Translated material
"The show did not work"
The debates of Navalny with Rifleov disappointed both the host and the audience
The spectacle ended, which many were looking forward to last week, when Alexei Navalny announced his intention to spend on the air of the debate with one of the former leaders of Novorossia Igor Strelkov. The reasons why Navalny agreed on these debates were then violently discussed on the network , and this discussion even more warmed up the audience interest.
The debate of Navalny and Girkin is the Guilty pleasure.
To everyone, of course, "[still]", but many people are going to watch. Some even bought a beer and popcorn.
Funny!
Here everyone scolds Navalny for the debate with Strelkov, but they will look.
Perhaps this remained behind the brackets, but it seems, there was no handshake and Girkin at the beginning. #Debatylive
- Vladimir Bartholomeev (@varfolomeev) July 20, 2017
In the first round, Debatov Navalny answered Strelkov’s question about how he intends to defeat corruption. The commentators, however, did not seem too dynamic.
#Debatydebatynavalnaya shooters Debut is still sluggish, both are flickering
- GLEB PAVLOVSKY (@Glebpavlovsky) July 20, 2017
I decided to watch Debat Navalny-Girkin. Navalny "floats" in the first 15 minutes clearly. Girkin performs from the standpoint of "the second Circassian, but on the right" (such as the faithful dog of the FSB with the criticism of the oligarchy).
At the very beginning of the debate, it is already clear that Girkin is an ordinary classic military pensioner. That's just the image of nowhere. And now I have no doubt for a second that he was not a commander, but a speaker in the Donbass.
Navalny counts on Twitter's audience, Girkin - one zero with sites such as compromising evidence
Many complained that Navalny took an insufficiently tough tone and did not force Strelkov to answer questions about what money and whose weapons he fought in the Donbass.
Why does Girkin interrogate Navalny, and not vice versa? Turned on a minute ago.
- Mikhail Svetov (@msvetov) July 20, 2017
- Girkin, where did you get the loot and the weapon come from?- I will not say anything. I am the FSB officer .
- Elshad Babaev (@lshad_babaev) July 20, 2017
Girkin leaked a question about weapons, “I ask you to understand me”, here he had to be crushed, crushed, crushed, and they change the question.
- Mikhail Svetov (@msvetov) July 20, 2017
#Debatylive Mr. Strelkov, when you eat children, do you need to keep the fork in the left hand and is not necessary or is it not necessary?
- Pavel Lobkov (@pavellobkov) July 20, 2017
The commentators and answers of Navalny himself did not please.
- Alexey Anatolyevich, so you are against the reunification of the borders of tsarist Russia?- When I become the President of Russia, after 3 years the salary will double
- Revolutionary thoughts (@vvp2_0) July 20, 2017
A sudden dispute revived somewhat with the involvement of Marxist terminology.
Strelkov solemnly proclaims that he never hid his monarchical views. At the same time, he reproaches Navalny that he is going to change only the “superstructure”, but not the “basis”. The combination of Marxism with monarchism is something new. However, Igor Ivanovich in passing notes that "Marxism did not think of Marx." Probably some purebred Arian.
The monarchist pounds the liberal Marx. Truly, the basis will fly on its superstructure.
- Konstantin Semin (@ksyomin) July 20, 2017
But many viewers quickly began to complain about boredom.
These are green, these are your debates.
- Rustem Adagamov (@adagamov) July 20, 2017
Maybe it is boring, but only almost 80k do not directly look at Navalny Live. Here you have ratings. https://t.co/1mghrxafhc
- plushev (@plushev) July 20, 2017
The first round is completed! The leading scourge says that it is not satisfied with the answers of both Navalny and Strelkov!
- Philipp Kireev (@MYNAMEISPHILIPP) July 20, 2017
In the second round dedicated to relations between Russia and the West, Navalny supported Strelkov’s statement about the “divided Russian people”, which incurred criticism from the liberal camp.
Navalny: "We must not forget that Russians are the largest divided people in Europe, but to help them, we must not fight, but to fight corruption."
Your will, this is somehow inconsistent. Fighting is clearly easier and more reliable.
