+1 it is actually how I see things.
and below Khazin, as always interesting. You should like especially the first part
I have already told many times that the dominant political ideology is beginning to change in the world. If in the West from the late 70's, and in the East (in the former socialist bloc) right-liberal ideology dominated in the late 80's, today it starts to shift radically.
This is best seen in the United States of America, where it is immediately shifted in two directions - from the right-liberal to the left-liberal (Sanders) and from the right-liberal to the right-conservative (Trump). As the economic crisis in the world does not end, then the movement will continue. Where? To the opposite of the right-liberal, that is, the left-conservative direction.
This direction is personified by ordinary people with a single state in which the left-conservative ideology has been successfully realized - with the Soviet Union. Therefore, while the world elite mainly tries to preserve the right-liberal models, today's image of Russia is associated in people in other countries precisely with the image of the USSR. In a sense, this is his phantom image.
Accordingly, Russia's image, attitude towards it, has recently improved year by year. And even the bacchanalia, which the right-wing liberals arranged about the Crimea, did not work. Since everyone understands that the return of the Crimea on the basis of referendum results is FAIR, and justice, this is one of the foundations of the left-conservative approach.
This feeling, a positive shift in attitude towards Russia, arises in any person who is not engaged, who comes to Western countries; it's just felt, especially by those who travel a lot.
This is clearly seen even in Poland. While Poland is a country that has had many painful moments in its relations with Russia, the main of which, of course, is the 18th century - the partition of Poland. And yet.
As a result, a rather specific phenomenon has turned out. In connection with the fact that in Russia the policy is implemented by the right-liberal elite, this policy does not support the increase of interest and positive for Russia. Moreover, it struggles with these tendencies. It should be taken into account that since the Western right-liberal elites do not like to digress from the right-liberal principles of their own society, they try very hard to suppress this sympathy. It is from here that sanctions and other anti-Russian actions are growing.
Why did Putin become the target of sanctions?
The fact is that personally Putin, as a person, is not a right-liberal, but a right-conservative politician. For this reason, all liberals in the West were very afraid that he might start to press the liberal line from a conservative standpoint. But Putin, who came to power in the early 2000s, as an arbitrator, was at first an arbitrator's view: he believed that he had no right to independently influence the positions of elite groups, and the strongest was just right-liberal.
But as a result, as the situation develops in Russia and in the world, Putin has a serious internal conflict.
On the one hand, he did not fully correspond to the increasingly obvious trend, which required him to match the phantom image of the Soviet leader. At the same time, we must understand that the phantom Soviet leader can and must be exclusively phantom Stalin, but Putin has long disowned this image.
On the other hand, the right-wing liberal elites of the West saw that he was not a right-wing liberal, but a right conservative and feared that at some point in time, given that Russian society was swiftly leaning, he could begin to drift not from conservatism to liberalism , and from the right to the left, that is, it will start moving towards a left-liberal policy.
This, if I may say so, is an intrigue, within the framework of which this Epistle was prepared.
If we look at the inside of the Russian political situation, we will see that it too seems extremely curious, since the right-liberal privatization elites in Russia are in a very acute confrontation with an absolutely left-conservative society that is already about 80 percent implicitly, and about fifty percent clearly, supports Stalin.
In this situation for Putin was a matter of principle. He either had to definitively disown Stalin and, thus, completely close the positive image of Russia, which the public in the West is now forming very harshly; say to them: "No, you were mistaken. I'm not that kind of "- and actually go on about the forces of those who want to remove it. Or he should, on the contrary, say: "If you associate me with Stalin, then I will become Stalin! And then excuse me, who did not hide - I'm not guilty. You yourself wanted it. "
To this we need to add that the right-liberal elites (which traditionally define our financial and economic policies, primarily through the Central Bank and the government) are extremely active in the anti-Putin election campaign. The basic elements of this policy are aimed at the extermination of small and medium-sized businesses (the Ministry of Finance is actively engaged with the Tax Service and the Central Bank) and clamping down the rights of pensioners and the poor in general. Moreover, the drop in the standard of living and the increase in the number of poor people are recognized even as official and semi-official, that is, related to the government and statistical organizations. Five years of continuous economic recession, too, says a lot about.
What do we see in this situation in the Address?
Putin makes a speech in which a fundamentally important thing is determined. He says that we must fight poverty. That is, he directly criticizes the Central Bank and the government and says that the new government will have to do. Moreover, the agenda is not formulated right-liberal (within the framework of which "losers" do not have any sense to help), and the classical left-conservative one. Of course, this can be interpreted as demagoguery, but, given the content and, above all, the above considerations about the trends, maybe this is already not so.
In the economic part, he always said things that directly contradict the current policy of the current government. This is a fundamental thing.
Putin directly says that the USSR and Russia are one and the same. He says that in the West the USSR has always been called Soviet Russia. And this is a direct signal! He actually says that yes, guys, your association of Russia with the phantom image of the USSR, correct!
But if this is so, then he had to demonstrate Stalin's rhetoric, Russia's readiness to uphold justice on a global scale. And this we see at the end of the Epistle - it's not even the 70's; this is the 30th, the end of the 40's - the beginning of the 50's in rhetoric. The West is very coldly broadcast: we can do it to you, we can do it, we can do it. At the same time Putin directly says: "We will not do this on our own initiative. But you yourself are bursting! "
Any person who read a lot of such speeches (I'm not talking about what I wrote), draws attention to the following. This speech is not about blackmail and not about threats. I do not rule out the possibility that some of what Putin said does not correspond to reality at all. The specifics of these security issues were clearly oriented towards some people in the West who, either explicitly or implicitly, asked Putin some questions that prompted him to change his position. And in his words they found the answer to this request. But since we do not know these requests, we do not understand the answers. Fundamentally important is another. Rhetoric and style were absolutely Stalinist.
