“The system is self-eating”

The confrontation between Nancy Pelosi and China, Kiriyenko's referenda, Prilepin's GRAD, millions of Putin's ex-wife. The New Times sums up the results of the past week with Gleb Pavlovsky, a well-known political scientist, political strategist, author of the book on the modern Russian state “RF System”

Video version here  

Evgenia Albats*: There was an aggravation on the border between Serbia and Kosovo during the week, but nothing happened. 300 thousand people watched the flight of the plane with the inscription United States of America, on which the Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi flew to Taiwan. Russian propagandists just seemed to hold their breath. They were waiting for China to either shoot down the Pelosi plane, strike Taiwan, or go to war with the US. Nothing happened. Comment on the events themselves and this expectation of a new war - as if Ukraine is not enough ...

Gleb Pavlovsky: Apparently, the memory of the film "Emergency" of the 60s about the capture of a Soviet tanker by Taiwanese militarists has not disappeared. Many Soviet actors, popular in the future, appeared there for the first time.

People find it difficult to focus on important issues. And they focus on what is not an issue for them at all. A very strange idea that the Chinese will shoot down a plane with an American official. Why do they need such "Russian tricks".

But it is essential that people look away all the time. They divert their eyes from the main thing to non-existent, in fact, political things. Because Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan can in no way hurt the interests of Russian citizens. This is the policy of onlookers. Well, yes, they would be happy if in the dead time of August - the first half of the month is usually empty - there was something to talk about. That's why Serbia's alleged war with Kosovo, where, as far as I understand, the barricades were built by car dealers on the basis of state funding in the hope of EU intervention and new grants.

And Nancy Pelosi is partly why. I wonder if these people know at all how Taiwan differs from Hong Kong and Macau? I have a big doubt. After all, they did not think and did not remember about Taiwan, which, in general, is now known in Russia for having stopped selling microchips to us. This is the only real topic related to Taiwan. But I think that the armed conflict between China and Taiwan will not help to solve this problem.

Diagnosis: indifference

Yevgenia Albats: Agree, the situation when people follow the radar for the movement of the plane with Nancy Pelosi and at the same time close their eyes and try not to think about what is happening in Ukraine is at least strange. What's going on with the head?

Gleb Pavlovsky: This started happening to the head a very long time ago. For example, I remember how in the early 80s, during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, Pugacheva's songs were carried from all radio and television loudspeakers. It was the apotheosis of Pugacheva's cheerful, beautiful, by the way, songs. And there was no awkwardness, people did not feel any problem, although at that time thousands of Soviet citizens were already dying, even if we do not talk about the Afghans. So what? "Million Scarlet roses". And I felt the strangeness of it all. I’m not saying that at that time there was the Falklands war between Britain and Argentina, there was a war in Lebanon, etc.

Why do we think that people will give up their business, their pleasures and do something serious? All this is a diagnosis. We know for sure that the population of our country does not want and will not take seriously anything that the country does.

Evgenia Albats: Is this the result of depoliticization, or the fact that people do not believe that they can change something, or that they do not choose the government?

Gleb Pavlovsky: As they say in Odessa: "It's not "or" - it's all together." Of course, they cannot change, of course, depoliticization is connected with the fact that they even laugh at the idea that they can change something on their own. This does not mean that they will not come into some kind of active movement. We have a policy of improvisation, there is no need to remember yesterday. There is a new threat - you answer it. And there will be a new one, the next one - you will answer the next one.

You can not remember anything, you are deprived of experience - this is also important. On the one hand, there are cadres who do not know how to process experience, analyze it, and, on the other hand, there are people, the population, who simply do not remember anything of yesterday. They believe that experience is something that is acquired in their life, here, in their circle, the circle of their family, their work, and so on. It's such a closed situation. This is no longer Putin, in general. You can call her "Putin", please, but it doesn't matter.

Yevgenia Albats: But they paid attention to the Chechen war.

Gleb Pavlovsky: First. There was still a politicized and residually democratic society according to some intentions. Already in the second period it was different. I think this society did not survive the second election of President Yeltsin.

Evgeniya Albats: What do you think about Nancy Pelosi's visit to Taiwan? There are two completely opposite positions. Some say that it has brought the world to the brink of a major war, others say that if the United States claims that democracy and freedom are its main values, then it cannot but support the democratic regime in Taiwan.

