Alexei Navalny’s interview on the BARS TV channel

Hello, this is the program There Is

an Opinion. Today our guest is the creator,

founder, and chairman of the Anti-Corruption

Foundation (ACF), Alexei Navalny. Alexei,

hello. Good evening. And,

Alexei has come to Ivanovo to

present his

presidential campaign headquarters here, so to speak. Yes. You

are preparing for the presidential campaign.

My first question is this. You’ve

come to Ivanovo, and I understand that you

have very little time

to look around and see anything at all. What

is your impression of Ivanovo and its residents? And

I’d even put it this way: is there any

difference? As I understand it, this is already your

twentieth headquarters.

There are big differences. I won’t lie.

I’ve seen practically nothing in Ivanovo and

didn’t have time to look around, but I did see

quite a lot of people—many volunteers came

to the headquarters opening today, and they’re absolutely

amazing people. I’m very pleased with

how the meeting with the volunteers went, how

the headquarters opening went. That probably

happened in part because

the Ivanovo region and some of its towns—

Plyos first and foremost—

have simply become some of the symbols

of the campaign. They are invisibly present

everywhere. That Milovka dacha, the little

house for the duck—these are all parts of our

campaign. And here it’s much easier to explain

everything about our latest and most

high-profile investigation. That’s why so many

volunteers came, and the atmosphere was so good.

When you were heading to Ivanovo, did you find out how many

people had signed or wanted

to sign for you out of those 325,

as I understand it, who

It’s almost 400 now, I think 380, but

we can see online where

people are registering from, because we simply

There are people from Ivanovo. I just checked. We have

several thousand people from Ivanovo

who have added their signatures and are ready

to formalize them on paper

closer to the election campaign. And here

there are several hundred volunteers. We’re satisfied.

Given the size of the region and the

population, when we look at

the number of volunteers, we see that this is

a very good figure.

In one of your recent interviews, you said

that you know everything about Ivanovo’s prison camps,

because you served time together with guys from

Ivanovo.

That’s the pure truth. What else do you know about

the Ivanovo region besides Ivanovo’s

prison camps? Do they prepare some kind of

briefing for you? When you travel to a region, are you

told anything about it?

Of course I read a briefing. I

What was in that briefing about the Ivanovo

region? The briefing on the Ivanovo region—

my briefing starts with the figure for

the average salary. And I always have

a test. When an audience gathers, I say:

"Please tell me,

what is the average

salary here?"

And people start telling me here: 12,

13, 15,000 rubles. Do you know that according to

Rosstat, the average salary here

is 25,000? When I named that figure, people laughed.

Well, they laughed in almost every region, but

here, in the Ivanovo region, they laughed

very loudly, because everyone here, of course,

knows perfectly well that the average salary is nowhere near 25,000

rubles here, unfortunately,

in the Ivanovo region. The briefing

also covered the situation in

industry, because this used to be, well,

a center of light industry, and that in fact

no more than ten

factories are operating now, whereas there used to be 43. The briefing also had

information about the governor, about

recent corruption cases, about your

recently imprisoned deputy governor,

and about the state of the roads. They

really are very bad here. In

the Vladimir region they’re bad too. We drove from

Vladimir, but the moment you cross

that point where the sign says Vladimir Region and

right away it’s thump-thump-thump, the car

starts rattling. Well,

Well, actually Ivanovo’s roads

used to be praised, so to speak. Ah, well, I’d

put it this way: roads are bad everywhere in Russia.

You can’t say that the Ivanovo

region is a record-holder; compared, for example, with

the Volgograd region, the roads in the Ivanovo

region are actually still good.

Let’s put it this way. We’ll come back to the Ivanovo region

later. It’s just that part of the audience

actually doesn’t know at all who

Alexei Navalny is. So we’ve

prepared a very short

video introduction. Please.

Alexei Navalny, 40, has two

higher education degrees: one in law and one in

economics. In 2000, he joined

the Yabloko party. In 2007, he was expelled

officially for nationalist

activity. He became a founder of the movement

Narod, which described itself as

national-democratic.

He repeatedly took part in Russian

Marches. Navalny first gained recognition

through online publications exposing

corruption in major state-owned companies

such as Transneft, VTB, and Sberbank. The business

newspaper Vedomosti named him Person

of the Year in 2009. Later, Navalny became an active

critic of United Russia, spoke at

protest rallies in Moscow, and was a member of

the Coordination Council of the Russian

Opposition. He was repeatedly brought to

to administrative liability for

organizing unauthorized

events. He launched the online projects

RosPil, RosZhKH, RosYama, and others. In

2013, he took part in the Moscow mayoral election

and came in second after

Sobyanin with 27% of the vote, receiving

more than all the other losing

candidates combined. Since 2013,

he has headed the Progress Party. Navalny

created the Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF),

whose investigations have implicated the country's top

leadership. A film about the family of

Prosecutor General Yury Chaika drew more than 5

million views and received a special prize at the

ArtDocFest documentary film festival.

A film accusing

Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev

has already drawn around 20 million views and

became the trigger for anti-corruption

rallies across the country, including in

Ivanovo.

Let me remind you that this is the program There Is an Opinion.

Our guest today is Alexei

Navalny, who has just now been introduced for

those who may not know who

he is.

Excellent introduction, by the way. You could practically

use it for an election campaign.

Everything was clear and to the point. You know, when I

was thinking about how we should

structure this conversation, I thought that

it probably wouldn't make sense to ask questions for

those who are your supporters,

who admire you. It would probably be silly

to try to persuade people who

hate you or think that you

are rocking the boat and so on. So I

thought the questions should really be

for people who are unsure, because

most people probably

agree that something is wrong in the kingdom

(a reference to the phrase 'something is rotten in the state'). But should we, can we trust

Alexei Navalny? So these

questions may be a little

somewhat naive in places,

yes. But let's imagine that

we have a doubtful audience, and let's try—or rather, you try—to

convince them on some points

and win them over to your side.

I'll gladly try.

Lawyer Violetta Volkova, and this relates

directly to the purpose of your

visit, said that you are essentially

She also filed a statement with the Central Election Commission, to Ella Pamfilova.

Pamfilova has not responded yet. She said that

you are raising money through deception and

abuse of trust, because the Central Election Commission

will never register you; you have

a serious criminal conviction. The verdict, although it has not yet

entered into force, still leaves little

doubt that it will. So after

some time it will become clear that there will be no

election campaign for Alexei Navalny.

He is simply deceiving people. How would you

comment on that statement? I

would comment on that statement not as something said by

some lawyer, but as something the authorities are saying

— United Russia says it, Peskov says it,

Putin's entourage says that

Navalny will not be allowed to run in any election,

because he is barred. And my

position here is simple.

After all, I represent some part of the

population, right? That is probably impossible to

deny. On March 26, there was a rally here

that drew—I am actually proud that

in Ivanovo, the rally

brought out 850 people. And United Russia, meanwhile,

has never managed here to gather a rally

of that size. So in any case,

Well, that's not exactly true, well, well, well, to be

fair, it was probably one of the

larger rallies, yes. In any case, it

shows that I probably do represent

some part of the population. And in any

case, there are quite a lot of people in our society

who share my ideas.

