Youtube interview of bulk ksenia sobchak. "You can’t be angry and take revenge categorically." Ksenia Sobchak about her interview with Navalny. - Has Navalny been changing lately
After the verdict and days spent in the Kirov SIZO, Alexei Navalny gave his first big interview to Ksenia Sobchak on the Dozhd TV channel. Navalny was already speaking as if in a different status - a major federal politician - huge attention is riveted on him today, and the interview caused a great resonance.
Ksenia Sobchak told Citibum about her own impressions of this conversation.
- You asked Alexei Navalny quite tough questions. How satisfied were you with his answers?
- It’s not for me, probably, to judge. We need to see what those who watched the interview say, how satisfied they were with these answers. But speaking remotely, after the interview, I think that Alexei is now in a stressful situation, and I understand that it is easy for us to argue about how a person can feel who, from week to week, can go to prison for five years. But at the same time, I think that, as in the book that I gave him on the program (Schwartz's Dragon), the biggest victory of crooks and thieves over Navalny will be, if they manage to embitter him, to embitter him. A person who is broken by anger and aggression can become the second Putin, and in this case, nothing will change for those people who want real changes. I would like to wish Alexey to cope with his understandable feelings and emotions and remain in history an enlightened person who was able to overcome both his fears (he has already succeeded), and his anger, and his completely human desire for revenge.
- You on Twitter gave a link to the post of film critic Yuri Bogomolov, where he said, among other things, that Navalny is at a fork in the road: he can defeat the system, but lose himself, as has already happened with Solzhenitsyn and Yeltsin. What does this choice mean?
- When a person is under such pressure, when he is facing a term, when he is being persecuted, he becomes bitter, embittered and wants to take revenge. This is absolutely impossible to do, this is the collapse of all that we are all fighting for. I hope that Alexei, like me, is struggling with an impersonal system that does not allow a person in our country to live and develop freely. If he is fighting his personal enemies - with Putin, with Yakunin, with someone else - then this fight will not bring victory to anyone.
Well, if he defeats Putin, he himself will become Putin 2.0. Neither he, nor we will all benefit from this. It seems to me really noble honest people who came to Bolotnaya Square a year ago to defend their human dignity first of all, are fighting an impersonal system, having no sentiments, neither positive nor negative, neither to Putin, nor to Sechin, nor to anyone else from this system. I really do not like all these jokes about "Putin - Botox", posts where Sobyanin is exhibited by Putin's wife, I think that this is off topic and not on the point. You need to grow out of the age of mutual insults and cruelty and understand that you can truly destroy the system only by destroying its mechanisms, remaining impartial and condemning exclusively political decisions, and not anything else.
- Which of these groups is Navalny closer to?
- Differently. Now he manifests himself in different ways. This is understandable, because he is trying to gather everyone around him in order to get the necessary support - both nationalists and liberals and others. But, on the other hand, we again do not know who he is really closer to. And will it not turn out that, with all this stress, Navalny will make a choice towards toughening, especially since this choice is very attractive: the crowd will always choose the most aggressive and tough one. This is how people are arranged, the crowd will always choose someone who will play along with its lowest feelings. There is a great danger here. For me, the great figures in history were those who did not follow, but led the crowd behind them - they promoted their policies regardless of the mood in society. Remember the great Margaret Thatcher. Or Churchill, some of his beliefs were also not close to the British, but he pushed them through and was able to convince the whole country that he was right. I would very much like Alexei to convince the country of the correctness of the path of noble confrontation, without insults, without revenge, without aggression, albeit difficult and longer, but necessary for gaining real statehood.
- Has Navalny been changing lately?
- Probably, it is changing because the situation is changing. It's easy for us to speculate what it feels like. But how it really is, we cannot know. It seems to me that it is getting tougher, but this is a temporary story related to stress. I would really not want him to become a defender of the marginalized gopniks whom he turns on with his aggression. I want to see him as a leader of people who are confident in their position, thinking, intelligent, and people who resist this fierce aggression.
- Do you feel today, in particular, in connection with Navalny, the moral dilemma of choosing between professional duty and your civic feeling?
- Yes, of course, I always feel it. But now I have a different dilemma before me. I support what Alexei Navalny is doing, I like his work, and the ideas for which we took to the streets a year ago, but I do not want to maintain the level of aggression and the energy of radicalism that we have now. I do not like the idea of "demolishing everything", "dropping everyone", "not a single United Russia member will remain in power." This is some kind of Bolshevism. I believe that people should work or not work in politics on a professional basis, and not on the basis of the fact that they are United Russia or not United Russia. How is this different from today's situation?
It scares me when Navalny says: "I will put Putin in jail." How is he then different from Putin, who is now imprisoning Navalny? I don't like that, of course. Many today say that the former members of United Russia will not get the opportunity to work under the future government, it scares me. How does this differ from the current situation, when no one, except for the members of United Russia, can work. It turns out that we change one order to another, exactly the same. And I want there to be an open discussion, pluralism of opinions, including for the members of United Russia to prove their case, if they are really convinced United Russia. And if, among other things, they are professionals, why not work effectively for the benefit of the state? I also believe that having some kind of contact with the current government is not the greatest evil and sin.
For me, Mikhail Prokhorov, who undoubtedly contacts the president, is not a crossed out figure. I always look at business and politics. I may not like his other actions, for example, the fact that he did not create his party immediately after the presidential elections, or that now he has not nominated anyone for mayor instead of himself. But I judge precisely by these cases, and not by the one with whom he communicates. We are fighting not for a specific person to come to power, but for changing the system as a whole. The main thing is that there are changes, and who will introduce them, whether Medvedev, Prokhorov, Navalny, or Kudrin, I do not care at all. I would support anyone who would undertake to conduct them, even if he was Putin's closest associate in the past. The main thing is that the changes are real.
- Is Navalny a radical politician?
- I judge by actions, and so far Navalny has not done anything for which he could be called radical. He has not yet crossed this line.
- Will Navalny be the mayor of Moscow?
- I think not, unfortunately.
Last night, Alexei Navalny became a guest of the show "Sobchak Alive" on the Dozhd TV channel. The interview was broadcast on the Dozhd website and on Youtube:
For those who were unable to watch it to the end, there are two good retellings. First published Nikita Likhachev(TJournal):
Sobchak began with how Navalny received a passport, then discussed the "nonsense" that Facebook-tusovka writes about politics, and moved on to his economic program as a presidential candidate.
Navalny was unable to answer how much of Russia's consolidated GDP is healthcare spending - but he didn't have a clue in the form of a producer in his ear. Sobchak, who claimed that experts were complaining about inflated social spending in Russia, in response to Navalny's question could not accurately name the economist Andrei Movchan.
The second - quotation - can be read at Roman Dobrokhotova :
A summary of the Sobchak-Navalny interview:
Sobchak:
- Do you know how much Russia spends on health care from GDP?
Navalny:
- I know
Sobchak:
- How much? From the consolidated GDP! From the consolidated federal budget.
Navalny:
- Consolidated or federal ??
Sobchak:
- Consolidated! How many? From GDP!
Navalny:
- Ksenia, do you generally know how the consolidated budget differs from the federal one?
Sobchak:
- Well, there is a GDP figure for healthcare! I'll tell you now - 3.6% of GDP!
<...>
Navalny:
- It is necessary to reduce the military-police budget, and increase health care costs.
Sobchak:
- Many experts say that social spending in Russia is inflated.
Navalny:
- What are the experts?
Sobchak:
- Quite a lot of experts
Navalny:
- Which for example?
Sobchak:
- When we were preparing for this program, we talked with a number of people ...
Navalny:
- Well, this is from the series "tell me the percentage." There are no such experts!
Sobchak:
- Ovchan! Kudrin! Oreshkin!
Navalny:
- Who is the first?
Sobchak:
- Ovchan!
Navalny:
- Maybe you mean Andrei Movchan ?
Sobchak:
- Marchan, yes!
Navalny:
- Marchan, Movchan or Ovchan?
Sobchak:
- I say Mov-chan again!
The last dialogue was asking to be looped back:
And, of course, the consonances are not limited to this.
So forchan or blockchain?
Obchak, Ovchak or Sobchak? UPD: WELL OF COURSE MOVCHAK
For the former chief editor of RBC, these reservations seemed symbolic.
all you need to know about talking about economics in this interview
Andrei Movchan, director of the Economic Policy program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, has not yet commented on this dialogue on Facebook. In the meantime, the Web writes that Sobchak "must marry him" or at least send him a bouquet of flowers. But not only this fragment of the interview seemed strange to the commentators.
Navalny's monstrous interview with Sobchak
Almost a continuation of yesterday's "Anchovies and Daisies" and Usmanov's claim.
Navalny has been presented with incriminating evidence since 2005, they are not allowed to finish a single phrase, the vocabulary of "Sputnik and the Pogrom" is used, so that the question "Russian or Russian?" discuss in a raised voice.
After this disgusting interview, Sobchak has to admit that his attacks on Moscow journalists are legitimate. Than such interviews - it's better to listen to him on YouTube. It is especially disgusting that she forced him to comment on the already refuted pseudo-quotations of Schlossberg.
Many agreed that, against the background of an experienced video blogger, Sobchak looked unprepared.
Couldn't watch Navalny at Sobchak's. A classic example of how not to interview. And a visible confirmation of why the video blog for Navalny is a comfortable format
how can you go out for an interview with a person who has not closed his mouth in recent months and has already perfected all his rhetorical techniques without preparation? Not a single prepared and worked out question.
That is why they do not look.
Before that, 2 hours before this program, he spoke on his channel on YouTube with a weekly program with answers to questions from viewers. A striking contrast. how many useful information and smart thoughts on current events were there, and how much water and pointless waste of time Sobchak had
Sobchak was clearly weak. A set of cliche questions, an attempt to fit the interlocutor into a primitive framework invented by her, aggressive interruption at every step, such as a "quote" 10 years ago. Sucks, in a word.
Navalny added a lot. He completely took a blow, almost did not succumb to provocations. Looked open and confident
... These are the questions: what books have influenced you - well, these questions are completely from a children's series, what else to ask when there is nothing to ask. Well, in the end, I ran into "what are you talking about, Ksenia ?!" Big win for the interviewer.
Sobchak constantly tends to talk to Navalny about the economy. "Putin is not raising taxes." Sometimes it's better to be silent)))
- Alexey, why don't you give interviews?
- I give it all the time, although I am very tired of answering for the thousandth time the question "why haven't you been killed yet?"
- Come to us for an interview for hot fresh questions!
- I’ll come
- Alexey, why haven't you been killed yet?
Others think that Navalny did not appear in the best light in this interview.