And there is a third hypothesis, it concerns Taiwan's monopoly on the production of semiconductors, which is why car production stopped in the United States at the end of the pandemic. And now the Americans are building their own factory in the United States so as not to depend on Taiwan in such a serious matter as microcircuits and semiconductors. Which of the hypotheses is closer or more interesting to you?

We are already in another world where war can start for any insignificant reason. In this world, one must walk carefully, like on a minefield in Ukraine, that is, like on a beach in Odessa

Gleb Pavlovsky: It is clear that Washington was not going to aggravate relations. He found what the Americans think is a gentle way to signal the seriousness of the situation. They sent Nancy Pelosi as a signal.

But we are already in a different world, where war can start for any insignificant reason. In this world, one must walk carefully, like on a minefield in Ukraine, that is, like on a beach in Odessa, where you can lose a leg or even a head. I think that the parties have not yet worked out tactics for this new world. On the one hand, Washington must show that it is not focused on Ukraine alone. And besides, it is important to show this to the huge Chinese minority in the United States on the eve of the elections. This is a serious question. On the other hand, this is an experiment, improvisation. Here is this Russian disaster - improvisation - which in our country also began once quite innocently. Because the Union disappeared, it was necessary to build a new state in some way, but how will you build it? So, you need to invent it in some different ways.

I think that, firstly, President Xi did not calm down. The Chinese do not act spontaneously, they think well before that. He, too, is thinking about something and will make it clear that he does not like it. Where and how he will do it, we do not know.

Secondly, I think that Washington also drew its own conclusions, because the Chinese military demonstrations were quite serious. Once they laughed at the "last Chinese warning" - they laughed, they laughed, but in the end, without China's help to Vietnam, the Americans would not have left there. It was a colossal aid, although China was poor then, unlike today.

China is leaking everywhere, it has many opportunities to make it clear that it is not necessary to play with it.

I'm more interested in what Taiwan will do. It seems to me - this is my intuitive feeling - that since Taiwan is at a very high technological level, it is not difficult for them to develop certain nuclear devices very quickly, and no one will notice. Because the Chinese are not doing it like Iran, not demonstratively, and it seems to me that after some time of such demonstrations we will get a nuclear Taiwan.

Evgenia Albats: This requires the creation of a whole special branch of industry…

Gleb Pavlovsky: I am absolutely sure that there are a number of countries where for 10 years there have been various, naturally, non-conventional devices developed to the drawings, to the smallest detail and detail, and Taiwan is a serious place, there are serious people. I think that we will hear about him not only in connection with Nancy Pelosi.

No breakthrough prospects

Evgenia Albats: You wrote that the Europeans perceive the war in Ukraine not as a war between Russia and Ukraine, but as a war between Russia and Europe, and that even though they have serious economic problems, they believe that it is necessary to work for the liberation of Ukraine.

This is a question of values. This is something that, it seems to me, the Russian government did not expect at all, because it thinks exclusively in the paradigm of rational interests.

In this sense, Pelosi demonstrated that the United States is not just blah blah about democracy, but that the democratic regime in Taiwan is serious, that 23 million Taiwanese have the right to live under the regime that they choose for themselves.

Gleb Pavlovsky: Of course, this is important. But nothing needs to be exaggerated. From any chosen position, a Western person begins to get tired in due time. He is not a knight without fear and reproach. For a while he behaves like a hero, and then he begins to think about how he can retreat to a more calm position.

Of course, there is fatigue in Europe. Again, let's not confuse America with Europe. Europe is starting to get tired of these problems precisely because it has to solve these problems, which do not provide any final solution. America, unlike Europe, tends to look for a final solution. Europe is wiser in this sense, it knows that it is impossible to finally solve a single problem. But America does not know this, it believes that if there is a problem, we must try to solve it definitively. Therefore, as they face a war, they begin to think: one day they will have to fight, but not with any one country, and it is not known in advance which one, but they must prepare for this in some other way than they prepared before. America will change strategy.

Moscow's problem is that it does not understand strategic issues. She does not understand what can intensify the war. She does not understand why not start peace talks. After all, they can be tightened for who knows how long. Moscow secretly wants to be offered this, but America does not. And while America does not offer, Kyiv will not offer either.

