Debate: Alexei Navalny and Maxim Katz

You're talking... Michael, you don't know me yourself.

So, Michael, this has to be handled somehow.

Right now, well, listen, both of them can actually be heard.

So basically, everything is fine now.

Give me the stream itself, yes, and then send me...

the link.

Hello, friends. I want to personally apologize on my own behalf

for the delay, for the fact that unfortunately

there were technical issues, and they are connected

exclusively with me, not at all with

the speakers who are here with us today.

They are here, and today we will probably...

try to have a discussion on the topic of

voting strategy regarding the amendments

to the Constitution. Here with us is Alexei Navalny.

Hello, Alexei... and Maxim.

Hello, Maxim.

Good evening. Yes, everything can be heard clearly, everything

can be seen clearly. I can't hear Maxim, and I can't even

see him. Did you hide him? Has he hidden from

me, maybe? You can hide me visually,

but you can't hide him, and you won't be able to. But hear him—

you should be able to hear him... even...

Well, I don't know—if you can hear me,

I'm speaking just to test the microphone for now.

I could hear him when the sound was being set up.

Then the problems started.

Alexei, through Hangout itself it should

be audible, not through the stream link itself.

Not through the broadcast, because it comes with

a delay. A little while ago I could hear you

perfectly. Can you hear me?

Because I can hear... Maxim, say

something. I'm speaking for a test.

I can hear you, Alexei. Such a thoughtful...

A thoughtful face, apparently.

I thought maybe Maxim had suddenly

said something. No, I can hear you, but into the void...

Maxim... so he was wildly...

Maybe... we're all in the same...

in the same time zone, so I can't tell.

I believe, I believe.

So, we need to figure out how to solve this problem.

At the moment I don't really understand it. If you can hear me,

if I can hear Maxim, and you

can hear me, then you should be able to hear

each other. Let's do this: Alexei, try

reconnecting to this call.

All right, once again I apologize for

the technical problems. As you can see, everything is very

makeshift, all very sudden. Let's call this a quick

debate—literally a blitz debate, like

in chess, a chess-style blitz right here.

Maxim, say something. Yes, testing.

Can you hear me? He said yes, I can hear you. I

don't understand how that's possible. Alexei, I can hear you

perfectly, it's just...

And I could hear Maxim perfectly just now. How

can you not hear him? Maxim, maybe

try...

On what phone? What are you making up?

Maxim, why don't you try

reconnecting, probably to this same

meeting, to this same stream

using the same link. But I just... earlier I

I saw... no, there should be a small icon.

I can see you, I can see you on the big screen, and in the

small icon for him it's just black.

You won't be seeing Maxim. You are only supposed to

hear him. So, shall we reconnect?

Reconnect, yes. Maxim, to this exact

link, where it's audio only.

Please reconnect one more time.

I apologize for the technical side of

the broadcast. Apparently there's some kind of—I don't know—

some strange bug. We'll

hopefully sort it out. Right now I can see and

hear you. Say something. Yes, you can be heard perfectly.

Now let's turn off the video. Yes, understood, now

it's audible. Alexei, and you—say something. Yes, I am.

I'm speaking. Apparently it's picking up both video and audio.

Because, well, when I added him like that, I also couldn't

hear him. Then I was forced to... there he is, but I...

The sound disappeared again. Strange.

Unclear. Damn, right now you can't

interrupt the stream when we

lose each other. No, I can't interrupt anything.

So, Maxim, connect back

there, turn off the second Hangout, and I'll reconfigure

the whole setup. We'll work

in these even more improvised, almost field-like

conditions. Back to the page. So, right now it's not...

Alexei can't be heard. I need to switch back.

Here—now it can be heard well, consistently.

Let's try one last time. Right now I—no, there

it's already... none of that will work now. Maxim, just

stay here, stay where you are. I'll

just turn it on in Hangout, that's all, nothing more.

That's all. It doesn't matter. We've buried

the idea of a nice picture. Today we'll

essentially be here, accordingly, we'll

basically just talk here today, and that'll do.

Maxim, are you here? If he is here, I

can't hear him right away. Now I'm ready to listen.

Everything can be heard. You need to turn everything else off.

You'll be taking turns, which means at the moment

when one person is speaking, the other will stay silent.

Maxim, please turn off the second signal.

Otherwise the sound isn't coming through properly. That's it.

Thank you very much, everyone. I welcome

Maxim Katz. Hello, Maxim, good

evening, and hello, Alexei. Is everyone

hearing everyone properly now? Yes.

May I start right away with this question:

Alexei, Michael—do you object to these

debates being broadcast by the TV channel Dozhd (an independent Russian TV channel)?

They were planning to, and some difficulties came up there. It seems to me

it's important that everyone who wants to can see it.

And I don't plan either to give permission or

to forbid anyone from broadcasting them. In general,

I'm against the very idea that, in principle,

someone gets to decide

who may broadcast something. So it is what it is.

So no, I'm not against the broadcast. It should

go ahead. I won't issue strikes to anyone. I'll put it this way:

politically, it matters to me very much, because

this needs to be resolved somehow. So let it be available to everyone who

is watching our debate. Can we connect it?

the livestream. Well, everyone can make their own statement

and draw their own conclusions. Let's

move on to the topic of our discussion

today. By the way, I don't know whose

audio is echoing—probably yours, Maxim.

Could you turn the sound down a little, if

possible? And put on headphones, please, so

we don't get double audio. All right, let's

move on to the debate—we don't have

much time.

It's clear that everyone is pressed for time; moreover,

we're already running late, especially because of

the technical difficulties that came up.

Maxim Katz has challenged Alexei

Navalny to a debate on issues related

to boycotting the upcoming

constitutional vote. At the same time, personally

I would add that I do not think this will be

a contest between the strategies of boycott

and non-boycott, because none of the people

who are with us today has

defended the position of voting "yes."

At the same time, the people joining us on

the livestream today—Maxim Katz and Alexei Navalny—

have different views on the strategy

for action within the framework of the

constitutional vote. Let's

begin with opening statements. Each of our

respected speakers will have three minutes.

I will keep time and warn you

when it is running out. Since it was Maxim

who challenged Alexei Navalny to this debate,

let's begin with Maxim's

opening statement. Your time starts now. Yes, thank you again.

Good evening. I'm glad that this conversation has, in the end,

taken place. I would like to begin with two important

points. First, Alexei tried

to back out of these debates, but he couldn't. I

want to thank everyone who exerted

public pressure on him. I'm sorry that you

were called bots and insulted,

but you see, in the end you achieved

what you wanted: these debates happened, and Alexei agreed

under pressure from his own audience.

Now to the point. This is a substantive

debate. I've already been accused of

trying to frame it as boycott

versus participation, even though my opponent is supposedly not for

a boycott.

They don't exactly insist on it, but this discussion

is about developing a clear and unified

strategy. This kind of extra-legal

plebiscite is an attempt

to legitimize, through this procedure, an

entrenched autocrat. This is a very delicate and

dangerous moment for the political

management of such a system. This is not an opinion;

it is a fact confirmed many times over by

practice, from Venezuela to South Korea.

Such extra-legal

procedures create major risks for autocrats,

especially now, against the backdrop of

the crisis and declining trust and approval

ratings. The idea of this plebiscite has already gone

from not very good to absolutely terrible for

the authorities. The behavior of the propaganda machine, which

very carefully avoids

the issue of Putin's lifelong presidency

and instead proposes voting so that

there will always be sunshine, blue skies, and all good things—just

not for Putin—clearly shows that they understand

their problem. Right now is a very bad time

to

demonstrate loyalty to autocratic rule,

and the organizers understand this well. But

for the opposition not to seize this moment,

not to take advantage of this

moment now, and not to

form a unified strategy, not to inflict

the maximum possible damage on the organizers of this illegal

procedure,

is simply a crime against

our supporters, against those who trust us.

We could have taken advantage of the

window of opportunity created for us by

an authoritarian regime administered by people

who have outlived their era, in some strange

technological fit. It is collapsing

with all its might, but so far we have not

done that. Instead, we are discussing

whether to participate in it or

ignore it, whether it has already been adopted, and so on.

At a very important

historical moment, we are speaking vaguely,

saying you can do it this way, or that way, or some other way.

That should not be the case. We should not

act like this. It is disrespectful to our supporters and

to those who have placed their trust in us. I believe that

to spend 20 years building a political career,

as Alexei has done, successfully growing his audience

and collecting people's contacts for Smart

Voting, and then, at the key

and most difficult moment for Putin's government

in 20 years of its existence, not

to present a clear position—this is

irresponsible. That is the main reason why I

challenged Alexei to this debate, and I hope that

today we will sort all of this out. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Your three minutes are up.

Now, in response, giving his

opening statement, Alexei Navalny,

please—you have three minutes. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Marat. Thank you very much, Mike. And

hello to this wonderful audience. I

actually, before every election, before

every vote, take part in

this kind of de-

well, discussing strategy like this always

happens, because people are different. But

today I feel both

at home and a little out of place, because in

99 percent of cases I am the one

arguing for participation in elections. And in general,

it would be hard to find a politician in Russia

who has urged people to participate in elections more than I have.

