“Dissenting opinion” from July 17, 2017.

Good evening. Vladimir Varfolomeev is in the studio, and today the guest of the program “Special Opinion” is politician Alexei Navalny. Good evening.

Good evening.

Let’s start from a constructive position, constructive proposals, as President Vladimir Putin teaches us. A question from Sergei: “So, you are in the Kremlin. In 9 months, by the way, approximately, the inauguration of the new president should take place. Putin is not president. And what next?”

We begin the reform plan that we have been talking about, which is provided for by our program, and these reforms will be aimed at fighting poverty and at making Russia stop being a raw-material appendage. These reforms, of course, will also be aimed, among other things, at significant political changes, at democratizing the country. If we talk about the very first steps, literally the first 3 things that I plan to do, then first of all it is to free all political prisoners. This is not only a political measure, but also an economic measure aimed at normalizing the situation and attracting investment, however ironically anyone may treat this. Second, this is the introduction of the most important anti-corruption measure — a law on combating illicit enrichment. Officials must report where they got the money for their lives. A. Navalny: I, of course, will change the Constitution, I feel no reverence whatsoever for it: it is bad And third, such a big, real, basic thing, without which nothing further can be done, is judicial reform, which will allow the country to develop, which will normalize the situation in business as well. And which (I know that many are worried about this topic) will make it so that any other president, including me, will not be able to usurp power in the future.

As an experienced politician, you cannot, it seems to me, fail to understand that you will have about 1 month after taking office for these reforms. Because the country will have the current parliament, where the majority belongs to your political opponents, primarily United Russia. The regions are headed by representatives of other parties. All your initiatives will be slowed down at that very moment. In addition, the State Duma will immediately raise the issue of your impeachment. And here you are talking about democratization? But as another of our listeners, Sergei, writes, “In the post-Putin period, a dictatorship is needed to cleanse the country.” How will you be able to remain in power and carry out the measures you have planned in conditions when parliament (both of its chambers) will resist you? Will you be able to do without a step like the one Yeltsin took in 1993?

I categorically disagree with Sergei, and as we remember from our history, nothing good came from Yeltsin taking those measures, which I at the time, being a student, also passionately supported, shouting, “Let’s shoot this parliament with Khasbulatov to hell! We’re sick of them, they don’t let reforms proceed.” Nothing good came of it. And in this sense, that transformation which took place in Eastern Europe, where in the second electoral cycle the socialists won (such a revanche took place), that transition was much better. But in the situation of my presidency, these dangers do not threaten us at all, because, as you said, as an experienced politician, as a person who understands how the system works and knows the laws, I will dissolve the State Duma. The legal mechanisms allow this. And I will hold fair elections, because this State Duma — it represents no one. A huge number of parties and simply politicians, individuals, were not allowed to participate in the elections. I will dissolve it. I will form a new Duma and build a coalition there. Of course, you are absolutely right in saying that this will be a difficult process, yes? I will not be able simply, you know, to implement all my ideas 100% exactly as I want. But I will take the path of coalition-building, I am sure that I will be able to get a majority of votes in the new State Duma, and relying on this majority, adopt the necessary laws, carry out reforms, improve life.

What will you do with the regions? Well, suppose in Sverdlovsk Region you appoint your associate Leonid Volkov, who is from Yekaterinburg, as governor. Do you have enough personnel so that, in your view, worthy people could head every federal subject?