They want a fight against corruption, they want

governors and mayors to be elected, they want

an increase in the minimum wage, which I advocate,

and they support the ideas in my

platform. Do I have the right to run in the election? I

believe I do. And there are quite a lot of people around me

who believe

that I have the right to run. And even

many Putin supporters say that,

well, there ought to be some competition.

The fact that the Kremlin will not let me into the election,

opens criminal cases against me,

fabricates criminal cases against me

— and that is not a figure of speech. I

won against them in the European Court

and proved that the case had been fabricated.

So my position is simple. If

I have the right to take part in the election, then essentially,

if there is some number of

people—well, I don't know exactly how many, and

I can't say right now that it's a majority,

but a substantial number support

me—then my election campaign

has the right to exist. That means

I have the right to open a campaign office in Ivanovo, I

have the right to meet today with

volunteers. I have the right, among other things,

to raise money from those volunteers,

who send 500 rubles each.

Yes. Those same people who

send money, who believe that maybe,

just maybe—let's suppose

a situation in which this still does not

happen. The Central Election Commission does not register you for

one reason or another. It doesn't matter, right?

Because, for example, I read on

your website that your position is also that

the Constitution of this country says that

regardless of the severity of the crime,

a person must be held in places of

of imprisonment so that he would be barred

from the election. As long as I’m on air, then for now, at

least, while I’m here, I have the right

to run in the election.

Yes. Still, if such a situation arises,

what will you say to your supporters?

For example, in the case of Sobyanin, you

said that you would insist

on a boycott. In the case of the presidential

election, what will you say to the people who

sent you money for the presidential

campaign if you are not registered?

I am doing what I have the legal right to do under

the law. I explain everything honestly to people, and

they know perfectly well that the Kremlin will do

everything to keep me off the ballot,

because they are afraid of me, of all of us,

because they have no answer to our

questions about corruption, first and foremost.

That is why the people who finance my

election campaign—it

is financed precisely through these

small donations.

That’s clear. My question is different. What

will you do? The Central Election Commission does not

register you. At this point, I rule out

a situation in which

the Central Election Commission will not register me, because,

first, we had the verdict overturned once

in the European Court, and we will overturn it

a second time as well.

Well, that will happen in 2019,

so to speak,

No, it could happen, first of all,

earlier. Second, in the Moscow elections

United Russia also—everyone says that

they won’t let me run, they won’t register me,

that I won’t pass the municipal filter. But even

so, we forced the issue. Why not just

answer directly? What will you do?

Because I am not considering a Plan B.

Well, you see, why should I think about

what might happen? If Putin flies off by

helicopter to Miami and stays there to live,

why discuss hypothetical scenarios

and provoke things? Let me quote your

statements at a rally, which you

made. I understand the specifics of a rally,

yes, but still.

I see enough people here

to seize the Kremlin and the White House (the Russian government building)

right now, but we are a peaceful force, we will not

do that for now. Maybe the time will come

when I will call on you to overturn

cars and light flares. I will say it

plainly.

Those were two different rallies. Different—it was

a compilation. I remember all my words.

But on the other hand, it is true,

and everything I said there is true.

What worries me in this story

is this word “for now,” because where, for

you, is the line between

a rally that

in which you are fighting for some of your

rights—even if it is technically unauthorized, yes, there may be

something unlawful about it, but this protest is peaceful.

And then there is this “for now,”

Yes, that line is always obvious and

clear. Look, there was a rally

here in the city, a large rally, one of the

largest in recent times. The authorities

formally did not authorize it and said:

"We are going to have a parade of EMERCOM equipment there." And

there was a lot of talk about terrible

extremists and so on, but the rally

was absolutely peaceful, and in Ivanovo

credit must be given: the authorities were

quite clever, or wise, or

whatever you want to call it, enough not to grab anyone, not to

drag anyone away and, well, basically pretend that

nobody noticed anything, that nothing

happened. And at most rallies there are no

slightest preconditions for any

violence. But we see that our Russian authorities

are degrading with each

year. I did not like them in 2005,

but now, in 2017, against the backdrop of

consolidation and impoverishment, what

they are doing is outright outrageous

stuff. The authorities are essentially

an occupying force. If tomorrow they completely

lose their minds and openly, definitively

act as enemies of their own

people, then probably not only I, but everyone

else too, will call for fighting this

government more harshly. But again, you

yourself noted that this was

the specific nature of speaking at a rally.

All our speeches before

that were absolutely peaceful.

The only ones trying to use

violence are the police officers who

for no clear reason grab unfortunate

people and drag them into police vans.

That is probably not a question. I’ll just

close this topic. I would like to wrap it up. Maybe

you will want to comment. Two

of your statements, separated by six

years. 2011: “Revolution is inevitable.”

Simply because most people

understand that the system is wrong. 2017:

“I do not see the slightest

preconditions in Russia either for a revolution or for

a civil war.” But the context is important

here, right? Let me explain. When

in the second case we speak of revolution in

the context of civil war—sailors running,

carts in the streets, and all that—right now

there are no preconditions for that. But revolution in Russia,

in the sense of a change of regime, is inevitable.

Right now the authorities survive and are built

on corruption. The absence of corruption would be

nothing less than revolutionary change.

Therefore—

So by “revolution” you do not mean

a violent overthrow of the government, let’s

say?

depending on the context of the discussion.

Revolutionary changes, yes, well,

look, it's simple. One of the points

in my program is raising

the minimum wage to 25,000

rubles. This could be done as soon as tomorrow.

There is enough money in the country. That alone would be

a revolution, because here everyone earns

13,000, and you can't live on that kind of money.

That in itself would be revolutionary. Let's take all

the questions. We'll still come back to the minimum

wage—to minimum wages

later. But let me finish this point first.

And your opponents cite

several facts that I

checked—they are facts. But, let's say,

these facts are not exactly flattering to you.

Yes. What are we talking about? Your project

Democratic Alternative

was funded by the American National

Endowment for Democracy. One of its

leaders said that the foundation was actually

created by the State Department to do

openly what the CIA used to do covertly.

One of the leaders

of the National Endowment for Democracy.

Let me stop you right there. That's not true.

You say you checked the facts. That

is not true. We had a movement,

Democratic Alternative, which

existed for a year or two. We had

a debate project. We held debates in

various clubs. And yes,

once, many years ago, we

received a grant of, I think, maybe 5,000

or 7,000 dollars. All

the documents are online—it was to rent

a venue for those debates. So

the question is a bit different. Then they say

what? That you studied at Yale in 2010

in the same program as future

pro-American Orange

revolutionaries who took part in

the revolutions in Tunisia and Sudan. Just

listen to the question.

I generally take with humor the idea that

you're a CIA agent. But try to explain

to people who have doubts how these facts can be

interpreted. First, as I already

said, this

talk about some gigantic

grants does not correspond

to reality. Overall, there was indeed

funding several years ago through

a single small grant for one

project. Second, what you said is

a mixture of truth—truth I am proud of. I

did indeed study for a year at Yale

University, one of the most prestigious

educational institutions. And I don't understand

why I should be embarrassed that I

have a good education. Thousands

of people strive to get in there, and I

had a hard time passing the exam, I got in, and

I'm very glad I studied there. Second, it was

said that I studied together with

some leaders of Orange Revolutions,

but this nonsense—I don't even know who

is spreading it, Zhirinovsky maybe. Someone

says that I studied together with

Saakashvili, whom I have never even

seen in my life. I mean, it's just a pile of nonsense. Zyuganov

says, yes, it's some kind of absurdity.

