Destruction of the myth

In a 4-episode interview of the Russian president with an American director, we saw not the Putin he used to appear to be, but the Putin he really is or wants to appear now

The phrase “Putin is the only (option: main) European in Russia” has become practically an axiom. Well, indeed, the people are dark and terrible, if they start to choose, then it will definitely be some kind of red-brown, and Putin is the only protection and salvation from this crowd - the “common body”, as Svetlana Alekseevich very accurately indicated in her sensational interview.

Putin’s hours-long statement on camera to Stone, famous for his “Platoon”, which is a living example of how adherence to ideologemes kills reason, completely debunks this idea of ​​​​Putin as a European, like a number of other myths that are widely circulated both in the Fatherland and abroad.

First of all, Putin, it turns out, is a Stalinist. And here he refers to Churchill. That is, the famous myth about the speech of the long-term prime minister of the United Kingdom in the House of Commons in 1959, where he allegedly spoke about the genius of Stalin, who took Russia with a plow and left it with an atomic bomb. This speech, as historians have long known, never happened, but quotes from it have been circulating in Stalinist circles for thirty years, and someone put it on the table for Putin or showed it on a phone / tablet. I do not rule out that the same guard, on whose phone that fake was found with supposedly Russian special forces in Syria, which turned out to be American special forces, and not in Syria, but in Afghanistan (for more details, see NT “Fake at the highest level ” ) . Putin has spoken about Stalin’s role in winning the Great Patriotic War before, but at the same time, to avoid ambiguity, he immediately clearly formulated that ruling the country through repression is unacceptable (see, for example, Direct Line 2011). Now the words, the tone, and the connotation have changed, and this explains the growth of pro-Stalinist propaganda that we are seeing after 2014 (the annexation of Crimea) on federal channels. But not only. It seems that Putin increasingly feels like the Stalin of the 21st century: Russia - like Soviet Russia in the 1920s and 1930s - is alone, without allies, surrounded by enemies, preparing for a future, but inevitable war, and inside the “fifth column” has dug in , which is run by evil uncles from behind a hillock, pulling their little hands to our natural resources, as the new chief of foreign intelligence, Sergei Naryshkin, recently discovered. The question is, when will Putin change into a military cut jacket - before March 2018 or after?

Putin increasingly feels like the Stalin of the 21st century. The question is, when will Putin change into a military cut jacket - before March 2018 or after?

The new image - as an antithesis of a cowboy stripped to the waist on a bucking horse or a swimmer swimming across a mountain river - also requires new scenery. And they also do not fit well with the modesty inherent in European aristocracy: the royal golden chambers, three or four offices in the Kremlin - all this, by the way, does not bother the American "leftist" who is fighting non-stop against American imperialism. This demonstrative imperial luxury is also not accidental: it is designed to inform the American TV viewer that there is no former Russia, walking with outstretched hand between the IMF and the World Bank, there is a great power that accepts its majestic loneliness with its head held high and is ready to defend it under the leadership of the leader. . And Putin in these golden chambers is no longer Lenka Korolyov from your court, ready to be offended and offended, where with a sharp word, where with a fist to defend - this is the Russian Tsar, even if there is no (yet?) crown on his head. The search for a new image is still ongoing, it has not yet been fully selected, not drawn (Stalin's jacket? sovereign scepter?) - but its sketches are already visible. In any case, the ordinary guy, a man from the people and for the people, is no more, and this myth has also already been said goodbye.

Who gave an analysis of possible answers, given that the US cyberpower is not yet comparable to the capabilities of the same industry in Russia, American software is still used by banks and the largest companies in the country, and chips made in the USA were recently used in the latest Russian missiles?

Finally, the story of the fake video that Putin shows to Stone on his iPhone stands completely apart. Putin, who remembers everything by heart, Putin, who controls everything and everything - and this, it turns out, is a myth. And his public—albeit unwelcome—denunciation is living confirmation of the obvious, how dangerous it is to destroy institutions and replace them with the rule of one. The boyars who deceived the tsar are, of course, bad, who argues. But it was the tsar who created a system of such power, where institutions, written on paper, in reality are at best a shadow of them - as, for example, happened with the institution of executive power, the government or with the Security Council, which spews obscurant concepts of security from everything and everything, but is unable to provide the patron with reliable information. However, as it has already happened, Putin, who is weary of meetings, could well once again rely on the security guard, whom, as we saw from the appointments to gubernatorial posts, he trusts much more than status people from his entourage. One could joke about this - something from the old man Ostrovsky would have been quite suitable if we had not learned in recent days that Russia is in a state - for now - of a virtual cyber war with the United States ( see details e - "Cyber ​​time bomb" ). And here the question immediately arises: who, besides the Supreme Commander, made the decision to attack the computer systems of the US Democratic and Republican parties, as well as to introduce into the electoral systems of various states of the country? Who calculated the risks? Who gave an analysis of possible answers, given that the US cyberpower is not yet comparable to the capabilities of the same industry in Russia, American software is still used by banks and the largest companies in the country, and chips made in the USA were recently used in the latest Russian missiles?

If these decisions were made by one person, and a guard went to his advisers, then it's a disaster. Considering that in the United States a person is now in power who is used to expressing himself through 140 characters on Twitter, the trouble is doubly.