Vasiliev Alexander Alexandrovich
Navalny reports that while Igor Ivanovich served in his FSB, he and Zakhar Prilepin drowned for unification of the largest divided people in Europe - Russians
In general, Navalny and Strelkov converge that Chubais, as well as Rotenbergs with Kochi and Vekselbergs, is to blame for everything.
And that Russians are the main divided people.
Now the Fuhrer again jumped from the liberal-cosmopolitan to the nationalist
- Pavel Pryanikov (@netovetz) July 20, 2017
Debate. There are no normal toilers in Russia, there are no sewers, there are no roads, there are no normal housing. And they are worried about the "divided Russian people."
- Revolutionary thoughts (@vvp2_0) July 20, 2017
Navalny is not in vain debate with Girkin, he in vain merges him. He needs Girkin to drag Girkin for the fact that he killed the Russian authorities for the Putin’s power.
- Mikhail Svetov (@msvetov) July 20, 2017
Oh, they are now quarreling, who is more nationalist.
- Ekaterina vinokurova (@k_vinokurova) July 20, 2017
The peppy drain of the debate is planned by bulk: it is protected and accepts the language of Girkin.
- Kirill Martynov (@kmartynov) July 20, 2017
Strelkov on the debate with Navalny, everything correctly says that Russia is the colonial country of the West
- Pavel Pryanikov (@netovetz) July 20, 2017
However, the debate still did not become more incendiary.
Riflekov cannot squeeze Navalny. One question about the boundaries of Crimea. And all. No, cannot.
- Anatoly Shariy (@anatoliisharii) July 20, 2017
The second round is generally some kind of hat, well, maybe they will catch up with the Crimea right now
- Philipp Kireev (@MYNAMEISPHILIPP) July 20, 2017
I disconnect from this dull discussion of the borders of the empire and Yeltsin times. Garbage dump, not #debatlive
- Vladimir Bartholomeev (@varfolomeev) July 20, 2017
Everything is simple: you need to prepare for the debate so as not to fail them
- GLEB PAVLOVSKY (@Glebpavlovsky) July 20, 2017
In the third part of the debate dedicated to the Donbass, everything was repeated the same as in the first two: the tone of the discussion dictated the shooters, and Navalny did not fully confuse.
Nationalist Navalny just told the nationalist Strelkov that an honest Russian nationalist should now be in Donbas. Well approx.
Strelkov: "You, Alexey Anatolyevich, are going to convey the border of Donbass to Ukraine!" Navalny (angrily): "Do not distort! I said that this is a complex and painful process!"
N-yes ...
Now Navalny is justified that he is not going to transmit the border of Donbass to Ukraine.
Everything is more interesting and interesting.
Judging by what they write in the FISBUK about Navalny's debate with Girkin those who watch them, after 10-15 minutes the Russian opposition recognizes Little Russia.
Commentators noted that Navalny did not directly answer the question whether he considers Strelkov a war criminal. But most sarcastic and puzzled comments caused the opposition’s statement that Russia should not fight with Ukraine, as this is expensive.
The Krasnodar judge will be convicted, Timchenko and Rotenberg thieves. And Strelkov is not the fact that a military criminal, this is through the court, I do not like Stigma
- Anna Vellikok (@annavellikok) July 20, 2017
"We will not fight, because we have no money for this." The moral appearance of Navalny is finally finished. But when we will submit ...
- Alexander Tverskaya (@tverskoaa) July 20, 2017
Navalny: there is no money for war, so we will not fight. (But if you defeat corruption, then there will be more money)
Navalny: "Russia has no money for war with Ukraine!"
Strelkov: "Lesha, your face is boring, no one will give you money!"
In general, we learned, in addition to the already famous that "tragic events" occurred in the Donbass. That Russia should want to help the "Russian world", but it is unlikely that it can do it, since you see, you see it, you see it with a fraternal Ukrainian people: there is not enough money for their pensioners. At the same time, sanctions against Russia need to be canceled, not to be distracted by foreign policy, but to deal with corruption. It seems to me that the latter in the late 1980s was called the “struggle against privileges”, in the early 2000s-“equivalent to the oligarchs”, and now a new name has appeared (not too original, at the same time). But, in my opinion, there was never such a flagrant neglect of other civilized norms and such a fantastic fraternity with non-browned people (and it was even difficult to imagine).