Smart Voting—every one of my videos

ends with me practically driving you

crazy: register for Smart Voting.

Go vote—what more is there to say?

Voinov and Baka are facing criminal cases.

Because of Smart Voting, because—

we took part in elections, and right now I am

urging you to take part in the vote that

will take place in September, and our network of headquarters

works on elections. No one knows about

the elections in Novosibirsk or Cheboksary, but we do.

We work on them, we take part in elections when

we participate in elections, we still

make an effort, and I try to assess whether the election

is really an election or not. Because if you simply

run into every booth with a sign saying

"vote" carrying a ballot, you might end up running into

an electrical room and get electrocuted there.

And I certainly do not recognize this

procedure as an election. And the biggest deception taking place

here, generally speaking, is that

we are calling this an election, even though

it was specifically created by a separate law.

It is a separate special mechanism; it is not even

called an election—it is called

a vote, in which first and foremost

we are being asked to vote for something that

has already entered into force. And there are no

alternative views here. All specialists

independent in constitutional law

say exactly that. There is no proper procedure there,

there is absolutely no oversight there, and

if an observer somehow manages to get in by chance, then

at the polling station they are expected to

remain there around the clock for seven days

in order to do anything at all. In other words,

this cannot even be compared with elections in

Chechnya.

People are herded there en masse, absolutely. And most

importantly—sorry—speaking personally,

it was very important to me that Maxim opposed

the line of argument that, frankly, I find

horrifying and unacceptable—you have already deleted it.

The idea that, yes, of course, some people

will die when people take part in the vote,

but that it will mostly be observers—

meaning there is real pressure on them at the commissions.

Here,

150 people are dying every day. Twenty

regions have canceled parades right now,

thereby acknowledging themselves that the situation is horrific.

Their largest cities are saying

that they do not have enough capacity. Is it even possible

to conduct this vote safely from

the standpoint of the epidemic? Every

polling station will turn into a small zone of

infection, and you, Maxim, are saying that

it is no less safe than going to the store,

literally repeating Ella Pamfilova (chair of Russia’s Central Election Commission).

In the literal sense, the exact same talking point. And that is precisely

why our position is fairly

Your three minutes are up. Finish up. No, hold on, I—

All right, understood. Then finish, Maxim,

and then we’ll continue. For the sake of order—

we do not object. Forty—why? All right, let’s do it.

Exactly one minute. Therefore, we believe that overall

this discussion is rather

pointless, because it does not do anything

except split

the opposition electorate. Well, this—this

will be seen by, at most,

a million people. The task is to tell everyone

about Putin’s “resetting” of his term limits, not to argue about this specifically.

If we are talking about participation, we must

honestly warn people that yes,

there are reasons why one might go

and vote, but there are also serious risks.

Therefore, if you decide to stay away

and not recognize it, that is absolutely your

right as well. If you do not want to recognize it

because you do not want to vote for something

that has already been decided, that is entirely your right.

You simply need to speak to your supporters

honestly. Well then, since we have had

this kind of timing

desynchronization, Maxim, you get one more minute

to somehow compensate for

the added time. Once again—wait—

before you begin,

I would once again like to ask both

speakers, first of all, not to

tap on the microphone if you have one,

and second, to put on headphones.

Probably, Maxim, this applies more to

you, because—yes, I cannot right now

put on headphones here. All right, then

make the sound a little quieter if possible.

As quiet as possible, otherwise they will hear

I wanted—

So, the minute has started. On the subject of

coronavirus, I need two minutes for that

as an answer to the question, because you

We will not drag this out. We will return to that topic

within the framework of the question, so let’s

keep it to a minute. All right then, all right then.

Let us move on to some of my

questions, since you have done me the great

honor—thank you very much, Maxim and Alexei—

for entrusting this to me, though they

absolutely should not have, from a technical standpoint,

as we can see right now. But

at the same time, I hope not to let down, so to speak,

their trust in terms of substance.

And so I will begin with a question for Alexei, as

the last speaker. Alexei, Lavrov

is next. You hold a position that

is tied to a broader ethical stance

on this vote: that it is not

legitimate, that it is not

lawful, that it is not even

worthy of attention in the current conditions,

for the simple reason

that it does not correspond to any

ethical or legal

or substantive standard, from any meaningful point of view.

It is not worthy of serious consideration. But if

we set aside everything else and choose between

only two positions, namely

the position of boycotting or the position of

voting against, which of the two would you

prefer as the more effective one from

from the point of view of expressing one’s own

protest, please.

A minute and a half to answer—this is an abstract

question, entirely hypothetical, and here

one could also add

and also that someone has been taken hostage by fascists

so that this could be decided. We are dealing

with a specific procedure that is not

called an election—a specific

vote in which, as we can see,

people are being herded; it is simply taking place under

pandemic conditions. Therefore, as a practical

politician, I look at the real situation and

say that there are two crucial

factors here. First: it is impossible to take part in

this because it is absolutely illegitimate

and it has already been decided. Second: the pandemic.

Therefore, it is immoral.

To call on your supporters right now en masse

to go out to polling stations without warning them about it

—that is why, once again. But most importantly,

once again, the task and strategy

of the opposition now is that it must

explain to people that this is a reset

and not waste time on a meaningless

argument that, in fact, comes up again and again every year.

From this point of view, I’ve taken part in this argument 25 times.

Whether to boycott it or not—there is no sense in

that; there is not the slightest vulnerable spot there.

Putin’s weak point lies in

telling the population, which does not know,

and using the time for campaigning to explain that

this is a reset, that this is Putin’s

self-renewal. That is exactly

effective action, that is,

a civic act. Today, a young

man tore down a leaflet and was immediately hit

in the face. That, in fact, you understand,

is what the authorities fear. When we

say that in fact this

vote is a sham, that in fact its

purpose is to reset Putin’s term limits—that is,

between these two options, you do not

have to answer with only two options. I

am finding my own option, which

I am sticking to. There are no two

options, Michael. There is reality, there is

the real Russia of 2020. In this Russia, in

2020, Putin is carrying out a special operation

for this purpose. He came up with a special law

and threw out absolutely all the rules. He

threw observers out of polling stations. He

made it so that your vote has

no value whatsoever.

I think everyone here agrees on that,

on what you are saying about how he threw out

the rules and invented—look, when

Michael Nacke’s vote was nullified and he

could do nothing about it, then one needs

to do something else. And I suggest this:

if Michael Nacke wants to go to

the vote, if he feels inclined to do so, then go,

but be careful. But remember that

the probability that your vote will be

counted is practically zero. As

I already said, even elections in Chechnya

are 100 times more honest and transparent than

this vote. We sent observers to Chechnya

and there was a normal

result there. When, at polling stations in

Chechnya, observers were sent, at those

stations where they were present, the result was

very different from those same stations

where there were no observers. And the trick here is that at these

polling stations there are no observers; they simply

are absent. So what are we talking about here? There are no

observers. You are not even calling for

more observers; you are calling

for

what exactly? For nothing. Well, that is a vivid

example. In fact, our strategy—my first

video was about the fact that we would engage in

observation, we support it, that is, we

have lots of people involved there. It seems to me we are already having some kind of

dialogue with

you, and somehow with Maxim as well, and overall we

should connect this more clearly, because questions

—when Protassov asks a question, questions are

a clarification of the positions on which you

stand. And the position itself is that

there can be no observation there at all;

it is simply directly prohibited.

As for observers—okay, I also do not

have that. Maxim, you will now be asking each other

questions; we will definitely get

to that. I am sure that, first of all, you do not have

such a deep or such a great degree of polarization

between you that you cannot ask each other

questions. And secondly, I would like

to outline your positions before

moving on to the next question. Three minutes and 30

seconds was the length of Alexei’s answer, and my

question was a clarifying one, so your question

will accordingly get a corresponding

amount of time as well. Maxim, please tell me:

you are not calling for a boycott; you are calling

for people to come and vote

against.

Please tell me: despite the fact that you

probably agree with Alexei and with many of our

viewers that

the procedure taking place is illegal,

illegitimate, unlawful, and leads only

to—tell me, please—what is your calculation here?

That is, as a result of these people coming to

the polling stations—10–15 percent of the protest-minded

electorate—what exactly would you like

to achieve?

And what exactly are you calling for? Please do not spare

your three minutes. I would like

to achieve a situation where there are more

“no” ballots in the boxes. Then, perhaps, the results

of the vote would have to be falsified.

Right now, the situation is such that if there are

more ballots from people voting no lying there,

then there will be no need to count everything honestly or throw out

any observers, and there will simply be

an honest victory under a close count.

Naturally, in carrying it out, it is legitimate.

An unacceptable, utterly worthless procedure.

But I am calling on people to

put their trust in the ballot.

Unlike the 2018 elections,

when there was also debate over whether they should be

boycotted, protested against, or

whether it was worth taking part,

and voting against Putin — now the situation is completely

different. In society now, there has been a sharp

drop in Putin’s approval ratings.

