Like many others, on the eve of the start of the struggle of candidates for the post of President of the Russian Federation, I decided to get acquainted with the programs that they are going to present. I started with the program of the famous economist and head of the Yabloko party Grigory Yavlinsky. I won’t talk about economics - I’m not an economist. Otherwise, it seems to me that it is not difficult to notice demagoguery like:
- Maintain peace and cooperation for the sake of stability and development;
- Develop mass entrepreneurship;
- Create favorable conditions for economic activity;
- Create conditions for the development of cities and regions;
- Create a civil society;
- Ensure separation of powers;
- Make the court independent and fair;
Point No. 1 of his program attracted particular attention:
"1. Stop aggressive confrontation and war with Ukraine.
Initiate the convening of an International Conference on the Status of Crimea and fully implement its decisions. Recognize the annexation of Crimea as illegal.
Withdraw all units of the Russian armed forces from Donbass. Immediately stop military, financial, diplomatic and other support for separatist forces and movements operating on the territory of Ukraine.”
One could and should agree with what is said in the first paragraph if we were talking about the Bandera movement that seized power in/in Ukraine. But, alas, Yavlinsky has something else in mind - he is talking about Russia and the DPR/LPR...
He repeats his opponents' lies about Russian troops in Ukraine!
Therefore, it can be understood this way: we must raise our hands and hand over the Russian-speaking and Russian people who rebelled against Bandera, citizens of Ukraine in Crimea and Donbass to be torn to pieces by the Nazis. And then the conversation on the topic of voting for Yavlinsky could be finally closed.
But, nevertheless, it is impossible to remain silent, because the matter is not only about Yavlinsky. Such requirements are written down not only in his program. Some other candidates also have them. They would not have inserted such a point into their programs (for Yavlinsky it comes first, as the most important), if they did not know that many people in liberal circles think and say so.
In those circles there are many smart people, as they consider themselves. So what are they guided by when they demand to give back Crimea and withdraw non-existent Russian troops from Donbass? Leave people there to be killed by Bandera’s followers without support or help?
It seems to me that everything is quite simple. (Please excuse me for having to repeat what all sane people have known for a long time. But for complete clarity it will be necessary).
In my opinion, people demanding the return of Crimea to Ukraine are on FORMAL LEGAL POSITIONS. On which both the Ukrainian nationalists-Bandera and many ordinary people stand. It is clear to them that:
Crimea has actually been part of Ukraine for some time now. The state of Ukraine and the integrity of its territory are recognized in the world and by the UN. Including Russia. There is a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation between Russia and Ukraine, there are guarantees of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, in particular from Russia and the United States;
- The referendum in Crimea was held with the help of Russia (“little green men”), in violation of international law (there was no permission from the Ukrainian government to conduct it);
- After joining Russia, Crimea was occupied by Russian troops;
- The prestige of the Russian state internationally has been undermined. Sanctions, etc., have been introduced, which reduces the standard of living of its people. Huge amounts of money are being spent to restore Crimea and maintain the economy and life of Crimeans;
- There is a threat of precedent in Russia itself. (If Crimea can do this, then why not others?).
On this basis, opponents of the annexation of Crimea, for their part, consider themselves absolutely right. Formally, this is how it is. But! There is a well-known phrase: “In form it is correct, but in essence it is a mockery!”
They don’t give a damn about the fact that Crimea, before Khrushchev transferred it to Ukraine in 1954, has always been Russian since the time of Catherine II, and mostly Russians still live there. And Sevastopol was, is and will be a city of Russian glory. That Ukraine has never particularly cared about Crimea, in fact not considering its people to be its own. That attempts to return to Russia after the collapse of the Union (including the first referendum on the independence of Crimea from Ukraine) were made by Crimeans there back in 1991 and later.
