c-assandraaa.blogspot.com Open in urlscan Pro
2a00:1450:4001:829::2001  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

WORLD NEWS


WHO IS AGAINST TRUMP: SENSATIONS AND INTRIGUES OF PRIMARIES IN THE USA


In the United States of America, in the state of New Hampishire, the first
primaries of the 2020 presidential election were held . Along with the January 3
caucus in Iowa, the primaries in New Hampshire are traditionally considered one
of the key points of the campaign’s growing momentum. Why this is so, what
surprises the primaries brought and what the sensations of New Hampshire mean
for future elections - in the material "Today".




WHY DO WE NEED PRIMARIES

First, briefly about the election procedure with the United States. According to
established tradition, before nominating a candidate for president, key
political parties (that is, Republicans and Democrats) hold intra-party
"elections."


Such elections are held in the form of caucus, that is, meetings of party
supporters, during which citizens exchange views on candidates and then vote. Or
primaries - when there is a direct secret ballot of members and supporters of
the party for one or another "candidate". There are many subspecies of
primaries: for example, some states only allow party members for primaries,
while others are also just supporters of the party. Each state has its own
nuances of the procedure. The general principle is that the winners of the
primaries in a particular state receive a certain number of votes for the final
vote at the national meeting of the relevant party. And there are nuances here:
Republicans cast all the votes from a particular state to one candidate - the
winner of the primaries in that state.


At the same time, primaries are not a mandatory procedure at all. For example,
in these elections, party organs of the Republican Party in a number of states
have already made a strong-willed decision, without any primaries, to vote for
incumbent President Donald Trump.


However, such decisions are rather exceptions. Both Republicans and Democrats
see primaries, including as an integral part of the campaign, “buildup” and
mobilization of their constituents. And therefore, a total rejection of the
primaries is not strategically profitable - it is as if at the height of the
campaign to go on vacation, giving all the information space to political
opponents.



WHY IOWA AND NEW HAMPSHIRE ARE SO IMPORTANT

Caucus and primaries started on February 3, and will end in early June. As a
rule, by the middle of their conduct, everything will become more or less clear:
many candidates will drop out, more and more sponsors and voters will rely only
on leaders. As for the Republican Party, in the current election the question of
the candidate does not stand now: the Republicans have no alternative to Trump.
However, a serious struggle unfolded among the Democrats for the right to clash
with Trump in the November 3 presidential election. And this fight brings
surprises.


For participants in the race, the caucus in Iowa and the primaries in New
Hampshire give, figuratively speaking, the “right of the first night” with the
voter. Winners in these two States receive a serious psychological advantage
over their opponents, the attention of the press. Voters in other states where
the primaries will be held later will subconsciously focus on the results
obtained by applicants in Iowa and New Hampshire. And give preference to
leaders. The victory in New Hampshire, of course, did not always guarantee
victory in the primaries in all states. But often the candidates who showed good
results there went to the finish line in the party race. American politicians
have always understood the importance of winning the first primaries and threw
all their strength in order to win them.



HAVE THE LEADERS DECIDED?

This election was no exception. At the Republican Party caucuses in Iowa, Donald
Trump confidently defeated, receiving 98% of the vote. In fact, everyone in the
US has already recognized that the Republican candidate’s question is closed.


But the Democratic Party brought a number of surprises. Joseph Biden, who built
his campaign on the fact that he is the only alternative to Trump (by and large,
he was considered for a long time as such), suffered a humiliating defeat,
taking only fourth place. In the first place, unexpectedly for everyone
(including the Democrats themselves) was the mayor of the small town of South
Bend (Indiana) Pete Buttidzhich (or, as they sometimes translate, Buttijedge).
Which with a result of 26.2% overtook Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (26.1%).
Buttidzic’s victory really came as a surprise: Sanders, who adheres to leftist
views, does not like the party itself, nevertheless, his chances against the
backdrop of the scandal with Biden looked most preferable.


As for Biden, he, as already mentioned, became the fourth in Iowa, receiving
15.8% of the Goos. And the third came Elizabeth Warren (18.1%).


But if the results of the Iowa caucuses (the results of which, by the way, are
still being disputed) could be written off as an accident, then the primaries in
New Hampshire showed that it was rather a trend.


This time the winner of the primaries was Sanders, who received 25.9% of the
vote (the result is not final and not official, 97% of the votes were counted).
But the second place was confidently taken by Pete Buttigic with 24.4% of the
vote. Minnesota US Senator Amy Klobuchar (19.8%) finished third, Elizabeth
Warren (9.3%) came fourth. Joseph Biden, receiving only 8.4% of support, was
fifth.


OCCUPIED CRIMEA WITHOUT WATER: HOW UKRAINE CAUGHT RUSSIA ON A HOOK


February 11, it became known that the leader of the “Servant of the People”
faction David Arahamia suggested the possibility of letting water into annexed
Crimea in exchange for concessionsby the President of the Russian Federation
Vladimir Putin in the Donbass.


