Military Review

Your look. Political analyst Sergei Mikheev: "The people want a strong state"

18
Your look. Political analyst Sergei Mikheev: "The people want a strong state"Today, Faila RF is visited by a well-known political scientist, general director of the Center for Political Situation Sergei MIKHEEV.


- Sergey Alexandrovich, in your opinion, why does the West most often support politicians who declare themselves as liberal?

- I think that behind this is an attempt to destabilize the situation. The West in recent years has had an obvious problem: it was difficult for him to play on the domestic political market in Russia. The situation that Putin has created has virtually neutralized all of his serious opponents. And when there is no opposition, it is impossible for the West to play "a certain game."

You can't play with the communists, they are not suitable for a number of reasons. All other parties are weak. Not Kasparov or sitting Khodorkovsky can be a real alternative to anti-Western forces. Therefore, it was important to create intrigue. The West had to create a situation where it would play with whom. The game of destabilization. This is what liberals are doing.

In order to create a series of conflicts under different slogans - both elite and conflicts in society. Stimulate unpleasant trends, which are more than enough. And through this create a field for maneuvers. A field on which to play.

Among those who oppose themselves to the liberals are many people from the corporation of officials. But they are not so much in favor of the state as in maintaining their own schemes, which they use and on which they sit well. From which they feed and which, in general, have become for them the meaning of life.

Are they opposed to the liberals? Yes. Are they statists? By and large, no. Corruption erodes any state - liberal or what you want, if it is weak. This corporation of officials is strong enough.

There are a lot of people with strong statist beliefs in the state apparatus, in the ruling elite, and in society. But they are worse heard, because some of them are marginalized, others do not have the desired and necessary access to the media or can not for various reasons express their position that is understandable to a wide audience.

What is important in Russian politics is the liberals are in a real minority, but their influence on the ruling class is very strong. And behind them there is a powerful external support, which seriously increases their capabilities and chances in the struggle for power. There is no such support behind other political forces.

- Recently, the talk about dismantling the Russian Federation has again become more frequent, quite a few people are openly in favor of separating the state into several parts ...

- Separatism, of course, in our country exists. In part, it is stimulated, voluntarily or unwittingly. Russian separatism - in Siberia, in the Far East - is stimulated from the same western territories. His goal is to make Russians as small as possible in Russia. If people start calling themselves Far Easterners and Siberians, and not Russians, if they start inventing the “Siberian language,” the prerequisites for separatism will grow.

Part of the Western forces set the task of eliminating Russia as a possible competitor from the world arena in principle. Therefore, all tendencies are being stimulated here - from separatism to national suburbs to Tatar, Bashkir and others. And in Siberia there are enough fools who consider themselves “patriots of Siberia”. But with the same success can be identified as an independent ethnos of Ryazan or Kostroma, and then walk to the South Butov or Chertanov. The main thing - if only there were as few Russians as possible or there was no better.

The liberal stratum stimulates separatist tendencies. They are annoyed by the very idea of ​​a strong Russia. What is characteristic of all those who seek destructive processes. This applies to both liberals and radicals of nationalist movements in regions where separatism exists.

- The West is not a single force. Who is more inclined to allied relations with Russia, and who is the other way around?

- Here everything is nonlinear. Usually, a flat picture is transmitted: Eastern Europe treats Russia badly, because it cannot forgive the imposed “socialism”; Western Europe is good, we are traditional allies since tsarist times; The USA is bad, because we are the “evil empire”.

Partly somewhere it is. Western Europe is more pragmatic and wants to build a pan-European policy in alliance with us. Russia simply does not fit into the American messianic plans of a global nature at all. And if it fits, it is only on the terms of using it as a loyal raw material outskirts or slaughter meat for promising geopolitical projects.

But on the other hand, we, according to the old Russian tradition, want to see more good in people and countries. And so we want the West to be different. But, unfortunately, in critical cases, he is united against Russia. And now, on all matters of principle, the West is taking a consolidated position in relation to our country. They do not need a competitive, strong Russia - in this they are united.

