https://www.site/2016-03-25/politolog_valeriy_solovey_my_pered_ochen_sereznymi_politicheskimi_peremenami

“After the elections, serious restrictions will be imposed on the exit of citizens from the country”

Political scientist Valery Solovey: we are in front of very serious political changes

Historian, political analyst, publicist Valery Solovey published a new book - “Absolute Weapon. Fundamentals of psychological warfare and media manipulation. Why do Russians lend themselves so easily to propaganda and how to “decode” them? Based on this, how will domestic political processes develop in the near future? What is the likely outcome of the election? Will our ties with the outside world change?

“In the manipulation of consciousness, Western democracies, Nazis and Soviets went the same way”

— Valery Dmitrievich, readers are wondering why you wrote another book on a question that has already been considered by dozens of other authors? For example, at one time the book by Sergei Kara-Murza "Manipulation of Consciousness" was popular. What mistakes and shortcomings do you see in it?

— In Russia, there is not a single worthy book that would talk about propaganda and media manipulation. Not a single one - I emphasize! The well-known book by Kara-Murza became so popular only because it was the first in Russia on this topic. But in its methodological basis and content, it is frankly mediocre. Further, my book, for the first time in the literature, connects cognitive psychology with long-known stories about the methods, techniques and techniques of propaganda. So far, there has been no such analysis and generalization in the literature on this topic. Meanwhile, cognitivist psychology is extremely important because it explains why people are susceptible to propaganda and why propaganda is inevitable. As long as there is humanity, there will be propaganda. And, finally, it must be said that I covered the topic of propaganda with actual examples that are well understood by readers. The result was a book that was even noted by the leaders of the Russian propaganda machine. As my friends told me, they said about her: "The only worthwhile book in Russian on this topic." True, they added: “But it would be better if such a book did not come out at all.” I think this is a very high rating. In addition, the first edition was sold out in three weeks. Now the second one is coming out. Here is my answer to why I wrote this book.

Valery Solovey: “The first thing they pay attention to is hair. If a person is bald - on the eyes. A man needs to make sure he has good teeth and shoes.” from the personal archive of Valery Solovyov

- You once said that the concept of the Overton Window, which came from the West, revealing the secret mechanisms of the loosening of social norms, is nothing more than a pseudo-theory. Why?

“The Overton Window is a propaganda myth. And this concept itself is conspiratorial in nature: they say, there is a group of people who are planning a decades-long strategy to corrupt society. Never and nowhere in history has there been anything like it and cannot be, due to the imperfection of human nature. I suggest that a person who adheres to the concept of the Overton Window plan his life for at least a month and live according to his plan. Let's see what happens. Love for this kind of conspiracy is characteristic of those who are not even able to manage their own lives, let alone manage anything at all.

- In our country, the Overton Window is remembered when they point to problems with morality. Patriarch Kirill said so: "Pedophilia will be legalized for homosexuality."

- All changes in the history of mankind occur spontaneously. This does not mean that there is certainly some kind of conspiracy behind them and the legalization of homosexual marriages in some European countries will certainly lead to the legalization of pedophilia. In addition, in one case we are talking about adults who do something voluntarily, and in the other about minors who have parents, and the legalization of pedophilia is possible only through violation of human rights and violence. Therefore, yes, what was an anti-norm 100-200 years ago suddenly becomes acceptable today. But this is a natural process, there is no need to see here the “hairy paw of the Antichrist”, who came into this world to arrange Armageddon through homosexual marriages or something else.

At the same time, I want to say that in the same way, in a natural way, a reaction can occur. I do not at all rule out the possibility that European society may swing back towards conservative values. And not because a group of conspirators or Kremlin agents in Europe will be operating somewhere, but simply because the society decides enough is enough, they have played enough, you need to think about self-preservation.

“The leaders of the Russian propaganda machine said: “The only worthwhile book in Russian on this topic. But it would be better if it did not come out””pycode.ru

- Speaking of the manipulation of consciousness in our country, from what historical period can they be counted? Since the time of the Bolsheviks or even earlier?

- If we talk about manipulation in general, then from the moment people learned to speak. But if we are talking about mass manipulation, then from the moment the channels of mass communication appeared. The starting point of mass deception can be considered the emergence of the media. This, of course, newspapers, radio, television. And in this sense, all more or less developed countries followed the same path, that Western democracies - the USA, Great Britain, and so on, that Nazi Germany, that Soviet Russia. Propaganda occurs in all countries without exception.

Another thing is the quality of propaganda, sophistication, the presence of pluralism. In the same USA, there are media holdings owned by various independent owners. Therefore, different propaganda campaigns balance each other and during the electoral "marathons" citizens have the freedom of choice. Well, or the illusion of freedom of choice. That is, where there is pluralism, propaganda is always more subtle and sophisticated.

