Union [Theme] Page 3

The third lesson of the collapse of the Soviet Union is that after what happened to the Soviet Union, it was necessary once and for all to get rid of the beautiful-hearted, Manilov attitude towards world politics, and our place in this world politics. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many thought that the main reasons were within. But - there were global stakeholders who played to the collapse of our empire. Yes, we have proposed peaceful coexistence. But in the West there was an elite, and they did not hide it, which considered peaceful coexistence as an instrument for the future collapse of the Soviet Union, nullifying it as a nuclear power, as the second most powerful economic power. I was told this bluntly: peaceful coexistence is our instrument of your demise.

I wanted to talk about the 30th anniversary of the referendum, which showed one thing, but the authorities, acting at that time in the country, decided differently. And we all lost our Motherland, the Soviet Union. Although the people voted to preserve. I wanted to compare that referendum and the referendum that took place in Crimea, when the authorities and the people were completely in line with each other. And it showed that true democracy is now. And not when they were shouting about democracy. Now the will of the people was heard.

Together we stand, apart - we fall. Let us not be divided into factions that must destroy the alliance on which our existence is based.

- It is pointless to wait for absolute harmony in Russia, it will never happen. The potential for dissatisfaction with American globalism is enormous, but there is no leader. There is no need to talk about China. But the alternative is ripe. Let's remember the Soviet Union. Then the Communist Party of America was nurtured. To be honest, it was a microscopic organization. Which, in fact, did not play any role. And now there are 50 million dissatisfied. Who works with them? No one. Any "change" gives a chance. And Russia is sitting and waiting for a dialogue.

Did Hitler have some national and imperial interest in attacking the Soviet Union? No, of course not. Stalin was a purely rational politician when he was amazed and said: why should he climb there? I deal with irrational factors in politics. There was no national interest in Germany attacking the Soviet Union. And if there was, it was not on June 22, but on May 22. And this month would change a lot. There were occult considerations and mystical goals - an attack on the "Bolshevik hell", or something else. There was no national interest in storming Stalingrad as it was stormed. And then the question arises that Napoleon did not have them. It is completely unclear why he attacked Moscow. The capital, let me remind you, was in St. Petersburg. The Crusaders had no national interest in conquering the City of the Lord.

- What do you see as the motivation of the Russians?
- The Russian side's obsession with Europe is limitless. On the one hand, they want to be seen as Europeans, and on the other hand, they want to show Europeans that they represent something better. But in reality, we are paying, I'm sure, a huge price for not reaching out to Russia when the Soviet Union lay in ruins. No Marshall Plan, no detailed picture of the new world. Then only greed ruled: to grab what could be grabbed, to torn apart the carrion. We humiliated Russia, which was fatal. We insulted the bear.

This is what we have found out; the way it is; listen to this and note to yourself.

suicide I personally believe that the Soviet Union was driven to suicide by the elite. Although I could have lived.

- We need to break up. From the very beginning, what was happening between us resembled an act of forgetting, as if we were trying so much to forget in each other's arms. But we both understand that this is the wrong love. Illusion, the desire to be needed by at least someone, the desire to love anyone, such as you.
After Nikki's words, everything went into place: both the girl's nervousness and her desire to be as far away from me as possible. The phrases sounded monstrously accusatory, they penetrated like sharp nails inside, leaving only hats on the surface. But at the same time, I was grateful to the girl for finding the strength and saying everything as it is, instead of continuing this strange and not very pleasant dance of misunderstanding for both of us.
- Are you sure? Maybe... - I paused, wondering what role Max played in this. - Have you been thinking about this all this time?
- Yes... I'm sorry... - Nikki swallowed nervously, but continued to endure my gaze steadfastly. - I weighed, evaluated and realized that it is wrong to continue to torment you and yourself.
- Is it me? - It was important for me to know, rather instructively, what was the impetus for the breakup - myself or something over which I am not subject.
- No, you have absolutely nothing to do with it. It sounds very hackneyed, but you are really very nice, good, kind and helpful, but...
Her words took my breath away, and mentally I added: "You're a very cool guy, but you're only a friend to me."
- But... - Nikki hushed up, not knowing what else to add. What was happening was not easy for her, so I hurried to the rescue:
"But you don't have feelings for me that would help us create a lasting union," it sounded somewhat theatrical, but that's the first thing that came to my mind. After all, all productions are taken entirely or partially from life.
Besides, I didn't want to break up badly, Nikki was there for me in serious moments for me, so she just didn't deserve me to splash out my discontent and bitterness from the breakup on her. We are adults and understand that you will not be forcibly cute. And to hold another through blackmail or some other extortion is low, stupid and selfish.
"Jeffrey, I'm guilty that...--Nikki began, but I interrupted her.
- You're completely innocent. At that point, we both wanted what we got. Now, after thinking, you realized that you need to turn in the other direction. I get it. And I accept, no matter what I think and feel about it. Because seeing you all on your nerves is much worse than accepting the fact of separation at a time. I can handcuff you to the battery and persuade you to stay with me, but will we be happier?

