“Russia has been unable to cope with freedom” - By Ilya Milstein

Special for NT

Vladimir Voinovich: “Russia has been unable to cope with freedom”

By Ilya Milstein
September 2006
Source

The country will not go back to the Soviet system. But it could return to a more distant past, even to monarchy, says the author of “The Soldier Ivan Chonkin” and “Moscow-2042”.

In an article published by the German magazine Der Spiegel recently, Vladimir Voinovich supposed that Russia would become a monarchy again. The author is not the first to say this. A monarchy is against the constitution, however, his words should be heeded. The point is that so far his forecasts have very often come true.

For example, at the very low point of stagnation he predicted the speedy and inevitable collapse of the Soviet Empire. And some time later, contemplating the future, he discerned the figure of a new leader in it. He would be a relatively young man who had taken an active part in the “August revolution” of 1991, spoke good German, had served in the KGB and had been its agent in Germany. All this was said by the writer back in 1985.

In short, there is every reason to talk with Vladimir Voinovich about the future of Russia, especially on the eve of the parliamentary elections, let’s hope not the last ones.

I read your article in German. Was I correct to have understood that the era of democracy in our country is coming to an end?

Yes, if it has not ended already. All our democratic institutions are playing an ever greater ritual role. Elections have become so well-regulated that they resemble those in Soviet times. Of course, there is a difference: under Brezhnev there was only one candidate. Moreover, there was a humiliating addition on the ballot: “Cross out all the other names”. Today, the authorities allow us to have certain variety, but hint rather firmly who should be crossed out and who left.

Kadyrov, for example?

Yes, his election was a sheer farce. The real candidates were removed and the remaining ones were told to play the role of rivals. If I had been the winner, I would have given a ram to each one who had lost.

Freedom within reasonable bounds

Our president said recently that there has never been freedom in Russia, so there is nothing to regret. Do you agree with him?

Partly. There was freedom after the tsar’s manifesto of 1905 and after February 1917, there was quite a bit of freedom under Gorbachev, and complete freedom under Yeltsin, but it didn’t take root. Russia was unable to cope with freedom. I deeply regret to conclude that the country is not ready for freedom yet. So I shall not argue with Putin on this score. But I have to emphasize that I myself am a freedom-loving person and supporter of democracy. But I don’t engage in wishful thinking, I am a realist. Realizing our unpreparedness for freedom, the president should be (if he could) leading society to democracy. He should be keeping society on a leash, but not shortening it too much. Whereas he and his team have not so much led the country as are led by the circumstances.

Are democracy and freedom the same thing?

In the West they are inseparable. It’s not the same here. In tsars’ times there was sometimes more freedom than at present, and much more than under the communist regime. After the reforms of Alexander II, there was freedom of speech, freedom to travel from and to Russia, private enterprise and, of course, freedom of artistic creativity. But there was no democracy until 1905 and only partial democracy before the February revolution, but after it there was an avalanche of freedom, so much of it that Russia became fed up with it and burst. All talked and did whatever they wished and no one answered to anybody. This situation brought the country to a catastrophe and the establishment of a totalitarian system. At present, as far as I understand, the authorities have taken the following approach: suppressing democracy and leaving freedom in reasonable proportions. When freedom of speech hurts the image of the president, it is suppressed, and when it does not affect it much, free thinking is allowed. Say, the TV channels which criticized Putin have been taken off the air, but some critically-minded newspapers still exist. However, the bosses are already beginning to look on them with disapproval. This is the way it is with any administration: when it begins to suppress, it gets carried away with the process and cannot stop.

So are we going back to a monarchy or to the Soviet regime?

The Soviet regime was totally unreasonable. It made life unbearable also because it penetrated virtually everything: it prohibited reading, writing, thinking. Each scientist, scholar or artist had a watchdog who told him what could be done and what shouldn’t. It seems to me that now the authorities have gone in the opposite direction: they have appropriated the realm of politics and do not allow citizens, even quite influential and respectable ones, to engage in politics without permission. But everything outside it is almost neglected.

In other words, civil society has been done away with almost completely. A political career now requires submitting to certain rules and strict code of behaviour.