It doesn’t matter that in 2014, after the bloody coup on the Maidan, when there was actually no legal government in Ukraine, but there was a threat of seizure of power in Crimea by Bandera’s supporters (“Death Trains” with Bandera’s supporters were already heading to Crimea), the people of Crimea held first one referendum on separation from Ukraine, and then another on joining Russia. Its people, who never considered themselves Ukrainian (I also lived in Crimea, I know), by an absolute majority decided to finally return home.
All this is not significant for Yavlinsky and people like him. The main thing for them is that the formalities are not fully observed.
They, the formalists, simply do not feel, do not understand that neither Putin, nor the State Duma, nor the Russian people could not accept Crimea into the Russian Federation, or do otherwise. Otherwise it would be a betrayal. It is not difficult to understand what would have happened there after the bloody coup on Maidan if, for example, Russia had refused to accept Crimea into its territory. The bloody events in Donbass mean nothing to some. The moral consequences of such a betrayal not only for leaders, but for all of Russia, for all Russians, were and remain concepts inaccessible to such people.
Remaining formalists, they demand the return of Crimea to Ukraine, without thinking in the slightest, not only without taking into account the will of the Crimeans, but without taking into account the PEOPLE at all. They demand the return of Crimea as simply as a sack of potatoes. It doesn’t even occur to them how the Russians would perceive such a decision if, suppose, the Russian leaders really decided to give Crimea back to Ukraine. How would the Crimeans themselves perceive such a decision, would they agree to return to Ukraine, or would they also rebel, like the Donbass rebelled? And how would it end? Absolutely right, in my opinion, is the physicist scientist from Crimea Evgeniy Fedorov, who said that only those who know and judge about it only from two or three weeks of vacation at a resort and from books and articles can think and write about Crimea.
That is, whatever one may say, we have to once again recall the well-known: “In form it is correct, but in essence it is a mockery!” A mockery of common sense and people. They “forgot” that the West, which they adored, did not care about any formalities, recognized the separation of Kosovo from Serbia as legitimate. If the same West had done exactly the same with Crimea, I have no doubt that our liberals would have run screaming to approve such a decision. Alas, in this case, someone especially respected by the Yavlinskys did not recognize it. And that means we have to give up Crimea...
And these “smart guys” consider themselves worthy to be candidates for the post of President of the Russian Federation?
Let's see what the people of Russia say.
01/30/18
P.S. 03/18/18 The people of Russia have had their say: the “advanced” Yavlinskys and Sobchaks failed miserably in the presidential elections of the Russian Federation, gaining a total of about 3% of the votes, i.e. on the verge of statistical error. (With a record voter turnout, more than 76% of the votes were cast for V.V. Putin).
Reviews
It’s amazing how a person can recognize the formal rightness of those protesting against the seizure of Crimea and... defend the meanness of the Kremlin with demagoguery about the will of the people, etc. I would remember Putin’s ban on reporting military losses to Russia in peacetime. Great bloodshed was unleashed by the annexation of Crimea, its metastases engulfed the Donbass. The ruble has fallen threefold since 2014. How much more torment does Russia need to understand its mistake, which is worse than a crime? I am not a supporter of Yavlinsky, not a supporter of Ukraine. But Russia is in trouble because of Crimea, in a big trap.
Vladimir, you, an intelligent, educated person, apparently know what the Ukrainian nationalists, descendants and followers of Bandera-Shukhevych, are?
What did they do in 1941-1954 in Ukraine with Muscovites, Jews and their fellow countrymen who did not support them? And that today they are bombing peaceful Lugansk, Donetsk, killing civilians, old people, children, women?
This is by way of introduction.
And now to the point.
1. Before the bloody coup of 2013-14, did Russia or its leadership have any claims against Ukraine over Crimea or any other part of it? The answer is clear;
2. The coup on the Maidan with the murders of hundreds of people, including the Crimean Berkut soldiers who were there, plus the murders and abuse of them on the way home - do you know about this?
3. No matter how the “polite green men” help the Crimeans, the Russian (!) people of Crimea would never vote almost in full for secession from Ukraine, and then for joining Russia. And 20 thousand Ukrainian soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with full military equipment and equipment would not have surrendered without firing a single shot if they had not understood that this was the decision of the PEOPLE OF CRIMEA;
4. And what do you think the people of Russia and their President should have done - give Crimea and its people to the Nazis?