But again, the question arises: what does the Soviet Union have to do with it? Oh yes, on September 17, 1939, we also entered the territory of Poland, committing a terrible crime against the Polish statehood. What norms are we talking about at all? In this case, there are four of them: the Riga Peace Treaty of 1921, the Paris Briand-Kellogg Pact, the non-aggression pact between Poland and the USSR of 1932 and, finally, the Convention on the Definition of Aggression of 1933. Document titles are large-scale. And if you do not know what they contain, probably, you really just need to sprinkle ashes on your head, the whole country to fall to its knees and ask the proud Polish gentry to forgive us. But as soon as you open the first of these documents, it will immediately turn out that there is nothing to repent of, in general. And Poland, to put it mildly, distorts the cards. Let's start with the fundamental document in all this history - the Convention on the Definition of Aggression. Today, those Poles who call on the peoples of Russia to repent for 1939, for some reason forget to clarify that this document was proposed by Moscow, that is, the Soviet Union. The convention has an important point: "The invasion of its armed forces, at least without declaring war on the territory of another state." That is, the entry of troops of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army into the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus could be regarded as a violation. But this convention, despite all the proposals of Moscow, was never adopted, which means that it did not become a document of international law. This happened thanks to the position of Great Britain and France. And Poland was not eager to support this document. But that's half the trouble. The problem is that a convention cannot exist on its own. It was to be part of a thrice international agreement on arms limitation. You probably won't be surprised if I say that the agreement was not signed. That is, the Soviet Union is accused of violating the main provisions of international law, although these provisions are spelled out in documents that were not adopted, and at the same time proposed to adopt them by the USSR. Now let's turn to the Briand-Kellogg Pact, which the Soviet Union brazenly ignored in order to destroy Polish statehood. It has a clause condemning war as a means of settling international disputes. Awesome. Let's admit that there was indeed a misunderstanding between Moscow and Warsaw. So what happens? In September 1939, Germany attacks Poland, war begins, then Great Britain and France declare war on Germany. And then comes September 17, 1939. The Soviet Union introduces troops into the territory of Western Belarus, Western Ukraine. Did Great Britain and France declare war on the Soviet Union for violating the Briand-Kellogg Pact? Of course not. Let's ask a more complicated question: did Poland declare war on the Soviet Union? You will be surprised, but not only was war not declared on the Soviet Union, the Polish army was ordered categorically not to engage in hostilities with the troops of the Red Army. In other words, the Polish government then, in 1939, did not regard the entry of Red Army troops into the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus as a violation of the Briand-Kellogg Pact. <... > And since the Briand-Kellogg Pact does not add up very well, they immediately occupy the following line of defense: the non-aggression pact between Poland and the Soviet Union of 1932 was violated. <... > The defeat of Poland in the war with Germany automatically meant the termination of the 1932 treaty. Agree, if one of the two partners by the standards of international law ceases to exist, how and at what expense should the treaty operate? For some reason, Polish political scientists and experts do not want to categorically talk about this. How they are not going to talk about the fact that the Soviet Union in the autumn of 1939 complied with absolutely all the norms of international law: the government of the USSR summoned the Polish ambassador in Moscow and notified him that in connection with the defeat of Poland in the war with the Third Reich, the 1932 treaty was now terminated.

It will definitely sound trite, but I want you to know: you are my air, you are my water...

- Let's get up. We will certainly get up ... This is where the real crooks are ...

Consciousness may be as many try to convince you of the value of marriage, the value of personal qualities of your partner, but if the marriage itself (himself this Union, this "concession") no tangible benefits your brain does not promise, he will roll the dice.

As soon as the Soviet Union said, why do we support everyone? we don't need a big defense industry, let us all inside - then the Soviet Union collapsed. It's like a cyclist. Here he is eating, rides, rides, and said to him: man, stop wasting energy, well, wait a little bit... He will fall.