Apparently, Putin got so bad that he made some internal decisions for himself.
In particular, the decision that with this disgrace, which has lasted for so long and which has become simply indecent, it is simply impossible to have more. Because it does not fit people in the West to explain that they should not take measures to remove the leader of another state. We are a sovereign state. What kind of person is there before the head is identified? We elected him our internal procedures. Be kind to deal with it. You do not want to deal with him? So you do not want to deal with us, with the whole country.
And what are the translations of the right-liberal financial elites of the West? They tell us: Russia is a good country; we are ready to deal with it, ready to take your resources into your management, but you have a wrong leader; we will now make efforts to remove it; we will now introduce individual sanctions and everything else.
Guys, it's none of your business! We are a sovereign state. Therefore, you are walking in the forest! I will remind you that Stalin was extremely abhorrent to any attempt to humiliate the USSR as a power!
The message perfectly fits into the logic, which can be described by basic, reference points, such as the Munich speech of 2007 and the Valdai speech of 2014. And in the first, and in the second, and in the third, yesterday's case, it was an appeal to the Western elites. In 2007, the Western elites were told: "Guys, you are violating the agreements of the early 90's." The Western elites replied: "You lost the war, so your opinion is of no interest to anyone." The result was an attempt to press this our opinion first in Georgia, and then in Ukraine. Both wars, Georgia 2008 and Ukraine 2014, began in countries that the West tried to drag into NATO.
At the first expansion of NATO, we were still silent. With the second expansion of NATO, when the Baltic came in, we were already making noise, but we were ignored. The West failed to implement this combination for the third time.
In 2014, speaking at the Valdai Club, Putin also turned to the West. Then there was the same interpretation of his speech - that these are threats. And these were not threats, they were the answers to those questions that Putin, obviously, got through unofficial channels.
Today Putin gave the final answer: "Guys, so it is impossible; This is not done! If you push us into this field - well, we will. Moreover, not only does our society require a left-conservative policy, but Western society requires us to become a leader, the flagship of the left-conservative movement. " And all these videos about weapons are nothing more than a demonstration: by force you will not kill this political vector!
Thus, in reality we see a very interesting picture, very similar to the one that was in the 30s, when practically all the more or less well-known countries of the world had fascist regimes. In the second half of the 1930s, only two states remained in Europe, in which there was democracy in the modern sense of the word - Switzerland and Czechoslovakia. Western and central Europe is now facing the same in stylistics events.
Of course, all this is a form of interpretation. But in the next few months we will see whether it is right or not. One thing is already clearly understood - it is impossible to deal with the right-liberal elites (that is, the financial elites) in the West. This can be seen both in the sanctions and in the decision of the Stockholm arbitration on Gazprom, and on the WTO too: they are trying to bring us claims for violations of the rules, while they themselves insolently ignore these rules in the framework of sanctions.
One can love or not love Putin, but he is quite an adequate person to understand that he should stand between the two ice floes, the right-liberal privatization elite (which, moreover, under the pressure of his Western curators, with the same Putin fights defiantly) and left-conservative people for a long time is impossible. And since it is absolutely impossible to influence the people, it remains to abandon the principle of non-interference, which he accepted in 1999, when he agreed to the presidency, and begin to clean out the right-liberal part of the modern Russian elite. Moreover, firstly, it gives for this purely formal, legal grounds (corruption, theft, etc.) and, secondly, there is support in the West, in the form of those elites that support Trump.
And the winnings can be very large, as the right left-conservative policy will give us a colossal support all over the world.
Подробнее на https://khazin.ru/articles/11-analitika-i-prognozy/57706-korotko-o-proshedshikh-vyborakh
As I have explained many times, the key issue of our days is the question of modernization. That is, WHO and HOW.
We got the answer to the first one. And in all senses, and in turnout (since its colossal growth was visible, as they say, with the naked eye), and in voices for Putin.
Moreover, Putin (as it turns out, very prudently) did not produce any economic program. Many called it a mistake and Putin was criticized, but today, with the result that we saw, it means that his hands are completely untied. Including, on the part of liberal elites. On what night, at Solovyov, said Nikita Mikhalkov . By the way, no one dared.
But with the second question, on the contrary, there are problems.
I thought that Grudinin would get more and then the "left" roll could be clearly predicted. In reality, it did not happen. You can, of course, engage in conspiracy and start talking about the fact that he received significantly more, say, 20%, but, artful officials ... and so on. and so on, but ... it turns out, frankly, not convincingly.
True, as compensation, we received not just a disastrous, but an enchantingly failed result of the liberals. And why in such a situation should there be at least one liberal in the government, a question to which there is no answer and will not be.
Well, the last.
Putin clearly said what I wrote: that his program of action will be written just now, before the inauguration, but after the elections. Therefore, all the events of recent months and the results of the elections, of course, should be reflected on it.
Подробнее на https://khazin.ru/articles/11-analitika-i-prognozy/57706-korotko-o-proshedshikh-vyborakh
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
