The latter binds to remember that (with no matter what historians say: either Lzhedmitry I – was Grigory Otrepyev, either Grigory Otrepyev was temporary alias of true prince – Fedor Ioannovich, which have been concealed from attempt upon his life and which was heir at law in forehand) man, who really ascended the throne under name of Dmitriy, didn't dead his own death, but he was killed.

I.e. this is reason to think about safeguarding of D. A. Medvedev.

It’s necessary to understand, that attempt at “key figures” life is not end in itself of its initiators; that such attempt (moreover successful attempt) – is means to attain another goals.

As an example one can take the murder of Benazir Bhutto at Pakistan. As a result Musharraf’s regime got problems, which it wouldn’t get in case of B. Bhutto would still be alive and her party would win parliament elections. It was certain third power who won after Bhutto’s murder, but not Musharraf’s regime or opposition, and, moreover, not the whole nation. This murder might not happened, if someone at Pakistan special services have not winked at preparation for killing of political figure (who evidently was not sympathized by everybody in these services).

If one of goals of the conspiracy against Russia is – to complete realization of directive NSC-20/1 (Aug 18, 1948)[23], then owners of this project need destabilization and chaos in Russia. And what exactly can service to that – preparation for killing of V. V. Putin or D. A. Medvedev – is a political concreteness.

Also, it’s necessary to understand there is scenario, which let its initiators to kill two birds with one stone:

* * *

If D. A. Medvedev will be elected for President of Russia and V. V. Putin will become a premier, then, in case of D. A. Medvedev for some reasons will not be able to act as president, V. V. Putin (premier) will be his successor (until next president elections).

If attempt upon D. A. Medvedev will be organized and will be successful, then this scenario’s developers will put all the blame for conspiracy organization on Putin (i.e. with the aim to retain the highest state power for himself on the grounds of law. If attempt on D. A. Medvedev will not be successful, then imputations will be the same.

* *

*

I.e. D. A. Medvedev in reality of present days may be entrusted the role, analogous to role of his namesake – Prince Dmitry Ioannovich (younger son of Ivan Grozny), who was killed in Uglich-town by assassins sent, according to official historical version, by Boris Godunov. Though history course indicates that this assassination was organized if not by Romanov dynasty, then by their foreign puppeteer with the aim to remove both Ryurik-Rabinovich[24] dynasty (which became essentially pan-Eurasian[25]), and Godunov dynasty, which have pan-Eurasian roots. However, gossips on theme that “Godunov” is guilt for all evil deeds in past and present are kind of “humanitarian factor”, which is able to arouse for disturbance only specific group of home intellectuals. For stimulating to disturbance the rest (sufficient mass of common people) someone needs financial crisis, which can defeat “Putin’s Plan” accomplishment: don’t forget, that despite of sufficiently successful situation with state debt (thanks to Putin’s regime), private businessmen were under such conditions, that during more then decade it have been profitable to get credits at foreign banks[26].

What works for such scenario in Russia today? – Many things:

Named dependency of private and private-corporate sectors of economy from foreign crediting sources.

Lack of not only national ideology, but also distinct and directly interpreted ideology of political parties – first of all of “Edinaya Rossiya” party – a kind of “bureaucracy trade-union” (considering citizen demands from any political party: course of world history, course of own country history, course of economy and finances, course of sociology – no one from parties, however, can't offer set of these courses).

Journalists, keen to sensations, for some reasons haven't jet unearth “historical curious incident” – parallels in biographies of B. Godunov and V. Putin. However, opera (written by Johann Matteson in XVII century) “Boris Goudenow” was taken out to theatre stage especially for “elite” review. Mass-media trumpeted about it joyfully. This is one of stages of so called “collective unconsciousness” (aggregorial algorithmic) programming.

Spreading in the Internet information about D. A. Medvedev’s Jewish ancestors and his marriage with Jewess, at the least, doesn't favour so-called “patriotic” circles (at society, state bureaucracy, army and special services) to trust him, and, at the most, impels to actions against him personally and his career up to connivance of attempts to his life.

On December 28, 2007 at the evening TV-channel “Kultura” (culture) showed “Julius Caesar” movie, based on Shakespeare’s play (British performance of late 1950-s). This movie, obviously, doesn’t blend with pre-holiday preparations for the New Year, Christmas and “Old Style New Year” (by Julian calendar).

In this movie Brutus, while appealing to Rome citizens after Caesar’s murder, delivers a speech full of modern “democratic rhetoric”. This speech may be a ready text for self-justification in case of successful attempt at V. V. Putin or D. A. Medvedev:

BRUTUS:

Be patient till the last.

Romans, countrymen, and lovers! hear me for my

cause, and be silent, that you may hear: believe me

for mine honor, and have respect to mine honor, that

you may believe: censure me in your wisdom, and

awake your senses, that you may the better judge.

If there be any in this assembly, any dear friend of

Caesar's, to him I say, that Brutus' love to Caesar

was no less than his. If then that friend demand

why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer:

--Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved

Rome more. Had you rather Caesar were living and

die all slaves, than that Caesar were dead, to live

all free men? As Caesar loved me, I weep for him;

as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was

valiant, I honor him: but, as he was ambitious, I

slew him. There is tears for his love; joy for his

fortune; honor for his valor; and death for his

ambition. Who is here so base that would be a

bondman? If any, speak; for him have I offended.

Who is here so rude that would not be a Roman? If

any, speak; for him have I offended. Who is here so

vile that will not love his country? If any, speak;

for him have I offended. I pause for a reply.

After that Marcus Antonius condemns killers:

MARCUS ANTONIUS:

I thrice presented him a kingly crown,

Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?

Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;

And, sure, he is an honorable man.

I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,

But here I am to speak what I do know.

You all did love him once, not without cause:

What cause withholds you then, to mourn for him?

O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,

And men have lost their reason. Bear with me;

My heart is in the coffin there with Caesar,

And I must pause till it come back to me.

In 2006 specially made crown (so-called “Monomakh’s cap”), adorned with precious stones, was presented to V. V. Putin, and he refused from it.

Shakespeare in this play shows clearly how to manipulate the crowd in order to justify any meanness of thirsting for power “elite”. Also, with such effect somebody, while arousing passion of the crowd, may arouse civil war in order to advent another “elite” to power. Brutus’ speech is full of democratic rhetoric, which is widely used by democrats in presence. However, Markus Antonius’ speech is also full of rhetoric, with help of which somebody can just to stir up hatred to rival's clan, but not to stabilize the situation in the state for nation’s blessing.