The street surveys we conducted,

full street polling in Nizhny

Novgorod,

Tomsk, Yaroslavl, and now we are doing it in

Ulan-Ude and a number of other cities — the picture

is the same everywhere: 70 to 80 percent

of people encountered one after another on the street,

when surveyed, say they want to vote against

the amendments. In other words, right now there is a very clear

public mood: people in society want

to vote against. But you understand

that this is a random, not

a representative sample at all. I

believe that if in three cities you surveyed

150 passersby, and in all three got 80

percent against, then one can assume

that a substantial

number of Russian citizens are likely preparing

to vote against the amendments.

You can talk as much as you like about

the limitations of sociology, but even

the official polling data

show 33 to 45 — that is a very small

gap, and in this situation we need to

agree on a clear approach for such a

situation in society, when for the first

time in 20 years it has clearly shifted

against the current authorities.

It is irresponsible for opposition leaders

to put forward a vague

position on this. It seems to me

the position should be clear: we are against it.

That’s all. We are proposing

that you express this very carefully by coming in

a respirator (protective mask),

however you decide, and voting no. We

are against what is happening, we are against

the resetting of term limits, we do not like all

this propaganda, and we call on all of you

to oppose it, to persuade your neighbors

to come and cast a “No” vote. Fine, if

it is stolen, then we will know that eight

out of ten actually voted against, and the votes were stolen.

And if we simply

stay home and say that the procedure

is illegitimate, that the amendments have already been adopted, whatever —

that is not how it works. If we sit silently at home and

complain in our kitchens, then no one will

know our opinion. We will get the same situation

as in any Moscow mayoral election,

when 30 percent of the population turn out and

the pro-government candidate wins simply because of

the turnout of administrative voters

who bring along their friends and

acquaintances.

Maxim, that is exactly what happened in 2013 —

people with definite views stayed home.

Always, Maxim, Maxim...

At every election, Maxim, absolutely

no elaborate construct is needed — you need to take

one position. We always express the view:

against, and that’s it. Maxim, Maxim, we have 30 seconds left.

You and Alexei have a great deal

in common, for example, including the fact

that you do not answer a directly

posed question directly. The directly posed

question is as follows: please tell us

the ultimate goal of the strategy

that you are proposing.

No, a clear goal. Sorry to interrupt — not

an ethical position about how one must not

stay home, not some instrumental

position, but the actual end goal,

the result that should be achieved. The ultimate

goal is this: there should be more “No” votes in the ballot boxes

than anything else, and society should have a complete

understanding and confidence that everyone

voted against these amendments. Everyone

should know that the people around them are against them.

After that, no announcement on television

will be able to convince people that they voted

in favor. And after that, Putin’s power simply

comes to an end. Understood? So the goal

is that if you vote “No,” Putin

goes. If society comes out against

these amendments, then Putin will lose all

legitimacy. That is why he started this whole

story. Okay, the idea is clear. Alexei,

and one more brief question.

Alexei, Maxim, and after that you will be able

to debate with each other, ask each other

questions, and give answers.

Alexei, please tell me — the question for you

is of the following nature: for a long time, the Anti-Corruption Foundation

— and yes, when I say

the Anti-Corruption Foundation, I mean

essentially Alexei Navalny’s political camp,

because, well, it is clear that the Anti-Corruption Foundation,

in addition to

engaging in political activity,

also conducts investigations.

And everyone present, including Maxim and me,

I think, evaluates these investigations

positively, from a favorable

point of view, and is inspired by them. Nevertheless,

the Anti-Corruption Foundation

is also engaged in politically

aggregating a certain electoral base and

motivating it in order to make

certain political decisions. You

proceed

from what, at least as I understand it, this

part — which I approve of — from

the technological constraints at this

specific moment. That is, when you

see that there is an opportunity to influence

whether something can be changed, as in

In the Moscow City Duma elections, you used Smart Voting.

When you see that it's impossible to influence anything,

you advocate the opposite strategy —

a boycott. Please tell me:

you're surely familiar with Maxim's position, with his

videos and his arguments — and not only Maxim's,

but also, among others, the position of Ekaterina

Shulman, Valery Solovey, and all the others.

The others as well.

Please tell me what you fundamentally

disagree with in what they are proposing.

When many people — and according to polling, including

what we see in the data — come and vote "no,"

it becomes harder to falsify

those votes. A "no" vote is harder to manipulate than

an absent vote. And indeed, even if it's not a victory

for the "no" position, it is still

a vivid expression of disagreement.

Could that somehow change

the political landscape? What about this

position troubles you? What makes you

unwilling to support it? Please,

you have three minutes.

You used the words "a vivid expression of your

disagreement."

But participation in this vote is not

a vivid expression of your

disagreement. What I dislike most

about Shulman's position — though she didn't say this —

and not about Solovey either, but what

Maxim said — Maxim, I was honestly

embarrassed for you just now. You seriously told us

that you conduct

street surveys — that is, a person walks around

with a microphone on the street — and you call that

sociology. We won't get into a dispute

about methodology right now, but it's genuinely embarrassing.

For a person who has been involved in politics for many years,

this is an outright lie, and unfortunately,

you are spreading this lie to your supporters,

to the people who watch your YouTube channel.

You are broadcasting this lie, saying,

"Guys, this is some kind of sociology." And as for

official polling,

what you just said was also,

and I apologize, but simply a lie.

Bluntly. Here, I have in front of me

the results

of Open Russia's polling — that is, not ours —

showing a ratio of 61 to

39 in favor of the amendments. Our polling — not

Kremlin polling, you understand — shows 67 to 33.

Levada Center's polling also shows about 60 to 40,

not at all what you're saying. That's why I repeat

for the millionth time: first, there is no

80 percent. There isn't, precisely because

we are here in this great broadcast with

the pleasant Mikhail Naki, instead of

campaigning every day and

explaining to people that this is a reset (of presidential term limits), and in that sense,

well, forgive me, friends, but

this claim that, basically, "I know,

I walked through the streets of Nizhny

Novgorod and Ulan-Ude, and 80 percent are

against Putin, so come

vote and tomorrow Putin will leave" — well, that

could be called a naive approach

if I knew, Maxim, that you were definitely

a completely naive person. But since you're not,

this is simply some kind of

misleading of people,

and I really, really don't like it.

It means that getting rid of this government will come

as a result of long, painstaking,

prolonged work. Smart

Voting is very difficult, very

resource-intensive, and quite dangerous, as we can see

from the situation with our headquarters, but it is

a real strategy, because there each person's vote

matters. We saw that

in the example of the Moscow City Duma. Alexei...

We have 30 seconds left, so

I will still ask you, in these remaining seconds,

to answer my question specifically, not

with reproaches or replies to

Maxim,

but rather: what exactly seems harmful to you

about people going and voting

against? What here seems to you

unacceptable? I believe there is nothing

unacceptable about it, of course. But I

believe people should very clearly

understand that they may go if they

think that's better, if this is

a civic act, if they are not afraid

of getting infected or infecting their relatives.

They can go there; there is nothing

wrong with that. In fact, the point of our

strategy is: we do not recognize it, we do not

go, or we vote against. What I consider

unacceptable is lying that observation can be

organized there, because it cannot.

I also consider unacceptable the lying

about polling, because

real polling, independent

polling, does exist. That is what is unacceptable.

But going to vote — by all means,

please do, just be careful. In these same

schools, by the way,

three days after the voting, these same

teachers will be receiving students — I mean,

this is simply monstrous from the standpoint

of the morality of supporting all this.

The morality of supporting it, understood. And before

you begin directly

asking each other questions, the temperature

of the discussion will probably rise even further.

If even my questions are already prompting you

to reproach each other, what will happen when you

start addressing each other directly?

Nevertheless, I will try

to preserve at least some neutrality

and keep this discussion constructive.

By asking Maxim Shevchenko a question. Maxim, and to you,

accordingly, on

their questions within the framework of my questions. But

all right, you say that we have a story

connected with an incredible...

In support of the “No” position, you say that

we also have a historical precedent, if we take

Russia in recent times: consolidation

around a negative attitude toward the authorities. And at the same time, in

your answer to the previous questions, toward the end of it,

you rather uncertainly, but nevertheless,

said that the outcome would be, essentially,

that Putin will leave power. And of course

I smiled at that point; Alexei surely

smiled too, and all our viewers as well. And I

don’t think you sincerely believe that

if everyone votes “No,” then the very

next day Putin will come out and say, “Well,

sorry, goodbye, I didn’t realize that you

were simply against it. Otherwise I would have

left long ago; I just didn’t, that’s all.

So, sorry, I’m packing up and leaving.” And so,

my question is this: tell me,

please, let’s suppose that your

strategy of voting against it proved

successful, and everyone went to the polling stations despite

the epidemiological restrictions, which I’m

sure you and Alexei will still discuss

in your questions to each other. Everyone went and

did it. How exactly do you plan

to convert that into political

change within Russia? The answer to that

question is not about what exactly I

am planning or what my plan is.

It will happen on its own when society

begins to change its view of

what is happening and starts to develop

a demand for change or distrust of

the current authorities.

