Alexei Navalny on the program “Conditionally Yours” dated March 25, 2020

will threaten Russians.

>> He’s just like that. Ah, I mean, he’s

short. Yes, that’s true.

State Duma deputies as early as next week

on wheels is better,

>> that I’ll be able to leave on wheels. We’re already on

YouTube.

>> I believe we’re already on YouTube. Yes. Hello

everyone in the first reading. We believe

it is right to discuss this issue. And our

>> the voice of the person who said that

Putin is our only national treasure.

>> Did you hear that? Volodya, well of course, lis-

in the SVO program (the Russian government’s term for the war in Ukraine), if suddenly someone

gets hurt

liability has been increased to up to 7 years

Kiselyov too—the main thing is Putin’s...

Putin’s loss because of a person’s negligence

because they violate an order.

It’s not that everything is fine, it’s just that I had

a low... intent.

>> Right, like during an interrogation. Only

you need a lamp, need a lamp. A lower chair, lamp in the

face. We’re already going. That’s it. And the lamp in the face

for him too? Lamp in the face—there are three of me here.

>> Well, of course the questions won’t be easy,

but how else could it be?

>> Very good. I just love all difficult

questions. I’ll remember—you’re on YouTube without

a break. I understand, yes. And I even know a question for the

break. Yes

>> not only simple snacks, but even

signature dishes. According to statistics from

the Yandex.Eda service, the number of establishments

that joined over the past month

has tripled. This trend is especially

clear in the capitals. Moscow and

the surrounding region accounted for 30% growth,

St. Petersburg for 15%, and Yekaterinburg added 8%.

The total number now

of restaurants offering dishes with

delivery is 16,000. About the same number

of partners is also listed in the Delivery

Club network. Among the newcomers there is also a prestigious

fine-dining establishment with an international

reputation.

>> What do you think he’ll announce?

I’m sure he’ll announce the postponement of the

vote. Ninety percent of it will be about the need

to unite.

>> Well, yes,

>> that hard times are coming. Take our situation into account

Well, and they’ll say that we must

all together take, undertake safety

measures, quarantine, our older

generation. But I don’t think he’ll announce

anything extraordinary.

Rather, right now the task is simply

to make up for what they failed to do,

because they really did fairly

little, especially since something was happening in Moscow,

while the entire rest of the

country...

and doused [him] with something resembling sour

milk. He himself wrote about it on

Twitter.

>> Yes, we can see it with our own eyes

>> a person, and the studio in the next

room says that he himself wrote about it on

Twitter, although now your entire corridor is covered in flour

.

>> That’s true.

>> The euro is 84 rubles 15 kopecks. In Moscow now

tomorrow you’ll bring me tea, asked

the Echo of Moscow news service.

>> Watch the live broadcast of this program on

>> our YouTube channel and on Yandex.Efir.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Yegor Zhukov.

Conditionally Yours is on the air.

>> Good afternoon. This is the program Conditionally Yours.

My name is Yegor Zhukov, and today my

guest, also, I suppose, conditionally yours,

Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny.

Hello, Alexei.

>> Good afternoon.

>> Tell us, for quite a while now, conditionally with

you happened. Ah, yes, well, actually

nothing all that terrible, fairly

standard. Lately, for some time now,

regularly near the entrance, near my home, when

I’m going to work, there are constantly some

groups of crazy people lying in wait for me,

a couple of whom shout something in

my face and walk with me like that to work,

while one films it on camera. And today they

were there too, but today they decided to douse

me with milk and cover me

in flour. And now this flour is simply

covering the corridor of Echo of Moscow, because

I was shaking it off here for a very long time.

>> Well yes, basically, there’s nothing, nothing except

condemnation for such people that we, of course,

can say. Though, probably,

they probably have no other methods of struggle.

>> These are, essentially, the very same

people who splashed

brilliant green antiseptic on me, and against whom they tried

to open a criminal case. And the Moscow police

told us it was impossible to find them.

And yet here they are, though they are always, as it

usually happens, yes. Ah, Alexei, before

I start asking you questions,

I would actually first like to

sincerely thank you, really,

because it was precisely the release of the film *He Is Not Dimon to You*

that personally became the Rubicon for me,

after which I definitively decided that I would

go into politics in Russia. I’m sure I’m

not the only one like that. So without exaggeration

one can say that you laid the foundation

single-handedly for a kind of new protest era

in Russia. So for that, my sincere

thanks to you.

>> Thank you very much. I just want to

correct you, of course—not single-handedly. It was

after all the Anti-Corruption Foundation and

the film *He Is Not Dimon to You* is the product of the work

a large group of amazing people, uh,

people who work with me.

And in fact, they often make

a bigger contribution than I do, while I just sit

in front of the camera and wave my hands around. So

thank you very much. Basically, I

take your compliment and

gratitude as a compliment and

thanks to our entire team.

Thank you.

>> Yes, yes. Still, I’d like today’s broadcast

to be framed somewhat in

a critical tone, because it seems to me

that,

>> I figured as much when you started,

but may I ask you something first?

>> Ah, that’s the Pozner technique, because

Pozner (a well-known Russian TV interviewer) has already been here. I had only just

started asking him something during

the break when he said, "How did you

get here?" That’s learning from the masters. I’m

just incredibly glad that I happened to be on air

today in particular, despite the fact that I got

covered in flour here. And that’s because yesterday

Zharov from Roskomnadzor (Russia’s federal media and communications regulator) became

the head of Gazprom-Media, that is, the

organization that owns Echo of Moscow.

I really want to be the first person

on the air at Echo of Moscow to call

Zharov a crook—which I certainly do consider him to be.

I’m just interested in

your opinion. So what do you think

about that? Alexei, how about I become

the second person on the air at Echo of Moscow

to call Zharov a crook.

>> I’ll close the door now so Venediktov

can’t burst in here.

>> Well, that’s our shared opinion. We should

make clear that it is our opinion. But I more or less

agree with you. Very nice. So, the first

question I want to ask is about rallies. And,

if you don’t mind, I’ll read out a short

list.

>> Go ahead.

>> The rallies on March 26 and June 12. Goal:

to force the authorities to launch an investigation

against Medvedev. The goal was not achieved.

