Let's remember!

The time has come for each of the responsible citizens of Russia to think about who, for the good of the people of our country, should be elected as president of Russia in the upcoming elections in 2018. In this regard, I decided to express my opinion on this important issue. Due to the incompleteness of the available information, I will only touch on some of it for now, namely: the connection between the current situation in the country and the personality of the person entitled to govern the country. To do this you will have to remember something.

Where is our country “moving”?

In the endless debates about the correctness or incorrectness of the decisions made by our president on certain state problems, usually no one asks the question what is the main goal that he pursues in his activities in this post. Good for the country? Most citizens seem to have no doubt about this. However, before agreeing with this conclusion, it would be necessary to clarify what the expression “good of the country” means.

It seems to me that the good of the country is when the well-being of every ordinary resident ensures a normal standard of living, when every resident of the country - no matter where he lives, in Kamchatka, in the Voronezh outback or in Moscow - does not have to struggle with all his might to survive, You don’t have to, for example, break laws, give bribes in order to ensure a tolerable existence, health and education for yourself and your family members, you don’t have to glorify the authorities for fear of being punished. The good of the country is when every person, including journalists, feels free and can openly, without fear of anything, express their opinion on a variety of issues, including political ones.

Judging by the numerous statements of our president, he understands the good of the country as something else, namely: a stable state of the state in which there are wealthy people, to one degree or another close to power and who are willing to regularly lie to the low-income but obedient majority that our country is a little Isn’t it the strongest in the world and we should be proud of its conquests, successes in the development of the armed forces and its rapid “rising from its knees”. At the same time, the stability of the regime is ensured by significant costs for the activities of the special services (police, FSB, etc.).

If this is so, then it doesn’t take much intelligence to understand that actions aimed at achieving these two goals are incompatible and the paths to achieving them are completely different.

The personality of our president

A person concerned about the future of the country - his own and not only his own - and who wants to understand where the president elected in 2018 will lead us, before the elections should carefully analyze the personality traits of all candidates for this position. In the case of V.V. For Putin, these features were manifested in many high-profile events of past years. And since the character - structure is relatively constant, in order to understand whether the continuation of V.V.’s activities will be useful for our country. Putin as president, it is enough to consider here three very revealing stories, to one degree or another connected with his activities as prime minister or president of Russia.

Story one . September 1999. The future “guarantor of the Constitution” still holds the post of prime minister, and in the country, first in Buinaksk (4.09), then in Moscow on the street. Guryanov (9.09) and on Kashirskoye Highway (13.09), and then in Volgodonsk (16.09) explosions of residential buildings occurred, leading to numerous casualties among the civilian population. Approximately 300 people died. Since, as the media reported, the explosions of residential buildings were the work of Chechen terrorists, this became the reason for launching missile and bomb attacks “on the Grozny airport, the oil refinery and residential areas in the northern suburbs of the Chechen capital” [1], and thus the reason to start the second Chechen war. The decision to go to war was supposed to show that Putin is a strong personality capable of protecting his people, and it is for him that the people should vote in the upcoming presidential elections.

However, soon an event occurred that convincingly showed that the explosions of residential buildings were the work of the GRU and/or the FSB, and their reason was precisely the creation of a pretext for the start of the second Chechen war. This event is an unsuccessful attempt to organize another explosion of a residential building, this time in Ryazan on September 22, 1999.

It's hard to imagine a normal person willing to do something like this. However, what happened in Ryazan on September 22, 1999, indicates that in Russia there are people capable of blowing up residential buildings together with residents, and organizing these explosions, and those who, without a twinge of conscience, make secret decisions to carry out a whole series of similar explosions.

