"Debate for the Opposition Coordination Council (Semifinal)"

Good evening, we continue

the semifinal debates on Dozhd (TV Rain). I hope

you are voting on the websites cvk2022.ru and k22

.org, and also write on Twitter. Unfortunately, I

can't see it, but

if you are doing it using the hashtag #KS_elections,

then the other viewers can see your

impressions and read your messages. And

today with us is Boris Nemtsov, one of the

leaders of the democratic opposition, a member

of the bureau of the Solidarnost (Solidarity) united

democratic movement, the public democratic

movement, and Oleg Kashin, a journalist, as well as

joining us by phone, Gennady Gudkov,

a Russian politician and former deputy of the

State Duma.

Hello, can you hear us? Good evening.

Good evening. Thank you all for being

with us today.

And the first general question will put you

before a difficult choice. This is an even more

hypothetical, abstract situation.

So,

for prosperity—or not even prosperity, but rather

for a normal life

for Russia,

there are, let's say, three key properties, and you

will have to make this

choice: natural resources—oil,

gas—part of

its territory,

we are not asking which part exactly, no—just

so that Russia would become smaller,

or Russia would be without natural

resources,

or without civil liberties. We do not mean

those that we do not have today, but, say,

the most basic ones: freedom of

enterprise, religion,

movement, and so on. To give up one of these

features: natural resources,

part of the territory, or a temporary renunciation of

civil liberties. And the first to answer the

question will be Gennady

Gudkov.

Well,

natural resources are not only our blessing, but also our

curse, because you dig into the ground, strike

a fountain of oil, and this opportunity

to always plug any hole with oil, gas,

and natural resources has played a bad trick on us

over the course of

many years. This is not only happening today,

it happened before as well, and therefore

natural resources have played a cruel

trick on us—we have become too complacent.

And today we see how a rich country,

a very rich country, the richest in the world, cannot

eliminate poverty, cannot

eliminate—basically cannot do anything,

and lags a century behind in terms of

economic development. This despite the fact that

despite the fact that

that is all.

Time is up. Next to answer will be

Boris

Nemtsov. Well, giving up civil liberties is

a catastrophe under no

circumstances. No such thing as temporary—here, temporary

means for life. We know that. Second, giving up

resources—

I headed a government department when oil was at

$10 a barrel, and I can tell you that for us

this was, I don't know, something the Lord sent us—this

burden of oil and gas—and we do not know what to do

with it. Theft, Gazprom, Transneft,

Yukos, and so on, the loans-for-shares auctions—it is all

connected with this disgrace, with our

resources. The sooner they run out,

the sooner we will live in a free,

democratic,

successful, technologically advanced country in which

human potential will truly

be in demand. Nemtsov, of course, is not ready

even to give up empty, even desert

territory.

There is, after all, the well-known story of how Vladimir

Vladimirovich praised you for not handing

over

the islands to the Japanese. Luzhkov praised me, yes—who

didn't praise Boris Nemtsov, really, who didn't.

And answering this question will be

Oleg Kashin. Well, not in order to

seem original, but rather on the basis of

reason, I would give up territory. More than that,

most likely I would give up Moscow, because

first, I do not feel sorry for it, and second, it

could easily be retaken later. But if

we give up gas, we will regret it and

suffer. So yes, actually,

you can surrender Moscow and save Russia.

A famous Kutuzov-style slogan. Thank you.

The pragmatic Oleg Kashin believes that

it is better to keep the gas, and the territory we can later

reconquer ourselves. That concludes the general

questions for our candidates, and now we move on to

individual ones. Let me remind you once again, and more importantly

remind the viewers, that I am not the one inventing the questions.

In that sense, you are lucky. They are chosen only by

lot.

Tell us, Mr. Gudkov: in 2004 you

voted to abolish the election of

governors. Why did you do that, and is this not

one of the roots of

Russia's current troubles?

Who is this question for?

