Alexei Navalny’s interview with Ksenia Larina and Vitaly Dymarsky on Echo of Moscow (a Russian radio station)

I really liked it at Maika Neki's.

I liked it — they really have a solid

program. And their stream format there is

Of course, they have an advantage simply because

they can afford it. They have no ads,

you can talk for an hour and a half, as much as you want,

we'll stop whenever we want — and we're on air.

Right now? No, not yet. Calm down, really,

we're not on air yet. Well yes, I know that.

I don't know him personally at all. But we're on

the air — the studio light came on too,

this thing lit up, so I did too. We're live. Good

evening. This is the 2019 program — until I start,

they'll keep laughing, you know. And today, of course,

is a historic event — two

historic events. We're all in Moscow, on

Svoboda... in Moscow, not in St. Petersburg, and I am too

here in Moscow. So yes, we have

historic

events. Good evening, good evening everyone.

Good evening. So, that's it, now

everything is clear, but we should remind everyone that +7 985 970

4545 is for SMS, the Twitter account is active, and something

is happening on our YouTube. I remember that

you have to leave likes — well, and you can also

write questions there. I'll also take

this opportunity to say that on my Facebook

I've also opened a thread for questions to Alexei

since a huge number of them started

coming in over the course of the day today.

We'll definitely ask some of those questions.

We haven't spoken in a while, but the first question I'll ask

is from Dmitry.

Guberniev. Dmitry Guberniev was a guest

on our program,

just this Thursday. Was that

yesterday, then? Yes, yesterday. And everyone

knows that Dmitry Guberniev is a

sports commentator. I'm quoting from the

transcript: a question for Alexei Navalny.

What will happen when you come to power?

What will happen to Guberniev, who was

an authorized representative? What will happen to us?

Alexei, Dmitry asks.

Guber... The answer to that question depends

on whose authorized representative he

was. Authorized representatives can do whatever

they want within the law, and in that

sense, we have no complaints against people who love

Putin — whether they truly love him or are lying that

they do, that doesn't interest us. If Dmitry

Guberniev was not involved in corruption, in

jailing people, or in any

other unlawful acts that even under the current

Criminal Code are

punishable, then Dmitry Guberniev, please,

will be able to do whatever he wants in the Beautiful Russia of the Future

(Navalny's phrase for a future democratic Russia). He will have a shameful

page in his biography — that he was an authorized representative

for Putin. And basically, that's

all. That will be his punishment. He will

have to explain to his grandchildren why he was

Putin's authorized representative.

So then what awaits

Popov? Well, Denis Popov can expect

something entirely different. Denis Popov is the

Moscow prosecutor, in whose case

real estate was discovered in Montenegro

and in Spain. Naturally, none of it was

declared.

Most importantly, the source of the

funds is completely unclear. In other words, the man invested

millions of euros abroad in secret, and I have no

doubt that we still haven't found a significant

part of his real estate. That is, what

he has in Astrakhan, on Rublyovka (an elite area outside Moscow), in

Montenegro, and in Spain is worth several

million euros. How did a man acquire that

when he spent his whole life working as a

prosecutor? Well, I would say that our

quite well-founded assumption is that it was

corruption and bribes, and

therefore Denis Popov's actions

should be

— if he cannot explain the origin

of his money, and obviously he cannot

explain it if he declared

nothing — then that is grounds for

opening a criminal case. Alexei, I have

this question: all these

investigations of yours — well, for example,

the latest one on Popov — have they ever

had any consequences, so to speak,

official ones? Well, Metelsky wasn't

elected, for instance — not re-elected, rather. Well, well,

that was not through official channels, voters...

Unfortunately, our state is structured in such a way

that at one time, in the beginning, the authorities

really were afraid of things like this.

Remember there was that deputy, Pekhtin, and we

found an apartment in Miami, and within a couple of

weeks he stopped being a deputy. He wasn't even removed —

he left on his own. It was simply a

period when the authorities still felt a little

embarrassed about such things. Now, unfortunately,

it works differently. And despite the fact that

for example, Denis Popov, the Moscow

prosecutor — we have completely

exposed him — they cannot remove him, because if they

remove Popov from office now, then what will

everyone in Moscow be saying? That Navalny

was right, that Navalny beat them, that Navalny

proved that the prosecutor's office is

corrupt. Nonsense — there are no

checks, no FSB (Russian security service) investigations; one mafioso appoints

another mafioso. They cannot allow themselves

to do that. So yes, this really

is this kind of

— this is a thief and a corrupt official; we

tell people that he is a thief and a

corrupt official. And in a situation like the one with

Metelsky, who held an elected office,

we proved to the people in the district where they

were voting that he was a thief and corrupt, and he

stopped being a deputy. And now, today,

there was a hearing at the Simonovsky

Court, where he came running and demanded that

the court ban us from using the phrase

The leader of United Russia is a crook.

Well, good luck to him with that.

That is, this is his only complaint, his

complaint about this thesis, about the words saying that

Metelsky himself, essentially, the leader

of Moscow's United Russia, let me remind you, and

a former Moscow City Duma deputy, is

a corrupt official. Well, and some other things—he

simply pulled phrases out of context. What's interesting is that he

does not, in fact, dispute the fact

that he owns real estate,

hotels in Austria, and when our

representative in court says

to Metelsky's representative, well, here—

explain it, let's talk about

the hotels, where he got the money for them, and

so on—he says, we don't want to

discuss that, it's not interesting to us. You must

refute the phrase that Metelsky

is a thief. After all, you do not have a court ruling in hand

that says, you know, Metelsky

is a thief. Since there is no such ruling, you must

retract your video. You must

delete it. And all the other things—some

millions, some Spanish hotels,

the origin of the funds—we are not going to

discuss that, it doesn't interest us. And the judge

agrees with him and says: no, we won't

discuss that. But tell me this:

