Alexei Navalny’s interview on the program “Sobchak Live” on TV Rain (an independent Russian TV channel). Part 3

We continue with the program Sobchak Live, and

my guest is still Alexei

Anatolyevich Navalny. Alexei

Anatolyevich, now I have

a number of other questions related to your

federal ambitions, so to speak, and

connected not just with the mayoral election

in the city, but also with the statement you

have repeatedly made regarding

the next presidential election. So,

look, speaking about your program, the

main thing you always say, including

here on TV Rain, is

this:

that you will put Putin in prison. You and your

supporters. I can quote you—don't

roll your eyes. I’m quoting: “The main thing is

that I feel myself to be part of

this process. I will do everything so that he, and

Putin, Rotenberg, and Timchenko, and all of them on

the list, end up behind bars.” But for now, the situation is such

that Vladimir Vladimirovich is the one putting you in prison. So what, essentially, is the substantive difference between your

rhetoric and his?

If you are someone aspiring

to head the executive

branch, how can you, deliberately or not, make

such statements about the judiciary?

How can you make statements like that?

It seems to me that in this sense they are very

similar to the statements

Putin constantly makes. It’s just that he

currently has more power and

therefore more opportunity

to carry out what he wants. But the issue

is not the statements—it is concrete

practice. Putin uses

the law enforcement system and the judicial

system in order

to enable his

corrupt billionaires to protect their billions,

to place them outside the reach of the law. And he uses this same

system in order to

neutralize, imprison, intimidate, kill, and

so on, people who

criticize this corrupt system of his. I

am saying that this is what we demand. My

federal ambitions, regional ambitions,

municipal ambitions, neighborhood-level ambitions—

they are all about the same thing. I demand one very

simple thing: law and order. I demand

that these people—look, under me, Putin

will be in prison. How can a person who

believes in the judicial system speak like that?

You are not saying, “We will investigate

what crimes were committed.” I have been

working on exactly this for many years.

So you want to deal with the judiciary rather than

the executive? I do not want to deal with the judiciary and

the executive separately—I want to deal with power in the country as a whole. I want

to say that I

know for certain that on

the basis of the separation of powers, you cannot exercise both

judicial and executive authority—that is the whole point.

There is

a contradiction there. For the judiciary to gain real

independence, political power in the country must change.

Then honest courts

which, under conditions of

adversarial procedure, will consider

cases, and so on—I am sure they will, without

a doubt, hold all of them

accountable. Because I, as a person

who has devoted years to

investigating all sorts of schemes at Transneft,

Gazprom, Rosneft, and so on, know

with absolute certainty that these people are guilty of

serious crimes. They

stole

billions. Is that your assumption? It is not

my assumption. I am absolutely certain of it.

I am telling you: I publish documents. But only

a judge who

will hand down a verdict on Putin can be certain in that sense, because

otherwise how is he different from the fate—or rather, from

Judge Blinov, who simply signs a sentence on command?

Do you not see

that this is absolutely—how should I put it—

the same thing in substantive terms?

The fact that you are wearing blue

glasses right now—I can see that. I am ready to go to any

court and prove that you are currently wearing

blue glasses. When I see that at

Transneft so much money was stolen, and I have

documents, and I have checked it all, I know it.

I am ready to go to any court and, under conditions of

equality, adversarial procedure, and openness,

prove that these people stole this

money. I am ready to come and prove that

Putin, together with his crooks, built

a residence here in

Gelendzhik using stolen money. Clear?

Once again, a few more questions of federal

importance. There is a major debate

in connection with the new initiatives

of Ms. Yarovaya regarding Stalinism

and fascism, and their interrelation. Do you believe

that Stalinism and fascism should be equated

in legislation? To be honest, lately

I have somewhat lost track; I have not been following

Ms. Yarovaya’s legislative initiatives.

What happened there? Well, an initiative

connected with making it impossible

to criticize the Red Army and its actions during

the Great Patriotic War (the Soviet term for World War II on the Eastern Front).

It triggered some kind of storm of emotions, and all that.

These actions are complete nonsense.

Yarovaya (likely referring to Irina Yarovaya, a Russian politician)—let's not talk about Yarovaya. You

believe that Stalinism and fascism should be

equated at the legislative level. What

does it mean to equate them at the

legislative—what does it mean to equate them at the

legislative level? That too is some kind of

nonsense. Stalinism and fascism are equally

anti-human and criminal

regimes. Do you agree with that or not?

This does not need any kind of approval at

some legislative level. It is

a matter of studying historical documents;

it is a matter of research. Navalny, what do you

think? I think this does not require

legislative regulation. It's nonsense and

a waste

of time. Everyone noticed that just this Friday in

England, same-sex marriage was legalized.

