The number of political assets with a minus sign is growing at an unplanned pace.

Let's start, however, with the first one. Has Medvedev really become a burden for the regime?

There is no doubt about it. The Levada Center poll that worried him (45% of respondents were in favor of resignation, 33% were against) in all major parameters, including the breakdown of answers to other questions, is very close to the information from the weekly reports of the near-Kremlin FOM. All “Medvedev’s” indicators are worsening there with each new measurement, and the share of those who believe that the prime minister is “working poorly in his post” since mid-April has exceeded the number of those who believe that he is “good.”

Medvedev has never been perceived by our public as an independent figure. He shone with reflected light, and fluctuations in his popularity indices always followed fluctuations in those of Putin. Perhaps this is still the case. Putin's indices are also declining. But they still remain in the positive zone, while Medvedev’s have moved into the negative.

The prime minister’s reaction to the video “He’s not your Dimon” confirmed his lack of any political qualifications or simply the ability to take a punch. Until recently, the universal helplessness of the head of government created an atmosphere of comfort for Putin, but today it is desirable that people in his circle show other qualities to the people. There is not the slightest hope that Medvedev will find them. It has become an obvious political burden, which, with a strong desire, can, of course, be carried further, but it would be more logical to throw it off one’s shoulders.

However, the logic the highest decisions can't be so straightforward.

Who will replace Medvedev? Another figurehead? But premieres of the caliber of Mikhail Fradkov looked like something normal in completely different times. The reaction from below, and not only from below, to someone strange and weak is now completely unpredictable, and instead of releasing it, it can also increase tension.

And the elevation to prime minister of a person perceived as a strong figure is too similar to the appointment of an heir. So, at least, it will be understood and even, perhaps, interpreted as Putin’s most important strategic decision in the last ten years. Also risky and does not increase comfort.

You can, of course, choose a middle ground and appoint as first minister some technocrat programmed for so-called unpopular measures, in order to then please the people with his shameful expulsion. But events can easily spin out of control. The system is rusty and can crumble from any shock.

The fate of the so-called Medvedev government is no less important. “So-called” because this is not one structure, but several departmental alliances, and they are not led by Medvedev at all, but partly by Putin, and partly they act autonomously - both according to their own understanding and in the interests of competing lobbying teams.

But while the prime minister is merely a symbol of government, his political disappearance would call into question all these intertwined ambitions, established governance practices and hard-won balances.

For example, does Putin want the “economic bloc” to fall (the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Economic Development and related departments, which, albeit with difficulty, work in conjunction with the Central Bank, which is nominally not part of the government)? After all, he is ideologically close to them, albeit not on all points. Connoisseurs economic history It’s not for nothing that Putin is recognized as a spontaneous adherent of mercantilism. There was such a doctrine in past centuries, which prescribed the accumulation of monetary reserves in the treasury, preventing the import of goods, relying on state business and not allowing large excess of expenses over income.

The “economic bloc”’s ideas about what it would be desirable to do are somewhat more sophisticated, but in reality it is pursuing exactly this course. Which the leader likes, but is not particularly popular in court circles, where many magnates feel deprived, and at the same time irritates the people more and more, since the burden of the austerity regime has shifted to him.

They say that " United Russia“at the May Day events she will praise Putin, expressively keeping silent about both Medvedev and the government, and the state-owned trade unions working in tandem with her will begin to defame the “economic bloc.” The suspended state of the former prime minister is already being exploited with might and main by fighters for tasty positions in the executive branch, without any signal from above.

Promoting this insignificant person in ancient times, Vladimir Putin, of course, did not imagine that the system would spontaneously turn him into its most important unit, the replacement of which promised so many problems, and, moreover, at the most inopportune time.

Sergey Shelin

In the past, Vladimir Putin has twice unexpectedly fired prime ministers before presidential elections in order to influence the results of the vote. It seemed that Dmitry Medvedev, the longest-serving incumbent since Putin came to power in 2000, would be the exception and might even hope to one day succeed Putin. However, Medvedev's rating is now falling amid allegations of corruption, which have given rise to the largest last years anti-Kremlin protests. As a result, the president may well get rid of this prime minister on the eve of the elections, UKROP writes with reference to inosmi.ru.

