About the failure of "United Russia"

- The fact that "United Russia" in these elections will be worse than usual, it was projected. However, no one assumed that so much. This did not expect any experts nor the staff of the presidential administration nor the candidates themselves. Moreover, according to my information, during the counting of votes in many regions, the voting results were adjusted. And even despite this, candidates from United Russia scored greatly less votes than in past years. Of course, at yesterday's elections, the "Party of Power" was defeated.

The occurred is primarily due to the fact that the change in public sentiment has become transformed into a change in political behavior. People, dissatisfied, such as the pension reform, began to vote against those who implement this reform - the existing authorities. Previously, dissatisfaction with concrete phenomena or processes did not surrender to those who are behind it.

On the prospects of the electoral protest

- Very soon those who voted against United Russia can enter out the street shares to express their discontent. So far, they do not do this, as social causes are not sufficiently clear. However, it is already clear that the street protest in the regions has a core, even though it often has a spontaneous nature. In my opinion, the electoral protest can turn into the street after a year. He needs time to mature. Life worsens, pressure on citizens increases, and quite soon the Russians think about participating in rallies. Yesterday, many of them voted for the first time as "United Russia", and in a year they can go to the square demanding the resignation of the authorities. It may provoke on a massive part in rallies in rallies, for example, disconnecting the Russian Internet from the world, which, according to my information, is planned by the authorities at the end of 2019.

About the conclusions that will make power

- The main thing is that the elections have demonstrated - this is that the state machine is working worse and worse, its effectiveness is reduced. Whether the election results will change - I think not. It is unlikely that the authorities will be listened to changing their actions to society. In general, elections in Russia - has long been a formality, none seriously affecting. I also do not think that there will be some serious permutations in the Kremlin in connection with the failure of the election. However, it is clear that the protest potential increases and will increase, and therefore people will use other means in order to inform the power of their discontent.

In the "liberal" party (in order to avoid misunderstandings, it should be noted that this community has the same relation to liberalism as a business project J. Under the name of the LDPR), a new idol appeared - the former communion of public relations MGIMO Valery Solovy. His insights from the "Corridors of the Kremlin Power" made it a welcome guest on the "Echo of Moscow", "Rain", RBC, republic.ru and other media, the constant presence in which and forms a community "Liberal" parties, and the fiery criticism of power and decisive predictions Valery Dmitrievich was produced in the rank of Guru. A recent departure from MGIMO, which, according to the professor himself, occurred as a result of "political pressure" created a halo spent around him and gave a chance to the transition from the status of Guru to the rank of civil and political leader. Than Valery Solovyi did not fail to use, declaring the formation of a certain "civil coalition".

And nothing, but whenever Valery Dmitrievich pronounced his rebellious speeches, smithereens of the spread of the Kremlin from liberal positions, some bad people sent a video from his performance in the program of Vladimir Solovyov "Fight", in which Professor spoke in the team Zyuganov and Protected Stalin from "Liberasta" Gozman.

In this speech, Valery Dmitrievich explained Leonid Yakovlevich that they live "in different countries" with him, because, "in the country, Gozmanov, Gozmanov take care of fraternal graves." In addition, Professor Solovyov told that "the consequences of liberal reforms that occurred in the 90s in their losses are comparable to what happened in the 30s and what is attributed to Stalin."

In this two-minute fragment of his speech, Valery Dmitrievich joined so many markers characterizing his political and human face, which is somehow even embarrassing them to decipher and comment. "Lord Gozmans", "spitting on fraternal graves" ... "Losses from liberal reforms of the 90s are comparable with losses of the 30s" ... Put the nightingale cave Stalinist Starinists or Prokhanov in place and you will hear exactly the same rhetoric.

Last week, Solovy, speaking at the "Ah", decided to explain, after which they had an exchange of letters with Leonid Gozman. At first, Valery Solovey explained that all sorts of discussions about Stalin are for the benefit of the Kremlin, as they form a "false agenda": "It is useful to realize that the exalted discussions about Stalin the essence of the classical manipulation of the agenda by the authorities: the discussion about the present is replaced by the discussion about the past, which It does not have a real relationship. " End of quotes.

