Translated material
Conversation with Barbar
On the network, the second day does not subside on a statement published by Alexei Navalny :
Strelkov Igor Ivanovich calls me to public political debates on behalf of Russian nationalists.
He sees the goal of the debate to prove that I am neither a patriot, nor a nationalist, nor even an oppositionist, and means three main topics of discussion:
1. How can I defeat corruption by becoming the president?
2. My position on the Western partners of Russia.
3. What will Navalny do, becoming the president, with Donbass and Crimea?
Well, I am a hot supporter of open political discussion and open debate. I have something to say on these topics. A similar conversation with Igor Ivanovich Strelkov, who, of course, is the expressor of the opinion of a particular group of citizens of the Russian Federation, I am interesting and I am ready to participate in it.
Many commentators reacted to the intention to debate with the former "DPR defense minister" if not with sarcasm, then with horror.
Finally, I found a worthy debater.
And who will be broadcast? The television channel saved at least?
Good idea. One will be in a toga with a tie, the other in Kappelevskaya form with real blood on the sleeves. The main question of the discussion - to give or not give Crimea - will be allowed in the duel, despite the absence of disagreements on it.
Navalny will hold a public debate with Girkin, who "shooters".
Um, why not with Professor Moriarty?
It seems to me it would be more interesting ...
At first, at Life they wrote that the Bittsev maniac supports Navalny, and now they have a debate.
Eh, it’s a pity, the patriots of Givi and Motorola did not live.
Givi died - and there is no one to talk to ...
Well, Milchakov still remained.
It is a pity that Givi and Motorola can no longer call Navalny on the debate. In general, debate with terrorists is a wonderful PR.
- Kirill Martynov (@kmartynov) July 11, 2017
The debate with Girkin is like a debate with the operator of the Buk complex with the participation of relatives of those who died in the studio.
- Kirill Martynov (@kmartynov) July 11, 2017
You can debate with any political opponents, but not with criminals and killers. There may be one form of communication with them: handcuffs on hand and court. Do not debate with Girkin, but to demand its issuance to Ukraine. Navalny makes a serious mistake, agreeing to these debates. This is me, as a person who sympathizes with him, I say.
Rustem Adagamov publishes a photo of a shot order signed by Igor Strelkov, with a comment:
To the upcoming “debates” of Navalny with a two -legged eranding one who came to someone else's land with a machine gun, assigning himself the right to seize power and shoot people. Navalny respectfully calls him “Igor Ivanovich” and “patriot”. This [nightmare] - I just can’t choose another word.
The only debate that needs to be carried out with the participation of Girkin - the debate between his lawyers and prosecutors of the International Tribunal
- Mars (@mars_fm13) July 11, 2017
The debate in Russia is when without a killer!
- Donald Trump (@Donaldjtrump71) July 11, 2017
Strelkov is a war criminal. He must be judged.
- Sable Love (@sobollubov) July 11, 2017
I have already voiced one conspiracy theological version today, I set out the second: the debate of Navalny with the Girkin idea of the FSB to avert his supporters
- Baron Munchausen (@baronm_) July 11, 2017
I wait with interest how Albats, Latynina, Rogov, Koch and others will begin to explain how important and correctly for Navalny to debate with Girkin and get the votes of nationalists.
Yes, I am sure that there will be interesting justifications. "Not everything is so unambiguous." "Freedom of speech."
There are, of course, justification, and numerous. One of the most common arguments in favor of the debate is that any political discussions are better than their absence. Many are looking forward to an interesting spectacle and complain that you can’t get from other nominally opposition politicians of interesting public debate.
The Real Thing (copy of the Yulia Latynina) is preparing for the debate with The Real Man. Surely the Real Fun will be! We are waiting!
You know, I saw Boris Mironov cut out this insane gabist under a nut on a neuromir.
I dare to hope that Alexei will not hit his face in the mud. His own. Retock in the mud of the indicated master will not be shameful at all.
Z.Y. By the way, if this fight takes place on the third site, such as the same neuromir, it will be cool. In the case of Mironov/Strelkov, the arbitration was beautiful.