The questions are very bad and the answers are very bad :(
With an effort of will, she forced herself to watch the Sobchak-Navalny interview to the middle. I'll watch the second half tomorrow. This is an example of how not to interview. And, probably, how not to give it. Navalny needed to break a meaningless, ragged, ill-prepared and incompetent conversation. And he followed him. And he answered badly.
I started today, what I did not finish at night. And she paused again. Impossible. How not to take an interview and how not to go to an interview and give it. She annoyed him immediately, from the first minute. He was already on the screw. A very bad interview. Mutually, on both sides
Ksenia Sobchak is visiting politician, presidential candidate Alexei Navalny, who answered questions about his political program, the problem of Crimea, Chechnya, taxes, abortions, LGBT marriages and much more. He told whether he is afraid of the collapse of the system during a change of power, why he does not think about the possibility of becoming a victim of a political murder and how he treats Vladimir Putin.
Alexei Navalny believes that “there is no simple solution to the Crimean problem,” a second referendum should be held on the peninsula. The oppositionist does not recognize the first referendum, the second, in his opinion, the world does not recognize either, but it is important to give people the opportunity to express their will. Navalny does not believe that the problems of Donbass are related to Crimea; in order to solve them, it is necessary to fulfill the Russian part of the Minsk agreements, withdraw troops and transfer the border, which the oppositionist is going to do if he becomes president.
Also, Navalny is going to equalize subsidies to the regions, despite the difficulties in some of them. So, speaking of Chechnya, the country pays "colossal money, but does not receive either peace of mind, or the absence of terrorist attacks and militants." In matters of economy, the oppositionist among his main tasks sets the reduction of the part controlled by the state, since this blocks its development. In addition, Navalny opposes the ban on abortion, is going to issue a permit for short-barreled weapons, does not see any problems in legalizing LGBT marriages, but believes that this should be resolved by the method of referendums in each constituent entity of the federation.
What will happen to the system if he comes to power? Alexey does not believe that the change in the system will lead to a collapse, as in 1991, since then the price of oil fell, and now the country is receiving "a lot of money." Navalny believes that at this stage, his admission or non-admission to the presidential elections in 2018 no longer depends on Putin, but on whether he can unite a sufficient number of people to "put pressure on the authorities and force" them to admit him.
Full decryption of the program:
I'm glad you're in the studio. Today we have an open broadcast, live broadcast, I hope that we will have an interesting conversation with you. Alexey, the first question is related to the complicated process of arranging this interview. Not only me, but many other journalists, for several months now, you refuse to communicate, always answering the same thing: if you want to know something, watch the blog. What is the reason for this position? Why are you suddenly ...?
Ksenia, do you want me to reveal all the secrets of our agreements? “I am in Bali and I cannot. I went to Bhutan, I cannot. " When you have two days a month to interview, they sometimes end up at some of my events, especially since I now travel to the regions almost all day. I will now return home, literally take a bag and go to Perm, from Perm I will go to Izhevsk. I have an election campaign, which means that I am quite busy in terms of the schedule.
But many journalists, if they are ready to show any interest in my campaign, they can go to these cities and interview me. We have now opened 44 headquarters to date. This means that I myself was present at the opening of, probably, 35 or 36 headquarters, and in every place, in every city, I gave a press conference, gave several individual interviews. And in this sense, I try to ensure that we meet the standard of the most transparent election campaign, and I communicate with journalists as much as I can.
But I just have a feeling, I'm not just talking about myself, although if we really restore those events, exactly in the week when all the events happened ...
When did you go to Bhutan and you couldn't interview me?
No, when you wrote a letter to Vaino, it was for those hot events. You got off the radar somehow and it was impossible to reach you. And it is clear that a little later it was possible to arrange an interview, because, accordingly, the situation began to change, and those events began to be forgotten. But it was strange that you were not only to me, but to many journalists at that period - the period when this letter really raised many questions - for some reason you for some time ...
I would like the journalistic community to somehow act together, or something, because it was a hot time, I needed to have an operation on my eye, I did it, so I could not give interviews. Then, as soon as I returned and recovered, I traveled to the regions. Since then, I repeat, I gave several press conferences and gave several individual interviews. If you came for me to Saransk, Voronezh or somewhere ...
I hope, by the way, that I will have such an opportunity, I already told you over the air, I will be happy to go. But, despite the fact that at the moment it is probably not the most actual topic, but in order to finish it, I would still like to get an explanation. I know that a huge number of your zealous fans were surprised, shocked by this letter, and these ...
What letter?
Vaino about leaving. In general, this is such a topic, let's say, on the one hand, I understand that we all live in a certain reality, in which connections with the presidential administration are needed, and on the other hand, when the person who personifies this “don't believe, don't be afraid, do not ask, ”writes such a letter, even for a respectful and understandable reason, of course, for many people this immediately causes a new wave of this all, that Navalny is working with the administration and so on.
Now we will explain everything to everyone. The peculiarity of my work is that I and the Anti-Corruption Foundation write letters all day long. I write them to Chaika, I write them to Bastrykin, I write them to Putin, because we are investigating corruption, and we handle formal letters all day long.
But not with personal requests.
I had no personal request. These are two different things. For many years, they have not given me a passport, they haven’t given it to me. I went to court twice, my complaint is in the European Court of Human Rights, and everything I did in this sense, without seeing any of these people, in particular, I never saw Vaino in the eye, I wrote a letter that I demand so that they would give me a passport, because I need to go to have an operation. And I pointed out that my complaint is in the ECHR, I am not being illegally extradited. According to the laws Russian Federation I should have been given this passport and I was given it. I don’t know why, what worked there inside the presidential administration, but this is definitely not the situation when I made a personal request, and they did something to me as an exception. My legal rights that had been trampled on for many years were simply rebuilt.
Vaino does not deal with passports. We all understand that he confidant Putin, a person very close to the president. We all understand that this is a person, that is, you practically write to Putin, and it is clear that these issues are resolved conceptually.
I understand perfectly that they didn’t give me a passport conceptually for many years, because they didn’t want to give it.
Was it worth it to ask him conceptually? Didn't you weigh the risks?
No, I demanded. What are the risks? There are no risks. I, once again, I demanded this passport.
Alexey, you are a very careful politician. You know how you can always use everything against you. Didn't you understand that they, of course, will publish this letter?
Ksenia, you can use a lot of things against me, including this interview. I talk to the famous liberal Sobchak, and they are all so awful.
Are you not a liberal?
I'm just talking about what can be said. Anything can be perverted. Claiming to exercise your rights is not a request at all. I demanded that they give me a passport. They gave it to me.
But you did not write to the passport office, Alexey, you wrote to Vaino.
I wrote to the passport office. Once again, when I demand that Medvedev be dismissed and an investigation into corruption carried out, I write to Putin, to the Investigative Committee, and to The General Prosecutor's Office, and wherever you go. And here I filed a formal complaint with the court, in European Court, took the application to the migration center.
And at the same time he wrote to Putin on the concept.
And at the same time I wrote to the Ombudsman, and he already asked me to write to Vaino. I sent an email with the same content that the attack was carried out on me, I demand to stop violating my rights and give me a passport, and they gave it to me. Maybe they'll take it away tomorrow, I don't know.
I was simply surprised by this precisely from the point of view of the fact that you are a very careful person on the whole, and this is such an obvious thing. Do you regret it now?
Of course not. This has no opposition to the fact that I am a cautious person. It seems to me that this is some kind of strange epithet, I am a normal person, I am a prudent person, I know what is due to me by law, I demand it. Nothing happened here that is a departure from my principles.
Have you had any informal meetings with someone from the presidential administration, with Vaino or with someone?
I have never seen any of them in my life. I saw, you can say Fedotov, who is a human rights ombudsman, he is also formally an employee of the administration. I saw him, met on the radio, I met with him, and among those who are officials of the presidential administration, I have never seen them.
We'll talk about this later. Let's go back ...
... we talked.
What?
Sorry. We haven't talked enough now.
No, it's enough about the situation with the passport, but about the situation of who you are with and where you communicate, I would like to return to this if you do not mind.
Very interesting.
But now I would like to talk, in general, about your fans and your fans' strategy to protect you. It seems to me that this strategy is nevertheless related to your position.
Could you please explain to me what my fans are?
Look, there are people who support you unconditionally, and this is what, probably, any politician calls a nuclear electorate. This is a normal political science story, when a person has him, a rock star would have fans, politician Alexei Navalny has his nuclear voters who vote for Alexei Navalny regardless of anything. Such people are the core of your electorate, you cannot but know about it.
Then there is a more complex story of people who can sometimes vote for you, sometimes they cannot, you can disappoint, upset them, you will not speak so about Crimea or about gays, and now their position has already begun to hesitate a little. Here Akunin wrote something, here he also spoke out somehow. I want to talk about this core. Look, these people have different names, those who do not like them call them bulk, Navalny's minions and other offensive words, I would not want to call them that, I will call them the core of the electorate.
You've already repeated all this nonsense. Let me stop you right away, can I? There is no such nuclear electorate. And this whole, as you say, political science history, that's why I urge all political scientists, of course, to throw them in a cage to wild animals in the zoo, because you are repeating a set of some cliches: people are ready to vote for you, regardless of how you change your views. Of course not, I have people who are probably my loyal supporters, and I, in turn, am their reliable political partner, but they support me for a set of political demands. If I stop fighting corruption tomorrow, of course, they will not vote for me.
This is what I would like to come to. Look, there is a certain tendency that scares not only me, but many people who, at the same time, are people who support you, that as soon as any thinking person, be it me or some kind of writer, or a creative person, or just .. ...
Who? For example, who?
For example, Akunin or, for example, Bykov, or someone else. As soon as this person writes something, not even necessarily critical, but something, in general, some kind of reflection ...
Yes, Bykov did not write anything or Akunin did not write anything, did not write.
Well, Akunin at one time or Lev Schlosberg also wrote something.
I argued with these people, I'm sorry, please.
Wait a second. Under these posts, a huge number of accusations immediately appear that all this was paid for by the Kremlin, any criticism of Alexei Navalny - this means that the murzilki immediately went into battle, and so on. To be honest, it worries me. There is Lev Schlosberg, he spoke, you are asking for a specific example, I will say, he spoke about your program. A person who is respected by many and, in general, is considered by many to be a worthy person. He said some hard-hitting words about you, I can quote them.
Quote.
Let me quote to you now: “He is not a democrat or a liberal, he is simply trying to accumulate any protest electorate of any kind - from nationalists to communists, from liberals to yesterday's supporters of United Russia, the Liberal Democratic Party, Zyuganov, anyone else. No economic program or political reforms are needed, ”Schlosberg said. For this speech of his in an interview with a journalist of Ekho Moskvy right there on the Ekho Moskvy website, you can now look at either some thoughtful comments, or specifically from your nuclear electorate immediately accusations that he is a murderer, that this is paid for by the Kremlin interview, and immediately instead of some constructive discussion of these words, some very tough story of attacks. Why is this happening and what can you answer to Lev Schlossberg?
