The creation of an oppositionist

The “documentary film” “Anatomy of a Protest-2” posed the question point blank: are the oppositionists betraying their homeland? And if so, should they be punished under the appropriate criminal article? It turns out that it’s not really necessary. The oppositionists are not running away, they are not very afraid of terrible accusations, and they are not going to sue them. The court and the investigation have nothing to do with it at all.

The leader of God-knows-what (it’s called the “Left Front” and in its best years the number of its active supporters hardly exceeded fifty people) Sergei Udaltsov testified to the Investigative Committee about what the NTV channel said in the second “Anatomy of a Protest.” More specifically: about the connection with – in the phraseology of the film’s authors – “Georgian curators of the Russian opposition.”

The testimony about Udaltsov’s testimony categorically does not agree between Udaltsov himself and the Investigative Committee. The official representative of the Investigative Committee, Vladimir Markin, stated that “during the interview, Udaltsov confirmed the fact of contacts in the summer of 2012 with unnamed Georgian citizens, one of whom he called Georgiy Vasilyevich” and “at the same time pursued the goal of finding legal funding for the Left Front movement.” Udaltsov did not plan any unrest on Russian territory, and he did not hear “specific statements from participants in the conversation about planning such actions recorded on video.”

Udaltsov outlined a different interpretation on his blog: “I clearly recorded that I had no contacts with any foreign structures, special services, agents, and so on. I haven’t met Givi Targamadze, I don’t know such a person.”

In fact, the name “Givi” is a diminutive of “George”, a well-known fact. So Udaltsov could well have called a person unknown to him “Georgiy Vasilyevich,” and he could have been “Givi Targamadze.” And he could look for “legal sources of financing” and promise these sources to even fly to the moon. From the recording shown by NTV, one generally got a very specific impression: the person identified as Udaltsov is scamming a strange man with a Caucasian accent out of money, who for some reason wants riots in Russia.

In other words: no one refuted what was actually shown on NTV, but also did not prove that there was at least some kind of crime in it from a criminal, rather than a political, point of view. Surely he won’t prove it, because he didn’t exist.

However, the very fact of calling Udaltsov to the Investigative Committee is interesting. Investigators rarely worry about certain publications in the media, and the speed of this reaction rarely fits within a week. For example, several journalists at the last State Duma elections recorded an attempt to stuff ballots in Moscow - not only did the head of the Central Election Commission call them “gullible,” but the investigators also had to be prompted both in the process of initiating a case and in the investigation process. Need I mention that there are no results?

The scandalous purchase of Mercedes by Russian government agencies (the Federal Security Service, the Ministry of Defense, and a number of mayor's offices were involved) did not provoke a “Udaltsov-type” reaction either - the investigators openly did not want to open a case and, as a result of the check, they did not find anything. And Daimler then almost openly admitted to bribing Russian officials. Dmitry Medvedev even publicly insisted on finishing the matter and... nothing.

There were no investigations into previous “compromising” publications about the opposition. The first “ Anatomy of a Protest ” with the purchase of extras for opposition rallies, contacts of oppositionists with the West and other science-fiction “facts” did not cause any reaction from the authorities.

But in the case of Udaltsov, the picture is the opposite. The authors of the film on NTV turned to the “competent authorities” from television and the authorities immediately became agitated and seemed to have excited nothing.

“Non-systemic” oppositionists, of course, are far from lambs, but the reaction of the authorities is somehow clearly inadequate. From harmless city madmen, the authorities, for some unknown reason, fervently produce martyrs and public tribunes. A television baton as a weapon is one thing, but why in addition turn on the repressive machine, even just half a turn, is completely incomprehensible.

In the eyes of any opposition public, government propaganda had no effect anyway; in the eyes of the pro-government public, “Anatomy of Protest” was enough. Other citizens do not care who Udaltsov is or whether he was in Georgia.

Our citizens do not trust the security forces. According to the Levada Center, the prosecutor's office is trusted by the same amount as the Federation Council and the State Duma - approximately 20 percent. State security - as much as 30. The opposite point of view is shared by 21 and 15 percent. Opening a case against a person or trying to shake the soul out of him without real grounds actually means increasing his popularity.

The fact that the tactics of such repressions are a failure could be seen at least in the example of Pussy Riot , and there the girls really encroached on the sacred. With Udaltsov, it seems, it won’t even be possible to scare the crazy people from the outback, but it’s easier to get a backlash. Vladimir Putin rejoiced in December that “active people with a position” in the squares are “the result of the Putin regime.” It’s difficult to say why, but now the “Putin regime” is also creating opposition leaders for itself.

It turns out in the incident with Udaltsov and the Investigative Committee that the media component is primary. What is the normal course: investigative actions, accusations, trial, media campaign. Here everything is turned upside down - the media campaign comes first and above all else. Everything else is just extra. A means to continue this long media story. Kafkaesque aesthetics performed by the Russian authorities.