“Looking for a Way Out,” March 14, 2018.

8:05 PM in Moscow. Good evening, everyone! This is the program “Looking for a Way Out.” Our guest today with Sergei Buntman is politician Alexei Navalny.

Good evening!

Good evening!

Good evening!

Alexei, if you had been registered as a presidential candidate, I would have asked you the following: Tell us, please, what is your reaction to the decision of the British authorities in the case of the poisoning of Sergei Skripal?

I am disappointed. And why can’t you ask me that right now?

Well, I just did.

Excellent. Thank you for asking. I am disappointed. Because the first statement by British Prime Minister Theresa May was rather tough, aggressive. What they have announced now are standard diplomatic measures: they will expel 23 diplomats. Ours, in response, will of course expel 23 British diplomats. What interests me are 23 Russian oligarchs who will continue living in London and 23 Russian officials who will continue laundering stolen money there. I would very much like, both because of Skripal and even without Skripal, for British justice and the British state to drive our crooks out or at least stop providing them with a comfortable life on their territory.

That was Alexei Navalny. Let’s move on to the presidential election, or to what Alexei Navalny does not consider an election. I want to tell our listeners right away: we have a live broadcast on our YouTube channel. We have SMS: +7 985 970 45 45, or through the account vyzvon on Twitter, or through the website. You can ask questions. Alexei Navalny. Why are we sitting here in this lineup? The point is that you know Alexei Navalny’s position. He calls for boycotting the election, or a voter strike. I do not go to elections because I have been the editor-in-chief of Echo of Moscow since ’98; it is my principled position that the editor-in-chief of a political radio station does not go to elections. I may not answer, of course, whether I am boycotting or not boycotting. But Sergei Buntman has declared that he always goes to elections and will continue to go. And at the end of the program, try to convince Sergei—and this is not a setup, not a joke, not a circus. But are you satisfied with how your position is developing—the position of a voter strike? And how can one feel its effects now?

We are satisfied. From the point of view of public opinion...

Not “we” — “I,” Alexei, excuse me. I don’t like “we” here.

I am satisfied with how our position is developing, let’s say, in the sphere of public opinion. Of course, there are people like the wonderful Sergei Buntman, who with persistence worthy of a better use says, “I will go because I have always gone.”

No, I have a different... A. Navalny: I would very much like, both because of Skripal and even without him, for the British state to drive our crooks out

I will now try to convince you of something, at least I’ll try. We see that there are practically no serious opinion leaders advocating going to the election...

Putin, Vladimir Vladimirovich.

And Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is still not an opinion leader, and he is not a decent person loudly campaigning for people to go vote. That is, there are decent people who still go. We will try to convince them in the time remaining. But there are no major decent speakers. And the extraordinary measures the authorities are taking to herd everyone to the polling stations, начиная from free pastries or whatever else is going on and ending with simply forcing state employees, students, schoolchildren to re-register, show that our strike is working.

On the contrary, the result may turn out differently. It may turn out that turnout by coercion... or however you calculate it... may be higher than six years ago.

We are engaged in politics, not mathematics. Therefore, what matters to us is...

Right. You’re like Pamfilova. Really. She doesn’t like mathematics either—the Gaussian curve—and you don’t like mathematics either... Why are you all fighting with mathematics?

I admired your broadcast with Pamfilova yesterday. And in fact, Sergei, if you need arguments for not going to the election, please listen again to yesterday’s broadcast with Pamfilova. There were some very important...

All right, I will definitely listen again, but first I have my own arguments for why I am going to the election. Not because I am used to it, and gentlemen do not betray their habits—not only for that reason. I am going because I do not want a double interpretation of my behavior. I go to the election, I vote for whom I want. Calls to go vote—pastries, oncology, whatever, any twos, threes, and absences—do not interest me. What interests me is that if I have someone I can more or less vote for, I come, vote—and that’s it. And then my digit after the decimal point will be only mine... there among unpopular candidates... And that cannot be interpreted any other way. First. Second: I think that if they herd people in—and if they do herd them in—I really do not know what the consequences will be and whom the state employees they herd in will vote for, that is also unknown—but they will be herded into the election, and in the same Moscow, in the same St. Petersburg, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin will get not his natural 40% with difficulty, but his 60%, because his mobilized electorate will come. But I need to express myself in order to vote neither for Putin nor for the Stalinists.