Then change gradually happens, one way

or another. Right now it is completely impossible

to predict how exactly that will happen.

But to suppress this public mood,

this desire to say “No” to the authorities, which clearly

exists now—even Alexei cited

polling data, for some reason using the term

“lies” and so on, which doesn’t seem very

appropriate in this kind of dialogue. But I believe

that Alexei, for example, is sincerely

mistaken. When even Alexei cited

the figure of 60 to 40,

is that really so little? Have we ever had 40

percent firmly against the authorities in

any situation?

And that’s in polling data, meaning

well before the event itself. So right now

there is a consolidation of

protest, and this kind of activity among ordinary

people,

not just some small group watching

broadcasts,

but across the country. And this is reflected both in

people’s answers to these street questions, which

are not sociology—I didn’t call them

sociology. It is simply a chance to listen

to what people think, what kind of

arguments they have. All of this expresses it, and we

must support this wave as opposition leaders—

if I may put it that way; certainly as far as

Alexei is concerned. I don’t know about myself, but Alexei

is definitely an opposition leader. We must support

this wave.

We must tell people: yes, you should

go and say “No.” You are absolutely right.

You must not “reset” Putin’s term limits. All of this

is deception. This is not a vote about animals or the memory

of ancestors; there is no real vote on that here. This is

a vote to extend Putin’s rule into

effectively lifelong presidency, and we

must say no to that. We must

send a clear and understandable message. We should not

be speculating about what will happen afterward—whether

this or that will happen later, whether people will vote

and everything will be stolen, or people will vote and then

be outraged that everything was stolen, or whether the authorities will somehow

maneuver their way out of it or won’t be able to.

Our job is to take our step. Our step

is to say “No.” It’s really

very simple. It is a very simple idea.

It consists of one phrase only: simply go and

say “No.” Why do you have to

complicate it with elaborate stories about how

everything has already been decided, that this is already some kind of

unclear procedure, and maybe

you might as well stay home? Why? Why

can’t you just go and say “No,” Maxim?

I’ll ask you, Alexei, to answer

my question after all. Yes, I understand that

you are already having an indirect debate and

answering each other in your responses to my

questions. You will have time for that,

though admittedly there is only a very little time left

before that point. So I would like

to hear an answer specifically to my question,

namely: how exactly would a “No” vote

or an active “No” campaign—which,

let’s say, mobilizes these 10–15 percent

of the electorate—let’s imagine an extraordinary scenario

in which everything works out for you and people go

and believe in it, Alexei supports the “No” campaign,

yes, and tomorrow together with you records

a joint video where you’re running out

holding hands—or maybe not holding hands,

because of social distancing—but both

of you are shouting, “Vote no!” And then everyone

says, “Yes, we’re voting no,” and 10–15

percent of this protest-minded electorate

goes to this vote on the constitutional amendments

and votes no. What happens next?

In other words, the start of what plan is that?

The start of what dynamic? The start of what kind of

strategy? Michael, I don’t have an answer to

that question. I cannot program

the future, and I do not have a plan

for replacing Russia’s ruling regime

step by step, starting today and ending

in 2024 or at any other point. I simply

believe that when you are asked what you

think—when we are asked, “Do you agree that

Putin should become president for life?”—you should

answer, “No, we do not agree.” That’s all. It is very

simple. You do not necessarily need to have a plan for

what will happen after that.

Your position, too, Alexei, isn’t really an ethical one—

it turns out it’s actually quite utilitarian.

Utilitarian. I thought that if people

got used to the idea that they must not protest

through silence, and that they must always express

their opinion, then one way or another people

would achieve what they want. People now clearly

want change. If they pursue it

instead of listening to political

leaders who tell them to sit still and

stay silent, then... but

no political leaders, except the Yabloko party (a liberal Russian political party),

and its leader Rybakov, are actually suggesting

that people should sit still and stay silent. So it seems to me

this blow

is aimed a bit in the wrong direction. But nevertheless,

you will have the opportunity to take jabs at

each other as much as you like.

Now to the questions directly. Alexei,

I ask that the question be asked in 45 seconds.

Oh no, let’s do it differently: Maxim, 45 seconds

for your question. Sorry, I got a little

sidetracked from the format I had started with.

Maxim, 45 seconds to ask the question; Alexei

will answer it, then he’ll ask you his own,

and you’ll answer that.

So, Maxim, your 45 seconds

to ask the question. Yes, Alexei, look:

the problem with your position is not the boycott or

voting against.

It’s in its extreme vagueness and

lack of clarity. “Not recognize”—you tell me,

what does “recognize” mean? What kind of verb is that

to use here?

If someone is not going to do anything, is that inwardly

“not recognizing,” or boycotting, or voting against?

What exactly should people do? And an important point: your

close associate Leonid Volkov

recently said that now everything

is different, and that even under a procedure like this,

campaigning against a president with a real

approval rating of 30 percent is not at all the same

as campaigning against a president with a

real approval rating of 60 percent. Right now everything

is going badly for the authorities; the Kremlin’s political strategists

have overplayed their hand and bitten their own tail.

Five seconds. It’s they who are in a space

of vagueness—from morning to night.

You, however, must

offer your supporters the clearest possible

and most unambiguous course of action. I ask

you to state clearly what, in your

view, should be done now. Alexei,

your answer, two minutes. In my view,

what needs to be done now is not to recognize this procedure

and to tell everyone around you that its purpose

is to “reset” the term limits (allowing Putin to run again). It seems to me,

Maxim, that basically all your reasoning

is built on absolutely false premises:

that the only action, the only

way to say no, and so on, is

to go and vote in this procedure.

You know, in 20 years this is the most

far removed from an actual election that

we’ve seen. Maybe that tells us

something. And finally, this is the most

important thing: to say no, you can

go to a rally; to say no, you can

hand out leaflets about the vote; to

say no, you can write a tweet; you can

support political prisoners.

There is a huge number of ways to be active. But

what really means staying on the couch and

doing nothing is choosing, from the whole

vast palette of ways to confront this

disgusting government, simply going to

a vote where, as you know, your vote

doesn’t really count for anything. And yet you just

reproached me for having

an unclear strategy. Well, excuse me,

but just before that I listened to you explain that

we should vote in such a way

and then say this afterward, but only

if someone does this, someone does that... but we

the main thing is that we must answer no.

Say no every day

through every action you take. Tell some Putin-supporting grandmother

about the raising of the

retirement age. Tear down a notice

in your apartment building entrance about this vote and put up

a proper notice instead. There is no

simple way to fight Putin. That is exactly why

he invented this new setup,

because he is afraid of real elections, and

he created a special mechanism where

the individual vote, specifically the vote itself, has no

real significance, but everything else you can

do matters enormously. Alexei,

a question for Maxim. Thank you. No clarifications?

No, no... in your

answer... better to move on. But the problem

is, Maxim, that if within the framework

of one answer to one

question we try to cover everything once and for all,

then don’t you think that

your position is also somewhat muddled?

And you’ll be able to answer that within the

response to Alexei’s question, I think.

Alexei, your question to Maxim, please.

All right. Maxim, Chelyabinsk,

Yaroslavl, Pskov, Saransk, Orenburg, Nizhny

Tagil, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Tomsk, Penza,

Kursk, Belgorod, Oryol, Perm— in these cities

the parades were canceled, effectively acknowledging that the situation there is catastrophic.

St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, and

Novosibirsk have said that they have run out of

hospital beds.

And those are, by the way, the country’s 2nd, 3rd, and

4th largest cities. And you just

said that we, as responsible opposition leaders,

should call on everyone to go to polling stations.

Meanwhile, I’m flooded with videos of people crying and

saying, “Show my video on air. I

can’t get my mother admitted to a hospital. She

is dying, and they won’t take her in.” So am I supposed

right now

to urge these people to go to polling stations, knowing that they

will then vote on something whose outcome has already been decided?

accepted, fully aware that there is no

single observer who

will monitor it, and so I must

do it.

Maxim, before I start answering, I

would like to emphasize that this is one of

the key questions, actually, because

regardless of how both

speakers feel about the vote, how exactly one should

act—the issue of the epidemiological

situation and the concerns connected with it

affect supporters on both sides, regardless of who

calls whom bots and who does not call whom

bots. Yes, it is absolutely irrelevant; the positions

of both sides are really centered on this

one key question. And it is precisely for

this, Maxim, that many people turned against you,

taking some of your remarks specifically concerning

epidemiological safety during

the voting. So I ask you to spend

as much time as possible answering this in as much detail and as seriously

as possible—specifically this question. Your two

minutes, please. All right. We are talking

now about holding a mass

event covering the entire country.

To hold it in the form in which it

is planned is a crime. It is

an absolutely phenomenal act of irresponsibility

that will have unpredictable

consequences in scale and may kill many

people—and most likely will kill many people.

One could say that this is a crime

against humanity. In fact, I think that

if there is ever an investigation,

this could quite possibly be recognized as

a crime against humanity.

