According to the president, the “Russian and Ukrainian services” want to compromise the oligarch
Another press marathon of the head of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelenský dedicated to half the presidential election term, provoked the scandal even before it began. The president's communication with the media was prepared in complete secrecy. There was no accreditation. Therefore, most of those who wanted to ask Zelenský something was overboard. Suddenly, in response to a question, the President of Ukraine announced the preparation of a coup in the country, in which they want to involve Oligarch Rinat Akhmetov.
Only 32 publications and TV channels received official invitations to the marathon, which can ask exactly 30 questions to the head of state. Communication is strictly three hours.
Until recently, it was not clear where the marathon itself would take place. Late the night before, the Ukrainian media was told that this time the creative president had chosen a pizzeria to communicate with the press. During the night, a gang from the presidential office rushed in and frightened the entire management of the institution. But apparently, in the end, they came to the conclusion that it would be difficult to ensure the safety of the head of state in a pizzeria. In addition, journalists from publications who bypassed the invitation promised to hold demonstrations outside the cafe walls. In the morning, it turned out that they were going to demonstrate in the Kiev co-working space Creative State Arsenal, which is located near the Kiev food market, where Zelensky organized his first press marathon in 2019.
As in 2019, Zelensky decided to answer journalists' questions at the table. True, there were only modest plates of snacks on it. In addition, no more than 9 people sat next to Zelenský himself. Where the remaining media are located is still unclear. However, it is stated that in addition to the central news agencies and heads of television programs, foreign media – Reuters, Deutsche Welle, AFP, Bloomberg, BBC – were among the “accepted to the body”. But Polish journalists were not among the chosen ones. In this context, the Polish media have already expressed their dissatisfaction with the office of the President of Ukraine.
Zelensky began communicating with the media about the oligarchs, who he said clung to Ukraine.
The journalist's second question was headless: “Will there be a war with Russia?” According to journalists, European countries – the United States, Britain – have already promised to help Ukraine “if anything” … Zelensky said that support for the European world really existed. And informational, moral and partly financial. And the Ukrainian army is now strong enough and new military technology has emerged. But … According to Zelenský, Ukraine now has problems not only with its neighbors, but also with the difficult situation within the country.
Zelensky said he had “healthy information” about preparing for another coup in the country. Reportedly with the participation of … oligarch Rinat Akhmetov. According to Zelenský, Akhmetov could have been framed. And some Russian and Ukrainian “services” may be involved. According to the President of Ukraine, they want to “pull Akhmetov into a coup.” “But because I don't believe in a coup d'etat and I don't believe Akhmetov will run to take part in anything against the state, I think it's a provocation.” Zelensky said he was not Yanukovych, so he will not run anywhere. And he is not Poroshenko, so he will not organize any “heavenly hundreds” in the country ….
State Secretary of the Security Council of Belarus Alexander Volfovič he said the country could introduce amendments to laws that would make it possible to pass judgments in the criminal cases of opposition people who went abroad in their absence.
“There must have been an omission in criminal procedural law …” Volfovich.
According to him, according to the current legislation, the “principle of inevitability of criminal punishment for a committed crime” has not been fulfilled. Because of this, the secretary of state added, a “criminal” can leave the country and live in peace, and even at the request of security officials, other states do not extradite him “for political reasons.” If changes are made, the court will be able to convict such people in absentia, Volfovich concluded.
Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki criticizes incumbent German Chancellor Angela Merkel for calling the Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.
According to him, Merkel “contributed to the legitimization of his regime”. He claims that this happened against the background of the fact that “the fight for a free Belarus has lasted for 15 months”. The European Union, as the Polish Prime Minister emphasized, should be involved in finding a diplomatic solution.
As a result, Morawiecki noted that the Belarusian leader had “abused” the conversation with Merkel. He pretended to agree to transporting 2,000 illegal migrants to Germany and other countries.
Merkel and Lukashenko met on November 15 and 17. They addressed the migration crisis at the EU's borders. As a result, the parties agreed on ways to solve the problem. It was decided that the representatives of both parties should start negotiations immediately in order to resolve the crisis. These representatives will also discuss the refugees' wishes to go to Germany.
At the same time, Merkel noted that the Belarusian leader is indeed the contact person in the migration crisis. However, this does not deny the fact that Berlin considers the results of the presidential election in Belarus to be illegitimate.
