High stakes message – Picture of the day – Kommersant

Over the years of working as a journalist, I have formed the impression that, in most cases, the expectation of a presidential address to the Federal Assembly has always been more intriguing than its announcement itself. Of course, on the day of the message, it was always covered by all the media, and the experts interpreted the main theses. But the peak of the discussion, paradoxical as it may seem, still often fell on the time before the message, and not after. And there is a very understandable explanation for this.

The first is technical. While there is no message, the field for guessing when it will be and what will be in it is much wider. Greater intrigue always opens up more opportunities for commentators. The number of articles, columns, posts in social networks really tends to infinity. And after the message is delivered, the field of its interpretation becomes limited, as well as the number of lines in it, recorded on the official website of the Kremlin.

But there is, in my opinion, a reason and, let’s say, a semantic one. Why, in the political tradition of recent years, does the president’s message to the chambers of the Federal Assembly have such significance at all?

The current system of making key decisions is always tied to one person, the president. Only his word becomes final.

For other actors, the struggle for this or that turn of events is more behind the scenes than public. They really cannot unambiguously predict anything until the president has his say. In this system, the speech of the person who makes decisions on all key issues really takes on special significance. And such a large-scale speech on all pressing issues, like a message, becomes the cornerstone of the future life of both the system and society: it is hard to disagree with those experts who say that the message in our political tradition is addressed not only to deputies and senators, but to everyone to Russians it is like a sketch of the tactical and strategic plans of the Russian authorities, a drawing of some image of the future, even if it is the nearest one.

So why, then, is this already formalized plan causing less discussion than its expectation? It’s all about the main value that our government traditionally puts at the forefront of society’s life – stability. It implies the rejection of any revolutionary steps, a systematic commitment to the current way of life, the chosen path. In such a situation, the image of the future is not supposed to be resonant. It should be more soothing. Therefore, it is possible to assume resonant, significant changes before the message, and only then it draws a final line under them.

However, this time it seems that the situation is a little different. There is less interpretational excitement around the message. I do not think that this is due to the fact that experts and journalists do not have thoughts about its likely content. Rather, the reason is that everyone understands how high the stakes are in the words that we will hear next Tuesday.

The message cannot fail to include the topic of a special military operation and related events. Moreover, it will most likely determine the vector of logic for the further actions of the Russian authorities.

This is indeed the same bifurcation point, from which the system can exit in completely different ways. And when the meaning of the words is so high, guessing about the specific content of the message is perhaps even scary.

Recently, a friend of mine, who has nothing to do with politics, refused to discuss plans for the summer. No one can know what will happen in the coming days, he explained. Actually, this is consistent with the picture that political scientists and sociologists are now painting at public events: for the most part, people are afraid to make plans for the future. As was said at one of the round tables, they do not even want to think about the federal agenda.

To some extent, they again want the same thing that the message brought before: a new stability and normalcy. Can the message bring them? And is it possible? And is there such an intention at all? Indeed, in addition to those who speak of the need to give society and the economy the opportunity to adapt to this new reality, there are also loud voices demanding further mobilization in every sense. Which scenario will be chosen and whether a path between them is possible, we will find out on Tuesday.