Aggression against Ukraine Russia has driven itself to a dead end. The period after 2014 is marked not only by isolation, economic sanctions and other troubles in the international arena, but also by profound negative transformations within the country itself. Semi-criminal elements felt themselves "the creators of the new policy," and today the Kremlin is forced to pay them a "tribute".

On the new entrance of Putin to the Kremlin "on a white horse" as a result of the next presidential election today, it does not go. Unsuccessful attempts to get out of the Crimean-Donbass stalemate return boomerang. The Russian authorities "wallow in the swamp" and are increasingly bogged down in it.

This convinced the Russian and American historian, art and culture theorist, philosopher, film critic, philologist, professor of New York University, Mikhail Yampolsky.

We bring to your attention the first part of his interview for "Observer".

- In Russia, the pre-election campaign was launched de facto. In your opinion, does Vladimir Putin intend to enter the Kremlin on a white horse this time, winning in the first round? What can he do for this?.

- I think now the Kremlin is taking a painful decision about what to do. Of course, there is no choice, and Putin will go on the next term - I almost do not doubt it. But it is quite obvious that both the Kremlin and Russia as a whole are in a state of deep crisis. I do not see the opportunity for Putin to enter anywhere else on a white horse. I do not see any special prospects for arranging any indicative victory, except for the Victory Day parade on Red Square.

I have a feeling that what we accept as victories has long been no victories. This is all the time an attempt to somehow get out of the impasse in which Russia itself has driven itself, in fact, in 2014, since the annexation of the Crimea and the beginning of the war in the Donbass. It seems to me that since then all of Russia's behavior is dictated by hopeless attempts to get out of this impasse, and not by the desire for some special victories.

Look at what happens to Russia - they are bogged down in this situation even more than Ukraine, although both Russia and Ukraine are equally affected. Russia was in political isolation, in a state of strong economic crisis. But that's not the point. The fact is that the country's prospects have significantly decreased.

What was the Donbass for Russia? It was an absolutely insane attempt to reshape the Ukrainian map and change something there, pull Ukraine away from NATO, from Europe. All this, in general, was not justified. But there was a very severe deformation within Russia itself, because this war, especially in the Donbass, started by the Gopnik, all these Girkins, Zakharchenko and so on, gave a huge weight to this kind of element inside Russia itself.

If you look at what happened in the Russian cultural and social landscape, then you will see that these semi-criminal elements, which never had much importance and were kept under control, now felt strong - they felt themselves creating the new policy. I believe that today the Kremlin pays them tribute - just as it pays tribute to Kadyrov for the adventure in Chechnya. He begins to pay tribute to these semi-criminal gopnik within the country itself.

Under the weight of all this, a profound transformation of Russia itself takes place. All these attempts to intervene in elections in the US or in France with the help of hackers are in fact attempts to solve a problem they can not solve: the problem of sanctions. They expect that, perhaps with the help of such adventures, they will be able to bring to power the politicians close to them who will be able to abolish these sanctions. All this - endless attempts to get out of the Donbass and Crimean impasse. To some extent, Syria also appears as an attempt to solve the problem created by the Donbas.

But it seems to me that all these failed or badly successful attempts are all the time returned by the boomerang. For example, as with Trump - the whole story unfolds in a completely unanticipated plane. The Russian authorities continue to flounder in the swamp in which they climbed, move farther and farther and more and more drown in it.

Therefore, when you talk about a "white horse" ... It seems to me, for them now the main problem is how to get out of the swamp, and not how to enter the Kremlin on a white horse.

I think that the authorities understand that while Putin is in office and as long as this policy does not change, there is very little chance of getting out of this swamp. Therefore, there is such a dramatic conflict with these elections. So I do not see any prospects for some triumphs.

- In Ukraine, it is often possible to hear forecasts that are very encouraging for Ukrainians - that the Putin era is almost over, its regime has exhausted itself, it is about to fall ... Do you believe that a change of power in the Russian Federation can happen In the short term?.

- When the question of the future arises, one must be a very irresponsible person to say what will happen. I do not know how long it will last. It is known that in the field of large political processes even what seems very stable sometimes turns out to be absolutely unstable. The Communist regime, the Soviet Union seemed an absolutely firm stronghold. No one could foresee that all this would crumble for several months. And then all this crumbled.

I believe that authoritarian regimes can be considered in two versions. One option is a variant of stagnation. For example, the Franco regime in Spain, Salazar in Portugal. These are marginalized regimes displaced to the periphery, very weak economically, but with rotting stability. Another type of authoritarian totalitarian regimes is the mobilization. He is constantly mobilizing the population, all the time arranging some military adventures and other. For example, the Nazi regime.

But sometimes such modes change to another state. The Stalin regime, of course, was a mobilization - an eternal war with the enemies, terror, some wars, the annexation of the Baltic states, Poland and so on. But then he moved to Brezhnev's stagnation regime, and began to exist without a crisis. Maybe the crisis was there, but it was prolonged.

It seems to me that the mobilization regimes very often cease to feel the boundaries, and go to absolutely unjustified risks. They themselves shake themselves. For example, Hitler. After all, all this Reich existed only 12 years - from 1933 to 1945. Of course, he did God knows how many troubles, but this is a fast regime, he did not exist long - much less than Putin's regime in the Kremlin.

I think that the Russian regime is in such an intermediate state. On the one hand, it is a more or less rotting regime, which tries to avoid excesses. On the other hand, they always arrange some sort of destabilization within themselves, they keep climbing where they should not have climbed at all, and all the time they worsen the sanctions against themselves, reinforce the isolation.

When you say that Putin wants to enter on a white horse, do you mean that he wants to start another war?.

- Yes, so to speak, "a small victorious war".

- That is, you are waiting for him from some kind of adventure. This is really a regime that exists in constant attempts to maintain stability and at the same time endlessly this stability is undermining. When you think about what is happening there, you wonder: why do you need it? For example, prohibit "Jehovah's Witnesses", persecution of sects begins, persecution of homosexuals. Go to the Academy of Sciences. Why antagonize some part of the population, if among them there are very influential people?.

All the time something does not give them life, and instead of allowing some groups of the population to exist insofar as they are not antagonistic, in which they have nothing against the regime, they keep pushing them to the periphery and setting up against it Yourself.

There is something self-destructive in this behavior. And everything that happens after the conflict with Ukraine, is partly self-destructive.

But to say how long this regime will last and whether it will be able to maintain this stagnation system is difficult.

We all the time see that the regime, which seems stable, is in fact extremely unstable. There's always something going on. These endless planting of governors, planting ministers. Some monstrous disassembly in the environment of the siloviki. I do not have the feeling that this is some kind of solid rock. On the other hand, I do not presume to predict.

Read soon the continuation of the interview of "Observer" with Mikhail Yampolsky.

Join the "Observer" group on Facebook, stay tuned!.