Putin broke the mold

A direct line with the president showed the insignificance of the arguments of the non-systemic opposition.

Direct Line with Vladimir Putin became, as expected, a landmark event for the vast majority of both our political establishment and the entire Russian society. Despite the fact that the head of our state answered questions from citizens in this format for the fifteenth time, we can safely say that Putin’s current communication with the people has become unique. And there are not only obvious reasons (such an event in itself is the agenda for at least a week), but also invisible reasons.

Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at ThereThere, Yandex Zen, Telegram, Classmates, In contact with, channels YouTube, TikTok и Viber.
To subscribe to notifications in your browser, click here.

Firstly, I would like to note against what background the direct line with Vladimir Putin took place. And there are several aspects to this. Both foreign policy and domestic.

Everyone knows about the geopolitical situation, and here, perhaps, nothing new has happened over the past year. Except for the fact that the most powerful country on the planet - the United States of America - has had a new president. Democrat Barack Obama was replaced by Republican Donald Trump. Among Russian political scientists and geopolitical specialists, there have recently been hopes for serious shifts in international politics. At least that these changes will take shape. But quite quickly many illusions dissipated. And today many understand that, as they say, presidents in the United States come and go, but the overall foreign policy vector of Washington remains unchanged. Together with Russophobia, the postulate “America above all” and the firm conviction that the United States has the right to impose its will on all humanity.

You can also recall the change of president in France, a key country in the Old World. But the replacement of the supposedly socialist Francois Hollande with the supposedly centrist Emmanuel Macron generally looks like an exchange according to the “tough for soap” formula.

The victory in the presidential elections in Bulgaria last November of Rumen Radev, who wants to improve relations with Moscow, can generally be left out of the equation. And although decisions on the same sanctions in the European Union are made by consensus, it is obvious that Bulgaria is not able to pursue its own line. As, indeed, do Greece and the Czech Republic, where state leaders also seem to be sympathetic to Russia. By the way, if we’re talking about Bulgaria, Rumen Radev’s victory was offset by the results of the parliamentary elections in March of this year, in which the pro-Western party “Citizens for the European Development of Bulgaria” won.

To some extent, we can rejoice at the victory of Igor Dodon, who became the President of Moldova and never hid his pro-Russian orientation. But his powers are still so limited that there is no need to talk about any kind of reversal of Chisinau towards Moscow.

So, the geopolitical situation, against which the direct line with Vladimir Putin took place, has practically not changed compared to what it was during last year’s communication. Russia is still under Western sanctions, and Brussels and Washington continue to shout about some kind of “Russian threat.” The situation in Ukraine is characterized, rather, by the phrase “slow rotting.” The situation in Donbass still looks extremely alarming, but more or less stable.

Now I would like to talk about the internal political background against which the straight line ran. There are several factors here.

The first is that the effect of the “Crimean consensus” began to weaken. No, the overwhelming majority are still confident that Russia did the right thing in March 2014. By and large, the return of Crimea will remain in people's memory as the most significant event during the presidency of Vladimir Putin. And all the hopes of our non-systemic liberals that Western sanctions and economic difficulties will force Russians to reconsider their attitude towards the “Russian Spring” will remain in vain. But in society, meanwhile, a certain sense of dynamics began to disappear.

Remember how many of us were literally on edge watching news feeds every day? We witnessed great changes; we felt with our skin how Russia was regaining its greatness and respect in the world. And they were ready to sacrifice a lot for this. It’s just that genetic memory told our people that the path to returning to their former power would not be easy. And the majority were quite consciously ready to follow it.

People in large cities and small towns collected humanitarian aid for the burning Donbass, some went as volunteers to help their compatriots, and welcomed refugees and internally displaced persons from the South-East of Ukraine into their homes.

Many followed front-line reports from Donbass. Some are even behind the political alignments in the DPR and LPR, seeing the opportunity to implement correct social transformations in the people's republics. Let's say, carry out the nationalization of large industry.

And every day brought something new for us. The West introduced new sanctions, the rhetoric of Obama and Merkel heated up exponentially. In response, we began to rapidly increase cooperation with China and develop relations with other states within the framework of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and BRICS.

We began the fight against terrorism at a distant approach to terrorism in Syria. But the main thing is that we did not allow the overthrow of Bashar Assad, who was literally hanging on by a thread and can rightfully be considered our only reliable ally in the entire Middle East. At the same time, we were able to show the United States that the era of its almost limitless dominion in different regions of the world was over.

Of course, it was with pain in our hearts that we received the news of the death of our military when Turkey shot down our plane. But deep down we knew that the sacrifices were not in vain. They did not divide, but united Russians.

But around 2016, there was a certain “calm.” The confrontation in Donbass has taken the form of a “trench” war. The war in Syria has become like a routine. And although it was possible to improve relations with Turkey, which is, of course, positive, Russia did not acquire new allies in the region (Erdogan is certainly not particularly trusted).