The rally on October 7. Goal: to force the authorities

to release you from

administrative detention. The goal was not

achieved. The rally on January 28. Goal:

to popularize the election boycott. The goal was not

achieved. Turnout was quite normal.

The rally on May 5. Goal: Putin’s resignation. The goal

was not achieved. The rally on September 9. Goal:

the cancellation of the pension reform. Goal: not

achieved. The rally on July 27. Goal:

the registration of independent candidates in

the Moscow City Duma elections. The goal was not achieved. All

these rallies are essentially what are called

"shout a bit and

go home" rallies, where you, Alexei, give

people a place where they are supposed to

gather, but do not give them a clear

strategy for action. And as a result, not a single

goal that you yourself set for these

rallies is achieved—which, basically,

could have been assumed from the start,

because without a strategy for action, people

can’t do anything. There is a

quote that is, admittedly, mistakenly

attributed to Einstein, and it goes

like this: "Insanity is doing the same thing

over and over again and expecting change."

So why hold rallies again and again

without giving people any

strategy, if it is obvious that in the end

the goals of the rally will not be achieved without

a strategy?" And I would perhaps even

expand the list you just

read out and say that for 20 years we have been trying

to build democracy in Russia, and the goal has not

been achieved. For 20 years, everyone—now,

just a second—but still, the goal of

the Echo of Moscow radio station to achieve freedom

of speech in Russia has not been achieved. The goal of any

opposition movement—to achieve

a rotation of power—has not been achieved. And,

of course, over the last

20 years we have seen the failure of everyone’s attempts

including mine, and perhaps I bear

more responsibility for that

than anyone else. And yet

positive change, positive

change in Russia is not happening. And

all of these goals have not been achieved. Here I can

say that my attitude toward all this is not

that of a political technologist, but rather

a political one. I simply believe in certain

things. If I believe something is right, and

after our investigation "He Is Not Dimon to You"

we publish it and there is no

reaction at all, I tell everyone: "Guys,

let’s go out into the streets, and if no one

comes, I’ll go out alone, because I simply

believe in it, because I think it is

the right thing to do. I’m not a naive person,

I understand that if this government has

everything—from judges to prisons and police—

then Medvedev is probably not going to come running

because of me or because of our rally of even

50,000 people or 100,000 people,

in a panic. But I believe in it—let me finish.

And that is why I do it. And

rallies are part of the work. I

head an organization called

the Anti-Corruption Foundation.

The goal of defeating corruption in Russia

has not been achieved. Does that mean that I

should—I'm speaking specifically about rallies. And

note that I never told you that

you shouldn’t organize rallies. I myself attended

almost all of your rallies. And I’m

very glad they happened at all.

The issue is that rallies without strategies,

without some kind of

>> rally strategy.

>> You simply tell people:

"Just go out to the square, and that's it."

>> Well, you could at least offer them

some kind of list of actions, some kind of plan,

Yegor,

>> but just holding a rally, it seems to me, is

the second one after *Don't Call Him Dimon* (Navalny's anti-corruption investigation), or maybe

after *He Is Not Dimon to You* / *He Is Not Our Tsar* (major protest slogans/campaigns), I don't remember, one of those rallies already

was held after the investigations came out. And I

talk about it, and then

several people show up and start writing to me

in the comments: "Campaign: Flowers for

the Police." And they add hashtags: January 28

They keep posting hashtags. I don't

understand what this is. Let me finish

properly. Great. So right now

I'm telling radio listeners about this. And I find out

that there's this young man named

Yegor Zhukov, who said that we should

organize a "Flowers for the Police" campaign and give

flowers to police officers. And maybe that's

a good action, in your view. But

I do what I believe in. If I know for sure

that if I tell everyone, "Guys,

there's this great idea. It's described in

Gene Sharp's book, which of course I have

read."

>> I wanted to give it to you today,

Alexei. But if you've already read it, then

great.

>> Listen, do you know who gave it to me?

>> Yashin,

>> of course. Oh, he was here in the studio. He

published it in 2005. Back then he was fascinated by

that book. Everyone was fascinated by it, and

I was too, to some extent. So anyway,

if I say, January 28—what year was it? 2018

Yes, 2018.

>> January 28, 2018—guys, let's

collect a million scarlet roses for

the police and give them out. Well, I

just don't believe in that myself. First of all,

I don't think people would

support it. But that's not the point. The point

is that in that same excellent

Gene Sharp book, there are 198 methods

involving state infrastructure, where,

for example, 1,000 people come to city hall

and simply all sit down there, and so on.

Without a plan of action, rallies of this kind

do not achieve their goals. And we've already seen this

from empirical experience. Not a single one of

the goals was achieved. Alexei, so

what was the net result? In the end,

what we got, first of all, was total demoralization

because, well, morale just drops.

If we had given flowers

to the police,

>> given flowers to the police.

Blocking highways. Blocking highways. You

could have—take the blogger Kamikadze D, for example,

he talks about this all the time, right? You

tell people where to gather, but you don't give them

a strategy, and in the end some people end up in

prison. By the way, I don't blame you for that in

the slightest. The repressive regime is to blame.

I'm just saying that what remains in

the end is only declining morale and people in

prison, while the goals are not achieved because

there is no strategy of action.

>> Well, that has nothing to do with

strategy. I do not have the

moral right, uh, to openly call for things

like that. "Let's block

the highway." What I do say, of course, is that

we have—because we do have—a

basic constitutional right to assemble

peacefully and without weapons. I tell everyone that

we don't care what Moscow City Hall

says. And I always go out myself. I never

file applications for Sakharov Avenue or anywhere

else. I say, "We'll go out on

Tverskaya." And I go out on Tverskaya myself. But

to tell people, "Come on, let's

gather and block the roads," I simply

know that the next day everyone in

all our campaign offices would be arrested

immediately. I simply do not have the

moral right. That's exactly what this is

about. Look, Alexei, it's foolish to deny

that you are one of the very few people in Russia

who truly takes on

political responsibility. Yes, and for

that you deserve the deepest

gratitude. And that is also why you are

called the leader of the opposition in

Russia. It's absolutely obvious. It

would be silly to deny it. At the same time, of course,

you're not some kind of superhuman; you also

have a family, and I wouldn't demand from you

things that, yes, I couldn't

demand from myself. But the point is

that a rally is not the kind of form of protest

that you can simply

use up. Because if you don't, well,

carry it through to the end, then in the final analysis,

as I said, what we're left with is declining

morale and people in prison.

