Translated material
History Online 3
1. The week was theoretical, interspersed with natural textures, but foreign, causing all the same theoretical reactions. This, of course, is about Moldova. Facts from the field are available in visual form ( here and here ), as well as in literary form , from Vladimir Lorchenkov. The author’s second text on the same topic somewhat blurs the message of the first, but that’s how it should be - in nature, everything is always somehow vague.
There are also third-party assessments, among which the more interesting are the opinions of people living in the neighborhood where meth is used. For example, the version of the Ukrainian political scientist and media specialist Alexey Mustafin: “The West has always been pragmatic. Even in 1956, it managed to “exchange” Hungary for Suez, and in 1968 – Prague for Paris. And now it is being offered to support the oppositionists who decided to come to the rally with reinforcement and busily taking away state-owned computers from people's homes? And this after what the alter-globalists staged at the anniversary NATO summit in Strasbourg? Western politics is quite cynical, but not so much as to deprive politicians of a sense of self-preservation. How the American State Department could not remain silent after "Reuters" showed footage of the execution in Andijan, and European public opinion cannot sincerely support the Moldovan revolutionaries after all television channels showed footage of the pogrom of government buildings in Chisinau. Of course, now the oppositionists claim that they were not involved in this, but the looters could send almost the authorities themselves.It is possible that there is even some grain of truth in this. But who will believe in it?
In general, the problem is simple: it is not very clear what was there. There, it seems, the opposition didn’t insist too much on its defeat, and in general, there’s already about one party of politicians there. As, in general, in Ukraine. In this regard, it seems that the abolition of the visa-free regime with Romania and the expulsion of the Romanian ambassador is somehow clearly inappropriate. It is clear that there was an organizational aspect regarding the distribution of the same bricks or whatever, but the absence of specific mass chants clearly eliminates the possibility of another “orangeness”. At least the “orange” ones usually somehow ensure that looters don’t get into the cells. Again, the first step is to set up a tent camp so you can sit for a long time. There is no interested party in sight. In Georgia it’s a different matter .
As for Russian thoughts on the matter, they were multi-vector. It is curious that the classic everyday scheme of “liberals-protectors” is blurred. Only some very professional enthusiasts of this procedure undertake to separate the situation into “ours” and “not ours”. The most factual thing that appeared on this occasion, of course : “We know that an information war has been declared on The New Times magazine and Natalia Morar,” Ms. Albats said.”
Of course, one can insist on such geopolitical processes, but this, of course, is already an art. Although, what would some Russian observers (including protective ones like Dugin) do without their characteristic sincerity and direct personal participation in everything and penetration into the very essence of all things at once?
2. On Monday, V. Putin presented a report to the State Duma. The event is quite serious - after all, it is a crisis, and the society and everyone else did not receive a clear summary and program from the prime minister. Yes, the deputy prime ministers spoke out, but the prime minister did not formalize the situation. What is required in such cases? Facts, analysis, statement, conclusions, plan. Such a chain was not presented.
That is, in fact, it was a report to the State Duma, especially about last year, and now it’s already April.
But there was a general description of the situation: “Russia could not stay away from the crisis, of course not, this is an illusion. The problem did not arise with us, this is not in doubt, but the situation in the Russian economy is no different from global trends.”
In other words, it was not our problem that arose. But this gave us our problem, especially since they also added their own:
"We had to face two blows at once. The first blow was our financial crisis, which caused an outflow of capital from the country, and the second was a sharp drop in demand and prices for our export goods and a drop in budget revenues." However, "our market and social institutions are resilient and can operate even in such difficult conditions. This gives us confidence in the ability to overcome the crisis even more than the presence of financial reserves."
Faith is good, but there is still no plan. But this is where we have Zen and Tao: what plan can there be if we didn’t come up with the crisis, and besides, we can live in such circumstances? There is no need for a plan, everything will resolve itself. Specifically: we sit and wait for growth to happen in the West. And then the previous energy prices will return. And everything will be as before.
So the rest came down to nice little details. For example, Putin asked not to call bankers “fat cats” and not to attack them when discussing the budget. However, “You can call them whatever you like, but banks are an important sector of our economy, and it will face a very difficult second half of the year. At this time, an increase in defaults and non-payments on loans is expected, financial institutions will have to solve these problems.”
In addition, by reducing the number of officials, the state will save over 35 billion rubles this year. But this is not a problem (for those laid off), because these are such wonderful personnel that “they are unlikely to join the labor exchange, since they are in demand in the economy.”
One of the most popular hits of the speech: “I would like to answer the question about a possible transition to a differentiated income tax rate. Today our tax scale is flat - 13%. At first glance, this is unfair, this needs to be changed. However, we already had a differentiated rate - then everyone paid from the minimum wage, and received the difference "in an envelope". And after the introduction of a flat rate, budget revenues under this item increased 12 times. If we now abandon the flat rate, it’s a shame to say, but I think the situation will be the same - with a salary “in an envelope”. I’m not saying that we will never move away from a flat tax rate, but this is not an easy task. And now the whole world is jealous of us, I’m telling you for sure, I know what I’m saying,” said Putin.