People have opinions. I am absolutely normal about criticism, I enter into a discussion with all people. As you can see, I am in an interview with you and am ready to answer all your sharp and uncomfortable questions. And, again, I try to be one of the most accessible politicians for the press. At every meeting in every city, I answer absolutely all questions. Raise your hand - I answer, raise your hand - I answer.
There are many questions that politicians do not always want to answer, but I still answer them. There are people who appreciate it, there are people who support me, and they have their own opinion. When Schlosberg, to whom I have a good attitude, says what you have repeated, I can come along with the people in the commentary and write: "You said nonsense, Schlosberg." He just said really, objectively, in my opinion, stupidity.
Let's walk through this nonsense.
Let's take a walk, yes, let's go.
He accuses you specifically of the fact that you do not have an economic program, in general, that there is no clear platform. Let's walk through it in order. Actually, for example, health care costs should double, in your opinion, in order to provide the required level of medical services. Why double, why not 20%, not 40%? Have you done economic research on this topic?
Ksenia, have you read my program?
I watched it, yes, of course. This is from the site from yours.
Have you read or watched it? From our site. Both on our website and in my speeches, I point out everywhere that we must double funding for health care and education, too, approximately doubled, based on ...
Why two, why not four?
I answer you. Because there are countries of the Economic Cooperation Organization. That is, roughly speaking, there are rich countries, and when we look at how much these rich countries spend as a percentage of GDP on health care and education, we see that our health care and education are underfunded.
Do you know how much Russia now spends as a percentage of GDP on healthcare?
I know, Ksenia, that's it, I am very good at numbers.
How many?
This is the same question: a consolidated budget, federal budget... We'll be leaving now ...
How much, wait, from the consolidated GDP of Russia?
Consolidated federal budget. Tell me how much. We're talking about specific numbers.
Consolidated or Federal?
Consolidated how much of GDP?
Ksenia, let's go again. We are now talking about specific provisions of my program, and these specific provisions of my program grow from the experience of developed countries. This experience of developed countries suggests that education, healthcare ...
Wait, Alexey, I'll tell you this figure now, and you just remember it, because you are doing ...
Tell me the number. I know her. Because what you are doing now, trying to catch me at some figure, suggests that, in principle, unfortunately, you do not understand how the budget works, how the federal budget differs from the consolidated one. Tell me how is it different?
Wait, but there is a GDP figure for health care. That is, you say that it needs to be doubled. I’m talking about that and I’m asking you, in this sense I’m not a politician and, of course, I specifically prepared just for our broadcast, but it seems to me that if you say that you want to raise it twice, you must know. This 3.6% of GDP is currently spent on healthcare. It seems to me that if you propose to raise it, you should know it.
Of course I know her.
What is, for example, an indicator of success in the field of health for you?
The indicator of success in health care is, of course, life expectancy, detection of diseases, overall satisfaction of people from the services provided, a set of various criteria and indicators that show all this. But the most important thing we talk about in the program is that it is impossible in principle to achieve anything if health care is underfunded in principle. Therefore, it is necessary to give more money there and continue to carry out reforms inside. If we now pay the doctor's salary 14 thousand rubles, 8 thousand rubles, then nothing will work, no reform will work. That is why we say that it is necessary to reduce the military-police budget, and, in particular, to increase healthcare costs.
Look, many experts, talking about how to develop the Russian economy and how to build its budget, just say that social spending in Russia is greatly inflated.
What experts say this?
There are quite a few experts.
What are the experts? Call me, tell me.
When we were preparing for this program, we talked to a number of people.
Ksenia, that's just the point, this is from the series: tell me the percentage. Give me an expert. There are no such experts.
There is, for example, I now, Ovchan, Kudrin, Oreshkin.
Who is the first?
Ovchan.
Movchan you probably mean.
Morchan, yes.
Morchan, Ovchan or Movchan?
I say it again: Movchan.
Movchan. There is one, but Kudrin, for example, your beloved, says that we really need to increase spending on health care and education. He simply suggests a 1.6x increase.
But Kudrin says that we still have an inflated social budget.
He doesn't say that. He's not bloated with us, that's the point, he is not bloated at all. Our military-police budget is inflated. Russia, despite the fact that it claims to be welfare state, is a military-police state, and our military-police part of the budget has eaten absolutely everything.
Good, but at the same time in your program, which I read on your website, you write that police officers should receive a decent salary. On the one hand, you are proposing to take away this budget from them, I understand you correctly, are you talking about this now?
No, you misunderstand me. I'll explain everything to you now. We have a really gigantic military-police budget. The share of direct expenditures on salaries is quite low there. A huge amount of money is simply stolen there. In particular, in the state order, and these are not my words, but words The Accounts Chamber that every fourth ruble is cashed out almost immediately. We can, by reducing the military-police budget, raise the share within it salaries and pay even a little more, but at the same time transfer part of the costs to health care and education, to investments in human capital.
We understand the Yabloko platform or the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. You may like it, not like it, but it's kind of big ...
Please describe it. You don't understand anything. You do not understand either the Yabloko platform or the KPRF platform. Why did I say that Schlosberg.
No wait, why?
Let me finish, an important thought. Why did I say that Schlosberg was stupid when he said that I had no economic program? Because, unfortunately, there are some people who continue to exploit something from 1989 or 1990. Once upon a time Yabloko had a program called "500 Days", I am a former member of the Yabloko party, I also liked it, and therefore they have an economic program, they have some economists. And we know something about the Communist Party. In fact, we do not know anything about them, and they have absolutely no program at all. What we propose is a program based on specific figures.
No, let's do this: can you say for sure about their program that it is left? Can this be said?
The Communist Party and the Communists have a leftist program.
No. She is socially left-wing.
Progressive tax. Yes, of course, she is absolutely in this sense ...
It is left in the social sense, but from the socio-political point of view, it is undoubtedly a right-wing conservative program. What is the left program?
How is it right-wing conservative?
The role of the church, the role of the state - of course, this is a right-wing conservative program.
Good. Where are you, I just want to understand, where are you on this flank? Because I read your program, many things are clear to me, many, unfortunately, for me as well, but this is probably because I don't understand anything, they sound like toasts. But you must understand that these are some kind of slogans. I would like to understand: who are you - are you right, are you left? Can you identify yourself somehow?
In Russian political science, practical politics, there is no right or left. You say: the right, the left, implying, apparently, that Yabloko is the right, and the communists are the left? Moreover, Yabloko, of course, is not a right-wing party, it is a left-liberal party. Liberals generally have to be leftists. The communists, our native communists, they have from the left, I don't know what is left. They talk about free education and healthcare.
Okay, don't talk about them. Where are you in this, conventionally, political science line?
So there is no political science line, it does not exist in Russia.
How does it not exist? That is, it exists all over the world, but we again have some kind of special state.
There exists in the world, you can distinguish Republicans from Democrats in the United States by a set of questions of some kind. You can distinguish a Christian democrat from a social democrat in Europe, in Russia - absolutely not. In Russia there are parties controlled by the Kremlin, and there are independent parties, that's all.
You are independent, with this we, thank God, have decided. Tell us about yourself so that we understand. You say that you can’t decide on the ruler. But the basic question is: who are you? Do you criticize the authorities from the right, from the left? Where are you a left liberal, where are you a right conservative? Describe. Let's go in order.
It is not subject to any description, it is not necessary.
Good. What should be the retirement age? Do you really need to change in Russia, raise the retirement age?
I believe that there is currently no need to raise the retirement age - this is the first thing. Second: in fact, this is impossible, because people are already 30% disabled by retirement age. If we raise the retirement age, they will even more apply for disabilities. And most importantly, they simply do not survive. Our men do not live up to retirement age. The Pension Fund Problem ...
And what is the average age of our men in Russia?
Average life expectancy?
Average life expectancy.
Depending on the regions. But the actual life expectancy for men is less than 65 years, of course. They will simply not live to see retirement. And the Pension Fund problem is solved not by increasing the retirement age, but by taking money where it is: from oil and gas workers, they do not pay extra taxes, they don’t pay extra dividends. From there you need to take.
This is what the communists say, on this particular point it is an absolute communist agenda - take and share.
How can you take it and share it?
How? They say the same thing. Now, in fact, we need to take this money and spend it on education.
It's good that you invited me for this interview. Now we are all these cliches of yours that are in your head, we are now eliminating them.
Let's have fun.
This cannot be divided and divided, this is a normal taxation system that exists in all countries.
That is, 70% of taxes?
What are 70? Where did you get 70% at all?
Do not know. How much to have enough for pensioners, who are more and more every year?
If you look at how many dividends Rosneft pays per barrel of oil, you will see that this is ridiculous money. For example, Bashneft paid much higher before it was absorbed by Rosneft. Our oil workers underpay money to the budget, underpay dividends.
Do I understand correctly that this money will be enough for pensioners of the whole country according to Alexei Navalny?
There is enough money from correct, fair taxation of the commodity sector to ensure Pension Fund without raising the retirement age, there is no need for this.
Can I ask you now? I answered your question, where did you put me to the right or to the left?
Now, of course, to the left.
Why left? Normal taxation.
For this position. No wait, tax hikes. Let's do it this way: from the starting point of today, people who, in principle, are in favor of raising taxes, are always on the left flank. We're talking about today's point.
First, I just said about the increase in dividends. And the people who are in favor of paying more dividends, are they on the right in your terminology?
Let's try today, I would like to devote our interview to this, because, however, it is very interesting to me, I am your potential voter too - identification, where is Alexei Navalny? I studied political science, consider that it is important to me personally. Let's move on to foreign policy.
And I believe that you studied political science, put everything out of your head, you should have studied it in vain, you had to take some other course.
Good. We will talk about this later. Look, in due time ...
No, Ksenia, I will be happy to answer you specific questions. I'm glad you asked. But this whole line of political science, it is not applicable in Russia.
I disagree with that. I believe that it is applicable, and, in general, I understand, voting for the communists, that they are always leftists, always for raising taxes.
Is United Russia left or right?
Centrist at the moment. This is the center party today.
Center for whom? Why? She likewise opposes raising the retirement age.
Listen, let's do this: I'm not going to become president yet, I'm interested in studying you, really. Let's move on to foreign policy. At one time, in 2008, you called for the recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and Ossetia. Was that right?
Transnistria.
And Transnistria, and Abkhazia, and Ossetia. If you want, I can quote, but it's enough for me that ...
Yes Yes Yes. Of course, this was the manifesto of the People movement, I thought that independence should be recognized.
