Alexei Navalny on the “Special Opinion” program on Echo of Moscow

The program is hosted by Tatyana Felgenhauer. Special

Opinion on Tuesday after 7 p.m.

For some reason, there are two sets of mugs.

Two sets of mugs. You can drink from the red one if you want,

or from the other one if you want. Some water is poisoned. I

have to knock it out.

And for some reason we have two sets of mugs. And I

just don't know.

Borshchevsky drank from this mug.

Please take away Borshchevsky's mug.

We don't need these two.

Moscow. By the way, our

Setevisor (the station's video stream) is already on, just in case you

feel like swearing with some

bad words.

At Borshchevsky or just in general?

In general. Though why not start with Borshchevsky right away?

Well, because he took a sip from my mug.

See, Lyosha, the broadcast hasn't even started yet, and they're already

asking you how much the

U.S. State Department pays you.

Well, I said it right away.

I also never say how much

the State Department pays me.

You're a clever fool. Tune in this Tuesday to

the TV magazine

KarauLov Without Fools.

Just turn off your phone afterward and take off your

watch.

Anton Orekhov, Nikolai Alexandrov, and

the program

Radio Details

together wrote the book Radio Details,

Voices on Paper.

This book is read everywhere, including on

Taganka (a historic Moscow district).

Good Lord, what kind of ad is that?

It's a good ad. What don't you like about it?

On Wednesday after midnight, on Boris

Alexeev's program: Anatoly Kroll and his

Musical Pilots of Jazz.

Is any air conditioner going to be

working here, or something?

I'm just, just in case,

checking whether the sound engineer is still alive, because he's

lying there in quite a pose.

This program will be shown by

the company. You can watch our broadcast

One last sip. Come on, you can't breathe enough before death.

Pick a phone.

I'll turn it off now.

Echo of Moscow radio and RTVI

present the program Special Opinion.

Hello, this is the program Special

Opinion. My name is Tatyana Felgenhauer.

Welcome to the studio, Alexei

Navalny, lawyer and blogger. Hello,

Alexei. Good evening.

Ah, well, let's also have you be a policymaker

for us first, and only then a lawyer and

blogger. The thing is, I don't know,

whether these events are somehow connected,

but President Dmitry Medvedev

met today with judges of the commercial courts

and on the same day the Federal

Commercial Court sent your case back for a new

hearing in your dispute with Rosneft over

the release of documents. So for you, is this decision

a defeat? And yes, I'll play the role of

policymaker-lawyer. Indeed,

it's a remarkable situation. At the meeting,

Medvedev was talking to the judges about some kind of

theory, some kind of fiction,

which perhaps exists only in his

head. He said that thanks to the

judicial system, we have corrected many

mistakes, and that, among other things, the country's

investment appeal has increased.

Today we saw the harsh

reality, which is that

we spent the last two years

trying to obtain from the company

Rosneft, which is Russia's largest

oil company, a publicly traded

company with more than 185,000 individual

shareholders alone,

to force them to release,

to force Rosneft to release the minutes

of the board of directors and documents that are

guaranteed to us by law. We beat

them in two instances. It was,

generally speaking, received very

positively by investors, lawyers, and

everyone else, because it showed that

a shareholder, even a tiny, insignificant shareholder,

can obtain documents from such a large

company. So you're helping the investment climate?

And in fact, during this case there was

a Constitutional Court ruling in

our favor, and the Presidium of the Higher

Commercial Court also ruled in our favor.

Medvedev also introduced, not long ago,

special amendments that were supposedly

meant to simplify the procedure for obtaining

information from state-owned companies,

but today, to our great surprise,

the Federal Commercial Court sent everything

back for a new hearing. And now we

have to start all over again. Well, of course, in

some sense this is a defeat. That is,

we worked on this for two years, everything was clear to everyone,

everyone was already applauding and

rejoicing at how good it was. At last,

there was improvement. At last, the talk

about some kind of investors coming here

to an international financial

center actually seemed to have something

behind it, because those investors would be able to

interact with the objects of their

investment. And then suddenly, bang, it turns out

that all of it has completely fallen apart. And all these

these

strange characters, Medvedev's former classmates,

whom he appointed everywhere

as chief judges at courts of every level,

for some reason either do not want to, or

are incapable of carrying out even his will.

