Reply to Reply by the Russian ministry of foreign affairs

The Russian Foreign Ministry published a written response to the American written response to Russian claims for security guarantees in Europe.

Reply to Reply

On February 17, 2022, US Ambassador John Sullivan, invited to the Russian Foreign Ministry, was given the following reaction to the previously received American response on the Russian draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees.

TASS publishes the full text of the statement.

general characteristics

We state that the American side did not give a constructive response to the basic elements of the draft treaty with the United States prepared by the Russian side on security guarantees. We are talking about the rejection of further expansion of NATO, the withdrawal of the "Bucharest formula" that "Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO", and the rejection of the creation of military bases on the territory of states that were previously part of the USSR and are not members of the alliance, including the use of their infrastructure for conducting any military activity, as well as the return of military capabilities, including strike, and NATO infrastructure to the state of 1997, when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed. These provisions are of fundamental importance for the Russian Federation.

The package nature of Russian proposals was ignored, from which "convenient" topics were deliberately chosen, which, in turn, were "twisted" in the direction of creating advantages for the US and its allies. This approach, as well as the accompanying rhetoric from US officials, reinforces legitimate doubts that Washington is truly committed to fixing the European security situation.

The growing US and NATO military activity close to Russian borders is alarming, while our "red lines" and core security interests, as well as Russia's sovereign right to protect them, continue to be ignored. Ultimate demands to withdraw troops from certain areas on Russian territory, accompanied by threats of tougher sanctions, are unacceptable and undermine the prospects for reaching real agreements.

In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees of our security from the United States and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including through the implementation of military-technical measures.

In Ukraine

There is no and is not planned any "Russian invasion" of Ukraine, which the United States and its allies have been declaring at the official level since autumn last year, therefore statements about Russia's "responsibility for the escalation" cannot be regarded otherwise than as an attempt to put pressure on and devalue Russia's proposals for security guarantees.

The mention in this context of Russian obligations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum has nothing to do with the intra-Ukrainian conflict and does not apply to circumstances resulting from the action of internal factors there. The loss of territorial integrity by the Ukrainian state is the result of the processes that have taken place within it.

The accusations of Russia contained in the American response that it "occupied Crimea" also do not stand up to scrutiny. In 2014, a coup d'etat took place in Kiev, the initiators of which, with the support of the United States and its allies, headed for the creation of a nationalist state that infringes on the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population, as well as other "non-titular" ethnic groups. It is not surprising that in such a situation, the Crimeans voted for reunification with Russia. The decision of the people of Crimea and Sevastopol to return to the Russian Federation was made by free will in the exercise of the right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter. No force or threat of force was used. The issue of Crimea's belonging is closed.

If Ukraine is accepted into NATO, there will be a real threat that the regime in Kiev will try to “return” Crimea by force, drawing in the United States and its allies, in accordance with Art. 5 of the Washington Treaty, into a direct armed conflict with Russia with all the ensuing consequences.

The thesis repeated in the US response that Russia allegedly "ignited the conflict in Donbass" is untenable. Its reasons are purely domestic in nature. The settlement is possible only through the implementation of the Minsk agreements and a set of measures, the sequence and responsibility for the implementation of which are clearly defined and unanimously confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2202, including by the United States, France and Great Britain. In paragraph 2 of this resolution, Kiev, Donetsk and Lugansk are named as parties. None of these documents mentions Russia's responsibility for the conflict in Donbas. Russia, together with the OSCE, plays the role of a mediator in the main negotiating format - the contact group - and together with Berlin and Paris - in the Normandy format, which formulates recommendations to the parties to the conflict and monitors their implementation.

To de-escalate the situation around Ukraine, it is fundamentally important to take the following steps. These are forcing Kiev to comply with a set of measures, stopping the supply of weapons to Ukraine, withdrawing all Western advisers and instructors from there, refusing NATO countries from any joint exercises with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and withdrawing all foreign weapons previously delivered to Kiev outside Ukrainian territory.

In this regard, we draw attention to the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a press conference following the talks in Moscow with French President Emmanuel Macron on February 7, 2022, stressed that we are open to dialogue and call for "thinking about stable security conditions for all, equal for all participants in international life.

Force configuration

We note that in its response to the Russian proposals, the United States insists that progress in improving the European security situation "can only be achieved in terms of de-escalation in relation to Russia's threatening actions against Ukraine", which, as we understand, implies the requirement withdrawal of Russian troops from the borders of Ukraine. At the same time, the United States is ready to talk only about "mutual obligations ... to refrain from deploying permanently based forces with combat missions on the territory of Ukraine" and "to consider the possibility of discussing the problem of conventional armed forces." As for the rest, the American side passes over in silence our proposals contained in sec. 2 tbsp. 4 and par. 1 st. 5 of the draft bilateral treaty and declares that "

We presume that the deployment of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on its territory does not and cannot affect the fundamental interests of the United States. We would like to remind you that there are no our forces on the territory of Ukraine.

At the same time, the United States and its allies were moving their military infrastructure to the east, deploying contingents in the territories of new members. They circumvented the CFE restrictions and quite loosely interpreted the provisions of the Russia-NATO Founding Act on the rejection of "additional permanent deployment of substantial combat forces." The situation that has developed as a result of these actions is unacceptable. We insist on the withdrawal of all US armed forces and weapons deployed in CEE, SEE and the Baltics. We are convinced that the national potentials in these zones are quite sufficient. We are ready to discuss this topic on the basis of Art. 4 and 5 of the Russian draft treaty.

The principle of indivisibility of security

We did not see in the US response confirmation that the American side is fully committed to observing the immutable principle of the indivisibility of security. General statements about the consideration by the American side of this postulate directly contradict Washington's unwillingness to abandon its counterproductive and destabilizing course of creating advantages for itself and its allies at the expense of Russia's security interests. This is precisely what is happening as a result of the unrestrained implementation by the North Atlantic Alliance, with the leading role of the United States, of a policy of unrestricted geostrategic and military development of the post-Soviet space, including the territory of Ukraine, which is of a particularly sensitive nature for us. All this is happening directly on Russian borders. Thus, our "red lines" and fundamental security interests are ignored and Russia's inalienable right to provide for them is denied. For us, this is, of course, unacceptable.

Additionally, we remind you that this principle is enshrined in the preamble to the 2011 Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms, which the parties agreed to extend for five years without any exceptions in February last year, as well as in a number of high-level OSCE and Russia-NATO basic documents adopted: in the preamble of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1990 Paris Charter for a New Europe, the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act, the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Charter for European Security, the Rome Declaration Russia-NATO 2002 and the Astana Declaration of the 2010 OSCE Summit.

We note that the response received mentions Washington's adherence to the concept of the indivisibility of security. But in the text it boils down to the right of states "to freely choose or change the methods of ensuring their security, including union treaties." This freedom is not absolute and is only half of the well-known formula fixed in the Charter for European Security. Its second part requires, when exercising this right, not "... to strengthen one's security at the expense of the security of other states." We cannot regard the letter received from NATO dated February 10, 2022 as a response to the message sent by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on January 28, 2022 to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on this issue. We asked for a response in a national capacity.

Politics "

The US reaffirms "strong support" for NATO's "open door" policy. But it contradicts the basic commitments adopted within the framework of the CSCE/OSCE, above all the commitment "not to strengthen one's security at the expense of the security of others." This policy is not consistent with the guidelines of the alliance itself, which, following the meeting of the NATO Foreign Minister on June 6-7, 1991 in Copenhagen, undertook "not to take unilateral advantages from the changed situation in Europe", "not to threaten the legitimate interests" of other states, not to strive for them " isolation" or "drawing new dividing lines on the continent".

We call on the United States and NATO to return to fulfilling their international obligations in the field of maintaining peace and security. We expect specific proposals from members of the alliance on the content and forms of legal consolidation of the renunciation of NATO's further expansion to the East.

Package nature of proposals

We note the readiness of the United States to work substantively on individual arms control and risk reduction measures. At the same time, they recorded that Washington had finally recognized the justification for a number of Russian proposals and initiatives in these areas that have been put forward in recent years.

