Alexei Navalny on the program “Bottom Line” on Finam FM

9 p.m. in the Russian capital. Good evening.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This is the program

Bottom Line on the airwaves of

Finam FM. Yury Pronko is at the microphone. I’m glad

that you’ve tuned your radios to

99.6 FM in Moscow or the Moscow

region, or are listening to us on our

online portal, finam.fm.

Today, at your many

requests—just like, remember, in

Soviet times, “at the numerous requests

of our radio listeners”—we have invited to

the program Bottom Line

lawyer, blogger, head of the Union of Minority

Shareholders, and founder of the Rospil portal

Alexei Navalny. Alexei, good evening.

Good evening.

>> Good evening.

>> Let me remind you of the ways to get in touch, which

I think you’ll need. First of all,

there’s our multi-line phone number,

651-0996, Moscow area code 495 for

phone calls, and finam.fm is our

website on the internet, where you can

write messages addressed to Alexei

Navalny, ask him questions, or

simply watch. In other words, you can combine

business with pleasure. A live

web broadcast

is underway online. You can see me, you can see

Alexei. So make use of all these

means of communication. The topic

of today’s program—I’ve titled it this way: Who

Owns Russia? Alexei and I have

spoken about politics in Russia. We talked,

we even met with United Russia (the Kremlin-backed ruling party) here on the grounds of

Finam FM. Then Alexei appeared on

the program “Finam FM Listeners Against,”

yes, Against Navalny. But we have never

spoken with Alexei in concrete terms

about ownership in our country, about the

assets that exist in our country, about

who they belong to.

Look, the program Bottom

Line was originally

conceived for people who, at the very

least, are interested in

ownership in Russia and try to

make money from it by becoming minority

shareholders in one company or another. And,

as a rule, our listeners are given

various

analytical opinions, snapshots from brokers,

traders, and analysts. Mostly,

of course, we talk about blue chips,

that is, our major listed stocks. For many of

you this may come as a surprise

now, but Alexei is the head of the Union

of Minority Shareholders, and I’d ask you

to note that “minority” is not

a dirty word—it’s actually a very good

word. It means an owner, just

a small one, for example in a large company.

I’d like to hear your opinion about

the companies, so to speak, that are

represented on our market. These are the largest

companies, usually affiliated

with the state, while also being

joint-stock companies. So what is your

view—what exactly are they?

Is the Russian state

interested—without any grand rhetoric—in

owners, in small owners,

who hold small stakes? What is your

view of the market? Well, Yury, first of all

I disagree with you

that we have been talking about different

things. We’ve been talking all along about one and

the same thing. And it has all basically been about ownership.

Because to say that in Russia

politics, questions of

ownership, and questions of using

special political instruments

such as United Russia (the Kremlin-backed ruling party) to seize

power, which then leads to ownership,

is all basically a conversation about one and the

same thing. Yes, today’s topic is: who

owns Russia at all? What is

ownership? If we don’t venture

into metaphysics, ownership is

the ability to use,

dispose of, and control. What is

ownership in Russia now? Russian companies.

If we look at the latest

report by Standard & Poor’s, we

will see that companies under

state control account for 53% of

market capitalization. That is by

formal criteria alone. And

if we take informal criteria,

such as the presence of officials on boards

of directors, quasi-officials, former

officials, relatives of officials, then

the figure is much higher. And out of the 90 largest

companies, 73 have in their

share capital an owner

with more than 25%.

So again, that means either the state

or, let’s call them, oligarchs.

>> Uh-huh.

>> What are oligarchs? Are they

real owners? We saw recently

in the example of Prokhorov. That is,

in Russia oligarchs are more like

nominal holders. That is, people,

who formally own these shares.

But in practice, they can be taken away from us at any moment,

and then anything can be done with them,

absolutely anything, again, on the orders of

officials. So

in reality, everything is controlled by a group

of people. I’m not going to say whether it’s Putin or

someone else, but again, this is not some kind of

abstract clique; it is

a very specific group of around 60 to 100

people.

>> So it’s all personalized,

>> it’s all personalized. You can

draw up lists of these people. And now

in the best traditions of feudalism, these

people are embedding themselves into corporate governance

through their relatives,

through friends, through acquaintances. Just

look: our former and current

heads of the FSB (Federal Security Service), take

Patrushev, or the current one

what’s his name, Lord, his surname

>> It slipped my mind too. Ye—yes, yes, yes.

But sometimes it’s useful not to know them either.

>> Ah, yes. Both of them have

children sitting on management boards

or heading companies with

state ownership. Ivanov too,

also a former security official—his children are in place as well.

Remember that wonderful

story with Fradkov, when Putin

introduced Fradkov, everyone was saying:

“People were touched by what a fine fellow Fradkov was for sending his

dear son not to some

cushy post, but to a Suvorov military school

>> to experience the harsh life.” Yes. Well, the harsh

life is over, and now we see Fradkov’s son

where he is.

>> Alexander Bortnikov.

>> Ah, Bortnikov. Exactly.

>> Mm-hmm.

>> And Bortnikov’s son is, uh, sitting there on

the management board of one of the banks.

And Fradkov’s son,

is deputy chairman of the board at

Vnesheconombank, yes—Vnesheconombank is a 100%

state corporation,

and the chairman of its supervisory board

is Putin himself personally. So this is

a specific list of people with specific

relatives who very specifically

indeed, quite specifically

dispose of, use, and manage this

property, manage, I don’t know, these

fruits of it, and can specifically direct

these enormous financial flows. That

is, in the literal sense, it means

a billion here, a billion there, 2 billion

for me, 3 billion for you. And on that

the whole political system is built, because,

obviously, there are a great many people

who would also like to sit on these

streams, on this money. Clearly,

there is not the slightest desire to give it up. And

from this come the political arrangements,

yes—United Russia, through which

the Duma is controlled, the presidential administration

which sets

certain rules, imposes censorship in the media

and so on; the repressive agencies, the FSB and

the police, which right now

in recent months have been doing

absolutely nothing except searching for

political extremism. And

political extremism is anything that is

said against United Russia.

>> That’s how all of this

>> is structured. Ah, but still, does the boundary

between private and, so to speak,

corporate exist? Let me ask

carefully, yes. I assume that

there is a law that must be

observed—the law on joint-stock

companies. But after all, all these

companies are businesses, aren’t they? So

business efficiency, the running of

efficiency.

