January 19 2005
Exactly five years ago, in the number 3 for 2000 a year, the newspaper "Tomorrow" opened a series of publications under the general motto "Project Putin". Then we wrote: “Before, every leader was a product of the most complicated political separation. For an idea, a leader, a leader, there were always major accomplishments. He grew to political heights as a result of deadly strife, wars, elections from a dozen equally worthy ones. Putin is the first product strictly a secret factory run by the presidential administration, the FSB, the media and residents of the West. " This characteristic, given in the heat of the 2000 presidential campaign of the year, while remaining generally correct, needs some clarification. Then the “project Putin” was just beginning. Today, after the elections in Ukraine, the privatization of Yuganskneftegaz and the actual abolition of social benefits, it seems to be nearing its end. Headlines and texts of publications in Western (and not only Western) mass media literally shout about this, it is demanded by retirees who block streets and roads, oligarchs and regional leaders speak about this in a narrow circle of authorized representatives.
At the same time, Putin’s dismissal or his departure from the presidency makes the “power vacuum” obvious and opens the way to the disintegration of Russia - according to the same scenario that the Soviet Union was destroyed in 1991. What is in such circumstances, the increasingly likely resignation of Putin for our country - good or evil? With this question we turned to our experts.
Nikolay PAVLOV, State Duma deputy:
Not so long ago there was a congress of our party "Narodnaya Volya". I was given the floor, and I said: "If the country faces a choice: Putin or Chubais with Berezovsky, then you have to be on Putin’s side." I think the same point of view is with most of my party comrades.
Yes, we do not like the current government policy. It is necessary to drive from the ministerial posts of Gref, Kudrin, Zurabov and radically change the socio-economic strategy. But Putin’s policy today is also unhappy with the capital of the West and its “fifth column” in Russia. That is, they are not satisfied with those who have been sucking the juices of the Russian economy for a decade and a half and drank the blood of our people. They felt the danger emanating from the Kremlin, and it is desirable for them to eliminate Putin. And who benefits?
We are statists. We believe that the state can not create a paradise in the country, but it can prevent it from hell. We do not need a “rose revolution” according to the Georgian version, nor an “orange revolution” according to the Ukrainian version. If the West and the Russian oligarchs organize a coup d’état, it will lead to chaos in Russia.
There will be no benefit to us from Putin’s dismissal from the presidency, contrary to the law, that’s for sure. And will Putin’s unjustified expulsion of Putin from the Kremlin a catastrophe for the country? I will answer: any shocks in the state are harmful and therefore undesirable.
Alexander NAGORNY, political scientist:
Talk about overthrowing or shifting Putin is not an accidental turn in public sentiment. This is not a revolutionary situation, but an approach to it is active. Undoubtedly, different segments of Russian society have their own specific motivations. However, let us ask a few questions to understand the whole situation. First, are there any objective reasons for this? The answer is beyond doubt: yes. In a month or two, not retirees, but quite active people will feel a radical increase in tariffs and rents. And there is not far to the realization of the robbery of gasoline and health care. If we add hatred for Putin of national elites and regional groups to all this social, then a very tough "complot" is formed. Now let us ask whether Putin deserves such an attitude towards himself as a result of his activities. The answer is beyond doubt: yes. He is the destroyer of our state and our Motherland due to the fact that it prolongs the system of the Yeltsin concentration camp, where a million of our citizens die every year.
In the Western media and in the analytical workings of the CIA and other special agencies, the position that under such a socio-economic situation the demographic “decline” of Russia will reduce it historical fate to zero in the next ten to fifteen years. In this scheme, the delay and every day of Putin’s stay in the Kremlin is the murder of the country. He is a kind of capo in Russian Auschwitz. Recall that, in addition to the things already said, Putin is cementing the development of a narcological disaster by withdrawing our border guards from Tajikistan, by unbridled propaganda of violence and the same drugs on all national television channels, by expanding casino networks throughout the country. You can give a huge number of examples. This includes children's homelessness, and the elderly, delving into garbage dumps, and the deprivation of housing for the poor, unable to pay for apartments, this is the protection of entrepreneurial banditry, and soldering the population through private wine and vodka production.
