Alexei Navalny’s interview with Echo of Moscow in St. Petersburg

91.5

FM.

3:05 p.m. in St. Petersburg. Good afternoon, everyone. This is

the Echo of Moscow radio station in

St. Petersburg. We have a kind of

unscheduled broadcast at 3:00. We don’t usually have one,

but there is a reason. Alexei Navalny,

a politician and head of the Anti-Corruption Foundation,

has come to St. Petersburg.

Alexei, welcome.

Good afternoon. I’m very glad, at last, to be

on your program.

We have an SMS line: +7 931 291 5800. I’m

just pulling it up now. There is also

a YouTube livestream from Echo of Moscow St. Petersburg.

You can watch us there and also

ask Alexei questions. My first question

for you is this: I remember the last time you

came to St. Petersburg on this kind of

political visit, specifically as a politician,

was two years ago, when you were launching your

presidential campaign. Here you

opened your first campaign office. Two years have passed.

So it turns out that for almost two years you haven’t

paid attention to it—or at least

you haven’t come to the country’s second-largest city.

I object. I didn’t come,

despite the fact that during the

presidential campaign our team devoted

a huge amount of time to trying to secure

at least some kind of venue so that

I

could meet here with voters

from St. Petersburg. Naturally, for us

this is a priority city. That is exactly why I

began my campaign in

the city of St. Petersburg. That is exactly why

my first—uh, my first trip as part of

the Smart Voting campaign was to

St. Petersburg. Right now this is the most important

political city. It is more

politicized than Moscow. And here we

are working actively. We have a very

active office here. You probably know

about our office’s active work from the news

that this person was jailed, that person was jailed.

And the St. Petersburg authorities, in this

strange and perverse way,

are giving our office’s work very high

marks. So, uh, it’s simply hard to

work here. Quite literally, here

we had to fight for venues in the Volga region and in the south

of Russia to hold meetings, but

in St. Petersburg, in this sense, it is practically

a political Chechnya. Alexei, well,

that’s not entirely true, because there is

an opportunity in St. Petersburg—or at least

it would have been possible to try

to meet, for example, not in the city center

but in Udelny Park. After all,

our officials always suggest going to

Udelny Park or Polyustrovsky Park. These are not

the most central locations. They’re not very

easy to get to, that’s true. But you

have many supporters here in St. Petersburg

who, I’m sure, would have come there

and agreed to meet with you. And if

the officials had refused even there? Well, you

understand—you face risks, in principle,

all the time in your work. Well, as you

rightly say, there are many risks in our

work. The location is chosen by the campaign office. And

this was their principled position,

which I supported as well: when they

lock up, uh, hundreds of people here in St. Petersburg

—well, detain them for taking part in

absolutely peaceful, lawful demonstrations in

the city center. And I myself urge them to go

there, not to Udelny Park. In that case,

for me personally, for my own meeting with

voters, to agree to Udelny Park

—I could not treat people that way.

Who would trust me then

if I tell everyone, “Come out onto

Nevsky Prospekt,” and then I come here myself

and say, “Well, all right, I, uh, I’ll go to

Udelny Park, because that way

they’ll let me set up a stage there”? No, I

believe that, uh, if you are fighting for

the right to take part in peaceful demonstrations,

then you have to pursue it consistently.

So this is more important than, for example,

meeting with some supporters.

At least let them know, “Guys, I

remember you,” and so on.

Well, supporters already understand that I

remember them. I can communicate with them, and

my team communicates with them on my behalf. And it seems to me

that for supporters, this message—that

I am consistent in my position—

is more important than anything else, because

what people want from politics now is honesty.

Well, you know perfectly well that the last time

there was what was called an

“united opposition rally” in St. Petersburg,

they went for some kind of

strange compromise. As I recall, it was

something like joining a rally

against dense infill development or

something of that sort.

Those were defrauded homebuyers, yes. Yes. And what did

that lead to? No one came, and on

the stage, as I understand it, those very

homebuyers banned any criticism of Putin.

We do not want to do that. We

take an honest,

consistent position. And I have a

clear sense that the city of

St. Petersburg now wants

exactly that kind of position.

All right, then let’s just take what

you’re saying about that rally

of defrauded homebuyers and so on. There is also the problem

that in St. Petersburg the opposition is

very fragmented. It is very

divided. And this is not just a recent development. I

remember when I myself was still in school and

was somewhat interested in all the

opposition-related stories. In our city,

there’s a March of the Dissenters, two organizers, two

routes, and so on. It’s complicated.

Let’s talk about why you

came here. You’re starting with Smart Voting

in St. Petersburg. You’re starting

specifically with the municipal elections, not

the gubernatorial ones. Why?

Well, first of all, the fragmentation of the St. Petersburg

opposition really is practically

a meme at this point: people across the country, including at the federal public level,

know that St. Petersburg is

an example of how the opposition can end up

in a fragmented state. That is

precisely why, uh, this is one of the key

reasons we came up with Smart

Voting, because I’m a practical

person, and I’m not going to

waste time by coming, in

particular, to St. Petersburg and saying

that now we’re going to unite the opposition, or

that the opposition needs to be united. That is not

ever going to happen. Simply by

definition. They are different people, and they

have the right to be different. Let’s

leave them alone. Instead, let’s try

to come up with something common for us, for

the voters, for the people of St. Petersburg,

who are simply interested in the fact that

So you just want to lure away

the electorate from these people who are constantly fighting

among themselves in the opposition.

I’m not trying to gather anything at all, I’m not

trying to lure anyone away from anybody. You’re

talking about something else entirely right now.

And I have nowhere to lure them to, you understand? I

am not taking part in the elections, and our party

is not being registered. So I want

to agree on a common framework. And

it has one basic premise. Ninety, and

many even say 99%,

of deputy seats at the local level

are controlled by United Russia. That

is unacceptable and does not reflect the political

preferences of St. Petersburg residents. So we

are going to unite everyone. We are going

to build a framework and bring

people together. And when I say unite everyone,

I mean unite people so that they

vote in a coordinated way against

United Russia in such a way that

the math works out in our

favor and United Russia can, well,

if not be pushed out, then at least be seriously weakened.

