Realization of the message – Moskovskaya Pravda

The implementation of the presidential address to the Federal Assembly began the next day for the first time. At their plenary sessions, both chambers ratified the presidential document “On the Suspension by the Russian Federation of the Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms.”

The legislative implementation of the president’s message usually begins with a swing and drags on for years. The positions of the different messages overlap. There is an interference of heterogeneous indications of the guarantor. Some turn out to be unfeasible – doubling the GDP or transmitting electricity over long distances using superconductivity. And now here is the revival of basic education in universities. Also the suspension of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms.

If the situation changes and START can be revived, a new, fourth version will have to be created, and this one will be denounced. It no longer corresponds to reality.

Putin noted that the Treaty is bilateral and does not take into account the entire nuclear potential of NATO. Theoretically, without extending control to Britain and France, restoring Russia’s New START does nothing. As the main argument, the speakers put forward the thesis that the United States has changed and stopped fulfilling the Treaty. Its first version was prepared during the collapse of the USSR, when we did not consider each other enemies. There was no discussion as such, mostly ceremonial speeches in support of the president’s wise decision. The parliamentarians were emboldened by fear to say something unsanctioned. For public speeches, the deputies used these messages about how the United States is evading the implementation of the START. They renamed a hundred units of START and thereby removed them from the Treaty.

There was one brave deputy Vyacheslav Nikonov in the whole parliament. At the previous meeting of the Duma on February 16, Nikonov honestly said that we have changed. With regard to START, this is the only bilateral document that the United States insists on keeping precisely because it has been applied unilaterally from the very beginning. Russian inspectors are not allowed in. START is not destroyed, but buried with a return potential. At Russian facilities, US inspectors even measured the width of doors.

Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Konstantin Kosachev noted the US turn by 180 degrees and stressed that they began to cheat. According to the senator, the suspension of START is not our decision, but a forced response. NATO has a nuclear planning committee. The wording determines the possibility of returning to the Treaty regime. The last parliamentary opponent, senator Lyudmila Narusova, asked if the suspension of the Treaty does not mean that strategic nuclear weapons are only becoming offensive.

Kosachev referred to our doctrinal documents, which determine the use of nuclear weapons.

The presidential representative under the START law, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, once again fulfilled his difficult mission. In my opinion, his role has really changed by 180 degrees, and he himself is not satisfied with both options. Decisions are made by the supreme commander in chief, but an experienced diplomat knows how to combine the execution of an order with the expression of his own assessments.

Let me remind you that the current document is the third version of the Treaty. As I learned, it was concluded in the interests of the United States with the help of the introduction of young generals into the General Staff, who quit immediately after ratification and became fabulously rich. Nikolay Kolomeytsev, deputy of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, told me about this. I read it in open sources and was indignant. When, at the behest of the US, the New START was rolled out to parliament for an extension, the speaker Sergei Ryabkov himself was indignant. He carried out the will of the president and then told what was violated in the canons of diplomatic classics. It is difficult to decipher the tangled tangle of contradictions from quotes and comments. However, a comparison of information injections on different occasions reveals a simple reason. The Kremlin is trying to maintain a direct line with the White House and repeat the scheme for a peaceful resolution of the Caribbean crisis. This is my version.

The suspension of START took place on the eve of the renewal of Russian START. Mass deliveries of “Zircons” begin. The Sarmat, a fundamentally new version of the Satan, takes up combat duty. At the same time, the term of nuclear strategic offensive weapons on duty is expiring in the United States.

We have really changed. Competent Americanists and Sinologists have appeared in the public information field. The audience got access to a relatively adequate picture in these countries. The suspension of START, in my understanding, was a response not only to a change in the situation, but also to dissatisfaction with the indecisiveness of actions. The United States does not believe in the possibility of using nuclear strategic offensive weapons against them. Will the signal work for the White House? Hardly. Kennedy decided with Khrushchev the fate of the world in secret from the “war party” of the United States. His tactical task was to ensure internal secrecy and external openness in a direct line with Khrushchev.

Now that line is not needed, there are better communication channels. The problem is that the “party of war” sits directly in the White House in the person of Joe Biden. When it comes to Russia, the allegedly weak old man becomes super active, which he was not even when pushing through the decision to destroy Yugoslavia. Biden was the main ideologue.

Relatively speaking, Russia is addressing a cross-border audience of Seymour Hersh, Michael Moore, John Perkins, Valerie Plame Wilson, Ben Elton, Julian Asange, Edward Snowden. The “party of war” lose their nerves. Biden is hysterical, Blinken is rude. The leaders of Canada and France are recording their talks for reporting to Big Brother. They have no fear that could force them to negotiate with Moscow.

In Russia, the opposite is true. The heterogeneity of the country is reflected in the discussion in the Federation Council on the law “On Amendments to the Federal Law “On the State Language of the Russian Federation”, which caused a resonance in society. Civilian senator Andrei Klishas noted that all scientific terminology, including legal terminology, is illegal. He will not sign a single conclusion. The representative of the Ministry of Justice Andrei Korneev promised that this would not happen. Necessary by-laws, he promised to develop in three months. This refers to dictionaries and reference books. Korneev assured that linguistic expertise is provided only for new legislative acts.

The speaker, Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Science, Education and Culture Ekaterina Borisovna Altabaeva explained that digital platforms will be used for linguistic expertise. They are yet to be developed. The senator spoke in favor of having as few foreign words as possible. Elena Mizulina at first flatly refused to vote for the law. Then she pretended that the chairman of the Federation Council, Valentina Matviyenko, persuaded her. The symbol of parliamentary democracy Lyudmila Narusova demanded clarification, what foreign obscene words do you mean? If there are restrictions, there should be a list of swear words. Here Likhachev wrote a dissertation on Russian swearing in the camp. Narusova considered the law irrelevant: profanation of the right and no punishment. You are all right, – concluded Matvienko. But you have to start somewhere. The state language must be protected. If we reject the law, we’ll drown for another ten years. Mizulina and Narusova brought Vyacheslav Timchenko, Chairman of the Rules Committee, and he threatened to raise the issue of deprivation of vote for abuse of the right.

In the “warm-up” (speech by senators on topical socio-economic, political and other issues), Lyudmila Narusova spoke in defense of discriminated artists who were suspended from performances for the free expression of their opinion. Narusova gave a friendly rebuff. But she didn’t give up.

Personally, I hate such discussions. An artist with a political statement on his lips is like a journalist with a gun in his hands. But they are being worked with, they are being pressured by political censorship from both sides. Nobody protects journalists here. There is much more Russophobic censorship, especially in scientific publications.

By the way, about the Russian language. On the same day, the Duma adopted a resolution on the government hour of the Ministry of Digital Development Maksut Shadayev. It contains a recommendation “to develop a mechanism to encourage authors of literary works for children and adolescents in Russian and the languages ​​of the peoples of the Russian Federation, as well as publishing houses that produce such works.”

Lev MOSKOVKIN.