It is not only possible to debate, but it is also necessary with someone, if it leads to an increase in the citation index, therefore, political capital. How many sofa moralists in their "fundamental" swamps raped?
Democratic consciousness is excited: how can Navalny go to the debate with Girkin? But how did the debate with Putin demanded?!
And the discussion of the video blogger N. with the reconstructor G. is, I'm afraid this is one of the few types of real debate that are possible in present -day Russia - disputes of two public forces, behind which the masses can go.
Not everyone is watching the fake battles of clowns at the fun of the public, in which the public will never participate (without names, perhaps).
The debate of Navalny and Girkin is interesting. For especially gifted, I’ll say that, firstly, it is necessary to debate with anyone who proposes, this is the work of a politician. It could have been with Yavlinsky, but the old grandfather would not stand it, so it merged in advance. Secondly, the most sharp debates pass between the opponents of ardent. I dreamed of the debate of Wasserman and Novodvorskaya, for example, it did not work. So the debate of Navalny and Girkin is cool.
Who talks about what bad Girkin, Hague and so on can quite enjoy the non -existent debates of Yavlinsky and Kasyanov, for the sake of God.
The debate with Strelkov is indecent, the Democrats said ... But if Navalny had adhered to all decency, he would be the second Yavlinsky
- Nikolai Travkin (@nitravkin) July 11, 2017
Separate commentators do not see anything shameful in the very fact of the debate. The question is how and for what purpose they are held, says Ostap Karmodi :
It is interesting that for so many of those who support Navalny much more unconditional than me, his consent to the debate with Girkin became a "red line".
I am much more calm about this agreement. Within the framework of the adversarial process, the accusation is conducting a dialogue with the protection of the serial killer - and even with him, if he decided to defend himself. At the same time, it does not turn to the killer and not to lawyers, but to the jury of the jury. Who have different opinions about the defendant, and the prosecutor just needs to convince them that the defendant is a really serial killer who deserves severe punishment.
In today's Russia, unfortunately, the trial of Girkin is impossible. At least the court for those charges that he really needs to be brought.
But the emulation of this court through the debate is possible. After all, the parties in the debate also turn to each other, but to the audience.
If Navalny talks to Girkin - but in fact with an audience - as a prosecutor, and not as a colleague in politics, I can only welcome these debates. Girkin, of course, should have the opportunity to defend himself, as in any court - otherwise it is not a court, but a mockery.
But the task of such debates should be one - to prove to the society that Girkin is a criminal who deserves prison, not folk support.
Debat Navalny and Girkin. At first I did not understand, Shosa [nafig]? But now I think: let him go. Although he himself with Girkin in one field would not [sat down].
Nearby are two posting about the decision of Navalny to participate in the debate. In one - what a horror! In the second - well done! The second point of view is closer to me: debate is not a clash of people, this is a clash of ideas. As soon as this is understood in Russia, it will become another country
Discussing with Strelkov, Navalny indirectly challenges those who stood behind him, other commentators resemble. The idea to expand the circle of supporters of the opposition policy also seems to many quite realistic.
I am absolutely antipathetic to both the person by the name of Girkin, and his media hypostasis "shooters".
However, your reaction amazes me.
It feels like you really believe in the fairy tale told about how unremarkable alcoholic found unlimited sets of the most modern weapons in the bushes and, collecting a whole gang of selected thugs, rushed over a bunch of borders to kindle the war.
While, in my opinion, it is already quite obvious: all Girkin’s functions in this war were reduced only to depicting Strelkov’s camera-a crazy maniac-director, who easily planes military operations and signed orders on executions on the basis of the Stalinist decree, the number of such and such.
And all at least some real decisions were made by completely different people in completely different offices. (One of the managers of these people by the name of Borodai, in fact, attracted his old friend Girkin to the role of "Zits-chairman of the pound").
No, of course, Girkin is still a war criminal, no doubt. And his work with the "media cover" of that war should also be punished.
But still, his fault can not go into any comparison with any of those who really made decisions and gave orders.
From the so -called "Wagner Groups" to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, from Volodin to Shoigu, from Medvedev to some Dvorkovich.