For a reasonable question of the lead, why he himself took part in the creation of a "false agenda", participating in this discussion about Stalin, the nightingale with a disarming smile answered: "The man is weak and vain." When the presenter began to be stated, why the nightingaws, criticizing the power from liberal positions today, took part in the discussion on the side of Zyuganov, defending Stalin, Valery Dmitrievich first tried to take advantage, they say, he "did not defend" nor Zyuganov nor Stalin, and then, Apparently, realizing the absurdity of the denial of obvious, referred to the "evolution of views."

At the "Evolution of Views" Professor Solovna should be partitioned. During the period of the memorable speech on the side of Zyuganov and in defense of Stalin, Valery Dmitrievich tried ideologically to head the Russian nationalists, created the nationalist party "New Power" for this purpose, and became its chairman. In those days, this period of 2011 - 2013, Valery Solovyi performed mainly from the Tribune of Nationalist and Stalinist Media in the company with such people as Vitaly Tretyakov, Alexander Dugin, Mikhail Dlyagin, etc. Evolution and even the revolutionary look of views is quite normal, the whole question is when and under the influence of what reasons it happens.

In the late 80s - the beginning of the 90s, the views of many people changed under the influence of the enormous amount of new information, including the past of our country. In 2013, the nightingale performs on the side of Zyuganov and protects Stalin from Liberas and Gozmanov. And in 2017 enters the constituent headquarters of the candidate of Titov as a curator of ideology and declares that it will be the ideology of "right liberalism". It is difficult to assume that in the interval between 2013 and 2017, Valery Dmitrievich learned something new on Stalinism or Liberalism. The reason for the "evolution of views" of Professor Solovna is about the same that during the years of Soviet power, forced such as he hesitated along with the line of the party, and after the collapse of the USSR, there were former scientific atheism professionals to stand in the church with candles.

Professor Navalov headed the Department of Public Relations to the MGIMO Department of Public Relations, that is, he is a PR specialist. In this profession there are its own rules, most importantly of which is the priority of the interests of the customer. Valery Dmitrievich defeated the position of Zyuganov and Stalin to defend the position of Stalin from victory about the "inseparalness". Got an order for the creation of a nationalist party - justify the priority of the Russian people and the harmfulness of "Gozmans". We instructed to oversee the ideology for the "Growth Party" Boris Titov, Professor Solovyi will hit Semen and VMIG will turn into the right liberal, defending the freedom of small businesses and delight the competitive economy.

There is no goggling at Professor, and their "evolution" depends solely on the change of conjuncture. And further. Regarding insides and forecasts of Professor Nightingale. On the "Russian Platform" site, where Valery Solovey regularly performed with the nationalists Egor Kholmogorov, Konstantin Krylov and his student, Vladimir Toron, 8.05.2012 his article was published under the name "Bloody Sunday Vladimir Putin", in which Professor Solovy prophesies: " Putin does not reach the end of his presidential term. Now it is obvious. " Further, Professor Nightingale indicates the specific term of the death of Putin's regime - about six months. "Very soon we will see thousands of tens of thousands, crushing police cordons on their way," a rebellious professor broadcasts.

All this, according to Professor Solovna, should happen in many months. "In the autumn of this year - a new rise!" - predicts Professor Nightingale. I remind you that it was in May 2012. She passed 7 (seven) years. Putin is still in the Kremlin, and Professor Nightingale today, Vangugets, as if nothing has happened: "In 2020, Russia is waiting for the revolution, the national crisis and change of regime. Putin does not reach the end of his presidential term. "

I know a lot of opponents of Putin's regime, which are trying to see in the country and in power some signs of the approaching end of this new type fascism, and from impatience there are similar forecasts, whenever erroneous. But Professor Nautyov is a different case. Public Relations Specialist should emit optimism in communicating with the customer. Yesterday, Professor Solovey served the Stalinists and Nationalists and "did it beautifully." Today, he serves the "liberal" party and "doing beautifully" to her.