But now we will put the last question. And why did our “best friend the United States actually join this overthrow of Putin? They are not satisfied with the killing liberal course of the current Russian president? After all, he meets their long-term interests. No. The answer is in other things. First, their They are not satisfied with the pace of the destruction of Russia as a single state. Secondly, specific tasks have been set in recent months about the "castration" of our nuclear missile potential, inherited from the Soviet, or more precisely, the Stalin era of opposition to America and the West.
And here that “orange” revolution, carried out by the Americans in Kiev, is only an addition to the sharp defamation campaign in the leading American media on Putin. A direct and practical question is posed to him: either you give up control of the Russian nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants to Washington through a new treaty on "strategic stability" with the United States, or we are preparing for you the Hague and the fate of Milosevic at best, and at worst, Ceausescu with a physical sweep. The surrender of Putin’s nuclear missile potential will mean the final assassination of Russia as a great power. This will be followed by the final dismemberment with the separation of the Caucasus, Volga region, Siberia and the Far East. But if Putin suddenly rests, a completely different historical perspective will arise. The United States will put pressure on all lines of Russia and Putin, and it will have to repeal draconian liberal laws, it will have to limit tariffs and rents, really “strip” oligarchs, taking away their means to maintain the poor and restore military potential, return the state gold reserves from America to Russia, to carry out personnel cleansing in the government and on television. And then a huge public support for the "lonely" leader will be provided. But this is unlikely to happen. In my opinion, the main lever of "destabilization" will come through a series of upcoming terrorist acts, when the mysterious Caucasian and Chechen militants "seize" nuclear or chemical facilities in conjunction with the school and the maternity hospital. Such an operation is being prepared with the initiation and full support of the special services of Turkey and the United States. And an ultimatum from the whole "united West" will follow. And it will be reduced not only and not so much to the removal of Putin as a political subject, but to the introduction of specific international control over Russian territories, including the resolution of regional conflicts and high-risk objects. That is the choice that we are prepared.
Stanislav BELKOVSKY, President of the National Strategy Institute:
Vladimir Putin, as a national leader, has come to a deaf dead end, the way out of which is not visible. However, this does not mean that his sudden departure from power will be a blessing for the country.
The main problems of Putin were: a) the inability to formulate a new national project for Russia, qualitatively different from Yeltsin's (actually American); and b) the lack of desire and willingness to form a new elite that would connect its vital interests with a new leader, a new course, a new regime. It is now obvious that Putin was too small and shallow in the face of the tasks that History set for him. Therefore, today we are witnessing a massive disappointment in the president.
However, today’s crash of Vladimir Putin would be premature and extremely risky for Russia. There is still no responsible political entity that could assume full authority. In such a situation, only the merciless Russian revolution, which had happened in the 2005 year, would inevitably lead to the disintegration of the country, could become the mechanism of Putin's dismissal. Recall that in the 1991 year, the union republics rapidly declared themselves independent states only because the sacral central - union, Moscow, tsarist - power disappeared so far.
If we want to preserve the country and statehood as entities, then we need the areal elements, not sweeping away everything in their path, but the state transformation, which implies - at the symbolic level - the continuity of power. This means that the new ruler of Russia coming after Putin will be infinitely far from the current president in his views, ideology, philosophy, political methodology, but the main thing is that he should not "carry Putin out of the Mausoleum." Desacralization of the Russian sovereign power as such should not be allowed, because in Russian history it is always - whether it is Time of Troubles, 1917 or 1991 - that led to the disintegration of the state and the disintegration of all of its systemically important institutions.
Most likely, Putin will be removed from power as a result of a coup d’état, which, in turn, will be the indirect result of popular unrest, supported by secret rebels - conspirators in the immediate circle of the president. (“Poor, poor Pavel!” - the president should be in panic afraid of long durable scarves and bronze snuffboxes). A political subject alternative to the 1990 system and capable of replacing Putin will mature by the year of 2006. This subject, supported by some Kremlin dwellers, will come to power - presumably in the spring and summer of 2007. If we do not want the disappearance of Russia and Russian identity, we should not be ahead of the events.