— In one of your interviews, you said that the BBC is one of the most objective English-speaking television companies. Do you still think so?

— This company confirms such a reputation with its many years of work. All TV companies allow blunders, they are all dependent in one way or another, but the BBC suffers from this least of all.

“Russia managed to create the best propaganda machine”

- And our propaganda is more advanced and stupid?

“I wouldn't say so. Russia has managed to create, by far, the best propaganda machine. But it is focused exclusively on its own population, since propaganda outside was not very successful. At least in the European area. Our propaganda is carried out by very professional people. These people, in particular, learned from the information failure of the summer of 2008. Remember the war for South Ossetia, which Russia won militarily but, by all accounts, lost in terms of information and propaganda? Since 2014, we have seen that the propaganda errors of 2008 are no longer there.

But we must understand that any propaganda has its limits. Russian propaganda hit its limits at the turn of 2015-16. And we will gradually observe its extinction. Or, as they often say today, the refrigerator will gradually begin to win over the TV. I think that at the turn of 2016-17, its strength will weaken quite seriously.

- Today's diligent resuscitation of the cult of Stalin, for example, casts doubts ...

“You don't have to fight it. This will collapse on its own once the regime is weakened. Stalin in the current realities is nothing more than a propaganda symbol that has no real content and materializing power under it. Those who call on us to return Stalin believe that he should return only for their neighbors, but not for themselves. When it comes to selfish interests, none of these screaming Stalinists is ready to sacrifice anything. So the cult of Stalin is a fiction. It's just that the authorities are exploiting the era of Stalin in order to legitimize some of their repressive measures. But not more. There is a rule of complex social systems. It says that a return to the past, whoever wants it, is impossible.

RIA Novosti / Evgeny Biyatov

- But to Stalin, as if bewitched, with flowers go "both old and young." Can you tell us about the methods of decoding personal and social consciousness?

- Turn on common sense, judge people by their deeds, read more, do not watch TV at all, or no more than 20 minutes a day. If you are called to vote for a party that promised something 5-10 years ago and has not done anything by the current date, do not vote for it in any case. The deeds speak for themselves.

- And then, in the future, it is necessary to lustrate the employees of the propaganda media? What they do - crimes? Do they have to be held accountable?

- It is known that the Nuremberg Trials equated propaganda with a crime against humanity. Therefore, in a sense, this question can be answered in the affirmative. As for lustration, I do not rule it out, but it is too early to say who will be affected.

“The masses will come out, but this will not lead to civil war and the collapse of the state”

- This year, for the first time in a long time, the elections of half of the State Duma will be held in single-member districts. Can we expect that the pre-election campaign will become more diverse, and new faces will come to the Duma, enliven it, make it a "place for discussion"?

“Despite the fact that single-mandate constituencies have been returned, I think that all the same, the most dangerous ones for the preservation of the regime will simply not be allowed to participate in the elections. Even at the stage of registration, candidates go through a "sieve" that allows you to weed out those who are disloyal to the regime. And even if some of the undesirables are admitted to the elections, they will experience the most severe pressure and generally regret that they went. The elections will give the impression of competition, but not the competition itself, the message will be the same for everyone, just the style is different. Therefore, the Duma itself as a whole will retain its decorative character.

RIA Novosti/Alexander Utkin

- Do you see in the country, in principle, any real opposition to the regime, capable of leading the people?

There is an opposition in Russia that the regime allows to exist. Because any real opposition to them is destroyed in the literal and figurative sense. But even the weak opposition is afraid of the regime.

- In this case, the reader asks, how do you, a specialist in media manipulation, assess the chances of Putin's leadership to formalize and legitimize in the eyes of the population the transformation of Russia into a semi-closed, anti-democratic autocracy similar to the countries of Central Asia?

- Indeed, today the ruling group in Russia is concerned with the question of how to maintain its dominance until 2035-40. At least, I have heard arguments on this subject from people close to the so-called "elite". But I believe that in the next couple of years we will see the limit of the possibilities of this mode. I agree that its representatives will try to legitimize their power. But, one way or another, they will soon run out of opportunities for this.

— And what about “physical” measures, such as closing borders?

- After the elections to the State Duma this year, serious restrictions will most likely be introduced on the exit of Russian citizens from the country.

Do you mean the law on exit visas?