Three months of quarantine—all the sacrifices,

hotels, movie theaters that may never

reopen, hundreds of thousands unemployed,

millions who have lost income—most likely

now all of that will simply be wiped out.

All of it will have to be done again.

The vote itself risks

bringing Russia another month of

quarantine restrictions, and thousands more

bankrupted companies, another 100,000 and

millions of ruined families. But most importantly,

it will take lives. It will take lives regardless

of our behavior. We, together with

Alexei—Alexei, you and I—we are not

the ones calling this vote, and we cannot

cancel it. If we could, we would

certainly cancel it. I would

agree to that right now.

It is utter irresponsibility to hold

it now. We are not in a debate in

parliament; we are not deputies or senators.

Putin has scheduled this vote, and it will take place.

He will carry it out.

To stay in power, the leadership is ready

for purely political-technological reasons

to inflict such damage and expose

so many people to such danger. This is

an enormous problem, and we are obliged to

make the fullest possible use of the opportunity to

bring this government to an end. At the same time, of course,

we must explain to our supporters

all the risks of this situation, especially to members

of election commissions, who are at

the greatest risk. We must explain

how to protect themselves. Coronavirus is

deadly dangerous.

This leadership, living in its own fantasies,

has created conditions for its spread

by holding a vote like this or a parade.

That is certainly no less dangerous. You must

explain to supporters how to

protect themselves as much as possible while expressing their views. But

we do not have the right to refuse

to protest in such a situation. On questions, I

will allow, well, at most a minute. Maybe we

will make it much more combative—he already wanted exactly

on this topic... We will, like everyone, sort of

we will be like *What? Where? When?* (a famous Russian quiz show) when Maxim

asks for that minute, and then he would

only, the one thing we will not have is the help

of the experts. Sorry, we do not have that option in

today’s broadcast. Maxim, your

question to Alexei, yes, go ahead.

Right now in society, well, it is obvious that

the situation is such that people have definitely become more anti-government;

there are many more of them. A small

number of opposition-minded people who are

watching us now—but also a substantial number

of people. One can say that our polls showing

70 or 80 percent are not

representative—that is true. But even

Levada (an independent Russian polling organization) gives 40 percent. Why are you

dissuading people from the obvious

action they want to take?

Clearly, right now they want to cast a ballot against it.

And not just you, actually—

all the old leaders of the democratic

opposition are doing it too—Yavlinsky (Grigory Yavlinsky, liberal politician),

Kasyanov (Mikhail Kasyanov, former prime minister),

Moments like this do not come often, when people

want to come out against something, so why

why do this? Are you ready now

to direct all your efforts and resources toward

explaining to people that these amendments

must not be supported and that it is necessary

to oppose them in the way they see

as important—including going and

voting? Let’s continue. Could we ever have imagined

that Alexei would end up on the same

list as Yavlinsky?

But that is the question. Alexei, my answer

is exactly about that. Poor Grigory Alexeyevich (a patronymic-based form of address),

Maxim, just a year and a half ago I

was saying he was perhaps the best person possible,

that he should lead Russia, that he would get

a double-digit percentage, that he could

win if we went out and voted, and

now he has quickly ended up

written off as an old politician. So I

am telling people that this

still does not have great significance, because

it does not have great significance.

because their vote will not be counted, and

I told him that too, and that's where it started

the debate — that became the reason

because different people, including Maxim,

Katz, have just described to us, without

joking, a truly apocalyptic picture

because this is a monstrous situation, I mean

Maxim spent a long time explaining that

this is a nightmare, he said people

will die

many people will die, but then you

end it with, "Tim, come on, Alexei

call on them to vote." So even

if this were a real

vote, with actual votes counting,

there would be a major ethical question here. I

have run in elections and will

run again; I aspire to leadership

positions, and I cannot and do not want to treat

people cynically. I cannot take your

position, because that is worse than the authorities

You're saying, well, all of this is bad, everyone

will die — of course many people will die — but

the authorities scheduled it, so let's just

go vote right away. But I don't want to be like that

like Putin. I don't want to lie to people, so

my position is that

going there is dangerous, and given that

it is dangerous and meaningless, it is altogether

it looks absurd. What are people supposed to

do? My appeal to people is: get up and go

campaign against the amendments and against

Putin. You're right, Putin's rating is falling, but

it was even lower at one point when you

were taking up these amendments — because of the pension age (retirement age) issue

We held rallies then, and now we need

to campaign every day, not

go vote where your vote is worth

zero. Thank you, Alexei. And one clarifying question

from me, if you allow it, because I will

No, not from me — from you, from you, from you, according to

the rules it's not allowed. From me it is allowed, isn't it?

It isn't? Well, all right, let's consider this

part of your minute. Fine, let's

say it's part of that minute. Alexei,

you yourself have practically handed Putin a guarantee

You're proposing to go around and explain that

you're campaigning against Putin

ruling forever, while at the same time urging people not to

go vote. Right now, to go against

them — there is now going to be a nationwide

event, ballot boxes will be opened near every home

— a box where you can drop your opinion: no

or yes. How to seize that opportunity, I don't know, and you

are proposing to go around campaigning, saying

that you're against it, but you don't want to, so

Maxim, you're attributing to me a position

that I do not hold. What I said

is: if you want to go, then go, but

know the whole truth about this vote

because I cannot tell people

what you do: we walked the streets, 80 percent are

against

Ella Pamfilova said this is no more dangerous

than going to the store, so come on, guys

and girls, let's all go vote everywhere — and yes, that is

deceiving people, misleading them, and I

therefore tell people: oppose this

We can see from our polling/questions; I wrote a post

on this topic

that when you explain to people that this

vote is about resetting the terms (allowing Putin to run again), they

will vote against it, including those who

are forced to vote. Then our common goal

of opposing all this is achieved much

faster when we simply reach people who have not yet been reached

through campaigning and conversations about how

this is term-resetting, that this is the enthronement of

Putin. We see a direct correlation

— explain to a person that this is about his continued rule, and they

are against it. That's the point — the point is

just that — no dialogue, and let's not interrupt

Maxim, they are in the middle of—

Maxim, Maxim, Maxim, don't interrupt

Alexei, please. That is certainly not

what the rules of our debate provide for

Please let him finish. I wanted

to finish by saying that, Maxim, it makes no

sense for you to spend your energy on

criticizing the boycott supporters, and it makes no

sense for me to spend my energy criticizing

those who are going to vote. I explain

why I am not voting, but we should spend our energy

on campaigning

among people. So this campaign is a campaign to

explain that this is term-resetting, because otherwise

people came

but they simply gave the state authorities

the responsibility — we

voted, we voted — and that is exactly

what Putin wants

That's exactly what he wants. Look, before

we move on now to the closing question

and final statements, let's have one more

question from me. For some reason

I actually want to ask

some questions to Alexei and Maxim

because I can — I've been given a unique

opportunity to do so, an opportunity

that, as of today, and an opportunity of which

literally millions

of Russians are deprived. And I really am that very

voter of yours who has not yet

decided on a position, and I even held

a thread on Twitter, and since I love debates

and was involved in them professionally for some

time, in one thread I

criticized the boycott, in another I argued for

the position of voting against the amendments, and

there, with everyone who replied, I

debated them, so to speak, and in the end I

accumulated a certain number of

critical and key questions. Alexei,

and now you're giving — Mikhail, sorry

please, wait, this either doesn't make sense

There is still one question left, Maxim, there is still

one left — you will answer it now after

after you answer mine, if you

If you don't mind, I can wait for you again.

on my modest little channel, with

a bunch of technical flaws, which means my

question fits right into your

main line of argument, and it seems to me

it's the key one, because honestly, I

swear, throughout this whole period while you and

Maxim have been arguing remotely—not on

this broadcast, but beyond it, yes—

Maxim records videos about why refusing

to vote "against" matters, and you explain what problems there are

with that, and honestly I still haven't found

where your positions actually contradict each other. I mean,

I still haven't seen what exactly you disagree

about. That's exactly why I wrote that I don't

really support your refusal to debate, in

the sense that you're not taking a position of

boycott.

But I also don't support belittling

Maxim's position in your tweets, so

my key question, which it seems to me

you've just touched on in the answer you gave,

is this: you're proceeding from the idea that resources for

criticism are limited. You say we shouldn't

call on people to go vote—no, rather we

should direct all our efforts toward

saying that this vote is

illegitimate. But wait, Alexei,

is that really a contradictory position?

Can't you do both at the same

time? And yes, you're worried about

people's health, and I absolutely agree with you

on that, yes, because I also take the view

that you absolutely cannot trust the current

statistics on the coronavirus yet, and that this is

going to kill many people. But at the same time there are

these previously unpopular, and probably still unpopular,

options, like electronic voting

or at-home voting—I don't want to single them out

as some kind of PR gimmick just in Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod,

in Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod, electronic voting

is in effect there, while in all

the other places there's at-home voting, where under the procedure

if you do it through the door, as I,

for example—well, sometimes the police come,

I won't go into details—

but from behind the door you can make them

do everything that's written in their

instructions. Sorry for such a long-winded

question, but I'll narrow it down to one simple thing:

please tell me: if voting "against"

doesn't contradict what you're saying

about campaigning against it, and if there is a way

to do that, for example

electronically, would you be ready, for example, to

call on Moscow and Nizhny Novgorod

to vote against?