This is how the events of the autumn of 1999 are described in the book by Felshtinsky and Pribylovsky “Corporation. Russia and the KGB during the time of President Putin":

“On September 22, 1999, at about 9 p.m., a resident of building No. 14/16 (12-story) on Novoselov Street in Ryazan, Alexey Kartofelnikov, noticed strangers carrying heavy bags of sugar from a car to the basement. The digital region code on the license plate of the car was covered with paper, and the number 62 (code of the Ryazan region) was written on it by hand. Kartofelnikov called the police. The police arrived a few minutes later and went down to the basement and found three bags of 60 kg each. The top bag was opened, and according to the official version, it contained a substance similar to sugar. The police reported the discovery to the police department, and soon the leadership of all law enforcement agencies of Ryazan and the Ryazan region gathered at the house. The residents of the house were sent to a nearby cinema.” The head of the Ryazan FSB Directorate, Major General Sergeev, congratulated the residents on their second birth [2].

A rapid analysis of the substance from the bags showed the presence of hexogen [3]. When examining the contents of the bags, an electronic watch made in the form of a pager and three batteries connected by wires were discovered. The device's response time was set at 05:30 am.

All services in Ryazan were put on alert, the “Interception” plan was put into effect, and all exits from the city were blocked. After close surveillance of all exits from the city was established, call center worker Nadezhda Yukhanova stated that she was able to overhear a long-distance conversation with Moscow, in which the addressee of the conversation advised callers to leave the city one at a time, since “there are interceptions everywhere.” According to the book by Litvinenko and Felshtinsky, negotiations took place with the Moscow FSB ATS.[4]

On August 27, 2001, Novaya Gazeta published an article by A. Litvinenko and Yu. Felshtinsky, which stated that Yuri Vasilyevich Tkachenko, an explosives expert who cleared the device, claimed that it was real. According to Tkachenko, the detonator was made at a professional level and was not a dummy.

Having carefully read the literature below, you do not feel any confidence in the version of the above-described event in Ryazan expressed on September 24, 1999 by FSB Director N. Patrushev as an “anti-terrorist exercise” and not a real preparation for the explosion of a residential building. In particular, this version does not fit in with the fact that in Ryazan, identikit images of security officers suspected of preparing an explosion [5] were posted throughout the city and distributed to patrols, but at the same time, the suspects themselves were given assistance (from Moscow) in leaving Ryazan unnoticed . In this situation, the thought haunts me that other September explosions of residential buildings were most likely conceived and carried out for the same purposes by the same corporation (FSB) and not without the participation of Putin, then still the Prime Minister.

Then we have to admit that our president, in order to achieve his political goals, is quite ready to accept the death of even innocent compatriots.

The second story. On November 23, 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB officer who fled with his family from Russia to the UK in 2000 and received political asylum there, died in London. Death occurred after poisoning with the radioactive isotope polonium-210.

A lethal dose of this isotope was added to tea, which on November 1, 2006, in the bar of the Millennium Hotel, he was offered to drink at a planned meeting by Andrei Lugovoi, who had recently flown to London from Moscow and settled in this hotel. Approximately 10 days after the poisoning, while in the hospital, Litvinenko told Boris Berezovsky, who visited him, that the cause of the poisoning was the tea he drank at that meeting [6]. But Litvinenko never found out that the poison was polonium-210, since only three hours before his death a blood sample was taken that proved this.

I quote an excerpt from the transcript of Berezovsky’s interrogation by investigator D. Conway in the presence of Russian investigator Otvodov, which took place in London at the beginning of 2007.

K : What did Sasha say about the causes of his illness?

B .: Sasha, during the first meeting, when I visited him in the hospital, said that he believed that he was poisoned on Putin’s orders. And most likely, Lugovoi or the people who were with him. Of course, he believed that he would survive almost until his last day. And he said, reminded me that he said that's exactly what would happen. Because it is impossible for Putin to write an order to destroy enemies abroad and not use it. Well, besides this, he told me that he came across very serious information that directly points to the crimes of Putin and his business partners.

K : Did he leave any letters or notes about this?

B.: What I know is that Goldfarb’s wife and Sasha’s wife, Marina, told me that one or two days before his death he wrote a letter in which he expressed his understanding of what happened to him. And his understanding was that Putin personally gave the order to kill him.

K : What did he say about the circumstances during which he might have been in contact with polonium?