- No, it's unlikely. Unspoken recommendations will be given to officials at all levels and their families not to leave the country. And if the officials are so seriously infringed, they will not tolerate any part of society remaining free in the country. In Russia, if serfdom is introduced, it applies to all classes. This is a historical tradition. According to my information, a tourist tax will be introduced, which will cut off the opportunity for many categories of citizens to travel abroad.

fastpic.ru

- Will this be a factor that, on the contrary, will bring the collapse of the regime closer? After all, this step will affect not only the “creakles”, but also the townsfolk, who used to allow themselves to rest in decent hotels in Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Tunisia and so on for relatively little money.

— You are right, regimes are not collapsing because of opposition and external enemies. They collapse because of the stupidity of the managers. And sooner or later these stupidities begin to acquire a malignant character. If you look at the history of fallen regimes, you get the impression that those who ruled them, as if deliberately led the matter to collapse. In general, regarding any political processes in Russia, there is an axiom that the dynamics of the masses is unpredictable. And you can never know in advance what seemingly insignificant things can lead to major political shifts.

- Another reader's question is appropriate here: “What scenario is the most possible in Russia? The first is that Shoigu (or another conservative) becomes president, punitive and protective measures are tightened, that is, the transition to the USSR No. 2. The second is the Libyan scenario. The third is the Rose Revolution scenario. Fourth, peaceful evolution towards European democracy. Or the fifth, the collapse of the Russian Federation into many small states as a result of the current colonial pseudo-federal system?”

- What I definitely do not expect is the collapse of Russia. When they say this to me, I clearly understand that this is pure trade in fear. I believe that Russia is facing very serious political changes. They will happen in the not so distant medium term and will change our political landscape beyond recognition. These changes will be predominantly peaceful. And then we will move not very clear where. This will depend on the outcome of the changes.

- In the early 1990s, the masses also quite peacefully took to the streets and said: "We can't live like this anymore."

Yes, they will come out. And not for political reasons, but for socio-economic ones. I think that this is very likely, especially in large cities. But this will not lead to civil war or to the collapse of the state. I do not believe in this.

RIA Novosti/Alexey Danichev

“But when the protest is peaceful, it is easy to suppress it. No wonder a person asks you a question about Shoigu and the tightening of punitive and protective measures.

- The authorities are constantly moving in this direction, but do not exaggerate the loyalty of the repressive apparatus. She is not at all what she seems. In a critical situation, they simply can not follow the order and step back.

- Not the collapse of the country, but the disappearance of some regions, for example, the North Caucasus - is this possible?

— I don't think these republics want to leave Russia. In fact, they are good at it. Where should they go? Without it, they won't survive at all. Therefore, they will bargain, trying to impose their conditions. But as a result of political changes, I think Moscow's policy towards these republics will become more balanced and meaningful. Personally, I don't think it's right to pay huge sums of money for political loyalty. It's corrupting. Yes, and already corrupted.

“Our politicians use neo-Eurasianism and religion as long as it suits them”

- Do we still have sane nationalist, or rather national-democratic forces after the Ukrainian events?

- As for organized nationalism, it drags out a miserable existence. He is not allowed to raise his head, many leaders, like Belov, are behind bars. Others, like Demushkin, understand that if they are active, they will follow Belov. But as for nationalism in general as a kind of public mood, it certainly exists. And these sentiments will soon be politically in demand.

Are you going to revive your national-democratic New Force party when times are more favorable for public politics?

- It is frozen due to the fact that we were threatened with reprisals. But in general, I believe that both today and in the future the party format is unpromising. I think that other formats will be in demand.

RIA Novosti/Yuri Ivanov

- What are the prospects for the coming to power of members of the "January 25 Committee" Igor Strelkov and other "Novorossov"?

- There are different people in this organization: nationalists, and Soviet "imperials", and Orthodox monarchists. I do not see that this organization has any prospects. But some, some of its leaders, have. And I do not rule out that 2-3 of them will be able to play a role in the coming political changes that we talked about above.

- In general, do Russians have a chance to organize themselves following the example of Israel or Japan, that is, to create a national state? This is a question from one of our readers.

- Of course, there is such a chance, because the Russians feel like a single people. It is Russians, not Russians. So Russia is in fact, in fact, a nation state, it remains only to formalize the superstructure - the laws - in accordance with this reality and change the policy so that it coincides with the interests of the national majority.

Do you think Russians have a national identity these days?

— Yes, it exists, it manifests itself in everyday life. It's just that Russians are afraid to talk about it out loud. At least two-thirds of Russians feel their national consciousness. Just do not confuse real Russians and "literary" - national costumes, cuisine, tools, something else. It's just lubok. The nation-state is a modern state, not an archaism.

“Moscow's policy towards these republics will become more balanced. Paying huge amounts of money for political loyalty is wrong.” RIA Novosti/Said Tsarnaev

The overwhelming majority of today's "Russian nationalists" are Orthodox activists and are convinced that the Russian national state must stand on the foundation of Orthodoxy, without it there is no way. Personally, this format of the nation-state is unpleasant to me. A multinational and cosmopolitan society is better, but secular and with freedom of worldview, including religious, choice.