Besides, it reflects a contemptuous attitude

toward the institution of education.

Listen, let me put the question differently.

You can't deny that

the global market is competitive. Including,

among other things, competition between

states.

And people who have doubts ask Alexei

Navalny whether he will defend

Russia's interests just as firmly, let's say,

as a player in this global

world market—labor, well,

never mind, military as well—in the same way

as is happening now?

Great question. Now tell me, how

is it happening now? Because right

now what is happening is that Dmitry

Medvedev, along with a splendid dacha in

Plyos, owns vineyards in Tuscany.

What is happening now is that

Gennady Timchenko, a Finnish citizen and Swiss resident,

Putin's closest friend, is selling

all of Russia's oil. I'm telling you about corruption—

I'm talking about national interests. I'm

saying that right now the national interests

have been sold off. No one is defending

Russia's national interests. Russia's main national

interest is that the money from oil and gas,

which we sell for unimaginable sums,

should end up

in the pockets of our citizens, including

the residents of Ivanovo Region. And when people

are paid 13,000 for a full working

day, that is a betrayal of national

interests. That is exactly what I believe.

Fine, and NATO at Russia's borders—how would you, as

president, respond?

Well, it was Putin who made it so that NATO is at

Russia's borders. And Putin, incidentally,

said in 2003 that Russia

should join NATO. And it is precisely his

senseless policy. My position is

that, of course, we must

defend our national interests. I will

defend them far better than

the current authorities, who have now

effectively surrendered and sold everything off. And

there is Brzezinski, whom those who accuse

me of having studied at an

American university are very fond of quoting.

And his words were:

"Guys, dear

citizens of Russia, when your entire

government and all your oligarchs keep

uh, 500 billion dollars in American

in banks—just think about it—is that your elite or

our elite? That is the most important

question. So to speak, yes, of defending

the interests of the nation-state,

yes, on the global stage. May I

ask about the Crimea issue? Your

position is fairly, well, clear, at

least. Let me quote you. The tragedy

of Crimea. The tragedy of Crimea is that right now

it is unclear whose territory it is, but I can

say that the path to resolving Crimea’s problems

must begin with a proper

referendum that needs to be held there.

I believe there already was a referendum. And in that

referendum, a fairly

unequivocal opinion was expressed by the residents. What

meaning do you see in holding

a second referendum? Why is it needed, for whom, and

what are we supposed to prove?

Because no one recognizes it, because

even look, well, as recently as

yesterday, the pro-Russian presidential

candidate in France, Fillon, whom

Putin likes very much, and who is also very fond of Putin,

said: let’s, in Crimea,

he recognizes Crimea as Russian, but as the first

step, for example, he calls for holding

a new referendum. It’s just that that

referendum is recognized by no one. We, in

general, well, have little doubt about what the

results would be

of another referendum. But it is needed. What is needed is

a proper, honest referendum. If

someone still doesn’t like something there, are we

going to hold a third referendum?

As I already said, not a single

territorial conflict, as I have

said repeatedly in other interviews,

not a single territorial conflict anywhere

on the planet has been fully resolved. And

Crimea’s status will be disputed

for many, many years. It is an unsolvable

problem. Let me put it this way. There will be

a second referendum. If you become

president, you will organize it,

you will hold it. Will you campaign for

Crimea to remain part of Russia?

And when the second

referendum is held, I, as head of state,

will ensure all the conditions for holding

this referendum. And I would like

the residents of Crimea to decide for themselves what they want

without any—You know, the last time I was

in Crimea, it was my

first trip there with my wife. So that was

something like 18 years ago. Will you

campaign for

I will—Well, I believe that when it comes to

holding referendums within the country,

especially of this kind, the head of state

should not express a position; he should

guarantee it.

All right. Your personal opinion now, as

Alexei Navalny’s—what should be campaigned for?

There needs to be campaigning. For what? There needs

to be a referendum.

A procedure needs to be organized that includes

international monitoring.

They are asking you: Alexei, are you in favor of

what exactly?

Look, do you want to get from me

some kind of unequivocal answer

to a complicated question? It is a complicated question. And as

I already said, in practice Crimea is now

part of the Russian Federation; we pay

salaries and pensions there.

Its status is simple. Will you campaign

for Crimea’s remaining in Russia in the second

the referendum.

I am a candidate for president of Russia who

will focus on ensuring

the referendum is fair, so that it

is recognized by as many countries as possible, so that

those countries lift sanctions on us.

That is clear. But my question is different. How will you,

personally,

Well, if I am president—once again,

the president should not voice a position.

The president should be engaged in organizing

the referendum.

We’re going to a commercial break and will be back in

a few minutes.

We continue our conversation with Alexei

Navalny. Alexei, let’s move from politics back

to the economy. Or rather, not back, but

let’s begin talking about the economy. You

said—and I quote: "You have

an economic program; it is being written for me by

well-known Russian economists. I assure you

that the program is better than anything the current

government can offer." And

indeed, the first thing that personally caught my

attention

was your statement that

the minimum wage should be

raised to 25,000 rubles.

And I also found another comment of yours,

that all these measures are obvious,

they can be implemented very quickly. For that

you need political will. And today’s

minimum wage is 7,500 rubles. As far as I

understand, it would have to be increased by almost

three times. Does that mean that all

other wages, well, gradually

or maybe not gradually, should also immediately be raised in the same

proportion?

They obviously cannot be increased

immediately in the same proportion. But the measure of

setting the minimum wage at 25,000

rubles is a measure to combat extreme

poverty. I believe, and I insist,

that a person who earns

13,000 or 15,000 rubles and pays four

or five thousand of that for housing and utilities

cannot live normally. When people here

earn 13,000 rubles for a full working day—and

there are many such people here in Ivanovo Region,

a great many. It is humiliating,

Not only is it the state's economic behavior,

but we are also keeping

people in the position of second-class citizens who cannot

eat properly, drink properly,

or get proper medical treatment.

It seems that, from an economic point of view,

this would simply lead to leveling everything out,

because wages would end up being 25, 26, 27 thousand.

No, no, absolutely not. Well,

first of all, we need economic

growth so that all wages can rise.

And, uh, a salary of 25,000 rubles

is by no means ideal. Russia,

given our economic strength,

can and should guarantee people

a much higher standard of living. But

look at a country like Estonia. It has

neither oil nor gas, and yet

the average salary is over 1,000

euros. That means more than 60,000 rubles. How

do they manage that? Well, it is because

they are doing something right. And we have oil,

gas, timber, and metals, and yet everyone is poor.

Critics say that this

plan for a 25,000-ruble minimum wage will lead

to the following — I will not go through all the arithmetic

right now — it will lead

to the need for something like 3 trillion

rubles in order to finance this

increase.

The critics are wrong; they are lying

and distorting the facts, because

at a minimum — look, let us

divide countries into groups. There are successful and

wealthy countries, fully capitalist ones. And

there are countries where things are fairly

bad. Let us not look at them. What interests us

is making sure that our people, that we,

earn more money. In any developed

capitalist country, there is a statutory

minimum wage. In countries much

poorer than Russia, such as,

for example, Argentina, there is a

minimum wage higher than in

Russia. In Argentina, whose GDP per

capita is lower than Russia's — it is

a poorer country. Examples. And who asked

that question?