B .: As I understand it, he never found out the cause of his death. And, of course, he never said anything about any polonium or any radioactive materials. As I understand it, I didn’t say anything because I never had anything to do with them.

K : Did he name the person who might be involved in his poisoning?

B .: I already talked about this. He named Lugovoi and those people who were with him.

K .: What was the connection between Sasha and these people?

B .: He didn’t tell me about connections with other people, except about connections with Lugovoi.

K .: For what purpose, in his opinion, could they perform this action?

B .: According to Sasha, they had two main thoughts. The first was that, on the one hand, he broke away from the FSB, and therefore the FSB wanted to show that not a single person could voluntarily leave this organization. It’s especially not easy to leave, but to go against this organization. And the second reason is that he was investigating very serious crimes in which the country's top leadership was involved.

From the above excerpt it is clear that A. Litvinenko is convinced: the order to kill him was given by Putin and Lugovoi was the executor of this order.

I present another excerpt from Berezovsky’s testimony, in which the Russian investigator Otvodov asks the question, and Berezovsky provides two significant pieces of evidence that it was A. Lugovoi who was Litvinenko’s killer.

O .: Who do you think could have wanted Litvinenko's death?

B .: I really want to say that I was wildly surprised by the questions you asked me. I had the impression that you are either a tax inspector, or represent the interests of some Russian bank and want to get a client, but you want to ask about his business, not only about him, but also his friends, you just want to get large clients for some then from large Russian banks. And honestly, that’s why I asked: do you have any more questions or not? Because it seems to me that all the previous questions had nothing to do with me as a person who can help solve this crime on the merits. That is why I said that I do not trust the Russian Prosecutor General's Office. If I had not gone to some kind of aggravation, I would not have asked for the honor of having and touching on the issue on its merits. I believe that there are only those questions that you have now formulated, and all the rest are unimportant. There are essentially two questions: who could have wanted it and who I suspect, that is, my personal opinion. And I will give you a direct answer to these questions.

So, first. Regarding who ordered this crime. I have no doubt, unfortunately, that Sasha was right this time too. This is Putin personally. And I will now explain why. These are two clear facts that speak in favor not of speculation, but of fact. The first is how Sasha was killed. And secondly, what happened after his murder, what were the actions of the Russian authorities. Today it is an established fact that Sasha was killed with polonium-210. It is also known that polonium-210 was produced in Russia.

Unlike you, I have a big advantage, because you have a version that I can participate in this, but I don’t have such a version, because I know that I have nothing to do with Sasha’s murder. And then I reason purely logically. Polonium-210 cannot be obtained in such quantities without the participation of government agencies. Moreover, to organize the technology not only for obtaining polonium, but also for delivering it to another country, which, as we know, happened. Thus, the very technology of this murder did not allow it to be carried out without the participation of government agencies. I want to tell you that - and this is an addition to what I said - the fact that polonium poisoning was discovered is unique in itself insofar as, as you know, probably today, polonium was discovered in Sasha’s body in 3 hours before his death. It was opened even after he died, but the last analysis was taken 3 hours before his death. This means that if Sasha had died before then, no one would still have suspected that he died from polonium. I want to tell you absolutely sincerely that at the first stage, when no one knew about polonium, I was sure that Putin had nothing to do with this insofar as it really turned out that this was an action against his political image. But when it became known that it was polonium, and that polonium was so difficult to detect, these considerations covered my previous thoughts about Putin's lack of involvement. And I’ll emphasize once again: the use of polonium leaves no doubt that this is a state machine.

Now the second thing: how the Russian state, how Russia reacted to what was happening here in Great Britain. To summarize everything, without going into detail, this is an obvious attempt - it is obvious from London, and it is even more clear to people who are involved in the investigation, like you in Moscow - that an attempt has been made all the time to obstruct the investigation of this crime: both informational and factual. As far as I know, Scotland Yard made requests not only to interrogate Lugovoi and Kovtun, but also people who are directly related to polonium and to the protection of polonium, and yet there was no effective cooperation. As for the information level, from the time when Putin said that there was no reason to think that he was killed, and did not just die from bad food, until today, when a parallel investigation is underway - as you confirmed today, you They are more interested in my accounts than in the real reasons. And I want to repeat once again, if I had not asked you the question that you still want to ask, I would never have heard the question, which is a question on the merits. That is, the information of which I am a unique carrier. Thus, the state machine worked both at the level of ordering and carrying out this murder, and at the level of information support for this crime. This is what concerns Putin - comrade Putin.