According to two of Medvedev's allies, the prime minister is now more worried about his political future than ever before. Two other sources close to the Kremlin say Medvedev could become more vulnerable closer to the upcoming March 2018 presidential elections. His ratings, already low due to two years of recession, fell 10 percentage points after the corruption scandal in March. According to a poll published April 5 by the independent Levada Center, it is now at a record low of just 42%. Meanwhile, Putin remains extremely popular, with a rating of 82%.

Getting rid of an unpopular prime minister seems like an obvious solution. A virtually guaranteed victory for Putin next year would mean his longest reign since Stalin. This is unlikely to encourage voter enthusiasm. Accordingly, changing the second number can create the impression that Putin is about to breathe into his government new life, and should boost turnout among voters angered by the longest economic downturn in two decades.

But Medvedev's resignation could also embolden Putin's opponents. We are mainly talking about activist and lawyer Alexei Navalny, who in early March released a documentary in which he accused Medvedev of acquiring expensive real estate in Russia and Italy. As stated in the film, $1 billion was spent on this, siphoned off by entrepreneurs close to Medvedev through fake charitable foundations. Putin cannot fire Medvedev “without thereby making a gift to Navalny,” notes Gleb Pavlovsky, who was a Kremlin adviser until 2011.

Navalny's video, which has been viewed approximately 20 million times on YouTube, sparked protests across the country on March 26. In more than 80 cities, it is believed that 60,000 people took to the streets. Some of them carried sneakers and rubber ducks in mockery of Medvedev, a reference to the prime minister's penchant for expensive sports shoes and the duck house said to decorate a pond on one of his estates. The scale of the rallies and the active participation of schoolchildren and students in them came as an unpleasant surprise to Putin, according to two sources familiar with the Kremlin's thinking. However, other sources close to the authorities deny that what is happening has caused alarm among the country's leadership. “Ratings rise and fall, this is a normal process,” says Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov about Medvedev’s falling popularity. However, he refused to answer the question of whether the prime minister still enjoys Putin’s full confidence. This week, another Levada Center poll showed that 45 respondents would approve of Medvedev's resignation and only 33% would be against it (the rest were undecided). “The Prime Minister does not attach much importance to the data of opinion polls, especially those conducted by the Levada Center on a very specific political order,” Natalya Timakova, Medvedev’s press secretary, said in response to this.

Medvedev is now 51 years old. From 2008 to 2012 he was president of Russia. Putin became prime minister at this time in order to circumvent the constitutional limit on the number presidential terms. At one time, Medvedev was considered a potential reformer. As a former practicing lawyer, he advocated for the rule of law and the protection of private business. In 2008, he declared that “freedom is better than lack of freedom” - and in Russia this sounded almost revolutionary. He also championed strengthening ties with the West and modernizing Russia's oil-dependent economy.

In 2010, during his visit to the United States, Medvedev visited Apple headquarters and tried to improve relations with Barack Obama, who treated him to burgers in Arlington and set himself up to “reset” relations with Moscow. However, Putin practically did not allow Medvedev - even as president - to change the system of Kremlin dominance. When Medvedev agreed (by some accounts reluctantly) to step aside so that Putin could return to the presidency the following year, his allies at home and abroad finally stopped believing in him. Medvedev's flirtation with the West ended in 2014, when Putin's annexation of Crimea and covert military intervention in Ukraine led to the worst standoff since the Cold War.

Medvedev has never ceased to be perceived as “Putin’s Batman-Robin” - this is how a 2008 American diplomatic cable published by WikiLeaks described their relationship. “Medvedev is considered a much softer and liberal figure than Putin, and therefore in the eyes of the majority of people who consider the main thing to be ensuring order in the country, he looks weaker,” says Deputy Director of the Levada Center Alexey Grazhdankin. Medvedev's personality as prime minister did not leave a serious imprint on politics. In addition, he is famous for his lack of political sensitivity. Speaking in Crimea last year, he brushed aside pensioners who complained that their pensions were not indexed to rising inflation, saying: “There is no money, but you are hanging in there.” This phrase immediately spread across the Russian Internet and even ended up in television comedy programs.