Where do those 3 trillion come from, then?

No 3 trillion are needed. That is

something made up out of nowhere. We

must first and foremost bring wages

out of the shadow economy. We must reduce the tax

burden on wages, on payroll

funds. Entrepreneurs and small businesses do not

pay high wages.

Please, as we wrap up the topic of

the minimum wage and all that — surely

prices cannot remain at the same

level if I, as a business owner, am forced

to pay significantly higher wages.

Moreover, the money that appears on the

market — yes, people used to earn seven, and will now

earn 25 — accordingly,

consumer demand will also rise.

And that is excellent. Our economy has grown

in recent years almost entirely through

stimulating demand. That is the first point. And

second, this will affect prices to a significant

degree, because do you know what

drives inflation? And any academic economist

will tell you: the tariffs of

natural monopolies, which in

Russia keep rising constantly and very often

without control. So what we need

is to stop raising prices for no good reason

for housing and utility services, and then inflation

will be lower. And if people

receive a little more money and start

living a little better, that will only be

a good thing. And once again, these are not some

socialist fantasies of mine. This is

the practice of every developed country. It

works in Germany, it works in

Italy, in France, in the United States, it works in

Latin America, in the more developed countries of

Argentina and Chile. And it will work in Russia

too.

The issue of pensions is tied to wages.

And you also say that

the minimum pension should be higher

than the subsistence minimum. By the way, higher

by how much, in your view?

Well, it should correspond to the real

subsistence minimum. Right now

the government assures us that

the subsistence minimum is also somewhere around 7,000

rubles. Is that true or not? Of course not.

It is impossible to live on 7,000 rubles. Why

deceive ourselves? In reality,

the subsistence minimum is somewhere around

20,000, and the pension should

match that. If we want

pensioners to live, then let us pay them at the level of the

subsistence minimum. There

In your program on the website, it says that

pensions are financed from individual

savings, rather than from the budget and current

taxes. But if we are talking about a 20,000-ruble

pension, we understand that under current

conditions that is impossible. So what are we

going to do?

We are going to save money, including by reducing

corruption rents. Two

simple figures. State spending,

public procurement, is now 6 trillion rubles. And

it is not me but Dmitry Medvedev who says that

every fifth ruble there is stolen.

There you have half a trillion rubles right there in procurement.

That is not the pension fund, that is budget

money. And you are saying that the pension

fund should finance pension payments.

There is enough money; it is just that

it is being stolen and squandered, instead of being used

to replenish the pension fund as well.

What I am saying is that ideally there should

be individual savings, but

which, as you know,

The government has been stealing for the third year already

in a row, taking away people’s individual

pension savings. Every three years in our country

there is a complete reform

of the pension system. So, uh, I

describe an ideal system and say

that, of course, pensions should be paid

from individual savings, but

right now, without direct transfers from the budget,

of course, no pension can be

paid out. That is what the whole system is resting on now.

Pensions, the raising of the retirement

age—what is your view?

Well, of course I’m against it. Just look at

the European trend. Everywhere, they are reducing

the number of working days, reducing

the number of working hours. And only we in

Russia, for some reason, are going against the whole

world here. People here live less than the

retirement age they want

to set. But that is utter nonsense. Instead of

fighting corruption, they are raising the retirement

age.

Let me interrupt you and tell our viewers

that we will continue our conversation on

the Bars TV channel, while on Channel 77

you can watch regional news, including a report on

how your campaign headquarters was opened

in Ivanovo.

We continue. Our guest is

Alexei Navalny. You said—well, I’ll

quote you—“I will exempt from all taxes

and all regulation all

sole proprietors in

the country who earn a small

income.” In your view, what annual income

should qualify for paying no

taxes at all?

Well, I believe that if a sole proprietor

earns per month, uh,

less than half a million in gross revenue,

then you really should not collect

any

taxes from them at all. They will pay

pension contributions, social

insurance contributions. That means their employees

would effectively be left without protection.

Employees? The task of a sole proprietor,

of a small business owner,

is to support themselves, earn a living,

and pay decent wages to their

employees. At present in Russia,

small business, sadly, is simply

the truth. It is not really a way

to make money at all. It is not even much of a business

as such. It is a way to feed yourself.

If you look at how much these

sole proprietors pay into

the Russian budget, you will see that it is

an insignificant amount of money. In any case, for

the Russian budget, it makes little difference.

But they still have to process paperwork,

submit reports, deal with a mountain of administration.

All of that needs to be removed. People need to be given

freedom, given room to act.

But don’t you think people would then

start dodging taxes? I mean, say

I run a company, and I split

it up into sole proprietorships so as to pay

nothing at all. Khodorkovsky was jailed for that,

among other things.

That is called tax evasion. If you evade

taxes, then law enforcement

agencies will deal with you,

just as they would with any other

form of tax

evasion. But we cannot base everything

on the assumption that someone will

abuse it. So then why do we need your

TV channel? Let’s shut it down.

What if you start showing pornography?

But you are normal people, you do not

show pornography. You have a

TV channel, and you show the news.

There are lots of different questions coming in on Twitter.

I’ll step away from my own list. But let’s keep in mind

that we have very little time. By the way, people

keep asking me, “Why do I

interrupt you?” I interrupt you because

we have very little time.”

Is Navalny offended by being compared

to Hitler?

Ah, apparently this is about the video that

the Kremlin put out, in which Navalny is literally

Hitler. Well, what irritates me is the stupidity

of our authorities, the fact that they engage in

this nonsense using taxpayers’ money.

You said that it has nothing

to do with it. Are you ready now to say

whom, in the event of victory in the election,

you would propose appointing? Appointing—

the president does not appoint the prime minister.

But the president proposes a prime minister to the State

Duma. We still have a year until the election,

and so, of course, any

questions about personnel appointments belong

closer to the final stage.

What should be done in the raw-materials sector of the economy?

The raw-materials sector needs to be developed, since it

exists. We need to expand the processing and manufacturing

sector. We need to stop selling crude

oil; we need to build refining capacity in

Russia, where over 17 Putin years,

incidentally, almost nothing has

been built. Since we have been lucky enough

to be blessed with huge reserves of oil and

gas, we need to process them here

and sell them abroad at a higher value, rather than simply

pumping crude oil and just sending gas through

pipelines.

How do you win trust? Here it says

you are being so harsh toward Putin supporters, who for now

are still the majority in the country.

By explaining things to them. Listen, who are

Putin supporters? They are ordinary people. Well, take

this example. Here in Ivanovo Region,

there are Putin supporters. Do they really like that dacha

in Plyos belonging to Medvedev, which is worth 20

billion rubles against the backdrop of all this poverty. Yes,

the Putinists don't like this at all. These are

all ordinary, normal people. We just need

to explain to them that we have

a proposal, while this government has

nothing but corruption.

Let's get back to the campaign platform. I, for one,

am always concerned about this; I keep

asking these questions about healthcare and

education. You have very little there on this

topic. And apparently,

We have little? You were looking at the wrong program.

