Western sanctions on Russia, imposed after the 2014 Crimean events. Analysts have different opinions on the effectiveness of the sanctions policy... The experts of the Lithuanian edition Delfi decided to calculate what the Crimea cost Russia.

Russia is now spending a lot of energy trying to adapt to the sanctions, but the negative effect of them is practically not in doubt.

Direct losses from sanctions in 2014-2018 were estimated in different ways, from $ 50 to $ 120 billion. Probably, Russia "paid" about $ 100 billion for Crimea in five years

- calculated in Delfi.

It is important that the losses of the Russian Federation are caused by the "toxicity" of the Kremlin's actions and the economics, which can have a very negative impact on the long-term economic situation in Russia. Thus, the volume of investments in Russian enterprises is decreasing and the rate of capital withdrawal is growing, quotations of Russian companies on foreign stock exchanges are falling, intensive cooperation with Western corporations is curtailed - all this leads to the technological lag of Russia behind more developed countries.

Because of the sanctions, Moscow lost the opportunity to defend its positions in the G7, reduced its influence in the BRICS, SCO and EAEU - this leads to the loss of many beneficial opportunities in the field of international cooperation, as well as reduces the strength and increases the vulnerability of the Russian economy to the negative influence of global trends - lower energy prices, the coronavirus pandemic, and the projected global economic crisis in the coming years.

59 comments

Information

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

Dear sofa expert.

0

25 November 2020 11: 56

If Russia lost 100 billion, then who bought it then?
After all, there is a proverb: money is not lost anywhere, they just change the owner.)
Well, who is now the new owner of these 100 billion?
1. Mikhail Petrov
  
  -1
  
  27 November 2020 10: 48
  
  The Rotenbergs with Putin and Zolotov, for example, "acquired" this money. Through the construction of the most expensive bridges in the world and the supply of the Russian Guard at inflated triple prices from the Crimean combine.
  1. Dear sofa expert.
    
    +1
    
    27 November 2020 12: 32
    
    Through the construction of the most expensive bridges in the world and the supply of the Russian Guard
    
    But the bridge was built, and the Russian Guard was created. Both serve today, and will serve in the future, the interests of Russia. Since, as you say, money was “wasted” for this, then this is not a loss, but rather an investment.
Bulanov

+10

25 November 2020 11: 59

And what would it cost Russia to have a NATO naval base in Crimea?
First, the further loss of the Caucasus.
Second, NATO's access to the Caspian Sea and the loss of Tatarstan in the future.
And also the chaos in Central Asia and a complete mess in the south of Russia.
1. Uneven
  
  -9
  
  25 November 2020 22: 40
  
  1) As a result of the Crimean provocation, NATO received Ukraine, the largest European country in terms of area (after the Russian Federation), and immediately went to the borders of 5 Russian regions.
  2) There will be as many NATO bases in Ukraine as the West needs.
  3) The Black Sea is a NATO inland sea.
  4) Both the "Caucasus" and "Caspian" absolutely do not depend on the misunderstanding that is called the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation.
  5)
  
  chaos in Central Asia and a complete mess in southern Russia
  
  - have nothing to do with the Crimea surrounded on all sides ...
  1. 123
    
    +2
    
    27 November 2020 05: 15
    
    1) As a result of the Crimean provocation, NATO received Ukraine, the largest European country in terms of area (after the Russian Federation), and immediately went to the borders of 5 Russian regions.
    
    Got it today, lost it tomorrow. The world is so changeable And on the border they were already standing at the same Chukhon "accountants" who like to count other people's money.
    
    2) There will be as many NATO bases in Ukraine as the West needs.
    
    How much do they need? Something is not particularly in a hurry, maybe scary gentlemen.
    
    3) The Black Sea is a NATO inland sea.
    
    It is better to study geography on the map and not on the globe of Ukraine. As long as Crimea is ours, ours and the sea, it is being shot through from there.
    
    4) Both the "Caucasus" and "Caspian" absolutely do not depend on the misunderstanding that is called the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation.
    
    Svidomo's strategist can be seen a mile away A misunderstanding is your pelvis, the Caucasus is covered from the sea, study the Georgian experience. By the way, the Caspian has its own flotilla.
    
    - have nothing to do with the Crimea surrounded on all sides ...
    
    Who surrounded him and when? What stupidity. We have to state the catastrophic drop in the level in Ukraine.
    1. Uneven
      
      -1
      
      2 December 2020 13: 11
      
      Got it today, lost it tomorrow. The world is so changeable
      
      Are you a prophet? Or are you still under the impression of the fate of the USSR?
      
      Something is not particularly in a hurry, maybe scary gentlemen.
      
      The speed is good for catching fleas. Whom exactly do you propose to fear for the West, which, by the way, without hindrances and especially slowly managed to master almost the entire Russian periphery, having included it in NATO?
      
      While Crimea is ours, ours and the sea, from there it is shot through and through
      
      A little bit of LikBeza: Judging by the map, Crimea is only 4,5% of the area of one country that is not friendly to Russia - Ukraine. In addition to Ukraine, the coast of the World Cup belongs to Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Georgia. Three of them are NATO members. Are you sure that NATO does not "shoot" the Black Sea?
      
      The Turkish Black Sea Fleet alone is much more powerful than the Russian Black Sea Fleet. In addition, (unlike the Russian) the Turkish fleet (Turkey is a NATO member) is not alone.
      
      Need to chew on the term "environment"?
      1. 123
        
        +3
        
        2 December 2020 14: 04
        
        Are you a prophet? Or are you still under the impression of the fate of the USSR?
        
        No, I'm talking about the belonging of Ukraine. I recommend going a little deeper into the history.
        
        The speed is good for catching fleas. Whom exactly do you propose to fear for the West, which, by the way, without hindrances and especially slowly managed to master almost the entire Russian periphery, having included it in NATO?
        
        Exactly I recommend that you take your time, think at first and write with a motorbike. Key words here "without interference"they are not capable of more.
        
        A little bit of LikBeza: Judging by the map, Crimea is only 4,5% of the area of one country that is not friendly to Russia - Ukraine. In addition to Ukraine, the coast of the World Cup belongs to Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey and Georgia. Three of them are NATO members. Are you sure that NATO does not "shoot" the Black Sea?
        
        ABOUT!!! educational program is so exciting
        Temporarily ruled by the Svidomites, 95,5% of "one unfriendly country" somehow affect the ability to shoot through the Black Sea? Chernihiv farmers against? Do not enlighten in what the relationship? Can you also tell us how Georgians, Bulgarians or Romanians are able to shoot through the sea? Will they wave NATO flags?
        
        The Turkish Black Sea Fleet alone is much more powerful than the Russian Black Sea Fleet. In addition, (unlike the Russian) the Turkish fleet (Turkey is a NATO member) is not alone.
        
        Keyword "Black Sea"They really have more ships, but ...
        1) The Turkish fleet is also based in the Mediterranean. If you want to compare with the Black Sea Fleet, take only what is in the Black Pore, but it will not be correct either.
        2) Our fleet can be helped, for example, by the Caspian Flotilla, without leaving the pier. It is stupid and naive to believe that in the event of a conflict, all the armed forces of Russia will watch from the sidelines how the Black Sea Fleet is fighting. Don’t you?
        So how and how is the Turkish fleet able to prevent the shooting of the Black Sea? Catching missiles with the sides of ships?
        In general, your reasoning is rather strange can you svidomity bit? This affects mental abilities, get vaccinated immediately, otherwise it is not clear what this will develop. Free advice, don't thank
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        2 December 2020 14: 31
        
        1) And to whom (in your opinion) Ukraine now "belongs"?
        2) Who and how will be able to prevent NATO from making decisions on admitting new members to this organization?
        3) You are not aware of the items in NATO armament capable of "covering" the Crimea?
        4) The key is the absolutely impotent (if not treacherous) policy of the current Russian regime regarding NATO.
        5) By the way, Putin personally appealed to the American presidents several times about Russia's admission to NATO.
        
        123
        
        +3
        
        2 December 2020 15: 23
        
        And to whom (in your opinion) Ukraine now "belongs"?
        
        Is it a mystery to you? Who else can sit so masterfully at the table But this is temporary, study history.
        
        Who and how can prevent NATO from making decisions on admitting new members to this organization?
        
        Firstly, the "candidates" themselves with problems in the field of "territorial integrity" will not take anyone there, none of them will sign up to fight for Sukhumi or Donetsk. Do you want to join NATO? The path begins with the recognition of the DPR / LPR.
        Secondly, Russia can place. Admitting newcomers to NATO in the post-Soviet space will entail countermeasures, such that by the time they join, the "applicants" themselves will not want this and will be in such a state that Brussels officials will shy away from them like hell.
        Yes, and they have no time, they are busy with other members.
        
        https://www.dw.com/ru/uvolennye-iz-bundesvera-gei-i-lesbijanki-poluchat-kompensacii/a-55723330
        
        By the way, you have somewhat naive ideas about NATO membership. Try to imagine with what enthusiasm the French and Greeks will rush to support the Sultan fighting the Black Sea Fleet ...
        
        You are not aware of the products in service with NATO capable of "covering" the Crimea?
        
        No, they are not known. Can you continue the "educational program"? Do you mean the US by NATO? The rest are generally incapable of anything in this region. But here, too, there are nuances .... in the event of a conflict, no one will calmly watch as the slow-moving B-52s slowly and sadly approach the borders.
        
