КARATUEVA E.N. “Eco-Terrorism”: the Essence and Peculiarity

DOI 10.35775/PSI.2020.34.4.003

Е.N. КАRATUEVA Candidate of Sciences (political sciences), Associate Professor at the Chair of management of social and political processes and history, St. Petersburg State Agrarian University, St. Petersburg, Russia

“ECO-TERRORISM”: THE ESSENCE AND PECULIARITY

The article is devoted to the study of the problems associated with the manifestations of environmental terrorism and the factors leading to its occurrence. The article highlights peculiarities of understanding its essence. Radical illegal actions by the “greenies” have led to the fact that among the existing approaches to the definition of "environmental terrorism" there is a terminological problem, which is associated with a different understanding of its interpretation. Modern authors define ecoterrorism as radical actions by the “green” (environmentalists), and as deliberate large-scale pollution of the environment. The article highlights the theoretical foundations of ecoterrorism and ecoanarchism, analyzes the terrorist acts by the “green” radicals, the history and development trends of the Green political parties.

Key words: “garbage culture,” environmental devastation, ecoterrorism, ecoanarchism, enviromentalists, global risks.

In the era of globalization, environmental catastrophes are acquiring a comprehensive nature and cease to be a problem of a single country. There are no more boundaries for the “anti-environmental” agents. Even Thomas Malthus in the XIX century warned about the coming catastrophes that cannot be prevented by any socio-economic reforms. The prevailing feeling among the majority of the population is a sense of necessity to preserve security. Modern society is increasingly becoming a society of global risks, which at every moment expose it to global dangers.

One of such dangers generated by the consumer society is the formation of a "garbage culture". The production of public goods is increasingly becoming the production of garbage, the accumulation of which begins to dominate the processes of creation. Garbage absorbs the ecosystem, forcing it to function according to its rules. The main danger for the ecological system is that the garbage environment is increasingly perceived as the norm. Such a culture can be not only a consequence, but also a source of global socio-cultural catastrophe, becoming more and more passive environmental terrorism, a form of culture of universal risk.

Material, spiritual and socio-cultural garbage are closely related to each other and together have a decisive influence on public consciousness. Culture of the debris as part of the internal culture, "pollutes" the minds of individuals capable of destroying the world, creating an environmental disaster that the majority of the population perceived as the most real threat. Thus, according to the results of a survey conducted by foreign researchers, 73% of respondents do not exclude the possibility of an environmental terrorist act, and 15% are confident that in the near future, environmental disasters in which a person is involved will become inevitable [2. Рp. 112-118].

The specificity of eco-disasters is that disturbed ecosystems turn into accumulators of malicious agents, spreading their influence over vast territories. Such a process occurs so quickly that the public's awareness of the threat lags far behind the real situation in the ecosystem. The effects of global environmental disasters of our time accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, for centuries has changed the ecosystem in the Western USSR and Europe, in public consciousness of Russians perceived as an ordinary state that does not require radical action.

Thus, a survey carried out in 1992, 6 years after the Chernobyl disaster, showed that in the mass consciousness of the population caught in the zone of radiation damage, dominated by traditionalist value orientations (68% of respondents), mixed orientation is represented by more than half the number of respondents (29%). And the ability to use strategies associated with innovative approaches, with democratic transformation, was represented by only three percent of respondents [7]. Thus, even in the conditions of preservation of danger of radioactive contamination, the most part of the population is not capable to radical transformations, and prefers attempts of realization of negative consequences by more traditional ways.

A society of risk presupposes the emergence of certain types of personality: personalities trying to resist disasters, personalities-victims and personalities provoking disasters and using their consequences in their own interest. The former are concerned with transformation strategies, the latter with adaptation issues, and the efforts of the third are aimed at exploiting existing risks.

The latter can be defined as representatives of terrorism of various kinds and distinguish among them "users" and "fighters". "Users" realize risks of real proximity of global catastrophes as they are the most attractive for intimidation of society for the purpose of satisfaction of certain political interests. The environmental threat is the most effective equally for all social strata of society.