Very little. I looked at your website. And it says there

that spending on healthcare

must double in order to

ensure a modern standard of

medical services. How are we going to spend this

money? In other words, where do you want

to direct it? In medicine, in

healthcare, where do you see the biggest hole, and

why double? Why not one and a half times, not

triple? Where did that figure come from?

At least double, even more. Look,

we need to look at

developed countries, the countries of the Organisation

for Economic Co-operation. If we

look at how much they spend on

healthcare and education as

a percentage of the budget, of GDP, yes, among

other things, we will see that Russia is simply, well,

cutting corners on this. Russia spends

criminally little. On both healthcare and

education, we will never get

quality in either sphere for these

tiny sums. All our money, once again,

well, goes into corruption. And we have

several holes, as you rightly said.

And hole number one is doctors' salaries and

the salaries of junior medical

staff. I mean, 7,000 rubles, 8,000 rubles.

What can we expect from people who

earn 8,000 rubles? Of course, they cannot

work properly—we've already discussed that.

The second hole is doctors' education. We have

a colossal

our medicine as a science is 60,

80 years behind what is happening in

Europe. And, of course, we simply need

to take doctors and send them abroad by the thousands

to study, then bring them back here,

so that they, the doctors, can teach other doctors and

apply their knowledge. But here is how it works for us:

we can buy some

tomographs for $2 million each—that our

budget can manage, maybe even with a kickback—but here

no one can use them

properly because the doctors lack the

qualifications. Still, look, we

have

let's move on to the next hole, otherwise we're

going to spend all our time on this,

well, those are the two main holes that I

wrote about, plus capital conditions. I

can tell you that in the Ivanovo region

the main complaint about

healthcare is that we

really did invest quite a lot of money

in recent years,

yes. The main problem is

outpatient primary care. In other words, people

are dissatisfied specifically with how

the first stage works. That is, we

can, if a person has had something badly injured, what

is it that does not satisfy you in Russian

education? The Unified State Exam, for example,

What doesn't satisfy me, first of all, is the chronic underfunding of it.

Within it,

many different reforms can and should be carried out,

but, as I already said, with the

money allocated to

education, we will never get a normal

education system, and it is in the state's interest

to invest money in education.

Today we paid, say, 10 rubles

to a teacher, and tomorrow that teacher's graduates

will pay 300 rubles in taxes. That benefits us.

And as for the Unified State Exam, well, it's a simple

point. You know yourself that there are

several regions where Unified State Exam scores are

always the highest: Chechnya and

Dagestan. And if in two regions the Unified State Exam system

doesn't work and is completely corrupt

and everything there is rigged, then it

doesn't work anywhere, because there cannot be

a graduate with a perfect Unified State Exam score

here, in Ivanovo. Well

So you're against the Unified State Exam, as I understand it,

In its current form—if it doesn't work

everywhere, uniformly across the whole country—it

won't work anywhere. I believe that, in

principle, the Unified State Exam is a sound idea, but its

implementation, given the corruption, shows

that it is meaningless.

In your interview with Akunin, first place went to

creating a judicial system. Notice:

creating, not reforming. Here,

judges are people who understand the administration

of justice as carrying out the will

of their superiors. In your program, by the way,

it still says judicial reform rather than

creation. This is the top priority. We

will make judges respected and truly

independent. So is it reform or

creation after all,

and what is the mechanism—do we fire everyone,

hire new people, or what? This is

an enormous infrastructure overall,

there are people there

Yes, enormous, but its importance is even

greater. Have you been to court—did you

like it there? Did you like it there, or

As a matter of fact, in some courts, even

where I lost,

Uh-huh.

I did like it, because I

felt that I could disagree with it

but still find some of the arguments

convincing. Most citizens do not have that experience.

Even a poll by the state-run VTsIOM (Russian Public Opinion Research Center)

VTsIOM. Most citizens consider judges

to be corrupt—which they are—and

consider the judicial system unfair.

And here, practically no one wins

a single case, not even just against

the state, but against a housing management company

in the utilities sector. Our acquittal rate

is 0.4%—lower than it was under Stalin.

I know it's bad. What I asked was:

"What would you do that matters?"

We need to change the system

for appointing judges, first and foremost.

Right now they are appointed by the president,

by the presidential administration, but judges must

be independent, and there must be

independent personnel commissions.

So you come to power and

hold a new selection process, or what? What

will happen?

We would replace a significant part of the judiciary.

We would guarantee judges

independence. We would free rank-and-file judges

from the quasi-serfdom in which

they are kept in relation to

the chief judge. This is one of the main

problems of the judicial system.

Still, some judges would remain.

Well, some of them would remain.

How would you sort them out,

We would hold exams. We would

Right now there is a provision for a

qualification commission, but at the moment

it's fake, whereas we would do it

properly.

Let's imagine something fantastic,

because to me it is a fantastic

thing: Navalny wins the

presidential election.

To me, that's a real possibility.

But the Duma has a serious opposition

force in it.

We would dissolve the Duma. I'll answer you right away:

yes. This Duma represents no one. It is filled with

people holding stolen mandates.

Let me object right away. You would hold elections, and you

would still end up with that force.

No. Well, listen, how much did

United Russia get in Ivanovo Region? Well,

Less than 50%, right? Around 45%, depending on how you count.

Less than 50%. But in the Duma they

control it and hold an absolute

majority,

because the single-member districts were won.

Well, they were won through fraud.

I mean, really, look at the whole

north of Russia: Kostroma Region,

Yaroslavl Region, Ivanovo Region.

Are you sure that United Russia, in

a fair election under your system, wouldn't get

something like 30 percent?

I'm 100% confident when I look at the voting

results here. Even taking into account

the violations, even taking everything into account, they

still can't get 50%. Of course, United

Russia should be represented. It too

represents some citizens. But

to say that it represents

the majority of citizens is simply

ridiculous. The United Russia that

sits in the State Duma was padded out

with votes from Chechnya and Dagestan.

United Russia is clear enough, and so are fair

elections, but one cannot deny that

parliament would turn into a place for

debate.

And you, as president, would face

a whole host of problems, just as, incidentally,

Trump does now. He said one thing, but

is implementing another, because he

has to negotiate with everyone.

That's the most important phrase. Yes, you do need to

negotiate with everyone. That's what a normal

president is supposed to do—negotiate with

everyone. President Putin, meanwhile, negotiates with

no one; he falsifies elections.

And over 17 years, what has that led

to? To the fact that all the people around him,

his cronies, yes, have become billionaires,

built palaces for themselves, while the people

are living in poverty.

To be honest, I was trying to steer you toward

a different answer about lustration. And

the lustration measures in your program

include, to quote, restrictions on

the right to hold public office,

senior positions in

state-owned companies, which

should apply to persons

in the leadership of United Russia,

including the country's leadership and even

editors-in-chief of media outlets. And

You're not state media, as far as

I understand. So lustration wouldn't

affect you.

Lustration, as you call it—that's already

a quote from your interview. It's a procedure

under which you are effectively punishing

people without guilt. They have not committed

crimes. Many of them are unpleasant people, but

they would still be subject to lustration. How

fair is that, in your view?

I believe it is fair. And we

can see that the transition from a

socialist country to a

capitalist one was carried out most successfully

by countries like the Czech Republic or

Germany, which carried out some form of

lustration. And lustration does not mean that

we should be shooting members of United Russia.