        The key is the absolutely impotent (if not treacherous) policy of the current Russian regime regarding NATO.
        
        They read the speech without hesitation, well done, take a pie from the shelf. And try to decipher this nonsense ... do you yourself understand the meaning of this statement?
        
        By the way, Putin personally appealed to the American presidents several times about Russia's admission to NATO.
        
        So what? Does this somehow have to influence Russia's position on the entry of new members there? By the way, about the educational program ... the names are written with a capital letter ...
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        2 December 2020 21: 24
        
        1) For me, there is "no mystery" about the owners of the Russian economy, most of which no longer belongs to Russia.
        2) Do you think that, if there is a desire, it will be difficult to rewrite or simply ignore the rules for admitting new members to NATO?
        3) The possibilities for the RF to influence anything in the NATO structure are not just zero, they are negative. I mentioned one (but not the only) reason in the first paragraph.
        4) Through the efforts of the current Russian administration, the Russian Federation has been reduced to the level of regional powers. In the United States, the economy of individual states is not inferior to the entire Russian one.
        5) As practice shows, the leadership of the Russian Federation is ready to do anything to preserve the location of countries such as Turkey.
        6) The surname "with a capital letter" must be earned. With respect to the subject mentioned, my hand does not rise.
        7) Putin's three-time appeal on Russia's membership in NATO (against the background of inflated threats to the West by the Russian media) absolutely characterizes this type.
        8) For your "lack of knowledge" of the material part of NATO, there are only two possible reasons - the lack of basic information on the topic under discussion or a cheap lie. Both are worse.
        
        123
        
        +4
        
        2 December 2020 22: 05
        
        For me, there is "no mystery" about the masters of the Russian economy, most of which Russia no longer belongs to.
        
        Where did the data come from? Whispered voices?
        
        Do you think that if there is a desire, it will be difficult to rewrite or simply ignore certain rules for admitting new members to NATO?
        
        I believe that by and large, NATO does not care about the country or not. The rules can be rewritten and ignored; Russia's opinion is not.
        
        The possibilities for the RF to influence anything in the NATO structure are not just zero, they are negative. I mentioned one (but not the only) reason in the first paragraph.
        
        In the first paragraph, you lied
        
        Through the efforts of the current Russian administration, the Russian Federation has been reduced to the level of regional powers. In the United States, the economy of individual states is not inferior to the entire Russian one.
        
        This is your personal opinion, so live with it. Why don't you brag about your economy? As for the states, the size of the economy is greatly exaggerated. They just have the ability to abuse the current position of the dollar. While they have ...
        
        As practice shows, the leadership of the Russian Federation is ready to do anything to preserve the location of countries such as Turkey.
        
        As practice shows, you do not understand anything about this. It's just that sometimes interests coincide.
        
        The surname "with a capital letter" must be earned. With respect to the subject mentioned, my hand does not rise.
        
        My answer must also be earned. Next time, write the surname of the president of my country with a capital letter and respected, otherwise go to the forest, write to brothers in mind, let them sort out your nonsense.
        
        Putin's three-time appeal on Russia's membership in NATO (against the background of inflated threats towards the West by the Russian media) absolutely characterizes this type.
        
        As a pragmatic politician.
        
        For your "lack of knowledge" of the material part of NATO, there are only two possible reasons - the lack of basic information on the topic under discussion or a cheap lie. Both are worse.
        
        Worse than what? That is, if I disagree with your nonsense, and abstract, then I am lying or I do not know anything?
        You have a great opportunity to show off your erudition and tell the public about the terrifying power of NATO in the Black Sea region
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        3 December 2020 11: 04
        
        1) http://www.rospisatel.ru/novosti2018/63.htm
        2)
        
        They just have the opportunity.
        
        Exactly. One should proceed from what is, and not fantasize.
        3)
        
        It's just that sometimes interests coincide.
        
        This is exactly what happened in Syria: both the Russian Federation and Turkey wanted to take control of the Syrian-Turkish border. The Turks did it.
        4) Are you sure that the dreams of this "pragmatic politician" regarding Russia's membership in NATO coincide with the opinion of the majority of Russian citizens?
        5) NATO's capabilities are global. And the territory of Crimea is not a dark spot for them.
        
        https://oborona.ru/includes/periodics/armedforces/2012/0514/22118426/detail.shtml
        
        6) Can you name other reasons for your denial of facts besides lack of competence and lies?
        
        123
        
        +3
        
        3 December 2020 11: 48
        
        1) What can I say ....
        
        "The share of the public sector is a significant part of the Russian economy and is more than half of the national economy Of the Russian Federation, "the draft document says.
        As the FAS notes, before the 1998 crisis, the state's share in the Russian economy was estimated at about 25%, in 2008 - already at 40-45%. By 2013 it exceeded 50%. "In 2017, according to many expert estimates, it may already exceed 60-70%. It should be noted that in 2018 the situation did not change significantly", - notes the antimonopoly department.
        
        https://fas.gov.ru/publications/18306
        
        This is only what belongs to the state, your link says about the "structure of a large private Russian business ". I'm not going to dive into the depths of your conspiracy, because at least part of the private business belongs to the Russians, and registration in offshores is sometimes used to circumvent sanctions, etc. I don't see the point of calculating the share of foreign investors, in any case it is not the majority. say hello to blogger "gala_gala15"
        
        They just have the opportunity.
        
        - Exactly. We should proceed from the fact that the father-in-law, not fantasize.
        
        The ability to deploy troops and admission to an organization are not the same thing. If everything is freely available, getting married is not necessary. This is another objection. Why admit them to NATO?
        
        This is exactly what happened in Syria: both the Russian Federation and Turkey wanted to take control of the Syrian-Turkish border. The Turks did it.
        
        They wanted to take control of Syria, not the border. Russia is doing it much better.
        
        Are you sure that the dreams of this "pragmatic politician" regarding Russia's membership in NATO coincide with the opinion of the majority of Russian citizens?
        
        What dreams are you talking about? This possibility was considered many years ago. There was a certain sense in this, at least it would partially lower the degree of opposition. The question has long been closed, everything is overgrown with grass. Let's not lie that Putin is still eager to join NATO.
        
        NATO's capabilities are global. And the territory of Crimea is not a dark spot for them.
        
        What are you saying .... Why is it so abstract? Shall we talk about stains? What exactly can they do in the Black Sea region?
        Without the United States, they cannot do anything at all. It doesn't matter how many planes are on airfields in the United States or ships in Norfolk. As for the "allies" in 2015, they would not have been able to defeat even Gaddafi, in Libya they simply ran out of ammunition. As for the Black Sea region, they have nothing to oppose to Russia.
        
        Can you name other reasons for your denial of facts besides lack of competence and lies?
        
        Give the facts, then we will discuss your tantrum
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        3 December 2020 19: 16
        
        You read THIS:
        
        Nominally, almost all of our enterprises are registered as residents with Russian passports.
        The substitution scheme is simple.
        The chairman of the Pound is taken, a company with an authorized capital of 10 thousand rubles is registered on him.
        Shares of enterprises are being bought up. But in reality, Western players are behind his "Horns and Hooves".
        So if we distribute the ownership of Russian assets by form of ownership and by owners, then not even 75%, but all 80% belong to foreign owners.
        But this is not recorded in official reports.
        They report only on the first level of owners, as in the kingdom of crooked mirrors.
        
        The author is the most famous Russian scientist in this field, ex-director of the Research Institute of Statistics, Doctor of Economics, Professor Vasily SIMCHERA.
        2) What is more important for the Russian Federation - the deployment of potential enemy troops near its borders or their belonging to one organization or another?
        3) The main task of the Russian contingent in Syria - forcing Turkey to agree on 4 branches of the Turkish Stream by taking control of the Syrian-Turkish border with the further use of the Kurdish factor was suppressed by Turkey back in 2015.
        4) You did not answer regarding the opinion of the population of the Russian Federation regarding the hypothetical membership of the Russian Federation in NATO.
        A positive answer to this question of the population of Ukraine was possible only by organizing the Crimean provocation for the annexation of the Russian peninsula and a rat race in Donbass.
        5)
        
        Without the United States, they cannot do anything at all.
        
        First, it is far from certain.
        Secondly, why do you think that the United States will withdraw itself?
        6) On what topic do you have insufficient facts?
        7) Judging by the fact that it is difficult for you to communicate without trying to get personal, you are really stressed with "facts" ...
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        3 December 2020 20: 58
        
        You read THIS:
        The author is the most famous Russian scientist in this field, ex-director of the Research Institute of Statistics, Doctor of Economics, Professor Vasily SIMCHERA.
        
        How difficult it is with you I specially marked the text for you in bold. Your professor says about:
        
        structure of large private Business
        
        FAS claims that:
        
        The share of the public sector is 60-70%
        
        Since our state, by definition, cannot be foreign, your statement that the majority of the economy belongs to foreigners is not true. I don’t know if you’re lying, you are mistaken or unable to understand how public property differs from private property, and that 60-70% is more than half. In any case, your statement is not true, I would not like to return to this issue again and pound water in a mortar.
        
        What is more important for the Russian Federation - the deployment of the troops of a potential enemy near its borders or their belonging to one organization or another?
        
        What does this have to do with countries joining NATO?
        
