Talking speaker

All of us are not Cicerons, with rare exceptions (Demosthenes, Obama, Schlosberg, Belkovsky), and the deciphering of oral speeches of the vast majority of citizens, politicians and non -faculties, are small -gray porridge. Sometimes it’s better not to even try to comprehend them, you still won’t understand, but here is a special case. Volodin himself spoke out . Directly about Navalny. That is why it is so important to understand what, in fact, the chairman of the State Duma wanted to tell us, answering the question of the possible participation of the leader of the party progress, which should be held in 2018.

Literally Volodin said the following .

A topic that is not. And he [Navalny] why does he think about it? Let the laws read, he is a lawyer. His intention should first of all rely on the law. If the law allows him, then you can talk about something. And when the law does not allow, why do people mislead? When Volodin was corrected, indicating that the lawyer Navalny, released from liability by decisions of the ECHR and the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, is not deprived of today, the speaker did not agree with amendments. I am not ready to interpret in your interpretation, - continuing to talk in Russian, he told reporters. - Because if the law is respected today, then we must proceed from this. Then he needs to dream of something else, and not about the elections. And if we begin to screw this to the decisions that are made somewhere, and then referring to this norm, then you can discuss a lot and agree before what.

The text, you see, is not easy. It is not clear what the law allows. It is not clear what such a speaker is not ready to interpret in the interpretation. Another riddle: what else should be dreamed of Navalny. And who, finally, is so bold that the mysterious "this" is screwed to the decisions that are made somewhere "and then, a kind of impudent, refers to a roaming to the norm? In short, Volodin’s historical speech is all woven from paradoxes, but we have nowhere to go. We are simply obliged to comprehend what has been said.

After all, it is not a matter of Navalny, which can be treated as you like - and many are exactly like that, experiencing very conflicting feelings in relation to this leader. The fact is that for the first time in many years, in the process that we have in the old fashioned election, has a chance to participate a rather unexpected candidate. Young, beautiful, unpredictable - at least against the backdrop of those who are dusking folk leaders who ran in the last millennium and still do not lose in any way. And also against Putin.

Navalny is a fiction invented from hopelessness or a real chance of a change in a fate for millions of Russian citizens. Moreover, even if invented, then with the goals are quite pragmatic. We practically do not risk anything, rooting for him and preparing to vote, if we suddenly find the name of Alexei Anatolyevich in the electoral ballot. He risks, and we only support and will not be very shocked if where they distribute invitation tickets for the elections, they will wrapped Navalny, and Putin, imagine, they will allow and solemnly chosen the president. There is a desert, kilometers of blinding sand from behind and on the right and right, a mirage looms ahead, and why not go there, drooping camels, rams, oscillating bloggers ... that is, the whole caravan? There is nothing to lose, except for chains in the sun.

Therefore, all these news related to Navalny intrigue. All these voices, distributing from the Kremlin towers, which, as it were, conflict with each other when they discuss the future fate of an unexpected candidate. In the tower where good lives, they seemed positively reacted to the plans of the disagreement, hoping in this way to “legitimize” the results of the elections. However, in the tower where evil was depressed, such a scenario is recognized as "harmful." Like, the applicant "will create noise and splash out a lot of negativity", which, by the way, is true. However, the plums quoted above are completely anonymous, so it is not even known whether they actually confront - the forces of good and evil in the Kremlin.

Volodin, except for Peskov, who said that his chief "does not" refer to Navalny’s nomination, is the first living boss who answered the pre -election question. He came directly and says. But what says - to understand without a "hawthorn" is difficult. Nevertheless, we will try, focusing, due to a deficiency of meaningful phrases, rather on the tone of the protruding.

The tone, how easy it is to hear, irritated, and this means that in the Kremlin now, a year and three months before the elections, we are tired of discussing Navalny. “The topic that is not,” says the speaker, and this probably means that he himself does not know how Putin is going to do: to legitimize the elections or, frightening the noise, to unite with the studied. At the same time, the chairman of the State Duma vaguely guesses that after the verdicts of the ECHR and the Presidium of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Alexei Anatolyevich has the right to compete with Vladimir Vladimirovich, hence the confusion with interpretations in Volodin's head. Hence the hostility to the decisions adopted somewhere. In Strasbourg.

But for some reason he firmly knows that Navalny "must dream of something else, and not about the elections", and these words, no matter how decipher, everything turns out to be a grate. Either Volodin warns Navalny that he will be imprisoned, if he does not stop, or threatening him with a prison, or sign it: run. In short, the speaker fights the Russian language, exhausting in this unequal struggle, but one very serious thought converts to us and to the addressee. This one: in the Kremlin discussions about Navalny, anger prevails and, perhaps, the agenda changes. The conditional forces of good is offered a different dilemma: we will plant or again send it on a conditional term.

This is bad news, although it is possible that it is based on a bluff. It is clear what the courts are in Russia, but still, in the framework of the “revision of the case”, which the whole world is following, to really plant a disagreement, and even declared his presidential ambitions, it will even be unique for Putin’s justice. In general, it is possible that Volodin did not talk, but made a reservation, continuously confused in words. Despite the fact that in other cases he knows how, if he wants, to give minted formulations such as "without Putin there is no Russia." However, it’s easy to talk about Putin, but about Navalny is painfully difficult, here the speaker is sausage, and he agrees to not understand what.

Nevertheless, the topic is so significant that you have to listen to and translate it from the Volodinsky language into a common -use. There is, you see, speech - the meaning is dark or insignificant, but it is impossible to listen to them without excitement, and here is just the same incident. The words are insignificant, Cicero is useless, but really worries. This is the power of the word , said to the place and to the time and with a great feeling, for which Volodin should be thanked, but we are ungrateful and therefore simply remember these words.