Translated material
From gray to black
In the Kremlin
From gray to black
July 23, 2012 Julia Latynina
Russian society has changed a lot. For example, in 2002 in the south of Russia there were the same and even stronger floods. The damage was calculated by billions. There was even no question of volunteers. In 2002, there was a clear feeling that the state, with its Ministry of Emergencies, the army, the budget, etc., is simply able to make for the injured areas ten times more than a volunteer.
In 2004, it was pointless to expect the mass movement of observers in the elections; Moreover, mass protests based on the results of their falsification.
Two factors played a key role in the changes. The first is the emergence of a middle class in Russia, which needs productive activities in civilian freedoms and the protection of its rights. Freedom is generally such a public product, the demand for which comes from the third estate. Freedom in the history of mankind was not needed by pharaohs, officials, scribes, bishops, barons, dukes, and laborer. They had other priorities. The barons have impunity, in laborers-an 8-hour working day, etc. Freedom needs freedom.
The second factor is an extraordinary, unprecedented collapse of the state. The state under Putin evolved back from the "stationary bandit" to the bandit of the vagabond.
I want to draw attention to the fact that the Internet does not play a key role in the changes. It is their catalyst - no more. And the key changes themselves are associated with irreversible and tectonic processes in society and power.
Your humble servant has long written that the comparative liberalism of the Putin regime was associated with two factors. One is the one that is hard to screw the nuts if you keep money abroad. The second is that in the conditions of the state monopoly on the TV, the cult of the alpha and the abundance of Nefteedollars Putin, like Hugo Chavez, enjoyed the support of the majority of the population. In these conditions, he could not pay special attention to all sorts of lovers of freedom who were partial on the Internet or shakalili at the embassies.
In December, this lafa ended. It became clear that the Putin system of government in the person of the party of crooks and thieves, even with falsifications, does not receive more than 50% and that Putin himself without falsification, if he receives 50%, then with great difficulty.
Putin had two ways in these conditions. One - to meet the requirements of the opposition, dissolve the parliament, declare new parliamentary and presidential elections. Putin would win in new relatively honest elections, if not in the first round, then in the second. This would disarm the opposition and make him an absolutely legitimate president in the eyes of the West. This is about the path along which Yeltsin went in 1996.
For Putin, this path was obviously unacceptable, primarily because of his internal psychological attitudes. Apparently, the idea that his legitimacy should rely on the will of the population - these are the oldest and old women who do not conduct electricity when Putin is building a residence near their houses is unpleasant and unpleasant for the head of Russia. He is unlikely to consider himself an expressor of the interests of bureaucracy or close friends - he just complained to foreign leaders too many times, that all around the crooks and thieves, that there was no one to rely on. Most likely, he considers himself a direct exponent of the will of God. Well, God sent Putin to save great Russia, but there is no one to rely on: everyone around is stealing.
Accordingly, only the second way remained - to try to intimidate the emerging opposition, to crush it with restrictions, fines, and criminal cases. Turn the defeat into victory with technical means.
Plus, it was necessary to somehow ideologically comprehend the challenge abandoned by the opposition. That is, to explain to himself the ruler chosen by God, where, why did these people arise in the 12th year of reign and what do they require? And there are two options: either these people arose due to screaming shortcomings in the country's management system and it is necessary to change the management system, or, conversely, everything is so good in the country, it is great, it has a great ruler, and therefore the enemies of Russia are envious of this ruler and decided to throw it away to destroy Russia.
Obviously, the second explanation has been chosen. Although, of course, if someone sought to destroy Russia, then, from my point of view, he could not find anything better than Putin.
Today, repressions are not very cruel. They go far beyond everything that is possible in a democratic state, but they do not reach the level of violence to a real dictatorship. All the laws adopted against freedom by the Duma over the past month unites one thing: they are trying to stay in the gray zone. They do not shoot unauthorized rallies, but are fined, the opposition is opened by e -mail, and not the veins, they are not fighting the creeps on the great and divine head of state, but with pedophilia.
Moreover, a significant part of these measures arises as a result of a private initiative. Relatively speaking, some Bastrykin comes to Putin and says: “But here we have information on Navalny. What to do?". Answer: "Do by law."
Obviously, as protest moods in this gray zone grow, it will not be possible to stay for a long time. If the hundred thousandth crowd begins to break their heads to riot police, the law on the fight against pedophilia on the Internet will not help. You will need a specific and clear order - shoot the crowd. Moreover, it is unlikely that it will be possible to give this order by default, by Default. “But here we have information that there will be an unauthorized rally. If they go to take the Duma, shoot or not? " Obviously, the answer “act by law” simply will not work. It will be very difficult to find in the Putin system of power a person who will undertake to carry chestnuts from the fire for Putin, realizing that there is no sanctions, but there is a chance to be hanged in a week on the lantern.
Obviously, if the regime decides to shoot, then it will last a long time. There is no need to build illusions here. Violence is effective. If the bloody tyrants rose the people immediately torn apart, then the Bolsheviks would be torn immediately after shooting at the Kronstadt rebels.
It is also obvious that an international reaction to such shooting should not be overestimated. The paradox is that Russia under Putin has become so weak that no one is inclined to pay special attention to it. A senior American official, if you ask him: “What will you do if Putin sends the troops to the aid of Assad,” he will answer: “He will not send. There is no one to send him. ”
In my opinion, the likelihood of the transition of the regime from the "gray" zone to the "black" is quite high. Two things can withstand her. Firstly, this is a clear understanding of the ruling kleptocracy of the fact that when moving to the “black” zone, they will all fall into the Mangitsky list. Here are all these Timchenki, Kovalchuki, Rotenbergs - they must understand that there will be no more villas in Switzerland and yachts on Sardinia. They will rest in Sochi, and hunt in the Ussuri reserve. Moreover, for one reason or another, not always connected with Putin, this can apply to Deripaska, to Abramovich, to Alfa-that is, to large business players, which are difficult to reproach for what they wanted Russia to be controlled as it is controlled now. But which interact with the authorities, because large business is always more than business, especially in authoritarian countries.
The second that can stop the sliding into the “black” zone is a strategic understanding that when bloody regimes, truly bloody regimes collapse, they are replacing even more bloody regimes. Violence - real, thoughtful, systemic violence - when you cannot stop the slogan "Let's live together." Systemic thoughtful violence stops even more bloody violence.
The British King George III, whose third parliament votes against the war with the rebellious states, can defeat Washington and Jefferson, with a common score of 4 thousand people. Only bloody Islamists can stop the bloody dictator Assad.
In the case of Russia, this should mean: Mr. Timchenko and Mr. Friedman? Do you want Navalny on presidents? Well, then in three years, depending on the price of oil and a number of non -linear events, you will receive Comrade Udaltsov to the leaders of the nation.
Are these strategic considerations able to stop not even Putin, but his environment? To be honest, it is unlikely. While we are observing the process of such a positive feedback, in which every person who wants to rise comes to Putin and says: “And here I have an idea.” As for fines for rallies or there is a fight against pedophilia. And he does not expect strategic consequences. He expects the tactical consequences, which consists in the fact that he will be somewhat exalted in the hierarchy. To imagine that someone will come to Putin and say: “Listen, guy, if we continue, then, of course, we will last another five or even 10 years, but then they will hang us,” alas, it’s difficult for me.
Photo by RIA Novosti
All rights to materials located on the EJ.ru website are protected in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, including copyright and related rights. With any use of the site and satellite projects, hyperlink (Hyperlink) on EJ.ru is required.