Too alive

Another, unexpected, unexpected to feel “this cannot be”: the nightmare is growing exposure, he takes new heights, and to this - to what “cannot be, but it happens” - we also had the opportunity to get used to it. The nightmare does not share his plans, but during this year we learned the rhythm of the nightmare itself, its tact.

We know that every new work of this “year”, which began just in February 2014, is not like the previous ones, and it looks qualitatively different than the previous one. In recent Russia, a figure of a similar scale has not yet been killed - there is an analogy except with Stolypin, and we know what global historical consequences it had. Analogies with Kirov are also possible - and the consequences are also known; The difference is that both previous times were talking about the figure of an official, acting representative of the establishment. Nemtsov did not occupy official posts for a long time, he was a deputy of the regional Duma, but was considered “one of the leaders of the opposition”-with the difference that nothing significant, institutional in our conditions does not mean, this is a purely symbolic supervision: no guarantees, do not give privileges, but is only a prelude to some next Yernion or, at best, condescending tone.

During this year, we learned the rhythm of the nightmare itself, its tact.

Now in the prosperous media about Nemtsov, those who are official authority are saying about Nemtsov - for example, Franz Klintsevich speaks very respectfully about him, and calls “a worthy citizen of his country” - that is how, he “loved his country,” repeats Klintsevich, and this sounds so unexpectedly in the official media in relation to Nemtsov, that the fact deserves special mention. President Poroshenko calls him a “bridge between Ukraine and Russia”, and here a diminutive suffix - a bridge purely from a philological point of view. There is a whole science of associative words, but we do not have to read all these volumes to feel that the “bridge” is associated primarily with the adjective “last”. And in this phrase, this word is involuntarily read - there was a bridge, and now it is not; And some stormy river will soon master the supports of the bridge, smash the chips and boards on both edges of the river, drag some bolts and nuts to the bottom, in general, will produce the work that nature produces when a person is powerless or does not see the point.

Meanwhile, the Nemtsov bridge was not only for Ukraine. He was a bridge, in fact, for Russia itself, the bridge between the conditional 85 percent and the rest; As well as the bridge between the authorities and the opposition, and the most intelligent on both sides are now well aware of this. Therefore, sympathy is sincere, and regret is sincere, this cannot be faked, and even pro -government political scientists today say not quite familiar things not quite familiar voices.

Nemtsov answered, very honestly: I am not ready for death for my political beliefs. To everything else - ready.

A politician is impossible without personal - this personal always affects, it has an important, and sometimes generally important importance for politics.

Nemtsov was ...

a loving person, and even too much; He was a loving person. This is generally an extremely rare case for Russia, because the power here is such a total property, it is so jealous that it requires choosing, at an early stage - either one or another. There are many reasons for speculative thoughts - that the natural manifestations of life and power in Russia are incompatible; It is enough to say that among the Soviet leaders, only Gorbachev, relatively speaking, loved his wife more than power - a short -lived communication with Gorbachev enough to see how the memories of Raisa Maksimovna are dear to him, more expensive than others; How painful he is that she left. And the idea inevitably arises that it was such a person who could only change the world for the better: and it was thanks to this person that we gained a global world, in the literal sense of the word, the real value of which we understand only now. And how could it be otherwise, if he really loved at least one-the other-a person? ... And this is, in his kind, it is logical and symptomatic that a person who can love someone individually, and not only abstractly “Homeland”, as a rule, does not get to power, simply because of some natural filters; And if he gets, then at some stage there is a substitution, internal impulses are suppressed in favor of the external ones.

This can be called a "human filter" - of the most important importance for politics in Russia.

He was a consensus figure for those who would like changes, but would not want shocks.

Nemtsov remained a bridge between that Russia and “this” - precisely because of his innate personal unique human qualities. He was an excellent object for generalized hatred of the "nineties"; He perfectly accumulated in himself all the “evil of the 1990s”, from the point of view of those who consider the nineties “evil”. And he was such a defendant for the 1990s, not only because he occupied some positions then, but because in the view of these people he looked defiantly atypical for the classical image of power: he was too alive, he did not lose his connection with life, which, of course, was reflected in his face and gestures. He was a consensus figure for those who would like changes, but would not want shocks. He was the ideal leader of the column - not the fifth, of course, but his own, small, not at all eager for his country, but does not want to march with the majority. He was able to speak harshly, but surprisingly accurately choosing the words and choosing the tone, and this tone never went beyond decency, and all his many opponents knew this, they could be calm for themselves, arguing with him. He had an amazing flair on the “norm”-the norm of the permissible in political opposition-this is absolutely some ideal behavior for the opposition policy of any European and not even the most democratic country; He was exactly what he was - an ideal politician, an opposition politician, whose disposal only words and gestures - but who at the same time respected the “political game”, strictly followed this difficult to explain from the point of view of the “rules”, possessed this talent, and even instinct, taste. He was able to smile at the same time. In general, he was the last who could speak with the authorities on an equal footing - but it was precisely to talk, and now there is no more such opportunity. This opportunity is closed with a bang, with a loud clap, sharply, disgusting and vile, as soon as possible-it is precisely the murder of the opportunity to speak, talk, the murder of the opportunity to find words, the murder of the ability to find at least something in common.

Everyone now has personal memories, every third on Facebook writes about this, and it is significant how many people knew him personally, and some part was his friends in social networks. I once interviewed him, it was during Antiseliger-2, and then the question was also discussed how far he was ready to go, and I remember very well that Nemtsov answered, very honestly: I am not ready for death for my political beliefs. To everything else - ready.

Something has fundamentally changed since then-in society, in life-so significant that his death was needed.

The last phrase can be reduced to a simple generalization - death was needed.

This life needed death.