- Your response is appropriate. But, firstly, if you are afraid, then it is better not to do anything at all, not even to leave the house. There is always a risk when doing something. And, secondly, the results of this process will depend on those who are at the head of it. Because there is a general sociological pattern: those at the bottom copy those at the top. And if the elite sets itself clear goals that are understandable and beneficial to the national majority, nothing terrible will happen.

Let's say you say: we want to provide affordable housing to the national majority in order to reverse the demographic situation. The bottoms answer: “Great! We want!” This is what the nation state is. But if someone, instead of clear and understandable goals, uses myths like “Stalinism” and says that it is in it that the primordially Russian character and behavior of those in power are concentrated, then this is no longer a national state. This is completely different.

- And the “neo-Eurasianism”, which dominates the semi-official ideology of the ruling group, is this serious? What do you think - do they really believe in it or use it, like the same notorious "Stalinism"?

- To believe or not to believe - such a question in politics is not worth it. They find it convenient. It gives some ideological justification for what they do. They use it as long as it suits them. And religion, by the way, too. And if suddenly the weather vane of moods in society swings in the other direction, they will become Russian nationalists or even Muslims. Therefore, do not focus too much on this issue.

“Russia made no effort to keep Ukraine in the orbit of its influence”

— Since we have mentioned neo-Eurasianism, we will end our conversation with a series of questions about Ukraine: it is, perhaps, the main victim of the ideology of “neo-Eurasianism”, or the “Russian world”.

One of our readers recalls that Brzezinski is credited with saying: "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire; with Ukraine, Russia automatically turns into an empire." That is, I would like to know your opinion: is the “shaggy paw of American imperialism” visible in the break in relations between Russia and Ukraine?

— I believe that the separation of Russia and Ukraine was a natural process. It began not two years ago, but in the early 1990s. And even then, many analysts said that Ukraine would inevitably drift towards the West. Moreover, Russia did not make any special efforts to keep Ukraine in the orbit of its influence. Or, at least, did not make the efforts that would be effective. I do not mean the supply of gas at reduced prices, but cultural and intellectual levers of influence. They were not used, and no one cared about that. So, I repeat, this is quite a natural process.

And after the annexation of Crimea to Russia, the war in the Donbass, the point of no return has been passed. Now Ukraine will definitely never be a fraternal state with Russia. At the same time, I do not think that the West will accept Ukraine either. Most likely, she will drag out a poor existence. But this does not mean that she will come to bow to Moscow. Anti-Moscow and anti-Russian sentiments will henceforth be the cornerstone for the formation of the national self-consciousness of Ukrainians. Here the question can be closed.

RIA Novosti/Andrey Stenin

“So Russia will never be an empire again?”

Well, this was understandable even in the 1990s, and not only in connection with Brzezinski's geopolitical views. And now we are at the point of post-Soviet existence. Rather, we are stuck there and do not develop anywhere. True, this inertia has already exhausted itself. Therefore political changes are inevitable.

- Is there an opportunity in the future to compromise on the “Crimean issue” in order to get rid of the sanctions?

“I think there is a chance to freeze this problem and ensure the de facto recognition of Crimea. As for the Crimean Tatars, there are not very many of them. And they can be offered such a formula, on the basis of which they would understand that it is better to live in the world. If they realize that there is no other alternative for them, then they will reconcile. This is quite enough. De jure recognition of Crimea as Russian territory depends on the position of Ukraine. If we talk about sanctions against Russia, then there are those imposed for Crimea, and there are those for Donbass. And these are different sanctions. And the sanctions for Crimea are far from being the most sensitive.

- What, in your opinion, awaits Ukraine in general and Donbass in particular?

— The fate of Ukraine depends on the quality of its elite. If an elite appears there, capable of leading the country onto new tracks of development, then everything will be fine with it. I don't think it will break up or become a federation. But, one way or another, he will remain the "sick man of Europe."

The fate of Donbass is terrible. In any situation, he is doomed to be a kind of "black hole" on the geopolitical map. Most likely, it will turn out to be a peaceful territory, but de facto not part of Ukraine, nor part of Russia. It will be a region where crime, corruption, economic decline will reign - a kind of European Somalia. There is no point in modernizing something there, because no one really needs the Donbass. For Ukraine and for Russia, this is a stone on their feet. But people get used to everything. I have friends and relatives who live there, have already adapted to this lifestyle and do not want to leave.