So I don't think that the Kremlin is pursuing a policy of interests. It is difficult for me to imagine the interests that are being decided by a special military operation in Ukraine. So no, they have already dropped interests. But they can't think of another topic. Now they have taken territorial annexations as an ersatz. But, excuse me, who needs them, these territorial annexations, even if we forget about international law? What can you brag about - Mariupol? And there are no prospects for a breakthrough in military affairs in Ukraine. And now everyone is stuck at this point. Only some hung heroically, like Ukraine, while others hung military-technically, like Russia.

And Europe is afraid of escalation. In fact, escalation and winter cold are two things that are keeping Europe's militancy in check. I think that if Kyiv does not give a reason in the near future, then by the end of the year, I think Europe will begin to change its position. She will not change her grades, but she will change her position.

Evgenia Albats: Observers say that delaying this “special operation” in Ukraine is beneficial for Putin, because he has a huge amount of old Soviet iron, and Ukraine is still three times smaller than the Russian Federation. And incredible sacrifices. And then the cold will come. People in many regions were left without electricity, without water, not to mention how much the West can support Ukraine, because, naturally, it can produce practically nothing. Therefore, they believe that delaying the operation is beneficial for Putin.

On the other hand, the US emphasizes that it will not negotiate with Russia over Ukraine's head. And in Ukraine, according to polls, either 89% or 93% are against any negotiations until the territories occupied by Russian troops are returned. Sometimes it seems that this situation is a dead end.

In the grain deal, Putin showed that he can be part of the solution, not just part of the problem. Wants to look like a responsible politician

Gleb Pavlovsky: We see a dead end early. Because again, let's remember the middle wars of the end of the last, the beginning of this century, they drag on for more than half a year.

You mentioned Sistema RF. Yes, one of the whales she stands on is improvisation. But some people think quite wrongly that improvisations are ideal for war. But this is not at all how wars are won. Any fool can improvise the start of a war. But not a single war will end impromptu. Because it involves, excuse me, a few more people than one country. And here is the very impasse, because any world, even a political one, even, as Lenin said, an “obscene world,” requires detailed development. If you do not do this, expect that the spirit will weaken or some other nonsense, then you will simply wait for a blow that is unexpected for yourself.

Look, we have developed procedures for the export of grain. And they said that nothing is impossible, nothing will work, nothing is impossible, all the scoundrels around. They can when they want. The reasons why they want it are different. It is clear that Putin did not need this in order to solve the problems of foreign exchange filling the budget of Ukraine.

Evgeniya Albats: Why?

Gleb Pavlovsky: And in order to act as a responsible, as he believes, politician before the world community and Erdogan. This is a four-handed game with Erdogan, of course. Erdogan here is the one who unblocked the situation. And a responsible world leader, he is getting bigger every day, he will not want to back down. And he plays a pretty subtle game. In general, Putin has accepted this and is working with him. And he has no way out. After all, Erdogan can change his position on the Dardanelles, for example, he can let those who are not allowed into the Black Sea now.

Evgenia Albats: Do you mean Russian ships?

Gleb Pavlovsky: In particular, the American ones. There were not so many Russians crowded at the entrance.

This is an interesting question. Putin has shown that he can be part of the solution, not just part of the problem. You can go further, but he does not go further yet.

Imperative of Survival

Yevgenia Albats: Referendums that are being prepared in the self-proclaimed republics and territories occupied by Russian troops are, as they say, directly handled by Sergei Vladilenovich Kiriyenko. We see him all the time: he flies there, opens monuments to old women, makes speeches, and so on. And they say that he can’t talk about anything else, except about those percentages that will vote there in such and such a territory.

Why are they doing that? The Russian budget is already in the red. 95% of Russian oil, which makes up half of the budget revenues, will be embargoed by the end of the year. The Russian government itself is cutting gas supplies, and this, accordingly, is the second half of the budget revenues. What's the point?

Gleb Pavlovsky: Referendums are a relic of the new Russia, its electoral machine. Our system is interesting. She drags a lot of relics with her, and quite a large number of people deal with these relics. She may no longer show anything, she has already shown everything. But, nevertheless, it retains this ... not even hybridity anymore, the combination of the remnants of different regimes, which are usually a trap. Well, what does the municipal government decide? Nothing. And in order to keep someone out of the municipal elections, he is sent to prison for years ...