        The main task of the Russian contingent in Syria - forcing Turkey to agree on 4 branches of the Turkish Stream by taking control of the Syrian-Turkish border with the further use of the Kurdish factor - was suppressed by Turkey back in 2015.
        
        Did the professor tell you that too? You are talking about some kind of nonsense, then you call it facts, accuse me of lying and denying these facts.
        Please indicate the source of this information
        
        You have not answered the opinion of the population of the Russian Federation regarding the hypothetical membership of the Russian Federation in NATO.
        
        Firstly, you did not ask me this, you were interested in whether the opinions of Putin and the people on this issue coincide.
        Secondly, Putin is not going to join NATO, as far as I imagine the public shares this point of view. For accurate data, excuse me, I do not conduct polls
        
        A positive answer to this question of the population of Ukraine was possible only by organizing the Crimean provocation for the annexation of the Russian peninsula and a rat race in Donbass.
        
        Ukrainian politicians of the "new wave" for the sake of joining NATO gave up Crimea and unleashed a war in Donbass? Well, it is likely that they were dragged to power in order to do so. The positive opinion of the Ukrainian people on this issue is not the main thing in this case. They can "want" as much as they want, however, as in the EU. In reality, even lace panties will not be. The country was ruined and people were ruined in vain.
        
        First, it is far from certain.
        Secondly, why do you think that the United States will withdraw itself?
        
        Your discussion is a little strange. You ask a lot of questions and do not answer those asked to you. What NATO has in the Black Sea region, you did not answer. Arguments about "spots" are difficult to take seriously. Indisputably not indisputable, these are just words. Do you have any facts? Is the defense industry of the EU and Britain on a war footing and sharply increased the production of ammunition? What has changed since 2015?
        The US will shy away from what? From an attack on Crimea? If you think that the Americans will start a war to take Crimea away for Ukraine, I would recommend you haloperidol. Pale-faced people will not fight for the natives, ask Saakashvili, he knows
        
        On which topic do you have insufficient facts?
        
        The fact is that everything that you call facts turns out to be nonsense. Let's start small, give at least 1 fact.
        
        Judging by the fact that it is difficult for you to communicate without trying to become personal, you are really stressed with the "facts" ...
        
        You are right, the facts are tense for you do not lead
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        3 December 2020 22: 16
        
        1) I chew on the example of the "state" "Gazprom", "Rosneft" and "Sberbank":
        
        https://finobzor.ru/72058-komu-na-samom-dele-prinadlezhat-gazprom-i-rosneft.html.
        
        https://www.profbanking.com/blitz-answer/2231-who-owns-sberbank
        
        We must assume that these and similar offices are listed by the FAS as purely state-owned.
        2) To your question:
        
        What does this have to do with countries joining NATO?
        
        You already answered yourself:
        
        I believe that by and large, NATO does not care about the country or not.
        
        And I will just end your thought by repeating my own: What is more important for the Russian Federation - the deployment of potential enemy troops near its borders or their belonging to one organization or another?
        3) I can hardly imagine who and how managed to force the "not going to join NATO" activist to knock on these gates so persistently.
        After Putin was turned three times along this path, it may even have dawned on him that it was useless.
        4)
        
        The country was ruined and people were ruined in vain.
        
        On this topic:
        
        https://topwar.ru/177630-ob-ugroze-bessmyslennogo-i-besposchadnogo-bunta-v-rossii.html
        
        5)
        
        What does NATO have in the Black Sea region?
        
        The same thing as in the rest of the world - the absence of opponents comparable in strength.
        Or do you think that NATO has problems with logistics, such as the one that the Russian Federation has for supplying its group in Syria? In the latter case, Russia is forced to fracture for these purposes, in particular, second-hand Turkish ships, anyhow, by its own forces, to ensure the functioning of a contingent not exceeding 2000 people. unable...
        6) The Americans (and NATO) got Ukraine - the largest European country in terms of area (after the Russian Federation), bordering on five Russian regions. They have nowhere to rush. And by the time they fully settle there, Russia has a good chance of losing much more than Crimea (not excluding it too).
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        3 December 2020 23: 09
        
        I chew on the example of "state" "Gazprom", "Rosneft" and "Sberbank"
        
        Somehow you're not doing very well The first link is not working, according to the second it is written that the controlling stake in Sberbank belongs to the Ministry of Finance, the rest is held by shareholders, including foreign ones. How, based on this, we can conclude that most of the Russian economy is in the hands of foreigners is a mystery to me. Most if that is at least more than half.
        
        And I will just end your thought by repeating my own: What is more important for the Russian Federation - the deployment of potential enemy troops near its borders or their belonging to one organization or another?
        
        Let me finish my thoughts myself, don't think it over for me. I still don't understand what you mean?
        
        I can hardly imagine who and how managed to force the "not going to join NATO" activist to knock on these gates so persistently.
        After Putin was turned three times along this path, it may even have dawned on him that it was useless.
        
        That's noticeable Are you confused? Does Putin still continue to "knock" or "understand" everything? What do you mean is getting harder to understand ...
        
        The country was ruined and people were ruined in vain.
        
        On this topic
        
        For me, of course, the opinion of A. Samsonov, who shared his vision of the situation in the world and in Russia in particular, is infinitely valuable, but I definitely do not understand what this has to do with the events in Ukraine in 2014? Moreover, we wanted to go to the facts, or are you against? We read the first paragraph on your link:
        
        The situation in the world and in Russia is rapidly deteriorating. The Kremlin is losing the levers of economic management and does not know how to live outside the framework of the commodity model.
        
        This is the opinion of A. Samsonov, how does he know what levers the Kremlin is losing, as well as whether or not he knows what to do with the economy and how much it is based on raw materials, one can only guess. In general, these are his value judgments. I hope we will not analyze the whole article? Let's all the same discuss not someone else's opinion and assumptions, but facts.
        
        The same thing as in the rest of the world - the absence of opponents comparable in strength.
        
        Let's go without slogans. Just facts. What NATO can oppose to Russia in the Black Sea region.
        
        Or do you think that NATO has problems with logistics, such as the one that the Russian Federation has for supplying its group in Syria? In the latter case, Russia is forced to fracture for these purposes, in particular, second-hand Turkish ships, anyhow, by its own forces, to ensure the functioning of a contingent not exceeding 2000 people. unable...
        
        You will not believe it, there is. Tank bridges simply do not hold up. Now the Americans have an Atlantic fleet because they are worried about sea communications because of the increasing activity of the Russian fleet. Russia has no problems with logistics in Crimea.
        
        The Americans (and NATO) received Ukraine - the largest European country in terms of area (after the Russian Federation), bordering on five Russian regions. They have nowhere to rush. And by the time they fully settle there, Russia has a good chance of losing much more than Crimea (not excluding it too).
        
        Got it, lost .. I think I already said ... the world is so changeable ... Your dreams and assumptions are certainly fascinating, but ..... let's move on to the facts ... They are still not there ... At all
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        3 December 2020 23: 56
        
        1) Let's assume that I believed that you have problems with the Internet, so I chew: The bulk of the largest "state-owned enterprises" listed by the FAS are not, in fact, 100% such. a significant number of their shares (up to 50% and even more) belong to non-residents. Together with the number of foreign owners of "private enterprises", we get the same 80% (V. Simchera's estimate) of the Russian economy that belongs to non-residents.
        2)
        
        Let me finish my thoughts myself, don't think it over for me. I still don't understand what you mean?
        
        Priorities. Do you agree with my vision of this issue? If not, try to justify.
        3) Perhaps it will be better for you to understand the phrase: What exactly makes Sidorov drink like that? From the point of view of the Russian language, there is no statement that he is drinking at the moment too.
        4)
        
        This is the opinion of A. Samsonov, how does he know what leverage the Kremlin is losing ... (?)
        
        Exclusively for the situation in the country.
        
        Another opinion, professor Valentin Katasonov:
        
        For 20 years, Putin has not done anything to restore and develop the economy. All this time he was playing giveaway with the West.
        
        5) Just like in any other region of the world, NATO is limited only by its own military potential.
        6) Are you ready to prove on facts that NATO forces have no access to Ukraine?
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        4 December 2020 01: 13
        
        We will assume that I believed you have problems with the Internet, so I chew:
        
        I am beginning to suspect that you have problems with adequacy.
        
        The bulk of the largest "state-owned enterprises" owned by the FAS are not, in fact, 100% such, since they are not. a significant number of their shares (up to 50% and even more) belong to non-residents.
        
        State ownership means more than 50%.
        Where did you find such enterprises which have "even higher"? Is there an example where the state has less than 50%?
        
        Together with the number of foreign owners of "private enterprises", we get the same 80% (V. Simchera's estimate) of the Russian economy that belongs to non-residents.
        
        I'm shocked by your logic. In addition to state property, there is a private business. Even if your professor's data is correct, he was talking about big business. There is also medium and small. Did foreigners buy it, too? Is it all straight? what 80%: What is Simchera? Can you clearly explain how this figure came about? We take the state's share of 60-70%, even if we take at a minimum and subtract half of it (controlling stake 50%), it will be 30-35% of the entire economy. We take the rest (all over the world, including state of emergency, hairdressing salons) and imagine that a miracle happened and all the cunning Americans bought them. This is 30-40%, add 30-35% to them, it turns out 60-75%. 80% will not work, even with such fantastic assumptions.
        To be honest, it sounds like nonsense.
        
        Priorities. Do you agree with my vision of this issue? If not, try to justify.
        