The goal of the terrorists, despite the diversity of the instruments used have common features: intimidate through violence or threat of their use, the presence of a certain ideology and its propaganda with the help of terrorist acts, the weaknesses of public authorities. But if we talk about the specifics of environmental terrorism, then in this case, the object of a terrorist attack is important, namely, the environment, which is damaged.

Often "fighters," seeking to confront threats, direct vector struggle on public structures and adopt tactics "ushers," becoming terrorists-anti-statesmen. Subjects of ecoterrorism try to explain their actions by various motives, but most often-the desire to create a more just society. Many leading Russian political scientists see a potential ideological basis for a neo-totalitarian political regime based on the “left-wing” extremism in the environmental ideas. Thus, V.V. Vityuk and S.A. Efirov in their work “Left extremism and the ideal of social justice” argued that “left extremism initially represented an attempt to establish a just social order by the most rapid and radical means. The concept of social justice in left-wing extremism arose from the speculative notion of a “free” and “just” society of equals. This concept was extremely vague and at the same time fanatical-religious in nature, which gave rise to the belief that any means may be used in the name of the Holy liberation” [5].

The first radical environmental protests were generated precisely by social protests in Western Europe and the United States (the events in Paris in 1968, the Woodstock festival, the struggle for women's rights, against the Vietnam war, etc.). Social radicalism inevitably led to environmental radicalism, with the preservation of all the basic tenets of left-wing extremism. Numerous bright protest actions contributed to the formation of environmental consciousness in society. Environmental movements opposed themselves to power structures as the “subjects of anti-ecological activity.” In 1971, "Greenpeace," international political organization, declared itself. In the 80s of the 20th century, environmental protest movements strengthened their political role in society, uniting with the movements of peace fighters, against the arms race, with the youth and women's movement.

The main thing for the fighters for the preservation of nature is the preservation of nature by all means. Moreover, preventing the destruction of nature does not lead to constructive processes, but generates new destruction. The desire to stop violence against nature turns into violence of another kind.

The environmentalists are increasingly using terrorist tools. Radical environmental groups have a fairly significant peculiarity they participate in a kind of terrorist activity and have its features. Intimidation as the main attribute of terrorist activity becomes the main weapon of “green” radicals. Only fundamental changes, in their opinion, are able to resolve the contradictions that have developed between the collapsing nature and society. But it is quite difficult to frighten the whole society with the coming destruction, so the radical wing of the “green” movement is aimed at a specific environmental problem, and not at confronting a global environmental catastrophe. The fighters for the purity of nature mostly attack the objects of transnational corporations, as a symbol of globalization. Thus, we can say that the “green” extremists are pronounced anti-globalists. But the radical movement itself is gaining global proportions, has no borders and nationalities.

Radical groups of environmentalists do not rally and do not wait for the decision of the authorities, but carry out attacks on the research institutions (in order to "release" experimental animals), restaurants or logging companies, as well as on individual citizens (for example, in order to destroy their vehicles or fur coats), hammer nails into trees, release animals from nurseries, creating a real threat to others.

Members of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), which opposes the use of animals in medical experiments, and the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), which protects the natural environment from destruction and exploitation by violence, are best known for this kind of “illegal activity.”

Numerous environmental groups carried out mass extremist actions in order to protect the environment. In 1972, Luton Ronnie Lee together with Cliff Goodman founded the organization "Mercy Squad", and with their supporting extremists began to pierce the tires and break the windows in the cars of hunters in order to prevent the beginning of the hunt. On November 10, 1973, two activists set fire to the Hoechst building after learning of the construction of a science laboratory there. The loss was estimated at 26,000 pounds. The next arson attack was not long in coming, and in 1974, members of the Squad set fire to several ships preparing for seal hunting. In addition, cars and buildings of biological laboratories were damaged. After another action, Goodman and Lee were arrested, and after the release of the radical activists gathered in a new organization demanding the punishment of those damaging the environment and renamed it “Animal Liberation Front.”