So, Sergei, you are a pagan, it turns out, based on what you said. Because you have a ritual. You saw a tambourine and began, excuse me, dancing around it because there is a torch burning there. It does not matter to you what... Put a ballot box here—and Sergei Buntman will come up to it and try to vote, because it is important... You have to go vote, it seems to me... If it were some other person, not you, whom I have known for many years, I would tell him about the violations, about how they smashed the headquarters in Kaliningrad yesterday, how in Kemerovo Region they are seizing referral forms from us, but I will not even tell you that, because you will say to me: “Let the election be fake three times over. I will still try to make my contribution with my honest vote.” But I want to tell you that you should treat elections not simply as a ballot box, but as a way to influence politics, as a way to express your honest opinion, as a way to influence the authorities, to convey something to the authorities. This procedure is called elections, but it is designed so that Sergei Buntman’s voice is not heard and not counted. It is designed to humiliate all the Sergei Buntmans in the country, along with the Alexei Navalnys. Therefore I urge you to look at the bigger picture: these are Putin’s re-elections. Putin selected candidates for himself in such a way that Sergei Buntman would spit, but then think: “Well, probably there is still some candidate of mine here”—go there, remain in the minority. And then they would laugh at him and say: “Oh! So this is the opposition—their one and a half percent in the country!”

And if I do not go, there will be the same one and a half percent there, but I will not have helped it, the opposition, in any way.

If you do not go there, you are saying: “I, honest Sergei Buntman, refused to participate in this. I did not recognize this government. I did not recognize any of Putin’s guaranteed...” You say 60%? Don’t make me laugh. No less than 70%...

I mean in Moscow.

What difference does it make?

I wanted to remind you that forecasts must not be given, unfortunately, in accordance with the stupid law—60%, 70%...

These are our estimates.

Let me put it this way: these are the fantasies of Alexei Navalny and Sergei Buntman.

Absolutely.

Alexei, we are talking about how in 2012 Vladimir Putin also selected candidates for himself—Zhirinovsky, Zyuganov, Mironov, Prokhorov. As a result, the figure was 41 million people...

A. Navalny: The measures the authorities are taking to herd everyone to the polling stations show that our strike is working—45.6 million.

Yes, yes, absolutely right. But suppose, even if we trust mathematics, which is still more important than politics, sorry, even if they threw in 10 million, 30 million of your fellow citizens and your possible voters nevertheless went and voted for Putin. And out of 109 million, 63 million people came in total. So even if we subtract 10 million, 50 million went and voted in the same situation. Or is the situation different?

The situation is completely different.

Explain.

In 2012 we urged everyone to go vote. In 2012 there was candidate Prokhorov, who, as it turned out, deceived and dumped all of us, but the situation was—remember—there were huge rallies..., a huge observer movement, there was an upsurge. Then-President Medvedev announced political reform, gubernatorial elections. It was a completely different country. Now, after these years, we live in a different Russia. And if we are talking about numbers, then you are absolutely right—the only important number in all this mathematics is 45.6 million. And Putin cares about one thing: will he get more in absolute terms or less? He cares about nothing else. And in order to get more than 45 million, they need to drag people to the election. They need overall turnout...

Why overall turnout? Let 45 come, and let 45 vote. All the candidates withdrew...

That’s not how it works. Because Sergei Buntman writes on his Facebook: “You know, I’m going to the election,” and Sergei Buntman drags along 12 people who know him as a respected host of Echo of Moscow. Of those 12 people, two more vote for Putin. That’s how it works.

You think he is drawing people to vote for Putin?

He is drawing all kinds of people to vote for Putin. But Putin has supporters, of course, undoubtedly. He draws people...

They will go without me.

You are an opinion leader. You work at a radio station. You wear glasses, you have a mustache, and you look intelligent. People do what other people do. I say this without any irony. I’m saying: wow, a person is going to the election—so we will go too. But Putin has supporters, there are duped people...

And there are those who do not want to go to the election. And if I suddenly say that I will go vote for NN against Putin, let’s say, say it directly—and suddenly they run because of me...

You cannot vote against Putin. Because the candidates are selected in such a way—you will see this in any focus group—that any average Russian, seeing this list of candidates, seeing the debates of these wonderful candidates, where they splash water or just shout chaotically, will say: My God!.. Vladimir Solovyov talks about this during the debates. He enjoys it...

I like that you quote Vladimir Solovyov.

I have a wonderful question: How can we, the boycotters, distinguish ourselves from the indifferent? asks Mr....

What a beautiful question!

Great question. But what is the task—to distinguish? Our task is not to distinguish boycotters from the indifferent. Our task...

To unite with the indifferent.

Our task is to honestly tell ourselves: “I do not recognize this election. I do not recognize this government.” There is no need to unite with anyone. We need to make sure that the number of people in Russia grows—we cannot count it, but we know it is growing—who consciously move from indifference, or move from voting or not voting, to saying: “We do not recognize this, and we will never recognize such a construction of elections.” Because if this number of people does not grow, we will never achieve normal elections. You will always, Sergei, go to elections, forcing yourself, spitting. And you will never have normal elections, because they will say: “If even Sergei Buntman, so smart and wearing glasses, agreed...”

Alexei Navalny on the air of Echo of Moscow.