That is, it was the sense of dynamics that disappeared. Russians are peaceful people. But we understand perfectly well that a strategy of defense alone threatens to result in defeat. But the West does not say that it suddenly fell in love with us.

The second aspect, which determined the background of the direct line with Putin, can be described as a consolidated attack on the president by the non-systemic liberal opposition.

We can safely say that in 2017 the liberals set a course for implementing a “color” revolution. Having released the film “He’s Not Dimon,” which is very dubious from the point of view of facts, Alexey Navalny began to openly encourage people to take to the streets. And he began to do this in the form of outright provocation. Navalny did not agree to the sites agreed with the Moscow mayor’s office, but actually called for a stampede in the city center.

Well, it was, admittedly, a very clever move. On a weekend, there are always a lot of people walking in the center of the capital, especially in sunny weather. But already at the first action of this kind on March 26, there was violence: one of the law enforcement officers received a traumatic brain injury as a result of a blow from an “anti-corruption fighter.” And this shouldn’t be surprising. “Color” technologies assume that at first people “walk peacefully,” and then a violent confrontation begins. Everyone is used as “cannon fodder”, even schoolchildren who have no life experience and are excited by video messages.

So there is no need to have any illusions. Navalny does not even bother to develop even the most primitive positive program of action if he comes to power. “Color” coups d’état are carried out not for the sake of development, but for the destruction of statehood and all surrounding life.

But one thesis is interesting, which our liberals actively promoted in front of the direct line with Putin. They say that communication with the people was supposed to take place back in April, but it was postponed to June 15. And precisely because of Navalny’s action on March 26. The stupidity is, of course, extraordinary. To think that non-systemic oppositionists who do not have broad popular support are capable of changing the plans of a generally recognized national leader is the same as suggesting that one of the government officials can influence the annual astronomical cycles. Gentlemen liberals, don’t try to attribute something to which you have nothing to do!

Although, one should not be surprised. This is generally a feature of the thinking of political marginals: to consider their inner life to be especially significant for society. A meeting of supporters in an apartment is equated to federal elections; the printing of one hundred copies of a leaflet is perceived as the creation of a pre-revolutionary situation.

But outright nonsense about “how Navalny forced Putin to remain silent” was spread by many media outlets. First of all,  of a liberal persuasion. And this is also an important element of the background on which the straight line runs.

Now let's move directly to the straight line itself.

The phrases uttered by the president will, of course, be studied in various research and analytical centers abroad. And this is not surprising. It would seem that Putin did not reveal any secrets. By definition, what is being talked about throughout the country can no longer be a secret. But today the situation is such that the world is forced to monitor even the intonation of the head of the Russian state. It’s as if, according to the scenario of the parade on Red Square, the ambassadors of foreign states drew conclusions (probably still do) about our military power, although everyone had intelligence before.

Although, it must be admitted, Vladimir Putin spoke little about foreign policy this time. And this circumstance points to an extremely important conclusion: the president has a great feeling for his country. And she not only feels, but also sincerely worries about existing problems. Having a very tangible desire among citizens to improve the situation for the better. But, for example, in 2014, a significant part of the direct line’s time was devoted to Crimea and Ukraine. At that time, this was truly the most important topic for the people. Now the internal agenda is coming to the fore.

The problem with our television lately is that various political discussions concern almost exclusively the situation abroad. They spend hours discussing living conditions in Aleppo, Ukrainian nationalists, Trump, Merkel, Macron... At the same time, it is obvious that people are concerned about completely different problems. And their silence creates a feeling among the people that the so-called “establishment” is completely out of touch with reality and is simply trying to fool people’s minds, to distract them from real existing problems.

The lion's share of the president's answers this year (and no one hides the fact that questions are selected in advance) were devoted specifically to internal turmoil.

The most frank questions were asked. How to live on a small salary? In particular, teacher Alena Ostaltsova from the city of Shelikhov, Irkutsk region, asked how to live on the 16500 rubles she receives. Why do regional officials completely disregard people? A resident of the village of Krasnokumskoye in the Stavropol region complained that after the flooding of the settlement there was practically no help, but they demanded fees for the work of some commission.

Particularly touching was the appeal of the girl Daria from the city of Apatity, Murmansk region, who could not be diagnosed with cancer in time due to poor medicine in the city. The hospital was completely closed, and recently a friend’s mother died while she was being transported by ambulance to another city.

And the problem of so-called “optimization” is known in many regions. For some reason, local authorities approached the social sphere from a purely accounting standpoint: the fewer schools and hospitals, the less spending. But behind such decisions are people. By the way, Apatity is not such a small town, almost 60 thousand people live in it, and therefore the order of the authorities to close the hospital can be compared with a conscious decision to plunge people into the Middle Ages. “We want to live, not survive!” – 24-year-old Daria literally screamed. The frankness of the situation was emphasized by the shot chosen by the film crew: the empty “eye sockets” of that same closed hospital.