At the same time, we once again draw the attention of the American side to the fact that Russia, in the documents we submitted on security guarantees, proposed to follow the path of a comprehensive long-term settlement of the unacceptable situation that continues to develop in the Euro-Atlantic area. First of all, we are talking about creating a stable foundation for a security architecture in the form of an agreement on NATO's refusal to take further actions that harm Russia's security. This remains a constant imperative for us. In the absence of such a strong foundation, interrelated arms control and military risk reduction measures that ensure restraint and predictability of military activity in separate areas, even if they can be agreed upon, will not be sustainable in the long term.

Thus, the Russian proposals are of a package nature and should be considered as a whole without singling out its individual components.

In this regard, we would like to focus on the lack of a constructive reaction from Washington and Brussels to the most important elements of the Russian initiative that we have clearly identified. As for arms control issues, we consider them exclusively in the general context of a comprehensive, package approach to resolving the problem of security guarantees.

"Post START" and the "security equation"

The United States proposes "immediately" to engage in the development of "measures in the development of START" within the framework of the dialogue on strategic stability. However, at the same time, the American side is trying to fix an approach that has not been coordinated with us, which provides for focusing exclusively on nuclear weapons, regardless of the ability of certain weapons to pose a direct threat to the national territory of the other side. Such a one-sided view of things is contrary to the understandings reached at the Russian-American summit on June 16, 2021 in Geneva regarding the comprehensive nature of the strategic dialogue, designed to lay the foundation for future arms control and risk reduction measures.

Russia continues to advocate an integrated approach to strategic issues. We propose to engage in the joint development of a new "safety equation".

A set of elements of the concept we propose, which remains fully relevant, was brought to the attention of the American side - incl. during the meetings within the framework of the strategic dialogue and in the working document submitted by us on December 17, 2021 on its completion.

Deployment of nuclear weapons outside national territory

In its document, the United States did not react to such an element of the "package" of measures proposed by us as the withdrawal of nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders to the national territory and the refusal of their further deployment outside the national territory, and limited itself to mentioning the need to deal with the problem on the platform of strategic dialogue. non-strategic nuclear weapons without taking into account the peculiarities of their deployment and other factors affecting the security of the parties.

We would like to clarify that our proposals are about solving the problem of the presence on the territory of some non-nuclear NATO states - in violation of the NPT - of US nuclear weapons that are capable of hitting targets on Russian territory. This would include the elimination of the infrastructure for the rapid deployment of such weapons in Europe, as well as the cessation of NATO training and exercises in the handling of these weapons, which involve non-nuclear NATO member states. Without removing this irritant, discussion of the topic of non-strategic nuclear weapons is impossible.

Ground-based intermediate and shorter range missiles

We regard this issue as one of the priority areas of the Russian-American dialogue on strategic stability. We believe that this category of weapons is a necessary component of the new "security equation" that should be worked out jointly by Russia and the United States.

We continue to proceed from the relevance of Russian initiatives in the field of "post-INF Treaty", which are based on the idea of ​​reciprocal verifiable moratoriums on the deployment of ground-based INF Treaty in Europe.
In principle, we are open to substantive consideration of the ways of its practical implementation. At the same time, we note the continuing uncertainty in Washington's approaches to the main parameters of potential control measures over these weapons, primarily to their coverage, which should cover all weapons of the appropriate range in nuclear and non-nuclear equipment.

It was noted that the United States is taking the Russian approach as a basis, which provides for the mutual settlement of mutual concerns in the context of the previously existing INF Treaty. The version of the development of our idea of ​​mutual verification measures proposed by the American side in relation to the Aegis Ashore complexes in Romania and Poland, as well as some objects in the European part of Russia, can be further taken into consideration.

As emphasized in a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin dated October 26, 2020, and subsequently brought to the attention of the United States on numerous occasions, potential transparency measures for Russian facilities subject to agreement could include monitoring the absence of the Russian 9M729 missile there. We remind you that this step is a manifestation of goodwill, given that the characteristics of the 9M729 missile do not contradict the requirements of the former INF Treaty in any way and that the United States has not provided any evidence that would confirm the accusations against Russia. At the same time, the American side ignored the voluntary event organized by us during the period of this Treaty on January 23, 2019 to demonstrate the device and technical characteristics of the 9M729 missile and its launcher.

Heavy bombers and surface warships

We note the attention of the American side to the Russian idea of ​​additional risk mitigation measures in relation to flights of heavy bombers near the national borders of the parties. We see a subject for discussion and the potential for mutually acceptable agreements.

We remind you of an equally important element of our "package" proposal concerning similar cruises of combat surface ships, which also involve serious risks.

Military exercises and maneuvers

The United States did not respond to the proposals contained in sec. 2 Article 4 of the Russian draft treaty. The American side, apparently, proceeds from the fact that it is possible to reduce tension in the military sphere by increasing transparency and additional measures to reduce the danger in line with the proposals of the West to modernize the Vienna Document.

We consider such an approach unrealistic and one-sided, aimed at "seeing through" the activities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Confidence- and security-building measures under the Vienna Document 2011 are adequate to the current situation. To start discussing the possibility of updating them, the necessary conditions must be created. And for this, the United States and its allies should abandon the policy of "containment" of Russia and take concrete practical measures to de-escalate the military-political situation, including in line with para. 2 Article 4 of our draft treaty.

As regards the prevention of incidents on the high seas and in the airspace above it, we welcome the readiness of the United States for appropriate consultations. However, this work cannot replace the settlement of the key problems posed by Russia.

February 17, 2022

The real Nicholas II: The Lena Mine Massacre

Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited

Via this article which appeared in regnum.ru

by Oleg Nazarov

On January 30, Channel One aired the documentary “The Romanov Case. Investigation found…” As a result of various and numerous examinations, it was concluded that the remains found in the Piglet Log near Yekaterinburg belong to the Romanovs and their servants.

On the night of July 16-17, 1918, in the basement of the house of the Yekaterinburg mining engineer Ipatiev, which after the revolution became the House of Special Purpose, the former emperor Nicholas II, his wife Alexandra Fedorovna, daughters Olga, Tatyana, Maria, Anastasia and son Alexei were shot. Doctor Yevgeny Botkin, a footman Alexei Trupp, a maid Anna Demidova and a cook Ivan Kharitonov, who were with the Romanovs, also became victims of the massacre.

The murder of ten people - members of the royal family and servants is a crime and has no justification.

The situation with Nicholas II is different. In modern Russia, the monstrous crimes committed during the years of his reign are not often remembered. But the number of victims of Bloody Sunday was in the thousands. 

On January 9 (22), 1905, in different parts of St. Petersburg, pre-concentrated troops used weapons against peaceful processions of workers exhausted by problems. They went to Nikolai to tell about their troubles and aspirations. “The owner of the Russian land,” as Nicholas II called himself, answering the questions of the 1897 census, did not want to communicate with them. Instead of fatherly words, the workers and members of their families heard the whistle of bullets.

Ten days after the bloody massacre, on January 19 (February 1), the emperor received a working delegation, the composition of which was carefully selected. "Compassionate" Nikolai did not find anything better than to tell the workers that he forgives them ...

The entry made by the emperor in his diary on January 11 (24) is also noteworthy: “After breakfast, I received Rear Admiral Nebogatov, who was appointed commander of an additional detachment of the Pacific Ocean squadron.”

By that time, Port Arthur had already fallen, and the squadron under the command of Vice Admiral Zinovy ​​Rozhdestvensky was stationed in Madagascar. In this situation, the Japanese fleet had a clear superiority in forces. Yes, and he was based in his ports. Nicholas II was not embarrassed. Rozhdestvensky received his order:

"The task entrusted to you is not to break through to Vladivostok with some ships, but to take possession of the Sea of ​​Japan."

As a result, on May 14-15 (27-28) in a two-day battle near about. Tsushima, the Russian fleet suffered the most severe defeat in its history. In it, according to Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich, Nicholas II "could not blame anyone but himself ".  