That is an excellent example you gave — Sverdlovsk Region. And I do not need to appoint my associate Leonid Volkov as governor, especially since I am not going to appoint anyone as governor — we will elect governors. What is happening right now in Sverdlovsk Region? There is the mayor of the city, Yevgeny Roizman — by definition he is... He is the elected mayor of the city and by definition is a popular politician. Right? Well, he was elected mayor, wasn’t he? And now he is fighting to be registered in the governor election. And for me this is simply a situation, well, both laughable and outrageous at the same time, because, well, how can you not allow the acting mayor of the city? Why should he have to beg someone there to let him onto the ballot at all? Therefore, when I became president, I would bring back elections for both governors and mayors. Yes, of course, now you will tell me, “But then there will be governors opposed to you, as they were opposed to Yeltsin. There will be governors unpleasant for you (in many cases they will be elected).” Well, let it be so. That is how it should be arranged. After all, the USA is a prosperous country, and at the same time a significant number of governors there are always in opposition to the White House, whoever may sit there, Republican or Democrat. The mayor of the country’s largest city, New York — he simply fiercely opposes the current president, and nothing happened, the Earth did not fly onto its celestial axis, the USA did not become poorer because of this, but only richer. Therefore I will bring back elections for governors and mayors, and I am 100% sure that it is precisely their electability that will make regional leaders better than what we see now, when simply some of Putin’s bodyguards are being appointed governors. A. Navalny: We need a Constitution that will have “2 terms of 4 years” without any “consecutive,” “non-consecutive,” ironclad, 100%

A question from our reader and listener with a complicated nickname (I won’t pronounce it): “If elected president, will you change the Constitution? Or do you think Russia should remain a presidential republic?”

I, of course, will change the Constitution. Of course, changing the Constitution is not something a president can do simply by decree, fortunately. But I feel no reverence whatsoever for this Constitution: it is bad. Under this Constitution we have Putin who will be... Well, he has effectively been in power for 18 years, and is also being elected for another 6-year term. Under this same Constitution, the president’s term used to be 4 years, now it is 6. Under this Constitution, governors are sometimes appointed, sometimes elected, and you cannot make sense of what is happening. Under this Constitution, the usurpation of power took place. We need another Constitution, in which it will be clearly stated “2 terms of 4 years” without any “consecutive,” “non-consecutive,” ironclad, 100%. It will state 100% electability of governors and mayors. An independent judicial system will be written in ironclad form, and no one will be able to capture and manipulate it. Media guarantees will be provided. This is a gigantic problem for our country. Because if you look at the current Constitution and the media law, what a wonderful, touching picture it presents. Just the other day, in my opinion 2 days ago, journalists from Forbes came to court with facts that censorship was being exercised against them, and what happened in court? They lost under this Constitution, under these laws. Therefore, of course, the fundamental law in Russia must be changed.

Will TV hosts Solovyov, Kiselyov and the like keep their jobs under President Navalny?

I apologize for my laughter in the studio, but, well, what do you think? These people — they are... Well, they are not just crooks, scoundrels and some kind of lackeys and toadies, they are criminals. They are real criminals, including warmongers. They will be immediately removed from their duties, as will the management of all these channels. Investigations will be conducted regarding them, including investigations into illicit enrichment, including investigations into why, for example, the state-owned Sberbank signs contracts worth 300 million rubles with the company of this Vladimir Solovyov? This is effectively taxpayers’ money (Sberbank is state-owned after all). All this will be investigated, all these people must be punished by an honest court. But they must get what they deserve.

A minute ago you were just talking about freedom of speech.

Yes, I was talking about freedom of speech.

Why are you depriving Solovyov and Kiselyov of the right to that freedom of speech?

Under no circumstances am I depriving either Solovyov or Kiselyov of the right to express some of their views. They may, please, express them in those media outlets where they can get jobs after they get out of prison, where they will be according to a court sentence. They may say this. But when they are now lying on state channels, receiving huge sums of money, including through some gray, black schemes, winning state contracts, these things, of course, must be investigated.

What awaits Putin and Medvedev under President Navalny?

Well, they are, after all, different figures. I have said many times, and I know that many of my supporters are extremely dissatisfied with this position of mine. I believe that if Putin agrees to a peaceful transfer of power and does not escalate the situation, then specifically he and his family may be granted immunity, but this does not apply to Medvedev. Medvedev must become the subject of a major investigation into the entire corruption scheme that he, his family, and his close circle organized. Well, I am sure that almost all our listeners watched our investigation, saw those remarkable mansions that were allegedly bought by charitable foundations with those 80 billion rubles that Russian oligarchs transferred to Medvedev in the form of bribes. He will come under investigation and end up in the dock, he will be tried by an honest court.

And what is the difference between Putin and Medvedev?

Well, because Putin, after all, specifically Putin himself, is one of the foundations of this power. Many things personally rest on him. He personally received power from Yeltsin, became the successor, and usurped this power. He did it. Medvedev is nobody.