It simply means they are barred from holding

certain positions. In fact,

the new Duma, in which there should be

representation for the left, the right, United Russia members,

and nationalists, should adopt

a decision on lustration. And I believe that

the leaders of United Russia, who have spent

17 years in power, and over those 17 years they have created

monstrous corruption,

You may not like what these

people are doing, or, I don't know, whoever

is in power, but if everyone

who comes to replace them starts

carrying out lustration, where will that lead us?

Right, you're absolutely right. That is exactly

why I always make this clear, and it's written in

the platform, and I just said it now,

that I will not be the one carrying out lustration.

The country's president should not be the one to carry out

lustration. It has to be a public

consensus. It should be a majority in

the Duma (Russia's lower house of parliament).

It may even have to be a referendum.

This is a matter of public

consensus in the end. After

your recent interview, which was

on YouTube, people suggested that you yourself should also be

subjected to lustration, because you admitted

that you had paid bribes. If you paid

bribes as a student, then how can anyone

trust you going forward? You ought to be

lustrated too.

Well, I'm a real person from real life.

I lived through the 1990s, I'm 40 years old. And

to deny that even

back when I was 20,

I paid traffic cops 500 rubles a couple of times,

would be, well, it would simply be lying

to voters. Is that really something you should be

lustrated for? But yes, I can say this:

yes, I am part of that life. I am an ordinary

person. The leaders of United Russia,

whom you are planning to lustrate,

will tell you the same thing: I am part of the

life that you are trying to change.

Except that at that point we will show

the country houses of United Russia leaders that

are worth billions. Do you understand? 500 rubles

to a traffic cop in our country was paid by almost

everyone. But billion-ruble estates are owned by

only a few. And that has a completely different, excuse me,

degree of danger. I'm quoting Ksenia

Sobchak. She interviewed you several

times. Are you apologizing?

If United Russia members do not let liberals come to power,

and liberals promise not to let

United Russia members come to power, that is Bolshevism. That is

what deprives us of the ability to

actually express opinions,

agree, argue, and debate. It is

playing with crooks by their own rules.

It does not matter how vilely the crooks behave;

what matters is that we act differently. Any

other kind of victory simply leads to another

rearrangement of the same terms.

As for that question: Ksenia is talking nonsense,

Sobchak is talking complete, utter

nonsense, because

it was with exactly these kinds of formulas that we tried

to build today's Russia, when these

people were communists, then they became

Gaidar supporters,

then Chernomyrdin supporters,

then Luzhkov supporters—remember Our Home Is Russia / Fatherland – All Russia?

—and then they became Putinists.

It's a bunch of sellouts who change

their party cards depending on

who is in power. Do you think it is even possible to fight that

at all, in principle? Because you,

by the way, once said in an interview,

when this topic came up, that you mentioned the film

To Kill a Dragon.

Mm-hmm.

D-don't you think that under

certain circumstances you yourself could become

a second Putin, a second dragon?

I do not assume that, but you are obliged, it seems to me,

to assume it as a journalist, to assume the opposite.

That is why

the maximum presidential term should be set at

4 years, not 6 years for the presidency,

as they have now introduced. So, two

terms, if you were a good president. 8

years in power, that's it—no more than 8 years.

After that, our friend goes into retirement.

When a person sits in power for 17 years,

that is what leads to, well, monstrous

degradation all around. But nothing would stop you

from changing

the constitution after 8 years. You would stop me. Free

elections would stop me. When after 8 years I

say, "Guys, I've been thinking, I want

to stay for another 8 years," you will simply

say, "No." I will lose the election, my

party will lose the election. There will be

rallies here that are completely legal,

fully authorized, and you will subject me to

impeachment. It seems to me that for this

some kind of second force needs to be created.

Well, take what was created, for example, in the United States,

or at least what we are told about it,

that there are two equally matched

forces. In other words, any force can only really be defeated by

another force. And

if a new president,

having come to power, were to create

this new force himself, how would you view that?

Well, that's what they did. The president, the president

created A Just Russia and United

Russia. That's exactly why a president cannot

do that; it cannot be done artificially.

The president must stay out of

it. He must give everyone the opportunity

to take part in elections. Right now, not only am I barred from

elections,

nationalists are barred too, the left is barred,

everyone is barred, yes, even former

governors, as we regularly see, are removed from

the ballot. The president must

guarantee everyone the opportunity to participate in

elections, and then someone will win

We are once again forced to break for commercials and

will continue afterward. And, by the way, we will also talk about nationalism

as well.

Excellent.

We're back on the air.

In your view, are there any cases at all

when a politician may lie?

A politician is just a person, after all. In

some, I don't know, in his own simply

life in

the public sphere. In private life

No, of course, he should not lie

to his voters, because

that is the most important thing.

Why am I asking? Because you say that

the basic idea, the main slogan of your

reforms is:

Don't lie and don't steal.

Don't lie and don't steal. As for not lying.

All right. During the campaign in

December 2011, you

kept pushing the issue of United Russia's manifesto

from 2002.

Uh-huh. And

it soon turned out that there was no

manifesto at all.

Nothing of the sort. Nothing of the sort.

Nothing of the sort. Please, excuse me.

There was no such thing. So this

was indeed established as a fact.

It was some guys somewhere, that is,

there was no official document that had been

recognized by the party at some official

forum, I don't know, there was nothing like that. And

you replied: "Oh, come on, don't

overthink it, spread it around. I, I

don't remember exactly how that meme went now."

Very

I would like to say once again that

indeed, let me remind viewers, there was

United Russia's 2002 manifesto, in which

it promised that in 8 years,

everyone here would be earning 10 times

more, we would build new roads, utility rates

for housing and communal services would fall. In other words, when after

those 8 years people only started laughing at the manifesto,

United Russia declared that

it had nothing to do with it, but

the manifesto was officially submitted. By members

of the United Russia party, it was published in

Nezavisimaya Gazeta, and copies of this

publication exist as leaflets—they officially

made them.

Listen, if in Rostov some

branch of the Progress Party were to

hand out some leaflets from the supreme

council, well, that, that

that doesn't mean it's the position of

Alexei Navalny,

when, when United Russia publishes its

programmatic document in a print mass-media

outlet, this is not some random people in Rostov-on-Don

distributing it; this is

what they did officially. These are

materials from their party congress; their ideologues

wrote them. Obviously, time

has passed, and now they are trying to pretend

that they didn't write it, but it

was written by United Russia. I believe it is extremely

important to rub United Russia's promises

in their faces.

Journalists really keep pressing you on this

question about your

nationalist, national—I don't

know the right word—past. Let me

quote Boris Akunin. "I

was mistaken in believing that

the nationalist nonsense was for

Navalny a youthful affliction that he had

outgrown. He has not outgrown it. And that means that

he has still not grown into a politician of nationwide stature.

In a country where many

ethnic groups live, any political movement

with an ethnic bias risks leading to pogroms."

And, uh, to be honest, I read your

manifesto of what is called the People,

a public movement. I did not find there

anything particularly nationalist. Moreover,

while digging into this, I suddenly

came across a statement by Vladimir Putin,

who said that he too is a nationalist,

though, to be fair, he said it in the good sense

of the word.