That is the main idea. That is why I

came here, and I’m urging everyone to

work on this, including through your

wonderful radio station.

We’ll talk more about the opposition later. But I’m still

concerned about one question. You took part in

the presidential election.

There was always a strong chance that you would not be allowed onto the ballot in that election,

right from the start. And

it’s clear that you were running that campaign not

only in order to win

the presidential election, but also so that more people

would learn about you, so that you could get your ideas across

to voters, raise your

public profile, present yourself,

attract people, show that in order to

win elections—but also for

all the reasons you just listed. Yes,

yes. In St. Petersburg, too, you could probably

have done something similar in the

gubernatorial election. Why don’t you

support any candidate, or put forward

a candidate? The gubernatorial

race.

Could you list the candidates

for me?

Well, no candidates have been registered yet.

You could start by—well, wait, you

weren’t registered either, were you? There is,

for example, Boris Vishnevsky from Yabloko.

There is

Oksana Dmitriyeva said she is running, or

Boris Vishnevsky said—Boris Vishnevsky

said that he is running. That’s what he said on the air.

Excellent. That’s very good. I send

my warm regards to Boris Vishnevsky and all

the other candidates, because all

the other candidates, whoever they

may be, are all automatically far preferable to me

than Beglov. And

why is that? All right. My question is

I’m explaining, I’m explaining. Why can’t we now

build a major campaign around

the gubernatorial election

centered on a candidate who should be

supported? Because, given that

99% of seats at the local level are controlled by

United Russia, the Presidential Administration,

the presidential envoy’s office, Beglov himself—anyone, really—

up to Putin, roughly speaking, absolutely

controls who will be allowed to run. And

they will sit down and draw up a list of candidates against Beglov

that will, uh, be advantageous to him.

That was also the case in the presidential

election. And

you were not allowed onto the ballot in the presidential election.

In the presidential election, they planned

to do exactly that. We fought against it. When

they did it, we called for

a voter strike. As for

the St. Petersburg gubernatorial election,

I’m saying in advance that we will not

call for a strike or a boycott,

because the political situation

has changed, and both Putin’s ratings and, even more so,

United Russia’s ratings have fallen.

Beglov is an absolutely weak

candidate. I think they may well

replace him as things get closer. But in any case,

we are calling, and will call, on everyone to come out and

vote for other candidates. Right now

the task is to work toward a second round

for any candidate at all, whichever one you want—you

can come up right now with some of the most

terrible people, and I would still

say: "Vote for them, because that

would be a vote against Beglov." Well, there was

this meme during the previous gubernatorial

election about Takhir Bigbaev, whom people in St. Petersburg still

remember to this day. Some

guy nobody knew, from

the Green Party. He too was put forward by

the authorities as an opponent to then-Governor Georgy

Poltavchenko. Would you also call on people to vote for another

hypothetical Takhir Bigbaev

because for us it

doesn't matter anyway? It would lower

Beglov's rating, and that would create a chance for

a second round. Right now we're fighting

a monopoly, you understand? We want

to show that, guys, you won't be able

to just easily go ahead and

Let me clarify once again: so literally for

absolutely anyone? Say, for example,

the Communist Bortko runs—right now they're discussing

that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation may nominate

him. Would you also call on people to vote for him

as well, both for

Bortko and, say, for Vishnevsky, if

you support him at least?

I assume, Arseny, that you like Vishnevsky

better than Bortko. I'll tell you, Arseny,

it's probably all well and good for you to vote for

Vishnevsky or whoever. I think

Yabloko will more likely nominate Rybakov.

And some Communist will say: "Well,

I happen to like Bortko better." And I

will say: "Then you vote for Bortko." And I

will—if there is a candidate there whom

I personally like—I myself will

campaign for a specific

candidate. But the main thing, what I will

definitely be urging people to do, is

to come and choose someone. If there

are only those kind of

no-names, as you said—some Takhir

or other—well then, vote for Takhir

simply as a technical matter.

Why don't you want to repeat this thing

about pushing for the registration of

other candidates?

I do, I do, I do want to repeat that. And

I urge all candida— Well, you understand,

when you say, "Until

then, support just anyone," it's impossible

to achieve much that way. The effect will be much

smaller.

No, I just don't know the lay of the land right now. I

don't know who will run. You tell me:

will Dmitrieva run, and will

Yabloko back Vishnevsky, will Maxim

Reznik run?

St. Petersburg is a big, complicated city

politically speaking. Sitting here, I am not

claiming that I understand

St. Petersburg politics better than you do. And

I certainly am not going to come here from

Moscow and start ordering people around and, so to speak, impose

order. I will proceed based on whatever

alignment emerges in your

tricky and tangled St. Petersburg

politics. If there's a great candidate, I

will support them. If there's a great

candidate who says, "I'm running, they

won't let me through, I demand to be registered,"

then I will go around with that person,

hold rallies, and say: "Let him in,

give him registration." Yes. Well,

so it turns out that in this case you're behaving

solely as an individual person,

Alexei Navalny, I don't know, as a

blogger, rather than as a political

phenomenon. But right now you are a

political phenomenon in Russia—please,

what is that bold conclusion based on?

That you are a political

phenomenon in Russia, or that I behave like a

blogger rather than like a political phenomenon?

Because you say—well, because,

it seems to me that a politician—though perhaps you

will correct me now—someone who

has been active in politics, who sought the post of

president, who takes an interest in affairs

in different regions—it would be logical

for him to say: "Here is my candidate,

here is the person I support."

Let's all support him together,

push him forward, promote him." And in that way,

it seems to me, you would draw

much more attention to the St. Petersburg

elections, especially since they coincide with the

municipal elections as well as the gubernatorial race. And I

will correct you, Arseny. Politics is

something real. I am not going to

pull the wool over everyone's eyes here, because

every viewer, every listener,

forgive me, of your program, right now

is also

watching on YouTube. Greetings to everyone on

YouTube. You said all that, and people just

threw up their hands, because

you are describing some completely

hypothetical situation. But we understand perfectly well

that there are people who

have at least some chance of being nominated

and collecting the municipal signatures. There are

people who have no such chance. I

will act based on the real

situation. As of today, we

have decided that within the Party of the Future

—unregistered, but still a party—

we do not have our own candidate whom

we would be ready to nominate

ourselves. There are many

people in St. Petersburg I like, and

politicians I like, for whom

I would fight. But, excuse me, I am not

going to get ahead of myself. It's not for me

to nominate them; they have to step forward

themselves. Right?