For you. Yes, that is complete nonsense. I do not know where you

got that from. I was the last island

of resistance in the State

Duma. I voted against abolishing

single-mandate districts, against abolishing governors' elections. More

than that, in 2004 I

alone—almost alone—had

serious problems with the authorities, which

ended almost with the fact that I did not

they started finishing me off in

the campaign because I spoke out harshly

against

the elections. It was hysteria, and naturally this

caused irritation, since it was clear

that the events in Beslan (the 2004 school siege in North Ossetia) were merely

a pretext for pushing a new

doctrine. So, frankly speaking, I

really don’t know where you’re getting all this from

I understand, your answer is absolutely clear

the only thing is

I’d like to quote Gennady

Gudkov, in an interview with Interfax in 2004, uh

it would have been much more honest to write into

the law that all regional legislative assembly members are required to resign their

powers and go through the foolish procedure of reappointment

right

now. This is simply as a kind of

background note. Irony. And now this is already

the real answer to the question. It was

irony. Next question for Boris

Nemtsov: Berezovsky, Linets, Prokhorov,

Khodorkovsky, Chubais

Kiriyenko — understand that...

all these people are wealthy. All right,

no, I really don’t know anything about Kiriyenko

about Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky, now

people are saying different things already. All these people are in

good relations with you

A question from Twitter: Can

political allies be friends without

the risk, if not of corruption, then of

let’s name a few more surnames. One moment. Let’s

name the main one

Fine. Berezovsky wanted to head

Gazprom; I didn’t let him do it

it’s surprising that you don’t know that. I

know it perfectly well, but I also know that you

became friends afterward. Second, second, second—

Berezovsky wanted to buy, together with Gusinsky,

Svyazinvest. I said everything would be

done fairly. They got nowhere

next, Berezovsky supported Putin in the

presidential election; I was against that kind of

brazen support. It ended badly, by the way,

for Boris Abramovich. Next, Berezovsky

was in court with Fridman. I testified

as a witness for Fridman in London

in court. Any questions? The previous question

is still the same: Can there be

political allies who are friends, or

rivals, without the risk not only of corruption

but

of cronyism. I understand the question; it’s a

roundabout one. Put simply, you asked:

Nemtsov, are you corrupt or not? No,

that’s not what I’m asking at all. Nemtsov, how

will you resist it?

You know, I’ve been offered

money many times, and in large amounts. If

I had given in even once—and everyone needs money

yes, I think I wouldn’t be here in these debates

taking part in some coronation council. Instead,

Vladimir Vladimirovich would with great

pleasure, under the guidance of a Czech

spy, send me where I belong. Yes,

I generally think that everyone wants to make money

but you have to think about freedom and reputation

every second, especially when

you’re in power. You still haven’t answered the

question: Can political allies

be friends without the risk of corruption? Boris

thinks they can. A question for Oleg

Kashin

Oleg, there should be a disclaimer here

you know, a conflict of interest: the co-owner

of TV Rain (Dozhd), Alexander Vinokurov, and

so on. We do have a disclaimer: we

have family ties with

Oleg Kashin, and I know a lot about him, so

therefore—but people are asking

on social media: Oleg, you are an extraordinarily vain

person

there are entire social phenomena called

“Kashin’s jacket,” “Kashin’s blazer”

38,000 people know whether today

Kashin pinched his crotch when he sat down on a...

and so on. The point is not whether there is a lot of you or

not; the point is whether this is appropriate

behavior for a human rights advocate who

is supposed to be modest, or for a politician

who is supposed, first and foremost, to be not about

himself either

Is it normal to behave this way for

a person who wants to represent

other people’s interests? 45 seconds. In the previous

round of the debate I spoke about the destroyed

system of ethical coordinates, so

I consider it my duty to rebuild it from scratch

of course, at some stage this may

entail costs, but literally

today I underwent a

polygraph test, and on every point it showed that

I am an honest person. So, gentlemen,

whether I pinched my crotch or not

well, that’s probably better than reading all sorts of

nasty things that also appear in

social media. I do not consider myself, well,

the most odious symbol of these

social networks and the vainest

person. What’s more, a person who

openly admits his vanity is much

more appealing to me, for example, than those who

pretend to be Chulpan Khamatova (a well-known Russian actress and charity activist), while

in reality turning out, as the saying goes,

to be something else entirely

Tolstoy. Thank you, Oleg, the answer is absolutely

clear: honest vanity is better

Now you may begin by asking your questions to Gennady

Gudkov. Boris will ask the first one

Nemtsov, you are our comrade and ally. I’m glad that

you are with

us. It really is hard for a comrade

and ally to ask any

but when, on Putin’s orders and with the

execution carried out by Volodin, you were stripped of your mandate

yes, for some reason you sent a “chain letter”

to deputies from United Russia, and moreover...

telling the deputies that they were normal,

decent people, that they would surely understand that

this must not be done, that it was a disgrace, and so on.

