Putin is not willing to interfere in those regions where he assured gets in the vast majority of actively neloâl′noe people. He encountered in Chechnya and repeat this experience he does not have the slightest desire. Maybe that's the fact of this disloyalty of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine was an unpleasant surprise for him. But now, I am convinced, he lives with the neloâl′nost′û as with a fait accompli and further his plans for Ukraine builds based on it as of the givens.
Interview with Alfred Koha website glavpost.com
There are two opinions about the causes of the war between Russia and Ukraine. Some believe that the cause of the war was the Maidan, others believe that the Maidan was only a pretext for aggression, which was preparing for a long time. What is your opinion on this?
Yes and no. Was, of course, and fear of the Maidan. And he still is. There was also a deeply corrupt Russian intelligence top Ukrainian law enforcement agencies and the military. And in this sense we can speak of pre-tournament promotions. Was, of course, and such a unique character as Yanukovych, which led Putin to the last (and not only Putin, but EU officials) for the nose.
But in General, the war itself, if we talk about the armed confrontation narrowly in the East of Ukraine, it is clearly trying to distract world public opinion from the problem of the annexation of Crimea by making normalization in Eastern Ukraine in cash, charge for the lifting of sanctions, thus leaving the problem of returning Crimea beyond discussion.
Leitmotif throughout today's agenda, which imposes the West Russian diplomacy is simple: that Crimea is Russian who happened to fact and reality. There is nothing to discuss. And here's the normalization in Eastern Ukraine-let's discuss, there's ground for compromise and concessions.
If the war in the East was not, naturally, in Exchange for the lifting of sanctions would stand the question of returning Crimea. As it is, no. Now this issue is closed more relevant and pressing problem-bloody massacres in the Donbass.
And Ukraine will be stronger than in the question of Crimea, the bloodier and hot is this war in the East. Here, in my opinion, the Act of communicating vessels. In fact Donbass taken hostage: If you raise the question of Crimea-we will be stronger and stronger cut and burn in the Donbass. And so until you otstupites′ from Crimea. As soon as the question of Crimea will be removed from the agenda, so immediately installed in Donbass world. With strictly on the terms of Kiev. And all supporters of the "Russian world" evaporate into the air, as they are not … All this, in my opinion, obviously.
-If you lived not in Germany and in Russia, would you dare to lead is so acute and critical towards the Russian leadership blog?
-I went to Germany at the end of November of the year 2013. Look at my posts before. In my opinion they were no less critical towards the Kremlin. Although I can be wrong. To me it is difficult to judge. However, I am prepared to accept that partly here me much easier to express their point of view. No need to pick up words, play diplomacy and mitigate epithets.
-If the Government of Ukraine has invited you as an Advisor, what 3 Council would you give in the first place?
I think that the Ukrainian Government will never invite me to be his Adviser because my advice would be trivial: it is necessary to reduce the cost of State and does not collect taxes under the functions that the State performs poorly or not at all. You want to privatize as much as possible gosfunkcii. And, where this is not possible, pull them at the level of municipalities, leaving them the tax base. I do not believe in the efficacy of the State. Especially the post-Soviet. In this regard, nothing new to what told you my comrade Kakha Bendukidze is I can't add. However, you all this without me know. So, why do you need such an adviser like me?
The State should be left only a dozen of the most integral functions. Among which the most important is the defense. Here you need to understand that today Ukraine does not have the personnel and general officer corps, capable of a minimum satisfactory functioning of the armed forces. The reasons for this are clear and they do not need to analyze in detail.
But this implies two important things: first, you need to use those commanders who received combat experience during the current conflict in the East. So did Leon Trotsky when he created virtually from scratch in the Red Army. And quite effectively (for two years) replaced voenspecov to commanders, have grown from non-commissioned officers during the civil war. In this regard, Ukraine has much to be proud of: one is Nestor Makhno!
Second: you need to look for allies. It is necessary to create economic and military alliances and seek those already existing. In this respect, NATO is the main objective, to which you want to go, in spite of all obstacles. Need to strengthen relations with Georgia, the Baltic States and Poland. And, of course, continue the process of integration into the European Community. With all my skepsise about this. By the way, it seems to me that a natural ally of Ukraine on a huge number of questions can be Turkey.