That is why I am satisfied with how the strike is going, because they are pouring water on you...

All right, everyone has set the water aside! Alexei Navalny on the air of Echo of Moscow. “Looking for a Way Out.” I think I understand the idea: to turn the indifferent into boycotters. On March 19 there will be some kind of result. It will exist anyway. As we know, there is no turnout threshold. Two people came—and that’s enough. You say: “We do not recognize this as an election, therefore there is no election.” And then what do these indifferent people, these boycotters do: do they stop paying taxes; do they stop receiving their salaries if they are state employees? How do they fight this? Do they recognize this government, which remained, or reproduced itself, or was re-elected?

There is a sequence of three steps that... the fall of Putin.

Tell us.

This is a political process. We are increasing the number of people who do not recognize this government in various forms. Some of them go to rallies, some write things, some speak, some express themselves, some stop being afraid. And most importantly—many millions begin to think about politics. Because that is how authoritarian regimes work: the leader of an authoritarian regime always gets 70%. It is not that Putin is so popular. Nazarbayev is just as popular, Lukashenko is just as popular...

A. Navalny: You cannot vote against Putin. Because the candidates are selected in such a way

Let me remind you, Medvedev got 70%

Yes, of course. Chavez, Castro, Maduro now. This is standard... for a totalitarian country. We are trying to break out of there. We are mobilizing people in this election. Maybe it sounds pompous...

Explain, Alexei. Really, it is not clear.

In particular, around the fact that it is immoral to participate in this. They must be accused of immorality, dishonesty... and left.

45 million who come and vote?

Not 45 million... Those who come.

Not vote. Just come. They came—45 million, 65 million—it doesn’t matter—are they immoral?

It is immoral to participate in all this.

Are they committing an immoral act?

They are participating in immoral actions. It is an immoral act. And we will explain this to these people: Do not act this way, do not do this. And thanks to these people, a real, genuine, large opposition will grow.

I see. A question of morality.

Tell me, if turnout is 20%, suppose, and the law doesn’t care...

22 million people.

And there’s 90%, say, for Putin. What will that give to the boycott movement?

To Navalny’s movement. The boycott will end.

It is not about Navalny’s movement.

You are the leader of the movement. Stop being hypocritical.

I am not being hypocritical. I simply believe that the people who do not participate in elections are much broader than Navalny’s movement.

The movement led by Navalny. Fine, don’t nitpick words.

If that happened—of course it won’t happen that way—20%—then, of course, we would have won a grand victory, and Putin would have suffered a grand defeat, because most of the country, the overwhelming majority, would have refused to recognize his election. He may still retain power thanks to the police...

He already got a majority in the last election—42% of all voters.

He is so worried now that he might get even less. Legitimacy is not expressed in percentages. You know, 20%—because Sergei asks me what will change if it is 20%. I explain: the mood will change, minds will change, people’s understanding will change. During this campaign I traveled all over the country, and I saw that our main problem is that a lot of people do not really support Putin, or do not support him at all, but think that nothing can be changed because everyone around them supports him. In fact, everyone is standing in a crowd, no one supports him, but for some reason they think their neighbor does...

Why do they think that?

Because of television, because of 18 years, because of the authoritarian regime. That is how regimes work. In the Soviet Union in 1984, did everyone really strongly love the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the unbreakable bloc with the non-party members? No. It was simply thought to be forever. There is a book called “It Was Forever Until It Was Over.” A wonderful phrase. It is the same here. Putin will be forever until people realize that in fact those who...

And how will they realize it if television keeps shoving it down their throats and gives them the same 90... Fantasy...

Excellent question. These people will find out. Because, first, Sergei Buntman wrote on Facebook that he understood everything and is not going. And second: for the first time we are deploying a huge number of observers. This is a very difficult process. They are smashing it. And we do not recognize the election, but from the point of view of practical work in the election—note this—we are now doing a hundred times more than any candidate. We have deployed a huge number of observers...

A great many normal people tell me: “We understand when Navalny calls for a boycott or a strike; we will decide for ourselves, but we understand his logic. But when he talks about... observers—that is schizophrenia.”

No, absolutely not. This is an attempt to preserve our activity. When I can persuade Buntman not to go to the election, I want his vote not to be stolen. Therefore, there will be a person at his polling station who will make sure his vote is not written in... Therefore, first of all, we are focusing not on Moscow. We are sending observers to Kemerovo, we are sending them to Mordovia, where supposedly it is 99%.

A technical question, excuse me. Let me remind listeners: Alexei Navalny is on the program “Looking for a Way Out.” Sergei Buntman is here. The new law strictly regulates who exactly observers may come from: a candidate or the party that nominated the candidate, or the regional public chamber. Can you say from whom your observers are coming? It varies...