Did you really not understand that they were

part of this rotten, utterly miserable

system, and no matter how good they might be individually,

as people,

then why did you do it?

Well, still, three letters did hit

the mark: Stanislav Govorukhin, Alexander Shtein,

and Boris Reznik did not vote—they went

against their faction. And the elites need to be split,

and for them it was a moment of truth.

I understood perfectly well that my “letters of happiness”

or rather, my appeal not to take part in

the political

reprisal, and

what happened—splitting them—works in favor of

the protest movement, it works in favor of future

transformations, it works in favor of

future political reforms. And if today they

wavered—wavered, and still

voted—that does not mean that next time

there cannot be

a transformation in part of that elite which

needs to abandon those rules that

have been imposed on them, of course. And they themselves

find it repulsive—they themselves do it

simply

with enormous disgust. Nevertheless, for now

they are still doing it. Thank you, thank you. And your

next question—Oleg to Gennady. Yes, I

would like to ask you perhaps a

philosophical question: how far

are you prepared to go in your, well, I don’t know,

struggle? What are you prepared to sacrifice?

At worst, they’ll jail you, they’ll jail Dima, right?

So what would have to happen for you to

say: that’s it, enough, I’m no longer

taking part in this? I’m just curious, because

I probably forgot to ask you in

the interview. Here you are...

I don’t know, maybe...

As they say, for me as a person it’s already too late

to leave the game, because the losses

that there have been for me personally, for my

family, for my relatives and loved ones, are very

substantial, very great. As the saying goes, once you’ve lost

your head, you don’t cry over your hair, so I

am, of course, ready to drink the cup to the dregs.

All the same, if we have set out on this path,

we must follow it through to victory, because

this will be a victory not only for us, and not

even primarily for us—it will be a victory for Russia, it

will be a victory for our people, because we

want to make Russia finally

become a normal country, so that

it no longer bears this cross that

we have carried for centuries—this absolute

autocracy, which still exists today in the same form.

If we can cope with this too, we

can cope with anything. So, in general, the answer is:

I don’t know.

Thank you, thank you, Gennady.

And please don’t go away—ask your

question to Boris right away.

Nemtsov. Well, I’m grateful to Boris for

his kind words, and as for a question, I don’t

really have any fundamental questions for him.

I’ll probably just ask the question

that is important for defining the opposition’s

program.

They say...

about the problems of today’s Russia: what is it that we must

fix first and foremost in order for

the country truly to become

worthy of our people, in order for it

truly to be the kind of country

we can be proud of? What is the main thing,

the very essence? Well, I believe that

Russia’s main problem is an immoral,

lying, cynical, and thieving

government.

[music]

We are engaged in something very dangerous and very

noble. Because in essence, we are

electing to an organization—a coronation

council—that is a ticket to a prison bunk,

not access to the budget, not access to

property—a ticket to a prison bunk. Nevertheless,

wonderful people, my comrades, including

Gennady, are taking part in this.

That means that we do, after all, want to set the

country on an honest path. That is very noble.

Unfortunately, the authorities turned out to be far

worse than their own people. And the sooner we

deal with them, the better it will be for

our country. Thank you, Boris Yefimovich.

Thank you, and please answer the

next question. Oleg Kashin, yes, please.

Boris, you were a television hero of my

childhood, and as a child I heard many times

on television that you were one of the possible

successors to Boris Yeltsin. Try, in

40 seconds, to convince me that if you

had really become Yeltsin’s successor through the same

shameful procedure by which Putin did, then

you would not have become like Putin, that you would not

have ended up with your own “Ozero” cooperatives (a reference to Putin’s close-knit dacha cooperative),

and so on. I myself don’t see an answer to

this question—not in 40 seconds, not even in five more. I

see. You know, I was a governor for six years.

