Jun 30, 2021
0 0

Who beat whom: Yeltsin, Putin and back

Who beat whom: Yeltsin, Putin and back

Photo: Sergey Bobylev / TASS

Since March, our edition has been “summarizing” the Russian statehood after 1991 under the heading “30 years of anti-Soviet power”. And those who were in this power or under this power have their own “intermediate finish” (for example, in “Kommersant” – a special project “30 years without the USSR”, although not only there).

So on the Echo of Moscow website, the second son-in-law of the first president of the Russian Federation (there were three such sons-in-law in total) publishes fragments of the book “From Yeltsin to Putin and Back” with the subtitle “Dedicated to the 30th anniversary of the Great August Democratic Revolution”.

Oh how – Great! I will not argue about the “revolution”, because the change of the economic formation to the opposite is a revolution: “the coup will not be crowned with success, otherwise it is called differently.”

For some reason, the ex-son-in-law of the ex-president, Alexei Dyachenko, signs, although he – Leonid Yurievich Dyachenko… Either the name is not pleasant, or the Internet search engines are confusing, in this context it does not matter. More indicative is not the full name, not the subtitle, but the title – “Yeltsin and those who changed their shoes”

From a literal reading, one might think that we are talking about Boris Nikolayevich himself, a member of the CPSU since 1961, 30 years later (again – thirty!) “Comply with the Constitution and laws of the RSFSR”… Then he “changed shoes” to the first Russian Federation, after 1993 to the second, and then often did not value the old “shoes” (from “getting on the rails” to “there will be no default”).

However, Aleksey-Leonid “drives” not his former father-in-law, but stigmatizes “people who worked successfully during the Yeltsin era, who criticize those times today“. And he names as many as four names of “werewolves” – the director Mikhalkov (who forgot about his previous work for the Yeltsin administration); political scientist Markov (according to Dyachenko, he was co-chairman of the Russian division of an analytical center headquartered in the United States); TV presenter Vinnik (a grant from the Open Society of the Soros Foundation is an undesirable organization on the territory of the Russian Federation) and a deputy, political scientist, TV presenter Nikonova… I quote about the latter literally: “But we also know another Slava Nikonov. Who developed election documents for Yeltsin in 1996. Never scolded the United States. I traveled to Washington with pleasure … Vyacheslav Nikonov was not frightened then by Russia’s foreign policy “weakness.”

To be honest, I sat down a little, but not at all from the “level of revelations”. I remember how one of the current luminaries of domestic American studies, right on the “Right to Voice” program, enlightened about “small presentations of 100-200 dollars” he received when he visited the United States in the 90s.

Or impressions from reading the report Müller, which, in addition to “interference in the elections”, contains details – how, who and through whom tried to lobby the interests of Russian bankers to “not fall under the sanctions.” This, so as not to think, they say, everything is in the past. In short, nothing new.

I was surprised not by what Alexey-Leonid Dyachenko said, but, on the contrary, if it would have turned out differently.

In international relations, there are two approaches, two theories of statehood – declarative and constitutive. According to the first, enshrined in the Montevideo convention, the new state at the “birth” of the recognition of others is not required (RSFSR and then the USSR). Recognition presupposes sovereignty, but does not create it at all, and therefore does not affect rights acquired prior to recognition.

According to the second, constitutive, the superpowers insist on their “blessing” to each newly emerging “subject of international law”. Do you recognize the Russian Federation? Have you forgotten who Yeltsin called, where he went, where he spoke, what did he say?

But even today, ears do not burst from howling with proposals to “establish a Russian-American dialogue” with “maintaining partnership for the sake of global stability”? Moreover, no one is in a hurry to substantiate, arguing, but what exactly will these “relations” bring to the Russian Federation? What specific national interests will they observe? To what extent will the “partnership” turn out to be parity, to whom – tops, and to whom – roots?