A. Navalny: This procedure is called elections, but it is designed so that the vote is not heard and not counted

Most of them are from Yabloko, in second place—Grudinin, in third place—Sobchak.

So, from candidates. And how many referrals across the country do you expect to issue?

It depends on the number of people. For now, our mathematics is as follows. I’ll explain. 60,200 people registered as willing to go. Of them, 18% are minors. Some signed up but will not come...

How many—18?

18% — are minors. We are proud of that.

A lot. That’s cool, yes.

We estimate that about 26,000 observers will actually be standing at polling stations. And some number will also be watching the video. Yesterday, by the way, Ella Pamfilova was sitting here, and you argued with her a lot about this video surveillance. And she said that 45,000 polling stations are covered by video surveillance, and you objected: But 42,000 polling stations are not covered. The main problem is that to this day the Central Election Commission and the regions have not said which polling stations have video surveillance and which do not. And logically we should cover the places where there is no video surveillance, where there will be ballot stuffing or fraud, or where at least there is a danger of stuffing. But they are silent. And tomorrow our delegation is going to Ella Pamfilova...

Please tell us about... I almost wanted to say “mom”! It stuck...

“A political hooligan.”

Yes. Please tell us: tomorrow your representatives are going to Ella Pamfilova—may I ask who and with what agenda?

We sought a meeting with her for quite a long time. Now Zhdanov is going, our chief lawyer, and Lyubov Sobol is going. In general, a legal delegation with specific questions.

And why won’t you go?

Because my discussion with Ella Pamfilova would obviously be political...

I see. You do not want a political discussion.

We have an agenda for this meeting. The agenda is that we demand that our observers be able to work. We have people going to Chechnya. We have all sorts of places like Mordovia, Kemerovo, and there are also attacks on headquarters. Since she, sitting here on Echo of Moscow, says that “I am all for observers...”

And promised to help you.

And promised to help us and said many such words that, generally speaking, we liked, although we want all these promises to be implemented. If I come there...

A political discussion. Alexei Navalny. Sergei.

I have one more question about the candidates. Navalny sends observers through different candidates: Yabloko, Grudinin, Sobchak. There are many questions here about Sobchak: “Do you also consider her a Kremlin candidate created for decoration?”

And don’t you? Of course, I consider Ksenia Sobchak a Kremlin candidate put forward for decoration, and everything she does and the participants in her PR campaign clearly show that this is exactly so.

A. Navalny: I consider Ksenia Sobchak a Kremlin candidate put forward for decoration

Do I understand correctly that you have trauma from Prokhorov, right? In the sense of Prokhorov’s deception, I would put it that way.

I did not vote for Prokhorov.

But what you were saying here...

Probably, if we are to invent a term, it would be a close one. Let’s say, trauma from those people who are obviously connected with the Kremlin, but we believed them when they said they were not. But it turned out they were.

Therefore we trust no one, and it is better to let them prove it later.

Therefore we look at concrete actions, we look at speeches, we look at rhetoric, we look at actions and understand that this is not real... Listen, if Sobchak—or, since we are talking, any other candidate... does a person have the right to run in an election? Of course they do. Turned 35—they have every right. If you really want to fight for the presidency and claim Sergei Buntman’s vote and probably Alexei Navalny’s—then fight, run in advance, do the work, travel around the regions, campaign among people, and most importantly—lower Putin’s rating, attack Putin, Putin personally, talk about his corruption, the corruption of his family. Because that is how elections work. We recently saw a presidential campaign in the United States. Those were personal attacks...

Wait. Are you in favor of that kind of campaign?

I believe Putin’s rating can be lowered through substantive criticism. There is no need to talk about how his suit does not fit right, but one must, of course, talk about the corruption of his billionaire son-in-law, his daughter receiving completely fantastic grants from state companies, his palace in Gelendzhik. Personal criticism. And all these candidates avoid personal criticism; thus they do not lower Putin’s rating at all. They look like some strange guys splashing water.

How do they not lower his rating? Any candidate lowers the rating, even if he is silent. That is mathematics.

No. Let us return to our favorite Sergei Solovyov. He looks at this picture of water-splashing with delight across the whole country and says: “Well, you see what our level of politics is,” addressing millions of people, “do we really consider all this riffraff serious politicians?” That is the calculation: to show how great Putin is compared with this petty crowd. And unfortunately... Well, I understand, I could have found myself in such a situation. I would have stood in those debates and they would have interrupted me endlessly...

Of course.

Absolutely right.

And Zhirinovsky would have called you a word starting with “B.”

Zhirinovsky would have called me names. It would also have been difficult—to shout them all down. But I would have done what a candidate is supposed to do. I would have continued traveling around the regions and continued organizing what are called rallies—large meetings. Which of the candidates does that? No one. I can tell you, Alexei Alexeyevich, that if we look at how many cities I traveled to...

In a year.