It would be nice not to forget about it.
And if you can talk to this only in the Hague, then with those - only in Nuremberg.
The discussion of Navalny and Strelkov, this is the debate with the old curators of Strelkov, with those who sent him to the Donbass. I am not a fan of Navalny, but I must admit that he is technological and does exactly what an opposition politician applies to the majority should do.
Navalny went out, and undertook to continue his "election campaign." Ahead - in the last phase of this imaginary campaign - he has "conditional debate with Putin" (which is quite logical, because the candidates are "two")))). Therefore, in the early phase, he decided to pat and split the stable electorate of Putin - non -communist patriots (Girkin) and communist patriots (it will be necessary to call the old man Zyuganov to the debates, apparently). It is curious what will come of it. Whether he will be able to shake the right and left "patriots" in his favor. There is, by the way, Bihon (Shevkunov). Here it would be called to the debate. So that the left, right and even to the heap and the Orthodox move beyond Navalny.
It’s good that Navalny wants Debatov and Strelkov. Aleksey Anatolyevich adult uncle himself knows what is better for him by his "company" and "campaign". Even if he loses some of the disappointed voters after this meeting, then this is not critical. After all, he does not work for 2018, but at 2024. Is it not? The time is still full, much more will change. Today people will leave, and tomorrow they will come in double. Especially the choice where to go is not too rich.
And Navalny will have to talk not about his favorite corruption and, I think, less about domestic politics. About foreign enemies and international politics. And good. He will have little comments on these topics, there is an opportunity to hone his thoughts. Putin thinks and talks about world problems and geopolitics, masses who have a lot of domestic problems (take the same corruption), USA, NATO, Ukraine clearer, thanks to the TV.
I will make my 5 kopecks about possible debates Navalny-Girkin.
It is no secret that the main split of the Russian society goes along the line of the Russian presence in the Donbass.
The position of Navalny is not very defined, and Girkin is a radical incarnation of a significant part of Russian society (and power). Roughly speaking, Girkin is Putin's unquenchable desire. These possible debates, IMHO, will allow you to identify Navalny in Ukraine (where it will go) and return to the debate the price of Russia's presence there for Russia. Well, MN17.
Risk for Navalny? Risk. Is it the first time? Crimea is not a sandwich.
We will observe
There is a bandit of a bandit, a killer is a killer - and being distracted by some philosophical subtleties accompanying the murder and worldview circumstances would be strange.
But the task for analysis is complicated by the fact that the bandit in this case has his gang. And in this gang there are very different people, among whom there are many who have not yet managed to do anything terrible. And all their participation in the gang has so far come down only to sympathy for the ideas and slogans with which the bandit covered his banditry. These people allowed the bandit to deceive, fool, captivate. But so far their hobby has not been expressed in any real actions inherent in the bandits. <...>
These people should be taken away from the bandit. It is necessary to get them out of the gang, while they go there in sympathetic, but they did not manage to do anything truly gangster. <...>
<...> If you find yourself on these debates are much stronger, and take away at least part of the people's deceived and seduced from the bandit - this will be a great and important thing. <...> But this is a dangerous, cruel game. On the verge of permissible risk, completely on the verge.
I like the idea of Debatov Strelkov with Navalny. I don’t really understand what Strelkov’s interest can be-due to Navalny’s supporters, he is unlikely to expand the circle of his adherents, but Navalny can attract so many from the hopeless generation of 30-40-year-olds. In general, the access to the audience of the guards of the Pyaterochka, the workers of car services, warehouse clerks and other people without prospects is the right thing. And when Navalny in court appeals to the cops, prosecutors and judges - this is also right. They also live in this country, and they should also see themselves in Russia of the future. And think about it today.
The debate of Navalny with Rifleov I would look.
It is more interesting than with the barin.
The idea of Mikhalkov as a presidential candidate is empty. Not so new. Mikhalkov - flesh from the flesh of the nomenclature. And no one has yet accused him of sincerity. And the request for authenticity is one of the basic today.
The attempt of Navalny through the debate with Riflekov break through the patriotic flank - unexpectedly, but risky.
