His own successor

Will there be a third term or not? As is known, this is the main question of Russian political philosophy. Moreover, a sign (proof) of a deep neurosis (or a more serious nervous illness) of our political system is that none of the responsible Russian politicians dares to ask this question out loud. By the way, now Russian journalists (we are, of course, talking about serious journalists - TV, main news agencies, etc.) avoid this topic as something sacred or indecent, in general - politically incorrect.

Only “free scumbags” inside Russia (all sorts of opposition Internet media) and Western journalists talk about this. And Putin himself.

Several times in a streamlined form (and several times quite definitely) he repeated: We will not violate the Constitution, there will be no third term. Although, he often added, it was a pity, he could have worked more.

When the president “feels sorry” for something, loyal officials bring tears to their eyes. Those who are more courageous simply grind their teeth. They creak, but they don’t contradict. “How can I endure this pain...”

Well, ok...

However, there is a strong opinion among opposition journalists that Putin WANTS to leave. “Long ago, wicked slave, I planned to escape” - it’s just unclear where exactly.

This subtle psychological version (Putin is a normal bourgeois, interested in luxury, money, but not power and responsibility) goes back, in particular, to Stanislav Belkovsky, the former main whistleblower of Khodorkovsky and Putin’s defender, now an ardent denouncer of Putin (and, as they say, co-author of many of the latest Khodorkovsky's texts).

Maybe, maybe... I don’t know Putin (unlike, apparently, Belkovsky?), I don’t presume to judge his personal qualities and desires. However, no one is forbidden to fantasize. Let’s not speculate in the Kremlin thickets; let’s turn to generally known facts.

The rulers of Russia are divided into two categories. Some (the majority) were carried out of the Kremlin feet first, others were dragged out by the collar (Khrushchev, Gorbachev). The exception seems to be “Volunteer Yeltsin,” but in fact his case is simply a combination of these two factors... not taken to an extreme. By December 31, 1999, the physical health of B.N. was little better than the political one, and the political one was such that with one suspicion that he wanted to stay for a third term, the people, it seems, would really tear the Kremlin to hell! Yeltsin did not leave a good life - he simply did not wait for him to be “left.”

But if Putin leaves, it will definitely be from a good life. This would indeed be an unprecedented “step from the Kremlin” CONTRARY TO THE WISH OF THE MOST.

But the point is not only that “Putin is young and healthy” - and popular.

Leaving today is especially unpleasant. Just starting to get the hang of it!

Tastes like what? Isn't that flattery?

No, he had a good 7 years for this...

But only in the last couple of years - it seems to me - has Putin really begun to get the taste for managing a magic carpet and a self-assembled tablecloth.

We have seen the changing tone of Russian policy in relations with the West over the past year - what is it?

I think, last but not least, this is an indicator of how Putin’s sense of self is changing. Maybe this cautious, distrustful person has finally come to believe that the oil freebie is serious and here to stay? At least, it is this “unconditional fact” (and not at all the “need for reforms”) that all official experts, economists, political scientists, etc. are talking more and more loudly about.

It may very well be that they are BASED on some real calculations (although neither economics nor geopolitics are exact sciences and all their formulas are written in sand). But, in any case, they SAY only what (or mostly what) the authorities like - this is the only exact law in their science.

And at this moment, at the moment of finally coming FAITH IN YOUR OMNIPOTENCE, you must... leave! Why? Because “Shaneys and Shakhrai came up with something”?! (I’m talking about the Constitution, in case anyone has forgotten its authors.)

But if all of the above is nothing more than “deduction, Watson, deduction,” then let’s turn not to assumptions, but to the texts of Putin’s speeches.

Less than a year ago, at his press conference, I was struck by the answer to a question about Gazprom. Everyone was sure (many are still sure) that if they were to go somewhere, it would be to Gazprom and only to Gazprom. And suddenly, to a direct question, Putin answers that he has never been involved in commerce and does not see himself in this capacity! Strange... But in what capacity does he see himself? Premiere under a different president?! Or maybe the leader of United Russia?! Or... However, enough is enough, otherwise they will be accused of insulting the head of state - which I am not at all inclined to do.

