Munich-2007

International situation

Anti -Russian information hysteria around the murders of Politkovskaya and Litvinenko, the US intention to expand the missile systems among Russian borders, the tough criticism of Russian energy policy - all this finally revealed a new model of the Western behavior in relation to our country. The West finishes with the "partnership" and goes to the "cold confrontation" with Russia. What are the main reasons for this transition?

A number of observers rightly note that the new model of relations began to finally formalize with the victory of the US Democratic Party in Congress. Bush becomes a “lame duck”, an unofficial presidential campaign has already started, and things in Iraq and Afghanistan are far from the best way. The “anti -core” attack of the United States against Iran loses every perspective. Under these conditions, American politicians, especially those who belong to a democratic camp and want to win the White House, needs a new topic that could influence the course of the election campaign. In these conditions, Russia becomes the ideal "target".

An equally important circumstance is the independent policy of Russia in the energy sector. Firstly, the construction of the North European gas pipeline Russia deprives the country of limitrophs with pro-American regimes (primarily Poland) of geopolitical advantages and makes the European Union (especially the countries of Western Europe-Germany and France) more energy-dependent. This leads to the loss of the USA the most important lever of influence on Europe.

Secondly, the requirement for the CIS partners on the need to calculate at market prices and, in some cases, the provision of joint control over gas transport networks tightly enshrines the leading position of Russia in the CIS space, creating in the future the opportunity to restart integration processes in the post-Soviet space. This, in turn, means strengthening Russia as a state, which also cannot but bother the United States.

Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that the American leadership decided to "put pressure" on Russia. Turning to confrontation with Russia, the United States and the policy participating in their election campaign (both in power and seeking to conquer it) would like to achieve the following goals:

- acting on Russia from the outside and from the inside (through the loyal segments of the elite and "civil society"), force the Russian authorities to go to foreign policy concessions;

- extract the maximum of information reasons necessary for your own election campaign.

Putin’s “Munich speech” showed that the president and with him all the highest Russian leadership perfectly “understood the hint” and are not going to concessions .

Judging by the seriousness of the statements of American officials (in particular, the statement of the US Minister of Defense R. Gates about the hypothetical possibility of a military conflict with Russia), confrontation with Russia is not a tribute to short -term fashion. However, it is unlikely that from now on Russia and the United States, they become enemies and the latter are preparing for a real war. Whoever enters the post of president of the United States, even if it is such a "big lover of Russia" as Senator McCain, he will be forced to move on to the new partnership formula with our country. Even if the new partnership formula will fully recognize Russia's policy, such an event will be proclaimed within the United States as a “victory” of the new president. But up to this point, the Russian-American confrontation will spin.

Thus, we join the Cold War, the most likely time of which is the period shortly after the election of the new US president, that is, the end of 2008 - the beginning of 2009 .

Domestic policy and choice of opposition

All observers are noted by the exceptionally high oratory quality of the Munich speech. This was not just the president of the country - but the national leader, confident and relying on the powerful support of his people. It is worth noting that it was relayed by Russian viewers in a special news release.

The special importance of speech for Russia is that Putin finally made clarity to the question of his own political future and the political future of the country's top leadership. From it and from the answers to the previously previously large press conference, it became obvious: Putin will not go anywhere and retain the full power after 2008.

Why? If only because such speeches are not pronounced by politicians who want to become backward "fathers of the Fatherland", drinking tea at a suburban residence and remembering past exploits. Those who are going to go to the post of chairman of the board of directors of even a very large company, and even more so those who intend to retire abroad for the sake of light entertainment and travel travel, do not pronounce.

"Munich speech" does not leave a stone on a stone from mythology created around Putin's image with opposition "political scientists." There will be no "successors" - neither "power", nor "patriotic", nor even more pro -Western ones . This word (as, by the way, Vladimir Vladimirovich recommended us all at the last press conference) and it really is better to forget as a parasitic word. “In the context of the world redistribution, the democratic nation cannot release his leader” - that means the leader will remain with her.

The preservation of the fullness of political power for Putin is quite legally feasible without any correction of the Constitution and without any third term - moreover, the political system becomes significantly more democratic. For example, it is possible to strengthen the powers of the Prime Minister, subordinating him to the law enforcement agencies, abolishing the not very democratic demand for the dissolution of the State Duma after a triple failure of the candidate of the Prime Minister and delegating the right to nominate their own candidates for this post along with the President of the Russian Federation. This will create a government responsible to the State Duma, which can rightfully be called the government of popular trust. The national leader will be able to head this government, and if, due to some very serious mistakes, he will lose popular trust, the new system retains the possibility of changing it. Such a political system allows you to more accurately adapt to the will of the people and provides more degrees of freedom than the current "super -presidential".

Under these conditions, the opposition, including radical, faces: or become "agents of the influence" of the USA, destabilizing the situation and helping the state to get concessions from Russia, or become (remain) genuine patriots.

For the second option, you do not need to swear at the endless love of power. Criticism, including the toughest, is needed and useful. But what is really necessary is the rejection of all hopes for the repetition of Lenin’s experience, who agreed to accept Germany’s assistance in exchange for the termination of the war and subsequently successfully overcome all the costs of this decision. Today, some leaders of the radical ("orange") opposition seriously count on the "help of the West", thanks to which they hope to lead the "their" leader ", and then the" West "to deceive. But these plans are not destined to come true - and not only because the "West" will not be able to deceive. The main thing is that the West considers the “orange” opposition not as a force capable of leading the new leader to power, but as a one -time tool with which he can nervous power. As soon as the period of confrontation with the United States is completed (see above), the proud “orange” opposition will be devoid of all support.

The preservation of firm ideological positions, the abandonment of political trade with Russia hostile forces will ultimately lead any - even at first small - organizations to public recognition and political success. Principles and firmness in combination with non -proceedings and a sincere desire to serve the people of Russia - these are tickets to the future and a pass into real power for any parties and social movements.