These groups are accused of using tactics of arson, explosions and seizure of offices, in sending envelopes razor blades. ELF's biggest actions were the burning of a ski resort in Vail (1996), the Bureau of land management in Oregon (1997), and an apartment complex in San Diego, California (2003) [4].

Owners of "anti-environmental" tools closed their businesses for fear of further damage. That is, the goal of radical environmentalists, in the end, was not achieved. Animal testing or the sale of hunting weapons has been halted, but the worldview of the subjects carrying environmental hazards has not changed. This problem has led to controversy among environmental movements. So, in July 1974, Hunt Saboteurs Association told the media about its support for the idea of Mercy Squad, but disagreed with its methods.

As a result of radical illegal actions by the green activists, there is a terminological problem among the modern approaches to the definition of “environmental terrorism,” associated with differences in understanding its essence. In the United States and some other countries, environmental terrorism often refers to the activities of radical groups of environmentalists. In this context, the FBI defines environmental terrorism as the use or threat of use of criminal violence against innocent victims or property of citizens by environmentally oriented, interethnic groups for environmental reasons, or aimed at attracting attention. For example, the FBI recognized FOJ as a terrorist organization. And the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in 2002 identified The Front's actions in the Stop Huntindon Animal Cruelty campaign as terrorist [1].

Many researchers in Russia are increasingly associating the actions of the green radicals with the terrorist acts of organizations deliberately causing harm to the environment. According to V.E. Khvoshchev, environmental terrorism can be defined by the term that has two different meanings. First, ecoterrorism means radical actions by the green activists (environmentalists), groups and individuals fighting for the rights and liberation of animals. Second, ecoterrorism is a deliberate large-scale pollution of the environment [6].

The theoretical basis of the first environmental radical movements was an article, and later a book by Murray Bookchin "The Problem of chemicals in Food" (1952), ten years later his other work "Our synthetic environment" was published. In 1965, the essays "Ecology and revolutionary thought" and "Toward a liberatory technology" were published. Since the state is not capable of coping with the impending global cataclysms, anarchism becomes the ideal society for the thriving of environmental ideas. A society with a dominant class of consumers, generating a "garbage culture" must inevitably be replaced by a classless society and the death of the state, which can not exercise its power in the field of environmental protection.

Murray Bookchin used the term ecoanarchism, which meant a holistic socio-political concept aimed at achieving harmony between society and nature. In contrast to the radical parties, "green" ecoanarchism is a much more comprehensive philosophical movement.

At the heart of the formation of “garbage culture” is the existing structure of society, which, according to ecoanarchists, must be changed radically. Due to the environmental focus of ecoanarchism, it significantly differs from the traditional anarchism. If for the latter the social revolution and the subsequent extinction of the state is an abstract utopia, then for the ecoanarchists the socio-political reconstruction of society becomes the only possibility of saving nature and all mankind.

The ideas of ecological radicalism and anarchism can be found not only in capitalist consumer societies, but also in authoritarian political regimes. In discussing the environmental damage caused by free markets and competition, Murray Bookchin mentions the Stalinist regime and the damage it caused to both the people and the environment [3]. He tried to find a third way, different from both the “harmful” technological expansion of capitalism and the authoritarian system of socialism. It is this third way that would help a democratic Russia to use its natural resources for the common good, to create a moral economy focused on human needs. “The Russian people, as well as all the peoples of the former Soviet Union, must find a truly democratic, cooperative and ecological way to meet their environmental needs, to ensure a life of comfort and reasonable luxury, economic security, without a system of hierarchy and suppression that prevent the achievement of these simple and worthy goals” [3].

The anti-moral economy, characteristic of both the planned economic system and the “wild” capitalism, represents a particular threat to the environment. Excessive collectivism, as well as "super-individualism," are equally detrimental to the development of the individual and to the development of nature. If in the first case the problem of environmental conservation is dissolved in the great “national” idea, in the second case, the conflict between the state and the fighters for the purity of the environment is inevitable.