Many believe that the United States behave passively towards Russia. It is believed that they could put pressure on Russia is stronger. Many people generally think that if Americans really wanted to, Putin would already be in the Kremlin was not. How strong is the position of the United States in this conflict? Whether they have the tools to put pressure on Putin, and if there are, why they do not involve?
-When NATO bombed Belgrade gathered just yet, many Serbs were supporters of escalation of the conflict in Kosovo, because it was believed that if NATO starts bombing that Russia will inevitably be involved in the conflict on the side of Serbia. However, this view does not change the Serbs for more than a century and there are no novelty. But there is one important feature: the thought only Serbs. More-none. In Russia, this option was considered only urban crazy and Limonovym. Even Primakov (who was then the Prime Minister), though launched his plane over the Atlantic and the United States flew to not, nevertheless insisted on the military support of Serbia.
And when you say: "many believe", then you need to speak more precisely: "in Ukraine, many believe. Because so many believe "only in Ukraine and more-anywhere. Nowhere, none of the more-or-less serious observers and politicians believe that if the United States wanted to, Putin would have not been in the Kremlin. To think so is frivolous. You demoniziruete United States and attribute them supernatural influence and power which they do not possess in reality.
None of the basic American interests are not affected by the annexation of the Crimea and the war in the East of Ukraine. Humanitarian issues and European stability is of course important, but why the United States should be so deeply involved in this issue as I would like?
This is some time ago was the wild carnage in Burundi. Serious humanitarian problem? Without a doubt! The threat to African stability? Perhaps! Why Ukraine has not been in the forefront of the struggle for normalization in Burundi? Or humanitarian values and human rights it indifferent? If you can explain why the Ukrainian passivity on this issue, then you can understand and caution United States on the issue of Ukraine.
Could, in turn, the United States to prevent conflict in Burundi? Of course. Two airborne divisions, a week of hostilities and is prepared: peace in Burundi is set. The loss? Two dozen soldiers, three helicopters, one drone. Question: this is the price you were willing to pay United States? Answer: No. Therefore, the United States and did not intervene. And Ukraine.
United States have certainly have serious arguments in conversation with Moscow. It is primarily a military power and serious economic pressure. But reasonably evaluating the costs, which would result in the application of the remedies is pressure on Russia, admit it: all Ukrainian perspective-enough a reason for this? And Ukraine itself has all the tools of resistance to Russian expansionism?
-How seriously the West and particularly in the United States are discussing supplies Ukraine lethal weapons? Isn't this just a bluff in response to Putin's scare?
-Before asking United States arms transfers in Ukraine, answer yourself the following question: where are all the Ukrainian devalos weapon that got it from the USSR? For many years, Ukraine was one of the leaders in the world market for arms trafficking. She was whether a fourth or even third place immediately after the United States and Russia. Ukrainian MIC so much weapons produce was not able! Where is it on? The answer is simple: the existence of the Defense Ministry. Ukraine sold out their entire army. It is well known.
Here's a simple example: in the period from 2005 to 2012 year Ukraine exported 231 military plane and helicopter and UAV "flight 50". Of these, only 6 planes (3.3%) were new, while the rest (96.7%) were in service with the air forces of Ukraine. Same story with tanks, BMPs, etc. And that was before the 2005 year-General gloom.
But even Pavel Grachev told me that Ukraine has got new and modern weapons, since the line of contact with NATO standing part, equipped with the best in the Soviet army.
All Ukrainian army still in the recent past (I do not know as of now) is a corrupt sieve, which was in the abyss of vbuhat′ any money and weapons, and it has been found anywhere in the same Burundi, but not on the battlefield. So while the West will not be sure that the weapons would be used for those purposes for which it was supplied and not the other way around, until a serious conversation on the supply of lethal weapons will not. Less than the entire West would like to see its most sophisticated weaponry in the hands of, for example, IGIL.
West was aware that, starting deliveries of lethal weapons Ukraine he seriously provoked the Kremlin. So he would be ready for such a step only if you are absolutely sure in its Ukrainian partners. I can only assume that such supplies had not yet begun, that means you're uncertain.
-German Chancellor Angela Merkel voiced a very principled position on Crimea, directly calling the incident an annexation. How is the sincere attitude of the German leadership and how far Germany is prepared to go on the question of sanctions against Russia for Crimea. Whether the sanctions remain in effect until the full return of the Crimea or Germany will be ready to cancel them immediately after possible normalization of the situation in the East of Ukraine?