“I will consider this a sufficient compromise. Because in the Crimea, citizens
of Ukraine will use water in one way or another ... If this is an exchange for
them leaving with all their armed forces to Rostov, and we will establish full
control over our border and for this it is necessary to supply water to the
Crimea, I would definitely go for that. "


Recall that in April 2017, Ukraine blocked the water in the occupied Crimea ,
which 70% used drinking water from the Dnieper. How things have been with the
water supply on the peninsula all these years and what Russia is ready to go to
restore it, read the special material on the site "Today".


"CRIMEA IS A REGION INDEPENDENT OF UKRAINE"?

The disconnection of the occupied Crimea from the Ukrainian water supply took
place in two stages. The debt of the peninsula for water consumption services in
2013 alone amounted to UAH 1.7 million, which is why in April 2014, Kiev cut off
water supplies.


And in the event of an unauthorized fence, the Ukrainian side built a year and
commissioned on April 30, 2017 a new dam on the North Crimean Canal. The dam is
equipped with a damper that can be opened at any time. Therefore, when Ukraine
regains control of Crimea, another 300 kilometers of the North Crimean Canal
will be filled with water. The saved water from the Kakhovka reservoir now
irrigates the lands of the south of the Kherson region. The construction of a
stationary concrete dam on the border of mainland Ukraine with the peninsula
cost 35 million hryvnias.


Representatives of the occupying "authorities" of the annexed Crimea , of
course, were quick to say that this situation will not affect the life of the
peninsula, which is supposedly completely provided with water.


Moreover, the so-called deputy of the “State Council of the Republic of Crimea”
Vladislav Ganzhara assured that the construction of a new dam by Ukraine, which
cut off the water supply to the peninsula , is a continuation of Kiev’s
“aggressive actions” .


“Water from the North Crimean Canal has not been flowing into the republic for a
long time. It’s just a continuation of the aggressive actions of the Ukrainian
side, therefore there is nothing surprising for Crimeans. Since 2014, nothing
has been supplied to this channel. The population has been provided with water
only thanks to its own resources ,” stressed Ganjara.


According to him, the water from the North Crimean Canal is used as technical,
therefore, after the construction of the dam in the north of the region, small
problems arose with agriculture.


"However, the inhabitants of the peninsula are provided with drinking water. In
general, integration into Russia is at the final stage. Crimea is an independent
region of the Russian Federation from Ukraine, " Ganzhara said.


Although in reality, not everything was as smooth as the occupying "authorities"
tried to imagine. So, on May 27, 2017, it became known that residents of the
Crimea are afraid of a dam breaking due to the overcrowded Belogorsky reservoir.
(It provided water to the southeastern part of the peninsula.) As a result, even
trees were flooded that year.


The dam of this reservoir sank for a long period without water and is not in the
best condition, so the residents of the region are quite naturally concerned
about the situation. Back in January 2017, journalists noticed large and deep
gaps between concrete slabs on the dam. However, no one was engaged in the
repair of the structure.


ECOLOGICAL DISASTER IS NEAR

But almost immediately it became clear that the resource was almost exhausted,
and a water disaster was brewing in the Crimea . The so-called Crimean "Minister
of Industrial Policy" Andrei Vasyuta said that the resource of water wells in
the next one and a half to two years will be completely exhausted, which could
entail catastrophic consequences for the peninsula. Ukraine also recognized that
an annexed Crimea is in danger of an environmental disaster .


"Steppe Crimea was once a salt marsh, that is, land with salt. When the
peninsula became part of Ukraine, a canal was built that supplied water from the
Dnieper. It took 10 years to grow something in that steppe. 10 years to land
washed with fresh water until the salt went down, "said then-Deputy Minister for
Occupied Territories Yuri Grymchak.


According to him, as soon as not very educated people come to power, problems
begin.



> “After the annexation, they began to drill and raise water from the lower
> horizons. This led to the fact that the sown area in the Crimea is reduced,
> and only three years have passed,” concluded Grymchak.



And in June 2017 n Robl finally recognized in Russia .Secretary of the Security
Council of the Russian Federation Nikolai Patrushev noted that only last year,
water withdrawal on the peninsula was reduced by five times, which could have
consequences for the development of annexed Crimea, and irrigated land decreased
by 92%.



> "The lack of water restrains the socio-economic development of the region,
> creates threats to the functioning of the agricultural and sanatorium
> complexes that are basic for the Crimean economy ," Patrushev said.



He also noted that a significant part of hydraulic structures in Crimea has been
in operation for more than 30 years, and this creates risks of accidents and
emergencies.


In the occupied Crimea itself, they recognized that they could not solve the
water problem , and that the drought threatened the peninsula due to lack of
water supply, and therefore the occupiers even declared a state of emergency .