Radical environmental movements that did not find political support in Western Europe found fertile ground in the former socialist states as soon as the political climate changed there. Ecoanarchism was attractive because its ideology is not aimed at using environmental issues to strengthen political capital. Its specificity lies in the fact that protest actions are carried out jointly with the population, in order to influence the state's political decisions and expand the structures of civil society. Thus, a large environmental movement "Guardians of The Rainbow" carries out positive actions along with the protest. Together with the SOEs program "Localization" "Guardians" participate in the implementation of the project “Kasimov alternative,” the purpose of which is not to oppose the state system, but to develop civil society at the local level, in order to protect both natural human rights and the environment and natural objects.

The first green political parties, which appeared in the 80s of the XX century in the UK, the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Luxembourg, France, and Italy turned into an independent political force, and the interaction with the authorities did not alienate the population from them, as the radicals feared in the 70s, but on the contrary, contributed to the greening of political consciousness. Many traditional parties have incorporated environmental requirements into their programs. This fact can be considered a victory for the constructive environmental movement.

Moving away from exclusively protest activities towards the creation of civil initiatives is a modern trend in the development of "green" radicals. The struggle against economic and political globalization, against transnational corporations and international financial institutions (IMF, WTO, EBRD, etc.), supported by the population, is steadily gaining strength. This is especially true for their attitude towards political structures unable to prevent global environmental disasters.

Environmental problems are always the result of social, political and economic changes in society. A profit-oriented society, as well as a society that views the man as an abstraction, can completely destroy existing ecosystems. Therefore, there is a growing need to create a rational ecological society with new forms of social and political life, where the state and environmental movements will have a common goal, to achieve which they will use specific, inherent only to them ways and means.

The peculiarity of the modern era is that sustainable development requires not only economic growth, but also the maintenance of ecological balance. These goals can only be achieved at the global level. And globalization should be carried out taking into account the common interests of both the world community and the interests of all countries and peoples.

REFERENCES:

1. FBI: ecoterrorists are a new threat to America [FBR: ekoterroristy – novaya ugroza Amerike] // Newsru.com. 20.05.2005. (In Russ.).

2. Kuracheva I. V., Garkushev A. Yu., Zaitsev A. I. Ecological terrorism as a method of complicating international relations. Bioterrorism [Ekologicheskiy terrorizm kak metod oslozhneniya mezhdunarodnykh otnosheniy. Bioterrorizm] // Issues of defense equipment. Series 16: Technical means of counter-terrorism. 2015. No. 5-6 (83-84). (In Russ.).

3. Murray Bookchin. Reconstruction of society: on the way to a greener future [Rekonstruktsiya obshchestva: na puti k zelenomu budushchemu]. Nizhny Novgorod: The Third Way, 1996. (In Russ.).

4. Ryzhenkov А.Ya. Environmental terrorism as a global problem of our time [Ekologicheskiĭ terrorizm kak global'naya problema sovremennosti] // Legal paradigm. 2017. Т. 16. No. 2. (In Russ.).

5. Vityuk V.V.,Efirov S.A. “Left extremism and the ideal of social justice” // Social justice and ways of its realization in social policy [Levyy ekstremizm i ideal sotsial'noy spravedlivosti // Sotsial'naya spravedlivost' i puti yeye realizatsii v sotsial'noy politike]. М., 1982. Book 2. (In Russ.).

6. Yamineva Yu.B., Khvoshchev V.Е. The modern world: increasing threats of environmental terrorism [Sovremennyy mir: vozrastaniye ugroz ekologicheskogo terrorizma] // http://www.polit.susu.ac.ru/articles/enviroterrorism.shtml (In Russ.).

7. Yanitskiy О.N. Ecological catastrophes: structural and functional analysis [Ekologicheskiye katastrofy: strukturno-funktsional'nyy analiz] / Institute of sociology of RAS // Official website of is RAS. 2013 // http://www.isras.ru/publ.html?id=2794 (In Russ.).