Then, based on that, shouldn’t his responsibility be greater?

His responsibility is, of course, greater. Of course, Putin bears responsibility for creating the corruption system, for turning Russia into a raw-material appendage, for failures in the economy, for the war, much more, incomparably more than Medvedev. But I am saying that for the good of everyone, for preserving calm in the country, for a peaceful transition, we can guarantee safety to one person so that, well, he does not cling to power with hands and feet, understanding that if he does not have this power, then something will happen to him and his family. Specifically to him, if he agrees, once again with the reservation, to a peaceful transition, such safety must be given. Medvedev is nobody at all. He is simply a person whom Putin chose as a trusted figure and did not make a mistake. He really held the presidency for some time and then handed it back. Well, he is just some absolutely purely working figure, a minor peasant for him.

Let me remind you that today our guest is politician Alexei Navalny. ADVERTISEMENT

Today in this program our interlocutor is politician Alexei Navalny. I really liked the first part of our conversation today.

Constructive.

When we were talking about some bright future, which clearly will not come, at least not in 2018. In this case I do not mean your electoral prospects. You simply will not make it to the election. The Central Election Commission has repeatedly already announced that Alexei Anatolyevich Navalny, a citizen of Russia, with respect to whom court decisions have been issued, has no chance of participating in the presidential election.

Vladimir, well, I do not care what the Central Election Commission says. We will force them to register me, we have... Well, I, our campaign, have no Plan B. Let’s be honest, the Central Election Commission is simply a gathering of some random nobodies who were put there precisely so that they would say the things that are now needed and beneficial to the Kremlin. In order for the Kremlin to torpedo our election campaign, they say that I have no right to run. A. Navalny: I will bring back elections for governors and mayors, I am sure that it is precisely electability that will make regional leaders better In the Constitution, in this very bad Constitution, it is clearly written that a person who is over 35 years old may run for president. It seems I am over that. The last time I looked at my birth certificate, I was over 35. Who is legally competent. It seems that, for now, I am legally competent. And is not in prison. Fortunately, I am now at the radio station “Echo of Moscow,” therefore I have the right to run and I will run.

Well, there are also laws of the Russian Federation which, in particular, speak about criminal convictions of a candidate. You have such a conviction.

These laws are unconstitutional.

You say you have no Plan B. How exactly do you plan, as you said, to force the Central Election Commission to register you? What? Will your volunteers write an additional item “Navalny A.A.” into every individual ballot?

Well, I am doing the only thing possible for me — I work with public opinion, I work with people. We have already opened more than 60 headquarters, many of them I personally opened. We now have more than 100 thousand volunteers throughout the country, hundreds of thousands of people have signed for me. I work with people, those who support me, those who do not yet support me, in order to persuade them politically to demand my registration. And when we create the necessary level of pressure, they will register me (they will have nowhere to go), just as it was in Moscow in 2013, when everyone also said that, well, it was impossible to pass the municipal filter. And in fact it is impossible to pass. But Moscow City Hall realized that we would then launch such a boycott campaign that they would not withstand it, and it was easier for them to register me. And that is what happened.

Explain what this public pressure on the Election Commission could be in this case. For some reason I immediately recall 2014, spring and Crimea, where the referendum was also held under pressure. We have the corresponding result.

Well, after all, I do not quite have the same mechanisms of pressure that the authorities used in Crimea. I am, in principle, not the authorities yet (nor are our volunteers), right? But the Kremlin mistakenly believes that these are some kind of people who do whatever pops into their heads. They do many things with the goal of personal enrichment, but nevertheless in their strategy they do take public opinion into account one way or another. They always follow the agenda. They try to shape it. They stupefy people with their television and shape people’s views, but nevertheless, when these views are formed, the Kremlin always follows them. For our part, we are fighting this stupefaction and want to make it so that the majority of Russian citizens demand my registration. I want to tell you that we have repeatedly studied this from the point of view of sociology, and even Putin’s supporters believe that he should have a competitor in the election. And even those people who do not like my views, who do not share them, believe that I should be registered for the election in order to participate in it.