I'm not calling for anything here, let me

make that clear now.

>> See, that's what's interesting. I don't, I

don't—but politically, you are the leader

of the opposition, Alexei. I don't even organize rallies,

but you do. You tell people, you name

the place where they need to

gather, you don't give them a strategy, and

in the end nothing comes of it, because

look at how it appears. You

are ready to do 30 days in jail, yes, but to bear

greater responsibility—not so much. And this

is not a reproach. Again, it is not.

Strategy. Look, let me

try to explain it differently. I understand what

you mean—please understand me too.

A rally is not a strategy, and a rally

is not an end in itself. Of course, I

believe that in the current situation, power

will not change hands as a result of elections. And

the most important part of the strategy is

holding rallies. And the key thing in them

is the number of people. Not some

political-technique or political-strategy

trick. Like, let's block a road here or

give flowers to the police. It's simply

about the number of people. So what is it that we

should be fighting for? For the number of people and

their willingness to stay out on the streets for as

long as possible. But rallies are only part

of the strategy. Overall, the strategy is

to create a crisis for this

government. And my strategy, in 2011,

was that I called on

everyone to vote for any party against

United Russia. In the end, that

led to rallies, because they

falsified the election, and the response was

mass protests. But after that, the task was simply

to gather these large rallies. A rally is

not some special thing that, well,

you see, it's like LEGO. You can build one thing out of

it, or you can build

something else. It's simply a political

response from society. We need to, we must

create the pressure of society. Right now

my strategy is that we

use legal mechanisms. One of the

strategies is Smart Voting, in order

to create a crisis both in the elections in

Moscow and in regional elections.

>> Alexei, we'll come back to that in a moment.

You talk about numbers, but if

simply, I don't know, even 60,000 people

come out, but they don't know what

to do. They'll come out and face police batons, they'll be

detained, and

>> they don't need to do anything there, they need

to stay on the street. So,

>> so it's an open-ended protest, right?

>> Well, of course. All right, but that's also

a certain form of rally, isn't it? You're not

telling people, for example, from the very

beginning: "Go out there and stay

there."

>> Just listen to me again. I am

a responsible person, a person from

real life. And I understand very

well that as soon as I, basically,

call people to a rally, I get arrested

and released a month later. And if I

come out and say: "Guys, we're going to a

rally, and it's going to be open-ended." That

will lead to what I already said:

my entire

infrastructure will be arrested, and other political

parties will do—will end up doing

absolutely nothing. And, unfortunately,

the wonderful people at Moscow radio stations,

they can't directly call for it either.

They say: "Well, Navalny has been locked up,

his headquarters have all been shut down too. No one

can say it out loud, so let's

not do anything." But there is no,

you see, some kind of

special word or special format

or anything else that will turn

a rally of 20,000 people or 60,000

people, in the current situation in Moscow, into

a giant rally of 200,000 people. We

all have to work together, all politicians,

to gather rallies of

200,000 people. Because Moscow is a city

where 15 million people live. And my failure,

if you want to talk about my failure,

then it is not that I

somehow conduct rallies incorrectly, but that

so far I have not been able to gather

a rally of 200,000 people.

>> Well, 200,000 will come, and then they'll go home

afterward, and that's it.

>> So 200,000 come out. I understand you. All right.

Okay. Then just to wrap up this topic,

for yourself overall, have you ever

considered those very forms

of protest, thought them through? Have you thought

about whether they can be applied—namely,

blocking highways altogether? I mean,

>> Since 2005, when Yashin published the book

by your beloved Gene Sharp, throughout 2005

he kept coming around me saying, kept saying,

"Let's do some of these things."

But again, real life is real; in that book

there's a great idea written there,

for example: let's hold strikes,

sure, let's do it. And our Anti-Corruption Foundation

and, more broadly, our network of headquarters

actively help trade unions—for example,

helping the doctors' union organize strikes.

Do you know what the most common request from

the doctors' union is for me right now? "Get us a

lawyer." Yesterday the criminal investigation unit came to

the union leader. Here our people were jailed,

there they were jailed. So, yes, it sounds

very good, and we do it. And,

probably the first such political,

you could say, strike in recent

years was in Nizhny Novgorod,

organized by a union with our

informational support. But one thing is written in a book,

and another happens in practice: when this

strike begins, they immediately send in

the National Guard (Rosgvardiya),

>> meaning the conditions just don't exist yet for

that to happen. Well, overall that's what

>> I'm simply saying that the book,

it's a good book, but it was written in 1993,

and it's a set of great recommendations. Not all

of them, unfortunately, are applicable in

Russia. Like giving flowers to the police.

Then let me ask you about this

—I'll switch into Pozner mode again. Sorry, what will

you say when you stand before God? And

look here: Zharov has taken over

Gazprom-Media, which owns Echo of

Moscow, and we know that he's a crook.

>> 100% of the radio station's staff disagree with that.

And we know there is enormous

support. Well, everyone in Moscow

>> to call a strike,

>> but simply suggest, from this great

book, what methods could now be used

by Moscow radio stations in order

to, well, somehow make things happen.

>> Good idea. Interesting idea.

>> Good idea. No, come on, we remember all

that. Let Plyushchev, then,

stage an act of self-immolation, Ultman can stage

a hunger strike, and there’s another method from

*Lysistrata* we could use: refuse

to perform marital duties. And

let Venediktov declare that, as a sign

of protest, he will not have sex for

three months. There’s also the option of

refusing to go to segregated

beaches. That one is especially relevant in Russia.

Yes.

>> Well, that’s why it really is a great book from the

point of view of, let’s say, out of

everything you said, what was closest to my

heart personally was: no, thank you.

What resonated with me most was when you said,

>> I wasn’t offering that to you, just so you know,

sorry.

>> What I liked most, somehow,

was this part, when you said: "So,

when will 200,000 people come out?" I think that

>> we live in a police authoritarian

state. This police

authoritarian state is not at all

as stupid as people tend to think. They

are, first of all, very effectively reading this

book cover to cover.

>> Have you studied Armenia’s experience? Just

curious.

>> Well, of course, of course. I’ve read it

carefully.