Medvedev's allies blame his problems on his Kremlin political opponents with ties to the security services, and in particular Igor Sechin, 56, the powerful head of the giant oil company Rosneft. Both Medvedev and Sechin worked for Putin back in the 1990s, when he was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. Sechin advocates state dominance in the economy and battles Medvedev and his fellow technocrats who champion freer markets. In 2016, Medvedev tried to stop Rosneft from buying a smaller rival company that was also state-controlled, but Putin ultimately supported Sechin.

Many around the president are worried that if something happens to Putin, according to the constitution, Medvedev will take his place. Of course, Putin, who by all indications is in good health, is not in immediate danger. However, those who fear that, once at the head of the country, Medvedev will take revenge on them, are still putting pressure on the president, seeking Medvedev’s removal, says political adviser to the Putin administration Sergei Markov. However, it is believed that there is some kind of informal agreement suggesting that Medvedev will retain his post until at least 2018. “Medvedev is Teflon,” says Markov. - He can withstand as many blows as he likes. I think he'll hold up."

Most likely, Putin will make a decision about Medvedev only closer to the elections, because “if this step is taken too early, it will not be effective,” said Alexei Chesnakov, a former senior Kremlin official who continues to advise the authorities. Medvedev's dismissal could become a real prospect "if the election campaign needs to be somehow revived."
At the same time, Medvedev is convenient for Putin as a “lightning rod” for discontent, allowing the president to remain above the fray, says political analyst Andrei Kolyadin, who previously also held a high position in the presidential administration. By dismissing Medvedev, Putin “may himself find himself under fire.”

The scandal through the eyes of experts and “participants in the events”

Alexei Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation published an investigation dedicated to Dmitry Medvedev. The main topic is real estate objects (they were filmed by quadcopters from a bird's eye view) belonging to funds and companies that, according to the authors of the publication, are associated with the Prime Minister.

This caused a predictable scandal. However, all the components of the scandal also do not go beyond the predictable.

Representatives of the authorities refuse to discuss the “delirium of a criminal” (quote from United Russia General Council Secretary Sergei Neverov). Navalny parodies the statements of his opponents and calls for voting for himself in the 2018 elections.

The only thing that is fundamentally new so far is the scale of suspicions leveled against the prime minister and the leader of the ruling party. Actually, this makes us wait for some other development of events. After all, according to the laws of dialectics, the amount of compromising evidence must sooner or later transform into a new quality of the political situation. In short, there are two pressing issues on the agenda: will Medvedev be removed and Navalny imprisoned? We asked well-known Russian experts and troublemakers themselves to answer these and a number of other questions.

“The struggle for the position of prime minister has intensified”

Valery SOLOVEY, professor at MGIMO, political scientist, historian.

- Many people see in Navalny’s investigation what we usually call a “leak.” Do you have a different opinion?

This is a natural assumption that cannot but arise in “Byzantine” Russian politics. But, judging by the nature of the film, work on it went quite well. long time. This is the fruit of serious work. The fact that someone from the competent authorities could know about this work but did not interfere is another matter. Of course, this may be beneficial for someone. It is believed that in Lately Medvedev's position had been somewhat shaken - even before the film appeared. The struggle for the position of prime minister has intensified: there are several people in the upper echelons of power who are vying for this position. In addition, Dmitry Anatolyevich has long-standing ill-wishers, very powerful and influential, who are fighting against him to the best of their ability. All this, I emphasize, does not mean at all that these people are, as we say, customers.

Navalny follows his political logic. It is transparent - to compromise the most prominent representatives of the elite. This causes: a) attention to you; b) if not panic, then confusion among the elite. This is always beneficial to the opposition, there is nothing so tricky here.

- Do the contenders for the prime minister's post expect to replace Medvedev after the presidential elections?

In most cases, the point is that the issue should be resolved before the elections.

- To what extent will Navalny’s investigation affect the prime minister’s political prospects?

It will have an effect, but in a paradoxical way. This will allow him to strengthen his position. Because the rule in power is: never retreat and never make excuses.

- So Navalny, it turns out, is strengthening Medvedev’s position?

