On January 16, the aggressor-controlled “media” began to widely disseminate statements by the criminal “Crimean speaker” that the occupiers do not intend to “hold elections” of fake “heads of city administrations”. In principle, it is obvious that with a minimal “turnout” of the population for “local elections” from the invaders, and with the total control of the Russian punitive forces, the invaders can “draw” any “winner”, setting up the imitation of “sovereign democracy”, so beloved by the Kremlin.
It is also obvious that this “issue on earth” – “elections” or “administrative procedure” – is being decided not by the Crimean collaborators, but by their Moscow puppet masters. But here Konstantinov not only decided to “complete the zeros” of his subjectivity, declaring that this was supposedly a “Crimean decision,” but also to hand over to his “worst friend” Sergei Aksyonov a “selective mark” that was actually deadly in terms of causticity.
Konstantinov said that the “mayor of Simferopol”, allegedly “elected by the townspeople,” “would want to become an independent political figure”, after which a conflict would “inevitably arise” between him and Aksyonov. This hint is obvious to everyone familiar with the “personnel specifics” from Aksyonov, who “dismisses” criminal “mayors” of Crimean cities, if not annually, then once every two years; It is obvious that the annual imitation of “elections,” as Konstantinov hints, “cannot be enough.”
And this most caustic “black mark” against Aksyonov “purely by chance” coincided with the “start of work” on January 16 “in all cities and regions of the Crimea according to the schedule” of “receptions of citizens on behalf of” that same Konstantinov. Therefore, as we wrote earlier, the main “practical result” for the Crimean collaborators from the criminal “Putin’s re-election” in March will not be their “result,” but rather the “personnel aftertaste” in the form of the “Kremlin elevation” so passionately awaited by the “speaker”.
