Who left us without a rally?

Time has passed, passions have subsided, the characters have spoken. Now you can analyze. I think my position is now close to final. So: because of whom did the people who came to the rally not see this rally?

To be honest, I immediately felt that all this was not good. The differences between this Bolotnaya and all the previous ones were striking: there was no such transparency and excitement in preparing for the rally. Previously, we heard a sea of ​​interviews: organizers, city hall, simply sympathizers, live broadcasts of organizing committees, voting at these organizing committees via the Internet, voting on Facebook. Now there was none of this. There was only Udaltsov, who came up with this stupid name "March of Millions", there were not even people who would criticize him for it. Navalny seemed to support, but was not active. The apotheosis was his refusal to discuss the “March of Millions” on Finam FM in Yuri Pronko’s program. The journalist was terribly offended, and I understand him perfectly. If we ignore emotions, then Navalny’s act is simply irrational.

All the Parkhomenki, Akunins, Parfenovs, Lazarevs and other “non-politicized” comrades fell through the earth. In my opinion, it was their presence on the organizing committee that allowed previous rallies to be held positively and with virtually no conflicts. But, apparently, someone has resolved their current problems (here I can’t help but remember Belkovsky, who casually mentioned the increase in circulation), someone was simply tired, and besides, everyone agreed that the protest had faded away and there was nothing left to catch there. As a result, they left to dig potatoes, leaving civil society alone with Navalny, Udaltsov, Nemtsov and Yashin.

Such a company, I’m sure, bothered not only me: everyone’s provocative dossier is quite significant, just remember the demarche of Navalny and Yashin from Chistye Prudy in December. The “angry townspeople” faced a difficult choice, but in the end they decided that it would be a shame and shame not to go out that day. I really didn’t want to demonstrate to all the spiteful critics that we were all frivolous in our intentions. Moreover, everyone was tuned in to the march, as if it were the last push. As a result, as we know, there were a lot of people, which once again no one expected to see in such numbers.

City Hall was no exception, so we saw 7 or 10 frames at the entrance, so that even though we were an hour late, we managed to overtake the column. The passage to Bolotnaya was, of course, narrow. And there was no reasonable reason to do it this way. The huge wasteland behind the chain of riot police looked mocking . Therefore, when the column approached the turn, it naturally experienced a certain discomfort: instead of free passage to the square, it was necessary to “seep through” to the stage. Actually, this could be done by rolling up a banner, a huge white ribbon, pressing tightly against each other and approaching the stage. But I'm sure many people didn't imagine it that way. I would like to hear the name of the boss who decided to cut off a piece of the passage with a chain of riot police.

We, of course, hear a wonderful rotten excuse from the mayor’s office, for example, in the person of the head of the Moscow regional security department, Mr. Alexei Mayorov, they say, the rally was announced for 5 thousand, so we made a pass for 5 thousand; 8 came, but we re-mortgaged and were counting on 15. Well, firstly, the sooner the Main Department of Internal Affairs and the mayor’s office master arithmetic, the better it will be for all of us: there were at least 30 thousand protesters. According to some estimates, even more, but I am inclined to this figure. Secondly, the army with barricades that stood on the Big Stone Bridge indicated that they were waiting for, at a minimum, Napoleon’s army. So before you lie, you have to decide: are you lying that you were counting on a few people or a lot of people? And thirdly, it is absolutely obvious that no one can predict the exact number of people, so I don’t understand why responsibility for the error in numbers is placed on the organizers? Sociological institutes are not working for Udaltsov yet. Even if the number differs from the declared one, this is not a reason to make a problem out of it. City authorities must ensure the safety of citizens in any case.

In short, no one deliberately moved the chain, apparently trying to demonstrate some incomprehensible principle. The mentioned riot police on the bridge was also beyond all limits, and ordinary people experienced indescribable irritation and displeasure at the sight of it. I understand that there may have been reason to believe that there would be provocations and that someone was very afraid of a “march on the Kremlin.” Well, if you are so cowardly, carefully place this whole horde somewhere behind the neighboring house, if something happens, it will completely block the bridge in two minutes. Instead, they decided to show all the townspeople who runs the city.

I agree with Delyagin that the batons could well have been replaced with shields. This is a psychological question of goal setting: did you come to maintain order or did you come to beat us with your clubs? I think this also played a role.

However, as you know, a fight most often begins when both sides want a fight. In general, it was clear that Udaltsov was beginning to play an increasingly important role in this entire company. A guy with character, a lover of “serious male actions”, which partly inspires respect, but not everyone shared this position. When all the media figures abandoned the protest to their fate, this guy realized that now was his way out. He submitted an application, came up with his own name for this action, removed all the beginnings of democracy from the process of organizing the rally (for example, Mitrokhin said that he was not included in the organizing committee) and began to “crush” everyone under him. In all the recordings it is easy to see that he plays the main role, makes decisions almost single-handedly, acts decisively and quickly.

In addition, Navalny clearly fell for this cheap “boyish” scam. Apparently, he is afraid of seeming less “cool” than Udaltsov, so he actively agrees with him, but clearly loses in this competition, because the initiative is always with Udaltsov.

Actually, Udaltsov has nothing to lose: he is a radical, he will never be able to offer a coherent political program, he will never win any elections. His strong point is different: organizing protests of varying degrees of radicalism. Here he is the king and understands perfectly well that he must strike while the iron is hot. The more radical protesters he gets, the higher his political capital, and simply an asset that can be used for subsequent actions. At the same time, Navalny is losing his real supporters, people who transferred money to Rospil, who are expecting a legal program from Navalny. Among people who want to smash shop windows, he can also gain some authority, but he will never “outshine” the same Udaltsov. So Navalny now has every chance to bury his political future with a couple more such actions.

