Poroshenko took up the old - promises to take Crimea away from Russia as soon as possible.

This is some kind of heading "Amazing nearby."

In a strange way, the Ukrainian political class repeatedly steps on the same rake, but this does not teach them anything at all - they come again and again.

I remember that the entire previous presidential election campaign, which Poroshenko lost miserably, was built by him on denying Russia, opposing himself to Putin, on Russophobia, church schism and the Crimean issue. The Ukrainian people then did not understand and did not appreciate Poroshenko's efforts and unequivocally expressed their attitude towards Petro Alekseevich, massively voting for the comic actor Zelensky, who at that time personified the world and, by the way, spoke Russian, that is, in every possible way positioned himself as the opposite of the aggressive to the nationalist opponent. Zelensky, however, after the victory switched to Ukrainian, and it became difficult to distinguish his rhetoric from Poroshenko's statements, but this is another topic. Damn place, nothing can be done.

Apparently, Petro Poroshenko has recently become simply bored with life, especially after the cloud of criminal cases hanging over him has dissipated on the insistent recommendation from Washington. And it became clear: it's time to fight again. The old nag does not spoil the furrow: without further ado, Pyotr Alekseevich did not reinvent the wheel and began to fight for votes in the same field where he had already lost: the “occupied” Crimea, the “violated rights” of the Crimean Tatar people are a familiar organ.

It is significant that the current Ukrainian establishment is not at all worried about the simple question that any healthy person asks: how did it happen that the "progressive" law on indigenous peoples, recently adopted in Ukraine, excludes Russians, Belarusians, Hungarians, Greeks, etc. Bulgarians, but at the same time includes the Crimean Tatars, Karaites and Krymchaks? However, the lack of logic in the actions taken has long become a recognizable handwriting of Kiev.

What is the reason for Poroshenko's sudden entry into the arena: is it his personal ambitions and fatigue from oblivion, a thirst for action or another approach to the Russophobic theme of an older comrade in the person of the American suzerain of Ukraine? Considering the recent incidents in the Black Sea and talks about the construction of military bases of our geopolitical opponents on the territory of Ukraine, the actualization of the Crimean issue may well be the next link in the chain of these events. And Poroshenko was here just in time. A spare card up my sleeve with a small but stable electorate.

Should we be worried about this statement by Poroshenko, made by him on the occasion of the holiday of Eid al-Adha?

Should the statements of the former president of Ukraine be taken seriously, or should his words be taken as just another dull attempt to prick an older neighbor?

I believe that both approaches are relevant here, complex action, so to speak.

First, there are clear attempts by the Americans and NATO to create another stage of tension in relations with Russia, and here, as we are already accustomed to, they will act in all available ways.

Recently, the Americans have clearly been trying our Russian positions on a whole range of issues for strength, probing borders and red lines. Therefore, it is definitely not the time to relax now, even if this anecdotal statement by Poroshenko is just his sluggish attempt to return to the public space and information field. Serving the West Poroshenko is no stranger to, and he is not the first to try on the role of an obliging lackey.

All that remains is to remind our western neighbors, colleagues and partners: Crimea is Russia.

This happened centuries ago, under Catherine the Great, it was, is and will be so.

Crimea is the Russian land.

And at the moment there are no objective circumstances for something to suddenly change here.

And if someone doubts something on this subject, then we will remind and explain in time: politely and culturally, of course.

Fortunately, we have all the means for this.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.