AFANASYEVA E.V., BITIEVA Z.R. Russia's Foreign Policy During the Presidency of Vladimir Putin

DOI 10.35775/PSI.2020.34.4.002

E.V. AFANASYEVA Candidate of Sciences (history), Associate Professor, Institute of world civilizations, Moscow, Russia

Z.R. BITIEVA Candidate of Sciences(political sciences), Head of the Department of world civilizations and world politics, Institute of world civilizations, Moscow, Russia

RUSSIA'S FOREIGN POLICY DURING THE PRESIDENCY OF VLADIMIR PUTIN

In this article, the authors consider the changes in the political life of Russia, its transformation during the presidency of Vladimir Putin. It was during this period that the Concept of Russia's foreign policy was adopted and significant measures were taken to restore Russia as a strong power. At the same time, the authors provide a comparative analysis of the Concepts of 2000 and 2016, demonstrating the process of transformation of international relations.

Key words: foreign policy, Russia, Putin, President, international relations.

With the election of Vladimir Putin President of the Russian Federation in 2000, the country's foreign policy has undergone major changes that reflect the President’s general policy. First of all, it is necessary to mention the approval of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation. The main vector in the President's policy, in accordance with this document, is aimed at establishing Russia as an active player on the international arena. “This is necessary to maintain the proper image of the country.” The main goal of the President's foreign policy is to ensure security, influence international processes to create favorable external conditions, form a belt of good neighborliness along the country's borders, and search for compromises with foreign countries [6]. In connection with the changing political situation in the world and the actualization of Russia's foreign policy directions in 2016, the President issued a Decree on the entry into force of a new foreign policy doctrine. Thus, since November 30, 2016, a new Concept has been in effect in Russia. Events that have occurred in the world in recent years, affecting, in particular, Russia, such as the crisis situation in Ukraine after Euromaidan, the introduction of anti-Russian sanctions and counter-sanctions, as well as the activities in the Middle East of the “Islamic state,” banned in the Russian Federation, undoubtedly affected the country's foreign policy. Therefore, significant changes, sometimes even contradictory ones appeared in the new foreign policy doctrine. Special attention deserves for example paragraph 8 of Chapter 2 of the document [4]. The 2013 Concept stated that world politics alongside with military might is influenced by economic, technological, information and legal factors. Point 8 of the new Doctrine tells us that their use for the purpose of realizing geopolitical interests makes it difficult to reach agreement and resolve conflicts peacefully. Significant changes have also occurred in the economic sphere. Great importance is given to the role of open trade relations, the current trend towards collective regulation, which is relevant for the existing trade and monetary and financial systems.

Of course, the Concept of 2016 pays special attention to today international problems, expanding their scope to cyberspace. Paragraph 14 emphasizes that “The growing threat of international terrorism is one of the most dangerous realities in today’s world. " [1]. Russia calls on all countries to unite in the fight against global danger, to unite in an international coalition that will cooperate on the basis of a “solid legal basis.” Russia's desire to resolve the problems in the Middle East is also confirmed in paragraph 93 of the Concept, which refers to the settlement of the Syrian conflict on the basis of the Geneva communiqué of June 30, 2012. The Russian Federation opposes artificial politicization of environmental issues. Significant changes have been made to the Chapter on information support for foreign policy activities, which focuses on the cooperation of the Russian expert community with foreign colleagues in the assessment of world politics and international security. The new Concept also gives preference to regional priorities of the State, much attention is paid to the strengthening of relations with Belarus, and in general, to the cooperation with the EAEU countries. However, with regard to Ukraine, Russia is aimed at strengthening ties between the two States in various areas and is ready to help resolve the internal conflict in Ukraine, in cooperation with international organizations involved in this issue. The position of NATO and EU member States towards Russia is criticized. The policy of these countries contradicts cooperation, which is extremely needed in the current situation, complicated by international threats. However, trade and economic relations with the EU are seen as “important” and mutually beneficial, and the EU is seen as a “major partner” in this area. Russia declares that it does not recognize the activities of the United States that go beyond the framework of international law and considers the American missile defense system as a threat to its national security. In order to achieve the set goals in foreign policy, Vladimir Vladimirovich has made a lot of efforts: he participated in all major summits, including the G-8 summits, where the heads of industrialized countries take part.