Yes, you wanted to recognize independence. At the same time, in general, when in Crimea Putin did what you, in general, called for in Abkhazia and Ossetia, you were initially against it. You even suggested firing cruise missiles at the General Staff, remember that.
It was not about Crimea, it was probably about Georgia, of course.
You yourself answered your own question by saying the phrase: for some reason the situation was different. Because the situation was different. Abkhazia and South Ossetia are regions that initially, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, announced their withdrawal, there were bloody events in Tskhinvali and Sukhumi. There was actually a war there.
Do you know the history of Crimea?
So what?
And I, as far as I know the history of Crimea, neither in the 90s, nor in the 2000s, there was no real violence there. Therefore, these are incomparable things.
Yuri Meshkov - do you know such a person?
President of Crimea.
Who announced that Crimea is part of Russia.
In the 90s. How? This happened in the 90s. He was elected by the people of Crimea. I mean that there were the same processes as in Ossetia.
Yes, not the same. Yes, it is impossible to compare Abkhazia, where there was a war, and which in fact was not dependent on Georgia for many, many years, and is now independent. It is impossible to compare Transnistria, which has actually been independent of Moldova for many, many years. It is impossible to compare with the Crimea and Ukraine. All these events ...
Listen, it's good that there was no war in Crimea, but there was also the same process when they wanted, in general, to speak out for their independence.
Process and war are two different things. Process and real independence are two different things. Therefore, we can discuss all this, and we will discuss it, I just urge you that it is impossible to compare and separate with commas: Abkhazia, Ossetia, Crimea, Transnistria are different situations, completely different.
Good. On the one hand, you are saying that Crimea will never become a part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future, but now you are saying that, in principle, a second referendum should be held. In this regard, I would like to ask: do you seriously think that Ukraine will allow this second referendum if Crimea is annexed? How do you imagine it?
I am not saying this from one side or the other. I say everything on the same side. I speak realistically. I know that many in Ukraine do not like my words, many in Russia do not like my words, but I speak as it is. Realistically, we see that in the foreseeable future, of course, Crimea will not be recognized by anyone, but in fact it will remain a part of the Russian Federation.
And what to do?
What can we do here? What should some fine, any president do? He must announce another normal, or rather, not another, but the first normal fair referendum, which Ukraine, of course, does not recognize with a high degree of probability, we understand this.
What for?
Because you need to carry it out.
But if Ukraine still doesn’t recognize it, let’s do it at least four times.
Here the question is not in Ukraine and not in Russia, but the question of the real expression of the will of the inhabitants of Crimea, which should be defined in reality, and not the way it was.
That is, now you do not trust the residents of Crimea?
I trust the residents.
Referendum.
And the referendum that passed was, of course, an obvious fake. We need to hold a normal referendum - this is the first thing. And second, and I am absolutely honest, too ...
Wait. And why, if no one recognizes him, what's the point? Just to calm their own consciences, that it was people who actually dropped their ballots?
This is not called pacifying one's own conscience, but this is called fixing the real will of people. They are real people, I, unlike you, believe that we should know their real opinion, that they should come and vote in a real referendum, and we will see the results.
What will this change? Ukraine does not recognize this. What happens next?
Fine. We have the same discussion about Putin: why do we need these elections, it will not change anything, he has 84%. This is from the same series.
Lesh, don't translate the topic. What has Putin to do with it? Are we returning Crimea or not?
What kind of strange, impossible formulation of the question is? Once again, I answered this question. First, there is no easy solution. Second: apparently, there is no solution at all, just as there is no solution to any territorial conflict on planet Earth in recent years. Tell me a conflict that was resolved safely. No, no. Even between civilized countries, there is practically no precedent when a territorial conflict would be settled, and here it will not be settled in the foreseeable future.
Look, I'll tell you honestly. I can just have you ...
I hope that you will speak to me honestly.
I want to understand: you are a smart politician, already very experienced. You yourself understand that in politics, especially when it comes to millions of voters who have to vote independently, from the right, left, center, side, always a clean position that people understands wins. Now watching you ...
Did they teach you at MGIMO, Ksenia?
No. Some simple voter is watching you without higher education, and you just said a lot of words about Crimea, but for or against, it has not become particularly clear to anyone. It turns out Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, your competitor, and he, everything is clear with him. He says: "I am for Crimea, this is my main victory and in general I even want elections on the day of the annexation of Crimea, because this is the main achievement of my president." The late Nemtsov came out, who also immediately gave a very simple answer to this question, I remember that well.
This is not true.
But I can also give you a lot of his quotes when he said that Crimea should be returned to Ukraine. Also, for this many people did not like him, but he said it, but I will bring you, let the editor now, I have read these interviews personally and I remember this. Do you have any clear unambiguous position?
Who told you that? You at MGIMO, at the Faculty of Political Science, taught you everything wrong. You think people are stupid. What you have just said, you are saying: "Any person, he does not understand absolutely anything." There are things that cannot be said simply "yes" or simply "no." There are complicated things, so I am such a politician. I am the kind of politician who speaks as is. I speak the pure truth that there is no simple solution to the Crimean problem. No, it's not there.
Good. Come on then, since you understand this better, and political science is nonsense, let's talk about Ukraine. Donbass. How can we generally resolve this problem if we do not return Crimea? How do you imagine that?
These are not related issues.
Donbass and Crimea - unrelated problems?
What is the problem of Donbass? There is a war going on there, and in order to resolve the problem of Donbass and the eastern part of Ukraine, you need to do what your well-known acquaintance Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin signed, start by fulfilling the Minsk agreements, this needs to be done.
And how are we going to get closer to the world until this is done?
We are not getting closer, and it is impossible to get closer to him, with a significant part of the world ...
But without the return of Crimea, this is impossible, without support in the Donbass and without the return of Crimea.
Good. Let's mix North Cyprus and the Falkland Islands in here now, and link the problem of all of them. In fact, this is not the case.
Forgive me, my editor is now prompting me: “If I were president, then Crimea would become Ukrainian,” Boris Nemtsov said on the Inter TV channel, just to end our conversation.
On the air of the Ukrainian channel. Borya said different things on the air of the Russian channel. No matter. I am not here to discuss Nemtsov, but to talk about my position. As I said, the problem of Crimea has no solution in the foreseeable future, it will not be recognized as part of Russia by many countries.
It's clear. How will you negotiate with uncontrollable Ukraine, how will you negotiate with Europe without giving up Crimea? Here you are the president tomorrow - how?
But certainly not by the methods of wonderful video messages from the Dozhd TV channel to President Poroshenko. I will do what Putin ...
Listen, why are you talking about me again, we're talking about you. You are going to become president, not me.
But I am trying to say something that you understand and know.
So tell me how. You are trying to offend me now, and I am trying to sincerely learn your program.
No. If you thought so, I apologize, Xenia. I will fulfill the Minsk agreements. The world demands them to fulfill them, Ukraine demands them to fulfill them, to fulfill them too ...
Ukraine does not comply with them. How do you accomplish them?
I will fulfill the Russian part of the Minsk agreements, transfer control over the border. I will fulfill the Minsk agreements.
What does it consist of Russian part Minsk agreements?
First of all, the withdrawal of troops and the transfer of the border under control ...
Are our troops there?
Of course, our troops are there. Of course, there are armed groups there that support directly with Russia, this has been repeatedly recognized, among other things, by the leaders of these unrecognized republics. They directly say that without Russian support, without Russian troops they cannot fight. And what do you think, please tell me, Ksenia, and who is paying pensions there now? And who pays salaries there?
No, we are now ... Russia, of course.
Of course, KAMAZ leaves with the money.
No, we are talking about formulations simply.
There are Minsk agreements, they were signed - the first and the second. They need to be completed, and with this to begin. And from this, I hope, the normalization of relations with Ukraine will begin. But at the same time, you need to understand that, perhaps, this is the main crime that Putin committed against the future of Russia - that we have found in Ukraine a hostile state, just a hostile state, where there are 40 million people who are hostile to Russia and will be treat us like that for many years to come.
That's the point. Then what about those people who have experienced great difficulties and, in general, and now they are experiencing these difficulties in the Donbass? How to deal with them? They are there now, they support what is happening there, they do not want to go to Ukraine. What to do with them? They believe in their Russian world and want it to take place.
There are different people there.
But there are definitely such people, you must agree.
Of course there are, there are different people. It is necessary to say that some of them, most of them, so that they are not subjected, all of them are not subjected to any illegal repression. To have some kind of amnesty, so that they have guarantees.
Will you stop the nationalists?
Which nationalists?
Which are in Ukraine, the so-called nazbats.
The implementation of the Minsk agreements is not such a thing that we did tomorrow, and they were fulfilled. Naturally, there must be international control, there must be an international peacekeeping contingent, mechanisms are needed to avoid massacres and revenge on both sides. And, in general, this happens quite often in international conflicts... For this there are blue helmets, there are European troops, all sorts of formations exist, and mankind has quite a lot of experience in applying such measures. Therefore, I'm not talking about the fact that I signed the Minsk agreements - heaven has come on earth. A complicated procedure will begin, everyone will violate the truce, everyone will blame each other, there will be propaganda. War is war, but nevertheless, this process can be started only by fulfilling the Minsk agreements.
We have already discussed foreign policy. Everything turned out to be quite easy there, to carry out the Minsk agreements, that's all.
Everything is very difficult, just now it was very difficult.
But it's very easy on your part.
No, I said that this is all very, very difficult, unfortunately.
Good. Let's go back to domestic policy, there is also a lot of interesting things. For example, you write that “Russia needs a visa regime with Central Asia and the countries of the Caucasus. Labor migrants must come on work visas, and not uncontrollably, as it is now ”- also from your website. “Exactly at 7:00 am the Chuchmeks (this is your quote) are simply pounding with sledgehammers on some pieces of iron with a kind of hellish roar, and they are going around for tea in a mug”. Probably, many of your electorate will agree with the definition of "chuchmeka", but for a person claiming the role of president of Russia, these are words that should remain somewhere in the distant past. Do you now yourself understand that it was harsh and, probably, too emotional?
What year is this post? This post, as far as I remember, is often quoted to me in similar questions, I think, from 2005-2007, and it concerned the fact that some people pound at my door and do not let me sleep. Of course, this is how it remained in the past. Probably the word ...
But do you still support the visa regime?
Of course, absolutely 100% yes, Russia needs a visa regime with the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus - this is crucial point of our program.
Listen, but your position on Chechnya is also known, on this ...
Well, tell me, what is my position known for?