"Liberal" Tusovka and led by the liberal community of Russia, like the flock of the Baranov, it comes to the "goats-provocateurs" released from the Kremlin. Whether "Kashin-Guru", or Ksenia Sobchak, or Belkovsky with Pavlovsky, or Prokhorov with a sister, or even Medvedev with freedom, which is "better than non-free." According to the latest research, aquarium fish are not so bad memory so that they can be compared with people all the time performing the same errors. So for Russian liberals will have to select other analogies ...

"The rumors crawled around in Moscow that from the FSB building on Lubyanka helicopters evacuate the archive"

Since the beginning of mass protests that broke out in the capital in December 2011, after declaring the results of elections to the State Duma, five years have passed. However, the question "What was it?" Does not have a definite answer. According to Professor MGIMO, the political scientist and historian Valery Solovya, we are talking about an "attempt of the revolution", which had every chance of success.

On the origins and sense of the "Snow Revolution" and the reasons for its defeat, Valery Solovyy reflect on the interview with MK.

Help "MK": "Recently, Valery Solovey published a book whose name scares someone, and someone may inspire:" Revolution! The foundations of the revolutionary struggle in the modern era. " In this paper, first of all, the experience of "color" revolutions, to which the scientist is also countdown by Russian events of five years ago. The head dedicated to them is called the "devotional revolution".

Valery Dmitrievich, judging by the abundance of soothing forecasts issued on the eve of the Duma elections of 2011, the mass protests that followed them were for many, if not for the majority, politicians and experts with a complete surprise. Tell me honestly: for you, they also appeared a surprise?

No, for me, they were not a surprise. Even early in the early autumn of 2011, my interview was published under the title: "Soon the fate of the country will be solved on the streets and squares of the capital."

But justice for the sake of say that I was not alone with such a visionary. Somewhere in the first half of September, I managed to talk with an employee of one of the Russian special services, which on duty is engaged in studying mass sentiment. I will not clarify what kind of organization, but the quality of their sociology is considered very high. And I had the case to make sure that this reputation was justified.

This man frankly told me then that since the beginning of the 2000s, there was also no such anxious situation for power. I ask: "What, even mass excitement possible?" Says: "Yes, possible." To the question that he and his department is going to take in this situation, my interlocutor replied: "Well, what? We report to the bosses. But it does not believe us. He believes that we prove such horrels for our need. The authorities are confident that the situation is under control And that nothing happens. "

In addition, in the spring of 2011, the Center for Strategic Developments, headed by Mikhail Dmitriev, published a report in which the high probability of manifestation of public discontent in connection with the elections was said - right up to mass protests. In a word that happened in principle predicted. However, between categories "may occur" and "occurs" runs the distance of a huge size. Even if we say that something will happen with a high probability, not at all the fact that it happens. But in December 2011 it happened.

Vladimir Putin psychologically performed a very accurate situation by choosing Dmitry Medvedev as a successor. None of the other from Putin's environment would agree to the "castling", which occurred after the first presidential period, is confident by Valery Solovy.

There is a version according to which the unrest were inspired by Medvedev and its closest surroundings. Is there soil for similar conspiracy?

Absolutely no. It is noteworthy that the core of the first protest campaign, which began on December 5, 2011 on Chistoprudny Boulevard, amounted to people who were observers in the election. They saw how it all happened, and did not doubt that the announced results were falsified. It was expected that only a few hundred people would take part in this first rally, and several thousand came. Moreover, they were very determined: they moved to the center of Moscow, breaking through the police cordons and internal troops. I personally observed these clashes. It was clearly noticeable that the behavior of the protesters turned out to be an unpleasant surprise for the police. She obviously did not expect such advocateness from the harmless first hipsters.

It was an impregnable moral protest. Slap in the face of a person and demanding that he will be restrained and perceived by God's dew - namely the behavior of the power of the precondition, - should not be surprised at his indignation. The society, insulted at the beginning of Putin and Medvedev, at the beginning of the "castle", was then fed by a uniform manner in which the party of power was trying to provide his monopoly position in parliament. Millions of people felt deceived.

