Alexei Navalny on the program *Special Opinion* from January 29, 2016

Sviza Company.

>> Echo of Moscow Radio and RTVI

present the program *Special Opinion*.

>> I welcome our listeners and

viewers. Today in our studio is politician

Alexei Navalny. My name is Oksana

Pashina. Hello.

>> Good evening.

>> Let’s start with the latest statement by

the press secretary of the President of Russia,

Dmitry Peskov. He commented on

a statement by his American counterpart,

calling it unacceptable and

offensive. Let me remind you that this concerns

President Putin’s involvement in

corruption. At the same time, Peskov believes that

this is preparation for pressure on Russia ahead of

the elections, although at the same time, according to him,

Putin has not yet decided whether he will even run

in the election at all. I really have

just two questions. In your view,

why have the U.S. Treasury

and, along with it, the White House suddenly seen the light now? And the second

question I’ll ask later.

It seems to me that the U.S. Treasury and

the White House saw the light quite a long time ago.

And they saw it when, in the very

first sanctions list, they included not only

Vladimir Putin, but also all those

people who in Russia had been accused of corruption

for many years before that. In doing so,

they were, for the first time politically, saying that

we believe that the Russian state

and political decisions in the Russian

state are controlled by a certain group of

people. They are directly financially

connected, and their financial interests

are intertwined with the personal interests of

Vladimir Putin. And they listed those

people and put them on the sanctions list.

All those Rotenbergs and Kovalchuks,

they were all there. It’s just that

>> for those who didn’t get it, they repeated

it once again, this time directly,

>> right? So what exactly is the sensation here? That

a representative of the U.S. Treasury

said that yes, we believe Putin

is involved in corruption. But that had,

generally speaking, already been said before.

So I don’t see any sensation here. And

everything the U.S.

Treasury said was, broadly speaking, something we already knew,

namely that the company Gunvor, which

exported a huge share of Russian

oil through its Swiss offshore structure, was

created in the interests, in the corrupt interests, of

Vladimir Putin by

his close associate Gennady

Timchenko. That, it seems to me, is obvious

to everyone.

>> That brings us exactly to the question that everyone

here has long known about this anyway. It’s an election

year, and for our voters in general,

is it important to know that top officials

are involved in corruption, that people abroad are talking about it,

and that this could somehow affect

the elections? Or is our society completely

calm about it? They steal,

let them keep stealing, as long as they don’t

touch us.

>> Are you seriously asking me

how important it is for a Russian citizen to know

that Russia’s leader is

corrupt? Of course it is important

to know. It is fundamental knowledge, because

corruption prevents the state from

functioning properly at all. And

nothing can happen. No

proper reform, from healthcare reform

to reform of the Interior Ministry (MVD, Russia’s Ministry of Internal Affairs),

can succeed, because

the country’s leaders are involved in

corruption. It takes up their time, and

what’s more, it dictates one political decision or another to them,

from elections

to the unleashing of war.

>> Well, they may know it, but there is

absolutely no reaction.

>> What do you mean, no reaction? Look

at any poll. Look at the polls

conducted by the Anti-Corruption Foundation

(Navalny’s organization). When we ask people,

not just us, even state-run

sociological services ask: do you consider

corruption a threat to national

security? Everyone says, “Yes, I do.”

>> Will you fight it? No,

sorry, we’ve got all sorts of other things to do.

These days there is a common view that

in Russia everyone knows about corruption,

and nobody cares. Everyone really does know about it,

but nobody is

indifferent to it.

>> Maybe it’s a social contract.

>> No, that is not a social

contract. It’s just that—well, how is an ordinary

person supposed to—say, you as

a radio journalist, or just any

>> Tell us, tell us, how should an ordinary

person act?

>> Any ordinary person, um, in a

normal political system goes and

votes for whoever they support.

That is exactly why I said that corruption

dictates and changes state policy.

Because in order to preserve

his ability to remain corrupt and

steal enormous sums of money, Vladimir

Putin, in particular, has made it so that

many people, including me, cannot

take part in elections. To achieve this, they

introduced censorship in the mass

media. To achieve this, they created

a system that can be changed

either as a result of a revolution or

as a result of its natural collapse. So,

you are asking why people do not

carry out a revolution? Well, I

>> No, that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking why

they don’t react. When answering sociologists’ questions,

they say: "We know that there is

corruption, we know that

people steal. But somehow Putin exists

separately from this whole system. It’s as if

he stands on his own. He is completely removed from

all of this. He’s some kind of, I don’t know,

sacred figure who, yes,

officials steal, yes, corruption is everywhere,

yes, we know about the Chaika case, but he

somehow seems completely separate from it all here."