>> Small groups don’t confront the police,

they run away from them. There are people there, sort of like

scouts, right, who watch, and if

the police are heading toward a crosswalk, then

the small group runs to another one, and in the

end the whole city comes to a standstill. You described

some small part of the movement and

simply a kind of, well, tactic they

came up with. But the bigger picture

is that there was

an opposition group in parliament,

a fairly large one. There was Pashinyan,

a charismatic leader who mobilized

the whole country. There was, in the end, this

Sargsyan, who wanted to change

the country’s constitution, and successfully did so. And

then, when he decided to engineer a transition and

become prime minister himself,

the whole country rose up against him. The country

rose up, and after that all sorts of things happened,

small groups were running around and so on. But

the small groups by themselves didn’t

resolve the issue, right?

>> No, overall I agree with you. Basically,

the point that methods really

aren’t everything, and that certain conditions must first

come together. That is, in

general, a good argument, yes, and again

from a political science point of view—you

don’t like political scientists very much, as far as I

know—but from a political science

perspective this is just, this is just the perfect

argument. I’m still a student, so that’s why I

love you. No, I, like James Madison,

one of the Founding Fathers of the United

States, want to be both a strong political scientist

and a strong politician.

>> That’s a serious bid for victory.

>> We have about

six minutes until the break, so I want to take up the next big

topic after the break. But

before the break I want to ask you a few

somewhat personal questions. They are,

nevertheless, all connected to politics,

so I think it will simply be

interesting. Under what circumstances would you take

your whole family abroad?

>> Well, for now I don’t see any such circumstances and I can’t

even imagine them. My family supports

me. Uh, it’s not always easy to be

a relative of an opposition figure,

someone in the opposition. And, by the way,

the relatives of an ordinary

opposition activist often have it harder than

the relatives of one of the leaders of the

opposition. But my family supports

me. We’ve never even

discussed anything like that.

>> You haven’t even, well, thought about it, imagined

what events might unfold?

>> At what point in your political

career were you genuinely afraid?

Really. Can you remember the moment

when you were most afraid?

Well, what do you mean? Afraid in what sense?

Afraid in terms of

>> I mean. Afraid

>> afraid enough to give up

your political career. Well, say right now

I’m walking to a Moscow radio station. And then

two people run up, one of them has

a camera, and I see some little bottles in

their hands. I think: "Damn, they’re about to splash me again

in the face with brilliant green (a bright antiseptic dye often used in Russia in attacks on activists). I’ll be all

green, and I’ll have to run off to some

hospital, and the hospitals are all closed right now

and get my eye treated." So, I mean,

is it unpleasant for me? Yes, it is. Am I afraid

enough to give up

what I do? No. So I’m a normal

person, and there are moments when

you feel a sense of danger

or a sense of risk, but it’s not something that

would make me give up my

beliefs or my actions.

>> Obviously, it’s unlikely that anything could

make Alexei Navalny give up

politics, but was there ever a time when you were

really afraid—more afraid, anyway,

than at other moments?

Well, those first arrests, when you don't

really understand any of it. It's not that

it's scary, exactly — I mean, you're ready for anything,

but it still brings you

to some clanging metal door.

And your ideas about prison and a cell,

you've probably had this too, are

some kind of movie-based image, right,

that now you're going to have to fight for your life,

to the death. But it all turns out to be

complete nonsense, and in fact

there's nothing frightening about it. And here is Kira laughing —

the press secretary of the Anti-Corruption Foundation

(FBK, Alexei Navalny's organization), who in total

has probably spent about 3

months there already, right? And most

of the FBK staff have gone through it.

So there are just certain things

that happen again and again, and at first you

are afraid of them, and then you realize

there isn't really much to fear. And the police

grab you, drag you away, and they have these brutal

faces, but then on the bus they start

telling you about their hard

lives.

>> Oh, that's easy. I had exactly the same thing.

How many days did you actually spend in prison?

Well, I wouldn't call it prison. Detention.

>> No, in prison. In prison. In prison proper.

In an actual prison.

>> In a pre-trial detention center (SIZO). One day in SIZO, when I was

arrested in the Kirovles case.

>> For you, are other opposition figures primarily

potential allies or

competitors?

>> Well, that's politics. Sometimes they're allies.

Sometimes they're allies, sometimes competitors. That is,

when you're calling on people to go to a

rally, you're directly my ally.

When you say in your video that

Smart Voting is nonsense, then you are

my competitor. I compete with

you for the audience's trust. I

am, of course, trying to persuade them. Uh, today

Khodorkovsky is my ally, and tomorrow if he

supports Sobchak, he's my competitor,

because I'm calling for a boycott. And so

on. That's a normal thing. Look,

there were elections to the Moscow City Duma,

you took part in them too. And there were 35

districts. 35 — 45 districts, I mean. And

then there will be State Duma elections, and there there are only 15

districts. And those 45 people will come to compete in

15 districts, and it'll be a total free-for-all,

and all of them will

hate each other, but at the same time they will still

remain, broadly speaking,

allies.

>> You're often asked about your so-called rigidity.

>> Uh-huh. Let's just say that after spending

some time in this whole crowd,

and sort of being part of it, I can

tell you that a lot of people among

the opposition leaders themselves

say that you still

only ever agree to cooperate

on your own terms.

Is that true?

>> That's because when I offer someone

cooperation, I offer it on the basis of a

well-thought-out strategy: Smart Voting

or something like vote for anyone against

United Russia. And we conduct

sociological surveys, so we have a

polling service. And I'm confident in

this strategy. I'm confident that in

discussion, in debate, I can prove

that it's right. Remember back in

2011, it was the same: uh, there was

Kasparov, he was for debates, for—

for a boycott, sorry; Nemtsov was for

the so-called 'Nakh-Nakh' strategy, and I

was for voting for anyone against United Russia. In

the end, I can't say that everyone

joined me, but there were many open

debates, most people supported

my strategy, and there was Smart Voting.

So many people criticized it and still

continue to criticize it. I mean,

if I believe in something, I

propose it, and I have absolutely no problem

fighting for my position, fighting to win

the support of everyone else.

>> There's also this kind of question that comes up:

if we're talking about specific

examples, I completely share your attitude toward Ksenia

Anatolyevna Sobchak.

The thing is, as I recall,

she offered you the role of her authorized representative

and to go on federal TV channels for debates.