First it was a letter from Yuri Samodurov to the Central Committee of the CPSU requesting the erection of a monument to the rehabilitated victims of Stalin's repression
Russia is preparing to liquidate the oldest human rights organizations. The memorial, created at the dawn of perestroika and glasnost by informal activists, was recognized in the Russian Federation as a non-governmental organization-foreign agent. On November 11, the Prosecutor General's Office filed a lawsuit to liquidate the international organization “Memorial”, while the Moscow Prosecutor's Office demanded the closure of the human rights center of the same name. Vyacheslav Igrunov, one of the founders of Memorial, shared his memories of the organization's history.
– First came a letter from Yuri Samodurov to the Central Committee of the CPSU requesting the erection of a monument to the rehabilitated victims of Stalin's repression. He tried to create a group around this idea, which was originally called “Memorial”. Yura claims that the idea itself came to him at the end of 1986, but the public did not learn about it until May 1987, when he read his Statement at the Club of Social Initiatives (KSI – the first perestroika political club in the USSR). He was supported by Pavel Kudyukin (in the 1970s – a member of the underground circle of “young socialists”, the leader of the social democratic and trade union movement – MP).
– Of course.
– At the end of May 1987, I was approached by boys from the Social Initiatives Club, who originally signed the text of Jury Samodurov's letter. I said I wouldn't attend because it was the day before yesterday. I believed that it was necessary not to build monuments to rehabilitated victims of repression, but to look for approaches to civil peace. I then believed that we had a smoldering Cold Civil War, the whites continued to fight the Reds. If the Soviet government is bad because it suppressed the citizens, then why should those who tried to resist it be considered criminals? Then it is necessary to rehabilitate the “whites”.
We are all heirs of whites and reds and we need reconciliation and rejection of a culture of political terror, violence, we must look for ways to civic harmony. I've talked to different people about it. But I did not meet with a response. Most really wanted to build a monument to the rehabilitated victims of repression, ie those who did not oppose the Soviet regime, who fell under this rink by mistake. Including those communists who themselves carried out terror in the 1920s. And those who destroyed do not need to build a monument, as it turned out.
I have had long disputes with many people, including Jury Samodurov. As a result, I decided to design my own version of the project, which was to become more than just a monument to the rehabilitated victims.
In the first half of June 1987, I wrote my Memorial Statement. But I realized that most people weren't ready for that. Then I wrote the second version as if “for Juru Samodurov”: if he really wants to build his own monument, it should be more conceptual. Thus appeared the second Declaration, which was to replace Samodurov's version.
One of the ones I introduced in my version of the Declaration was Grigory Pelman. At that time he was the chairman of the Club of Social Initiatives, where Samodurov read his text about the monument. Grisha Pelman introduced me to Lena Zelinskaya, who was involved in this project. It had a complicated history, I had to leave Moscow for a while. Not only because I was persecuted (I was still “under surveillance”), but also because I had to exist for something – I resigned in Odessa, but I did not find a job in Moscow.
– At this time, we were preparing the first informal congress, called “Meeting – Dialogue” Public Initiatives in Perestroika “, at which Jura Samodurov was to present our agreed text of the declaration.
During a congress held at the Novator Palace of Culture from 26 to 29 August 1987, Elena Zelinskaya Samodurov persuaded us to read our text because it was too radical. And Yura read his own version of the text about the monument, which he had already edited together with Zelinska.
When I returned to Moscow at the end of September, they began to invite me to a meeting of the initiative group “Monument”, which was formed at this congress. Already there, I started to promote my “Memorial” concept. And it quickly became popular. Step by step, in the autumn of 1987, the “Monument” group was transformed into the “Memorial” group with broader tasks than those set by Samodurov. Since then, a continuous war between radicals and the moderates has begun within the initiative group.
– No, it has nothing to do with creating a Memorial. When the group was formed, the idea arose to create a public council that would include famous, outstanding people who would be the moral authorities of the movement. Nina Braginskaya suggested solving this problem in this way: take to the streets and collect signatures so that the citizens of the country can elect those they deem necessary to elect to this public council.
Lists were drawn up, signatures were collected and the most suitable people from the citizens' point of view were selected. Among them were Academician Sakharov, Yuri Afanasyev, poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko, writers Ales Adamovich, Anatoly Rybakov, etc. The people who were heard at the time were mostly from the 1960s. The most famous and authoritative of these was, of course, Sakharov. And participated in the work of “Memorial” a.s. I am very grateful to him, because without his support it would be much more difficult for me to continue my line. But he is definitely not the founder of the organization. He was like an informal leader of a municipal council.