So, naturally, they must, first and foremost,

do what is required by

the law, right? And secondly, they

must pursue, well, a certain kind of

general state policy, which

is declared in such a way that

investors are supposed to receive information about

how a company operates. Society as a whole should

receive information about how a company operates,

what Rosneft or Gazprom

or Transneft and so on are spending money on. Well,

apparently these companies have more

influence than Medvedev. Ah, so, um,

it turns out that now you’ll have to start everything

all over again, uh, and once more go through all

these harsh judicial realities

of Russia. And,

Well, what can we do? We have no other

choice. We’re going to stand our

ground anyway. We’ll keep proving it, and sooner or

later we’ll force them to do it. Well,

it would be a shame if it takes another two years.

But it’s necessary.

Well, yes, it’s necessary, of course. And do you

expect to succeed in the end

or

It’s absolutely inevitable, because we’re

right, because there cannot be

a situation in which there are

companies that can hide basic

fundamental information from shareholders. That

is out of the question. And if a company wants

to conceal information about itself, then let it

stop being a public

company and turn into a limited

liability company. Just imagine it—

come on, you have to admit, it’s absurd.

The largest oil company in Russia,

an open joint-stock company. And it

says: "We’re going to operate in

a regime of secrecy. Who exactly are they keeping

secrets from?"

Ah, but you must admit that at the same time

to say that we’ll win in court

simply because we’re right, given

what is happening with the Russian judicial

system, is a bit idealistic.

What?

No, it’s not idealism at all. And I

understand perfectly well—I’m not a naive

person—that the current ruling was made

under pressure, under political

pressure from these very companies and

from a certain lobby—governmental,

a corrupt lobby—that wants

all of its little schemes inside these companies

to stay covered up, so that no one can

get anything. But, well, this

government is not eternal. Sooner or

later, that lobbying group

that is forcing the courts to hand down

these unjust rulings will be replaced. I’m sure of it,

because the point is that we all understand that

this is not how things should be, that information

must be open, and since this is not how it

should be, in the end we will win.

Alexei Navalny on the program Special Opinion.

Now let’s move on, in fact,

to that opinion itself. One of the main

stories of the day:

The State Department has imposed sanctions on

people on the Magnitsky list, and it did not

wait for the Senate to pass any

bill. How effective

will this be?

I think the State Department did this

without waiting for a decision

from the Senate, simply in order to, well,

let’s say, somewhat calm the most

aggressive

lobbyists for this bill in America,

who, of course, are taking it very hard

that in Russia,

despite all the constant

empty talk and declarations that something will

be investigated, uh, nothing

is happening. We know that just today

reports emerged that those

police officers involved in the Magnitsky

case, who tortured and killed him

and at the same time, apparently, were stealing

the money Magnitsky was investigating,

successfully passed re-certification and

have now become police officers. Well,

some of the investigators, yes,

for example,

Some of them, at any rate,

did pass. And I think that, of course,

this provokes outrage not only in Russia,

but abroad as well. It was

obvious that such sanctions would

be imposed. How effective is it? I

think that overall it is effective.

Of course, one has to understand that for these

police officers—Karpov, Kuznetsov, and

so on—a U.S. visa ban and sanctions do not

create any major problem. But overall

this is a precedent that says:

"Well, today they banned you from

entering the U.S., tomorrow it’ll be Europe, and

the day after tomorrow your assets will be frozen

somewhere in Switzerland." We’re taking

a break now, just one minute.

Stay with us. Special Opinion

will continue.

On the big watch. What you need to know about

the new ones? Alexei scared me.

The microphone isn’t off. We’ve got

a minute of commercials now.

Just now, well, I started making alarmed

faces, and you wrapped everything up quickly.

Good job. We’ve got a minute of commercials now,

then we work until the half hour. The 7:30 p.m.

news. And

Whatever you say. Then

No, we’ll do it differently. What did you

expect me to say? We’ll do it

differently. I decided that we’ll keep working

up to 35 minutes, so they say: "You know,

I'm tired of this," then they get up and leave,

that does happen sometimes.

Yes, it happened a couple of times,

but not on my show."

We say everything, everything, you know.

Echo of Moscow radio.

Everyone was young once, and at some point

earned their first paycheck. Is there anyone here

I can ask to bring me some more

water? Let them bring some more water,

assistants. Here, take mine for now. I haven't

drunk from it.

No, you're not Borshchevsky. You definitely didn't drink from it. I

am not Borshchevsky. Give me your mug,

so as not to break the rules,

how the most famous people earned their

first ruble. And all these stories are on the website

echo eo.sk.ru.