Now about Lugovoy. I specifically told you that if you are interested in why I think that Lugovoi was, from my point of view, with a high probability of being the perpetrator - in addition to the emotions that are against the fact that he is a murderer, because, as you know, I knew him for many years - there is an inexorable fact. I partially told you about them, and you know partially yourself. The trail of polonium follows Lugovoi across Europe and even passes through my office. My office was closed for two and a half months because it was being cleaned out. Not because Sasha Litvinenko came there on November 1, but because Lugovoi came there on October 31. And as I told you, only in those places where he was, only in those chairs where he sat, traces of polonium radiation could not be cleared. This is the first question. I want to tell you that when Lugovoi called me on the phone, I honestly gave him two arguments. This was the first one. Second, I told Lugovoi: “If you are innocent, get on a plane, come to London, go to Scotland Yard and testify.” I told him that I was in no less a simple situation than he was. When I came here and asked for political asylum - this was in the fall of 2001 - I came here as an oligarch, as robber barons who stole and destroyed the country, and public opinion in this country was absolutely against me. And the government was against me, because they wanted to have good relations with Russia, and I was already at war with Putin. And so I went through the path of a person who also seemed to be against the opinion of the government of this country. And the government, I should note, the Home Office, when I applied for political asylum, refused me. I went to court and proved in court that they were persecuting me illegally in Russia. This is only political motivation. By the way, I want to tell you that 2 years after I proved this in an English court, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia made the same decision. That there was no fraud or money laundering in the story with LOGOVAZ, and you, as an employee of the prosecutor’s office, should be well aware of this. In total, I had 9 cases in court here. I won everything because I knew for sure that I was telling the truth. And second: I am convinced that the English court is absolutely independent of either the opinion of Prime Minister Blair or the opinion of Putin. And so I told Lugovoi: sit down, come, I will pay for the best lawyers. But he didn't come. And therefore, these two facts are strong arguments for me that Lugovoi is one of those who killed Sasha, or one who killed Sasha.

I am very sorry that we only came to these questions at the end. And I'm sure that if you sincerely want to investigate, you will continue down this path. I’ll tell you frankly, on the one hand, I understand what is happening in Russia and, in particular, in the Prosecutor General’s Office. On the other hand, I find no justification for those people, including you, who have enormous information and have become accomplices in this crime, like you. In this sense, I do not envy you at all. The only thing I can offer you is my help with lawyers in that country.

In order for the above information on clarifying the reasons and method of the murder of A. Litvinenko to become clear, taking into account the moral positions of the participants and the victim of this crime, it seems useful to me to present here what is known about Litvinenko’s personality from reliable or at least reliable sources.

Unfortunately, some Russian intellectuals cannot believe that there could be honest people in the ranks of the FSB. They believe that Litvinenko is the same hardened scoundrel as all the other employees of this department and there is no point in grieving that he was killed. Especially for these people, I will cite here an excerpt from Vladimir Bukovsky’s interview with Radio Liberty, which he gave on December 4, 2006 in London. (Yes, yes, that same V. Bukovsky, not broken by our dungeons, the author of a wonderful book [6], exchanged in 1976 for the first secretary of the Chilean Communist Party, about whom, in connection with this, a poem was then spread: “They exchanged a hooligan for Luis Corvalan, Where can I find such a b...d to replace Brezhnev.")

Vladimir Bukovsky : ... It would seem that the person worked in this terrible institution and it never occurred to him that these were professional killers.