-Current German politics (both internal and external) has one important feature: it's the fruit of very painful compromise between right (Christian Democrats) and the left (Social Democrats). You know that power in Germany is now a so-called "Big", right-left coalition, which though and heads right Chancellor Angela Merkel, but Vice Chancellor and Foreign Minister in the Government is Socialist Walter Steinmeier.
You want to pay tribute to Merkel: she managed to push within his Cabinet a clear and unambiguous position in relation to the annexation of the Crimea. Although the Social Democrats have traditionally (since Schroeder) is extremely loyal to Putin's Russia. And she had to endure serious battle before the course became what it is today.
But don't expect from her any more significant feats. Inside the Cabinet and there is huge opposition in the Bundestag cooling of relations with Russia. And in the business community, and journalistic-too. The arguments are more than serious: it thousands of jobs. This Russian orders for German companies, this is billions in revenue from trade with Russia, and, thus, taxes, budget, etc.
What can this oppose? Humanitarian aspects? Yes, say opponents of Merkel, perhaps! But agree: we must not be holier than the Pope! If we saw that Ukraine struggled resists Putin's nahrapu. If we would have seen hundreds of thousands of volunteers who protect their homeland on the battlefields would be if we saw a country completely mobilizovavšuû all their forces to repel external aggression, then Yes, then it would be possible to provide assistance and support.
But what do we see? We see a few sabotirovannyh a population of mobilizations. We see the Crimea, which was given without a single shot being fired. We see the inability (and unwillingness-what really must be confessed) the Ukrainian leadership to cope with corruption. We see only talk about reforms. We see the mindless external borrowings, which (now obviously) will never be returned. Even the country's President, Poroshenko, despite all assurances, and have not found the strength to get rid of from your business and continues to be, de facto, the current owner.
And here is not surprising: after all, and the President and Prime Minister Poroshenko Yatseniuk, Turchynov and speaker-that's all folks from the old greasy exteriors decks, who worked with Ministers and tandem Yushchenko-Tymoshenko and intransigent opponent Yanukovych. Amazing fidelity to, isn't it? I.e. These characters have worked in those Governments, which brought Ukraine to present poor state and which have become synonymous with unprofessionalism and corruption.
It is for them that the Germans have to sacrifice their economic growth? It is for their sake that we must go to reduce jobs and income for our companies? It is for their sake that we must give our traditional markets for Chinese companies? After all, one day after retiring from Russia back to be Oh how difficult, if not impossible.
I think that Merkel will be able to keep the course with sanctions against Russia right up to the moment when it will be somehow resolved the situation in Crimea, and not limited to the establishment of peace in the Donbass. But even if her peredavât left who can throw a stone into it? Because the arguments opponents actually nothing serious to say you cannot …
-Whether the West's sanctions against Russia, the desired effect? How critical are sanctions the West for Russian economy?
To the extent that they could act at the moment-they acted. No need to wait by the sanctions quick effect. Because the sanctions in fact touched upon only two sectors: finance and know-how. The effects of underfunding of Russian industry and reducing capital investments caused by financial sanctions, the impact is not immediate and very gradually. They have medium-term effect and seriously begin to be felt in three years. In the same way as the lack of access to know-how.
Here already, for example, Rosneft was forced to move the terms of mastering their offshore projects. This is the first swallows … There will be the following. So that the effect of sanctions undoubtedly is. But it is not the nature of the immediate disaster for Russia. It will be a gradual strangulation, quiet, slow Russia's slide into third world countries, the marginalization of Economics and the degradation of human capital. The country will turn into a raw material appendage of China. In General, strangely enough, the main beneficiary of all this anti-Russian company is China.
At which point the Russian leadership (current or some other) considers it necessary to change this trend is now impossible to predict. But, of course, on the basis of General considerations, it is clear that it is better to do it sooner rather than later.
-So scary for Russia off from SWIFT? Whether such a measure can bring down the financial system?
I am not an expert in interbank payments systems, but it seems to me that Russia's SWIFT system disconnected no specific results cannot be achieved. There are other ways of communication: mail, the Telegraph, the Internet. Yes, it would be difficult calculations and increase transaction costs. But to someone who refused to transfer the money on the grounds that it cannot be done online and now it takes ten to fifteen minutes-I don't believe it. Eventually implemented the same somehow banking before SWIFT appears in the year 1973. In short: this is a measure of the inefficient, foolish and not beneficial to anyone.
