“Separate opinion” from May 22, 2019.

Hello. Maxim Kournikov at the microphone. And with me in the studio is politician Alexey Navalny.

Good evening.

Alexey, what changed after Yekaterinburg? And did anything change at all?

After Yekaterinburg, finally, one can say to all the whiners who kept whining endlessly for all 5 days, I supported it as best I could, I have a lot of friends there. They were in that square. Our headquarters in Yekaterinburg played a big role there, well, some kind of role at least.

Were they the initiators of this?

Everyone there was an initiator. Our headquarters in Yekaterinburg consists of Yekaterinburg residents, so they came there together with everyone else and did something. They did not have some special role, but they did have some role and I am very proud that people from our headquarters took part. But all these 5 days, when people came out at night, they broke this fence, they tried to spread information, they fought obscurantists and liars from all sides. There were whiners in both Moscow and Yekaterinburg who said: well, nothing will work out, nothing will happen. How many times have we seen these rallies. We’re already going out on the second day, and can you imagine, we have achieved nothing. And so they whined and all these Telegram channels whined and told insider stories. But it worked out, they did achieve it. They came out once, came out twice, showed persistence and forced the federal authorities and Putin himself first to speak out on this, and then to come up with such a retreat strategy, a two-step move, they understood perfectly well that the whole city was against it, but legitimized it through a VTsIOM poll. Today it was announced. 77% against. And the governor has already stated that we are leaving. But here we saw an example of how direct pressure from people and taking to the streets changes the political situation. People achieve success.

The turning point was precisely Putin’s words.

The turning point was the breaking of the fence. It was on the first day, it was on the second day. Putin’s words were already a reaction to the fact that they understood they needed somehow, as they say, to put it in reverse. Putin would not have said anything or, on the contrary, he would have said, basically he would have said only the part that was heard. And what is so bad about churches. Let’s build churches. Or maybe we’ll build the square somewhere else. The sort of thing he usually says. But at first they ignored this situation for a very long time, there was complete silence, as you know from the federal channels. And then, when something already had to be decided, then Putin crawled out of his little bed, put on his robe, slippers…

That’s not true. He was in a suit, I saw it.

Then he gradually put on a suit, came out to the microphone and said these things. At that moment they had already lost. And the people had won.

Why did it work there? Why had it not worked before, and then suddenly in some Yekaterinburg, because of some square, they backed down.

A combination of factors. Yekaterinburg’s special political culture, it certainly exists…

Maybe it’s just that the issue is not important.

On the contrary, the issue is very important. The issue is very important, though it might seem like some trifle. In Moscow, squares are destroyed every day, and we see there are conflicts, fights, beatings. The same private security guards come running. By the way, there are similar conflicts around this church construction program, which also very often arises in squares and parks. But there was no such intensity. Thousands of people in Moscow did not come out. For Yekaterinburg, an unauthorized action attended by several thousand people who stay there all night is a very large-scale action. A special political culture, outrage at cynicism, brazenness and hypocrisy. Because everyone understood perfectly well that this set of people, who with Orthodox crosses hanging over their chests teach us about life, spirituality and morality, are in fact outright crooks, scoundrels and not Orthodox at all. Just people… Some kind of persistence, there was a group of persistent people, and they won.

Why doesn’t Alexey Navalny’s headquarters in Moscow support such protests against church construction?

We do not support protests because there are churches there. There is no such situation where I monitor: aha, somewhere a church is being built. Immediately I dispatch a rapid response group.

But you yourself just listed that there is that kind of protest. Square or church.

There was a protest against the destruction of a square, in Moscow there are similar conflict situations when they simply decided to take a square away from people and build there whatever, it doesn’t matter what. A church or a high-rise building. All such protests, one way or another, our headquarters supports. And I try to support them informationally. I have been in this studio many, many times as chairman of the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites… together with Sergei Mitrokhin… executive secretary of the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites, who was engaged only in exactly that. And in this sense I walked around all such conflict points with my own feet many years ago. They appeared…

But for 6–7 thousand to come out like that…

6 ― 7 thousand — that has not happened, of course, in Moscow, not once.

Why? Why is it like that there, and not here.

