Why the U.S. started talking about the return of Alaska to Russia

Why the U.S. started talking about the return of Alaska to Russia

Why the U.S. started talking about the return of Alaska to Russia
A hopeless attempt to impeach Donald Trump is forcing his opponents to make increasingly absurd statements. No one is surprised by the fact that Democrats are seriously talking about the fact that Trump is afraid of Putin, depends on him and almost works for the Kremlin. But now the U.S. president is suspected of intending to give Alaska to Russia.

On Wednesday (in Moscow it will be Thursday night) the U.S. Senate will reject the impeachment of President Trump. But in the last impeachment debate in the u.S. upper house on Monday, House Chief Prosecutor Adam Schiff outperformed himself. Realizing the inevitability of Trump’s acquittal, which was accused of two counts of “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress”), Schiff, who chairs the lower house’s intelligence committee, painted a terrifying picture of senators and Americans consequences of refusing impeachment.

If Trump’s actions on Ukraine are found to be legitimate (and he was accused of trying to pressure Kyiv to get a compromise on Biden, the former vice president and potential trump rival in the 2020 election), Schiff said, it would create a dangerous one. Precedent. If the president is found not guilty, it will only encourage him to take further “unacceptable” actions:

“Trump could offer Alaska to the Russians in exchange for support during the next election. Or he could move to Mar-a-Lago, and Jared Kushner (Trump’s son-in-law) could entrust the administration of the country, delegating him the right to decide to go to war…

We knew from the day these charges were made that the minimum of votes needed to convict the president was prohibitively high – at least two-thirds of the votes must be cast for impeachment. But what was our alternative? A presidency without brakes and a nation whose elections, and with them, would fall into the hands of the one who will give more.”

That is, Schiff makes Trump an unscrupulous traitor, ready to trade the homeland. He will sell, or even give to Putin Alaska, and will not raise an eyebrow. The Congressman from California (part of which, incidentally, was also Russian possession), not only the chief prosecutor of the House of Representatives but also a lawyer by education, is not confused by the fact that under American laws the President of the United States does not have any authority on change the territorial integrity of the United States.

Not only to give Alaska but also to accept, for example, Chukotka in the U.S., no U.S. president can in principle.

It’s not in his competence – the issue of accepting new states is decided by Congress. Even a change of status, such as a transfer from “unincorporated organized territory” (i.e. U.S. ownership), which is Puerto Rico in particular, depends on Congress. Does Schiff know about this? Naturally, he has been in Congress for almost two decades. Still, it is the hypothetical possibility that Trump will squander the territory without being embarrassed that even the cartoon villain, who has been sculpted from Trump by Democrats for four years, could not do anything about Alaska.
Only Congress could decide whether to separate a state from the United States – and then transfer it to another country. At the same time, American lawyers do not agree on whether the states themselves can demand secession. Although Article 6 of the Constitution speaks of the right to “freedom and independence” of states (and prohibits Congress from interfering in the territorial structure of states without their consent), the attempt of 11 states in 1861 to withdraw from the union led to civil war. Four years after its end, in 1869, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Texas v. White, formulated a new constitutional doctrine of American federalism, describing relations between all states as “indissoluble” and ” final.” But while acknowledging that secession is possible as a result of a revolution or with the consent of the states.

That is, or the decision of the state (the procedure of which is not prescribed – that is, there is no ban on secession, but there is no permission) and the subsequent consent to it by Congress. Or the uprising of the people (the right to which is recognized by the same constitution). There is no other way the American territory can change. It cannot lose such a price for Adam Schiff, Alaska, bought by America from Russia in 1867.

ALSO READ:  In Britain, a woman died after falling down the stairs on the day of her mother's funeral

By the way, Alaska lived almost a hundred years after that without state status and became it only in 1959

(the penultimate to date). Before that, it was first a district of Alaska under the military ministry, then (since 1912) received the status of “territory”, and only in 1958 was held a referendum, which resulted in Congress recognized it as the 59th state of the United States. And this referendum still causes discontent among a part of the population of the northern state – local separatists call it illegal and consider it a violation of international law. In part because many local Indians and Aleuts were illiterate and therefore did not even receive ballot papers, while the U.S. military stationed in Alaska participated in the referendum.

Now the Alaska Independence Party (one of the most prominent separatist organizations in all of America) is in favor of secession from the United States, insisting on a new referendum, which, unlike in 1958, will be the question of independence. There is no chance to hold it, however. This is also because American courts view all separatist movements as unconstitutional.

If we imagine that Alaska will sooner or later achieve independence from the United States – although the only more or less realistic option for this seems to be its departure in the process of the general collapse of the United States, that is, dividing them into several states – then its accession to Russia is not a foregone conclusion.

In April 2014, a month after Crimea’s return to Russia, Vladimir Putin was read a question from a letter from a pensioner Faina Ivanovna:

“Is there any plan to join Alaska to Russia? We would be very happy.”

One of the TV presenters immediately reacted: “Fashion joke – Alaska is now called Is-Crimea.” Putin supported the humorous tone:
“Faina Ivanovna, darling, why do you need Alaska? Alaska was sold in the 19th century to the American United States. Thousands of kilometers of the square were sold for $7.2 million. True, gold. But inexpensive. We have a northern country, 70 percent of our territory belongs to the north. It’s cold out there, too. Let’s not get hot. They will have to pay northern ones there, we have to calculate the budget expenses.”

Six years ago, no one could have imagined that someone in the U.S. could seriously think about Russia’s territorial claims to America or plans to join Alaska. But the hysteria that began just a couple of years later over Trump’s “Russian ties” has shown that there are no absurd peaks that the furious anti-Donald fighters can’t take. That’s how we got to Alaska.
Adam Shiff and Congress suspect Trump of wanting to give Russia Alaska
Adam Schiff himself, even before his remarks about Alaska, was named a “useful idiot of Russia” after speaking at an impeachment hearing in the Senate in November, saying that Trump “could win a dishonest victory again” in November. Schiff’s statement angered even CNN. Their columnist wrote that when “a member of Congress standing behind the podium of the Senate, even now, even before even one ballot paper was filled, declares the 2020 election illegitimate,” it satisfies Russia’s desire to “sow discord and distrust”:

“If I were an angry commentator, I would now hastily conclude that Schiff is an agent of Russia. But this is not true, and we should all behave more carefully and not make such labels on our compatriots… Schiff acts as a “useful idiot” of Russia and dances to her tune.”

That’s how Schiff won’t go, Russian agents everywhere, including himself. Unsurprisingly, the pranksters Vovan and Lexus played the congressman two years ago. If the pranksters themselves had not made it clear that they are not who they say they are (and the conversation was allegedly conducted by the speaker of the Ukrainian Parliament Parubiy), Schiff would still be waiting from Kiev for the promised photos of a naked Trump with Olga Buzova, taken in 2013 in Moscow. Or is it Alaska?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Social Share Buttons and Icons powered by Ultimatelysocial