And when I became governor,

Nizhny Novgorod Region was somewhere around

55th place in terms of

socioeconomic development. And

when I moved to work in the government,

it had entered the top ten leading regions

of the country. Second, in the wild 1990s,

Nizhny Novgorod Region was one of the few places

where there were no contract killings.

Third, I was never subjected

to criminal prosecution on charges of

corruption or theft—not once. Although Putin

still wants that to be the case. Besides, it wasn’t

me—journalists called Nizhny Region

“the land of unafraid journalists”; that’s not my

phrase—that’s what people said.

In this way, through my work, I proved that, in

general, I am fully capable of pursuing exactly such a

humane, democratic course and

giving people the opportunity to

fulfill themselves.

I expected the answer that I would not have become

a successor under Putin’s scheme because

it is distasteful to me, but I won’t

put words in Boris’s mouth—his time has passed.

Instead, I did not become

the successor. Of course, Russia was unlucky in that regard,

but maybe I was lucky. Well,

please ask Oleg Kashin something

for 30

seconds.

As for the opposition’s plans and goals, here is what

needs to be done so that the media

first, are truly independent and

actually begin leading the people rather than responding

to the demand of the day, so to speak. That is what

must be done first and foremost. No, I, for one,

actually believe that nothing needs to be

done at all—the market will put everything in

its proper

place.

A company has no right to own, and

of course the Presidential Administration

should be abolished altogether as a structure

of state power—an absolutely

unlawful one—and this vicious

practice of meetings and phone calls should be eliminated. And

since personnel also decide everything, I would

simply send them out by bus, plane,

and train, everyone without exception, for a year or two

to study at least in Estonia, ideally in

America. Yes, because unfortunately

Russia, in terms of development—specifically in

the self-awareness of a free press—has also

fallen behind even its former neighbors.

So if state policy is needed

in this area, it should only be of this kind:

encouraging, yes. Not in order to

correct Oleg, but simply so that our

viewers understand this clearly:

the ban on foreigners working in the field of

media is absolutely public knowledge; these are

legislative acts that were adopted

several years ago already. Boris,

your question to Oleg Kashin. Oleg, on November 6, 20—

when you were brutally beaten near my

home—it was near our homes, the media—

homes; I still rent an apartment there.

That is a very important clarification. By now,

the whole world knows about it, I think.

And to this day the thugs have not

been found, although Medvedev, there in the Holy Land,

promised you they would be found, but as usual he did not fulfill

his promise. You had

a version that Yakimenko did it.

At one time, you were in close contact with him,

you were even a member of his

team, so to speak. And then you realized he was a scoundrel, and

can you tell me—when exactly

did this revelation come to you? I was never

a member of his team, and I spoke

with him maybe four times in my life over 12 years

of knowing him. And I remember the date of my revelation

perfectly clearly: it was March 2008,

when the Nashi activists (members of the pro-Kremlin youth movement Nashi) attacked a journalist

for the first time. It was my friend Yulia

Taratuta. Boris Nemtsov remembers—he was working

then at *Kommersant*, which they also

attacked. From that moment on, my attitude toward them was no longer

positive; my previously neutral attitude

toward them turned negative, and

essentially from then on, from then on, through a

snowball effect, by the summer of 2010

I really was, without false

modesty, one of the three main

enemies of that movement. I know this, among other things,

from certain insider information

connected with that movement that I

have. And I can also say that today’s

polygraph showed that I genuinely do not

doubt this version. One of the three

main enemies—and the second enemy was Kashin’s

jacket, and the third enemy was Kashin’s

blazer. I thank you, dear

viewers, for continuing to watch

us. Vote on the website cvk202.org

and cvk22.ru. In this round, with us were

Gennady Gudkov, Boris Nemtsov, and Oleg

Kashin.

Thank you. Bout four.

[music]

[music]

Good evening. The final round, the final

semifinal round of the debates on

TV Rain (Dozhd). With this, the semifinal

comes to an end. Next week we

meet in the final, where each evening

there will be only one group of five candidates. Four

days, 20 people, and only one person from

each group of five will be declared

the winner. And today we have a trio,

the last trio of the day. With us

is Arkady Babchenko, war correspondent,

civil activist, co-organizer

of the movement For Honest Power. Good evening.