Putin expressed a completely correct idea: as soon as they feel that we are weak, we can be bullshit again.

Like the end of 80-x - the beginning of 90-x. I am not a supporter of the idea that the cunning West then destroyed the USSR. Not true. The Soviet Union had a lot of problems, which became the main cause of the collapse. And the West has just jumped in on time. And what were we waiting for? Help? He acted to his advantage.

If we show again the readiness for the surrender of positions, the West is consolidating again in order to extract maximum benefits for itself. When we demonstrate a more rigid position, they take our actions, as shown by South Ossetia. They shouted, but calmed down. They see that it is impossible to change the situation and retreat for a while. And recognize the status quo.

So it was in stories is always. As soon as Russia showed signs of weakness, internal turmoil, internal problems, all instantly activated along the perimeter of the borders. And first of all the West.

- What is possible and necessary to oppose this?

- The Russian leadership is trying to find some kind of compromise formula that would ensure our safe cohabitation with the West. This is a reasonable position.

Another thing - on what grounds to provide it?

Gorbachev once made such an attempt. Suppose that he was guided by good intentions (which paved the road to hell) and wanted to create a “wonderful new world”. And to become a person who will occupy a great place in history.

But what did he do? Gave it all. And I thought that I would get a new configuration of forces in the world. But in the world, except for a good start, there is an evil one. It is more than real and never sleeps.

Repeating the perestroika experience for Russia is a mortal danger. And this is the main claim to the liberals - they are trying to impose a “restructuring – 2”.

A strong impression that we are returned to 85 – 91 years. They even can not invent anything new. But the restructuring №2 is absolutely contraindicated to us.

In the current state model there are a lot of problems. The main one is corruption. But the “restructuring – 2” can create a lot of new problems. Which generally bring down everything.

The first restructuring led to real heated conflicts. First on the national outskirts, then to the two Chechen wars. And now a new restructuring will lead to this. But will Russia survive them now? Unknown. Moreover, now they may arise not on the periphery, in the central regions of the country.

Under the slogans of further liberalization, we are being pushed into the same pit we were in. This is an attempt to return to the past for 20 years. There was nothing good then. But they are trying to convince us that everything was wonderful and that it was then that Russia was on the right track.

As if we all forgot that there really was - the looting and collapse of the country. Yes, young people do not know the time well, because it is precisely on her that they piled on. Unfortunately, few objections to liberals are given in the media.

Without a strong state start, a return to 90 will lead to even more chaos. But this is exactly what they want!

- Today's liberals are very reminiscent of Trotskyists in their actions and words. Is such a comparison possible? Trotsky had a “permanent revolution”, these had a “permanent reforming” ...

- When Russia will not, then the reform will end. Liberals want to re-form Russia in such a way that it ceases to be Russia, and the Russians cease to be Russian. Some kind of permanent revolutionary itch.
Until they destroy “to the ground, and then ...”, they will not calm down. This aspiration seems irrational. Trying to explain it logically, perhaps, will not succeed.

Yes, they are neo-Trotskyists, in their heads are about the same as Trotsky had. But they are worse than the Trotskyists, for Trotsky still had a theory. And these only have a terrible itch of destruction. Under the most good excuses.

The goals of reforming the state are not even clear to them. Those pictures of Western life that the Soviet dissidents in the 80s invented for themselves did not correspond to reality. They came up with a "way of life", which has never been anywhere. And not foreseen.

But today the liberals call us to the same mythical life. However, this is a utopia that existed in the minds of the late Soviet dissidents and migrated to the minds of their current followers.

Make Holland out of Russia? Perhaps you can try, but before crushing it into a hundred Holland. Maybe in one or two it will be possible to build a new Holland. To make something similar to Germany out of Russia is also impossible.

All their goals are hazy, so they prefer to move away from reality. Using expressions like "become a civilized state." Or "become like the whole world." The world in their view means the west of Europe (and not all) and the east coast of the United States. After all, they even treat America scornfully.