Yes, this is so. Only yesterday a man could independently put forward his candidacy and directly address the people and society. Now the situation has evidently changed. But the point is that there were so many scoundrels, crooks, thieves and other criminals among the political figures of yesterday whom voters believed, that today people are not so touchy about infringement of their democratic rights, especially in the provinces. The Czechs or Poles are in a better position. Their electorate is homogeneous, their countries are small and it’s easier to reach an agreement. Whereas we have one Russia in Moscow, another in Yakutia, still another in Daghestan, etc., etc. So if a man undertakes to rule this country, he must take into account all these distinctions and the diversity of the electorate. Monarchic rule in such a country is simpler and more effective, and Putin is a pragmatist.

Weak tsars are not liked

It is believed that our last tsar was Boris Yeltsin. But he was a weak and unloved tsar. Why didn’t we love him?

We didn’t love him because he was weak. Weak tsars were never loved in Russia. They were murdered. Paul I was killed and Peter III was killed because both were weak. And strong tsars were glorified. Alexander II was a liberal and reformer. But he was killed by revolutionaries after several persistent attempts. Incidentally, one of the first persons to make an attempt on his life was named Berezovsky – he shot at the tsar in Paris. But nobody attempted to kill Nicholas I (the Decembrists’ revolt was rather an attempt on the state, after the reign of the kind-hearted tsar Alexander I). Nobody dared raise his hand against Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great, or Stalin. But soon after the reformer Gorbachev came to power, a certain Shmonov made an attempt on his life. As for Yeltsin, he was attacked by the entire parliament. He created democratic institutions and tried to preserve them. This was immediately taken for a sign of weakness. I remember Stanislav Govorukhin speaking on TV and castigating President Yeltsin as a vicious and revengeful person with dictatorial ways. He said that those who dared speak against him were doomed. “Where are they now, all his enemies?” Govorukhin asked pathetically. And the viewers had the impression that they all had been shot or put in prison. But they all, including Govorukhin himself, are now sitting just where they were – in parliament or elsewhere, safe and sound. They only raised their rating by criticizing Yeltsin.

However, the tsar would become angry sometimes and begin to shoot his enemies. But this did not frighten either the people or the politicians for some reason. He was not liked all the same.

You know, if he had indeed shot the people in parliament, he would have been loved. Just as Lenin who disbanded the Constituent Assembly, or Stalin who shot almost all the delegates to the “Congress of Victors”. Both of them are loved to this day. But Yeltsin allowed his enemies who had organized an armed mutiny to be released from prison and take their seats again in the very same parliament. Despite his stern appearance and outward grandeur, he was weak, and everybody saw it. First, he was a sick man, secondly, he drank too much, and thirdly he put too much trust in unworthy people, especially such persons as Korzhakov, Barsukov and Grachev, not to speak of business tycoons. The treasury was plundered under his very nose, while he worked on documents. He had a weakness for luxury as any weak tsar does, and this was especially disgusting in the context of his promises to do away with privileges and after his ostentatious rides on municipal transport. Real villains are much more ascetic.

People from the crowd

If one is to believe Putin, the Yeltsin era was a time when everything was permitted. Is this so?

Yes, everything was permitted, indeed, but there was also freedom. Whereas now there are problems with freedom. Comparing this situation with that in Germany I can say that in Munich you may go out in the street and shout “Down with Schroeder!” or “Long Live Schroeder !” and no one, not even the authorities, would give a damn about it. Whereas I’d be rather cautious and refrain from shouting “Down with Putin!” in Moscow, but by glorifying Putin I could hope to get something useful in return.

There is the view that the 1990s were the most full of hope years in the history of Russia. Because there was freedom, no matter what President Putin said.

Of course, those years were the happiest ones for certain sections of the population – for the intelligentsia, writers, journalists and criminals. But how many people were killed in broad daylight (and they are bumped off at any time now). Journalists, too, took advantage of freedom. Among them were good and bad ones, those who wrote untruthful articles to fill some order and out-and-out scoundrels. I have never read so much sleeze about myself, much more than in Soviet times. These “free” journalists did not criticize my books, but concocted malicious calumny. Of course, they were happy to be able to go about unpunished for slandering someone.

