Debate: Alexei Navalny and Artemy Lebedev

We feel closer to the road leading to the windmills.

That is exactly why we create spa services that

we ourselves once dreamed of. Here and now, seven

colors have been created with

love — a moment of trust. Yes, the utmost.

What Russian pharma can do is

...in the excessive affection shown to Lebedev’s company.

a state contract awarded under unclear terms today.

Artemy and Alexei are in our studio today. I

hope the debate will be interesting and

heated. And to you, dear viewers,

I suggest we watch a report about

the very substance of what we will be discussing today

in this studio.

I am nominating myself as a candidate for

president. The throne in the Kremlin is waiting for you.

Alexei, show what you have done, and then I will start

to trust you.

After Navalny announced

that he wanted to become president,

Artemy Lebedev wrote a post on his

blog in which he criticized the plans

of the opposition politician to take

part in the 2018 presidential election.

Lebedev accused Navalny of

quote, having done in his life exactly

absolutely

nothing. Please check the Center for

Tourism Development of the Chelyabinsk Region. They

ordered the logo for Satka from Artemy

Lebedev without

a competitive tender. We will check.

How are you any different from a petty

official, Alexei, churning out denunciations?

Use administrative leverage.

[music]

Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation

sent a complaint to the Federal

Antimonopoly Service asking it

to review the contract with Artemy

Lebedev’s studio for creating the logo of the town of

Satka in the Chelyabinsk Region. Lebedev

claims that Navalny also sent

several more complaints about his studio to the

antimonopoly service.

[music]

I offer a challenge: check all

3,274 works in our portfolio and

try to find even a single mistake. Just

do not forget the folk saying, Alexei:

the informer gets the first lash.

This is not informing on anyone; it is a demand for

transparency in public procurement. You

accuse us of using administrative

resources. Alexei Navalny also published

other contracts by Dima’s

company in the portfolio. The opposition politician pointed out

that these contracts had not been

published on the official public procurement

website.

I am being attacked from all sides

ghouls, priests, veterans, United Russia loyalists, liberals

and commies — I fend them all

off. Give us the data on

every one of your contracts, and I will believe you.

Artemy, you

can do that, can’t you? Shall we arrange

it on TV Rain (an independent Russian TV channel)? What do you think, Alexei? Don’t

back out.

Well then, today in these debates we will try to understand

on TV Rain who will prove to be

more convincing: Artemy Lebedev or Alexei

Navalny. I urge our viewers

to vote; at the end of the program we will sum up

the voting results. Viewers on the website

TV.ru, please go there and vote.

You will also be able to watch and vote

on TV Rain’s official pages on

social media: Odnoklassniki, VKontakte, and

Twitter, as well as in the Telegram messenger.

So that all viewers can better

understand what is happening, dear friends,

go to the website and vote — it matters.

We will total everything up at the end. Well then, now

we invite our debaters to this

TV Rain podium. Good evening. Good

evening, Alexei. Good evening, Artemy.

Hi, Ksenia. Hi, Alexei, hi. Well,

according to our rules, each of you

will have three minutes for an opening statement presenting

your position. I suggest we begin

with Artemy Lebedev, since after all it was your post

that started it all. You said that

trusting Alexei Navalny is possible

about as much as, to quote you, a roll of

toilet paper. And you even specially

made one like that for TV Rain — it costs a lot,

by the way, from Artemy Lebedev Studio. I

think

that Navalny, in any case... Artemy,

I personally want to warn you that under

the media law, we do not have the right to use profanity

on air. I very much ask you to observe this

rule. Please draw on an alternative vocabulary

and remember it. If you

agree to go first, I think that is

the right thing. Please begin. You have three minutes.

All right, good evening once again. Thank you for

accepting my invitation to take part

in

in the debates. Before this, I had seen that

this format of communication suits you. And you

have something to say. And I, in this

case, have something to ask, because before this

I have been reading you for — how many years? — eight years,

first on LiveJournal, and then on Standalone, and

our relationship developed; we kind of

met once in our lives, but we were never

close acquaintances. And our communication

was always a kind of virtual ping-pong,

and all this time I followed

your successes with pleasure. A whole lot of people I know —

friends, relatives, employees,

colleagues — are terribly fascinated by you, but I am not.

I simply take an interest in you as a public figure

and in your writing, and it was very curious

when, at some point, suddenly something

broke and you crossed a certain line that

had never crossed before, and

essentially, this led—this

sequence of events brought us to

this wonderful studio, and the line was crossed

when I wrote that post, I did it

every time you ran for mayor, I

said, “Why you would make a bad mayor,” and when

you ran for president, I wrote

“Why you would make no kind of president at all.” And

for some reason, at that moment

it was taken as an insult—it was a personal grievance—and instead of

simply letting it go in one ear and out the other,

as if too few people are already laying into you, or what?

Really, you ought to

be used to it, like the noise of cars outside. It

means nothing. If I reacted to

all the comments in my journals and blogs, I

would have gone completely insane. And yet you, for some reason,

instead of either not

noticing it or simply saying,

“The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on,”

you did the very thing you claim to fight against—you

used your

resources—I mean the resources of the company,

the FBK, which is, well, a non-profit foundation

that exists on

the money of your supporters. People give you

money—donations from allies, fine—they

transfer money to you for your

work, and you turned that work

into something used for

personal purposes, to get revenge for

a personal slight, because some words from

my post offended you. And that’s what

we’re going to sort out now, actually, I

hope. Well then, wonderful speech.

Alexei Antonovich, thank you very much. Ksenia,

thank you very much. Artemy, thank you.

Thanks to TV Rain (an independent Russian TV channel) for giving me, now for the third

time, the chance to take part in debates. These

debates are very important to me right now

because I have announced that

I am running for president, and in

this conversation with Artemy, I think I

have the opportunity to say several very

important things that I want to say during

the campaign. And in arguing with Artemy, I would like

to argue with that part of society,

the state, and business that he

represents, because his approach to

many things is absolutely wrong and

cynical. I think it is harmful,

fundamentally harmful, and causes enormous

damage to the entire country. For example,

Artemy’s public position—I’m simply

quoting him here—“What’s the problem with kickbacks?”

“It’s just one of the economic

mechanisms. I always gladly pay a

bribe. Today there is competition in kickbacks.” I

believe this, and this is what I’m taking into the election campaign: kickbacks. Yes,

you wrote that. It’s from 2009—your quote.

The others are more recent. I read this and

asked myself the same question: really,

did Lebedev write this? Why? How can anyone

say such things?

And this is exactly the thing that is destroying

our country, when business—just a second,

let me finish.

A public figure—and this is what

I want to argue against. I will never

agree with it. I see that corruption leads

to our country’s poverty; it leads to all

the problems our country faces. Yesterday

Transparency International published its ranking.

Russia is in 131st place. If we look at

the map of corrupt countries, we see

that there is a clear correlation: less

corruption means a richer country; more corruption

means a poorer country. And I believe that with your

statements, you are essentially pushing Russia toward

becoming poorer. And forgive me,

but when we see this kind of

sequence—someone says corruption is

good, that person is very actively involved in

government contracts, and then we see

that the contracts for those government

projects are being hidden—well, I don’t like that at all.

I would like to argue with that.

Despite the fact that I personally find you

quite likable, actually. In a certain sense,

I’m even a fan of your work—in the

creative sense. I like the way you

design, the way your studio designs—there are many

wonderful people there—but this approach

is cynical. I will never accept it. As for

the personal grievance—well, Artemy, with all due respect,

you are flattering yourself quite a lot.

We have been investigating Moscow City Hall

for several years. We spend enormous resources

analyzing all the contracts,

and when a contract worth 117 million rubles disappeared

for this floor graphics project, and then you

carried it out, and nobody knows where the

117 million rubles went, then of course a mark appeared next to your name

then another check mark, then a third one, and

when you wrote your post, it really was

unpleasant for me. But you are right:

20 such posts are written against me every

day; I can’t take offense at all of them. But at the end you

wrote, “Alexei, you’ve never

done anything. Prove something through action.” So I

decided: let me prove to Artemy Lebedev

through action that I can very easily find all of his

contracts, and probably even prove that he

did not conclude them entirely transparently. Which is exactly what

I did. Please note, the last thing I want

to say is this:

time is running out. I did not file a single complaint

against you. All the complaints were against

government bodies that do not

publish your contracts. I want to

see them. I have every right to, and to me

it is rather strange why you think that I

went after you because you are hiding something.

That should not be the case. I am running in

the election so that every

public kopeck (every last bit of state money) is transparent,

even when it is spent on someone like

a likable person like you. Yes, that is

why did you publish your income only today

publish it? Yes, did you wait 10 years? I published mine

income in 2013

when I was running for mayor, and my income

and property disclosures even before that, despite having no

obligation, when I was running for the

Opposition Coordination Council. Ksenia

was a member of it. I—I had no

obligation, but I published both my income and

property, so you are wrong here.