History will put everything and everyone in places. There is reason to believe that the next presidential election will be held ahead of schedule, and the parliamentary elections in general will not have any meaning.
Vladimir Putin was the victim of his own inattention to the historical laws and ways of development of Russia. It will be replaced by the "real Putin" - the one on whom the country relied, but never received. The post-Putin regime will be imperialistic and even partly liberal - but not at all in the sense of the word "liberalism", which is inherent in our 1990's agonizing elite. Elite, who brought Putin to power as a managed clerk, and now does not know what to do with him, and is ready for any decisions and scenarios that suggest the fall of the “Kremlin evil dwarf”.
One should not exaggerate the role of the West in destabilizing the Putin regime. The current president of Russia as a whole is satisfied with the West - since everything that he really does (not to be confused with formal rhetoric), by and large meets the interests of the United States as a global superpower. This Putin eliminated our bases in Cuba and Vietnam, allowed the United States to establish direct channels of control over the CIS, lost Ukraine, etc. Do not forget the "stabilizing" role of Putin's main business partner - German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. The West fears not so much Putin as the extra-systemic political force that could ever come to replace the current Russian leader. Therefore, at the crucial moment of our most recent history, the West (here it is necessary to make a reservation about its heterogeneity and the growing contradictions between America and Old Europe) will rather be counter-revolutionary. It is highly likely that at the end of his presidential feeding ministry, Putin will be a permanent resident of prestigious European resorts and a welcome guest at receptions from obvious, secret and imaginary kings and hosts of Europe.
Sergei Glazyev, Doctor of Economics, State Duma deputy:
The discussion that has recently appeared in Russian society and the media regarding Putin’s early dismissal from the presidency is related to the fact that the socioeconomic and foreign policy course he has chosen has completely discredited itself. His work goes against the interests of society and the state. The fact that the Kremlin managed to spend the last six months, means a rollback of our country to the parameters of the pre-industrial era.
Such a scheme does not exist in any more or less civilized state. Practically here Putin and his “siloviki” introduced the “African” state model developed by the IMF as early as the 60 for the former colonies. Meanwhile, I don’t think that in the near future there are political chances for his overthrow or withdrawal from power. There are no significant figures on the Russian political scene that represent real competition to Putin and capable of intercepting power. However, the situation is becoming more fragile and unstable every day. For me and my colleagues, the main thing is undoubtedly the change in the current catastrophic socio-economic course, and not the replacement of a political figure. We criticize and oppose Putin because he throws the country a hundred years ago and carries out total degradation. What exactly is this? His steps were reduced to the creation of a system for the export of capital from the country by oligarchs, to the most dangerous pillaging and plundering of land, both in urban and rural land, to the total destruction of the social system and the structural reduction of social expenditures. Here we are not concerned with foreign policy. Putin deliberately leads to the pushing of our country into a raw material status without any opportunities for revival, which in itself creates the conditions for its further dismemberment. Contrary to the current president’s repeated statements about stimulating the investment process and supporting scientific and technological revolution, as was recently done in Novosibirsk, everything is done to dismantle the Academy of Sciences, commercialize science and squeeze the most capable scientific personnel out of the country. Health care is ruined, and education is put on a paid basis, which does not give capable young people to get an education and secure their future and the future of their country. In essence, this is a continuation of the Yeltsin "reform" line, but on a larger scale. So, Yeltsin did not touch the social sphere created by the Soviet Union, and Putin fearlessly destroys it. Therefore, the current opposition to Putin is wider than the opposition to Yeltsin. The rightists in the form of the Union of Right Forces and liberals criticize him for his removal from the trough in the government and in the media, fully supporting his social and economic "innovations". The right and the West would like to deploy an orange orgy in Russia and connect the "energy" of public discontent to their political objectives. Such a course of events, if it takes place, can lead to completely different political results. The people who are now in the Kremlin, have no idea about law and morality. They will rock the situation themselves. One part of the liberals will provoke unrest, and the other will prepare the dictatorship in order to more effectively implement the goals set to reduce Russia and Russian society to the position of an African country. These "representatives" of the two parts of the right together spend their free time, play golf, drink tea and other drinks. And this circumstance should be fully realized and taken into account by all patriotic forces.