Radio

and we're being shown on these four

wonderful screens at the same time.

Cool. Which camera should I wave to

to say hello?

There, that one.

While I have the chance, I'd like to say hello.

The program Special Opinion continues.

My name is Tatyana Felgenhauer.

Let me remind you that my guest today is Alexei

Navalny. Our SMS line is +7 985 970

4545. The live broadcast is on the Echo of Moscow website, and

the broadcast cardiogram is there on the site as well. And

we've received a great many questions

by SMS asking you to

comment on

what is currently happening in the town of

Velsk. I assume you're following the decision

on the parole request of

Platon Lebedev. It was postponed until tomorrow,

well, the hearing will continue tomorrow, but

today, for example, the penal colony issued

a negative assessment. Do you

think that Platon Lebedev will still be granted parole

?

I think he won't, unfortunately, much

to my regret. And of course I am following

what's happening. You know, watching it

is, on the one hand, absurd, and on the

other hand, of course,

it's disgusting. Everything happening there

is simply disgusting. When, in all

seriousness, a representative of the colony says

that this man does not deserve parole because

he supposedly lost some piece of uniform

clothing there—lost a pair of trousers or something.

Lebedev was convicted of an economic

crime. Even if we set aside, uh,

whether he was guilty or not, whether it was right or

wrong to imprison him. In any case,

he has served 7 years; in our country people often don't serve that long even for murder.

And now this man is being

told in all seriousness that they will not

release him on parole because he somehow

lost some trousers. That is, of course,

disgusting. Of course I hope,

I would like to hope that the law

and justice will prevail and that he

will be released, but I have a feeling that this will not

happen, because the authorities, of course, do not

want it. They think that some

terrible new uncontrollable

factors would emerge: Khodorkovsky and Lebedev at

liberty. I think they simply will not

dare to take that risk out of fear.

And,

Alexei Navalny on the program *Special

Opinion*. Now let's move on to the questions

that have come in to us in huge numbers

through our website. I've grouped them into several

sections. Well then, let's probably start

with the election-related block. And there are several

points here. First of all, how should one behave in

the elections? For example, uh,

a programmer from St. Petersburg, uh,

no, sorry, an employee of the Constitutional Court

asks: "Is your proposal

to vote against United Russia

unequivocal, or could there be other

interesting options?" The thing is that

right now everyone is discussing the so-called

Navalny method, where on the ballot

you vote for anyone at all,

as long as it's not United Russia. So

explain why.

I am not claiming, of course, to have invented

all this, but I believe that

the only, well, if you like,

morally correct way to behave in

an election, which would, uh, allow each

of us to state our position as

citizens and would be genuinely painful for

the authorities, and would put pressure on them, is

to come to the polls and vote for

any party except United Russia. That

is, frankly, it doesn't matter which one, whichever

you want. Flip a coin if you like, vote

for anyone. All the other options are

far, far less painful for

the authorities, from a boycott to

more exotic options

like writing something in, that is, writing

some words on the ballot, making some

crosses, and so on. I believe

that the tactical task right now is

to deprive United Russia of its

monopoly on power. That's what matters. I,

of course, understand that people will now

say to me: "Well, United Russia and Right Cause

are basically the same thing, just a modified United

Russia." It doesn't matter whether it's modified or

not. In any case, it is not United

Russia. And right now these parties, well, if

you like, are too weak and timid to

call for this themselves, that is, uh,

to call for voting against United

Russia, to present a united front

against it. They're busy there with some kind of

petty infighting among themselves. So this must be

that we, the citizens, can do. We must come

and vote for any party against

United Russia, so that ideally

to deprive it of 50% of the vote in parliament. And

whether it works or not, well, we need to

strive for it, we need to campaign,

we need to persuade our grandmothers, our

parents. I believe that each of us,

again, within the framework of the concept of 15

minutes a day of fighting the regime, can

make a fairly substantial contribution.

so that United Russia suffers

defeat. That is precisely why this, uh, well,

basically, now-common phrase

"United Russia, the party of crooks and thieves,"

has become so painful for United

Russia. And they are really so upset

that someone is waging against them

a planned PR campaign. This is

not a PR campaign at all; it is simply

what people think.

Ah, all right. Well then, here is a question from

Andrei.

And what do you plan to do in the event

that the Party of Crooks and Thieves

still wins the State Duma elections? And

do you have a Plan B?

Let’s not entertain illusions again.