RIA Novosti/Dan Levy

reference

Valery Solovey was born in 1960. After graduating from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University, he worked at the Academy of Sciences, the Gorbachev Foundation. He completed an internship at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Doctor of Historical Sciences (dissertation topic - "The Russian Question" and its influence on the domestic and foreign policy of Russia). Currently, he is a professor at MGIMO, head of the department of public relations, author of a course of lectures on the manipulation of public consciousness.

The “liberal” party (to avoid misunderstandings, it should be noted that this community has the same relation to liberalism as Zh.’s business project called the Liberal Democratic Party) has a new idol - the former head of the department of public relations at MGIMO Valery Solovey. His insights from the “corridors of the Kremlin power” made him a welcome guest on Ekho Moskvy, Dozhd, RBC, Republic.ru and other media, the constant presence in which forms the community of the “liberal” party, and fiery criticism of the authorities and decisive forecasts Valery Dmitrievich was promoted to the rank of guru. The recent departure from MGIMO, which, according to the professor himself, was due to “political pressure”, created an halo of persecution around him and gave him a chance to move from the status of a guru to the rank of a civil and political leader. What Valery Solovey did not fail to take advantage of, announcing the formation of a certain "civil coalition".

And everything would be fine, but every time Valery Dmitrievich delivered his rebellious speeches, shattering the Kremlin from liberal positions, some bad people sent a video from his speech in Vladimir Solovyov’s program “Duel”, in which the professor spoke in the team of Zyuganov and defended Stalin from the "liberal" Gozman.

In this speech, Valery Dmitrievich explained to Leonid Yakovlevich that they live “in different countries” with him, because, “in the country of gentlemen of the gozmans, it is customary to spit on mass graves.” In addition, Professor Solovey said that "the consequences of the liberal reforms that took place in the 90s are comparable in their losses to what happened in the 30s and is attributed to Stalin."

In this two-minute fragment of his speech, Valery Dmitrievich included so many markers that characterize his political and human face that it is somehow embarrassing to decipher and comment on them. “Gentlemen gozmans”, “spitting on mass graves”… “The losses from the liberal reforms of the 90s are comparable to the losses of the 30s”… Put the caveman Stalinists Starikov or Prokhanov in the place of Professor Nightingale and you will hear exactly the same rhetoric.

Last week, Nightingale, speaking on "Echo", decided to explain himself, after which he and Leonid Gozman had an exchange of open letters. First, Valery Solovey explained that all discussions about Stalin are beneficial to the Kremlin, since they form a “false agenda”: has nothing to do with the present." End of quote.

To the reasonable question of the presenter, why did he himself take part in the creation of the “false agenda”, participating in this discussion about Stalin, Nightingale answered with a disarming smile: “a person is weak and conceited.” When the presenter began to inquire why Nightingale, who today criticizes the authorities from liberal positions, took part in the discussion on the side of Zyuganov, defending Stalin, Valery Dmitrievich at first tried to deny, they say, he “did not defend” either Zyuganov or Stalin, and then, apparently, realizing the absurdity of denying the obvious, he referred to the "evolution of views."

The "evolution of views" of Professor Nightingale deserves special attention. During that memorable speech on the side of Zyuganov and in defense of Stalin, Valery Dmitrievich tried to ideologically lead the Russian nationalists, created the New Force nationalist party for this purpose, and became its chairman. In those days, this is the period of 2011-2013, Valery Solovey spoke mainly from the stands of the nationalist and Stalinist media in company with such people as Vitaly Tretyakov, Alexander Dugin, Mikhail Delyagin, etc. Evolution and even a revolutionary change of views is a completely normal thing, the whole question is when and under the influence of what reasons it occurs.

In the late 80s and early 90s, the views of many people changed under the influence of a huge amount of new information, including about the past of our country. In 2013, Nightingale sided with Zyuganov and defended Stalin from "liberals" and "gozmans". And in 2017, he was included in the campaign headquarters of presidential candidate Titov as an ideology curator and declared that it would be the ideology of “right-wing liberalism.” It is difficult to assume that between 2013 and 2017, Valery Dmitrievich learned something new about Stalinism or liberalism. The reason for the “evolution of views” of Professor Soloviev is approximately the same as that during the years of Soviet power made people like him waver along with the party line, and after the collapse of the USSR, led former specialists in scientific atheism to stand in church with candles.

Professor Solovey headed the department of public relations at MGIMO, that is, he is a PR specialist. This profession has its own rules, the main of which is the priority of the interests of the customer. Valery Dmitrievich contracted to defend the positions of Zyuganov and Stalin - he explains about the "inseparability" of Stalin from the Victory. He received an order to create a nationalist party - he will justify the priority of the Russian people and the harmfulness of the "gozmans". Instructed to oversee the ideology for the "Party of Growth" of Boris Titov, Professor Nightingale will hit the ground and instantly turn into a right-wing liberal, defending the freedom of small business and the charms of a competitive economy.