Well because, as I said, circumstances came together. First of all, just look, it really is a large square in the city center. Secondly, this church they are trying to put there has already been shoved several times into places unsuitable for it. The project is huge and very ugly. As I already said, political culture. Politics in Yekaterinburg was crushed not so long ago. There, in fact, quite recently there was a mayor, honestly elected and a person independent from the authorities. Therefore there is political culture there. Well, that’s just how circumstances and the stars aligned. The Urals. The Urals rule, well done. And in this sense it’s not that I envy them — I’m proud. Well, and as for the Urals, I also have some connection to it.

Since we started talking about the Urals and Yekaterinburg, let’s talk about your associate from that city — Leonid Volkov, who is now awaiting sentencing.

Who is in the dock. Although Judge Mussakayev should be in the dock, the same one who jailed me for 30 days. And has already jailed half of the ACF under arrest. The situation really is absolutely outrageous. And you know, I can say personally from myself. It even causes me slight irritation when you now go on Facebook and read a huge number of posts about the possibility of interaction with the authorities or the degree of interaction with the authorities. How much of a collaborator one can be. And at the same time, well, you think, these are what are called first-world problems, because in real life Volkov is simply stopped, he is taking a taxi to work, they stop him at 6 in the morning, drag him to the police. They charge him with participation in a rally that took place in September of last year. Several times they change the articles, they say that he, this is literally the accusation brought against him: he conducted an internet broadcast and this caused one of the protesters to damage a Toyota Camry, a car located on Tverskaya. Because of this Volkov will now be jailed for 30 days.

Well, because he called on people to come.

So he will be jailed because they are afraid of smart voting. He will be jailed because they are afraid and they do not like the people who spoke out against raising the retirement age.

He will also be jailed because he returned to Russia.

Yes. He will be jailed, including because…

But you knew that this could happen to him. Why did he come back?

What do you mean — why did he come back? There was never any question that he would leave. Volkov is a Russian politician. Volkov plays a crucial role in the system of our headquarters. He went away to study, he came back.

For quite a long time.

For quite a long time.

How long: a year, two?

About a year. And there was never any question that he would leave. He worked actively here. And he came back here to work actively.

But you knew that the period for bringing him to responsibility was about to expire.

It expired. According to the law, this extended period for bringing someone to administrative responsibility — a year — it expired. Theoretically they could only fine him now. But Volkov is not a stupid person, he could have come back a month earlier. But we figured that if he came back now, they would jail him for two months. And if he came back after the May holidays, they would only fine him. But the law means nothing to these people. And right now they are absolutely unlawfully imputing to him an article under which he can be jailed for a month. And this is already beyond, let’s say, the usual format of lawlessness.

What will happen if Volkov is detained now. And if they keep him for 20 days.

A. Navalny: In general society has waved away systemic journalism and traditional journalism

Nothing will happen, Volkov will sit and read books. We will work. It’s not the first time Volkov has been under arrest.

But he could, generally, work from abroad. I just don’t understand why they risked a close associate…

Okay. From that point of view I have a question for all the people in the Echo of Moscow studio: why don’t you broadcast from Riga or somewhere else. Volkov is a Russian citizen. A resident, by the way, of Yekaterinburg. As you yourself said. A Russian politician. And he stands for the interests of Russian citizens. He does this from Russia. He is jailed for this, well because the authorities are unjust, and they jail normal honest people. He has sat many, many times, he will honestly sit once more. And our headquarters structure, it will be harder for us to work without him, but we will work without him too.

We’ll take a short break and continue talking with Alexey Navalny.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the studio is Alexey Navalny, who is asking what people are writing there. You see how interesting. Just in case, I’ll say the number +7-985-970-45-45. You spoke about collaborationism. Such a painful Facebook topic these past few days. And where is the line of acceptable cooperation and non-cooperation. For you.

It is a painful topic for Facebook. For me it is not a painful topic at all, not for a second. Right now, in 2019, there is no line of collaborationism. If you understand that this in any facet of the many-sidedness of collaborationism, then you cannot participate in it. Right now not only Volkov is in the dock, but, for example, one of the leaders of Golos, Roman Udot, is now in the Khimki court. He is being tried, he is in handcuffs. They brought him in. Why is he being tried? Because for many weeks in a row an NTV film crew followed him around, provoked him. Simply harassed him all day long. One day his nerves gave out, he snatched the phone from this so-called correspondent, later handed that phone over to the police. So now he is being arrested, put under house arrest. And we understand that this is the real vile disgusting provocation of scoundrels who are in power. And these scoundrels, all of them, there are no people there anymore who are a little better, a little worse. Well, probably some of them are more pleasant to talk to, some less pleasant. But they are all part of this government. And one cannot cooperate with them in 2019 in any form, work for them, politically support them… Well, you can work as a school teacher.