Alexei Navalny, lawyer and public

figure. Hello, Alexei. And Ilya Yashin,

one of the leaders of the Solidarnost movement.

Thank you, thank you, dear viewers.

Let me remind you that you need to post

on Twitter with the hashtag #выборыКС so that

your comments and impressions

appear on our screen right now here

live on TV Rain. And

only verified, registered users may vote

for the participants—registered and

verified users of the system

available on the website cvk

202.22.

Registered users will be able

to take part in the elections

on October 20 and 21.

simply by showing up, but it is better if they

complete the second part of the verification process first.

They will be able to vote online, and already

now, if they are registered, they

can support one of the candidates

from the previous groups of three, or the candidate who

is standing before you now in today's

debates. Only one from this group of three

will advance to the final, which will take place

next week.

The rules are very simple. I ask one question

to all participants, after which social media users

have prepared their own

individual questions for each of the

participants, after which the participants will ask

each other

questions. What is the greatest, most important

achievement of the last 20 years, without separating

the Yeltsin era from what followed, treating it as one

over the past 20

years, seems most important to you?

Freedom

of enterprise. Freedom of ideology

and the freedoms associated with it,

freedom of religion, political freedom, and

so on, as well as freedom of movement, including

the right

to emigrate. Arkady Babchenko answers:

You know, when the form is created first, and

then people go looking for some meaning to fit it, something

to fill it with—its content—well, all of this

leads to questions like this about

a spherical horse in a vacuum (a Russian expression for an abstract, unrealistic scenario), and

to this wonderful session of stand-

up comedy that we had here.

Thank you for lifting our spirits. The most

important thing that has happened over the last 20 years,

the main event, I consider to be the usurpation of power. I

consider it a forceful seizure of power by this

guy who came in and said, 'Guys,

I'm going to be your tsar for life, because

it's already clear that we are not going to have

any elections.' I don't understand what

achievements we can even talk about now, when we

are living under

an occupying power. That is definitely

the most important thing that has happened to us, and

it is something we absolutely must fight. And do you

really not see the difference between

these twenty years with open

borders, for example, and Soviet rule, when

people

were imprisoned for their beliefs, and everyone else

could not leave? I just want

to clarify—right now, half of what I

asked was a very precise question for

a politician, yes: what achievement of the last

20 years do you consider

important? Maybe, maybe you don't

seem to agree—you have a different opinion, Ilya.

You know, Demyan, in some ways you remind me of Putin.

Putin also keeps offering us

this choice between freedom and

stability all the time, or a pension—yes, you'll

receive it, but then we'll take away your civil

rights—or freedom

of movement—well then we'll take away freedom

of enterprise too, according to your

version. So, you know, I don't like playing

these kinds of games with Putin, and I won't

play them with you either. All the

achievements you listed have

great value for us, and they are

inviolable. It is very important that

the democratic opposition, in the broad

sense, representing the full spectrum

of ideologies, stand firm on preserving these

values, these achievements. Right now

they are under threat, and we must

make every effort to ensure that these

values take root in our country

and endure for many years to come. I can only

agree with you. Though I just want

to say that there are countries today

that live better than Russia and have given up

one of these freedoms—for example,

China exists, and there are countries

with restricted movement. So these

freedoms can be considered separately, and

let's hear an opinion on this from

Alexei Navalny. Our greatest

achievement is the people who once

won these rights and freedoms,

and, most importantly, the people

who are not now prepared

to give them up. As my colleagues say,

people who are not ready to say, 'Let's have

a little bit of elections, and a little bit of

fakery. Let's have anti-

corruption efforts, but also let someone

steal a billion from Gazprom.' In other words, people

who are not willing to divide rights and

freedoms—human and civil rights, the basic

fundamental guarantees given to us by the right to life and by

the Constitution—people who are not willing

to split them into primary and secondary. That

is our main achievement. And do you

think such people exist, and that there are already many of them?

There are many of them. They are with us. They are in this studio.

They are all around us. I will be glad, on that

note, to conclude the first general question

for all candidates and move on to

individual questions from Twitter.