And for all those who sincerely want

to take care of their health—put on

respirators, or call for at-home voting, and

urge them to vote against—or do you see

some key, fundamental

problem here? I mean not just about

electronic voting, but

about all these formats—if we're talking about

Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, at-home voting,

if we're talking about all of that, then there is

no contradiction here.

Those who want to go, who think it's possible

and see some point in it, and think there's a reason to—

and many people think, "I

have to go—it's a matter of principle."

I love that position. Go ahead,

go vote against. I've been saying that from

day one. What's more,

hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people

will simply be forced into this

vote, and to all of them I say: guys,

vote against.

Do it, and don't be afraid to vote

against. So where is the disagreement? The basic,

key disagreement I have

with Maxim is that his argumentation

is built on absolutely false premises.

Intentionally or unintentionally, Maxim is saying

things about polling data that aren't true.

Maxim says things and then avoids answering,

for example about the fact that

when he's asked about monitoring, there's no answer. And I

am saying there will be no real monitoring there.

Maxim tells us that observers

will be able to catch something, but that's, damn,

just impossible to observe properly, let alone talk about it.

Maxim, Maxim needs to say this—Alexei...

There will be plenty of time for questions,

for you too, I promise, within the bounds of

fairness and the proper conduct of these

debates. I promise that you will have

an amount of time comparable to Alexei's.

Then there will be closing statements, and we

will finish. But this claim that

observers will catch something there, that this will

lead to protests like in 2011,

is absolutely untrue. If

you want a softer word, "untrue"—but really it's

simply deception. References to Ella

Pamfilova (head of Russia's Central Election Commission), who says this is no

more dangerous than going to the store—this is

simply deception. And the claim that

the Constitution hasn't been adopted yet—that's deception too.

We need to speak honestly: anyone who

wants to go vote out of principle,

go ahead and vote, but your vote most likely will not

be counted. It's already been decided. That's how one can

speak honestly. And as for me, I cannot build

any political strategy on deception.

I mean, what am I supposed to do—bend over? If tomorrow I

start lying to people about polling data,

about sociology, about FBK (Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation)—everyone already doesn't believe in

I don't even know what anymore.

If tomorrow I start

running these little street interviews and

saying, "80 percent are for me out on the street,"

I'll go somewhere and gather a bunch of

young people, and of course

there it'll be 100 percent "Navalny

for president," and then I'll say, "See?

So let's proceed from reality. That's just...

I don’t want to build anything on deception.

I don’t want to build any political strategy on deception, and

I’m urging Maxim to make sure that his own

strategy—which does contain a lot

that is valid, after all, even if I’m not a follower of it—

is built without deception. As for yours, it’s simply

something within the framework of which he’ll be able

to answer both your specific question and, later,

afterward we will, accordingly, give him

time to respond to all

the accusations that have been listed, including

the charge of outright lying—which, incidentally, Maxim did not

accuse himself of, I would stress. Still, I would

And since all of us here, the three of us, and

what is it, about 10 people

watching us—I think we’re all

more or less on the same side, so I

certainly wouldn’t try especially hard

to elevate some other people to the rank of enemies.

Some other people. Forty-five seconds for a quick response, yes.

Maxim, then let’s move to a question about

observers, since the subject has come up. I watched

as much as I could of your streams, your answers

and the questions.

These people ask: how is an observer

supposed to observe, or not? And you say, well,

there’s something there, or you say, well,

there are statements, there’s Golos (an independent Russian election-monitoring movement), and some groups

of observers who said that they

would observe. But you leave out the fact

that they all need the proper accreditation/directions, and

those authorizations don’t exist. So far only one city,

Yekaterinburg,

has said that some authorizations

the Public Chamber will give to Golos, and also

that was basically just said offhand.

So please, describe

the procedure specifically. Let’s suppose

an observer somehow got in, and now he has

seven days of voting.

Is he supposed to remain at the polling station for

all seven days?

Does he have to continuously, around the clock,

watch that ballot box, and somehow also

deal with the absence of

control checks?

At the same time, there are still mobile ballot boxes going around, and

so on. What exactly are observers supposed to do?

We here don’t believe that—sorry for

going on too long—but that there’s any real observer mechanism in place.

Understood, thank you very much. I would

also ask you, Maxim, within

the framework of this discussion,

to answer the question about your position on the strike/boycott.

We shouldn’t mix these things together.

That would basically spoil my question, well, yes.

I see we don’t have much time left.

I just had several questions and forgot, yes.

If necessary, friends, we can sit here with you for six hours.

We can sit here—as I understand it, you

are limited on time. For now, why don’t you

answer the one that’s already been raised by everyone.

Let’s not steer the conversation away from the issue of

monitoring the vote. Of course, I

absolutely agree with you: oversight of

this voting process is very problematic, very

much so. Of course, there are some

tools: there are commission members with the right

to cast decisive votes, who can decide

that they are ready to take on

enormous risks of infection, enormous

risks, and monitor it. Or maybe

someone already has antibodies, in which case their

risks are lower. They can decide

not to take those enormous risks, and

that is completely understandable. But overall, yes,

indeed, oversight of

the count is very problematic, and at very

many polling stations they will be able to falsify the results.

In my view, that is not a reason

to refuse to express

our position. We must put our

ballot marked “against” into those boxes, and after that

fine—some of them will

document things, we will try to catch

what we can catch; if we can catch it, we’ll catch it; if we can’t,

then we won’t. In any case,

it is impossible to falsify, what is it,

3,000 polling stations in Moscow

and 50,000 across the country—it’s impossible

if 60 percent are cast in all of them

against.

You cannot plausibly fabricate

results for all of them in a way that

won’t be noticeable. It will be revealed either

mathematically afterward, or at some

polling stations where honest

commission members are still found, there will be radically

different results. That is, if in the

boxes there is a majority of “no,” then we

will find that out, definitely. But if in the boxes

there is a majority of “yes”—and here, with

your example-setting, if you do not

go, you set an example and others also won’t

go—then they will end up with a majority of “yes” in their hands.

Then there will be no need

to falsify anything: they can count honestly.

There will be no need to falsify anything—honestly

open the boxes, count, and announce that 80

percent, or 70 percent, let’s say—if the entire

opposition didn’t show up, then that’s it.

And then afterward you explain that you do not

recognize this result. So, in

my view, yes, there are indeed enormous

problems. I agree. I’m not saying

that anything here is easy or

that monitoring is normal. But that is not a reason

to refuse to come and

state your position by voting no.

Maxim, for the sake of balance, in order

to make everything as fair as possible, I

will allow myself to ask you a question too.

Again, if the participants do not

object—and there was a request to keep it brief—

just say, Maxim: people came, yes,

they voted, again, in that hypothetical

picture we drew, where you and Alexei are hand in hand

and are definitely urging everyone to do so.

vote against

again, hand in hand, simply because

such a nice, beautiful Soviet image

and then, please tell me, what if they swapped everything out?

they falsified everything — yes, that happens, but we

objectively acknowledge — you, me, Alexei, and everyone else

the others

that there will be more fraud, and I think

there is no doubt about that, and you won’t argue with

that — that there are fewer mechanisms for monitoring

what is happening than there usually are in

ordinary elections

and there are fewer observers, there are no observers from

the parties, and the voting lasts seven days, and

it has been expanded to include at-home and electronic

voting — at-home voting now, which

is possible even without you having

any of the required grounds for it, yes, without

any illnesses — I think that

you would also admit that the room for

falsification is greater than it has been in any

other votes — I won’t say elections

because, in my view, Russia has not had real elections for a long time

— for about 20 years — because

an election is not just voting, but

voting is not their only

it is an important part of them, and so accordingly

many people came, many voted, they followed

you, they followed Alexei, they said yes, but

I mean, they followed Alexei because he called on them

to do so — and then, listen, most of us

we’ll take the majority now, we’ll change

we’ll change the game

but then everything was falsified, and

the game did not change, and the amendments were adopted, and

nothing happened, people are disappointed

they blame themselves, they blame Alexei — tell me

please, do you have any idea

of what to do if and when everything is

falsified? This is the same

question you asked me last

time, and the answer is simply that the meaning

of actions in the event that this happens

I do not have a strategy of action for the case

if that happens here, but I believe that you

must speak out; if they falsify it, then

we will assess the situation, we will see

how people react, to what extent they

understand that all of this has been falsified

what the public mood in the country will be, what

citizens will want, how they will

express themselves. But I do not understand why

the conversation about whether we should now

speak out against it or not needs

to be shifted into: but what will come of it

if we speak out and no one hears us?