>> That’s not quite true, I disagree. Well,

these are simply the realities of an authoritarian

system, and they are not unique to

Russia. Look at the monstrously

corrupt regimes that exist

throughout the territory of the former

Soviet Union. All of Central Asia. Or

look at Venezuela, look at, well,

a huge number of countries. And everywhere

it is exactly the same: the direct

leader of the state personally organizes

this corruption, but the population does not

criticize him. Why? Because of censorship,

because of propaganda, and most importantly,

because of the apparatus of coercion. If you

criticize too much—look at the person

sitting here in the studio. Excuse

me. My brother is in prison solely

and exclusively because I criticize, among

others, Vladimir Putin. Several criminal

cases have been opened against me.

I am banned from taking part in elections.

Any ordinary person looks at this and thinks: well, if

they did this to Navalny, what will they do

to me? So he stays silent. And in that

sense, Russia is not at all

unique compared with any other

authoritarian country.

>> About the recent meeting of the anti-corruption

committee. They were wonderfully fighting

corruption there, yes, discussing measures.

What struck me in the report was that officials

from various agencies complained

that offers of bribes had increased by almost

6,000 times. In other words, they themselves

are saying: "People have started offering us

bribes all the time—please do something about

us already." So those are the results of this

anti-corruption effort,

and by the way, it should be said that Chaika...

>> That’s exactly what I wanted to say. I took

particular pleasure, of course,

in hearing about this meeting of the

anti-corruption committee, considering

that Chaika (former Prosecutor General of Russia) is sitting there, one of the main

so-called fighters, in quotation marks, against corruption,

who, well, from the point of view of the Anti-Corruption Foundation,

we released a film on

this subject—I think all listeners of

Echo of Moscow (independent Russian radio station) have seen it—we simply

show that he, his family, and

the leadership of the Prosecutor General’s Office

are involved not just in corruption, but in outright

gangsterism. And the fact that he

remains on this commission speaks to

its uselessness. But, you know, what was interesting for us

was that Putin, uh, actually

repeated many of the same

proposals that we have been talking about. For example,

Putin said for the first time that

property obtained

through illicit enrichment

should be confiscated. He put it rather

vaguely. But basically, that is

our bill. As part of our campaign, we submitted

20 demands

to ratify the article on combating

illicit enrichment and make it so

that if an official cannot explain

where a particular piece of property or

asset came from, that in itself constitutes

a criminal offense. But

Putin formulated something similar. We

are sure that, of course, they will not allow

this bill to be passed, but

we can see that they are responding to

public demand. They have to

say something. So once a year they come out

and say something ritualistic, don’t they?

Precisely because, returning to

what you said at the very beginning,

the public is dissatisfied, and they feel that

very clearly.

>> Did you watch the BBC film *Putin’s Secret Riches*?

>> Of course, I always watch films like that

carefully. For a Russian

viewer, and especially for me, there was

of course nothing new in that film. And I

read a great many disappointed

comments, because people thought:

"Well, now the BBC is really going to show

something huge—they’ll dig something up

and show Putin opening

a chest. And in the chest there will be

diamonds, jewels, and emeralds." But they

said things we had known for a long time.

But you have to understand that this film

is aimed at a Western audience,

at Britons and Americans—people for whom,

well, even what was said there

is already a complete shock. And it was

made

with certain realities in mind

that are understandable to a Western viewer.

Because if the BBC had shown

the film *Chaika*, British viewers

would have thought it was simply

madness—that such a thing could not possibly happen.

That is why it includes references to the CIA,

to certain politicians, to

specific witnesses. And as far as I

understand, what was shown in the film

for a British audience, of course,

came as a shock.

>> And why does a British audience need to know this?

Putin is one of the most important

players

in the foreign policy agenda of the entire

world. Russia is a country that sits on the

UN Security Council. It remains a

major, important, influential

global power. One way or another,

all the leading foreign politicians,

interact with Putin. We see

that Putin wants Russia to have,

as he says, to play a key role

in the Syrian settlement. So, again,

the public does not understand many things.

That is,

>> they simply decided to explain who is who.

That's all for this segment. We will continue in

a few minutes. We will return to this studio.

