The debate Navalny — Shooters, on the inadmissibility of that week told the Moscow liberals, has taken place. If we measure success by the numbers, some might even say that were successful: over one hundred thousand spectators in the Bulk channels (on Youtube and on the official website of the self-proclaimed presidential candidate), plus broadcast on “Rain” and “Echo of Moscow”. And indeed, impossible not to notice that Russian policy is now so arranged that every action of Alexey Navalny becomes the number one news due to the lack on the stage of our politicians. So let’s talk.
What was it
What’s new viewer, watching the activities of Navalny, was able to learn the outcome of the debate about the Bulk? Nothing. The Bulk waste is already a set of slogans about the need to combat corruption, a neat attempt to circumvent sensitive issues like the Crimea and at times apparent confusion when the opponent starts to repeat the basics of state propaganda.
Another thing — Igor-V. Strelkov-Girkin, the former leader of the militia Slavyansk, the former Minister of defence DND, the man proudly claimed that without it there would be no war in the East of Ukraine. When he was at the peak of fame, biography and views of a retired security officer dismantled to pieces. Studied and hacked mail, and presentations at the forum of antiquarians, and a collection of fairy tales for children.
But to the General public the phenomenon of Strelkova news. It’s just not there. Forget it. Most, and not interested in any views, immediately deciding for themselves who he was, — hero of the war for the liberation of the Russian world from a foreign yoke or a war criminal.
Bulk, why it took Igor Ivanovich out of the closet, makeup artists shook off the Generalissimo naphthalene, and the audience found out that it is quite boring conspiracy with the Soviet-monarchical mess in my head. “Red-brown” as expressed earlier. The West wants to destroy mother Russia from the time of gostomysl, Yeltsin broke the country in 1991 (at the behest, of course, the state Department), and the Communist basis needs a monarchical superstructure.
If to put outside the brackets monarchist sympathies and reasoning about what a good poutine is broken in 2014, when did not dare to move tanks to Kiev, before us is a typical product of modern state propaganda. Girkin-light, no attacks against Putin, quite organically would look in any of the endless political talk show public TV, and that today, as in 2014, when Putin broke down, mainly dedicated to exposing the machinations of the state Department and discussion of the ills of Ukraine.
The former does not happen, Girkin though “in stock”, but still part of the Corporation, representatives of which ruled us. On its FSB it during the debate reminded repeatedly. And, in General, about the same range of ideas defines the country’s foreign policy and methods of dealing with enemies (including Bulk) inside. Bulk in the course of the debate even explicitly lost and called the position of the opponent “child”. But it is certainly not for children. It — with some adjustment — virtually official. And cannot be the state, who performed the u-turn a hundred and eighty degrees and set in childhood.
Why was this
The question “Why?” appeared immediately after Navalny has announced that it accepts the challenge of small arms and willing him to debate (even curious where it this challenge is discovered as wandered on a few now-famous site of the movement “new Russia”, where the former Minister of a non-existent country publishes videoprovider for the few faithful). The question has a clear ethical component: for many in the opposition, including Navalny allies, Strelkov-Girkin is primarily a war criminal.
The ethical claim, Navalny found a pragmatic answer. He wrote in his blog that many of our fellow citizens share the views of the rifle on the Ukrainian situation, and he, Navalny is a presidential candidate, he needs the support of the whole of Russia, not just those who went on the March against war with Ukraine in the distant 2014.
There is another answer, too, is understandable in the logic of the presidential campaign, which leads the Bulk. His only real opponent — Putin. Putin from the debate running around, so Bulk should act exactly the opposite.
However, the logic of the campaign breaks on conventional human logic: Putin traditionally ignores at least nominally equal, the potential and even the registered candidates for the presidency. Girkin Bulk is not a competitor, no matter what choices he is not going, expecting, apparently, when seeing fellow citizens will bring him, sobbing, the cap of Monomakh. It even turned out to be a good argument in the debate. Girkin repeated several times, avoiding uncomfortable topics for themselves: “I am in the presidents not going to, you’re a candidate, you answer.”
And Navalny had to answer, explaining, for example, that the war in the Donbass, Russia does not need, because it is too expensive. To put it mildly, the position is vulnerable, that the Bulk will remember for a long time, and yet it is the natural result of the substitution of ethics with pragmatics. Sit in the Studio and pretend that you are a politician, not the man who started the war and who signed the orders for extrajudicial executions. Swallow after trying to ask really sensitive issue — where strelkov in Slavyansk appeared the weapons and money, or Malaysian “Boeing” answers about military secrets and military honor. And I’ll tell you — when I horses are, the rest is a military secret.
An old tale
At some point the debate has boiled down to a few ironical doubt, brings to mind the classics:
— I am a nationalist, Igor, and you, Igor, it is not a nationalist.
— No, thank you, Alexey, that I am a nationalist, and you may say, cap, fetus and Yeltsin heir. And a civilian, of course. While you’re in the universities studied, I kill people (this last phrase, incidentally, is not a joke, and a brief retelling of one of the stretched replicas strelkov).
— Still, let us, Igor Ivanovich…
In addition to said the reasons for the strange encounter the most notable of opposition politicians and forgotten by the General public murderers, there are also implied. For example, there is historical fact in a number of countries in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States the Soviet regime cracked when in opposition the liberals and the opposition-minded nationalists were United front against them. It is through this Union to replace Soviet regimes came (with all possible reservations) regimes democratic, and not what was post-Soviet Russia at the twenty-sixth year of its existence.