The loss figures are horrifying: the Japanese sank 21 out of 38 Russian ships, and captured seven. Six ships were interned in neutral ports. The Almaz cruiser, the Anadyr transport, the destroyers Grozny and Bravy broke into Vladivostok. Of the 16,170 sailors, 5,045 were killed, and 7,282 sailors, led by the fleet commander, were captured. However, these victims in Russia are remembered 1000 times less often than the execution in the Ipatiev house. But each of the dead had relatives and friends, many sailors had children.

The situation with the memory of the Lena massacre is even worse - in 2012, its centennial anniversary passed completely unnoticed. Meanwhile, the Lena massacre and what preceded it is an extremely interesting and instructive topic. It helps to get rid of illusions about how wonderful life was in Russia under the last emperor.

On the eve of the 110th anniversary of the Lena tragedy, it is worth telling about it in detail.

Lenzoto

Gold in the Lena basin, in the upper tributaries of the river. Olekma was discovered in 1843. The news of this aroused interest among the Siberian gold miners. Among them were two Irkutsk merchants of the 1st guild, who founded on November 4, 1855 the "Lena Gold Mining Association of Honorary Citizens Pavel Basnin and Pyotr Katyshevtsev." Each received 45 shares.

At first, things went well - the development of the Tikhono-Zadonsky and Pavlovsky mines brought the merchants big profits. However, other mines turned out to be much poorer, and the financial well-being of entrepreneurs was shaken. Since 1872, Katyshevtsev and the heirs of Basnin, who died in 1867, began to sell shares to outsiders. The agony dragged on for several years. As a result, in 1882 Baron Horace (Herschel) Gunzburg owned 68 shares, Evgraf Kanshin owned 8, and E.M. Meyer & Co."

In 1896, the share partnership was transformed into the joint-stock company "Lenskoe gold mining partnership" (Lenzoto). However, he also had financial problems at the beginning of the 20th century. And then the State Bank came to the aid of the gold miners, which introduced Nikolai Boyanovsky to the board of Lenzoto and opened a large loan. Innokenty Belozerov was appointed chief manager of the mines.

The Ministry of Trade and Industry also showed favor to "Lenzoto", allowing him duty-free import of materials. The reasons for the concern of the ministry will become clearer if we take into account that the shareholder of the company was the Minister of Trade and Industry Sergei Timashev. According to the Soviet historian Kornely Shatsillo, over time, the mother of Nicholas II, Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, Sergei Witte (Minister of Finance in 1892-1903 and Chairman of the Council of Ministers in 1905-1906), Vasily Timiryazev (Minister of Trade and Industry in 1905-1906 and 1909).

Thus, the financial interests of business, the highest bureaucracy and the Romanovs intertwined into a single tangle. They were soon joined by foreign shareholders. In order to attract their funds, in the summer of 1908, the owners of Lenzoto, together with the Russian Mining Corporation, established a joint-stock financial company Lena Goldfields Limited in London. The aforementioned Timiryazev became the chairman of his board.

Meanwhile, the distance separating St. Petersburg and London from the Lena mines was enormous. The path to them at the beginning of the 20th century was long and unsafe. From the nearest railway station Irkutsk to Bodaibo it was necessary to overcome 1710 versts (about 2 thousand kilometers). First, from Irkutsk, get to the Zhigalovo pier on the Lena, from where you go down more than a thousand kilometers to the Vitim, a tributary of the Lena, and then go up the Vitim for 300 kilometers to Bodaibo, the Lenzoto center. In winter, movement along the rivers was carried out on a sled on the ice (Vitim froze on October 10-18, opened on May 7-15). During the spring and autumn thaws, communication with the outside world was interrupted.

Honorary citizen of the city of Bodaibo, local historian Nikolai Nikolaevich Mungalov in his book “The Lena Execution of 1912. Historical essay”, noting that about 4 thousand people lived in Bodaibo in winter, and 6-7 thousand people in summer, stated:

“In terms of police, Bodaibo was under the jurisdiction of the mountain police officer of the Vitimsky mining district, in judicial terms - the justice of the peace of the 1st section of the Vitimsko-Olekma district. The city had a small wooden church, two hospitals, two parochial schools, a two-class city school, a post and telegraph office, a tax inspector's office, a branch of the State Bank with a savings and loan cash desk, and a gold-alloy laboratory.

In 1909, Lenzoto purchased a single-track railway from Bodaibo to the mines. Having bought the Leno-Vitim Shipping Company in August 1910, Lenzoto turned into a kind of state within a state. The company conducted gold mining predatory, but it got away with it, because the gold miners made deductions for the maintenance of the local administration. Even the Governor-General of Eastern Siberia, Leonid Knyazev, recognized "the unsightly dependence of government bodies on the discretion and autocracy of private entrepreneurs . "

But if the dependence of local officials on Lenzoto was still relative, then the workers who arrived at the mines fell into complete bondage.

Working conditions at Lenzoto mines

Workers who arrived after a long journey to Bodaibo often signed a contract of employment without really reading it. Then it turned out that there was no entry about the specialty of the worker, which allowed the administration to transfer him to another job.

From Bodaibo to the mines, the workers had to walk, covering 25 miles a day and receiving two pounds of crackers a day. According to the contract, the working day from April 1 to October 1 lasted 11.5 hours (the rest of the time - half an hour less). The travel time from the barracks to the mine was not considered to be a worker, whatever the distance. For example, a worker at the Andreevsky mine Baichuk went to work 10 miles away. With the "walk" his working day lasted 17 hours a day. It was often necessary to work hard in the mines under jets of mine water, and the way back to the barracks for people soaked to the skin (dryers were not provided) became a real torture. Especially in the cold season.

The lack of ventilation was also detrimental to the health of the workers. On it, as well as on dryers, Belozerov and other "effective managers" of "Lenzoto" saved. They were not worried about safety, although industrial injuries were a mass phenomenon. It could not be otherwise, because the descent into the mines was carried out along almost vertically placed stairs. Because of the darkness and sticky mud, the workers fell down, dropped tools on the heads of people descending below. And although the administration did not report all accidents to the mining supervision, in 1911 they were registered 896 for 5442 workers.

The availability of medical care is eloquently evidenced by this fact. In 1911, Vasily Bushuev, having received a bruise in the chest, fell unconscious. He was not admitted to the hospital. If a sick or injured worker did end up in the hospital, what did he encounter? We find the answer in the statement of the workers of the Andreevsky mine, submitted on March 24 (April 6) to the district engineer of the Vitim mining district Konstantin Tulchinsky:

“Dirt and infection reign all around. Enter the department where the heating boiler stands, the dirt on the floor is ¼ arshin, and in this dirt the firewood has sunk and dried up. Apparently it hasn't been cleaned in months. The atmosphere is incredible. Upstairs there is a tank for water - in the baths and for washing dishes. At the bottom of this tank of mud is about 3 inches, and this water is used to wash the sick, who have various cuts and ulcers. Nearby are retirades, in which there is also dirt, and, moreover, when the patient defecates, it sprays all over him, since the bucket is very high. The patients are still lying in their underwear, which is why insects start up. Even by Easter they don't have sheets to cover their mattresses, and the sick are still lying on mattresses. There is not a single spitting cup. All this is so cynical…”

No less cynical is the attitude of “effective managers” towards the injured. In the statement of the workers of the Utesisty mine, received by the district engineer on March 6 (19), 1912, the following facts are given:

“Worker Shatokhin, No. 7383 (paybook number - O.N.), in the mine at work, the finger of his left hand was bruised, due to which he could not work and fell ill for 22 days. He was in the barracks. Didn't receive any payment.

Worker Zagainov. No. 7405, the index finger of the right hand was bruised in the mine. On January 5, he was not admitted to the hospital. They don’t pay any money, they force them to work, they don’t give food, and the finger still hurts.

On Sunday, December 18, the worker Shelkovnikov bruised his left knee at work in the mine, when they told the superintendent Sintsov, the latter replied that sick people were not entitled to pay for holiday bruises, and did not pay attention. No. 9143, worker Egor Vasiliev, received bruises on October 6, lay until March 1, 1912, was not admitted to the hospital, and the hospital fee was not paid. Sick at present.

Worker Stepan Ugryumov, No. 9164, had his head bruised by a stone in several places in the mine, but he was in the hospital until his wounds were sewn up, the rest of the time he lay in the barracks, forty-two days. No payment was made.