Additional conspiracy notes to the discussion introduced the news that the Federal Penitentiary Service demanded that he replace a conditional term with real - however, in the evening of the same day, the FSIN said that there was no such requirement.
I won’t be surprised if the AP was so afraid of the debate with Strelkov that I immediately sent a signal to Navalny through the FSIN. It looks somewhat conspiracy theological, including at the expense of lightning speed, but this speed is explained: the bulk as movement grows rapidly and we must rush. The debate with Strelkov is an undisguised struggle for the nationalist electorate, which Navalny, in a good way, had never. And the minimum that he was, he lost, focusing on schoolchildren and students apolitical before this year. Debats with Girkin are important not so much by victory (which, as usual, according to the results of the debate, will be awarded to their own), but by participation, since the presence of Girkin guarantees a nationalist audience. It is not that it is necessary to lure Girkin, because it is also far from all nationalists to be authority, but it can be caught in this place. In this regard, it really resembles Yeltsin, I mean the 1996 election campaign, when he said the famous phrase "Democrats for me will vote." In this case, the liberals will be supported by him, simply because there is no one else. As Julia Latynina rightly put it, Navalny won the primaries in this sector. But you won’t only win the liberals alone, you won’t weld the porridge with them, frankly. And the nationalists, they are so militant. Well, now - the most convenient moment to conquer their sorcerers who are looking for the distortions of hearts: persecution of them intensified. Girkin literally plays along with Navalny: he proposed the very topics on which Alexei is always pestering, and, of course, I would like to close these issues, if not forever, then for a long time, creating such a long -playing proof to which he will refer when they once again ask about Crimea. Liberals, of course, will not like such a rapprochement with the nationalists, they are also on Maltsev, who, in this sense, is quite light, grit with their teeth. Well, crying, screaming and stopping. In 1996, they also did not suffer.
Many, however, do not believe that the opposition leader will be able to pull on their side those who support Strelkov today, and believe that the debate with their political significance can bring more harm to Navalny than good.
I’ll say this about the debates of Navalny and Strelkov.
Nationalists are actually split no worse than the liberal flank. For example, along the line of Donbass (in the Crimea I did not meet especially protesters against its accession).
Well, then there are many of their movements and groups with different leaders (for example, not every reader of the "satellite and pogrom" is a fan of Strelkov). Therefore, to say that the debate with Strelkov is directly the primaries on the flank of the nationalists, well, it is difficult.
At the same time, the debate is always better than not a debate, and it seems to me that Navalny will win them. At the same time, those nationalists who sympathize with him and so will sympathize even more, and with the Imperials he is unlikely to find what with the debate, what without them.
The problem of Navalny is not that he can lose the debate Strelkov. He repeat them, most likely will win.
The problem is that he hardly becomes more allies from this, because he does not know how to create alliances on the basis of a more equal partnership. If you doubt my words, look at his relationship with Gudkov, and with a postcard of recent years. Только не на заявления, а на события (можно еще историю с Демкоалицией и Парнас вспомнить, но это для любителя). В этих историях человеческой непорядочности по отношению к вроде бы союзникам, увы, запредельно много. Даже слишком много, чтобы новые союзники могли появиться, потому что звезда на этой елке должна быть одна.
На самом деле Навальный и Стрелков не так различны, как схожи.
Оба - одиночки, оба не люди коалиций. У обоих есть харизма (я знаю людей, обожающих Стрелкова). Сторонникам и того, и другого, важны не столько их политические взгляды, сколько персона лидера (например, изменение мнения Стрелкова о Путине ему сторонников особо не убавило или например, сторонники Навального легко при случае начинают презирать либералов даже из экс-дружественной партии Парнас). Оба - личности сильные, целеустремленные и оправдывающие средства целью. По-человечески оба не вызывают ни малейшей симпатии, есть вопросы по наличию принципов, ценностей, порядочности.
Недостатки и авторитарность обоих лидеров их сторонников не волнуют (включается "аргументация прагматика" о таране). В общем, эти лед и пламень не столь различны меж собой, как кажется, хотя и придерживаются диаметрально противоположных взглядов на ряд вещей.