>> Echo of Moscow Radio and RTVI

present the program *Special Opinion*.

>> We continue. In our studio is politician

Alexei Navalny. We were talking about the film

*Putin's Secret Wealth*. One of our listeners

asks: "Since Mr. Peskov said

that this film is slander, why then

doesn't the Kremlin sue the BBC? The case

would be easy to win, and it would also boost the prestige of the

head of state."

>> They are not suing for slander for exactly the same

reason why we cannot get a single

Moscow court to even accept

our complaint against Chaika, because

we would prove his corruption, and he

would have nothing, absolutely nothing, to say

to support this nonsense of his,

that foreign intelligence services made the

film. The same thing would happen if the Kremlin

tried to formalize it and went

to court. The BBC, journalists, anyone at all,

would produce such a volume of

real facts confirming

Putin's corruption. There are many such facts.

And the Anti-Corruption Foundation has repeatedly

published such facts, after which

well, Peskov would simply end up looking

very, very weak. And of course, not

just Peskov, but Putin first and foremost.

>> By the way, regarding the Chaika case. How

are your efforts progressing? Have you conducted a

linguistic analysis? Yes. We are

continuing our attempts to sue him.

>> How many courts have already refused?

>> We've already had—well, you could say—six

courts. We are now in the sixth round.

The sixth attempt to file a

>> The sixth attempt to file a lawsuit. Because

the courts, essentially all the Moscow courts,

have stated that we do not have the right

to sue Chaika. He is so exalted that it has

nothing to do with us. We commissioned a

very amusing expert analysis that

proves that the surname Navalnaya

means a person with the surname Navalny.

We will insist on this and prove it in court.

And all of this, of course, is treated as

a kind of legal curiosity, but it raises

a huge problem, because

it turns out that a monstrous

corrupt prosecutor general

continues to operate, continues

to head the Prosecutor General's Office

>> and fight corruption.

>> Supposedly fight corruption. And you cannot

bring accusations against him, you cannot

sue him. But he

has the opportunity to say that, well, this is all

the work of foreign intelligence services. And then

completely evade responsibility after that. And

everyone seems to have swallowed it, and well, nothing

happened, nothing happened. Mm-hmm. I

can't help asking you this question. Not

long ago, the liberal public

anathematized you for

reposting material about Chechens during

the Great Patriotic War (the Soviet term for the Eastern Front of World War II). They

are called collaborators there,

traitors, bandits. Uh, well, in fact

our liberal public does not really need

many reasons. It is enough to post a

photograph.

>> The liberal public regularly anathematizes people

just for posting a photo on

Facebook.

Nevertheless, would you like to say something

in your defense, or do you think there is no need

to defend yourself? Why did you do it at all?

There is nothing to defend here. I

believe that there is the history of our country,

and it is complex and multifaceted. And there are

simply historical facts showing that

large numbers of Ukrainians, Russians,

uh, and residents of the Baltic states fought,

including on Hitler's side. A huge

number of Chechens, in particular, did so.

This issue needs to be studied. We

see the government of the Chechen

Republic taking such an approach to this issue

that they are literally cutting out

pages from the encyclopedia. You remember,

they succeeded in having declared extremist

simply an encyclopedia article that

described how Chechens fought on

Hitler's side. I believe this topic

must not be taboo. I believe one must not

lie. In particular, even now,

a few years ago, I think last

year or the year before, the city was recognized as

a city—Grozny was recognized as a City

of Military Glory. But that is offensive,

it is outright falsification

of history, as our United Russia members like

to put it. Therefore, I believe that topics in

our history must not be taboo. They

must be discussed honestly and assessed from

different angles. The fact that

a large number of Chechens fought on

Hitler's side does not mean that their

deportation was justified. The deportations were

a crime against humanity.

But yes, you can't just say, "Oh, we"

forgot all those facts."

>> This publication appeared against the backdrop of

Ramzan Kadyrov's remarks. Is this simply

a coincidence, or does it mean something?

>> Well, of course it's not a coincidence. Ramzan

Kadyrov is one of those people

who, moreover, I am convinced,

is involved in committing criminal

offenses. He is implicated in the murder

of Boris Nemtsov. I believe the case materials

show all of this. And on top of that, he has taken

on the role of someone who,

supposedly, has the right to judge

history, rewrite history, and make

these loud declarations about what

he believes is good for Russia, what

is not, who here is the "fifth column," who

the traitors are, and who is doing something

useful for the country and who is doing something

useless and harmful. He has no such right.