Worker Stepan Loshanov, currently No. 9069, and in 1911 - No. 7122, broke his leg with a flint and flint. Was in the hospital for six months. Didn't get sick leave.

Worker Matvey Dostovalov, No. 7495, while working in a mine, was bruised with the index finger of his right hand, and his left hand between his elbow and hand. To the statement made to the caretaker Sintsov, the latter replied: “You climb with every trifle,” accompanied by obscene language. With this trifle, Dostovalov was ill for 12 days without receiving any payment.

The living conditions of the workers of "Lenzoto"

In the barracks, where hungry and exhausted people returned after hard labor, according to the factory inspector, it was "so cold that wet boots freeze to the floor, the workers are forced to sleep in hats . " And the lawyer Alexei Nikitin, who visited the mines, testified indignantly:

“The workers' barracks were something out of the ordinary in terms of their unhygienic and inconvenience for those living in them. The very appearance of many of them aroused fear for the fate of those living in them: the walls were twisted and supported by supports, there were cracks in the walls and roofs, instead of fans - holes were cut in the walls, plugged with rags, windows with broken glass ... On the stove, iron pots with food, steaming linen, linen, diapers, footcloths, felt boots, wet work clothes are dried over the stove on poles. Dense vapors rise from the stove, combine with the evaporation of bodies, the air spoiled by breathing - and an impossible atmosphere is formed in the barracks.

Due to overcrowding, the air in the barracks was stale. Singles - "sons" - were placed in the closet with the family workers. Nikitin wrote:

“For the care of the “mother” (as the “sons” called the woman caring for them) receives 3 rubles each, increasing her husband’s meager earnings with her earnings. But, they say, on the basis of these services, completely non-maternal attitudes towards “sons” often arose ... Family workers always spoke with excitement about the institution of “sons”, and one of the demands of the strike was the division of the barracks into family and single ones.

A quarter of the wages of workers until the end of the operating year was in the turnover of "Lenzoto". 43.9% of the salary was given out with products and things from the Lenzoto shops, at inflated prices. Workers were cheated and weighed, and the goods often turned out to be of poor quality. The bread contained rags, sand, baked rats, and horse feces. To prevent the worker from buying goods on the side, part of the salary was forcibly issued in coupons. Change was not given, forcing buyers to redeem the amount indicated in the coupon in full.

Later, when discussing the reasons for the strike at the Lena mines, the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire admitted that “the darkest side of the matter at the Lena fields was the spirit of oppression and cold indifference that prevailed in them, which was imbued with managers and employees of the association, starting from the one who had been at the head for more than 10 years management of the Belozerov fisheries. This explains the inclusion in partnership agreements with workers of exceptionally difficult conditions for the latter, the wide, where possible, application of disciplinary sanctions against workers and the merciless expulsion from the fields of anyone who dared to complain to the mining authorities .

The rules established by the greedy and ruthless "effective manager" Belozerov jarred even some of the tsarist ministers.

Sergei Stepashin: Thank God that we quickly left Kazakhstan!

Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited

Sergei Stepashin, former director of the FSB and Russian Prime Minister, answered REGNUM's questions about what happened in Ukraine and Kazakhstan in the 1990s and now.

by Vladimir Stanulevich

January 31, 2022 , 21:42 — REGNUM

The transformation of the civil war in Donbass in January 2022 almost into a global crisis, the failed rebellion in Kazakhstan are largely the fruits of the collapse of the Soviet Union. There are fewer witnesses to the events of thirty years ago, the facts of history and the interpretation of modernity are increasingly distorted. For REGNUM 's questions about what happened in Ukraine and Kazakhstan in the 1990s and now, the former director of the FSB and Russian Prime Minister Sergey Stepashin answered .

Vladimir Stanulevich: Sergey Vladimirovich, in 1995 you became the first director of the FSB, and a little later the border service became part of it. How do you assess the state of our border with Kazakhstan?

Sergei Stepashin: In the form in which we usually imagine the border: barbed wire, watchtowers, dogs, it doesn't exist. There is operational support and operational work. Not like, for example, Tajikistan, where Afghanistan is located nearby, the penetration of bandit formations, drug trafficking is possible ... In Tajikistan, two of our border detachments were stationed. 

The border with Kazakhstan has never bothered us, this state acts independently in border issues. The border of the Russian Federation in the north of this country, as we call it, the former Russian lands, is transparent. When the January tragedy happened, I can’t name those events in Kazakhstan in any other way, there were no restrictions on movement between Russia and Kazakhstan.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Is it necessary to create a “dense” border here?

Sergei Stepashin: No, of course, it's 7,000 kilometers. Several billion rubles at least, plus huge human and construction resources. We are not Trump to build a wall, like with Mexico. No, we will not go down this path.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Do you know Nazarbayev well?

Sergei Stepashin: Good enough. He was an opponent of the collapse of the USSR, was supposed to become the chairman of the government of the new country after the agreements in Novo-Ogaryovo, did not go to Belovezhskaya Pushcha. He was the first who brought together the countries of the present CIS in Alma-Ata, then this city was still called, now Almaty. Actually, the CIS was formed not in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, but in Alma-Ata, where the CIS was formalized legally. Nazarbayev was also the author of the Eurasian Union. He had excellent relations with Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, with our entire country. By the way, I was awarded the highest order of Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev handed it to me 20 years ago.

But it happens that time changes both the situation and people. I listened to his speech, where he tried to give an assessment of what happened in January, he said that he was a pensioner, he was not going to influence any policy, he removed himself from the leadership of the Security Council and the leadership of the party.

Vladimir Stanulevich: How did Nazarbayev, an opponent of the collapse of the USSR, eventually imprison pro-Russian activists and become a nationalist?

Sergei Stepashin: I would not say that he turned into a nationalist. Kazakhs have always been Kazakhs, they have never been Russians. He had to maneuver between nationalistic sentiments, it was a mistake, and most of the Russian people left Kazakhstan. At one time, 40 percent of the population was Russian, now no more than four million live. Renaming cities and streets, building a new capital - apparently, Nursultan Abishevich believed that this would strengthen the independence of his state. From whom independence? From Russia? And without Russia, what would have recently happened in Almaty is hard to say.

Boris Nikolaevich (Boris Yeltsin)(spoke very warmly about Nazarbayev, so, they say, look how powerfully he carried out reforms, but we lacked consistency. And in fact, until January 2022, Kazakhstan looked very decent against the background of the former republics of the Soviet Union. However, it is now noticeable that the property stratification that has arisen, the oligarchic groups that influence politics, all this is very reminiscent of our country in the 1990s. I think the oligarchs were the participants in the current rebellion, organized with the help of visiting people. It wasn't the residents of Almaty who smashed the shops, the thugs were dragged from other districts where the standard of living is the lowest.

Here Tokaev made me happy. Firstly, he is a highly educated, intelligent person, not associated with any clan, graduated from our MGIMO, a brilliant diplomat and an interesting conversationalist. Everyone thought he was so soft, with glasses, we would overthrow him now, like Yanukovych. But, unlike Yanukovych, Tokayev did not run away.

He is now concerned about the need to change the structure of the economy and the structure of government in the country. He worries that practically all energy resources: oil, gas, minerals, practically do not belong to Kazakhstan today. The British, Chinese, Turks are actively working there, and, of course, "our partners" from the United States.

It is not easy for him, he will actually have to change the country. He once quoted Plato: "For friends and relatives, I am the main one, and for the rest the law."

Vladimir Stanulevich: Judging by the resignations and arrests, it seems that the leadership of the KNB participated in the conspiracy.

Sergei Stepashin: I knew the head of the National Security Committee of Kazakhstan, I met with him several times, even when he was Nazarbayev's assistant, then when he was prime minister. Back then, in 1999, we were actively negotiating on Baikonur. I don't presume to talk about the role of the KNB in ​​this whole story, let them conduct an investigation. The fact that the KNB “slept through” this situation is 100 percent “deuce” for operational work. There was an attempt at a coup, a second Maidan, one on one, like in Ukraine. And if you didn’t oversleep, and also, as they say, led the rebellion, this is a state crime.

