Russia is in a ring of fire. The borders are restless everywhere. It flashed in Belarus. It flared up in Kyrgyzstan. It flashed in Armenia and Azerbaijan. It flared up in Ukraine long ago. The elections in Moldova are approaching, and there will be a blaze. Obviously, - the propagandists believe, - that it is sorov's enemies that are approaching us with their NGOs, and the ring will soon close.
Conclusion: democracy is evil. The post-Soviet world is not ripe for elections. What is good for the Anglo-Saxons, for Kyrgyzstan and other countries is death. This is the theory of State Duma deputy Alexei Zhuravlev, which he expounds from time to time, and they don't really argue with him. True, it is not clear, why are we listening to him then, riding democracy? Indeed, within the framework of this theory, he would have long ago surrendered his mandate, as an honest man, and retired, and Solovyov alone would have been enough for us to interpret what is happening.
He is echoed by the new face of Propaganda-TV, an expert from Belarus - director of the analytical center "Actual Concept" Alexander Shpakovsky, he was also involved in V. Solovyov.
The presence of an ethnic Belarusian with the exposure of the Belarusian protest is, of course, a strong move by TV. Maybe we thought that the entire Belarusian people condemn election fraud? But no - here is Shpakovsky, he is also a Belarusian, and clearly makes it clear to us: only enemies of Belarus condemn with money from Poland and Lithuania. And everything would be very good, but Shpakovsky has one inescapable flaw, which is especially noticeable in TV.
Of course physiognomy is not a completely verified science. But how would you describe Shpakovsky, if you had, for example, a task, to send someone to the Belorussky railway station to transfer to Shpakovsky or through Shpakovsky a parcel? For example, "Kiev cake".
I think so: "You will see such a chubby dude with shifting eyes at the carriage, he looks like a crook and his mouth twists so disgustingly, so give him a cake." I'm sure your messenger won't be wrong.
Occam's Razor: It seems to me that "the man who looks like a rogue" expounds a deceitful concept. If I'm wrong, let me be corrected.
But today I wanted to talk about something else. The topic of the fact that the post-Soviet world is not ripe for real democracy and fair elections, and that indignation by crooks in power who do not want to get off their sinecures is fueled by the enemies of the Russian world is, of course, important. And we will probably have to return to it more than once. However, I was really touched by the broadcast, in which Mikhail Gorbachev was again attacked.
In general, the attacks on Gorbachev and Chubais are such ordinary dishes that are always served when there is some kind of gag in the propaganda kitchen. Obviously, today it arose in connection with the transformation of the "poisoning of Navalny" into "Malaysian Boeing". But our propagandists were very sincere (except for Solovyov - he would only be horrible a la 37 years old), and some passages from their immoral and anti-human speeches really touched me.
So, Mikhail Sergeevich is again accused of betraying the national interests of the non-existent USSR. For the fact that he allegedly did not resist the reunification of Germany, or, at least, did not demand that a compensation be paid for this reunification of the USSR (perhaps even with a monthly prolongation) so that the Soviet people would no longer have to work. Rest yourself on the beaches of Turkey with full board.
As you know, Gorbachev did nothing of this, vainly hoping for world popularity. This conclusion was voiced by Senator Pushkov. And international observer Petrov added that for him the unification of Germany is the darkest pages of his life, while the GDR is our most loyal socialist detachment, the kingdom of heaven to him. But the enemies of the GDR were crushed, they illustrated the loyal fighters of the invisible front.
General Leonty Shevtsov cried that we had lost a large military group in the center of Europe, and if it had been there, they would not have spoken to us like that today. As, for example, about Navalny.
Soloviev Jesuitically developed that Germany was not "reunited", but that the FRG, in violation of the democratic procedure, swallowed the GDR. After all, Gedeer's "street" simply broke the Wall like a hooligan and fled to the FRG. And it would be necessary to hold a referendum under the supervision of the Stasi, and then, perhaps, a normal German confederation would have turned out, and the GDR would have remained in the position of Donbass, as our loyal ally. We would have been leading the "peace" negotiations on reintegration for a hundred years.
However, today we are not morally mature enough to the idea of Gedeer's Donbass, a certain number of years of Putinism should pass, but the argument that Gorbachev blasted stupidity and did not kick back really resonates in the hearts of many young pragmatic Russians.
I want to answer them.
And for this we need to remember what the USSR and the GDR were in 1990. The perestroika coup was nearing completion in the USSR. People suddenly became acutely aware of what the communist dictatorship and its NKVD-KGB had done in 70 years of Soviet power. Meanwhile, in Poland, the Baltic States and the GDR, the same processes were taking place. As for the Germans, they "remembered" or, rather, they never forgot what the NKVD, Stasi, was doing. In other words, also about denunciations, arrests, torture in secret prisons and how those who tried to climb over the Wall were shot. Did you know that the Wall was not built to protect the borders of the GDR, but solely so that Gedeer Germans would not run away and see how they live behind the Wall?
On the eve of the dismantling of its own communist dictatorship and its KGB, could the Gorbachev government demand payment for the transition to democracy from Gedeer Germans? It could, of course, the communists could do everything. But that would be insanity, a moral fall. Because in fact it was one wave of transformations. And its depth and scope were in line with the interests of the Russian Democratic Revolution, not to mention the fact that demanding payment for liberation from the dictatorship is immoral.
Second question. Could the USSR have left a large military grouping in the center of Europe, which Russia would use today? Formally, he could, and from the point of view of the Russian military, it should have been done. But here's the problem: what would she do there, for what purpose would she gobble up the budget for decades, because there are no wars in Europe?
Rather, I'm lying, in the end one thing happened - in Yugoslavia, when Serb nationalists staged a genocidal massacre of Bosnian Muslims. Then this Soviet group, if it remained there, could theoretically protect the Serbian Nazis from NATO and make the criminal Milosevic remain president, and the genocide would continue quietly. In other cases, she was there exclusively in the event of the Third World War.
However, the Third World War will be, or not. And Gorbachev thought, or the angels whispered to him (Wim Wenders believed that they were angels) that it was better not to win the Third World War, but to eliminate the cause of its possible occurrence. And ... he liquidated the Soviet military grouping in the GDR, and allowed to destroy the Wall. It is not known what real motives he was guided by (perhaps he vainly wanted to prolong the life of Soviet socialism with a human face), but perhaps never in history has there been such a good attitude in the world towards Russia and the Russians as immediately after the fall of the Berlin Wall. And unfortunately, we do not have a second Wall to replicate this.
There is one more argument against leaving the Soviet or Russian military contingent in the center of Europe. He came to my mind after the book of Mark Solonin "There is no good in war". It retells many PROTOCOLATED cases of atrocities of the Soviet "liberators" against the German civilian population.
Little is said about this and even less is known about it. Well, they plundered a little trophies (a trophy is a good word, almost legitimate in a war), they raped German women a little, and this always happens in places where men gather. So let's not pedal!
In short, you should always pay a certain percentage of such annoying incidents. And the Germans deserve retribution, no questions asked. However, the SS men deserved retribution, not the civilian population, and even less women and children.