In fact, yes, and this, by the way, is also an argument against the fact that someone allegedly ordered him to investigate. So I think, I’m even convinced that Navalny acted completely independently, following his own logic. Well, those who knew about it simply did not interfere.

What consequences could this have for Navalny himself? Today the question of whether he will be imprisoned or not will be actively discussed.

This would be stupidity on the part of the authorities. Thus, she would sign for the correctness of those accusations and hints that appear in the film. So of course she won't do it. Well, as for Navalny’s participation in the presidential elections, the issue, in general, has been resolved. I can say that even before the film there was a clear consensus on this issue in the corridors of power: Navalny should not be allowed to participate in the elections. And the scandal caused by the investigation will only “cement” this anti-Navalnov consensus.

- Well, what goals does Navalny himself pursue in this case? Short term, long term?

Navalny believes that the fight against corruption can bring political success. This is evidenced by the experience of a number of countries, including the USSR; one can recall Yeltsin’s revelations of the nomenklatura. But, in my opinion, the situation in Russia is different now. An anti-corruption campaign can and does attract some attention to the person who is doing it, and promotes recognition. But it does not automatically turn him into a serious political figure.

Corruption in Russia today is the norm. There is a mass belief that power - simply because it is power - has the right to be corrupt. And it even has to be corrupt. From my point of view, the opposition should formulate a different message to society, based not on the fight against corruption, but on something else. On certain basic interests of society, which are quite easy to read. However, Navalny prefers to follow an anti-corruption strategy. I repeat, it is not without meaning, but politically it does not look that effective.

Sergei MARKOV, General Director of the Institute for Political Studies.

- Is the FBK information its own investigation or a leak?

I’m almost sure that Navalny’s structures helped process the materials, but the primary information came from other sources that attack Medvedev. These could be political figures who want to replace the Prime Minister. But some believe: on the contrary, these are figures from the prime minister’s entourage who are interested in leaving him. After all, the president will never allow the removal of a person against whom an external attack has begun.

Perhaps it was, relatively speaking, the CIA or British intelligence that gave the material to Navalny, or perhaps someone is masquerading as the CIA and British intelligence. Perhaps this is some kind of revenge for the fact that Medvedev did not approve state support for some business projects. Latest version It seems to me the most plausible - practice shows that most of these types of conflicts are related specifically to business.

- How will the publication of the investigation affect Dmitry Medvedev’s career?

I think that Medvedev, or rather not even him, but one of the government departments, will be forced to provide a clear and precise explanation for all the assets that are mentioned in the investigation. But this most likely will not affect Medvedev’s political career.

- And if we talk about the influence on Navalny’s positions?

There is no legal way to interfere with Navalny’s publication; he cannot be prosecuted for libel. But he may become a personal enemy of Dmitry Medvedev... I do not expect any plus or minus for Navalny in terms of participation in the elections. But he attracted more attention to himself than he had before - in terms of positioning himself as the leader of the radical opposition against the authorities. I think that Kasyanov and Yavlinsky are jealous of Navalny.

Ilya SCHUMANOV, Deputy General Director of Transparency International-Russia, gave us a legal assessment of the FBK investigation:

In my opinion, there is potentially a situation of unresolved conflict of interest that is an offence. It concerns the relationship between the deputy chairman of the board of Gazprombank Ilya Eliseev and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev - both in the context of the existence of personal and friendly relations between them, and in the formal possibility of Mr. Medvedev’s influence on the organizations on the board of which Mr. Eliseev is.

It is extremely difficult to diagnose formal corruption violations in other stories. This raises more questions from the ethical side than from the legal side.

- Is it realistic to conduct an investigation due to a potential conflict of interest?

In Russian practice this is real. But Dmitry Medvedev is a political figure, he is the leader of the party, he is the prime minister. And Navalny is his opponent on the political agenda...

Strange parallels

The FBK investigation was published on March 2. Meanwhile, on February 15, “Interlocutor” published an article on its website under the heading “Medvedev’s GIFT. How are the prime minister and the financial-industrial group connected” - its structure is largely repeated in Navalny and Co. We talked about this strange coincidence, which made us talk about a centralized “leak,” with the author of the article in Sobesednik, deputy editor-in-chief Oleg Roldugin, and an employee of the FBK investigation department Georgy Alburov.