>> Look, let’s not take everything

to absurdity, right? Let’s not say that

some little company like Vasilek or Romashka is directly

controlled and managed by

Putin. The point is rather that he has

the ability to take that Vasilek away from

any person, despite the courts and

laws on joint-stock companies, from anyone

at all. And it may not even be Putin

who takes it away, but some mini-Putin at

the level of a governor. This happens

every day, on a massive scale. As for

the largest corporations,

Gazprom, Rosneft, Transneft, and

so on—the biggest

>> VTB, exactly right, the state

bank, the largest of the state-owned

banks—I maintain, and given the fact

that for many years now I have been

dealing with the issues surrounding these companies, that

they are, of course, outside the rule of law.

Indeed, both I and my colleagues

do periodically manage to win court cases

against these companies. We do exert

fairly substantial pressure on them, but overall

they remain outside the rule of law.

That is an absolute fact. And despite

the huge number of documents showing direct

corruption, that corruption is completely

obvious and undisguised. Just look at

what happened with Bank of Moscow and VTB.

How many publications there were in

in the business press, there, in the most

serious business press. Analysts

are all talking about it there—foreigners, banking

analysts are going crazy. And nothing happens.

Kostin gives an interview, Kostin,

the chairman of VTB's management board, the president,

says: "And we won't disclose on what

terms how much VTB paid to the shareholders

of Bank of Moscow." What that specifically means is,

yes, if you put it into plain

language: we won't tell you how much money

Kerimov and Yusufov pocketed from this

dubious corrupt deal.

This is happening in full view of the entire country,

in front of the president, the government, and

so on. So the law on

joint-stock companies does not apply

to them. What applies there are

certain informal rules and understandings. Is this your turf

or not your turf? Here, you may

move in and make money here,

but here you may not.

>> Am I understanding correctly that, well, never mind

the law, and never mind its

enforcement? But these people—I still

want to understand, Alexei, who are they

accountable to? If they are not

accountable to shareholders, then to whom

are they accountable?

>> There are no shareholders here. Forget

about shareholders, okay? Again,

>> Well, but those who are, I don't know,

shareholders of Rosneft—you are one yourself,

by the way,

>> I am a shareholder. I am

a shareholder. As a shareholder, I can

claim dividends and benefit from an increase in

the share price. Yes, I do receive some

dividends, from my point of view.

And ask a few questions.

In theory, it's written down on paper that

I can ask questions. More than that,

I can, in theory, receive answers to them

as well. But

the only time I can actually ask questions in any form

is once a year, yes, at the

shareholders' meeting. At the shareholders' meeting

of any of these major

companies, it's basically three hours of shame, and

then we laugh about it for the whole year. It's very

instructive in that sense to attend

a meeting, for example at VTB, where quite

literally, without exaggeration, all the shareholders

stand up one after another and address the presidium,

saying: "You are thieves, you robbed us, your

place is in prison."

>> In the literal sense, in the literal

sense. There is one such

remarkable shareholder who every

year comes up to the microphone and says:

"Kostin, I accuse you of being

a thief, you robbed all of us. Please,

sue me for defamation. The

next year he comes back and says: "At

the last meeting I said this. Here are

new facts: you are a thief, sue me

in court." And he sits there red-faced, staring

at the table. Well, because they know: right now

we'll just put up with it a little longer, another three hours

and that's it. Then he'll go

home empty-handed,

with no dividends and no increase in

share value. And we'll go ride around on our

yachts and merrily lord it over everyone with money. Alexei,

well, in fairness I'll try

to say that Mr. Kostin himself

admitted in an interview with Kommersant (a Russian business daily),

that the so-called people's

IPO had not gone successfully. Yes, he admitted that.

Though some time later, literally

2–3 days later, I saw, um, that he had been

awarded an order (a state decoration). That was

unexpected for me, of course.

>> For me, on the contrary, there is nothing surprising

about it. You have to understand that the

schemes and fraud

that Kostin carries out—it would simply be,

you understand, self-deception and deception of everyone

else to say that he could have done this

without the cover of the chairman

of the supervisory board, Mr.

Kudrin, or that he could have done it without

the cover of that same Mr.

Medvedev, and so on. In other words, don't

think that they don't read these

newspapers and don't know what is happening. They

know perfectly well. Maybe they

are directly involved in the schemes and

personally making money from them, maybe not.

But for some reason they are definitely covering it up.

And when Kostin says that

the so-called people's IPOs—I would remind you,

they took place at Rosneft, Sberbank, and at

VTB—were unsuccessful for him. But why?

For example, at Sberbank no one says

that. There everyone thinks things are perfectly

normal and there are no problems. But

Kostin, of course—they deceived everyone then, if

we remember, the advertising campaign for VTB Bank

featured Kudrin, featured Putin,

the whole state was involved. And

the initial price was set there

very high, at 13 kopecks. After that, everything

collapsed immediately. So what is the question?

You deceived everyone, you looted everything, you

they were obviously unable to manage the bank,

185,000 shareholders are very

unhappy with you. And you say, "This is very

unfortunate." So unfortunate that such

crooks

are sitting in the leadership of VTB Bank. Now that is

extremely unfortunate. So instead of

giving them medals, they should all be thrown out

of the bank. And, as you say, there

are these so-called informal rules there, uh, no point in

looking for the law. And then, basically,

the question becomes rhetorical: is

the Russian state

interested in Russians becoming

owners?

>> Well, what is the state? There is no

office somewhere with some kind of

state sitting in it, you know, doing something.

The state is a collection of

specific people. They are responsible

for specific things. When we talk about the state

in relation to banks, and VTB in particular,

the state means, specifically, the Central

Bank, the Ministry of Finance. And also, uh,

the Ministry of State Property

and the people who sit on

the supervisory board, the officials,

those who were appointed, not only officials there,

but independent directors too — that is the state,

those specific people. In practice, in

Russia, unfortunately, they are interested

in this: officials are interested

in stuffing their own people everywhere — onto

supervisory boards, management boards — and doing there

what Chernomyrdin (former Russian prime minister) brilliantly called

"resolving issues." They sit there,

resolve issues, and siphon off money.

