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 . "