And finally, the Highest Values: “We will support aviation. Moreover, I am deeply convinced that this is the future of innovative Russia. Even if it is ineffective, we will still support it.”
There is an interesting related topic here. Another subject of unconditional state support, AvtoVAZ : “AvtoVAZ intends to acquire a controlling stake in one of the football clubs in Russia, a source in the management of the enterprise told the AUTO.RU resource. According to him, after the state agreed to allocate more than 20 billion rubles to the plant, the top "AvtoVAZ managers, who have long had a passion for football, have decided to seriously consider the possibility of acquiring one of the Russian Premier League clubs. According to the company management, such a step will allow the company to win a new audience and increase loyalty to the Lada brand."
A theoretical understanding of this speech by the Prime Minister was given by D. Oreshkin : “He is afraid of losing the support of the bureaucracy, so he does not indicate such advantages (for business). At the same time, he is afraid of striking a blow to business. As a result, he remains in an intermediate state... there remains an option under called “neither shaky nor weak”... This will not really help to get out, but it will help over time to more clearly understand that we have lost a lot of time, that we still need to take steps in favor of business. It would be better if these steps were taken now , but this cannot be done, because in this case Putin would destroy his basic support - the bureaucratic apparatus in the Center and in the localities. He cannot take steps towards meeting business, accordingly, he cannot do real reforms either, so there remains an interminable a state of neither two nor one and a half."
Considering that the option of inaction and waiting for things to resolve in the West has been chosen, this version looks redundant. Besides, it’s too general. But considering everything in the most general form is traditional.
3. For example, on April 7, InOP and the Political Action Club “November 4” held a conference “The state and prospects of the political system of Russia.” According to the announcement, the “First annual report “Assessment of the state and prospects of the Russian political system in 2008” was presented there.” Regarding the report, it was said that “... this is not only the first InOP report on this topic, but in general the first such multifaceted study of the political system of the Russian Federation.
More details here .
In short, the feeling consists of sadness, which arose precisely from the fact that this is the first study of its kind. What follows is even sadder. V. Fadeev explained that there is no report yet, but there are materials - 15 chapters, which were prepared by approximately 40 people. “After a series of discussions, the report itself will appear – not very thick. Some conclusions and recommendations, in the form of a brochure. And the materials themselves will be published as a separate book. We believe that discussion is no less important than writing texts.”
For Fadeev, it is important “... to influence the state of the discussion. Now they are usually conducted with templates and cliches that arose in Soviet times. Another drawback is ignoring reality. In addition, educational ideas about what democracy should be have too much influence on the discussion. Second problem: there is a shadow, but no less effective platform - a mixture of neoliberalism and statism. A very strong emphasis on the creation of institutions at the expense of setting goals and discussing programs to achieve these goals. It is often said that democratization - there is a buzzword again - is the solution to all problems. There is no historicism. Revolutionary approaches dominate, not evolutionary ones. Thirdly, there is no place in the concepts for development - that very innovative development, there is no place for an innovative society. A gap arises between the declared goals and those institutions that should realize these goals. The mechanisms work poorly and with a creak. Perhaps the crisis will help improve the situation."
He, already regarding what was revealed in the research: “Why are the goals proclaimed as development goals, but as we descend the socio-public pyramid they are emasculated to simple operational tasks. It is necessary that development have a place in the democratic paradigm. Aspect of society: it is customary to criticize the authorities and society itself is not very convenient. But the project of human rights protection - why does this topic remain marginal? Because in Russia the demand for human rights protection is weak. The population considers rights not granted to everyone from above, but issued by the authorities. And then it can legally take them away. Tarusin considered agenda in the media, it is very different from the priorities that society sets for itself. And this gap was not created by the Kremlin. What we call legal nihilism is one of Medvedev’s favorite topics - it also permeates the entire society. And this is not only the problem of corruption "It is much broader. The task of the reports is to critically describe the state of all elements of the system and find ways to develop in the right direction. And not just as we usually do to critically examine the Kremlin's policies and criticize the United Russia party."
Here is M. Rogozhnikov, he is an optimist: “The political system of Russia frightens the authors of the reports. Why? Either by itself, or because everyone is experienced people? We haven’t studied this in this way for a year. I remember reading, that Sklifosovsky fainted during his first operation - these materials are also the first operation that we performed on our political system and fainted a little. But we need to get out of it and start studying it."
But in fact: nothing is really clear (the report is the first), the methodology is also vague (see Fadeev regarding the state of the discussion), but the reality itself is available in large quantities. They'll probably manage.
4. Secular reading – statement income of officials. A strange event indeed. It’s not even educational, if only there were pictures, it would be nothing. How can one imagine S. Naryshkin in an apartment of 240 square meters. It’s somehow scary even for him - more empty space (no furniture is indicated), small Naryshkin, screaming oh, echoes from everywhere. But if you look more closely, you can find some nice details. The same Naryshkin has “Type of real estate: residential building. Area (sq.m.): 36.” Such a small house, Uncle Pumpkin, can almost be transported on a cart.