If we are talking about Gazprom and Rosneft,

then it is different people; there, the state means

other people. There you have these

FSB guys (Federal Security Service officers) sitting there who

are interested in getting their children

appointed to cushy positions. Then there is

Sechin, who is interested in making sure that

a significant share of the money from

oil sales would go

not just to Rosneft, but to Gunvor,

would be sent off to Switzerland, to that offshore

company, and so on. In other words, these are

specific people with specific

interests, of course.

Where, in this coordinate system, is Alexei

the minority shareholder? I keep trying to understand.

Well, in this system, in this system

of coordinates — underfoot.

>> In this system of coordinates, everyone

takes the position that he wants and

is able to take,

>> right?

>> If you are an active minority

shareholder, then take the same position that

I do. I have very few opportunities and

powers as it is. And as for

organizational resources, even more so,

administrative resources, any kind of

resources. Well, if you are not afraid

and you think this is wrong, go after

them in court, make a scandal, come to

the shareholders' meeting, write to a newspaper,

file a complaint with the police (militsiya, as it was then called), write

somewhere abroad, I don't know,

a money-laundering complaint. All of this can

be done. I do it myself. Of course I do,

and I have not yet managed to

put them all in prison, punish them, and so on. But sooner

or later I will put them in prison. I am

absolutely certain of that. So if you

want to do this, you will take your place

in this system of coordinates. If you just

sit there, stare out the window, and

just read about it, then you will not. But that kind of

position — sitting by the window — is not for me,

because I feel very personally

about this. I believe that

they are robbing me personally

>> as an owner.

>> As an owner.

>> As an owner in this sy-

>> and as a citizen. Yuri, they are robbing you too.

These are all state-owned companies.

>> Well, I will let you in on a secret: as a shareholder too.

There you go — I will be waiting for you at the next

meeting with impatience. Still, I

am not advertising it, of course, but Sberbank — this

company interests me more and I like it

better. But we have digressed. Look,

you have just said a key

phrase, Alexei, when you said, "I will put them in prison."

That sounds very bold, doesn't it? Very dramatic

indeed.

But if there really is a chain

of facts that allows you

to say this as a lawyer who,

as I understand it, is acting within the law and

demands that the law be observed. And the second

part of this is: I am quickly scanning

the messages coming in right now, and

the recurring theme here — in at least every fifth

question — is: "Alexei, are you not afraid for your

life and your health?" So let me follow up

by connecting these two things, right?

You have just publicly said: "I will

put them in prison." These are specific people, right?

>> People who live by underworld-style notions. They say:

"Well, I suppose something

like Navalny started getting in our way, and

that's that." And then questions arise,

for example, like this one from Yevgeny from

From Magnitogorsk: "Isn't Navalny afraid

for his life?"

>> Well, look, we're practical people too, and

we have our own code of principles, right? Both

informal ones and legal ones. I'm conducting

my own investigation into various

companies. If I see that, in specific

cases, I have gathered all

the evidence, as in the situation with VTB

and several other cases there, the most

well-known being those drilling rigs

that have already become famous, yes, we've gathered all

the evidence. We know who these people are,

we know how they did it. I believe

that these people should end up in the dock

and then go to prison. Yes, right now I

can't make that happen. More likely, they can

put me in prison right now, and all my

statements like, "I'll put you behind bars." And do you

think that they could, uh, somehow, you know,

>> well, let's say, this is what I said at the beginning

of the program, yes: these people, they are

the state. They completely control

the judicial system, the entire

legal system, and law enforcement.

So they can imprison any person,

absolutely anyone. And there should be

no illusions about that. But even so,

I

these are not grandiose statements. Well, I

simply believe that good will triumph over evil.

I believe that sooner or later this

will work out. And I believe that, like all

the rest, this crook will get what he

deserves. At the very least, I will do

everything I can to make it happen.

If it happens in 5 years, in five, in

15, then in 15. As for

whether I'm afraid or not.

There are many dangerous professions. Sitting

across from me is a person who could

be called the author of the famous

meme about the party of crooks and thieves. Yes,

it was thanks to your actions that all this

came together too, among other things. But I would

say that thanks to your provocative,

Yuri, position, all of this spread so widely.

Are you afraid?

>> I'm a journalist, you understand? I ask questions,

yes. I just want to understand, yes.

>> I'm ready to meet with Medvedev, with

Putin, yes, and ask them questions too. You see,

you can deceive everyone in the prosecutor's office,

you understand? Because when someone asks—or doesn't ask—

it's completely obvious. That is,

well,

>> there was this kind of

pressure that crystallized

this whole phrase, "the party of crooks and thieves,"

right? So you're an accomplice,

and that's me speaking to you as a lawyer now,

an accomplice.

Being a journalist is often far more

dangerous than investigating some kind of

corruption in state corporations. Being

a journalist in the Caucasus is

extremely dangerous. We see them being killed there,

yes, and with no one held accountable. Being

some local anti-corruption

activist in some city or somewhere

else, yes, say in Tatarstan. Take

Irек Murtazin, for example. He wrote something

once, wrote something twice, and he was quickly sentenced to 3

years. So there's no need here to

exaggerate the danger that I

am exposed to. And of course, there's no need

to downplay the danger faced by

local activists. Everything is understood by

comparison.

>> Alexei, but maybe, well, you do, yes,

speak very openly,

express yourself frankly, yes, prepare materials.

Let me stress once again: Alexei, as the head of

the Union of Minority Shareholders, as

a lawyer, as an attorney, yes, does all this.

But maybe all of this influence is too

small for them, right? Like, Navalny is just

whispering away somewhere, he has some audience on the

Runet (the Russian-language internet), right? He comes on Finam FM, well,

fine, whatever. Meanwhile we are, basically,

sitting pretty.

>> You see, you have to act,

to use the tools that

exist. If I had the ability

to send signals directly into the nervous systems of all

the country's citizens, I would send those signals.

If I had the opportunity to appear on Channel One

(Russia's main state TV channel), I would appear on Channel One.

I don't have those opportunities. I'm happy that

I can appear on Finam FM. I use

my blog. That's it. And, you understand, the worst

position is to say, "Well, we're

so small, we're such insignificant

ants, so we won't do

anything at all." That is the worst,

most defeatist position. So

>> after September 24, Alexei, a lot of people felt that,

right? So I don't want to—well, now

we've gotten to it. You felt it too, and

now we're going to ask you about it, Yuri,

you understand, about all your pro-Medvedev

propaganda, including on

programs I took part in. I remember very

well—sorry, let me finish—

very well. Piontkovsky attacks

>> as you told me, "But I believe Dmitry

Anatolyevich (Medvedev), and I..." and so on. That's all.