Why a referendum in the occupied territory, which will never be recognized by anyone? And you have to look at each one individually. Kiriyenko must do this in order to stay where he is, so as not to be devoured. The survival imperative is not limited to the poor—it is also inherent in the presidential administration. They want to live. It is easy to understand where he saw this Mariupol - but he knows that a referendum is needed at the moment. And the boss has not yet told him what will happen next, he does not warn him whether he will use the results of this referendum or not. Well, a person methodologically develops this inclusion, entry.

Evgenia Albats: The number of refugees from these parts of Ukraine to the territory of the Russian Federation alone is almost 2 million people. And these are those who, apparently, left there after February 24th. And so it's all illegitimate, and here an even greater part of the people simply will not be on the territory of the referendum. I don't understand the logic.

Gleb Pavlovsky: First of all, those who are in Russia, consider that they have already voted. This is not a difficult task. Secondly, what kind of legitimacy, what are you talking about? This word is simply already some kind of monarchical, smacks of the Bourbons. Everything is already illegitimate and will never be legitimate. It is very interesting how everything will end in between, but certainly nothing legitimate. None of the scenarios.

From the Kremlin's point of view, the idea of ​​abolishing the electoral machine looks revolutionary. They did not work and work for this in order to embark on an unknown voyage.

Evgenia Albats: Alexander Kynev says that the reason why the authorities keep the elections, despite the fact that all this makes no sense and the municipalities are deprived of any real rights, is that this is a source of legitimacy for the authorities. You can always say: "You chose these deputies."

Gleb Pavlovsky: She says something like that, although less and less clearly. I have a different version. Of course, the government could abolish all this, but it is conservative in its own way. If there is something and it doesn’t really interfere, and some problems are eliminated by repressive structures, moreover, partial, not so massive, then let it be for yourself - “let it go”.

That is, from the Kremlin's point of view, the idea of ​​abolishing the electoral machine looks revolutionary. They did not work and work in order to embark on an unknown voyage. The devil knows what will happen if this is abolished. They don't want to check, you know? It is easier to make a list of those who cannot be allowed in and who should be allowed in than to come up with some new model of statehood. This is not Putin's idea at all.

Evgenia Albats: That is, do not touch what they can adapt for themselves ...

Gleb Pavlovsky: Yes. Therefore, they do not let guys like Prilepin, Dugin and others go into all serious trouble - because these are peculiar revolutionaries, they don’t care what happens. Tusa will be moving. In my opinion, Putin does not need a mover - an additional one to the one he launched.

Right pressure

Evgenia Albats: You say that Prilepin, Dugin are such a right-wing faction of the Russian state or the Kremlin. But FSB Colonel Strelkov-Girkin, who, in fact, started this story with the creation of Novorossia and who was later thrown out of there, is becoming one of the most popular people now, whose Telegram channel everyone reads. What he writes is sometimes stronger criticism than criticism of the Kremlin's overt democratic opponents. How do you explain it?

Gleb Pavlovsky: Indeed, it is often interesting to read it. Because whoever he was in the past, he is a professional military man and sometimes analyzes situations in a very interesting, sensible and critical way. That is, he doesn't feel obligated to sing about every stupid thing the Kremlin does.

Secondly, against the backdrop of fanabery of the Duma parties, he looks like an intelligible person. We've lost the habit of rational language. Unfortunately, part of the opposition has switched to some kind of continuous rhetorical rage, moralistic bureaucracy, in which they speak exclusively about the details of morality and immorality. And we would like to understand what is really going on. All war is immoral. But she goes. I would like to know what is going on there.

If we talk about what the “war party” looks like today, it includes all sorts of military correspondents in telegram channels, and sucky philosophers, and some kind of geopolitics, and Dugin. Girkin-Strelkov is also included in it, but here he represents, I would say, a rational kernel. I like to listen to him more than my recent friends from the evacuees.

Evgenia Albats: Strelkov-Girkin sometimes writes very sharply critically about the activities of the Ministry of Defense, the Russian army on the territory of Ukraine. This is actually Article 20.3 of the Code of Administrative Violations, or even worse: a criminal article on discredit, which was brought against Ilya Yashin, Vladimir Kara-Murza. But nobody touches Girkin. Do you understand the principle by which the authorities carry out these repressions: some are sent to prison for "discrediting the army", others are either put on trial or not on trial, like Shevchuk, and the third, like Girkin, does not notice at all?

Putin hates to remove the task from subordinates - to tell them exactly what to do. He does not like it and does not love those who expect it from him.