Well, you can negotiate with them about

that. Look, many of our

listeners,

I’m in talks with them.

Then tell us, what kind of talks are these?

I can’t, because they’re negotiations,

and they concern them. And you have to admit, it would be

stupid if an announcement about nominating

certain people. What kind? All right.

What kind of negotiations are they if there’s no name attached? I

see.

Well, they’re exactly that kind of negotiations. I

basically, like you, think that people should

put themselves forward, and there’s no problem

if in the end you aren’t officially registered as a candidate.

Because most often I hear the following

thing: “How can I run? And then, you know,

they won’t register me.”

And my answer to that is: yes, I understand, but then

fight for it. And the worst that can happen

is that in the end they won’t let you in, and all

residents of St. Petersburg will see that Beglov is afraid of

you specifically. That’s my position,

that people should run. I would like

the parties themselves to do it; I just can’t

talk about their secrets and their plans. That

would be unfair to them. And

So you do have someone whom you

would in principle be ready to support.

People, actually quite a few. And there are people who,

generally speaking, aren’t very

close to me, but are popular

politicians. Yes, I would still

support them, because

the fight that is supposed to happen this September

really should be

a real fight, not a sham. In any case,

we will vote against Beglov, we

will fight Beglov. But I would like

it not to be only

about math, yes, and logic, smart

voting, but also to have

real political energy. At the municipal

level, that political energy definitely exists.

I’d like it to be there at the

gubernatorial level as well.

As for the gubernatorial election, there are simply

a lot of questions coming in connected with

one particular person. There is a St. Petersburg

politician, Maxim Reznik, whom you surely

know. Recently he effectively drove

Beglov out of Aks, if you can put it that

way. And Maxim Reznik—many of our listeners are writing about this—

ideologically,

well, first of all, he has never said

what Boris Vishnevsky, for example,

has said—that he disagrees with you on many

points. Maxim Reznik has never criticized you

that much. He speaks well,

that’s true. And he is an opposition

deputy who talks about such

big issues—the spirit of St. Petersburg,

the West, ethical

values in general, freedom, and so on. And

we’ve simply received a lot of questions about this.

Why not somehow

join forces with him and make Maxim

Reznik your candidate, try to come to an agreement with him?

Of course, it’s not only your decision,

Maxim Lvovich would have to agree to it.

Make him the candidate and, for example, the most

prominent face representing you in St. Petersburg?

So, first of all: I place personal

issues much lower than

public ones. Maxim Reznik also

voted for my expulsion from Yabloko (a Russian liberal political party).

Nevertheless, I have excellent

relations with him. I, uh, am simply delighted,

truly, by the way he has conducted

himself in these recent—and not only recent—

days in St. Petersburg. And I

am outraged that Beglov is going around lying

to veterans, saying that Reznik

supposedly proposed surrendering the city to the fascists. If

Reznik were to run, I would,

of course, support him. If

someone else ran, and there were a competing

politician against him, I would support one or

the other, or make a choice. We would

consider it, hold debates. Reznik

as a politician is certainly someone I sympathize with.

I would like him to take part in

the gubernatorial election. But, as you yourself

say, it’s his decision. It would be,

well, I mean, what am I supposed to do now, live on air,

say: “Come on, Lvovich,

run.” That would be strange. He’s an

experienced politician, more experienced than I am.

He has been in politics longer than I have, and he himself

will make the right decision. We will

definitely come to an understanding with him.

We have already agreed to cooperate there at the

municipal level. And he supports

our campaign connected with

salaries and public-sector employees. In that

sense, there is no shortage of contact between us. But

once again I would like to emphasize

this point. I did not come here as someone

who can, so to speak,

sort things out for everyone or impose anything. This is

St. Petersburg politics. And I am simply

offering St. Petersburg politicians and

voters in St. Petersburg my

concept of smart voting, and I offer

Alexei, why do you describe,

for example, attempts to

reach an agreement with someone and gain a very

strong ally of yours—whether it’s

Reznik, Vishnevsky, or some

other person, say Alexei Kovalyov,

it doesn’t matter—as if you could somehow acquire them for yourself? That is precisely

what politics is. We negotiate—

there is no such thing as “getting” someone

for yourself. They are independent politicians, very

much their own people—supporters, allies.

Well, when Reznik goes out to protest rallies

and then is even jailed for 10

days, I can already see that he is my

supporter and ally.

But he isn’t associated with you. And why should he be?

be associated with me? I have no

goal, you know, of creating some kind of

Excel spreadsheet. In that Excel spreadsheet on

your computer, I’d be in first

place, and Reznik would be there in second,

third, or fourth. What I would like

is to reduce the number of deputies from United

Russia. As for Reznik, he’s now in

the Party of Growth, or maybe now he’s closer to

some other party. Either way,

it’s not that important to me that they be

affiliated with me. I don’t need

Reznik, or anyone else—we’re just talking about

Reznik here—to recognize me as the leader

of his movement. That is not the goal at all. And

given, as you say, uh, and everyone

knows, that there is this kind of deep disunity

within the St. Petersburg opposition,

the St. Petersburg opposition, I rejected that idea

from the start. I want everyone

to remain themselves, while we help facilitate

an agreement among voters.

It’s just that many of our listeners there,

as I can see even from YouTube, get the

impression. Uh, and by the way, many people have

told me this too—that, well, Navalny

has kind of neglected St. Petersburg a bit. You know,

there’s sometimes a certain touchiness

among people in St. Petersburg, that Muscovites think

too much about themselves and forget about us

in St. Petersburg—that, well,

Navalny, yes, supports all

opposition figures, but doesn’t seriously

want to take part in the main elections,

at least, so it sounds,

in St. Petersburg. Neither as a politician himself,

nor by putting forward some specific

person of his own.