Но еще раз: дебаты лучше, чем недебаты. Они оживят безжизненный политический пейзаж за окном, который совсем протух. Интересно будет посмотреть охват.
Несистемных националистов при Навальном представлял Мальцев.
После ухода Мальцева в бега, его националисты от Навального уже никуда не денутся.
Гиркин давно уже персонаж карикатурный, вдобавок очень слабый оратор. Он проиграет Полиграфычу всухую и с разгромным счетом.
Играть матч-реванш за Гиркина придёт наверняка Прилепин, с этого момента и начнётся самое интересное.
Русские ультраправые парни на модных «торшере» и «фред перри», с татуировками «А.C.А.В.», с тюремными ходками за плечами, ненавидят Стрелкова-Гиркина за войну с Украиной, и им флаг «Азова» ближе неосоветской эстетики ДНР-ЛНР. Стрелковские разговоры про "патриотизм" им омерзительны. Они считают, что государство РФ - враг русского человека. Иконы стиля для них – бойцы, шедшие навстречу пулям «Беркута» вверх по Институтской, а не отставное гебьё и мусорье, вторгавшееся с конттреволюционными целями в беззащитные города под крышей антирусского государства РФ.
Я не знаю, зачем там Навальному дебаты со Стрелковым, который, лишившись поддержки государства РФ, даже ни одного нормального митинга собрать не может. Но чем бы дебаты не кончились, боевиков они могут дать не больше, чем дебаты со Светланой Пеуновой, которая рассказывает про рептилоидов с планеты Нибиру.
Я примерно предполагаю, чем руководствовался штаб Навального, идя на дебаты с Гиркиным: информационная провокация, еще один информповод (по логике, почему дебаты с Чубайсом можно, а с Гиркиным нельзя?), все обсудят, переругаются, повысят узнаваемость. Однако я не уверен, что информационная провокация это достойный повод реанимировать политические трупы (реклама же не только Навальному, но и Гиркину)
Стрелков - тот же Путин, только до власти не дорвавшийся, такая ходячая осажденная крепость. На свой лад он даже честнее, поскольку все людоедские замыслы руководства призывает не скрывать от народа, но открыто и прямо проводить в жизнь, сея смерть. И когда они с Навальным начнут спорить о Крыме и крымчанах, которые не бутерброд, и о Донбассе, где российские войска не воюют, кровожадный искренний полковник будет выглядеть убедительней своего виляющего оппонента. Как минимум в глазах тех, кого принято считать националистами имперского толка.
Для того чтобы оторвать этих людей от Гиркина, Навальный должен с ним как бы объединиться. То есть, условно говоря, поставить у себя во дворе памятник Ивану Грозному со сталинскими усами и страшными словами заклеймить Путина за то, что Харьков все еще стонет под гнетом украинской фашистской хунты. Привлекая в свои ряды самую озверелую часть посткрымского большинства и теряя людей нормальных, ему придется без обиняков отвечать на главные вопросы и всем сердцем полюбить Россию в кольце врагов. Если же он намерен остаться самим собой, довольно здравомыслящим человеком и популистом от бога, то ему надо будет с предельной жесткостью объяснять Стрелкову и зрителям равно и преступность российско-украинской войны, и бандитскую сущность того, с кем он вышел спорить.
Не исключено, что тем дело и кончится и диспут двух националистов обернется вербальной дракой, но едва ли Навальный в ней победит. При том что ему нужны победы. Ибо такого рода словопрения бессмысленны и бессодержательны по определению, а в тех случаях, когда весьма известный политик полемизирует с никому не нужным и позабытым боевиком, это оборачивается еще и пустой тратой времени.
Гипотетические дебаты Навальный vs.Стрелков
и их возможные последствия
1. Одно из "золотых" правил PR: никогда не дискутируй публично с теми, кто известен менее тебя. Ибо они приобретают за твой счёт, а ты - теряешь. Или, в лучшем случае, ничего не приобретаешь.
2. В политике дебаты ведутся не ради развлечения, а для приобретения сторонников.