“Through the“ de-Stalinization ”, they threaten on Victory Day, arguing that this holiday is outdated ...

- All unifying factors must be destroyed. The obstruction is literally everything that existed before 1991. Well only that was from 91-th to 97-th approximately. This is the ideal, this is the standard. Everything else is a mistake. Both Russia and Russians are the mistakes of world history. I personally heard such talk. Just as the fiery revolutionaries believed wrong, wicked the whole history of Russia before 1917.
Moreover, they consider the Russian statehood itself to be unnecessary, erroneous.

Victory in the war for them is undoubtedly a manifestation of totalitarianism. No victory was needed. Today, it unites Russians and partly the post-Soviet space — away from everything that unites. Ideal - the collapse of hundreds of parts. And what will happen to them later does not matter.

Publicly, they are supposedly in favor of modernization, but in reality they don’t need it. And it is interesting that many of the liberals are direct descendants of those who made the revolution in 17 and built communism. It seemed like you can spit on the affairs of grandfathers and fathers, thanks to which almost all liberals got a big head start in life. No, they value their grandfathers, but they are ready to destroy what they have done.

- Recently you said that we need the party of common sense ...

- Common sense, or sobriety, should be our main guide. The party of common sense can be any party at all. The only question is the political will and understanding of this common sense.

I am an Orthodox man, for me sanity is a synonym for Orthodoxy. More sober thoughts than in Orthodox dogma, never read. It outlines the most rational approaches to life. When you do something that is useful to you (but not in a primitive sense - to devour and sleep sweetly - but in a high understanding), but from this there will be a benefit for everyone.

Slogans like “What is useful for Russia are good” could work here. Preserving the integrity of Russia is useful, it means good. Economic prosperity? It is useful. Improving living conditions for the majority of the people is useful. Everything that is useful for the majority is useful for the state.
In 2000-s of common sense in the policy of the Russian Federation has become somewhat more. Objectively “zero” is better than “nineties”. This is confirmed by statistical indicators. By the sum of points 2000, undoubtedly, win. There can be no dispute.

Our liberals, who criticize the current system a lot, want to pretend that they have nothing to do with all the negative things that exist today. But after all, they created this system themselves. Only they built for themselves, and they took it away from them - this is their main insult.
Liberal politics leads us to suicide. Not wanting it, we are simply obliged to strengthen the state in all directions - from defense to education. It is necessary to convince people to open their eyes to what is happening, to help them to adequately understand the hidden dangers.

The Russians really want to vote and maintain power. But they feel hurt that the authorities do not always hear and understand their needs. Most people do not want to get involved in political squabbles and conflicts. And they do not want to support any opposition. But they would like the power to be strong and in the interests of the majority. Then they would willingly serve the authorities. And constantly supported.
Author:
Originator:
http://file-rf.ru/analitics/935
18 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. serge-68-68
    serge-68-68 18 July 2013 06: 56 New
    +3
    "Then they would gladly serve the authorities." That's when it will be the other way around - the government will serve the people, then there will be no need to divide everyone into "liberals", "totalitarians" and "pofigists." In my opinion so.
    1. smile
      smile 18 July 2013 17: 22 New
      0
      serge-68-68
      Greetings!
      But you know that if there is no need to divide, then new interested persons will simply grow up ... I hope you will not argue that interstate rivalry will ever end? ... but comrades liberals, or rather, that part of them that is worthy of the name The "liberals", unfortunately, conduct such destructive propaganda that one gets the impression that they will calm down only with the complete destruction of our statehood ... they do not need to be separated - they have separated themselves. of their own free will ... see who is leading the disaffected. Do you really think that you can come to an agreement with them, that they can be satisfied with something other than falling to the trough?