do your investigations and these publications

have any effect at all on public opinion,

since we understand that they attract

a huge number of views,

are replicated, spread around, and clearly

this information reaches a large

number of people who, at the very

least, use the internet. But does this

somehow affect their attitude

toward these specific people, toward events, toward

politics in general? Does

a cause-and-effect relationship work here, such that when we

talk about Popov and Metelsky, we

are still talking about a system headed

by a very specific

person? It definitely does have an effect, and there are many

facts proving that it does. Well,

as for Metelsky, he simply was not

elected, and in fact far

fewer United Russia candidates were elected in this

election cycle in Moscow and in other

cities, including thanks to our

investigations. There was a well-known

sociological study that

showed that after the release of our film

*He Is Not Dimon to You* (a reference to Alexei Navalny's anti-corruption documentary about Dmitry Medvedev), well, essentially, we

destroyed Medvedev's approval rating once and

for all. Since then, it has never

recovered. That is, Medvedev is now

the most unpopular of the well-known

politicians in the country, and that is, of course, the result

of our investigation. Head down, on your knees—

before him, the old woman laughs—hot water...

That old woman would have fallen to her knees before

Chikatilo (a notorious Soviet serial killer), unfortunately, before Sokolov in

Napoleon's bicorne hat, because that is

some kind of authority figure. The old woman understands:

if I run over now and fall to my knees in the mud,

then maybe they'll give me hot water,

which I haven't had for two years. But she

ran—she was fighting for her hot water.

It would be strange to condemn her.

The one who should be condemned is Putin, who keeps at the

head of the government that very

He needs approval ratings, though in fact he is not running anywhere

for office for now—we still don't know. He is not

running, but Putin, in turn, is

interested in ensuring that the person

who is his close associate

and head of government, the second

most powerful person in the country, depends only on

Putin. He understands that the public does not

like him and that if he goes nowhere—

the authorities will persecute him for

his corruption, and therefore he must do

everything possible to keep Putin in

power, because he has a vital interest in that. The same

applies to

Metelsky; it applies to

all of them: they are corrupt, because personally

their freedom and future depend on his

power. There are rumors coming from there that, in general,

everything Navalny does—really all of it—is useful, and we

take it

on board;

it will come in handy. The file folder will be lying there

for later. A long time ago, they even said this publicly.

Medvedev himself, for example, until

it came out and touched him personally, liked to throw around

vague phrases like

well, people are publishing information

on the internet, and well,

my name, of course, hasn't been mentioned there for many years now.

Well, they are doing

useful work, and at some stage of our

activity

that was, well, considered to be how the authorities

should respond to questions of that

kind. But later we turned into

complete enemies, because

we conducted investigations

about them themselves. And after that

Medvedev began saying that our

investigations were not useful.

And someone, if I remember correctly, almost publicly said

that Navalny should actually be made

head of the Accounts Chamber (Russia's state audit body).

Many people say many strange things publicly,

so, well,

listen, everyone is free to talk.

They said a lot of things; it's just that now, in

recent times, even things like that—whether

mild or funny—are no longer allowed

to be said, because, well, because in general

it is forbidden to mention it in any context.

Notice that even about me, rather rarely now,

there appear some completely

commissioned negative pieces on TV channels,

because mentioning the name at all is basically forbidden.

This year. All right, then a little bit

a few words about relations with

potential

those friends about

unification... everyone loves

they love. How do you know? Wow.

Wow, I was sure they did. What

is going on? You’ve really

doused me with ice-cold water. Who? Let’s understand

who doesn’t like me

Who dislikes me? Who has turned away from me? I think

that’s what he means. This last

specific statement about Garry (Kasparov) not...

Kasparov and Khodorkovsky don’t love you either

It seems to me everyone likes me. Well, at least

at least... Look, the thing is

what does “like” mean?

I actively supported Yabloko (a Russian liberal political party), and I

think all of us, myself included, made

a major effort to ensure that

Yabloko formed, historically, the largest

largest faction in the Moscow City Duma in all

time. Is that connected with affection? If not

with affection, then it is connected with affection, it

is connected. I may have some

differences over strategy and tactics with

Yavlinsky, but that does not mean I won’t

support their

candidates on principle. I hope that they, these

wonderful people who have

some tactical disagreements with me,

maybe don’t like me very much

or are jealous of something, or whatever, but

overall, there will come a moment

when they need my support, and they will get it

If I need their support, I

think I’ll be able to count on it too

Well, by the way, in many ways they

quite openly support this

mantra that is being actively promoted in

the liberal wing regarding Alexei

Navalny: that he is an authoritarian

leader, some kind of absolute Führer

who cannot tolerate other people’s

opinions, and that his work is only possible under

his personal direction, and so on and so forth

So first of all, my first question is: who

is the author of this concept? What do you think, if

it even has an author? Why is it that

in general, where did this come from? Surely you

have thought about it yourselves—where did this

this narrative come from? Excellent question. This narrative

really does exist; it is being actively

promoted, and, remarkably,

it is being promoted by people

who themselves have stood at the head of

their organizations for many years, irreplaceably. Well,

let’s say there is a set of certain complaints

invented or real. For example, I

argue that sometimes elections should

be boycotted, and sometimes one should participate in them

That is unacceptable to Garry Kasparov, for example

and that is a normal position. He

consistently advocates a boycott

so he always argues with me on

this issue. And I have nothing against that

Let him argue. We have a discussion. There are

some made-up complaints, and also this

clear set of claims: that I’m an FSB agent

that I work for the Kremlin. I do not work for the Kremlin

That I’m authoritarian; on the contrary, I’m too

weak. I took part in the Russian March (a nationalist demonstration in Russia)

therefore I’m too conservative

I’m too liberal. There is this whole set of

these things, and one of them is that I am very

authoritarian. What can I say to that?