It is possible to lie freely today, too. Don’t you now gloat over these journalists: well, you were unable to use freedom in a proper manner, then get along with your Putin, if you like…

Not at all. Free journalism, even untruthful, is better than the untruthful Soviet journalism. But freedom should not tolerate downright lies and slander. And the libelled person should be entitled to legal protection. Dishonest journalists can be found everywhere, but there are more of them in the Russian press in this country and abroad. For example, when perestroika started and I realized that it was a serious undertaking, I began to say and write (in the Novoye russkoye slovo, among other publications) that democratization in the USSR was a historic and serious process and there would be no going back. Incidentally, these words of mine were noticed by the editor-in-chief of New Times, Alexander Pumpyansky, perhaps the only journalist to do so at the time. And most emigrant newspapers raised hue and cry that I intended to gain favour with Gorbachev, and other nonsense. I even won several bets on perestroika with local Soviet affairs analysts, 100,000 marks from some person, and a house in London from another.

Did you receive the winnings?

No. I didn’t manage to become rich off perestroika. I think that now Russia is turning off the road to democracy, but it will not return to the Soviet past. However, it could return to a more distant past, even to a monarchy. There has been too much corruption and crookedness to be able to switch over to normal life smoothly and rapidly.

Aren’t you being too pessimistic? In the 1990s, the Russian people put up barricades to oppose the GKChP, set up democratic parties and sometimes elected decent persons to parliament…

Who do you mean?

Sakharov, Kovalyov, Starovoitova, Zolotukhin, Molostvov, Yushenkov…

And how many of them were there? Yes, in the beginning people sometimes elected romantics and decent persons, but there were more thieves and crooks. Including some of those who pretended to be democrats, but turned out to be scoundrels and bribe-takers. And there were many former KGB men among them, open and hidden, who did what they were asked by the now victorious party. In general, the beginning of any revolution is a wonderful time, a feast for the soul. It is possible to kick up rows, win glory and remove and destroy monuments. But this does not mean that those who can be seen on the rostrums are the noblest and cleverest people in the country.

And those who are bold enough to go out to a meeting for the first time and fight for their rights, aren’t they worthy of respect? There were so many of them at the beginning of perestroika…

I remember that time. It seems to me it was in May 1990. I had come to Moscow again, and having the status of a foreigner stayed at the Intourist hotel in Gorky Street. In the morning I went out and stood on the sidewalk watching a demonstration. I was shown on Moscow TV several times and some people recognized me and asked me to join their ranks. But I refused, because I don’t like to march in a column. However, it was quite interesting to watch what was going on. It was a mixed crowd: some carried anarchist posters and banners, others portraits of Gorbachev, and still others portraits of Stalin. And suddenly, some bold man shouted “Down with the KGB!” And the crowd chimed in, but very low and hesitatingly at first.

Did you like it?

It seemed very strange, to say the least.

Bootlicking nauseates me

When did it become clear to you that we have unresolvable problems with democracy?
There has not really been such a moment as yet. Perhaps I am coming to this conclusion only now. Simply, it is becoming more and more evident now. It began at the time of the onslaught against NTV. But since there is so much crookedness here, it was difficult for me to feel sorry for Gusinsky, closing my eyes on his dubitable past, his close relations with the KGB General Filipp Bobkov, and his shady financial deals…

Did that bother you? Why? After all, early capitalism in any country is inseparable from financial abuse. I remember Henry Ford once said that he was ready to answer for all his capital…

…But for the first million. Yes, I also remember this. It means that in the interests of political pragmatism the state should pardon such millionaires, but I am not a state and don’t have to respect embezzlers and thieves, no matter whether they are people like Ford, or those who have stolen just one dollar. But the state should have done some thinking before taking on the business tycoons. I don’t know how Khodorkovsky earned his first million, but I believe that his company was the most transparent in Russia and he gave financial support to educational programmes and contributed to the development of democratic processes. I myself have taken a modest part in some of his programmes. I don’t know whether he was doing things right or wrong, but I frown on his support of the communists (if there was such support). It was not politics, but intrigue. In any case, one thing is clear: he has greatly displeased somebody and is not being persecuted for what he has been accused of but for another reason.

Four years ago we racked our brains over the question “What was Mr. Putin?” Do you have a better idea of him today?

To some extent, yes. He seems to me a reasonable and cynical person. His initial aim was to establish order in the country and strictly observe it, without crossing the boundary separating freedom from non-freedom. Now he sometimes crosses it. Besides, since man is weak, he succumbs to flattery. Toadying has become so widespread now that it makes one sick. But Putin is in no hurry to put a stop to it or to restrict it, at least. He could have explained to his voluntary lackeys that a portrait of the president should only be hung in some important government offices, not everywhere. It’s a bad sign when the president’s portraits and words are hung on the walls of the Moskva hotel which is being pulled down, and also on the stage of a theatre during a concert on the occasion of Militia Day.