The Party of Crooks and Thieves, United

Russia, will win the elections and get

a majority. The question is: what kind of

majority? 50%, 65%, 80%,

103%.

I think that in Dagestan or Ingushetia

that’s not even a figure of speech; there were cases where

it was 103%, right? In some cities it is important

to lower its real rating. It is important

to campaign against United Russia in order

to reduce its real

support. Well, they’ll write in whatever numbers they write in,

it doesn’t matter. What matters is the understanding that

in reality fewer than half of the people

voted for United Russia. Because

we are not talking about paperwork; we

are talking about substance. And United Russia

is Putin’s political support base,

because some people really do vote

for it. Not because

the results are falsified, but because people genuinely

vote for it. Therefore, the task with those people is,

first and foremost, to persuade them.

Ah, all right. Now let’s talk about another

part of the election story. Well, here’s a rather

general question from a programmer in

St. Petersburg. Alexei, do you have

any plans to run in the upcoming

parliamentary elections?

Well, first of all, that’s impossible, because

we no longer have single-member districts. In order

to run for anything, you need

to join some party. I believe that

the party-based political format

for the opposition has outlived itself.

I am not going to criticize anyone here and

say that everyone should now

disband their parties, leave them, and so

on. I do not claim that

my own political

struggle is the only

correct one, but I do consider it far more

effective. What I am doing, I

consider more effective than if I

were sitting in some party and had to

coordinate my positions with some party leader,

and that

party leader would be running to

Surkov. And Surkov would tell him: "Say

this, but don’t say that. Criticize this one,

don’t criticize that one, because this way

we’ll give you money, and that way we

won’t give you money." And that is completely pointless,

it’s a dead end. Well, parties exist,

let them exist. I can do what

I want without any parties at all.

And here’s another question from

an entrepreneur from Perm. If you were

invited to join Right Cause, would you go?

I’ve spoken about this many times already,

and, uh, I’ll repeat: I believe that

the party model has outlived itself. And if I

were to join any party, then a whole lot of

people would say to me: "Alexei, all this

time you were lying to us." I have not the slightest

desire for people to say to me,

"I want to be consistent." And I

consistently state that I will not

join any party. As for

Right Cause specifically,

I think that, overall, it is positive that

some new people are getting involved in

politics. Of course, it is clear that this is an entirely

controlled project. And it is clear that

they do what they are told. Still,

they have appeared, they will try

to say something new there,

something interesting, and somehow they will still

try to compete. In any case, I do not

single out Right Cause

in comparison with any other

parties. I mean, why do people

ask me: "Why Right Cause and not

A Just Russia or the Communists?" It is

roughly the same thing.

Yabloko, for example, is another possibility.

Well, Yabloko is probably still

closer to me, because I actually was a member

of that party, even though I was expelled.

That’s why I mentioned it. Ah, well, look,

on the other hand, there were still a great many

messages on the website, uh, of the following

kind: namely, that everything you are doing is wonderful,

Alexei, but one man alone in the field

is no warrior, and maybe you should organize something of your own

somehow—well, instead of running to a

party leader, you would yourself become

some kind of leader. I am not, of course,

suggesting some kind of Navalny army,

spread across the expanses of the internet

is being formed, to lead it. Well, as for that,

I did have some thoughts. Here in this room

we'll reveal a secret now. Uh, seven people.

Let's say there are seven of us,

united by some goal and

ideology, and we're engaged in some kind of

activity. And then I say: "Attention,

I am creating a movement, and I put all seven of these

people on a list, make a table in

Excel, and write down their year of birth,

and I even make some of them write

a formal application. Will our work become

more effective because of that?" No. That

is, there is a movement. There are people

who support me. There are people—many of

them—who do things together with

me.

But that way you can take part in elections and

A movement does not take part in any elections.

If you were in the country,

If you are a party, you can

participate in elections, somehow

get into the State Duma (the lower house of Russia's parliament) and influence the life of the

state. Right now we're idealists, not like that

but if you are a party, then in order

to participate in elections, you would have to

go and ask someone so that

bearded Churov (Vladimir Churov, then head of Russia's Central Election Commission) could sit there, shake

his head, think, sigh, and decide,

after consulting with Surkov (Vladislav Surkov, Kremlin political strategist), whether to register

you or not register you. I am not

going to take part in politics in such a

way that Churov, Surkov, or

all the other crooks and thieves

would give me permission or deny me permission

to engage in political activity.