After being elected Head of state for a second term, Vladimir Putin also continued to actively develop Russia's foreign policy. In 2004, Putin arrived in China on an official visit, during which an agreement was signed on the transfer of Tarabarov Island and the Great Ussuri Island. Here, we would like to draw your attention to the history and territorial dispute between our country and China. Until 1858, these territories were so to say “neutral territory,” at that time it suited both States [5]. The Treaty of Peking of 1860 finally secured Russia’s ownership of the Ussuri Territory, but the Treaty avoided the question of ownership of the Islands. Thus, Russia and China did not define a clear border on the Amur for various reasons for more than 100 years, from 1860 to 1990. However, the problems began with the death of Joseph Stalin and the rise to power in the USSR of Khrushchev, whose short-sighted policy initiated the border problem with China, defining our geopolitical defeat in the early 1990s, turning the PRC from friendship and cooperation with the USSR to the United States. During the Gorbachev's time, an agreement on the Soviet-Chinese border was signed in 1991, according to which, the border on the Amur should pass along the main channel of the river, that is, many Islands that were previously controlled by the USSR turned out to be Chinese territory. In such a complex geopolitical situation, Vladimir Putin signed border treaties, finally settling the border issue, thereby avoiding territorial disputes, which could in turn lead to a Russian-Chinese war, which could have played right into the hands of the United States [3].

One of the President’s main successes in foreign policy was the salvation of Syria, the fight against terrorism and the elimination of those forces that could come to the North Caucasus with the black banner. In addition, the purpose of such actions on the part of Russia was to maintain the legitimate authorities of this country, preserve its territorial integrity, and provide humanitarian assistance to the population. All this has only strengthened Russia's position in the Middle East and on the international arena [9].

After the end of Putin's second term as president, the country finally departed from the course of the former head of state Boris Yeltsin. Everyone is well aware of Vladimir Putin's Munich speech at a conference on politics and security in 2007, which has many times been quoted by all the world's media.

In his speech, the President focused on the following theses:

1. In international relations, there can be no unipolar model of the world order.

2. The US imposes its policy on the whole world.

3. All issues regarding military intervention should be resolved only in the UN.

4. The United States and the American President are waging aggressive policy.

5. NATO does not comply with international agreements.

6. The OSCE has become a convenient tool used in the interests of the Northern Alliance.

7. Russia will continue to conduct foreign policy only in its own interests [8].

These theses clearly reflect the course of the leader of the Russian Federation in foreign policy, and despite such loud statements by Vladimir Putin, the leaders of many countries have supported him. However, most of the world's politicians saw Putin as an aggressive political figure and did not agree with his speech.

We would like to say a few words about Russia's domestic policy. Here, too, there have been significant changes that affect the country's foreign policy as a whole, primarily strengthening the army: the purchase of modern equipment and weapons and army reform. After the terrible tragedy in 2004 at school No. 1 in Beslan, where there was a terrorist attack that killed more than 1,000 people, most of them children (one of the authors was an eyewitness, because he is a native there), the procedure for the election of governors in the regions and deputies to the State Duma was changed. As a result, the Head of state took responsibility for the activities of the governors and all the consequences. At the same time, the Public Chamber appeared which increased the powers of people's deputies in the State Duma [2. Pp. 15-21].