A. Navalny: Putin’s rating can be lowered through substantive criticism. There is no need to talk about how his suit does not fit right

Not even in a year, but only during the autumn tour, taking into account that I spent 25 days in a detention center, I traveled to more cities than all of them by far. If we count rallies of more than a thousand people, the score will be: all mine—and zero for them; street meetings: all mine—and zero for them. Not because I am so cool, but because I am doing the work a candidate is supposed to do. And that, Sergei—I believe it drives you—simply into a rage...

Putin tours very well. Right now he is in Crimea. A huge rally. ...candidate.

He is a candidate. He is an authoritarian leader who seized power illegally.

How illegally? 45 million.

For Sergei, for me... they must challenge his legitimacy and reduce it so that it is not 45 million but 5 million or 1.5 million. They are not doing that.

And if there is one vote more than six years ago?

That is not important. You understand, legitimacy is a feeling. If Putin gets more than he got in 2012, of course that will be bad.

Alexei Navalny visiting Echo of Moscow. Sergei Buntman, Alexei Venediktov. We will continue after the news

NEWS

8:35 PM in Moscow. Echo of Moscow. Alexei Venediktov, Sergei Buntman. Our guest is politician Alexei Navalny. Alexei, today’s story with Kaliningrad. Maybe listeners do not know, but in your headquarters, the police, if I am not mistaken, found copies of printed election ballots. Why did you need that?

Over the year we have seen a lot, but today’s Kaliningrad shocked us. It began last night as follows. The police come quite often and seize things in Kaliningrad. They have already arrested our coordinator in Kaliningrad. And yesterday evening the police came again. They detained everyone who was there. They conducted a search. They drew up a search record. And one policeman said: “I’ll go use your toilet.” He went to the toilet. After that he came out and said: “And now there will be a second search in a second case.” And during the second search they go into the toilet and find a stack of ballots in the toilet, which they themselves had planted.

And why did no one accompany the policeman to the toilet?

Well, how? He went to the toilet, he locked himself in the toilet. If you tell a policeman, “I’ll go to the toilet with you,” that might somehow be perceived incorrectly.

As extremism.

Jokes aside, but then it continued like this...

So in the place where he was alone, without witnesses, without your people... I just want to emphasize this...

Absolutely right. In that same toilet, where just a moment before... Well, it happened so obviously and openly that there is not even any doubt.

What exactly did they find in your toilet?

They found ballots. Then a group comes—and it is all on video, online—and 12 men, some half-drunk guys led by a policeman. They throw everyone out of the headquarters. They break the lock, put in a new lock with the words: “You can no longer sit in this headquarters.” And they simply drive us out of rented premises. At that time we are issuing observer referral forms; we need the premises. We run and urgently rent a conference hall in a business center. An hour later the police come there and say: “We are throwing you out of this conference hall.” And now we are simply either in the headquarters of some candidate, or somewhere else looking for opportunities to issue these referral forms. And it is completely obvious to us that something is being prepared in Kaliningrad Region, and they want simply to paralyze our observation system precisely at the level of issuing referral forms.

But these ballots—what were they?

Ella Pamfilova, who was here, said the day before yesterday a wonderful phrase: “Fabrications are being prepared for election falsification.”

So were these real ballots? I am just trying to understand...

We do not know.

And you do not even know...

How could we know? They brought them, then seized them. I am very interested: if these are real ballots, then someone gave them to organize this provocation, which makes this criminal scheme even more multilayered.

Will your colleagues tomorrow talk about the Kaliningrad story?

Of course. We even brought people from Kaliningrad. They were simply arrested there. Six people were arrested there. Everyone involved in the process of issuing referral forms—they were simply arrested. We have people there, and we will continue pursuing this issue. We will bring tomorrow a person from Kemerovo who had more than a thousand signed referral forms, I think from the Yabloko party, taken away by the police. They came and said: “Oh, we are seizing these!” And for some time we found ourselves unable to provide observers with these referral forms. Kemerovo is traditionally a lawless region. We understand that perfectly. There is 86% turnout there. And we understand that at least 30% is falsified. If we place observers at every polling station, turnout in Kemerovo Region will instantly drop by 30% without any boycott at all.

I am simply amazed why in this case your colleagues from that party say nothing, on behalf of which...

That amazes me too.

We will have Grigory Yavlinsky on. We will ask him. Chechnya. A dangerous story. But not only Chechnya, Kemerovo is also a dangerous story. It is a peculiar region. Why did you decide to send observers specifically to a peculiar region? There is also the famous Saratov...

There are several regions that are priorities for us, and not all of them are Caucasian. We simply took the regions where turnout in presidential elections is above 70%. That means it was one hundred percent falsified. These are Caucasian regions. There are Russian regions there too: Tambov Region, Kemerovo Region. There is Mordovia, a national republic—99%.