Gentlemen, we will discuss this further. We are

coming to the end of the first round. I just want

to clarify once again that Artemy Lebedev, in

essence, is something of a serpent

tempter. In other words, you kept writing and writing

about Navalny, hoping that he either would not

notice you—or, on the contrary, that he would. He noticed,

and now you

No, I understand the realities of Russian business.

I understand that many decent

businesspeople cannot survive otherwise. But why

promote it? Why go around and at

every turn say, “I love bribes,”

“corruption is good”? Why

say that? It is a direct question, just

let me clarify: if there is no other way out,

either you have a business in Russia but

pay some bribes, or you do not have

a business in Russia. First of all,

that is almost never how it works, that is the first point.

Second, it is his business how he runs his

private business. When the

state gets involved, it is no longer only his business but mine as well.

But when he does business with

the state and says that kickbacks are

good, that “I gladly pay bribes,” that is

unacceptable. All right, we will discuss all this in

the next round. For now, we will take

a break for literally one or two minutes and then return

to this studio.

[music]

[applause]

for any

repost of any information that is unfavorable

to the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and that

even individual hierarchs do not like, one can

end up in prison today. If you are with

the Lord, if you communicate with Him

through prayer, then you are protected from

the twists and turns of worldly earthly fate. This is

not simply

[music]

that the Lord is with you

God. Watch on TV Rain today

Belkovsky’s one-man show right after

the debate.

Debates on

TV Rain. We continue the debates on TV Rain.

Artemy Lebedev versus Alexei

Navalny, or Alexei Navalny versus

Artemy Lebedev. And the second

part of our debate consists of the following:

we choose certain questions and ask them

to our guests. Alexei,

uh, you now have the opportunity to ask

a question to Artemy Lebedev, then Artemy

Lebedev will be able to ask you a question. So

essentially, you will exchange three questions each. I

have an obvious question, since even

Artemy seemed surprised by his own quotes. I

have one question: why do you say these things?

Do you seriously believe that

a kickback is one of the economic

mechanisms, and that now competition in

kickbacks means you offer a bigger kickback and

there is no problem with that? Why do you

say this? And do you really

believe it? You know, Alexei, remarkably,

throughout this latest polemic

—especially the written part, which is good

because it is documented, meaning anyone

can go and check what is

written there—you distort the facts.

You quote only half of it. That is not very good,

because at the end of that text I

wrote several times about corruption. And

in general, this has nothing to do with me at all,

because I was saying that we live in

a country like this, and that is a fact

that cannot be denied. And if you deal with

economics, you cannot fail to know that.

It happens anyway, and even your

former boss is in prison too, because

because

uh, besides the wine, there were also several... He is

not my former boss. He was appointed by

your beloved Putin, because he was

appointed by Putin. And I left there in 2009,

the very same year I arrived,

when I realized that this was how it worked.

Fine, well, that is simply how it works, and yet you

are attacking me for the fact that I merely

wrote about it. But that is not very fair. I am being

criticized for a cynical approach. Excuse me for interrupting,

but the quote ended with the words that

in my business I am not aware of any

cases of kickbacks. You forgot

to quote that. So, Artemy, after all,

are kickbacks good or bad? This

was a quote from what year—2012? 2014? The ninth

of 2009, for example. You could have understood that I

was writing about the fact that there are industries where this

is a fact: if Mercedes cars are being purchased

for officials, it is obvious that someone in

Mercedes was even put on trial over it, I think. Yes, they were.

They found them. Bad? It is bad. In your industry,

are there kickbacks or not? I would gladly pay

kickbacks to those making procurement decisions. Well yes, I

would gladly do it, but no one

offers me the chance, because you

completely misunderstand my

industry, my field. I may not understand your

industry, but I do understand the state and

public procurement. I understand that you are

a person read by, probably,

hundreds of thousands of people, and again, you do

business with the state. I understand that perfectly.

How should your words be interpreted—that he...

There he is, please: a successful guy with

a successful business, nicely landing contracts

with the state, saying that kickbacks

are a good thing. You can't say that, and I'm sure

that in reality, well, it's just that you have

such a

very low-level way of trolling the audience. You

want to provoke outrage, but that is, in

principle, wrong. Responsible people

shouldn't say things like that—that

trolling is wrong. It's wrong

to claim that kickbacks are a good thing.

At the same ti...

...me—listen, Artemy has already answered. Artemy, your...

others were prosecuted. In other words, that's not the worst

thing I've ever said in my life. You

were prosecuted over some stupid, ridiculous things.

A stupid, ridiculous state that is

so stupid and so ridiculous, among other reasons

because of corruption, because

they've dug themselves in there and they're sitting there

because of corruption, and on top of that they prosecute

everyone for all sorts of nonsense, including you.

You too were prosecuted over some political

speech by Alexei Navalny. Now Artemy

Lebedev will ask his question. Please. Yes,

I'd like to use the time for this

question. I'll ask a few more questions. I

just brought some gifts, and it so

happened that there's a black box. Yes, this is...

my regular bag. So, first of all, I

read in your post that for your children

you hung a land area poster in the room

of Zakhar. That map is hanging there. The thing is,

that we—commercial break, no big deal—

goodness, it's not that expensive.

It costs little. We made a number of mistakes in

the calculations, and the first poster was incorrect,

so we're replacing the posters for everyone free of charge.

Anyone who comes in with the old

poster to the store will get a new one. But

since I knew we were meeting today,

I brought you the new

version. And the old one can be...

Debates—nice. Again, I have no doubt

that the part of your business that

is tied to commerce, to maps, is

excellent. I'm a fan of it, and really

there's nothing to argue about here. Thank you very much.

You're welcome. Also, I brought you lemon

slices as well.

We make those too.

I'll put them here so that...

For the office, for the lawyers, for everyone—coffee

is ours too. We roast the coffee ourselves; we buy

green beans and roast them. So, and for you as well.

Now you understand why Lebedev so

readily agreed to these debates. Thank you.

And here's a bag to carry all of this.

Thank you. What a diversified holding company you have.

Thank you very much. I'll leave the lemon...

I'll ask someone to hold the rest here. Thank you.

Books too—that will come in very handy right now.

Thank you as well. Everything goes to the

*Field of Miracles* museum (a reference to the famous Russian TV game show where guests bring gifts).

Dear friends, thank you so much, I'm very

pleased. And really, it's wonderful that you

make such excellent things, wonderful, and

I have absolutely nothing against

government contracts. But please, publish

the contract. What is there to hide? If there's nothing

to hide, publish it and everyone will be satisfied

and everyone will be happy. Still, you do have...

I would like to ask Alexei a question.

Alexei, what is the need, or what is the point,

of going after private

business? I don't see the slightest sense in it and

I always refrain from these attacks. And

again,

you have a large company, a conglomerate

of companies. Most of your business

is connected with private entities, although the share

of state-related work is also very large. Why are you

attacking

business? One second—I like you very much,

I like your company very much.

Despite the fact that you

criticize me, your studio helped me with my

mayoral campaign, and you did nothing to stop them. It didn't

bother you at all—great. In fact, the website for the Foundation

for Fighting Corruption was made by one of our designers,

a former one at that. All the better. I'm against

corruption. I'm with the Foundation for Fighting Corruption.

I don't need any kickback—how could corruption arise

for me? How could I, as a businessman

and designer—how exactly could the word

"corruption" apply here? If you discover facts of

corruption, fine. Alexei, do you know the meaning

of the word corruption? I do know the meaning of the word

corruption: the use of one's personal

position, one's official position, for personal

gain. Corruption has two

sides: there's the official, and there's you. Once again,

do I have facts that Liksutov

stuffed a bag of money into Artemy's pocket

or vice versa? No. But I do have

facts showing that the contracts that

were concluded are hidden.

Can I read them? You see, we can't

operate on trust alone. You seem likable, while

Rotenberg seems unpleasant, but I can't on

that basis keep checking Rotenberg endlessly

and do nothing in your case. 117

million rubles with the Moscow Metro—a super-

corrupt structure. We want

to know, and I think taxpayers

should know. I want

any ordinary decent person to be able to go to the website and

check every connection between private business and

corruption. Artemy, still, it seems to me

you should answer this question.

Indeed, you're not legally obliged

to do this, but perhaps—why not

follow Alexei Navalny's call and

disclose it, fill in those fields in that

table you have posted? Of course, it

is filled in; all of this is known and clear.

and half of the tenders that, for some reason,

your lawyers didn't find—we found them for you.

They are 117

million, 226 million—is that better or worse for

discussion? Let's discuss both of these

figures—they're large enough to be

worth discussing. Tell me, did you get this

contract or not, for floor graphics?