Another thing is that some people from the nearest environments of Medvedev had an idea to use a rapidly expanding protest in the interests of his chef. And they came into contact with protest leaders. According to some information, Dmitry Anatolyevich was proposed to speak on December 10, 2011 at the rally on the Swamp Square. And so to speak, to replay the situation with the "castle". But Medvedev did not dare to it. These rumors, however, was enough to ensure that a version of the conspiracy was born in the heads of Chekists, in which Medvedev participated on the other hand, on the other - the West.

No reason for such suspicion, I repeat, no. Nevertheless, the investigation of this version was the fact that Putin had doubted the loyalty of Medvedev for a long time. In that, so to speak, it is clean in his thoughts and does not enter the "treacherous" plans. As far as is known, suspicions were finally removed only about a year and a half ago. But today Putin, on the contrary, considers Medvedev a person who can be completely trusted. What manifested itself, in particular, in the situation with. The blow to the government was planned much more large-scale. But, as we know, the president publicly confirmed his confidence in the government and personally Medvedev and thereby spent the "red feature" for the security forces.

The then calculations of "conspirators" were pure water by work or still relied on the position of Medvedev?

I think that they acted on themselves, hoping that the situation "will" in a favorable direction for their chief and, accordingly, for them themselves. I am sure that Medvedev did not give them such a sanction and could not give. This is not the psychological type.

By the way, there are different points of view on how Medvedev reacted to his "incomprehension" as president. Someone, for example, believes that he did not have a reason for disorder: he brilliantly played in the play, written back at the time of his nomination for the presidency.

I do not believe in such a long and echelonized conspiracy. I have a feeling, - and not only me - that Dmitry Anatolyevich was still going to re-election. But it turned out to be in a situation where he had to refuse this idea. Psychologically, a stronger partner broke it.

- And he obeyedly obeyed?

Well, not quite reasonably, of course. It was probably a personal tragedy. Sergey Ivanov, of course, did not lead herself. And no one else from Putin's environment. In this sense, Vladimir Vladimirovich psychologically very accurately calculated the situation, the choice was made correct.

However, in 2007 the future looked differently than in 2011. There were some important and still hidden from the public the circumstances that did not allow to say with confidence that in 2011 there will be a casting.

You call a mass protest movement in Russia "attempt to revolution. But today the predominant is the point of view that the circle of these revolutionaries was scary narrow and they were terrible far from the people, and therefore did not represent the real threat of power. They say, the rest of Russia remained indifferent to this Moscow intellectual "Decembrists' uprising", which therefore was no more than storm in the glass of water.

This is not true. It is enough to take a look at the results of sociological surveys, made at the same time, on hot trails. See: At the time of the beginning of the protests, almost half of Muscovites, 46 percent, one way or another approved the protesters of the opposition. Negatively treated 25 percent. Only a quarter. And categorically against even less - 13 percent.

Another 22 percent found it difficult to determine their attitude or declined from the answer. This is the data of the Levada Center. It is also indicative of their participation in the meeting on Bolotnaya Square on December 10, 2011 2.5 percent of the residents of the capital.

Judging by this data, the number of participants should have been at least 150 thousand. In fact, there were twice as fewer - about 70 thousand. From this funny fact it follows that on the outcome of 2011, participation in protest shares was considered an honorary business. Edaki symbolic privilege. And remember how many on these winter rallies were representatives of the Russian elite. And Prokhorov came, and Kudrin, and Ksenia Sobchak pushed on the podbul ...

- But outside of Moscow sentiment was different.

Until now, all revolutions in Russia have developed on the so-called central type: you are capturing power in the capital, and after that the whole country is in your hands. Therefore, what we thought at that moment in the province, it does not have an even account any value. For elections, it matters for the revolution - no. This is first.

Secondly, the moods in the province did not so much then differed from the metropolitan. According to the survey of the public opinion fund, conducted across the country in mid-December 2011, the requirement to cancel the results of elections to the State Duma and re-voting shared 26 percent of Russians. This is a lot. Not supported this requirement less than half - 40 percent. And Only 6 percent believed that the elections were held without deception.

