Secrets of political logistics

Where, why and why did Alexey Kudrin, Vladimir Ryzhkov and Boris Akunin go or not go

Where, why and why did Alexey Kudrin, Vladimir Ryzhkov and Boris Akunin go or not go. We invite you to vote

Ex-Finance Minister, head of the Civil Initiatives Committee Alexei Kudrin did not come to Vladimir Solovyov's program to discuss with United Russia member lawyer Andrei Makarov. “How can you be so disrespectful to the people?!” asked a rhetorical question host of the program "Duel" Solovyov, meaning that

there is no doubt: between the television audience and the people you can put an equal sign.

For example, I don’t watch TV at all, and even if you ask me what channel the Duel program is currently airing on (I received a fair reprimand from the editor-in-chief for participating in it), there will be no answer. I confuse the pedals, in the sense of three federal buttons ... So, according to Solovyov, I am not a people. And not the electorate.

But that's okay. From a purely technological point of view, it is completely incomprehensible why go on a program with a known result and a “winner”?

In general, Kudrin did the right thing by not going. But Vladimir Ryzhkov went to a meeting with Vladimir Putin, which provoked a tsunami of indignant groans.

The same Kudrin, being now a civil figure, goes to Putin with assessments of economic policy. Sometimes there is a result: well, it was not without “advice from an outsider” that the unprofitable project of the Moscow-Kazan road was torpedoed. If the authorities go to dialogue and are ready to listen, why not express their position. What Ryzhkov did, handing over to the president a list of 70 political prisoners and assessing the situation with the swamp case in extremely harsh terms. This is the position and deed of a politician. Here is what Ryzhkov himself wrote about this: “... I think that we should try to achieve our goals by different methods - including meeting with the authorities and putting forward clear, clear demands and proposals. Such an attempt is morally and politically justified. For the release of political prisoners, for political reform, for the organization of fair elections, we must do everything in our power.”

Why not once again remind Putin of what he does not even want to remember? Why not provoke him into a dialogue, even into hostile reactions?

Another story, with a different motivation, is the plot with Boris Akunin, who refused to go to the writers' meeting, which is rightly compared to the writers' congress of 1934: “As long as there are political prisoners in the country, being close to the ruler, just even in the same room with him Can". Putin's press secretary Dmitry Peskov responded with the following phrase: “I don't understand who he means by political prisoners. Arrested in the “bolotnaya case”?

And at this point, Ryzhkov’s campaign to Putin merges with arguments about the fact that there are political prisoners in the country, and the personal protest of the writer, a public, but, above all, a private person, about the fact that there are political prisoners in the country. Akunin is primarily a writer: "You are a king: live alone." And he has every right to engage in “social nihilism,” as Dmitry Peskov defined his position. Not to mention the fact that to line up in columns of everyday writers of Putin's prosperity on the state order is, in its purest form, a dystopian journey into the past. In this situation, black funnels should come for the writers who attend the meeting in a few years, as was the case with many of those who established the body, which set as its goal "the creation of works of art worthy of the great era of socialism" (from the Charter of the SP).

In general, firstly, to go somewhere or not to go is a personal matter for everyone. If a person is sick of a talk show or a president, why force yourself? Secondly, if it is possible to achieve at least some result as a result of political work - and in the case of Ryzhkov, what he did is his work - such a “window”, of course, can and should be used. Even if the politician himself is sick of another politician.

Ryzhkov is not employed in the administration or in the Investigative Committee.

By the way, the head of the Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin, visited the Sorbonne, and in a half-empty auditorium he received accusations that he was a “criminal” . This, of course, is not the “Duel” program, where he would have been treated with all due respect. But again, it is his private business, how to build his personal political logistics, whom to tease or convince.

We have here, though not Paris, but, as they say, a free country.