How is it? You have spoken many times, I do not know whether this position has changed or not, but from what I remember, you said that it is necessary to stop these uncontrolled subsidies, to stop such a huge flow of money to the region. And, in general, your critics said that yes, probably people like it, from the point of view of populism, of course, everyone likes this idea - not to give extra money. But from the point of view of real politics, in fact, this is the relationship of any center of the empire with its such vassal outskirts, because with this money we kind of atone for conflicts that could be in Moscow.
And tell me, please, why are we not forgiving anything in Magadan or in the Smolensk region, or in the Kursk region?
Quiet regions, we have not fought, as with Chechnya, for so many centuries.
Fine. That is, let us give in places where we are being blackmailed, and in general it is still not clear who, it is not clear who is fighting, we will give uncontrollably. I, excuse me, will strongly object to you here. There is no populism here, there is a sober, pragmatic calculation and the requirement to comply with the law. I really think that money should be distributed more evenly between the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Yes, of course, there are difficulties in the Caucasian republics. By the way, there is more in Dagestan than in Chechnya now. But when I see photographs of Grozny, and it looks like a wonderful city that is behind you, glowing skyscrapers, and I come to any city in the central part of Russia, and I just see destroyed buildings, potholes, to come to some Nizhny Novgorod .. ...
But maybe this is the price of the absence of terrorist attacks? Are you not afraid that tomorrow you will stop giving these subsidies to Chechnya, being president, and the day after tomorrow, in general, all these sensible guys of Ramzan Kadyrov will come here, and terrorist attacks will begin in Moscow?
I want to remind you that a terrible terrorist attack recently took place in your native city, that terrorist attacks are constantly taking place in Chechnya. Not so long ago, we saw that tanks were firing at the House of the Press, it was recently ...
But are you ready to take on even more of these risks?
What are the risks? Once again, now, right now, this is a more irrelevant conversation about the fact that we allegedly bought peace of mind with a lot of money. Don't you, excuse me, that I again recall your appeal to various presidents, didn't you appeal to President Lukashenko not to extradite the young Chechen, because he will be killed or stabbed to death, or, I do not know what will be done to him in Chechnya. We pay colossal amounts of money and get neither peace of mind, nor the absence of terrorist attacks, nor normal government. Therefore, you need to stop talking about it. Stop. All this tribute that is being paid, it is not clear for what it has been paid for several years.
Okay, another question about domestic politics. Let me remind you, we determine whether the policy of Alexei Navalny is right or left. For some reason, he himself still does not know.
I know everything about myself.
Well, define who you are - a right-wing liberal, I don't know, a social democrat, maybe you used to call yourself a national democrat.
Let me tell you that I am a centrist. Will this take away your problems?
The centrist is United Russia.
Oh no, of course, what kind of centrists they are.
Putin is a centrist. That is, you are like Putin.
What kind of centrist is he? Where is Putin a centrist? From the point of view, again, the role of the church, from the point of view of his reactionary nature, he is a right-wing reactionary, he is a person who actually creates a monarchy in Russia, a real right-wing reactionary.
He does not raise taxes, indeed, Putin's tax policy, you yourself even spoke about it in your interviews, tax reform is, in your own opinion, Putin's only achievement.
Do you get a salary in the Rain?
I get it.
Please go to the accounting department and ask how much they have to pay in taxes on top of your salary. Colossal tax burden. And the increase in taxes on truckers, and the endless increase in the price of gasoline, and the endless increase in tariffs - these are all taxes. Therefore, they raise taxes.
Are you against raising taxes?
I am, of course, against raising taxes. I believe that taxes should be reduced in Russia.
Are you in favor of flat taxation?
I believe that it is impossible to cancel it now, because there will simply be more administration. In general, it does not look fair, but, for example, if it is canceled tomorrow, we will simply lose a large part of taxes. I am, of course, in favor of reducing the tax burden on business, I am in favor of reducing the tax burden, most importantly, on the payroll fund. The point of our program says that small businesses should generally be exempted from both taxes and regulation.
Are you for the denationalization of the main ones? ...
I don't really understand what denationalization is.
We know that in recent years in Russia there has been a de facto process of nationalization of a huge number of enterprises, which in one way or another become state-owned.
I understood. Of course, I am in favor of reducing the percentage of the economy that is controlled by the state. Now it is more than 85%, in practice even more through quasi-state companies. Of course, nothing can develop in Russia and is not developing, as we have seen in recent years, because the state has taken over everything. Everywhere there are just some immense "Rosneft", "Gazprom" and "Rostec", and there is practically no private business here.
That is, it can be given to private hands? Arrange, conditionally, such a second wave of privatization in Russia?
Actually. Rather, legally. They are already private companies. Look, Sechin. When you say to him: "You have a state company" - "No, not a state company, we have a private company here." Of course, we must reduce the share of state ownership in largest companies, and certainly absolutely the state must withdraw from competitive sectors such as the oil industry, such as the banking sector.
One more important question, which divides in many ways your supporters. I would like to understand, according to Alexei Navalny, Russia is global - is it still a mono-ethnic state with the majority of Russians, of this mono-ethnic group, or is it a multinational state? After all, Russia is about the state of the Russians or about the state of the Russians, as it was back in Soviet times?
I do not really understand this question, and it seems to me that there is a lot of far-fetched here.
A very clear question.
Completely incomprehensible.
Well, we have a titular nation - the Russians.
We have facts that show that in Russia 85% of people register themselves as Russian. From the point of view of various standards, including political science, sorry, this can be considered a mono-ethnic country. Nevertheless, Russia is, of course, a multinational state; there are other large ethnic groups.
Now about the facts.
I acknowledge these facts.
You, Alexei Navalny, candidate for the post of President of the Russian Federation, do you want the majority of the people of our country to feel like Russians or feel like Russians?
Most of the people in our country objectively perceive themselves as Russians, they are Russians. This is a problem sucked from the finger, Ksenia. Of course, we need to form a civil nation, we do not need to force a Tatar to declare that he is Russian, but it is also quite senseless and stupid to demand from the Russians that they forget the word “Russian” and say: “We are Russians”. In reality, this is an unnecessary, invented construct.
Earlier in the USSR, conditionally, one could relate differently to the policy of the USSR, but there was one factor that objectively united all of us.
Soviet citizens?
Yes, Soviet citizens. These citizens all knew who Pushkin was, they all grew up on the same literature. Now, if you go to Tatarstan, if you go a little further abroad, I don’t know, to Uzbekistan or somewhere else, to the CIS countries, this integrity, of course, will not exist at all.
What for? Naturally, in Uzbekistan, no one knows who Pushkin is.
Do we want, inside our country, inside Russia, at least, to leave this integrity of one cultural background?
She is. I assure you that Pushkin is taught in any school in Tatarstan or Chechnya, there is a single school curriculum, there is a single official language- Russian language. Etc. All this is there, and there is no need to invent anything. Once again, all these strange things - the Ministry of National Policy, some invented things - they are not needed at all. No need to fence a vegetable garden.
In fact, there were no Soviet citizens, and we saw it in full growth in 1991, when everyone disconnected, and now everyone has forgotten Russian, no one speaks it. And when they try to tell me now that Uzbekistan is especially close to us, so let's let everyone come here without visas, this is obviously not the case. And inside Russia, of course, there is Russian culture, Russian culture, it unites us all into a single cultural code.
Russian or Russian after all?
Russian and Russian.
Do you feel Russian?
Well, of course. I am Russian by nationality, I feel myself Russian, I feel like a citizen of Russia. And this is in no way included ...
Can you answer me honestly? In your address to Alisher Usmanov, which I really liked, I even wrote, it made a strong impression on many people, you address him so emphatically every time by name, patronymic, surname, as if emphasizing each time his non-Russian origin.
And if he were Ivan Ivanovich, would I have treated him differently?
It seems to me that you would less often pronounce this phrase like this: "Ivan Ivanovich Ivanov."
Any person who is not familiar to me, who is older than me in age, I will refer to him by his first name and patronymic. And even more so to a person who I do not like. I try not to be rude to him, but to speak politely, including because politeness annoys people often even more than rudeness.
The only moment, since we started talking about Alisher's appeals, they made a lot of noise, and your answers ...
Don't you call him Burkhanovich now to avoid underlining?
I feel myself to be a Russian, but also a Russian, for me this is important.
And it has nothing to do with it?
Look, from the point of view of this appeal of yours and the subsequent reaction, you do not regret that you did such a big investigation, cool, with facts and so on, and this fly in the ointment in the form of this strange story about rape, which he was hooked on, and it turned out, that this is really a rumor, someone said there, and the British Ambassador said somewhere, but it was impossible to find facts and pieces of paper ...
Not somewhere he said, but wrote in his blog. This is the first thing.
Do you regret mentioning this fact? Without him, there would be a completely pure story.
In the investigation, we did not mention Usmanov's criminal record at all. In general, not a single word was said there, because we wanted not to create additional negative connotations for him. As for the whole further history, well, of course, I told everything that I know about his biography, including this fact. And I draw your attention to the fact that in judgment, which Usmanov squeezed out of the Russian judicial system, they did not touch this point.
Returning to the agenda, now we will understand for sure whether you are left or right. Many people say that all these anti-gay laws are a huge trap for any person coming to power next, because to repeal similar laws much more difficult than coming up with them. We have a large core of a conservative electorate, family people, homophobic people, let's say. and any president, even sincerely sympathetic or in no way related to this group of citizens, will have problems to cancel it all.
This is not true. You probably don’t remember, but even when I was still applying to law, there was an article in the Criminal Code “Homosexuality”. Nevertheless, it was canceled without any problems at all, no one even noticed.
"Sodomy". Are you ready to allow gay marriage?
I believe that we need to follow the path that the United States followed before the decision The Supreme Court, namely: to hold referendums at the level of the subjects of the federation. The attitude towards gay marriage will certainly be very different in Dagestan or St. Petersburg. But personally, I, if there was a vote, I have no problems and obstacles to allow people to marry.
What about the ban on abortion?
I am against the ban on abortion, of course. Now to ban abortion is just to make it so that just thousands of women, tens of thousands of women, maybe hundreds of thousands of women, looking at the real statistics of abortions in Russia, will run them illegally, they will die, they will get sick, some kind of illegal medicine. Of course, this cannot be done. Of course, we must strive to ensure that there are fewer abortions, in Russia there is an enormous number of them. But these are not prohibitive measures, they include financial measures, including so that a woman does not think that becoming a single mother is everything, these are problems, the collapse of life. These are social mechanisms.
Look, everything that you are saying so far is on the whole really such a center-left agenda. What is right in you? Can you list it yourself?
I don't understand, explain to me what is right? In the traditional, I apologize very strongly, political science, the visa regime is probably considered the right agenda. I advocate for people to issue permits for the possession of short-barreled weapons - this is traditionally considered the right agenda. For example, in American political science, it would be right. Visa regime, weapons are right. The prohibition of abortion is on the left. Tax cuts are right again. I say it again, this all makes no sense in Russia, because in Russia the state is, in principle, perverted, and what I am speaking with is not a right agenda and not a left agenda, it is just a return to normalcy.