You don’t know your people well, Vladimir. And he expressed his opinion unequivocally during the presidential elections this year.
However, I don’t hope for understanding. That's why I won't continue.
Grigory Yavlinsky of the Yabloko party is ready to become Russia's negotiator on Ukraine, replacing Assistant to the President of the Russian Federation Vladislav Surkov in this post. However, almost all information on this matter comes from Grigory Alekseevich himself. And given his previous statements about Donbass and the events taking place there, his hypothetical appointment looks, let’s say, a very original move.
Grigory Yavlinsky. Archive photo
It should be noted that the presidential candidate announced such a prospect in a conversation with the publication MBKh-Media - as is clear from the first three letters, its owner is Mikhail Khodorkovsky. A very interesting way, it should be noted, to announce behind-the-scenes conversations. For some reason I want to add “our where”...
“Indeed, such a topic is being discussed. I had such a conversation with President Putin in November. I discussed the topic of Ukraine with him. If this issue is raised, I will consider it very seriously, because this is topic number one,” Yavlinsky said . And he added that the normalization of relations between Russia and Ukraine is “the key to any positive solution, both in the economy and in social life.” Expressing a willingness to “do whatever it takes” to solve this problem.
A little later, the editor-in-chief of Echo of Moscow, Alexey Venediktov, shared an insider from the very top. “Yavlinsky is ready to replace Surkov on the Ukrainian negotiation track. It’s not that Putin made a formal offer to him, but during their meeting the president presumably asked the question: “Well, you, GY, criticize everything, but should you work on this topic yourself?” “If you agree with my approach and give me authority, then I can do it,” my friends from the AP confirm. We will watch,” Venediktov wrote in his telegram channel.
Grigory Yavlinsky, as is known, is a native of Lvov, although this fact is unlikely to have any decisive impact on the decision as to whether he will become a negotiator on Ukraine.
Generally speaking, this story is very reminiscent of previous episodes from the political biography of Grigory Alekseevich. Who was very often ready to take on this or that matter, but only if he was vested with the appropriate powers. Implying, first of all, autonomy in actions. Because of this, as a rule, nothing worthwhile was achieved and still is not.
How can the founder of Yabloko become a negotiator in this case, if he has repeatedly said that upon becoming president,
“It must be made absolutely clear that Russia is ending support for all separatist movements: military, political, material, propaganda. Next we are talking about introducing appropriate security forces and closing the border between Russia and Ukraine and stopping the sending of “vacationers” there,” this is one of the statements Yavlinsky in November last year.
“Over three and a half years, the Russian budget spent about 300 billion rubles on the Donbass. And these are not only military expenditures, as in Syria. These are also expenditures on social payments, pensions, healthcare, that is, almost the entire budget of the region. Instead to direct these billions to the construction of kindergartens, schools and hospitals in our country, we are financing the war in a neighboring state,” this was said a little later, in December.
There is no secret here; this is part of the program with which Yavlinskaya is running for the presidential election. I wonder what powers he needs to agree to the post of negotiator? Those indicated in the program? So this is not a negotiator, this is a truce with a white flag. No special talents are needed here.
General Director of the Center for Political Information Alexey Mukhin, in a conversation with Pravda.Ru, noted that he even felt sorry for the founder of Yabloko.
“Every election cycle, Grigory Alekseevich Yavlinsky takes the same bait, as if offering some kind of position. I have a feeling that this is such a good old tradition. Yavlinsky now believes in it, he is starting to play this game, already as participant. Apparently, his political strategists suggest or he himself thinks that it’s cool - they offer you some kind of position. He understands perfectly well that he will not win the elections, but he began to play the game “the authorities actually value Grigory Alekseevich” with gusto.” , noted the expert.