Of the “People and Party are indivisible” type?…

Yes. Incidentally, that reminds me of what happened to my late friend, Georgy Vladimov. Once when he was very drunk he was speeding down Kutuzovsky Prospekt in his small Zaporozhets car. I was following in a similar car. At the intersection there was a concrete structure on which the slogan “People and Party are indivisible!” was painted. Georgy rammed head-on into the structure at a speed of 100 km per hour. He escaped death by sheer miracle, having felt the real nature of that unbreakable union on his own skin. Of course, the slogan remained intact.

You will notice that Putin is liked not only by the officials of high, middle and low rank. Quite popular cultural figures, too, vow their love and fidelity to the president, accompany him on his tours, and take pride in him. Is this love or calculation?

This is disgraceful. They flatter him in such a way that to watch it from the side is simply disgusting. I once saw a TV programme with Alexander Rosenbaum who has known Putin from the time when he lived and worked in St.Petersburg. At first he said that the president is maturing and becoming more experienced before our very eyes. Then the host of the programme asked him about what kind of a man he had been previously when he had worked under Sobchak. The singer said: “He was a very good guy, although, of course, he had, like any man, his own…” I stood stock-still, thinking he would say “merits and shortcomings” But he paused and ended: “…characteristic traits”. Because one could talk about merits, but it would be better to keep mum about the shortcomings. Is this love or calculation? I think both.

Is this love sincere?

You know, Putin is loved throughout the country, and Luzhkov is loved in Moscow as deeply as Putin. And cultural figures are in the lead in expressing these overwhelming feelings. This love is indeed sincere, but only as long as the given man holds his post. As soon as he is removed or leaves it of his own accord, this feeling will disappear. Once I met Mikhail Gorbachev and asked him whether the Mikhalkovs had played up to him. And he said: “But they did it to so many people, one can hardly count them…” Today we see who they still love and who not.

Is this love for a pedestal or for the person?

For the person on the pedestal. Besides, when a cultural figure flatters or bootlicks the mayor or the president, he hopes to get something in return. And he does get it, and loves them still stronger. I am quite familiar with this wheel of feelings, although I have not reached great heights. But as soon as I become a member of some panel of judges, I immediately see that the love for me on the part of writers or actors becomes stronger.

Love and the Constitution

A month ago, a respectable literary figure, when asked about the worthiest candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize, named Putin. He probably had in mind his peacemaking successes in Chechnya. Is this love or simply a pathological case?

I think both. You see, our intellectuals like to talk about their own achievements. In reality (and here I fully agree with Alexander Solzhenitsyn), a considerable part of our intelligentsia consists of spongers. That was the case in Soviet times and it is the same nowadays. But the real Russian intelligentsia is represented by teachers, rural doctors, librarians and museum curators, that is, one of the poorest sections of the population who are outside politics. Sometimes they go on strikes or declare hunger strikes, protesting their miserable salaries, which are not paid on time. They are not friends of the powers that be, and the latter tend to ignore them. These people do their jobs calmly and conscientiously, but it is they who make Russia what it is. As for the so-called artistic elite…

Well, all right with Putin, but just look what’s going on with Luzhkov. A book written by the mayor came off the press, then members of the elite went all out to show their admiration and praise it to the skies. They are so full of love for the powers that be they are about to squeal. All these actors, directors, singers, folk choirs, and what not are competing with one another in expressing their love…

Where have our intellectuals got this habit of brown-nosing from? After all, they don’t have to fear arrests, bans on books or theatre productions, etc. any longer.

Toadying exists not only due to fear. It comes from the desire to receive something from the generous hand of the master. And sincere desire turns into sincere feeling. As for fear, it does exist today, but it is the fear of failing to grab something, in which case it will be grabbed by others.

In other words, society in the person of its best members is ready for songs of praise and prayers of thanks. What do you think would start the restoration of the monarchy? So far Putin, referring to the Constitution, has rejected even the proposals to prolong the president’s term of office.

Yes, but a Constitution can be amended from time to time. This is done even in the United States, but very rarely. Moreover, the Constitution needs some amendments. But what kind of amendments is another matter. And they must be voted for by the people.