Obviously, the population of major cities hesitated. It could well stand on the side of the Moscow Hipster Revolutionaries, if they behaved more resolutely.

In short, it can not be called "storm in a glass of water." In fact, on December 5, 2011, the revolution began in Russia. The protest covered the increasing territory of the capital, every day an increasing number of people were involved in it. The society expressed more and more noticeable sympathy of the protester. The police exhaled, the power was confused and frightened: even a phantasmagoric scenario of the Kremlin's storming was not excluded.

In Moscow, rumors crawled on the fact that from the FSB building on Lubyanka helicopters evacuate the archive. It is not known how true they were, but the very fact of such rumors speaks a lot about the then mass sentiments in the capital. For at least two December weeks, the situation was extremely favorable for the opposition. All conditions for a successful revolutionary speech have developed.

It is noteworthy that the protest developed rapidly, despite the fact that the media controlled by the authorities, especially television, adhered to policies of strict information embargo against opposition shares. The thing is that the opposition has a "secret weapon" - social networks. It was through them that she spent campaigning, alert and mobilization of their supporters. I can not not notice, by the way, that since then the value of social networks has increased even more.

As the recent Campania Donald Trump has shown, with their help you can already win the election. This experience in using social networks I analyze now in classes with my students and in public master classes.

- Where and when in this party was made by a predetermined opposition loss?

I think if on December 10, the rally, as it was previously scheduled, passed on the area of \u200b\u200bthe revolution, the events would develop completely differently.

That is, the rights of Eduard Limonov, arguing that the protest began to "merge" at the moment when the leaders agreed to change the place of the action?

Absolutely. At the area of \u200b\u200bthe revolution would be at least twice as many people than came to the Swamp. And if you are familiar with the topography of Moscow, you can easily imagine what is 150 thousand people protesting in the heart of the capital, two steps from Parliament and Central Election Commission. Mass speaker is unpredictable. One or two calls from the podium of the rally, spontaneous movement among its participants, the awkward actions of the police - and the giant crowd moves to the State Duma, the Central Election Commission, the Kremlin ... Power understood this very well, so I did everything in order to transfer the rally to the marsh. And the opposition leaders came to the aid of power. Moreover, in fact they saved this power. The consent to change the area of \u200b\u200bthe revolution on the Bolotnaya meant, essentially, the refusal of the struggle. And in political, and in the moral and psychological, and in symbolic plan.

- How did the yacht named, so she swam?

Quite right. Nevertheless, the ability to reverse the course of events remained at the opposition and in January, and in February - until the presidential election. If instead of fruitless chanting "we are here the power", "we will come still" some actions were taken, the situation could well turn.

- What do you mean by actions?

All successful revolutions began with the creation of the so-called liberated territory. In the form, for example, streets, squares, quarters.

- A la Maidan?

Maidan is one of the historical modifications of this technology. In all revolutions, it is critical for revolutionaries to create a bridgehead, a point of support. If we take, let's say, the revolution is Chinese, developed by peripheral type, then the bridgehead was created in remote provinces of the country. And for the Bolsheviks during the October Revolution, such a territory was Smolny. Sometimes on the springride holds long enough, sometimes events unfold very quickly. But it starts all that. You can collect even half a million people, but it will not have any difference if people just stood and diverged.

It is important that quantitative dynamics are complemented by political, new and offensive forms of struggle. If you say: "No, we stand here and stand until our requirements fulfill," then you do a significant step forward. Attempts to go on this path was taken on March 5, 2012 at Pushkin Square and on May 6 on Bolotnaya. But then it was too late - the window of the opportunity closed. The March and postmarts situation fundamentally differed from December. If the society had serious and justified doubts about the legitimacy of parliamentary elections, the victory of Putin on the presidential looked more than convincing. Even the opposition did not decide to challenge her.

But December, I emphasize, was an exceptionally convenient moment for the opposition. The massive rise of the protest movement was combined with the confusion of power, quite ready to go for serious concessions. However, by mid-January, the mood of the power group changed dramatically. In the Kremlin and the White House came to be convinced that, despite the great mobilization potential of protest, his leaders were not dangerous. What they are cowardly, do not want and even fear power and that they are easy to manipulate. And with this you can only agree. It is enough to remember the fact that for the new year almost all opposition leaders left resting abroad.