Not only that: the occupying "authorities" recognized that drought threatens a
serious environmental catastrophe . According to Vladimir Bazhenov, the head of
the occupation enterprise Water of Crimea, after disconnecting from Ukraine, the
peninsula’s own water reserve simply evaporates due to the high air temperature
and the lack of rainfall in the reservoirs. This threatens that the entire
peninsula can switch to hourly water supply.


"We will soon have daily intake from reservoirs to the network equal to daily
evaporation into the sky ," he said, emphasizing that a similar situation is
observed in all Crimean reservoirs.


At the same time, Russia was not going to solve the problem of water supply to
Crimea . According to the Russian opposition, former State Duma deputy
Konstantin Borovoy, instead of solving the urgent water supply problem of the
occupied peninsula, the Russian authorities will use propaganda to create a
picture of well-being in Crimea. Russian authorities are not interested in the
well-being of the occupied peninsula - the Kremlin only needs control over the
territory.


WATER IN EXCHANGE FOR THE DONBASS

In January 2020, the head of the occupying “State Committee on Water Management
and Land Reclamation of Crimea” Igor Weil admitted that the reservoirs of
natural runoff were 37% full, andwater supplies will last only until June .
Based on the fact that in February of this year the temples of the Simferopol
and Crimean dioceses began prayers "to send moisture" - moreover, by direct
"order of the ruling bishop" , the situation with water is really stale.


Meanwhile, the Ukrainian side has long taken a firm stand on this issue. The
resumption of water supply to the Crimea is possible only after Russia
recognizes the fact of the occupation of the Ukrainian peninsula.


“I can say officially. First, the Russian Federation, as an occupying country in
Crimea, as an aggressor country, did not officially contact Ukraine on water
issues. Second, if you want, you must first turn to Ukraine and acknowledge the
fact of the occupation of Crimea . Without this, there’s nothing to talk about ,
"said Yury Grymchak, Deputy Minister for the Temporarily Occupied Territories
and Internally Displaced Persons of Ukraine, back in January 2018.


Only after Moscow fulfills these two conditions can one reason about how much
this water will cost them. In addition, Grymchak added that the entire
responsibility for the environmental disaster in Armyansk, for the destruction
of the green grass cover in the Steppe Crimea and other technological disasters
is borne exclusively by the Kremlin.


"It was not Ukraine that cut off Crimea from the water, Russia did it by force
cutting off Crimea from Ukraine. The occupation of Crimea itself is a terrible
violation of international law and human rights of all Crimeans. It also caused
many other crimes in all areas," - then said then Foreign Minister Pavel
Klimkin.


So the position of David Arahamia, who made it possible to let water into the
annexed Crimea in exchange for concessions from Russian President Vladimir Putin
to the Donbass, can hardly be called popular in Ukraine. The leader of the
Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar people Refat Chubarov answered most harshly, who
called the proposal of Arahamia “an attempt to surrender the Tatars and
Ukrainians” .



> "We never admit that the state can sell us for water ... Any combinations in
> the Donbass, and instead we let water in - this cannot be done ," snapped
> Chubarov.



It is curious that Putin answered the words of Arahamia no less categorically.
According to the press secretary of the President of the Russian Federation
Dmitry Peskov, Russia is not going to return the Donbass to Ukraine in exchange
for Ukraine’s renewal of the water supply to the occupied Crimea.



> “As for Crimea, this is the Russian region, and, of course, within the
> framework of existing development programs, the region’s water supply is also
> provided. If there are any proposals for additional water supply on a
> commercial or other basis, they can be considered. Crimea cannot be the
> subject of any any exchanges , "he said.



At Bankova they calmly accepted the words of the head of Arahamia about the
supply of water to the occupied Crimea. The head of the Presidential Office,
Andrei Yermak, noted that these words were the personal opinion of the
politician, and not the position of the head of the largest parliamentary
political force.



> “Regarding the statement of David Arahamia. Yesterday was a difficult day and
> I had the opportunity to only read about it on the Internet. Therefore, today
> I hope I will see David and ask him what he had in mind. But I can tell you
> that yesterday it was David Arahamia’s personal position,"he said.



To the clarifying question of the journalist, whether in principle he had
discussed with the assistant to the president of the Russian Federation (curator
in Ukraine) Dmitry Kozak the issue of water supply to the Crimea, Yermak
replied: "No, never . "






C-ASSANDRAAA




ОБО МНЕ

Svitlana Просмотреть профиль



АРХИВ БЛОГА

 * ▼  2020 (1)
   * ▼  февраля (1)
     * World News Who is against Trump: sensations and...


Технологии Blogger.


Diese Website verwendet Cookies von Google, um Dienste anzubieten und Zugriffe
zu analysieren. Deine IP-Adresse und dein User-Agent werden zusammen mit
Messwerten zur Leistung und Sicherheit für Google freigegeben. So können
Nutzungsstatistiken generiert, Missbrauchsfälle erkannt und behoben und die
Qualität des Dienstes gewährleistet werden.Weitere InformationenOk