Natalya Golitsyna : When did his eyes open?
Vladimir Bukovsky : Working in this very unit involved in the fight against organized crime, he, as always, was quite effective and quite quickly found out that threads from all sorts of organized criminal communities stretched to them in the Lubyanka, in neighboring offices. This worried him terribly. He went with a report on this topic to Putin personally: Putin at that moment was the head of the FSB. I came to him, drew a big diagram, explained what connections he had established, where, what, what was happening, said that we couldn’t leave it like this, we had to do something, we are all entangled in these criminal connections. Putin told him: “Leave it. I’ll sort it out.” And, of course, she shelved it. But from that moment on, his relationship with the leadership of the organization was damaged.

And then it began. The head of their unit, if I remember correctly, was General Khokholkov, and he told him: “But in fact, our task is not just to investigate organized crime, but to eliminate the most influential criminal authorities. We received an order - kill.” And not only he, but the entire department didn’t like it, because it’s one thing to investigate, another thing to kill. They were not ready for this, they were called because they are good predators. Someone from their department did this, the majority were eliminated in every possible way. Then the order came to remove Berezovsky. And so they all got scared, the whole department, because it’s clear, “we’ll remove Berezovsky now, everything will be great, and then they’ll remove us.” Berezovsky at that time, by the way, was an official, deputy. Secretary of the Security Council, as I remember. That is, this is direct terrorism, the murder of a protected person. They were simply scared.

Sasha was a very quick-witted person, he simply went to Berezovsky. He didn’t believe it, laughed, thought it was nonsense, a fantasy, but Sasha proved it to him, said that “our only defense is to announce this, only publicity will protect us, nothing else, otherwise we will all have our heads turned anyway.” And so they organized this famous press conference. They began to arrest him, the FSB, they tried to attach several cases to him, all these cases fell apart in court. Finally, in the last case, he signed out and ran away. That's the whole story.

I remember well this famous press conference, shown on November 18, 1998 live on the then censorship-free NTV channel. Litvinenko and his colleagues from the Directorate for the Development and Suppression of Activities of Organized Crime Groups (URPO) reported then that in November 1997, the leaders of the URPO, Major General Evgeny Khokholkov and Captain 1st Rank Alexander Kamyshnikov, gave Litvinenko a verbal order to kill Boris Berezovsky, then deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation. Litvinenko and his colleagues refused to carry out the order, after which their bosses began to threaten them with physical harm because they did not want to “kill the Jew who stole half the country.” Two weeks later, an assassination attempt was made on Litvinenko near his home. In March 1999, Litvinenko was arrested on charges of abuse of power and placed in Lefortovo. In November 1999, he was acquitted, but right in the courtroom, after the acquittal was read out to him, he was arrested by the FSB and placed in the Butyrka prison pre-trial detention center for the second criminal case. In 2000, the second criminal case was dropped by the prosecutor's office for lack of evidence of a crime. On the same day, a third criminal case was opened against him, and he himself was released on his own recognizance. Then he left Russia illegally, in connection with which a fourth criminal case was opened against him. Received political asylum in the UK in May 2001.

Thus, we have to admit that Putin had serious reasons for the murder of Litvinenko, related to the need to hide major financial crimes, which Litvinenko began to investigate through the Spanish intelligence services when he found himself in England.

Story three. On the night of February 28, 2015 in Moscow, Boris Nemtsov, one of the opposition leaders in Russia, was killed on the Bolshoi Moskvoretsky Bridge near the Kremlin.

Let me remind you that from 1991 to 1997 Nemtsov was the governor of the Nizhny Novgorod region, and from 1997 to 1998 the first deputy prime minister of Russia. Then he became the leader of the opposition and in 2008 one of the founders of the democratic movement Solidarity. He called his support for Putin at the beginning of the election campaign in the 2000 presidential elections a mistake and subsequently subjected his activities to sharp criticism [7].

On December 16, 2010, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin live on Russian television, reading out “a series of interesting questions from citizens that he selected,” to the question “What do Nemtsov, Ryzhkov , Milov and so on really want?” replied: “Money and power, what else do they want?! At one time, they made a hurricane, in the 90s, and dragged away, together with Berezovsky and those who are now in prison, which we remembered today, many billions. They were pulled away from the trough, they spent a lot of money, they want to come back and fill their pockets. But I think that if we allow them to do this, they will no longer limit themselves to individual billions, they will sell out all of Russia” [8].