        I find it difficult to answer because I do not understand what question you have in mind, especially your opinion on it.
        I would be grateful for a clear explanation of the essence of the issue. What do you have in mind?
        
        Perhaps you will be better informed by the phrase: “What exactly makes Sidorov drink like that?” From the point of view of the Russian language, there is no statement that he is drinking at the moment either.
        
        What Sidorov? Are you sitting drinking or what?
        
        Exclusively for the situation in the country.
        
        Looked, I appreciate the work of the author. Where is there about the "lost leverage"
        
        Another opinion, professor Valentin Katasonov:
        
        For 20 years, Putin has not done anything to restore and develop the economy. All this time he was playing giveaway with the West.
        
        Are you able to formulate your own thoughts? That said this, but he said it ..
        Give the figures, confirming that nothing has been done for 20 years. I do not intend to read and watch your links anymore.
        If you can say something about the fact, you are welcome, if not, good night.
        
        As in any other region of the world, NATO is limited only by its own military capabilities.
        
        ABOUT!! you are making progress This is exactly what I am asking you, in my opinion, 4 times. What is NATO's potential in the Black Sea region?
        
        Are you ready to prove on facts that the access of NATO forces to Ukraine is closed?
        
        A very strange proposal Why do I have to prove it? Did I say that?
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        4 December 2020 10: 36
        
        1) A typical example of such a STATE enterprise:
        
        http://theothertver.com/так-вот-почему-в-кране-нет-воды/
        
        2) You already admit 75%. This is progress. It is commendable. To realize that even 80% is not an exorbitant figure, it is necessary to understand that the share of small, medium and private individuals in the Russian Federation IS NOTHING 20,2% (ROSSTAT)
        
        https://www.rbc.ru/economics/28/01/2020/5e2eda219a79473c798d3692
        
        Almost all large companies are controlled by foreigners to one degree or another and / or are mostly registered in the territory of adversaries, where they pay taxes, i.e. in fact are NOT RUSSIAN.
        According to statistics on the largest companies, only 152 private companies are registered in Russia, while 183 are registered abroad, and another 38 companies are registered in foreign jurisdictions through shell companies (Yandex NV, United Company Rusal, etc.).
        3) By priorities. What, in your opinion, is more important for the Russian Federation - the presence of a hostile state on its borders or its bloc STATUS?
        4) "Not understanding" the Sidorov-Putin example, we will leave it on your conscience.
        5) "Nothing" is NOTHING. Only something tangible can be "confirmed" by "numbers".
        I still do not understand - do you agree with Katasonov?
        6)
        
        Give the figures, confirming that nothing has been done for 20 years. I do not intend to read and watch your links anymore.
        
        Do you see any signs of cognitive dissonance in this phrase?
        7) Taking into account clause 7, I will try to explain it as simply as possible.
        NATO in the region you mentioned, as well as in any other, has the full opportunity to use exactly as many forces and means as will be guaranteed enough to achieve victory in ANY military conflict. I hope you spare me the trouble of reading the inventory of her arsenals?
        8) In response to mine:
        
        Are you ready to prove on facts that the access of NATO forces to Ukraine is closed?
        
        Why do I have to prove it? Did I say that?
        
        Let us summarize that you agree with this too.
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        4 December 2020 12: 29
        
        A typical example of such a STATE enterprise
        
        Bravo What an interesting link. Are you looking for an answer to the age-old question why there is no water in the tap?
        You just have to indicate where this enterprise is accounted for as being under state control. By the way, information about the owner of the company VENTRELT HOLDINGS LTD. (VENTRELT HOLDINGS LTD.) (Virgin Islands) no. It may very well be that he lives in the same Tver. Registration of enterprises in offshore areas and control of the economy by foreigners are still somewhat different things.
        
        75% you already admit. This is progress. It is commendable. To realize that even 80% is not an exorbitant figure, it is necessary to understand that the share of small, medium and private individuals in the Russian Federation IS NOTHING 20,2%
        
        How difficult it is with you. Reread the previous comment again. the fact is that in this case there is no more than 100%. I have clearly shown you that in all possible assumptions the figure of 80% is not possible. I counted all these 20,2% as belonging to foreigners. Your details are not correct. Be so kind as to explain the mechanism of its formation.
        
        Almost all large companies are controlled by foreigners to one degree or another and / or are mostly registered in the territory of adversaries, where they pay taxes, i.e. in fact are NOT RUSSIAN.
        
        “Almost all” and “most” are just words. Figures in the studio .....
        
        According to statistics on the largest companies, only 152 are registered in Russia private companies, while abroad - 183, and 38 more companies are registered in foreign jurisdictions through "shell companies" (Yandex NV, United Company Rusal, etc.).
        
        It is very exciting, but 221 (183 + 38) private companies are far from the entire Russian economy. You yourself indicated the share of small and medium-sized businesses is 20%, State property is 60-70%. Will you calculate how much these private large companies account for? Give a link to the calculator?
        
        We will leave "not understanding" the Sidorov-Putin example on your conscience.
        
        In this case, my conscience is clear, solve your puzzles yourself.
        
        I still do not understand - do you agree with Katasonov?
        
        I'm not surprised, this is happening to you more and more. You have to repeat it several times. I agree with the numbers, be so kind as to give the numbers and let's talk about who agrees with what.
        
        Do you see any signs of cognitive dissonance in this phrase?
        
        No, I do not find Since, according to you, nothing has been done for 20 years, the statistics for 2020 and 2000 should easily confirm this. you just have to provide the data .. If they are, of course.
        
        Taking into account clause 7, I will try to explain it as simply as possible.
        NATO in the region you mentioned, as well as in any other, has the full opportunity to use exactly as many forces and means as will be guaranteed enough to achieve victory in ANY military conflict. I hope you spare me the trouble of reading the inventory of her arsenals?
        
        It is not clear which point 7 you mean, but oh well ... perhaps in this case I will not complicate it ...
        Russia is able to trample into radioactive dust any country or bloc of countries throughout the entire territory of our planet. Moreover, it is guaranteed, with a reserve, several times, to destroy the entire planet. Therefore, no NATO or anything else can win in this conflict. As for the guaranteed NATO victory ... can you tell me when the Taliban will win in Afghanistan?
        
        Let us summarize that you agree with this too.
        
        I agree with what? I'm tired of your puzzles
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        4 December 2020 22: 30
        
        You don't read my comments carefully.
        
        1) You just have to indicate where this enterprise is accounted for as being under state control.
        
        Do you doubt that the Administration of the city of Tver is a state structure?
        
        2) I counted all these 20,2% as belonging to foreigners. Your details are not correct.
        
        These 20,2% of small and mediums, I did not take into account at all. It was only about LARGE private companies, which account for 79,8%: <<< According to statistics on the LARGEST companies, only 152 private companies are registered in Russia, while 183 are registered abroad, and 38 more companies are registered in foreign jurisdictions through "Shell companies" (Yandex NV, United Company Rusal, etc.) >>>. And plus a foreign share in state enterprises.
        The resulting amount in 80% of the economy is clearly underestimated ...
        By and large, I am wasting my time proving to you what you have already agreed with. FAS admits a range of tens of percent in estimates. This accuracy does not seem to bother you. Based on this, the difference between 75% (in which you believe) and 80% is absolutely indistinguishable.
        3) I promise not to mention your conscience again. I already realized that this is your weak point.
        4) To what the Katasonovs said, I can only add the following:
        
        http://rospisatel.ru/predprijatija.htm
        
        5) So we got to the last argument - "radioactive dust". I hope you do not consider the Kremlin organized criminal group a bunch of suicides? Imagine people who are not burdened with conscience, intellect and excessive courage, who unexpectedly, unexpectedly, went to plunder such a country as Russia? Yes, they will sell their mother a hundred times for the sake of that this orgy would last forever! A nuclear war with the use of strategic nuclear forces is not possible for a whole range of reasons. Well, in terms of conventional types of weapons, NATO's overwhelming superiority is undeniable.
        
        123
        
        +3
        
        4 December 2020 23: 42
        
        Do you doubt that the Administration of the city of Tver is a state structure?
        
        I doubt your mental capacity. I repeat the question:
        Please indicate the source where it is indicated that this enterprise is accounted for as being under government control. Nobody claims that this enterprise is controlled by the state.
        
        These 20,2% of small and mediums, I did not take into account at all.
        
        Very interesting approach That is, from this moment, relatively speaking, you begin calculations with 80% of the economy, but you are talking about the whole.
        
        It was only about LARGE private companies, which account for 79,8%
        
        79,8% of what? From the general list of companies?
        
        According to statistics for the LARGEST companies, only 152 private companies are registered in Russia, while 183 are registered abroad, and another 38 companies are registered in foreign jurisdictions through shell companies (Yandex NV, United Company Rusal, etc.)
        
        The list of the largest companies includes not only private, but also state-owned. For example, at the end of 2019, the top 5 companies are: Rosneft, Gazprom, Lukoil, Sberbank and Russian Railways. Of these, only Lukoil is private. You choose private companies from the general list and count only them. Where do the state go in this case? Are you going to take them into account?
        
        At the end of 2019, 500 Russian companies with foreign control are present among the 132 largest companies.
        
        https://www.rbc.ru/economics/15/10/2020/5f86306e9a7947c85f43e19c
        
        The resulting amount in 80% of the economy is clearly underestimated ...
        