Oleg ROLDUGIN:

It's hard to believe, but we really worked in parallel, independently of each other. I don’t think that Navalny stole anything from me, although we wrote about many of the facts he mentioned in the film several years ago. He doesn't refer to them, but that's the format. There is another weak point in Navalny’s investigation, in my opinion - it mainly relies on photos from Instagram, geographical maps and extracts from official registers. However, there are not enough conversations with real people. In my next investigation on one of the topics raised by Navalny, there will be, for example, such a conversation, and I took up this topic even before Navalny.

- Still, what do you think, does Navalny collect information himself or do they bring him ready-made investigations?

He has all the information from open sources, why leak it - you just need to find it correctly.

Why did you take on Medvedev and right now, a year before the presidential elections? His supporters claim that all this is a deliberate “drain” of the prime minister...

A familiar topic. So there's nothing more to say. But in this case I didn’t understand what it had to do with presidential elections. Have we announced that Medvedev wants to compete with the president?

Question to Georgy Alburov:

- How do you explain the coincidences with the publication in Sobesednik? A coincidence seems unlikely to many.

Our investigation lasted six months: on several flights (of quadcopters over real estate - “MK”) everything was beautiful and green, very different from what is now visible on the street.

About the DAR fund (mentioned by FBK - "MK") They started writing back in 2011, they write about him regularly, but the same thing, without indicating a new texture. We learned about the Sobesednik investigation from the announcement of their article, and we were very nervous: someone had written to us before! But they only had one new part.

If you have been studying a topic for six months, then those at the top could not help but find out about it! It’s even easy to record the flights of quadcopters, not to mention wiretapping and so on.

Naturally, in our office everything is completely wiretapped. You just need to talk less and communicate more via secure means of communication. When we filmed with quadcopters, we were never caught. Perhaps they simply didn’t notice because the drone was flying high. Or one time we might have been noticed, but loud snow removal equipment was working nearby.

Read comments on the investigation by press secretary Dmitry Medvedev and press secretary of President Vladimir Putin.

Recently, in “opposition” media, such as “Echo of Moscow”, the Dozhd TV channel and publications similar in spirit, there has been a steady trend aimed at criticizing Dmitry Medvedev. The main complaints: failed promises when he was president, unfulfilled hopes for promoting democracy and too much dependence on Putin. All this adds up to a very ugly picture, depicting Medvedev as a puppet or, even worse, a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” They remember all his mistakes and mistakes, right up to his betrayal of the Motherland on the day “08/08/08.”

However, for some reason it is completely forgotten that it was this same Medvedev, contrary to the opinion of his patron, who began to stir up mossy topics: police reform, army reform, health care, education, justice, and even made attempts to curb corruption. No one had even lifted a finger before him. Something happened, for example, reforms in legal practice, for which the country's leading lawyers are grateful to Medvedev. We should be happy that at least someone at the top of power is speaking and trying to do things in the interests of democracy, and not to spread rot on people. One in the field is not a warrior and it is joyless to fight alone with the heavyweights of politics, and then they call him an almost worthless character, whom no one listens to, instead of supporting.

It’s probably not worth idealizing Medvedev, he is a product of his time, but at least he says something and makes problems public. It is expensive. Let’s say that Navlny or Gudkov comes to power, naturally, the implementation of the ideas of freedom will not work out for them right away. This means we need to throw slop at them, like “they are incompetent”, they have sold out, etc. Why is this or is there nothing more to say? Today, too, Ekho Moskvy rang the name of the ex-president and prime minister regarding the trial in the Yegorova case. Like he expressed an opinion about the severity of the punishment, but did not put pressure on the court, which means there is no weight. We must carefully treat personnel with whom at least some dialogue is possible, and not throw them aside. You see what will come out as a guide. But with us, everything is like in football, almost immediately “goat”. I won’t be surprised that for the sake of ratings, Chirikova will soon be laughed at if she becomes the mayor of Khimki and does not fulfill her promises. Criticism is criticism, but people who hold liberal views must be supported, otherwise their drive will disappear completely. Odes of praise should not be exaggerated, but they should not be ridiculed indiscriminately either. Otherwise, the question is – to whose mill, brother, are you pouring some water?