Anton SURIKOV, political scientist:
Criticism of V.Putin by the world's leading media on the eve of the New Year holidays passed into the stage of public discussion of the issue of removing him from power without waiting for 2008 of the year. Contrary to Kremlin claims that this criticism was allegedly paid for by Berezovsky, in fact it has deeper reasons.
As you know, Putin was entirely obliged to his arrival in the Kremlin by Yeltsin’s “family” and, above all, to Berezovsky. True, Boris Abramovich was forced to emigrate a year later. But the other members of the "family" kept their positions for a long time. Virtually the entire first Putin term, the Yeltsin elite was represented on the Kremlin Olympus by such "heavyweights" as Voloshin and Kasyanov, who, strictly speaking, provided the appearance of stability. The turning point occurred in 2003 with the arrest of Khodorkovsky and the resignation of Voloshin, and the final political cleansing took place in February of 2004, when Kasyanov was dismissed. In addition to the "family", the generals Kvashnin, Troshev, Kazantsev, Shamanov and other commanders of the second Chechen war played a significant role in Putin's elevation. Thanks to their victories, the rating of the newly appointed prime minister Putin rose from zero to heaven in a matter of weeks. Then, having done their job, all these generals were out of work. Kvashnin was expelled last from his post in the middle of 2004. And now, judging by the press, the process of introducing migrants from SVR to senior positions in the GRU, where they are not persistently perceived as representatives of a competing corporation, has entered the final phase.
Anyway, only the people who owe their careers personally to Putin were at the helm of power. First of all, his former colleagues at the KGB and in the city hall of St. Petersburg when he was mayor of Sobchak. Leave aside the painful questions about their professionalism and corruption. Equally important is the fact that the balance was broken within the elite. The situation was aggravated by the construction of a "managed democracy" system, which ended sometime in the fall of 2003 during the ugly campaign for elections to the State Duma. These elections and the Yukos case demonstrated to the public that the vertical mobility system that existed under Yeltsin was blocked. The Kremlin Brigade has taken everything under itself and does not want to let anyone go anywhere. Due to insurmountable bureaucratic and corruption barriers, active elements are deprived of the opportunity to move vertically upwards in politics and business by legitimate means. Thus, they are literally pushed into the field of illegitimate actions - in a frank crime or a revolution.
This is not slow to affect. The entire 2004 year has been shaken by a continuous series of crises, scandals and tragedies. It is enough to remember Beslan, the murder of Kadyrov, Nazran, the subway bombings, the destroyed airplanes, the “attack” of the Yarmuk jamaat on the drug control office in Nalchik, which became regular sabotage on pipelines and power lines in Dagestan and Moscow region, mass killings and kidnappings throughout the North Caucasus, unrest in Karachay-Cherkessia. On the other hand, the Kremlin’s failures in elections in Ukraine and Abkhazia, the collapse of the Abashidze regime in Adzharia, the banking crisis created from scratch, the administrative reform that paralyzed the government’s work, the reform of the General Staff, the scandal around the elimination of Yandarbiyev, Qatar, a court in Houston and the clumsy expropriation of Yuganskneftegaz, an attempt to seize the brand of the Communist Party of the Kremlin by the Kremlin, the adoption of laws on the monetization of privileges, protest actions of Limonovtsy and brutal judicial reprisals against them. Finally, the "anti-terrorism" decision on the appointment of governors, which caused a negative international reaction and anger among regional elites. It is significant that on the election day of Putin the building of the Manege near the Kremlin burned down. And the end of the year was "graced" by the president's Freudian reservation on Zionism. The beginning of 2005, which was marked by the excitement of the beneficiaries, whom the police and secretly regional leaders clearly sympathize, did not bring anything good either. Particularly noteworthy were the thousands of shares in the Volga region. Dissatisfied "babai" as if hinting to the Kremlin that the next time people can go out not under the red, but under the green banners. And they will block not the streets of cities and highways, but the Druzhba oil pipeline and the Urengoy-Pomary-Uzhgorod gas pipeline - a kind of gift to the German Chancellor Schröder for the elections to the Bundestag in 2006. In general, the situation is in a spin. From stability, which was mentioned a year ago, no trace remains. In the party of power openly discuss the early resignation of the government. Meanwhile, the president, when he went to the polls, publicly positioned this government as the most important part of his team for a second term.