But it is important that the head of state did not try to evade answers or shift the conversation to another topic. Several questions were asked for each pressing issue. Including about low pensions and emergency housing. At the same time, the president tried not to make unrealistic promises. There is a completely objective reality, and no one is going to paint some kind of fairy-tale world.

The economy is gradually emerging from the crisis, and GDP growth has been observed in the third quarter. At the same time, investment in production capacity is growing faster than the economy as a whole, and this creates the groundwork for future development. That the crisis has been overcome is evidenced by the simple fact that gold and foreign exchange reserves have begun to grow.

“Last year we started with 368, finished with 378, this year they are already 405 billion dollars,” Vladimir Putin cited the figures.

I immediately remembered the apocalyptic forecasts of some of our economists, left and right, who quite recently speculated on the topic of what will happen to us when we “use up” all our reserves. By the way, reserves are needed in order to overcome crisis phenomena. It turns out that before the reserves were spent, they began to grow again.

We must pay tribute to those who chose the away sites for the direct line. No, the point is not that they tried to deliberately show some kind of trash or, on the contrary, to fill reality with oil. The merit of the organizers of the direct line is that they tried to show the country objectively.

There are collapsing barracks in Russia, and no one denies this. There are careless officials who can turn any good undertaking into human torment. But what country doesn’t have all this? France also has its own slums, but it’s impossible to even imagine where there are no bad bureaucrats.

But this does not mean that life everywhere is completely unbearable. New airports, stadiums, infrastructure facilities are being built, and modern enterprises are opening. And not only because we have such a president - no one has come to such praise. The main thing is that our people love and know how to work.

Our people start families, give birth to children, serve in the army, and dream about the future. And when citizens complain to the head of state about some problems, it is precisely because they want to believe in the best and are ready to work for the good of the country. This was clearly visible during the straight line. And this is something that our liberals will never understand.

I personally remember two pictures. The first was a gathering of residents near their home in Balashikha, where there is simply an epic garbage dump nearby. One of the children had a St. George's ribbon attached to his chest. People turn to the president to solve a specific problem, but do not make it a reason to curse their own country.

The second memorable view is near Lake Baikal. The question of the need to protect the “sacred sea” was predicted by a round dance of children in national costumes. But this is the picture of our life. People do not lose heart, preserve their culture, and communicate with the president in a matter-of-fact manner, without hysterics, with dignity.

Discussing the direct line with Putin, I would like to especially note the atmosphere of communication. Let me emphasize that questions are prepared in advance, no one argues with this. Everything that is broadcast on the direct line is clearly monitored. But at the same time, SMS messages of a very unflattering nature periodically appeared on the screen. “Perhaps you are tired and need to rest?”, “Who came up with this minimum wage, let him live on it,” “All of Russia thinks that you have overstayed your welcome on the throne”... And nothing, the whole country sees this. The people who wrote these SMS probably did it more for themselves, as an act of some kind of catharsis, not believing that their opinion would reach the whole country.

But we have a free country, and the government listens to different opinions. This also includes the question of actor Sergei Bezrukov, who asked about Alexei Uchitel’s film “Matilda”, around which a scandal erupted. State Duma deputy Natalya Poklonskaya felt that the film offended the feelings of fans of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II. They gave the floor to Alexei Uchitel himself. Putin noted that he is not going to get involved in a cultural dispute, and no one is going to ban anything in our country.

But really, should it be otherwise? Some people like the film, some don't. Someone hasn’t seen him, but is already condemning him. But behind the question of why “they want to ban” there is clearly hidden “to prevent criticism.” But the president did not succumb to provocation. The authorities are ready to listen to everyone and work with everyone. The only condition is that there is no initial intent to harm the country.

If we talk about foreign policy, there was practically no such thing on a straight line. There were traditional questions about relations with the United States. And there were quite logical answers: we need to improve relations, there are many areas for cooperation. We can say that both our liberals and our “jingo-patriots” got hit on the nose. You shouldn’t hope for America, its new president, or think that Washington’s policy will change dramatically. Let's build our lives ourselves and rely solely on ourselves. That being said, why not collaborate?

The topic of Ukraine was also raised. And here the head of state’s story about the former head of the administration of the head of “Independence” Viktor Medvedchuk was interesting. It turns out that Putin considers Medvedchuk a Ukrainian nationalist, and recalled that Medvedchuk’s father was a member of the OUN (an organization banned in Russia).

If we sum it up in a straight line, we can say that the president knows Russia and its problems very well. He is ready to solve them constructively and consistently. At the same time, on the path to a more prosperous life, you will not have to sacrifice the rights and freedoms of citizens. And these are precisely the postulates shared by the overwhelming majority of Russians. But our liberals will have to think about whether it is worth continuing to try to formulate their agenda in isolation from reality. Although, on the other hand, the non-systemic opposition does not care about the majority, they have completely different technologies to gain power.