-How would you comment on the recent decision of the Government of Ukraine, which is also supported by the Parliament, according to which the Government of Ukraine is allowed to suspend payments to private creditors and forcibly restructure loans?
As far as I know the theory of State and law, the right to refuse to perform any obligation is one of the main signs of sovereignty. Actually, it is sovereignty makes State State. Therefore, such a right was originally from Ukraine, because of its sovereignty until no one disputes.
Another thing, how effective is the measure. It seems to me that here's another zealous advocate of sovereignty, Mr Putin, before doèkspluatiroval his right all send far away and abandon their obligations that no one believes him and he is not considered a person whose word though are worth anything: change of circumstances-and Putin from his words refused.
If Ukraine wants to earn such a reputation, then forward: refuse payments to private creditors or inform them about the forced restructuring your debts to them.
But it seems to me that a more sensible path is the path of negotiation. I don't know still any lender who would have refused to sit down at the negotiating table with the debtor and talk about restructuring or even debt discounting. But only if two conditions were met: if it sees objectively that the debtor pay the debt is not possible in the original schedule and that the debtor has used all the possibilities for debt repayment.
-Ukraine is actually on the verge of default and without the aid of the West will be almost impossible to avoid defaulting. Many experts believe that the actual war situation in Ukraine and Russia, the West will occur or not default or hold some controlled defaulted that fails to strengthen Putin's position in the conflict with Ukraine.
I think you exaggerate. Nothing absolutely. It is naïve to assume that the West will support Ukraine at any cost. I understand that it is very comfortable to think so: as we successfully vlâpalis′ in conflict with Russia! Now us West will feed from belly to morkovkina zagoven′â. But it's just as comfortable as short-sighted. It is, in the first place.
Secondly, I don't see anything wrong with the defaulted. In some ways it's even useful: rehabilitation of "bad", "toxic" debts, dissipate the groundless illusion creditors, the country gets a boost to reforms and the growth of unsustainable debt burdens. You don't forget, by the way, that the origins of rough Russian "zero-growth lie in the defaulted 1998 year.
And thirdly: you have to remember that one of the main creditors of Ukraine is Russia. And if you want a so-called "controlled" default (it is not clear yet what you understand by that?)-then you need to keep in mind that to agree on what it means to this "verifiability" and who will carry out this monitoring will need to including Russia. Sadly.
-You several times argued the opinion that Ukraine stands to relinquish occupied part of Donbass. If Ukraine will be decided on such a move, as this refusal could be politically and legally? After all, no power will not go on a direct rejection of part of its territory.
Why? Otkuda Takaya bezappelâcionnost′: "no power will not go on a direct rejection of part of its territory"? Why such a categorical? And Korea? But Pakistan, which has declared the independence of Bangladesh? A divorce Czech and Slovakia? And the collapse of the Soviet Union in the end? Why such a black and white picture of the world? Even the FRG since the GDR finally recognized each other's sovereignty.
Getting rid of pro-Russian minded territories Ukraine politically consolidate and become more solid. Besides, you will not have to spend money to finance these traditionally subsidized regions. And then: How do you imagine the life in one country, people who kill each other even today? Did the example of Chechnya is not a lesson for all? Does the current regime does not kadyrovskij makes you think about your own future?
Is it not clear that territorial fetishism is a disease from the distant past, atavism and anachronism? Is it not clear that the important thing is people. Take out people who want to be with you, as the Germans after the war took away his people from Silesia and East Prussia. Twenty years have passed, and who was jealous of? Here's a simple and banal example: Japan. 120 million people and no resources. Territory 50 (!) times less Russian. Questions are there? No questions …
Sometimes we hear that pick up and provide necessary all refugees from Donbass is very expensive. On this occasion, I have only one question: is it more expensive than fight? Lose thousands of people? How much longer and in the material and in purely human terms cost Ukraine this war? Half of this money and people would be enough to all refugees to build new apartments and to provide them with jobs.
But legally this design a cakewalk: there there were referendums on independence, isn't it? So let Ukraine first and recognizes the sovereignty of these all "lugandonov" and "daunbassov". All Chin činarem: ambassadors, border, its currency.