So: of course, each of the politicians has his own interest, and for the sake of it they engage in all this activity, and not for the sake of “the fight for the truth” or “the dream of fair elections.” This is normal and does not characterize them in a bad way at all. This is how the world works. It so happened that at that moment these guys thought it was beneficial for them to organize this stupid sit-in strike. They decided to “just sit down.” Let me remind you that Udaltsov’s demands were an hour of live broadcast on federal television channels, Putin’s resignation and free access to the square. The improvisation was quite worthy, but none of the protesters were ready for such an approach, so only the activists joined the strike, and perhaps a couple more people who were confused. Then persistent calls were heard from the stage to join the strikers, because they are “not allowed” into the square. I think, needless to say, this was not true. They could easily get to the square, with some difficulty and in rather cramped conditions, but they could. They just didn't want to. The call to support them was not isolated, so it was a completely deliberate provocation.

Then it became clear that the countdown had begun. The crush on the bridge in direct contact with the riot police was simply bound to end in a breakthrough and brawls. The only question was whether someone would have time to do something or not? As it turned out, there was no particular desire. So at that moment it was clear to both the organizers and the authorities that there would now be a breakthrough, and, in general, everyone was happy with this. Moreover, the breakthrough will be made by one of the radical groups: the video showed how they simply pushed other people towards the riot police, i.e. they weren’t even particularly exposed to the batons.

The result is a chocolate picture. The opposition is outraged by the lack of space and “just sat down.” Knowing full well that the hot anarchist heads will break through the riot police, who were placed in the first line smaller and without shields, and then the riot police will begin to sweep everyone in a row. That’s when we all stood up and look, everyone: the authorities, for no apparent reason, are beating us with batons!

The authorities are not losers either. We just stood there, our riot police ensured your public order, but your Protestants maliciously crushed our honest riot police, and we had to disperse you all for your own good! And in general, look at yourself in the mirror, stand in the corner, you don’t know how to behave: we treat you kindly, but you ruined everything yourself. So sit in the kitchens, discuss Putin there, and we won’t let you in at any more rallies, because... you are unreliable and threaten others with your presence.

Only ordinary people who fall under the distribution suffer.

At some point it seemed that there was still a chance of a peaceful outcome. The applicants for the event went to the stage with a clear desire, after all, to hold a rally. Perhaps they decided that such a mess was enough - I don’t know. But here’s a surprise: the equipment has already been turned off, none of the organizers are allowed on stage, and everyone knows the ending - Udaltsov is being twisted right on stage. I understand that you are so cool and have tied up all the “disturbers of public order.” But what's the end result? You got a crowd of 20-30 thousand people in a severe crush, which, at your instigation, was left without a rally and you don’t have any mechanisms to make sure that the crowd disperses by itself. There is simply no person who would say: guys, let's break up. Was it really so difficult to allow an authorized rally to take place, even if it would have taken about an hour, they would have said 5 times that Putin is a thief, Udaltsov would have said that he will not go anywhere, then 95% of the rally would have gone home, and the remaining 2 thousand you would they be forced out of the square without any complaints? No, of course this was not an option. Why disperse 2,000 people when you can disperse 20,000! And once again I would like to appeal to officials from the mayor’s office and the police, and especially personally to the head of the press service of the Central Internal Affairs Directorate, Elena Alekseeva, there is no need to lie (we listen to the morning spread of May 12, 2012 on Ekho Moskvy)! If you decide to arrest all the organizers of the rally and the stage, write an arrest warrant, draw up a report and tell us what charges have been brought against them - no questions asked. But why lie that the police did not interfere with the rally if the whole world saw how Udaltsov was removed from the stage by six riot police? By the way, it’s interesting to know: did they draw up a protocol on the offense? There are, of course, lies on the other side: for example, Chirikova claims that she saw how, without any reason, riot police began to disperse the sit-in.

In general, everyone is good, and we ordinary Protestants will again have to think, analyze and figure out how not to get stuck in such a story again. I believe that some (the authorities), and the second (the organizers), and the third ("our intellectual elite") are to blame, but I want to be the first to clarify something. How the opposition behaves and how we feel about it are our personal problems. And there is a simple way to solve them: for example, I will no longer go to the actions that Udaltsov will organize without significant addition of other forces. But, unfortunately, I cannot change the city authorities and riot police. If I could go to a rally where security was provided by another police force, I would go there, but I don’t have that opportunity. Besides, we pay you money for your work! So please do it conscientiously, and not carelessly! The ultimate responsibility for any unrest always lies with you, because you are the power and you have almost all the levers!

I also wanted to add about masked provocateurs who threw smoke bombs, cobblestones and Molotov cocktails. Of course, they were at Bolotnaya, but they were at all opposition rallies! There were more of them, they were different and they were better organized. There were a lot of anarchists against Sakharov and they behaved very aggressively. And I’m sure that they had smoke bombs and Molotov cocktails in their pockets back then. The only question is: do you want to create conditions for them to successfully use all this joy or not? If not, then the problem can be solved simply: more free space, no crowding and the ability to move freely around the area. Since you did not provide this to the protesters, consider that Molotov cocktails were thrown at the riot police by city hall employees, and not by guys in masks. And Mr. Mayorov has an excellent reason to resign, as a person who miserably failed his government assignment.