My friend Kasparov Harry

Russia lives in a crisis for the fifth month. The authorities have not yet lost power as a result of the crisis, and its opposition, the authorities, did not receive. The strong hands of the sellers of Japanese used cars did not extend the power to G-Dame Nemtsov and Milov and even Kasparov. And how many hopes were for these new revolutionaries from the Japanese sea from business, how much delight that they went outside a couple of times!

His shirt is closer to the body, his problem cares more than a stranger. I have been forced to pay some attention to the last six months completely hopeless, in my opinion, an organization called "solidarity", because our invaluable ally of Kasparov moved his interests to "solidarity". Well, he has to live, but thereby he moved away from "other Russia", and nothing is heard about the "national assembly". The “solidarity”, fresh, gathered on February 13 at a meeting of the political council and called on Vladimir Putin to resign.

This first political step in solidarity is striking in its helpless originality. For Putin himself to make a job that the opposition is supposed to do. When thousandth crowds come out and require "resigned, Putin!" - This is a means of pressure. But when a bunch of gentlemen in ties calls Putin to resign from a small hall - this is only a move of several ties. And this is interesting that - "solidarity" did not call to resign Medvedev!

There is an explanation of this fact. Again, as a year ago, when Mr. Medvedev was only elected by the President of Russia, Russian liberals had vague hopes for Medvedev. These hopes are formulated seductive by the assumption that Medvedev can decide to resign Putin. I think that at night, in bed, one on one with himself, a rare liberal will decide on such an assumption. But together, in the company from a couple of dozens of friends in the class, during the day, they meditate for hours on this topic. Since liberals believe, Medvedev, having eliminated Putin, will save them from the hardships of struggle, from suffering, deprivation, from cold streets, where they have to go out from time to time. Therefore, many are pleased with a slight beautiful fairy tale: Medvedev resigns Putin, calls on smart guys from "solidarity", planting them into key posts in the state. Miracle. Fairy tale!

If you do without irony, then it increasingly seems to me that my personal battle for Kasparov did not end in my favor. When in February 2006 we first met, I saw in front of myself, first of all, a fresh, energetic person who is free from most prejudices usual for liberals. In essence, he still did not have a political past - the authority of the world champion, and most importantly, energy, energy came from this person. I also examined some naivety in his understanding of the general picture of the opposition (he knew and understood the power better), but naivety usually disappears with experience. I finally saw a person in front of me, with whom it was possible to work together. I was very happy about the appearance of Kasparov on the political stage.

And we began to work. They created "another Russia", which I still consider the most effective political coalition of the opposition. The first, but immediately a large political minus, I was forced to put Kasparov on June 28, 2007, when, as a result of a seven -hour meeting, the subject of which was a nomination of a single candidate from the opposition in presidential elections. Kasparov could not agree with Kasyanov. Since my supporters and I tried by all means to preserve the tripartite union within the "other Russia", we are not guilty of split. No way, it’s not at all guilty. The passions and ambitions of third parties prevailed, unfortunately. The integrity of the coalition was much more important than participation in the elections to which in the end none of the opposition leaders reached, as you know.

The disadvantages that I put Kasparov were not disadvantages according to the ideological principle. I gave him grades for work. I worked with him and continue to work. The "National Assembly" did not become a revolutionary convention, did not become a wall -mounted machine for the assault on the power of power. This happened in many ways because Harry Kasparov did not want this. He created the majority of the National Assembly Bureau and with its help successfully repelled all attempts to reformat the assembly. He and his comrades fiercely opposed the convocation of the full -time session of the National Assembly, rightly assuming that the deputies of the regions will not be on their side.

“Another Russia”, “National Assembly” - even one of these coalitions would be enough to successfully consolidate all opposition forces. However, something in the character of Harry Kasparov, apparently, each time stops him in the transition to the actual struggle. The stage of the organization is his native element. They created the organization - and, it would seem, "went!". But no, suddenly there is a wave of indecision. They stand ... rot ... decay ...

When I first heard that the liberals are discussing the creation of a narrow liberal coalition and Kasparov wants and will participate in this coalition, I thought that this was already completely inappropriate, unnecessary, untimely and looks mediocre. Moreover, at the time of the global crisis of liberal capitalism, which is more and more not like a crisis, but to the death agony of the world capitalism system. In addition, this is a mediocre undertaking, I thought, even more than now, tore off Kasparov from us, direct his efforts to useless activity. I reported our fears Kasparov. He assured me that he himself does not believe in the future of the association of liberals, but participates to control. Alas, he, apparently, was carried away, our friend Kasparov Harry.

Looking at the chaotic landscape of the opposition forces, the contours of its organizations, the identity of leaders, I came to the conclusion that the army is huge, but is completely incompetent. Even such a strong organization, such as "another Russia", was bloodless and blurred. And it did not do this, but the inexpensive, non -base, indecisive behavior of dozens of small leaders. In mid -January, I made an open letter to Mikhail Kasyanov and Harry Kasparov, in which I proposed to create a triumvirate: to personify the opposition of the country with three commanders of its most powerful detachments: Kasparov, Kasyanov, Limonov. I wrote: “The opposition urgently needs a solid, personified guidance, in raising one flag under which the warriors will gather ... I propose a union of three. I propose to make wise decisions with three minds, instead of hysterical arithmetic votes ... Having taken over the severity of such a fate, we will convince our supporters that we are ready to bear personal responsibility for the country, that we are not just“ engaged in politics ”, we are not only“ engaged in politics ” But we connect our lives with the fate of the country and the nation. "

Kasyanov answered me, answering the question asked to him at the Internet conference. He answered vaguely and diplomatically: "We are ready to interact with all democratic forces. But the topic of a wide coalition has not yet matured." Diplomatic, common, but replied: "No." My friend Harry Kasparov has not yet formulated his answer. I'll wait a couple of weeks.