According to the results of the discussion, most commentators agreed with the withdrawal of the leading Mikhail Zygar, who declared at the end: "The show did not work." The opinions that Navalny Debata lost are adhere to not only his ordinary opponents, but also many commentators of liberal views.
Debats are failure. And the participants and the presenter are terrible. Sorry.
- Natalia Pelevina (@natpelevina) July 20, 2017
Debats dull)))
- Aramashotich (@aramashotich) July 20, 2017
Navalny speaks all the debate with such an intonation, as if he writes another video blog for schoolchildren.
- Maria Katasonova (@katasonovamaria) July 20, 2017
Firstly, it is boring. And this is the case when to analyze that there is, secondly, thirdly and fourthly, it is no longer necessary.
No, well, that is, I can understand the young wolf, who needs to sharpen his teeth on something, and he is in a cage, so they slipped a pillow, feathers fly from the pillow, the young wolf sneezes, but the pillow is gnawing. Will his teeth come from this? No.
Let's try from an audit point of view. The broadcast on the channel did not gain one hundred thousand. We go to watch the number of Views Navalny Live in a video with a pirate bandage. A million five hundred with a tail (there was more with green). Now imagine, caricaturedly rudely that half of the watches of the broadcast came from behind Girkin. As a result, it turns out that 50 thousand are interesting Girkin, 50 thousand are interesting to the position of Navalny on the issue of Ukraine and war crimes. That's all.
Well, this is some kind of enchanting defeat of Lesha N.
What is coolness. This is when even the nearest environment does not believe in you, and you take and do everyone.
Strelkov today of course showed a steepness. After total general skepticism, he really took Navalny to zero.
Who said that Girkin is a weak speaker?
He completely imposed on Navalny his idiotic agenda and asked him questions, to which Navalny was afraid to answer directly.
Girkin, of course, also looks like a two -faced idiot, but he does not claim the role of a national leader.
The debates with Strelkov were considered by Navalny’s headquarters as a unique chance to attract a new audience to their side - opposition nationalists, and at the same time adjust the image of Navalny itself a little - to the liberal and left (“minimal salary of 25 thousand rubles”) add a patriotic component.
But from the very beginning, everything went wrong. And Strelkov turned out to be more convincing than expected, and the list is not the most profitable, and, most importantly, the shooters are not from United Russia and even without the contracts of the Moscow City Hall, so it is impossible to hang on it in the country, and without this it is not much to debate.
The result of the debate: Strelkov again became a political figure after almost two -year oblivion, and Navalny did not win these debates.
In the election campaign, the debate is an extreme measure. Those. They only go to them if the chances of opponents in the elections are equal. Strong usually avoid debate with the weaker since they have something to lose, but weaker has a chance to increase their rents. But the paradox of Debatov Strelkov and Navalny is that Strelkov states that the president is not going to take part in the election, and Navalny pretends to be a candidate.
In the dry residue of the shooters, the debate won. He is more serious, convincing for his audience and does not look like a politician. And Navalny was clearly weaker and could not move away from his standard -toned populist rhetoric. She must admit, works well only on his supporters. But he had to attract the Russian national adorium. And he lost this task. At the same time, he pushed, as it seems to me, liberals and rootless cosmopolitans who do not like his flirting with nationalists. Yes, and Ukrainian friends of Navalny fought in a chat in hysteria. Strelkov, at the expense of these debate, made a good political application. We can say that he had a successful public political debut. In its niche.
In conclusion, I want to note that the presenter was no.
What can be said about the just ended debate of Strelkov and Navalny? Strelkov said absolutely the same thing that he always says. Here is literally word for word - if you take some of his interviews year, then you will not notice the difference at all. That is, having prepared very little, Strelkov could be smashed to fluff.