Political activity is what

every person carries out in

accordance with their political

views. I have views,

I do. Do I have supporters? Yes, I do,

thank God, for now. But I am going to

carry out my political

activity without Churov and without Surkov.

Ah, all right. Then here's another question for you from

a Moscow lawyer.

It concerns the possibility of your going into

public service. You never know, someone might offer it.

For example, we have before our eyes

the case of Nikita Belykh,

who was offered a governorship. And if

you were offered a post, say, in the

Prosecutor General's Office or the Investigative Committee,

there are all sorts of possibilities, you're a lawyer,

competent and experienced, and there's an offer.

Public service—would you take it?

You need to go to a place where a person

has the ability to independently

make decisions and genuinely

influence something. Yes, for example,

the post of governor does not give you the ability

to influence anything. That is, you are squeezed into

the already existing framework and rules

of the game. Either you play like everyone else, or

you simply—you can't do anything

there. So, uh, the position has to be

one where you can independently

push through at least some decisions.

So you mean straight to the presidency, then?

I'm speaking in general terms, yes. Because this whole

discussion—"what if you were

offered this, would you go or not"—

if we're going to discuss it seriously,

then we need to discuss it concretely. I'm

just talking about the principle and the approach in general.

You should take a position where you can

independently carry out some

decisions. As a civil servant, for example,

at a certain level, I could already have

become one, but I'm not going there because

it doesn't interest me, because I don't want

to be part of this utterly

corrupt system. I am fighting it, this

system, in practice. I am not going

to be part of it.

You would dismantle it from the inside.

I studied it from the inside. I was an adviser

to the governor of Kirov Region for a year. I

looked at it and understood absolutely

clearly that all these romantic ideas about

good people entering

some posts and changing the system

from within are a complete utopia.

You sound rather pessimistic

about it.

Not at all. I am

quite the opposite—very optimistic. I

believe that we should influence this

government, as we should, from the outside. We

must hammer at it, we must bring it down,

we must force it to change. But this idea of

going somewhere and getting some

ministerial portfolio, a car with a blue

flashing light on top, and telling people stories

about how you're changing things from within—now that is

the truly pessimistic, two-faced approach.

Ah, all right. A question from an entrepreneur in

Perm. Alexei, have you ever thought about

the fact that if you break this system all at once

the way you propose, there is

a danger that instead of building a new one,

you'll end up with an alternative that is also

even worse than the old one.

Well, that's also a kind of self-deception. Let's think about it. What

does it mean to break the system? We

imagine it as some kind of

house of cards or sandcastle. What

does it mean to break the system? I walk up and

trample it with my boots.

A system is thousands of people

sitting at their workplaces and doing

various things. You can't just

take it and break it like that. And even

suppose a revolution happened tomorrow,

that would not mean that you,

Tanya, wouldn't have to go

to work the next day because the system had broken down

or something had happened. As for revolution, I would

constantly at work, Alexei. Well then,

there you go, all the more so—you see, a revolution

will create new jobs, so

breaking the system—this, this does not mean

that some kind of chaos will arise tomorrow. It

absolutely does not mean that. That kind of

chaos did not happen either in Ukraine or in

Georgia, or even in Egypt, Tunisia, and so

on.

Ah, all right. Then after a short

break we will talk about what it actually means

to break the system and what can be offered in its place

instead. Stay with us.

The program Special Opinion, in which

Alexei Navalny is appearing today.

Will continue very shortly.

Lyosha, someone calling themselves “Navalny Cutie” is writing to you.

7:30 p.m. in Moscow. In the studio is Alexander

Klimov. News. Firefighters have managed

to stop the spread of a forest

fire 500 meters from the approaches to the settlement of

Kamenny Buerak in the Volgograd Region.

Meanwhile, as Interfax reports, because of

the wind, the fire is spreading toward

the settlement of Kotluban. But it is still 20 km away,

and it poses no threat to residents.

Earlier, 60 residents were evacuated from the settlement of Kamenny Buyrak,

including 14

children. An officer of the Moscow

State Traffic Inspectorate, caught on video

promising that if he were fired he would slash,

kill, and rob, has been dismissed. This was

reported by the press service of the Main

Directorate of the Interior Ministry for Moscow. The video was

posted online by popular blogger

Dmitry Ternovsky last week.

