In the Kremlin

Diagnosis: Alzheimer

January 17, 2012 Georgy Satarov

Alzheimer's disease: “With the development of the disease, symptoms such as confusion, irritability and aggressiveness, mood vibrations are manifested, the ability to speak and understand what has been said ...”

Alexander Mikhailovich Gorchakov - a classmate of Pushkin according to the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, the greatest Russian diplomat, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Chancellor - was the first to use the expression “Russia focuses” to describe its condition after the defeat in the Crimean war at the time of the greater reforms of Alexander II. We will not guess what defeat Putin had in mind, borrowing this expression from a politician with whom it is even indecent to compare it. We will also not fantasize regarding the reforms that are coming in our country to the nearest dozen years if Putin again becomes president. The response is given by both ten years of the destruction of state institutions, and Putin’s promise “to complete the creation of such a political system in Russia, such a structure of social guarantees and protecting citizens, such a model of economics that together will make up a single, lively, constantly developing and at the same time stable and stable, healthy state organism.” Think about it: he promises to complete what he has done all these years. Are you scared? Indeed, in our “healthy organism” destroyed federalism, separation of powers, political competition are really organically combined; an economy sitting on a hydrocarbon drug; bureaucracy brutal from greed; The law enforcement system, which is the main threat of citizens' security ... is sure that in his threatening intention to “complete the creation ...” the candidate is absolutely sincere.

The text of Putin's article is curious slightly veiled by the designated addressee and rhetoric. First about the addressee. At the beginning of the article, I recommend paying attention to the two turnover located in the neighborhood. The first: "The problem of Russia constantly repeating in history is the desire of a part of its elites for a jerk, to revolution instead of consistent development." And the second, in the next paragraph: “gentlemen” turn into “overthrows”.

Who does the author mean here? It is unlikely that the opposition that has hated by him from the authorities, "dug in the nineties." More doubtful - new protests like Udaltsov or Navalny. They are for him-Bandera logs. The correct answer is only one - Putin speaks of the part of the current establishment, dissatisfied with Putin himself, his manual and unpredictable episodic “management”, the results of such a management, the destructive processes in the country, which become a real threat to this establishment. It is known that there are such people at the managerial elite. The fact that Putin in his article directly addresses them indicates that the prime minister feels the threat emanating from them.

Rhetoric is also connected with the selection of the addressee. Recently, a year and a half, from the vocabulary of the Duumvirs and their full -time propagandists, the mythologem of “stability” began to disappear. This is not surprising: sociological data show that in society the demand for stability began to melt, and instead of it appears a request for changes. However, in the text of the Putin article, stability again appears as a goal, and as the most valuable resource and as an achievement.

It does not matter that all the statements in the article about stability are not true. The calculation here is purely psychological. The awakened middle class was able to scare power. Putin again offers himself as a defender. This is an old technique. He escaped the horrors of the 90s, offering himself as a defender from a return to them. He scared the liberal public by nationalists, hinting that only he can become a reliable barrier. Now he warns his associates: “Fear the rebellion, he will sweep not only me, but also you, I can protect you alone, because I have not worked out the material.”

The article returns the other for a while forgotten vocabulary - about the "dashing nineties." Here's the problem here is what. Undoubtedly, the last decade was favorable. The fantastic increase in hydrocarbons allowed to make the life of Russian citizens more well, to solve some social problems. True, comparing comparisons, Putin appeals by the years 90-91. And with such a conjuncture, one could expect a lot more. And the former president and the current prime minister have no merits here. Everyone did prices.

But that is not the point. Putin has absolutely nothing to boast of his own presidential activity. Construction in his hands turned into destruction, and the reforms basically failed. The only way out: to draw a gloomy picture that he discovered by entering the presidential office, and explain that we were able to avoid disaster only thanks to him. This is what he did twelve years, this is what he repeats in the article.

I constantly have the feeling that he believes in his lie. Well, how could you write the following without such faith:
“And it was precisely the group of like -minded people who were destined to form and lead the author of these lines, relying on the support of the absolute majority of citizens, on national unity around common tasks, brought Russia out of the deadline of the civil war, broke the ridge of terrorism, restored the country's territorial integrity and constitutional order, revived the economy and provided for 10 years one of the highest in the highest in the highest in the highest in the highest in the world the rate of economic growth and increase the real income of our people. ”

After all, everything is a lie, from beginning to end. He did not lead and did not form anything. He could not have like -minded people for the lack of his own thoughts about the development of the country. And then and now. From the Civil War, Russia went into vassal submission to Chechnya. Nobody encroached on the territorial integrity. The ridge was not broken by terrorism, and their adults and children - they destroyed their own imminent. The economy is degrading, and one of the evidence of this is that the growth of income is ahead of the growth of labor productivity. In terms of economic growth, we inferior to the CIS neighbors (2007: Armenia - 13.7; Azerbaijan - 25.0; Belarus - 8.6; Georgia - 12.3; Kazakhstan - 8.9; Russia - 8.5. 2010: Armenia - 2.1; Azerbaijan - 5.0; Belarus - 6.4; Kazakhstan - 7.3 Russia - Russia 4.0). Everything is a lie, as usual and as always. But the author himself does not recognize it, because he has long lost the ability to hear others and reflect on what he says.

And, oh god! Well, why did he talk about education?! Well, how can one boast of a share of young people who receive higher education? Firstly, a sharp increase in the number of seats in universities took place, oddly enough, in the 90s. Then there was a decrease in quality, and after the Chechen war and, as the army, corruption grew in universities, where the boys were hiding from a military adversity in all its manifestations. The zero years brought corruption in universities to the leaders of household corruption, spreading it in the form of violent flowering to schools and kindergartens. The crisis in our education is unprecedented. It manifests itself in a humiliatingly low salaries of university teachers; in a humiliatingly low quality of education (our diplomas are not quoted in the West); in the degradation of university science; in the number of graduates dreaming of leaving the country; In the doubles (according to the standard standards) entering engineering and pedagogical faculties ... and yet ... and yet ... Against this background, Putin’s words from the article are absolutely otherworldly sounded: “I am convinced that today's and especially tomorrow's personnel potential of our country allows you to claim the most durable positions in global economic competition.” It is difficult to imagine something more contrary to reality.

The question arises: how can such texts appear? Why did he appear in Izvestia? The answer is obvious. You can safely lie during the election campaign, when you are eliminated from the debate and is convinced of public impunity. You can safely be published in Izvestia, because I am convinced that they do not dare to print criticism of the national leader.
And God is with them. One thing is clear. Here it does not smell “rebooting”, Putin 2.0. There are clear prospects for lies and imitation for another 12 years. Do we need it?

PS I apologize to the readers of the “daily magazine”, which I involuntarily misled in my previous note about the Chur-Chur Boar. It happens like this: hypnosis of the desired, suppressing an attentive look at the real one. And I am grateful to Andrei Andreyevich Piontkovsky, who pointed to me to my mistake. I am ready to make a mistake again so that he calls me his friend.

Photo by RIA Novosti