One of those people who formulated the political strategy of power, post-Factum told me the following: "On December 9-10, we saw that the leaders of the opposition are fools. And in early January, they were convinced that their own comfort would appreciate the power above. And then they decided: The authorities will not share, but distribute the opposition. " I quote almost literally.

- How far was ready to go power in her concessions? What could the opposition be calculated at all?

The concessions of power would be directly proportional to the pressure on it. I, however, I do not really believe that the opposition could then win the complete victory - to come to power. But it was quite realistic to achieve a political compromise.

It is known, for example, that in the corridors the authorities discussed the possibility of holding extraordinary parliamentary elections - after presidential. But after the opposition's leaders demonstrated the complete lack of strategy and will, this idea was removed from the agenda. I'm not going, however, anything to blame anything. If God did not give volitional qualities, he did not give. As the French say, they have such a frivolous saying, even the most beautiful girl can not give more things that she has.

The art of politics is to see the historical chance, and not repel your hands and legs from him. History extremely rarely provides the ability to change something, and to those politicians who overcome their chance, it is usually a lot of merciless. She did not spare and she leaders of the "Snow Revolution", as sometimes calling these events. Navalny under prosecution, his brother was in prison. Vladimir Ryzhkov lost party, Gennady Gudkov - Deputy Mandate. Boris Nemtsov left us at all ... All these people thought that fate would provide them with another, the best possibility. But in the revolution the best - the enemy is good. Another chance may no longer be introduced.

It seems to me that the psychological drawing of the "Snow Revolution" was largely predetermined by the phenomenon of August 1991. For some it was a miracle of victory, for others - a terrible injury of defeat. Chekists who saw the Dzerzhinsky monument, who sat at this time in their cabinets and were afraid that the crowd bursts him, live since then with fear: "Never more, never let me say more." And liberals - with the feeling that one day the power itself will fall into their hands. As then, in 1991: the finger of the finger did not hit, but found themselves on horseback.

Imagine that opposition would have achieved re-parliamentary elections. How would it affect the development of the situation in the country?

I think even with the most honest count of the votes of the liberals could not be able to control the State Duma. We would be content with a total of 15, the largest - 20 percent of places. Nevertheless, the political system would become much more open, flexible, competitive. And as a result, a lot of things happened in the following years would not happen.

We would live in a completely different country. Such is the logic of the system: if it closes, deprivates internal dynamism, competitive struggle, if there is no one who could challenge power, then power can take any decisions. Including - strategic erroneous. I can say that in March 2014 most of the elite was horrified by the decisions taken then. In genuine fear.

- However, the majority of the country's population perceives the events of March 2014 as a great blessing.

In my opinion, the attitude towards this majority of the country's population is better and more accurately described the talented playwright Evgeny Grishkovets: the accession of the Crimea was illegal, but fair. It is clear that no one can return to the Crimea to Ukraine. It would not have happened even from the Kasparov government if it had some miracle came to power. But for the Society of Crimea, the topic has already been played, it is not present today in everyday discourse.

If in 2014-2015 the problem of Crimea shared the opposition, got up with an insurmountable wall, then now it is simply carried out for brackets. It would not be surprised at all, by the way, the restoration of the protest coalition, which originated in 2011 and included Liberals and nationalists. As far as I know, this recovery is already happening.

How big is the likelihood that in the foreseeable future we will see something similar to what has survived the country in that revolutionary winter?

I believe that the probability is quite high. Although the probability, as I said, does not mean inevitability. After the suppression of the revolution 2011-2012, the system stabilized. Internal "Capitulants", as their Chinese would be called, realized that it was necessary to snap into a rag and go to the leader's leader, the national leader.

At the end of 2013, when a repressive action system began to be issued in the country, the feeling that the regime was all cemering that nothing breaks through this concrete. But, as it usually happens in history, everywhere and always power itself provokes a new dynamics, undermining stability. First - Crimea, then - Donbass, then - Syria ...