Conventionally, imagine these elections, there is Putin, who has his own electorate, his own understandable concept of state development. What if we distract ourselves from corruption, from the Ozero cooperative, from your ...
I cannot be distracted.
I understand, but try. Imagine that all this has already happened, you released all this, these investigations, people already know about them, see and so on. But from the point of view of the essential meanings of the development of the Russian economy and the politics of Russia, you can oppose Putin, what is your global difference from him, if we remove the theme that you are fighting against theft and corruption.
This is the essential difference. It cannot be removed, and this is the key mistake of many people who say, "Well, the fight against corruption - okay, this is such nonsense, let's talk about something else."
This is not nonsense at all, this is a very important job. But do you have something in the economic program, in the political development program, which ...
Of course yes. We are against the fact that the state has now eaten up the entire economy, we are in favor of reducing the role of the state, we are in favor of an emphasis on the development of human capital. Putin has been consistently cutting spending on education and health care and increasing the military-police budget.
Tell me honestly, what is the reason for the fact that lately, I have been following your speeches, before they were harshly anti-Putin, there were a lot of hurtful words, personal words, comparisons with animals, I don't even want to repeat ...
What animals?
I remember from the rally this performance, that now it is small and sleek like a mouse, it was hammered out there somewhere, I don’t even want to quote. Why has this rhetoric changed now?
I certainly support everything that I said earlier, I really believe that they are corrupt officials and thieves, including Putin personally, they are, and it is pointless to deny it. You are now asking me about the essential difference. I will not say: he is a thief, and I am not. Yes, it's a basic difference, but you asked about approaches to economics. Therefore, I say: my approach to the economy, that we will reduce taxation on small businesses, reduce salary taxes, take more from Putin's sacred cow, namely from oil and gas companies, we will reduce the military and police budget, and develop human capital.
Let's be honest. Many people who support you ...
I was honest from the very first word in this program.
The people who support you - big business, medium-sized business, many of my acquaintances with whom I communicate - they all say roughly the same thought: “Yes, we do not like what is happening now, we understand that Navalny is much right. But we also understand that scrapping a system, even as terrible as the system built now, will be an incredible crisis in any case. As it was the crisis in the 90s, when the democrats destroyed the old system on the basis of the correct ideas of freedom and liberalism, and no matter how rotten it was, the hungry years came anyway, and they were not to blame for those hungry years, the system simply collapsed. "
Are you not afraid that you are a hostage of this particular process? No matter how wonderful you are, no matter how wonderful the program you have, if it really turns out that Putin will leave or something happens, and you win now or in the next election, you will find yourself in a system that will be completely destroyed, a new cannot be created in a few days, and you will find yourself in the deepest economic crisis, from which you will have to ...
Not afraid. And your friends are wrong, and it is not predetermined. In fact, there are no real prerequisites for any cataclysms to occur.
How is it not predetermined? Everything is now in this conditional cooperative "Lake", everything is distributed, all mechanisms work crookedly and obliquely. How are you all going? ...
Firstly, as we can see, they practically do not work, or, at best, crookedly and obliquely. Dealing with the Ozero dacha cooperative is the least problem, it is quite easy to deal with it, these people have committed criminal offenses, and we understand how to prosecute them according to the law, how to return their property back to the national property. In the 90s, all this happened because the price of oil fell dramatically, there was simply no money, and the Soviet Union, as Russia is now, of course, is a raw material appendage of Western countries. At today's level, we still get a lot of money at a price of $ 50 per barrel.
And if tomorrow Putin, imagine, tomorrow Putin was taken by aliens, and instead of him - Shoigu. Nothing will change at all. Nothing at all. Or then Shoigu was taken away by aliens, and instead of them - I know, anyone from this government, Shuvalov is not my favorite.
May I continue this thought? Many believe that if aliens take Putin away, and even Navalny turns out to be next to him, as the brightest politician of the younger generation, nothing will change either, because Navalny is one of the towers of the Kremlin.
This thought is wrong.
And everyone was put around, Navalny is the only one who does not sit, and with Navalny, somehow, nothing so global is happening. Why does it all work this way? This is the question that a huge number of people are asking.
Nothing global happens to me, except that my brother was imprisoned, who was in solitary confinement for a year and a half, except that our office is constantly raided.
Why are you free, Alexey?
You should ask those with whom you communicate at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum. I do not know.
I haven't been there this year.
I just do what I have to do, I do the things that I believe in.
Doesn't that make you think about something yourself? Don't you think this is strange?
I think about it all the time, but I'm not trying to figure out what's going on in Putin's head. I was once imprisoned, I saw what happened before my eyes.
Do you understand that you were released on the personal orders of Putin?
Do you understand that the decision on the elections and your participation in the presidential elections will be made personally by Putin?
No, I don't understand that. I know…
Don't you think so?
Let me answer. I understand that I was released on the personal instructions of Putin, just as I was imprisoned before on the personal instructions of Putin, for one simple reason: because people took to the streets. And on his these perverted scales, on which Putin is weighing what he needs to do and portraying himself as some kind of mental judoka, so he decided that now we need to release and lead some other strategy against us.
Therefore, what will happen next is my registration for presidential elections or non-registration - will not depend on Putin, it will depend on whether I can unite a sufficient number of people who will create enough political pressure to force them to register me. Of course they don't want to, why would they need to register me? Of course, if we do not do anything and become like all the other supposedly opposition politicians, of course, they will not register. Are they fools or what? They operate within their own logic. But we can certainly make them do it.
We remember that story, it was also discussed, about the fact that Sobyanin gave you votes so that you could be elected. It is clear that this was also done explicitly with some kind of such supreme permission.
And why did the supreme resolution happen? Because I said that I would run, it was just ... not these days, it was June 5th, and we immediately started campaigning. Two weeks later, we put the first, in my opinion, cubes on the street, we started a massive campaign, and these are all the supreme people, as you call them ...
We know how people are removed from elections, you know that.
You didn’t listen to me, and that’s why you don’t know how you are removed from the elections. We began to conduct an aggressive election campaign, and the Kremlin, the mayor's office, anyone else saw that no one would recognize these elections if I was not allowed to attend.
That is, Sobyanin and Putin were scared?
Yes. They were scared that these elections would not be recognized, and decided that yes, this municipal barrier, which they put before everyone, is needed, in this case it must be raised and I must be admitted to the elections. I don't care how they decide to do it there, I knew that I had the right to participate in the elections of the mayor of Moscow, I demanded it, and I was admitted. And I know now that I have every right to participate in the presidential elections, that there are a large number of people who support me, and I will demand the implementation of this right.
As an experienced politician, can you answer my question about a certain abstract Alexei Navalny? Here's a little distraction from yourself and just speculate with me precisely from the point of view of your political experience. My words will sound very cynical, I sincerely wish you many years of a healthy, good life ...
My God, are you now asking my favorite question: why were you not killed? After the question of my second favorite: why you were not imprisoned.
Not certainly in that way. Conventionally, trying to get into the head of Putin and the people who make decisions, or Kadyrov, it seems obvious to me that, weighing the risks, especially after the tragedy that happened to Nemtsov, what are these people at risk? By the fact that 200 thousand people will come out once, and after that they will close a global problem for them? Because if you are not at the same time with them, you are a global problem for them. Conventionally, it’s anything: I left the road, I don’t know, something happened, crazy Chechens arrived, or some other story like that. Why, in your opinion, do they not go this way, which we understand that they were going before our very eyes ...
All this interests you, because you are a young political scientist and studied at him. And it doesn't interest me. I'm not going to do any analysis on things that I know about. I have not seen Putin, I have not thought about it and I am not going to think about it, because I am not interested. How do you imagine that? That I came home and think: why did they not kill me, because they would solve a global problem by doing this? It makes no sense to think about it, we do not know for certain how these people think.
I can tell you why you should think about it - because you are alone in this field just because ... you are a very talented person, but I am sure that we have many talented politicians in Russia who could compete with you in the fight for this place and in the fight against Putin. You are the only one exactly because everyone knows what is happening with Nemtsov, everyone knows that this can happen to any person who crosses this “double line”.
Wait. They are afraid. Everyone else is afraid.
They probably think that the option of simply physical destruction is extremely possible.
Let's put it in a normal word. They don't want to compete with me because they are afraid.
Why aren't you afraid then?
I'm not afraid. I am a normal person, I am not pleased with the thought that something might happen, it is rather unpleasant for me when some kind of "outdoor" or cars are constantly running after me. But nevertheless, instead of working, I'm not going to ponder all day: my God, why didn't they kill me? I have no idea. I do what I think is necessary, and I will do what I think is necessary, because it is right. People support me for this, 115 thousand volunteers have signed up for me, my election campaign is financed with small donations, I see people's support and continue my activity. But this is all, reflection on who killed whom there, did not kill - this is pointless, it makes no sense to waste time on these reflections.
Understood. But, given that you are not afraid of Putin, you are unlikely to be afraid of the Kovalchuks, so a minor question, but it is important for me to ask you: why did you yourself cut a video about the Kovalchuks from your website with your own hands?
We post a lot of different videos on our channel. There are investigations that I publish, there are just reflections or funny videos, or reviews. Here was a review about the Kovalchuk, and the point of the video was that all media in Russia belong to Kovalchuk, and this is so, in this sense the video was true. But after it was published, I did not watch it, to be honest, before publishing it carefully, there was outdated data, that is, there was no meaningful error, but there was outdated data, so I said that I had to delete the video and make another one. more interesting.
So that was the only reason?
Oh sure.
I also can't help but ask about Sechin. There was a story with spoons, but, as they say, spoons were found, but the sediment remained.
Is the sediment against me or against Sechin?
Against spoons. Why are there no major investigations about Sechin?
It seems to me that if we watch my channel, then even Usmanov and Medvedev I scold less than Sechin. That is, I am constantly talking about Sechin.
The story with Stas Belkovsky is also a short question.
And what is the story with Stas Belkovsky?
We read a lot of some of his comments, and we know that you were also associated with him, Stas Belkovsky claimed and said that he gave you money. That is, in January 2010 there was a correspondence, it was recognized, this correspondence, the campaign against Oleg Deripaska's Rusal, 50 thousand dollars.
This is the first time I hear about this, that Stas Belkovsky said and asserted something.
"Vedomosti".
When it was?
Wait, it was not Belkovsky who said, sorry, I am reading the respected edition - Vedomosti, a quote from there: “From Navalny's correspondence with political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky it follows that in January 2010 Belkovsky ordered Navalny to campaign against Oleg's Rusal for $ 50,000 Deripaska. The company was just doing IPO ".
