Prokhorov – “Kremlin project”???

Dear Colleagues! I propose to think again about the figure of Prokhorov if we really want to understand the situation, and not discredit him for our own political purposes or due to personal hostility. If we really want the situation in the country to change for the better, Prokhorov may (or may not) be a good option for us.

He is a new figure in politics, and his potential rating (judging by polls on EHE) is quite high, but the following arguments are periodically voiced against him: 1). Prokhorov is a “Kremlin project”, that is, he is a “False” candidate whose goal is to “pull” the votes of liberal-minded citizens to himself, thus taking them away from the real leaders of the opposition movement 2). Prokhorov is an oligarch, and the existing regime is very beneficial to the oligarchs, they like it very much and are fully supported by them. 3). If Prokhorov comes to power, he will not take any punitive measures against Putin and his team. I have a few questions to think about on all these points: 1). Regarding the fact that he is a “Kremlin project”: - If this is so, why was he “carried out” from “Right Cause” in September? Why such a loud scandal? Why didn’t they let him get 7-9% with his party, and have a small and undeciding faction in the Duma, which would play the role of a “Whipping Boy”. Prokhorov would introduce unpopular bills like a 16-hour working day, United Russia would fail them miserably, demonstrating “concern for the people” and using Prokhorov as an “oligarchic bogeyman.” In addition, one could respond to criticism both within the country and outside it by saying that “Society has become much more democratic, and even in parliament there is a Right Faction.” Why did the Kremlin fail such a profitable project from all points of view? - If Prokhorov is a “Kremlin project”, then why doesn’t he criticize Putin?

If they agreed, then Putin would say to Prokhorov: “Come on!” Scold me for the sake of appearance! to gain the trust of these opposition idiots.” After all, it is obvious that society today is divided on the main issue: “For Putin” and “Against Putin.” And if Prokhorov wanted to win the votes of those who are “Against Putin” and “take away votes” from other opposition candidates, he would criticize him at every turn. But he doesn't. Why? The answer is obvious, because he wants to win the votes of those who are “For Putin” and thus “take away” some of the votes from Putin. Why does the Kremlin need such a “Kremlin project”? 2). Regarding the fact that “the oligarchs benefit from the existing regime, and they fully support it.” - The existing regime relies on the security forces. The main people in our country now are the security forces, not the oligarchs. The main resources of the regime are power and administrative resources, and not financial resources. In Modern Russia (unlike other developed countries), oligarchs are forced to carry out the will of major officials, and do not have the opportunity to dictate their will to them.

What is the benefit of the oligarchs from the existing regime? On what can the strategic loyalty of the oligarchs and Prokhorov to the existing regime be based? - Why then do the oligarchs withdraw money abroad in such quantities? Maybe because they feel more confident there? Maybe because the laws there guarantee the protection of property? So maybe the oligarchs are most interested in the fact that the state in Russia begins to function “like in the West,” well, simply so that they don’t have to run away and take away their money (after all, they have the most money)? - If the oligarchs are interested in everything in Russia being “Like in the West,” then aren’t WE all interested in the same thing? So maybe our interests coincide at this historical period? 3). Regarding the fact that Prokhorov will not “kill Putin” if he comes to power. Maybe this is good? Here, all of us “angry townspeople” need to honestly admit to ourselves what we really want? Do we want our life to become better? Or do we just want to take revenge on Putin? It seems to me much more useful and productive for our country to develop, move forward, look to the future and not to the past.

Therefore, I propose to simply leave Putin alone, and even guarantee him (and his capital, wherever they are) immunity, as he once guaranteed it to Yeltsin. And in general, it is necessary to pass a law that automatically guarantees immunity for ALL former presidents. This will continue the good tradition of a civilized transfer of power, which Putin once began. It seems to me that it is precisely the fact that presidents are afraid of persecution in the future that prevents them from leaving power in time, and makes our power irremovable. Therefore, the practical expediency is obvious; it is much more important for the country to install a replaceable government than to investigate specific violations of a particular president.