– When he joined the initiative group, it had been in operation for a long time. I don't remember exactly when it happened. Memorial's ideas were rather amorphous. There were ideas that a memorial complex needed to be made, a research center, but no one really understood how to organize it. And Lev Ponomarev said, “Let's create a mass movement.” This was his idea. He spoke to me and I said that I fully supported the idea. From then on, we started to create movement. Ponomarev and Samodurov played a relatively important role in the initial phase: they wrote off with a large number of people, and thanks to their efforts, a mass movement began to emerge.
– The Perestroika Club was then divided into two clubs: Democratic Perestroika and Perestroika-88. Igor Čubajs played a role in the Perestroika club, after the division of the club he moved to Perestroika-88, which included many members of the Memorial initiative group, such as Yuri Skubko. He also played an important role. When I first came to the meeting of the initiative group “Památník”, it took place in Skubek's apartment. As I said, then the fight between the radicals and the moderates began. Ponomarev and Samodurov were among the moderates. And the radicals included Skubko, Dmitry Leonov, Viktor Kuzin, Nina Braginskaya.
– It was important for Yuru to build a monument. And it was important for me to create an intellectual and spiritual center that was to become a kind of moral beacon in society. These were slightly different goals. But both were realized within the Memorial movement and there was no contradiction between them.
– Yes. But I wrote in that first declaration that the monument could simply remain a place for excursions, and a tree of violence would continue to branch behind it. Therefore, the monument should not be restricted. It is necessary to create a center in which to work on the evaluation of our history and society. The current international “Memorial” in a sense meets these goals. Although not quite.
“I opposed this.” I was at odds with almost the entire village council. The position of the moderates and their imprisonment in Stalin's repression was supported by the playwright Mikhail Satrov, the writer Anatoly Rybakov, and the journalist Yuri Shchekochichin. And I convinced Sakharov, Yevtushenko, Adamovich, Afanasyev that the task should be much broader.
In the spring of 1988, Arsena Roginsky, Larisa Bogoraz and Sergey Kovalev joined the movement. They came to our makeshift headquarters in one of the lanes near the Kropotkinskaya metro station, met the participants of the movement and decided to support it. Arseny Roginsky, who was also a supporter of moderation, was actively involved in the work. On one side were Roginsky, Samodurov, Ponomarev, on the other – me, Leonov, Braginskaya, Skubko.
Jura Samodurov was very concerned that the movement was on good terms with the CPSU Central Committee, telling me: “Who will allocate space for the monument? Who will allow you to open an account? Only CPSU Central Committee. That is why there should be no radicalism. “And I thought we should not rely only on the Central Committee of the CPSU, and the monument is actually a secondary matter.
– When we started preparing for the inaugural Memorial Congress, we had a very difficult conflict. At that time, I was the coordinator of M-Bio (Moscow Information Exchange Office – MP), I had a platform and we were preparing for this congress. But the CPSU Central Committee banned it. And he did it very cleverly. An organizing committee was formed, which included representatives of creative unions – artists, architects, filmmakers, Ogonyok magazine, Literární časopis. These organizations became the official founders of Memorial and were ready to provide funding. Whoever has the money calls the melody.
And Vyacheslav Glazychev, Secretary of the Board of the Union of Architects of the USSR, was elected chairman of the organizing committee. I had a collision with him and at one time he even accused me of having a heart attack because of me.
When we started preparing for the congress, the Central Committee of the CPSU appealed to all these unions and said that there was no need to lead it. And I said I wouldn't stop sending invitations to find where to hold the congress. Sakharov was invited to a meeting of the organizing committee to find justice for me, but Sakharov unexpectedly supported me. By the way, the meeting took place on my birthday, which I forgot at the time.
We have agreed on a compromise: we have declared this congress not constitutional but preparatory. The war has since begun. Samodurov, relying on the official founders, tried his best to remove me and the other “radicals” so that we would not affect anything. However, it was difficult because the majority in the initiative group already supported my position.