You're taking a long time to say this. You're smiling

yourself as you say it. How exactly

do you imagine it — that I walk out and

say, 'Hello, I'm her authorized—' Come on.

I don't think she would have asked you

to phrase it like that. But that's exactly

the point, isn't it? You simply don't

want to be associated in any way with

that person, and yet you still would

get a few minutes on a

federal TV channel. You'd be able to

make a statement. In your very first sentence you'd

say, 'I'm not really any kind of authorized

representative here.' I began this conversation

with you by saying that there are things

I believe in, and I do them. For me, that's what

politics is, because I

am not some systemic opposition figure or

some vague character who can't run

for anything. I only do

the things I believe in. And I know

Sobchak. I know that she came to me and

told me she was running because she was being

paid. And even if she hadn't told me that,

I would still know perfectly well

what this was about. And, well, I don't know. And the fact that

she wasn't a real candidate, and the fact that these

the elections are not real; they should be

boycotted. That is part of my convictions.

>> Well, there were minutes on the federal TV channels,

that would have been real

the number of minutes on the federal TV channels,

where they talk about how I stole all the timber

or about how I am a Freedom agent,

who came from America. I am not read

to sacrifice my main strategy, my

attitude toward these elections. These elections are

a sham. And I, you understand, am supposed to

do this sort of thing. Think: "Yes, these are

sham elections." But then I would go and tell everyone,

you should still come anyway,

because I want my minutes on federal

>> channels. Gori, you did not need to

say that people should vote for Sobchak.

You could simply have come and spoken on

federal TV as Sobchak's authorized representative. I

would have come as Sobchak's authorized representative, and

her portrait would have been hanging behind me. And everyone

would have looked at me and said: "His anti-corruption investigations are

worth next to nothing,

because he is Sobchak's authorized representative."

>> All right, friends, we will continue after the break.

This is the program *Conditionally Yours*. My name is

Yegor Zhukov. We will continue with Alexei

Navalny.

>> *Conditionally Yours*. Could I have some more tea? They can

hear us, guys. They can hear everything

>> postponement.

>> Ah, they have already announced it,

>> right? Right now there is a postponement being announced as important news.

A postponement. No, an emergency situation.

>> Uh-huh.

>> Next week is simply a non-working week.

>> Until next March for now.

>> And now he is saying they will defer loan payments.

>> You will have time, like a vacation.

>> You will have time

>> For everyone or for those infected?

>> Well, no, it will appear. Well, if it is a

non-working week, then

>> Oh. No, no. Well, about, about

>> Ruslan. Got it. Thank you very much for

telling me.

>> Yes, yes, yes.

>> Let's sign off once more. Yes, all right.

>> And I will talk to Yulia about sex.

>> No need, no need, please.

>> There you go. Just like that.

>> You are a notorious sex terrorist.

I am protecting my family.

And

>> we continue on YouTube. And I,

>> of course, Vladimir is speaking very loudly

Putin, but all right. I also wanted to ask

this question, just as a continuation of this

topic.

If we are talking about opposition leaders,

without naming them, because

>> Let's name them; only YouTube is watching us

closely, so in principle we can

name them, in principle. Well, all these people

who spoke at the rally on July 20,

they told me that the decision

to announce the rally on July 27 was made by Alexei

Navalny on his own.

>> Which people exactly?

>> Galyamina, Gudkov, and all the

others who spoke then at

Sakharov Avenue. He noted that now

>> that is what I was told. I was not there myself then.

I am telling you. I made that decision with Yashin

We discussed it together and

said: "But this is exactly what you want from me.

It is the strategy." So I went out and announced it.

>> No, no, no, that is not the point. The point is that

I am not even accusing you of anything right now. I am

just interested to ask. Yes. With the other

candidates, you did not discuss this at all. So

you discussed it only with Yashin?

>> Well, no, I did discuss it.

>> Do you understand why people might develop

not the most

pleasant attitude toward you because

you did not discuss such an important thing with them?

I do understand.

>> I will explain. Because I discussed it with everyone

who, with all due respect to Galyamina

and Gudkov, can actually bring people out,

who matter from the standpoint of

a rally. And the main candidates who knew about my plans were

Yashin, Sobol, Zhdanov,

Yankauskas. In other words, all the real

candidates, the actual candidates. And as for

the rest,

>> not a real candidate.

>> Gudkov is a real candidate. But I, honestly,

to be honest, Gudkov will probably

be offended by this. I have doubts

because, well, I do not want information

to leak. There are some things you simply cannot

blab to everyone in the world ahead of time,

right?

>> Well, I mean, there is information that

you are not going to say now about his

insincerity, right, about how he does not

It is a feeling. There are people about whom I know for sure

If I told them something, they told no one

else. I discussed it with them. And

besides, these people matter the most

when it comes to bringing people out. I am

telling you exactly as it is. I am telling you

absolutely frankly, just as it is. I mean,

I am simply interested in the sense that

I myself work with

Dima, yes, and I am just interested in your

position on this. Do you think that

>> Well, he supported Sobchak in the election.

>> That is disgraceful.

>> Well, that is it then.

>> Well, he himself thinks it was disgraceful. So,

>> if he himself thinks it was disgraceful, why the hell did he

speak at her rally before election

day? After Dima, for some

I do not know what reasons he

had, pulled that stunt and played on

on the drums and supported her, also throwing in

support for the Yabloko party, which is quite a party (a Russian liberal political party).

I can’t entrust him with any

sensitive information

>> because of that.

>> Because of that too, among other things. Well, that’s the main

reason. Any other reasons

just get drowned out by it, because even now

we still don’t understand his motives. Do you

understand his motives? I do. There’s, well,

there is a reason there, so tell us

>> I haven’t spoken with him, I haven’t spoken with him about

whether it can be disclosed. Some kind of

secrets,

>> And you want me to tell you my secrets?

>> No, it’s not my secret, it’s a secret. Well,

I don’t know whether it’s a secret or not.

>> Look, that’s why for me it’s simple.

That’s it.

There is some information that I can

tell people I trust. Dima,

I think well of him, but after

the Sobchak story, I can’t trust them.

>> I understand you. Well, okay, that’s your position. Yes,

that’s a position. All right, Mikhail...