Professor Nightingale has no views, and their "evolution" depends solely on the change in the situation. And further. Regarding the insides and forecasts of Professor Nightingale. On the Russian Platform website, where Valery Solovey regularly spoke together with nationalists Yegor Kholmogorov, Konstantin Krylov and his student, Vladimir Tor, on May 8, 2012, his article was published entitled “Vladimir Putin’s Bloody Sunday,” in which Professor Solovey prophesies: “ Putin will not see the end of his presidential term. Now it's obvious." Further, Professor Nightingale indicates a specific period for the death of the Putin regime - about six months. “Very soon we will see thousands and tens of thousands crushing police cordons in their path,” the rebellious professor broadcasts.

All this, according to Professor Nightingale, should happen in a matter of months. "This autumn - a new rise!" - predicts Professor Nightingale. I remind you that it was in May 2012. Seven (7) years have passed. Putin is still in the Kremlin, and Professor Nightingale is now wailing as if nothing had happened: “In 2020, Russia will face a revolution, a nationwide crisis and regime change. Putin won't make it to the end of his presidential term."

I know quite a few opponents of the Putin regime who are trying to see in the country and in power some signs of the approaching end of this new type of fascism, and impatiently make such forecasts, every time they are wrong. But Professor Nightingale is a different case. A public relations specialist must radiate optimism in communicating with the customer. Yesterday, Professor Nightingale served the Stalinists and nationalists and "made them beautiful." Today he serves the “liberal” crowd and “does it beautifully” for her.

The “liberal” party and the liberal public of Russia led by it, like a herd of sheep, all the time follow the “goats-provocateurs” who have left the Kremlin. Whether it's "Kashin-guru", or Ksenia Sobchak, or Belkovsky with Pavlovsky, or Prokhorov with his sister, or even Medvedev with freedom, which is "better than lack of freedom." According to recent studies, aquarium fish do not have such a bad memory that they can be compared with people who make the same mistakes all the time. So, Russian liberals will have to find other analogies...

Russian political scientist - about Ulyukaev's hope, Kadyrov's pacification and Putin's pause

For some six months, the main memes on the Russian political agenda have become “request for change” and “image of the future”, which were well known before only to readers of the Zavtra newspaper. The well-known historian, political scientist and publicist Valery Solovey spoke in an interview with Realnoe Vremya about what fills these memes with content, namely about the growing political activity of citizens, the confusion of the elites, and the hidden function of Ramzan Kadyrov.

Appeals from the regions were left to chance: react as you wish

Valery Dmitrievich, you recently wrote on your Twitter that the situation in the country is being shaken up not by a conspiracy, but by “stupidity and methodologists.” Apparently, they meant the "Shchedrovites" and their main public representative Sergei Kiriyenko? What exactly were the mistakes made by the presidential administration under him?

Yes, they meant advisers close to Kiriyenko from the group of “methodologists”. According to the general opinion (by the general opinion I mean the opinion of Moscow political experts and people close to the administration of the President of the Russian Federation), they failed to determine the correct political line of conduct and made a number of missteps. Associated, for example, with the reaction to the events of March 26 and June 12 and, in general, the reaction to the Navalny phenomenon. Do you remember, say, a video in which Navalny is compared to Hitler, or a song by Alice Vox, in which an appeal is made to schoolchildren not to go to rallies, but “start with yourself”. It is clear that the legs in this case grew out of the administration. And all this worked to the benefit of Alexei Anatolyevich. I'm not talking about more serious things, when requests from the regions with a request to suggest how they should react to Navalny's upcoming actions were actually left to chance: react as you wish. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of Russian regions (Tatarstan is an exception in this case) need an understanding of the Kremlin's position and clear instructions.

This is one part of the problem. The second is that people who are tightly integrated into the presidential administration are giving a lower and lower estimate of its ability to solve problems that confront the country and specifically the Kremlin. And there is some contradiction here, because personally they rate Sergei Kiriyenko quite highly. But at the same time, they note that, at least until the summer of this year, he was not able to establish an effective work of the administration. Perhaps this was due to internal opposition. Not everything was fine there, he had conflicts with other prominent apparatchiks. Either he took a long time to get used to, or the point is that when he agreed to go into administration, there was one situation in the country, and now, starting from the early spring of this year, there has been a political revival. That is, a different situation has developed, and it was still necessary to comprehend it, understand what was happening, and propose how to deal with it.

"It was an 'offer you can't refuse', but Kiriyenko was probably promised a reward if he did his job effectively, that is, successfully ran the presidential campaign." Photo kremlin.ru

- So, Kiriyenko was invited to this position? Didn't he really want her?

