INITIATIVE OF THE COMMITTEE 2008 ABOUT THE REFERENDUM ON DEFERRALS. SERGEY SOROKIN (RUSSIAN RADICALS): "CONVEY TO KASPAROV, SUCH REFERENDUM IS A LATENT CHECK TO OURSELVES"

Statement by Sergey Sorokin, member of the Coordinating Committee of the movement "Russian Radicals"


Moscow, July 23, 2004

The radio station "Ekho Moskvy", quoting the initiative of the "Committee 2008", informed about one more idea concerning the conscription for military service, the idea of a "referendum about preservation of deferrals". This idea emerged in answer to the intimidation of youth by abolition of deferrals which began over year ago in the General Staff, and now pass to the State Duma. The general Bezborodov tirelessly frightens the Russians with insufficient recruitment.

Probably few people know that the Soldier's Mothers together with other public organizations for more than a year have been conducting the campaign "Against abolition of deferrals". This is a preventive campaign, it emerged in answer to the "filtered" information about the plans of the General Staff to abolish a series of deferrals. But our general line and the line of Soldier's Mothers and of many politicians is the abolition of consription slavery in general. Does the campaign "Against abolition of deferrals" contradict this general line? Not so much. Its purpose is not to worsen the situation of draftees until the main objective is achieved - abolition of conscription. And the referendum for preservation of deferrals means "perpetuation" of conscription. The Minister for Defence said recently just the same thing: "The conscription in Russia will remain for ever". The positive voting will be immediately interpreted as unconditional support by the citizens of the conscription system and deferrals. Therefore I say: "Convey to Kasparov, such referendum is a latent check to ourselves".

Among the auditory of the "Ekho Moskvy" this idea got a 84-percentage support. We can congratulate the General Staff. I wonder whether the "Ekho Moskvy" will be able to discuss in details this situation which needs only one thing - a serious conversation instead of separate votings on apparently obvious question?