That impression is completely wrong. I

came here precisely to dispel

it. And the fact that the first project I’ve

announced—the first political project this

year—concerns the elections in

St. Petersburg, seems to me

to disprove the idea that I’ve neglected it. I

haven’t neglected it. And of all the elections that

will take place in 2019, there are two most

important ones: the Moscow City Duma elections and the municipal

deputy elections in St. Petersburg. I think

the municipal deputy elections in St. Petersburg

are even more important, because there are many

candidates here, while in Moscow everything will be very

difficult in terms of getting nominated.

All right. So it turns out that

you still aren’t proposing any candidate for the

gubernatorial election

and have explained why?

Because there are no gubernatorial elections.

Look at how we acted. Uh,

all last year I supported a candidate

from the Communists in Vladivostok. We

supported one in Khabarovsk. Good Lord,

I even supported an LDPR candidate. Can you imagine?

There you go—just think how easy that was for me,

to support him. But I did support him

because gubernatorial elections are not

really elections—they’re manipulation and deception. But we

want even that manipulation and

deception to be used

to defeat United Russia. So here

there’s one difficult point. You keep

saying what you’re against, but

there’s no thesis about what you’re for.

A positive agenda. What am I for? I’m all for

bringing down United Russia.

I’m for the city’s residents electing

a decent candidate. I’m for

having normal people instead of United Russia members. Are you

ready to support LDPR, whom you

apparently still don’t consider entirely

normal candidates? Here too, I’ll answer you with a positive

point on the agenda.

I’m for there not being a monopoly. I’m for

competition. Let LDPR replace

a United Russia incumbent. That’s better than one

United Russia member after another after another. I want

something, anything, to start moving, so that, well,

there is at least minimal, the most minimal

rotation. Otherwise it’s just this kind of

stagnation and decay, such degradation, that

it’s simply hard to endure. All right,

I understand your position. Tell us about

the municipal elections—your

project, what you’re doing, what you plan

to do. In the municipal elections, uh, in September

of this year, there will be elected in

St. Petersburg 1,575

deputies. And most people, by the way,

are absolutely shocked by that

number, because, well, they really don’t

fully realize that such a level of

municipal deputies even exists. Nevertheless,

uh, they will be elected. And right now

it’s all United Russia people sitting there. And when

United Russia members fill all the municipal councils

of the country’s most opposition-minded and most

European city, it looks

absurd. And we are proposing a very simple

thing. We are now calling on everyone

to run. We need several thousand

candidates, given that

not all of them will actually make it

to election day. And we already have several thousand

candidates. And how many hundreds of

candidates has Yabloko already nominated? There are,

well, as I understand it, there are

United Democrats who are

the United Democrats–Yabloko, and there are

United Democrats who are not

Yabloko. Well, that’s a very St. Petersburg tradition,

yes. And accordingly,

A Just Russia is nominating some people, Dmitry

Reznik is nominating people. And our idea

is that we identify the strongest candidates,

include them in a single list, a list

that will contain 1,575

names, after which all of us should

vote only for that list. And with

given the low turnout, it will be no higher than

32% there,

we need 5–10%

of the voters who will

take part in this campaign, and that

number definitely exists; if we can

persuade them properly, that will be enough for us,

to win in each district.

Did I understand correctly? This is simply an important

point: if you see that somewhere

there is a strong, well-established

opposition group, for example in

Kupchino, we have strong

opposition candidates for municipal

deputy positions there, will you include them

on your list? And, for example, if

some people come to your headquarters, well, less

well-known, and say: "We also want to go to

Kupchino." Will you say: "Sorry, in

Kupchino there is already a strong opposition

team."

Well, we’ll say: "Work together. We

will look at, uh, who is who, how all this

is organized, and whom we can include and whom

we cannot include." Well, of course, there is no

goal for me, you know, to come here and

say that my 2,000 people are the very

best of all, and therefore let’s now

freeze everyone else out. Of course,

not. We need to bring in the news. We’ll

take a break now and continue the conversation.

It’s 3:30 p.m. in Moscow. Hello. In the studio is

Alexander Plyushchev. The Prosecutor General’s Office

has sent to court the criminal case concerning the terrorist attack

in the St. Petersburg metro. The case will

be heard by the Moscow District

Military Court. The terrorist attack in St. Petersburg

took place in April 2017. As a

result of the explosion on the stretch between

the Sennaya Ploshchad and

Tekhnologichesky Institut stations, 103

people were injured. Sixteen of them were killed. A complaint

against the arrest of Senator Rauf

Arashukov has been filed with the court. This was reported by the

Basmanny Court in Moscow. It will

be considered by the Moscow City Court. The hearing date

has not yet been set. Russian

consumers have begun to assess

their financial situation more pessimistically amid

rising inflation expectations. This

is stated in a commentary by the

Central Bank. The main factor behind the increase

was higher actual inflation,

the regulator notes. Among the other reasons

for rising inflation expectations, survey

participants cited the increase in the VAT rate.

The fifth anniversary of the annexation of Crimea

will be marked by a three-day festival in

Moscow. As reported on the website of

the city mayor, the Crimean

Spring festival will take place from March 16 to 18. Other

details, including the schedule and venues

for the events, have not been specified.

The outlet Meduza notes that in

previous years, events dedicated to

the annexation of Crimea were held over

the course of a single day. The official exchange rate

for the dollar tomorrow is 65 rubles 66 kopecks. The rate

for the euro is 75 rubles 15 kopecks. In Moscow it is currently 2°C

below zero. Overnight, temperatures will be -2 to -4°C,

and tomorrow daytime temperatures will be around 0°C. In places

there will be light precipitation and fog. Alexander

Plyushchev, news service. Echo of Moscow.

Echo of Petersburg Radio

91.5

FM.

The guest on the Special Opinion program on

Tuesday after 11:00 a.m. will be political scientist

Vladimir Gelman. Send your questions

by SMS to +79312915800.

Political scientist Vladimir Gelman with his

Special Opinion from St. Petersburg on Tuesday

after 11:00 a.m.

Special Opinion with lawyer Sergei Golubok

can be heard this Monday at 11:00 a.m.,

February 4.

Echo

of Petersburg 91.5

FM.