Gleb Pavlovsky: This, as the philosopher Konstantin Leontiev would say, is blooming complexity, another modern Russian version of it. Our system is free from the need to logically build some kind of course. When her cadres in the security forces are on guard and attacking someone, they are completely off course. They follow considerations of profit, not necessarily, by the way, monetary and not always career. Sometimes they are wrong.

I think that when there was a decision in St. Petersburg to refuse to initiate proceedings against Shevchuk, someone said something. The judge is on the phone all the time. Someone said something to her that she did not like, some moment of volatility appeared: “The devil knows, maybe they want to make me extreme. And then it will end in nothing, and I will find myself in a career dead end. In our system, unlike the Stalinist and even the already softened Brezhnev's, there is no general line. The task of working out a general line hangs on the little man, on the functionary, and he must think. Putin arranged it that way. Putin hates to remove this task from his subordinates - to tell them exactly what to do. He does not like this and does not love those who expect and demand it from him.

Yevgenia Albats: Do you think that there is no centralized repressive body and that in each region, in each district it is decided by a local opera or an investigator who needs to show that he loves Putin passionately and no less?

Gleb Pavlovsky: Not so. This is a cloud structure. It is, of course, united, but united as an ensemble of indefinite individuals with intersecting competencies. By the way, Stalin also did not really like having one single body under him that decides such serious things. He himself would like to be this body over the body.

And today, Putin encourages uncertainty in this circle, where no one can be sure that he did the political right thing by crossing some line that had not been crossed before.

Therefore, of course, there is unity, but it is not a bureaucratic unity, it is not a rational bureaucracy. They deliberately intersect areas of action and competence. This, as they say, does not make it easier for us, but someone can slip between the raindrops, and someone will not slip, although he believes that everything is in order with him.

They just let Zuev and Mau go home. We can sit and think about who decided it. I am absolutely sure that this is not Putin's decision.

Evgenia Albats: Why?

Gleb Pavlovsky: Because those who made the decision accepted, as it were, a softening of this decision, that is, they simultaneously demonstrated their intransigence and their political flexibility. From the boss's point of view, they are flawless.

Evgenia Albats: It seems to me that this is some kind of ambiguous story. Personally, it is not very clear to me what such an attack on Mau is connected with, given that he advises all governments, works for them, writes papers. What did you want to say? Clearly, not Mau, but the environment.

Gleb Pavlovsky: He is a medium-sized man, from the point of view of the top, who thinks a lot about himself. In particular, he thinks a lot about his safety. You can remind him of something so that he does not consider that the course in relation to him and those like him is clear, and he can move freely within this corridor. They told him no.

Unfortunately, I don't see anything surprising here. Rather, we need to think about something else: how will we get out of this anti-humanity, which is condensing, which is taken as the norm and postulated as the norm. “We are inhuman and will be inhuman” is a new statement within Russian history. It is important and needs to be thought about.

As for Mau, he will come to his senses somehow. What the investigators say about the fact that he “names names” is always some kind of lie. Of course, he names a lot of people, this does not mean that he gives accusatory evidence against them. He cannot talk about his activities without naming people. But that means absolutely nothing. This is a deliberate desire of the investigation to sully a person. We don't know anything about his testimony.

Beaten by GRAD

Evgenia Albats: The “Group for Investigating Anti-Russian Activities”, created on the initiative of the Just Russia – For Truth party, published on August 3 a list of “agents of foreign influence” and a list of officials and top managers supporting these “agents”. And Sergei Mironov, the leader of a practically non-existent party, announced that he intended to submit to the State Duma a bill to remove from the law on culture the norm on non-interference of the state in the activities of creative organizations.

Do you think that all these registers of enemies and the desire to rewrite the Constitution a little is another attempt by Mironov to occupy the niche left by Zhirinovsky? Or is it the execution of the Kremlin training manual?

Gleb Pavlovsky: Mironov does not need a manual to carry such a blizzard. Well, he heard something somewhere, or maybe it was the advice of Prilepin or someone else. What will we take from this? The system is self-destructing. It can go far, because the system has a high strength, but it will leave terrible consequences, scars, scars. The system has by now destroyed its internal communications, destroyed its Russian identity. Because there is no idea in Russian identity to concrete culture. Even Stalin considered this excessive. That is, he did it, but did not put it forward as a principle and liked to hide behind cultural figures so that they would say some cruel things.