He recorded his conversation with several

traffic inspectors at the intersection of

Volgogradsky Prospekt and Yeseninsky

Boulevard. The congress of United Russia will take place

on September 23–24. This was announced by

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. At this

congress, the list of the party’s candidates

for the elections to the

State Duma (lower house of parliament). Former Egyptian President Hosni

Mubarak is refusing to eat. He

only occasionally drinks water or juice. He has

lost a great deal of weight, constantly feels

weak, and is suffering from malaise. This was

reported to the MENA agency.

by an aide to the country’s health minister.

Let me remind you, next

week Mubarak is due

to stand trial in the case concerning the mass

deaths of people during the revolutionary

events in Cairo this winter. Earlier, doctors

observed cardiac arrhythmia in Mubarak,

and at times he even lost consciousness. On one

of the bridges in one, in one of the Lebanese

cities, Sidon, an explosion occurred. As

Reuters reports, at least

three French

servicemen from the international

UN peacekeeping contingent were injured.

Tomorrow’s exchange rates: dollar 27.55, euro 39.84.

In Moscow, overnight it will be 20 to 22 degrees Celsius, tomorrow

during the day 32 to 34.

Partly cloudy, no precipitation.

Alexander Klimov, Echo of

Moscow news service.

Well then, commercials,

Listen, our support level is

off the charts, basically. Over there,

see, the peak. That’s

100%. [inaudible].

That means everyone is voting for what

you’re saying.

Damn, that’s better than United

Russia in Dagestan.

And get your voucher fo

we rigged it,

of course. We’ve got our own Churov sitting there

—just bearded.

Go up to him and tell him for

I mean, it’s just that a person sits there and

right there on live air presses the

button for what he likes, and then, well,

nobody is going to press the button for

dislike.

So if you don’t like it, you just won’t

listen.

Oh no, Lyosha, you’re mistaken. Here

some people, when certain noisemakers are here, we have

such a,

yes, somewhere down in the negative

somewhere there—questions from Echo

of Moscow journalists. The program The People Against. On Wednesday

after 8 p.m.

Then let’s briefly talk about breaking

the system, because here

there are questions. Echo of Moscow radio and

RTVI present the program

Special Opinion.

Special Opinion continues.

My name is Tatyana Felgengauer.

Let me remind you that my guest is Alexei

Navalny. So, after all, about breaking—or,

I don’t know, changing the system—what does that

mean?

It means a very simple thing: that we

must force them to announce real

free elections. Elections in which

I will be able to take part. I very much want

to take part in elections, but

there is no such opportunity. Nationalists,

Belov from DPNI, the left, the right—anyone.

When all of them have the opportunity

to run in honest and fair elections,

that will be the breaking of the system, in

the sense of this very system

—disgusting, corrupt—under which

some crooks decide, uh, who

gets what percentage. And those people

who are elected by the expressed will

of the people—they will create a new system.

There is nothing terrible about it; first of all, there is nothing here

that needs to be invented anew. It is simply

called representative democracy.

Uh-huh. So we're not talking here about,

our listener is simply writing,

whether this means the Kremlin should be burned down

and everyone shot? No, that's not what we're talking about

at all. Of course not. Especially since

we don't need Moscow's radio station

to be shut down over statements like that on

the air. Ah, but our listener writes,

that as he understands your position, it means we need to

completely replace the existing

government, all the way down to the heads of small settlements.

No, I think it would be enough

to make a clean sweep—of course, that would be

desirable. I think there should be

such a radical change of elites, but again

they could be replaced by a party that

wins 85% of the vote, by a president who

gets that kind of support—Saakashvili got 95% in

his first election, and he had that

opportunity. Putin also got a very

large share in his first election, and he had

the opportunity to change things. Yeltsin

got 95%, and so on. So if

such a politician suddenly appears,

a remarkable one, who gets a very

large share—or a party does—

everyone here is writing: Navalny for

president,

well, that's certainly wonderful. But I assess

my popularity and

my chances realistically, so, well, if there are elections,

the elections will show. I will take part in

the elections if they are held

Uh-huh.

If, well, if they meet

your

requirements, yes, correspond to your—

they won't have to meet my

requirements; they will have to meet

normal standards accepted throughout the

world. They must be free.

So in the near future we won't see you in an election.

Anyone who wants to— No, I think we

will force these people to give up

their usurpation of power and call free

elections. That will happen sooner or later.

Of course, we'd like it

to happen in a year. But we need to be ready

for it to happen in five years.

That it will happen—there is

no doubt about that.