Before that, it had been legalized in

France. Would you

uh, if you became president, allow

same-sex marriage to be legalized? I believe

that the question of legalizing or not legalizing

same-sex marriage—or rather, the question

of formalizing civil relationships—is

a matter for referendums, apparently

regional ones. Russia is a very large country;

attitudes differ across different federal subjects (regions).

I think that a referendum in

Dagestan would never legalize such

relationships. I believe people have the right

to formalize civil

relationships between themselves however they want. An important

question, for example, is the adoption of children. Here

I am categorically opposed. But if someone

lives as a couple and wants to formalize their

inheritance rights, then for God's sake. Who

they are—men, women, a grandmother and

a grandmother, a grandfather and a grandfather—I don't care.

It doesn't interest me at all. If in that

federal subject (region) such

legislation is adopted, if it's a liberal city and

they are allowed to formalize their relationship,

fine by me. I don't object. You know, excuse me

for all the insinuations, but you know that exactly

the same thing, when asked about same-sex marriage,

Vladimir Vladimirovich (Putin) answers in exactly

the same way: he talks about regional referendums and

about allowing them to hold a referendum on this issue.

That's all. It's clear that here

no one can hold a referendum, and

no one ever has, in fact.

In reality.

A referendum—because it is impossible to hold one.

As for gay pride parades in Moscow,

that is no longer a federal issue, but even

more interestingly, the thing is that many people

for some reason try to catch me out

on the question of a gay parade. Once again, my

position here is very simple: everyone has

the right to assemble peacefully and without weapons; this

is guaranteed by the Constitution to all

citizens. So yes, gay pride parades should be allowed,

gay pride parades and

anti-gay demonstrations as well—they have

the right to assemble. There is only one

question to discuss here: how

to ensure everyone's safety. And in that

sense, we should follow, for example, the model of

Jerusalem, which—yes—they allowed

a gay pride parade to be held despite an ultra-

conservative religious majority

in the city's population, by holding it in a stadium so that

no one would kill anyone. Otherwise, let

both sides rally.

What should be done about Chechnya? Previously, you had

some kind of idea about a confederation. Now you

Where did you get that from? Tell me.

What do you think now—how

should this problem be solved? It is obvious that

there is a problem. It is obvious that you talk a lot about it.

What do you consider the problem? Because you

just mentioned some kind of confederation.

I don't know where you got that from. What I mean

is that, of course—and you very

often talk about this—an enormous amount

of budget subsidies goes to this

region. It is obvious that the situation there is not fully

entirely

under control under

the influence of the local leader, Ramzan

Kadyrov. How should this problem be solved? On the one

hand, there are huge subsidies that

ensure peaceful coexistence;

on the other hand, the abnormality

of this situation is obvious, as are the major problems that

could arise at any moment when in

Chechnya either the leader changes or the leader's

attitude toward what is happening changes.

What I consider the problem of Chechnya—when I say

"the problem of Chechnya," I mean that on the

territory of Chechnya, a political,

tax, and legal offshore zone has been created,

effectively, where its own system

of power exists, its own troops—so what

should be done about this? Once again, I have no

other prescription except compliance with the laws

of the Russian Federation, which under the

Constitution must apply everywhere

equally. Chechnya needs exactly what

all of Russia needs, only on a

much larger scale. It needs

honest judges whom no one will call

to pressure. It needs honest

police officers—the very same reforms that

it needs to be carried out on Russian territory

it needs to be carried out in Chechnya. Simply sending there

perhaps twice as much money. But

that twice as much money should not be for

them to build a mosque or some kind of

residential district named after Ramzan Kadyrov, but rather for

changing the judicial system, for

perhaps inviting

police officers from other regions in order

to break up the clan system, in order

to make sure that under no circumstances in Che-

a knife fight—if you bring people there, how do you

imagine others there?

I mean, I said it there briefly

you understand, all of this is necessary. And this is a detailed

program, but what to do about it is completely

clear: those very

institutional reforms need to be carried out, the ones that

all of Russia needs. But when now on the

territory of Chechnya, with our money,

some kind of sharia army has effectively been created

where there are basmachi (a derogatory term for armed Islamist militants) with beards and gold-plated

Stechkin pistols, some kind of religious schools where

people—where children, instead of learning

mathematics, memorize the Quran by heart. This is

absolutely unacceptable. This

will lead to this

bandit enclave turning from

a bandit enclave into something even more like

an ultrareligious one, and we will be dealing with these problems

later, for another

200 years. Today you published your response

to journalist Aidar Zhabayev. He asked you

some questions, and you answered. I’m not going to

talk now about the substance of those questions or

those particular complaints. I think that as a

candidate you will face them often. I’m saying

that it seemed to me and many of my colleagues

that you react rather aggressively

to this kind of criticism directed at you

you react aggressively to journalists

who also ask you about

your nationalism. And in general you conduct your rhetoric

quite harshly. Aren’t you afraid

of scaring off some part of

the liberal electorate precisely because of

the aggressiveness of your rhetoric? And the second

question is related to this:

about “Murzilkas” — even today that term came up, didn’t it?

