What with Crimea and Donbass?

Frankly, from my Kiev I was far more interested in that part of the debate, which was devoted to Ukraine.

In particular, I wanted to hear the answer of Alexei Navalny to “control” the question: what will he do with the Crimea, if you ever suddenly become President of Russia?

Answer I have not heard — what, in fact, expected.

Bulk, in my opinion, it was impossible to answer this question. To say: “I take as absolutely illegally annexed — in violation of all norms of international law, the Treaty obligations of the Russian Federation and even in violation of the domestic laws of the territory of another sovereign state, at the time of capture more than seventy years (!) inside its internationally recognized, including by Russia’s state borders”?

This could, firstly, be cause the initiation of another criminal case against Navalny, and secondly, to alienate from him the part of the supporters. Those who support his crusade against corruption, but fervently believe that “our Crimea”.

Again, to say something like “Crimea is not a sandwich, to just take it and return back to Ukraine” would be to compromise himself in the eyes of another, equally significant part of his supporters, as well as the civilized West, where the question of ownership of the Peninsula is not even discussed.

Therefore, Bulk only talked about the Donbass. And I said, alas, badly guided in the core of the problem, saying something not quite intelligible, labored words about the Minsk agreement: “the Special status of Donbass, enshrined in the Constitution, language, elections and so on and so forth.” About the fact that “this is a difficult and painful process.”

Said that in the Donbass refers to the occupied part, in the so-called “LNR” and “DNR” — the government is “corrupt regime of murderers”. And then something about an Amnesty under the Minsk agreements.

As it is, in General, can be combined: “the corrupt regime of murderers” and Amnesty?!

To my chagrin, did not react to the Bulk in numerous propaganda clichés, and then slivaushiesia lips of his opponent.

About “real Nazi government” in Kiev.

About “moral and cultural genocide of the Russian people in Ukraine”, for example. It would be possible to show off your knowledge of the topic, to ask who, exactly, Girkin, Russian-speaking Ukrainians or Ukrainian citizens consider themselves ethnic Russian?

Or ask Girkin: how he explains the fact that many of those and the other from the first days of the war in the Donbass volunteers went to fight against him and his henchmen?

And why is it called “taken up arms miners and tractor drivers” has met strong resistance in most parts of Eastern Ukraine, the one that separate the “Kremlin dreamers” still dreaming “Little Russia”?

In my opinion, was not ready to Bulk conversation about downed Malaysian “Boeing” — although literally the day before, exactly three years to the death of flight MH17, and in the press there appeared a lot of new information, reinforcing in the mind of any reasonable person the belief that the plane was shot down in a special operation by the Russian military and security services.

It was very unfortunate that the Bulk did not react to the major conceptual thesis Girkin: “In my opinion, without the reunification of Russia, without the complete reunification of the Russian people, the revival of our country in any form would be impossible.”

I was waiting for that Navalny will ask him: “So what do you suggest? To win in Estonia, the area of Narva, and Latvia — Latgale? You want NATO with nuclear war?”

But Navalny said nothing. However, in another part of the discussion said something about Russian-speaking regions of Northern Kazakhstan, but not sent back the ambitions of Russian Imperial. Not East — West.

And that for me is more than just annoying: Alexei did not answer the question whether he thinks Girkin is a war criminal? I personally, like many, an affirmative answer to this question seems obvious. But, apparently, the brave man, Alexei Navalny still don’t have the guts to tell the opponent in the eye.

Which is a pity. No matter how we treated Bulk — I don’t want to engage in heated debate among Russian politicians, political scientists and journalists who he really is — Alexei today is definitely one of the slightest popular opposition politician. It is very unfortunate that in a dispute with a negligible Girkin he looked extremely unconvincing.

In the end, it remained unclear why all these “debate” was started. Is it in order to make Girkin any kind of advertising? Little to strengthen his popularity as a man who is able to catch Putin absolutely frostbitten part of the electorate? Why do all that was necessary to Bulk? Long speculated.