Look, Alexei, your viewers

probably think that you've just

exposed some terrible corrupt official who

well, even I don't know if I

received it. Very briefly: they don't think about

that, because I write about it myself. And today I published a post

saying that there is a major government contract,

the data is hidden. Disclose the data and we

will present you with a certificate—well, I don't know, we'll make it ourselves in

our own bad design and give it to you

a certificate for that. But no—your

viewers don't know why you're citing this

figure. It has absolutely nothing

to do with me. In other words, this contract

you didn't—somewhere, on some website, on

the public procurement portal? Yes, in some tender.

Alexei or his team found a tender

that was held but was declared

void. I read it and went there too.

That link is available to everyone; anyone there

can see who took part, what

the work involved, what was required, and why

the tender was closed. That's it—it was closed and

it no longer exists. I had nothing to do with it; we did not

participate in that tender, which is the most

interesting part. I mean, if

we had been one of the parties that

participated, and then the tender was closed and

then suddenly we won the contract, then you could

suspect something. But this is

completely different—you are discussing third- and fourth-hand

parties. You're a wonderful person, but such

elementary tricks—you can, of course,

use them on Ksenia or part of the studio, but please not on

me. I understand this very well. How exactly are we

connected to this? We are, simply,

the facts are as follows: there was a tender for 117

million rubles, and it was

canceled, after which this graphics work appeared

in the metro, and posts appeared on your website

saying that you did this work. I know that

the money was taken outside the scope of the law

that requires everything to be published,

because the metro itself somehow handled the procurement

in a different way. So, could we have the first image

shown—the first image? I simply see

facts. So that we can see what we're

discussing. The main fact I see

is that something is unclear. You see, that's exactly

the problem: right now, during this debate

on TV Rain (an independent Russian TV channel), we are somehow supposed to

discuss whether this contract existed or not. And

I believe any person should be able to figure this

out in one second. Look here.

Artemy, a specific question that, it seems to me,

will immediately clear everything up

once and for all. So, look,

Navalny really did publish on

his blog, in response, some information

about tenders won. Please show

the image.

Most of the tenders, as I understand it,

you won as a subcontractor

to a state unitary enterprise

called the Main

Architectural and Planning Department.

It, in turn, wins tenders

from the mayor's office. But then its own tenders, it turns out, under

the law, it may no longer have to publish? No,

that's not true. Listen, now even

I'm going to start defending Lebedev—that's not true.

Over the past three years, his group of

companies has won tenders that we consider

to be connected to the state—various

Gazprom contracts or

direct state contracts—worth at least 140

million rubles, and not all of that is necessarily

some kind of mayor's office structures. At the same time, this 140

million rubles does not include what you

are talking about: 18 million rubles and 117 million for

floor advertising. In any case, Artemy, the

problem is precisely that we

have to—once again, please, the image

number one, the one with the people in orange

vests. In the studio, please put it up on

the screen. Please show the image

that Artemy Lebedev is asking for. This is

what we're discussing: a 117-million-ruble contract

that did not go through, and we did not

Now look: there is a definite fact that in the

mayor's office division that actually

handles these tenders, and in the

aforementioned enterprise that wins these

tenders, relatives work there. That's a fact.

Alexei, Tatyana Guk—this

information has in fact been known to journalists

for quite a long time, which in itself

already constitutes a conflict of interest.

Understood. But the fact that, in this chain,

you are the third recipient under these

government contracts—doesn't that bother you? It bothers me

about as much as the fact that we live in

Moscow and sometimes run into each other in

restaurants, intentionally or not.

That means nothing. I would like

to talk about the 117 million, because

Alexei is really whipping up the atmosphere around it and

using this figure in such a way that everyone may

get the impression that we received these

117 million in some other way.

Why don't you explain what exactly this

contract involved—what was it, what was the essence of the contract?

It doesn't exist. It's on the public procurement website; there

it says there is a canceled contract.

After that, as we believe, it was in some form

Artemy, once again, I understand this

and I will explain to the viewers now

once again—I am explaining to you that

the problem is not that you maybe

you did this floor

We made the signage better than anyone else in the world. I...

I want everything to be published. I want...

for this to come out not on Dozhd TV (an independent Russian TV channel), but...

to be clarified through Lebedev. This should...

be clarified. Excuse me, but why can't you...

I can say what this work consisted of.

The work? It's written on the public procurement website.

It says the work was aimed at...

the production, installation, and three-year...

warranty service, including replacement...

of defective porcelain stoneware tiles. We...

did none of that. What we did was...

the design. We designed the visual appearance.

This was a contract we worked on as a sub...

contractor. Million? Did you receive it or not? Of course not.

This was a tender. They held a tender...

among companies that know how to cut...

heavy tiles. What they got from us was a file...

that said, you know, here there's a red...

number, and here a white sign saying 'Exit'—that...

that's what needed to be done. Did you get paid? Of course.

You created the file on a contractual basis.

Well then, please publish the contract under...

which, given that the metro is a...

state unitary enterprise, if it had been...

with the metro directly, it would have been on the website. There you have it.

We've gotten to the heart of it, you see.

You came up with some little technicalities...

and are using them to dodge the issue.

under the law. You say, 'Oh, sorry...'

Alexei, this wasn't with the metro directly, but...

with some subcontractor of a subcontractor for the metro. To me, that...

changes nothing in substance. I know the money...

is public money coming from the Moscow city budget.

I go to church and confess; as a rule...

this attempt to appeal to pity...

doesn't work on me. I feel no pity here.

You say, 'I demand,' and so on, but...

first of all, as a lawyer, you should know that...

I have no right to disclose the terms...

of the contract because I have a...

non-disclosure agreement. Am I right in understanding...

that the other party, your contractor, is against...

disclosure? You'd have to ask them. If...

they're not against it, then we'd have to ask on our side as well.

But if the contract is between two joint-stock companies...

then it's not a state...

not a government structure,

not a state institution—it's a private...

company that won the tender from...

the metro, or got the order in some other way.

I don't know. I don't...

sit in the metro's accounting department, and I'm not part of their...

legal department either. I can't...

verify whether a state unitary...

enterprise won the tender or not.

The state unitary enterprise is...

the metro.

Everything is in order there; they still have their Order of the Red Banner of Labor (a Soviet state award).

They haven't lost their Red Banner. May I...

respond to that? So, the contract...

was won by a private company from the metro; we...

weren't involved at all. Yes, what Alexei...

is trying to do is close the loop in this scheme and say...

'Look, Lebedev and 117 million rubles—therefore...'

equals 'the company got a contract for...'

manufacturing tiles.' Is there image number...

two? Could you put it up as well so that you...

can see it. Many people think these are...

stickers on the floor, but they were manufacturing...

tiles. Did you apply them?

We created the rules for applying...

the floor navigation. These signs—they...

are even... As for the amount of this subcontract...

contract, that's a matter of private...

business. No, you are not obliged to do that.

Why not? Under no circumstances? This money...

was won by the company that hired us as...

a contractor. Wait, Artemy, those are two different...

questions. Why aren't you obliged to? Why don't you want to?

The point is that, generally speaking, in our business...

it's not customary to publicize figures, because...

as a conscientious citizen... tomorrow you...

can show everything... you already have this kind of...

situation.

Why? Everything that is published—everything there...

In those very rare cases where...

for some reason we actually won tenders—very...

rarely. Over the last three years we lost...

tenders worth about 208 million rubles, we simply...

didn't win them—something like 20 tenders in a row.

We prepared for them extensively, spent a huge...

amount of effort, and didn't get them, despite participating honestly, and...

maybe we have around 10 or so...

tenders... not quite like that. In most...

of the tenders where you say you 'lost'...

But I analyzed it and published a table.

Most of the time, you simply weren't admitted.

Sometimes on contrived grounds, sometimes...

for legitimate reasons, but you simply didn't...

participate—you weren't admitted, so you...

lost. But that's an important point. May I...

object? There's a saying: 'Formally...'

correct, but in substance, a mockery.' This...

is what Artemy is telling us now.

Artemy, we understand that there is...

a metro system that finances...

various kinds of work, specifically so that...

we don't see who is financing what. They...

put several private companies in place as...

intermediaries, and somewhere along the line the money was spent.

At the end point of this chain, formally...

this is, well, not...

the issue here is that these are budget funds that...

ended up with Artemy, and probably nothing...

terrible would happen if Artemy...

lifted the veil of secrecy a little and...

said what came of it. For example, I...

am running for office now—I'll finish in...

literally 30 seconds—and I am pushing a law under...

which, in public procurement, the entire chain must be disclosed...

of all subcontracts. We wrote this law...

several years ago and have been running around with it...

ever since, but nobody wants...

to adopt it—precisely so that Artemy...

you, and people like you, sorry to say, could stand there...

and say, 'Well, this is between our...

commercial enterprises. It's not...'

So.

But as for that,

you know, I have no right to disclose the terms

of the contract without consent. But it seems to me, Alexei,

you yourself said that formally I am right.

You’re trying to expose me that way, and

you want to show that I’m willing to do it voluntarily.