And I believe that Ramzan Kadyrov

should now be under investigation,

not making loud statements in the center

of the city. As for Boris Nemtsov's case,

just this week the case concerning

the masterminds and organizers was separated

into a separate proceeding. Lawyer Vadim

Prokhorov said that now they need to look for

the masterminds and the motives. There was

that remarkable story about the driver

who, it turns out, organized everything,

and paid 15 million rubles.

>> Well, today the Investigative Committee, through

its spokesman Markin, stated that the investigation

has been completed and the case is being transferred for

review and then to court. Now if this

parent case, this so-called

parent case, is going to

just hang there for no clear reason. But it is not

the main case, it is the parent case, while the main

case is the one now being sent

to court. And officially, in this case,

the person who ordered and organized Nemtsov's

murder is a driver from the Interior Ministry system

with the surname Mukhuddinov. Well, that's simply

ridiculous. No one can believe that,

no matter how they feel about

Nemtsov, because common sense exists.

An ordinary police

driver simply cannot organize an operation like that,

one that cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

I want to remind radio listeners that there

the reward for the assassination alone was

15 million rubles. Several cars

were used, several apartments

were rented, mobile phones were purchased,

and so on. The most—well, not

the only thing, but the most important thing—is that he was

formally a serviceman. And together with

other servicemen from the Internal Troops, he spent several

months in Moscow, despite the fact that

at his place of service in Chechnya he

continued to receive a salary and remained

on the rolls. That is impossible to do. People,

>> of course, that is impossible to do unless

the leadership of that very

so-called Sever (North) Battalion is involved. And so

the leadership of the Sever Battalion and the man

who commands the battalion

— Ramzan Kadyrov — should

become the main focus, the main targets

of the investigation.

We were talking about Chechnya, and

in passing you mentioned Ukraine, right?

There is a question on that subject. Mikhail Kasyanov

recently in Strasbourg, remember, he

promised Dzhemilev to return Crimea to Ukraine.

You support Kasyanov on that point as well,

don't you? And

>> As far as I have seen in the media, there is a statement

from Dzhemilev saying that he, as it were,

interpreted what Kasyanov told him there.

I have my own position on

Crimea and Ukraine, and it is completely

clear. I first formulated it

to the editor-in-chief of your radio station.

There was a great deal of criticism

and discussion about it. First, I believe that,

of course, the seizure of Crimea was illegal. From

a formal legal standpoint, it was

illegal. Second, that referendum

that was held was no referendum

at all. Third, Crimea's future

must be decided

through a proper referendum

under the supervision of the international community,

which must be held with the consent of both

Russia and Ukraine. Whatever that referendum

shows — that is how it should be.

>> If a proper referendum says, "Yes,

we want to go back to Ukraine," then that's it, we

accept it. That will be the very

expression of the people's will. No

other format, no format other than

discussion between Russia and Ukraine, can

exist. And I know that Kasyanov's position

is exactly that. I saw him today,

I asked him today. And he once again

confirmed quite clearly that

— well, put in this sharper formulation:

What would you do if

you became president? Well, I would begin

negotiations between Russia and Ukraine on

resolving the Crimea issue. My

personal view is that the main outcome

of those negotiations should be a referendum.

A fair, proper referendum.

>> Uh-huh. So your opinion has changed after all,

because I had the impression,

judging by your earlier

answers, that now is not the time, let's

for now keep Crimea with us. No, I am not

right.

>> My position has not changed at all. It

has remained as it was formulated from the very beginning,

and that is where I stand. I believe this

problem, unfortunately, will last for years, and it

in no way—well, not exactly in no way—

it differs; it is similar to the problem

of Northern Cyprus and the Kuril Islands

and a huge number of other such

territories with an unclear status. And I do not

think that this problem will be resolved even in

the coming decades, but in any case

the key to solving this problem lies

in holding a referendum.

>> Uh-huh. On the subject of various political

stories as well. Well, let’s talk about your

relationship with Yabloko (a Russian liberal political party).

There is literally a minute left; we will continue

after the news. There were talks, as I understand it,

about cooperation. You offered them

something—it is a timely question, because

just today, literally about an hour

ago, there was a meeting of the democratic

coalition, which includes the party

PARNAS, the Party of Progress, and other parties.