This blah-blah-blah, and you repeated all of it.

that headquarters. Now tell the entire

audience: are you ashamed of it or not? I,

first of all, apologized on my blog after

what happened on September 25.

Second, I am not backing away from my

words that this is what we need.

You see, I can put it this way: I

believe, Alexei, that

a crowd in the street does not solve the issue, that

even calling on people to

gather together, come out, and state

their position does not achieve the goal.

As we agreed at the very beginning,

yes, in your own words, these are also real

specific people, and all of this is

personalized, and these enormous

resources and these enormous forces that

are concentrated in their hands are not

an abstraction, they are reality. I believed

that President Medvedev, as a person

who was in that position, could potentially—this is

the key point, of course—could have, yes,

done it in a softer way, without

chaos, without riots, without revolution, without

street brawls and so on. Yes, I

do not know what President

Medvedev was guided by. I do not believe that they

made an agreement four years ago. Frankly,

I’ll say it plainly: I don’t believe it.

>> I do not believe in the sincerity of your words. I

think it is a distortion to say

that it is either people in the streets and chaos, or else we

play this game about bad Putin

and good Medvedev. That was clear from

the very beginning. And the hypocrisy of this

position, excuse me, was

obvious, but unfortunately a significant

number of people said, "Well, they were

ready to play along with all this." But I am not

calling on you, you know, to

bang your head against the wall and shout

something like: "You absolutely have to go out into the

street and throw at the militsiya officers (police)

rotten tomatoes." I am simply calling for

a certain sincerity, for saying

what you think, for telling the truth.

And the truth is that over

the course of three years, Medvedev consistently

showed that he was not

a president there, and not the person who

would change anything, but rather a

placeholder.

>> It is easy to talk about that now. On October 24,

2011, I said it.

All right, never mind. I just

what happened, happened. Nevertheless, I

stand by my position that he

potentially could have—I say this

with complete sincerity. I apologized to

everyone whom I did not exactly

campaign to persuade—I never campaigned—but

suggested they look in that direction. And

what happened happened in March.

Uh, if nothing extraordinary

happens, then we will have a

change of president, right? So now

now I’m going to go on the offensive against

Navalny, right? So here everyone is asking us

questions

>> about presidential ambitions, about political

views. Every third question here

is connected with the events of this weekend, right?

People are writing: "Disappointed in

Navalny"—Kirill, in particular, writes,

yes,

>> and so on.

>> Listen, the events of this weekend. I

thought the main event of the weekend

was that Medvedev recorded a video about

badminton. People are asking about that. So now

you’re going to turn the whole program into

a session of needling me about it. No,

actually, now I’m the one who will do the needling, yes, by virtue of being the

host, after all. But you

really never hid your

political views connected with

patriotism, nationalism, with, well,

that current, so to speak. Yes, that is

true. You have, by and large, spoken about it

on my program as well, and more than once. But

now

one can increasingly see and hear the opinion

that some kind of synergy is emerging,

a merging of democrats. I am practically quoting

letters to you, yes, that are coming in

with ideas of nationalism. And so some kind of

symbiosis, uh, is supposed to emerge,

yes, which will become an alternative

current. Alexei, look, I can honestly tell you

honestly,

if there were presidential elections,

uh, I don’t know whether you would win—I mean

fair elections, right? Or, well,

relatively fair ones—you would most likely

make it to the second round. I am not

exaggerating your importance or

your capabilities. But right now a situation has arisen

in which there is United Russia

there is

several parties that are within the system,

there are several parties that are outside

the system—well, that are allowed to take part in

elections, yes, I mean the two other

organizations. And there are forces that are

essentially fragmented, and there

leader-centrism is the main thing there, rather than the

idea that potential

opponents or opposition figures. Yes, in

that connection, let me now fully

formulate the question. You will not run in the presidential

election because there is no

choice,

>> because there are no elections at all.

>> There are no elections at all. So you are not creating a political

party because it,

most likely, would not be registered. Am I

understanding your line of thinking correctly?

>> Well, because this method of political

work is irrational right now, it makes no

sense.

>> And look, you really went after me over

Medvedev, right,

>> in the Finam FM studio.

And now let me respond in kind. All right,

can these marches change anything,

can rallies change anything? Fine. I, I,

by the way, I listened to your speech,

right? Fortunately, communications now make it possible

to get everything within five minutes.

And on some points I agree, on others I do not

agree, but that is a topic for discussion, right, in a

country where, as you say, there are absolutely

rightly no elections, no discussions,

none of this, that, or the other. But there are leaders,

yes, though I hope you have not yet caught that disease.

So what is to be done? That eternal

Russian question.

>> Well, listen, the only thing that can change everything is

an active political stance on the part of citizens.

That is the only thing that can

change everything. The specific mechanisms

for action can vary. I also do not

claim to possess some absolute

truth, or to be the kind of person who

knows point by point exactly what must be done

to remove this group of crooks from power

tomorrow. If I

knew those steps, I would carry them out. I do not

know them either. I do what I currently

believe needs to be done. I am engaged in

this investigative work of mine. I

When I am invited to take part in some

events, as I was invited on Saturday

to the rally "Stop Feeding the Caucasus," I

take part in that too and consider it

necessary to support that campaign. There are

different ways of working here. Some people

are involved in organizational

building, like PARNAS and Solidarnost

and so on. I do not, I do not consider it

necessary for me to take part in that, but I do not

see anything problematic about it. And

leaderism? Well, yes, there is leaderism everywhere.

One has to choose something

that unites us. From my point of

view, thanks to you and partly to me, this

campaign against the party of crooks

and thieves has, in a sense, united them

all as well. There is no need here

to create any party, any

structure, and so on. What is needed is a

sound idea, and that idea is shared by

absolutely all people and activists from different

parties. Right now, hundreds of thousands of activists

from all parties except United Russia are

using this campaign. Therefore our task

is to use and seek out more

effective methods of political work.

This is, of course, a complete set of

banalities, but I have nothing

new or extraordinary to say here. Well,

because I simply do not know any of

that, and I think no one does.