To participate in the presidential election of the Russian Federation — is that cooperating with them or not?

I participated, tried to participate in the presidential election of the Russian Federation. Because I fought them. But we are talking about collaborationism. About collaboration. Giving them political support…

What is that?

…working in political structures. One way or another, giving them political assistance, solving issues for them. A. Navalny: We are categorically against electronic voting, which is being organized right here in the Moscow City Duma elections

To be a member of the Communist Party or LDPR and be a deputy…

You are not cooperating, no. You are a member, perhaps, of a systemic party, but you are not a person who solves many issues for the Kremlin. But if you run in Moscow elections from United Russia or supposedly not from United Russia, being a person on Sobyanin’s list or, even more so, you are Sobyanin’s or Putin’s trusted representative, you join some ONF and so on, political structures created in order to support the authorities, then you are exactly such a collaborator of the worst kind.

I just want to understand. So these parties are real. The Communist Party, LDPR, what else — A Just Russia. They are real political structures and they fight the authorities. In your picture.

They are real political structures, they fight the authorities, certainly, they are systemic parties, they depend on the authorities. There are quite a lot of unpleasant people there. Very venal people, they cooperate with the authorities, they engage in some kind of collaboration. But still, overall this is not United Russia. These are people who, one way or another, oppose the authorities. Often very timidly, but they do oppose. We see that when candidates from these systemic timid parties and so on win in gubernatorial elections in the regions, they face quite serious opposition. Look at what is happening now with the governor of Khakassia. This young Konovalov. They are simply destroying him there. Through federal media. Although it would seem he is quite a systemic guy.

So it turns out those who participated in the elections, who were allowed into the presidential election, they really did fight Vladimir Putin.

Not all. But if you fought Vladimir Putin, that is not just participation in elections.

I don’t know, I’m asking you.

And I am explaining it to you. The fight against Vladimir Putin consists first of all in the fact that you go to the platform given to you and talk about Vladimir Putin’s corruption, about the corruption of Vladimir Putin’s entourage. You talk about the degradation of the country, about the fact that it is impossible to hold on to power for 20 years. You call things by their proper names. Black — black, white — white.

I can put a check mark next to almost every one and say that Ksenia Sobchak, for example, did that.

You said a very important word — “almost.”

I just can’t be sure. Well, 99%.

Maxim, you can be sure and you know everything perfectly well.

I know nothing.

Because there was no personal criticism there…

A. Navalny: Federmesser, being Sobyanin’s trusted representative, supports his budget, which spends more on beautification than on healthcare

There was.

No mention of corruption. There was nothing.

In my opinion, there was.

You know perfectly well. YouTube viewers see your smile and understand that you are saying all this for polemical spirit.

No, what are you talking about.

There were no key things there that should now be part of political discussion.

And what is key?

Namely: personal accusations against Vladimir Putin, because he deserves personal accusations. He personally committed crimes against the country. He is personally implicated in corruption.

If at the municipal or regional level I am not interested in what Putin did, what Navalny did. I want to choose someone I trust here. Why can’t I vote for someone who runs from the ONF, условно.

Of course you can vote for whoever you want. You are a free person. You’re not in Game of Thrones…

But you call on those who are running to withdraw.

I call on those who are running to withdraw. Some of them. Because we believe that United Russia has too many seats in the Moscow City Duma. More than 80% there. This does not reflect the political preferences of Muscovites. Therefore our whole so-called smart voting system aims to destroy United Russia’s monopoly.

Isn’t that the goal, for example, that in the 43rd district there be no candidate from United Russia. Officially.

What do you mean — officially?

Officially there will not be a single one.

