Text with subtext

I listened to the presidential address with great curiosity. The intrigue around him was skillfully spun - starting with the postponement. Then the second intrigue is the transfer of the topic. There were “false leaks” - that the message would be foreign policy. Nothing of the kind; it turned out to be DEFAMATORY INDIFFERENT towards the topic of foreign policy. A few stock phrases (not even a single kick towards Georgia!) – and that’s it. False signals were sent purely, in the best traditions of intelligence (it’s not entirely clear why - well, we’ll agree that it was to increase intrigue. A normal move).

First, what I liked about the message. I liked what was said in order to please. And it was right! Who wouldn’t like a sharp, manifold increase in payments for a second child? Even those who really have nothing to catch here (me, for example) will like it. Populist measure? Naturally, no one is hiding it. But who said that this is bad? Very good! A normal, completely human and completely state approach. If someone due to their position and/or calling (sincere “Putinophobia”) needs to criticize this point of the message, I don’t envy them. In any case, I have neither such a position nor such a calling. And therefore, with the same sincerity as Sliska or Volodin, I can applaud this point of the presidential speech.

But the heartfelt speech about the army greatly surprised me.

Submarines, bombs, missiles, asymmetrical responses... Who?! “Comrade Wolf”, designated by Putin, is, of course, the USA. For the military sports game “Well, wait a minute!” against this Wolf we need submarines, ships, and other stuffed with electronics, freshly painted scrap metal. I believe that it will be cheaper than the American one. I believe that in this game we will count some points for ourselves - and maybe even more or less objectively.

There’s one thing I don’t understand - WHY is the game itself needed?

Putin gave a heartbreaking example, which caused a thunder of heartfelt applause and almost stingy male tears: in 1999, out of 1,400,000 soldiers in the army, they barely scraped together 55,000 combat-ready to repel Basayev’s attack. Let's assume that this was exactly the case. And what? Submarines, warships, hydrogen bombs would help in this matter?!

Another argument. If we are strong, then no one will put “pressure” on us.

Strong - what? Hydrogen bombs and cruisers? And how will this prevent putting pressure on Russia? Economic. Financial. Informational. Political. What - in response to high duties, will we send the cruiser "Peter the Great" to US territorial waters? In response to the campaign in the European media, will we take strategic aviation into the air? In response to the call to exclude Russia from the G8 if it does not do this and that, will Russia do something completely different - launch cruise missiles?

How will rattling iron respond to PEACEFUL challenges? In my opinion, this is not just an asymmetrical, but too asymmetrical, rather even a schizophrenic response.

If we are talking about MILITARY pressure (or threats thereof) from NUCLEAR powers - then when did this happen? Even with the weakened army of the “monstrous 1990s” - when was there even a HINT of MILITARY pressure on Russia? “Names, appearances, passwords,” as Putin likes to put it!

Moral: no one has ever exerted any military pressure on either weak or strong Russia. And he won’t provide it - WHY? It is not needed to resolve economic issues with Russia. And playing with Russia in “Well, wait a minute!” “Comrade Wolf” has no desire - he has enough partners all over the world for these games.

Yes, by the way, the complete nonsense of the VERY IDEA of military pressure is known to Russia from its own experience. Why lousy relations with Georgia, Ukraine, etc.? And their armies are not very strong. And what? Russia put a lot of pressure on them militarily, is putting pressure, is going to put pressure on them?! No, as if. Why? Because of innate nobility and meekness? Not without this, of course. But besides nobility, there is one more reason: THIS IS NONSNESS. “This is some kind of absurdity,” as the President of the USSR said. And references to Yugoslavia and Iraq are unconvincing - these exceptions, made in absolutely exclusive situations, only confirm the rule. Nowadays in the world they don’t give free rein to their hands. Just as Russia does not allow itself to do so in relation to Georgia, the United States does not allow itself to do so in relation to Venezuela (and, I am sure, it will not do so in relation to Iran!), and even Israel does not allow itself to do so in relation to Palestine (not to confuse police actions of retaliation with a full-scale war). As they say, “those are the times these days.” So why argue in vain with the century? “Submarine” arguments will not turn the centuries around.

So what – “down with the army”? No. An army is needed against scumbags. By the way, no matter how “catastrophic” the situation was in 1999, thank God, they dealt with Basayev even then. And, of course, it’s nice to have more combat-ready units against these monsters. Only submarines, hydrogen bombs and ships are not really needed here...

And most importantly, who will pay for all these pleasures? Should I give it to mothers? No questions asked. Do the military need it? It’s unclear why, but they decided to give it. Tek, sir. Is this now called “responsible fiscal policy” and the fight against inflation? It seemed to me that a RESPONSIBLE policy should be completely different: TAKE AWAY from the military - and GIVE OUT OF THIS MONEY to mothers for their second child. This is understandable. But how can we fight inflation by pumping the budget with fresh petrodollars? Let's squash inflation with a Big Budget - so that it gets wet...

Well, as Putin said, THE MAIN QUESTION.

About love. To power.

Damn it - today's performance doesn't look like a WASTE one! Wow, lame duck! Rather, “our eagle Don Reba”...

Leave in 2 years. So? Or – NOT SO?

Before leaving, they don’t make such strong populist moves, they don’t make speeches that MUST please EVERYONE (well, at least 99 percent). Help mothers? Fabulous. It's high time. But seriously, this is being done AT SOMEONE’S EXPENSE. Due to the same army, for example. Also populism. But – RESPONSIBLE populism. Yes, a popular measure. But it is done not because it is POPULAR, but because it is NECESSARY. And it is balanced by other – necessarily unpopular – moves. There is no trace of that here.

The speech is pleasant in all respects. Pleasant to absolutely everyone, the vast majority. A – WHY?

To make it easier to deceive that same successor? God willing, God willing... Or to make it easier to “deceive” someone completely different?..

Putin so cleverly, so professionally hid the true meaning of his speech behind leaks about the “foreign policy message”... Or maybe he is behind leaks about “fatigue”, a passionate desire for an “honestly private life”, etc. Is he also hiding something completely different? “Besides, he had something completely different on his mind.”