It seems to me that in a minute I can

answer that in a minute, because due to

Navalny’s authoritarianism, we missed

the commercial break. There you go, everyone, what a mess

Everyone talks about someone else’s authoritarianism, you see

But someone started it. I still remember

there was some old lady, a hundred years ago, as it were

an old lady who, her whole life, well

she was an extraordinary old lady, there appeared

some old lady who

who was supposedly one of the

very active and prominent members

of Yabloko, although in Yabloko hardly anyone really

knew her. I saw this

old lady twice in my life, and she wrote her memoirs about

me—completely made up. And it was

an astonishing thing. Well, what can you do?

Well, really, what could I do about this old lady?

She was just some kind of, like Yunna

Morits (a Russian poet), she was

obsessed

with Navalny. Well, she was the same kind

of obsessed person. She wrote some

monstrous things. She first

wrote about me, wrote about Yashin, and I with

Yashin discussed it and laughed, because, well, we

remembered there was such an old lady. She came by a couple

of times into our room, but certainly not as

let’s say—not, well, not a cleaner, just

some nice old lady would come in

“Hello, hello, I’m a member

of the party from the Central District somewhere.” Well

all right, nice to meet you, nice to meet you, and

then she just writes memoirs about us

Yes, yes, yes, that’s how it started, and

off it went

Yes. Well, we’ll continue our program

2019, and Navalny continues

to answer: people compete. People need

to say something negative, including

about other people. To those who say that I am

some kind of authoritarian leader, I answer

very simply: look at the history of my

activity. I have consistently and always

stood for primaries; I organized

elections to the Opposition Coordination Council

when everyone was shouting that there was no need for any

elections, just lead everything. In all

elections I support representatives

of other parties and set no

conditions. Just now there were elections to the

Moscow City Duma and in other regions. Did I

went around demanding, "Sign some kind of"

declaration saying that you love me very much and won’t

criticize me, the way the Yabloko party often does

(a Russian liberal political party). I didn’t set a single condition

for anyone. I supported them simply

because they are the opposition. That’s why I

try, through practical actions,

to prove it every day. Look at

our organization. It’s very democratic.

Look at what we do — it’s, it’s

always support for competition. So that’s

basically the whole answer. Mm-hmm. I

have a question, Alexei, about

the protests. There’s a feeling, a feeling

that all civic activity

has kind of stopped, right? That everyone has gone silent.

The rallies happened, then everyone went home.

The trials continue, the prison terms continue,

they continue. If, if we don’t, don’t, don’t

repeat the protest, then they’ll simply lock everyone up.

People need to be saved. Do you think they should be

saved only through new protests? That’s

the question. By the way, how? Save them by any

means. We saw that some of those who were saved

were saved simply because there was

a certain intensity of public opinion.

At that point there were no

super-massive demonstrations anymore. There were,

in particular, actors who spoke out, yes, and

there was simply such a public resonance that everyone

started talking about it, and some people

were released. Then, when things went quiet, they

started again, in silence,

putting people in prison. Well, absolutely. In fact, just now

I came here from Avtozavodskaya metro station

to your station, Echo of Moscow radio (a Russian radio station),

on Novy Arbat, and in front of the metro

at Avtozavodskaya there were picketers. There’s a whole

campaign called Metro Pickets, and

they stand everywhere. And of course we would like

the protests to keep growing all the time, the way

it’s happening in Colombia, or as it

recently happened in Bolivia. Unfortunately, it’s

a wave-like process. Remember, there was

2011 and 2012,

there was enthusiasm, then a year later

it flared up several times in a row, and everyone was celebrating again.

And everyone writes, "At last, young people have taken to

the streets," and then it all dies down again. It’s this kind of

wave-like protest, and we probably, unfortunately,

— I wish it were

constant, that there were always great demonstrations

every Sat— Well, why don’t we

try? Because you can’t initiate things irresponsibly.

I can announce a rally

every Saturday. But if no one

comes, that will have such a

demoralizing effect

on the protest movement. So if I knew how

to press a button that would instantly

stir up 300,000 people and send them running

to protest, I would press that button.

Unfortunately, there is no such button. And so I, like

all of you, like all of us, try

to bring people in. I always go to all

the actions. Though lately I rarely make it to them

because usually I get

arrested somewhere — now, these days, simply for

a couple of weeks before any action. But even so,

I still go to them. I’m not shy about it and

I’m not afraid to call on people to attend. As for

how to get people out, there is no

other answer, no other solution, except

routine work in every sense.

Spreading information. Those very

Metro Pickets — they release people because

they fear public opinion. Putin

is afraid that these arrested

and imprisoned people are dragging down his ratings, and he

released Pavel Ustinov because, well,

all the actors were shouting, "Either release him

or, effectively, we’ll destroy you

on our Instagram." Margarita has a different

opinion. She thinks that all your appearances,

our appearances, all these Metro Picket actions,

the protests — all of it is nonsense, because

in the end one Kremlin tower calls another and

the issue gets decided. Margarita Simonyan, first

let her return 100 million rubles (about 1 million USD), together with

her husband, which she spent on

her talentless film, first of all. And

second, let all of them, all of them with their

Russia Today team, give back to us

the 20 billion rubles (about 200 million USD) we spend every year on

this pointless, utterly stupid television channel

that nobody watches — neither on YouTube nor

well, basically, on television either.

It costs 20 billion rubles a year, so somehow she is

really not an authority for

me at all. Nevertheless, I

mentioned that example simply to, so to speak, sharpen the point.