We are trying to be smart people, this is smart voting. Smart voting assumes that we can understand where there is a United Russia member and where there is a disguised United Russia member. If there is no candidate from United Russia in the district, still everywhere, in every school, in every kindergarten, in every clinic there hangs a portrait of some person who is not a member of United Russia. We understand that this is in fact a United Russia person. Which means in Moscow, especially in the central districts, in the southwest, in the north of Moscow, where there is a lot of advanced public that votes opposition, nowhere will a person run with “member of the United Russia party” directly written on them. But there everywhere, as I already said, in every school and clinic there will hang the joyfully smiling face of some chief doctor, as you suggest to me in the 43rd district, or a vice rector of HSE. As it will be in Yashin’s district and so on. Some seemingly decent people, not United Russia members, but they all run on Sobyanin’s list. They all use administrative resources. Falsifications will be carried out in their favor.

Once again. Your goal is that there be no United Russia. There will be no official United Russia there.

Right now in the Moscow City Duma there is such a faction, it is called My Moscow. There are, in my opinion, 12 or 15 people there who are not members of United Russia.

That is exactly your goal.

But that is a branch of United Russia. Our goal is not formalism, our goal is political substance. The political substance is that we want there to be independent deputies in the Moscow City Duma. This means that they should not be subordinate to Sobyanin.

If we take the State Duma as an example, then how exactly is a deputy from A Just Russia different from a United Russia deputy?

Very different.

How?

Listen, it is clear there are different ones there. But if you tell me that deputy Rashkin and deputy Tolstoy, one a communist, the other a United Russia member, are the same thing, I will tell you: well, of course not. And so on. They are very different. I repeat. Some are timid, some are brave.

You know how to sort these kinds out.

I do.

The kinds of deputies. But honestly I do not understand what this really prevents Vladimir Putin from doing, from passing the laws he needs.

If United Russia were to lose its majority, it would be much harder for him to pass laws. Why do they falsify elections then. Look, if, in your view, the communists and A Just Russia and so on are so controlled, then why falsify elections at all.

I hope that is not happening.

You hope… Maxim, you worked for a long time in Bashkiria. You see, election fraud is everything you saw during elections. And nothing else. Because in your native Bashkiria there are no elections, there is only fraud.

A. Navalny: Vladimir Putin personally committed crimes against the country. He is personally implicated in corruption

You even remember that. Nevertheless, you know what I want to understand. So you say: dear Nyuta, please withdraw from the election. Why…

It seems to me not all listeners understand at all the context of our conversation.

A lot has been said about your letter. But if you want to clarify something — clarify it. You asked her to withdraw. And what do you give her in return. This is just an attempt to come to an agreement, as I understand it. Or an ultimatum.

No, of course it is not an ultimatum. How could I issue ultimatums.

So it is an attempt to come to an agreement.

Nyuta Federmesser works as a chief doctor in Moscow. And therefore an ultimatum can be given to her by her employer Sergei Semyonovich Sobyanin or the head of the healthcare department. My appeal to her is because she still exists in two roles: as a chief doctor and simply as a person. And I addressed not only her, she is just the brightest such person. There are people, as I already said…

In the letter you address her directly.

In the letter I address her. But in Yashin’s district a vice rector of HSE is running. And this vice rector’s face is already plastered even across the stores in that district. Stores are being forced to hang the cheerful portrait of the vice rector of a quite liberal institution. And I address these people and say: do not participate in this filth. Do not help United Russia members. Because it seems to you that you can simultaneously be part of this political campaign and remain decent people. But no.

If you want to come to an agreement, what are you offering in return?

In return I offer remaining a decent person. That is what I offer in return.

And who decides. You decide who is decent and who is not.

In this situation this is my opinion and, as you probably saw, since you follow the discussion on Facebook, not only my opinion. It is the opinion of some number of people, including her close friends, supporters, associates, volunteers and so on.

But many of your supporters were, on the contrary, disappointed by this letter too. And if this is an attempt to come to an agreement, then at least ask: what do you want, Nyuta, what laws do you want to pass. We will include them in our program. That would be an attempt to come to an agreement.

There is no problem with that at all. Because I can tell you that Sobol, who is also running in the 43rd district, proposes in the area of healthcare reform to go much further along Nyuta’s path than Nyuta herself has gone. Because, being Sobyanin’s trusted representative, Federmesser supports Sobyanin’s budget. And Sobyanin’s budget is such, so that you know, so that listeners know, that in Moscow we spend more on beautification than on healthcare. Sobol proposes more for healthcare, which means more for hospices, and more for palliative medicine.