If we hypothetically assume

that the United Russia party does not win the upcoming

elections, if

in March something happens that does not

allow that party’s candidate to

win the presidential election. Alexei,

what happens next? Look, you are alone, right?

All right, you have supporters,

yes, but by and large they are fragmented.

Right now, as you say, they have

this idea, yes, about that very

party. Uh, but there are no clearly

formulated ideas—or are there? I do not

know, right? So is there a real alternative?

A real alternative? Of course, yes, there absolutely is

a real alternative for everyone. Well, look,

first of all, if we

hypothetically imagine that tomorrow

Putin is taken back to Mars by Martians,

right, along with all of their United Russia, and something

happens, and free elections are declared in Russia.

Well, listen, there are

political parties now,

such as they are, they do exist. That is,

the country’s population exists, there are

different politicians. I am one of them. These

politicians will take part in the elections.

It would be foolish to expect that tomorrow

they would merge in some kind of shared ecstasy

and

organize something that gets 90%

support. Political struggle will continue,

the debate will continue over

which direction there should be, whether a right-wing

or left-wing path of economic development. But that

would be a normal political process, and

there would be a normal establishment of

the judicial system there, the budget would be normally

formed, and so on. In other words, there would be

a political process—complex, and in some places

scandalous, just as it is in

every country in the world.

>> But these guys won't just give anything up

for nothing. So,

>> Alexei, you know better than I do. What

they possess. Yes,

>> That's right, Yuri. We keep going in circles here,

they won't give up anything. Through struggle you will win

your rights. Our task is to make our

political struggle and political

position so effective that it

would make it possible to remove this group,

which has usurped power, from that very

power. That is the task. It

cannot be solved either in the upcoming

parliamentary or presidential

elections. Elections here do not really

matter at all. Not these ones happening now, anyway. But even so,

without setting any deadlines, without

setting any time frames, we must

continue this struggle. We can see examples

in different countries. In Mexico, a party

similar to United Russia sat there for, what,

60 years in power.

>> There are options. All right. Uh, they may be

hypothetical, but they exist. Then the next

question.

>> I can see you're a little disappointed, but

if you were hoping that I would now give

three simple steps on how to overthrow

Putin and create paradise on earth,

>> and then, after leaving this studio,

you'd say: "Proko became an accomplice in this

overthrow." Nothing of the sort. Well,

I've already done that once, yes. Uh, 65

10-99-6 and finam.fm are the means of communication.

Alexei Navalny, Finam FM, Final Summary.

Alexei, all right then. There is,

let's say, this influential group. There are

people like you, active people, with an

active political stance. Uh, but

there is the broad majority, yes, who

say: "Listen, well, maybe

they're right, this whole setup, you know, that

exists—well, I seem to be earning

my daily bread, right? Bought a car,

bought a little apartment

through a mortgage." Well, if we look,

say, at Moscow, St. Petersburg, and so

on, right? You can't exactly say that people

are living badly, as they say in such

cases, God forbid. Yes, but this

fear that the status quo might collapse—it

exists. You won't be able to

disprove that to me. People with families and children,

after all, unlike our

officials, they look 5 to 10 years ahead,

right, thinking about when one child graduates, where another will go,

to study, and so on. I'm not now

talking about the group that leaves

the country, yes, that's another option, I don't

judge them, it's their right, after all.

But the fear of losing the current status quo,

it exists. And whatever the case, it

is associated with the people who

are currently in power. Yes, there are those little jabs

in smoking rooms, in kitchens, anywhere, yes,

sometimes we even have such discussions on air

too, yes. But this fear,

you have to admit, exists—so how do we

overcome it?

>> Well, look, I'm not arguing with that.

>> It's not even a psychological issue, it's

natural for people to hope

for the best and fear the worst.

Naturally, people will never do

anything, nor will they support anything,

that is guaranteed

to lead to some kind of chaos, a revolution in the

form of chaos, and so on. However, as I

have said several times, it

would be foolish to deny that before 2003

Putin did a great many positive things.

And yes, despite the fact that he

significantly curtailed

political rights, yes, and the process

of usurping power began then and

took shape in 2003, nevertheless there was

a series of positive changes. Of course, this

was connected with rising oil prices, yes, it was

connected, but again it would be

hypocritical to deny that it was also

linked to the establishment of some

basic order in the sphere of

public administration, a more

coherent line. And finally, with

the fact that the president simply stopped being

drunk every day, and so on. Those things

did exist. However, by 2011 all of this

had completely degraded. And this system,

for those very people who

hope for the best and fear the worst,

it became obvious that this system would

lead only to worse outcomes. It is no longer

capable of changing anything, it is not

capable of doing anything well. It cannot

give us affordable housing,

quality healthcare, or

protect us, uh, I don't know, from

crime. It cannot protect us from illegal

immigration, or protect the country from disintegration.

And we all see that the country

is falling apart, and entire republics have in

fact ceased to be part of Russia.

So all of this has also become obvious. And with

with this government and these specific

people, with this list of specific

individuals, no one associates any hope for a better future anymore.

But at the very least, there are more and more such

people. And our task is

to tell a wider circle of people about

what is happening. When everyone knows

about the wonderful Kovalchuk, yes,

who became a billionaire simply

by attaching himself to Gazprom and Bank

Rossiya. About the Rotenberg brothers, who,

Putin's friends, latched onto Gazprom

and became billionaires. And Timchenko,

who, by latching on thanks to Putin

to oil companies, became

a billionaire, renounced his

citizenship, sits in Switzerland, and

doesn't even pay taxes here. About Ramzan

Kadyrov and his cheerful

lifestyle there. By

spreading this information, we

will achieve a situation where more and more people

will realize that this government will bring them nothing

better anymore.

>> And 65199.6

finam.fm is our means

of communication. Alexei Navalny is with us today

on the program Bottom Line on Finam

FM. I'll ask one more question, and then we'll

begin the interactive part. Alexei,

well, um, in your opinion, if in 2012

Vladimir Putin is elected

president of Russia—I still insist,

yes, on observing the law. I hope that

they will observe it too. Well, I'm

a romantic, yes, the last romantic in

Russia who still believes that the law

does exist after all. Mm, what do you think,

he has started comparing himself to

Roosevelt, to de Gaulle. I deliberately

bought the book The Great Roosevelt and, opening it,

after reading just the first 10 pages, found

the first amusing point. Roosevelt

was one of the first politicians to demand

direct elections

to the U.S. Senate, rather than

selection by state legislatures. Yes.