Yes. Yes. He even declared Medvedev

a nationalist back then.

Yes. So what is your position on all

these issues? Let me also add: I

read something that did surprise me in

your position on this topic. "When I

become president, of course, there will be no

persecution of nationalists in Russia,

and everyone imprisoned under Article 282

we will release." I read Article 282,

and to me, the actions

listed there are, well,

quite clearly, in my view, violations of

the law. So it seems that you are taking these

actions outside the scope of punishment.

What actions are we talking about? That is,

actions aimed at inciting

hatred, as well as at humiliating

a person's dignity on the basis of sex,

race, nationality, language,

or origin. So it turns out that

you are exempting this from punishment. But Article 282

is used to persecute

people who think differently. These are people who may

say rather nasty,

disgusting things. And I do not

share those views, but there is no public danger in

that—people write nonsense, they sit

on social media and write rubbish. Every day you

go on Facebook or

VKontakte and read people who write

nonsense. Many of them write offensive

nonsense. But that does not mean that we

should put them in prison. And it is not the task

of the state to lock them up. People

who call for violence, people

who commit violence, can вполне

be prosecuted criminally

under a large number of

other articles of the Criminal Code. But 282

The law is simply being used to

persecute people. Right now, every

week people are being jailed for reposts,

for likes, for some kind of nonsense. A portrait

of Putin was recently declared extremist.

These days, wherever you look, everyone is

being labeled extremists, instead of simply

being treated as citizens who have their own opinions. I

very often do not share those views myself, but I do not

think we should be spending time and

resources chasing after

someone who wrote some nonsense on

a social network post that was read by two

people.

On regional policy,

since we are in a region, and you are

currently traveling around the regions, your

program, um, says the following:

the federal center, and above all

the president, must share power,

redistributing it to where people actually live,

to cities and local communities. It is not

our dubious governors who should be given

more power, but the level below them,

mayors, city councils, and settlement councils.

This also reduces the likelihood of

separatism. What is the question? Here,

by the way, they are asking about your view on

the appointment versus election of mayors and

governors. I know your position is that

they should be chosen through direct

elections without any kind of

special restrictions. But the question is

this: through elections, as we know,

the people who come to power are not always the most

professional from the standpoint of

governance, right? Right now all this money is

managed, let us say, by the Russian

government and by the eighty-odd

regional governments, for the most

part, right? Now we are

handing all this money over to these people

who came to power through elections.

Do you not think this will lead to

even more corruption, only now at the

lower level, and that budget money will simply

be stolen? Because it will be impossible

to control all of it. It does not just seem to me

that way; all the experience of recent years

has shown exactly the opposite. Yes, as a result of

direct elections, sometimes people elect

better candidates, sometimes worse ones,

but through appointments they always appoint

crooks. For 17 years, the Kremlin has pursued this

policy that, basically, all the money must be controlled from above.

I see, I was asking whether the scale of theft would increase

because the money

would be handed over to municipalities. The point is that

if money is earned,

if money is earned in the city of Ivanovo

and taxes are paid there in Ivanovo, why should that

money be taken away by Moscow so that

your governor can then go to Moscow and

beg for your own money back? That is

absurd. It does not let the region develop,

it does not let anyone develop at all. In our country

only Moscow is developing, and it is

developing in such a way that Muscovites

are actually worse off. But listen:

Ivanovo's budget is 5 billion rubles. At the same

time, Moscow spends 12 billion rubles on reconstructing

just part of its streets. That is

not even comparable, fundamentally. It is absurd

that in one place we have a city

that is simply drowning in excess, while in all

the other cities, just four hours away, there is

nothing but poverty. You simply cannot keep taking

the last scraps from people here so that in Moscow

they can skim it off again on some new

sidewalk paving project. Therefore,

So you think there will be less embezzlement locally?

Well, I am sure

that the residents of Ivanovo, for example, are perfectly

reasonable and smart enough to elect

a decent mayor for themselves, one who will

work properly for them.

If only your words came true.

Of course there will be theft everywhere. Well then,

we need to fight corruption. So that mayors

do not steal, they must understand that

the president should jail mayors who have stolen,

not appoint them governors and then send them

on to some other post.

Continuing on the subject of regional policy,

another quote from your program: It is necessary

to give municipalities and federal subjects

the ability to create real

competition for investment and

human resources. This requires

flexibility in tax policy and broader

powers to adopt local

laws. There was a discussion about this here

at one point, including with the participation of

senior officials from the regional government

and so on. What I took away from it

was this: if we take Ivanovo Region,

Belgorod Region,

for example, and Tatarstan (a republic within Russia),

Mm-hmm.

No matter how hard

Ivanovo Region tries, whatever incentives it

promises investors, Tatarstan will offer

more, and Belgorod Region will offer

more too; and I will not name

other regions right now. In other words,

this view has taken shape, and I have

come to the same conclusion as well, although I am

not a specialist, um, that rich regions in

that case will just keep getting richer,

because they have greater opportunities for

attracting resources anyway. And regions

like Ivanovo Region, on the contrary, will

decline even further. And moreover, the

federal center will no longer give them more

money.

How much further can they decline? They are already declining, and yet

their money is still being taken away. Just recently

another 3% of corporate profit tax was taken from them. That, that

It’s not that the process has stopped. Here,

it’s not like you’ve gone to hell and that’s it. No, you can

keep going downhill in plenty of other ways. And this

happens all the time. Well, obviously,

some regions have oil, while others

don’t. It’s clear that Khanty-Mansiysk

will apparently, for the foreseeable future, always be

richer than Ivanovo. There’s oil there, so

trying to achieve that kind of regional competition there is

practically unrealistic. But different

regions—when Tatarstan competes with

Bashkortostan—that’s one thing, including

in terms of tax breaks. But when

Ivanovo Region is competing,

for example, with Kostroma Region, then

that’s a completely different matter. Here, quite

real competition may be possible with

Vladimir Region, say, with Moscow Region,

with Kostroma Region. In any case,

someone wants to build

a factory somewhere in the northwest, and then they

drive around several regions, and the regions

compete. No one is saying that you

would be competing on equal terms tomorrow with

Tyumen. Well, because that’s impossible.

Yes. To wrap up the question about the regions, I read

the following from you. There are a number of sensible

ideas for reforming

the federal structure of the state,

for example, enlarging regions through mergers. Though,

you note that working out and

implementing this is impossible without broad

public discussion. Have you

formed any opinion

regarding the merger of federal

subjects? Do you think 80 is

too many?

Well, I think these composite federal

subjects are some kind of strange,

incomprehensible thing that no one can really explain.

It’s a kind of administrative

mess. I think that

The reason I ask is that in Ivanovo

Region this topic comes up a lot.

First, because in the 1930s

Ivanovo Region was the Ivanovo

Industrial Region. Yaroslavl,

Kostroma, and Vladimir were part of it.

We were a big deal. But now, on the contrary,

people say Ivanovo Region should be

split apart. No, I’m categorically

against that. Here, in this part of

the country—I mean, look,

people

You mean the Central Federal District?

