He lied, knowing the measure

Putin became older and more experienced. His first in the last four years, the press conference was held in a free, clearly not painted communication with hundreds of journalists in advance. Among them were representatives of leading domestic and Russian media, foreign correspondents, guests, mainly women, from fairly remote places of Russia.

It was obvious that there were no questions that Putin would be afraid of. Twelve years of everyday manual management of a huge country allow it to answer questions of a huge thematic range without tension. It was about the Northern Sea Route, about amateur fishing in Astrakhan, about animal husbandry in Kalmykia or the latest electoral problems of Dagestan, Putin invariably showed a rather deep knowledge of the subject-at least to the extent that is determined by the press conference genre.

The broadcast, which the three state television channels led from the House of International Cooperation on Krasnaya Presnya, began with a surprise: Putin was not late for a second. He began with numbers, which were supposed to confirm that his reign was very successful for Russia. An experienced OKU was noticeable with a slight statistical fly: some data reached in two years, others in four, third for the entire 12-year period and even in comparison with the beginning of the 90s. Together, they created a picture of steady prosperity.

Then the questions began, and even Putin himself did not return to the glorious numbers. Except for several distinctly stupid provincial ladies, still obsessed with the irresistible Putin hypersexuality, then the mood of journalists was not only quite professional, but also completely fearless. The tone was set by Ksenia Sokolova, who represented the Snob Internet magazine, and the correspondent of “arguments and facts” Alexander Kolesnichenko. Without softening the expressions, without even trying to please Putin with understanding and courtesy, they called the Dima Yakovlev’s “Law of Yakovlev” monstrous and cannibal, directly accusing the Duma that not just small children, but the most unhappy and helpless of them became victims in the political struggle.

Putin prepared for such issues. He was not confused by tough words. He immediately threw his blanks. Here are his arguments. First: polls of public opinion showed that the vast majority of Russians are “negative” to the foreign adoption of our children. The second: in America, many of our children suffer and die, but “the American Themis does not react at all to crimes against Russian children, that is, in the courts they are considered second -grade children. Third: “We (referring to representatives of the Russian Embassy in the USA. - V.N.) are not allowed into the courts not only as participants in the process, but also as observers.”
Responding to Sokolova, who was the first to pick up the microphone, Putin was quite categorical and aggressive. He called the State Duma to the State Duma to the “Magnitsky Law” adopted in the United States. About the White House said that “they are trying to stay in the past” and that their attacks were not provoked on our part. He did not regret anger, speaking of secret prisons in Guantanamo and other places. At the same time, with great indignation, he responded to the prisoners, whom the Americans without trial contain in handcuffs and shackles. And he finished all this on a high note: “If we had something like that! They would have gobbled up with giblets! And they still show us! ”

It would seem that everything is clear. But Alexander Kolesnichenko, who asked the second question, again returned to the "Law of Dima Yakovlev." And again in the tone extremely demanding. Then Putin was a little corrected. He no longer honored American adoptive parents, but thanked for humanity and responsiveness. He told, and very vary, “about my friend and former colleague”, once the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Shredere, who adopted two children from Russia. Putin spoke a little more careful about the fate of the bill itself, which on the eve of “with a bang” in the Duma. In the sense that there are still “many nuances”, but in general there can be no complaints.
Then Putin was returned to this topic more than once. And with each new question he found new beautiful details. So, it turned out that the very text of the impending law, which threatens to blow up American-Russian relations, our president simply has not yet read. How did you find out about him? Did the assistants interpreted on their fingers? United Russia retold by phone? It remains overboard.

But that's not all. Putin said that on the way of Dima’s Law there are serious obstacles. We have international obligations. The Russian-American agreement on the procedure for adoption is still in force, and it can be terminated no earlier than a year later. And “with experts in our Foreign Ministry” we must consult. Why the State Duma, where there is a special committee on foreign affairs, first adopts the law, and then consults - it also remains unclear.

But in general, Putin left no doubt that the law would be signed by him. Foggy hints on the likelihood of some humane interventions were interspersed with remarks in the bright style of young Putin: “If (Americans) spat, we must answer!”, “This is not our choice, they provoked us!”, “They themselves are in the same consistency, and they transplant us!” etc.
That Putin resorts to conscious distortions of facts and numbers easily and willingly, even those who sincerely consider it a giant of thoughts. How, when and whoever Putin was lying on a blue eye, all this is considered a lie for salvation. And not at all, but specifically: to save the Fatherland from the enemies of internal and external.

The lies of a little smoked in all the answers. But if you select a lie with a capital letter, then you can areolate three points in a press conference. This is when it was about sick children in Russia. When arguments of the type were given: do they not steal? When it was proved that the home arrest of a friend of the former military minister in a 13-room apartment with a priest and a housekeeper was exactly the same impeccable legal justice as the maintenance in prison for the silent presence of a “back” on a film of unknown content.
And especially: when Putin argued that he was “not at the head of state” for four years and therefore could not have the slightest impact on the courts during the second landing of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Putin completed his speech with a remark simply brilliant: “The time will come, and Mikhail Borisovich will leave prison. Here (in court of MBH. - V.N.) there is no policy. Was he a deputy? And when it comes out, God forbid him health and happiness! ”

If the common banality, which is replete with press conferences, almost every significant person, the following information points deserve attention.
First. The French actor and “my friend” Depardieu can receive a Russian citizen’s passport “on the day when he wants.”

Second. The Russian position on Libya (under President Medvedev) was a mistake.
Third. A scandalous film about the former Georgian deputy, who became a pretext for the arrest of many oppositionists, was not shot by the FSB and not the efforts of agent provocators, but "quite by chance."

Fourth. “Sooner or later, I will leave this post (President of the Russian Federation) just as I left it four years ago.”
Fifth. Putin himself, imagine, still “does not know the details” of what happened to the lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who was killed in Butyrka prison. There was no time to curley.
Fifth. Putin is that our president who will never leave.
Already by the end of the second hour, traces of fatigue appeared on Putin's face, but then someone asked a timid question about health, and Putin, cheering up, answered the usual “do not wait”. He really confidently kept himself in his hands for another two hours, although he became more concise and more peaceful. Nothing strange: 60 man, and he is still editing and editing.
If you catch the eye of the text of this interview, you can easily find a place for lining lies. There are such notes nearby: "I will tell you frankly." Or: "I have no need to lie here." Or: "Honestly." There are not many of them and not a few. For this leader - in moderation.