It was "an offer you can't refuse," but Kiriyenko was probably promised a reward if he did his job effectively, that is, successfully ran the presidential campaign. What kind of reward, I do not know, but you can guess that we are talking about a post in the government. Maybe about the position of the head of the cabinet. Indeed, for the head of Rosatom, the transition to the position of deputy head of the presidential administration is a loss of status, independence and a significant complication of life.

The elite is accumulating tension, discontent and fear

The trial of the former Minister of Economic Development of Russia Alexei Ulyukaev has begun, in which the defendant has already accused the head of Rosneft, Igor Sechin, of provoking a bribe. What else do you think we can hear about this trial?

In fact, we haven't heard anything interesting yet. For political Moscow, Ulyukaev's statement is no secret - this scenario was discussed long before the trial. More precisely, not a script, but the background of events.

And I think that nothing else awaits us. Ulyukaev, of course, will not reveal any Kremlin secrets, because for him this is fraught with a worsening of the situation. I think he still hopes that his article will be reclassified to a less serious one, and he will receive a suspended sentence. Or it will be released under the planned amnesty on the occasion of the centenary of the October Revolution. But the fact that there will be no acquittal is absolutely certain.

- It will be a great irony of fate if it comes out on the occasion of the centenary of October.

Well, in Russia everything is already permeated not even with irony, but with the grotesque. Look at the story of Poklonskaya - it's something Kafkaesque. Or rather, Gogol, Saltykov-Shchedrin.

“I think that nothing else awaits us. Ulyukayev, of course, will not reveal any Kremlin secrets, because for him this is fraught with a worsening of the situation. Photo iz.ru

How would you comment on Aleksey Venediktov's suggestion that Sergey Chemezov is behind Ulyukaev's statement?

Yes, anyone can stand. In general, Alexei Alekseevich has a sound idea. Chemezov and Sechin are opponents. And if they are opponents, then Chemezov, as an influential person, can somehow support Ulyukaev so that life does not seem like honey to Igor Ivanovich. But even if Chemezov is behind Ulyukaev's statement, this does not mean that the verdict will be acquittal. The prosecution will get its way, there is no doubt about it. Ulyukaev will definitely not be able to leave the courtroom with a clean, unsullied reputation. It is quite possible to write over the Russian court, as over Dante's hell: "Abandon hope, everyone who enters here." This is just such a hopeless place.

All the fuss will be around what exactly Ulyukaev will receive - imprisonment, a suspended sentence or an amnesty.

That is, about some tectonic shifts, about the "split of the elites", as Dmitry Gudkov suggested, this court does not tell us?

There is no split. A split in the elites is when different groups of the elite see differently how to build a strategy for the development of the country and society, and not when they fight for resources. A split in the Russian elite will arise in one single case - when very powerful pressure will be exerted on the central government from below in the form of popular demonstrations. That's when the elite will have doubts about its political future and there will be different options for this future.

- Can foreign political pressure split it?

No, he can not. It can cause - and is already causing - growing tension. But this does not mean that any of them, let alone any group, will dare to openly oppose Putin if he decides to go to the polls. This is absolutely out of the question.

So far, quantitative rather than qualitative changes are taking place in the Russian elite. There is an accumulation of tension, discontent and fear. The latter is caused by the clause in the US sanctions law, which involves investigating the connections of parastatal structures of oligarchs with the Kremlin. And there, not only the oligarchs themselves, but also members of their families fall under the law. This is what they are very afraid of. But these are moods, emotions. There are no actions.

“It does two things. The first is to maintain stability in Chechnya and maintain stability in the North Caucasus. He is the personal guarantor of stability in this region. And the second is to act as a support for the regime in the event of mass unrest.” Photo kremlin.ru

“We will face many local protests that will gradually merge into a nationwide one”

- What role does Ramzan Kadyrov play in the Russian elite, who is already there was a lot, and recently it has become even more?

It performs two functions. First, maintain stability in Chechnya and maintain stability in the North Caucasus. He is the personal guarantor of stability in this region. And the second is to act as a support for the regime in the event of mass unrest.

- Unrest in Moscow, you mean?

If the unrest begins, they are likely to take on a nationwide character. That is, they can cover several cities.

When he, say, talks about his key role in the "Crimean Spring" (as it is claimed in social networks), is this agreed with the Kremlin?

Unlikely. He considers himself a strong independent figure. Kadyrov is by far the most powerful regional leader in the Russian Federation, far more powerful than anyone else. Accordingly, he allows himself what no one, including major federal figures, can afford.