The KNB should have known about what was being prepared. It is one thing for dissatisfied people to act, and another thing when bandit groups seize Almaty. Why operational work, agents? Not a single department of the KNB even fought, the so-called Kazakh Chekists fled. By the way, they do not consider themselves Chekists. Whether they participated in this operation or not, let the Kazakhstani services investigate. Apparently, they understood that they were losing ground under their feet, not only the KNB, but also the large oligarchic groups that the KNB covered. One to one Ukraine - the same scenario, the same Maidan, only bloody and tough. But Tokayev was not afraid, unlike Yanukovych. And if Yanukovych had turned to us at one time, as Tokayev does today, we would also help Ukraine. Now, I think, everyone would applaud us, including the Americans.

Vladimir Stanulevich: What about the fact that Tokayev appointed an odious minister of information?

Sergey Stepashin: I think that this is an attempt to take into account the interests of the guys from the south of Kazakhstan, it's not over yet. Let's see what this "odious" minister will say. He has already repented once that he was misunderstood. After all, it was the same with us, when even candidates for members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU suddenly became anti-communists.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Tokayev did the right thing when he asked to withdraw the CSTO troops as soon as possible?

Sergei Stepashin: He did the right thing. We extinguished the fire, secured especially important facilities, did not get involved in hostilities, did not engage in disarmament. We have demonstrated that the CSTO exists, we have shown how quickly we can work. I went through all the hot spots in the Soviet Union, I know what it's like to transfer troops - the operation was carried out brilliantly. The longer we sat there, the stronger the anti-Russian sentiment would be.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Do the CSTO need military bases on the territory of the participating countries? Can they be in Kazakhstan?

Sergei Stepashin: If Kazakhstan asks, for God's sake. No - no, and there is no trial.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Do you think Kazakhstan is moving closer to Russia or moving away from us?

Sergei Stepashin: We 'll see. It is now obvious that Russia is a strategic partner of Kazakhstan - military, political and economic. We have common borders, and unlike Turkey and China, we do not want to "pinch off" anything. In my opinion, the Kazakhs understand this.

Vladimir Stanulevich: How can we further help Kazakhstan? Joint fight against corruption maybe?

Sergei Stepashin: Please, if they are ready, let them look at our legislation, our experience. We also had a sad experience, with the advent of Vladimir Putin, the situation has changed dramatically. Now they will have a difficult situation with the economy and the social sphere. There are many poor people, the income gap is huge. We also have a big gap, and this is a signal to us. For President Tokayev, this will be the main task after restoring order in the special services and changing the structure of power. There will be no more dual power, we do not need tandems, power should belong to one person.

Vladimir Stanulevich: You know that the Kazakh history books speak of genocide by the Russians. Why don't we insist that this lie be removed?

Sergei Stepashin: Of course, this must be dealt with, it is impossible to be delicate here. We have the Federation Council, inter-parliamentary relations, Valentina Ivanovna Matviyenko is an active person in this regard. Let our parliamentarians ask these questions, go there, work. It's better to move along this line.

Vladimir Stanulevich: It's getting hot in Ukraine.

Sergei Stepashin: It's always hot there. Now Poroshenko has returned, he is engaged in PR. And laughter and sin! Ukraine is a wonderful country, wonderful people, a chic Dynamo-Kiev team, for which all Soviet boys were rooting. But the situation is very bad inside. It is clear that Zelensky is a vice president. I remembered it when I was at the birthday party of my friend Valentin Symonenko, the former chairman of the Accounts Chamber of Ukraine. Zelensky had a brilliant evening, was in his place, made good films. It is clear that the Ukrainians did not vote for Zelensky, but against Poroshenko and, perhaps, for the image of Zelensky in the film. But that's their issue, let them decide it themselves.

We have already said a thousand times that no one is going to attack Ukraine. The Americans use the Ukrainian theme, although the United States does not need Ukraine, almost all Americans will not even say where Ukraine is located. They consider Ukrainians who live in the States to be Russians. We, conducting military maneuvers, say - guys, if you start a military intervention against the Donbass, where there are 500,000 Russian citizens, we will be forced to protect our people. The Americans would do the same.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Exclusively defensive tactics.

Sergei Stepashin: Do you remember Grenada when Maurice Bishop ruled there? When American students were wounded there in 1983, US troops moved in and Bishop was killed. I'm not talking about Yugoslavia, about Milosevic and all the others whom they grabbed there and, in fact, killed. We just said guys get hit in the teeth. It is necessary to explain the interests of Russia, and Sergei Lavrov consistently, accurately, clearly formulates our position. He explained it to the minister girl from Germany, he explained it to Blinken as well.

Vladimir Stanulevich: You said that if Yanukovych had asked, Russian troops would have helped him?

Sergei Stepashin: I almost ended up as an ambassador to Ukraine. Vladimir Vladimirovich offered me this post after his resignation from the Accounts Chamber. I said then, I think that Yanukovych is a political corpse, it is impossible to support him.

Vladimir Stanulevich: If you had agreed, would Maidan have won?

Sergei Stepashin: There were 2 months left before the Maidan, it was already too late. If it were 3-4 years before him, when it was possible to prepare his own elite of Ukraine ...

Vladimir Stanulevich: Ambassador to Ukraine Viktor Chernomyrdin "overslept" the situation?

Sergei Stepashin: Even after Viktor Stepanovich, it was possible to “reverse” the situation. Viktor Stepanovich, who was also friends with Kuchma, behaved like the second leader of Ukraine. What to blame on Chernomyrdin? The secret services were supposed to work there quickly. We had to prepare our people. The Americans have prepared their own.

Vladimir Stanulevich: What could have been done after the Maidan to keep Ukraine neutral?

Sergei Stepashin: When Yanukovych fled from Kiev to Kharkov, there was no need to let him go. There is a picture before my eyes - there is a meeting of the party - but Yanukovych did not appear at it, he was frightened. Our comrades were sitting there, the governor of the Belgorod region Yevgeny Savchenko, a number of other governors. Kharkiv is the first capital of Soviet Ukraine. Do you understand the idea?

Vladimir Stanulevich: Why were they released?

Sergei Stepashin: He is a coward, he ran away and that's it. I told the story of how in April 2014 I was in Syria on behalf of Vladimir Vladimirovich and met with Assad. He said the words that Putin liked very much: “I am not Yanukovych, I will not run anywhere,” although the situation was terrible.

First: in Ukraine, they bet on the wrong person. Second: well, Yanukovych would have signed a framework agreement with the European Union. The EU would ruin the Ukrainian economy and agriculture in six months, and in a year there would be a pro-Russian Maidan in Ukraine. And we offered him 15 billion dollars, it’s good that we gave him only 3.5 billion, and they disappeared.

I do not understand why Vladimir Lukin went there, who sat in Kiev during the Maidan together with the EU foreign ministers, did not sign anything, traded his face and left. Covered up essentially their actions. Sergei Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs, had to go, sign for Russia as a guarantor of the agreements, take Yanukovych to our residence and not give him away, sit next to us. And at night after the signing of Yanukovych, they overthrew him.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Is Ukraine forever lost to Russia?

Sergei Stepashin: I don't know. Young people today are anti-Russian, oriented towards the West, and most of the young people are already working there. Plus new textbooks, new history, teaching English. In one generation, anything can be erased from memory. I believe that the loss of Ukraine is the second sore point for our country after the collapse of the Soviet Union. By the way, it was Ukraine that played a decisive role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, it was Kravchuk who initiated the Belovezhskaya Accords. Yeltsin was not going to sign anything, he didn't even have it in his head. And Kravchuk arrived: “We left the Soviet Union and held a referendum, think about it.”

I spoke to Mikhail Sergeyevich (Mikhail Gorbachev) about the consequences of Ukraine's withdrawal in September 1991, when I reported on the results of the investigation of the commission on the State Emergency Committee, created by decrees of the two presidents. Mikhail Sergeevich then says: “We will sign the union treaty now, and everything will return to normal.” I said then: “Mikhail Sergeyevich, excuse me, what is a union treaty without Ukraine?” He looked at me and didn't answer.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Is the collapse of the Soviet Union a transition to an inevitable confrontation between the former Center and the outskirts?