Many of them, in fact—this is a

typological question. It comes up often.

Many candidates for the Coordinating Council

emphasize that everyone should stick to

their own profession, that we should

do what we understand, and

leave the rest to professionals. The question

for Arkady Babchenko is as follows:

if civic protest in

Russia turns into something like a civil

war, or, let's say, an armed

confrontation, will you, as a war

correspondent, take one side, or will you

stick to your profession?

If the confrontation in Russia enters

the phase of civil war, I will set aside

my profession for a while and take up

pick up a weapon and go fight for the freedom and

independence of my homeland. And only after that

will I think about my profession, about the sides, and about

covering this conflict. This is my

country. I am ready to fight for it, for the sake of

the freedom of my children. I understand. And, Alexei,

a question for

you, a very specific one—particularly

because your views are generally well known to everyone

and really it is not worth

spending time on that. And this question is, well,

more or less personal, and I do not even know, um,

so to speak.

Whether you want to answer it:

if the threat of your imprisonment in the

Kirovles case becomes real and

becomes a serious threat, what will you choose

in order not to go to prison, given that

you can do more while free:

admit guilt and continue your public

activity, leave the country and

continue your public activity, or

temporarily stop engaging in

public

activity? In the last four years there has not been

a single week when someone

did not tell me, “You’ll be jailed soon.” Every

new investigation brought

comments: “You’ll be jailed soon.” This

Kirovles case has been going on for two years already, and

for two years insiders have been coming to me

saying, “You’ll be jailed soon.” So I know

what I am doing. I believe in what I

am doing. My family supports me,

the people I work with support me.

I value that support immensely. Alongside me

there are hundreds of people working on

the RosPil project, and thousands of people work with us

altogether. I will never trade

the support and trust of these people for anything

else. I have been doing what I do, and

I will keep doing it no matter what. And

you will not admit your guilt? There was one—

You cannot admit to something that does not exist. The case is

absolutely, completely fabricated. They

can, with the help of their wonderful

Czech agent Bastrykin (a sarcastic reference to Alexander Bastrykin, head of Russia’s Investigative Committee), invent

any number of fabricated cases. What

is happening now over May 6 (the Bolotnaya Square protest case), we

can see them cooking up a case literally out of

thin air. That has stopped no one, and it will not

stop me. Understood? Understood. Thank you, Le—

No, no, you answered about the million

in the first round, thanks to which, in fact,

you made it to the second. I think that means

you owe me

—no, the question is this:

social media users

believe that you are still associated

with various kinds of youth

political wings. It is clear that the phrase

“Youth Yabloko” (the youth wing of the Yabloko liberal party) is mainly, so to speak,

to blame for this, but they also speak of

so to speak, a certain

boyishness in your actions, some kind of

performative activism. Is there serious

substantive political work, so to speak, in Ilya Yashin?

You know, I partly accept this criticism.

Indeed, in my actions

there is often a certain boyish

streak, and so far I cannot fully get a handle on it

100 percent. Although I understand this problem

and I am working on it. But when we

hung, for example, the “Putin, Leave” banner in

January, I told myself once again that

this would be the last such flashy, provocative

action. But you know, I am striving

to engage in some

substantive work. For example, I was

a co-author of a Ministry of Internal Affairs reform project

—an alternative police reform project, um,

to the one Medvedev proposed. For those

of our viewers who do not know, whose co-author

was Vladimir Milov. We wrote it together with

Vladimir Milov. At that time we worked closely together with him

and were friends; there is absolutely

no secret here. We wrote what I think was

a very clear text that

won approval both from

serving law enforcement officers

and professional circles, as well as from

veterans. Well, listen, soon we will

write a reform program on how

to reform the pension system. I

have something to offer there to my supporters,

to people who sympathize with me. Thank you.

Thank you. Your 45 seconds are up, and now you

move on to the most interesting part—to the

questions that you have for each

other. And the first to answer will be Arkady, while

Alexei Anatolyevich will ask the question.

Thank you. I read

your blog with great pleasure and value you highly as a publicist.