“I’m afraid that this discourse - vesting Yavlinsky with some kind of state powers in matters of relations between Russia and Ukraine - is false. And ultimately exposes Grigory Alekseevich as a loser. I apologize for the harshness of the wording, but this is exactly the way it is. Playing along in this situations, those who spread such rumors find themselves in an extremely vulnerable position. Last time he had an economic position, this time he was a negotiator...” said Alexey Mukhin.
“Imagine that such an offer was actually made to Grigory Alekseevich. This completely breaks the entire concept of the work of Russian officials - Boris Gryzlov, Vladislav Surkov - in this direction. De facto, this is an admission of the failure of this work. Do you think the state can do this? I think it’s unlikely,” the political scientist emphasized.
And he called on you to use logic when assessing such news: “You will immediately understand that this is a fake proposal.”
18:32 — REGNUM The leader of the Yabloko party, Grigory Yavlinsky, said that Crimea should be returned to Ukraine.
“We need to give up Crimea so that this problem does not haunt Russia all its life,” Yavlinsky said at a meeting of the party’s political council.
The politician believes that “it is necessary to hold a second legitimate referendum on the status of Crimea, organized according to Ukrainian laws,” and to create a “security belt” between Russia and Ukraine with the participation of international observers, regulating economic relations regarding trade and gas supplies.
Let us recall that the reunification of Crimea with Russia occurred after the free expression of the will of the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol on March 16, 2014. Two questions were submitted to the referendum: “Are you in favor of the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?” and “Are you for restoring the 1992 Constitution of the Republic of Crimea and for the status of Crimea as a part of Ukraine?”
In Crimea, 96.77% of voters chose the first item on the ballot - “For the reunification of Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation”, in Sevastopol - 95.6%. The day after the popular referendum, the Supreme Council of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea declared Crimea an independent sovereign state - the Republic of Crimea, in which Sevastopol has a special status.
On March 18, in the St. George Hall of the Kremlin, in the presence of the leaders of Crimea and Sevastopol, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an interstate agreement on the admission of the Republic of Crimea to Russia.
Background
On March 18, 2014, Crimea and Sevastopol became part of Russia - the corresponding agreement was signed by Russian President Vladimir Putin. This was preceded by a Crimean referendum held on March 16, in which the overwhelming majority of residents of Crimea and Sevastopol supported reunification with Russia. The reunification of Crimea with Russia became the reason for the introduction of economic and political sanctions against the Russian Federation, in turn, the Russian Federation was forced to resort to counter-sanctions.
Over the five years that Crimea and Sevastopol have been part of Russia, many long-standing problems of the peninsula have been resolved: the tourism industry is actively developing, the issue of energy independence of the peninsula has been resolved, and by the end of 2019 the second, railway part of the Crimean Bridge, which connects the peninsula with the Krasnodar Territory, will be completed.
On March 18, 2019, the fifth anniversary of reunification with Russia was widely celebrated in Crimea and Sevastopol.
YUZHNO-SAKHALINSK, November 18 - RIA Novosti. One of the founders of the Yabloko party, Grigory Yavlinsky, said that, as a future candidate for the presidency of Russia, he advocates organizing an international conference and a new referendum on the issue of Crimea’s ownership.
“Everything is pretty bad with Crimea, because no one in the world recognizes what was done in 2014. It is necessary to hold an international conference on Crimea and develop a roadmap for solving this problem... We are a country with unrecognized borders, and I would not like live in a country with unrecognized borders. In this case, from my point of view, we must ask them to vote in the conditions of a normal referendum, which is recognized throughout the world,” Yavlinsky said on the “Vesti on Saturday” program on the Rossiya 1 TV channel. .
Crimea became a Russian region after a referendum held there in March 2014, in which 96.77% of voters in the Republic of Crimea and 95.6% of residents of Sevastopol were in favor of joining Russia. The Crimean authorities held a referendum after the coup in Ukraine in February 2014. Kyiv still considers Crimea its own, but temporarily occupied territory. The Russian leadership has repeatedly stated that the residents of Crimea democratically, in full compliance with international law and the UN Charter, voted for reunification with Russia. According to the Russian president, the issue of Crimea is “finally closed.”