Though, to be fair, the governor there moved to Saratov...

Yes, absolutely right. And he continues those glorious traditions, tries to continue them. He was removed from there, nevertheless...

What will you be checking—turnout? What will you be counting?

We will be checking everything. First of all, turnout.

Turnout and the correctness of the count.

Of course. But the main thing for us is to count turnout. From Chechnya... when we called out, “Guys, in the Caucasian republics—Dagestan and Chechnya—come observe,” people came to us from Dagestan and Chechnya. Not many, because people write directly: “If outside observers come—okay, but we have to live here, and we are afraid.” Everything is one hundred percent falsified. Therefore we now have 53 volunteers ready to go to Chechnya. And tomorrow at the meeting with Pamfilova we will raise the issue of these people. Dear Ella Alexandrovna, given what you said on the air of Echo of Moscow, please help us ensure the safety of these people.

I have a small question about March 19. Starting from March 19, what are we going to do, because we will have Moscow elections, and municipal elections in St. Petersburg, and all sorts of others coming up.

Actually, elections in many regions.

Elections, elections...

Let me remind you, your headquarters are now engaged in organizing the so-called strike. So on the 19th any political process will move into another phase, and that is why we are interested.

Yes, what happens next? Because how should we relate to those elections? People and candidates will go there, for the Moscow mayor’s race and so on...

A. Navalny: Legitimacy is a feeling. If Putin gets more than he got in 2012, of course that will be bad

We are fans of elections.

Well, that’s something—fans! You are calling for a strike.

Precisely because I am a fan of elections, just as Sergei Buntman is a fan of elections. We will meet on that point, and together, I hope, not go. Because I am a fan of real elections. The people who came to us—volunteers—came to register for elections. Not everyone likes the idea of a strike. Well, it is a difficult one. But with elections everything is clear. We want our regional structure, of course, to participate in elections. We just do not want to turn it into a ritual and paganism. We will treat each election differently. We will treat each election differently, and of course we very much want to participate, to influence elections: Moscow elections, St. Petersburg municipal elections, the St. Petersburg gubernatorial election. In any city with over a million people, 30–40% are ready to support the opposition right now. And we want to interact with these people.

The opposition, including the communists? You just used the word “opposition.”

It is always a complicated process. Look at Novosibirsk, they elected the communist Lokot. He then sold everyone out and turned out not even to be a communist, but a United Russia member. Many criticize me for that. Here on Echo of Moscow I once said that, for example, one could vote for Klychkov too, after which many people wanted to eat me alive...

After that Klychkov was appointed... what—governor of Oryol? You may not think so, but it had its significance.

That is why we understand that the procedure, especially with gubernatorial elections, looks like Putin himself selects the competitors. And sometimes it is necessary to boycott. Sometimes it will be necessary to vote for a communist. Sometimes it will be necessary to vote for God knows whom... Not everyone will like that.

Alexei, each time there will be a separate decision, there will be no general decision.

Of course.

Because in the regions they can also very nicely appoint competitors. There was a universal belief here when people said that Navalny had been appointed as Sobyanin’s competitor back in the day.

That belief was wrong, because we forced Sobyanin to register me, because Sobyanin faced the same sort of voter strike, only in Moscow. And he, it seems to me, sensibly decided then: “Why do I need this? I’ll try to participate in this game...” But remember, at the start of my nomination Volodin argued with journalists, saying I would get at most 6%. And they simply thought they were very cool, and it turned out they were not cool at all. Therefore we realize that as soon as there are, for example, gubernatorial elections and they determine communist competitors—what will force that communist first to make a statement about how much he loves Stalin? After which, naturally, our electorate will simply rise on its hind legs and say: “Go to hell! We do not want to support him. We will boycott this, because there is a United Russia man and there is a communist.” Therefore it will always be a very complicated construction. Each time an individual decision will have to be made. But in general our overall policy is: we are for elections, we are ready to win in elections.

Alexei Navalny. Tell me, Alexei, in order to conduct elections you need a structure, and apparently still a political party. A political party is usually a party of like-minded people. What is happening with your creation and registration?

Our pride is that we practically already have the structure, and it is the largest. Our problem is that they do not register us. We tried five times to register the Party of Progress. The last time our congress was disrupted because we were driven out of the premises... And this is a very formal process, we cannot take another... Then retroactively they liquidated our newspaper Leviathan. And we had published the announcement of the congress there. And that means the congress is legally invalid. So it is a terribly complicated legal procedure, which we intend to follow literally in every point. We will continue registering our party. We demand its registration. It is the largest of all living parties, and we are confident that if this party is registered, in the first cycle it will pass into all legislative assemblies, overcoming the barriers. In the second cycle it will win.

I wanted to ask. It seems to me that Putin’s legitimacy will be even greater after this election. It will simply be greater.