      And I also like utopias ... an era of general prosperity, in which power will not cause discontent among the people, in general the class ... they have only one drawback, they are utopias ....
      1. Karabu
        Karabu 18 July 2013 19: 21 New
        +1
        Quote: author
        What is important in Russian politics is liberals in the real minority, but their influence on the ruling class is very strong.
        so much so that chief liberal Putin has been on the throne for 13 years
        Quote: author
        Liberals want to reform Russia so that it ceases to be Russia, and Russian ceases to be Russian
        - Its policy is traced. Russians are not needed and dangerous! forget this swear word. absent-mindedly that's it! that sounds proud!
        Quote: smile
        The main thing is that only if there were as few Russians as possible or there was no better.
        doesn’t resemble anything? in this he is eagerly helped by migrants and Caucasians
        1. zub46
          zub46 19 July 2013 00: 09 New
          -1
          Again "Hit the Jews - save Russia"?
      2. serge-68-68
        serge-68-68 18 July 2013 19: 54 New
        +1
        To smile: Good day!
        Interstate rivalry will never stop, of course, as, indeed, many other rivalries. Even allies and relatives are not averse to sticking each other with wheels in the wheel.
        Our homegrown liberals turned out to be too ugly and squalid in our country, their anti-Russian and pro-Western orientations are obvious, but I would say that their activities now do more damage not to Russian statehood (the state has learned how to deal with this), but to the prospects of building a self-sufficient Russia in self-sufficient Russia .
        The song of the Russian liberals has been sung - but I would not want the echo to interfere with normal citizens. Honestly, for me personally, Russian liberals are already classified as "the history of political processes in Russia," I don't see much sense in kicking them.
        The only thing that pierced the eye in the article I noted in the remark. It is not good when a political scientist makes such reservations.
        Once upon a time, while passing social studies at the entrance exam for the department of the then "scientific communism" of the philology department, I quite calmly said (no longer remember the context) "philosophy serves ...". For which he was immediately and harshly "smeared" (:)) by the examiner, who began "Philosophy is not a servant ...". So it is here. In my opinion, a political scientist should nevertheless, with all the nuances, clearly remember that the power of power is secondary in relation to the power of the people.
        1. smile
          smile 19 July 2013 14: 08 New
          +1
          serge-68-68
          Well, I’m not going to argue here ... only in my opinion, to write off from an early date, you see. what processes we are seething ....
          And scientific communism (law faculty) .... I have nothing bad against communism ... but they hated the subject fiercely all the way ... :)))) even more than political economy, the history of the CPSU and judicial statistics, which some handed over for 8 time ...... :)))) in my opinion, in order to make a program in an idiotic way, you need to be an enemy saboteur ... :)))
          1. serge-68-68
            serge-68-68 19 July 2013 14: 18 New
            +1
            I studied in timelessness. He entered scientific communism, studied at the department of socio-political disciplines, graduated from the department of political science
    2. Alex Nick
      Alex Nick 19 July 2013 11: 01 New
      +1
      And now like this
  2. arkady149
    arkady149 18 July 2013 07: 09 New
    +7
    Article "+", in Russia now more than ever there is a great demand for JUSTICE, but the reforms are really zadolbali - they will raise the dregs and "fish".
  3. vladsolo56
    vladsolo56 18 July 2013 08: 42 New
    +5
    Power should not be strong, it is dangerous from all points of view, power should be fair. Just power will always be supported by the people, but in this case it will be strong. Because the power of power is not in punitive bodies, but in the support of the people. Further, no matter how you call it, it will not be important anymore, even if the Communists, or patriots, or even unloved liberals. The people very sensitively and keenly understand how power treats him, And if there is strong power, but directed against the people, then I am sure this will not last long.
    1. My address
      My address 18 July 2013 09: 09 New
      +3
      You're right. We have a keen sense of justice. The authorities are guilty of this. Room arrest Vasilyeva and Serdyukov’s freedom against the immediate arrest and subsequent imprisonment of Khabarov and Kvachkov. All according to the law. And in fairness - mockery.
    2. Mikhail3
      Mikhail3 18 July 2013 13: 12 New
      +2
      Weak power is a destroyed country. For how many of our compatriots is true only that which benefits them? Moreover, the concept of their benefit is simple - work less (it’s better not to work at all), get more and eat a lot (consume)? But you are not worried that if you disagree with the authorities, some want to raise an army and organize a bloody rebellion? Weak power is like the brains and spirit of a pampered fat man. So he is simply disgusted with his relatives and brings his death closer. A weak power ... Gorbachev repeat? May be enough?
      1. Yarosvet
        Yarosvet 18 July 2013 14: 28 New
        0
        Quote: Mikhail3
        A weak power ... Gorbachev repeat? May be enough?