But if we do not speak out, then certainly no one

will hear us. First we need to speak out, and

then see what happens. Well, I cannot

prevent falsification; I have no

ability to change the voting procedure

for the vote, Alexei, I do not — it has been set

as it has been set, and there is

some process already in motion; it

will happen whether we go there or not

it will happen; public-sector employees will come, their loyalists will come, and

other people too — 30 percent

will definitely vote yes. The whole question is

whether the people who listen to us will come and

vote no

and whether there will be more no votes than yes votes

— that is the question of the present moment

right now

What will happen if there are more no votes than

yes votes, and they draw something else? That is a question for the next day

after voting day — we will see

Who could have predicted that in 2011

what happened would happen? Before that, no one had any

Maxim, I’m talking about 2011, Maxim

Maxim, so often — sorry, sorry, Maxim, you

often appeal to 2011, so

Maxim, you often appeal to 2011

so I want to speak specifically about it

— what happened as a result?

Substantial protests began

then

the authorities came under significant

pressure, then

this endless conversation about how

everything is probably predetermined and nothing anyway

will work out, and there is a huge tank over there while we

are here trying to twitch somehow — I do not

understand why we should keep having it

We must speak out in order to see

the range of possibilities; we should not torment ourselves

or refuse to protest. We are not, after all,

doing something now like selling all

our property in order to invest it

into the campaign. By the way, I heard a couple of

times that people did that in 2013, and later

in order to donate a substantial

amount of money — they caused significant

harm to their family well-being. We urge everyone

not to do that, or if you do, please

do not recklessly and unforgivably undermine

your life for the sake of, right now,

making a move. No, what is being proposed is an extremely

simple action which, in Moscow and

Nizhny Novgorod, is absolutely

safe, perhaps, if you vote

electronically; in other regions, one can

take precautions, come

and express oneself. This action does not

require a guarantee of success, but if we do not

try to put pressure on

the system in situations like this, then

there definitely will be no success. Therefore we must

act — action is better than inaction. The position

is clear. And the question to Alexei

will be the last one, I think, and then

we will wrap up. So, I have two

questions; if that works, I will choose one

rather than trying to pack both into one, I think

because in any case you have asked — but

you are asking each other the same questions

and answering them in the same way, that is, in

fact, not quite directly and not all the way through

connected to this situation, but more broadly

I want to talk about the farm with Alexei.

Since this isn't the first time we're here, unlike in 2013,

about the concept of political leadership in

general, there are two approaches. The first is that we

go with the flow, study public opinion polls,

and say what people want to hear. And

the second is that we stand up for what we believe

is right, even when it's unpopular.

We explain it, we persuade people. As far as I can

tell, you're closer to the first path in

most cases. In the mid-2000s,

you were putting forward nationalist

slogans of some kind. I don't see that as

a huge problem, but still, back then

there was demand for it, and that's why you promoted it.

Then you were a liberal in the Moscow mayoral election;

the platform was very liberal, it was

also urbanist in tone at the time, along with

the classic paid parking proposals and everything

else. And then you decided to adopt a left-wing

agenda: trade unions, wages, and so on.

The only thing you always kept was

the fight against corruption.

Here, I take my hat off to you: everything is clear and

always firm and understandable. On other

issues, though, you seem to be chasing

the polls. Don't you think that

the second model of political

leadership is the right one—when you explain to people

what you believe in and what you consider

right, instead of chasing sociology (polling)

or public opinion, and simply hold your

line? Alexei, thank you very much.

Maxim briefly retold

my biography here, although it has nothing

to do with today's debate. Still, it was

nice to hear, and I want to say once again

that all the slogans and

programs I put forward, I supported then

and I support now. In that sense, I have remained

true to myself. As I see it, the question

for me personally about these two types

of leadership is beside the point. I

always take a proactive position. We

are genuinely fighting this government, and the government

is genuinely fighting back against us. In fact,

today they opened yet another

criminal case against me because they do not want

Smart Voting to happen, because

when you've said so much like this

about speaking out, speaking out, speaking out, and

then reduce it all to the idea that speaking out

means going and voting in this

completely fake vote, which

isn't even really an election—excuse me,

speaking out means calling people to a rally.

You mentioned the Moscow City Duma (Moscow's city parliament) here, and

what happened with the Moscow City Duma was this:

it worked out there because

the candidates called people to rallies, and then they were jailed

for it. I was jailed for it too, and many people

were in actual prison for it, by the way.

That is what action is, and that

is what speaking out is. Speaking out means, this

September, going in Novosibirsk or

Cheboksary to the elections and voting against

United Russia.

Speaking out means campaigning.

Speaking out means genuinely taking

an active position, and polling has

absolutely nothing to do with it. We conduct it, we

look at it, and honestly, they

understand that this, this right here,

absolutely

they understand that we would win in any

election, and that's why they deliberately created

a real scarecrow.

This scarecrow is called 'voting,' and you

are suggesting that everyone...

and stage this duel with this

scarecrow. It's not even a windmill;

it's something meaningless. For some people, maybe

it feels symbolically satisfying just to walk up to

this scarecrow and kick it.

Personally, I support that—the main thing is

to kick it without catching coronavirus and without

infecting your grandmother. But truly

acting, speaking out, is something entirely

different, and I have been doing that, as much as I can,

all these years. The people, my comrades,

who surround me, they do it too,

and I think they have proved by their actions,

that they are very active

politicians, not opportunists... I can't hear you.

Can't hear you. Me neither, can't hear, can't hear.

The mic... maybe let's hand over to each other

the questions for now. The issue is not

whether the audience can hear us—yes, that's an important

question, a small detail. All right, I

am back, I've returned. Can you hear me?

Great, you could hear me. I barely had time

to step away and everything fell apart at once. Good, can you hear me?

Since we agreed with you on

a certain time slot and

a certain format, therefore

Alexei, a question for Maxim, and then

we'll wrap up.

with closing statements, which I think will be

commensurate with the discussion. Obviously, we could

talk here for hours, and you have many questions for Maxim,

and Maxim and his audience have many questions for you and your

audience, but I

think this is a good beginning, at least

what happened today, with all

the technical glitches, including

my microphone cutting out for a while,

nevertheless, please tell us your

question for Maxim—and make sure it doesn't

duplicate what has already been said.

because we've already touched on several things.

All right, I understand. I also have many

questions for Maxim, but I will

stick to our agenda. And here's an

important point: yes, there is a kind of

déjà vu here. Maxim, in 2018 I absolutely

supported the voters' strike

and I believe it was a very correct

thing to do, and it was precisely thanks to that strike

With voters, we managed to make that strategy work.

At the vote, at the election.

For the Moscow City Duma, because we showed

look, these worthless candidates

say whatever you want, they won’t get

anything. We’ll fight for decent

candidates, and the worthless candidates

really did get about one percent there,

while many decent candidates became

deputies—excellent people. Now, in

2018, you were telling many people the same thing:

let’s vote for Yavlinsky.

This is the most correct strategy—don’t lie

on the couch.

Your voice, your vote, your statement

is to vote for Sobchak, whom I

have a very good opinion of. Apparently you think much

more highly of her than of him—why have you written him off like that,

the old guard?

And yet, please explain:

what exactly was the power of that statement in 2018

if a person listened to you and went

to vote for Sobchak, and then

then Sobchak—I don’t know—was like a hot-dog

vendor on every corner. Was there

really any point in that supposedly powerful political

statement? In fairness, I should note

on my own behalf that this is about as relevant to

the current agenda as the previous

question from Maxim Katz.

So, so, let’s not go backward

in reverse chronology just because people are starting to forget. The question—

the question was about your support. I allowed

that to be brought up. I’m noting this down—Maxim Katz, don’t

avoid the question. Let’s start with Yavlinsky,

about whom, for some reason, both you and other

people keep constantly urging me to speak.

I have a good attitude toward Yavlinsky.

He is a historical figure; he took part in all the key

events of our country and did not

always take the morally correct

position. Unfortunately, he was unable to gather

a substantial number of votes or

an audience.

He is a person I respect. Will you apologize

to

An important point: is he currently taking

the morally correct position? Wait, Alexei, this is

my—no, Alexei—stop, stop, Alexei.

Alexei, we interrupted Maxim when he

interrupted, and now we’re interrupting you, Maxim.

Let’s continue. The protest has shifted in tone.

If possible, don’t interrupt, because I

understand that dialogue is normal, but

this format is not the format

for talking over each other; do that elsewhere.

Yavlinsky’s morally correct position

right now? I think no, right now he is not

taking the correct position. I believe

that right now he is making a mistake on a tactical

question. That is, this is not comparable to

the issue of his attitude toward Crimea

or toward the war in Chechnya—that’s why he is a historical

figure. As for Yavlinsky,

regarding voting, at the time I believed

then, just as I do now, that we must

come and speak out. I did not call on everyone

I called on people to vote for Yavlinsky,

but I always added that you could choose

another candidate or spoil your ballot

without thereby reducing the percentage

for Vladimir Putin. I believe that when

there is a ballot box next to you, you should always

put your opinion into it—your protest,

whether that is a protest vote or a vote for your

candidate. That has always been my position,

always. In 2012 and in 2013, when we

ran for Moscow mayor and tried to win

the election, and in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017, and in

2011, and in 2019 and 2020—this has been my position

always. Usually, in an authoritarian

regime that controls all elections,

it makes all of them unfair. Whether it’s the elections

to the Moscow City Duma—were they fair? They removed

all the main candidates.

