Jeannotechnology

The reformer is mistaken . “Wetting Chubais” is not a new trend such as the test “to prove its own genuine fidelity to liberalism,” as the head of the Rusnano corporation expresses. This is one of the oldest trends in the history of the Russian liberation movement. This is a whole direction in the development of domestic social thought.

You can recall, for example, about the millennial showdown of the same Chubais with Yavlinsky, still not completed. In fact, we did not fully understand which of them betrayed and ruined democracy, and although this question has become purely academic over time, I still want to ever know the truth. Just find out so, purely for a checkmark, for the path of comprehension of truth is disinterested.

In general, the trend arose when a certain trend came, accompanied by a break in the template. Suppose Chubais, our main liberal and anti -communist, took a word and suddenly called for the construction of the liberal empire. This caused a fragment of the democratic public, and then Anatoly Borisovich began to criticize sharply. Or he reported, polemicizing with the indicated Yavlinsky that the Russian army was being revived in Chechnya, and the reaction to these words was no longer described by the weak word "gusts". Words were required more, and they sounded in separate copyright comments. Accompanied by information reports about tens of thousands of dead, tortured, dusty where the army was revived.

However, it cannot be said that the desire to “wet Chubais” was so massive in the environment that is usually called liberal. For this, there were and exist other environments. A sense of respect for Anatoly Borisovich, who affirmed the democratic values ​​in the energy sector, and then in the field of nanotechnology, nevertheless preserved among most of the unfinished national traitors. So, in the dispute of Chubais with Navalny, according to many observers, friendship won, and at the moment when the head of the corporation presented the opposition case for an iPhone, and he humbly accepted him, sobs were heard in the views. The exciting was the moment, agree.

So now, when Anatoly Borisovich betrayed his correspondence with Zhanna Nemtsova, the most impressionable of Chubais's readers, of course, wet, but a different feeling prevails. We call him a sense of awkwardness. And the point here is not that draining private letters is somehow bad, even in order to save your reputation. The fact is that the reputation is not saved like that.

First of all, the polemic level set by a famous blogger is depressing. These are all phrases like “You look without getting off the sofa”, “got into the number of trendsetters” or “Lessitable ... Competition” - who, in fact, wrote them and why? As if parodying the light from Ivanov, the reformer from the first lines rolls into some kind of wild illiterate style, appropriate more likely in Rogozin or Medine tweets. So they all have it now, or what?

Secondly, publishing letters, he wants to make excuses and expects an apology from those enemies, who guessed five days ago, whom Boris Nemtsov had in mind . However, what do we learn from the correspondence? Jeanne’s lawyer (we are talking about Vadim Prokhorov) insists that investigators interrogate Kadyrov, and appeals to the ECHR; Chubais calls these "proposals" "crazy." In fact, he accuses the lawyer of PR on the blood and urgently advises Nemtsova to abandon his services. Jeanne writes in response that "supports the actions of his lawyer." In the last published letter, she also asks: “Is my position in terms of Kadyrov’s interrogation dangerous for my life and health,” to which Chubais coldly replies: “I don’t think.” The question begs: who should be apologized for what and why?

It could be assumed that the reformer knows much more than he says, but he himself refutes this version. “I know the situation only from the media,” Anatoly Borisovich reports, but in the newspapers, citing sources close to the investigation, they write mainly that Dadaev and the accomplices killed Nemtsov for caricatures. For the fact that he allegedly offended Islam. And this lies is no longer possible to hear, and if lawyers and family members, desperate, appeal to the European court, then how can they damage the case? And what does Chubais want to convince Jeanne? Does he seriously believe that the daughter of Boris Nemtsov has at least some reason to trust the Russian investigation? And why, finally, it seems to him a "crazy" idea to interrogate Ramzan Akhmatovich? He seemed to agree to appear where should Bastrykin open his eyes to the hero Dadaev and other heroes?

And if you negotiate to the end, then Vadim Prokhorov, who defends the interests of the family and demands that the killers of his friend, performers, organizers and customer do not leave the answer, today is very at risk. Unlike Chubais, who betrays the dead friend and ally. So reading his moralizing Jeanne and accusations at the address of a lawyer is somehow quite difficult. One gets the impression that Anatoly Borisovich, entering into dialogue with Nemtsova and publishing correspondence, solves some kind of deeply personal political problems. At the request of higher comrades who respond painfully to unpleasant news from Strasbourg , and Chubais intervenes in the process. First, using the methods of secret diplomacy, and after, as if offended and insulted, he brings to the general information that Jeanne is afraid of hired killers. It’s not all and even vile.

That is, right before our eyes, the old trend is updated against Chubais, enriched with the plot, previously unthinkable. For Anatoly Borisovich retained the posture of nobility earlier in any circumstances, even when he glorified the Second Chechen War. Somehow he succeeded: on the one hand, vigilantly and patrioticly monitor the revival of the liberal empire in the ruins of the Terrible, and on the other hand, remain a democrat. Yesterday the concept has changed; A new page is included in the biography, which can no longer tear out. He himself, it seems, guesses that, publishing his rather incoherent speeches in the preface to correspondence. But he’s not fully guessed, otherwise he would not have printed them at all and say that he was struggling with slanderers who want to touch his good name. Judge for yourself why they "wet the Chubais" when he copes with this task the best.