Sergei Stepashin: We already had an even worse and terrible confrontation, I mean the Civil War, after the Bolsheviks took power. Power was lying on the ground, everything was blown up by the Provisional Government, Kerensky Alexander Fedorovich. He lived for more than 90 years, and he was asked: “Do you know who would have to be killed so that there would be no October coup?” 

Everyone thought the answer would be Lenin. He answered - Kerensky. He understood that the authorities missed everything. And the Bolsheviks recreated the empire, Stalin recreated it. Stalin was in fact the emperor. What a communist he is, the rhetoric was communist, and he was the emperor. The bomb under the Soviet Union was planted by Ulyanov-Lenin, the creation of the country on an ethno-national basis. When the union republics were created, a bomb was planted, and it exploded.

Vladimir Stanulevich: You have been watching Gorbachev for a long time. Some say that he is a stupid person, others that he is a traitor. What do you think?

Sergei Stepashin: Not one or the other. He would have been a good president of Switzerland, and the presidency of the USSR turned out to be none of his business. As Viktor Stepanovich Chernomyrdin said, Gorbachev wanted the best, expected to democratize the country, but made a lot of mistakes. I do not support Gorbachev and am not going to throw mud at him. 90% of the current political elite has grown thanks to Gorbachev. He wanted to give people freedom, and they “profaned” it.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Gorbachev's lesson didn't work, there are many who want to go the same way again.

Sergei Stepashin: Putin is criticized for tightening the screws. How else? Processes must be manageable. Not like it was under the Bolsheviks, of course...

Vladimir Stanulevich: Is there a chance for Belarus to become an example of a reverse movement?

Sergei Stepashin: Alexander Grigoryevich is a very complex person. That Boris Gryzlov, my comrade, an experienced, strong politician, was sent to Minsk, this is an integration signal. But the saddest thing is that the opinion of the majority of Belarusians aged 40 and younger is that they do not want to go to Russia. We are unattractive to them, unfortunately.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Will another Russia be attractive to them?

Sergei Stepashin: A strong, powerful Russia will be attractive. Why people are drawn to the United States, knowing full well the inferiority of some of its political, economic and ethnic principles - because they are strong. People are drawn to the strong. Why was the Russian Empire created? Those who were offended were drawn to us, Russia saved them, Russia fed them.

Vladimir Stanulevich: What needs to be done now to make Russia attractive in the current political situation?

Sergei Stepashin: We need a structural change in the country's economy. We must be competitive. All political and other things are derivatives of economics. Mikhail Sergeevich started with politics, "hit the headquarters", beautifully opened the information gateways. And it was necessary to start with the economy, with the elimination of obstacles for private medium and small businesses. This had to be done under Boris Nikolayevich, and we gave the oligarchs the most delicious and sweet to eat. Thank God, they are no longer oligarchs with Putin, although they are not poor people.

There should be a Ministry of Economic Development, not a Ministry of Economic Stagnation. I am not a supporter of the revival of the State Planning Commission, but there are things that need to be planned through taxes, through laws. Now Mishustin is trying to do this.

Vladimir Stanulevich: Economic reforms?

Sergei Stepashin: Not reforms. The word reform means failure. Reforms… We have already gone through this in medicine. Now we understand what these reforms led to when entire hospitals and medical care industries were liquidated. Now we are beginning to understand that this could not be done. We tried to reform education through the Bologna system when we made it a public service. Teaching is primarily education, not a public service.

I mean the restructuring of the economy, the creation of a new industrial potential. They tried to do it through Skolkovo, where are the results? I'm not talking about Rusnano, billions can't find...

Vladimir Stanulevich: Thank you for the interview, Sergey Vadimovich!

Подробности: https://regnum.ru/news/society/3493010.html

Любое использование материалов допускается только при наличии гиперссылки на ИА REGNUM.

A film about female circumcision, its practice and silence in the Caucasus

Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.

The documentary film "This is happening with us" about female genital mutilation in the North Caucasus has received the right to rent, the premiere of the film is scheduled in Moscow. It is not customary to discuss the practice of female circumcision in the Caucasus, but while working on the film, the Muftiate of Dagestan issued a fatwa about the inadmissibility of such operations, the co-authors of the film said.

As the "Caucasian Knot" wrote , the problem of female circumcision in the North Caucasus is most acute in Dagestan, where, according to the "Legal Initiative", at least 1,240 girls annually become victims of such operations. Criminal punishment will not eradicate the problem until a general legal background is formed that will allow women to feel safe, the authors of the FGM project for Afisha Daily said.

Female genital mutilation is a mutilating practice of damaging female genital organs that violates human rights to health, safety and bodily inviolability, the Caucasian Knot statement "Female circumcision in the Caucasus" says .

<strong>Theatrical premiere of the film is planned in Moscow</strong>

On December 13, the documentary film center in Moscow will show the film "This is happening with us" about female genital mutilation in the North Caucasus. The authors of the film are journalists Svetlana Anokhina and Vladimir Sevrinovsky. This will be the first screening of the film in the cinema, creative producer, scriptwriter and co-author of the film editing Oksana Serbinova told the "Caucasian Knot" correspondent .

"I can't say that we initially aimed at this. We decided to declare several films produced on the [Russian video project] ROMB for festivals. We were taken to Stalker, which does not take films to the festival without a distribution certificate. Now we have the opportunity to show films on the big screen," said Serbinova.

The film made it to several festivals, she said. "In addition to Stalker, Artdokfest took us in the Artdoxet section. In December, due to the pandemic, they will not be held, but postponed to April," Serbinova said.

The film was published on YouTube at the end of September 2020, said Oksana Serbinova. "And they still watch it. Our SMM manager records constant activity on the views of this film. On YouTube, the film immediately gained a tangible number of views - 100 thousand during the first weeks. the content is hard. And that leaves only "organic" views. That is, views without the help of advertising, purely like a movie "seeded" on YouTube," she said.

As of 1015 hrs Moscow time on December 11, the video "This is happening here, Female circumcision in the Caucasus," posted on the YouTube channel ROMB, with 33,000 subscribers, gained 167,425 views. The publication has collected 3,500 likes.

According to the producer, viewers reacted differently because the film "hits the heart." 

"The films contain living testimonies, cases of women who suffered from this procedure. It is quite difficult to deny something when a specific person talks about it. This was my producer position. Cases were needed, not just expert assessments, the history of the issue. We found women, were able to establish proper communication with the heroines to carry out. This is a great merit of the authors of the film, Sevrinovsky and Anokhina," said Serbinova.

Among YouTube viewers, there were also those who denied this problem.

"There were those who wrote: we don’t have this. Controversy ensued. There was also an aggressive, boorish reaction. Some part of the audience wondered why talk in detail with physiological details (which part of the organ was cut off, etc.). My producer position is everything. Because the phrase 'crippling operation' is not clear until they explain what was cut off and how. These are not intimate details, but a description of the crime," Serbinova said.

There were also viewers from the Caucasus who thanked for the film, she stressed. "They condemned this practice and sympathized, empathized with the heroines caught in these stories," said the producer.

In her opinion, Sevrinovsky and Anokhina did an important job. 

"Because the topic of female circumcision was closed and stigmatized in the Caucasus, we were faced with the fact that many were not aware precisely because it was not customary to talk about it.  And this is at the end of this film, "Serbinova said.

<strong>The co-authors of the film addressed it to viewers from the Caucasus</strong>

According to the co-author of the film, Vladimir Sevrinovsky, while working on the film, he was most impressed by the openness with which the victims of female circumcision were ready to talk about their misfortune. 

"A good friend of mine underwent a mutilation operation, and I was amazed how she returned to this topic over and over again in ordinary conversations. I understood: if another director removes it, it will be just another horror story about the Caucasus. But I wanted more," he told the "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

It is impossible to obtain accurate statistics on the number of female circumcisions, Sevrinovsky said. 

"But I got the impression that the number of surgeries is decreasing, and the most crippling forms are giving way to less destructive to health. I hope that I was not mistaken in this,” he said.