They barred Yashin, Rusakova, and others. Is that

a fair election? No, of course not. In

an authoritarian regime there cannot be fair

procedures that we could call

fair elections, because if there were,

they would start losing power—you’re right about that too.

They would lose power in that case. But we

must use what exists. Here they are,

opening the ballot box, and right now they

have problems. Yes, they really did not think through

this whole procedure, but then an unprecedented

crisis struck. They had planned this before the coronavirus

crisis, and now they have problems.

Their ratings have dropped significantly. You must

use every available opportunity, and

the 2018 presidential election was something we should

have used; we should not have

stood aside. And the Moscow City Duma elections were used very

effectively, and the municipal elections in

2017, where you were silent, but we

used them very effectively, and the election in

2019 to the Moscow City Duma as well, of course.

And now we must use this

vote to consolidate people

around the idea

that we do not support Putin’s lifelong

rule. You must give a very

simple, clear, and understandable message:

explain it to your relatives, explain it

to your neighbors, explain it to your acquaintances

that we are against this, and that you can go and express

your opinion.

Absolutely.

With full awareness of the importance of it, and with every precaution, so as

not to put yourself at risk under any circumstances.

If you are elderly, it is better to vote remotely or

not at all, or perhaps, if elderly people

are in a risk group, then it may be possible to

abstain and find someone who

will vote against after you persuade them. But we

must give a clear and understandable message to people who think

that we are against Putin, and we are going to vote

against Putin, and we go to rallies when

he is against the path, and we are taking part in

what exists now in order to show our

position—no inaction. That is my

view; I hope it is clear. Thank you very much. I

think we will move on to the closing

remarks—the closing, well, closing... I

would not call this a debate, to be honest. I would

call it a discussion, a conversation, because

again, despite

Maxim's efforts, despite being on

Alexei's side,

any strong contradiction in the positions. If

I am honest, I still do not understand why there is

something preventing people from

voting against it there, while at the same time, as

Alexei said, insisting on

the illegitimacy of everything happening and the

lack of legal status of everything else.

Alexei, let us start with you. Three minutes

to wrap up today's discussion, for

which thanks go to all the participants and

viewers, of course. Thank you very much.

Everyone, I am very glad that Maxim, in the end,

repeated several times quite insistently:

"We are against Putin, we are against Putin."

That is certainly true, and it is important to explain to everyone

that being against Putin means

doing various things that undermine

his ratings, his authority, his power—not

just voting, depending on the situation. If here

we are talking about voting, and here we

are talking about there being many victims, as

Maxim wrote, then that is, after all, you know,

a game changer.

We need to think a little and

explain everything to people very, very clearly. Or, after all, there are

the die-hard dissidents—they do not

believe in any of this, you understand, and they too

need it explained. This is important: when we

talk about unfair elections or something else,

then of course we will participate in

unfair elections—they are all unfair—but in

elections there is a special procedure for that.

Again, this is not even called

an election; there is nothing there. So within

the huge range of possible actions, this too

may have a place. But I would still like

the outcome of our discussion to be an understanding

of how many problems lie within this. I

am glad that Maxim agreed with me

and acknowledged that there is no

monitoring.

I am glad that Maxim acknowledged and described in detail

this situation with

the coronavirus. This is what people need

to have explained to them. I probably did not understand

whether Maxim acknowledged or did not acknowledge that

these amendments have, after all, already been voted through

and have already entered into force, but [__], yes, I understand.

And this is what people need to hear, and this is not

Well, and I have here a huge

number of quotes from all the best-known, most

important specialists in constitutional

law who speak about this. If Michael

gives us two more minutes, I will read them out in defense of this,

but I do not think that is even necessary.

If they are somewhere here, let us ask—not for permission,

but while I am here, and the heat of the argument is dying down with

you on stage, the goal is to survive. And in closing,

I want to say that right now

this really is an important moment.

But the importance of this moment does not lie

in the fact that they put a booth in front of us

and said, "This is a vote," although

there is no real vote there, and the ballots are simply

flying off to who knows where. The important moment

is the real drop in the ratings.

And the important point is that

when people understand that this is about resetting the terms,

they begin to orient themselves strategically,

they turn against the authorities, and this

is the moment that must be used—to wage

a major campaign around the fact that this vote is

a vote for "zeroing out" presidential terms, and we see that

people are campaigning in that way. Therefore,

once again I want to appeal to Maxim,

Ekaterina Shulman and Valery Solovey, I do not

know who else is taking part there—

various good people—let us direct

our energy outward. There are 60 million

people who do not understand at all that

this is a vote for resetting the terms; they

think it is about pension indexation and about cats.

That is where the blow should be directed, where the energy should go—not

toward castigating those who, for various

reasons, from coronavirus concerns to

a sense of moral unacceptability, do not want to go to

the polling station.

Thank you very much, Alexei. Maxim, your

closing remarks. Yes, so, first of all, I am

glad that by the end the tone

of the conversation changed a little.

We moved away from endless accusations of lying, and we

began speaking more constructively.

Naturally, I did not base my position on any lie,

and I am no longer accusing Alexei.

There may simply be an honest mistake.

People, if you are mistaken, please correct yourself.

Please. Now I should say that

the very subject of the discussion was slipping away from me a little here.

For the most part, we were in agreement on everything.

The only difference between our positions

is clarity

versus vagueness.

There is a completely clear action, a step

against it—that is, a step to express oneself

in opposition.

The first step is to vote no, and

the second step

is to look at the result of the first step.

Will they steal it or not? Most likely, the results

of the referendum will be announced as a victory

for Putin.

Most likely, that is how it will be, regardless of

what you choose—at least we should know the norm,

most likely. But the outcome and

the result in authoritarian regimes are not

synonyms. An explicit protest vote and

an obviously high turnout percentage

against blatant falsification, this is in some way

a new kind of political behavior overall

what the election organizers are doing now speaks to

the fact that they are not confident in the result

if they were confident, there would be no talk of puppies or

medicine, and no one would be bringing up billboards

with cheerful slogans, the way they usually hang during

ordinary elections: vote for Putin, yes

they even did that in previous election campaigns

before, there were billboards saying that Putin was calling on people to vote, whereas

now, not even the governors mention Putin

no, now no one is saying this is about his endless

presidency; now we’re supposedly voting for

kittens and the memory of our ancestors

this administrative nervousness, this herding

of state employees, these lotteries, the food giveaways—yes, all of this

is aimed at those who are most likely to

vote anyway. Yes, it’s the same thing: that is not how

winners behave, or people who are confident in

the outcome. The organizers know they have

big problems, and our task is to make sure

that TV cannot so easily deceive people into thinking that

there was some kind of overwhelming support

the only clear-cut choice, without any blurring

or any such intermediate positions,

is a call to vote against it

with an explanation of why, with detailed

arguments, but of course, certainly

while observing all safety precautions and

warning about the dangers of this vote

campaigning, explaining, persuading people

of course, about what exactly should be done here

in real life, not in this talk about presidency or the memory

of ancestors

but this campaigning must lead to

action; then people will act when

the number of victims, unfortunately, does not depend on us

this will happen anyway

we are not accomplices to this crime, and this

crime will have to be

investigated later, in my view. It already

happened the moment this kind of

voting format was appointed. There is no need to take on

someone else’s responsibility for the lives or

the economic consequences of this, which is

overall a catastrophic event, like

this vote, like that parade. But you must

explain to people how to reduce the risk of these

serious consequences, without avoiding

the expression of a clear and understandable position

here. Thank you, thank you

very much. Many thanks to Alexei

Navalny, and many thanks to Maxim Katz

for the fact that, as we all know, the viewers—including

those aware of some internal disagreements

between the two of you—and many thanks that for

our sake, for the viewers, you set them aside for

a while and really

presented your own positions. And it seems to me

that this is a landmark moment. We, without

studios—an extraordinary moment—just like this vote

apparently much more important than the vote, in

my view, because without the media, without

any additional editorial structures, without

affiliation with anything whatsoever, we

were able to come together, though not without difficulties,

and somehow exchange opinions

a lot of people watched us, thank you very much

everyone. And subscribe to the Anti-Corruption Foundation

and to the Alexei Navalny channels

Alexei Navalny Live

and donate to the Anti-Corruption Foundation. Subscribe to

Maxim Katz and his channel as well; it is

called, if I heard that right, City Projects

City Projects

and, well, why not, you can also

subscribe to our channel with Sasha Plyushchev, the very one

on which you are watching these debates. If you do not

understand why they are happening here specifically,

that’s fair

I do not really understand it either, to be honest, but

nevertheless, they took place here, and you can

subscribe to this channel. Thank you very much, everyone

all the best. And I think there will still be

a great deal more information that you will

hear and see in the run-up to the

vote

and most importantly, make your decision anyway

based on some kind of facts, but on your own

not by blindly following someone—whether Maxim

or Alexei or me—just blindly

following them. Thank you very much, all

the best. Thank you, Maxim. Thank you, Alexei.