3. На националистов эти дебаты никак не повлияют. Те, кто поумнее и гибче, уже и так поддерживают (или поддержат) Навального. Выбора у них все равно нет и не будет. Симпатии же идиотов контрпродуктивны.
4. Зато либералы утвердятся в своих подозрениях в отношении Навального. Между тем, их влияние на общественное мнение значительно больше, чем у националистов.
5. Расширения поддержки Навального не произойдёт, хотя ядерный электорат сохранит лояльность своему кумиру.
6. Проблемы Крыма, Донбасса и Украины не важны для массовой публики. И вряд ли имеют серьезное значение для решения вопроса о власти в России.
7. С высокой вероятностью выявится значительное совпадение взглядов Навального и Стрелкова в отношении действующей власти, но не только.
8. Любая форма взаимодействия, тем более публичного, Навального и Стрелкова значительно усугубит подозорения власти в подготовке "цветной" революции в России и может побудить ее к решительным действиям в отношении спевшихся врагов.
Не поддерживают идею дебатов и многие из тех, кто выступает против Навального.
Дебаты Стрелкова и Навального - тот неловкий момент, когда непонятно, кто кого дискредитирует.
Дебаты Навального со Стрелковым с точки зрения интересов русского национализма затея вредная.
Дело в том, что это будут дебаты человека подчеркнуто не считающего себя русским националистом (Стрелков) с человеком пытающимся закрепить свои претензии считаться русским националистом, хотя на деле он украинский неонацист (Навальный).
Поле "русский национализм" Стрелков отдаст Навальному заранее. И поэтому единственным "русским националистом" априори окажется Навальный.
Если победит Стрелков, то это будет "победа над русским национализмом".
Если победит Навальный это будет победа над реальным русским национализмом, который Стрелков представляет объективно, фейкового украинского "русского национализма".
То есть русский национализм проиграет в любом случае и при любом ходе этих дебатов.
Игорь Стрелков прокомментировал грядущие дебаты так:
Полагаю, что дебаты будут для меня о-о-очень непростыми - "шапкой закидать" соперника уж точно не получится. Однако они будут полезны в любом случае. Why?
Да потому, что после 17 лет "путинской эпохи" встретятся на "ринге", в прямом столкновении умов и идей "живые" политические оппоненты, пользующиеся серьезной общественной поддержкой и авторитетом, а не продажные проститутки-симулякры, играющие строго отведенные роли в жестко режиссируемом спектакле марионеток. И они встретятся на фоне "испускающего дух" полу-трупа этой эпохи со всей ее до костей прогнившей и насквозь провонявшей ложью политической системой.
Впрочем, можно не осуждать Навального за намерение идти на дебаты с бывшим лидером ополчения и считать, что он все делает правильно – и все равно не испытывать по этому поводу никакой радости.
Про право дискутировать Алексею Навальному, или любому другому, с кем ему хочется - даже говорить не буду, это безусловно.
Про утверждение Алексея Навального, что любые политические силы, включая националистов, могут и имеют равные избирательные права - тоже очевидно, Германии образца 1939 года уже это доказала, но есть и пример современной Украины которая уже после майдана дала своим ультрас лишь несколько процентов на выборах в Раду.
А вот про то, что Алексей Навальный желает стать президентом моей страны опираясь на эти самые националистические силы , скажу со всей определенностью - это то же дерьмо, что и пришествие Мальцева в Парнас, только вид сбоку.
британский антрополог сэр Эван-Причард, изучавший племя скотоводов НУЭР в Южном Судане, чтобы войти в контакт, целый год мазался коровьим навозом.
без навоза НУЭР с ним не разговаривали.
с точки зрения НУЭР, если ты человек, на тебе есть коровий навоз.
не так ли и наш несчастный Алексей, решивший стать народным политиком в России?
Алексей не похож на НУЭР, а, значит, ему нужен навоз.
если я прав, Гиркин - всего лишь первый мазок.
далее будет и Зюганов, и митрополит, и рюмка водки с казаками, и дуэт с Лепсом.
в общем, какой НУЭР, такой и навоз.
-
Alya Ponomareva
Social Networks Editor Radio Liberty