We’re back on the air at Echo of Petersburg.

3:33 p.m.

on the clock. Our guest is Alexei

Navalny. You can send text messages. +

7931 291 5800. You can also watch on YouTube.

The Echo of Moscow SPb channel. Our Alexei here

just posted a link to the broadcast on his Twitter

account. And there are a lot of

questions by text and on YouTube. Well then, Sobchak?

Ask about Sobchak. Sobchak said

that she may take part in

the gubernatorial election. Moreover,

as far as I know, this issue

is really being discussed. It was not

just a statement; this issue is being

discussed. Will you support Ksenia Sobchak as well?

support her?

Well, it makes no difference to us, and it makes no difference to me, whether

Ksenia runs or not. She won’t be the only one there,

after all. What we support, generally, is a second

round. In that sense, vote for whoever

you want. Will you vote for her?

Me personally?

Yes.

Uh, I don’t know, we’ll see who’s running.

No, but personally. Well, that’s exactly what all of us will

say: "Look at who’s on the ballot and

vote for whoever is there." In general,

it makes no difference to us.

But if it’s Beglov and Sobchak in this

year,

that’s an unrealistic scenario.

But what if it is? Look, you just

want me to say something from which

a headline can be made: Navalny

is ready to support Ksenia Sobchak, or

Navalny is not ready to support Ksenia

Sobchak? And I understand this line of conversation

perfectly well. Journalists have every right

to ask what they like, especially since

people do ask questions. But

overall, this setup is undoubtedly

being imposed by the authorities. I think, of course,

it is in Beglov’s interests to invite, uh,

Sobchak, or someone like that,

a caricatured liberal as his

opponent so that, uh,

it will be easier for him to get elected. But

there are still the systemic parties. I

don’t think it’s possible to keep the Communists off

the ballot in the St. Petersburg gubernatorial election. I

also think it would be impossible to bar the LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia)

either. Uh, because, well, we can see

they always take part in every election.

That is the main, uh, point of the compromise

reached between them and Putin. They, basically,

pretend to be the opposition,

or at least speak out not too harshly on

certain issues, but at least

they are always allowed in. In that sense, I’m

not worried. I, uh, think that of course Beglov

will not allow a single strong candidate through,

but there will definitely be several candidates.

All right. Still, about Sobchak. And

why are you so reluctant to talk

about her? What exactly is the problem?

Because, yes—no, there’s no problem at all.

I just don’t want to, that’s all.

Well, you say, “I’ll support Maxim Reznik,”

but you don’t want to say that about Ksenia Sobchak,

because Maxim Reznik—Maxim Reznik

is a politician. He is not someone

who gets dragged into an election

in order to

make it easier to win or to create some kind of

artificial setup. In that sense, Sobchak is

a political puppet who takes part somewhere

for money. And discussing, uh,

this whole setup—this is what

is called, uh, on the internet it’s called

“feeding the troll.” What to call it on the radio,

I honestly don’t know.

Returning to the municipal elections, I

remember the last municipal elections very well,

the ones in 2014. What was the situation

there? Opposition candidates would simply come

there. At first they couldn’t

find the office where they were supposed to submit

their documents to register.

Then, finally, they would

find that office, with great difficulty. It wasn’t

because they were idiots. It was unbelievable.

I simply could not believe my eyes. I

could not believe my eyes when, well,

some of our people from the foundations, from

the St. Petersburg Anti-Corruption Foundation

were taking part in the elections, and these

so-called IKMOs (municipal election commissions), right, they

were hiding. Candidates were literally

wandering around the district not knowing where

to submit their documents. That doesn’t happen

even in the North Caucasus. And, of course,

our main problem, the one we will

face as the election gets closer,

will not be finding candidates, nor gathering

enough voters for

Smart Voting, but the fact that they will again

want to keep everyone off the ballot. And what

do you do then? You can’t find the IKMO. You come there, and

there are some private security guards standing there who

pretend to be candidates and simply

physically shove you out of the building of that

IKMO. They don’t let you in; they simply won’t let you

physically hand over the papers. We will

fight, we will, so to speak, force our way in more physically

into these IKMOs, we will create

a political situation in which

blocking large numbers of candidates, for Beglov,

for the federal authorities, for Putin, will

carry such political costs that

they will be forced to let them in. Well,

that means we will

I don’t know

how exactly to create such a situation. Including

by telling them, “Guys,

if you don’t let the candidates in, there will be

a rally here of such a scale, and

the voting overall will work so strongly against

the authorities, against Putin

personally, that you’d better

not do this.” What else is there? I mean,

that’s how politics works. We are saying that

either you at least pretend to have

uh, fair elections—it’s clear that you have

administrative resources, it’s clear that you

falsify things, but at least you allow

candidates to run. But if you do it on a mass scale, as

last time—it really was on a mass scale, hundreds

of people were not allowed in, practically no one

was allowed in—if you do that, then your

political costs will be so

high in so many areas—in the form of

rallies, campaigning, and

people becoming more embittered. Those costs will be

so severe that you will regret it. That is

exactly how it needs to be said.

Well then, let’s maybe try

to model the situation. Suppose I’m running for

municipal deputy and I want

to get on the ballot. But I didn’t make it, I wasn’t allowed

to register, I was thrown out by

private security guards. What is the mechanism then? Just so that

maybe people who want to

take part in this also understand that for now

there is no mechanism. For now, we are gathering

candidates, we are training candidates, we are

helping them register, we are doing

this work of studying the existing

groups of activists in different districts and

neighborhoods, as you mentioned, in Kupchino.

There is a lot of that in many places. And at

this stage, the task is this: a specific

practical method. What exactly we will do next,

when people start being blocked, we will

work that out. That will in fact be

a joint decision, right? Here, we

will work with all opposition

politicians, because everyone will be

interested.

And

there are also a lot of questions coming in about

the work of your headquarters in St. Petersburg, a lot of

criticism. For example, in the latest video,

put out by your team at the headquarters,

Sergei Litvinenko there is not accepting our

complaints, doesn’t want to do anything, there are no

high-profile investigations,

the kind that could be done in St. Petersburg, and

St. Petersburg journalists are doing them. Well,

the headquarters doesn’t seem very visible at all.

