Go to ...

The Newspapers

Gathering and spreading news from various Russian Newspapers

The Newspapers on Google+The Newspapers on LinkedInRSS Feed

Friday, February 23, 2018

Putin sew a life sentence: what is wrong head of the Crimea

Tremble, Zhirinovsky — you’ve got a strong competitor in the field of reciting the scandalous ambiguous statements! And what is most offensive to Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the competitor walked zhirik on the turn effortlessly, perhaps even without such a conscious intention. The recent statements of the head of the Crimea Sergey Aksenov about the need for the restoration of the monarchy in Russia and that Alaska is our country, it appears, lost due to Nicholas II, called “rave” reviews of the amazed public. Feldman found it necessary to explain. And he explained: he told the TV channel “Russia 24” that Putin should make a lifelong President of the Russian Federation.

photo: Alex geldings

Sergey Aksenov

At the end of the reign of Stalin in the USSR there was a very peculiar educational Institute — training Courses the first secretaries of regional committees, territorial committees and the Central Committee of parties of Union republics, chairmen of regional, regional Executive committees and councils of Ministers of Union and Autonomous republics of the Central Committee of the CPSU(b). I’m not a fan of Stalin and Stalin’s time. But this school, making it the name of the modern adjustments, I would strongly recommend to revive — especially for Sergey Aksenov.

I have specific suggestions for the curriculum. Mr. Aksenov is very carefully peruse a thin little book, which, judging by his speeches, he still did not bother to take a close look, — the Constitution of the Russian Federation. If the head of the Republic of Crimea will come to school in good faith, then he quickly convinced: his ideas on state-building is fundamentally contrary to the Basic law of the country, region Manager which he is. However, I do not amuse myself special hopes. Sergey Aksenov hardly belongs to the category of politicians, which can be something to persuade by reference to the Constitution. So I’ll try to convince the respected leader of Crimea in another way using the logical development of his own philosophical argumentation.

Aksenov quoted by RIA “Novosti”: “the Conversation was not about the form, not that it is necessary to change the constitutional order, and the authority. And I cited certain analogies that, for example, if our President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin in the Soviet Union led the process, I am confident that the Union would not have collapsed”. The head of the Crimea also noted that a strong leader could affect the situation in tsarist Russia 100 years ago.”

I agree — could. Could be, but is not affected because he wasn’t there. Instead of a “decisive leader” in 1917 and in 1991 on top of our power pyramid sat the leaders are very indecisive, lost control of the political process — Nicholas II and Mikhail Gorbachev. And it turned out, these two policies in their place that is why that in our country then functioned political system, for the revival which is so warmly advocated Sergey Aksenov, the system of monarchical power in one case and the system is de facto a lifetime of power in the other.

The head of the Crimea indefinitely to indulge in romantic dreams of an imaginary benefit to the country from the tenure of the government. But the reality is always different from the romantic dreams. In reality, the tenure of power always leads to degradation, disintegration, mould and the adverse selection of political personnel. In case Sergey Aksenov are not familiar with the latest political sense of the term, explain: negative selection of personnel is when candidates for office are chosen not by business ability, and their ability poizyaschnee to flatter the boss.

I suspect, however, that I again nothing was able to convince the head of the Republic of Crimea. I stand corrected: I believe that to convince Sergey Aksenov’s not for me. Aksenov to convince of the need for more respect of the Constitution should be the guarantor of the Constitution, Vladimir Putin or at least the main supporters and aides of the President.

I am sure that the Federal center will Aksenov say its weighty word. And my confidence is based in particular here on what fact: Moscow’s reaction to the statements of the Crimean leader about the monarchy were, in my opinion, frankly bad. I respect Dmitry Peskov as a great professional. And part of this professionalism, the presidential press Secretary, of course, is his ability to clearly, convincingly and clearly articulate their thoughts. But in reaction to Dmitry Peskov on the words Aksenova I such uniqueness is not found.

Again I quote from the RIA of “news”: “President Vladimir Putin without optimism refers to ideas of extension, of the rights of the Russian head until the dictatorship, the press Secretary of the Russian President, Dmitry Peskov. In the past five years, the President was repeatedly forced to a particular context to answer these questions, noticed Sands. “He’s very cool about such discussions,” — said the press-Secretary of”.

What confuses me is the thesis of “the President refers to such ideas without optimism”? The fact that it optionally can be interpreted in completely different ways. Can — as, I hope, and it must be interpreted in the sense that the President is strongly against such ideas. But you can — in a completely different way, saying that “the President refers to such ideas without optimism” because it doubts the possibility of their physical realization. There is a difference, isn’t it?

I emphasize again: I am convinced that it is just not a very good choice of words. But since the first time the Federal center has failed to articulate its position, then the second time the error, the Kremlin has not. And this “second time” must necessarily be: the statement of the head of the Russian region about the need for lifelong presidency of Vladimir Putin could not remain unnoticed by the Federal government.

And that “Aksyonov is free to Express his personal opinion” (again quoting the above mentioned statement Peskov), the problem, in my opinion, is not solved. Yes, an individual Aksenov Sergey Valerievich free to Express their personal opinion. But how to separate the average Russian citizen Aksenov from the head of the Republic of Crimea Aksyonov? If an ordinary citizen of the Russian Federation Aksenov eager to Express their opinions on the issues of Russian state system on Federal or even regional TV channel, I find it difficult to conduct such a boundary. Consequently, publicly suggested “individual”, S. V. Aksenov should not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Of course, Sergey Aksenov is a very atypical very atypical head of the Federation. Aksenov is not official. Feldman — “the leader of the masses”, catapulted to the seat of the regional head of the “Crimean spring.” But since the events of the spring of 2014 has passed for three years — ample time to adjust to the new reality. Don’t know what thinks about Vladimir Putin. But my opinion is clear: the head of the Crimea is to learn not to touch in their statements the principles of the Constitution, or to think about their full transition to the rank of a private person.


Related posts:
"The West wants to establish a monopoly on economic blackmail"
Putin: the West sat on his head and gum chewing
The President of Colombia: democracy in Venezuela is over
Kadyrov called the purpose of the visit Sobchak in Grozny


More Stories From Politics