        And humpbacked, like no one who coped with the task set before him, is this weak power?
        1. Mairos
          Mairos 19 July 2013 10: 46 New
          0
          Humpbacked is a weak and treacherous power.
          1. Yarosvet
            Yarosvet 19 July 2013 15: 04 New
            0
            Quote: Mairos
            Humpbacked is a weak and treacherous power.
            A phrase containing antagonistic statements.

            Weak power - there is power incapable of realizing the goals set, and the hunchbacked one with really set goals (not with the noodles that he was broadcasting from the box) - did just fine.
  4. My address
    My address 18 July 2013 09: 02 New
    +1
    Good article and most importantly, in my opinion, in the last paragraph.
  5. nokki
    nokki 18 July 2013 09: 22 New
    0
    I am an Orthodox man, for me sanity is a synonym for Orthodoxy. More sober thoughts than in Orthodox dogma, never read. It outlines the most rational approaches to life. When you do something that is useful to you (but not in a primitive sense - to devour and sleep sweetly - but in a high understanding), but from this there will be a benefit for everyone.



    I will subscribe to every word! Orthodoxy alone has now come under the blow not only of orthodox-aggressive atheists (which always, by the way, have always been and will be!), But also come to the Orthodox milieu in the dashing 90 reformers-reformists. There are not only a lot of them among the parishioners, but also, which is especially alarming, among the priests. So liberalization is mortally dangerous not only for the State and its institutions!

    To what this can lead, the sad experience of Catholicism in the West shows.
  6. Alex Nick
    Alex Nick 18 July 2013 09: 26 New
    +6
    It seems that the power we live on its own. Our problems are her drum.
    1. Uhe
      Uhe 18 July 2013 11: 38 New
      +2
      And there is. Stalin put forward a thesis from which it follows that with the construction of communism the class struggle will intensify. She escalated - they removed Stalin, and before that they slandered, framed and removed his receiver Voznesensky.

      A new class was born in the USSR — the class of partocracy, that is, the highest party leaders began to feel like a new community with their common interests, a new class. They banged the USSR, rebuilt the economy on an oligarchic track, and they themselves smoothly moved from Soviet party workers to the oligarchy.