I brought up that example, that quote. But in

fact, a great many people, including

again what you might call people

who could be considered our

allies in many ways, believe

that protests still do not

affect political decisions, and that

civic activity, mass participation, do not

affect political decisions at all, that

these

decisions — all our, all our

sorry for interrupting — all our

empirical experience shows that this is not

the case. Well, listen, we weren’t born

yesterday either. We’ve seen actions and

the consequences of those actions. After all,

I’m sitting in this studio, and although I’ve been

convicted several times, I still wasn’t

sent to prison for five years in 2013

because people came out onto Manezhnaya Square

(a central square in Moscow). The Golunov case is an example, the same

with Ustinov is an example, and there are other

examples too. We know for certain, absolutely,

that this is the only thing that works. As for

Golunov, that’s exactly what I wanted to ask about

— about Golunov. It seems

that if back then this

A campaign over Golunov’s arrest wouldn’t have hurt.

There was no one there to do PR for Putin or anything like that.

who at that time was in

St. Petersburg, at the forum, and back then people were talking about

No one was talking about the forum. Everyone was talking

only about Golunov, saying it was a mistake

by the security services in relation to Putin, not

in relation to Golunov. Probably, yes. But in

fact, why was it a mistake? I mean, he was

arrested, people started getting outraged, and

so the security services realized it was a mistake.

But if people hadn’t gotten outraged, still

what comes first is the question.

If it were up to Putin, Putin would jail

half the country tomorrow, leave just one pipeline

— a Gazprom pipeline — and let it bring him money.

He doesn’t need anyone — not pensioners,

no one. He’d lock them all up, and

let them work, building a new

pipeline. He wouldn’t even raise an eyebrow. But

when he sees that simply thousands of

people are posting on Facebook, and it’s obvious that

they’re about to pour into the streets, then he

lets those people go. Of course, afterward they

dress it up as, “Yes, we ourselves

released them. You were getting upset there on Facebook, but

we reconsidered it. Well, we understand,”

perfectly well that they only start thinking about something

when they’re afraid of one thing only:

that if they squeeze a little harder now,

people will take to the streets. Then they let them out. Someone

recently published this figure, and it struck me:

apparently, over the last 10 years

how many people have been imprisoned?

30,000 poli-

ti-

cal prisoners, around

No, specifically under these protest-related articles.

Over the last, what, 10 years? I think that’s

an exaggerated

figure, if I’m not mistaken.

We’ll check Mediazona (an independent Russian media outlet) and the news so we don’t

mislead anyone.

We’ll definitely check. I think that’s

unlikely. Still, we do see a clear

trend: the number of absurd cases from the category of

things like this—

it was just being discussed yesterday—

someone took a photo, posted it on Facebook, uh, people

formed the number 55 with their bodies, but from

Facebook it was photographed in a way that made it look like a swastika,

and a criminal case was opened. And if there hadn’t been

a scandal on Facebook, they would have convicted

that person. How many times has that happened?

The system can no longer work any other way, and

they earn positions, ranks,

apartments by jailing people, because Putin told them:

I’ll give you positions,

ranks, apartments, if you keep locking up,

in particular, those who write, uh, there on

Facebook, VKontakte, and so on. And what

you said at the beginning of the program, that

if we stay silent, they’ll jail everyone — they

really do have a plan to jail everyone. Did you find it?

Well, also, on the subject of imprisonments and

releases, there’s a very important

topic here that I’d maybe like

to go into in more detail in the second part.

But I’ll ask the question: all these actors who

came out in support of Pavel Ustinov, whom we

were all so happy about — that happened while you weren’t there.

Alexei, at that time you were sitting there, watching

through the bars, yes, at what was happening.

But when they came to the rally where,

I think, you also spoke that day,

already, yes — when there was the rally, yes, there was.

There was a wonderful report by TV Rain (an independent Russian TV channel) precisely from

that actors’ crowd — wonderful guys,

all great. But they were all completely

at a loss under the pressure of this

political subject. They

had entered a completely unfamiliar space and

immediately started saying, “Oh, this is all not

our thing. We only want people to be freed, and

politics — no, no, no, we

are against politics, we’re not against the authorities,

we’re not rebelling, we’re only defending one specific

person who is innocent.” That’s why I’m bringing up again

what I already said before:

cause and effect. How do we make

that connection click into place in their minds?

Listen, it has clicked into place for them.

Let’s be honest: they understand everything perfectly well.

It’s just that the bravest among them

— Yana Troyanova, one of the most famous

actresses in Russia, who definitely has something

to lose — stands at these pickets every

Saturday because it all clicked for her, and

she isn’t afraid, and she speaks honestly. As for

all the others, they’re at the first, at the

first stage of this evolution. They understand everything,

but they’re afraid. They depend very much on

some minister like Medinsky (former Russian culture minister),

pathetic and miserable as he is, who can with a single

snap of his fingers destroy their careers. They

will never be cast again. So for

them, this is already an act

of fantastic courage. We’d like

them to keep being this brave going forward,

but unfortunately not all of them can.

Well, thank you that they did at least something.

Compared with where things were a year ago, this

is already major progress.

Did you find the news?