But maybe this was the answer of an experienced intelligence officer, the answer of a conspirator?

Maybe.

Now to Putin's message.

He paints a very peculiar picture for the people (maybe for himself too?). So, the country is a) dying out, b) defenseless against an external enemy. Both of these signals, complementary to each other, should turn on the unconditional reflex of “self-saving the nation.” Of course, in a different situation, all this could perhaps sound like a reproach to the authorities - they say, you are so old and all that. But, firstly, such casuistic moves are alien to our population. And secondly (and this is the main thing), salvation (and the savior) comes right away, along with an indication of the danger: the president immediately gives instructions on exactly how to save the nation. Moreover, the instructions are very sweet: the nation is saved... by distributing money to the population!

Agree, this is a rather strange position for someone who is about to leave. Yes, in fact, in a situation where “the nation is dying,” is it possible to even think about the departure of the person who is OBLIGED to SAVE it (the nation)?

Even if we leave, then not before the rescue operation is completed, and if its schedule does not coincide with the formal election dates, then what, in fact, is more important: the calendar - or the survival of the nation?!

This is exactly how visionary minds, for example, Vitaly Tretyakov, understood it. The former editor of NG, remembering his motto “Without anger or partiality,” wrote that the president’s speech was “brilliant in all respects” (remember a similar definition that Gogol gave to one lady?), great, so-and-so, whatnot -That. Moreover, for the right to say “You are a genius!” he is ready to fearlessly even go to the stake. As he writes: I know that there will be those who will laugh... Vitaly Tovievich is worrying in vain - there won’t be any. There are no more of them like that (well, there they are rushing through the gateways, but “the yard dog is always, you see, / rushing after us. / And he barks - that only means / that we are riding on horseback.” Patriotic journalists rush on horseback on their "Mercedes", who can argue...).

By the way, soon after this I turn on the TV, and there, on the state channel RTR, Tretyakov, political scientist Tsipko and the editor-in-chief of “Expert” Fadeev in the program “National Interest” are discussing a really interesting topic with one – unfortunately, still little-known to me – person.

The topic is this - about the possibility of restoring the MONARCHY... well, yes, why did you jump? So - about the possibility of restoring the monarchy in Russia. And everything is humane, even liberal - they say, only when society matures (who, by the way, will determine the degree of maturity and with what instrument?), then we will restore it. Tretyakov and Tsipko really liked the ideas of this unknown monarchist, but Fadeev allowed himself to say something about “freedom” - and, you know, no one, of course, interrupted him (well-mannered people!), but it sounded somehow indecent. It's just weird. An adult, respectable person and - on you! M-yes...

It’s the same as if CNN were discussing a serious topic, one of the most, as you know, topical in today’s USA - about the wisdom of restoring slavery of blacks, if the program were hosted by, say, Larry King, the editor of the Washington Post and some professor would be grumbling respectfully Princeton, and suddenly the third participant would blurt out something about “freedom.” A shame and nothing more!

It is, of course, since the advent of the republic in Russia, the country has been walking around as if it were restless, as if it had not received enough food, one might say... Accordingly, the monarchy, its possibility and saving power, is the favorite topic in free Russia. I remember that “Tsar Boris” and Alexander III (Mikhalkov-Romanov), and even in some way E.A. were keen on this. Kiselev. So, on the one hand, there is nothing new in this “monarchism”. On the other hand, there is still something new in this...

No, no, we won’t have a monarchy - I can bet. But why a FORMAL monarchy?! This is not why everything is done, in fact... What is important is the MONARCHIC SPIRIT! But, you see, everything is fine with him - and not only among political scientists...

And returning to the original topic, I’ll end like this.

One of my acquaintances shared his live observations of Putin’s meeting with the VGTRK staff shortly after the message. At it, as you know, the president talked about how much he thinks about his successor. So, my friend commented on it this way: “Judging by his face, in the end he will understand that there cannot be a better successor to Putin than Putin.” He paused and suddenly added: “And that’s absolutely correct.” And we talked to him - together...