Well, accordingly, applied to

Russia, that would mean direct elections of members of the Federation

Council. And further on, perhaps, I'll find even

more differences between Vladimir

Putin and the U.S. president, but I want to ask you

about something else.

Do you think they really

sincerely believe that they are saving

Russia? You see, I don't believe that

they are somehow so

as young people would say, frozen out, yes,

and that they don't see, don't notice, don't

understand, and are living in some other world.

No, of course they see and

understand everything. And I think they sincerely

believe that they are doing something

good and saving the country from the coming to power

of some other people,

who, well, it's a cliché, you know. They

will also come and steal everything, but

they'll be even worse than us. Yes, they'll come and steal everything,

but it'll be them stealing it, not us

stealing it. And these people have already, you know,

there's an old Soviet joke,

sort of, that stealing has become so

difficult that it already seems to me that I'm

actually earning it.

After all, it's the administration of all these

endless schemes. Well, the same thing with

Gunvor, Rosneft, and

Transneft—managing all of that.

Administering the theft takes

so much money that they genuinely think

that none of this is stolen, that it is

honestly earned.

All those VTB people, Sechin,

Timchenko, the Kovalchuks, that whole gang—they

sincerely believe that they

earned it. They don't sleep at night,

after all. Well yes, I became a billionaire. And

how am I any worse than those rotten

Komsomol types who became billionaires

under Yeltsin? I work harder, I'm

a patriot.

And so they sincerely believe—well, it's

somehow, you know,

many people are inclined to

transform themselves in this way. And any person, in

general, is inclined to justify their

actions. That's normal psychology. And

they sincerely believe that they are doing everything

right. And of course they do not

intend to give up power, and they

will come up with, and convince themselves of,

a huge number of

explanations. They don't live in a vacuum,

they have to explain themselves to us

and to foreigners. They will tell you about

Roosevelt, they'll tell you, I don't know, about

Crocodile Gena and Cheburashka (popular Soviet cartoon characters), they'll find any

arguments to justify

what is happening. Anything can be explained

with the help of some kind of historical

analogies and examples. Then he'll say, "

I'm like Ivan the Terrible, the gatherer of

the Russian lands, or like, what else am I,

I don't know, like Mahatma Gandhi, doing

something there." Well

>> how long this about Let me ask you a direct

question. Are you in favor of revolution?

>> Well, again, what exactly do we mean by

revolution?

Revolutionary sailors running around and hiding everywhere?

Let's put it this way: if by

revolution we mean some kind of

social upheaval that removes

this illegitimate regime from power,

a regime that has usurped power, then yes, I am in favor of

revolution. If by revolution we mean

whether I support crowds going out tomorrow

into the streets and starting to

set everything on fire, then no, I am against revolution. But

we can see that before our very eyes there have been

a huge number of so-called

revolutions that took place entirely

without bloodshed and led to legitimate power,

yes, perhaps to a legitimate government

that we may not like.

For example, take Yanukovych:

the government changed, and Yanukovych came back to

power again, but of course he became far

more legitimate than he would have been before

that, when he became president for a

short time as a result of

electoral fraud. So there is no need to be afraid of

the word revolution. People come out and

demand a change of power. The government falls,

a new one is appointed. There will be no

vacuum. A holy place is never empty

(Russian proverb meaning power vacuums do not last). And there is also a huge

number of legitimate institutions. And

there will be elections, there will be new elections,

people will come to power; some of them will

be to our liking, some of them will not

be. We should not be naive and

think that it will necessarily be us

those people—that I personally will be the one

to take some

position. Maybe I will not take any position at all and will

lose badly. And when you talk

about a second round, well, that is probably

an exaggeration, because polling

shows that, for example, only

6% of the country's population knows me. There is no need

to build fairy tales in your head. And

maybe Zyuganov will come to power, or

Zhirinovsky will come to power, but if he

comes as a legitimate leader, well, then

he comes.

>> People get the rulers they deserve.

Yes. Alexei Navalny. Bottom

line. Finam FM 65 199.6

and finam.fm. Those are our ways to get in touch.

Tell me, do you consider yourself a marginal figure?

>> Well, of course not. By marginal figures I mean

people who, first and foremost,

hold extremely

extremist political positions

that in fact are not supported

by the majority and who are inclined to

break the law. And within

that definition, Putin, Medvedev, and their whole

gang of cronies are obvious

marginals. As for me, I consider myself a perfectly

mainstream politician, because I

say what I think, what I believe

is right. It seems to me that

most people agree with me.

>> What are you closer to? If we use

political science terminology, are you

a liberal, a nationalist,

>> This is not the periodic table. And I am

categorically against that. You hand me

a little box with tiny compartments

and say, "Please put yourself

into one of these little cells." But that is

complete nonsense. We need to proceed

from a real political agenda,

from actual problems. And I have different

views—views on any of these

survey questions that are supposed to define your

political position, from abortion

to gun ownership. Yes,

I have answers to all these questions, but

I do not think in those rigid categories. As for gun ownership—

>> I support simplifying the procedure for

civilian gun ownership, including

handguns. I support

allowing civilians to acquire

them.

>> Are you against abortion

or for it? I am not against abortion. I believe that

abortion should certainly not be

banned, but—so you want to go

straight down the whole list.

>> Well, you just laid it out. I am

going straight down that list.

>> I believe that, of course, abortions should not

be banned, but we should take

measures to make them far

less common. But they must not be banned under any

circumstances.

>> Are you against the Caucasus?

>> And what exactly is meant by the strange

phrase, "Are you against"? Of course I am for

the Caucasus. I believe that my position on

the Caucasus is a hundred times more patriotic and

more focused on preserving the country than

the utterly hypocritical and deceitful position

put forward by those two

clowns of ours, Putin and Medvedev. My position is

that there must be

budgetary equality, budgetary

fairness. My position is

that there is no need to keep feeding these

criminal gangs and groups that

now call themselves the Caucasian

the political elite, because I support

the Caucasus. I believe that if we are

allocating any funds, they should

go to the people and

be redistributed in such a way that

the local population, which is impoverished there, benefits from them.