And here the problem of Navalny is clearly visible: announcing in advance public debate with an absolutely calculated enemy, Navalny did not prepare for them. That is, in general. The man carried all the same chukhnya as usually, about “not to lie and not steal”, sincerely not realizing that the gray -haired FSB colonel has several different reactions than Asi Kazantseva. Navalny reached the point that he seriously began to tell Strelkov that Strelkov was not a nationalist, that he did not defend the Russian people, but, having caused Igor Ivanovich a clear attack of rabies with a short transfer of the combat path (5 wars). At the same time, it was clear to all tricky questions (“tricky” in quotation marks, even an idiot, that they would have sounded) Strelkov about Donbass Navalny, which was not to answer, reaching the fact that his proposal to fulfill the Minsk agreements was not his proposal, but someone else’s proposal. The man began to wobble, get rid of and make eyebrows when Strelkov began to say that well, here you have your interview, you support the Minsk Plan, what questions?
Moreover, almost all the interviews of the shooters absolutely dominated even in the expression of his face - Navalny looked in front of him as a enormous schoolboy, who was called to the director. At the same time, it was extremely noticeable that, for example, in the economy of shooters, it was swimming, and if desired, it could be excited here - as well as to give out, say, on issues of the social sphere, but there was no bit of the Bint in the hospitals "Navalny did not go.
Navalny was not prepared. Strelkov also did not prepare - otherwise, in response to Navalny’s stories about how he supported nationalists in the courts, he would remember about 282 and Tesak - therefore, as our editorial was predicted, the Battle of Bezboskoy was published, in which the funniest, the shooters won. It turned out to be enough for Navalny to swim, and it was clearly noticeable that when it comes to something except corruption - for example, about the divided Russian people, and everyone was clear in advance that Strelkov would raise this topic - there was simply nothing to say on the merits.
That is, the man is used to speaking to the supporters according to the same scenario, and with any different issues begins to swim. Actually, this was still clear by an interview with Sobchak, but Sobchak did not finish Navalny, and the shooters sorry and sighing on one topic (the topic, once again emphasize, expected, could and should be prepared), and even the fans of Navalny became clear that he had no vision of foreign policy. And that, moreover, under pressure, Navalny refuses his own words, starting to include the mode "I am not me and the horse is not mine", as if around 1975 and the Internet has not yet been held to Russia.
In general, the impression is rather gloomy: the potential leader of everything immediately spread to the FSB colonel, who seriously believed in the world Masonic conspiracy (moreover, he even tried to talk about this conspiracy in the light version of the shooters). The dialogue does not go to the indemnity at all, and the breakdown of the script of the conversation causes something like a stupor.
The debate of Navalny and Strelkov turned out to be at least useful.
It is interesting first of all how Strelkov will dispose of suddenly declining political capital. He looked cheerful, and stolen only where he was asked about the Donbass: "I am an officer/this is a military secret."
Of course, it is directly according to the results of the “show” by Navalny neither hot nor cold, although objectively it looked and defended worse - the tactics of the election speech does not work against the opponent, who also contrasts himself with the authorities - if some of its representatives can instantly hang all the dogs, then with the “revolutionary” that the shooters positions himself, such a trick will no longer pass.
But neither hotly nor coldly Navalny only because he has recently been used to criticism recently - so he on his side all the indignation of the "liberal intelligentsia" on Twitter, in which only one fact of the participation of Navalny in the debate with Rifle -Girkin, which this very intelligentsia is accustomed to all mortal sins (but does not cause a cognitive dissonance is that Alexey Anatolyevich answers with slogans to the questions-Lozung Strelkov).
And here the main mistake of Navalny is found - he fell into a trap when he simply agreed to the debate with Igor Ivanovich.
It looks like Alexey made a terrible mistake. But Mikhail Zygar is right: "We always have the opportunity to fix it." It is only a pity that you have to spend a precious time, which is very small.
And the rot that I advised Alexei to get involved in this, you need to tear your ears and drive away.
This is my opinion.
However, many supporters of Navalny had a different impression.
Zygar (who is not without, now it is necessary to explain) did not hide disappointment - they say, the show did not work. Понятно же, такие стандарты уложились в головах, что удачные политические дебаты, успешное шоу – это всё то же самое, что у Соловьёва, только с другими героями.
А мне очень даже понравилось. Отличные содержательные дебаты. Вот только Зыгаря, может, на другой раз лучше сменить, если ему так дискомфортно в этом формате.