Against this background, the anti-Putin campaign in the world media is gaining momentum, in terms of severity resembling the 1983 year, when the South Korean Boeing was shot down in the skies over Sakhalin. Putin in the West, it seems, was written off completely and no concessions on his part will change his attitude towards him. Moreover, as a matter of the near future, the topic of possible disintegration of the Russian Federation was discussed. For good reason. In the West, it has always been believed that the process of the collapse of the USSR in the 1991 year was not completed. At one time, Brzezinski wrote about the need for secession of Siberia and the Far East. The CIA report, which became famous, predicted the dismemberment of the Russian Federation into seven parts by 2015. However, the issue of disintegration until recently was considered only as a long-term perspective. On the contrary, during the period of stability in 2000-2003, the United States seriously counted on the President of the Russian Federation as the junior partner in the confrontation with radical Islam and China, which is gaining momentum. Therefore, G. Bush avoided criticism of Putin in every way and tried to emphasize his position to him. However, when in the West they came to the conclusion that the situation, due to the failures and mistakes of the Kremlin, was about to go astray, the accents shifted and the topic of the collapse of the Russian Federation rose to the agenda. At the same time, Bush, thoroughly stuck in Iraq, is now more than ever in need of a loyal attitude on the part of opponents both in America itself and in "old Europe". And their situation in the Russian Federation has always been in the focus of attention, which Bush simply cannot ignore.
So, the Western elite has a consolidated view that Putin is no longer the guarantor of stability, and the Russian Federation is on the verge of collapse and chaos. At the same time, a peaceful revolution along the lines of Georgia and Ukraine is not predicted for us. In the West, they believe that without bloodshed, we will not do. After all, there is no one controlled by the North Caucasus, there is an Islamic factor in the Volga region, underground cells of the radical Hizb ut-Tahrir party have been created all over the country, aiming at the creation of the Caliphate. There is a fatwa (directive) of authoritative Muslim theologians, declaring the Russian Federation "the territory of war" - "dar-al-hub." Under the collective pseudonym "Shamil Basayev", there are groups of unknown departmental affiliation that organize catastrophic acts of "Nord-Ost" and Beslan, which are catastrophic in consequences and public resonance. In other words, for the instability associated with violence, and, consequently, for the collapse of the country has all the prerequisites.
Meanwhile, the Russian Federation is not Burundi. What is happening in it can not but worry the West. First of all, the fate of nuclear facilities for military and civil purposes. In the United States, they came to the conclusion that in the coming years, with the formal consent of the Russian Federation, they should take such facilities under their direct administration and protection. Secondly, Americans are worried about the prospect of transition of the eastern regions of the Russian Federation under the control of China through demographic expansion. Given the demographic trend in Siberia and the Far East, Washington believes that it will take 10-15 years.
They see a way out to the United States in a pro-active manner, together with NATO allies and Japan, to take these territories under administrative and military control on the basis of a system of concession agreements and military alliances that will be imposed on the Kremlin. Finally, Washington is worried about the rise of radical Islam. Moscow’s policy of countering the Islamists is low in the West. On the contrary, a combination of methods such as the clumsy use of force plus crude bribing of local clans is considered ineffective and backfiring. The territorial isolation of the mountaineers of the North Caucasus and the Volga-Ural region under nationalistic anti-Russian slogans and the introduction of stabilization forces of Turkey, the United States and NATO along the lines of the former Yugoslavia seems more preferable.