Alexei Navalny on the program Special Opinion.

You mentioned that everyone

should be given the opportunity to run for office, including

nationalists. By the way, there are

a lot of questions specifically on this subject.

Ah, well, let me ask a question from

a student in Moscow. Alexei, aren't you

afraid that your flirting with

nationalist ideology could

lead to what happened in

Norway?

How would you answer that question?

I would answer very simply: no, I'm not afraid that

of what happened in Norway. It was a terrible

tragedy. As I understand it, it was simply

a mentally ill person whose

mind snapped over some mixture of

right-wing ideas and sheer delusion, and he

went out and shot people. That

can happen under absolutely any

regime, in any state, and so on.

No one suspected that this could

happen in Norway, where, generally speaking,

there are even serious restrictions on owning

firearms. And there is no flirting with

nationalism here. I simply say what

I think needs to be said. If there are

real issues on the political agenda,

for example the need

to limit migration, I talk about it.

Some consider that nationalism, some

do not. This kind of applied

political science interests me very little. If I

think something is right, I

say so. If nationalists

win elections or receive a significant

share of the vote, nothing

terrible will happen. In Switzerland,

the People's Party recently won 40%.

What, did Switzerland collapse, or are they

shooting everyone there now? No.

There exists there, I don't know,

In Norway they're shooting everyone.

Well, in Norway lunatics are shooting everyone,

yes. And in Norway, by the way,

no nationalists, incidentally, won

the elections. So there is

no causal link here. It is in no way

connected. In any case, the fact remains

a fact: a significant number of residents

of our country hold fairly

conservative views that are, well,

commonly labeled

nationalist. And there is nothing terrible

about that.

Ah, all right. Then here's another question for you from

Perm about nationalism. The listener asks

what exactly you mean. Russia for

Russians? Is there no place in Russia for Chechens, and what about

Tatars and Jews? Who is supposed to decide

which peoples belong where?

Oh, Lord. This is exactly the kind of

set of stereotypes that has already

become so tiresome for everyone. This whole

'Russia for Russians' thing. And what does it mean that

tomorrow something will happen to Tatars? Or, let's

separate Chechnya, and tomorrow everything will blow up

in the Volga region. Exactly. That is precisely

why—precisely why—I explain this.

What we need to do is solve concrete

problems. The concrete problem

is that the Caucasus is not

really part of the Russian Federation.

It is ruled by some kind of criminal

groups, and they rule because

they steal enormous amounts of money,

part of which they hand over to the crooks who

sit in the Kremlin.

Formally, they are part of the Russian

Federation.

They are part of the Russian Federation.

Fine. You looked at a map. Now look

not at a map, but at real life,

harsh as it is, right? And you’ll see that in

Dagestan, a civil war is going on, and

there is effectively no authority in Dagestan, or in

Chechnya, or in Ingushetia. De facto, they are not

part of the Russian Federation.

So we need to stop droning on about

how all these sister republics should

embrace one another and build some kind of

multiculturalism, and instead talk about

solving a specific problem: namely, that

uh, everything there is run by bandits. These

bandits come here to Moscow, where they seriously

interfere with people’s lives, uh, I don’t know,

Muscovites of every ethnicity. With

other ethnic groups, apart from those from the

North Caucasus, we are not currently experiencing such

problems. No one has

any problems with Tatars or

Bashkirs or Tuvans or Mordvins.

In other words, the ideas of multiculturalism that

people talk so much about now are

perfectly real and workable in

Russia. They already exist. Why even

call it by some strange word like

multiculturalism? People get along

and coexist just fine, and have lived

peacefully for many years. It is the Caucasus and Moscow’s strange policy

toward the Caucasus that have led to the fact that

some organized groups rule there.

So, for example, if tomorrow

we introduced the entirely reasonable measure

of restricting the movement of goods and people from

the territory of the North Caucasus.

Listen, these are citizens of the Russian

Federation. They have rights,

just like you and me,

including freedom of movement.

Hello, Tanya. There is a civil war going on there.

And if there is a civil war, then we have the right

to introduce, for example, a state of emergency

or other measures. Restric-

the most peaceful republic of all. And

the most peaceful republic. Just go,

please, on YouTube and watch

some militants ("Basmachi," a derogatory historical term) shooting at people with

paintball guns, and women simply because

they are not wearing headscarves in the street.