Did Vedomosti write that? This means that there were many different correspondences. Something was opened, something was not opened, something was invented.
Did you receive money from Stas?
For some kind of campaigns against Rusal - of course not. Belkovsky and I talked for quite a long time and nobody was financed ... Belkovsky - he doesn't even have the money to finance something on a large scale, this is quite interesting ...
Belkovsky gave you money - yes or no?
That is, hitting Deripaska was in itself.
Even now I am ready to hit Deripaska with pleasure, because Deripaska is the same resource oligarch like everyone else.
That is, just at the moment when the company conducted IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange.
It had nothing to do with the Hong Kong IPO.
Is it a coincidence?
And it could not affect the IPO on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. This, you know, is from the same series, someone thinks that I am attacking Shuvalov because Sechin asks me to, or that I am attacking Sechin because Miller asks me to.
It's clear. Another quote from your former comrade-in-arms, I should also quote it, from the wife of Udaltsov. For some reason, she is very ...
Udaltsov's wife is definitely not my ally.
As I understand it, you and Anastasia talked before, we even saw each other together, and Udaltsov was the person who was with you at the rallies.
Udaltsov? Sergei Udaltsov, who is a political prisoner and was one of the leaders of the leftist organizations, was certainly my ally and participated in the Coordination Council of the opposition. What his wife says is of little interest to me.
I will explain for our viewers, you said that you were busy collecting money for Leonid Razvozzhaev and, accordingly ...
I was not busy collecting money.
That you are raising money for prisoners, this is your quote, that people need to be supported, and so on.
I do not do that. Recently I collected absolutely money, we collected 870 thousand rubles for a person who was arrested ...
In the city of Vladimir, you said this.
... for the man who was arrested at the rally on the 26th. As for collecting money for the rest of the political prisoners ...
On Razvozzhaev - you also said.
Can I answer, please? I supported all this, I called, but I was not directly involved in the collection. I wrote: "Transfer to such and such a wallet", I did not deal directly with the collection, this is not my function, these are wonderful people who collect money, but I already have a lot of work to do, I do not have time to administer it all.
It's just that Anastasia Udaltsova, in response to this, said that Alexei Navalny was lying in the rhythm of breathing, Razvozzhaev's lawyer Agranovsky claims in a video appeal that he had not seen a single kopeck. In general, there was such a big scandal.
Ksenia, if you go to Twitter to Udaltsov's wife, you will read this to yourself that will be just scary.
I don’t come in.
And you are doing the right thing. And I don’t come in. I am not interested.
But I'm not running. You know, I'm in the house.
I am running, but to be honest, even taking into account the fact that I am running, I am extremely not interested in what Udaltsov's wife says.
You know, it's called, and about the culture at the end. Have you heard ...
The end has already come.
Do you want more with me?
Of course I want more.
With pleasure.
We have not yet decided where I am, right or left.
Well, you said that you are a centrist. That is, you occupy the place that United Russia is now.
I’m just to calm you down, so that your political science itch will stop.
Then you will have posters, and there it will be written: "I am for stability." Well, one more step, and we will be there. By the way, this is a very good political science move - young Putin. By the way, think about it.
You shouldn't have gone to MGIMO to study political science. Something else was needed, Xenia.
Why, if to scold Putin not for corruption, but for the fact that I am just the same, but young, - in principle, it would be quite promising too.
I give you, can I give you political science advice? You will run, say, I am young and a woman, and you will scold him for that.
Good. Now, seriously, about culture. Many were very worried about the process that happened with Kirill Serebrennikov. A huge number of worthy people came to the theater. Why didn't you support this meeting with your own participation and were not there, at the theater?
As far as I remember, I was just then, it seems to me, in Barcelona and was doing the operation. I won't lie, I either went to open headquarters, or ... in any case, it seemed to me that I was not in Moscow. I spoke about Serebrennikov, and in my program.
Yes, I remember that.
I can now explain my position. But no, I did not come to the theater.
Your position is that this is actually a kind of general situation around the theatrical cultural life, as I understand it, which, among other things, results in such things that ...
I believe that the case against Serebrennikov, and this is undoubtedly a custom case, now a woman has been arrested there, from whom they are simply obviously beating testimony against him. And of course, this is a trend, in general, such a reactionary trend, when the state in any more or less independent manifestations of something, in particular creative, despite the fact that Serebrennikov is quite loyal to the state, it cannot even tolerate this degree of loyalty and therefore trying to eat everything, and trying to eat it now.
What is your favorite performance by Serebrennikov, if you have seen any.
I went to the Mueller Car, but I have never seen so many naked people in one place. I went just when there were elections in The State Duma, it somehow resonated with what was happening. I liked Metamorphoses. I liked Mueller's car, well, it is interesting, but I liked it a little less. I cannot say that I am a big theater lover. I'm not the right person to ask, because it turns out that I'm a redneck in this sense.
Which three books have influenced you the most?
I read a lot and continue to read a lot. Influenced? The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, mine, was one of my favorites. And in general, Mark Twain, I really appreciated him, and still appreciate him. I find it difficult. My favorite book is War and Peace. I believe that "War and Peace" is the main work, after which, in a certain sense ...
Are you seriously? Is this the book that influenced you? Are you seriously? Well, you are clearly not a Tolstoyan.
First, what does the Tolstoyan have to do with it? Secondly, what are you talking about, Ksenia, what are you talking about?
Listen, the non-resistance of evil to violence, Tolstoy, the concept of what is impossible ...
It has nothing to do with it. Tolstoy's philosophy, what is commonly called Tolstoyism, has nothing to do directly with War and Peace, with the fact that I really believe that this is the main work of Russian literature and, possibly, world literature.
What did you like about it? Why is it?
I’m talking to you, you know, by the way, to the question of your sarcasm, to the question of the words: my God, "War and Peace", ha-ha, your favorite work.
Now I am completely without sarcasm.
At Yale, I remember we had a strategic planning seminar, a strategy seminar, which was very difficult to get to. And there they said that "War and Peace" is the main work that a person must read in order to get into our course at all and understand something in this course. Therefore, many people value Tolstoy even more than we do inside Russia.
I am talking about this without sarcasm. Do you remember such a character, Platon Karataev?
Oh sure. But I don’t have to identify myself with any characters, I don’t have to lie somewhere on the floor, looking at the sky of Austerlitz.
What's your favorite character?
I don’t have a favorite character. I love this book, I find it interesting. I like the way it is written, I like the intertwining of characters, I like psychology, excuse me, Leo Tolstoy. But I'm not going to think about how I am similar to Pierre Bezukhov, or how I am not. Well, it's just funny.
Will you name another third book?
I don’t want to tell you the third book. I'm sorry, I think this is a rather pointless question, I like a lot of different books.
Not pointless at all. Do you know why not meaningless? I'll tell you why.
Let's turn on Posner again and ask me - what would I ask God if I were in front of him?
No, I hope you will someday tell Pozner when he invites you to Channel One. I wish you to live up to this time. But I'm asking you about books ...
This will be difficult.
I am asking for a reason. For example, I recently finished reading the memoirs of one of my favorite American politicians, Roosevelt. And there, among other things, he very interestingly says that he believes that, in principle, a politician should not be a professional politician, but a president. That there should be a strong bureaucracy in America, but the president should be a person who is as far as possible from politics, preferably some farmer or some person from other spheres, because politics in itself spoils a person very much. And we know examples in history, such as Vaclav Havel or the example of Sakharov, who, perhaps, did not become a politician, but was, in fact, a great political figure.
Walesa is the same.
I'm not offended. I'm okay with all this. But people ... Politics is a tricky thing. It is complex precisely in the sense of the terms. Many people just find it difficult to say correctly what they mean, again due to the problems of this political terminology. Well, they say and speak. Of course, I believe that it is not a matter of the president, but a matter of strong institutions. Excuse me for such a banality. There must be a bureaucracy, there must be a system that slows down any president, or vice versa, gives him a kick to make him work. Times have changed since Roosevelt. And as we can see, a businessman-president came to the White House, and something is not very successful there, apparently. But of course, I believe that a person who enters these offices, presidential offices, must first of all be a normal person, he must say the right things, he must have a correct view of the world. And that is why, probably, the best presidents in last story there were those who did not have much bureaucratic experience. Obama, the same Havel you mentioned, or Walesa, Angela Merkel, they did not manage any Gazprom, they were not red directors, they were not involved in big business. But they have correct views on how society should be organized. Because the president is the same person who, by and large, must say the right words, and correspond in his daily life to the principles that he proclaims, and then everything below will begin to change.
The last question on this topic. Alexey, don't you think that the very idea of becoming president and wanting to become president is quite strange from a psychological point of view? That is, this is the idea of a maximum ego that wants to be realized in such an incredible position. Regardless of whether you want it for the people, for the future of the country, this is the desire itself, and I know that you have a very great desire and determination, you do a lot to achieve this goal, and I wish you it was achieved sooner or later. This is the main purpose of your life. That is why, why you so want to become ...
Ksenia, I have no obsessive goal of becoming president. I would like to change the country, also because I live in it, my children live here, my family lives here, friends, relatives. I like to live here, I like to speak Russian. And I am absolutely not satisfied with what is happening. I know for sure, one hundred percent, that we could live much better if we changed some things in the country, moreover, small things, they need to be changed, and tomorrow the world around us will become much better.
Are you not afraid that the authorities will spoil you, Alexey?
Power is likely to spoil any person if he is in this power for too long. So now it seems to me that, of course, me ... well, of course, she will not spoil me. But people should not believe simply verbal guarantees, there should be a system in which eight years is the maximum, and goodbye, go to retirement or do something else. Four years, was able to be re-elected - four more years.
In your situation, you understand what will be wrong, that people will have to take your word for it, because you will come to the country, absolutely not having these institutions at the moment. With absent courts, with a corrupt system of everything and everyone state institutions, and you will come to this system, in which you have to believe that you will find in yourself the will to personally limit your own powers and build this system.
This is the wrong approach. We are not in Somalia, we are not in a primitive communal system, and now we are not in the 16th century. The necessary institutions in Russia are not that easy, they can be rebuilt quickly enough in the foreseeable and near future, if there is a desire, and judicial system, and law enforcement... We have money, we have an educated population, some infrastructure remains, we have an industry, so there is no need to say that we are right here with you in the desert, and people are running around in loincloths, and we must select a chief judge from them. Well, this is actually not the case. We understand how to reform both the judicial system and law enforcement agencies. When I become president, we will rather quickly create these institutions, and also because we will introduce self-restraint, which concerns the reduction of the presidential term, the refusal to appoint judges and independence in the appointment. The most important, one of the most important, is the independence of the media. Dozhd TV channel will broadcast what it wants, where it wants, on cable networks.