Am I ready to do that? Of course not. I never

discuss any

contract amounts with anyone, and it’s not—even before

I knew you, that was also

impossible. Your position is that everything

must be disclosed. My position is that

money requires silence; work should be done without

publicity, only privately, please.

What you do with Alfa-Bank is your

business. As for every question I ask about

Alfa-Bank, you can freely tell me to go to

hell. But when you do—when

you do work for the metro, excuse me, the fact that

it later ended up in the metro does not

mean that we did it for the metro.

Come on, Artemy, that really is a very, very

refined position, let’s say. No, it’s a very

simple position. It’s a pity that simple

legal illiteracy does not allow

people to understand why I am absolutely right

and Alexei is absolutely wrong. Formally,

the law recognizes this, and Alexei

is also showing ignorance. It’s as if I

told you that, what was it, in your crooked

drawings you got something wrong. But that’s ridiculous. You

understand, commercial secrecy exists.

This is exactly from that area. It is a

trade secret. A trade secret is

information that, if someone finds out, we

will lose something because of it. There is no

trade secret here at all. Well, this is

ridiculous. This is a contract for

the metro system, please. He simply doesn’t want

to talk about it because

it will turn out that it’s substantial money, and

all his wonderful stories about how

he designed the metro logo for 1 ruble

and so on—well, that’s not entirely true.

That’s a manipulation, because, well,

here you drew something for 1 ruble, and there you

got many rubles. Well, excuse me, but that

is strange logic too. But if

Artemy really comes with his

studio and designs a good logo, why can’t he

in principle later be hired for

some projects for money? He absolutely, one

hundred percent can. But if it is budget money,

then they hire him, the contract is posted publicly, and

I write a post: great guy, Artemy

Lebedev won this contract, look

what a great business story in Russia. But when

it is not published, well, excuse me, then

what is happening in our country, and its 131st

place in the corruption ranking, tells me

that everything needs to be examined closely.

Yes, okay, but corruption is one of a hundred

problems in our country. You talk about it

as if it were the only

problem. I think it is one

of the key problems, possibly the key one.

My programmatic article was called

“My economic program is the fight against

corruption.” I truly believe that

corruption prevents Russia from developing and

from carrying out a single reform. It is the key

issue. Look, in any case we have already come to

a certain point: Artemy Lebedev will not

disclose this contract, saying that

it was concluded under... he will disclose it—

haha, lol. Fine, let’s treat this

cynically. That is exactly why you and I are

debating. But I am sure that I, or

someone else, sooner or later, at the

head of Russia, there will be a person who

will force—what?—will force commercial

companies to disclose the terms of working

with each other? Never in a million years will they be forced

to disclose terms unless

budget money is involved. Exactly. You are trying

to turn us into Zimbabwe, because in

Zimbabwe everything is closed off. Alexei—

first of all, we do not know whether the funds are budgetary or

off-budget; that is a big difference.

Second, it was not we who received them; they were received by

some company that brought us in.

Artemy, your position is clear: you are

a subcontractor, basically “it’s none of my business” (a Russian idiom meaning “I stay out of it”).

They agreed on something among themselves,

they made the slabs, I did work for the subcontracting

company, I drew it, so why should I

disclose those terms? And neither will everyone else.

May I ask a question then? I now want

to move on to the next topic, which

is also connected with Artemy’s letter.

Actually, the political topic. Aside from

various accusations, to one degree or another,

and varying levels of wit, there were quite

specific points there. This question is now for you,

Alexei. Among other things, Artemy

Lebedev said that you built your

career—and this is partly true—on

criticizing the authorities, one kind of criticism or another,

direct anti-corruption investigations

and so on. Can you now,

right here in this studio, prove

the opposite? Can you praise, say,

several people in the government of

Moscow or the Russian

Federation? It’s easy to praise Lebedev; he is not

an official. From the current authorities, can you

say about someone, as

Artemy Lebedev gives as an example, that

neither Liksutov nor someone else from his

department—and he most likely

when... let me

praise one person, and if that is enough for you—

I praise Vladimir

Vladimirovich Putin for the fact that in the period from 2000

to 2004 he carried out land reform,

tax reform, and did a lot to ensure that

the financial market grew—a great deal.

I’ve acknowledged excellent, wonderful things from the very

beginning. I’ve been in opposition to Putin from the start, but I can’t

deny that from 2000 to 2004 they did

a lot of good things. After that, they didn’t do

anything. Then they only made things worse. I

have praised them—we already have the clip of me praising

Vladimir Putin, praising Vladimir

Putin. There are also some

high-ranking officials—well, there are

a great many of them, but that’s not the point.

Ksenia, name a couple of people. Who

right now is doing a good job in their position?

I named Putin—that’s

enough. But as things stand now, the system

is set up so that it doesn’t matter what one

good person does from their chair. What interests me

is state power as a whole,

which makes things worse. Again, look—

answering your question about why

no one person inside the system

matters: Putin in 2004 did

a lot of good things, the economy was growing rapidly. From

2010 onward it declined sharply, and in

the end, what we have is that over 17 years of Putin’s

rule, Russia grew at a rate below the global average.

So overall, despite the fact

that there were some good people, it

turned out to be 17 lost years. We grew more slowly than

the world as a whole, more slowly than some

African countries, more slowly than many

former Soviet countries. It was lost time,

and corruption, among other things, destroyed all of that.

So what am I supposed to do—run around and

say, “Look, Liksutov introduced

paid parking—that was a good decision,”

yes, a long-awaited decision, and praise

some good decision even by Liksutov? I

judge this government as a whole, and if

there are some things they did

well,

then that’s good.

That’s good, but I have a profession, and I

have an organization that I founded,

which I head—the Anti-Corruption Foundation,

and so when we talk about

Liksutov, the first thing I think about is

the contract for purchasing metro cars, where

tens of billions of rubles were stolen. So

you understand, that’s what they’ve done here already—

sure, here they tightened some

little bolt, but over there they simply stole from this

house. So, sorry, but that’s what I’m going to talk about.

Artemy, I have another question for you,

also about your letters, especially

the second letter, so to speak, which has already

followed right behind the first one. Look,

everything is clear—both your argument and

Navalny’s really may appeal to some people

or may not, and some things may

well be that many of your readers

agreed with them. But do you think it is, in

principle, ethical to attack

a person like that, who really—

not because he wants to make himself into an icon

of suffering and wants everyone to pity him—but

because he really is under very

serious pressure, real pressure—he,

his whole family, his brother, his children—you yourself

have written about this. It evokes in me

nothing but respect and patience. So my question

to you is: does it inspire respect in you?

And yet in your second post you

speak rather mockingly about how

he’s pretending to be something he’s not.

Do you think that’s acceptable?

It’s not even a question of whether I allow him to do that—

or recognize it. He doesn’t need any

permission. People engaged in public

politics have to put up with this. Were there

times when he praised me? Yes. Were there

times when he criticized me? Yes. There were times

when he criticized me at a very inappropriate

moment—on the eve of elections, he wrote posts about

what a bad mayor I would be, and so on. That’s

his business; it’s every person’s right. I

have no complaints against him on that score.

A state contract is another matter. I was asking about ethics,

after all. Artemy, it’s all very

simple. My task, since I

do have an audience too,

however modest—there are people who

read me, or for whom my opinion matters—and

naturally it matters what I think on various

issues. My task is to warn them against

someone like you getting even

a little bit of power in your hands. With your

current position—maybe if you

become different, I’ll vote for you.

But what you are promoting today, and

that populist presidential platform of yours,

and the points you keep insisting on—

that’s not worth supporting. I see populism in it.

A program is a program, but one point alone is enough:

the point where Alexei proposes that

the minimum wage in the country should be 25,000 rubles (about $270–$280 at recent exchange rates)

while not saying how much

a loaf of bread will cost—maybe it will

cost

But the main thing is to promise it, because today

people hear a number and— in your view, is that absolutely

unrealistic? Let’s just clarify:

in your view, is it absolutely unrealistic?

It’s completely irrelevant. The point is that

the things that would actually make sense to promote in this country

in order to bring about real

change are very

unpopular. People won’t like them.

Abolish pensions altogether, for God’s sake—yes, there

shouldn’t be any. People should live on the money of their

own

family. God, how glad I am that today’s

debate exists, because I can respond not only

on corruption, but also on

these monstrous delusions.

You see, we have an entire

generation of people who say

things like, “We need some unpopular measures; pensions should be

abolished. Then it will be easier to…”

In Argentina, which is generally poorer than

Russia, the minimum wage is at that

level. If we look at European

countries with

a minimum wage of ... rubles, that is a realistic figure for

what the minimum wage should be

in Russia, and the fact that Russia would have

such a minimum wage, and that this

practice—really?

Could this be introduced in Russia without causing pain?

This would boost your populist talking point, wouldn’t it?

Just to win over grandmothers (elderly voters)? No.

It is based on calculations, it is based on

practice. Artemy, how much would a loaf of bread

cost under this system? It would

cost the same. You see? Wait a second.