And I disagree.

Well, all right. Suppose it is greater. Is this boycott or strike not a gesture of despair, as many here ask?

It is not a gesture of despair. It was the plan from the beginning. And I said clearly, I answered this question many times in this studio: “If they do not register you, what will you do?” I said that we do not recognize this election and we will boycott it. This is our plan and our strategy. And legitimacy will be lower, because it is absolutely certain that on March 19, regardless of what Putin’s result is—and it will be enormous—regardless of how exactly his reappointment takes place, there will be many more people in Russia who consciously told themselves and publicly declared that “we do not recognize this election, we did not go to it, we refuse to recognize it.”

Well, all right, they said it—and then what?..

How do you distinguish them from the indifferent?

They do not need to be distinguished from the indifferent. They must persuade the indifferent to join us. Is Venediktov indifferent or not? He simply does not go for his own reasons. For each person it is simply individual. We will create a community of people who actively show their civic political position and campaign to other people—that is my task, our task.

How will it manifest itself further?

Further it will manifest itself... when we go to elections, we will take these people, whom we have already connected with the idea that right now one must boycott... there will be elections in Moscow—we will try to unite these people around the idea that one must go and defeat Sobyanin, or go and defeat Poltavchenko, or go and elect people to municipal councils. This is political struggle as a whole. It manifests itself in all things: rallies, dissemination of information, participation in elections. We talk a lot about elections, but this is not even the main thing in an authoritarian country. Any joint political action is the most important thing. And we unite people for such actions.

Alexei, are you planning street actions on the 18th or 19th?

We are not planning street actions on the 18th. We would like to hold one, but we understand it would be paralyzed. We would be giving the Kremlin a gift so they could arrest everyone and disrupt our observation system. Therefore we are not planning anything on the 18th. On the 19th—we’ll see how it goes.

What do you mean, “we’ll see how it goes”? Those are permit applications... How “we’ll see how it goes”...?

People have the right to assemble peacefully and without weapons. Peacefully and without weapons we will gather when we consider it necessary and right. If the political situation is such... In 2011, on the morning of voting day, Ilya Yashin called me and said: “Shall we go to the rally on Chistye Prudy that Borya and I are organizing?” I said: “Go to hell with your pathetic rally.” In the evening I was there, because the situation was completely different. It was perhaps one of the most significant rallies in modern Russian history.

Of course.

Therefore we will act lawfully, based on the political situation.

Dodged the answer. All right, fine, noted.

Why dodged?

Well, because you did, that’s all. I asked you about the 19th. I asked nothing more.

If I had the gift of foresight and understood how brazenly they would falsify, how brazenly they would do certain things that would drive people mad.

Wait. This is important. So it depends not on the number of votes, but on recording falsifications.

It depends on people’s mood. People will become furious if they see a lot of falsifications. And without asking me, they will go to a rally.

Thus peaceful means of transforming this government, changing this government, are being exhausted.

I would say—this country of ours, not the government.

This country of ours, yes.

We cannot exhaust them completely. We hope for, we want, a peaceful transition of power. But it would be strange if we said: We are now going to do nothing except revolutionary struggle. Well, if we say that, then I must follow through, I must say: Guys, shut down the broadcast. I will give you a Parabellum, I keep it in your guest room. There are ways of resisting this government, they are legal. The government considers them illegal. They call us extremists. But we will resort to all methods...

Well, all right, extremists. For the first time we have President Putin, without naming Alexei Navalny—he is already some kind of Voldemort, I no longer know, the one whose name must not be mentioned (we have all read too much Harry Potter)...

I am Dumbledore.

Really? When was the last time you looked in a mirror?! We’ll talk about that later. Alexei, here is the question. He said that yes, these people—I mean precisely, since the question was about you, the answer was also about you—these people do useful work by identifying problems, but they have no positive agenda. That is, you are destroyers. Sometimes it is useful to destroy, but there still must be a positive story.

This is such a traditional lie of Vladimir Putin... This whole theme that the opposition has no positive agenda is his main refrain. Which is especially surprising now, when for the first time in this election he does not even formally have any program. There is no website, no program, nothing to read, nothing to discuss. There are only these ridiculous videos with rockets and fireballs. But he has nothing else to say. And what else can Putin object?..

We are talking about you, not Putin.

Putin, of course, being a person whose power is being challenged, must criticize those who challenge it. And within that criticism he must say something bad about me. That is logical, that is normal.

Critical.

In essence he has nothing to say, so he invents things about us not having a positive program. We do have one, and it is better than his. We have one, while he has nothing except stories about how he...

Aren’t rockets something?

In the form in which he presented it, that is precisely the biggest, grandest nothing. It is absolute emptiness. Because over 18 Putin years absolutely all design systems, production systems have been destroyed, specialists have been lost. There is nothing. That is why they show us...

