Panama and the Constitution

The head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Alexander Bastrykin, published a truly programmatic article in the Kommersant-Vlast publication: "It's time to put an effective barrier to the information war." And this is - no kidding - a very important text.

Why? Yes, because Bastrykin is not an agitator. He does not talk to readers, but to the Reader, simply trying to expand the powers of his own department and strengthen its position. Justifying the impulse with a description of the situation in which Russia, in his opinion, now finds itself. It is unlikely that a high-ranking law enforcement officer would be disingenuous in such a conversation - it is risky. So, there is a great temptation to assume that Bastrykin thinks exactly what he writes. And we are given a unique chance to look inside his head.

(Here, before moving on to the main point, it is hard not to note how the meanings in Russia of the era of the third term were devalued: the text of the law enforcement officer Bastrykin is almost entirely devoted to the prospects for further restriction of constitutional rights and freedoms; the law enforcement officer protects not the rights of citizens, but citizens - from their own right.)

So, let's try to reconstruct the picture of the world of the head of the Investigative Committee.

Firstly, Russia has been living in a “hybrid war unleashed by the United States and its allies” for ten years now. Actually, everything bad that happens to Russia (and Bastrykin, as was said above, is not an agitator, and, unlike agitators, sees the bad clearly), is precisely the result of this war. Sanctions and non-admission to loans, budget deficits, devaluation of the ruble, a decrease in the income of citizens of the Russian Federation, decisions on high-profile cases - from the Litvinenko case to the Yaroshenko case - are the elements of the US hybrid war against the Russian Federation.

“However, the consequences of the information war have become the most devastating.” The cunning Americans flirted with the Middle Eastern radicals, but what was the result? As a result, citizens of the Russian Federation go to Syria on the side of the radicals to fight, and their number is growing (by the way, the article lists a number of terrorist groups banned on the territory of the Russian Federation, and there is not a single note obligatory by law on their ban on the territory of the Russian Federation, but it is unlikely that Roskomnadzor dares to blame such a respected columnist for this). The information war is a completely boundless thing: speaking about it, Alexander Bastrykin mentions both the collapse of the USSR (which, of course, the Americans destroyed by supporting the nationalists in the union republics), and "the recent events in Nagorno-Karabakh." Who started them? That's right, the forces "opposing Russia" in order to undermine the "peace between the Armenian and Azerbaijani peoples" by organizing another war near our borders.

All this is perfectly superimposed on the growth in Russia of crimes under "extremist articles" - in fact, the text begins with a report on successes in catching extremists. After all, the new laws allow for the publication of a photo from the Second World War or even for reposting someone else's message on social networks to initiate criminal cases. They are turned on. Hence the success.

To summarize: thanks to the intrigues of the United States in the economy, Russia has obvious difficulties, and about a thousand people left to fight in Syria on the side of terrorists. For this reason, it is proposed:

Formulate a state ideology (how does this correlate with Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which directly states: “No ideology can be established as a state or mandatory”? Yes, it does not correlate at all. The less a law enforcement officer thinks about the Constitution, the more reliably our rights are protected).

“It seems appropriate to decide on the limits of censorship in Russia of the global Internet network” (how does this compare with Article 29 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, where it is written: “Censorship is prohibited”? Yes, no way, see above). But "interesting in this regard is the experience of foreign states opposing the United States and its allies." Further - a reference to China, but there is also the DPRK - who is more successful than Comrade Yn in opposing the United States?

Expand the list of thought crimes, and punish, for example, those who doubt the results of the Crimean referendum (they are punished in some countries for denying the Holocaust, - says the head of the Investigative Committee, somewhat carelessly equating the referendum with the Holocaust). And in general, “to supplement the disposition of Art. 280 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (public calls for extremist activity) as a qualifying sign that implies calls for extremist activity if they are associated with falsification of information about historical facts and events.

Plus, there are a number of other initiatives that will expand the punitive powers of the investigating authorities and make it possible to report on progress in the fight against extremism even more convincingly.

For the sake of fighting world terrorism, one can, of course, go to great lengths. For example, to the obvious distortion: it is clear that the proposed measures will hit not the supporters of terrorism, but the critics of the government. But this is not so important, if you believe that we have a war with the United States, and the president of America is personally behind every Russian trouble. And for everyone who dares to speak out loud about the trouble - even more so.

The only question is why this appeal to a single reader appeared right now. And it is highly likely that the answer to it is also not far from the United States, namely, in Panama. The reader is sincerely offended by the publication by the enemies of Russia of some details of the import of antique cellos. And this is a convenient moment to tell the Reader about your worldview. “Stop playing pseudo-democracy, following pseudo-liberal values,” Alexander Bastrykin teaches us (or him?)