And these people simply want to establish the norm of self-destruction of Russian culture. In general, these people themselves have lost their Russian identity, they are no longer Russian. They are nihilists.

Yevgenia Albats: So you don't think that this is the result of the fact that a large number of KGB agents are in power, and therefore they all need to be busy with something?

Gleb Pavlovsky: Of course, this is as natural as the number of parasites in a woolen blanket. This is self-movement, a trophic problem: you need to eat. But it seems to me that some lines have already been crossed, not only red ones. There is a self-eating of the system, which we will find out in the end, when the cards are revealed.

Evgenia Albats: When will it be?

Gleb Pavlovsky: This is inevitably coming, approaching, but in what form it will be, I don’t know.

Evgenia Albats: You said the system has high strength. Do you mean months, years, decades?

Gleb Pavlovsky: Regarding such a system, these are meaningless words. First, I think that decades are already fantastic. She greatly reduced the terms, she violated the rules of her own existence. By the end of last year, she lived, in general, in an ideal state for herself. It looks like a rent-taker who has risen so high that he can not be afraid of either the Investigative Committee or the fact that budgetary flows will become scarce. And then - time! - one improvisation, and everything fell off.

150 million people are not going to lay down in the grave, but they are not going to take to the streets with posters. So what are they going to do? I don't know. And, looking back at the past hundred years, I must say that no one ever knew. So this time there will be a surprise-surprise!

Faithful friends

Evgenia Albats: Maria Pevchikh and Navalny's team did an investigation on Lyudmila Putina and found that the president's friends are practically sponsoring his ex-wife through some kind of fund, pouring money into it, which allows her to pay herself a salary of 100 million; she and her husband Ocheretny bought a lot of real estate in France, in Spain, etc.

Gleb Pavlovsky: You know, friends behave well as friends. Because in such situations, friends usually dissolve into space. I can assume that they first found out if they would fly for their charity ... And how much they are willing to spend, I do not know. In general, this is some kind of success story, I would say, for a woman in our country.

Putin does not like to burden himself. He lives, in general, quite lightly. Such a middle-aged rake ...

Evgenia Albats: Do you want to say that the ex-husband of Lyudmila Ocheretnaya did not call his friends and did not say anything? Somehow it can't be...

Gleb Pavlovsky: You want to build a psychological model of Putin. You can build, of course, but it will be a divinatory construction that may look completely unexpected.

It is clear that Putin did not forbid helping his ex-wife. It is clear that he could well tell someone. You see, the idea of ​​regularity is deeply alien to him. Therefore, he could say to someone: "That's where Luda could not buy herself a Lamborghini." He told someone, and then it already turns into a signal. Do you think a bigger signal is needed? No, not needed.

And he will not, of course, control who transferred what figure to this business, he does not like to burden himself. He lives, in general, quite lightly. Such a middle-aged rake ...

Banner of Injustice

Evgenia Albats: The last question is about our youth. Do you remember when Beryozka stores appeared?

Gleb Pavlovsky: They appeared in the 70s. All Muscovites knew the location of Beryozka. But, of course, it was impossible to go there.

Yevgenia Albats: They announced that "shops for diplomats" are opening again.

Gleb Pavlovsky: Some kind of stupidity squared. Because why? It is possible to deliver orders to the few remaining diplomats directly to their homes, directly to the embassy. Why do we need a store for this, which ordinary citizens will look at, I don’t know? It is a bad idea. Today, the nomenklatura, with their salaries, without any tension, buys for itself practically everything that it wants to consume. This is an excess of one of the basic principles of our system. She, unlike the Soviet one, who fought for justice, but at the same time lied at every step, raises the banner of injustice. All people are not equal to each other. Their salaries are not unequal and should not be equal. And I am sure that this corresponds to the values ​​of Vladimir Vladimirovich. He believes that there should be no justice, there should be a distribution of goods. Therefore, he himself is unlikely to stop it, although, perhaps, he will wait for some meeting with the population and ridicule him, but he will not necessarily stop it.

In general, yes, this is a bright symbol, a sign, a torch of injustice: here is a store that you cannot enter, where you cannot buy anything. This is how we celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of Russian statehood...

*Evgenia Albats was included in the register of “foreign agents” by the Ministry of Justice.

Photo: Pavel Kassin/Kommersant