I was assigned as the coordinator of the All-Union Memorial Congress. Then various forms of coercion were put on me. And the CPSU Central Committee gathered the founders to put pressure on them. I remember being a deputy. head The ideology sector of the Central Committee of the CPSU organized a meeting with us and called on us to leave this company. In this confrontation, my position was supported by the historian Yuri Afanasyev. Then he said, “We can't have a meeting without Sakharov.” Then Sakharov was also brought to the CPSU Central Committee.
Sakharov said: “We will hold an EU-wide constituent assembly and, if you do not allow us, we will hold it in apartments. “At that moment, the CPSU Central Committee broke down and allowed us to go down. The congress was ready, the premises of the MAI Palace of Culture were allocated, the CPSU Central Committee agreed. And at the end of January 1989, a constituent congress was held. But during this congress, Samodurov left the Memorial.
– The initiative group has adopted my version of the Charter, not his. Jura Samodurov slammed the door in protest and left the movement.
The first figures in the moderate wing were Arseniy Roginsky and Lev Ponomarev. The “moderation” exerted such strong pressure that the radicals – Dmitry Leonov, Oleg Orlov, etc., refused to run for the lead. I am one of the radicals who ran for the Labor Council. It was quite difficult to work there. The intrigues led to my opportunities constantly diminishing.
For example, I was the editor of the Vedomosti Memorial and I was going to do this work after the congress. But while I went to Ukraine to establish a Ukrainian “Memorial” and an Odessa “Memorial” there, Roginsky went through the working board's decision on the election of the newspaper's editorial board. A new editorial board was chosen, I remained as one of the editors, but it was already clear that I would not be able to work. I left and the Monument of Knowledge no longer came out. Either way, I have significantly reduced my participation in Memorial activities. After being elected to the State Duma, I resigned from the organization's leadership.
– This is also one of the results of the fight between the radicals and the moderates. To increase the influence of the moderates, Memorial took a huge number of victims of Stalin's repression, the radicals did not have a platform for their work.
My declaration formulated Memorial's human rights mission: resistance to violence today, tomorrow and always. Radicals, especially Dmitry Leonov and Galina Mikhaleva (Vochmenteva), came to me and asked me to take them under my wing and help create some structure. The idea to form a human rights group belonged to Dmitry Leonov. And so the Memorial Human Rights Group began to meet at My 1st Dubrovnik. Unfortunately, I couldn't pay much attention to her. The human rights group therefore began to work on its own, and Leonov and Orlov began to play a key role there. I gradually moved away from this activity, even though I am still a member of the Human Rights Center.
Sergei Kovalev was invited there, who became a symbol of the human rights center. Since then, its relatively strong ideologisation has begun. Suffice it to say that the White House shooting investigation I initiated was frozen for 10 years.
– It was a radical democratic ideology. In 1990, some conservationists insisted that the organization join the Democratic Russia movement. And I was a categorical opponent of the ideologisation of the human rights organization and I spoke out against Afanasyev, who involved us in this case. And my position won. The vote took place.
I was against Memorial's participation in any political movement. Yan Rachinsky insisted that Memorial become a member of Democratic Russia. Alexander Daniel and Arseny Roginsky suggested a transitional option: we will not become members of DemRussia, but we will support it morally. 22 people voted for my version, 20 accepted the middle version of Roginsky and Daniel and 2 people voted for Rachinsky's version. This meeting led to my disagreement with Afanasyev.
– No, no foreign funding was expected at all. We collected Russian donations. But after the Memorial was created, a support group emerged in the United States. Alexander Babenyshev, Pavel Litvinov, and our other emigrants formed an assistance committee that received grants to support Memorial.
– There was really fantastic data on the tens of millions of citizens shot by Stalin. It is the same mythology as the fact that Sakharov is the founder of the Memorial.
In fact, the exact numbers were not known. The best research on victims of repression belongs to the same historian Alexander Babenyshev, who was one of the founders of the Memorial support group in the United States. He showed much more moderate numbers, close to reality. Another thing is that no one wanted to know the real numbers. The democratically excited intelligence wanted to see millions shot, tens of millions trapped in camps and expelled. Roginsky was therefore not ready to say the real numbers available to him. But that's one side of the coin. Next: are the 600,000 people executed in 1937 alone?
– We have different opinions. In addition, many of them, including the leaders of the Memorial Human Rights Center, which I initiated and created, do not greet me.
– Negative. For one simple reason: the authorities must rest within some limits, have their “corridor of opportunities.” When the government loses all restrictions and does not face the resistance of society, it becomes irresponsible. Then the most unpleasant things start to happen.
