About painful things. National

The first stage of the struggle. For the agenda. We are told that the question on the agenda is what is enough to feed the Caucasus. Maybe. But first, let's find out who's talking. If those who say so would make at least some decision about financing the Caucasus in general and Chechnya in particular, then this would be understandable. At first we supposedly made one decision, then we realized it was wrong and now we are seeking public support for a different view of this problem.

But in our case everything is not so! I didn’t win, but I lost, not sports lotto, but playing cards, not a car, but 10 rubles. We all know how much participation all the “citizens” of our country taken together take in resolving certain issues. Be it issues of interbudgetary relations or any other. As they say, there is only one citizen in the country, and everyone knows his name. Recently he appointed a receiver to a receiver. I myself am now in receivers. (No longer). This is about serious guys. But when Milov and Navalny get together and start: stop feeding... Our money, our money. We know who makes decisions about “your money”. For some reason he doesn't ask you. These are all emotions, of course. But seriously. At the first stage, the struggle is for an agenda, and by pushing such an agenda, in such a presentation, these oppositionists work for the authorities.

I have always been surprised by how toothless the opponents of Putin and the current government become when they suddenly start talking about Chechnya or the North Caucasus. Nemtsov with his “idea” of a Russian governor-general, Yavlinsky with his proposal to divide Chechnya, Zyuganov “explaining” that all this did not happen in the Soviet Union, and terrorism was started by the Kremlin, Zhirinovsky imprinted with full refrigerators of the residents of Grozny. Now here are the young politicians of the new Russia. And we are waiting for something new, fresh, creative. And here: stop feeding! That's all? Casually insulting people (the backwaters of Russia), talking about the weak intellectual abilities of school graduates from there and alienating a huge number of active people who, if not for these b..s. intonations, could have been supporters of opposition political forces.

But it was decided to play with white, against black, and no one is interested in these moral assessments. Navalny talks about honesty as a slogan. He says that Putin was positive until 2003, then suddenly he became bad. It’s probably fair to say that someone eats more than you. Maybe. But honesty in counting money is nothing if you do not notice the shelling of cities. Eating someone is bad, but killing someone is even worse. As judges say when passing sentence: by partially absorbing less serious crimes into more serious ones. Illarionov said recently that Putin is now a significantly less meaningful figure than 10-12 years ago. This is Illarionov now, a slightly more meaningful figure than 10-12 years ago! And Putin was the way he remains today. And you made him with such speeches.

Neither in 2003 nor in 2011 was it meaningful and positive. And you can “put pressure on the toad” of the aborigines as much as you like, speaking out against the “newcomers”. Putin became Putin in Chechnya and your accounting will not push him over. Can you continue to pretend to be citizens and cry out for how long? Even immersing yourself in nationalism does not help you! Yes, but they may ask what you offer besides criticism. I suggest not deceiving yourself or others to begin with. There is no question yet about who should be allocated money and how much. Even more than that. If we ask such questions, especially in this way, it will not bring us closer to the moment when we become capable. Don't insult anyone en masse. Or then turn this situation on yourself, and insult yourself for all the ugly actions of Russians or Jews. Even if you not only have nothing to do with such circumstances, but also did a lot and sacrificed a lot so that such a relationship would not exist. First we need to restore the very ability to do something. This opportunity to do something was lost precisely in the Caucasus, using a similar attitude towards Caucasians. This is actually a continuation of Putin’s policies, which are presented as anti-Putin. In this sense, Navalny and Milov and Nemtsov are loyal Putinists. Everything that helps sober up. The truth, even if it is bitter. Admitting mistakes, even if there are a lot of them. Everything, even admitting the fact that it is not clear how to defeat these guys. But after a clear, unambiguous opposition!