In January 2011, Nemtsov filed a lawsuit with the Moscow City Court about the discrepancy between this information and the assessment given by Putin and reality. In February 2011, the claim was dismissed. Judge Tatyana Adamova indicated that the question of what the opposition wanted “did not concern the personalities of B. E. Nemtsov, V. A. Ryzhkov and V. S. Milov, but was of a general nature and was aimed at clarifying the general attitude of V. Putin V. to the activities of a certain group of persons who previously had a direct relationship to the exercise of state power in the Russian Federation.” “The surnames of Nemtsov, Ryzhkov and Milov are not used as proper names, but exclusively in the common noun meaning of these surnames to designate a certain class of political figures” [9].

Six Chechens from the Sever battalion were named as the perpetrators of the murder of B. Nemtsov, one of whom (B. Shavanov) committed suicide by exploding a grenade. On March 7, in the village of Starogladkovskaya, Shelkovsky district of the Chechen Republic, FSB officers tried to detain Ruslan Geremeev, deputy commander of the Sever battalion, who is related to the senator from the Chechen Republic Suleiman Geremeev and the Deputy Chairman of the Government of the Chechen Republic Adam Delimkhanov, as well as the head of the Shelkovsky district police department Vakha Geremeev . The operation was carried out by employees of the central office of the FSB together with the Dagestan FSB Directorate (that is, without the involvement of Chechen colleagues), but it was not possible to detain Ruslan Geremeev. After this, Ruslan Geremeev, under the protection of local security forces, moved to the fortified village of Dzhalka , where the investigative authorities were unable to detain him either as a “key witness” or as an “accomplice” [10]. At the end of March it became known that Ruslan Geremeev left Russia. His driver R. Mukhadinov, with whom he was in Moscow at the time of the murder, was named by investigative authorities as the organizer of the murder.

One gets the impression that the investigation is not interested in finding the mastermind of the crime. Obviously, Putin is not interested in this either, since the customer is most likely a person close to him, if not himself. After all, the definition of “customer” can also be understood as a person who, having the opportunity to thank him well, somehow casually hinted to the “organizer” that he really did not like Nemtsov’s criticism, without even mentioning that he needed to get rid of him.

Here we could mention a number of other high-profile events during the presidency of V.V. Putin, in which his at least indirect participation could not but manifest itself (for example, the failure to take proper measures to save the crew of the Kursk submarine in 2000, people in Dubrovka in 2002, children and their parents in a Beslan school in 2004 ). Unlike these events, which required only a proper response from the president of the country, the events described in the above stories occurred as a result of his personal initiative.

The personality of the president who can save Russia from disaster

It is difficult to imagine that a person who declared his intention to become the president of a country would justify this intention by the fact that he wants to become famous and/or make good money. Hence the conclusion: the voter must be able to distinguish a candidate who wants and can successfully govern the country from one who can only pretend well. Understanding the personality of a particular candidate for the post of president of the country is a very important task for all voters, except, of course, those who are connected by ties of common interests with one of the candidates.

What is personality? There are quite a few definitions of this concept. Here, by this word we will understand a stable set of socially significant mental properties that have developed in the process of his development and determine his behavior as a member of society. It is not so difficult to identify the main significant personality traits of a public person. This simply requires an unbiased analysis of the facts known from usually published information about events important for the country with the participation of this person or even with his clearly expressed attitude to these events. The only necessary condition for obtaining the correct result of such an analysis is the ability to separate facts from their often false interpretation in the propaganda media.

What qualities of a human personality, in my opinion, should be decisive when choosing a suitable candidate for every honest citizen of the country? I already wrote about this in my LJ [11]. Here is a quote from this essay.