For the implementation of the above concept is given a few years. At the same time, the Russian Federation, while maintaining the current format of the Kremlin’s policy, has virtually no chance of survival. The economic views of the Kremlin are based on radical monetarism, which reinforces the orientation of raw materials and the trend towards the de-industrialization of the country. This is aggravated by the lack of qualified personnel in the presidential team and horrific corruption unprecedented even in Yeltsin's times. The transformation of law enforcement agencies into extortionist gangs has almost completed. Finally, the so-called elite’s habit of keeping capital abroad makes it extremely vulnerable to Western justice. This is despite the fact that the Houston court, as we could see, is fundamentally no different from the Basmanny.
So, in the West, people are increasingly inclined to think that the state that was proclaimed on the ruins of the USSR in 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha of the Russian Federation did not take place. This pushes Americans to actively influence our internal processes in the direction of "controlled disintegration." At the same time, the United States seriously believes that they will be able to direct the collapse process to an acceptable direction for themselves. However, history teaches that not everything works out exactly as originally planned. The situation can get out of control if China and radical Islam are included in the game. So, the Americans are not able to stop illegal immigration from Mexico and the same China even to their own territory. How do they plan to stop the demographic aggression of the Chinese in the eastern regions of the Russian Federation? Or bet on secular nationalism in our Muslim republics. There are simply no influential nationalist forces, but Islamic radicalism is flourishing, accumulating all anti-Kremlin protest sentiments.
One way or another, the Russian Federation is turning into a passive object of confrontation of world centers of power. Meanwhile, Putin came to power under the slogans of strengthening the state, preserving its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Despite the Kremlin PR, now the society is increasingly convinced that the president has missed his chance. The discussion about how to help Putin is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Can not help him. His departure or dismissal is likely to take place earlier than 2008. Therefore, another question is relevant now: what will happen after Putin? Will the collapse of the Russian Federation happen or will a new more professional power come that will stop the processes of destruction and give impetus to development? The answer to this question entirely depends on the degree of political maturity of Russian society.
Mikhail LEONTIEV, journalist:
Treasonable conversations do not intend to support the content.
Sergey Dorenko, TV reporter:
Putin has created a business corporation of generals, which, with any unrest, thinks about the billions illegally acquired under his rule. If Putin is displaced by someone from the established business junta, it will not be a blessing for Russia. But if the people of Russia are imbued with the consciousness of what is happening with them today, if a nationally responsible government comes to power, this is certainly a blessing.
The resource of the new elite is definitely not the corrupt bureaucracy that feeds on Putin’s mud, is definitely not a corrupt senior army and special service, engaged in trading in soldier’s lives and protecting the business. All others suffer from Putin's regime. Unfortunately, usually our people lead to unity and national responsibility, trouble. So it was in the Time of Troubles of the early seventeenth century. And today, people protesting on the streets have come to an understanding through trouble. I think that a nationally responsible stratum of the best of citizens, which forms the national government, can crystallize out of them.
Mikhail DELYAGIN, Doctor of Economics, Chairman of the Presidium-Scientific Director of the Institute for the Problems of Globalization:
A wave of discontent with Putin has risen in the country. Naturally, the official propaganda is trying to blame his opponents for an alliance with Islamic terrorists (all Moscow metros were sealed with appropriate leaflets), the payment of oligarchs and the West.
Yes, among Putin’s opponents there are enemies of Russia who target him simply because they are the most vulnerable part of Russia, just as the demishy (unlike human rights activists) fought against the KGB not for the well-being of the citizens of the USSR, but against it. But such enemies always attack - just as viruses always attack the body. The organism gives in to these attacks and gets sick only when it loses a part of its immunity.
The attacks on Putin became massive not because someone in the West allocated an extra million dollars, but because Putin’s policy began to threaten Russia's very existence and became more destructive than the efforts of all external enemies combined.
