Baby and devil

The final vote of the “rain” after the debate between Chubais and Navalny is the best illustration of how the dispute ended live. Viewers are invited not to choose the winner of these debates, but to answer the quite rhetorical question “Did Navalny and Chubais understand each other?”, That is, the position of the channel is easily read: the friendship won, and the main result of the discussion - that it took place at all. To some extent, this is true.

For the Russian state, Navalny is a recidivist criminal, the hero of the scandalous chronicle and in general the enemy of Russia in the very broad sense in which it is now customary to operate with this term. Chubais - on the contrary, the face is quite official, titled, systematic and recognized. Debating with Navalny, Chubais, even if they simply stood in front of the cameras for an hour, shares his status with him and transfers him from the category of criminals into the category of people with whom a public dialogue can be conducted. It is so striking that it is even a pity that the host Ksenia Sobchak did not ask Chubais who he received permission for such debates - from Volodin, Ivanov or Putin himself.

Sobchak, however, did not ask anyone about anything at all, there was simply no leading in these debates, and although I really want to avoid jokes about “House-2”, it is worth admitting that the carefully thought-out and thought-out regulations of the debate-first says this one, then the questions, and both should follow the second-end of the air, when Chubais began to show the presentation of “Rosnano”. Pictures. Sobchak failed to keep the regulations under its control, and she could not do anything with this until the very end of the transfer, actually leaving the participants of the debate one on one with the audience.

If a person once lost completely, then he lost, and no debate will help this.

Further uninteresting. “Rain” asks whether it was possible or not to Navalny with Chubais to understand each other - but probably succeeded, both are well understood about each other and to themselves. At Navalny, a public oral polemic was never his strength, in a dialogue he is always noticeably weaker than in a monologue, and Chubais has just a reputation of a person who knows how and loves to argue in public; Actually, the whole classic of post -Soviet television devices is Chubais. With Yavlinsky, with Rogozin, with anyone, the second such a hero was not in the nineties and zero, and then there were no debate at all - and these starting conditions have already guaranteed in advance that the dispute will be: the boy is against the master. Both participants either did not object to such a distribution of roles, or they could not do anything with the natural course of the conversation.

Chubais recalled his merits in building a market economy, about his opponents who always said something while he did something. He wished all kinds of successes to Navalny in the political future and, obviously, if he stood closer, he would have patted his shoulder more than once. Navalny was angry, several times tried to take Chubais into a conversation about Putin, used the turnover about noodles on his ears, and even once broke into a completely indecent Soviet rhetoric about what would be better if not a manager, but a scientist at the head of Rusnano.

In general, the rain correctly leads the results of the debate to the side of who won them, because if you ask about it directly (I judge on social networks, and this is the case when you can judge them, the audience of these debates does not go beyond the standard circle of related topics on Facebook), most likely, they will answer that Chubais won. But this would still be not true.

Because if a person once lost completely, then he lost, and no debate will help this. And Chubais lost, and this happened to him long before meeting with Navalny on the air.

It is a pity that the host Ksenia Sobchak did not ask Chubais from whom he received permission for such debates - from Volodin, Ivanov or Putin himself.

By the way, Navalny tried to play this with the help of a clear homework about how Chubais used to treat state capitalism - he was bad, and now he himself is the face of state capitalism, he betrayed himself. To recapture this attack, Chubais had enough old polemic television skills, but he himself perfectly understands that by 2015 he came not at all where he wanted twenty or ten years ago. Today he is a Putin official of the second echelon, and this is half a bastard. The main trouble is if we assume that his former declared goals were precisely the goals that he strove for, then he did not achieve any of these goals. No class of owners, no free market, no democracy - nothing, only Putin and the Putin system.

The human flashed when Chubais spoke about criminal cases that if Rusnano really was wrong in Rusnano, then he himself would help the Investigative Committee to plant those who are to blame. But this is human - such a human, very unpleasant, bad and certainly unusual Chubais, who was twenty years ago. Chubais’s conditionally bold statements are interesting and the conditionally bold - they did this with the “dynasty” , it was not necessary (as if it were an excess, not a system!), And the only critical statement with the names - about Solovyov and Karaulov, which destroyed the genre of discussion on television. We can still criticize them, but it seems that only them. But there was a time - Korzhakov was not afraid with Barsukov and "their spiritual father Mr. Soskovets."

Where did everything go? To ask the key builder of the super-presidential system, the founder of the presidential administration in its current form, a person who himself made a path from the “dear Volodya” to “Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich”, of course, but something tells that he himself knows the answer, therefore he asks to say only about nanotechnologies-no one understands anything, and it is easier to pretend that everything is in order and that he is right.

In the drama of Chubais Navalny, he has nothing to do with it, and therefore, yes, the only real result of this dispute - Navalny was given the mandate of the man whom the Russian state in the person of at least Chubais considers not a criminal, but a politician and an opponent. Yes, an inattentive viewer will only see the conversation of the baby and the line - but that is inattentive, because when the closest examination of the devil is seded and duddy, and the baby has long been left without competitors in the anti -Putin field. Chubais is the past, Navalny is the future: there is no getting away from this, even if it seems to you that the past has won the dispute.