They’re just crooks who

hand each other gold bars and dance

around there, tossing things to their own

select circle of people.

>> Of course, I despise these people. These people are

murderers, these people are robbers, these people

despise their own population. They have created

these little states which, as I

already said, are not in fact

part of the Russian Federation. They are destroying

their own people. They despise their

people. They have created feudal

structures now, in the twenty-first century,

right next to my country. Of course,

I despise such people.

>> Let’s answer some listeners’ questions.

Alexei Navalny, Bottom Line

on Finam FM. You can call 65

10-99,6,

or send your message to our portal

fin.fm. I can see that you’re writing to me saying

that there is neither an online stream

nor sound, but the channels were today

expanded as much as possible, that is, up to

the limits of our technical capabilities, yes, I don’t

know what exactly is going on there, but at least you

can definitely hear us on 99.6 FM in Moscow and

the surrounding region. Good evening, you’re on the air. Hello.

>> Ah, good morning.

>> Good morning. Where are you calling from?

>> Yes, good afternoon, sorry. Good evening

already. You know, your guest today is saying very

correct things, and things that are painful

for a patriot’s heart to hear, rather,

and I would probably agree with him in about 90%

of cases. But you know, you

won’t believe it, just this morning I

was talking to a person, a friend of mine,

a former classmate, who works in this field, he

makes money from all these

web-related things, that is, he promotes

various websites, various

accounts, and so on. And he just

casually said, "Do you know

how much it costs to set up a LiveJournal

like Navalny’s?"

>> So

>> I don’t know, but he named a figure that

really surprised me.

>> Well, say how much.

>> Well, he said it was around, I think,

1.5 million rubles (about tens of thousands of US dollars at the time), something like that,

and that it also has to be maintained, which also

costs money.

>> And what does it mean to create such a journal? In other words,

will the journal’s readers

come included automatically or what? I mean,

how exactly do you create one? Are there

any examples of journals created that way?

It’s just that, yes, Yuri, I haven’t really looked into

the technical side of it, but as for the substance of the question,

I trust this person because he is

a professional, and he has no reason to lie

to me. You see, Alexei has

a very normal, proper

position on many things, but

the only thing that, let’s say,

doesn’t entirely reflect well on him, perhaps,

right? That is, what raises doubts

among people who generally agree with

his point of view, is the source

of funding, right? Where does he get

the money for all these things?

>> Yes, thank you. I apologize, I’m going to

cut this off rather abruptly, because it’s 21:51,

short answer.

>> Well, it seems to me the last thing anyone could

accuse me of is somehow

having bought my journal or maintaining it with

money. It has existed for many years, and

it gained readers over a fairly

long period of time. It seems to me

it is all quite obvious that

running a LiveJournal for me

costs 0 rubles and 0 kopecks.

>> This is Alexei Navalny on Bottom Line

on Finam FM. I’m launching an SMS poll. Do you

support the activities, the kind of

activities that Alexei

Navalny is engaged in? 5533, right? If yes, you

support Navalny, send to 5533

an SMS with the letter A. If no—and if you think all this talk

about a website costing 1.5 million or whatever else

you may have found about my guest today

is true—then

send to 5533 an SMS with the letter B. Once again.

For Navalny: 5533, text the letter A.

Against Navalny: 5533, an SMS with

the letter B. The voting has been going on for 52

minutes now, 8 minutes until the end of the program.

Good evening, you’re on the air. Hello.

No, I have—good evening. Hello.

>> Hello. Well, what is it? Good

evening. Hello.

>> Hello. Good evening.

>> Igor. A short question. Alexei is now broadcasting,

roughly speaking, through your

radio station to Moscow and the central

region. But how does he plan to get

his thoughts and statements across to

grandmothers and grandfathers who watch

only the main state TV channels? Yes,

Thank you.

>> I get the message across however I can. So,

they invite me onto various

radio stations. Some of these

radio stations are listened to by grandmothers. So

I use that. Wherever I can, well, where I can't do more.

The simplest way to reach people on a larger scale is

television. I don't have television. I do

what I can to get the message out. Right now we've

released videos about our wonderful

United Russia, the party of crooks and thieves.

We're trying to use a new

distribution method through

text messages. A grandson downloads the clip onto

his mobile phone and shows it to his grandmother.

Well, I agree that these are

perhaps not very sophisticated

and not very effective methods, but we

don't have any others. We use whatever we can.

>> Good evening, you're on the air. What's your name?

Hello. Ah,

>> Hello, Roman.

>> Yes, Roman, go ahead.

>> Yes, Alexei, Yuri, good evening. I wanted

to ask, simply, well, I also support

Alexei, yes. I wanted to know his view

simply from the standpoint of an economist and

lawyer, regarding what kind of sums

the assets of our officials abroad are

generally estimated at, acquired from the 2000s

to the present day. And in principle, how

can we count on help, I don't

know, from other countries in recovering these

assets, and how it would be possible

to carry out, among other things, a review of

the results of privatization and your opinion on

that.

>> Yes, thank you.

>> Well, look, obviously it's impossible to estimate this

down to the last kopeck or even to the nearest million

dollars, or even within $10 million,

with any precision. There are fairly well-established

methodologies used by Forbes

and Finans (a Russian business magazine), and other publications, so we

can make estimates. And if we're talking about

the assets specifically of Putin and the Putin

group, then the holders of these assets are

the Rotenbergs, Timchenko,

the Kovalchuks, whose billion-dollar fortunes

have also been broadly described. As for whether

there is or will be an opportunity

later to seize all of this and

return it to Russia, I believe that

it will be possible. It will require

considerable effort. But we do have

precedents where, well,

the bank accounts of African

dictators and Middle Eastern rulers were

frozen and then returned to the new

governments. So of course this is

a matter for the future. Sooner or later this

will have to be done.

>> 65-10-99-6 and finam.fm are our means of

communication. Alexei Navalny is with us today

on Finam FM on In the Bottom Line. The

SMS vote is underway. There are only

2 minutes left to vote. Do you support

Alexei Navalny's activities? Send to 5533

a text message with just the single letter A.

If no, to 5533 send just the single letter B.

The vote is ongoing. They're asking

what Alexei Navalny thinks about

the overthrow of Gaddafi. Briefly.

>> The Libyan people overthrew Gaddafi, so

let them deal with it themselves.