>> all right, one minute, next, now

>> let’s start—who else are you interested in, what else were you

told

>> now

>> now, now there will be a question about

meanings—now the questions will be about ideas

>> on our YouTube channel and on Yandex.Efir (a Russian streaming platform)

Egor Zhukov

“Conditionally Yours” is on the air

>> Good afternoon, this is the program *Conditionally Yours*

my name is Egor Zhukov, and today my guest is

Alexei Navalny, and we continue

to discuss all the topics that interest me and,

I hope, Alexei Navalny as well

too. Alexei, in my view,

what distinguishes a great political leader from

an ordinary one is the ability

to paint such a picture of the future, to give

people ideas, meanings, that

will inspire them to accomplish, well,

truly great deeds, great

acts. A person who wants

to change the government in Russia, a person

who wants for the first time in its long

history to lead our long-suffering

country to prosperity, must be

a great political leader. Well, at

least, that’s how I see it. The thing is,

that in my view, the fight against

corruption is not something capable of

inspiring people to great deeds. What do you

think, then—what can you

offer Russia? Because we

are talking about big things, and the question should

be a big one. What can you offer

Russia that would make you worthy specifically of the

office of President of the Russian

Federation, and not just of being the head

of an Interior Ministry anti-corruption department?

>> I disagree with you, because it seems to me

that you are romanticizing all this. Well

I mean, of course it all sounds

great. A great person must

offer great ideas. But as I see it,

for Russia to become a normal European

country for the first time in its thousand-year

history—as Putin is probably saying right now

at the same time as us on

air—that is quite a great idea.

What’s more, defeating corruption in Russia

is, of course, a great idea and a great

undertaking, because I have believed and still believe

that corruption is the foundation of this regime,

and it is one of the main reasons why we

live so poorly, so badly, and why there is so little

freedom in Russia. So, uh,

what we all don’t need right now is

grandiose pathos; we need normalization. We

must become a normal European

country. We are ready to become one tomorrow

without some kind of grand overarching idea. That itself is

the grand idea, if one is needed.

>> Alexei, but everyone has their own understanding

of what is normal. I mean now, not even

in the sense that each individual does, but that each

political ideology, each

spectrum of ideas has its own understanding

of normality. And when you say that

we need to return to normality,

or rather, arrive at something normal, you

mean your own version of normal.

>> I mean the European Union, which

is located right next to us. I

mean a system in which there is

separation of powers, the rule of law, and

free mass media.

>> That’s being for everything good and against everything bad

and

>> No, no, these are absolutely concrete things.

This is an absolutely concrete matter that

has to do with the procedure for appointing judges, with

the role of parliament. Everyone argues about this.

Look, Putin governs people precisely

by means of what he calls a

great idea. For him, the great idea is

empire. We must dominate

our neighbors. When I talk about

normalization, I mean that we should not

be bossing our neighbors around; we should

be paying our own people here and now

a decent salary. Does it seem to you that

this idea is, well, not impressive enough? Well,

somehow not enough...

>> well, it’s obvious to people who are

opponents of Putin. That’s the point.

>> It’s obvious, but we have never managed

to make it happen. Like the idea of fighting

corruption, it is obvious, but Russia

has existed for many hundreds of years, and never

have we—not even under the Soviet Union—

done anything to

defeat corruption. Uh, so I would like

normalization, and that is where greatness will lie

Russia. It is a huge, magnificent

country that will simply live

amazingly well if we get

>> if Alexei Navalny becomes

head of the Interior Ministry’s anti-

corruption department.

>> But the head of the Interior Ministry’s anti-

corruption department cannot fight

corruption. Corruption can only be fought

by political power. That is

the first point. Second, corruption will disappear in

a system where there is, as I have already

said, an independent judiciary,

political competition, namely

a proper parliament and free

media.

>> It’s just that corruption will not be the only thing you’ll have to deal with

if you become president.

>> I have a main job. You have a main job too.

You are a journalist in

Moscow, right?

>> And I have, unfortunately for you—fortunately for me—

a main job. I

am not a politician, as very often happens

in Russia. “What do you do?” “Well, I’m

kind of an opposition politician.” All right,

good for you. But I have a job, and that job

is that I head the Anti-Corruption

Foundation. Well, I founded it,

and we fight corruption, and

we publish information about that

corruption. I do this work because

I consider corruption the root of everything

bad that happens in Russia.

>> It’s just that more and more often you hear

this phrase: “The opposition

doesn’t work with meaning, the opposition doesn’t

work with ideas, the opposition doesn’t

offer that very image

of the future.” Because, look,

every time we watch your

latest investigation,

it’s absolutely first-rate, everything is great from the standpoint of

documentation, the evidentiary

base—really excellent, no complaints at all.

But in the end, it is still just

yet another proof that

our government is corrupt. Damn, well,

we already know that.

>> But that is my job. That is what I do as part of my work.

Look, when I am doing my job, I

talk about corruption and about our fight

against corruption. And people support us with

donations for that. We live on those donations.

When I have a

campaign, that is exactly it. They

support you for bigger things than just

fighting corruption. We know what

people are supporting us for. They are probably supporting

us for more than that as well, because we

have also built a network of headquarters across

the whole country. And during the election

campaign I presented a program in which

my vision was laid out. And my entire, essentially,

election campaign was conducted under

the slogan about the Beautiful Russia

of the Future, which, well, is probably

known to quite a large number of people.

And I have there a set of

specific, as you put it, meanings.

It seems to me that this is a rather unclear and

suspicious expression that

political analysts love to use. It’s just that

the word has been worn out so much

that it is no longer even clear what it means.

But still, I do have a

political program. Do you

>> think that this, just this alone, inspires people?

>> I hope it does. I would like

to inspire them more.

>> It’s just that in your interview with Sobchak (Ksenia Sobchak, Russian journalist and politician), you said

that you are a centrist. In the interview with Sobchak,

Ksenia Anatolyevna, you said that you are

a centrist.

>> Probably in response to some strange

question that was asked. You see, it’s just that

centrists do not make

revolutions, Alexei, that is the whole point.

Revolutions are made by people who paint

a concrete image of the future, one that

sets itself apart from all other images

of the future, and creates a movement toward it, you understand. That

is the essence of it. In order to present us with that

image of the future, you will

inevitably have to position yourself

on the political spectrum. And you know,

like in that old meme.