Yes, in the Central Federal District, and specifically there

further north, yes,

hardly anyone lives there. Vast empty

territories. And if we start creating again

giant federal subjects,

where to get from a town or

village you have to spend two days

traveling to the regional center just to process

some idiotic piece of paperwork, then of course

that shouldn’t happen. I’m against creating

super-regions. Just as in our country

they try to run the whole country from Moscow,

and it doesn’t work, the same is true in these

giant federal subjects: trying to govern everything from

a single center simply

won’t work.

I’ll go back to the questions from Twitter.

Uh, here’s one comment: how can anyone

trust him? He’s never worked anywhere

for real, as they used to say. Is this one of your

supporters?

Well, answer him. It doesn’t look like he’s

my supporter. I have worked and I do work. I

officially pay taxes. I publish my

income declaration. It’s not only me who publishes information about my assets—

NTV (a Russian TV channel) also puts out endless films

about me and everything else. And it shows

where I go, what my family does. I’m

under constant surveillance. My income is

constantly being examined under an X-ray, so to speak.

In your opinion, what should

the Russian army look like at this point? Its

core should be professional soldiers. It should

primarily be a professional volunteer force. At

present, military conscription is

a tax on the poor. Some people can

buy their way out—they don’t go into the army, they pay bribes

to draft offices, while everyone else goes.

It’s a tax on poverty.

We really are very short on time.

We’re pressed for time, so I’ll take the remaining

questions in a very quick-fire,

yes-or-no mode, so that I can get through

all the questions. You’re always difficult in that sense. I mean

not with Alexei Navalny specifically, but

with people in general who answer

questions. When you were behind bars, you

said that you read a book about

Don Quixote. Do you feel more like

Don Quixote, Robin Hood, or something else? What

literary associations do you have with

yourself?

Well, I don’t have any literary

associations. Uh, Don Quixote, if you

read it in full, as it is, not in an

adapted version, has little

to do with what I do, just as

—though it is interesting and very long, actually—

and Robin Hood doesn’t really fit either.

A literary analogy here simply,

well, can’t really be drawn.

Well, are there any other analogies? Do you

compare yourself to anyone?

No.

No.

According to media reports, your cousin

Marina Navalnaya in Ukraine has taken an active

anti-Russian stance. Have you

tried to persuade her otherwise, or will you—

an anti-Russian stance? I have

indeed got a whole lot of relatives in

Ukraine, like many of us do. My father is

from Chernobyl. Uh,

So, the endless arguments about

which is better—Russia or Ukraine—in our

family have been going on ever since the collapse of the

Soviet Union. Because they

think they’re rooting for Ukraine, we

root for Russia. That’s how it’s always been. We

always get together for family

celebrations. And the argument just goes on and on, and,

well, they have their own opinion.

Under your program, law enforcement and security personnel

will receive decent pay for the

work they are supposed to be doing. But I’m

not asking about the security services—I mean your

own view. What counts as a decent salary in Russia—

what is it?

A decent salary in Russia is

a minimum of 25,000 rubles. In general, I

believe that a decent salary in Russia

will vary greatly depending on the

federal region. But overall, I

believe Russia can now pay people

no less than 60,000 rubles everywhere.

You said that a presidential campaign,

in your estimate, should

cost about a billion rubles.

Where are you going to get the money?

People are donating. We’ve already raised

more than 40 million rubles in small

donations of 500 rubles each. When I

ran for mayor of Moscow in 2013,

I raised through these small

donations 104 million rubles in 3

months. And judging by the way people

are sending money, I understand that we

will be able to raise enough to finance the entire

election campaign precisely through small

donations. We don’t need

oligarchs or wealthy people.

I have always said that the financial

manipulations at Yukos were, without any

doubt. Those are your words. Khodorkovsky

has declared his support for you. Do you

think that will gain you supporters

or cost you some?

I honestly don’t know. I think it won’t

hurt. Khodorkovsky was

an oligarch, unquestionably. Were there

tax violations there? Absolutely.

But Khodorkovsky was sent to prison

for something else entirely. There are people who

like him and people who don’t, but he

supported me, and I’m grateful to him for that.

This topic has been discussed very actively today, so I can’t

not ask: Lenin’s Mausoleum—are you in favor of keeping it?

I’m in favor of a referendum. I think this

shouldn’t be decided by the president. It shouldn’t even

be up to the Duma. The Duma could introduce a law and

decide whether or not to put it forward. It’s such a

complicated, genuinely complicated issue. I would

vote, of course, for burial, because I’m

Orthodox. I’m against a body

remaining unburied in Red Square.

But I understand that this is a sensitive issue,

so I would hold a referendum. Maybe

not even just in Moscow,

but nationwide across Russia.

Let’s imagine you were allowed to take part in

the election. First round—what’s your forecast?

I’ll win in the first round.

Your forecast?

My forecast? I’m not a political analyst to

make forecasts. I’m running in this election. I

know that I represent certain people.

I will try to do everything possible to

conduct this election campaign

with dignity. And I’m confident that we will achieve

victory simply because we are right.

Because every one of my demands, from

fighting corruption to the minimum

wage, is supported by the majority of people.

Our campaign is clear and transparent.

You’re campaigning. I asked you

what result you’ll get. I mean, you’re

running for president. Of course I’m campaigning.

In your view, what will the result of the

first round be? And

one that will allow me to advance to the

second round and win in the second round.

By what margin?

By what margin will you win in the second round?

But in any case, there are only two outcomes there:

you win or you don’t win, so the exact margin

isn’t very important here.

I saved the last question because

we’re already out of time and have gone through just about

everything possible, but I still

saved it anyway. You said—and this is simply

closer to home—that the media are

a specific kind of business that serves

the public interest. It is hard for independent

outlets to withstand competition

from those maintained by oligarchic

clans. Objective media are impossible

without political competition,

and public oversight of the media. Well, you’ve

spoken a lot about the media in general. More than that,

you assign the media a fairly serious

part of the job, right? For example, you say

that to fight corruption, what’s needed is not

Alexei Navalny, but rather competitive politics

and free media.

Exactly.

Tell me, I’ve been working in the media for

a quarter of a century now, and throughout that

entire quarter-century I have never felt that

the media in Russia are independent. How can this

actually be changed, in your

view?

You need to be left alone. We need

to make sure that if someone calls you—

has it ever happened to you that a

governor or deputy governor called and was

pleased or displeased about something? It probably has.

But in the beautiful Russia of the future,

where President Navalny is in office,

any governor who allows himself to call

a media outlet and say, “Go ahead and put this on the

story, and don’t let this one air, he’ll just

be thrown in jail immediately. It will be

forbidden. Simply outright banned. The media

should be left alone.

Why? Because the media, uh, this is

a debate that, by the way, exists within the profession itself

as well. Is the media, after all,

a business, or is the media, after all, some kind of

public institution that, well, you know,

sa—

it is a public function. I believe that

in modern Russia

who is going to pay for that public

function.

You—you’re somehow managing to survive now, aren’t you? It’s

hard,

it’s hard for you, but in the beautiful

Russia of the future, we will free the media, and we will, among

other things, give them tax breaks, and

they will run their business in a way that lets them

live normally. But at the same time, I believe

that the media is not purely a business. It is

more importantly a public function. Without

normal, independent media, nothing else will

work properly.

My colleagues are literally writing "stop" on Twitter.

Uh, so stop. The program is over.

Thank you for your attention. Thank you for

coming to see us. Goodbye.