In fact, Putin does not need any inquiries, the investigation by The Insider and Bellingcat has long been named the names of the FSB NII-2 employees who participated in the poisoning of Alexei Navalny. Moreover, one of the poisoners, Konstantin Kudryavtsev, personally talked to Alexei Navalny, thinking that he was talking to Assistant Secretary of the Security Council Nikolai Patrushev, and told many details of the assassination attempt. Among other things, he explained that Navalny’s life was saved by the actions of the pilots and atropine injected by ambulance doctors, and also clarified that the poison was applied to his panties, and transport police officers helped to clean up the traces of the FSB.
But Putin doesn’t have to read The Insider either. There is every reason to believe that he can find those responsible for the poisoning of Navalny by only a slight strain of memory, because, given that the perpetrators of the poisoning were acting FSB officers, Putin himself gave the order for the poisoning.
We will remind, during the last press conference, Putin has already validated the results of the investigation. The Insider и Bellingcatwhen he said that the FSB officers indicated in the article were next to Navalny in those very days. Later available to The Insider and Bellingcat got documents, from which it follows that the Internal Security Directorate of the FSB recognizes: the details of the telephone connections of the poisoners who followed Navalny (namely, these details became one of the important evidence in investigation) are indeed details of the current FSB officers.
US reaction to Russian draft Security Assurance Treaty
“It is clear that one of the most important elements today is stability and security, ensuring security in this area, in this direction. And we must understand how our safety will be ensured. Therefore, without any tricks, we simply directly raised the question that there should be no further NATO movement to the east. The ball is on their side. They have to answer us something.
In this regard, I would like to emphasize that, on the whole, we see a positive reaction so far. Our American partners tell us that they are ready to start this discussion, these negotiations at the very beginning of the year in Geneva. Representatives from both sides have been appointed. I hope that the development of the situation will follow this path “
The “positive reaction” actually looks like this. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken statedthat President Joe Biden is opposed to the guarantees that Putin is seeking. As you know, the Russian draft treaty contains a requirement for NATO not to accept into its composition the states that were formerly part of the USSR, and to refuse any military cooperation with them. At the briefing, Blinken expressed the attitude of the Biden administration towards the project:
“For many, many years, the President has been very clear about some of the basic principles that no one deviates from: the principle that one country has no right to change the borders of another by force, that one country has no right to dictate policy to another or to indicate to this country, with with whom she can be associated. No country has the right to establish its own sphere of influence. This concept should be sent to the dustbin of history. “
Blinken’s aide Karen Donfield, however, clarified that Washington is ready to discuss Russian proposals, but noted that the draft treaty contains things that are unacceptable to the United States.
How the United States proposed to dismember Russia in 1918
“Look, back in 1918, one of the aides of Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United States, said:“ The whole world will be safer if instead of today’s huge Russia a state appears in Siberia and four more states in the European part. ”
Apparently, Putin was referring to the official commentary on President Wilson’s Fourteen Points, a draft treaty establishing the terms of a post-World War I peace. In a commentary written by presidential adviser Edward House, indeed mentioned Siberia, but in a completely different context:
“… Such a settlement of all issues affecting Russia, which will ensure the fullest and most free cooperation of other nations of the world in providing it with a favorable and unhindered opportunity to make an independent decision regarding its own political development and its national policy and will guarantee it a warm welcome in the community of free nations with the form of government that she chooses for herself; but not only reception, but also all kinds of support in everything she needs and what she herself desires. The attitude of the sister nations towards Russia in the coming months will serve as the best test of their goodwill and their understanding of its needs, which differ from those of these nations, – a test of their reasonable and disinterested sympathy. The first question that arises is whether Russian territory is synonymous with the concept of territory that belonged to the former Russian Empire. It is clear that this is not the case, for paragraph XIII stipulates an independent Poland, and this excludes the territorial restoration of the empire. What is recognized as correct for the Poles will undoubtedly have to be recognized as correct for the Finns, Lithuanians, Latvians, and perhaps also for the Ukrainians (…)
This at least means recognition by the peace conference of de facto governments representing Finns, Estonians, Lithuanians and Ukrainians. This initial act of recognition must be conditional on the convening of national assemblies to establish a de jure government immediately after the peace conference has defined the boundaries of these new states (…)
It is also necessary to envisage for Great Russia the possibility of federal unification with these states on the same terms.
As far as Great Russia and Siberia are concerned, the peace conference should have addressed a message in which it would be proposed to create a government representative enough to speak on behalf of these territories. It should be clear that economic recovery is being proposed, provided that a sufficiently empowered government is represented at the peace conference. ”
Obviously, Wilson and House proceed from the reality of 1918, when there was virtually no single power on the territory of Russia, engulfed in civil war, and the Bolshevik government, which came to power as a result of a coup d’état, was not recognized by anyone abroad as legitimate. Given the desire of the peoples of the former Russian Empire for independence, Wilson was inclined to recognize the states they created. At the same time, the commentary refers to a single government for Great Russia and Siberia, that is, the American project in no way envisioned the division of that part of the former empire, which as a result became the Russian Federation. It can be considered that the current state borders on the territory of the former empire are in the main in line with Wilson’s plan.
About “obscurantism” and the rejection of family values in the West
“I take the traditional approach that a woman is a woman, a man is a man, a mother is a mother, a father is a father. And I hope that our society has internal moral protection dictated by the traditional confessions of the Russian Federation. The peculiarity and strength of our millennial society lies in the fact that Russia has evolved as a multi-confessional and multi-ethnic state, and we have learned to respect each other. Sincerely. What does it mean? It means to respect the foundations of our traditional spiritual culture. All the peoples of the Russian Federation – I want to emphasize, all – have a certain internal moral protection from such obscurantism that you just mentioned. Yes, let them do what they want there. We must take everything that is progressive and the best that helps to develop, to be on the march, to be leaders in technology, in the economy, in the humanitarian spheres, I mean health care, say, or education. But I hope that our peoples, the peoples of Russia will have enough internal deep immune systems to protect themselves from this, as I said, obscurantism. “
To begin with, the word “obscurantism” is hardly appropriate here. Dictionaries define his as hostility towards progress, culture, education, science, that is, obscurantism, extremely reactionary views. Newfangled tendencies breaking with tradition are not obscurantism, but the opposite extreme. And it was Putin who showed aggressive rejection of the new. In general, as he once put it for a slightly different reason, “whoever calls himself names like that, he himself is called that”.
However, it is more important that he just repeated a fake popular with Russian obscurantists. In fact, no one in the West has ever tried to abolish the concepts of “mom” and “dad” that are basic for human civilization. The story that they are being replaced by the asexual concepts of “parent # 1” and “parent # 2” arose from a decision made in 2019 by the French authorities change wording in just one document – a school form, intended exclusively for intra-school bureaucratic turnover. This is due to the recognition of same-sex marriages in France; as a result, children must inevitably appear who have two fathers or two mothers. It never occurred to anyone to introduce such formulations in private life.