And a statement was adopted in which

the attitude toward the party

Yabloko was set out; it is being proposed that it

form a political alliance. And the main point in

this, uh, proposal is that

PARNAS and the democratic coalition consider the party

—Yabloko—not a competitor, but

an ally. This is very important, because

Yabloko has stated that, well, for now they

wrote in their statement that they

consider us competitors. For us it is very

important to emphasize that we are proposing

a full political alliance, coordination

of all actions, and we refuse to regard them

as competitors. We regard them exclusively as

political allies. And now we

will wait for Yabloko’s response to this

question. And we will wait for our

return to the studio after a short

break.

Tea, water,

>> Tea, if possible.

>> Thank you very much.

>> And what do you think they will say in response?

>> Well, listen, as you know, I was for many

years in the Yabloko party, but nevertheless

people change, circumstances change.

The head of the Russian delegation, Gennady Gatilov,

said that the absence of part of the Syrian

opposition from the talks does not mean their

collapse. Russia’s permanent representative to the UN office

in Geneva has already raised the issue of the participation

of the Kurds in the inter-Syrian talks.

Roskomnadzor blocked the RBC

Ukraine portal. As the agency’s press secretary told TASS,

Vadim Ampelonsky,

the online publication had posted

several pieces containing calls for war

by the Crimean Tatars against Russia. At the request of

the Prosecutor General’s Office, the resource was added to the register

of prohibited information. Ampelonsky

explained that one of the materials, after

Roskomnadzor’s complaints, was removed,

while the others remain for now. If by

Monday the information is removed,

then, according to Ampelonsky, nothing will

prevent access from being restored. Ukraine’s Security Service

suspected representatives of

Kyiv. At the Minsk talks, Viktor

Medvedchuk was suspected of separatism; an adviser to the head

of the Interior Ministry, Zoryan Shkiryak, said on the air of

the TV channel 112 Ukraine that Medvedchuk

must be immediately removed from

the talks. At the same time, according to him,

>> You have a lot of support. Your army,

is writing to you: "Alexei, I am your foot soldier."

>> Moscow clarified the circumstances of

the small-arms supplies.

>> Yes, the audience is surprisingly friendly overall.

Shall we do some kind of

vote, or is that not something this format

allows?

>> No, we do not do that here. We only read

text messages.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Well then, in Moscow tonight it will be 0 to -2°C,

and tomorrow during the day from 2 to 3°C above zero. Light

precipitation. Alexander Klim, news

service.

>> Well, we do not read out declarations of love, because

that is boring. You can read them later after

the broadcast.

>> All right.

>> What should you do if you really want an apartment?

That’s right: buy one sooner. Suburban housing from

the company Samolet Development. An apartment

for 1,900,000 rubles

just 4 km away. Prices are rising fast, and our

homes are rising faster. Call 49513522282

project declaration at 77. Developer: Gorod.

>> This proposal

>> Let’s talk about the truckers’ protest

with

>> and by the way, about the truck drivers, if we have time

yes, you had some kind of court hearing, some

arbitration court hearing, right?

>> They still have not said what exactly the

details of the concession agreement are.

>> Well, they are refusing; the court ordered them to, but

so far they still have not produced anything, and by

telephone... 84

730. Everything just the way we like it—limited. I even

mentioned the Toyota model year.

Legendary quality.

>> Will it work,

or will it not work

work, not work—will radio work

or television, print media or the internet,

direct advertising or sponsorship?

Having doubts? Stop guessing. We

produce and place advertising that

works. Call 12505.

Advertising agency New Solutions, 1250.

Advertising on Echo of Moscow radio: 9214.

Area code 495. 921-4041, area code 495.

We’ve arrived. This program is not about

cars, but about how to drive them

safely and reliably.

>> This Friday after 11:00 p.m., the topic

of the program *We Drove Off* is road unreliability.

It is hosted by Olga Bychkova and racing driver,

driving instructor, and automotive journalist

Mikhail Gorbachev. *We Drove Off* airs Friday after

11:00 p.m.

Reliable reception area of Echo of

Moscow radio.

Echo of Moscow radio and RTVI

present the program *Special Opinion*.

>> Let me remind you that in our studio today

we have politician Alexei Navalny.

Let’s talk about the problems facing mortgage

borrowers who have taken to the streets.

There are two views. One is that this is their problem. They

took out the loans themselves. Nobody owes them

anything. It was a gamble. They placed their bet and

lost. Another view is that the state

should still step in and help. What

do you think?