Do you understand? Do you want these people

living in your country? I do not want

such people living here, much less

holding positions of leadership in the

republic, because Ramzan Kadyrov

says these are the true sons of Chechnya,

who shoot at someone with weapons

just because her skirt reaches only

to the knee. I have a wife and a daughter, and

a person who says that

a woman cannot appear in public without

a headscarf—whether he is a Russian citizen or not,

I should say to that person

to get the hell out of here.

I don’t want you either in my city or in

my country.

Well, you cannot say that, because

he is exactly the same kind of citizen as you are.

Then if he is the same kind of citizen as

I am, and he says things that are

illegal, things that restrict others,

then that person should be jailed for

15 days, then for 3 years if he does not stop,

if he keeps repeating

this nonsense, or especially if he

shoots someone with a paintball

gun. These people commit crimes

every day. These people openly declare their desire

to commit crimes every day. Well,

they can just as easily say that you

are committing a crime by saying that

they are not part of Russia.

I am not committing any crime. They are

de jure, of course, part of Russia, but we

have to educate them. We have to do something.

What is happening in this part

of Russia, de jure, is absolutely unacceptable to

90% of the people in the rest of Russia.

In your view, does federal government policy

make this situation—You just glanced

at the broadcast’s response graph

to check whether there is still

100 percent support? What? It dropped?

All right, let’s use the last couple of minutes

before the end of the broadcast. Does the policy

of the federal authorities worsen this

situation?

Well, of course. Today’s statement that

we should give them

4 trillion rubles for development, at a time when

everyone understands perfectly well that we are not

capable of spending those 4 trillion effectively,

not capable of controlling how they are used, and

those 4 trillion will not even help

ordinary residents of Chechnya and Ingushetia. They will simply

be stolen by the corrupt

bandit elite. The residents of Chechnya,

Ingushetia, and Dagestan are absolutely not

to blame. The problem is the republic’s leadership.

The problem is the republic’s leadership, yes.

The problem lies in the republic’s leadership, in

some so-called elite, in the establishment

that supports them all. Yes,

of course. Our federal authorities

finance these bandits because

with bandits it is very easy for them to steal

money. First of all, and second, the bandits

keep delivering them 99% results.

Well, inflated numbers get produced in lots of places.

Exactly. Exactly. But I do not want numbers fabricated anywhere.

And in Chechnya, Dagestan,

and Ingushetia, they fabricate them more than anywhere else.

So this is, in fact, a kind of

compromise between the federal crooks and

Caucasian crooks. Neither side

really gives a damn about the real

problems of the Caucasus, or about the people, who

in Chechnya, Dagestan, and Ingushetia

are still living in poverty despite the enormous

amount of money poured in. They’ve set up

some kind of little insiders’ arrangement. This

little closed-door arrangement should not exist.

And I’ll just have time for one last question, on

another topic. A lot of people are also

asking whether a response has been received from

the Prosecutor General’s Office regarding your request about

the illegality of the Popular Front. What’s the latest?

The one-month deadline has already passed, but so far there’s

been no reply. In certain cases, the prosecutor’s office

has the right to extend the review period. I

hope they’re actually checking something there,

because we asked about a lot of things, including

on what grounds they are renting premises

and so on, and so on. It’s

a fairly formal matter. But so far there’s

no response. We’re waiting.

Well, we’ll wait too. I hope that

as soon as something comes up, you’ll immediately

let us know. Especially since you’ve got

such one-hundred-percent levels of support here.

So

without the votes from Chechnya, Ingushetia, and Dagestan

they might notice and count them. Ah, thank you

very much. Alexei Navalny appeared today

on the program Special Opinion. If

you missed something, didn’t see or hear it,

or want to go over it all again, then

welcome to our website. The program

was hosted for you by Tatyana Felgenhauer.

All the best, everyone.

Didn’t manage to listen to the broadcast? Read

it on our website.

You can discuss everything there as well. The main thing is

to remember our slogan: “We’re sliding into fascism.” It’s

called,

of course. And you should always end like

this. Ah,

but even on fascism—your kind—they support you

for it. That’s not fascism, that’s the truth.

It’s the truth,

it is fascism, Lyosha. It’s just that really

it comes from here. We are not liberals. Your dress is the same

same sche... What are you talking about?

Next time, when you’re

meeting with your handler, I’ll tell him

leftist

firm.

Thank you so much. I’m leaving you

here so you can answer a couple, a couple of

questions for

I’ll still be in the guest chat.

Echo of Moscow. Listen to the radio. The rest