That is not in the letter.

It should not be in the letter. The letter is about something else.

If the letter is an attempt to come to an agreement, then I do not understand what you are offering…

In that sense this is political discussion. I am offering a simple thing. This is not an attempt to come to an agreement…

A. Navalny: If you run in Moscow elections from United Russia, then you are a collaborator of the worst kind

Was there an attempt to come to an agreement informally, not publicly?

This is not a matter for bargaining.

Once again. Was there or was there not an attempt to talk not publicly?

Let her talk, Sobol did call her, she is talking with some other people too. I am not even acquainted with her. I do not want to participate with anyone in some kind of bargaining, discussion. I am engaged in public politics. And I express my…

You are above that.

I am not above that. I just have a different profession. If I were participating directly in the elections, maybe I would make some agreements there with someone. But here I am acting not in the interests of candidates, but in the interests of Muscovites. And I addressed her and continue to address all the others. Those people whom city hall will use as decent people in order to patch up its United Russia. I call on them: do not participate in this.

To nominate Sobol in a district where Mitrokhin is — is that smart voting?

First of all, you formulated it completely incorrectly. Sergei Sergeyevich Mitrokhin has already been mentioned on this broadcast. Because I worked with him for many years and, having worked with him for many years…

You were party comrades.

Not just party comrades, together with him in the Committee for the Defense of Muscovites, I was his closest associate and now we are, I hope, in excellent relations. And many times I helped Sergei Sergeyevich Mitrokhin run, he always ran in the northeast of Moscow. He has participated 7 or 8 times in elections in recent years, always ran in the northeast, unfortunately lost every time and overall the Yabloko party has not won a single single-member election, probably since 2003. Therefore…

In 2005 they did get through after all…

By party list. No one was elected in a single-member district. Including Mitrokhin. Therefore I have a good attitude toward Mitrokhin, he always ran in the northeast. I wish him luck if he still runs in the northeast. But, unfortunately, you understand, he has been participating in elections for 20 years. Has never won once. Let’s wait for 25.

He did win.

A single-member district — never.

By list.

Those are different things.

We’ll take a break now. After the break we’ll return to the studio.

NEWS

We continue talking with politician Alexey Navalny. And why don’t you want to give me and people like me the right to vote in Moscow? People who have temporary registration. And came to work, live here and will live here for the next 5 years.

You are confusing me with S.S. Sobyanin. I absolutely support people who live in Moscow being able to vote here, and the European Charter of Local Self-Government directly states this. It is a city after all. It’s just that in Moscow it is recognized as a federal subject, therefore these are so-called subject-level elections. But in any other city these would simply be ordinary local elections where even foreigners can vote.

A. Navalny: In Moscow squares are destroyed every day, there are conflicts, fights, beatings

I saw how your supporters said, everything is clear, they’ll herd people there, this must not be allowed.

These are different things. For example, we support electronic democracy in general, direct voting, but we are categorically against electronic voting that is being organized right here in the Moscow City Duma elections.

You are a conservative.

I am not a conservative. I am simply against falsifications. You know what…

Why do you think these are falsifications?

I do not think so, Maxim. I know.

You can’t say that.

There is a computer in front of you, type in, please — Moscow City Duma. And you will see there the portrait of a man, Gorbunov, who falsified the elections in 2012. There is no doubt that in 2012 elections in Moscow were falsified. Everyone acknowledged that.

As a journalist, I doubt everything and always.

Well then don’t doubt this. And I, as a politician, am telling you that there is no need to doubt this. He falsified in 2007, in 2008, in 2012, in 2013 in my elections, in 2015 and will falsify now.

But in the end, in the Moscow elections, the latest voting was conducted relatively cleanly.

Relatively cleanly. Compared with your Bashkiria it may even be clean.

All kinds of things happen. Mistakes happen, after all.

There are no mistakes. We see and understand perfectly well from the haste with which this electronic voting is being adopted, we understand that they, the authorities in general, will fight the unpopularity of United Russia in Moscow in two ways. The first we have already discussed. This is the nomination of some supposedly non-United Russia people. Independent people who will run with the support of city hall. And the second is simply falsifications. And the main method of falsification will be electronic voting.