        I hope you're kidding? 80% of the economy .... remember you don't count 20% of small and medium businesses. So, 80% is all big business. Are you saying that all big business is owned by foreigners? Rosneft, VTB, Rosatom? Do you understand what you are talking about?
        
        By and large, I am wasting my time proving to you what you have already agreed with.
        
        What did I agree with? Are you out of your mind?
        
        FAS admits a range of tens of percent in estimates. This accuracy does not seem to bother you. Based on this, the difference between 75% (in which you believe) and 80% is absolutely indistinguishable.
        
        Firstly, you are not confused by the much larger spread
        Secondly, the FAS claims that these (let it be 75%) are under state control, you say that 80% are controlled by foreigners. And this difference is absolutely indistinguishable? What do you smoke?
        
        To what the Katasonovs said, I can only add the following
        
        You'd better be silent I don’t know where you found this leaflet. Try to remove the pans from your head and indicate a sane source, which states that Russia is in 91st place in terms of living standards. There is no desire to dig further in your garbage, read it yourself.
        
        So we got to the last argument - "radioactive dust". I hope you do not consider the Kremlin organized criminal group a bunch of suicides?
        
        I don't know such an organized criminal group, maybe you have one in Kueva, we have a government.
        
        Imagine people who are not burdened with conscience, intellect and excessive courage, who, unexpectedly, not guessingly, went to plunder such a country as Russia?
        
        Why imagine? They are, only wandering abroad, Kasparov in the Baltics, Navalny in Germany and so on. And they are unlikely to break off something.
        
        Yes, they will sell their mother a hundred times so that this orgy would last forever!
        
        Let them trade whatever they want. Khodarkovsky did so, did not come to his funeral
        
        A nuclear war with the use of strategic nuclear forces is not possible for a whole range of reasons.
        
        And what are these reasons?
        
        Well, in terms of conventional types of weapons, NATO's overwhelming superiority is undeniable.
        
        You are not a tribune, no one is interested in your slogans.
        Repeat the question a fifth time? What can NATO oppose to Russia in the Black Sea region?
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        5 December 2020 13: 10
        
        I repeat: you are not reading my comments carefully. Evidence: EXAMPLE # 1: Your:
        
        You choose private companies from the general list and count only them. Where do the state go in this case? Are you going to take them into account?
        
        From my previous comment:
        
        ... And plus a foreign share in PUBLIC enterprises ...
        
        EXAMPLE # 2: In response to mine:
        
        By and large, I'm wasting my time proving to you what you have already agreed with
        
        Your:
        
        What did I agree with? Are you out of your mind?
        
        Your above:
        
        ... it turns out 60-75%.
        
        EXAMPLE # 3: Your:
        
        FAS claims that these (let it be 75%) are under state control.
        
        Slightly higher than yours:
        
        State property 60-70%
        
        CONCLUSION: If you think that the attacks of your incontinence in relation to the personality of your opponent compensate for your inattention and (or) dishonest bias, then you are deeply mistaken.
        The above is also true for assessing your attitude to the activities of the current ruling organized criminal group in the Russian Federation.
        Everything that interests you about NATO you (if you wish) can easily find on the Internet. I have no desire to go into these details. I see no reason to consider the Black Sea region to be anything different from others in terms of accessibility for NATO. I will be glad if you can prove that I am wrong ...
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        5 December 2020 21: 21
        
        I repeat: you are not reading my comments carefully. Evidence: EXAMPLE # 1
        
        Maybe let's not talk about attentiveness, but finally about numbers? You would better cite evidence to support the data provided.
        So by what calculations did 80% of the Russian economy become foreign owned?
        
        CONCLUSION: If you think that the attacks of your incontinence in relation to the personality of your opponent compensate for your inattention and (or) dishonest bias, then you are deeply mistaken.
        The above is also true for assessing your attitude to the activities of the currently ruling organized criminal group in the Russian Federation with the participation of the incumbent President of Russia V.V. Putin.
        
        And how should I relate to a "personality" if she does not give facts, but instead of this she carries all sorts of false pictures from garbage sites? He writes the surname of the President of my country with a small letter and accuses of crimes. Do you want respect? Learn and treat people yourself with respect. By the way, about the organized crime group ... Is there evidence or as always?
        
        Everything that interests you about NATO you (if you wish) can easily find on the Internet. I have no desire to go into these details. I see no reason to consider the Black Sea region to be anything different from others in terms of accessibility for NATO. I will be glad if you can prove that I am wrong ...
        
        Tellingly, you do not consider it necessary to go into details at all, you prefer to read slogans.
        
        Accessibility of the region for NATO
        
        - are you probably talking about the transport infrastructure? But what about the all-powerful NATO will tear everyone apart, they have no rivals .... Not literally, of course, but in my opinion I conveyed the essence of your statements correctly?
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        6 December 2020 15: 06
        
        1) You were offered more than enough "numbers" for comprehension.
        2) https://www.currenttime.tv/a/putin-investigation/30515774.html
        3)
        
        NATO will tear everyone apart, they have no rivals
        
        Can you prove that it isn't?
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        6 December 2020 15: 39
        
        You were offered more than enough "numbers" for comprehension.
        
        In your opinion, this is enough, it is not worth equalizing people for themselves. If it's enough for you to see something on any garbage site to fly around with it waving like a flag, for many people that is not enough.
        
        https://www.currenttime.tv/a/putin-investigation/30515774.html
        
        I'm not very interested in what all sorts of foreign agents broadcast for other people's money.
        
        The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation recognized nine American media outlets as "foreign agents"
        The list of media outlets that have been assigned the "foreign agent" status includes nine media outlets. Among them are the radio stations "Voice of America" and "Radio Liberty", as well as the TV channel "Present Time".
        
        The link is long, there is a desire to look for:
        
        https://www.dw.com/ru
        
        NATO will tear everyone apart, they have no rivals
        
        Can you prove that it isn't?
        
        So when you say they will win the Taliban in Afghanistan? Why victory over Russia is impossible, I have already told you, I don’t see the point again.
        By the way, your approach is rather strange, you declare the thesis, and I must prove that it is not so. How are you with the arguments to support your own claims? Or is "holy faith" above all? Here your like-minded people with flags ran "America with us" shouted
        
        Uneven
        
        +1
        
        6 December 2020 17: 05
        
        1)
        
        In your opinion, this is enough, it is not worth equalizing people for themselves ... for many people this is not enough
        
        Unfortunately, some people are "not enough" for correct conclusions, even "God's dew" in the eye ...
        2) You have a very banal reaction to facts that you do not like. The sources of information are to blame or "the link does not open".
        For me, this is a sure sign that you have nothing to argue on the topic discussed.
        3) And what prevents you from getting acquainted with the material, for example, from Novaya Gazeta?
        
        https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2000/03/23/9417-delo-putina
        
        We don't trust Yu-tuba too?
        
        or in more detail:
        
        4)
        
        So when you say they will win the Taliban in Afghanistan?
        
        And who exactly "wins" them there?
        At one time, the Americans occupied Afghanistan in record time (even in comparison with the Soviet "limited contingent").
        They are now involved in most of the drug-related commerce there.
        5)
        
        Why victory over Russia is impossible I have already told you.
        
        "To speak" and "to prove" are completely different things.
        The West is not going to attack Russia, at least as long as the current Russian regime exists, which suits them 100%.
        6) On which of my "theses" you do not have enough arguments?
        What (from your point of view) should a "convincing" argument look like?
        
        123
        
        +1
        
        6 December 2020 17: 33
        
        Unfortunately, some people are "not enough" for correct conclusions, even "God's dew" in the eye ...
        
        I pointed out to you that your data is not correct. I see no objections, however, and explanations of how they turned out. Statements like - this is the one who said they do not suit me categorically. If you are talking about 80%, then you need to understand by adding what numbers they turned out.
        
        You have a very banal reaction to facts that you don't like. The sources of information are to blame or "the link does not open".
        For me, this is a sure sign that you have nothing to argue on the topic discussed.
        
        If the "link does not open" naturally I cannot consider this a source of information. How do I know what's on it? A foreign agent is propaganda paid for by the customer. This publication was repeatedly caught spreading false information, they have no trust. Here's a recent example.
        
        https://www.vedomosti.ru/society/news/2020/08/17/836898-sud-oshtrafoval-novuyu-gazetu
        
        And what prevents you from reading material, for example, from Novaya Gazeta?
        
        What for? They are liars (see previous paragraph)
        
        We don't trust Yu-tuba too?
        
        This link is exactly the same information from the same people, however, as in the third link. Everywhere "Novaya Gazeta", a lie repeated three times does not become true.
        
        And who exactly "wins" them there?
        At one time, the Americans occupied Afghanistan in record time (even in comparison with the Soviet "limited contingent").
        They are now involved in most of the drug-related commerce there.
        
        Whom? NATO members? The question sounded a little different. Repeat? When will NATO defeat the Taliban?
        Records and what they do don't interest me. No need to evade.
        
        "To speak" and "to prove" are completely different things.
        
        What do you think is appropriate as evidence in this case? And where are yours in this matter?
        
        The West is not going to attack Russia, at least as long as the current Russian regime exists, which suits them 100%.
        
        First of all, I'm not interested in who is going to what. A direct question, and I would like to receive such a direct answer.
        
        On which of my "theses" are you not enough arguments?
        What (from your point of view) should a "convincing" argument look like?
        