I think our headquarters is very visible, and

our headquarters plays an important political

role. It’s just that over the past month, for

objective reasons, it has

been focused specifically on work

connected with organizing mass rallies.

And it seems to me that this work is being

carried out quite successfully by them, uh. The headquarters in

St. Petersburg we consider strong,

very strong. And I’m very glad that they have now

started doing these investigations,

putting out videos. These are people

who don’t know how to do this. They are not

journalists, just like the Anti-Corruption Foundation

and like me myself. We are learning all over again

how to do all of this. And, uh, the St. Petersburg headquarters

has launched its own YouTube channel. It will become

influential. It is already an influential

YouTube channel. We will strengthen the team, we

will work together, including with

journalists, and we will bring in additional lawyers. And

we will hire people here and send some from

Moscow in order to do

investigations. This is something, uh, that we

are learning. And we are very grateful

to everyone who criticizes us and gives us advice,

because that helps us improve. But it would

be naive to expect that just tomorrow

we will suddenly start doing investigations better

than you do, right, or launch a radio station. You are

a professional journalist, and we have never

prepared for that. But nevertheless

we will do here what we managed to do

at the federal level—sorry for speaking so

long—namely, to create one of the

largest media outlets in the country, with an audience of

millions of people. And here too, in

St. Petersburg, we will be able to do it.

As for political rallies, that is probably

the top question: when will there be a rally,

how will it be held, when are you going to

build barricades, when are you going to

block roads, when are you going to

attack OMON (Russia’s riot police). There are a lot of questions like that.

I think we can address that right away

somehow.

Well, let me answer right away. A rally

is not scheduled because I sit there

looking at a calendar and say, “Hmm, when should

I schedule a rally?” Or throw a dart

at a dartboard—wherever it lands, that’s when it

will happen.” A rally is tied to something.

We hold a rally because there is a

reason. And people take to the streets not

because I called on them to. That is one of the

least important, least

significant reasons. They do it because they want

to go out themselves. There will come a moment when I,

as a citizen myself, will feel your

emotions and the emotions of people in Moscow,

Novosibirsk, St. Petersburg—that we

need to go out into the streets and say something,

and we will go immediately. I assure you, I

am not afraid to take part in mass rallies,

even though each one of them

can turn into a month-long or

two-month jail term. And, as you know very well,

our St. Petersburg headquarters

is not afraid of that either.

By the way, if there were some

single candidate, perhaps, whom you

would already be supporting now, could

these rallies be held in his

support?

Absolutely, absolutely. And perhaps

such a person will still appear. There is still time. Right now,

actually, well, you said that

Vishnevsky has said he will run in the election

and, well, we have not yet heard the position of the Yabloko party

(a liberal political party), while everyone else is still silent. In other words,

if we start listing names now,

all sorts of surnames will immediately come up.

The obvious ones already mentioned are Reznik, Dmitrieva,

Bortko. Well, in St. Petersburg there are

politicians, there are people whom

city residents trust. Well, they should

say so, they should run. And I would gladly

join in those rallies as well, including

rallies demanding that this person be

registered. But I wanted to touch on a somewhat

broader, more distant set of problems, uh,

connected with St. Petersburg.

People often say that the regions feed Moscow.

Just yesterday, on the eve of this, I looked it up:

every year St. Petersburg sends 1 trillion rubles

to Moscow, collected there. The city’s budget is

just over 500 billion rubles.

560 billion, yes.

Ah, right. So, accordingly,

the question is: does that seem right or

not? First of all,

well, of course it is wrong. One of the

main—well, this is in fact such an

astonishing thing. It is a rhetorical

question that everyone would answer the same way. It is

wrong. What is more, even officials

say that it is wrong,

but, uh, that is how our country is set up. And this is

one of the main reasons why Putin

stays in power, why he governs

the country. He took money, uh, from everyone and

dragged it all into one place. Uh,

St. Petersburg is not five times smaller than

Moscow, right, but nevertheless the budget of

St. Petersburg is five times smaller than

Moscow-centric. And there is nothing good in this for Moscow either,

because

the enormous sums of money that

get spread around in every direction, the high cost of living

for residents, and so on,

the flawed nature of the budget system has been and

remains one of the main foundations of our, uh, political struggle.

We, of course,

are demanding a redistribution of funds. More

money should stay where

it is collected.

Do you have any specific figures? Do

you have a sense, roughly speaking,

of what percentage of a region’s budget,

say, St. Petersburg’s, for example,

should be sent differently depending on the place

to the federal center?

How much should there be, what should the

subsidies from the federal center to the city look like?

How have you worked through this issue?

Seriously? We have worked through it, because

there has been a very big

discussion on this topic. On all my very first trips

to the regions, when I was still opening campaign offices

two years ago, this was always the main

question. And the farther you go, the more

central this issue becomes. St. Petersburg is

a city, uh,

too poor for its size and

its status, but the other regions

are simply languishing in poverty. Yes.

Still, if we’re talking about something specific,

well, specifically about St. Petersburg.

We did a lot of calculations; you can

look at our program, but the budget

of St. Petersburg cannot be less

than 1 trillion rubles. One way or another, it is necessary

to leave enough money in St. Petersburg

so that the city has a budget of no less than 1

trillion rubles. Until there is

a 1 trillion-ruble budget here, you’ll keep having snowdrifts like these

here. I was driving here to see you just now,

and I was simply amazed at how much snow is lying around;

nobody is clearing it. And then, when I

arrived, you told me: "This is after

everything was cleared five days ago. It was

absolutely terrible." I don’t even know what it was like here five

days ago. It was simply

worse, yes. But until there is

1 trillion, St. Petersburg needs 1 trillion.

And that money exists. That money at the

federal level

is being spent on all sorts of nonsense and rubbish.

It should stay in the city.

That sounds great: “We need a trillion.” But,

forgive me, that sounds somewhat populist.

“We need, we need a trillion.” I’ll explain—I

I’ll explain why. Because you say

the city needs a trillion. You could say that

in practically every city you visit. This

city needs 100 billion, that one

500, and so on. Is there any

real understanding of how to

achieve this, and within what timeframe it can

be achieved? Let’s imagine that you came

to power—yes, of course, under

Putin this is impossible, let’s say—but suppose

you did come to power. Is there an understanding of

what figures, what percentages, what exactly?