      The oligarchy and other citizens of the country have completely different interests and almost never intersect. Of course, power lives its own life, you correctly said, because for it citizens are the dung on which they grow their flowers, only for themselves.
  7. olviko
    olviko 18 July 2013 09: 45 New
    +3
    If you will allow me, I will quote the words of one good person. In my opinion, they are very suitable for this topic: "We do not choose the country where we will be born, nor the people in which we will be born, nor the time in which we will be born, but we choose one thing: to be human or non-human." So gentlemen, the word is ours!
  8. Constantine
    Constantine 18 July 2013 09: 59 New
    +2
    I do not quite agree with the man, or rather with his vision of the collapse of the USSR, but in general, the thoughts are mostly sound. However, some characters tend to believe that a strong state can be created in a couple of years, and when they do not detect the activities of the "magic wand", faced with a harsh reality in the form of consistent painstaking work, they begin to pour slop over the GDP, etc. Everyone should not only want and wait for the state to be made strong, but as an autonomous unit, to the best of his ability, act for the good of the entire people, based primarily on common sense.
  9. KazaK Bo
    KazaK Bo 18 July 2013 10: 04 New
    -1
    Hardly anyone wants to "MAKHNOVSKAYA VOLNITSA" ... And "liberalism" is only an external ... advertising shell of the most severe social relations ... where the definition of "man is a wolf!" No, this is not a political or some kind of party epithet ... no, this is a factor of survival. And "hawala" weaklings is the only way ... both in the housekeeper ... and in life ...
    And the power of power is not in repressions, but in support of society, its voters. And from here such a policy should be. What the hobby leads only to one’s own interests ... can be seen from the fate and the CPSU and, especially, our current helmsman - EP.
    So we have no time for "Makhnovism" ... especially during the crisis period.
    State separatism is the hypertrophied ambitions of "local, appanage princelings" with the support of the natsklans ... to whom their "adhered" sang from morning to evening, what "YOU" are great and what mighty "YOU" ... So they want to steer .. .if not the world and Europe, then at least small, but its own state. It hardly even dreamed ever to KRAVCHUK, the supernumerary secretary of the regional committee for ideology, who, by chance, got into the place of the first in the CPU, that he would be greeted by guards of honor and volleys of 30 guns when saluting nations as for the first president of a new state ...
  10. Uhe
    Uhe 18 July 2013 11: 25 New
    +6
    The USSR had no insoluble problems. It was just something like the first crisis of socialism. The crisis of capitalism comes with an "enviable" periodicity, and at the very least learned how to solve them, to solve them at the expense of the lives of millions of people. The crisis of socialism came for the first time in many years, and there was nothing that could not be solved. Moreover, there were no economic problems - all the problems were created artificially. After all, the Humpbacked Traitor was given whole volumes of scientific advice on solving all the problems that he identified. He also had a report with a scientific justification for the collapse of the "reform" that he proposed. It was shown that in the course of these reforms the USSR could be destroyed and the economy would become capitalist. And what did he choose? And he chose exactly what he wanted - to bring the country down into the abyss. The same was achieved by his entourage in the form of Yakovlev, Shevardnadze and other traitors. By the way, there were also plenty of people from the current bourgeois-oligarchic government. It's not for nothing that MI-8 drew attention to Humpback's wife. Baba was so greedy for money and a beautiful life that she did not need to be recruited. Both Shevardnadze and Yakovlev - they were all like that.

    The main trouble and the reason for the collapse of the USSR is the power's lack of control and responsibility to the people! But then people had at least some levers, however, their influence manifested itself very slowly (on the highest power). Nowadays the people do not have any leverage whatsoever on power, and all social lifts to power and upward are cut off - an entrance only for their own, to the rest: "You sixes, lick your heels." Of course, the government will do any disgrace, because the laws are not written about it. Even this bourgeois Constitution, written to please the bourgeoisie, they themselves violate as they want. So some of the complications of the USSR turned into chronic difficulties of the current state, they have not been resolved and they are already making themselves felt. How is people's dissatisfaction with power manifested in bourgeois society? You know how.

    So Mikheev is lying to you. The USSR did not have any special difficulties, except for the uncontrollability of the supreme power, and all the complications were resolved. Just another global crisis of capitalism was brewing and the United States would collapse, but they pushed the USSR with the hands of traitors and, having robbed its scattered parts, extended their own agony right up to the present. The current crisis of capitalism is the delayed one of the late 80s. The US will collapse, they just extended their agony. The bad thing is that we fell under their debris, which is already pouring.

    The article is generally false from beginning to end. The people want their own, popular, that is, socialist, just state, and not a state in which 1% of oligarchs of unknown origin, many of whom are generally citizens of other countries, own almost 90% of the wealth of our country. And they rob us with the help of taxes, utilities, other requisitions, rig the election, pour a constant chatter from the box.