        To begin with, I would like to clarify on 80% of the Russian economy owned by foreigners how this figure came about.
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        7 December 2020 13: 03
        
        I indicated to you that your data is not correct
        
        In this case, it is required not to SPECIFY, but to PROVE. You couldn't do it.
        
        This link is exactly the same information from the same people
        
        Can you refute the investigator who conducted the Putin case? Go for it!
        
        When will NATO defeat the Taliban?
        
        Why do you think NATO is fighting them?
        
        What do you think is appropriate as evidence in this case?
        
        You could not answer my similar question above. And do you expect me to answer yours?
        
        direct question
        
        - Are you talking about how NATO can beat Russia? Specify: Are you interested in the ENTIRE NATO arsenal? Are there NATO forces and capabilities in the region at the moment? NATO forces that periodically appear in this region? Taking into account already having or not? Or the number of NATO forces that must be attracted to defeat the Russian armed forces in the region?
        But first I would like to understand WHY you are interested in exactly the Option that you indicate?
        
        123
        
        +3
        
        7 December 2020 15: 58
        
        In this case, it is required not to SPECIFY, but to PROVE. You couldn't do it.
        
        The data on 80% were provided by you, in what transboundary state of consciousness it was calculated is not known, the formation of this figure is not clear. And I have to prove to you that this is not so? for heaven's sake live in your reality, flag in hand
        
        Can you refute the investigator who conducted the Putin case? Go for it!
        
        Why should I refute the bastard? There are many of them hanging around abroad. Somewhere there, Rodchenkov and the Skripals are sitting. It is a lot of honor to pay attention to everyone.
        
        Why do you think NATO is fighting them?
        
        Well, at least they say it. There are battles, people are dying, and from both sides. And this is a fact that cannot be denied.
        
        https://afghanistan.ru/doc/126331.html
        https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-54639542
        
        You have a great chance to refute them. Everything as you like. Go for it!
        
        You could not answer my similar question above. And do you expect me to answer yours?
        
        You are a rather strange person. Demand proof that it is acceptable for you to not speak as such. I see no point in continuing the discussion.
        
        - Are you talking about how NATO can beat Russia? Specify: Are you interested in the ENTIRE NATO arsenal? Are there NATO forces and capabilities in the region at the moment? NATO forces that periodically appear in this region? Taking into account already having or not? Or the number of NATO forces that must be attracted to defeat the Russian armed forces in the region?
        But first I would like to understand WHY you are interested in exactly the Option that you indicate?
        
        I have no desire to go into the jungle of your ornate expressions. I am not interested in your options, I prefer to talk about facts.
        For the third day I am trying to get the justification for your insane statement:
        
        The Black Sea is NATO's inland sea.
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        8 December 2020 13: 18
        
        The data on 80% were provided by you, in what transboundary state of consciousness it was calculated is not known, the formation of this figure is not clear. And I have to prove to you that this is not so?
        
        Since this figure was announced by a professional in this field, I have not the slightest reason to doubt it, relying only on your opinion. If you disagree with Semichira, try to prove to him the correctness of your words.
        
        Why should I refute the bastard? There are many of them hanging around abroad.
        
        In this case, you are trying to refute the facts that I trust. These or those epithets are not a refutation. If you do not trust this information, try to substantiate it reasonably. For example, provide relevant reference materials from the competent authorities + information from specialists in the field who a priori should have mastered this issue.
        As far as I understand, you doubt the PRESENCE of this case or do you dislike that it was opened? Explain.
        
        There are battles, people are dying, and from both sides. And this is a fact that cannot be denied.
        
        I judge by scale. Since 2001, just over 2300 US troops have died in Afghanistan. Compare with this:
        
        http://crimestat.ru/world_ranking_homicides
        
        Currently, the Americans control drug traffic there and train local security officials. Of course, it does not do without losses in such a hectic area:
        
        https://www.bbc.com/russian/features-54639542
        
        For the third day I am trying to get the justification for your insane statement:
        
        The Black Sea is NATO's inland sea.
        
        I find it strange that you do not know this:
        It is enough to compare the length of the coastline of the NATO member states and their partners with the Russian one and take into account that Turkey, a NATO member state, controls the straits between the Black Sea and other waters, in order to draw a conclusion about the absolute dominance of NATO in the Black Sea.
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        8 December 2020 16: 59
        
        Since this figure was announced by a professional in this field, I have not the slightest reason to doubt it, relying only on your opinion. If you disagree with Semichira, try to prove to him the correctness of your words.
        
        People tend to make mistakes, this also applies to professionals. To rely only on the words of one person without understanding the mechanism of the formation of numbers is sheer stupidity Are you so imbued with his works that you make two mistakes in the names? As far as I understand, his surname is Simchera and it is problematic to prove to him someone's rightness
        
        https://zavtra.ru/events/ne_stalo_professora_vasiliya_simcheri
        
        In this case, you are trying to refute the facts that I trust. These or those epithets are not a refutation. If you do not trust this information, try to substantiate it reasonably. For example, provide relevant reference materials from the competent authorities + information from specialists in the field who a priori should have mastered this issue.
        As far as I understand, you doubt the PRESENCE of this case or do you dislike that it was opened? Explain.
        
        You have a peculiar way of conducting a discussion. You voice the opinion of one person, while you do not give any arguments in support of his version and offer to refute it, and even with “reference” materials. ”Where can I look at the“ case ”? I like information that can be checked, preferably in several reliable sources ...
        You blindly trust the words of one person, not understanding anything about the question voiced. Next, you call the words of another person facts, again without any arguments. Where does such youthful naivety come from? Are you not too gullible?
        
        I judge by scale. Since 2001, just over 2300 US troops have died in Afghanistan. Compare with this
        
        Is it a new scientific method to judge the effectiveness of NATO's actions in Afghanistan by the number of road accidents in Russia? Don't play around or try to change the subject.
        
        Currently, the Americans control drug traffic there and train local security officials. Of course, it does not do without losses in such a hectic area:
        
        It doesn't matter to me what traffic they control. When will they defeat the Taliban?
        Whose opinion do you trust in this case? Trump? So he was going to withdraw the troops. Apparently he doesn't really need traffic. Stoltenberg swaggers, threatening to stay there without the Americans. About traffic is also silent.
        
        https://www.ng.ru/world/2020-11-24/1_8022_nato.html
        
        If you believe your version, it turns out they are blatantly lying? Is this the very NATO that you consider the most powerful force? Do you feel dissonance?
        
        I find it strange that you do not know this:
        It is enough to compare the length of the coastline of the NATO member states and their partners with the Russian one and take into account that Turkey, a NATO member state, controls the straits between the Black Sea and other waters, in order to draw a conclusion about the absolute dominance of NATO in the Black Sea.
        
        ABOUT!!!! Another new word in analytics Is the control of a certain territory by a military force now changed by a long coastline?
        Then I have bad news for you Brace yourself .... If you follow this criterion, then in the whole world only two sea powers are stronger than Russia - Canada and Indonesia
        
        https://geographyofrussia.com/20-stran-mira-s-samoj-protyazhennoj-beregovoj-liniej/
        
        You are the right funny person What changes Turkey's control over the straits? Are we waiting for reinforcements from there?
        By the way, here is an article published, citizen Hodges believes that Russia is trying to dominate the Black Sea and is threatening to build all sorts of intrigues to prevent this from happening. And mind you, he is not aware of any "NATO inland sea" and its domination
        
        https://topcor.ru/17696-general-ssha-objasnil-pochemu-tak-vazhno-zabrat-u-rossii-chernoe-more.html
        
        Are NATO generals not competent? Stoltenberg, by the way, also calls for "increasing efforts." It is rather strange to do this if you consider the region "internal".
        You probably voiced someone's opinion again?
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        8 December 2020 17: 55
        
        Relying only on the words of one person without understanding the mechanism of the formation of numbers is sheer stupidity. Are you so imbued with his works that you make two mistakes in the names? As far as I understand, his surname is Simchera.
        
        Regarding the surname - you are right, sometimes I get confused (associative). The main thing is that you understand who we are talking about.
        As for the question of faith, I trust specialists, whose professionalism is not disputed by anyone. Can you name the reason why, contrary to his opinion, I should believe you?
        
        You are voicing the opinion of one person, while you do not provide any arguments in support of his version.
        
        I repeat: I trust specialists. In this case, it is the investigator who conducted the Putin case No. 144128. All information in the case file. It is not closed, but only suspended. You just have to read it. What is the reason you do not want to do this?
        I can offer additional material on the same topic, fortunately, that its sea:
        
        https://royallib.com/book/sale_marina/doklad_o_deyatelnosti_
        vv_putina_na_postu_glavi_komiteta_po_vneshnim_
        svyazyam_merii_sankt_peterburga.html
        
        or :
        
        https://kungurov.livejournal.com/102929.html
        There are also links to documents.
        
        When will they defeat the Taliban?
        
        This question can be answered like this: As soon as the Russian Federation "defeats" "international terrorism" in Syria.
        The official tasks are identical there and there. In fact, they are doing something completely different.
        But, judging by the American losses for almost 20 years, their fuss in Afghanistan is not even drawn to a regional conflict.
        For the Russian Federation, which is "fighting" at the limit of its capabilities in Syria, everything is somewhat different.
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        8 December 2020 18: 46
        
        As for the question of faith, I trust specialists, whose professionalism is not disputed by anyone. Can you name the reason why, contrary to his opinion, I should believe you?
        