But one of your posts alone, well, stirred in me

rather contradictory emotions and

curiosity. When you spoke about the “compass”

that all the candidates filled out, you

wrote that none of this

discussion of tax reforms is needed at all; I am not

interested in any of it. And the candidates’ task is

exclusively not to deal with local

elections and rallies, but to radically

resist

the regime. I understand that point of view.

Please tell me, name

three things that you will do

in the Coordination Council from the standpoint of

your specific radical

resistance to the regime. When we come to the

Coordination Council—three of my... specifically what

will you organize?

So, I think I am going to the Coordination Council in order

to use my head there. I believe

that one head is good, but 45 heads are much

better. I believe that the Coordination Council should

be that platform

whose main goal, of course, is the replacement

of this regime. But the real, real goal

What we need to be doing right now is

developing methods, methods

and strategies

and methods and strategies for advancing

this protest action of ours

I will be proposing my own

strategies, I will be proposing some

of my own options for developing these strategies

we'll see, we'll work, we will

cooperate — that is how I see my role in this

Thank you, thank you. Ilya, Arkady, well, you are

a man with a military background; behind you are

two Chechen wars, and you know not by

hearsay what

the Caucasus is, and it seems to me that it is precisely

you, more than anyone else, who probably understands

what we should do about the Caucasus. We have

different points of view: some say that

we need to keep feeding the Caucasus (i.e. subsidizing it), some say that

we should not feed the Caucasus, some say

that it should be separated altogether. So you, as

someone who knows what the Caucasus is,

what would you propose doing with it?

As for the Caucasus, back in 2000, in those

years, we had an absolutely

remarkable moment when it was possible

to resolve this Caucasus problem, it was possible

to end this war. Well, I obviously can't fit it into 45

seconds, of course, but that moment

was missed. Now 12 years have passed, and now

this problem has grown to such an extent

that it has surfaced all the way on the opposite

end of the country, in the case of the Primorsky Partisans (a Russian insurgent group from Primorye). I

believe that Russia should be

a federal republic, and all issues

should be decided by referendum

Let's hold a referendum. If the Caucasus

believes it wants to separate,

fine — let it separate. If Russia

believes the Caucasus should be separated, then let's

separate the Caucasus. If the views do not coincide,

then let's decide how this should be carried out,

what kind of referendum it should be. I believe

that all of this should be conducted

through a referendum; everything should be according to the will of the people.

Thank you, Arkady Babchenko, for "the will of the people."

And answering your questions, and the questions

from today's colleagues and interlocutors, will be

Alexei Navalny.

Well, again, I came here not

to fight for power or to oppose

Alexei or Ilya. I came here

to fight the power that we

currently have, and since I am not a voter for either

Ilya or Alexei, I do not, in principle,

consider it very important for

myself to clarify their views on this or that

issue. I think all the more so because

they will represent you in the Coordinating Council, so in

principle I have no questions. How — how

if that's the format, then however you like. I

can ask either one question from

the political compass, or let my

time go — decide that yourselves, you have almost

run out of time for the question. All right,

Alexei, what do you

think: should the Russian army be

exclusively professional? I am deeply

convinced that the Russian army should be

exclusively professional. There is

a huge number of studies that

say that Russia can afford it — it is

wealthy enough to have

a professional army. Moreover, modern

studies show that switching to

a professional army would give us

additional GDP growth of around one and a half

percent. And I want to draw your attention to the fact that

the current conscription-based army is

in effect, first of all, a tax on the poor,

and second, also a tax on poor people

from the regions: the probability of being drafted from Moscow

or from St. Petersburg is six times lower than

the probability of being drafted from some other region.

The probability of a child from a poor

family being drafted is 3% higher compared with a child from another

family. We have clear calculations

showing that when a young man

is drafted into the army, his family's income

falls by 15%. Enough tormenting ourselves — we

must switch to a professional army.

Alexei, finish your thought. You probably either

made a mistake, or I misunderstood, so

did you mean a wealthy family?

Absolutely. That's all — I just wanted to make sure.