Those roaring ’90s or whatever they are...

The roaring ’90s: at least people still stayed working at those factories. And now to this day they are paid pennies and everyone has already dispersed.

I can only regret that I cannot attend your debates with Putin, that you are a candidate and cannot debate.

I regret that.

Never mind, everything is still ahead. You are both still young.

But, for example, won’t street actions, outings, rallies turn into the same tambourine we talked about? Because some people came out. Then Navalny was grabbed on the way out of his house and put into a van, and that was it. And so every time, like the Strategy-31 movement.

Excellent question. Because indeed, this is a problem. They do not let us anywhere. They do not let us register a party. They even shut down our media. They do not let us into elections. They do not let us do anything. And therefore, naturally, they push us onto the street. We go into the street because we are right. We believe it is the right thing to do—to go into the street. We are forced to return to the foundations of politics, and the foundation of politics, the most important, central, core politics, is people standing in the street, in any country, under any regime, even the most democratic. Well, it turns into routine. Here one must show consciousness. One must understand that since nothing else remains, one must go out into the street as many times as necessary. Look at what is happening in Slovakia now. The government is resigning because people took to the streets in response to the murder of a journalist, in response to the fact that the interior minister said something wrong, that they are not investigating actively enough, and in general, how did such a political murder happen? The whole country took to the streets, and there, apparently, there will be snap elections, and that is how it should be. And this happened, generally speaking, in a democratic country.

During this campaign you are very harshly criticizing presidential candidates, including those who, I would say, share your electorate... well, you understand—they are in the zone where the people who might vote for you vote for them and vice versa. I mean the aforementioned Ksenia Sobchak, Grigory Yavlinsky, perhaps Titov, I just do not know... Part of Grudinin, by the way... “Grudinin’s mustache,” let’s say. By such sharp criticism, by accusing them of being “cardboard puppets” and so on, are you crossing out an alliance with them after the 19th?

A clear position is important to me...

No, wait a second! This is politics, this is definitely not mathematics.

This is politics. But within politics, what is more important for me...

No, you are criticizing them now. At the same time you are taking referral forms for your observers from the same Grudinin, from the same Yavlinsky...

Right now I criticize Yavlinsky rather harshly, but he still gives me referral forms, because for me as a politician this is a conscious choice.

What does that mean?

Right now a huge number of people are listening to us and watching on YouTube. These people want me to honestly express my position, not think about how later I...

Not later, but now... You yourself said: Aha, I criticize them—and they give referral forms...

If they said: “Alexei, we will give you referral forms in exchange for you not criticizing us,” I would tell them: “Go to hell!” And people would support me, because for me it is more important to retain people’s trust than those referral forms.

Well, they did not do that.

Does that mean alliances are possible after the 19th as well?

I was in the Yabloko party for many years.

But you were expelled.

Yes, expelled. As I understand it, I will leave this studio now and meet Yavlinsky...

You will meet.

And I will greet him, have a very nice talk with him...

We are leaving the water here.

No need for any water, because...

Because what?..

Of course, despite a huge number of minuses, despite the fact that I believe they act under control, of course these people are generally from the same camp, especially Yavlinsky, whose party I was a member of for many years.

Thus—I am telling our listeners—that nothing is linear. That is what I always tell you: nothing is linear.

Everything is complicated.

And Grudinin is from your camp too?

Grudinin’s voters are extremely important to me. Of course, yes. I do not know what camp Grudinin himself is from. Grudinin himself does not know what camp he is from, because before participating in this campaign Grudinin was a great guy who spoke... I do not know him personally, but I followed him, knew him very well. His surname was not news to me. I thought: what a great choice—now Grudinin will come out and tear them apart. And I thought that would be a problem for us, because it would be harder for me to call for a boycott, because there would be this cool Grudinin who would smash everyone to hell in the debates and turn the heat on Putin. But as soon as Grudinin learned he had become a presidential candidate, it was as if he had been replaced.

Seriously?

As if he had been replaced. He is silent. He started carrying on... He is supposed to fight for the electorate of big cities, but he is spouting some nonsense about Stalin. He is not saying what he said before. Three months ago he said those fiery words, and now he is silent. I do not understand what is going on. This is one of the big mysteries of this election: why are they attacking Grudinin so monstrously? They only attacked me like that, probably. They are terribly afraid of him. I am very sorry that it is as if he has simply been replaced. But his electorate is important to me, of course, yes.

Alexei Navalny, Sergei Buntman.

I am not calling on anyone to go vote, but I am going.

Because...

Because I do not want to lose the habit of giving my vote to the person I like.

I have three days to persuade you otherwise. I will do everything for that.

Alexei Navalny, Sergei Buntman, Alexei Venediktov on the program “Looking for a Way Out.” Thank you, everyone!