And where did you get

30,000 political

[music]

prisoners

Anya

[music]

It is 8:30 p.m. in the capital. Good evening, this is

Konstantin Miroshnikov in the studio on Ekho

with a brief news update. At the Élysée Palace

the dates of the summit were officially confirmed

for the Normandy Four in Paris. The leaders

of France, Germany, Russia, and Ukraine

will gather together on December 9, TASS reported, citing

the press attaché of the French administration.

the presidents' summit will take place against the backdrop of

the agreements reached in the summer of this year

agreements which, in particular,

made it possible to separate forces in a number of

zones along the line of contact in Donbas

the last meeting of the Normandy Four

let me remind you, took place in Berlin back in

October

2016. Former Donald Trump adviser

has been found guilty of lying to Congress, as

Fox News reports. Such a

verdict against Roger Stone

was delivered by the jury. They concluded

that the former adviser tried to conceal the truth about

his contacts with the WikiLeaks website

prosecutors believe that Stone

intended to obtain compromising

information on the Democrat in order to help

Trump in the election campaign. In addition,

he is accused of attempting

to block the testimony of other

witnesses in Congress and conceal from

lawmakers documents. Stone's defense

insisted that he had not broken

the law because he had not received any

compromising material. During the trial, the former

Trump associate clashed with the court; he

was banned from speaking to the press and

on social media. Bolivia has withdrawn from

the socialist alliance of Latin American countries

in Latin America, this was announced on air

by the republic's foreign minister

Karen Longaric. In addition,

the Foreign Ministry is recalling almost all ambassadors who

were appointed by the government of the resigned

president Evo Morales. Earlier,

the head of the ministry also announced the recall of

the diplomat in Cuba and the republic's representatives

to the UN, who refused

to leave their posts after Bolivia's withdrawal

from the regional bloc. Its

remaining members include Venezuela, Nicaragua,

Cuba, and a number of other island states

Earlier, Honduras and

Ecuador also left the bloc. Now for the weather in Moscow:

cloudy, 4°C above zero, pressure 757 mm

of mercury (about 1009 hPa). Tomorrow, around 4°C, with a chance of

light brief rain

Konstantin Miroshnikov, news service

Ah

of Moscow. OVD-Info, yes, then we can believe it. Yes,

yes, look, over the past 15 years

I'll read it now. All right, so that we

can talk about it properly. Otherwise people

really

mile

...and one of the most deeply moving human

voices...

you know, the investigator told Kirill

Serebrennikov. He's testifying today

again, that society must be protected

from people like you

in general. Of course, the investigator

Lavrov. Was that in court or somewhere else,

just off to the side? Kirill quoted his

words

Yes, that's Lavrov, your guy now, right?

handling your case

Well, listen, we have

112 investigators in our

[music]

group. The lead one should be, what's his name,

Gubaidulin, maybe? Or the one

who handled the

Bolotnaya case (the case related to the 2012 Bolotnaya Square protests in Moscow)

Once again, good evening, the program

on Echo of Moscow... our

let's go

thank you very much to our listener

my Facebook friend Garry Vorontsov, he

sent me a link. So, according to OVD-Info, under

the article on violating the rules for rallies,

demonstrations, marches, or pickets, over

the past 15 years more than 30,000 people have been convicted

Well yes, actually

Absolutely, I'm just roughly

estimating now. Look, in 2017

the 'He Is Not Dimon to You' protests had 2,000 people

over the last

period, and recently there were also another

around 5,000 across all the rallies, so

I guess that comes to about that per year

So from the moment they

adopted these laws under which there are arrests

and fines for participating in rallies

that's probably how it added up

to 30,000. We can say that this is mass

repression. Of course, they'll tell us, let's

also be honest: not all of these people were

jailed; they were fined, after all

or some of them were briefly

detained for 30 days, 15 days, but even so

nevertheless, of course, this is still

the work of a repressive apparatus. Especially since

we still don't really have

political articles as such, except for

extremism, yes. And everything else that

in Soviet times counted as dissident activity

doesn't exist now. There isn't even an article now

what was it called, for anti-Soviet

propaganda, yes. But nevertheless, now

look, we already have thousands of cases

for insulting representatives of the authorities, and in 8% of

cases—I saw the statistics just today—

it's about insulting Putin, writing something

about Putin. 'Butterfingers' also

counts as an insult; they've already taken people away a couple of times

someone wrote the right thing. But if you write

'send the judge to the soap factory'

'hen'

they say that's also a call to murder a judge

'Butterfingers'—he judged me himself

several times. I don't feel the slightest

warm feelings...

Back to the question, Dmitry

Guber, and to ask after all, seriously, about

lustration—about what is, of course,

your trademark topic

Libertarian. This tool, in terms of...

freeing ourselves from the cursed past and in

taking steps toward Russia, moving closer to Russia.

the future. I’ll talk about that later. I believe this

tool is effective, and the history of our

neighbors—above all the Czech Republic and Germany—

has shown that this is a

highly effective tool. Moreover, those countries that

to one degree or another did, after all,

carry out lustration clearly began

to develop better.

They are wealthier and more

successful countries. There are mixed views

on this issue, but I

definitely belong to that

part of the opposition spectrum that

believes that lustration in Russia is, of course,

necessary. This was the biggest

problem with Yeltsin: he did not do it, and

that was because he was part of that system. Well,

fine, he was part of that system, but even

early in his term there were people

—forget the slander about him—there were people

who had imprisoned dissidents as late as

the final years. When Anatoly

Marchenko died after a hunger strike in eighty-

nine—or yes, in 1990 he

died—well, the point is that even then

executioners were still serving, people who had committed

crimes even under Soviet law. I’m

not saying that Yeltsin should have

purged all CPSU members, but judges who handed down

-

unjust sentences, and security service officers

who dealt with dissidents—them

of course should have been subjected to lustration, not

sent off to work for oligarchs, like what was his name,

Filipp Bobkov or Popkov—he worked for

Gusinsky. That was a monstrous

mistake, and that is why nothing worked out

for us. I absolutely believe that if

we do not carry out some form of lustration,

our chances of

success

and of normal development are much lower. All right.

That was a very detailed answer, yes. I think

Dovzhenko, if I remember correctly, passed away

in my view.

Bobkov—I remember that people who knew him

and he himself said that on the one

hand, yes, but on the other hand he

almost saved Solzhenitsyn, for example,

by securing his expulsion from the country.