        Faith is unshakable? If the facts contradict, so much the worse for them? You yourself voiced the data that small and medium-sized businesses account for 20,2% (in any case, there is no desire to dig more than 20% and check). Remember I offered you a link to a calculator? So, if this is a problem for you, if you subtract 100% from 20,2%, you get 79,8%, which is already less than 80%. It is already clear that the data is not correct, in addition, I hope you will not dispute that not all large private business belongs to foreigners and a significant part of the economy belongs to the state. I repeat once again, the data you provided are not correct. I don't know what Simchera meant, maybe an old grandfather mixed something up ...
        Of course, you can believe in anything, even in a pasta monster, but do not be like people walking from house to house with the Bible, do not impose your faith on others
        
        I repeat: I trust specialists. In this case, it is the investigator who conducted the Putin case No. 144128. All information in the case file. It is not closed, but only suspended. You just have to read it. What is the reason you do not want to do this?
        
        The reason is simple to the point of banality, I am not. This is your trouble, excessive gullibility and naivety, as well as the lack of critical thinking. Do you indicate the number of the criminal case for solidity? What would give "weight" to the argument? Do you know what criminal cases look like?
        
        Look at the photo .... nothing confuses you? Doesn't it seem that the numbering given by you is somewhat unusual and differs from the one shown in the photo? But the numbers (again, these terrible numbers undermining the faith ) are not written in random order. The investigator does not write something that goes to his head or just pretty numbers. The numbering is regulated by regulatory enactments.
        
        I can offer additional material on the same topic, fortunately, that its sea:
        
        I have to disappoint you, the link is not working again, there is nothing there, it is written:
        "Perhaps the book is now available at a different address." Surely this is a conspiracy
        
        This question can be answered like this: As soon as the Russian Federation "defeats" "international terrorism" in Syria.
        The official tasks are identical there and there. In fact, they are doing something completely different.
        But, judging by the American losses for almost 20 years, their fuss in Afghanistan is not even drawn to a regional conflict.
        For the Russian Federation, which is "fighting" at the limit of its capabilities in Syria, everything is somewhat different.
        
        That's how it is It turns out that there are so many similarities .. And the tasks are identical and what they are actually doing ... True, the result is somewhat different, in any case, there is no question of leaving Syria, unlike the "all-powerful" American army who wants to reel in Afghanistan.
        And at the same time NATO is the strongest on the planet and Russia is out of the last strength ..... And how does it fit in your head? Maybe all the same the saucepan is pressing?
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        9 December 2020 11: 48
        
        1) Apparently you forgot that we have already figured out the "numbers".
        Let me remind you: you agreed with 75% owned by foreigners, and since your sources (and you) allow a spread of tens of percent, then 80% is the "golden mean".
        It is not even the exact figure that is important here, but the very fact that most of the Russian economy belongs to foreigners. In addition to Russian losses, another factor is at play here: We have a full guarantee against strikes by adversaries on our territory, for what is the point of them cutting their own hen that lays the golden eggs?
        2)
        
        Do you indicate the number of the criminal case for solidity?
        
        No. Exclusively to make your search easier. The number indicated by me is quite enough to identify this case (if there is a desire to find it).
        3)
        
        I have to disappoint you, the link is not working again, there is nothing there, it is written:
        "Perhaps the book is now available at a different address"
        
        In this case, the question concerns exclusively your desire to wear blinders. The last two links (like all the others, "not disclosed" in front of you) are also not included in the register prohibited by Roskomnadzor. And what prevents you from using
        Tor Browser or analogues?
        4) Are you aware of cases when the armed forces of other states are not at home and at the same time are not conducting any military actions?
        As for the Americans in Afghanistan, they completed the main task of eliminating Bin Laden. So now you can return home with a clear conscience. There are only small commercial affairs left, but this does not attract the war.
        The Russian Syrian group was "withdrawn with victory" three times. Shoigu reported on the territory of Syria liberated by her three times larger than the entire area of Syria:
        
        But in fact, the Russian military was stuck there for a long time, because their withdrawal means the forced demolition of Assad by the opposition, although officially "we do not hold on to Assad" - Lavrov (Foreign Ministry) and the main tasks of the Russian Federation in Syria failed back in 2015. And the "tension" is primarily due to the fact that the logistics of this group hangs in the balance and functions at the limit of Russian capabilities. (The use for supplying Russian soldiers, including Turkish ships, says a lot).
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        9 December 2020 13: 39
        
        Apparently you forgot that we have already figured out the "numbers".
        Let me remind you: you agreed with 75% owned by foreigners, and since your sources (and you) allow a spread of tens of percent, then 80% is the "golden mean".
        
        When did we figure it out? Did I agree that 75% of the economy belongs to foreigners? yes you are delusional Please provide a quote You call the FAS “my sources”. They indicate that 60-70% of the economy is controlled by the state. How 80% of foreign property can be derived from this, I do not understand Wow "golden mean" Can you count up to 100?
        
        It is not even the exact figure that is important here, but the very fact that most of the Russian economy belongs to foreigners.
        
        Are you stupid or what? Most of it is at least more than half. Where did you find her?
        
        In addition to Russian losses, another factor is at play here: We have a full guarantee against strikes by adversaries on our territory, for what is the point of them cutting their own hen that lays the golden eggs?
        
        To draw conclusions and assumptions, you must first figure out the numbers. Otherwise, all your layouts are not worth a damn.
        
        No. Exclusively to make your search easier. The number indicated by me is quite enough to identify this case (if there is a desire to find it).
        
        You're crazy? The criminal case cannot be found on the Internet.
        
        In this case, the question concerns exclusively your desire to wear blinders. The last two links (like all the others, "not disclosed" in front of you) are also not included in the register prohibited by Roskomnadzor. And what prevents you from using
        Tor Browser or analogues?
        
        Believe it or not, this time Google, it's probably a conspiracy, Putin got there too
        
        https://yadi.sk/i/yw5Z8YVgIB69YA
        
        Or are you just talking nonsense What can I find from the link in LJ? Opinion on this issue of another madman? I hope I never reach your level of enlightenment
        
        Are you not aware of cases when the armed forces of other states are not at home and at the same time do not conduct any military operations?
        
        You might be surprised, but yes. Examples of mass.
        
        https://ren.tv/news/v-mire/60288-armiia-nato-kak-est-pianstvo-iznasilovaniia-i-drugie-prelesti-soldatskoi-zhizni
        
        As for the Americans in Afghanistan, they completed the main task of eliminating Bin Laden. So now you can return home with a clear conscience. There are only small commercial affairs left, but this does not attract the war.
        
        And in Vietnam, they also completed the main task
        They announced the completion of the operation 6 years ago. They will not work out, probably there are many cases left
        
        https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2014/12/141228_
        nato_new_afghanistan_mission
        
        By the way, why only Americans? We talked about NATO, and Stoltenberg wants to stay * link in previous comments, I will not repeat myself).
        
        The Russian Syrian group was "withdrawn with victory" three times. Shoigu reported on the territory of Syria liberated by her three times larger than the entire area of Syria
        
        This is you on the principle - and you have blacks lynched? How does this confirm the version of NATO's victory in Afghanistan?
        
        But in fact, the Russian military was stuck there for a long time, because their withdrawal means the forced demolition of Assad by the opposition, although officially "we do not hold on to Assad" - Lavrov (Foreign Ministry) and the main tasks of the Russian Federation in Syria failed back in 2015. And the "tension" is primarily due to the fact that the logistics of this group hangs in the balance and functions at the limit of Russian capabilities. (The use for supplying Russian soldiers, including Turkish ships, says a lot).
        
        If you don't know, we have a base there, the contract was signed for 50 years. What is so terrible about using foreign ships? Most of them fly under false flags. But for NATO, this is so angry An ally in Putin's bloc helps the army to supply ... This is such an alliance. Did you frighten them with control over the straits?
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        9 December 2020 15: 11
        
        When did we figure it out? belay I agree that 75% of the economy belongs to foreigners? yes you are delusional fool Please, give a quote. "I quote:" it turns out 60-75%.
        
        Please decide when exactly you lied: in the last comment or a little earlier.
        
        you must first figure out the numbers.
        
        For this, the sources I have proposed are more than enough.
        Are your blinders too tight for you?
        
        The criminal case cannot be found on the Internet.
        
        Case materials - no problem (for everyone who WISHES to find it).
        On my question :
        
        Are you NOT aware of cases when the armed forces of other states are not at home and at the same time are not conducting any military actions?
        
        Your:
        
        You might be surprised, but yes. There are a lot of examples.
        
        I'm not surprised, because in our dialogue of "examples" of your lack of elementary information on the topics discussed, you really demonstrated "a lot".
        
        https://www.bbc.com/russian/international/2014/12/141228_
        nato_new_afghanistan_mission
        
        What is this for? Have you decided to back up my theses? Commendable!
        
        How does this confirm the version of NATO's victory in Afghanistan?
        
        Hey! This is relevant to the next topic we are discussing. About the Americans who completed their main task in Afghanistan, it was higher ...
        
        What's so terrible about using foreign ships? Most of them fly under false flags. But for NATO, it’s zrada so zrada winked An ally in Putin’s bloc helps the army to supply ... This is such an alliance. Did you frighten them with control over the straits?
        