This is not Americans threw, not opposition. Initiating the geopolitical dynamics of this scale, you must be aware that it will inevitably affect the socio-political system. And we see that this system is becoming increasingly unstable. What manifests itself, in particular, in increasing nervousness within the Russian elite, in mutual attacks, in the war of compromising, in the growth of social tensions.

The turbulence of the system is growing. By the way, the revolution that occurred at us at the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, from the point of view of the criteria of historical sociology, did not end. We are still living in a revolutionary era and new revolutionary paroxysms are not completely excluded.

Professor Nightingale regularly mentions a certain future solution of the Kremlin, which will inevitably lead to changes.

The activities of the statesman and politics are always judged on the basis of his final. If the final turned out to be successful, then his entire preceding activity is painted in positive tones. If his final turned out to be not successful, not successful, then all its previous activities are also subject to negative lighting. Putin's president finals still ahead, although his era of course ends.

"I believe that in general its activities will be appreciated negatively," said Valery Solovy, a political scientist, historian, Professor MGIMO.

In the history of Russia, not one leader was not in more favorable conditions than Vladimir Putin. Russia had no external enemies, the ratio of the West, despite all the collisions, was generally benevolent. There were high prices for oil, which favorably affected the budget of the country. The Society welcomed Putin, after the era of Yeltsin it seemed that it was the beginning of the revival of the country. And the first seven or ten years indeed, Putin justified the credibility of the Company's confidence, grew the economy of the country and the incomes of the population grew.

And then everything began to change when Vladimir Putin with Dmitry Medvedev was conceived and conducted a castle for the exchange of posts.

"And people were offended, they considered it to be deceived. It was actually deception and was," says Valery Solovy.

In humans, in whatever country they do not live, psychological fatigue comes from the ruler and this fatigue occurs if the ruler is ruled for a long time, more than ten years. Therefore, if Putin went on time, he would forever remain in history as the greatest ruler, raised Russia from his knees. And today, society assesses the president from the point of view of the deterioration of its social status. The crisis in the country lasts the sixth year in a row and the sixth year in a row decreases the income of citizens of the country. People think their pocket and how they will feed their children. This could be failed for two years when the president spoke in 2014 that they would suffer two years, and then everything would be fine. And people of course endured. But six years in a row are too much. Holly irritation in society causes the fact that in any country of the world will not keep the government, which cannot cope with the crisis.

"And what's in Russia? The president, re-elevated, appoints the same government headed by the same prime minister of Medvedev, who is frankly in the country despise. It's not for anyone a secret. What feelings it should cause our people", Says Valery Solovy.

And then take and get - here is your pension reform. This is already mockerying the people and common sense. In Russia, men in many regions do not live to sixty-five years. What is it? President's rating falls in recent years, despite a short-term increase in popularity in connection with the return of the Crimea. The people already have a very large negative experience in recent years and in the massive consciousness of people, Putin's figure will be assessed increasingly negative.

"From the point of view of history, I as a historian says it, it will be assessed as a person who missed a unique historical chance to ensure the rapid development of Russia. Who exchanged the development of Russia, the growth of the well-being of the people on the growth of the welfare of their friends," says Valery Solovy.

At the beginning of the two thousand years, when energy prices grew, the president missed the opportunity to reform the economy. His liberal environment spoke to him: why, see what oil prices and they will grow. Why do we need to develop our own industry, we will buy everything. We have enough money for everything and theft too. With such a strange conviction and lived, the president and his surroundings. Russia will sell raw materials for a long time and from it to go anywhere. The question is, as and where the funds reversed from this, who are disposed of.

"We will spend them for the fact that Rotenbergs have built themselves the luxurious palaces and yachts bought to themselves, the largest in the world. These people went on the Peter in sports harenar and traded the small consumer goods in the kiosks," says Valery Solovy.

But how many old people in our country are disadvantaged, how many unfortunate people. In the country they collect money to the whole world for the treatment of children abroad, since the state is not available for this. That's what you need to spend money. If you say that people are our main value, let them put them in that life becomes at least a little better and easier.