But they’re sure to vote as they are told…

You are right there. As for Putin, almost on the first day of his coming to power he was asked whether he had ever thought of becoming president. He answered that he had never dreamed of this even in a nightmare. And I believe him. I believe that he was at a loss and feared taking such a great burden of responsibility on himself. This is a terrible burden for any person. Of course, later on people become unwilling to part with this burden, but at first they are naturally shy. All the more so Putin who was very little prepared for this new job: from being a petty government official he soared to such great heights in just several years’ time.

However, he has got used to this position.

Yes, he wields the levers of power quite confidently, true, sometimes he goes too far. But if one supposes that he has already learned to think strategically, why hurry up developments… He has been asked to prolong his term of office, but he refuses, thinking of his rating. Why change the law in order to please the president in office. People like it. Putin is a modest person. The modesty of the leader wins over the citizens. They forgive him his riding in a luxury car and living in a palatial mansion, because they see that he revels in power much less than, say, Yeltsin. Although the terrible traffic jams caused by the president’s car coming and going cause deep irritation: here the new president does not differ from the previous one. By the way, the US president is usually taken to the White House by helicopter. I think that our president should do the same.

Today Putin has a high rating thanks to his personal popularity and some improvement in the economy. It is largely due to the high prices of oil, which were catastrophically low in Yeltsin’s time. It’s absolutely clear that the newly elected parliament will go along with Putin.

What about his entourage?

There is the view that the new parliament will be more oppositional than the previous one, with the communist members playing a greater role in it.

This is a widespread delusion that the Communists will always be in opposition to the Kremlin. If they score success in the elections Putin will summon Zyuganov and say several simple words to him. The latter will say “Yes, sir”, and the Communist Party will be an obedient pro–presidential party like the United Russia party. Do you think that the Communists are guys with strong principles? Besides, the parliament has long been deprived of any real power, and so it would be absolutely senseless to oppose the Kremlin. Perhaps, some outcasts like Limonov could kick up a row, but not the Communists – they are sensible, experienced and cowardly people.

I agree with you on one point: there are no principal ideological differences between the Communists and Putin. Stalin’s Anthem, the war on the “tycoons”, the restriction of democratic freedoms, and iron fist – all these words are from the communist parlance and in their style. In essence, Putin is implementing the programme of the Communist Party, so it will be more and more difficult for Zyuganov to argue with him in the communist jargon. Another language should be sought.

All this has nothing to do with the programme of the Communist Party. The Communists are flexible enough and will be able to adapt their programme to anything.

Generally speaking, this parliament, whether with the Communists or not, will be a rubber stamp one like the previous parliament. But the proposals to prolong the president’s term of office or allow him to be elected for a third, or even a fourth time will persistently be put forward. Then they’ll begin to bring pressure to bear on Putin. The point is that his team will not wish to quit along with him leaving their lucrative posts and privileges. When Putin has to leave he will only be 55, and it is not an age to abandon power. But the comfortable status of an ex-president with a country house, household staff and VIP treatment, bodyguards, legal immunity and excellent food will be a consolation for him. He will be able, like Gorbachev, to set up a foundation and travel all over the world. Or do carpenter work like Jimmie Carter. Or again get a job in the KGB. But what will the people from his team do? They will not be old either when the president leaves office. The new president will most probably fire them, they will not have legal immunity, and this means that they are now thinking about the year 2008 with anxiety. So it’s quite possible that they will talk Putin into staying on. As for the people who will have to vote for the corresponding amendments to the Constitution, there is no need to explain how it will be arranged.

First, the lower house of parliament will vote for a referendum, then the upper one. Then the Church will appeal to citizens to support the will of their deputies, then the Mosque and the Synagogue will do the same. Cultural figures will follow suit…

The latter will be the first. But the extension of authority is not a solution to the problem. Electing Putin tsar looks much more tempting and simpler – there would be no need to spend time, money, and effort on elections. This suggestion has already been voiced by Pavel Borodin, a trail-blazer. Perhaps this idea came to him while sitting in prisons abroad. Today he holds the post of the state secretary of the Union of Russia and Belarus, so his imperial ambitions go far beyond the boundaries of the country, coinciding with the borders of the Russian Empire. Cultural figures, too, have long been speaking of monarchy as the most natural form of rule for Russia. They say that “from time immemorial we have been Orthodox Christian and God-fearing people”.