Some time ago, quite recently, the idea was discussed on social networks of nominating your wife Yulia for the presidential election. And here one immediately recalls one of the seasons of the popular TV series “House of Cards.” Is such a thing possible in principle or not?

Well, we have clearly watched too many TV series and become too carried away with political technology. I love my wife very much, she is a very smart woman, and I do not doubt her abilities to carry into power, among other things, the right principles. However, engaging in such nonsense as “Well, Navalny was banned, so let’s nominate his wife then. Why? Because her surname is Navalnaya. And then they will ban Yulia Navalnaya. Well, let’s wait until Dasha Navalnaya grows up to 35, and then we’ll nominate her. And then Zakhar Navalny’s time will come. And then we’ll find someone else with the surname Navalny.” One cannot even reason about this. We will never achieve anything, and our candidate will never be allowed onto the ballot (no matter what his surname is, Navalny or Petrov or Vasechkin), if we give up so easily: “Well, they just lawlessly barred Navalny. Ah, to hell with him, there is Yulia Navalnaya — she seems like a nice girl in photographs, let’s nominate her.” That should not happen, and, as I already said, there is no Plan B, and I demand, and my supporters (I hope there will be more of them) will demand my participation in the election. And Yulia, together with me, is in fact already participating in it.

Let me remind you that today in the program “Special Opinion” is politician Alexei Navalny. You can send your questions here to the live studio if you use the SMS number +7 985 970-45-45 during the live broadcast, of course. And there is also the account @vyzvon on Twitter. A. Navalny: I am not going to Strelkov for barbecue, I am going to debate him because I disagree with his position Before the start of our conversation today, quite a few questions came to the “Echo of Moscow” website, simply statements. And Buva53 writes, since we mentioned your wife: “Surely, your wife has told you more than once, ‘Give all this up. After all, they could kill you or imprison you for a long time.’ What do you answer her?”

No, she has never said that. Her political views...

Isn’t she worried about you?

Of course she is worried about me, and she extremely dislikes, and I am also worried by, the endless surveillance that has already been established over her and over the children separately from me. All these are quite unpleasant facts, of course. But she supports me in my activities, and she, of course, never says, “Give this up.” I would say that in many political views she is more radical than I am.

We mentioned Crimea, and here I am looking at the text messages, Twitter. Several messages of the same kind. You have somehow already answered this question, and I think you have been asked it more than once, but let us repeat it, since people are interested. Well, for example, Sergei from St. Petersburg: “If you were president, would you give Crimea back?” I remember your sandwich metaphor, Alexei.

The sandwich metaphor was born thanks to the editor-in-chief of your radio station, Alexei Venediktov, and it constantly haunts me. I would not say that it was the most successful metaphor. I answer this question completely honestly. I do not see a way to solve the Crimean problem and I do not believe that it can be solved by President Navalny, President Putin, or any other president in the foreseeable future. Precisely because throughout my life (and if we turn to history textbooks, a little longer) I do not see a single territorial conflict on planet Earth that has been resolved. Not a single one. Well, with very, very rare exceptions. Therefore... Well, I have already said this many times, like Northern Cyprus, like Gibraltar, like the Japanese islands or the Falkland Islands, this is an unsolvable problem. As president I can guarantee one thing — that I will hold an honest referendum there, I will make attempts to normalize the situation. For this referendum and for tripartite commissions together with the European Union, we will try to involve Ukraine. Honestly speaking, if we do not dissemble, I doubt that Ukraine will recognize this referendum. That is, so far the ball of contradictions is completely classical, just like Israel and Palestine. It is such that, well, no one has been able to do it and no one has even been able to come close. Therefore I think that we will all suffer for a long time, the residents of Crimea will suffer, investment will not flow into Crimea. I will answer this question for many, many, many years while I am engaged in politics, but no prospects are visible.

Well, since we touched on the Ukrainian topic, then of course here is the question about your debates with Strelkov-Girkin. This question was repeated many times both on the “Echo of Moscow” website and now I see it in text messages. Well, in particular, one of the messages: “Would you also debate Chikatilo?”