    The best thing about power was Kvachkov. Listen to his words about the current rulers, he clearly and clearly says what the people do not want and what he wants. For this they put him in prison - they actually killed him, but he is the hero of Russia, and not some dark personalities you know how.
    1. t-95
      t-95 18 July 2013 13: 54 New
      0
      The author of the article, apparently did not live with the USSR, and if he lived somewhere in another USSR. There were no difficulties, yes. One question is when they destroyed the USSR, why didn’t anyone stand up, after all, they lost the paradise on earth, on the contrary, they all went like crazy, give freedom, give capitalism. Why?
      1. Yarosvet
        Yarosvet 18 July 2013 14: 36 New
        +1
        Quote: t-95
        Why?

        Advertising, which is the engine of trade.
      2. yur
        yur 18 July 2013 23: 00 New
        +1
        They wanted freedom, there is NO capitalism! Moreover, if in 1988-91 someone would have hinted at the return of capitalism, they would have dared it like rubbish, and the whole country would have stood up for the GKChP. The people were simply meanly deceived.
  11. tank64rus
    tank64rus 18 July 2013 11: 42 New
    +2
    If the liberals did not have the most powerful support from the West, ranging from financial and organizational support through NGOs and ending with ideological support through interest clubs and other organizations of various kinds, their existence would have ended long ago. They play as they think a win-win game. For example, pursuing the policies of the West in Russia today, they provide themselves with a comfortable life and a comfortable existence, some in power or in power. If they are thrown out of Russia, then they will live well and feed in the same West as "prisoners of conscience", "common people", etc. If, however, they become at the helm of the authorities, then we are not waiting for the 90s, but simply the destruction of Russia.
    1. Yarosvet
      Yarosvet 18 July 2013 14: 41 New
      0
      Quote: tank64rus
      If they become at the helm of power, then we are not waiting for the 90s, but simply the destruction of Russia.

      Aren't they in power? laughing


      1. Normal
        Normal 18 July 2013 21: 38 New
        +1
        They don’t like pro-government truths, oh they don’t like ... Putin preaches liberasty, and minuses are molded to Yarosvet laughing Well done, handsome ...
  12. varov14
    varov14 18 July 2013 11: 58 New
    0
    Power must be both strong and fair. Our elite should finally wake up, be it communist or capitalist, I omit the gaps and become statesmen. To fight separatism by all available means, regardless of the opinion of Europe. And if they hurry up, they will have no time for us, their "Arabs" will prevail. Every man for himself, I mean the country, and we are all together together, you will not be able to 45g you will not be like Indians in America. Change the course of the ship slightly, maybe it will blow, if Europe guaranteed you 45 million, then there will be forces that do not need either Russians, Tatars, or Bashkirs, etc. "Not far-sighted" in power can and love their grandchildren, but only d @ .. ki they are by nature.
  13. The comment was deleted.
  14. sashka
    sashka 18 July 2013 13: 17 New
    +4
    In Belarus, drunk people are deprived of their rights and vtomobil .. The first fine is a thousand dollars at the rate. And life deprivation of rights. If pyang .. What is stopping us? I want to Belarus from our "liberals" After all, Putin is a liberal .. or a "liberal" ?? You can kill on the roads in dozens, you still get 7 seven years of settlement maximum .. With a delay of 14 years .. Are we really going well, the right way ?? Essesovtsy nervously smoke on the sidelines .. Glory to Pu. Glory !!! Vote further.
  15. Valery Neonov
    Valery Neonov 18 July 2013 13: 53 New
    +1
    "Part of the Western forces has set the task of eliminating Russia as a possible competitor from the world arena in principle."- And what kind of European state can ATTEMPT TO COMPARE YOURSELF with Russia! It’s impossible, at least even on a territorial basis. And of course Russia is not Mongolia, it doesn’t need to be neglected by Russia (!) It is fraught (for general well-being). !
  16. Normal
    Normal 18 July 2013 14: 00 New
    +4
    A strange impression of the article. everything seems to be correct (or almost everything), but some kind of sediment remains.
    Among those who oppose themselves to liberals, there are many people from the corporation of officials. But they do not so much care for the state as for preserving their own schemes, which they use and on which they sit well.