Let's see how the Kremlin: he zavoet f this whole break through people you will need to feed. And how else? Named "pahanom Russian peace-now and korâč′sâ. One rebuilding infrastructure and industry will cost so much that the Russian Finance Ministry happen swoon.
And throw Moscow TN «Novorossiju» to fend for themselves (most likely, by the way), so you and better: they themselves to you then on my belly and crawl. That's when you prodiktuete them and their conditions. Without firing a shot. Calmly, sipping mineraločku …
-Many wonder when the Kremlin run out resources for war with Ukraine? Called different terms, autumn and winter of this year. What is your opinion on this?
You probably know that in Russia the army modernization program, calculated up to the year 2020. It is a very ambitious and large-scale program. She (amongst other things) implies total re-equipping the army. The programme has been implemented for almost five years. This means that to date, in the warehouses of the Ministry of Defense has accumulated a huge number of completely fresh, but outdated military equipment and munitions, which have been replaced by new designs during the five previous years.
Here are these weapons and fighting volunteers donbasskie. If this war not happened, then the whole armada of tanks and BMPs, "Grads" and the guns, Kalashnikovs and grenades to be recycled, because they simply were not needed.
Thus, I have to disappoint you: this war is worth so much, how much is FUEL that splurge on it. And people? -you ask. And I'll tell you: in Russia has never been a deficit in idiotah and merzavcah. Some rascals campaign and sent to other war-idiots. So here the resource is actually free. Around turns out to war, and who is the mother of Rodna. In this paradigm of Russia such a war can keep indefinitely.
That look not like you my answer? Sorry … But another I have for you …
-Is it possible to return in the foreseeable future of the Crimea in the Ukraine and how this could happen?
Looking ahead three to five years, then I see no other possibility to return Crimea except solely by military means. One party to the conflict is understandable: it is Russia. And who else? NATO? Utopia. Ukraine? Still a great utopia. Then who? It's unclear … That would give Crimea Russia voluntarily-in this I do not believe for a second. It must be entirely in a hopeless situation to go for it.
I'm trying to imagine what the scale of the economic problems should stand in front of it to Russia in Exchange for financial assistance renounced the Crimea-and can't imagine such a problem.
Here's a simple example: in the mid-90 's Russia was in a very difficult economic situation. And then to Yeltsin came Japan Prime Minister Hashimoto. The question of so-called "the northern territories". Yeltsin hinted that transparently enough possible economic assistance, which is very serious. Yeltsin, after a brief hesitation-refused.
The current state of the Russian economy, even with all the negative trends, gives no reason to even hope that Russia will be in the same financial pit, in which she appeared in the 90 's. Let me remind you that the price of oil has fluctuated in the vicinity of 8-12 dollars per barrel.
So, just think: few actually uninhabited rocks somewhere in the far East, in the icy expanse of the Pacific-and then not paid and will not pay. And here is the Crimea! With Sebastopol. From Kerch. With striker Ivan Trickovski earned, finally … Warm, native, poured the Russian krovuškoj … As much as any patients with calluses related … And to give the situation a priori less acute than in the 90 's? Yes never in life …
Once again the thesis, which I called in Ukraine and is called think: Crimea, you had not given from the outset. Bite into it. In Ukraine there was a serious military grouping. You had to just start shoot in these "green men". Then chance was. The bloody capture of the Crimea Putin then would not dare. And now a chance missed. And nothing now pouring crocodile tears: Ukraine Crimea profukala.
Now all you appeal to international law, etc. No one for you your substitute version due to the Crimea will not. Yes and you won't. Admit this to themselves and perelistnite this page. Take this just as Germany refers to Kenigsbergu: waste Koenigsberg-here and rightly so we smarter next time.
-How Putin and his closest circle to adequately assess their chances in confrontation with the West? Whether Putin understands that Russia's economy could not withstand this confrontation and all could end in the collapse of his regime, and even the collapse of Russia?
The chances of a confrontation between Russia and the West, I think Putin and his entourage evaluate adequately, i.e. as low. It is enough to show the cumulative GDP of NATO countries and Russia, and the size of their armies, to understand the folly and the disastrous thing about such a confrontation to Russia. I think that statistics of this kind available to Putin and co.