Of course we do; I’m just not ready

to translate that right now, uh, into

specific figures for the city of

St. Petersburg. Well, of course, Vladimir

Milov is the one who works on this for us. We have

a fairly detailed program on how, how

to redistribute the tax

burden, that part of the, uh,

mineral extraction tax

should be retained, uh, that excise taxes need to be changed

and most excise revenue should be left

in place, and so on and so forth. But this is part

of a broader system of changing tax

regulation and, more generally, changing

the relationship between the federal center

and cities and regions. In general, I am

basically a supporter not even so much of

federalization, but of the idea that

all the money should go to the cities. Therefore

the tax system, properly speaking,

should in principle be changed, and it

will be changed. But what I’m saying is that

the city should be left with a trillion, because

even within the current system

a normal governor can see

how much you need for the metro, right? He

can see how much you need for proper

street cleaning. He can see that the city

has more than 5 million residents. It is the

third-largest city in Europe. Yes,

exactly. Well, if Moscow has

a budget of 2.5 trillion rubles and this city has 560 billion,

then presumably a sensible federal government

should make a transfer

of the necessary size or take other measures. They

have parliament under their control; they

can do whatever they want literally with

a snap of their fingers. So if we are talking

about the here and now, then this is what should be said:

"This is not a populist statement but

a realistic one. The city needs a trillion."

Yes. You mentioned federalization. This is

also an issue that is quite acute,

especially among, if one can put it this way,

the St. Petersburg intelligentsia. There is a lot of

sentiment around the idea that

St. Petersburg should be almost

an independent state, or at least

a region with broader

powers of its own,

one that would itself, well, decide more

tax and legislative issues,

and so on.

That’s absolutely right. And that doesn’t even

mean that it has to become

an independent state. Well, let’s

start with political questions, yes. For example,

there will be a gubernatorial election.

Why has acting governor Beglov now gone into, into

Poltavchenko's resignation? What other

candidates were even considered, and why

does the municipal filter exist? These are

the most obvious questions. So why did

Poltavchenko step down? I ask you, and you'll

tell me: "Well, there is one version from some

political analysts, and another version from other

political analysts." And none of the 5.5 million people living

here knows what actually happened. And

if there are direct elections for

governor, what does that mean? Becoming

our own country? No. And being able to allocate

and manage our own taxes? Does that

mean becoming an independent country?

No. And so on and so forth. There are no

large federal states anywhere on Earth, or even

large federal states, or even

unitary states, that are

governed from a single city, from the center.

It's simply a system that doesn't work in

the modern world. Well then, is it being run

well? Look out the window and

look at the snowdrifts. Those are

the consequences of trying to run absolutely everything

from Moscow. How many of Beglov's

so-called "Beglov shovels" Beglov will make and

distribute to the municipalities — that is

decided by some people in Moscow. It

shouldn't be like that. And it doesn't work. It's

just absurd. Really,

St. Petersburg, by its size, is a country;

by population, it's a respectable European

country. Of course it should

be governed by its own government.

Then why can't it be

a separate country, a separate

state?

Well, because nobody needs that.

Nobody wants it. No one in

St. Petersburg wants there to be a

State of St. Petersburg. Well,

maybe a few people do, but they are an

vanishingly small minority. People in St. Petersburg

want something reasonable: for the city to have its own

government, one that is accountable

to the residents; for municipal deputies to

be elected; for there to be its own

distinctive features, maybe its own

regional laws, as happens

there in — well, which theoretically

exist even now — as they do in the United States.

St. Petersburg is, without question, a

special city. We have a special Chechnya,

and we have a special St. Petersburg. It

deserves special laws that

people here will choose. Not choose, but

draft and vote on. Do you

see any alternative at all for how

Russia should be governed? I mean, Russia is a

country with a very long,

authoritarian history. Practically speaking,

almost all of Russia's history has

been authoritarian. Doesn't it seem to you that in

some sense you could end up playing the same role as

the young supporters of Yeltsin

or people from his circle? People who

renewed and, in a sense,

restarted the Soviet system in a

new form? Yes, we saw the Soviet Union

collapse, some new

state emerge, but in the end the idea remained that

there still has to be one strong

leader or one strong center, the idea that

people must sacrifice themselves

for some greater good, as

Putin says, and that Russia's uniqueness

lies in the fact that we can all sacrifice ourselves

for the future of the country. This creates a kind of

slightly misanthropic, at times

atmosphere, where nothing ever really changes.

And in general, do you have any

new humanistic values,

any proposals for how to change all this? But

there's no need to reinvent the wheel here. If

I am in the most European,

in essence, in spirit, city in

Russia, I don't need to say: "You know,

guys, I've come up with a new

moral paradigm for us. Starting today, we'll

believe in, I don't know, Maslenitsa (a traditional East Slavic pre-Lenten festival), and

that will become our new spiritual

bonding value." No, we already have a spiritual

bonding value, and it's called this: Russia is

part of European civilization. In essence,

Russia can be rich, and should be,

and will be, a prosperous European country. After all,

half the city goes to Finland for

groceries, and everyone likes the way

things are organized in Finland. And nobody

wants things here to be like in China,

Mongolia, or North Korea. Even the

people who spout this nonsense about

how we must rally around a

great leader — all those United Russia party members — where do

they buy real estate? In Italy. They

go on vacation to Finland too,

and Matviyenko's son invested money in

some Estonian — what was it —

some islands he bought or something like that,

something along those lines. So there is nothing here

to invent. We should develop

the way Russia ought to develop,

as part of Europe. We simply must

play a leading role in Europe, and we will

play it.

What do you mean by a leading role?

Because, well, we're large, we have a

large economy, we have a large

population; a leader should influence

European politics.

Of course Poland influences

European politics.

We should be represented in the European Parliament.

Sooner or later, our party will

compete for seats in the European Parliament. We

must take part in the European

debate, in European security.

