Last time I finished an article about the historical mission of Alexei Navalny with a promise to consider in the next part, why does this gentleman need the so-called "collective West". I keep my promise.
The answer should start from the very, seemingly, obvious step – determining the political views of our subject. But it is this, such an obvious step, diligently avoid all those, who publicly supports or simply sympathizes with Mr. Navalny. Why? Because it's ignoring – a consequence of the protective psychological reaction of people, who want to consider themselves decent by standards 21 century. After all, the biggest mistake (or a deliberate lie) will be attribution of Alexei Navalny to the so-called "Russian liberal opposition". From Navalny, kicked out of the Yabloko party for nationalism, the same liberal, like a hippo – ballerina of the Bolshoi Theater. Since the terms "liberal" and "nationalist" are at opposite poles of the political spectrum. And Mr. Navalny, the most real, one hundred percent, distilled Russian nationalist, winding up, what's your mussolini, crowds of skinheads and spiritual heirs of the Black Hundred pogromists from the rostrum of the "Russian March". Russian intellectual, and just a citizen, brought up in the conditions of Soviet internationalism, it is extremely uncomfortable to feel like standing on the same board with the marginal, stuffing stylized swastikas on the skin, and kicking Asians in the stomach with their fake Chinese "martens". Therefore, he subconsciously avoids thinking about the political credo of Alexei Navalny, which fully corresponds to the famous appeal of the latter to supporters: “You do not reflect, you spread ". But we, dear readers, we will not hide our heads under our wing and mindlessly "spread". We will continue to analyze the subject.
Nationalism comes in two varieties: isolationist and expansionist. Navalny, without any doubt, professes the second. During the Russian-Georgian military conflict, he unconditionally supported the actions of the Russian leadership and called the Georgians "rodents". In an interview, he casually denied the Ukrainian people the right to exist, and fully supported the rejection of Crimea from Ukraine, stated, that "Crimea is not a sandwich", to return it. And here we are faced with an interesting (albeit imaginary) paradox. Indeed, if the foreign policy position of the imperial nationalist Navalny is no different from that of the Kremlin, why on earth does the West support him so?!
This little chest, dear readers, opens extremely easy. The worst dream for the collective West is the abandonment of the authoritarian model, democratic Russia. Paradox again? Not at all. The West seeks to democratize Russia solely in words, within the framework of beautiful gestures of goodwill and good wishes. Because the real, not fake democratization of the country, possessing such colossal human and natural resources, will transform, one side, Russia into a dangerous economic competitor for the EU and the USA, a, with another, will knock out of the hands of Western hypocrites all reasons for imposing sanctions. Our Western friends do not need such a competitor at all. We need a familiar, ineffective authoritarian (totalitarian?) bear. A kind of eternal Infant Terribl, resource and brain provider, which can be whipped with economic whip, sometimes allowing the beast to frolic in the plots, do not threaten the well-being of Europe and the United States (hello to the citizens of Georgia and Ukraine).
Mr. Navalny is an ideal candidate for such a scenario of the role-playing game "The Great Mather Russia". He not only fails to democratize Russia (apart from democratization, an indicative reprisal against his current persecutors), but will also weaken it, inevitably unleashing a new war in the Caucasus (remember his slogan “Stop feeding the Caucasus!»). Well, and when the war is on, until democratic reforms? The nation will have to rally around the body of the Emperor! And stuff like "God, king of food "on the background of insignia: two bloody axes - one for the external enemies of the Russian Empire, the other is for internal. What do you think?