There you go—these investigators

who are fabricating cases now, they are all

such nice, pleasant people. I constantly have

this recurring situation where

at the same time a person is writing up

some completely made-up

report on you, and then looks up and

says, “Honestly, Alexei, I

support you. Of course, what you’re doing is good

work.” The people who come to my home

to conduct a search—well, I don’t know, my

wife and daughter will be sitting there, and they walk around

them. By the way, my wife asked me to send greetings

to your program—she’s a big

fan of it.” “We send our very, very best

regards too.” Yes, and they walk around the apartment,

rummaging through children’s things, and at the same time

the operatives, even the investigators,

will обязательно come up and say, “Well, actually,

of course, Alexei, nothing personal—we have nothing against you.

You’re doing good work. We ourselves

would have, you know, shot all those corrupt officials

ourselves. But right now, of course, we

have to tear through all your belongings here

and dig around and look for something, although

we understand there’s nothing here and

nothing to look for, and all of this is pulled out of

thin air. But somehow—it’s not us, it’s life

that’s like this.” That doesn’t make it any easier for us. And also—

you’re supposed to make sense of all that.

That’s all. I think even Alexei himself

is already confused about how many

lawsuits there are now. In fact, it really is

quite hard to keep track of them; these lawsuits

keep appearing again and again. So,

several such suits have been upheld.

The biggest are

Mosgortrans, some Restaurant Armenia, but

new ones keep appearing. Last week

we learned that some noodle shop is suing us,

which really sounds like a joke.

They want rubles because, they say, they didn’t sell

what they consider a sufficient amount of

noodles, and apparently Alburov, Sobol, and I

got in the way of that. And today we

were in court with Metelsky. In our office

there’s a big wall with

the court schedule written on it, and there are literally several

every day. The biggest is 88 million

rubles, which Prigozhin won from me, from Sobol,

and from the FBK—Prigozhin, Putin’s chef, that very one.

Well, in total, as far as I remember, we’ve

been hit with lawsuits totaling 40 million

rubles. Already upheld, including

Prigozhin’s, meaning upheld—well,

are you already paying those 88 million?

That was all—it was simple.

Are we paying? Of course we won’t be able

to pay any 88 million rubles, but that’s

ridiculous, and it’s obvious that the amount is

absurd. You see, it was almost

on the very same day that we proved in

court that Prigozhin had poisoned Moscow

children, the court ruled that each family

with a poisoned child should be paid

15,000 rubles, and at the same time we are supposed

to pay Prigozhin 88 million rubles. That is

an absurd amount, simply in order to

paralyze the FBK. That means now they will

now, entirely on legal grounds, be able to

keep seizing everything from us because we

will still owe them until—I don’t know—until

the end of time, basically for a very long time.

They are seizing equipment, that is—and for now

they are just seizing it; they simply come in and...

After some time, they’ll start seizing her—what exactly?

The FSB guys, the courts, and then the bailiffs—they

will be confiscating equipment from the FBK (Anti-Corruption Foundation) and from my

apartment, and from Sobol’s apartment as well—they

will be taking, I don’t know, a television

or sofas, because that all has to be

sold and the money given to Prigozhin, because he

is, poor thing, the injured party. But listen, there are

people giving sensible advice. Many say: let

Alexei announce a fundraiser for the fines.

We’ll raise those billions

or millions in three days for a good cause. Maybe that

is one possible path. It’s entirely possible that this is the way

to go. It’s just that right now these proceedings are ongoing

and new ones are being added every day, so I

can’t even say how much needs

to be raised. Will we need to raise

100 million rubles, or I don’t know, or

maybe some of those amounts will be reduced.

So for now, we’re proceeding on the basis that we

are raising money for our work—that is, we

are still fundraising and still need

that support. But we’re raising money for investigations, for

the work of the headquarters, for the work of the FBK. When all

these court cases are over and the bailiffs start

running around us shouting that they’re confiscating everything,

then we’ll make a decision, and I don’t

know yet what that decision will be. For now, it’s unclear.

I’d like to bring up one more topic, if

you don’t mind. My co-host also thinks it’s a very

delicate matter—a topic Alexei

carefully avoids and doesn’t like to

talk about. So what, the host is going to ask me?

Ask me. It’s the topic of Crimea, because yes, there are many

people who demand a direct answer to

a very complicated question—they want a very

simple answer. I’ve heard it at least 15 times already:

“Navalny

still dodges the question.” But I’m not

dodging it. It’s just that very complicated

questions do not have very simple answers.

So, broadly speaking, my answer is this:

all of us are thoroughly sick and tired of

questions about Crimea and questions about Ukraine, and I

really do avoid them, because I do not

want to follow Putin’s agenda. Putin

would like everyone in the country—and especially the opposition—to

spend every day, every hour,

every second running around discussing Crimea,

arguing with Ukrainians and so on.

I’m not going to do that, and

I won’t do it. Of course, what

happened in 2014 was illegal.

But we’ve already entered that part of

politics where there are no simple solutions.

There are 2 million people there with Russian

passports. In other words, it’s already some kind of

messy mince—you can’t turn that mince back

into its original form. So there is no

simple solution to the Crimea problem.

Apparently, there is no simple solution at all,

just as there isn’t one for the Japanese islands dispute.