If 25,000 rubles is the subsistence minimum,

then how much would it cost? Let’s open a

macroeconomics textbook, and on the first pages

there is the principle that introducing a minimum

wage in a highly competitive

market is beneficial, and this works in practically

various countries. When I cite

Germany, for example, or something else, people argue with me, but once again—

they argue, but once again:

Argentina—they sustain this

minimum wage, and people there still

buy loaves of bread, despite the fact that they

do not have the amount of oil that we do.

They are developing better than we are, and

the minimum wage there is half of Argentina’s.

Things are quite bleak there. As for us, unfortunately,

please, there are many places across

Russia—please, the Kursk region is better

than Argentina. Thank you, we are

running out of time, so we are moving on to

the third segment: questions from the audience.

We collected questions before the broadcast

specifically from various sources, and now

there is an opportunity to answer them. Here is

a very important question for Alexei. In different

wordings, it came up many times,

so we decided to put it to you.

Let’s say, for example, that this is from

a reader named Chula Papi, although this question

was asked in different ways by many people. Why

is Lebedev’s constructive criticism immediately

taken so hostilely? You immediately, without

trial or investigation, accuse Artemy of

corruption, saying that he lives off state contracts and

is basically the same kind of thief as Yakunin and Co. (a reference to Vladimir Yakunin, former head of Russian Railways). If

Lebedev is such an obvious thief and corrupt figure,

why didn’t you publish material about it earlier, and

only do so after his critical post

about you? Doesn’t it seem to you that

your behavior is not very different from

the current regime, where any dissent and

criticism gets a harsh response in the form of

accusations without

any proceedings? Excellent question. First, I

have never written anywhere that Lebedev is a crook, a thief, or

a corrupt official. What I wrote, and continue

to insist on, is that his contracts with

government bodies and state companies are not

transparent and are closed off. That is the first point. Second,

of course I cannot pass judgment, but

I did conduct an investigation; we are conducting an investigation.

Why did you do this after his

post? In the eyes of many people, it came across

that way because, first of all, we

have for many years very carefully

analyzed all procurement by the Moscow mayor’s office

because procurement by the Moscow mayor’s office is

10% of all procurement in the country, and it is

monstrously corrupt, and his work

with the metro had long been on our radar.

Second, Artemy directly challenged me

to do it. In his post he wrote: “Alexei,

prove that you can actually do something.” But

I head the Anti-Corruption Foundation,

so let me demonstrate that to him right now.

I’ll demonstrate what kind of...

For writing that he was no good, I proved that

you enter into

contracts. You cited them—well, look here.

Look, there is, say, a contract—we

won a tender for 3.6 million rubles; it

is published, and you put it on the list

of problems as if there were something

wrong with that. Is it wrong to win money? Seriously?

Well then, go and look. I simply urge the entire

TV Rain audience first to go to Artemy’s post

where he gives links to two

contracts—for Izmailovo Park and for

Sokolniki—and says that we won them

under competitive conditions, and you will see

if you check: sole supplier, without

any competition. These contracts were simply handed to you, Artemy.

Yes, they have the right

to. It is permitted by law, it is

allowed.

But that is wrong. And most importantly, I am arguing here

with the fact that Artemy presents

these two contracts as an example

of competition, when there was not the slightest

competition there. That is exactly the problem.

Alexei, competition does not exist only on

the public procurement website, I assure you. There is also

intellectual competition, when

some people like a solution and others do not

like it.

If you want to know more about it, publish...

As for secrecy, you can accuse anyone of that

except me, for

one simple reason: we are the only

studio in the world that publishes the process

for all of its work. We publish all

drafts, all mistakes, all internal

correspondence, all versions, sketches, and everything

else for every project in our

portfolio. No other

design studio has that. They are afraid to show it.

I do not understand anything about design

studios in general. I like you when

people ask me which is the best in the world,

design studio, I say probably

Lebedev Studio, because I like it. But

let them publish the state contracts. Let them.

Let them tell me—let them publish the minutes.

Of the meeting, and who said what, who liked it and who

didn’t like it. Look, once again, this is an important

point. Please answer: just now you

said that maybe those 117 million rubles went there,

or maybe they didn’t, but it is a fact,

a legal fact, that you have 14 million—I’m discussing with you

right now 140 million withdrawn from

state procurement, and for most of that amount

there are no contracts anywhere, they are not posted. Why

aren’t they there, Alexei? Come on, this is just

just deception, it’s simply a lie. What kind of

140 million? Are you kidding? If you mean

that post of yours that you wrote

right before going on air on TV Rain (an independent Russian TV channel), then you 100%

lumped everything together. You included Gazprom

I included Gazprom there because I consider it

a state company, of course. And why

do you think that we received all that money?

I would like to know more about that too.

Ask Gazprom—they also have

a lot of lawyers there, they probably have free time

to answer you. Like any citizen

of Russia, I am supposed to receive... In the studio, you

don’t even understand—whose company is this?

Whose company is it? It’s the state’s. As I understand it,

Artemy will not disclose

the contracts.

One thing is certain: I will never agree with that.

Apparently Artemy will never

vote for me, because I will never

agree to that.

How can that be?

You have to compare toilet doors and

Gazprom’s money? Oh, please.

You understand, this is exactly what led Gazprom

to close all its contracts, and a week ago

we were told that Gazprom has a hole in its budget of

15 trillion rubles. It’s very important that you are discussing with me

this with me.

Gazprom. Let’s discuss another topic. Here’s a good

question, which has also been phrased differently

online. Well, let’s say

in Idris Isaev’s wording, I’ll ask it

now.

Why attack Navalny right now? Do you

know of any other presidential candidate

who, more than he does,

corresponds to your, as we understand it,

fairly liberal views? Well,

really, listen, it’s clear that there are many things

you don’t like about Navalny, but as of

today, if we don’t have

a “none of the above” option,

then Alexei Navalny is simply the most

popular politician who has no

real levers of power, an alternative and

opposition politician. Of all the people we

know, he is the most popular, even among those

who are also considered opposition figures, and

among today’s candidates he most closely

matches your views. No, that’s—that’s

a different question. Honestly, I don’t know.

Well, there are—we more or less know the people.

He would make a good president, I’m sure,

a competent technocratic president. He doesn’t

speak much and is serious. So if

Sobyanin ran for president—he is the only

person who, in my memory, has actually

proved something through action and got things done.

Specifically Putin, all the more so. So

you would vote for Putin? It’s obvious there—I

can see how the teams of advisers changed:

at first he looked foolish, then smarter,

then again, then normal. Now

everything is fine. Right now I have no complaints about

that team, though I don’t know what kind of

Putin he really is. Do you know? I don’t. Who

has been advising Putin, in your view?

Artemy, recently Alexei

Anatolyevich was talking about his

previous term, even the one before that. But

can you say something about the current one?

What is the most

positive thing? He has done a lot. Well, over

this term, what he has done

is make it possible to live normally in this country.

I remember very well—that’s a very general formulation.

Then may I ask a question? Yes, I didn’t want

to ask—put up the second slide—although

let me answer more simply instead. The best thing Putin did

was appoint Sobyanin to

Moscow. Appointing Sobyanin to Moscow

characterizes, in general, very well

the Moscow mayoral election. Please, we need

to speak. Alexei, are you again against the fact that

I—Artemy—

Question: Chichvarkin quite openly gave me

this contract with you, and

you just said that Putin made things good for you:

you can do business without

problems. And in an interview—I read your interview

with *Der Spiegel*—you say that over 25 years

you’ve had no problems at all, that you work here perfectly well.

But here I see the bank details: you

sign a contract with—and send money to—

you sign contracts through offshore companies,

the most opaque jurisdiction, the British

Virgin Islands, and funnel the money

—I’ll ask the question now—into a Lithuanian bank,

a Latvian one. So apparently things aren’t so

great here after all. I’m not criticizing you for that—you have

the legal right to do it—but in practice

it turns out that you say

everything is wonderful here, while behaving like

a rational businessman who does not want

to keep money in VTB (a major Russian state bank), who is afraid of this

country, our country, who is afraid of

law enforcement, who wants

to take his money out of Russia and transfer

it to a Latvian bank.

Why? When it was allowed to have offshore companies, we

had them. Now it’s not allowed, so we no longer

have them. You cite a contract, apparently with

Varm.

A contract—you have the right to do that, but why

do it if you wanted people to think that

—I admit it is absolutely legal, Varn.

having left Russia and moved to London with

his last suitcase and the last of his money, he

paid us to do design work

for his logo and website.

the biggest oligarch, Bely, who left for

London.

Early on.

Besides, I accuse you of hypocrisy because

you say everything here is great, but in fact

you've been acting differently for years. You probably know that better, yes.

That was about six years ago, yes, six years ago.

Putin was already bad back then, and now he has simply

become... relations with a British company

It's easier within the framework of the European Union to conduct

paperwork and operations. And we also have a company

in America. And we also have a company in

China. We have every right to do that, we

do business there.