Ilya, your question. Alexei, you are my friend,

but truth is dearer. A good opening: a man with

presidential ambitions — that's no secret — and

importantly, many people really do

many people perceive you precisely in

that capacity, as a potential

presidential candidate from the united

opposition. But as it seems to me,

a person who aspires to the highest

office in the state cannot

avoid answering the most

fundamental questions. I, with interest, like

many others, looked through your

political compass, and what puzzled

me was that on some important questions

you did not answer — you evaded

answering. Well, for example,

in your political compass, you did not

take a position on whether Russia should have

a titular nation. Well, let's settle it

right now: should Russia have

a titular nation, yes or no? On some

questions in the political compass I did not

answer precisely because the question is too

complex; it cannot be answered

with a simple yes or no. That's life, Ilya; such are

the practical realities. As for Russians

as the titular nation, I believe that Russians

are, first of all, in fact the titular

nation: they make up more than 80%; by UN standards, that is

a monoethnic

country. Second, the Russian language is enshrined in

the Constitution. No further

We do not need to single out certain citizens in

the Constitution; what we need is

to ensure equal rights for citizens

for both Russians who are being, and have been, driven out

of Chechnya and Dagestan, as well as

for other citizens living in

the territory of other republics. Equality—

that is what should concern us.

Real problems—equality is

a real issue, and inequality is too, whereas

mere rhetorical wording

of unclear purpose is not what we need right now. With

relief, I can say that I am

satisfied with the answer. Great.

Arkady, we are now moving on to questions for

Ilya, and here is your question.

First, Ilya, do you think it is necessary

to move government institutions out of

Moscow? Yes, I think this is an important task.

In fact, I believe it is necessary to create

a new city that would become the capital

of our country—a small, compact

city, perhaps in the Moscow region

or in one of the neighboring regions,

or perhaps even somewhere around

the Urals or Siberia—simply a new compact

city where all

administrative institutions would be concentrated. This would

greatly relieve the burden on Moscow. And most importantly,

it would lead to the kind of

decentralization that our country so badly needs.

One of our country's key problems is

this extreme centralization:

all the money is in Moscow, all the power is in Moscow.

The regions exist like some kind of

rightless provinces. Of course, this must be

fought, because in the end it

could lead to the country's collapse, when

the problems of Vladivostok have to be resolved in

Moscow, where people have very little

understanding of Vladivostok. This does not lead to

the strengthening of the country; it leads to its disintegration.

Self-government and the development of the regions—

absolutely. I agree. Thank you.

Alexei, Ilya, I have known you for many years, I know

you as a principled person and

an effective, energetic politician.

I say this with absolutely no irony whatsoever.

Because I worked with you for many years and

value you highly. So, as someone

so energetic, tell me please: after

a year, what benchmark would you set for yourself so that

after a year you could say, yes, I worked effectively

on the Coordinating Council, I did everything

I wanted to do?

I want that in a year the opposition—

the united opposition—

through the Coordinating Council, will have

a clear, substantive alternative

that we can present to society,

so that no one can ever again say to us:

these people can only speak out against things;

they cannot propose anything in favor of anything. Over

the course of this year, we must formulate

a clear political reform plan. Over

this year, we must formulate

a clear judicial reform plan. We

must formulate a plan for

education reform and explain

to people what we want, how we want

to rebuild Russia. We must shape

the image of the future Russia that we

are actually offering to people. And I am ready

to work on some of these reforms.

I am ready to work, in particular,

on political reform. I am ready to continue

working on reform of the law enforcement

system. I think I am ready there

to take part in work on the judicial

system as well. Well, this is in fact important—

truly substantive work.

Thank you, thank you, Ilya, including for

such a

wonderful note, the final note of our

debate today: what should happen to the

Coordinating Council in a year, and

what no one should be able to say to us in a year. We

asked various questions today; all

week we questioned the candidates, and these answers

are valuable not only because perhaps as a result

of them we will know how to vote, but

also because from these answers we will learn

something about the character, political views,

temperament, and immediate plans of those

candidates for whom you can

vote in the upcoming elections

to the Coordinating Council of the Russian

opposition on October 20–21, or even right now

in order to help one of them make it to the

final. The debates on Dozhd (TV Rain) — next time we

will see you on Wednesday; on Monday

and Tuesday the debates will be hosted by Yury Sobkin. My

name is Demyan Kudryavtsev. Goodbye.

Thank you.

[applause]

That's all.

Well done.

[applause]