Don’t you think that this also drives

people away, this kind of division into black

and white? After all, many people really do

sympathize with you but support

Sobyanin. They genuinely think that way

they genuinely do not want any

serious changes because they are afraid for

their money, their salary, and their modest savings

So is the world really black and white? Is it correct

to see it that way, and is that how it looks in your view? Because

that is the impression one gets. But that is

wrong. And I don’t “get impressions” — if

there are things I am sure about, I say

those things absolutely clearly and directly. I am not

going, in order to please

some particular group of the population, or

conversely in order to show that

I want to push away the right, whom the left

doesn’t like, to change something in my

system of views. If I believe in certain

things, I say so. I have been saying so

for many years, and no one can

reproach me for saying one thing yesterday

and something different today. And

well, all right, perhaps sometimes I

don’t know, behave too forcefully. I do understand

that, probably, judging by our conversation

that, well, some of your questions I also

may answer with excessive aggression

all right, it’s just that there is this

feeling. By the way, this is charac- Vladimir, Vladi-

I don’t know what is characteristic of Vladimir

Vladimirovich (Putin). I believe in what I say, I

feel it; for me, I take everything

very personally. When I talk about corruption

it really, personally infuriates me. And

when Vladimir talks about “wiping them out in the outhouse” (Putin’s notorious phrase meaning to kill terrorists wherever they are), he

does he think that too? Your beloved godfather

is an absolute hypocrite; he isn’t “wiping anyone out” in

the outhouse. Vladimir Vladimirovich is busy

enriching himself and his country-house

cooperative Ozero. I dislike that very much

therefore I will speak on this subject

quite aggressively, even

if some sensitive people like you

clutch their hearts and say

“My God, how uncompromisingly he says all this”

If I consider certain people

to be “Murzilkas” (a dismissive term for obedient propaganda mouthpieces), when we say “Murzilka” we mean

simply people

I will call them that because that is how I

see them, that’s all. Now look, even the

case of Zhenya Chirikova showed that a person

who simply voiced a program not on

your behalf, but on behalf of many of your

supporters, was immediately subjected to a large

number of attacks, and she herself wrote about it

and we all saw it on Lenta. This

happens very often: anyone who is not

with us is against you. This is, well, what I would call

a historical hallmark

of Bolshevism. Is that right, and

wouldn’t you admit, perhaps

even now on air, call on your

supporters to be more tolerant of people with

a different position, more gentle toward

those who may not

share it. Would you at least use this broadcast to call on

your supporters to be as they are

— tough and uncompromising, and

to say everything plainly, to call things by their proper names.

I need supporters who are like me. I

believe in these people, and I want them to believe

in

me. The intelligentsia, the real

intelligentsia — the intelligentsia I believe in —

consists of people who have a system of

views. Tough, uncompromising. The intelligentsia is

always doubting — apparently, you and I have observed

different kinds of intelligentsia.

The people — my Russian intelligentsia —

are people who possess a system of views.

For them, the world is not black and white, but at

least they know what they are talking about,

and they have convictions, aspirations,

and inner moral values. Those are the people I look to.

Are you an intellectual?

I consider myself an интеллигентный person.

Of course. Well then, as one intelligent person to another, at the

end of our conversation, yes, I’m giving you

a book. I hope you’ve already read it, but

let it be part of your collection before

these difficult elections. And at the same time,

one last question: which significantly

Ksenia, you’re giving me a book — the wonderful

play by Yevgeny Schwartz, The Dragon. In return,

if I may, I’d like to give you this. You see,

we have these little things

that identify people from

our campaign headquarters. I’m giving it to you as an advance gift.

You still need to spend another four hours standing at the

campaign cube and handing things out. Since I gave you

this book — five books, or maybe three

books that influenced your

worldview — can you

name them? I read an enormous amount. I

don’t have five books that influenced

my... Reading in general. Russian, Russian

literature, Russian letters, Russian words —

they are, well, probably 90% of my personality.

It is reading, and

the first thing — the very first thing — that I

did when I arrived at the pre-trial detention center (SIZO) was say:

Where is your library here? Sign me up

for the library as quickly as possible. Is that more

Dostoevsky, or maybe... I remember

that Dreiser once made an

incredible impression on me. Are there

any books that... I read everything. I

don’t have that. These are journalists’ favorite questions:

name three people who

made an impression on you, name

three books. I don’t have a favorite writer. I

adore Russian classics. I read

contemporary literature with pleasure. In principle, I

love reading. I love the Russian language, and I

cannot live without it. It is a huge, it is

simply a form of self-identification

for a person. So, in principle, I live in

reading all the time. Thank you very much, and good luck

in the election. With us was the candidate for

Mayor of Moscow, Alexei Anatolyevich

Navalny. We’ll see you this Thursday.

Goodbye.