The whole “omission” is that when the former common property is divided according to the lawlessness, first of all, one should attend to the preservation of the “new order”. Theirs have no faith, for they have been “squeezed out” from them. Therefore, and “international arbitration”. Therefore, and “foreign jurisdictions”. Therefore, the ruble is a miscarriage of the dollar, therefore “stability” instead of “development”. But what about formidable rhetoric, a multipolar world and all sorts of other things?

It is also not simple, but very simple: a piece of a counter in a foreign market (ours was demolished), as the turnover increases, turns out to be cramped. The foreign administration does not indulge in “expansion”. Firstly, everything is divided between relatives, and secondly, why should an alien get rich and strengthen? There are scandals, intrigues, sometimes blackmail.

A monopolist never voluntarily yields anything, for that is not why he “monopolized” through “mergers and acquisitions”. Otherwise, there would be no special “antimonopoly services”. Only – compulsion “to separation”. But for this one must possess an authoritative force, or at least resolve, which is fraught with fluctuations in “stability.”

And this, in turn, is already risky by the “change of power”. Interspecific struggle leads to the activation of “intraspecific” – political processes are often analogous to biological ones. The Americans are pragmatic, their position is: moderate Russian ambitions to the point of being correlated with the Russian economy, remembering who controls what – after 1991 they themselves wanted it …

However, it’s time to scoop out of the depths – to the memoirs of Alexei-Leonid. When he gave a hint about “changing shoes”, the thought struck: really swung to the very top? After all, from whose submission did the anathema to the “holy nineties” unfold? Putin guaranteed the safety of the Yeltsin family and kept his word (including, so as not to set a bad example, not to mirror the successor). But someone has to answer for the era “insignificant in goals and fruitless in results”? And not to translate into the category of “switchmen” – such an agreement, apparently, was not. Well, not Mikhalkov, did they turn everything with Markov, Nikonov and Vinnik, who joined them?

The memoirist could have started with himself (from the Bank of New York, from the accounts of the offshore BONY, from the Belka company, from cooperation with the office of the New York prosecutor), or from his ex-wife Tatiana Dyachenko – Yeltsin’s daughter, who has long received Austrian citizenship and recently – an imperial tea set from Putin for his birthday. And “whose” citizen is her third husband today – Valentin Yumashev, the former head of the Kremlin administration, top secret carrier?

Or is “changing shoes” worthy of condemnation not in relation to the country and the state, but exclusively to the person of Boris Nikolayevich? By the way, it inspired other memories from the book “From Dawn to Dusk”, by the General Korzhakova:

“Yeltsin pretended that only now he found his shoes soiled with river sand. He slowly lifted his leg and thumped it right in his shoe on the table …

– Adjutant !!!

Tolya flew into the salon. The chief silently pointed his eyes to the boot. Colonel Kuznetsov, with a flaming but impenetrable face, took off his soiled shoes from the chief, and the waiter Sergei deftly intercepted it right there and then. “

So Boris Nikolayevich “changed his shoes” several times – the former head of his security service will not let him lie, remember how Yeltsin drove Korzhakov in 1996, despite many years of personal loyalty since the “disgrace” of 1987? The golden rule of morality: do not do to others what you do not want for yourself. Balance!

… Someday a true “tree of statehood” (like a genealogical tree) will be published with branch connections stretching away and in different directions from the Russian Federation. And to find, among the “knots” and “confused” dignitaries, owners, beneficiaries, denominations, friends, relatives, mistresses – really “Russian subjects” will be tricky. In the meantime, I am glad that some of them are concerned about the results of the past “thirty years”. Bit by bit, piece by piece, by little things, you see, the mosaic will come together.

In addition, the more fanged the grin in that “get-together”, the better the population. Individuals with specific inclinations strive for power and climb up (those who are afraid of the dead will not go to pathologists). Political competition is invented so that powerful individuals let blood and gnaw at each other, otherwise – very opposite – they will bite the rest.

Article Categories:

Leave a Reply