Rybkin is worse than Yavlinsky Sergei Mitrofanov mitron@rinet.ru July 01 19:24 MCK

No, of course, Ivan Rybkin is a very famous politician. However, he is known mainly as an example of harmoniousness in politics or conformism.

Its main period of political history begins in 1993, when immediately after the shooting of parliament by Boris Yeltsin, Rybkin headed the State Duma. In this important post, he did not distinguish himself either by eloquence or by upholding the principles of parliamentarism and, in general, was forced to maneuver representative power in the wake of the executive. Thus, in fact, he laid the foundation of the system, about which it was later said that the parliament in it turned into a registration chamber.

The 1996 elections completely leveled Rybkin as a political figure.

In 1996, he was clearly confused and upset. At one time, his secretaries distributed unreadable texts to the editorial offices, in which Rybkin tried to position himself as a socialist, thus preventing real socialists and real social democrats from appearing on the political arena of Russia. But Rybkin could never clearly explain what a socialist idea is in the conditions of liberal reforms. And I hardly ever wanted to.

In October 1996, the ex-speaker received from Yeltsin a new lifeline - the high-profile position of Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, replacing General Lebed, who had become too "active", in this post.

On the one hand, even in this position, Rybkin managed to neutralize its significance, but on the other, he had to participate in a very controversial process - the settlement of relations with the rebellious Republic of Chechnya , begun by Alexander Lebed .

It is impossible to deny the fact that the Khasavyurt agreement had at least the consequence that during the period of “settlement” in Chechnya, fewer bombs exploded in the houses of civilians and fewer Russian soldiers were killed. However, Russian society still cannot find a consensus in the assessment of Khasavyurt and continues to argue about ways and methods of solving the Chechen problem.

Not the last obstacle to counting Khasavyurt as an achievement of politicians (including Lebed and Rybkin) is the understanding of the fact that the settlement in Chechnya was useful to the then elite not only in its struggle for peace, but in its other tireless struggle - mainly for budgetary financing of restoration work with subsequent write-off.

“A new bridge was laid, but was washed away by the flood,” as Marina Tsvetaeva once wrote. The funds that went through Chechnya, including through false AVIZOs, which were sometimes fabricated by the managers of commercial banks themselves, are quite huge. Nevertheless, it is also clear that the final assessment of Khasavyurt will depend not on the objective historical value of the agreements adopted there, the number of killed and the amount of stolen goods, but on which group will be in power in Russia and how it will be positioned in relation to the course of the Yeltsin elite.

Since 2001, Russia has been a full-fledged participant in the anti-terrorist operation, which has opened up for it the possibility of a forceful solution to the Chechen problem. In addition, people from the special services, organized due to circumstances into a political detachment, have acquired great influence in the authorities, and demand even more. But one of the ways to remove Yeltsin’s elite is to investigate the circumstances of what happened under him. “ ┘There is a revision of the political course, and in many ways there is a desire to present it as somehow criminal. ┘This is, I think, a very dangerous trend,” Ivan Rybkin complains bitterly on the pages of Nezavisimaya Gazeta .

The Prosecutor General's Office became interested in the Khasavyurt period, and Rybkin feared that he would be accused of either political myopia, or, even worse, selfish interest.

After being summoned to the prosecutor's office, Rybkin publishes an open letter to the president, in which he advises Mr. Putin to start peace negotiations with Mr. Maskhadov again and offers his help. But “the authorities’ reaction was predictably harsh,” as Nezavisimaya Gazeta noted. Sergei Yastrzhembsky, who deals with information policy issues in Chechnya in the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation, rather rudely advised the mediators not to worry.

What’s even stranger is that the next day, Saturday, trouble happened to Rybkin in his own party. "┘Everyone agreed with the second person in the party - Secretary General Alexei Podberezkin. Mr. Podberezkin considers the united socialists to be “left-wing patriots” and therefore is confident that they should support Vladimir Putin, who is aiming for a successful anti-terrorist operation (“ Vremya Novostey” , “Eternally Persecuted ”). Ivan Rybkin was forced to leave.

There are, apparently, limits to loyalty. On the pages of Nezavisimaya Gazeta on Monday, Ladybug Rybkin became even more conversational. Now he directly accused the Putin regime of “revising the political course” and that “the intelligence services are becoming self-sufficient.” As Rybkin said, “when they decide everything, that’s all, that’s the end of everything! If today it happens in Chechnya, tomorrow it will happen all over Russia! Yes, it’s already happening in Moscow! The fact that they rolled through all the channels, lined up everyone... Decrees on who to show, who not to show... I was included in this list with Yavlinsky before anyone else, even before Yavlinsky.”