“The British ground forces are in great trouble now”
The commander of the British ground forces, Lieutenant General Ralph Wooddiss, announced the transfer of the brigade to Germany, which will resist “aggressive Russia”. According to The Times, a total of 250 tanks and armored vehicles will be transferred across the English Channel. A well-known military expert, editor-in-chief of Arsenal Otechestva magazine, Viktor Murakhovsky, told MK how much or how little and how dangerous it is for us.
Viktor Murakhovsky Photo: Still from the video
– You have to understand that the British ground forces are in great trouble now. In terms of strength and equipment with weapons and military equipment. I will not go into details, I will only say that there are only two tank regiments left in the UK for all the armed forces. They are concentrated in two of the four combat-ready brigades that remain throughout the British Army.
According to the expert, the intention to return one of these brigades to Germany is in fact more of a PR action of the British military department.
– During the Cold War in Germany, there was a British Rhine army consisting of four armored divisions, – said Murachovsky. & ndash; Do you understand the difference? Now the return of such insignificant forces – one brigade, in which there are only 250 armored vehicles & ndash; tanks, military and reconnaissance vehicles, armored personnel carriers – this looks more like a PR move than a real force capable of strengthening NATO's defense. This brigade will somehow include Russia. Where are the Russian armed forces now and where is Germany? There are several countries and thousands of miles between them. This is a statement that actually has no obligations and is absolutely safe for the brigade itself.
Russia is not going to conquer Germany, the Russian armed forces are very far from where the British brigade will be based. The difference, by the way, from the era, & # 39; & # 39; war. When I served in a group of Soviet forces in Germany, in the 3rd Shock Army, we were just preparing to strike against the British Rhine Army, which was opposite us. It took only a few hours to deploy in the event of war. This was a direct confrontation
Now this confrontation is more likely in the information sphere, in the media space, than this British general uses, Murachovsky believes.
– He understands that there is no capture Germany is not planning Russia. This brigade will be accommodated in Germany in very comfortable conditions. I think the brigade staff will be happy, because as I know, when they are abroad, there are increased salaries and other benefits. Being in the center of a European country, in proud confrontation with the non-existent aggression of a very distant power, is an amazing place of service, the expert concluded. & Nbsp;
And that Russia has just “dirtyed” the Ukrainian authorities
“I am ashamed of this episode of Ukrainian intelligence” – Volodymyr Zelensky commented on the scandalous “Wagnerian Case” recently published by Bellingcat.
Photos: Still from the video
Recall that The investigation found that the operation to detain 33 Russians who had previously fought on the DPR and LPR side was thought out and carried out by the Ministry of Defense's General Intelligence Directorate with the support of the SBU Counterintelligence Directorate. . And that this was fully agreed with President Zelenský's office.
The chief informant of the foreign investigators in this case was the head of GUR Vasily Burba, whom Zelensky later recalled. Zelensky said Burba was trying to drag Ukraine into an international scandal and the presidency was not really interested in the details of the Wagnerite detention.
As Vladimir Zelensky said, in the summer of 2020 he spoke to Burba about the upcoming special operation to detain Wagnerites. And he had big questions about the final phase of the operation – the landing of a Turkish Airlines plane with the Russians in Kiev.
“I asked him (Burby) if Erdogan would be informed about the upcoming landing of the plane in Kiev? He said, “No.” But this is a Turkish Airlines plane …
Then I asked how the safety of people on the plane will be ensured, there are more than 100 people. And what if these Wagnerians hijack a plane? Can it be like that? He (Burba) said maybe. Then I said that the operation could only be carried out once all the details had been considered. ”
International scandals. And entangle the country with the United States and Turkey. Therefore, as Zelensky said, the operation “was not a special operation of the State of Ukraine.” “You should have seen Russia rejoicing when it all came to light. How they got us dirty, “Zelenský complained.
Expert in Russia Isabel Sawkins told The Sun that military cooperation between Russia and China could prove to be a disaster for the West.
“China-Russia cooperation and their common interest in Western action is a dire prospect,” says Soukins. At the same time, Moscow and Beijing are stepping up their cooperation during US-led exercises near Russia's western border.
Soukins believes that if Russia and China unite, they will want to “keep America on several fronts.”/p>
The expert also noted that the EU will not be able to stay away from this conflict. will call on European countries to become allies against the unification of the RF-PRC.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro said that A delegation of European Union observers who came to the country to monitor the regional elections on November 21 turned out to be spies.
“They roamed the country freely, gathering intelligence about social, economic and political life,” Maduro said.
He noted that the observers “came as enemies,” tried to tarnish the “immaculate and democratic electoral process, but failed.”
London is trying to divide Europe and increase its influence
Britain after the United States began to escalate the military situation around Ukraine. The commander of the British ground forces, Lieutenant General Ralph Wooddiss, told The Times that the British army would not stay away from the war with Russia and move troops and equipment to Europe. MK asked the expert the reasons for this aggressive rhetoric.
Photo: dvidshub.net
General Wooddiss spoke of the far-reaching transformation of the British army, plans to create new military bases in Germany, Kenya and Oman. “I pay special attention to Germany, where we will move a significant number of armored vehicles,” he said (quoted by RIA Novosti).
According to the general, the advanced transfer of technology will simplify the delivery of reinforcements across the English Channel in the event of war with Russia. He promised to equip the bases with new weapons: improved Challenger 3 tanks, Boxer armored personnel carriers, Ajax tracked combat vehicles, demining vehicles and drones. He announced the move of more than 250 brigades to the east “ in the event of war with Russia. & # 39; & # 39;
Commenting on this statement, a military expert, Captain 1st Rank Reserve Vladimir Gundarov told the MC that during the preparations for World War II, Britain had never been so seriously preparing for new battles in Europe.
– Probably the most important destination for London & ndash; the disunity of European countries, the division of the European continent into spheres of its influence and the management of these spheres, Gundarov said. & ndash; And the hysteria that Russia is about to attack Ukraine & ndash; it is only an information curtain, justifying the need to strengthen its military presence in Europe, including Germany, which London apparently still considers occupied.
The brigade of 250 people is, according to him; “ That's obviously frivolous and confusing. & # 39; & # 39; “ It's & nbsp; like our war company. Usually a brigade & ndash; 2000 people. Maybe the general was wrong, or maybe the journalists misunderstood him. & # 39; & # 39;
– Seriously, our Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu has said this more than once: assets for the deployment of armed forces in the action of armed conflict with Russia. It really poses a threat to us, “Gundarov said.
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.
Photo: president.gov.ua
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.
According to councilors, “she is associated with prison and violence.” In this regard, doctors concluded that Saakashvili needed inpatient rehabilitation treatment.
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.
Photo: en.wikipedia.org
– Correctly.
– 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