This fact keep in mind, many Russian liberals. And even those who are minimal and sympathetic to the nationalists to suspect is not necessary, argue from time to time about the possibility and even the need for such a situational Union. Don’t know what she thinks Navalny, but his dialogues with the Polish dissident Adam manicom that such unions know firsthand, published in book form.
But there is still a hypothesis, though our people are by nature nationalist, and xenophobic, and if only to give him the will, will support not just moderate nationalists, and any of the Nazis. This is an important response to the liberal intelligentsia, publicity stunt, to which the power from time to time enjoys.
You can, for example, to count how many times Vladislav Surkov, one of the architects of Russian domestic politics is zero, in different ways repeated the idea that our nation is not ready for democracy. How many times have journalists of Pro-government publications, frightened liberals, Russian fascism, explaining that the first and perhaps the only outcome of free elections in Russia will be the hanging of the liberals on the lights. How many movies about the horrors of Russian fascism shown by the Russian TV. And how many nationalists under the guise of the village for thoughtcrime.
The flip side of this hypothesis is waking up sometimes in the opposition feeling that it’s probably the popularity for the wild people, living xenophobic aspirations, to play along with, observing, of course, possible some decency. Somewhere at the crossroads of historical fact and questionable hypothesis, presumably, is the idea of debate is to Small.
However, it is worth to mention: Navalny himself unlike many of his liberal supporters never nationalists is not avoided. From the “Apple” at the time it is expelled just behind the nationalism, Russian marches he went regularly, participated in the rally “Stop feeding the Caucasus” and has traditionally included in the political agenda the item on the visa regime with the countries of Central Asia.
You can argue about how recipes thirty years ago, worked through in countries comparable to Russia in size and ethnic diversity of the population, suitable for modern Russia. You can look at sociology, to understand that anti-American sentiment now stronger than any other, and easily conclude that hate (that’s love harder) to neighboring and distant peoples is highly dependent on the vector of state propaganda, and thus an essential property of our people is not.
For example, polls by the Levada center over the past few years show how much has changed assessment of the situation in the Caucasus as injection of anti-Ukrainian hysteria. Now, by the way, according to recent data of VTsIOM, 38 percent of Russians, who in principle see a military threat to the country, 31% are waiting for the invasion of the Ukrainians. This is the second place; the first with a double break, of course, Americans. The Caucasus in the mass consciousness of a sore point to be stopped.
Nationalist No. 1
But what is not necessary to argue, is that political nationalism in Russia has never achieved significant results (if you do not remember, of course, the triumph of the liberal democratic party in the 1993 elections, but to remember, because it is necessary to seriously consider that Zhirinovsky has political views, and it’s a strong statement). Registered political parties, the nationalists there. All visible motion defeated.
RNU (“Russian national unity”), which frightened the intelligent children in the nineties, is prohibited. Its leader, Alexander Barkashov, has created his own sect and became a monk. DPNI (“Movement against illegal immigration”) (organization banned in Russia — approx. ed.) who had at least some media success in the zero forbidden, its leader, Alexander Belov-Potkin sitting (“What are you telling me about some Belov-Potkin”, — was indignant the Shooters on the debate with Navalny). The Slavic Union Dmitry Demushkin is prohibited. Created on the site of a Slavic Union of the EPO (ethno-political Union), “Russian” is prohibited. Dyomushkin sitting. The list can be extended further. And it’s all the organizations trying to work in the legal field.
The leaders and the leaders of the dwarf motions, from those who are still at large, are endless disputes about who is correct to support the Holy struggle of the people of Donbass, but increasingly about who is a Jew and who is an agent of the secret police. All the achievements in the past and they are quite reasonable. Now even the Russian March is held on four pieces at a time, and none comes more than a thousand people.
It is obvious that regardless of how powerful nationalist aspirations among the Russian people, not political nationalists these aspirations Express. And they certainly aren’t not Igor Strelkov, whose movement “Novorossiya” exists only virtually, and is designed to “capture power” (if I remember correctly the manifest) “Committee on 25 January,” expected collapsed after a couple of meetings. Should be, the participants did not agree about which of them is still a Jew.
But is Putin. Putin came to power, seize the rhetoric of the “red-brown”, promising to bring power and greatness to win the Chechen war. Putin returned Crimea. Putin quarreled with the leaders of the West (or, in the language of state propaganda and rare in Moscow taxi drivers “Slavic appearance”, — “forced to respect Russia”). Putin’s obvious enough to most residents of postimperial satisfy their Imperial — they seem to nationalist impulses. The market is busy, there is no niche.
To imagine the situational Alliance with Navalny Putin even more difficult than their own debates. Navalny Putin promises peaceful old age in the case of surrender; Putin is a fire at the headquarters. And, apparently, the conclusion from this one only: it is not necessary to invent allies, stepping in the bloody dirt of insoluble ethical problems. The fate of the country will decide not invented the electorate is small, and the real electorate of Putin. Normal, by the way, people who are neither corruption nor tyranny, nor injustice just don’t like the Bulk, and Russian nationalists, and many other things.