Like, “Would you like the right or the left?” Right? Well,

there you have your program. I ran in

the 2013 election with a specific

program that was written in black and

white. It can be read. I have

a presidential program. It is a real

program that I wrote together with

very smart people. I believe that—with

the smartest people in Russia, in fact. And in that

sense, it is not a matter of right or left. I

have a very clear set of views.

Perhaps to you, as a

libertarian, it does not seem very inspiring.

To some, this program is more left-wing;

to others, it is more right-wing. On

migration,

it is more conservative than,

well, than many listeners of Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station) would find pleasing.

My position on the minimum

wage is not so pleasing

to libertarians. And yet, I do have

a set of things I believe in. They

are laid out very clearly, and I have been talking about these

things for many years. And I believe that

it would actually be quite hard

to accuse me of changing my

views. On what, exactly?

Well, I mean, all of this whole

story there—it is clear that I

did not even want to go in that direction, but you

You said that yourself. That whole story with, well,

Georgians, "rodents," and so on and so

forth—things like that. You're not saying that now.

This is one of the questions

that, let's say, I was asked

to pass on to you from what they call the lower

internet. How did that happen?

>> Not from the darknet, where you buy meth and all that, but from the

lower internet. That's a different expression.

>> And you're in the upper internet.

>> I don't know. Right now I'm in an interview with

Alexei Navalny. I was asked

to pass this on. How does that happen—a person

who was, say, a right-wing conservative nationalist

turning into someone who

supports, Lord forgive me, Bernie

Sanders.

>> I like Bernie Sanders's campaign. It's not that

I support him exactly; I just really

like Bernie Sanders's campaign

because in terms of

its technical organization, it's very similar to

what we do. It runs on small

donations and this kind of grassroots

organization. It's very easy for me to answer

the question you're asking

because, whether it's the

upper or lower internet, I don't know, but on

some part of the internet I've spent my entire

public life, and everything I've said

has been recorded, everything I've written

has been preserved. And in that sense, yes, I

did write a post during the war in

Georgia, when it was just beginning. I had

an acquaintance who was stuck somewhere in

Tskhinvali under shelling. I wrote a post

in which I called Georgians "rodents," for which

I apologized. I can apologize again,

but fundamentally I haven't changed my view.

>> So are you still ready to go to the Russian March

going forward?

>> I still believe that, absolutely,

the Russian March should be allowed. All

those people who go to the Russian March

have every right

In the form in which I went to the Russian

March, called for these Russian Marches, and

declared my support for the

national-democratic movement.

Of course I am. As soon as the Beautiful Russia of the Future

arrives, we'll have

a huge, wonderful, magnificent,

friendly, most peaceful-in-the-world

Russian March, where

all of Moscow will be marching, and everyone will just

be happy. As you know, the Irish

hold something like that. We'll have a very good Russian March,

and then everyone else

will hold their own marches too.

>> Alexei, why are you involved in

politics?

>> Because my encounter with the judicial

system many years ago

>> Deeper, deeper, deeper. Can you explain it

on a deeper level—why?

I'll tell you at the deepest level. Yes, we keep talking about

some upper internet,

lower internet. The fact that this even

makes sense shows the primitiveness of my own

makeup. On both the deep and the

basic level, as a lawyer,

>> I ended up in Russian court several times and

realized that this Russian court does not deliver—it

does not judge. It is fundamentally structured in such

a way that no fair

decision can be obtained there. I realized

that being a lawyer was pointless. I really

wanted to be one. I studied, I consider myself

a good lawyer. And I simply understood

the uselessness of my profession, and indeed

the uselessness of the legal system. I

realized the corruption and viciousness of this state and

understood that—well, what could I do? Retreat

into internal exile? No, better that I

try to change something. That's how I became

a politician.

>> Fair enough. Alexei, I'm continuing the line of thought

I started here. With some, I don't know,

Mr. Udaltsov or

some left-wing

bloggers, I'd probably also

feel—we more or less equally feel

the country's rot, yes, but

we want to fix it in different ways, and we're

moving toward different goals. And that's what

this is about. So when I just asked

why you are involved in

politics, what I really wanted was

an answer specifically in terms of the

values that matter to you, because

if I ask someone on the left, he will most likely

tell me, "I strive for

equality." That's what matters to me—that he

won't talk to me about Putin, he won't

talk to me about United Russia,

or the courts; he'll say, "What I want is

for people to be damn equal." That's

the main thing for me, right? Some

libertarian will say, "Hell, for me

the most important thing is freedom." Well,

for example, yes—I'm striving for a world

where people's

freedom isn't restricted. Well, basically,

>> In those terms, what matters to me is

justice. I want there to be a

system.

>> "Justice" is the most ambiguous concept

in politics.

>> I want disputes between people to be resolved

fairly. I want everyone to be

equal before the law. I want everyone to be

equal before the law, and I don't want

the strong to be able to humiliate the weak,

whether by taking advantage of the state's inaction

or the state's support. I want to live

in a country where everyone has absolutely equal

rights: the rich, the poor, anyone

at all.

>> The point is that the very same law

will spell out exactly which rights

people have and which they do not. Do you understand?

in, I don’t know, Sweden, although in Sweden it’s already

a bit less so. In the United Kingdom, people

may have the right to, say, free

healthcare, yes, while in another country

that right may not exist. And so on.

So it still depends,

you see, the answer that everyone is equal

before the law is, of course, correct,

but it is meaningless, because there are

laws under which, you know, well, Jesus

was crucified according to the law. Alexei, well, that’s

exactly the point. That is what it was; it was according to

the law, according to the letter of the law. Right now

Putin says that he is, by law,

changing the Constitution. This is absolutely

illegal. Literally every

word, uh, of these amendments that they

introduced contains a violation of the law. And

for me, as a lawyer and as a human being, I

want what is written in

the laws to correspond to the essence of justice. And

when you ask me this question, because

we are, of course, people with somewhat different

political views, like absolutely everyone

else.

>> What are your views?

Do you want me to rate them for you on a European scale?

On the American one, I’ve already

heard you say that

it supposedly makes no sense. Is Zyuganov (Gennady Zyuganov, longtime leader of Russia’s Communist Party)

left-wing or right-wing?

>> Well, we can take—if we take, I

just—Alexei, I’ll calmly respond to

this attack.

