- 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.