You say that you are against electronic voting because you do not trust the computer.

No.

Well then why does it work in Estonia, and it won’t work here.

I do not trust electronic voting because I do not trust the people who will implement it. I even named the surname of this person for you.

But you had the opportunity to somehow participate in the organization. As far as I know, you were offered that.

That is all e-non-sense. No one offered anyone anything there. Because to this day we have not seen the scheme of the electronic organization. There are simply words: electronic elections. You can read the draft law, and there is nothing there about how it will be organized. Absolutely nothing. If they invited us and said, let’s discuss it, but everything has already been adopted, well what is there for us to discuss.

I just don’t understand why I was supposed to believe you when you called on me to vote electronically in the opposition coordination council elections. And now I am supposed to believe you again when you say: but these people will tamper with it.

There is an answer to your question, Maxim. Because when I called on you to participate in our electronic elections to the opposition coordination council, we had an audited system and programmers could examine the source code.

Which later…

Those were real people who voted. Anyway those were real people who came and voted. But there was no interference there and we could prove it to those people who wanted to look at the code. If now you want to see the code and the internals of electronic voting, they will tell you, excuse us, Maxim, trust us, we will show you nothing.

If they show you the internals?

If they show them, then we’ll talk.

Nevertheless, does electronic voting have a future or not?

Electronic voting, direct democracy in general, certainly has a future. Unfortunately, such perversions as there are now in Moscow lead to the discrediting of the idea of electronic voting. Just wait, after September 9 there will be scandals with this electronic voting. And the idea of electronic voting will be discredited for several more years ahead.

But your supporters are supposed to be there.

Where?

Your supporters, they want to vote exactly in that way.

My supporters, our supporters, I am sure, and a huge number of radio listeners want to vote that way, but the electronic voting system in Moscow is being made so that 600 thousand workers of Moscow housing and communal services, all the Kyrgyz janitors and so on, can be herded there, have their cards taken away and then vote…

What do you have against Kyrgyz people…

I have nothing against Kyrgyz people. I simply know that there are certain groups of people who were given Russian citizenship. They are in a servile position with respect to Moscow city hall. These cards will be collected from them, they will be registered in electronic voting, and in orderly rows they will go vote for United Russia. Vote — in quotation marks. Because Sergei Sobyanin will vote for them.

You are against progress that you cannot control. That is, if you cannot control the purity of the experiment, then…

This is neither an experiment nor progress. This is falsification and preparation for falsification. If electronic voting were being introduced, well then let’s introduce it at the federal level. Let’s discuss it, excuse me, from the time Ella Pamfilova said that electronic voting is impossible, that it contradicts federal legislation, to the time the Federation Council, I think today, approved this law already adopted in all three readings, how much time passed — 2.5 months. They pushed it through because Sobyanin came to the Kremlin and said: if there is no system of falsifications, we will lose all the districts. That is why…

You know that he said that.

Yes I kn…

You have your own people there who tell you, I don’t understand.

Maxim, at the beginning of this program I said Volkov would get 20 days. Did he get 20 days?

Everything is clear.

Because I know this government. They are crooks and thieves, and I know all their moves in advance. Because I have been watching them for many years.

Let me remind you that Alexey Navalny is in the studio, and he clearly has some kind of knowledge about the Kremlin.

About the Kremlin’s habits.

I want to ask you about Zelensky.

Ask me about Volkov. He got 20 days.

We have already talked about Volkov just now. I want to ask about Zelensky. Do you somehow see yourself in him. You are roughly the same type of politician. Or not?

It is rather strange, difficult and it seems to me pointless to compare. Because different countries, different political situations. Of course, our political origins are absolutely different. One can draw some parallels because he was never a professional politician, and I was not part of some political establishment. Officialdom. But still it would be a very, very strained comparison. So no. I do not have a bad attitude toward him, I watch with interest what he does. I hope for the best for Ukraine, but it seems to me there is very little in common.

But generationally…

Generationally — probably yes.

In views.