I would not debate Chikatilo. But I would like to be a politician, and I would like to win the favor, including of listeners of the radio station “Echo of Moscow,” by being the kind of politician who participates in debates and is not afraid to participate in debates with anyone at all. And this is my political practice. If you look at me, I regularly participate in debates and can boldly say, “Guys, I stand out favorably...” Now I will move on from Chikatilo. “...I stand out favorably from all other politicians, including opposition ones, because they do not participate in public discussion and are afraid of it.” As for the military criminal there, Chikatilo and everything else. Vladimir, when I come, when there are such pleasant moments, I am invited, for example, to an “Echo of Moscow” corporate party, when it is already a big celebration (not the employees of “Echo of Moscow,” but a big celebration), I see people walking around there who are also war criminals. I will say more, half of the State Duma are war criminals. And all those people who gave orders are, of course, war criminals. Therefore, well, anticipating the next question...

When you say “all are criminals,” as if they are all like that, tarred with the same brush and committed the same crimes, it seems to me this is a manifestation of your weak position...

No. A. Navalny: 25 thousand rubles is not exactly a huge salary, but people who get less bring losses to the country

...when you use this kind of generalization.

No, absolutely not. Because the people who gave the orders bear greater moral, ethical, and legal responsibility than those who directly fired. Although those who fired, of course, also share this responsibility. And I want to say once again that I am not going to Strelkov for a birthday party or for barbecue, I am going to debate him because I disagree with his position. And I hope that in the course of these debates I will be able to tell the audience something new about myself.

About yourself? So for you this is simply another platform, and it does not matter against what background you appear?

Well, for me this is an important platform, because a politician, his views, his, perhaps, personal qualities — they, of course, are best manifested in the course of debates, in the course of free discussion. And that is precisely why in a normal democratic country debates are the foundation of the political process. And that is precisely why we have no debates at all. Yes, I participate in them, and the fact that I participate in debates with people who are often quite unpleasant to me personally does not mean that I somehow show solidarity with their position. I argue with them and I will continue to argue with them, especially since Strelkov-Girkin (however you like) challenged me to these debates. And he, of course, is a person who influences the opinion of many people. Many people in the Russian Federation adhere to his views: “Let’s continue the war in Donbas.” Therefore he challenged me to these debates — I am not afraid and I will participate in them.

He challenged you, and many (well, some) think (I also will not generalize too much) that you were simply dared. “Are you ready, Navalny, to debate me?” — “Yes, I’m ready.”

Well, yes. This is not being dared, this is a normal political process. Because I have been challenged in exactly this way, well, not dared... There have been several debates that caused a great resonance, right? And everywhere I was a participant. With Chubais, with Artemy Lebedev, with Vladimir Pozner, and everywhere in some sense it was “a dare.” “Will you participate?” And I am not afraid to participate. Take many people (but I also will not name names) who argue with me and think that I should somehow argue with them about the status of opposition leaders and so on. They are all weak, but I am not. Yes, I am proud of that.

Politician Alexei Navalny today in the program “Special Opinion” on “Echo of Moscow” and on the air of RTVi television company. We will continue the conversation soon. NEWS

Today the guest of this program is politician Alexei Navalny. Inna writes: “I had doubts before, but now after Crimea and Girkin there are no doubts left. As a politician you have died for me.” It seems to me, Alexei, that people wanted to get in your person, perhaps those who are disappointed by this decision of yours, not only a political, but, if you like, some kind of moral alternative to the current authorities. And they found themselves discouraged when they learned that you are ready to sit at one table with anyone at all, even with Girkin-Strelkov.

I sit down...

