In mid-March, a recording of a conversation began circulating on social media, in which producer Iosif Prigogine, the singer’s husband Valeria and billionaire Farkhad Akhmetov would criticize the Russian authorities in an obscene form. Afterwards, Prigozhin said that this recording was a fake made using a neural network, but he then made the reservation that it was still a “symbiosis” of the sentences he had spoken. Political scientist Ilya Grashchenkov told RTVI who and why published this conversation, as well as what could threaten his alleged defendants.
Ilya Grashchenkov is a political scientist. He worked in the civil service in the government and the press service of the Moscow region, served as an adviser to the governor. Since 2012 – Chairman of the Center Foundation for the Development of Regional Policy. Member of the Union of Journalists of Russia, member of the RAPC.
True conversation or creativity of a neural network?
The situation with Joseph Prigogine gave rise to numerous legal and civil incidents. First, we are now discussing wiretapping, the violation of their rights and freedoms. Secondly, we are talking about the leaking of these wiretaps into the public space. Third, we suspect it may be a fake. Finally, fourthly, everyone tries to express their opinion on all this.
It is clear that the “turbopatriots” consider such remarks a betrayal. Liberals believe that Prigozhin expresses the point of view of one in two Russians, which he allows himself to express only in the kitchen. He himself turned the whole thing into an apology plan, instead of, say, going to court and saying he was illegally wiretapped, and asking if there was a court order for the wiretap.
Irina Bujor / Kommersant
At the same time, we must, of course, believe what the person himself says, however true it may be – unless, of course, we have convincing evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, it is not a matter of faith. Almost everyone, in their own skin, feels that this is somehow the way things are in general. And all these laws that forbid us to discuss it openly form the very space of dialogue “in the kitchen”.
Therefore, there is no reason to prove whether the real Joseph Prigozhin is on this recording or not. What the interlocutors say about it is an objective point of view inherent in a large number of people. We live in a post-truth era where you don’t need to verify a source to believe. If the information appeared in blogs or the media, if it is discussed by people, it does not matter where it comes from.
Does the leaked recording of the conversation reflect the views of the majority elite?
The question is who do we consider the elites? In my opinion, elites are people who can do something in the country. People who have resources – money, power, maybe something else. They are able to influence what happens.
Is Joseph Prigogine in this situation a representative of the elite? This is a difficult question. He does not have such a fortune to financially influence the course of the affairs of the country and has practically no political weight. At the same time, to my knowledge, it is a medium.
The drain of his position, probably, is to discredit these people. Like, look, at patriotic rallies they drown for one thing, but in the kitchen they say something completely different. But since Soviet times, everyone has got used to this duality, and this is not particularly surprising to anyone.
Of course, there is a split in the elites, but it comes from a critical assessment of the situation by their representatives. This assessment lies in the fact that people with certain resources worry about what will happen to their money – whether they withdraw it or not.
Yevgeny Pavlenko / Kommersant
The informational context stimulates such conversations. All this talk about whether we should declare nationalization worries people who have some kind of assets. And if so, to what extent? Take away from everyone, or take away only from the oligarchs? Perhaps even lower the iron curtain and subordinate the economy to the National Planning Commission? Moreover, these discussions also irritate the population, which has nothing, and which really wants to finally share something.
Elites like Prigozhin, who made their fortunes, were loyal to the authorities, always said the right words and did not seek trouble. All their lives they thought they were playing a patriotic story, but only in words. And then suddenly it turned out that the words came true. Now they discuss this new reality and what it brings them.
And there would still be some certainty in this whole story. The authorities would say that from 2024 to 2030 we will build a new Soviet Union and abolish private property. And if you don’t like it, please vent, we’ll let you take $100 home with you.
But this is not the case, and it is precisely this uncertainty that makes talk of a possible split in the elites, when on the recording a person with the voice of Joseph Prigogine affirms that if something starts, he will join a certain field. .
However, we know that a split in the elites happens immediately at the time of certain world changes, as it happened in 1991. And the real split happened already in 1993, when some were sitting in the White House, while others were shooting at him.
Who benefits from this conversation?
To find out who benefits, you need Sherlock Holmes. The reasons for this, as usual, are many. This is partly beneficial for the liberals who want to sow consternation in the pro-government elites, to show that many of their representatives think so.
Perhaps this benefits the special services, specifically to discredit Joseph Prigogine. To make it clear, they say, in fact, we know that you are a manhandled Cossack, but you take orders from the state and take advantage of them. It can also be beneficial for Prigozhin’s personal enemies. Or maybe it’s the work of a “world toad”, spreading panic among Putin’s elites.
The client can be searched endlessly. In this case, we’ll just assume that all releases are correct in one way or another, since they fix some issues one way or another.
Could this be a message from the Russian special services to those who, like Iosif Prigozhin, allow themselves such conversations? That would be a very strange warning. The secret services try not to put forward the fact that they are listening to everyone, and so they would strike on their own. Therefore, such actions would certainly not be in their piggy bank.
Perhaps they thus show that they know how you reprimand the actions of the authorities in the kitchen? No, it’s the same story. What, people should accumulate it in themselves, go crazy? Then, to talk about it, they’ll just put down their phone and go for a walk in the forest, swim in the pool, or get under the engines of a working plane.
Irina Bujor / Kommersant
Therefore, I think the most likely message is that other representatives of conditional elites should feel that Iosif Prigogine is the same as them. He jumps at patriotic rallies, his wife Valeria speaks with a patriotic agenda. But in fact, they’re sitting in the kitchen talking about the same thing we’re talking about – big ass.
At the same time, I think the elites, who can really do something, don’t have such thoughts. And Prigozhin and others like them are the media counter-elite, while having no levers of influence, arguing that these levers could be intercepted if there was someone. It’s a plus in the piggy bank of the emergence of such a counter-elite.
How can the alleged defendants in the leaked conversation be punished
I remember the movie “Kill the Dragon”, where the mayor of the free city said that all the inhabitants were discussing the situation, but in such a way that Mr. Dragon understood that this discussion did not constitute a threat. I think Prigogine understood that too.
Who can punish him? Distributors of subsidies? Yes, it’s real, since he was caught – although they can sympathize with him too. Will it be some sort of reaction from the Kremlin personally? It can be too, but it’s usually publicized and delayed because you should never feel like you’re being punished quickly for anything. But in six months, when you think about what happened, it’ll fly to you.
But it seems wrong to me to speak of a kind of systemic retribution. Because, like I said, almost everyone does from time to time. On the contrary, they try to find a source of strength in the fact that their worries are in vain and that perhaps everything is going really well.
So I wouldn’t say that Joseph Prigogine’s conversation has devastating consequences for the authorities. He did not discuss with his colleagues the organization of a “producers’ party” which would make political demands. No, he, like everyone else, complains that the ass came.
Remember how it was with Pelevin: you walk into the boss’s office, and he starts telling you things like your hair is standing on end because of his opposition, it’s even scary to listen to. God knows, maybe all this is discussed in the same way on the Old Square!
So I don’t think that Prigogine will take severe revenge for these remarks. Maybe they’ll disable it from some grants – then re-enable it. After all, we have had such cases before where some left for the Arab Emirates, made all sorts of statements, then came back and repented.
The opinion of the author may not coincide with the opinion of the editors