But the country's role,

Do you believe that such a large country,

a huge country that is complicated because

of that, with a relatively small population for

a country of that size, and with the fact that a large

part of its territory is actually located

in the east and in Asia, can be

a fully European country—Russia?

Absolutely. You see, there are no easy countries.

Let’s take

Belgium, for example—everything there is so

complicated. And the country is divided.

And in Luxem— in Luxembourg, people speak

four different languages. And in Switzerland

they all basically hate each other. It is

essentially a collection of separate states,

each of which holds referendums.

France is divided, and Poland is divided

over Catholics versus non-Catholics, abortion

versus no abortion. And the United Kingdom, as you

can see, still cannot decide whether it wants Brexit

or not, and Scotland is trying

to break away somewhere. All countries are complicated, and

our difficulties are not

all that extraordinary compared with everyone else’s.

In other words, our situation is no more complicated

than in Italy, where the north

thinks the south is populated by nothing but

riffraff, while in the south everyone thinks

the north is full of arrogant

swindlers. Every country has its own

peculiarities. And our country, with its enormous

territory and, by European standards, still a fairly large

population,

will do just fine.

And take Vladivostok. Let’s go to

Vladivostok and ask whether, after all,

Vladivostok is

more like any

European city, or more like a city

in Thailand. And the answer would be

obvious. It is not China, it is not Thailand,

it is not Cambodia, it is not North Korea,

it is Europe. Vladivostok is no different

from any German city—except that it is simply in worse

condition. And

do you think the Soviet past and

legacy need to be somehow

rethought? Do we need our own Nuremberg

trials?

We need to open the archives. Just the other day

there was some completely

wild news. On the one hand, we endlessly

discuss the legacy of the Victory (the Soviet victory in World War II), and all

our propagandists—yes, my favorite one,

Vladimir Solovyov—is once again

shouting, "We are the heirs of the Victory." And once again

Vladimir Putin has decided that

documents will remain classified, including those

concerning

the Great Patriotic War (the Soviet term for the Eastern Front of World War II). It is complete

madness. So the first thing we need

to do is open all the archives and

give historians the opportunity to study

everything. And, well, we should

also make some kind of political

assessment.

I do not think we should get too deeply

carried away with that, because as soon as

we start down that road—well, I do not like

Stalin, I consider Stalin the executioner of

the Russian people. But if I now start discussing this

from a political point of view,

then we will not be, you understand,

removing this Beglov (Alexander Beglov, governor of St. Petersburg) from office together.

I will instead be dealing

with Bortko, the Communist Party candidate,

who is very fond of Stalin. That is what I dislike

about him. That is precisely why I would like

to set this discussion aside.

But unquestionably, we simply must

open the archives; we must find out what

really happened. Look

at what is happening now. In fact,

half the country genuinely believes there were no

repressions in the 1930s

or 1940s. Here, at the very least,

historical scholarship can

provide clear answers—and should provide them—and everything

should be properly written up

and studied in school.

"Properly written up" from the standpoint of

historical scholarship is always difficult.

Yes, I said that and immediately thought

it sounded like a single official history textbook. I

am categorically against that. But what I would like

is for this kind of discussion,

debate, publication of documents—because all of that

is very interesting—should

be ongoing, and the state should, by the way,

fund it generously.

Do you agree with those

who say that we have

a certain imperial mindset, an imperial

spirit in Russia?

Well, unquestionably, yes. It would be foolish

to deny it. Russi—

Do you like this imperial mindset,

this imperial spirit? I think that playing with

imperial consciousness, as the current authorities

are doing now, is one of the most

disgusting, deceitful, and harmful things

that can happen to a country. The worst thing

for us right now would be

to spend money not on ourselves

but on running around the globe again

trying to buy influence, as

is happening now, for example, with

Venezuela, where we have already poured

$18 billion, which we will never

get back. And we are still propping up Maduro,

buying up gold reserves. What the

hell for? Why do we need any of this? And we,

for example, still maintain

a visa-free regime with the countries of Central Asia,

for some reason, and say that

this means some kind of influence. We are out of

time, I understand your point. This imperial

mindset—do you have it yourself, by the way?

I’m a person from the Soviet Union; I’m

a Soviet person. So, of course,

that’s still somewhere in the back of my mind, but

I think rationally. I want

our country to be the greatest.

the coolest, the very best overall. But

for me, the answer to how it can become that is this: we need

our people to be the richest.

When our average salary reaches

600,000 rubles per person (about US$6,500 at recent exchange rates), then we

will be the strongest.

And what should we do with those people who

think the main thing is that we should be able to

kick America’s ass with nuclear missiles

?

Well, talk to them. They’re

people, they live here, and they have the same

right as you and I do to walk the

streets and write on the internet that

Navalny is an idiot or that we’re all

some kind of “libtards” gathered here. And with these

people, we need to talk; we need

to explain things to them. Uh, there will always be some number of people

we will never persuade, but that’s

normal—that’s parliament. And again,

in St. Petersburg, 1,575

deputies have been elected. Some number of those

deputies, by definition, should be exactly the kind

who want us to

bomb everyone everywhere with nuclear missiles,

because people like that do exist. Well,

objectively, they do. They also deserve to be

represented.

Last question—we have a minute left. We also got a lot of these

by text message.

Tell us, who pays for your life, where does your

funding come from, who gives you money?

There are a lot of questions like that. Oh, I

love answering this question, and it gives me such pleasure,

because the Anti-Corruption Foundation

is funded

by donations. People

just—well, what I mean is, they don’t

believe that these are donations from ordinary

citizens, not from some big businessmen.

The Kremlin doesn’t believe us either. And

that’s why the FBK is constantly being audited. We

file reports with the Ministry of Justice and the prosecutor’s office.

Right now, these very days, they’re once again

demanding some unscheduled checks, wanting us to

hand over documents. They’ve been scanning us

with an X-ray for many years. And everyone knows,

including Putin, who has probably read in

one of his briefing memos, that the FBK has

several thousand donors who

have been sending us money for several years in a row,

from 500 to 300,000 rubles (roughly US$5 to US$3,250). That’s how I financed

my election campaign. That’s how

the Anti-Corruption Foundation is funded.

And that is precisely why we can afford

to be the most independent political