You behave like a professional politician, perhaps confirming the common thesis that politics is a dirty business. A. Navalny: The State Duma represents no one. I will dissolve it. Form a new one and build a coalition there

I disagree, Vladimir, both with you and with Inna. I sit down at the table with Strelkov to debate. Do you understand? Not to eat together, not to eat pineapples together with him. That is the first thing. Second, I really do try to present this regime with an alternative — economic, organizational, democratic, and moral. And I believe that proper politics, moral politics, means participation in debates. I am sorry that Inna feels this way. I will try to persuade her otherwise. But I stand on this point and will never move from it. Politicians must participate in debates, and the degradation of current Russian politics, one of the main reasons for the degradation, lies precisely in the fact that everyone says... United Russia members say: “Why should we debate with them? They are pathetic liberals.” The liberals say: “And we will not debate with them — they are some kind of bad people too, we will not sit at one table.” And as a result, we see no political discussion at all. Well, you yourselves know perfectly well how difficult it is to drag, for example, some representatives of the authorities here to “Echo” to debate. It is practically impossible. They refuse, they are afraid. I want to show everyone now... Well, I am campaigning to all of you. To you, Vladimir, and to those who are listening. I tell all of you that President Navalny will participate in debates. President Navalny’s party will participate in debates. I am not afraid of debates, I am not afraid of live broadcasts, I do not need pre-prepared questions. I believe that this is my great advantage.

And can’t this be shown on someone else? I recall the years, for example, of the Chechen war, and then the dialogue with that side was conducted by then-deputies of the Russian parliament, say, Sergei Yushenkov, Sergei Kovalyov. But they did not talk to those who cut off the heads of Russian soldiers, they discussed some issues with the political leadership of Chechnya or Ichkeria. And if they had to meet and talk with those who cut them off, then they discussed only one условный issue — the release of prisoners. But they did not conduct political discussions.

Well, remember Chernomyrdin’s famous “Hello, Shamil Basayev.” So one way or another this is already a resolved, unfortunately, question for our country, that for many more years, during our lifetime, Vladimir, a significant part of the political space in Russia will be occupied by those who believe that Ukraine must be conquered, the Baltics conquered, almost starting a war with America. And more than that! Zhirinovsky is sitting right now saying that atomic bombs should be thrown at everyone. Well, is that cannibalism? Cannibalism. Should I refuse on that basis to debate Zhirinovsky? No. Therefore, in any case these people declare political ambitions. Strelkov is one of the leaders of this movement, many people orient themselves toward him. Therefore I will argue with him and I will try to convince the broad circle of people watching this discussion that they should follow me, not him.

Lyuba asks. Well, probably the question is a little off target, but she wants to understand your opinion. “Why is everyone attacking you so much right now, including the liberal public? While you were in detention, several publications on this topic came out at once. That Navalny does many things wrong. If he comes to power, he will become worse than Putin. Andrey Movchan, the day before yesterday, again wrote (an economist, I think, from the Carnegie Center) another article on this topic, where he says that if Navalny could somehow miraculously become president, it would hardly differ for the better from today’s realities. Why do people assess you this way?”

What started now...

Moreover, these are people whose opinions are listened to.

Well, they are listened to, and I listen to their opinion. And I like what they write. Well, the question from the radio listener was, why did they start writing now? Because they saw our election campaign. Because they saw how effectively we are acting, and they understand that all this is real. And therefore they begin to write, to express doubts, including because now articles analyzing my campaign or my program or my views simply attract readers, give, excuse me, “likes” and “clicks.” With some of them, well, like the respected Andrey Movchan, I simply have fundamental disagreements. He basically believes that there is no need to participate in elections now, that it is impossible to change anything in Russia — let Putin’s regime remain. And there must be profound changes in Russians’ minds for anything to happen. His understandable demand of me in the comments to that article sounds like this: “You must immediately withdraw your candidacy and not participate in the presidential election until your rating is at least 30%.” Well, then my question is: how will it become at least 30% if I do not conduct an election campaign? A. Navalny: Putin received power from Yeltsin, became the successor and usurped power. And Medvedev is nobody But I read all this very carefully, I analyze it. Any criticism is interesting and useful to me when it comes from such public intellectuals as Movchan. I will persuade them, and I think I will be able to convince them one way or another to support me.

One of the complaints... Well, there are many of them, including of a practical nature, that, supposedly, you are not a very experienced politician. You float in different spheres, perhaps in international affairs, in economics. The same Movchan asks: “So, you propose tripling the minimum wage. And where will the money come from? Print it? And are you going to tell the residents of Russia whose salaries are just above the new minimum that they will become much poorer because of inflation?”