What's more, Alexei, in China we

manufacture goods and ship them directly

to America, where we sell them, and we

also have the right to do that.

Then why don't you do that under Russian jurisdiction?

Why don't you do it here? We have very low taxes.

Your entire holding is split into

small companies; you pay very little.

Look at the credit lines: Sberbank and Alfa-Bank.

Loans? Oh, come on.

What are you talking about? Our entire payroll

project is with Alfa-Bank; we never

denied that, because you gave an example

of how we do business in the West, within

the framework of the European Union. We have

a separate company there; we have the right to do that.

The British Virgin Islands—that was five

years ago, and now that offshore company no longer exists.

Of course, as far as I know, now they've basically

kicked everyone out of there, if you're aware. You're just

pushing me toward the need for further

investigation, but I am not going to pursue it.

As I understand it, that offshore company

is still active—it would be quite easy to verify. But

that's not the point. You have the right to have an offshore company

in the Cayman Islands or anywhere else; just then

please don't tell us that everything here is

so great, so wonderful, and that it's

so wonderful to do business here, because

you don't actually want to do business here. How could I—

I'm not saying we don't have problems; there are

very, very many of them, including with taxes

and with the state. Low taxes?

Formally, fine. No, 50% is not low

taxes. I understand that as an NGO you pay

next to nothing, but in reality taxes are very

high. I completely agree that

in fact, what would you do as president

in this area? But the state...

...

so that salaries could be paid properly here, officially and on the books.

Let's respect our

rules. We are at the end of the second round, and we

have already established that Artemy Lebedev will

vote for Putin because he

awarded

contracts to his companies.

If they do business with the state,

then

their contracts with the state are published—find them.

I don't know why, but we found them, we

know about you.

Your fans—or your

supporters, whatever you call the people

who transfer money to you, as long as you're still

allowed to receive those transfers—I am also

very concerned that you'll be banned from receiving

money. They may be very surprised

to learn that I do not spend that money fighting me—I mean, fighting against me.

I don't spend it on that.

People from your electorate, of the same

age and with similar

views, have one complaint about Artemy Lebedev.

I have demands only of the bodies

of state authority: that they

publish contracts, including yours.

So you're waving a receipt from an offshore company?

Is that really the level you are stooping to?

Mr. President? Yes, that is

completely unacceptable, absolutely.

A perfectly acceptable level. Will you be showing my receipts?

The person who hired you and wants

disclosure also has that right.

Especially since with that contract we

will talk about it too—there is a question there.

You're such a likable person—why

be hypocritical? Simply put, when it comes to you as a

as a

businessman, there's one complaint: don't hide

state money. And when it comes to you as a

person I find very likable, the second complaint is:

don't be such a hypocrite.

You don't even believe all this yourself, what

you're saying. And that receipt shows the same thing.

It shows that you simply don't believe it, Alexei. Yes,

you keep trying to create in people

the impression that we received a lot of

state money. But that is simply not

true. The millions of rubles from Russian Railways do not count here...

We're going around in circles for the third time, gentlemen. We have

an audience, and the audience wants to ask you questions.

Dear friends, here is our first question.

For Alexei. Am I right in understanding—who among our

audience will be asking

the question? I would like to know:

there is talk of it, and Artemy says there were no

140 million, while you say there were. So

as a citizen of Russia, I am interested

in whether they really existed or not. I still

don't understand. Could you answer that question?

To you, as a

citizen, I can answer with complete certainty

that those 140 million did exist. We published

a table; it's all there on the public procurement website.

If you want—simply put, are you claiming

that Artemy received those 140 million?

Once again: Artemy has a group of companies, so

what is referred to as Artemy Lebedev is

a fairly large structure; it contains more than

ten companies, and he is not the owner of all of them.

Taken together, since 2013 these companies

in 2014, 2015, and

2016 won government contracts

from either the state or state-owned companies

like Gazprom, worth at least 140 million rubles. That is

a solid figure. Fine, I’m not saying that

all of them are corrupt, but for most of them

there is no real

data. A question for Artemy: who wants to ask

from our viewers: why don’t you

take part in government auctions

directly? Why do you use

companies that arrange

your participation in these auctions? In general,

first of all, we do participate. I understood you, I

mean, from your conversation I understood

that

over three years you lost tenders

for government contracts worth

208 million, is that right? But when you

when there is an intermediary, you manage

to obtain budget funds for financing

they’re no longer budget funds, they’re already private—

Wait. Money that comes

from the budget as its source comes into

a company which, for us—budget money

is budget money. Let’s not

No, they remain budget money if their source is

the budget and they

are used to fulfill a state order

they are.

I’m asking directly: they don’t let you into the auctions.

In your view, why don’t they let you in?

Why don’t they let us into the auctions? The thing is

Alexei, again, isn’t talking about

how much and whom they shut out, and looking at

our portfolio, where all our work is public,

everything we do is published; otherwise

Alexei would never even have found out about this floor

graphics in the

metro. You even listed as a complaint

against us that for three metro stations

we created the station-name typography

yes, what we did. It was simply through

an acquaintance with the architect, and there are still

another 230 Moscow Metro stations

left there. Who made those signs? It would never

even occur to you that behind

a station sign there is an author; we’re simply the ones who

popularize that. To my question: why don’t you

participate in auctions directly?

Why is it that you can obtain budget

money only through intermediary contracts?

It works poorly because the amounts

that are usually put out to tender are very

large. We’re not admitted directly; we

simply aren’t good enough at doing that, whereas with

private companies we know how to work.

They come to us, and Alexei shows

all the examples, and he himself once even wrote to me

to discuss design when

he was working with Sheremetyevo (Moscow airport), obviously not as an enemy,

and suggested organizing a competition.

Our company operates, it is fairly

well known on the market, and many people

come to us in order to buy design

from us. That is our job. After all, we have

Excuse me for a second—300 people work

at the company, and yet you’re not admitted directly? Well,

actually that speaks in Artemy’s favor

Lebedev’s favor: the state does not admit him.

No, as I understand it, Artemy means

that the contracts there

that are put out to tender are too large, and within them

he then takes certain segments of those.

Still, he very often really is not

admitted. We can see that in a large

number of tenders he was simply not

allowed into those tenders because

he was disqualified. For example, you

submitted the incorporation documents of the wrong

company several times, and so on. That happens too—

just mistakes, part of the job. But that does not change the essence.

It doesn’t change the essence. The point is that if

there is state money at the beginning,

then at the end the chain

of contracts should be disclosed. That’s all. Well, when you—if you

get the wheel in your hands, then you

will of course turn it where you want, but that

certainly does not depend on us. We work

within the legal framework, within the current

laws. Some of them are disgusting. We

If a private company from which you already

receive, indirectly, part of this

large state order allows you to publicly

disclose this information, would you do it?

Well, say I, Ksenia

Sobchak, call and make arrangements with that

company, for example, and they write: we

allow Artemy Lebedev—bad

practice. That means I would be against it, I

would be the first to send Ksenia Sobchak and

everyone else packing, because there can be no such

thing as “we allow Artemy Lebedev.”

There can and should only be one thing: “We

allow everyone,” if that is possible under the law.

So, under the law—the law in our country

allows us not to publish it.

We choose that; we believe that in this respect it suits us.

Officials are far more

to blame than you are. You are simply using

the system—a flawed system. Yes, unlike

you, we live in this country and

work here. We have results. Artemy, I

live in our country far more than

you do,

not on distant Foggy Albion (a traditional Russian nickname for Britain). And now we have

a person we have already started

talking about on the line. We’re moving on to the

next part, where we have two

people who have been following our heated

discussion all along and will also be able

to offer some perhaps interesting

comments. First, on Skype, we have

businessman and entrepreneur Yevgeny

Chichvarkin. Yevgeny, good

evening, can you hear me?

Yevgeny? Yevgeny can’t hear me. I

It seems you're on air in Ukraine. Please make it so...

please make it so that Evgeny can not only

admire my beauty, but also

hear me speak. Good evening, Evgeny. And on

the television? Yes.

Oh, sorry to bother you in London. I

know that you watched our debate.

Could you briefly tell us

about your experience working with Artemy

Lebedev? Alexei Navalny has already

shown the contract.

With

the studio of Artemy Lebedev, and from

the joint work, and from our broadcast,

of course. Once it went very successfully — it was

for Euroset (a Russian electronics retail chain).

And we had a big structure there, and

everything we ordered, everything we wanted done,

was done very humorously, with funny

some kind of funny, some kind of

swearing, back-to-the-village-store style — it was all very

great... Then what happened was this:

when we moved, when I

moved to the United Kingdom, I had

there was a very

great... Then what happened was this:

namely,

Evgeny, if you turn off the television,

then you won’t have that delay and you’ll

be able to speak normally.

Well, Evgeny wants both to

talk and look at himself at the same time.