>> You know, I actually think

that this framing of the discussion is wrong.

It becomes either: let’s feel sorry for them, or

let’s pay for their problems.

To begin with, our state

helps absolutely everyone under the sun.

In the current crisis period,

the state has helped oil companies,

the state has helped steelmakers,

the state has helped bankers—it hands money out

to everyone. And what is the problem of

foreign-currency mortgage holders? I specifically

looked up the figures. The Bank of Russia says

that the total amount of all mortgage

loans denominated in foreign currency is about 136

billion rubles. And foreign-currency mortgage holders

are not asking for all their debts to be fully

written off. As I understand it, they simply want

to repay at an exchange rate of 40 rubles to the dollar, not

80 rubles to the dollar. So the cost

of the issue is about 40 billion rubles. Now

let’s look at how much support, for example,

Vnesheconombank receives. They are giving it 300 billion rubles,

and it is asking for 1.5

trillion. Rosselkhozbank, which

is headed by the son of Patrushev, the former

director of the FSB (Russia’s security service). A 70-billion-ruble loss in

the end, you and I are covering for Rosselkhozbank.

So why are we compensating these losses

for Rosselkhozbank, given

that a significant portion of that

money was simply stolen? And yet we cannot

help foreign-currency mortgage holders,

who, well, simply bought apartments for

their families. So it seems to me that against

the backdrop of the state generously

pouring money into such loss-making

outfits as VTB Bank, excuse me,

for example, Rosselkhozbank,

Vnesheconombank, and handing out subsidies

to oil companies and so on—against that backdrop,

the problem of foreign-currency mortgage holders is

just laughably small change. So let’s

at least discuss whom we are going to

help. I believe that within this

system, we absolutely do have the money.

Let’s give a little less to VTB Bank and

give a little to foreign-currency mortgage holders.

>> So if we set aside this rather

abstract idea of fairness—that yes,

yes, we can help sons and children,

so why can’t we help foreign-currency

mortgage holders? But perhaps we shouldn’t help

anyone—why should we help them?

They knew what they were getting into.

>> Exactly. It is a question of the state’s

overall approach. Either we help no one,

or else let’s help

fairly, because otherwise it turns out that

banks run by the children,

friends, and loyal associates of Putin,

receive unlimited amounts of money from us,

while about mortgage holders we say: they, they

are to blame. Of course it was their choice.

Of course they must bear part of the

responsibility along with everyone else, but

to say that we should simply close our

eyes to the fact that money is being poured into

these loss-making miracle-projects like Rusnano

and Skolkovo (a state-backed innovation hub)—that is simply money

lost to us forever. Rusnano announced

this week that it is shutting down

its plant in Novosibirsk, where 16 billion rubles

were spent. And everyone just sort of shrugged

their shoulders. But giving that same money to mortgage holders

is suddenly treated as a nightmare—no,

we won’t give it. They are scoundrels, they must

bear responsibility themselves.

>> Let’s remember that there is another

side to this. Besides borrowers, there are also

bank depositors. So are you proposing

to take a little away from depositors?

>> No, I am not proposing taking anything from depositors,

because depositors are also regularly

helped. Look, Mosoblbank, for example,

was first allocated 129 billion rubles, then

another 43 billion rubles. They get support too. So why,

do you see? That’s the point. The main problem is

this strange selective approach.

For some reason, money is pumped endlessly

into some people’s hands, in any amount whatsoever, while

others cannot be given even, say,

a mere 30 billion rubles to solve their

problems. After all, what will happen to

Rosselkhozbank? It will simply

go bankrupt—which is what should happen to it—or to VTB Bank. But foreign-currency mortgage holders

are 30,000 people who could

end up on the street with their children.

So let’s

weigh what is more valuable for

our state. I am not saying that

foreign-currency mortgage holders should simply have everything

forgiven. Their loans can be restructured.

Mechel (a major Russian mining and metals company) gets its debts

restructured in huge amounts, but

for some reason mortgage holders cannot. That is what

I do not understand. And there was an amusing

idea voiced this week, when

Mortgage holders have started protesting, and

now they might join forces with

the truck drivers, and then everyone will take to the streets, and so on.

Speaking of the truck drivers, are there any

latest updates? Because

somehow the whole story has disappeared from the news, even from

the news here on our station. What is

happening there now?