Obviously, generationally I am closer to him than to Poroshenko. And obviously, in terms of certain cultural codes and all that, he is closer to me. But that is irrelevant from the point of view of politics. I would very much like it if I turned out to be close to Zelensky, if Zelensky turned out to be close to me. More in terms of intolerance of corruption, for example. Because it seems to me Ukrainian society first of all demands from him a fight against corruption. And changes in that direction. He said a lot, he generated fairly high expectations. We will see in the near future.

They ask, there are many questions about what is happening at Kommersant and about your position. Why it looks like — “push the one who is falling.”

You know, for me the most annoying thing in the situation with Kommersant and the fact that yet another manifestation of censorship led to 11 people leaving — I am delighted, and I say this without any irony or sarcasm. Delighted by their act. I had a bad attitude toward these people…

A meme will now appear: but…

Listen. They were journalists of a censored publication. They licked their Usmanov and worked for him. Not one of them was brave enough to come to my trial when Usmanov sued me over the phrase that there is censorship at Kommersant. But fine, they were like that. But now as a result of some sort of mutiny or simply a bold gesture or a gesture of despair, they stood up and left. I respect and value this gesture very much. Therefore there is absolutely no “push the one who is falling,” I am very disappointed that, you know, I do follow journalism after all, it is a sphere close to me. And when this whole scandal happened, every morning I woke up thinking, now I’ll read what interesting things were written on this topic. And nothing was written. Overall this is an absolutely marginal topic, interesting to no one. Which says that in general society has waved away systemic journalism and traditional journalism. And no one is even interested in what is happening there. That is very sad.

But that is actually a very controversial statement. That society has waved away journalism. But that is your “Special Opinion.”

I have already said, this systemic journalism. Certainly, any attacks on journalists who are truly independent really generate every time just a storm of discussion, which is very interesting to follow and interesting to participate in. But the situation with Kommersant generated no storm of discussion at all. That is what I am talking about. People basically no longer believe that these system people — there are systemic politicians, there are systemic journalists — are worth following, worth supporting.

And for you are they also collaborators?

In 2019 they worked for Usmanov. For the newspaper Kommersant and their editor-in-chief was just some kind of jerk from the Zvezda TV channel. These were simply, again, I don’t want “push the one who is falling”…

But that is what you are doing.

I am simply saying who they were. Right now I admire their act. Still, there they were and were, endured and endured, humiliated themselves and humiliated themselves, but still they stood up and left. Their colleagues who remained, it is a harsh word, but I, of course, despise. Those who in this situation took and did not leave together with them, but stayed. But these 11 people who left — well done. Yes, well done. But at the same time I am not going to run after them and shout: oh, they are heroes. They are not heroes.

People who, within the possibilities they have, do truly important things, write about torture, about important court cases…

Tell me, Maxim, what kind of possibilities do they have. I do not see it, here I am at the Echo of Moscow radio station, and however many times I have been here, I have always said everything I wanted. And it seems the host journalist of Echo of Moscow always asked me what he wanted. I did not see that you had to do this tearing your clothes on yourself or chains or something like that. The same at Kommersant. No one stood over these journalists with a gun to their temple. They are quite prosperous, well-fed people with good salaries. They could perhaps live a little harder, but at the same time remain honest people and write the truth. They chose such a comfort zone. But I just want to say that even now there are independent publications that lead difficult lives, but, for example, they are not jailed like us, like Volkov for a broadcast on the Internet they are not jailed for 20 days. Their lives are not easy, but they live quite normally, tell the truth and get paid for it. And the Kommersant people could have done that. But they refused.

I hope they will not be jailed, you seem to be calling on the current authorities…

I am not calling.

Alexey, literally one minute. You recently made…

And if they jail you, I will defend you.

Thank you. I hope they won’t. You recently made a left turn. In rhetoric too… excuse me, trade unions. Isn’t that a left turn?

There was no left turn at all. I absolutely did not feel it, did not notice it. And there was no left turn. I have always talked about corruption, about inequality. And unfair distribution of wealth. Our trade union and support for trade unions in general are exactly about that. The country is rich, the people are poor. Because wealth is distributed in such a way that it goes to 2% of the population. In fact 1% of the population. I would like working people to demand slightly higher wages for themselves. At least the promised wages.

We’ll talk about that another time. This was Alexey Navalny. Goodbye.

Thank you very much.