That’s

normal with such minds.

Can you hear me? Yes, perfectly, perfectly.

Super. So, then the following situation happened:

instead of a big company, ours

became a very small one, and we

ordered a design, because I was absolutely

sure that

there was no one better than Artemy.

In general, I like

intellectuals. Better to lose with a smart person than

to find something with a fool — that’s my rule in life.

We ordered

a design for how the company should look, and

we ordered an online store. The design

was done, and it’s wonderful, despite the fact

that it was also long and expensive. But with

the online store, it didn’t work out.

It just dragged on and on and on.

They didn’t want to listen, and then this

contract, after more than a year, was simply

abandoned, after we had paid a fairly

large amount in advance and ordered the same thing

from a British company. Then I asked Tyoma (Artemy’s nickname) to

return a little of the money, but

Tyoma decided

that, basically, on the whole,

he could just rip us off and

that was that. My partner was suing Alfa (likely Alfa-Bank/Alfa Group), and

all in all, I thought it was absolutely

disgusting to keep digging into all of this any further.

Am I right in understanding that you

are accusing Artemy Lebedev of cheating?

I’m not accusing him of anything.

I simply have an extremely

ugly, unpleasant aftertaste from the last

job. The amount of €120,000 — is that

correct? Yes, €120,000. We paid

and did not receive the work. That is

a fact. I think that is quite a

serious accusation.

So: paid the money, received the work,

everything is fine — what is Evgeny even discussing?

Evgeny is holding a grudge against us. Evgeny said that

he did not receive the website work, that he

paid €30,000 for work on

the Hedonism logo, but €130,000 in total, right, if

I’m not mistaken? He paid and did not receive

the website work. What can you say to that?

First of all, Evgeny received everything.

He simply did not want to use it and

decided to get part of the money back. But we

did that work and put a huge amount of effort into it.

There is the full history of the entire relationship, there are

a lot of files. I consulted my

people, who said that the money

should not be returned because we

honestly earned it all. Evgeny was left with

hurt feelings and a bitter aftertaste. I’m waiting for the time when

a couple more years pass, he changes his mind, and

comes back to order a new design again. Evgeny,

but really, if this is a rip-off, that’s a seri...

then why

didn’t I

look into it? It was complete trust,

because I had been working with the person for

more than a year. I didn’t review the contract. Again,

as I said, at the time I was in litigation and launching a new

project, and if you go strictly by the letter

of the law, this would have gone to arbitration

for probably a year and a half in the United Kingdom.

I simply let it go, because at that mo...

five people were being held hostage in Putin’s prison

and had been there for two and a half years. I heard you; now

to the substance of what was happening here in

the studio: who personally seemed more

convincing to you?

I didn’t want to get into a fight with an unclear, unclear, unclear

outcome, but in fact

we did not receive that work. We

ordered it elsewhere for

28... I heard you. Now, regarding

the substance of our debate, who seemed

more convincing to you? In fact, we

did not receive that work; we ordered it

elsewhere for

2... I heard you. Now, regarding

the substance of our deba... the connection to

London is slow.

[music]

From afar, it seemed to me that the more

convincing one was Alexei. To me, the further it went, the

more so.

More and more. Despite the fact that he has a lot

of socialism in his rhetoric, despite that,

I found the idea of limiting the minimum there...

I don't like the salaries either.

I still don't like the idea of a professional

professional politician.

Look, in 2008 we were selling phones.

That year, we sold 12 million.

phones.

the legalization of phones in 2005.

We don't have time to talk about phones; we have

a different topic. How many do you think

phones did we sell to the state? Zero.

Because we decided that we wouldn't pay anyone

and we wouldn't take part in any tenders,

no kickbacks, no bribes.

I see. Yevgeny Chichvarkin, thank you

very much for your comment. We are moving

on to the next one, with a brief

comment: private individuals can have complicated

relationships. Well, when such

relationships exist, they can also be with

the state, and precisely for that

reason it is extremely important that everything be

made public, so that there are no

disputes where it's unclear who is right and who is

to blame. We've heard your position. So,

Demyan Kudryavtsev is joining us on Skype.

He was also following the discussion. Demyan,

good evening. Hi, where have we caught you?

Yes, sort of... well, here and there, everywhere.

No secrets there, no secrets at all, Ksenia.

It's just that Tyoma (Artemy Lebedev's nickname) looked today

weak, but he doesn't have to look strong. He is not

a politician, he is not a public figure, he is not

asking for our votes or our money in exchange for

being a good person and someone we like, and he

is not obliged to disclose his information, even though

I know much more than you would

probably like to know about Tyoma Lebedev. And

I'll even explain why now. But the principle

is very simple: if we demand from everyone

compliance with the letter of the law rather than its spirit,

because the spirit is something that can be

understood differently, then we want our officials

to follow the letter of the law, not

play dumb about it. If the law is bad, let's change it.

But we want the letter of the law, and a citizen

must also follow the letter. If the letter

is observed in disclosure, then it also has

the right to be observed in concealment. It is none of your

business where I am, and it is none of your business where

Tyoma keeps his money, if he keeps it

within the law. And if not within

the law, prove it, file a complaint with

the prosecutor's office. That's not how I wanted

to begin, but just so you understand

where I am, first of all. It was just

a question, not an interrogation.

Sorry, Demyan, I didn't think you were

in some kind of secret location.

Fine. No, actually, sort of at home, by the

TV. That doesn't matter. What matters

is the following: there are limits to the questions that

can be asked,

and there are no limits to the questions that can be

asked of Alexei Navalny, because

Alexei Navalny wants to be president of the

country. True, he does not object to being

asked them. But today Alexei Navalny

crossed the line of acceptable questions in

relation to Artemy Lebedev. Let me

take one step back. I'll now say what I

was going to say, and then we'll continue. So,

the thing is that there is

a disclaimer. As is well known, the TV channel does not

prepare very thoroughly for broadcasts; this has long been known.

So I'll have to tell the listeners myself

that I am a poor referee in this

clash, which seems strange and

pointless to me, for the simple reason that

I am, or rather was, a co-founder of the company

of Artemy Lebedev. In fact, I was

Tyoma's partner in establishing what

is called Artemy Lebedev Studio. So

that's actually why we chose you, Demyan.

So I cannot claim any kind of

objectivity in that sense.

I know too well how things work. And in

that sense, I also want to tell you how

they work, without disclosing any

specific facts. So, the point is that

when someone is called a major

government contractor—yes, indeed, he was not

called a thief—but it is important to understand that

the Russian language is complicated: when you

call someone that, you mean

that it is a large part of his business.

As far as I know, government contracts, at the time of the information I have,

for quite a long time,

well, for many years, have been

a negligible part of Tyoma's business. He would easily

give them up. He really wants

to earn every last kopeck, and in general

he is frugal, but

overall, this is not what made Tyoma

Lebedev who he is. So when we

say 'major government contractor,' we should

qualify that. That's the first point. The second important

point in this story, it seems to me,

is that it really is appropriate to demand—and Alexei

emphasized this several times—disclosure

of information from the state and its

direct contractors.

But from Tyoma one can demand only something

moral. But in fact it looks

like, you know, they are looking where

the light is better. Tyoma, as an internet troll, cannot

refuse a discussion, so

let's pressure him and demand

a moral stance from him, from the one who is closer, rather

than from the one who is harder to deal with. This is not a reproach

to Navalny in general, because he demands

a great deal from those who are harder to confront, and in

this case it is a reproach to Lebedev, who

says that Navalny has done nothing.

Public work to disclose

information, regardless of whether

on that basis a person deserves to be

president or not, is the most important

public work that he is doing.

That’s why Alexei, and very few people in this country,...

...were wrong in that post from the very beginning.

I see. I just wanted to clarify that...

Artemy Lebedev actually wanted...

...to take part in the debate himself, but I want...

...to repeat the question once again: do you think...

...that Alexei Navalny crossed a certain...

...line by asking a person who is not a politician...

...who is not planning to run for...

...any public office, these kinds of...

...questions today? And who would get your...

...vote today, specifically in this discussion...

...in terms of persuasiveness?

My enemies can vote in this choice.

As they say in *The Hunger Games*, you...

...seem to have forgotten that the enemy is not here. But we...

...are not looking for enemies; this is just a vote. We...

...do remember that. Demyan, there’s no need to choose like...

...professionals. I wanted to ask: you...

...have listened. I know that you have...

...good, warm relations with both Alexei and Artemy.

Two intelligent people came and discussed...

...an important topic. Who seemed to you...

...more convincing, or was it perhaps a draw, specifically from the point of view of...

...rhetoric and the expression of...

...their position? Look, if you have...

...a champion in weightlifting, one person, and...

...another person standing nearby who also...

...lifts weights—it's like in childhood: I...

...can jump higher than St. Isaac’s Cathedral (the famous cathedral in St. Petersburg).

There, I jumped—now let...

...St. Isaac’s Cathedral jump. You brought together people...