        Are you talking about Erdogan's "friend"? I can remind you that the gadget that you are using at this very moment has something to do with the United States. Well?
        8) Friendly advice - send your emotions to the stomach. They only clog up the text and undermine your health ...
        
        123
        
        +2
        
        9 December 2020 15: 41
        
        I quote: "it turns out 60-75%."
        Please decide when exactly you lied: in the last comment or a little earlier.
        
        I believe it was you who forgot. More fully the quote looks like this.
        
        We take the state's share of 60-70%, even if we take at a minimum and subtract half of it (controlling stake 50%), it will be 30-35% of the entire economy. We take the rest (all over the world, including state of emergency, hairdressing salons) and imagine that a miracle happened and all the cunning Americans bought them. This is 30-40%, add 30-35% to them, it turns out 60-75%. 80% will not work, even with such fantastic assumptions.
        To be honest, it sounds like nonsense.
        
        And from this you concluded that we agreed?
        
        Apparently you forgot that we have already figured out the "numbers".
        Let me remind you: you agreed with 75% owned by foreigners, and since your sources (and you) allow a spread of tens of percent, then 80% is the "golden mean".
        
        Are you in our reality? According to the "style" of your discussion, suspicions of a brain squeezed by a saucepan grow into firm confidence.
        
        For this, the sources I have proposed are more than enough.
        Are your blinders too tight for you?
        
        With all due respect to the late professor, I am not ready to consider the entire economy as 150-200% and insist on 100%. What kind of sources you have there and what you drink from them I do not know.
        
        Case Materials - no problem (for everyone WHO WISHES to find it)
        
        Your argument, you are looking for, I have no desire to seek confirmation of your delirium, especially to NATO and the Crimea it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
        
        I'm not surprised, because in our dialogue of "examples" of your lack of elementary information on the topics discussed, you really demonstrated "a lot".
        
        Are you finally going to the astral? Come back, we'll all forgive. The question was asked:
        
        Are you not aware of cases when the armed forces of other states are not at home and at the same time do not conduct any military operations?
        
        Why are you not satisfied with the answer? Known I even gave an example.
        
        What is this for? Have you decided to back up my theses? Commendable!
        
        Well, even though I try to do it, you yourself fail
        
        Hey! This is relevant to the next topic we are discussing. About the Americans who completed their main task in Afghanistan, it was higher ...
        
        Ale !!! Dear ... We talked about NATO, why are you trying to isolate the Americans from the big picture and leave behind the board of the loyal official allies and disenfranchised hangers-on?
        
        Are you talking about Erdogan's "friend"? I can remind you that the gadget that you are using at this very moment has something to do with the United States. Well?
        
        Are gadgets related to military dominance in the Black Sea region? What else is there nothing else to say? only drool remained? By the way, the gadget has more to do with China.
        
        Friendly advice - send your emotions to the stomach. They only clog up the text and undermine your health ...
        
        And when did we make friends with you? Something I missed this moment ... Heroam sala!
        
        Uneven
        
        0
        
        10 December 2020 19: 41
        
        1) Since we got to the "style", the obvious conclusion is that you are no longer up to the "numbers".
        2)
        
        You might be surprised, but yes. There are a lot of examples.
        
        Your answer would be flawless if my question was missing "not".
        3) You are surprisingly predictable, because you act strictly according to the template of true and uncompromising adherents of scrapie. The techniques are rather hackneyed, but sometimes they work. Their list is not long: "you are all true", "you will prove it", "your mail is not disclosed", "I do not read this article, I just know", "your sources of information they do not like." Am I missing anything?
        
        123
        
        0
        
        10 December 2020 20: 10
        
        Since we got to the "style", the conclusion is obvious that you are no longer up to the "numbers".
        
        Well, you, I will never reach your level. Try to learn how to count to 100, it's not that hard.
        
        You might be surprised, but yes. There are a lot of examples.
        
        Your answer would be flawless if my question was missing "not".
        
        Learn to ask normal questions. What do you mean is not clear.
        
        You are surprisingly predictable because you follow the pattern of true and uncompromising adherents of scrapie. The techniques are rather hackneyed, but sometimes they work. Their list is not long: "you are all true", "you will prove it", "your mail is not disclosed", "I do not read this article, I just know", "your sources of information they do not like." Am I missing anything?
        
        You might be surprised, but it's called a little differently. Facts, hard data, critical thinking about data.
        In a collision with them, your technique (blind faith, ignoring elementary arithmetic and real facts) will always fail.
        Heloyam Sala
        
        Uneven
        
        -2
        
        12 December 2020 12: 48
        
        I will never reach your level.
        
        Do I insist on this?
        
        Try to learn how to count to 100, it's not that hard.
        
        Judging by your sad experience, this is not given to everyone.
        
        Almost in A. Raikin's:
        
        They wanted to baffle me with their questions, and I baffled them with my answers.
        
        You might be surprised, but it's called a little differently. Facts, hard data, critical thinking about data.
        
        You are free to christen "THIS" whatever you like. It is not in your power to turn the stench of this consistency into a fragrance ...
2. Mikhail Petrov
  
  0
  
  27 November 2020 10: 49
  
  What prevents NATO from placing a base near the Crimea, or in Kharkov?
  1. Dear sofa expert.
    
    +2
    
    27 November 2020 12: 50
    
    What prevents NATO from placing a base near the Crimea, or in Kharkov?
    
    Unlike you, the leadership of the NATO bloc is hindered, paradoxically, by reason.
    NATO has already made a mistake once, admitting to the alliance 3 “unfinished”, which have direct borders with Russia. Now they have to urgently pump up this weak area with their military formations.
    
    With Ukraine this mistake will not be repeated, and will be left as a "buffer zone". There will be no "bases" there.
    It is no coincidence that even Finland is not a member of this bloc. Strange as it may sound - but for NATO it is also preferable in the form of a "buffer".
    
    And in general, how much of that life is left for this "military bloc"?
    NATO will disintegrate at the first serious test. Not a single sensible country of the "old world" will definitely expose itself for the sake of some "Baltic".
Heroes Heroes

-1

25 November 2020 12: 17

Don't count money in someone else's pocket!
By the way, what is DELFI?
1. boriz
  
  +2
  
  25 November 2020 13: 17
  
  DELFI is the publication for the entire Tribaltic. Each "country" has its own DELFI.
  1. Heroes Heroes
    
    -1
    
    27 November 2020 11: 16
    
    Thanks, Bro. Without you, we can say wandered in the darkness of ignorance! The question is you are rather a trick and rhetorical. Delfi, first of all, is a pro. Baltic information dump.
Tamara Smirnova

+4

25 November 2020 12: 20

Xspords from the extinction Well, of course, the ancient Lithuanians are "leaders of the world economy, giants of analytics." This is the new name for comics.
1. boriz
  
  +4
  
  25 November 2020 13: 19
  
  Litvins are today's Belarusians. And "these" are Lithuanians, former gemoyts and aukshaits.
  Stolen both the name of the country and the coat of arms.
Then

+2

25 November 2020 12: 32

Due to sanctions, Moscow lost the opportunity to defend its positions in the G7

I wonder which of the remaining sixes besides the United States managed to defend there? What positive has Russia gained from membership in the G8? But she received 2 million new citizens, 27 square kilometers of territory and the opportunity, together with Kaliningrad, to keep the whole of Europe in "sound mind and good memory". A trifle, but nice ...
jekasimf

0

25 November 2020 15: 22

Or maybe, in the end, Russia acquired these 100 lard? After all, now almost everything that was bought in the West is produced in Russia? We, Russians, are a proud bird. Until you kick, we do not fly ...
Essex62

+2

26 November 2020 11: 31

Ha. You might think that without Crimea there weren't all these sanctions. Russia has only two options, always - either a malicious hatred (including sanctions) of the West, or disappearance as a nation, if we surrender.
1. Mikhail Petrov
  
  -3
  
  27 November 2020 11: 03
  Quote: Essex62
  Russia has only two options always - or
  
  either to beg for help from the West, or to demand it.
  How she begged for weapons from Britain, which was at war with Hitler in 41, how she asked for help under Lend-Lease from the United States a little later, how she begged for free humanitarian food and medicines in thousands of tons from NATO and Japan in 1992.
  The US military transport operation Provide Hope (Give Hope) to deliver gratuitous food and medicine to proud Great Russians dying of hunger and disease.
  1. Essex62
    
    -1
    
    27 November 2020 17: 37
    
    Where are you broadcasting from, Russophobe? There are big doubts that you do, Petrov.
    1. Mikhail Petrov
      
      0
      
      28 November 2020 12: 57
      
      Straight from our Russian 5th column, heiress of the Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia. There are many of us in Russia and we all live under the flag of the ROA. By the way, the awards in the ROA were also attached to the St.George ribbons.
Valentin Spagis

+1

26 November 2020 13: 08

Western countries have been waging an economic war against Russia for a long time. Since Russia began to recover from the crisis of the 1990s. Russia is opposing it quite successfully. And the difficulties just arose in the countries that joined this war, but did not have sufficient resources for it. These are the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, Poland. They turned out to be, so to speak, cannon fodder.
1. DeGreen
  
  -1
  
  26 November 2020 19: 39
  
  Armenia too, so much
DeGreen

-2

26 November 2020 19: 38

The fact is that Poroshenko admitted that in 2015 he was going to give Crimea to NATO