What is the reason for the statement of the head of the VTsIOM, Valery Fedorov, that the request for stability in Russian society has been replaced by a request for change? Especially in light of the fact that Fedorov considers this phase dangerous, I quote: "Revolutionary moods appear not in a situation of crisis, but when the crisis is over."

The very request for change after a twenty-year, if not more, request for stability is a very serious, almost tectonic shift. But what consequences it will lead to, we will find out not immediately, but within two to three years. Because it is not enough to change people's minds - it is much more important that their political behavior change. We have signs of such political novelty - this is the participation of people in unauthorized actions, and the phenomenon of Navalny. This is what Gleb Pavlovsky called politicization.

“It is not enough to change people's minds - it is much more important that their political behavior change. We have signs of such political novelty - this is the participation of people in unauthorized actions, and the phenomenon of Navalny. Photo by Oleg Tikhonov

Only we must be aware that the mass dynamics is absolutely and fundamentally unpredictable. We do not know how political activity will develop. I am inclined to believe that it will go on increasing, that is, we will face many local protests that will gradually merge into a nationwide one. And I do not rule out that the beginning of this will be laid next fall.

And the political crisis itself, if we enter into it, and it seems that we are slowly drawn into it, will last at least two years, more likely even three years. But this is still under a big question mark. Because a change in behavior does not automatically follow from a change in the mood of citizens.

Perhaps the very appearance of such a statement from the head of a pro-government sociological structure suggests that the authorities themselves are trying to ride this wave?

No, the authorities are trying to protect themselves from it. She just understands that this is a threat. Saddle - how is it?

- Lead the renovation process yourself.

This could be done if a new person with a fundamentally new national agenda ran in the elections. Which would offer an image of the future. Or if Putin suggested it. That is, if we saw the new Putin. Practically it is impossible, but theoretically it cannot be ruled out.

That is, do you think that Putin will still go to the polls, but will arm himself with some kind of vague agenda?

You know, we'll know for sure whether he goes or not, not until October. Until now, there are doubts, albeit microscopic ones. Although everything he does is very reminiscent of an election campaign. However, until he personally announces that he is going to the polls, doubts will persist.

“You know, we will know for sure whether he will go or not, not earlier than October. Until now, there are doubts, albeit microscopic ones. Although everything he does is very reminiscent of an election campaign.” Photo kremlin.ru

In the meantime, he says: “I think. I have not decided yet". Maybe he did, but he hides it. Or maybe he didn't really decide. I can only say that this pause causes some confusion among the political elite. She would have preferred certainty, and the sooner the better.

"Then why do you think he won't announce it before October?"

It's not my opinion, it's what they think, as far as is known, in the inner circle. But again, these are all rumors. He did not announce this during the "straight line". They say that in October it will become clear that Putin has promised to introduce it. Or maybe he will bring it in November.

Ending to be

Rustem Shakirov

On the failure of United Russia

- The fact that United Russia will perform worse than usual in these elections was predictable. However, no one expected that so. This was not expected by either the experts, or the staff of the presidential administration, or the candidates themselves. Moreover, according to my information, during the counting of votes in many regions, the voting results were corrected. And even despite this, the United Russia candidates received much fewer votes than in previous years. Of course, in yesterday's elections, the "party of power" was defeated.

What happened is connected, first of all, with the fact that the change in public sentiment began to turn into a change in political behavior. People who are dissatisfied, for example, with the pension reform, began to vote against those who are implementing this reform - the current authorities. Previously, dissatisfaction with specific phenomena or processes did not grow into dissatisfaction with those who are behind it.

On the prospects for electoral protest

“Very soon, those who voted against United Russia may take to the streets to express their dissatisfaction. So far, they do not do this, because the social reasons are not clear enough. However, it is already clear that the street protest in the regions has a core, even though it often has a spontaneous character. In my opinion, the electoral protest may turn into a street protest in a year. He needs time to mature. Life is deteriorating, the pressure on citizens is increasing, and very soon the Russians will think about participating in rallies. Yesterday, for the first time, many of them voted not for United Russia, and in a year they may take to the square demanding the resignation of the authorities. To provoke mass participation in rallies, for example, the disconnection of the Russian Internet from the world one, which, according to my information, is planned by the authorities for the end of 2019.

About the conclusions that the government will make

“The main thing that the elections showed is that the state machine is working worse and worse, its effectiveness is declining. Whether the results of the elections will change anything, I think not. It is unlikely that the authorities will listen to changes in the assessments of their actions by society. In general, elections in Russia have long been a formality that does not seriously affect anything. I also do not think that there will be any serious reshuffles in the Kremlin in connection with the failed outcome of the elections. However, it is clear that the protest potential is growing and will continue to grow, which means that people will use other means to inform the authorities about their discontent.