Как я понял, темник у всех - от Пряникова до Просвирнина - один: Стрелков выглядел лучше. Люблю такое единение.
Bottom line:
Дебатировать было нужно.
Навальный его раздавил.
Ущербность Гиркина и его идей, интеллектуальное убожество - налицо.
А что стоят эти фразы "как офицер, я не могу об этом говорить" Тьфу.
Патриотизм - прав Навальный - это здесь и сейчас Чтобы не мёрли, как мухи. Чтобы образование было норимальным , здравоохранение, пенсионное обеспечение.
Here. Here and now.
А этим рептилоидам - Гиркину и Путину - не место в современном мире. Войне - не место. Границы Украины- давно и международно признаны.
Вот это итог.
Любимый жанр - умный адвокат и глупый прокурор: заставить Гиркина отлучать себя от национализма и обличать путинскую измену!
Некоторые впечатления от дебатов Навального с Гиркиным.
Победил, конечно, Навальный - как политик и оратор он несравнимо сильнее. Плюс не отказался от дебатов с таким соперником. Но Гиркину надо отдать должное - держался мужественно, старался быть невозмутимым. Навальный был в какой-то степени не готов к идеологическому спору, он хотел обсудить конкретику, был вооружен цифрами и фактами. В какой-то степени это был разговор немого с глухим. Гиркин, видимо, был точно также не готов к конкретике, его тезисы были по-имперски романтичны, патриотичны, где-то даже высокопарны, но конкретных предложений слышно не было. Его, конечно, извиняет то, что он - как заявляет - не баллотируется в президенты РФ. Поэтому, предполагаю я, может позволить себе не заморачиваться деталями. Но они с Навальным не слышали друг друга. Я даже не понял, что Гиркин хочет предъявить Навальному. Да, Алексей - не марксист-ленинец и не националист в смысле расизма, ксенофобии или апартеида. Ну так разве ж это плохо? А слова вроде "я не вижу разницы между Вами и Путиным" - так вообще смех. Конечно, "нет разницы" при всех арестах, судах и том прессе, под который попал и сам Навальный, и его семья, и его волонтеры, и те, кто выходил на площади 26 марта и 12 июня. После всех расследований, которые провел ФБК!
Из трех вопросов обсудили два - про коррупцию и про отношения с Западом. Тут спорить особо не о чем, каждый остался при своих. Но за Навальным - сухая конкретика, конкретные предложения, он не экстремист и не коррупционер, не хочет "жить в химерах", а хочет, чтобы в городах были дороги, а в больницах - бинты.
Надо признать очевидную вещь: Гиркин - это представитель того страшного мракобесия, которому подвержены значительное число наших соотечественников и уж совершенно точно большинство представителей спецслужб, силовых структур и госаппарата. Это современный извод древнего язычества, который верит в шаманизм, в действия специальных посредников по изменению мира, в роли которых сейчас выступают исключительно различные органы, представляющие "штабы" - от "кремлевских башень" до "мирового правительства" с его "сионистским заговором".
И Навальный, как все мы, во многом не готов к открытой полемике с этим мракобесием, иначе не было бы оно столь сильно, как сейчас. Но только свободный диалог, свободный диспут и открытая дискуссия способны это мракобесие преодолеть.
Потому что для гиркиных вариантов дискуссии вообще не существует, их диспут - это публичные казни, это пытки, это война между людьми, между народами.
Мы же люди из реального 2017 года, как справедливо заметил Алексей Навальный, а не из 1054 - года разделения церквей на западную Католическую и восточную Православную.
Мракобесие же всегда преодолевалось человечностью и милосердием. Важно помнить об этом сейчас.
В то же время те, кто считал, что Навальному не стоило дебатировать с военным преступником, остались при своем мнении.
В ходе дебатов с Навальным Гиркину пришлось оправдываться за портрет Путина, висевший у того за спиной какое-то время назад, но Навальный, кажется, ещё не осознал, что в его собственной биографии появился и навсегда останется совместный портрет с Гиркиным.
-
Alya Ponomareva
Social Networks Editor Radio Liberty