And of course, as a huge merit of the President of the country, we would like to mention the restoration of historical justice and legal (i.e. by way that does not contradict international law) return of Crimea to the Russian Federation, which, as we well know, was illegally appropriated by the Ukrainian authorities after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Ukraine took advantage of the political crisis in Russia and later on tried to “legislatively” secure the city of Sevastopol and Crimea, writing in its Constitution of 1996, that the issue of changing the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved through an all-Ukrainian national referendum, but this provision shall not apply to the territories acquired unconstitutionally [7. P. 132].

At the same time, it would not hurt to ask the Ukrainian lawmakers: why they appropriated Sevastopol and Crimea without holding an all-Russian referendum on this issue, as required by the Russian Constitution? The answer is obvious: it was beneficial to the Ukrainian authorities.

Summing up, we would like to note that Vladimir Putin became the head of Russia with its complex historical past, huge territory, multi-ethnic and multi-religious state, at a time when it had a number of economic, social and political problems that need resolution. Today, the rating of the head of state is over 80%, people trust him.

REFERENCES:

1. Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of November 30, 2016 No. 640 "On approval of the Concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation" [Ukaz Prezidenta RF ot 30 noyabrya 2016 g. № 640 «Ob utverzhdenii Kontseptsii vneshney politiki Rossiyskoy Federatsii»] (In Russ.).

2. Dmitrieva J.V. The problem of realization of principle of separation of powers in modern Russia. In the collected works: Legal forum Intercollegiate collection of scientific papers. Moscow, 2016.

3. Gorodilov А.А., Kozlov S.D. Regional studies. Textbook for higher education institutions [Regionovedeniye. Uchebnoye posobiye dlya vysshikh uchebnykh zavedeniy]. Kaliningrad, 2006 (In Russ.).

4. Information and legal portal Garant.ru [Informatsionno-pravovoy portal Garant.ru] // https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/71452062/ (In Russ.).

5. Slobotchikov О.N. Influence of the population policy of the state on the national security of the Russian Federation: political and legal analysis of O. N. Slobotchikov; In-t business and politics [Vliyaniye politiki narodonaseleniya gosudarstva na natsional'nuyu bezopasnost' Rossiyskoy Federatsii: politiko-pravovoy analiz O.N. Slobotchikov; In-t biznesa i politiki]. Moscow, 2009 (In Russ.).

6. "The Constitution of the Russian Federation" (adopted by popular vote 12.12.1993) (as amended by the Laws of the Russian Federation on amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation No. 6-FKZ of 30.12.2008, No.7-FKZ of 30.12.2008, No. 2-FKZ of 05.02.2014, No. 11-FCL of 21.07.2014 [«Konstitutsiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii» (prinyata vsenarodnym golosovaniyem 12.12.1993) (s uchetom popravok, vnesennykh Zakonami RF o popravkakh k Konstitutsii RF ot 30.12.2008 № 6-FKZ, ot 30.12.2008 № 7-FKZ, ot 05.02.2014 № 2-FKZ, ot 21.07.2014 № 11-FKZ] (In Russ.).

7. Tomsinov V.А. "Crimean law", or Legal grounds for the reunification of Crimea with Russia. Electron. Text data [«Krymskoye pravo», ili Yuridicheskiye osnovaniya vossoyedineniya Kryma s Rossiyey. Elektron. tekstovyye dannyye]. M.: Zertsalo-М, 2017 (In Russ.).

8. Vladimir Putin's Munich speech of February 10, 2007. Verbatim. Full text [Myunkhenskaya rech' Vladimira Putina 10 fevralya 2007 goda. Stenogramma. Polnyy tekst] // https://introvertum.com/myunhenskaya-rech-vladimira-putina-10-fevralya-2007-goda-stenogramma-polnyiy-tekst/ (In Russ.).

9. Zhirinovsky V.V. IVAN, WRAP YOUR SOUL! Selected places from the novel-research about my generation [IVAN, ZAPAKHNI DUSHU! Izbrannyye mesta iz romana-issledovaniya o moyem pokolenii]. Liberal democratic party of Russia. (7th edition), 2007 (In Russ.).