    I agree here. But that is why these liberals are officials. What and who does not allow the president to reduce the influence of these liberals to a meager? Why
    There are a lot of people with strong statist beliefs in the state apparatus, in the ruling elite, and in society. But they are worse heard, because some of them are marginalized, others do not have the desired and necessary access to the media or can not for various reasons express their position that is understandable to a wide audience.
    and liberals on horseback? Yes, because our president is the most important liberal.
    GDP has made it possible to manage the country's budget as your own wallet. Only with liberal politics and ideology (it doesn’t matter that it is not formalized, it exists and acts) is it possible to cut the budget, plunder (privatize) state property, give bribes and receive kickbacks and at the same time DO NOT RESPOND FOR ANYTHING! neither for lack of results nor for direct theft, NEVER!.
    Well, why does the GDP have statists in leadership positions? After all, then many of his fellow accomplices will have to answer. No, it's better to let the liberals head with the LADY. Against their background, the president is simply "hope and support", and besides, there will be someone else to blame the next failures on.

    Part of the Western forces set the task to eliminate Russia as a possible competitor from the world stage in principle.

    Undoubtedly. It is undoubtedly that this is only a part, very numerous and influential, but still only a part. There are more sane forces in the West that Russia needs. Weak, manageable, but nevertheless united and able to be a counterbalance to China or an ally in any other combination. The future is foggy and for these forces, the presence of Russia is better than a lot of obscure state formations from which there is one headache and trouble.
    Otherwise, Russia would have collapsed at the turn of the century, and no retired KGB colonel would save or save anything. Forces would not be enough.
    The essence of the contradictions between the GDP and the West can be expressed in one phrase "This is OUR cow and WE milk it." If the West could guarantee Putin a lifetime rule, then there would be no contradictions between the GDP and the West. But certain forces in the West will never agree with this, and now we are supposedly opposing the West, but at the same time we are pursuing a liberal domestic policy and are ahead of the West in terms of the degree of liberal-capitalist marasmus.

    The Russians really want to vote and support the government. But they are offended that the authorities do not always hear and understand their needs. Most people do not want to get involved in political squabbles and conflicts. And they do not want to support any opposition. But they would like the power to be strong and in the interests of the majority. Then they would willingly serve the authorities. And constantly supported
    And the authorities only declare their desire to meet the requirements of the population, but in reality they only wanted to spit on them and continue to observe only their selfish interests.
  17. Kotovsk1y
    Kotovsk1y 18 July 2013 15: 54 New
    0
    I agree with this article.
  18. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 18 July 2013 17: 43 New
    -1
    [quote = Kotovsk1y] The essence of the contradictions between GDP and the West can be expressed in one phrase "This is OUR cow and WE milk it" [/ quote]
    [quote] [/ quote] Russians actually want to vote and support the government. But they are offended that the authorities do not always hear and understand their needs. Most people do not want to get involved in political squabbles and conflicts. [/ Quote]
    The fact is that with the rest of the milking will be all and sundry. If we do not want to go out and demand something from the authorities, keeping the opposition and, moreover, the "swamp liberals" at a distance, then there is nothing to blame. It is not known what will come after the GDP.
    1. Normal
      Normal 18 July 2013 21: 33 New
      0
      Quote: Yuri Ya.
      . It is not known what will come after GDP.

      Well, why is it unknown. We study history ... Teasing over the throne. Troubles. A series of temporary workers. Varangians-Poles in the kingdom. Civil war and militia. Everything was already under the moon. We just decided that we were the smartest and that could not happen to us. Maybe ... even as it can, and it will undoubtedly happen if the GDP rules until its death.
  19. Dimy4
    Dimy4 18 July 2013 21: 46 New
    0
    ... destroyed to the ground ...

    If they destroy, then the IS will die on their own, they can not see that they will then become useless to anyone.