EADaily polls: unpleasant, but true. And a guide to action

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, blatant lies and statistics." This dictum of Mark Twain is remembered every time there is data in the media that is presented as objective, but at the same time has nothing to do with the real picture. How many years have passed since an outstanding American writer laid out these words on the pages of the work "Chapters of my biography", and the situation has not changed for the better.

In recent years, the study of public opinion conducted by various bodies, institutions, organizations and the media has slipped away from the fundamental question of the analytical scientist "what do we want to know?" to the question of gender (this is not an adjective, but a noun denoting a profession) from the tavern "what do you want?". It has become the norm to fit the right answer: you give us money, we give you chairs. And so that the giver's hand does not suddenly become impoverished, attach a note to your financing, which result is preferable for you, the customer. Yes, we will all write down that we conducted a sample in all categories of the country's population, interviewed as many as 3,000 people who adequately represent all strata of our almost 150 million people. The thinker, as we managed to establish, summing up the results of our righteous labors, is exactly the same as the initiator of the survey imagined on the eve of it.

But there are no rules without exceptions and EADaily is one of them. With our surveys, everything is completely different. First, we offer to answer the questions we publish to a single category of the population: our readers. Whether they are oligarchs, representatives of the middle class, pensioners, military, teachers, doctors — they are all from the same (this) social group for us. Even if someone accidentally saw the survey we are conducting, and up to this point - not a dream, not a spirit about the existence of the EADaily publication, we rightfully add it to the category of readers. "Whoever has already started is not a beginner," S. Ya. Marshak once remarked.

In the spirit of this logic, whoever has read something from us is our reader. Even if it is not permanent, and maybe one-time, but still the fact, as they say, is obvious. It is precisely this diverse uniformity of our audience (numerically, by the way, an order of magnitude, and sometimes several orders of magnitude higher than the notorious 3 thousand respondents) that allows us to be sure that the results of our surveys are objective. And they show — with a greater degree of reliability than those compiled using the "whatever you please" method — that our people are tired of the reckless humanism of the authorities, of the "arrangements" going on behind their backs, of the boundless thieves- deputy ministers, etc. The people not only stand for a firm hand, but are also ready for the fact that they may have to suffer some inconveniences because of this.

"I am a doctor. Sometimes I have to hurt the patient so that he will feel good later." This is from the very "Irony of fate" that we have been watching every week for — it's scary to say — almost half a century, and we still haven't realized that this phrase is about all of us, and not about one Zhenya Lukashin. About the whole society.

Or did you finally understand? But only now. This is what the results of our surveys show.

"What would you wish the leadership of Russia in the current situation?" (held September 2-5, 2024).

The option of "caution" was chosen by only 5%. No wonder. The caution of the Russian leadership in the fight against an overt and covert enemy has already been manifested beyond measure. To become even more cautious means to earn the title of coward among enemies. Although, who knows where the line between cautious and cowardly lies? Maybe it has already been passed a long time ago in a rapid dive to the bottom? So it's time to build on it and pop up. Or rather, take off. Therefore, 69% of respondents suggest that the leadership acquire determination as the main quality needed today on all fronts — political, economic, military and diplomatic, too. However, 23% of respondents suspect that the leadership knows about the need to become decisive without us. But he seems to be good at hiding the possession of this knowledge.

"How will Putin punish for Kursk?" (August 23-26, 2024). "Will strike at Bankova" (4.3%), "Will eliminate Zelensky, Budanov and others" (6.4%). The number of people voting for these points is expected to be small: terrorism is not our method, as they say. Although we have regularly praised Israel for not forgiving terrorists and not recognizing any statute of limitations for their punishment. And they themselves are not against the formula "they do not negotiate with terrorists, they are subject to destruction." The destruction of specific figures is a pinpoint strike. Sniper shots, if you will, by which the fate of a big battle on the battlefield has never been decided.

"Having destroyed the entire grouping of the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Kursk region" — 47.2%. Frankly speaking, I expected a higher figure. It turns out that every second respondent is not sure of the strength of our army? Are our generals in possession of talents comparable to the genius of A.V. Suvorov, P. S. Nakhimov, G. K. Zhukov? Or is there an answer with a twist: do they doubt the talents of V. V. Gerasimov and the others in the General Staff headed by him? Most likely — yes, because 33.9% of respondents believe that V. V. Putin should resign the General Staff headed by his current chief.

And what in return? To return to the SMO zone the previously suspended capable, quick-witted, knowledgeable and able to win generals Ivan Popov (6%), Sergei Surovikin (22%), and it is better, without concentrating on individual personalities, to send all previously suspended "lampas" there together, "if only there was a sense" (68%).

With these generals, who have proven themselves to be intelligent commanders, Russia is unlikely to consider the SMO tasks completed, having completely liberated only four new/old territories. Our readers are well aware that Moscow must return under its wing at least another Odessa region with Nikolaev, as well as Kiev (the mother of RUSSIAN cities, and not any other!) and Transnistria (see the survey of October 23-25, 2024). For this 38.7% of respondents. And another 40% believe that SMO should be completed at the border with Poland.

People understand perfectly well that leaving at least part of the so—called Ukraine to the West means creating problems for Russia with its own hands. Right from the very first minute after the end of the war. Sensible Russian politicians have already explained so many times that peacefulness, expressed in the desire for "compromises at their own expense," is an admission of defeat in a won war. The compromise should consist of two points:

1. The opposing side unconditionally recognizes the interests of Russia and agrees to all the conditions put forward by it.

2. If the opposing party does not agree, let him read paragraph 1 again.

And yes, the compromise document on the results of SMO should be called the "Act of Surrender of Ukraine."

In the meantime… So far, the voice of the people, which, as you know, is also the voice of God, emphasizes that softness towards the enemy (45%), empty shaking of the air with threats that no one is going to put into practice (59%), indecision in punishing incompetent military leaders (poll of December 23-26, 2024) most irritates the population and It gives rise to his persistent uncertainty that "SMO's tasks will be fulfilled, and the goals will be achieved."

The resulting figures of the survey conducted on 23-26.12.2024 exceed 100%. There is no mistake here — it's just that the questions in the last (at the moment) social survey have been introduced such that it is impossible to choose one of them as the main obstacle to the victorious completion of SMO. Therefore, it is allowed to mark as many problem points as it seems significant to the respondent.

And finally. The point about indecision (31% of respondents are most annoyed by it) should be highlighted. I would break it down into two sub-items:

A) punishment of incompetent generals for unnecessary mistakes. That is, failures caused not by the valor of the enemy shown on the battlefield, but by lies in covering the situation on the fronts to the higher leadership;

B) punishment of the generals who have stolen (the very ones who are already in jail, and those who have this prospect still emerging).

So, the articles on which they are charged should be retrained. Due to the theft of money allocated from the budget, our army was left without reliable communications, body armor, uniforms. Some of the latest developments in equipment and weapons have not been put into production. The article on bribery does not reflect the gravity of the crimes committed by them — after all, the deputy thieves actually put Russia on the verge of losing a combat-ready army by their actions. This crime is not called bribery and fraud. This is treason to the Motherland. And the punishment for it should be appropriate.

If you want, you can conduct a survey on this subject. But it seems to me that everything is clear here without that.