>> All right, answer received. Good evening, you're

on the air. Hello.

>> Hello, good evening.

>> Yes, hello.

>> Yuri, thank you for having this guest. Alexei,

please tell me this: I belong to

the majority Yuri was talking about.

I'm 23, and I want to leave this country.

I've had enough, but I work here, I'm

a specialist in my field, and I want

to work in peace. I don't want to go out

into the streets, vote, stand there with

placards. I want to work peacefully and

earn a living, or else leave. So.

Nemtsov suggests going to the elections, to

the polls, and tearing up the ballot. I want to understand

what I should do. I'm confused. Everyone is shouting

that Putin is bad. Who should I believe? What

should I do?

>> Yes, thank you.

>> Well, first of all, you need to understand very clearly

that this position—"I don't want

to go anywhere or stand anywhere with a placard. I

just want to live normally and work, and for everything

to be handed to me"—will get you

nowhere. Sooner or later it will force you

to emigrate. No one is simply going to

hand you anything, unfortunately.

So, as I already said, in struggle

you will win your rights. Your task and

duty, if you like, as a

citizen, is to take an active stance.

And after that, which politicians you listen to—

whether Nemtsov, Limonov, me, or

Zhirinovsky—that's a matter of choice.

Everyone should, I believe, have at least

a basic understanding of politics. And

analyze things. I say what I think,

and I explain it. I urge people

to follow certain ideas and

advice of mine.

>> The main thing is to think and choose with your own

head.

>> That's the key point. Good

evening, you're on the air. Hello.

>> Good evening.

>> What's your name?

>> Andrei.

>> Yes, Andrei, if possible, briefly.

Sure, I wanted to ask Alexei,

>> whether he is familiar with Yuri Genadyevich Mukhin's idea about

the structure of power in Russia and what he thinks

about it.

>> Thank you.

>> Unfortunately, to be honest, I'm not familiar with it,

so I find it hard to answer.

>> Let's move on. Good evening, you're on the air.

Hello.

>> Hello. Good evening. My name is Timur.

>> I'd like to ask what you think

of Vladimir Solovyov and his

program.

>> Yes, thank you.

>> Well, I regard Vladimir Solovyov with

curiosity. That is, Vladimir Solovyov

holds a certain position.

Vladimir Solovyov earns

his living in a particular way.

Well, that's how he makes his money.

And I regularly get sent links to

his various curious remarks about

me. Well, everyone chooses their own profession,

the one they choose. Vladimir Solovyov

has chosen his path. It seems to me

it's quite a difficult one and not conducive

to mental well-being. Well, let him do what

he does.

>> Good evening. Hello.

>> Hello. Good evening.

>> Good evening. The first woman has called in

to us. What's your name?

>> Hello. My name is Olga.

>> Yes, Olga, go ahead. Briefly, please.

>> I have a question about legal practice.

How can someone become

Alexei's client if, according to

the register and according to his lawyer's account,

if you look at his records, the only

company that appears to be his client is

his parents' company. Maybe that's

not the case? Well then, have you tried to become

my client? First of all, these

statements, which I don't know how

were compiled, seem to cover only

one client. Second, if you are

an individual, then most likely,

of course, it depends on the issue. You

cannot become my client if you are,

because I don't specialize in those kinds of cases.

If you represent some company

or are a shareholder, and you have, uh,

a corporate conflict, and you are able

to pay for my services, then please,

come in, uh, come in.

>> I can certainly take on your case, but,

of course, it will cost

some money.

>> That was an advertisement for Alexei Navalny's law office.

Good evening, you're on

the air. Hello. Right, hello, good evening.

>> Ah, good evening.

>> Please introduce yourself.

>> My name is Alexander. I'm from Moscow. I'd like

to fully support, support

Alexei.

>> Thank you.

>> So. Well, I wanted to comment on the following

topic. Uh, today I was driving near

Komsomolskaya Square, and there were people there

handing out signs—oh, not signs, but

ribbons, like the ones for Victory Day (the holiday marking the Soviet victory in World War II),

something like that. The ribbons had

white crosses marked on them. And they had

posters that said:

"Put a cross on the thieving authorities." And I

want to tell you, I don't know whether

people are happy with life or not, but no one

opened a window or took a single

ribbon. So maybe that's an indicator

of our patriotism, of whether people are satisfied

or dissatisfied with things. I don't know.

>> Yes, thank you, thank you.

>> Well, I don't know to what extent that is

an indicator. To be honest, I myself wouldn't

take such a ribbon, because it

contradicts, it seems to me, the position that

you should come to the elections and spoil

your ballot, yes, put crosses in every box.

That, it seems to me, is not a very rational approach.

Well, in any case, it's a position, and people

have the right to promote it. Ribbons are not

the biggest indicator. Nevertheless,

of course, people's social activity

is quite low, but no one except

us can increase it. Everything

depends on us, on how effective our

work is. So if they're handing out ribbons, well,

good for them. If they're doing it badly, then take

a bunch of those ribbons and hand them out to your

friends. Everything depends on us.

>> But nevertheless, you did put a sticker

on your car.

>> Yes, I drive with a sticker. United Russia

is the party of crooks and thieves. And I would say

that I get quite a lot of

support. People show that they

support it—they honk, they give

a thumbs-up, like, great.

>> Alexei, thank you very much for finding

the time to come.

>> Thank you for the invitation.

>> And I think we had a good conversation

despite all the barbs directed

at each other, right? And what matters

is what was said. And the main

conclusion, uh, is that we are not campaigning to you. I

am addressing the listeners, yes: each of

you is free to take whatever steps

you consider necessary. Just think, at least

sometimes about what is happening in our

country thanks to our programs,

thanks to Alexei Navalny. But I

hope that before New Year's

we will meet again, for example, on December 5, as

>> 31 December 5, well, on December 5 there will also be

the monitoring process, which I

am overseeing, trying to coordinate

to some extent, everyone to the best of their abilities.

So I think that on the fifth there will still be

such an intense period. And because all

the manipulations will in fact be

taking place on the morning of the fifth. Well, of course, I

will be happy to come on your program.

>> All right, agreed. So, the next

meeting with Alexei Navalny. And after

the upcoming, well, let's still call them

elections, yes, to the State Duma

of the Russian Federation, Alexei Navalny,

the bottom line. Finam FM