Evil always happens reluctantly at first. But then it becomes a habit and spreads more and more. This is fully related to the unauthorized use of violence.
A “monument” should exist, even if it is annoying to me in some way. Because there should be “landmarks”, boundaries that the authorities should pay attention to. If you remove these “landmarks”, the authorities have unlimited freedom to make mistakes. And all people will pay for them.
Faces of Memorial Defenders: Dozens of People Meet at the Supreme Court
Biden embarks on a risky fight with Putin over Ukraine
Columnist Julian Borger has published an article in The Guardian concluding that Russian President Vladimir Putin has in fact given an ultimatum. USA Joe Biden in Ukraine. Moscow is reportedly concentrating its forces on the border with Ukraine and shows that it can actually launch an “invasion”. But it can be left if Biden refuses to help Kiev and puts pressure on Zelenský over the Minsk agreements in a version that Ukraine does not like.
The White House has not yet confirmed a virtual meeting between Joe Biden and Vladimir Putin. However, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki emphasized that “high-level diplomacy is a priority for the president,” citing Biden's video conference with Chinese leader Xi Jinping as an example.
Based on this, Borger concludes that Biden is still preparing for a conversation with Putin and that the main topic of conversation will be the Ukrainian question. The author also emphasizes that China is now threatening Taiwan. As a result, the United States may be drawn into both conflicts, which is fraught with “catastrophic consequences.” p>
He notes that Biden continues to talk about “unshakable support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.” The material explains that such statements by the American side are “a means of deterrence and intimidation” of Moscow. But Borger asks what Biden will do if Putin catches him bluffing.
For example, Rajan Menon, a professor of political science at City University of New York, noted that such statements put the United States in a position to defend Ukraine, and if they refused, it would be considered a shameful weakness and the position of the administration would be very difficult.
Fiona Hill, who was involved in preparing for Donald Trump's summits with Putin, also said that now “the United States is either capitulating on Ukrainian sovereignty, acting above Ukraine and Europe, or risking the war in full. “The Kremlin is pushing the United States until the Cold War, when the two superpowers sat at the negotiating table and defined spheres of influence.” Putin could be reassured by the agreement that Ukraine will not join NATO and will be limited Hill says it turns Ukrainian sovereignty into nonsense.
He stresses that Ukraine cannot be negotiated by the United States. Washington can talk to Moscow about strategic stability, but it cannot sacrifice Ukraine. < Rajan Menon, co-author of Conflict in Ukraine in 2015, added: "If they say they will not allow Ukraine to join NATO, it should not be taken as an empty bluff." I don't think they're bluffing. "
The time for a decision on retaliation is shortening
Russian space forces have successfully launched a satellite in the interests of the Ministry of Defense from the Pleseck military spaceport in the Arkhangelsk region have increased their missile warning capabilities. Alexei Leonkov, a well-known military expert, editor of Arsenal of the Fatherland magazine, announced this.
Photo: Alexander Astafiev
Missile Warning System & ndash; strategic element in ensuring the security of the country. The purpose of this system is & ndash; detect as soon as possible the launch of a potential enemy's strategic missiles in the direction of Russia and provide the necessary information to the country's military-political leadership: how many ballistic missiles are flying, where they are going, how long they should fly to the target on a ballistic trajectory. & nbsp;
Based on this information, the Commander-in-Chief decides on a retaliatory strike, ie the launch of our ground and naval strategic missiles at the most important targets in enemy territory. If the missile attack warning system works as it should, then a nuclear retaliation is guaranteed. It is this circumstance that prevents a potential opponent from attacking.
The Missile Warning System (EWS) has two main components: a network of Voronezh ground-based radar stations, capable of detecting the launch of alien ballistic missiles thousands of kilometers from our borders and calculating their trajectory, and the so-called space sequence. EWS & ndash; constellations of special satellites that are “focused” to detect the launch of ballistic missiles from space.
It is clear that satellites are more efficient in this regard. See & # 39; everything on the opposite side of the Earth from us. In the 1990s, the space segment of our missile attack warning system “ failed & # 39; & # 39 ;, the old satellites were out of service, the new ones were not launched. This has reduced the possibilities of the early warning system. And now, as Alexei Leonkov wrote in his Telegram channel, the space sequence of the missile attack warning system has been revived.