In addition, Yavlinsky said that Russia's "policy needs to be changed." “Such an economic policy leads to poverty, the country is isolated. We must stop participating in the civil war in Syria, this is a senseless swamp, from which Russia will then have to climb out for decades. This policy does not suit us. There must be peace with Ukraine, we must stop the war, we must stop propaganda of hatred," Yavlinsky said.
“I am in favor of Russia ceasing to be the object of sanctions from all countries in the world. How long can this continue? This could have very serious long-term consequences,” he added.
In addition, in the upcoming presidential elections, he does not consider Ksenia Sobchak as his rival, and his only competitor is Vladimir Putin. “I will fight against Vladimir Putin, I have no other competitors,” Yavlinsky noted.
“My main goal is for politics to change in Russia, percentages in this case do not play a role, you can’t judge elections by percentages, but if politics starts to change, adjustments will be made - we will get away from sanctions, from the collapse of foreign policy, normalization of relations will occur with the closest neighbors and with the world - this will be the main result,” Yavlinsky said.
Relations between the Russian Federation and the EU deteriorated due to the situation in the Donbass, where Kyiv in April 2014 launched a military operation against the self-proclaimed LPR and DPR, which declared independence after the coup in Ukraine in February 2014. Western countries introduced a number of sanctions against Russia, and Moscow took retaliatory measures. Russia has repeatedly stated that it is not a party to the internal Ukrainian conflict or a subject to the Minsk settlement agreements. Moscow has also repeatedly noted that talking to it in the language of sanctions is counterproductive.
At which he answered questions about ways to solve the problem of Crimea and about relations between Russia and Ukraine. Yavlinsky again called for an international conference that could initiate a new referendum on the status of Crimea. Returning to the issue of a new referendum is not weakness for Russia, but a sign of political strength, the presidential candidate is convinced.
Grigory Yavlinsky emphasizes that “the problem of Crimea will not resolve on its own” - the world does not recognize the peninsula as Russian, and this problem will still have to be solved, since the country has already lost over 9 trillion rubles due to the sanctions. “In the 21st century, no economy in the world can survive in isolation. Moreover, it is impossible to engage in modern science and develop high technologies in isolation,” says Yavlinsky.
The presidential candidate believes that laws were seriously violated in 2014, in particular the agreement on the Russian-Ukrainian border, which President Putin signed in January 2003.
A legal way out of this situation could be the convening, under the auspices of the UN, of an international conference on the status of Crimea, at which a road map will be developed - “based on the law and taking into account the will of the people.” In the opinion of the presidential candidate, all parties influencing the situation should take part in the conference: Russia, Ukraine, the European Union (primarily the countries of the Normandy Dialogue: Germany, France), Great Britain and the United States (as guarantor countries that signed the Budapest Memorandum ), Turkey and representatives of Crimea.
“It is quite possible that the conference will decide to hold a new referendum under international control, which will be recognized by all parties. The result of such a referendum will be the end of this dangerous situation,” emphasizes Grigory Yavlinsky.
The presidential candidate is convinced that this proposal is not only realistic, but also has no alternative - “international experience indicates that this is exactly what will happen sooner or later.”
Responding to the widespread opinion that “giving back” under Western pressure would be a sign of weakness, the politician points out that on the contrary: “Returning to the issue of holding a legal referendum in Crimea is a sign of political strength.”
On the website krym.yavlinsky.ru you can get answers to the most common questions about Crimea, in particular: Is a referendum possible on Ukrainian laws? What if NATO came to Crimea? Is it possible to return Crimea to Ukraine? In addition, on the site you can ask your question, and also find out what Vladimir Putin thought about the status of Crimea in 2008, what Crimeans are now deprived of, and what role the peninsula plays in the family history of Grigory Yavlinsky.
Let us recall that with the initiative to hold an international conference on Crimea, Grigory Yavlinsky in March 2014.
Loading...