Three—we take three different dimensions:

cultural, economic, and one’s attitude toward

the state. And on each of them we can

place a person. On the

cultural level, Zyuganov is right-wing; on the

economic level, Zyuganov is left-wing. That is

normal, and we can say that. That

doesn’t mean it makes no sense.

It simply has several different

>> levels. It makes sense. But right now in

modern Russia, it does not make sense.

And for us it most certainly

does not, from the standpoint of politics or your

favorite political strategizing, it definitely does not

make sense. Because instead of

talking about the main things,

for example, right now the Constitution

of our country is going to be changed illegally

through an illegal vote, in such a way

that from a super-presidential

republic, as it was before, we will turn

simply into an outright authoritarian

state. And right now absolutely all of us

must oppose this. And among

ourselves, sorting out such important

questions as attitudes toward

guns, attitudes toward your beloved feminism

or my beloved migration,

and so on—these are all important things; we

can debate them on Twitter, but

overall, right now this cannot be

the basis of political

self-identification. We should not split

into right and left, because, you know,

I think we should sell

handguns, while you think

we should also sell assault rifles. That is

a major difference in American

politics—a fundamental difference

for American politics. In Russia

right now, it makes not the slightest sense.

Well, I understand your position. Although it still

seems to me that there are some

issues on which it is very

hard for people to unite. And if

if, well, speaking of that—

>> for example

>> people still have different understandings of the

country we should be aiming for. And

some people may think that if I

support Navalny now, then anyway,

even though he is now speaking in favor of, well,

some universal human values, still

he will go on to build that kind of country, and I

don’t even understand what kind. That is, I see

some of his specific points, but I

also generally support those points. But

>> This is very easy to explain. Navalny

wants to build a country in which

there will be parliamentary elections. And Yegor Zhukov

will go into those elections with one party, while

Navalny, apparently, will run with another. That’s

all. And then we will appeal to

the citizens, and you will propose something

of your own, and I will propose something of my own. Based on

the results, a parliament will be formed,

a coalition or non-coalition

government, and this whole system

will start working. That is what is called

political competition.

All right. Alexei, you belong to

Generation X. It’s an interesting

generation in the sense that you are, of course,

not a boomer, but at the same time not a millennial and

far from a zoomer.

>> Yes, it’s that—76–82—it’s that cursed

Soviet generation, right?

>> Well, the question is this. More and more often, you

keep posting on your own

social media all sorts of memes, and

videos from TikTok. You like using

your favorite word—guys

or dudes—you really like

using it. Do these things come naturally to you?

>> Margarita Simonyan (Russian state media editor) scolds me for

using the word “chuchundriki.”

>> “Chuchundriki.” So do things like that come naturally to you?

Do you check meme channels,

Telegram or Instagram accounts before bed? Or

do you do it simply to

attract a younger audience?

>> When you say, "Do you check meme

channels on Telegram and Instagram," you

sound like a boomer, to be honest.

>> Me? I mean, damn it, that's how I actually

talk in real life. That's exactly how I

say it.

>> Strange. Well, I mean, I...

>> It's just that I say this on

Moscow radio stations, so you see,

context matters, context matters. Alexei,

is definitely someone who tries

to stay in step with the latest

developments, including all kinds of tech

trends, partly because we constantly

have to adapt in order to survive. I never

could have imagined that I would one day

be recording videos for YouTube. I

can't stand watching videos. Even

all those interviews on Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station), I

only read as transcripts, because

video is far too slow for me. I like

reading, but, well, I'm forced to do

this, and I keep an eye on all sorts of

other technologies and possibilities.

If I see, or read in an article, that

the biggest share of traffic now goes

to TikTok, I go and see what

TikTok is. I go there, I'm horrified, but I still regularly

look at what technological possibilities

TikTok offers, because what if we get kicked off

YouTube and have to move to TikTok?

I hope that never happens.

>> So you use TikTok yourself, then.

>> What do you mean, "use it"? I drop in a few times,

look at these strange

dancing people. I understand all those memes

from TikTok because, I mean, I'm trying

to understand what it is, just so I can

understand how the modern

internet works.

>> Well, friends, I can say that Alexei

Navalny is more progressive than I am,

because I'm not on TikTok, although I do

watch compilations of funny memes from

TikTok on YouTube. Though,

>> Isn't that really the most boomer thing you can do?

>> Yeah, probably. Alexei, we have

about a minute and a half left, and I

wanted to ask a question. I think it's

an important one. I hope you can answer it

in a minute. In your interview

with Yuri Dud (a well-known Russian interviewer), you said that people who

engage in corruption at the lower levels

would not be subjected to lustration

and so on. Basically because they were

forced into it, whereas people at the top who

engage in corruption should be

subjected to lustration and so on.

Here's the question: couldn't the people who

are at the top also tell you, "I would have been

the odd one out if I hadn't taken part in

corruption, and I would have been jailed too"?

>> They won't be saying that to me. They'll be

saying it to a fair court, because

that's where they belong.

>> What's the criterion for this so-called coercion? Well,

it's holding political office. And

when a police officer takes, say,

500 rubles (about $5-6) from you for something, he is unquestionably

a corrupt police officer, and under

current law, he should be imprisoned.

But, you see, lustrating all

traffic cops makes no sense. Another matter is that maybe half of

the Interior Ministry needs to be disbanded, but that isn't

lustration, that's simply dismantling

an ineffective structure. It shouldn't be

lustrated. A significant

portion of them should be jailed because

they are criminals, and all the rest

should be dismissed. But lustration should apply to those who

hold political office, because

it is precisely people in political

positions—not necessarily bureaucrats,

but also people who head

state television and so on—

who are not just corrupt, they

encourage corruption, because

corruption is a way of governing

the country. And here we need to clearly

distinguish between a traffic cop and an employee

of the presidential administration—those are completely

different things. Speaking of officials and

the heads of various media outlets, we recommend everyone

watch the recently released films on

Alexei Navalny's channel about Margarita

Simonyan and Mr. Keosayan. And my name is

Yegor Zhukov. This was the program

"Conditionally Yours." My guest was Alexei

Navalny. Thank you, Alexei.

>> Thank you.

>> You've been listening to the program.

>> Why didn't we discuss the constitution at all?

They're going to keep roasting us for that forever.

The most important thing...

>> I've already spoken about it a thousand times everywhere.