“ New Missile Attack Warning System (SPRN) with the launch of the 4th satellite & # 39; & # 39; Tundra & # 39; & # 39; completed to the minimum operational level, & # 39; & # 39; wrote an expert.
He explained that the space segment of Russia's early warning missile system was involved in creating a retaliatory impending strike.
Leonkov recalled that the Soviet space group's missile attack warning system, called the Eye, consisted of 9 US-K satellites and was involved in creating a retaliatory strike.
Since 1991, Oko has been upgraded to the Oko-1 system with US-KMO satellites. Space Segment & # 39; Oko-1 & # 39; was to consist of seven satellites. Until 2014, only two US-KMO satellites remained in orbit. Since 2015, only the ground segment of above-horizontal radars, which formed the retaliation algorithm, has been operating in the Russian missile attack warning system. Considerable effort and resources have been expended to restore the space floor.
“ The appearance of the space segment consisting of Tundra satellites, “ the expert writes, “ significantly reduces the time needed to make a decision. for retaliation. & # 39; & # 39;
The US has a similar system. It has five SBIRS-GEO satellites in geostationary orbit and 4 SBIRS-HEO satellites. Geostationary orbit satellites with an altitude of & ndash; under 40,000 kilometers, able to “ hang & # 39; & # 39; over a certain area of the Earth, conducting continuous observation.
According to Leonkov, the US warning system “ has little time to analyze and decide on the impact. & # 39; & # 39;
“ This is probably why the use of US nuclear weapons as the main tactic is & nbsp; since 2018 & nbsp; chose & nbsp; preemptive strike, & # 39; & # 39; wrote Leonkov.
The only thing that keeps them from such a strike against the targets in Russia is the understanding that they are guaranteed a retaliatory strike.
The Japanese authorities are they were forced to cancel military exercises due to the danger of damaging the sakura. Residents of Okinawa Prefecture stood to protect the trees and protested the passage of military vehicles. The NHK television channel reported this.
People were afraid that tanks and armored vehicles would break the branches near the blossoming cherry when they passed. Authorities heard the residents' arguments and canceled the maneuvers.
Sakura is the national treasure of Japan. It blooms in March and continues to bloom in various prefectures until May. The Japanese like to follow this process and even move from the south to the north of the country after the flourishing. The start of the season is announced after checking the control tree. It grows in the Yasukuni Shrine.
Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmitry Kuleba said that Russia would like for the failure of the Minsk agreements. According to him, it would free Moscow's hands and give it more freedom of action. “But we do not want to give them the luxury,” the German newspaper Zeit quoted the minister as saying. In an interview for this publication, Kuleba said that Ukraine had never violated the Minsk agreements.
Russia has repeatedly called on Kiev not to violate the Minsk agreements and to start negotiations on a political settlement. The Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation in the contact group Boris Gryzlov on Wednesday announced another refusal of Kiev to work on the coordination of the road map with Donbas.
Kiev and Western nations have regularly expressed concern at Russia's alleged increase in aggressive action at the border with Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly denied the allegations, while Russia's foreign ministry notes that statements about “Russian aggression” are being used as a pretext for deploying additional NATO military equipment near Russia's borders.
In recent days, Kiev officials have made several mutually exclusive statements about Moscow's plans to attack Ukraine. The Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) of Ukraine Oleksiy Danilov therefore said that the Council was monitoring the situation on the border with Russia and saw no threats.
Photo: Yevgeny Semenov
And shortly before, the head of military intelligence, Nezalezbhnaja & Kirill Budanov, announced a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine in January 2022. Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov commented on these discrepancies.
and what do they not see? & ndash; Alexey Pushkov wrote on his channel Telegram. – Or is a covert battle taking place in Kiev between supporters of the war with Russia and its opponents? Or does different departments measure their influence? & # 39; & # 39 ;.
According to Pushkov, in any case, conflicting signals undermine the statements of Ukrainian officials about the impending aggression from Russia.
“ Perhaps these statements are made on the outside – to warm up the anti-Russian campaign in the West and to organize maximum pressure on Moscow, & # 39; & # 39; suggested.
Earlier, the US State Department and the Pentagon warned European countries that Russia had allegedly gathered a group of troops on the western border and was preparing an attack on Ukraine. The Kremlin denied the allegations, saying it had no plans to attack Ukraine. At the same time, Moscow drew attention to the increased activity of the US Air Force and Navy near Russia's borders.