I don't know how about you, but I personally more and more often see interviews or comments of representatives of the Russian opposition, who, sitting abroad (not in Russia, for obvious reasons), tell stories of what kind of country they will build. The "Russian liberals" have become particularly animated after the successful counteroffensive of the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the South when political and military circles began to talk about the inevitable fiasco of the Putin regime.
It looks cynical, like an attempt to make someone else pull chestnuts from the fire for them. Because it is clear that the successes of the Ukrainian army are, forgive me, not a parade, but hellish, inhuman work, and of course – painful losses. This is incredible pressure for both the military and those who support them in the rear. This, after all, is a test for millions of civilians deprived of electricity, water, and heat as a result of missile strikes.
And despite this, Putin's opponents tell us (because they are often published in the Ukrainian media) how "pure and fluffy" the "second Russia" will be, and what they will change in the place where the Kremlin hermit currently rules.
"Divide the skin until the bear is dead (what an appropriate expression when it comes to Putin's Russia) is kind of frivolous, I would say, frivolous and even audacious."
In my opinion, such revelations are, firstly, premature, and, secondly, by and large, groundless. Because trying to divide the skin until the bear is dead (what an appropriate phrase when it comes to Putin's Russia) is a kind of frivolous business, I would say, frivolous and even audacious.
Putin, despite failures and international disregard, diplomatic slaps and intrigues of his entourage, still holds on to power. Obviously, this is temporary, but who will guarantee that in the end he will not be deprived of his position and life (because for some reason the other option seems unrealistic) by Prigozhins or Patrushev's sons? We already have Dugin's direct public call to sacrifice the "tsar". But not for the sake of atonement for the sins of Russia, on the contrary, for the sake of its further expansion and war. It doesn't matter what fragment of yesterday's empire these "putschists" will rule, but even if they manage to keep “Moscovy” within the borders of the "golden ring" borders, most likely the wildest dictatorship will be introduced there. And there will be no place for "free political competition", liberal parties and other "intellectual nonsense”.
This "intellectual nonsense" is exacerbated by the lack of understanding between the "Russian liberals" themselves, and the intra-party struggle is known to be the fiercest. Gudkov, for example, can create some "exile proto-parliaments", which, in his opinion, will then be able to become legitimate (I wonder what and who, in which elections, will legitimize them?). Navalny is in prison, he does not belong to "parliaments", but the prison term gives him and his associates a halo of "sanctity". Despite this, "Russian liberalism" will sooner or later stumble on the "Ukrainian issue", and there are no longer any illusions as to how it will react to this stimulus. From the standpoint of imperial pride, no doubt.
“The Russian opposition must, first of all, get rid of naive illusions that it will play the first violin in a country defeated by Ukraine and the international anti-Putin coalition. It must be ready, like all Russians, to accept responsibility for the fact that Russia was ruled by a gray lieutenant colonel of the KGB and his clique for twenty years.”
The Russian opposition must, first of all, get rid of naive illusions that it will play the first violin in a country defeated by Ukraine and the international anti-Putin coalition. They should be ready, like all Russians, to accept responsibility for the fact that Russia was ruled by a gray lieutenant colonel of the KGB and his clique for twenty years. They must admit that they have not listed a finger to prevent Putin from doing whatever he wants with the country and its society. Moreover, they often took conciliatorily ("tactical" in their view) steps, they legitimized the regime with their presence in the State Duma, the best they could do was spread some "white ribbons", rather than principled opposition to tyranny. I have already quoted Roman Kechur about the effectiveness of "Russian liberals": "Russian liberals are those who know how to sell their liberality well. Like Russian image makers, they are professionals only in that they know how to sell their own image well."
"Russian liberals" should prepare themselves and the country for the prospect of dismantling the empire, its deputization, denuclearization, and demilitarization. To years of paying off reparations and contributions to Ukraine, and therefore to Georgia, and independent Ichkeria. And understand that their role in these processes will be minimal. As in post-Nazi Germany. Wet dreams that they will enter Moscow on the white horses of the future rulers, should not be pleasing their pride and feeding baseless ambitions.
About the author: Ihor Hulyk is a journalist, editor-in-chief of the Espreso.West website.
Espreso TV does not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.