Anton Ivanovich is approved

Having put the flowers to the grave of General Denikin in the Don Monastery, Vladimir Putin approvingly recalled the national-political philosophy of Anton Ivanovich, in particular, his sincere conviction that Ukraine is an integral part of Russia. Commented by Stanislav Belkovsky, Julia Latynina, Boris Nemtsov, Vitaly Portnikov.

Stanislav Belkovsky , Director of the Institute of National Strategy:

On the one hand, the speech of Vladimir Putin in the Don Monastery can be considered as a PR action prepared by Archimandrite Tikhon, the governor of the Sretensky Monastery, who has long been closely connected with the former president, and now the Prime Minister of Russia and instructs him with his intellectual and spiritual teachings. On the other hand, it is clear that Ukraine is a non -healing wound for Vladimir Putin.

In 2004, he was absolutely sure that Viktor Yanukovych would become the President of Ukraine, because, from the point of view of Putin and his like -minded people, only three factors are serious in politics - money, control over national television and control over the voting system - and all these levers were then in the hands of the President of Ukraine Kuchma. So, according to Putin, as well as Medvedev, who, then, as the head of the Kremlin administration, was the curator of the Ukrainian project, Yanukovych could not lose.

But Yanukovych lost because the factors that the Russian political elite did not consider significant. First of all, this is the desire of the people to determine their fate, a craving for freedom, that very freedom, which is only a phantom for Vladimir Putin and the entire ruling elite, but not a real need of a person. Since Putin could not destroy the system on which all his understanding of life and politics was based, he accused the US Orange Revolution. Both Putin and his colleagues are sure that Maidan was a commercial action, paid by American money.

Therefore, until now, Putin cannot come to terms with this painful and humiliating defeat and very often, for any smallest occasion, returns to the theme of Ukraine and the treacherous, from his point of view, US behavior in 2004-2005. Indeed, in the summer of 2004, then President George Bush Jr. assured Putin that Washington would not intervene in the definition of the results of the presidential election in Ukraine. In fact, Washington did not intervene in them, and the most important function of the American ambassador during the revolution in Kyiv was to keep the Maidan participants at the request of President Kuchma from an attempt to capture the main government buildings. But for Putin, the United States is to blame for everything, because if Putin doubted this, he would have had to question all his political philosophy, which he certainly was not ready for.

However, I believe that for Ukraine Putin was and remains an ideal political leader, which independent Ukraine could only dream. Because with all his actions and statements, he constantly reduces Russia's influence on Ukrainian political elites and contributes to the formation of Ukrainian national identity.

When Yeltsin said in the first years of his reign that we should wake up with the thought “what did I do for Ukraine?”, He, of course, was cunning, but as a politician he behaved absolutely correctly. Because only attracting Ukraine with a gingerbread, and not clicking a whip, it was possible to leave it under Russian influence. The Putin rhetorical whip finally led to the fact that Ukraine is moving away from Russia, and it will not be possible to change the direction of this movement in the foreseeable historical perspective.

Julia Latynina , journalist:

There is such a book Mein Kampf, it was written by Adolf Hitler. So, it begins with the fact that Austria is not a state and that the German nation should not be divided. This book has a lot of other interesting considerations: that we do not need any parliamentary boltology, and the leader must be one; The fact that economic activity is contrary to the spirit of the state and the state should not be based on economics, but on spirituality, etc. This idea that the German nation should be united, and Austria is not a state, it passes a red thread through this essay.

Boris Nemtsov , member of the Federal Political Council of the Solidarity movement:

Putin’s policy in relation to Ukraine, in my opinion, leads to an unambiguous result: he very strongly tunes against himself a friendly country, offending people, making these rash and obviously harmful statements with Ukraine. All this is very sad. Then we just don’t have to be offended that Ukraine is part of the Eastern Partnership. He leads a destructive policy in the post -Soviet space, he suffers from imperial syndrome, mania of greatness, he is little adequate, because he does not listen to the opposition or the voice of reason. This is not the first time that the current authorities behave like that. All these Putin things, they only disconnect our countries.

Vitaly Portnikov , publicist:

Honestly, I would not connect the visits to the Prime Minister of Russia of the Grave of the White Guard military leaders with some foreign policy circumstances. Our sin lies in the fact that we are unnecessarily seriously treated to many steps of political leadership. We could pay attention to that amazing political-historical mix that is present in the views of the political leadership. This is a modern anthem to the music of the anthem of the Soviet Union in combination with the emblem of the Russian Federation, resembling the emblem of the Russian Empire. This is an amazing combination of the incompatible: to declare that the collapse of the USSR was the largest geopolitical catastrophe, to demand respect for the pages of Soviet history, including negatively, to visit the graves of people who fought against Bolshevism and spent a lot of forces on its destruction. It seems to me that this is a very curious fact that deserves more attention than any foreign policy statements that accompany such an action.