...who were undoubtedly glad about this...

...clash. Everyone loves publicity...

...but they do different things. Lebedev is not...

...at least in spoken speech, not...

...a specialist in rhetoric, and we value him...

...not for that, but for his other work. As for...

...Navalny, this is exactly the kind of work we value him for—

...rhetorical skill, yes, the ability to ask...

...questions. In that sense, thank God, he...

...does his job better than...

...Artemy Lebedev does his. But in my opinion, he is still...

...worse at it than Artemy Lebedev is at his own. I...

I heard you. Thank you.

He was speaking with our studio, and now...

...we’re going to a commercial break, and afterward we’ll sum up...

...the results. We had a vote, and we’ll find out...

...who won and will receive a poster from...

...Artemy Lebedev Studio. Stay with...

[music]

...us. For any...

...repost of any information...

...unfavorable to the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate...

...that even some of its own hierarchs do not like...

...you can end up in prison today. If you...

...are with the Lord, if you communicate with Him...

...through prayer, then you are protected from...

...the twists and turns of worldly earthly fate. This...

...is not easy to understand, but you must not fear...

...a cop,

...the prosecutor, or the president, because with you...

...is the Lord.

God. Watch on TV Rain today...

...Belkovsky’s one-man show right after...

...the debate.

[music]

tyj zeb OS powiedz scie musy wy WJ

[music]

ki

[music]

The premiere of the film *The Story of Irena*...

...Sendler and an interview with director...

...Andrzej Wolf in the program *Kozyrev*...

...Online on Friday at...

...7:00 PM, on International Holocaust Remembrance Day...

...

[music]

I don’t know how it happened. It was evening...

...Wednesday, everything started spinning as if the earth...

...had slipped from under my feet, and for days now...

...I keep catching myself thinking that I, you know...

...simply love it. Siberian Collection—simply...

...love it.

Debates on...

...TV Rain, dear friends.

The debate: Navalny vs. Lebedev, or...

...Lebedev vs. Navalny. Time...

...to sum up...

...the results. Look, here are the numbers. I...

...will first...

...announce...

...the results on social media and find out what...

...was happening. So, on Odnoklassniki, 87%

...cast their votes for Navalny, and...

...13% for...

...Lebedev. On VKontakte, 69%...

...and 31% for...

...and further on Twitter, 64% for Navalny...

...and 36% for Artemy Lebedev. And also...

...Instagram,

...59% for Navalny, but...

...in the first...

...round, and...

...41% for Artemy Lebedev in...

...TV Rain’s...

...poll, 73% voted for Alexei Navalny...

...and 30% for...

...Lebedev. Thank you very much. It seems to me...

...that Demyan Kudryavtsev set the right tone...

...for the end of our...

...discussion. I wanted to say a few...

...important things. First of all, it is absolutely true:

...you’re fighting the wrong person. Lebedev is definitely not...

...some kind of worst person in the...

...world, or even the worst contractor, and...

...it is entirely possible that there is no...

...corruption there at all. And of course I would like...

...other people to be standing here—the ones who award...

...these contracts, or the truly biggest...

...figures, people like the Rotenbergs and Timchenko...

...the kings of state contracts, people who...

...make billions—they should...

...answer this question. And the fact that...

...Lebedev is standing here speaks well of him...

...because Artemy has shown himself to be...

...a brave person who is ready to...

...defend what seems to me to be such a...

an unpopular point of view, so

thank you for that, Artemy, very much

Nevertheless, I still believe that you

are a major government contractor; according to open-source data, we

can see that at least 20% of your

business now comes from government contracts, so you

need to answer uncomfortable questions.

Even though the private part

of your business is your own affair. Where you

keep your money is your own business.

And no one has the right to interfere there. And

the last and most important thing Kudryavtsev said

was that we should follow the letter of the law,

not its spirit. Here I categorically do not

agree, and that is the most important reason why

I am running in the election. The letter of the law is when, for

a one-person picket, people are jailed. The letter of the law is

when some crooks wrote

laws and, for example, do not allow me onto

the ballot. The letter of the law is when Lebedev

is put on trial simply for some nonsense, for

some post on social media, and when people

are being jailed for likes across the country right now.

What we need now is a government that

corresponds to the spirit of the law, to the principles

of justice, to the core ideas. I am running in the election

in order to defend these ideas, and the idea

of fighting corruption and rejecting it.

So I hope that today I managed to convince someone.

Thank you very much. Thank you, but that was

practically a political manifesto.

Artemy, yours is unlikely to be

a political manifesto, but I would very much like

to hear your conclusion, your

impressions of today’s conversation. Yes.

The conclusion is very simple: I still

remain of the opinion

that you simply

got things mixed up. It’s like I accidentally opened a jar of

poison, and it turned out that this is what you

had built up, and then it all spilled out

onto me. I read it all, yes, and after I see

the attacks against me and the accusations against me

and see their absolute

groundlessness, I begin to have

doubts about those

investigations. In that sense, you

have seriously undermined your authority in my

eyes, because by calling me a major

government contractor, you are of course being disingenuous.

If we go only by what you presented

in your table, over six years we completed 24

government contracts, including contracts

for things like Gorky Park or an app

for VDNKh (Moscow’s Exhibition of Achievements of the National Economy), which were done simply

for money from a commercial entity, for example.

Throwing all of that into the same pile is

wrong.

Gazprom has the right to order from us.

Every year we win the tender, receive

that work, and maintain all of their websites.

Yes, we are a large company and have been around for a long time.

We started doing this even

before you started doing everything

you do. I mean, who do you think should

win? A large company that works on this every

single day—that’s how it works. And I

would like to give one example

that ended with a certain result

that might perhaps

inspire you a little and somewhat change your overall

attitude toward the people around you, toward people, and toward

others in general, and in particular toward

the idea that, well, if there are answers, then they

should still be more proportionate.

Because right now, instead of going after corrupt officials,

you are using the resources

of the Anti-Corruption Foundation to fight

me. I am sure your supporters

who donate money did not give it to you for

that at all. Once again, that is not the case.

Artemy.

Here’s an example. In 2007, the Bank of Russia

announced a competition for the design of the ruble sign, and

one very, very bad option

was about to win. At that moment,

through unity within the design

community, the main players in the market came together,

including the three companies in

Russia that make typefaces: us, RHD, and

several other people who joined in—

also very prominent and important figures in design.

We agreed that we would create our own

version of the ruble sign, no one would know

who the author was, we would waive authorship, and

we would all support this version and

put it into all our typefaces. In other words,

the state would choose a ruble sign that

it would not be able to use, because

we were the ones making it, and we made that agreement. For 7

years we waited for that moment. For 7 years we

each used this

ruble sign as much as we could. It was completely

unofficial; people laughed at us, we looked like

fools because there was no official ruble sign,

yet we used it anyway. And then

after 7 years, in 2014, there was another

competition because a law had been passed

that required a ruble sign, and our

version was accepted, and since then it has appeared

on money. In fact, I brought you a little

money. Excuse me, but I want to give you

a one-ruble coin with the ruble sign on it, which

is the result of collective work. There was

no corruption in it, and that is what makes it good.

I will pay 13% tax on it. Most

most of the work we do

that you call government work

costs exactly 1 ruble—for example, a logo for

St. Petersburg or a logo for the metro. Those are

the real amounts; there was nothing more beyond that.

It may seem impossible to you,

but for promotional purposes, I believe that if

someone buys advertising for themselves for millions,

I buy advertising for myself for one ruble. Thank you.

Thank you, Artemy. I would like to thank you

both for taking part in

today’s debate. Thank you.

Many will say that this is what they were talking about today at the World Cup...

...even though that wasn’t really the topic. I believe that

of course, Art. Lebedev is a potential

voter for Navalny, and he has shown

that, for now, he is not your voter, Alexei Anatolyevich.

This voter wrote a sharp, sarcastic

post and came here with the opportunity

to defend his position. I sincerely wish

with all my heart that you, Alexei Anatolyevich,

have as many voters like that as possible

— people like Art. Lebedev. The kind who do not

try to please everyone and simply do their work well.

And thank you for coming

not for the first time and for taking part in these

debates. I think this is

a good experience and an opportunity to express

one’s position. Thank you. These were the debates on

Dozhd (an independent Russian TV channel). We will definitely

see each other again. That’s all, thank you.

[applause]

Thank you, Optimistic Channel.

Belkovsky.

Dear

friends, hello, good evening. Today

we once again have “Revelations of a Russian

Provocateur,” that is, me, Stanislav

Belkovsky, and our main topic is

the role of the Russian Orthodox Church

of the Moscow Patriarchate in contemporary

Russian history and politics. But before we move

to the concept,

to the main discussion,

it is going through difficult times in

both personal and technical terms. Ill is

Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'.

In the world, he is Vladimir Mikhailovich Gundyayev. According

to some reports, before the Epiphany holiday

he suffered a minor stroke.