Movchan is mistaken and, apparently, did not study our proposals on this topic carefully enough, and the specific calculations that we have on this topic. We indeed believe that it is necessary to raise the minimum wage to 25 thousand rubles, and this practice fully corresponds to what happens in developed and rich countries. Everywhere a minimum wage is established — there is no need to turn on any printing press for this, that is a completely mistaken opinion. Inflation in Russia is driven first of all by monopoly tariffs. The Central Bank just yesterday stated that there will again be a jump in inflation because cold weather has set in in Russia, because more heat is being consumed. There is much more inflation here. We believe that the minimum wage needs to be raised, and based on the figures we do not see that this would greatly increase inflationary processes. But it will make it possible to stimulate demand in the country, make it possible for people simply to emerge from some monstrous poverty. 25 thousand rubles is not exactly a huge salary, but people who receive less than 25 thousand, they bring losses to the country, because they cannot get proper medical treatment, they cannot eat properly, they cannot live properly, they cannot properly send their children to school. Therefore, once again, based on the experience of rich developed countries, we want to establish the minimum wage at such a modest level.

Do you believe that your level of competence allows you to aspire to high office?

Absolutely yes. Both the level of my competence and my understanding of politics and economics, the level of competence of my program convince me that we will be able to govern the country much better than what is happening now. Well, it is not exactly a great feat to be “much better than now,” because now things are very bad. We will be able to govern normally and reform the country normally, and make Russia richer.

Many ask you to clarify the situation with volunteer Turovsky, who yesterday reproached you and the leadership of your headquarters for abandoning him after he suffered while defending the Moscow headquarters.

It is a difficult situation for us, a complicated one, and unfortunately our headquarters are subjected to unprecedented pressure. Right now another search is underway at the headquarters in Novosibirsk. Another search. A search has just ended at the headquarters in Kemerovo. And news about attacks on our headquarters, about searches, about us being expelled from headquarters — this happens several times a day. You will not let me lie, such news happens. Therefore, of course, our volunteers in our campaign are, well, probably the bravest people in the country, well, from a political point of view. They are not afraid to defend their point of view, they are subjected to pressure. Not everyone withstands this pressure, and, of course, we know what vile tricks, nastiness, and abominations the authorities can resort to in order to force people to do something. Turovsky, for whose defense we did a lot, hired 3 lawyers for him, dealt with his situation... Well, probably we could have done even more. He wrote such a rather strange post on this matter. We still believe that he did it under pressure. We are trying to sort out this situation. So far we have not managed to meet with him in any way. We will deal with it. But such situations, unfortunately, will become more and more frequent, because the pressure is increasing in proportion to the success of our program. But we will try to protect everyone, of course.

Do you feel your share of responsibility in this? In this case I recall your March post before the first big rally on the 26th, when you say, “Guys, if you are detained, you will even earn some money,” and then you remind them about the ECHR. Is there not an impression that you yourself contributed to people coming to you, some in the hope of receiving monetary compensation, some hoping that together with you they could rise at least in the eyes of some girl they know (a photograph together with Navalny). And suddenly they are disappointed. A person suffered, ended up in the hospital, then in court, Navalny called him for 10 seconds and that was all. People expect more from you, and you yourself, perhaps, accustomed them to this.

Of course, I bear responsibility for everything, for every person, for everything that happens in this campaign. I understand this responsibility. I also understand that the number of detained people is such that I cannot call each one even for 10 seconds. I bear responsibility. At the same time, I called on people and still call on people to come. And fortunately for me, the overwhelming majority of people, well, all, probably, the people I meet and talk to, go there not for me and certainly not in order to earn money (that is impossible in our campaign). They go there for themselves and for their future, because they understand that if there are no changes in Russia, then they will not find a decent job, will not receive a decent salary at that job. They will continue to languish, as has been happening to them for at least the last 10 years. And yes, different things happen with different people. We had an agitation weekend last weekend. Many people were detained, but in most cities no detentions took place. Nevertheless, there are some detentions, we will try to protect these people. But once again, I call on everyone to participate as actively as possible.

Thank you very much. Today politician Alexei Navalny was the guest of the program “Special Opinion,” Vladimir Varfolomeev was in the studio.