Vladimir Sevrinovsky is a journalist, photographer and traveler. In September 2021, the publishing house "Boslen" published his book "Living Dagestan" about the history and culture of the republic and about its inhabitants. The publishers recommended using Living Dagestan as a guide. The book does not include all the collected material, therefore, its revised reprint is possible, Vladimir Sevrinovsky told the "Caucasian Knot" earlier.

Sevrinovsky does not view this film as an export product. "He was filming with Caucasians and for Caucasians in order to contribute to solving this problem. At that time I did not even think about success at festivals," he stressed.

The co-author of the film admitted that he does not like most of the "problem" films about the Caucasus precisely because of their "export, flat colonial outlook." 

"I hope Sveta [Anokhina] and I managed to avoid this trap. As for changing the position of women, it is impossible to answer this question in detail without a spoiler, so I will refrain. Look, and you will see for yourself. I will not delude ourselves that our contribution is great. But even a small step in the right direction is also important," Sevrinovsky said.

Another co-author of the film, Dagestani journalist Svetlana Anokhina, said that, according to the estimates of the "Legal Initiative,"  1,200 girls aged 5 to 12 years old are maimed in the North Caucasus.

"These data are all over the North Caucasus, which are given in the report of 2016. Along with the regions of Dagestan, this practice is observed among the Batalkhadzhins," she told the "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

Members of the Batal-hajji brotherhood, which has great influence in modern Ingushetia, are called Batalkhadzhins. Batal-khadzhi Belkhoroev is an Ingush sheikh, the founder of one of the Qadiri branches (virds), a follower of sheikh Kunta-khadzhi, according to the "Caucasian Knot" statement.

At the state level, there is no desire to solve the problem of female genital mutilation, Anokhina believes. 

"We see how the state reacts about the trial of the doctor at the Aibolit clinic in Ingushetia. The doctor has not been removed from medical practice. Doctors deliberately performed these ritual wild actions," said Anokhina.

A resident of Chechnya has achieved the initiation of a criminal case in Ingushetia on the deliberate infliction of minor harm to the health of her nine-year-old daughter. The woman claims that her ex-husband, without her knowledge, took the girl to the Magas clinic, where she was circumcised. 

The Aibolit clinic, whose doctor was accused of performing a mutilation operation on a nine-year-old girl, denies having performed female circumcision. At the same time, experts recognized the ritual nature of the surgical intervention.

According to Anokhina, this was the first and so far the only statement from her mother, who said that the operation was performed forcibly. 

"I talked with my mother and daughter. My daughter fought, resisted, but despite this, the doctors performed an operation," she explained.

Certain communities of Ingushetia widely practice the prohibited practice of female circumcision, and the authorities do not take this problem seriously enough, the co-authors of the report "Practices of mutilation in the republics of the North Caucasus: coping strategies," the president of the Caucasus Center for Research on Global Issues of Modernity and Regional Problems said in 2018 -- Yulia Antonova, "Saida Sirazhudinova and senior lawyer of the" Legal Initiative "project.

<strong>FGM is practiced in Dagestan, Ingushetia and Chechnya</strong>

Saida Sirazhudinova, President of the Center for Research on Global Issues of Modernity and Regional Problems "Caucasus. Peace. Development,"  said that she first heard about female circumcision in childhood.

But it didn't work. Then I turned to journalists and human rights activists for support. It was over 10 years ago. But no one reacted to the problem at that time," she told the "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

According to Sirazhudinova, many in Dagestan have heard of such procedures, but most are "indifferent to this, unless they are personally affected. After this incident, I conducted quantitative research in several republics and realized that there were rumors about these operations in Dagestan, Ingushetia and Chechnya. 

But in other republics, such as Kabardino-Balkaria, people do not have information about this. In a quantitative study, people named the districts and villages where such operations were carried out, there were already trips to try to find out the geography of the spread of the practice of such operations. As a result, our report came out," she said.

In general, in her opinion, the geography of the spread of this practice is "difficult to understand." Saida Sirazhudinova found it difficult to name an exact list of areas where this is practiced.

"There were also non-practicing areas in our minds. However, later traces of this practice were found in certain villages and these non-practicing areas. But there are those who practiced before and abandoned it completely. And there are those who practice partially now. We have encountered this phenomenon in some villages of the Tsuntinsky, Tlyaratinsky, Shamilsky districts [Dagestan]. Moreover, the latter region was considered non-practicing, but, as it turned out, this phenomenon still remains there. In Untsukulsky district, in principle, this practice was abandoned. districts, in particular, in Tabasaran," said Sirazhudinova.

There are no statistics as such on female circumcision, empirically identified cases are known, she emphasized. 

"No one keeps statistics. Neither doctors, nor any authorities officially record the cases. Estimates are displayed based on how the population in a particular area treats this phenomenon," Sirazhudinova explained.

She believes that the problem is not only in the clinics that provide such services. 

"In Dagestan, clinics are not particularly needed, they don’t go there. They turn to individual 'specialists' who, as a rule, take [patients] at home and perform operations. For example, the doctor who circumcised a girl in Ingushetia is connected with this community, and the story began with the fact that the girl's mother, who did not belong to this community and was already divorced from the girl's father, spoke out against circumcision daughters. People who live in this community are unlikely to go against their society and family," said Saida Sirazhudinova.

There is no direct indication of the inadmissibility of this operation in the Criminal Code of Russia, she added. 

"And those who were involved in the commission of a mutilating operation were involved in“ causing slight harm to health." In Ingushetia, just under this article, a case was instituted, Sirazhudinova believes.

One of the achievements, in her opinion, can be considered the adoption of a fatwa by the DUM of Dagestan on the inadmissibility of mutilation. 

"The fatwa is perceived as a rejection of this practice. And from this point of view, it is useful. But, on the other hand, the fatwa provides certain loopholes for the practice of this practice. This is largely his merit," she said.

In general, changes in attitudes towards this practice cannot be noticed because of a single film or report, says Saida Sirazhudinova. 

"Probably, there was some change in the consciousness of people. But this still needs to be investigated. But, judging by the observations, there is a response. People began to discuss the problem on social networks. In fact, they began to talk about the dangers of this phenomenon. This is evident from the fact that, for example, a woman who experienced such an operation in childhood declares that she was harmed. Speaking about only one film or one report, it is impossible to say that this is a solution to the problem. This is one of the actions, one of the small steps in the chain, which, perhaps, will lead to a solution to the problem," she said.

In her opinion, public opinion can become a mechanism of protection against unacceptable practices. 

"Public opinion can be both a mechanism for encouraging the commission of some actions, and a mechanism of protection. All harmful practices that exist in our region existed in spite of even the policy that interfered with family life, only because they were oriented on public opinion. This also applies to "honor killings", and these operations are often carried out by people who are dependent on local public opinion. They reason like this: if I do not do this, what will others say? There is pressure from public opinion, but it can and contribute to the abandonment of vicious practices," summed up Sirazhudinova.

<strong>The historian refused to call female circumcision a widespread practice in Ingushetia</strong>

"Unleashing" the topic of female circumcision does not present the Caucasus in the best light, says Makka Albogachieva, candidate of historical sciences and senior researcher at the Kunstkamera.

"This is not a mass phenomenon to highlight it so much. This phenomenon took place earlier in some local communities of Dagestan. Now it is not widespread in the Caucasus. At least my colleagues who study Dagestan have not observed it. Yes, they said, in the past But at the present stage, this custom is not valid, and, perhaps, there are only isolated cases. The residents of these areas themselves do not confirm the information about the prevalence of the phenomenon. There are no statistics, and even if it were a mass phenomenon, it would never have been possible to hide and not get real responses," she told the "Caucasian Knot" correspondent.

According to Albogachieva, the attribution of this practice to the Batalhadzhins is groundless. 

"There was talk that this operation was practiced among the Batalhadzhins. But I have been in close contact with them for many years, there have been several studies about this brotherhood of Batal-Khadzhi Belkhoroev, and now they do not practice anything like this," she said.

The story with the girl, according to the scientist, has a different basis and is not related to circumcision. 

"Then, when they began to understand, a completely different side of this case became clear, which is not related to circumcision. But the relatives themselves would not want to talk about it," Albogachieva said.

In the Caucasus department of the Kunstkamera, they raised this topic and came to the conclusion that in some circles it was inflated for profit and did not represent the Caucasus in the best light, she added.