Will you come to the debates with the rank of president?
Please tell me how many presidential candidates sat in your chair and answered your questions, which I don’t always, I will not hide, did I like? I sit here answering questions. And I will continue to answer them.
Special thanks to you for this. I hope that in our new status we will have the opportunity to communicate with you someday. Thank you for this interview, Alexey. Thank you for coming to our studio.
Thank you, Ksenia.
I must say and apologize for the not quite accurate quote by Lev Schlosberg, my editors tell me that it is correct in meaning, but from the point of view of specific words, you can take a look, and our viewers can look at Ekho Moskvy, it is slightly different.
I forgive you, Xenia. And you will excuse me for trying to poke you with this wonderful video message, forgive me, please.
Thank you very much. Alexey Navalny, politician, presidential candidate Russia was our guest today. Good luck, Alexey.
Media playback is unsupported on your device
Ksenia Sobchak: "Politics in Russia is a very dangerous business"Ksenia Sobchak's announcement of her intention to compete with Vladimir Putin in the presidential elections was the main surprise of this political season. In an interview with the BBC, Sobchak told when she began to think about the nomination, how she helped with the investigations of Alexei Navalny, what was happening at her headquarters and why she reappeared on the air of federal channels.
"As soon as the money appeared, the plums went"
BBC : In one of your interviews, you said that you suggested that Alexei Navalny develop a plan of joint actions in case he is not allowed to participate in the elections. When did this conversation take place?
TOcanyonsWITHobchak: I don't remember exactly, but it was about a week before his public address, where he called my views cannibalistic and so on. It was in the fall, probably at the beginning of September.
BBC : On June 9, on Dozhd, before your interview with him, Navalny said the following: "HaveWell, whoever has presidential ambitions is Ksenia Sobchak. ”He then already understood what you were planning?
K.S.: I think he did not understand. Rather, it was a story related to our interviews and my journalistic work. Many began to criticize him after this interview. I was just doing my job and in this sense I cannot comment on it somehow. I know that Alexey said some of these things following the interview.
BBC : It turns out that your readiness to announce the decision is ripe in the fall?
K.S.: No, it was somewhere in July. I first started talking about this with my business friends, with those people who agreed to fund this campaign, in the second half of July.
My only connection with Putin is that when I was a 10-year-old girl playing Nintendo and Super Mario, he worked with my father Ksenia Sobchak, TV presenter
In August it became clear that this is a serious thing. We began to develop a system, think about how we would do the campaign, and so on.
As soon as there was money, an account, there were already plums from the presidential administration, an article in " Vedomosti " (The newspaper "Vedomosti" was the first to mention the possible participation of Sobchak in the race on September 1 - BBC).
It was amazing how this system works. Because exactly on the day when the sponsors transferred a large amount of money for the campaign to me, this article appeared. Apparently, somewhere out there they realized that this was all serious. And so it began.
"I helped Navalny with investigations"
BBC : Skeptics believe that Ksenia Sobchak's campaign is needed in order to blow off steam due to the non-admission of Navalny. Navalny has a plan to protest if he is not allowed. Here you appear and offer to vote for yourself. Doesn't this weaken Navalny?
K.S.: No! How can I weaken it? On the contrary, I am making it stronger, because we are pursuing the same goals, simply by different methods. Not all people are prepared to be arrested. Many people across the country are against Putin. They are ready to do something, but they are not ready to go to jail. Why not provide them with a legal procedure? What's wrong with that? I really do not understand.
I am very realistic about my chances in this election. I understand that the chance to become president is even less than the minimum Ksenia Sobchak, TV presenter
How can I weaken Navalny if I defend his position, if I believe that he should be allowed to participate in the elections, if I support his principles? I even helped him do some of his investigations.
I'm just showing another road. I say: "Guys, if you want to go outside and protest, great, you are heroes. Go ahead, this is the right thing, it's great that you are ready for it. But for those who are not ready to go outside, there is another way."
Image copyright MARINA LYSTSEVA / TASS Image caption Ksenia Sobchak and Alexey Navalny at the action "For Fair Elections", December 26, 2011BBC : Can you give an example of at least one person who would try to get the most important position in the country without a political base, experience, or a party behind his back? Who is your role model?
K. S.. : I am very realistic about my chances in this election. I understand that the chance to become president is even less than the minimum. But there is a concept of elections that can turn the situation around, and there are many such examples. We remember the referendum on [Chilean dictator Augusto] Pinochet. He thought he had all the power in the country, but after the referendum he lost power.
I want this election to be a referendum on confidence in Putin. The people who will vote for me will not vote for me, but against Putin and his system.
And if there are many such people, it can turn the situation around, it will lead to big changes. It depends on how many come to the polls - we can even achieve a second round. But I cannot achieve this alone.
Kremlin hugs
BBC : Regarding your meetings with President Putin. You said you had a conversation ...
K.S.: I have already said everything on this topic. Friends, let's not suck on the same thing 148 times. I have no meetings with President Putin. During all this time, I had one meeting related to cinema.
Incidentally, I also met with [Prime Minister Dmitry] Medvedev and other people who made great political career, and before that they worked with my father.
My only connection with Putin is that when I was a 10-year-old girl playing Nintendo and Super Mario, he worked with my father.
I have already told everything I could on this topic. Let's not go back to this!
Image copyright KRASILNIKOV STANISLAV / TASS Image caption As the BBC wrote, the official announcement of Sobchak's nomination for the elections was preceded by a conversation with Vladimir PutinBBC : That is, there was no second meeting? Because they talk about it.
K.S.: No! I had no meetings with President Putin either before or after. What are they talking about? When you tell me who specifically says what evidence is being presented, then we will talk about it again. In the meantime, these are all pests who are trying to strangle me in the Kremlin's arms. I would not like to talk about it.
My calculation is that the Kremlin will underestimate me and consider my participation beneficial Ksenia Sobchak, TV presenter
BBC : You said that you are not going to criticize Putin personally, but the system that he has built. You also said that you consider the annexation of Crimea to Russia illegal. Is what happened to Ukraine not Putin's personal actions?
K.S.: Of course, these are his personal actions. I never said that I would not criticize Putin personally. I said that I would never criticize Putin as a person. In recent years, I didn’t like it when Navalny or someone else said something like “look at Putin, he has Botox” about Putin. I do not like this. "Putin is a thief" is not the language of my choice.
All these years I have said that Putin is the one who is responsible for the system that he has built. Putin is the one who so strengthened the power of the FSB in our country. Putin is responsible for our international isolation.
Of course, what happened to Crimea is the result of Putin's policies. And I believe that it is necessary to discuss what kind of Putin is a politician, not a person.
"They want to laugh at the blonde fool."
BBC : In an interview with Navalny, you said that the decision on his admission or non-admission to the elections will be made personally by Putin..
K.S.: Undoubtedly.
BBC : It turns out that Putin is also making a decision about your participation?
K. S.. : Let's be realistic, all decisions regarding elections are made by Putin and the people who work for Putin. I argue that this election can only be called "kind of election" - I want this label to stick during my campaign.
There is nothing extremist in my words. I have a group of lawyers who are ready to substantiate my every word Ksenia Sobchak, TV presenter
Not a single candidate, even one who has collected 300 or more thousand signatures, will be admitted if there is a strong-willed decision. My expectation is that the Kremlin will underestimate me and consider my participation beneficial.
A good politician differs from a bad one only in whether he has managed to use the situation to his advantage or other people have taken advantage of him. I hope to be a good politician.
At the moment, the number one task is to collect signatures, then something will be decided there in high offices. I don't want to get into their heads, to be honest. They will register - and thank God. The main thing is that I have my position, which I will continue to express. If they do not register it, it will show that they were scared even in their understanding of "blonde in chocolate".
Image copyright ALEXEI KOLCHIN / TASS Image caption Sobchak at a meeting with residents of Yekaterinburg on October 27, 2017BBC : How" chocolate blonde" ended up on" Russia-1" in the show with Andrey Malakhov? You recently said that you were included in the stop lists.
K.S.: Yes, of course, all my life I have had stop lists on all channels. Why Malakhov invited - this is not a question for me. They decided that they would take advantage of the situation and make fun of the blonde fool on their TV screens. Were they able to laugh in this program? It seems to me that no.
I managed to pronounce Navalny's name, and talk about Crimea, and urge all people to read real sources of information, and not propaganda on federal TV channels. I completed the program at least during this broadcast.
BBC : Some people in Russia who say Crimea should belong to Ukraine, threatens criminal prosecution... Some are under investigation and in prison. How do you manage to pronounce such words without consequences?
K.S.: What do you mean succeed? There is nothing extremist in my words. I have a group of lawyers who are ready to substantiate my every word in terms of compliance with the law. I say what I think, and no one will make me say otherwise!
- Chief political consultant Sobchak left her campaign headquarters
"Not ready to expose others to fire"
BBC : Chief technologist of your headquarters Alexei Sitnikov announced his resignation. He said that everything is done on the knee, that there is no funding. Explaine,what is the reason for this demarche?
K.S.: Your information is not entirely correct. There is no demarche here. It is that I made a decision that we will not cooperate with Alexei Sitnikov. We have no conflict situation. I just looked at work for two weeks and realized that it would be more expedient to go the other way. To save money and make our work efficient.
It is clear that a large team is always grinding. There are wonderful people who are building the headquarters today: these are Vitaly Shklyarov, Igor Malashenko.
Image copyright STANISLAV KRASILNIKOV / TASS Image caption Igor Malashenko, unexpectedly for many, headed the election headquarters of Ksenia SobchakBBC : But all of them are not engaged in collecting signatures and organizing field work, for which Sitnikov was responsible. Who will do this now?
K.S.: We have resolved the issue of collecting signatures. We have a team of fieldworkers who are gathering, with whom we are actively meeting.
BBC : Alexey Sitnikov said that his team of about 30 people from your headquarters is leaving with him..
K.S.: Can I not comment on this? I think you need to talk to him separately.
BBC : Does your headquarters have [ member of the board of directors of the newspaper "Vedomosti"] Demyan Kudryavtsev? They say that he cooperates with you.
K.S.: I am not commenting. You'd better ask Demyan Kudryavtsev.
BBC : That is, you do not confirm or deny?
K.S.: I am not commenting. Politics in Russia is a very dangerous business. I am ready to expose myself to the firing squad, others against their will - no. Therefore, if they deem it necessary to say, let them say it themselves. Both businessmen and people who work in a team.
BBC : Which of the big businessmen agreed to fund the campaign?
K.S.: I say it again, I cannot answer these questions. These questions are not for me, but for these businessmen. I can't frame their business. When they want (hopefully soon), they will announce themselves.