>> Unfortunately, it really has disappeared from

the news, although the problem has not gone away. And

we are seeing a kind of, uh, creeping new

offensive from the Kremlin, because

at first they said they were lowering

fines and reducing the rates, but this

week Prime Minister Medvedev

said he had instructed officials to examine the issue

of raising the rate. The problem

remains. The Platon system (Russia’s road toll system for heavy trucks), which

has enabled the younger Rotenberg

to collect tribute, in my view, from all

truck drivers in Russia. This system is not

just corrupt; it is a system

that harms all of us, because

truck drivers transport food and essential

goods, and all these charges

will ultimately be paid

by us, not even by them. People here

do not really understand this

interdependence very well. They say that

the truck drivers are fighting for their own interests, while

the rest of us, basically, do not care.

>> You are right here. That is exactly why the Anti-Corruption Foundation

is doing its work here

to explain these things.

We are in court, and this week

we had our first hearing in the arbitration

court. And it was very interesting,

because we demanded, well, something

basic and obvious. There is

a concession agreement, around which

so much controversy has swirled, but

no one has seen it. It is treated as secret. And

even in court, Rotenberg’s representatives

said, “We are not going to produce it.” Well, at that point,

probably even the judge

felt uncomfortable, and ordered them

to submit that very concession

agreement. We will review it. And then

that may be the start of some kind of

discussion, because, well, this is

ridiculous. The whole country has been made to pay tribute through

Russia’s truck drivers—up to 2 million people.

And the agreement is secret. But secret from whom?

It turns out it is being kept secret from

the citizens of Russia, because we understand perfectly well

that this concession

agreement was drafted in favor of

a very specific person—once again, we see the son

of one of Putin’s closest friends. He will

receive billions of rubles, while we will

be the ones financing all of it. We do not

agree with that.

>> Mm-hmm. So the truckers’ movement has, basically,

been reduced to legal proceedings

in the courts? No protests?

That is what the Anti-Corruption Foundation

is doing. We are not, after all,

truck drivers ourselves. We are dealing with this specifically

from the angle of corruption, from the angle of

public information work.

The truck drivers are still camped out in Khimki (a city just outside Moscow).

It has already been more than a month. They are being harassed in every possible way

and faced with all sorts of

obstacles. They are, I would say,

brave people. They have spent a great deal

of time standing there already. But

it is true that the fact this issue has disappeared from

the media agenda has seriously

undermined, of course, their

faith in justice, in the idea that they

will receive support from all sides. But so far they have not

given up, and that is very good.

>> Mm-hmm.

Another story from today: stay

at home and do not go outside unless absolutely

necessary. That is what the city authorities urged us to do today.

The streets are icy,

walking is impossible. And today, someone in

the news from the city authorities also said

that this was a natural disaster. But

winter, as you understand, is a natural

disaster in our country. Is someone

to blame here, or is that really the case?

>> It is absurd, of course. The real disaster

was Sobyanin’s decision, and that of his

officials, to install this, excuse me,

idiotic paving tile on such a massive scale.

Because the icy conditions we are

seeing on the streets of Moscow are, first and foremost,

caused by the fact that they laid

tile in places where ice

forms. And if you remember what

happened back in 2012 and 2013,

when they were spending billions on

tile produced by who knows

whom, it was clear that this was

a corrupt decision—they needed

to channel billions of rubles into it. And

now we first paid those billions of rubles,

and now we are slipping and falling on that same tile.

Uh, and it continues and

keeps repeating itself. For example, this

year and last year, the same thing happened with

curbs. They spent billions of rubles

to rip out perfectly good curbs

and replace them with new ones,

which were once again produced by, uh,

some companies. There was

a major RBC investigation into this, linked to

the leadership of Moscow City Hall. And here we

see how corrupt decisions, well,

quite literally, lead to

such disasters. I believe

that, of course, Moscow City Hall should, well,

at the very least now have the decency

first, to admit that this was

their mistaken administrative

decision, and second, to begin

an investigation. And we need to find out who

was behind these lobbying projects and

the paving tiles, the curbs, and all

the other things.

>> So they won’t be able to brush it off as a natural

disaster. Understood.

Listeners are asking: "Alexei, where have

the people from Bolotnaya gone? When will you

call us out into the streets, or is that not

necessary right now? We shouldn’t rock the boat."

>> This boat has holes in it, it’s sinking, and this talk about not

rocking the boat is a lie,

a false Kremlin slogan that, well, that

tries to mislead us. These

people haven’t gone anywhere. They’re still here, they

are listening to this broadcast. I’m one of

those people. You may be one too.