But Putin and his entourage took the view that, firstly, a large-scale confrontation with the West to avoid, not giving Crimea and only settlement in Donbass. However, as I said at the beginning of the interview.
And secondly, the Kremlin is sure that a military conflict with the West, in any case, if you cannot avoid economic pressure from the West, you have to shift into new markets. In China, for example. Yes, it will be difficult, yes it will be a painful process. But in any case-it is possible and it some, but output in the medium term. And before you know it, and in the West look at different perspectives: as they say on Wall Street-investors have short memories.
-How likely the breakup of Russia in the next 5-7 years?
Only a very dishonest person can give forecasts of this kind. Today's trends-they-Yes, the wrong way, of course. One is Chechnya: virtual independent State that connects with Russia is only one personal loyalty to Kadyrov, Putin. And then, for the most part-words.
However, everything will depend on the development of political, economic, demographic, etc. processes. And so when this happen and happen anyway-I say you can't.
I (and not only me) know how to avoid it: you want to create a real Federative Republic. With strong actors, delegating powers to the Centre. To me it is obvious that, on the contrary, any attempt to construct a unitary State in Russia end its collapse. But build something even probabilistic predictions about the collapse of Russia on the horizon 5-7 years is quackery.
-Reversal of Putin to China a bluff or a strategic choice of Putin?
Putin cannot be a strategic choice because he generally has no strategy. Putin is tactics. All its decisions-they siûminutny and address this specific problem that faced now. What happened a year later, five, ten years, it is currently not care. He always took the view that that's when the problem will rise-and then we will decide. And now what the head breaking: can anything happen yet?
And spread to China, he is also situational. Started West to tread-and I turned to China. Here you me and not caught!
What a reversal in the direction of China is realized with the wheels on a live thread-can be seen on sudorožnosti, which started suddenly to conclude quite crude contracts. And even without waiting for signature immediately declared publicly all sorts of construction projects of the century, etc.
No, it is, of course, not a strategy, and patching. Of course these throwing cause enormous harm to Russia and objectively, as I have already said, plays into the hands of China. But the fact remains: while our helmsman keeps Russian ship there, to the East. But I wouldn't be surprised if tomorrow goes the other team and we are going somewhere in a completely different direction. Going to India, Brazil, or again to the West.
Call this strategy I have language is not rotated.
-Starting a war with Ukraine and, as a result of conflict with the West, Putin leads a war or rather tries to save his regime?
Of course the second. Of course no territorial grabs in Eastern Ukraine, he doesn't want to. Again: Putin is convinced that he will be able to change the resolution of the conflict in the East of Ukraine on the lifting of sanctions and normalization of relations with the West. And, then, to preserve the Crimea.
Putin is now in the position of Hitler in the 40-year: he also achieved all you wanted: the old borders of the Reich and put it on his knees. More he dared not dream. Now he needed was peace. He wanted peace with England. But England refused to negotiate peace with him. And what happened …
And Putin: today, when he reached the peak of his power and popularity within the country when he annexed the Crimea is no more peacekeepers than he. West in Exchange for normalization of relations could gain from it concessions. Including part of liberalization, by the way. But under one condition: the question of Crimea should be removed from the agenda. I see this position today.
-How soon can result in acute phase of war between Russia and Ukraine in Donbass and crossing a frozen conflict phase?
I don't really understand the difference between "acute" and "frozen" conflict stages. Now-what: "acute" or "frozen"? In my view-"frozen": active operations no one leads, and occasional skirmishes are quite local in nature. As such, the conflict could drag on for years.
-Do you believe in a full-scale invasion of Putin in Ukraine?
No. Do not believe. Even if such ideas to start and soared through his mind, now, after a year of open confrontation, he was convinced that this whole concept of the "new Russia" from Lugansk to Odessa is the fruit of an inflamed imagination of Russian nationalists. And it has nothing to do with reality.
Putin is not willing to interfere in those regions where he assured gets in the vast majority of actively neloâl′noe people. He encountered in Chechnya and repeat this experience he does not have the slightest desire. Maybe that's the fact of this disloyalty of the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine was an unpleasant surprise for him. But now, I am convinced, he lives with the neloâl′nost′û as with a fait accompli and further his plans for Ukraine builds based on it as of the givens.
Munich, May 21, 2015 years, specifically for glavpost.com