"Those who purportedly research this topic receive grants for this, and it's all basically the same people. All this is done for the sake of dividends. Such researchers are invited to Europe. They speak, talk about such passions. For some reason it is not considered a problem in our country that in large numbers somewhere in the Russian provinces people are drunk and beat their wives to death. knows the Caucasian society, which is being labeled and at the same time keeping silent about the much worse that is happening in the so-called civilized societies. This is not a phenomenon that should cause a resonance," summed up Albogachieva.

Video is translatable

Negotiations between Putin and Biden: what did the leaders of the superpowers agree on?

 

by Oleg Tsarev

10.12.2021 - 2:00

So, perhaps, the most anticipated meeting of the leaders of the two modern superpowers has come to an end  . And although the bulk of the communication between Putin and Biden remained outside the scope of the general public's attention, I think that even from the little that we know, certain conclusions can be drawn.

Immediately: both supporters of "peace right in the morning" and supporters of an immediate war were hardly satisfied with the results of the talks between the presidents. It is not difficult to understand them: the situation of "neither peace, nor war", in which Ukraine and Donbass will be for a long time, is not very comfortable for anyone.

What is important for me personally: the suspension of the situation does not suit many Russian and Russian-speaking people, who now in Ukraine feel like second-class people. Now let's take a closer look at the situation. I'll make a reservation: not as easy as it might seem at first. 

It is not for nothing that Vladimir Putin called the meeting with Joseph Biden "protocol". Many were even surprised by this formulation. Well, let's see what issues were raised and how the parties approached their solution.

The United States, a good two weeks before the presented meeting at every conceivable site, accused Russia of "preparing an invasion of Ukraine . " To "stop the invasion", the United States prepared a package of sanctions ahead of time .

I will not discuss personal sanctions. Himself under sanctions. I can only note the extreme ineffectiveness of personal sanctions, because this is clearly not a reason for the whole state to change its position.

The United States has pledged "to close the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine."

These sanctions will work by definition: if we hypothetically imagine that Russia will actually take control of Ukraine, then the Nord Stream, as well as the South Stream, will be useless for Russia.

The Ukrainian gas transportation system is enough. Moreover, I am sure that the Nord Stream issue has already been resolved in advance. And it was resolved without the participation of Russia. This decision lies in the area of ​​relations between Germany and the United States.

Russia was threatened with disconnection from the SWIFT interbank transfer system . For the seventh year, Russia is threatened with disconnection from SWIFT. How long to? I want to say that SWIFT is just a program. Moreover, a fairly simple program that makes sure that when transferring money, the amount of money that was debited from one bank is equal to the amount that came to the account of another bank.

China, by the way, has its own SWIFT system. Russia also has such a system. Recently, all banks of Belarus switched to it. Difficulties in the transition to it for all Russian banks are also unlikely to arise. Disconnecting Russia from SWIFT does not threaten Russia with ANYTHING, while such a step by the "Western partners" will launch the process of abandoning the dollar and may accelerate the crisis in the United States. Such a dubious sanction.

Also, as sanctions, the United States announced restrictions on the purchase of Russian debt obligations in the secondary securities market. But that would be really good to do. Today, the Russian Central Bank is placing its funds in the United States at ridiculous interest rates.

At the same time, the Central Bank itself issues its own debt obligations, on which it pays interest to international speculators many times higher than it receives for placing funds in all sorts of "traders". The meaning of this operation, from the point of view of logic, cannot be explained. The current situation has long been outraged by Russian academic economists and politicians. The central bank is proudly silent in response. I cannot consider this threat a sanction.

What do we get in the bottom line? The United States is threatening Russia with openly virtual sanctions and asking not to attack Ukraine, although Russia did not intend to do so. There can be only one "profit" - in the US, negotiations may be designed to stop the fall in Biden's rating. In America, it is presented like this: the formidable Biden, threatening Putin with monstrous sanctions, stops the "Russian armada" and saves a small democratic Ukraine. Biden is the winner.

Thank God that this time it worked out like that. A virtual victory. Agree, it's good when you can exchange something frankly virtual for something we really need.

This time, in my opinion, the States, at least so far, have not succeeded. Although, perhaps, a virtual victory is not the worst option yet. Usually, when the rating of the next president in the United States falls, he starts a war: guns shoot, bombs fall, blood is shed. The rating is growing ...

What could Russia have demanded for participating in this performance? Do not know. Ukraine's implementation of the Minsk Agreements? According to information from the United States, such an assumption most likely has a right to exist. Although, most likely, an agreement on this was reached during the previous face-to-face meeting of Putin and Biden.

This assumption is indirectly confirmed by statements made by Kozak and a number of US officials after that meeting. So, apparently, the process of "forcing Ukraine to peace" will now be taken over by the officials of the US Embassy in Ukraine and, quite possibly, it will significantly accelerate.

It must be said here that the formal implementation of the Minsk Agreements by Ukraine will not insure the residents of Donbass (or rather the opposite) from reprisals after the border with Russia falls under the control of Ukraine.

Moreover, no agreements will prevent Ukraine from subsequently canceling the "special status" of Donbass and restricting the rights (in particular, the right to participate in elections) of Donbass residents, to send troops to Donbass and arrest leaders.

If anyone doubts this prospect, they can ask for the opinion of Viktor Medvedchuk. Residents of Donbass who have passports of the Russian Federation may have their Ukrainian passports taken away and deprived of their Ukrainian citizenship. Make them second-class people, as they did with the Russians in the Baltics.

The implementation, especially temporary, of the Minsk agreements will not solve the problem of Ukraine as a state hostile to Russia. On the contrary, it will aggravate the situation, since about a million hostages - new citizens of the Russian Federation living in Donbass - will fall into the hands of Ukrainian nationalists.

The only thing that pleases is that in the process of forcing Ukraine to peace, the level of shelling should sharply decrease.

Vladimir Putin demanded that Biden give guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO. But the United States can refer to the fact that America is not all NATO. For example, Poland will be against it and no decision will be made. It is clear that the United States (by informal methods) can push through any decision, but they can very much even refer to the fact that it depends not only on the United States.

In addition, even if such a decision on guarantees of Ukraine's non-membership in NATO is adopted, nothing can prevent this decision from being canceled in the future if necessary. Thus, the USA cannot give Russia the required guarantees in principle.

I must also add that even without joining NATO, Ukraine can be no less dangerous for Russia than being a member of the alliance. At least, Ukraine will definitely be more cocky in the absence of status. Now Ukraine is de jure not a member of NATO, but NATO fighters, under the guise of permanent exercises, are on the territory of Ukraine almost on a permanent basis. Military bases are being built. Scouts are working. Provocations are carried out from the territory of Ukraine - terrorist groups are launched.

I am sure that the Ukrainian government will be able to bypass the constitutional ban on the opening of foreign military bases on its territory. By not granting Ukraine membership, NATO received all the benefits of using Ukraine and at the same time does not bear any responsibility for Ukraine.

As they say, to promise does not mean to marry. And they don't marry prostitutes at all. They are taken for free. Therefore, NATO can sacrifice Ukraine whenever it wants. I have no doubt that if a command arrives, the Ukrainian authorities will unleash a suicidal war no longer with Donbass, but with Russia.

Thus, I believe that Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin did not call these negotiations a "protocol event" for nothing. A protocol event is when no real decisions or breakthroughs are expected from the event. A protocol event is when all participants act according to a pre-written protocol. This is an event that should be held because it is supposed to be. Because it is planned and written into the protocol.

Unfortunately, from my point of view, there are no breakthrough results from these negotiations.

I want to note that at this event, Vladimir Putin looked much better than his opponents. Forced to reckon with the opinion of Russia and did not allow to talk to himself from a position of strength.

I would also like to add that, apparently, the problem of Ukraine for Russia is far from being solved. And the situation will permanently deteriorate. But sooner or later it will have to be solved. Moreover, I believe that it was not in vain that the President of Russia set deliberately impracticable conditions to the President of the United States: since Russia's demands will not be met, at any time when Russia deems it necessary, it will be able to make any decisions it deems necessary. Russia has a free hand.