That may not sound like a neat, simple answer, but

I’m

a person from real life, a person

who is fighting for leadership positions,

a person who thinks about what he

will actually be able to do if he takes a leading

position. So I’m saying that if I take

such a position, I will begin by

holding another absolutely

fair referendum in Crimea. Or rather, not another one, but

the first one, because that referendum cannot

be considered a real referendum. But I understand that this kind

of answer will not

please a certain number of

Facebook users. Well, if they don’t like it,

they don’t like it. That’s not the point—not

Facebook. The issue here is that this is a kind of

dead end, because

yes, fine, a referendum—but a referendum

is held either in an independent

territory or on the territory of some

state. If it is the territory of the

Russian Federation, then the fate of Crimea

should be decided by all citizens of the Russian

Federation, not just the residents of Crimea. That’s not

how it works. The same

goes for holding a referendum on the territory of

Ukraine. So we should not

approach this simply from some

casuistic legalistic point of view: in one

constitution one thing is written, in another

constitution something else is written, and there are people

now sitting in the Kremlin who simply

don’t care about any constitutions or any

laws. We have to proceed simply from

reality. Point number one, the starting point

in this roadmap, is to clearly determine

what the people who live in that

territory actually

think. That is the starting

point. But I still live in Russia, I am

a Russian politician, and I represent

the interests of all the people who come to

polling stations holding

Russian passports. I have to think about

all those people. I wonder—there is no headquarters in Crimea,

by the way. First of all, in

Crimea it is monstrously difficult to work. We

literally had our people arrested just yesterday

from the Belgorod headquarters, who, as I understand it,

had come to Crimea with a quadcopter (drone)

to film some property belonging to a Belgorod

crook that he had bought somewhere in Yevpatoria (a resort city in Crimea).

They were detained completely illegally, everything was

confiscated, and they were jailed for several days

under administrative arrest. We don’t even know any

details. In that sense, Crimea is

of course an absolute lawless zone.

It is impossible to conduct any

political activity there. Right now, the main

activity of the FBK is investigations.

The activity of the FBK is investigations.

The activity of our headquarters is also

investigations and political work

directly in the regions, on the ground. But

elections—right now, that is the main thing we

were dealing with quite recently

quite recently. The next elections—when are the elections?

Everyone is asking about the State Duma. Every year we have

a single voting day. Yes, exactly.

That’s right—the next single voting day

will be this coming September, including in

major regions, including Novosibirsk

and Chelyabinsk. Those will be local elections,

but they are important too. Let me take

a question. We’ve collected some good ones—people have been writing in.

I’d like to ask one question

that we were asked to raise.

No, Valery Solovey asked us to ask it.

And our listeners here are also asking us,

our listeners. Solovey said this on air

and off air as well, and asked us to find out from

Navalny what his attitude is. Right now, a certain

group of civic activists outside

the party system has announced across all regions

a kind of civic action,

an action of civic solidarity.

Against what, exactly? What do they want? Well, that’s not quite—

you’re oversimplifying it.

That’s not the point. If you’re in,

I don’t know, Tsaryovo-Kokshaysk,

and you have your own local problem there, then you

protest. The question is: am I against it?

Against people, as you said, in Tsar—what was it—

holding an action when they want to? I’m

in favor of them doing so.

Please.

I support it.

Let them fight for their rights. I’m not just

saying we support it—our headquarters

that exist—I don’t know what kind of

wonderful group of people has come together.

Maybe it really is wonderful, and

I think it probably is wonderful,

but we have real headquarters in 45

regions that, every single day,

are constantly monitoring most

of these actions. Our headquarters

organize them. From Alexander:

Astakhova: can the FBK and Alexei

win at the ECHR if they do not pay

the insane fines that were imposed on them?

Winning or losing at the ECHR is not connected

to paying specific fines. We go to the ECHR

if our rights have been violated. The ECHR is the

European Court of Human Rights. If our

rights—such as the right to a fair

trial—

or if we are being politically persecuted—

are violated, we go to the European Court.

If we prove our case, we win. This

has nothing to do with what Russia does there.

Have there already been victories? Of course. I think

this may sound a little boastful,

but among individual Russian citizens,

hardly anyone has won more cases at the ECHR

than I have. Lyosh, as for forms

of protest in general—besides, let’s say,

political actions, rallies, pickets, and

so on—what about a form like a mass

strike, something that

the real trade union movement is known for

in all European countries and in

America as well? Is it possible here to build

some kind of powerful political

movement on that basis? One thing I’m proud of

is that we are the only

political movement that actually

works with militant

trade unions, of which there are very few in

particular. We support, for example,

strikes—the doctors’ strike in

the Novgorod region. We were its main

information backers, in that sense—

how should I put it—its media sponsors.

Yes, everyone learned about that strike because

we actively supported it from the very

beginning. And we follow similar actions

very closely,

and help where we can. About nine months ago I

announced in a video that we have an entire

major project: we help all

trade unions. Again, we want nothing from them.

To return to the question of my so-called authoritarianism,

I don’t need trade unions to do anything

for us or even to support the FBK.

They are fighting for their own rights. We said

that we are ready to spend time, money,

and legal resources in order to help

these trade unions. And you asked a great

question, because

without the active participation of trade unions,

a political movement is always

weak. In Russia, trade unions traditionally

barely exist. We are trying very hard to

bring them in and help them somehow.

People really are terribly afraid,

first of all. And second, they come and

say, “We’re on strike, and nobody knows about it.”

But that is a problem we can

solve. Because when they—when we—

get involved, millions of people hear about it.

That is what is called professional solidarity,

essentially. Again, when actors

came out in support of an actor, that was

basically the beginning of a trade union

movement. Historians—

historians, priests—yes, exactly. We are very,

very engaged in this. And by the way, doctors and

teachers also issued a statement then, and this

Doctors’ Alliance, which we supported,

also called on people

to take part in rallies and actions. So

we devote a lot of time to this.

Some of our colleagues in the opposition

kind of laugh at this and say that I’m

drifting to the left, but I do not think that

helping trade unions means moving left or right.

Normal trade unions are, in any country,

a huge sector of political life.

And they are not necessarily left-wing; there are right-wing ones too.

It’s simply a real opportunity.