Aren’t they right?

You’re kidding! And who destroyed the churches or turned them into pigsties and storage-houses for potatoes and vegetables. Priests were always mocked. And now religion has come back as something fashionable. However, the high church hierarchs are not trusted even by their congregations, for many of them cooperated with the KGB and some were even rank-and-file officers there.

Monarchic propaganda

Nevertheless, do you have any doubt that the monarchic idea will be supported by the broad popular masses?

The broad popular masses will support anything if they are ably manipulated. If one has the mass media under control, it is very simple. The main thing is to put forward the idea of a monarchy. Then to begin discussing it on TV and in the newspapers. Have two, three, or ten talk-shows hosted by Savik Schuster or Svetlana Sorokina on the subject: “Monarchy in Russia. Why Not?” Then this discuission will be taken up by other TV channels, and it will suddenly become clear that this idea has many supporters in the country. A countrywide discussion will follow, with numerous writers, artists, actors, scientists and scholars, priests, and others taking part in it. Many will speak ardently and sincerely in support of the idea, trying to prove to the people that a monarchy, dear comrades, is a very good thing, it should not be feared, and it is quite compatible with freedom and democracy. You will agree that the Patriarch will support the idea. The Duma and the Federation Council will approve it. The generals, too, will agree, for it will be quite pleasant to call themselves “tsarist generals”, especially if their salaries are raised some more… As for the secret services, the former KGB men will speak of the glorious traditions of the Third Department (secret police) and will suggest that Lubyanskaya Square be renamed Benkendorf Square even though it is the monument to Dzerzhinsky that will be restored. In general, the only thing remaining to do will be to hold a referendum.

But there are quite a few people in Russia who would be horrified by all this.

No, few people would be shocked. And what’s the reason to be horrified? It will be explained to them that the idea of autocracy does not contradict the idea of personal freedom, although it does restrict certain democratic freedoms. But what of it… A number of European countries will be cited as an example where monarchy coexists quite nicely with democracy -- Great Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden…

But would Putin agree to play the role of the Queen of England?

No, he would not. But it will be explained to the people that we have other traditions and this is why the Russian tsar should have more power than the British monarch. Traditions should be respected and adhered to. And it should be borne in mind that an autocratic monarchy in Russia would be worse than Western democracy, which is unattainable for Russia at the present stage, but it would be better than the Soviet regime and better than the anarchy which may start in the country, should the government become weaker.

And what about the West? Our friends, George, Tony, Gerhard and Silvio may not duly appreciate the grandeur of this scheme and become disappointed…

Our new monarchic propaganda machine will take them in stride. They will be assured that our monarchy will respect private property and freedom of speech and human rights, to a reasonable degree, though. (And you, Silvio, are no angel yourself…) Under a tsar Russia will become a predictable state, loyal to the West, but let no one interfere in our internal affairs. And then the autocracy can be sure of victory at the referendum. There will be spectacular celebrations on the occasion of the coronation at the Assumption Cathedral in the Kremlin, popular festivities and rejoicing all over Russia.

Well, supposing we elected a tsar and crowned him. What next?

Then comes a long interval and much later the 300th anniversary of the Putin dynasty. Do you want me to look one thousand years ahead?

But we should also talk about succession to the throne, shouldn’t we?

These are details. Putin’s eldest daughter will become the Empress. She may not be in any way inferior in her talents to our great tsarinas, and the era of her reign may be softer than that under her strict and mistrustful father. Incidentally, Putin is young enough to produce a son, at least a test-tube one.

Hearing your ironic predictions one may fall into despair. Is Russia so hopeless, indeed?

There is always hope. Take Japan, for example. It was also hopeless until it lost the war. Then it became a normal, enlightened, well-developed Western country (although geographically it is in the Far East). Russia, too, if the end of the world does not come (there is such a danger, especially if terrorism and science unite in their deadly pursuits), will be moving in the direction of European civilization, although in zigzags and more slowly than I expected.

Aren’t you afraid that your prediction will come true? As we know, monarchy in Russia is no guarantee from catastrophes.

If I say that it will snow tomorrow, it does not mean that the snow will fall as a result of my efforts or my wish. I simply look at the situation and see that Putin today can allow himself everything and he will have everything he wishes. It is not excluded that he will refuse to extend his term of office, all the more so to ascend the tsar’s throne. But he has much food for thought and time to make decisions.