There are huge numbers of ordinary people

who, even back then in 2011–2012,

didn’t come out to

Bolotnaya (Bolotnaya Square protest rallies in Moscow), but they do not agree with what

is happening in the country. There are different ways

to fight. We can see that Putin, essentially,

started the war in Ukraine and this whole

Ukraine story of his in order to

shift the agenda away from protests, from

discussions of corruption, from discussions of

injustice

and redirect it toward all this imperial

hysteria. And he really was quite

successful in shifting that political agenda.

People left the streets because,

well, it somehow started to seem foolish and

awkward to talk about corruption, about who stole how much

against the backdrop of deaths, killings,

and mysterious people, with no clear idea

under whose orders, waging war on

neighboring territory. But now both

economic difficulties and, broadly speaking,

the dead end into which Putin’s

foreign-policy adventure has led him,

will bring it all back. We just shouldn’t, shouldn’t

assume or think that this is

the only thing that can be done. It’s not a matter of

either we are standing in the street and then

we exist, or else we don’t exist at all. I

still believe that this is probably

the most important thing in political struggle—

going out into the streets and showing

your discontent there. And that is exactly why

we held rallies, including when

we weren’t allowed to do so in central Moscow, we

held them on the outskirts, even though many people

criticized me for it. I

believe people should remain in

the streets. But if, tactically, now is not

the right moment, and we understand that it’s probably

not the most effective use of a lot of effort

to invest here, then we do something

else. But it will all come back, and people

will come back, because the main cause has not disappeared:

injustice,

corruption, and in general a kind of

organizational and political dead end of this

system.

>> The question is funny, but I can’t help asking it

either. And we have two minutes

to talk about it. You’re being asked about

that story on Facebook. Would you

take a photo with Valeriya

and Iosif Prigozhin? It’s a funny story.

I’m also someone people regularly

come up to and say, "Can I

take a photo with you?" So, well, I

think it was the same with Khodorkovsky.

Someone came up and said, can we

take a photo with you? What was he supposed to do—

start throwing punches at Iosif

Prigozhin and Valeriya, or chase them away?

So he took the photo. What seemed much stranger

to me was watching how

Mikhail Borisovich then started

making excuses and spinning a whole

philosophy about what it means to save the country from

civil war and all that sort of thing. He could have

just said, it would have been awkward for me

to refuse. Or that he took the photo out of

politeness. The most interesting part of

this whole discussion was his reply

to journalist Bozhena Rynska, where he

wrote—he went so far, and I completely

disagree with him on this, and we’ll probably

discuss it—that even Judge Danilkin,

the very one who sent him to prison, he would,

so to speak, help him with some problem. Well,

I’m not prepared to solve Judge

Danilkin’s problems. I’m not prepared to forgive

everyone in the world. I’m not prepared to forgive and shake hands with

the people who put people in prison

in the Bolotnaya case (the prosecutions following the Bolotnaya Square protests). So

there’s no need to derive some kind of

deep philosophy from it. So, well,

he took a photo, he took a photo,

people come up. What was he supposed to do,

fight them?

>> Uh-huh. Just politely, somehow. Well,

>> even if he took the photo,

there’s no problem at all, you see? He

wasn’t taking a photo with

Surkov or Ramzan Kadyrov, after all.

>> Ah, so there is some kind of hierarchy of who

you can and can’t take a photo with.

>> And there was also one

wonderful person there too—Alexei Alexeyevich

Venediktov, who loves setting up

that kind of provocation. I’m sure

that just for fun,

he may even have suggested

taking the photo. I don’t see any

problem here. If Khodorkovsky—and I’m sure

this is the case—still stands by

the political positions

he previously declared, then

a photo with Valeriya won’t

change much of anything. There’s just no need

to make a big deal of it, no need to

keep developing it further. Now let’s

deliberately start with all of them

to take photos with all these

disgusting people who make

all sorts of cannibalistic statements just to

be able to say that, well, you know, this

will save us from civil war.

>> That was politician Alexei Navalny.

All the best to you.

Echo of yours.

>> Well then, and I thought we were still going to the end.

>> No, no, that's just a habit already

from the news. I always want, at the 45-minute mark,

to get up and leave, because it's time for the news.

>> Cool. Thank you very much.

>> Yes, I always do that. Thank you.

>> Thank you.

>> I automatically think in 45-minute blocks. That's it, and

my own.