The Leninist revolutionaries went to anyone with whom, in their opinion, dialogue or compromise was possible, and did not give up their own. Of course, there is a problem in determining who owns Medvedev, but calling him a retrograde, a conservative, an empty nester is wrong, especially for those structures that fight for the interests of the people. Otherwise, they are empty nesters and pests, as it turns out.

I watched an investigative movie from blogger Alyosha Navalny. Unlike all of you, I am very meticulous when it comes to facts. I not only watched, but also rewatched the video two more times.

Navalny - for credibility, probably, and to warm up the lower craters-vents of office hamsters - every ten seconds yells into the camera on video: “Dmitry Medvedev’s secret real estate”, “we will show you”, “we will prove to you, because we have helicopter toy with movie camera.”

And Navalny really showed it. What exactly? Let's talk about this.

In the almost hour-long video, Alexey did not blink even once. When you watch the movie, pay attention to this. I showed the video to a friend, a narcologist, who, if you remember, diagnosed Bilan.

Video: YouTube

So, the verdict was disappointing: an unblinking gaze is characteristic of lovers of club drugs and cocaine.

However, this is just a detail.

Now about the “investigation” itself. I specifically put the word investigation in quotation marks because, apart from loud cries, there is no factual basis in this “investigation”.

What is there?

There is a certain Mr. Ilya Eliseev, who works as vice president of Gazprombank. Having collected a bunch of loans, Ilya organized several enterprise funds and purchased real estate with them:

Guest estates on Rublyovka and Sochi
-- two yachts
-- agricultural farm
- vineyards in Anapa and Tuscany
-- apartment house In St. Petersburg

All this, I emphasize, is not even the property of Eliseev himself, but of his funds.

At first glance, Ilya’s investments look strange - why the hell is he buying so much real estate? Should I salt it?

But Eliseev is far from a fool. It is quite obvious that he repays the loans and makes a profit from the business.

How?

It’s simple: senior officials, including Medvedev, need somewhere to rest. He can’t go to a simple sanatorium or rent a daily apartment on Irnby in Sochi.

At the same time, the budget cannot be spent endlessly on the purchase of state residences for officials. This is expensive and impractical. Yes, you and I will begin to be very indignant if, in addition to the existing dachas, they start building new ones.

And Eliseev, as a competent businessman, took advantage of this situation.

Ilya personally knows the prime minister, and therefore can probably approach him and offer him the option of relaxing at home.

Naturally, a bunch of security guards from the FSO will be brought to the site. The lawns will be ruined, someone will definitely shit under the Christmas tree on the beautiful landscape design. But there will still be a profit - the state will pay for the vacation of senior officials.

We are a country of sycophants. If the prime minister relaxes at Ilya Eliseev’s dacha, then all the ministers will immediately want to go there. And now the businessman will take the full price tag from them.

This is smart marketing and nothing more. Eliseev is not a fool, but a smart businessman.

But what about Navalny’s accusations that all the real estate actually belongs to Medvedev?

Sorry, I don’t believe in this. This is simply illogical.

Why the hell does a goat need an accordion, and Dimon needs a dacha in Tuscany? Neither he, nor his son, nor even future grandchildren will ever be able to use the vineyard in Italy. It is difficult to imagine Medvedev leaving for Europe after his official term expires.

Even if we assume that Medvedev is a corrupt official, he would not take in kind, not real estate, but purely money. Money is impersonal, but real estate is not.

The loud accusations of blogger Alyosha Navalny are just a show off. He never provided any facts. Just squeals that Medvedev ordered himself a pair of sneakers and two shirts to the address where Ilya Eliseev’s companies are located.

Well, Medvedev is not the one to order sneakers from the Kremlin! It is quite logical that you need to shop on the Internet to the address of a friend’s company. And he will bring clothes and receive money on the check.

In general, as always, the oppositionists crap their pants. They squealed loudly, and in the end - nothing.

Much more interesting in this whole scandal is another question: who ordered Medvedev to the dude with the unblinking cocaine stare? How do you think?