Strongly imposed conversations in the style of "the king is good, only the bad boyars" ("only Putin will save us from Zurabov", for example) - cheap propaganda for the meager mind, for Putin chose these "boyars" and brick by brick, that little bureaucrat gloom against which even his dim light blinded his eyes.
The essence of the political system created by Putin is the granting of bureaucracy, especially coercive, full arbitrary freedom in exchange for loyalty. Democracy as an institution of state coercion to responsibility before society has been eradicated.
The symbiosis of liberal fundamentalists, who take the money of the population in favor of business, and the power oligarchy, which takes this money from business for unproductive consumption, is a two-step digestive tract that digests the country. Unlike the Soviet one, this economy is really “Samoyed”.
The economic strength is great, but by the fall of 2006, it will be destroyed by the stupidity and irresponsibility of the leadership (for example, the banking crisis) and the steady growth of appetites of the power oligarchy, which can suddenly exceed the capabilities of enterprises and destroy them ("criminal management paradox") during a downturn. The growth of conflicts within the country's leadership is also dangerous (now the Bulldogs are still fighting "under the carpet", but, having escaped to the surface, they will smash everything around them).
In the last 9 months of 2004, Putin has freed himself from the remnants of the influence of the Yeltsin "family". Alas: replacing the "family" with a "brigade", he freed the bureaucracy from the "chimera, called competence."
The concentration of devastating nonsense in these 9 months is exceptional. Administrative reform paralyzed the government. The final immersion of the security forces in the “conflicts of business entities” too clearly coincided with the 4 months of terrorist attacks, culminating in Beslan. A new round of pension reform deprived the right to a decent old age of people at the age of 37-50. Housing reform has deprived us of the constitutional right to housing. Social reform ("monetization of benefits") is similar to social genocide. Forcing the Chubais reform of the electric power industry threatens to leave the country not only without electricity, but also without heat. Reforms of education and health make them inaccessible to the poor. The upcoming reform of science seems to consider scientific schools simply as holders of attractive real estate, which must be selected and put into commercial circulation. The division of powers between levels of government forces the regions to choose between communal and social catastrophes.
The rapidly escalating ethnic problems are not being resolved. The final termination of the substantive consideration of laws by the State Duma led to a catastrophic decline in the quality of the laws adopted.
By signing the law on the "monetization of benefits", Putin, as you can understand, trampled on the Russian Constitution and delegitimized his post, creating the threat of a severe crisis of statehood and the collapse of the country.
In essence, he declared war on the underprivileged part of society ("monetization of benefits" and the general curtailment of social guarantees), business (power racket), regional elites (appointment of governors), the West (open rejection of democratic formalities, made an impression of blasphemous speculation on the blood of children) and and, finally, a support of its own - law enforcement structures (deprived of privileges and subjected to humiliation). He declared war on all.
Putin's regime behaves with Russia as a minor imbecile, methodically and stupidly torturing a cat.
He will change the government (leaving Gref, Kudrin and Khristenko), smother money security officials and veterans, but it does not help him, because the problem is not in the government, not in the old and not in the new lieutenant colonel, but in himself. In 2001, I put forward the slogan "Let's help Putin!" I was wrong. Five-year sincere attempts by the masses of people showed that it was impossible to help him. So - he is doomed.
Putin is a hopeless politician. He is dragging Russia into a new Time of Troubles. The sooner he resigns, the less devastating the systemic crisis will be, the less likely it is that Putin will drag Russia and Russia into political oblivion, bringing it to collapse.
To achieve the resignation of Putin by all available methods (of course, within the law) - realizing that our enemies (who put Putin on the “kingdom” at one time) want it, too, beware and upsetting them, is the task of all the healthy and responsible forces of Russia.
"Monetization of benefits," that is, an open war of the ruling bureaucracy against the country, has made fashionable talk of "lack of alternatives" topical. On the agenda is the question of the survival of Russia.
And there will be a new leader: he will be nominated by society and will grow up in the course of the struggle for the resignation of Putin. Vacancy is free, and any possible alternative is better than today's triumph of violence and insanity.
And now I suggest that readers compare what these “experts” said to what they are saying now and draw their own conclusions.