Since you mentioned the church, have there never

been any attempts, either from their side or from yours?

any kind of cooperation and

any kind of action, so to speak

there is no solidarity in action, though there is plenty of talk

quite a lot. I’ve met with various

people too. There was even, at one point, some time ago,

a minor scandal a few years ago. I

met with Chaplin, and some

photos were published, and then a lot of people

turned on me — how could I possibly

have done that? But let’s put it this way: this contact

has always existed. Inside the Church there are also

a huge number of people unhappy with the fact

that it has, de facto, simply turned

into an instrument of the state. And, well, let’s

be honest, there is opposition there, but

right now this nomenklatura there, uh,

the episcopate, however you want to put it, in the Russian Orthodox Church. Unfortunately,

to a large extent these are people who

simply do not believe in God, and of course within

the Russian Orthodox Church there are many, let’s put it mildly, who are dissatisfied

with this situation, but it has never

led to any practical

uh, practical steps, practical work

still, you have to understand that priests

there are already like soldiers — they are completely

dependent on their superiors, and

only a handful of them can say anything

remember when recently, in support of

political prisoners, some clergy spoke out

— the vast majority of them

were not from the Russian Orthodox Church, and those who were

from the Russian Orthodox Church were later somehow

punished by their superiors. And as for an investigation,

we have never conducted one

Well, we are following this closely, but

for now I never comment on our plans

regarding

investigations

If you have a Russian passport but

live abroad permanently and do not

have an account with a Russian bank,

you can support the FBK morally. If you

had an account with a Russian bank, then you could

support us financially as well, but right now

well, you know, they slapped us with this

“foreign agent” label because

they staged a provocation and transferred money to us

from Spain into a blocked account. We could not

return it. So, if you are

a Russian citizen, you can

help us. You can give us money too,

but if you send it to us from

a foreign account, then right now we would simply

have to return it, unfortunately

— that’s how the law is set up. But as for

whether anything has been unblocked, it’s endless: we

get things unblocked, they block them again, and you

eventually don’t even know whom to trust. Well, we do know, but I

again, I’m not going to comment on this in too much detail

all of this, simply so as not to

explain

uh, to the people from the Investigative Committee

who are listening very carefully

to our interview how exactly

to fight us effectively. It is very hard for us

right now. We’re having to survive because

it’s hard for us to raise money. And most

importantly, even if we do have money

in an account, we can’t send it

to a person because their account

is blocked. They’re also

blocking child benefits, survivor benefits,

and so on. They have simply, for a whole

bunch of people — some of whom have absolutely nothing

to do with us — just blocked

their personal accounts, and people simply cannot

make loan payments, they can’t go to the store

using that card — it’s blocked, and

that’s it. Some woman is suffering,

a huge number of people are suffering

because they have never in their lives

worked for us or received anything from us

— their tiny pension gets paid there, and then

they simply block that card, and that’s it

and the person runs around in their region trying to prove

that, basically, they have absolutely nothing

to do with Navalny, have never seen him in their life. There was simply

a case, I think in Omsk Region,

where they literally searched the neighbors of our

coordinator — the neighbors — and carried out searches

and seized their electronics. Just the neighbors.

Alexei, 2021 is coming — you

know, elections, elections, elections. For you, will they be

the main event? Of course, yes. But in 2021

for me — and I hope for you, for

everyone — they will be a major event, because in 2021

United Russia will once again want

to secure and strengthen its majority in

the State Duma, just as they wanted to in

the Moscow City Duma. What’s more, in

2021 everything will be more difficult — well,

probably more interesting for us

because they have already seen our strategy of

Smart Voting. They will come up with something

on that front, they will invent something

cunning, and our shared task is

to use every element of political

struggle. I’m not saying that elections are

the most important thing, no, but we absolutely

must participate in them somehow, and

we must give United Russia a fight

We’ll see. I always say that every

election should be considered separately. In some

cases, well, we need to and are obliged to boycott; in

others, we must take part

But from where we stand now, at this point in time

and place, it all looks like

in the 2021 elections we must crush United

Russia, and I personally, along with my

associates, will do everything in our power

to rough them up there politically

A brilliant question. Alexei, let’s suppose

the day comes when you defeat all

the crooks and thieves and they resign

— what will the FBK do then? They will not resign.

The FBK will be engaged in what we

will be doing: supporting prosecutions in court and

there will be long, very long, but honest trials, and we will

to put them on trial, and

after that, there will be far too much of everything there.

When that brighter time comes, we will

hand out some medals to everyone and disband

everyone to go home. You know, any

army, sooner or later, must

go back to their apartments. Listen, but in

fact, is there still hope that, by peaceful

means, it is possible to change, uh, the government in Russia?

The USSR changed peacefully, after all. It was from above

all of it. Well, from above—but remember

the demonstrations against Article 6

of the Constitution. Some things came from above, some

came from below. From above there was glasnost, from above

there was glasnost—that is, the

society proclaimed by Gorbachev was

prepared for this, prepared for this way out. But

now it is exactly the opposite. Yes, well,

there are completely different scenarios

for a transfer of power: some are peaceful, some are not.

What Putin is doing is leading everything

of course toward the country's collapse. He is leading

first toward an economic crash, which

first toward economic stagnation, and it is already

inevitable—it has already arrived. We see that none of

us has the slightest illusion that

tomorrow we will live better than

today. Stagnation has set in, and after it

an economic crash will inevitably come, and

after that there may be various scenarios. We

all hope for a peaceful scenario. We are

normal people, after all, but unfortunately this

government is doing everything to make the likelihood

of a peaceful scenario lower. Well, I think that

the scenario also depends on how

the elections of 2021 go, among

other things. Many, many factors affect this.

We are preparing for the 2021 elections.

They are two years away—very soo...

The technology is exc... We are preparing, and we are

right here and now doing everything

necessary in order to weaken these

positions of this government. Thank you, thank you.

Thank you, that's all. All the best.

Take care. Well, well, great—thank you very much.

Thank you very much.