As the General Headquarters of the Armed Forces of Ukraine reported on the morning of March 4, the occupiers, fearing the activation of the pro-Ukrainian movement, the actions of patriotic cells, create the so-called “voluntary squads” in Simferopol, Crimea.
The summary of the General Staff emphasized that due to the lack of aggressor’s punishers, “in addition to patrolling the city, one of the tasks of the mentioned units should be to identify spotters and saboteurs”.
It should be noted that the day before, the aggressor’s propaganda announced a “meeting” with the so-called “representatives of the Sevastopol people’s squad “Rubezh” (“Frontier”)” held on March 2 “on the day of the creation of voluntary squads”, based on the statements of the illegal “member of the public chamber” Alexander Marchuk.
It is noteworthy that Marchuk claims about the allegedly “gratuitous” activity of the “Rubezh” for 8 years, indicating that “only in 2022, the team assisted … in holding 714 events.”
At the same time, we wrote that one of the creators of the criminal “Rubezh”, the Sevastopol collaborator Konstantin Zarudnev, was long ago “suspended” by the occupiers and recently died under rather vague circumstances, despite his long-standing alcoholism.
The ARC also wrote that in 2020, Zarudnev’s accomplices, Kirill Komissar and his “colleague” Oleksandr Stolyarov, received suspicion in absentia from Ukrainian law enforcement officers in connection with the active complicity of the criminal “Rubezh” in the seizure of structures of the Ukrainian Navy by Russia’s special forces in March 2014.
We reported that, in 2022, the criminal “administration” managed to “agree amicably” with “Rubezh” on writing off “budgetary funds” for patrolling, at the rate of “115 rubles per hour per person”, by “concluding agreements”. On the one hand, the amount seems small, but only if it is really paid to someone.
But if we simulate hundreds of virtual “voluntary squads’ members” who, in fact, “are not responsible for anything”, but at the same time constantly go on a “long night patrol”, both the curators of the same “Rubezh” from the aggressor’s special services, and the profile occupiers’ “director of the department” will get a good “bonus”.
Therefore, most likely, the current lamentations of collaborator Marchuk’s about the “gratuitousness” of the actions of “Rubezh” speak of obvious “problems” in the distribution of these ‘bonuses” among interested schemers.