I believe that most Russians will agree with me if I say that the necessary qualities of an ideal president should include the following:

1. Sympathy for ordinary residents of the country and the desire to provide them with everything necessary for a decent life. When choosing between a decision leading to an increase in the well-being of ordinary people and a decision leading to an increase in one’s own well-being, if the actions resulting from these decisions do not coincide, preference is given to the first without hesitation.

2. Honesty and courage to openly admit and correct your mistakes, as well as mistakes and all kinds of corruption committed by members of your team, without stopping to replace them for the good of the business. Honesty and courage to not allow deception and hypocrisy in one’s statements, for example, in order to hide the ugly truth, indicating mistakes and mistakes made, and thus try to gain the undeserved love of the masses.

3. Intelligence, knowledge and the ability to set reasonable and achievable strategic goals for oneself and other power structures that will help bring the country closer to prosperity along a path that, even if not very fast, is reliable and does not promise any upheavals of a global nature in the future, as well as the ability to clearly and convincingly justify the chosen development path, and to select a team of experienced and honest associates to implement it. 4. Strong will and efficiency, allowing you to achieve a goal after you have confidence that it is achievable and its achievement leads the country in the right direction, as well as allowing you to successfully overcome emerging obstacles, despite possible resistance from opponents of the chosen path.

5. Charisma. This personality trait, as experience accumulated in different countries shows, greatly increases people’s trust in a person who has this trait. As far as I understand, it can be defined as a combination of sincerity and temperament, and it manifests itself, causing trust, when addressing those whom this person considers to be his own. (For example, Hitler undoubtedly had charisma.)

It seems that all these qualities are necessary for successful governance of the country. In terms of the degree of influence on success in this matter, they may be unequal. Of course, the most necessary and important of them seems to be the first. In his absence, the activities of the president and his team are automatically directed towards solving the problems of strengthening personal power, personal enrichment and the enrichment of close people. It must be assumed that the successful solution of these tasks does not at all mean that progress towards the stated main goal (the good of the country) will be equally successful.

Taking into account the above, two conclusions can be drawn.

1. For the good of Russia, choose V.V. Putin should not become president of the country in 2018.

2. In Russia there are public figures who, judging by their actions and statements, are much more consistent with the status of the country's president, whose main goal is the well-being of the people. As an example of such candidates, in my opinion, one can certainly name D. Gudkov, L. Shlosberg, A. Navalny, G. Yavlinsky and, possibly, a number of other oppositionists.

---------------------------------------------------

1. Yu. Felshtinsky, V. Pribylovsky. "Corporation. Russia and the KGB during the time of President Putin." Moscow, “TERRA”, 2010

2. Nazran “sugar”: In Ingushetia, are they repeating the Ryazan “teachings”? , Anna Politkovskaya , Novaya Gazeta , No. 71, September 26, 2005

3. The timer was stopped seven hours before the explosion // Kommersant, September 24, 1999

4. Attempt on Russia. Author and director Jean-Charles Daigneault http://web.archive.org/web/20020704071547/http://www.somnenie.narod.ru/bl/kino/kino.html .

5. Identikit photographs of suspects in preparing the explosion of a residential building in Ryazan (see attachment)

6. Testimony of B. Berezovsky in the Litvinenko case. "Kommersant" , 05/02/2007

7. B. Nemtsov and V. Milov. Independent expert report “PUTIN.RESULTS.10 years”

Moscow, 2010, “Solidarity”.

8. Transcript of the program “Conversation with Vladimir Putin. Continuation" // Website of the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, December 16, 2010.

9. Boris Nemtsov has become a household name. Newspaper "Kommersant", No. 32 (4573), 02.24.2011

10. http://www.novayagazeta.ru/inquests/69418.html

eleven. . http://vitold-zalessky.livejournal.com/14929.html , section “Reflections”, essay “The welfare of the country and the morality of power” dated 07/18/2008, §5).

Photo: Moscow. Russian President Boris Yeltsin (right) congratulates Vladimir Putin on the approval by the State Duma of the Russian Federation of his candidacy for the post of Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation. Alexander Sentsov, Alexander Chumichev /ITAR-TASS